The latest Newspoll shows Labor’s lead at 52-48, equal lowest since the election of the Rudd government. It is the first time the government has trailed on the primary vote, by 40 per cent (steady on the previous poll) to 41 per cent (up three points) – the previous 52-48 result from October 30-November 1 having had the parties on 41 per cent each. The Greens are steady on 12 per cent, with “others” down from 10 per cent to 7 per cent. Kevin Rudd has suffered no damage on preferred prime minister, leading 58 per cent to 26 per cent (both up one). More to follow.
Other news:
• Essential Research has Labor’s two-party lead at 56-44 for the third week running. It also finds that while the majority of Labor and Coalition voters are firm if not fruity, 24 per cent of Greens voters (double the rate for the majors) “might consider another party and leader closer to an election”. Seventy per cent say politicians “should not be giving advice on moral issues”. Fifty-seven per cent support the Shopping Centre Council’s call for a ban on politicians campaigning in shopping centres. Respondents want a republic but not a new flag, nor (what the hell is wrong with people?) a new national anthem.
• Political party financial disclosure returns, such as they are, have been published. Labor and the Coalition parties were evenly matched on receipts, Labor receiving $42.9 million for 2008-09 against $38.4 million for the Liberals and $5.2 million for the Nationals – sharply down on last year due to the absence in the period of so much as a by-election. The Australian counts $4.65 million in donations to Labor from unions (the opposition makes it $11 million), the Coalition parties received $800,000 from Clive Palmer, and the Westfield Corporation evenly divided $230,000 between the two. Stephen Mayne in Crikey points to the disparity between the Queensland and WA branches of the ALP in a period when both had state elections: $14.3 million in receipts and $15.8 million in expenses for the victorious party in Queensland, against $4 million and $4.5 million for the defeated party in WA. Labor is $7 million in debt, the Liberals $4.2 million.
• Tim Dick of the Sydney Morning Herald reviews the recall election issue. All of the American examples cited refer to individual offices – a very different matter from dissolving an assembly, which the Coalition proposes to look at once in government. However, the article also notes the Canadian province of British Columbia has allowed members to recall their local MPs since 1995. Only one attempt managed to procure the required 40 per cent of voters’ signatures, and the MP in question obviated the need for a recall election (as distinct from a by-election) by resigning. In the current environment in New South Wales, that would obviously inspire efforts to knock off enough Labor MPs to cost the government its majority.
• Toni Bell of the Manning River Times reports John Turner, Nationals member for the NSW state seat of Myall Lakes, has announced his 23-year parliamentary career will end at next year’s election. Turner lost the party’s deputy leadership in 2003 and was dumped as Shadow Mineral Resources and Lands Minister in December 2008. The electorate, which covers the north coast north of Newcastle and south of Port Macquarie, will presumably become of interest to the Liberals.
[ SOUTH Australia has become one of the few states in the world to censor the internet.
The new law, which came into force on January 6, requires internet bloggers, and anyone making a comment on next month’s state election, to publish their real name and postcode when commenting on the poll.
The law will affect anyone posting a comment on an election story on The Advertiser’s AdelaideNow website, as well as other news sites such as The Punch, the ABC’s The Drum and Fairfax newspapers’ National Times site.
It also appears to apply to election comment made on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
The law, which was pushed through last year as part of a raft of amendments to the Electoral Act and supported by the Liberal Party, also requires media organisations to keep a person’s real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26665381-5006301,00.html
Uhhhhhhhhh, HUH???
I’m sick sick of the Labor and Liberal parties. Labor will now come second to last on my vote, obviously with the Liberals last.
Appauling. Absolutely bloody appauling.
I’d really like to see one of the Labor folks on this forum try and defend that horseshit.
Bob 150
I agree bob – indefensible, and in a state still without any form of CMC to oversee parliament. How did that sneak throuhg parliament without more publicity?? This goes way beyond child porn filters; it is straight political censorship. Labor has done well in SA economically over the past few years, but Rann is starting to resemble Stalin as far as media control goes.
I am not a lawyer but does this infringe any “implied right of freee speech” we might have? Just hoping…
The White House conspiracy?
Just as Abbott, his pawns and bishops, are getting excited the latest Newspoll. It came the news of Obi’s visit to Australia. It has already sucked out some of the euphoric oxygen from the Abbott camp. I demand a Royal Commission.
Oh dear, Abbott is so different, so knockabout ordinary bloke, so in your face. Familiar? Yes, Latham Mark 2.
[I’d really like to see one of the Labor folks on this forum try and defend that horseshit.]
I dont think any sane labor person would defend Bob 2.1
[I’d really like to see one of the Labor folks on this forum try and defend that horseshit.]
Oh they will Possum. Labor hackery knows no bounds.
[Oh they will Possum. Labor hackery knows no bounds.]
How about: Maybe we would get less holocaust and cancer jokes from some of those keyboard heroes if they had their real names attached to posts.
PS
Huffy Possy
Perhaps you might care to re-read this sentence
[The law, which was pushed through last year as part of a raft of amendments to the Electoral Act and supported by the Liberal Party,]
Sacre Bleu, furry one, the fibs also supported it.
perhaps you should have gurgled
“Is there any Labor or Liberal hack…”
[How about: Maybe we would get less holocaust and cancer jokes from some of those keyboard heroes if they had their real names attached to posts.]
*adds musrum to the list of those who are prepared to justify such a law*
Gusface, yes the Libs supported it, but which bit of “Labor introduced it” do you not understand?
Do we believe this newspoll? or is it more timely tweaking of stats to help The Australian along…
Here is a clue. Tony Abbott’s Approval/disapproval measure shows a big shift. 5% of uncommitted appear to have made up their mind in the last two weeks and most have decided they disapprove of our Tone.
I wonder if it was the ‘virginity is a gift’ rubbish that got a good run in the media
It’s been the law since the 1920s that all published election comment must carry the correct name and address of the person making the comment. I’m not sure I see why it’s so outrageous that this should apply to online comment as well as print and electronic media comment. Nor is it “censorship” as the News story states. IMHO it wouldn’t be a bad thing if it applied here as well. Far too many people here hide behind pseudonyms to make slanderous comments that they wouldn’t dare make under their own name.
Bob 2.1
Faux outrage!!!!
Ahh, Psephos supports it too.
See Possum, Labor hacks will justify anything! Their Labor hackery knows no bounds!
Possum Comitatus @ # 151
Voltaire 2.0
[I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it anonymously.]
Gus
I live in SA and am not a Liberal supporter. Not only did Labor introduce the ban (presumably overseeing the drafting of the legislation) but there was an amazing lack of any public dscussion of it. They shamelessly snuck it through with a raft of other amendments relating to the cost of by-elections and political donations.
Your defence amounts too “Sure Labor is a hypocritical disgrace to its own professed principles, but the other side is almost as bad”.
This will cost Labor votes.
Pseph
BTW
Whilst you were swanning around the ME, a rather heated debate happened on the internet filter here at PB and the other place.
I think the vanquished Anti Filterites are looking for any spark that may stoke the flames of their misguided passion.
Soc
I think pseph nailed it @162
🙂
I ask again, why exactly is it so outrageous that people should be required to make election comments under their real names? This has been the law in the print media since the 1920s. Since when was the right to slander people anonymously an essential part of democracy?
Possum Comitatus @ # 152
[Your search – site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech anonymous – did not match any documents.]
Bloggers, spammers face clampdown
Misha Schubert, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 March 2005
[Bloggers and spammers could be forced to put their names to political commentary in a bid to close a loophole in the nation’s electoral laws.
Roused by last year’s furore over anonymous political websites such as http://www.johnhowardlies.com, the Howard Government plans to clamp down on web publishers who refuse to identify a person who authorises their content.
Special Minister of State Eric Abetz told The Age that the move would ensure internet publishers were bound by the same rules as television, radio and print.]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Breaking/Bloggers-spammers-face-commentary-clampdown/2005/03/16/1110649206720.html%29
bob,
Even for you, 164 is an amazingly puerile and childish post.
bob1234 @ # 159
[*adds musrum to the list of those who are prepared to justify such a law*]
Let me know when you have finished…
Bird of Paradox
I’ve got Derbyshire.
Ratsars
Even Ron seems to have worked it out.
Gus, if Crikey abides by the law, you’ll have to sign your own name and give your postcode on every post.
Psephos went:
[I ask again, why exactly is it so outrageous that people should be required to make election comments under their real names? This has been the law in the print media since the 1920s. Since when was the right to slander people anonymously an essential part of democracy?]
Not it’s not – not Federally at least unless you are speaking on behalf of a party or candidate. Federal law upholds the right to post and comment under a pseudonym
See Possum. These Labor hacks will justify *anything*.
When someone provides a coherent comment on why this is such a bad thing, I will reply to it.
Psephos
Are you arguing that callers to a radio station should have their ID checked before they are allowed to speak?
I think Possum is doing pretty well Psephos.
Only a diehard Labor hack could possibly justify having to disclose who you are before you speak out against a party/government.
Diogenes @ # 178
[Are you arguing that callers to a radio station should have their ID checked before they are allowed to speak?]
Would that kill talkback radio? I’m not sure I see the problem here…
[ Possum Comitatus
Posted Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 8:35 am | Permalink
I’d really like to see one of the Labor folks on this forum try and defend that horseshit.]
It kind of stretches the usual requirement during elections for writers of letters to the editor to provide their name and address.
Pollytics and PB would have to come under that regulation also I would presume.
Agreed, Possum! A big pile of horseshit!
It will be interesting to see how they police it! 😉
Diogs,
Radio talk back has a seven second delay in order to dump anything defamatory.
Possum has disputed my contention about print media, he has not explained what he sees wrong about the principle.
[When someone provides a coherent comment on why this is such a bad thing, I will reply to it.]
When you provide a coherent reason why this is a good thing, I’ll take you seriously.
This has nothing to do weith slander – being anonymous on the net does not give you the right to slander. This is about free debate.
Here’s one Pseph – there’s a rather large number of people that comment on my site under a pseudonym because they hold political, media and corporate positions and are well known individuals.
For them to be forced to post under their real name effectively kills there capability to engage in political debate since they can’t be seen to be having a political view because of their day job.
If SA law existed federally, I could never have existed as a blogger.
If SA law existed federally, Hillary Bray would never have existed.
If everyone here had to post under their real name with their postcode – there sound of crickets would fill the air.
Re print media, I’m trying to find the relevant act, but if I write a letter to the editor of a newspaper on anything to do with an election, my name and address must accompany it.
[This has nothing to do weith slander – being anonymous on the net does not give you the right to slander.]
Of course it does, what a stupid statement.
[If SA law existed federally, I could never have existed as a blogger.]
ditto.
[If everyone here had to post under their real name with their postcode – there sound of crickets would fill the air.]
Yep.
Psephos went:
[Re print media, I’m trying to find the relevant act, but if I write a letter to the editor of a newspaper on anything to do with an election, my name and address must accompany it.]
That’s an organisational policy for their own protection and benefit.
[I’d really like to see one of the Labor folks on this forum try and defend that horseshit.]
Poss, as a labor hack, i like you to defend the possum shits that your kind deposited on my back veranda every night 😛
I don’t see any grounds on which a “right to anonymous comment” can be established or defended. In a democracy everyone has the right to express their opinion, but they should express it openly under their own name.
[Of course it does, what a stupid statement.]
Huh?? You think anyone can go around slandering or libeling someone online, just because they are anonymous?
So why do you use Phesphos?
Sorry “Psephos”
[That’s an organisational policy for their own protection and benefit.]
No it’s not, it’s a law introduced by Billy Hughes. Possibly it has been removed from the electoral act recently, but it was certainly there for many years.
[I don’t see any grounds on which a “right to anonymous comment” can be established or defended.]
Here we have it folks.
Go back to Russia.
[So why do you use Psephos?]
To promote my website. If you click my link, you will find my website maintained under my own name.
I enjoy seeing Labor hacks defend Atkinson’s new laws. It shows how low they will stoop to keep supporting Labor.
I bet they’d all follow Labor off a cliff……
Slander and Libel:
[The general law has divided defamation into two categories – libel and slander. Libel is the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, while slander is the publication of defamatory matter in non-permanent form. Something defamatory that is printed in a newspaper or book is libel, but the same thing, if spoken, is slander. Under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), the publication of defamatory matter over radio or television is deemed to be in permanent form and is, therefore, libel [s.206].]
http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch14s04.php
I don’t see anyhting there that says you’re excused if you do it anonymously…