Two federal polls are out this evening, one from Resolve Strategic in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, one from Freshwater Strategy in the Financial Review, both of which report more-or-less monthly, and both of which are little changed on last time. However, Resolve Strategic has a headline-grabber with Labor’s primary vote falling to 28%, and both record movements on leadership ratings that are discouraging for Anthony Albanese and encouraging for Peter Dutton.
Resolve Strategic’s primary vote results are Labor 28%, down one; Coalition 36%, steady; Greens 14%, up two; One Nation 6%, down one; and a notably popular generic independent category 11%, down one. The pollster does not publish two-party preferred, and how one infers it based on preference flows from the last election depends a fair bit on how one deals with that 11%. My favoured method involves lumping independents and others into a single category, since Resolve Strategic’s independent total is double a 2022 election result that was dominated by teals and thus flowed to Labor fairly strongly over the Coalition, whereas it seems likely to me that much of the 11% is a none-of-the-above effect. On this basis, I get Labor ahead 50.7-49.3, a swing to the Coalition of 1.4%.
Leadership ratings are notable in having Peter Dutton leading Anthony Albanese 36-35, a distinct change from last month’s 40-32 that has apparently had little impact on voting intention. Albanese’s combined very good and rating is 37%, down two, and his combined very poor and poor rating is 51%, up two. Peter Dutton records his first net positive rating from this pollster, his very good plus good rating being 42%, up three, while very poor plus poor is 40%, down two. The poll was conducted Tuesday to Sunday from a sample of 1607.
Freshwater Strategy has both major parties unchanged on the primary vote, with Labor at 32% and the Coalition at 40%, with the Greens down a point to 13%, with two-party preferred at an unchanged 50-50. Anthony Albanese’s lead over Peter Dutton is slashed from 46-37 to 43-41, and he is down three on approval to 34% and up one on disapproval to 46%. Dutton is up four on approval to 35% and steady on 40% disapproval. The poll was conducted Friday to Sunday from a sample of 1060. Both polls have best-party-to-handle questions that record movement across the board to the Coalition: Resolve Strategic has the Coalition’s lead on economic management out from nine points to sixteen, and Freshwater Strategy has Labor’s lead on the environment and climate change in from thirteen to five.
@Entropy at 10:16pm
To be fair, (which we have to be, because that’s pretty much one of the few things we have to play against the shameless hypocritical ghouls that make up the Coalition), Coleman was given leave to be absent by the Speaker of the Federal parliament, while it appears Cheeseman has not been given leave by the Speaker of the Victorian parliament, and has furthermore been expelled from the Victorian Parliamentary Labor Party for allegations of misconduct.
nadia88 says:
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 10:14 pm
Boerwar says:
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 9:33 pm
Three Liberals walk into the Bar: Reynoldson, Higgins and Morrison…
———————————————————-
Here’s a nightmare for you Boerwar (love your work BTW)…
Three liberals walk into a bar.
They order a tray of drinks, which comes to $30
They divide the bill by three, ie: $10 each.
Short time later, the waiter comes up and says I overcharged. The bill should’ve been $25
The three Libs get their $5 back, decide to keep $1 each and hand the waiter a $2 tip.
So instead of the bill being $10 each, it’s now $9 each.
$9 times 3, plus a $2 tip = $29
Q – What happenned to the missing $1.
_______________________
It only doesnt work if you read it as each liberal gives a $2 tip.
The original bill is is $30 or 30/3 people
Getting $5 back is 5/3 so the actual bill is 25/3
This then is divided 5/3 (the surplus) -3/3 (in the pocket) = 2/3 (tip)
So 25/3 (bill) + 3/3 (pocket) + 2/3 (tip) = 30/3
Yes the $30 is now an irrelevant number. The key number is now $27 ($30-$3) which was used to pay the bar $25 plus the $2 tip.
Dr Fumbles Mcstupidsays:
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 10:40 pm
nadia88 says:
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 10:14 pm
Boerwar says:
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 9:33 pm
Three Liberals walk into the Bar: Reynoldson, Higgins and Morrison…
———————————————————-
Here’s a nightmare for you Boerwar (love your work BTW)…
Three liberals walk into a bar.
They order a tray of drinks, which comes to $30
They divide the bill by three, ie: $10 each.
Short time later, the waiter comes up and says I overcharged. The bill should’ve been $25
The three Libs get their $5 back, decide to keep $1 each and hand the waiter a $2 tip.
So instead of the bill being $10 each, it’s now $9 each.
$9 times 3, plus a $2 tip = $29
Q – What happenned to the missing $1.
_______________________
It only doesnt work if you read it as each liberal gives a $2 tip.
The original bill is is $30 or 30/3 people
Getting $5 back is 5/3 so the actual bill is 25/3
This then is divided 5/3 (the surplus) -3/3 (in the pocket) = 2/3 (tip)
So 25/3 (bill) + 3/3 (pocket) + 2/3 (tip) = 30/3
=================================================
More simply they paid $30 ($10 each) all got $1 back. So now have paid $27 ($9 each). The meal came to $25 and $2 left for waiter. So the $2 for waiter comes out of the $9 each they did pay and has nothing to do with $3 they got back from the $30.
She didn’t say that each lib provided a $2 tip. It was a $2 tip between the three libs which equals 66.67 cents each. As for the key number being being $27, that’s true but add a $2 tip and you are back to $29. This is a little bit complicated.
It’s an unrealistic senario anyway, where it all falls down is having all 3 liberals agreeing to give a minimum wage worker a $2 tip for just doing their job and not just pocketing all the savings.
What is this all about? We don’t have a tipping culture in Australia, yet anyway.
So all 3 liberals pay $9, and then provide a tip of $2.
This equals $29.
$30 minus $5 = $25, plus $3 they pocket together plus $2 tip = $30
This makes sense, but if they keep $1 each, the bill becomes $9 times 3, plus $2 tip, which once again comes to $29.
This is crazy. Probably better to watch three liberals fight over $2, and they can have their 66.67 cents each.
I don’t see why I have to again report to my doctor & be asked impertinent questions such as counting back from 100 by 7.
Damn the internet
[‘The Supreme Court’s most closely watched dispute this year – a case questioning whether former President Donald Trump may claim immunity from federal election subversion charges – also has the potential to be one of the hardest to parse for meaning in real time.
In between Trump’s initial demand for total immunity and an appeals court ruling earlier this year that found he’s entitled to no protection at all is a murky gap with massive practical implications for whether he can be tried before the November election.
At issue is special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, including with his actions on January 6, 2021, though the court’s decision could have implications for other criminal cases against Trump as well. In addition to the bottom line ruling about whether Trump is immune from prosecution could be important clues about how quickly the matter will go to trial.
“Trump has already won something,” said Jonathan Entin, a professor at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Law. “As a practical matter, Trump has gained time here, regardless of how the court decides the case.”
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by the end of the month.’]
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/18/politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity/index.html
The Supreme Court would lose all credibility if it were to find in favour of Trump but that wouldn’t worry Thomas and Alito, both of whom have demonstrated bias for their man. And not forgetting Gorsuch, Kavanaugh & Coney Barrett who but for Trump would’ve never made it on the SCOTUS bench, their jurisprudence suspect.
“Queensland could be nuclear hub under Coalition’s new energy plan
State’s existing coal-fired power plant sites being considered, along with NSW’s Hunter Valley, South Australia’s Port Augusta”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/19/queensland-could-be-nuclear-hub-under-coalitions-new-energy-plan
FFS the pristine wine-growing region of NSW and that garbage radioactive potato heap want to
poison it with his glow-in-the-dark nuclear waste creation units, what a f****g pig.
Tell him to get stuffed and I’ll be up there as will millions of other Australians to stop that waste of
genetic information from building it 😡
FFS the pristine wine-growing region of NSW
———————————
Well, not so pristine. Vast coal mines are just next door.
And…. Would the it be in the top ten wine regions of Australia? Unless you really like your Semillon – I’d say nay.
It will be interesting to see the response from the neighbourhoods surrounding those sites identified as suitable for nuclear power generation.
I’m guessing that if people from the Illawarra are aghast at the siting of wind turbines beyond sight in their area then those impacted by nuclear power generation will be somewhat more aghast.
Nuclear energy infrastructure has proven to be more expensive to design and install while the electricity produced being more expensive than renewable energy.
The same push for nuclear energy in the 1970s was not received well.
The misinformation presented by those favouring nuclear energy is profound at best and most likely something fatally unpalatable, possibly criminal.
LNP supporters and voters will surely not allow this nuclear travesty to occur, it would be hoped, yet it will be most likely left to the despised “economics” to rein in this madness.
A smart Australia is still possible but will we survive the roller coaster path to best practice.
Wrong formula.
It is not 3×9+2≠30
It is 3×9-2=25.
Dutton will need to propose a nuclear facility in his seat of Dickson to display his integrity.
I doubt it will happen.
William Bowesays:
at 9:27 pm
I realise I shouldn’t ask, but if no evidence detrimental to the Labor Party will be given, why will the government rush to an early election to avoid the lethal fallout from it?
If that’s the case then it’s not an issue.
If it turns out otherwise then Labor are looking at oblivion, since the perception at the last election was that there’d been a coverup of Higgins story and she’d been unsupported by Cabinet Ministers who knew tshe had been assaulted.
Federal Court has already found that not true, Reynolds has said unless Higgins settles it will have to be proved all over again.
It would be in the Government’s interests, imo, to be returned before anything damaging happens on that front, recent polling indicates L-NP making modest gains, at best, at the moment.
New thread.