Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Coalition takes economy, Labor slumps on all issues



THE Gillard government has lost ground to the Coalition on the handling of every key electoral issue, with voter support for Tony Abbott's opposition surging back to the levels of the Howard government in its last three years.
Support for Labor's handling of the economy has crashed from 34 per cent to 28 per cent, the equal lowest level since Kevin Rudd won the election in 2007. The Coalition's economic management has risen to 50 per cent, up from 46 per cent a year ago, for the first time since 2007 when the Howard government was in power.
The Newspoll survey of voters' attitudes to important issues, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, came at the same time as Labor's primary vote dropped back to 32 per cent and the Opposition Leader greatly cut back Julia Gillard's lead as preferred prime minister.

Although unemployment remains low at 5.4 per cent, the Gillard government has lost its lead over the opposition on handling jobs. Last year Labor led the Coalition on the issue 42 per cent to 38 per cent Coalition; now Labor is on 37 per cent to the Coalition's 41 per cent.
While interest rates remain at "emergency" lows and mortgage payments have dropped markedly, Labor has gone backwards on managing interest rates, down from 32 per cent to 28 per cent, lower than during the global financial crisis. Coalition support on handling interest rates is virtually steady on 43 per cent. The continuing low rate of official interest meant the issue dropped one place in voters' importance from third-last to second-last.
Last week, the Prime Minister said she would conduct a "crusade" to improve education, and declared that economic management was the key to the "years ahead".
Labor continues to lead the Liberals on the handling of the top-ranking issues of health and education but Labor's lead has been halved in both areas. On the issue of health and Medicare, traditionally a Labor strength, Labor's support has fallen from 44 to 40 per cent in the last year and the Coalition's is steady on 36 per cent.
On education, which Ms Gillard said last week would be a "moral crusade" that defined her prime ministership, voters downgraded Labor from 46 per cent in February last year to 41 per cent, and the Coalition lifted from 33 to 36 per cent, its highest since February 2005.
The biggest area of change was on the handling of asylum-seekers with support for the Coalition jumping 11 percentage points to 47 per cent and Labor's going from 18 per cent to 20 per cent.
During last year's debate over offshore processing and the opposition's blocking of the government's attempts to establish the Malaysia Solution, Liberals support was at 36 per cent, just double Labor's support; now the Coalition is regarded as more than doubly capable of handling the arrival of asylum-seekers.
Despite Australia's success at winning a temporary seat on the UN Security Council, Labor's standing on the handling of national security fell from 31 per cent last year to 24 per cent while the Coalition rose two points to 47 per cent, its highest since June 2007.
The ALP has also fallen back on industrial relations, with support dropping from 47 per cent a year ago to 41 per cent last weekend as Coalition support went from 34 to 36 per cent, the highest since June 2004 before John Howard introduced Work Choices.
Labor fell on the handling of climate change, dropping from 35 per cent last year to 30 per cent as the Coalition's support rose from 26 per cent to 28 per cent.
GRAPHIC: Issues Newspoll

Coalition takes economy, Labor slumps on all issues: Newspoll

Monday, February 4, 2013

Craig Thomson case threatens balance of power in parliament


Craig Thomson
Craig (The Crook) Thomson

CRAIG Thomson will front his accusers in a Melbourne court this week even though the Government wants him and his vote to stay in Canberra.
And it is almost certain the Opposition will not allow a “pair” by dropping one of its MPs to account for Mr Thomson’s absence.

Mr Thomson’s office confirmed today the independent MP will not be in Parliament on Wednesday but will attend the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court for the start of hearings into 150 fraud charges related to his time as secretary of the Health Services Union.

Mr Thomson's absence could have an effect on votes in the House of Representatives.

The Government has 70 MPs in the 150-member House, excluding Labor Speaker Anna Burke. The Coalition has 71.

Votes are decided by the large cross bench of eight MPs: Greens Adam Bandt; independents Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, Andrew Wilkie and former Speaker Peter Slipper; Katter Australia Party's Bob Katter; and West Australian National Tony Crook.

Mr Windsor, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Bandt are likely to support the Government in a confidence motion but they and the other cross bench members are able to vote against Government legislation.

Support from Mr Katter and Mr Crook effectively gives the Opposition 73 votes, which means the Government needs four votes for its Bills to survive.

The absence of Mr Thomson on Wednesday could make it harder for the Government to protect its Bills.

Mr Thomson had a rare victory today when the NSW Police confirmed he had not been given the option of surrendering to them on a Victorian warrant last week. Instead, on Thursday he was dramatically arrested by five officers and taken to a watchhouse where he was strip searched.

After the arrest Detective Superintendent Col Dyson said Mr Thomson had been invited to surrender himself before Christmas but had declined.

In fact, he had been asked to come to Melbourne to be interviewed by police and had rejected that request.

Today Mr Dyson said in a statement, "The arrest warrant indicated that Mr Thomson was invited to Victoria to be interviewed.

"It additionally indicated that the arrest warrant was issued on the grounds that he was avoiding the service of the summons. I concede the word 'summons' and not 'arrest' should have been used when I referred to the wording on the warrant.''

Mr Thomson's lawyer, Chris McArdle, said his client's case might have been injured by the original police comments.

"There's this great steamroller of opinion in the public mind that this fellow must have done something - 'You wouldn't charge him with 150 things if he hadn't done anything, would you?' seems to be the rhetorical comeback," Mr McArdle told the ABC.

"Well, it's simply cemented the fact that this fellow's some sort of fugitive, which he is not. He's the most available human being in the country.''

Craig Thomson case threatens balance of power in parliament

Just lock her up !... PLEASE....Gillard accuses own MPs of trying to destroy her


Gillard
Julia Gillard has accused her own MPs of trying to destroy her Government from within as she addressed a shattered caucus.Source: Supplied
JULIA Gillard has accused her own MPs of trying to destroy her Government from within as she addressed a shattered caucus ahead of the resumption of Parliament tomorrow.
A source inside the caucus told The Daily Telegraph that the PM said she was aware that MPs had been leaking to journalists with the intention of backgrounding against the Government. Backgrounding is where politicians provide sensitive information to journalists under the assumption they will not be named.
In a clear sign that Ms Gillard and her backers are concerned about another challenge being mounted against her leadership, the PM said that marginal seat MPs would be the only ones to suffer from the continuous leaking.
While talk of Kevin Rudd has been revived following today’s disastrous poll results, the former PM was a noticeable absence from the meeting. Mr Rudd was said to be unwell.
The caucus met at 2pm today in Parliament.
Ms Gillard then claimed that the source for her claim of backgrounding MPs was a journalist.
The caucus also elected Communications Minister Stephen Conroy as the new Senate leader to replace Chris Evans, who rocked the Government on Friday night when he stepped down from Cabinet, along with Attorney General Nicola Roxon.


Gillard accuses own MPs of trying to destroy her

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

Julia Gillard
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?

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Craig Thomson to make first court appearance on fraud charges


Craig Thomson
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

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Craig Thomson goes from one drama to another


Craig Thomson
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.