After three successive 55-45 results, the latest fortnightly Newspoll returns the Coalition to its lowest ebb, with Labor leading 58-42. This hasn’t been matched by any seismic shift on the preferred prime minister rating: Kevin Rudd is up two points to 67 per cent, but Malcolm Turnbull is also up one to 18 per cent. If you’re feeling creative, you might interpret the results as a vote of no confidence in the Coalition party room’s hostility to the emissions trading scheme. More details to follow. UPDATE: Labor’s primary vote is up three points to 46 per cent, the Coalition’s is down three to 35 per cent, and Turnbull’s disapproval is down two to a four-month low of 48 per cent. Graphic here; more from Dennis Shanahan.
Meanwhile, the latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead up from 59-41 to 60-40. Further questions cover Kevin Rudd’s performance at the G20 summit (good if not great), confidence in his representation of Australia at such events (high), whether respondents agree with Bill Clinton’s kind words about him (they do), confidence in economic conditions over the next 12 months (sharply higher), concern over personal job security (correspondingly lower) and employees’ perception of how their employer is travelling (mixed).
Some big news on the preselection front, as you’re probably aware:
• Peter Dutton appears to have failed in his bid to move from Dickson to McPherson, having lost Saturday’s preselection vote to Karen Andrews. The state executive of Queensland’s Liberal National Party can refuse to ratify the result, but senior figures in the party have reportedly ruled this out. Dutton is said to have come within a handful of votes of victory on the first round, but was defeated on the third after the excluded Minna Knight’s supporters moved en masse to Karen Andrews (although the ABC records Andrews’ win on the final round being a reasonably comfortable 75 to 59). Liberals are telling the media of a “bloc of up to 40 Nationals” accounting for both local branch and state executive delegates voted against Dutton, but Barnaby Joyce (who supported Dutton) gives this the status of “scratching on the back of a public lavatory door”. Jamie Walker of The Australian reports the outcome was influenced by a “boots and all” attack on Dutton at the preselection meeting by Judy Gamin, former Nationals member for the local seat of Burleigh; the role of Currumbin MP Jann Stuckey in shifting Knight’s votes to Andrews; and the absence of the seat’s Dutton-supporting sitting member, Margaret May, who “opted to continue with a scheduled parliamentary visit to Britain”.
• Dutton’s defeat has led to speculation he might instead be accommodated by a retirement announcement from Fisher MP Peter Slipper or Fairfax MP Alex Somlyay, but neither seems to be biting. Scott Prasser of the Australian Catholic University observes: “The trouble is when you are in opposition both federally and state, you can’t offer any existing MPs any positions overseas or posts so it is very hard to sort of lean on someone say could you please go for the good of the party because we’ve got nothing to offer you.” Many have noted there’s a vacant seat next door in newly created Wright, but as Andrew Landeryou of VexNews notes, this is designated Nationals turf under the merger arrangement.
• Stephanie Peatling of the Sydney Morning Herald reports high-profile constitutional lawyer George Williams might challenge Bob McMullan for preselection in his northern Canberra seat of Fraser.
• The ABC reports Tamworth councillor and Winton district farmer Russell Webb will seek preselection for the Nationals in the state seat of Tamworth. The seat has been held by independents for all but two years since 1991: by Tony Windsor until his entry into federal parliament as member for New England in 2001, and by present incumbent Peter Draper since 2003.
[Julie Bishop has to be one of the least effective political performers in recent memory. ]
She is the most over rated front bench M.P. of the last decade. She was in the Howard cabinet so they could have more female representation after Jocelyn Newman and Amanda Vanstone retired.
[So according to Minchin, when scientists talk about climate change they should ultimately be ignored.]
Um he didn’t say that. He said the science is not yet conclusive.
[Oh come, come. What about Albo? And Emo? And Gillard has a very sharp wit as well.]
And don’t forget “Jolly” Julie Bishop, Phil “Ragger” Ruddock, and “Witty” Warren Truss. The laugh a minute larrikins.
[And don’t forget “Jolly” Julie Bishop, Phil “Ragger” Ruddock, and “Witty” Warren Truss. The laugh a minute larrikins.]
They aren’t “haha” funny.
[Premier Mike Rann has outlined six months of personal abuse but says it will not deter him from leading the state.
As further questions arose about the personal circumstances behind the violent assault he suffered at a Labor fundraising function last Thursday night, Mr Rann today elected to outline the personal challenges he has faced.
“In the past six months, I have received death threats, my children have received death threats, our house has been vandalised, I have received hate-mail, I have put up with stalkers, fake emails, forged documents distributed by the Liberals trying to implicate me in corruption, forged receipts, defamatory mail-outs, fake internet and Twitter sites operated by the Liberals, threats of violence, and now an act of violence,” he said.
“Neither threats of violence, nor acts of violence will distract me or deter me from doing my job as Premier of South Australia.”]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26162209-5006301,00.html
Oh so you do know him?
#102, bob1234,
‘He said the science is not yet conclusive.’
Bob, if you knnow anything about science then you would know that it is never conclusive, and always open to being disproved, if the weight of scientific evidence, rigorously applied and analysed by your peers in the scientific community, can prove otherwise. There are no absolutes in science, just theories that haven’t been disproved, like Evolution.
So, it’s disingenuous in the extreme for Minchin to run that line out to the general public, who do not know any better that that is as good as any ‘proof’ gets in science.
I can’t help the feeling that the Liberals are close to imploding competely. First the Queensland debacle, today an awful poll and next will be the WA Liberals with their conference this weekend. First item on the agenda is how the ETS legislation should be handled, and Senator Cormann has already rejected passing the legislation before Copenhagen regardless of amendments. Turnbull could have all WA Libs against him.
[This isn’t exactly a new phenomena.]
Or even a new phenomenon. (Couldn’t help myself.)
[And don’t forget “Jolly” Julie Bishop, Phil “Ragger” Ruddock, and “Witty” Warren Truss. The laugh a minute larrikins.]
I’ve always found Michael Johnson to be particularly amusing – although it’s entirely accidental on his part.
[Bob, if you knnow anything about science then you would know that it is never conclusive, and always open to being disproved, if the weight of scientific evidence, rigorously applied and analysed by your peers in the scientific community, can prove otherwise. There are no absolutes in science, just theories that haven’t been disproved, like Evolution.]
That’s fine. But don’t say Minchin said to ignore science, because he didn’t say that.
[Um he didn’t say that. He said the science is not yet conclusive.]
Which means he is ignoring all the scientists that say it IS conclusive, i.e. the ones who actually publish articles on climate change in peer reviewed journals!
Whenever someone says that the science of climate change is inconclusive, it means they are being wilfully ignorant. They are exactly the same as people who say evolution is inconclusive, because they have never bothered to read anything about evolution.
[Oh so you do know him?]
Who cares if Rann knows him, the guy is obviously a nutter.
[That’s fine. But don’t say Minchin said to ignore science, because he didn’t say that.]
Of course he is ignoring science, if he wasn’t ignoring it, he wouldn’t make factually incorrect statements such as that the science on climate change is inconclusive, the implication being that we don’t know if it is occurring and / or what causes it.
economic management will always be more superior under Labor so say the locals of jeju island korea 👿
By definition, you cannot absolutely prove the nature and consequences of climate change until it has actually happened. If Minchin had his way, science would never make advances
bob @ 105
He isn’t saying it’s all from the same person.
So knowing someone, even a nutter, is a crime now?
Careful where you travel there Finns! Dolphins aren’t treated well by fishermen on some Japanese islands.
bob is referring to Rann’s statement the other day that he did not know his attacker.
So far bob has taken the fact that the man made several contacts over the years with Rann’s office and now this list from Rann of personal threats made against him, as proof that Rann was lying about this.
I don’t give much of a toss, but in the interests of clear thinking am pointing out that neither statement contradicts what Rann has previously said.
Firstly, someone contacting your office doesn’t mean that you know who they are; secondly, Rann has simply listed all the personal threats made against him over the last few years.
[bob is referring to Rann’s statement the other day that he did not know his attacker.]
Correct. And when you can’t make any detailed comment until a court case in a few months, with an election a few months after that, you don’t lie about anything to do with it, no matter how little or white.
BK (96) and Confessions (99). Erm…before Gerard writes in to complain he has been misquoted, I have to admit I heard it from someone, who heard it from someone else’s cat. Hope that clears up the confusion.
[If Minchin had his way, science would never make advances]
The science of rain machines is far from settled (in fact some would say non-existent), but that didn’t stop the Howard government (that Minchin was part of) handing a rain making company $10 million.
I know because this supports Rudd’s position on China bob will claim this article to be questionable but still here it is.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rudds-attitude-to-china-gets-the-balance-just-about-right-20091005-gjav.html
soc, am safe here. Koreans love dolphins and passionately hate the japs.
Btw diog is still wRONg here on jeju island, sigh
zoom still makes valid points though bob at 117, which you haven’t responded to.
[Firstly, someone contacting your office doesn’t mean that you know who they are; secondly, Rann has simply listed all the personal threats made against him over the last few years.]
[I know because this supports Rudd’s position on China bob will claim this article to be questionable]
What nonsense are you dribbling on about?
Try and play the ball rather than the man – and what a weak attempt at playing the man.
what hendo knows abt china can be put on a sheet of toilet paper. The chinese pm is visiting north korea at the moment, it’s huge news here at skorea
[Firstly, someone contacting your office doesn’t mean that you know who they are; secondly, Rann has simply listed all the personal threats made against him over the last few years.]
Fair point.
[Try and play the ball rather than the man – and what a weak attempt at playing the man.]
Now bob, you don’t want me to go back over your postings and show you how hypocritical this statement is do you?
bob – I don’t see any evidence of lying.
I repeat: someone contacting your office doesn’t mean you know them.
There is no evidence from Rann’s statement about attacks and threats made against him that these were from the same person. Indeed, the way it’s worded suggests (again) that this is just another attack in a long line of attacks made by different individuals.
I would point out as well, that just as someone contacting your office doesn’t mean you know them, neither does someone making threats against you.
It would be quite possible for the man to have rung Rann every day, emailed death threats to him, vandalised his home etc and for Rann to still say truthfully that he didn’t know him.
Most of these activities are anonymous in nature.
Sorry bob, didn’t see 126 while I was writing 128!!
[Witnesses to the attack said Mr Phillips screamed about his wife at the Premier before lashing out at Mr Rann.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26171002-5006787,00.html
You’d think Rann would have not said anything rather than a blanket denial that he knew who his attacker was?
[The chinese pm is visiting north korea at the moment, it’s huge news here at skorea]
Apparently Kim Jong Il wants new multi-party nuclear talks.
I wonder if he was jealous about all the attention Iran was getting?
Bob is always ready to believe the Liberal-Murdoch line about anyone in the Labor Party, no matter how grubby. SNIP: Unduly personal comments deleted – The Management.
[You’d think Rann would have not said anything rather than a blanket denial that he knew who his attacker was?]
How is that important? Besides, if he had said no comment to such a question what do you think would be thought by people and written about then? “What is he hiding?” would be the cry.
shows On and GB, isnt the issue that Rann initially denied knowing the man??
[Now bob, you don’t want me to go back over your postings and show you how hypocritical this statement is do you?]
So you’re as bad as me?
Andrew, yes but nothing he has said has contradicted that, at least nothing that has been posted here anyway.
[Bob is always ready to believe the Liberal-Murdoch line about anyone in the Labor Party, no matter how grubby.]
What a libellious pile of crap.
This is why Rann’s issue is so troublesome.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26168288-5006301,00.html
[So you’re as bad as me?]
In this case yes bob. Now I know you can’t take what you dish out. Go through my postings and you’ll find I very rarely “play the man”. I can’t say the same for you.
Blanket denials can also be the truth.
If some nutter attacks you saying you know his wife, it still doesn’t mean you know the nutter. You MAY know his wife, yes. You might recognise who he was if he said who his wife was.
There’s an awful lot of people out there whose spouses I don’t know. If one of them decided to attack me, shouting that I knew their wife, they’d be right. So would I, when I said I didn’t know THEM.
If we take it that this man has become convinced that his wife divorced him because she was having an affair with the Premier, that still isn’t evidence that Rann knew him…or that such an affair existed.
[Go through my postings and you’ll find I very rarely “play the man”.]
Sure GB.
Excellent post Zoomster, now please rephrase it in a way that enables bob to understand it.
[Which means he is ignoring all the scientists that say it IS conclusive, i.e. the ones who actually publish articles on climate change in peer reviewed journals!]
From what I’ve seen there is enough reason to question the science. For example, there is controversy over the famous “hockey stick” graph, such as whether the data used is reliable and been treated properly. For as long as there are dissenters who appear to be pointing out legitimate problems and asking reasonable questions, one shouldn’t be simply accepting the majority view, unless of course you know that the dissenters are wrong. This site might be worth a look. If nothing else, it gives a good idea of the complexity of the issues involved. http://www.climateaudit.org/
But GB how could he NOT know that man if he has had alot of contact with the man’s wife???
[The Liberals, at least publicly, are staying right out of the spotlight on this issue. Hardheads in the party know they cannot try to make political capital out of it, remembering the old line about people in glass houses.
One thing is certain, Mr Rann’s future as leader of the ALP appears assured. Party powerbrokers have thrown their weight behind him and declared him as the man to lead them to the next election “and beyond”.
It is a ringing endorsement Mr Rann will welcome at this stage of what is looming as the dominant political issue of the next few months.]
So the Libs are no clean skins either it seems. Skeletons in the closet?
Don’t see it as a problem personally.
Err, estranged wife Andrew. He may not have met the man.
bob
the article you link to in 138 makes it clear that there are no facts or evidence linking Rann with this woman in any way other than a friendship which continued after she stopped working at Parliament.
I have lots of friends of both sexes who I have maintained links with long after I stopped working with them. It would be quite possible for the deranged spouse of one of them to decide that my keeping contact with them was suspicious.
Men whose wives leave them in middle age can be unbelievably nutty. Noone likes to believe that their wife has left them because she finds them boring or has simply moved on. It is preferable to believe that she has found a man who can give her money or status that they can’t.
In these circumstances, a belief that one’s wife is having an affair with the Premier becomes totally understandable.
And it may be true — but I highly doubt it and there has been no evidence provided which suggests it is.
[Bob is always ready to believe the Liberal-Murdoch line about anyone in the Labor Party, no matter how grubby.]
Does this also apply to Crikey? Just asking if this tip and rumour in today’s Crikey is true.
[Interesting to hear Labor make great fun of Peter Dutton’s failure to be pre-selected. At least the Libs have rank and file democracy; even if that’s all they have! How about Rudd guarantees the same rank and file involvement in pre-selections for the next election? The big rumour is ALP Nat Sec will be handpicking most candidates.
Here is sunny Canberra, Annette Ellis has apparently been told to make room for Rudd’s Chief of Staff Alistair Jordan; that another Rudd staffer Tim Dixon will get Macquarie, that yet another Rudd staffer Corrie McKenzie or her partner (Assistant National Secretary) has been promised a seat in the ACT (Kate Lundy’s senate spot is apparently up for grabs) and that Bob McMullan will be told to rack off for George Williams …
Interesting to see how many Labor electorates do not get rank and file votes!]
143 triton
next time you’re ill, can I suggest the local witchdoctor? After all, no modern medicine has been proved conclusively to work.
[But GB how could he NOT know that man if he has had alot of contact with the man’s wife???]
After Zoomster’s posting what a dumb question.