What The People Want

Malcolm et al are making grave mistakes about
(1) Rudd team attending UN and probably highly confidential, in person, critical financial discussions [which he would love to be in on], and
(2) defending the short selling and derivatives behaviour of 'the market'. Does he really want to see our market as deregulated at the US model? He should now be questioning our own credit behaviour like 5 years 'free' credit and unsolicited credit cards through the mail - already stuffed with $5000 credit. I come from the age when retil consumer credit was first introduced - when we had to have 33% deposit for any credit purchases;wouldn't want to return that far.

Kevin Rudd is getting on with the serious job of governing, the reason he was elected in 2007. Malcolm is getting on with the job of being Malcolm. It has always only been about Malcolm, always has and always will. His main allies are big business and that is who he intends to serve. That's why he is wasting time over the $30 a week extra for single pensioners, which is irresponsible economic populism intended to score cheap points. He could have done something when the Libs were in power, but didn't, so why is it such a grand idea now. The Libs aren't fit to govern, it doesn't matter who leads them.

I am becoming disillusioned with K Rudd. He seems to be repeating his Queensland phase with Goss. Lots of talk and committees, easy decisions like the Apology, but nothing of substance. Hopefully something of substance will come out of Committee before the next election. Perhaps Julia Gillard should be PM and Rudd Foreign Minister. Then perhaps something might get done.

Robert Peffer, why do we need to attribute descent behaviour to adherence to religious scripture? Yes, I could be nihilistic or I could choose not to. Many Christians believe that everything here on earth was placed here for their benefit and pleasure. Can’t I do the right thing by my fellow man simply because I believe that it is the right thing to do and am concerned for the welfare and prosperity of all citizens of the world.
I didn’t realise, Stewart Bevridge, that the democratic western world was here at the behest of our Christian brothers.

I fully support Rudd and the job his government is doing. I was interested to see how Malcolm Turnbull would behave in his first days as leader. Unfortunately, I find the "aggressive confidence" of him and now Helen Coonan very off-putting. As stated before, the Liberal Party LOST the election. They obviously DON'T accept the wishes of the Australian people.

The arguments about Mr Turnbull's "arrogance" is interesting.
In my lifetime I saw Bob Menzies, Harold Holt, Billy Mc Mahon, John Gorton, Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard and now Kevin Rudd as Prime Ministers of Australia. Possibly Gorton, Howard and Rudd could be seen as less "arrogant" than the rest but they all "have to feel good about themselves" as Bob Hawke terms it. So let's not get our rocks off about that tag.
It is also said that we know little about Turnbull politically. How much did we really know about Bob Hawke and as a conservative supporter he is the ONLY Labor leader I would vote for because he seemed to have a genuine handle on the big picture. It strikes me that Turnbull is equally gifted but I guess we will have to await the policies to roll out to see what a difference he will make. At least the broader media is giving him a fair run at the gate a little more than they did for Brendan Nelson. (I do exclude Laurie Oakes and Kerry O'Brien from that appraisal) but it seems that at this stage Mr Turnbull has their measure.

I quite like Turnbull's accomplishments in life which are due to hard work and an extraordinary talent.

But - and it is a big BUT - Malcolm is his own worst enemy. His arrogance will bring him down.

Amongst many examples, his comment that $600 million isn't a lot of money shines through. Tell that to the Liberal's recently discovered forgotten constituency - the single aged pensioners!

He gives the impression in Parliament that he is very much the intellectual superior to those around him on both sides of the House; that if he was PM everything would be for the best in this the best possible of worlds. Voltaire would have loved watching him in action!

Australians don't like poppies that tall and arrogant.

He gives the impression that he and the Liberals are very much a government in exile - no, they LOST the last election.

I don't think he will mkae it into office.

Dear Graham-
Some brief comments for the record-
Turnbull is the best of the Libs but don't jump to any conclusions regardng his popularity- because he has some major issues- the figures you have posted only demonstrate that some Liberal voters, who couldn't bear to vote for Nelson are prepared to vote for Turnbull. That's all.

1. He is arrogant- ( not just perceived as...)and it shows- note how he uses hi "megaphone voice" when asking questions in Parliament.He behaves like he is still a QC.

2. He is presumptuous as well- note how he demands that the Prime Minister should agree to "sit down with me" and discuss how to deal with the economy!
Why? When did Howard ever it down and discuss anything with the Opposition?

3. Turnbull and the Liberals are still behaving as if they are a "government in exile"- rather than her Majesty's loyal Opposition! This is no way to prepare for an election

4. Sniping at Kevin Rudd for going to the US is plain dumb- espcially when it's obvious that the problem is mainly US generated. If Turnbull can produce a cogent policy rather than carping people may listen

Finally, like Mark Latham, he has am "unlovable persona"- please remember that when Latham became leader over Beasley, he had a meteoric leap of about 20 points, but soon crashed and burned- just like a burnt out meteor.

We are fortunate to have in Rudd and Turnbull, quality leaders of both parties. It is probably too much to ask them both to act primarily in the interests of the country for the whole of the time. But between petty party politicking and point scoring, perhaps they will each find time to use his undoubted vision and talents in the interests of the people, rather than simply to hang onto or wrest control, for the benfit of his party. Times are tough and we need leadership and statesmanship now. This is the best chance that Australia has had for many years.

Hi Agnes, Loved your comment "We are not a Christian nation and nor should we be". Suggest you go to Suadia Arabia and cricise the regime there. I am sure some christian -Minded sould would send you food parcels as you languish in prison (If you are lucky).I could mention other contries and other governments but that will suffuice as an example.
It is only because there are some vestiges of Christianity left that you are not pilloried or worse.

Ego on a stick! Media quote: "If I were PM I wouldn't be going overseas." Don't know what you'd do as you've never been there...and hopefully never will! "The only thing Kevin Rudd is prepared to work with me on..." Who is working with whom? Mmmmm! And on Lateline it was all terribly, terribly "amusing". Glad he found it so. It was terribly, terribly boring watching Turnbull 'being clever'. Nothing wrong with self-confidence but the King isn't dead yet and Turnbull is a relative newcomer. He would do well to remember that tall poppies get chopped often. A touch of the 'J.W.Howard' is not a good look.

The Liberals should just realise that they LOST THE ELECTION. Rather than start to put up ideas about what they would do now. They had their chance .....and they blew it in a big way !

Come off it Claudio. We are living in 2008 not 1888. Our leaders can visit other countries and their leaders and be back for dinner these days. We need to keep up with world affairs where they are happening not wandering aroung the bush making sure the merinos are still producing.

I agree with Jim's comment that "we are not a Christian nation, nor should we be." Robert Peffer's opinion that we would be better off if the law encouraged Christian values suggests that organisations like Family First and the Roman Catholic Church should determine what should be made law. I think we have already had enough of this in areas like abortion, stem cell research, marriage laws, tax-free businesses, etc. It is time that these fiction-based organisations were excluded entirely from the democratic process.

Treat politicians like water in a tank..
Change them regular...
This idea of giving them time to get settled is all wrong, it only serves to give them the chance to embed corruption within the system...
If they keep changing, they get sick of fighting and that allows new blood to enter office, with new blood we get less seat warmers and more that get in for the benefit of the people, not the benefit of there bottoms...
If you want leaders that will do best for all, get rid of the seat warmers every election. If you want a corrupt system, then keep voting the same goose to office, then you can gobble there bull...
I have no preference, except to see a change of office, everyone uses the term, "A change is as good as a holiday", apply it to polly's...

If a Politician was water, after 3 years you would want to clean the tank and refresh it, do the same to them...

Regarding Roger's comments that a few people have taken issue with, it seems that being better off doesn't make many of us immune from being historically ignorant.

Australia was not set up to be a theocracy but the majority of people in the country at the time were Christian and there are many Christian values that are foundational to our laws and institutions. Section 116 of the Constitution was cited - it is a clause that protects religious freedom so that no alternative religions or individual Christian denomination can 'take over' and start excluding the others.

The Constitution is not the only place to look at when evaluating the 'Christian-ness' of our laws and institutions. For example, parliament is always opened with the Lord's Prayer. For those who take an oath rather than affirmation, it is usually sworn on the bible. Our welfare system initially derived from a desire to support those who would be left to die or beg in other cultures. Jesus was quite clear about our obligations to the weakest in society whereas some (but not all) other religions see misfortune simply as a punishment for sin in this life or a past life.

It would be nice if such noble motives were driving our politicians to serve their constituents today (not that I think all leaders would have held these views, but they were perhaps more prevalent then than now).

As for Jim's comment that 'we are not a Christian nation, nor should we be', I think the first part of that is true but the second is merely your opinion, sir, and there are many people who would argue that if people actually followed the teachings of Jesus (as individuals, but for the sake of the argument I'd say this would apply if the law encouraged Christian values and behaviour) then we would live in a much safer, more compassionate, just and content society. The reality is that even those who claim to follow Christ fail to do so quite often (myself included) but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing if everyone were aspiring to it and giving it a decent go.

The same principle doesn't apply to religious beliefs such as secularism, atheism, agnosticism and utilitarianism because if your foundation is that life ultimately is a random accident and has no purpose then why would you do anything other than maximise your own personal happiness while you are here before you become nothing?

Personally, I prefer my leaders to think they are accountable to a much higher power who will judge them for their actions one day. Those who do whatever they can get away with behind closed doors because they don't believe it matters are the most dangerous. Ms 'Do you know who I am?' Neale MP strikes me as that kind of politician and it's really not how we want to be governed.

Costello seems to have some of the right ideas in this regard and I can easily understand his desire to be patient and not split the party with a challenge to Howard for the sake of his personal ambition but I'm not real sure where Turnbull fits in to all this. Frankly, with a reputation for arrogance that's a bad start because a person with a well-developed perspective should realise that they are just a grain of sand in the big picture of history.

He seems to have learned a lot so far though so I'm optimistic for him.

One thing I'm tired of though is this constant detailed analysis of the polls from immediately after the last election. I think the media needs to pull its head in on this because they are driving the national agenda and although they might love the power and the way this enables them to attack something all the time, ultimately I don't think it's good for the long term governance of our country. Particularly when we have a highly poll-conscious PM as Rudd seems to be. If the numbers started to get too bad I suspect he will either freeze and not do anything difficult or controversial (not that he's doing much of that anyway) or he'll start some dodgy populist policy. Being popular doesn't make something wrong but usually it's not too hard to tell when something's got sound reasons behind it other than popularity.

The sad thing about this Government is that it's been in office for nearly a year and there's not that much that's happened so far and by the time of the next Budget they'll be already trying to set up their chances for the election in mid-late 2010 so there's a significant danger that this country will not have seen any difficult or complex but necessary reform for three years unless it comes from the States. Ha - that's not going to happen!

Finally, the one area where Rudd seems likely to do something big is IR (really Gillard's achievement). But even there the Howard Govt did much of the hard work bringing in such bitterly unpopular laws (although they're mostly still in place but where are the harsh boss stories now?) which Rudd is now able to wind back a bit and get huge credit for a politically pretty safe move. I hope the new system is better that what was there before and there's every chance it will be but to fix that problem our nation may pay a high price for the shallow inaction of this government on a wide range of other issues.

Thanks for these surveys, Graham. I find your results very interesting and it's refreshing to have a pollster openly admit the biases and shortcomings of their poll, rather than claim it as definitive proof of a wide range of things. Look at the polls coming out of the US at the moment and note how so many are clearly consistently biased, with major news outlets mostly in favour of Senator Obama. It's not even subtle.

For those with an interest, check out http://www.realclearpolitics.com for a good idea of how much variation there is in polling and see averages of polls which are much more realistic. Thanks again, Graham.

Also, i do think that the high "neither approve nor disapprove" can be attributed to no one really knowing exactly "what" it is the Libs now stand for.

For over 10 years we've all known exactly what that was - it was Howard's way or the highway.

Moderates, such as Tony Staley, Petro Georgiou, et al, were both hounded down and put on the outer as only the Howard way could deliver.

i would even go so far as to put Costello in that same moderate camp but as he never had the numbers from the "Howard right" he could never challenge; no wonder he was less preferred than Turnbull.

i think voters today associated Nelson with both "the Howard way" and also being utterly unelectable as a future leader of Australia.

Turnbull is perceived as a leader, and this can be attributed to the electorate knowing his Republican days, his Spycatcher days and his merchant banking days with both Neville Wran and Nick Whitlam.

But with Abbott, Hockey, Minchin, Bishop and also Robb (who is far worse and a very, very ineffectual member let alone strong performer) all these people maybe tagged in the electorates mind with being Howard's 'men' - Turnbull isn't.

So Turnbull's bounce today is a definite one but slight and a new and 'better' leader is welcomed by the electorate esp after Nelsons atrocious polling and stupid leadership.

Time will tell as to what 'spots' the Libs now have. Howard's spots are well and truly gone with the rise of Turnbull.

The only thing that was always going for the Liberal Party was the economic debate. However for the sake of popular politicking the Liberal party has lost it's way and I think the Labor party is winning this argument and so as time goes on the Liberal party will lose this argument and this was always their domain. Voters are not fools and they will realise that Rudd is doing the right thing for the country. So people be ware he is no fool and he knows where he is going and what he will do within the next year. No quick fire fixes but long lasting one.

Oz Politics Blog has a better explanation for the OL's bounce:

Monday, September 22

"Typically, large poll bounces following the change of an opposition leader require three things:

1. an unpopular government;
2. an unpopular outgoing opposition leader; and
3. a new opposition leader that excites.

In the past, large bounces associated with incoming opposition leaders met these criteria (for example, when Rudd replaced Beazley Mk II against the backdrop of the last year of the Howard Government).

The Brendan Nelson to Malcolm Turnbull change does not satisfy all of the criteria for a large poll bounce. Unquestionably, Nelson was an unpopular outgoing opposition leader.

It is arguable that Turnbull is a new opposition leader that excites.

But Rudd and his government are a long way from being an unpopular.

Not surprisingly, therefore, today’s bounce associated with the ascension of Turnbull is small: three two-party preferred percentage points with ACNielsen, and one point with Newspoll.

Interestingly, the largest bounce appears to have occurred against ACNielsen’s attitudinal question on who would be your preferred prime minister.

Excellent graph of the preferred PM too.

Read the rest here -
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/

Hi Annie, I don't get the feeling that we are being stacked. Plenty of opinions from all over I think. Good to see so many.

I was / am in the minority that showed preference for Nelson over Turnbull, my key reason for this is that Turnbull is sill an unknown quantity in the political sphere. There is no doubting his accomplishments, skills, intelligence and drive, none the less these may or may not be relative to his chosen career. Running governmet IS different to running a corporation.
The media and the surveys conducted assess Mr Turbull as having a stronger handle on financial matters than Mr Rudd or other government ministers……why ?
Because he was in private industry and his experience as a banker?
If so what do we know of his accomplishments in these fields and what consequences resulted from business decisions he implemented.
If being a merchant banker or manager of a large financial institution is a sought after pre-requisite for being prime minister, treasurer or MP, the financial turmoil of the last few months has provided plenty of directors and CEOs to choose from, and if these directors are so good how did they get ther organisations into such a mess?

The only person going away is Mr. Rudd, AGAIN! And to get on with what? More travel with the wife?

I can't wait to see his travel expenditure for the first year. If Rudd wants to be taken seriously as a leader maybe he should lay off the travel, Rove and the Broncos and start running the country from his office in Canberra!

Graham it is interesting to read the same comments coming in word for word under different names, is this an indication of GetUp or some other group at work?

Why don't the libs just go away for a while, and let Rudd get on with it.

A comment on the notion of "Australia was founded as a Christian nation":

Leaving aside the fact that thousands of years of Indigenous occupation existed without any knowledge of the "god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", the Australian Constitution only mentions god once in the same cute manner that all early 20th century documents do.

Section 116 clearly excludes the commonwealth from making laws that "impos[e] any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion"

We are not a Christian nation, nor should we be. Australia is open to all peoples of all religion (or none). This is not Saudi Arabia nor the United States.

Whoever the Libs have as leader at the moment, the country does not need a change of government so soon after last year. Rudd is dealing with challenging problems of the domestic economy (the inflation bomb lobbed by Howard & Costello) and of the international economy (oil prices, meltdown of financial system) and appropriate initiatives to tackle climate change (Murray-Darling water situation, emissions trading).

For God's stake, now we have a competent Prime Minister and a reasonably good team of federal ministers, let's have political stability and let's support a government which is actually trying to deal with these problems. By contrast, Howard & Co had the stupid audacity to campaign last year on "Go for growth", and stuck their head in the sand on climate change. Put the Libs in again already? NO WAY.

Best move Turnbull has done in announcing his shadow cabinet today is to dump Bronwyn Bishop. A woman long plagued by delusions of adequacy, with policy and intellectual input a mile wide and an inch deep. Of whom Gareth Evans once quipped: "Q: Why does nearly everyone take an instant dislike to Bronwyn Bishop? A: Because it saves time."

And of whom I once heard a NSW State Minister quip: "Q:Why has no one heard of Mr Bishop? A: Because she ate him after mating."

Turnbull is way better than the other offerings the Libs could put out, but it's not his time.

Oh, and another observation on poor old Tony Abbott being kept in the relative political backwater of family policies. You need to learn more about the impact of rightwing ideological prescriptions on real people, Tony. You, of all people, being so religious, should take on board the relevance of Isaiah 10:1-2 to your strong support of Work Choices:
"Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those to issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless."

RUDD's ADVISORS NEED TAKE NOTE OF THE 48% OF THE UNCOMMITTED OR ALREADY DISAPPROVING. THEY ARE A SOLID CORE OF SWINGING VOTERS SHOWING SIGNS OF IMPATIENCE AT THE LESSENING SPIN, BUT SPIN NON-THE LESS, AND LACK OF ACTION.
THEY HAD BETTER TAKE NOTE OF THE ONE TERM CARPENTER IN THE WEST, AND THE NEAR DEFEAT IN THE TERRITORY - BOTH WITH UNLOSABLE ELECTIONS.
WHILST TURNBULL MAY NOT HAVE JUMPED OUT OF THE BLOCKS, NEVER-THE-LESS, HIS SPIN MAY BE BETTER THAN RUDD'S.

he may be popular with some of the libe but he wouldn't want to turn his back for too long

he may be popular with some of the libe but he wouldn't want to turn his back for too long

As a Labor voter , Turnbull worries me as he will make the contest a lot more competitive, but I'm reassured by his early populism , sticking with the give aways , age pensions, fuel rebates etc. He cannot really believe in this crap !!

Also as a recent Investment Banker perhaps we can nail him with the meltdown in financial markets !!!

I REMEMBER WELL ATTENDING A MEETING AT THE START OF THE REBUPLICAN MOVEMENT IN PERTH. I WAS THERE TO GIVE MY ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS TO THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL PARTY, OR AT LEAST SECURE A REPUBLIC.

TURNBULL WAS NOT INTERESTED IN ANY PERSONS' INPUT. HE SAID HE WAS IN CHARGE AND THAT 'THEY" KNEW WHAT HAD TO BE DONE, AND THEY DID NOT NEED HELP. ANY EXPRESSION OF AN OPINION WAS REBUFFED.

WE ALL KNOW HOW HE SABOTAGED THE REPUBLIC.

Interesting to see where Greens support goes in all this. Rudd's handling of various environmental issues has been pretty poor given the high expectations he roused during the election. Turnbull has been far more savvy about such things, bearing in mind he doesn't have to walk the talk in opposition.

I wonder how accurate the TPP figures actually are in recent polls since Turnbull is so popular with Greens supporters.

I REMEMBER WELL ATTENDING A MEETING AT THE START OF THE REBUPLICAN MOVEMENT IN PERTH. I WAS THERE TO GIVE MY ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS TO THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL PARTY, OR AT LEAST SECURE A REPUBLIC.

TURNBULL WAS NOT INTERESTED IN ANY PERSONS' INPUT. HE SAID HE WAS IN CHARGE AND THAT 'THEY" KNEW WHAT HAD TO BE DONE, AND THEY DID NOT NEED HELP. ANY EXPRESSION OF AN OPINION WAS REBUFFED.

WE ALL KNOW HOW HE SABOTAGED THE REPUBLIC.

I'll be interested to see the qual anal of the question about what each's weaknesses and strengths are perceived to be. And even more so, when they read about it, what they do about it.

It'll certainly give the media something to gnaw at and should be quite entertaining.

not sure what RH is on about. But Rog, there has been a seperation of church & state for a couple of centries now, and apart from anything else the left are at best agnostic but usually atheist when it comes to politics, so you may want to look again

I do wonder how long a "wet" like Turnbull will last in the Liberal Party. The lurch back towards the centre that he represents will not be liked by some of the old guard right. The Libs lost a lot of seriously good people when they knived the likes of Tony Staley and went for economic rationalism (now there's an oxymoron).

Roger has it all wrong. This country was founded as a sunni muslim country, and the founding fathers were all moon pirates.

However, like Roger I don't feel the need to back any of that up with evidence.

I would never vote for a party which now denies the very foundations of the Australian Federation. Australia was founded as a Christian nation, one that acknowledges the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob & is guided by the Holy Bible.
The current Liberal leader & many in the party seem to be in denial in their efforts to be seen as all things for all people. One needs to take a stand for what one believes in else there is nothing worth striving for!

Well, I'm not sure about your demographics Suzi, but while we have an over-representation of better-off people not all of our respondents fit that category. You might be one of them.

Rudd has it over Turnbull at the moment...and probably int he long run too...as Rudd represents ALP and Turnbull LP. You know, I am amazed to be classed among the higher socio demographic...never been accused of that before