As related by The Guardian, Essential Research’s fortnight rolling average result for this week has Labor’s two-party lead at 53-47, down from 54-46 last week. As usual we will have to wait until Essential releases the full report later today for the primary votes.
On the same sex marriage survey, an excessive 86% report having voted, of whom 64% say they voted yes, 31% no, and the rest declining to answer. On the question of support for “an indigenous voice to parliament”, 45% expressed support with 16% opposed, while 47% expressed support for an indigenous treaty, with 16% opposed.
Also featured is the latest in the pollster’s semi-regular series on party attributes, with results similar to those from the previous outing in March. Even the Liberal Party’s rating as “divided” is unchanged at 68%, although it is down six points on being “too close to the big corporate and financial interests”, now at 65%. Labor’s biggest change looks to be a six point drop for “moderate”, to 52%. If I understand the report correctly, the Liberal Party is up six on this measure to 53%.
Now now aqualung, the Libs have never ever not even once broken a convention that worked to their advantage.
zoomster @ #1540 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 7:14 pm
Old timer testing
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has threatened to break with longstanding precedent and use the government’s slim majority to refer any Labor MPs under a citizenship cloud to the High Court.
This certainly illustrates why an “audit”, instituted by the majority, would likely only lead to attempts by the majority to use their strength unseat members of the minority, thereby thwarting the results of elections and undermining the Parliament. Fwiw, it was the apprehension of this sort of thing that led the Parliament to decide in 1910 to refer s44 matters to the HC.
This is a shambolic spectacle that ill-serves the public interest. No-one will come out of this looking good. Instead, the 12-15-18 million dual citizens of Australia (who knows how many there actually are?) will have been lectured by sundry nationalists on their allegedly innate disloyalty and misplaced allegiance.
This part of the Constitution should be reformed.
It works
ItzaDream @ #1531 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 7:29 pm
You are correct in that I was trying to quote briefly, so apologies. I would not otherwise dignify your posts with an answer.
Indeed TPOF. And their political correspondent finds it completely unremarkable that Trumble advised a cross bench senator to refer herself to the HC.
grimace:
Thank you!! According to that site I can expect 50-90Mbps which is faster than what I currently have.
Has Turnbull lost his goddamn mind? I can’t envision any scenario where referring Labor MPs to the HC won’t blow up completely in his face. Shorten and Labor have nothing to lose here. Absolute worst case scenario for them here is that Labor goes from being in opposition with 69 seats to being in opposition with 67 seats and Gallagher is replaced by a different Labor senator. Meanwhile, Turnbull will look like a vindictive hypocrite, and have set a precedent where it’s acceptable for other parties to refer members of the Coalition to the high court.
Confessions:
No. Politician ‘reform’, as in, not admitting candidates who don’t read or understand the legal declarations they sign is essential. This is, to an extent, now happening; or rather, at least forcing by-elections.
Stop making excuses for those too stupid, thick, or arrogant to know or care what it is they’re signing. How can these people, lawyers among them, possibly ‘represent’ us competently when they can’t even fill in a form correctly?
Diogenes @ #1521 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 7:22 pm
I thought that was John Wayne!
Couldn’t anyone with standing refer the matter to the High Court? And if the majority in the House were to act in bad faith there would be a groundswell of support for that action, pro bono lawyers etc
Now we see how the ABC treats a Labor government going for re-election.
A relentlesly negative report reminiscent of the way in which they treated Gillard, with a snide tone.
Also, forgive my ignorance here, but what on earth does MAD stand for?
‘Stop making excuses for those too stupid, thick, or arrogant to know or care what it is they’re signing. How can these people, lawyers among them, possibly ‘represent’ us competently when they can’t even fill in a form correctly?’
Exactly. They need to be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
Mr Newbie:
You’re entitled to your view and I’m entitled to mine.
The next few polls should be quite interesting and maybe not as boring as they have been till now.
Has someone told Kevin Bonham where PB is now? I don’t recall seeing one of his comments since the migration. Would be a shame to miss his updates and blog posts and insights into all things Tassie.
Shiftaling
I believe the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualification) Act means that anyone from that MP’s seat or Senators state/terrirory can challenge their election.
Confessions @ #1551 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 4:55 pm
My extremely limited understanding, based on what you’ve said, assuming FttN, is that if you had a 25mbps or 50mbps plan then you’d actually achieve very close to those speeds. Your own equipment and the quality of the copper line ‘behind the gate’ (the section of wire between the NBN box outside your house and your modem, which you are responsible for) will influence how close you get to 25mbps or 50mbps.
If you purchased a 100mbps plan then you’d get whatever the maximum possible speed was on your line.
On very good news, the area I lived in has been upgraded to 1,000mbps FttP!
Best part of that Stefanovic interview: Turnbull saying WTTE of “I’m very good under pressure. I remain calm in a crisis”, then blowing up at Stefanovic seconds later for calling him a waffler.
Asha Leu @ #1557 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 7:59 pm
I go with Mutually Assured distraction. But, others will disagree.
Confessions:
Views are irrelevant. These politicians made a misleading declaration, knowingly or otherwise, on a legal document determining eligibility to enter parliament. If there was any doubt, they didn’t bother to check. That should bother you, regardless of your views on Section 44.
It doesn’t matter if you think it shouldn’t be there; it is/was there, and they signed that they met the criterion. Even if they didn’t know, ignorance is no excuse for breaking a law. These people are meant to be representing us politically, and are paid a 6 figure sum annually to do so; they weren’t applying for jobs as an admin assistant.
“Refer them all and let the High Court sort them out.”
———
Is that a referrence to “Kill them all. God will know his own”?
Attributed to Arnaud Amaury at the siege of Beziers 1209 during the Albigensian crusade.
730 the Barnaby Joyce reelection hour. Is there not supposed to be some sort of balance for the other candidates?
Among the basic promises of democracy are that any person who is eligible to vote will also be eligible to propose themselves for election; and that those who comprise the legislature will derive their standing, tenure and legitimacy from the results of fair elections, and not from anything else.
We have come to a very sad pass, a pass where elections are being overturned on the basis of an arbitrary, phobic, jingoist and archaic legalism.
equal or not? @ #1567 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 8:06 pm
and, John Wayne!
An old acronym from the Cold War:
Mutually
Assured
Destruction
If someone fires one nuke then the opponent will respond in kind or worse then the other party replies and on and on until there’s only scorched irradiated earth left.
This says it all:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/09/the-climate-has-changed-before-but-this-is-different-look-at-the-archeological-record
While MT & the LNP are waffling around the world is changing around us and almost certainly not for the better.
Asha
MAD is mutual assured destruction (re Soviets and US nuclear deterrent meaning neither will fire).
Incidentally, I’m reading One Minute to Midnight about the Cuban Missile Crisis. The scariest thing is all the nukes being flown around the US in a blind panic not using safeguards as there was too much of a hurry. One plane overshot the landing strip carrying a nuke and almost blew up.
RFK’s suggestion that the US blow up one of its own ships in Guantanamo Bay and pretend the Cubans did is as a pretext for invading Cuba was a bit concerning as well.
briefly says:
Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:08 pm
While I’m fairly supportive of repealing s44 myself, I’m not sure this argument entirely holds water. There are, after all, other classes of people who currently can vote but cannot run for parliament, such as public servants and the bankrupt.
Diogenes @ #1573 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 8:11 pm
The author might hawk that proposition. But, seriously…….
My understanding is that public servants can indeed run for parliament, but must take leave without pay for the campaign, and if elected must resign their public service employment.
Unless this has changed recently I’ve known a couple of public servants who have taken unpaid to contest elections, but have not been elected, and so have returned to their employment.
Asha Leu says:
Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:13 pm
briefly says:
Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Among the basic promises of democracy are that any person who is eligible to vote will also be eligible to propose themselves for election; and that those who comprise the legislature will derive their standing, the tenure and their legitimacy from the results of fair elections, and not from anything else.
We have come to a very sad pass, a pass where elections are being overturned on the basis of an arbitrary, phobic, jingoist and archaic legalism.
While I’m fairly supportive of repealing s44 myself, I’m not sure this argument entirely holds water. There are, after all, other classes of people who currently can vote but cannot run for parliament, such as public servants and the bankrupt.
Yes. Some are excluded, certainly. But their disqualification is not arbitrary. It arises because of a specific incapacity, conflict of financial interest or proven individual unfitness.
Mr Newbie
I’m considering s44 as an IQ and competency test which way too many MPs have failed. Most professionals would be charged for practicing without a license if they pulled this lackadaisical shit. I certainly wouldn’t be allowed near a patient until I had sorted it out and the public hospitals check this stuff religiously and ban you setting foot in the place (and don’t pay you). It’s part of your legal contract to have registration sorted. Can’t see why MPs are any different.
Asha Leu @ #1557 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 7:59 pm
You must be a Whippersnapper 🙂 Us oldsters grew up in a MAD World. The idea sounded crazy but the Mutually Assured bit may well have saved the planet. That was THE scary part of seeing footage of Rumsfeld and Cheney back in Ford days talking about the possibility of a “winnable nuclear war” with the US.
Greensborough Growler:
Aqualung:
Diogenes:
Ah, right, thank you. I am aware of the phrase, just assumed the acronym was something specifically related to Aus politics.
Unfortunately for Turnbull, I think all his nukes will turn out to be duds in this situation.
MAD
Dr Strangelove Doomsday Machine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE
GG
Looking for pretexts which his brother could use to attack Cuba, he cast his mind back to the 1898 war with Spain, wondering “whether there is some other way we can get involved in this, through Guantanamo Bay or something….whether there’s some ship that…you know, sink the Maine again or something.”
And that’s from a direct transcript from an ExComm Meeting
Diogenes @ #1578 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 8:19 pm
It actually goes to the heart of representative politics. If you’re not actually one of the represented, how do you represent them?
Barnaby or Truffles ? 🙂
‘My understanding is that public servants can indeed run for parliament, but must take leave without pay for the campaign, and if elected must resign their public service employment.’
No, you must resign before nomination. However, public servants get around this by writing a resignation letter and arranging with their superiors that the letter not be opened (or put on the desk of someone who’s on holiday, or similar), or that their position not be advertised as vacant.
Get an unco operative boss, and you can’t do fiddles like that.
Are you suggesting those caught up in this S44 saga aren’t Australian citizens?
OMG the UK Torygraph newspaper cartoons now cover Australian politics 🙂
zoomster:
Then it’s obviously changed. I’ve had a friend and a couple of acquaintances who were public servants run as federal candidates but didn’t resign.
Poroti
The hat
Barnaby
Diogenes @ #1582 Thursday, November 9th, 2017 – 8:23 pm
Context is something you are never good on. It’s always black and white.
The US Government would have explored all options.
Quarterbacking from 50 years ago isn’t a clever pursuit.
The Houses can unilaterally refer their own members so yeah Turnbull could just refer Labor MPs in the House but it would make a mockery of convention.
The Senate probably shouldn’t reply in kind because it’s not an attack on the Senate though I’d expect Labor to try and maybe they’d get the numbers because it is a fairly clear case of executive overreach and the Senate should arguably check that.
poroti:
The Shovel should create an advent calendar for this govt, each day revealing a new stuff up.
And let’s remember it is in Trumble’s and the media’s vested interests to try and spread the ordure as widely as possible. Sharkie and all the ALP members mentioned (too late for Gallagher, she would have been a goner before the last election I suspect) will be arguing for a reading of reasonable steps that has not been explicitly ruled out by the HC (arguably). There will be new arguments put in those cases and the HC will make a ruling on them.
This doesn’t really apply to any of the Coalition members or Lambie or any others because they have clearly not acted to renounce before nominating.
It’s a smear and mud slinging exercise (gee whodathunk Trumble would sink to that????). Sharkie and the ALP peeps have clearly made an effort. Their fates will turn on if the HC deems that to be sufficient. The Coalition and PHON and the Greens have been negligent on the question (and perhaps Labor with Katy, but picked up).
There is just no comparison. Some have made good faith efforts to comply with s44 based on legal advice that seems at worst to be arguable. Some have been negligent in properly addressing the issue but fessed up and did the right thing when they were found out.
And then there’s the Coalition and PHON.
grimace:
I’m exceedingly jealous that you’re getting FTTP, but am consoling myself that a dedicated Labor member at least gets to benefit from Labor’s gold standard best practice intention wrt broadband. 🙂