The latest result from the Essential Research fortnightly rolling average finds the Coalition down two points on the primary vote to 39%, but with Labor’s 51-49 lead on two-party preferred unchanged. Labor and the Greens are both unchanged, at 36% and 10% respectively. There are some interesting findings in the supplementary questions:
• Malcolm Turnbull is rated by 30% as best to lead the Liberal Party, down nine since March, with Julie Bishop up four to 16% and Tony Abbott steady on 9%.
• Conversely, Bill Shorten has done very well out of the election campaign, with 27% rating him best to lead Labor, up 12% since March, while Tanya Plibersek is down two to 12%, Anthony Albanese is down three to 11%, and Chris Bowen is down to 3%.
• Thirty-seven per cent say the found Senate voting more difficult under the new system compared with 19% for easier; 20% found the outcome more democratic, 15% less democratic, and 39% that it made no difference.
• The current state of the Australian economy is rated by 30% as good, 26% as poor and 41% as neither; 33% as heading in the right direction and 35% in the wrong direction; 27% as likely to improve over the next 12 months, versus 41% for worse.
• Fifty-five per cent said they would support a national ban on greyhound racing, versus 27% opposed.
Dave Donovan
10m10 minutes ago
Dave Donovan @davrosz
So, AEC orders a recount in Herbert without finishing the count. I guess that really makes it a recount/count. http://www.aec.gov.au/media/media-releases/2016/07-19e.htm … o-O
what a dumb lot giving hanson oxygen – dumb discussion here and by jones – kruger should be sacked, since when was she employed to do current affairs – the speaker should call hanson in order everytime …
meantime the major and minor party – esp later – who let this dog back in the room dare to offer advice on what to do … this was one of three big mistakes by greens in this year alone, and am getting tired of such things.
Troy Bramston has written another Union bashing article in the Australian. I’m pretty sure Bramston wrote off Shorten being a chance of winning the last election, and stressed the party wouldn’t get close without doing away with it’s links with the unions. Also Bramston is suggesting Doug Cameron, Catherine King, Jenny Macklin, Claire Moore and Brendan O’Connor should be replaced. The problem with Bramston suggestions is the Mp’s and senators he has mentioned are either extremely young or first term/secound term MP’s. And I get sick of suggestions of change for the sake of change when Catherine King, Brendan O’Conner and Doug Cameron have been some of Labor’s strongest performers.
Some of these people that have had a go at people such as Catherine King and Kim Carr are suggested to have motives that are fueled by securing a front bench position themselves rather then giving criticism that has any merit.
“The problem with Bramston suggestions is the Mp’s and senators he has mentioned are either extremely young or first term/secound term MP’s. ”
I meant the ones he suggested to replace the outgoing.
@Geoffrey
You seem to actually be suggesting that the new electoral system made it easier for small parties to be elected. Interesting because in the debate Labor said the reform would eliminate the Senate crossbench and make it impossible for new forces to enter the parliament, they opposed it on those grounds. If your implication is correct, Labor ought to have supported the reforms as they had for the years leading up to the vote.
The people who are really responsible for getting Hanson elected are the 550,000 sods who voted for her. Frankly it’d be a travesty for that number of people not to be represented.
Andrew Landeryou who has been reported in Age as vandalising Lib flyers etc. Is having some fun on twitter
https://mobile.twitter.com/landeryou?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
David,
Bramston is just being used by the Carr forces in Melbourne. If today’s reports are to be believed, Kim Carr is on the outer with the left because of the perceived crime of being supportive of Rudd’s return to being PM.
Carr has verey strong left support in Victoria. Bramston was an ex Rudd protege.
You join the dots.
david @ #53 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:24 pm
Anyone using The Australian to lecture Labor on the unions – or on anything else for that matter – is demanding they not to be taken seriously.
While the Labor party won’t be any worse off without the likes of Danby’s mates, probably best to make sure they actually did anything wrong before forming the lynch mob.
Trump’s a post-truth candidate, it doesn’t matter whether or not his wife plagiarised her speech to the people who’ll vote for him.
Sky News Australia
4h4 hours ago
Sky News Australia @SkyNewsAust
.@vanOnselenP says the Coalition partyroom is a ‘boys club’ #auspol #tothepoint http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/07/19/pm-s-new-ministry-to-be-officially-sworn-in.html … http://snpy.tv/2ap7Qhu
Teh,
Yes, first the trial and then the execution.
phoenixgreen @ #55 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:27 pm
OPV in the Senate will usually mean the last-elected candidate in any State will be elected by fewer voters than the first-elected candidate. They changes put in place are intrinsically undemocratic.
hi phoenix
i thought labor opposed reform because it would have unpredictable co nsequences generally combined with a DD – and they were right – libs and greens saw some short term opportunism (and demise of smaller groups/parties) and completely failed to analyse consequences such as happened – hanson deserves no oxygen, she breaks freedom of speech and racial vilification , and was elected as a brand … noone saw that coming, but libs and greens responsible for unintended consequences of hasty legislation …. 500,000 or 5m or 5 people are not entitled to slag at whole minorities in our society ….
play passive aggressive on the hateful b…. yes let moderate muslims invite her to dinner, and silence and eject her in house as much as possible – with clear and calm reasons
@Briefly
Intrinsically undemocratic because some candidates are elected by a different number of votes than other candidates? If you think that’s undemocratic, I can’t imagine what you must think of the House of Reps, where people are elected from between 26-65% of the primary vote.
I am looking forward to truth in political advertising laws so that all the Greens can go to where they belong: in jail.
meher baba @ #17 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:38 pm
Growing up in a predominantly Muslim part of the world, it used to be that the Muslims in general are less conservative. In the 70s a revivalism took hold and those who are pious started to be more conservative. Most of them aren’t any worse as a human being, though fanaticism took hold in some as there was in the past or now. Maybe Wahabism is to be blamed (who I’ve been told have been pushing their firebrand version of religion quite strongly in the last few decades), but I’m not expert in such matters.
I do notice you mentioned that some Muslim dominated country go ahead economically because of the authoritarian nature of their government against religion. Iranians might beg to differ as their country are better economically compared to their neighbours, despite their religiousness and despite the sanctions that were imposed on their country.
Brunei too seems to be another example, and their absolute monarch has ruled their country firmly (but fairly) and has become more and more religious as the decades go by.
I don’t think things are as clear cut as that.
I liked the epithet “infamous former blogger” to describe Landeryou.
Greg Sheridan pontificating on “The Drum”.
I am fairly sure that I have never invited him to my home. If I have done so I will withdraw the invitation.
phoenixgreen @ #65 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:42 pm
I’m satisfied that House contests are democratic. Each candidate in any given contest will have to meet the same standard to be elected. They will have to attain a majority of the preferred vote. In general (other than in the exceptional case of Tasmania) the enrolments in House seats are similar.
Senate contests do not satisfy that requirement. Depending on when in the counting they are declared to be elected, different candidates will have different chances of success. Different standards will apply to the candidates even though they are competing in the same race. One-vote-one-value does not apply in Senate contests in any given State.
briefly @ #62 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:37 pm
I would consider the older system more undemocratic. If I am a left progressive voter who would rather vote for Labor or the Greens at the top of the list, I would be appalled to see my final preference decide between the likes of ONP, the far right parties or the firebrand Christian parties. I would rather they not go to any of these and exhaust.
raaraa @ #71 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:49 pm
In the scenario you describe, one or the other of ONP, the far right parties or the firebrand Christian parties will be elected.
Don’t you want to pick the lesser of the evils?
Bill Shorten probably has no use anymore for the man who got him the leadership, Kim Carr, so will likely burn him for Linda Burney.
@Geoffrey
See any of the Hansard from Labor MPs during the debate. The Labor objection was that it would eliminate minor parties from the Senate and deliver those seats to the majors. Pretty amusing considering the outcome. Here’s a tease:
Senator Conroy: “There will be 3.4 million Australians who have their ballot papers put in the bin. They will have no say about who is elected to this chamber”
“Seventy-five per cent of people will vote for a particular main party and 25 per cent will get nothing. The 25 per cent will not have voted. Their votes would have been exhausted, cast aside and eliminated by this legislation.”
Senator Wong: “This bill is designed to exhaust the three-million-strong minor party and Independent vote or to corral it to the major parties or the Greens. That is the whole purpose of this legislation.”
“We should consider ways of removing incentives for gaming the Senate voting system. But you do not do that by purging new parties and Independents from this parliament. This is what the Liberal-Greens deal would do. This is what the bill before the Senate will do. The Liberal-Greens deal disenfranchises Australians who vote for small parties and Independents, discourages people from standing for the Senate or from organising new parties, reduces participation in our political system, risks a working majority for the coalition in the future”
Bill Shorten probably has no use anymore for the man who got him the leadership, Kim Carr, so will likely burn him for Linda Burney.
Ho ho.
You really are bitter that Shorten has defied all your dire predictions and demands to resign, and that he both came within a whisker of winning and was re-elected unopposed to the job.
Not to mention getting in front in the polls (on 2PP and leader ratings) immediately after the election, during what is normally an easy honeymoon period for the winning team and leader.
You were and are wrong, and apparently are going to continue insisting on being so: Shorten has done, and will continue to do, a great job.
No amount of shallow snark from you will change or distract from all that.
bemused @ #72 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 5:56 pm
I’ll let other voters decide on that. And I’ll let the count stand that one of these parties are voted in with less than a quota of a vote.
I was unaware we had a new thread and then discovered I was talking to myself over there. Don, here was my response.
barney in saigon @ #15 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:32 pm
To save the batteries I was told, just a quick high beam flash when you spot an oncoming vehicle is all that’s required.
I think people should be careful when discounting everything that Hanson says as being factually incorrect, ignorant, xenophobic, self indulgent horse piss.
I remember once listening to her in an interview.
She made the observation, that it was a lovely day.
I walked outside.
It was.
Barney,
yes and if you walked a mile in her shoes, she couldn’t go anywhere and you would be a long way away from her.
vogon poet @ #78 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 6:37 pm
That’s if you see it.
I met a dutch guy who had rented a car.
We were in Farafra, an oasis town in the middle of the Sahara.
One night he took one of the workers in the hotel we were staying at out to see the worker’s sister.
He came back a complete nervous wreck as the worker kept reaching across and switching his lights off.
The worker couldn’t understand why you would want to keep them on and assumed that the Dutch guy kept forgetting to turn them off.
thanks Phoenix for the quotes
so all parties were at sea when it came to senate reform …. although labor were right under normal circumstances – they argued against timing with DD.
Turnbull won’t have any trouble getting his legislation through. The Greens will support the Libs. They are the ones in the green jackets wearing the blue ties or scarves.
@Geoffrey
I don’t think the Greens were “at sea” on the issue, the results seem to have vindicated their approach. Only those who are intentionally supported by voters can be elected, and that fact doesn’t eliminate minor parties at all.
Is it really five years to the day when my two beloved dogs were stolen? I still put up posters sometimes.
I also am not impressed by the ALP not preferencing Nxt in the seats of Sturt and Grey. That could have got rid of the odious Pyne and given the Coalition two less seats. I assume those not living is SA made that ridiculous decision.
PhoenixGreen:
Let the legal process play itself out. Unlike the Fiberals (where the longstanding Lib ties to the police make an impartial investigation unlikely), the coppers will actually dig around.
Speaking of partisan coppers, has anyone heard anything yet to suggest the Senate will uphold Conroy’s claims of parliamentary privilege re: the NBNCo materials?
matt @ #87 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:02 pm
We’re still waiting for there to be a Senate.
‘Only those who are intentionally supported by voters can be elected, and that fact doesn’t eliminate minor parties at all.’
Which is not what the Liberals and the Greens told us would happen at all.
We were told the new system would eliminate minor parties, particularly right wing fringe ones, and that that was a good thing.
When commentators such as myself pointed out that minor parties were being elected deliberately under the old system, and not accidentally – as those supporting the reforms argued – we were told we were being ridiculous.
As it is, the mix of a DD and a very high awareness of the implications of the changes (a good thing) has resulted in minor parties holding their own (and the Greens losing out).
I’m amused that people who argued that this would not happen (because people voting for minor parties didn’t know what they were doing, we were told) are now painting this as a Good Thing.
My objections, btw, were as much about the timing and the potential to set up a DD election (which those of us arguing FOR the minor parties were confidently reassured was not going to happen; hence we argued on the basis that it wasn’t). When your enemy offers you a Trojan horse, it’s a good idea to look inside.
I also maintain that Turnbull didn’t intend to have a DD; he just wanted to threaten one, so that the crossbenchers would roll over. Then they didn’t, and he had to carry through on his threat.
BiS
Just Google Earthed Farafra.
You do get to some interesting places.
I have two questions, if you don’t mind.
Does it rely on fossil water?
How sustainable is the usage rate?
phoenix ….
minor parties directly elected are fine – but until there is true representationalism the reform plus DD was toxic and greens ought to have considered that …. H. would not normally be there under any system barring DD
Photos
Likes
Tweets
Geoff Pearson retweeted
Misty Eyed Leo
49m49 minutes ago
Misty Eyed Leo @Loud_Lass
Dutton’s visa exemption for offshore oil and gas workers ‘hypocrisy’, union says https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/19/peter-duttons-visa-exemption-for-offshore-oil-and-gas-workers-hypocrisy-union-says?CMP=share_btn_tw …
“I also am not impressed by the ALP not preferencing Nxt in the seats of Sturt and Grey. That could have got rid of the odious Pyne and given the Coalition two less seats. I assume those not living is SA made that ridiculous decision.”
Wrong! It was Labor that beat Xenophon party on the primary vote in Stuart, and came secound place to Pyne on the two party preferred vote. So preferencing Xenophon party wouldn’t have done anything.
Xenophon doesn’t get a free lunch, he’s made it clear he wants to run open tickets. To expect Labor to piggyback him with no payoff is crap. The game of one set of rules for the minor parties and another set for the major’s is quite hypocritical.
Also Nick Xenophon and Rebekha Sharkie the newly elected member for Mayo are former Liberals. Please explain why Labor should endear itself to the Xenophon crowd.
#93 – Is, of course a repost from Carey.
“…I’m pretty sure Bramston wrote off Shorten being a chance of winning the last election, and stressed the party wouldn’t get close without doing away with it’s links with the unions”
As I recall, columnists in the Australian were always writing long, turgid op-eds solemnly declaring that to get elected, Labor needed to abandon its constituency, its positions and its principles and support those of the Coalition.
As usual Carey M makes sound arguments. Thanks for that Dave.
The Epistle of Saint Paul Kelly to the Heathens, that sort of thing.
Ok, I stand corrected. I am not interested in advancing X, but in impeding the Libs. I would rather have Turnbull dealing with crossbenchers than having a majority.
Hey guys, I’m getting good at this!
I went to this article:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/factional-dalek-kim-carr-faces-the-axe-in-labor-frontbench-reshuffle-20160719-gq8n8y.html
and read this:
I didn’t notice who wrote it, but when I saw the words “In a move that shapes as a key test for Mr Shorten…” I just clicked my fingers and said to myself, “I bet that’s James Massola who wrote that!”
Blow me down if I wasn’t 100% correcto-mundo.
If ever there’s a “cloud” over someone’s head, a “test” to be passed, or a “question that must be answered”, you can bet it’s Bill Shorten, and the one raining on his parade, setting the bar ever higher, or asking the zombie question that never dies? It’ll be Little Jimmy “The Giant Killer” Massola, no risk.
I just love the way that hack journos who are probably about to be retrenched (and finally have to earn a living actually writing proper stuff instead of just making it up), who have never stood for election to anything much in their lives probably but water boy for the under-13 “D” team, and who fancy themselves as Players in The Great Game (as opposed to Blood-Sucking Leaches On The Body Politic) love to set “tests” and tell senior politicians what they “must” do in order to curry favour with their bloody self-esteemed selves (which test of course never comes… it just gets harder, next article).
Anyway, donations, bottles of champagne, or congratulatory boxes of chocolate can be sent to “Post Restante, Poll Bludger”. I will collect them from William at a later date. And thanks in advance for all the praise for my savvy about The Savvy.