Morgan: 58.5-41.5

The latest Roy Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead up to 58.5-41.5 from 56.5-43.5 a fortnight ago. Labor is up 2.5 per cent on the primary vote to 49 per cent, the Coalition is down 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent and the Greens are steady on 8.5 per cent.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

655 comments on “Morgan: 58.5-41.5”

Comments Page 4 of 14
1 … 3 4 5 … 14

  1. I realise that “filtering” the internet is impossible, I am possibly one of the only people here that have network system engineer certification from Cisco, Microsoft and Apple and have worked for major ISP’s.

    I am interested in the politics, which given that this is a politics blog is the main game.

    There are many people, including the sensational parts of the MSM, who see the internet as an evil thing, the thing that is causing all the ills of our society. These people are more likely to vote for the conservative side of politics.

    That is why I am certain this is pure politics – we tried to do something but we were voted down by (insert wedged party).

  4. [What’s wrong with taking some responsibility (instead of the government doing everything) and wheeling the computer off into a locked room if an adult is not home?]
    It’s easier blaming someone else when your child does something wrong.

    “The Government” is anonymous and abstract enough, so there’s no reason not to blame it.

  5. [I think the government should take all the money they are going to spend on this, and give it to the Australian Federal Police so they can hire another 50 people to look for online crime.]

    The AFP have international jurisdiction?

  6. [What’s wrong with taking some responsibility (instead of the government doing everything) and wheeling the computer off into a locked room if an adult is not home?]

    You and I both know that not all parents will do that. What exactly is unreasonable about filtering out certain things given that the same is done for TV & radio etc?

  7. Ru
    The internet is our society’s Pandora’s box

    Both sides have well thought and believable arguments-bit like a religous debate really.

    My kids have unlimited access to the internet-anything offensive they find they tell us.That said I know of kids with WAP enabled mobiles who surf etc virtually all day.

    As a side point how do you block satellite transmission?

  8. [The AFP have international jurisdiction?]
    Why do you need international jurisdiction to police crimes taking place in Australia?

    The AFP doesn’t need it to police drugs being sent to Australia from overseas, why would they need it for child pornography?

  9. [Get reel , kids know there is porn , kids look for th forbidden]

    Kids go out looking for child porn? I suggest that if our young children are actively seeking out such illicit content we have a much bigger problem on our hands.

    Of course we all know that it’s not children looking for child porn which means you’re full of crap.

    [That is why I am certain this is pure politics – we tried to do something but we were voted down by (insert wedged party).]

    I think the government knows, through the Department, exactly what everyone with a half a brain and any experience with networks knows – the filter is rubbish. So why are they ploughing ahead? A wedge issue, you’re right. But I think it’s aimed squarely at the the Liberals. The Greens aren’t in any danger as the people opposed to the net filter exceed their ~8% base at the moment and Ludlum’s made it his sort of pet project so he’s building up a profile and getting some experience. Might be a net benefit to them. The Libs will end up capitulating and looking like idiots, again.

    That’s all good fun in political terms but back on Earth it’s going to be us who have to deal with the mess it creates.

  10. What I hate most about these issues, child porn ect, is the partisan ideological stance most people take. The fact is most people don’t want children used/abused to make child porn and want something done to stop it from happening. All people no matter what their ideology should be supporting sound measures to stop this abuse. Get rid of politics and find some real solutions!!!!!!

  11. [Why do you need international jurisdiction to police crimes taking place in Australia?]

    You do realise that the internet connects overseas, right?

  12. [All people no matter what their ideology should be supporting sound measures to stop this abuse. Get rid of politics and find some real solutions!!!!!!]
    More police policing it.

    A filter – which is a piece of software – will be bypassed eventually. We need to pay more people, which is expensive, but more effective in the long term.

  13. [What exactly is unreasonable about filtering out certain things given that the same is done for TV & radio etc?]

    You don’t seem to understand. The filter has no comparison with the classification that goes in TV and radio. I’ve detailed the stark differences several times before in this thread. Please read them and also some of the links ltep posted earlier and we’ll all be on the same page.

    People also need to understand that the internet is not the same as television and radio. Does that mean different rules should be applied? No. But it does mean that the way we go about ensuring safety and the like has to be done in a much more precise and structured way than is being proposed.

  14. [You do realise that the internet connects overseas, right?]
    WHAT! ARE YOU SERIOUS!? I thought I was on THE AUSTRALIAN internet!?

    You’re missing the point that if someone downloads child porn to their computer HERE in OZTRAYIA, then a crime has been committed HERE. That is the point where it is policed, that is what the filter is designed to block.

  16. Umm, Generic Person certainly set the cats running, don’t you think, bludgers?
    Here we are on a thread about the latest Morgan face-to face results, with the advantage back to Labor, and the argument is about internet filtering policy? Meanwhile, the ANZ announces another 1,000 jobs gone, the G20 meet in Washington to try and address the GFC, and I’m never going to be able to retire. Another grand child born today. Poor little tacker has got Lib. voting parents. Could grow up to be another Generic Person, alternatively the next Coalition PM.

  17. [A filter – which is a piece of software – will be bypassed eventually.]

    It’s already effectively been bypassed. There are only a certain number of ways to implement a filter like this. Every single one of those methods has huge holes. Those holes are published on the internet and so are steps that can be taken to take advantage of them.

    [All people no matter what their ideology should be supporting sound measures to stop this abuse. Get rid of politics and find some real solutions!!!!!!]

    I agree. We have a problem – child porn. A lot of might not get made in Australia, but we seem to be huge consumers. The Government’s method of making themselves look like they’re dealing with the issue is this filter. It will have no impact on the consumption of child pornography. But it will reassure voters that they’ve tried.

    The way to stop child porn is to track down and jail the people that make it and jail the people who consume it. Spending millions on a make-believe cure that simply creates a veil around the problem is a complete mis-allocation of resources.

  19. Studies have been done that show the filter is rubbish. It’s extremely insensitive and non-specific. And it’s really easy to get around. Start up a kiddie porn site but let all the sickos know you are using a code, eg kid = seaweed, and porn = Helsinki. How is the filter going to pick up seaweed Helsinki?

    And why is everyone freaking out about kids looking at porn on the internet anyway? Where is the evidence that removing it improves anything? Obviously the illegal stuff already is illegal and the Feds can track users and prosecute them. It you’re online downloading illegal porn everynight, you can hardly expect anyone to believe you went there by accident.

  20. [Could grow up to be another Generic Person, alternatively the next Coalition PM.]

    I wouldn’t mind GP in parliament. Opposition leader though, not PM.

    “Mr. Speaka’, point of orda’! The Government’s remarks on this topic are completely and utterly obscene!”

  21. HSO, that’s about the fifth time that GP has roamed in to begin a diversion onto internet filters. I am amazed at how successful the Liberal Party talking points are around here.

  22. [You don’t seem to understand. The filter has no comparison with the classification that goes in TV and radio.]

    I understand quite well. The filter doesn’t have to be the same as TV or radio, but those are examples of censorship/classification that currently exist in Australia, so a filter would be by no means unique, and any attempt to brand it as such incorrect.

  23. [Obviously the illegal stuff already is illegal and the Feds can track users and prosecute them]
    Sure, but there should be more people doing this. That’s where the money should be spent.
    [I wouldn’t mind GP in parliament. Opposition leader though, not PM.]
    I think he’ll end up in the Senate. Do you honestly think he could ever represent someone other than his own self interest?

  24. [You’re missing the point that if someone downloads child porn to their computer HERE in OZTRAYIA, then a crime has been committed HERE. That is the point where it is policed, that is what the filter is designed to block.]

    Great, well once those kiddies accidentally stumble on that kiddie porn the AFP will be there to bust em. I feel so much safer.

  26. [Great, well once those kiddies accidentally stumble on that kiddie porn the AFP will be there to bust em. I feel so much safer.]
    WONDERFUL!

    That settles it then.

  27. [It you’re online downloading illegal porn everynight, you can hardly expect anyone to believe you went there by accident.]

    I’ve tried to mention this point as well.

    We all use the internet here, obviously. Have any of you come across so called “illegal” stuff online by accident? Child porn, beastiality etc.?

    You don’t get there by accident.

    Now kids viewing porn is another thing. On TV we have watersheds. But any kid (and probably most kids) have stayed up late and watched SBS and seen a bit of naughty stuff. No doubt kids see naughty stuff online. In fact, 90+% of children under 18 have seen pornography online. Are we saying that all these kids are going to be some kind of social screw ups for the rest of their lives?

    Parents might have problems with their kids seeing naked women and the like be it on TV and the internet. That’s their right. However, adults, are also entitled to view certain things as well. So censoring the lot is going to appease a few people and leave the rest in the dark.

    That’s particularly silly since there are already far more appropriate ways of stopping your kids watching porn than a mandatory ISP filter and the best one is still computers in a public place.

  28. [HSO, that’s about the fifth time that GP has roamed in to begin a diversion onto internet filters. I am amazed at how successful the Liberal Party talking points are around here.]

    Well, talking about the pathetic Libs is pretty boring. Nothing wrong with a good honest debate about the filter.

  30. Diogenes: “It’s (filters) is also anti-elite intellectuals.”
    Exactly , just like OZ yous objections ar based on OZ quote “because its mandatory”
    Yous want unlimited freedoms even for kids on th Net This failed philosophy of th children of th hippie communes of free love ins , and freedoms for any to do all and everything , hides behind disengenous red herring arguments of “detail” …but this is your reel tale , kids freedoms as a lynchpin of extremist Libertarian baloney , and without regard to children as victims
    .
    As for blaming Parents , then lets abolish laws for business selling porn to kids (Parents can take sole responsibility) ..lets abolish Laws selling grog to kids Parents can take sole responsibility ..lets abolish Laws of Retailers selling cigarettes to kids (Parents can take sole responsibility)

    Society via its Government invokes Laws to protect kids irrespective of Parents Issue should be how to implement , not whether to do it , and Statutory Independence under Parliament guidelines done Nationally seems more appriopriate If more funding is needed on technology then that’s a subsidiary issue and not an excuse to say it cann’t be done , science historicaly has proved otherwise

  31. [That’s particularly silly since there are already far more appropriate ways of stopping your kids watching porn than a mandatory ISP filter and the best one is still computers in a public place.]
    And individual families can put their own filtering software on their PCs if that is what they want.

    The government could mandate that a CD with filtering software be included with EVERY PC sold in Australia if they want.

    But the filter is stupid. I mean, why are phone sex lines legal, what’s stopping a 12 year old from calling one of those all the time?

  33. [But any kid (and probably most kids) have stayed up late and watched SBS and seen a bit of naughty stuff]

    There is a very big difference between the kind of porn available on SBS and that online

  34. [so a filter would be by no means unique, and any attempt to brand it as such incorrect.]

    It’s completely unique. Unlike with film and literature, it will block legal content. Unlike with film and literature, it will be at the discretion of the Department and the Minister. Unlike with film and literature, the block list will be secret. Unlike with film and literature we won’t know what the guidelines for having something blocked are. Unlike with film and literature it will represent a degradation in network quality. Unlike with film and literature, there will be plenty of false positives.

    [Great, well once those kiddies accidentally stumble on that kiddie porn the AFP will be there to bust em]

    You don’t accidentally stumble on it.

  36. I don’t know how many more disappointments I can take in one day. First the news that Obama is considering Hillary for SOS, and now this.

    [FEDERAL sports minister, Adelaide’s Kate Ellis has been offered $30,000 to strip for a men’s magazine.

    Zoo Weekly asked the minister for youth and sport to pose, but she rejected the offer today, the magazine said.

    “We’re naturally sad that she’s turned down a shoot and deprived her constituents of a much needed morale boost in this global recession.”

    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24651520-5006301,00.html

  37. [Unlike with film and literature, it will block legal content]

    So you have no problem with a filter, just the material that will be filtered?

  38. [So you have no problem with a filter, just the material that will be filtered?]
    The fact it will likely block legal content seems to be a pretty good argument against it.

    I’d argue that what should be legal films ARE banned by simply saying they are illegal! 😀

  39. [And individual families can put their own filtering software on their PCs if that is what they want.]

    AND they join an ISP that offers the highest level filtering.

    [The government could mandate that a CD with filtering software be included with EVERY PC sold in Australia if they want.]

    The last government put a free filter online. I think 30,000 people downloaded it. Clearly there is a demand for this stuff…

  42. Oz, do you have any ideas about how this problem might be addressed? I have a related interest in the pro anorexic sites that kids use. It is a complex area and there’s no simple solutions. Perhaps we don’t know what the answers are?

  45. [The last government put a free filter online. I think 30,000 people downloaded it. Clearly there is a demand for this stuff…]
    Sure, I’d go further and say a DVD included with every PC.

    But forcing people to install something on their computer they don’t want is silly.

    Incidentally, I doubt this ISP filter would be legal if we had a comprehensive free speech clause in our constitution.

    I do not mean it would be a right to have access to child pornography, I just mean that it is likely that the potential for this filter to block LEGAL material in an attempt to block illegal material would be seen as an infringement of free speech.

  47. [First the news that Obama is considering Hillary for SOS, and now this.]

    I cried as well. For both.

    [So you have no problem with a filter, just the material that will be filtered?]

    My problems are numerous and have been stated several times, including the post you quoted from.

    Look the way to “solve” this issue is very simple. State the problem. State solutions to the problem. Analyse the solutions and do a cost-benefit analysis and see which are the most effective and then implement them.

    Now the “problem” the government is fixing is complicated. They want to stop child porn. They want to block all porn. They want to block further, undefined “unwanted” material.

    Is the best way to deal with child to put up a costly filter and say you’ve dealt with the problem when everyone in the industry has stated that it will do nothing to stem to accessibility of child porn? No, of course it.

    Is blocking pornography a problem? For everyone? For some families and their kids it might be. Just like for some families letting their kids watch raunchy “sex line” ads is a problem. If so, they should take the issue into their hands and do some of the numerous things we’ve talked about.

    Is blocking “unwanted” material a problem? No. The problem is that we seem to have Minister using the “Think of the children!!!” hysteria to tack on something that doesn’t belong in a democracy – executive control over what we see, hear or read with no oversight or accountability.

  50. [Now the “problem” the government is fixing is complicated. They want to stop child porn. They want to block all porn. They want to block further, undefined “unwanted” material.]
    First shouldn’t we consider that banning child porn itself is treating a symptom. Specifically, the reason child porn is illegal is because the acts conducted to create it are illegal. So the material itself is a documentary record of illegal acts.

    So of course it is essential that there is stringent policing of the actual materials, but there also must be a concerted effort to find the people manufacturing the material. The internet filter deals with the material, but not its manufacture.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 4 of 14
1 … 3 4 5 … 14