The Seven Network had a poll this evening from ReachTEL, which records a Coalition lead of 53-47 – a substantial shift on the 50-50 result it recorded on September 15, the evening after the leadership change. That’s all there is from that poll at this stage, but there were some headline-grabbing results today from a Morgan poll, conducted by telephone from a fairly small sample of 574. Bill Shorten could manage only fourth place on the question of preferred Labor leader, with Tanya Plibersek leading on 27% (up a point since July), Anthony Albanese second on 23% (up four), Wayne Swan third on 10% (steady) and Shorten down three to 9%. By contrast, Malcolm Turnbull’s first result for preferred Liberal leader as prime minister has him gaining from 44% to 64%, with Julie Bishop on 12% (down three), Tony Abbott on 8% (down five) and Scott Morrison on 4% (down one). The current leaders’ ratings were 66% approval and 16% disapproval for Turnbull, 25% approval (up one) and 62% disapproval (up two) for Shorten, and Turbull leading 76-14 as preferred prime minister.
UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes relates that ReachTEL has Turnbull leading Shorten 68.9-31.1 on preferred prime minister, with 40.2% saying Labor should replace Shorten as leader versus 26.0% opposed.
UPDATE 2: Full results from ReachTEL here. The sample was 3574 – big even by ReachTEL’s standards – with primary votes of 46.7% for the Coalition (up 3.4%), 33.0% for Labor (down 2.9%) and 11.3% for the Greens (down 0.6%).
I find Di Natale like a lot of Greens MPs talks down to his audience, which I find annoying.
[Vince O’Grady
Vince O’Grady – @vogrady2132
Read this Interview with Turnbull carefully http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/23/turnbull-being-pm–people-take-more-notice-of-you … He is the King of Waffle. The waffle of Wentworth #Wafflerofwentworth]
Laurie Oakes has been reading Kerry O’Brien’s book.
[Keating places great importance on confidence, which he says is different from ego — “a notion that there’s some inherent or vested greatness”.
Confidence, he tells O’Brien, “is not like a can of Popeye’s spinach. You’ve got to earn it through your own tested judgments against difficult circumstances and occasions, but when you have it you have a very new power.”
To succeed in politics, Keating says, “one has to be an amateur psychologist”, always assessing colleagues as well as those on the other side.
“To stitch together majorities in Parliament continually, you’ve got to look at people to see what their interests are, what things they have in common, what natural point of agreement you have with them, or points of disagreement.”
Early in the book we hear advice from Jack Lang, the controversial Depression-era NSW Premier a teenage Keating sought out for twice-weekly lessons on how to win and use power. Lang, then well into his eighties, told his protege: “This is a business where duplicity is the order of the day. Look for the best in people by all means, but keep a sceptical eye peeled for what they are saying to you and what they really mean.”
Keating took learning the tricks of the trade seriously. Identifying what needs to be done is one thing, he tells O’Brien, but “without the political skilling to get the things through, it is to no avail”.]
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/keating-book-a-masterclass-in-politics-101/story-fni0cwl5-1227580409630
[109
Pegasus
CFMEU National Secretary Michael O’Connor on 6 reasons to reject the ChAFTA:]
This item is a bit out of date now but does draw attention to two things –
first, despite its name, ChAFTA is not about trade
second, the guest worker labour market must be reformed from the ground up
This is profoundly important.
Re TBA @146: right, so no need to lie their way into office, dogwhistle to racists and cultivate moral panic over jihadis. Just promote and explain their values and let the voters decide. You believe they have a good story to tell, so they don’t need to hide their true intentions as they did prior to the 2013 election.
Funny you mention ‘small’ business, when big business seems to be the main bankrollers and beneficiaries of LNP policies. Why would a corner shop proprietor think their interests align with those of Colesworths, for example? Or that a small retailer’s or farmer’s interests align with those of the big banks?
@TBA/146
Rolling out new Copper is not 21st Century Party.
The same message comes from Happyiness, TBA, EDJ etc.
All singing the same tune.
Zoid @157
They really do believe it – they genuinely would like it to be true and therefore believe that it is, and this belief is impervious to contrary facts, which are abundant.
It’s time… to shorten Shorten’s tenure.
Interviewed by the AFR, Malcolm Turnbull displays an astonishing level of ignorance about macroeconomics, economic history and in particular completely misunderstands the policy purpose of a sovereign wealth fund.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/malcolm-turnbull-says-future-surplus-must-be-saved-not-spent-20151023-gkgt1g
Simply amazing!
160
E. G. Theodore
Like so many, he confuses investment and accumulation. They are opposites but are taken to be the same.
[159
alias
It’s time… to shorten Shorten’s tenure.]
This is most unlikely to occur. For a start, the Liberal resurgence has everything to do with their own leadership and nothing at all to do with the Labor leadership.
As well, the general thinking is the next election will be in late March…a DD called as soon as the redistribution in NSW has been settled. That is, an election is only really weeks away. The public focus will soon shift away from politics until the end of January. Even if there were a willingness to think about a change, there is no time for a new leader, even a well-known figure, to develop their persona. A new leader would for all intents go to a March election as an untested and hardly-known quantity.
Labor may or may not look better with a new leader. But it is most unlikely that by itself a leadership change will actually improve the election result. This being so, why would any of the possible alternatives want to put themselves up? Why would Albo or Plibersek or anyone else want to take the Party to a result that will be no different to the result they will achieve with Shorten?
Labor will run with Shorten. As things stand, Labor may pick up some seats but will likely not get close to winning. The smarter minds in Labor will be thinking how they can win again in 2019. How! This is a much bigger question than whether to replace Bill Shorten or not – a question that pretty-well answers itself.
Of the factors that might be likely to induce Turnbott to call an early election, a change in the Labor leadership is certainly one.
There is a much higher likelihood of a full-term Parliament if Shorten remains. If Shorten were to be replaced, an early election would be odds-on.
162
Due to the way the weeks fall across the months, the minimum campaign length and the 25th being the final Wednesday in February, the earliest date that an election can be held after the NSW boundaries are in place is the 2nd of April. I would say that an election on the 2nd or 9th of April is likely.
Surely Turnbull would understand the difference between accumulation and investing, they can work together but they are generally although not always mutually exclusive.
In other words, you invest in Super to accumulate compounding interest supplied future income.
But if you are spending on a project, you can’t accumulate at the same time.
164
Tom the first and best
Good to know…thanks.
166
It is good that someone has finally taken it in. It is nowhere near the first time I have posted this information on this blog.
Tom, if the election is to be early then presumably the earlier the better, so April 2 would be the date.
I suspect Labor will run with Shorten to 2016; when he fails to win more than a handful of seats (I could even see him losing some) he will be promply dismissed for the abject failure of an opposition leader that he is, damning the country to four more years of idiocy and lies from the likes of Dutton, Morrison and Hunt. The man is a charisma vacuum who is clearly stage-managed to within an inch of his life and whichever hacks in the caucus decided to back him have made the most profound misjudgement of their political lives. The only possible saving grace could be that the Greens and other crossbenchers might be there to deny the worst neoliberal excesses of a Coalition government.
POTSS @ 169: Agree 100%
He’s a backroom hack elected by backroom hacks. What were they thinking?
Good morning. Bludgers may suffer from a surfeit of Malcolm today.
Malcolm Turnbull has called an end to scare campaigns in politics, while also flagging new borrowing to fund public transport projects, criticising banks for jacking up interest rates, and signalling to Beijing that it must respect the international rules-based order.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/i-am-a-reformer-malcolm-turnbull-sets-course-for-growth-and-unity-20151022-gkgj3k.html#ixzz3pQHxcqUY
A new unauthorised biography of the Prime Minister details how after having lost as opposition leader to Brendan Nelson in the wake of the Liberals’ defeat at the 2007 election, Malcolm Turnbull embarked on a destabilisation campaign rivalling the Rudd/Gillard years.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/paddy-mannings-unauthorised-biography-of-new-pm-shows-malcolm-turnbull-as-brilliant-but-arrogant-20151022-gkfvg0.html#ixzz3pQJEnBfb
Hartcher. Malcolm Turnbull’s ambitiousness is remarkable. Taking the prime ministership, it turns out, was just the beginning.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/peter-hartcher-for-malcolm-turnbull-the-reformer-being-prime-minister-is-just-the-start-20151023-gkha44.html#ixzz3pQJX8w2H
The federal government will on Saturday announce a major review of the regulations governing space activity, aimed at sparking a boom in the local space industry.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/shooting-for-the-stars-turnbull-government-aims-to-stimulate-space-industry-20151023-gkh3p2.html#ixzz3pQJkFCUY
In an interview with Guardian Australia, the prime minister signals changes to make family benefits fairer as he promises pragmatic, ‘agile’ leadership
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/23/the-malcolm-turnbull-interview-if-something-isnt-working-chuck-it-out
Lenore Taylor. It would be truly crazy for the new PM to accept the delusional analysis that the Abbott government failed because of poor salesmanship rather than poor policy
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/23/its-the-policy-stupid-has-turnbull-learned-the-lesson-of-abbotts-failure
Massola. Now questions are being asked about the Labor leader
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-starts-to-become-an-issue-for-labor-20151023-gkgpr3.html#ixzz3pQI8evmW
Papua New Guinea will begin resettling refugees three years after the controversial Manus Island detention centre opened, as the federal government warns of violent clashes, lawlessness and gang rapes in the Pacific nation.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/manus-island-refugees-to-be-resettled-in-png-peter-dutton-says-20151022-gkgfbm.html#ixzz3pQIJeXb7
Cyclists will soon be able to stow their bicycles on buses, as the state government trials on-bus bike racks to encourage people to mix modes of transport as an alternative to cars.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-prepares-for-trial-of-bike-racks-on-buses-20151023-gkgvtt.html#ixzz3pQITs03V
The strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere is hours from striking near Mexico’s biggest port and a popular holiday resort, threatening catastrophic damage to property and posing danger to the lives of anyone caught in its path.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/hurricane-patricia-hemispheres-strongest-ever-hurricane-bearing-down-on-mexico-20151023-gkhff8.html#ixzz3pQIb9Myo
Bongiorno. This time, the government chaos and disunity line could play Labor’s way. Tony Abbott is in no mood to quit the parliament.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2015/10/24/resolving-doors-and-malcolm-turnbulls-spat-with-mike-baird/14456052002521
For the new prime minister, it’s time to keep his enemies close and the conservatives closer.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/10/24/malcolm-turnbull-versus-the-coalitions-social-conservatives/14456052002541
E. G. Theodore
Mal is a lucky lawyer who just happened toget involved with Ozemail & fell into banking , like Carr.
Not an economist just connected
Morning Bludgers
Finally a journo acknowledges that Shorten played leading role in bringing a bully down. Pity it was 12 months too soon.
http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/bill-shortens-unsung-role-in-tony-abbotts-demise-20151021-gkf9xr?
I should point out that Shorten’s numbers are BEFORE the LNP start smashing the airwaves with everything brought up in the Royal Commission and tying it back to Shorten. Shorten’s done, and if Labor take him to the next election he’ll be buried too.
And before anybody points out Abbott’s popularity levels, people should remember it was a choice between Abbott and the Rudd/Gillard fiasco.
The only chance Labor have is to dump their leader, anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land.
From Coorey’s article quoted by BH at 174
[Upon becoming Liberal leader in December 2009, Abbott’s application of the blowtorch rapidly exposed the hollowness of Rudd and the stratospheric poll figures upon which he so relied.
When those numbers went into freefall, so did Rudd.
When Gillard came in, already compromised by the way she took the job, she not only had to fight off the constant undermining by Rudd and his supporters. She also faced Abbott, whose primary tactic as Opposition Leader was to render the country ungovernable by giving the government nothing on anything and doing all he could to foul the operation of a hung Parliament.]
The most succinct and accurate summation I have seen from a journalist. It was so obvious – why has nobody else said it?
I’ve just been catching up on the overnight discussion, most of it pretty silly IMO.
The polls are continuing to reflect what I’ve predicted since Turnbull became leader: strong satisfaction among swinging voters at the novelty of having a centrist as Liberal PM: the first since Gorton. (Yes, Fraser had generally moderate policy views, but he was a politically-divisive figure.). Voters want to see what Turnbull can do, so they are highly likely to give the Libs another term: historically, always the most likely event, even under Abbott: right-wing parties at the Federal level having always succeeded in getting a second term since the end of World War I.
Shorten is no better than fair average quality as a political leader. He was always going to need exceptional circumstances to have a chance of winning. Abbott – perhaps our worst PM ever – provided those circumstances. But he’s gone. And – as the polls get better and better for Turnbull, the party elders line up behind MT, and hard right figures like Abetz attract media derision – the prospects for Abbott becoming a destructive presence like Rudd are quickly evaporating.
Sure, replace Shorten with Tanya or Albo if you like. They probably won’t do any worse, or any better: none of the three have much appeal to swinging voters.
Tanya is good-looking and intelligent but seems to lack a bit of oomph. As Deputy Leader and shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, she has achieved very little traction. Her quietly-spoken style is far more effective on the government benches than in opposition. Her looks might help her pick up a few stupid swinging votes beyond the reach of Albo and Shorten: blokes who’ll vote for her simply because she’s hot. But the fact she is a woman will drive other equally-stupid voters away.
Albo is the ALP’s equivalent of Abbott. A political warrior who is not super bright but has more front than Myer’s. The hard core across all ALP factions adore him, but I reckon he has minimal appeal to swinging voters. And his past ties to Ian MacDonald will make him a prime target for Murdoch smears.
I think that, unless something goes horribly wrong for MT in the next few months, Labor has virtually no chance at the next election. And, given the paucity of impressive potential leaders in the parliamentary party, it might take them a while to turn things around.
One final thought re Shorten. How much better would his image be if he had stuck fast to Gillard rather than crossed over to Rudd? Quite s bit more, I would suggest: he’d look less of a back room plotter and more of a man of principle. And he wouldn’t have had to endure Rudd putting the boot into him on TKS with revelations of clandestine late night meetings.
If, as I am suggesting, Shorten is certain to lose the next election, and most likely lose it badly, he’ll be among the most quickly-forgotten Labor leaders.
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has unveiled myriad environmental promises in Vancouver, including hundreds of millions of dollars in clean technology investment and a continued focus on climate change.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-s-environment-plan-end-fossil-fuel-subsidies-invest-in-clean-tech-1.3131607
So Turnbull is the opposite of Abbott. He doesn’t refuse to accept any of Labor’s ideas. He just steals them.
[Voters do not despise Shorten like they disliked Abbott. They find him underwhelming. Maybe that’s why he has received next to no credit for Labor’s role in Abbott’s demise. The voters have flocked to the new guy who, has also lifted holus-bolus Labor’s futuristic policy approach.]
Read more: http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/bill-shortens-unsung-role-in-tony-abbotts-demise-20151021-gkf9xr?#ixzz3pQWEN3LG
Shorten has already done the job – and more – that he was supposed to do (remembering he was elected leader immediately after a Labor wipe out, with every expectation that Labor would not be in government in the short term).
He has united the party, used that unity to block many of the Liberals’ worst brain farts, seen off Abbott and introduced some sound policies – some so sound that the government is now being encouraged to adopt them.
He’s nailed Labor’s colours to the mast on issues such as ME, climate change and the NBN.
Internally, he’s pushed for changes to preselections and supported a more ambitious target around female representation in Parliament.
These are considerable achievements, given the state of the party when he took over.
One of his problems has been created by the more democratic leadership election. Having a contested leadership with a vote of all members (which I do support) has the downside in that it automatically creates a division between those who voted for X and those who voted for Y. As no one likes losing, the new leader immediately begins with almost half of party members offside.
I’ve often observed that as a downside of preselections – the first thing a preselected candidate has to deal with is that those who voted for the other candidate are resentful (some even resign). There does seem to be a lot of that spillover with Shorten, even amongst those who weren’t Labor party members and didn’t vote for him.
(Certainly not saying that’s his whole problem!)
Shorten may well not win the next election. Going in, I doubt he expected to.
However, if he loses and there’s an automatic spill, it wouldn’t surprise me if caucus still supports him, because they understand the nature of his achievements in context.
There have been report ReachTel (and another company) have been polling for the Vic by-election in South-West Coast Napthines old seat).
The Nationals are going unexpectedly well, their candidate is reaching a young demographic which they dont usually get.
There is a lot of disharmony amongst libs from local pre-selection, and perhaps a protest vote from conservative libs who where anoyed with the federal leadership change also.
Liberal primary have dropped from 57% to 3x% is what im hearing
zoomster@180. Good post: I was never meaning to criticise Shorten’s achievements in bringing the party together and putting pressure on Abbott. Phil Coorey’s article today, although – like most of the Press Gallery, he vastly overrates Abbott as opposition leader, seeing talent where there was mainly just dumb luck – is pretty right about Shorten (although did we really need the crude toilet humour at the end?).
My main point was, as I have said before, that expecting Labor to win back office after one term in Opposition – something they haven’t achieved since the 1910s – was a very high hurdle to expect Shorten to jump over. Now Abbott has gone, I can’t see any potential Labor leader capable of doing that. Those who believe Albo or Tanya could do any better are dreamin’
Shorten is doing ok. But, let’s face it, he’s pretty uninspiring. Bob Hawke he ain’t.
zoomster
Posted Friday, October 23, 2015 at 10:57 am | PERMALINK
Pegasus:
[Time for some work at a local not-for-profit organisation entirely run by volunteers.]
zoomster:
[Ah, helping out at the Opp shop…]
Only you would know why you felt the need to respond with such an assumption stated with such certainty to my remark made during a conversation with MTBW.
So just to inform your apparent ignorance, I don’t work for an op shop nor have I ever worked for an op shop.
There are many NFP community organisations that are not op shops.
Hope this helps.
z,
So you don’t feel “paranoid” (one of your favourite snide personal characterisations of posters here), it was just coincidence my post followed yours. When I started my post you weren’t around.
@bug1: Libs won’t be worried about a protest vote in Vic. Abbott was killing the Liberal Party in Victoria, and Kroger has come out to say many seats could possibly be won now that Abbott’s out of the picture.
I’d look to other factors for why the Nats are polling well. The disharmony amongst the Libs, the lack of a credible Lib candidate, as well as a desire to still vote Coalition, could be part of the reason.
Seccombe.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/10/24/how-the-minerals-council-australia-has-govts-ear-coal/14456052002539
[Had the new minister done a little research on the plentiful literature from the World Health Organisation, he would have discovered about 800 million people worldwide rely for domestic heating and cooking on coal.
He would also have seen the WHO’s concerns that coal is in some ways worse for health than wood or dung.
…
The influence of the coal lobby on the government will end up costing Australia billions of dollars because of the delays in acting on climate change and pollution, says Ian Dunlop.
And their determination to export ever more coal would ensure “the world is toasted, and Australia is probably toasted earlier than most.”
Decisive action is what’s needed, he says. And instead we get moral homilies about the humanitarian benefits of coal, as dictated by the Minerals Council to a compliant government.
Literally and metaphorically, they talk dung.]
When it came to the release of cancer-causing chemicals, the organisation said, “there is stronger evidence [for coal] than for biomass, on specific health issues related to coals intrinsically containing toxic elements” including arsenic, fluorine, selenium, mercury and lead.
Frydenberg mentioned none of this, however, which invites a question: was he misrepresenting the facts, or was he simply parroting the Minerals Council, which was misrepresenting the facts?
…
No serious analysis suggests Australian coal exports will do much to ameliorate the health problems of the world’s poor.
“In India, where the Carmichael coal is set to go, most of those {400-odd-million people} who don’t have electricity, don’t have it because they don’t have access to the grid,” says the CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy.
“Exporting coal is not going to help them. The best, cheapest way to get electricity to them is through solar. I was in India in February meeting the CEOs of the energy companies, and that’s what they say.”
Indeed, they don’t just say it, they’re acting on it. Over the past five years, India added extra capacity from renewable sources equivalent to almost half Australia’s current capacity. And China is moving vastly faster.]
Lizzie
Thanks once more for your links.
I particularly appreciated Bongiorno mentioning Hockey’s hypocrisy in now wanting respect for pollies altho he always denied it to PMJG
Sorry, messed up quote marks there.
Let’s not forget Abyan.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/sad-tale-of-allegedly-raped-refugee-abyan-shows-we-have-lost-the-plot-20151023-gkgs19.html
[One solitary question was asked in the national Parliament this week about an issue that goes to the heart of Australia’s self-image as the compassionate country of the fair go. It came from the Labor opposition, but could just as easily have been a Dorothy Dixer from a Coalition MP.
:::
No wonder Dutton began his response by thanking Marles very much for the question, and “very much for the way he framed the question as well”.
:
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young asked many of the right questions during the Senate committee hearing this week, including how Abyan was feeling after being returned to Nauru.
:
Hanson-Young has called on the government to appoint an independent advocate or guardian to represent the interests of Abyan and others in similar situations. It’s a good idea.
:
“I’m despairing of it, to be honest. I just think we’ve lost the plot,” says former Australian of the Year and eminent psychiatrist Patrick McGorry, who believes the ascension of Malcolm Turnbull provides an opportunity for a better way.
Maybe it does, but the prospects are grim unless hard questions are asked and honest answers are given.]
BH
Hockey’s constant derision of Swan in the Parliament always annoyed me. Proved to be based on ignorance rather than superiority.
Pegasus@189: I’m sure Patrick McGorry has achieved wonderful things, warranting the award of Australian of the Year, but in recent years he has come across as just about the most whinging, complaining voice in the Australian policy debate.
Meanwhile in Victoria, 2 by-elections will be happening next Saturday.
While Labor is not running in either seat, the Greens are fielding candidates in both.
[Next Saturday nearly 90,000 people will vote across two neighbouring electorates made vacant by the retirement of Liberal veterans Dr Napthine and former transport minister Terry Mulder.]
With no Labor candidate running in either seat, the conventional wisdom, anecdotal feedback and the betting markets all point to comfortable Liberal victories in both South-West Coast and Polwarth.
In Dr Napthine’s old seat, which includes Portland, a serial Labor candidate is running as an independent, Roy Reekie, so how he polls and where his preferences go could make things tight.]
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/liberals-lead-in-denis-napthines-former-seat-20151023-gkh1n8.html
Morning all.
The spats about these days, not that this one is of particular interest, but still.
[Former minister Peter Reith has exposed the bitter rivalry, policy clashes and leadership jockeying in John Howard’s government and unleashed an extraordinary barrage of criticism aimed at former treasurer Peter Costello.
In a memoir that draws on contemporary notebooks, Mr Reith slams Mr Costello for “undisciplined arrogance”, suspected leaking to journalists, “positioning” for the leadership, being “missing in action” during key policy debates and describes him as “a dope”.
Mr Reith says Mr Howard elevated Tony Abbott to cabinet because he could challenge Mr Costello in a future leadership contest. “He wanted Abbott into cabinet because he and Abbott are philosophically close and he sees Abbott as having the potential to challenge/supplant Costello,” he wrote in 2001.]
…
[He praises the Howard government’s achievements and Mr Costello’s record as treasurer, but his attacks on his former colleague permeate the book.
“When it comes to a stoush Peter is usually hiding in a cupboard,” Mr Reith wrote in 2001, “e.g. when we were losing ministers back in 1997; in the waterfront dispute; in the 1998 election he was missing in action; even in cabinet’s expenditure review committee when I told him I’d not agree to Treasury plans to cut defence and he walked out.
“Before the 1998 election he mused about the leadership — as if he’d do anything about it! On fiscal policy Howard rolls him every time — e.g. homebuyers’ assistance scheme, setting the Age Pension at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, the GST negotiations with the Democrats.”]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/peter-costello-arrogant-and-a-leaker-says-peter-reith/story-fn59niix-1227580487770?sv=854f754a603595b8d7434ef39a0d808f
lizzie
Posted Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 7:57 am | Permalink
So Turnbull is the opposite of Abbott. He doesn’t refuse to accept any of Labor’s ideas. He just steals them
I reckon Abbott “stole” around 5 Labor policies
[but in recent years he has come across as just about the most whinging, complaining voice in the Australian policy debate.]
Compare and contrast with equally notable and high achieving academics such as Fiona Stanley, who through quiet advocacy and being able to work with govts of all persuasions, was highly effective at having her research translated into policy.
Yes there were things Stanley was critical of through the years (kids in detention, the myopia of health policy, the Howard years), yet despite speaking publicly about those things, still continued to sit on Howard’s PM science council and work with govt policy-makers and ministers.
McGorry would do well to emulate her IMO.
AA
Yes, but Turnbull wraps them in shiny new glitter 😆
Here’s a great comment on the NBN that I have lifted from a commenter on the Guardian. Definitely worth a read.
TrevorX1
9h ago
12 13
Turnbull makes a great show of being reasonable, talking a lot about rational debate and discussion. The thing is, he’s been doing this his whole career – he made an impassioned speech in early 2013 about honest, responsible politics, but pretty much every single word was utter hypocrisy when his actions in the then shadow, and later ministerial, Communications portfolio demonstrated that everything he says is designed to misrepresent the facts and obfuscate inconvenient reality for the purpose of misleading the country. Voters should judge politicians on their track record – their political career provides substantial opportunity for analysis of ideology, performance and trustworthiness. They should absolutely not be judged on eloquence, their personal lives or the words of speech writers during contrived public performances. The political word is worth little more than platitude.
Turnbull’s track record demonstrates that he is a shrewd political operator, unafraid to employ misdirection and misrepsentstion of the facts to achieve his goals. Over the past five years he has fought hard against Labor’s NBN, the largest and most ambitious infrastructure project in Australian history. The original NBN was well designed precisely because it was designed by experts, not politicians. The LNP had a policy problem – they didn’t want to endorse anything Labor did, but opposing the NBN was to oppose logic and facts. So in order to make it politically palatable, extensive effort was made to create (fabricate) a scenario with statistics and figures supporting the LNP agenda and demonising the FTTP NBN. Initially this was launched in April 2013 as LNP policy based on a document with substantially flawed assumptions and absolutely no supporting evidence. Once the LNP gained office, they could employ professionals to create the figures they needed under the facade of legitimacy, despite the obvious and unapologetic conflict of interest essentially every single appointee had to the strategic review board, the NBN board of directors and executive management team.
But such is the complexity of the project, requiring skills very few journalists possess, that the media almost universally gave the LNP and Malcolm a free pass on their NBN strategy and activities. Just like climate change science almost universally agreeing on the science and facts, but politicians and lobby groups being able to argue against the tide of facts, evidence and 97% of the world’s scientific community, so the LNP have been able to make convincing sounding arguments against the original NBN that flies in the face of both scientific facts and economic reality, and they are given all the airspace to do this by the press.
I remind you of this because, far from being of ‘fringe interest’ this policy and the way the situation has played out is *precisely* what Malcolm Turnbull has been doing for the past five years. It *is* his track record. And yet the subject is utterly ignored by the press, the Guardian included. These are knowable, testable facts. Almost the entire IT and ICT industry is opposed to the MTM mess. It will cost substantially more than FTTP, it will take longer to deploy than FTTP would have, and it is not financially viable (will never achieve positive ROI). The whole policy and direction is based on fraud, lies and corrupt political appointments designed to misdirect the Australian public, and it was conceived and executed by the man who is now our Prime Minister.
And the worst part is, the outcome is not a result of unforseen circumstances or evolving facts as they came to light, what is unfolding is absolutely and comprehensively running according to plan – it was knowable and even predicted back in April 2013 because we knew, and continue to know, the scientific and financial facts. Malcolm knew those same facts – he didn’t make a mistake and he wasn’t misled by engineers or industry figures. He chose a deliberate path and has ignored, opposed, belittled and bullied his way against every argument and fact brought against his plan by engineers, experts and industry groups.
(to be continued)
Reply
Report
•
TrevorX1 TrevorX1
9h ago
8 9
(continued from above)
Why would Turnbull deliberately sabotage important infrastructure? Why, money, of course. Now, instead of the NBN being constructed by a company opposing the Telstra status quo, those billions of dollars are now helping Telstra. Instead of the end result substantially reducing Telstra’s control and influence of telecommunications, it is now largely complementary. Instead of the full fibre NBN locking out infrastructure competition essentially forever in Australia, there now remains ample space for a patchwork of competition because it is easy to justify building a commercial fibre network in competition with a castrated solution like FTTN. Sound like conspiracy theory? Really? Take a look at Telstra’s share price from 2010 to today – notice the downward trend leading up to September 2013 and the way it has climbed since. Bear in mind that Turnbull replaced most of NBN Co’s board and executive management team with Telstra staff, many of whom walked straight from one job to the other, none of whom was forced to divest their substantial share portfolios in Telstra stock.
And guess what happens to the NBN in another 10 years when it can’t break even and is a continuing (and perpetual) drain on the budget, with utterly no hope of ever reaching positive ROI (because all the high profit / revenue customers are either signed up with competitors, or are unable to purchase the high performance products that would have been available on FTTP, because they don’t have FTTP)? It must be divested (privatised) because it is a black hole of never ending debt, a liability that will continue to suck the life out of the budget indefinitely. This will, of course, be blamed on Labor. But the real NBN would have made a profit – a healthy profit that would have seen the whole project paid off in 15 years and then returned income to the government. So the LNP will sell off the NBN at a fraction of its construction cost, and it will inevitably go to Telstra. Who will end up owning and controlling a new national fibre network for a fraction of what it actually cost to build – they’ll have this brand new infrastructure without having to construct or pay for it. Then they’ll be assured a virtual monopoly over Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure for at least another century, and probably for much, much longer than that. Not a bad deal of you’re Telstra, or a major shareholder.
But I didn’t want this to be an expose on the NBN – this is merely background on Malcolm’s performance over the past 5 years. This is how he operates and what he is going to do to the rest of the country – bleed it dry to maximise the potential profit for rich corporate raiders. The reasonableness is a facade to mislead the press and the public and get him elected again next year. It is only through the analysis of these facts and breaking them down so that people can Starr judging him on knowable facts and evidence, to judge him on his track record, that the honeymoon will end and people will no longer be bamboozled by the misdirection of charm and the carefully constructed facade of reasonableness. Do your job, press.
And, re Michael Gordon’s call for “hard questions” and “honest answers”: the Government has certainly been asked hard questions about the “Abyan” case and has given answers within the boundaries as to what would be reasonable in terms of medical privilege and privacy. It seems to me that the main reason the likes of Gordon and SH-Y are seeking those answers to be “dishonest” is because they don’t conform to their predetermined mental models of what’s going on in this case.
The only “answer” these sorts of people will accept is one in which boat people are unfailingly honest “victims” who are desperately fleeing from persecution. It’s the sort of world view which can produce absurd comments like the one I heard recently from a bleeding heart journo: “what is the government doing locking up “refugees” with “criminals”? (ie, other boat people)
There are all sorts of people in detention on Nauru and Manus at the moment: angels, devils and just average folk looking for a better life for themselves and their children and who – shock, horror – might even be prepared to bend the truth a little bit, or even a lot, to get what they want.
It’s just possible that the government is telling the truth about “Abyan”. If evidence is produced to the contrary, I’ll be happy to accept it. But, for now, I have to say that I found the evidence on the matter presented by a senior bureaucrat to Senate Estimates last week to be pretty convincing.
peg
[(one of your favourite snide personal characterisations of posters here),]
Tsk, tsk. And you complain about verballing.
I use the term ‘paranoid’ very very extremely rarely. It’s far from one of my favorites.
I do appreciate your mild obsession with me, though.
I was having a chat with a mate this morning about Turnbull, and he thinks that most people are now mentally over politics (at least for a while). When Abbott went, they downed tools. They are happy they’ve got a new prime minister and don’t want to think about policies or anything else right now, thank you very much.
Hard as it is for people on this blog to believe that, I think it’s probably right.