The Australian reports the first Newspoll of the year shows no change to the status quo after the tax cuts backflip or anything else to have happened over the holiday period, with Labor retaining its 52-48 two-party lead from the mid-December poll. Only minor changes are recorded on the primary vote, with Labor up a point to 34%, the Coalition steady on 36%, the Greens down one to 12% and One Nation steady on 7%.
Questions on the tax cuts found 62% believed the government had done the right thing, but oddly only 38% felt they would be better off. Preferred prime minister is likewise unchanged at 46-35 in favour of Anthony Albanese, while at this stage we only have net results on the two leaders’ ratings: Albanese down a point to minus nine, Peter Dutton down four to minus 13. A number of gaps here should be filled when The Australian publishes full results tables.
The poll was conducted Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 1245.
UPDATE: Albanese is steady on 42% approval and up one on disapproval to 51%, while Dutton is down two to 37% and up two to 50%. The 38% better off figure turns out to contrast with only 18% for worse off, with 37% opting for about the same and 7% uncommitted. The 62% support rating compared with 29% opposed and 9% uncommitted. Both questions emphasised that the changes would be to the advantage of lower and middle income earners.
TPOFsays:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:27 pm
Rainman @ 9.21
I think Penny Wong was brilliant tonight on 7.30. She is the best foreign minister we have had since Gareth Evans – probably better in my opinion.
_____________________
Did she give an update on Yang Hengjun ?
She has looked like a stunned mullet so far.
The over the top celebration on Cheng Lei’s release for political gain was always going to come back and bite her.
There was no particular reason, or law, that required the retention of the Secretaries. It was a choice of the incoming Govt. It did not work out. Perhaps unsurprising to some, arguably most, but clearly surprising to some in Govt who decided to retain. Maybe, in the hope, that the past was the past and a bright future of stunning KPI ratings lay ahead. Seems it did not quite work out. Maybe a big 4 consultant can do a review.
Long time reader, first time poster.
Any talk about potential unfair dismissal claims, fair dismissal codes and the like around Commonwealth public service department heads is misplaced. Leave aside that a Departmental Secretary’s salary puts them outside the scope of having any unfair dismissal rights, there is clear legal precedent, stemming from the period of the Howard government terminating a number of Departmental Secretaries, that Ministers effectively have carte blanche to do so. A Minister saying they have lost confidence in a Secretary is enough.
Oh shit. Top of the page.
Bugger.
Entropy says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:01 pm
Rainmansays:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:51 pm
====================================================
What actual Ministerial standard are you claiming Wong broke then.
———————————————————————
STATEMENT OF MINISTERIAL STANDARDS
1.3 In particular, in carrying out their duties:
(ii) Ministers must observe fairness in making official decisions – that, is to act honestly and reasonably, with consultation as appropriate to the matter at issue, taking proper account of the merits of the matter, and giving due consideration to the rights and interests of the persons involved, and the interests of Australia.
Source: apo.org.au
If the BBC Channel 4 report is true, then Penny Wong made a decision detrimental to the health and wellbeing of thousands of people based on unsubstantiated claims by an interested party without having seen any evidence.
Her decision:
Did not observe fairness
Did not take proper account of the merits of the matter
Did not give due consideration to the rights and interests of the persons involved
And was the act of an American kiss arse toady.
VCT Et3e has indeed signed their own death warrant.
============================================
Missed that!
Must have been good!
Been There:
It was basically the same incomprehensible gibberish they would usually grace us with, just with a few antiemetic comments thrown in to spice things up a bit.
Rainmansays:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:38 pm
Entropy says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:01 pm
Rainmansays:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:51 pm
====================================================
What actual Ministerial standard are you claiming Wong broke then.
———————————————————————
STATEMENT OF MINISTERIAL STANDARDS
1.3 In particular, in carrying out their duties:
(ii) Ministers must observe fairness in making official decisions – that, is to act honestly and reasonably, with consultation as appropriate to the matter at issue, taking proper account of the merits of the matter, and giving due consideration to the rights and interests of the persons involved, and the interests of Australia.
Source: apo.org.au
If the BBC Channel 4 report is true, then Penny Wong made a decision detrimental to the health and wellbeing of thousands of people based on unsubstantiated claims by an interested party without having seen any evidence.
Her decision:
Did not observe fairness
Did not take proper account of the merits of the matter
Did not give due consideration to the rights and interests of the persons involved
And was the act of an American kiss arse toady.
==================================================
While i have no idea of the veracity of the Channel 4 report. Australian policy has always been to align with USA. If Foreign Ministers were sacked for that then all Australian Foreign Ministers would be sacked. Even if the Channel 4 reports are true. Wong would only be liable if she knew that. I see no information she new the accusations were a lie at the time of the decision. Even the UNRWA didn’t no them to be a lie either as they suspended the workers and looked into it. Penny Wong can hardly be sacked for believing the intelligence she was provided at the time though.
Note: I have no idea of the veracity of the Channel 4 report. So what i wrote above about them being a lie is only if the Channel 4 report is found to be true.
Taylormadesays:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:37 pm
Oh shit. Top of the page.
Bugger.
=================================================
That was about what i was going to say about your @10:32 pm post. Talking shit at the top of the page. Seems you beat me too it.
Entropy says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:54 pm
Penny Wong can hardly be sacked for believing the intelligence she was provided at the time though.
————————————————————————
I didn’t say she should be sacked. I said that if the report that there was no evidence is true, she should resign.
“’Shame on you’: Polish prime minister hits out at US Republicans
Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, has issued a sharp public rebuke to American Republicans.
In a post on social media this morning, the centre-right politician said:
‘Dear Republican Senators of America. Ronald Reagan, who helped millions of us to win back our freedom and independence, must be turning in his grave today. Shame on you.’
The unusually strong critique of politicians from Warsaw’s most important bilateral security partner came after the US Senate blocked a bipartisan $118bn bill on US-Mexico border and Ukraine. The bill would have provided $60bn in military assistance for Kyiv.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/feb/08/shame-on-you-polish-prime-minister-tells-us-republican-senators-after-ukraine-bill-blocked-europe-live?page=with:block-65c4894e8f08b8fa87cc80b9#block-65c4894e8f08b8fa87cc80b9
Rainman says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:17 pm
Entropy says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:54 pm
Penny Wong can hardly be sacked for believing the intelligence she was provided at the time though.
————————————————————————
I didn’t say she should be sacked. I said that if the report that there was no evidence is true, she should resign.
_________
Not managed out? Very kind.
Rainmansays:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:17 pm
Entropy says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:54 pm
Penny Wong can hardly be sacked for believing the intelligence she was provided at the time though.
————————————————————————
I didn’t say she should be sacked. I said that if the report that there was no evidence is true, she should resign.
===============================================
Penny Wong did not breach Ministerial standards if she acted on the advice available at the time. She should hardly resign or be sacked for not knowing what she was told at the time was incorrect (assuming it even is?).
Jock says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 10:35 pm
Long time reader, first time poster.
Any talk about potential unfair dismissal claims, fair dismissal codes and the like around Commonwealth public service department heads is misplaced. Leave aside that a Departmental Secretary’s salary puts them outside the scope of having any unfair dismissal rights, there is clear legal precedent, stemming from the period of the Howard government terminating a number of Departmental Secretaries, that Ministers effectively have carte blanche to do so. A Minister saying they have lost confidence in a Secretary is enough.
__________
Thanks for the comment. Welcome to the fray! 🙂
Entropy says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:31 pm
Penny Wong did not breach Ministerial standards if she acted on the advice available at the time. She should hardly resign or be sacked for not knowing what she was told at the time was incorrect (assuming it even is?).
———————————————————————————
Whose advice?
Told by whom?
What I’m trying to say is simple.
If the report that there was no evidence is true, then she made a major decision that adversely affected thousands of people based on a U.S. recomendation/direction, which was in turn based on an untrue claim by an interested party.
If the report that there was no evidence is true, for her to jump on the U.S. band wagon and make such a consequential decision so quickly, without seeing for herself the ‘evidence’ provided to the U.N., ‘evidence’ which BBC Channel 4 now claim that they have managed to see, is an incompetent dereliction of her responsibility as Foreign Minister.
I used to be a big Penny fan but, if the report is true, she has lost her mojo and should resign.
And that’s all I’m saying on the matter.
Rainmansays:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:58 pm
Entropy says:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:31 pm
Penny Wong did not breach Ministerial standards if she acted on the advice available at the time. She should hardly resign or be sacked for not knowing what she was told at the time was incorrect (assuming it even is?).
———————————————————————————
Whose advice?
Told by whom?
What I’m trying to say is simple.
If the report that there was no evidence is true, then she made a major decision that adversely affected thousands of people based on a U.S. recomendation/direction, which was in turn based on an untrue claim by an interested party.
If the report that there was no evidence is true, for her to jump on the U.S. band wagon and make such a consequential decision so quickly, without seeing for herself the ‘evidence’ provided to the U.N., ‘evidence’ which BBC Channel 4 now claim that they have managed to see, is an incompetent dereliction of her responsibility as Foreign Minister.
I used to be a big Penny fan but, if the report is true, she has lost her mojo and should resign.
===============================================
I say that’s rot as she would not have access to the report. So only could go off what she was told by ASIO or other intelligence services. As i said the UNRWA stood down workers so even they at least thought the reports could be true. So i don’t see how Wong could know any different either. If there are people that should be punished if these reports are a lie. Wong is not one of them. It is those who made up the lies in the first place.
Quote: “Fool me once, shame on you”
Didn’t UNWRA sack the relevant staff themselves? Is Wong meant to give the reports less credence than UNWRA themselves?
Amazing how some people are falling over themselves to call for Wong to be sacked over one unsubstantiated media report. FWIW Channel 4 in the UK is regarded as extremely hostile to Israel/pro-Palestinian and has for a decade or more.
I’m glad I never liked Clementine Ford, as her participation in the online pogrom against Jewish people, and let’s be clear – like the protesters chanting “Where’s the Jews?”, it’s against Jewish people as a racial or cultural group, not Israel – is pretty hateful. Doxxing people en masse just for being Jewish? This should not be happening in Australia.
I’m ashamed people like this can claim to be part of the left. But as we saw with Jenny Leong, public life in Australia is rife with people who just below the surface believe in some kind of grand controlling Jewish conspiracy that controls everything (but apparently don’t believe in the Arab oil money buying a great deal of actual control and influence). And that IS anti-semitism, not just the “I’m just anti-Israel” sentiment such people often hid behind.
Arkysays:
Friday, February 9, 2024 at 12:29 am
I’m glad I never liked Clementine Ford, as her participation in the online pogrom against Jewish people, and let’s be clear – like the protesters chanting “Where’s the Jews?”, it’s against Jewish people as a racial or cultural group, not Israel – is pretty hateful. Doxxing people en masse just for being Jewish? This should not be happening in Australia.
I’m ashamed people like this can claim to be part of the left. But as we saw with Jenny Leong, public life in Australia is rife with people who just below the surface believe in some kind of grand controlling Jewish conspiracy that controls everything (but apparently don’t believe in the Arab oil money buying a great deal of actual control and influence). And that IS anti-semitism, not just the “I’m just anti-Israel” sentiment such people often hid behind.
======================================================
Fair enough, but similarly we can not dismiss the ICJ findings either. An institute which Australia is signatory to and has an Australian judge on the panel.
Avilissement makes it sound sexier than it is.
Paris Olympic and Paralympic medals will contain chunks of Eiffel Tower
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/08/paris-olympic-and-paralympic-medals-will-contain-chunks-of-eiffel-tower
@Entropy: I’m very much limiting my comments to the Australian component, because I don’t want to encourage the moratorium breaking that discussing the ICJ decision would involve. And no, an Australian judge involved doesn’t magically make that about Australia.
The whataboutism is however noted.
—
On a completely different note, the Kooyong Tennis Club story continues on.
https://archive.md/qSsxu
I’m willing to accept that there’s been no criminal activity, but this feels very much like the Kooyong board is trying to avoid someone’s utter incompetence (possibly their own) getting out.
The only way that you can have “food costs up 155%” and “staff costs up 77%” in one year while turning a $330,000 profit to a $2.5m loss in that same year is to be massively incompetent. Well, and the obvious “someone’s inflating invoices and taking kickbacks” but if nothing illegal happened then you’d have to say somebody authorised hiring a lot of extra staff and paying for a lot of expensive food that they couldn’t then sell. I don’t blame these dissident member types for feeling like they’re being treated as kids by a board that won’t explain WTF actually did happen.
‘Australia’s foreign minister, Penny Wong, has said she did not have all the evidence about serious allegations regarding a key United Nations agency delivering aid to Gaza before she decided to halt funding.
In response to a question about whether she was in “full possession of the facts” regarding the allegations, she responded “well no, we’re not”.
The Israeli intelligence dossier unpinning the allegations has been described as “flimsy” in recent reporting, increasing scrutiny on the decision to pause aid.’
Source: theguardian.com
‘Senator Wong told the ABC’s 7.30 she had sought evidence from Israel, but had not received a response and had not asked UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini to share any evidence he might have had.
She admitted she was not in possession of all the evidence
No, we’re not,” she said.
“We have spoken to the Israelis and we have asked for further evidence.”
When pressed on why she did not ask Mr Lazzarini, Senator Wong reiterated she had asked Israel, and she was not aware if Mr Lazzarini had evidence.
“He may, I don’t know what he has,” she said
Source: abc.net.au
——————————————————————————
Everybody is entitled to an opinion.
My opinion is that this is a monumental fuck up and Penny Wong should resign.
And that’s all I’m saying on this matter.
And I mean it this time.
Catholic church loses high court bid to prevent father of George Pell accuser suing for damages
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/08/catholic-church-loses-high-court-bid-to-prevent-father-of-george-pell-accuser-suing-for-damages
Topical, given their plan to do a reverse Domino’s (probably with similar results.)
A History of Chuck E. Cheese: Last Squeak Tonight with John Oliver (Web Exclusive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v6y2pY1pZ0
The “Best So Far” playlist (9+ years ago) seems to be a warning to humanity, but could also be a litmus test for political leaning: appalled vs. implement immediately.
The Guardian’s live coverage of Trump vs ??? (reality, probably):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/feb/08/trump-supreme-court-2024-election-ruling
Does anyone have anything to say about the Rohinga refugees?
No; could you be more specific?
”
C@tmommasays:
Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:01 pm
Al Pal @ #1975 Thursday, February 8th, 2024 – 4:15 pm
There’s an old maxim in politics: voters will support any tax cuts that land in their pockets, but at any forthcoming election they will vote for the Party which is promising more tax cuts.
”
I never heard of such an “old maxim in politics”. If that is true, which I don’t think it is, then
1. it is the reason why LNP run up trillion dollar debt by always promising tax cuts.
2. Then people should not complain if they lose social dividends from cuts to social security benefits because that was what happen to pay for those tax cuts if governments are honest about keeping the expenditure under control.
The ATM governments were dishonest about tax cuts funding because they never cared about about that side of ledger and hence trillion dollar debt. Howard government provided tax cuts but cut services.
The only other way to provide tax cuts without cutting services and without increasing debt is to reduce the subsidies given to private enterprises.
I have recently posted an article on how private enterprises were reigned by Roosevelt Administration during Depression because Depression was due to “Greed is good” orthodoxy of 1920s.
Then private enterprises for a period of time until Reagan administration came to power looked after their employees and customers. If you notice until the advent of Reagan administration taxes were high to provide for these services and social security benefits.
After Reagan administration came, the private enterprises were told that their important ( some say only) objective is to provide profits to their firm and investors irrespective of caring for employees and customers. Thus “greed is good” was back in vogue.
There is story behind why “tax cuts” became “popular”since 1980s.
With the advent of Franklin Roosevelt Administration, the progressive side of politics started promising to provide various public services and social security benefits.
People liked that and voted for that side of politics ( you would notice that since 1932 to 1980 i.e. for 32 out of 48 years Democrats were in power) and USA flourished. Republicans were at lose to counter this trend. Then some one on Republican party side said why should they be bad guys by being financially prudent all the time and came up with 2 things.
1. Tax cuts
2. Cultural wars
Thus started the downward slide of USA, accelerated during Bush jr years and came to near collapse during Trump years by raking up US 34 trillion dollars debt and near break up of social cohesion ( you would notice that since 1980 Republicans were in power 24 out of 40 years).
I am not against tax cuts per se but they should be funded/ revenue neutral (as Socrates likes to say).
That is not happening till now. Let’s see how the latest tax cuts will be funded. Infact some say during ATM say government services were just gutted to provide more subsidies to ATM Governments benefactors.
Us Supreme Court have a Total cluster fuck… the result of a constitution that is based on Federalism that believes in states rights at the same time says you must have uniformity of intent & outcome.
Kafka has nothing on this.
Seriously they don’t have a democracy at all.
The outcome the SC points at is that Trump can run , can win gets to Jan 6 2024 & then gets excluded.
….. sweet irony that Originalists get to rule on originalism & rule against it
You now have the potential crisis of a State saying our constitution gives us the power to make a decision. A power granted by the Federal constitution & we will exercise that power…
Does that mean the Supreme Court saying you can’t do that & WE will run your ballot for YOU.
The joys of a half baked Federal system… 50 countries inside 1 country… what could possibly go wrong. Solution … let Trump run & win, exclude him lawfully ( according to SC) on Jan 6 2024 …. then what
New election
Appoint the VP
Appoint Speaker of the House
None of the above
TBH, my observation is that the consensus of opinion is that Trump’s electability should be decided by the voters.
I notice that the Government is not participating in the Colorado suit. Which leads me to think they actually want Trump on the ballot because they believe he can be beaten.
Things are looking dire…
“BREAKING: Special Counsel Jack Smith makes a stunning revelation about the classified documents case that demonstrates exactly how urgent it is that MAGA hack Judge Aileen Cannon be removed from the case.
This woman is as biased as they come and she’s putting people in danger…
In a new filing, Smith’s office has revealed a series of disturbing threats made to potential witnesses tied to the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Federal authorities are currently investigating the threats.
The prosecutors have asked Judge Cannon to allow them to file an exhibit under seal — a request that came just one day after she corruptly ruled against their request to keep some evidence redacted to protect ongoing investigations and witnesses.
Now, with the unveiling of these threats we see exactly how serious the risks are here, and how unacceptable Cannon’s ruling really is.
The fact that she was appointed to her judgeship by Trump and continues to rule far too favorably in his favor proves that she cannot be trusted.
“The exhibit describes in some detail threats that have been made over social media to a prospective Government witness and the surrounding circumstances and the fact that those threats are the subject of an ongoing federal investigation being handled by a United States Attorney’s Office,” the filing from prosecutors states.
“Disclosure of the details and circumstances of the threats risks disrupting the investigation,” they added.
They went on to say that redacting names or simply portions of the document might still “provide information to the suspect to which he/she may not otherwise be entitled.”
This is patently absurd. People are in danger and we are letting a blatantly MAGA judge steer the future of this country. She must be replaced.”
‘Occupy Democrats, Twitter
New thread.
And from Jack Smith’s twitter feed…
“Oral arguments before SCOTUS have concluded.
Based on the vibe and line of questioning, it is highly likely that Trump will remain on the ballot.”
Thanks, Sceptic and GG…
After listening to oral argument in the SCOTUS this morning, I think that judging by the questions the Court asked, Colorado’s attempt to keep Trump off its presidential ballot is doomed. And it wasn’t only the six conservatives on the bench who asked questions that led me to said conclusion. If I’m right, Trump will take the decision as an indication that his lackeys on the US Supreme Court will overturn the DC Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that held per curiam that he did not have immunity for alleged criminal acts committed while in office. However, even with this highly partisan and corrupt
Supreme Court, it would have to pull out every trick in the book as
the Appeals Court judgment more than covered every base in a most methodical and learned way.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7090A350785258ABB0052D942/$file/23-3228-2039001.pdf
Victoria @ 9.38am
And your eminent professional medical qualifications are?
Every time a patient has an aneasthetic there is a risk of death.
Every surgical procedure has an element of risk.
It has been my experience, in both public & private hospitals, that every surgeon has always explained the surgical procedure and alternative procedures.
The risks, no matter how minor, should also be explained before signing the consent form, which you forward to the hospital prior to surgery.
The only difference to the above is when your admission is the result of a serious accident or an event such as a stroke or cardiac arrest in which you are unable to give direct consent to the procedures(s) being undertaken.
By the way there isn’t too many teaching hospitals available for every patient.
My medical qualification – none.
However, my wife was a registered nurse for over 35 years, much of that time as Nurse Unit Manager in a large Accident & Emergency department.
We also have a wide friendship group which contains a large variety of health professionals.
Mavis,
The general American legal commentator consensus is that the SCOTUS will give the Trump team a bone with the Colorado case but rule against him in the Presidential Immunity case.
A few clarifications re the discussion about Kathryn Campbell on here last night.
Since the early 1990s, Prime Ministers have had the power to remove departmental secretaries simply by cancelling their contracts and paying them out. In the 2000s, departmental secretaries were given similar powers in relation to the senior executives in their own departments. Technically, the process usually takes the form of an “agreement to retire” on the part of the departing secretary or senior executive. On this basis, they receive a payout which some might see as generous, but which is relatively small in relation to their annual salaries when compared to the golden handshakes routinely received by private service executives. If the public servant is determined to fight it out, their contracts can simply be cancelled, potentially with no payout at all, but this rarely if ever happens.
I believe that these developments have been, on balance, bad for the nation, in that the public service now has less power to resist or modify bad policy ideas put forward by politicians. But I don’t think we’re ever likely to return to the days of all-powerful permanent heads of public service departments.
I have heard that, in his discussions with senior public servants both before and after he became PM, Albo was adamant that it was his intention to treat the public service with greater respect than had been shown by some of his Liberal predecessors: in particular, by resisting the temptation to make heavy use of his powers to move on departmental secretaries. He did seem to suggest during the election campaign that he would make an exception in the case of Phil Gaetjens, the Secretary of PM&C who, although he had initially come up through the ranks of Canberra public service, was widely seen as having nailed his colours to the Liberal mast since the mid-1990s. In the end, Gaetjens agreed to go on his own accord: probably through some sort of an agreement to retire, although he was reported by the press gallery (which has little insight into the processes involved) as having “resigned.”
As far as I know all the other departmental secretaries were retained by Albo, although Campbell was moved from her role as Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (for which role she was a very strange choice) to her AUKUS job, which was a demotion in status but not, according to media reports, in terms of her salary: and rightfully so, because IMO the salaries of public servants should only be reduced through formal processes and not simply at the whim of politicians)
Whatever one might think of her (and I can assure you that I am no sort of a fan), Campbell was an apolitical public servant who had come up through the ranks. Albo therefore rightly chose to wait for the completion of the Robodebt inquiry, after which Campbell chose to leave the public service (again reported simplistically by the media as a “resignation”).
I am not Albo’s greatest supporter, but I reckon he got all of this completely right. Australia would not benefit from the US system in which there is a large scale turnover of senior officials following every change of government (which will soon become much larger if the likes of Senator JD Vance get their way). Nor do we need to have senior public servants fearful about threats to their financial well-being if they offend their political masters in some way. In such an environment, public servants are even less likely than they are now to stand up to bad policy ideas, and there will be many more Robodebts.
So good on Albo IMO.