Morgan face-to-face: 56.5-43.5 to Coalition
Roy Morgan has published its latest face-to-face poll result on Thursday rather than the more usual Friday, and as usual the numbers require a fair degree of explanation. The headline figure of 56.5-43.5 looks like a shocker for Labor, given that this series normally leans in their favour. However, this turns out to be an artefact of Morgan favouring the respondent-allocated method of distributing minor party and independent preferences, and their odd tendency for these allocations to greatly favour the Coalition more than past election results and the respondent-allocated figures produced by Nielsen. When preferences are distributed as per the result of the previous election, which is the standard practice for all other pollsters, the result is well in line with other recent polling at 53.5-46.5. Since the previous face-to-face result a fortnight ago, both major parties are up half a point on the primary vote – Labor to 34.5 per cent, the Coalition to 47 per cent – with the Greens down two to 11.5 per cent. Labor has softened half a point on both two-party preferred measures. The poll combines results from Morgan’s last two regular weekend survey periods, accounting for a total sample of 1788.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
zoomster
Now that’s a good one. A room full of people controlled by the likes of Feeney, Farrell, and Conroy ? Because you can’t convince them that removing blatant discrimination is the correct and ethical thing to do, then you must be wrong? That’s exquisite.
by jaundiced view on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Regarding earliest civilization
If you just think agriculture (the usual definition), then New Guinea has a credible case for being the very first. There is evidence of ancient terraces and irrigation
by daretotread on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Falvio, than you for your story,
by my say on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Wouldn’t it be prudent to wait and see how individuals actually vote before making announcements declaring them to not be voting according to their conscience?
by confessions on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:08 pm
jenauthor @ 239
I thought it was moderately well known.
Western Victoria is full of dormant (n.b. not extinct) volcanoes and one of these created the layer of rock that traps the water and created the environment about 10,000 years ago in which the Aborigines developed their aquaculture.
Try this as a starting point: http://www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/declared/tyrendarra.html
I was drawn by my curiosity to go to Portland to visit that site and others.
The other main point of interest for me was the use of geothermal energy at Portland. Alas, in it’s infinite wisdom, a local water authority had discontinued it in favour of burning gas. Previously the hot water was used to heat the council chambers, swimming pool, hospital and a pub. One day archeologists will scratch their heads over that too.
by bemused on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Bemused
No this aquaculture stuff is news to me
I know about the eel farms but not the ones 10,000 years ago
by daretotread on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Just for argument’s sake jv, how would your lot in the Greens deal with an MP who (for example) had some sort of conscientious objection to gay marriage? Would he get to vote his conscience or would he get a visit from SHY to straighten-him out.
And please don’t come back with “no green would hold such a view” as it’s a complete cop-out.
by smithe on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:11 pm
smthe
As many as that ? : ) But seriously folks, they are far from a real threat with those numbers. One thing you may like to look at is the collaboration between Russia and India in both fighter aircraft and “unstoppable” cruise missiles.
BrahMos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl48bwYBDfA
Sukhoi Pak-50 stealth fighter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cleCO9UY23A
by poroti on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Seems appropriate; as the center of the universe is Gumlu.
It was not written on the subway walls but on the Gumlu stubby holders.
A much more reliable source of universal truth.
by fredn on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:15 pm
I am of the ‘old fashioned’ view that farming is not enough to signify civilisation.
The building of organised settlements which hopefully leave irrefutable evidence is my personal yardstick.
The more we discover – the further back we go so I am not about to suggest which is oldest.
by jenauthor on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:15 pm
smithe
Wrong Brahmos clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bprb4zUI9Ds&feature=related
by poroti on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:15 pm
smithe
straighten?
by Laocoon on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:15 pm
daretoterad @ 255
I may have confused you. The volcanic eruption that created the environment in which it could occur was about 10,000 years ago. The aquaculture etc came later and I am not sure when.
by bemused on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:19 pm
I don’t understand why people bang on about Leigh Sales as an interviewer. I think she does a great job – never lets go. She is certainly far better than Uhlmann.
Her interview of Rudd tonight was OK. However, once she had her answer from him about the leadership, she should have left it alone.
Governments and Oppositions should be subject to and able to handle the tough questions, even if sometimes they are quite inane and offend our own personal biases.
by feeney on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:19 pm
j.v
But we’re not talking about a decision of caucus – that is, caucus deciding what the vote should be. We’re discussing the principle of whether or not parliamentarians should vote with their conscience.
I support – even though it occasionally results in decisions I don’t agree with, as I said and you conveniently ignore – the caucus system, where everyone has a chance to have their say.
As with all conceivable systems, it doesn’t always work the way it’s meant to or the way one would like it to. We are imperfect people and thus anything we come up with will be imperfect.
My point is that you lack consistency in your attitude towards parliamentarians (something you haven’t denied).
If parliamentarians always voted as independents, I have no doubt that there would be times – probably a majority of times – when their votes weren’t truly free. Individuals are always influenced by other individuals, and thus will support positions which in their heart of hearts they don’t actually agree with. They’ll also be swayed by polls, subject to bribery, worried about their constituents’ reactions -all things which will impede the achievement of a ‘perfect’ ‘conscience’ vote.
But – up until now – that’s basically what you supported (or at least, so I’ve assumed from your posts in the past).
If you were consistent to your principles, you would advocate a ‘conscience’ vote on all occasions, even where it looked like producing a result you didn’t like, because you’d see that as a positive step in the right direction.
You’re not, so you don’t.
I note also that your criticisms are entirely directed at the Labor Right. Not one mention that the Liberals – supposedly the party representing an individual’s right to vote with their conscience on all occasions – are denying their members a conscience vote on this issue.
A bit of a big elephant to ignore, but it suits your prejudices.
So some facts:
1. Labor could instruct every member of the party to vote the way you want them to and the vote would still be defeated.
2. Labor doesn’t look like doing this. It looks like allowing a conscience vote.
3. The Liberals could also allow a conscience vote, and that – regardless of the Labor Right’s possible actions – would allow the legislation to go through.
4. So the MPs you should be criticising, and putting pressure on, are the Liberals. Without their vote, it doesn’t matter what the Labor Right does.
by zoomster on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:19 pm
zoomster
I know this how?
Because the right faction leaders have the caucus members in their pocket. You know that and I know that. Think back to June 2010 for an example. What caucus member controlled by by Farrell or Feeney for example is going to vote for what they know will sentence them to political death?
You’ve answered your own question about Conroy in part as to his motivation. Otherwise the IVF thing was because of his own personal issue with it, but it changes nothing about his right-wing Catholicism permeating everything he does on social issuese from the internet filter to gay marriage.
by jaundiced view on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Yeah, well, poor choice of words.
But my essential point rmeains the same. Do Greens MPs get conscience votes on such issues or not.
And if the come-back is that they don’t need one because they’re all of the same view, then I’d ask since when did the Midwich Cuckoos form a political party?
No-one agrees on policy issues 100% of the time. No-one.
by smithe on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:22 pm
But in the end feeney why waste viewers time on shit that none cares about.
by fredn on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:23 pm
I assume that was a tertiary essay. Otherwise it would instantly qualify as a schoolkid howler.
by Gorgeous Dunny on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:23 pm
don bemused
nt qld and upper wa have some mad stuff
the wa stuff is almost gonski
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:27 pm
fredn 267
Yes, good point there. Just making the point that tough questioning often brings out the best in people. Rudd disposed of her admirably.
by feeney on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:28 pm
sorry meant lower WA stuff
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:28 pm
If the source is some undergrad’s essay GD it’s worse….far worse, I’m afraid.
by smithe on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:29 pm
zoomster
Now we’re getting loquacious. The two essential point are:
1. The Labor party leadership – beholden to the Catholic right on this issue and most other social issues – has said it will reject the state branches’ almost unanimous and surprising push for a policy change for legislative amendment to the Marriage Act removing discrimination.
2. The cynical means being used is to have what they are calling a ‘conscience’
vote in which the Labor right knows its faction lackey members will mostly stick, but they are also relying on the LNP. Low fleas.
by jaundiced view on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Tonight on the”7.30 Report” Rudd said he had no knowledge beforehand of the plan to sell uranium to India
How could this happen ?
by deblonay on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:31 pm
jv
You should look at political results, not the path.
We have on shore processing of refugee.
We have a carbon trading scheme.
And we have a lot more progressive policies that I really don’t care about.
The truth of the matter is the majority of Australians don’t support gay marriage. The majority of Australians just don’t care. Why would anyone burn political capital on it.
by fredn on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:31 pm
deblonay @ 274
Stop verbaling Rudd and making stuff up.
by bemused on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm
j.v.
Conroy’s personal motivation was to give others access to the same services he and his wife used (surrogacy) without having to go interstate.
If he had purely been acting out of his own personal situation, and guided only by his Catholicism, that’s all he needed to argue for.
He went further than that.
Feeney is on the record
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/11/feeney-why-i-support-a-conscience-vote-on-gay-marriage/
as supporting a conscience vote, and he intends to vote for same sex marriage.
So already your lockstep view of the Labor Right and how it will behave – born out of your own prejudices and nothing more – is looking a little shaky when held up to reality.
I note again that you’re not criticising the Liberals, who are the ones whose position is far more hypocritical and whose votes are actually going to decide the issue.
by zoomster on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm
So the next generation didn’t maintain the rage, and it becomes nothing but history to be crammed for an exam.
by fredn on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm
deb
why does it matter????
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm
zoom
where do the nats stand?
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Oh, and what I know about June 2010 is that the initial push came from the Victorian Left.
by zoomster on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Because it’s Gillard’s personal motion to conference which doesn’t need ministerial approval to be submitted to conference beforehand. Something which Rudd admitted in his next breath.
by confessions on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:38 pm
gus
a bit too close for the sheep’s peace of mind….
by zoomster on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:38 pm
They want to marry their cows
by Frank Calabrese on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:39 pm
gusface
I lurve the art of Lascaux ,some of which I think better than anything we do today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0LnTtS7-70
What I find strange however is that our Bradshaws are treated like some embarrasing family secret. Wonderful art but possibly inconvenient to our current narrative.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/
by poroti on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Brandis, himself allegedly gay and from the moderate faction, has stated quite clearly that the coalition will not support a conscience vote on the issue.
by confessions on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:41 pm
frank
so where is JV on this
I mean conscience smonscience
what about the fibs and the nats
lets not play silly buggers
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:41 pm
oops
missed zoom after frank
apols
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:43 pm
On the Nats and matters of social conscience. I believe Fiona Nash was one of the women Senators who co-sponsored the bill designed to strip the Health Minister of a final veto on RU486. She shares a party with the likes of Boswell who is vehemently opposed to abortion and things like stem cell research.
by confessions on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm
btw
hypo re marriage
if i was bi sexual
should i have both a husband and a wife
srs Q
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Gus:
The intent with same sex marriage is to remove discrimination for same sex couples.
Nobody has seriously proposed plural marriage, and so therefore it’s not up for debate.
by confessions on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:50 pm
fess
but then u are discriminating against needs
what is wrong with having “the best of both worlds”
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Dare to Tread re civilizations
______________
The great UK history of civilizations and their rise and fall has a central thread to his theories.
He calls it”challenge and response”
If a civilization responds successfully to a major challenge than it advances up the scale…the need to communicate produces an alphabet and materials on which to write,and son one…challenges large and small arise
The ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians overcame this challenge,and the challenges of water supply with early irrigation schemes,and develp[ment of the wheel
Each civilization either does this in relation to a series of problems or i collapses or becomes” arrested ”
The Native Americans,and our Aborigines and the NG people never passed beyond a certain stage of development and became “arrested”…so no cities or states
Jarrad Diamond ,a US historian, sees the ability to cultivate cereals as a important event.
One can store and use cereals and have a large surplus,and a governing class who are then free from doing farm labour.,can emerge.
In N.G the highlanders had only root crops as staples,while our aborigines had no way of moving on from being hunter-gatherers,unlike the people of the Middle East and Europe,and places like China or Central America
One assumes that all peoples have basically the same levels of I.Q but different opportunities,but a surplus of food is a essential to the expansion of societies…even in our time
Look at how few people now work in agriculture in Oz.
Corn.rice,wheat,oat and barley all; give this crucial surplus ,and then some can work on major works of construction,and other can become a ruling bureaucracy,law enforcement,scribes,priests ,artists,etc.
See Toynbee’s brilliant”Study of History”
and Diamond’s book on why societies collapse
by deblonay on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:52 pm
zoomster
We’ll see how Feeney’s faction members vote, but as long as his preferred conscience vote is supported the change is doomed with or without his stategic vote. He knows that better than anyone. So does Gillard, and they also know they have the numbers at National Conference. Otherwise Gillard would not be nailing her colours to the mast in advance. It’s a done deal, and the legislative change will not happen under this government.
You say I am not critical enough of the Libs? They are also dreadful; wose with Abbott and Co in charge, but I’m not so sure on social issues should Turnbull return. But the point is Labor is the government or now. They have the power to make this legislative change happen. If they introduced the bill it would be passed in both houses. Why are they not doing so? A majoriy of voters support it, as do all but one state branch of the party. What reason is there apart from religion or pandering to the religious vote?
Their duplicitous manoeuvring on behalf of religious dogma is completely dishonest.
by jaundiced view on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:53 pm
I’m always late & apologise in advance if this has been already been posted.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/17/liberals-exposed-as-kingmakers-in-bitter-chicken-spat/
by Dee on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Gus:
In our society formal relationship unions are those which involve couples, not anything else. Nobody is seriously proposing that any unions other than those involving couples be considered legal, so why muddy the waters?
by confessions on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Bzzzt
there is proof of fish farming not just in vic but qld and the nt as well
also there is speculation that the cyclical nature of some tribes migrations was akin to managed cultivation
the relatively recent acknowledgement of indigene use of fire and backburning/regen for example
by gusface on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm
by Frank Calabrese on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm
I reckon civilisation started when someone first discovered how to brew beer.
by Acerbic Conehead on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:59 pm