Morgan: 59-41

The first Roy Morgan face-to-face poll of Tony Abbott’s Liberal leadership covers the last two weekends of polling, and it fails to replicate the encouraging results for Abbott in Morgan’s two earlier small-sample phone polls. Labor’s primary vote is up two points on Malcolm Turnbull’s last poll to 49 per cent, while the Coalition is up 0.5 per cent to 35.5 per cent. The Greens are down 1.5 per cent to 8 per cent. Labor’s lead on two-party preferred is up from 58.5-41.5 to 59-41.

Festive preselection action:

• Former Davis Cup tennis player John Alexander has won the Liberal preselection for Bennelong, having earlier tried and failed in Bradfield. Despite predictions of a close contest, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Left-backed Alexander had an easy first round win over local business executive Mark Chan, scoring 67 votes in the ballot of 120 preselectors. As the Herald tells it, “the right split and the hard right deserted Mr Chan”, although VexNews notes the seat is “not a centre of factional operations for either camp”. The also-rans were businessman Steve Foley and financial services director Melanie Matthewson.

• Wanneroo mayor Jon Kelly has withdrawn his nomination for Labor preselection in the Perth northern suburbs federal seat of Cowan, after earlier being considered certain to get the gig. This comes in the wake of a Corruption and Crime Commission finding that Kelly had put himself at “risk” of misconduct through his relationship with Brian Burke. Burke presumably knew what he was doing when he subsequently endorsed Kelly, going on to say he had “sought my help on many occasions and I’ve always been available to assist him”. The West Australian reported the withdrawal was the product of a “mutual” decision reached after “a week of talks with Labor officials”, which included federal campaign committee chairman and Brand MP Gary Gray. Potential replacements named by The West are Dianne Guise and Judy Hughes, who respectively lost their local seats of Wanneroo and Kingsley at the state election last September. The ABC reports a decision is expected in mid-January.

• The Western Australian ALP has also confirmed Tim Hammond, Louise Durack and ECU history lecturer Bill Leadbetter as candidates for Swan, Stirling and Pearce.

• The NSW Liberals have selected incumbents Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Bill Heffernan to head their Senate ticket, reversing the order from 2004. The Coalition agreement reserves the third position for the Nationals – I am not aware of any suggestion their candidate will be anyone other than incumbent Fiona Nash. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports Heffernan needed the backing of Tony Abbott to ward off challenges from David Miles, a public relations executive with Pfizer, and George Bilic, a Blacktown councillor.

• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald notes Left figurehead Anthony Albanese’s chutzpah in calling for the Macquarie preselection to be determined by rank-and-file party ballot, after the role he played in imposing numerous candidates elsewhere as a member of the party’s national executive. Albanese reportedly believes Left candidate Susan Templeman would win a local ballot, although the earlier mail was that the Right’s Adam Searle had the numbers and it was the Left who wanted national executive intervention.

• Final Liberal two-party margin from the Bradfield by-election: 14.8 per cent. From Higgins: 10.2 per cent. Respective turnouts were 81.51 per cent and 79.00 per cent, compared with 80.12 per cent at the Mayo by-election, 87.41 per cent in Lyne and 89.68 per cent in Gippsland. Question: if the results have been declared, why hasn’t the AEC published preference distributions?

• VexNews reports Saturday’s Liberal preselection for the Victorian state seat of Ripon was a clear win for the unsuccessful candidate from 2006, Vic Dunn, who my records tell me is “the local inspector at Maryborough”. Dunn reportedly scored 53 votes against 26 for Institute of Public Affairs agriculture policy expert and preselection perennial Louise Staley and four for local winery owner John van Beveren. Joe Helper holds the seat for Labor on a maergin of 4.3 per cent.

• The Berwick Star reports that Lorraine Wreford, the newly elected mayor of Casey, refused to confirm or deny reports she lodged a nomination for Liberal preselection in the state seat of Mordialloc last Friday. Janice Munt holds the seat for Labor on a margin of 3.5 per cent.

• The Country Voice SA website reports that one of its regular contributors, former SA Nationals president Wilbur Klein, will be the party’s candidate for Flinders at the March state election. The seats was held by the party prior to 1993, when it was won by its now-retiring Liberal member Liz Penfold.

• On Tuesday, The West Australian provided further data from the 400-sample Westpoll survey discussed a few posts ago, this time on attitudes to an emissions trading scheme. Forty per cent wanted it adopted immediately, down from 46 per cent two months ago. However, there was also a fall in the number wanting the government to wait until other countries committed to targets, from 47 per cent to 43 per cent. The remainder “ favoured other options to cut emissions or did not know”.

• Paul Murray of The West Australian offers some interesting electoral history on the occasion of the passing of former Liberal-turned-independent state MP Ian Thompson:

Shortly after the State election in February 1977, allegations began to emerge from both sides of politics about dirty deeds in the seat of Kimberley. Liberal sitting member Alan Ridge beat Labor’s Ernie Bridge on preferences by just 93 votes. The Liberals were the first to strike, claiming Labor was manipulating Aboriginal voters, but the move backfired badly. A subsequent Court of Disputed Returns case turned up scathing evidence of a deliberate Liberal campaign to deny Aboriginals the vote using underhand tactics and the election result was declared void on November 7.

Returning officers in the Kimberley for years had allowed illiterate Aboriginals to use party how-to-vote cards as an indication of their voting intention. What became apparent later was that Labor had put hundreds of Aboriginal voters on the roll and generally mobilised the indigenous community. The Liberals flew a team of young lawyers up from Perth to act as scrutineers at polling booths, with a plan to stop illiterate voters. The Court government pressured the chief electoral officer to instruct returning officers in the Kimberley to challenge illiterate voters and not accept their how-to-vote cards.

The court case turned up a letter of thanks from Mr Ridge to a Liberal Party member, who stood as an independent, saying “a third name on the ballot paper created some confusion among the illiterate voters and there is no doubt in my mind that it played a major part in having me re-elected”. Mr Ridge’s letter said that unless the Electoral Act was changed to make it more difficult for illiterate Aboriginals to cast their votes, the Liberals would not be able to win the seat.

Two days after the court ordered a new election, premier Sir Charles introduced in the Legislative Assembly a Bill to do just that. How-to-vote cards could not be used, nor could an instruction of a vote for just one candidate. Labor went ballistic, saying no illiterate voter would meet the test.

What transpired over nine hours was one of the most bitter debates ever seen in the WA Parliament and the galvanising of a new breed of Labor head kickers – Mr Burke, Mal Bryce, Bob Pearce and Arthur Tonkin, who came to power six years later. On November 10, it became apparent that the government was in trouble when one of the four National Country Party members not in the coalition Cabinet, Hendy Cowan, said he opposed the Bill because it disenfranchised all illiterate voters. When it came to the vote, the four NCP members crossed the floor and the maverick Liberal member for Subiaco, Dr Tom Dadour, abstained. The numbers split 25-25.

From the Speaker’s chair, Ian Thompson calmly noted that the law said when a Court of Disputed Returns ordered a by-election it had to be held under the same conditions as the original poll. If the Government wanted to amend the Electoral Act, it should do so after the by-election.

“Therefore I give my casting vote with the ‘Noes’ and the Bill is defeated,” he said. Hansard unusually recorded applause.

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.

2,931 comments on “Morgan: 59-41”

Comments Page 45 of 59
1 … 44 45 46 … 59

  2. Gary Bruce – #2167

    [ I asked a question earlier – If the law to compel to give evidence is removed what other laws help to root out the “bad guys” of which there were and are some? ]

    I suggest that substantive offences be created to ‘root out the bad guys’. If you say, well how can we prove they have committed offences unless we have a star chamber process to elicit evidence of their wrongdoing? I would suggest:-
    1. It is not necessary to have a star chamber – there are other means of gathering evidence.
    2. As a matter of principle we should not have star chambers.
    3. If we are to have star chambers to root out bad guy construction workers – is there any reason we should not have same for all workers, indeed for all Australians, including criminals, corrupt public servants, corrupt developers, corrupt politicians, shoplifters, murderers etc.

  3. Re: China and coal … and getting its Copenhagen behaviour into its perspective, not ours … (Doesn’t mean they don’t need to rein in coal pollution of the atmosphere; but it isn’t their fault the West exploited their technology etc.) As both an English proverb (and a Chinese equivalent) say: Before criticizing a man, walk a mile in his shoes. (My Google search also revealed the Chinese equivalent) Current demands on the Chinese, as well as current criticism, must appear to them the height of Western arrogance.

    (BTW, I meant to give Our Penny a bouquet for her role – a part-Chinese Environmental Minister aware of Chinese sensitivities as well as global priorities. Pity Oz MSM, the Opposition & the Greens didn’t have the grace to acknowledge her & Kev’s work – the grapevine says it was exceptional.)

    Marco Polo account of China includes mention of “the rock than burns” – coal. The earliest use of coal (probably for heating) certainly predates its C4 AD use in blast furnaces.

    This appears to be from a La Rouche site (you find some phrases & statements familiar) but it’s one of the easiest-to-read summaries of Chinese inventions & innovations:

    As early as the Fourth Century A.D., coal was used in China, in place of charcoal, as fuel to heat iron to rework the raw iron into finished products. Although sources on the use of coal in the Song Dynasty (960-1279 A.D.) are limited, the Chinese are reported to have developed the ability to use coal in the smelting of iron by the Ninth Century.

    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/id1.html

    BTW 2: The commune part of Communism lasted about a Decade, from the 1966 beginning of the Cultural Revolution until his death in 1976 & the arrest of the Gang of Four (inc Madam Mao) about a month later. It was an unmitigated disaster, very destructive, undid much of post-1949 reconstruction & modrnisation, was bitterly resented vocally almost before the Go4 trials ended – and very little of it may have been at Mao’s instigation (his famous 1966 swim in the Yangtse river at Wuhan was widely seen as a propaganda attempt to scotch rumours that he was “past it” mentally & physically).

    Call Chinese Maoists or Marxists, sure; but not Communists. The latter is just another example of Western ignorance – as you’ll be told if your insensitive enough to say it.

  8. Seems there were 10,000 posts during my jail term , so cann’t read them but now hav simply read yesterdays & some isues

    Bob 1234 banned ? a calming influense has been lost , and replaced my me mayham

    Adam seems gone as well ? disappointed on that , i was looking forward to RE-demolish his sanctomonoius attitude , his poorly judged support for th barbarous Israel inflicting harm on Palestiniens apartheid style , his flip flop to suporing filthy nuke energyw/out waste solutons enegy eficiency & cost , his outragous suport for allowing Gays to flaunt there ‘rights’ in public implying to kids there lfestyle is as if “mainstreem” , and was looking forward to educate him on english corect

    STFU what is that ? seemed important , ids it good orr bad , a virus , am i imfected now

    Net Filter – well Microsoft has just develd a ‘footprint” to uniqueley identify porn images from all others so that would destroys objectons As to adults losing “rights’ censorship querys then what about th little childrens victums rights so abused

    Labor Hacks ? i want names How about accusors naming me or not naming me , and if so pplease some substiataton , anyway Vera I’m a good lookun Hack if that helps

    Green hacks ? are accusors saying there are nune ? “please explain ! ” not understand

    Pheonixberg – yes agree with yu , Williams moderation is apaling , he should hav shown bias and been less paciense , do you want me to take over

    “Socrates
    Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    George Monbiot agrees with Ron: the USA are responsible for Copenhagen failing:
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/us-is-culprit-for-copenhagen-failure-but-shifts-blame-to-china-20091222-lbny.html

    I mostly agree; I just think people shoudl be careful not to oversimplify this. There are a few guilty parties, but the US is the biggest of them.”

    thanks Socrates , George knows th same facts as me that Obama’s 3% cut offer by 2020 guaranteed failure , geez 3% being so patthetic left NO scarick of hope for developng countrys Obama may move .negotiate anywhere near a realistic target

    yes others hav blame , less blame but still blame like th EU were weak not distansing themselves from USA & puting up there own proposal publicly , some small nations wanted th moolah & didn’t care about CC , Mr Pinp a Ping or whatever from Sudan was divisive representing th 77 bloc , th Danes as hosts were not impartial moderate

    of lesser blame guess one can say India China S Africa Brazil big developng nations could hav taken more responsibilty Problam is reality , there billions of peoples are poor , and th West is saying those peoples hav to remain poor/ take longer time for there kis to hav Western standards whilst West peoples keep th living standard benefits of them puting most co2 in sky AND they get a patthetic 3% cut offerfrom that SAME Rich countrys leadrship , so there reaton was normal of course had they got a realistic 25% off 1990 offer from th West with thems to comit gradualy and THEN if they’sd said NO then those developng Countrys would be th ones to blame for failure but that is not what happened evenn so I’d like to seen alittle more public positive message from major developng countrys Russia could hav done more publicly also But ultimate responsibility for Copenhaggen failure still rests with Obama’s 3% and lesser to th EU

    As to China wanting th 2050 target taken out of text , thats obvously West media spin to pass ht blame , seeing 2050 target is irrelevent in 2009 , it was ht 2020 target that was criticol to get agreed , so that was blatant blame throwing at Chinese amnd amaturish at that

  9. While the world argues, the Chinese have been quietly securing their energy supplies. Few weeks ago, it was gas pipeline from Central Asia (Kazakhstan) to China.

    Now it’s oil pipeline from Burma to Southern China. The pipeline would cut 1,200 kilometres off the current delivery route via the pirate infested Malacca Strait and South China Sea, as well as provide oil supplies to the under-developed South and South Western parts of China.

    This is bad news for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Singapore.

    [BEIJING, Dec. 21 (Xinhua) — China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), the country’s biggest oil and gas producer, announced on Monday it has signed an agreement with Myanmar’s Energy Ministry to receive exclusive rights to build and operate the China-Myanmar crude oil pipeline. The deal has granted operating concession of the pipeline to the CNPC controlled South-East Asia Crude Oil Pipeline Ltd., said CNPC. The pipeline company will also enjoy tax concessions and customs clearance rights, said a report on the CNPC website.

    The agreement stipulates the Myanmar government should guarantee the company’s ownership and exclusive operating rights, as well as the safety of the pipeline. In June, CNPC and the Myanmar government signed a memorandum of understanding, agreeing that CNPC would be responsible for the design, construction, and operation of the pipeline, the statement said. he 771-kilometer pipeline, extending from Maday island, in western Myanmar, to Ruili, in the southwestern Chinese province of Yunnan, is expected to carry 12 million tonnes of oil a year initially.]

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/21/content_12683020.htm

  10. G Growler

    [ ..Nelson Mandela’s incareration… being proof that long prison sentences work.]

    That obviously was humor.

    However, because in this typing situation one does not have the clues of tone and facial expression to judge whether the comment was meant as humour or was serious, might I humbly suggest you use an emoticon to indicate your intention. It would make reading the posts on here much easier and more enjoyable.

  12. [It probably depends on your browser.]

    Firefox can handle Chinese characters but PB cant.

    TP, what are you saying about the American devils?

  13. [Adam seems gone as well]
    Ron

    He’s just changed his name to Psephos and is having a trip to Israel over Christmas
    [I’m a good lookun Hack if that helps]
    Looks don’t matter, it’s your style I like 😉

  16. [3. If we are to have star chambers to root out bad guy construction workers – is there any reason we should not have same for all workers, indeed for all Australians, including criminals, corrupt public servants, corrupt developers, corrupt politicians, shoplifters, murderers etc.]
    It’s my understanding you can be called before the courts to give evidence and jailed if you refuse.

  18. [It’s my understanding you can be called before the courts to give evidence and jailed if you refuse.]

    And believe it or not in regular trials it is the same and is called contempt.

  20. [Peter Young
    Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    fredn – 2182

    Thanks for that reference. My cursory reading of that article indicates it examines inter alia the “other” vote as recorded by polls (not elections) between January 2005 and July 2007 which showed an initial increase in the starting “other” poll and then a decrease below that initial poll figure at the end of the period. As such, it may not be particularly helpful, but I am grateful that you took the time to bring it to my attention.]

    You are a lost cause; believe your fairy tales; just don’t expect others to.

  21. GG@2195

    [Changing technology is in the mix also. People draw their political information from a variety of sources including televison, newspapers, FM radio stations and even sites like PB which allow people from all over to communicate and argue their points of view.]

    Yes, I guess you are right. The native plant society I am a semi-member of used to be the only place to get information about how to grow australian plants. There were very few if any native plants in the nurseries for sale. Now you can get any information you want from the internet, and even places like Mitre 10 and Bunnings have a reasonable range of native plants.

    Which is my analogue of this comment of yours:

    [Being a member of a Party used to be a way of informing oneself about political issues. Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott etc are on TV most nights banging on about the issue du jour.]

    And the advantage of the internet with regard to the issues is that you can get a wide range of attitudes to whatever is happening on the political scene.

    Thanks for that, an instructive post. I didn’t know that stuff about horse racing, either.

  22. [ It’s my understanding you can be called before the courts to give evidence and jailed if you refuse.

    And believe it or not in regular trials it is the same and is called contempt.]

    I suppose the question is whether the ABCC should have the powers of a court.

  24. I can see don’s and GG argument for declining party membership, however the consequences for the parties are serious. With a declining membership base one can question there legitimacy, how they reach policy positions, but worse they are open to hijacking by well organised and committed small interest groups. The current state of the Liberal party being an example.

  25. [Berlusconi attack: questions over whether it was staged to create sympathy for Italian leader – Videos posted on the internet sought to stir doubts over a December 13 attack on Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi by hinting it was staged to create sympathy for the embattled leader.]

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/berlusconi-attack-questions-over-whether-it-was-staged-to-create-sympathy-for-italian-leader-20091224-ldvo.html

    This reminded me of Pres. Chen Sui Bian of Taiwan back in 2004 presidential election. He was “shot” during the last days of the election campaign about his stomach. But nobody saw the attack and since then the consensus was it was staged. He won the 2004 election by “a margin of less than 30,000 votes out of 12.9 million votes counted”.

    Since then he and his whole family was charged with corruption.

    [On September 11, 2009, Chen received a life sentence and was fined NT$200 million[1] (US$6.13 million) on charges of embezzlement, taking bribes, and money laundering, involving a total of US$15 million (NT$490 million) while in office from 2000 to 2008. ]

  26. Gary Bruce – #2126

    Yes a person can be forced to attend court to answer questions, but only where that person is not a party to the proceedings. Further, a witness so subpenaed may have a right to refuse to answer a question, inter alia on the grounds it might incriminate him/her.
    In addition the person would not be forced to answer an inappropriate question e.g. “Are you still stealing money from your employer?”, unless the person had admitted to stealing at least in some point in time.
    However, the law Rudd has allowed to remain place or has inadvertently failed to repeal, does not allow for that normal protection. Further, it requires the person to answer questions about a matter, to which he/she may be a party in later proceedings.

    It therefore is unlike “normal court proceeings”.

  27. [I suppose the question is whether the ABCC should have the powers of a court.]

    Dio, the issue is that they have greater powers than a court. In a court you can have legal representation. In a court your evidence is (usually) on the public record.

  28. Fredn@2224:

    [With a declining membership base one can question there legitimacy, how they reach policy positions, but worse they are open to hijacking by well organised and committed small interest groups. The current state of the Liberal party being an example.]

    That is true, and just one person at a small party meeting can have a much greater influence than when there were large numbers coming regularly.

    But how much policy is determined by the rank and file party membership any way? Not much, is my guess, but I don’t really know.

    And it is my understanding that small interest groups is what the faction system is all about in the Labor Party, and to some extent the Libs.

    It is Rudd’s ability to ignore that factional system that makes his position so unassailable in the party, and allows him to act more like a president in government than the leader of a party, where he has to placate the various factions. He seems to do what he damn well pleases.

    He chose his own ministry, a first time event, and although I am told it worked out pretty much as the factions would have wanted anyway, still the fact remains. Just means he is a smart operator.

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: we have not seen his like before.

  29. [It is Rudd’s ability to ignore that factional system that makes his position so unassailable in the party, and allows him to act more like a president in government than the leader of a party, where he has to placate the various factions. He seems to do what he damn well pleases.

    He chose his own ministry, a first time event, and although I am told it worked out pretty much as the factions would have wanted anyway, still the fact remains. Just means he is a smart operator. ]

    And compare that to the NSW Government and to a lesser extent the WA Labor Opposition.

  30. The leader of the parliamentary NSW Labor Party has the right to choose his/her own cabinet (since State conference this year). Unfortunately, because he exercised this right, Nathan Rees was knifed.

  31. This is an interesting table of Australia’s emissions in 1990 and 2006. We’ve increased our emissions by about 5% in that time.

    But there has been a 50% increase in stationary energy, mainly electricity, in that time. Decreased land clearing has masked that but if we keep increasing our demand for power at that rate, we have enormous problems if we keep using coal power.

  33. [However, the law Rudd has allowed to remain place or has inadvertently failed to repeal, does not allow for that normal protection. Further, it requires the person to answer questions about a matter, to which he/she may be a party in later proceedings.]
    I would argue the building unions are reaping what they sowed. Under normal circumstances I would agree this law is draconian but by god the building unions used tactics that were also draconian.

  35. Dio

    Yes, even more so if the Nats can persuade the Liberals to:

    (a) pay ‘compensation’ to farmers who cannot now clear their properties
    (b) get rid of land clearing laws
    (c) plant any offsetting trees in dry sand.

    And even more more so if the NSW Nats stick with their policy of degazetting national parks.

    And even more more more so if we have to start adding bushfire emissions to our emissions outputs.

  36. [I would argue the building unions are reaping what they sowed. Under normal circumstances I would agree this law is draconian but by god the building unions used tactics that were also draconian.]

    Precisely, and I for one am glad the WA ALP have told Heavie Kevvie and the CFMEU to stfu 🙂 St Bob & The Greens can have them all to themselves.

  37. Gary Bruce -#2233

    [ I would agree this law is draconian ]

    I am pleased you finally had enough information to make a decision – posed by the original post about 16 hours ago.

    However, where you and I part company is that I don’t ascribe to ‘tit for tat’ or that bad laws are justified by unusual circumstances.

  38. [Peter Young
    Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
    ….

    However, where you and I part company is that I don’t ascribe to ‘tit for tat’ or that bad laws are justified by unusual circumstances.]

    Given the organised thuggery that was going on just how was the state supposed to deal with it.

  40. [I would argue the building unions are reaping what they sowed. Under normal circumstances I would agree this law is draconian but by god the building unions used tactics that were also draconian.]
    Here is an article re prosecutions arising out of the Cole Royal Commission into the construction industry.

    Howard’s construction inquiry bore little fruit, The Age, 05/03/2009
    [THE Howard government’s $66million royal commission into the building industry led to just one prosecution and one conviction, Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard says.

    A letter from Ms Gillard to Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union head Dave Noonan confirms for the first time the limited results of the inquiry, headed by the former judge Terence Cole, between 2001 and 2003.

    It says that the royal commission resulted in the prosecution of one company for paying strike pay, illegal under 1997 workplace laws, and the conviction of one former union official for giving false evidence to the inquiry.

    The union, and some Labor MPs, argue the revelation undermines the existence of the controversial Australian Building and Construction Commission, established after the inquiry to police building sites.]
    http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=336DC4ABE65AE2C78970AFA8E5BB2BA8?sy=nstore&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=10996&clsPage=1&docID=AGE0903057B6GT7EA4U8

    Indicates rampant thuggery and lawlessness by unions – I don’t think so.

  41. For those wishing to ascertain whether there has been a downward trend in the combined vote for the two parties over several decades, this chart shows primary vote at elections going back to 1949. Obviously a post on polling data from 2005 to 2007, as linked to by fredn, offers no insight on this.

  42. fredn@2238:

    [Peter Young
    Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
    ….
    ]

    I tell ya, he’s a scroll through.

    Under-bridge dwellers are like that.

  43. Off to the doggy park to take Kristina for a walk and so she can meet up with her furry friends.

    Looking forward to reading all the new posts when I get back. :mrgreen: 😆 😆

  44. Hi Scorpio, if you are still around. I’m certainly not suggesting that anyone ever comes to work with the intention that they or anyone else in their workplace will get hurt. But the stats I’ve seen on workplace injuries show that over 90% of injuries occur from someone’s action (or inaction), there are no “accidents”, things happen for a reason. That could well be something like a supervisor not ensuring a machine was maintained or that proper procedures were followed. But it also includes things like workers not wearing the PPE they are required to wear, and workers not following the procedures they have been trained to use, but taking short-cuts instead. If management has done everything it can (removing hazardous materials, providing the right tools and equipment, developing and enforcing safe work procedures, training, safety audits, etc), but workers still look to take short-cuts and get hurt, do you still hold management accountable for that?

    As for bogus safety issues, the kinds of things I’m refering to include:
    -declaring certain materials or machines “black” for spurious safety reasons, then offering to remove the ban as part of some wider industrial agreement
    -insisting that only a trade union member can perform a particular task, because only they can do it safely
    -asking for needlessly high staff numbers for particular tasks or work areas, because employing a smaller number would jeopardise safety

    Safety should be something where everybody is on the same side, not something to be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. (and yes, I’ve seen managers raise spurious safety issues too).

  45. Wiliam@2241:

    [For those wishing to ascertain whether there has been a downward trend in the combined vote for the two parties over several decades, this chart shows primary vote at elections going back to 1949.]

    Thanks very much, William.

    PY was correct, ‘others’ have increased over time, and the major parties have, in total, decreased their primary vote.

  46. Conroy’s views on the filter are in today’s Crikey. I could not bear to read it right through, but it appeared to be generally what Frank said. Everone else is either wrong or disingenuous.

  47. Well, this is my last post for 2009, I suspect.

    Season’s greetings to all bludgers and a special thank you to William.

    Floods, fires, storms and familiy Christmas gatherings permitting, see you all in 2010.

  48. [William Bowe
    Posted Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    For those wishing to ascertain whether there has been a downward trend in the combined vote for the two parties over several decades, this chart shows primary vote at elections going back to 1949. Obviously a post on polling data from 2005 to 2007, as linked to by fredn, offers no insight on this.

    ]

    And what one sees is the peak brought about by the combined democrat, green and one nation vote and the return to the two major parties with the decline of the democrats and the destruction of one nation.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 45 of 59
1 … 44 45 46 … 59