Essential Research: 56-44 to Coalition
The latest Essential Research result has Labor gaining a point on two-party preferred for the second week in a row, with the Coalition now leading 56-44, and has Labor gaining three points on the primary vote – a very unusual occurrence in this series, which publishes weekly results derived from a two-week rolling average. Labor’s primary vote is at 33%, with the Coalition and the Greens each down a point to 49% and 10% respectively.
The first of the supplementary questions measures respondents’ knowledge rather than opinions: namely, the question of whether interest rates are higher or lower now than they were when Labor came to power, the purpose presumably being to determine whether misapprehensions are behind Labor’s diabolical polling. A majority (35% to 20%) were in fact aware that they were now lower, but only 10% thought they were a little lower against 25% for a lot, when the official interest rate has in fact gone from 6.75% to 3.75%. Respondents were then asked how much credit they gave Labor for the drop: 7% said a lot, 19% a fair amount, 27% a little and 35% none. Further questions cover the casualisation of the workforce, the mining boom, the value of various industries to average Australians, and the notion that the government is engaged in “class warfare” (28% agree, 46% disagree).
Further polling snippets:
• Yesterday’s Sunday Mail reported that the Galaxy poll of Queensland respondents covered in the previous post also found that Kevin Rudd’s lead over Julia Gillard in the state at 67-21, and at 62-37 among Labor voters.
• News Limited tabloids carried another Galaxy poll yesterday, this one conducted online from a national sample of 606, which showed support for gay marriage at 50% against 33% opposed. However, 26% of respondents said legislation to allow gay marriage would make them less likely to vote Labor, against only 22% who said more likely.
• Labor has gone public with polling conducted for it by UMR Research, which apparently found that 25% of respondents “would vote for” Julian Assange if he ran for a Senate seat. This tendency was fairly evenly spread among supporters of different parties: 39% for Greens, 26% for Labor and 23% for Coalition. The combined figure is similar to the 23% of respondents to a Galaxy poll in September last year who rated themselves “likely” to vote for Katter’s Australian Party at the Queensland state election: 11.5% would actually do so. It is not clear if the poll was entirely national, as the report from Phillip Coorey in the Sydney Morning Herald only spoke of results from New South Wales and Victoria, which perhaps surprisingly showed slightly stronger support for Assange in the former.
Preselection:
• Tasmanian Labor Senator Nick Sherry, who had already announced he would not contest the next election, has brought forward his retirement. David Killick of The Mercury reports the vacancy looks set to be filled by Lin Thorp, member for the state upper house seat of Rumney from 1999 until her defeat in 2011. Thorp has the backing of Sherry’s Left faction, including from Premier Lara Giddings. However, earlier reports suggested others in the Left wanted a younger candidate, and that a move was on to have the party’s administrative committee reserve the position for a candidate from northern Tasmanian – with Launceston commercial lawyer Ross Hart fitting the bill on both counts. Notably, Unions Tasmania secretary Kevin Harkins, who was said to have been locked out preselection in 2007 because Kevin Rudd had him confused with Kevin Reynolds, and again in 2010 because Rudd did not want to admit to his mistake, had ruled himself out because “we’re likely to have a very conservative government in just a tad over 12 months’ time, (and) the best place for me is with the union movement”.
Page 1 of 3 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Convicted him already have we, Dio?
by joe2 on May 23, 2012 at 6:59 pm
For anyone who missed QT today
Lyn Linking@lynlinking
Must read Brilliant Article QT today Abbott asked Dep. Speaker Anna Burke if from now on clock could be stopped Excerpt http://consciencevote.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/whats-good-for-the-goose/
by Schnappi on May 23, 2012 at 7:00 pm
@CTar1/3648
Perhaps Ms Jackson should live the normal Joes live for a while and see how she likes it.
by zoidlord on May 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Lizzie,
It’s an interesting example that Possum Comitatus gives. Interesting because it illustrates the way in which the difference between fact and opinion has become blurred for so many people.
How has this happened?
Critical thinking is still something that school students are taught (though question whether they actually “learn” it).
Another, and to my mind more likely, candidate has several manifestations. Three that occur to me are (1) the continual editorialising of “news” reporting; (2) the presentation of opinion as hard-nosed fact; and (3) the degeneration of news into infotainment.
As to why this has happened? Dial M, perhaps?
Dumbed-down population plus subverted media is a dangerously potent brew.
by fiona on May 23, 2012 at 7:07 pm
zoidlord @ 3652
Her turn to be Craig Thom(p)son.
by CTar1 on May 23, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Wonder when was the last time if ever jackson and williamson got a payrise for their members,seems too busy snuffling with snouts in the trough for themselves.
by Schnappi on May 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Can someone help me?
My heart is bleeding.
Poor Kathy, down $270,000 per/year ($130 an hour). How will she survive? Will she have to sack the pool cleaner? Buy her own car? Get rid of the nannie? Get a job? Slopping out dunnies in an aged care facility?
How could she fight for workers’ rights if she has to … w… w… work for a living?
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Most times in my working life I went to bed with the question “What positive thing have I achieved today?” Most days there was something that fitted the bill.
I often wonder what Abbott asks of himiself.
by BK on May 23, 2012 at 7:10 pm
SHELLBELL 3620
I take your point about the accusers having the right to argue a case independent of prior findings by other courts.
That’s why IF Thomson is substantively innocent (ie apart from minor indiscretions and taking advantage of perks etc), it’s to his advantage that his accusers be given a very long rope. And the longest rope will be given to those who’ve shot their mouth off the loudest. I’m thinking of certain media types.
As I see it, the extreme drawing out of the affair, while politically damaging to his party, presents to his personal case a quite beautifully subtle benefit. And this that, while the very extensiveness of the proceedings should logically have meant that some damning evidence against him should have been uncovered, if the evidence turns out not to be there, then who can argue that the accusers hadn’t the time to uncover it? They’ve certainly had the inclination.
So a finding of unproven by a court would suddenly put Thomson in a strong position to seek damages. The only question the is, from whom.
All the foregoing, of course, assumes the current vendetta ending up unfavourably for the accusers. I would love to see that, for I have no time for people who cast stones.
An interesting parallel to this is the Ashby vs Slipper case – almost certain to be thrown out of court. Slipper, an ex-barrister and seminarian who’d be in a better position than most to know Abbott’s mind, might well be forming his own defamation plans.
by dedalus on May 23, 2012 at 7:14 pm
@CTar1/3654
IT seems to be the responses of the rich.
by zoidlord on May 23, 2012 at 7:14 pm
BK,
He recites this little prayer over and over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkk5kZxe_ks
by Greensborough Growler on May 23, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Have the Media forgotten why Slipper is not in the House?
by ruawake on May 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Can’t the ACCC look at that? It’s not 1 July yet.
by BH on May 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm
GG
by BK on May 23, 2012 at 7:18 pm
fiona
TThere’s an arrogance there that reminds me of the climate “sceptics”.
No matter what you say, whatever facts you quote, I have a right to think whatever I want.
Looking at Twitter, there’s a lot of it about!
by lizzie on May 23, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Absolutely!
But on the understanding that this is all just piss and wind…
Well, yes and no. The issue comes down to whether we actually have any separation of legislative and executive power, and whether it was intended in the formulation of the constitution for there to be such a separation of powers.
The overview of the constitution from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2005Q00193/0332ed71-e2d9-4451-b6d1-33ec4b570e9f outlines that the very structure of the constitution into its chapters is about separation of powers, despite the fact that the Westminster representative-government inherently means there is no strict demarcation between legislative and executive powers.
I think any reasonable reading of the constitution implies that legislative power resides with parliament, independently (as much as possible) from the executive. (And from a who-has-the-power point of view, if parliament can disallow executive regulation, does it make sense for the executive to be able to “disallow” parliamentary legislation?)
Section 58 itself (“Royal assent to Bills”) ambiguously says:
I would say that the “When a proposed law … is presented to the Governor-General” implies an automatic process without intervention of the executive council. The Governor-General’s decision is obviously covered by the generic “acting under advice from the executive council” rule, but I don’t think there is room for the bills to simply “disappear” between being passed by parliament and being presented to the GG.
Then comes the question over whether the executive council can legitimately recommend against a bill becoming law without a good, non-political reason. The reason why I think this is important is because it forms part of that underlying concept of separation of legislative and executive powers. It doesn’t make sense to have a parliament that can independently create law if the executive can simply make it go away, and as I said I think the High Court would not be supportive of either the executive council making such a recommendation, or the GG acting on it. I would guess that the High Court would be interested more in the intent of the constitution in terms of separation of powers, rather than the confused mess that is the relationship of the GG to the executive and the parliament.
The constitution makes sense if you treat the GG as actually being independent, and able to act independently, of parliament and the executive. The fact that this independence no longer exists (if it ever existed) doesn’t mean that the constitution should be read as “executive will = GG decision”. The constitution was written with an explicit executive described – if the constitution had been meant to hand these powers (veto over legislation eg) to the executive, it would have been written that way.
by Jackol on May 23, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Yep – stealing ‘my’ rice bowl – thieves fall out …
by CTar1 on May 23, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Has she lost her job?
Classy post BB, good to see you are not bitter!
by Mod Lib on May 23, 2012 at 7:23 pm
BB
Interestingly, no one knows the origin of the phrase ” bull in a china shop”. It’s thought to relate to bulls being led through market towns.
A publicist during WWII put a bull in a china shop and it didn’t break anything.
by Diogenes on May 23, 2012 at 7:24 pm
While on my soap box, I actually don’t EXPECT any different from our journalists. I would hope for better but don’t expect it. Why?
Because if you had an alternative point of view you wouldn’t have a job.
The only people who get jobs in Australia’s MSM either have the same views as the 1 or 2 people who own the MSM , OR are so shit scared of losing their jobs that they ( to use a phrase) toe the party line.
by RNM1953 on May 23, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Dio – No one who has ever yarded cattle (or anyone else) would not understand the concept.
by CTar1 on May 23, 2012 at 7:28 pm
I wonder if ABC TV News has got rid of the conflicted representative of an alternate media outlet, Alan Kohler, and now have Phillip Lasker, the ABC finance correspondent doing the, er, ABC finance report (which he has been doing pretty satisfactorily)
by Laocoon on May 23, 2012 at 7:29 pm
ANDREW LEIGH JUST NAME CHECKED ME IN HIS ADJOURNMENT SPEECH!
I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD! I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!I’M GONNA BE IN HANSARD!
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Dedalus
My undstanding is that qualified privelege would only be a defense if the judge thought Thomsons accusers were acting in good faith. If they weren’t acting in good faith, they could be in a world of hurt.
by Diogenes on May 23, 2012 at 7:30 pm
I suspect I am in the minority here but I think this is absolute rubbish.
Assuming you are saying that political reporters are all right wing zealots, the available evidence actually suggests the exact opposite. When journalists themselves are asked, in different Western countries including Australia, they class themselves as “left” on the political spectrum.
by Mod Lib on May 23, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Greensborough Growler
Whilst every day in the debating chamber he looks across at the PM and….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfytdyMy2-k
by poroti on May 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm
And anyone who thinks differently is:
Ignorant.
Illiterate (can you read the DATA here!!!!!! Oh, that other data is just wRONg and is falsified by scam artists anyway.)
Deluded.
Stupid (because i’ve told you sooooo many times why your wRONg!!).
Lying.
and best of all:
An active participant in the Scam / Conspiracy / Plot and so EVIL and going to be the first in the seaborne chaff bag after this useless Govt is GONE next week!!!!!!!!
That pretty much sums up the comments thread for any posting on a Climate Septics site i think.
Although there are certainly recurring themes here there is less in the way of hysterics and actually, more acceptance overall of divergent views.
by imacca on May 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Don’t take Howes out of context. He said he didn’t resile from the decision to drop Rudd but did reile from the putting himself on telly. Said he needs to be more faceless! (laughter all round).
Said wtte former leaders should be brought back into the Labor fold because they are intelligent and can contribute ideas.
by BH on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Congrats Shows! Now, being calm and dignified as befits your new status………….
by imacca on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Mr Denmore has revealed himself
http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/oh-that-guy.html
by victoria on May 23, 2012 at 7:35 pm
I would mention the quote, but it has to do with economics and so I don’t want Mod Lib’s head to explode.
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 7:37 pm
by victoria on May 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Here we go again with Uhlmann taking his talking points directly from the Libs.
“Questions need to be asked about what deals were done” re Schapelle Corby. Even Sheridan agreed Bob Carr and the Govt. had done everything correctly in this, but Uhlmann has to have is headline written for him by Julia Bishop. Urggghh!
by BH on May 23, 2012 at 7:41 pm
CT
My last cat was way worse than a bull. It smashed crockery in most of the houses on my block.
by Diogenes on May 23, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Was there anything on ACA?
by Burgey on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 pm
No Mod Lib. I stand by my views.
by RNM1953 on May 23, 2012 at 7:44 pm
As someone who is going to appear in today’s Hansard, I support your position of not taking Mod Lib seriously.
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 7:47 pm
OK Shows – hold the capitals. We know you is weely important and we only tease you because of it.
Good on you for sending him the info. He’s one very classy and cluey guy.
by BH on May 23, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Nobel laureate Professor Paul Krugman is also going to appear in today’s Hansard, along with me.
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Burgey
hah ,never is ,nothing about escorts though
by Schnappi on May 23, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Only the best quality material from the best quality sources is sufficient for Dr Leigh. This is clearly a standard of excellence that I have reached.
Notice how Dr Leigh doesn’t quote anything Mod Lib writes in parliament? Quite telling isn’t it.
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Shows
Since you are now something of a catch (ie photo on ABC weather report, quoted in Hansard), can I have the first dance with you on Speed Dating Friday?
by Dan Gulberry on May 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm
So is Bob Baldwin.
by ruawake on May 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm
No sorry, I already promised it to Bonita.
But you can ask Bonita if you can cut in.
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Government MPs don’t quote me in Hansard (to my knowledge), you are right. However, a Federal Government department have flown me around interstate and accommodated me to listen to my views on certain topics…
by Mod Lib on May 23, 2012 at 8:00 pm
ed Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
On the big news of Schapelle Corby, is it wrong to really not give a hoot about a convicted criminal or what happens to her?RUMMELL
Yes it is wrong.
She is some ones daughter, sister aunt friend,
No know whats in the future for any of us.
by my say on May 23, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Exactly.
This is clearly a complete waste of tax payers’ money that I’m sure will be cut out of all future budgets.
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Dio – I had a Siamese who would go anywhere for a chop bone. BBQ at you own risk nearby and aggressive enough to deal with most dogs.
But both playful and obiedient in the house – they way their minds work is something to be discovered.
by CTar1 on May 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Good grief – stop bragging immediately, Shows. Or was Leigh pointing out how useless my federal member is except when pandering to a small section of the electorate – the oldies who just love the bloke.
by BH on May 23, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Good evening all.
Has briefly commented recently? It seems like forever since he was around.
Interesting. Seems to me he’s pre-empting any News ltd attempts to identify him, esp given the war on independent media commentators and media-related academics the OO likes to indulge in from time to time.
by confessions on May 23, 2012 at 8:09 pm