The BludgerTrack poll aggregate continues to trend the Coalition’s way, to the extent that it reaches two milestones this week: parity with Labor on two-party preferred, and an absolute majority on the seat projection, albeit by the barest of margins. Three new polls were added to the national figures, those being Galaxy, the regular weekly Essential Research, and the fortnightly Morgan (fortnightly in the sense of publication, although the poll is conducted on a weekly basis). Also out this week was the Newspoll quarterly aggregates, which have been factored into the state breakdowns, along with the regular state breakdowns from Morgan (published) and Essential (unpublished). The combined effect is to add seat each to the Coalition tally in New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia, while removing one in Victoria and Tasmania.
The quarterly Newspoll is a big deal for BludgerTrack, which is never better serviced for state data than it is immediately after being fed with three months’ worth of state-level Newspoll results. To this end, later today I will get around to publishing my own detailed quarterly state breakdowns for BludgerTrack, the previous instalment of which can be seen here.
BludgerTrack is still in the position of being slightly more favourable to the Coalition than any single published poll result, due to a variety of factors. Perhaps this could be best explained if I run through each of the pollsters:
Nielsen of course closed up shop a few months ago, which was significant in that BludgerTrack deemed it to be the most Coalition-friendly pollster, and the only one which adjusted for any substantial bias to that effect. Now that it’s gone, the model has a clear tendency to skew to the right of what a straight polling average would tell you.
Newspoll is rated as neutral by the model, but it hasn’t reported for a fortnight. When it did report, it gave Labor a 51-49 lead when the primary vote numbers looked a lot more like 50-50. It’s the primary votes that BludgerTrack goes off, so this was a 50-50 poll as far as the model was concerned. Clearly Labor got rounded up in the Newspoll result – it follows that they also got rounded down in BludgerTrack.
Galaxy is taken very seriously by BludgerTrack, and receives next to no bias adjustment at all. This week it gave Labor a lead of 51-49, although putting its rounded primary votes into the model produces a result of 50.6-49.4 going off 2013 preferences (as BludgerTrack does). If not for this poll, the Coalition would have moved into the lead.
ReachTEL’s last poll a fortnight ago had Labor leading 51-49, and BludgerTrack adjusts this pollster slightly in favour of the Coalition.
Morgan is reckoned to have the biggest bias in the game, that being in favour of Labor. Its result on respondent-allocated preferences this week was 51.5-48.5 in favour of Labor, but the more telling point so far as BludgerTrack is concerned is that it was the Coalition’s best result since February.
Essential is noted for being slow to respond to changes, and for this reason, BludgerTrack treats its bias in a unique way, by dynamically adjusting it according to how its deviates from the model over time. Since it’s stayed stuck with Labor on the cusp of leading 52-48 or 53-47, while the other pollsters have moved to the Coalition, a Labor bias adjustment is increasingly being factored into its results.
The other development in BludgerTrack this week is that Morgan published a set of phone poll numbers on leadership ratings, and they were relatively very rosy for Tony Abbott, who wasn’t too far off parity on net approval and had a pretty solid lead on preferred prime minister. This has a pretty sharp effect on the BludgerTrack leadership ratings, which aren’t exactly spoiled for data and are always pretty sensitive to the most recent result, even if the poll in question was from a rather small sample, as was the case here.
UPDATE: As promised, here are the detailed state-level breakdowns featuring primary vote numbers and charts tracking the progress of the primary and two-party votes in each state. Crikey subscribers may enjoy my analysis of these results in today’s email, assuming it gets published.
I also promised two weeks ago that I was going to start tracking betting odds in these mid-week BludgerTrack posts, then forgot about it last week. Now that I’ve remembered again, I can inform you that there has been movement to the Coalition over the part fortnight in Centrebet’s federal election odds, with the Coalition in from $1.50 to $1.45 and Labor out from $2.55 to $2.70. Centrebet’s price on Campbell Newman being re-elected in Queensland has also shortened from $1.36 to $1.28, with Labor out from $3.15 to $3.65. There has been a very slight move to Labor for the Victorian election, with Labor in from $1.23 to $1.22 and the Coalition out from $4.00 and $4.10 – which sounds a bit generous to Labor for mine. The Betfair market evidently thinks so, as it has the Coalition in from $4.10 to $3.40 and Labor out from $1.48 to $1.59.
DTT,
Your penchant for “colour and movement” and ‘sexiness” in an Opposition leader and political approach is the recipe for permanent opposition.
To me, being a Member of the Party binds me to supporting the elected Leader (and this Leader has been the most widely elected Leader the Party has ever had).
Focussing on personality issues is rubbish. You’re either behind the Party and it’s Leader or you are fomenting disunity.
Abbott is desperate. He is asking Labor not to play politics on the GP tax as he plays politics. 😆
Zoomster at 138:
[It was a shocking interview because Alberici DID NOT expose his views, because she was too obsessed with getting the answer she wanted.]
As you would say, er, no. The guest claimed Alberici was obsessed with getting the answer she wanted. You seem to agree with the guest. I don’t. I don’t even know what answer Alberici wanted. Do you?
Did Alberici want him to say IS cutting off people’s heads is good or did Alberici want him to say, as she certainly tried to lead him to say, that he condemned those actions of IS? Unless you know the answer to that question your claim is absurd.
As to “exposing his views”, I agree with Guytaur that the guest showed he was a polished interviewee. He had no intention of exposing his views to any real questioning. His sole intent was to use LL as a soap-box for unexamined assertions of wrong-doing by the West. For reasons I have previously given I regard giving airtime to unexamined assertions a travesty of an interview even if, by hearing those unexamined assertions, we are somehow “exposed” to the interviewee’s viewpoint.
For these reasons Alberici acted exactly as I would have hoped.
[We only cared once they started doing it to Western people and did not pay much attention when they were doing that to their “fellow” muslims.
]
Not sure who the “we” you are referring to in that assertion Guytaur but if you are including Australians generally then you would be wrong. We, Australians, gave up corporal punishment some time ago.
GG
I have avoided commenting on Shorten this year for the very reasons you cite. However when the polls start to go south it is responsible to examine the entrails.
I see no advantage whatever in valiantly saying all is great, when it clearly is not. Comments like mine may stir the ALP hierarchy to refocus and perhaps win the election. I am not confident however.
I agree that Shorten is there for the duration of this election period and would NOT support anyone jockeying for change. I would support those pushing for change of tactics.
dwh
By WE I mean us the general public who had never heard of IS before the first American Journalist beheading.
Its not like they magically appeared out of thin air.
Guytaur, beheading in the case of Saudi Arabia is a form of capital punishment, as abhorrent as it may be. For a crime that has a person has been convicted of (as spurious as the crime and legal process there may be).
There is a substantial difference between capital punishment and random acts of terror beheadings.
[
However dull as dishwater rarely win elections. Good for a holding pattern through opposition. Calwell springs to mind. You needed a Whitlam to rout the Liberals. Even though there was a mood to change “its time” I doubt a Calwell or any other dull sort of leader would have succeeded in 1972.
]
Except Gough won office with a very low majority. Hawke and Rudd won bigger majorities. Although to be fair, he did manage a big swing to Labor in 1969. But as to routing the Liberals, they were back in office within a little over three years. Not much of a rout if you ask me.
[
The 1972 election ended 23 years of Liberal-Country rule—the longest unbroken run in government in Australian history. It is also unusual as Whitlam only scraped into office with a thin majority of 9 seats. Typically, elections that produce a change of government in Australia take the form of landslides (as in the elections of 1949, 1975, 1983, 1996 or 2007, for example).
The comparatively small size of Whitlam’s win is partly explained by his strong performance at the previous election of 1969, where he achieved a 7 percent swing, gaining 18 seats, from a low of 41 of 124 seats and a 43 percent two-party figure at the 1966 election.
]
Besides, Howard won 4 elections and he is the definition of dull as dishwater. So you can hardly say it rarely wins elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_1972
Henry
I was talking about the imagery. Terror is terror no matter the method of terror selected.
dtt,
There must be another dtt posting under your moniker then if you have avoided commenting on Bill Shorten.
Guytaur that may be correct but it still doesn’t mean you weren’t wrong with you assertion. I honestly can’t recall when I first heard about IS but reached the conclusion we should do something when they started exterminating all those trapped innocent people.
Look, Emma A gave the bloke on Lateline a pretty simple choice.
Do you/don’t you support the beheading, rape, etc of captives (including non- combatants).
The bloke made it clear that he does support these things (or, at least, that they haven’t caused him to feel like opposing or criticizing ISIS. End of story.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing him deported. I don’t consider people with views like that to be part of my society or civilization.
dwh
Isis was around when Kevin Rudd was Foreign Minister.
We just did not know what was happening until it got the attention of the media.
Baba
You too are wrong. By what you are saying why bother having him on in the first place. A valid question.
I still do not see the point it was not informative in the least
William, given the adjustment for ‘house bias’ with Morgan, I’m interested in how this tallies with the fact they got the last election right (I think?).
Did they self-adjust just that one result, or was it a fluke, or something else?
Presumably they would well know their results have this bias and I understand they’ve changed their methodology at times, but is it inbred to the extent they can’t do anything about it?
Or do they stand by it confidently?
If they do, given the election result, are they necessarily as biased as thought?
Guytaur again that is probably true but it doesn’t change the fact your assertion was wrong.
158
Gough won with such a low majority because of the DLP and its preferencing of the Coalition. If it were not for the DLP or they had preferenced the ALP, then the ALP would have had a significantly bigger majority. Without the DLP preferencing the Coalition, Calwell would have won in a landslide in 1961, rather than loosing narrowly. The Whitlam Government destroyed the DLP be exposing them as Coalition stooges and with the Gair appointment.
dwh
When did you become aware of Isis? Before the media reported it? For me it was the big splash with the first beheading that happened just before they swept into Iraq in a big way
mb,
We recently had a number of NSW MPs supporting a farmer who allegedly murdered a Government Ranger for trying to enforce land clearing laws.
If you read the comments, they were quite adamant that the farmer was entitled to do what ever it took to protect his property and lifestyle.
Should they also be deported from Australia?
The ALP has also tended to have shorter periods in government of only a term or two when it comes into office at the end of a period of prosperity and world economic crisis ensues. This is true of 1929-31 under Scullin, 1972-1974-1972 under Whitlam and 2007-2010-2013 under Rudd and Gillard.
[I wouldn’t mind seeing him deported.]
10.4
[Presumably you are out soaking up the $4.10 you can presently get for the Libs with Centrebet if you think they are going to win. If everything you have said above is right they are dream odds in a two horse race.]
maybe I should – I’m still kicking myself for not taking Tom Waterhouse’s offering 4:1 for hawthorn minutes before the pre-bounce siren (I thought they were going to win, but not by as much as they did, and though “maybe I’ll put $100 on that”).
These odds will shorten with the polls. people do not change government lightly and if even someone as biased to the left as me thinks Napthine is not that bad and that andrews hasn’t really cut through, then I think the current odds are as silly as hawthorn’s. the libs will play it safe up to the election and reveal their real agenda if they get back with a majority. the ALP needs to hammer “The napthine-abbott agenda”, “napthine-pyne school privisation plans”, “napthine-abbott health privatisation agenda”, and “O’brien-Hockey economic slash and burn agenda” they are not doing this and have possibly run out of time.
dtt
[I see no advantage whatever in valiantly saying all is great, when it clearly is not. ]
And who has said that? Certainly not me.
The furtherest I’ve ventured is that no one would have/did (still waiting!) predicted that Labor would be 50/50 at this stage in the cycle, and that the polling performance over the last year has dire messages in it for the government.
169
If someone is to be deported then they need somewhere to be deported to and if they are only an Australian (like most farmers) and not eligible for any foreign citizenship it gets hard. There are few to no places left that have no immigration law and so a repeat of the Hughes governments deportation of people not born in Australia who had been in organisations such as the IWW to Chile (which had no immigration law). There is also the matter of the international laws against leaving people stateless.
GG@169
Those MP comments were completely unAustralian (not a word I would use lightly). If we had a decent media in our country those MPs would have had their reputations torn to shreds.
I think it is reasonable for you to draw a parallel with the bloke last night.
But, getting back to him, he was given a chance to make his case. His case fell at the first hurdle. No rational person can be expected to sympathise with a cause pursued in the way ISIS pursues it. The alleged depredations of the Western powers in the ME do not explain or excuse the targeting of local minority groups, women, foreign aid workers, etc.
The guy proved comprehensively that his cause is unsupportable.
[
Should they also be deported from Australia?
]
GG
Living in NSW is punishment enough. lol
Guytaur I think I first became aware of IS when they crossed into Iraq and started taking territory off the Iraquis. I may of heard of them before in relation to the Syrian conflict but can’t say for certain.
Oh, FFS, stop doing truth is the first casualty of war: the ‘other side’ du jour are the baddies and we are the goodies.
Shia militia (presumably at the behest for what passes as a national government in Bagdhad) are taking non-shia random males into the streets and despatching them with a bullet to the back of the head. By the hundreds. They are doing this now. They are on ‘our’ side.
There has been, for some years now, a situation in Iraq where your brother, your son or your father could have been picked up by Iraqi government goons and jailed, tortured, or disappeared. The West, including our very own MSM, affected not to notice. After all, al-Maliki was our man in Bagdhad was he not? His Government was the apotheosis of our two Iraq Wars, was it not? No wonder Iraqi Sunnis were pissed off. No wonder they let ISIL romp home.
During our three Iraq, and one Afghanistan, wars we have bombed lots of people, including women and children, often eviscerating them, or detaching their arms, legs and heads in the process. But we did not do it deliberately, right? And we did not do it to send a message, right?
There is plenty of evidence on which to base a reasonable argument that the exceptionally high civilian death toll as a result of allied bombing was NOT accidental and WAS intended to be a message. Not that the Australian MSM, including Alberici, has bothered its collective head with that thought. We are the goodies, right? It is automatic thinking, is it not?
We participated in a blockade that led to the premature deaths by hunger and disease of hundreds of thousands of children. This is so well-documented that the only cavil now lies in just how many kids we killed.
The chap should have asked Alberici whether she supports this sort of behaviour.
I doubt that it would have loosened her firm hold of the high moral horse’s reins, but it may just have given her viewers a very small worm of doubt about the moral relativities of all the bastardry that three Iraq wars and one Afghanistan war has spawned.
Alberici is part of an MSM that has systematically and shamelessly sanitised our own death cult results since 1991. See any images of children decapitated by bombs while ingesting our Coco Pops did we? No? It could not have happened, right?
Can you name a single Australian MSM journalist who has written on the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as a direct consequence of our behaviour? No? We have had decades of the uniforms and the civilians and the MSM protecting us (but really themselves) from some hideous truths. Not that most Australians really want to know, I suspect.
Meanwhile, our democracy and our freedoms are being white-anted at a galloping rate. Belatedly some MSM journos realized what the game was, but far too late. They have been tools, not the sharpest tools in the shed and now they have been skewered on their own multi-decadal incompetence. The silly fools managed to embed themselves on the Home Front. Our democracy is failing us. The Fourth Estate has failed us.
ps. There is a large discussion around the ethics of using violence to despatch people, but the simple assumption that the interviewee is the only one who had to answer all the serious questions is, at the very least, a debatable assumption. The interviewer, as a member of a largely supine MSM, has some questions to answer herself.
pps. I do not support rape, decapitation, child murder, the sale of women and girls as slaves, the dismemberment of entire wedding paries, or the systemic starvation of children. I deplore these activities in their own right and where they are used to further other policies.
GG
I commented on Shorten during the Rudd /Gillard wars. I have rarely commented since, or only to restate the obvious.
Shorten is the ALP leader. He is not really cutting through as a popular leader. This might change, but I am not as confident as I was at budget time.
I think the ALP policy on the security legislation and Iraq III was a mistake and a lost opportunity to reinvent themselves.
cyril,
What about those Jihadis who choose a death dedicated to their God because they’ll meet 42 Victorians when they get to heaven.
They are going to be mighty pissed when they discover that ‘virgins” was a simple translation typo.
[Abbott had colour. He is definitely NOT dull. Bonkers yes but dull no.]
“Lying bastard” would be the description I would use, which as far as I’m concerned trumps anything to do with “colour”.
[he difference between you and me is that you seem to think that the guest has a right to “answer” questions any way the guest wishes.]
As soon as the interviewer becomes the focus of the interview its efficacy is lost.
The one single aim of an interview should be to inform the viewer or listener. If it is just a slanging match, then it is pointless.
When you can’t understand what either person is saying because they’re talking over each other (often literally the case on TV, and even more so on radio) the interview is a failure.
If Alberici doesn’t have the nouse to tease information out of a guest, to treat him with respect (yes, the guest has responsibilities, but so does the host) then she is a lousy interviewer.
She had clearly made up her mind that her guest was guilty of something. All she needed him to do was admit it. When he wouldn’t she got shitty.
There is also the cringe factor to consider. Many viewers just don’t like watching two people yelling at each other.
A VERY poor performance. A proper interviewer would have handled the whole thing in a much more skilful and respectful manner, and would have thus elicited more information from the guest.
Which is the point, isn’t it? Who knows the bloke might have had something interesting to say. If Alberici refuses to let the interview proceeed past her obsession with getting him to admit he approves of people being beheaded, then don’t have the interview.
I agree. Sarah Ferguson or Kerry O’Brien would have handled the situation professionally. They wouldn’t have lost their cool and fed the perception that Australians are demonizing Muslims.
The guest harmed his credibility. His refusal to give a Yes/No answer on the merits of decapitation make him look callous and stubborn. My guess is that he is so fed up with the Australian media and public expecting him and other Muslims to repent for their tangential association with killers who identify as Muslim that he decided to stage a protest. The protest was ill-considered.
BB,
Which is why you have to suspect a media set up.
Take one part Budget Cut, two parts this show is about to be axed and three parts we need a good controversy to further my career here and voila, “instant outrage”.
Tony Abbott’s even supporting her.
GG
Especially if the 42 Victorians are Collingwood supporters.
Jesus H. Christ this Abbott is a “survive the day” man, par excellence…
[3AW host Neil Mitchell asked Mr Abbott whether Mr Doureihi’s performance would warrant punishment under proposed laws that would make it illegal to advocate terrorism.
Mr Abbott then drew links to the unrelated case of News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt, who was found to have breached Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act for two columns he published in 2009.
“Well certainly if poor old Andrew Bolt is prosecuted for a mild, relatively mild piece … if we are looking for objectionable speech, the kind of stuff we’re hearing from Hizb ut-Tahrir is infinitely more objectionable than anything you’d ever hear from Andrew Bolt,” Mr Abbott replied.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-backs-lateline-host-emma-alberici-over-fiery-hizb-uttahrir-interview-20141009-113fxd.html#ixzz3Fc3IT6UG ]
“Poor old Andrew Bolt” eh? Andrew Bolt printed lies about the people he was writing, using them to bolster an argument that had no merit once the lies were uncovered.
Abbott, on a little while ago, was saying that Australian law was too precious, too politically correct. He said that people should have the right to offend others, untramelled by the threat of legal action.
Now he wants to haul them up before the same laws that he wanted to abolish a few months ago. He wants to “red card” people so they can’t speak their minds. This creature will say anything, contradict any previous utterance or brain fart, just to get through an interview.
Ironically, one of his given reasons for dropping the reforms to 18C was that he didn’t want to upset Muslims. Now he speculate about using those same laws – and other serious measures – against them.
He’s all over the shop, always has been. That the media just lets him rave on, printing each contradiction as if there is not history or context to what he’s saying, is an utter disgrace.
The got rid of him from the seminary for being, basically, a rabble-rousing deadshit, more interested in wrecking the joint than supporting it. If only the voters could see what they have done and politically despatch him in the same way.
[Tony Abbott’s even supporting her.]
It will not do the ABC any good. Haven’t they learned anything yet?
They gave in to News Ltd. They’re giving in to the Liberals. None of it will work. The hard men of the Reactionaries will just see this as a sign of weakness.
Any interview that ends up as a shit fight, with people yelling at each other, is utterly pointless, unproductive and a complete failure.
Wow! There’s even a diagram!
Yet another complete statement of the bleedin’ obvious from our blessed media:
[Missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 may have spiralled out of control
Missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 may have spiralled out of control into the Indian Ocean as its engines ran out of fuel, end-of-flight simulators have shown.
The latest update on the fate of the doomed Boeing, which disappeared in March, has provided a glimpse into the possible last moments of the 239 passengers and crew on board.
An image obtained from Geoscience Australia shows the MH370 search area encompassing the seabed on and around Broken Ridge, an extensive linear, mountainous sea floor structure that once formed the margin between two geological plates.
An image obtained from Geoscience Australia shows the MH370 search area encompassing the seabed on and around Broken Ridge, an extensive linear, mountainous sea floor structure that once formed the margin between two geological plates.
“The simulator activities involved fuel exhaustion of the right engine followed by flameout of the left engine with no control inputs,” the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report released on Wednesday said.
“This scenario resulted in the aircraft entering a descending spiralling low bank angle left turn and the aircraft entering the water in a relatively short distance after the last engine flameout.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/mh370-may-have-descended-spiralled-into-southern-indian-ocean-20141009-113eaa.html#ixzz3Fc6xY9Vt ]
Gee, what an insight! First one engine runs out of fuel, and then the other… after thousands of kilometres flight. Truly a profound conclusion.
Apart from the stupidity of the subject matter, articles like this serve to reinforce the notion that finding MH-370 is a foregone conclusion, arising from an incontrovertible set of successively narrowing events (as also reported in the media… and all of them wrong so far) resulting in an inevitable conclusion.
BB@187
[ It will not do the ABC any good. Haven’t they learned anything yet? ]
I ask myself the same thing constantly. How can they still not get it?
[ Any interview that ends up as a shit fight, with people yelling at each other, is utterly pointless, unproductive and a complete failure. ]
I agree. What a shambles of an interview! Alberici tried a cheap shot (getting her guest to give a “gotcha” answer to her first question) and then apparently had nowhere to go when he refused to play ball.
She was apparently completely unprepared for any answer except a humble “yes”. If she comes to an interview so unprepared, and can’t think on her feet fast enough to handle a situation like this then what is she there for?
I don’t agree that Labor would have damaged its election chances by making a principled, forceful, articulate argument against military intervention in Iraq.
Voters know how counterproductive military intervention was the last time. They would have been receptive to an argument against doubling down on the failed strategies of the past. It would have been possible to argue that the chaos in Iraq is the result of failed politics, and there is no good plan on the table for improving Iraq’s politics. Killing people and blowing stuff up will not solve the problems created by the invasion and occupation, and the problems which existed before the invasion. The place needs vast, well-coordinated, community-led processes of political development. If the air strikes were coupled with an international commitment to fund such a process in Iraq, they could have merit. But that isn’t what the US is doing. It’s a business-as-usual kneejerk response which will merely perpetuate the cycle of violence. Even if ISIS is ‘degraded’, some other violent group will take its place.
According to the polls only a slight majority (low 50s) of Australians support the air strikes. And that’s with bipartisan backing! If Labor had made a persuasive case against intervention, and attacked the Government for wars which make us less safe and which do nothing to improve Iraq’s broken politics, this would be an unpopular war.
Public opinion can be shaped on these things. It isn’t fixed. Most people don’t have a strong view on geopolitical affairs. They take their cues from their preferred political leaders. If the Labor leader were against the war, most Labor voters would be against the war.
Sometimes Labor just needs to grow a pair and do what is right.
I was waiting for this (from The Australian, no link):
[TREASURER Joe Hockey says Labor should prove its bipartisanship on the deployment of troops to Iraq by passing the government’s budget measures.
BUT Prime Minister Tony Abbott isn’t backing his treasurer’s position, distancing himself from the comments while thanking Labor for its support on national security.]
Two take-out points:
1. Just WHAT have co-payments and pension reductions got to do with bombing the crap out of terrorists 10,000 kilometres away?
2. If Tony Abbott ever says he’s your friend, start running (this means YOU, Joe).
Boerwar it may be rare we agreed but I agree completely with your post which is also well written.
I think some who are simpleminded just can’t do analysis and perhaps neither can Emma so they stick to what they thought before hand.
[ If she comes to an interview so unprepared, and can’t think on her feet fast enough to handle a situation like this then what is she there for?]
Apparently it appeals to a certain segment of society including Abbott, who like their slogans short and simple ‘with us or against us’ type stuff and will twist and distort any answer other than fully support 100% to suit their view.
Nicholas,
Sorry, but the facts don’t seem to support your assertions:
From the recent Galaxy poll:
“Further questions found 62% support for Australian involvement in air strikes against Islamic State, with 21% opposed, and 75% considering the threat of a terrorist attack on Australian soil to be “real”, versus 16% who thought otherwise”.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/10/04/galaxy-51-49-to-labor/
There is nothing wrong with Labor being in tune with popular opinion.
[Abbott is desperate. He is asking Labor not to play politics on the GP tax as he plays politics.]
Dont cut any deals with him on core principles.Let him rot with his incompetent agenda – which is essentially a raft of unworkable brainfarts from the IPA.
Abbott Recoveryt
_________Abbott’s steady recovery in the polls is evidently related to the war in Iraq and terrorism
PMs always have an advantage over all others when such subjects are raised…they can pose as the national defender/saviour
The conserrvativces specialise in all this…Menzies was a chanmpion at this as were some others too Oppositions leaders are always at a big disadvantage as was Calwell in 1966
Shorten is hardly a charismatic leader a la Whitlam ,so he to0 is at a disadvantage …personality as perceived by the voters does matter to many silly voters …who are legion…over policy
some voters choose like they are choosing a contestent in some quiz show
When the popular opinion is a product of cowardly bipartisan agreement, and if the opinion supports a bad policfy, then yes, there is everything wrong with Labor abrogating its responsibility to serve the national interest. Particularly on an issue with life and death implications.
In the eyes of some, Shorten is dull, boring and predictable. These are the virtues that will get him over the line as our next PM.
GG
‘popular opinion’
Gimme a break.
There was a time when Labor helped form popular opinion by taking a principled stand on the Vietnam War.
Shorten should have set some tests for Abbott to pass before Labor would consider supporting the war. Some examples:
(1) Could the Prime Minister explain to the Australian people when the war would be considered to be finished?
(2) Could the Prime Minister explain the total cost of the war to the Australian people?
(3) Would the Prime Minister allow a vote on the war in both houses?
(4) Would the Prime Minister guarantee an annual report on the cost of the war and detail its outcomes?
(5) Would the Prime Minister provide total bipartisan information on all aspects of the war at all times?
(6) Would the Prime Minister guarantee that there would not be mission creep?
(7) Would the Prime Minister guarantee that the war budget would not be at the cost of the disabled, the poor, the sick and the elderly?
etc, etc, etc.
Instead we got a supine, mini-me, Abbott Lite.
This is a great story http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/10/9/family-business/amazing-sue-ismiel-and-her-daughters?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=945789&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=
So much in it. Poor migrants from Syria. Daughter who speaks no English ends up creating a product that gets a great business going. Her 3 daughters one by one join the business which now turns over $40M / year, half in exports.
Oh… they also happen to be Moslem and not a single bomb or beheading in the story. 😀
Good luck to them!