They were clinging on to Gillard being PPM, not that it means much anyway. Now, however, she is dead even with Abbott, with both on 46%.

It doesn't look good for Julia, matty. The left will be loathe to admit it.

The  PPM was the only thing they had left. Now (at least in this poll) that has gone too. Surely the Labor Party is not seriously thinking about bringing back Kevin....I heard that he is very unpopular with most of them. So....is Bill Shorten rubbing his hands together in glee? We live in interesting times.

olive wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 4:44pm:




Oh make no mistake about it, Rudd is vying for the ALP leadership and to be Prime Minister.
Rudd even declared that in Gillardspeak when saying he was more likely to captain the Brisbane Broncos than become prime minister again. A direct reference to Gillard saying she likened her chances of taking the ALP leadership to playing full forward for the Western Bulldogs AFL team.
A month later Gillard had taken over.

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 4:27pm:


Tony Abbott at an all Time Low
March 22, 2011

Despite his relentless attack on the Government’s proposed carbon tax price thing, Tony Abbott has taken a hammering in the latest Newspoll.

The poll, published in today’s Australian, shows Labor ahead of the Coalition 51-49 in the election-deciding two-party preferred stakes.

This is the first time Labor has been in front since November last year.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is also comfortably ahead of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott as the preferred prime minister, polling 50 to Mr Abbott’s 36.

A fortnight ago, the figure was a less comfortable 45 for Ms Gillard and 36 for Mr Abbott.

Forty per cent say they are satisfied with Ms Gillard’s performance, up one point, but well down on the 50 per cent approval a month ago.

Her disapproval rating stands at 47 per cent, down four points in a fortnight.

Mr Abbott’s approval rating stands at 33 per cent, down six points in a fortnight.

This is the lowest approval rating for Tony Abbott since he replaced Malcolm Turnbull by just one vote in a controversial leadership spill in December 2009.

The Federal Opposition has been fighting hammer and nail against the government in recent weeks landing some significant punches over the proposed price on carbon scheme.

However, the fact that this has not translated into an increase in the approval rating for Mr Abbott must be concerning some senior Liberals, particularly Hockey, Brandis and Turnbull whose leadership aspirations may not lie dormant for much longer.

While the election is presumably some time away, the Liberal party must now be feeling some considerable pressure to reevaluate whether Tony Abbott really is electable.

The polls consistently suggest not.

http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/tony-abbott-at-an-all-time-low/

Polls mean nothing this far out from an election!!!

olive wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 4:44pm:


If you dig even further you'll reach China - hey what about Penny Wong

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 5:32pm:


But it does phil

Woe is the day Combat takes the reins

My view on politics.
The Rotten Systems, and is there an Alterative?
The so called Civilizations since mankind came out of the cave, or maybe came down from the trees have hardly changed over thousands of years, because we are now as brutal to each other as they were in the stone ages; the only difference is, that thousands of years ago, men fought each other with sticks and stones, and now destructive weapons are used to the point that the planet on which we live could be completely destroyed in matters of minutes, if the potent weapons, designed by very clever people, put into the hands of not so clever, so called leaders, be they Kings, Dictators or just Politicians, and none of the latter display any scruples or courage to speak up against what should be spoken up against.
But in the so called Democracy, are the Politicians only to be blamed?
If a Politician speaks honestly, if that is possible, will he/she be re-elected at the next election; most likely not, and that is the weakness of a Democracy, the citizens in a Democracy cannot accept the truth, which may go against the voter interest, be it economically or otherwise.
How could Democracy be improved so that it becomes a better system of Government than all the other systems that preceded it?
Considering the previous systems, Be they Oligarchies, Royalties, Plutocracies or Communism.
The first three are only for the benefit of the few, based on either birth or other means, while the last would be the best, yet it completely collapsed after less than a hundred years, but why did Communism collapse so quickly?
The Capitalist always harp on the idea of being the human nature, and greed will always come out on top, when it comes to benefit humanity.
For Communism to work, the human mind has to broaden enormously, because if people think that Communism is a system made in heaven, they are very wrong, because it is obvious that if nobody is prepared to put in the effort he/she is capable of, and everybody has no desire to limit their consumption, the system cannot function.
But in any system, the main problem is, that there are always people trying to usurp the leading positions, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are capable of being the leaders and are not just in the leading positions for their own benefit or boost their big ego.
As most of the aspiring leaders have the ability to fool the common people, by first crawling to them, and when they are in positions of power they will quickly turn around and often misuse the power vested in them.
The people in power also have the great ability of surrounding themselves with underlings who will lick the boots of their leaders, and empower the leader to overcome any attempt to challenge their leadership
Many male leaders are often also controlled by their wives or female partners and are rather weak in reality, but very cunning to outwit their opponents, but in the long run, the society with weak or unfair leaders always suffers.
In a Marriage, where a partner with less ability gains control through having a thicker skin, in the end both partners will not achieve their full potential, and this will also apply in every other Organization up to the leadership in Governments.
That does not mean that the more skillful partner in a marriage should debase his/her partner, but for the benefit of both and the community at large, fools should not be leaders, but use their skills and talents for the benefit of a family, a group or Government, and the so called Indians are just as valuable to society as are the Chiefs.
Never, never should the leaders in society be left in total position of power, but should always be challenged to explain and justify their actions.
Unfortunately many individuals which are prepared to challenge the leaders or the system are conveniently accused of “Rocking the Boat” or called “Whistleblowers” and many times they pay a high price for their actions.
Also the leaders of any society should not be put on a pedestal and idolized like super heroes, and when the people in power talk about serving the Community, they should really show their true colours and admit that they are not in those positions for their own ego and like to have their nose in the trough.
How many families become career politicians; now if to be a politician is such a hard and demanding task, a parent would hardly encourage their offspring to follow in their
foot-steps.
One way how Democratic performance could be greatly improved would be is , instead of having the Senate and Legislative Councils, abolish them and set up Committees of interested citizens to perform the task of keeping a watch over the Governments, and they should not be paid, except being remunerated for any expenses in performing their tasks.
There could also be some risk that this committees set up to keep the “bastards honest” do not become in to the same mould of the Australian Democrats, which although now completely obliterated, are a huge burden on the taxpayers, as there are many quite young ex MP’s enjoying the benefits of a generous parliamentary pension, with all the attached perks.
In the capitalist system, much emphasis is placed on the value of capital for the benefit of society, but is capital really so important for the function of society?

matty wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 10:11pm:


I beg you to take that back.  I doubt any would want to see that