The latest fortnightly Newspoll, courtesy of The Australian, finds Labor opening up a 52-48 lead after a 50-50 result a fortnight ago, with the Coalition down three on the primary vote to 38%, Labor up one to 37%, and the Greens up one to 10%. On personal ratings, Malcolm Turnbull is down two on approval to 32% and up two on disapproval to 55%, while Bill Shorten is up one to 36% and down one to 51%. However, preferred prime minister is little changed, with Turnbull’s lead shifting from 43-31 to 44-33.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Bit of movement in the Essential Research fortnightly rolling average, with the Coalition up two on the primary vote to 39%, Labor down one to 36%, the Greens down one to 9%, One Nation steady on 6% and the Nick Xenophon Team down to 3%. Despite the apparent move in the Coalition’s favour, Labor’s two-party lead remains at 52-48. Other findings:
• An occasional series of questions on leaders’ attributes reflects a slight deterioration in Malcolm Turnbull’s standing since it was last asked in May, with arrogant up five points, narrow-minded up four and visionary down five. Nearly every one of Bill Shorten’s 15 indicators are up slightly, positive and negative alike, which presumably reflects his higher profile after an election campaign. The biggest mover is “aggressive”, up six to a still modest 36%.
• A series of questions on “leader trust to handle issues” finds Bill Shorten favoured in almost every case, reflecting the fact that that issues identified are mostly on turf favourable to Labor. A curious is exception is “regulating the banking and finance sector”, on which Turnbull led 33% to 29%.
• The poll also finds strong support for voluntary euthanasia, which is supported by 68% “when a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain” and opposed by 13%.
• Strong opposition to liberalising of cross-media ownership laws was recorded, with 61% disapproving and 18% approving.
• Respondents were asked to evaluate the level of importance of five issues, which found climate change, a royal commission into the banking and finance industry and a treaty with indigenous Australians rated of high importance, and votes on same-sex marriage and a republic substantially less so.
• Fifty-eight per cent said they would support recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the constitution, with 15% opposed.
lizzie
Yes. The only thing the plebiscite fiasco proves to the public is that this government is incompetent and can’t even do its day job.
Wow the Insiders panel sounds like PB talking about renewable energy.
Bad news for the LNP
InsidersABC: .@andrewprobyn: The next 10 years we are going to have a vastly different electricity system. #insiders #auspol snpy.tv/2dlgH5D
https://twitter.com/insidersabc/status/782348498456809472
TonyHWindsor: It’s called leadership Fran and we are not getting that at the Federal level ,he nice the states have moved ahead .#insiders
Morning bludgers
I have watched the Grand final again, and for those who seriously think that the umpiring influenced the result of the game are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Bulldogs run out games better than any other team and Sydney were running out of legs in last quarter. Add to the many passengers on the Sydney team, and they lost fair and square. Very disappointing attitude by some bludgers
Victoria
PaulBongiorno: Neil Cordy’s analysis of the AFL grand final umpiring in the Sunday Telegraph absolutely spot on.Disgraceful show.
The Uhlmann fiasco, the fact that it fed so neatly into the day’s political narrative, and the fact that it is still on the ABC website, shows just what a compromised news organisation the ABC has become.
And don’t expect any mention of Stuart Robert on Insiders or anywhere else. The topic is off limits for their ABC.
Compare and contrast…
c@t
Yep. What I was saying other day re Stuart Robert. Thomson had to go to x bench for dismeanours years before he was an MP. Team Labor need to demand same for Stuart Robert
Anyone who quotes the Sunday Telecrap in an argument, automatically loses I would have thought.
Guytaur
Journos opinions count for nought. I can make up my own mind
Victoria
I would have thought the name Neil Cordy would have given you pause for thought at least.
Adrian
Politics yes. Sport less so
Sour grapes.
Umpires ALWAYS let a grand final run it’s course with as little involvement from themselves as is reasonable. Coaches know what to expect; players know what to expect and generally fans of teams NOT involved know what to expect. Only fans of a participating club with emotional baggage at stake will cry foul at the whistle being put away in a GF.
Guytaur
I have watched the game myself. The better team won. Umpiring had absoutely nothing to do with it. End of
Tom Hawkins
Spot on.
Tom Hawkins
The failure of the umpiring is in the phrase the umpires put their whistle away.
You do not get that in soccer or rugby. The rules apply consistently from the first game to the international game.
Yet in AFL a different standard is in place for the Grand final than in the first games.
The umpires have instead of enforcing the rules as they do for that first game just give up any pretence of professional umpiring and put their whistles away and let a free for all happen.
If this was not true the phrase put their whistles away would not be part of the narrative of the grand final.
Victoria
I totally agree…I think the whining from Swans supporters is pathetic.
Martha F
It is actually very disappointing. Even the Swans coach said that there were too many passengers in his team. Aint that the truth
As a Crows supporter who didn’t have any skin in the game, I thought the umpiring was woeful.
I agree with Boerwar, actually; there is a big difference between “putting the whistle away” during the finals – a policy I largely agree with – and “mostly putting the whistle away, only to then get it out for a wrong decision in a critical part of the game”, which is the sort of umpiring that happened yesterday.
You cannot underestimate the psychological impact that sort of umpiring has on players. One side becomes demoralised, the other side becomes elated and before you know it, the tide has more or less permanently turned.
Bad umpiring decisions are bad umpiring decisions. No amount of “the Bulldogs finished the game better” changes the fact that the result may have been completely different if those bad decisions had favoured the Swans, rather than the Bulldogs. Either way, we will never know.
Morning all.
I agree with Victoria and Tom H. There were a max of 2 maybe 3 umpiring decisions that were arguably dubious. The better team won on the day.
Vic:
Sydney had key players who rarely saw any action yesterday. Longmire is right about the number of passengers.
Fess
I am actually watching the game again for a third time. I watch a lot of AFL games throughout the year, and this game was umpired in much the same way. Sydney were outdone and outrun by a better team. Simple as that
Welcome to AFL.
It’s how it’s been for decades. This GF was no different than any other I can remember in the modern era i.e. since 1970 when Carlton were 40+ points down at half time and their coach revolutionised the game by insisting they handball at almost every opportunity. Carlton won and the super fast modern game was born. Umpires stepped back and stopped getting involved in every collision of bodies and under the intense pressure of a high stakes game allowed the ball to be extracted from packs in a ‘looser’ way than would be allowed on an open game.
It’s how it is. Sydney are experts at throwing the ball as well and there was plenty of it from them yesterday.
Chinda63
We do know. The Bulldogs were far and away the better team on the day
Victoria
The umpiring throughout the year has been appalling. As I mentioned above I thought the umpiring favoured the swans too much during one match.
This is truly appalling umpiring and claiming its whining losers does not change the fact as the case BW outlined well the stats prove the point
Tom Hawkins
Spot on again
Guytaur
AFL is the hardest game to umpire. Bulldogs won the game because they were the superior “team”
The umpiring may not have affected the outcome yesterday, but it threatened to at various points throughout the game. Whilst not a Footscray fan, I was definitely behind them for the win and based on umpiring decisions at certain points in the game, the thought crossed my mind that perhaps the umpires were willing them to win too.
Guytaur,
Not sure why you’re complaining. The Swans ended up with 100% of nothing…as a Green supporter you should be happy 🙂
BK
Many thank for your Dawn Patrol. I don’t buy or read newspapers and depend, more or less on you.
I have ABC.net.au as a home page on one of my browsers.
I note that the ABC has fallen to third on the most visited website behind news.com.au (nielsen ratings).
I have had a look at news.com.au. Not a lot to say for it as a news carrier.
Anybody who prefers news.com is not losing much if anything.
The article about aged care is disturbing. What it does not make clear is that although lucid residents and families are aware of deficiencies and who complain; (and only those very few families or family members who regularly visit for more than a “hello Mum, here’s some flowers, see you next week” visit) complaints do not result in improvements. Try to demand changes and you will get the heavies from the management and the legal team on your back. You will be threatened and told that you are “cranky, troublesome, upsetting to the residents”. You will be told that you will be banned for being disruptive.
There are a couple of complaints avenues, the use of which is like kicking oneself up the backside.
I have written about this a couple of times. The article in Mr. BK’s excellent dawn patrol is well worth a read.
Making appropriate arrangement regarding wills, power of attorney and instructions regarding end of life treatment is an absolute necessity NOW. Have readily available names, phone numbers and addresses of loved ones, carers, Doctor. Have a list of medication. A suggestion: buy a small business card case and populate it with the above information (phone number, doctor, medication etc).
No smilies.
Victoria
Do you agree with a player who has played with both the Western Bulldogs and The Sydney Swans or do you disagree with him?
Guytaur
There are always 50/50 decisions. That is the nature of the game.
Victoria
The phrase stood out means it was not a 50/50 decision.
The two most glaring umpiring errors on the day were:
– a WB player slapped the ball between his legs (sorry for the crude description) in tunnel ball fashion and that was a blatant throw that went unpunished
– a Swans player jumped high to grab the ball and stuck his boot studs out at a WB guy in a dangerous fashion resulting in the WB guy defending himself by grabbing the leg. This should have been play on but was called a free to Sydney for a low tackle i.e. below the knees.
These two umpiring errors were not typical of other decisions (or non-decisions) made throughout the game but were the worst on the day.
Tom Hawkins
The stats tell the story. When decisions were made they were made in favour of the Bulldogs
guytaur @ #2133 Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:34 am
Guytar and others, get over it.
I have been to places in the world where guess what; they work on the big grand final day for the old VFL and AFL, and guess what the world knows nothing of this game and guess what they are happy in their ignorance of the game.
Who do you play internationally in this game exactly? No one So what does this result matter 24 hours later. It doesn’t, other than it gives hope to a community and acts to strengthen bonds within that community by being a community.
I can find you at least a dozen experts who with hand on heart tell you that the umpires stole the grand final from Melbourne in 1954 through umpiring decisions and every final game from then to yesterday.
The game is a game, the fitness and athleticism is to be admired. So it is any in game, heat, round, final, championship, etc. of any sport (even curling, which I enjoy, but television is to full of F>>>G football)
Tribalism around a football team is the pits. The ability to discuss issues without resorting to head up arse tactics is the pits. It is the same head up arse tribalism that we rail against here in PB in other non-sporting related activities.
Anyhow I can tell you that the crowd at the game was not the died in the wall supporter but made up of too many corporates. In public transport you spot the difference and I can also tell you that the worst passengers are these end of year corporates that grand finals are patronised by.
From my past they want the “four F’s” of the day. (You want an adult explanation send me an email). But corporatisation and dumping of the true followers at years’ end, that is another and extremely important issue
As a Collingwood supporter I too agree with Victoria re the Grand Final. I watched the replay last night.
And that will be your argument to end all other discussion on the matter. I don’t hold any one commentator’s opinion on the standard of umpiring over any other. His history as a former player means absolutely nothing.
OK the onus is on you; show me the stats and tell me which of the decisions were wrong.
martha farquahar @ #2129 Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:27 am
Classic! 😆
Tom Hawkins
As a player who knows the rules and has gone into print his opinion does not exactly mean nothing
Just as the stats of the game do not mean nothing.
People pointing out the umpiring decisions who are professional commentators and have a reputation to uphold cannot just be dismissed because you do not like the questions raised.
Dismissing such opinions as sore losers just shows a blindness of being on a winning bandwagon and not wanting to look at facts.
Remember commentators are restricted in what they can say by the AFL because attacking the umpire can be seen as encouraging bullying so commentators that do so now are much more careful before they go into print.
I think there are serious questions for the umpiring of the game.
I think it applies throughout the season and I think the put the whistles away excuse proves there is a systemic problem that does not exist in soccer which has plenty of problems of course.
I think not applying the same rules for every game is in fact unprofessional.
Tom Hawkins
Go back and look at BW’s posts. Read Neil Cordy’s article. I have made my point.
This is a political blog and I am going back to commenting on politics.
The umpires are always unfair, that’s why they are called “maggots”
That’s why they wore OPSM logos on their uniforms one season, as in “Are you blind, ya maggot”
Umpires are denigrated and despised even though they run the whole game backwards with enough reserves of wind to blow the whistle
grumps @ #2136 Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:38 am
Excellent post with some really pertinent points.
In the end it is an obscure, parochial game ignored by the rest of the world and even much of Australia.
There is no international competition.
And supporters have been repeatedly betrayed by the VFL/AFL toffs. e.g. I remember the angst of South Melbourne supporters when their team was stolen from them and moved to Sydney under a new name in an attempt to metastasise the game to NSW.
Similarly the poor Fitzroy supporters whose team was stolen from them and packed off to Brisbane.
Billie
Best post of the morning. 🙂
Well, in my son’s soccer grand final, the umpire’s decisions certainly went against the losing team.
This was because, as soon as they realised they were out of contention (2-0 just after half time) the losing team started trying to wipe out our players – resulting in a flurry of yellow cards and two reds.
If you looked at the stats, you would have said the ref was biased (and for the same reasons as the AFL GF – our team had not won a Cup for 43 years) but no one at the game would have thought so – indeed, the general opinion was that he should have gone in harder.
Sometimes umpiring decisions go one way for a reason – but I didn’t watch the AFL GF so I can’t say it was the case there, I’m just pointing it out.
billie @ #2143 Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:56 am
I saw some OPSM logos yesterday on the backs of some people on the field. Who were they? Umpires?
Vic
What some people do not seem to understand (or don’t want to understand) is that even if certain free kicks were given that should not have been – or others that were not given should have been – it does not necessarily mean that the winning side would have lost. We can’t know how the game would have unfolded under those circumstances. It is quite possible that the bulldogs would have won by more, especially since, as you say, they were the ones finishing by far the stronger.
If a howler is given with only seconds to play and with the last kick of the match the side that is behind kicks a goal and wins, yes, a case can be made that without that bad decision the other side would have won. But to claim that decisions during the match robbed one team of victory is akin to fortune telling – totally baseless.
It’s a bit like saying that a team that were beaten by four points would have won if only their their first shot at goal had not hit the post from straight in front ten metres out, or that the guy who kicked four goals on the day would have kicked five if his first shot hadn’t narrowly missed. In both cases the whole game would have unfolded differently.
I am really surprised at the level of sour grapes we have been seeing here. Boerwar even went as far as to suggest it is a “tainted” win for heavens sake. Try telling that to the thousands of ecstatic bulldog supporters at the Whitten oval this morning.
Zoomster
My last post on this subject. When you have the likes of a former Western and Sydney player questioning the umpires in print it means its not sore losers whining of a team going the biffo when they are losing.
In fact most of the game was too close for that. IF you want to know more read Neil Cordy’s article.