The first Roy Morgan face-to-face poll of Tony Abbott’s Liberal leadership covers the last two weekends of polling, and it fails to replicate the encouraging results for Abbott in Morgan’s two earlier small-sample phone polls. Labor’s primary vote is up two points on Malcolm Turnbull’s last poll to 49 per cent, while the Coalition is up 0.5 per cent to 35.5 per cent. The Greens are down 1.5 per cent to 8 per cent. Labor’s lead on two-party preferred is up from 58.5-41.5 to 59-41.
Festive preselection action:
• Former Davis Cup tennis player John Alexander has won the Liberal preselection for Bennelong, having earlier tried and failed in Bradfield. Despite predictions of a close contest, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Left-backed Alexander had an easy first round win over local business executive Mark Chan, scoring 67 votes in the ballot of 120 preselectors. As the Herald tells it, “the right split and the hard right deserted Mr Chan”, although VexNews notes the seat is “not a centre of factional operations for either camp”. The also-rans were businessman Steve Foley and financial services director Melanie Matthewson.
• Wanneroo mayor Jon Kelly has withdrawn his nomination for Labor preselection in the Perth northern suburbs federal seat of Cowan, after earlier being considered certain to get the gig. This comes in the wake of a Corruption and Crime Commission finding that Kelly had put himself at “risk” of misconduct through his relationship with Brian Burke. Burke presumably knew what he was doing when he subsequently endorsed Kelly, going on to say he had “sought my help on many occasions and I’ve always been available to assist him”. The West Australian reported the withdrawal was the product of a “mutual” decision reached after “a week of talks with Labor officials”, which included federal campaign committee chairman and Brand MP Gary Gray. Potential replacements named by The West are Dianne Guise and Judy Hughes, who respectively lost their local seats of Wanneroo and Kingsley at the state election last September. The ABC reports a decision is expected in mid-January.
• The Western Australian ALP has also confirmed Tim Hammond, Louise Durack and ECU history lecturer Bill Leadbetter as candidates for Swan, Stirling and Pearce.
• The NSW Liberals have selected incumbents Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Bill Heffernan to head their Senate ticket, reversing the order from 2004. The Coalition agreement reserves the third position for the Nationals – I am not aware of any suggestion their candidate will be anyone other than incumbent Fiona Nash. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports Heffernan needed the backing of Tony Abbott to ward off challenges from David Miles, a public relations executive with Pfizer, and George Bilic, a Blacktown councillor.
• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald notes Left figurehead Anthony Albanese’s chutzpah in calling for the Macquarie preselection to be determined by rank-and-file party ballot, after the role he played in imposing numerous candidates elsewhere as a member of the party’s national executive. Albanese reportedly believes Left candidate Susan Templeman would win a local ballot, although the earlier mail was that the Right’s Adam Searle had the numbers and it was the Left who wanted national executive intervention.
• Final Liberal two-party margin from the Bradfield by-election: 14.8 per cent. From Higgins: 10.2 per cent. Respective turnouts were 81.51 per cent and 79.00 per cent, compared with 80.12 per cent at the Mayo by-election, 87.41 per cent in Lyne and 89.68 per cent in Gippsland. Question: if the results have been declared, why hasn’t the AEC published preference distributions?
• VexNews reports Saturday’s Liberal preselection for the Victorian state seat of Ripon was a clear win for the unsuccessful candidate from 2006, Vic Dunn, who my records tell me is “the local inspector at Maryborough”. Dunn reportedly scored 53 votes against 26 for Institute of Public Affairs agriculture policy expert and preselection perennial Louise Staley and four for local winery owner John van Beveren. Joe Helper holds the seat for Labor on a maergin of 4.3 per cent.
• The Berwick Star reports that Lorraine Wreford, the newly elected mayor of Casey, refused to confirm or deny reports she lodged a nomination for Liberal preselection in the state seat of Mordialloc last Friday. Janice Munt holds the seat for Labor on a margin of 3.5 per cent.
• The Country Voice SA website reports that one of its regular contributors, former SA Nationals president Wilbur Klein, will be the party’s candidate for Flinders at the March state election. The seats was held by the party prior to 1993, when it was won by its now-retiring Liberal member Liz Penfold.
• On Tuesday, The West Australian provided further data from the 400-sample Westpoll survey discussed a few posts ago, this time on attitudes to an emissions trading scheme. Forty per cent wanted it adopted immediately, down from 46 per cent two months ago. However, there was also a fall in the number wanting the government to wait until other countries committed to targets, from 47 per cent to 43 per cent. The remainder “ favoured other options to cut emissions or did not know”.
• Paul Murray of The West Australian offers some interesting electoral history on the occasion of the passing of former Liberal-turned-independent state MP Ian Thompson:
Shortly after the State election in February 1977, allegations began to emerge from both sides of politics about dirty deeds in the seat of Kimberley. Liberal sitting member Alan Ridge beat Labor’s Ernie Bridge on preferences by just 93 votes. The Liberals were the first to strike, claiming Labor was manipulating Aboriginal voters, but the move backfired badly. A subsequent Court of Disputed Returns case turned up scathing evidence of a deliberate Liberal campaign to deny Aboriginals the vote using underhand tactics and the election result was declared void on November 7.
Returning officers in the Kimberley for years had allowed illiterate Aboriginals to use party how-to-vote cards as an indication of their voting intention. What became apparent later was that Labor had put hundreds of Aboriginal voters on the roll and generally mobilised the indigenous community. The Liberals flew a team of young lawyers up from Perth to act as scrutineers at polling booths, with a plan to stop illiterate voters. The Court government pressured the chief electoral officer to instruct returning officers in the Kimberley to challenge illiterate voters and not accept their how-to-vote cards.
The court case turned up a letter of thanks from Mr Ridge to a Liberal Party member, who stood as an independent, saying “a third name on the ballot paper created some confusion among the illiterate voters and there is no doubt in my mind that it played a major part in having me re-elected”. Mr Ridge’s letter said that unless the Electoral Act was changed to make it more difficult for illiterate Aboriginals to cast their votes, the Liberals would not be able to win the seat.
Two days after the court ordered a new election, premier Sir Charles introduced in the Legislative Assembly a Bill to do just that. How-to-vote cards could not be used, nor could an instruction of a vote for just one candidate. Labor went ballistic, saying no illiterate voter would meet the test.
What transpired over nine hours was one of the most bitter debates ever seen in the WA Parliament and the galvanising of a new breed of Labor head kickers – Mr Burke, Mal Bryce, Bob Pearce and Arthur Tonkin, who came to power six years later. On November 10, it became apparent that the government was in trouble when one of the four National Country Party members not in the coalition Cabinet, Hendy Cowan, said he opposed the Bill because it disenfranchised all illiterate voters. When it came to the vote, the four NCP members crossed the floor and the maverick Liberal member for Subiaco, Dr Tom Dadour, abstained. The numbers split 25-25.
From the Speaker’s chair, Ian Thompson calmly noted that the law said when a Court of Disputed Returns ordered a by-election it had to be held under the same conditions as the original poll. If the Government wanted to amend the Electoral Act, it should do so after the by-election.
“Therefore I give my casting vote with the ‘Noes’ and the Bill is defeated,” he said. Hansard unusually recorded applause.
[should any Australian be subjected to star chamber type procedures]
With the ABCC it is only unions subject to such, they are not quizzing the employers on why people were being forced to work in dangerous situations especially after the danger was pointed out to them.
[Workchoices was also highly popular in 2005 and 2006 ]
And I noticed that the boats have stopped since Abbott said he will bring in Work Choices Mark III. More proof of the link between Work Choices and the boats.
Just on the question of whether Copenhagen 2009 “failed” or not, there were pre-conference meetings and pre-circulated written draft texts with intended outcomes.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf
They were not achieved. Hence Copenhagen was a “failure” or for those who don’t like this nasty spin Copenhagen “achieved outcomes other than those intended and required by its organisers”.
Copenhagen or COP15 is described here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
[Workchoices was also highly popular in 2005 and 2006 because Howards numbers weren’t budging with Beazley in power.]
LOL!!!!
Howard spent $250M of taxpayers money trying to put “lipstick” on that “pig”!
It was so popular, it cost him government and he lost his seat into the bargain to a first time Labor candidate! 😉
scorpio
Congratulations – a great outcome. (I usually just fulminate)
The Howard Govt donated piles of out money to the right wing media grubs in exchange for support. But once he started to rot no amount of newspaper underarm could hide the stench. The putrid and magotted body of John Howard was cut down by Maxine McKew on 24th November 2007, never was there a better peace time serivce done for Australians.
[ good article today from The Australian about the current situation on Christmas Island:]
Noone gives a rats ass. Why do you keep posting about boat people, when noone here is interested in reading about it?
[The Howard Govt donated piles of out money to the right wing media grubs in exchange for support. But once he started to rot no amount of newspaper underarm could hide the stench. The putrid and magotted body of John Howard was cut down by Maxine McKew on 24th November 2007, never was there a better peace time serivce done for Australians.]
Don’t hold back, Tom. Tell us what you really think.
Well, I give a rat’s arse about boat people.
And, I am interested in Truthies’ posts on boat people. I don’t agree with them very much, but I am interested.
[And, I am interested in Truthies’ posts on boat people. I don’t agree with them very much, but I am interested.]
Well I suppoe from the point of view you might be interested in seeing (say) Hitler’s Nuremburg rally speech, but that doesn’t mean you need it on a 24×7 loop. (yes I know this breaches Godwins Law but it’s to shortcut to the point)
Boerwar.
The problem with Truthie’s posts is that he seems to have absorbed what appears to be the dominant culture on this website – keep repeating mantras.
[Blood on Kevin Rudd’s hands.]
BS
[Peter Young
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 10:48 am | Permalink
fredn
Politics seems to attract the petty as well as the great who change the country. You have to take the good with the bad, that’s life.
I didn’t expect to see such a capital “C” conservative attitude expressed here.]
As the great Australian reformers I most admire are Keating and Whitlam, I have difficulty seeing my viewpoint as conservative. Perhaps a disillusioned conservative who realises the conservatives throw up the petty and the Labor party the reformers.
[Blood on Kevin Rudd’s hands.]
Every person that died between 1996 and 2007 was John Howard’s responsibility. John Howard has blood on his hands.
Well, what is Obama going to do about it? We want leadership, Sir!!!!!!!!!
[Obama says disappointment over Copenhagen is valid – US president Barack Obama says people are justified in being disappointed by the outcome of the Copenhagen summit on climate change.
But he said in an interview with with US PBS television’s Newshour that at least there had not been too much “backsliding” on previous positions.
He said this was preferable to a complete collapse of the talks.
The summit ended with no binding deal, but with nations “taking note” of a need to limit temperature rises to 2C.
“I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen,” Mr Obama said.
“Rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, in which nothing at all got done and would have been a huge backward step, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn’t too much backsliding from where we were.” ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8429310.stm
People should reflect on where we would be now if John Howard was PM. The GFC would have been used as an excuse to extend Workchoices, I doubt he would have responded the way Rudd did with the GFC as I think they didn’t have a great relationship with Treasury (or Costello). There would be zero action on CC except as another tool to funnel excess money to the Green Mafia. He would have to deal with the POTUS he said was the friend of terrorists.
LOL
My granddad died in 2004 from natural causes
Now I know who to blame 😆
Toothy’s posts have no teeth just exposed gum.
I realize that Truthie has a mantra and that he is repetitive at times.
But he also brings along new information from time to time.
It is good to see someone sticking to his guns who has appears to have the view of only a very small minority amongst posters here.
As I said, I don’t agree with much of what he writes, but I find it interesting.
I would love to have attended the Nuremburg rallies. Some of the greatest poltical drama of all time. There would have been the moral issue about whether attending implied support, of course.
If I have my family history correct my father listened to some of the Nuremburg productions on radio. He said it was stirring stuff at the time. Of course the gloss wore off a bit when reality set in and the family started to suffer the consequences of trying to survive in an occupied country.
[“Rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, in which nothing at all got done and would have been a huge backward step, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn’t too much backsliding from where we were.”
]
Obama has a dilema now.
He actually has the ability to reduce US carbon emissions any amount he wants through the EPA, and he cannot be blocked unless the block is supported by the HOR, Senate and POTUS. It wont be a permanent reduction as the next POTUS can reverse his decision, but it would be a sure sign to the world and China.
So Obi has the tool at his disposal to do something if their bill gets blocked in the Senate. Or he can use his bill and the EPA together.
So we will watch and see.
Finns
It is an interesting proposition.
At what threshold of retrogression would it have been good practice to walk away from Copenhagen without an agreement?
TP
Is the decision of the EPA challengeable at law? If so, I imagine that the US legal system is capable of ensuring that nothing much happens for the next quarter of a century or so.
Boerwar 2071
China and Chinese have traditionally earned non-Chinese (especially The West’s) epithet Inscrutable.
If you organise yourself a couple of months or more’s exchange China’s heartlands – or attached to a company negotiating commercial agreements in China – you’ll discover, as soon as your hosts relax, that the Middle Kingdom paradigm is alive & thriving. and that even y’r average local’s ambitions are:
* Beat the living daylighs out of the Japanese; commercially as a first step – when your state’s millennia old, 1937-45 is as yesterday, and Christian forgive & forget not part of their traditional culture
* Ditto the Americans, for 1949 onwards
* Nations involved in C19’s invasions, Opium Wars etc are next
* Then anyone else on the payback list
It also pays to ask yourself why China is sitting on so much of the USA’s public & private debt – and that goes waaay beyond the trillion or so in government bonds – and what proportion of key private industries it owns. Financial supremacy is a good place to start.
BTW
1 Unlike Australians, who know very little about their history & culture, Chinese do. Very Much So. Indeed!
2. Like Indians, Chinese are entrepreneurial, even at a personal level – sewing machines, knitting machines/needles, embroidery tools, crochet hooks etc are still to the Chinese (esp rural Chinese) what sheep, a dairy herd, spinning wheels & looms, fruit & vegie gardens and pickling/conserving/preserving skills (and a back yard kiln in suitable clayey areas) were to pre-Enclosure pre-Industrial England – the difference between subsistance level or starvation existence and a comfortable enfranchised (yeoman) living.
4. Banging on about the mores & morals of European systems of law & governance do tend to remind government and a great many Chinese about Nations involved in C19 [and C20]’s invasions, Opium Wars etc
^ Certainly there are are a growing number of dissidents who fit the typical dissident paradigm – some from society’s top echelons, many (if not most) intellectuals, artists and the well-educated Middle Class who feel disenfranchsed by current systems of law & government. But to move China politically one has to move the vast majority of over a billion people, most of whom don’t belong to those classes. Thanks to Mao, the Chinese Government is very aware of that & acts to minimise domestic (esp proleterian) unrest – that’s their main domestic concern!
3. Never be tempted to cast a single aspersion on Gough Whitlam – and if you don’t know why, qv BTW 1
China’s one of my fave places. Its philosophies, history & culture (esp its arts) fascinate me – there are magnificent antique embroidery pieces on the walls, ceramics in the cabinets. I belong to a family where marriages to ethnic Chinese is a century plus tradition. But I know China has survived all invasions before & after the Wall, and those no Wall could stop; and I know how deeply the Middle Kingdom is ingrained – too deep for a century & a half’s Western & Japanese invasions to impact.
We have a Prime Minister who is clearly fascinated enough by China to realise all of the above – and probably many more I missed – and has the intellect and ability to know how to deal with Chinese realities. That’s part of the reason for his high international “profile” as a negotiator. Almost no other nations have a Mandarin-speaking Leader who lived in China long enough to be able to deal with the Chinese within their own paradigms.
I find Truthy’s posts essential and reassuring. Essential at revealing the conservative mindset and reassuring as it reveals the deep level of denial that will ensure continued periods in opposition. The attitude is stuff the polls (including the big one), we’re right and we’ll convince the voters any day now
[I realize that Truthie has a mantra and that he is repetitive at times.
But he also brings along new information from time to time.]
Much less of the first and much more of the second would be good. An opinion on some other topics would also help.
But I’m happy to skip over the “repetitive mantra” posts re AS.
fredn
Despite you views of the big parties, BOTH parties continue to see a downward trend in their electoral support. Something has got to be amiss.
[Much less of the first and much more of the second would be good. An opinion on some other topics would also help.]
Yeah it’s actually the second sentence here that I was trying to articulate. He only goes on about asylum seekers. As I have said before, this is the political equivalent of buying a big car. One suspects he is compensating for some inadequacy.
OPT
I once had a conversation with Lenore Taylor on this very topic. She was questioning why there had been a resurgence of popular Chinise hate in relation to some bastardising of history by a japanese textbook.
I put it to her that it was recent enough and personal enough for squillions of chinese families to owe the Japanese one, and that therefore the anger was real. As our very own mass rape/comfort women saga shows, the Japanese are not adept at reaching closure.
The timing of the anger might have been to do with textbook decision. But it might also have had something to do, at the time, with a need by the comrades for a distraction.
TP
[People should reflect on where we would be now if John Howard was PM. The GFC would have been used as an excuse to extend Workchoices, ]
That is a good question and I would add one more to your list of answers – we would all be much poorer and many of us would have been out of a job! Howard’s management approach was precisely what the US did under Bush, and they now have 10% unemployment and just had a bad recession.
With Workchoices in place employers facing the GFC woudl have cut staff. Many thousands of them. This would have in turn reduced demand, confirming we were in recession, and that led to even more job cuts. Meanwhile government revenues woudl have shrunk and Howard, unable to let go of his no-debt rhetoric, woudl not hav eput in place the sort of stimulus package Rudd did. End result? I’d say a million unemployed and people’s retirement savings still not recovered to 2002 levels.
Gee,
Peter a shame the facts are different to your assertion. Labor Primary is about 45% and TPP 56%. Both these figures are up since the last election.
Don’t expect you to stop plying your BS though.
[BOTH parties continue to see a downward trend ]
PY
I thought ALP increased its primary vote at the last election and all opinion polls show an increase against that again.
I feel the ALP primary may increase again given that there is no real thrid party option, unless Malcolm resurrects a democrats style party.
[Don’t expect you to stop plying your BS though.]
Jesus gg you are as bad as bob 1234, sand in your vaseline again?
[Like Indians, Chinese are entrepreneurial, even at a personal level ]
Oz, That’s why it always makes me laugh the West’s view of the chinese and their paranoia that the chinese are “communist”. They are “communist” only because that the transition they have to go through to get rid of the feudal system. The chinese were the original capitalist and afterall they invented money.
Like that great philosopher of our time, PJK, always said: Never stand between the Chinese and a bucket of money”.
1213
While most of the anger at the Japanese conduct was generated during the Second World War 1937-45 the Japanese had been doing things that angered the Chinese since at least 1895 when they took Taiwan. Various trading port issues did not help the situation and neither did the creation of Manchuria as a Japanese puppet.
[Peter Young
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 11:31 am | Permalink
fredn
Despite you views of the big parties, BOTH parties continue to see a downward trend in their electoral support. Something has got to be amiss.]
The open question: Is Rudd a reformer? In my view we are still to find out. If he is the state of the parties really doesn’t matter that much; until next time.
I think you will find the views of the http://www.pipingshrike.com/ interesting. His argument is both parties have lost their legitimacy because the business labour divide has almost gone.
That Truthie would raise the case of an AS dying as an issue when Howard presided over the SEIV X when 353 died is breathtaking hypocrisy at its absolute best
[castle
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 11:39 am | Permalink
BOTH parties continue to see a downward trend ]
I think he is referring to party membership.
If you think that the Chinese dont like the Japanese, wait until you talk to the Koreans.
But if the Japan makes the historical amend to the Chinese and Koreans. East Asia will unite because they share the same Confucian traditions and work ethics. That is very hard to beat. So be aware.
castle
I reread Peter Young’s post it does say electoral support. And as you pointed out in a undiplomatic fashion, this is not the case. Labor’s primary support is pretty steady, if not rising.
Just a couple of comments on the Ark Tribe issue, going back to Peter Young’s post at 2057.
-if websites like “greenleft” and “rightsonsite” are the source of information about the case, they are going to be highly biased. I suspect other parties will have different versions of the facts.
-it’s certainly the case that many companies, especially small ones, either are ignorant of OHS obligations, or willfully ignore them. This is deeply wrong, everyone is entitled to a safe and healthy workplace. It’s right that we have strong OHS regulations, and strong enforcement of these regulations
-it’s also the case that trade union representatives make bogus claims about workplace safety, as part of tactics in industrial disputes or in award negotiations.
-many workplace incidents are due to worker neglience. There are a lot of companies which do take workplace safety very seriously-it’s good business to do so, and morally the right thing to do. But in situations where management has done all it reasonably can, and workers take off their PPE when the supervisor isn’t around, or don’t follow the lock-out procedure because it’s inconvenient, and somebody gets hurt, who is to blame?
If people think that workplace safety is all about cruel and greedy capitalist bosses exploiting the downtrodden and exploited workers, just to save a few dollars, they are living in a fantasy world, reality is more complex. Sure, there are some companies and managers out there who are bad guys and do the wrong thing. But guess what-there are workers and trade union officials who are bad guys too.
[Is the decision of the EPA challengeable at law? If so, I imagine that the US legal system is capable of ensuring that nothing much happens for the next quarter of a century or so]
Dont think it can be. The EPA has the ability to regulate C02. The report I read (NYT?) said that the only way any EPA action could be blocked was if it was agreed by the HOR, Senate and affirmed by the POTUS.
I posted a couple of links to it before that stated the EPA couldn’t be blocked unless by the HOR & Senate and of course the POTUS has veto.
Here is a more recent article. 22/12/09
[“The Environmental Protection Agency is going to regulate greenhouse gas emissions whether there’s an international agreement or not,” he said. “We think legislative action is far superior.”
Just before Copenhagen, U.S. EPA declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. The finding further props open the door for EPA to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, a step that neither the administration, Congress nor U.S. industry has said is preferable to legislation establishing a system for reducing those emissions.
Matt Kaplan, a senior wind energy analyst with Emerging Energy Research in Cambridge, Mass., also said EPA’s position should compel policymakers to act. “The EPA is a clear driver,” he said. “That event taking place right before the conference is really a major signal supporting renewable and clean energy.”
Patti Glaza, executive director of the Clean Technology and Sustainable Industries Organization, said U.S. industry and Congress shouldn’t trifle with the prospect that EPA could regulate carbon emissions, despite the administration’s reluctance to do so. “That sent a message that Congress has time, but not infinite time,” she said.
]
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/22/22climatewire-business-leaders-see-progress-amid-uncertain-72121.html?pagewanted=2&sq=epa%20carbon&st=cse&scp=9
7/12/09
[WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a final ruling that greenhouse gases posed a danger to human health and the environment, paving the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, refineries and other major sources.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/earth/08epa.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=epa%20carbon&st=cse
Greenborough Growler -2130
I said a general downward trend in electoral support for both the big parties. Therefore a “blip” in the figures does not reverse this general downward trend. Indeed an upward blip in Labor’s support will correspond with a downward blip in Liberal support. I am not “plying BS”.
Maybe silly statements like yours, is one of the reasons the electorate is turning off the major political parties (in a downward trend generally over time subject to fluctuations within that trend).
That Mark Lynas article is very interesting. The fact that China made the developed countries take their unilateral 2050 reduction target of 80% out is a very bad sign indeed, as is the lack of civility from the Chinese leaders.
It said even the Ruddster got fed up with them, banging his microphone.
We haven’t heard much from Rudd and Wong since about where it all went wrong and the Australian press has provided dismal coverage. I hope there is more to come out.
PY,
A bland assertion based on incorrect data is BS.
Perhaps your inability to analyse numbers is why you are talking rubbish.
[While most of the anger at the Japanese conduct was generated during the Second World War 1937-45 the Japanese had been doing things that angered the Chinese since at least 1895 when they took Taiwan.]
Tom, it went back even further. The Emperor Qin Shi Huang who united China for the first time and started the Great Wall (200BC) sent an armada to the East to seek the elixir. They never returned, found Japan islands and became Japanese. The Chinese have never forgiven them about that. 👿
Diog, you sting like mozzy and float like the driftwood. 😛
[The Finnigans
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 11:48 am | Permalink
If you think that the Chinese dont like the Japanese, wait until you talk to the Koreans.
But if the Japan makes the historical amend to the Chinese and Koreans. East Asia will unite because they share the same Confucian traditions and work ethics. That is very hard to beat. So be aware.]
Not going to happen until China gets over the middle kingdom stuff. Not going to happen.
[Peter Young
Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 11:51 am | Permalink
Greenborough Growler -2130
I said a general downward trend in electoral support for both the big parties. Therefore a “blip” in the figures does not reverse this general downward trend. Indeed an upward blip in Labor’s support will correspond with a downward blip in Liberal support. I am not “plying BS”. ]
Peter I think you will find that argument hard to maintain also. You basically arguing that minor party and independent support is rising, it isn’t. The democrats have gone leaving the Greens as the only serious minor party. The greens are focused on a very narrow demographic.
The Liberals where formed out of waring right wing faction, Labor have seen off the DLP. The two parties have been very successful in solidifying their position. The problem is the membership is declining and with it the force that kept them grounded.
I think it is very easy to argue that both parties are at risk of navel gazing, but I don’t think you will find the evidence in the primary vote figures.
Parramatta Centrist – 2140
The original point raised for discussion was whether s.52 and s.53 of the federal Act are appropriate laws.
Some people indicated they were unable to express an opinion on that unless they had the facts. I ascertained the only website facts I could find.
IMHO – the facts are not really necessary to express an opinion on the general appropriateness of star chamber type provisions. The Ark Tribe case is merely an example of the application of those rules. It would seem the answer to the original question posed is yes, no or only in specific circumstances.
I appreciate the difficulty some people may have in answering the question because Rudd has failed to act in a timely manner to repeal the star chamber provisions. Assuming that was a conscious decision made by Rudd, and not an oversight, it seems Rudd’s answer to the question must be that these star chamber provisions are appropriate. If his answer was that star chamber provisions are appropriate, but only in specific factual circumstances, then one would have expected him to have acted to limit their general application to an enunciated set of circumstances.
fredn – 2148
When I originally posted about the declining support for the big parties and declining membership, I said this was based on my recollection of statistics I had read. A poster agreed my recollection was correct. Accordingly, I have not sought to search out those statistics.
Now you are disputing that original statement.
So it is necessary to put the statistics on record. Only then is it worth having a debate about why the major parties are in a downward trend. Yes, fredn – I will do the research, the hard work. You it would seem are not prepared to do the hard work, but would prefer to just suggest I am wrong – without basing your opinion on anything other than your own beliefs or perhaps on what you would like to be the truth.