Only very slight movements on BludgerTrack this week, Labor’s strong showing in Newspoll having been dampened a little by a relatively weak result from Morgan. The seat projection is unchanged in aggregate, although the Coalition is up a seat in Victoria and down one in Tasmania. Palmer United has once again reached a new low. There’s quite a bit more movement on the personal ratings on the back of this week’s Newspoll numbers, which continue to show Tony Abbott’s net approval heading south with some velocity, and Bill Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister solidifying.
Its Friday – timesheets!
I once read this from David Thorn on why he thinks everyone mindlessly does timesheets.
[five monkeys were placed in a room with a banana at the top of a set of stairs. As one monkey attempted to climb the stairs, all of the monkeys were sprayed with jets of cold water. A second monkey made an attempt and again the monkeys were sprayed. No more monkeys attempted to climb the stairs. One of the monkeys was then removed from the room and replaced with a new monkey. New monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs but to its surprise, it was attacked by the other monkeys. Another of the original monkeys was replaced and the newcomer was also attacked when he attempted to climb the stairs. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Replacing a third original monkey with a new one, it headed for the stairs and was attacked as well. Half of the monkeys that attacked him had no idea why. After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, none had ever been sprayed with cold water but all stayed the f&ck away from the stairs.]
Zoomster – Upwards of 90% to 95% of people arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees. If that’s the case, and they could be processed in Indonesia, that would disrupt the people smuggler business model to the point where it becomes unprofitable.
http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MythBusterJuly2013FINAL.pdf
Tristan Edit on “Tony Abbott’s Julia Gillard moment”:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/12/5/policy-politics/tony-abbotts-julia-gillard-moment?utm_source=exact
imacca @ 1150 – isn’t that the truth! Besides my policy suggestions are strictly for Labor Party eyes only 😛
The “humane” solution would be to process people in Indonesia. This is I believe closest to the policy Palmer advocates and Fraser implemented.
If you were concerned about deaths at sea you could implement the above policy with one of flying any arrivals on Australian shores claiming asylum to Indonesia to be processed there. This could even accommodate arrivals from Sri Lanka (although it wouldn’t stop drownings in the case of Sri Lankans..
[Your original statement was that treating asylum seekers more humanely was a vote winner.]
No it wasn’t.
Maybe you should go back and reread everything without your “vote winner/vote loser” glasses on.
What i’m saying may be related to winning votes but it isn’t specifically about what policy does or doesn’t win them.
Its more general than that.
The ALP reacted to the slogan and the issue, and their reactions showed a lack of leadership and also generated actual ongoing problems for them further down the line.
It lacked the ability to create a reasonably accurate context for why people seek asylum, surrendered the initiative to the opposition and then allowed that to be the trend of the rest of Rudd’s initial PMship. This also led to further problems for Julia Gillard’s govt.
Jimmy
1. I doubt that the same number would be successful if they were processed by the UN.
2. Even if they were —
a. It’s quicker to come straight to Australia and not spend time in a camp.
b. You’ve still got at least 5% who are going to risk it.
B.C. @ 1155 – very well put. Not only that, but the Australian Navy could “turn back” (when in reality they would take the refugees on board and take them back to the processing centre in Indonesia) the boats to deter any further attempts at going by boat.
Sorry
That should read:
The ALP reacted to the slogan and the oppositions framing of the issue,
I am distressed by the passing of the Asylum Seeker legislation. The last thing a sociopathic freak like Morrison needs is more power over helpless women and kids.
1. I think this is a very flawed argument to make, especially without evidence. I’d imagine that Australia would have tougher requirements to be found to be a genuine refugee than the UN.
2a. It might be quicker, but it’s also a lot riskier, and if we implemented the style of “turn back” policy I suggested at 1158, it would also be unrewarding.
2b. that remaining 5% is unlikely to be very profitable for people smugglers as it will increase the price exorbitantly of the journey.
My post at 1161 is directed to Zoomster
Puff @ 1160 – I am distressed by the bill that was passed as well. My respect for Xenophon has been utterly destroyed.
And can someone remind me again why we need to stop the boats?
to keep the followers of pauline happy:-)
Fisher by-election post. I might pretty it up with a map and tables later if I get time.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/12/05/fisher-by-election-preview/
Final local 7 30 with Quentin Dempster tonight (Sydney).
Brilliant journo, how the hell can ABC lose this bloke (and local editions) and keep such blowhards as Uhhlman etc.
Go postal Quentin.
it looks like the Lying Friar is going to backflip on Victorian infrastructure funding.
And Neil Mitchell may prove a more effective CoS
[Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP
Gay Alcorn
Friday 5 December 2014 18.33 AEST
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+
Shares
2
Comments
3
Tony Abbott appears to be softening his insistence that the $3bn in federal funding earmarked for Melbourne’s East West Link cannot be used for any other project, after an extraordinary lunch held on Friday to discuss infrastructure.
The South Melbourne lunch was attended by the prime minister, the federal treasurer, Joe Hockey, the Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, the Victorian treasurer, Tim Pallas, and the Victorian opposition leader, Matthew Guy, the Age reported. It was reportedly organised by the radio broadcaster Neil Mitchell.
Before last Saturday’s election Abbott declared it a “referendum” on the cross-city toll road and tunnel project, which Labor promised it would axe. Abbott has consistently said that the $3bn promised for the link could not be used for any other purpose and that the commonwealth would not fund public transport projects such as commuter rail.
Victorian Labor’s transport priorities are a Melbourne CBD rail project and the removal of 50 dangerous level crossings.
On Friday, Abbott said he would look at ideas proposed by Victoria’s new government “on their merit”.]
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/dec/05/tony-abbott-and-daniel-andrews-talk-east-west-link-funding-as-count-continues?utm_content=bufferd9a3a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
jules – well most importantly it is a deadly journey that has seen refugees die at sea. But also, it is a phenomenon that is electoral poison which makes it impossible for Labor to implement a humane policy response.
jules
because the Australian people made it very clear when refugees drowned off Christmas Island that they found that unacceptable.
As indeed I do. 300 deaths (minimum) a year is a high price to pay.
[1134
JimmyDoyle
Nicholas – I think there’s some evidence that the boats issues played some role in the 2001 and 2013 elections. They certainly weren’t the only issues at either election, but in the case of the latter, it was the abrogation by Labor of it’s duty to lead the country in the morally good direction that led to the inhumane system we currently have.]
The proposition that Labor are morally culpable – or have been in abrogation of their “duty” – in relation to asylum-seekers is easy to make but is really beside the point. It’s one of those issues where Labor cannot win. Some voters trust the Greens and rather more trust the LNP in this space. Too few trust Labor on the issue and they have been belted mercilessly with impunity all along the way. There are no gains to be made by Labor here…only further losses.
Labor’s opponents are well aware of this, which is why they are so relentlessly willing to politicise the recurring tragedies that asylum-seekers represent. The LNP trade on fear. The Greens trade on moral indignation. These are the poles and Labor is stuck between them. No matter which way it moves, Labor will lose.
Of course, if we could take the politics out of the equation, everything would be so easy. We could deal with asylum-seekers as individuals and ensure that their human and legal rights are exercised. Sad to say, as with so many other things, the politics is ingrained.
By coincidence, one of the enduring memories I have is of Senator Jim McKiernan, a self-consciously and vocally leftist Senator from WA (and a one-time lover of Bronwyn Bishop) introducing the relevant bills and arguing in favour of the mandatory detention of asylum-seekers….Day of shame, thought I. Turns out, it was just the first of many.
briefly @ 1171 – I may disagree with your argument, but I’m sympathetic to it.
briefly – I agree with what Jules said – I think Labor ceded the argument on refugees to the Liberal framing of the issue, just as they did on the carbon price.
Labor ceded the argument on refugees back at the “Tampa” election.
Labor can succeed on the asylum seeker issue by stating the truth and upholding our values. Contrary to know-nothing talking heads in the Australian media, the issue has never been an election decider. The 2001 election was about September 11, not the Tampa. 2013 was about Labor’s long drawn-out implosion on matters unrelated to asylum seekers. The truth will set you free, Labor. State the facts about world refugee flows and refugee resettlement, counter voter ignorance with facts, firmly stay true to the values of a civilized country. You will not lose a general election on an issue which pales into insignificance compared with the economy, jobs, health care, education, and services – the issues which determine who forms government.
The Sussex Street muppets have led Labor astray. The Labor “Brains Trust” needs to be replaced by people with cognitive power. The political problem is in Labor’s head. In the electorate, brutality to asylum seekers polls well but it is not an election decider. Let me repeat: asylum seekers are NOT AN ELECTION DECIDER.
This is one issue on which good policy and good politics neatly align for Labor. When Labor tries to outflank the Coalition in the brutality stakes it makes no electoral gain but sustains severe moral pain.
Much of the ignorance in the electorate persists because Labor has chosen to give bipartisan backing to stupidity. Voters take a lot of cues on policy matters from their politicians. The Coalition needs to be isolated on asylum seekers, not joined at the hip by a supposedly social democratic party. You give the Coalition legitimacy, Labor. You further entrench the voters’ ignorance on the issue. Stop being part of the problem. It would not cost you an election to do the right thing on this.
IMHO, the only way Labor can move back to a humane policy on asylum seekers is if the Liberals also do. If they win Government they might be able to remove some of the worst aspects of the existing arrangements (e.g. TPVs and some of the really cruel measures that seem to exist only to be cruel).
In the later days of the Howard Government and the early days of the Rudd Government policies were softened (partly because of pressure from moderates in the Liberal Party). Then when boat arrivals started increasing the Liberal Party moved to exploit the issue again (including when Turnbull was Opposition Leader). Now there are no moderates left in the Liberal Party it seems.
Rocket Rocket,
[BB 1057 – are you ok?
And does “Danger Dog” have any sense of hearing?]
All back to normal now.
Danger Dog DOES have a hearing deficiency in his left ear, but not too bad (he can hear the sound of car keys, HI’s car coming into the car port, and dog lead tinkles from 11 miles away).
He’s just a cruisey little guy without too many aural hangups, except for combing his whiskers and vacuum cleaners.
By contrast, Bog The Dog (sadly departed in June) could sense thunder rumbles off the coast of Geraldton W.A., and be under the lounge, hiding, in less than 10 milliseconds…
But when it came to attacking Rottweilers, 7 or 8 times his size, Bob was fearless.
Nicholas @ 1175 – I entirely agree. Labor has been too quick to succumb to fake realpolitik than stick to it’s core values.
Zoomster @ 1174 – You’re absolutely right they did. Labor probably thought a unity ticket on refugees with Howard would improve their chances of winning. LOL.
[Your projection is becoming tiresome.]
It’s his blog, as you say, so one would presume you know what to do and where to do it.
Nicholas
OK, so what IS the right thing – letting people drown?
I think you’re all creditting Labor on the one hand with too much intent and on the other, with too little humanity.
My (lived) experience of the Labor party is one which is genuinely trying to find a solution to a difficult problem, one to which there is no easy answers, and trying one policy position on another in an attempt to find one which works.
There’s been a lot of discussion here about the problem, with very few ideas about a solution.
Labor – and the Australian people – don’t find deaths at sea as acceptable. That anyone can is an ongoing source of bemusement to me.
The solutions which avoid deaths at sea AND involve no adverse implications for asylum seekers AND are possible in the Real World are non existent.
If you find deaths at sea acceptable, by all means let’s have onshore processing and a quick release of asylum seekers into the community.
If you don’t, the issue becomes far more complicated.
Labor were on a hiding to nothing on The Boats – reason being trying to be compassionate on the one hand, and strong on the other.
The Liberals have no such problems going for the ‘strong’ – ‘compassionate conservative’ being a nonsense.
However, it was Rudd’s last fling which did the trick as far as a message is concerned, and Morrison treating AS like pariah, also worked.
Labor has nowhere to go on this issue.
The only thing which could come unglued for the conservatives is if some catastrophic even happens which leads to dozens of boats all setting off over an extended period of time.
The problem of Morrison is the longer term, in that sending a few boats back, when a relatively few turn up, is easy.
Let’s see how the RAN could cope with say 20, 50 or more boats setting off at any one time, and Indonesia not being in a mood to help out.
Zoomster – please don’t argue that anyone who objects to Labor’s current position is saying they accept deaths at sea, just so you can win the argument. It’s insulting, and detracts from the quality of the discussion here. I’ve already suggested a solution, so you cannot complain that no one is offering one, especially when you’ve made no effort to do so. I don’t accept your fatalist acceptance that there is no solution to stopping the boats and meeting our moral obligations.
As for your experience of the Labor Party – that has been my experience as well. But as we well know, the leadership likes to stop listening to the party when it’s convenient.
From a Crikey article, I like this quote from Jon Stewart.
[Jon Stewart was earlier this year asked if he liked interviewing politicians. Not at all, he told CBS:
“I despise it, as most sentient creatures, I think, would. Imagine having to interview salespeople. They’re salespeople! They live in a world of denial and conjuring … It is very strange to talk to people who have lost their awareness that that’s what they’re doing.”]
Jimmy I know much of what I’m saying seems like its after the horse has bolted.
[But also, it is a phenomenon that is electoral poison which makes it impossible for Labor to implement a humane policy response.]
Because of Rudd’s lack of leadership 5+ years ago. Are we trapped in the world view we have now because we are simply conditioned to respond to boats full of refos as something to stop? Is it really electoral poison to show humanity or is just something that doesn’t get you extra votes … yet?
[well most importantly it is a deadly journey that has seen refugees die at sea.]
Ok realistically what should our response to this be?
If we seize or destroy boats after a successful journey then that removes safe boats from the pool of boats available to transport asylum seekers and increases costs, attracting organised crime. It means future journeys are more likely to be on cheap boats that are near the end of their service life or badly damaged. That overcrowding is more likely. It increases the chances of a failed journey and increases the number of people at risk if one fails.
That’s just one issue with “stopping the boats” to stop drownings.
Another is simply that its beyond our jurisdiction to stop people getting on boats and traveling here.
So how much of our responsibility is it to stop people risking their lives to come here? I don’t have an answer to this, and I don’t feel its been properly debated or thought thru.
[…and Indonesia not being in a mood to help out.]
Nor the rest of the world if the people on those boats are climate refugees.
We simply do not have the resources to stop a persistent flood of them, which is why a comprehensive regional solution is the only realistic long term option.
Jimmy D
I’ve said the Malaysian solution appears to be the best option – and I must admit reluctance to repost on issues where I’ve made my position clear in the past. I’d rather people ask me to state something rather than reiterate (for the enth time) my preferred position on asylum seekers.
If you’ve missed those gripping missives in the past (or they’ve mercifully faded from your memory) I do apologise.
jules
[Because of Rudd’s lack of leadership 5+ years ago..]
No, because of Tampa. This goes back well before Rudd.
[Another is simply that its beyond our jurisdiction to stop people getting on boats and traveling here.]
So let’s just let it happen, then.
[So how much of our responsibility is it to stop people risking their lives to come here? I don’t have an answer to this, and I don’t feel its been properly debated or thought thru]
I think you’ve missed the last decade plus of Australian politics.
Jules – as Zoomster said, refugees drowning off Christmas Island has been deemed unacceptable by the Australia public. And if we follow your logic of allowing sea-worthy vessels to leave Australia after dropping off a load of refugees, then we might as well start building the damn things and giving them to the people smugglers, just to make sure they get here safely. Plainly, a silly argument to make. As Just Me said, a regional solution is the best option.
1178
JimmyDoyle
Don’t be too quick to succumb to the G’s, JD. Asylum-seekers are simply an instrument for them. First they use it beat Labor; and then, after working up a righteous sweat, they use it to fan themselves.
Zoomster @ 1186 – fair enough. Sorry I missed those posts.
poroti
I find it very difficult to avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question.
When I first started in politics, I thought this would be a fatal impediment.
However, journalists assume that you won’t give a straight answer to a straight question, and thus avoid them, going for the sneaky trap instead — and that, as far as I’m concerned, means I’m allowed to give sneaky answers.
zoomster
A bit of “chicken or the egg ? ” .
[Australian Labor
.@TonyAbbottMHR, isn’t your greatest achievement this year breaking nearly every single one of your election promises? #QT #auspol]
briefly – I was a Green voter during the rebellious phase of my youth. Now I find Labor, with it’s emphasis on fairness and equality, much more meaningful. As has been argued on PB before, Labor is a party of government, and I think that means lobbying for change in the Labor Party is more worthwhile. I may not agree with Labor’s current stance on refugees, but I won’t abandon the party over it. I’d much rather make myself a nuisance 😉
Apart from asylum seekers, public funds for private schools is an issue on which Labor Brains Trusts have learned the wrong lesson. Mark Latham’s policy of reducing public subsidies for private schools was popular with voters. The election turned on interest rates – on the dubious perception by voters that interest rates would be higher under a Labor Government. There is an article about it on Inside Story.
http://insidestory.org.au/lathams-list-was-a-hit-in-the-polls
Nicholas
I haven’t come across anyone who thought Latham lost because of his attitude towards private schools. They thought he lost because he came across as unhinged.
If Labor think respecting human rights is somehow losing it needs some perspective.
We are putting people thru hell cos there’s a chance they might have drowned at see. they didn’t so we’re putting them thru hell to stop others trying?
[Labor – and the Australian people – don’t find deaths at sea as acceptable. That anyone can is an ongoing source of bemusement to me.]
That is frankly bullshit.
There are a lot of things I find unacceptable, and many are beyond my ability to stop.
If you think a few hundred people drowning at sea is reason enough to turn your back on everything this country should stand for then we have very different views of what Australia is.
Cos I think we are turning our back on what we are sposed to represent and stand up for – a fair go, people to treated decently – whatever bullshit myths they fed us at school. The ones we chose to believe cos they spoke to what we thought could be best in us.
We are putting people thru hell because we loosed the basest demons of our nature and slew the better angels. Because we let fear and self interest drive our decision making and our entire worldview. Not because we don’t want them to drown at sea.
Nobody cares who stops the human rights atrocities of Australia’s asylum seeker policies. Whether it’s the Greens, Labor, or, in an alternate universe, the Coalition, all that matters is that the atrocities stop.
Read the psychiatrists’ reports of what is happening in detention centres. We are all bound by a moral obligation to end that suffering.
Labor could quite easily do this without sustaining significant electoral downside, but it has chosen the path of faux realpolitik, an apt phrase coined by JD.
The electoral assessment for Labor should be what percentage of the electorate
votes or leans Labor
AND
wants harsh measures towards asylum seekers
AND
would switch their vote to the Coalition if Labor does not support harsh measures towards asylum seekers
If there is solid, rigorous survey data showing that this category is electorally significant, I haven’t come across it. Intuitively it seems likely that this group is extremely small and electorally inconsequential.
Labor’s approach to asylum seekers has been dumb and reactive. They look at polls showing that voters don’t like asylum seekers and in a blind panic they give the voters what they want on this issue.
Labor should instead understand that not all issues are equally important to voters and a party does not need to satisfy a voter on every single issue to get their vote.
How many Labor voters and Labor leaners will vote for a Coalition climate change policy, a Coalition record on jobs, a Coalition economic policy, a Coalition Medicare policy, a Coalition higher education policy, and a Coalition policy on science funding all because they find their preferred party, Labor, too humane on asylum seekers?
You present as a Renaissance man of fine intelligence. What do you think is the answer to that question? Or how would you go about finding a reliable answer?
jules
I’m sorry, you have no right to tell me what my motives are. I can assure you that they’re shared by the Labor people I’ve spoken to on this issue, some of whom are MPs.
It’s quite probable that some people – not necessarily in the Labor party – think in ways you describe. For others, the idea of people dying to come to Australia is genuinely unacceptable.
Most adults move on from what they were taught in school – if they were taught properly, it was to think for themselves, and not blindly sign up to a set of values without question.
So – regardless of what I was taught in school, or what I think I should think because it’s the accepted thing to think – I think every life has value, and hundreds of lives are worth saving.
That this is fairly much an Australian value (well, really, a human one) is demonstrated by the way we embrace measures which restrict our freedoms but save lives – such as anti smoking laws, seatbelt and speeding restrictions, gun controls and the like.
Nicholas @ 1198 – very good post. Presumably voters who base their entire vote on dislike of refugees won’t leave the Coalition in the first place. As corporate_misfit suggested @ 1142, a lot of the anxiety around boat arrivals is predicated on economic anxiety. When asked in polls, people consistently overstate by large margins the number of people arriving by boats. I think if Labor was able to ease some of the economic anxiety that many people feel, a lot of heat would go out of the boat people issue.