Essential Research has produced its final weekly survey for the year, ahead of a sabbatical that will extend to January 12. It shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly from 59-41 to 58-42. I might proudly note that they have taken up my suggestion to gauge opinion on the internet filtering plan, and the result gives some insight into the government’s apparent determination to pursue this by all accounts foolish and futile policy. Even accounting for the fact that this is a sample of internet users, the survey shows 49 per cent supporting the plan against 40 per cent opposed. Also featured are questions on the government’s general performance over the year, bonuses to pensions and families, optimism for the coming year (surprisingly high) and the target the government should set for greenhouse emission reductions (only 8 per cent support a cut of less than 5 per cent). Elsewhere:
• The West Australian has published a Westpoll survey of 400 WA respondents showing 60 per cent believe the federal government’s changes in policy on asylum seekers have contributed to a recent upsurge in boat arrivals in the north-west. However, only 34 per cent supported a return to the Pacific solution against 48 per cent opposed. Sixty-nine per cent professed themselves “concerned” about the increased activity, but 54 per cent said they were happy for the arrivals to live on Christmas Island while they were assessed for refugee status. Fifty-one per cent were opposed to them being processed on the mainland. Westpoll also found that 62 per cent of respondents “definitely” supported recreational fishing bans to protect vulnerable species, with “nearly eight out of 10” indicating some support. I suspect The West Australian commissioned monthly polling in advance expectation of a February state election, and has tired of asking redundant questions on support for the new government.
• Imre Salusinszky on Bennelong in The Weekend Australian:
The experience of Labor in 1990, when Bob Hawke was mugged in Victoria by the unpopularity of former Labor premier John Cain, shows there are occasions when a Labor state government can throw an anchor around the neck of its federal counterpart. According to Newspoll figures published in The Australian yesterday, federal Labor’s primary vote in NSW is running at 41 per cent, nearly four points down on its level at last year’s federal election. Although this is still much higher than the 29 per cent primary vote recorded in a Newspoll last month for the state Labor government – which, as it happens, was precisely the party’s primary vote in Ryde – it certainly suggests Rudd has problems in NSW. Given Rees’s recent decision to scrap plans for a metro rail system linking central Sydney to the city’s northwest, some of those problems could manifest in Bennelong. And while Howard was a formidable adversary, it would be possible to argue his presence assisted McKew by encouraging every gibbering Howard-hater in the country – including the activist group GetUp! – to get involved in the battle for Bennelong.
The key, obviously, lies in the calibre of candidate the Liberals manage to put up. Two names that have been mentioned are former state leader Kerry Chikarovski and former rugby union international Brett Papworth. Chikarovski represented Lane Cove, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1991 to 2003; Papworth is a son of the electorate who began his playing career there. But if there is one candidate who could give McKew a fright, it is Andrew Tink. Tink represented the state seat of Epping, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1988 until last year’s state election. A true-blue local, Tink would be able to exploit a lingering perception of McKew as a celebrity blow-in. Tink appears to be enjoying his second career as a historian of NSW politics, but there have been approaches from senior Liberals who would like to see him make history of McKew.
• Noting the difficult position of the Canadian Liberals as they pursue power behind an interim leader, Ben Raue at The Tally Room looks at differing methods used overseas for selection of party leaders and offers a critique of Australian practice (part one and part two).
• Possum: “ETS – Why 5% in two charts”. Even shorter version: it all comes down to the Senate.
Just to clarify and demonstrate out how off the point you are, please list movies, books or television shows that are banned at the discretion of the ACMA with no community representation? Please list those movies, books or television shows which are on a secret blacklist? Please list those movies, book or television shows that are banned not because they are illegal but because Senator Conroy has defined them as “unwanted”? Please list those movies, books or television which, when banned, have no avenue for appeal or public discussion?
[I agree with censorship of certain things esp child porn obviously and violent sites]
As do I. Which is I am critical of the government for cutting the budget of the one organisation that has proven its ability to apprehend those creating, distributing and viewing child porn – the AFP.
The AFP and technical experts both acknowledge that the vast majority child porn will not be blocked by this filter.
The slowing of the internet by filtering is a crud argument. The ISPs don’t want to do it so they make wild claims. (Yes I have worked for ISPs).
The internet is already filtered. ISPs “ban” IP ranges every day. There is big money in network reputation services – just ask Trend Micro they charge Bigpond $30,000 a week.
When you know what you are talking about I will rejoin this topic. 😛
Oz
Agree totally. That’s the straw man they use to cover their crap arguments. Although Conroy did shaft Telstra today so I’m going to lay off him for a few days.
Oz @ 51
Ask Phillip Ruddock.
ruawake
So if they can ban sites already, why don’t the AFP have a few guys trawling the net to find the child porn sites and get them shut down. How hard can it be? Most paedophile rings have a few policemen in them. Why don’t they bust them and reduce their sentences if they cooperate and find sites?
Diog you ar wrong …again
Being an Obama appologist for his pathetic non support for Kyoto ratification does not change reel world politc yous sowed him , now you got him …and th “price” I described
From Obama’s nominee win at end of May , he and th equaly pathetic McCain message to world was USA will look after USA business interests first and CC will be last …and worse still USA would set up there OWN exclusive 13 member “GEF” Body , effectively competing with Kyoto ….sabatage…we were excluded by way
Thats Obama and McCain’s pathetic message , its harmed CC negotiations , your man Now copenhaggen probably will end up with 550 pgg target requiring ‘oz 10%….making Rudd’s 15% looking a star but then your guy does not even hav a 2020 target Maybe Rudd can giv Obama some backbone
The internet has resulted in more arrests of kiddy fiddlers than any other method. Why?
Govt. agencies can find out every site you visit. ISPs can read every email you send or recieve. Police can find the details of every phone call you recieve or make.
The puerile attitude of some is staggering.
SNIP: Pain in the arse comment deleted. The next time you ignore what I ask of you, you’ll get banned. – The Management.
[but there have been approaches from senior Liberals who would like to see him make history of McKew.]
And the hurt is still there one year on, the poor kids must feel they can make make some of it go away by vanquishing McKew. Man they must feel it really deep, I feel their pain.
[ The next time you ignore what I ask of you, you’ll get banned.]
What did I ignore?
Which part of this do you not understand? It seems crystal clear to me.
John Ryan
“I am opposed to Conroys Filter as I dont want anyone telling me what I can see read or hear”
About time one branch of libertarism actualy said what they tink Too many of your particular branch of Libertarism here disengenuously hide behind straw man arguments
1/ of “alleged” deals with fielding/X to scare people of what Conroy might do , and
2/ that th Sites ar secret….only a fool can not work out why th Sites will be secret and only naive tinks that is th ONLY thing th Govt keeps secets on
3/ outrageous scare claims of what Conroy might do as a censorship Czar it will be subject to adequate governance like all censorship
None of this nonsense stands up to ‘losing’ abit of intenet freedom via censorship vs reducing child porn Only worthwile issue to examine is technicol issues , and if guys hav serious issues there I’m understanding of your concern , but not reely persuaded…can it be done eficiently and generaly for intended child porn Sites only , Mr Google , Mr Gates …bet they could solve if they want to
[Which part of this do you not understand? It seems crystal clear to me.]
That was a month ago, I forgot.
[About time one branch of libertarism actualy said what they tink Too many of your particular branch of Libertarism here disengenuously hide behind straw man arguments]
If you’re going to continue with this nonsense, you could at least spell libertarianism properly.
Ron
The Climate Change Denial Party of John Howard looks like supporting Rudd’s because it’s so lacking in any courage to actually do anything about climate change. So much for CC being the “greatest moral challenge we face”.
We committed in principle at Bali to a 25-40% reduction by 2020. This Government has dumped the problem on future generations in it’s own political interests.
[We committed in principle at Bali to a 25-40% reduction by 2020. This Government has dumped the problem on future generations in it’s own political interests.]
I think what it is really doing is dumping the problem onto the next economic boom. It is basically trying to avoid mixing an economic downturn with the implementation of a harsh carbon trading regime. Instead the price of carbon will have to be dramatically increased when the economy starts growing again at 3 or 4% p.a. But with the world economy the way it is, that could be 3 – 5 years away.
Diogenes
We did not:
“As business and industry warn of catastrophic economic effects if the ambit claims of 25-40 per cent emission cuts by 2020 are adopted at the conference, Kevin Rudd and his Climate Change Minister Penny Wong have declared Australia will not budge until it knows the full cost of adopting any targets. ”
“Rudd resisting Bali targets”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22910382-5013871,00.html
ShowsOn
In a few years, Rudd will say that the economy is starting to pick up and now is not the time to slow the recovery. It will never be a good time. Although the prospect of the Reserve Bank controlling the price of carbon as a second level to regulate the economy is fascinating. You could raise the price of coal instead of interest rates and vice versa. Is there any economic genius out there who knows if this would work? (And no Ron I’m not referring to you 😉 )
[You could raise the price of coal instead of interest rates and vice versa. Is there any economic genius out there who knows if this would work?]
Surely the plan must be to make carbon more and more expensive, but never cheaper.
So that eventually – in say 50 years time – it would be economically stupid burning coal to make electricity.
ruawake
I will never trust the 7.30 Report again!!
ruawake
“Diogenes We did not:…”
Whilst diog , you ar wrong again , I noticed on sunday you were almost right , but not enough You suggested you Libetarins all drive th one colour car so you could knew each other , and said quote “I think it will be popular”
Perhaps you lot could all hav a prefix before your monikers…”RL” (L for libertarian) , moderates “ML”…..and for everyone else TG (th goodguys)
Diogenes
Good idea 🙂
No, Ruawake I am asking you. Since you’re the one supporting this filter and using a lie, namely that it will bring internet regulation in line with other forms of media, as your premise.
[The ISPs don’t want to do it so they make wild claims.]
Ruawake that point would make sense if not for the fact that the government’s own tests, in ideal lab conditions, reported speed drops. It’s clearly not the BS claim you’re making it out to be.
Does anyone actually think a target of 20+ would make it through the current senate?. Imagine the scare campaign that would be run against it, the ‘humiliating failure’ that would result from the complete non-starting of a trading scheme. Pragmatic approach = at least we get one started.
[Pragmatic approach = at least we get one started.]
You know, I might agree with you if the “one” we’re talking about isn’t simply a pathetic shifting of money away from Australians towards polluting industries.
The next election is in 2010 anyway. The government could have tried to get it through, probably would have been only one shy and if it didn’t work and they were serious called an election.
[The next election is in 2010 anyway. The government could have tried to get it through, probably would have been only one shy and if it didn’t work and they were serious called an election.]
The point was, this way they get to go to an election saying that they have implemented a national carbon trading system, without the fine print that it is pretty toothless for the next decade.
Ron
It was “Librans” not Libertarians!!
ruawake
It sort of came as a shock to me that we weren’t an international pariah for a few months there. Evidently we initially made a few positive noises about the 25-40% target and then hurried back into the CC deniers corner with our old friends, the US. You always know you’re in good company when it’s just you and the US on one side and the rest of the world on the other. It’s even better if Israel is there too. Those ones are normally on treaties to stop human rights abuses.
Easier to tweak something if it actually exists Oz than to spend years talking about what couldabeen
“Pragmatic approach = at least we get one started”
That assumes that this one will be able to get through with minimal amendments and that a greener version would not have. It also assumes that Rudd would have preferred a greener version. If that is the case then ,while i still think it is weak, it is true that you have to work with the senate that you have, not the senate that you want. If any of these assumptions are incorrect then this is a fail with whiff of ‘epic’.
Oz
“block access to malicious websites based on reputation scoring” from Trend Micro’s website.
It’s happening already.
On the Govt trials, well they have not reported yet.
“Expressions of Interest have been sought from ISPs interested in participating in this ‘live’ pilot. Participation is restricted to those ISPs that provide a service to persons resident in Australia.
The pilot is expected to commence before the end of 2008, although ISPs will be able to start later (but preferably before 24 December 2008).
Ideally, ISPs will participate in the pilot for a minimum of 6 weeks.
The Pilot will conclude in the first half of 2009”
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and__support/cyber-safety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot
So once again, you seem to be wrong. 😛
Oz, could you tone it down a bit please? In particular, you need to get over this idea you have that every opinion you express is the last conceivable word on the matter.
[Oz, could you tone it down a bit please? In particular, you need to get over this idea you have that every opinion you express is the last conceivable word on the matter.]
Yes Oz. That’s my job.
now Obama appologists should n’t get feline as well You’ve got your non Kyoto albertross , and don’t like it but there you go ….and only Rudd (and perhapds hillary) can save Obama now from CC infamy
PAAPTSEF
Quite right , and first year at 5% will add up top 12 billion to Industry costs , which will get passed down…and there will be a scare campaign on that alone by 2010 we will also know result of coppenhaggen and rudd can adjust accordingley
Of course th reverse logic of your theory also applies , someting thats been overlooked Had Rudd gone for 20% or 15% today …and coppenhaggen agreed to 550ppg and 10% , then we would hav been stupidly in front of whole world !!….that would then hav been a one term Govt some of you guys would make great political strategists …for one day
thewetmale,
Have you seen Possums charts?
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/12/15/ets-why-5-in-two-charts/
[On the Govt trials, well they have not reported yet.]
I was referring to the lab trials conducted in Tasmania earlier this year.
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_internet_content_filtering_trial-report.pdf
[“Expressions of Interest have been sought from ISPs interested in participating in this ‘live’ pilot. Participation is restricted to those ISPs that provide a service to persons resident in Australia.]
Actually the next round of trials will not be “live” at all. The Department as indicated the trials will only involve simulated users.
[So once again, you seem to be wrong.]
Nope.
[In particular, you need to get over this idea you have that every opinion you express is the last conceivable word on the matter.]
What would help is he Ruawake put his arrogance aside and actually responded to anything I was saying rather simply saying “You are wrong, I’m not going to say why, you just are” and continuing to misrepresent the truth.
Still waiting for answers for 51 Ruawake. =)
ruawake
[So once again, you seem to be wrong. :P]
Actually, it’s me who’s always wrong.
Ronster
If Copenhagen comes up with 550 and 10%, it would be an appalling failure. Rudd’s “modest” target has made that eventuality much more likely. Every other developed country is going to say “5%, sign me up” and we’ll be another decade down the road to stuffing the planet.
[Have you seen Possums charts?]
They’re wrong, the Greens would only be at 100% at 30+%
Have you seen Possums charts?
Yes i have thank you, i even posted a comment:-)
Diogenes,
You really are a cop out!
Blather on about your noble goals as if they are a given, criticise others for lacking courage of their convictions without ever putting yourself forward as a candidate for change in a real election and getting in a hump because your preferred result doesn’t eventuate.
Only the impotent are pure, cobber!
Shows On,
If it is a choice of credibility between you and Possum,…………………….
Do I even need to go on?
Oz
I answered your question, ask Phillip Ruddock. He banned books without community consultation.
See comment 55 😛
[criticise others for lacking courage of their convictions without ever putting yourself forward as a candidate for change in a real election]
Which election did you run at?
WA Today report on the Ray Report into the WA State Election.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/labor-slammed-in-election-review-20081215-6ywx.html?page=-1
[Shows On,]
Do you honestly think all the Greens would vote for a 15% cut?
They want 60 – 80% by 2050 remember.
And you have no issue with that? In fact you would like to see that extended into legislation for the internet?
I don’t understand why you don’t think there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this policy short of decrying everyone who’s against it “anti-censorship”.
[Do you honestly think all the Greens would vote for a 15% cut?]
We don’t know and the Government doesn’t know because they never even consulted them. And it doesn’t appear that they consulted Xenophon or Fielding either.
And we’re supposed to feel sorry for them in their Senate position? I don’t see the coal lobby, Alcoa or Woodside in the Senate, but the Government negotiated with all of them.
O dear and here I was thinking you all bowed before my clear and abundance wisdom and knowledge!! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I have no problem with a totally uncensored internet, I am not advocating any kind of censorship.
If people want to watch “young aardvarks in heat” or read “how to ensure the demise of the cane toad” or such, fair enough.
What irks me is people who do not know what they are talking about. The internet is already censored by commercial companies. How many routers say “sorry you can’t get there from here” ?
How many DNS “forget” about certain sites?
So forgive me your purity, the internet is heavily censored already.
Conroy is playing politics and from todays EM report he is winning.