The latest fortnightly Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead at 57.5-42.5, up from 56.5-43.5 last time. Labor are up a point to 47 per cent on the primary vote, while the Coalition are down one to 37 per cent.
It’s all happening in New South Wales:
• Bernard Keane of Crikey reports David Clarke is believed likely to survive tonight’s preselection challenge from David Elliott with moderate support. (UPDATE: Clarke wins 50-36) Some interesting background detail from Keane: “The Campbell-Hawke assault on Clarke had its origins in a swift and cleverly executed turnover of delegates in Clarke’s preselection in late 2008 by Hawke, with most of the targets under the belief that Hawke was operating with Clarke’s imprimatur. Instead, Hawke removed or displaced nine preselectors and installed his own nominees, delivering an 18-vote turnaround that transformed Clarke’s preselection from comfortable to very challenging.” Deborah Snow of the Sydney Morning Herald reports former Opposition Leader Peter Collins has come out swinging at Clarke in support of David Elliott, saying Clarke was paying the price for blocking Elliott in federal Mitchell and state Riverstone.
• The quid pro quo for moderates supporting David Clarke is said to include the dropping of a preselection challenge against moderate incumbent Greg Pearce by Richard Quinn, and a smoothing of the way for Robyn Parker in the marginal seat of Maitland in lieu of her failure to retain her upper house position. Whoever gets the nod in Maitland will have things made easier by the announcement this week that Labor member Frank Terenzini will not seek another term.
• Bevan Shields of the Lithgow Mercury reports Orange councillor Sam Romano will challenge Nationals MP John Cobb for preselection in Calare.
• Caryn Metcalfe of the Penrith Press reports Hawkesbury mayor Bart Bassett has been preselected as state Liberal candidate for Londonderry.
• Macarthur preselection victim Pat Farmer reckons the people of Camden are begging for him to represent them in state parliament. According to Matthew Ward of the Macarthur Chronicle, his main rivals for Liberal preselection would be Camden councillor Michael Cottrell and former Camden councillor Rob Elliott, with “possible candidates” including Camden mayor Chris Patterson or, if Patterson, won’t run, Citi Cycle Classic organiser Paul Hillbrick. Reports suggests it is Patterson’s for the taking if he wants it.
• Hamish Coffee in comments advises Brent Thomas has defeated Right faction colleague Greg Holland for Labor preselection in Hughes.
• Not sure how much it was in doubt, but the ABC reports Damian Hale will seek another term in Solomon.
[I’m not sure why they are sooking so much. Their internet and media censorship can ensure that no-one in China knows they met.]
Diog
Its a game Dalai Llama meets leader, China complains. Then everyone goes back to whatever they were doing.
Obamalamadingdong
[I couldn’t care less what your (generally) incomprehensible posts say, because I rarely read them]
The funniest and ironic thing about Peter Youg and the curious case of the missing “n” was that it was Ron the unreadable who pinged him for it.
castle
Ron’s genius is hidden mostly
Shows doesn’t read Rons posts except 142. 😛
ru
[Its a game Dalai Llama meets leader, China complains. Then everyone goes back to whatever they were doing.]
It works with some countries. I won’t name names…
Castle, re one for the road.
If you’re buying, I’m drinking!
Diog
So was life really that good when Tibet was a theocracy?
ru
The Tibetans seemed to prefer it to a totalitarian regime which tortured them and threw them in labor camps.
One of the signs of a major bottom in a market is investor revulsion…”why would anyone own ‘gold’ ‘shares’ ‘real estate’ ‘tulips’ whatever asset class is the most recent one to crash. This data would suggest that Australian shares have not yet experienced a major bottom…
[Two years after the financial crisis hit, wiping out the portfolios of over-leveraged investors, the volume of margin lending has begun to increase again. The total volume of margin loans rose 4.7 per cent in the December quarter to $19.2 billion from $18.6 billion in the September quarter, data released yesterday from the Reserve Bank shows.]
http://www.smh.com.au/business/margin-lending-makes-a-comeback-20100219-ol47.html
[The Tibetans seemed to prefer it to a totalitarian regime which tortured them and threw them in labor camps.]
Thats a huge statement. If it was not for the Central Intelligence Agency’s Special Activities Division, Lhamo Döndrub would have been happy to be a delegate to the National People’s Congress.
Greetings all – long-time lurker, first-time poster.
I’ve been reading many conflicting assertions about which version of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (the initial bill, or the one containing the Wong-McFarlane amendments) would be considered the valid trigger if a Double Dissolution were called tomorrow, and consequently which one could be passed at a subsequent Joint Sitting. Are there any Constitutional experts on here who can provide a definitive ruling on this?
It’s not relevent how the Tibetan theocracy operated before 1951. The Dalai Lama long ago renounced that system, and the Tibetan government in exile now has a democratically elected Prime Minister. (See my article on him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobsang_Tenzin) There’s no doubt at all that the great majority of ethnic Tibetans in China are still loyal to the Dalai Lama and don’t want to be part of China.
Psephos
Can the people in Tibet vote for the “elected” Prime Minister or just the remnants of the 80,000 who the CIA moved to India?
Psephos
That’s amazing. I looked that article you wrote up when I was reading the Autobiography of a Tibetan Monk.
I don’t recall you saying Tibet was one of your interests before.
[Are there any Constitutional experts on here who can provide a definitive ruling on this?]
G’day ITV
This was discussed a while ago Antony Green on the ABC website has a good response to your question as I recall.
I suppose in theory all Tibetans are eligible to vote, but in practice only those outside China can do so. There are now 130,000 registered Tibetans living in India, 60,000 in Nepal, 5,000 in Bhutan and many more in other countries, including 500 in Australia. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your arse you could talk to some of them.
At the elections at which Samdhong Rinpoche was elected PM in 2001, about 40,000 votes were cast. That 40,000 more than have ever got to vote for anything in “People’s China.”
The Chinese sent many people into China to dilute out the ethic Tibetans. No-one seems to know what the real demographic mix of Tibet is any more.
[Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your arse you could talk to some of them.]
If you could get your entire body out of your arse, you could see that the majority of the Tibetan people live in Tibet, they want to do exactly what most people in the world want to do, live their lives.
The Dalai Llama makes this more difficult for them. What is the point of a toy govt. in exile. They are always going to be in exile. Tibet is part of China – no amount of wanting it to be different will change this.
So lets have pretend elections in India, that keep 60 year old problems festering, to elect old men who ran away from their country.
Geez Psephos you really are full of crap sometimes.
There are about 5.5 million Tibetans in China, but only 2.5 million of them live in what China chooses to define as the Tibetan Autonomous Region. There are 1.2 million Tibetans in Qinghai province. Officially, only 10% of the Tibetan AR’s population is Han Chinese, but the real figure is probably higher.
[ Tibet is part of China – no amount of wanting it to be different will change this. ]
Just as Latvia is part of the Soviet Union, Kosovo is part of Serbia and East Timor is part of Indonesia, and no amount of wanting it to be different will change this.
[One of the signs of a major bottom in a market is investor revulsion…”why would anyone own ‘gold’ ’shares’ ‘real estate’ ‘tulips’ whatever asset class is the most recent one to crash. This data would suggest that Australian shares have not yet experienced a major bottom…]
It does seem many haven’t changed their mentality from before the crash. The all want to be bulls.
There are a number of opinions out their that suggest a double dip recession is a possibility and there are no shortage of risk factors around.
[
US credit shrinks at Great Depression rate prompting fears of double-dip recession
Both bank credit and the M3 money supply in the United States have been contracting at rates comparable to the onset of the Great Depression since early summer, raising fears of a double-dip recession in 2010 and a slide into debt-deflation.
]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6190818/US-credit-shrinks-at-Great-Depression-rate-prompting-fears-of-double-dip-recession.html
[Krugman Sees 30-40% Chance of U.S. Recession in 2010 (Update3) ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6190818/US-credit-shrinks-at-Great-Depression-rate-prompting-fears-of-double-dip-recession.html
An the latest report I have read said the US had two years over supply of housing and predicted a 10-15% further fall in home prices, this would put 50% of all mortgage holders in negative equity.
and so on and so forth. Something to keep an eye on.
[Just as Latvia is part of the Soviet Union, Kosovo is part of Serbia and East Timor is part of Indonesia, and no amount of wanting it to be different will change this.]
Are you suggesting that China is in a similar position to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or Indonesia?
My estimation of your propensity to bullshit just went up a notch.
[Are you suggesting that China is in a similar position to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or Indonesia?]
Vis-a-vis its national minorities, yes of course it is. What a strange question.
[Vis-a-vis its national minorities, yes of course it is. What a strange question.]
China has the financial, military and political will to hold onto its national minorities, none of the others you mentioned did.
I should clarify that the Tibetan Central Administration is not strictly speaking a “government in exile.” It does not claim to be the legal heir of the pre-1949 government of Tibet and it does not claim to be the legal government of Tibet now. It is an administration which provides quasi-governmental services to the Tibetan community in India, and is recognised by the Indian government as performing that function. So although the Dalai Lama is the figurehead leader of the TCA, he does not claim to be a head of state and has never asked to be recognised as one. His position in fact is that he accepts Chinese historical suzerainty over Tibet and seeks only a status of genuine autonomy within a federal Chinese state. (Which is actually what the Chinese constitution says, although Beijing ignores this.)
[China has the financial, military and political will to hold onto its national minorities, none of the others you mentioned did.]
Well, first they did, and then they didn’t. Which proves that change happens, contrary to your previous assertion that change is impossible.
[Well, first they did, and then they didn’t]
They didn’t, the Soviet Union was militarily and politically willing but lacked the finance, Yugoslavia was not politically willing after Tito, did not have the finance, Indonesia did not have the finance, political will or military.
All people who advocate a Free Tibet are doing is entrenching a 60 year old dispute for zero gain, and inflicting suffering on the people.
Itsthevibe, if a double dissolution were held tomorrow, the original CPRS legislation would be the trigger and the only legislation allowed to be debated. The amendements moved during the Senate debate could not be debated at the joint sitting as only amendements passed by one house and rejected by the other can be considered. The only amendments were moved in the Senate and the bill was defeated so the House never had the opportunity to consider the amendments.
The new CPRS bill has only passed one house. It would have to be defeated in the Senate twice before it was allowed to be a double dissolution trigger. The government will struggle to get it defeated twice before the double dissolution cut-off on 10 August.
Your proposition was that Tibet is under Chinese control and that this can never change. I cited three examples to disprove this assertion. In Stalin’s time the USSR maintained a tight grip on the non-Russian nationalities, just as Suharto’s regime did on East Timor, and Tito’s regime did on the various bits of Yugoslavia. Then, for various reasons, change happened, and all three states lost the will or the ability to maintain their hegemony – just as the Ottomans, the Habsburgs and numerous others did before them. Change happens. I don’t know when or exactly how change will happen in China, but there’s no intrinsic reason why it can’t, and the Tibetan people are as entitled to maintain their hopes for freedom as the East Timorese were 20 years ago, when many, many people in Australia advised them to stop making trouble and accept the inevitability of Indonesian rule.
Laocoon @ 160
Yeah is a great comeback in Margin Lending – Not 🙂
[SMH Headline – Margin lending makes a comeback ]
See attached chart of Margin Lending from 1999 to December 2009
http://www.imagebam.com/image/7a4fbe68722311
Click the image to see full size.
*puzzled* – Antony, was not the bill rejected in December the amended (“Wong-Macfarlane”) bill? I thought it was.
No. The bill through the House was exactly the same as first introduced and as defeated at the second reading on the first Senate passage. The Wong-Macfarlane deal concerned the amendments to be moved in the Senate. Those amendments were nullified by the Senate defeating the bill. With the bill defeated twice in the Senate, the bill that twice passed the House becomes the trigger.
Thank you Antony Green @ 179. I too had wondered the same thing.
[There is no $100 billion. That is simply the paper value of the permits accumulated over a decade (even though the permits expire every 12 months).]
And wheres that $100 Bill coming from?
At the end of the day the reality is the punters have to pay.
[… East Timorese were 20 years ago, when many, many people in Australia advised them to stop making trouble and accept the inevitability of Indonesian rule.]
Maybe these people were correct? What has the independence of Timor Leste delivered to the people? Poverty? Attempted assination of elected leaders? A failed state in the making? A military and police prescence from foreign nations.
Wow what a success.
Yes, thanks Antony. The events of December were indeed confusing.
[And wheres that $100 Bill coming from?]
Liberals lying about how much tax payers have to pay.
[What has the independence of Timor Leste delivered to the people? ]
Independence – which was what they wanted and were willing to accept a great deal of suffering to attain, like many other oppressed peoples before them.
What a disgusting attitude. You must be a very contemptible person.
[ if a double dissolution were held tomorrow, the original CPRS legislation would be the trigger and the only legislation allowed to be debated. The amendements moved during the Senate debate could not be debated at the joint sitting as only amendements passed by one house and rejected by the other can be considered. The only amendments were moved in the Senate and the bill was defeated so the House never had the opportunity to consider the amendments.]
I’m afraid you’re wrong Anthony. The Constitution says:
[If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate]
The bill did have amendments that were agreed to by the Senate. The amendments were agreed to before the bill was negatived at third reading.
The bill that is ultimately presented to a joint sitting can include the amendments which were agreed to in the Senate in December.
The former Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, wrote in December:
[If there is such a dissolution and the bills are presented to a joint sitting of the Houses, the government will be entitled to present them with any of the amendments agreed to by the Senate. ]
see http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/proc_bul/bull_237.htm
[Independence – which was what they wanted and were willing to accept a great deal of suffering to attain, like many other oppressed peoples before them. ]
Did “the people” care? Or was it Fretelin or was it ???????
You may feel cozy in Queanbeyan in your smug self righteousness. But has the Independence of Timor Leste delivered any benefits to the population?
[Maybe these people were correct? What has the independence of Timor Leste delivered to the people? Poverty? Attempted assination of elected leaders? A failed state in the making? A military and police prescence from foreign nations.
Wow what a success.]
They had poverty long before Independence.
Maybe if Whitlam hadn’t given the green light to Indonesia things might have turned out different there.
Psephos, while you’re watching, consider this nonsense that the wikipedia ozpolitics gatekeepers putting on their pages. (eg at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_state_election,_2010)
“The following pendulum is known as the Mackerras Pendulum, invented by psephologist Malcolm Mackerras. The pendulum works by lining up all of the seats held in the House of Assembly according to the percentage point margin they are held by on a two party preferred basis. This is also known as the swing required for the seat to change hands. Given a uniform swing to the opposition or government parties, the number of seats that change hands can be predicted.”
Apart from whether Mackerras invented the pendulum or just adapted it to a two-party preferred system, the pendulum below that description would make Mackerras fume. The current wikipedia gatekeepers do not seem to understand the difference between 2-party preferred and 2-candidate preferred and have dotted the Independents all over the place with 2CP margins despite the heading saying they are all 2PP. And they have also put everyone one of them on the wrong side of the pendulum if they really mean the pendulum to be set out as a 2-party contest.
Amateurs!
Itep, your point is arguable, but I would point out that Odgers Senate practice also states.
“It may be doubted whether the provision allows the submission of amendments to a bill to which the Senate agreed where the Senate subsequently rejected the bill at the third reading.”
Whatever you, I or Harry Evans thinks, the High Court would end up ruling on the matter.
confessions – BB has a good piece on the Abbott saga
http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2010/02/19/A-Triumphant-Return-or-the-Last-Hurrah.aspx
Dave at 181 – thanks! much better to have some perspective 🙂
[Maybe if Whitlam hadn’t given the green light to Indonesia things might have turned out different there.]
Almost certainly not. Suharto’s invasion wasn’t dependent on Whitlam’s approval. Firm opposition from the US might have deterred him.
[But has the Independence of Timor Leste delivered any benefits to the population?]
That’s not the point of this discussion. The point is that peoples have a right to be independent, regardless of whether they will be materially better off or not. I’ve truly really never seen such a morally bankrupt line of argument, a sort of global Vichy-ism, where might is right and everyone has to accept oppression because opposing it might cause trouble. Perhaps you are an agent of the Chinese secret police? I don’t have any other explanation for your position.
Thanks BH will read later. 🙂
The East Timorese might be better off if we stop stealing their oil as well.
It is arguable that the Senate did not agree to the amendments, the Senate sitting as a Committee of the whole agreed. The third reading said yay or nay to the amendments moved in committee since the second reading, and it rejected the amended bill which was the Senate rejecting the amendments.
Australia is unusual that our Parliaments consider legislation as committee of the whole . Most other conjtries delegate the committee stage of the bill to legislative sub-committees.