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.
[William,
Is this the time you start playing Piaf”s “Non Je Ne Regrette Rien”?]
GG, that’s a bit racist, isnt it? what have you got against the froggy 👿
BK
Forgot this…. 😛
Frank
[Only cause I worded it wrong.]
Yeah, you got it wrong and had to correct it.
Kezza, I have had a fair bit to say about the appropriate limits of state power in relation to free speech, which better educated readers would have discerned were influenced primarily by John Stuart Mill. Namely, that freedom of speech is one of a quite small number of basic rights, together with life, liberty and property (it is in fact an extension of the right to liberty), and that the appropriate role of state is to act to uphold such rights. Speech can reasonably be limited when it amounts to a direct assault on one of them, which doesn’t happen very often. It certainly doesn’t apply when somebody’s feelings are hurt by what’s said about them in a newspaper column, which on any reasonable interpretation is all that’s happened here.
[You proved my post re William allowing Defamatory Statements laid against ME without question.]
He also allows inappropriate capitalisation. I think I’ll serve him with a writ tomorrow.
PJN
broken wing was connie ferravanti-wells
William Bowe
“I demand, therefore, that you state your idea of “the appropriate reach of state power”
You demand it? Jesus.”
‘nother word for “ask”
Christ.
Lost your thesaurus?
Amigo, you can be the Cosack and i am the Ransack
[Andrew Bolt’s extremism needs to be reigned in.]
Kezza2:
Sometimes a commentator’s “extremism” leads to their undoing as a relevent, to-be-taken-serious contributor. I give you Exhibit A: Piers Akerman.
[Diogenes
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
Frank
Only cause I worded it wrong.
Yeah, you got it wrong and had to correct it.
]
Which is the correct thig to do.
Bolt Didn’t and is sufferering the consequences.
And William has the gall to defend the creep.
[GG, that’s a bit racist, isnt it? what have you got against the froggy ]
finns
arent you going home to china?
[Yeah, you got it wrong and had to correct it.]
Diog, mr kettle mrs pot
Compadre, how much ransom you have to pay Bilbo?
vera,
Don’t forget your cultural roots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl2fONPgIJE
John Stuart Mill
Of his own free will,
On a half-a-pint of shandy
Was particularly ill.
Kezza as I said before there is no AJA any more as far as I know.
Nor do I know anyone on here who would be a member of it if it did still exist. In the dim and distant when it did exist and I was a member I would have expected it to fight tooth and nail against laws limiting free speech.
I am sorry but I don’t like the idea of people being “reigned in” because of extremism – that depends far too much on who gets to define what extremism is. There are plenty on the right who would love to shut people up who would define as extreme. Remember the Oz trying to get Grog silenced?
An yet again to avoid misrepresentation I do not suport Andrew Bolt’s comments at all.
[You proved my post re William allowing Defamatory Statements laid against ME without question.]
Completely delusional statement.
Newspoll Federal Quarterly Results:
Two Party Preferred: ALP 49 (-1) LNP 51 (+1)
Primary Votes: ALP 34 (0) LNP 42 (0) GRN 13 (-1) OTH 11 (+1)
http://ghostwhovotes.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/newspoll-quarterly-2011-02-03.pdf
Tania P is not at all happy. Let’s hope she lets go a few fusillades before it ends.
[567
It’s Time
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
You proved my post re William allowing Defamatory Statements laid against ME without question.
Completely delusional statement.
]
So posting a Rant on my Wall is Facebook Stalking now ?
Geez
Frank
Bolt expressed an opinion which was not verifiable one way or another. It was pretty much on a par with most of he stuff he says. I was surprised to see he got done for it. We’ll see what the court says.
Personally I don’t think he should get done for this but I’m pretty keen on karma and what goes around, comes around.
Tanya Pilbersek is playing a blinder on QandA tonight. She just demolished Morrison and the Liberal shadow minister.
[Nah BH, I still luvs ya ]
Thank gawd for that. I can sleep easy.
How about the last comment from Morris on Q&A? Phew, that bloke makes some weird comments at times.
We all hate the use of heroin for the damage it can cause to some people but Della Bosca and Bob Carr should be applauded for getting them up. Just a few saved lives are worth it. Morris can be an ugly guy at times.
[An yet again to avoid misrepresentation I do not suport Andrew Bolt’s comments at all.]
Isn’t this the crucial point? It isn’t possible to say one agrees with free speech if they only want it extended to people who say things they agree with.
There are plenty on the right who would love to shut people up who THEY would define as extreme.
Probably an inopportune time to jump in but I don’t quite get the state overreaching thing. It is a democracy and it is our reach in any event. But regards of ones feeling of impotence in the face of state power I have two concerns.
Firstly right or wrong it is the law. There has been a suggestion the complainants have been wrong to use it. That is for the court to decide but to say someone shouldn’t use a law because you don’t like is a step to far. A fair comparison is to say a company shouldn’t use a tax loophole just because it is there.
Secondly (and I’m talking in theory without specific reference to any case) – if you decide the line is actual incitment to violence – with the preceding years of purely ok saying things to make a minority of some sort or another look bad / immoral / unAusyralian / humiliated etc I don’t quite get how you draw the line. Do you wait until someone is beaten up and check what the offender has been reading and listening to over three / four / five years. If the humiliated party finally cracks and does something stupid do you just jail them and say ‘hey look for year they said you are scum hey look they were right!
I’m not saying it is easy but ‘free speech’ is a little hollow a concept for my vote.
aristotle, what a bugge with the bottle
john stuart mill knew a mean pill
[As I’ve said before and will no doubt say again: this isn’t about Andrew Bolt.]
With respect William, I agree it isn’t about Bolt, but it is, in the circumstances of this case as he is the one in court defending the words he wrote, words members of your and my community have taken exception to. That is a fact, there is no dispute he wrote the words. Bolt is defending his right to say them, others disagree.
Individuals are defamed thousands of times on blogs, by persons using non de plumes, or not me included, but until someone actually challenges bloggers or the likes of Bolt in court, it will go on. So whether you wish to take action against anyone you feel has said or inferred something that you feel is a slite on your good reputation, is of course your decision.
In the case of Bolt, persons have taken exception to what he wrote, the court will decide if he was within his rights to say the words, with its implications or lack of.
if you believe he was within the bounds of the law, great, I disagree. However that is why we have a democratic system that enables both parties to argue their case and their peers will decide. In this case that is neither you or me, we are interested bystanders, with an opinion.
Diogs,
Learn to duck!
[Tanya Pilbersek is playing a blinder on QandA tonight. She just demolished Morrison and the Liberal shadow minister.]
She still isn’t turning the discussion on the carbon tax into an economic question. She needs to point out that if we don’t put a price on carbon then the alternative isn’t no tax, it is more federal spending with politicians and bureaucrats picking winners, i.e. the same failed policies of the 1950s to 1970s.
I agree ShowsOn.
GG
[Diogs,
Learn to duck]
I’m already in the duck and cover position. 😀
[MFARNSWORTH | 1 minute ago
Thank god #qanda is over. I can put the medicinal heroin away now.]
Oh dear, was it that bad? I had it on in the background, only paying attention every now and again.
Jones is treating Connie as a lightweight.
Diogs,
As Frank might say, back to the dark ages of the 50s.
[She needs to point out that if we don’t put a price on carbon then the alternative isn’t no tax, it is more federal spending with politicians and bureaucrats picking winners, i.e. the same failed policies of the 1950s to 1970s.]
Eg ‘direct action’, ultimately more costly to taxpayers in the longer term.
Anyway, interesting discussion and I promise not to sue anyone, not even Frank 🙂 Family duties call.
[Do you wait until someone is beaten up and check what the offender has been reading and listening to over three / four / five years. If the humiliated party finally cracks and does something stupid do you just jail them and say ‘hey look for year they said you are scum hey look they were right! ]
Surely there is a difference between threats of violence and actual violence?
Threatening violence against someone can in certain circumstances constitute assault even under common law, so I don’t think there needs to be specific “hate crime’ legislation.
[Greensborough Growler
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
Diogs,
As Frank might say, back to the dark ages of the 50s.
]
Like this ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFT8hLjHtuE
kezza we had someone here a couple of weeks ago set to determine who was of good character or not. I thought Joan of Arc was the last victim of this nonsense but there are still people prepared to follow the same logic today.
Plibersek looks tired. Normally she would be demolishing these guys, and while she is doing a great job by FW standards, she is not up to her own brilliant standards.
Well, thanks for finally giving your opinion. And no thanks the less than subtle put-down that I’m not one of your “better educated reader”s. Hope you’re up on Bentham (John Stuart Mill’s mentor) and the panoptican – then we can have a discussion about the “settlement” of Australia!
Free speech does not give an unfettered right to vilify others; it is up to the court to decide whether Bolt “hurt someone’s feeling” or whether he did more.
Whether he did or not, it is my opinion it’s about time he stopped his slander of others (whether it stands up in a a court of law or not) and it is about time his colleagues pulled him in to line. It is not at issue whether others have been hurt by him, they have – and not just emotionally. Instead of being self-righteous about “free speech” why don’t some of you give him a good talking to, and a kick up the ar$e while you’re about it.
Showson
True, I was referring to her response to the discussion about the signs. The two libs were running the scam that JG was being derogatory to anyone who disagreed with her.
Tanya didn’t let that one go far. She is having to fight two of them off and they seem to be getting more of the airtime.
[Eg ‘direct action’, ultimately more costly to taxpayers in the longer term.]
Yeah exactly, but you don’t hear Labor explaining it in these terms.
Remember, the Liberals are committed to the same cuts as Labor, but they think they can achieve it using socialism.
Uh Oh
the meeja is using the M word
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/28/japan-nuclear-plant-partial-meltdown
[High levels of radioactivity in water leaking from a reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulted from a partial meltdown of fuel rods, Japanese officials have said.
Contamination in a pool of water in the turbine building of the No 2 reactor was found to be 100,000 times normal levels, the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], said]
GG
OOOhh!! Whips and leather!
What a herd of masochists they were,
Not for me, i like to do the crackin’ 😉
Tanya is a mum with a young kid. Tired is permitted.
WOW. Great interview on Lateline with Frank Sartor explaining all of ALP woes over the last 16 years (which interestingly didnt include any component of his involvement)…
It isn’t the dog(s). It’s the unbalanced, bullying, self-centred owner.
If he didn’t give them a secure base, they would be unknown or would have been taken away by Council rangers long ago.
But there is no law against keeping a dangerous columnist…
Morrow should replace Uhlman on 8:30.