No proper Roy Morgan poll this week, but they do provide results on preferred Labor and Liberal leaders. Kevin Rudd scores a surprisingly modest 51 per cent as Labor leader, weighed down by contrary Liberals and a telling preference for Julia Gillard among the small sample of Greens supporters. Among Labor supporters, his rating is 70 per cent. Joe Hockey leads a crowded Liberal field with 30 per cent (up five since July), while Malcolm Turnbull is second on 21 per cent. Possum weighs in with a post on the various Liberal leadership polls conducted since the 2007 election. A separate Morgan release puts Rudd and Turnbull head to head, finding little change since July.
Elsewhere:
• Liberal MP Fran Bailey has announced she will not contest her Victorian federal seat of McEwen at the next election. Bailey retained the seat in 2007 by a court-determined margin of just 27 votes, but the Liberals would have hoped her local popularity in the wake of the February bushfires might help her hold on at the next election. As it stands, the Liberal preselection is unlikely to be keenly sought. Labor’s candidate from 2007, former state upper house MP Rob Mitchell, was said by Rick Wallace of The Australian to maintain “strong local numbers”. However, the Labor national executive’s suspension of the preselection process a fortnight ago has prompted talk its newly acquired powers might be used to install a candidate of its own choice. Rick Wallace subsequently reported that Andrew MacLeod, a “former soldier and UN disaster expert”, had also emerged as a contestant (UPDATE: Greensborough Growler informs me he was also Labor’s candidate in 2001).
• Linda Silmaris of the Daily Telegraph reports senior Labor sources say it is now unlikely Belinda Neal will be forced out of Robertson, an outcome so very recently seen as a foregone conclusion.
• Alex Easton of The Northern Star reports local Nationals are hoping Stuart George, Richmond Valley councillor and son of state Lismore MP Thomas George, will be the party’s candidate for the federal seat of Page. Labor’s Janelle Saffin won the seat in 2007 on the retirement of Nationals incumbent Ian Causley with a margin of 2.4 per cent, picking up a 7.8 per cent swing. The redistribution proposal shaves 0.2 per cent off the Labor margin.
• Robert Ellicott, architect of the Coalition’s constitutional strategy in 1975, has written an article for The Australian in which he muses on the prospect of a Governor-General refusing a Prime Minister’s request for a double dissolution. This has prompted a most informative discussion in comments.
• The Australian Electoral Commission has released approximate figures on the age breakdown of the 1.2 million Australians not on the electoral roll, which progressively falls from 30 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 to 4 per cent of those aged over 65.
• The New South Wales Greens have listed nominees for state upper preselection and the vacancy to be created by Lee Rhiannon’s bid for the Senate. Both incumbents due for re-election, Ian Cohen and Sylvia Hale, are retiring. High-profile Byron Shire mayor Jan Barham is reportedly well-placed for a spot, being an ally of the locally based Cohen.
• The Australian Democrats have lost their last remaining parliamentary member after South Australian upper house MP David Winderlich quit to sit as an independent. The party is now registered only in South Australia and New South Wales.
• Keep following the by-election action on the regularly updated threads for Bradfield, Higgins and Willagee.
[We received much more in reciprocal payments of like kind than we paid out.]
Furthermore, it’s a sad fact that old-age pensioners tend to die, so payments are frequently made to them after they have died and before Centrelink finds out they are dead. This is how the system was set up under Howard, and we haven’t changed it. Usually, after a tactful interlude, the money is recovered, as it will be in the case of StimPac money that went to dead people. This is one of the stupider Coalition non-issues of the StimPac saga, though admittedly the competition is tough.
[I quite liked the original ALP idea of a backbencher Friday. I reckon that would be an absolute hoot!]
Did that idea include QT? Now that would be fun. Minor players could make a name for themselves in double quick time.
[I quite liked the original ALP idea of a backbencher Friday.]
And who sabotaged that idea? We actually tried to return some power to the Parliament, and the Libs ran a cheap, stupid populist scare-campaign about it and so we decided not to bother. And now they complain the executive is dominating Parliament!
If you had also included on Friday
– Prime Ministers Questions ala The British House of Commons
then it would have been ok.
Wot, work on a friday?
Not for me, I try to get booted on thursday so I can catch the early flight home. 🙂
[I quite liked the original ALP idea of a backbencher Friday.]
It was a good one – except it wasn’t compulsary – ie no QT – so it was never going to work.
I reckon the Govt. should forget about questions from their backbench. Let the Libs and Nats ask most of the questions, but ensure the 3 indies get questions.
Then at the end of each sitting they could tally up the questions.
A good way to show the policy free zone the Opposition inhabit.
[If you had also included on Friday
– Prime Ministers Questions ala The British House of Commons
then it would have been ok.]
It was intended as a day for backbenchers. Having QT would have (a) taken up half the day, (b) made it just as partisan as all the other days, and (c) required ministers to be in Canberra on Fridays, when they should be off actually running their departments. It was your loss wrecking it, not ours, because opposition backbenchers are the ones who need parliamentary time the most and rarely get it. It was our one gesture of parliamentary bipartisanship, and you played childish politics over it, so you won’t be getting any more.
151
I thought that the estates of people who died but paid tax in the relevant tax year got to get/keep the money legitimately.
Maybe so, Tom.
I know that I am getting old but I find Glen’s and the Liberals argument incomprehensible.
Their answer to all questions is “cutting waste and deficit”. However these two items sit on different sides of the balance sheet.
I can see that by cutting waste the Government of the day can find some more cash, assuming there is waste to cut. But by cutting a deficit, funds have to be found and spent.
Ok lets assume that what they mean is that they wont add to the deficit, But again there is another side to this. This would mean cutting the current level of expenditure to a point where the Commonwealth budget this year and in all following years was balanced. There is no extra cash but we don’t have to borrow to maintain the stimulus or to support exiting programmes.
Now we have another problem. As outlined by the Treasury Secretary this past week we will have extra outgoings in the form of dole payments plus we have less income because of a fall in taxation receipts.
Now assuming we can somehow make all these adjustments we still have a problem. We still don’t have any cash to make the additional payments that it appears the Liberals want made as part of “their” CPRS.
If we assume that they are not going to borrow (ie add to the deficit) the only way forward will be to cut large (make that huge) current programmes on top of their “cutting waste”.
Considering that they are unable or unwilling to nominate large areas of waste and their reluctance to nominate what programmes will be cut it would be a very foolhardy to trust them with the petty cash let alone the Commonwealth’s revenue.
It appears to me that Glen’s, Turnbull’s and the Conservative’s protestations are nothing but political spin without substance or any real understanding of what is required.
This being the case I am of the opinion that the Conservatives have no intention to pass the CPRS as they have no idea as to how it works or what is involved.
Ratsars
You missed tax-cuts as laid out in Helen’s homework.
Tom tfab, what do you mean at 159? Get to keep overpayments? Centrelink demands reimbursements as soon as it is realized the person is dead.
If a person paid tax in the financial year he/she died, then a refund may be due to the estate in the same way as it would be to the person if he/she had lived and stopped working on that date, but that is all.
[You missed tax-cuts as laid out in Helen’s homework.]
Were these the ones funded by “continued economic growth”?
Wow the WA Libs have agreed to a law for police to search anyone for anything without suspicion.
[Under the second new law WA police will be given unprecedented powers to frisk people for drugs and weapons.
The new search law, to be introduced before Christmas, would mean police would no longer be required to prove grounds of suspicion in court. ]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26195008-12377,00.html
Forget about the cannabis crud, mr plod can search anyone, whenever they feel like it. 🙁
ru
It will be a very popular law.
[ru
It will be a very popular law.]
Targetting Yobs in Northbridge mainly – in particular indigineous folk and those cashed up bogans who voted Liberal 🙂
WA loves Laura.
WA has come closer to being police state due to the extreme conservatism of its electorate, and the gutless and opportunistic exploitation of it by a succession of State Governments.
We have draconian laws in many, many areas, and a patriarchal approach to Goverment, which commenced under Charles Court, and was expanded under the wrong headed but enthusiastically repressive attorney generalship of Jim McGinty.
The feeble minded administration of Barnett will take it to new heights until it becomes unbearable, whereupon the public backlash will see the pendulum swing back to some degree. However, many freedoms enjoyed by the rest of Australia will still be lost.
[It will be a very popular law.]
Maybe, but its a Joh law. Mr Plod should always be required to say why they searched someone.
[President Barack Obama says he will end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy concerning gays in the military.]
Let’s see if he makes as big a mess of this as Clinton did. At least he won’t have to deal with open insubordination from Colin Powell as Clinton did.
[We have draconian laws in many, many areas, and a patriarchal approach to Goverment, which commenced under Charles Court, and was expanded under the wrong headed but enthusiastically repressive attorney generalship of Jim McGinty.]
And aided and abetted by the likes of Howard Sattler, the Sunday Crimes and our Media who have beaten up a perceived lack of “Law & Order”.
i love the liberals retreat to payments to deceased, overseas etc. This has ALWAYS been an issue with payments. how stupid do they think the electorate is????
Fulvio @ 163
TTFAB is talking about the stimulus payments (of $900, 600 or $250 depending on income) for those earning less than $100k in the financial year ended 30 June 2008. If the relevant income tax return was lodged by 30 June 2009 and met all the eligibility criteria, they (or their estates) are entitled to keep the stimulus payment even if they have since died.
If Glen or someone else can explain why this is a bad thing, feel free to do so.
Thanks Partario. I thought he was talking about regular pension payments, which are treated quite differently if overpaid.
And as for Glen’s mention of stimulus payments going to animals… that is a plain lie. One criticism after another from the coalition and their cheerleaders turn out to be chimeras with as much substance as a ghost’s fart.
[Wow the WA Libs have agreed to a law for police to search anyone for anything without suspicion.]
Wow! We need that Human Rights Act after all, so that we can be protected from idiotic politicians!
Can anyone give me a logical reason to vote for the Liberal Party?
I can see reasons to vote ALP, Green even Nats, but Liberal?
[Can anyone give me a logical reason to vote for the Liberal Party?]
Greed. Hatred. Habit. Fear. I’d suggest they are the main reasons people do.
[ Wow the WA Libs have agreed to a law for police to search anyone for anything without suspicion.
Wow! We need that Human Rights Act after all, so that we can be protected from idiotic politicians!]
And guess who opposes a Human Rights Act !! 🙂
“The Laws won’t be abused” my Cuolo.
[Mr Barnett also reaffirmed plans to introduce laws giving police greater powers to stop and search people for weapons without having to prove grounds of suspicion.
The powers would apply to designated areas requested by the Police Commissioner, such as Northbridge or the Scarborough beachfront.
Mr Barnett admits the move will raise concerns about the possible infringement of civil liberties.
He says it is sad that violence and anti-social behaviour in Perth has reached a point where the laws are necessary.
“It is giving quite extraordinary powers to police but police will operate under their own guidelines and protocols,” he said.
“It will not be abused.”
The Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan has welcomed the proposed new laws.
He says officers will no longer be required to have suspicion that a person is carrying a weapon or drugs in order to search them.
“Well we’re obviously looking for weapons, we’re obviously looking for drugs, they’re the two main things we would be looking for as part of the legislation,” he said.
“We will be using metal detectors, particularly the hand held type of metal detector in this type of search as well.”]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/11/2710753.htm?site=news
Haven’t the Libs learnt ANYTHING from the Andrew Mallard debacle which happend under Court the junior ??
[He says it is sad that violence and anti-social behaviour in Perth has reached a point where the laws are necessary.]
Thanks to this beatup re Northbridge by Barcelona Tonight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC8-e7ivUBs
An excellent question, ruawake. Hopefully some of those who do can explain why. The only reason I can think of is a blind loyalty to the party – a football team mentality – even if it’s not in the best interest of the nation.
I suppose I’m forgetting people who’d like to reduce the cost of employing people to the bare minimum – I can see why they’d vote for the Liberal Party.
Would a Human Rights Act stop the WA police from searching without due cause? How would a Federal Law trump a constitutionally-decreed state responsibility unless the Human Rights Act was part of the constitution?
Hmmm… Will Hutton on Dateline lumped the “National Party of Australia” in with the Republicans and the Tories as right-of-centre parties too attached to free market ideology.
Whoops. Obviously his homework on Australian politics has been a bit sloppy.
I figure that either he thinks the National Party is the senior Coalition partner; OR he thinks that we have a three party system where the Liberal Party is akin to the Lib Dems; OR he’s confusing Australia with New Zealand.
George Negus let it go through to the keeper.
[Can anyone give me a logical reason to vote for the Liberal Party?]
Adherence to the principles of liberalism comes to mind.
[Adherence to the principles of liberalism comes to mind.]
Which is 360 degrees opposite to what Crazy Colin is proposing 🙂
[[President Barack Obama says he will end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy concerning gays in the military.]
Let’s see if he makes as big a mess of this as Clinton did. At least he won’t have to deal with open insubordination from Colin Powell as Clinton did.]
Wouldn’t repealling “don’t ask don’t tell” mean returning the pre-Clinton days of um, asking and telling (and discharging)?
Hopefully what he (or the journalist) actually meant was that he’d repeal the ban on gays in the military, a policy that long predates “don’t ask don’t tell”.
Damn! Can’t do nested comments.
Scroll back to Psephos at 171 if my previous post is confusing.
Good call, Psephos.
Let me get this straight.
The next Senate will have a clear cut Green balance of power, whether its a DD election or not, right?
So, if the CPRS hasn’t been passed, could it be passed with Greens support at that point? Or is the only way to pass it is to have a DD election?
There’s some related things I don’t quite get. What kind of game are the Greens playing? It could be said that they want a DD, but no that doesn’t make sense. If the government actually calls a DD then presumably there’s a very strong chance they’ll use a joint sitting and the Greens will be irrelevant. It seems to me the Greens best game play is to sit tight till the last moment and then negotiate a weaker set of amendments with the understanding that the CPRS will be further amended (gradual creep of targets etc) in the next Parliament. Presumably they’d be in a very good position to make that happen.
[The next Senate will have a clear cut Green balance of power, whether its a DD election or not, right?
So, if the CPRS hasn’t been passed, could it be passed with Greens support at that point? Or is the only way to pass it is to have a DD election?]
After a DD, if the government wants the bills which were the trigger for the DD passed, they must again be presented to the Reps and then to the Senate. Only if the Senate again rejects (or fails to pass) them can the PM ask the GG to convene a joint sitting.
So, if a DD next year returns a Senate in which the Greens hold the balance (as seems most likely), the Greens will have to decide whether to continue to oppose the CPRS bill, forcing the government to the timewasting and expense of a JS.
Ok well that helps a bit, but I still don’t understand the Green’s strategy..
[but I still don’t understand the Green’s strategy..]
Well they know their vote doesn’t matter in this case as Fielding will always vote “no”, sop even with all of their votes it still won’t pas. They know this, and the Govt know this, so that’s why the Govt is doing bugger all to bend to the Greens (and other reasons of course) and why the Greens aren’t particularly caring about looking to bend to the ALP.
What on earth possesses someone with engineering training to be so utterly brain dead.
[What on earth possesses someone with engineering training to be so utterly brain dead.]
Religion.
cud chewer, there are two possibilities;
a) the Greens only ever want to present themselves as a loud minority group and never broaden there support base by acting as a responsible party, or
b) the Greens are just being the wackaloons as we know them to be.
I’m going with B.
Well yes, religion does mess you up.. but.. I was wondering if Fielding’s motivations had more to do with the association between religious nutcases and anti-AGW nutcases in the US. Or whether its more local. That Fielding thinks he’s discovered a constituency in oz.
@197. Doubt it. The Greens have been around long enough to be given some professional credit. Of course a bit of hubris might be part of it, but I wouldn’t describe them as wackaloons.
Centre
They Greens are just advocating what the science says we should do. It’s pretty simple. The question should be why are the other parties not following the science.