Pressure off Abbott as Gillard begins to sweat

AS the final parliamentary term of this government resumes today, two fundamental issues have emerged from a fortnight of political shock and awe - Labor's primary vote is the death zone it has been for months, and Tony Abbott has received a boost at the start of the election campaign.

Julia Gillard's bold political strokes designed to change the focus from Labor failure, to make 2013 her year and pressure the Opposition Leader have received an immediate rebuff from voters.

Calling the election in September looks more like a stroke than a masterstroke; there is the unavoidable fallout from corruption allegations surrounding unions and the ALP and the internal interference; and ministerial resignations have looked like chaos. There was a false hope in the holiday-affected Newspoll survey in January, with a stand-out one-off rise in Labor's primary vote to 38 per cent.

This survey not only returns Labor to where it was at the end (and beginning) of last year, the other shifts - away from Gillard and to Abbott - are consistent with a real move in voter sentiment.

Politically, all eyes will be on the Newspoll survey, and the recognition that the trend established late last year on primaries is continuing into the election year. But for Gillard it's worse and for Abbott it's much better.

Labor has thrown all its efforts into destroying Abbott and entrenching the view he is "unpopular" with a wistful intent of stirring trouble within the Liberals.

On these figures, Gillard and Abbott are about as "popular" - or unpopular - as each other and suddenly there's only a polling margin of error between Gillard and Abbott as preferred prime minister.

The pressure's off Abbott and back on Gillard at the beginning of the longest election campaign in history.

Pressure off Abbott as Gillard begins to sweat

A sensitive matter: We thought we had sorted outthe sensitivity kerfuffle several years ago

"Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action."

Great, nice to know. However I am not sure if regular readers here are surprised. 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 01, 2013

So, sensitivity has been in the climate blogosphere a bit recently. Just a few days ago, that odd Norwegian press release got some people excited, but it's not clear what it really means. There is an Aldrin et al paper, published some time ago - which gave a decent constraint on climate sensitivity, though nothing particularly surprising or interesting IMO. We thought we had sorted outthe sensitivity kerfuffle several years ago, but it seems that the rest of the world still hasn't yet caught up. As I said to Andy Revkin (and he published on his blog), the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards (even the AR4 estimates typically ignored the post-2000 years) can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity, and that's before we even consider the reduction in estimates of negative aerosol forcing, and additional forcing from black carbon (the latter being very new, is not included in any calculations AIUI). It's increasingly difficult to reconcile a high climate sensitivity (say over 4C) with the observational evidence for the planetary energy balance over the industrial era. But the Norwegian press release seems to refer to as yet unpublished research, and some of the claims seem a bit hard to credit. So we will have to wait for more details before drawing any more solid conclusions.

Before then, there was the minor blogstorm (at least in some quarters) surrounding Nic Lewis' criticism of the IPCC's stubborn adherence to their old estimate of climate sensitivity. This, of course, being despite the additional evidence which I've just mentioned above.

When I looked at the IPCC drafts, I didn't actually notice the substantial change in estimated aerosol uncertainty that Nic focussed on. With limited time and energy to wade through several hundred pages of draft material, I mostly looked for how and where they had (or had not, but perhaps should have) referred to my work, to make sure it was fairly and accurately represented. I was pretty unimpressed with some parts of first draft, actually, and made a number suggestions. Of course in line with the IPCC conditions, I'm not going to say what was or was not in any draft. According to IPCC policy, my comments will all be available in the fullness of time, but I have also criticised this delayed release so in the spirit of openness here is one comment I made about their discussion of sensitivity in Chapter 12 (p55 in the first order draft):

It seems very odd to portray our work as an outlier here. Sokolov et al 2009, Urban and Keller 2010, Olson et al (in press JGR) have also recently presented similar results (and there may be more as yet unpublished, eg Aldrin at the INI meeting back in 2010). Such "observationally constrained pdfs" were all the rage a few years ago and featured heavily in the last IPCC report, there is no clear explanation for your sudden dismissal of them in favour of what seems to be a small private opinion poll. A more balanced presentation could be: "Annan and Hargreaves (2011a) criticize the use of uniform priors and argue that sensitivities above 4.5°C are extremely unlikely (less than 5%). Similar results have been obtained by a number of other researchers [add citations from the above]."

Note for the avoidance of any doubt I am not quoting directly from the unquotable IPCC draft, but only repeating my own comment on it. However, those who have read the second draft of Chapter 12 will realise why I previously said I thought the report was improved :-) Of course there is no guarantee as to what will remain in the final report, which for all the talk of extensive reviews, is not even seen by the proletariat, let alone opened to their comments, prior to its final publication. The paper I refer to as a "small private opinion poll" is of course the Zickfeld et al PNAS paper. The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I've criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported "this is what we think, because we asked our pals". It's essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you".

Of course, this still leaves open the question of what the new evidence actually does mean for climate sensitivity. I have mentioned above several analyses that are fairly up to date. I have some doubts about Nic Lewis' analysis, as I think some of his choices are dubious and will have acted to underestimate the true sensitivity somewhat. For example, his choice of ocean heat uptake is based on taking a short term trend over a period in which the observed warming is markedly lower than the longer-term multidecadal value. I don't think this is necessarily a deliberate cherry-pick, any more than previous analyses running up to the year 2000 were (the last decade is a natural enough choice to have made) but it does have unfortunate consequences. Irrespective of what one thinks about aerosol forcing, it would be hard to argue that the rate of net forcing increase and/or over-all radiative imbalance has actually dropped markedly in recent years, so any change in net heat uptake can only be reasonably attributed to a bit of natural variability or observational uncertainty. Lewis has also adjusted the aerosol forcing according to his opinion of which values are preferred - concidentally, he comes down on the side of an answer that gives a lower sensitivity. His results might be more reasonable if he had at least explored the sensitivity of his result to the assumptions made. Using the last 30y of ocean heat data and simply adopting the official IPCC forcing values rather than his modified versions (since after all, his main point is to criticise the lack of coherence in the IPCC report itself) would add credibility to his analysis. A still better approach would be to use a model capable of representing the transient change, and fitting it to the entire time series of the various relevant observations. Which is what people like Aldrin et al have done, of course, and which is why I think their results are superior.

But the point stands, that the IPCC's sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

There's a nice example of this in Reto Knutti's comment featured by Revkin. While he starts out be agreeing that estimates based on the energy balance have to be coming down, he then goes on to argue that now (after a decade or more of generating and using them) he doesn't trust the calculations because these Bayesian estimates are all too sensitive to the prior choices. That seems to me to be precisely contradicted by all the available literature, which demonstrates that so long as absurd priors are avoided, the results are actually remarkably robust. Our own Climatic Change paper, Salvador Pueyo, Aldrin and the other papers above all use a wide range of different priors based on a range of different arguments but still arrive at very similar answers (at least, similar enough in the context of the hypothetical "long tail" for the pdf of climate sensitivity)! It looks rather like the IPCC authors have invented this meme as some sort of talismanic mantra to defend themselves against having to actually deal with the recent literature.

James' Empty Blog: A sensitive matter

Transcript of Ms Gillard's address to ALP candidates. It made me laugh, out loud!

PRIME MINISTER

TRANSCRIPT OF OPENING REMARKS TO ALP CANDIDATES CONFERENCE

CANBERRA

3 FEBRUARY 2013  

E & O E – PROOF ONLY

Good morning to everyone and I know that I am speaking to a group of people who are here because of their passionate belief in Labor’s purpose.

And across all of the years of our political party – the Labor Party – we have pursued a mission with two things at its centre.

One, to create and to share opportunity.

Two, to protect people in the most difficult of times.

This has always been Labor’s driving purpose, the driving purpose of Labor Governments over the ages. And the driving purpose of the Labor Government I am very proud to lead.

When we reflect on what the Government has done so far, we have held true to that vision of creating opportunity and sharing opportunity.

No better definition of that than creating more than 800,000 jobs during the worst of economic times around the globe.

Everything we have done to give kids a better start in life.

To improve schools.

To increase apprenticeships.

To bring a historic shift in our universities.

To create 190,000 more places.

And for the first time, to be able to say truly in our nation a kid from a poorer household can get a chance and a start and a university place. And we see this in our communities already working and transforming lives.

So we have held true to that purpose of creating opportunity.

But we’ve got more to do for our nation to be able to say that no matter what the circumstances of your birth, you will always be in our great nation able to seize an opportunity, to see the benefits of your hard work, and to have the place in our nation that lets you get ahead.

The Government has started doing that work. It’s work very much based on the future of our economy because we can’t create and share opportunities if we don’t have a strong economy.

And we live in a time of tremendous change. We’re seeing the out-workings of the global financial crisis.

The world economy is never going to be the same as it was in the days before the global financial crisis.

We are in a period of profound transformation in the global economy, and in our economy.

It shows in a variety of ways.

People are saving more, and that’s a good thing, but it has changed the way in which they live.

People are anxious about their job security. They’re seeing the consequences of the high Australian dollar press on many industries and many regions around the nation.

They know that we live on the doorstop of a lot of future growth in Asia, and that this can give us opportunities but we need to reach out and get them.

They know that what is happening with information technology is changing our world and changing our future.

And they know that climate change is real and there’s no point denying the consequences of a changing climate. We are living through climate change. We know it and we can see it.

So the Government has been making prudent preparations so that we in the future can still be a land of creating opportunity and shared opportunity.

That has meant that we’ve needed to take tough decisions like putting a price on carbon so we do seize the clean energy sources of the future, and I’m very proud that we’ve got that done.

It does mean that we’ve needed to focus on modernising our infrastructure.

We inherited from the former Government a nation with a huge infrastructure deficit, and piece by piece we have been working to improve our infrastructure.

Traditional infrastructure: roads, rail, ports to make travel times for working people; to ensure that we can get our goods to market.

But also the infrastructure of the future: the National Broadband Network. Because we cannot be a competitive economy in the long-term, we cannot roll out the services that we want to for working Australians unless we have the National Broadband Network around our country, and we are working to get that done.

We’ve also worked hard to boost productivity by looking at the regulations in our nation.

We do need clear laws and clear rules about how we do business. But they need to be efficient laws and efficient rules, and we’ve worked hard to do that.

And we’ve played out a very clear strategy to make sure that we can seize the growth that is happening around us in the region in which we live.

I mean, what a change in our world.

When I grew up people used to think of Asia as a place of poverty and their eyes would look across Asia to Europe or America.

What the smart young things wanted to do when I was growing up, they wanted to go and spend some time in London, see Europe. They wanted to go to the west coast of America.

Now young people still legitimately want to do those things but increasingly we know the wealth of our age and our era will be Asia’s wealth.

Asia’s rise will transform the opportunity for us as that middle class grows and wants the things that we have and have to sell in abundance. Whether it’s agriculture, whether it’s wine, education services, legal services, manufactured goods, the list goes on.

So to be a nation of opportunity for the future which can be shared, we have to tap into that growth and we’ve laid out the strategy to do so.

Nothing is more important to opportunity in the future than what is happening in our schools today.

We’ve already brought a transformation in Australian schools, and I’m very proud of it. I’m proud of the national curriculum. I’m proud of MySchool.

I’m proud that I can walk into disadvantaged schools today who through our national partnerships can get out the information – the cold hard data – and show me that they are giving kids a better life and a better start than they were able to do before we started our education reforms; practical changes.

Children who used to struggle to learn to read and write, now being able to do so. And if they learn to read and write and do maths in primary school, they can succeed in high school, they can get an apprenticeship, they can get a job. They can get one of our new university places.

But if your life goes off the rails when you’re five or six or seven or eight, and you never learn to read or write, you never learn to deal with numbers, to deal with maths, then we know that sets people up for a lifetime of disadvantage.

We have been changing that, but we’ve got more to do so that we can say that every child in every school has the resources available at his or her disposal to get a great education.

That it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about an indigenous girl in the Northern Territory, a boy in the western suburbs of Melbourne where I’m from, or people in your communities.

Where ever in the nation most children are getting educated, they are getting a great education.

This is the work of governing, and this is the work of 2013.

And we will do it as we deliver our response to the funding review undertaken by David Gonski, and as we outline our national plan for school improvement.

Creating opportunity, sharing opportunity. A Labor purpose, a Labor mission.

But we also know that life brings with it human risks. Anybody could have a child with cerebral palsy born into their family.

Anybody could be diagnosed in middle age with one of the worst degenerative diseases, Parkinson’s disease.

Anybody could the family member of someone who – perhaps a young person, an incautious moment, dives off that jetty and the water is too shallow. Drives a little bit recklessly and has an accident.

These are the things of real life, and these are the things that can give people a disability.

We have worked hard to protect people from risk. Whether it’s the risk of ill-health and their need for a great healthcare service, we’ve been building that as a Labor Party over many years now through Medibank and Medicare and free public hospitals.

And this Government has done its share to improve our health services for the future. To make them sustainable, to put them on a strong footing, to bring reform and change which means that there are more doctors, more nurses, more local control.

To change our aged care system so that older Australians have more options, more choices, more dignity, more respect than we have afforded them in the past.

So we have worked hard on life’s risks.

But we’ve got more to do to make sure that the risk of disability isn’t something that keeps families up at night worrying.

That if a disability strikes, it doesn’t break families and their finances, potentially for generations.

But that they know that their community through their Government is there with them to help out and to give people a fair go and a fair chance.

That’s the work of governing, and that’s the work of 2013 as we roll out the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

We’ve got a lot to do in this period of time. To make sure in this era of change we are securing Australian jobs, continuing to add to our proud track record of more than 800,000.

Securing new opportunities for our nation to make its way in the world, and to profit as it makes its way in the world.

Securing a new future for our kids through world-class schooling.

And better protecting our families through the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

I’m looking out on the front line of taking these arguments, these debates, these values to communities around the nation.

I’m looking to you to be out there in your communities explaining to them that this is the work of governing and we are not done yet.

That for us to keep increasing opportunity, to keep protecting people from risk not only requires us to work hard between now and the election day in September.

But it requires us in the Labor Government that lies beyond that election to keep working with their interests always at our forefront with our Labor purpose always driving us on.

That’s why we’re here today and I’m very proud to be able to have the opportunity to spend the time with you.

Thank you very much.

[ENDS]

Transcript of Ms Gillard's address to ALP candidates. It made me laugh, out loud!

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Most of us seem to be.

Galaxy poll shows voters are in the mood to punish Prime Minister Julia Gillard's early election call

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is greeted by new Minister for Defence Materiel Mike Kelly. Picture: Ray StrangeSource: The Daily Telegraph

A MAJORITY of Australians don't believe Julia Gillard's explanation for the bizarre decision to call the election date eight months in advance - and now appear determined to punish Labor at the September 14 poll.

An exclusive Galaxy Poll conducted for The Daily Telegraph will reveal the move did nothing to lift support for either the PM, or Labor.

With a two party preferred vote of 54/46 in favour of the Coalition - a 4 per cent swing against the government since the 2010 election - Labor could expect to lose at least 14 seats.

The poll results follow a horror start for Labor to the un-official election campaign, which started with the arrest of suspended Labor MP Craig Thomson last Thursday and ended with the resignation of two senior cabinet ministers over the weekend.

KEVIN Rudd continues his charm offensive tweeting about his new granddaughter as the Gillard Government  insists it is not in crisis.

Most voters now appear in no rush to go to the ballot box, with 55 per cent saying that now the date had been set, they were happy to wait until September 14 rather than go to an early poll.

Only 38 per cent wanted an election to be called now in a dramatic shift in mood compared to last year. The majority wanting an immediate march to the polls, not surprisingly, were Coalition supporters

However, few voters of either persuasion appear intent on rewarding the PM for subjecting them to an eight-month campaign.

Nor do they believe her motive was to provide the country with stability and certainty - rather to insure the government against resignations or a leadership challenge.

Re-enforcing the view that the PM has a significant battle ahead of her to restore trust with the community, 53 per cent of voters said they didn't believe her explanation. Only 41 per cent accepted the PM's claims.

With a primary vote of just 35 per cent, whatever bounce the government had been hoping for as parliament resumes this week has been dashed.

Galaxy CEO David Briggs said Ms Gillard should be relieved that the polls results weren't worse.

"This poll confirms that the Coalition commences the campaign with a handy lead and Labor can be grateful that their horror week has not put them further behind," Mr Briggs said.

"The calling of the election by Julia Gillard has not produced the circuit-breaker Labor required and with primary support for the party below the vote achieved at the last election they continue to trail the Coalition by a wide margin."

The past three Galaxy polls since November 2012 have shown little change in the numbers and still show Labor three points short of the primary vote that delivered a hung parliament in 2010.

The Coalition's primary vote remained at record highs of 48 per cent, while the Greens dropped back to 10 per cent, and Independents and others still at 7 per cent.

But while the Coalition's lead remains strong, Mr Abbott's popularity may still present a problem for his party room. The Opposition Leader and the PM now share dismally low personal numbers, with 57 per cent of voters claiming to be dissatisfied with both leader's performances in the job.

Ms Gillard continues to receive stronger support among Labor voters than Tony Abbott does among Coalition voters.

Mr Briggs said the polls confirmed long held assumptions that people had switched off politics some time ago and showed no sign of tuning back in. Ms Gillard will address a jittery Labor caucus today, having spent the weekend dealing with the resignation of Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and Higher Education Minister Chris Evans.

Treasurer Wayne Swan quashed suggestions he was considering retirement and confirmed he would contest the seat of Lilley in September.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Craig Thomson to make first court appearance on fraud charges

Craig Thomson faces 149 counts of fraud. Picture: Craig Greenhill Source: The Daily Telegraph

CRAIG Thomson has dropped his bid to delay his first court appearance on fraud charges because Parliament is sitting and he will now front a judge in Melbourne this week.

The MP, who faces 149 counts of fraud, had been advised that the Parliamentary Privileges Act exempts an MP from being arrested or appearing in court five days before or after Parliament sits.

The former Labor MP and union secretary, who is now an Independent, is facing charges over allegations he used union cash to pay for prostitutes, dinners, and election expenses.

Manager of opposition business Christopher Pyne said yesterday the Coalition was prepared to offer Mr Thomson a pair so he could attend court.

Mr Thomson's lawyer Chris McArdle, who has accused "goons in rubber gloves" from NSW correctional services of strip searching Mr Thomson, confirmed his client would not seek any further adjournments and will appear in court on Wednesday.

"The Parliamentary Privileges Act speaks for itself. Mr Thomson cannot be obliged to appear in court," Mr McArdle said.

"However, we do not want to be seen to be delaying this matter. Mr Thomson will appear on Wednesday because he is now satisfied that his constituents will not be prejudiced. That is because of the pair that has been offered by the Coalition."

Yesterday Mr Thomson was photographed allegedly driving erratically on his way to Sydney.

Mr McArdle said the media was harassing his client.

"That's all a big lie. He has contacted the Australian Federal Police to report the person who was frightening him," he said.

Craig Thomson to make first court appearance on fraud charges

Craig Thomson goes from one drama to another

Craig Thomson drives along the F3 while talking on his phone

BELEAGURED MP Craig Thomson had a lot going on yesterday - so much so he failed to obey basic traffic laws.

The Daily Telegraph observed Mr Thomson using his handheld mobile phone while driving, as well as running a red light on two separate occasions.

The former Labor MP's morning began in a frenzy when he quickly drove out of the garage of his Bateau Bay home, about 7.40am, and narrowly missed running down a TV cameraman.

Driving his wife's silver-coloured Mazda 2 hatch, a flustered-looking Mr Thomson then headed straight to his Tuggerah electoral office where he picked up a male passenger who was waiting in the carpark.

The pair then headed to Sydney, Mr Thomson in the driver's seat.

While on the F3 he was observed on numerous occasions holding his mobile phone to his right ear while driving.

He was also observed changing lanes without indicating several times during the trip, while keeping the phone to his ear.

The Daily Telegraph was behind Mr Thomson at Wahroonga when he turned left on to the Pacific Highway, through a red light.

He ran a second red light about 20 minutes later as he turned left into Berry St at North Sydney.

When The Daily Telegraph, which obeyed the road rules throughout, approached Mr Thomson's car when he pulled over at Artarmon to ask him why he was using a handheld phone while driving, he refused to respond.

Driving while using a mobile phone can result in a $298 fine while running a red light is $397.

Mr Thomson's lawyer Craig McArdle originally said he was not aware of any driving offences by his client and said any proof should be taken to the police.

Mr McArdle later told The Telegraph his client had made a report to the Australian Federal Police about the matter.

Mr McArdle earlier hit out at prison guard "goons" who he said forced Mr Thomson to strip after his arrest on Thursday.

Mr McArdle then threatened to sue Premier Barry O'Farrell unless he apologised for saying that "this whole situation arose because Mr Thomson allegedly was too keen to get his kit off in front of strangers".

Mr McArdle said the comment was "immature".

"We've given him 24 hours to apologise," he said.

"We won't be suing him on Monday ... but he will certainly be hearing from us."

Craig Thomson goes from one drama to another

THE SOAP BOXX, SPEAK UP. BE HEARD. START TALKING 14 FEB 2013... JOIN SOAP BOXX NOW!

Government Wants To Listen To You

Yep. You read that right.

If there’s one thing Australia’s government wants to be is “smart”. And it only gets that way when politicians connect with us - the people who elect them.

Whether it’s repairing undrivable roads, restoring unwalkable footpaths, or getting medicines to remote hospitals, politicians really want to know what we think. (You can stop snickering.)

After all, everyone’s “smart” in their own way. Imagine how our collective wisdom could help politicians solve heaps of problems really fast.

Break Old Habits

The challenge is that you, me, and politicians lack on-going dialogue and joint decision-making with and between one another.

One thing in our way is that we have ideas and opinions we want to share and talk about. But can’t find the right tool that let’s us do so.

Another is that politicians rely a lot on mass media to share and explain stuff to us. Which means we get bogged down by drama or lost in the spin.

In the end, we end up feeling like the only time politicians listen to us is at election time. And where SOAP BOXX takes on meaning.

Speak Up and Be Heard

We hope you also see this new citizen-politician tool called SOAP BOXX as a “true revolution.” For now we can be active initiators deeply involved in matters that truly concern us and affect us.

SOAP BOXX is based on three pillars: Participation, because any idea or opinion on SOAP BOXX is started, discussed, and spread by us and the people we know. Collaboration, because politicians have a way to work with us to build our society. Transparency, because every ideas and opinions expressed on SOAP BOXX is readily available to everyone.

No Need to Sit and Watch

SOAP BOXX is a form of politics driven by connection, listening, and dialogue, rather than detachment and imposition.

You can get politicians to listen to you. You can have signfiicant influence on community decisions. You can regain your confidence in government.

Just join SOAP BOXX and answer six easy questions.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN

Survey respondents want Kevin Rudd to challenge Julia Gillard again

Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. Source: AFP

ALMOST half of Australia wants Kevin Rudd to have one last crack at the Labor leadership ahead of the September election.

A News Limited online survey of more than 5000 people canvassed their views on what will be a marathon Federal campaign after Julia Gillard announced Australians will go to the polls on September 14.

The extraordinary move to announce a date so early drew speculation it was designed to limit Mr Rudd's ability to challenge - a claim flatly denied by the Prime Minister.  Mr Rudd has also remained silent on the issue so far - pledging only his support for the party this week as he wascaught on camera laying into a tree with a chainsaw.

But 48 per cent of people who responded to the online questionnaire said the former PM should challenge, despite the fact he was the least popular choice for best Prime Minister out of Ms Gillard, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and the Liberal communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull.

Just slightly fewer - 42 per cent - wanted Mr Turnbull to challenge Mr Abbott. Both the 42 per cent and 48 percent are seen as significant numbers.

Mr Rudd, who has dismissed questions on another tilt at the leadership after last year's failed bid, was the best candidate to lead the country in the eyes of just 13 per cent.

Ms Gillard was slightly more popular, scoring 15 per cent of the vote when faced with four possible candidates.

Mr Abbot was overwhelmingly voted the best choice for Prime Minister at 45 per cent, followed by Mr Turnbull, who was chosen by a quarter of people.

Interestingly, 53 per cent of people said they liked elections.

But people are not impressed at the prospect of an eight-month campaign and said their trust in candidates will likely fall because of it.

Almost three quarters said eight months was too long to endure electioneering and only one in 10 said they were more inclined to trust a politician after seeing them on the hustings for so long.

The survey was run over a 24-hour period on Thursday and Friday. 

Survey respondents want Kevin Rudd to challenge Julia Gillard again

My election wish list for both parties

Illustration: John Spooner.

JULIA and Tony, now that the campaign is under way I would like to submit my wants to you.

As a self-funded retiree I don't want any pork barrelling and want you to concentrate on policy issues, not personal attacks, as we voters find them a turn-off. I want adequate funding for first-class education and health outcomes for all Australians. This can be easily funded by tackling tax avoidance by those at the top end of town, phasing out tax breaks for negative gearing and family trusts, and raising the GST to 12 per cent.

I want policies that benefit future generations, including tackling environmental issues such as climate change and our excess reliance on fossil fuels, by extending the carbon tax coverage and increasing the minerals resource tax.

Illustration: Ron Tandberg.

It is way past time issues with our indigenous population were adequately addressed. May I also request a more civilised approach to the way genuine refugees are treated. And for good measure, I wouldn't mind a republic and an Australian flag minus the Union Jack.

Glenn Stanmore, Cohuna

Time to sort out spin

EIGHT months' notice is good for our democracy; it gives the public and media outlets time to sort the spin, hyperbole and fearmongering from the facts. We may even have an election fought on policy rather than on a media blitz about personalities and shaky promises. Who knows, by September it could be Bill versus Malcolm; eight months is a long time in politics.

Peter Topping, North Melbourne

True to form

MEDIA outlets are already reporting that Tony Abbott has rejected calls for detailed policy costings. It wouldn't be a fair dinkum federal election unless the opposition stonewalled on costings right up till the actual election date … and beyond.

John Kirk, Camberwell East

Long gone

TONY Abbott stresses in his Press Club speech what his government will not be: ''The mining tax will be gone, the carbon tax will be gone'' (''Abbott has time to prove he's a leader - but is it enough?'', 30/1).

I don't want to sound like Mr Abbott but, if the election goes his way, I think we can add a number of things to his list of ''gones''. Environmental protection: gone. Sustainable energy: gone. Educational equity: gone. Humanity: gone. Separation of church and state: Gone.

Stewart Monckton, Mont Albert

Babies do grow up

THE early slogans of Mr Abbott's campaign are ''Hope, Reward and Opportunity''. Ah, now I get it. Tony Abbott hopes women will be so pleased with his paid parental leave scheme that they will reward him with their votes in September, giving him the opportunity to slash the school kids' bonus. Can someone please remind Mr Abbott that babies grow up to be school kids.

Liz Temple, Mount Clear

Two peas in a pod

THE geniuses who masterminded the Gillard coup should be asked to explain in what essential ways Julia Gillard differs from the still publicly popular Kevin Rudd.

The PM's poll ratings are lower than his were after he junked the promises on climate change policy. Gillard has broken another promise, this time the budget surplus.

In her recent arbitrary decisions (on Nova Peris and setting an election date) Ms Gillard has acted without reference to her parliamentary party in the same manner Rudd was accused of - a criticism used to justify his removal.

Thomas Hogg, East Melbourne

ALP lacks the ticker

JOHN Spooner makes it clear Julia Gillard will be executed well (Comment, 31/1). If the polls are an indication, Gillard hasn't a snowflake's chance in hell of winning the next election. It is difficult to pinpoint the reason as she has good policies. Sadly, the parliamentary Labor Party appears to lack the ticker to change the leadership before it is too late.

Bill Mathew, Parkville

Designed to mislead

THE government says a ''12 per cent pay rise for teachers over three years would cost Victorians $13 billion'' (''Teachers' pay rise 'unsustainable','' 31/1.) It is not the pay rise that would cost $13 billion but the total payroll for all the state's 40,000 teachers for three years, assuming an average salary for each teacher of $100,000.

Please, can we have some estimate of costs that is not designed deliberately to mislead. I put the difference in the first-year cost between the 2.5 per cent the government is offering and the 4 per cent the teachers are claiming at about $60 million. Almost exactly the cost of the Grand Prix subsidy.

Irwin Faris, Torquay

Minister not living up to responsibility

THE delay in delivering on commitments on school bullying is unacceptable (''State accused of lagging on school bullying'', 31/1). The recent report by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, ''Held Back - the experience of students with disabilities in Victorian Schools'', found that students with disability were three times more likely to be bullied than the general school population and that two-thirds experienced bullying or harassment.

Further, international research highlights the devastating consequence bullying can have on children, including high rates of physical and mental health problems and, in extreme cases, self-harm or suicide.

Minister Martin Dixon has more than one reason to make this work a priority. As well as being Education Minister, he has been appointed a ''Disability Champion Minister'' for COAG's national disability strategy. In this role he has committed to identifying and advocating opportunities for inclusion of people with disability.

Stephanie Gotlib, executive officer, Children with Disability Australia

Real truth is taboo

ROGER Howard's explanation for the violence in Mali is simplistic (''High population growth a seed to rising unrest'', Comment, 1/2).

The fact is this violence has been fostered and triggered by a radical interpretation of the Islamic religion. The men who committed systematic atrocities against the Malian civilian population chose to do so and this choice was based on religious belief.

Howard then states it is ''taboo'' to expose his reality; that rapid population growth has caused these atrocities. No, it is politically incorrect to expose the real truth; that this is a result of a flawed religious belief system. If you doubt this, direct me to the corresponding unrest in Singapore, China and India.

Max Dunn, Kew

Easing our conscience, but that's about it

THE linking of high population growth with international violence raises the issue of where Australia can get best value for its aid dollar. At present we are committing ourselves to billions of dollars of future expenditure to accommodate refugees, the consequence of high birth rates and limited resources in the conflict zones.

If that money was instead put to tackling the causes of the turmoil by providing resources for family planning we could have some impact. With 80 million people born into poverty each year, taking 20,000 refugees may ease our conscience, but will not solve the problem.

Peter Liston, Southbank

Price of growth

PROBLEMS with population growth - driven by an unsustainable immigration program and an unwillingness of state governments to decentralise - have arrived in Australia, too, in the form of high rents, house prices and council rates, and congestion on roads and rail and so on.

Wait until we have diesel shortages when peak oil turns into another nasty oil war in the Middle East or when Mother Nature throws so many fires, floods and storms at us that our power supply breaks down. People living in high-rise flats - where much of the additional population is crammed - will be especially hard hit.

We have seen during the Queensland floods how quickly shelves in shops can turn empty when trucks come to a standstill. When will these lessons be learnt?

Matt Mushalik, Epping, NSW

System is broken …

BILL Howard (Letters, 30/1), while I respect your opinion I do believe our constitutional monarchy system is ''broken''. Chief among my reasons is that no Australian citizen can be our head of state. That, of course, means that neither you, your children nor your grandchildren can be our head of state. I love the fact that our Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, is our first female Governor-General. I would love it even more if she were our head of state.

Susan Hayden, Cheltenham

… and overloaded

WHILE it is distressing and dangerous for discharge summaries to carry the wrong diagnosis (''Patients discharged with wrong diagnoses'', 31/1), one must also examine the cause of the problem. This is a symptom of our overloaded hospital system, staffed by overworked doctors.

Our reliance on hospitals to fix all our health woes is outdated and ignores the fact that many admissions can be avoided by good investment in community-based care and preventative services.

Bo Li, Preston

Grievous omission of ABC reporter's coup

I LISTENED to Jon Faine on ABC radio on Wednesday morning when he interviewed Leigh Sales on her coup of interviewing Hillary Clinton. He was so pleased for Sales and it was a pleasure to hear them speaking about her US experience.

I later watched the ABC television 7pm news; no mention of Sales. I then watched 7.30 and still no mention. Thank goodness The Age picked up on the story and printed a photograph (''Clinton puts in one last Sales pitch as US Secretary of State'', 31/1). Well done, indeed, Leigh Sales.

Carolyn Reynolds, Lake Boga

Enlightening coverage

I AM appalled that Jon Faine was admonished by managers for using his legal knowledge to point out to Julia Gillard's accusers on the AWU affair, how and why their claims were spurious (''Presenter censured on coverage'', 31/1). That is not bias. It is information that enlightened many of us. Faine is a fair interviewer with a broad general knowledge and should be valued by the ABC.

Graeme Lee, Fitzroy

Egregious misuse

MORE of concern than the overuse of certain words is their egregious misuse, particularly by reporters and commentators. These days, a player is ''bought'' on to bowl rather than ''brought'', and we hear about ''the amount of times'' something occurs rather than ''the number of times'', and that people are ''vunerable'' to something instead of ''vulnerable''.

Jeff Gray, Trafalgar

Brought up short

I MUST have cured a generation of children from asking, ''Can I go to the toilet, please?'' My answer was invariably, ''I expect so at your age, but do you need a hand?''

Countless red-faced little boys soon learnt to ask if they may go to the toilet. My response was then shortened to ''You can, the question is may you'', usually bringing them up short as they made to leave the room. Oh, the joys of teaching.

MaryAnne Needham, Traralgon

Private matters

IF NICHOLAS Tonti-Filippini (Comment, 30/1) wants to keep his club private and only employ select folk, then society doesn't have to pay his way by awarding his club tax-free status.

Lee Matthews, St Kilda

Regain some good will

THE Insurance Council of Australia's chief executive Rob Whelan says that councils and government need to spend more on flood-prevention methods such as levees. He estimates that a relatively small investment, typically $15 million to build a levee around a mid-size town, may be recouped 100-fold over the life of the levee. This is money that would be mainly paid out by insurers.

Perhaps, then, Australia's insurers should tip in the millions required. It would seem an excellent investment. And as a bonus they would regain some sorely needed public goodwill. Seems like an ideal win-win scenario.

Ross Hudson, Camberwell

Spare us one-liners

PLEASE save us from eight months of pithy one-liners. The column ''And Another Thing'' should be quarantined from political comment until after the election.

The Age could also stipulate that political comment directed to the Letters page contain a minimum of three complete sentences. We could then take the opportunity to teach our politicians how to better communicate their ideas and ideals.

Guy Hoschke, Sunshine North

What's more...

CLEVER move, Julia Gillard; there is no way Tony Abbott can stay positive for that length of time.

Henry Herzog, St Kilda East

Election

I'LL show you mine if you show me yours. We're off to a good start.

Richard Opat, Elsternwick

THE man who said climate change is ''crap'' and that the post-GFC stimulus was ''waste'' now says the big issue is the Prime Minister's judgment.

Neil Hauxwell, Moe

IS AN allegation of ''running a protection racket'' not actionable? Ask a Rhodes scholar perhaps?

Norman Morton, Kew

IT MIGHT be time for all Labor politicians and their union friends to go through a probity check to see where the money trail leads.

Hans Majewski, Thomastown

IT'S not that Julia wants to lock Kevin out, she wants to lock Tony in.

Robert Pizzari, East Brunswick

ONLY in Australia do we whinge about having a set election date. In many countries people dream of being able to have a free vote.

Michael Dawes, West Footscray

AFTER eight months of standing for election and running for office, all candidates will be more desperate than ever to become sitting members.

Barry Lamb, Cairns, Qld

RICHARD Lustman (Letters, 1/2), since when were we obliged to consult a minority group before we could set a date for something as important as a federal election?

Victor Radywonik, Ascot Vale

I WOULD like to remind all voters, including our Jewish friends, that there is such a thing as a postal vote. It certainly will be a day of atonement. But for whom?

Sue Johnson, Terang

Language

RECEPTIONISTS asking ''What was your name?'' imply that most clients are using an alias.

Brian Bywater, Warrnambool

DID I buy something from the internet or off the internet?

Lesley Rank, Lalor

THE term ''denier'' is also a measure of thickness (in the hosiery industry).

Vikki O'Neill, Narre Warren South

And finally

SBS, you have made my day, and my footy year, by programming Marngrook Footy Show. Intelligent footy discussion, great music and a good laugh. What more could I want.

Pauline Santillo, Altona North

My election wish list for both parties