The BludgerTrack poll aggregate has provided remarkably little excitement since it resumed two months ago, with the two-party preferred reading never moving more than a few fractions of a point away from 52-48 in favour of Labor, and the seat projections never changing at any stage, either in aggregate or at the state level. This week is no exception, the only new addition being a lightly weighted result from Essential Research. The Roy Morgan results that were reported in the previous post have been added to the leadership ratings, without effecting any change worth mentioning.
BludgerTrack: 52.0-48.0 to Labor
One new poll on voting intention and one on leadership ratings find the BludgerTrack poll aggregate maintaining its recent boring form.
It certainly shows what a snivelling wretch Leyonjhelm is that, having been comprehensively screwed by the libs he’s lining up for another dose of the same. The Libs must be laughing their heads off.
I think many call it compromising.
QUT 18C case dismissed (from what I read I can’t see how it got anywhere in the first place).
KEVJOHNNO – Yep, compromising your principles.
‘There seems to be an effort to normalise and validate extreme political views. This serves to soften up the public for further shifts towards the neoliberal agenda.’
I think that this is very much the point, and the ABC is dutifully playing its part.
ABC NewsRadio reports that two teenagers have been arrested in relation to the bushfire in western Sydney near Penrith that has been out of control for most of today.
Unconfirmed reports suggest 3 houses have been damaged/destroyed.
Having lived through Black Saturday (I was in Traralgon) and a sister who lives out bush I have a very low opinion of arsonists.
What does one do with these people?
Surely the real question with Leyonjhelm is what exactly is he getting out of the deal? After all, the coalition already want to change 18c, and would do it tomorrow if they could. Doing a deal with Leyonjhelm isn’t going to suddenly make this possible
Seriously?
Michael Moore
2h2 hours ago
Michael Moore @MMFlint
Still gobsmacked 2 hrs later after CNN’s Don Lemon showed me a FoxNews clip from last wk where it’s clear Rudy KNEW what Comey was gonna do.
diogenes @ #203 Friday, November 4, 2016 at 6:11 pm
The racist sections of society are predictably euphoric.
Vic….
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/rudy-giuliani-brags-about-ties-at-the-fbi-and-don-lemon-just-pointed-the-finger-at-him/
Antonbruckner, if you want to see a legislative body full of people who don’t compromise, just look at the US Congress of late.
So, Leyonjhelm:
1. Does a deal with the govt and gets totally screwed;
2. Runs off the the media and whines like a child about getting screwed;
3. Lines up again to make another deal with the govt.
Who could possibly take him seriously.
Simon Katich
Thanks, Seriously smelly stuff
Matt – I’ve got no problem with compromise. I just have problem with MPs voting for bills they just don’t agree with. I think that is just totally wrong. This isn’t like negotiating over the price of eggs (a commercial transaction). This is about your principles and whether you maintain them or trade them away.
Photos
Likes
Tweets
This is about Simon Birmingham and Bob Day
Margo Kingston
47m47 minutes ago
Margo Kingston @margokingston1
Our Paper’s page 1 lead: The pictures that question minister’s claim he didn’t… http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-pictures-that-question-ministers-claim-he-didnt-know-of-bob-days-role-at-trades-school-20161104-gsi0cg.html …, see more http://tweetedtimes.com/margokingston1?s=tnp …
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/will-it-be-such-a-loss-if-bob-day-and-rod-culleton-disappear-from-parliament
Ackland brilliant as usual.
Anton, Leyonhjelm’s a tool, but bills are seldom “Yes or no” deals. Often, a bill has parts that a MP agrees with, and parts that they disagree with, which means that they have to decide whether the parts they agree with outweigh the parts they disagree with. Now, extend that principle across multiple bills – if I deem Bill A (which I agree with) to be more substantial than Bill B (which I disagree with), then I will vote for Bill B as the price of getting Bill A through.
That’s called compromise, and it’s a part of any functional parliament. Leyonhjelm’s a toolbag, but this is one issue I don’t particularly fault him for – I fault him for not assigning a much, much higher weighting to the ABCC bill.
** Seriously smelly stuff **
If Trump wins, it will be interesting to see who is in his rats nest of a Cabinet.
simon katich @ #218 Friday, November 4, 2016 at 7:12 pm
There is, of course, the possibility that the Democrats can win the Senate. Given how the Republicans have been threatening scorched earth against Hillary Clinton if she wins, and how these threats can be taken seriously on the basis of how they treated Barack Obama, the Democrats in this situation would have every justification in taking a hard line against any Trump nominations for Cabinet or for the Courts.
The way I see it, the Democrats would owe it to their voters and those who are disenfranchised to minimise the damage that Trump could do in power.
With Ludlam off sick dealing with mental health issues, which he says are longstanding, I guess this is an indication of his reluctance to nominate for the leadership before. Understandable too with the added pressure that comes with political leadership.
MATT – I suppose that, at the end of the day, it’s a question of whether ends justify means. But, if say you had an appeal in the high court and the judges went away and traded their votes between different cases (because you’re not very important in your own right) you wouldn’t be happy. Compromising across multiple bills seems like a fool’s errand to me and a recipe for moral delinquency.
Anton, that’s a false equivalence. MPs are supposed to act on their understanding of what’s best for the country – which is an inherently subjective matter. Judges are supposed to act on their understanding of the law, which is far closer to having inherently right or wrong answers (i.e., objective).
To equate the two shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental point of each.
Is anyone able to provide insight as to the impact of Ludlams absence on Senate numbers? Is a pair granted in this situation? If not what is the revised projection on senate votes for the ABCC and plebiscite bills?
shiftaling @ #223 Friday, November 4, 2016 at 8:14 pm
It’s normal practice to grant a pair for illness. If the coalition don’t do so, especially re the ABCC legislation, it will resound to their everlasting shame.
MATT – We could argue all night. But, anyway, I just don’t think it enhances anyone’s respect for the legislative system when dodgy dave is hawking his vote around on one bill to get support for another. As usual, he’s a dumb man being too smart by half.
Shiftaling:
There will be a pair for Ludlam. The govt wouldn’t dare refusing given the precarious numbers in the House for them.
Thanks AJM and Confessions.
The issue of a pair is more complicated for a joint sitting because an absolute majority is required to pass the bill.
Michael Moore
4h4 hours ago
Michael Moore @MMFlint
Here it is. Watch this & tell me Giuliani didn’t know. Did u know Rudy used to be FBI Director Comey’s BOSS? http://cnn.it/2f72LfD
When discussing negotiations over votes for Bills, it is not whether negotiations occur, they have always needed to happen, but whether what is being bartered in exchange for a vote is just.
And on that score, David Leyonhjelm and Malcolm Turnbull fail miserably.
Victoria
Sure looks like giuliani knew. What I hate about the US is the politicisation of the public sector. It is happening here and it is a bloody disaster
shiftaling @ #223 Friday, November 4, 2016 at 8:14 pm
The way that the Senate numbers are falling they might soon be struggling to make a quorum.
DTT
” What I hate about the US is the politicisation of the public sector. ”
.
When Dubya was elected I was watching Fox News fairly regularly. What struck me was how many ex military people were being appointed to positions by them.
This is a great article – one of Paul McGeough’s best – about the state of democracy in the USA
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/forget-clinton-and-trump–americas-democracy-is-broken-and-they-cant-fix-it-20161103-gshl3c.html
TPOF
Thank you for the link. Excellent find.
And a fine, if terrifying, piece by Andrew Sullivan
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/andrew-sullivan-trump-america-and-the-abyss.html
TPOF
The movie “Idiocracy” was only out by about 500 years out 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA
poroti @ #237 Friday, November 4, 2016 at 10:52 pm
Thanks. Never heard of the movie before, so I checked out Wikipedia and found this paragraph:
TPOF
Trump said he will make “America great again” whilst President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho said he will make “America grow again”. Eerily similar 🙂
Just over on Five Thirty-Eight
Three national tracking polls – ABC, USC and IBD have stopped trending to Trump and turned back to Clinton. Only a point in each case, but the fact that all three have done so in unison is a possible indicator that the FBI-induced bleeding has stopped.
Terry Crews’ performance as the President in ‘Idiocracy’ is hilarious.
Piss funny movie and a must see for political junkies.
Pope’s view:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/photogallery/act-news/david-pope-20120214-1t3j0.html
Look at the diagram on the bowser. Pretty well summarises the impact of four decades of right wing economics.
TPOF
I loved the McGeogh article but found the Sullivan one not getting to the core of the problem. Sullivan suggests trump is the cause of the collapse of the GOP, but I rather think he is a symptom.
Trump himself I think is more of a showman than a fascist and he is probably 20 years too old to be a realistic strong man. BUT it is his supporters who are the worry. If one emerges who is younger, stronger and more organised than Trump, there is a real cause for worry.
Pairs are both unnecessary and unproductive in a joint sitting due to the requirement for absolutely majority. For those opposed becomes a no in a joint sitting. For those for a pair doesn’t help because they still lack a vote for and the pair still effectively votes against by being absent (you’d need a pair to actively for the proposal in such a situation and the political ramifications of that are too significant to be possible. It would never be possible in any realistic joint sitting (there’s a bizzare hypothetical joint sitting conscience vote situation where it could happen but there’s no practical way to end up in that situation).
Pairs are traditionally granted for medical absences (or maternity / paternity) for 3 reasons
1) the refusal makes you look like arseholes and is bad for your vote
2) tit for tat
3) even career politicians are generally not horrible enough to play games with that stuff.
One down, one to go.
Elizabeth Farrelly is rid of her Turnbull’s infatuation. It was a death on Manus Island that became the last straw.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australias-fall-from-lucky-country-to-cruel-country-20161102-gsgvwq.html
Next… Katharine Murphy. When she goes, we’ll know for sure that Turnbull is toast.
(try again)
I think Trump will lose (more than the polls are predicting), but if he does win, “making America great again” is easy… you just say so all the time.
The only reason America isn’t great is because Republican’s say so whenever they aren’t in power.
TPOF
Thank you for those two links, taken together, they provide a whole picture and it’s not a pleasant one.
Sullivan reveals Trump in all his fascist ignorance.
McGeough reveals the sham that is American “democracy”.
I felt I was reading some version of “the fall of the Roman Empire”.
Lizzie
An appropriate quote from 1920.
Be patient Bludgers. The Dawn Patrol will be late this morning. I have only just arisen after a big night at the local oval where he served over 90 meals at one of our monthly community dinners. Hard work but god fun and financial benefit.