Stephen Murray tweets that the fortnightly Newspoll in tomorrow’s Australian shows no change on two-party preferred, with Labor maintaining its lead of 54-46, and next to no change on the primary vote, with the Coalition steady on 36%, Labor down one to 36%, the Greens up one to 12% and others steady on 16%. However, Tony Abbott is up five on approval to 36% and down seven on disapproval to 53%, and has drawn level on preferred prime minister at 38-38 after Bill Shorten led 41-36 a fortnight ago. Bill Shorten’s personal ratings are also improved, his approval up four to 38% and disapproval down two to 41%.
[Mr Joyce when did you sell us out?]
The moment he realised you’d still vote for him anyway.
There is no way that I’m stirring leadershit but could you imagine if the REAL popular Albo was opposition leader?
Abbott wouldn’t make it by the time they played the grand finals.
Is it just me or is the blog a bit sluggish at the moment? There was a time when the announcement of a Newspoll, particularly a good one for Labor, would bring a huge surge in comments, but it doesn’t seem to be that way any more. Very odd.
guytaur
[I am not saying profiling is a crock. Just racial profiling.]
Racial profiling would be better than nothing in some circumstances, but clearly you want to be more accurate than just targetting Muslims, Buddhists (Theravadan as it’s never Mahayanan) or Sikhs, or whoever is disproportionately involved in your area.
Centre
Yep
I offered the view here the other day that in my 40 years as a voter I had never seen a less talented cabinet than the current Tory bunch.
They are nothing more than warmed up Howard era hack ministers with “new blood” like Dutton and Pyne in senior roles. The fact that Abbott stuck with them merely underlines his failure as a leader.
Retweeted by sortius
Stella Bella @StellaSpoons 13m
Soul-destroying plan your #workforthedole, Abetz. ‘A job application each morning and one each afternoon.’ Countless rejections. #lateline
FarQU
Well, disagree with Sam Harris all you want, but read the following exchange and tell me he isn’t willing to engage with the other side.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile
Still in the ‘human scum’ category?
Imacca
They can say what they like but we will know it will be a knifing.
Darn
That would be because of the viewpoint debates between someone like ML and Zoomster as an example.
Seems to be a lack of a different viewpoint at the moment
Retweeted by Possum Comitatus
the tip rat @thetiprat 20m
@Pollytics so 730k unemployed Aussies, apply for 40 jobs a week, means 2.9 million applications per week or 35 million per quarter, FFS.
rossmcg
Could they go with Pyne lol?
[guytaur
Posted Monday, July 28, 2014 at 11:20 pm | PERMALINK
Darn
That would be because of the viewpoint debates between someone like ML and Zoomster as an example.
Seems to be a lack of a different viewpoint at the moment]
I was thinking that too Guytaur. Maybe we should send out invitations to some of our absent Liberal contributors. Surely they haven’t ALL been frightened away.
[Given that certain groups are more likely to be terrorists, drug traffickers, exotic bird smugglers etc, more attention is obviously paid to those who fit the profile than to others. It’s basic logic]
It’s not basic logic. If Muslim men are racially profiled, we’ll give the bomb to a white man. Or a woman. Or someone who cunningly disguises themselves as a non-muslim. Or a non-muslim woman.
Given that we can’t screen every dark-skinned person, or muslim, or people we think are muslims, or people who have been to Islamic countries, or whose parents migrated from islamic countries, stopping terrorism will not be done by racially-profiling people at airports.
Great numbers for Labor considering Abbott threw everything at improving his popularity since MH17.
He’s finished. A dud. A failure.
Fabulous !
Darn@53
It has become ‘situation normal’ – unremarkable.
There is absolutely ONE thing for certain?
If Mesma knifed Abbott… Abbott would NEVER regain the leadership as did Rudd.
*night
If Labor can get this dictaphone thing settled before the election I think Victoria will make Abbott nervous looking at his fate.
Queensland is more appropriate as they have a massive majority.
They are my signposts for a one term federal government
Some mood music for the Lib fanboys 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyFyAqLtHq8
Centre
I don’t doubt that Pyne would fancy his chances. It would entertaining. Just imagine what world leaders would make of him!
[Still in the ‘human scum’ category?]
Putting words into people’s mouths is poor form.
I merely said his argument in support of racially-profiling muslims at airports as a means of stopping terrorism was light-weight fluff, and his almost complete dismissal of the ethics and consequences of it was even more light weight. And it is.
Darn
Posted Monday, July 28, 2014 at 11:18 pm
[Is it just me or is the blog a bit sluggish at the moment? There was a time when the announcement of a Newspoll, particularly a good one for Labor, would bring a huge surge in comments, but it doesn’t seem to be that way any more. Very odd.]
I’ve been waiting for gloryconsequence to post how he was spot on about Abbott’s approval and the PPM being level.
His 50/50 TPP was a little bit wrong though.
Wishful thinking maybe….
How dithappointing for the Murdoch tabloids, another completely failed campaign of boosterism for their dud leader.
Guess what you third-rate rags: our hearts are breaking for the people affected, but your North Korea-style attempt to bolster Abbott’s leadership on the back of aint impressing anyone, and are only enhancing your terminal credibility problems. And doing nothing for his.
And now we can all go happily slave for the dole – are you starting to get any ideas why your man’s numbers are crap?
A turd with a flag in it is still a turd.
FarQU
“It’s not basic logic. If Muslim men are racially profiled, we’ll give the bomb to a white man. Or a woman. Or someone who cunningly disguises themselves as a non-muslim. Or a non-muslim woman.
Given that we can’t screen every dark-skinned person, or muslim, or people we think are muslims, or people who have been to Islamic countries, or whose parents migrated from islamic countries, stopping terrorism will not be done by racially-profiling people at airports.”
Most people who advocate profiling Muslims at airports are not saying they are the ONLY people who should be screened. Sam Harris’ position, for example, is that there should be random screening at one level that might catch the hypothetical single white atheist female suicide bomber and an additional layer of profiled screening directed at people who are Muslim.
Read the link I provided above. The objections, mechanics, obstacles and possible benefits of such a system are explained and debated in minute detail.
PB going overboard I think.
Goodnight
Guytaur,
[If Labor can get this dictaphone thing settled before the election I think Victoria will make Abbott nervous looking at his fate.]
There’s only so long the Age can write three outraged opinion pieces + editorial a day on a matter they come out from far from cleanly. The Age may just be beating it up as part of the calculation that they might as well get something out of is, as politicians, their staffers and party officials from all walks of life, business people, sports people, lobbyists, celebrities, etc are all going to be very, very careful with anything they say to Age journalists, if they say anything at all.
On “job snobs”, it really assumes that everyone is physically or mentally able to take “shit jobs”. Someone was fired from my work just the other day for failing to mention a previous injury that might affect their work. He wasn’t the first one, either. What a stupid policy, it fails to address any actual problem with the system while imposing significant inefficiencies and wasting time and money of all parties involved.
FarQU
You keep saying his arguments are lightweight/fluff. I have provided a link to a 14,000 word debate above on the subject that I think essentially trashes that particular description.
Say what you will about Harris, he’s not one for throwaway lines. He’s clearly given the position thought and is more than willing to defend and debate the subject.
Twaddle,
And having read part of the exchange you linked i’d say Sam Harris is in for an intellectual pantsing.
Most terrorists are muslim therefore we should target muslims at airports. Would Richard Reid have been targeted in your scenario?
What Sam Harris needs o do is show that targeting Muslims, within the actual constraints that exist in the real world rather than his hypothetical example, is more effective than the more random way it currently happens. If he was as meticulous as you say then he would have a little more realism to his arguments.
If obviously muslim men were targeted at airports, are you seriously suggesting that they would not start using people who didn’t fit the stereotype? Ignoring other races could in fact lead to an increased likelihood of terrorism.
I think the problem of profiling in general as it becomes a bit more harassment than anything else, and just creates a vicious cycle of distrust and bad behaviour from both sides. As well as the general principle of spending all your time focusing on one thing and you miss the other with tragic consequences. I’ve never heard of Sam Harris before now, so don’t know if he’s addressed it, but based on the tenor of what I’ve now heard from him, I’d say the actual practical implications and historical context, rather than rhetorical point scoring, were unlikely to have been considered.
The only thing you need to know about the work-for-dole scheme of this size is its designed to put downward pressure on the low end of the wage scale.
Its a labour market intervention, not a ‘welfare policy’.
further to my 76, effectively forcing people into jobs they’re not suitable in could also result in acquiring workplace injuries that make finding work more difficult.
FarQU
I would suggest you read the whole thing before passing judgement, but apparently you feel comfortable forecasting your opinion on it which indicates to me there’s nothing Sam Harris could say, no evidence he could present, no argument he could expand that would change your perception of him. A shame really.
Once you grant that the culprit of the next suicide bombing/hijacking of a plane is very likely to be a Muslim, much of what Harris says makes sense. But apparently it’s impolite to make that first assumption!
[Sam Harris’ position, for example, is that there should be random screening at one level]
He’s also whingeing about random targeting of people who aren’t muslim jihadists or likely to be muslim jihadists. Which is why i called it light-weight fluff.
And i consider these throw-away lines. I’ve no doubt the man makes a number of good arguments on a number of topics.
[The spirit of political correctness hangs over the whole enterprise like the Angel of Death]
[And political correctness requires that TSA employees direct the spotlight of their attention at random]
[Needless to say, a glance at the girl’s family was all one needed to know that they hadn’t rigged her to explode]
[But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance]
FarQU
It’s almost beyond trite to say this, but you took those quotes completely out of context and it’s a very dishonest tactic. I’ll leave it at that.
[I would suggest you read the whole thing before passing judgement, but apparently you feel comfortable forecasting your opinion on it which indicates to me there’s nothing Sam Harris could say, no evidence he could present, no argument he could expand that would change your perception of him. A shame really]
I have no perception of him. Merely that his argument on racial profiling is light-weight fluff. If he could present an argument that shows it would work, including dealing with the consequences of racial profiling, which he doesn’t do, then i would consider it.
[Once you grant that the culprit of the next suicide bombing/hijacking of a plane is very likely to be a Muslim, much of what Harris says makes sense]
That’s where I disagree. They are highly likely to be a muslim. I’m arguing that racial-profiling at airports is not more likely to stop them than the current system.
[But apparently it’s impolite to make that first assumption!]
Don’t let that stop you.
[It’s almost beyond trite to say this, but you took those quotes completely out of context and it’s a very dishonest tactic. I’ll leave it at that.]
Bollocks. Here’s the first paragraph of his essay. Much purple prose follows. Anyhoo.
[Much has been written about how insulting and depressing it is, more than a decade after the events of 9/11, to be met by “security theater” at our nation’s airports. The current system appears so inane that one hopes it really is a sham, concealing more-ingenious intrusions into our privacy. The spirit of political correctness hangs over the whole enterprise like the Angel of Death—indeed, more closely than death, or than the actual fear of terrorism. And political correctness requires that TSA employees direct the spotlight of their attention at random—or appear to do so—while making rote use of irrational procedures and dubious technology.]
FarQU
I don’t see anything wrong with that quote, nor would anyone who has had an elderly relative in a wheelchair hauled up by the elbows for secondary screening at a TSA checkpoint.
Lefty
Work for the dole may put downward pressure on wages but there is this Tory myth that thousands of businesses will hire people if only they didn’t have to pay them as much.
It just isn’t that simple. What will happen is that the businesses will pay their existing workers less and not hire any more. Just a variation on work choices to cut benefits and drive costs down.
The “religiosity” of former PMs has got a bit of a run tonight.
there does appear to be an INCREASE in the public avowal of faith in our PMs/LOTO which is surprising in that it is declining in the community at large.
Here goes
1940 -1950
Menzies – Methodist educated (but i suspect a Presbyterian what with him being Scottish and all) but I cannot recall him ever being photographed at church so I would class him as non- practicing
Curtin – Protestant raised (I think) As an adult NO religion and probably quite hostile
Chifley – I think remained a practising Catholic
Evatt was LOTO and was definitely NOT religious
So in the 50s we had 1 practising Catholic, one “Don’t talk religion” and two non believers/non church goers
score 25% for religion, 25% for (Do not discuss) and 50% for the non believers
In the 50s we had
Menzies
Evatt (LOTO)
Calwell (LOTO) – Devout and strong and public catholic
Once again 1 strongly religious, one middle of the road but not a “public Christian” and one definite non church goer.
30% for strong relion in this decade
In the 60s we had
Menzies – DMR
Holt – in the DMR group
Gorton – religion never a part of his persona
Whitlam LOTO – Raised Protestant I think he was in the Do not mention religion camp and I do not think often went to church (if ever)
So we have in this era
No practicing religious types, 4 in the DMR camp with two of these (whitlam and Gorton) white possibly agnostic/atheist in reality (it WAS the 60s!!!!!!)
In the 70s
Whitlam (DMR)
Fraser – I am inclined to put Fraser in the anti religion camp – along with Evatt and Curtin (whitlam probably too)
Sneddon (DMR)
Hayden – raised Irish but NOT catholic – DMR
So once again No religious people with possibly 3 in the agnostic non church goer group
In the 80s we have
Fraser
Hawke rather hostile to religion despite daddy being a pastor
Heydon (LOTO) (not religious
Howard (LOTO) A church goer Protestant
Peacock (LOTO) Definitely DMR
So we have 1 religious, 1 DMR and 3 probably quite negative
Religion is reappearing at 20%
In the 90 we had
Hawke
Keating – religion listed in Wiki – I always assumed he was quite strongly a practicing catholic
Howard
Hewson Into the no religion group I think
Downer definitely DMR
Beazley- strongly evangelistic Christian
So in the 90s religion is still growing with One very strong Christian and one practicing catholic and another churchgoer
So 50% for the god botherers and only 33% in the non religious group
In the naughties religion is fully on stage in all its glory
Howard
Rudd a definite god botherer)
Beazley
Crean – In the no religion camp
Latham – No religion
Nelson – raised as a catholic and it is still listed so he presumably is still practicing
Turnbull – No religion
Abbott – the monk himself
So the naughties see religion in full bloom with 5 practicing religios types and two (Abbott and Beazley very full on and Rudd no slouch). The non believers were three.
So USA style politics here we come. 5/8 ie 62.5% are god botherers.
So the answer to the query is YES, in the last 70 years our politicians (after a denial of religion in the 60s and 70s) have increased in their avowed Christianity. Abbott is in the tradition of Calwell and to a lesser extent Chifley and Keating.
Oh man, check out the coverage. Link below if you want to google the title & dodge the paywall and read the rest. Actual chart link at the bottom.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbotts-strong-mh17-response-rewarded-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1227005009220#
[Tony Abbott’s strong MH17 response rewarded: Newspoll
The Australian July 29, 2014 12:00AM
Phillip Hudson
Bureau Chief
Canberra
TONY Abbott’s strong response to the murder of Australians aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 has delivered the equal biggest-ever rise in his personal ratings outside of an election campaign.
The 12-point leap in the Prime Minister’s net satisfaction rating is short of John Howard’s record gains after the September 11 and Bali bombing terror attacks, but has given Mr Abbott his best personal poll results since April.]
http://resources.news.com.au/files/2014/07/28/1227004/965026-140729newspoll.pdf
[Merely that his argument on racial profiling is light-weight fluff. If he could present an argument that shows it would work, including dealing with the consequences of racial profiling, which he doesn’t do, then i would consider it. ]
It’s not “light-weight fluff”.
I’m doing some profiling of my own here and suggest you didn’t do University Maths or Logic, haven’t worked in counter-terrorism and don’t have a very high IQ.
[I don’t see anything wrong with that quote, nor would anyone who has had an elderly relative in a wheelchair hauled up by the elbows for secondary screening at a TSA checkpoint.]
You don’t have to see anything wrong with that quote, nor do the relatives of the wheelchair bound. that’s not the issue. One man’s purple prose is another’s cutting argument. Let’s hope the terrorists don’t strap a bomb to an old woman in a wheelchair.
FarQU
It’s a debate, not an entry into a scientific journal. There are supposed to be rhetorical flourishes.
[It’s not “light-weight fluff]
So present a real-world argument that racial profiling at airports is better than the more random security that happens now. It’s so logical you should be able to pop it out in 25 words or less. I’ve presented some counter-arguments that have not been addressed in the slightest.
[I’m doing some profiling of my own here and suggest you didn’t do University Maths or Logic, haven’t worked in counter-terrorism and don’t have a very high IQ.]
2 out of 4 is quite poor, hence why profiling doesn’t cut it. My IQ is high enough to realise that logic only goes so far in an illogical world. I’ve got no doubt that profiling occur and is valuable. But i don’t believe that racially-profiling people at airport security checks will diminish the threat of terrorism.
And Sam Harris is still light-weight fluff.
Twaddle, nothing wrong with rhetorical flourishes, but you said he doesn’t do throwaway lines. He does.
Dio
I think the principles of profiling apply if it were truly random and nobody ever knew or guessed there is profiling.
Once it is known by terrorists or drug smugglers etc that there is profiling in place, then they will deliberately choose people who do NOT meet the profile. With fake passports and people selected to look innocent I doubt the role of profiling would last long term.
Diogenes:
[Medicine uses profiling all the time. If someone is an obese 60 year old male smoker, you are going to look into their chest pain a lot more carefully than with a 25 year old lady.]
That works because developing heart disease is a random statistical process. In medicine, you aren’t working against an intelligent adversary.
[It’s not like there is even an argument against it; you can pick out sub-populations/profiles who are more likely to be in the target group, you concentrate your resources on them.]
The flipside is that you are *reducing* the resources applied to the non-matching profiles. An intelligent adversary can then pick their actors to fit those non-matching profiles, which gives them a higher chance of success than the base case (resources applied evenly).
I was wondering if Abbott would go on a crusade to actually improve welfare if it were pointed out to him that Kevin Rudd’s fortune came from his wife getting government funds as a job service provider…
You clearly don’t have a degree in Maths or Logic. You don’t work in counter terrorism as they use racial profiling all the time and you clearly don’t have a very high IQ so I’d say I’m four out of four.
A cursory glance at the statistics of terrorism, Muslims are way over represented, combined with a five minute perusal of the wiki entry on Bayesian analysis will demonstrate that any moron in counterterrorism would put more resources into screening young male Muslims and less into screening a grandmother in a wheelchair. If grandmothers in wheelchairs start to be over represented in terrorism statistics, which has never happened, you would divert resources into screening them.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/tragedy-delivers-abbott-a-second-chance/story-fnmnl1y0-1227004937751#
[Tragedy delivers Abbott a second chance
PHILLIP HUDSON, COMMENT
The Australian
July 29, 2014 12:00AM
VOTERS delivered the government a whack after the May budget but saved the sharpest blows for Tony Abbott directly.
His support fell harder and further as a disappointed electorate showed its fury about a budget they didn’t like to a Prime Minister many felt had not kept faith with his election vow of no excuses and no surprises.]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/we-prefer-our-political-skippers-to-keep-an-even-keel/story-e6frg75f-1227004954681#
[We prefer our political skippers to keep an even keel
Dennis Shanahan, ANALYSIS
The Australian
July 29, 2014 12:00AM
AUSTRALIANS crave, and reward, bipartisanship.
On the matters that matter, the electorate is prepared to back unpopular measures and wear personal pain.]