The normally placid Essential Research fortnightly rolling average records a rare two-point shift on two-party preferred this week, which eliminates a settled 52-48 lead for the Coalition over previous weeks. Particularly remarkable is a three point increase in the Labor primary vote, from 35% to 38%, although the Coalition is down only one to 43%, and the Greens are steady on 10%. Also featured is a very detailed question on Senate reform, in which the legislation was explained to respondents in meticulous detail, producing a result of 53% approval and 16% disapproval. A question on election timing finds 56% wanting the election held later this year versus 23% who want it called early, although the distinction is an increasingly fine one. Also featured: most important election issues (health topping the list, followed by economic and cost-of-living concerns), best party to handle them (Labor for industrial relations and environment, Coalition for national security and the economy, although Labor has a slight lead on housing affordability) and perceptions of the parties as right or left wing (indicating Labor is seen as more centrist than the Coalition, although there is little sense that this has changed in recent years). This week’s poll was conducted online Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1017, with the voting intention numbers also including the survey results from the previous week’s poll.
Pegasus, PG, DN
First, I am not and never have been a Greens baiter. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to respond to Greens who seem to have no other purpose in life but to bait Labor supporters on PB.
Secondly, I was quite aware of the difference between replacing a resigning Senator under the Constitution and replacing the leader of a political party under the rules of the party. However, there is no difference between one backdoor arrangement to achieve a desirable outcome for the party and another backdoor arrangement to achieve a desirable outcome for another party. The original incredibly smarmy comment on Labor processes just annoyed me.
Beyond that, the processes of any political party in selecting its leaders, Parliamentary positions and responsibilities and pre-selecting candidates is up to each party, subject to no breach of the criminal law. If someone does not like the way that Labor does it and instead prefers the Greens mechanisms, good luck to them. But the smarmy holier-than-thou sneering that seems to emanate from the Greens on this would do Andrew Bolt and his fellow travellers proud.
So if the Greens want to nominate leaders, candidates etc its way, go for it. But don’t pretend there is anything morally superior or that it will result in better outcomes for this nation. And don’t pretend you are doing anything more uplifting than trying to calve off Labor members, supporters and voters to your party at the expense of the Labor Party.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, apart from the oleaginous hypocrisy with which it is done.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/03/senate-reform-below-the-line-optional-preferential-voting.html
The Lorax
If you have a list of complaints and you take one off, you still have the rest of the list. Can’t you just go back and read comments from the past few weeks and save us all the angst?
What I think you’ll find is that the other complaints subsume that one, along the lines of “I wanted a boat, not a car, oh and by the way the colour is horrible”.
Abbott says he doesn’t leak or background.
So we can be pretty sure it was Abbott then.
[44.So now that we have 1-6 ATL and 1-12 OPV BTL what are the objections of the Labor rusted-ons? Really I’d like to know.]
In all likelihood the new system is less democratic as it is almost certain to pervert the democratic will of the disillusioned microparty voter. Yes having your vote go somewhere odd was less than perfect, but losing it entirely seems poor.
But it was never about solving a real problem, it was always about bringing in OPV without an honest debate about it.
lizzie@685
Invalid conclusion.
It could equally be framed as deterrence of attack.
There is one hell of a lot of technology that is a spin off from defence spending as modern defence is such a high tech undertaking. e.g. computers.
Dodson will be on 7.30 tonight.
[abc730 Verified account
@abc730
abc730 Retweeted abc730
…Mr Dodson would not be elected by WA as the position is a casual vacancy. ]
[Turnbull Government fiercely defending negative gearing, which is where Labor want them. #qt]
The objective of a scare campaign is to scare people who don’t vote for you into voting for you and your swinging supporters to keep voting for you.
Turncoat and Morrison are doing nothing other than encouraging this group to vote for Labor in order to see housing prices stabilise or even drop. Their policies might be vile, but their political skills are utterly laughable.
Mal wasting more money:
Guardian Australia @GuardianAus 2m2 minutes ago
Malcolm Turnbull refers leak of defence draft to federal police http://trib.al/WzciDPi
C@tmomma@690
An untested hypothesis.
I’ve heard that sort of thing before. It may be so in the absence of a good challenger, but can quickly change.
bemused
I like Victorian Labor’s two tiered preselection strategy. Although I am very passionate about rank and file member ballots, it is a matter of fact that sometimes the rank and file get it wrong. Good people sometimes do not make good future MPs. Sometimes there are issues to do with the candidate that rank and file members cannot be made aware of. And, of course, people tend to vote for people who are like themselves, which has potential problems if you wish your parliamentary party to be representative.
Women in the Labor party waited for decades for the party to get around to preselecting women on merit. They took action to override the membership vote where necessary, and as a result, more women have been preselected to winnable seats. That wouldn’t have happenened if we’d just waited on the membership to get around to it.
Like it or not, the Labor party believes that sometimes governments need to intervene in the affairs of the nation in order to get things done. It is thus not inconsistent that they also believe that intervention is also necessary within the party as well – and you yourself keep saying that this should happen with NSW branch.
I’m a great believer in balance. In this case, the party needs to balance the wishes of members agains the need for diversity. The greater good, I believe, is being served in this case.
Torchbearer
Abbott usually gets others to do his dirty work for him
[TimWattsMP: In an interesting twist, Scott Morrison is intent on doing himself slowly #qt]
Yes, and unlike the original feral abacus, this one can’t even calculate.
TPOF
[Turncoat and Morrison are doing nothing other than encouraging this group to vote for Labor in order to see housing prices stabilise or even drop. Their policies might be vile, but their political skills are utterly laughable.]
I don’t think this comes down to political skills – not saying they aren’t laughable mind you. It seems that they really see negative gearing as a valuable tool. As usual, they’re trapped by their own ideology. What it means is that Turnbull’s successes (much applauded by the MSM) within and investment in the current system make him less capable, not more, of seeing the changes it needs.
CraigDaveson: .@NickRossTech joins IDG as PC World and Good Gear Guide editor https://t.co/K0eHuuUuSt
DisplayName @ 701: So instead of supporting something that’s a huge improvement on the current system, you’ll keep nitpicking until the end of time? Its never going to be perfect — its a compromise between the Coalition and the Greens FFS — I don’t understand why Labor dealt itself out of the process. If this is close to what Labor wants, and JSCEM suggests it is, why don’t they get it there and push for that last little change that makes them happy? Instead their carping from the sidelines with nonsense about “dirty backroom deals”.
WeWantPaul @703
[In all likelihood the new system is less democratic as it is almost certain to pervert the democratic will of the disillusioned microparty voter. Yes having your vote go somewhere odd was less than perfect, but losing it entirely seems poor.
But it was never about solving a real problem, it was always about bringing in OPV without an honest debate about it.]
Who is losing their ability to cast a vote? Anyone can number every single box above or below the line if they want to. The only people “losing” their votes are those who willingly choose to.
And, really? Being able to let your vote exhaust after you’ve numbered all the candidates you give a toss about is “subverting democracy”, but having no choice over where your preferences go (apart from numbering 50-100 boxes, most being for candidates and parties noone has ever heard of or have opinions on, and risking your vote being made informing by duplicating or missing a number and genuinely being disenfranchised) isn’t? Seriously?
A break from politcs for those that need it.
Cmdr_Hadfield: LIVE on #Periscope: Soyuz Landing https://t.co/C2EAsf8u3s
BevanShields: Breaking: Man found dead inside home of Kathy Jackson https://t.co/9M8vD0ML16
michaelkoziol: Terri Butler seeking to suspend standing orders at very last second of #qt for marriage equality bill. PM already gone
The Lorax
[So instead of supporting something that’s a huge improvement on the current system]
Wait, the people you are arguing with don’t think it’s a huge improvement on the current system. That’s the point. That doesn’t stop them from also nitpicking the details of the proposed system.
Basically, the argument you are seeing goes “I don’t like it, but for the same of argument let’s assume it has some merit, then if the premise of the system is X, then this detail here is not consistent with X”.
Even though in some sense the first part subsumes the second part, I don’t see anything wrong with tacking on the second part after declaring the first, but then I am an argumentative person ;).
btw, I prefer the shortcut of OPV to the shortcut of GTV, in case that “you” is a specific you instead of a general you ;).
[ It seems that they really see negative gearing as a valuable tool. ]
Negative gearing is a valuable tool. It can encourage investment in property which will provide substantial affordable accommodation in locations where it is needed.
But not as it is currently formulated.
Instead, it encourages the wealthiest people to invest in high value land, with minimal accommodation attached (just enough to engage the negative gearing provisions which depend on there actually being accommodation available for rent). As far as it provides a vehicle for individuals and families to build wealth, that is all fine as a tangential benefit of the concession, but it is not the responsibility of the government or the tax system to provide concessions with that objective. Indeed, it turns the whole idea of the free market on its head. When compared with the efforts this Government has gone to to reduce any incentive for the least well off to save for retirement, it is obscene to justify negative gearing as a means for middle class and above to build wealth in land.
Labor’s policy at least attempts to achieve the public policy objective – which is to ensure rental accommodation is available where it is needed. It also avoids shocks to the market by grandfathering existing property investors. The rhetorical claims of the Government in attacking these proposals are obscene and, if they had any shame, they would be ashamed of themselves. But the Prime Waffler, at least, has exposed himself to be nothing more than just another politician who will lie blatantly to the electorate in the hope that enough residual fear would remain among enough voters to decide not to take a risk.
@721
same -> sake
That should be “… for the sake of …”
[Tony Windsor @TonyHWindsor · 18h18 hours ago
@LindaBurneyMP Best wishes in your quest to Canberra . Rick would be very proud of your work .
Linda Burney MP Verified account
@LindaBurneyMP
Thank you @TonyHWindsor that really does mean a lot]
Whereas now we’ll have no choice, apart from numbering 50-100 boxes, most being for candidates and parties noone has ever heard of or have opinions on, and risking your vote being made informing by duplicating or missing a number and genuinely being disenfranchised, or just giving up and exhausting your vote.
It sounds much better now.
TPOF
[… But not as it is currently formulated. …]
The context is obviously “as formulated”.
[CraigDaveson: .@NickRossTech joins IDG as PC World and Good Gear Guide editor https://t.co/K0eHuuUuSt%5D
Good on him. It seems there is still somewhere for honourable journalists to go.
zoomster@711
So the rank and file members can’t be trusted and there is an elite nomenklatura who have access to secret information and will make the final decision.
How very Sussex St.
Women like Joan Child didn’t wait, they built themselves a base of support among local party members, men and women, young and old and got pre-selected and elected.
This can be achieved by working with the membership rather than riding rough shod over them.
How you equate any of this with my comments about cleaning up the canker that is the NSW branch eludes me. But that is something provided for in the rules. AFAIAA “Captain’s Picks” are not provided for in the rules.
AustralianLabor: BREAKING: Terri Butler is moving a suspension of standing orders to allow a vote on marriage equality in the parliament #auspol
Too many parties and candidates for a reasonable voter to keep track of is a problem.
A low tolerance for mistakes that leads to high numbers of votes not counting is a problem.
But I cannot describe either of these problems as “having no choice”.
Mimhoff I don’t understand? You’re describing the current system
MarkDiStef: The government members present: Warren Entsch and Trent Zimmerman sitting together listening. Teresa Gambaro also.
victoria @ 697,
If Christian Porter is the future of the party, they are stuffed. He has been hopeless as a communicator so far’
He’s not much chop as Social Services Minister either!
LU @ 698,
So Simkin has hitched his wagon to the donkey that put WA in a massive structural deficit during the iron ore boom-times? What a dope.
Chilla Porter will have your guts for garters, LU! His boy has been groomed for Liberal stardom! 😀
Sorry that was in reference to Asha Leu 717 who described the current system as:
[having no choice over where your preferences go (apart from numbering 50-100 boxes, most being for candidates and parties noone has ever heard of or have opinions on, and risking your vote being made informing by duplicating or missing a number and genuinely being disenfranchised)]
It’s like having no choice (apart from the vast number of choices you have).
[It sounds much better now.]
The new system is infinitely better for your engaged thinking sophisticated voter, no doubt in the world about that.
It will cut down the time it takes me to cast a vote from the intolerable 30 odd minutes to 10.
A wonderful fast food quickie democracy for the smart but lazy political junky.
This is an excellent outcome for voter empowerment:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/03/senate-reform-below-the-line-optional-preferential-voting.html
The Coalition deserves credit for being the major party that finally gets around to fixing the severe flaws in our Senate electoral system. The Greens deserve credit for holding the major parties to their commitments from 2014.
mimhoff @725
[Whereas now we’ll have no choice, apart from numbering 50-100 boxes, most being for candidates and parties noone has ever heard of or have opinions on, and risking your vote being made informing by duplicating or missing a number and genuinely being disenfranchised, or just giving up and exhausting your vote.]
Er, no, because you still the choice to vote above the only, and will only have to number 15-20 or so boxes if it really is that important that the 21st Century Australia Party and Group K are preferences above the Protectionist Party and Uniting Australia.
Are you saying that you actually prefer to just Vote 1 and have you preferences decided by Group Voting Tickets over being able to direct your own preferences?
The proposed changes to Senate voting fall short of my ideal but are certainly better than originally proposed.
I rate them a bare ‘pass’ grade.
Ugh. Above the only = above the line
bemused@739
I should add I have always rated the present system a ‘fail’.
It shouldn’t be different. That’s why the next item of business should be to institute OPV for House of Reps ballots.
The HoR doesn’t have the same proportional element. So even if you institute OPV there, you can’t claim that you’re simply adjusting it to be the same as the Senate.
[Are you saying that you actually prefer to just Vote 1 and have you preferences decided by Group Voting Tickets over being able to direct your own preferences?]
You can direct your own preferences in the current system. You don’t “have no choice”.
Nicholas@742
With a minimum number of squares to be completed?
Otherwise, be honest and call it optional FPTP.
If you think FPTP is a good system then check out the UK.
[policy announcement by turnbull?]
No he’ll announce that he’s going to start talking about having a policy some time in the future. That should keep him occupied for about 6 months.
I agree with the idea that full preferencing should basically be required in the HoR
I used to be of the staunch opinion that it should be OPV but I have come around to the idea that it is better to infringe on the right not to preference for the greater good of excluding the most hated candidate.
I realise that a lot of people who are of the opinion that both major parties are equally detestable will not share this view
PG @677:
[Very much winnable, especially if you ask a Green. They are serious candidates and Samantha Ratnam in Wills is a sitting Greens mayor from that area.]
Ah, good then. Although I would be pleased to see a more diverse Greens Senate bench, I happen to think our current Senators (esp. my WA Senators, Ludlam and Siewert) are doing quite nicely! I would hope that the Greens certainly give diversity some weight when considering replacements when sitting Senators retire.
WWP @705:
[In all likelihood the new system is less democratic as it is almost certain to pervert the democratic will of the disillusioned microparty voter. Yes having your vote go somewhere odd was less than perfect, but losing it entirely seems poor.
But it was never about solving a real problem, it was always about bringing in OPV without an honest debate about it.]
That’s one of the things that I dislike the most about the proposed changes. I’m seriously disappointed that the Greens waved this one through the Senate.
OPV is all well and good, but if that’s what the Government wants, it should at least be honest about it!
I have a post up on Senate reform, where I’m hoping comments might be kept on-topic:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2016/03/02/senate-reform-reformed/
And I thought the treatment of Albert Langer was outrageous