Nine Newspapers have published the latest federal voting intention numbers from Resolve Strategic, which offer no indication that declining support for the Indigenous Voice has damaged the Labor government. Labor is credited with 37% of the primary vote, up a point on last month, with the Coalition down three to 31%. The Greens are steady on 12% and One Nation are up two to 7%. The pollster does not provide two-party results, but based on previous election preference flows, this comes out at around 57-43. Anthony Albanese’s combined very good and good rating is up four to 44%, and his combined very poor and poor rating is down four to 43%. Peter Dutton is respectively down five to 30% and up two to 45%. Albanese’s lead as preferred prime minister is 47-25, out from 43-28.
The voting intention numbers are from the same juiced-up sample of 4728 and extended field work period of September 22 to October 4 that produced yesterday’s Indigenous Voice result of 56-44 in favour of no, which reflected the voting intention in being more favourable to the government than the tenor of polling elsewhere. I might have hoped this would have meant more comprehensive state breakdowns than usual, but there is no sign of that to this point, with only the usual results for the three largest states provided on the Resolve Monitor display.
The sample for the leaders’ ratings was only 1604, which presumably relates to the 3116 sample size for separately published follow-up results today on the Indigenous Voice – evidently respondents were asked one set of questions or the other. Among many other things, the Indigenous Voice results offer the finding that 38% of respondents considered that colonisation had had a positive impact on Indigenous people compared with only 23% for negative and 41% for mixed or unsure.
The usual practice for Resolve Strategic is to follow up its national poll later in the week with state results for New South Wales or Victoria, alternating between the two with samples that combine results from two of the monthly polls. This month was due to be the turn of Victoria, but given the extended sample and the complication of the change in Premier from one polling period to the next, I’m not sure where things stand on this particular occasion.
“too messy” is a very loose way to describe babies being beheaded, women being raped & abducted and people at musical festivals cut down in the hundreds with assault rifles. Why are you so unable to admit these events took place?
Perhaps after ~80 years the Palestinians might realise that the path of non-violence might be one worth trying, rather than the clearly wrong path they have undertaken this week.
Or they can keep trying to murder Jews for being Jews, and keep getting their Hamas terror shelters blown up by 2000 pound laser guided bombs.
Watermelon says:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:55 pm
TPOF
Watermelon
Your response makes no sense at all.
That’s probably because your racism is so deeply ingrained that when you see the logic you apply to the Palestinians getting applied to the Israelis, you simply can’t heave your little brain over it.
______________________________________
No. It’s because you write meaningless irrational hateful shit.
Shogun (6:43) – thanks for clarifying.that makes sense
Watermelon cannot talk about racism while supporting regimes raping and murdering civilians.
William
Over the past two days I have lost the edit capability. Any clues? Regards.
“Hamas has never shown any priority higher than fighting.”
Sure. But the notion that any of the things you argue Hamas ‘shoulda done’ were actually possible is risible. In fact it’s debatable whether Hamas would have been able to keep their grip on power for the last 17 years IF they were.
You asked a question of how does one defeat an opponent like Hamas without resorting to a touch of war crimes.
Well perhaps by depriving Hamas of their support base by depriving Hamas of the source of their brand of grievance politics. … but … there is no way that Israel wants Gaza to be a self reliant and developed province / state. That is simply anathema.
So I guess we go with a modern take on Josephus’s maxim:
“Make a desert and call it peace”.
Not if it relates to C+ in any way, sorry. The edit comments plugin I have installed seems to be working.
Think of the bright side – at least Boer has stopped spamming about China and Xi.
William
Fair enough.
I’ve actually been professionally diagnosed as having a high IQ but a low EQ.
I do like hearing all the different views here and I do like engaging.
I will try to be better.
If I get posts cut, I’ll just try and reflect.
Thank you.
‘Andrew_Earlwood says:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:07 pm
“Hamas has never shown any priority higher than fighting.”
Sure. But the notion that any of the things you argue Hamas ‘shoulda done’ were actually possible is risible. In fact it’s debatable whether Hamas would have been able to keep their grip on power for the last 17 years IF they were.
…’
—————–
This is precisely the point I made in an earlier post. In fact some commentators have put the view that the current round of bloodshed was instigated by Hamas because it is being threatened by more extreme groups. That is to say, the current bloodshed is about Hamas’ hold on Gaza.
=============================================
‘You asked a question of how does one defeat an opponent like Hamas without resorting to a touch of war crimes.
Well perhaps by depriving Hamas of their support base by depriving Hamas of the source of their brand of grievance politics. … but … there is no way that Israel wants Gaza to be a self reliant and developed province / state. That is simply anathema.
So I guess we go with a modern take on Josephus’s maxim:
“Make a desert and call it peace”.’
========================
This is about my take as well.
‘Lars Von Trier says:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:08 pm
Think of the bright side – at least Boer has stopped spamming about China and Xi.’
———————-
Lars negging again.
Israel occupies the west bank not Gaza and Gaza is only locked down because its leaders refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.
The Occupied Palestinian Territories comprise all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. In 2005 Ariel Sharon decided that Gaza wasn’t worth trying to colonize, and withdrew to the perimeter, but due to their total blockade of the territory they remain recognised by the United Nations as the occupying power in Gaza. Meanwhile in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where the Palestinian Authority works on Israel’s behalf, the apartheid regime and colonization effort has only intensified to the extent that a Two State Solution is completely unviable.
So the choice that is on offer is: don’t resist violently and we’ll kill you and take your land (West Bank). Resist violently and we’ll kill you and imprison your descendants for the rest of time (Gaza).
As for Hamas recognising Israel’s “right to exist” – what does that even mean? Does Sinn Fein accept Northern Ireland’s “right to exist”? Of course they bloody don’t.
Sinn Féin does accept NI’s right ti exist – it is one of the fundamentals of the Good Friday agreement. SF even takes part in the NI government (when it exists)
Well I think Sinn Fein recognised Northern Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement.
So the occupation and colonization will end once the resistance to it ends? The Palestinians have tried the path of non-violence. In 2018-19 they staged months of non-violent demonstrations at the Gaza perimeter which resulted in nothing except thousands being shot with live ammunition and 220 killed. Non-violent resistance is met with violence. It doesn’t work when your opponent has no conscience and the world pays no attention. So say what you actually mean; you don’t want them to “resist peacefully”, you want them to submit peacefully, like a nation of sheep.
Beat me to the punch OC.
Watermelon
So the choice that is on offer is: don’t resist violently and we’ll kill you and take your land (West Bank). Resist violently and we’ll kill you and imprison your descendants for the rest of time (Gaza).
As for Hamas recognising Israel’s “right to exist” – what does that even mean? Does Sinn Fein accept Northern Ireland’s “right to exist”? Of course they bloody don’t.
————————–
Hamas could have attacked the miliary just like the IRA did and the IRA would plant a bomb then tell everyone they had 30 minutes to leave.
It seems to me that Watermelon thinks this is justified:
In Kfar Aza, no one was too old, too young or too weak for slaughter. It took the Israeli army half a day to reach the kibbutz of 750 people in southern Israel and fighting continued there for three days. In that time Hamas gunmen killed and mutilated dozens of civilian residents.
“Mothers, fathers, babies, young families killed in their beds, in the protection room, in the dining room, in their garden,” Maj Gen Itai Veruv of the Israel Defence Forces told the BBC, as his troops searched homes for bodies of victims. “It’s not a war, it’s not a battlefield. It’s a massacre.”
The kibbutz was one of the first Israeli settlements reached by Hamas militants when they launched an assault early on Saturday morning.
The community had a security team, and houses had safe rooms, but they – like the highest echelons of the Israeli army and government – were not prepared for the wave of attackers racing out of the breached Gaza.
(from the Guardian).
Yeah, I think this might be a good time to take a bit of a break from Poll Bludger.
“In 2018-19 they staged months of non-violent demonstrations at the Gaza perimeter”
Guess they should just give up then after 1 protest? And start planning for child beheading, rape, kidnapping and terror attacks on people dancing?
“submit peacefully, like a nation of sheep.”
When the alternative is murdering civilians and beheading babies? Yes.
No-one forced Hamas to go out into the towns to annihilate entire towns of human beings. They did that themselves.
I note that once again you fail to accept or admit or even mention directly the crimes committed by Hamas, you move on, ignore them and while failing to mention what they were, you claim they were justified because x happened y years ago. Is Hamas beheading infant babies justified?
Palestinians have made extensive use of non-violent resistance. When they do that they get shot at by IDF soldiers for their trouble. They get their supplies of food, water, fuel, and medicines cut. When civil society organizations outside of Israel engage in boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel – another instance of exclusively non-violent action – they get demonized by Israel and its supporters as anti-semitic.
The Israeli Government doesn’t tolerate non-violent resistance. The Israeli Government Government brooks no dissent. The Israeli Government is an authoritarian organization with zero respect for democratic values. It is the aggressor in the conflict and it doesn’t act in good faith. Hamas is a horrible organization but the Palestinians are a brave and valiant people who have been wronged, and who deserve to get their land back and to have a decent life.
I hear Twitter’s nice.
“Asher Lilley, from Darwin NT, was enjoying a family holiday in Israel on Saturday when war broke out in the region. She was shocked to learn Qantas Group were charging thousands to change flights.
“… Emirates is offering the same service for free.“
Read in Daily Mail: https://apple.news/ACqBAaQrIQaGRUvdkux4WaA
Shared from Apple News”
Sinn Fein recognised Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom, but not to its permanent “right to exist”.
Sinn Fein remains committed to a united Ireland. The Good Friday agreement stated that Ireland would be united if a majority in the North consented. The British certainly did not demand that Sinn Fein recognise the permanence of British control in the North before they even sat down for peace talks.
“I hear Twitter’s nice.”
lol
In all seriousness, having a hobby that doesn’t specifically involve people and their opinions is important for any persons mental health.
Well I’m fucked then.
haha
when I was at Monash I avoided any subject that touched on the Middle East. They were all shouting matches apparently. I may join Asha in having a sabbatical. Let’s see how it goes.
It seems to me that Watermelon thinks this is justified…
I won’t bother with the accusation that I think murdering children is “justified”, coming as it does from someone who openly believes exactly that (“they deserve what’s coming to them”).
I will say that I’d be very surprised if the Hamas leadership approved of that type of massacre, if only because the victims would be infinitely more valuable as hostages than as dead.
“I won’t bother with the accusation that I think murdering children is “justified””
Why not? It would take all of 10 seconds to type:
“No, Hamas beheading children is not justified.”
Go on, have a crack at it.
The alternative is that we all see that your “not bothering” with the accusation is simply accepting that you do in fact think that it is justified.
maybi if israel wanted to protend they were a democrasy when yaser Arifat was negociating pease it might have been a good idea for mosad move if israels mosad stopped triying to asasiinate him the reason hamass have seport is israel installed mahmood abazz as arifats replace whho seems compeletly uselisboth groups were united
bob yes maybii lets talk about hamas because israel does not kills sevilians in ni the dup has suspended the government ccausing a cricess because they will not acsept the democratic wishes for Sin leader being the first minister despite there majority under the agreement israel tries to kill the palistinian leader who is negociating for pease
Watermelon says:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:53 pm
I will say that I’d be very surprised if the Hamas leadership approved of that type of massacre, if only because the victims would be infinitely more valuable as hostages than as dead.
____________________________________________
I’ll just leave that there for other posters to think about……
Nicholas
If you’re Jewish and don’t agree with Israel’s policies on Palestine you are branded a self hating Jew.
Go figure!
Australia has organised two evacuation flights for terrified Australians stranded in the warzone in Israel, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed. Albanese announced late on Wednesday afternoon that two Qantas flights would leave Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport for London on Friday.
Stranded Australians who want to be on board must first register with a consular hotline by phoning +61 262 613 305 from within Israel, or 1300 555 135 in Australia. “We are assessing all options to get Australians home as soon as possible who wish to travel back here,” Albanese said.
Yeah, it’s that. Something changed with the edit plugin.
For now if you’re using C+ the only way to edit is to disable the plugin, refresh, perform the edit, and then re-enable.
”
Mr Squigglesays:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23 pm
Boerwar, I might be wrong on this point, but I have always understood that the US does not recognise dual citizenship. Murdoch for example?
”
There are exceptions to every rule.
Like We allow protest rallies in Liberal democracies until we don’t.
‘…two Qantas flights would leave Israel’s Ben Gurion airport for London on Friday…’
i wonder if they will be the planes with YES written on the outside
a r @ #887 Wednesday, October 11th, 2023 – 9:03 pm
This has been my experience for weeks.
”
Lars Von Triersays:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:23 pm
Boerwarsays:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:17 pm
The Israeli Defence Minister has released the IDF from all restraints.
Anything goes.
________________________________________
Can the Israeli defence minister suspend the laws of war? So the Israeli soldier who say shoots non combatants dead say I was only following orders – or the orders were do as you like?
”
Unfortunately”Free of restraints” is the keyword.
Nobody care about UN Convention.
P.S: The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols form the core of international humanitarian law, which regulates the conduct of armed conflict and seeks to limit its effects. They protect people not taking part in hostilities and those who are no longer doing so.
Arky at 5.39 pm re RDA and Native Title Act (1993)
The point is in the third subsection that you quoted, which reads:
“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the validation of past acts or intermediate period acts in accordance with this Act.”
Briefly, the point is this. Neither Mabo (No. 2) nor the Native Title Act created native (or traditional, in the words of Justice Toohey, because he knew from WA experience that native has a pernicious history in Australian colonial rule over Indigenous peoples, as in 1905 Aborigines Act [WA]) title.
Hence there was much country that had such traditional title in 1975, when the RDA was enacted, but where it had been extinguished by inconsistent Crown acts between then and the 1993 Native Title Act.
What subsection 3 quoted above did was to prevent any possible legal redress by those traditional title owners who had their traditional title extinguished before the protections of the Native Title Act, as limited as they are, were created. Those traditional title owners from 1975 to 1993 were left in the lurch.
In that specific sense the RDA was suspended. Because the Native Title Act was a subsequent law to the RDA, it would over-ride the RDA to the extent of any inconsistency between the two laws.
Now consider a hypothetical. Bob Hawke famously promised a Treaty in June 1988. Instead of copping out, he boldly proceeded to implement his promise. Even when Keating replaced him, the promise was still kept, despite doubts among some in the Labor caucus [this part is real – I once heard Bob Tickner express doubt about Keating’s commitment to Indigenous justice in late 1991, soon after he became PM].
Suppose that, as well as defeating Hewson in 1993, Keating took to that election a proposed law in the form of a referendum replacing section 51/26 of the Constitution with a power stating clearly that the Commonwealth could enact any laws regarding Indigenous people so long as the law is beneficial and not discriminatory. Suppose the referendum had passed, boosted by opposition to Hewson’s GST etc.
In that purely counter-factual scenario, subsection (3) could have been challenged as inconsistent with that hypothetical new, non-racist provision of the Constitution.
Now, here we are 30 years later and a simpler, but arguably weaker, proposal to recognise Indigenous Peoples as the original owners of Australia, who deserve a beneficial input into laws affecting them, has been obstructed by the loud-mouthed, ignorance-is-strength brigade, whose ilk Manning Clark once, with utter politeness, called “straiteners” rather than “enlargers of life”. For his terms, see G. Evans at:
https://www.gevans.org/speeches/speech434.html (Gareth Evans, giving 12th Manning Clark lecture)
Pi says:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:41 pm
“I hear Twitter’s nice…..
lol
In all seriousness, having a hobby that doesn’t specifically involve people and their opinions is important for any persons mental health.”
Hello Elon!!!
Rainman says:
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 5:32 pm
Sir Henry Parkes
Big powers have no interest in peace. The US supports Israel only as their front line against any country in the region that threatens their interests/oil. It’s no different than Russia supporting Syria because it’s their only Mediterranean naval base.
_______________________________________________________
I don’t think you can always say “big powers have no interest in peace”. Geopolitical interests shift all the time, and such interests may sometimes be better served by peace than by conflict. If US is only interested in cheap oil flowing to it, then all-round peace in the region would be a better way of ensuring that would happen.
It was the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, after all, which led to Arab oil producers withholding oil exports and quadrupling its price. America backing Israel didn’t exactly protect its oil interests then.
Similarly, in 1991 America had to work hard to keep Israel out of the war to free Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion, after Iraq’s Saddam Hussein lobbed missiles into Israel, hoping to draw Israel in and Arab countries away from supporting American intervention.
American support for Israel has been a constant problem for it winning friends in the Arab world. It is based more on domestic political concerns, ie the large support Israel enjoys among the American voting public, than by any alleged geopolitical advantage.
I couldn’t care less what a racist moron like yourself believes. Why try to prove my moral superiority to someone who actually does try to justify dropping bombs on kids?
Any policy of retaliating against harm with indiscriminate harm significantly contributes to the problem.
Let’s take two people. It’s easy to work out that if both hold a policy, of responding to a punch with a retaliatory punch, that one act of violence will soon lead to a never ending cycle. However, at least in the case of individuals it seems reasonable to assert that the one in the wrong is the person to throw the first punch, and that each punch by the other person is a justified retaliation. That’s because it’s easy to trace the chain of punches back to a first punch.
However, let’s say we are not talking about two individuals but two groups of people. Worse, they are groups of people mixed in within larger groups of (originally) uninvolved people. Even worse, we’re talking about multiple generations of people born into the conflict between between the original two.
In this situation, one group (A) harms the other (B) who retaliates. A is in the wrong, and B’s retaliation is justified. What if the retaliation is indiscriminate and harms people (C) outside of A? Well now surely if we’re not hypocrites, we should say C’s retaliation against B is justified. What if C’s retaliation is indiscriminate and includes D, not just B. Not being hypocrites, D’s retaliation will also be justified. And so on. Soon it’s possible for all sides (plus supporters/observers) to justify any and every act of harm.
There are people now in both Palestine and Israel who were *never* part of the original conflict, and whose first indoctrination into the conflict *was indiscriminate action by the other side* and whose retaliation, if we’re not hypocrites, we should surely identify as being justified.
This is how we end up with a tangled mess.
The problem, of course, is in justifying *indiscriminate* action. Restraint is not merely something that’s nice if you can get it but disposable otherwise. Restraint is a *necessary* component of any solution (outside of the annihilation of one side or the other). Indiscriminate acts of *all* kinds are the problem. Direct violence against civilians is the problem. Collective punishment of a whole population is the problem. “Collateral damage” is not a mere “oopsie”, it is the problem. And so on.
The argument that we can’t expect one side or the other to restrain themselves is a complete nonsense. We *must* expect it, if we ever want the problem peacefully resolved.
When we have commenters, like some on this forum, who indiscriminately generalise** from a smaller group of people significantly responsible for the problem, to a larger group of people that includes those not significantly responsible for the problem, then those commenters are emulating the primary mistake that keeps this conflict going.
** This also happens when countries/nations/groups are treated as if they were individuals (by analogy, anthropomorphism or whatever).
“I couldn’t care less what a racist moron like yourself believes.”
Ad hominem.
“Why try to prove my moral superiority to someone who actually does try to justify dropping bombs on kids?”
Ad hominem.
You’ve spent a huge amount of time on these responses, when all you have to do is say:
“No, Hamas beheading babies is not justified.”
i wonder if they will be the planes with YES written on the outside
I wonder when Mr Squiggle will go back to the Moon. His pencil-nose needs sharpening.
Mostly Interested @ #892 Wednesday, October 11th, 2023 – 9:05 pm
Not mine. Situation normal with C+ edit function here.
Mr Squiggle @ #891 Wednesday, October 11th, 2023 – 9:05 pm
I suppose it’s to be expected that your level of humour is to be at the age of 5-8 that Mr Squiggle appealed to.