We are having one of the poll-free weeks that have occasionally bedevilled us since Essential Research moved from weekly to fortnightly, with Newspoll having one of its occasional three-week gaps so its next poll coincides with the resumption of parliament. So here’s some random bits of electoral news:
• A polling nugget I forgot to relate a fortnight ago: according to a report by Nick Butterly of The West Australian, a Labor internal poll recorded a neck-and-neck result in the Perth seat of Stirling, which Michael Keenan holds for the Liberals by a margin of 6.1%. After excluding the 10.8% undecided, the primary votes were Liberal 40.2% (49.5% in 2016), Labor 37.6% (32.2%), Greens 9.0% (11.7%) and One Nation 5.3%. The poll was conducted by Community Engagement from a large sample of 1735.
• Gareth Parker in the Sunday Times reports that Matt O’Sullivan, who ran unsuccessfully in the lower house seat of Burt at the 2016 election, has narrowly won preselection for the third position on the Liberals’ Western Australian Senate ticket, behind incumbents Linda Reynolds and Slade Brockman. O’Sullivan emerged with 56 votes to 54 for Trish Botha, co-founder with her husband of an evangelical church in Perth’s northern suburbs. The closeness of the result surprised party observers, especially given Christian conservative numbers man Nick Goiran backed O’Sullivan. As Gareth Parker noted in his weekly column, Botha appears to have attracted support from “non God-botherers” opposed to Goiran’s alliance with Mathias Cormann and Peter Collier, who may not have been aware of the messianic language employed by Botha’s church.
• Katy Gallagher has announced she will seek preselection to recover the Australian Capital Territory Senate seat from which she was disqualified last month over Section 44 complications, after speculation she might instead seek the territory’s newly created third lower house seat. However, it appears she will face opposition from the newly anointed successor to her Senate seat, David Smith, former local director of Professionals Australia.
• As for the lower house situation in the Australian Capital Territory, Andrew Leigh will remain in Fenner and Gai Brodtmann will go from Canberra to the nominally new seat of Bean, leaving a vacancy available in Canberra. Smith appears set to run if he loses the Senate preselection to Gallagher; Sally Whyte of Fairfax reports he will be opposed by Kel Watt, a lobbyist who has lately made a name for himself campaigning against the territory Labor government’s ban on greyhound racing. Other potential starters include John Falzon, chief executive of the St Vincent de Paul Society; Jacob Ingram, a staffer to Chief Minister Andrew Barr; and Jacob White, a staffer to Andrew Leigh.
• Occasional Poll Bludger contributor Adrian Beaumont has launched his own website of local and international election and polling news.
briefly:
LU summed the billboard up perfectly: Microsoft Clip Art circa 1995.
guytaur @ #1550 Sunday, June 17th, 2018 – 2:21 pm
The difference was that the Libs thought they could pin something on Labor and kept it going.
There is nothing in that flag incident for either side as they are in agreement.
Re the Palmer Billboards. It is getting to the end of another financial year.
Big Clive is using them for a tax rightoff.
One step ahead of Sco-Mo.
Oakshott:
“There is a Palmer billboard on the corner of Parramatta Rd and New Canterbury Road. possibly the ugliest intersection of the ugliest road in Australia.”
In what parrallel universe does Parramatta Rd intersect with New Canterbury Road?
Old Canterbury Rd in fact
Bemused
Which was my point about the government shutting it down.
I don’t know if it was under Howard or Rudd. It does not matter. Condemnation was the right response.
We will get more when the results are in.
It is the media that chooses to play down when both sides agree.
I did not see editorials decrying our nation being represented to other countries in a war zone with a Nazi Flag.
Thats the difference. Of course I may have missed them but that again shows how the media coverage is unbalanced. No one in the country should have been left in any doubt that was an atrocity and not skylarking etc just as briefly pointed out.
Its so bad in Germany that behaviour gets you a jail term
Intersection of old Canterbury Road and Parramatta Road Lewisham?
Confessions says:
Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:21 pm
briefly:
LU summed the billboard up perfectly: Microsoft Clip Art circa 1995.
Yup….possibly not quite that sophisticated 🙂
Just for GG and briefly
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/when-the-next-plague-hits/561734/
Yes it is probably a little alarmist and like every scence health article ever written it say we want more money, it is still an excellent article.
Australia should make some efforts to cope with epidemics, even if it ins only stockpiles of antibiotics protective clothing and vaccines. Some quality isolation units as in Nebraska would be nice
Australia should make some efforts to cope with epidemics, even if it ins only stockpiles of antibiotics protective clothing and vaccines.
What makes you think that we don’t
I’m catching up on bludger this afternoon and I think my head is going to explode reading Guytuar’s posts.
While much of what he writes I either agree with or dont have a problem with his differing opinion there are two points that need to be made:
1. labor RIGHTLY blames the Greens as much as the LNP for the defeat of the legislation necessary to underpin the Malaysian Solution in the wake of the HC’s bizzare intervention. The fact was that the votes of neither the LNP or the Greens were sufficient by themselves for the defeat of the legislation. Each needed the votes of the other. It is trite to say that the LNP acted out of sheer political opportunism, BUT the Greens should get no credit for their virtue signalling merely because they were consistent on the issue. Consistently wrong and frankly largely motivated by their own political opportunism – namely to wedge labor, embarass the Government and ultimately replace labor as the dominant ‘progressive’ political party and dam the consequnces. The absurd notion that the Rudd Government’s policies of onshore processing could be sustained as long as our navy got its act together and intercept the boats before they sank demonstrates a dangerous naivity and complete ignorance of the hazzards of such maritime ventures. ‘Let the boats come’ was an unsustainable, dangerous and foolish position to take – then as now. So the Greens share the blame for the collapse of the Malaysian solution. In spades.
2. This trope that somehow Ged has been duped or rolled – as the Greens ‘predicted’ needs to banged on the head as well. The Victorian State Conference was always the wrong forum for that debate. Just like the upcoming NSW Conference will be. I will be gleefully voting to shut down the Left’s attempt to elevate this issue onto the debate agenda as well. However, there should and will be a full blown public debate on refugee policy at the national conference. This will be broadcast on live TV. Something that would never happen in the Greens ‘All Peoples’ conferences.
For what it is worth, I suspect that in the next 18 months Manus and Nauru will be both closed by a Shorten Government and a malaysian Solution Mk 3 will be in place, underpinned by an expanded refugee resettlement program. I suspect that up to 500 asyslum seekers will be resettled in each of the US, Canada and NZ with a handful – the ones with with specialist healthcare needs or an already existing connection to Australia being quitely brought here.
The bitter taste I have on this issue now is due to two points, firstly that if it wasnt for the LNP AND Greens acting in concert in 2011 there would have never been those 2,000 souls landed on manus and nauru in the first place, and secondly a return of the Rudd Government in 2013 would have seen that resettlement occur sometime by 2016, if not the year that Rudd himself aimed to acheive that goal.
Oh, guytaur, where do I start? Also, just to let you know, I have other things to do so I will not be responding to you beyond this.
Now, firstly, you say,
The Greens policy is also pragmatic sane and reasonable.
On what planet!?! They can’t say no to refugees. To The Greens, every refugee is sacred, and if they want to seek shelter from persecution in Australia, then they should be allowed to do so! What is ‘pragmatic, sane or reasonable’ about that?
Last estimate I heard there were 60 million displaced persons and asylum seekers in the world. Not to mention the opportunists that always join the bandwagon even after wars in their country have long since ceased. Such as the Sri Lankans, like those who came by ship, not boat, recently and attempted to sail to Australia and seek asylum. From what? The Civil War in Sri Lanka was over quite a while ago now, and they have elected, not once, but twice, a more progressive, conciliatory leader, who is attempting to right past wrongs. The Greens, iirc, complained at the time this ship turned up and said that they should be allowed to claim asylum here. I would hardly call that a sane, reasonable and pragmatic response.
You could hardly call it sane, reasonable and pragmatic to want to overburden the fragile Australian environment with all the asylum seekers who want to come here. Australia might be a big country but it does not have the carrying capacity for humans that other large continents do. Plus, it behoves us to be careful custodians of our native flora and fauna. Overpopulating the country with all the asylum seekers that want to come here runs counter to that in a big way.
The Greens argue on shore is pragmatic using the example of the Vietnamese Boat people.
Yes, and to say that misses the point that we had buy in to the Vietnam War and so had to take some responsibility for the consequences. The refugees escaping the Communists.
However, you bring up a good case study. I notice that we haven’t been accepting asylum seekers from Vietnam recently. Nor should we be. There should be a limit to the scope and generosity of our acceptance of asylum seekers. They aren’t all equal. The Greens treat them, and any asylum seeker, as though they are.
Neither sane, reasonable or pragmatic.
Finally, once you begin onshore processing again it is akin to flinging open the front door of the house, to the majority of the Australian people, and saying, ‘Come on in!’.
Andrew Earlewood
Firstly. You can say all you like it was the wrong forum for the debate. I won’t argue with you. It does not change the fact it was a debate shut down at that venue. Obviously a few Labor people in Victoria disagreed with you or the AWU and CFMEU would not have had to shut down the debate.
I would argue that less harm comes from a state conference debate as it would not be binding on the Federal Party and would have been a good way to diffuse the issue before it got to National Conference. However thats a difference of opinion.
The fact is the debate was shut down. You can’t change that no matter how much you claim another forum would have been better..
As for the Malaysian vote. Its very simple. You are blaming the Greens for acting in concert when to do so would have been a GST vote for them. You totally misread the Greens position and blame them for the dastardly actions of one Tony Abbott.
You can be a Green or a Labor supporter and agree that Abbott was dastardly voting against his public policy of off shore be tough on the people smugglers and having his party members crying crocodile tears over drownings at sea.
The whole the Greens acting in Concert myth from the Labor party on this is why you get wedged.
What happened is Abbott outplayed played Labor. His duplicity was greater than Labor expected
Thats the long and short of it.
Cat
So Whitlam was not sane reasonable or pragmatic. Got it.
I also note you have just advocated for discrimination in our refugee policy.
guytaur @ #1564 Sunday, June 17th, 2018 – 3:06 pm
Oh, guytaur. Reductio ad absurdem isn’t going to cut it.
Cat
You are arguing an indefensible position. The Greens are NOT to blame for LNP policy.
To say they are is to say black is white. You are being illogical and this just led you to advocate for discrimination in refugee policy.
Who are you going to reject?
Black people
Gays
Woman
Some of those categories the LNP is trying on now. We are almost back at the White Australia policy.
I know you did not mean this but do see what you are saying because thats what it looks like.
All to blame the Green for voting for their policy.
guytaur,
I unexpectedly ran into Sarah Hanson-Young and Scott Morrison conspiring together to vote against Labor’s Regional Resettlement Plan, one night in Parliament House. They both thought they had found a place to conspire beyond prying eyes. They both looked very guilty to have been sprung. There was no principled stand from The Greens. If there had been they wouldn’t have bothered talking with Scott Morrison in a furtive way in the back passages of federal parliament. They would have just voted their principles.
It was a stitch up of Labor, pure and simple.
Cat
You mean the Greens got support for a vote against the Malaysia solution without the foreknowledge of the election result.
Thats what you are saying. Some conspiracy! The only “conspiracy” was by the LNP.
The only fault with the Greens at most is naivety in not being soothsayers about the results of the next election.
Guytaur – having worked the Great Man I can say with a degree of confidence that Gough would have happily let the Vietnamese drown at sea. Check the Parliamentary Hnasard in 1976 & 77 – the pointed questions that Uren and he amongst others asked of Fraser and Peacock. The view amongst the ALP at that time was that the refugees were basically brothel owners, pimps, wet workers and collaborators of a failed fascist regime. …
As for the issue of what form was the appropriate, and given your envocation of ‘democracy’ let me introduce a democratic concept to you – the majority gets to determine the debate. That includes setting the agenda. I am mysterfied as to why a State organ of the party would be branded as anti-democratic in prioritising State issues for the debates agenda, especially in a State election year. The political wisdom of that can be seen in the strident criticism of the enemies of labor – the LNP, the Greens and the MSM being denied an issue to kick federal Labor with for a whole Parliamentary sitting session.
Andrew_Earlwood,
See you at the conference, eh? Let’s do lunch!?!
C@t – do you remember the palpable glee amongst the LNP MPs, Senators and staffers in Parliament House when the vision of that refugee boat dashing itself against the rocks on Christmas Island was broadcast live on TV? I do. … For the Greens to give any comfort to that outfit was beyond the pail.
Guytaur – once again. The Greens may not be ‘to blame’ for the LNP ‘policies’ (ie. opportunism) BUT they are responsible for their own policies. The fact you cannot deny is that their votes in the senate were as necssary as the LNP’s votes to down the malaysian solution. They are responsible for their votes. It is a simple as that.
Andrew Earlwood
As I said I am not arguing with you on the forum.
The only argument I put to you is that the debate is happening anyway. Labor is being blamed anyway.
Having it at National Conference and using union numbers especially the same union numbers will be seen as shutting down debate too.
Have the debate and the LNP will use any ammunition it can get. It excels at exploiting debate in its own favour as is shown by all the responses I have got on this issue today.
This on the day after the LNP have voted to privatise the ABC.
I think that damages the LNP far more than Labor debating its AS policy and as I expect sticking to the same policy it has now.
I don’t see Labor voting for On Shore detention, The problem is wording the agenda so that you can be against indefinite detention while against On Shore detention. It means imposing a time limit and the Greens let that cat out of the bag early.. A good warning about the consequences of the debate.
Labor is well and truly wedged on this. Outplayed by the LNP.
Why fear of racist voters in marginal seats. That’s why.
Fear of them being exploited by the LNP to win the next election.
As I have said I understand why Labor is doing it. I hope it works but I do think the fear is overdone.
I think the ABC privatisation confirming Labor’s campaign of inequality due to things like privatisation is the election winer and Labor being strong on attacking deaths in detention is the way to go.
The US media is giving good examples of how to go about this at this time.
Its all I have been saying.
Facts are facts. Not opinions. My opinions for why Labor has acted as it has are just that. As are yours. However the fact is they did shut down the debate.
I am glad you concede that point.
‘Using Union Numbers’. Let me introduce you to the ‘labor’ party of the Labor Party. I know that is red meat to middle class guilt ridden ‘progressives’, Murdoch, the LNP and all the robbers out there but the ALP is the political party of organised labor. …
AE
See there you go again. Blaming the Greens for voting for their policy.
It was the LNP policy under Abbott to play Labor by voting against Off Shore detention not the Greens. The Greens were upfront about it from the start.
Remembering it was all to over rule the High Court decision on Malaysia.
If Labor had not contested that the whole AS debate could have been very different. Labor fell into the trap by going of the Malaysia solution in the first place without having its legal ducks in a row first.
You know while we are doing the fictions of who is to blame for the LNP running indefinite detention centres today other than the LNP
https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/margaret-river-tragedy-aaron-cockman-opens-up-about-the-loss-of-his-children-ng-b88868691z
‘Remembering it was all to over rule the High Court decision on Malaysia.
If Labor had not contested that the whole AS debate could have been very different. ‘
Um…that would be the decision which makes Manus and Nauru legal and resulted in their reopening?
If Labor had been able to change the legislation, Manus and Nauru would not have happened.
Andrew Earlwood
You wonder why people argue Labor voting referm. Note I think Labor has the best way of determining policy out of the parties precisely because it is open and transparent.
I am just saying don’t deny facts. I did not say the unions did it in an undemocratic way.
I just said its a fact.
Zoomster
Thats where Labor got the Greens wrong.
The Greens were never going to vote for off shore. So therefore no amendments.
What we saw was the LNP were determined to have Manus and Nauru and voted accordingly.
We now know why. Gillard Albo and the tactics committee did not have that foreknowledge when they put the legislation forward. If they did they might have done a different version where to kill off the bill would have killed off all off shore detention.
Stick the LNP with a take it or leave it. As I said that level of duplicity was not expected.
guytaur @ #1421 Sunday, June 17th, 2018 – 8:26 am
You talk about democracy but it seems throughout you are oblivious to the politics.
What purpose would be served in having the debate at the moment?
🙂
Right. So the Greens decision led directly to Manus and Nauru. Great work.
Zoomster
So Labor bringing in detention led directly to Manus and Nauru. Good work.
Thats just as logical as your position.
Oh, and ‘shutting down the debate’ suggests one had started. The motions didn’t even make it on to the agenda.
That’s very common, particularly in the lead up to an election campaign, when the priority is sorting out policies to take to the election.
I’ve had motions which took two or three conferences to get up – not because the party didn’t look favourably upon them, but simply because there wasn’t time.
No, because Labor had a preferred position, which the Greens blocked.
Barney
To get it out of the way before the election. You know the LNP are going to bring it up. Have the debate now get the voters so sick of it they switch off as soon as the LNP bring it up.
I think delaying it is just going to make it worse.
Thats all.
Zoomster
No the LNP blocked it not the Greens. The Greens were always voting against off shore.
It was the LNP that changed. This is the core of the problem of blaming the Greens for the behaviour of the LNP.
Lady Georgina has a team of “protectors”.
Yes Guytaur – I am blaming the Greens for voting for their policy. Usually the Greens can virtue signal without real world consequences. In the case of the Malaysian Solution there is a high degree of respeonsibility that falls on theoir shoulders. Labor under Rudd got it wrong. Horribly wrong. Labor was doing its best to discharge its responsility to fix the problem it created. For political reasons it was bloked by the Greens and the LNP acting in concert. ‘getting it wrong’ leaves labor responsible for the first tranch of deaths at sea. It was a mistake, but an honest and well intentioned mistake. The second tranch of deaths are the responsibility of the LNP and Greens together. Far from those deaths arising from honest mistakes, they are the consequnce of the political opportunism of both the LNP and Greens. Wilful reckless, bloody opportunism. A pox on both their houses.
guytaur
If the Greens had voted for it, it would have passed. They didn’t.
Parties vote against their own policy positions quite regularly. Parties which are not in government are often put in the position where doing so will result in a better outcome than blindly sticking to a principle.
Andrew Earlwood
The Greens did not have the numbers. The arithmetics is why the Labor tactics team was talking to Abbott.
That vote against the Malaysia solution was all the LNP’s doing and blaming the Greens for that vote and for the LNP punitive policy is just pure BS.
Its fiction. The Greens are not responsible for the actions and policies of the LNP
Zoomster
You keep blaming the Greens. They did not have the numbers.
Labor and the LNP had the numbers for off shore detention.
Labor was outplayed by Abbott. Thats what happened.
Blame Abbott not the Greens as you are so fond of saying the Greens are not in government. They did not put the legislation forward for Manus and Nauru.
guytaur @ #1586 Sunday, June 17th, 2018 – 12:44 pm
And that is why I say you have ignored the politics.
Having a debate at this time just gives political ammunition for their opponents, it serves no purpose at this time.
The policy will not structurally change before the election, so there is no point politically to having a debate.
Guytaur – are you using Joe’s patented eleventhy calculator? The LNP did not block the amending legislation to enable the malaysain solution any more than the Greens blocked the legislation. Neither had the numbers to do that, but together they did. They both chose to use their numbers in concert with the other. Your Pontus Pilate like attempt to absolve the Greens because ‘they just voted for their policy’ is pretty thin. The policy was wrong, but because the LNP – for its own reasons – were willing to sign on to it, for the first time the Greens had a degree of power and hence responsibility. It did not use that power wisely are AND ARE responsible for the consequences of that. It is sheer sophistry to suggest that labor is trying to hold the Greens to account for the LNP’s actions and the LNP’s policies. It is the Greens policies and actions for which they should be held account for. …
Simple fact is the Greens teamed up with the LNP to stop people being resettled in Malaysia, which was a potential start of a regional processing policy, the Greens are rank opportunist like any other party when it suits them.
Andrew Earlwood
Exactly my point. The key balance of power numbers that changed in the Malaysia vote was that of the LNP.
The Greens are not responsible for those actions. Blame the LNP not the Greens.
Barney
I disagree. I think with a debate on AS Dutton will overreach and give Labor another hammer to nail them with.
Its his form
Belated post on ReachTEL’s Darling Range by-election poll:
https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/06/17/reachtel-54-46-labor-darling-range/
guytaur insists he is not a “Green”, but constantly rushes to their defence.
Sorry Guytaur – the Greens voted WITH the LNP, you cannot play the high moral ground in this. I have voted green in the past – that changed it for me forever.
The righteousness of the greens since has enforced my view