The sample size (550 respondents) and margin of error (about 4.2 per cent) are such that you would want to treat it with caution, but a new Morgan phone poll has turned up remarkably poor results for the government: Labor’s primary vote is on just 30 per cent against 47 per cent for the Coalition and 13.5 per cent for the Greens, with the Coalition leading on two-party preferred 55-45. The poll was conducted over Wednesday and Thursday evenings.
UPDATE: Morgan has issued further data on personal ratings which shows Julia Gillard failing to take the hit on personal ratings you would expect from the numbers on voting intention, which further inclines me to treat the poll with suspicion. Julia Gillard’s approval rating is 48 per cent with 39 per cent disapproval, while Tony Abbott’s numbers are 48 per cent and 41 per cent. Gillard holds a 46-40 lead as preferred prime minister. Respondents were also asked to nominate their preferred leaders for the Labor and Liberal parties. Julia Gillard is favoured as Labor leader by 33 per cent against 20 per cent for Kevin Rudd, compared with 35 per cent and 25 per cent shortly after the federal election. Malcolm Turnbull remains favoured ahead of Tony Abbott as Liberal leader overall, by 31 per cent (down a point) to 23 per cent (up two). In both cases supporters of the party were happier with the incumbent. If Gillard were removed from the picture, 27 per cent would favour Rudd, 14 per cent Wayne Swan, 13 per cent Stephen Smith and 11 per cent Bill Shorten. Without Abbott, 39 per cent would favour Turnbull, 30 per cent Joe Hockey and 11 per cent Julie Bishop.
[Would work well, and Rudd would be glad for the chance to keep up the battle that seems to be going on within the party, unless Swans change of tune today is a white flag from Gillard.]
This is the sort of “let’s encourage dissent” opinion that I dislike.
Obsession and paranoia and conspiracy.
Seems to be a bit of it going around.
The article on Australian US discussions re Iran at http://www.theage.com.au/national/nuclear-war-our-fear-of-iran-20101212-18u0q.html is actually quite an interesting one (apart from the sensational headline).
I’d have to say I found myself in substantial agreement with the ONA commentary cited in the article.
I’m also intrigued that Daniel Flinton, in another article in the Age that cites the original story, seems to completely miss the point and, read alone, would leave you with a highly distorted picture of what the first article itself says!
Yet another instance where the libs are left mumbling & irrelevant as Labor implements its program.
Business is voting with its money now the NBN implementation is gaining steam –
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-Co-Telstra-Vodafone-cloud-computing-pd20101209-BY2YF?OpenDocument&src=sph
6.5 stars generals TP
it is your ight to weave labor party intrigue into the wikileaks saga
I’d prefer that you not use emotive language
concillatory posture is much more acceptable.
AAMOI I think labor has played this well considering the MSM were onto a gotcha momentor so they thought
wikileaks is a completely separate issue to the labor party intrigues
OK
OMG a positive headline for labor and rudd on ABC online //www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/13/3091427.htm?section=justin
So Rod,
The Hyper-wiki-truth is clearly dependant on the sub-editor.
Annie 2606
Well a journo is hardly going to win awards with a wikileaks scandal
[Govt receives department advice; follows it; ends in good outcome]
Its good to see that in Sweden, Al qaeda still seem to be operating as an amateur-hour terror group.
I hope they never get their sh_t together again.
turnbull and marr on local ABC radio…. NOW
should be a cracker
banks first
An Australian (Ozymandias) is arrested and held in custody in London, he has done something that nobody can say is or is not against a law in the USA, and in fact it seems that the laws that are may need to be twisted to be able to create a charge.
Then ministers of government in Australia come out and infer Ozymandias has committed an illegal act, or every Australians expects Ozymandias should face the law for his acts.
Now Ozymandias is
1. grateful for the support of these Ministers
2. Wishes they would shut up, with friends like them who needs enemies
3. uses his calculator to determine how much he might sue for defamation.
turnbull turns it into an nbn slagfest
🙁
now housing costs
Very little of interest listening to today’s senate committee on banking, other than Fielding trying to get Glenn Stevens to say that people are being screwed by the banks.
There’s only audio online. The chairman sounds like Barrie Cassidy to me. Cameron Clyne of NAB is up at 1.00 pm.
[MarkTobinSydney Latika Bourke has been recruited as ABC’s Social Media Reporter attached to Radio Current Affairs in Canberra Parliament House ]
Despite TP’s desperate attempts to spin it otherwise, I don’t see any signs of dissent on the Assange issue within the Labor party.
I haven’t seen any statement from the PM, the Treasurer, the Foreign Minister or indeed Tanya Plibersek which suggests anything of the sort.
I certainly haven’t seen anything which suggests that Rudd is somehow defiantly opposing the PM and is mounting a gallant defence of Assange in the teeth of fierce opposition.
It is his job, as Foreign Minister, to ensure that Australian citizens jailed overseas are treated fairly.
Nor is there any evidence at all that the PM (or anyone else in our government) is blindly following the directions of the US.
The oft quoted interview of the PM includes a quote with wtte that the AFP are checking to see if JA has broken any Australian laws, for example – which is interpreted as meaning that they’re trying to find something to charge him with. Instead, this is simply a common sense proceedure, and if they can’t find anything, this will strengthen the govt’s position when it comes to defending his rights.
It is far too early in the game to be deciding that anyone has breached anyone’s rights. If JA somehow arrives on Australian soil and is then deported on shaky grounds to the US, then we can say that he hasn’t been treated well by our govt. To say so when he’s overseas, detained by another country at still another country’s request, and receiving (by all accounts) consular assistance, something Hicks waited years for, is assuming an awful lot.
Given the number of assumptions you need to make on the information available to arrive at the conclusion that the govt is somehow at fault, and given that all of those assumptions have to be unfavourable to the government to arrive at that conclusion, this suggests an eagerness to find the govt and PM in the wrong which can only lead to the conclusion that the assumer is heavily biased to start with.
As for rally numbers: the rule of thumb I learnt many many years ago (and I understand is the same used by most organisations in the game of determing popular support for anything) is that for every person who attended a meeting or demonstration ten other people would have but couldn’t.
On that basis, demonstrations across Australia which amount to 2000 people tops suggests very little support for Assange in the community.
I’ve attended demos of 100,000 people plus – they had no effect on government behaviour whatsoever.
Latikas 10,000 followers is what every media agency would want.
SK/lizzie
thanks for your responses re daughter’s educational aspirations.
b-g
my daughter is actually looking at RMIT, Monash and Swinburne. Interestingly, she likes what Swinburne has to offer the most, and yet that is the Uni requiring the least score to do the courses in that field.
It is reported that there is dissent within the ranks over Gillard’s handling of the WikiLeaks issue and it is quite obvious there are diametrically opposed positions on this between Rudd and Gillard.
I am not here to help keep shsssh with Labor’s problems, dont mention the war.
This is thus a very relevant issue and in development, this is a political web site, not a Labor war-room.
Really? Labor MPs are going to read my comments then rush off to do battle.
Dissent already exists. Swan’s defending Assange, if he did, may be a Gillard white flag on the issue, or Swan picking his side of the argument.
If Gillard does put up the white flag then you can be sure Wilkie and the other indepents have put a flea in her ear, I would imagine, or their war room have got it through her Howard skull that she has chosen the wrong side of the issue.
[The Hyper-wiki-truth is clearly dependant on the sub-editor.]
Isn’t all news to a large extent, b_g? Now, if the actual cables concerned had actually been released (the ones being used by the Age haven’t yet it would appear) then we could move beyond such things to a greater extent, of course.
One of the things that makes things like the cables so irresistibly fascinating to people like me (regardless of the righteousness or wronfullness or otherwise of their release) is that they at least let you get one layer down through the information onion – beyond the clutches of the subeditors, hack journos, and the like! There are still plenty of largely impenetrable layers beneath this , of course – no one in their right mind would regard diplomatic cables to be something which establish some sort of ultimate “truth”. 😉
zoomster @ 2616
Well said.
Gusface.
Turnbull on the NBN. I’ve read a piece this morning telling of the advantages and how many firms are rushing to take part, especially Telstra. Obviously Rurnbull read this and is “rushing” to denigrate NBN.
But I can’t find the article now. Dam!
morewest @ 2517
Perhaps this is true for the cables but I did read somewhere – can’t remember where – that they did decrypt. Perhaps this was the Iraq stuff? Anyway there is a lot of rubbish out there on this spoken as truth. Ironic really when it is supposed to be about exposing the truth.
Just witnessed Sloppy blither on on ABC 24. The man is slagging Swan as Treasurer and claiming that the work he has announced (which commenced many months before Sloppy opened his claptrap) is a rush job.
What is this I hear about Latika Bark? She has a gig with the ABC?
TP
[An Australian (Ozymandias) is arrested and held in custody in London, he has done something that nobody can say is or is not against a law in the USA, and in fact it seems that the laws that are may need to be twisted to be able to create a charge.]
And the Australian has not been arrested for any law breaking connected in anyway with the USA.
He has been arrested for a crime committed in Sweden, which is against the law there.
It is such a trivial accusation that very few people accused of it have bothered to make any attempt to evade facing it.
[Then ministers of government in Australia come out and infer Ozymandias has committed an illegal act, or every Australians expects Ozymandias should face the law for his acts.]
TP, you’re talking as if this is ’cause and effect’ when you have in fact twisted the timelines to suit your own argument.
JA had not been arrested or charged with anything when the PM stated that placing the information on a website was illegal. She did not accuse or infer that JA had done something illegal, either.
And Tanya Plibersek’s comment (after JA’s arrest) was that everyone is answerable to the law. I would have thought that was a given.
[3. uses his calculator to determine how much he might sue for defamation.]
I do like the inference here – which supports my opinion of the man – that JA is not some noble seeker of truth and a bastion of freedom of speech, but is somehow in it for himself.
If JA believes that everyone should say what they think without fear and favour then it would be hypocritical of him to sue for defamation.
And he can’t, anyway, because no reasonable charge of defamation would stand on the evidence given.
The only way JA can infer that the statements were about him is if he has committed an illegal act. If he hasn’t, then they can’t be, and he hasn’t been defamed.
Otherwise the statements are about the company (not himself) and about every citizens obligation to be accountable to the law.
victoria,
We only know she is leaving 2UE to go where is unknown.
z
[On that basis, demonstrations across Australia which amount to 2000 people tops suggests very little support for Assange in the community.]
You can’t dismiss support based on demo numbers. There are lots of issues which have support and don’t even get to a protest. We’ll have to wait for a poll to determine that. Maybe ER will have one today. Bugger all people turned up to the filter protests and they had a lot of support.
[
We only know she is leaving 2UE to go where is unknown.
]
Latika Bourke is going to the ABC.
[
It’s true RT @MarkTobinSydney: Latika Bourke has been recruited as ABC’s Social Media Reporter attached to Radio Current Affairs in Canberra
]
http://twitter.com/latikambourke
[Perhaps this is true for the cables but I did read somewhere – can’t remember where – that they did decrypt. Perhaps this was the Iraq stuff?]
There seem to be various confusions out there about this, Gweneth. One reason for this is that wikileaks themselves talk about using sophisticated encryption processes in their own subsequent storage and transmission of the documents once they have been received to control un-invited access or identification without their knowledge. It is often difficult when reading news items about the matter to work out whether it “cracking” an earlier form of encryption which is being spoken of, or simply the the process of decryption of material which wiki-leks have encrypted themselves.
[b-g
my daughter is actually looking at RMIT, Monash and Swinburne. Interestingly, she likes what Swinburne has to offer the most, and yet that is the Uni requiring the least score to do the courses in that field.]
I doubt that the choice of any would make any difference to employment prospects.
There are pros and cons to all. Mostly pros though.
Monash would really be the pick though. It has a campus life and provides all those other uni experiences that are dissappearing from tertiary ed. It also would provide the most opportunities to segue, if your daughter decides that robotic engineering just isn’t her thing. Seguing at other unis would probably require a change of course rather than a change in just subjects.
But anyway, a teenager always know best 😉 I wish her all the the best.
[which is interpreted as meaning that they’re trying to find something to charge him with. Instead, this is simply a common sense proceedure,]
It seems a quite bizarre way for the police to operate to me. Typically with police someone will make a complaint that some law has been broken and they will investigate to see if there is a strong enough case to prosecute. And they wouldn’t even launch an investigation unless there were prima facie evidence that the said law has been broken. However, what we appear to have in this case is the police scouring federal legislation trying to find something Assange can be charged with. How did this come about? What complaint was made to the police, who by (I assume McClelland), and how was it expressed so that the police have taken such usual steps?
Furthermore, why might it take a year for the police to report? I would have thought they’d know pretty quickly if there’s at least a law that might have been broken. If they can’t find one they can put this to bed very quickly. Only if they have prima facie evidence of a law having been broken can a lengthy investigation be justified.
Dio,
The number of people that signed up for botnet attacks would have to be pretty high to be a effective as they were. Does that count as a proxy poll?
wikileaks covered quite adroitly, btw susan ryan was on as well
main points
jg and mcelland seen to make gaffe initially- now rudd has provided supoort and everyone back on track
turnbull quoted mason in 1980 case V fairfax- basically gvts dont have right to secrcry is material is likely to embarass etc
all agreed the rudd line of the usa was main culprit for having lax security
[Isn’t all news to a large extent, b_g? Now, if the actual cables concerned had actually been released (the ones being used by the Age haven’t yet it would appear) then we could move beyond such things to a greater extent, of course.]
Rod, thats the point I am making about the cables too.
Even the Rudd character assesment was based on what was written in the paper. But once it comes out in the cable it has this heightened sense of truthiness.
one funny bit was when turnbull was semi snookered about if cables may relate to him
“i have known all ambassadors who have come to australia” wtte
Who on the opposition visits uncle sam for a debriefing?
[Who on the opposition visits uncle sam for a debriefing?]
All of them who have an interest.
[All of them who have an interest.]
cryptic
[JA had not been arrested or charged with anything when the PM stated that placing the information on a website was illegal. She did not accuse or infer that JA had done something illegal, either.]
While I appreciate that some here are keen to defend Gillard (and some Assange), I think this is the nub of where things went wrong for Gillard. She shouldn’t have said that placing the information on a website was illegal, unless she had firm evidence or advice that it was so. She should have said she was concerned and the matter needed to be investigated, or something similarly vague. Saying that someone has done something illegal when they haven’t been charged is at best prejudicial to any trial, and at worst defamatory if false.
[cryptic]
Well look through the list of oppn MPs. Some of them wouldn’t have an interest in visiting anyone outside their electorate, let alone outside their country. They have never met with anyone more senior than a local branch presient or a rotarian or a football club president. I dount they would know what to say if they met an ambassador.
But there are others who have an interest in foreign policy and an interest in the US-Aus relationship. Of course they would meet an abassador.
Beazley meets congressmen and senators everyday.
[RT @Colvinius: New ABC recruit @latikambourke will be reporting for @amworldtodaypm as well as tweeting.]
@ lizzie 2621
[dave
Posted Monday, December 13, 2010 at 10:17 am | Permalink
Yet another instance where the libs are left mumbling & irrelevant as Labor implements its program.
Business is voting with its money now the NBN implementation is gaining steam –
Is cloud Telstra’s NBN silver lining?
Paul Budde
Published 8:16 AM, 13 Dec 2010 Last update 10:02 AM, 13 Dec 2010
With the politicking over people can now start to concentrate on what the NBN is really all about. And we didn’t have to wait long for that to begin – within days of the legislation being passed by parliament some very interesting announcements were made.
First, Telstra indicated that it is going to use some of the $11 billion it will receive for its participation and contribution to the project to make acquisitions in areas where they believe that the NBN will deliver growth – and that is, in particular, in the trans-sector services.
Vodafone didn’t wait long either and announced it will increase investments in Australia now the NBN is going ahead.
Cloud computing will be the key facilitating technology on the NBN. It will allow the various sectors, industries, companies and other groups to deliver services to their customers, to do business, and to communicate with other parties within their ecosystems and beyond. It has been estimated that cloud computing could reduce 30 per cent of costs in relation to the current communication methods used for that purpose.
The NBN is ideally positioned for cloud computing.
Also, in the same week, Ministers Conroy and Roxon announced significant e-health projects
The Health Minister launched a discussion paper outlining how the government will spend $352 million to support the introduction of online specialist consultations, including video conferencing, for Australians living in rural, remote and outer metropolitan areas. The initiative is due to begin in July 2011 and will provide around 495,000 services over four years.
The Minister for Broadband announced telehealth trials for Armidale and Kiama in NSW when the NBN is rolled out early next year. The government will provide funding of up to $4 million under a National Partnership Agreement, as part of the Digital Regions Initiative.
But, as BuddeComm has said many times, the new legislation very importantly also provides certainty for the transition period and this is creating excellent business opportunities for those organisations who can maximise the opportunities at hand within that period.
The transition stage could last for eight years and several players are in a position to obtain a good return on investments made within 12-18 months. ISPs, telcos and their vendors are already jockeying for position here. Given the uncertainty of the past few years most players had put investment on hold, and there is a pent-up demand that can now be satisfied.
Interestingly, wireless and HFC companies were the quickest off the mark with ideas and suggestions for the interim period – and good on them. They can build a bridge to the NBN and in that way secure their own position moving into the future.
Australian consumers are arguably some of the world’s best-informed people when it comes to broadband thanks to the massive attention that the NBN has received. Companies should home in on this and provide services based on the upcoming better wholesale regime, to win as many broadband customers as possible. That will give them a head start on the NBN.
Already several overseas companies have indicated that they want to expand their operations in Australia – in particular several American companies understand the advantages of using Australia, with its NBN as a test bed for the development of new technologies, applications and business models.
Following up on our NBN presentation to businesses in London earlier this year, several of those companies have since visited Australia looking for business opportunities. The diverse group included an infrastructure company, software developers – with a focus on operational and business support systems, as well as cloud computing – and a components manufacturer for infrastructure equipment.
Offshore companies that already operate in Australia are also interested in significantly increasing their presence here – creating hundreds of new jobs.
Risk-averse Australian investors should quickly move off the fence and participate in those new opportunities also. Obviously those who are flexible and nimble enough will be able to benefit the most from the opportunities that are going to arise during this transition period.
Paul Budde is the managing director of BuddeComm, an independent telecommunications research and consultancy company, which includes 45 national and international researchers in 15 countries.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBN-Co-Telstra-Vodafone-cloud-computing-pd20101209-BY2YF?OpenDocument&src=sph%5D
I guess we will see in Essential Poll today whether this dip in the ALP polls is an aberration or o flesh wound.
Mumble on Qld, WA and Labor
[
Queensland has been more pro-Coalition than the national vote at every election except for 1961 and 1990. Western Australia the same with exceptions in 1969, 1983 and 1987.
They might be described as conservative states that tend to see their interests as separate from the nation. They also, of course, have lots of minerals, the prices for which have been high for the last decade or so.
Here is the graph for Qld, WA and the nation since 1983.
WA’s high 1983 vote came from a massive 8 percent swing (on top of a seven percent swing to Labor in 1980). Bob Hawke hails from WA, and only weeks earlier the state had elected the Brian Burke led Labor party to government locally. Burke was very popular for a few years.
But WA hasn’t returned an ALP two party preferred majority since 1987 and there’s no reason to believe it will again in the foreseeable future.
Qld gave Labor its once in a generation 2pp majority in 2007. That’s probably it for a while too.
]
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/outlyer_states/
bg
ER is a rolling fortnightly cycle so any shift is smoothed out.
The issue responses will be interesting assuming they ask about Wikileaks.
[Diogenes
Posted Monday, December 13, 2010 at 11:35 am | Permalink
bg
ER is a rolling fortnightly cycle so any shift is smoothed out.
The issue responses will be interesting assuming they ask about Wikileaks.]
Or if we see a shift we can assume it is more significant than this survey reveals.
I think aussies are pro-wiki.
Thanks Paul_J. That was the one. It’s so good to read something positive instead of “oh, woe, Gillard is digging up my nature strip”.
bg
There are two issues that are linked.
1. What Aussies think about Wikileaks
2. What Aussies think about the Government’s response to Wikileaks
Diog
I think it all gets conflated.
We will see if essential ran wikipolls- i assume they did- and what qs they asked.
Tanya Plibersek Labor Govt CONDEMNS
‘ Human Services Minister Tanya Plibersek told Sky News’s Australian Agenda that “the leaks were very serious and threatened the workings of international diplomacy and the he quality of advice public servants were willing to give. “
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/kevin-rudd-defends-julian-assanges-rights-and-promises-him-a-laptop/story-fn59niix-1225969826148
Go Tania , truth
Backs up Kevin Rudd’s strong FA condemnation , which he has made w/o cavet
Backs up Julia’s condemn , Wayne Swans on leaks inaccurate re FA embassy gossip cables , coments , and backs up A-G McClelland’s comments
Labor Govt Ministers correctly hav condemned Wikileaks ,
vs uxpert PB bloggers suporting wiki show there unxpertise ,
that almost all is Greens bloggers joining th fake Brown’s anti Labor critism , is no surprise
And this just highlights that there is nothing they can find to pin on Assange. If it takes a year to determine then report on if somebody has committed an illegal act under the law then you would have to be suspicious of the process.
It further highlights that Gillard, McClelland and Plibersek’s comments are highly improper, uncalled for and bring attention as to why they would make such statements given they have no advice from anybody suggesting an illegal act has been committed.
The media should be asking the Gillard Govt as to why it is taking this angle and specifically if they have received any request and contact from US authorities over this issue.
Their answer to this question will be instructive.