The Coalition has again narrowed the gap in this fortnight’s Newspoll, although it remains at a daunting 57-43. Lateline reports that Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is down two points to 46 per cent, with John Howard’s up three points to 39 per cent. The Australian’s report is not online yet, but will be by the time most of you read this. In other developments from the past week:
• Labor’s national executive has acted quickly on the authority it received from the national conference to preselect candidates for 25 New South Wales seats, nominating military lawyer Colonel Mike Kelly to run against Liberal member Gary Nairn in Eden-Monaro. In his role with the coalition provisional authority after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Kelly is credited with efforts to blow the whistle on mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and AWB’s payment of kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime. David Humphries and Andrew Clennell of the Sydney Morning Herald assess the state of play elsewhere as follows:
Greg Combet, the ACTU secretary, will be candidate for the Hunter seat of Charlton, replacing Kelly Hoare, who replaced her father, the former minister Bob Brown, in 1998. The right wing will decide replacements for Michael Hatton, who filled Paul Keating’s vacancy in Blaxland in 1996, and Julia Irwin, the MP for Fowler, also in Sydney’s south-west, since 1998. If Mr Rudd got his way, the likely candidate in Blaxland would be the University of NSW constitutional lawyer George Williams. But speculation is that the contest will be between Tania Mihailuk, the Mayor of Bankstown, and Bernie Riordan, the Electrical Trades Union boss. The favourite in Fowler, Warren Mundine, the former ALP president, may be overlooked because of demands to strengthen the number of women candidates.
• Following Senator Amanda Vanstone’s appointment as ambassador to Rome, the South Australian Liberal Party will hold its preselection to replace her on May 25, with nominations to close on Thursday. This is the third South Australian Liberal Senate vacancy in little over a year, following Robert Hill’s departure last March and Jeannie Ferris’s death earlier this month. As was the case with Santo Santoro’s vacancy in Queensland, the party administration has opted for a new ballot rather than promote an existing candidate for the coming federal election. The position would otherwise have gone to Maria Kourtesis, head of the nursing agency Prime Medical Placements. Kourtesis has been preselected for the unwinnable fourth position on the Senate ticket (which she also filled at the 1996 election), behind Cory Bernardi (who replaced Hill), Simon Birmingham (who will replace Ferris) and Grant Chapman, a Senator since 1987. Kourtesis’s defeat at the hands of the long-serving but little-known Chapman caused considerable angst due to the state party’s poor record on female representation. It was also a defeat for the beleagured moderates faction; Vanstone, also a moderate, is among those who have called for the balance to be redressed by having Kourtesis take her spot. Kourtesis will instead face opposition from the Right’s Mary Jo Fisher, workplace relations lawyer and manager at Business SA. The winner will not face election later this year, as Vanstone’s term does not expire until 2011.
• Also in South Australia, Labor has endorsed Nicole Cornes, columnist for the Sunday Mail newspaper and wife of football identity Graham Cornes, to run against Liberal member Andrew Southcott in the Adelaide seat of Boothby. Cornes admits to having voted Liberal in the past, and wrote in her column in 2004 that John Howard had “proved himself to be a fine PM”. In the other normally safe Liberal seat in Adelaide, Sturt, Labor has nominated Mia Handshin – a former Young South Australian of the Year and “founder of inspirational speaking and consultancy group Mana of Speaking” – to run against Christopher Pyne.
• Western Australian Liberal Senator Ross Lightfoot announced he would retire from politics on Friday after it became clear he would lose the number three position to Mathias Corman, state party senior vice-president. Corman is linked with fellow WA Senators Chris Ellison and Ian Campbell in a pro-Howard camp opposed by forces aligned with indestructible powerbroker Noel Crichton-Browne. Last year, Lightfoot said he would have “no honourable course” but to quit the Liberal Party and serve out his term as an independent if he was dumped in an “undignified” manner. The Prime Minister reportedly instructed the state party to hold off on its preselection for as long as possible to minimise the effect of such an eventuality. However, despite Lightfoot’s complaint that the party should have chosen someone “more appropriate with respect to family values”, it does not appear that he plans to do so. The other incumbents, Alan Eggleston and David Johnston, have been re-nominated.
• New South Wales Labor Senator George Campbell has announced he will retire from politics when his term expires in mid-2008, rather than face an inevitable preselection defeat. Campbell’s seat will go to his successor as national secretary of the Left faction Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Doug Cameron, who by all accounts had stitched up the numbers to depose the 65-year-old Campbell long before. The other NSW Labor Senator up for re-election, Ursula Stephens, is reportedly at risk of being demoted in favour of the party’s high profile state secretary, Mark Arbib, who it was earlier believed had his eyes on Michael Hatton’s seat of Blaxland.
• The Northern News reports that the Liberal preselection for the safe northern Sydney seat of Mitchell will be held on an “unspecified date in May”. Under-achieving sitting member Alan Cadman, now 69, is apparently set on contesting again, despite having survived a challenge ahead of the 2004 election 58 votes to 55. Andrew Clennell of the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the party’s state vice-president, Nick Campbell, has been “encouraged” by two federal ministers to nominate. Others mentioned as contenders are Australian Hotels Association deputy chief executive David Elliott and solicitor Mark Blanche.
• The Poll Bludger has just had to cough up $239 in web hosting fees for the privilege of keeping you all entertained for another year. Contributions are welcome.
Yes, you’d have to say that Ronnie said it with a bit more panache.
Perhaps you’re right, David – how do you suggest? Should they wait outside on the footpath? Should they have a right of access to workplaces to try and recruit members? (A right unions have even under WorkChoices). It seems the ALP position is probably the least inconvenient – just stick a poster on the wall, and be done with it.
David Charles – politically there is some merit in what you suggest with AWA’s at the moment but I think most people perceive AWA’s as wage and condition reducers rather than enhancers. Wait until there is a down turn in the economy and then see what is being offerred.
Phil Robins – I’m intrigued to know how Rudd’s words have been interpreted to mean Howard is too old. At no stage has he said that. He has many times hinted and said that Howard’s ideas and policies are old hat but not Howard himself. Can you supply the evidence that shows Rudd saying that Howard is too old to be working or to be PM?
I’ve watched Rudd’s conference speech and gone over the transcript and I can’t find that evidence Phil. Maybe you will have better luck.
I think the unions are resourceful enough to work out ways of making themselves known to employees who need their assistance. Regulation would be required if the unions did not have right of access to workplaces but, as Hugo notes, that is not the case.
What would be different then in regard to unions under Labor’s policy if they already can go into the workplace and make themselves known?
The difference is contained in, and evidenced by, regulation involving a minimum employment standard which, in my opinion, is not necessary. There may also be political benefit for Mr Rudd in dropping this part of the ALP’s policy because its removal would be contrary to a perception (whether correct or incorrect) that the ALP’s workplace relations policy is written for, and on behalf of, unions.
Reading through this thread I had planned many ripostes to things said above, but most of my comments have already been made by Hugo, Jasmine and Adam.
However, I do disagree with Adam to some extent – while the impact of individual candidates in urban seats is usually very low, I do think there is an overall impression created by candidate selection. The ALP has rightly been criticized in the past for having candidates who seemed to have come out of a cookie cutter.
This time they have totally thrown that off, and selected a bunch of people who are at least interesting and who give the impression of being diverse.
Individually I don’t think much of some of them, and have doubts about others. However, the overall impression is of a party that touches many aspects of Australia, rather than the narrowly based Liberals, and even more narrowly based ALP of 98, 01, 04.
Hmmm, perhaps you’re right, David, though it hardly seems like a “die in a ditch” issue, and I personally I don’t think there’s much there for people to worry about. Besides, it will give the Libs something to aim at when they get re-elected in around 2017.
The fact that she voted for Howard means that Cornes would probably push policies I would not like as an MP, but having voted for Southcott is a vote winner not loser. She can say “like you I preferred him, but now the Liberals true colours have been revealed and it is time to throw them out”. Still she clearly does need more training – admitting she can’t face hard questioning is not a good look in any circumstance.
I did not mention Rudd. Howard implied it was Rudd. The Oz said Howard was responding to ‘Labor’ claims that he was old and tired. The point is that Howard mentioned Carter instead of Mondale.
Surely the selection process should require the candidate to demonstrate some level of political awareness, at least to differentiate between left and right, and to be able to argue the Labor cause with conviction.
Cornes does not pass any of these tests, but God she looks good. She would get my vote in a beauty contest, but not in the ballot box.
If that’s what the ALP rely on, then they don’t deserve Government.
Oh one more thing – The assessments that people who “sit in meditation spaces†should be running for the Greens, not labor. and “Her target base is tiny and the Greens already have it” indicate little knowledge of both the New Age Movement and The Greens.
There is certainly an overlap between the two, but there are many, many Greens who are not in the least New Age. What is more the numbers of people who dabble in the sorts of things that Handshin seems to be pushing is huge, probably larger than the total Green vote, and certainly most don’t vote for us. In fact elements of that movement are actually very anti-Green in the sense of an obsession with self which undermines care for the planet or other humans.
I have no idea where in the movement Handshin sits, or anything else about her, but I suspect there are quite a few voters across all parties who will like the statements quoted above, although personally they make me a touch nauseous.
Sorry Phil, I missed that point you were making. This wasn’t picked up by anyone else either, I don’t think.
Ray, Ray, Ray, Ray, Ray.
“Cornes does not pass any of these tests, but God she looks good. She would get my vote in a beauty contest, but not in the ballot box.”
This says a lot about you – nothing at all about the candidate, except in you eye as a beholder.
“be able to argue the Labor cause with conviction.”
Oh honey, oh sweetie. I almost agree with you. And conviction is soooo sweet when you see it, feel it, you can almost taste it and it is better than a fine Margaret River Red, an open fire and someone you love to c.
On both sides of the isle there are many who wouldn’t even be able to identify a ‘labor cause’ or a ‘liberal cause’ if they fell over it. At a State level it is even worse. There are many who would struggle to identify and convince me today is Thursday. Quite frankly I have more faith in Mr Gates’ software which tells me it definitely is Thursday.
I agree with more training, I agree it should have happened before she was exposed to the media (perhaps like a pregnancy in the good ol day an impending female candidate should be sent to the country to have the new age taken out of the girl before she announces).
But really expecting any candidate male or female to be able to argue the labor cause with passion is going to restrict your potential talent pool to about 5% of the inside hacks inside hacks.
While I generally agree with Jasmine’s comments about how female candidates are given more scrutiny – if they are attractive looking it is assumed to be there only strong point – I do find the following pretty damning:
“But really expecting any candidate male or female to be able to argue the labor cause with passion is going to restrict your potential talent pool to about 5% of the inside hacks inside hacks.”
Labor stands for so little these days that it is not surprising few candidates can find much passion for the cause.
I largely agree Stephen, but I think the disease crossed the isle.
One of the problems of the Greens is that they have, like the NDP before them, become a magnet for many of the outdated and discredited far-left. For example, as Adam mentioned in another thread, Greens NSW MLC Lee Rhiannon is the daughter of two important CPA members and was involved herself in many far-left groups.
News that the Government is going to give the above $75000 wage earners a tax cut must make MPs like Richardson in marginals quake in their boots. The above $75000 workers are more incline to vote for the Libs anyway. The reaction by my workmates was total disappointment as their seems to be nothing for them in the coming budget.
Peter, that’s true to an extent, but so what? People with those views are into being involved, and we shouldn’t be dissing them just because they hold views we might consider outdated. After all, these people have to go somewhere, and Australia is hardly over-burdened with far-Left groups. By way of contrast, the recent French presidential election had FOUR far-Left candidates, totalling 10% of the vote. Last time I went France, it didn’t seem to have done them much harm. We live in a democracy, after all, and it would be a very dull world if everyone agreed with each other.
Bill, in a perverse way, we can only hope that’s true. But one should always be wary of pre-Budget leaks, and it would seem a very odd thing for a government fighting for its life to do. Maybe they’ve given up on the election already and will try and look after their own while they can!
# Peter Stephens Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
One of the problems of the Greens is that they have, like the NDP before them, become a magnet for many of the outdated and discredited far-left. For example, as Adam mentioned in another thread, Greens NSW MLC Lee Rhiannon is the daughter of two important CPA members and was involved herself in many far-left groups.
As a Green member i have not found this to be the case. The majority of Green members that i have met would be more of your Democrat type people in Liberal seats, environmental and active community people in seats like Kingston with only a small number of ” far left activists ” in strong ALP areas
Yes, I think the true “hard Left” are still too busy getting over the collapse of the USSR to get too involved in party politics, being as it is, a bourgeois scam.
The other thing is if a person was an ex CPA or DSP and found that their “beliefs” to be outdated why cant they look for somewhere else to go? The Greens would be attractive to them because of their activism and grass roots membership rather than the Democrats or ALP where the Left is slowing being weeded out.
The Greens attract disillusioned far left people as well as the left of the ALP,join this with ex Dems small l libs and community activists and you have a real multi dimensional party. If anyone would check on the Bios of Greens candidates in this election you will see a wide range of political etc backgrounds
But tell me, Bill – what do you see as the future for the Greens? Will they always stay as a splinter group (and a useful one, I think – the Greens are good at keeping unfashioable issues on the table; David Hicks is a good example), or can you see the Greens growing into a viable third party, a la the UK Lib Dems?
Personally, I think the Greens are about as big as they are ever going to be, but what do I know? I was convinced that no one would ever vote to make John Howard PM!
Hugo the Greens growing into a viable third party, a la the UK Lib Dems?is what i see as the future
David, in answer to your question earlier, Bennelong is most certainly a marginal, when by one John Winston Howard by 4.2%. If the ALP were to win office later this year, it probably win this seat in the process. I actually grew up in this seat (and JWH came to talk at my school once or twice), and I’d be surprised (though elated) if Labor wins it.
However, it’s very much in play, and part of the point of running McKew here is to require Howard to spend some time trying to save his own seat, as opposed to trying to save his tired old government.
Actually, perhaps the Lib Dems were a bad example – they have a strong geographic base in the South-West of England. Is there anywhere in Oz that you think the Greens might develop a stronghold? They will certainly have a presence in the Senate (probably with 3-6 seats for the next decade), but it’s hard to see them winning more than a couple of seats in the inner cities of Sydney and Melbourne (Kingston notwithstanding….).
I suspect crunch time will come for the Greens when Bob Brown decides to call it a day. He’s now in his 60s, and (assuming that he gets re-elected later this year, which I think is a pretty safe bet) this may well be his last term.
Some eejit a while back saidL “Celebrity candidates and candidates who are drafted are always the worst.
Celebrity candidates never understand actual politics, or the internal machine. They jump and down and cry when they dont get there way.”
Now Louise Markus may not be a celeb but her successful candidacy in Greenway last time around is an object lesson on how to do it properly. Rule 1: you throw a motza at the electorate and Rule 2: part of that goes on minders who make sure the candidate never opens their trap in public or least not without adequate rehearsal. In Cornes case the ALP seems to have forgotten rule 2 but there is plenty of time and it is Croweaterland.
I think Howard will win Bennelong at the general election, even if the ALP forms government.
However, if the ALP wins, then Howard resigns, I think the ALP will take the seat at a by-election. Especially if McKew runs again. I think Howard’s personal vote is what has retained the seat for the Libs, even as the demographics have changed.
Some flamin’ half wit said: “Greens NSW MLC Lee Rhiannon is the daughter of two important CPA members”
At least they weren’t impotent.
And JWH’s old man and his grandfaither were card carrying members of the New Guard. And your point is?
A popular smear among Howard’s more unhinged detractors, but one for which no evidence exists.
Yeah, but if you’re going to have a bogeyman, you might as well go all the way. Anyway, his big hero (and Rudd’s too it seems) Menzies was not unsympathetic to the Nazi regime in the 1930s, as were many on the Right.
Mind you, I guess we on the Left are not innocent in this regard, as there was no small attachment to Uncle Joe on our side.
Phil, Hugo and Gary have all alluded to Howard’s misquote of Reagan on “Sunday”, last week-end. I didn’t see the interview, just a brief grab on a Sunday evening news service, and so didn’t realise that he’d referred to Carter rather than Mondale.
However, my memory is that like the professional deliverer of lines that he was, Reagan said something more clever, than the “if you don’t… I won’t….” that the PM used in the Oakes interview. I was astounded that Howard would risk an unchecked memory of the quote and circumstances.
As I recall, when the issue of his age was raised with Reagan, he said something like “I don’t think my opponent’s youth should disqualify him from office”. This was a far more effective way of neutralising the supposed negative factor of Reagan’s age than Howard’s clumsy effort.
I infer that Howard dreamed this one up all by himself, since his minders would have been careful to get the story (and the year and opponent) right.
Simon… “I think Howard will win Bennelong at the general election, even if the ALP forms government.”
Of course Costello’s preferred option is for those two events to be transposed. It will be the one and only chance in his life time of being PM. If Howard has the chance to annoint a successor it will be Turnbull.
Not to be taken seriously.. “Rule 2: make sure the candidate never opens their trap in public”
I don’t take you seriously. What does it say about the quality of the debate in our parliament if a party has to invoke Rule 2 to get a celebrity candidate elected. A celebrity candidate who can’t string two words together or at least formulate a coherent arguement, based on their own political conviction is not someone I would wish to represent me in parliament.
And as for Jasmine, who has to stutter my name… if you think it is OK to vote for a candidate just because they look good, male or female, then it says something about you and you deserve the parliament you get.
It was said against Mondale in the 1984 debates. Mondale was Carter’s VP, so I guess Howard was close, and anyway, he was busy undermining Andrew Peacock that year.
The attacks on Ms Cornes are not surprising, but may be a little premature. Assuming that the ALP are serious about pushing her barrow, I think her story is one that might resonate strongly with a middle class electorate. A young woman from a poor single parent family, dragged herself up to a University education, acquired a good job, (working in a radio station would appeal to many younger voters), held conservative views till turned off by Howards recent behaviour especially workchoices, now married to a prominent sportsman/businessman who would appear prima facie to be a conservatives pin-up. Theres a lot to like in that story if it is put out into the electorate effectively, and it would resonate well beyond just Boothby.
The first half of the narrative seems very like the story sold so well early in the piece by Mark Latham.
Her nomination may be a better tactic than many think.
Hmmm…some very interesting developments
I think people are being a little too hard on Mia Handshin -she has an impressive CV and background and may prove a strong candidate in a seat like Sturt. I doubt she’ll give Pyne any sleepless nights but she may very well prove her credentials in that seat and may make the seat competitive
I’m uneasy about Nicole Cornes -she acclaimed Howard less than three years ago and now she’s suddenly on board as a Labor candidate? I suppose her selection is designed to appeal to Liberals looking for a safe alternative replacement to Southcott -someone who was ‘one of them’ just recently. And she’s got a local profile I guess from her columns. I just wonder whether she’s the right choice but let’s wait and see
The selection of Mike Kelly is a good one -I greatly admire him -but I’m not sure whether the conservative-leaning Eden-Monaro is the best place for him. Is he a ‘local boy’ from the electorate? If so, he may have a better chance than if he were parachuted from outside. But regardless, I think he has the potential to be a good candidate.
The Oz has some info about very funny goings on in Lindsay:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21668824-601,00.html
Seems an inter-factional battle is taking place there, with the NUW running an unknown teacher (who is reported to be the fiance of their media officer, himself a failed Federal candidate) against the very experienced, and dogged, David Bradbury – a wall of TUW people, branch presidents and prominent local Lindsay Laborites are against her.
My opinion is that Bradbury is the natural candidate, and these shenanigans (particularly nasty comments to the press) just embarrass the party.
And as for Nicole Cornes – she seems a good person, who will be liked for her honesty, and there is no doubt that having voted for Howard but being prepared to run for Labor now sends a clear message. (If she looked like a typical aspirant pollie you would doubt her motives, but she seems very sincere to me).
Do other contributors think that Howard’s ‘backflip’ re WorkChoices will make any difference? I’m thinking it allows him to look reasonable (and he’s already tried to claim the centre ground), but the problem for him is that people might have already written him off on this issue. The Libs will have a credibility problem with IR come the election – it will be easy for Labor to run a scare campaign about WorkChoices II (expect to hear that recording of Minchin talking to the HR Nicholls Society).
My name is David, I’m from Sydney and I’m not here to be dismissively admonished for (supposedly) engaging towards Gary Bruce, in some kind of “name calling…in the realms of being called a Howard-Hater”. Who are “Howard-Haters”? Is the expression in particular contexts, an offensive sobriquet? Is the use of it in reference to others, an “opinion stopper”? Is it any different from name calling (sometimes, amusing) which can be seen on any side of politics (that is, name calling seen both from participants in, and interested observers of, politics)? For example, I am aware that JWH has been pilloried by the person who seeks to supplant him as Prime Minister, for being like the geriatric nuclear power station owner in The Simpsons cartoon, and also by the predecessor Prime Minister as a “dessicated coconut”. I know my questions are a liitle off the topic of this thread but I am curious, so others’ opinions on these matters might enlighten me.
He’s left himself exposed on this – he was prepared to hang low and middle income earners out to dry for a year.
(I really hate how comments bob up while you are writing a response to a previous comment and render your comment inept and irrelevant).
To reiterate (and make more sense), in response to Hugo’s question about Johnny’s backflip, Howard is exposed. He hung middle and lower income workers out to dry for a year and has only collapsed under election pressure and when he realised that even the mining companies are prepared to brook the no-disadvantage test.
anonymousie : there’s one thing worse. Writing an excellent comment, that ends up in moderation and by the time it’s released it is halfway up the thread and no one reads it.
Actually I am looking forward to the death of this thread. It’s gotten too Workchoicey. (New word I invented)
Gimme some juicy marginal seat demographics and obscure electoral trivia anyday.
Mr Speaker, I too enjoy a good number crunching of marginal seat stats, but I suspect in this election at least that you will have to put up with “WorkChoicey” posts – this will be the defining issue of the election after all, and any analysis of marginal seats etc will be seen through this prism to some extent.
Louise Markus was a special – she was specifically chosen to counter Ed Husic’s ‘Muslimness’. She (like Cornes) was not a member of the party that chose her. And she still has no political acumen three years later. I wonder how she’ll go now it is a FACT that there are fraudsters smongst the Hillsong faithful?
I think Howard deals himself right back into the game if he relents a little on workchoices.
See everyone, I’ve listened and I’ve softened some of the harsher elements. And, of course, I’m still the one you can trust to run the economy. Not like Mr Rudd who will blow it – he will wreck business.
He’s not dead yet.
As for Louise Markus, whatever her political ability, with the redistribution of Greenway she is as safe as houses.