The slump in Labor support recorded in the year’s first Nielsen poll has been exactly enough to erase a two-party lead in the BludgerTrack poll aggregate, which it had enjoyed since mid-December. This was despite a strong result for Labor from Essential Research, which appears to be maintaining its curious status as a lagged indicator. On the state breakdowns, the biggest movement is in Victoria, where Nielsen had Labor’s lead at a well below-par 52-48. This has helped cut the Victorian swing on BludgerTrack from 7.9% to 4.3%, and reduced Labor’s projected seat gain from five to two. Elsewhere, Labor is down one seat each in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory. The overall projection is now for a Coalition absolute majority, providing another indication that the BludgerTrack model considers the electoral terrain to be weighted in the Coalition’s favour. Leadership ratings from Nielsen provided further evidence of diminishing support for Bill Shorten, who is now only fractionally ahead of Tony Abbott on net approval. Abbott’s lead of about 10% as preferred prime minister has nonetheless been stable since early December, as has his slightly negative net approval rating. Full results as always on the sidebar.
Compact Crank, you’re still bashing away here I see. You cant be ‘working’ too hard at the “Work Camp” that you referred to in 1808.
[8 weeks without an arrival – priceless.]
And a lie. Two people have been transferred to CI. The rest were sent off to drown, but we don’t drown sick people apparently.
[Half a mill for 10 or so life boats – mastercard.
8 weeks without an arrival – priceless.]
Worst troll ever!
Crank
[When the UN sorts out Syria and North Korea, I’ll sit up and take notice. Until then they can pound sand.]
Look over there! 😛
guytaur @2147 That’s speculation based on supposition – much like the Greens approach to Border Protection.
Fight about to happen
There is an argument to reduce the Medicare rebate on cataract surgery. The late government had the chance to do that and walked away.
Where is Bill Glasson?
crank
yes. Exactly as applies to the concept of god.
ruawake @2152 – ah yes – the pedantry starts now – ooh look – 2 medical evacuations were done.
Zero, nil, nada, nix boat arrivals.
mikehilliard@2137
Mike – embarrassing.
hockey might be ‘hail fellow well met’ but not much more – and he is “my” MP (without my vote of course and without needing it).
poroti,
[Acerbic Conehead
HoJo would be the go to guy for the gig ?]
Holy crap! That big was it?
boomy1 has changed from the Pedant Pills to the Grumpy Pills.
Zoomster
Pity the HC agreed with me then isn’t it
[But, because I’m kind hearted, here we go again — I’ve provided multiple sources, just to make sure the message gets through—
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/malaysia-signs-refugee-deal/2809512%5D
Yes supports my case
Australia has officially signed its long-awaited asylum seeker deal with Malaysia, a move Prime Minister Julia Gillard says will “smash the business model of people smugglers”.
Where does it say MALAYSIA signed
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2011/07/20117254439553573.html
Try this in this article
[One demonstrator held up a placard that read, “Malaysia’s immigration laws still don’t recognise ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’ – where’s the guarantee for protection?”]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/world/asia/26malaysia.html?_r=0
http://www.smh.com.au/national/refugee-deal-with-malaysia-clinched-20110721-1hqzx.html%5D
These two say nothing additional
[and the UNHCR reaction:
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees says it is broadly satisfied with the agreement reached by the Australian and Malaysian governments on the resettlement of asylum seekers.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-09/unhcr-welcomes-malaysia-refugee-deal/2705796%5D
Exactly how is this relevant to Australian Law?
On the High Court decision: the High Court found that IF the relevant legislation was amended, there would be absolutely no problems from their point of view with the agreement. Their decision was purely based on the current legislation, which – I point out again – would need to be altered if we ever did enter into a true regional solution]
The actual words of the HC were
[The High Court statement said of third-country processing that the country must be legally bound by international law or its own domestic law to:
provide access for asylum seekers to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection;
provide protection for asylum seekers pending determination of their refugee status; and
provide protection for persons given refugee status pending their voluntary return to their country of origin or their resettlement in another country;
the country [must] meet certain human rights standards in providing that protection.
“They can only be taken to a country validly declared… to be a country that provides the access and the protections and meets the standards described above,” the High Court statement said.]
And finally I draw your attention to comments by Justic Gummow on ahe ACTAL agreement
[The court’s attention was focused on the text of the Malaysia agreement after Justice William Gummow pointed to Clause 16, which plainly states the deal is ”not legally binding”.
Clause 10 lists only ”commitments” by Malaysia.]
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/malaysia-wont-protect-asylum-seekers-counsel-20110822-1j6sg.html#ixzz2u2MXGR9E
Jesus Zoomster what is so bloody hard to understand. 6 High Court Judges seemed to think that a deal that says it is not legal binding lacks just a little something. It was Zoomester a Claytons deal – without even the bllody Claytons.
milenko
[No amount of money spent buying Bankster suits will buy you credibility]
The man’s an embarrassment. 😉
How damaging to the Liberals is this 17% swing to Labor in redcliffe if that turns out to be the official figure? State and Federally?
guytaur @2157 – I’m an Atheist so not really sure what point you’re trying to make about God.
[the pedantry starts now]
No you are wrong as usual.
Crank
Hypotheticals. In a multiverse there is a god
guytaur @2164 For someone who hangs around a blog based on Psephology you really are quite clueless – it means four-fifths of sweet F A.
crank
Amusingly in a multiverse a version of you is a Labor Party Loyalist
👿
“the Government got 35 sets of warnings over a five-year period that AWB was up to no good.”
No this is not a comment on the Insulation Program, it’s a fact regarding the AWB bribery and corruption.
For all the supposed errors made by the Govt over the Insulation Program they at least had the sense to act rather than ignore information for 5 years, that stupidity was left to the Howard Govt
OC
[Dio
Peritonectomy is limited to prof Morris (a reputation in NSW that may also be known in SA) at St George. The budget and ICU facilities at St George limit the cases to 100 per year. As the only surgeon offering Morris has a waiting list of more than 100 some of whom are politically cogniscent.]
A lot of these surgeries are for mesothelioma ie asbestos induced.
Prof Brian McCaughan does similar radical surgery at RPAH.
I have heard McCaughan describe the surgery. It sounds brutal ..
AA @2170
Having Canadian, US and other directly competing grain growers complaining that AWB wasn’t playing fair was like an Opposition claiming the Governmemnt isn’t playing fair. Who’s going to take notice of it?
[I’m an Atheist so not really sure what point you’re trying to make about God.]
this is the funniest thing I have ever read on the internet.
signed.
GOD
AA @2170
Kevin Rudd is the smartest man in Australia so I’m sure the RC will exonerate him all those who sailed in him.
What’s the ALP got to fear?
[I have heard McCaughan describe the surgery. It sounds brutal .. ]
I just looked at the definition and decided not to seek any more info.
Possum
[Tonight’s LNP talking point – we lost because unions were dishonest, i.e. the LNP thinks the people of Redcliffe are gullible fools] 😆
@Pollytics: This is the first Qld election in 20 years where we haven’t had some clown running around with undies on his head yelling about Heiner
Compact Crank,
[I know what the Kosovars did to HMAS Leeuwin in East Fremantle – shat in the drawers]
Good job they were wearing a pair, I reckon – would have been all over the place.
Reminds me of the old joke:
Two strangers sitting side by side in a cinema. One notices a terrible smell emanating from the nether regions of the other.
“Excuse me, sir – but do you realise you have just shat yourself?”
“Yes – why?”
[ Compact Crank
Posted Saturday, February 22, 2014 at 7:34 pm | Permalink
What’s the ALP got to fear? ]
Be assured the favour will be returned.
In spades.
boomy1 now trying comedy.
oh
#fail
“@skymarkwhite: Fast moving events in #Ukraine this morning with reports President #Yanukovych may have fled country – for latest, watch Sky News”
Mr Crank @2025.
‘People of retirement age live about 7 years longer now than in 1900s’
‘Not 30, as the government has falsely implied.
That’s pretty simple. You don’t need to talk about infant mortality no longer being a problem.
1. Deliberative democracy. You can’t have such a basic public debate if your first move is a brutely misleading statistic.
2. About something (longevity) that is fundamental, going beyond just the pension debate.
3. The pension age is already being ratcheted up to 67.
4. This is in the context of the Treasurer praising the British ramping up the age to 70.
5. Tax concessions for super now virtually equal pension cost. (And those concessions vastly benefit higher income earners like me). Yet there is no public debate about them.
6. By all means the review means test especially for part pensions. But I missed Hockey/Cormann discussing that.
7. I have very close relatives who worked themselves till they died at 65.5. And another cleaning houses in their late 50s with declining health – and already scared about the 67 pension age.
And here’s a little fact for you: “In the years directly leading up to Federation, the proportion of elderly was beginning to rise. Between 1891 and 1901, the percentage of the population over the age of 65 had grown by 60 percent.”
Imagine Mr Hockey Treasurer in 1908 facing that alarming stat. We would never have had a uniform pension…
Diogenes,
[So we should have a second RC because we didn’t like the results of the first one.
The public would love that.]
Did you ever only have sex once?
McCaughan was trying pleurectomy without a lot of success. He retired a few weeks ago so it is uncertain if RPA will continue with the procedure.
dave @2179
Bring it on, Champ.
What are you going to RC? Eddy Obied?
[Peter van Onselen @vanOnselenP 8m
I wouldn’t mind seeing any cabinet discussions, if they transpired, on this decision… … http://tmi.me/1dM4FD ]
Methinks you’ll be waiting for a very long time with this govt.
dtt
shifting goalposts, I see.
A few posts ago you would have settled for an MOU – which is also not legally binding.
Most agreements we have with other countries are also not legally binding — that’s why they’re ‘agreements’.
And it doesn’t matter much what else the HC said in their ruling, because their judgement was based on the legislation as it stands, and the legislation can be altered. It’s not as it the deal was unconstitutional.
(And yes, I did put up posts with precisely the same information, as I said I was going to – because when I’ve put one up before, you’ve continued with the same lies. NOW the message might have got through).
Compact Crank@2185
Indeed it will be brought on.
You will be squealing in due course along with your tories mates.
Unlike you at Duntroon the knife will cut both ways.
The desperate people here claiming that the boats – in the face of a mass of information to the contrary – have not stopped really remind the 2012 doomsdayers who were waiting for the day to end on the IDL before admitting they were full of shit.
Tony Abbott, with the help of Kevin Rudd, stopped the boats. I don’t know how else to put it. Just deal with it.
Oh, and —
[KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Australia and Malaysia signed a refugee-swapping agreement…]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/world/asia/26malaysia.html
[Australian and Malaysian officials have signed a controversial deal..]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14271460
…apparently I don’t have to just supply you with the links, I have to read them for you as well.
Graeme @2182
You forgot the bit, which I pointed out, that many many many people are living to 65 – and then living longer, the cheek of them!
Not sure how your relative dying at 65.5 is relevant.
If you get sick and can’t work then we have the DSP and then Age Pension.
And as for your “little fact” that increase was because it was coming off a very low base – it in fact proves the argument being made by Mr Hockey and myself – significantly more people are living reaching 65 and then living longer which means Age Pension costs are increasing.
A big mistake just came onto PB
Off to Redcliffe Blog hopefully more civilized there, can’t beleive what I am reading on this one :devil:
Must have gutted the bleeding hearts in the ALP when Kevin Rudd, after warning when knifed not to swing too far, just went all postal on country shoppers with the PNG Solution.
Oakeshot Country
Surely people who an see after cataract surgery are going to be less of a burden on society than blind people. So what’s the probelm with the current rebate
Redcliffe by-election no litmus test
Brisbane Times - by Amy Remeikis - 5 hours ago
“Ultimately, the Redcliffe by election is about Redcliffe. And that’s as it should be.”
Amy proves like Rebekah Brooks, pre requisite to work for Rupert is being delusional
Compact Crank
“Must have gutted the bleeding hearts in the ALP when Kevin Rudd, after warning when knifed not to swing too far, just went all postal on country shoppers with the PNG Solution.”
If you were here when it happened you will recall the reaction of a few posters who thought Rudd was a bleeding heart on this issue and would immediately adopt a Greens-esque policy. When he didn’t, yep, they flipped out. Oh, the outrage.
The majority here, however, expected he would swing to the ‘right’… the question was how far. The minority who were actually surprised by the PNG solution always struck me as naive and rather stupid.
What are you going to RC? Eddy Obied?
Sinodinos who as Chairman of the Obeid company and Liberal Party Treasurer at the same time can’t remember the donations he processed.
But then I guess he has someone to remind of his name and where he works every couple of hours.
mari
[Off to Redcliffe Blog hopefully more civilized there, can’t beleive what I am reading on this one :devil:]
Me as well! The tone around here is not to my liking.
Surely people . here can have some civility.
We are not in a classroom and posters do not have to have their posts dissected and corrected.
Cataract surgery is an example of the problems with our fee for service model
The relative value of rebates were basically set in 1969 and have never been revised.
In 1969 a cataract operation took over an hour under general anaesthetic and required fairly significant surgical skills, patients were in hospital for a week and ended up wearing coke bottle glasses
Fast forward 43 years and due to the invention of intraocular lenses and phaco machines cataracts are done under local anaesthetic as a day only procedure. A slick ophthalmologist can do 3-4 an hour. So their relative income has quadrupled far a procedure ( they would argue against this) that has less after care, fewer complications and less surgical skill.
While a revision of the schedule relative values is long overdue such a move is cosmetic compared to the real reform of changing to a time based model of doctor recompense similar to the NHS.
Zoomster
I have been patient until now but you are starting to worry me.
I have not shifted any goal posts. You made the factually incorrect statement that all that was needed was for our legislation to remove reference to the UNHCR.
I pointed out that that was NOT correct because it was NOT the UNHCR that mattered, but rather Malaysia’s commitment to protecting refugees. What was required to change in our legislation was removal of the requirement that the Minister be satisfied that the destination country will look after the interests of the refugees. This is fairly obviously one helluva big step, because these provisions were the very ones inserted by Liberal wets (Georgio, Washer etc) to protect refugees.
Despite my pointing it out to you many times, the agreement “signed” by Malaysia SPECIFICALLY stated it was NOT BINDING. Now frankly Zoomster such an agreement is a waste of time and it was a bloody embarrassment to all concerned that we went along with it. Of course the HC said it was insufficient. I would have thought that a first year Law student or a Matric kid doing legal studies would reach the same conclusion.
Now you raised by oblique reference to a MOU. This was taken from a passing comment by one of the judges on the HC. What an MOU would have done would have been to demonstrate commitment by the Malaysian government as a whole and MIGHT have swayed one or two HC judges. (Zoomster note the word MIGHT). My point all along has been that the Malaysian deal would be successful only if welcome in Malaysia. Failure to sign a binding agreement, to make any laws or even to sign an MOU, suggest lack of commitment in Malaysia. If the refugees became a political issue in the MALAYSIAN elections it may have got very, very very messy.
Now how hard is this to understand