The BludgerTrack poll aggregate, updated with this week’s results from Newspoll and Essential Research, remains unimpressed with much of the recent opinion poll commentary, maintaining a slow trend back to the Coalition that appears to go back to December. The movement since last week on two-party preferred is negligible, with a weak result for the Coalition cancelling out a somewhat stronger one from Essential Research, converting into a one-seat gain for the Coalition on the seat projection. Newspoll provides new numbers for the leadership ratings trends, which are all but unchanged. Full details on the link below.
Other news:
• The Guardian reports uComms/ReachTEL polls for GetUp! conducted on Thursday found independent Zali Steggall leading Tony Abbott 57-43 in Warringah, while Labor’s Ali France led Peter Dutton 52-48 in Dickson. The poll also found majority support for the medical evacuations bill in both electorates.
• Following Julie Bishop’s retirement announcement, Andrew Burrell of The Australian reports Bishop’s hope of anointing her own successor in Curtin is likely to be scotched by her opponents, most notably Mathias Cormann. Bishop has reportedly been pushing for Erin Watson-Lynn, 33-year-old director of Asialink Diplomacy at the University of Melbourne. However, a highly fancied rival has emerged this week in Celia Hammond, who resigned on Monday as vice-chancellor at Notre Dame University. Hammond’s social conservatism is noted in a further report in The Australian today, relating a speech from 2013 in which she “railed against sex before marriage and contraception, while arguing against ‘militant feminism’”.
• A Liberal preselection vote on Saturday to choose Michael Keenan’s successor in the Perth northern suburbs seat of Stirling was won by Vince Connelly, risk management adviser at Woodside and former army officer. This was despite the wish of local party heavyweights Mathias Cormann and Peter Collier, along with Keenan himself, for the seat to go to a woman – specifically Joanne Quinn, legal counsel at Edith Cowan University. Quinn was in fact knocked out in the early rounds, together with Georgina Fraser, business development manager with a subsidiary of Kleenheat Gas, and Taryn Houghton, manager with a mental health support not-for-profit. Connelly prevailed in the final round over Michelle Sutherland, high school teacher, Bayswater councillor and wife of former state MP Michael Sutherland. His win out of an otherwise all-female field of five excited much commentary about the Liberal Party’s deficiencies in preselecting women, including my own analysis in Crikey on Monday.
• Sighs of relief could be heard from the Liberal hierarchy the following day when the preselection to replace Kelly O’Dwyer in Higgins was won by Katie Allen, paediatrician and unsuccessful candidate for Prahran at the state election in November. Allen prevailed in the final round with 158 votes to 116 for a male rival, Greg Hannan, former state party vice-president and factional moderate who ran against Michael Kroger for the presidency. Excluded after the penultimate round was Zoe McKenzie, “a non-executive director of the NBN board and former chief of staff to Abbott/Turnbull government trade minister Andrew Robb”.
Shellbell, d-money
Thank you.
It seems to me that, as a nation:
1. We got the Truth part fairly right but are stuffing up the Reconciliation part. The ultimate social aim, regardless of the pathways, must be that everyone in the nation is reconciled in the fundamental sense of that word.
2. One example of getting the reconciliation process wrong is that other institutions that had similar or worse problems than the RCC are largely gliding under the radar.
3. Another example of getting the Reconciliation wrong is that we are looping back into the Truth part rather than moving on.
4. Stepping right back from it, it seems to me that in the process we are missing the statistically bigger picture when it comes to child sex abuse.
Pegasus @ #81 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 8:20 am
I’m confused. This doesn’t claim that the Greens initiated it or Lab Lib are same same.
Bob Katter said this apparently:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0aARh9UwAA6X7P?format=jpg&name=medium
GG
I agree with your reflection on Abbott’s comment at the end of the last thread. Nothing outrageous and pretty well what a friend of someone just convicted might say. On the other hand Howard’s reference for Pell was quite pathetic.
I agree generally with many of your other comments today as well, regarding chilling out.
Not that PB is a part of the process, but the rule of law and justice is never served by intemperate and emotive behaviour or talk.
I wonder who Pell’s Confessor is.
Notice the ribbons on the fence and how fresh they look.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/27/love-him-or-loathe-him-pells-always-been-a-son-of-ballarat
The church took them down; they reappeared.
Psychlaw,
Thanks.
I’haven’t had time to catch up with Howard’s commentary yet.
Zoidlord @ #103 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 9:00 am
Hm…death to the unemployeds then? I guess that would bring the unemployment rate down to 0% pretty quickly.
David Pope has Howard wearing 18th Centuary footware
Sohar,
Thanks for the facilely glib reply.
As far as I know, having faith is not a crime.
Victoria is more than welcome to charge, convict and cast off anyone at a personal level. But, our legal system usually demands a little more rigour.
Greensborough Growler @ #110 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 9:23 am
Yes, and our legal system has been satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that Pell is a child molester. So your point is…?
If I thought Palmer would just go away and stay there- I was wrong.
According to his website he already has 76 people signed as candidates including himself in Herbert, 17 others in QLD, 42 NSW, 11 in Victoria and a couple in WA.
On Sky News he estimated he would spend $50M on advertising by the time of the election and he will have candidates in all 151 HOR seats by election time. He will make a mess of some final results he says. He might be right.- I would be surprised if UAP won any seats but marginal seat holders in QLD and NSW will not be pleased with his input.
BW It will be a great thing if we lock in our understanding of insitutions so well that we can be confident of their safety, but the paralysis about how to prevent and stop it in the wider community is very complicated. I am a mandatory notifier, but despite the prevalence of this behaviour I get very few hints that would trigger a notice. Parental drug use / chaos, and smacking episodes are the vast majority of child at risk clues I get to see.
I’m catching up on Cohen’s testimony via The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/feb/27/michael-cohen-testimony-trump-news-latest-live-updates-hearing-payments-stormy-daniels-today
I suppose Cohen means civil unrest and not something like a military coup. It’s an eye-catching quote though, and maybe why he said it. He wants Trump in jail with him.
ar,
Please pay attention.
The legal process is still incomplete.
I can’t help thinking that the motive behind Clive’s return to politics is tax deductions. Is that possible?
antonbruckner11 says:
Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 10:34 am
I can’t help thinking that the motive behind Clive’s return to politics is tax deductions. Is that possible?
–
Well he only turned up to the parliament 5% of the time [literally] in his last innings and those were when it had to do with tax cuts to big business, climate change debates and mining industry issues. That gives you a strong hint about where his loyalties and motives come from.
I think Clive Palmer will takes votes from the conservatives more than Labor. The preference flow will be interesting.
ar
Bob’s family Labor history is coming out. It is to bring on the revolution comrade . To force the poor to eat the rich. Up the Proletariat ! 🙂
EB – No, I was wondering if all of his political expenses are a tax deduction. Maybe he’s got some big tax bills he wants to reduce.
EB, Palmer was in the HoR, representing Fairfax. Would he have needed to be in the Senate very much?
sonar says:
Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 10:43 am
I think Clive Palmer will takes votes from the conservatives more than Labor. The preference flow will be interesting.
–
Agree, especially in rural/regional conservative seats and high unemployment pockets in QLD for example following the terrible floods.
EB, mind you, your point stands. According to this site Palmer’s HoR attendance was only 7.3%
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fairfax/clive_palmer
Late Riser says:
Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 10:44 am
EB, Palmer was in the HoR, representing Fairfax. Would he have needed to be in the Senate very much?
—
LOL yeah I fixed that already thanx – put it down to a doh moment.
A couple of Bludgers would be nodding in agreement with Paul Krugman 🙂
.
https://outline.com/uhrPfc
EB, mind you, your point stands. According to this site Palmer’s HoR attendance was only 7.3%
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fairfax/clive_palme
Oh dear, I embellished abit lol . Cheers.
EB, MOE?
Just waiting to see how long it takes for Scrott to say Ita Buttrose is ‘fair dinkum’
When you look at US polling numbers by pollsters using phone polls… consider this;
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/phone-polling-crisis-1191637
This doesnt mean they cant get good data from those that do respond. It helps explain why pollsters use complicated algorithms to ensure a fair sample to try to gain a reliable result from that data.
I do wonder tho’, no matter how clever your algorithm is, how reliable a nationwide poll result can be based on just 1000 people who actually end up taking the call.
Poll aggregation sites would assist in this but perhaps the psephs out there can answer this…
Is there a higher chance of systematic error across the pollsters if they are all using and relying so heavily on similar (one would assume they are similar, based as they are on previous common data) algorithmic techniques to ensure a representative sample?
Did anybody, ever, say “don’t say nasty things about Eddie Obeid, he has appealed his conviction.”
Asking for a friend.
No matter what else, we all own a great deal of thanks to Clive Palmer.
It was his block of votes in the Senate that was vital to bringing a halt to the Abbott and Hockey budget and the agenda of the fascists.
Thanks Clive
Rossmcg
I don’t think people even waited for charges let alone convictions to say ‘nasty’ things about Eddie Obeid 🙂
Here is what PALMER voted on
Voted a mixture of for and against
A minerals resource rent tax
Decreasing availability of welfare payments
Speeding things along in Parliament (procedural)
Suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)
Voted moderately against
A carbon price
Increasing investment in renewable energy
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)
Tighter means testing of family payments
The end.
Not much of a contribution I would have thought MOE 2.1 LOL
GG, here is the report on the character reference John Howard gave for Pell:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/27/tony-abbott-says-george-pell-verdict-is-devastating
Note that John Howard thinks Pell has an “exemplary character”, notwithstanding his conviction for raping two children. He says this, knowing full well that any appeal (a) may not be requested; (b) may be requested but leave not granted for it to be heard; or (c) may be heard and dismissed. If any of these eventuate, Pell’s conviction stands. Howard has gone on record stating that he is fine with Pell, even though for all he knows Pell raped two children.
Let me repeat this point: should no appeal ever be heard, Pell’s conviction stands. As of now, no appeal has been heard. As of now, Pell stands convicted. That conviction was based upon evidence that neither you, I, Andrew Bolt nor John Howard have seen. But the police have seen it, and it caused them to arrest Pell and bring charges against him. The DPP saw it, and it caused them to agree with the police. Judge Kidd saw it, and it has influenced his severe remonstrances against defence counsel. Most importantly, the jury saw it, and it caused them to find Pell guilty as charged. Are you accusing all of them of engaging in a bigoted witch hunt?
And GG, are you calling the victim a liar? If you think Pell might still be innocent despite the guilty verdict against him, then I think you are.
GG,
I understand what you’re saying re the legal process, but surely you can’t expect people to refrain from comment when someone as pious as Pell is convicted of kiddie-fiddling? The people who are making the outrageous comments on various platforms seem to me to be his boosters rather than critics, making assertions like the trial was tainted is outrageous.
Likewise, these people’s regard for the sanctity of the appellate process is as late on the scene as it is selective. These same people who wish to tar an entire race/ religion/ minority with the broad brush of wrongdoing want us to believe there is no possible way someone who they like and respect could possibly be guilty of a crime, despite that man being convicted of a specific offence.
It’s terrible commentary and appalling selective morality.
F’n aye, poroti!
It should be borne in mind that a jury unanimously found Pell guilty. It heard the evidence of the complainant and must’ve been convinced that he was telling the truth. One might ask why victims of sexual abuse would put themselves through rigorous examination – money? That’s bull shit. No amount of money would right such a wrong. Sexual abuse is a scourge, victims of which never fully recovering from it. Those who are arguing abstractly that Pell is the subject of a witch-hunt should take stock.
Clive’s slogan should be: “PUP: the hatchery of politicians.”
Greensborough Growler says:
Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 10:33 am
ar,
Please pay attention.
The legal process is still incomplete.
…, he spent last night in gaol awaiting sentencing for his conviction.
I wish I had a dollar for every person who assured me that Lindy Chamberlain was a vile, cold-hearted, baby-killing bitch, who deserved to rot in Hell.
I thought she was guilty too, not because of her demeanour (i.e. I didn’t hate her personally, as some did), but because of the “certainty” of the evidence, over multiple considerations of it, in the media, the trials and appeals. Surely the justice system couldn’t be this wrong, right?
Wrong.
While having no connection with Pell’s case, what I did discover from the Lindy Chamberlain case was that a jury’s verdict is not absolute truth. It is institutional truth. While the two may overlap, and perhaps mostly do, they are not the same thing.
Basing the real hatred I have seen here in the past couple of days – not the occasional one-off comments, but the multi-chapter tirades, the labelling, vilification and condemnation of those with different views – on the merely institutional truth of the verdict, pretending it establishes incontrovertible truth for all time, is a mistake.
It does no-one any good to hate so much, no matter what the crime was.
But it is also an undeniable fact that there has been a verdict. Please remember, however, that this is an early stage of what will likely be a long process, with each stage fully testing the previous one. Don’t use just one stage along the way as an excuse to vent hatred and rancour. It’s possible, probably quite remotely, that Pell might win his appeal. But if he does, then all you’ll have left is hatred.
Does anyone want that? Does this blog need it?
Ah, John, you won’t be needed on the campaign trail this time around.
BB,
I don’t see people venting hate and anger on here. I see conservative commentators elsewhere breathlessly stating there’s no possible way Pell could be guilty, and that he was stitched up. Which is just shitbaggery of the highest order.
Burgey,
Psychlaw summed it up pretty wel at 10:01am.
People need to be aware what Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Greg Craven, John Howard, and everyone else leaping to Pell’s defence, are trying to achieve with their shameless smearing of the victim who bravely came forward to tell the police what Pell did to him and his fellow choir member.
They are telling anyone else who might come forward to blow the whistle on the evils perpetrated by “one of their own”, the rich and powerful of this country: “This is what we’ll do if you dare to come forward. So shut up!”
They are using the Pell conviction to demonstrate their ruthlessness in repressing dissent and complaint about the crimes of their group.
Good Morning
On Ita Buttrose as chair of the ABC. It was good to see Paul Barry stick up for the independent selection process.
As for the pick. They found the most acceptable Newscorp pick they could find. In doing so I think they have been too smart by half. I see Buttriose as wanting the ABC that could have Andrew Olle as as a talent.
There seems a certain inevitability in the responses to the whole sorry saga of Pell.
In a clash between faith and belief, it is often the case when logic/evidence challenges faith and belief, many with long-held views will stick with faith and belief.
In the local West this morning, Bolt and Devine (mainly Bolt) are the subject of scathing criticism by the the majority of the contributors. However there is a selection letters which adamantly refuse to accept that Pell could be guilty, that the trial has been a witch hunt and/or an attack on the Catholic church.
When all the nasty stuff surrounding the actions of the Catholic church in Ireland became widely known, the initial response was much the same. However, as time went on, it was clear the real damage to the church was its loss of moral authority. People there gave up on the church temporal though were not willing to give up on the church spiritual. I suspect this will be the same here in Oz, if not already so.
I would suggest the demise of much of the moral authority of the church is much more damaging to it rather than the heinous acts of some its so-called “servants”.
At the end of the day who gives a stuff if Tony Abbott thinks Pell is still a good bloke? Or, whether John Howard still thinks, conviction notwithstanding, that he would still kind of vote for him again?
The comments of these two individuals merely serves to show just how warped their own moral compass is now, and seriously questions where it was when the were in power.
Late Riser @ #114 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 7:30 am
The military will always side with whoever is the duly elected POTUS, and never with some cry baby who refuses to accept the result.
The heavily armed numbskulls who support him are another matter though, and are a cause of concern.
Can someone clarify Morrison Energy inaction as ‘Energy pivot’?What is pivotal about it?
Greensborough Growler @ #115 Thursday, February 28th, 2019 – 9:33 am
That’s a rather weasly way of describing the current state of play. The legal process has produced a conviction. The conviction establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Pell molested (at least) two choir boys.
Yes, there are avenues of appeal that are open, as there virtually always are after any conviction. But no, that doesn’t make the process “incomplete”. The process was to conduct a trial and reach a verdict. This has happened, the verdict is guilty, and the legal process is thus complete.
An appeal doesn’t continue that process, it just reviews what’s already completed. Unless it’s found that the process was run incorrectly in some way, the verdict will stand as issued.
A jury verdict isn’t diminished, provisional, incomplete, or somehow in a “pending” state simply because appeals are still possible. The exhaustion of appeals doesn’t issue a new, more complete verdict.
Michael A,
Go somewhere else with your meaningless word games and straw man arguments.
I’m not playing.
If on the other hand , you wish to have a reasoned, respectful discussion then fire away.