tip off

BludgerTrack: 53.1-46.9 to Labor

The weekly poll aggregate finds the latest Newspoll result checking the Coalition’s modest poll recovery, and drives Tony Abbott’s personal ratings to a new low.

The Coalition’s mildly improving polling trend over the past few weeks has taken a knock after the latest bad result from Newspoll, contributing to a 0.5% two-party shift in Labor’s favour on the BludgerTrack poll aggregate. On the state-level seat projection, the big move this week is a three-seat shift to Labor in Queensland, where the Labor swing had probably been a bit undercooked on recent readings, along with one-seat gains in New South Wales and Western Australia. However, Labor is down a seat in Victoria after a blowout in their favour last week and also down one in Tasmania, resulting in a net gain of three. Newspoll also provided a new set of leadership ratings this week, which have pushed Tony Abbott out to his worst net personal approval rating since the election. Other figures on voting intention were provided this week by Essential Research, ReachTEL and Morgan. Full results as always on the sidebar.

949
  • 51
    psyclaw
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Guytaur, Ctar1, and Bemused Comrade

    To be fair to MS Lambie, let’s consider the context of the Abbott daughters comment.

    She was asked if she still thought Abbott to be a political psychopath as she had said some time back.

    She replied in the affirmative.

    She was then asked for evidence.

    One example she gave was that as a military cop she knew a bit about security (protecting people, not ASIO level stuff) and that anyone who put his daughters “out there” for his own crass political ambitions, thereby exposing them to risk, was a political psychopath.

    Though no-one in the end physically attacked the Abbott girls, they have subsequently paid a price through various events of public scrutiny and criticism …. probly a psychological price.

    Lambie was correct ….. putting his daughters directly into the fray which he himself had ensured would be at least verbally violent, was certainly a sign of Abbott’s character deficit which Lambie describes as “political psychopath”.

    So chalk one up for her …. she at least has Abbott well summed up and appears to be very firm about it. That can only be a good thing.

  • 52
    Bushfire Bill
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    If they were intercepted on the high seas, and taken anywhere but the nearest port, then that may be outright piracy.

  • 53
    CTar1
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Obama's Terrible Approval Numbers Are Terrible

    When asked a question often discussed with dread at family Thanksgiving dinners, a plurality of voters — 33 percent — believe President Obama (or "Nobummer," amirite?) is the worst president since World War II. In second place on the same question was George W. Bush with 28 percent. These are the numbers you will read in several headlines today. The thing is, the "worst president since World War Two" results aren't really the worst numbers for the president in the Quinnipiac poll from which they're drawn.

    http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/07/obamas-terrible-approval-numbers-are-terrible/373832/

  • 54
    victoria
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Speaking if Ms Lambie

    She's vowed to fight like hell to get her own way and insists she won't be steered by her boss Clive Palmer when it comes to tough policy decisions.

    New senator Jacqui Lambie on Thursday will be shown the ropes around parliament as she prepares to sit on the crossbench in the upper house for the first time next Monday.

    http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/i-wont-be-steered-by-palmer-lambie-20140703-3b9ht.html

  • 55
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    @political_alert: Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, is in Melbourne today and will address the 2014 Economic and Social Outlook Conference, 11am #auspol

  • 56
    Raaraa
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    BK

    ALSO MUST SEE! Alan Moir puts entitlement into stark perspective.
    http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/alan-moir-20090907-fdxk.html

    Alan Moir is really spot on with handling entitlements in our budget.

  • 57
    Raaraa
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    I’d like to see a case study on how the Democrats never recovered from after the early 2000s.

    Other parties like the Libs and Labor have made disastrous decisions only to recover later after years in the wilderness.

    The Nats on the other hand is in decline after not making any one major stuff up, but rather because of being in bed with the Libs.

  • 58
    Raaraa
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    A country doesn’t have to be at war to have refugees.

    Tamils are a heavily discriminated group of people in Sri Lanka. It’s no different from the Kurds in Iraq and the Rohingya in Burma. The government might seem to vow to treat them well but in practice, the problem doesn’t go away overnight.

  • 59
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    Raaraa

    I have read a bit on this.

    The Dems always intrigued me. A few people I knew joined them and then left after a couple of years.

    Unremarkable in itself – happens in all parties, all the time.

    What was different was the degree of outrage, if not downright hatred, these people had towards their former party.

    I deal with people who’ve left the ALP for the Greens all the time – in most cases, they’re still remarkably positive about the ALP, although they feel they made the right choice to leave.

    I also know a reasonable number of ex Nats and ex Libs.

    None of these showed the degree of burning resentment towards their former party that I saw in former Dems.

    As for the demise of the Dems themselves, the party’s structure – where decisions were meant to be made by the members, with the parliamentary party the conduit to implementing them – could only work if both parties were in agreement.

    Once there was a fundamental schism between the membership and the parliamentary party, with the latter being asked to vote in ways they disagreed with, the party collapsed.

    The various conflicts between the members and the leadership took a few years to play out – the deposing of Stott-Despoja (The People’s Princess), whose leadership was untenable because she was the members choice, and was never accepted by her parliamentary colleagues; the deal over the GST, and so forth, being examples of this.

    We don’t vote for MPs to represent us, or our electorates (in the sense that they put our desires first above all other considerations) – the true spirit of Westminister is that we elect people who we think, confronted with all the evidence, will make the same decision we would have made.

    Noone outside of Parliament has all the evidence (or can have it). Thus any attempt for people outside of Parliament to dictate to people inside how to vote ultimately fails, because inevitably the people with all the evidence before them find themselves unable to vote the way those with lesser information want them to.

    While Don Chipp was leader, he could make it work, because it was basically ‘his’ party (a bit like Palmer, a bit like the Greens with Bob Brown). Once he left, the very shaky structure started its inevitable collapse.

  • 60
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    774 @ABC about to have Julian Burnside on AS followed by Fran Kelly on politics

  • 61
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    “@SabraLane: CommBank will issue a document at 10am on its measures-will post a link as soon as we get it. @ABCNews24 will cover the media conf at 1045”

  • 62
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    @ASRC1: Dehydrated. Terrified. Unrepresented. 4 questions will decide if you live or die as we screen #refugees on boats.
    http://t.co/yQjzl2HsYQ

  • 63
    zoidlord
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    Gov should buy back Commonwealth bank for a discount.

  • 64
    bemused
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    guytaur@62

    @ASRC1: Dehydrated. Terrified. Unrepresented. 4 questions will decide if you live or die as we screen #refugees on boats.
    http://t.co/yQjzl2HsYQ

    There is only one of those questions that has any relevance to a claim for asylum and that is why they left the country they came from.

    The process is pathetic.

  • 65
    daretotread
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    Zoomster

    I Labor had had an effective membership overrule of policy, Anna Bligh might still be premier, or at least LOTO with 30 plus in the caucus. The stupid privastisation policy was not supported by members (or unions) and it would have been ditched.

    I think personally it should be a CRIMINAL offense for elected representatives to vote against party policy. It is a breach of promise and trade practices type of laws.

    Now obviously emergencies my be cited as a defence, but if you are voted in on a clear set of policies you have no right to go against these as it makes a mockery of democracy.

  • 66
    bemused
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    daretotread@65

    Zoomster

    I Labor had had an effective membership overrule of policy, Anna Bligh might still be premier, or at least LOTO with 30 plus in the caucus. The stupid privastisation policy was not supported by members (or unions) and it would have been ditched.

    I think personally it should be a CRIMINAL offense for elected representatives to vote against party policy. It is a breach of promise and trade practices type of laws.

    Now obviously emergencies my be cited as a defence, but if you are voted in on a clear set of policies you have no right to go against these as it makes a mockery of democracy.

    Yes, haven’t privatisations worked out wonderfully… CBA, Qantas, Electricity Utilities in some states etc.

  • 67
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    dtt

    There’s a difference between the way policy is formulated by the Labor party and the way it was formulated by the Democrats.

    The Labor party goes through a series of stages. Both members of the parliamentary party and ‘normal’ members have involvement in the formulation of policy. Thus it is ‘owned’ by both.

    In parties such as the Democrats, parliamentary party members had votes of the same weight as a grassroots member, and no more say in the policy process than one.

    That leads to a situation where the people who are expected to implement the policy don’t feel as if they have ownership of it.

    I don’t think MPs should simply be puppets implementing policies against their will. That simply doesn’t work.

  • 68
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    I think personally it should be a CRIMINAL offense for elected representatives to vote against party policy. It is a breach of promise and trade practices type of laws.

    It think too strong party loyalty is the greatest weakness in our democracy. I think my mp should always vote for the electorate ahead of her party and there should be a mechanism to removed members who vote for party ahead of electorate.

  • 69
    zoidlord
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Josh Taylor ‏@joshgnosis 1m

    The New South Wales government paid for this terrible Opal ad. http://bit.ly/TE5lgX

    What a waste for Government money.

  • 70
    zoidlord
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    Harvard University ‏@Harvard 1m

    Interactive map: Millions of Americans spend over 30% of income for housing http://hvrd.me/yGX3z via @harvard_jchs

  • 71
    daretotread
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Zoomster

    I find the argument “those in government know all the facts”as the very worst form of elitism and also totally wrong, since my very, very long experience in government has shown that rarely do governments know more than the ordinary people and that that there is always out there in voter land someone who knows more on the topic than the best government experts. They might be an academic, a journalist a professional (Dr, engineer etc) or a retired public servant or they might just be an amateur with a passion and lots of time.

    With the de-expertisation of government (a theme of the last 20 years) and the easy access to quality information on the net, the idea that governments have more facts than ALP members is frankly just wrong.

    Obviously there may be Defence or FA secrets but this is not common

  • 72
    Jackol
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    If people want parties that have weaker party lines, they should start them/vote for them.

    The Democrats were such a party.

    There are strengths and weaknesses of strong party lines. But as far as I can see there is no reason why strong or weak party lines should be a systemic issue.

    If people want stronger more disciplined parties, they should vote for them, if they want looser more electorate/individual MP focused parties, vote for those instead.

    I do agree (and have said many times) that we should have more viable options for parties to vote for in Australia, but the reason we don’t have more viable parties is that the electorate doesn’t value political diversity, apparently.

  • 73
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Abbott shaming us internationally again

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10941560/Tony-Abbott-accused-of-handing-Tamil-asylum-seekers-back-to-Sri-Lanka.html

  • 74
    Raaraa
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Another rationalisation I hear is the Democrats failed to contest in all 3 levels of government, sticking mainly to Federal, and to a certain extent, State elections.

    Labor, Libs and the Greens have grassroots in all 3 level of government at least.

  • 75
    bemused
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    WeWantPaul@68


    I think personally it should be a CRIMINAL offense for elected representatives to vote against party policy. It is a breach of promise and trade practices type of laws.


    It think too strong party loyalty is the greatest weakness in our democracy. I think my mp should always vote for the electorate ahead of her party and there should be a mechanism to removed members who vote for party ahead of electorate.

    So government is all about pork barrelling?

    Sorry, if I am voting to elect a National Govt, I want it to act in the national interest ahead of parochial concerns. Ditto for State Govts.

    Leave local interests to the local councils.

  • 76
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    dtt

    well, going on my own experience as a local councillor, I had access to more information than any ratepayer, however well informed, did on most subjects.

    For example, I had access to all submissions, even those made in confidence, to commercial in confidence documents, and to private testimony.

    It didn’t mean I knew everything there was to know about every issue before council, but it did mean I had a better overview of each issue than it would be possible for anyone who wasn’t on council.

    And, of course, I had access to all the expert information as well, whether it was in house or external.

    Of course, if you want to argue that the Westminster system is based on a furphy, be my guest.

  • 77
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    10 45 ABC 24 is covering press conference regarding Commonwealth Bank Financial advice

  • 78
    zoidlord
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Michael Janda ‏@mikejanda 1m

    CBA offers “independent review” for customers who got financial advice between September 2003 and July 1 2012 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-03/commonwealth-bank-responds-to-financial-planning-inquiry/5568504?section=business

    I think that is not enough.

    Royal Commission all the way please.

  • 79
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    @USNavyMomPA: Thus it begins: South Carolina Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Blacks, Cites Religious Beliefs http://t.co/n0n0nfbBzc #ScaliaLaw

  • 80
    Raaraa
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    I’m not convinced that the Conservatives use the privatisation of assets as a “Small Government” agenda. I like to think they’re doing it to sell it to their mates or to cut away the competition.

  • 81
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    It think too strong party loyalty is the greatest weakness in our democracy. I think my mp should always vote for the electorate ahead of her party and there should be a mechanism to removed members who vote for party ahead of electorate.
    So government is all about pork barrelling?
    Sorry, if I am voting to elect a National Govt, I want it to act in the national interest ahead of parochial concerns. Ditto for State Govts.

    Bemused I know where you are coming from and pork barreling is definitely a problem – except it happens now and always has but most of the pork is directed to interest groups rather than electorates. And voters deserve much much better.

    Good to see you and zoom both defending the machine and status quo all we need is Adam to join you!

  • 82
    zoidlord
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    newmatilda ‏@newmatilda 1m

    Group Colleges Director Had No Knowledge of Political Donations: New Matilda’s ongoing investigation into chan… http://bit.ly/1oaoPDG

  • 83
    daretotread
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    WWP

    I would like to see electoral laws changed so that ONLY publicly funded advertising is allowed and this would be supported by an electoral office brochure (or website) on which each candidate would place the following information:

    1. A single sentence Mission or overview statement

    2. Up to 5 core principle or objective statements

    3. Up to 20 policy or action commitments.

    It would be a serious criminal offense to vote against any of the commitments and a less serious offence but one requiring a formal warning to vote against principles. In both cases they should trigger removal from parliament.

    Now I imagine that the ALP candidates might have a Mission statement along the lines of wanting a sustainable, prosperous,fair and just society with equal opportunity and protection for the weakest.

    I imagine the Greens would have a mission statement not too different but emphasizing environmental protection and sustainability and probably human rights.

    The Libs might have one that talks about stealing form the poor to give to the rich.

  • 84
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    @ABCNews24: Greens Leader Christine Milne on reports of an asylum seeker boat in the Indian Ocean. Watch LIVE http://t.co/TTkTJ5G5Ba #auspol

  • 85
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    WWP

    If I’m defending anything it’s the Westminster system. I agree it’s not perfect, but (a) nothing is; (b) it works as well as anything.

    In an ideal world, I’d have a totally different system.

    In the one we have, it works the way it works.

    As Joe Klein noted in ‘Primary Colours’, politics is a craft like any other. Things are done in certain ways because they work. Over the centuries, other ways have been tried, and they don’t.

    Australia experimented with the idea that every electorate was an island, apart from itself, that they weren’t part of the whole in the early days of Federation, and it didn’t work.

  • 86
    Jackol
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Another rationalisation I hear is the Democrats failed to contest in all 3 levels of government, sticking mainly to Federal, and to a certain extent, State elections.

    Coming from WA I was shocked to find that local government was infested by party candidates anywhere else.

    In WA, at least when I lived there 20 years ago, none of the local government candidates were obviously party affiliated.

    I don’t see that local government presence is much of an issue one way or another for parties.

    For people aspiring to political careers having a high profile presence in local government can certainly be a help – parties, not so much.

    Keep in mind that being in power is also a way of losing support. Lots of stuff that local government does is not popular, and even governing well will piss off a bunch of people let alone having local clowns making stupid decisions.

  • 87
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    “@ABCNews24: Milne: It is absolutely wrong for Australia to return people seeking asylum to the countries in which they were being persecuted #auspol”

  • 88
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    dtt

    In order to comply with that, the 20 policy positions would be purely motherhood statements, so wishy washy and broadbrush that they could be used to justify anything.

    A bit like Liberal election promises….

  • 89
    zoidlord
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Josh Taylor ‏@joshgnosis 3m

    Attorney-General George Brandis: “social media and the internet is one of our deepest problems… they were radicalised by the internet.”

    No, Social Media are not one of our deepest problems, you right wing biggots are.

  • 90
    Jackol
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    It would be a serious criminal offense to vote against any of the commitments and a less serious offence but one requiring a formal warning to vote against principles. In both cases they should trigger removal from parliament.

    This is a totally unworkable concept.

  • 91
    daretotread
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Zoomster

    If you really believe that you had access to better information than the people it is rather sad. I seriously doubt the morality of making decisions on confidential information anyway. It is tricky I know where there is commercial confidentiality but I am not sure it is moral nevertheless.

  • 92
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    I quickly put on the record that although (in the interests of transparency) I declared my ALP membership, I was not an ALP endorsed councillor.

    Indeed, one Labor MP tried to have me drummed out of the party because I refused to vote the way they wanted me to.

  • 93
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Excellent Presser from Senator Milne

    I hope Labor is as strong

  • 94
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    dtt

    given that everyone concerned with any issue before council was free to contact me and put their argument, if I didn’t have access to all the (important and necessary) information required to make a decision, that wasn’t my fault.

    I never made a decision without extensive community consultation, and indeed I put measures in place to ensure that this happened – including putting in place a community driven plan for the future which provided an overview for all decision making by council.

  • 95
    zoidlord
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Retweeted by Josh Taylor
    Stilgherrian ‏@stilgherrian 3m

    @joshgnosis Even more interesting, given the RAND study that said “radicalisation via internet” isn’t even a thing. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR453.html

  • 96
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    “@ABCNews24: Milne: We’ve always been a good global citizen. But what Tony Abbott is doing is driving Australia into an isolationist position #auspol”

  • 97
    daretotread
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Jackol

    Not if the committments are specific enough.

    For example if you give an electoral commitment:
    “I will not raise taxes” – but then you do vote for a tax increase then you have breached trade practices type of tiny of laws.

    There obviously needs to be scrutiny of the type of commitments that are made so that they are binding.

    I would agree that binding people to broad principles is harder and perhaps breaching these would generate a waring letter/public statement, rather than criminal charges.

  • 98
    daretotread
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Zoomster

    It sounds as if you did your duties with excellent diligence. However if you were elected on a set of principle/policies and then acted in a way opposed to them, you broke faith with your electors. I feel sure that such a situation never happened to you, but my point is it never should be permissible.

  • 99
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    “@ABCNews24: Responding to calls for a Royal Commission into Australia’s biggest bank: CBA’s Ian Narev LIVE now http://t.co/TTkTJ5G5Ba #auspol #CBA”

  • 100
    Jackol
    Posted Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Not if the committments are specific enough.

    Nonsense. Just look at the various fact checks around and the debate about whether they are being fair/accurate/specific enough. Most fact checks have a broad spectrum of outcomes – hardly a “yes/no” to whether something is a fact or a promise kept or whatever.

    The idea of having courts adjudicating on whether promises had been kept, and therefore whether politicians should keep their jobs, is just never going to work and is a recipe for destroying our system of government entirely.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...