The latest Morgan face-to-face survey of 897 respondents was conducted last weekend, at the worst possible time for Labor with respect to “utegate”, and it shows their two-party lead narrowing from 57-43 to 55-45. This is Labor’s weakest showing at a Morgan face-to-face poll since August 2008, a month before Malcolm Turnbull replaced Brendan Nelson as Liberal leader. Their primary vote is down from 48.5 per cent to 46 per cent, while the Coalition’s is up from 38 per cent to 41 per cent. The Greens are up from 7 per cent to 8.5 per cent; for what it’s worth, Family First are down from 2.5 per cent to 1 per cent.
[It means that I recognise the deep ties ie constitutional,historical etc , that make the soveriegnty of NZ intrinsically entwined to Australia, regardless of the latest vogues]
I recognise those things too. But if Australia really needs to be able to defend N.Z., then Australia will need to spend money on even more hardware.
Michael Jackson has the top 15 CDs on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/music/ref=pd_ts_zgc_m_music_display_on_website_more?pf_rd_p=482110191&pf_rd_s=right-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=5174&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=05Q8DXR5KMKSEAEPXB1Z
It’s got nothing to do with constitutional ties, Gus. It’s got to do with mademoiselles from Armentieres, rugby and the looming seal/penguin/hagfish robohybrid threat.
[I recognise those things too. But if Australia really needs to be able to defend N.Z., then Australia will need to spend money on even more hardware.]
ther best expenditure Oz can make is thru targetted foreign aid
The US will still provide us with the “umbrella”
ShowsOn, my dear, this is meant to demonstrate what exactly?
And lamingtons.
“I certainly don’t underestimate the Chinese, but nor do I think its economy will double in size each decade. Eventually its political structure will be a drag on its economy.”
I think China’s political and economic institutions have been quite good at evolving when they have needed to as they have done in the past but i do agree it will drag the Chinese economy down but not as much as you think. Also the gerrymandering and pork barreling and a stupid economic philosophy have already done that to the united states. To date only some of these issues have been addressed. California with its evil robot governor from the future sent to destroy the past’s economy is seeing that the united states will remain very stagnate for the next few years.
[It’s got nothing to do with constitutional ties, Gus. It’s got to do with mademoiselles from Armentieres, rugby and the looming seal/penguin/hagfish robohybrid threat]
Considering we have let you win the rugger so many times, I thought I would not dent your pride any further
I stand corrected
[I think China’s political and economic institutions have been quite good at evolving when they have needed to as they have done in the past but i do agree it will drag the Chinese economy down but not as much as you think.]
Well it is hard for us to predict isn’t it? In the early 1980s, the Soviet Union had very similar military capabilities to the United states. Ten years later, the entire country collapsed, partly because it was spending 20% of its GDP on the military.
We do know, however, that China’s military is way behind what the Soviet Union’s was 60 years after their respective Communist revolutions.
[Also the gerrymandering and pork barreling and a stupid economic philosophy have already done that to the united states.]
Um, no they haven’t. The United States has the biggest economy and greatest military capability in the world.
NZ has let Australia win at the rugger? When did that happen?
I declare war. Now, where’s that ANZUS treaty?
[NZ has let Australia win at the rugger? When did that happen?]
Never
But Oz has certainly let NZ win (many many times)
Bit like an older brother making sure their younger sibling did not lose heart because of their inadequacies.
Also helps the NZ’ers feel good at something
Well, they do make a better lamington, Gus, you have to give them that. A touch better on indigenous relations, but not by much.
No, I agree. Apart from hobbits, the poor ruggers have nothing going for them. Better nuke them from orbit.
[ A touch better on indigenous relations, but not by much.]
many moons ago I ahd the good fortune to labour with donovan nikau, brother of tewara nikaua quite prominent NZ playing in the then winfield cup.
besides being a prince (from taranaki from memory) he was also a large ‘rights’ holder.
This was quite eye opening and after the obligatory waitangi harangue, we became good mates
I truly dips me hat to New Zealands attempts to address the wrongs perpetuated on its indigenes
“Well it is hard for us to predict isn’t it? In the early 1980s, the Soviet Union had very similar military capabilities to the United states. Ten years later, the entire country collapsed, partly because it was spending 20% of its GDP on the military.”
Your premise is that China is fundamentally flawed. As you yourself pointed out the Chinese don’t spend anywhere near 20% of their GDP on defence because they know alot better and have learnt those lessons from history. The Chinese and the soviets were in pretty much the same position as the ussr in 1989 and Gorbachev was trying to introduce the same reforms as the Chinese were.
China and the USSR are different in a few important ways. Gorbachev failed because he was a weak tho well intended leader. Ethnic Russians were barley over 50 percent of the population. The Chinese are well over the 80 percent mark and i think that’s just mandarin. the Chinese were able to push through their economic reforms because the had the comparative wisdom to shoot dissenters who were unhappy with the economic mess they were in and rode out the storm. The stupidity of the coup plotter not to “take care of” Yeltson played a role in the Soviet collapse. If the USSR had a stronger leader it would not have collapse all the stars just aligned during the 1990s.
In summary apples and oranges.
I know who Tawera Nikau is, but what the hell is a Waitangi harangue? I hope both your face and eardrums survived the experience.
It’s on! Hockey jockeying for the leadership:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25697289-421,00.html
[but what the hell is a Waitangi harangue]
Apparently under the treaty (of waitangi) , certain conditions/obligations were never fulfilled.
The way donovan it, a lot of what we would call “resource rights” eg logging were never given, tho, as I’m sure you are aware, things like fishing rights were
In part that is why her maj was given the traditional mark of disdain way back in the 80’s or thereabouts
(insert saw after donovan)
Shows On,
Someone ought to tell him he’s dreaming!
127
If the UK was not in the EU then they would be importing more Australian, New Zealand and other produce. France is big on protectionism and probably would not be a much of a better importer without the EU.
Aha. I know what the treaty of Waitangi is, so basically a Waitangi harangue is you having to listen to the argy-bargy all over again?
Sounds like the front bench of the Liberal Party. Who are these three frontbenchers Patricia mentions?
[Sounds like the front bench of the Liberal Party. Who are these three frontbenchers Patricia mentions?]
larry, curly and moe??
BTW watangi is how the British spelt it
illliterates!!!
marktwain.
My guess is the “big swinging dicks” faction.
Sounds more like a pre-emptive strike at Joe Hockey from those in an opposing faction, group or sewing circle (whatever the Libs call it).
Well, it’s oooon and they have the long winter break to do each other in.
GG, please identify these dicks. It’s in the national interest.
Hven’t heard a peep out of Brendan, he still alive?
Do the dicks sew, Zombie? This is intriguing.
It appears to be those Shadow Ministers on very low margins. Dutton, Ciobo and Keenan. Pyne has been accused of being an accessory without the facts.
I think Pyne is a dress without the accessories.
Ciobo’s margin is 14.0 per cent.
[Pyne has been accused of being an accessory without the facts.]
I thought he was an accessory without the bling
🙂
To rely completely on the assumption that America would protect us under their ‘umbrella’ is fool hardy…
Would the Americans really trade San Francisco for Sydney by sticking up for us in a nuclear showdown???
I doubt it…
[To rely completely on the assumption that America would protect us under their ‘umbrella’ is fool hardy…
Would the Americans really trade San Francisco for Sydney by sticking up for us in a nuclear showdown???]
You obviously have never been premise to the objectives of the “kangaroo” exercises
held bi-annually with the USA
Look I support ANZUS wholeheartedly i just think we’d be stupid to completely rely on it…
glen
one word (actually its really two)
Aircraft Carrier
No more.No less
are you in favour of us having them?
William,
He’s sweating!
Glen
what I mean and PM’s, from curtin onwards have accepted, is that Oz is one big AC
the yanks accepted that Oz was in essence a re-victualling (supply) point and considering our geographic position, have treated Oz since WW2 as an AC
We are intrinsic to the security of the USA , as they are to us
a treaty just enshrines what is accepted as fact.
A sweating dick sitting on 14 per cent. I’d like to see that.
Well we just have to hope they would back us against China in the future because if they dont we’ll end up Communists lol 😀
I doubt the power of the young turks in Dutton, Keenan and Ciobo to influence who becomes leader…
[Well we just have to hope they would back us against China in the future because if they dont we’ll end up Communists lol ]
China has to sort out a lot of past wrongs before it even turns to our quadrant.
Its most pressing issues stem from the middle east and the steppes
We are at most an irritating itch.
The EU will not spread to include Russia, for the same reason ASEAN wll not spread to include China: They will get swollowed up.
I have a vaugue memory concerning ANZUS that may be “faulty or flawed” 😉 When the US congress was debating the treaty to get support one proponent pointed out “don’t worry, it doesn’t force us to do anything”. Well, shore enough during the brief Malaysian/Indonesian war when we got involved and asked the US to come to our aid they refused.
Clearly the main security threat to NZ are the French terrorists, Israeli spies or US nukes. I is true that in the boardgame “Risk”, inwhich you battle for world domination, Australia is oftern faught over early. But why is this? Well its because its EASY TO DEFEND, wherase the Middle East can be attacked from all angels. The Indonesian military never thinks twice about attacking us but our military is preoccupied with Indonesia (Indonesia is a phoney imperialist construct of first the Duth, then the Javanese by the way). I think our location puts us at us at no more risk than NZ and like in the book “Tomorrow when the war began” any attack on us will become an attack on NZ (the US only sent military aid in this ficticious account). Once an invasion force reaches the mainland we’re stuffed anyway. The best thing to do is keep up friendly relations with South East Asia and stay neutral in any US/China conflict. If we must battle, do so at sea before Darwin falls.
The US will of course always be a major power. Nevertheless their relative strength will continue to weaken. Predictions of a post Cold War multi-polar world have not immediatly come true and may not for some time. However the Bi-Polar USA/USSR world wasn’t particularly even for a long time. The US were miles ahead from the 70’s (???) onward. Likewise we might slowly move from a unipolar world to a multipolar world with the US no longer a super power but just the largest of the major powers: With the order US/China top two, EU/India next two and Russia/Brazil making up the next teer.
The future is bloody hard to predict though. The US and China will be particularly hard hit by peak oil and Climate Change. Russia on the otherhand will be better placed to withstand both these issues – not enough to re-enter superpowerness, but enough to play with the big boys again.
PJK is right again. What a giant we have prematurely lost in PJK. At least, we got the musical.
[The previous Labor prime minister told the incumbent Labor Prime Minister on the phone that he had studied Turnbull over the years. Rudd had to understand three key things about Turnbull.
First, he should know that Turnbull was brilliant. Second, that Turnbull was utterly fearless.
At this point Rudd, an irritated Rudd, demanded to know, ‘Is there any good news here?’ Keating replied with his third point: Turnbull has no judgment. Keating must be feeling vindicated today.]
The good, the bad and the ugly of Turnbull, there will more like this from now of Turnbull. It wont be pretty but necessary.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/brilliant-and-fearless-but-paul-keating-was-right-about-turnbull-20090626-czt7.html?page=-1
Early market time starts now.
The Heysen Molotov
The future is impossible to predict, but you don’t need no future prediction to know that Europe is the largest economy, that their territory is expanding (where that stops is for the future to tell) that USA manufacturing is being hollowed out, that they just spent 1 trillion dollars ( external to their defense budget) on a war that resulted in little or no economic gain and definitely no increase in territory, that the USA GDP is about 14 trillion dollars and that their external debt is 11 trillion dollars.
[It’s on! Hockey jockeying for the leadership:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25697289-421,00.html%5D
It’s a bunch of swinging dicks talking about another swinging dick. They think Hockey “distanced himself” from the Utegate business, they’re so deluded. What did they want him to do to seem more involved? Slit his throat on the floor of the Parliament?
Please guys, put Sloppy Joe in as leader.
As for Turnbull, my prediction is that when he loses the ldeadership he’ll leave politics. He’s rich enough to be able to and why would he want to stay around with those turkies?
This article in SMH is very revealing. http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-incredible-shrinking-leader–how-the-opposition-leader-blew-it-20090626-czut.html?page=4
If it is true that Grech met Turnbull and showed Turnbull the email, then clearly Turnbull knew that Grech had the email. Then Turnbull should have been the one person (with Abetz) to know that the last words in this statement from Grech in Senate estimates…
[“…my recollection is that there was a short email from the PMO to me which very simply alerted me to the case of John Grant, but I do not have the email.”]
was a lie. Despite that, Turnbull still based his attack on this testimony.
Did it Psephos? A more correct statement would be, increasing borders using force pretty much ended in 1945, which underlines my point, having lots and lots of military hardware just costs money.
Europe is the biggest economy because it expand it’s borders, Europe has over twice the population of the USA because it expanded it’s borders, Europe has considerable more resources both human and natural to use in the future because it expanded it’s border.
Just because they did it without guns doesn’t mean they don’t get the economic advantages that come with scale.
Kit, Keating is quite right. If the roles were reversed and Turnbull was PM he would be throwing everything at Rudd in parliament. Rudd would be accused of lying based on the point you have made plus Turnbull would be using whatever he knows about the AFP investigations so far (and there will be plenty to know so far as I can imagine that Grech has poured out his heart and soul.)
What’s PM Rudd doing? He’s attacking all right but only based on what’s been said in the media (e.g. Turnbull had met Grech) and what’s been said in parliament. He has resisted painting a picture with elaborate twists, turns and deceptions. I reckon the Liberals were hoping that Rudd had launched an attack including some wild accusations thrown in that could later be shown as entirely wrong and therefore have an adverse effect on the investigations and evidence presented in possible court proceedings.
Rudd has been pretty clinical whereas Turnbull has been firing ammunition in all directions including at his own feet. Rudd is patient. His opponent is a (Turn) bull in a china shop. 🙂
[If it is true that Grech met Turnbull and showed Turnbull the email, then clearly Turnbull knew that Grech had the email. Then Turnbull should have been the one person (with Abetz) to know that the last words in this statement from Grech in Senate estimates…
“…my recollection is that there was a short email from the PMO to me which very simply alerted me to the case of John Grant, but I do not have the email.”
was a lie. Despite that, Turnbull still based his attack on this testimony.]
Turnbull seems to have thought the “email” was real. This is why he buttonholed Charlton. This is why he prematurely pressed Rudd to resign on Friday afternoon, before Rudd had a chance to respond to Grech’s testimony (as if Rudd would resign in those circumstances). I think Turnbull was hoping that over the weekend the mud would stick, whatever the result of the email audit at PMO and Treasury. But once Rudd had the text of the email he could order a search based on keywords, not just “From” and “To” fields. He was precipitate and foolish to try for a death blow at this early stage.
Encouragingly, even Annbel Crabbe is now saying that the old ute and a phone call is nothing compared to $10 million in taxpayers’ money for Turnbull’s neighbour, “mate and benefactor” (as he himself likes to put it) for the rainmaking contraption. The whole thing isn’t about the scope of the benefit provided by Swan to Grant now, but more of whether he misled parliament. I think Swan did hold back a bit, and her certainly had enough sense to know that admitting to a personal phone call on June 4th might have been trouble for him (remember we weren’t talking about fake emails at that stage). But whent he fake turned up Swannie could slip in the bit about the phone call and tough it out, which he clearly has. Any more talk about the arcane rules of misleading parliament, or whether a pile of emails is equal to a two minute phone call are sheer bloodymindedness. Whoever continues to argue this among the commentariat will be outing themselves as purely partisan. Politicians doing favours for “connected” constituents is just not a hanging offence. This was Turnbull’s other mistake, trying to make the normal business of politics a capital crime.
Now he has the rainmaking business to deal with, as I think he would have every backbencher who ever got the loan of a ute or made a phone call for a friend in his ear begging him to go easy, lest the gravy train dries up. The Libs need all the benefactors they can get right now. We saw what Costello achieved when he went feral on Rudd over Burke. His own colleague, Campbell, had to resign. Rudd sailed through it. The same thing could happen to Turnbull if he pushes this too far.
Just imagine if he ws PM. There’d be industrial strife, sackings, terrible bother all over the place as his ego was allowed to go the full monte on anything he chose. I think the Libs know this full well. He’ll be on a leash now, under guard lest he make any more blunders like this week’s succession of them. One more stuff-up and they’ll have to get rid of him, if they haven’t already decided to do so already.
The Couier Mail is running two stories today, one from Laurie Oakes and one from Dennis Aitkins.
[“While we weren’t as cautious as we should have been, we had little reason to doubt Grech’s story about the email,” said one Liberal. “Malcolm had dealt with him before and his information was usually good.
“But to tell Rudd’s own man – the guy who was central to our bombshell – that we knew this and obviously would pursue it was just incredibly dumb. It showed no political thinking whatsoever.”
Labor suddenly had 36 hours to prepare for what had been an unknown attack.]
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25693756-27197,00.html
[There was another purpose in revealing Grech’s role as a leaker. The Liberal leader’s defenders were then able to argue that, since previous material had proved reliable, there was no reason for Turnbull to be suspicious of the email purporting to show Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had misled Parliament.
That spin was well and good, but in retrospect it is clear Turnbull did not come clean enough. He should also have confessed, right at the start, the dealings he and frontbencher Eric Abetz had with Grech in the days before the Senate committee hearing which lit the fuse.]
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25693612-27197,00.html