The latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead up from 58-42 to 60-40. The survey also shows opinion is evenly divided on whether the Liberal and National parties should stay in coalition (39 per cent each way); that most believe Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t have enough control of the Liberal Party; that perceptions of job security continue to steadily improve; and that 59 per cent believe Ricky Ponting should stay on as captain. Also included are some slightly obscure questions on the recent LNG deal with China.
Couple of other things:
• Sandringham MP Murray Thompson has easily seen off the only preselection challenge against a Victorian state Liberal MP. According to Andrew Landeryou at VexNews, Thompson defeated “Baillieu faction hopeful” Margaret Fitzherbert by forty-five votes to seven.
• The Camden Advertiser reports that the seat-warming federal Liberal member for Macarthur, Pat Farmer, has his eyes on Labor-held state seats of Camden (held by Geoff Corrigan on a margin of 4.0 per cent) and Wollondilly (Phil Costa, 3.1 per cent). Locally powerful state Liberal MLC Charlie Lynn seems amused by this, suggesting Camden mayor Chris Patterson and Campbelltown councillor Jai Rowell have the respected nominations all but wrapped up, although the former says he is not sure he will run.
• The Age reports that John Brumby says US-style primaries would “enliven the democratic process”, and are ”something the party should look at”.
• The latest Reuters Poll Trend aggregate has Labor’s lead at 57.2-42.8.
• Follow the Bradfield by-election action and contribute your thoughts at the progressively updated dedicated post.
[Then perhaps they wouldn’t be so cranky as they would recognised as part of the family]
v1x2y3, hmmmm, you can choose your friends but not your family 😆
Leigh Sales’ questions of Swan on Lateline were good questions. Swan was just a bit slow in coming up with answers. On the signs, Swan gave the right answer initially which was that the signs are an important part of building economic confidence. But then he seemed to forget that answer and blustered on instead of repeating that answer. On the accusation that his argument was fallacious, he should have responded by saying he was criticising the hypocrisy of the Opposition for now opposing the signs when they had previously done sign themselves. He could not remember his briefing on toxic debt, so his response on that question was waffle.
There was nothing wrong with Leigh’s questions.
Wayne Swan would agree that was not one of his best interviews. But no-one is perfect in interviews, and he is generally a good Treasurer. Though Tanner would have done the interview better.
1602
Agreed.
Vote1maxine @1593
Utter tosh. The Greens didn’t exist as a party in 1990, and stood under about 15 different party labels and got 1.4% of the vote. It was Australian Democrat preferences that got Labor over the line, and it wasn’t done with preference “deals”. It was done by Labor directly advertising for preferences, urging people voting for minor parties and independents to give Labor preferences. The environment was big issue at the 1990 election, but it was Labor’s direct appeal for preferences that worked. The Democrats got 11.3% of the vote, their highest ever, and instead of preferences splitting 50:50 as they had at previous elections, the preferences of Democrats got up above 60% for the first time.
60% preference to Labor I mean
Oh dear, compare to their beefo, lt’s all La Dolce Vita here:
[A HISTORIC – and potentially disastrous – schism has opened between church and state in Italy after the embattled Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, used a newspaper owned by his brother Paolo to stage a virulent attack on the editor of the nation’s main Catholic newspaper.
In a ferocious, front-page campaign, the Berlusconi newspaper branded the Catholic editor, Dino Boffo, a homosexual and alleged he was the target of a harassment suit from the wife of a man he was allegedly in a relationship with. All of this in apparent retaliation for sustained criticism of the Prime Minister’s morality and personal life……..
The row is extremely risky for Mr Berlusconi. All Italian heads of state need the backing of the Catholic church and even Benito Mussolini understood the need not to antagonise the Vatican, establishing the so-called Lateran pacts that restored it as a sovereign state in the wake of the huge loss of land holdings after the unification of Italy in the 19th century. Significantly, in the 1980s, the Socialist prime minister, Bettino Craxi, updated them.
As veteran observers said this week, the Vatican does not forget insult easily. The freeze in relations is unlikely to thaw soon.]
http://www.smh.com.au/world/mass-media-mayhem-as-berlusconi-lashes-foe-20090904-fbh8.html
From the ABC article linked in 1600 by Kersebleptes
[A spokeswoman for the department says the priority in this situation was to their own personnel.]
Gallantry is dead, apparently
The Finnigans,
Quick. Send Dr Brendan Nelson, a diagnostician with experience in this area, to assess Burlusconi post-haste.
[Utter tosh. The Greens didn’t exist as a party in 1990]
Antony, the BBQ is off then.
1608
No just repeal the Parliamentary Immunity introduced by Burlusconi to escape prosecution.
polyquats,
Yes. Not a good look for our finest, is it? But it will get sucked into the useless political point-scoring, as everything else does.
Pity the Coalition have already seen off Fitzgibon, the Defence Minister of the time…
The worrying thing about the Lateline interview with Swan is that the government seem to be locking in this line that the stimulus package should not be changed. Its never a good thing to be so inflexible. Although it is true the stimulus package is now being wound down, there is still a lot of stimulus being proposed through to the end of financial year 2011-12. So the last 6 months of 2011-12 is a 0.5% of GDP stimulus, compared to 1.2% of GDP stimulus in first half of 2010-11. Most of the stimulus going forward is good stuff, and its mostly capital investment which is sorely needed. But the government should retain the flexibility to review those programs, and if there are capacity problems in the capital investment industry, to perhaps defer some of the stiumlus investments. In responding to the silly statements by the opposition to withdraw stimulus now, the government are unnecessarily reducing their flexibility in the future.
Sorry. The 1.2% of GDP stimulus should refer to first half of 2009-10 not 2010-11.
johncanb
Isn’t most of the stimulus package spending already committed? I can’t see any government, having promised a school a new hall, having the courage necessary to say, “Well, yes, but the crisis is over now” and withdrawing the funding.
[The endless Greens v. Labor debate is tiresome too (if I may make so bold). There is hardly a more tedious subject than who knifed who in the back first, as it is endlessly thrashed out by some here. If you don’t like each other why can’t you take off somewhere on your own and act like children there?]
It does seem reminiscent of Labor faction warfare or Liberal internescine brawls. It must be love.
Zoomster
The stimulus package has been announced in terms of the programs that will be funded, but not the actual buildings that will be built. So it would be quite easy to defer some of the housing and infrastructure programs proposed for 2011-12 into later years. But the longer you wait, the harder politically it is to finetune the package.
[The worrying thing about the Lateline interview with Swan is that the government seem to be locking in this line that the stimulus package should not be changed. Its never a good thing to be so inflexible.]
No, the worrying thing is the attempt to force changes to the stimulus package according to the COAlition’s demands. It is never a good thing to be bullied.
[The stimulus package has been announced in terms of the programs that will be funded, but not the actual buildings that will be built.]
Not true when it comes to the school halls thing, for example; most schools know by now what they will be getting.
Polyquats. The problem is that the government is letting the opposition set the agenda on this. As I said.
‘In responding to the silly statements by the opposition to withdraw stimulus now, the government are unnecessarily reducing their flexibility in the future.’
The government should simply say that the stimulus package will be modified if cirucmstances change. But there is no reason to modify the stimulus package occurring in this financial year. This would blunt the opposition’s attack.
Antony Green @ 1604
I stand corrected. My apologies. Too many red wines over the last 19 years. 🙂
Now that I have done my act of contrition, may I ask a question? Since when have the Greens been a political party and how many Labor seats were won on their preferences since their formation?
[Isn’t most of the stimulus package spending already committed? I can’t see any government, having promised a school a new hall, having the courage necessary to say, “Well, yes, but the crisis is over now” and withdrawing the funding.]
True. I suppose you could pull the pin on community and disadvantaged housing but that would be cruel and piss off a number of socially conscious Labor supporters.
The economy is still dependent on the ongoing stimulus to keep its head above water and will be for another 6-12 months.
1619
The government has already shown its flexibility with the stimulus package, with the re-jig announced by Gillard last week – which was immediately painted by the media as a ‘backdown’ and a sign that she was not on top of her portfolio.
So I’m not sure what your point is.
[which was immediately painted by the media as a ‘backdown’ and a sign that she was not on top of her portfolio.]
I think the groupthink term was blowout.
1622
The insulation program should not have been cut. The money for the schools should have come from somewhere else. There has been too little criticism of this.
Zoomster
Swan was painting the re-jig as a rearrangement within the total stimulus package envelope. But I’m saying that in 2010-11 and 2011-12 there may be a need to reduce the total amount of the envelope. Or it may need to be increased. Its important to use your rhetoric to maintain flexibility with regard to the size of the stimulus.
zoomster
One side says it was an “appropriate alteration based on changed circumstances showing flexibility”.
The media and LNP say it was a “backflip”.
In reality, it was overbudget and Gillard made alterations to compensate for that.
[Its important to use your rhetoric to maintain flexibility with regard to the size of the stimulus.]
Anything so explicit would feed into the Lib’s mantra of too much being spent on the stimulus. Just say that the government will do whatever is necessary to protect the economy and jobs.
The Govt made a brave and right call with the Stimpacs. They have saved Australia from recession, maintained confidence and positive outllook in the community, put a floor of the unemployment and the building of education and industry infra-structures. They made the call despite fierce opposition from the other side and MSM critics.
They were wRONg. therefore, the Govt has earned the rights to make the next big call, when and where to re-calibrate the Stimpacs. I have no doubt the Govt will stand up to the bullying tactics of the Oppo. and MSM critics.
La Dolce Vita indeed.
1626
From what the government are saying it is an expansion to cover more schools that originally planned rather that funding more expensive buildings than planned. The cut to the insulation funding is the real mistake.
[The reason that the Greens want to topple Tanner is that he is in the seat that is most winnable for the Greens not any specific problem with Tanner.]
Tanner is an extremely important minister. If in the unlikely event he lost his seat, I would hope a Victorian Labor senator would stand aside so that Tanner could remain a minister.
[All Italian heads of state need the backing of the Catholic church]
There’s the problems with Italy perfectly summarised.
Its a difficult sell to convince the journalists (and the public) that economic management is an inexact science, and that circumstances change continually and therefore its important to maintain flexibility. This means that for the sake of the national interest you must be continually changing your programs.
If you don’t spend the time to educate the media and public on this, you will continually get into trouble when you appropriately change things.
Tanner is good at getting this message of flexibility across. The other Ministers are not so good at it.
1630
I would think that might be a good idea. He could be moved anyway as the margin is only 4.71%.
http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-228.htm
I don’t know the history well enough. The party name “Greens” was registered under the Commonwealth Electoral Act by someone associated with one of the socialist or ex-communist parties in the 1980s. This prevented groups that grew out of the Tasmanian Greens running under that party label for a while. There were about 15 Green parties registered in 1990. In a separate development, the Jo Valentine Peace Group (ex-NDP Senator Jo Valentine) re-named itself the WA Greens ahead of the 1990 election, and they were by far the most succesful Green party at the 1990 election. The Tasmanian Greens contested the 1990 election as the United Tasmanian Group, a party label they had used in the 1970s.
When did they first run as a single party, depends on the legal definition of party. In 1993 the parties were all state based in registered separately. In 1996 they seemed to have resolved a nationals structre. As late as 2001 the WA Greens were still a separate entity. 2001 was the first time the party reached 5% of the vote, but not according to the AEC because the legal definitions of the parties were still not within a single structure.
Last part of your question, I don’t know. Depends how you define “won on Green preferences”. If you mean seats where Labor won after preferences and Green preferences were distributed, it could be 20-30 per election, but I think this is a lousy definition. The better definition is where Labor trailed on the primary count but won after Green preferences. I don’t have a number on that, but the most seats Labor has won at a single election after trailing is about 10.
I haven’t had chance to update this information since 2004. Details of preferences 1949-2001 is summarised at http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/prefhistory.htm. No doubt someone has updated this table since, but I don’t know who.
[ts a difficult sell to convince the journalists … that economic management is an inexact science,]
Rubbish. Economic journalists know it and revel in making predictions and assessments no matter how wrong they end up being. And general journalists should know it if they don’t; most prefer to remain deliberately ignorant and use such ignorance to push their personal or employer’s agenda.
Only the simplistic section of the public believe in the fairytale of precision economic management.
[I would hope a Victorian Labor senator would stand aside so that Tanner could remain a minister.]
Like Conroy?
[bob1234, it is passing strange that you might quote Crikey in order to stick one into the Government.]
This is the problem with anti-Green rusted Laborites. They take any showing of the truth (when negative) as somehow an attack on the federal Labor government. I wasn’t attacking the federal Labor government, simply showing how it is and how Crikey has shown it to be – something Labor could have done better on and should be aware of.
Stop sooking like tender princesses. It really isn’t appealing.
I really can’t see the problem with being a party hack, the poster most willing to accept the hack label is Psepho. I don’t always agree with his point of view but after reading his post I feel I have read a point of view. Reading a range of views is the reason why I read poll bludger over the MSM. The posts containing nothing but name calling really add nothing.
Its time.
Even if it is wilful ignorance on the part of the journalist, it is still a difficult task for the politician to get across the message of the need for flexibility in economic policy without appearing to be swaying in the breeze according to political fashion.
[Since when have the Greens been a political party and how many Labor seats were won on their preferences since their formation?]
v1m, while perhaps interesting, I do find it odd when people go “Labor wouldn’t have won the seat without Labor preferences”. If we had a first past the post system in the lower house, i’d be voting Labor in the lower, Greens in the upper.
Tanner won’t lose his seat, he comes across as a man with more than two brain cells to rub together, hell I’d vote for him and i find it hard to vote labor. The Greens are dreaming.
1641
The personal vote is only a small proportion of the vote in urban electorates (I read the figure 2% somewhere) and they often fall with the swing despite having well regarded local members.
Um, that should be Green preferences.
Just catching up reading PB posts since last night and saw this one from Glen
[Which is worse Liberal Hacks or Green Hacks?]
Glen I’m an old Labor lover from way back but if it was a choice between you and the Greens i’d take you everytime :kiss:
[Tanner won’t lose his seat, he comes across as a man with more than two brain cells to rub together, hell I’d vote for him and i find it hard to vote labor. The Greens are dreaming.]
A personal vote never counts for more than a couple of percent. Labor won Melbourne by 4% against the Greens after preferences, and when federal Labor begins to go downhill the Labor vote will drop.
1644
An ALP supporter showing the ALP`s true colours.
[Glen I’m an old Labor lover from way back but if it was a choice between you and the Greens i’d take you everytime]
This seems to be the pattern. Labor rusteds would rather get in to bed with the extremist-right Liberals than their traditional home, the left, now occupied by the Greens. How very sad for them – a complete and utter loss of morals. Be it on their conscience and on their head.
[it is still a difficult task for the politician to get across the message of the need for flexibility in economic policy without appearing to be swaying in the breeze according to political fashion.]
I think you’re attributing too much interest by the vast majority of the voting public in the minute details of economic policy. If all decisions can be directly to a mantra along the lines of “whatever it takes to protect the economy and jobs” then it will be accepted by most of the punters irrespective of harping by the opposition and media pundits.
1646
I’m allowed to like Glen, I think he’s a sweetie, so there 😀
Ohh the greenies hate it when they aren’t loved !!!