The latest Essential Research survey has its monthly favourability trend ratings for Anthony Albanese which, as distinct from its straightforward approval/disapproval question, asks respondents to rate his performance on a scale of one to ten. This finds 46% giving him from seven to ten, up one on a month ago; 26% from four to six, down two; and 23% from zero to three, up three. On the question of national direction, 44% rate that Australia is on the right track, down two on a month ago and four on two months ago, compared with 36% for the wrong track, up two on a month ago and seven on two months ago.
Other questions relate to Australia’s relationship with China, which 46% expect to be better under the Labor government compared with only 9% for worse. Asked whether they wanted the government to look for opportunities to rebuild relations with China, take a more confrontational approach or maintain the current course, 54% opted for the first (up two from May), 13% the second (down six) and 12% the third (steady). Forty-four per cent think the AUKUS submarine partnership will make Australia more secure compared with 16% for less secure and 39% for about the same.
The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1042. Note that progressively updated coverage of the Victorian election count continues on the post below.
I live in Kooyong.
Frydenberg lost his seat because of two things –
1. It’s demographically drifting away from the Libs anyway.
2. Traditional Liberal voters here are educated, well off and secular. They want action on climate change, they are embarrassed by “war on utes” shit that insults their intelligence and is hard to defend when they are talking with friends who don’t vote Liberal, they are extremely uncomfortable with the religious right Trumpery.
In this specific case I think the “Treasurer for NSW” jibe bit but it is hard to say how much it bit with people who weren’t going to vote against Josh for other reasons anyway.
The point is really – this was a vote against the Morrison government. Frydenberg went down because he was strongly identified with Morrison. Unlike Bridget Archer he had no record of disagreeing with Morrison to point at.
It won’t help Frydenberg at all to regain the seat of Kooyong if he’s representing Dutton as leader instead of Morrison…. same shit different bucket.
People here would be very pleased with Monique Ryan’s progress so far. I’m sure I will see in 3 years some kind of nasty campaign calling her a union puppet for supporting the IR reforms though.
nath @ #1448 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 12:35 pm
Prove it. 😐
Otherwise it’s just a perpetuation of the nath bs Anti Gillard project.
nath: “you can’t lump marriage equality as strictly a LNP problem.”
I can. And I will.
In 2012 a Labor MP introduced a private member’s bill for marriage equality.
Labor MPs were permitted a free vote. 60% voted in favour.
Liberal and National MPs were not permitted a free vote. 100% voted against. Including Malcolm Turnbull.
60% for versus 0% for. That looks like an LNP problem to me.
Oliver Sutton says:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:41 pm
nath: “you can’t lump marriage equality as strictly a LNP problem.”
I can. And I will.
_______
That just proves you are an idiot.
A liberal apologist might say that MT deserves all the credit for Marriage Equality. Smarter people know it was more complicated than that and that there were people of good intent on both sides, and on both sides were people determined to stop it.
I think that Julia Gillard chose not to support same sex marriage because she had to choose her battles carefully when she was already fighting on so many fronts.
naff: “there were people of good intent on both sides”
The ‘people of good intent’ on one side could not bring themselves to vote for marriage equality in 2012.
Ah, those ‘good intentions’, eh?
Go back to 2004 when Howard amended the Marriage Act to outlaw SSM. With full Labor support.
Back then only the Greens fought against it.
Besides, aren’t Liberals supposed to be able to exercise a conscience vote on such matters?
Throughout the whole history of enacting SSM, only the Greens had a consistent, righteous position throughout.
Macca RB says:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 8:20 am
C@tmomma @ 8.16am
The Lifestyle Country does have a pleasant cadence, as long as the hordes don’t come down and over run Nth Avoca Beach during summer.
中华人民共和国
Doubt Queenslanders will be going that far south for swim cobber – too bloody cold. Me thinks you are safe.
Besides why swim when there are no Box Jellyfish, Crocodiles or Tiger Sharks to contend with?
nath calling other people ‘idiots’. Lol, nath.
What he doesn’t point to with his poor attempt to say ‘There were good people on both sides’ of the SSM debate, is that, as has been pointed out, those in Labor who were pushing for SSM had the weight of numbers on their side and eventually prevailed over the recalcitrants, whereas within the Coalition a majority were active in the ‘No’ campaign.
” That’s exactly what happened. They had supported her rolling Rudd on the condition that SSM wouldn’t be advanced by her.”
Bullshit.
Steve777 @ #1463 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 12:54 pm
Exactly. As if some failed Labor wannabe in Melbourne with a grudge against the party forevermore is some sort of believable authority on such things is frankly laughable.
Steve777 says:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:54 pm
” That’s exactly what happened. They had supported her rolling Rudd on the condition that SSM wouldn’t be advanced by her.”
Bullshit.
________________
There has been discussion about this for years. Labor members have also talked about it.
The problem with discounting it is that you have to come up with another plausible explanation:
Some have speculated that the SDA supported Julia Gillard’s deposing of Kevin Rudd as Labor leader in 2010 under the condition that she would not allow same sex marriage to be legalized.
https://www.outinperth.com/union-investigated-alleged-lgbti-exclusion/
Of course Gillard is unlikely to ever say, ‘yeah look I had a chat with Joe de Bruyn and that was the price’.
So you get that weird shit she made up about marriage and feminism or whatever it was.
nath @ #1466 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 1:01 pm
More bullshit from someone who should not be believed.
B.S. Fairmansays:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:34 pm
I understand where Gillard was coming from, but disagree on where she landed.
I hold similar views on marriage to her, but for me whilst marriage remains a legal union for some within our society, I would never vote to deny any two consenting adults from forming such a union.
I would never advocate for the abolition of marriage, as its existence in Australia doesn’t compel anyone to have to partake in it.
This is not true in all countries.
Indonesia is looking to introduce a law to ban cohabitation before marriage.
In Malaysia I know a young couple who recently graduated from medical school. They had to get married as it was the only way they could ensure they will get posted to the same area.
Numpty nath’s link to ‘prove’ his point is being blocked by my spam and malware filter. 😆
Oh, people have talked about it.
Crushing argument.
Gillard did not need to do deals to get the leadership. Everyone agrees she didn’t want it at that time and almost backed out at the last second.
She allowed a conscience vote on SSM, which was more than the Liberals (whose platform supposedly allows this, particularly on matters of…conscience) did.
“ The problem with discounting it is that you have to come up with another plausible explanation”
I posted one possible explanation at 12:47. I don’t know if that’s true but it seems plausible. Labor has to choose its battles carefully in a hostile environment. Back in 2010-13 Same Sex Marriage just wasn’t the high profile issue with the general public it became in subsequent years. At the time, as a Labor supporter with no strong views one way or the other on SSM, I recall at the time being relieved that the PM chose not to join that battle.
zoomster says:
She allowed a conscience vote on SSM, which was more than the Liberals (whose platform supposedly allows this, particularly on matters of…conscience) did.
______
Then she voted against it.
Which she also did in 2004 along with every Labor member in a vote that outlawed SSM.
Only the Greens voted against it.
Yes, she did, nath.
But the reason she voted against it was obviously personal, rather than the result of some kind of deal to block SSM.
But we all know you like making unfounded accusations and that you’d rather stick with them than admit you were wrong…or apologise.
Labors fossil fuel cartel soldiers paralysed the Rudd Govt so Gillard was installed as PM to buy some time to get to the next election.
Rudd then did his thing and we ended up with progressive minority Govt led by Gillard that legislated a Clean Energy Package.
The rest is history as the LIbLab fossil fuel cartel soldiers led by Abbott, Joyce, Shorten and Fitzgibbon tore down the Govt.
SSM was a 2nd order issue to the main game – fossil fuel profits.
Barney in Cherating @ #1468 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 1:04 pm
Well put, Barney. I, too, of a similar vintage to FPMJG, also had the same bias against the institution of marriage myself, from an equality perspective, I didn’t want to become my husband’s wife via a traditional institution supported by the churches in our society. A chattel. So I didn’t get married, I retained my surname and have never worn a ring and all it symbolised. I maintained equality with my partner.
However, I came to realise, after talking to many Same Sex couples of my acquaintance, that they wanted the symbolism to be applied to their relationships that hetero couples had access to, as well. It meant something to them to have the option of getting married if they so chose to. So I supported their right to have that. I believe Julia came around to this way of thinking as well.
As a result, anything nath has to say about this is absolute, rolled gold, bullshit.
nathsays:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:54 pm
“Throughout the whole history of enacting SSM, only the Greens had a consistent, righteous position throughout.”
I believe you mean “self-righteous” position Nath !
nathsays:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:09 pm
And yet through this time Labor’s position was transitioning to full support for marriage equality.
Barney in Cherating says:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:04 pm
B.S. Fairmansays:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 12:34 pm
I did always think that Gillard’s opposition to Same Sex marriage was strange and must have been driven by something deeply personal (family member or something like that). It otherwise looks like a stain on her progressive record and shows she was completely petrified of the SDA wing of the party coming after her.
I understand where Gillard was coming from, but disagree on where she landed.
I hold similar views on marriage to her, but for me whilst marriage remains a legal union for some within our society, I would never vote to deny any two consenting adults from forming such a union.
I would never advocate for the abolition of marriage, as its existence in Australia doesn’t compel anyone to have to partake in it.
This is not true in all countries.
Indonesia is looking to introduce a law to ban cohabitation before marriage.
In Malaysia I know a young couple who recently graduated from medical school. They had to get married as it was the only way they could ensure they will get posted to the same area.
中华人民共和国
I see Indonesia will make adultery illegal also. One of the offended parties must complian first though. South Korea only recently removed this offence from the Statute books. Thailand is very liberal comoared to its neighbours when it comes to such matters.
zoomster @ #1473 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 1:13 pm
Exactly. Why anyone believes this person about anything to do with the Labor Party is beyond me. He is an embittered former ALP member who will try and weaponise any issue against it. By making shit up if he has to.
Paul Barry once said that Gillard’s opposition to same-sex marriage “is not mysterious at all to those who understand the power of conservative Catholic South Australian senator Don Farrell, widely known as ‘The Pope’.”
A quote from Nath’s link:
” Some have speculated that the SDA supported Julia Gillard’s deposing of Kevin Rudd as Labor leader in 2010 under the condition that she would not allow same sex marriage to be legalized”
Not even “some people say…”.
The publication itself, what looks like a Perth gay community magazine, mentions the claim but does not seem to be pushing it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Oh, so now we’re down to a particular person said.
But at least we’ve moved on from Gillard having a dastardly plot to stop the Labor party doing anything at all.
Not sure if this was linked yet. Published after BK’s Dawn Patrol (thanks BK!).
https://www.news.com.au/national/brittany-higgins-sensitive-evidence-disclosed-to-lehrmanns-legal-team-by-police/news-story/a7bf8118ad765031520444cfa0586954
Yet another example that the AFP needs a broom? So many ‘mistakes’.
If BSF is indicating that the Voice referendum is in trouble, there is no doubt that he is spot on. It was always going to be a huge ask; so huge that individuals of good intent needed to be especially diligent in their support.
The two parties doing the most damage to the Voice are the Greens and the Nationals.
In both parties there is internal and public dissent.
In both parties Indigenous leaders within the parties are leading the nobbling.
In both parties the party leaders seem to lack an ethical spine.
The third party that is damaging the referendum is the Liberal Party. However, ATM Dutton is doing two bob each way and may yet come out in support of the Voice Referendum.
If Dutton comes out against the referendum then we can all pack up our bags and come back in 50 years.
Without a Voice there will be no Makarrata because Makarrata assumes good faith by all parties.
Knocking off the Voice would be a bad faith gesture.
Without Makarrata there will be no Treaty.
Those who pretend to want a Treaty had better get their wheels on for a Voice. Those opposed to the Voice understand the linkages. They don’t want a Treaty and they know that the best place to stop a Treaty is by stopping the Voice.
(the scraping sound you hear is nath busily shifting goalposts)
Nath
“The problem with discounting it is that you have to come up with another plausible explanation:”
Bullshit,
you’re on a roll, Nath.
zoomster says:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:21 pm
Oh, so now we’re down to a particular person said.
But at least we’ve moved on from Gillard having a dastardly plot to stop the Labor party doing anything at all.
________
Gillard was trying to get around that arrangement by allowing the free vote. She was not in an enviable position.
goll @ #1476 Sunday, December 4th, 2022 – 1:16 pm
Because you never joined The Greens if you were against SSM, did you?
Whereas, we should have a lot more respect for Penny Wong because she didn’t take the easy way out and join The Greens. Instead she stayed in the Labor Party and fought to change the policy of the Labor Party, eventually succeeding. She did that because she realised that Labor are a party of government.
The Voice’s only danger is the widespread white supremacist sentiment.
Hey nath,
But what about Shorten? Surely he is at fault somehow? 🙂
Rex Douglas @ Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:24 pm
“The Voice’s only danger is the widespread white supremacist sentiment.”
Don’t forget paternalistic white saviours. Have you ever met one of those? 😉
nath
So she made an arrangement with the all powerful SDA, and then went back on her word?
Yeah, nah.
Talk about single issues and parties, The Greens voted against the CPRS in 2009.
The Greens deliberately allowed hundreds of millions of tonnes of Carbon to be pumped into the atomsphere. In 2020 that figure was over 200 million tonnes.
The Greens have nay a leg to stand on.
Rex Douglassays:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:24 pm
If only this was true, passage of the referendum would be guaranteed.
I lived in Perth and WA for 15 years and have many friends in the gay community there, many of whom joined the ALP to help bolster trailblazers like Penny Wong and push the Overton Window on SSM in the party in the direction of a policy change at National Conference. I don’t remember one of them complaining about a dirty deal between Julia and the SDA. Not one. Not ever.
zoomster says:
Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:27 pm
nath
So she made an arrangement with the all powerful SDA, and then went back on her word?
Yeah, nah.
__________
Her word was that she wouldn’t advance it as PM. Which she kept.
Of course you believed that Albo was a member of a corrupt Lebanese cartel, so, I think I have a firmer grip on reality tbh.
nath pulling out a goalpost shift with his ‘Lebanese cartel’ slur against zoomster again. He can’t win an argument on the merits, so he pivots to grub mode.
nath
If she wasn’t going to advance it as PM, she wouldn’t have allowed a conscience vote.
She did.
The difference between you and me, nath, is that I admitted I was wrong about the Albanese comment.
I also don’t bang on about mistakes others have made once they’ve admitted they were mistaken. It’s sort of — churlish — to do so.
Oh, and I apologise when I’ve made a mistake.
But you be you.
Those who know what happened know what happened.
As journalist Josh Taylor remarked:
“Gillard’s opposition to same sex marriage became a symbol of her struggles as a leader….she was bound by the deals that got her into the lodge”
Good to see NSW collapse under pressure to the Vics in the Sheffield Shield.
Vic supremacy remains intact.
nath
Exactly.
And they weren’t journalists, who didn’t even know a coup was on until it was over.
Gillard’s position on marriage is bourn out by her life. She says she doesn’t value it herself, and doesn’t really understand why people get married. She hasn’t married, which suggests she doesn’t value it and doesn’t really understand the need for it.
A perfectly consistent position.
As was said at the time, it only needed a handful of Libs to show some courage and cross the floor, and the thing would have been done.
It is not Gillard’s, or any Labor member’s, fault that they didn’t.