GhostWhoVotes relates that Newspoll has come in at 52-48 in favour of Labor, up from 51-49 last time. Primary votes are 39% for the Coalition (down one), 35% for Labor (up one) and 14% for the Greens (up an improbable three). Bill Shorten’s personal ratings are back down again after an improvement last week, to 36% approval (down three) and 43% disapproval (up three), while Tony Abbott goes sideways to 35% approval and 54% disapproval (both down one). Abbott and Shorten are tied 37-all on preferred prime minister with a five-point increase for uncommitted, Shorten having led 40-39 last time. A further question finds 62% supporting the action taken by the government so far on Iraq, with 25% opposed. UPDATE: Full tables from The Australian.
Also out today was the regular fortnightly face-to-face plus SMS poll from Roy Morgan, this one encompassing 3089 respondents over the past two weekends. Coming off a particularly strong result for Labor last time, it has them down 1.5% to 37%, the Coalition up half a point to 38%, and the Greens and Palmer United steady on 10.5% and 4.5%. On the respondent-allocated two-party preferred measure, Labor’s lead is down from 55.5-44.5 to 54-46, while on the preference flows of the previous election (the method used by Newspoll) it’s down from 54-46 to 53-47. Follow the link above for breakdowns by age, gender and state.
UPDATE (Essential Research): This week’s fortnightly rolling average from Essential Research records an incremental move away from the Coalition, who are down a point on the primary vote to 39% with Labor steady on 38%, the Greens up one to 10% and Palmer United down one to 4%, but it’s not enough to shift two-party preferred, on which Labor’s lead remains at 52-48. Monthly personal ratings have Tony Abbott down two points on both approval and disapproval, to 35% and 52% respectively, while Bill Shorten records his best net rating since his honeymoon period with approval up one to 35% and disapproval down four to 36%. Shorten also nudges back into the lead as preferred prime minister, now leading 36-35 after trailing 37-36 last time.
Further questions find an even balance of support for Australian action in Iraq, with 38% approving and 39% disapproving of supplying arms to Kurdish forces, and 38% approving and 42% disapproving of sending military planes. Only 27% said they would approve of sending troops, with 54% disapproving, which becomes 45% and 36% if requested by the United Nations. For all that’s been said lately about the causes of the Coalition’s improvement in the polls, 55% said they had little or no trust in the government’s handling of international relations, compared with 36% for a lot or some.
Finally, 44% said they approved of the dumping of the mining tax, with 31% disapproving. This is in interesting contrast to more general questions that have been asked about tax, which have found support for mining companies paying more.
UPDATE 2: The Guardian reports on a McNair Ingenuity poll of 1004 respondents concerning performance and name recognition of cabinet ministers, which finds Julie Bishop taking the lead from Malcolm Turnbull as the most highly rated minister since the last such poll was conducted in December, at which time she ranked eighth out of 19. The other big movers are Scott Morrison (upwards, from eighteenth to sixth) and Joe Hockey (downwards, from third place to last). Tony Abbott is only ranked sixth among Coalition supporters and fourteenth among Labor voters, with Bishop topping the table for both.
Section 3 . . .
The government is increasingly divided on the scrapping of the RET.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/08/government-retreats-on-renewable-energy-target-closure
How Abbott misread the politics of renewable energy.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/9/8/policy-politics/how-abbott-misread-politics-renewable-energy
Manus Island detention is unsuitable for women – and men.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/manus-detention-unsuitable-for-women–and-men-20140908-10drzw.html
Chief Scientist Ian Chubb comes out swinging.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/where-science-is-concerned-i-must-part-company-with-some-of-our-economists
A Dutch preliminary report on the downing of MH17 is due soon but is unlikely to shed much more light on it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/08/malaysia-airlines-mh-17-dutch-safety-board-preliminary-report
Section 4 . . .
MUST SEE! David Pope and the reboot.
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/david-pope-20120214-1t3j0.html
Alan Moir is questioning Clive Palmer’s motives.
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/alan-moir-20090907-fdxk.html
Ron Tandberg on Alan Joyce’s pay rise.
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/ron-tandberg-20090910-fixc.html
David Rowe excels himself here. What is the now hairless poodle piddling on? Discarded Speedos?
http://www.afr.com/p/national/cartoon_gallery_david_rowe_1g8WHy9urgOIQrWQ0IrkdO
Rod Clement on O’Farrell’s reappearance at ICAC.
http://www.afr.com/p/home/cartoon_gallery_rod_clement_dKTsVx4omRRhInyIOB7oFN
Peter Martin with a good summary on the economy and looming house price crash.
[House prices are soaring, real incomes are sliding and property has become our fastest growing industry. Can anyone spot a problem?
Not Joe Hockey. The treasurer greeted last week’s national accounts with the observation that there was “real and building momentum in the Australian economy”.
Real estate and home building momentum would have been closer to the truth, because aside from mining there’s not much else happening.]
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/house-prices-are-inflated-and-a-fall-seems-certain–the-only-question-is-when-20140908-10drmx.html#ixzz3ClJVk8Ou
sprocket_
That front page! As they say, “a picture paints a thousand words!”
sprocket_
That front page! As they say, “a picture paints a thousand words!”
Soc
[But who is getting paid off in Victorian Labor not to oppose this dog of a project? ]
Labor is opposed to it.
That’s very different to being able to promise to rip up the contract (see previous posts).
Herald editorial…thanks BK.
[Mr Pyne now admits he discussed potential future job prospects for Mr Ashby, but denies enticing him to take legal action against Mr Slipper.
Mr Slipper has separately been convicted of misusing parliamentary allowances.
Mr Abbott says simply that the tawdry affair is history.
The Herald believes the Ashby claims, like the questions raised by the Credlin emails and the likes of slush fund allegations made against former prime minister Julia Gillard, should be thoroughly investigated by a standing independent body, rather than having the decision on any inquiry left to those with a vested political interest.
ICAC can scrutinise the Credlin issues only by virtue of the overlap between the federal party and NSW officials. There is no such process for examining the behaviour of federal ministers or taxpayer-funded federal officials per se.
Rarely has the argument for a federal ICAC been so compelling.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/abbott-must-act-on-credlin-emails-20140908-10ds68.html#ixzz3ClKy3g30
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0907/641986-scotland-to-get-more-power-if-vote-no-osbourne/
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_SCOTTISH_REFERENDUM?SITE=WHIZ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Regardless of the outcome of the Independence Referendum, it appears the people of Scotland has already benefited, with London promising more autonomy for Scotland.
Bemused
When you get here later Please follow this.
Last night you CLEARLY leaped in the attack me before you had read the original discussion.
I was NOT talking about ships or Subs or planes. Quite the reverse. I had said we need those things, provided they are defensive capability not attack craft.
What I was referring to is a large standing Army (note army not Navy nor Airforce).
Apologies in order. My whole point was that you can save money by reducing some personnel in favour of equipment.
dtt
Firstly, I do fundamentally agree with your ‘island fortress’ approach – and so do some Defence personnel I’ve spoken to.
However, the idea that cutting personnel saves money in any sphere which involves very expensive machinery is iffy.
The expense of the machinery involved – particularly in areas of Defence – means the cost of the personnel is insignificant.
Morning bludgers
Thanks BK for today’s reading. Between ICAC and Ashby, the Libs are well and truly swimming in the muck!
Morning all.
BK: Can’t work out what Pyne pee’d on, but the entire cartoon is so blokesville and shadowy – even the passers by are faceless! It’s brilliant.
[Penultimate day of #icac kicks off w Barry O’Farrelll in witness box. Then out w a bang on Fri w Sinodinos & Baumann]
Which tells us that the State/Federal divide (which is always an issue for a state investigative body), from the perspective of ICAC, stops at Sinodinos and does not reach Credlin.
Zoom
Yes I am aware of the lie Labor keeps repeating about not being able to tear up contracts. Having worked in a Labor government that did exactly that after a change in government, I am quite sick of that lie being repeated. Kenneth Davidson has already dissected it at length, as I have already pointed out in my previous posts. I wish you would stop telling that lie out of misguided loyalty, no matter who you trust tells you to keep saying it. You lose my respect in doing so.
Otherwise, have a good day all.
Dee
initially Pyne denied ever meeting Ashby.
Denied knowing anything about the matter until he read it in the papers.
Denied he offered Ashby any inducements.
Now he admits that he offered Ashby future employment.
His lies are so obvious. Laughable
daretoread
” I was NOT talking about ships or Subs or planes. Quite the reverse. I had said we need those things, provided they are defensive capability not attack craft.”
Why do we need to waste money on this rubbish?
It’s just toys for boys who never grew up.
On a practical level, explain how a submarine can fire a torpedo at a target & not instantly give away it’s location….. result it gets destroyed by the targets accompanying support, if not the target itself….just another version of MAD
If the ” enemy ” has any numbers & it would … Good by sub fleet
Front page of the SMH as linked by sprocket earlier. Can we expect the same type of front page for the daily terror?
http://t.co/hS7eRmGWpJ
After the Holden decision, if the submarines aren’t built here in SA, the only votes Tony will get will be in the country and the leafy suburbs of eastern Adelaide.
To start, Hindmarsh will go in an instant.
Toxic.
Trog
There is no need for Australia to have submarines. If we want to keep people employee in engineering, there are plenty of projects that don’t entail building death machines.
Oops
[There is no need for Australia to have submarines. If we want to keep people employed in engineering, there are plenty of projects that don’t entail building death machines.]
Trog
If we were to accept your general principle of only buying stuff off moral sellers we would not be buying much stuff. Most of our external defence spending is done with a country that has just spent a couple of decades trashing a couple of countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people, wounding hundreds of thousands more, and displacing millions of people.
For the sake of consistency we would have to stop building our own military equipment because our recent track record, which we have yet to acknowledge, let alone apologise for, is hardly squeaky clean.
Johnstone is saying one thing, Abbott another, and Mcfarlane a third thing about the subs.
The opponents to the sensible decision are doing everything in their power to scuttle the Soryus before they get off the ground, as it were:
(1) they don’t go far enough
(2) poor old Adelaideans
(3) the Japanese were and are evil
(4) this is about Abbott big-noting themselves.
The one thing you will not get the opponents mentioning is that the air warfare destroyers are ALREADY three years overdue and ALREADY $600 million over budget. And none of them have hit the water yet.
The main point is this: the reason we are getting the subs is strategic deterrance – not propping up an assorted bunch of rent seekers, defence industry spivs, and workers who can’t even do something as basic as weld hull sections together properly.
sceptic
[explain how a submarine can fire a torpedo at a target & not instantly give away it’s location….. result it gets destroyed by ]
The Russians successfully developed a rocket torpedo. Sure you can sneak up on someone but as soon as you fire you could have a torpedo coming at you at 350km/h. At which point you can break off or get hit.
[VA-111 Shkval underwater rocket
The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph… The solid-rocket propelled “torpedo” achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local “envelope” of supercavitating bubbles
There are no evident countermeasures to such a weapon, its employment could put adversary naval forces as a considerable disadvantage]
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm
Fran
That’s right. Australia does not need submarines, naval shipping, tanks, artillary, cyber warfare capacity, or aircraft.
All we need to defend ourselves is more schools and hospitals.
Socrates
[Having worked in a Labor government that did exactly that after a change in government, ]
Right – so they promised, in Opposition, to rip up the contract and then did so on assuming government.
I’m fascinated. Please provide the reference.
I know that there were numerous contracts entered into by the Kennett government that severely hampered the operations of the Bracks government. I know that they had teams of lawyers looking to break those contracts. Didn’t happen.
Conroy was able to break the Howard broadband contract when Labor came into government, because the operator was clearly not able to deliver what was promised. However, he did not go into government promising to do that – even though he was fairly positive that that was the case.
ABC radio this morning has a report that the Napthine government has reached an agreement with James Packer which binds future Victorian governments to pay compensation to Crown Casino for any action which impacts on their profits until 2050. This contract will have not only severe implications for the state, but potentially federally.
Not one commentator interviewed is suggesting that, once signed, this contract can be ripped up.
Any incoming government which commits to ‘ripping up’ a contract is has not seen (as opposed to going through it with a fine tooth comb with an aim to finding a way out) would be totally irresponsible.
p
Sceptic is doing the Greens thing: no military expenditure is ever good.
What they don’t get around to explaining is which country ever survived for very long by being completely defenceless.
The beauty of the Soryus is that they will have been designed to accommodate the very rapid inclusion of nuclear tipped weaponry.
Soc
as for losing your respect, I am not going to push a line here which I know is a lie (that contracts can be ripped up wily nily) in order to keep it.
You do have a habit of making sweeping statements on your way out, many of which have only a shaky basis in fact.
I also have a habit of correcting these once you’ve left.
Jon faine of ABC 774 will be discussing the possiblity of submarines being built in japan
http://www.abc.net.au/melbourne/programs/listenlive.htm
Latest from Andrew Elder
[The ‘view from nowhere’ is a principle in journalism where the journalist affects an impartial perspective and appears to be stating facts so objective that those who speak/write them cannot be held responsible for those facts, or for having stated them in that way. The US observer and academic Jay Rosen has written extensively on ‘the view from nowhere’ and its use for journalists denying responsibility for their output.]
http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/smears-from-nowhere.html
Meanwhile Bill Shorten will be meeting with Ship Builders this morning.
Meanwhile, here in Melbourne the wind has been howling since last night
getting out of a contract is a challenge unless you can assess the damages are wearing the damages is a less problem than completing the contract or you have a right to terminate the contract either from an express contractual term or through a breach the other party has committed.
Look I am not going to argue the case for or against submarines, since I am not a military expert. All I say is we need whatever Naval support is needed for us to be able to import essential items in case of a conflict and presumably to stop any large scale invasion. If subs do that job then we need them, if not then we do not.
Zoomster
I think we basically agree – If equipment does need experience and training to use, then of course we need the military personnel well trained in how to use it. My only qualification is about keeping large numbers of generalist soldiers, who have no very special training and are just grunt ie manpower. They are costly to maintain and probably serve a limited function.
My basic point with the Army is train up specialists for all equipment but make sure they would be able to train others quickly in time of crisis. Keep quite a few who have been trained in an army reserve of some kind. Minimise the recruitment and maintenance of generalised low skilled grunt, since in a time of crisis this group could be recruited quickly. If you MUST keep generalised grunt for goodness sake employ them usefully. What most people do not know is that these days military personnel do NOT:
1. Provide security at Barracks. When I last went through a barracks it was provided by Wormald-
2. Clean their rooms and living quarters – outsourced to private contractors
3. Cook for themselves – I think Spotless has the contract
4. Amazingly the airforce does not REFUEL it aircraft – No outsourced – I will not say to whom in case it is not public knowledge.
So basically I see the military sitting around on their increasingly fat bums.
shellbell can you explain to me why the federal branch of the liberal party is immune from NSW law?
This magic divide you keep talking about must have been in a lecture I missed
Three things Labor is getting very, very wrong:
(1) All the way with Abbott on ISIL War
(2) All the way with Abbott on troops in Ukraine
(3) All the way with the rentseekers, industry spivs, self-interested Adelaideans and an incompetent naval construction workforce.
None of these positions is about the substance. Labor’s hideous lack of core policy convictions (see Rudd, Gillard, Rudd) is, once more, on full display.
Pyne claims to have been misinterpreted.
There’s a lot of that going around.
The whole Australian community misinterpreted what Abbott said before the election about the Unity Ticket on Gonski and his promises of no cuts to education, no cuts to health and no cuts to ABC/SBS.
Perhaps they need to employ some interpreters
Boerwar
Costa Rica has managed since 1949. Yes it’s a tiny spec of a country but considering their neibourhood a pretty (crazy) brave move.
WWP
ICAC is a state body with limited powers. From its webpage:
[The ICAC’s principal functions are set out in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988. In summary, they are:
to investigate and expose corrupt conduct in the NSW public sector
to actively prevent corruption through advice and assistance, and
to educate the NSW community and public sector about corruption and its effects.
The jurisdiction of the ICAC extends to all NSW public sector agencies (except the NSW Police Force) and employees, including government departments, local councils, members of Parliament, ministers, the judiciary and the governor. The ICAC’s jurisdiction also extends to those performing public official functions.]
As to whether the Federal Branch of the Libs could be prosecuted for a breach of NSW Electoral laws, I don’t immediately know.
Why doesn’t ICAC extend to the NSW police? I’m pretty sure the CCC covers the WA police here.
Fess
We have Police Integrity Commission.
Oh.
WWP,
NSW Labor introduced legislation that prevents Developers donating to fund State political Parties.
Federal Parties are not covered by this legislation.
So basically, the money from developers was being sent to Canberra via this Foundation that every one talks about.
[poroti
Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 8:46 am | Permalink
Boerwar
Costa Rica has managed since 1949. Yes it’s a tiny spec of a country but considering their neibourhood a pretty (crazy) brave move.]
It is interesting how some very tiny states manage to move through the cracks without having a military: Lichenstein, Monaco, Costa Rica being egs. Goa, Sikkim, Tibet Macao and Hong Kong being the opposite examples. It usually means that either (a) big brother is looking after them for one reason or another or (b) big brother just grabs them for one reason or another.
Costa Rica has some sort of Commonwealth status with the USA. Anyone who invades Costa Rica invades the US.
Michael Danby highlights a couple of interesting points in the Ashby affair, one of which (the Hungary trip) was not covered by the 60mins programme wich went to air. The other, Ashby’s “secret” diary has only just come to light..and is very detailed and written in a different style to Ashby’s usual note-taking style..
…curiouser, and curiouser…
http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/michael-danby-refers-james-ashby-to-federal-dpp,6876
Watson SC warmed up for ICAC by doing over a few coppers at the Police Integrity Commission who created a false story to justify the fatal shooting of a mentally ill young man in the kitchen of his father’s home.
Good Morning
@ABCNews24: LIVE: Fmr Immigration Minister @BowenChris appearing before the #HRInquiry into Children in Immigration Detention http://t.co/FlRWJAIwAW
markjs
The hungary trip and secret diary were canvassed in extra minutes not put to air
http://www.jump-in.com.au/show/60minutes/
Fran@120
[There is no need for Australia to have submarines. If we want to keep people employed in engineering, there are plenty of projects that don’t entail building death machines.]
I don’t agree with this, but it is a separate discussion. My point was about Abbott’s motivation for placing the contracts with the Japanese, and the offensive and ignorant nature of his comments about Japanese honour.
Having a military is a necessary evil.
What is also necessary is having a transparent audit trail on expenditure. Where that is classified equipment it has to be secret.
The problem that seems to crop up is things being shoved under the classified banner to avoid the public audit trail.
How this is resolved I do not know but I think Stephen Smith was on track to resolving it for Australia if he had remained.
[As to whether the Federal Branch of the Libs could be prosecuted for a breach of NSW Electoral laws, I don’t immediately know.]
thanks for that so is the offence in relation to contributions from developers only an offense that members of the NSW P can commit?