The latest fortnightly result from Essential Research follows Newspoll in recording a one-point move to Labor, who now lead 53-47 on two-party preferred. As reported by The Guardian, the primary votes have the Coalition down a point to 37%, Labor up a point to 38%, the Greens down a point to 8% (their weakest result in any poll since September 2016) and One Nation up a point to 7%. The pollster’s leadership ratings (which they normally do monthly, but this is the first set since January) have Scott Morrison steady on 43% approval and up two on disapproval to 41%, Bill Shorten up three to 38% and down three to 44%, and Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister at 44-31, compared with 42-30 last time.
Other findings relate to climate change and asylum seekers. On the former cont, 62% express belief in climate change caused by human activity, and 51% say Australia is not doing enough to address it. On the latter, 52% believed the government was acting out of genuine concern in reopening Christmas Island while 48% said it was a political ploy (suggesting there was no uncommitted option, which would be unusual for Essential). Also featured was an occasion suite of questions on best party to handle various issues, which seems to have produced typical results, with the Coalition stronger on broader protection and economic management and Labor stronger on the environment, wages, health and education, as well as housing affordability. The full report should be with us later today.
UPDATE: Full report here. The poll was conducted Wednesday to Monday from a sample of 1089.
This is just jostling for position. Like a cat showing no interest in the injured mouse then attacking it.
Likelihood of impeachment will depend on what is in that report. If the report is damning, then Pelosi can say ‘we didnt want to impeach but….’. If it is too esoteric to sell to the great unwashed then they are better off focusing on Trumps tax cuts and budget cuts.
Steve777, how very dare you express such a well tempered and reasonable opinion on this matter. I insist you adopt a more extreme and uncompromising view immediately.
@ lizzie
Tim Wilsons reference to “Barnaby’s electorate in Qld” is actually quite accurate to my way of thinking.
Sure, he may represent a NSW Federal seat, but at least 5 Qld LNP ( read Nationals) MPs avidly back his comments so practically it can be said he represents those 5 seats. He has that much support that he is the defacto MP for Central Qld.
But that won’t get him the Leadership. My money is on Littleproud. Either way, however, Qld rules the National Party. Big fish in a small pond, and that is drying up faster than the Murray-Darling.
Darc:
I and others have previously explained why Burnside’s membership of the Savage Club was a bad look for him. Besides, if he and the Greens had no problem with it he wouldn’t have rushed out to say he was cancelling his membership.
booleanbach @ #60 Tuesday, March 12th, 2019 – 8:41 am
Thanks for the link. It is easy to understand in the context of the reaction to humiliation. I have sometimes wondered if China’s deliberate stance in the world has it roots in the humiliation inflicted on it by “Western powers”.
The author of the piece writes that humiliation leads either to shame first then anger, or straight to anger, that humiliation is a dangerous tool, and that we should promote dignity. They may have a point. It fits with what I read and people tell me about their responses to such things as theft, bullying, and rape. And at a group level it fits with responses I see to stereotyping and especially in politics. Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment springs to mind. Discussions on Global Warming is another where humiliation is used and the response is anger. And in partisan politics the first tactic is often to humiliate the “opponent”, with anger as the predictable result. This includes name calling (“SloMo”) and even comments like “Well that is just sad.”
I think we do it reflexively in Australian politics. It is common.
No GG I just don’t stand by and watch men being a….holes to women day in day out.
You want to debate politics and policy fine, but you play the man, in your case woman, all the time and that pisses me off. Enough said.
No rain today – Newcastle.
Entry for most boring comment. 😇
I mean, anyone who thinks Trump has the self-awareness to resign is kidding themselves. The bloke quite simply thinks the rules don’t apply to him, and dogging the chance to impeach him reinforces that.
Bloody hell, on the off chance he is beaten next year, I genuinely doubt he will leave the White House without challenging the election result, no matter how clear cut. He’s *that* much of an egomaniac.
Stayed up all night polishing that one did ya KayJay 😀
Burgey: “God the left are soft. The Republicans impeached Clinton because he blew on a dress ffs. This muppet has ties to foreign powers, bribes porn stars and his businesses are basically a front for organised crime. And the dems say no to impeaching him? Give me a break. If they aren’t up for the fight then they should get out of the way. Trump will romp in next year. Have thought that for ages. And it will be in no small part because his opponents lack any semblance of a spine.”
I agree that Trump is likely to win next year. The 2016 vote was significantly a vote by people in the more monocultural swing states against the multicultural/diversity/virtue signalling agenda of the contemporary left. You’d have thought that the best way for the Dems to prevent that happening again would be to go with more of an old school candidate who focuses on economic inequality, jobs, etc. Instead, the Dems look increasingly likely to go even larger on the contemporary left agenda on issues such as affirmative action, reparations for slavery and so forth. Which, as far as I can see, would be a textbook example of the madness of doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result.
Re the “softness” or otherwise of the Dems re impeachment. I personally think that the endless “we wuz robbed, it was Hillary’s turn, the Russians dun it” stuff from the Dems over the past two years has been quite damaging to them in the eyes of the US public. The 2018 elections swept that off the agenda for a while, and this was helpful to the Dem cause. Now the focus will shift from talk of impeachment to the question of who will be the Dem candidate. I reckon this is also helpful to the Dem cause: particularly if they end up picking a moderate candidate with broad appeal.
In the absence of overwhelming evidence about collusion with Russia to undermine US democracy (and IMO this will need to be a lot more serious than the Russians setting up a few Facebook pages and giving Trump’s people advance notice of some Wikileaks material), any attempt by the Dems to impeach Trump will inflict enormous polarisation on the electorate and quite possibly drive many undecided voters into Trump’s camp.
In passing, I’ve been thinking a lot about who the Dems should ideally pick as their candidate. Biden is too old IMO. Klobuchar has moderate policies, but unfortunately she doesn’t exude very much charisma. As the campaign goes on, I’m shifting my thinking back towards Kamala Harris, whom – on the basis of her political record – I suspect of being rather more of a moderate at heart than she is letting on at the moment. Therefore, it is possible that she will be able to capture enough support from the more radical Millennials in the primaries to become the candidate, and then subtly shift back to the centre in the Presidential race.
I can’t really see any more viable candidates at the moment. Gillibrand and Booker are just less appealing versions of Harris. Warren and Sanders are IMO far too left wing to win in the main contest.
EB @ #108 Tuesday, March 12th, 2019 – 10:48 am
Well, your excellency – I have others
1. No mowing today.
2. Stopped mowing.
& so on. Cripes I’m boring myself. Time for nanny nap prior to lunch. 😎
EB,
You really need anger management to learn to control your violent tendencies. It’s causing you to hallucinate.
I’ll post on subjects of interest to me in the way that suits me.
I don’t require abusive nobodies instructing me on content or style.
“Bloody hell, on the off chance he is beaten next year, I genuinely doubt he will leave the White House without challenging the election result, no matter how clear cut. He’s *that* much of an egomaniac.”
I agree. He will declare the result ‘fake news’ and blame illegal immigrants, socialists, the dems and the crooked media. There is a solid 30% of voters who will believe this and some would rise up if he urged them to. I can well imagine a constitutional crisis where he tries to declare a state of emergency following violence he incites after his defeat.
hopefully he’ll see that he is going to lose and decide not to run, but I think that is unlikely.
KayJay, in between mowing and napping (admirable as they are and jealous as I am) I have a question on the download you uploaded. I have it downloaded. What should I do next? 🙏 🙏
meher,
No. Having the impeachment process on foot damages any President’s legitimacy in the eyes of a lot of people.
This idea someone had before of “if the report is too esoteric they won’t impeach” – fmd, do you think the Republicans would hesitate? Of course they wouldn’t. Because just having the process going on is damaging AF. Trump will deny and bluster no matter what’s in any report – if they published pictures of him having a three way with Stormy Daniels and Putin he would deny it, and his supporters would buy it.
If the Democrats don’t have a crack at impeaching him, they deserve to go down in a screaming heap next year. They already have a field of candidates who range from octogenarian head in the cloud idiots (Sanders) to twenty something head in the cloud idiots. None of them is inspiring, none of them has a clue about the real world. Impeachment gives them a far better shot than sitting back and allowing Trump to say “See, nothing in it. I told you the Mueller probe was nothing all along.”
They have the political nous of a Mastodon with a closed head injury.
“No rain today – Newcastle.
Entry for most boring comment. “
ANother entry:
Clear skies, light Westerlies and 28 degrees on Sydney’s last sunny day for a while.
No rain today in Maitland either KayJay and your welcome to come over and mow my lawn and have a nice cup of tea if your bored.
Darc @ #91 Tuesday, March 12th, 2019 – 10:29 am
My first thought is no, there’s nothing wrong with them. Then I ask would my attitude be the same if it were a whites-only club. After that I wonder whether discrimination by race and discrimination by sex aren’t the same thing, at which point I suspect that saying they aren’t the same thing is a category error.
I still don’t know the answer; I wouldn’t be a member of any club that only allowed men, but I won’t decide for anyone else.
Greensborough Growler says:
Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 10:55 am
EB,
I don’t require abusive nobodies instructing me on content or style.
—
Well you better stop posting then because you are an abusive nobody.
KJ
No rain today; a few small confused clouds; wetlands turning to mudlands prepartory to turning to drylands; wind gusts to 30kph.
#GlobalWarmingonPB
TPOF
“Nah. Rick Wilson is dead right. Trump wants to be a victim and impeachment proceedings run by the Dems will do just that.”
100% agree.
Clinton was impeached, and he got re-elected.
EB,
My pearls of wisdom this morning will stand the test of time when compared to your ill-tempered tantrum.
That’s the reality comrade.
Cheers and good luck with the therapy.
Steve777
“Remember that Nixon was never impeached. ”
He resigned when he saw the writing on the wall.
Trump won’t see the writing. Or the wall.
____________________________
Is that wall irony?
Steve777 says:
Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 10:38 am
“Remember that Nixon was never impeached.”
He resigned when he saw the writing on the wall. Trump won’t see the writing. Or the wall.
_____________________________
Nixon resigned because influential lawmakers in his own party turned against him. Only an impeachment process which has bipartisan support can be successful.
Otherwise, as the blue dress episode shows, it is, and more importantly, will be seen to be a partisan process that will come to nothing other than to strengthen Trump’s victimisation claims among his supporters.
The way forward is to do what the repugs did to Hillary Clinton – bury him (or more importantly all his family and allies) in distracting and never ending congressional investigations. Indeed, the less direct attention he gets, the more he will come out as absurd to most of the others.
MB
Explain that RBA 10 Year Data shows that the amount owed to our home mortgage lenders in January 2000 was $335 Billion
That the amount we owed to our home mortgage lenders in January 2010 was $1.226 Trillion
Noting also that fractured Global Capital Markets post the GFC saw lending curtailed.
So the growth in our home mortgage debt between January 2000 and January 2010 was a lazy 350% – to the same size as our GDP.
The catalyst was the GST and the impetus given to the construction industry to evade a technical recession (successive negative GDP growth quarters).
Interest rates were rising during this time due to inflationary policies, including during an election year and including during an election campaign, both unprecedented.
The 10 Year Bond Yield peaked at 7.26% in the lead up to the GFC, now 2.03%
Where the amount owed to our home mortgage lenders has gone since January 2010 is not available – but there was a figure of $1.7 Trillion mentioned, so a further 35% increase compared to the referred 350% increase for the preceding 10 years
The fact is:-
The growth in our home mortgage debt was between 2000 and 2008 (the GFC), confirmed by RBA Data and when interest rates were increasing.
Post the GFC, given that our home mortgage debt was $1.226 Trillion, the consideration was the servicing of that debt in changed economic circumstances where government did what government is charged to do – support the economy across the economic cycle because the private sector was withdrawing (see the National statistics)
And, unlike elsewhere, Australia escaped the worst of the ravages of the GFC, including in regards property because our debt continued to be serviced.
It was not post GFC Cash Rate settings that gave impetus to the growth in our home mortgage debt – because that debt was up from $335 Billion to $1.226 Trillion between 2000 and 2010.
So I question the Report.
And the timing, coming immediately after Lowe and Shorten occupied the same stage, speaking to a common theme being the wages growth recession.
This Report is designed to discredit the RBA – and you do not have to be too clever to guess the reason.
The figures I quote cannot be disputed.
They are on the public record.
Greensborough Growler says:
Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 11:06 am
EB,
My pearls of wisdom this morning will stand the test of time
Late Riser @ #113 Tuesday, March 12th, 2019 – 10:55 am
That would be for Anti-Paywall I expect.
This is a really great extension/addon.
Please advise if you are wanting Chrome or Firefox.
In the meanwhile C@tmomma has been out and about greeting and meeting and is due to return. I am hoping for a killer boring post to dismay and confuse us.
😔 — Pensive face. 🙉 Hear no evil.
Kakuru
Clinton was impeached, and he got re-elected.
_____________________
Actually, he didn’t. That was his second term, so he couldn’t run again. But the Repugs did lose some seats in the Reps at the next election ( not enough to lose control), despite Bush jnr ‘winning’ the Presidency.
Yes and yes. In pretty much the same way there’d be something wrong with a restaurant that put up a “Whites Only” sign, or a cake shop that put up a “No Gays” sign.
To the extent that membership can be construed as ‘goods or services’ provided by the club, having a rule that explicitly excludes one gender or the other from buying a membership seems like it could even run afoul of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Though of course savvy clubs will easily get around that by 1) not having the rule explicit, and 2) using other reasons to refuse membership to the undesired gender (“we’re full now” probably being the easiest).
phoenixRED @ #94 Tuesday, March 12th, 2019 – 7:30 am
Which means the kids get off scott free for their crimes. Throw the pricks (and prickette) in jail and let Trump stew on it before facing the electorate.
Thanks for the various posts.
I’m very seldom bored – just tired and seeking relief from painful hips and other body parts. 😵 Dizzy with joy. Not sure how Joy is feeling about it ❗
WA Nationals have warned Federal MPs against reinstalling Barnaby Joyce as deputy prime minister “10 minutes” before the election, arguing it would hurt their push to send a West Australian to Canberra.
Candidates in WA fell in behind Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, as did Mia Davies — the Nationals WA leader whose call for Mr Joyce to quit last year cemented his demise. “The Nationals WA made their views clear on Mr Joyce’s leadership in March 2018,”
Ms Davies told The West Australian. “We’re focused on the job at hand, which is standing up for our regional communities, and we’re looking forward to having the Deputy PM and Nationals ministers here in WA over the coming weeks.”
https://thewest.com.au/politics/nationals/barnaby-the-wrong-joyce-for-us-say-wa-nationals-ng-b881131211z?utm_campaign=share-icons&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&tid=1552344970087.
There are no WA Nationals in the Parliament. Anyone know if they are contesting HOR seats or just the Senate in WA ?
Why has the editorial policy of ‘The Australian’ changed?
‘Joyce out of step with the Party Room’
‘I still have nightmares (revisit of Peacock Howard wars)’
‘Coal war Lib showdown’
‘Nat’s self interest over coal’
‘Split at Coalition’s core exposed’
‘Polls crush Coalition confidence’
autocrat
Exclusive clubs by definition exclude groups of people. For me the question is, what is the purpose of the exclusion? Is it that feeling of being special (snob)? Is it a feeling of safety (no men)? And so on.
I’ve been in two “clubs” in my life to date, one based on my work, and one based on where I lived. The exclusion in the first instance was tied to governance of an employee owned company. Only employees could join by buying shares. In the second, the club built and maintained shared sporting facilities, and excluded those who did not help financially. (Guests were welcome.) I thought both clubs had good reasons to exclude others.
Perhaps the club’s “exclusion purpose” can be a litmus test for whether membership of the club suits a person’s ethics, and for others to judge that choice?
@ TPOF
Au contraire mes ami
Trump sees the (a) Wall. He can’t see whats on it, behind it or in front of it. Thats the problem.
EB
re GG
Just use the words Pell, fat, Roman Paedophile Protection Society and his ‘populist witch-hunt’ in a sentence.
Its equivalent to tripping him from behind with his own brainwashing, and you can laugh while he knocks his own teeth out.
Trump needs to be removed from Office. He has broken laws. Allegedly worked in the interests of a foreign power against those of the United States in direct contravention of the Constitution.
The only reason to delay is to present more evidence at hearings so the country does not go to civil war.
That’s just from what I know from public release.
Boerwar says:
Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 11:23 am
Why has the editorial policy of ‘The Australian’ changed?
—
Maybe Murdoch has decided its a hopeless case so he has jumped on the other horse.
Boerwar says:
Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 11:23 am
Why has the editorial policy of ‘The Australian’ changed?
—
Maybe Murdoch has decided its a hopeless case so he has jumped on the other horse.
The Coalition under the Car Salesman has run into a brick wall.
My concern with Burnside’s position vis a vis his Membership of the Savage Club is that while the Greens naturally want to focus only on his record as a human right’s lawyer and defender of refugees. However, when he’s running as a politician his personal behaviour is always going to be scrutinised in comparison to his professed assertions.
We had something similar with Joyce running as a “family values” candidate when he’d separated from his wife and sired a child while still married.
With Burnside you get that nagging doubt that he’s just a jobbing lawyer taking cases in a specialised area of the law (and which he has done well). But, his personal life reveals a middle class white old man who takes comfort in a lifestyle removed from his professional life.
Btw
Those saying Sanders has no chance have not being reading the polls.
The US has switched to the left now. Even the conned Trump voters were voting against the elites.
EB
I don’t know. Perhaps it The Oz has decided to give the Nats a pizzling in order to save the Liberal furniture.
Even half a dozen Nationals cant agree amongst themselves. This is just a gift to independents and Labor. Keep your mouth going Joyce.Your doing a great job.
sd
There are 22 Nats MPs and Senators.
Maybe their Church got too Broad to fit in all the knaves now that Joyce is no longer laying them in the aisles?
KayJay
Thank you. And yes the “Anti-Paywall” Chrome version was the downloaded upload. It is a ZIP file, snug on my laptop. I use Opera with an extension to enable Chrome add ins, if that makes sense. I suppose the question is, how do I add the add in from a ZIP file? 😕
I am at heart quite lazy. I can experiment. 🙂
MB
I very much doubt that Trump will win the election next year – and I doubt that he will even be the Republican candidate. My reasons:
First, the consistency of the net approval ratings compared to previous presidents. A gap of at least 8% is baked in. See https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Secondly, the dirty tricks and hacks used to drag Trump across the line in 2016 are now known and can be neutralised. Trump would actually have to get serious votes from people who did not vote for him or did not vote at all if he is to get over the line. Which is unlikely, given the polling shown in my first point.
Thirdly, unlike Australia where the objective is to get voters to change their vote, a critical part of the US election (and central to Trump’s victory in 2016) is to get people to vote who are otherwise uninterested or discouraged. Hillary, who became a divisive figure, is not running now. I don’t know who the candidate for the Dems will be, but they will be looking to get the person who will be the least discouraging. My initial feeling is Harris. But it’s a very long way to go.
Finally, we have yet to see all the indictments (let alone the Mueller report) come out. The election is 20 months away and a huge amount can happen in that time. My guess is that, by the end of this year, many of Trump’s associates and family will be facing serious charges. The Dems through congressional committees will also raise serious issues that were not covered by the Special Prosecutor or the criminal investigations. I think it is likely to get to the position where the Republicans will throw Trump overboard, especially as he has already delivered much of their agenda. If they do, he is likely to run as an independent. Which will guarantee a Democrat victory. If they don’t, see points 1 to 3 above.
Rather than being forced from office via impeachment ( and hence claiming witch hunt victim status), it would be far better for Trump and his family to be litigated again and again by SDNY and other state prosecutors over the next decade or two for all sorts of mob-like crimes – which they really do seem to have committed.
EB
The anti Burnside brigade we see here are actually cheering for Frydenberg to keep his seat. They have calculated that Burnside is a great bogey man to paint the Greens as right wing and privileged.
This from the same people that say the Greens never attack the LNP. Including posting about Burnside himself. A candidate running to unseat a Liberal politician
guytaur
Those saying Sanders has no chance have not being reading the polls.
____________________________________
And at this stage in the electoral cycle four years ago Hillary Clinton was a lock for Democratic nomination and very likely to win the Presidency.