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-
@MTBW/7145
Did Rudd put pressure on WA Premier ? if not, that means a walk away.
by zoidlord on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Mick
I feel for Bradley Manning as well!
by MTBW on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Looks like you guys can rant about assange for months
President of ecuador says assange can stay at the embassy as long as he likes,but given asylum could take months,
Shrug
by Schnappi on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:21 pm
I AGREE! COMPLETE COCKYSHIT!
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY!
Oh, except for the fact how much someone wins by in a leadership ballot doesn’t really matter, it depends on how well they perform after that ballot.
by ShowsOn on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:22 pm
If she has a “Illness” why is she staying on till August ? All these Liberals are the same.
by Lord Barry Bonkton on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:22 pm
He took classified info out of military computers.
Not exactly the smartest thing to do.
by ShowsOn on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:23 pm
You won’t have long to wait, thanks to our wonderful PM….the gift that keeps on giving!
by Mod Lib on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Dave
My memory as well!
by MTBW on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Boer
‘Whistleblowing’ isn’t a blanket cover for acts of that nature. You’d have to fairly strongly demonstrate that you had just cause. And what that would mean would be that the law would be waived in your case, not that one hadn’t been broken.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Some articles from the time -
by dave on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm
ML
#fakeAbbott#
Great work, ML. Whatever you do, try to make sure the punters do not, DO NOT, concentrate on what I might be like as prime mnister. We don’t want to frighten them shitless, do we?
Vision statement: Suck up to the very rich; whack the ordinary Joe; root the environment.
by Boerwar on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Z
Have you seen the ‘collateral murder’ video?
by Boerwar on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Manning hacked US military/ security documentation and got caught.
Bad luck.
Do the crime do the time.
by Doyley on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm
I cant make it either but passing bb addy on will be no probs
by Joe6pack on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Z
It may not be illegal. It would be up to the court to decide.
She said posting the stuff was illegal. She was wRONg.
by Diogenes on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Boerwar:
You would make an interesting PM….and would certainly increase the volume of my travelogue.
by Mod Lib on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Bemused
This is my point.
Most of the people who put Assange on some sort of pedastal are strangely silent on Bradley Manning, yet he is the one who seems to be paying the ultimate price, even though he was seemingly duped into doing what he did.
Those with memories will remeber that Assange, as well as a couple of other kids was accused and faced court of Haking into the CIA and NASA.
My Mother was a good friend of the Father of one of his co-accused. Even back then he was considered a narcissistic idiot.
by Mick Collins on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Ferguson and Swan negotiated the MRRT.
by Doyley on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:28 pm
bemused
Fourty years ago half the PBers would no doubt be baying for the blood of Daniel Elsberg.For those people ,watch Collateral Murder and ask who are the real criminals……hint those that started the war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
by poroti on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:28 pm
CanDo will probably bring in the Shooters/Fishers party to help with the cull of 20,000 PS. Who can sack more PS competition in all LNP States, coming to another state near you.
by Lord Barry Bonkton on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Manning may get off. He might say he was acting in the public interest. They might decide the act wasn’t illegal.
That’s why we have judges rather than politicians and bloggers to decide what is illegal.
by Diogenes on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Well I think that is a case of whistle blowing because there was a specific issue / event that the video leak concerned.
I think a distinction should be made between that video and the indiscriminate leaking of thousands of diplomatic cables without using those documents to uncover information about a particular issue.
Many of those documents didn’t even have the names of informers redacted, which effectively placed innocent people in danger. Oh well, I guess Assange wouldn’t consider them “innocent” because they spoke to U.S. diplomats or, SHOCK HORROR, the C.I.A.
Oh and the Collateral Murder video shows is actually open to debate.
by ShowsOn on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Schnappi
i read about some Hungarian priest who after the 1956 uprising sought refuge in the US legate (?) he ended up living in the basement for 15 years !!
by poroti on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Boer
Not arguing that that shouldn’t have been released, and indeed would argue that the ‘just cause’ would cover it.
What I’m saying is that ‘just cause’ and similar protections are defences; they don’t mean a criminal act hasn’t been commited, but that the charge is waived because of circumstances.
If you speed because you’re taking someone to hospital, you’ve broken a law. It is highly unlikely that you’d be prosecuted, because of the circumstances. It doesn’t mean you didn’t break the law to start with.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Dio:
You are a really slow learner…. innocent until proven guilty needs to be adjusted for political benefit.
If it helps the ALP, innocent until proven guilty
If it helps the ALP to make it guilty until proven innocent, then we go with that version
by Mod Lib on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:34 pm
ShowsOn
Yeah just like the climate change “debate”.
by poroti on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:35 pm
I Called Scorps today to wish the Canberra enclave all the best for their soireee this evening.
Scorps loved Emo’s performance in QT and Sloppy’s MPI.
by BK on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Doyley
My recollection as well and Ferguson was not a happy camper from memory.
by MTBW on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:35 pm
It is very hard to argue that what you did was in the public interest when you just indiscriminatntly leaked thousands of classified documents.
If you leaked some documents in order to demonstrate illegal conduct of some sort related to a particular issue, then you could argue public interest concerning that issue. But what he is accused of doing is taking hundreds of thousands of documents related the afghanistan war and removing them using a USB key. It is highly doubtful he had even read what he was stealing before stealing it.
by ShowsOn on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:36 pm
LBB
#fakeAbbott# says,
Love it! Lateral thinking. Process can go and get f*cked. Think it, do it, I always say, do. Um whatever.
Anyway, what we are going to do is drop 20,000 public servants in the middle of national parks. Naturally, being what they are, they will be bloody hopeless out in the bus. Anyway, what we do is we let the shooters and fishers in with instructions to shoot anything that moves because it just has to be feral. Mate! Would you like a job?
Have to think of a name. Um, how about, ‘Civic Voluntary Feral Animal Reduction Program’?
by Boerwar on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:36 pm
lizzie
Sorting all that out is why we have trials. They do two things: work out whether a crime has been committed and work out whether someone was guilty of committing the crime.
Ms Gillard did not need all that trial messy stuff.
by Boerwar on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:38 pm
dave
Thanks for the links above I had a brief flick through them and remember Twiggy making the comments he did at the time where he thought they had a deal then the change of leadership happened.
I have to go but will read them all tomorrow.
by MTBW on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Diog
OK. So my starting point was that the PM did not find Julian Assange guilty of anything. You now agree with that. Good.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Manning did not hack “specific” confidential information relating to a specific act or incident.
He grabbed what he could irrespective of the security implications or “need to know ” value.
He was not on a mission from god to right a particular wrong or wrongs but simply to access as much information as he could and have it released without any regard to the implications.
Nothing at all to do with being a whistle blower.
He was not after anything specific just getting what he could. Big difference.
The big question is whether Assange encouraged him or not. Did Manning hack and then look for someone to publish or did Assagne say he would publish if Manning hacked ?
by Doyley on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:39 pm
poroti
There are none so blind as they who will not see.
by MTBW on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:40 pm
….and what Shows said.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:41 pm
She accused him of doing something “illegal”. That’s not an allegation that any politician should throw around lightly, let alone a PM.
by ShowsOn on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Battle lines being drawn?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-22/police-reject-mary-jo-fisher/4087378
by BK on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Doyley, thats the 64 K question
by Mick Collins on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:42 pm
An MP can be asked questions about their probity or how they managed their finances in a previous job or their relationships/financial interests etc etc etc
Its not about being innocent or guilty its holding MPs to a higher level of accountability than you or I, and I fully support it.
Thomson has been alleged to have conducted himself inappropriately in over 150 separate accounts according to a statutory authority, which forwarded these findings (albeit incompetently) to facilitate prosecution.
The problem here is that it took too long, and even when it was finished, the job was incompetent.
FWA: epic fail.
by Mod Lib on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Shows
correction. She accused Wikileaks of doing something illegal.
You can accuse an organisation of doing something wrong and not be saying anything about any individual within it.
by zoomster on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:44 pm
ShowsOn @ 7180
They certainly did!
There was a bunch of armed and dangerous psychopathic killers hovering above in a helicopter.
A case of shoot first and ask questions later.
by bemused on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:48 pm
#fakeAbbott#
It is disgusting the way that the police have persecuted Mary Jo Fisher when she assaulted that guilty-as-hell security guard. What was that thug up to? The idiot probably thought he was trying to stop a theft. Charges dropped on the latter, of course.
God knows what the police will do to her the second time round. Anyway she has done the noble thing, the thing with integrity, and the good thing by resigning.
Unlike that union thug fraud person brothel-creeping Thomson and that serial cab charge fraudster and gay sexual harrasser Slipper.
Get it? Heh, heh. I just love this LOTO job. Sooooo easy. Can’t wait to be the PMOA instead of the LOTO.
Vision statement: Suck up to the very rich; whack the ordinary Joe; root the environment.
ps: Did you lIke the way I got Mattius to suck up to Twiggy today? Get it?
by Boerwar on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:49 pm
shows #7178, have to agree with you on this one.
Leaking of the collateral murder video would be highly likely to be protected by a number of defences under Australian law if done here. “There is no confidence in iniquity” is the maxim in equity law so far as confidential information goes, and similar protections are usually either expressed in or implied into criminal provisions. And I think the same principles apply in US law.
And for those in doubt on the matter (eg Lizzie), for clarification, if there is a defence made out then nothing illegal has happened, thats what a defence is.
Indiscriminate leaking, however is highly unlikely to have such defences available – and nor should it when it exposes real live people to risk or actuality of death.
Please, no one misinterpret this as a general endorsement of Shows On’s posts !
by Marrickville Mauler on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Hmmmm I think the scissors are out.
by bemused on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Well actually the Opposition tried to have Thomson suspended from serving in the House of representatives for 2 weeks. How does THAT make any sense. It would be a bad day for democracy in Australia if the House of Representatives simply voted to strip an MP of their right to vote for things that happened before they were even serving in the House of Reps!
WHELL SMURFING GREAT! But you still haven’t pointed out that the Opposition was wrong for saying that Thomson should be SUSPENDED FROM SERVING IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES even though he hasn’t be charged, let along found guilty of anything!
This doesn’t explain why he shouldn’t be allowed to vote in parliament, which is what the Opposition called for, simply because it suited the Opposition’s political objectives.
This doesn’t explain why the Opposition is making any sense when it says Thomson shouldn’t be allowed to vote in parliament.
You forgot to criticise the opposition for finding Thomson guilty before he has been charged with anything.
by ShowsOn on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:52 pm
That really isn’t worth remarking on, Bemused, and I do wish you wouldn’t.
by William Bowe on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:55 pm
There seems to be evidence, yet to be tested, that Assange was aiding Manning in accessing the data. IM on the intertubes gets tracked.
by ruawake on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:58 pm
William @ 7196
Hi William.
My main concern is that it throws out the numbers used to refer to previous posts. Even worse when that post has disappeared after being referred to.
by bemused on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Has Mr Manning been convicted of leaking huge numbers of documents indiscriminately?
I hadn’t realized.
by Boerwar on Jun 22, 2012 at 7:59 pm