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• Wanneroo mayor Jon Kelly has withdrawn his nomination for Labor preselection in the Perth northern suburbs federal seat of Cowan, after earlier being considered certain to get the gig.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.
Finns
You may remember that I wanted a 25% carbon reduction international legally binding agreement.
The politicians didn’t, at least at this stage.
[Is Canada going the Denialist route?]
Canada are Acceptists. The accept that Global Warming is occurring. They accept that this is largely caused by man-made inputs. They accept that they will be huge winners with the projected climate changes. They accept that nothing much can be done about it…
I get the feeling that the small Copenhagen result means the Greens will be even less likely to help Labor pass the current legislation. If there’s a DD Labor will be able to pass it, but if its a normal election the Greens won’t support a small target.
Musrum
That’s pretty smart of them actually. They are one of the few countries that will probably benefit from a few degrees of global warming (Russia is another). Lots of their land will become arable.
latest from The Guardian blog:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal
TP 188
While I respect your constructive approach on how to go forward on CC I do not share your optimism on the USA. Without legislation, regulations made by Obama can be unmade by any successor. Who would make a long term investment in alternative base-load power supplies in that environment? Whether you believe that nuclear, solar thermal or geothermal is the solution, they all take 5+ years to build a large new plant. So I remain very pessimistic.
Canada I believe is wanting to water down its targets to 3% during or just before Copenhagen.
They were subject to a wonderful hoax during Copenhagen that had them running around like turkeys and wanting a photo op with the Americans to help their home PR.’ Extremely embarassing but real funny. The Chasers would have been proud.
[Confirmed: Yes Men Behind Prank Of Canada At COP15
Green Editor Katherine Goldstein, who is in Copenhagen at the COP15 Climate Change Summit, spoke to Andy Bichlbaum of The Yes Men earlier this evening about today’s prank — and Bichlbaum confirms that the Yes Men, were behind it. Asked about whether he thought he might be sued for today’s stunt, Bichlbaum quipped, “Yes. I think Stephen Harper is so mad that he will personally sue us. And yes, so will the Wall Street Journal.”
The fun began this morning when the Yes Men put out the following release, purporting to come from the Assistant Press Secretary, of the Canadian Office of the Minister of the Environment. Here it is in full:
… CANADA ANNOUNCES NEW AGENDA FOR CLIMATE AND WORLD DEVELOPMENT Plan includes stricter emissions reductions and immediate “climate debt” bailouts for most affected countries …]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/canada-gets-punkd-in-cope_n_390992.html
Coming from where the world politicians esp US and China, was 2 years ago Copenhagen looks a half reasonable outcome. Coming from where the science was 20 years ago and is now, Copenhagen looks a failure. I propose that the next round should be in Dubai or Bagdad or Delhi in about July without good airconditioning.
And from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8421935.stm
I also think we should be prepared to support Tuvalu and like threatened countries. If the world can’t defend its citizens and small countries that is poor form.
And if people supporting a serious attack on climate change were to get serious with personal action, coordinated community action via blockades, boycotts etc then the politicians would need to take more notice. And action can include action against recalcitrant countries, businesses, politicians etc.
And Murdoch’s Times Online: Copenhagen ends with a deal surrounded by confusion
To be read remembering Murdoch’s stance on CC & attitude to Obama.
How long before his empire strikes back with Abbott / Joyce / Robb carrying on about “Right to delay until after Copenhagen”. Probably there already!
[TP 188
While I respect your constructive approach on how to go forward on CC I do not share your optimism on the USA.]
I don’t think it is the USA that will end up driving this. As I have mentioned a few times it is China and India who ‘should’ be desperate to get something going on this. Now who (Hu) knows the Chinese current thinking on this, but any cursory thought of the problems they and their regime will face with unmitigated CC should put cold fear into them.
The USA has been a great disappointment since the election of Obama and it isn’t because of Obama. For the first time in a long while they have a Democrat POTUS and a Democrat HOR and 60 in the Senate that lets them pass bills. Thus they have the power to make and pass bills over the three year term of Obama that leaves the GOP helpless. .. a situation that will not last as the Senate will no doubt eventually break that 60.
So what are they doing? …blue dogs and vested interests within the Democrats and thwarting anything the POTOS really wants to do. Thus the Democrats are passing up a rare opportunity. And in the process they are undermining the credibility of their own POTUS.
Copenfailure
This is why my screen name is barking,
The ALP and the COAlition etc are so clever, you guys are my hero’s. In a world where culture and society drift across millenia you win elections with lies, manipulations and deciept. You are just so good. So good, that in the Coalitions case half of the fools believe it and in the ALP’s case you simply cannot give up your privileges and ‘game playing’ not even when your childrens future is at stake.
What a disgraceful speech by Kev 07. He had the ‘childrens’ line out whilst his outcome would have been total failure.
We will all reap the bitter harvest of this complete failure of the ruling elite, and some of the hacks on here delude themselves that social justice etc are key planks for the ALP. What a joke, write your histories gentlemen, others will not be so kind.
This result wont be a problem for Rudd’s ETS and political position. The idea and need for action on CC is now firmly set.
People being disappointed about the outcome of Copenhagen reinforces that something should be done, and more than has been proposed. CC and GW as a reality is now firmly fixed. The Greens cannot now push for Australia to go for large targets as that would put them way out in front of Copenhagen and thus punishing Australian industry and jobs. Abbott has a much more difficult task of rejecting an ETS and Rudd still has lots of talking points out of Copenhage re China and the USA now being a part of things.
That is the politics of it if not the reality.
TP
Do you sleep, perchance.
😉
Katherine Murphy writes in “The Age” about the summer of politics ahead, and makes this extraordinary statement.
[The polls are good, but sensible people in the Government know they are soft.]
Based on what?
Either the polls are an accurate reflection of voting intentions or they aren’t. And when they consistently say the same thing for a long time, you’d have to suspect they are an accurate reflection.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/holiday-largesse-20091218-l5s3.html
Tp
[The Greens cannot now push for Australia to go for large targets as that would put them way out in front of Copenhagen and thus punishing Australian industry and jobs.]
Hmmm… Methinks you will be proven wrong. The Greens will push even harder now.
Thanks for #198’s link Dio. With analysis like this in Blogs, who needs Rupe’s Hacks!
If we really want to blame someone it is wrong to have a go at Rudd. Rudd was never in a position to put up higher targets that wouldn’t see Labor out and the CC deniers in. Rudd cannot go out too far in front of the world and especially the major economies. Fact. It would be pointless in absolute terms and also politically. And politics is critically important as it is the only mechanism you have in wielding power to enter process.
The real problem rests with China and the USA.
China first and the USA second. Obama has the mechanism with the EPA to actually go for strong targets, though of course not institutionalised and thus reversible by subsequent administrations. And this may be a reason he wont use it as it may set people against proper legislation, though he has it as a last resort.
The USA has exactly the same problem as Australia. Proposing small or moderate targets will have a hard if not impossible time getting through the Senate. Going for stronger targets would be an impossibility.
So democracy is the enemy in the USA and Communism the ultimate tool in actually getting something done quickly, if there be a will.
[… Mr {Tim} Flannery said he was impressed by the direct and honest role played by Mr Rudd at the summit.
‘‘Our prime minister has played an outstanding role. I was at a briefing he gave on Thursday. He was frank and honest …
He said he was doing his best but there was absolutely no guarantee of success.
‘‘He’s been working very hard the last few months,’’ he added.]
Sydney Morning Herald, 19 December 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/national/climate-deal-good-but-not-perfect-says-flannery-20091219-l67n.html
[but sensible people in the Government know they are soft.]
Well the Greens are in a better position with CC as an issue post Copenhagen. But BB will of course follow the same course, any course that can be differentiated from the Govt of the day, otherwise why vote for the Greens.
BB can come and say Copenhagen was a huge… blah blah as he will and he can say Kevin Rudd should put in 40% blah blah….but the immediate response of all will be .. but Copenhagen accord countries are doing X%. BB will appear a little too extreme and thus appeal to his base but it will not be a legitimate pressure on the Govt as it may have been pre Copenhagen. IMO
I past the wrong quote for that comment.
Yes I sometimes sleep. I mostly post in the evenings or early morning.
Cheers
I enjoyed reading thru your early am coverage.
TP
I think there would have been substantially more pressure on the Greens to pass the Legislation with a low target if Copenhagen had a solid agreement. The ‘softness’ of this agreement (as it seems to be – not having any substantial details) means the Greens won’t have to modify their message.
I don’t know how much ‘real’ pressure this puts on the Govt, I guess it depends if the have a DD or not. Without a DD the Govt is unlikely to get anything like their preferred legislation through, I doubt the Coalition will support the legislation and the Greens will demand measures that the Govt will see as too high.
Possibly what this all means is the Govt os more likely to have a DD?
TP,
Great work with your posts.
The Greens blathering on about unrealistic targets will play in to the Government’s hands electorally. Sure, the’ll pick up a few votes but they will come back to Labor as preferences. The real domestic action is going to be the Libs. Will they split between the out and out denialists and the Turnbull moderates. There might even be an unholy alliance between Labor and the moderate Libs, with CC being the glue.
Labor will no doubt be focussed on winning the middle ground being vacated by Abbott and the Minchkins. The Greens can waffle on.
TP
I certainly wouldn’t blame Rudd. We were only a very small part of COP15.
Wakefield
[I propose that the next round should be in Dubai or Bagdad or Delhi in about July without good airconditioning.]
I think I’ve told this story before but it’s worth repeating.
I read a book on the Great Dust Bowl of the 1930’s, which mainly affected Nebraska, Oklahoma etc in the Panhandle. The area was completely stricken with crop failures, dust storms, starvation, dust pneumonia etc. There was a bill before Congress for significant relief and remedial action that was almost certain to fail. The day they were going to vote it down, a huge dust storm from the Panhandle actually reached Washington DC and turned day into dusk.
They voted to pass the bill after that.
[the Greens will demand measures that the Govt will see as too high]
They’re going to have little credibility, given they stood with Fielding, Minchin and other denialists to vote against an ETS.
The Greens need to keep their same targets, Rudd needs to stick to the range he has proposed and the Liberals will need to find a rock under which to hide.
Anything on Turnbull’s blog yet. 🙂
Aristotle
Haven’t they “been soft” since Dec06, Ari? Three years is an age [in politics] for polls to be so consistently “soft”.
Of course Howie’s “Battlers” (who did very well indeed out of the stimulus package) will see sense & return to the Party of Workchoices; so their support for Rudd is soft! Of course women will fall in love with Tony “Budgie Smugglers & Chest Rug” People Skills; give up every form of birth control – just wander around a shopping centre and ask Gens X & Y! Of course they agree with The Undead’s Climate Change policy – those big majorities for GenY & X are soft too! And Youthquaker Gen Rock’n’Roll, now part of GenBlue, will finally see the light – lighting up Retirement Villages & Nursing Homes … and Bronnie Kero Baths.
And, Folks, I had a dream that, in a single week, I’d win Lotto on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thrsday and Saturday – and hey! It came true!
Bring on an election on Global Warming, the deniers are all running around like headless chooks, they are making a lot of noise nbt if the election is about GW they will be shown up.
Krudd and co can play soft, the Greens will remain firm and the Bolts/Abbotts/Joyces will so decredit themselves that they will not change these polls at all.
There is a keen point to understand here with the upswing of activity of the deniers.
They just ambled along in nuetral for years as they actually had the White House and the Howards of this world in their pockets. Up until 12 months ago they ran the world. Now they yell, cheat etc. they did bring us the weapons of mass distruction etc.
They will try everything, however, most norman people see that there is global warming. The do nothings will slowly be electorally defeated.
Barking,
“The do nothings will slowly be electorally defeated”.
So, we agree, the Greens will get plastered.
So do we know what Australia has agreed to? Is anything definite and concrete or is it all drafts and rumours?
Can we please avoid a Green Labor flame war.
[Possibly what this all means is the Govt is more likely to have a DD?]
I would think it was less likely, unless something happens in Germany.
GG
I know the symbolism of a Munich conference wouldn’t be great but Berlin mightn’t be a lot better, esp if it’s near Hitler’s bunker.
What Australia proposes will be placed into the Annex of the agreement should we sigh up to it as I assume we will. What that is I gather will be what is currently govt policy and whatever that policy is in the future.
sigh = sign lol
[Krudd and co can play soft, the Greens will remain firm and the Bolts/Abbotts/Joyces will so decredit themselves that they will not change these polls at all.]
So a thumping win for the ALP then, who will be seen as the party who tried to get something done as opposed to (like the Greens and the Libs) refusing to accept anything that didn’t match their ideals.
So the Greens will maintain their present vote, with perhaps their usual 1% rise, which will not gain them anything more than they have at present.
Sorry, TP. Will behave myself.
I would think Rudd will want a DD if possible at the latest possible date which I gather will be near a normal election date anyway. The reason being of attaining a new and immediate Senate composition.
Oh GG, your so droll, hows mummy,.
You make one point that is wrong, well many actually but I’ll focus on one.
The Libs blue set showed at bradfield and higgins that they will go straight to the Greens and then back to the Libs.
The main electoral aim of hte Greens is of course the Senate, where they will hold the Balance of power off into the middle distance, until they start getting a significant number of HOR seats.
Your failure on addressing Global Warming, your acceptance of donations for the dirty polluters etc will shame you in future years. The ALP, brought to you by the Coal industry”
The ‘our children’ speech is already being formulated into Green attack adds, what a joke. Do you really think anyone believes that the Greens were the Do nothing, everytime you say that you just allow a stinging attack on the ‘failure guaranteed” approach of the ALP.
82 % increases in emmisions, fudge the numbers, don’t count Farmers, what a joke.
The usual rise of 1% which coming of 10 % is a 10% rise.
Surely Rudd will go to a DD in August, every locial thing points to that. Yes the ALP will win a thumping majority, I don’t think anyone really feels the Greens can do much about that. The complete smashing of hte COALition is something I feel very happy about. If they spilt along deniers/ doers-turnballs all the better.
Barking
all that GG said was that the Greens will get plastered. So how many points is that?
GG, you naughty person you. I didn’t realise that you were personally responsible for the failure to address global warming and that you accepted donations from the dirty polluters.
I assume -given Barking’s incredible revelations – that you are just posting here on behalf of the coal industry.
Barking,
“The Greens got plenty of nothing”.
And, my mother’s fine. How’s your lunch?
Well Zoomster, when Gg says that the Greens will get plastered what is he saing, rubbish. Every one here would agree that in all likelyhood the Greens Vote will go up. Does anyone seriously think otherwise. All the polls indicate a 1-1.5% increase in the floor of the Green Vote.
[216
Aristotle
Katherine Murphy writes in “The Age” about the summer of politics ahead, and makes this extraordinary statement….. “The polls are good, but sensible people in the Government know they are soft.”]
I tend to agree with her. The support for the loopy right @ 41% is definitely soft. They deserve about 14%.
Gg my lunch is fine, quess what as an adult I made my own. Popping over to have mummy wash your socks later are we.
Barking
[The usual rise of 1% which coming of 10 % is a 10% rise.]
No, it’s a rise of 1%. It will be coming off the last election result of 7.79, which was an 0.6% increase on the election before that (so an average increase of 0.2% pa, something to be really proud about).
So the increase in vote would actually be from 0.6 to 1.0, with is 0.4%.
(Warning: I can’t do maths, but then neither can Barking. As my old dad used to say, if you can’t convince them, confuse them).
[Finns – You may remember that I wanted a 25% carbon reduction international legally binding agreement.]
Diog, i am sure you want immortality as well, Join Emperor Qing of the Great Wall fame, he was looking for the same thing, and ended up as Wang Wang.