Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Federal Politics 2013-

Mar 24, 2014

User login status :

Share

GhostWhoVotes relates that the latest Newspoll has Labor leading 52-48, up from 51-49 last fortnight. Labor is up a point on the primary vote to 36%, and the Coalition down one to 40%. More to follow. UPDATE: The Australian report relates that Bill Shorten’s approval rating is up three points to 36%, which is the first time a poll has moved in his favour in quite a while. UPDATE 2: Full tables here; to fill in the blanks, Shorten’s disapproval is steady at 43%, Tony Abbott is up two on approval to 40% and steady on disapproval at 50%, and Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister nudges from 42-36 to 43-36.

Today’s Morgan result, combining its regular face-to-face and SMS polling from the last two weekends, was the Coalition’s worst since the election, recording a 1.5% shift on the primary vote from the Coalition (to 38%) to Labor (38.5%), with the Greens down a point to 11% and Palmer United up half a point to 4.5%. On 2013 election preferences, this gives Labor a 53.5-46.5 lead, up from 52.5-47.5 a fortnight ago, while on respondent-allocated preferences the shift is from 53.5-46.5 to 54.5-45.5. Morgan has also been in the business lately of providing selective state-level two-party results, which are presumably based on respondent-allocated preferences. From this poll we are told Labor had unlikely leads of 56.5-43.5 in Queensland and 52-48 in Western Australia, together with leads of 54.5-45.5 in New South Wales and 55-45 in Victoria, and an unspecified “narrow” lead in South Australia.

UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research has Labor back up a point on the primary vote after it fell two last week, now at 37%, with the Coalition up one for a second week. The Greens and Palmer United are at 9% and 4%, with others down a point and the other loose point coming off rounding. Respondents were quizzed about the attributes of the major parties, which provides good news for Labor in that “divided” is down 14% to 58%, and “clear about what they stand for” is up 8% to 42%. Those are also the biggest movers for the Liberals, respectively down 6% and up 7%, although they are still performing better than Labor on each at 50% and 32%. The worst differential for Labor is still “divided”, at 26% in favour of the Liberals, while for the Liberals it’s “too close to the big corporate and financial interests”, which is at 62% for Liberal and 34% for Labor.

A question reading “as far as you know, do you think taxes in Australia are higher or lower than in other developed countries” turns up the fascinating finding that 64% of respondents believed they were higher versus only 8% for lower, while 65% believed taxes to have increased over the last five years versus 9% for decreased. Forty-seven per cent believe the current level of taxation is enough versus 33% who believe they will need to increase. The poll also finds 50% opposed to following New Zealand’s example in holding a referendum on changing the flag versus only 31% supportive.

William Bowe — Editor of The Poll Bludger

William Bowe

Editor of The Poll Bludger

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, is one of the most heavily trafficked forums for online discussion of Australian politics, and joined the Crikey stable in 2008.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from William Bowe

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

1384 comments

1,384 thoughts on “Newspoll: 52-48 to Labor

  1. Rossmore

    Dame Everything

    Now we are getting there:

    “If Bolt can be nabbed for saying that some white people are claiming Aboriginality to achieve a financial gain…”

    That was in fact Bolt’s claim and his defence was ‘truth’.

    The Federal Court convincingly showed the problem with that claim. These weren’t ‘white’ people claiming their Aboriginality. These were ordinary citizens, going about about their daily work, who happened to be Aboriginal, who were denigrated by Bolt as falsely claiming to be Aboriginal.”

    Do you get the point or is that totally beyond you?

  2. cud chewer

    [Are reporters allowed to get things wrong- I think they should be.]

    Should they victimise specific individuals in the way Andrew Bolt did? And why shouldn’t they get wrapped over the knuckles? Because that seems to be the only punishment he got.

    If you’re in the media you have responsibility. Bolt abrogated his. We’re not talking about jail time here, or being forced to retire. All he suffered was what?

  3. imacca

    [ Do you understand the concept of opinion, don’t you? ]

    I suspect that is understood. And when that opinion is ignorant and uniformed people have the right to tell you so. Apparently, now, even if that makes them bigots??

    Why do you insist on repeatedly impaling yourself on your own devotion to Turnbull’s crap on this matter Mod??

  4. Jackol

    Are reporters allowed to get things wrong- I think they should be.

    You miss the point again. It was not that Bolt was simply wrong (in fact he was grossly wrong in at least one instance), but that he didn’t even try to get it right.

    Anyone (everyone!) can be wrong, and that is indeed covered by the good faith defence – but you don’t get covered if you’re lazily oblivious to even trying to get it right.

    The correct response is to criticise and correct.

    And the point here is that someone with a widely read column in a newspaper has a hell of a lot more “clout” in terms of being able to shout louder than anyone else – the whole playing field is not level, it’s not just a matter of “criticize and correct” – how do you “criticize and correct” Andrew Bolt in full (factually incorrect) flight in a way that provides any meaningful protection for anyone?

  5. davidwh

    It seems to me that Bolte got pinged because he named specific people rather than make a general observation. Am I wrong?

  6. bemused

    Everything@1218

    The reason 18C is hailed is precisely BECAUSE it nabbed Bolt.

    Had 18C nabbed a liberal or Green or any generic lefty, there would be riots on this blog about the government mind police trying to tell us what we are allowed to say.

    The point is not that Bolt is good, or right, or that what he was saying about “white Aborigines” is correct (it most definitely is NOT correct).

    The point is that he should be criticised for the comment and it should be refuted in open debate. It shouldn’t be prohibited by a judge.

    I have no problem with Paulin Hanson saying that we are being overrun by Muslims. I will just number all the boxes below the line to put her last.

    The way 18C is written a politician couldn’t argue against Shariah law in a TownHall if one of the candidates was spruiking it.

    You are a prisoner of your own delusions.

    18C is right in principle as, as far as I am aware, all ethnic and religious communities agree.

  7. cud chewer

    [I suspect that is understood. And when that opinion is ignorant and uniformed people have the right to tell you so.]

    Its certainly ignorant and ill informed on the NBN. I’ve told him a dozen times

    FTTN is temporary
    FTTN will have to be replaced with FTTH in a few years.
    This will cost more than simply building FTTH now.

    Yet, his entire argument seems to be “I dont’ want to spend more money than I have to”. He continues to be oblivious to the fact that is precisely what Turnbull is doing.. wasting money needlessly.

  8. imacca

    [ Why should you not be allowed to be wrong? ]

    Did Bolt apologize and admit he was wrong before he was taken to court??

    [ Are reporters allowed to get things wrong- ]

    Yup, of course they are. Bolt however is not a reporter, or even a journalist. He is a professional commentator and writer of inflammatory opinion pieces. And he got busted for being a dic#h^!d. 🙂

  9. Everything

    cud chewer:

    Yes, I have read your repeated posts saying FTTN is temporary and FTTH is better.

    That is not the point. The point is a question of cost. We should not be borrowing bucket loads of money to do the gold plated thing in this economic environment.

    I support Turnbull doing whatever is the cheapest option which does not put us in breach of existing contracts and previous commitments.

    I have no problems with a Fibre network which terminates in a copper wire giving fast speeds, just not astronomical speeds.

    You don’t.

    I get it. We disagree. That is called a difference of opinion. You seem to struggle with my right to hold a different view to you. Apparenty, I need to bow down to your wisdom and do what I am told. Unfortunately for you, the Liberal Party won the election.

    Get out and door knock and maybe Shorten and shorten the obvious pain you are suffering.

  10. Diogenes

    Do we need a law to point out that what Bolt said was offensive, willfully incorrect and hurtful to people?

    Isn’t almost everything he writes like that?

    Lots of people have similar comments made about them (car salesman, Collingwood supporters, Real Madrid fans) but its not illegal.

  11. Jackol

    davidwh –

    It seems to me that Bolte got pinged because he named specific people rather than make a general observation. Am I wrong?

    I’d say (in my uninformed unlawyerly opinion) that’s probably a reasonable summary. He made his case by describing specific details of a set of people he lumped together based on race. Probably if he’d left it abstract it would have been not subject to the attacks that he was factually incorrect because it wouldn’t have been as concrete a thing to prove/disprove.

    I think it’s telling that pretty much everyone involved in the “Bolt case” acknowledged (as Brandis did tonight) that the complainants could have used defamation law. They knew this at the time, and could well have succeeded on the same grounds. They chose (and I believe this was reported on at the time) to use 18C rather than defamation law to make a point, and that they were primarily seeking an apology rather than damages.

    If they had used defamation law and won (as seems likely) seems to pass without comment – the end result would have been basically the same, except maybe Bolt would have been a little bit more out of pocket, but somehow this wouldn’t have been an assault on free speech or whatever it is that Brandis and co are so worked up about.

  12. deblonay

    “redirect all energy supplies ..and do without Russia…..Post 1275
    Even allowing for the late hour I have no idea what this means(are you on the booze again??)

    The Russian gas supplies to much of Europe come via a vast network of pipelines(also to Turkey,which is almost totally dependent on Russian gas)

    How on earth can the system be “redirected” whatever that means..and how to”do without Russia’…which just happens to be the world greatest gas producer now…as someone said..it’s the Saudi Arabia of gas
    Facts are stubbon things as they say

    In the USA there is now a law aganbst the export of ANY natural gas from the USA.and before any US gas could go to any Eropean country that would have to be repealed by Congress..and is unlikely to be
    Almst 1/2 of German gas is Russian and some nations are even more dependent
    Your statements are igniorant and so silly as to be unworthy of comment,but they put out such faalse hopes that they must be challenged

    Even if there were alternatives sources of gas( from where ???) they woulkd take yhears to rig-up
    The lkargest non-European gas sourses in the region are from Iran,whjich is oin the early stages of gas production,,and is anyway uynder the US gun and closely linked to the Russian ,some of whomse oil flow to the Persian Gulf on Iranian pilelines…are you aware iof any of theis ?

  13. imacca

    [ It seems to me that Bolte got pinged because he named specific people rather than make a general observation. Am I wrong? ]

    I suspect he would have still been pinged, but would have had a more credible, general defense had he now been so obviously wrong in his assertions about specific people. And would anyone have bothered getting him into court if his abuse had been more general??

  14. briefly

    [1281
    Everything
    ….

    I don’t support the law enforcing someone to stop making a political view public, just because it is “wrong”.]

    This is totally misleading. There is no law that would prevent a person from holding a mistaken view. The law is not about views. It framed to protect individuals from the acts of others. It is about curtailing certain inter-personal acts and provides exemptions that protect freedom of expression.

  15. Acerbic Conehead

    Frodo Baggins,

    [(Tony Abbott) is for stopping the election after the election.]

    Are you saying Tones is taking this knights and dames bizzo a stage further by planning to introduce an absolute monarchy as well?

  16. zoomster

    kezza

    [I don’t think we’re going to agree; you may be right, I may be biased,]

    I didn’t say you were. You said I was.

    [And I don’t think I’m foolish enough to hear what I want to hear.]

    I’ve quoted Gillard’s own words to you. They show that she hasn’t said what you said she said.

    [I have grown up, over the years, although I must admit I’m not as good at the put-down as you are, it’s rather a speciality of yours, isn’t it.]

    The second part of your sentence contradicts the first.

    I can’t see where I’ve put you down. I can see where you’ve made gratuitous assumptions about me, and failed to acknowledge – let alone apologise – when I’ve tried to explain that I didn’t hold the position/s you said I did.

  17. zoidlord

    @Mod Lib/1293

    We have argued on cost, and you still ignore, so it’s not about cost.

  18. Everything

    Its not whether Bolt was wrong and he should just apologise.

    I want to defend Bolt’s right to be wrong and think he is right.

    Whatever happened to “I vehemently disagree with you, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it”?

    By nabbing Bolt, you have the racists and xenophobes talking about how the government is out to get them. Nobody is going to change their minds.

    By highlighting where Bolt is wrong, while allowing him to be wrong, you might actually convince people about the facts and arrive at something constructive. Hell, even Bolt might concede that he overstretched (Nah….probably doesn’t have the character).

    I guess it is a philosophical position. I think he has every right to think the wrong thing, to say the wrong thing, to think that what he is saying is right, even if it isn’t and I think the correct response is to not read him, not watch him and argue against him….I just don’t think it is right to nab him in court.

  19. geoffrey

    deblonay

    talk about domestic issues and tea party – you make sense

    on east europe your feet are in quagmire – you will not criticise russia and rationalise conquest … you wait panting for fall of ukraine which will not happen and which would have happened but for american intervention

    on europe i will not accept your facts, memories, grammatarian officiousness, ideology, history, sentimentality, warmonging or anti democratic disloyalty to the true solidarity of the political underclass who will bring in the true russian revolution – take your arguments to the germans who know all about living room you jerk

  20. cud chewer

    [The point is a question of cost.]

    And AGAIN Mod Lib, if the question is one of cost, then the more costly thing to do is to build a temporary network and then replace it. Either deal with that fact logically, or make yourself look a complete twat.

    [We should not be borrowing bucket loads of money to do the gold plated thing in this economic environment]

    Ok, so we should be borrowing bucket loads of money to spend MORE?

    Your logic knows no lower bounds.

    [I support Turnbull doing whatever is the cheapest option which does not put us in breach of existing contracts and previous commitments.]

    Then you should support Turnbull NOT implementing FTTN. Which is more costly. Again, accept the facts or look like a willfull idiot.

    [I have no problems with a Fibre network which terminates in a copper wire giving fast speeds, just not astronomical speeds.]

    Nor do you have a problem with wasting billions of dollars. How silly can you look? Really?

    [That is called a difference of opinion]

    No Mod Lib, this is a difference in basic fact.

    You say you want cheaper. Yet your support the more expensive option. Cognitive dissonance, much?

    My position is consistent with fact. Yours is not. Deal with it.

  21. sustainable future

    [everything

    The way 18C is written a politician couldn’t argue
    against Shariah law in a TownHall if one of the
    candidates was spruiking it.

    What a load of fucking shit.]

    kezza2 – this is my favorite critique of the day. concise, to the point, erudite, and just.spot.on.

    I was working up to saying to everymodlib “spoken like a white man” – if he/she spoke to anybody in australia of asian or african appearance of the almost daily/weekly abuse -mainly verbal, but sometimes physical – from white bogan strangers just as they walk down the street/use public transport. people will mutter racial taunts as they walk past – males get punched and spat on from time to time. They’ll tell you has got worse since howard became PM. These bogans have now been told by the attorney general and PM that it is their ‘right’ to be a bigot. recent cases of people being persecuted for racist hate raves on public transport will not be possible under the new laws – it was their right to express their hate, and their ‘punishment’ is people saying ‘that’s bad’. this is another regressive step by a deeply regressive bunch of arseholes.

    the only reason they are getting rid of the law is because of Bolt and the IPA making a crusade. do you feel better for someone such as Bolt and Jones being free to pedal their racist bile from such a position of power, with nobody able to challenge them. if public debate was effective against c***s (my right to use such terms) this they’d have been off air years ago – they have been proven to be wrong so many times, and then pedal the same shite – bolt still claims to have never having been provided when with even 10 names of stolen children when he has been provided with over 300 indisputable examples that are a tip of an iceberg (& the IPA cites his continual lie as ‘proof’ there was no stolen generations).

    Jones has been proven to be wrong and corrupt and a plagiarist of fiction as fact on many occasions. if they change the law so these pricks can say whatever crap they like but must step aside if they are shown to be wrong, duplicitous, and have broken journalistic codes of ethics, then I’ll support the law changes. Bolt should have been done for biased and deceptive ‘journalism’ rather than under 18C.

  22. kezza2

    [davidwh
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:01 am | PERMALINK
    It seems to me that Bolte got pinged because he named specific people rather than make a general observation. Am I wrong?]

    I think you’re right. Bolt could have express that opinion and let it stand.

    Instead, he got pinged because he fabricated stories about the family life of the Aboriginal people he named.

    One of the worst was his assumption that a particular surname was German, and his snide, sneering “liebchin” remark was a billion steps too far.

    He was crass, callous, hate-inciting, and he didn’t give a shit as long as he justified his stance. When he was taken to task over his bullshit, he cried blue murder.

    Not only is Bolt a sook, a self-pitying one at that, he is an egotist who requires propping up by extreme right-wingers.

    He’s a danger to the fabric of our society. And he deserves every bit of ridicule that comes his way. We don’t need people like Bolt as a mouthpiece for racial hatred.

    Jones at Cronulla was enough for any decent person.

  23. imacca

    [ We should not be borrowing bucket loads of money to do the gold plated thing in this economic environment. ]

    So you support spending vast amounts more over the mid term, for spending, perhaps a little less over the short term??

    And people wonder why the Fibs look like such ideologically driven economic illiterates?? Come on down Mod Fib!!!

  24. Acerbic Conehead

    frednk,

    [Have you read enough of the bible yet to realise it is a very confliced book.]

    It’s more a library than a book. It contains a multitude of literary forms, has lots of different authors, and spans a couple of thousand years of compilation.

    How you read it depends on your hermeneutic key.

  25. William Bowe

    [I was working up to saying to everymodlib “spoken like a white man”]

    Which you’re sure he is because …

  26. Everything

    [Deal with it.]

    Indeed I shall! Good night.

    You can sleep tight with the secure knowledge that you are right and I am wrong 🙂

  27. cud chewer

    [Apparenty, I need to bow down to your wisdom and do what I am told. Unfortunately for you, the Liberal Party won the election.

    Get out and door knock and maybe Shorten and shorten the obvious pain you are suffering.]

    Mod Lib,

    You whinged about how we should have a civil rational discussion, but now you demonstrate what you’re famous for here. Getting your jollies being a dickhead. Fine.

    You’re still defending the indefensible over the NBN and like it or not yes I do know a lot more about it than you. Deal with it.

  28. Diogenes

    [I was working up to saying to everymodlib “spoken like a white man”
    ]

    In pretty sure Mod Lib is neither white nor male.

  29. briefly

    [1302…Everything

    [I want to defend Bolt’s right to be wrong and think he is right.]

    You are not defending a purported right to be mistaken. You are seeking to defend a fictitious right to tell self-serving lies based on racial stereotyping, with the intention of harming the reputations of those who are the subject of the lies. This is not a matter of being “right” or “wrong”. It is a matter of preventing one individual from assailing others for gain.

  30. Bushfire Bill

    None of youse seem to have realized that neither Shorten nor anyone else in the Labor opposition can rubbish or ridicule the new Bunyip aristocracy, because Bill’s mum-in-law is the VERY FIRST one of all.

  31. swamprat

    Everything

    [Its not whether Bolt was wrong and he should just apologise.]

    Only right/mini-left wankers think Bolt’s case is the centre of the universe.

    It is a meaningless tussle between Newscorpse/LNP/ALP wankers.

    For all parties it is a wonderful distraction.

    While I accept that You would have use for this, I am exasperated by the pavlov-dog predictable mini-leftists on here.

    Always hyper-ventilating to the right wing bellows.

  32. Diogenes

    BB

    Quentin really farked Labor over accepting it.

  33. zoidlord

    Mod Lib has left the scene, again during an argument (not a debate).

  34. swamprat

    BB

    [None of youse seem to have realized that neither Shorten nor anyone else in the Labor opposition can rubbish or ridicule the new Bunyip aristocracy, because Bill’s mum-in-law is the VERY FIRST one of all.]

    As a matter of pedantry, knighthoods are not, not ever have been part of the aristocracy, except maybe to an uneducated American.

  35. sustainable future

    [I was working up to saying to everymodlib “spoken like a white man”

    Which you’re sure he is because …]

    I’m not, but his/her defense of the anti-vilification laws reeks of someone who has not been subjected to such vilification, or bothered to think about what it would be like. then again, Danny Niallah probably likes the new laws, so point taken.

  36. bemused

    zoidlord@1317

    Mod Lib has left the scene, again during an argument (not a debate).

    Mad Lib is a disgrace with her bare faced lying.

    It was good to see people calling her out on her lying tonight.

  37. lefty e

    [In pretty sure Mod Lib is neither white nor male.]

    Nor Mod.

  38. William Bowe

    Zoidlord, I do wish you’d stop making these cheap and stupid attacks on Mod Lib for having a job and needing to get up in the morning.

  39. Jackol

    Quentin really farked Labor over accepting it.

    I expressed disappointment at Bryce over this earlier, but I’m coming around to the “she was shanghaied on this and decided graciousness was the right course” point of view.

    There was just a sliver of footage of the “hand over” ceremony I saw on one of the ABC pieces where Abbott was finishing his announcement/justification, and the camera panned across to Bryce as she and others were raising a glass to toast the occasion and she looked (to me, in the split second of footage) positively … baffled, shocked, something like that.

  40. bemused

    sustainable future@1319


    I was working up to saying to everymodlib “spoken like a white man”

    Which you’re sure he is because …


    I’m not, but his/her defense of the anti-vilification laws reeks of someone who has not been subjected to such vilification, or bothered to think about what it would be like. then again, Danny Niallah probably likes the new laws, so point taken.

    Could Mad Lib be Danny Nalliah? 👿

  41. swamprat

    Diogenes

    [Quentin really farked Labor over accepting it.]

    1. why is being a Dame, “really farming Labor”?

    2. why is having a few Australian knights a real issue to Labor?

    3. Does Labor like this nonsense as it is another shadow monster it can pretend to fight?

  42. imacca

    [ By nabbing Bolt, you have the racists and xenophobes talking about how the government is out to get them. Nobody is going to change their minds. ]

    And that alters objective reality how?? Racists and Xenophobes generally ALREADY think the Govt is out to get them. Your right, no one is going to change what is laughably termed “their minds” so the law should at least minimize the hard they can do to others.

    [ neither Shorten nor anyone else in the Labor opposition can rubbish or ridicule the new Bunyip aristocracy ]

    Good. They can be free to concentrate on demostrable Fiberal support for racism, bigotry, and financial predation on older Australians and the Sydney Water.

  43. bemused

    lefty e@1321


    In pretty sure Mod Lib is neither white nor male.


    Nor Mod.

    ‘Mad Lib’ fits better.
    She is also entirely dishonest in her ‘facts’ which she tries to create a debate around.

  44. briefly

    [1315
    swamprat

    Everything

    Its not whether Bolt was wrong and he should just apologise.

    Only right/mini-left wankers think Bolt’s case is the centre of the universe.

    It is a meaningless tussle between Newscorpse/LNP/ALP wankers.]

    fmd! what a singular distemper!

  45. William Bowe

    [I’m not, but his/her defense of the anti-vilification laws reeks of someone who has not been subjected to such vilification, or bothered to think about what it would be like.]

    Which makes no sense at all unless you’re indeed sure that Mod Lib is white.

  46. zoidlord

    @William/1322

    Pay back for calling everyone a Doll Bludger at post 1038.

  47. imacca

    [ Zoidlord, I do wish you’d stop making these cheap and stupid attacks on Mod Lib for having a job and needing to get up in the morning. ]

    Well, at least he hasn’t been caught by the media skiving off to Kings Park?

  48. briefly

    ML/E is a troll, but occasionally can be useful peg on which to hang an argument.

  49. William Bowe

    I believe you mean the Fremantle monument, imacca.

  50. kezza2

    BB

    We’ve all realised the shonky crap Abbott gets up to. It’s not even worth talking about, the “gotcha” was so evident.

    Ms Bryce apparently has said she’s accepted the honour, but won’t be using the title.

    Up yours, Sir T Firebull of Abbott.

    I reckon Abbott’s hankering for a hoodie for his fire-fighting, surf-lifesaving contribution to society, for about the past 14 years.

    My father, who contributed so much to his local community, over 60 years, ran rings round this flake.

    And even with his limited education, although he had a terrific southpaw, my father’s intelligence and compassion and care for all, including asylum seekers, whether economic or not, would put this piece of idiotic flotsam to shame.

  51. Jimmyhaz

    Everything @1293

    No, it isn’t a question of cost, as cost is irrelevant to the federal government. How can we borrow boatloads of Australian dollars, given that we are the sole manufacturer of them? It makes no sense.

    Since it is no longer about cost, the only thing that makes any difference is the outcome of these different plans. Given that one will need to be replaced by the other within a few decades, it becomse fairly obvious which is the superior option.

  52. cud chewer

    Under the new laws we could falsely label Mod Lib as having a certain racial background and then tell lies about him, and it would be ok so long as we were having a political discussion.

    Just thinking out loud..

  53. davidwh

    Waleed Aly in an interview this evening expressed some reservations of the current laws and I don’t think you can call him a typical white conservative. I doubt these things split neatly along ethnic lines.

  54. geoffrey

    kezza2
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:32 am | PERMALINK
    BB

    We’ve all realised the shonky crap Abbott gets up to. It’s not even worth talking about, the “gotcha” was so evident.

    Ms Bryce apparently has said she’s accepted the honour, but won’t be using the title.

    Up yours, Sir T Firebull of Abbott.

    I reckon Abbott’s hankering for a hoodie for his fire-fighting, surf-lifesaving contribution to society, for about the past 14 years.

    My father, who contributed so much to his local community, over 60 years, ran rings round this flake.

    And even with his limited education, although he had a terrific southpaw, my father’s intelligence and compassion and care for all, including asylum seekers, whether economic or not, would put this piece of idiotic flotsam to shame.

    ——- right on. what a profound discourtesy – springing this ideological offence on GG as she left office – obviously not warning her? or seeking consent? he is a wretched little dick of a man.

  55. cud chewer

    [Pay back for calling everyone a Doll Bludger at post 1038.]

    Yes that’s the kind of silly shit you get from Mod Lib when cornered. In fairness its not just him, you get exactly the same response from most conservatives. I pay tax! You’re obviously a dole bludger. Etc Etc. The other night Mod Lib dived into the whole union bashing thing (with scant relevance to the NBN) And tonight he had a go at the “Labor is incompetent, can’t manage projects” thing. Which again is irrelevant to the topic being discussed – aka why spend more for less.

  56. swamprat

    briefly

    [fmd! what a singular distemper!]

    Yes. absolutely.

    I think the ALP gets distracted by right-wing issues important to the Murdoch/LNP.

    The real issue is the seemingly unstoppable movement of resources/wealth to the wealthy from he poor.

    It seems the ALP would prefer to follow LNP distractions and reinforce the inner-city Green vote and wait for the LNP to wear out its welcome than have and sell a real alternative.

  57. mexicanbeemer

    Reading s18c of the Racial Discrimination Act and i say this as a firm believer in free speech but i can’t see the problem with the act.

    Its basically saying when in public be polite and refrain from racist comments which surely isn’t that hard.

    I do agree that some people are too thin skinned which can stifle debate but surely there isn’t a problem with some basic respect.

    I don’t see breaking this as an indictable offense.

  58. William Bowe

    If you’re in favour of a law requiring that people be polite in public, you aren’t a “firm believer in free speech”.

  59. davidwh

    MB I don’t have a problem with reviewing any law from time to time. I just hate the thought that it is being done to restore Bolte’s ego because he stuffed up.

  60. davidwh

    MB I don’t have a problem with reviewing any law from time to time. I just hate the thought that it is being done to restore Bolte’s ego because he stuffed up.

  61. cud chewer

    [It seems the ALP would prefer to follow LNP distractions and reinforce the inner-city Green vote and wait for the LNP to wear out its welcome than have and sell a real alternative.]

    Sadly there is a bit of truth to that. Shorten is playing classic politics. But the reason he’s not well known/loved or indeed ranked too well in polls is because he’s not out there telling us of his radical new ideas for the country. Sadly it is hard to be that sort of leader these days with the kind of incompetent/partisan media we have.

    The budget will be a great opportunity for Shorten to take some radical steps. For instance close the budget revenue gap. Even raise taxes. Its time that Labor had a clean break and argued for seemingly unthinkable things.

    A lot of ordinary people are willing to contemplate paying more tax in one form or another if at the same time they can see tangible benefits. Complete funding of NDIS. Completion of the Pacific Highway. etc.

    Time for Labor to be seen to be doing something completely new so people will stop thinking about the last government.

  62. zoidlord

    Has the Coalition Party considered removing S18C effecting the interweb?

  63. Jimmyhaz

    Freedom of speech has its limits, just like every freedom. The idea that it is the one totally inalienable right is a fantasy dreamt up by those who were sick of having their bullshit challenged.

    You can’t yell out fire in the movies, you can’t scream out that you have a bomb on a plane, why should you be allowed to vilify certain sections of the public based on something as arbitrary as race?

  64. cud chewer

    I wonder how far you’d get in public calling Bolt a loud mouthed bully (which is essentially what he is).

    I would like to see a journo ask Brandis if people can now put up on their facebook page remarks about Bolt that are highly negative, not thought out, even false. Would Brandis support this?

  65. mexicanbeemer

    I’m not sure that Moddy is wrong, if the provision says don’t say something offensive and i go along to the town hall and the local MP says sharia law is terrible because its offensive to Women then potentially both sub-sections (a) and (b) give me grounds to raise concern.

    (a) section (a) says if i am insulted that the MP has spoken against my faith which places a firm belief on sharia law which may cause hurt and humiliation or if the crowd starts chanting “those bloody Arabs”i might become intimidated which might raise concern for my well being.

    (b) could be relevant particularly if the MP mentions my direct ethnic origins.

    Both these provisions do in the literal sense limit free speech in the context Moddy mentioned but the question would be would the court see it as the actual intent thus throwing the case out on the grounds that the MP was discussing an important area of public policy in a public forum.

    These provisions need to be tested in court in the circumstances that Moddy referred.

  66. cud chewer

    William,

    The problem I have with the existing 18C is that it doesn’t deal with the issue of asymmetrical power. People like Bolt should be treated differently in law precisely because they have so much power and influence. And that should have been spelled out in the law and wasn’t.

    If I were to publicly say things about Bolt that he said on air, he would sue me to the poorhouse.

    And I’d love to know from Brandis whether his new law would allow me to not just have a theoretical right to, but actually get away with saying nasty, factually incorrect, and misleading things about Bolt.

  67. imacca

    Oh Goody. Brandis on Lateline saying specifically that people should be free to spread untruths.

    Are we sure that Mad Fib isn’t actually Brandis?? Same sort of arguments and just as much of a dick??

  68. Thomas. Paine.

    I thought Mod Lib was some middle age hawt chick. She is in my dreams….

  69. Jackol

    mexicanbeemer – I trust you are reading 18C and 18D?

  70. briefly

    [1340…swamprat]

    You’re wrong about this. Racial discrimination is certainly an economic issue. If the right use this issue, it is only to seek to divide potential Labor support and encourage socially conservative working people to vote against their primary economic interests. It is a wedge issue, but cannot be avoided.

    Taking this into account, Labor have to contest the ground with the LNP nearly everywhere. Contending for the economic interests of ordinary people also means defending the personal rights and standing of the culturally vulnerable.

    These things and economic rights are indivisible, which is why the Racial Discrimination Act was passed by the Whitlam Government in 1975. It is also why our greatest economic visionaries – people like HC (Nugget) Coombs – were also such avowed campaigners for legislated protection against racial vilification.

  71. imacca

    I believe you mean the Fremantle monument, imacca.

    Arghhhhhhhh! Your right. My Bad. 🙁

    Still, with that shirt, you will never be voted best dressed man on campus! 🙂

  72. briefly

    1349
    mexicanbeemer

    There are “public interest” protections. ML/E is making up nonsense in order to distract and mislead, as usual.

  73. sustainable future

    [I’m not, but his/her defense of the anti-vilification laws reeks of someone who has not been subjected to such vilification, or bothered to think about what it would be like.

    Which makes no sense at all unless you indeed sure that Mod Lib is white.]

    ok

    I’m not even convinced modlib/everything is one person – they seem to have shifted from actually being moderate and liberal (and disliking abbott as LOTO) to a very partisan supporter of anything he and his jackboot far-right loons do. perhaps non-white females mixing in elite LNP circles (& never using public transport) don’t get racially vilified to their faces and cannot see the need for such protections? the idea that such laws prevent free speech and naively believe that people will sort it out through rational debate, is not worthy of a moderate liberal. By saying that people should be free to insult people on racial grounds suggests that this is part of rational debate and they should have been able to make their case on the chance they might be right and win the debate.

    You have to love a someone so liberal (like Brandis and abbott and the spine-free followers in the LNP) that they defend the rights of bigots because they are so into freedom, but cannot accept as a right SSM because ….why – bigots will somehow feel it demeans their own marriages (??) or various religious-bigots feel their respective magic sky fairies doesn’t like it? This is all about sucking up to /repaying Bolt for years of loyal propaganda and possing off political ‘enemies’ (abbott doesn’t do opponents – he does ‘enemies to be destroyed.’)

  74. mexicanbeemer

    Thanks Jackol

    Yes i have just read s18D and it does a pretty comprehensive job of outlining exemptions to s18C which provide public speakers at least three defense options.

  75. mexicanbeemer

    I should add that don’t slander laws basically say the same thing as s18 does while not focusing on race or faith but rather reputation.

  76. cud chewer

    Mod Lib is just a sad case of an otherwise intelligent person being suckered into Liberal group think, no matter what the facts point at. But he’s not a patch on Brandis. Brandis would make a good Bond villain.

  77. cud chewer

    [I’m not even convinced modlib/everything is one person – they seem to have shifted from actually being moderate and liberal (and disliking abbott as LOTO) to a very partisan supporter of anything he and his jackboot far-right loons do.]

    Yes, I distinctly remember him pointing out his distaste for Abbott and arguing on a number of occasions the need for, and possibility of Turnbull taking over. Since the election he’s basically defended the indefensible to the point of being a good example of how otherwise intelligent people lose the plot when confronted with the Liberal mind-meld.

  78. cud chewer

    Slander laws were harder to prove in this case. That’s why they used S18c

  79. cud chewer

    OH and one other thing, with slander laws you can sue for a heap of damages. IN this case the defendants were only after one thing and that was to correct the record and to have a decent apology. something Bolt squibbed on too.

  80. deblonay

    Asia Times says that Asian countries will ignore any US-Euro plans for sanctions on Russia_
    _____________
    Russian energy supplies and the prospects of big trade deals if Euro exports to Russia stop ,are making Asian countries notably Sth Korea and Japan and Vietnam and Taiwan … interested in new deals with the Russian for gas and oil
    Lavrov the Russian FM barred from the G 7 meeting in the Hague said he had better things to do anyway,and said it was just a talking shop

    The US gave just $1billion to the Ukraine…just 2 weeks Pay for Russian oil,and the Euros only offered a pittance..just a $150 million
    So the chaotic penniless regime in Kiev seems on it’s own.

    ,and the start of April looms as a critical date for a major price rise and payment of the arrears of aeveral billions to the Russian gas board…or perhaps a cutting off of the gas
    to Kiev by Russia…see Asia Times below

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-250314.html

  81. William Bowe

    Courier-Mail front page mocks Abbott over imperial honours:

    https://twitter.com/PeterFosterALP/status/448466242941108224/photo/

  82. zoidlord

    @William/1365

    Link does not work for me, seems a problem with twitter I see occasionally.

    “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!”

  83. zoidlord

    @William/1367

    Is the Black and White cover normal for Courier-Mail?

  84. mexicanbeemer

    Reading s18D makes me think Andrew Bolt has poor lawyers as it says you are exempt if providing commendatory as as part of a community debate as he is a journalist unless Bolt was indeed pushing a fault-hood

  85. cud chewer

    Bolt was arguing the defense of truth. Which makes him an uber-dickhead.

  86. William Bowe

    No Zoidlord, I believe it’s part of the joke.

  87. bryon

    Brandis, Latvian by the sounds of it. A snake. All them Leuts are snakes…His sort, if his father wasn’t a snake he was a Nazi collaborator.

    His whole family probably worked at Auschwitz.

    Glad he is clearing the air so we can make it let it be known about the disgusting non anglo scum we have in Oz ..

  88. cud chewer

    Well

    a) I think the whole honors thing is a bit of a side show
    b) Abbott seems to have managed to have stuffed up pretty badly creating a side show and deflecting attention from things you’d have thought he’d want in the media. Or maybe the FOFA issue was too embarrassing and getting to much traction?

  89. William Bowe

    Bryon, I take it that’s an elaborate exercise in irony?

  90. imacca

    [ Reading s18D makes me think Andrew Bolt has poor lawyers ]

    Listening to Brandis on Lateline makes me wonder what sort of a lawyer he was? He seems to be willfully misunderstanding the judges reasons in the Bolt case. I’m really not sure he is up to making any kind of realistic argument in favor of this move. Pure politics.

  91. bryon

    Yes. Feel free to remove it. My wifes mother is Latvian and that’s what she calls them.

    Don’t have to be dark or poor or non mainstream to find hate.

  92. mexicanbeemer

    imacca

    I can’t find the case on Law Cite, do you know where i can read the case?

    Thanks

  93. imacca

    [ I can’t find the case on Law Cite, do you know where i can read the case? ]

    http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Eatock-vs-Bolt-federal-court-judgement.pdf

    is a summary.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/28/bolt-decision-guilty-of-discrimination-judge-declares/

    The crikey article has currently working link to the full judgement as well, as a word doc.

    Para 30 of the summary makes Brandis’ current position look a little contrived i think.

  94. imacca

    nite all. 🙂

  95. Fran Barlow

    Davidwh

    [It seems to me that Bolte got pinged because he named specific people rather than make a general observation. Am I wrong?]

    No, you’re not wrong.

    Had Bolt simply made the claim that Aboriginality was something any non-Aboriginal could claim to secure social advantatage and that there were some high profile people doing it, and that in his opinion, people who didn’t seem black enough to him ought to be denied the benefits of claiming Aborginal status, then 18C could not have touched him because as offensive as such claims are, no specific person could have claimed they were defamed.

    As a number of people, including the judge in the Bolt case, have said, it was not the right to offend that was examined here, but the right to defame a class of people using the claims of specific people within the class on the basis of their ethnic identity without the efforts to relate the claims to reality that would show a good faith belief.

    If Bolt had not mentioned specific people as exemplars of his general point, the “reasonable man” might simply have treated Bolt’s claims as bigoted venting, but the introduction of supporting evidence in the form of claims about specific people might incline said “reasonable man” to entertain the racially offensive claims, and assume other “insufficiently black” Aboriginals were fraudsters, and that indigenous identity was frivolous, arbitrary and spurious rent-seeking.

  96. frednk

    [
    William Bowe
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    If you’re in favour of a law requiring that people be polite in public, you aren’t a “firm believer in free speech”.
    ]
    It is not a black and white issue is it. I don’t think many would argue for the right to yell fire in a crowded building when the facts don’t warrant such an action.

    Bolts problem was he could back up his rubbish with facts.

  97. mari

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZN3AI-Bcw guess this has been posted ridicule is way to go “grin”

  98. psyclaw

    THis email just sent, speaks for itself.

    “Good Morning Senator Brandis

    I was fabulously uplifted by the news that your amendments around s18C have been rejected by Cabinet, at least for the moment. I am enthused that there may be some ministers with integrity after all; it is rarely on display.

    For an allegedly erudite man your understanding of the meaning of “bigot” and your grasp of the societal sequelae as a result of the encouragement of bigotry, is extraordinarily impoverished.

    Your dissertations about the concept of free speech are illogical, distorted and lightweight attempts to clothe your ideological motives in a disguise of rationality. It won’t work, even with your own party. They have now given you the opportunity to cut your losses.

    I am anything but proud to have you as my national attorney-general.

    Regards”