Newspoll breaks out of its long-established 53-47 to 54-46 rut by recording Labor with a two-party lead of 55-45, compared with 54-46 a fortnight ago. On the primary vote, Labor is up one to 38%, the Coalition down one to 34%, One Nation is up one to 10% and the Greens are down one to 9%. Malcolm Turnbull suffers a body blow on personal ratings, down two on approval to 29% and one on disapproval to 58%, and his lead on preferred prime minister all but disappears, now at 36-34 compared with 41-33 last time. Bill Shorten is up two on approval to 34% and down three on disapproval to 53%. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1625. Full report from The Australian.
UPDATE: The poll also finds Julie Bishop clearly favoured over Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberal Party, by 40% to 27%. Peter Dutton on 11%, being most favoured by One Nation voters on 24%.
citizen
I am celebrating that less profits will be made at consumer expense. In no case is there joy for workers with this.
For that we need good unions and good workplace regulation.
Whats to stop retailers in Australia making their own mega online shopping site…?
Play Amazon at their own game. Maybe that’s in the too hard basket for guys like Harvey… It’s how I would go out and compete against them.
guytaur @ #543 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 11:53 am
… and neither has consistency. 🙂
**I presume Alexander will probably get special treatment in processing a renunciation due to the high profile nature of his situation.**
I hope so.
Turnbull’s cunning plan to 1) force Alexander to resign before he had confirmation of dual citizenship and 2) to force Sharkie to refer herself to HC – both to put pressure on Labor- could result in a) Alexander having to nominate before he has renounced (and confirmed) his citizenship status- plus b) Sharkie being snarkie in a minority government!!
A genius is our Mal.
Greensborough Growler @ #177 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 7:11 am
The only take-away I get from that is even the RWNJ faction concedes that the ‘Yes’ vote will carry and that marriage equality will become law.
The rest of it will never fly, because (aside from everything else that’s horridly wrong with making it legally okay to discriminate against gay people) you either have “protections” that apply to some people but not others depending upon their nominated profession, which won’t work; why does a cake-shop owner get to turn away a gay person, but a dentist, restaurant, or solicitor cannot? Or you create a legal climate that says it’s okay for gay people to be barred from accessing essential goods and services up to and including food, housing, medical support, education, and who knows what else. The first scenario makes no sense, the second is basically tyrannical.
ltep @ #209 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 8:09 am
They really, really shouldn’t. This is a question of Constitutional construction, not legislation.
Disagree, for the same reason.
The High Court must be. They’re the final authority on interpreting the Constitution.
Letting Parliament decide for itself creates a glaringly obvious conflict of interest, where governments (as Turnbull has so helpfully demonstrated) will use their numbers to ensure that a very permissive set of standards is applied to government MP’s and a very different, very restrictive set of standards is applied to opposition MP’s.
The High Court is the only valid arbiter. Parliament cannot be entrusted with policing itself.
ltep @ #544 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 11:54 am
Which would make a mockery of questions as to Keay and others eligibility as they had to wait longer because they were not in a position to apply pressure for quicker processing.
kevjohnno:
[So you are going with the “and the High Court will so hold” approach Windhover?]
No, I am going with the High Court has so held. That is, there is an evidentiary basis for the interpretation of s.44 I have adopted – the summary helpfully provided by the HC itself. Whether I am right or not may be tested by reading Canavan et al, and agreeing (or not) with my conclusion.
MT’s statement was predictive of how the HC would interpret s.44. That was a completely different exercise. His statement was made before the coin was tossed. My statement is made after the coin has landed.
I am not privy to the facts concerning K, L and S, only the reports of those facts. If those reports are accurate then the result is plain. Unless the HC changes its recent interpretation (pigs will sooner fly).
Paddy O
He’s got down to doing what he thinks will be good for him for the next half hour.
MrDenmore: Trump to Xi: “Who is this guy again?” Xi to Trump: “A nutter – says he invented the internet. Just smile and call security.” pic.twitter.com/BxYrvyaInl
So has Alexander just sought clarification on his status- or has he actually started the process of renouncing his citizenship? If the former we could be going to a by-election without a sitting member!
As well as Amazon, there is Alibaba (from China) lurking in the shadows. It is a huge company https://www.alibaba.com .
If Alexander doesnt get his renoucement done before nomimations close that mean he is the same boat as Keay and Sharkie.
Mind you imagine if he gets challenged on the point after winning the byelection and has to resign again.
IOM
Depends on when renunciation was made.
Not knowing date of close of nomination at a campaign presser not a great pointer to confidence in clearing details up.
could even be delay because Alexander used snail mail not even air freight to ask for renunciation for all we know. That would take months to get a response.
Senator Patterson … jeez … he belongs in Victorian England both in terms of look and policy adherence
Sorry last post was referring to asking UK government home office direct not asking here in Australia
Thanks Boris.
I might ask on the Queensland election thread. Might get some more answers.
MrDenmore: Trump to Xi: “Who is this guy again?” Xi to Trump: “A nutter – says he invented the internet. Just smile and call security.” pic.twitter.com/BxYrvyaInl
” rel=”nofollow”>
At least Turnbull looks neat and tidy. Trump’s tie is done badly (perhaps he doesn’t trust anyone to tighten the knot in case they try to choke him) and his suit has several wrinkles suggesting he fell asleep in it the night before.
jenauthor @ #562 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 4:12 pm
What % of under 35yo’s would this guy align with on politics …?
Windhover @ #552 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 11:59 am
While the HC has made statements that may apply to the Keay et al situation they have never considered the situation fully with arguments particular to that situation.
It has always been in the context of arguments relating to something else.
So to say that the HC has fully considered Keay would be incorrect.
We supposedly have considered legal opinion supporting their eligibility and rejecting it.
The way to resolve this doubt is through a HC ruling.
The only certainty with a HC ruling is that they will rule. 🙂
ASEAN presser from Turnbull now
Oops! Sorry, two photos of the trio are probably one too many.
Zeh @ #369 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 12:02 pm
I haven’t bothered checking, but IIRC, political parties have no status in the Constitution.
a r, not Parliament, the chamber the member/senator belongs to. The rights of chambers to determine questions of qualification and eligibility is ancient. Prior to passage of legislation the Court had no power to determine, now it simply shares the power.
I agree that the power can be abused or decided in a political manner – but I think cases like this demonstrate how it can be used constructively. An opinion that all steps that can be taken by an individual prior to the date of nominations is sufficient is sensible and, in my view, preferable to a strict reading of the section.
Windhover @ 3.01….
None of these items go to timing. They are qualifiers…relate to capacity to renounce, not the act of renunciation.
Anastasia Palaszczuk has an attack of common sense.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/qld-labor-ups-ante-on-renewables-more-ambition-new-technology-59459/
Corbyn’s not exactly belting out of the park, is he?
Testing for C+
From Christopher Knaus’ Grauniad commentry:
” Hotels could freely refuse to host a same-sex marriage or reception under an alternative bill proposed by Liberal MP, James Paterson.
Paterson has just appeared on Sky to discuss his private members bill, which he proposed today as an alternative to the private member’s bill of Dean Smith, a moderate.
The bill give a broader right to freely discriminate against same-sex weddings.
James Paterson said he has great respect for Smith, but said his bill’s religious freedom protections were “too narrow”.
“It doesn’t extend to the congregation… and it doesn’t extend to people have the same views, but for secular reasons,” he said.
Paterson, an agnostic, said religious freedom was one of the most important cornerstones of a democracy.”
Agnostic? Bullshit. Paterson is the posterboy for IPA entitlement and will do Anything Gina & Rupert want. Now they want to be able to sell indulgences for homophobic exclusivist patriarchal bigots (18c anyone?). Time to nail another 97 theses on Papal Bull (answers to the name of Pell) to some church doors – though maybe hold off on Luther’s vicious antisemitism.
Didn’t realise that Leigh Sales’ publicist worked for the SMH:
murpharoo: Dean Smith’s private members bill would be a good place to start the marriage debate post survey, the PM says. But the Senate will decide #auspol
So Turnbull plans to scuttle the Patterson mob by doing in the Senate where he knows the yes numbers are higher.
It seems even Turnbull can see what a political suicidal move the Patterson Bill would be.
The nematode crawling away already
Despite my intense dislike for Turnbull, he is not a Trump sycophant. He is merely doing what is required diplomacy.
Victoria
Trumble did say he was joined at the hip with Trump. Maybe he meant the US but at the moment thats the same thing. I am glad Labor is staking out some independence.
briefly @ #569 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 12:20 pm
That’s like saying if I apply to be a citizen of a country, I become instantly a citizen of that country, irrespective of what that country decides.
Individual countries decide who are their citizens and who are not their citizens.
Just as they decide when you become a citizen they also decide when you cease being a citizen.
Just cracked myself laughing at the PM on citizenship deal: “I’m glad the ALP has come on board” … to the deal the ALP asked for and the Libs wanted to reject!
vic
No surprise about that.
Trump has made his opinion of Turnbull clear.
victoria @ #580 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:31 pm
Required according to conventional wisdom. I think it would be more fun to see a mass shunning of Trump by other world leaders. No selfies, no handshakes, no talks.
Let Trump take his “America first” rubbish back to America and play with it in the naughty corner, by himself. Or maybe, with Putin.
Vogon Poet @ #579 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 4:30 pm
More like a cestode than a nematode.
jenauthor @ #580 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 12:34 pm
This Government have frequently shown that the only non-negotiable feature of anything is the name.
Maintain that and you can always claim success! 🙂
So Fanning got turfed from PHON? He didn’t leave, they left him??
This stuff just gets better and better. No tonly is PHON falling apart, but its obvious that Poorline has no idea how its falling apart. 🙂
rhwombat @ #583 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 12:37 pm
I’d go with nematode as you normally see their effect while a cestoda operates more out of sight. 🙂
“So Fanning got turfed from PHON? He didn’t leave, they left him??”
And apparently former not-quite-Senator Roberts’ staffers had been trying to coax him to join the Australian Conservatives. One big happy family PHON are.
Barney in Go Dau @ #590 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 4:42 pm
Possibly – but he’s also a bit of a fluke.
michellegrattan: Can’t understand why people keep saying this is not a constitutional crisis. It’s a crisis arising out of the constitution.What wld be a constitutional crisis?
Windhover @ #518 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:01 pm
This is a bit irrelevant to the general point. Which is that whether or not your renunciation is “accepted” is completely beyond your control, so it is logical that merely submitting the renunciation by the required date and in the required form (unless that form is unreasonably onerous) will probably** be found to be sufficient, because no other outcome makes sense. As others have pointed out, our HC is unlikely** to accept that eligibility to nominate for the Australian parliament should be dependent on the procedures (or lack thereof) of a foreign power – especially when the nominee has done everything within their power to comply with the constitution.
** my opinion!
Shoot em all and let Keifel J sort em out.
The Green letter interpretation of S44 has the Labor members turfed ,naturally, so the Greens can claim the moral high ground.
My Red letter interpretation says they’re safe.
guytaur @ #589 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 12:46 pm
I would consider a Constitutional crisis as one where the Constitution creates a problem and there is no mechanism to resolve the issue bar blowing up the joint and dissolving Parliament.
In answer to Michelle Grattans question, I think a constitutional crisis would be a crisis involving the legitimacy of the constitution. If some breaks the law its not a legal crisis. Not following the constitution is not necesarily a constitutional crisis.