This week’s Essential Research finds the Coalition down a point on the primary vote to 37%, Labor steady on 37%, the Greens steady on 10%, One Nation up one to 6% and the Nick Xenophon Team steady on 4%, with two-party preferred unchanged at 52-48 in favour of Labor. The poll also finds 53% favouring a vote by parliament on same-sex marriage in the event that the Senate blocks a plebiscite, with only 29% opposed. Support for the proposed plebiscite question, “should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”, is at 60% with 30% opposed, compared with results of 57% and 28% when the same question was posed a month ago. Only 22% of respondents supported the goverment’s plan for $7.5 million of advertising to be provided for both sides of the argument, with 68% opposed. When asked about the biggest threats to job security in Australia, 31% nominated “free trade deals that allow foreign workers into the Australian market”, 23% companies using labour hire and contracting out, 18% the impact of technological change, and high wages in last place on 11%.
In other news, I mean to start shaking myself out of a spell of post-election laziness, so I’ll have BludgerTrack back in one form or another next week. In the meantime, I have the following to relate:
• The Australian reports that factional arrangements ensure that Stephen Conroy’s own sub-faction of the Victorian Right will decide his successor when he vacates his Senate seat on September 30. That seems to bode well for his ally Mehmet Tillem, who previously served in the Senate from late 2013 until mid-2014, when he served out David Feeney’s term after he moved to the lower house seat of Batman at the September 2013 election. However, some in the party are said to be arguing that the position should go to a woman, specifically to Stefanie Perri, the former Monash mayor who ran unsuccessfully in Chisholm at the recent election.
• A draft redistribution proposal has been published for the Northern Territory’s two electorates, in which early 3000 voters are to be transferred from growing Solomon (covering Darwin and Palmerston) to stagnant Lingiari (covering the remainder of the territory). The transfer encompasses Yarrawonga, Farrar, Johnston and Zuccoli at the eastern edge of Palmerston, together with the Litchfield Shire areas around Knuckey Lagoon immediately east of Darwin. This is a conservative area, so the change would strengthen Labor in Solomon and weaken them in Lingiari.
• A redistribution for the five electorates in Tasmania is in its earliest stages, with a period for preliminary public suggestions to run from November 2 to December 5.
• The Liberal National Party announced last week it would not challenge its 37 vote defeat in the Townsville-based seat of Herbert, despite complaints from Senator Ian Macdonald that the Australian Eleectoral Commission had promised hospital patients it would take their votes on polling day without delivering, and that students outside the electorate were denied absent votes because the required envelopes were not available. The 40-day deadline for lodgement of a challenge closed on Saturday.
player one @ #149 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:59 pm
And now you’re engaging with me again! How long will this farcical fake disengagement continue? If you make a post that criticises me in passing, then your criticism is directed at me, even if that criticism is made in connection with a reply to someone else.
Kevin Bonham,
as you’re around, would you care to share any ideas you may have about how Essential continues at the 52/48 to Labor. I reckon the supplementary questions they ask give us a clue and I reckon those responses indicate a disconnect between what the gov’t is pushing and what the electorate actually think about a range of issues, including marriage equality.
Does anyone know when we might see another Ipsos or Reachtel? Heck I’d even take a Morgan at this point!
The last polling I could find on marriage was in June 2013. Almost everyone wanted to be married or married again. I am in the minority as are some others here it seems. Just as I am free to not marry so should others be free to express their love and/or commitment through marriage. I will defend two people’s rights to get married as long as they are both consenting adults and that is what they want. Let’s not complicate matters.
Kevin Bonham
You know the interesting thing about public blogs? You don’t get to make the rules.
fess,
I wouldn’t have the first clue about when another poll might come crashing around our ears, but like you, would sure be interested.
I am actually quite worried about the effect on young carers about Porter’s pronouncements today. The idea that they go on to a career as a carer, from having to be a carer, is another grotesque idea from a fundamentally grotesque gov’t.
Malcolm’s performance at the UN today induced more cringing and intent to dodge Australian nationality while OS, if at all possible.
lizzie @ #105 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 5:32 pm
Judith Sloan is on the record stating that the Newstart allowance is way too little. She’s still a typical “supply side, trickle down” RWNJ on every other issue though.
O.K. bludgers,
time to head off for some evening repast.
Catch you later.
It doesn’t matter what issue he chooses, he continues to put his foot in it.
player one @ #3028 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 9:07 am
I will disengage from this argument not because your position is extreme, shrill and absolutist (we can just agree to disagree on that) but because you refuse to consider that there could be any valid opinion on the issue other than your own, or any other solution to the one you want – so what’s the point in any further discussion?
You repeatedly insult anyone who disagrees with you, labelling them “irrational, uneducated, blinkered, unintelligent and mean”. As for the “critical problem with my position”, it is clear that you choose not to even consider a solution that offers true equality, because it’s not exactly the solution you wanted. Worse, it provides equality whilst also allowing diversity of opinion – something you apparently cannot tolerate.
But….. But….. Kevin Bonham has PhD!
Does that not mean anything to you?
Me neither.
kevin bonham @ #147 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:56 pm
Kev, this may come as a shock to you. You don’t get to make the rules here.
player one @ #155 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:17 pm
snap.
don @ #162 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:32 pm
: )
Strip it right back. Every citizen has an equal right to vote for a parliamentary representative or run themselves for parliament. A liberal democracy.
Player One is playing semantic games. They are against marriage equality. There’s no concealing that. They say they are in favour of something else, but whatever it is they favour it is not marriage as commonly understood.
The Greens are doing internal shite fight after internal shite fight.
They are useless in the Senate.
So, to pass the time and to distract from their own horrible hatefest, they are offering free advice on whom Labor should choose to replace Conroy.
Briefly:
One of the reasons why Nash was able to be so thoroughly owned on Qanda last night is because there is no logical argument against SSM. None.
I know that there is some kind of constitutional prohibition on the establishment of state religion. Can anybody explain to me the legal reason that listing a bunch of religions (and not others) in the Marriage Act hasn’t fallen foul of it?
Boerwar:
The Greens would be better served asking themselves who they are going to elect as leader seeing as Di Natale has proved so useless in advancing the Greens policy agenda in the national parliament.
confessions @ #167 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:09 pm
If Nash is such an avid supporter of “traditional marriages” why wasn’t she at home ironing her husband’s shirts after cooking the family meal and putting the kids to bed?
player one @ #155 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:17 pm
Do you know the interesting thing about public blogs? If you engage in fake “disengagement” games then people will call you on it and may even provide suggestions on how you might post more sincerely. (And I indeed do not make the rules here, but nor in fact do you. )
Given that this “disengagement” thing is just a big game to you, where you make a big show of how you are going to disengage but don’t actually do it, we are entitled to assume that your whole stated position on same-sex marriage is also a game. Of course the position you are pushing is a very convenient one for this purpose since you would get to have your jollies at the expense of those who have certain views on this issue, while then retreating behind a position you can say is still egalitarian (though I showed on the previous thread that it is not.)
don @ #161 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:29 pm
Don this may come as a shock to you but I don’t place any value on your criticism or praise. Especially not when you can’t distinguish between me spelling out what real disengagement would consist of and some supposed fictitious attempt to act as a backseat moderator.
briefly @ #165 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:02 pm
You really have missed the plot here. I said early on in this discussion that I was inclined not to support gay marriage, but that I was willing to be overruled if the majority was in favor of it. I (foolishly) thought this was an entirely reasonable position to take. However, according to some posters here (who shall remain nameless) instead this just makes me irrational, uneducated, blinkered, unintelligent and mean. And they wonder why I simply don’t agree with their assessment and meekly submit. Well, sorry – that’s just not going to happen.
I have even suggested a possible way to get people such as me on side on this issue, since I believe I am better able to understand why 30-40% of people may be against it than those who just want to throw silly insults against such a sizable proportion of the population – but this appears to be of little interest. They misrepresent the suggestion, throwing up stawmen arguments when they then proceed to ridicule – all because the suggestion does not agree with their absolutist position. Different opinions are simply not allowed, and anyone who holds them must be demonized!
And you wonder why I don’t take their posts seriously?
Confessions
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:09 pm
Briefly:
One of the reasons why Nash was able to be so thoroughly owned on Qanda last night is because there is no logical argument against SSM. None.
I’ll have to catch up with Q&A. Opposition to ME is receding as time passes, no doubt about that.
shiftaling @ #168 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:10 pm
Good question. I don’t know the answer – but I presume that given how many informed posters we have here on this issue, someone will be able to provide it.
kevin bonham @ #172 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:15 pm
She was talking about marriage being solely between a man and a woman. The division of labour within said marriage is a separate issue, and in my view shouldn’t be used to muddy the waters when it comes to marriage equality.
That just reminds me of all the hetero statements such as ‘if gay people wanna get married then let them discover what a chore it is’ etc and similar ‘debate’ along the same line.
Oh, I think there are logical arguments against SSM, but they can be defeated by logic.
I am not gay, and I find the homosexual sex act personally distasteful, as do most heterosexual people. This does not mean that I find homosexuals as people distasteful, or their lifestyle, including gay marriage.
I would also find working at the killing station of an abbatoir distasteful. Or being a surgeon and amputating someone’s leg on occasion, or stitching a revolting flesh wound, or cleaning up vomit. I don’t think I’d be too fond of being an undertaker, having to clean up dead bodies (although a couple of undertaker’s I’ve spoken to claim to find it “relaxing”), or a plumber slopping out blocked dunny drains full of congealed shit. There are lots of occupations and personal choices that turn me right off (having tattoos is another). But it’s a different thing to turn your distaste for certain things, choices or lifestyles into advocating their banning, just because they cause you discomfort or might be embarrassing or too tacky for your personal liking.
I think the proponents of a plebiscite want one because they know that certain people out there – people who probably tell pollsters they’d vote “yes” for SSM – when given the choice will vote “No”.
Never ask a copper if you can park in a No Standing zone, even if he is parked there too. He will look at you and point, saying, “What does that sign there say?”, indicating the “No Standing” sign, and then he’ll move you on (I learnt this on the first night I drove cabs as a fresh-faced 21 year old).
If you don’t ask, then you won’t be told the unpleasant truth. This is what the pro-Plebisciters are counting on: the secretive voters who don’t really mind gay marriage, until they are asked officially whether they do. They;ll be pumped up with bullshit about what’s good for the nation, our hallowed traditions, the possibilities of bestiality running rife, the history of the Church’s position, anti-Turnbullitis (if he makes the mistake of sticking his bib into it), anti-Shortenitis anti-bloody-everything they associate with the Plebiscite.
Never forget: this is how the “unloseable” Rebublic Referendum was lost. Give the punters a chance to think their opinion is important, tell them that this is “true democracy”, and they will rise to the bait.
monica lynagh @ #152 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:11 pm
The surprising thing given their primaries is that it is actually 52-48 and not even more lopsided, because those primaries should give at least 53 and more typically 54.
I don’t regard Essential as a very reliable pollster and there is quite a disconnect between what it is getting at the moment and what Newspoll is getting, and I think we really need to see ReachTEL at least come back into the field to get a better idea of where the government is at. In terms of issues, same-sex marriage has a very long history of having no apparent connection to voting intention (only a small proportion of voters name it as a vote-changer) so I’d be surprised if that actually changed. The government got no honeymoon bounce because its result was underwhelming and nothing has happened since to really cause it to pick up any steam. If it has in fact slipped substantially from the election result, I don’t have any special or evidence-based insight as to what issues would be driving it.
Hey Kevin
In case you hadn’t noticed, we are not discussing (subject redacted) here any more. We are discussing whether or not you get to tell others what to do when (subject redacted) is being discussed with someone else.
And guess what? You don’t! That must really chap your ass!
rex douglas @ #164 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:46 pm
Kevin Bonham
It is the core of a liberal democracy.
So what are they? You listed things you find personally distasteful, but these are not logical arguments, merely statements of personal opinion. Much like Nash’s ‘I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman’.
I agree with your views about the motivations of the pro plebiscite mob. The reality is that back in the day Howard’s govt didn’t use a referendum to change the Marriage Act to expressly exclude same sex marriages, so why should we use one now? We have a parliament and that’s what it’s for, so our elected representatives should just get on with it.
Player One
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:20 pm
briefly @ #165 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:02 pm
You really have missed the plot here. I said early on in this discussion that I was inclined not to support gay marriage, but that I was willing to be overruled if the majority was in favor of it. I (foolishly) thought this was an entirely reasonable position to take.
I don’t believe I’ve missed the plot. It is entirely reasonable to oppose ME and yet be willing to concede to the majority.
Your alternative to ME seems to me (and, I imagine, to others) to be disingenuous. It purports to say we may all be equal in every way except one, and that is to describe ourselves a married. On your formulation, the only couples who could claim to be married were those whose vows had been celebrated in a religious ceremony. This not only diminishes the rights of same-sex couples. It diminishes the rights of non-religious opposite-sex couples.
I keep saying this issue should be seen as matter of freedom of speech. This is precisely because marriage is an expression – a legal, cultural, social and emotional expression. Your formulation would deprive many of the right to use this expression to describe themselves in a legal as well as in cultural, normative sense.
Your formulation would continue (nay, it would worsen) the repression contained in the current Act. We have to remove this repression – this restraint – on the rights of expression of same sex couples. This is where equality lies. It is where acceptance and welcome may be found.
BB finds unblocking a toilet distasteful therefore gay marriage shouldn’t be banned?
Shifting, I believe the Act does not specify particular creeds. It simply allows that clerics may be authorised as civil registrars.
player one @ #173 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:20 pm
Why should those 30-40% be pandered to?
The debate is not about giving you a warm fuzzy feeling.
The debate is not about you or me, it’s about giving equality to people who face a particular inequality.
You can not give a little bit of equality because you are still left with inequality.
That is why there is no room for a negotiated position your position while making you feel better as pointed out leaves the same inequality that we have now.
Your inability to accept this is why you have deservedly been ridiculed.
Under the laws that have existed in this country since European settlement, marriage has been a matter of civil registration. The religious embellishment is simply decorative. It does not constitute marriage in any way. Player One would abolish civil marriage. Under their formulation,”marriage” would again become a religious rite, a situation that has not existed in an English law jurisdiction since 1753.
The normative meaning of marriage would once again be in the hands of the clerics – a situation that would be repugnant to nearly everyone in the country.
Some of you folk are taking a long time to realise you are being trolled.
Hi Bludgers, I see the Liberal gov has unveiled their plan to break welfare recipients, again. And how many here said the Abbott/Hockey budget lived on like a zombie – plenty of you!
Given they like to use NZ as some precedent for bashing the disadvantaged perhaps we can adopt their SSM policy as well along the way.
briefly @ #184 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:37 pm
Thank you for that.
It is not.
You all seem so stuck on the word “married”. I think this is where you go wrong, and why you consistently alienate 30-40% of the population.
Yes. So what?
Only if you believe the word “married” has some sort of magic to it. I don’t.
Words are not magic. They are just words. This particular word seems to mean more to you than any other, yet you cannot understand why it might also mean more to some others in much the same way.
For you it does, because you ascribe special meaning to the word “married”, yet you refuse to acknowledge that it may have special meaning to others as well.
The solution? Avoid the term altogether, and make every relationship equal in fact. Leave “married” where it belongs – a religious term, along with “baptised”, “confirmed” or “bar mitzva’d” (is that a term?).
Used to be pretty free and easy on Hoots-Mon land to get married.
Why isn’t anyone callng on the Government to address unemployment rather than try to come up with excuses to attack welfare recipients.
barney in saigon @ #187 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:43 pm
They don’t have to be – you can simply have rule by majority. But don’t be surprised if you generate a lot of bad feeling this way.
Yes, it makes me all warm and fuzzy to be called irrational, uneducated, blinkered, unintelligent and mean.
A problem for which I have proposed a solution.
That’s why I propose absolute equality before the law. Why do you care so much what some religions want to do? Do you march in the streets about the rights of Jewish people to eat ham sandwiches if they want to? Why not?
And your inability to accept there may be an alternative opinion is why I can’t take you seriously.
briefly @ #186 Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:41 pm
Serious question: Can Scientologists marry people? I really don’t know. I do seem to recall reading that in NZ a Pastafarian is now allowed to perform marriages. How cool is that! : )
Briefly but the act does specify which religions are sanctioned by the state to marry others. Paganism is not on there, and although I can anticipate the counterargument that paganism is not an incorporated body such as a church, Islam is in the list as there is no unitary church of Islam.
It seems to me that the Marriage Act confers state office onto selected religious practitioners to the detriment of others, and I believe it constitutes the establishment of state religion. Interested to hear any legal opinions as to why this is not so
Briefly
Again with the misrepresentation? What are you so afraid of?
The last time I looked there was an actual list of religions
steve777
They have a $96m plan! Or something like that. I’m sure Malcolm’s mates are all very concerned about the lives of the unemployed and disadvantaged. We know they are from past experience. ;-P
Player One
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:54 pm
It is not me that is hung up on the word “marriage”. It is you. I simply think people should be permitted to should continue to use the word with its current, ordinary and legal meanings. You would abolish its current use. I would liberalise it.
You do not think a union between a same-sex couple should have the same normative or legal value as union between an opposite sex couple. I hold the contrary, egalitarian, view.
You have not stated just why you think same-sex unions should be regarded as inferior. This, it seems, is just a preference. Fair enough. But this goes nowhere near establishing an argument in favour of the abolition of civil marriage.