Federal Election 2007 (Part II)

[zach24]

Seems like the Western Australians are not happy.
Wonder if this will filter through into the federal election (Rudd's own dealings with Burke)


Anger over Burke-linked mayor
By Adam Gartrell
March 09, 2007 04:37pm


POLICE were called in to control rowdy ratepayers demanding the resignation of a Perth mayor who allegedly accepted covert election funding from a developer represented by disgraced former West Australian premier Brian Burke.

The Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) last month alleged pro-development City of Cockburn Mayor Stephen Lee failed to declare $43,000 worth of 2005 election funding which came from Australand, which is building a controversial $700 million marina in the area.

In a scheme overseen by Mr Burke, Australand's general manager in WA Chris Lewis channelled the funding through a local fishing company, the CCC alleged.

The CCC was also shown evidence that Mr Burke and Mr Lewis were involved in arranging for a local lobby group to be used as a “veil” to channel donations from a fundraising lunch to Mr Lee.

The CCC heard Mr Burke effectively managed Mr Lee's campaign.

Last night, about 200 ratepayers, angry over the allegations, crammed into the public gallery during a council meeting, and loudly disrupted proceedings, interjecting and calling for Mr Lee's resignation.

Police were called while Mr Lee and several councillors sheltered in an adjacent office.

After police arrived, the meeting continued but again descended into chaos.

Police were ultimately forced to eject the public from the building.

A 40-year-old woman will be charged with trespass and obstructing police, a police spokesman said.

State Opposition local government spokesman Gary Snook said the Government should ask Mr Lee to stand aside to restore public confidence.

“Mr Lee's association with Brian Burke and allegations that a developer funded his election campaign should be enough to get him to stand aside, clear the decks and let the proper process unfold,” Mr Snook said.

Mr Lee said he intended to fight to clear his name.

“Just because allegations have been made, it does not mean that I am guilty of any misconduct or breach of the law,” Mr Lee said.

“I do not intend to resign as the mayor of the City of Cockburn – like any other Australian citizen, I am entitled to the presumption of innocence, and I will continue to strive as hard as ever to achieve the very best outcomes for our community.”

[Citystyle]

Coo Cook ca Choo. Zach most people realize that democracy thrives from corruption and the sounds of anger in WA are falling while Howard is taking a beating at Federal Level.


Whiff of Burke through Lib ranks


WEST Australian Liberal MP Barry Haase has confirmed he accepted a $7000 trip to China from Fortescue Metals Group, another company that paid disgraced former premier Brian Burke big dollars to cut through political red tape.
The latest example of a West Australian Liberal MP with links to companies that used Mr Burke and his colleague Julian Grill, coincided with revelations that Liberal senator Ross Lightfoot made incorrect financial declarations over his share trades in another company linked to the lobbyists.

Newly anointed Justice Minister David Johnston, another West Australian Liberal senator, also confirmed yesterday he would divest his share portfolio, which contained holdings in two mining companies that he was unaware had also employed Mr Burke's lobbying services.

Mr Haase said yesterday his China trip, which is disclosed in parliament's pecuniary interest register, was no "cakewalk", involving 23 hours of flying and a one-night stopover at the Hyatt in Beijing. He flew business class to China at the invitation of chief executive Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest because Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane could not make it.

"Twiggy said he thought it was of sufficient importance that he would pay for it. Burke and Grill had nothing whatsoever to do with the arrangement I had with Twiggy," Mr Haase told The Australian.

"I've had no contact with Brian Burke since 1972 when I used to serve him meals at Channel 7.

"I've had contact with Julian Grill only accidentally as he was a resident of Kalgoorlie, as I am."

A spokesman for FMG said yesterday: "Barry did travel to China in 2004, I believe that his trip was paid for by Fortescue. His trip to China did not involve the use of either Brian Burke or Julian Grill."

Senator Lightfoot described as "spurious" reports yesterday of his share trading in a West Australian-based mining company, saying he made just over $100 on his options.

Senator Lightfoot, who described himself in a statement as a "keen share trader" confirmed he bought share options in Precious Metals Australia (PMA), a client of disgraced former West Australian premier Brian Burke and lobbyist Julian Grill.

"Had I held them, my profit could have been up to $800,000," he said. The purchase was reported to have been made just days after Mr Burke and Mr Grill doctored a state parliamentary report to favour the mining company.

Senator Lightfoot, acting deputy president of the Senate at the time, used parliamentary privilege to attack Swiss mining group Xstrata's treatment of PMA soon after he bought one million PMA options.

Treasurer Peter Costello said yesterday Senator Lightfoot must put his financial interests on the public record.

"Senator Lightfoot is obliged to put all of his financial holdings on the public register," he said.

"Senator Lightfoot does not hold any position in the Government, doesn't have any position of influence in relation to any commercial decisions. "

It would be up to the Senate to decide what to do with Senator Lightfoot, he said.

Labor's Senate leader and opposition spokesman Chris Evans said Senator Lightfoot should issue a full, public explanation about his trading in Precious Metals Australia in the first half of 2005.

"If Senator Lightfoot has deliberately misled the Senate, then John Howard must take action," he said.

[zach24]

The most reliable source of election outcomes (bookies favourite) is once again predicting a coalition victory.

I believe Rudd's rein as the favourite (two-three weeks) was shorter than when Latham was leader.

Coalition: $1.80
Labor: $1.90

[AtD]

Do we still cut threads at 500 posts? I'll do it anyway. Continuation of old thread.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=437545

[OzFrog]

Originally Posted by zach24

The most reliable source of election outcomes (bookies favourite) is once again predicting a coalition victory.

I believe Rudd's rein as the favourite (two-three weeks) was shorter than when Latham was leader.

Coalition: $1.80
Labor: $1.90

$0.10 difference is actually not that big. Also, consider that the actual election is still a good 6 months away at least. Anything could happen in that time.

[zach24]

Labor's blurred vision
Jason Koutsoukis
March 11, 2007

Labor has had years to come up with comprehensive ideas and a direction for Australia. But with an election approaching, it has failed to define itself clearly.

KEVIN RUDD has taken to quoting Socrates in his speeches. Me? (Socrates is my middle name.) Alas no, the other one, the Greek philosopher executed for corrupting the young.

Rudd's Socratic moment came at the beginning of a speech to the Global Foundation's innovation round table in Melbourne last week.

"Socrates once said, 'I am not Athenian or Greek, but a citizen of the world'," Rudd declared. "This is also true for Australia."

There's wisdom for you. The inner Socrates told me to read on because surely something more was coming. That, perhaps, after 11 years in opposition the ALP had finally found an idea, an action plan for the day it eventually won government.

But it wasn't to be. Like most speeches marked "Federal Labor Leader" over the past decade, this one said precisely nothing about any such plan. No hint of a program, no real policies. Just platitudes and cliches.

"We must have a total focus on long-term policies that will prepare us for life beyond the mining boom," thundered Rudd. "We need a new wave of reform."

New waves usually have a bit of swell behind them, and from where I'm sitting the sea looks dead calm. Disturbingly so.

It's March 2007, seven months out from the federal election, 11 years since Labor was last in power, and still we have no clear understanding of what any of those new "waves of reform" might constitute.

So exactly what does Labor stand for? What are the party's objectives once it gets into government?

Labor says it wants to wind back the Howard Government's industrial relations laws, but is not prepared to say to what extent.

Rudd says he wants Australian troops out of Iraq but is not sure precisely when he would do this or exactly how many troops he would withdraw.

The Opposition's treasury spokesman, Wayne Swan, said last week that Labor was not inclined to oppose the Qantas takeover but was not in a position to announce a formal position on the deal. Why not? They have had months to think about it.

When Holden announced it was sacking 600 workers in Adelaide last week, Labor's industry spokesman Kim Carr hinted that keeping tariffs might be an option. What's that all about?

In his speech to the Global Foundation on Thursday, Rudd said: "We believe that in the 21st century, innovation policy is industry policy.

"We want to help our businesses produce new goods and services for world markets."

Then why is his industry spokesman talking about propping up old industries with punitive taxes that hurt consumers and make the economy less competitive?

For the past 11 years, Labor has employed two strategies to get back into office.

The first has been to oppose every reform introduced by the Howard Government and hope that public discontent with those reforms will see Howard tossed out.

These include the introduction of the GST, getting the budget back into surplus, selling Telstra and the new workplace relations laws.

The second strategy has been to surprise voters with a magic "silver bullet" policy on the eve of the election.

Policies such as Medicare Gold, or the plan to save the Tasmanian forests.

In most cases, these policies have been rushed through, have blown up in Labor's face, then disappeared after the election, never to be seen again.

When Mark Latham announced Medicare Gold at Labor's policy launch in Brisbane at the last election, it actually caused panic at Liberal Party campaign headquarters.

Why? Because it was a good idea. The thing that killed Medicare Gold was not the idea so much as how Labor proposed to pay for it.

But after the election the policy was junked. Had the problem the policy was designed to fix suddenly gone away? Presumably not. Yet we have heard virtually nothing from Labor on health — supposedly one of its strengths — since the last election.

It's the same with Labor's scare campaigns about key Howard Government reforms. As soon as the election passes, the party quickly drops its argument against the feared bogey and clutches at something else.

Does anyone really believe the GST has been a disaster?

Labor's eight state and territory premiers think the GST has been wonderful.

Has privatisation destroyed Telstra, or led to a decline in telecommunications services? No.

We're yet to see the full impact of the new workplace relations laws, but 12 months since their introduction Australia has experienced the most explosive period of job growth in its history.

Not exactly the "green light for mass sackings" predicted by then-Labor leader Kim Beazley and ACTU chief Greg Combet.

At a dinner in Canberra last week, a former senior Howard Government adviser compared the ALP of today with that led by Gough Whitlam in the late 1960s and early 1970s. For the five years he was opposition leader, Whitlam developed a program that appealed to a broad constituency. Whitlam's government ended badly, but the reforms he introduced won a generation of voters for Labor that have stuck by the party for three decades.

Bob Hawke won government on the theme of consensus. Voters liked him, but they also trusted Hawke's ability to end the industrial strife and get unions and employers working together.

In 1996, voters also knew what Howard stood for.

John Hewson's notorious Fightback of 1993 may have been a little too much for voters to swallow but at least the Liberals had spent a decade arguing among themselves about policy and by the time they got into government they had a reform program.

Eleven years after it lost government, Labor is today no closer to winning. Sure Rudd is soaring in the polls now, but what happens when he starts having to colour in his message?

Before the last British election, John Howard told a group of journalists that the Conservative Party did not have much of a chance of winning because it hadn't worked hard enough.

"It's hard to see him (Prime Minister Tony Blair) being defeated," Howard said. "I don't think the conservatives have done enough spade work. You can't fatten the pig on market day in politics."

Judging by the content of Rudd's speech last week, the Labor pig looks like it hasn't been fed for a decade.

Seven months is a long time in politics but history suggests it will not be enough time for Rudd to build a decent policy platform and convince the public he has a workable plan for the future.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...e#contentSwap2

[Tony P]

Ruddslide: polls shows Labor increasing its lead

link to site

Phillip Coorey, Chief Political Correspondent
March 12, 2007

KEVIN RUDD and the Labor Party have reached unprecedented heights of popularity while support for John Howard and his Government is sliding, eight months before the election.

The latest monthly Herald/ACNielsen poll shows Labor would win easily with a two-party-preferred vote of 61 per cent to the Coalition's 39 per cent - a three-point swing to Labor over the past month.

It reveals the Government's concerted attack on Mr Rudd's integrity and judgement has backfired. Labor is in a stronger position than at the corresponding time before the election in 2001, when the Howard Government faced its darkest hour.

More than four-fifths of voters said they did not care about the Brian Burke affair, even though almost two-thirds thought Mr Rudd was less than truthful about his three meetings with the disgraced lobbyist and former West Australian premier in 2005.

Labor strategists are likely to be surprised by the strength of the result, although not by the sentiment.

Internal Labor polling had shown the Coalition's relentless attacks on Mr Rudd's judgement and character had hurt the Coalition more than Labor.

"Our research shows those attacks haven't worked," a Labor adviser said. "In fact they seem to have helped."

The poll of 1400 voters, taken from Thursday to Saturday, shows Labor's primary vote also shot up four points, to 50 per cent, its highest level since April 1993, just after Paul Keating's election victory over John Hewson.

Primary support for the Coalition stayed relatively steady at a lowly 35 per cent but personal support for the Prime Minister, John Howard, which has been holding steady in recent months, has begun to slip.

Mr Rudd has extended his lead as preferred prime minister to 14 points - 53 to 39 per cent. That is almost triple the five-point gap he enjoyed last month, and it is the highest lead an Opposition leader has had in this category in the 11 years since Mr Howard became Prime Minister.

The last Opposition leader to hold such a commanding lead as preferred prime minister was Mr Howard himself, when he led Mr Keating by 16 points a year before the Coalition's landslide victory in March 1996.

In the latest poll, Mr Howard's personal approval rating fell three points, to 46 per cent, and his disapproval rating rose five points, to 49 per cent.

Mr Rudd broke the record he set a month ago as the most popular Opposition leader in the poll's 35-year history with his personal approval rating rising slightly, to 67 per cent.

Before the poll Mr Howard and his senior ministers had mounted a campaign against Mr Rudd's character over the Burke meetings. The campaign stumbled when Mr Howard was forced to sack a minister, Ian Campbell, for meeting Mr Burke last year.

On Friday, in the middle of the polling period, Kelvin Thomson resigned from Labor's front bench after it was found he had written a reference for the underworld figure Tony Mokbel seven years ago.

But the poll found 83 per cent of voters said their view of Mr Rudd was unaffected by the Burke affair. This is despite 53 per cent thinking he had been "partly truthful" in explaining himself, and 10 per cent feeling he had been "completely untruthful". Twenty-four per cent thought he had been "completely truthful".

"The findings suggest a resounding yawn from voters about the Burke affair," the pollster John Stirton said. "The Government's thrown everything at them, and the voters have thought there's not much to it."

The Government has contended the affair would not immediately translate into the polls. Yesterday the Treasurer, Peter Costello, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, kept up the attack, saying Mr Rudd lacked judgement for making Mr Thomson the shadow attorney-general in the first place.

Before flying to Japan for a two-day visit yesterday, Mr Howard said recent bad poll results showed the election "will be quite a struggle", adding, "I don't think the latest polls are necessarily an indication of what will happen."

He defended recent tactics. "I think that the voters are interested in the totality of the ways in which the two sides of politics might seek to govern the country, and that obviously involves assessments being made of individuals."

Mr Stirton said what mattered most in the poll was the trend towards Labor, which has led the Government for 11 months.

At this time in 2001, just before Mr Howard engineered a comeback, his Government was experiencing a backlash over petrol prices and the GST. This time Labor's primary vote is higher and Mr Rudd's lead as preferred PM much higher. "He [Mr Howard] has recovered from this position before," Mr Stirton said. "Can he do it again? It's not impossible."

[nOchAos]

My impression at the moment is the Howard government is up against the ropes in the ring. They are trying to fight back using all their biggest guns, HOward, Costello, Downer but it is having no effect in the minds of voters.

Their tactics are bully boy, agressive, without merit, and hypocritical. Is it any wonder that the polls are showing a still increasing lead for Kevin Rudd.

Bring on the election I cant wait to see Howards regime crumble into dust. This country needs a change in government the mood I get from my friends and people at uni is all the same. Howard and Costello must go!

[Morjo]

Originally Posted by nOchAos

people at uni is all the same.

lol no surprise there, uni students seem to always be in favor of the opposition or more so Labor/Greens. I think a lot uni students have always been against Howard.

It's early days, I've always thought these last few weeks of bully tactics from the Liberals would backfire.
I think the true test will be in the few months before and during the election, when they start to release policy. People by then can see if Rudd is all he is cracked up to be.

The thing I admire about Howard is, and this was mentioned I think on the ABC's insiders program, is that he might not do the most popular decisions in government, but at least he will argue his point right until the end.
At least we know where he stands on things, which cannot be said for Rudd who is all over the place at the moment.

[zach24]

60-39
Yeah right.
Love fairfax polls.
I think they do more harm than good for the ALP. Should be understimating their position to place them as the underdog

[Ians Resort]

Originally Posted by nOchAos

the mood I get from my friends and people at uni is all the same. Howard and Costello must go!

Pffffft Uni students

[nOchAos]

Originally Posted by Morjo

lol no surprise there, uni students seem to always be in favor of the opposition or more so Labor/Greens. I think a lot uni students have always been against Howard.

It's early days, I've always thought these last few weeks of bully tactics from the Liberals would backfire.
I think the true test will be in the few months before and during the election, when they start to release policy. People by then can see if Rudd is all he is cracked up to be.

The thing I admire about Howard is, and this was mentioned I think on the ABC's insiders program, is that he might not do the most popular decisions in government, but at least he will argue his point right until the end.
At least we know where he stands on things, which cannot be said for Rudd who is all over the place at the moment.

Is it any wonder Uni students cant stand the Howard government, under Howard the cost of going to University has gone through the roof. Many students have to work several part time jobs which impacts on their ability to study.

Not sure what you mean by Rudd being "all over the place" he is travelling a lot to get his message across. If anything it is Howard who has no policy on finishing in Iraq, global warming, and Hicks. Howard changes his position on these issues according to the polls. Labor has been consistent on these issues for years.

And arguing your point to the end. Well that reminds me of that Monty Python movie where the gladiator first gets his arms chopped off, still arguing, then his legs, still arguing, etc etc. I wouldnt call this admirable more like stupidity, stubborness, rigid and ultimately a failure to change with the times.

[MILIUX]

Originally Posted by zach24

60-39
Yeah right.
Love fairfax polls.
I think they do more harm than good for the ALP. Should be understimating their position to place them as the underdog

You should love Morgan and Newspoll as well. Fairfax survey has been consistent with the other two.

[Morjo]

Originally Posted by nOchAos

Is it any wonder Uni students cant stand the Howard government, under Howard the cost of going to University has gone through the roof. Many students have to work several part time jobs which impacts on their ability to study.

Not sure what you mean by Rudd being "all over the place" he is travelling a lot to get his message across. If anything it is Howard who has no policy on finishing in Iraq, global warming, and Hicks. Howard changes his position on these issues according to the polls. Labor has been consistent on these issues for years.

Well one thing Rudd has changed his mind on is AWA's, from my understanding is that he will not ditch them, but alter them now. It makes me wonder if he will change his mind yet again on AWA's.

Sure the cost of uni has gone up, but you must understand you cannot have everything the way you want it. We have a much more fairer system than many other countries, but not as good as others.
But do those countries that have a better uni system in regards to cost, have a better health or social security system?

I've always believed way to many people are going to uni who should not be there, I've always thought uni should be for the true academics. There are uni courses should be in technical schools.
I had a choice to go to uni and study I.T., but choose to go to TAFE and get a Diploma and industry Certifications. It was cheaper, shorter study and ended up finding and getting a better job than my friends who went though the uni system.

[nOchAos]

Originally Posted by Morjo

I've always thought uni should be for the true academics. There are uni courses should be in technical schools.
I had a choice to go to uni and study I.T., but choose to go to TAFE and get a Diploma and industry Certifications. It was cheaper, shorter study and ended up finding and getting a better job than my friends who went though the uni system.

Can you tell us what is a true academic? Im interested to know.

[Morjo]

Originally Posted by nOchAos

Can you tell us what is a true academic? Im interested to know.

Well someone who studies medicine, sciences, law and economics to name a few. Basically what university's use to offer, before all these fancy new age courses came along. Which in turn took resources and uni positions away from people.

Information Technology should completly be in the TAFE based system. Apart from the science side of I.T.

But hey that's just my view.

[Tony P]

Originally Posted by zach24

60-39
Yeah right.
Love fairfax polls.
I think they do more harm than good for the ALP. Should be underestimating their position to place them as the underdog

The Morgan Poll released last Friday (two weeks worth of polling) said Labor was at 61.5% in two party preferred!

I don't believe it for a minute either, largely because there's a bias towards those who want change to say yes when asked if they want to participate in an election poll over the phone. I'd also like to know if there was some sort of minimum quota reached for each electorate rather than a simple city/rural split for each state which happens regularly. As most in the polling game know, you'll get five people saying yes to a poll in Annandale or Redfern before you get one in Mosman or Bella Vista. Bookmakers know best, indeed.

But I don't necessarily think it's always advantageous trying to position yourself as the underdog. If the polls are really close it might act to scare the undecideds into sticking with the status quo, sure, but being a favourite (especially an overwhelming one) can act to legitimise you, and don't also forget that a not insignificant proportion of Australians are sheep, you know, "Rudd must be ok if this many people like him", etc. I think the whole 'backing the underdog' thing is largely a myth, much like the Australian 'bush myth'. Both may have been the case generations ago, but not now. It pays to be a winner.

[OSJ]

Originally Posted by Morjo

Well one thing Rudd has changed his mind on is AWA's, from my understanding is that he will not ditch them, but alter them now. It makes me wonder if he will change his mind yet again on AWA's.

Rudd won't be firm on anything until nearer to the election. Howard knows this and would do the same if he were in opposition. Remember Fightback in 93 where the Coalition were killed because of releasing too much detail too soon - with enough time for it to be pulled apart or adopted. The next federal budget is in May, and any opposition would be stupid to release any policy before then, as the government would simply move to nullify any popular policies by adopting them or adapting their own in the budget.

And as for Howard arguing his points - Howard has kept his lead by never answering questions. He has never done an open unended press conference such as the one Rudd did in relation to Burke. He is not the eloquent speaker that Rudd is, but he is very good at avoiding questions or simply not answering them. He did this perfectly in relation to the Queensland investigations last week.... "Well it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on those until I am in a position to know all the facts".. no need to discuss or deny anything. And if the facts aren't positive he still won't be answering any questions.

Originally Posted by Morjo

But do those countries that have a better uni system in regards to cost, have a better health or social security system?

Yes. Scandanavia, Austria, Switzerland...back in the 70s Australia was in this league.

Originally Posted by Morjo

I've always believed way to many people are going to uni who should not be there, I've always thought uni should be for the true academics.

This I do agree with. The fact that we have created a structure where almost all but the lowest jobs require several years of university degree followed by several more years of on the job training to make up for the deficits of the degree is ridiculous.
On this I once heard a commentator in the UK suggest raising the standards again to cut numbers, and thus enabling the best minds to be educated in a broad range of fields without needing every course to be justified by the economic outcomes.
What Australian student would pay 10s of thousands of dollars to study classical languages now??.. but more importantly, what is Australia loosing where the only aim of our University system is to produce workers?

[PerthCity]

Originally Posted by Tony P

largely because there's a bias towards those who want change to say yes when asked if they want to participate in an election poll over the phone.

And thats why I never trust these polls.

[zach24]

Originally Posted by Tony P

The Morgan Poll released last Friday (two weeks worth of polling) said Labor was at 61.5% in two party preferred!

I don't believe it for a minute either, largely because there's a bias towards those who want change to say yes when asked if they want to participate in an election poll over the phone. I'd also like to know if there was some sort of minimum quota reached for each electorate rather than a simple city/rural split for each state which happens regularly. As most in the polling game know, you'll get five people saying yes to a poll in Annandale or Redfern before you get one in Mosman or Bella Vista. Bookmakers know best, indeed.

But I don't necessarily think it's always advantageous trying to position yourself as the underdog. If the polls are really close it might act to scare the undecideds into sticking with the status quo, sure, but being a favourite (especially an overwhelming one) can act to legitimise you, and don't also forget that a not insignificant proportion of Australians are sheep, you know, "Rudd must be ok if this many people like him", etc. I think the whole 'backing the underdog' thing is largely a myth, much like the Australian 'bush myth'. Both may have been the case generations ago, but not now. It pays to be a winner.

True. But I was referring to backing the underdog in the Jeff Kennet/protest vote sense. I wonder how many people would have really voted for Bracks if they expected that Kennet actually had a chance of losing. I believe the public will tire of Rudd offering no policy, just rhetoric. Hence, if Rudd continues to lead in these 'public polls' will the public really vote for him on election day? The public is more likely to give John Howard a protest vote if polls continually downplay the probability of an ALP win.

I'm really dumbfounded as to why Labor is not utilising these positive poll results by actually announcing good policy - or at least talking about policy.