The latest Essential Research poll, conducted for The Guardian Australia, has two-party preferred steady at 53-47, with both major parties up a point each, to 38% in the Coalition’s case and 37% in Labor’s, and the two biggest minor parties down one, leaving the Greens at 9% and One Nation at 7%. Other findings:
• Compulsory voting has the support of 66% of respondents, which is down five points since the question was last asked in October 2013, with 27% opposed, up two. Eighty per cent say they would have been likely to vote if it were not compulsory, versus 12% for unlikely.
• Economic sentiment has improved since December, with 30% now describing the state of the economy as good (up seven) and 29% as poor (down seven), and 29% thinking it headed in the right direction (up three) against 41% for the wrong direction (down four).
• A question on budget priorities find respondents want spending increased on nearly everything, with the exception of defence, foreign aid and business assistance, with health care, education and age pensions at the top of the chart. Respondents expect the budget will most favour business and the well off, and least favour “older Australians” and “you personally”.
• Contrary to expectations earlier in his career, respondents are confident that Malcolm Turnbull can deliver on “tougher citizenship requirements”, “tighter regulations for foreign workers” and “secure borders”, but not a strong economy, jobs and growth, a balanced budget and, most of all “action on climate change”.
In other polling news, there will shortly be a new entrant into the market in the shape of British market behemoth YouGov:
A new nationally representative political poll launches and goes into the field for the first time this week — a partnership between leading international research and polling firm YouGov and Australian engagement and communications agency Fifty Acres.
YouGov is an international online market research firm, headquartered in the UK, with operations in Europe, North America, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific and Australia …
The poll will be a fortnightly online survey conducted amongst 1,000 Australians aged 18+. The poll sample is nationally representative with quotas based on age, gender and region.
CTaR1
Too Hitleresque in the debate, IMO.
Three gens ago, but fresh in the mind.
Nicholas
I understand you believe you are left wing.
The left side of politics believes in the brotherhood of Mankind; that borders should be done away with as far as possible, that the world should be a melting pot, and that where you are born or where you come from is not as important as what kind of person you turn out to be.
You seem to be advocating a move away from globalisation towards nationalism. That puts you on the right, not the left.
Nationalism means putting your country first; which means ignoring other countries which are less fortunate than yours. It means putting native-born citizens ahead of immigrants. It is about isolating yourself from the world.
The major problems we face as a species cannot be solved if we take these attitudes.
With you, it doesn’t seem to be even a case of the horseshoe; it seems you are right wing, and quite far right wing, but are afraid to admit this.
Simon Aussie Katich Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:03 pm
PhRed
I see your Warwick Capper and raise you a Matthew Johns.
But I was being unfair. There are a lot of Rugby League players with their heads screwed on properly.
*********************************************
When I was a little kid my hero was Melbourne’s – Ron Barrassi – one of the games greatest players never to win the Brownlow – who at the age of 72 on New Year’s Eve 2008, Barassi was assaulted when he went to the aid of a young woman in St Kilda. Barassi, dining with friends, saw a woman punched to the ground ….
His comment – “If you see a woman being belted up, you step in. It’s like when a kid is being bashed. It’s not right,” Barassi said.
“I’m OK. I went for my 5km walk today. It’d take more than a prick like that to stop me.”
I see that Putin is absolutely silent on the murderous gay pogrom in Chechnya.
Russia owns Chechnya.
Putin owns Russia.
Join the dots.
‘Foul’ hardly begins to describe it.
To the extent that Brexit helps to undermine the EU so Brexit helps Putin.
The Far Left should really start joining their dots.
And owning the consequences.
player one @ #1416 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:34 pm
What a perfect example of the P1 troll’s total dishonesty in debating an issue!
Who was the RL player (in)famous for shitting (sic) in a mate’s shoe and leaving a motel room trashed?
Darn,
Yes you are correct re the commentariat and you are spot on re the stakeholders. That s why the push from the government and its media unit in the MSM are simp,t absurd with their continued support. I know it is what they do but it continues to gobsmacked me that they think they can simply rinse and repeat and people will agree.
It is the lived experience that counts and the huge divide between the government propaganda and the reality really will come back to bite them on the arse. It is the same strategy used over and over by Turnbull and co and it is why he and the government continue to lose the politics. A short blast of positive noise from the media and then the reality. Apparently it is all about how smart and how much of a genius Turnbull is. Go figure.
According to the government there is no housing affordability crisis, they will drive down energy prices and there changes to 457 visas will ensure jobs for all Australians. The lived reality is completely different but this does not seem to matter to Turnbull. It is also shy Turnbull gas lost the politics on so many issues and has not yet recognised the fact.
Turnbull continues to follow the same strategy, the MSM continue to drag out the template repeating how much of a genius he is. It is absurd.
His latest debacle is the schools funding policy. He really hopes no one will notice costs going up and services being withdrawn or restricted across thousands of Australian schools. The MSM will fight as hard as they can to support him but they cannot compete with the lived experience.
The whole thing is gobsmacking in its absurdity.
Cheers a great night to all
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-05/will-clinton-run-in-the-2020-us-election/8500608
Indeed
Trends in Australian Political Opinion: Results from the Australian Election Study,
1987– 2016: http://ada.edu.au/ADAData/AES/Trends%20in%20Australian%20Political%20Opinion%201987-2016.pdf
Lots of interesting info in this report, including section on Voting and Partisanship.
Those who have always voted for the same party has plummeted from 72% to 40% in 2016.
In 2016 34% of voters considered voting for another party.
In 2016 36% of Coalition voters considered changing their vote during the election campaign compared to 25% of Labor voters.
Looking at lifetime voting, stable Coalition vote has decreased from 36% to 21% compared to stable Labor vote trending down from 32% to 16%.
As in other countries, Australian voters are casting around for an alternative to the BAU political duopoly that essentially supports the status quo.
The widening inequality between the poor and rich has occurred under the watch of the political duopoly over the last few decades.
Ordinary people are waking up.
I am not fussed if the Greens Party is not the recipient of voters’ desire to ‘shake up’ the establishment’ as that is the voters’ choice.
Ordinary people are increasingly giving ‘the finger’ to the status quo offered by the binary choice represented by the political duopoly.
Peg
‘I am not fussed if the Greens Party is not the recipient of voters’ desire to ‘shake up’ the establishment’ as that is the voters’ choice. ‘
GreensLie.
**Three gens ago, but fresh in the mind.**
There are 0.96 males per females in France (it is 1 in Australia). Yet at birth it is currently 1.05.
I wonder, is it possible WW2 is still effecting that first ratio in France?
Boerwar,
Justin O’Neill was the man.
Cheers.
‘I am not fussed if the Greens Party is not the recipient of voters’ desire to ‘shake up’ the establishment’ as that is the voters’ choice.’
What, peg? Happy for them to vote PHON, just as long as they don’t for a major?
What a responsible approach.
barney in go dau @ #1430 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:55 pm
She is too old and the unfortunate thing is that Elizabeth Warren is of a similar age.
I think the time has passed for both, so who else could be in the running?
Biden still considering.
If only Prince Philip was born in the US.
SAK
When you walk the streets of Paris you see a cohort of elderly women who are around five feet tall and skinny. Literally. They are the survivors of the starvation days of the Depression/WW2.
Every church has its monstrous list of parish dead – mostly during WW1 but WW2 also extracted a huge toll.
Despite the arrogant Neocon bastardry of ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’ more french died in WW2 than did Americans.
Lots of EU citizens like the EU because they have deep race memories of what war is really like. And the EU, for all its failures, has spared Europe a real war for 70 years.
Peace in our time – and not Chamberlain’s peace in our time.
That is what the idiot Brits have put at risk.
In my judgement, Le Pen in the debate demonstrated the sort of arsehattery that was a Hitlerian commonplace. I thought so at the time and I thought that she would take a bit of a hit in the polls following the debate.
D
Thank you, I think.
pegasus @ #1508 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Pull the other one!
Part of the issue of party loyalty is the mistaken perception about what actually is left and right nowadays.
People like Nicholas think they’re on the left. Barnaby Joyce seems to think he is a centrist – when blind freddy knows that their words and actions are patently right wing.
The pendulum hasn’t swung so much as the centre pin. R-w media and r-w populism has caused that centre pin to be placed more to the right. Thus Barnaby says things like Amanda Vanstone is l-w. Which to any leftie is quite preposterous.
The traditional l/r divide on policy has changed as well, mainly because the memes and political statements don’t reflect reality. The so-called fake news has made various policies appear to be what they are not. Cherry-picking exaggerates it.
The result is confusion. Voter confusion. Policy confusion. And voters then cast their votes in unproductive directions. Loyalty is lost.
To add to the confusion, media types instantly say things like: I don’t know what you stand for/they’re all the same/ they’re all radical/ they’re all liars etc. etc.
How is a person with a bare passing interest or rudimentary political education supposed to navigate this minefield?
The result is Trump/Le Pen/ Abbott etc becoming seen as ‘normal’
Man this ‘Make America great again’ is absolutely pathetic:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/04/us-require-visa-divulge-social-media-handles/
Why would US gov want access to Social Media? Other than to check if attacking the gov.
It’s pretty much like Metadata here.
J
Hmmm… how about the fossil fuel interests set out two decades to completely debase public discourse.
And succeeded?
peter piper @ #1464 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 3:54 pm
No, but have seen pieces of it in doccos.
Why do you ask?
P1
The SA one is a peaker, it will only run intermittently. It does not replace coal.
Pelican Point is not a new gas plant.
Because it’s a polluting fossil fuel.
I don’t, I propose a rapid replacement of coal with zero emission renewables.
This is happening right now. It’s not gas power that’s being deployed at an exponential rate, it’s wind and solar.
Why do you propose replacing coal with gas, when:
a) it’s demonstrably not happening
b) gas still generates half the emissions of coal?
Boerwar:
The fossil fuel interests, the corporates for the most part, the Murdoch’s of this world all are aprt of that same movement of the centre pin of the pendulum. Back to the safe times. They see themselves as the stable interests that run the world. They need their profits to continue to run the world … for the world’s ‘good’. Putin is an excellent example of this.
It is, in effect, an attempted return to feudalism.
Briefly,
Take a chill pill. Seriously.
Nicholas is not the whole pop-left/alt-left (whatever you want to call it), far less the whole of the Left. For instance, I consider Macron the lesser of two evils, even if I’d have to hold my nose to vote for him were I a Frenchman. The fact that I believe Marine Le Pen’s repudiation of her father’s antisemitism to be sincere, and that I do not consider her to be a Fascist (she fails to check between 4 and 8 of Dr. Britt’s 14 defining characteristics of Fascism, depending on how tightly you apply the definitions), doesn’t affect that. She’s still a bad choice for the Presidency of France.
What’s more, the broader Left and far-Left in France are in line with my opinion far more than with Nicholas’ – 35% of Melenchon’s voters supported a vote for Macron, 36% a protest blank ballot and 29% abstention. See who’s missing from those options? Marine Le Pen is missing.
You see, when Melenchon asked his supporters for their second preference, less than 1% considered her to be theirs. Less than 1% of Melenchon’s supporters actually share Nicholas’ opinion on the relative merits of Macron and Le Pen. Not that this is stopping you sneering at the whole of “the Left” and declaring that “the Left” support Le Pen, on the basis of one whole commenter on the Internet!
You have every right to your opinions, even when the data do not support them – and they don’t, at least on this topic. But your eagerness to paint with the broadest possible brush and jump to conclusions vilifying “the Left” is symptomatic of why political parties increasingly cannot attract loyalty outside their narrowest base – instead of engaging with dissenters, tribalists like yourself vilify them at every turn. And in so doing, you repel potential allies.
Look through your social circle, Briefly. Most of the people in that circle will never meet their Federal Labor MP except maybe during an election campaign, far less Bill Shorten or some future ALP leader. But they’ll meet you. They’ll know you. You are, de facto, the ALP’s ambassador to those around you.
What kind of ambassador have you been?
Jen
It’s probably simpler than that – few people want to be branded as ‘far right’, so they argue they’re not. They know they’re dissatisfied with things the way they are, and assume that means they’re progressive.
Zoomster
The major problems we face as a species cannot be solved if we take these attitudes.
If one believes in Darwinism, then that which initially ensured survival of individuals and groups of individuals (tribes and nationalism) needs to be transduced into survival of the species. The major block to this quantum step is capitalism. It is not only the prime cause of the destruction of the necessary conditions for planetary survival, it is deliberately obscuring the data and blocking the processes needed to correct the trajectory as well as vigorously attempting to sideline those who have made the mature leap in understanding. It, capitalism, is completely self-defeating and anti-Darwinian.
The destructive forces are moving faster than the survival learning arc. I am struck by what a problem the human life span is. Lets say three score and ten and rising slowly. It is simply to short to manage rapid change. One is just getting some wisdom, and then you’re dead. Collective wisdom takes a long time. The horrors of WW2 which drove the EU unto itself are fast memory fading and the same mistakes are there to be made again.
Wrt species survival, whatever is needed to be learned and incorporated into group thought may well not come till much of the species is lost. Maybe that’s what is needed.
The Greens may have once (I doubt it; their membership has always been comfortably middle class) a force for radical change, but they can scarcely be portrayed as such now.
Possibly the closest they have to a radical agent for change is Rhiannon, and the bulk of the party (particularly the leadership) is trying to shut her down. And she’s not even that radical. We have more extreme lefties in the Labor party.
Bw – Le Pen ‘expelling’ her father from the party was just a move because the ‘party’ needed to attract more of the popular vote.
The money comes from the same old places.
The future for them is not promising if they can’t beat an opponent who actually has no direct support in the National Assembly.
I watched a fair bit of the debate – the number of areas where she had no policy (and no idea) were ‘large’.
Matt
‘36% a protest blank ballot and 29% abstention. See who’s missing from those options? Marine Le Pen is missing.’
Sure. Two thirds of Melanchon voters are missing in action.
That is around 4-5 million voters who are quite happy to sit it out – regardless of whether Le Pen gets up.
It is high time the Far Left bloody well grew up.
It is high time the Far Left bloody well stopped throwing a tanty whenever they do not get 100% of what they want.
Most of all it is high time that the bloody Sanders, Naders, Melanchons and Di Natales of the world stopped gifting government to racist fascists like Trump, Bush, Le Pen and Turnbull.
CTaR1
Yep.
70 years ago most of Europe was trashed wall-to-wall and bled white.
20 years ago before that Europe was bled white again – Germany and France in particular.
Every single French family lost rellies in those two dings.
My view is that that is what is giving cause to pause re: Le Pen.
Zoom, I’d agree with you except the fact that much r-w policy that was socially unacceptable 30 or 40 years ago is now permitted to skate through. Apathy in fighting against unfair social change is rife.
I blame media apathy/lack of scrutiny for much of it mainly because they are more interested in shiny things than actual truth/policy.
Journos are more interested in gotchas and scoops than the ramification of policy. And when they claim to be looking at policy they’re looking at it terms of games.
SKY news is a perfect example in that they judge QT by winner/loser/wooden spoon awards. The budget is discussed in terms of ‘speech delivery’ instead of content. Barnaby Joyce is lauded for his entertainment value (while he beavers away in the background pork-barrelling to his hearts content).
And the average voter is blissfully unaware. They just read the headlines or see the nasty DT pics of politicians and vote accordingly.
To answer the other two questions put to me:
1. What do I think of the Russian propagandising on Le Pen’s behalf?
I don’t like it. I wish Putin would pull his head in and tend to Russia’s (considerable) problems, and the fact that he sees fit to effectively endorse Le Pen does not improve my opinion of her, to say the least.
2. Define “neoliberalism”.
Social liberalism combined with strong support for (and belief in) the free market on the economic front and enthusiasm for a reduced public sector as a matter of principle. Neoliberals tend to support applying “market discipline” toward workers across the board, and tend to prefer institutionalism and multilateralism in international affairs. Exceptions to both tendencies exist.
Despite frequent conflation, neoliberals are distinct from neoconservatism in that neocons are usually socially-conservative, support unilateral action on the international stage “to support the national interest” and orient primarily toward foreign policy, while neoliberals tend to focus on social policies. About all the two groups have in common is support of centre-right/right-wing economic policy, and even there the neocons tend to be right-wing to neoliberals’ centre-right.
Notable examples of neoliberals: Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Paul Keating.
Notable examples of neoconservatives: Dick Cheney, David Frum, Margaret Thatcher, John Howard.
Z,
lol All this time, when it has suited them to play the person, some PB Laborites have consistently characterised R as a radical and a communist. Perhaps you need to disabuse them of their misperception.
omg Are they Trots? And yet, on a number of occasions you have claimed these ‘pesky’ elements have gone over to the Greens and what a good thing that is.
bemused @ #1513 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:28 pm
I wouldn’t completely discount Warren. She still seems to be very much on top of her game. Her interview on RealTime showed this.
As for others, no one I’ve seen or heard of stands out but there’s still 2+ years before the process starts again.
trog sorrenson @ #1522 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:44 pm
Because unlike you I’m not wedded to a specific technology, and gas is the fastest way to reduce our C02 emissions.
Zoom:
“We have more extreme lefties in the Labor party.”
Who?
Boerwar:
“That is around 4-5 million voters who are quite happy to sit it out – regardless of whether Le Pen gets up.”
That’s how many are happy to sit out when all the signs point to a Macron win by default. Let’s face it, the polls are hardly competitive. I suspect that a narrowing of the gap in the polls would change that number significantly – although I have no hard data to support that.
“It is high time the Far Left bloody well stopped throwing a tanty whenever they do not get 100% of what they want.”
That’s not what they’re doing. They’re “throwing a tanty”, as you put it, because for 30+ years – a full generation – they’ve been promised one thing to get their vote, then watched their shiny new leaders sell them down the river. They’re “throwing a tanty” because they’re sick of having the “centre-left” Party do things that the Right have wanted to do for decades, but couldn’t due to the outcry it caused. They’re sick of being told to get in line, the financial establishment have first dibs on policymaking.
It’s not a spontaneous, sudden mass tanty-chucking, Boerwar. It’s a generation of broken promises and cynical politics coming home to roost for the established parties of the Left.
“Most of all it is high time that the bloody Sanders, Naders, Melanchons and Di Natales of the world stopped gifting government to racist fascists like Trump, Bush, Le Pen and Turnbull.”
1. The only way Di Natale has “gifted government” to the Liberals is by arguing that the two parties are the same – and even then, when pressed he’ll admit that Labor are at least marginally better. He’s not part of the Labor Party, and doesn’t owe the ALP more than that grudging recognition. Ultimately, where a Greens voter’s vote goes is up to them, not the party – the joy of an IRV system. And around 80% of them choose, individually, to give their preferences to the Labor Party over the Liberals.
2. Turnbull’s many things – a weak-kneed opportunist among them – but he’s not a Fascist, at least not unless you dilute the term so much that it loses all meaning. There are proto-Fascists in his party – Abbott and Christensen among them – but he’s not one.
3. Sanders campaigned for Clinton from the end of August onward. In fact, the only reason he didn’t go out on the trail for her full-time was that her campaign asked him not to. That misstep may have been the final one, which cost Clinton her “firewall” of light-blue States with high proportions of white working-class Americans.
boerwar @ #1504 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:20 pm
As should “Informal Party” boosters.
Bemused @5:28pm – I agree. But besides that, Clinton has tried twice and failed twice. Clearly, she’s not “all that and a bag of crisps”, as the Americans say.
Clinton should find some other way to make a difference to the world, if she still wants to do that, because it’s becoming increasingly clear that she lacks the political skills to again reside in the White House.
boerwar @ #1529 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:53 pm
I see echoes of this attitude in the energy debate. It doesn’t matter to Greens that the path they are pursuing leads to higher C02 emissions – they insist that 100% renewables is the only solution, and they are willing to kill 10,000 additional people a year to get it.
Bemused @6:15pm – So now the great Russian conspiracy has touched Australia, too?
Matt
If Le Pen wins by one vote then it is the Far Left that needs the biggest ever kick up the arse.
Just like it did when Nader gifted the Presidency to that idiot Bush who started the ME smash up. Just like Sanders who gifted Trump the Presidency and helped cook the planet.
Just like effin Di Natale who wasted precious anti-Turnbull time this morning sinking the slipper into Shorten.
Do bloody wake up. Your wanking around is gifting the bad guys. Time after time.
Sitting on your duff actually matters. It actually makes a difference.
Pretending that it does not is classic Far Left self-indulgent bullshit.
The Far Right just loves you guys.
They know they need all the help they can get.
SK – On Female/Male percentages in voting populations: When I was about 10 there was a vote in NSW about Sunday Trading.
I remember quite clearly being outside the local school after my father voted and ‘Earnie’ explaining that the proposal that pub hours would be expanded would go down because there were more women voters than men in NSW.
Boerwar
Please stop making assumptions about who I am and who I support. The fact that I don’t assign blame for the 2016 shortfall to the Greens doesn’t make me one. In point of fact, I’m a paid-up ALP member and have been for some time now – at least partly because Bill Shorten managed to overcome my initial low opinion of him.
To the specifics of your diatribe:
– Why was this morning “anti-Turnbull time”?
– No-one ever gained support by calling their would-be supporters names.
– As I’ve noted, Sanders spent months – literally MONTHS – on the campaign trail for Clinton last year. Joint appearances, fundraising, rallies – you name it, he did it to try to get her elected. He rubbished Trump at every opportunity, stated that his differences with Clinton were infinitesimal compared to his with Trump, and otherwise did as much as he could to get her elected. Once the primaries were over.
Should he not have contested the nomination at all? Should he have stood aside and let her take the nomination without any dissent at all?
That doesn’t sound much like democracy in action to me.
from the outside looking in, I’d challenge the fact that the Green should necessarily be left wing. Their name suggests environmental activism. But that doesn’t preclude reactionary ideals.
My problem with the Greens is they manoeuvre for political gain rather than in alignment with their stated policies – often to their own, as well as the rest of the country’s detriment. Or, on the other hand, they adhere to stated policy ideals, even when they know what they want is impractical if not impossible. And that is where the inconsistency lies. Most cross-bench parties/indies behave like this.
Jenauthor – So do some major parties. It’s been quite some time since the Liberals, for example, were a “centre-right Party”, although that’s what they’re still commonly described as. Indeed, the Liberals don’t stand much for liberalism at all – neither socially nor economically!
And with that, I should probably say “taaraa, and pip pip!”, since I have guests over tonight and need to prepare dinner.
Matt
I don’t care who you support. At all.
I do care that the Far Left thinks that this is all some ideological purity contest.
Melanchon has YET to urge his followers, ALL of them, to get off their arses, get into a polling booth and to vote against Le Pen.
What part of visceral racism and incipient fascism does this Far Left Cluck not get?
The Liberals have just announced that they are gutting $22 billion out of Gonski.
And what does that fool Di Natale do?
Sinks the slipper into Shorten.
Deep thinker, Di Natale.
Deep.
Very, very deep.
Turnbull must just love him.
jenauthor @ #1544 Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:29 pm
This is a good point. The Greens stopped being an environmentalist party a while ago. Probably about the time Bob Brown departed. Certainly their energy and climate change policies are just ludicrous.
M
Long, long, after it became obvious to the rest of the world that he was NOT going to get the Dem convention, Sanders kept running against Clinton. We could all see the damage it was doing to Clinton.
We could all see the help it was giving to Trump.
Sanders was nothing more than a self-enraptured oxygen thief who did not get Trump at all.
Guilty.
Nader, even worse.
The ME wars he is directly responsible have killed well over a million people and displaced another ten million.
Guilty.
Why did Turnbull go to the USA?
Just quickly on inhaling drugs as opposed to eating them and speaking very broadly, there are huge numbers of variables in all this, including offset of action, not addressed, nor is tissue damage along the way —
Absorption by inhalation (smoking, nitrous in labour, anaesthetic gases) is rapid. Not as rapid as direct injection into the blood stream (shooting up), but fast nonetheless, as there are only a couple of cells separating the terminal air spaces (alveoli) from the surrounding blood vessels (capillaries) – such that there is easy and fast exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Rapid absorption means rapid effect (circulation depending) and rapid effect means easy and early detection of whether the dose is correct for you, or not. You can have a puff, see what you feel, have more or not.
Absorption by the gut, upper or lower, is slower (more tissue to traverse) and the delivered dose is without the sudden ‘hit’ (the immediate high blood level), less predictable, altered by factors along the way like the drug being sidelined into other organs, e.g. the liver. Think alcohol. Getting the right dose then is harder. You think you need more, but more is still on its way, and you end up having too much. You may or may not have some/any idea of what the ingested dose was, and find out too late.
My point is, inhaling is safer than eating wrt getting the dosage right when the contents (for want of a better expression) are unknown, and I believe that pill testing should be available so at least the initial dose of the ingested is a known. (Going over old ground here.)