The Fairfax papers today offer three attitudinal findings from a ReachTEL automated phone poll, which was conducted on Thursday evening from a sample of 2146 respondents:
• After Tony Abbott’s efforts to place the matter on the agenda earlier this week, a question on ABC bias finds 59.6% of respondents saying there is none. However, conservative critics of the public broadcaster can at least point to the fact that many more think it biased to Labor (32.2%) than the Coalition (8.2%). While the result at both ends may have been influenced by Abbott’s activism, it nonetheless offers an interesting supplement to the yearly ABC-commissioned Newspoll surveys, which consistently find overwhelming majorities considering its reporting to be “balanced and even-handed” without probing into respondents’ partisanship. The Sydney Morning Herald’s graphic features breakdowns by age and gender.
• Support for republicanism appears to be at a low ebb, with 39.4% in favour and 41.6% opposed. Tellingly, the 18-34 cohort joins 65-plus in recording a net negative rating (though by a considerably smaller margin), with those in between recording majorities in favour. Age and gender breakdowns here.
• There’s also a question on who is preferred out of the incumbent Governor-General and her designated successor, with 57.1% favouring Peter Cosgrove versus 42.9% for Quentin Bryce. I do wonder though about a method which requires a definite answer from all respondents to such a question, given the number that wouldn’t have an opinion.
UPDATE: And now a further finding from the poll that 52.5% agree that Labor should distance itself from the union movement”, compared with 25.6% who disagree.
Aussie Achmed
Will Abbott count his 15,000 Green Army as being employed or will the numbers be rolled over every 3 months as in work for the dole?
Lizzie, best wishes
MTBW
Thank you.
It’s interesting how quickly we reduce our expectations, isn’t it. I don’t give a stuff if he can’t do any more gardening and has to sit in a chair for most of the day. I just want him home so that I can look after him and talk to him.
[ News Ltd reported weakness at its Australian newspapers with sales decline of 22%, leading to 3% decline in revenue]
And it is only going one way. The only way News Ltd can survive in the newstainment business is if its online rivals (Fairfax and ABC) are dispensed with.
15,000 Green Army is well short of 200,000
well unless you use the Hockey eleventy method of calculation then 15,000 full time permanent jobs is equivalent to 200,000
Jolyon Wagg@136
Great post JW!
The continuing delusion of the big egos behind the ‘direct election’ push and their representatives on PB is a wonder to behold.
You nailed them beautifully. 😆
From the earliest Biblical writings, the God of Israel has exhorted rulers to ‘defend the cause of the poor and the needy’ as the first priority of government.
This theme was amplified by Pope Francis in his Evangelii Gaudium in November, which attacked the “idolatry of money”.
The pontiff wrote:
‘I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor.’
Abbott’s priorities are the diametric opposite.
lizzie:
Best wishes for you and your OH. I hope you can get him home again.
confessions, billie, BH
Thank you. I just hope my energy holds out. 🙂
Cheers Bemused
Everything quoted poroti:
[2GB and the Telegraph being rated as essentially balanced ? Yeah right.]
Then continued rhetorically:
[Well, go and tell the ALP Minister Andrew Leigh that you think he is wrong. He did the study, not me. ]
There are two things wrong here.
1. Poroti is clearly speaking of today’s 2GB and Daily Telegraph, whereas Leigh was speaking of those of the month prior to the 2004 Federal election.
Plainly, for Poroti to complain to Andrew Leigh that his 2004 data fed to the 2004 panel of intellectuals was disproved by the output of 2GB and the Daily Telegraph in 2013-14 would be perverse.
2. Leigh’s study distinguished both between talk back and print and between editorials and news copy, what Poroti apparently complained of did not conflict with Leigh’s findings.
3. Leigh’s study covered far more than these two vehicles of public discourse. Had they been so constrained they might have born out Poroti’s claims, even in 2004.
Well make that three things wrong …
Having been a mild supporter of the status quo in the 1999 referendum, I do have to say that I had a wry smile when the direct electionists joined the “No” camp.
Today, on balance I’d favour a republic, but I see it as a 10th order issue, and often a distraction from more worthwhile ‘progressive’ causes…
That ReachTEL has trotted this poll out (with a preferred GG poll, first in history??) leads me to think they are doing some kite-flying to see which cultural war unicorn would best serve the current govt. This is an old one, and the caravan has moved on. Will be interesting to see if one can be found anytime soon!
This is a very interesting article on the way in which England needs to change its attitude to flood control and other effects of global warming. Just as Australia needs to change attitudes to drought and fires as well as floods.
[For centuries flood protection has meant building ever higher walls and radically straightening and clearing rivers, to rush water ever faster to the sea. But a more crowded island, rising sea levels and increasing extreme weather caused by climate change mean the hard engineering approach is hitting its limit.
Dredging is a prime example: experts say it would not have prevented flooding in the Somerset Levels, nor drained the water significantly quicker. A desire for immediate action is understandable, but a massive amount of rain has fallen on the Levels, far greater than the capacity of the river channels, and large parts of the Levels are below sea level – the water has to go uphill to the coast.
Instead, a “back to nature” approach is being successfully tested to return water systems to the sluggish, slow systems they once were, using fields as temporary ponds, blocking up drains and even allowing fallen trees to obstruct streams.
. . .
On the southern coasts, the sea has already risen 6cm in two decades, bringing storm surges nearer – or over – the top of sea walls. Sea levels could rise by almost a metre this century. Planning to cope with this rising flood risk began a decade ago, expecting it to be felt in the 2030s. But experts say it is hitting now.]
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/02/flooding-winter-defences-environment-climate-change?CMP=twt_fd
Victoria 109 – Do you agree with Matthewson that the Coalition cant lose Murray?
Darren L:
There as no way I approved of a direct election republican model, but still voted to support a republic in the referendum.
lizzie
You will be fine!
Is Newspoll out this week?
Any model that does not have a directly elected model will not pass.
It comes down to lots of people do not trust politicians. So those of you wanting a Republic better accept this reality.
We also know going the “safe” route failed.
In a referendum inside politics is way out voted.
Lizzie see if you can get council help with house cleaning and perhaps gardening.
It’s time to outsource the non-core activities
The reason why the younger you are, the less likely you are to support a Republic is purely because such people have never been exposed to mature public discussion about the matter and know little about its merits.
Naturally, in this day and age Republican support should be in excess in 80%. If only we had some leadership on the issue.
The best way to have a republic in Australia is to abolish the GG and give the GG`s power of executive appointment and parliamentary sitting control powers to the HoR (except for the prorogation of the Senate).
I seem to remember New England had a 70-30 2PP before Windsor.
Time to reinvigorate/re-invent Country Labor?
Time also to round up all the old bath towels from family and friends.
Simone
If having Country Labor ends up with independents like Windsor totally worth doing
lizzie I know how you feel about just wanting OH there no matter what. Somehow the energy comes but it means pacing yourself more than ever. You’ve got a double barrel too so take care xx
If Keating had won in 1996, he would have put those direct-elections right back in to bed – Its because he was a leader, Howard wasnt and only stoked the tensions.
There was no need for a new constitutional convention in 1998, when there already was one in 1994/5.
Keating would have held a referendum in late 1998, and it would have passed.
Howard was all but determined to ruin it. I wish curse on the black villain all the time.
Guytaur
The obvious compromise is that say three or four candidates are approved by the parliament (2/3 majority) and then those are voted on by te public. If the parliament chooses wisely, they will be non-controvesial people who would not actively campaig for office.
But who cares, the ship has sailed, and unless the nation’s hand is forced (UK ditches te monarchy itself!), I cannot see it happening in the foreseeable future.
guytaur
When you look at what the last election produced, I can have no confidence in the “popularly elected” model.
Why could not the republicans all just have voted yes?????
The direct electionists could have just went about worrying about it later after it was a certainty that we A republic of some sort.
Just like the Scottish independence referendum. All the nationalists are behind the model regardless of what they think it is good or bad – they know they will worry about no currency union, Scottish Republic, etc later – but it has to go one step at a time.
US
I disagree slighly or am not reading you right.
Keating would have put this question.
Do you want to be a republic or a monarchy?
Model questions via referendum would have come after.
Debating the model splits the yes vote.
lizzie
Do you have “Home Care” in your area? My Mum had them and they are very good.
billie is right you need to check up on what help you have available in your area.
BH is right you need to take care of you as well.
guytaur @181
No, no
Keating was a minimalist republican. He would have simply put the model forward and argued on its merits, whilst urging unity in the yes camp rather than the division that howard stoked.
Simone Katich @173
If the current speed in the coalitions polling collapse continues, Labor gaining New England cannot be out of the question
Poor old ModLib provides evidence of media bias or not in 2014, by citing evidence collected 1996-2007.
Bet she didn’t even read the article.
I suppose she still thinks that pollies claiming expenses to go to private weddings is OK because (in her incorrect view) “going to weddings is tax deductible” in her sector.
Maybe Abbott’s Audit Commission will recommend cuts to the salary sacrifice lurk afforded to some health workers, which MD confuses as a “tax deduction”. Here’s hoping.
BH and billie
I already have some help with gardening, and until I can sort out all the papers (which a cleaner would see as rubbish!) I can plod on slowly.
….
Just had a call from OH in hospital, and things are not looking good. He’s tired of all the tubes and attention. Just wants a good night’s sleep and hopes for no visitors for a while. Very understandable.
US
Keating is not stupid. He knows public support for a directly elected model and why. He would get the yes first to stop Monarchists playing silly buggers with fear campaigns
Guytaur,
If our constitution had allowed a preferential vote on the three constitutional models in 1999 how would you have voted?
For me it would have been:
1. Parliamentary appointment model.
2. Direct election model.
3. Status quo
guytaur @187
I agree that he is not stupid, but it still would have passed regardless of the model if the prime minister of the day supported it.
lizzie
It is tough isn’t it!
Just know that we are thinking of you.
Who can forget the song of the No case, sung by James Reine, I think. someting like:
[We’ll vote no in November,
This republic is not the one,
We’ll vote no in November,
And the people will have had their say]
MTBW
Thank you. People are very kind.
US
We have proof of the pudding. Debating model first means a no vote.
Keating would have been aware of this.
JC
I would be voting for a direct election model like that of Ireland or more radically France. Going the US route would not be good.
This will make your day:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/private-sydney/frances-and-bridget-abbott-are-sisters-with-style-20140131-31q8v.html
I don’t see the point of directly electing a President if they are just going to be a powerless figurehead like the Governer General. It inherently forces politics into a campaign for what is ostensibly an apolitical office. I mean, if multiple candidates are going to be running for this position (and you can bet there will be heaps putting their hands up – both genuine contenders and wannabes with no chance), they’ve got to run on some form of platform. There’s no way you can have an apolitical election campaign. I mean, what issues are these candidates meant to be running on? Can you imagine an election between, say, Quentin Bryce and Peter Cosgrove for Governor-General?
IMO, the only way a directly elected President works is if position of Head-of-State is merged with the position of PM – a’la the American system. If its just going to be the Governor General with a different name and no connection to the Queen, then an election is just a waste of time and resources, and competely undermined what is supposed to be an apolitical office. Two-thirds majority of the House seems perfectly reasonable for electing the Head-of-State – the important thing is that we are able to vote for the government and PM, not the person whose responsibilities are almost entirely ceremonial.
Thanks MTBW – there goes my breakfast!
Asha
To see the answer to your question see Ireland.
BK
You are not nice!:lol:
BK
One day I will get the smiley face right. 😆
Bingo!