The second Newspoll of the year is a wildly off-trend result that has no doubt made life difficult for a) whoever has been charged with writing up the results for The Australian, and b) anti-Murdoch conspiracy theorists. The poll has Labor leading 54-46, up from 51-49, which is the Coalition’s worst result from any poll since the election of the Abbott government. The primary votes are 39% for the Coalition (down two), 39% for Labor (up four) and 10% for the Greens (down two). Despite that, the personal ratings find Bill Shorten continuing to go backwards, his approval steady at 35% and disapproval up four to 39%. However, things are a good deal worse for Tony Abbott, who is down four to 36% and up seven to 52%. Abbott’s lead on preferred prime minister shrinks from 41-33 to 38-37.
Elsewhere in polldom:
• Roy Morgan is more in line with the recent trend in having the Coalition up half a point on the primary vote to 41%, Labor down 1.5% to 35.5%, the Greens steady on 10.5%, and the Palmer United Party steady on 4.5%. Labor leads by 50.5-49.5 on both two-party preferred measures, compared with 52-48 on last fortnight’s respondent-allocated result and 51-49 on previous election preferences. The Morgan release also provides state breakdowns on two party preferred, showing the Coalition leading 52.5-47.5 in New South Wales and 55-45 in Western Australia, while Labor leads 54.5-45.5 in Victoria, 52-48 in Queensland, 53.5-46.5 in South Australia and 50.5-49.5 in Tasmania.
• The Australian National University has released results from its regular in-depth post-election Australian Election Study mailout survey, the most widely noted finding of which is that Tony Abbott scored the lowest rating of any election-winner going back to 1987. The survey asks respondents to rate leaders on a scale from zero to ten, with Abbott scoring a mean of 4.29 compared with 4.89 for Julia Gillard in 2010; 6.31 for Kevin Rudd in 2007; 5.73, 5.31, 5.56 and 5.71 for John Howard in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004 respectively; 4.74 for Paul Keating in 1993; and 6.22 and 5.46 for Bob Hawke in 1987 and 1990 respectively.
• The Age reports that a poll of 1000 respondents by UMR Research, commissioned by the Australian Education Union, finds Malcolm Turnbull (a net rating of plus 12%) and Joe Hockey (plus 2%) to be rated more favourably than Tony Abbott (minus 8%).
UPDATE (Essential Research): The weekly Essential Research has Labor’s lead steady at 51-49, with the Coalition up a point on the primary vote to 42%, Labor down one to 39% and the Greens up one to 9%. Also featured: “government handling of issues”, showing neutral net ratings for the government’s best areas (economic management, asylum seekers, foreign relations) and strongly negative ones for welfare, service provision and industrial relations. Worst of the lost is “supporting Australian jobs”, at minus 19%. The existing renewable energy target is broadly supported (39% about right, 25% too low, 13% too high); opinion of Qantas has deteriorated over the past year (11% say they have come to feel more positive, 25% more negative), and there is support for the government buying a share of it or guaranteeing its loans; and opinion on government moves to crack down on illegal file sharing is evenly divided.
UPDATE 2: The West Australian reports that a Patterson Market Research survey conducted before last week’s High Court ruling from an undisclosed sample size suggests the micro-party vote would wither if a fresh Senate election was held. The poll has the Liberals on 45%, up six on its Senate vote at the election, Labor on 32%, up five, and the Greens on 12%, up three. The Palmer United Party collapses from 5% to 1%, with all others halving from 20% to 10%. However, one wonders how good polls are at capturing the sentiment that causes indifferent voters to plump for micro-parties at the last minute.
[Of course he didn’t, because Hitler quite rightly thought that North Africa was a side-show and refused to reinforce Rommel’s unauthorised invasion of Egypt. The only reason North Africa is treated as a major theatre of the war is to flatter the vanity of the British, since after Dunkirk it was the only place they were actually fighting the Germans, and after Torch they were reduced to bit-players.]
Sounds like this Hitler guy was pretty smart hey Psephos.
Bloody Rommel, no sense at all….
For those who want to see a good article (in my opinion only) refer back in Crikey to one put out by Guy Rundle on February 19 entitled “In the race to be brutal, you have to finish the job”.
In this short piece he explores the dilemma the Oz nation faces in dealing with AS and detention.
On the one hand he claims we all want to be fair-minded liberals, but on the other we want to be ruthless.
He thinks we are not much good at either.
He maintains we have basically set up for ourselves the unpalatable feature of out of sight and out of mind places to deal with AS but what while we want boats quietly dealt with, we do not like the camps and the nastiness therein.
He concludes with this interesting point: (sorry for such a slab of quote but it is worth the full real)
“Though taking a hard line on boat arrivals is held to be a political necessity for both parties, the Coalition knows there is a paradoxical effect contained within (one that applies to a range of other issues such as the environment).
A policy that makes refugees invisible will gain broad support. But one that taps into a conservative indifference to the suffering of others, or even a degree of forthrightness/bastardry, is more likely to win slices of support in socially conservative Labor seats where the Libs don’t have a chance, and lose support in some marginal seats, where Labor has a very real chance.
In a tight election …..that pattern would make or break the Coalition’s chances.”
On this basis it is no surprise that a big slab of the electorate are happy to “go in hard” on the AS – but, when it gets a bit messy and blood is spilt it may be another matter.
The desperation of the government to cloak it all in secrecy is not surprising given the above.
Jake
[But Morrison can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim credit for the deterrence effect of Manus, but shift blame when the implementation fails on his watch.]
True.
confessions
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 10:02 pm | PERMALINK
mari:
Today’s Chris Hadfield is simply breath taking!
https://www.facebook.com/AstronautChrisHadfield/photos/a.157475407603538.32702.151680104849735/755316217819451/?type=1&theater
Thank you for that beautiful photo I needed that as I have a “stalking” troll after me evidently so I have been told by 3 other tweeters, I didn’t see what was being said to me as it??? didn’t realise I had blocked it yesterday 😀
If Rommel had’ve been reinforced, he might have made it to the arabian oilfields which probably would have prolonged the war.
[Warning shots had been fired, the police spokesman said. These had likely calmed the situation, he said. “Otherwise, the place would have been burnt to the ground.]
I would think live fire would have a very calming effect on the refugees, morons.
Psephos@1635
I expect that any farm deaths resulting from work carried out with the so called drought relief money will result in a RC and that Abbott and Joyce will front up and explain what they new with the cabinet documents in hand. Also I would expect the same should an industrial accident kill anyone at Cadbury or Qantas as a result of government support for those enterprises.
Dio,
If that’s directed at me, it’s the opposite of what I meant. Certainly, if steps can be taken to avoid an outcome, and it’s deliberately or negligently ignored, said Minister is responsible, or at least required to do something such as question the department head or investigate. I don’t think we should hold politicians to account over things they have no power over.
I have deep problems with those that negligently allowed those under their employment into dangerous and lethal work environments being let off because someone wants to chase the Rudd-Labor bogeyman. The same with keeping to account G4S for what they did rather than using it to call for Morrison’s head, which in the long-run won’t achieve anything too significant for the political left anyway.
BW – Rommel did have the resources needed at various stages but he was beaten by a range of factors.
– his initial tactics were wrong and he attacked the wrong points. In fact he thought it was a repeat of Dunkirk and that the allies would bug out.
– Mines were constantly cleared by the germans and relaid by the allies.
– The old favourite, active aggressive patrolling by the 9th Div and much use of baynonets to deadly effect during night patrols.
– The big Easter 1942 attack by the german tanks was allowed to go right through the 9th Div perimeter so that the 25 pounders and what anti tanks weapons they had could be fired point blank at the tanks. At any other range the artillery would have bounced off the panzers.
– Rommel certainly got a lot more tanks and everything after his Easter attack failed, but still he couldn’t break through.
– Attacking a determined defender in well prepared positions was not hwhat Rommel wanted and was used.
Bottom line was that Tobruk Port was vital for allied resupply in North Africa and just could not be allowed to fall.
[But Morrison can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim credit for the deterrence effect of Manus, but shift blame when the implementation fails on his watch.]
That’s true. In fact both sides are trying to have it both ways. The Coalition is trying to claim credit for the success of policies which were brought in by Labor, and Labor is trying to blame the Coalition for the unpleasant but inevitable consequences of the policy that they themselves brought in.
I just make the point that the Greens don’t seem to be cutting-through on AS anymore. I think they are genuinely appalled, and rightly so, but they just do not have a representative at the moment who carries enough leadership to budge the nation’s attitude.
[Literally thousands of people die every year due to medical errors. Are you people saying the federal and state health ministers are responsible for those deaths?]
I remember when Peter Garrett was held personally responsible for killing people in ceiling cavities.
Tricot
Rundle’s only usefulness is directed towards his own self gratification, ie he is a nob.
Interesting as to where the buck stops. Was it Harry Truman who had a desk motif of “The Buck Stops Here?”
That being the case, every Minister of Defence and PM, one supposes, is at face value, responsible for the death of each and every serviceman sent away to fight overseas in our name from the time of the Sudan.
I suspect the question of single and group responsibility is much more complex and nuanced than this.
In any event, the concept of ministerial responsibility in terms of actually taking the bullet for a mistake went out of the door some time ago.
Was it Andrew Peacock who resigned when his wife bought cheap sheets or something from Myer?
In any event, it does not matter now and such an idea would be considered quaint today.
milenko@1630
Thanks for re-posting, I missed it earlier and I am probably not the only one who did.
mikehilliard@1663
I don’t know much about the man but what he wrote made some sense to me.
Rommel attacked against orders from the German High Command and the italian General nominally his boss.
But after the Easter attack which was a total disaster he got most of what he needed as ordered by hitler.
But his supply lines were stretched – one of the main reasons he was ordered to wait a while.
The germans were also attacking Russia at that stage of course
Craig Morrison has been taking the ‘credit’ for Nauru and Manus over the past 5 months. Since September 18 he owns it. He can delegate management to G4S or Transfield or whoever but he can’t delegate responsibility either to them or his predecessors. If the solution was flawed, it was his job to fix it or close the facility.
Enough of this faffing around over the ‘admonishment’ motion. It is yet another distraction. Yes, Conroy should not have attacked the soldier, he should have attacked the politician. But people under our care have been killed and injured. It is Morrison’s responsibility to tell us what happended and and to take steps to ensure that nothing like this happens again. If he can’t do that he should resign.
Dave, It’s not a good history that Fitzimons has compiled. Timothy Hall did a better one in 1981. Archival attributions in the index are checkable. I’m a cynic of course and middle aged men with headbands puzzle me. I think he’s gone too far on the Ron Barassi’s dad angle and less on the facts.
Meanwhile our artistic merits are downgraded along with our humility.
[This is a statement of our withdrawal from the 19th Biennale of Sydney.
We have revoked our works, cancelled our public events and relinquished our artists’ fees. While we have sought ways to address our strong opposition to Australia’s mandatory detention policy as participants of the Biennale, we have decided that withdrawal is our most constructive choice.]
http://art-leaks.org/2014/02/26/artists-withdraw-from-the-19th-sydney-biennale-over-transfield-sponsorship/
Meanwhile back in the Western Desert….
I thought the whole idea was for Rommel to meet up with southern elements of the German army coming down from Russia to cut the Suez?
While in men and materiel the NA campaign probably did not match what was happening on the Easter Front, the Germans were not there just to get a sun tan.
In any event, as many historians point out, the roll back of the Afrika Corps was the first time (along with the what was happening in Russia) which made it plain that Germany was unlikely to win the war.
Easy to write it off the NA campaign some 70 years later as a side show, but I don’t think, at the time, it was quite viewed in this light.
I remember my parents saying that even small victories such as the sinking of the Bismark (especially after the Hood went down) was a great boost to morale at the time.
[Sounds like this Hitler guy was pretty smart hey Psephos.
Bloody Rommel, no sense at all….]
Up to a point he was, yes. He was very well read in military history and theory. In the first two years of the war he showed consistently good strategic judgement. After the defeat at Moscow in December 1941, however, he became increasingly rigid and unrealistic, and his interventions at the tactical level were usually disastrous. He had no grasp of defensive warfare and he lost interest in logistic issues, which made his orders increasingly unrealistic. He also made the classic dictator’s error of surrounding himself with toadies and cutting himself off realistic advice.
Interestingly, Stalin went in the opposite direction. He started the war trusting nobody and trying to run the war himself, with disastrous consequences at Kiev, Uman and elsewhere. After Moscow 1941 he found generals he was willing to trust, notably Zhukov, and let them run their armies within the broad strategic framework he set down.
Mirrison had 5 months to either satify himself everything was up to speed on Manus OR change arrangements and get another mob in.
He is the Minister and secret squirrel – his responsibilty.
[That’s true. In fact both sides are trying to have it both ways. The Coalition is trying to claim credit for the success of policies which were brought in by Labor, and Labor is trying to blame the Coalition for the unpleasant but inevitable consequences of the policy that they themselves brought in.]
I think it’s clear that the Coalition has a fundamental disdain for the idea that people can arrive uninvited and then make claims on the nation, whereas the ALP has become so frustrated by political damage on the issue that they no longer care and just want the arrivals to stop.
I’m happy for the arrivals to stop, but it really is starting to feel like cruelty rather than harshness.
@Psephos/1660
There is another caveat with that argument is that not enough resources, along with checks/balances with the contractor is not in place, this could have been solved.
But I doubt that Coalition Party want to spend the resources on this, since they blamed Labor on the so called cost blowout when they were in power.
https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2012/12/29/%E2%80%98short-memory-%E2%80%93-opinion-piece-josh-frydenberg-federal-member-kooyong
“More than 30,000 unauthorised arrivals and 500 boats with hundreds of lives tragically lost at sea, riots in our detention centres, a $6 billion budget blowout, and the farces of the East Timor solution the Timorese government did not want and the Malaysia solution the High Court wouldn’t allow.”
My how the mighty have fallen (RE: Coalition Party).
I think i said it before, running detention centers or a AS policy like this, requires lots of money, and decent people running the centers, and that includes guards.
No policy either Labor or Liberal has successfully did this.
[Literally thousands of people die every year due to medical errors. Are you people saying the federal and state health ministers are responsible for those deaths?]
Some appear to be, but please don’t put me in that camp.
Well, the ALP wanted the arrivals to stop. Back then. Now, maybe not so much…
Ye Gads, this is what i get for watching ABC news.
Aggravation. 🙁
The segment on the “insult” delivered by Conroy to Scrote Morrisum’s tame General was amazing. Hopefully Conroy and the ALP will hold firm on this one.
This Govt are so pathetically thin skinned and the media so in tune with what the Libs want the narrative to be that this is somehow the “issue” of the day??
Someone for who Scrote had responsibility was either murdered or the victim of manslaughter, but he’s not being told to resign?
Mesma Bishop is breaking new ground in how to be a pathetically incompetent FM in yet ANOTHER failure in portfolio but she’s not being told to resign?
Sen Nash is getting hammered for what seems to be at the very least “improper” behavior and she is not being asked to resign?
Conroy calls out a General for being deeply involved in keeping information hidden during what amounts to a party political operation and that is somehow such a serious offense he must resign??
The General should grow a pair for a start, and if he didn’t realize that fronting a political exercise like “Operation Wheres Our Borders Again??” was going to mean taking political heat then he is to fracking stupid for his rank.
The military deserves respect but they should NEVER EVER be considered to be immune from criticism by our elected representatives, or examination by the media. Sometimes they stuff up and the story needs to be told. Sometimes they do disgusting things and those involved deserve censure and punishment.
Create an environment where no criticism or examination is permitted and the scum in ANY organisation will float to the top and go feral since they know they will be protected. That’s the kind of thing Morriscum is doing now with AS.
Abbott and Co are busy trashing any convention they can find to gain any political advantage they think they can grab.
Cabinet confidentiality / document release.
Politicizing the military.
Funding Royal Commissions as witch hunts.
This lot put the national interest a distant last. They are true scum.
mari:
Have you noticed that Hadfield is now ‘astronaut Hadfield’ rather than ‘Col Hadfield’? I assume he’s only corrected his title recently as I haven’t noticed it before.
Psephos
[Yes it does. If Morrison and Abbott are responsible for the actions of G4S staff on Manus, then Garrett and Rudd were responsible for the actions of whoever it was that caused the four deaths under the home insulation scheme.]
This is not strictly true. Details matter, such as what they knew of the risks at the time they made the decision – yes, with Manus there are two decisions, Labor’s to initiate it and the Coalition’s to continue with it + any modifications they made – and the steps they took to minimise them.
We (think we) know, for example, that the proportion of incidents was lower under the pink batts scheme than in the industry.
You, yourself have said this was a foreseeable outcome of the policy.
The Coalition are sifting through what they can to find evidence of a more direct link, that Labor brushed aside warnings, for example.
You are only correct in the case that people are generalising about responsibility. e.g. it happened under their watch so they’re responsible, no detail necessary.
Sorry, @ 1580 middle paragraph should be “You yourself have said the riots at Manus were … “. In case it sounds like it’s a direct continuation of the previous paragraph about batts.
Tricot
Regarding Rundle please see my comment as no criticism of your opinion of his writing. I for some reason find his position often at odds with my own & to some extent jingoistic. No doubt that is not the case.
In fact, the whole 3 middle paragraphs are jumping around, oh well.
[and Labor is trying to blame the Coalition for the unpleasant but inevitable consequences of the policy that they themselves brought in.]
Are they? All I’ve seen and heard are attacks on politicising the military, the culture of secrecy Morrison has cultivated, and his attempts to bury the truth in late Saturday night announcements. Those were certainly Shorten’s focus in his speech in QT today.
Bommy – Fitz wears a doh-rag, not a headband.
Presumably he is bald and the doh rag is the way he handles it.
He also makes the point in his book that many of the dates, sequences of events have different versions from variuos people there. He got papers etc from Rommels son and all the letters home from Morshead who commanded 9th Division plus many other sources.
Barrasis father gets a couple of sentences or so, little more in the book.
But I’ll read other accounts as I come across them.
[After the defeat at Moscow in December 1941, however, he became increasingly rigid and unrealistic, ]
What i have never been able to work out is why Germany declared war on the US after the Japanese attack in the Pacific. To me that ranks very close as an “ultimate war losing decision” to the decision to invade Russia and then faf around in the south instead of going straight for the logistics hub of Moscow.
imacca:
News outlets reporting parliament as I’d expected. Here’s another
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/push-to-admonish-stephen-conroy-over-comments-results-in-furious-question-time-debate-20140226-33ia9.html
Nash resignation?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/26/tony-abbott-denies-talking-to-fiona-nash-about-her-resignation
Abbott said: “The short answer is I had no such conversation with her.”
But did Nash offer resignation to Credlin?
When will Jurnos learn to listen & ask follow up questions
Certainly the Coalition generalised in such fashion with the pink batts. Rejecting their generalisations does not mean we can’t make more specific claims about responsibility based on the details of an event.
Of course, just as you can’t have it both ways when generalising, you can’t have it both ways when being more specific either. If you’re talking about what they knew, when they knew it, and how they responded to warnings and such, you should apply that consistently.
Tony seems to be giving lots of “short answers” of late …….
Maybe because his constituency has a short attention span
@margokingston1: @TurnbullMalcolm sorry Malcolm, Scott is Kurtz and Manus is his and our Heart of Darkness.
confessions
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 10:38 pm | PERMALINK
mari:
Have you noticed that Hadfield is now ‘astronaut Hadfield’ rather than ‘Col Hadfield’? I assume he’s only corrected his title recently as I haven’t noticed it before.
No I hadn’t just checked you are right
Mari – think he is retired military now?
May have something to do with it.
Re Jake @1674: I think it’s clear that the Coalition has a fundamental disdain for the idea that people can arrive uninvited and then make claims on the nation, whereas the ALP has become so frustrated by political damage on the issue that they no longer care and just want the arrivals to stop.
The Coalition are happy to exploit the standard distrust and disdain that people with an authoritarian outlook, the less educated and the fearful have for ‘the other’. It also ties in with the ‘Social Darwinist’ ethos (actually a slur on Charles Darwin) that many right wingers have, especially for people outside their particular tribe. On the other hand, I think that your assessment of Labor’s attitude is correct.
It is a poor reflection on Australia.
Or shorter. It’s not unreasonable to reject a more general proposition that covers a larger number of cases, while advancing a more specific proposition that covers fewer cases.
Of course that’s as long as you’ve been advancing the more specific one consistently, not as some post-rationalisation that coincidentally includes favoured cases and excludes disfavoured ones :P.
dave
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 10:57 pm | PERMALINK
Mari – think he is retired military now?
May have something to do with it.
Yes you are most likely right
Sometimes there are a lot of coincidences :).
confessions
In the end News view on anything will be irrelevant , if they can employ half wits like Brooks…
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/25/rebekah-brooks-hacking-dowler-illegal
Now leading ignorance of the law !
& the prospect of Rupert being done for perverting the course of justice for offer to “look after” those imprisoned
DN:
The pink batts program isn’t even analogous to the G4S (or whoever they are) situation.
The former was a household rebate scheme whereby the govt reimbursed householders the cost of installing home insulation. Similar to the WA Water Wise scheme of reimbursing householders for their purchase of select Water Wise products.
The latter is a tendered contractor providing direct services on behalf of the federal govt.
A better analogy IMO is the many and varied services provided to the community by contractors on behalf of state and local govts. These include prisoner transport, waste collection and management, the various health services Dio mentioned earlier just to name a few.
Should ministers be held directly responsible for a failure of day to day operations of these contractors? Perhaps in some cases one could make a case, but by and large, IMO I don’t think it’s fair to do so.
mari:
I think dave is right: he’s retired ‘military’, but still obviously gets to go up in spacecraft because of his qualifications.