Essential Research: 56-44 to Coalition
This week’s Essential Research shows no real change on voting intention, with the Coalition still leading 56-44 from primary votes of 32% for Labor (down one), 49% for the Coalition (steady) and 10% for the Greens (steady). Also featured are Essential’s monthly personal ratings, which likewise show little shift. Julia Gillard is down a point on both approval and disapproval, to 31% and 57%. Tony Abbott is respectively up one to 36% and down two to 51%, and his lead as preferred prime minister is up from 38-37 to 38-36 (I guess not too many people heard this then). A question on same-sex marriage finds 54% supportive and 33% opposed, respectively steady and down two on a year ago.
Preselection snippets:
• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reports Gary “Angry” Anderson will seek Nationals preselection in Gilmore, the southern New South Wales seat which will be vacated at the election by the retirement of Liberal member Joanna Gash.
• In the neighbouring seat of Hume, where Liberal member Alby Schultz is retiring, Coorey further reports that state upper house MP Niall Blair is a further possibility as Nationals candidate, together with presumed front-runners Senator Fiona Nash and state government minister Katrina Hodgkinson. Leslie White of the Weekly Times recently reported both Nationals and Liberal internal polling had the Liberals ahead in the seat, but the Nationals remained confident they could win with Nash or Hodgkinson running.
• The Australian reports Matt Adamson, former Canberra, Penrith and national rugby league player, has been sounded out by the Liberals to run against Rob Oakeshott in Lyne. The Nationals have already endorsed David Gillespie, a local doctor who was best man at Tony Abbott’s wedding.
• The Victorian ALP has taken care of a whole bunch of preselection business, re-endorsing all sitting members and confirming Slater & Gordon lawyer Andrew Giles to succeed Harry Jenkins in Scullin, and United Voice official Lisa Chesters to succeed Steve Gibbons in Bendigo. The preselection for Melbourne will be held on August 26, with 2010 candidate Cath Bowtell considered the front-runner but Harvey Stern, president of Labor for Refugees Victoria, is also in the field.
• John Hogg, Queensland Labor Senator since 1996 and the chamber’s current President, has announced he will not re-contest the next election. Michael McKenna of The Australian reports Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union state secretary Chris Ketter is “among the frontrunners” to replace him as a Labor Senate candidate – remembering that Labor won three Senate seats in Queensland in 2007, and the party fears it may only win one next year.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
LOL @ Fake Alexander Downer:
by Danny Lewis on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:06 pm
If our next GG is anyone other than Angus Houston I’d be very surprised.
by Psephos on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:07 pm
DL
LOL!
by victoria on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Psephos, I agree he would be in the short list. Along with Bruce Springsteen.
by Lynchpin on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Michael Kirby is not in the running?
by Jackol on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:10 pm
The Ecudorian government lives free speech!
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/21/ecuador-blow-free-speech
by ShowsOn on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:11 pm
I believe Mr Springsteen was born in the USA.
by Psephos on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Psephos,
Australia only requires to to be a citizen, not born here, no?
by Space Kidette on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:12 pm
*rolls eyes*
by Psephos on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm
True, but could we make him an honorary Aussie for 5 years?
by Lynchpin on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm
If afforded the opportunity to vote for GG, I would vote 1 Houston.
by Boerwar on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm
SK – Yep, everyone who touches him comes away scarred but he’s managed to con a few now. Poor old Ecuador – I wonder what baloney he fed them.
by BH on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Absolutely top choice. Hope that’s a goer.
by BH on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm
What about Sir Gerard Brennan for GG?
by Lynchpin on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Tony Windsor for GG!!!
by Danny Lewis on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Slipper allowed to change Ashby allegation
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/slipper-allowed-to-change-ashby-allegation-20120817-24cnq.html
My understanding of this is that the matter will now be dealt with when the proceedings reconvene.
I expect Mr Slipper will be back in the chair around mid October
by spur212 on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Ms Assange http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/ecuador.htm#notices
by Boerwar on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Others have summed you up well, long before now
and
by dave on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Thank you, Victoria.
by dave on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:21 pm
sprocket & triton
I thought Milne displayed far more maturity than SHY in yesterdays senate questioning of Lundy while both predictably concentrated their attack around protections rather than the disastrous deaths by drowning.
SHY’s deliberate & theatrical pausing mid sentence for dramatic effect and her outraged demeanor didn’t come across well as far as I was concerned.
Lundys demeanor was controlled, respectful & professional and should serve as a lesson to young SHY in how to respectfully communicate.
by Rex Douglas on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Good to see Gordon Brown working for the UN in East Timor.
by C@tmomma on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:23 pm
More on Slipper matter: http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/slipper-allowed-to-change-ashby-allegation-20120817-24cnq.html
Truthiness Geek @geeksrulz
Justice Rares ordered Ashby team to hand over notes taken by clinical psychologist by close of business today http://tinyurl.com/8jchx6b
by Space Kidette on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm
dave
No problemo
by victoria on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Mr Slipper has withdrawn the Ashby allegation. This enables Mr Ashby’s allegations to be dealt with expeditiously. However, does it remain open for the Government, as employer, at a later date to allege that Mr Ashby has breached the law?
by Boerwar on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm
He can’t go to Ecuador unless the UK allows him to leave. If he’s granted asylum he’ll stay in the Embassy for life, or rather until there’s a change of government in Ecuador. Ecuador has had eight presidents since 1996 so that’s probably not very far away.
by Psephos on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:24 pm
sk
I want to make this crystal clear to you. I am not defending Mr Assange and the allegations against him.
What I am saying is a crystal clear fact we now have. We know Sweden could have taken action to have Mr Assange on trial. How?
The statement of the FM of Ecuador of what Ecuador wanted to satisfy itself that Assange was not under poltical persecution.
The fact is Sweden failed to do this. Therefore the years and years of waiting without justice for the alleged victims are going to be the fault of Sweden for not answering Ecuadors questions.
Note that is not ignoring legalities etc. That is just recognising a reality of the last two months since Assange made his claim and Ecuador has been negotiating to see if it was going to grant political asylum or not.
I think Ecuador has not been conned because of what the British Government has done.
That alone by itself is just extraordinary. I do not know of a case where Britain has done this before. So ask yourself why? Why is the UK willing to throw out 300 years of legal tradition? Why is the UK willing to put its diplomats around the world at risk for this one man?
These questions actually give more credence to the validity of Assange claims of a witch hunt not less. I along with many many around the world are gobsmacked by these British moves.
by guytaur on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:25 pm
C@tmomma
I do hope that Mr Brown doesn’t leave Timor with the same thing he left England: a brand new air craft carrier tied to the wharf doing nada.
by Boerwar on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Guytaur,
Again you are assuming. Best you don’t do that because all your arguments beyond that simple matter are based on nothing.
by Space Kidette on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:27 pm
SkyNews predictably cheering on the Ashby team claiming a BIG WIN on court costs
by Rex Douglas on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Rex Douglas,
Methinks it might be a tactical retreat in order to win the war.
by Space Kidette on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Boerwar,
Xanana is smarter than that.
by C@tmomma on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:29 pm
sk
I am assuming nothing. The statement by the FM of Ecuador were crystal clear. Intentionally so. Go watch again. You will see. Ecuador asked Sweden said no.
It is that crystal clear and black and white. That is no assumption.
by guytaur on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:30 pm
g
IMHO, Mr Assange is not a witch.
by Boerwar on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:31 pm
guytaur
Well, Assange was quite prepared to do so by publishing the diplomatic cables. Why so surprised that the UK might retaliate in kind?
by ajm on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm
@delimiterau: How far should Australia go for Julian Assange?: http://t.co/EdAaV0Ga
by guytaur on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Guytaur carefully ignored my post at 6173, but since he’s repeating his/her own inanities, I’ll repeat some of mine:
by Jackol on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Re Abbott v Turnbull.
I would happly support Turnbull if he chalaged and won the leadership. Though I would miss Abbott because he gets Team Left so worked up into a Frenzy. The left are alway the best haters lol… Half of you even hate the ex Labor Pm who deliverd you Government
by rummel on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Here is an image of all the cystal clarity surrounding Mr Assange’s circumstances:
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mineralminers.com/html/smqp142.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mineralminers.com/html/smqpolx.stm&h=360&w=480&sz=9&tbnid=0Z-WmbmjBsb5YM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__5gGTM4Jnss5rZq2nAgrFFv3yJXc=&docid=bSbxA86Ic64gAM&sa=X&ei=Ja0tUKWWOIaPiAfms4HQCQ&ved=0CFQQ9QEwAA&dur=2918
by Boerwar on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Very much so. As usual the media missing the big picture.
by ratsak on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:33 pm
guytaur,
You read into those statements what you want to read as did the Ecuadorian. There is no explanation from the Swedes. NONE. NADA. ZILCH. So your theory is just that – theory.
by Space Kidette on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:33 pm
ajm
very funny. Does not explain UK over this regarding embassies and recognised rules regarding diplomats.
They made a mistake they are now trying to back down from. However the question is why did they make the mistake? What pressure is there that the Brits went to such extraordinary lengths?
by guytaur on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:34 pm
And a fan of Rupert Murdoch.
by rishane on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:34 pm
bw
Good to see some humour
by guytaur on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:35 pm
It would appear that Mr Assange is using international law to bypass British law in order to circumvent Swedish law……the legal eagles would be just about ready to pounce.
by Ian on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:36 pm
If Sweden were to guarantee not to extradite JA to any country not also agreeing not to extradite him to the US or permit his rendition to the US, this matter ought to be capable of being cleared up pretty quickly. Their disinclination to do so suggests they aren’t being above board with this.
Right now there’s a conservative regime in power in Sweden. Maybe that’s the timeline Assange is working with.
PS: on the subject matter of the charges that ultimately Sweden might come to lay against Assange, I believe those of us who have not carefully examined the brief of evidence so far held by Sweden and considered it both in relation to Swedish Law and process ought to be commenting on how strong/weak the case is. Inevitably, the temptation will be to map one’s own sympathies towards Assange onto the conclusion one draws. One could simply say I hope he gets off/is convicted because I admire/despise him and have done with it. I don’t see how that helps advance anything.
Yes, r@pe is a terrible thing. Those reasonably suspected of being guilty of it (including people we might otherwise admire) should be prosecuted and if found guilty in a fair process, sanctioned according to the law of the land. I admit — I’m sceptical because of the context, but in the end, I simply don’t know what to make of the charges.
Is Assange a narcissist or glory hog or attention seeker? I’m not sure, but arguably so — but even if he is, that’s surely beside the point. There ought not be involuntary rendition merely for being personally unlikeable in the eyes of some and having embarrassed the Americans by publicly releasing information to which even privates in the military and low level government officials had access and which was in the public interest to know.
by Fran Barlow on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:36 pm
I though Kate Lundy performed well, I sense that this isn’t her area of expertise but handled Milne & SHY well. Lundy to her credit kept her cool.
Wonder what worst, spending four hours listening to Milne & SHY or spending two weeks hearing our good Team GB is.
by mexicanbeemer on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Rex Douglas
I think their position is that people are better off risking the journey than staying where they are. I think it’s a defensible argument because 96% get here safely and it’s up to asylum seekers to weigh up the stay vs. go risk and they take responsibility for their actions. It’s paternalistic of the government to stop other people making their own decisions because it’s for their own good. (That’s just how I would defend the position; the Greens might have different reasons).
by triton on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm
sk
No you are saying what you want to believe. Ecuador asked for a yes got a no. Explanations etc are beside the point as it is what the Ecuadorians were asking that matters if they were not to grant Asylum.
This is where you fail to understand. The onus was on Sweden to prevent such a decision given the chance to do so. They did not. They could have chosen to do so.
Therefore that failure to say yes to Ecuador is indeed the fault of Sweden and you cannot change this simple fact.
by guytaur on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm
r
The Liberals were right when they sacked Mr Turnbull. He was not a team player. He failed to bring his team along with him on the most momentous piece of policy development in a century.
There is little doubt that sooner or later the saner heads in the Coalition are going to top Mr Abbott, politically. But, for whom? Mr Robb has all the charisma a planarian. Mr Hockey’s leadership style of tweeting his followers for some policy options. Ms Bishop is a serial incompetent. Mr Dutton is a combination policy slackarse and political smartarse. Mr Pyne has all the leadership characteristics of the tail-end of a leopard slug. Ms Mirabella would probably put recalcitrants in the garden shed. Mr Hunt has the brains, the work ethic, and the ability to work a team. But he has somewhat compromised himself on the biggest policy issue of the century. Mr Ruddock is past it.
by Boerwar on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Ye gods. So that’s your explanation as to why it’s ok to get out of a legal extradition?
by Jackol on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm