UPDATE (Essential and Morgan): The fortnightly Morgan multi-mode poll, conducted over the past two weekends from a sample of 3019 by face-to-face and SMS, shows little change on the primary vote, with the Coalition up half a point to 39.5%, Labor down one to 37%, the Greens up one to 11.5% and the Palmer United Party down half a point to 3%. Labor’s lead is up half a point on the headline respondent-allocated two-party preferred measure, from 52.5-47.5 to 53-47, but the precise opposite happens on the previous election preferences measure. Today’s Essential Research moves a point in Labor’s favour on two-party preferred, which is now at 50-50. Both major parties are down a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 42% and Labor to 36%, with the Greens and the Palmer United Party steady on 9% and 4%. See bottom of post for further details.
GhostWhoVotes relates that the latest monthly ReachTEL automated phone poll conducted for the Seven Network gives Labor its biggest post-election lead to date, up to 53-47 from 52-48 in the December 15 poll. Primary votes are Coalition 39.8%, down from 41.4%; Labor 40.6%, up from 40.4%; and Greens 9.1%, up from 8.7%. The poll also has 20.3% reporting being better off since a year ago compared with 39.3% for worse off and 40.4% for neither. Prospectively, 23.5% expect to be better off in a year, 39.4% worse off and 37.1% neither. On the economy as a whole, 34.9% think it headed in the right direction and 39.3% in the wrong direction, with 25.8% undecided. A very similar question from Essential Research last week had 38% rating the economy as heading in the right direction versus 33% for the wrong direction, which while better than the ReachTEL results was a substantial deterioration on post-election findings which had it at 44% and 27%. These figures here courtesy of Ryan Moore on Twitter.
The poll was conducted on Thursday from a sample of 3547. Full results will be available on the ReachTEL site tomorrow, which will apparently include personal ratings that have Tony Abbott up and Bill Shorten down. Stay tuned tomorrow for the weekly Essential Research and fortnightly Morgan.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Crikey reports Essential Research has moved a point in Labor’s favour on two-party preferred, which is now at 50-50. Both major parties are down a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 42% and Labor to 36%, with the Greens and the Palmer United Party steady on 9% and 4%. Also featured: privatisation deemed a bad idea by 59%, including 69% for Australia Post and 64% for the ABC and SBS; 24% think we spend too much on welfare, 41% too little and 27% about right; 64% believe the age pension too low, but only 27% think the same about unemployment benefits; 78% believe alcohol-related violence is getting worse, and perhaps also everything they see in the news media; “87% support harsher mandatory sentences for alcohol-related assaults; over 60% support earlier closing times for bottle shops, pubs and clubs; 76% support lockouts and 59% support lifting the age at which you can buy alcohol”. UPDATE: Full report here.
I understand fed govt enquiries are well advanced including some interesting developments in the smaller unions in the transport sector.
KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN@1641
That sort of attitude does the ALP no favors what so ever, sure there are a few bad apples but based on your view based on Williamson’s conduct i should dismiss all union officials as thieving spivs which we know is totally unfair and unwarranted.
The sometimes moral double standards around here at times reeks worst than the local sewage treatment plant.
Anyone as silly as me & watches Adelaide’s 9 6pm news? Fairly sure I heard this sequence- announcer says union figures have hit back against accusations of corruption but their denials have been undermined by fresh news. Then trotting out footage of the “whistleblower” from last night’s ABC 7.30. Using “New” but really older stuff to discredit what’s actually new. Misrepresentation. Can anyone tell me if I heard this right as the precise wording would matter.
Lots of other anti ALP stuff.
Diogenes
You seem to be stuck in Foxtel mode. The station where WWII has never ended.
[shellbell
Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2014 at 7:10 pm | PERMALINK
Herald sun now behind the paywall saying charges against Thomson may be defective according to the magistrate whose decision will come down the fullness of time.
That is what Thomson would want – a summary dismissal on the basis the charges were defective such that no findings of fact are made.]
It is certainly what the Liberal party would want.
What could be better than an ALP MP Unionist getting off (pardon the pun) with using an union credit card to pay for prostitutes funded by members dues.
Royal Commission into Union Corruption anyone????
[Psephos
Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2014 at 6:56 pm | PERMALINK
I’m not arguing morals – indeed, I’ve made it clear that I’m very carefully NOT arguing a moral case.
Well you should be.]
Shouldn’t morals come before politics, zoomster?
P1 @ 1729
I think that Fran is saying that judging both ethical breaches the same (w.r.t. to an individual’s actions) is misattributing (to the individual) part of the problem that actually belongs to the entire system.
And for the record, I don’t agree that Pratt, or Madoff should have gone to gaol — at least not in the sense one normally understands the term.
Yes, they should have been required to do all manner of community service, and required to live in modest circumstances determined by the state at their expense and stripped of any assets not required for a modest existence. But gaol is for criminals who pose a threat to the legitimate interests of others that only sequestration from public life can abate.
Well thank you Diogenes@1749. I just Googled Carolyn Yeager and now I need another shower.
Psephos 1688
Very true although i would still consider Dick Pratt to have been very lucky to have escaped a jail term.
As much as fraud is a serious matter, some people confuse what is wasteful spending with criminal activity.
This is why the Thompson case is very interesting.
Have you checked with Adam Diogenes ?
Boerwar@1701
The tories resisted jail sentences for corporate thugs over and over.
Pratt was a heavy duty contributor to tory fund raising though over many years.
AFR to its credit covered that aspect when it all blew up and kept saying pratt should have been jailed..
Fran
You could look at it that way and i firmly believe Jail should be for those that pose a serious risk but Madoff’s crime was of such a size that it had damaged the community, particularly those who had fallen for the investment.
[Ethically, it’s hard to compare these crimes. Pratt stole much more, and did so in a deliberate and calculated manner]
You might say.
[Fran Barlow
Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2014 at 7:35 pm | PERMALINK
And for the record, I don’t agree that Pratt, or Madoff should have gone to gaol — at least not in the sense one normally understands the term.
Yes, they should have been required to do all manner of community service, and required to live in modest circumstances determined by the state at their expense and stripped of any assets not required for a modest existence.]
Stripped of any assets not required for a modest existence? You mean, taking material possessions which he paid for with his legitimately gained income as well as those he gained with illegitimate income? On what ethical grounds can you take possessions from someone that they have earned lawfully?
[ But gaol is for criminals who pose a threat to the legitimate interests of others that only sequestration from public life can abate.]
No it isn’t. If you are suggesting this is what it SHOULD be for, then so be it, but to say it “is for criminals who post a threat to the legitimate interests of others” is wrong.
ML
When I comment, I comment on what I want to comment on.
I extend the same courtesy to others – I don’t demand that they condemn this, or comment on that, or reply to the other.
In this situation, it’s the legal arguments that interest me – and Thomson is just as guilty if he spent the money on petunias.
Good to know, zoomster, good to know…..:)
Centre
[It may also be fine if his winnings which were then deposited into his union related credit card exceeded the amount he initially withdrew to buy chips from his union related credit card ]
No. If you nick money and make a return on what you nicked you have to pay back the return as well.
MB
[You could look at it that way and i firmly believe Jail should be for those that pose a serious risk but Madoff’s crime was of such a size that it had damaged the community, particularly those who had fallen for the investment.]
I’m not sure I see the relevance. Yes Madoff damaged a good many people but his likelihood of reoffending is low and can be lowered to zero with monitoring and control. You could give him effectively home detention, which is a form of ‘gaol’ but which would be designed purely to mark him out as someone not to be placed in a position of trust.
K
Big birthday. Cruise with it.
Simone
[Oh dear, the week ahead in Adelaide;
37, 40, 42, 43, 37, 40, 42]
Are they this weeks Tattslotto numbers or just the usual Lib bull-sh#t.
A mate of mine in Arizona had saved for a SC transplant in his Madoff account, he lost every cent.
It meant he had to move to New Mexico to get state coverage for a self employed person.
Madoff should rot in a pit of faeces upto his nose.
Fran Barlow@1758
Fran, you are seriously deranged.
ruawake
Damn right but what is an SC transplant ?
Everything
[Stripped of any assets not required for a modest existence? You mean, taking material possessions which he paid for with his legitimately gained income as well as those he gained with illegitimate income? On what ethical grounds can you take possessions from someone that they have earned lawfully?]
Well it’s done all the time. As you’ll be aware, boats used to convey IMAs are scuttled. On a more modest scale, people using cars to do street racing can find them impounded and destroyed. Fines are a form of seizing property lawfully obtained.
The ethical basis of seizing Madoff’s property would be deterrence. Madoff’s conduct leads to his financial ruin. His tale is cautionary and he rightly bears the expense of being its central character.
[SC transplant]
http://www.leukaemia.org.au/treatments/stem-cell-transplants
Fran
Sorry but jail is for crooks. and stealing and fraud is a crime and has been for centuries. If you don’t do something to deter the dodgy rich they will just keep on offending and too many of them have got away with too much. Years ago we had a dodgy businessman lawyer in WA who was sent
to jail for fraud and I think he he ended up doing part of his time as a trusty in the mandurah lockup with his family bringing him picnic baskets at weekends. He was eating better than the people he ripped off.
Player one
[Fran, you are seriously deranged.]
That’s plainly a new meaning for ‘deranged’ — “says things that Player One finds objectionable …”
ruawake
Ta.
Fran Barlow@1758
I would have thought that what Madoff and Pratt did also posed a threat to the legitimate interests of others and therefore Gaol is indeed warranted.
You don’t think ripping off somneone of their lifesavings is a threat to that persons interests ?
How many suicides have occurred because of a shyster ripping some poor bugger out of their whole lifes toil ?
Pratt was being prosecuted up to the day before he died. Why the Cth DPP felt it was ethically bound to drop the charges when his death was imminent, I am not sure.
Fran Barlow@1777
Precisely. You, Richard Pratt and Bernie Madoff.
Firstly…
I do not believe it is wrong for a man or a woman to use the services of a sex worker …& I have the highest regard for the vital social service they provide…
Secondly…
If Thomson was indeed provided with a credit card as part of his salary package (as Kathy Jackson has testified, then how he chooses to use it is his affair…
Thirdly…
It appears the prosecution has stuffed up big time by charging Thomson with defrauding the issuing bank, when there is absolutely NO evidence the credit card was not paid…
Fourthly…
If we are going to pass judgement on men or women who use the (legal) services of a sex worker(s) …then start with me…
RossMcG
[Sorry but jail is for crooks. and stealing and fraud is a crime and has been for centuries. If you don’t do something to deter the dodgy rich they will just keep on offending and too many of them have got away with too much. ]
Gaol is a tool for abating threats to the legitimate interests of others, but it’s expensive to run, and of doubtful use in all but the most difficult cases. There are some people who really are too dangerous to walk amongst us, but it’s hard to argue that Pratt or Madoff were in that category.
You won’t be shocked to learn that I have an alternative suggestion for restraining the dodgy (and even the non-dodgy) rich from offending against social justice and equity. I wonder if you can guess what that is?
theintellectualbogan
[Well thank you Diogenes@1749. I just Googled Carolyn Yeager and now I need another shower.]
It wasn’t good, was it. And she looked so nice on her photo.
It’s just frightening that people like her are out there.
[Fran Barlow
…..Well it’s done all the time. As you’ll be aware, boats used to convey IMAs are scuttled. On a more modest scale, people using cars to do street racing can find them impounded and destroyed.]
These are items actually involved in the crime, which is quite different. We were debating whether or not you can take assets accumulated, quite lawfully, over a lifetime because of a crime committed in your old age.
[Fines are a form of seizing property lawfully obtained.]
You can fine somebody who has committed an offence when that is the law. You cannot fine somebody a percentage of their net worth or make up a number on the spot. Fines, or at least the maximum fine is set by law.
Fran
I couldn’t possibly guess. Make them hug a tree every day?
Fran Barlow
[ I wonder if you can guess what that is?]
Being forced to endure your lectures on “proper” English grammar ? 😆
Everything
[You can fine somebody who has committed an offence when that is the law. You cannot fine somebody a percentage of their net worth or make up a number on the spot. Fines, or at least the maximum fine is set by law.]
You could argue that fines should be on a sliding scale according to how wealthy you are. A $1000 fine to a rich person is no deterrent whereas it would be devastating to some poor families.
Fran
[You won’t be shocked to learn that I have an alternative suggestion for restraining the dodgy (and even the non-dodgy) rich from offending against social justice and equity. I wonder if you can guess what that is?]
Going back to primary school with you as the teacher?
[Do the LNP think they gain an advantage?My money’s on yes.]
William
What’s your opinion tho. Do you think it will advantage LNP?
Happy Birthday Kezza. Love your feistiness.
markjs@1782
Wow! I hadn’t caught up with that.
That is just incompetence beyond belief by the DPP. Any layperson, let alone a lawyer should have spotted that one.
Dio @ 1788
Fine? Isn’t it just a parking fee?
I think Thommo should be given the max jail sentence and the max fine suspended on the basis that he gives full evidence against who had knowledge of his crimes in the Gillard government.
Bemused…
Here’s the link:
http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/doubt-over-craig-thomson-charges/story-fni0fee2-1226813236519
Diogenes
Switzerland has such a system.
YB @ 1779
They don’t believe anybody should have money!
poroti
[Or being forced to endure your lectures on “proper” English grammar]
Or any other crap English stuff. Or Latin …
Everything@1785
Typical Tory absence of morality.
Madoff’s liabilities far exceeded his assets. No doubt much of those assets were obtained ‘legally’ as a huge salary and commission he paid himself from the funds invested.
So who should have first call on his assets, his victims, or him?
You have shown where you stand. Why am I not surprised? 👿
They do or did sliding scales in Scandanavian nations for fines.
State fine acts take into account capacity to pay but only at the low end.