I’m back to running primary figures as the headline for the latest fortnightly YouGov-Fifty Acres poll, because their two-party headline figures remain highly unorthodox – in this case attributing a 51-49 lead to the Coalition, compared with 50-50 last time, based on near equal results on the primary vote. The pollster’s other peculiarity, low primary votes for both major parties, are maintained, with the Coalition steady on 34% and Labor up a point to 33%. At 10% apiece, the two larger minor parties are only slightly higher than with the other pollsters, with the Greens down on a fortnight ago and One Nation up one. The larger difference is the the remainder account for 13% (Nick Xenophon Team 5%, Christian parties 4%, other/independent 4%), compared with 9% from both Newspoll and Essential Research.
I’ve also been provided with detail on YouGov’s weightings and breakdowns, which indicate that they are weighting heavily by past vote to correct for an excess of non-major party voters in their sample and a paucity of Coalition voters. By contrast, the age and gender balance of their sample is reasonably proportionate to the overall voting population, aside from the usual problem of having not enough respondents from the 18-24 cohort. This week at least, the dramatic two-party preferred result is down to nearly three-quarters of the 103 surveyed One Nation supporters favouring the Coalition, compared with 50-50 in the 15 lower house seats the party contested last year, and 61-39 at the Western Australian election in March, when the Liberals had the benefit of an across-the-board preference deal (for which they paid the price in other ways). If there really is something in this, this week’s primary vote numbers from Newspoll and Essential Research would have converted to respective Labor leads of 52-48 and 51-49. Perhaps significantly, more than half of the One Nation supporters are identified as having voted for the Coalition last year.
The poll also finds 45% saying Barnaby Joyce should step aside pending the High Court’s ruling on his eligibility, with 38% saying he should remain. On the same-sex marriage plebiscite-survey, 74% rate themselves likely to participate compared with 17% for unlikely; 59% say they will vote yes (down one from early July), with 33% for no (up five); 39% express concern it will lead to “homophobic abuse”, and 42% that it will “cause division”, with respective scores of 51% and 49% for not concerned. Twenty-one per cent support a tax to address the gender pay gap with 59% opposed (16% to 67% among men, 26% to 50% among women). Questions on trust in institutions records 44% expressing trust in banks, 35% in parliament, 41% in newspapers and 72% in Medicare, with respective negative scores of 53%, 63%, 55% and 24%. A question on most important election issues, from which respondents were directed to pick four, has health and hospitals well in the clear on 49%, followed by a big glut between 25% and 29% (pensions, immigrants and asylum seekers, job security and unemployment, living standards, schools and education, the national economy).
Player One @ #901 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 12:55 pm
Last post on this. I said to you that by boycotting you are effectively voting No as a boycott was a free kick to the No vote, as stated by Michael Kirby. Twist that anyway you like. And by all means have the last word.
CTar1 @ #903 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 12:57 pm
Ctar1, none so blind as those who don’t want to see.
CTar1 @ #900 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 12:57 pm
Let me try and spell this out for you:
1. Kirby thinks the process is despicable and should not proceed. So do I.
2. Kirby thinks that many people – including many gay people – will boycott the vote. So do I.
3. Kirby’s partner will boycott the vote. Kirby seems to accept with that. So do I.
4. Kirby has decided to participate and vote ‘yes’. So what? That’s his right.
You people are stuck on point 4, and can’t seem to comprehend points 1, 2 or 3. That’s because you simply can’t accept that there could be any opinions contrary to your own.
Kirby lives in the real world. You people live in a bubble.
Barney in Go Dau @ #856 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 12:02 pm
The matter will NOT be resolved until all MP’s are audited so the HC can then address any individual oversights.
This is a constitutional crisis that the parliamentary duopoly is trying to cover up.
Until this matter is properly addressed this parliament is illegitimate.
@ P1 – Can you point to a single person on PB that is pro ME and disagrees with your point 1?
There are two ways the survey can be stopped: Turnbull grows a pair and a conscience, or the HC stops it.
Obviously, one of those is unlikely, so the entire of PB is cheering on the HC.
In case you are unaware of this, you boycotting the survey, does not stop the survey from happening.
Everyone who is pro ME boycotting the survey still does not stop it happening.
Player One,
1. Kirby thinks the process is despicable and should not proceed. So do I.
And? Michael Kirby is still going to take part in it.
2. Kirby thinks that many people – including many gay people – will boycott the vote. So do I.
However, he has now pledged to get them to vote. So, your point is?
3. Kirby’s partner will boycott the vote. Kirby seems to accept with that. So do I.
However, Michael Kirby IS going to vote. So am I.
4. Kirby has decided to participate and vote ‘yes’. So what? That’s his right.
That’s the point we have been trying to make all along to you. A point you have finally, belatedly, acknowledged. That’s what!
Until this matter is properly addressed this parliament is illegitimate.
And, as the Prime Minster and government of Australia do not agree with you and will not be doing as you request, can you please go quietly over to the corner and continue your conniptions alone? : )
[Rex Douglas
…
The matter will NOT be resolved until all MP’s are audited so the HC can then address any individual oversights.
This is a constitutional crisis that the parliamentary duopoly is trying to cover up.
Until this matter is properly addressed this parliament is illegitimate.]
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
C@tmomma @ #907 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 1:12 pm
So, let me get this straight – Kirby has the ‘right’ to vote yes, something I have never disputed.
But no-one has the ‘right’ to vote ‘no’, and no-one has the right not to vote, even though this is a ‘voluntary’ opinion survey?
Good luck in your bubble. I’m off to spend a few hours in the real world. Where I expect I will meet quite a few people who intend to vote ‘yes’, a few who intend to vote ‘no’, and also some who intend not to vote at all.
And no Dr Hewson, its mismanagement of issues isn’t a principal weakness of the Turnbull government. That is just a symptom.
The principal weaknesses are that it has no reason for being beyond denying government to Labor, and there isn’t enough talent in the government to fill a matchbox before you take the matches out.
Of course they are going to look reactive.
BiGD
Rex, Prince Lenard of Hutt and Rod Cullerton are as one on this.
Malcolm Roberts used to be as well until he lucked on to tax-payer funded gig as a senator.
It’s a ‘movement’.
C@tmomma @ #837 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 9:22 am
Knowing what resonates in the boondocks is a logical outcome from doing the hard yards of 100+ town halls, having your MP’s do the same thing and the development of a field campaign which collects input from voters across the country as opposed to outsourcing policy development to think tanks and focus groups.
C@t
I’m sure I’m not the only one here who thinks P1 completely disregarded your Comment #906.
I sometimes wonder what P1’s real world looks like.
Kristina KeneallyVerified account @KKeneally · 2h2 hours ago
The Govt’s media strategy today: don’t pay attention to the high court & all our dual citizen MPs, look at that socialist over there! AARGH!
a socialist unicorn perhaps…
Rex
“This is a constitutional crisis that the parliamentary duopoly is trying to cover up.”
How has Labor covered this up? They have asked a lot of questions, and not been given many (truthful) answers. Nor, despite lots of allegations, has evidence emerged that any of their members are at fault.
mikehilliard @ #914 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 1:27 pm
A hall of distorted mirrors like they used to have in old fairgrounds.
Canavan’s defense sounds like a reach:
“Canavan’s barrister, David Bennett, said he planned to produce evidence to show a “ridiculous” number of Australians, as much as 50% of the population, would be ineligible to run for parliament if citizenship-by-descent rules of foreign countries were held against his client.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/24/dual-citizenship-barnaby-joyce-rival-tony-windsor-joins-high-court-battle-as-dates-set
The problem is not all those who are eligible to get caught. The problem is all those who did nothing about it. There is nothing retrospective about Canavan’s problem. It was a consequence of an overt act, he alleges by others, but others say his consent must have been involved.
Perhaps Canavan could call his dad a a character witness?
Ctar1
Appreciate the sentiments. My brother in law was sister’s husband and he was much loved by us all. We are quite heartbroken.
🙁
Bernard Keanes article at the top of Crikey is spot on regarding Shorten. The Fibs just don’t get it, that anything they say about Shorten is not working and never will.
Socrates @ #916 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 1:30 pm
The L/NP and ALP are on a unity ticket against a simple audit. #samesame
What are they scared of… ?
Sympathy Victoria.
@ Socrates – Canavan is now claiming that he aquired citizenship by descent when he was 2 or 3, and that the later application for citizenship ‘by his mum’ is irrelevant because he had already been an Italian citizen for 2 decades before then.
Canavan’s new argument is that when citizenship was written in the constitution, they meant citizenship by birth or application, not citizenship by descent.
Socrates/Question
Thank you
I’ve been trying to follow this argument over the SSM survey for the last few posts but I’m buggered if I can work out exactly what the two opposing positions are. Can one of the combatants please give me a brief sinopsis?
VE
Interesting change of claim by Canavan. So Canavan is now backing away from his former claim that it was put in “without his knowledge”. Is he claiming “poor administration”? Did he mislead parliament? Why did he say what he said about his mother earlier? Was it a lie?
[Voice Endeavour
@ Socrates – Canavan is now claiming that he aquired citizenship by descent when he was 2 or 3, and that the later application for citizenship ‘by his mum’ is irrelevant because he had already been an Italian citizen for 2 decades before then.
Canavan’s new argument is that when citizenship was written in the constitution, they meant citizenship by birth or application, not citizenship by descent.]
This sounds like bs.
I thought Canavan only acquired the right to Italian citizenship when his mother took up her right to it.
So what happened when he was 2 or 3 to give him citizenship?
Seems like a pretty imprecise date for something so absolute.
Voice Endeavour @ #925 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 1:41 pm
But that argument seems self-defeating. If you’re going to assert a distinction between citizenship by descent and citizenship by application, then you can’t claim it’s irrelevant that an application was made. Even if the application was redundant because citizenship was already possessed, it still demonstrates the same intent to be a ‘citizen by application’ to a foreign nation as a non-redundant application.
Also I’d expect the “citizenship by descent doesn’t count” argument to be demolished on the grounds it would allow someone who’s born in Australia to a parent with foreign citizenship, who then goes and lives their entire life in that foreign state, to fly over to Australia and on the very next day nominate for Parliament even though they’ve spent no time here and clearly have a primary allegiance to a foreign state.
victoria
Ctar1
Appreciate the sentiments. My brother in law was sister’s husband and he was much loved by us all. We are quite heartbroken.
************************************
Deepest Sympathy to you, Victoria and ALL your family members who I feel from all your posts over time seem very close-knit …
@ Socrates – it’s a bit confusing.
Canavan says that.
He was born in Australia, and only had Australian citizenship.
When he was 2-3, the laws in Italy changed, similar to how they did in the UK, such that if your mother was an Italian citizen, you also were an Italian Citizen (by descent), so he became an Italian Citizen without him or his mother doing anything.
He says that when he was 25, his mother applied for him to become a citizen, not knowing that the laws had changed when Canavan was 2-3.
So his arguments
1) The application at 25 was irrelevant, because he already was a citizen.
2) When the constitution says
It actually means
3) Citizens by descent can’t be thought of as having an acknowledgement of allegiance to a foreign power because they didn’t do ask for their citizenship.
tl;dr – I hope he’s brushing off his c.v.
Not much of an argument being put by Canavan.
‘I’m ridiculous. Just like 50% of Australians.’ : )
Barney, AR
If there was an (Italian) citizenship application by Canavan, signed by Canavan, then they would be anxious to adopt a different legal tactic. That is the only way I can make sense of this.
victoria,
Just caught up re your terrible news.
My heart goes out to you, your sister and all family and friends.
Mark
@ Barney – Canavan knows what exact day it was, I don’t. Sorry, just me being lazy.
tl;dr – I hope he’s brushing off his c.v.
Canavan could apply to join the cast of ‘Wog Boys’. ; )
Cat
Another argument he might plausibly try:
“I didn’t bother doing my homework, just like 90% of Cabinet”.
Socrates @ #934 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 1:55 pm
I assume there is such a thing, because I can’t imagine that any nation has laws that allow one adult to apply for citizenship on behalf of another adult.
…but surely when his mum went to apply, she would have been told she needn’t, because she already was….or does the Italian embassy like processing paperwork just for giggles?
[Voice Endeavour
@ Barney – Canavan knows what exact day it was, I don’t. Sorry, just me being lazy.]
🙂
Why did his mother apply to become an Italian citizen if she already had it?
Phoenix/Doyley
Thank you.
zoomster @ #939 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 2:00 pm
If they’re like Australia, then they like collecting extortionate processing fees for processing paperwork.
@ barney – the thing that happened when he was 2 or 3 (again, he knows when it is) was the laws in Italy changing to allow citizenship by descent to pass from mother to child, whereas previously it was only from father to child.
Socrates @ #927 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 11:46 am
Darn @ #926 Thursday, August 24th, 2017 – 11:42 am
Please don’t get them started again, the combatants have written a great many posts on the matter.
P1 is in favour of a boycott, as is their right. Others don’t agree with P1. Various arguments have been made, remade and misrepresented. Complimentary character assessments have been exchanged. The process has been repeated ad nauseam.
zoom,
snap again.
I think we’re on a similar wavelength today.
You’re slightly ahead which I’ll put down to distance. 🙂
[Voice Endeavour
@ barney – the thing that happened when he was 2 or 3 (again, he knows when it is) was the laws in Italy changing to allow citizenship by descent to pass from mother to child, whereas previously it was only from father to child.]
Yeah, get that.
But that doesn’t explain the mother and why she applied to become a citizen.
@ barney again.
Sorry, looks like Canavan’s grandmother was born in Italy, not his mother. When Canavan was 3, the law changed, making Canvan’s mother Italian by descent, which in turn made Canavan Italian by descent.
So his mother could conceivably have been unaware that she was a citizen when applying.
victoria
Sad about your bil. Condolences to you and family.
Turnbull again attacks Shorten over citizenship but is contradicted by Cormann – what a rabble:
[Voice Endeavour
@ barney again.
Sorry, looks like Canavan’s grandmother was born in Italy, not his mother. When Canavan was 3, the law changed, making Canvan’s mother Italian by descent, which in turn made Canavan Italian by descent.
So his mother could conceivably have been unaware that she was a citizen when applying.]
To which the Italians would have said your already a citizen you don’t need to apply.
Too many questions, not enough answers.
We’re just going round in circles.
I think we’ll just have to wait for October!