Keen followers of the comments threads will be aware I’ve had my eye off the ball a bit over the past day or so, and hence missed the always enjoyable quarterly Newspoll geographic and demographic breakdowns. These point to swings against Labor of 4.5 per cent in New South Wales, 3.3 per cent in Victoria, 2.9 per cent in Queensland, 3.2 per cent in South Australia and 1.6 per cent in Western Australia – although since they cover the past three months, they are a little more flattering to Labor than the polling picture as it stands right now. More from Peter Brent at Mumble and Simon Jackman at Stanford University.
Some of the numbers David posts range from around 330,000 to over 530,000 for 730, from memory.
I love listening to Michelle Rowland (Greenway) – she dissects Turnbull’s rubbish beautifully.
[Turnbull’s first proposed amendment seems to make sense. It would allow various cabling companies to wire up new housing estates with fibre, before that installation is sold to NBN Co. That seems to make sense to me.]
Only if they do it to the same standard as the NBN and at a similar or less cost. The cost thing is hard for them to achieve as they do not have the benefits of bulk purchasing.
POLLYTICS | 4 minutes ago
[Going to therapy at 5! RT @David_Speers: Talking to Barnaby Joyce on #pmagenda at 4:15pm.]
Interpretation ducky?
george, I was going to reference back to David @2337, but 7:30’s not listed in the ratings there. I was guessing, so may be This little black duck is right.
Neverthe less, it’s not alot of people.
Apologies if this already posted
A bit of light relief 🙂
ShowsOn @ 2545
I think something like that already happens or will happen.
[Only if they do it to the same standard as the NBN and at a similar or less cost. The cost thing is hard for them to achieve as they do not have the benefits of bulk purchasing.]
Turnbull said the standards should be determined by an independent standards body.
[I think something like that already happens or will happen.]
At the moment only NBN Co. can do the installations.
Vera
.
A very nice Leak there. For further smiles this is a nice headline to read.
“Rupert Murdoch’s Failing Attempts to Control the Internet Reformation”. All together now Awwwwww !
.
“This speaks to Murdoch’s desperation – and mainstream media’s generally. In a digital world, he is willing to burn US$500 million simply to confirm that a social network is not a news delivery system. I could have told him that for a much lower fee.”
.
http://www.infowarhorse.com/rupert-murdochs-failing-attempts-to-control-the-internet-reformation.html
Annabel Crabb gets crabby with the PM: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/04/3260615.htm
Victoria @2271
[LATIKAMBOURKE | 7 minutes ago
Opposition Leader TAbbott denies muzzling frontbenchers but says he wants his ministers out there in front of the ‘right audiences.’]
Just catching up with posts, so probably already commented on, but I wonder if it was Latika or TA who referred to “his ministers” rather than “them” (frontbenchers).
And just who are the ‘right audiences’?
604,000 30 June according to Crikey.
[david
Posted Monday, July 4, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
Sundays News and Current Affairs audience figures
For the first time since it started, Insiders’ ABC 1 and the News 24 simulcast with 239,000 beat The Bolt Report and its repeat in total audience numbers (238,000). Insiders had the Prime Minister yesterday morning, but Ten’s Meet The Press had her the Sunday before.
The Bolt Report, especially the 10am version, is fading.]
Looks like he might be following Alan Jones into TV oblivion. Gina will probably give him a long run, but audience numbers will ultimately tell.
[Annabel Crabb is ABC Online’s chief political writer.]
Well tickle me with a ferret, who would have guessed?
poroti
I noted the name of that site
[infowarhorse]
I might start up one called
[inforacow]
😀
So Rudds *730 Report land* melt down didn’t matter.
Abbotts *Get it in writing* *Gospel Truth* didn’t matter.
It can Leverage into the cycle, unless one is teflon covered.
danny #2524 and others who couldn’t get to First Dog
Try this link
I wonder whether Bolt Report is affecting the ratings of Meet the Press”?
I purposely avoid Bolt Report and usually end up missing Meet the Press as it’s on straight afterwards.
Econocrat
The natives are getting restless.
Staying on message taken to the absurd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI
Another wise decision proving that Julia is PM and not St Bob by excluding petrol from the carbon scheme.
It’s what I had advocated all along, hot on the heels of Djokovic’s win last night.
Oh yeah, I’m going good 😀 for real 😛
Helen2
I did not hear Abbott’s comments firsthand.
Vera
.
“I might start up one called
inforacow”
.
I can see your slogan now. “infoacow, where we heifer all the latest moos”.
[Abbotts *Get it in writing* *Gospel Truth* didn’t matter.]
Sadly, no. The msm and ‘real Austrayans’ still believe TA’s lies …. every day. I suspect if you asked many of them, they’d not believe TA said such a thing.
The saddest thing is that everyone knows of Tone’s many shortcomings (not talking budgie related issues 😉 ) and everyone thinks he’s a great big joke and no one takes him seriously
BUT
He’s way ahead in the polls!
Doesn’t say much for his opponents
It was good to see Abbott being attacked today for lying and misleading the people over his scare tactics that petrol would rise under the carbon scheme.
Abbott’s position, with his oppose everything policy, will ultimately become untenable.
The question is, who in the Liberal Party has the backbone to manouvre into a challenging position the most. It could be time for Turnbull to sink the boot in again soon.
off to put dinner on
Go Cadel!
Centre have you got your money on him?
Thanks, Daveyboy 🙂
Barnaby Joyce has flipped!
vera, Hockey Joe to lead the Fibs next election 😎
[Only if they do it to the same standard as the NBN and at a similar or less cost.]
They would only do it if there was a profit in it, undercutting NBN would be difficult.
spur212 (1.07pm, page 47),
The idea that Tony Abbott is representative of the DLP is laughable. It is true that he had some misgivings over WorksocalledChoices, but that alone does not make him a DLPer. They were misgivings, not total opposition. The DLP was formed by the industrial groupers of the ALP; i.e., men and women who were active unionists who believed in social justice for the working class. There is no way that the DLP senators would have voted even for the first version of the Howard government’s workplace relations laws, brought to us courtesy of the Democrats.
Of course, the demise of the DLP in 1978 has pretty much left the field open to all sorts of calumny against that party, which has surfaced on this site today with the same lack of factual reality as is common on the Andrew Bolt Forum on other matters. It should be noted – yet again – that the current DLP is not the same organisation as the original DLP. It is a party formed by those members of the Victorian DLP who did not accept the democratic decision of the party conference in 1978 to disband. It has a philosophic affinity, but it does not have the same policies on a number of matters, two of which I will illustrate by letters I sent to editors which were unpublished:
There are probably more people with a DLP philosophical background in the ALP today than there are in the Liberal Party. Remember the DLP unions re-affiliated with the ALP in 1986, while the NSW ALP from the Split onwards kept inside itself lots of people who would have gone with the DLP had they lived in Victoria.
The level of dishonest and bitter vitriol that OzPolTragic has produced (9.42am, page 42) is typical of him. It seems it is always 1957 in his mind. He is under no obligation to trust the DLP, in either incarnation. He is entitled to prefer Steve Fielding to the DLP, in either incarnation. He is entitled to quote an actual DLP policy – not invent one – and say what is wrong with it. However, his recent comment is crazy:
This is on par with one of the worst of his many previous attempts to smear the DLP, in this case as racist:
(The “you” he is responding to is not me.)
The original DLP was a moderate social democratic party that opposed the White Australia Policy, opposed capital punishment, advocated votes for 18-year olds, supported unionism, worked hard for prison reform, advocated decentralisation, advocated a guaranteed annual income, opposed Melbourne’s freeway program with the same vehemence as the greens do today, etc. Its conferences were fully democratic with people arguing different points of view and thus obviously thinking for themselves. I argued against uranium mining at one mid-70s conference, and I was not the only one. When I was elected vice president, it was against a much more longstanding member of the party. Delegates made up their own minds. They were not automatons told what to do by faction bosses. The DLP was fiercely anti-communist and thus was labelled right wing, yet opposition to tyranny is a mainstream democratic value. When hundreds of millions of the world’s people fell under communist enslavement after the War, opposition to communism made perfect sense. It still makes sense, though communism itself is a much weaker force today and thus opposition to it does not have to be as string as in the 1940s and 1950s.
The people I met in the DLP were not fanatics. They were decent people who worked dot make Australia a better place. They did not blow up anything. They campaigned for greater democracy; e.g., via proportional representation. One former party president got up at a reunion some years ago and told us he was still a “socialist”, something you would be unlikely to hear from a member of the ALP today. There is no reason that opponents of the DLP cannot argue against the policies it actually had, but this campaign of smearing is unprincipled.
janice2 (9.51 am – page 42),
I have paid attention to politics for over 40 years and I have missed all these “Catholic Fanatics (sic)” who have “infiltrated” every level of government. You are not referring to Catholics who have actually won elections, are you? Should I demand to know the religion of my local councillors in case any are Catholics? You surely do not equate Catholicism with the DLP, do you? Most DLP members were Catholic, but many were not, and most Catholics did not vote DLP. DLP senator Jack Little was not a Catholic. DLP MP Bob Joshua was not a Catholic. In my own branch there were members from the Anglican, Baptist and Lutheran faiths. Indeed, the Victorian DLP had an atheist socialist union official, Fred Riley, as its president in the 1960s.
ShowsOn (2.25pm, page 49),
You are right. The DLP would not have voted for WorksocalledChoices. People call Tony Abbott a DLPer because he was once the president of the University of Sydney Democratic Club, not affiliated with the DLP but philosophically aligned with it. The sad truth is that a number of those who once had DLP associations moved up materially in life and gave up their social justice principles to be part of the Liberal Party, though I think to be fair to Mr Abbott, there is an echo of them somewhere in him.
Jaundicedview (2.28pm and 2.36pm , page 49),
You can, if you have any interest in facts, get a copy of the original DLP’s industrial relations policy from the State Library of Victoria, and you will see that your comment is just rubbish.
As always Danny , a pleasure…Frank is usually the speedy one with links, takes me a bit longer, wonder where that son of the West is?
Must be time for the ban to be lifted, miss him and his quirky humor and info.
[Barnaby Joyce has flipped!]
As opposed to his normal demeanor? Is that possible?
daretoread (2.41pm on page 47),
If Tony Abbott had had the fortune to have been born five years earlier and have gone to La Trobe University in Victoria instead of the University of Sydney in NSW, he would indeed have had every chance of beigng now a member of the ALP. Some may regret that and some may be thanking their lucky stars.
poroti (2.42pm, page 47),
The DLP and the NCC were not the same organisation. The idea that Bob Santamaria controlled the DLP is nonsense. Can anyone imagine Vince Gair or Frank McManus taking orders form anyone? Bob Santamaria tried to close the DLP down by amalgamating it with the Country Party. He was openly opposed by Frank McManus and Jack Little and more cleverly opposed by the officers of the Victorian party, who ensured that it did not happen here.
If you examine the DLP’s policies – I know, that’s a bit much to ask on a site where prejudiced stupidity cascades forth – you would see that, whatever Bob Santamaria thought, nothing in them is anything like agrarian feudalism.
That’s seven posts on one topic. I expect an avalanche of abuse. I don’t expect a factual contradiction of anything I have said.
You might ask why I bother to speak up for a party that no longer exists. It’s a commitment I feel to the people I knew and respected in the DLP and to doing the little that I can to ensure that at least some of the historical record is truthful.
I’ll leave you with these thoughts:
The ALP’s Asia-Pacific Community is the DLP’s Pacific Community.
The ALP’s two tax-free thresholds for the single income family in the 2004 election is the DLP’s support for the single income family.
The ALP’s capital advance on the Family Tax Benefit is the DLP’s capitalised child endowment.
The ALP’s new funding scheme for schooling is – okay, will be – the DLP’s old state aid policy, though modified.
As the secretary of a left-wing union said to the former DLP official that it had made a life member, “The wall is down”.
[Barnaby Joyce has flipped!]
He struck me as similar to someone selling fake medical cures, they use big words, they sound like they know what they are talking about, but when you listen they are saying nothing,
Chris Curtis
.
“poroti (2.42pm, page 47),
The DLP and the NCC were not the same organisation. The idea that Bob Santamaria controlled the DLP is nonsense.
Wot Chris just said with bells on.
[vera, Hockey Joe to lead the Fibs next election]
I’d have a few bob on that centre 🙂
A quick comment on QT – did anyone else notice that each Government Minister used the word “Labor” or the words “Labor Government” in their response to Questions today?
Hit me that polling must be telling them they are not seen as a “Labor” Government by Labor supporters.
Just a thought!
Actually, Chris, what you said seems reasonable.
Ms Crabb, tsk, tsk.
Step (1) Criticize the Government for announcing a complete MRT with all the details but without consultation.
Step (2) Criticize the Government for announcing the decision to impose a carbon tax without any details and without any consultation.
Step (3) Criticize the Government for announcing some of the details but not all of the details.
Step (4) (pending) Criticize the Government for announcing all the details without proper consultation.
Step (5) Criticize the Government for announcing details with which you disagree.
Meanwhile, Ms Crabb, gooseganderment, what details has Mr Abbott provided of his magic pudding policies and what criticisms have you, personally, made of that? What criticism have you, personally, made of Mr Abbott’s serial lies about petrol prices?
Mtbw
Good observation
Mytwobobsworth
Sounds a bit like labouring the point 😉
Sorry couldn’t resist.