The Australian reports the latest Newspoll has Labor bouncing from last fortnight’s 52-48 quirk to 56-44. Interesting to note that Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings were unaffected by the upheaval: while the two-party rating went from 59-41 to 52-48 to 56-44, preferred prime minister went from 65-19 to 63-19 to 63-22. More to follow. Also:
• Essential Research‘s two-party figure has lurched from 59-41 to 55-45, the lowest lead for Labor in its 18 months of operation. These figures combine two weeks of polling, suggesting a particularly sharp drop was recorded in the most recent survey. Further questions in the survey focus on issues of national importance, party best able to handle various economic issues (Coalition leads Labor on “government debt” by 24 points), importance of a national broadband network (high) and who should run it (the feds or failing that Telstra), which kinds of organisations are the most influential (media and the banks) and whether emissions trading scheme legislation should be delayed until after Copenhagen (slight lean to yes).
• Full results from Saturday’s Newspoll survey of marginal Queensland seats here. Labor holds remarkably consistent 3 to 4 per cent leads across all of them, including three they hold, two they don’t and one (Dickson) which the redistribution has changed from Liberal to notional Labor.
• The Greens have published a Galaxy survey on attitudes to climate change, the dubiousness of which is explored by Andrew Norton.
• Kirsty Needham of the Sydney Morning Herald reports Werriwa MP Chris Hayes has received support from the state secretaries of the Right faction Transport Workers Union and Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. A deal at federal level gives Werriwa to the Left in exchange for a clear run for the Right in Fowler, leaving Hayes to contest marginal Macarthur.
• Alex Easton of the Northern Star names Tweed mayor Joan van Lieshout as a potential Liberal candidate for (federal) Richmond.
SO@1739:
[It’s here:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2748161.htm
]
Thanks, SO, much appreciated.
[The person who has been misleading and dishonest has been Rudd. Journalists have pointed that out, many many of them. ]
Oh dear, quoting journos. Herr Diog, talking about scrapping the bottom of the eyelid.
the credibility of journos these days are just slightly above used car salesmen and just a tad lower than some of the shonky MDs. 😛
[Yes, good point, you have no case.]
It’s rather poor form to pretend that we are arguing about something else. We are going to stick to the subject like Araldite.
So, I have no case that I don’t recall disputing satellite measurements? Again, I am supposed to prove a negative?
[Never, so far as I am aware.]
But Don, you used TJ’s one interview to show the ABC is not a biased organisation.
[But Tony has been accused of right wing bias by some PBers, and this is an instance where that allegation is at least “not proved”.]
So one interview disproves that does it? I would have thought the proof of the pudding is in the interviews conducted over a period of time. By the way I’m not arguing that TJ is biased to one side or the other. I’m just questioning the use of one interview to prove anything to do with bias.
It’s a matter of public record that Annabel Crabb was the MC at a fundraiser for Pru Goward.
Whether or not that is a smear is a matter for the reader.
http://bowral.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/pru-gowards-campaign-for-reelection-starts/1608782.aspx
[The person who has been misleading and dishonest has been Rudd.
Journalists have pointed that out, many many of them. ]
It’s known as group think, Dio. They all try to outdo each other with their articles. They’ve been doing it since the last election – not an original thought among them.
The special deal – same as Christmas Island people. Processed within 12 weeks if not previously UNHCR approved. Given same rights in Oz as CI people and given by Howard Govt. once they hit Australia.
Where Rudd was wrong was in not doing what Howard di. Make no excuses – go full steam ahead.
Yesterday Frank Kelly suggested to Chris Evans that from now he should silently deal with asylum seekers as the Howard Govt. had on the assumption that what the media don’t know they can’t talk about, I guess. How sleezy is that.
Would it be a good thing, or a bad thing for the Liberals if Abbott replaced Turnball as leader? Sure it’d unify the hard right and the loony element, but what about the left of the Liberal Party? Isn’t there a danger that a few of them might leave the Coalition and become indepedents or(god forbid) join the ALP?
The problem with Annabel’s essay on Turnbull was not the subject manner but a couple of asides where she made it clear that she really really believed Howard was a conviction politician, courageous and unswerving in his commitment to his ideals. Some of her references to Howard seemed even a bit cutesy.
So, if you believe Howard (Howard!!) had unshakeable convictions which looked upon opinion polls and were not swayed, and that he was a cute little fluffy bunny as well, you’re NOT going to be favouring Rudd.
Sigh. Because sometimes I find her quite amusing.
[Yesterday Frank Kelly suggested to Chris Evans that from now he should silently deal with asylum seekers as the Howard Govt. had on the assumption that what the media don’t know they can’t talk about, I guess. How sleezy is that.]
BH, people like Herr Diog would prefer “See no evil, hear no evil, therefore there is no evil”. But if you are open and upfront, they pick on the smallest “negative” thing to criticise as if life just has to be 100% perfect.
Don
Thank you for filibuster.
[but what about the left of the Liberal Party?]
The Liberal party has a Left?
What about what’s left of the Liberal party?
[It’s known as group think, Dio.]
Umm no. It’s pointing out the blindingly obvious.
Finns
The usual ad hominem attack on anyone who doesn’t mindlessly parrot the Labor line. It’s funny that we don’t hear that journos have no credibility when they attack the Liberals.
And Annabel Crabb gets an ad hominem attack because of any association with the Liberal Party but Cassidy is still a right-wing hack despite having been Hawke’s press secretary.
The double standards of so many arguments here are just dismal.
Psephos
I’m going to stick up for the Deniers here. The best consensus we have is the IPCC and they say it’s 90% probability that AGW is real. There is still a 10% chance that it’s not so it’s valid to look at both sides of the science.
However, on a risk management and political POV it is NOT reasonable to argue that we shouldn’t do anything and bet on the 10% side that AGW isn’t real because the cost of inaction is so high.
Has Simon Crean had some hair-colouring done?!?!
[The usual ad hominem attack on anyone who doesn’t mindlessly parrot the Labor line. It’s funny that we don’t hear that journos have no credibility when they attack the Liberals.]
Diog, why would we attack the journos who got class and quality. But in this case, i will forgive you again because you have lived over 40s for too many days.
It’s only mild 31c here in the deep blue of Sydney. 👿
Tony, tuckey, barnaby and mincer- slay them all where they stand. The world is flat and the those scientist will realise this when they fall off the world into eternal damnation.
Finns – that’s the thing that annoys me. In trying to be more open they lay themselves bare. I like more openness(?) but there should be a responsbility on the journalists to report factually.
In fact I think if the journos lie or distort facts then the retraction should be as huge as the headlines they printed in the first place. Or given the same prominence as the original story on telly.
This mornig Keiran Gilbert was positively boring when talking to Simon Crean. Is he so dense that he can’t understand the answer as soon as it’s given.
The funniest part is that the journos accuse Kev of too much spin and repetitive phrasing. What on earth do they call it when they do it! Urrrgghh!! Give us more like George Megalogenis I say and ditch the rest of them. At least he goes at both sides with the same grace which is how it should be.
Xenophon’s attack on Scientology has made the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/18/scientology-torture-allegations-australia
[Rudd said the allegations were “grave” and that he would consider an inquiry, but said the evidence needed to be looked at carefully. “Many people in Australia have real concerns about Scientology. I share some of those concerns. But let us proceed carefully, and look carefully at the material which he has provided, before we make a decision on further parliamentary action,” Rudd said.]
GB@1754:
[But Don, you used TJ’s one interview to show the ABC is not a biased organisation.]
Say what?
I gave one instance, to show that there is at least one instance, of TJ not being right wing biased.
I never watch television, so the number of TV shows I get to see is limited to those I spare the time for online.
In recent weeks I have taken the time to look at programs PBers have said prove ABC bias to the right, and to my lights they are not biased in the least, or are left biased.
This is another such instance, but in this case PBers said, rightly, that TJ gave a right wing politician a hard time.
My remaining time on earth is limited.
Spending that time proving one thing or the other about ABC bias does not form a major part of my list of priorities. All I can do is comment on the episodes on TV that I have watched because they were highlighted by PBers in recent weeks. So far, it’s ABC unbiased or left biased – three, ABC right – zero.
A very personal and limited assessment, I agree!
What is your assessment, and on what grounds?
Finns
I note that the same journo has class and quality when they criticise the Liberals but they become disreputable with no credibility when they criticise Labor.
I’m in Broken Hill enjoying the Broken Hill rain today (BH rain is dust filtering down). Adelaide is in the 20’s today.
[BH, people like Herr Diog would prefer “See no evil, hear no evil, therefore there is no evil”.]
There really are a lot of shattered glass jaws at PB at the moment. :kiss:
[I gave one instance, to show that there is at least one instance, of TJ not being right wing biased. ]
Exactly. So how is one instance proof?
dario@1771:
[Exactly. So how is one instance proof?]
Dario, it’s not.
Psephos:
[The only people who don’t accept the science on AGW now are those who are too stupid or too blinded by right-wing ideology (usually both).]
Unless you’ve actually studied the science in detail I don’t know how you could reach that conclusion. We just keep hearing in the mainstream media that the IPCC says this or that and we are expected to just swallow it. Amost everybody’s position on AGW is determined by what they are told is known, not what they actually know. Essentially, you are saying that anyone who doesn’t put complete trust in the IPCC is either stupid or blinded by right-wing ideology.
Dario, did you read what I wrote at 1769?
[I’m in Broken Hill ].
As hot as ,say, Damascus!
😉
[There really are a lot of shattered glass jaws at PB at the moment]
I think you are confusing your work with your blogging duties!
[Now, you other dissers of our ABC, did Tony forget his script about delivering coalition propaganda, or what?]
Maybe you just worded it badly Don but the above gives me the impression you were using TJ’s interview to show the ABC was unbiased.
As for what I think of the ABC, I have watched many “Insiders” programs and they are a mixed bag. I have to say though that I think there was a tendency for the ABC to “over correct” the impression, a few years ago, that they were “left leaning”. In doing so they look foolish at times. I just ask for balance and accuracy. I feel the ABC doesn’t do either very well at times.
Dio – Finns comments was in reference to Fran Kelly telly the Immigration Minister that frm now he should do what Howard did. Keep all the nasties about asylum seekers quiet then there would be no fuss from the media.
And that was how the Howard Govt. operated until they were found about – AWB SIEVX et al.
The media were quite complicit during those years. Many of them were also in the know about things but kept them quiet. It was easier to be fed their media releases by the Lib pollies and then print them almost word for word as per the Editor/owners’ views.
That doesn’t happen now. They have to do the work for themselves and many of them don’t have the easy life they were used to. Hence Rudd is a workaholic, etc. etc.
I want Chris Evans to tell us what is going on whether we like it or not and I hope you won’t tell me that you agree with Fran Kelly’s suggestion to Evans. BTW she treated him with respect during that interview and was fair.
[There really are a lot of shattered glass jaws at PB at the moment.]
You can fix yours can’t you dio?
The ABC puzzles me!
Sure they claim they’re doing their job of holding the government to account, but I don’t recall the same scrutiny applied to the Howard government’s policies/actions.
When ABC Online resembles a Liberal Party propoganda montage, I have to ask where is their objectivity?
ShowsOn gave me a bit of stick a while ago for suggesting that despite Tony Abbott saying that he thought the CPRS should be passed he was indeed a climate sceptic and the hardliners’ candidate of choice in a leadership ballot against Joe Hockey.
I note this from Bernard Keane in today’s crikey.
[And Tony Abbott, insisting that the Government must accept every single amendment or there’ll be no deal, has sent a clear signal to party conservatives that he’s no longer in the Turnbull camp on the issue. Earlier this year, Abbott was arguing that regardless of whether they believed in climate change or not — and he doesn’t — the electorate wanted action and the issue was hurting the Coalition.
So now the party conservatives and denialists have a leadership candidate in Abbott, as opposed to Joe Hockey, who is strongly backing the Turnbull line on the ETS. The problem for the conservatives thus far has been that rolling Turnbull and forcing him out wouldn’t produce a leader with a different approach on climate change, given both Hockey, the likely successor, and Abbott wanted the issue dealt with and removed from the agenda.]
I have always believed that this would eventually come to pass, that is, that Abbott would reveal his true colours on climate change.
[Dario, did you read what I wrote at 1769?]
Yes
[The ABC puzzles me!
Sure they claim they’re doing their job of holding the government to account, but I don’t recall the same scrutiny applied to the Howard government’s policies/actions.
When ABC Online resembles a Liberal Party propoganda montage, I have to ask where is their objectivity?]
Remember, Janet and friends were only put on the ABC board to dust off the furniture
[Remember, Janet and friends were only put on the ABC board to dust off the furniture]
I hope you keep a copy of these trueisms and put em into a book
😉
Only 27% of Republicans think Obama legitimately won the 2008 election.
The over all figure is 62%, which is still shockingly low:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/poll-majority-of-republic_n_363984.html
Rewi @ 1780
Nice post. Next two questions: 1. Does this mean that Minchin is doing the usual, ie, kingmaking, or is he setting himself up to have a go after then next election, whenever held? 2. Where do those Liberals go who know that AGW is on?
Think the ABC scrutinised the Howard government very well early in their term in government but they copped a lot of flack for it from the government and their supporters. The government set out to change this through public pressure and staff changes, which worked. Now the ABC tries to bend over backwards to show they are unbiased but do a piss poor job of it. I recall the report that indicated that the ABC news was the most biased against the Rudd government. If they were doing their job properly the finding should have read “no bias either way”.
[ShowsOn gave me a bit of stick a while ago for suggesting that despite Tony Abbott saying that he thought the CPRS should be passed he was indeed a climate sceptic]
Fair go, Abbott has clearly changed his mind. A couple of months ago he was clearly advocating that the Coalition pass the bills, now he is saying that for the sake of Coalition unity the bills should be opposed.
Abbott seems to feel that this could quickly turn into a massive test of Turnbull’s leadershipo, Abbott can’t alienate himself from the Liberal party’s right wing by being on the wrong side of that debate.
My jaw is very robust and doesn’t shatter very easily. And as you say I can fix my own with a few plates and screws and a good mirror.
BH
I was a dyed in the wool Howard Hater. I’m not sure what Finns was getting at.
Abbott probably sees the leadership waiting for him (delusionally or otherwise) if he plays his cards right.
[I hope you keep a copy of these trueisms and put em into a book]
I might just do that! 🙂
@ 1755
She was asked about this via twitter – if I recall correctly (and I may well be wrong) she replied she’d done a similar thing for a Labor pollie a while earlier.
I think Rudd would be licking his lips at the thought of taking on Abbott and a divided Liberal Party!
Forget the OV saga and the boat people scare campaign(the last shot in the locker for the Liberals and the elements of the media still hankering for the days of Howard)……climate change and the ETS is the thing tearing the Liberals apart, and gifting Rudd an increased majority in both chambers.
Should we be considering the possibility that the Coalition joint partyroom will ultimately decide to block the legislation, but then 7 Liberal Senators who support Malcolm Turnbull will cross the floor, thus allowing the legislation to pass?
Abbott leading the Liberal Party – now there’s a pile of shit just waiting to happen.
ShowsOn, on any well-formed reading of Abbott’s politics his prior statements – that is, the ones he made in between the ones where he’s clearly a sceptic and which you then hung your argument on – were an aberration that could be understood as mere political chicanery.
Boerwar, I don’t believe that Nick Minchin is or has ever been interested in the leadership of the Liberal Party. The Liberals who think that climate change is a problem will no doubt do exactly the same thing as those who opposed their Party’s position on asylum seekers: bitch and moan and do precisely nothing.
The Earth is flat like the pancake
Burgey, thanks for that info, I haven’t seen any coverage to that effect.
Their radio news is without a shadow of doubt, a propaganda arm of the coalition. At a time when the coalition is tearing itself apart over climate change, the latest divisions were briefly mentioned about 7th story in, and then spun to favour the Liberals.
By the 9.00am bulletin the story had entirely disappeared to be replaced by a negative story on the stimulus package and the now obligatory opposition spokesperson.
How people, no matter what side of politics they come from can be so sanguine about this is beyond me. Surely the role of the ABC in a functioning democracy is too important to be left to the current crop of hacks posing as journalists.
[7 Liberal Senators who support Malcolm Turnbull will cross the floor, thus allowing the legislation to pass]
The question is, who will they be?
[I was a dyed in the wool Howard Hater.]
Many of us were from a very early time, Dio, but the majority won and we put up with it. Not sure I want to go back to that Howard/Minchin/Abbot/Abetz/Ruddock/Andrews style of Govt. again.
Kev was right in QT yesterday – you wouldn’t want Turnbull’s job for quids. I’ve no time for him but to have to deal with that lot for more than a week would drive one nutty. Labor’s got a few whackos, too, but they are not of the meanspirited variety like the RWers.