GhostWhoVotes reports Galaxy has plugged a hole in the Newspoll and Nielsen schedules with a federal poll conducted from 1015 respondents on Wednesday and Thursday (UPDATE: Make that Thursday and Friday – The Management). The result is at the low end of Labor’s recent form, with the Coalition leading 48% to 34% on the primary vote and 54-46 on two-party preferred, compared with 47% to 35% and 53-47 in the Galaxy poll of a month ago. The Greens vote is steady on 11%.
Galaxy also grapples with the AWU matter, with what to my mind are problematic results. Poll questions are most effective when gauging basic affective responses, namely positive or negative feelings towards a person or thing, and mutually exclusive choices, such as preferences out of political parties or election candidates. On this score, the best question to emerge so far has been Morgan’s effort on approval or disapproval of the Prime Minister’s handling of the controversy. Difficulties emerge where the range of potential opinions is open-ended, as too much depends on the choices offered by the pollster.
A case in point is Galaxy’s question on whether Gillard had “lied” (31%), been “open and honest” (21%) or, as a middle course, been “economical with the truth” (31%). Particularly where complex or half-understood issues are involved, choices like this are known to activate the strategy of “satisficing” (“choosing the easiest response because it requires less thinking”, according one of the pithier definitions available). This results in a bias towards intermediate responses, in this case the “economical with the truth” option.
I have similar doubts about Galaxy’s question as to whether respondents believed Gillard “should provide a full account of her involvement through a statement in parliament”, an over-elaborate proposition that feels tailored towards eliciting a positive response. Sixty per cent of respondents duly gave it one, although it is clear the thought would have occurred to few of them before being put to them by the interviewer. Only 26% offered that such a statement was unnecessary, with 14% undecided.
Then there is the finding that 26% of respondents said the issue had made them less likely to vote Labor. Like any such question, this would have attracted many positive responses from those whose pre-existing chance of voting Labor was zero. However, the question at least allows us to compare the results to those of similarly framed questions in the past. In July, a Galaxy poll found that 33% were less likely to vote Labor because of the budget. In January, 39% of respondents to a Westpoll survey said power price hikes had made them less likely to vote for the Barnett government. In July of last year, The Australian reported polling by UMR Research (commissioned, it must be noted, by Clubs Australia) had 23% of voters less likely to vote Labor due to mandatory pre-commitment for poker machines. And a month after Kevin Rudd was deposed as Prime Minister in June 2010, Nielsen found the proportion saying they were less likely to vote Labor as a result was similar to today’s finding: 25%.
UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes reports News Limited has published a further result from the Galaxy poll, a four-way preferred prime minister question which has Kevin Rudd on 27%, Malcolm Turnbull on 23%, Julia Gillard on 18% and Tony Abbott on 17%.
Zoomster:
[logically, people who are in such dire straits that they would risk death by drowning to come to Australia would be delighted to know that, should they reach Australia and avoid death by drowning, they are going to be given money by the government.]
So just to be clear — you are endorsing this piece of Daily Telegraph “journalism” as professional? I want to know what position I’m arguing against before responding.
[I don’t think someone fleeing the hellholes you continually portray Indonesia and Malaysia as are going to find living on less than the dole as particularly onerous (if they’re not going to be seeking employment, their expenses are less than the average unemployed person’s anyway).]
So just to be clear — you are endorsing this piece of Daily Telegraph “journalism” as professional? This is your view. You say that this is what the Daily Telegraph proposed. I want to know what position I’m arguing against before responding.
Thanks in advance.
dee
the thing i want explained to me
is there something new that the gov, has said they will be doing for these people
‘cannot seem to get a answer from any one
Tom
Oops. Sorry that so fresh in memory I thought last election. You are right of course. It was 2007
Fran Barlow,
Alluding to The Daily Telegraph by casting negative aspersions about a story in that paper, simply because the story is in The Daily Telegraph, is using a straw man.
http://trevorcook.typepad.com/weblog/2012/12/abbotts-awu-rantings-distract-from-gillards-bipartisan-achievements.html
[03 December 2012
Abbott’s AWU rantings distract from Gillard’s bipartisan achievements
PM Gillard’s achievement in winning every vote in the House of Representatives over the last two years has been truly extraordinary.
I like many others didn’t believe her Government would survive until Xmas 2011, let alone head into 2013 just a few poll points behind the LNP.]
One of the articles Trevor Cook links to in his blog post is this one.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-historic-bipartisan-record-of-last-week-in-parly
[The historic bipartisan record of the last week of Parly
by Malcolm Farr
03 DEC 06:00AM
This might come as a shock, but last week 11 bills were passed by the House of Representatives and Parliament that dealt with some of the most significant issues of the century so far. And lots of cross party agreement was needed to get this work done.]
catmomma
This discussion on AS is because many here are talking about the Daily Telegraph article.
It is fair to find out if you are supporting the article or talking about AS policy generally
Fran Barlow@1251,
In Persian rahst means “right, correct”. It is cognate with royal which is again about the writ of the ruler, usually a king. In short, the provenance of the term over thousands of years is about how one person commands another.
I know Julia Gillard has been depicted as a Queen in cartoons, however I haven’t noticed her Ruling by Decree or Command recently.
Hence your long-winded explanation to be able to use the term ‘regime’ for the government becomes thus, merely puerile and facile name-calling.
Fran, Psephos, an article about ‘future leather’ production that may be of interest:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tissue-engineered-leather-could-be-mass-produced-by-2017
@wendy_harmer: The Australian Press Council “a self-saucing pudding” Great stuff from Ms.Attard (former media watch host) http://t.co/dMnoGR3O @attardmon
guytaur
[What usual arguments?]
Scroll back and read – for as long as you’ve been posting.
You may get the idea.
Jackol@1290
That is just beyond absurd.
I want the government to focus more on achieving full employment and using the full potential of the Australian people in a contemporary 21st century way. I have pointed to a historical precedent.
Unless their position at home is substantially worse than Nauru they are not refugees they are simply country shopping.
While I am very uncomfortable with Adans views on AS it is increasingly apparent they are playing for the media. The attempts at self harm are a kind of emotional blackmail. They should be sent straight home. They are very well informed plolitical activists who should not be rewarded. I understand they face a very soft burden of proof it should be made much much harder and genuine refugee or not any of this self harm and similar grandstanding should automatically exclude and applicant from ever coming to Australia.
My Say
I think this all stems from Bownen’s announcement in recent times that AS who come by boat will not be allowed to work.
It was intended to deprive them of economical benefit.
The media is mining the ‘Welfare’ angle because it is very emotive.
“@GeorgeBludger: ‘Too many toxic trolls masquerading as journalists’ says Press Council’s Disney
like Sheehan, Kenny, Harcher, Shanahan, et al”
Bemused you are forgetting the crisis that Australia had just gone through left Australia feeling very under populated, [1], [2]. Government policies to increase migration were implemented. The Marshall Plan in Europe and Japan poured in massive funds to rebuild infrastructure so Australia followed the fashion and built up our infrastructure
1. Australia switched from relying on the British Navy for defence to the American Navy. When the Japanese threatened to attack Australia, Churchill wouldn’t release Australian troops from the European theatre to defend Australia. The American Navy fought the Battle of the Coral Sea which broke the Japanese ability to support their troops in New Guinea.
2. When Japanese invasion was imminent all white civilians retreated to south eastern Australia behind the Brisbane libne
CTar1:
[Someone who doesn’t vote has a group that can introduce ‘itself’ as ‘we’?]
Of course. I am part of a political party. It is called The Greens. The first person plural pronoun is apt.
[Other than making noise ‘you’ are irrelevant to political debate.]
You’re entitled to your view, though I doubt it is your view, because if it were, you’d not be responding to me.
Although voting is political, it’s not the only political act, and in practice, in our system, it is mostly symbolic rarther than of measurable utility, so once again, you’ve uttered a petitio principii fallacy. If you want to assert that relevance is defined by voting or that voting is a necessary condition of relevance you need to make that case explicitly.
FTR, I do vote — just not formally in Federal Elections. Again, If you want to assert that relevance is defined by voting formally or that voting formally is a necessary condition of relevance you need to make that case explicitly.
Ooops!
Bownen’s = Bowen’s
Fran Barlow@1287,
You assume, without expressly stating it, still less arguing it, that a viable and ethical solution was on the table for us to consider. There wasn’t, as the current situation shows. That’s called a petitio principii fallacy.
And with the wave of a Green hand Ms Barlow dismisses out of hand the findings of the Huston Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.
Such high-handed conceit I have not experienced for a very long time. Oh to be so self-satisfied and smug and untroubled by doubt about my position, which is riddled with holes.
billie
neither pseph or I are denying that there was ‘full employment’ in the post War period, or that that wasn’t due to the government’s efforts.
But to argue that 2% unemployment was appropriate in the period post War to 1970 is actually incorrect; the main complaint about that period was that the ‘boom’ wasn’t properly utilised, and that Australia stagnated when it should have grown (or grew less than it could have potentially).
My understanding – from reading texts such as ‘The Lucky Country’ and anecdotally – was that this was partially due to the low rate of unemployment, which meant that (as Chifley identified in the article I referred to) businesses couldn’t meet demand, which meant that opportunities for growth were missed.
No one here has provided any evidence to dispute that the experts regard 5% as full employment (in the modern era). The same economists recognise that different figures were/are appropriate for different times/countries, these things not being written on rock.
If the experts all agree that a certain figure is correct and should be adherred to, it’s a more than brave government which decides to go the other way.
Given that the Opposition are constantly derided here for failing to follow expert advice on a range of issues, it seems strange to me that the government is criticised when they follow it.
Yes – again, as pseph points out – ‘full employment’, were it desirable, is perfectly possible, if you want people working for the sake of working, rather than being involved in meaningful and productive work, and if you want to force people into the workplace who don’t really want to be there, and thus will be unwilling and resentful workers (check out some of the horror stories about ‘Work for the Dole’ to see what that leads to..)
fran
[You’re entitled to your view, though I doubt it is your view, because if it were, you’d not be responding to me.]
You doubt it’s my view?
You are really full of it.
Ctar
As I was arguing that Labor does not want and cannot compete for the racist vote I am glad you find that is my usual argument
http://newmatilda.com/2012/12/03/party-libs-could-be
I wanted to pick out the best boits of Abbott’s “economic theory”, but ther are too many.
[If he is to be taken seriously, the next Coalition government will be tied in knots dealing with irreconcilable contradictions in its economic platform. There will be big spending on infrastructure, parental leave and a standing Green Army, while taxes are cut and the budget is balanced. Its policies will privilege the mining industry, thereby keeping the exchange rate high, while ensuring we “once again have competitive manufacturing industries”.]
Risible 🙂
Phespho – agree entirely re: fact-checking for the Tele. why should Jones be discriminated against? (well, Ok, years of being found out bullshiting may have something to do with that). A whole department of fact checkers could be set up to vet the australian msm at present. The ‘Ministry of Truth’ may not be the ideal choice.I hope the PM and other MPs do a few more public letters to editors – Combet could do a couple a day on the Murdoch media’s reporting on climate change.
On the Gallaxy Poll – I suspect it would have been taken mostly before abbott was shown to have nothing on Thursday and the Pm took him down- it would be fascinating to compare results from the wednesday with any taken thursday PM. However, given that many in the media were calling thursday’s parliament ‘a draw’ (again showing the need for fact-checkers), or only reporting Ponting’s retirement, and are now reporting on the basis of one poll that “The PMs recovery has stalled”, perhaps I won’t get to see the ‘bounce’ in the polls I expect the PM to get in the next Gallaxy. I am sure it will not be as enthusiastically reported if it does happen (“Labor still in losing poll position” seems to be how any improvement in poll results is reported.)
@strom_m: Disney: having a press council that is fully optional, has no powers and only funded by the media cannot gain trust of public #jeaa2012
So what happened to these Pyne revelations that were going to destroy his career, and that were just being checked by a media company’s legal division? It seems Chris Murphy has gone quiet on this and I think there was a poster here talking this up who has also gone very quiet.
I guess this is another example in the long line of one rule for Labor and an entirely different set of rules for the conservatives.
From Attard’s article quoting Michael Kirby:
[“If you look at human rights principles and the universal declaration of human rights, there is always a strong statement of freedom of the press and freedom of expression,” he said.
“But there is also protection for the fundamental right of privacy. You have to reconcile the two and reconciling them is what courts have to do every day of their work.”]
That is the nub. Other points in the debate do not amount to much.
CTar1@1299,
Exactly! Ms Barlow is a lot of noise, signifying nothing if she is not prepared to be a contributing participant in our democracy and the decision-making that results from the consideration of it’s elected representatives.
fran
leaving the Daily Telegraph aside, I put forward a perfectly logical argument as to why AS might find living on less than the dole in Australia more attractive than languishing in Indonesia or Malaysia.
I take it you don’t actually disagree with the argument I put forward, and would prefer to nitpick about sources I deliberately did not use in putting forward my case.
Bemused –
Your precedent involves a lot of conditions – social, demographic, economic, technological – that simply no longer exist.
If you’re claiming the precedent of the 1950s is one to follow, then perhaps we should have a world war so we can stimulate economic activity for a few decades while the world rebuilds.
I mean seriously, the low skilled jobs are gone and aren’t coming back. We can’t force a section of the community out of the workforce (married women) to ensure there are jobs for the men. Demographics have changed. Society has changed.
You can’t use a precedent for your argument when none of the conditions for that precedent match up.
And no one has even responded to my point that as the baby boomers retire there is going to be a labour market crunch. It’s inevitable, and it’s happening now. If we want to maintain the economy as it is, unemployment is going to be heading south as the working population shrinks as a proportion of the total population.
billie@1293
Nothing is black and white.
Many men returning from the war wanted to rejoin their families and support them as the breadwinner again.
Many others wanted to marry and have a family and the social expectation of the time was that they would support that family while the wife stayed at home. That was my parents experience and hence I am here, 😉
Dad returned from the RAAF and mum had been working for Frank Packer.
People demanded a lot less and needs were satisfied by a single income.
I am not nostalgic for the past as things are much better now in many respects.
But we should learn the lessons of the past and the importance of full employment is one of them. Otherwise we are accepting an underclass with all that entails.
“@strom_m: Disney: free speech is not pre-eminent over all other rights #jeaa2012 no one freedom can be absolute”
“@strom_m: Disney: free speech slogan is actually damaging freedom of speech for all those who don’t already have privileged position #jeaa2012”
Can someone tell me what the participation rate was in 1946?
It was certainly public service policy under Chif (the man who charged his neighbours usurous rates of interest dutring the depression) to sack married women.
Has anyone got the interview between Julie Bishop and partner at law firm explaining her actions re conflict of interest in being in a relationship with a client? Another example like TA’s of don’t do as I do- do as I say.
c@tmomma:
[Alluding to The Daily Telegraph by casting negative aspersions about a story in that paper, simply because the story is in The Daily Telegraph, is using a straw man.]
No, it isn’t. It’s really an example of argumentum ad hominem. The standing of the source is in question, much as it is when someone such as, oh, I don’t know, that illustrious bagman in the AWUWRA matter seeks to proffer evidence about the conduct of one Ms Gillard. Does one question the fellow’s place to evaluate Ms Gillard, just because his sister attests that he is an idiot, imbecile and scumbag who years ago sexually assaulted her?
Argumentum ad hominem. While it may be used fallaciously, it isn’t in itself a fallacy. Sometimes sources of information are unreliable. The Daily Telegraph is an excellent example of an outlet that lies in a predcitable pattern. This story fits that pattern. Is it a lie, constructively?
I’d like Zoomster to declare on it. If she isn’t sure, she should withdraw because to rely on something one knows/suspects is a lie is the blog equivalent of subornation of perjury. Zoomster surely wouldn’t want to do that.
“@jofmcmanus: You don’t have freedom of speech if you’re intimidated into silence Julian Disney #jeaa2012”
Stephen Koukoulas @TheKouk
Poor retail sales data reinforces the disinflation pressures in the TD-MI Gauge. Wake up RBA!
guytaur
[cannot compete for the racist vote]
You, as usual, conflate ‘racism’ with the idea that this place we live in can not support everyone in the world who wants to live here.
c@tmomma said:
[Oh to be so self-satisfied and smug and untroubled by doubt about my position, which is riddled with holes.]
Your position is indeed riddled with holes. It took a while, but finally you got there. Better late than never.
Ctar
No I was commenting on the reality shown in 2007 in Lindsay election
Stephen Koukoulas @TheKouk
RBA has only cut 25 bps since June – despite hard evidence of below trend growth. obviously it should go 50 tomorrow
Bemused from way back. If you choose to study for a PhD in The role of Arthurian Legend in Late Anglo Saxon Literature, it is not the government’s role to get you a job using these skills. Like everyone else you have to go on the job market. The only place that this doesn’t apply is in surgery where the college has had an iron fist control over training and placement – even this is now changing and we may well soon see brain surgeons stacking shelves -but they will have the chance to compete for the job and have reasonable prospects of being employed.
C@tmomma – I’m grumpy this morning and finding the usual suspects right here pushing their usual crap.
😆
Cheering me up!
Which is better an unemployment rate of 5% with participation of 60% or an unemployment rate of 2% with participation of 40%?
Oakeshott Country
[It was certainly public service policy under Chif (the man who charged his neighbours usurous rates of interest dutring the depression) to sack married women.]
It started well before Chifley. Very strange that the following two things should occur at the same time
.
[
In 1902 Australia became the first country in the world where most women had the right both to vote and to stand for the national parliament.]
[… the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902 that every female officer was “deemed to have retired from the Commonwealth service upon her marriage” – the marriage bar that was to remain in place for over 60 years]
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article52001?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2001&num=&view=
billie@1314
Billie, I don’t think that is entirely correct, particularly your 2.
CTar1 cited me:
[You’re entitled to your view, though I doubt it is your view, because if it were, you’d not be responding to me.
then continued
]
When someone’s words and deeds are in ostensible conflict, doubt is compelled. I see quite a bit of that in the wider world, and here at this blog, from time to time, as well.
If you really regard me as irrelevant to political debate, why would you attempt to debate me? Quod erat demonstrandum, surely.
guytaur
[No I was commenting on the reality shown in 2007 in Lindsay election]
You should preface all your comments as being based on the ‘reality’ of that election.
I was talking about immigration.
ctar
If you cannot see the difference between talking about racism and AS policy of Labor that is your problem not mine.
I was not actually talking about AS arriving on boats as a policy.
I was talking about what to do about the racists using the issue for their advantage. Also pointing out that Labor does not want to chase that vote.
To address this issue is to improve Labor chances of holding and gaining seats in Western Sydney.
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/12/03/conroy-fights-internet-control-in-dubai/
[Written by Renai LeMay on Monday, December 3, 2012 11:37
Conroy fights Internet control in Dubai
news Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has revealed he is leading a team to a key telecommunications conference being held in Dubai this week at which the International Telecommunications Union is attempting to seek greater control over the operation of the Internet.
The ITU is an agency of the United Nations which is responsible for technology. It is usually best known for its work setting international telecommunications and technology standards, although it also oversees other areas such as the administration of satellite orbits and so on. It is currently seeking to bring more administration of the Internet under its wing, taking power away from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a US non-profit corporation.
………
opinion/analysis
With his abandonment of Labor’s controversial Internet filter, his promotion of the NBN and now taking a global role to help ensure the stability of the Internet (including blocking moves for more government control of the Internet), it’s hard to make an argument right now that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy isn’t doing a great job. Building great telecommunications infrastructure, fighting control and censorship of the Internet, and now kicking ass and taking names in Dubai. What’s not to like about Stephen Conroy right now?
Oh, right, he won’t answer questions about the new, more limited Interpol filter which Australia is getting. Well, still not too shabby, by my count.]