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-
zoomster
You believe in secret trials do you?
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:00 am
Seconded.
by Lynchpin on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:00 am
bread and buttter issues get ignored
For interlectual stuff
Its the bread and buter issues that win elections
by my say on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:00 am
Too much bread and butter is bad for your cholesterol.
by bluegreen on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:03 am
Good luck Twiggy.
s51 (ii) says that imposing taxes, the C’w must not discriminate between states.
The MRRT applies across the nation. Some states will pay more because they mine more.
s91 is really a procedural statement regarding the Constitution itself. It says that “nothing in the Constitution prohibits a State ….. etc etc “. It says nothing about what the C’w can or can’t do.
IMHO Fortescue is pushing sh*t uphill with a pointed stick.
by psyclaw on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:05 am
Guytaur
One of the things that Assange has achieved is enough publicity that illegal rendition is not possible
I have no objection to sexual assault trials being held in camera in a non-adversarial systemand with a judiciary that has a majority of lay people.
by Oakeshott Country on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:07 am
Bring it on, I say. It will allow the Govt to continue to lambast the non tax paying big end of town and also keep the (relatively popular) MRRT in the news.
by Lynchpin on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:08 am
OK, I really had to take a deep breath after guytaur’s post.
Absolutely. He has put his case to the UK courts. He had a brilliant legal team doing so, so every angle will have been covered.
If the UK courts can’t see any valid concerns, I’m in good company.
I’m largely ignorant of the Swedish system of justice. However, before the Assange affair, I was used to reading how terrifically wonderful the Swedish system was, and how progressive their legal system etc were.
I haven’t ever seen, anywhere, to my recollection, any outcries about miscarriages of justice there.
Please enlighten me.
Examples? Of both trials where injustices have occurred, of political exploitation, and of secrecy. If all three are so widespread, this should be a doddle.
Strangely, as I’ve said, before Assange I don’t recall the Swedish system being discussed in these terms.
Bullwhacky.
Rendition is an illegal action. If you believe a country is going to carry out an illegal action, then no amount of that country ruling it out should satisfy you.
What Sweden has done is to say it will abide by EU law and not extradite him to another country without the permission of the UK.
Which is really as far as any country can go.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:09 am
OC
Would you bet your life on publicity stopping a country repeating behaviour it has done in the past. With publicity attached as the UN making reports about such things usually happens after publicity about such things not before.
As for the trials I do have problems with it being in secret. This means justice is not seen to be done. Calling it in camera makes it no less secret.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:10 am
love to see wealthy people waste their money. a fool and his money are quickly parted eh?
by middle man on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:10 am
I know it is probably a rhetorical question, but if legal fees are tax deductible, what disincentive exists for the mega rich using their companies to launch legal actions against government decisions they don’t like?
by Danny Lewis on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:11 am
Didn’t the mining states back off of an HC challenge because it might backfire on them somehow?
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:11 am
OC
Thanks for the info on Mochalski. His seat of Bankstown is next to East Hills which is my State seat. I first came into contact with him at a branch meeting when I joined the ALP way back in 1972.
He was visiting the branch to tout on behalf of MacDonalds which was wanting to open it’s first store in Sydney in Yagoona which was in his electorate. I remember thinking that touting for a private company was not the role of a State MP.
He had an air of the smart ar*e and con artist about him and you got the feeling that he would do anything to advance his own position regardless of propriety.
by MTBW on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:12 am
PS Good Morning, Bludgers!
It’s far too late now for the clarion call, but I’m sure you did it in your heads anyway
by Danny Lewis on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:13 am
Now Barnaby is waffling on about Gillard and Slater & Gordon.
by triton on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:13 am
Oh dear indeed!
by Gecko on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:15 am
zoomster
You are determined to your view and that everyone else is wrong wrong wrong. Just like ABbott in a lot of ways.
I have only said I have concerns about trials in secret. I do think that the Swedish system favours the victim too much. Of course the Swedish system has cases of injustice. So does ours, so does the British, American and in fact every judicial system in the world. Saying they do not is to be naive.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:16 am
In what context? I hear Chrome Dome Brandis was on this morning talking about Milnes pulled article. I wonder why they are at this? Attacking Gillard again, like at the start of the year, digging dirt. What is their strategy?
by Lynchpin on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:16 am
lynchpin. the are trying to smear before they are smeared……. it’s coming and they know it.
by middle man on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:18 am
6437 Lizzie
I wonder if those ducks are trying to tell us something.
by gigi on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:18 am
They keep bringing up Robert McClelland and something he knows. I’m guessing it’s this:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/McClelland-slams-Labor-for-inaction-on-unions-pd20120622-VGSJH?OpenDocument&src=hp8
by triton on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:18 am
Alan Moyes; #6462
AM, if you’re a William Morris fan, find an excuse to visit Adelaide. Unless the display had been removed – and I’d ask our many SA PBers to confirm or refute that – SA’s Adelaide Art Gallery has the best collection I’ve seen in Oz (esp since much of the V&A’s collection has been moved to the reserve collection).
In fact, the same gallery has some wonderful late C19 & early fine & applied art works, inc a stunning Bugatti (furniture, not car – sorry revhead phreaks) and some exquisite little French Impressionists – and some Tudor pieces.
It’s not a well-known collection, and was, last time I saw it (c2003) in need of serious rehanging – as long as that doesn’t mean that most of the collection goes into reserve and only what’s currently “politically & culturally correct” – and able to be interpreted to the dumb public by gallery staff – remains on the walls; a scourge that has severely affected most “modernised” gallery’s collections.
by OzPol Tragic on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:19 am
puff
Yes I remember that. So Barnett and other Premiers will not be thanking Forrest.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:19 am
it’s a case of – I know what you did last summer….
by middle man on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:19 am
guytaur
I thought you said that wasn’t happening? That Assange wasn’t under threat of the death penalty?
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:20 am
@BBCWorld: VIDEO: Explosives found at Sweden nuclear site http://t.co/2498N5wE
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:21 am
Noise to dilute Ashby/Slipper-gate is my guess.
by Gecko on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:21 am
Probably posted, but I like the focus of it:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/time-to-stop-fingerpointing-and-start-being-constructive-20120621-20qyi.html
by Lynchpin on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:23 am
Mick Collins said:
Let’s unpack that:
Like all rational people, the Greens are willing to compromise. All of life entails compromise. Life is an imperfect thing. One does what one reasonably can in the pursuit of a better community.
Yet what should one do when what is presented as “compromise” is acquiesence or participation in something retrograde? I’d say that you ought to resist — to swim against the stream.
That’s just silly. You get to continue complaining that the policy is fundamentally flawed. The claim that you “forfeit your right to complain” is simply a tranparent attempt at cultural bullying.
You may have to appeal to a different audience and use different means to make your complaint, but your rights to dissent are undiminished.
Complaining about some measure as fundamentally flawed very much contributes to meaningful debate, assuming the challenge itself is founded in good reasoning from salient data.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:23 am
zoomster
Wow you really would do Tony Abbott proud.
Yes “would you bet your life” is the right one because the death penalty is on the statute books and while the chance is slim it could be used otherwise it would not be on the statute books.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:24 am
Anyone know when the next Ashby instalment is due?
by Lynchpin on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:24 am
I see Mary Jo Fisher did the hokey-pokey and turned herself in.
by lefty e on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:25 am
guytaur
I think the states will be very unhappy. The squawking by WA about court challenges stopped rather sharpish. Apparently the HC could find that the rights to the minerals belong to the Commonwealth or the states can’t set resource rents or something. Whtever t was the Premiers crawled back under their rocks.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:26 am
@ABCNews24: Watch: Prime Minister @JuliaGillard addressing the media at the @UN_Rioplus20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro http://t.co/AhggUgUN #auspol
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:27 am
Vic told me case resumes 23 July.
by Gecko on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:28 am
guytaur
How is that different from yourself?
At least I can point to evidence. You just make sweeping assertions.
Actually, you’ve only just started saying that, when you’d shifted all the other goalposts you could.
In what way?
As I said, I find this breathtaking from someone on the left. We fought for years for victims of sexual assault to have more rights, because the traditional structures favoured the assailant too much.
If you’re going to blithely dismiss those, I really want to know why.
Absolutely, I don’t deny it. So Assange can never be guaranteed anything. Neither can anyone else accused of any crime.
Do we let everyone walk free, or just Assange?
Or do we acknowledge that all systems of justice have their faults and virtues, but that – by and large – the rule of law should be upheld?
Given the quality of his legal team, the amount of publicity given to his case, the length of time the courts have had to consider it, it seems reasonable to conclude that Assange’s concerns have had more consideration than the average person’s does.
So it’s then quite logical to assume that that level of scrutiny means that the decision to send him to Sweden is a sound one.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:29 am
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gays-face-surrogacy-ban-as-lnp-pushes-civil-union-changes-20120621-20q9j.html
What a bunch of effing c’s. Newman is a piss weak trumped up little bully.
by Lynchpin on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:29 am
The wisdom of His PJK-ness:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-diary/keating-calls-it-as-he-sees-it-20120621-20r2s.html
by lefty e on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:30 am
“…there will be no carbon tax…” Wow. I never heard that before.
by triton on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:30 am
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-22/abbott-praises-gutsy-mary-jo-fisher/4086368
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:31 am
Patronising twat.
If all you’re prepared to do is snipe from the sidelines, without being willing to add anyting substantive, just so you can stand on “principle” then why should anybody take you seriously
by Mick Collins on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:35 am
Lynchpin @ 6536
Newman moving Qld forward… NOT. Well, you certainly get what you vote for don’t you? This guy has got to be a plus for Federal Labor.
by Gecko on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:36 am
There is an article by Mr Paltridge in today’s ‘Financial Review’ which essentially canvasses in broad terms white I would call the dissenting position on AGW science. If I have got Mr Paltridge right, we don’t know enough about climate science to do anything about it.
The tone of the article is reasoned. The structure is well-organised. The language is erudite, measured and reasonably polite.
But, but, but… everything he is critical of supports the AGW position. Everything he quotes with approval does not support the AGW position. Where he could have looked at both sides of the story for all the examples he gives, he does not do so. AGW scientists for example, are criticised for cherry-picking data. Dissenters are not so charged by Mr Paltridge.
Of course, when I saw ‘polite’, he does charge mainstream AGW scientists with fudging their science because that is where the money is; with being intellectually corrupt because they engage in ‘post-modern’ science, with rigging the way the show their results, with corruptly suppressing dissent; and, with failing publicly to rein in climate alarmists. He denigrates peer review while approving the efforts of bloggers such as Mr McIntyre and Ms Curry.
What might have been a useful overview of the context of climate science is, instead, the unbalanced polemic of an AGW dissenter.
ps
I have coined the term ‘dissenter’ because it is, after all, the so-called ‘sceptics’ who have raised the charge that those who support AGW science do so for religious reasons rather than scientific reasons. It takes into account the view that all scientists are sceptics, and not just dissenters. It is also a useful term in face of those who camouflage their dissenting position by way of calling themselves climate science ‘agnostics’.
by Boerwar on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:37 am
zoomster
It is you that keep shifting goalposts. Until you can guarantee that Sweden will not follow past behaviour and do rendition then your whole claims about Assange are nothing.
I have just been pointing out reasons why valid questions are there to be asked. I have tried to avoid making conclusive statements.
I have not said Assange is innocent or guilty on the allegations.
I have not said Sweden will do rendition.
I have not said the US will ask or attempt rendition just that I think it is likely going on past evidence
All along the way you have ignored the claim at the basis of all this.
Political interference. The court cases in the UK have not addressed this. They have just addressed the way the warrant was issued according to EU law.
Under UK law the warrant would not have been valid. Under Australian Law the warrant would not be valid.
I am not saying the claim of political interference is valid. I am saying the claims have not been addressed.
Why was the case dropped?
Why was it taken up again?
Many questions which have not been answered.
Not asked in UK courts as they were not valid to the EU law to be asked.
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:37 am
Those who follow Ms Margot’s writing on prostrate issues might avail themselves of two excellent articles she has written in yesterday’s Fin and also in yesterday a week ago’s Fin. If you are in a situation where you are considering a biopsy, highly, highly recommended.
I am not saying that I necessarily agree with what she writes. But I am saying that she gives a good description of the landscape of options.
by Boerwar on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:37 am
BW – I once shared a house with Mr Paltridges Daughter
by Mick Collins on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:38 am
@SimonBanksHB: Interesting that FMG have not challenged the MRRT under s114 of the Constitution – and this may be why? http://t.co/PieEjMNo
by guytaur on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:40 am
Gecko
I think so. He has already alienated many in the public service. I was talking to a friend of mine who works in the PS and he said one of his senior managers joined the Union yesterday.
It is interesting that Newman seems to be in fear of the LNP room, particularly the right wing conservative Christian lobby. I think he is pretty gutless, really. Some say he is not that smart. I don’t know on that count.
by Lynchpin on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:41 am
Try: Get Gillard before Parliament goes into recess for 6 long weeks, and the Jackson & Ashby scandals get a hellava lot worse for the Liberals/ LNP.
Imo, where Brandis is concerned, factor in resentment of Labor’s powerful women Barristers, whose records are strewn with triumphs and awards (esp AG Nicola Roxon who actually worked in the HCA), as well as labor’s other successful legal eagles, inc at least one who’s a QC.
To that add how destructive the HSU and Ashby scandals are looking – not for the ALP, as he hoped when he weighed into both; but the LNP. Brandis is far from humble about his S.C. status, so blows to his ego probably add to his resentment. In addition, we may not know the extent of his interference in either or both cases.
by OzPol Tragic on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:41 am
Mick Collins continued:
Your text simply affirms my characterisation of your (evidently paradoxical) proposal that dissent should be denied to those who don’t abandon their principles as cultural bullying.
Your text notwithstanding, nobody should take seriously those who enter a discussion other than on a principled and coherent basis. It’s precisely one’s participation in faux compromise that disturbs their claims to be taken seriously.
If putting that position inclines you to reflect on your own want of intellectual or ethical acumen, that’s really your problem rather than mine.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 22, 2012 at 11:42 am