Yesterday, Larvatus Prodoe reported Newspoll figures suggesting that 63% of urban Coalition voters want the Federal Government’s ETS passed. This result means that the Liberals might lose some 20 metropolitan seats at the next election if they continue to delay and block the legislation.

It also suggests that the Greens could pick up a seat or two in the Senate. More first preferences for the House could also go to the Greens, but it is unlikely that they will pick up a House of Representatives seat in Queensland due to the dominance of the two major parties.  

If the Coalition does block the ETS, and renege on its agreement, it’s not just the 2010 election – double dissolution or not – that they are out of the race for. It might the subsequent one to two elections as well.

Switching from Turnbull to a climate change denialist is likely to spell disaster for the Coalition.

Update: The Queensland LNP is currently debating the ETS.

SMH:

”We have to move forward,” said Hockey. ”Clearly this issue has done us incredible damage and I hope the Australian people forgive us for having this very public display. But I say to the Australian people: we are a progressive party.”

With all the turmoil and intrigue of the Coalition’s civil war, it’s been easy to miss some of the little details. Far more interesting than theorizing over a Liberal Party disintegration that isn’t going to happen is this important piece of rhetoric from the man who might be their leader as soon as next week.

Australian politics, though not to the extent of its American counterpart, has shied away from overt expressions of left wing ideology in recent decade. Even Keating, with his heartfelt embrace of reconciliation, the republic, an improved relationship with Asia, and other such small-l liberal causes, he was still an economic rationalist who had little time for old Labor socialism. John Howard proudly proclaimed his conservatism, as did his fellow party-members. Such was the benefit of being associated with the right wing that Kevin Rudd, as a new Opposition Leader, invented a reputation for himself as “an economic conservative.” The last thing any self respecting member of mainstream Australian politics wished to claim was an affiliation with the greenie, latte-sipping, chardonnay-swilling, inner-city left. In fact, the only time in recent years that being seen to be a conservative was a problem was for the NSW Liberals in 2007, and that’s because no one in the state could quite believe anyone could be to the right of NSW Labor. (Barry O’Farrell won’t make the mistake Peter Debnam did; that’s why he’s clamping down on the hardline conservatives in his party causing troubles with Hitler parodies.)

But all of a sudden, thanks to the 2007 election, the unpleasant aftertaste of 11 years of John Howard, and issues that resonate within the electorate like climate change, being a leftie ain’t that bad anymore. Look at Uncle Joe up there!

Excuse his blatant falsehood; whatever stance the Liberals should form on climate change, they are not a progressive party. Not even Petro Georgiou is anything more than a moderate conservative who knows how to act like a human being around refugees. The Liberals have long liked to call themselves a, well, liberal party, but after a half-century of conservative policies, it’s hard to believe them.

This, though, is different[1]. Hockey is adopting a tag usually associated with students, Greens voters and other assorted ratbags: progressive. Liberals are never progressive. They can be “wet,” or “moderate” or “centrist,” but never “progressive”; unlike the Labor party with its right wing, their centrists aren’t described as lefties. But here Hockey sees a political benefit for his party in the public perceiving them as more left-wing than they actually are. It’s the same mechanism Rudd used with his social-conservative schtick; the public didn’t trust his party to be economically responsible, so he claimed the opposing ideology for it.

And you can see why Hockey’s doing it, even though a big chunk of his party is determined to convince the country they’re anything but progressive. The Australian political center is definitely to the left of the Coalition on this issue. They don’t support an ETS as strongly as they used to, but they still greatly approve of doing something about climate change. The Coalition is simply not progressive enough on this issue, and in the words of Ian Macfarlane, “Malcolm Turnbull is modernising the parliamentary Liberal Party … He is bringing the party into the 21st century and there are some people who want to keep the party in the ’60s.”

On this issue, being progressive is, for once, not a dirty word. In fact doing what the Liberal Party is doing, as Turnbull says, is ”irresponsible from an environmental point of view and it is completely and utterly self-destructive from a political point of view.”

—

[1] I think adopting “progressive” and “liberal” are different things, because liberal is not only the name of their party, it has suggestions of classical liberalism about it. Progressive is just calling yourself a pot-smoking vegetarian friend-of-the-ABC.

A poll for yesterdays Yorkshire Evening Post found that 15% thought that Leeds City Council came out as the ‘winning’ side in the bin strike compared to 23% who thought the bin men had and 64% who thought neither had. Meanwhile, the letters page was full of correspondence supporting ’squatters’ at Royal Park School which is located in Hyde Park. Although the council clearly views these people as squatters they are in fact, frustrated residents who have taken matters into their own hands after the school has been left derelict. The school has been closed since 2004 and ever since that point the Royal Park Consortium has been looking to buy the building but its attempts have been frustrated by the council.

They claim the council promised them that the school would stay in the community and as a community have spent over £16,000 on repairing the roof, painting, cleaning up and making the building safe. They rightly claim (as can be clearly seen in the picture above) that the council as legal owner have let the building fall into disrepair. So, what do you think the councils response was (lest we forget under the leadership of this party)? It was to send in bailiffs and seek a possession order. However, in the course of seeking this the Judge praised the ’squatters’;

“(The community] have tried – and very commendably no doubt – to prevent it from falling into further disrepair,” Judge Grenfell told the packed hearing room.

“They have tried to negotiate with Leeds City Council to get some proper basis for community use.

So, how does this square with the alleged Liberal Democrat agenda of a local focus and wanting to empower local communities? In coalition with the Conservatives the party has lost sight of it’s principles and the actual content of a Liberal Democrat agenda. Nick Clegg should take note before he hitches the Liberal Democrat wagon to David Cameron’s Downing Street parade.

Oh poor Malcolm. I pity the bastard.

Leader of the Federal Coalition and target practice for all its members is poor old Malcolm Turnbull. The guy that’s possibly too decent to be in charge of such a joke of a party.

I admit, I like the guy. I really do. He’s a moderate, his heart is in the right place, and he’s a Republican- which for me puts him miles above most of the Coalition.

Despite being a rich businessman, I honestly beleive he’s in the wrong party.

He’s one of those nice-guys that pops up in Coalition history, only to be shot down and have his legacy trampled over by the party elite. Malcolm Fraser was one. Hell, even Brendan Nelson was one.

This breed of Liberal never has the power to hold together a party of hard-nuts that are just the mouthpieces of lobby groups.

What they need is an insufferably unlikeable leader.

Like John Howard, Tony Abbott, Peter Costello, or Alexander Downer. Cold hearted pricks that do nothing but block anything worthwhile because it might go against the status quo.

They need people like these to lead the party lobby-group faithful, like Wilson Tuckey, Nick Minchin, and lately, Andrew Robb.

I dislike all these people. on the side, I also despise the Nationals. Bunch of rednecks they are. The Nationals are an archaic, dying breed. That’s what happens when you represent the rural areas in an increasingly urban nation. I wont miss them. But before they go they seem intent on holding back any form of political progress on the matter of the environment. -As shown by the declaration that ‘no National would vote for an ETS’.

What an alliance. A Liberal Party that likes to kill its own, and a National Party that doesn’t listen to the party its subordinate to.

But yes. So Malcolm could be out the door. I find this odd seeing as how he actually gave in to many of the demands of the more devoted among the party to the right, and demanded the government water down its ETS so much that its almost useless. But apparently that’s not good enough. They don’t want any form of ETS at all, and even if there is one introduced, they want it brought in after Copenhagen.

I find this laughable. Much like Kyoto, any agreement laid down in Copenhagen could well be a ticket with which for Australian to gain entrance (and credibility) into any future environmental or emissions trading agreements for the future. However according to the rebellious among the Coalitions ranks, like Abbott, its not within the nations interest to have an ETS before we go to Copenhagen.

According to Abbott, its more within Australia’s interest to sit around on our hands while the world goes ahead and does something (although, Copenhagen is increasingly looking like its going to be sunk before its even gotten anywhere) and it would just be a personal victory for Kevin Rudd to waltz into Copenhagen with an ETS at home under his belt.

Hello, reality check.

How the hell does Abbott and his unfaithful peers think that its not within the national interest? From what I’ve seen and read (I read the Age and the Australian newspapers) its well within the nations interest to have a more powerful ETS here, not a watered down one, or a complete absence of one.

It also appears that a vast majority of the Australian public want an ETS. Watered down or not, most Australians want one.

The ALP wants one. (Which won government.) The Greens want one. (Albeit a far more powerful one.) And quite a few members of the Liberal Party want one. So where does Abbott get the idea that its not within the national interest to introduce an ETS?

Admittedly, both sides of the disagreement within the Liberal Party claim to have the publics support, and unless they’re both watching the opinion polls (which are really not so good btw) only an election would really reveal who’s in the right. So I guess we just sit back and watch the Liberal Party tear itself apart.

I’ll admit, I find this amusing.

They’re so up themselves and eager for power that they effectively need an Emperor to tell them what to do. (Sorry Joe Hockey, you guys really do need one.)

So if they kick Malcolm out, what next?

So the most obvious contenders are the likes of Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, Julie Bishop or even Kevin Andrews.

Heres my rundown on them. I’ll add some later when I find the list I found in the Age.

Tony Abbott; This guy would bring down the party with a hell of a bang. He’s more unpopular than Peter Costello, and he doesn’t have any redeeming features like being a good treasurer. So yeah, good luck mate. Maybe you’d get the Catholic vote, but thats it.

Abbott after inserting his dagger firmly into Turnbulls back.

Joe Hockey; I predict another Nelson Turnbull. This guy is far too descent. He’s a moderate, so honestly, they’d eat him alive.

I admit, I love this guy. But he wouldn't last.

Julie Bishop; I think not. She acts like the Thatchet but she really comes across as useless.

I can't think of anything witty to say. I have no problem with her really. She's just not a strong figure. Although, she kinda is. But not in the 'people like me' way.

Kevin Andrews; HELL no. This guy has so much baggage I’m amazed he’s still around. Haneef, Somali immigration, immigration in general, this guy is a monster. He also looks like an evil Mr. Bean.

COuld he be more creepy?

Of the rest? Well, in general I’d say that they truly are an honorable bunch.  They’re all so good with their daggers. Doesn’t matter whos in charge next, they’ll be floating face down in no time.

And one last thing; Wilson Tuckey.

He’s a joke, and he could never be leader. Why? Well, because he has no friends. He’s like John McCain in that he’s a ‘maverick’ and kicks up trouble. But he does it over nothing productive and never gets anywhere. Claire Hoopers comparison was great. He’s like the Uncle Fester of the Liberal Party. Except that’s mean, because Uncle Festers light bulb comes on every now and then. This man exists to be a pain in the ass. So bugger off, you Western Australian sandgroper. You’re a piece of work, that’s for sure.- Even for a Liberal.

He's always looking so smug. Maybe its because he gets to say so many redneck comments and still gets away with it.

So, before I asked if Andrews could look more creepy.

Gotta have great hair to be evil.

Yes, yes he can.

SO, in conclusion.

Malcolm Turnbull, I salute you. For having the balls to tell this lot to bugger off. You’re right. You ARE the leader. Its normal for Liberals to be slapped into submission. John Howard taught us this. When a strong figure is not present, the party turns into rabble. But I’m sorry buddy, you don’t seem to have the power to hold the party together.

His legacy remains obvious in the power vacuum he left behind.

Without the strongman that was John Howard, the Coalition has spiraled downwards, flitting from leader to leader, swapping loyalties, reshuffles and bad calls. Honestly, without an all-powerful leader, the Coalition is ungovernable.

If you go down with the ship, you’ll be remembered as the most honorable and honest leader the Liberal Party has had in quite a while, Turnbull. You’ve stuck to your guns, and you haven’t let the lobby groups speak for you.

Good luck buddy. I honestly hope you remain the leader of the Coalition. I’d prefer there be an ETS in Australia, and you seem to be the Coalitions last hope for redemption. Honestly, the Coalition will be slaughtered if they keep holding back on climate change. Whilst for me this is not necessarily a bad thing, I’d prefer there be a coherant opposition. Joe Hockey might follow in your footsteps, but he’d suffer the same fate.

So, to the climate skeptics, and dishonorable rabble that infests the Liberal Party, and IS the National Party; Bugger off. You’re just lobby groups. Australians care about the economy, but we care about the environment as well. You lot are no good when it comes to this.

Once again, good luck Malcolm.

Abbott is leaving the front bench of the Coalition, it’s reported, so that he can vote against the ETS bill. It’s expected that the shadow cabinet tow the line with the leader. By opting out of the cabinet, Abbott is free to vote how he wants. And he wants the leadership of the Liberals. So, by positioning himself as the opposite of Turnbull and his faction within the party (which I expect Hockey is a part of), he is the clear alternative to that wing.

Turnbull was making a statement at 5:15pm. That was half an hour ago, so I expect the wires to go into meltdown soon.

My post on the reshuffle of the shadow cabinet, written yesterday, still applies. It’s got a new update. Check it out here.

Update: Tony Abbott, it’s just broken into the coverage of the cricket (so it must be important!), has resigned from the front bench. Either word got to him it was resign or be pushed or he’s planning to usurp from the back benches. So much for being the loyal guy that he is.

With this, I expect Nick Minchin will step down as leader in the Senate. If he doesn’t, it will be very interesting to see what happens. If the cabinet is expect to tow the pro-vote line, then he should step down. Or he will be forced out. Abbott has provided a precedence for booting cabinet members who don’t vote for the ETS now.

Turnbull can’t take a break, can he? What else can happen in the next week? Turnbull isn’t budging from his position, and is standing tough. But tough enough? He can’t flip-flop here, otherwise he will (if it’s possible) fall further  into the political abyss. At least if he maintains his position here, he will have some credibility at least among his supporters. If he changes, watch Hockey firm up (though, much like Turnbull, far too early) as the favourite of that faction.

Thomas.

Clearly, strategic planning is no panacea. Strategic planning is simply a set of concepts, procedures, and tools designed to help leaders, managers, and planners think and act strategically. Used in wise and skillful ways by a “coalition of the willing,” strategic planning can help organizations focus on producing effective decisions and actions that further the organization’s mission, meet in mandates, and satisfy key stakeholders. But strategic planning is not a substitute for strategic thinking and acting. Only caring and committed people can do that. And when used thoughtlessly, strategic planning can actually drive out precisely the kind of strategic thought and action it is supposed to promote.

Furthermore, strategic planning is not a substitute for leadership. There is simply no substitute for leadership when it comes to using strategic planning to enhance organizational performance. At least some key decision makers and process champions must be committed to the strategic planning process, or any attempts to use it are bound to fail.

In addition, strategic planning is not synonymous with creating an organizational strategy. Organizational strategies have numerous sources, both planned and unplanned. Strategic planning is likely to result in statement of organizational intentions, but what is realized in practice will be some combination of what is intended and what emerges along the way. Strategic planning can help organizations develop and implement effective strategies, but they should also remain open to unforeseen opportunities. Too much attention to strategic planning and excessive reverence for strategic plans can build organizations to other unplanned and unexpected—yet incredibly useful—sources of information, insight, and action.

The discipline necessary for strategic planning can be of two sorts. The first harkens back to Latin root of the word “discipline,” emphasizing instruction, training, education, and learning. The second embodies later interpretations of the word, emphasizing order, control, and punishment. Emphasis should be placed on education and learning, although there clearly are occasions when imposing order, taking control, and enforcing appropriate sanctions are appropriate. Certainly, key leaders, managers, and planners can best use strategic planning as an educational and learning tool, to help them figure out what is really important and what should be done about it. Sometimes this means following a particular sequence of steps and preparing formal strategic plans, but not necessarily. The ultimate goal of strategic planning should not be a rigid adherence to a particular process or an instance on the production of plans. Instead, strategic planning should promote wise strategic thought and action on behalf of an organization and its key stakeholders. What steps to follow, in what sequence, and whether or not to prepare formal plans are subsidiary concerns.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir - Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, and my Lectures.

The Rudd Government has given the green light to allow front bench politicians to eat popcorn during sittings of Parliament.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said that the entertainment offered by the Opposition during Question Time was now so good that “it was hard to look away”.
“I nearly pissed myself yesterday… you can’t look away for a minute, you just don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s awesome stuff,” he said. “I love the bit where Turnbull comes back into the room and you want to scream ‘watch out, behind you!’”
Bowls of salted popcorn will be available from the next sitting of Parliament, the spokesman said, with the government considering instant pizza deliveries, heated reclining chairs and a 3D Gold Class where the Coalition look like real people.
James Melville from the Institute of Constitutional Studies said: “I love a train wreck as much as the next guy, but this kind of entertainment should really be on pay per view. The kinds of plot lines being offered up by Malcolm Turnbull and his team is, like, fuckin’ Hollywood man… who could have seen Andrew Robb springing up to defy his leader like that? It’s like ‘The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist… and like that, poof, he’s gone’.”

Alright.  Breathe deep.  I’m going to tackle it.  While the Chilcot enquiry in Westminster tries to sort this whole mess out.

The truth is out.  Not shouted from the rooftops, but uneasily tucked away in the consciences of most British citizens today:

• In 2003 Hans Blix told Tony Blair to his face there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
• MI6 dismissed the CIA’s claim that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaida -
• We know Bush had it on his agenda before he was elected, let alone pre-9/11…
• …and we also know that as late as March 2002 no UK ministers fancied it, and for good reason – ‘it had no basis in law’ – Sir William Patey, head of Middle Eastern Dept of Foreign office.  Regime change ‘not a legal basis for military action’, Lord Goldsmith Attorney General.

And yet the smiling politician took Britain to war.

He knew all this, he had all the info, but just didn’t have the guts to stand up to the administration across the pond.  Even a poignant (read toe-curlingly painful) scene in Love Actually of Hugh Grant as PM standing up to an American President failed to convince – take the hint, Tony!  Perhaps if old George had made a move at Cherie, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved.  Hindsight’s a bitch.  Hope a passing time-traveller sticks a Viagra in his Miller Lite someday…

So now we’re left with the legacy of having crippled a fairly well-off country, and a minor annoyance of a leader is out of the way at the cost of many dead lives, countless broken lives, a crippled economy and an even more volatile region.  And for some reason, suicide attacks suddenly seem so blasé…like we expect nothing better of them…

So what happens now?  What does administering justice look like in this situation?  Pretty much all our politicians voted the war through, apart from the Lib Dems, Robin Cook MP (only the insignificant and drastically under-informed post of FOREIGN SECRETARY!) and Claire Short MP – whose names I hope go down in history as being morally in the clear.  So we can’t exactly sack all remaining politicians as war criminals, or do really very much at all in any way.  I doubt we’ll ever really get any closure on this gigantic fuckup.  It’s sad to think the outcome will never be more than a blot on our national conscience and a lesson not to blindly obey spear-rattling cretinous neo-conservatives who can’t even pronounce Iraq properly.  Eye-rack?!

*Sigh*

Next time something like this comes along, I’ll remember to make my own spear-rattling in the opposite direction heard loud and clear.  Not in my name, Tony.

Coalition tiene este video en su pagina dandole la bienvenida a Matt Colisch quien sera de ahora en adelante el “team manager” de la marca

It’s almost that time of year again when the international LIS community pays a visit to London Olympia for the annual Online conference and exhibition. This year the LIS Research Coalition will be playing a part in the proceedings. On Thursday 3rd December between 11.00 and 11.30 Hazel Hall will be presenting on the work of the Coalition in Theatre C as part of the free Information Masterclass series. If you are planning a trip to Online this year, do come along to learn more about the Coalition at the presentation next Thursday.

In addition, two of the Coalition member bodies will be at the Exhibition: the British Library on stand 628, and CILIP on stand 208.

Should you wish to find out more about the Coalition at a time other than Thursday 11.00-11.30, or meet up with Hazel in person at Online when you are there, staff at the CILIP stand will be able to point you in the right direction. Alternatively, Hazel will be picking up her e-mail while at the conference, so you may like to contact her at hazel.hall@lisresearch.org to set up a meeting.

If I were Turnbull and reshuffling my whole cabinet, the first move I’d make is remove Nick Minchin as Leader of the Opposition in  the Senate and Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (token title for this relic of the Howard Era). There’s a number of people I’d consider to replace him him with: Eric Abetz, currently Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research would be the foremost contender; Ian McDonald, currently Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia is also viable too. But for a big shake-up, the best option is Marise Payne, currently Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance, and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs. If your were going to establish an electable cabinet that is moderate (and not pulling to the far right), then you would put Marise Payne up as the face of the Liberals in the Senate.

I would dump Andrew Robb and Tony Abbott. Clearly the two men are positioning to have a go at the leadership. Robb’s latest declaration to the Liberals to not support the ETS and Abbott’s weeks of re-positioning himself against climate change are clear indications that they are courting opponents of Turnbull as viable alternatives. Robb, out of the two, has the best shot at winning in a party vote and winning an election, but not just yet.

Update: Tony Abbott, it’s just broken into the coverage of the cirkcet (so it must be important!), has resigned from the front bench. Either word got to him it was resign or be pushed or he’s planning to usurp from the back benches. So much for being the loyal guy that he is.

Robb, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design, would get replaced by David Johnson, current Shadow Minister for Defense. Defense would be given to Bob Baldwin, current backbencher.

Abbott, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector, would get pushed for Sharman Stone, current Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (and, as an aside, she must be fuming that she got Turnbull traction in the polls with her work on the Coalition’s position on the immigration fiasco that’s gone down for it to be all blown over in-fighting). But the portfolio would be shifted to just be Indigenous Affairs. Immigration and Citizenship would be given to Judi Moylan, current backbencher and one of the few Liberals who took part in the revolt to end mandatory detention. This would appeal to voters in building a moderate face for the Liberals. Alternatively, Russell Broadbent, also a backbencher, stood alongside Moylan and would also serve this post well.

Peter Dutton, not having really done anything wrong, would go from being the Shadow Minister of Health and Ageing to the Shadow Minister of Health. The new portfolio would be Shadow Minister for Familes, Community Services, Ageing and the Voluntary Sector and it would go to Joanna Gash, current backbencher. I, personally, feel that health needs a distinct focus from these other areas which all have a degree of overlap. Increase the communication between the two departments by all means, but I feel they need to be separated.

Nola Marino, backbencher, is someone else I’d like to see put into the shadow cabinet. I’m sure there’s some other backstabber to get rid of somewhere.

The rest I’d leave as is. You can’t disrupt the Nationals because they are a peculiar group (though if I could change their leadership I would). The rest there is a good group of moderates and strong candidates who would serve the party well. There’s only one threat left, that being Joe Hockey. But I think it would be foolish of to remove any potential future leader from the front bench (for the sake of the future of the party), as well as to get in your main competitor’s bad books.You might also notice that there’s a number of women taking the places of men. I think that’s something the Liberals need not to give ‘token’ places to women (these portfolios are hardly token), but in that having women on the front bench of the Coalition will encourage potential female candidates to try their hand with the Liberals and Nationals. And as long as Labor has a grip on this demographic, they have a headstart. The Liberals fell between 7% and 10% in their female vote at the last election. One way to get some of those votes back is to make an attempt to build a cabinet that doesn’t look like you’re ignoring women and women’s issues.

That’s what I’d do before the end of the week. Probably on Friday and try and get a lot of run for the news over the weekend with press events with the new faces. Spin it for all it’s worth before the vote of the ETS. Because when the ETS comes around, that’s going to be the news. When it does, point  to the fact that the whole Liberals cabinet didn’t cross the floor (and make sure they don’t!). After that, build up a platform that your party can get behind. Or be pushed behind. Either option.

Thomas.

It’s been a long time since the last post. The perennial cry of apology of blogger everywhere applies to me also.

Today will indeed prove to be an exciting day in the House of Representatives and in the Coalition. The latest from the ABC – as I thought I’d be nice to Murdock today and opt not to use ‘freeload’ his content – is provided below

Overturning Turnbull

A Liberal wet such as Turnbull is never guaranteed full support from his party. However, visibly crunching voting numbers in #QT yesterday, it was revealed last night that

According to sources within the meeting, 39 speakers spoke against voting for the ETS amendments and just 33 were in favour.

But when Malcolm Turnbull factored in the support of the shadow cabinet members, who did not speak in the party room, he calculated that the majority of the party was in favour of the amendments.

Earlier this evening an obviously rankled Mr Turnbull told the party meeting that the Opposition would be supporting the amended legislation, at which there was uproar from within the room.

Disunity abounds. A shadow cabinet emergency meeting has been called for 8am this morning, though SMH says decision is more likely to come about on Thursday.

Twitter is alight with guesses and websites in what is dubbed the #Liberalleadershipsweepstakes which randomly assign you your tip.

The obvious loser in this is Malcolm and everyone else.. the lack of debate in favour of the blowing of factional horns in the Coalition is stifling any immediate action to target  climate change at all. The coalition is playing into media coverage inside baseball politics and not the policy debate yet to play on the floor. There is such a reluctance to have this reach the house and have members debate individually. I am not sure if Wilson Tuckey buys into the solar flares theory of climate change, or whether he gleefully awaits the ‘rapture’ but I sure do want to hear his actual theory in #QT.

Actually Mr. Speaker I withdraw, it could never live up to my expectations.

Speaking of THE DEVIL, it seems he may actually have entered the twitter world – no I have not overlooked @fakewiltuckey but a new page alleges it’s the member’s official page.

It’s the question that was always going to come around again at some point.  So, who would the Liberal Democrats work with if there was a hung parliament?  The problem is that whatever Nick Clegg says about it, the press is inevitably going to try and read between the lines and claim that he means something that is different from what he actually said.

There are two reasons you cannot answer a question like this – one is that until you know how many MPs any party will have it’s impossible to say, and the biggest one is that if a Lib Dem expresses any preference towards another party that will be on the opposition party’s leaflets before you can say “losing seats.”  But despite the difficulty of the issue for Lib Dems if the press is talking about it it could actually be a good thing for the party.  My argument is that the more the press and the other parties talk about the Liberal Democrats, the better it usually is for our poll ratings.  After all, even after a badly received party conference such as the one we had in September, the fact that we were being covered in the press reminded people we exist and so gave us a boost in the opinion polls.  Surely the same will happen if the press is obsessing about how the Lib Dems could be kingmakers and how we might find ourselves in government.

The Liberal Democrats have to avoid answering the question on who they would work with.  After all, my ambition (and I am sure that of many other Lib Dems) is that the Lib Dems are the biggest party in government not some junior partner, and with the ambition that Nick Clegg is now publicly declaring it may just be possible.  But also, it is a genuinely difficult question to answer.  Do you support a Labour party that has just lost huge numbers of seats and is on the way down and out?  Do you support a Conservative party that many Lib Dem activists hate with a passion and who are certainly not the liberal party they like to sell themselves as?  Do we even want to form a coalition with anyone and would we be better off just picking and choosing what policies to support?  If electoral reform is the big issue that we want to see progress on, which party would support it, or would we even be wise to make it the deal breaker as it could look like complete self-interest?  Or even, would Labour and the Conservatives find it easier for them to work together with the Lib Dems remaining in opposition?

But despite the difficulty for Lib Dems on talking about the issue, and we really must resist the temptation, the more that others talk about it, the better it could be for us.

I so hope that the Liberals and Nationals errupt into a fist-fight tomorrow. With Tuckey’s failed leadership spill and with the vote to come, things are hardly going to cool down. None of the Nats and half of the Libs it would seem are so opposed to their leadership at the moment that Warren Truss could well stand a chance of leading the Coalition at the moment. Update: It’s reported that Turnbull has got the Coalition to agree to back the ETS bill that’s been negotiated and is coming up for a vote. Early reports indicate that it was a split down the middle of the party room. Shakey ground for the leader, me thinks.

I Tweeted what I saw as the odds of potential leaders should Turnbull be booted this week. Abbott has firmed up as favourite due to his past fortnight  of press (where he has been extremely anti-climate change) and his ‘elder’ status. I’d give him 7/1. Andrew Robb has bounded up from well behind (after the revelation of his unfortunate fight with depression) with his public statement that the Liberals shouldn’t support Labor’s bill to 8/1 odds. Joe Hockey is the favourite of the moderates, as well as being the only member of the party to try and bring back both feuding sides of this debate for discussions tonight. I give him 12/1 at the moment, but I think they are far too generous. 20/1 would be closer to the mark because there’s no way he will seek the leadership through this chaos (he has a ‘good guy’ image publicly, which will be very strong in 2 elections time), while people like Abbott and Robb would and need to take an opportunity like this. Julie Bishop would be the only other viable option – as lacking as she might be as an eventual leader. I’m not too sure what her true position is on climate change, but I imagine she has been threading needles behind Turnbull’s back much the same way she was probably doing it behind Nelson’s back. I’d give her 15/1 odds.

Going to be an interesting few days if the sparks ignite the bonfire.

Then again, it could all be for naught.

Thomas.

Out of the 41 people that RSVP’d to attend the meeting, 37 people attended… not too bad! There were several other people who said they couldn’t make it but want to participate in the coalition, so we expect an even better turnout for the meeting in February (date TBD).

Kudos to Barbara Dirks for leading the “Frame Game.” As a result of great participation and collaboration, the coalition came up with the top 10 issues that we will focus on for the upcoming year.

1. Harassment
2. Businesses in compliance with ADA
3. Finding employment for people with disabilities
4. Establish a powerful voting block for disabilities issues
5. Accessibility
6. Addressing businesses who think they are grandfathered in and do not have to provide access to people with disabilities
7. Increase awareness around tax credits available to those with disabilities
8. Parents/caregiver’s over-protectiveness in encouraging family members with disabilities to be independent and productive through employment or volunteerism. Tie pointer: Better access across the board in regards to transportation
9. Violence against people with disabilities
10. Increase access and advocate for more participation in the arts,  not just as an audience but as artists as well

So what are your thoughts about this list? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Latino College Access Coalition

History
The Latino College Access Coalition (LCAC) began in February 2009, as a partnership of four (4) core community organizations to respond to the need of assisting Latino families complete their FAFSA application prior to the March 1^st deadline.  The original partners were- the College Planning Center of RI, the Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy, Quisqueya In Action and the Gloria Dei Stepup Center as well as supporting organizations such as Brown University, United Way 211, Sodexo Education Services and Poder 1110AM. Together these partners’ assisted 109 families complete their FAFSA application, on Saturdays, at local Latino organizations, with help from bilingual counselors.     Today, other organizations are joining our coalition such as: Rhode Island College School of Social Work, John Hope Settlement House, Dorcas Place Welcome Back Center, the Elmwood Community Center, Progreso Latino and The Providence Housing Authority.

Our Mission

To educate, inform and assist Latinos of all ages and backgrounds, to access and succeed in higher education institutions making their dreams of a higher education come true.  The project model is provided in a community based environment of “Confianza,” which in Spanish means “Trust, comfort, and level of familiarity and knowledge that bespeaks confidence.”

Our Vision of Success
The Latino College Access Coalition program provides an opportunity to develop Rhode Island’s Latino workforce so that it can compete effectively in a global, knowledge-based economy by helping improve access to higher education through community based, multi-faceted, multi-lingual and multimedia opportunities.

Our Goal

• To create a network of community organizations throughout the state that will enhance college access assistance to Latinos
• To increase the number of Latinos of all ages accessing and completing college through community informational and educational workshops
• To develop comprehensive, wrap around services to provide case management for students and their families
• To create a multimedia, bilingual campaign to inform and educate the Latino community about college access
• To strengthen our coalition through support from Latino and community leaders
• To develop a strong fund development and management component to leverage future resources

Our Founding Partners

Each of our partners brings their unique expertise and knowledge to the coalition:

Quisqueya In Action is the founder of the College Awareness and Preparation Program of Rhode Island (CAPP-RI), a project that was created to increase the number of Latino students pursuing, accessing and succeeding in higher education.

The Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy (CHisPA) is a trusted bilingual community-based organization dedicated to improving the quality of life of Latino families and individuals.  They are well known for embracing the community in a cultural and linguistic appropriate manner, where the community feels comfortable and welcome to access information needed to succeed in the United States.

Gloria Dei Stepup Center mission is to welcome and give a step up to immigrants and Latinos, by helping them achieve their educational goals.  They introduce opportunities and motivated partners, who teach, coach, mentor and support everyone’s dream to make their own mark as citizens of a multi-ethnic society.  The Center is composed of educators who want to teach students how to achieve higher education.

The College Planning Center of Rhode Island (CPC) has provided college access assistance to over 60,000 families in RI.  Professional counselors provide FREE one-on-one advising and assistance on all aspects of college planning, from selecting schools to completing financial aid forms.

LCAC Offers all our programs and services in Spanish and English

• Financial Aid Workshops
• College Planning Workshops
• One-on-One Counseling
• College Planning Materials
• College Tours
• Informational sessions
• Comprehensive Online Tools & Information
• Financial Literacy Presentations
• SAT Preparation
• Scholarship Search Resources

Why is LCAC Important today

• According to a recently released report from RI Kids Count; “Hispanics in Rhode Island have lower educational attainment levels than the population overall.  In the 2007- 2008 school year, the high school graduation rate for Hispanic youth was 62%, the lowest of any racial/ethnic group in the state and lower than the overall Rhode Island high school graduation rate of 74%.”

• In 2007, 12% of Hispanics 25 years of age and older in Rhode Island hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 30% of all Rhode Islanders.  Hispanic immigrants in Rhode Island are more likely to have less than a high school education, but are also more likely to have a college degree or higher than Hispanics born in the U.S.

• The LCAC has been created at a critical time in our state.  In a study released in 2005 by The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education information was presented that related to the level of Rhode Island’s workforce projection.  The study found that the average level of education of Rhode Island’s workforce and the income of its residents was projected to decline over the next two decades unless the state increases the number of Hispanic/Latinos attending college and earning a degree.  This fact is based on information which shows that the share of Rhode Island’s workforce of whites (particularly those under the age of 45) is declining rapidly, while the share of racial/ethnic groups is projected to reach 23% by the year 2020.  This increase is mainly attributed to the growth in the Hispanic/Latino population, whose share of the workforce is expected to jump from 2% in 1980 to 14% in 2020.

• The second fact identified by The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education is that Hispanic/Latinos are the fastest growing racial/ethnic group in Rhode Island, yet have the lowest levels of education in the state.  The study shows that the gap between the educational levels of whites and Hispanic/Latinos is substantial.  Given these demographic shifts, Rhode Island must work towards decreasing the gap by working with this population to ensure Hispanic/Latinos can be better prepared to access higher education.  The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education projects that the workforce in Rhode Island with a high school degree will increase; however, it projects that the workforce with an associate’s degree or a bachelor’s degree will decrease.

• The LCAC program provides an opportunity to develop Rhode Island’s Latino workforce so that it can compete effectively in a global, knowledge-based economy by helping raise access to higher education through community based, multi-faceted, multi-lingual and multimedia opportunities.  Through this program we are able to reach Latinos from all walks of the community, to educate them, inform them, and assist them in accessing higher education and to graduate from college or specialized training fields with the skills needed to enter today’s workforce.

LCAC is unique because:

• We target a specific demographic: Latino Community

• We work with all ages, middle and high school age students, immigrants, recent arrivals foreign trained professional, and individuals with GEDs.

• We have a strong community presence with partnerships ranging from community based organizations, cultural associations, faith-based organizations, state and city government programs and Leaders from theLatino community.

• We have built a parent engagement component to help alleviate cultural and language barriers to collegesuccess.

• We offer a comprehensive wrap around approach to ensure college access success in a community based  environment of “Confianza,”

• Extensive bi-lingual and multi-media component

Tea partiers brutally beaten by pro-amnesty group
Shocking! Illegal immigration protesters attacked, pushed into traffic

Article: WorldNetDaily

Che Guevara supporters with a radical pro-amnesty coalition viciously attacked and bludgeoned tea party protesters at a Florida anti-illegal-immigration rally, including a 62-year-old man who was beaten and kicked in the face.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC called for “Tea Parties Against Amnesty and Illegal Immigration” to form quickly across the nation on Nov. 14. In less than 30 days, protests were scheduled for more than 50 towns and cities.

But two Fort Lauderdale, Fla., tea party protesters were brutally beaten by pro-amnesty activists on the day of the nationwide rally as they attempted to film Florida’s Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition counterprotest.

You see, what “they” fail to understand is that Americans aren’t against immigration. No, not at all. What we ARE against is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. GRANTING AMNESTY. Because, you know, majority of the illegal shitstains that enter this country have no desire to become legal citizens to begin with. Not to mention that majority of Americans don’t WANT to grant amnesty to a bunch of fuckwits who refuse to learn English, who don’t have ANY desire to take the legal steps to becoming a legitimate American citizen, and whose loyalties aren’t with America. There’s no racism about it. I don’t know what the “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition” is all about. Just a bunch of bullshit. That’s right I said it. Besides; look at the people who “represent” the illegal immigrants. Savory characters indeed. /end sarcasm

ANSWER members carried Che Guevara signs and other black and yellow placards that stated “Full rights for all immigrants.” They shouted, “Amnesty yes, racists no!”

Wouldn’t a more appropriate placard read: “Equal punishments for all criminals”? Or how about shouting “Take the legal steps to becoming an American Citizen, YES, we don’t care where your country of origin is, NO”. Yes. I think so.

As the two men attempted to film the protest, an ANSWER member in a black tanktop and blue jeans lunged after one of the cameramen and beat him with a sign, pushing him into traffic. Another ANSWER member in a white T-shirt attacked the same cameraman while the victim defended himself with what appears to be a camera tripod.

A female tea party protester began screaming as Dave Caulkett of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement and the initial ANSWER attacker fought in the middle of the street.

The following is a video of the attack released by ALIPAC:

“Supporters of President Obama’s amnesty plans attacked Tea Party Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration demonstrators in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009. One of the men attacked is 62 years old,” ALIPAC reported. “Dave Caulkett of FLIMEN is assaulted and then kicked in the face while he is down. The other cameraman from the tea party is hit with several signs.”

ALIPAC revealed that ANSWER Florida sent out an e-mail invitation urging members to join its “protest to shut down racist anti-’amnesty’ rally” in Fort Lauderdale prior to the event. ANSWER’s letter stated the following:

The ANSWER Coalition is calling on all its members, allies, and friends to join us tomorrow to confront and shut down the racist “Anti-Amnesty Tea Party” in Fort Lauderdale.

The “Anti-Amnesty” rallies being held across the country tomorrow have been initiated by fascist, white supremacist organizations that include the Minutemen and the so-called Americans for Legal Immigration.

Recent months have shown a significant rise in extreme-right activity with hate crimes and attacks on immigrants skyrocketing. White supremacist and fascist organizations have boasted rapid growth since the onset of the economic crisis. The new administration has continued the government’s anti-immigrant policies with “desktop raids” – the liberal response to the fascist like workplace raids of the Bush years.

Racism is like anything else in this world: in order to make it fall, you must smash it! That is why we are calling on all people to come out tomorrow, to organize a militant confrontation with the so-called “tea baggers.” Beating back these forces will require us to organize together, take the streets, fight the racists wherever they show their faces and drive them out of every community. …

We are building a movement that will beat back racism so that working people of all nationalities can unite and fight against our one, shared enemy: capitalism. Amnesty, full rights for ALL immigrants, is a demand that should be raised not just by the immigrant communities, but by every working class community in our struggle to solve this crisis by our own means.

Join us tomorrow, and join us in building the movement against racism and capitalist exploitation!

Sounds like someone’s pointing their fingers in the wrong direction. Who sounds like the “racists” to YOU?

As WND reported earlier, ALIPAC Chief William Gheen said his group had been calling for a “peaceful, political revolution and uprising in America.”

Hazel Hall at the podium at the British Library

Hazel’s presentation focused on two aspects of the work of the LIS Research Coalition as relevant to the student experience agenda. These were (1) the Coalition’s mission to promote LIS practitioner research and the translation of research outcomes into practice and (2) the Coalition’s efforts in creating resources to bring together information about LIS research opportunities and results. Hazel’s starting point was the pressing need for an evidence base on which library and information services may draw, not least to prove their worth. She quoted Peter Griffiths, the current President of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), who highlighted in his October 2009 presidential address that “We must prove the value we provide with hard evidence. Start thinking what evidence you offer”. Hazel shares Peter’s view that practitioner research is important, but also recognises a number of challenges that face (potential) practitioner researchers. Hazel referred first to the barriers that LIS practitioner researchers may encounter. These include:

• Navigating current funding infrastructures, for example due to the number of funding bodies and differing requirements as far as proposal writing and submission are concerned;
• Negotiating working practices with mentors and partners;
• Lack of confidence in research skills, especially when this is unfounded;
• Fitting research work into a demanding job role that includes other competing, and often more obviously pressing, service priorities.

Hazel also pointed out that often individuals carry out work that is, in effect, practitioner research, but fail to recognise it as such.

The focus of the presentation then moved on to barriers associated with the dissemination of practitioner research. Hazel mentioned how research output often becomes trapped within an institution or sector, and thus has limited dissemination channels. This minimises the opportunity for others to take advantage of the research findings, and key messages do not reach the level of strategy development. As a result, individual institutions tend to focus on local research output in their planning activities.

Hazel took the opportunity to suggest a number of research themes related to student experience. She argued that we should look beyond the more “visible” issues related to facilities, such as upgrading library space and extending opening hours. LIS research effort in academic settings should also relate to broader institutional concerns such as student retention and international student fee income. There are also a number of research themes that interest library and information services staff regardless of sector. For example, community engagement, the relationship between library services and learning, and evidence-based practice are worth pursuing. Specifically, Hazel suggested a range of student experience related research questions ripe for consideration:

• How can library provision be better aligned to broad institutional student experience initiatives?
• How can we measure the contribution of academic library services to the overall student experience?
• What are the roles of academic librarians in the learning processes of students?
• How can we better engage teaching staff with library services?
• How will scholarly communication develop in the future, and what will be the impact of this on library provision for students?
• What is the best way to integrate information literacy provision into the curriculum?

Hazel noted that one question that was of particular relevance to her work with the Library and Information Science Research Coalition could be framed as “What is the relationship between awareness of LIS research within the academic community and good practice for the benefit of students?”

Hazel then turned her attention to the second theme of her presentation, i.e. the means by which the LIS Research Coalition is working to bring together information about LIS research opportunities and results. The Coalition has a web presence at http://lisresearch.org, as well as a Twitter feed at @LISResearch. The Twitter feed postings cover a range of topics of relevance to the LIS research community, as Hazel illustrated by displaying some Twitter screen shots. Amongst these she showed a page of alerts that included news of: a research funding opportunity; PhD studentships on offer; an invitation to join in a research-related consultation exercise; two newly published research reports; a link to a web page on a topical debate; a report on an on-going research project; a training event; conference registration opening; the publication of a new journal issue; and a US conference offering funded places. Hazel strongly encouraged audience members to start following @LISResearch, or at least arrange for members of staff in their organisations to take responsibility for keeping up to date with the postings on behalf of others at their home institutions.

Hazel concluded her presentation by reiterating the support that the LIS Research Coalition can offer for practitioner research. First she noted that the agile information provision on LIS research related news through the dedicated Twitter feed saves time of practitioner researchers. Then she spoke about the efforts to raise the profile of practitioner research, making reference to the LIS Research Coalition conference. This will take place on Monday 28th June 2010 at the British Library with the intention of “liberating” of research output that may be trapped within institutions and/or sectors. Hazel explained that in the longer term the Coalition hopes to provide opportunities for research methods training that will extend current UK provision in this area. Hazel’s final point was that she looked forward to the LIS Research Coalition working in partnership with other LIS stakeholders, including SCONUL, in building the evidence base that will contribute to future LIS research strategy, as well as policy development.