The latest fortnightly Essential Research poll has Labor’s two-party lead unchanged at 52-48, and The Guardian report provides full primary votes for a change: both major parties are up two, the Coalition to 40% and Labor to 37%, with the Greens steady on 11% and One Nation down one to 6%, with the “others” vote presumably well down. Also featured are Essential’s monthly leadership ratings, which tell a remarkably similar story to Newspoll: Malcolm Turnbull’s approval is up one to 43%, his best result since March 2016, and his disapproval is down two to 40%, his best since the eve of the July 2016 election; while Bill Shorten is respectively down two to 31% and up one to 47%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is out to 42-25, compared with 41-27 last time.
The Essential poll also finds only 15% of respondents expect the government’s national energy guarantee will reduce power prices, compared with 22% for increasing them (down nine since the same question was asked last October) and 38% for making no difference (up seven). The government’s proposed tax cuts for big companies have 41% support, up four on a month or so ago, with 36% opposed, down one. Further on company tax cuts, The Australian has a comprehensive set of further results from the weekend’s Newspoll, which find respondents tending to be persuaded that the cuts will be good for employment (50% responded cuts would create more jobs versus 36% who said they would not, and 43% believed repealing them would put jobs at risk versus 37% saying they would not), yet 52% supported Bill Shorten saying cuts for businesses with $10 million to $50 million turnover would be repeated if won office, versus only 37% opposed.
UPDATE: Full report from Essential Research here.
LR
wRONg.
Boerwar @ #382 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 7:48 pm
wRONg
There’s nothing more esoteric than a random ESJ post.
There is no difference at all between a woman womansplaining and a man mansplaining except that the genders are reversed.
Mansplaining is when a man explains to a woman something about being a woman that she does not understand.
Womansplaining is when a woman explains to a man something that he does not understand about being a man.
Both happen all the time, including here on PB.
mh
I have given up reading them. If they are now random as well as esoteric they must be improving. They used to be banal and fixated on a very limited range of topics.
bc @ #361 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 5:51 pm
I recommend an eye test. There’s an entire camp full of reasons why the Australian Government wouldn’t want Australian journalists or news agencies setting foot on Nauru. Like, literally just sitting there!
Is it our own Victoria on QANDA next week?
Boerwar @ #385 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 7:57 pm
You sure? Your definition is not symmetric.
Boerwar @ #404 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 7:57 pm
A perfect example of ‘mansplaining’
You beat me to it P1!
Actually Boerwar … I think mansplaining is the practice of a man (assuming himself to be an expert) explaining/lecturing on any given topic to a woman (assuming her to be a naif or ignoramus) – regardless if said woman is already knowledgeable on said topic.
I suppose mansplaining can be man-on-man (as I have just done to you), and woman-on-man womansplaining almost certainly does exist, though most likely without the patronizing overtones that mark true mansplaining.
Just to add to the confusion, I would like to introduce “manplaining”: men reacting (almost invariably from a position of entrenched privilege and security) with outsized shock, anger and outrage if they are subjected to even a tiny fraction of the scrutiny, criticism and/or innuendo that dog women in the public eye.
I agree with a couple of other posters that by themselves, Abbott’s interventions probably don’t particularly harm the government and if anything reinforce relief among voters that Turnbull had him removed. But the importance of his interventions in causing disharmony in the Coalition still cannot be underestimated. His interventions will embolden other rwnjs, climate deniers, and the Nationals to cause Turnbull and Frydenberg no end of grief on energy policy. These people are not for turning and certainly are not for negotiating. Destroying anything that gives even the slightest nod to addressing climate change is an article of faith for these people. This is just getting started, has a long way to run and has the potential to spiral out of control. If Turnbull and Frydenberg cave and pour tax payers money in to coal, this will set up a whole new line of attack for Labor and destroy any possibility of getting all the states on board. If they don’t cave, well, enjoy the ride!
daretotread @ 4.41, if you are still around.
You write about the need to clarify the definition of a refugee. This recent book addresses that question. https://www.penguin.com.au/books/what-is-a-refugee-9781925321869
Fulvio Sammut @ #379 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 6:32 pm
There’s one that definitely won’t be heading to a defamation claim.
Our great LNP are on the way back to winning the next election and the one after that too
Tony Abbott comes to the rescue of Bill Shorten.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/03/tony-abbott-urges-withdrawal-from-paris-agreement-despite-signing-australia-up-as-pm
What a great description for SenL among many others!
I don’t know it was technically mansplaining but that idiot Simon Cowan responded to a tweet, the basis of which was that there are certain non-deductible expenses of employees, where there is no actual rationale for that lack of deductibility. His response was to explain they weren’t deductible in the first place. Missing the point and taking the discussion unnecessarily back to first principles. Moron.
OP
‘I suppose mansplaining can be man-on-man (as I have just done to you), and woman-on-man womansplaining almost certainly does exist, though most likely without the patronizing overtones that mark true mansplaining.’
I think you may have meant without the matronizing overtones that mark true womansplaining.
Where’s Emperor Sulla tonight?
IMO, Ms SH_Y was not womansplaining when she described the reasons for her justified anger.
Paula Matthewson
https://www.theage.com.au/national/almost-every-female-mp-is-fair-game-slut-shaming-standard-in-parliament-20180703-p4zp72.html
Most voters don’t even know that sexist innuendo and sledges are part of the political artillery used in Canberra, and that these weapons are almost exclusively used against women. Sarah Hanson-Young has blown the lid on that behaviour, calling out one of her Senate detractors, David Leyonhjelm, for sexist abuse and slut-shaming.
Senator Hanson-Young has taken the first brave step. Now it’s beholden on the rest of us who’ve worked in the same testosterone-tainted environment to make it clear that her experience is not an isolated one – and that it’s way past time for the slut-shaming to stop.
:::::::
Over the past 30 years, I’ve heard politicians, staffers and party apparatchiks trade rumours and innuendos to suggest that a female MP “sleeps around”, is cheating on their spouse or is a sexual predator.
The purpose of this information is only ever to damage the woman’s name and character. Similar allegations are rarely made in a derogatory sense about a man working in Parliament House – instead of “sleeping around” he’s a pants man, and if he’s cheating or a menace then there’s generally a code of silence that protects him. A certain Nationals leader comes to mind, for example.
Boerwar @ #400 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 8:26 pm
Curious. Did you re-read your reply to me? Word for word your definition is not consistent. But forgiving something typed in haste, if your terms are interchangeable why do we need “womensplaining”? For that matter why do we need matronizing? Is to make a different point?
The Axis of Assholes are an item.
Wayne @ #417 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 5:21 pm
“On the way back?”
Where did they go?
What did they do there?
Who did they go with?
Why did they go?
When will they get back?
I thought you said they were always a shoe in! 🙂
Rex Douglas @ #419 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 6:29 pm
Weathervane!
ar
I hope you are not suggesting that the truth defence. OTOH, is there some sort of public interest test in terms of toxoplasmosis control?
LR
‘matronising’ was used in apposition to the prior use of the word ‘patronising’.
I am happy for the precise wording of my definition to be reformulated a trifle so that they are exactly the same and to tidy up any loose ends in your mind.
Boerwar @ #410 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 8:36 pm
Its not my mind I’m worried about. (cheeky grin)
Speaking of Kim and Trump, Mr Sheridan opined today that Kim could at least pretend he is not busy expanding his nuclear facilities because it might, wtte, spark Mr Trump off into doing something gauche.
Ophuph Hucksake says:
I have a slight problem with that definition because I learnt that assuming knowledge is a recipe for disaster when teaching/training something. What may seem bleeding obvious for you, as you have done it so many times, may not be so for someone you are training. I’ve had to train a number of damn good graduate chemists , most better qualified that me, I soon learnt to explain the method and technique without assuming any prior knowledge on their part no matter how well qualified. Brought home when one of them nearly did themselves in accidentally with a very nasty solvent simply because they had not come across it before and I assumed everyone would know how nasty it is.
I would though,when starting, tell them of my assumption and explain why. However given your explanation of what ‘mansplaining’ is I would be found ‘guilty’ of ‘mansplaining”. Although in my plea bargain i would call for leniency having “mansplained” without discrimination 🙂
“Paula Matthewson”
I’m not saying for a minute she or her conclusions are wrong in this instance, but analysis / bias wise, she is a PvO type before he had his conversion on the road away from sky, that classy fox affiliate of nasty RW propaganda..
BW
I hope it’s not the case, but if North Korea are ramping up production of nuclear materials it would prove to the world what a Buffoon he suckered in Singapore.
Bernard Keane in today’s Crikey is absolutely spot on re the motivations of SenL and men of his ilk.
LR
Touche. *Wry grin*
I was responding to your sticklerish insistence on the particular.
On the whole I find both mansplainers and womansplainers to share a certain tedious capacity to bore bystanders and victims alike with their self-referential, pompous, tendentious, didactic, dogmatic and quasi-magical certitudes.
They splain therefore they are.
Beautifully articulated by Keane.
If Abbott were to cross the floor in protest against the NEG, wouldn’t that mean him voting with MPs wanting greater emissions reductions?
Or have I missed something?
Parliament is full of sociopaths, but Leyonhjelm is a standout performer.
Boerwar @ #417 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 8:48 pm
Cheers, later.
Boerwar @ #436 Tuesday, July 3rd, 2018 – 8:48 pm
PB has a new claimant for the title of least self-aware blog poster.
This one will be hard to beat, folks! 🙂
‘All three have the same business model: exploit the resentment of old white males who are desperate to be told they are victims despite the privilege that still attaches to being white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied. Their aim is to harvest the rage of men who are furious that their privilege has been diminished by 5-10% and no longer automatically receive the obeisance to which they believe they are entitled. ‘
A classic case of mansplaining white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied men. Certainly, there are misogynist white old bastards aplenty.
But the ones who are being mansplained out of existence by Keane are the ones who lost their jobs in the GFC, who have joined the vast and swelling ranks in precarious employment, the ones who have lost all hope of having enough money for a house or even a family, and the ones whose skill sets and earning capacity have been stranded by rapid economic and technical change.
These are real, 100%, genuine losers. They are the ones that Clinton lost and Trump gained.
These are the ones that Labor should be seeking to champion. Keane should give up on the unctious ideological mansplaining and start doing some nuanced analysis.
poroti –
In a teaching context I think you can assume ignorance on the part of the people being taught, and you are being paid to enlighten them, so by all means explain/mansplain/womansplain away.
As an occasional mansplainer myself, I liken it to a plumage display. Just as peacocks show off their elaborate tail-feathers in order to attract a mate, someone mansplaining is flaunting his presumed knowledge, wisdom or experience in the expectation of enhancing his own status or attractiveness (and probably not succeeding!)
p
Learning by doing has some practical limitations.
Oph H
In comparative life history terms, male peacocks are up for an encounter with any peahen. The reverse is not the case. The purpose of the huge effort and energy put into the tail is to demonstrate that all the other genes are the best in town.
Peahens almost certainly have the advanced ability to detect fitness using colour assessment – it is one reason why male birds are so very often the showy birds – now, where was I when I started… oh yes, so, you see, in H. sapiens both genders do the choosing and, uh, let me see, oh… yes… and I suggest that mansplaining and womansplaining would both have be detrimental to the Great Game of Darwin. I hope I have been able to explain this to you clearly, but if you have any questions… now, where did Oph Ph go?
Yes, there is a difference between imparting knowledge and assuming ignorance.
…I see mansplaining more as a kindly impulse towards the obviously ignorant female. The problem is the ignorance is assumed.
So the mansplainer feels he’s doing a Good Thing and that it’s lucky she’s got to listen to him, rather than having to deal with some bozo who wouldn’t realise that she didn’t understand and leave her in ignorance.
Which is why mansplainers are so hurt when you point out what they’re doing.
Boerwar – verbosity may also be a human plumage display … I think we’re both on the same page there 😉
Oph H
*grins*
z
Spot on. Whomever is doing the splaining should do the polite thing and check that the splainee (a) does not know something (b) actually needs to know something and (c) that that particular splainer is the preferred splainer.