Yet another 53-47 result from Newspoll, from primary votes of Coalition 36% (unchanged), Labor 36% (down one), Greens 11% (up two) and One Nation 8% (down one). Both leaders recorded better personal ratings, with Malcolm Turnbull up four on approval to 38% and down four on disapproval to 50%, and Bill Shorten up three on approval to 36% and down two on disapproval to 51%. Turnbull’s lead on preferred prime minister has widened from 43-32 to 46-31. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1639.
Stay tuned for federal voting intention results from the Queensland-only poll conducted for the Courier-Mail, from which state results were published yesterday.
UPDATE: The numbers from the Courier-Mail’s Galaxy poll from Queensland, conducted Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 902, are Coalition 37% (up two since April), Labor 32% (down one), One Nation 12% (down three) and Greens 7%, with Australian Conservatives recording a fairly impressive 6%. On two-party preferred, the Coalition records a lead of 51-49, which compares with 50-50 in April and 54.1-45.9 at last year’s election.
Poroti, just add water?
I am having memories of rapidset concrete bags in Darwin.
GG – it’s ok to admit you have no real argument. You don’t have to resort to fake umbrage.
JDoyle
“The definitional argument is total bullshit as marriage has been redefined and refined many times. ”
This historical fact completely eviscerates the “traditional marriage” argument against SSM. Certain marriage traditions were entrenched for centuries (and in some cases millennia), until modern Western society outlawed them – child marriage; polygamy; treating women as chattel; etc. The concept of marriage as two consenting adults of different genders is just one iteration of “traditional marriage” (and the requirements for “consenting” and “adult” are fairly recent innovations).
These “traditionalists” like the Mad Monk and GG really do like to cherry-pick their history.
Prediction
Lib moderates fold. No Libs support SSO. Postal plebescite is put back – senate says no (Marriage Equality groups challenge validity)
kakuru @ #350 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 2:42 pm
As far as I’m aware marriage has always been a relationship between a man and a woman in Australia.
But, I’m sure you won’t let facts get in the way of your views.
Ides, I am sure the Coalition can make it messier than that.
“Lib moderates fold. No Libs support SSO. Postal plebescite is put back – senate says no (Marriage Equality groups challenge validity)”
Beware the Ides of March. I agree that the Lib moderates will fold.
But I thought the attraction of the postal plebiscite to the Lib RWNJs is that it could be introduced without Parliamentary approval.
Kakuru – exactly. The biblical form of marriage is polygamy. I’m always amused when people rely on the bible to oppose same-sex marriage. “Tradition” indeed!
Prediction – the crazies literally hold their breath and start turning blue. The moderates fold as always.
They agree to attempt to pass the plebiscite in the Senate again. This benefits:
Those in the party that actually care about LGBTIQ people, as it avoids a harmful public campaign.
Those who want to stop ME – it delays the inevitable a few more months.
Those who are using it as a leadership proxy – better to have this debate reoccur on the day of the 30th Newspoll loss, not the 17th.
JDoyle
How old was Mary when she married Joseph…?
JimmyDoyle @ #349 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 2:39 pm
It’s Ok to admit you don’t have any real argument. You don’t need to resort to personal abuse to prove your argument is weak.
They argue they don’t need legislation for a voluntary postal plebiscite but without legislation taking the funds for it is subject to challenge. No one knows how that goes.
@ Elaugaufein – Maybe Turnbull can pay for it 😉
GG
“As far as I’m aware marriage has always been a relationship between a man and a woman in Australia.”
It’s always been a relationship between male and female – not necessary man and woman. In the 1800’s, the marriageable age was 14 for boys and 12 for girls (the same as the age of consent). So this particular Australian ‘tradition’ has been abandoned.
Fairfax live blog says 4:00 for the meeting start, not 4;30 as mentioned below.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/politics-live-liberal-party-meets-to-decide-position-on-gay-marriage-in-australia-20170807-gxqoow.html
One thing I’ll give GG is that he’s firm in his religious belief.
Is their another poster on here that is opposed to SSM?
kakuru @ #361 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:01 pm
Australia didn’t exist until 1901.
GG What was incorrect in my post in answer to J Doyle Esq? Did your belief system come to you as a bolt from the blue, or were you ‘instructed’ by priests? Why did you believe them? Why do you still adhere to what they taught you, now that you are an adult that can observe, read, evaluate and use your reasoning power. Why do you cling to the irrational, and make yourself ridiculous? I would really like to know.
sincerely, your very own space cadet.
“Australia didn’t exist until 1901.”
Wow, if humans are capable of inventing whole countries, maybe the idea of reinventing marriage isn’t so far-fetched after all!
Gorkay King @ #320 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 1:49 pm
Hi Gorkay,
Of course you should watch the Central Coast Council election because it is going to be big! Literally! In size it will cover the area of the ACT, and in numbers be the equal of the Northern Territory. So it’s a big prize to be won and as such, very hotly contested.
Labor were in with a good show, until Belinda Neal and John Della Bosca put a spanner in the works and killed our momentum. However, hopefully, that can all be sorted out quickly.
As far as other races go, well since Gladys Berejiklian put a stop to a large number of council amalgamations that were being challenged in the courts it’s been hard to know which ones are still going ahead besides ours.
One thing I can be sure of is that Mr Bowe and Mr Bonham will have extensive coverage of the ones that are happening on September 9.
So a mailed Plebiscite would be unlikely to include all eligible participants, illegal, unfunded and ignorable.
Sounds like a recipe to make the Libs a bigger laughing stock than usual.
I heard on the radio that one marriage equality group would challenge the validity of a postal ballot in the High Court if the government went ahead without enabling legislation.
Kakaru
“Beware the Ides of March”
Im not that dangerous.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-07/police-say-racist-motive-to-car-acid-attacks-in-sydneys-north/8780742
Good afternoon all,
The liberal party meeting this afternoon is shaping up as a huge nothing with the main supporters of SSM appearing to be folding quicker than the Titanic deck chairs.
Saying that , I am very interested in what Mr Tony Abbott will contribute to the discussion. Will he try to stir things up ? We shall see.
Cheers.
@ Doyley
Then there is the plan by Malcolm Turnbull and his senior ministers – including Peter Dutton and Mathias Cormann – to try and resolve the matter by using a postal vote.
Tony Abbott has said he will argue against that this afternoon.
The Duttons and Cormanns of the world just want this issue dealt with. They can see the way it is dragging down the government.
But Mr Abbott said: “There has to be a plebiscite….We should have another go and if that fails, we should have another go.”
GG
“Australia didn’t exist until 1901.”
Its almost reassuring that the best SSM opponents can come up with is this kind of arcane sophistry.
Greensborough Growler
As far as I’m aware marriage has always been a relationship between a man and a woman in Australia.
This was only formally specified recently, when Howard amended the Act. But in any case, this is irrelevant. Marriage appears to be “between” persons but it is not. Marriage is the witnessing and recording of the existence of a union – a voluntary and exclusive union – between two persons. The argument is over who will be eligible to have their unions recorded. Marriage is a bureaucratic procedure. It creates legal standing. It is not about anything else, least of all does it have to be gendered.
The argument is also about who will have the right to have the termination of their unions also registered. This is just as important as the right to record the commencement of a union.
If you maintain that only unions between oppositely-gendered persons should be registered, then you’re holding out for the protection of a privilege. What possible grounds are there for such a privilege? What inherent properties or purposes are served by creating and perpetuating this privilege?
@cat
Thanks. I think Labor is well positioned for further gains. Will keep an eye on central coast.
DisplayName @ #366 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:06 pm
Possibly, and let the debate roll on.
However, imaging a new country is one thing. But, imagining Australia as a country in the 18th century as kakuru asserted, is plainly fake History.
@ GG – out of curiousity. How old do you believe the following countries are.
The UK, Russia, Germany, France?
kakuru @ #374 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:14 pm
Your use of facts is is wot dun you in!
VE,
Whatever the form of plebiscite plan the liberals try to push as a compromise will not make the issue go away.
Trying to push the legislation through the senate again will get nowhere and will still leave the liberals having to go to option B or trying to implement a postal plebiscite straight away which will be challenged will simply keep the issue front and centre for months.
The ineptitude is mind boggling and that is even before Mr Abbott throws a potential hand grenade or three.
Cheers.
briefly @ #375 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:14 pm
I was actually factually responding to kakurus bold assertion about a mythical australia that existed in the 18th century.
But, I’d point out the reality that marriage ceremonies performed in Australia have always been between a man and a woman.
The rest of your little ditty is speculative at best.
Doyley
You mean there won’t be a fight to the death? Shame, shame.
@ GG – please respond to the below. Your concept of a country is radically different to that of mainstream historians. I would very much appreciate insights into how your concept of nationhood works.
How old do you believe the following countries are. The UK, Russia, Germany, France?
Lizzie,
Plenty more opportunities coming up for implosion from the liberals. The CET being just one.
This SSM debacle is merely a symptom of the ineptitude of Turnbull and his ministers and the state of the liberal party.
Cheers and a great afternoon to all.
Rule 1 sums up opposition to marriage equality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyVX3uJpqxc
GG
“However, imaging a new country is one thing. But, imagining Australia as a country in the 18th century as kakuru asserted, is plainly fake History.”
Ummm…. what? What has this to do with anything… least of all SSM?
BTW, the marriage age in Australia was not established federally until 1961. So this particular “tradition” is less than 60 years old.
Greensborough Growler
But, I’d point out the reality that marriage ceremonies performed in Australia have always been between a man and a woman.
This is an elision, GG. We know, very clearly from the records, that marriage between members of different races was prohibited; that obstacles existed to re-marriage between formerly married persons; that obstacles were created to prevent the formal dissolution of marriages. All of these barriers to de jure marriage have been dismantled. Opponents of ME are holding out for their tiny sliver of archaic privilege. Why should they be so privileged? On what possible grounds?
Doyley @ #387 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:30 pm
For Trumble, all choices are between the terrible and the catastrophic. He is inept and spineless, but he really really does derive ego nourishment from being in the position of PM even if only in name.
So all decisions are through the filter of ‘will this see me turfed right now’, or ‘will this probably be catastrophic in the end, but buys me a little time for something to turn up”?
That’s why the plebiscite stupidity will be doubled down on again today. That’s why the CET will be a joke and probably have the morons looking to build a coal plant somewhere.
Trumble gave the lunatics his testes on day one and so he is stuck with following their lead whatever the stupidity. He doesn’t believe in anything himself (other than himself) but he’d know doing simple smart things would improve his position with the voters. But he also knows to do so would be catastrophic for him because the loons with his gonads would gut him. Ole Billy Shakespeare couldn’t write a more tragi-comic character.
lizzie @ #213 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 9:27 am
As much as I enjoyed the schadenfreude from reading that article, the Liberals actually falling over would be bad for democracy in Victoria.
kakuru @ #389 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:35 pm
So even you’re confused about the information you used in your original post. Imagine how the rest of us feel!
As for changes to the Marriage Act, it no doubt happened after debate and agreement by the pollies of that time. I wasn’t following politics at that time.
Sadly, that’s not happening at this time about this particular issue.
So, more discussion, goodwill and politicking is clearly required to produce an outcome.
Voice Endeavour @ #491 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 2:33 pm
Are you sure it’s not 2Al + 6H2O → 2Al(OH)3 + 3H2?
Though in any case, I think it would have potential in the transport sector as it eliminates the range disadvantage inherent with battery-powered EV’s. As in, build a fuel-cell powered EV, and have service stations that can be used to replenish the spent aluminum and water, and then collect all the spent Al(OH)3 (or AlO, or Al2O3, or whatever) in a centralized location where it can be recycled as normal, preferably using a solar-powered processing plant.
Maybe you could also have a dual-fuel EV, with standard mains-charging batteries for day-to-day driving, and a fuel cell that kicks in for long-range roadtrips when the batteries start running dry. Replenish just the Al and H2O while en-route, and then let the batteries recharge when you reach your destination.
@ grimace – the article says they have a $2M mortgage on a property that’s worth $20M, meanign they could sell it and have $18M in the bank. They aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. They might just have to learn how to campaign without outspending the other side.
briefly @ #390 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:36 pm
The question is whether SSM is a reform that’s worth having.
Abbott today on 2GB – seemingly “my way or the highway”?
@ A r – my ‘chemistry’ teacher at high school taught me one thing, that we shouldn’t waste our time learning chemistry when physics is much more interesting. You are probably right!
I still suspect that the technology would mostly be used by the military, who can’t just charge their vehicles up from the mains grid whilst at the office.
citizen @ #397 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:47 pm
The very last thing that Abbott would want is a solution. For him, it’s all about using the issue for fostering division and bringing down Turnbull.
Greensborough Growler @ #586 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:45 pm
I doubt that’s the question. The real question has more to do with minority rights, discrimination, secularism, and the principle of equality under the law.
Though why not answer your question by seeing what the actual stakeholders think and listening to what they want instead of telling them what you think they should or shouldn’t settle for?