Nats king maker warns off Williamson in Clarence

Nominations for National Party pre-selection in Clarence close on Monday and if the chairman of the party's Grafton branch has his way Richie Williamson won't be donning National Party colours at the by-election which is expected to be held in November.

Peter James, the branch chairman, told The Daily Examiner that despite rumours that Williamson would run as a Nationals' candidate for pre-selection he hadn't spoken to Williamson about being a potential candidate.

James believes Williamson's strong stance as an independent during this year's state election has hindered his chances for National Party pre-selection.

James said, "I'd like to think The Nationals won't give Richie pre-selection."

James has given the two known nominees, Karen Toms  and Paul O'Connor his blessings.

When asked about his business partner O'Connor's prospects, James said, "I feel he would be a very capable local member. He is a man of many skills and the appropriate level of integrity. I believe if he was elected he would do an excellent job as the local member."

Read the Examiner's report here.

The talk on the streets is that another nomination for pre-selection was lodged today.

Another Nat puts up hand for Clarence

Grafton solicitor Paul O'Connor has decided to throw his hat into the ring and seek National Party endorsement as its candidate in the Clarence byelection.

Paul O'Connor

O'Connor is a team member at MJO Legal in Grafton. For those not in the know, MJO is McNamara, James and O'Connor.

Fellow team member at MJO is Peter James, the chairman of the Grafton Branch of the National Party.

Yesterday's Examiner reported that James was one of a number of branch members who convinced Clarence Valley councillor Karen Toms to stand for the party's preselection.

Hmmmm, there's likely to be some interesting conversations held near the water cooler in MJO's office in Grafton

Pic credit: mjolegal.com.au

More developments in Cansdellgate

A report in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald  about Steve Cansdell being provided with a heavily discounted rental property for his campaign office during the last state election campaign ("MP paid pittance to rent election office") has been followed up by The Daily Examiner today ("Low rent scandal hits Cansdell").

Peter James, a Grafton solicitor who is the National Party Grafton branch chairman, told the Daily Examiner the party paid $150 a week for his 40 Prince St premises that had been previously rented for up to $660 a week.

Peter James

The discounted rent paid by the Nationals for the office in the six weeks leading up to the March 26 state election has raised questions as to whether the arrangement complied with NSW political donation laws.

NSW election funding laws prohibit indirect donations of more than $1000 a financial year.

But Mr James said as part of the arrangement his company Naupe Holdings would subsidise the $150 a week rent so it reached the parties agreed market value of $300, thus putting it just inside the donation threshold at $900.

"They (the National Party) made an offer, which I thought was reasonable, and I accepted it," he said.

"I am committed to the party and I am committed to that side of politics and I was prepared to help them in terms of the rent.

"If that for some reason breaches, technically or otherwise, the provisions of legislation well so be it.

"But it was all done in good faith and I must say it's odd to be in trouble for generosity, as distinct from being in trouble for stealing the union's funds or whatever.

"That's the way I see it, but anyway people will make up their own mind."

Under the arrangement between the National Party and Mr James' company, Naupe Holdings during the election campaign, the Nationals received a $3060 discount.

The National's state director, Ben Franklin, told the Herald the donation due to the discounted rent for the campaign office amounted to $900, which was below the threshold.

The party calculated this on an estimated market value of $300 a week on the office despite the previous tenant paying $550.

"They made their own assessment, they felt for the use they were making of the premises, and the size of the area they were going to use, and the fact they didn't have exclusivity of the premises they thought $300 a week was a fair figure," Mr James said.

"And they felt if they paid $150 and the company donated the other $150 they thought that was a fair balance.

"In my mind I had empty premises and I was happy to receive some money for it and I was happy for it to be used for that purpose."

Source: The Daily Examiner

Pic credit: http://mjolegal.com.au/?p=810

Where is that 'people's army' of climate change denialists?

Ipsos Public Affairs of Washington, DC, conducted a random digit dial telephone survey between September 8 and September 12, 2011. Live interviewers asked questions of a national probability sample of adults aged 18 and older on landlines and cell phones. Respondents had the option to be interviewed in English or Spanish. The data were weighted to ensure that the sample composition reflects the U.S. population as documented by figures from the U.S. Census Bureau. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate within 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult population in the U.S. been polled

Interviewers were instructed to ask to speak with the youngest household member age 18 or older who was available to be interviewed. The initial request was for the youngest male during 75% of the calls and for the youngest female in the remaining 25%. If the youngest household member was unavailable, interviewers were instructed to speak with anyone else in the household who was willing to participate.

This is what this Stanford University study found:

·         82.55% of all respondents believe that the world’s temperature has been going up in the past 100 years and that belief is held by 91.42% of the Democrats, 66.45% of the Republicans and 84.16% of the Independents polled.

·         52.74% of all those polled extremely sure or very sure that the world’s temperature has been going up and a further 34.07% somewhat sure.

·         71.52% of all respondents believe that global warming is partly or mostly caused by things people do and 72.29% believe that the world’s temperature will continue to rise over the next 100 years.

·         In all three political party categories this number who believe in the world is warming has risen since the 2010 survey. However the number who believe that people contribute to global warming has fallen by 3.80% .

The only conclusion which can be drawn from this study is that the majority of the U.S. population appear to believe that the world is warming and that anthropomorphic (human induced) global warming exists.

In 2010 the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation  (CSIRO) conducted two surveys of public opinion in relation to climate change, the Baseline and the Science in Society surveys.

In the first survey:

·         82.8% of all respondents thought that climate change is happening.

·         50.4% of those polled believe that humans are largely causing climate change and 38.1% of these think that they have already experienced moderate effects of climate change

·         Participants who intended to vote for the Greens and Labor more likely to state belief in human-induced climate change and those intending to vote Liberal, National or for the Independents, more likely to state that climate change was happening due to natural variations in Earth’s temperatures.

In the second survey:

·         63% of all respondents believe that climate change is happening now and 15% believe it will happen in the next 30 years.

Which raises the question – why does the Australian media, especially News Ltd publications, persist in implying/portraying climate change denialism as the norm in Australia and around the world?