Newspoll and Essential Research both recorded movement to Labor this week, but it hasn’t made any difference to BludgerTrack, on which the only movement worth noting is a half-point drop for One Nation. Labor nonetheless makes two gains on the seat projection, with one apiece in Western Australia and South Australia. Newspoll’s numbers have resulted in movement away from Malcolm Turnbull on both leadership trend measures.
Note that there’s a post below this one for discussion of state by-elections in New South Wales and Victoria, and another one below that on the draft federal redistribution boundaries for Queensland.
Steve777 @ #1847 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 7:11 pm
Agree. Slight swing against (within MOE) Labor. But, basically shaking the jelly beans in the jar.
[William Bowe
YouGov: L-NP 51 (+1), ALP 49 (-1). Primary: L-NP 34 (-), ALP 33 (-2), GRN 11 (-1), ONP 9 (-).]
The back of my envelope says;
Labor 52.8%
L&NP 47.2%
Monarch Airlines gone broke
I think we can be reasonably certain that the support for One Nation is around 8-10% nationwide. I think we can also be pretty certain that the hardheads in the “Liberal” party are looking at ways to harvest their preferences, second preferences if not first. I also think they’ll be looking at ways to create another “Tampa effect”.
Fulvio Sammut:
“the various religions could indulge their selective biases towards those who do not believe in their philosophies without causing offence”
While I think this is a better option than what we currently have, it still gives the relevant church/es a ‘special’ status they don’t deserve, which then leads to a ‘slippery slope’. i.e. it’s OK that some priests didn’t report allegations of sexual abuse to the police because they must first serve the wishes of their church superiors. Also, this assumes that all LGBTIQ people are irreligious, which is definitely not the case. There are no doubt some religious LGBTIQ folk who might want their marital union, once it becomes legal, presided over by a celebrant of their particular ‘faith’. Sure, they could look for one who doesn’t have a problem with marrying same-sex couples, but why should they have to?
It all seems very odd to me that many major religions focus on this one so-called ‘sin’, but totally ignore others. But that is the crux of religion, really.
A gold star awaits the first American MSM outlet that labels the Las Vegas incident as a “terrorist massacre”.
Actually religious hospitals enjoy some exemptions from antidiscrimination law in at least one state, when it comes to the performance of medical procedures in violation of beliefs of an employee of they match that of the hospital already. Though the summary I was reading was unclear if the hospital itself is similarly excempt or needs to provide a substitute.
I use Safari with no fruit to log in here. It’s entirely acceptable most of the time.
Fulvio Sammut
Of course, if you eliminated the civil recognition of religious marriage celebrations, and if religious ceremonies became an “optional extra” to legal (civil) marriage contracts, the various religions could indulge their selective biases towards those who do not believe in their philosophies without causing offence, and let the rest of the population get on with their secular lives.
This is essentially what the current situation is. There is no such thing as “religious marriage”. There is the registration of unions between eligible persons. This is marriage. It is a civil estate. The religious part is purely decorative. It does not constitute marriage. Clerics who officiate at marriages are exercising a civil power, not a religious one. Really, to all intents, there is no such thing as a “religious power”.
What a boring life I’ve led, unlike the royal family:
Religion, when it comes down to it, is basically a means of organising society, including hierarchies of elites who one way or another make the “rules”. These elites enjoy positions of authority and usually wealth within their society. The “rules” are claimed to come from an unseen higher authority, whose will is interpreted by the said elites.
When you get down to it, the only “sins” that matter are those that threaten the institution and the power of the elites. Personal crimes and peccadilloes, especially among the elites, don’t matter as long as they don’t threaten the power structure.
Steve777
I think we can be reasonably certain that the support for One Nation is around 8-10% nationwide.
ON is a right-pop schism. The revival of ON almost certainly ensures the LNP will lose the next federal election. They have peeled votes away from the RW plurality and will deliver a variable share to Labor. ON are to the LNP as the Gs were to Labor…a divide that cannot be repaired.
It would have been interesting to be a fly on the Divided Nation wall when the news of bankruptcy proceedings against Anning being dropped.
Happy or Pissed Off?
When ON said they’d join the LNP in WA they lost popularity overnight.
Bernardi conducts a poll (see his website):
“The Conservatives’ footy poll is in, showing significant opposition to football codes becoming political footballs.
Asked the question “Should footy codes get involved in social or political campaigns?”, over 96% of respondents said No.”
Bernardi’s hounds are now tracking down the 4% who disagreed.
Windsor sticking with Merkel QC. I can’t imagine Gleeson SC being relegated to a non-speaking role.
The submissions do not attach any significance to Joyce being born in Australia. Indeed Windsor submits that the facts are indistinguishable from Sykes.
The lines are certainly clearly drawn
citizen
Bernardi conducts a poll (see his website):
“The Conservatives’ footy poll is in, showing significant opposition to football codes becoming political footballs.
Asked the question “Should footy codes get involved in social or political campaigns?”, over 96% of respondents said No.”
Bernardi’s hounds are now tracking down the 4% who disagreed.
Tell that to the ‘Bend the knee’ footballers in the US.
Briefly @7:39PM: I hope you’re right. The pundits were saying similar things early in 2001. They were also saying that Howard was finished.
Then came Tampa, followed by 9/11. In the 2001 Federal election, the One Nation vote had collapse to about 5%, compared to about 9% in 1998. As The Australian said, John Howard had ‘addressed the concerns’ of One Nation voters. Others might have said he stole their clothes.
One Nation say what many Coalition voters (including many who get elected to Parliament) actually think. I think the “Liberals” will want to repeat their trick.
They’re certainly stronger in Queensland but you’d think something similar, probably to a lesser extent, might also happen there.
Also in WA the Liberals appeared to lose support through having a preference deal with PHON. It will be interesting to see whether the Queensland LNP opts for a similar deal and, if so, what happens to their support.
You gov is like a drunk trying to walk a tightrope.
Dan Gulberry @ #1850 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 6:43 pm
Greensborough Growler @ #1865 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 4:44 pm
It didn’t do the LNP any good either.
Shellbell
What is your assessment of the Windsor submission?
Tight, black letter law plus precedent-hugging?
Might it sink Joyce?
When is Essential coming out?
cud chewer
When is Essential coming out?
Overnight
Shell bell/BW
Windsor gives the HC a challenge. Stick with proven authority of multiple HC decisions, or go with the subjective test proposed by the self serving Brandis and the Nationals troika.
[sprocket_
Shell bell/BW
Windsor gives the HC a challenge. Stick with proven authority of multiple HC decisions, or go with the subjective test proposed by the self serving Brandis and the Nationals troika.]
But they are also being adventurous in arguing for a recount as opposed to a by election.
Work To Rule @ #1727 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 12:02 pm
I’m very, very nervous about the Parliamentary outcome because I’ve now heard several times various politicians and prominent campaigners talking about the credibility of the hypothetical result. I envisage that it won’t take much for them to dream up a convoluted reason around the result lacking “credibility” to disregard the likely “yes” result and vote no.
“Credibility” to the “no” MP’s and RWNJ’s of course means any reason, however convoluted or ridiculous, to disregard a majority “yes” vote and vote no. My tip is that the reason will be WTTE “while the majority of votes were yes, the yes vote did not achieve a majority of all electors eligible to vote {in my electorate, my state or the country} in this farce therefore I’m voting no.
What time do you think?
https://twitter.com/FrBower/status/915083725804675072
Layman’ viewpoint – it boils down to whether a reasonable person, in the position of a nominee for election, knowing their ancestry, and the importance of making a false stat dec, might suspect they were a dual national? Even though born in Australia. In view of the publicity around this issue, the answer is yes in these cases.
Another good Fr Bower tweet.
BiGD
I understand that Windsor is calling for a byelection
From the guardian:
“In submissions lodged with the high court late on Tuesday, legal advisers to Windsor have asked for a byelection to be called in the seat of New England in the event the court determines the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, was not capable of being chosen for parliament because of his dual citizenship of New Zealand.”
Edit: added quote
grimace @ #1878 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 5:23 pm
And of course the loudest complainers against the “validity” of the survey will be the ones who shouted loudest for the ridiculous opinion poll to be inflicted on us in the first place
grimace I doubt there will be too many electorates in which that sort of excuse could be made.
What we are most likely facing is a Bill that will attempt to get back at gay people or wedge Labor.
The best possible outcome is of course war within the Liberals. Fingers crossed.
Dean Smith et al were ready to go with an ME Bill and only went quiet about it when the survey was proposed. I can’t see them either acquiescing to a Bill which won’t get up because it is intentionally too divisive or remaining silent if there is a yes majority and the party room tries to ignore it.
There are (some) Liberals who are genuine on this issue and have shown some semblance of spine.
zoomster @ #1886 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 8:35 pm
Would have thought that Abbott and Abetz have been very genuine on this issue. Or, does your test of genuineness only extend to those supporting your side of the issue?
Whatever same sex marriage bill ends up being introduced to Parliament will be something that has the imprimatur of the “Liberal” right, so it will be loaded down with bullshit “protections” and probably attempted wedges. Labor needs to take a pragmatic view. If it is 50% of what is needed, it should be passed and fixed later.
Barney
The Windsor crew want a by election in the submission. Straight down the line on precedent eg Free vs Kelly.
The question will be, If all 7 get the HC boot, does this open up any other angles?
Eg Baaarnyard has to wait for a by election, the Turnbull majority is gone. Baaarnyard’s decisions could be challenged, chaos would ensue.
Nash and Canavan being ineligible could mean a Liberal getting the spot on count back.
The “Liberal” right (as distinct from the Far Right) will shut up about Marriage Equality just as they have shut up about the Republic and Climate Change.
BW
I did not think it was a great beginning saying Joyce factually was comparable to Mr Kardamitsis (Sykes v Cleary) when Mr Kardamitsis was born in Greece.
The legal analysis thereafter is Gleeson precision par excellence (I have had work red penned by Justin – a trip to the local stationer for extra ink supplies was required).
However, I think the pure objective test, which is the only card Windsor can play given Joyce Senior renounced in 1977 and there is no evidence that Joyce Jnr knew or had reason to know he was a citizen, while clean, leads to such a silly result no one ever contemplated, a majority will use the licence left to them by Sykes v Cleary to find s44 has not been breached.
Vogon Poet @ #1883 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 8:26 pm
Yes, Windsor was initially angling for a recount but it seems wisdom has prevailed. There is seen to be little chance of the court accepting an argument for a recount given the precedents. Another issue that has received no coverage at all is that Windsor would not necessarily win a recount. If enough of Joyce’s voters followed the Nats how to vote card (or just preferenced accordingly of their own volition) then the Christian Democrat would defeat Windsor in the recount anyway.
shellbell
Thank you.
I was talking to a Catholic priest last night. He said he had voted “yes” in theME survey thingy.
When i mentioned Fisher the Archbishop of Sydney’s view, he laughed and said he was a protege of George Pell and his nickname was/is “Boy George”!!!!!
shellbell @ #1891 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 7:46 pm
I still like the Greens submission best.
Barney in Go Dau @ #1853 Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 – 7:18 pm
I get 53.0-47.0 but this is just treating their “others” as generic others per the last election. Not sure the breakdown of their others would make a difference as they tend to have both NXT and some kind of Christian-party category pretty high.
Thanks Vogon and sprocket
shellbell
Will you give Boerwar a PB discount on your fee for a legal opinion ? 🙂
Anyone seen the primaries from the Sky ReachTEL yet?
Is the HC going to come up with a decision which basically says it is better to be stupid, lazy and ignorant and not make any inquiries. That will be an interesting approach. And once it adopts a reasonable person test, it surely can’t make a lot of fine distinctions. . All of them, except maybe for z, should get the boot..s