In a week where only Essential Research reported a national voting intention result, BludgerTrack records a tick to Labor – although it’s actually due to me finally being able to add last fortnight’s ReachTEL to the mix, for which I hadn’t previously been able to get full primary vote numbers, and which was actually a bit of a shocker for the Coalition by the pollster’s standards. As for the state breakdowns, all I can really offer at the moment is apologies for how screwy the Queensland numbers are looking. Whether because of state election static, or simply a freakish accumlation of outliers over a very short period, six of the last seven results I have from Queensland have the Coalition primary vote at 30% or below, compared with 43.2% at the 2016 election. It will be interesting to see what we get from the Newspoll quarterly aggregation, which should be along in a week or two. Essential had its montly leadership ratings this week, which have givenn Malcolm Turnbull a bit of a lift. Full results on the sidebar.
did the greens run dead
their vote went down 2.9%
if they had achieved a similar increase in primary to what labor did would have been around 10%+, or an extra 4%+ in primary, which would have made it much closer.
but di natalie has shown he supports turnbull before.
I’m actually a member of the SDA, and was directly affected by the infamous Coles deal.
I do find the social conservatism advocated by many in its leadership both frustrating and baffling – certainly you don’t get even a hint of that aspect of the union as a rank-and-file member. But I think they generally do a very good job of defending workers’ rights, while up against employers that would be quite happy to force people to work for free if they could get away with it.
We’ve had no change in our penalty rates at my place of employment since the decision to scrap them, and our new agreement looks set to give us more, which seems quite the achievement in the current climate.
bit rich pegagus criticising the sda deal for workers when di natalie pays his au pair $8.50 an hour.
as others have pointed out the deal befitted workers overall.
it does favour permanents to the detriment of some casual shifts but there is a big push to increase permanency which brings increased benefits to the workers.
in any EBA or EA there will always be and has been trade offs, from the reduction in penalty rates to a fixed dollar amount and the hourly spread to the range of allowances.
causal workers are generally short term transitional, the main game is to get increased protection and benefits for the permanents. It is the unions who are working against the causalisation of the workforce.
Labor changing leaders wouldn’t stop the media from their turd polishing of the NBN or energy policy etc. I’ve never cared less about the personality of the party leader.
I have to wonder, would we all be as disappointed about Bennelong if the polls had all been predicting 54-46 style results? Or would everyone just be shrugging and not giving a damn about what it all means. IMO, those seat polls went a long way towards over-hyping the expectations we had for this by-election.
guytaur @ #266 Sunday, December 17th, 2017 – 12:38 pm
It’s not my job to defend him. What he said cam over badly.
If he can’t express himself clearly then he should just shut-up.
But the account of what he intended is not unreasonable. And he did apologise.
Bonza – I want to scream when people criticise the way Shorten speaks, etc etc. I say, ffs I just want competence.
guytaur says:
Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:33 pm
g, if the public were polled and asked if they knew what the letters SDA stand for, 4/5 could not all you. If they were asked if they knew who Joe de Bruyn is, 98/100 could not tell you. If they were asked to nominate the past policies of the SDA with respect to SSM, 4/5 could not tell you.
You might like to know that at WA Labor’s recent State Conference several pro-equality motions were passed. They passed not only unanimously, but by acclamation. The Right, including all the SDA delegates, voted with everyone else. One of the most prominent WA Labor campaigners for SSM is former organiser for the SDA and its satellites. He’s now an MLC. You never saw anyone prouder to wear the rainbow t-shirt and go door-knocking for YES.
The Gs hate unions. We know that. They are Liberal in their contempt for the organs of working people. They hate the unions and they hate Labor. You know what hate is. And so do we.
I may have to rethink my view of Robert Doyle’s likely innocence of sexual harassment charges. Have just read an Age report of very specific alleged sexual predator activity. Allegations only – but backed by a witness.
Doyle is adamant that they are false.
This could develop into a very consequential story.
Did you not start with the assumption the victims were telling the truth, and if not why not?
lizzie @ #283 Sunday, December 17th, 2017 – 1:00 pm
Good on you for saying that Lizzie.
But it extends further. Any woman with an axe to grind can fabricate such allegations.
I have been told of one very nasty case by a female friend who was just outraged to see a male colleagues career destroyed by false allegations by a psychopathic woman.
one workplace I was in we were facing shutdown contracting out putting 40-50 permanents and 60-70 casuals out of work.
proposed a new ea cutting wages and conditions, union stepped in.
initial poor response as union did not know what current award workers were under.
in the end agreed current permanent and long time casuals kept conditions, new staff on new conditions. protected older long time staff, newer ones, permanent and casual tended to only be short term.
place still going after 18 years, increased staff and protections.
sometimes this greater good stuff is not the milo bullshit of catch 22 that the lnp love.
I start with assumptions of innocence.
Boris,
There was never any actual evidence that claim was true. It basically came down to a matter of how much was full lodging in Deans Marsh worth. And the Press Council found the paper that had printed those claims had breached it’s standards.
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1693/
“Good on you for saying that Lizzie.
But it extends further. Any woman with an axe to grind can fabricate such allegations.
I have been told of one very nasty case by a female friend who was just outraged to see a male colleagues career destroyed by false allegations by a psychopathic woman.”
You are right we have almost zero evidence of sexual assault and harm by powerful men against women, and there are so few women who aren’t psychopathic … likely it has never happened … we really need to work hard to protect those poor disadvantaged and abused rich white guys from those crazy bitches ….
“I start with assumptions of innocence.”
Any the vast array of powerful wealthy men abusing children and women count on it and thank you for it.
And those powerful wealthy men who are found to abuse children and women, face court and rot in jail.
Peterjk23 @ #314 Sunday, December 17th, 2017 – 1:47 pm
And your experience running an election campaign is?
On a leadership change for Labor. I don’t think it would be detrimental to the party. Depending on the leader, it may increase their lead and allow a greater victory than others. I don’t think the “leadershit” meme will have much effect – it rarely does when a party is in opposition. There would be some negative press in the lead-up to the challenge, but it would fade away once it’s done.
But changing leaders is always a calculated risk. And with Labor on top of the polls, with a competent leader, who has avoided gaffes and major stuff-ups, who has the party united under him, it’s an entirely unnecessary risk. The potential dangers – Shorten’s successor, say, imploding Latham-style, or turning out to have a lot of skeletons in their closet, or just making a lot of strategic errors that allow the Coalition to gain the upper hand again – far outweigh the potential benefits, which at the moment seem to basically consist of winning by a larger margin than otherwise and being able to feel good about the PPM ratings.
In the current situation, the only circumstances where I could see replacing Shorten being warranting are if:
A) The Coalition – with Turnbull still leader – manage to improve in the polls to the extent that they actually have a shot at scraping through to victory again.
B) They replace Turnbull, and his successor remains strong in the polls for some time beyond what is reasonable for a normal honeymoon period. But they definitely should wait out a new Coaliton PM’s honeymoon before considering changing leader.
C) Shorten makes some major fuck-up or some revelation from his past comes out that makes his leadership untenable.
But, at the moment, with Shorten not very popular but poised to win government in a landslide? No way.
“And those powerful wealthy men who are found to abuse children and women, face court and rot in jail.”
yeah no, as the royal commission and the whole Weinstein thing so clearly shows to anyone paying attention, they almost never ever do.
The Fairfax story re the Woolworths/ SDA “secret agreement ” is a load of bullshit.
The agreement provides hourly rates above award and penalty rates at least in line with the award. As well, conditions which are superior to the award including minimum hours for part time casuals etc.
It is a bullshit story jumped on by some here without any knowledge of the facts simply to have a how at the SDA.
The agreement was approved by FWA and as such has met all conditions of the revamped and more strict FWA interpretation of the BOOT. In simple terms no worker at any time will be worse off than under the award.
Re the secrecy angle. Keeping the agreement details secret was opposed by the SDA. It was reached between Woolworths and FWA alone.
Fairfax and the ” journos ” responsible for this crap story have a history and a idological obsession with the SDA.
Get the facts right before blowing up at the SDA .
Cheers and a great afternoon to all.
bemused
Re “axe to grind” this just concluded case is a shocker. The police effort was truly appalling. No wonder the guy reckons an apology just doesn’t cut it.
.
“Innocent student Liam Allan cleared as judge warns over potential miscarriages of justice”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-trial-collapse-sex-text-messages-police-funding-cuts-liam-allan-disclosure-phone-innocent-a8113011.html
Quasar @ #341 Sunday, December 17th, 2017 – 2:29 pm
John Kenneth Galbraith certainly used it, but I don’t know if he originated it.
Good pithy sayings tend to get reused.
Ah the land of the free and the home of the brave……………….
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elderly-woman-handcuffed-jail-refuse-leave-care-home-93-year-old-juanita-fitzgerald-florida-lake-a8111736.html
Asha Leu @ #342 Sunday, December 17th, 2017 – 2:30 pm
Should Shorten have elbowed his candidate out of the way and hogged the stage like Turnbull did?
What rubbish!
Shorten was there in support of the candidate, not to steal the limelight.
bemused
Yep , the great JK Galbraith said it first. I also heard him mention another description from someone else “Piss on the Poor. ” which for me says it perfectly.
shorten is not popular and he is a drag – ask general public – he is not strongly disliked but not much public appeal whatever he is like in the party – he is leader we have to have, and he might / probably will win regardless – KK was much better performer – bit of shame
briefly:
Nonsense. Many Greens candidates have been involved in unions, and the Greens are heavily in support of penalty rates and other protections for workers.
If I am remembering correctly, Truffles was extremely popular until he became leader.
Observation: some men have one example to draw on about someone they know who was apparently falsely accused of sexual harassment or abuse by a “psychotic woman” with an “axe to grind” (or some such); while most women have numerous examples of when they themselves were sexually harassed or abused by a male abuser, and dozens (or hundreds?) of examples if they were to include all the examples from “someone they know.”
The day that men can say that they have been unfairly accused at the same rate as women are harassed is the day we can consider false accusations a real problem. Until then, we should give those stating they’ve been harassed or assaulted the benefit of the doubt, because they are the ones who are statistically and logically speaking most likely to be telling the truth.
Re horses and sparrows, found this on Reddit:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qkvp9/eli5_what_is_the_meaning_behind_the_horse_and/
I think some people are over-reacting to the Bennelong result.
The actual 5 point something swing is better than the current average 3.8% state-wide NSW swing in the polls.
NSW is just a hard state for the ALP right now because the state economy (and specially the Sydney economy) is doing so well compared to the rest of the country. The current Liberal NSW government has a lead in the polls (52%-48% in the October ReachTEL.)
On top of that, (unlike most other by-elections), the Liberal incumbent was running again in the seat & had an incumbency advantage & possibly some sympathy vote over the S.44 issue.
The ALP did quite OK in the circumstances.
“Re “axe to grind” this just concluded case is a shocker. The police effort was truly appalling. No wonder the guy reckons an apology just doesn’t cut it.”
Yeah the whole axe to grind theory of fake sexual assault claims is largely fake. Women, generally have lots to lose and almost nothing to gain for coming forward.
One possible area of exception, where I’d still give the claimant the benefit of the doubt, is in a equal-relationship structure, where the abuse allegations only surface as a tool / weapon soon after breakup. But even then one needs to remember even in a relationship characterised by vicious domestic abuse there is going to be both rape and not entirely voluntary but enjoyable sexual relations.
I find the whole ‘she came back’ and ‘she enjoyed it, it can’t be rape’ aspects of the media report of that case to be incredibly problematic. But yeah it will almost always mean no rape conviction, but that is just as much an example of the system failing as it will be a sign of it suceeding. Remember the whole better to let 9 guilty people be found not guilty than the 1 innocent person unjustly convicted underpinning of our justice system.
bemused
If you can get a hold of it Philip Adams on LNL spoke to JK Galbraith in JK’s home for an hour. Wonderful interview.
Al Pal @ #363 Sunday, December 17th, 2017 – 3:07 pm
As do I and as should everyone.
Do people think that Shorten is unpopular in some unique way compared to Abbott?
“The day that men can say that they have been unfairly accused at the same rate as women are harassed is the day we can consider false accusations a real problem. Until then, we should give those stating they’ve been harassed or assaulted the benefit of the doubt, because they are the ones who are statistically and logically speaking most likely to be telling the truth.”
Very nicely put, but the old privileged white guys with no self-awareness club are unlikely to embrace those facts, they will bring their own.
“As do I and as should everyone.”
No, I understand why the criminal justice system does, but that it is spectacularly failing in this area suggests it is not a brilliant solution to the very wide large spread problem.
Most politicians are popular when compared to Abbott.
WeWantPaul @ #365 Sunday, December 17th, 2017 – 3:09 pm
The guy in the case my friend was outraged about was not rich. His accuser was a psychopath who left a trail of bodies wherever she worked. I was a minor victim.
It is extremely easy to make a false accusation and almost impossible to disprove.
None of this is to say that terrible cases of abuse of women do not occur and should be severely punished when proven.
Asha
Whish-Wilson is a stand out supporter of penalty rates and overtime.
Yeah, Bill is so unpopular that if he achieved last night’s swing at a Federal election labor would have 90+ seats.
Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first make popular!
GG
Yep. We seem to have accumulated a long list of ‘scroll by’ commentors.
Labor governments introduced the most consequential legislative changes that eroded the effectiveness of unions. Bans on “pattern bargaining”, bans on “secondary boycotts”, bans on “political” industrial action, very narrow time frames for lawful industrial action, massive fines for unions that don’t comply with the absurd restrictions placed upon their activities, permitting employers to terminate EBAs and force workers onto less generous award wages and conditions – all introduced by Labor governments, and all producing the effect of stacking the deck in favour of employers. It is annoying to see people whitewash Labor’s economic illiterate and socially destructive assaults on unions.
The Labor party would be a laughing stock if they change leaders 8% ahead in the polls.Who in the right political minds would do that? Then what if the new leader gets beaten in 2019? Then 2 leaders would be burnt instead of one.
Luci @ #380 Sunday, December 17th, 2017 – 3:39 pm
Great! So we reverse the onus of proof.
A complete denial of natural justice.
CTar1:
I can’t say I agree with Whish-Wilson’s comments on penalty rates. But his own views differ from actual Greens policy, nor did he actually speak in favor of removing penalty rates at all, if I’m remembering correctly, rather he questioned who should be responsible for paying them. He’s wrong, IMO, but his opinions are a far cry from “hating unions and working people.”
Labor won’t change leaders. Any suggestion is only good for discussions.
lizzie says:
The ‘theory’ of Truffles was popular but the putting it into practice underwhelming 🙂
“It is extremely easy to make a false accusation and almost impossible to disprove.”
And on actual evidence extraordinarily rare, not at all common as that sentence might tempt one to infer. The only example we have had so far in the Weinstein matter was the fake allegation against Roy Moore that was being made not to hurt Moore but to help him and to work with the kind of sentiment in your sentence to discredit and silence the not insubstantial group of alleged victims.
Don’t get me wrong facts should be gathered and considered and conclusions well founded, but really the whole falsely made up claim by the ‘crazy’ woman, is about as common as female on male domestic abuse.
You argue your alleged perp was not powerful, and I’ll assume you mean relative power, not some subjective measure, and definitely, if the claim is coming from the more powerful person, and that person is a woman, you’d want to be looking at it twice. If the man has the relative power (even a manager at McDonalds over a casual who needs the money) then it is going to be a lightning strike rare event for the allegation to be made up.
“None of this is to say that terrible cases of abuse of women do not occur and should be severely punished when proven.”
This is definitely on the ‘part of the problem’ not ‘part of the solution’ side of the equation; and sexual offenders use it as a keep out of jail free card, often combined with a ‘don’t believe here she is a crazy witch’ type of way to invalidate the victims complaint. There is a reason it took a royal commission to uncover child sexual abuse, the victims by and large were just not believed, ‘you go and prove it’ the system said to them, and the nice trustworthy priests laughed and raped another kid while yelling over their shoulder ‘you can’t believe those kids they are bad apples’.