Essential Research: 51-49 to Labor

More dissonance between two-party preferred and other poll movements, this time from Essential Research.

The Guardian reports the fortnightly Essential Research poll has followed Newspoll in recording the Labor lead narrowing from 52-48 to 51-49 – and also in doing so from primary votes that you would think more likely to convert to 52-48. Labor are actually up two points from an unusually weak result last time, from 35% to 37%, while the Coalition are up a single point to 39%. The explanation for Labor’s two-party decline must lie in the two-point drop for the Greens, from 11% to 9%, and the attendant weakening in their flow of preferences. One Nation are up a point to 6%; no response option has been added for the United Australia Party, and there is nothing to suggest their ascent in the combined “others” tally, which is down a point to 9%.

If preference flows from 2016 are applied to these crudely rounded numbers, Labor starts with its 37% primary vote and gets 7.4% from the Greens (82% of their total), 3.0% from One Nation (50%) and 4.4% from others (49%), plus a 0.1% boost to correct for preference leakage between the Liberals and the Nationals. Add all that together and Labor comes out on 51.9%. Since this is, to the best of my knowledge, more-or-less the formula Essential uses, the explanation must lie in rounding. Dial Labor back to 36.6% and the Greens to 8.6%, and boost the Coalition to 39.4%, and you get primary votes that round to the published totals, but which produce a Labor two-party result of 51.4%, rounding to 51-49. There can’t have been much in it though.

The poll also features Essential’s occasional measure of leadership ratings, but all we are given at this stage is preferred prime minister. Scott Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister is 40-31, down from 44-31 when the question was last asked in early March. So here too the poll reflects Newspoll in finding leadership ratings headed the opposite way from the two-party headline.

We will have to wait until later today for the full report, but The Guardian report relates that 59% expect Labor to win compared with 41% for the Coalition (so presumably a forced response); that “voters have logged news stories about the Liberal party’s preference deal with the controversial businessman Clive Palmer’s United Australia party, and are noticing the debates about tax and healthcare”; that the top rated issues were health, national security and the economy; and that 19% reported taking no interest in the campaign, 29% a little, 33% some, and 20% a lot.

UPDATE: Full report here. The preferred prime minister is the only leadership ratings result – nothing on leaders’ approval and disapproval.

Further poll news:

Roy Morgan, which either publishes or doesn’t publish its weekly face-to-face poll in irregular fashion, has released its results for a second successive week. Polling conducted over the weekend had Labor’s two-party preferred lead steady at 51-49, according to both respondent-allocated and previous election preference measures. Both major parties are up half a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 39.5% and Labor to 36%, while the Greens are steady on 9.5% and One Nation (which doesn’t do well in this series at the best of times) down two to 2.5%. Also not doing well in this series is Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, steady on 2%. The poll was conducted face-to-face on Saturday and Sunday from sample size unknown, but probably around 700.

• The Advertiser has a YouGov Galaxy poll of Sturt, the Adelaide seat being vacated by Christopher Pyne, which had the Liberals leading 53-47, compared with their post-redistribution margin of 5.4%. The primary votes were 42% for the new Liberal candidate, James Stevens (44.7% post-redistribution); 35% for Labor candidate Cressida O’Hanlon (23.1%); a striking 9% for the United Australia Party (triple what Palmer United managed in Sturt in 2013); and 6% for the Greens. The poll also gives Scott Morrison a 45-31 lead over Bill Shorten as preferred prime minister; finds 40% less likely to vote Liberal because of Malcolm Turnbull’s replacement by Scott Morrison, compared with 25% for more likely; and finds only 22% more likely to vote Labor because of its franking credits and capital gains tax policies, compared with “almost half” for less likely. The poll was conducted last Wednesday from a sample of 504.

The Age yesterday related that Labor internal polling had it leading 55-45 in Dunkley, 54-46 in Lyons, and by an unspecified margin in Gilmore.

• The weirdest poll story of the campaign so far turns out to be the revelation that a supposed ReachTEL poll of the Curtin electorate, provided by independent candidate Louise Stewart to The West Australian and run as a front page story on Saturday, was fabricated. The Liberals reacted to ReachTEL’s denial that any such poll had been conducted by calling on Stewart to withdraw from her campaign, but Stewart says she believes she is the victim of a trick by her opponents. However, a follow-up report in The West Australian relates that Stewart told the paper she had “committed two polls from ReachTEL/Ucomms before election day”, and is now refusing the provide the email she received either to the paper or to ReachTEL. ReachTEL principal James Stewart said Louise Stewart had told him the email had been “deleted somehow”, but Louise Stewart says this is “not true”. Alex Turnbull, the son of the former Prime Minister, who has loomed large in independent candidates’ efforts to unseat sitting Liberals (though not, so far, in Stewart’s), said he believed he had been impersonated as part of the ruse. Stewart tells Andrew Burrell of The Australian that Turnbull’s investigations linked the distribution of the fake poll to a source “close to a senior conservative WA Liberal MP’s office in Perth”.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

923 comments on “Essential Research: 51-49 to Labor”

Comments Page 18 of 19
1 17 18 19
  1. Spence, I am moved by your innocence, but such clubs turn a blind eye to the gropers unless the girls complain, and such girls don’t complain while money is being inserted in their underwear.

    And Dickson is a shameless abuser with no self awareness or moral compass whatsoever.

  2. Mark Butler

    He said the UK had been able to give investors certainty despite a difficult political environment.

    “They fight like cats and dogs over most things, but for 10 years there has been stable climate policy agreed between the major parties, and there’s huge investment going into the sector,” he said.

    “The Coalition has to stop fighting the fundamentals of climate policy, the rest of the world has moved on.”

  3. “They fight like cats and dogs over most things, but for 10 years there has been stable climate policy agreed between the major parties, and there’s huge investment going into the sector,” he said.

    It is one of many of the huge benefits from the EU. All the local influences were goood. Our LNP looked to the US and used it as a deliberate political tool. In my view they didn’t actually believe climate change was rubbish, I just think they assumed it was slow enough that no short period of inaction would ever get a strong focus as ‘at fault’. They were wrong.

    I also think Turnbull knew he was sabotaging the NBN, but again misread the winds of change and wrongly thought he’d get away with it.

    Now they are misreading the winds of change on eVs. I’d be stunned if we didn’t get to 50% of new family / private vehicles by 2025, without Govt action. With strong focused govt action (yeah we will not see that from Bill) we could be closer to 80 or 90% eV by 2025, so long as the supply chains don’t run into any critical shortages and can just ramp up exponentially. I have no doubt once the supply chains can manage it and the battery cost as come down say 35% the big middle market producers of motor vehicles will NOT want to roll out two models of every car, they’ll want to go to most of their models just being eVs.

  4. “The prospective minister also wants Australia to be “a clean energy powerhouse” by using its solar and wind resources to generate cheaper electricity than its competitors.

    “We can be the leading country in energy-intensive manufacturing once the transition to clean energy has worked its way through the global economy,” he said.

    Mr Butler said there was huge potential to export hydrogen to countries like Germany, Japan, China and Korea that are not able to produce all their own clean energy.”

    And thats why ALP need to win this one. Bugger the rest of the “debate”. Energy policy and how it ties to Climate top priority to actually get stuff done. The Budget / Economic policy ALP proposing enables that.

  5. “Suffrage for women in Australia was granted between 1895 and 1905 (Federally 1902)”

    It is amusing that the only time Australia was the most progressive country in the world was before the Labour/Labor (post 1912) Party, before the Liberal Party, before the Country/National Party.

    The current over-priviliged political wankers will never meet the heights of our racist ancestors!!! Funny that.

    Now we are a sad, failed state, with steam age internet, a grasping and indolent ruling class, a corrupt Government, an incompetent Opposition. (both childish and anti-intellectual and anti Australian factions enthralled, like children, by their “mecca” in Disneyland.)

    They laud Australia as an “open cut” where its land of a million years of dreaming is bruised, desecrated and fucked over. A land where dreaming, inspiration, history and grace is not tolerated.

    Cursed by a political class which wants a colony, a pseudo country where only a borrowed and cringed Ozmerican perspective, values and language are accepted and where ecstasy lies in another borrowed northen hemisphere “President”, in order to “meet the (1%’s) market”.

  6. Bushfire Bill @ #805 Tuesday, April 30th, 2019 – 10:05 pm

    Bushfire Bill, if and when Pell’s appeal fails, will you accept what that means?

    What a stupid question!

    OF COURSE I will accept the appeal outcome.

    But that still doesn’t give me either the inclination or the right to morally condemn anyone, even Pell, to the kind of eternal torment to which some here have already condemned him.

    It’s easy and intellectually lazy to confuse legality and morality. There is a yawning gap between the two, and if the Pell haters had any sense of decency or emotional intelligence they’d recognize themselves for the hate-filled losers that they are.

    Their hate will consume them, not Pell.

    What pompous, pretentious, self righteous crap! I hate Pell because of his behaviour, which was hateful, and his total lack of remorse for the foul mental torture he has quite deliberately visited upon those thousands of victims of his organisation, who sought recognition of, and compensation for, their pain.

    Hate certainly does not consume me. I carry on with my paid operations research work, my mental heath support volunteering, my election related Labor Party activities, giving computer classes for oldies, mentoring and supporting my children, and grandchild minding and entertaining.

    Meanwhile Pell rots in gaol, in solitary confinement, which is an entirely appropriate place for him, and all the other evil bastards like him. I couldn’t give a flying fuck about the legal side of it.

    You, BB, may be a moral vacuum, but I am not. Next, I expect you will explain to me the multiple reasons why I should not hate Rupert Murdoch. I do though.

  7. Wow. Some people can be really hostile in here!! How many of you have been doing this for years?? You sound like you have all had a decade long argument together.

    We ought to have a self identity that is more than the sum total of our ideas… It is probable that all of us are completely wrong on a great many things and, more shockingly, that any political parties that we might like are more fallible than us because they are the product of people but with less personal accountability.

    The ALP is staunch in support of workers, genuinely sees the benefit in universal, free education and cares about health. They also support institutional and criminal bullying of people in the workplace, are slow to recognise that Unions do have a systemic problem of graft, misappropriation of member’s funds and are, demonstrably, poor at managing both debt and deficit.

    The Coalition is deliberate about choice, idealistic about aspiration and protective of the institutions that have served us well. They exaggerate their economic prowess, having largely sold off the only government assets that were making a buck, one by one, to pay down debt whilst doing little to shrink government, despite their rhetoric to the contrary. Their ‘tough love’ sometimes borders on neglect when it comes to the truly needy in our nation and they have certainly, at times, acted pretty racist towards immigrants.

    The Greens are idealists and see the world as dystopian nightmare of our own making. They work perhaps harder than the volunteers of any party and manage to stay together despite probably more personal and political differences than exist in most other parties. They are also pious, narrow-minded know it alls that have had opportunities to support policy that might have benefited the environment but squandered it out of pride, stubbornness and arrogance. They could help policy but have an overwhelming record of obstruction, opposition and an inability to compromise; which is an essential virtue for any party wishing to be a party of governance.

    The rest (Splintered Right Protest parties) are very, very good at reflecting the voice of discontent, are fiercely loyal to the nation and supportive of the bush (which no one else seems to be these days). They are also reckless, unhinged rebels who support more narcissists per capita than perhaps any other organisation in Australia and are really, really bad at proposing detailed, practical policy that could actually help Australians.

    Of course these are all my own opinions. I have seen ‘facts’ in this place and they simply fall through the net. No one reads sources. No one can get past their own Ad Hominem arguments and bias to consider another point of view. ‘Facts’ so often used in here are someone else’s opinions, rumours, speculations or straight out lies. All we really have is our own point of view, which, of course, we prefer to other people’s points of view.

    My point here is that no person is infallible. How much less is a political organisation. If someone criticises one, it doesn’t make them an enemy. If someone endorses one, it doesn’t mean they are about to become a member. This is a democracy that used to be pretty healthy, a long, long time ago. It is more like a toilet these days.

    However, if we don’t learn to see ideas from other people’s point of view. If we shut out opposition and wish it would go to some other blog or shut up (or die), then one day that might happen and this democracy won’t exist. It has happened many times in history before and it will happen again.

    We need to tolerate, understand, and allow to exist ideas that we really, really don’t like or these ideas we all have will never determine the rule of law ever again.

  8. Barney in Phan Thiet says:
    “You have some very ugly ideas in your writing.”

    Do you know how propagandised you have to be to reflexively say this to someone espousing equality, just a type that does not align with pro-globalist propaganda?

    When I sit down with a Black activist who slams my argument &person as you do but after (hours of) outlining my position and argument, and getting across what I want for him, and what I believe he and his people are capable of, that is not meaningfully different to anything I believe my own capable of, and identical to what I want for my own, we come to agreement.. is that because after getting to the truth of what people “like me” believe, not what he is TOLD we want or believe, we both find it wholesome & agreeable, or because I bamboozle him with complex racist logic? Or because he just wants to humour and accent to a “White racial supremacist” (the label applied not the reality).

    If I do the same with an intelligent and educated Green leftist, in impassioned debate for hours, and they come to say, well, they can’t fault my moral consistency and orientation, and non-racist intent, even if they still remain in disagreement in regard to the best way forward for humanity is that because I mess with their own moral compass? Or bamboozle them?

    Do they acknowledge that if group labels are removed or changed, and my same argument made with labels reversed or designated “purple people” or “green tree frogs” that they agree with what I propose in every such case but still can’t agree with me (if they continue not to) when a group ends up being labelled “White Australian” (or other White equivalent) with deep local connections, and the other “not that”.

    If the person arguing against me, accepts my person as non-hateful, from being presented evidence & rhetoric “this is me working in Thailand, this is me teaching my students in China, this is me studying in Vietnam, this is my Philippines gf of the time and her son, she is now a Major in the Philippine Army and has a diplomatic posting to the UN. These are my kids and family.. these are the activists I support with financial contributions throughout South America, Africa and Asia, these are my best friends, oh you want to chat with them about me, sure, see what they say, these are the nationalist activists in Nepal I am close to, that is the Tibetan monk that at personal risk took me aside and spent time with me painfully explaining what his national loss of self-determination meant to him… This is the Tamil immigrant to Australia that explained what proper self-determination for his people within Sri-lanka would mean for his people, that is me hanging off a freeway overpass with a free the refugees sign, that is my qualification in human & environmental development, these are photos of my attendance at the Asia-Pacific Communist conference where I got to talk to delegates about using technology to reach their local youth and was invited by both the Kerala and Vietnamese delegates to continue the discussions as a guest of their states.

    This is my view: ALL PEOPLE deserve unmolested self-determination & demographic safety. This is not a racist position, or if it is assigned or requires a racially aware and interested view, it does not place an individual tribes needs above any other on the whole, it does not deal with tribes differently. It does not assign them different rights. You can say you disagree with it, you can say you think there are better ideologies and policies to follow, if you say it is racially unfair or racially harmful, in sentiment you are inaccurate.

    Wind it back, look at human history if my view was without equivocation, adhered to by each people. Is it a terrible world? Would the same genocides and wars have occurred, the same cultures been lost?
    Is it reasonable & rational to expect mass global movement of people & capital won’t cause physical conflict and dispossession? Unsustainable & exploitative resource use?

    Why does big capital in the USA support mass migration? Legal AND illegal? Reconcile, there must be self-interest right?

    Why on earth do you think mega billionaires support mass migration? Nothing to do with ethnic vendettas? Nothing to do with it being personally enriching? Soros is just a nice guy? Obama supported mass migration because he is just a nice guy? Does a nice guy invade and drop bombs on more people than Trump or Bush combined? How does that reconcile?

    We all have ethnic interests, you can deny them, that does not make it so. You can put one group above another in right, that certainly is racist. Protecting them all, and believing in that approach from personal experience and learning, and believing it requires territories for both racial & cultural mixing (where supported) and not (where supported) is not racist in the sense of assigning differing rights. It assigns the same rights to each group where conducive with maintenance of their human right to self-determination. It also does not deal differently by race on a procedural level (so not racist by outcome, not racist by procedure).

    Attack racial awareness (& in group preference) at a local level, and you meaningfully inhibit the sustainability of that group. Again not controversial from a biological, logical or mathematical standpoint (at least for non-human groups & sub-species, and non-Whites & non-Christian groups).

    Do people not get one of the Aboriginal and leftist claimed vectors for Aboriginal genocide was inhibition and break up of cultural integrity, defeat of their sole access to land & resources, and encouragement of racial outbreeding? (And they are 100% right). Does anyone claim physical & political resistance by Aborigines against these actions was/is anything less than legitimate?

    Do you not get how a person could begin at a place that was pro-immigration and spend significant time with other cultures and engaged in anti-colonial activities full of absolute love for other people and cultures and retain those feelings but come to realise ALL PEOPLE, including his own, deserve what he so heartfelt-ly wishes/ed for others?

    You can’t wish away ethnic self-interest, you can only accede to it, and balance it with care for others, or pretend it doesn’t exist in reality and so allow tensions to flow to a point where they burst doing great harm in the process.

    Denying the racial & cultural interests of Aborigines does not make their racial and cultural interests disappear. How can replacing “Aboriginal” with another group in that statement suddenly make that statement wrong/immoral?

    The civil conflict in Yugoslavia is repeatable. Where it repeats you are going to blame the people that resisted displacement and fought over your belief they should accept it (as racial & cultural interests do not exist except in the minds of racists). Except it culturally and biologically does.
    If the territories that were once labelled Yugoslavia were at a time in history 95+% Christian, would there exist in Yugoslavia the conditions for cultural-religious civil war of the scale they experienced?

    Would you label it racist and evil for the Croatians to resist future Muslim immigration to the point where they could be 30+% of a future Croatian population? Would it be reasonable, given history, to not go down that route as it might be impossible to get every member (from both sides) to refrain from repeating the ethnic conflict of the past? If you insist the Croatians be “non-racist” or a local majority are successful in insisting on this and allowing mass Muslim migration, can you wholly guarantee history would not repeat?

    If you cannot guarantee the survival of a group will not be meaningfully affected, as a consequence of your policy imposition, do you have the right to impose it?

    Would it be sensible to follow a non-discriminatory mass immigration policy in Croatia if the majority of immigrants would be Muslim and the migration flow would be sustained over time? Simple question. (No-one will answer it here I know).

    If it was not sensible now, or in the past, to allow mass out-group migration into Yugoslavia why would it be sensible for any other people?

    Is there distinct ethnic & religious conflict in Malaysia, Indonesia & Singapore that at times reaches physical levels and provides physical victims, that would not exist in the same fashion if they were homogenous societies? Yes or no.

    Is interracial conflict in racially & culturally diverse areas in India (& USA) higher than racial based conflict in less diverse areas? You know every time a racial crime occurs, or a racial imbalance exists in crime, it is real people suffering that otherwise would not have.

    The Bali bombing would not have occurred if Muslims were accorded the same respect (in their own lands) as I desire for them and my own. Non-interference. Not by bomb or migration. Ditto the NZ shooting. (Both sides are victimised by racial conflict and failure to leave alone).

    We both want harmonious worlds. I am just aware that you will be unsuccessful in making it diverse at a micro level without delivering physical conflict and harm, because you will be unsuccessful in getting 99+% of people to believe their interests are aligned with ignoring what they see as their interests and it only takes a small number to do serious harm when they see it is necessary to do so.

    Between the right and the left lies a gulf in what each believe they can achieve by rhetoric.
    The right believe not all will be reached, so it is better to allow each his space and sovereignty within it (if this does not apply to the traditional right it does to the modern right). The left believe they can reach far more than they will, and believe the wishes of those they don’t reach are immaterial, immoral, wrong-headed, and can be ignored and bulldozed, and where this produces conflict it is only as a result of the immoralness and backwardness of those they would bulldoze.

    That the left cannot see clearly their role as tormentor, colonialist and supremacist (& historically alignment with such approaches) in this relationship is laughable, or would be, if the results were not to prove so tragic.

    Respect for others does not begin with believing you can impose against the wishes of others where they are resident & in majority. It begins with acknowledging you have no such right.

    Pity few will read this, less understand it, and even fewer agree with it, and will continue to believe in the justice and their own righteousness of breaking the covenant I outline directly above.

  9. We ought to have a self identity that is more than the sum total of our ideas…

    So you self-identify as a fascist?

    Good to know.

  10. Lincoln @11:33 – interesting analysis. I agree with some of it, disagree with a lot of it (but too tired to refute). Unlike most right wingers who pop up here, you are saying what you believe and are adding to the discussion, not just repeating Liberal talking points like a couple of others I could name (but won’t).

  11. A-ha, and then there were two.

    Good to see you back, Lukey-boy.

    Anyone want to run a sweep on how long before he flames out again?

  12. Bushfire Bill @ #806 Tuesday, April 30th, 2019 – 10:05 pm

    But that still doesn’t give me either the inclination or the right to morally condemn anyone, even Pell, to the kind of eternal torment to which some here have already condemned him.

    Who’s condemned Pell to an eternity of torment? Certainly I believe eternal <anything> is a bunch of BS, so couldn’t have been me.

    I just hope that Pell gets to experience the earthly torment that’s typically doled out to convicted pedophiles, for however many years he has left to experience it. Because that’s the closest thing to justice and closure that can be delivered to his victims at this point, and it’s what the judge and jury decided he should get.

    It’s easy and intellectually lazy to confuse legality and morality.

    Well, compared to the mental gymnastics it must take to conclude that sexually abusing children and covering up for other people who sexually abused children is anything other than a severe moral failing, I’m sure it does look a bit lazy to just call a spade a spade and be done with it. 🙂

  13. Kate, Dandy, you are not intellectually equipped to even understand these ruminations of a superior being, let alone to presume to criticize them.

    Be grateful, and learn at the feet of the Enlightened One.

  14. I also think Turnbull knew he was sabotaging the NBN, but again misread the winds of change and wrongly thought he’d get away with it.

    WWP. Turnbull’s mission with the NBN was precisely the thing he has most experience in his previous business dealings. It was to “bodge the books and flog it off”. That’s how he sold the idea to Abbott.

  15. That tome reminds me of Uni essays I’d write from time to time, not the subject because, lol obviously, but when I’d already made my mind up as to my answer then went hunting to find sources that would support me, however tenuous.

    I’ve no interest in engaging with you, but there’s a fuckload of documentaries that show when that’s been tried. The human animal is violent and territorial and we fought and died just as much when left to our “own kinds”.

    All I can say as a mostly Anglo gay man. My life would be far less than it is if I were stuck with nothing but people just like me.

    Go with “God”.

  16. But that still doesn’t give me either the inclination or the right to morally condemn anyone, even Pell, to the kind of eternal torment to which some here have already condemned him.


    Pell deserves eternal torment regardless of whether he abused the two boys in question. He deserves eternal torment for his interference with civil society. He deserves eternal torment for his persecution of gay people. Bashings. Suicides. Broken lives. Abusing two boys is a minor crime given that rap sheet.

    Have a read of Marr’s “high Price of Heaven” which lays out in clear and extraordinary detail Pell’s blight of civil society, his pursuit of Church over State and his sheer cruelty. Pell is an evil bastard.

  17. Spot on, Cud.

    BTW I am chasing up some contacts for you, as promised. Everyone has been on holidays or planning to go on holiday.

  18. Lincoln the worst economic management this country has seen was that under Howard/Costello.

    The worst act of economic vandalism was under Abbott/Turnbull – spending $50 billion on a temporary network. Might as well build a submarine fleet and use it for target practice. That’s the scale of it.

  19. Dandy let me know and I’ll give you a temporary mailbox to email me. I’m usually more likely to see something posted to me between 9pm and 1am.

  20. Well said Lincoln.

    But give up mate it will do your head in, with this mob it is ALP are the good guys with no flaws or bad policy and LNP are the bad guys in it only for the money and propped up by a biased media controlled by the puppet master Murdoch. Just look at there reaction to a slight narrowing of the polls in the last three weeks, can’t be true it is a conspiracy. 7 weeks ago Newspoll was 54-46 now it is 51-49, no narrowing at all it is a Murdoch conspiracy. I have heard no serious commentator believe that the LNP will win this election but that does not stop them needing I repeat needing an enemy. Sound familiar?If they only new how much they sound like over educated one nation/ Palmer voters, they are so similar it is scary just at different ends of the spectrum. But as so many are retired teachers and Government workers they can string a sentence together but so little difference in their mind set except of course they are the good guys.

  21. Labor generally runs smarter public finance than do the Liberals, who tend to be pro-cyclical rather than counter-cyclical. Recently they have been tightening fiscal policy (for political reasons) at the same time that private demand has been very weak. The results include very weak outcomes in household incomes, wages and employment. The Liberals really do not understand public finance at all. They do not understand the links between economic dynamism and public spending; between the distribution of spending and the vitality of demand.

    They are actually hopeless ideologues.

  22. Steelydan

    It really is possible that the Liberals are guided by a broken ideology based on selfishness. But far be it for you to ever consider that a possibility.

  23. Just watched Q&A. Chris Bowen did an excellent job of explaining franking credits. Labor should be sending him out more to talk up their economic policies and explain them. He’s quite good at it.

    Greg Sheridan lost any credibility he might have had before tonight when he said the Greens are more dangerous than UAP and ON. He reckons the Greens hate Australia. What absolute nonsense! We love Australia and want to protect it.

  24. “The Labor death tax will increase cost of living …”

    Something needs to be made clear. The Greens death duties policy is NOT part of our 2019 platform. Yes, it is a policy of ours and we have taken it to elections in the past, but it has been put on the shelf for now. We have far higher priorities.

    Labor should not allow the Coalition to run the line that they have a “death tax” policy as neither they or the Greens are taking such a policy to the 2019 election.

    Here’s Greens co-deputy Senator Waters making it clear that death duties are not part of our 2019 election platform:

  25. J341983 says:

    “I do remember you from before. Same bullshit, same victim mentality, same baseless adoration of the same dangerous thoughts.”

    Victim mentality, there is not one piece of my personal life and experience (in the negative) that I do not accept full & entire personal responsibility for.

    It was I that struck my ex girlfriend at 18 because she would not get out of my face and was being nasty by tongue, that resulted in me being jumped by 5 gang-members at a later date, king hit from behind and dumped in “the pines” with significant injuries in Perth. I own it. I have not once acted violently to a women since and not out of fear > I’ve never stopped physically standing up when I think something is wrong, I just go about what I think is right when it comes to female relations without entering their physical space because I know it was wrong, I value self-control, and it is pretty easy to always walk away from any level of provocation from a weaker party to be honest. I have no issue with the woman engaging such people despite the fact the physical impact was not of a high level. Her decision, her right, it wouldn’t have occurred without my nasty input in the situation.. does that sound like a victim? Someone that doesn’t take personal responsibility? That situates his problems outside himself?
    Am I a coward for talking honestly in a way that exposes me to a negative appearance despite it being more than two decades ago and not repeated? – I don’t want anything from a reader except to think well that was shitty behaviour, inexcusable, but at least not repeated, if that isn’t the result, again, not my business! Each must decide for themselves! I don’t care what others think of such an anecdote it is not my responsibility!

    When I took a quarter million dollar to 1 million dollar loss from a business partner because they broke our handshake agreement and I trusted in their honour and integrity not to require it in writing I own that. Yeah he was a *c…* and I let him know that numerous times since, and we did go legal for a much smaller settlement out of court because I could not muster the legal resources he could, but whose decision was it to accept his waving away of us getting signatures of what was already agreed in writing, and by handshake, just not signed (because something always came up?).. me, only me.

    You have to poke holes in me as a person because you cannot accept I am earnest, moral, intelligent and well-meaning. But I am these things. A serious embrace of “self-responsibility” and commitment to making the world a better place doesn’t allow me to be anything else. I can be mistaken, but I am not desiring of harm for anyone or any group. I believe that to be moral, I only ask for policy to support this, nothing more. And for all, not just my own.

    ALL policies deliver trade-offs, sticking up for human right A, can necessarily conflict with maintaining human right B.. this is just reality. To be honest it is just juvenile to not agree with this.

    Who are the losers of my ideology that significantly lose out? The difference in level between the few thousand per annum I believe would be appropriate to accept as refugees (5,000? 10,000? an additional 25,000 if they were culturally & racially aligned? vs the 27,000 or so people that would be Labor policy to allow. Who else loses? A person who could have a good life as a doctor in India vs a good life as a doctor in Australia? Come on, let’s deal with real loses not trifles such as this one. Let’s certainly not put them above consequences larger in volume.

    The rights of the group outweigh the rights of the individual.. outside of those trapped in libertarianism (a small mostly White Western minority) & Western leftists (a small mostly White global minority) and activist non-White anti-Whites in the West (relatively small in number in terms of global population, a global minority), people do not agree with this. The average Nepali does not. The average Chinese (in China) does not, the average black South African does not… the people that believe individual rights outweigh the group, are almost exclusively Western & Western educated, mostly White, and mostly aligned syncretically with the obscene version of White colonialism & chauvinism – believing in the right to impose on others that are, or think different.

    My ideology and policies reflect this reality. They are the policies virtually every non-White, and non-Western population believe is right for their own people. The people I named in support of individual rights over group rights are only the above named groups and very small in numbers elsewhere.

    Are the Chinese racist, evil, uneducated and immoral (compared to White leftists) to believe China should stay ethnically & culturally Chinese? Ditto for Japan, etc.. how can you not see, if something is predominantly White in origination & formation, and rejected by others, that it is probably rooted in ether an erroneous belief system, or underlying basis of belief in your own superiority?

    You believe I am immoral. You believe I have nasty motivation. You believe I am ignorant. You believe my ideology & people should be crushed and denied the right to live out our ideologies. You don’t want to say Japanese should accept mass migration are all those things you call me if they do not. If you did, you’d have to label the majority of non-whites on this earth ignorant.

    I am not putting my people above others, you are.

    Each people deserve the right to be invested in the maintenance of their own culture & people, and to hold that theirs is superior. A major problematic issue only arises at the group-right level when this is taken to include the right to impose on others. Everything I have spoken denies this right, it is utterly offensive to me and my ideology.

    I don’t want Muslims to hold Western leftist egalitarianism as superior, or Western hard-right ideology. I want them to journey through wherever their internal development takes them.. maybe towards one of those or somewhere else… it is not my right to impose, or deny them this. Do I think my way is better for my people? Of course, otherwise I would adopt their ways wouldn’t I. This is what my “Western chauvinist” centres mean to me, not some other conception. As I said prior, orientated to delivering on the promise of their maintenance according to my ideology: unmolested self-determination for all, space for all. Western Civ for Anglo-Euorpean cultural & genetic continuation, on some space, somewhere, at worst within a hostile broader environment, and unrealised, but providing a link that may allow it to bet and to help head off a stronger move to genocide. What happened in Haiti? What happened to the Whites who fought on the side of black emancipation? What happened in Zimbabwe? What is/could happen in South Africa? What happened in Germany post ww2? What happened in Russia during the Holodomor? Racial strife & demonisation, when allowed vectors to proceed & proximity allows it can get ugly. A group can be on the receiving end or the giving. I would see it in neither position. My ideology supports this, it delivers this.

    People will say I am brainwashed by propaganda if I am not intentionally nefarious.
    Oh? I watched ABC all my life and to this day. John Pilger’s anti-colonialism informs me.
    I subscribed to Adbusters for a decade and a half.
    My economics instructors outside of sustainable economics were neoliberal and I rejected them except where empirically their statements should be shown to consistently apply.
    My humanities education (enviro & human development) was not hard right aligned (it was mostly centrist which surprised me – the students weren’t).
    Murdoch does not support my positions & neither does his propaganda. You seriously want to say he is anti-globalist?
    Pauline is hardly a great and convincing spokesperson. Anning was well after I developed my own opinions. I can name no other politicians of great influence, the politician I feel greatest personal infinity to is Bob Brown, and I have spent much more time donating, working and reading up on his ideology and causes than any other Australian political figure.
    My family are all hard left, excepting my grandparents who are socially conservative, & Liberal supporting, but who have invested far more personal and financial resources in helping the less fortunate than any of the dozens of committed hard left family members (funny that).
    I didn’t get much propaganda from them anyway except to realise the hard left family members (Communist, Labor, Unionists) were probably far off the mark to speak to them like they were immoral scum considering their community efforts, the level they helped their kids, the amount they dedicated to the needy, the little they keep for themselves, the amount their kids will inherit and the way they ALWAYS helped out their staff and treated them like family. The kind of “evil capitalist” that keeps most of their staff end up working decades for, or only leave to open their own businesses thankful for all the help and learning they received along the way.
    Where is the mass propaganda that makes people hard right? It isn’t taught in primary school, marxism is. It isn’t tight in high-school, marxism is. It isn’t taught at university, marxism or in the rare case of the economic department neoliberalism is (neoliberalism has no affinity for the hard right or us for it).
    It isn’t propaganda that makes people hard right or lack of person success, although there are some that will scapegoat as there are on any side (mostly the left), it is the gaps in the mainstream propaganda, the obviously wrong conclusions that are accepted broadly as correct because they are repeated ad-infinitum and supported by social, and financial carrot and stick.

    You honestly think any of you parroting mass media, and mainstream academic opinion, and the same worlds that come out of the global billionaire class are showing courage by speaking out? And Pauline Hanson, who faces significant stress in standing against the mainstream and mass propaganda, and globalists is not? Who is more vulnerable, a frail women speaking against the mainstream, vulnerable to male physical attack via avenues like ANTIFA, imprisoned for her beliefs (yeah electoral irregularities, and the imprisonment of Mandela lacked a political element..)…, subjected to constant leftist verbal abuse online and off… and or some male commentator, effectively anonymous, online speaking out with mainstream opinion?

    Courage should never be accepted in place of intelligence inherent in the argument, but a few on here are liable to think courage accrues to those parroting mainstream propaganda rather than those standing against it. Not me, but certainly others with profile who might say similar things (take a Tommy Robinson for example).

  26. “If LGH ever says anything actionable, I’m screwed.”

    I wouldn’t worry. Doubt anyone will ever make it through it all.

  27. LGH

    Everyone’s o.k. as long as they know their place and stay in it.

    Aren’t you a hypocrite living within different cultures?

  28. William Bowe says:
    Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 12:55 am

    If LGH ever says anything actionable, I’m screwed.

    Mostly incoherent ramblings with brief moments of clarity.

    I’ll stick with my original assessment.

  29. Fulvio Sammut says:
    Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 1:34 am

    Barney, don’t poke the bear.

    And as for being nasty by tongue, well …..

    Poking is sometimes necessary to expose its true nature.

  30. Those movies that just end somewhere and you’re left with what the ……….. uh/uhm
    PB tonight was one of those movies

  31. Kate says:
    “LGH WTF” it seems foolish to others to post here but posting rhetoric here will help me get the rhetoric out on my own channels when I get around to it. I understand fully no-one will be reached in totality and very few at any level, but my hope would be at some level, in the back of someone’s mind, a little niggle is placed.

    J341983 says:
    “I mean to add that I also had German Jewish relatives who were exterminated to create such a
    homogenous space…”

    Now might we be honest with each other? Before we begin let me say I affirm 100% full physical safety & self-determination for all people and wish nothing for leftist Jews that I don’t wish for my own.

    Did ethnic conflict and mistreatment of one side or another begin with Hitler or before?
    An honest answer will state before. Did victimiser and victims switch roles multiple times? An honest answer will say yes.

    Are Palestinians exposed to similar things to that experienced by German and Eastern European Jews?
    An honest answer says yes.

    Would a wrong be done to Israel and Jewish Israelis if they were exposed to levels of mass migration that removed their majority and allowed Israel to be a majority non-Jewish state? An honest answer says yes.

    Would it likely generate physical violence if imposed, and even if imposed by a Jewish majority? An honest answer says Yes.

    Is Jewish culture much more suitable to such an imposition than gentile White culture? An honest answer says yes (millennia of experience on one side!).

    We all have our own interests, cultures & genetics, & mixing them together can be great, no doubt! But if it is possible to allow both mixed and unmixed spaces, does that not deliver even more diversity? An honest answer says Yes.

    Would it be right for Jews, having migrated to South Africa, and possessed of higher rated average IQ than Black South Africans, by dint of their access to global capital, industrious culture, in group ethnocentrism, and intelligence to come to possess an outsized share of African wealth & power vis a vis their demographic level?

    What risks do you think there would be to resident Jews if this was noted by a segment of the Black population…

    There are Jews on the right that (appear to) seriously agree with my position. In terms of Jewish safety!
    I agree with them. If ALL people resist contributing to significant demographic displacement, and outsized power acquisition in territories founded by and for others, the chance they will experience blowback is minimised. Some Jews believe adopting such a position is integral to Jews avoiding total genocide.

    There is nothing wrong with people being ruled by their own, and retaining unmolested self-determination.

    How many millennia did Jews live amongst Muslims peacefully (on both sides) because they stayed out of each others business? How quickly did physical conflict arise over space when positions or access was contested?

    Who is seriously invested in hurting each other? Those in proximity and competing for resources and imposing on each others self-determination or those separated by distance or living essentially apart?

    What beef do you think between a retained White majority with full self-determination in (a part of) Australia, would have with Tibet? Are we likely to try to genocide them if we don’t let Australia become majority minority? Why not?

    It is preposterous. The propaganda that covers the historical events of ww2 significantly gets in the way of a proper understanding. The wrong lessons are learned. The answer is not to force imposition on others, what else do you think gave rise to the alleged boogey man?! The right lesson is to allow each their space & unmolested self-determination, Jew and Gentile.

    Nazis don’t go away with mass migration, refutation of their genuine ethnic interests, and real social strife & hardship imposed by exposure to the ethnocentrism of others. It is the very thing that grows their ranks! Yes, leftist Jews and Gentiles ALSO did everything in their power to dissuade the rise of the far right in Germany. I am sure they did in other places, with other groups too. Do leftist pro-diversity Hutu, & pro-diversity Tutsi prevent conflict between those that would have it when interests conflict and proximity exists?

    Why was tyranny something that kept a lid on ethnic conflict in Libya, Syria and Iraq? Was the (ethnic tyranny) worse in outcome (excluding foreign intervention), for the nation and its people than its removal and the wishful thinking: everyone just give up your genuine ethnic interests and sing kumbaya?

    Yes, IF Whites gave up their ethnic interests and self-determination, AND you could successfully imprison and eliminate from society those that would oppose this, non-Whites would be unequivocally safe from persecution by Whites. Of course in that process White self-determination is lost, white demographic safety is lost, the work of White ancestry and wealth can easily be confiscated by others, the human right of people to opt out and have their own space is denied, and you are unlikely to achieve such repression of resistance without it being explosively released but so what right? The pain to the people affected is worth the gain to others yeah? The deletion of one group, and its existence is worth it to remove their ever present threat yeah?

    Almost like a FINAL SOLUTION?
    Pityfully without entertaining what the National Socialists offered: live peacefully under Nuremberg laws that prevent societal ethnic capture, without entertaining the National Socialist offer to space for both Jews and Germans to live peacefully, but separately in their own ancestral homelands.

    Who is offering something more repugnant? You must give up your self-determination & right to your own space, or we should both have our own space and maintain our own self-determination?

    Which is balanced, which is unbalanced? Would imposition of what you desire for Australia be offensive if imposed on Liberia? on China? On Japan? (Accept your society becoming non-Liberian/Chinese/Japanese ethnically and the direct consequences to your unmolested cultural expression.).

    Is that consistent with a colonial mentality or a group human rights affirming mentality?
    Is the maintenance of demographic majority only legitimate when there is zero diversity (no existing state), or how much already must be present before you have to accept its continuance to full dispossession of majority status and the inherent loss of self-determination inherent in this?

    When a Jew says it is an imperative for Jews to diversify the nations they exist in to ensure their own safety is this an imposition of an ethnocentric position on the ethnocentric rights of other people?
    What has following this ideology done for Jewish safety in terms of the number of times Jews have suffered pogroms and expulsion?

    E.g. When Jews were ejected from Spain, after (according to Jewish history) throwing open the doors to conquest of Spain by Muslims, who felt it would be better for Jews if Spain was diverse were they serving their own ethnocentrism or a true impulse to protect the rights of all? How did it end up?

    If siding with the elimination of unmolested self-determination for the populations they reside in has gone so badly for Jews historically, generating significant blowback, do you think this is not a real potential to happen by following the same trajectory today? Or is resistance just going to be more brutally put down? Does that sound just?

    Did the Holodomor and Armenian genocide involve the self-interest of a minority group taking out its perceived “potential” enemies? Could that have been better resolved by allowing each people their own space and unmolested self-determination?

    We won’t eliminate ethnic conflict from the globe, what we can do is grant each people safety by being fully in-charge, sustainably, of their own spaces. That does not necessarily mean rejection of a people from a space they have long-standing connection (such as Jews in New York), it might mean being amenable to spaces within existing nations being allowed to “go their own way”.

    Should Blacks and Whites in USA, some of which would love their own spaces, be forced to not have this when they might both readily agree to it? Is a unified USA with a large number of dispossessed and disgruntled people within better for the world, and American residents than one of smaller more homogenous states in charge of their own demographic future and political regimes?

    Is a majority minority USA, belligerent on the world stage with elite unleashed and untouchable due to internal division, better than 5 or 6 new states, some majority White, some majority Black, some majority Jewish and some majority minority but accommodating all types?

    Is [Abc, Bac, Cab, ABC] a more diverse set than a set which is simply [ABC]?
    Do smaller groupings maximise self-determination and the number living under a regime that accords to their interests? (mathematically this can be proven).
    Is a smaller nation less likely to be able to unilaterally attack and destroy other regimes far from its shores?

    Are people that project a majority minority USA descending into civil war and ethnic conflict really so far off base compared to historical and contemporary examples of such transformations?

    If that is a significant possibility or can only be prevented by tyranny (with risk of blowout) is that something to aim for when good alternatives exist?

    If we began multiculturalising Saudi Arabia, putting it on a trajectory of becoming minority Muslim within two generations do you think this would result in severe physical violence or peaceful acceptance?
    Do you think they should accept such a peaceful transformation to protect the existance of local Christians and Shia Muslims?

    Why should one set of populations be subjected to such a process and not others? Racial guilt? Historical crimes? Oops sorry you went past 10% diversity now it is illegitimate for you not to go majority minority?

  32. LGH, I didn’t really get into this so I could host discussions about, along with Zeus knows what else, whether Jews are to blame for their own persecution. It’s a psephology blog, and there’s a federal election campaign on. Please try to comment in that spirit.

Comments Page 18 of 19
1 17 18 19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *