Morgan opens the opinion polling account for 2016 with a result that’s only slightly less good for the government than the thumping lead recorded in its final poll of 2015. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down a point to 47%, Labor is up two to 29%, the Greens are down 1.5% to 13%, and Palmer United are steady on 1%. That pans out to a 56-44 lead to the Coalition on respondent-allocated preferences, down from 57.5-42.5, and a 55.5-44.5 lead on previous election preferences, down from 56-44. The poll was conducted by face-to-face and SMS over the past two weekends from a sample of 2839.
29% pv !!
pop the champagne corks !!
So the Libs got away with hiding their bad news at Christmas.
Plenty of time Rex.
Oh, and it is Morgan.
Alas Lizzie, people actually are that stupid.
Yes, the ALP has plenty of time to take affirmative action and unshackle itself.
[ people actually are that stupid. ]
Some…
[ So the Libs got away with hiding their bad news at Christmas. ]
Maybe. Lets see how things go when they actually start hitting people in the hip pocket instead of just suggesting that they might. 🙂
Patience, grasshoppers, we’re still in the silly season.
People are relaxing at the beach, watching the cricket and tennis and paying attention to nothing else.
If anyone had any real expectations of a monumental shift in the polls over this time then I am afraid they have been a tad optimistic.
As well using the results of a poll, one weekend of which was taken over the new year long weekend, taken so early n the new year would be questionable in any discussion of what will unfold this year.
My take any way.
The only posters and commentators trying to take anything out of this poll are simply those with a already pre determined bias and or agenda.
We should all just go back into political hibernation for a while and enjoy the break just as the rest of Australia is currently doing.
Cheers.
Zoomster
I am holding fire until February, but I must say I had expected a bit of pushback after the Briggs affair.
Rex Douglas
[
29% pv !!
pop the champagne corks !!]
Thought you’d go for Passion Pop Rex .
BTW,
I should have added to my post at @9 that a few small things such as floods and bushfires would tend to distract a few people.
Cheers and a great afternoon to all.
daretotread@10
I think there is always a lag in such things showing up.
Zoomster
I have partly had a look at the stuff on prions and GMO, and frankly I am no more relaxed that the scientists are doing their research well. Got distracted by the reports which suggest that Alzheimers and Parkinsons might be forms of infective prion disease. Scary but also potentially very positive too.
Hard thing is to sort out the very anti GMO NIMBY views from real scientific stuff and of course research funded by the agricompanies.
So when will Bill be gone? 🙂
poroti
I had to look it up
😉
I just read this piece in the Brisbane Times.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-league/former-nrl-star-rhys-wesser-has-assault-charges-dismissed-20160111-gm3dob.html
It raises questions regarding assault charges. Why would charges be dismissed because the alleged victim isn’t able to attend court? Why is it not enough that police/prosecutor can provide evidence of a crime? Does all criminal prosecution require alleged victims to be present?
Bemused
Of course the real danger for Labor is an early election. If Mal does pull it in March as Albo predicts apparently, there is not really time for ALP to improve, whether led by Shorten or someone with all the positives and none of the negatives of Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Rudd, Gillard (and Curtin and Chifley) combined.
I think we need a tall, patrician, hard drinking, charismatic sports fanatic, with cutting edge rhetoric, a very sharp grasp of matters economic, and foreign affairs, speaks mandarin with stong policy wonk, superbly negotiating female.
Late Riser it a fundamental part of our system that an accused is entitled to face their accuser in court. While this may be set aside on rare occasions this tends to be only with the most extreme circumstances.
Rex Douglas
Its mother must have written that review. It is el cheapo lolly water. Under age drinkers of the fairer sex likely to be the ‘crowd’ it pleases.
DTR #18 unfortunately Julie Bishop bats for the other side.
dtt #18
the kouk !
[ Why is it not enough that police/prosecutor can provide evidence of a crime? ]
Where the state of mind of the victim is irrelevant, a non-victim witness may be sufficient, but practically you are always going to be better off with the victim.
In assault, from memory, the state of mind of the victim (ie genuinely scared) was relevant back when I did crim law.
Thanks davidwh. I wondered about that. But cannot the police or others act as accusers? Does it need to be the alleged victim? And where then does evidence come into it? (Sorry. Lots of questions. No need to reply. I’ll do some research.)
DTT @ 18
That’s the first time you’ve made me laugh. Good one. 🙂
Doyley @ 9
[People are relaxing at the beach, watching the cricket and tennis and paying attention to nothing else.]
Most people are not paying attention – only the tragics are. They may be taking note of what is going on but not thinking seriously about it. In other words, those things still register and will be ripe for returning to when the Parliamentary year gets going and, especially, in an election campaign. Whether it will be enough for Labor is another matter, of course.
I still think that the difference between the LNP scraping through and the actual result at the last Qld election was Newman’s decision to call an election during the holiday period. People were pissed off that they had to put up with endless political crap while they wanted to think about anything but.
Late Riser where it’s a crime involving accused harm by one party against another then the accused party has the right under our system to face and cross-examine the accuser. It’s why so many sexual assaults are so hard for the victim to face.
[In assault, from memory, the state of mind of the victim (ie genuinely scared) was relevant back when I did crim law.]
I should have said was relevant sometimes …
[where it’s a crime involving accused harm by one party against another then the accused party has the right under our system to face and cross-examine the accuser]
I don’t think that is true, although in many cases practically it is going to be.
In almost all our prosecutions the crown is the accuser, not the victim. It is going to be pretty rare that the victim isn’t one of the most important witnesses.
dtt
agree – it’s like trying to work out the whole CSG scenario. Mixture of vested interests and NIMBYs make it hard to work out fact from exaggeration.
Will be supporting the bowling team in both innings tomorrow, cannot believe the selectors.
[The High Court has said that ‘confrontation and the opportunity for cross-examination is of central significance to the common law adversarial system of trial’.[93] The right to confront an adverse witness has been said to be ‘basic to any civilised notion of a fair trial’.[94] In R v Davis, Lord Bingham said:
It is a long-established principle of the English common law that, subject to certain exceptions and statutory qualifications, the defendant in a criminal trial should be confronted by his accusers in order that he may cross-examine them and challenge their evidence.[95]
10.82 This principle, Lord Bingham said, originated in ancient Rome, and was later recognised by such authorities as Sir Matthew Hale, Blackstone and Bentham.
The latter regarded the cross-examination of adverse witnesses as ‘the indefeasible right of each party, in all sorts of causes’ and criticised inquisitorial procedures practised on the continent of Europe, where evidence was received under a ‘veil of secrecy’ and the door was left ‘wide open to mendacity, falsehood, and partiality’.[96]]
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/right-confront-witnesses-and-test-evidence
[A number of laws may limit the right to confront witnesses and test evidence, including laws that:
◾provide exceptions to the hearsay rule;
◾protect vulnerable witnesses, such as children;
◾protect privileged information, such as communications between client and lawyer and between a person and religious confessor;
◾allow matters to be proved by provision of an evidential certificate; and
◾permit the use of redacted evidence in court, for national security reasons.]
WWP,
Has Chris Gayle been selected?
Jesus Christ, 29%? After all that?
2% increase in the Labor Primary Vote and a 1% decrease in the Liberal’s PV. I’ll take that! 😀
C@tmomma
[2% increase in the Labor Primary Vote and a 1% decrease in the Liberal’s PV. I’ll take that! :D}]
I don’t.
I like a challenge, makes winning all the better.
Thanks for that David I’d encourage you to consider the difference between victim, accuser and witness. I was certainly not suggesting there isn’t a right to cross examine witnesses, the point your nice cut and paste largely speaks to.
I made two points firstly that the accuser is the crown usually, Lizzy isn’t going to be available for crossexamination.
Secondly the victim may in limited circumstances not be a witness.
It is pretty rare for murder victims to make any accusations and quite rare they are called to give evidence.
A victim of a property crime may well not be a relevant witness, although usually will be, when my car ws stolen and used to rob a bank I was called and gave evidence, although I witnessed nothing.
WWP yes I understand the difference between victim, witness and accuser.
daretotread @ 10: For some voters, there may well have been a pushback because of the Briggs affair. But that may have been cancelled out by the effect of, say, the TURC on other voters.
On a blog like this, where many posters are of a similar political outlook, it’s tempting to assume that issues being run by the other side are trivial, or contemptible, or for some other reason won’t resonate. Note always true.
My personal view is that the polls are unlikely to shift much for the next few months, for much the same reason that Mr Rudd’s polling was as good as it was for as long as it was: people are seeing in Mr Turnbull what they want to see, and are quite capable of mentally massaging the evidence to fit their preconceptions. In essence, Mr Turnbull is providing for a lot of voters, at least in style, what they thought they were voting for in 2013, but didn’t get with Mr Abbott.
A damper on the LNP parade…
sortius @sortius 17s18 seconds ago
Dunkley (Lib), with Optus HFC, gets FTTP, but Gellibrand (ALP), with Optus HFC, gets HFC. @NBN_Australia is clearly biased toward LNP #NBN
0 retweets 0 likes
I perhaps was too subtle David and I apologise. If one assumes that the victim is giving evidence against the accused then the accused usually has a right to know who the witness is and to have them cross examined.
In this sense if the victim is not a relevant or helpful witness they are not an accuser.
That the victim is usually a very relevant witness and in that sense an accuser during the trial explains why prosecutions can fail without the victim.
[39.WWP yes I understand the difference between victim, witness and accuser.]
I’ll take your word for it.
David Bowie dies at 69.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/legendary-artist-david-bowie-dies-854364?utm_source=twitter
GG
That is very sad!
zoidlord@42
I think local councils should be speaking out on this wherever businesses and households in their LGA are going to be arbitrarily disadvantaged by the roll-out of the Fraudband kludge.
I have already put this to one of my local councillors.
Actually that is not too bad a poll for labor (by Morgan standards). There has been a solid swing on resomdent allocated votes.
Turnbull has taken a bit of a hit.
daretotread@48
Yep! About another 4 or 5 of those and he’s toast. 😛
It’s the narr… oh, wait.