BludgerTrack: 50.8-49.2 to Labor

With the only new poll being a status quo result from Essential Research, it’s a dull old week for the BludgerTrack poll aggregate.

The only new poll this week was the regular weekly finding from Essential Research, which produced an essentially status quo result. With earlier polling that was stronger for Labor washing out of the system, the latest reading on the BludgerTrack poll aggregate records a minor continuation of the trend to the Coalition, who are up 0.2% on two-party preferred. There is also a one-seat shift on the seat projection to the Coalition, who make a gain in New South Wales. For what it’s worth, this leaves the numbers looking very much as they did at the 2010 election. Nothing new this week on leadership ratings.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,845 comments on “BludgerTrack: 50.8-49.2 to Labor”

Comments Page 4 of 37
1 … 3 4 5 … 37

  3. Following on from 144:

    Even more authoritatively, from the majority decision in the Hill judgement:

    [241 It is true that, because of the existence of the Common Informers Act, a person elected to Parliament but constitutionally disqualified might be better off if the issue of disqualification could be dealt with by petition. There is a real question, however, whether a person can be sued under the Common Informers Act until either the relevant House of Parliament has declared that that person is disqualified or this Court has done so on a reference under Div 2 of Pt XXII of the Electoral Act.

    242 On one view, the effect of s 3 of the Common Informers Act is that the Parliament has otherwise provided within the meaning of s 47 of the Constitution so that, notwithstanding the restrictive terms of Div 2 of Pt XXII of the Electoral Act, the High Court can determine at any time the eligibility of a member of Parliament.

    243 The other view of s 3 is that it does not otherwise provide for the determination of a “question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives”[320]. On that basis, the determination is made by the relevant House of Parliament or by this Court on a Div 2 reference, and the function of s 3 is to authorise a suit for the recovery of a penalty once a declaration of incapacity has been made. Favouring this construction is the fact that it avoids potential and unseemly conflicts between the Court and a House of Parliament over the qualifications of a member of that House. It might also seem surprising that Parliament, in enacting the Common Informers Act, had intended, so to speak, to allow a person to bypass the restrictively worded provisions of Div 2 of Pt XXII of the Electoral Act.

    244 The debates on the Common Informers Act in both Houses of federal Parliament favour the first of these two constructions. The Second Reading Speeches in the Senate and the House of Representatives both assumed that this Court could deal with the issue of constitutional disqualification by a suit under s 3 even if the matter was not referred to the Court of Disputed Returns. However, the Second Reading Speeches also assumed that the Bill was otherwise providing for the purpose of s 46[321] of the Constitution, not s 47. Furthermore, the Bill seems to have been drafted and debated hastily because of concern that actions for penalties could be brought against Senator Webster, pursuant to s 46 of the Constitution. For that reason, the debates may be regarded as less persuasive than usual on the construction of legislation.]

  4. guytaur
    [Posted Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 12:40 pm | PERMALINK
    victoria

    Another clue

    @60Mins: The secret plot that will ROCK the Abbott government. On #60Mins 8.00 SUNDAY — inside the Peter Slipper scandal: http://t.co/QqxCJybHCf%5D

    I linked this promo a couple of pages back.

    Not sure whaf you mean by another clue?

  5. [In other words, your entire post at 132 is based on a misunderstanding. One of the original and primary purposes of copyright was (and remains) to protect the financial interests of the copyright holder.]

    You are either misconstruing what I said or misrepresenting the balance struck in that Act between the private good and the public good. Clearly a situation where authors of important works get nothing at all is ridiculous and would discourage the creation of those valuable works.

    I’m admitting there are two competing interests and a need to balance them – it is you simply echoing one point of view as if it was the answer to everything.

  8. The Westminster establishment is becoming rattled.

    Just look at the number of articles and their tone in The Guardian

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/scotland

    The Unionists (though not the offical No campaign) respond with the big guns of the Loyal Orange Order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/scottish-republicans-orange-order-parade-yes-campaign?CMP=twt_gu

    and UKIP

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-ukip-to-hold-referendum-rally-1-3526441

    What could go wrong?

  10. I create IP in a very narrow but globally competitive field.

    In some very few cases the IP I create is the best of its kind in the world. This takes brains, creativity, tremendous effort, and a bit of arse. The equipment I use to create the IP is expensive. I worked hard to save the money for the equipment. I did not spend the money on other things I might otherwise have enjoyed like attending Greens Annual General Policy Meetings.

    The thought that some Greens IP parasites want to give away all my IP for free because of some crazed interpretation of the national interest, and because they are too lazy to create such IP themselves, might make my blood boil if I were not already giving the IP away for free.

  14. I had studied the Statue of Anne when I did my ip studies and patent work, but thanks for reminding me. You failed to note it was an ‘Act for the encouragement of learning’. you also failed to note that the period was 14 years before things moved into the public domain. The modern equivalent of 14 years would be about 18 months. We should definitely restore the balance to about that length.

  15. lizzie
    A predatory jizz, a suggestion of cruel hook at the end of the beak, and a hint of yellow in the eyes indicates, most probably, a Pied Currawong.

  16. [The thought that some Greens IP parasites want to give away all my IP for free because of some crazed interpretation of the national interest, and because they are too lazy to create such IP themselves, might make my blood boil if I were not already giving the IP away for free.]

    I think your hate of the greens and the player one koolaid have combined here in a post you might not consider your finest.

  19. [Who has argued for giving away your IP for free? I certainly have not.]

    Haven’t you been listening? IP violation is THEFT so you must support perpetual copyright for corporate ownership and the right of summary execution for offenders.

    {If you’re going to have a straw argument, it might as well be a good one.}

  20. bw

    Yes. However saying people are stealing and saying you want people to steal are two different things. One is recognising a reality the other is advocating for it.

    Arguing for reasonable laws around copyright and that governments should not let lobbyists for multinational companies bring in new law to make previously legal illegal just to maintain a failing business model is not being for piracy.

  21. WeWantPaul @ 132 – Excellent post about the purpose of intellectual property law. It isn’t a moral issue – but a practical question of how to generate as much knowledge and innovation and cultural richness as possible and to disseminate it in a way which improves everybody’s quality of life. The current intellectual property laws are broken. They are defended by rent-seekers.

    We need to recognize that people consume intellectual and artistic products very differently now. The laws need to catch up.

  24. [Posted Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 12:56 pm | PERMALINK
    WWP
    Just keep away from my IP, pal.]

    Well pal if you create it and keep it in your bedroom I will indeed stay away from your IP, if you want my Parliament to give you all kinds of rights and protections to economically exploit it in our economy I would hope my Parliament would balance all considerations in the public interest and you might not get quite the open slather to exploit some seem to consider their god given right, rather than the privalege extended by Parliament that it is.

  25. [but a practical question of how to generate as much knowledge and innovation and cultural richness as possible and to disseminate it in a way which improves everybody’s quality of life. The current intellectual property laws are broken. They are defended by rent-seekers.]

    I wish I had said it this well!

  27. zoidlord

    [ No one is advocating copyright infringement. ]

    Good. Perhaps we can all just agree then that copyright infringement is and should remain a punishable offence, with penalties in place sufficient to deter such infringement, thereby allowing the copyright holder to receive fair value for their efforts.

  28. @Player One/177

    So $600,000 US is a good punishable offense?

    Higher than speeding? higher than killing another human being

    Is that how you prioritize your life?

  30. BW

    [The thought that some Greens IP parasites want to give away all my IP for free because of some crazed interpretation of the national interest, and because they are too lazy to create such IP themselves, might make my blood boil if I were not already giving the IP away for free.}

    Oh God you are absolutely loopy!

    All my theatre buddies vote Green and are completely obsessed with protecting their IP. They all support the MEAA.

    But yes, I forgot, for some reason you think that Greens don’t contribute to the economy or make money from the arts…

  31. [Good. Perhaps we can all just agree then that copyright infringement is and should remain a punishable offence, with penalties in place sufficient to deter such infringement, thereby allowing the copyright holder to receive fair value for their efforts.]

    Well if copyright infringement were sensibly and reasonably defined and copyright was delivering fair value rather than monopoly like super profits.

  33. Not much comment on Senator Madigan leaving the DLP today. As a parliamentary party-of-one it shouldn’t make much if any difference to the way he votes, but I still wouldn’t have pegged him as the first Senator to desert his party in this parliamentary session.

  34. I am seeing this from a few journalists

    “@craigthomler: .@mediaalliance I also want a refund of my membership fee. I won’t be counted as supporting your position #auspol”

  39. BW

    I don’t know if you qualify under the definition. However I can say you are not a lawyer for a multinational corporation who I would say is a rent seeker in regard to this issue.

  40. WWP

    I hold a monopoly on the copyright of my IP.

    You have four choices: create your own IP, don’t use my IP, pay for my IP, or steal my IP.

  41. g
    How can you be a rent seeker in the way you use your own IP?

    If people want to use it they can pay for it. If they don’t want to use then they don’t pay for it.

    The rent seekers in this case are the thieves who want a free suck at somebody else’s IP sauce bottle.

  42. Shows like ’60 Minutes’ often pay big money for these expose stories.

    Perhaps Ashby has been cut loose by his former benefactors and now sees a ready source of cash in return for spilling the beans.

  47. [You have four choices: create your own IP, don’t use my IP, pay for my IP, or steal my IP.]

    Hmmm, I wouldn’t advise the latter (steal IP) unless you want a law suit and which could reflect very badly on yourself and your business.

  48. [caf

    Not much comment on Senator Madigan leaving the DLP today. As a parliamentary party-of-one it shouldn’t make much if any difference to the way he votes, but I still wouldn’t have pegged him as the first Senator to desert his party in this parliamentary session.]

    He seems to be claiming that he was undermined by a Liberal party mole.

    [In the Senate, he accused a former staff member of running a systematic “campaign of disinformation and disharmony” in his office.

    “Normal communications with party members were thwarted, confidential information was leaked and lies were told,” he said.

    “Even more alarming, it has emerged that two weeks after joining my staff, that person sent an email to the Liberal Party asking about pre-selection in the Victorian election.”]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/senator-madigan-cuts-ties-with-democratic-labour-party/5718776

  49. bw

    Get over this theft thing. No one is advocating it, There is some recognition it happens and smart people will minimise the chances of theft happening to their property.

Comments Page 4 of 37
1 … 3 4 5 … 37

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *