GhostWhoVotes relates that the latest Newspoll has Labor leading 52-48, up from 51-49 last fortnight. Labor is up a point on the primary vote to 36%, and the Coalition down one to 40%. More to follow. UPDATE: The Australian report relates that Bill Shorten’s approval rating is up three points to 36%, which is the first time a poll has moved in his favour in quite a while. UPDATE 2: Full tables here; to fill in the blanks, Shorten’s disapproval is steady at 43%, Tony Abbott is up two on approval to 40% and steady on disapproval at 50%, and Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister nudges from 42-36 to 43-36.
Today’s Morgan result, combining its regular face-to-face and SMS polling from the last two weekends, was the Coalition’s worst since the election, recording a 1.5% shift on the primary vote from the Coalition (to 38%) to Labor (38.5%), with the Greens down a point to 11% and Palmer United up half a point to 4.5%. On 2013 election preferences, this gives Labor a 53.5-46.5 lead, up from 52.5-47.5 a fortnight ago, while on respondent-allocated preferences the shift is from 53.5-46.5 to 54.5-45.5. Morgan has also been in the business lately of providing selective state-level two-party results, which are presumably based on respondent-allocated preferences. From this poll we are told Labor had unlikely leads of 56.5-43.5 in Queensland and 52-48 in Western Australia, together with leads of 54.5-45.5 in New South Wales and 55-45 in Victoria, and an unspecified “narrow” lead in South Australia.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research has Labor back up a point on the primary vote after it fell two last week, now at 37%, with the Coalition up one for a second week. The Greens and Palmer United are at 9% and 4%, with others down a point and the other loose point coming off rounding. Respondents were quizzed about the attributes of the major parties, which provides good news for Labor in that “divided” is down 14% to 58%, and “clear about what they stand for” is up 8% to 42%. Those are also the biggest movers for the Liberals, respectively down 6% and up 7%, although they are still performing better than Labor on each at 50% and 32%. The worst differential for Labor is still “divided”, at 26% in favour of the Liberals, while for the Liberals it’s “too close to the big corporate and financial interests”, which is at 62% for Liberal and 34% for Labor.
A question reading “as far as you know, do you think taxes in Australia are higher or lower than in other developed countries” turns up the fascinating finding that 64% of respondents believed they were higher versus only 8% for lower, while 65% believed taxes to have increased over the last five years versus 9% for decreased. Forty-seven per cent believe the current level of taxation is enough versus 33% who believe they will need to increase. The poll also finds 50% opposed to following New Zealand’s example in holding a referendum on changing the flag versus only 31% supportive.
Gary@1168
What do you want it to be?
Speak to her privately and I am sure she will accomodate your views. 😉
@Mod Lib/1182
You cannot support the NBN with someone else paying for it, the economics go out the window.
So you are either lying, or truly don’t understand how Infrastructure Networks rollout.
“@Thought4rce: Whilst distracting us from #Sinodinos, unemployment & #bigotry may be the idea, I don’t think becoming a laughing-stock was the aim. #auspol”
I think Paul Keating put his finger on it; two blokes and a poodle don’t make a family. But I have always asked; what has that got to do with the state; if two blokes and a poodle want to play mummy and daddy good luck to them; we are all mad in our own way.
El Nino on the way…says Bureau
___________________
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/droughtthreatening-el-nino-event-increasingly-likely-bureau-says-20140325-35fua.html
frednk,
I like the bit about “he who is without sin should go and begat himself”.
everything
[The way 18C is written a politician couldn’t argue against Shariah law in a TownHall if one of the candidates was spruiking it.]
What a load of fucking shit.
It’s this sort of contemptible falsehood that creates discrimination.
Bolt was nabbed because he LIED in his articles.
It wasn’t an issue of free speech. It was because he LIED about the people he was holding up to ridicule.
Bolt can’t help himself. He LIES constantly about climate change data. He LIES constantly about anything and everything he takes exception to. And the Indigenous community had had enough.
He LIED about them. That’s why he was caught by 18C. Not because he didn’t have the right to express an opinion, but because he LIED about it.
Get that through your stupid IPA head.
If you think LYING about people or things is the way to get your own way, then you’re sadly mistaken. Most fair-minded, intelligent people are a wake up to this sort of demonisation of a minority.
And they’re prepared to take it, nor to water down the fair laws that have served us well for almost 20 years.
1218
Everything
The point is not that Bolt is good, or right, or that what he was saying about “white Aborigines” is correct (it most definitely is NOT correct).
The point is that he should be criticised for the comment and it should be refuted in open debate. It shouldn’t be prohibited by a judge.]
This is also misleading. No court prohibited Bolt’s acts. Rather, the settled law enacted by the Parliament made Bolt’s conduct unlawful.
In any event, Bolt’s error was not to express a view, but to be factually incorrect in his description of the plaintiffs. He was faulted for his laziness rather than his opinions.
In this instance the reputations of otherwise anonymous and voiceless persons were violated by a professional loud mouth with a privileged capacity to publish his false claims. The law really ought to protect the innocent, private and obscure from self-serving liars.
zoid,
Its pretty clear that Mod Lib truly doesn’t understand the facts of the matter. You can tell him the facts over and over.
FTTN is temporary
FTTN will have to be replaced with FTTH in a few years.
This will cost MORE money than had we built FTTH in the first place.
And he just doesn’t get it.
He talks about cost, but when you point out to him that what the liberals are pretending to do will cost more, he just uses the same old tactics again and again.
If he were consistent, he’d advocate that we do nothing now and wait until we can afford to build something that will last, and won’t waste tens of billions in the process.
And what was Bolt’s “punishment” I might ask?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/prime-minister-tony-abbotts-wife-margie-abbott-dont-call-me-first-lady/story-fneuz9ev-1226864470673
G Growler
I am intrigued. Why do you fear/hate poofters?
Dame Everything, 18C has ‘nabbed’ a long list of bigots other than Bolt. Quite correctly. IMHO.
Sure Hanson targeted Muslims under the guise of free speech and her right to do so is pretty much accepted. Bolt went much further and sought to denigrate named individuals by quite erroneously challenging their Aboriginal status. It was a nasty vicious attack on individuals whose only ‘crime’ was their Aboriginal status.
Bolt got his knuckles rapped In court for that journalistic malpractice. He didnt go to prison. If he had any mettle he’d retire hurt gracefully but no, all of a sudden Bolt claims he is the last bastion of libertarian thought and the craven Tories bend over backwards to accommodate his bigotry.
Kind of 16th Century, Spanish Inquisition logic.
[Jackol
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 11:36 pm | PERMALINK
It depends on how it is interpreted. I don’t think it is a good idea to be at the mercy of such interpretations.
LMAO. So you talk about 18C without talking about the good faith defence explicitly provided by 18D which would certainly cover any town hall discussion that was done in good faith.]
Isn’t Bolt allowed to think, in good faith, that white people are not really Aboriginal?
It isn’t right, but the vast majority of Australians probably think the same thing. Why should you not be allowed to be wrong? Why legislate the point?
If Bolt can be nabbed for saying that some white people are claiming Aboriginality to achieve a financial gain, because those individuals were offended by said comments, why can’t another reporter be nabbed for saying that some muslin people want Shariah law to be introduced here and it is barbaric and sexist and medieval? They would be offended by that, surely?
So Bolt had his knuckles rapped? Is that what we’re afraid of? that someone who has a lot of power and influence gets told off for saying something stupid? What a bunch of wankers these Liberals are.
I see Everything is avoiding that Holocaust denial case Dreyfuss raised.
Funny that
Goodnight
[cud chewer
…..Mod Lib, you’re either paying for Turnbull’s $43B short lived network or you’re not, right? I mean this is the real universe right? In this real universe Turnbull is trying to borrow $43B and waste it on something that will have to be replaced.
Why do you support doing this? Its your money, right? I certainly don’t want my money wasted on FTTN.]
Because, as I have said before, we were not presented with two competing tenders at the same time for the same thing…..Turnbull has to start where Conroy left off, no matter how decrepit and mismanaged it was at the time.
[As I said before, if you were being remotely logical, you’d be ashamed of what Turnbull is doing and advocate that he drops his plans entirely and we all wait until we “can afford fibre”. Of course, you never did answer why we can afford to borrow tens of billions of dollars to “invest” it in a short lived network, but we’re physically incapable of borrowing a fraction more and building something that will last.]
Who said anything about “physically incapable”? Of course we can borrow the money, the ALP always does, I am just voicing an opinion that I am against it.
Do you understand the concept of opinion, don’t you?
swamprat,
Your words comrade, not mine. How about you own them. They have nothing to do with me.
Mad Lib@1182
Mad Lib, as usual, you are not looking at both sides of the ledger.
Costs must be weighed against benefits.
You simply look at the costs and ignore the benefits. The KNOWN benefits to date greatly exceed even the wildly exaggerated cost claims of the gang of crooks you support.
When entrepreneurs get to work on the potential of the NBN, the benefits will certainly soar.
It is an enabler. Basic infrastructure to support an economy of the 21st century.
Go back to your Knights and Dames, quill pens, unsealed roads and the rest of the Liberal anachronisms.
Deblonay
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 11:23 pm | PERMALINK
A writer in the American Conservative(a great journal surprisingly)looks at how the neo-cons plans for a coup against Putin have all gone astray
________________________
As in Iraq and elsewhere the neo-cons in Washington and the Pentagon have once again made a huge mistake and created a major problem for the USA..now having to bolster and fund indefinately… a bankrupt Ukraine…how could they be so stup
—-its the witching hour and the mad ex commos grammarians have come from under the bed. two nights ago deblonay and paine were both out, in one accord, at 2am howling their anti american litany to the moon and anyone listening. putin the vanguisher of america. i sit in abduring judgment head covered against these seditious westerners who want to sell europe out to the mad monk of russia.
meanwhile in more exciting and important news the europeans have been planning under guise of climate to redirect all energy supplies and do without russia if necessary.
zoomster
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I don’t think we’re going to agree; you may be right, I may be biased, but it’s not as if I have never criticised Gillard.
And I don’t think I’m foolish enough to hear what I want to hear. I have grown up, over the years, although I must admit I’m not as good at the put-down as you are, it’s rather a speciality of yours, isn’t it.
Rossmore@1191
Nope! You are clearly one of us.
Now… just one last question… who do you barrack for in the cricket? 😉
Everything, more broadly, the law is not aimed at the suppression of views or opinions. It is intended to protect individuals from the acts of other individuals. In this respect, it is similar to the prohibition against assault. While it is certainly not an offence to talk about violence, it assuredly is unlawful for one person to use violence against another. This is the distinction you should have in mind.
Bolt could have relied on the “good faith” defence if he had made any effort to check his assertions or contact the people involved to set the record straight or provide their point of view.
He did none of this – he lazily pulled a few factoids out of his arse and wrote a load of factually incorrect bullshit.
That is why Bromberg denied his “good faith” defence.
If Bolt had done even 1/10th of his “job” as a journalist he would have been safe as houses.
Safe from the terrible punishment of being made to apologize.
As for:
Any journalist who reasonably attempts to report facts, attempts to set the record straight, consults experts etc – they will never have any issues with 18C/18D.
[guytaur
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 11:47 pm | PERMALINK
I see Everything is avoiding that Holocaust denial case Dreyfuss raised.
Funny that]
I haven’t seen it….didnt watch Parliament today (or this year for that matter!)….busy, busy, busy…
@Mod lib/1268
You are continuing to make excuses “have to continue where Conroy left off”, that is “look over there”, tactic.
Malcolm Turnbull had a number of options to continue the current rollout, “some” of them even highlighted in the so called Strategic Review, but now we are in the 5/6th review.
But it is Malcolm Turnbull’s fault for not being upfront with the Australians.
He is weak, as is the rest of the Coalition Party.
Our Tea Party Govt
_______________
In many ways the right-wing ideologues of the Fed Govt have a curious resemblance to the Tea Party wing of the Repugnants in the USA
Having spent quite a deal of time in recent years in the US visiting a son and his family whole lives there I find a curious resemblance to what the Libs are saying to that of their US breathren…whom some say are making themselves unelectable so mad is their ideology,which repels woman/the young /the educated /and all ethnic communities…hispanics/blacks and oddly ,,, Asians(6% 0f voters )..who tend to be small business oriented and conservative in attitudes but very worried by the racisism of the Repub shock jocks and some mad politicians
Cory Bernardi for example could take a seat in the US Senate and be at home with the Tea Party,,,as do many of the (Young) Liberal commentators who trot out all sorts of mad theories on Menzies House..an increasinly looney tune
BTW In a few moniths these folks in OZ are organising a”Liberterian Conference” in Melbourne with some US visitors and a host of local Flat-Eathers..quite a Tea Party they are planning
[Because, as I have said before, we were not presented with two competing tenders at the same time for the same thing…..Turnbull has to start where Conroy left off, no matter how decrepit and mismanaged it was at the time.]
Mod Lib,
And what we do have is Turnbull’s own figures.
$43B for a short lived network. $56B for a long lived network.
Build the cheaper one and you end up having to scrap it and build the more expensive one anyhow. Costing more.
Don’t you get that?
Or don’t you trust Turnbull’s own figures, Mod Lib?
So what are the “facts” about Shariah law?
Is it medieval?
Is it sexist?
Who decides?
Are reporters allowed to get things wrong- I think they should be.
The correct response is to criticise and correct. I don’t support the law enforcing someone to stop making a political view public, just because it is “wrong”.
[Who said anything about “physically incapable”? Of course we can borrow the money]
Mod Lib,
Yep, I understand the concept of opinion. And your opinion was that we cannot afford to borrow enough money to build the better network. Now you’re saying we can.
So given you’ve changed your mind and in fact we physically can borrow the needed money, let me ask you again.
Which is better.
Build a FTTN network now, then in a few years replace it with a FTTH network, thus costing us MORE than it would have cost to build a FTTH in the first place.
or..
Build a FTTH network now thus saving many billions of wasted, borrowed money?
Bit of a no brainer eh? Especially since now you’ve back flipped and said yes we can borrow enough to build the network that will last 50 years or more.
[1264
Everything
Isn’t Bolt allowed to think, in good faith, that white people are not really Aboriginal?]
This is irrelevant. Bolt can think whatever he likes.
What he cannot do is falsely describe the conduct of others – that is, wrongly accuse certain other individuals of pretending to be aboriginal and of seeking a financial gain from a supposed deception. The court pinged Bolt for his apparently willful factual inaccuracies.
Everything
[Isn’t Bolt allowed to think, in good faith, that white people are not really Aboriginal?]
Sure he is. Except he’s not allowed to LIE about it.
That’s what he did. He made up stuff about “white Aborigines” to make his point. He LIED about them. He made it up. He was not only inaccurate, he not only fabricated stuff about them, he didn’t bother to check whether his fantasies were real or not.
That’s why he got caught out under 18C.
[It isn’t right, but the vast majority of Australians probably think the same thing.]
Do they? Or are they the views of the racists you hang round with?
{Why should you not be allowed to be wrong?]
You’re allowed to be wrong, as long as you admit it. Bolt didn’t admit it. He was arrogant in the extreme, refused to acknowledge he was wrong, and cried loud and long about free speech.
[Why legislate the point?]
To stop arseholes like Bolt getting away with LYING about other people, and pleading “free speech” as an excuse for inciting others to hatred.
That’s why.
Dame Everything
Now we are getting there:
“If Bolt can be nabbed for saying that some white people are claiming Aboriginality to achieve a financial gain…”
That was in fact Bolt’s claim and his defence was ‘truth’.
The Federal Court convincingly showed the problem with that claim. These weren’t ‘white’ people claiming their Aboriginality. These were ordinary citizens, going about about their daily work, who happened to be Aboriginal, who were denigrated by Bolt as falsely claiming to be Aboriginal.”
Do you get the point or is that totally beyond you?
[Are reporters allowed to get things wrong- I think they should be.]
Should they victimise specific individuals in the way Andrew Bolt did? And why shouldn’t they get wrapped over the knuckles? Because that seems to be the only punishment he got.
If you’re in the media you have responsibility. Bolt abrogated his. We’re not talking about jail time here, or being forced to retire. All he suffered was what?
[ Do you understand the concept of opinion, don’t you? ]
I suspect that is understood. And when that opinion is ignorant and uniformed people have the right to tell you so. Apparently, now, even if that makes them bigots??
Why do you insist on repeatedly impaling yourself on your own devotion to Turnbull’s crap on this matter Mod??
You miss the point again. It was not that Bolt was simply wrong (in fact he was grossly wrong in at least one instance), but that he didn’t even try to get it right.
Anyone (everyone!) can be wrong, and that is indeed covered by the good faith defence – but you don’t get covered if you’re lazily oblivious to even trying to get it right.
And the point here is that someone with a widely read column in a newspaper has a hell of a lot more “clout” in terms of being able to shout louder than anyone else – the whole playing field is not level, it’s not just a matter of “criticize and correct” – how do you “criticize and correct” Andrew Bolt in full (factually incorrect) flight in a way that provides any meaningful protection for anyone?
It seems to me that Bolte got pinged because he named specific people rather than make a general observation. Am I wrong?
Everything@1218
You are a prisoner of your own delusions.
18C is right in principle as, as far as I am aware, all ethnic and religious communities agree.
[I suspect that is understood. And when that opinion is ignorant and uniformed people have the right to tell you so.]
Its certainly ignorant and ill informed on the NBN. I’ve told him a dozen times
FTTN is temporary
FTTN will have to be replaced with FTTH in a few years.
This will cost more than simply building FTTH now.
Yet, his entire argument seems to be “I dont’ want to spend more money than I have to”. He continues to be oblivious to the fact that is precisely what Turnbull is doing.. wasting money needlessly.
[ Why should you not be allowed to be wrong? ]
Did Bolt apologize and admit he was wrong before he was taken to court??
[ Are reporters allowed to get things wrong- ]
Yup, of course they are. Bolt however is not a reporter, or even a journalist. He is a professional commentator and writer of inflammatory opinion pieces. And he got busted for being a dic#h^!d. 🙂
cud chewer:
Yes, I have read your repeated posts saying FTTN is temporary and FTTH is better.
That is not the point. The point is a question of cost. We should not be borrowing bucket loads of money to do the gold plated thing in this economic environment.
I support Turnbull doing whatever is the cheapest option which does not put us in breach of existing contracts and previous commitments.
I have no problems with a Fibre network which terminates in a copper wire giving fast speeds, just not astronomical speeds.
You don’t.
I get it. We disagree. That is called a difference of opinion. You seem to struggle with my right to hold a different view to you. Apparenty, I need to bow down to your wisdom and do what I am told. Unfortunately for you, the Liberal Party won the election.
Get out and door knock and maybe Shorten and shorten the obvious pain you are suffering.
Do we need a law to point out that what Bolt said was offensive, willfully incorrect and hurtful to people?
Isn’t almost everything he writes like that?
Lots of people have similar comments made about them (car salesman, Collingwood supporters, Real Madrid fans) but its not illegal.
davidwh –
I’d say (in my uninformed unlawyerly opinion) that’s probably a reasonable summary. He made his case by describing specific details of a set of people he lumped together based on race. Probably if he’d left it abstract it would have been not subject to the attacks that he was factually incorrect because it wouldn’t have been as concrete a thing to prove/disprove.
I think it’s telling that pretty much everyone involved in the “Bolt case” acknowledged (as Brandis did tonight) that the complainants could have used defamation law. They knew this at the time, and could well have succeeded on the same grounds. They chose (and I believe this was reported on at the time) to use 18C rather than defamation law to make a point, and that they were primarily seeking an apology rather than damages.
If they had used defamation law and won (as seems likely) seems to pass without comment – the end result would have been basically the same, except maybe Bolt would have been a little bit more out of pocket, but somehow this wouldn’t have been an assault on free speech or whatever it is that Brandis and co are so worked up about.
“redirect all energy supplies ..and do without Russia…..Post 1275
Even allowing for the late hour I have no idea what this means(are you on the booze again??)
The Russian gas supplies to much of Europe come via a vast network of pipelines(also to Turkey,which is almost totally dependent on Russian gas)
How on earth can the system be “redirected” whatever that means..and how to”do without Russia’…which just happens to be the world greatest gas producer now…as someone said..it’s the Saudi Arabia of gas
Facts are stubbon things as they say
In the USA there is now a law aganbst the export of ANY natural gas from the USA.and before any US gas could go to any Eropean country that would have to be repealed by Congress..and is unlikely to be
Almst 1/2 of German gas is Russian and some nations are even more dependent
Your statements are igniorant and so silly as to be unworthy of comment,but they put out such faalse hopes that they must be challenged
Even if there were alternatives sources of gas( from where ???) they woulkd take yhears to rig-up
The lkargest non-European gas sourses in the region are from Iran,whjich is oin the early stages of gas production,,and is anyway uynder the US gun and closely linked to the Russian ,some of whomse oil flow to the Persian Gulf on Iranian pilelines…are you aware iof any of theis ?
[ It seems to me that Bolte got pinged because he named specific people rather than make a general observation. Am I wrong? ]
I suspect he would have still been pinged, but would have had a more credible, general defense had he now been so obviously wrong in his assertions about specific people. And would anyone have bothered getting him into court if his abuse had been more general??
[1281
Everything
….
I don’t support the law enforcing someone to stop making a political view public, just because it is “wrong”.]
This is totally misleading. There is no law that would prevent a person from holding a mistaken view. The law is not about views. It framed to protect individuals from the acts of others. It is about curtailing certain inter-personal acts and provides exemptions that protect freedom of expression.
Frodo Baggins,
[(Tony Abbott) is for stopping the election after the election.]
Are you saying Tones is taking this knights and dames bizzo a stage further by planning to introduce an absolute monarchy as well?
kezza
[I don’t think we’re going to agree; you may be right, I may be biased,]
I didn’t say you were. You said I was.
[And I don’t think I’m foolish enough to hear what I want to hear.]
I’ve quoted Gillard’s own words to you. They show that she hasn’t said what you said she said.
[I have grown up, over the years, although I must admit I’m not as good at the put-down as you are, it’s rather a speciality of yours, isn’t it.]
The second part of your sentence contradicts the first.
I can’t see where I’ve put you down. I can see where you’ve made gratuitous assumptions about me, and failed to acknowledge – let alone apologise – when I’ve tried to explain that I didn’t hold the position/s you said I did.