Yesterday’s Queensland marginal seat polling from Roy Morgan turns out to have been a teaser for today’s full suite, which also targets four seats each from New South Wales and Western Australia as well as one each from Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. With samples of 200 each, the electorate-level results are of little utility, but where results from four seats are available from a particular state we can combine them to get a meaningful picture from a margin-of-error of about 3.5 per cent. The swing of 4.8 per cent to the Liberal National Party in Queensland has not been borne out elsewhere: the four New South Wales seats collectively show a 1.0 per cent swing to Labor, while Western Australia produces an essentially status quo result with a 0.2 per cent swing to the Liberals. The single-seat polling for the other three states is less useful, but for what it’s worth the result from Hindmarsh in South Australia sits well with this morning’s Advertiser poll. Taken in their entirety, the results point to no swing at all from 2007.
| ALP 2PP | |||
| 2007 | POLL | SWING | |
| Macarthur | 50.1 | 38.5 | -11.6 |
| Robertson | 50.1 | 48.5 | -1.6 |
| Eden-Monaro | 52.3 | 59 | 6.7 |
| Macquarie | 50.1 | 60.5 | 10.4 |
| NSW SEATS | 1.0 | ||
| Hasluck | 51 | 50 | -1.0 |
| Brand | 56.1 | 54.5 | -1.6 |
| Perth | 58.1 | 57 | -1.1 |
| Fremantle | 59.15 | 62 | 2.9 |
| WA SEATS | -0.2 | ||
| Flynn | 52.3 | 45 | -7.3 |
| Longman | 51.7 | 43.5 | -8.2 |
| Dawson | 52.4 | 49 | -3.4 |
| Leichhardt | 54.1 | 54 | -0.1 |
| QLD SEATS | -4.8 | ||
| Corangamite (Vic) | 50.85 | 55.5 | 4.7 |
| Hindmarsh (SA) | 55.05 | 56.5 | 1.5 |
| Bass (Tas) | 51 | 62.5 | 11.5 |
| ALL SEATS | 0.1 | ||
Psephos
Posted Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
Psephos
Posted Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
Abbott said today that the only solution is to “turn back the boats.” Does he have the nerve to say what this actually means? Using the Navy to push people back out to sea? Leaving them to drown if they scuttle their boats? Firing on boats if they won’t stop? I doubt he has.
Psephs says:
I think lefties should brace themselves for a fairly radical statement by the PM on border security. The only way to stop unauthorised boat arrivals, short of the use of force, is to announce that no-one who arrives in Australian waters by boat will ever get an Australian visa. They’ll either sit at Xmas I until they agree to go home, or they’ll be towed back to Indonesia, or they’ll detained somewhere else offshore. I have no inside info on what Gillard intends, but that’s what I’d do. It will take something as radical as that to shift public perceptions on this. Abbott will be able to say “I told you so,” but that won’t sustain him until the election – the issue will be effectively neutralised
Yes Allan (@ 885), I agree. Still, Labor have had luck on their side this time. The Liberals have a solid 40% of the vote locked up, so they always have a chance. Labor cannot afford to relent.
A bit OT. This clip comes from a lecture by Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, on 12 May, 2009 (I originally saw this today on a Fairfax site).
The focus appears to be on his comment, ‘We had too many people that were working to save the world’, as well as his apparently smug, arrogant, supercilious, English git, self-centred attitude (much like has been on display since the oil well exploded – most of the youtube comments would not pass William’s moderation guideline #2)
But the line that caught my attention in this short clip (about 1 minute) was:
[…the fact that our primary purpose in life is to create value for our shareholders…]
I am astonished, and shocked, that the CEO of such a major global corporation would make such a statement in 2009. This theory of corporate purpose and governance has been under serious attack for 20+ years, and I would hazard to say that for years, the received view is that this would not be a good company’s purpose at all. (And part of why the shareholder value theory has been discredited is that it is basically meaningless – see the impact of the oil well explosion)
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but back in 2009, this lecture manifests some serious red flags about BP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b6J7LRUTFY
[“People should say what they feel and my view is many in the community should feel anxious when they see asylum seeker boats and obviously we as a government want to manage our borders.”
“For people to say they’re anxious about border security doesn’t make them intolerant, it certainly doesn’t make them a racist, it means that they’re expressing a genuine view that they’re anxious about border security.
“By the same token people who express concern about children being in detention, that doesn’t mean they’re soft on border protection, that just means that they’re expressing a real human concern.”]
Julia’s comment from late today. Seems like she is trying to get rid of the rigid “right or wrong” sides of the debate.
I was alarmed to read from Psephos at 789 these words “The day Rudd told the faction conveners (who represent the great majority of Caucus) to get fkkd was the day he burned off any remaining goodwill, and that was why, when he dropped in the polls, he found he had no friends and no numbers”.
That blast at the faction leaders (and especially Feeney) about cuts to printing allowance was way back — in September 2009. I was sure we were assured at the time that that exchange was nothing personal or anything to be concerned about. It was the normal sort of robust exchanges between Labor heavies. But now it appears that Feeney and the others did take it personally, and that was the point (sept 2009) when ‘any remaining goodwill’ was burned off. Presumably that is when the plotting and destabilisation seriously started, using the selective leaks to the press and other methods well known to the right.
And wasn’t it about that time that the polls started to drop off the Grechgate highs.
Ziggy is presumably suggesting that there is a contradiction between my two posts. But there isn’t. I’m not advocating “turning back the boats.” I’m advocating not giving visas to people who arrive by boat. If Abbott uses the rhetoric of “turning back the boats,” he should have the honesty to tell us what that actually means.
Yeah ruawake… Sounds like shes trying to inject a sense of calm and rationality into the debate. I think this has been a tactic of hers for a range if issues. Time will tell if it can be successful but we can only hope.
Johncanb, the conveners present that day came from all factions, not just the Right, and I imagine none of them were impressed. I think they were all seasoned enough politicians not to “take it personally”, but they all no doubt thought it was very poor form from a prime minister, even in a private meeting. The point was not so much that he swore at them, but that he totally rejected the concerns they were presenting, on behalf of the Caucus, and told them he didn’t care what they thought. For a Labor PM to tell representatives of the Caucus that he doesn’t care what they think is not a wise move.
Psephos
Posted Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
[Ziggy is presumably suggesting that there is a contradiction between my two posts. But there isn’t. I’m not advocating “turning back the boats.” I’m advocating not giving visas to people who arrive by boat. If Abbott uses the rhetoric of “turning back the boats,” he should have the honesty to tell us what that actually means.]
Just sharing and caring – trying to make sense of it all
Well said, Briefly. I quite agree. I doubt if we’ll see so many terms in Govt as my wishful thinking would have it, but at least another 3 would be nice! It’s been argued here and on other sites that any Govt shouldn’t be in for too long anyway as it becomes stale, complacent, arrogant etc and I think there is a fair degree of truth in this.
Of course being dyed-in-the-wool Labor I would have to prefer more years of Labor than Liberal. LOL.
[For a Labor PM to tell representatives of the Caucus that he doesn’t care what they think is not a wise move.]
Especially over a second cut to the printing allowance, an allowance that backbenchers rely on to get their message out to their electorates. The first cut was enough in a political sense, the second hurt.
[It is interesting that your puerile attempt to mock people of faith is contradicted by your “belief without proof” that the great big new revised mining tax is a winner.]
GG, you seem to be having visions. I haven’t expressed an opinion, positive or negative, about the negotiations on the mining tax. I have however pursued Thomas Paine on his criteria for a “sellout” by Gillard to the mining interests on the level of mining tax and his opinion on the outcome to date.
However, an increase in government revenue by billions of dollars from an industry that is causing a 2 speed economy and distributing the revenue to a broad based stimulation of the economy, improvement in infrastructure, increased savings and self-funding of retirement and economic development is a positive outcome.
[For a Labor PM to tell representatives of the Caucus that he doesn’t care what they think is not a wise move]
In fact it would seem to go against the idea of collectivism you’d imagine a labour party to represent and reflect a more ‘master and servant’ arrangement.
On your idea for policy I think a better balance between pragmatism and actual humane, workable policy needs to be struck than that.
Instead of carrying on about boat arrivals we should be asking why the Australian people are fearful of people who arrive here by boat.
I would think that economics is the reason. We are fearful of these people taking our few jobs, competing with us for our few jobs and working for bosses who are willing to employ these people because they know that many of these people will not complain about the conditions they will work under.
To suggest we should turn the boats around or send them home is unbelievably mean, selfish and draconian. It is to have no concern for our fellow human beings.
To have no conscience.
Abbott can make the rhetorical flourish, “Turn back the boats.” But as Rudd found, this is in practical terms an empty statement unless you are willing to stand by while boats sink and people drown. It is just stupid hyperbole. It has a similar quality as his extravagant declaration to promise to fight the mining tax with “every breath” in his body.
It seems he can’t resist the spectacular gesture. He is saying “Look at me. I am a hero! Listen to me. I am the one! Follow me for I am a Leader!” Perhaps this suggests he has an unresolved messianic complex. This would be the last thing Australia needs – another would-be leader that could be classed as psychologically unstable, in the same way as Mark Latham was.
It’s Time,
Now you’re reciting the rosary of rent tax.
I hope it’s all true.
i wonder if you have ever read Mark Lathams’ book. Read the introduction you may think again.
He is right about this voyeurism in politics we now have, the big news Julia Gillard visits her home in Altona and we have got to show her opening the door.
We even ask her about her hair, favourite movie, television show, band.. What next, this is not news.
[But as Rudd found, this is in practical terms an empty statement unless you are willing to stand by while boats sink and people drown]
The people Abbott is aiming the statements at genuinely don’t care.
Lucille Byrne
Din dins: home-made spring rolls, followed by coffee and home made lumberjack cake. Yummy. Eat your heart out.
Psephos
“I’m advocating not giving visas to people who arrive by boat.”
What about people who arrive by plane?
What about people who arrive on a ship, and over stay their visa?
What about if PNG falls apart (speculating here) and PNG people travel to Aus on boats…
This is such a simplistic and arbitrary ‘solution’. Does no one in the Labor Party have any better ideas on this?
Why does it matter how people arrive?
[But as Rudd found, this is in practical terms an empty statement unless you are willing to stand by while boats sink and people drown]
Abbott’s probably banking on empty statements for empty heads. Unfortunately for him there won’t be enough of them in Australia to get him home.
Abbott can make the rhetorical flourish, “Turn back the boats.” But as Rudd found, this is in practical terms an empty statement unless you are willing to stand by while boats sink and people drown. It is just stupid hyperbole. It has a similar quality as his extravagant declaration to promise to fight the mining tax with “every breath” in his body.
It seems he can’t resist the spectacular gesture. He is saying “Look at me. I am a hero! Listen to me. I am the one! Follow me for I am a Leader!” Perhaps this suggests he has an unresolved messianic complex. This would be the last thing Australia needs – another would-be leader that could be classed as psychologically unstable, in the same way as Mark Latham was.
Really whats your problem – get it out there – lol
[The people Abbott is aiming the statements at genuinely don’t care.]
I think people do care its just that “boat people” have been removed in the public mind from being “people”.
They are asylum seekers, boat people, queue jumpers, refugees, afghans, sri lankans, security risks etc etc.
If we can focus on the fact they are people attitudes may change. I am not holding my breath. 🙁
[I would think that economics is the reason. We are fearful of these people taking our few jobs, competing with us for our few jobs and working for bosses who are willing to employ these people because they know that many of these people will not complain about the conditions they will work under.]
No, I don’t think that’s the reason. If people thought that they’d oppose all immigration, legal or illegal. Howard after all ran record levels of immigration, and it did him no harm politically. No, I think the reason oppose boat arrivals is that they see it as an affront to our sovereignty and our right to decide who will come to Australia. They see the boat people as gatecrashers and queue-jumpers. That I think is why the Oceanic Viking saga did Rudd a lot of harm. Many people saw the people on the OV as blackmailing their way into Australia, literally holding an Australian ship hostage after it had rescued them, and they marked Rudd down for not taking a tougher line with them. And the OV people were Sri Lankans, who Australians have no particular problem with. If they’d been Muslims the reaction would have been even stronger. The reason Howard got such a huge lift from the Tampa saga was hostility specifically to Muslim immigration, which is very strong in NSW in particular. You can thank Sheikh Hilaly and Jihad Jack for that.
marky marky
[We are fearful of these people taking our few jobs, competing with us for our few jobs and working for bosses who are willing to employ these people because they know that many of these people will not complain about the conditions they will work under]
Actually, marky I haven’t heard people express concerns over the jobs. I think the majority of Aussies know we have a labour shortage & it is going to get worse.
1. The main complaint I have had is that these people are not real refugees because they pay for a ticket.
2. Aussies are highly suspicious because the media, shock jocks etc have broadcast that the refugees ditch their identification for fear of being found to be a terrorist. So, immediately the impression is that all asylum seekers are ditching their id’s & are hiding something.
3. Come here and are immediately treated better than our pensioners. Get all sorts of benefits Aussies cannot access including brand new cars, new houses, huge cash grants.
4. That they make ‘demands’ on a compliant government.
5. They do not wish to assimilate & they are our enemies. They are here to infiltrate & take over.
These are the main points I hear about refugees. I find old men & women are incredibly intolerant & hateful. Some of the fantastical stories I hear would blow your mind.
[What about people who arrive by plane?
What about people who arrive on a ship, and over stay their visa?]
It’s almost impossible to enter Australia by plane without a valid passport and visa. Those who do so should be arrested and deported, and so far as I know they are. Almost no-one enters Australia by ship these days.
Introducing a more draconian refugee policy is all about telling the people in Western Sydney who work insecure employment ( casually, part time), who work long hours, work weekends, get pain a pittance, who are on unemployment benefits or are on the disability pension, who have big mortgages and little money for discretionary spending that the government is doing something.
What about people who arrive by plane?
What about people who arrive on a ship, and over stay their visa?
It’s almost impossible to enter Australia by plane without a valid passport and visa. Those who do so should be arrested and deported, and so far as I know they are. Almost no-one enters Australia by ship these days.
leaky ships?????
Psephos
“It’s almost impossible to enter Australia by plane without a valid passport and visa. Those who do so should be arrested and deported, and so far as I know they are. ”
So, you couldn’t ask for asylum this way? That doesn’t sound right.
Boaties are a symbol.
Hating them is sublimation for the profound sense that your world is completely out of your control; a profound sense that you are a loser; and a profound sense that someone else is scamming the system better than ever you could. It is completely dissociated from any statistical reality about numbers of people or numbers of boats.
Symbols work best when they are short and clear. ‘Turning back the boats’ is about being in control, about turning back time and about making sure you are ahead in the queue of scammers. Turning back the boats is about turning off the future and shutting the tap of globalization. Finally, turning back the boats re-affirms your sense of personal worth when the rest of the world seems to think that you are under educated, underachieving and worth paying the lowest rates of income.
The fact that only two or three out of several hundred boats under any government have ever been turned back demonstrates amply that there is no connection with concrete reality. It is all about symbols.
You can enter with a valid passport and valid visa. No probs. The probs start when you stick around when your visa runs out.
I wonder if the Murdoch press said nothing on the issue, whether it would be an issue?
So people in the late 1970’s were more compassionate when Fraser allowed people to come into the country by boat?
[Almost no-one enters Australia by ship these days.]
He he. I used to know people who regularly entered Australia via cargo ships. Admittedly they were from NZ but they came and went as they pleased without passports.
Abbott has a talent for making empty statements. He even seems to acknowledge this himself, by saying we shouldn’t take everything he says literally. I hope the MSM start to pin him down. Is he really willing to have the Australian Navy or Customs heave to while boats founder? While people perish in the open sea? Is this just another gesture? I for one would like to know. Is Abbott putting himself forward for the office of PM on the basis of pointless, populist gestures? Or will it be children overboard again?
Boerwar
There are many visa overstayers that have been here for years.
It gets me how they work the tax system.
Get all these things from the government, isn’t that an economic reason?
Dee
Tax? What tax?
marky mark
[I wonder if the Murdoch press said nothing on the issue, whether it would be an issue?
So people in the late 1970’s were more compassionate when Fraser allowed people to come into the country by boat?]
That is a good point. I don’t think we were more compassionate under Fraser. The 24/7 media saturation didn’t exist then and that has played a major role in hyping this issue up.
[Now you’re reciting the rosary of rent tax.
I hope it’s all true.]
I would put more faith in the forward estimates than the rosary.
morewest @ 864
Interesting comment on the RETS. Your post reinforces my view that it should be fairly straightfoward for Gillard to:
(a) cobble together a decent action plan that leaves Abbott’s for dead
(b) cobble together a process and timetable for developing a consensus on a national plan for putting a price on carbon.
So where do the United Nations conventions on refugees come into this.
I’m still wondering if Psephos thinks we should be refusing visas to people who arrive by plane and ask for asylum…
[So, you couldn’t ask for asylum this way? That doesn’t sound right.]
For the 100th time, there is no such thing as “asylum” under Australian law. We have “refugee status.” Anyone can apply for refugee status. If a person who has a valid passport and visa arrives at an Australian airport and claims refugee status, they will be detained for processing in just same way as people who arrive by boat.
marky marky
Not sure. Could it be that Libya, Iran, Zimbabwe and a few other like-minded countries are working on improving the convention?
[So where do the United Nations conventions on refugees come into this.]
I’ve answered that question many times.
marky mark
[Get all these things from the government, isn’t that an economic reason?]
I think you are refering to my reply which was in response to jobs specifically.
Most complainants don’t believe refugees want to work or in fact need to work because they live like kings on the government teat.
I will go to the experts they know everything.
Psephos
Why aren’t people who arrive by plane carted off to CI like the boaties? (genuine question)
[Why aren’t people who arrive by plane carted off to CI like the boaties? ]
Because Villawood is closer.
Dee
Hell hath no fury like a sense of entitlement scorned.