Weekend miscellany
No Morgan poll this week. There is the following however:
• ReachTel continues to pump out the Queensland state automated phone polls. Perhaps emboldened by a recent effort pointing to a 27 per cent anti-Labor swing in Stretton, they have this week targeted two safe Labor seats and elicited similarly dramatic results. A survey of 384 respondents in the seat of Ipswich is fully as bad for Labor as the Stretton poll, showing a 26 per cent swing and a win for LNP candidate Ian Berry over Labor incumbent Rachel Nolan by a margin of 9.4 per cent. In the Brisbane seat of Bundamba, a poll of 371 respondents found a 20 per cent swing which would all but eradicate Labor member Jo-Ann Miller’s margin. Katter’s Australian Party was on double figures in both seats. Last week ReachTel published a poll of 366 respondents in Ferny Grove which showed a 15 per cent swing, easily enough to account for Labor member Geoff Wilson’s margin of 4.3 per cent. It should be noted however that ReachTel is a new outfit using a methodology which is yet to prove its worth, and all the swings mentioned are well over the 13 per cent indicated by recent Newspoll and Galaxy polling.
• John Ferguson of The Australian reports polling by the Victorian Liberal Party shows it poised to win not only the Labor-held marginals of Deakin, Corangamite and La Trobe, but also recording primary votes of 50 per cent and 48 per cent in relatively safe Bruce and Chisholm. Particularly difficult to believe is a funding from Bruce that “Julia Gillard had a minus 22 per cent favourability rating with Mr Abbott at plus 2 per cent”, which compares with Nielsen’s recent Victorian results of minus 13 and minus 25. Ferguson’s report further says that former members Phil Barresi (voted out in 2007 and again unsuccessful in 2010) and Jason Wood (voted out in 2010) are considering comebacks in Deakin and La Trobe. Local councillor Tim Smith is another possible starter in Deakin, and Ernst & Young partner John Nguyen “would be backed by many local members” in Chisholm. John Roskam of the Institute of Public Affairs and lawyer John Pesutto are mentioned as being likely preselection aspirants, though it is unclear in relation to which seats.
• Michael McKenna of The Australian reports “lobbyist and former 2007 Liberal candidate for the seat of Brisbane Ted O’Brien and Sunshine Coast businesswoman Peta Simpson” will join Mal Brough in the LNP preselection contest for Peter Slipper’s seat of Fisher, with Brough “expected to easily win”. In the period between his appearance at a local function with Kevin Rudd and his defection from the party, the LNP state executive was considering having Slipper deposed at a snap December 19 preselection, which would have prevented the state election campaign clashing with any move by him to pursue internal appeals processes. However, this failed to take into account that many of Brough’s local branch “recruits” (according to The Australian, “since returning to the party in December last year, Brough has doubled the membership in the Fisher LNP branch to more than 1000”) would have been unable to participate due to the rule requiring 12 months’ membership. According to The Australian, it was “suspected that Slipper may have orchestrated the Rudd visit to entrap the LNP into calling an early preselection to defeat Brough”. Following Slipper’s defection, it is now clear the preselection will now be held after the state election.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-, Queensland Politics
Centre,
The Homosexual Lobby have played the all or nothing strategy. From where I sit they
have got the nothing.
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Daren, you might want to re read my original post at 265.
by Centre on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:30 pm
And so.
It’s over to you now Tone.
by BK on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Re my 155
That ALP National conference I referred to was in July 1969, not 1968.
by bemused on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Oh really Einstein!
by Centre on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Actually even having a fertile man and woman is often not enough. The two can be incompatible conceiving as partners, although they could have children with other partners.
And they are pretty close to being able to mate two eggs in vitro. They have done it in other species.
by Diogenes on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Centre is not the only commenter to PB to call for for gay/lesbian marriage to be introduced, but to be called something else. Several have said similar things, with varying degrees of sensitivity and awareness.
The problem with this is that the advocates for gay/lesbian marriage WANT that word. They want it very much. They want it as much as the actual practical legislative changes that have already gone through. Positive social depictions of marriage are pushed very hard in our culture (in other cultures as well)- and the advocates for gay/lesbian marriage want in.
For that reason alone, such ideas for compromise as using a different name are non-starters, quite apart from suggesting (though not proving!) a niggardliness of spirit that is not an adornment to our society.
Personally, I feel that gay/lesbian marriage is only a starting point: true equality will not be reached until the gay/lesbian divorce rate matches the hetero rate…
by Kersebleptes on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:37 pm
GG
They have changed Labor Party policy to support gay marriage. That’s a good step.
A lot of this is about symbolism and recognition. If a major party now supports them, that has to be a very pleasing step for the LGBT community feeling the community is on their side.
by Diogenes on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Diogenes
Fertile couples a neccessary but perhaps not always sufficient pre condition.
Centre
Really, your argument is pre deluvial. People procreated before marriage was invented. if you cant understand that then you will have trouble following this argument.
by gough1 on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Exactly.
Centre you are entitled to your views. I just could not agree with your logic in getting to those views.
Additionally, the civil union argument is a red herring — both Howard and Rudd interfered with ACT democracy in blocking those moves originally, so clearly this opposition goes beyond the word “marriage” for many marriage equality opponents.
At the moment gay and lesbian Australians cannot enter into a relationship with a ceremony that commences the relationship legally. That is the key piece of discrimination.
De facto laws mean you must wait for months on end before the relationship would be recognised by the law. Civil partnership registrations as seen in the ACT and Victoria don’t allow the relationship to take effect from the ceremony itself — rather it must be “registered” later — like a new pet. It also means the relationship may not be protected across the Commonwealth and moving interstate could jeopardise its legal standing.
Labor today made a positive step in the right direction, while respecting those who disagreed.
This is win-win for Labor and Australia — and loose-loose for Abbott.
by Darren Laver on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:38 pm
IMO, there is a biological need for homosexuality. When there is an imbalance in the sexes due to events such as disaster, war or plague, couples of the same sex are needed to care for surviving offspring and to ensurethe mutual survival of those in same-sex partnerships. Even outside such events, while these unions do not produce offspring, they do provide food, goods and services that support the whole group, including the breeding pairs who produce the children.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Diogs,
Perhaps you should give them some golfing “fairy” claps.
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Probably everything Isaac!
Marriage was invented as a way of determining who the father of a child was. It wouldn’t take you too much intelligence to work that out surely.
by Centre on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Socrates
Um, if Fox really wanted to sink the slipper it could have mentioned that most of the fall in the unemployment rate came from a large fall in the participation rate, not from the creation of new jobs. It might also have mentioned that the jobs that were created were mostly in Christmas season retail – and could reasonably be expected to disappear post-Santa.
by Boerwar on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Marriage was invented to ensure that inheritance of property went from a man to his biological son. The woman was the conduit, and was a chattell of her husband.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:44 pm
You know I was pretty non commital about the gay marriage thing as I saw it as a low order issue, but having the change to the platform pass and seeing some of the responses both by the christian lobby and here on PB, it actually makes me feel pretty much better disposed towards the ALP and a little bit prouder.
The conscience vote may mean it wont get up in the immediate future but I think it will sooner rather than later.
by gough1 on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Puff
You’ll have Jim Wallace on your case if you keep this up.
by BK on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Puffy
There have been lots of reasons put forward for an evolutionary basis for homosexuality.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
by Diogenes on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm
GG @ 300 Exactly.
They could have based their argument on the right to live their lives as they wish.
But no, they want in on a culture that exclusively belongs to heterosexuals because they think they are discriminated against.
And religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. It’s based on biology and nature.
by Centre on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Puff,
Hell, don’t go calling them beta-males!
They’ll bite your head off!!!
by Kersebleptes on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I suppose that now that it is Labor Party policy, the Federal Government will not step in to prevent the territories legalising same sex marriage.
I imagine that the ACT will be first out of the blocks on human same sex marriage.
The Top End will no doubt be legalising marriage between crocs and humans so the NT News can do yet another in its cracker croc front page series.
by Boerwar on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:47 pm
you could argue marriage actually goes against nature / biology – surely monogamy isn’t the ideal way of increasing the population???
I’ve changed my mind – after just seeing Craig Emerson say he’ll vote against changing the marriage act Abbott may well feel safe going with a conscience vote rather than sticking to his previous position
by womble on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:47 pm
The SMH article about this morning’s events. http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-backs-gay-marriage-20111203-1oc4d.html Mostly fairly even-handed, with the exception of this mysterious reference:
It’d be helpful if he said who the ‘some’ is in this case. On the upside, this was nice of Penny Wong to say:
by rishane on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:49 pm
What do you call a marriage between a half human (us dolphins) and a woman/man? It’s on the evolution ladder.
by The Finnigans on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Finns,
Not sure. But, you probably wouldn’t have any problem getting the kids in the bath.
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Centre
I refer you to my post 292 ans Puffy’s 314 re the inheritance and succession issue.
Again though marriage has nothing to do with nature.
It is a legal and social construct. Even in your example the ‘child of the marriage’ was a legal contruct as the “natural’ father of the child need not have been the husband.
by gough1 on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Centre@318
They don’t think they’re being discriminated against, they know they are.
There is no basis in biology or nature for the concept of marriage.
by p m z on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I know we are a long way behind in the polls , but young people looking at a future in Liberal politics or Labor politics must despair at the differences becoming obvious.
Contrast the Liberal front bench and Labors and look at the policies ,
ie. Liberals.. say no to Flood levy, say no to NBN, say no to Carbon reduction, say no to marriage equality, say no to mining revenues and benefits , say no to a concience vote, say no to having a brain.
Labor policies..the reverse of the above.
by arunta on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:53 pm
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/labor-mp-to-introduce-gay-marriage-bill-20111203-1oc7w.html
by MTBW on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:54 pm
gough1:
I agree with this. Looking at the numbers of gay marriage supporters that have converged on the ALP conference you can imagine that there will be a highly visible political campaign on in the lead up to the vote. Abbott will be put under a deal of pressure to allow a conscience vote within the Libs as well. There will be Coalition MPs sitting there who have gay sons and daughters who may induce pressure from within as well.
If it doesn’t get up next year it will start the ball rolling and I think we would see a change to the Marriage Act within the next five to ten years. Still too long, but I think it will definitely happen. And just like the Apology, we will see that the sky doesn’t fall in. Last time I looked I didn’t have Aborigines camping in my backyard trying to ‘take my land’, and with gay marriage we won’t suddenly see people trying to marry their dog or legislate polygamy.
by Fiz on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm
I thought this was amusing from Crabb:
by rishane on Dec 3, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Someone has to say it:
Joe de Bruyn is the only Dutchman I know who doesn’t like dykes
(Gough Whitlam sometime in the mid 90s)
by Oakeshott Country on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:00 pm
they have long lunches at these conferences
by womble on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Oakeshott Country
Thanks Gough!
by MTBW on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Marriage is derived on the biological fact that the necessary requirement to conceive a child requires a man and a women.
That’s how you get a mother and a father and a grandmother etc.
C’mon, where are we heading with this, your granmother can now be a man, it’s ridiculous.
You change the act, you call it a civil union for gays and you solve most of the problems.
by Centre on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:04 pm
On executive remuneration and the “two strike” rule at AGMs, the AFR reports:
AFR continuing its hysteria on this matter. To my mind, 7% would be a rather low for badly managed listed companies; the AFR implies it is high. And of course, there is nothing that prevents companies making an AGM more relevent or focused on fundamental issues – and there are few more fundamental that the owner-manager agency issue for corporate governance.
by Laocoon on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Centre@312:
Didn’t work very well, did it?
by don on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:08 pm
But does said gran wear army boots, that’s the important issue…
by Kersebleptes on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:09 pm
I especially liked Hugh Mackay’s comment from the Age article that Victoria linked earlier: http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-light-flickers-for-the-faithful-20111202-1ob7s.html#ixzz1fRAly4dN
”The clear trend since July has been a recovery for both Labor’s primary vote and Gillard’s standing with the electorate,” says ACNeilsen’s John Stirton, ”although this trend has been coming out of unprecedented lows and, so far, has only climbed back to slightly higher unprecedented lows.”
The pundits confirm the recovery, with social researcher Hugh Mackay, whose assessment of recent elections was spot-on, happy to make a bold prediction. ”If I had to predict now what is going to happen in two years, I would think it would be very surprising if she did not get another term in her own right,” he says.
by max on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Tee hee. Ask Tone about that.
by joe2 on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:12 pm
max @ 338
That section of the article stood out for me too max.
Very encouraging.
by bemused on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Don @ 336 lol couldn’t agree more.
I envisage a women back in the stone ages giving birth to a kid with all these men coming forward to claim ownership
By the way, Prince Harry is Hewarts
by Centre on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:13 pm
A little addition to my post which I overlooked last night in my haste to put the thing (and myself) to bed.
by William Bowe on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Centre, for you a little Madness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlqbt1PQ1ek
by joe2 on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:19 pm
William, why doesn’t crikey port the whole site to a cloud based hosting service?
by george on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:22 pm
in other words, Crikey IT platform was crap, el cheapo and the Management didnt have a clue, still doesnt.
by The Finnigans on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm
George, that requires courage.
by The Finnigans on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:25 pm
@TheFinns/345,
WordPress is fine, it’s just the servers couldn’t handle it.
by zoidlord on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Joe @ 343, good one!
Gets catchy if you hear it a second time
by Centre on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:28 pm
zoidlord, is the whole of Crikey application run WordPress? and is WordPress a freebee?
by The Finnigans on Dec 3, 2011 at 2:30 pm