The Australian reports the latest Newspoll shows the parties still araldited together on 50-50, with Labor’s primary vote on 35 per cent (38.0 per cent at the election, 34 per cent in the Newspoll of September 10-12), the Coalition on 42 per cent (43.6 per cent and 41 per cent) and the Greens on 14 per cent (11.8 per cent and 14 per cent). This is despite a sharp deterioration in Tony Abbott’s personal ratings, which have seen a 9 per cent drop in approval (to 39 per cent) and rise in disapproval (47 per cent). By contrast, Julia Gillard is up four points on approval to 48 per cent and down three on disapproval to 33 per cent, and her lead as preferred prime minister has widened from 50-34 to 52-31. Full tables courtesy of GhostWhoVotes.
Yes, they didn’t really need John Safran to bolster the numbers, did they?
Finns @ 4545
[ and wasn’t that dangerous killing machine David Hicks from Adelaide?
ah that very dangerously annoying person Diog is also from Adelaide.
]
-the squadron’s on its way.
[OzymandiasPosted Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 10:47 pm | Permalink O
Not forgetting that we have to bomb Melbourne and Sydney.
-and wasn’t that dangerous killing machine David Hicks from Adelaide?
]
What about Jihad Jack – He;s from our neck of the woods in Perth 🙁
Rod Hagen,
I think I remember reading in Albert Speers’ book that he very nearly became the Court Architect of Afghanistan (sometime around 1930, I suppose?) during one of those periods of modernisation, but something got in the way and it fell through.
So ended up working for the Nazis instead…bummer of a life-changing moment.
[Australians don’t care about the treatment of boaties…]
It is about time some of our “leaders” from all sides, and our media, showed a bit more spunk about the issue, and started pointing out more effectively why they should, then Whizzer, just as Fraser was able to do with respect to Vietnam.
Rod Hagen @458
.. and there was no minus for you that the Taliban knowingly and willingly harboured Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network before and after 9/11 .. ?
Rod @ 4548 of course
Frank @ 4553
[ What about Jihad Jack – He;s from our neck of the woods in Perth
]
Ssssh, Frank! You’ll be OK out there in the valley, but I am an inner city resident.
[You’ll be OK out there in the valley, but I am an inner city resident.]
Those pesky terrorists always hide in the CBD …
*off for a read before bed*
Mick77 @4536,
I understand what you are saying but I really don’t see, if we follow your train of thought, how we can pick and choose.
America does pick and choose and its choices, since the end of WW2, have had nothing to do with the international good.
I really think that Americas’ involvement in conflict since the end of WW2 has had little to do with battling the forces of evil and more to do with extending its political and economic influence.
America is not alone in this pursuit but it has been the driving force behind much of the conflict in Central America, Asia and the Middle East either directly or in providing the finance and equipment during this time. The trouble with this is in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan it has dragged Australia along with it and involved us in a litany of lies and illegal operations.
The trouble with America is however that when it gets too hard they just pick up and leave with little consequence for what they leave behind. What good came out of Vietnam? Laos is I think one of the most bombed countries in the world. For what purpose ? Iraq. What purpose?
Yet it still goes on and young people die.
Mick77, I personally have no time for the Taliban. I had no time for the Taliban before 9/11 either. Doesn’t mean that I think that this justifies ten years of Western occupation of Afghanistan, keeping the place in a state of continuous warfare.
Nor do I think that the fact that the Taliban made life easy for bin Laden for a while justifies the maintenance of a conflict which killed as many civilians in the first six months of this year alone as died in 9/11. Fighting the Taliban does nothing to stop “Terrorism”. It simply helps terrorist organisation recruit people to their cause, just as the war in Iraq did.
As far as the removal of the WAP is concerned, we owe Gough not nearly as much as we do Harry Holt.
It certainly was Holt who “did the hard lifting” -at a time the ALP was still pro-WAP (& much of it rabidly so). It was Holt who stared down Coalition dissenters (many & vocal), and worked tirelessly to see the WAP dismantled (& the “Aboriginal” Referendum passed) and it is Holt who was (& still is) recognised as “the father” of 1966’s “watershed” changes (when the ALP was still in “Two Wongs never make a White” mode). The ALP Left (inc Gough) supported Holt’s moves and later completed what Holt would have had he survived.
Much enthusiastic support came from universities & families which hosted Colombo Plan students – I celebrated at a string of parties at UQ. Had there not been a Vietnam War, the ALP’s position would have lost it the generation it gained through Calwell’s anti-War stance. I’ve said before, Election1966 – between a still pro-WAP but antiwar ALP, and the anti-racist but pro-war Coalition was the hardest decision I had to make (anti-war won)
Post-war moves to soften then remove the WAP are outlined in: Fact Sheet 8 – Abolition of the ‘White Australia’ Policy
[The abolition of the policy took place over a period of 25 years.
Following the election of a coalition of the Liberal and Country parties in 1949, Immigration Minister Harold Holt allowed 800 non-European refugees to remain in Australia and Japanese war brides to enter Australia.
Over subsequent years, Australian governments gradually dismantled the policy, with the final vestiges being removed in 1973 by the new Labor government …
A watershed
The March 1966 announcement was the watershed in abolishing the ‘White Australia’ policy, and non-European migration began to increase. Yearly non-European settler arrivals rose from 746 in 1966 to 2,696 in 1971, while yearly part-European settler arrivals rose from 1,498 to 6,054.
In 1973 the Whitlam Labor government took three further steps in the gradual process to remove race as a factor in Australia’s immigration policies.
These were to:
* legislate that all migrants, of whatever origin, be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence
* issue policy instructions to overseas posts to totally disregard race as a factor in the selection of migrants
* ratify all international agreements relating to immigration and race.]
[OzymandiasPosted Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 11:02 pm | PermalinkFrank @ 4553
What about Jihad Jack – He;s from our neck of the woods in Perth
Ssssh, Frank! You’ll be OK out there in the valley, but I am an inner city resident
]
My mistake – wrong Jack – Jihad Jack is from Melbourne – I’m referring to Jihad Jack Roche, who lives in South Perth which is part of the seat of Swan which is held by Cheese Whizz’s mob 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Roche
Yes, I’d agree with that, OPT. I should have mentioned Holt in my earlier post. In many ways though his own philosophy appeared to me to follow the direction that Menzies himself had been heading in at that time.
Hmm
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/former-mp-jaye-radisich-needs-kidney-donor-calls-for-opt-out-system/story-e6frg13u-1225939604751
Doyley & Rod @ 4561 and 4562
Generally speaking I agree but on specifics you could also choose Kosovo or Bosnia where the outcomes and intentions were regarded as positive. We never have the benefit of hindsight and the US, whilst much maligned, has been a great friend and protector of Oz. Back to Afghanistan, at the time US led actions were almost universally applauded. Not so the conduct of the war or the current outcome but I still think we need even now to consider what the cost might have been of doing nothing – maybe a dirty bomb or two in a major city. Does anyone doubt that they would have been trying, and probably still are but success is what terrorists need to attract support. We’ve denied them that success … so far.
[4563
OzPol Tragic
As far as the removal of the WAP is concerned, we owe Gough not nearly as much as we do Harry Holt.
It certainly was Holt who “did the hard lifting” -at a time the ALP was still pro-WAP (& much of it rabidly so). It was Holt who stared down Coalition dissenters (many & vocal), and worked tirelessly to see the WAP dismantled (& the “Aboriginal” Referendum passed) and it is Holt who was (& still is) recognised as “the father” of 1966’s “watershed” changes (when the ALP was still in “Two Wongs never make a White” mode). The ALP Left (inc Gough) supported Holt’s moves and later completed what Holt would have had he survived.]
Thanks for the first-hand, OPT…..
Rod Hagen
The mid-1960s were the years the most left-wing (& visionary) party in the Parliament was the Liberal Party, & most ALP (esp the TUs) thought the real danger in funding ComSchols was that working class kids would get degrees & join the Tories – I was told that, at my grandmother’s wake, by one of the “Faceless men”!
For me, the end of the WAP is inextricable linked to Rubber Soul & Help! at Dive-ins.
Off to bed now
Good night, all.
[So, the questions for this week’s ‘debate’ on the Afghanistan War is,
‘Which Afghanistan war aims should Gillard enunciate?’
Should she say, ‘The Afghanistan War is lost?’
Should she say, ‘The US is at war, therefore we are at war?’
Should she say, ‘We are pulling out now because we are wasting blood and treasure?’]
I’m afraid if she was being honest her answer would most definitely be ‘The US is at war, therefore we are at war’, boerwar.
My bet is that well before the time of the next election, though, we will have adopted the “Vietnam strategy” and declared that our job is done, and that Karzai’s army is now able to look after itself, just as the South Vietnamese army were said to be (and with the ready agreement of the US, who will find it valuable to have us provide a justification for their own, probably fairly gradual, withdrawal).
Kersebleptes@4508
As much as it galls me to defend $#@#$ Howard, the man mostly responsible was the ace buffoon Alexander Downer. It wasn’t about currying favour, but a mixture of the buffoon big noting himself, sheer incompetence and indifference. When Howard finally woke up to what was really going on he acted decisively, threatening the Indonesians, especially the TNI chief Gen. Waranto with a one way trip to The Hague, and forcing them to accept peacekeepers.
Rod @4570
I also think that Gillard’s answer will be a less blunt version of “The US is at war, therefore we are..”. That’s what being an ally means. You don’t agree with everything but you stand by friends on important issues where there is general agreement and they reciprocate, as they have in the past. God bless America (or “atheists bless America” if others prefer that) for all its innumerable faults – what other major power would we choose as our ally if not them? I find the superficial hate America agenda of some on this site quite alarming. On that note – g’night.
Good Evening PB’rs,
I have had a response from Greg Hunt re my complaint about the use of offensive language in relation to Julia Gillard, asking specifically which language I found offensive.
Here is my response:
Greg,
“The Prime Minister is caught in a crisis of cowardice where she is refusing to face rural and regional Australia.”
Between yourself, Anthony Abbott and Christopher Pyne, you have managed to call or infer, the Prime Minister of Australia, is a coward, a bastard and a bitch and a slut. This is absolutely appalling.
In fact, quite a few comments from your party colleagues, continue to debase women. In all honesty, I haven’t heard you, personally, do this, but you can pass this message on to the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Pyne, whose comments regularly demean women.
Firstly, the PM of any country should be respected with a degree of decorum. Regardless of their political affiliations, regardless of their religion, sex or any other basis. You denigrate the PM, you denigrate this country. I believe, that the language that you and your fellow party members chose to use, crossed the line. I believe that the three of you owe the Australian Prime Minister a public apology.
I am all for democracy. Argue your point at will, I am all ears. I welcome informed debate. But these comments are not about arguing policy or simply holding someone accountable. They amounted to personal attacks, and I must insist that it stops now.
By all means make your point, but you debase yourself, and you undermine your own integrity and standards when you choose this kind of language and approach.
I rarely post on here but read the threads every day. Words such as “mesma” “toolman” ” the oo” “Red Kerry” “stop the …..” have become part of my every day vocabulary! I am disallusioned with where a lot of people sit in regards to a number of social justice type issues. as a 27 year old the views of some of my peers are frightening. The Alp has my full support and that of probably 80% of my close family and friends. The shift towards the right in policy, however is a massive concern, although this was required to beat Howard in 07. Please ALP remember the people in your heartland in stead of just the “rednecks, cashed up bogan” “focus group” types you are placing all your hopes on. I am particulary happy to live in the seat of Hindmarsh, the best place in Australia (in my humble opinion!)
SK, good letter. The language of the Opposition demeans us all, but I am not surprised by it. Isn’t this a sad thing in itself? Have we come to expect so little from the Opposition that such degrading invective is almost unremarkable?
Perhaps this accounts for the resounding silence from journalists, commentators and opinion-makers. Where is the indignation? Does no-one care that these would-be leaders of the country can behave like a gang of bullying teenagers and encounter nothing but indifference? What has happened here?
@4511,
[Actually, I thought the whole point was for them to stop sending out terrorists. If the west was so against sharia law, how come saudi arabia is an ally?]
You’re confusing what I think with what is generally called foreign policy.
4576
And of course the specific reason Saudi Arabia is generally a western ally is oil.
Personally, I want to hear from the Government before coming to any conclusions about Afghanistan. I know Labor do not take this deployment at all lightly. It has been uppermost in the minds of the key members of cabinet from moment of their election in 2007. To my knowledge, they have always been conscious of the costs and dangers of the deployment and would not continue to support it unless they thought there were good reasons for it. I would very much like to hear what those reasons are. There needs to be a considered public statement of the aims, methods, limits and costs of Australia’s deployment.
As with all wars, it is very easy to identify the costs, in both lives lost and money spent. This is a NATO mission which Australia has supported with a limited deployment. It has obviously been going on for a long time and has become more dangerous in recent times. There have been more deaths of Australian service personnel and, it seems, there is serious violence most of the time in Oruzgan Province.
But as is also the case with most wars, it is not always easy to see what purposes will be achieved by continuing to fight. There is a view that the basic point of the NATO mission has become lost over time and some of the NATO allies have withdrawn, presumably because they have decided that matters in Afghanistan are not central to European security. But that in itself does not persuade me of much. The Europeans are ever-ready to let others carry the costs in Defense as in so many other things.
I think the Government see the deployment in Afghanistan as a way of contributing to regional security – to the stability of Pakistan particularly – and to preventing a reprise of the Bali and Jakarta attacks. In this context, the mission can’t really be complete until there is a stable, viable and ordered Afghan State despite the armed resistance of the Taliban. Perhaps this can’t be done. There needs to be an honest appraisal of this too.
One other thing comes to mind about this conflict. While the thoughts of Andrew Wilkie will be worth listening to, it is certain that the LNP will have nothing useful to contribute. They have shown there is only one dimension of this war that interests them – and that is the chance for political gains at the expense of the Government and the soldiers whose lives are at risk.
The site “Asia Times” reports the release from Pakistan captivity of the supreme military commander of the Taliban who was captured last Feb. in Karachi
Mulla Baradar was NOT handed over to the Afghan Govt but let go back to what the Pakis called “TheTaliban family”…some family !
It is assumed that this is part of the secret talks now underway with the US..
It would be a coup for Obama to get a good excuse to announce a withdrawal ahead of time…and before the US elections.
.
Even that warmonger Greg Sheridan in The OZ now concedes that the war is not winable…now to convince Gillard and Rudd that all the “in it for the long haul ” talk is just nonsense and merely done to suck up to the USA.
It is in the usual fatuous Rudd style !,,and Gillard doesn’t seem to have anything better to say ,given that she said she would rather watch some kid learn to read than met international leaders !
Hopefully the Greens and the Wilkie will be able to talk sense to the ALP,………
and who then will be the last(unfortunate)Australian boy to die in this useless .,bloody conflict,,perhaps Rudd and Gillard could run a sweep and give the winnings to the unfortunate widow !!…The sweep of Death!!
New thread.