The latest Roy Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead up to 58.5-41.5 from 56.5-43.5 a fortnight ago. Labor is up 2.5 per cent on the primary vote to 49 per cent, the Coalition is down 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent and the Greens are steady on 8.5 per cent.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Morgan: 58.5-41.5
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
655 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 14 » Show All
No 48
ALP hacks would argue both. I was referring to Julie.
No 49
Bob1234 are you saying that you agree with China-style internet censorship?
No 50
Cuppa, stop finding someone else to blame for the incompetent campaigns run by the ALP.
GP – look at the scoreboard in the polls plus which side of the parliament the fibs are sitting because they are going to be there for a long time to come.
Get used to it and get over it.
Really, obviously they must only entail the delicate petals reading this blog
Obviously you’re not being serious again. Does Alan Ramsey read this blog? Who knows, but this is how he described it:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/howards-cronies-should-join-him-in-the-wilderness/2007/11/25/1195975868447.html
Yes GP, you should know better than to criticise Conroy’s ridiculous filtering plan… look at the polls!
No 54
Alan Ramsey is a well known leftie hack writing for Fairfax. It’s no secret, don’t put up on a pedestal as if he were some voice of objective reason. What next, you’re going to give me Philip Adams?
No 55
As I’ve said many times, the polls are meaningless unless we’re close to an election.
Unable to contest the point he made, so ignore it, and shoot the messenger instead. Liberal mud-thrower approach as ever.
So Nathan Rees has nothing to worry about – that’s a relief!
No 59
Unfortunately for O’Farrell, unless he can replicate the current figures in 2 years time, there’s really no point engaging in a running commentary.
Doesn’t mean that Nathan Rees still heads to worst NSW government in history.
*sorry, should read “doesn’t mean that Nathan Rees does not head the worst government in NSW history.
pity you didn’t tell brenda that. It won’t save allbull either – come mid march 2009 if he has made no traction he has gone as well.
And all the time the fibs are fuming on the opposition benches.
…but the polls are meaningless RIGHT !
Actually I agree with GP up to a point. To have expected Nelson to turn around the polls in less than a year against a new government headed by a man who had been humungously popular for a year already was plainly ridiculous. If that’s the only reason thet axed him they’re even bigger fools than I thought. I gather the real reason they axed him was [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] goat [SNIP] [SNIP] vicar [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] appliance [SNIP] bronwyn [SNIP] [SNIP].
Just watched PM Agenda. Now they want to brand Obama as a “leaker”. Now let’s see here. Bush and Obama meet and that meeting is leaked. Bush and Rudd talk on the telephone and that is leaked. The common denominator is?
That was suppose to be kept secret Adam
A agree with GP in some ways on Conroy, but the absence of a clear alternative that the average voter can discuss at a barbecue this weekend, clearly and simply presented by the leader of the opposition, is equally as damning. How hard can it be to mount a campaign against censorship in a western democracy?
Is ‘teh leak’ really more important than the future of IT in the 21st century in this country.
As soon as the opposition takes the future of the country seriously (and it’s not that hard to have more vision than the government has exhibited thus far) then the LP will be back in the game.
This current game of “could’ve, would’ve, should’ve” is primary school stuff and I’m sure it worked for Turnbull and Bishop there too. It’s time they grew up and presented an adult alternative.
Not hard for The Greens. It’s been Senator Ludlum who’s been pursuing the issue, first in Senate Estimates then during QT.
Meanwhile the Coalition has been all “We’re going to wait for more detail and the results of the trial before we say anything”.
Like the Coalition is going to come out for free access to kiddie porn for all. I don’t tbhink they’ll fall for that one.
phonegate doesnt seem to have done Rudd much damage overseas.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24651099-601,00.html
On PM Agenda today Robb argued that Rudd should go over there to “listen”, not “advise”. Well, we now know the low esteem Robb has for our country and its influence in world affairs. This man is a sick joke.
69
up for a chat Adam?
Do you really think the government can stop the transmission of kiddy porn?
Should they also be stopping us from buying cars that speed, for example?
I’m all for the pursuit of kiddy fiddlers, but surely it’s possible to put the point of view that filtering the net isn’t going to be possible and that the funds devoted to the filter should be diverted to education apprehension and treatment?
It seems like a Sunday school solution to me, but I’m prepared to be wrong.
Gary Bruce, I’d assume Robb only thinks that Labor leaders should listen rather than advise. Turnbull, of course, the world should listen to.
Exactly ltep 73.
I’m not an expert on the technical side of this debate. The question of principle seems to me to be: why should the internet be the only form of communications media which is exempt from any kind of censorship? People talk as though we currently have no censorship in this country, which is nonsense. There are all kinds of things which it is illegal to publish or broadcast, and other things which it is illegal to make available to children. This is true of cinema, TV, radio, print, theatre, artworks, etc. Why is the internet so special, except that it is the medium of choice of the inner-city elites who apparently think they are exempt from the law? I don’t know whether Conroy’s current proposal is a good way or a bad way of bringing the internet within the same standards that apply to all other forms of communication, but I don’t see how it can be objected to in principle.
Oh, of course they are! That’ll be why they sacrificed Half-Nelson on the altar of polling results, and will do the same to U-Turn-bull in short order unless he can “turn things around”.
Funny how Liberals can say one thing while doing the other. No wonder they genuflect at the feet of the dissembling Howard.
Are people arguing for no internet censorship or a better way of executing the censorship?
“Why is the internet so special”
immediate acess to porn etc in there bedroom for a child
To believe most Liberal or Labor voting parents would not wish porn & worser being prevented from kids acess is a Censorship belony argument Questons ar technical , standard levels and statutory independence
Th qualities of Conroy ar a diferent issue again
Adam, you’ve missed a lot of the debate.
Things which are illegal in other forms of media, like child porn, are also illegal on the internet. However, the “filter” doesn’t simple block “illegal” material, which is already illegal. It blocks material the Department views as “unwanted”.
Unlike other forms of media censorship and classification which are subject to deliberation by the Classification Board and a public process, the list of “unwanted sites” is to be kept a secret, as is the rationale for determining what sites are to be put onto it – other than saying that they are “unwanted”.
The internet is not “so special”. Things like “child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act” are already prohibited online.
The filter is flawed for two reasons. It attempts to enforce those rules in a very naive way which will do very little in preventing access to things like child pornography, bestiality and other illegal content and it’s costs will be literally thousands of false positives and significant impacts on network quality. The other reason is that it goes further than simply censoring what the Classification Board says should be prohibited and adds its own list of thousands of “unwanted’ sites. Which, if Fielding has is way, could include websites about euthanasia.
Yes, Robb reckons Rudd should listen and not advise at the G20.
The Fibs are just DYING with jealousy. I love it
Then take the computer out of the bedroom.
I agree Ron. What that has to do with the policy is beyond me. Argue against a policy by all means but whether you like the person introducing that policy on behalf of the party is irrelevant to the policy debate.
As for your Glen-like response to the polls GP they DO matter, they show that your side has gone BACKWARDS since the election. But I hope the opposition, like you, ignore them as much as possible, because I dont want them to improve any time soon
75 Adam – fair enough. I agree with that principle.
Technically, I thinks it’s going to be bloody expensive to keep up with people who have a commercial interest in circumventing it, and guess for me that had overshadowed the principle.
The war on drugs has hardly been an overwhelming success, but maybe the community support for a particular level of censorship might render the exercise a bit more successful?
(Then take the computer out of the bedroom.)
Exactly, children’s use of computers should be limited to a family room so that there is continual contact between parent and child. If the kids don’t like it – tough luck.
Ahh, if only it were that simple.
No 69
Adam, it’s a testament to Conroy’s obscene argumentative style that he equates opponents of the censorship scheme with child paedophiles.
It’s been suggested that Conroy, as a leading member of the ALP Right, was instrumental in designing the policy.
Also, the fact that he lied about the scope of the filter prior to the election and the fact that lied again in Senate Estimates when stating that countries like Sweden and NZ had mandatory internet filtering are a reflection on the Senator, not the policy.
I know this has been mentioned before but kudos to peter hartcher in the SMH for pointing out Turnbull’s poor poll performance. AT LAST someone in the MSM willing to tell it like it is:
“As for the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull: he started out as a grown-up, offering positive suggestions and reasoned critiques, but he and his front bench are regressing. They have developed an undiscriminating anger towards the Government, incapable of telling an important issue from mere detail, falling into the old trap of becoming lost in a mindset of oppositionism.
Turnbull has wasted the opportunity of his honeymoon as leader. The risk is that against Rudd’s Captain Reasonable he becomes Corporal Cranky.
The voters have noticed. As Rudd’s poll numbers have soared, Turnbull’s have declined to the point where the Coalition is barely any better off than it was under the hapless Brendan Nelson.
Rudd is plainly emerging as the grown-up leader the country craves. He could do with better support from his Treasurer. But Turnbull’s descent into immature oppositionism starts to recall the Joseph Heller line: “When I grow up I want to be a little boy.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/peter-hartcher/in-sensible-grownups-we-trust/2008/11/13/1226318833723.html
No 86
It is that simple. If you’re the parent, you do whatever is necessary to ensure your child is doing the right thing on the internet.
There’s nothing difficult about it. I grew up in a household were the computer was in a public space. There’s no need for a kid to have a computer in his or her bedroom anyway.
If you don’t think that goes far enough then purchase your own software filter. If you’re worried that your kid might bypass the system then connect to an ISP that already offers ISP-level filtering and the only way to bypass it would be to imitate you and have knowledge of your password. If you can’t keep that a secret from your horny teenager than that’s an issue you should sort out rather than taking the rest of us (Including the significant proportion of internet users who don’t have children) for the ride.
No 88
Agreed, Oz.
Andrew at number 83,
It’s like the line that Julia has been running in Question Time this week:
The party votes on a policy, then the parliament. If it gets past blame the party and the parliament. Besides, the personal attack on Conroy adds nothing to the debate on the policy, absolutely zilch.
GB, you are kidding. Don’t tell me the Murdoch media are trying to brand Obama as a leaker as well?
Rudd denies leak. Bush denies it was said. Limited Newspaper journo silent.
Hmmm, some around here should be wearing serious egg it seems!
The second part of that particular comment was more relevant.
Calling out Conroy for misleading the electorate prior to the election and further misleading parliament in Senate Estimates is not a “personal attack”.
“As I’ve said many times, the polls are meaningless unless we’re close to an election.” – GP
That’s the born to rule attitude I love – I see a trouncing coming next election! Ignore the people, suffer the consequences.
For goodness sakes (internet restriction) parents have got to take some responsibility, sheesh!
91 – You know as well as I do that not all parents are that responsible. Nor are all parents in a position to constantly monitor their children. As I said if only it were that simple.
Yes of course they are, but the internet is different to other media in that it comes straight into your house without any mediation between producer and consumer. In this it is unlike TV and radio where content is mediated by broadcasters to conform with the law. So the question is, who stands between the child porn producer in Belarus and my computer? Currently, no-one. Australia has no control over the producers or the broadcasters of this material. The only places it can be mediated, as I understand it, is by the ISP – which is what I understand Conroy is proposing. And it’s not just a matter of supervising children. *No-one* should be viewing this material. Now, we can of course argue about *what* should be on the list.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 14 » Show All