The past fortnight’s face-to-face Morgan polling has Labor’s two-party lead down from 60.5-39.5 to 58-42. Labor is down three points on the primary vote to 47.5 per cent, the Coalition is up 0.5 per cent to 34.5 per cent and the Greens are up one to 9.5 per cent. Apart from that:
• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reports on the state of play after the redistribution proposal abolishing Laurie Ferguson’s Sydney seat of Reid:
There was a rumour he was eyeing Parramatta under a plan which would see the incumbent in that seat, Julie Owens, move to Greenway, a Liberal seat which is assuredly Labor thanks to the redistribution. For various reasons, that scenario is not going to fly. More solid is a plan, backed by Ferguson and his support group in the Left, for him to move to the western suburbs seat of Fowler. It is held by Julia Irwin but it is anticipated she will retire at the election. Irwin belongs to the Right but the Left controls the branches in Fowler and wants the seat back. Ferguson, however, faces resistance to getting any seat at all, and that includes from elements of his own faction. “How do you think we would look in terms of renewal?” said one powerbroker. Left kingmakers are leaning towards the Liverpool Mayor, Wendy Waller, for Fowler. The Right is pushing Ed Husic, who ran for Greenway in 2004 but was the victim of a race-hate letterbox campaign … Ultimately Rudd has the final say, a power the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, could only dream of given the looming preselection fights among NSW Liberals. But it is a power that needs to be used wisely, sparingly and sensitively. “Kevin should not be unfavourable to Laurie,” warned a Ferguson friend, claiming Ferguson had helped Rudd win the leadership.
• Very soon after the previous report appeared, it emerged the NSW Liberal Party was changing its rules to allow, as Imre Salusinszky of The Australian describes it, a three-quarter majority of the state executive to “rapidly endorse a candidate on the recommendation of the state director and with the go-ahead of the state president and the party’s state and federal parliamentary leaders”. The rules are ostensibly designed for by-elections or snap double dissolutions, but can essentially be used at the leaders’ pleasure. This places the party on a similar footing to Labor, whose national executive granted sweeping federal preselection powers to Kevin Rudd and five party powerbrokers earlier this year. The most obvious interpretation of the Liberal move is that it’s an attempt to stymie the influence of the hard right in party branches, and Salusinszky indeed reports the reform is expected to be opposed by “a large part of the Right faction”. However, the Labor parallel demonstrates it can equally be seen as part of a broader trend to centralisation necessitated by the ongoing decline in membership and resulting opportunities for branch-stacking.
• From the previously cited Phillip Coorey article, Nathan Rees’s chief-of-staff Graeme Wedderburn is said to be assured of a winnable position on the Senate ticket at the next election: second if Steve Hutchins retires, third at the expense of incumbent Michael Forshaw if he doesn’t. “Unless, of course, he can be persuaded to enter state politics, which is another option being floated.”
• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald (again) notes that South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi is causing angst by agreeing to appear at a hard-right fundraiser in Cook, where federal member Scott Morrison continues to battle the forces that initially delivered preselection to factional operative Michael Towke before the 2007 election.
• The ABC reports that Tony Crook, Goldfields pastoralist and candidate for Kalgoorlie at the 2008 state election, has been “recruited” to stand as Nationals candidate against Wilson Tuckey in O’Connor. In response to a reader’s email, I recently had occasion to transpose the state election booth results on the new federal boundaries. In O’Connor, the Nationals would have polled 38.0 per cent to the Liberals’ 25.3 per cent and Labor’s 20.7 per cent. In Durack (successor to Barry Haase’s seat of Kalgoorlie), it was Labor 29.2 per cent, Liberal 29.7 per cent and Nationals 28.5 per cent. It should be noted that these numbers are heavily distorted by the presence of sitting Nationals members at state level, as well as the impact of state issues like Royalties for Regions and one-vote, one-value. The Nationals’ federal campaign in Western Australia will be bankrolled by litigious Queensland mining billionaire Clive Palmer, with the stated objective of gaining a Senate seat.
• There is increasing talk that former NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam will vacate his seat of Vaucluse at the next election. He faces multiple preselection challenges in any case, the apparent front-runner being University of NSW deputy chancellor Gabrielle Upton. Local paper the Wentworth Courier has taken aim at Debnam with an article and accompanying vox pop on his parliamentary inactivity during the current term.
• Sonia Byrnes of the Cooma-Monaro Express reports that Queanbeyan councillor John Barilaro will nominate for Nationals preselection in the state seat of Monaro, which the party has won the right to contest without challenge from the Liberals. Labor’s Steve Whan holds the seat by 6.3 per cent.
• Commenter Hamish Coffee relates that a local newspaper has Clover Moore dismissing rumours she won’t seek another term as state member for Sydney.
• Ben Raue at The Tally Room reports that the South Australian Greens are conducting their preselection for the Legislative Council ticket at next year’s state election. The candidates are Carol Vincent, who as SA Farmers Federation chief executive offers an unusual pedigree for a Greens candidate; Tammy Jennings, one-time Democrat and current convenor of the state party; former convenor and unsuccessful 1997 lead candidate Paul Petit; and the apparently little-known Mark Andrew. At stake is a very likely seat for the first candidate, and an outside chance for the second.
• The Sydney Morning Herald has carried a piece from NSW Liberal leader Barry O’Farrell outlining the party’s position on campaign finance reform: caps on spending extending to third parties, caps on donations and bans on donations from other than individual citizens, tighter regulation of lobbyists and extension of Independent Commission Against Corruption powers to cover the nexus between donations and government decisions.
• Mumble man Peter Brent gives the once-over to the recent Essential Research survey on which leader is best equipped to handle “issues of national importance”, noting how much these questions are influenced by incumbency.
Courtesy of the latest Democratic Audit of Australia update:
• Last month’s Audit seminar on campaign finance, Dollars and Democracy: How Best to Regulate Money in Australian Politics, will be the subject of tonight’s episode of The National Interest on Radio National from 6pm. A fortnight ago, Electoral Commissioner Ed Killesteyn appeared on the program discussing enrolment procedures and electoral boundaries.
• The Audit’s submission to the Victorian Electoral Matters Committee inquiry into the Kororoit by-election gets it right on proposals to tighten laws on misleading campaign advertising, namely that the cure would be worse than the disease.
• Brian Costar discusses campaign finance reform on Meet the Press.
• The Queensland Government has published its green paper on “a range of topics including political donations and fundraising, lobbying, whistleblowing and pecuniary interest registers”.
• Norm Kelly argues the merits of a ban on overseas donations in Australian Policy Online.
[The guy is terminal, he will be dead very soon. What is the point of keeping him in jail? Vengence?]
The same reason we keep other murderers in jail. They are a threat to public safety.
[i read in one of the UK papers that in 2004 he claimed he was dying.]
Why am I not surprised.
1099
I believe that it has been officially said that doctors have said that he is dying.
ShowsOn,
The “meat” of the article is that there is very real chance that al-Megrahi isn’t a terrorist, though he has been convicted. It explores an alternative explanation, related to Iranian-sponsored revenge for the downing of the Iranian plane several months earlier.
geezlouise @ 1098
Welcome aboard. Some PBs are very cliquey so an ice pick maybe required to break through! 🙂
[The same reason we keep other murderers in jail. They are a threat to public safety.]
What? He is going to blow up a hospice in Lybia?
1101
How is he a threat to public safety? He is dying, governments and police know who he is and it was done it for the Libyan Government who can hire other people to do such things but probably won`t now.
Deterrence might be a good reason but public safety isn`t.
Yeah! Greetings geezlouise, I was distracted earlier.
Apply the cream and heft the pick…
[but might have to apply some of that skin thickening cream before I jump in!]
#1098, welcome. just learn not to take these jokers too seriously. 😎
[The “meat” of the article is that there is very real chance that al-Megrahi isn’t a terrorist, though he has been convicted.]
Great, so he should be continuing to appeal his conviction. If it turns out he is innocent, he should be freed from jail.
Oh crap, he’s already been let out.
[How is he a threat to public safety?]
Um, because he was found guilty of bombing a plane which killed 270 people.
Hi geezlouise.
We really are a nice bunch of bludgers, we just don’t play well with others. 😉
ShowsOn,
There is, of course, a possible (rather small) Australian parallel…
[Great, so he should be continuing to appeal his conviction. If it turns out he is innocent, he should be freed from jail. ]
Except he will be DEAD, before any appeal is decided. 🙁
[. It explores an alternative explanation, related to Iranian-sponsored revenge for the downing of the Iranian plane several months earlier.]
If Iran was responsible, why did the Libyan government pay US$10 million compensation to each of the families of the victims?
Regarding al Megrahi, to me its not a question of compassion being good or bad. Its a question of being just. That also means being consistent. Over the years many prisoners have died in jail without release. If we released every ill prisoner very few would serve out a “life” sentence. Old persons convicted of a crime would almost never see prison then, making the deterrence effect of prisons for them nill. Provided the prisoner receives reasonable medical care, adn their life expectancy is the same either way, I don’t see how its uneasonable to keep them in prison.
1109
Are you still claiming he would do it again, despite all the facts I put forward in 1106?
Good point. It was also made, rather more floridly, by one of the commenters on the article itself.
All I can say is that Gaddafi has always been happy to spend money like water…
Further to 1114 of course, if he genuinely is innocent, then he should be released either way. If there is evidence of innocence, the process can be speeded up.
Hi there geezlouise.
[just learn not to take these jokers too seriously. :cool:]
Indeed, we all take ourselves too seriously as it is.
How long did william calley spend in jail?
Son My seems to be forgotten “… mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on March 16, 1968 of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children, and elderly people.
Many of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, and some of the bodies were found mutilated”
Buts its OK cause the POTUS said so?
It is really amusing to see and hear all the indignation about Ali al-Megrahi being celebrated as a hero in Libya.
How’s that old saying again: “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.
What do they expect the Libyans to do?
Socrates,
Mitchell’s main point was that if he is innocent, the true explanation is likely to be so dirty that no-one wants it dug up again. Except for the showboating Libyan leader, and even he’s not going to go into detail.
I stress, I’m not “converted” by this article, but it is certainly plausible…
[Are you still claiming he would do it again, despite all the facts I put forward in 1106?]
Where did I claim that he would bomb another plane?
We put murders in jail for two reasons 1) because they are a threat to public safety 2) punishment.
This guy is a convicted murderer, I see no reason why his punishment and exclusion from the rest of society should end just because he is sick.
[Further to 1114 of course, if he genuinely is innocent, then he should be released either way. If there is evidence of innocence, the process can be speeded up.]
He has spent the last 8 years appealing. If he was innocent I think his conviction would’ve been overturned already.
I mean that article claims he was let out because the U.K. wants more gas and oil. If that was the case, and he was innocent, why didn’t Gordon Brown or Tony Blair arrange to have him released years ago?
The British and Scottish Governments should have organised it so that the Libyans thought he was coming in on a plane that was hours or even days latter that the plane he actually came in on. Book seats on every flight to Libya for several days and put him on an early one after saying he would be on a latter one. Lack of Glasgow-Tripoli flight may be a problem with this theory.
ShowsOn,
That point was covered, too. I can’t be bothered to keep quoting snatches of it, but here’s the link on this page (don’t worry, I won’t keep putting it up ad nauseum).
http://newmatilda.com/2009/08/24/oil-talks-and-dying-scapegoat-walks
In my post #999, I made no comparison of the political rhetoric or justifications for the Vietnam War, domino theory or whatever else, to the current war in Afghanistan. Nor did I offer any opinion whether or not the latest request for an escalation of the Afghanistan War would or should be approved by President Obama (whom I greatly admire).
I was strictly speaking from first hand knowledge of U.S. Military Chiefs, having served 4 years as an officer during the Vietnam War including a tour of duty. Throughout the 1960’s the U.S. Generals who pushed for the step by step escalation of the war employed rhetoric identical to that quoted in the linked article from the ABC website.
Unlike several other people in recent weeks, I will not be intimidated to cease posting in Mr. Bowe’s singularly interesting and worthwhile blog by tactics of blatant misrepresentation and pernicious sarcasm.
[The guy is terminal, he will be dead very soon. What is the point of keeping him in jail? Vengence?]
P U N I S H M E N T
Welcome aboard geezlouise,
Just remember not to apply Maxine’s icepick and throw the thickening cream when you get excited.
Tom the first and best,
Yeah, it was Gaddafi’s personal jet with his son & likely heir on board.
The Libyans were determined to have a five-star media circus. Not much the British could do about it…
1122
I am not saying that he should not be punished or that he should not be locked up as punishment but how is he a threat to public safety? People who are threats to public safety are people likely to commit serious crimes when they get out. What crimes are you saying he will commit now he is in Libya?
[The Libyans were determined to have a five-star media circus. Not much the British could do about it…]
Not let the guy out of jail perhaps?
[I am not saying that he should not be punished or that he should not be locked up as punishment but how is he a threat to public safety?]
Oh, his prior history bombing air craft comes to mind.
1129
Refuse to allow Libyan controlled planes into the UK airspace. Fly him to Malta and then fly him to an isolated Libyan airport with very shout notice a few days latter.
He should be in Jail regardless of his risk to society for he was locked up for murdering 270 people, i really cannot understand the soft approach some people have to crime, o wait if they are under 25 then they can be excused but really if you are willing to plant a bomb on a plane and kill others then you don’t deserve to be released.
But how does his prior history a threat to public safety now. It is very unlikely he would blow up another plane in his last three months or so, the Libyan Government is not going to send him on any more secret missions (for health and notoriety reasons) and what other crimes would he commit now in his final three months or so?
[if you are willing to plant a bomb on a plane and kill others then you don’t deserve to be released.]
Exactly. I hope the SNP lose in a massive landslide at the next election.
I think it’s reasonable for supporters of the British court system to be concerned at the potential embarassment of yet another person being falsely convicted for serious crimes. It is/should be embarassing. If Mitchell’s account is accurate, it is no less embarassing that the British government would seek to engineer an outcome that avoids such embarassment, an embarassment compounded by an apparent expectation that no-one would see it as such.
ShowsOn, without expressing a view as to whether compassionate grounds are warranted in these circumstances, I’m not sure that compassion for the victims of the bombing and for a dying prisoner are necessarily mutually exclusive.
He murdered 270 people therefore he was locked up and the key shold have been thrown away, i really don’t care how ill he is or how old he is for he did not care about blowing people up therefore i don’t care if he has some illness.
Psephos
I will have to agree to disagree. Punishment, in my view, is not a reason to jail anyone.
[But how does his prior history a threat to public safety now. ]
Because a person who bombs jumbo jets is inherently a threat to society.
[It is very unlikely he would blow up another plane in his last three months or so,]
How do you know this? I find it very unlikely that a human being could think it was morally OK to kill ONE person let alone 270.
[and what other crimes would he commit now in his final three months or so?]
I don’t know. But so that he can’t threaten public safety, he should be kept in jail.
Tom the first and best @ 1132,
Good suggestion (and surely obvious to the British in charge of this. But they didn’t do that. It is almost as if Gaddafi held the whip in his hand…
Was there more to the whip than just oil? I don’t know…
1133
Locking up an intelligence agent is far more than your average murder committing type intelligence agent. Most get away with it. Had he not be dying then I would strenuously ideologically oppose his release (for any reason other than acquittal) as opposed to being divided on the issue.
Never let your oratory get away from you. There is a certain amount of empirical evidence that humans do think this on occasion.
Welcome geezlouise – nice to have another female aboard. Just jump right in and over the top of the blokes when you feel like it.
They really are a decent lot and pretty good at dissecting all kinds of stuff (when they’re not arguing). But they need the girls to keep their feminine side alive.
OK, guys, you can stop hitting me now. lol
[I think it’s reasonable for supporters of the British court system to be concerned at the potential embarassment of yet another person being falsely convicted for serious crimes.]
Why would this be “embarrassing”? If he is found innocent and let out, then that is proof the justice system corrected a wrong. It may reveal flaws in the system that the parliament can then fix to make the system better. By letting the guy out, we will never know if he was actually innocent, because he will forever remain a convicted murderer who just happened to be let out.
[If Mitchell’s account is accurate, it is no less embarassing]
His explanation makes no sense, if he was innocent, and the U.K. wanted to sign trade deals with Libya, then he would’ve been let out years ago.
[I’m not sure that compassion for the victims of the bombing and for a dying prisoner are necessarily mutually exclusive.]
Well I think we should have more compassion for victims of convicted murderers than for the murderers of those victims.
[Punishment, in my view, is not a reason to jail anyone.]
Of course it is a valid reason. Years ago people would have their hands cut off, or they would be cut into quarters, or they would have their head cut off.
We have moved on from those times, we realise that those practices were barbaric. But now one way of dealing criminals is to exclude them from the rest of society for a period of time, which is a form of punishment.
Would you prefer that we went back to just cutting people’s heads off so the state didn’t have to pay to feed, clothe and house them in jails?
BH,
We’re not hitting you. Just patting you on the back!
1139
You seem to be unable to see that if he is not going to commit any further crimes and does not have public threat psychological problems or highly contagious infectious diseases then he cannot be a threat to public safety.
[Never let your oratory get away from you. There is a certain amount of empirical evidence that humans do think this on occasion.]
Hence my comment on Calley, who was convicted of personally killing 20+ people. Yet his “punishment” was three and a half years confined to barracks.
[Never let your oratory get away from you. There is a certain amount of empirical evidence that humans do think this on occasion.]
So it doesn’t SHOCK you that a person could think it OK to put a bomb on a plane that kills 270 people?
A person who thinks that is fine can not be trusted in my opinion. I have no idea how a person that thinks that is OK will behave in the future, because they have demonstrate a complete lack of morality.
The depth of my shock and sadness at people thinking such thoughts does not alter the reality of the thoughts.
And I believe it without difficulty.
I’ll stop crying then Kersebleptes. BTW – you and BB good replies over at Political Sword. I really enjoy reading that site.
Did anyone get the Essential poll results today. I only heard the bit about bigger % not wanting DD over the ETS.