The latest Newspoll has Labor’s lead up again after a period of moderating results since the leadership upheaval, the two-party lead now at 54-46, compared with 53-47 in the poll a fortnight ago. Labor is up a point on the primary vote to 39%, while the Coalition is down one to 36%, the Greens are down two to 9%, and One Nation are steady on 6%. Still more worrying for the Liberals is a reversal of the tide in favour of Scott Morrison, who records his first net negative personal ratings to date, with approval down four to 41% and disapproval up six to 44%. Bill Shorten is respectively up two to 37% and down one to 50%, and his deficit as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 45-34 to 43-35. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1646.
Handel and spaniels. A break from the nasty world.
https://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2018/11/01/662938605/tilda-swintons-spaniels-are-a-lot-to-handel?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202901
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-01/caroline-wilson-recounts-sexism-in-her-career-at-media-lecture/10454786
Michelle Grattan, without even realising it I expect, highlights the reason the Liberals and Nationals to a lesser extent, are finding it ruinously hard to contain the fraying at the edges of their party which are threatening to rent them asunder, probably after the election but maybe before.
They are finding it difficult to hold both ends of their support base against the middle. On the one hand you have the daily dose of barbed attacks on any progressive movement in society by a niche media of radio and TV shock and awe jocks and jockettes who take their cues from their parallels overseas, but mainly in the USA, where it has been a surefire success as far as ratings and drawing advertising dollars to their owners goes. Of course, the common thread that links a lot of them is the family that owns and controls them. Also of import is the demographic that they play to, the Baby Boomer Bulge who still lives by their legacy media.
However, on top of this has come a dangerous new demographic of Millennials, too young to have been morally woke by the horrors of the Holocaust but also having been brought up on a diet of faux outrage and news and cleverly manipulated by it, and using it to manipulate others and gain power themselves. And they have been increasingly pandered to by the parties of the Right as their original demographics fade into the sunset. And I think they have only just realised that they have caught a tiger by the tail, see our very own example in the Young Nationals, and they haven’t yet figured out how to keep the older Culture Wars followers in the fold but expunge the more dangerous elemental enemies within.
And into the mix comes the Liberal and National Party’s traditional voters. Call them the Menzians. Not too culturally conservative, economically conservative and supporters of public institutions like museums, galleries and the ABC. Plus intelligent. Thus able to read and see the importance to the country of things like Climate Change. They aren’t gelling very well with the Christian Conservatives and the Alt Reich. And are increasingly being vilified and marginalised by them.
I honestly don’t think they can all be accommodated in the one ‘Broad Church’ for very much longer.
William Bowe @ #2397 Thursday, November 1st, 2018 – 7:05 pm
Who do I contact to volunteer for phone banking?
Anyone who thinks they really now what is happening in the Rush trial on the basis of press reports is dreaming.
lizzie @ #2503 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 10:09 am
Um, it’s not that long ago that a Labor federal government kept the Unemployment Rate below 5%, DURING THE GFC!
And it’s not simply Chris Crewther that the Coalition are worried about being caught in the S44 net. The whole house of cards of a Morrison government could come tumbling down. How many are they protecting? 14-15?
lizzie @ #2501 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 10:03 am
A much overused word – but – fabulous -I like the one with the floppy ears. The music and camera work just wonderful.
I’ll post a still quite soon. TYVM. 😇😇😇
How much is that doggie ❓
Late Riser @ #2436 Thursday, November 1st, 2018 – 8:01 pm
Yes. He is to be given the same level of mercy that the L/NP give to alleged wrongdoers at Centrelink and the ATO.
”
C@tmomma says:
Friday, November 2, 2018 at 8:20 am
Really!?! Really!?! That grub expects people to believe that a couple of hundred tired, poor, struggling stragglers trying to escape violent communities in their homelands have triumphed violently over the armed arms of the Mexican State!?!
”
C@tmomma
Whether you like and accept it or not, over 40 % people believe it and one of them went and killed 11
Jews in Synagogue in Pittsburgh. Yet another sent pipe bombs to Trump critics.
I assume he didnt say that in front of real journalists.
Because if he did, I would expect he was hit with a ‘with all respect PM, thats BS’ – because that would be the only valid, fair, responsible and balanced journalistic response available.
Good Morning
BB
Assume Norvill is not out to get Rush. Assume she is answering questions from a barrister for the Daily Telegraph that is out to get Rush as they have to prove truth.
Then the contradiction disappears. Comments in a publicity interview are to be taken less seriously than those under oath.
To borrow from the allegations about Trump meddling in the US elections. There is a little smoke in this case. However I think Rush will win because the DT has no fire as evidence.
You can have the position that Rush did not act asa sexual predator and that Norvill felt uncomfortable and sounded out ways to make it clear without attacking Rush and his career.
ALWAYS remember the barrister of the Tele has motive in the questions he is asking to get responses he is getting. To claim Norvill is attacking Rush is to miss the point. Norvill DID NOT go public. Others did.
You don’t have to put anyone on a pedestal. You just think there are two different perceptions of the same event.
Then you add in the motives of why the questions that are getting these comments.
Don’t blame Norvill for answering the questions a barrister puts to her. Just remember the barrister is after damaging Rush as much as possible as the DT case rests on truth as a defence.
The DT is basically trying to convict Rush in a defamation case because the truth defence loses if they don’t
Note I still am making no judgements on the case itself. Except to say as I said before the case started that I expect the DT to lose because of the very high bar they have to jump through to defend themselves.
This shows why we need defamation law reform. The whole case continues the defamation and we know Norvill wanted it kept confidential and not in public for this very reason.
The Daily Telegraph wants the discussion to be about believe Norvill but not Rush.
However the reality is you can believe both. You can believe that sensible people did not want this issue to be blown up and thrashed out in court.
Remember Rush claims the Tele had a reporter hungry for a Me Too story. This is a case about the behaviour of the media. Not that of either Norvill or Rush unless and I mean unless the DT can PROVE their story was truth.
IMO trying to force by-elections would be mistake on the part of the ALP. ‘Non-political’ people who I talk to don’t care about S44, and would regard any agitation as just silly Canberra games, and if they thought about it would mark down the instigators!
Just leave them to judge the Govt by its works (or lack of them).
However I cannot believe that any MP would have been so careless as to not check before making investments. It just shows you can be a moron and still be rich and in parliament!
Ven @ #2504 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 9:29 am
Sure, though the percentage of people who believe something has nothing to do with whether or not that belief is in fact correct.
Of the non-micro parties Labor is the only one not going through disaster. The Liberals and the Greens have women problems, policy problems, and internal divisions. While the Nationals are being over-run with young white supremacists.
Raised dust, bushfire smoke and a miserable few spots of rain.
#WeatheronPB
Bushfire while I know that I do not have enough information or knowledge to make any judgements or comments about the merits or demerits of the Rush v DT case I am disturbed that people are so quick to rush to character judgements on the people involved based purely on the limited reporting of the limited evidence presented.
So I think the opinions of Rush posted Nicholas, Michael A etc are baseless & unfair. Likewise I think your opinion of Norvill is unfair. She did not instigate the DT story and has only now given her version of what happened as she perceived it. People of course have different perceptions of the same events. While different both are real to the ones involved. Her 2015 interview could be seen as a typical PR promo interview rather than an actual expression of her opinions and to me at least in no way should be seen as a true expression of her views at that time.
I’ll leave judgement of the case to the judge & of the people to those that actually know them.
BW
Fire Department was just on News 24 warning Canberra people to be alert
Simon² Katich® @ #2513 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 10:04 am
Are you putting up jokes in competition to the Dawn Patrol humour section?
It was 31.6C at 8:30 this morning. Is going to be a hot one.
#WeatheronPB
Antonbruckner @ 10.21
Very true
Bushfire
Surely you have seen the Sting.
Surely you understand grooming.
It is unsurprising that Norvill’s understanding of what happened has changed over time. It is very common.
In a true Sting the target never gets to become aware that they have been stung.
Grooming and assault is a sting. Kid victims especially and often older ones as well over time change their undersanding of what happened. It ranges from “it was my fault” through “it was no big deal” to “the bastard!”
This is the product of later understanding of the event which can change as a tedult of ongoing contemplation, or education, or counselling, or discussion with confidents etc
You soliloquy this morning fails to recognise this process.
kevjohnno says:
Friday, November 2, 2018 at 10:44 am
“So I think the opinions of Rush posted Nicholas, Michael A etc are baseless & unfair.”
—————————————
Please cite 1 post of mine, with a copy and paste of the quote, where I make any judgement on Geoffrey Rush’s guilt or innocence. All my posts have been an expression of my view that reputational damage is vastly overcompensated in our legal system, especially compared with compensation afforded to childhood sexual abuse survivors.
You are unfairly verballing me, and you need to either retract what you said about me, or stand convicted of dishonest argumentation on this website.
grimace @ #2511 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 9:28 am
Fair point. I was only thinking of Morrison’s agenda. Forcing the LNP spend money defending a lame-duck MP while angering the voters would be a good outcome.
Labor needs to appoint an attack dog to call out Liberal lies as they happen. He/she would be very busy.
As for Chris Crewther, Labor should just consider “What would the ‘Liberals’ do in this situation?” and do likewise.
Michael
One problem you have with all the reputation stuff is that in MOST cases the law suit is only brought when there is a significant financial reward possible at the end of it. Not too many people bother to sue the old struggling and broke actor but only those with cash to spare.
That is why I have limited faith in most allegations. There is to much money at the end of the rainbow.
Bill Shorten’s advice to exam sitting students described as glib and ‘terribly unhelpful’.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/bill-shorten-news/
S777
One thing the Greens get right is you have to have half your agenda being attack.
The media ignores the Greens positive stuff except to ridicule their ideas until reality catches up.
Where Labor and the Greens have common ground.
Neo Liberalisism is dead and now is an existential crisis as their cult pursues climate science denialism in the US and Australia.
Inequality in wealth across society is a known reason for violent revolution and cause of extreme politics.
The list is very familiar. So Labor needs to be on the attack on this big time not just putting out a positive agenda as it usually does. The problem is we have a media that has been telling us the extreme is in fact mainstream and acceptable.
Thus we got Abbott and the whole LNP mess of a government we have now.
This acceptance of being on the left means you are automatically extreme is in fact an extreme position.
The fact we see Trump using the same extreme rhetoric on immigration that Howard used even as he has admitted he is a nationalist shows how extreme our media narrative has been we have been treated to boiling frog syndrome.
So sensible policy positions like the carbon price legislation that was seen as the mainstream has been made out to be be an ideological position by those that in fact have an ideological position.
Comments like the Green can never compromise is an example of the extremism that has come into our politics. The fact that compromise was required of all parties involved for the legislation to get passed is denied is one of the post fact politics we are living in today.
Question for a lawyer. Thinking about the situation in Dunkley
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/liberal-mp-chris-crewther-faces-high-court-referral-over-section-44/news-story/fd0c82987d7bf3a8abfb21c99dae2065
It appears to be different from the recent HC referrals where the allegation (generally proven) were about eligibility to be elected. I sort of get that there is the Court of Disputed Returns process is in place and that for certainty, one wouldn’t want willy-nilly complaints outside of that process: hence the idea of referral from the House of Representatives.
But in this case, there does not appear to be any questions as to eligibility to be elected. Rather, the allegation is that the member, after being lawfully elected, may be have breached the law with the act of acquiring the shares.
Why then is there any necessity for a referral from the HoR; why can’t any aggrieved person (e.g. a registered elector in Dunkley, or indeed anyone, or even dare I say an independent DPP) bring a complaint to court?
From the Bureau of Met website for ACT
Issued at 10:27 am Friday, 2 November 2018.
VIGOROUS WINDS OVER OVER THE NSW/ACT SOUTHERN RANGES”
I’ve never heard the expression ‘Vigorous winds’ in a weather alert. Is this something just for the alpine regions or specific to NSW/ACT?
DTT
One problem you have with all the reputation stuff is that in MOST cases the law suit is only brought when there is a significant financial reward possible at the end of it. Not too many people bother to sue the old struggling and broke actor but only those with cash to spare.
____________________________________
What’s worse is that it can only be brought if there is sufficient financial backing in the first place. Alan Jones has, in my view, defamed many people with the grossest of claims. But it took a multi-millionaire with deep pockets to bring Jones and his network to account.
The current defamation law is pretty bad – it works well for the rich and powerful (sometimes to suppress the truth) but not for others without those resources. That does not mean, though, that people with wealth and a reputation on the line should not be able to sue to clear their name.
I am crushed. I take my responsibilities posting on Pollbludger seriously.
S777
Sorry. I forgot to emphasise at the bottom. Both Labor and the Greens put out attacks and positive messages. However the media does not give either party unbiased airtime for these messages.
Its one reason why political advertising exists. A party thinks its message has to be repeated repeated etc for voters to notice.
There is a big fight for perception and our media corporations have a big bias to the right and a big influence on why our politics is skewed to the right especially as the concentration of that media becomes higher.
Social media is helping to break that down but that bias of perception still is big in our society
Laocoon, you have 40 days from declaration of the polls to complain under Common Informers Act – so this only avenue for electors is now closed
S.44 however, says Crewther is incapable of sitting
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
“Bill Shorten’s advice to exam sitting students described as glib and ‘terribly unhelpful’.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/bill-shorten-news/”
Unlike Nath, I’m not all that familiar with Mama Mia. Are all its articles as snide and catty as this effort?
nath:
Friday, November 2, 2018 at 11:06 am
————————————-
Nath, you do understand that Jessie Stephens’ piece which you cite is either:
a) satire, or
b) hopelessly ill-informed about the prevalence amongst students of panic-induced misreading of the question.
Of course, your own post could have been either:
a) satire, or
b) trolling, or
c) the lamest objection to a political leader ever.
I’ll leave it to you to characterise this response of mine.
TPOF
Yes agree.
I think there should be some sort of low cost defamation court where you average person could go to seek recompense against media figures for defamation. Maybe some strict rules for eligibility ie clear cases where career or prospects are damaged, not for indefinable pain and suffering (or some regulated compensation values for such – like workcover) but still some scope for recovery for ordinary people.
guytaur @ #2535 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 10:23 am
I wonder if that’s true, about ‘social media’. From what I’ve seen and read ‘social media’ isolates people within a preferred mind set. PB itself could serve as an example for left leaning politics.
guytaur @ #2506 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 9:35 am
Where’s the fun in that? My uninformed judgement is:
1. Some kind of physical contact occurred.
2. Norvill legitimately felt that the contact was inappropriate.
3. Rush legitimately felt that the contact was of the “safe for work” variety.
It mainly seems like a failure to communicate. You’re in a context where some degree physical contact with your coworker is expected, routine, and implicitly agreed to. If there are things that aren’t okay, it’s prudent to spell that out in advance.
There’s a valid question about whether or not the touching that occurred was so egregiously out of line than no reasonable person would plausibly believe that it was appropriate in the context. But taking the allegations at face value and considering that the entire thing happened in a room chock full of witnesses, I tend to believe that’s not the case.
If that’s not the case, then it’s mainly about what Rush knew or had reason to believe. Had Norvill ever told him that there are some things she’s not comfortable with? Even offhandedly in a “keep it above the neck” kind of way? Did she say “hey, stop” or otherwise alert him to her discomfort when she became uncomfortable with what he was doing? Did she raise the issue after the fact, only to have Rush repeat the same behavior anyways?
The answer to those questions, as far as I can tell, is ‘No’. In which case Rush could have reasonably believed at the time that what he was doing was fine, and been unaware of the harm he was causing Norvill. Different people will draw the same line in different places, but it doesn’t seem like Rush’s line was so far outside of accepted norms that anybody else who witnessed the event thought anything was seriously amiss, or that he knew where Norvill’s line was and deliberately trampled all over it anyways.
They should have established, in advance, where the line was. But not having done that, it seems a stretch to say that Rush did harassment or sexual assault. He was careless, possibly. Perhaps even professionally negligent. But almost certainly not guilty of “they held me down and put their hand over my mouth so I couldn’t scream and I thought I was going to suffocate and when I managed to free myself I ran to the bathroom and barricaded myself in there for some time before eventually fleeing the residence” deliberate sexual assault.
On 2 November, the AFR(!) has essentially given up on the Liberals in the Victorian state election on 24 November. Quite a long article
It was always going to be hard for Matthew Guy’s Liberals to blast out Daniel Andrews’ first-term Labor government at the November 24 state election.
But the Liberals should have been competitive….
Yet if polls, betting markets and a general lack of anticipation about the election are a guide, the Liberals are headed for defeat – perhaps an ignominious one….
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/election/victorian-election-2018-blame-game-begins-in-poll-liberals-could-have-won-20181030-h17a1s
Steve777 says:
Friday, November 2, 2018 at 10:58 am
Labor needs to appoint an attack dog to call out Liberal lies as they happen. He/she would be very busy.
Steve, Morrison’s lie is nothing but trolling. The wise thing to do with trolls is to ignore them. Trump trolls the US population. Morrison is trying to troll ours. Overwhelmingly, G-campaigning is trolling. It’s difficult to get the attention of voters at the best of times. To use that scarce attention to respond to trolls is to waste the opportunity. Labor use their chances to promote their policies and their strengths. They’re very disciplined about it and it obviously works.
We know that voters very heavily discount most political messaging, even if they tune in to it in the first place. Essentially, when Morrison trolls, he discounts his own message and devalues his currency. If anyone listens to him at all, he is reinforcing the view that he’s an idiot. Labor don’t need to respond to him. They can stay on their own themes.
Kakuru says:
Friday, November 2, 2018 at 11:27 am
“Bill Shorten’s advice to exam sitting students described as glib and ‘terribly unhelpful’.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/bill-shorten-news/”
Unlike Nath, I’m not all that familiar with Mama Mia. Are all its articles as snide and catty as this effort?
—————————————
I suspect Jessie Stephens is both privileged enough to have the backing to splash resources on investment properties, and grasping enough to have the ardent desire to scoop up as much property as she can, and so is angry at the prospect of a Shorten Labor Government that will turn off the taps on the NG/CGT gravy train which has helped make housing so unaffordable for those not already propertied. She hides her real animus behind this sort of flim-flam, because that’s all she’s got.
@Michael A
“Yes. And I would love to see the likes of Rush answer properly for their conduct in such courts.”
seemed to me to presume there was a conduct that required criminal court action but I’ll concede you might have meant something else and I would not want to unfairly verbal you.
Not that you seem worried about Rush or anyone else being unfairly verballed.
DTT TPOF
IF we do Canada style media laws then the tabloid reporting style becomes a lot less viable as a business model.
That cuts down on the incentive for media to do articles that cause defamation in the first place.
Then courts ordering front page apologies including font size of apology and how many days that apology would have to be printed would be a good solution.
This addresses the reputational damage and takes the money aspect out. The damages paid out could thus be a lot less. It would cost the media a lot more if their news story on whatever platform has to start with an apology up front highlighting they got it wrong.
That spotlight would mean that media professionals would adjust their methods of reporting very quickly.
Default wordpress seems to die at comment page #51
Wonder if William will see this
Michael A
” hopelessly ill-informed about the prevalence amongst students of panic-induced misreading of the question.”
Yep. Misreading the question is a common mistake made by students. I’ve seen many hard-working students launch themselves into an answer half-cocked, and write a long and brilliant response to the wrong question – simply because in their hurry to write an answer, they’ve misunderstood the question.
@kakuru
Yes, usually. Some of the articles on there are vaguely interesting, but “catty” is the right word for a lot of it. Mia Freedman was interviewed by Tom Gleeson on Hard Chat one time – he memorably asked her “do you ever catch yourself reading one of your own clickbait articles and think – why am I reading this shit?”
Thanks sprocket_
you have 40 days from declaration of the polls to complain under Common Informers Act – so this only avenue for electors is now closed…
But I don’t see why or how such a constraint applies, because there is no action with respect to his election, thus no complaint to be made. The complaint is about his (alleged) unlawful action well after his election