As it does from time to time, The Australian has chosen to publish the fortnightly Newspoll on a Monday rather than the anticipated Tuesday. This one has the Labor two-party lead steady on 57-43. Both major parties are down a point on the primary vote, Labor to 45 per cent and the Coalition to 37 per cent. After a mild recovery over the previous month, Malcolm Turnbull’s satisfaction and dissatisfaction are both only one point off their worst ever, at 26 per cent (down seven) and 57 per cent (up seven). Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is 65-17, down fractionally from 66-16 a fortnight ago. His approval rating is down three to 60 per cent and his disapproval is up two to 28 per cent.
A day after state Labor MP Alannah MacTiernan at last confirmed she would take on Liberal member Don Randall in the federal seat of Canning, The West Australian has published a Westpoll survey of 400 respondents showing MacTiernan favoured by 41 per cent as state Labor leader, compared with 15 per cent for Mindarie MP John Quigley, 12 per cent for incumbent Eric Ripper and 3 per cent each for Victoria Park MP Ben Wyatt and Kwinana MP Roger Cook. Premier Colin Barnett remains preferred by 55 per cent (steady) against 16 per cent (up three) for Ripper. No figures on voting intention are provided. MacTiernan says she will remain in her seat of Armadale and on the front bench until preselection is resolved.
UPDATE: Essential Research: 60-40.
I can’t see Rudd voting against decoupling the RET and CRPS.
He’d then be wedged by his own wedge. A reverse double wedgie. He’s smarter than that.
Oz
Becareful… ShowsOn is a ‘well-loved’ and ‘respected’ poster here. You’re not allowed to say nasty things… You’ll upset other posters and then they’ll do the worst thing imaginable…
It’s true. They will ignore your posts…
Oz,
So do you want your goat back?
[Pisses the locals off even more.]
Unfortunately I think we’re starting to get a feel of why bob is really here.
What my avatar has to do with you playing the constant victim is beyond me bob.
On Q&A Craig Emerson said, repeatedly, words to the effect that “we’ll be considering our position”. At no stage, in spite of repeated goading by Piers, TJ and Whine, did he give any indication whether they would go for de-coupling.
Musrum
I just saw 2902 and your response. Why so hostile? Like Rewi I was just reporting asn then ask3ed what the consequences woudl be (note the questionmark). Quoting the rest of the article it (if accurate) seems failry clear:
But Mr Rudd has told Fairfax Radio he has not the “slightest intention” of going to an early poll.
“I don’t think people like that,” he said.
“I think they want you to serve the term that you’ve been elected for. So I would just really like this thing to get through.”
Do you know something we don’t about Rudd’s plans?
Viggo 2956 – correct.
The fact is the Libs will come up with amendments and Labor (because they have been pushing this line) will negotiate with the Libs. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.
I don’t see what Rudd has to gain by negotiating with anyone. The public don’t trust the Libs on the CPRS.
By not negotiating he gets the threaten them with a DD.
Seems tongue in cheek are lost on some.
Gary
I’m assuming you are referring to the CRPS.
It might be a while before the Libs come up with any amendments. Imagine Truffles sitting down and saying to his Party
“We’ll vote for the CRPS if they make these amendments, x, y and z.”
I think they’d kill him.
Oz,
“I don’t see what Rudd has to gain by negotiating with anyone”.
That’s because you are a Greens supporter. Negotiating, compromise and reasonable outcomes aren’t part of your lexicon. That’s why no one take you seriously and you have been banished to the land of irrelevance on climate change politics in this country.
Enjoy!
[The Greens did do that.
The CPRS had a 5% target, which was useless, it was a poor start because industry could pretty much ignore it. The Greens said they would support a 25% target
BUT
Why didnt the greens agree just to get the ball rolling and then ramp up pressure later to increase the %?????]
Oz, care to answer,as no other greeny seems to be able too.
TIA
bob1234, sometimes I accidentally bite my tongue, and this usually happens when I’ve been sticking it in my cheek. Sometimes it’s because I’ve unwittingly stuck it there whilst chewing something.
At such times, I think to myself, of myself, ‘You idiot’.
[BUT
Why didnt the greens agree just to get the ball rolling and then ramp up pressure later to increase the %?????]
The Greens might think they’ll be in a better position, or no less position, to increase pressure to include a better target the second time around.
Of course the Government aren’t going to increase the target after it’s legislatively put in place just of their own volition.
I’m still a bit dumbstruck by Gerry Wood’s decision to side with the ALP. His vote saved the ALP and kept the CLP out of power.
Two weeks ago, who’d have thought Alison Anderson would be an enemy of Labor while Gerry Wood would be a friend of Labor?
bob, I would have thought by now that you would realise that “tongue in cheek” stuff is hard to convey in writing unless associated with a wink or smile or even a bracket indicating such. If that is what you were doing then I’m sorry for that reaction.
Was Gerry Wood ever a member of the Labor Party?
Dio, without amendments the Libs really don’t have a case. Do they want to be part of the decision making or not? I think without amendments they will be seen as just blockers.
Gerry Wood. What’s his character? How merciless in exploiting his new position is he likely to be? What have they got to give him- more UFOs?
Gary
I’m not sure that being seen as “blockers” would be taken as a criticism by quite a few of them. Minchin has nailed his flag to the mast as a denier and Adam listed the other ones, about 10, yesterday. The Nats will be happy to be blockers. I think the denialists in the LNP aren’t going to give in easily on this one.
Pass the popcorn!
Socrates @2957:
[Musrum
I just saw 2902 and your response. Why so hostile?]
Sorry. Not enough emoticons. 🙂
Anderson speaking on the no confidence motion now.
[Was Gerry Wood ever a member of the Labor Party?]
No.
[The Greens might think they’ll be in a better position, or no less position, to increase pressure to include a better target the second time around.]
Ummmmm
I thought time was of the essence,any change is a good cchange,a starting point was imperative.
Or was brown just “being political”
[Of course the Government aren’t going to increase the target after it’s legislatively put in place just of their own volition]
Is that Gvt policy then?
Socrates @2957:
[Do you know something we don’t about Rudd’s plans?]
No. But I do know that the threat of a DD is the one thing that can get the CPRS through the Senate. If the MSM want to magic that off the table then they are just seeking to undermine the government’s position.
I’m surprised to see so much confusion about the CPRS/RET events. The arguments here haven’t even been about subjective matters such as ideology, etc. Instead we see a heated passionate debate about which bills the senate examined yesterday! Surely something like that can’t be so complicated? I mean, most of us are pretty smart, aren’t we? People here love picking fights and arguments so much now that subjective opinion issues aren’t enough, instead we must also fight over objective facts.
[I thought time was of the essence,any change is a good cchange,a starting point was imperative.]
Well the Greens would argue that time is important but that the scheme, in it’s proposed form would do next to nothing to combat climate change. Therefore supporting or not supporting it would have the same overall effect.
[Is that Gvt policy then?]
No, just common sense. If hard decisions are not taken initially it’s unlikely they’ll be taken down the track. Each attempt to ‘increase’ action on climate change will be met with the same shrill ‘it’ll ruin the economy’ reaction and the electoral cycle will not always be so kind on the Government to accept these things.
Gerry Wood must have been given more from the ALP than what the CLP could offer.
I hate to link to the competition of William and Crikey (so I won’t) but OZ is correct in pointing out how different the discussion on the Greens vote on the ETS is over at Larvatus Prodeo. Lots of intelligent comments. Bizarre that one forum should come to such a different conclussion than another – ‘group think’ perhaps. Anyway on that sight the posters were falling over each other with comments along the lines of “I also agree with everyone else that the Greens have used the right tactics on this”.
Political tactics which are obviously cynical will always appal some and impress others.
Loyal followers that are appalled will instinctively obfuscate; those that are impressed will gleefully shove it in everyone’s faces.
Objective facts are now dangerous weapons that “…could seriously injure or kill”.
Gusface
“I thought time was of the essence,any change is a good cchange,a starting point was imperative.”
Well it is of the Essence, but the CPRS doesn’t start until 2012. It makes no difference to block it now.
The RET on the other hand is due to kick in in 2010.
Glen,
Yes. But it’s all been about his “conscience” & “stability” (of course). I wonder what’s been shoved into his back pocket.
Astro
NB I have not bought into the RET debate, my only concern was the apparent sidng of the greens with neoconnery.
IMO the greens have “lost face”.
All else is fluff and scrimshaw.
THM
It was my impression that there was an attempt to muddy the waters.
They thought they were on a winner with the “Greens blocked it” nonsense and refused to acknowledge that they hadn’t.
Was extremely weird.
Malcolm begins his “putting the CPRS behind him” strategy. He is selectively quoting the RBA Gov’nor over interest rates.
Its back to interest rates and the debt bicycle next week. 😉
Gusface
how can there be urgency to pass legislation that won’t start for 2 1/2 years? Perhaps if the CPRS was starting in Sept there would have been more urgency.
Astrobleme,
Think “CFMEU opposition”.
Think “2004 Tasmanian forestry policy”.
Labor have their reasons for acting as they are…
Astrobleme @2988
[how can there be urgency to pass legislation that won’t start for 2 1/2 years? Perhaps if the CPRS was starting in Sept there would have been more urgency.]
Business needs legislative certainty to invest in projects that have significant lead times.
Lang Labor, the DLP, the Australian Democrats, splitters every couple of decades. When will we see the next mass rat exodus? The next ETS bill will likely see the Liberals heavily split – crossing the floor galore (hey that rhymes, a collumist could use that). Could this be the first step towards another split? I think that unlikely since the genuine liberals already left with the AD and Howard oversaw further purges of ideological dissidents, but you never know. Would it be more likely that the far-right elements would break off or that the moderates would? I’ve got to admit a bit of ignorance with this question but, what proceeded the AD splitting? How soon before Chipp departed was it clear that the differences were beyond resolve?
[Gerry Wood must have been given more from the ALP than what the CLP could offer.]
He said even yesterday he hadn’t made his mind up. What Gerry Wood is seeing is what many others are seeing. The right in this country deviate way too far from the centre. 2005-2008, there were only 4 CLP members in a 25-member house in the NT. The other 7 CLP came in last year (unsure whether any old members recaptured their seats) know SFA about governing. Yet again, another Liberal, Gerry Wood, has decided Labor is the safer option don’t swing to the far right and who know how to govern.
That said, Wood is taking a wait-and-see approach. Things can easily change.
[Lang Labor, the DLP, the Australian Democrats, splitters every couple of decades. When will we see the next mass rat exodus? The next ETS bill will likely see the Liberals heavily split – crossing the floor galore (hey that rhymes, a collumist could use that). Could this be the first step towards another split?]
I think that’s a bit dramatic, the Liberals won’t split under climate change.
[Well it is of the Essence, but the CPRS doesn’t start until 2012]
You added a year on there Astro 🙂
[The Government is strongly committed to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is the main driver to achieve this important environmental goal. When it commences on 1 July 2011, it will guarantee that Australia meets its expanded emissions reductions of as much as 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020]
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissionstrading/index.html
The Liberals may not split but the Coalition will or rather, already have, spit. Some Libs may feel more at home with the Nats and swap parties.
Musrum
That’s partially true.
Business, you’d expect, would be a bit more pro-active than that. It’d pretty safe to assume that the CPRS will become law either at the end of the year or next year sometime, they’ll have plenty of time.
Astrobleme 2986 (wow, that’s a big number)
I concur.
My mistake Vera,
The point still stands though.
Rua the Nats are irrelevant.
We hold more rural seats than them.
They are ancient history!
Margaret May will quit politics at the next election. How many more will jump ship?