Despite the onset of the election campaign, there is only one new data point to add to BludgerTrack this week, which is a status quo 52-48 result from Newspoll that has duly little effect on the national vote trends. Such movement as there is is away from One Nation and towards the Coalition on the primary vote, with next to no impact on two-party preferred or the seat projection, where the Coalition makes a single gain in Victoria.
Since there is no new state-level data this week, the breakdowns continue to record an unnatural looking lurch to the Coalition in New South Wales, which I would want to see corroborated by more data. The leadership trends are interesting in that an upswing in Scott Morrison’s net approval has returned him, just barely, to net positive territory. The effect on preferred prime minister is more modest, but there appears to be a slight trend in his favour there too.
However, the biggest news in BludgerTrack this week as far as I’m concerned is that a helpful reader has told me how to fix the bug that was preventing the state breakdown tabs from working much of the time. If this was causing you grief before, there is a very good chance it will not be doing so if you try again now, which you can do through the link below.
Observer @ #799 Friday, April 19th, 2019 – 7:16 am
Splendid idea.
Here’s my first suggestion, ‘Greentaur’. 👿
Zoomster
See my last post to Zoid.
A Centrist party will realise Phelps represents the centre right. Not extremists like Dutton or Senator McGrah.
Not the extremist media of Murdoch.
Please just recognise these facts and move on.
Its not the Greens being extremist impractical etc.
Its the LNP and as Chamberlain found out appeasing the extreme right doesn’t work out well.
antonbruckner11 says:
Friday, April 19, 2019 at 11:03 am
Sitting at home on Easter Friday trying to use the internet. Not much better than using carrier pigeons. Of course, I bet Malcayman gets to use fibre in New York. What a total grub
Turnbull has a very satisfactory fibre connection to his Watsons Bay pad, he insisted on it. Apparently, nobody else needs it.
Late Riser @ #929 Friday, April 19th, 2019 – 10:42 am
Science or science? (Perhaps I should have that as “science or Science?” to avoid the ambiguity of English sentence conventions).
I suspect the collectively acknowledged Popperian falsifyability of science (or Science) carries over to “non-Science” fields, and renders them scientific in terms of objectivity. The opposite of science isn’t correctable ignorance, it’s willful opposition to evidence. Climate science is the classic example – we can model all we like, but it won’t convince the deniers and spivs until they personally feel the effects. Medicine is a bit similar: it’s very hard to convince someone of benefit until they can’t do something they want to. Cancer is quite persuasive.
The term science was coined by William Whewell in the mid 19th C to relabel Natural Philosophy – and take it away from those nasty plebeian poets. It worked as a excluder, as it’s somewhat conservative sponsor hoped.
Personally, I prefer the term rationalist.
Vic
I don’t have numbers, but I reckon more swinging voters, or low information voters, watch The Project than read The SmearStralian and Daily ToiletPaper combined.
People say Dutton is toxic – but the Beetrooting Barnyard rorting the taxpayer raises the blood pressure moreso
guytaur@7:48am
Climate Change is deadly serious issue. Paris conference agreed to limit temperature to 2 ° C by the end of this century. But from the climate data we have seen on year to year basis, IMO the temperature rise has crossed 1°C and it is not even 2020.
What I posted was that Environmentalist are leaving Greens because Greens are using it as a tool for their political process rather than an issue to solve.
One way of getting your circulation figures up; throw copies onto random lawns.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/19/warringah-voters-complain-about-free-copies-of-daily-telegraph-as-election-rancour-boils
mundo @ #821 Friday, April 19th, 2019 – 8:23 am
Oh no… Jeremiah is back!!!
Zoidlord @ #946 Friday, April 19th, 2019 – 11:03 am
I’m struggling to interpret the table. Do you know what the numbers mean? Is a less negative number better?
That Dr Sheep Person
@noplaceforsheep
4h4 hours ago
Go inland, stand on the banks of a dying river, look at empty shop fronts in country towns, listen to Indigenous people for whom waterways have been life for tens of thousands of years, then get very very very mad with @Barnaby_Joyce & @AngusTaylorMP
As brilliant a piece of investigative journalism it may be, and as nasty, corrupt and rotten as the behaviour it has uncovered, the #Watergate story is up against the odds as far as having an impact is concerned.
Basically because it’s not an MSM story. It’s an anti-MSM story, produced by one of the anti-MSM’s most accomplished exponents, Michael West.
That is why the MSM won’t touch it in any serious way.
As Exhibit #1 I offer #KathyJackson.
As exhibit #2 I offer #TheBarnababy.
Both HUGE stories, both ignored by the MSM until their regular agendas – the crucifixion of Craig Thomson and the re-election of Barnaby Joyce respectively – had been successfully fulfilled.
Exhibit #3: 12 Liberal and National MPs – including none other than the Premier of NSW – were forced either to the cross benches or retirement in a blatant, disgusting ICAC donations scandal, yet that government was re-elected TWICE afterwards, with hearty editorial endorsements from the MSM.
Why? Because the MSM told us Labor still had some atoning to do for Eddie Obeid, from three election cycles before. Michael Daley, a minister all those years ago, was some kind of symbol (or something) of what was wrong with NSW Labor (or something). Meanwhile, the Libs were completely forgiven, their sins forgotten, their lessons learnt, because they changed Premiers a couple of times. Indeed the conservatives were praised by the MSM for doing so.
The ABC’s Brigid Glanville, after fearlessly and fairly reporting on the state election for 6 months, celebrated by going to work as the Liberal Education Minister’s head PR spruiker, announcing the job before the final polling results were even declared.
The lessons to be learnt?
1. If the story is anti-Liberal or anti-National (and doesn’t involve some kind of internal shitfight or factional ruckus in which the journalist has a personal stake e.g. a future job as a PR spruiker), the MSM is reluctant to print it.
2. If it comes from another MSM organization, they’re even more reluctant to run it. Not their patch, you see (which is how we get “Comeback for ScoMo” and “Trainwreck for ScoMo” when Newspoll and Ipsos come out on the very same Monday morning).
3. If it comes from #TheFuckingInternet, it has even less chance of getting air, virtually none by this stage.
4. Wixxy and his superb Kathy Jackson exposé was bad enough, but if Michael West – someone The Management does not like for all kinds of reasons, including that he is proof there really IS life after the MSM – is behind the story, that virtually guarantees it’ll be buried. Or delayed beyond the election (same-same).
5. Meanwhile, “$60 billion” (up from a more midest “$25 billion” just a few days ago) taken off the back of an envelope by a Lib-lovin’ economist, extracted from his report written 5 years ago so that Climate Science hater, Tony Abbott, could “prove” that Carbon Certificates were expensive, useless shit?
Or… “Michael Daley is anti-Chinese”, an accusation both so false and so hypocritical it’ll even get the Lefties screaming “Racist!”?
HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!!!
Yes, I know Channel 10 has dabbled in the Michael West story, but it’s the lowest-rating TV network. And anyway ScoMo will refuse to answer any interrogatories (allowing him to be written up by David Crowe as “relaxed and comfortable, not shouty at all, unlike Shifty Bill Shorten who refuses to answer all those questions he needs to answer.”
Don’t get your hopes up people. There are rules that need to be followed about political reporting and commentary. And none of them favour Labor, or the Truth.
guytaur
I’m not being extremist, or impractical, or accusing anyone or any party of the same. I’m pointing out the reality of politics. If you want something done, then you find ways to do it.
sprocket
I ought not be surprised but this issue is a serious one that requires Accountability. Bjoyce needs to front up and answer these questions.
Meanwhile, I have an advance copy of Schomo’s post election disaster auto-biography
Ven
Then they will join Labor to push for real change.
Either way Labor has to take the science seriously.
That means not getting distracted by campaign slanging matches of rhetoric and positioning on what might happen after labor wins government.
The point that is very clear from that slanging match.
Its about negotiating legislation after Labor has won the election
From the Guardian article linked above by Zoidlord:
It looks like the Libs have rented (free rent?) an empty shop next to Steggal’s shopfront to do their dastardly deed. They and their ‘Advance Australia’ backers seem to waging a very dirty campaign. Hopefully the voters of Warringah reject Abbott on this issue alone.
BB
Whilst that may be so. There are plenty of people who could be making lots of noises demanding accountability.
The timing of Easter and Anzac Day doesn’t help, but the drought and water situation is not a distant memory. We are living through dry times
Mark Day, former Editor of The Age, discussed Newscorp propaganda with Trioli this morning on ABC Breakfast. Both agreed it is bad and will get worse.
It’s worth watching if someone knows how to find the link.
Did the Voter Compass just now. I came about halfway between Labor and the Greens on the economic dimension, close to Labor (but slightly more conservative) socially. The numbers had me agreeing with Labor and the Greens about 80% each, Liberals about 45% and (rather surprisingly) One Nation 37%.
Zoomster
Yes. And the reality is that if Labor wants Greens support in the Senate for legislation they will not go into the negotiations with the ridiculous notion that not negotiating is a way to get that support
PaulTu @ #941 Friday, April 19th, 2019 – 11:02 am
===Seconded===
I saw a photo with a nice twist on the Libs,
“We stopped the boats!”
It was a picture of a dry riverbed.
Was mentioned up-thread that for an incoming ALP Govt to get legislation through the Senate they will most likely have to get more votes for it than the Greens can offer. So, Greens and ALP have to be somewhat flexible not only in what they want to push, but also of what indies or minors want to push.
That’s exactly how the Senate works and the nitty gritty will depend on the mix of Senators that the electorate gives us. The ALP has to work with the numbers the electorate gives them.
All this pointless bullshit about setting red-lines and puffing up “negotiating” positions before the election is just that…pointless and a distraction from the main game of getting rid of the Coalition.
I will await with interest the Greens ACTUAL behavior in the Senate when the numbers are known, and that behaviors influence on the Climate / Energy policy that gets enacted.
guytaur says:
Friday, April 19, 2019 at 11:27 am
What is the point of negotiating a position with the Greens if no one else supports that position?
Barney
See 2015. See Medivac Bill.
Then see the first words RDN the supposed wrecker said.
“We have to negotiate”
Yesterday evening this household was polled 3 times by different companies. I only knew two of them, Ucomm and Reachtel.
Since the election started we have been polled all up 7 times.
We are in Bonner.
i can see it now. After winning an election in the face of a huge, orchestrated campaign of lies by the LNP and the MSM, the Gs will combine with the LNP in the Senate to prevent Labor enacting it’s platform.
Socrates @ #856 Friday, April 19th, 2019 – 8:46 am
The amazing thing to me is that all these sorts of claims rest on the assumption that there is a completely cost-free alternative.
They should be asked to provide a detailed account of what that alternative is.
briefly
Thank you for proving my point for Barney.
“What is the point of negotiating a position with the Greens if no one else supports that position?”
Well……to convince then that they have to change their negotiation position in such a way as for the votes to come together to get sa much as possible of what everybody wants through.
That’s actual multi-party negotiation and going to be a regular factor in the next parliament if we want to have functional policy and governance going on.
The G’s are an anti-Labor gizmo. They oppose Labor at all times and places. The G’s are phobic to Labor, whose votes they repel. They are Lib-kin. They are Lib-ling. They are an LNP auxiliary. They are elitist, anti-worker, sexist and most likely presumptively racist. They oppose the ALP, the party of government and official organ of the working people of Australia. They are phobic reactions against the natural party of Government, the ALP.
guytaur says:
Friday, April 19, 2019 at 11:38 am
A couple of points there;
1. RDN wasn’t the negotiator, Bandt was,
2. The process was being driven by others and ultimately settled on a position, that if you listened to RDN’s outburst that morning, the Greens couldn’t accept.
Bandt and the others came out of the process looking sensible and rational, while RDN looked like he was doing a Fraser Anning impersonation.
zoomster says:
Friday, April 19, 2019 at 10:28 am
I’d love to clear things up, but I have absolutely no idea what point beguiledagain is trying to make.
The post of mine alluded to was one in response to “Canada has a better health system than Australia” (or something along those lines).
I wasn’t surprised by anything, I was simply finding the evidence which showed it wasn’t.
—————–
Yes, I saw your post. However a little later there seemed to be a post from Confessions referring to your post who tells me it wasn’t her.
And as to my point, it was about the financing of health services. Thank you for your research that seems to show for outcomes, Australia and Canada are pretty close. There obviously would be environmental factors involved in mortality statistics and the interesting rating was for cancer. Given Australia’s high incidence of skin cancers, I’m surprised that it gets an A and Canada a C. I note that for medical misadventures Australia had one of the worst records.
However, the thrust of my argument relates to Medicare and the funding of health, the cost to citizens and the degree of access to health services because of cost. Canadians are quite happy to have a single payer system with no private health insurance or private hospital system as exists here.
I put it to you: would you prefer the single payer, all bulk-billed system for medical and hospital services or the two-tier hodge-podge Australian system, with exclusions, co-pays and gaps and wasteful marketing costs? That’s how you end up with the situation facing that leukemia patient who told Bill Shorten he pays $1,500 for a MRI and is $20,000 out of pocket so far.
As laudable as Labor’s cancer strategy is, why does Labor pussy-foot around with Medicare instead of pushing for full-on public financing of health costs? Canada did this 50 years ago and it hasn’t gone broke paying for it.
rhwombat
Yes, Popper makes sense. I wasn’t aware of William Whewell. Perhaps he recognised something that happily for him also served to exclude nasty poets. Something that Popper later refined. And perhaps the reverse took place when Popper incorporated commonly accepted ideas of falsifiability and objectivity into his philosophy of science. It would be interesting knowing which is the cause and which the effect.
Mathematics includes statistics, which explicitly allows for error and uncertainty, without invalidating a science that correctly uses them. That includes climate models and I expect medicine too. I’m squeamish so medicine ain’t for me. But I think of medicine as human specific biological engineering, an applied science.
I’ll try Rationalist on for size, let you know how it fits me. Might take a while. 🙂
Wilful ignorance is another game altogether.
(Thanks for tweaking my curiosity.)
I have a couple of thoughts that I just can’t fall over the line with either way.
Should I change my handle to ICanCGreen ?
Green vs Labor spats. Who wins?
In an electorate like Ryan where you have Lib candidate expecting 45% odd of the vote and a Green and Labor candidate plus a palmer .
Would Green and Labor bagging each other give them hope of Liberal preferences and therefore coming second and winning on the other progressive preferences? Or would the (to me) more likely scenario be that cheesed off Green or Labor voters preference Libs ahead of the other progressive therefore ensuring Lib victory?
I got Ucommed in Petrie last night. General Fed voting intention & issues questions.
My friend just pointed this piece out which was scaring her Lib-orientated friend. A couple of decent articles have now been forwarded.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjoshfrydenberg.com.au%2Flatest-news%2F21149%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR25Njwkl6XfN4MCqUjTri-gd-qvoAOTSNfuxS0jF6srLPG5Rz9spf5dTWs&h=AT18Xv3gIAqKE013XsEzX1uE5ym82cBmmSBCbvFxnvK-lOfEGLxxPF9S69ovZCboO9rTDNqDrtRCqDM49FXLM336jSSfXw6TsdQvf8G5DO_87hoNUaXZxHMuvhqLlJDBALvW46Zo4aAxELVtwBc
THE HON JOSH FRYDENBERG MP
TREASURER
MEDIA RELEASE
24 January 2019
DEATH TAXES – YOU DON’T SAY, BILL!
Facing growing pressure over Labor’s disastrous housing and retirees taxes, Bill Shorten today sought to deflect attention by flippantly remarking that the next thing they say will be “that Labor wants to introduce death taxes.”
You don’t say, Mr Shorten! Indeed, it was Shorten’s Shadow Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh who wrote an article titled “Bring Back the Inheritance Tax” in which he enthusiastically states:
“From a pure economic rationalist perspective … what is often not recognised is that inheritance taxes are also an efficient form of revenue raising” Andrew Leigh, New Matilda, 7 March 2006
Dr Leigh, who will be responsible for crafting tax policy were Labor to be elected, has written extensively on the subject, including a paper titled “Toying with Death and Taxes”.
But it is not only Labor frontbenchers who believe in the death tax. It’s also the co-conspirators from whom Mr Shorten and his shadow cabinet take their cues on policy, groups such as the ACTU and the Australia Institute.
“An inheritance tax on the wealthiest estates can restore fairness to our tax system and ensure the very wealth and big business pay tax” ACTU, Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2018
“All things being equal, surely people would prefer to be taxed when they were dead than when they’re alive” Ben Oquist, Executive Director, The Australia Institute, ABC News, 11 February 2016
In fact, the ACTU included the death tax on their list of demands to Shorten ahead of the federal election. We know Mr Shorten already caves to most if not all of their demands, so why not this one?
Given Labor is already proposing to tax Australians from the cradle to the grave, it is certainly not out of the question that Labor would consider taxing people beyond the grave. We know that Labor believes that whatever the question, the answer is always higher taxes.
ENDS
Would be nice if The Project gave credit to likely source for the water story
https://www.docdroid.net/0rfQuKU/ronnie-salt-thread-money-for-nothing1.pdf#page=18
Barney
The party is the party. Di Natale agreed or Bandt would not have signed up.
Just like anyone negotiating for Shorten agrees or it doesn’t happen.
That’s the red lines the leader sets before the negotiating starts.
So more spin from whining Labor people because the Greens were negotiating with the government not Labor on Senate reform.
The misconception being the Greens should just do what Labor wants
kevjohnno says:
Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:00 pm
Sounds painful. 🙂
RE: $60B
Shorten Suite
Verified account @Shorten_Suite
27m27 minutes ago
Shorten Suite
Retweeted James O’Doherty
This will be corrected in tomorrow’s @dailytelegraph
Beguiled @ 11:56
“As laudable as Labor’s cancer strategy is, why does Labor pussy-foot around with Medicare instead of pushing for full-on public financing of health costs? Canada did this 50 years ago and it hasn’t gone broke paying for it”
Because politics is the art of the possible. What was possible in the 1960s had Labor been able to win Government during the 1950s and 1960s is not possible immediately today. In 1996, private health insurance was withering but now it’s a powerful vested interest. Hopefully a few Labor terms can chip away at that.
The G’s are phobic to Labor, whose votes they repel. They are phobic reactions against the natural party of Government, the ALP. They are an LNP auxiliary. They oppose the ALP, the party of government and official organ of the working people of Australia. They are elitist, anti-worker, sexist and most likely presumptively racist. The G’s are an anti-Labor gizmo. They oppose Labor at all times and places.They are Lib-kin. They are Lib-ling.
beguiledagain
Oh, I’m all for providing such wonderful health services that no one opts for private health. I’m the same with education.
As I point out (so very often), I’m not ‘ra ra, everything Labor does is right’. I do accept that some decisions the party makes which I disagree with are on pragmatic grounds, and I assume that they’ve done the research to suggest the limits various envelopes can be pushed.
After all, if Labor had adopted the climate change policy I had passed by State Conference back in about 2000, we wouldn’t have any brown coal fired stations now!
Barnaby and his little mate doing well on Twitter:
2·Trending
#watergate
11.6K Tweets
I don’t think much of the term Watergate – too imitative, but…
ICanCU
The votes you need to win in those circumstances are soft Liberals. They’re far more likely to vote Labor than Green.
Greens telling them that Labor Liberal is ‘same same’ makes it less likely they’ll shift their vote to Labor. Why change if there’s no difference?
Labor telling them that the Greens are too extreme makes it more likely they’ll shift their vote to Labor, because many Liberals are nervous about the Greens influence on Labor policies.*
*I’d argue that’s almost nil, but voters don’t think so.
Nath @11:49AM & 12:09PM – very funny (whoever it is)
guytaur says:
Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:04 pm
Of course RDN had to agree, can you imagine the outcry from the Party’s supporters if the Greens were responsible for killing the deal.
It just makes his public pronouncements more ridiculous.
I can just imagine Bandt in the negotiating room;
Don’t worry about what Dick says, he just being Dick. Let’s get on with it!
Zoomster
Wrong. Phelps campaign was run on accountability. It was McGowan from your neck of the woods who proposed the strong Federal ICAC legislation.
So the Greens same same rhetoric on donations would actually appeal to soft Liberal voters. Not turn them off.
If you doubt that look at the long term trend. Think about why Labor is working as Mr Shorten put it “to restore the trust of integrity in politics”
That’s Labor’s good case to counter the dame same rhetoric but don’t deny why it’s been effective