Galaxy: 56-44 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes reports that a Galaxy poll, conducted from a sample of 995 from Friday to Sunday, has the Coalition leading 56-44 on two-party preferred, from primary votes of 31% for Labor, 49% for the Coalition and 12% for the Greens. Supplementary questions find 64% believing the government is worse off now than it was under Kevin Rudd, against 20% who think it better off; 59% believing the Prime Minister has failed to deliver an effective policy to reduce carbon emissions, against 59% who believe she has; and 57% saying she has failed in sharing the benefits of the mining boom, against 29% who say she has succeeded. There is also a frankly silly question as to whether the government has succeeded in stopping asylum seeker boats, to which 9% (presumably Labor partisans irritated by the question) wrongly said yes, and 80% offered the obvious response.
UPDATE: Essential Research records two-party preferred steady at 56-44, from primary votes of 33% for Labor (up one), 49% for the Coalition (steady) and 10% for the Greens (steady). Other questions cover most trusted party to handle various issues (Greens environment and climate change, Labor industrial relations, Liberal everything else); whether the economy is heading in the right or wrong direction (43-32 in favour, compared with 36-41 against in March); trust in people and organisations (Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull do better than Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, who do better than Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart; and bias in media reporting in favour or against various groups (Liberals and business seen to do better than Labor and unions).
In other news, some state, territory and local government matters of note:
• Roy Morgan has published three phone polls of state voting intention for New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland on Friday, from a small combined sample of 811. While the margins of error are about 5.5%, the results are roughly in line with other polling in showing little change on the most recent elections, with the conservative incumbents leading 52-48 in Victoria and 62-38 in both New South Wales and Queensland. Personal ratings show a strikingly poor result for Ted Baillieu, at 29% approval and 53.5% disapproval. The polls were conducted on the Tuesdays and Wednesdays of the previous two weeks.
• I have lazily neglected to cover the publication of draft boundaries for the state redistribution in South Australia, but as always Antony Green has been well and truly on the job. The proposals have been uncommonly controversial in that they have essentially ignored the legislative injunction that the commissioners must, “as far as practicable”, draw boundaries which on the basis of the previous election results would have achieved “fairness” with respect to the major parties’ shares of seats and two-party preferred votes. Given Labor’s success in winning 26 out of 47 seats at the 2010 election from 48.4% of the two-party vote, this would have demanded tremendous creativity on the part of the redistribution commissioners, and presumably some very contorted electoral boundaries designed to slash Labor members’ margins.
• Refugee advocate Linda Scott has won the “community preselection” to determine Labor’s candidate to take on Clover Moore in the Sydney lord mayoral election in September. Half of the vote was determined by a ballot open to any of the 90,000 voters in the municipality (albeit that they were required to pledge that they were not members of a rival party), with the other half determined by party members. It attracted 400 party members and 3900 non-members. Labor will now trial the procedure in five yet-to-be-decided seats for the next 2015 state election. However, Andrew Crook of Crikey has reported the party’s various state branches are backing away from the idea of conducting primaries for the federal election, which they had been encouraged to pursue by the December national conference and the Bracks-Carr-Faulkner post-election review.
• Antony Green has published his guide to the Northern Territory election on August 25.
Federal preselection news:
Page 1 of 3 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
guytaur
I will agree to disagree re Assange. He is nothing but trouble for all who cross his path
by victoria on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:38 am
DTT@6389
That proposal by zoomster would also get full backing from the Greens and the UN.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:38 am
DTT 6389
Why go to the expense of duplicating services there when we already have the facilities here?
Makes no sense at all.
by muttleymcgee on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:41 am
Hey finns
The kabuki list of characters needs a few more additions!
by victoria on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:42 am
Victoria
Most people who challenge authority are narcissists to some degree. We still praise all those heroes of old who fought the system and won. However at the time mist would have been regarded as nutters and narcissists.
It is the PRINCIPLE that matters not the person.
The issue still remains If the Swedes ONLY want Assange to question him about a statutory rape allegation (not using a condom) then fly to the UK, interview him and either charge him or not. End of story simple. The fact that they have not done this is pretty clear evidence of something much bigger at stake.
by daretotread on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:42 am
guytaur
Er, they come from Assange himself.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:43 am
victoria
Did or did not Gillard make a mistake in declaring Assange guilty before the evidence was in?
I think the answer is yes. That is why I think Gillard is getting damaged over Assange. The Government is being seen to do what Howard did. Kowtow to the US.
To prove this is not so the Government has to go extra yards.
Also Sweden only has to publicly make it known there will be no rendition to the US of Assange.
Then there is no problem other than can Assange get a fair trial and can the alleged victims get a fair trial considering the politics and media coverage involved in the case in Sweden and be seen to do so.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:44 am
Christ, I wish people would let this go. It’s about as meaningful as whingeing about how Gillard “lied”. Gillard saying “It was an illegal thing to do” two years or so ago is about as relevant as whether Assange likes flat or spritzer mineral water.
She was clearly referring to the theft of the secrets itself, which was in fact clearly illegal, as the trial now in progress in the US shows.
by Bushfire Bill on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:44 am
Muttle
Aystalia could help far more people in the refugee camps than they can here but I think mine is an as well as assisting those here.
by daretotread on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:44 am
So effing what?
by Bushfire Bill on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:44 am
Mick Collins on P125 speaking of the rejection by the Greens of the 2009 ETS by Rudd, said:
No … it is you whio misses the point. The key issue is not the personnel of the government but the quality of the policy. If neither major party is willing to implement an at least minimally adequate set of policies and if indeed one of them plans to implement policies that would be hard to rewrite to make them adequate, then no person who reagrds the policies propposed as fitting this description can in good faith support it. To do so is to abandon all ethical principle and set out on the path of an ethical abyss. As the old aphorism goes, when fighting monsters, first ensure that you don’t become a monster yourself; never forget that when you star into the abyss, the abyss stares back.
The ALP long ago parted company with attachment to principle as a decisive basis for public policy and set out on the path of becoming a party that acts at the whim of public prejudice — a veritable tabula rasa upon which any policy that seems to have the backing of the loudest and most obnoxious can be written.
There are worse things that can happen to a party than to lose an election or two or three. One can entirely lose one’s identity and purpose of existence. When that happens, winning is entirely moot, and losing leaves you with nothing at all. White Men Can’t Jump was not a brilliant movie, but this quote from “Glorai Clemente” was on point:
The utility of democracy begins and ends with the service it renders to the community as a whole, including the extent to which it predisposes them to grasp their actual circumstances of exiostence and to make sense of their needs and interests over time, their connectedness with their fellow human beings. Next to that, who wins this or that election or who is up or down in the polls is a complete banality. No self-respecting party can avow policies merely because it might allow them to put a floor under their primary vote or wedge their opposition. This is the worst kind of mindless opportunism, an instantiation of the neo-liberal model of the party as some sort of consumer service.
It’s not one that people who take public policy seriously ought to entertain. It does however, explain why the ALP is in such a mess just now.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:45 am
dtt
You talk about principles and Assange in the same sentence. Please. You have lost the argument already
by victoria on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:46 am
zoomster
Stating the fact that the US has the death penalty as one of the punishments on the books in the case of espionage is a fact.
That is not the same as claiming they are going to execute me. I have never heard Assange say that. He has said may execute me because that is on the books.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:46 am
daretotread
This seems to be another case of ‘special’ rules for Assange because he’s a ‘special’ person.
If I get summoned to go to a court to give evidence, I have to go to that court. I can’t ask the magistrate to jump in a car and come to me.
Secondly, I have enough confidence in the quality of Assange’s legal team to believe that that option was put to the UK courts. I have enough confidence in the competence of the UK courts to believe that they considered it seriously.
And then they decided he should go to Sweden.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:46 am
There is only one (1) REAL solution to people embarking on a boat to our shores?
STOP making it a political issue!
The problem will never be solved as long as there are votes in it for the Liberal Party to win.
So, how do you stop making it a political issue?
The Greens MUST support the policy to allow for offshore processing.
Don’t they realise that that is the very best alternative for all concerned including the refugees and asylum seekers themselves?
Once the problem ceases to be a political issue, you won’t ever hear anything of it – DO YOU GET MY DRIFT
That’s what you get I suppose when you vote for a warped and twisted idiotic loudmouthed minority protest group.
The Greens… LUNATICS!
by Centre on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:47 am
BB
You better retract every word you have said about Abbott declaring Thomson guilty before things got to court then. That is the exact point. You cannot have it both ways.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:47 am
http://www.vexnews.com/2012/06/miss-greedy-jacksons-demand-for-new-mega-salary-to-be-refused-by-sickened-hsu-members/
by Leroy on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:48 am
by victoria on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:49 am
guytaur
Sweden can’t unilaterally rule out something which hasn’t been asked of them.
They have made it clear (and the relevant site was posted here twice last night) that they cannot extradite him to any other country without the consent of the UK courts – which is also, apparently, EU law.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:50 am
If the Opposition truly believes it will win the next election on the basis of the “carbon tax” and many other government “failures”, why cannot it compromise on what is genuinely a matter of life or death?
There is obviously no “perfect solution” on asylum seeker issues but as a nation we must at least try to minimise the suffering of all concerned.
When the Coalition finally move into government (whenever that is) they will have a chance to implement their policies and to overturn previous policies. In the meantime Labor is in government and, as such, is expected to take the lead role in seeking solutions.
I would hope that there are genuine behind-the-scenes discussions occurring at this time between all members of Parliament.
by citizen on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:50 am
I agree with BB
Forget what Gillard said in 2010. It is what she does NOW that matters.
If Assange is sent to the US it will become a monumental scandal for the ALP.
Gillard needs to act to avoid that possibility.
A few strong public words to the US like Australia would not stand by idly an allow extradition of an Aussie for a political trial etc would go down well and make the yanks back off .
by daretotread on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:51 am
zoomster
It appears that those who say it is all about principle, are intimating that it only applies to Assange.
by victoria on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:51 am
Speaking of the Greens, if Tony Abbott thinks they are so evil I suppose the Coalition will put them last on the HTV cards, attempting to eliminate Bandt and the election of any other lower house greens MP (such as in Batman, Sydney, Grayndler etc)..
Will he put his so-called “principle” above his desire to cause discomfort to Labor??
by docantk on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:52 am
Thanks for proving my point Fran.
The greens would prefer to live in with the sack-cloth of policy purity, then the silk shirt of having any real influence
by Mick Collins on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:52 am
According to St Julian, everyone is accountable except him.
by victoria on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:52 am
You do know that racists and homophobes talk about special rights to discredit those they hate don’t you?
Sweden interviewed Assange and gave him permission to leave. To question him now flying people to interview him and then arrest him at a London Police Station would have been a lot cheaper than the court action we have seen. It would have made it a lot harder for Assange to pursue court action for as long as he has. Sweden even could have got a judge to sign the extradition order and that would have blown most of his argument out the water. It would have stopped Geoffrey Robertson supporting him. Robertson has supported him on the basis of it not being a judge signing the warrant.
Lots of common sense actions the Swedes could have take to curtail the whole thing.
The fact the Swedes did not makes me ask why?
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:53 am
I know it’s too late now but couldn’t they have organized for Assange to go to the UK embassy in Sweden to be questioned?
by Diogenes on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:54 am
the other option is to let them all in, process them here, let 15% stay and farm the rest out to other countries in the region.
That would require regional cooperation but it could work as it would mean those getting on boats to come here would only have one in 5/6 chance of staying. Bit like a lottery.
by Henry on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:56 am
victoria
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:56 am
guytaur
Has it occurred to you that perhaps Assange does not want to go to Sweden to answer questions, because the allegations will result in charges against him?
by victoria on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:57 am
BW, have you notice many Aboriginese names have Tj or Dj in them, eg: Albert Namatjira
by The Finnigans on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:57 am
OK, let’s try that one again!!
victoria
Interestingly, reading the Swedish Prosecutor General’s site, is the emphasis the Swedish legal system places on face to face contact.
They seem to believe that it’s better for the ‘accused’ than representation through a lawyer –
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/About-us/International-prosecution-operations/Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:57 am
dio
Exactly. Very good point.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:58 am
my say
Sorry to take so long to get back to you but I’ve been out walking the dog. The link is
http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=2477
and I will fwd it to Mr Combet. For some reason I googled Hunt to find the comments and that was the first site that came up. I washed my hands afterwards! Actually I though Benson was quite good in the interview as he didn’t let Hunt waffle on too much. Fran would have rolled over and let him tickle her belly.
Hope your quilting is going well!
by Allan Moyes on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:58 am
Zoomster
I gather that it is common practice for Swedish prosecutors to fly to other countries to interview suspects. While it might be reasonable to require Assange to pay the COST of such travel, I really cannot see why it cannot be arranged.
Now this is where I feel Australia is at fault. A bit of pressure on the Swedes to say – hey let us sort this out would have probably mean that the Swedes would do this. If Australia has ANY diplomatic clout surely this could have been arranged. Suggests that we are regarded as insignificant.
by daretotread on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:58 am
There are two realities in this;
Many innocent people are dead.
Abbot, Morrison, Hanson-Young, Milne, Brown and the rest killed them.
by Ian on Jun 22, 2012 at 9:59 am
victoria.
Yes. However that does not change the questions I am asking. The points I am making are that it would have sped the process up. It would have meant that Assange would now either be on trial in Sweden or if he could convince the President of Ecuador in exile there.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:00 am
Have to go out but I’ll leave you all with this pic from a different continent.
http://grist.org/list/flock-of-5000-ducks-stops-traffic-in-city-of-6-million-people/
by lizzie on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:01 am
MTBW
I was reading some of the ICAC findings against Ric Mochalski. He saw representation of his constituents as a viable business and charged one client/voter 250K for making representation to the water board to get a water supply to a property at Wallachia.
The interesting thing was that ICAC did not see this as necessarily corrupt and there is a long discussion on how this was standard behaviour until the early 20th century – it is now considered improper but isn’t corrupt.
Mochalski died in 2002 at age 50.
by Oakeshott Country on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:04 am
guytaur
Yes, and then they had further questions to ask him and they asked him to come back again.
I take it you have never ever seen a single police show where the police have said to someone “You are free to go” and then called them back later for further questioning?
1. They probably thought, to begin with, that they were taking the cheapest option. One person flying to Sweden being cheaper than several people flying out.
2. by the time they realised otherwise, it was also obvious that Assange was not going to turn up voluntarily anywhere if ‘arrest’ was an option. (He went into hiding, remember?)
As for the rest of your post: different legal systems have different requirements. Sweden’s were obviously fine by the UK courts and – by extension – must also have met the requirements of EU law.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:05 am
The question is not whether it’s apt for some processing to be undertaken off-shore, but whether “off-shore processing” should be used primarily to discourage vulnerable people from seeking asylum. The Greens oppose both offshore and onshore administrative prisons, such as was proposed in the so-called Malaysia “solution”.
There can be little demur that it makes sense to process people seeking asylum wherever they aggregate by the most efficient and effective means possible. Processing should be conducted as close to the ideal time as practicable. If people are aggregating in Indonesia or Malaysia then we absolutely should supply all the resources needed to process people efficiently there. Shipping them there however, or locking them up for indefinite periods of time here however as a deterrent to making claims, is an entirely different matter.
We ought to emphasise that those with bona fide documents will almost certainly be processed more quickly than those without them — not because we are bing punitive but because this makes processing simpler. We ought to ensure that other signatories to the UN convention are willing to recognise our processing and qualification process so that it is not merely Australia participating. Those signatories should be contributing some combination of resettlement places or funds to support resettlement. Where people can fit into non-humanitarian resettlement programs, we ought to be facilitating that too. We could well adopt an approach of combining, where apt, MDGs with humanitarian or other resettlement, offering host communities in developing countries specific assistance with infrastructure as part of a package of resettlement.
There are good alternatives to a purely punitive and xenophobic policy, IMO.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:05 am
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Fortescue-in-legal-challenge-against-MRRT-pd20120622-VGVWJ?OpenDocument&src=hp1
by dave on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:05 am
The Finnigans
Meanwhile on the east coast Bondi may have had sheepens before there were sheep
http://www.dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/maori
by poroti on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:05 am
Good Morning folks!
I refuse to keep going round and round the Mulberry bush over Asylum Seeker policy. From what I have read this morning we have and we will probably not have any significant movement from any of the parties on this issue. However might I remind you that politics is supposed to be the art of compromise, and when I see that the Coalition and the Greens refusing to compromise with the Gillard government on their ‘principles’ when it comes to the boat-borne asylum seeker issue, I can only conclude that they wish only to keep using the issue as a political football to strip votes from the Labor Party from the Left and the Right. If either of them were fair dinkum about finding a solution to this issue they would offer up their votes in the parliament to the government and get around a table with them to nut out a legislatively-possible outcome. Obviously the Independents would also have to play a part. To my eyes the Oakeshott Bill seems about the best compromise possible. And, yes, I realise The Greens will not accede to this option because they might have to do a deal with the bastards they are trying to replace, and, gulp, compromise. Basically, however, I continue to despair that anyone who is leading one of the obstructionist parties on this issue is man or woman enough to put the politicking and trawling for votes aside for long enough to work with the government and the Indies of good will to craft a compromise solution. Standing on pious principle is not a good enough excuse for the Greens any more. The Coalition, on the other hand, are just a pack of opportunistic political pond scum. No enlightenment, or *cough* Christian principles to be displayed as far as they are concerned. No point in wasting time by government trying to get them on side. Which leaves Christine Milne and The Greens in her first real test of leadership, IMHO.
Also, could someone please explain to me why there are still Tamils attempting to come to Australia as refugees from Sri Lanka when I thought that, since the Civil War had ended a few years ago, they were no longer seen by the UNHCR as fleeing persecution in their native land?
by C@tmomma on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:06 am
If the US seriously wants to get their hands on Assange, not sure they actually do because it would probably be a problem they can deal with better in other ways, then the Australian government, Labor or Coalition, are unlikely to make things hard for the US. That’s just the reality of US/Australia relations. There are few places in the world Assange would be safe from the US and he probably doesn’t want to live in many of them long-term.
by davidwh on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:07 am
What would have sped the process up is if Assange had volunatarily flown back to Sweden for questioning.
Oh, and not gone into hiding for a couple of years….
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:08 am
Thanks allan ,
Well have done a top applique william morris
Will start quilting soon,
You may have head of william morriss designer, of fi ne wall papers fabric
In tne 1800
by my say on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:09 am
This is a variation on Abbott’s “Just pick up the phone” theory.
Why should the Australian government intervene in a sexual misconduct case? Your whole premise is that the entire legal and governance systems of Australia, the UK and Sweden are corrupt, and are hiding secret charges against Assange.
Whatever he did, he has a right to consular assistance and must take the consequences of his actions. Saying he should be just let off for spilling his guts like the smartarse he is on thousands of confidential discussions doesn’t sound like the “Champion Of Truth And Justice” figure that Assange likes to make himself out to be.
He’s a scared little boy who’s realised he went too far and now doesn’t want to face the music. It’s ALL about him.
by Bushfire Bill on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:09 am
zoomster
Show where Assange went into hiding. His lawyers were in contact with Sweden and British police saying which police station do you want to interview me at. You are also discounting video link which totally negates your argument about the cost of flying several versus one to a location.
This is because your argument is invalid. This is because the actions of the Swedes here are indeed suspect. As Dio has said they could even have asked for Assange to go to the Swedish Embassy in London.
Many options that could have prevented such court cases that resulted.
The swedes have themselves to blame in a lot of this.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:10 am
Mick Collins said:
Either you are unable to make sense of plain English or you are simply being disingenuous. I spoke not of “purity” but adequacy.
As it seems to be the day for the frivolous, some more Monty Python, from the most famous sketch of them all:
Owner : Sorry guv, we’re fresh out of parrots.
Mr. Praline : I see. I see, I get the picture.
Owner : (quietly) I-I’ve got a slug.
(pause)
Mr. Praline : (sweet as sugar) Does it talk?
Owner : Not really, no.
Mr. Praline : Well, it’s SCARCELY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT then, IS IT?
Mr Praline was for you, a “purist”.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 22, 2012 at 10:11 am