BludgerTrack moves half a point and three seats in favour of Labor this week, which mostly reflects the fact that it’s been a while now since the Coalition had one of the relatively good data points that are discernible in late May and early June on the two-party trend chart below. This week’s movement may have been ameliorated if the ReachTEL result had been included, but it hasn’t been because I haven’t yet seen the primary vote numbers inclusive of the forced response for the undecided. In other words, the only new result is a strong one for Labor from Essential Research. On the seat projection, Labor is up one in Queensland and two in Western Australia. Nothing new on leadership ratings.
Another new poll worth noting is the Political and Social Views Survey from JWS Research, based on an online survey of 1251 respondents earlier this month. Respondents were asked to identify where they placed parties, leaders and themselves on a zero-to-ten scale along two dimensions: left-right politically, and progressive-conservative socially. The average respondent identified as fairly solidly right of centre, with respective mean scores of 6.3 and 6.0. However, this may indicate a bias towards right-of-centre results across-the-board: even the Greens barely made it to the left on the left-right dimension, and all comers were in the conservative half of the conservative-progressive dimension. Respondents overall saw little distinction between the Coalition and One Nation, and regarded Tony Abbott as the most radical actor out of those on those offer. While the average respondent identified slightly closer to the Coalition on left-right, they landed much closer to Labor on conservative-progressive.
Jackol:
One of the reasons I like fixed terms is everyone knows when the election will be, thus removing the opportunity from the PM/govt of the day to use the election timing opportunistically.
Confessions – as I’ve already said, whatever benefits there may be from fixed terms they are trivial in comparison with the risks in baking in inflexibility into government.
“Opportunistic” elections can be, and regularly are, punished by the voters. Severely. Ask Campbell Newman.
It’s not an issue as far as I’m concerned.
Any fixed election dates would remove state Governments` power to decide when, within the relevant year, half-Senate elections are held, by fixing simultaneous elections (which have been defeated by voters at referenda 4 times, including once when 4 year terms (for both houses) were defeated).
confessions @ #201 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 4:39 pm
Another thing to like is that it would put about half the CPG out of business!
The chances of:
1. Four year terms
2. Fixed terms
3. Simultaneous elections
are zero while the Australian people have the idee fixe that the constitution can’t be changed
Tom,
Other than the infamous “Night of the Long Prawns” has a state governor ever intervened in the issuing of the writs?
Jackol:
Inflexibility of govt is a good point against fixed terms, and truthfully I could live with un-fixed terms federally as we have now. Despite my personal preference being for fixed parliamentary terms.
But my view for a while now has been that 3 year terms are too short. I hope Shorten’s comments this morning generate a healthy discussion about this.
grimace @ #181 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 3:04 pm
Well that’s fucking brilliant. My side of the street is getting FTTN yet those opposite get FTTC.
P1:
One for the pro side of the ledger then!
?? That sucks. So the amendments just put it in plainer language??
Anyhow, our pollies should just get on and get it through parliament. I dread a plebiscite for all the hurt and crap it will bring down on people who dont deserve it.
http://nbnmtm.australiaeast.cloudapp.azure.com/
Yeah. Have used that site a bit over the last few weeks with friends after info. Useful, but can be depressing.
I quite like the current system, where an incompetent, corrupt or ineffectual government can be sent to an election at any time. The threat of being deprived of power is the single best check on the abuse of office. So I’m really not in favour of fixed terms. Democratic government is meant to rely on the consent of the governed. Consent should be contingent, contestable and revocable without delay.
At the moment, the imbalance we have is between the respective powers of the Senate and the House. We have a situation where the Senate can send the House to an election without itself being required to face an election. This is fundamentally undemocratic. In recent years the Senate has acted to restrain the LNP. But over the long haul, it has mainly acted to obstruct Labor.
I also think that House seats are far too big. The number of voters in each seat should be reduced to about 30-35,000, meaning the number of seats should increase to about 450. This would completely change the nature of the House and revitalise politics at the community level. Given the chance, I would also radically reform the Senate, so that mal-apportionment by State would be abolished. I would also abolish fixed Senate terms but would retain rolling tenure, so that 50% of the Senate faced election at each House Election. This would mean that provisions for double dissolutions could also be abolished.
Big seats certainly disadvantage MPs in rural electorates. I follow Rick Wilson on facebook and he seems to spend all his time during parliamentary recess travelling around his electorate. The Member for Hasluck would have a similar challenge assuming she bothers with the same amount of travel. It must be very difficult on families, and I do know Wilson has school-age kids.
Briefly
Well said. I am not a fan of fixed terms for those reasons. Considering how little actual effort is involved those who wail over the ‘pain’ of elections can go GF.
I would also be tempted to change the provisions for amending the Constitution, so that proposed amendments would first be passed by a Joint Sitting of the Parliament and then be submitted to the people in a referendum. I would abolish the requirement for multiple majorities – that is, popular majorities in a majority of the States – and instead require passage simply by an absolute majority of eligible voters.
We could begin the process of streamlining and modernising the system. The Constitution really does not reflect the contemporary social, political and economic order. It should be brought up to date.
The Senate, or Upper House, can be a pain at times, but I do not like to see it abolished. No Party should have free rein without an opportunity for review.
Briefly
The further we move from 1901, the more examples we see of this, especially in attitude to First Nations and to ‘foreign immigrants’.
If we moved to a Republic, wouldn’t that be the right time to revise (rewrite) the Constitution? I can hear the squeals of horror, but it’s not a sacred document.
The Federation needs a makeover.
Sorry, should be Member for Durack.
I do not like the idea of fixed terms. Why should a corrupt or useless government be shielded from the people? The government is the government as long as it holds the confidence of The House. If it loses that confidence then the GG issues writs for an election. If a coalition falls apart then there is an election.
I like the idea of extending the three-year terms to four years. Having useless timeservers in the Senate for eight years instead of six bothers me but I am not up on the mechanisms enough to suggest a solution. Whatever the solution, the reality that the senate is no longer a states’ House but a political party House needs to be incorporated.
The idea of having more MPs won’t go down well, we already have more pollies per head of population than most anywhere else. It would make herding the cats much more fun though.
As the focus of the right wing opposition is always about ousting any ALP government and not on contributing to a functioning parliament, any changes need to keep this front and centre. The Libs and nGats think that normal gov’t is them in the gov’t seats and the ALP on the Opposition benches. The opposite is a deviance in their world. Sitting on the Opposition benches for the Lib/Nat coalition is like being outside the 5-star restaurant, nose on the glass, at the grimy foundry-workers eating off the fine white linen.
So any changes which allow this group to make more trouble for the other side of politics need to be considered very, very, carefully.
@ Dan Gulberry
I’d start pestering your local MP about that situation (FTTN for you, FTTC across the road). I got a good result by a three year call and email campaign with NBN and my local MP.
with paragraphs…
I do not like the idea of fixed terms. Why should a corrupt or useless government be shielded from the people? The government is the government as long as it holds the confidence of The House. If it loses that confidence then the GG issues writs for an election. If a coalition falls apart then there is an election.
I like the idea of extending the three-year terms to four years.
Having useless time-servers in the Senate for eight years instead of six bothers me but I am not up on the mechanisms enough to suggest a solution. Whatever the solution, the reality that the senate is no longer a states’ House but a political party House needs to be incorporated.
The idea of having more MPs won’t go down well, we already have more pollies per head of population than most anywhere else. It would make herding the cats much more fun though.
As the focus of the right wing opposition is always about ousting any ALP government and not on contributing to a functioning parliament, any changes need to keep this front and centre. The Libs and nGats think that normal gov’t is them in the gov’t seats and the ALP on the Opposition benches. The opposite is a deviance in their world. Sitting on the Opposition benches for the Lib/Nat coalition is like being outside the 5-star restaurant, nose on the glass, looking at the grimy foundry-workers eating off the fine white linen.
So any changes which allow this group to make more trouble for the other side of politics need to be considered very, very, carefully.
But this rarely transpires in reality under the current system, yes? If anything incompetent govts or those which are deeply unpopular simply hang on rather than go to an election the minute the public or commentariat starts demanding one.
Lizzie
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 5:45 pm
Briefly
The Constitution really does not reflect the contemporary social, political and economic order. It should be brought up to date.
The further we move from 1901, the more examples we see of this, especially in attitude to First Nations and to ‘foreign immigrants’.
If we moved to a Republic, wouldn’t that be the right time to revise (rewrite) the Constitution? I can hear the squeals of horror, but it’s not a sacred document.
I really concur, Lizzie. But, perhaps strange to say, there is very interest in these things. The view seems to be that they are distracting and take energy away from the core business.
Save New Zealand’s sacred mountain
https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/save_karangahake_gorge/?wKisGhb
grimace @ #220 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 5:48 pm
According to nbnco, we’re not due for building to start until 2019, so a lot of changes could be made before then, including a change of government.
Briefly
The current core business being to make lots of profit for miners and keep our borders secure? (Bit of exaggeration, OK)
Confessions
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 5:54 pm
I quite like the current system, where an incompetent, corrupt or ineffectual government can be sent to an election at any time
But this rarely transpires in reality under the current system, yes?
MPs know their tenure is temporary…..keeps em in line…
Theresa May showed that “fixed terms” don’t mean spit if a govt wants to go early.
My three priorities for Constitutional reform.
1. Replace the UK Crown with an Australian Head of State.
2. Acknowledge the First Peoples, and provide for their voice to be heard.
3. Amend sundry antiquated measures, such as S44 provisions and length of terms.
In many fixed-election parliaments, including Norway, Canada, and Germany, the government can be brought down (and sent to an election) by a no-confidence motion. There is nothing to suggest that legislation would be written prohibiting a no-confidence motion from bringing down the government, as that could cause a supply issue, leading to a constitutional crisis. We shouldn’t be assuming, therefore, that that provision will be written into the legislation.
Lizzie
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 6:06 pm
Briefly
The current core business being to make lots of profit for miners and keep our borders secure? (Bit of exaggeration, OK)
For Labor, the focus is on health, education, jobs, the climate, energy and on presenting “safe hands”….on being well-grounded, fair, available and effective….makes a lot of sense. I think a lot of this is due to the destructive effects of RW rule and agitation. Even small things are seemingly placed beyond reach. They play winner-takes-all. It is very limiting.
@Antonbruckner11
That’s because the UK Fixed Term Parliament Act allowed an override if 2/3 of MPs voted in favour. This doesn’t happen in virtually all other states which have fixed-term parliaments.
Sprocket_
That should be the agenda for the committee.
Antonbruckner11
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Theresa May showed that “fixed terms” don’t mean spit if a govt wants to go early.
In the UK an early election requires a 2/3 (or 3/5 ??) majority support in the Commons. So the Opposition will usually have to also support it. What the UK election showed is that opportunism will be punished….that voters should not be taken for granted.
Sprocket:
+1 from me on your list of reforms.
player one @ #178 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 2:55 pm
Thanks for posting, that’s very gloomy news.
Dan Gulberry
My great wail is that I was due for FTTP 7 months after the election that saw Abbott elected. A month back I got the offer to go on to Malcolm Turnbull’s ‘Fraudband’ !
Poroti
Commiserations.
sprocket_ @ #229 Sunday, July 23rd, 2017 – 6:13 pm
4. Bill of Rights; just copy the U.S. version, but replace the one about guns with a right to privacy.
confessions @ #222 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 5:54 pm
We could also go the UK path where they have fixed terms but can go to an election with the agreement of say two-thirds or 75% of both houses of parliament.
Grimace:
On the surface that sounds like a very reasonable compromise.
If we made changing the Constitution a little easier – not much, just enough so that sensible, considered reforms could get through – that would then allow changing all the other stuff we don’t like.
Perhaps changing it to a simple majority of electors?
I have a Labor broadband connection (aka FTTP). It reliably shows 94Mbps for downloads and about 35 Mbps for uploads.
Sorry to hear that others are being lumbered with Liberal broadband (aka FTTN, MTM).
Suspect teh best an incoming Shorten govt will be able to do is a higher proportion of FTTdp.
Good evening all,
I am interested in the reasoning behind support for a Australian Bill of Rights. I look at America with its huge levels of inequality and the growing divide between the haves and the have nots. Considering the poverty level minimum wage, the hate, the descrimination, huge disparity between rich and poor etc etc in a country with its own Bill of Rights and I wonder why should Australia follow the same path. For all our shortcomings Australia is in a far better place than America so why the need and in, some analysis, urgency for a similar approach here.
Really interested in what others think. I support strongly a Australian head of state but am yet to be convinced as to the importance of a Bill of Rights.
Cheers.
Dear oh dear.
The Brisbane Times calls Shortens propsal to give poloticians a longer time before they have to face the discomfit of an election a “transformation of the electoral system”, vomit.
And, to the surprise of no one, it becomes a rare bi-partisan position with Turnbull!!! Just like politicians’ pay rises.
The point of the Labor Right escapes me totally.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-calls-for-referendum-to-give-federal-governments-fixed-fouryear-terms-20170723-gxgs3s.html
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/07/23/bludgertrack-53-4-46-6-labor-2/comment-page-5/#comment-2613020
State Governors (or Lieutenant-Governors/Administrators using the Governor`s powers) are the issuing authority for Senate writs (except for territory Senators) and as such do not “intervene”. The convention that state governments/Premiers agree to advise the their Governors to follow what the PM wants, usually for the sake of simultaneous elections with the House and (except for special elections due to faults with the original elections in SA in 1907 and WA 2014) with the Senate elections of the other states has (as far as I am aware) held out except for 1974 and 1975 (when Whitlam`s request was not passed on by Kerr, who instead sacked him and called a DD).
Joh was apparently planning to advise the Queensland Governor to refuse to call the half-Senate election when Whitlam wanted (reducing the beneficial effect of the election for the ALP), even if Kerr had not sacked Whitlam. Other Coalition held states may or may not have done the same. This may have triggered a greater level of state independence in deciding Senate election dates.
Had the 1904, 1905 and or 1909 unsuccessful attempts to get the Governor-General to call elections instead been successful, that may have caused non-simultaneous elections to develop, before the PM deciding on half-Senate elections was bedded down and thus afforded the state governments the political space to assert their independence on half-Senate election timing.
Martha:
I’m insanely jealous. Having read the experiences and expertise of PBers over the last year or so, I’ve decided that I’ll just stick with my (I think) 4G wireless internet connection. I can still watch movies and youtube vids without buffering, and while I sometimes experience slow speed problems, presumably when there is high ‘traffic’, it isn’t such a problem that it really bothers me.
Confessions
It is pretty good :). The only problem is that you get spoilt. At work the speed is only half what I have at home and I find it annoying!
Why doesn’t Labor discuss:
– making the electoral system equatible (like NZ);
– votes for 16 year olds;
– senate chosen by lot (lower the power of professional politicians)
– head of state as First Elder with responsibilty for Country
– aboriginal mentality of Australia replacing the destructive settler mentality.