The BludgerTrack pendulum swings back to Labor this week following moves away from the Coalition in both Newspoll and Essential Research – although not Roy Morgan, which was little changed on what for it was an unusually strong result for the Coalition a fortnight ago. Newspoll in particular was a surprise packet, but it should be noted that Labor once again appeared to get the better of rounding on its two-party result. If a simple application of 2013 election flows is made to Newspoll’s rounded primary vote numbers, the result that comes out is 52-48 rather than 53-47. Even so, Newspoll has driven a shift of 1.0% on the BludgerTrack two-party preferred and caused six seats to flip on the seat projection – two in New South Wales, and one each in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia.
I say “moves away from the Coalition” rather than “moves towards Labor” advisedly, because this particular crop of polling actually found a degree of softness for both major parties. Both are down on the primary vote, the balance being absorbed by the Greens and especially “others”. The “others” result from Essential this week was at an equal high since it began reporting Palmer United separately last November. Newspoll’s didn’t change, but it was high in absolute terms – something it’s been making a habit of lately, as Kevin Bonham explains.
The other manifestation of collective major party weakness came from Newspoll’s leadership ratings, which have caused fairly substantial shifts to the relevant BludgerTrack readings. The uptick to Tony Abbott that was showing up in recent weeks has well and truly been blunted, and a weak result for Bill Shorten has also caused his upward trend towards parity on net approval to disappear. With both leaders down on net satisfaction to about the same degree compared with last week, there is little change this week on preferred prime minister.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/matthew-guy-backflip-spares-gough-whitlams-kew-birthplace-from-demolition-20141023-11al6q.html
briefly
There’s no condescension from me. As best I know it, I aim to achieve insight, ideally in collaboration with others. We are all afflicted with partial insight,and the best that those of us with honest intent and a passion for humanity can do is to seek to share what we suppose are insights with our fellows, and where we can, bear them up so that together, we may take another step together.
I care not for the culture of parsons, but along with Donne all those years ago, I do hear the bell tolling for me.
Joe Hockey has got the double: jobs being lost (not just “at risk”) in renewable energy
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-23/wind-turbine-producer-axes-100-jobs-after-ret-changes/5835516
And power prices falling hardly at all.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-23/electricity-prices-did-not-fall-as-much-as-expected/5835526
High prices, low jobs. Nice work, Joe! Next we will get high debt and low growth. You can have it all with Liberal economic management.
raaraa@751
RE demolition of Whitlams house.
And whack up a heap of sh-t like whats next door.
Here is Nicholas ‘explaining’ the Greens’ approach:
[Defining Australia’s security needs can result in many different possibilities. This is a task which defies and divides even the most experienced experts. Your concept of what a well-equipped ADF would look like and how to pay for it is one of many. Nobody knows which one is best.]
He openly admits that the Greens do not have a clue about Australia’s defence needs. Let me repeat, [Nobody knows which one is best….]
In the interim the Greens always oppose every single defence acquisition. The logical conclusion is that if we followed the Greens’ advice on this matter we would end up with no equipment at all.
Martin B says
[(1) I have provided a quote and link from Ludlam about his support for disarmament. It is in the Greens policy statement.
The quote from Ludlam says that conflict resolution should be based on disarmament.
It does not say that the ADF should be disarmed.
It’s good you can quote but perhaps you should learn to read.]
(1) Note the persistent attempt by Greens posters to personally denigrate anyone who questions them on their defence policy.
(2) Note the abysmal failure by Martin B and any other Greens to explain just what defence acquistions and defence decommisions the Greens DO support, if any.
(3) Note that Nicholas says that the answer to this is ‘Nobody knows’. That should comfort Australian voters when this is explained to them in the next election. Fran has said it means no airforce and no navy. Well, that should comfort the Australian voters at the next election. Martin B simply refuses to answer the question at all. That should comfort the Australian voters as well. Astrobleme just goes into some sort of altered mind state when challenged on this issue. But there is one thing the Greens will not hector Australian voters with at the next election: their ‘Peace and Security’ policy.
(4) Note the consistent and pervasive approach by the Greens supports of denigrating ANY and ALL defence acquisitions. The Greens have never supported any specific defence acquisition.
(5) Note that the Greens have not included any defence spending in their so called committment to a balanced budget over the business cycle. Meanwhile they boast about the transparency of their budgetting process, bragging that it is ‘fully costed’.
(6) Note, finally, that the Greens are going to the next election, during a time of war, with a commitment to ‘disarmament’. Martin B explains that this is not really ‘disarmament’, but is ‘disarmament’ in the context of ‘conflict resolution’. The latter is, naturally, not explained by the Greens. I assume that it means that as soon as the Iraq War Three is over, and the conflict is resolved, the Greens will disarm Australia.
But who knows?
One thing is certain, the Greens will run a mile from exposing the truth to the people who will judge them in the election on this farrago of confused nonsense.
Boerwar, I look forward to finding out how many more different ways you can state your thesis.
It’s like Groundhog Day here.
Last night at the secret Greens cabal, we practised welcoming our new Asian Overlords…
At the same time we hunted down the rat who had blabbed our secret plans to Boerwar, and we took them aside and we said….”Shhhhh…SECRET plans…”
Has someone fed the Crikey hamster yet?
Astrobleme@759
I’ll bet the rat didn’t understand them any better than most of the Green posters here, so it’s no surprise Boerwar might be a little confused.
New Matilda heaps praise on its lawyers:
[New Matilda is represented by Sydney law firm Banki Haddock Fiora, and Sandy Dawson SC of Banco Chambers.
New Matilda offers our sincere thanks to our amazing legal team – Sandy, Kate, Tim and Eli, and to the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which helped facilitate the relationship.]
There really should be more of this kind of adulation published.
Player One
[I’ll bet the rat didn’t understand them any better than most of the Green posters here, so it’s no surprise Boerwar might be a little confused.]
Well it was an Asian Black Rat…
part of our secret plan to spread Bubonic plague…
Ohhh Crap, let the cat out of the bag….
BW
What the hell is wrong with the greens defence policy.
I just read it and the rather odd ALP Defence Platform.
The Greens is clear. Defence acquisitions for defence and ones that do not rely on other nations. What in the name of dog is wring with that,
Better than the ALP’s congo line of **** to quote a former leader.
[Will Eddie Obeid sue for a likeness to “diamond” Joe Quimby? Will our AG Brandis sue for a likeness to Lionel Hutz? Tony Abbott would not sue for any likeness to Bart Simpson. He’d be flattered instead.]
Jimmy Stewart and James Cagney impersonators breathe a sigh of relief as they suddenly remember they’re both dead.
My own life-long impersonation of someone who knows what he’s talking about is also safe, as I cannot sue myself.
BW
[Fran has said it means no airforce and no navy.]
That’s simply not true. All I’ve said was that in practice, we don’t require right now anything going beyond the sorts of things impied by Law of the Sea, rescue, evacuation and recovery and so forth. What we need is a clear-eyed assessment of actual challenges and based on that, what responses are feasible.
When one chooses insurance, once insures against risks that are palpable even if highly unlikely, and one scales one’s insurance with the probability of the risk manifesting and the potential exposure costs in mind.
On our current timeline, there are no risks that would leave a useful role for offensive aircraft and submarines. Perfectly conventional air and marine craft are going to be adequate.
That might change, but we’d better hope it doesn’t because we could acquire and maintain nothing like the resources we’d need to parry a serious threat from our militarily significant near neighbours. We are bound to do what we can to ensure that no threats arise.
Is that a guarantee that no threats will ever arise? No. Is there anything better as a strategy in NPV terms? No, on the best current evidence, and if that evidence changes, let’s re-evaluate. Reflexively saying “we have to have submarines/the best fighter craft or some other bit of kit” to parry potential threats keep our major ally happy is just stupid. Every nation state does that, and the only winners are the arms companies of the world, which, unsurprisingly, back rightwing law and order and anti-equity regimes everywhere.
Boerwar, why are you assuming that every Green who posts hear speaks for the Greens? I am making my own observations about the imprecision and great variation in expert assessments of defence priorities. If you want to know what kinds of capabilities the Green parliamentarians consider necessary for Australia’s defensive needs, you should ask them. Have you emailed any of them?
Another observation of mine is that defence acquisitions must be considered in the context of our tax revenues and our public priorities outside defence. If our total tax take were significantly increased by taxing resource extraction, environmental damage, and economic rents (unearned income) more heavily, and by closing tax loopholes exploited by high net worth individuals and large corporations, we could increase our national wellbeing through adequately resourced and better organized public goods. If, after doing this, we have revenues to spare for high value acquisitions which meet Australia’s defensive needs, the case for extra defence spending would be much stronger than it is now.
OMFG! Groundhog day doesn’t cover it!!
posts here
[Another observation of mine is that defence acquisitions must be considered in the context of our tax revenues and our public priorities outside defence. If our total tax take were significantly increased by taxing resource extraction, environmental damage, and economic rents (unearned income) more heavily, and by closing tax loopholes exploited by high net worth individuals and large corporations, we could increase our national wellbeing through adequately resourced and better organized public goods. If, after doing this, we have revenues to spare for high value acquisitions which meet Australia’s defensive needs, the case for extra defence spending would be much stronger than it is now.]
Isn’t that a bit like furnishing your house and buying a good TV and not bothering to buy a front door with a lock?
752
Fran Barlow
Fran, my remarks were not aimed at you, not at all. They’re meant to add to the discussion. I think they’re fair comment too.
Only if Australia had zero defensive capabilities at present. Since that isn’t the case: no.
Not sure why we should wave through defence acquisitions whose main value is to defence contractors, not to Australia’s defensive needs.
BK, you are just so right about that magnificent David Pope cartoon. It sums up so superbly our ‘adult’ PM and his intelligent approach to the big issues.
How did we sink so low? And how do we get out of this mess?
Many thanks again, BK, for the massive effort you put in each morning. Reading your links is an important part of my day – even if a lot of them just depress me.
WWP
[Isn’t that a bit like furnishing your house and buying a good TV and not bothering to buy a front door with a lock?]
No.
BW
Thanks to you niggling I have finally go of my excessively large backside and read or at least skimmeed the disorganised drivel that is the ALP defence platform.
No wonder we lost the election. How in the name of dog can a party hope to win a goldfish on a ramble such as that.
What I will say is that if Whitlam had has the misfortune to read it he would NOT have agreed with more than two words of it (the and and). It is RW drivel of the worst kind. RW hammer wrapped up in left wing waffle.
briefly
[Fran, my remarks were not aimed at you, not at all. They’re meant to add to the discussion. I think they’re fair comment too.]
If they are fair, it doesn’t matter if they were aimed at me. You did cite my words.
However that may be, my observations stand. I am driven by a passion to understand my fellows, and how they come to make the choices that they do, and the extent to which these acts really are or are not choices in the sense we normally understand the term. I hope in the course of the journey to insight, to find others who value it as I do and to share with them what seems apt and needed. It ought to go without saying that a just world in which people are empowered and engaged in their communities and governance — authentic communities — are more likely to nurture insight more generally and provide the foundations for that condition never to be reversed.
It’s as simple as that.
daretotread@737
That whole post is bizarre but I will mention just the first of your two points.
1. Trots had their own political sects/nano-parties which often ran candidates thereby making them ineligible to be ALP members under party rules. But that did not stop them from pursuing their ‘entrist strategy’ to infiltrate the ALP with the intention to win converts. Mostly they were quite mad.
2. I was unaware Bill Hartley was a unionist, but he started off as a Young Lib! The biggest failing of Hartley was the authoritarian nature of him and his group who ruthlessly expelled anyone who voiced dissent. The last straw was the Gawne, Thorne and Matthews expulsions triggered by that trio having to circulate a mildly critical letter to other branches.
You are very light on facts, come up with some amazing classifications and completely overlook the fact that many people fitted in two or more of your categories.
Jesus Christ! NEVER argue with Greens or Boerwar. Neither of them EVER give up! Throw Fran into the mix and it’s a recipe for complete rusty razor blade territory.
[(1) Note the persistent attempt by Greens posters to personally denigrate anyone who questions them on their defence policy.]
That’s not personal denigration. I pointed out – quite correctly – that you are wilfully and persistently misrepresenting Greens’ statements.
[Martin B explains that this is not really ‘disarmament’, but is ‘disarmament’ in the context of ‘conflict resolution’.]
Because. That’s. What. Ludlam. Said.
[The latter is, naturally, not explained by the Greens.]
It’s explained perfectly well: conflict resolution should be based on UN Charter principles: mediation and disarmament, with armed intervention under UN auspices only as a last resort. It’s quite straightforward if you actually read the statement and the documents to which it refers (ie the UN Charter).
[I assume]
Yes. Yes, you do.
http://www.alp.org.au/cm26_020913
dtt, what’s not to like?
[BK
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 7:27 am | PERMALINK
Good morning Dawn Patrollers.
Now it’s Prissy Pyne doing the (minor) backflip.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/government-backs-down-on-some-higher-education-reforms-20141023-11asnr.html ]
This is another in a long line of stories that claims the government is willing to make a few unimportant concessions in return for convincing PUP/independents/Labor/Green support to pass its unfair budget measures.
Another story at the moment is about getting Labor to reduce the renewable energy target.
The rationale seems to be that enough recalcitrant senators will take the bait and see the goodness in the government’s plans.
Unfortunately for the government, the senators can generally see through this ploy.
[743
Bushfire Bill
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 6:31 am | PERMALINK
Let me get this right…
Michael Zihaf-Bibeau, the chap who went crazy in the Canadian parliament house yesterday had a recrod as long as your arm for assault and weapons offences, took drugs, said he heard voices, particularly the Devil, and all his friends thought he was spooky.
So Abbott forgets all this and concentrates on the bit that says he’s also a Muslim to justify the proposition that what’s bad for Ottawa is bad for Australia.
Let us also not forget that the shooter was on a watch list in Canada. He had actually had his passport confiscated because he wanted to go and kill people in the Middle East. So when he couldn’t do that he….
Too stupid for words.]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ottawa-killer-had-long-record-stephen-harper-says-canada-will-never-be-intimidated/story-e6frg6so-1227100302839
Bloody spot on!! Even the Canadian politicians are saying it was a lone nut job. Simple as that!!
Good Morning
Regarding Lachlan Murdoch. What he said is correct but where was he to challenge when it counted before the laws were passed?
I thus conclude its lip service.
[777
Fran Barlow
…I hope in the course of the journey to insight, to find others who value it as I do and to share with them what seems apt and needed…]
Beautifully put.
Slip up from pyne –
[ ‘I want her to be PM for 10 years’: Christopher Pyne slips up while playing down Julie Bishop as potential leader ]
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/i-want-her-to-be-pm-for-10-years-christopher-pyne-slips-up-while-playing-down-julie-bishop-as-potential-leader-20141024-11ax6k.html#ixzz3H0nPK6p9
Did I just hear that when Abbott spoke to Harper, Harper had to console a sobbing Abbott who wanted the terrorist attack to happen here?
Last night’s Clarke and Dawe with a horse racing theme. Funny
http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/clarkeanddawe/
[Not sure why we should wave through defence acquisitions whose main value is to defence contractors, not to Australia’s defensive needs.]
I’m not sure you have made the case this is happening?
787
[WeWantPaul
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 10:00 am | PERMALINK
Did I just hear that when Abbott spoke to Harper, Harper had to console a sobbing Abbott who wanted the terrorist attack to happen here?]
Yet I am of fhe view that a terror act in Oz, would indicate a failure of govt to protect
Surprise, surprise. Not.
[Seven weeks after dramatically quitting State Parliament, former treasurer Troy Buswell has rejoined the private sector.
Mr Buswell has been hired by civil and mining contractor Brierty as strategic development manager on a part-time basis. Brierty staff were told about the appointment late yesterday.]
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25337143/sharp-buswell-back-in-private-sector/
Bemused
For crying out loud of course people fit into several categories. This is too damn obvious even to bother stating. I stand by my categories as a general statement of the various groups in the ALP. I will admit that because I was no in the rights or unity factions I have a less thorough grasp of the various subgroups.
You are of course quite WRONG about the Trots who in the 70s were actively infiltrating Labor, especially Young Labor. They were more active in the UK than here but nevertheless were a significant (and quite disruptive) element in the labor movement.
The whole POINT of my long post was that the left wing of the party (about 20% at a rough guess) has migrated to the Greens and another 20% (the conservative Catholics) has migrated to the LNP.
Labor in 1970 had 10 broad social cohorts who formed its core. About half have left.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/kobane-peshmerga-turkey-20141023123750537963.html
[The Turkish president has said he is expecting 200 Kurdish Peshmerga fighters will head from Iraq to the besieged Syrian town of Kobane through Turkey after authorities agreed their passage.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday that he had learned of the agreement to send the fighters, while Kurdish authorities in Iraq said preparations were ongoing for the deployment.
“I have learned that they finally reached agreement on a figure of 200,” he said during a visit to Latvia.
A senior Iraqi Kurdish official was meanwhile quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying that the fighters would be equipped with heavier weapons than those being used by fighters already in Kobane.
The Peshmerga fighters are being sent to Kobane to fight ISIL, which has for weeks pressed an offensive to capture the town in the face of an intense, US-led bombing campaign.
US central command said it launched four attacks on Kobane over Wednesday and Thursday, destroying ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL command and control centre. It also attacked ISIL oil-holding tanks East of Deir Ezzor.]
Maybe the Kurds will be allowed to repel IS at Kobane. I wonder if they will be allowed to take the contest beyond that and into the rest of Kurdish Syria….
[Yet I am of fhe view that a terror act in Oz, would indicate a failure of govt to protect]
I am too, but it doesn’t change my view that Abbott desperately wants one. ASIO / Fed Police etc probably already have the next tranche of funding / stupid draconian laws ready to be rushed through parliament in a national emergency sitting.
Abbott would milk it like nothing on earth.
WWP
I have not read Labor’s defence policy like most Australians. Instead I respect Labor on defence by their actions by putting a good minister in charge like Stephen Smith.
Ditto my opinion for the LNP doing its defence policy.
With the Greens I cannot do this as the have not been in government to see.
However I do know that if BW’s claims are not true as the politicians in the Greens would want to be a government one day.
[Ottawa: The gunman in Wednesday’s attack on Canada’s capital acted alone and, despite a criminal record, had no apparent links to a convert to Islam who killed a soldier in Quebec earlier in the week, police said on Thursday.
Wednesday’s gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, was a Canadian who may also have held Libyan citizenship, said Bob Paulson, commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).]
http://www.theage.com.au/world/canadian-police-see-no-apparent-links-in-quebec-ottawa-attacks-20141024-11az49.html
victoria
On Lateline last night Tony Jones had on a Canadian politician. Jones tried his hardest to make the narrative about terror. The Canadian pollie kept shutting him down.
I was very impressed at how he did it too. Very polite.
“@AP: BREAKING: EU leaders agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030.”
guytaur
I might chase up LLine and watch it myself. It would appear that our msm including the ABC are towing the “terrorist” narrative
Brifly
Every word other than “the” and “and”.
To start: Endless waffle at the beginning about achievements. Yep “noice” but if it cannot be said in five punchy paragraphs it does not belong. No one wants to read a novel before getting to the policy.
Point 11 is OK although morally I am not qute sure about “economic interests”
Point 12: Us alliance as stop no one is an immediate off put and makes me hate it. I might not have minded if it was buried discreetly at point 10 but up front as a flag waver yuck and dangerous.
the remaining 190 points should be shortened to perhaps 20 or 30 that actually say what they mean
Commitment to the five powers defence strategy is fundamentally stupid. It is the triple alliance of 2014 and just as likely to lead to WWIII as was the Triple Alliance of 1914. We are paying the price for this stupidity now with collapse of our exports to China.