For the second week in a row Essential Research has Labor clawing back a point on two-party preferred, from 53-47 to 52-48. The primary votes however are little changed: Labor up a point to 37 per cent, the Coalition steady on 46 per cent and the Greens on 10 per cent. However, a question on the government’s carbon pricing announcement find greater opposition than a fortnight ago, with 34 per cent support (down four) and 51 per cent opposition (up two). Forty per cent believe an early election should be called over the tax – mostly Coalition supporters, many of whom were keen on a new election to begin with – with 44 per cent opposed. A question on preferred form of compensation has 39 per cent favouring direct payment, 33 per cent an income tax cut and 13 per cent and cut to the GST rate.
More happy polling for Kevin Rudd, whose performance as Foreign Minister has 61 per cent approval and 19 per cent disapproval. Fifty-seven per cent approve his intervention in Libya, with only 22 per cent disapproving. There is also a question on the importance of Australia’s relationship with various countries, in which every single country has had an increase on “very important” since the question was previously asked in mid-November. New Zealand and Japan in particular appear to have recorded sympathy votes.
[The Coalition have done this a number of times. Resist relentlessly and then fail to turn up for the final vote.
They’ll probably do the same re the Carbon Pricing legislation.]
GG which makes the MSM unabashed support for Abbotts lack of leadership qualities, too stupid to even contemplate. They have no shame, including the jurnos who represent them.
@William Bowe, leaving aside your condescension of Frank for the moment (“It absolutely goes without saying that you aren’t intelligent enough to understand them)
what on earth do you mean, regarding the Bolt case, that
“there are important issues here involving the appropriate reach of state power”?
What is more important – state power – or the issue of vilification/slander – in your book?
Or for that matter, any other poster here?
TBS,
Was that in the 1921 series?
[There’s a famous episode of Get Smart when there was a spate of kidnappings of buxom blondes. At the end it transpired that the Chinese were behind it]
finns?
A very good 4 Corners tonight on the Qantas/Rolls Royce failure last year.
William
Am sure it’s already been noted (apparently my work now gets in the way of my pollbludging) but loved your sentence on Rudd
[Fifty-seven per cent approve his intervention in Libya, with only 22 per cent disapproving]
Have to say, it pretty much says it all, doesn’t it 😉 Rudd SMASH!!!!
Kezza 2 – if you check the High Court cases the best we have been able to muster in Australia is an implied right of free speech. There are no individual rights set out in our constitution, nor is there a Bill of Rights attached to our constitution.
No mention of NBN passing on ABC radio news in Perth but they did have time for Morrison to rant about boats.
Question for our erstwhile MSM. “In what quantitative way does Australia have a non-functional Parliament?”
[So who is the pretty boy now? i am leaving Australia.]
Home calls?
btw
re fukushima
great read, by a scientist no less
http://t.co/mqytmqO
Kezza 2 try this for a start:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm
[What is more important – state power – or the issue of vilification/slander – in your book?]
Vilification becomes an appropriate occasion for state intervention when it constitutes a direct and clear violation of the rights of the person said to be vilified, usually by constituting an incitement to violence. All Andrew Bolt has done is hurt certain persons’ feelings, which does not constitute a rights violation – though all too often our laws determine otherwise. Such laws, including vast swathes of our defamation regime, are unjust.
[What is more important – state power – or the issue of vilification/slander – in your book?]
No right is completely unfettered. Society must decide where the limitations are to be. Personally I think that those in the media or with ready access to the media should be held to a higher standard than the regular punter.
BK
What was the gist of it? (I won’t be seeing Four Corners tonight).
[Question for our erstwhile MSM. “In what quantitative way does Australia have a non-functional Parliament?”]
bk, did you mean ‘esteemed’ rather than ‘erstwhile’?
[Such laws, including vast swathes of our defamation regime, are unjust.]
Yes indeed.
Socrates
It was a recreation of the whole engine failure incident out of Singapore. The pilots and other players were all in it. Frank and straight forward, no sensationalisation – just factual reportage.
Reminds one of the reporting of the passage of the NBN bill today.
And while I’m on the subject, a special raspberry should be directed at the wholly obnoxious principle of “religious vilification”.
Bolt should be ignored because he is an idiot, not sued for vilification because he is an idiot.
Scarpat
Pick your own sarcastic adjective.
BK
Thanks. From what I have read the crew did very well. But I was wondering – did it say anything about the cause of the failure? From an engineering POV it was a very bad failure on an almost new plane.
@steve
so, you’re saying, that Bolt is within his rights (an implied right) to vilify others, to slander others, as he pleases, because of the right to free speech.
As Bolt who is one who often regales against a Bill of Rights, it will be tres unjust if he isn’t convicted on that alone!
However, Bolt has a duty, doesn’t heas a member of the AJA? I will bet your bottom dollar he calls himself a journalist, and as a journalist he has to abide by AJA rules.
If this current case is lost/dismissed, let’s hope there’s some integrity left among so-called journos to prosecute.
[Scarpat
Pick your own sarcastic adjective.]
bk, to me ‘erstwhile’ means ‘former’ so I would go for ‘esteemed’ even ‘ highly esteemed’ in your context.
The left should always leave it to the right to try and shut people up through the courts.
In WA at least there hasn’t been an AJA for 20 years. It was a union so I doubt very much that Bolt would be a member anyway.
[Bolt should be ignored because he is an idiot, not sued for vilification because he is an idiot.]
I’m glad some people get it. Too many don’t though. This particular action against Bolt, however it is decided – and our unjust laws being what they are, there is probably a danger of an unjust ruling – can only damage the cause of those who are advancing it. Nobody with a fair-minded view of the situation and a respect for the principles for free speech could possibly deny Bolt’s right to say the particular thing he said (and indeed, I cited earlier an example of a former Labor MP and centre-left academic saying very much the same thing, if anything in harsher terms, about very much the same subject). There is no question here that many people have not in fact developed a fair-minded view of the situation, owing to their personal dislike of Andrew Bolt. One of the most basic principles of justice is that the courts must be blind to this sort of nonsense.
Nah BH, I still luvs ya :kiss:
Heck I’d have a glass jaw if I took offence after all the things I’ve said about julia 😉
Bolt is paid to have controversial views because that helps his employer sell news media. Does he realy hold hese views?
Socrates
Very clear at the end on what was the cause. RR had machined a shallow annular section into an existing hole in order to fit a filter into an internal oil supply pipe. It had been machined off centre meaning that there was a thin wall induced. After several months of service the pipe broke (metal fatigue?) and atomised oil was sprayed into the combustion chamber.
This had the effect of annealing a critical part of the rotor assembly which gave way resulting in the 200 kg rotor free wheeling to the point that centrifugal force caused it to break into three piece that exploded out of the engine assembly to damage the leading edge of the wing (plus rupture fuel lines) and to scythe across the bottom of the fuselage, severing a very large proportion of critical control wiring.
The failure conditions applying were incapable of being resolved into a safe landing solution. It was left to the crew to do it from experience and guts alone.
Tellingly RR had been inspecting and replacing some of the problem installations as engines were coming in for major maintenance. Not a good look!
[William Bowe
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011 at 9:57 pm | Permalink
Bolt should be ignored because he is an idiot, not sued for vilification because he is an idiot.
I’m glad some people get it. Too many don’t though. This particular action against Bolt, however it is decided – and our unjust laws being what they are, there is probably a danger of an unjust ruling – can only damage the cause of those who are advancing it. Nobody with a fair-minded view of the situation and a respect for the principles for free speech could possibly deny Bolt’s right to say the particular thing he said (and indeed, I cited earlier an example of a former Labor MP and centre-left academic saying very much the same thing, if anything in harsher terms, about very much the same subject). There is no question here that many people have not in fact developed a fair-minded view of the situation, owing to their personal dislike of Andrew Bolt. One of the most basic principles of justice is that the courts must be blind to this sort of nonsense
]
Citing a person’s PERSONAL Family History is drawing a VERY long bow in defending Bolt.
But your new found love for him says more about you than anything else.
Perhaps your spiritual home is in One Nation ?
Big Ship
Big hands always makes me think of Stuart Loewe, he had whoppers.
Scarpat
Thanks for the advice on “erstwhile”.
And there I was thinking I am pretty good on words.
One of your better comments Frank, in that I just plain don’t understand it.
William Bowe,
A lot of bolt’s columns are just plain boring, same old, same old.
Can see why you wouldn’t waste your time reading them.
However, he does propogate a lot of filth, a lot of stuff that in any other forum would be regarded as incitement.
One case, which I won’t regale, and it wasn’t an article of aboriginal entitlement, was tantamount (and I use the word loosely) to incitement to racial vilification, so much so that the next week that very group of new-Australians was targetted and one died.
Bolt has a responsibility as a oped writer. He deserves comeuppance to bring him to his senses, at the very least.
Come to Russia with me amigo!
vera,
Living in Mooscow?
My mind isn’t closed to the possibility that Bolt may have been guilty of incitement at other times in the past, but that is neither here nor there. This isn’t about him.
[William Bowe
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
One of your better comments Frank, in that I just plain don’t understand it.
]
Your starting to behave like a Bolter poster 🙂
[(and indeed, I cited earlier an example of a former Labor MP and centre-left academic saying very much the same thing]
Is slightly different to a Newsspaper column where Bolt has no family background to justify what he wrote – unlike the ALP pollie.
Capish ?
And now for Connie!
My opinion of Concetta is confirmed.
Sorry Kezza, but we can’t start deciding who should be prosecuted based on the fact we think they are vicious dimwits.
Someone else might think that we are the vicious dimwits and use the same laws against us. What happens if Cardinal Pell starts taking legal action against everyone who bring up his religion. Are we for that too?
Okay, I do understand now. However, I do not see why Ken Parish’s piece is “slightly different to a Newsspaper column where Bolt has no family background to justify what he wrote”. For all Parish knows, he doesn’t either.
[William Bowe
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011 at 10:08 pm | Permalink
Okay, I do understand now. However, I do not see why Ken Parish’s is “slightly different to a Newsspaper column where Bolt has no family background to justify what he wrote”. For all Parish knows, he doesn’t either.
]
Ken was writing from Personal Experience. Bolt wasn’t.
[Scarpat
Thanks for the advice on “erstwhile”.
And there I was thinking I am pretty good on words.]
bk – I have used the word in the same context as you (as I think many people do) until I decided to look it up one day. ( I actually think its meaning will evolve to mean esteemed one day).
Mind you, BK, “erstwhile” works there as well!
GG
lol, sound’s like the perfect place for me
William,
Bolt is a professional agitator. He’s paid to bethe centre of any story. Upsetting or vilifying minority groups or majority groups is all part of the fun. News pay his bills and he wears the the opprobium as a shroud of honour.
It’s all theatre.
I’m surprised you take it all seriously.
Yes Scarpat, there has been a number of words that have had their meaning reversed by common (mis)usage.
Does anyone know if there is a link to a replay of the performance of Windsor, Oakeshott and Katter in parliament today? I missed most of it and apparently it was the highlight of the year.
Antony Green’s blog got a plug on Sky News (and by a 2UE presenter)!
Go Antony!