Courtesy of Peter Brent at Mumble comes the first heavy duty opinion poll of the Tony Abbott era. The two-party vote shows little change, with Labor’s lead down from 57-43 to 56-44. However, it seems rounding might have smoothed the result out a little: the Coalition is up three points on the primary vote to 38 per cent (the Liberals on 34 per cent have swallowed a point from the Nationals) while Labor is steady on 43 per cent. No approval ratings on Abbott were sought, but his 60-23 deficit on preferred prime minister compares with 65-14 against for Turnbull last week and 63-22 a fortnight previous. The poll offers further evidence that the popular notion that Abbott has a particular problem with women voters is a load of hooey.
UPDATE: Essential Research: 58-42, unchanged on last week. 21 per cent of respondents say the Abbott ascendancy makes them more likely to vote Liberal; 33 per cent say less. Lots of questions on leadership perceptions, almost all of it more favourable to Rudd than Abbott.
[So Don, you do understand the Greens policy, you just don’t agree with it. In that case, don’t vote for them then, vote for the party that best represents your political persuasion.
However, your suggestion that as a result of the behaviour of greens supporters on PB, you had decided to go from putting the Greens second to placing them last does not hold water.]
If you thought the Libs and their Cheer Squad’s “Bad Tax” mantra was bad now – the fear campaign would’ve been magbnified 1,000 fold if the Green’s model got up.
I can’t get LP on Firefox – what has happened?
Robot
The Greens got more than they normally do, which is none, so even the small amount that they did is like gold.
[I know you will not agree, but the Green is really an one-trick pony with an oversimplistic view of the world, a lot of grandstanding but very little policy that can be viewed as practical. We laugh at the “extremist” Barnaby Joyce, yet some of the Green’s policy is no less, if not more extreme.]
Well, thank you for such a well-thought out response. I don’t agree with you, no, and think that you really have no idea about Green policies.
Green v ALP flame war… stfu
I guess LP will be happy, they can gauge that we do visit them.
[If you thought the Libs and their Cheer Squad’s “Bad Tax” mantra was bad now – the fear campaign would’ve been magbnified 1,000 fold if the Green’s model got up.]
Frank, you are not seriously suggesting that Green’s policy ought be guided by the views of the Lunatics in the Liberal party and their MSM nutjob allies are you?
luke@3060:
[However, your suggestion that as a result of the behaviour of greens supporters on PB, you had decided to go from putting the Greens second to placing them last does not hold water.]
I guess that’s true to some extent, I can see there is a hole in my logic.
Maybe I should have said that the behaviour of the greens here made me look critically at my uncritical acceptance of the position of the Greens on a number of issues, the Green posts here were a wake up call for me. Your interests are not served by some of your adherents, believe me.
But on this site the behaviour of most Green posters, or at least the sum total, the average tenor of Greens posts, does not inspire confidence in the brand.
If your party attracts such wingnuts, people who seem to be out of touch with reality to my eyes, then you have to wonder about the party as a whole, which can be heavily influenced by its supporters, as we have seen recently with the Liberals when they have been looking after their hard right constituents.
Hod to edit scrip in Firefox?
Hod = How
When I visit LP I get message ‘click here to renew it’. Should I do that with WindowsXP?
Don, it is true that the Greens are more left wing than the ALP.
That is a badge I wear with honour.
[Frank, you are not seriously suggesting that Green’s policy ought be guided by the views of the Lunatics in the Liberal party and their MSM nutjob allies are you?]
It is called Political reality – something the Greens and their cheer squad don’t believe in.
I use firefox and have no problems accessing LP. My settings are set to clear EVERYTHING when I close the browser, so maybe clearing cookies, cache, browsing history, active logons etc might do the trick?
Astrobleme,
[but in all seriousness you would struggle to find an attack on the ALP anything like the attacks on the Greens here.
So you may find it boring, as we do, but would you not defend your party against such ridiculous attacks?]
When it has to be pointed out time and time again to Greens posters here, that the political stance of the Greens in the Senate contradicts what they say stand for in regard to reducing GG’s (because there is only one economically viable way of doing so with either an ETS of Carbon Taxes), out comes personal attacks in defence of the Greens Party stance and a whole new heap of repetitive posts that have been rejected by Labor and even Lib posters as being irrelevant to “genuine” and economically feasible, green-house gas abatement all over again and again!
The responses “might” seem to you to be ridiculous, but it is apparent that you and many of your fellows have minds so closed on the position put forward by Brown & Milne, that you can’t see the inherent futility of that stance and the political irrelevance that stance leads to!
Frank
[If you thought the Libs and their Cheer Squad’s “Bad Tax” mantra was bad now – the fear campaign would’ve been magbnified 1,000 fold if the Green’s model got up.]
So what you are saying is that it was tactically better for Labor to side with the Libs for fear of political attack? Well yes, we’d have to be in agreement in that.
Doesn’t do much for climate change or reduce our emissions though does it?
Astrobleme
The paragraph you quoted was not a response to anything. It is my personal observation of the party you support, a party that seems to think that a government has only one department.
No matter. Let’s agree to disagree.
[use firefox and have no problems accessing LP. My settings are set to clear EVERYTHING when I close the browser, so maybe clearing cookies, cache, browsing history, active logons etc might do the trick?]
I have used half a dozen browsers with cache cleared… no LP.
Accessing from Darwin through tpg.
[Mark Riley on 7 news: “Barnaby on L plates.”]
That would be L for lunatic?
scorpio@3064:
[you can’t see the inherent futility of that stance and the political irrelevance that stance leads to!]
Thanks scorpio, that’s the thought I was trudging towards.
The problem is, that they will become relevant when they get the BOP, and that prospect is beginning to scare me when I look at the stance of the Greens in the CC debate.
Scorpio
[When it has to be pointed out time and time again to Greens posters here, that the political stance of the Greens in the Senate contradicts what they say stand for in regard to reducing GG’s (because there is only one economically viable way of doing so with either an ETS of Carbon Taxes), out comes personal attacks in defence of the Greens Party stance and a whole new heap of repetitive posts that have been rejected by Labor and even Lib posters as being irrelevant to “genuine” and economically feasible, green-house gas abatement all over again and again!]
They didn’t contradict themselves. They said they wouldn’t support it and they didn’t.
They do support the idea of a CPRS.
What personal attacks?
[I have used half a dozen browsers with cache cleared… no LP.
Accessing from Darwin through tpg.]
I’ve been told LP are having propogation issues with the domain.
From an earlier Tweet I pasted:
[LarvatusProdeo
RT @Daphon: Cleared cache etc. still not showing. May need to propagate again across all the ISPs (ie they need to refresh urls) 34 minutes ago from HootSuite ]
Don
[The problem is, that they will become relevant when they get the BOP, and that prospect is beginning to scare me when I look at the stance of the Greens in the CC debate.]
So now you understand why they didn’t support the initial CPRS. That would get passed with or without their support. They never supported it, so why would they support something that never wanted to, had no input in, and don’t agree with?
Robot
[It is my personal observation of the party you support, a party that seems to think that a government has only one department.]
yes, this is your personal observation. I know that this is wrong, however, being a member of the Greens.
[The problem is, that they will become relevant when they get the BOP, and that prospect is beginning to scare me when I look at the stance of the Greens in the CC debate.]
Don,
Fielding shares the BOP at the moment and has wielded this power in an extremely detrimental way to all Australians (as an aside, he also voted against the ETS).
He is only there because the ALP preferenced him directly after the ALP ahead of all others on their Senate ticket in Victoria in 2004.
Yet, you somehow don’t feel any concerns about voting for the ALP?
[Don,
Fielding shares the BOP at the moment and has wielded this power in an extremely detrimental way to all Australians (as an aside, he also voted against the ETS).
He is only there because the ALP preferenced him directly after the ALP ahead of all others on their Senate ticket in Victoria in 2004.
Yet, you somehow don’t feel any concerns about voting for the ALP?]
One small problem with your whackaloon theory – in a NORMAL election Fielding wouldn’t have gotten up, but thanks to Latham, the ALP Sentae vote went DOWN, and as a result we got Fielding.
Oh and the Greens can’t claim the moral high ground when they voted against one vote one value in the WA Upper House which resulted in the Nationals getting the balance of power 🙂
[…why they didn’t support the initial CPRS. That would get passed with or without their support. They never supported it, so why would they support something that never wanted to, had no input in, and don’t agree with?]
Because it would have been a good start to generate public support for even stronger targets? Now that’d be a good idea.
The Greens insist on owning the ETS and will continue to oppose Labor’s efforts. The Green’s strategy will amount to six tenths of nothing when the proposed ETS is passed at a joint sitting next year.
[How to edit scrip in Firefox?]
TP, i have just managed to edit the script in Firebox and got rid of another annoying Green poster, the female variety. Happy to share it but no warranty given. But it works!!!!! 👿 👿
So you can just keep on “eliminating” annoying posters.
[Hilarious caption Adam, you are such a card.]
I try to amuse.
[BTW, don’t forget it was your dodgy preference deals that put Fielding there.]
I never forget it for a minute. It was an excellent deal, and would have delivered Labor three Senate seats had not Mark Latham driven down our primary vote to the point where Fielding was able to leapfrog us by getting Democrat preferences. Our preferences then elected him ahead of the Green. Since I presume Senator Risstrom, had he been elected, would have voted with the other Greens against the CPRS just as Fielding did, I don’t see that the outcome made much difference. Fielding is certainly annoying, but no more so than Senator Extremely-Young, who after 18 months in the Senate still hasn’t worked out how to move a motion.
[TP, i have just managed to edit the script in Firebox and got rid of another annoying Green poster, the female variety. Happy to share it but no warranty given. But it works!!!!! 👿 👿
So you can just keep on “eliminating” annoying posters.]
Please Share 🙂
Finns
Is there an anti-cetacean script? 👿
[Finns – Is there an anti-cetacean script?]
Diog, watch it. i can make you disappear.
[Fielding is certainly annoying, but no more so than Senator Extremely-Young, who after 18 months in the Senate still hasn’t worked out how to move a motion.]
Ahh, the same person who wanted to turn the Senate Chamber into her own private creche 🙂
Frank, the “how to” is on the way. i hope Mushy is OK with this.
[I never forget it for a minute. It was an excellent deal, and would have delivered Labor three Senate seats had not Mark Latham driven down our primary vote to the point where Fielding was able to leapfrog us by getting Democrat preferences. Our preferences then elected him ahead of the Green.]
Oh, okay, your leader was crap. That makes it all okay then, don’t worry about it.
[Ahh, the same person who wanted to turn the Senate Chamber into her own private creche]
Aaah, Frank, anti-women and now anti-family.
Astrobleme,
[What personal attacks?]
Don’t you read your fellow Greens supporters posts?
Having trouble remembering the many snide and sarcastic comments made to others besides myself?
Forgot the 400 IQ one have we? Selective amnesia won’t work here!
It is so easy to do a search of PB and pull them up just to remind you if you like!
But maybe that wouldn’t be appropriate to your agenda of denial, would it? 😉
[ Ahh, the same person who wanted to turn the Senate Chamber into her own private creche
Aaah, Frank, anti-women and now anti-family]
No, she was EXTREMELY selfish, she could’ve easily excused herself from the chamber to say her goodbyes.
Nice try at VERBALLING.
[Having trouble remembering the many snide and sarcastic comments made to others besides myself?]
Snide and sarcastic?
Glass jaw anyone, better get a corporate account with Windscreens OBrien, Pot meet kettle etc etc etc
Finns
Me too please with the stfu :kiss:
[Snide and sarcastic?
Glass jaw anyone, better get a corporate account with Windscreens OBrien, Pot meet kettle etc etc etc]
Aww Diddums, doesn’t like being given a taste of his own medicine.
Party discipline to date following elevation of Leader of the Opposition, Weeks 1/2:
1. Backbencher Turnbull throws a bucket of ordure on the team. *what goes round comes round*
2. Dr Jensen makes public his displeasure with not being elevated following his public role in throwing ordure at the previous leader. *there is no honour amongst thieves*
2. Sharman Stone makes public a certain peevishness over being demoted. Probably felt that she had at least matched Ruddock in refugee dog whistling and should have been adulated like Ruddock was by the party faithful. *dishonourable victim of the extreme Right is Might*
3. Abbott, having promised to consult on policy, almost immediately fails to do so when he makes statements about the ETS. *first failed promise*
4. Abbott, having failed to notice that the Government had already released Treasury modelling on the ETS, demands that they release it. *a whiff of road kill in the air*
5. Andrews, frothing at the mouth, remembering how good the Haneef thing had really felt in his heart starts blabbering about reduced immigration numbers. *reverse Rip Van Winkle with inner right wing lurch and twist*.
6. Joyce opines that states might default on their loans and the Chinese should bugger off with their filthy money. *the best retail politician in Australia in full flight*
So, no one has offered odds yet on whose head is going to explode first, Abbott’s or Joyce’s? It’s only taken 3 days for Abbott to have to hose down Barnaby’s economic broadsides. When asked whether or not he might be having second thoughts about Barnaby as Shadow Finance tonight on PM, you could just about hear the gritting of his teeth and the mental gears as he attempted to spin it to the positive.
Very entertaining.
It also occurs to me that Rudd and Gillard’s cool response to all this chest thumping and machismo is just going to infuriate Abbott and Joyce even more. After all, they want a fight, a bit of biffo. For Joyce to have Bowen saying the equivalent of “you silly person, do please stfu, you’re making a fool of yourself” must be galling to say the least. For which read, Tanner couldn’t even be bothered getting out of bed to respond, and on top of it to be reined in by Abbott. Whoo, I reckon my bets on Barnaby’s head going first.
He’s actually dumb, isn’t he? Politically dumb, specifically, and what does that say about Abbott’s political smarts? This is the way to preserve their base?
Garnaut points out that “direct action” will cost a lot more than an ETS or carbon tax. Abbott will just dismiss his comments as not consistent with his version of reality.
[
But Prof Garnaut says abandoning a market-based solution doesn’t make sense.
“If you didn’t have an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax … it would be much more expensive (to reduce emissions),” he told ABC Radio today.
“That’s not to say it’s impossible, it would just be a lot poorer.
“It would require intrusive regulation, it would require officials deciding you couldn’t do this and you couldn’t do that.” ]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26473251-5005962,00.html
[Glass jaw anyone, better get a corporate account with Windscreens OBrien, Pot meet kettle etc etc etc]
Are you posting as Luke and Astrobleme from the same place but different IP addresses?
Boerwar
[Andrews, frothing at the mouth, remembering how good the Haneef thing had really felt in his heart starts blabbering about reduced immigration numbers. *reverse Rip Van Winkle with inner right wing lurch and twist]
It’s not even Andrews’ portfolio. I’d be pretty annoyed if I was Morrison.
[No, she was EXTREMELY selfish, she could’ve easily excused herself from the chamber to say her goodbyes.]
I see no reason why a young child can’t be in the chamber during a division.
I do think it would be wrong for a child to be in the chamber during a debate.
[Garnaut points out that “direct action” will cost a lot more than an ETS or carbon tax.]
Of course, the Garnaut report recommends an ETS as the cheapest option.
http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/09/hostages-abbotts-shadow-cabinet
Very interesting article; suggests the moderates have been snookered, by giving them positions in shadow cabinet which impose cabinet solidarity upon them but doesn’t give them any real power to control policy; and by recruiting enough of the potential floor crossers in the Senate to ensure that there aren’t enough of them left to get the CPRS passed.
[Are you posting as Luke and Astrobleme from the same place but different IP addresses?]
Curses, they’re onto me.
No.
Dio
Yep. Sweet. Counts double.