Essential Research: 58-42

westpollgraphic141209

The latest Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead at 58-42 for the third successive week. Also included are leadership approval ratings (Kevin Rudd predictably little changed on a fortnight ago; Tony Abbott with mediocre ratings, which is much better than Turnbull had been doing); Copenhagen (important, but unlikely to reach agreement); and “Christmas spending”. We’ve also had a 400-sample of Western Australian voters from Westpoll (see right) which has federal Labor’s lead in the state at 53-47 (compared with 53-47 against in 2007). The West Australian takes this to mean Abbott “has largely proved a turn-off for WA voters”, but it might equally be to do with Westpoll’s low-sample volatility, which has seen the score go from 55-45 in February to 50-50 in May to 53-47 in December.

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.

2,339 comments on “Essential Research: 58-42”

Comments Page 46 of 47
1 … 45 46 47

  3. Dr Good
    [I do not count that as an answer to my question.]
    I’m sorry about that, but I cannot see the issue of internet content as one of national borders. It is an issue of local computer use and control.

    Not only that, I don’t believe there is a problem about the level of local computer control. Do you have any evidence of such a problem?

    Over to you on my question.

  5. The latest on Copenhagen
    [10.00am:
    The Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, has taken his seat in the Bella centre hall, but there’s still no sign of Obama

    CNN’s senior White House correspondent, Ed Henry, says Obama has ripped up his schedule to try and broker a deal.

    He tweets that Obama is in negotiations with Australia, UK, Brazil, France, Denmark, Germany, EU, Japan, Bangladesh,Russia, South Africa, India, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Norway, Colombia, and Ethiopia (representing China).]

    .

    [10.25am:
    Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil, is touring the conference floor looking glum, while Wen Jiabao and the other Chinese delegates continue to talk among themselves.]
    [10.29am:
    The Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has now walked out of the conference hall. He’s either tired of waiting for Obama or he’s off to go and talk to him.

    This all looks chaotic]

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-climate-change-summit-liveblog

  7. Here is a question for both sides of the filter debate.

    Would you prefer if, rather than block illegal content: they simply record access, get the warrants, monitor for ~6 months, build the body of evidence then arrest the perp?

    Would that be a better outcome?

  10. vera
    [The Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has now walked out of the conference hall.]
    Hopefully there will soon be two entry/exit idioms:
    1. Elvis has left the building; and 2. Barack has entered the building.

  11. Musrum
    [they simply record access, get the warrants, monitor for ~6 months, build the body of evidence then arrest the perp?]
    They do that now. Every day. The filter won’t catch any more perps than the current method you describe.
    That’s why there is no need or demand for the christian lobby’s proposal.

  13. dave
    So Wen Jiabao has left the building…
    It’s OK, the BBC has just reported that Wen Jiabowjust needed a nervy pee, waiting for Barack to bring in the 100B in the 77 brown envelopes.

  15. Meanwhile ……. 15mins of Fame was never enough for Mr. Di-Aping. He wants his 15 days:

    [Climate talks near political accord for summit

    By MICHAEL CASEY and SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – 1 hour ago

    COPENHAGEN — World leaders worked into the early morning hours to forge a political declaration for Friday’s summit on climate change, a document expected to envision emissions-cutting targets for rich nations and billions for poor countries but to fall well short of the goal of a legally binding pact.

    A political deal would be seen by many as a setback, following two years of intense negotiations to agree on deeper reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases largely blamed for global warming.

    As President Barack Obama flew toward Copenhagen to join other presidents and premiers for the half-day of meetings and ceremony, a leading African delegate at the two-week U.N. climate conference expressed disappointment.

    “It’s weak. There’s nothing ambitious in this text,” said Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan.]

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9TuMrvrknh-ZXwqmZ2N-48kff3wD9CLI48O0

    Apparently Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, Sudanese, G77 chief negotiator is a full-time resident of the low carbon New York City.

  16. vera
    [Wen & Obama might have had a sneaky meeting in the loo?]
    Yes, that’s where the real business is done. Wait, the BBC tweet just said Tiger Woods has just sailed his yacht into Copenhagen harbour offering another 300 mill or so for the mix, so his wife can’t get it. That should clinch it with the G77.

  19. Once is never enough.

    Obama went to Copenhagen back in Oct to try to win the 2016 Olympic Games for Chicago and failed. Went home empty handed.

    If he failed at Copenhagen this time and went home empty handed again, Hillary will have no choice but to take over 👿

  20. [Wait, the BBC tweet just said Tiger Woods has just sailed his yacht into Copenhagen harbour offering another 300 mill ]

    That’s our Tiger, always pussy but never footing around.

  21. The Finnigans

    [That’s our Tiger, always pussy but never footing around.]

    Now that comment may appear innocent and funny to we innocents.

    However, if Conroyed, it would have this site filtered on the grounds of four fetishes well known to our vigilant Federal Police Force:

    1. “Tiger” = animal fetish. Banned
    2 a. “pussy” = animal fetish. Banned
    2 b.”pussy” = “Are you being served” fetish. Banned
    3. “footing” = foot fetish = banned

    🙂

  23. Dr Good

    [I have mentioned sites that contain porn that does not assure us (with some reliable legal backup) that the actors are consenting adults over 18. There could also be sites which contain images of something upsetting etc without adequate warning to the potential viewer.]

    And Conroy’s filter isn’t doing anything about them. What is your point?

    [My next question to you two is then, if an Australian ISP is told by the government (or anyone) the address of such a site, then what do you expect the ISP to do?]

    Is the site illegal or not?

  26. What I find astonishing is that the Labor government are prepared to spend billions on providing Australians with a world class, super fast NBN, and are seeking business investment in the venture, only to introduce a filter that WILL slow internet speeds, all because of certain hang-ups by some with the availability of porn on the net.

    It’s a joke!

    If parents are concerned with some content that their kids may access on the net, they should take their own responsibilty.

    Again, it’s a joke!

  27. vera
    [This isn’t our Penny is it?]

    Hmm… the suit and the hair look right, but… no, the laptop is wrong. She insists on Latitude. 🙂

  29. jv

    I’m especially struggling with zoomster’s idea that Conroy’s net nanny giving parents a false sense of security is a good outcome. That of course means more children will watch porn on the net as their parents think Conroy has fixed the problem.

    I had the feeling we were meant to be reducing that but it appears Labor has a policy of increasing the amount of porn children watch, at least according to zoomster.

  31. [Tell that to Bob Brown re Junk Food Advertising 🙂 ]

    There is an evidence base which underpins the junk food and TV advertising connection that has been established over years. There isn’t when it comes to the proposed internet filter.

  33. [There is an evidence base which underpins the junk food and TV advertising connection that has been established over years. There isn’t when it comes to the proposed internet filter]

    But it’s about “Parental control” – it’s either one or the other.

  34. Scorpio and zoomster

    Re: Dame Whitey.

    Thanks muchly for your interventions, one diplomatic, the other regal.

    Your Maj, I am indeed humbled. You bestow upon me your gracious and forgiving touch.

    I offer my worthless gratitude.

    I arise, sweeping my silks as I go.

    Your Loyal Servant

    Dame Crikey

  35. Centre
    [certain hang-ups by some with the availability of porn on the net.

    It’s a joke!]
    Tis, tis…

    Given your congenial agreement on the issue – tomorrow B8-7

    🙂

  36. 3 zebras

    [Zoomster, if I recall correctly you got all huffy when I deigned to ask a poor old grandmother (this is completely irrelevant btw, but nice try at emotional appeal) what proactive she had herself taken before demanding the government protect her]

    I didn’t get huffy. I pointed out it was bad manners to accuse someone of being negligence and/or laziness and imply therefore that (if she hadn’t done these things) she didn’t really care about the well being of her grandchildren. That’s a slur that I don’t think was merited.

    When I called you on it, your answer was that her failure to do so was ‘obscene’.

    Of course, you could say that you were sorry if people misunderstood you, you didn’t mean to cast aspertions on the qualities of her grandmothering and that you’re sure she does the best job she can.

    [I am sorry if you feel that I am rude, and perhaps I could be less strident in my tone, but if I am to do that, then you should also pursue your arguments less dishonestly.]

    Oh, I see. I point out poor behaviour to you but I have to lift my game before you lift yours. Good to see you taking the high moral ground there, SUCH a pity I can’t live up to your standards. (cough).

    [Deliberately misrepresent what I am saying as you have done twice already]

    And I have asked you to explain how. You said that no child should be on the net unsupervised and that a good parent/grandparent would check out what websites they had visited. Not to do so is to indulge in ‘obscene’ behaviour. ‘

    If I’ve misunderstood you, please explain what standard of supervision you expect from parents.

    [Claim to know what *all* children are like and what *all* children will do on the internet]

    No, I didn’t. I said that some posters here didn’t seem to have much knowledge of children.

    [Resort to special pleading about being “personally attacked” when no such thing has happened]

    Oh slosh and tosh. I’m well known for my whining on this site. This keyboard is stained with my tears.

    You can’t suggest that it is negligent for parents to give their children unfettered access to the internet without a filter, supervision and checking on their browsing habits and then say it’s not personal. I’m not a negligent parent.

    If that’s not what you meant, you need to explain yourself more carefully. (Hint: “In some cases…” “It has been known…” “Some parents…” are the sorts of phrases which makes it obvious you’re not tarring everyone with the same brush).

    [Don’t get me wrong, I am not some hysterical Christianista outrage-junkie but what you seem to fail to understand is there’s a lot more inappropriate content on the internet other tha just sex.]

    I’ve said before (but possibly over at possum’s site, I’m getting a bit lost) that the only form of censorship I’ve ever imposed on my children was when I realised the Playstation game they were playing involved random shootings of innocent bystanders.

    Actually, to be totally brutally honest, I don’t think stuff to do with sex is a big issue for children. (As I said repeatedly, I’m really not interested in the filter but in the silliness of the arguments against it). Prepubescents aren’t into sex at all, finding it ‘icky’ and repellent (OK, generalising); most teenagers are very cool about it, having done sex education until vaginas and penises are really very very boring.

    I repeat: the real issue with the filter is that it gives parents peace of mind from a perceived threat. Most perceived threats are not real, but (to quote Thurber) ‘as we know the unfounded fear is cause for greater concern than the founded.’

    [You might think its intrusive to monitor a kids internet use for this kind of thing.]

    Depends how you do it. Most people, including children, thrive on trust. If you’ve brought them up properly, so that they know that you don’t come down from Mt Sinai bearing scriptures but are open to discussion, you can lay down guidelines and you don’t need to check. But maybe I have incredibly honest children (as I said before, if they were accessing inappropriate sites, they’d tell me about it).

    [we’ll have to agree to disagree.]

    Fine, but don’t expect me to let you get away with rudeness to others or poor argument.

    As I say repeatedly on this site, my main interest in posting here is to test arguments.

  37. vera

    [

    Obama has said his bit, only got muted applause when he finished]

    The applause sounded pretty muted at the start to me as well. Still, he didn’t get jeered like Penny.

  38. Frank, this should be a straight forward issue:

    – If it’s illegal – it should be out.

    – If it’s NOT illegal – it should be IN!

    Conroy and his religious nut case mates should GET OVER IT!

  39. [But it’s about “Parental control” – it’s either one or the other.]
    It’s about evidence-based policy, which is all it ever should be about.

  41. I suspect this Conroy-gizmo has a different prize in view.

    Once this technology is introduced for undesirable materials, it can be more readily adapted and extended to assist the big studios reduce the incidence of content sharing on mainstream music and films.

  42. [Frank, this should be a straight forward issue:

    – If it’s illegal – it should be out.

    – If it’s NOT illegal – it should be IN!

    Conroy and his religious nut case mates should GET OVER IT!]

    If youy bother to read my Effing Posts and read Conroy’s media release that is indeed the proposal.

    It’s not my problem that you have a problem with that simple concept.

  43. [Conroy and his religious nut case mates should GET OVER IT!]

    What?

    and are you implying moi is religious?,cos I’ll have to say a few novena’s for your ‘sole if that is the case.

  44. Diog @ 2279

    [I’m especially struggling with zoomster’s idea that Conroy’s net nanny giving parents a false sense of security is a good outcome. That of course means more children will watch porn on the net as their parents think Conroy has fixed the problem.

    I had the feeling we were meant to be reducing that but it appears Labor has a policy of increasing the amount of porn children watch, at least according to zoomster.]

    Diogs, posters here can’t assure us all on one hand that the net is as safe as houses, that children can frolic in its fields unhindered by chance stumblings on evilness and depravity and on the other that the filter is going to increase their access to porn.

    To put my position again: There is a perception out there amongst some parents that the net is unsafe for their children. I believe that perception is wrong and it is. A filter might, however, make these parents think that it is safe to let their child go on the net. That would be a good thing.

    I tolerate – from you – a bit of latitude, but really I find your insinuations in the post quoted malicious and unwarranted. I’m surprised at how nasty you’ve been towards me in this debate, and don’t believe I have done/said/posted/implied anything to deserve this attitude from you. If I have, I apologise.

    If I haven’t, and you simply don’t like me taking up a position you disagree with, grow up.

  46. C’mon Frank, Conroy’s proposal goes a lot further than that. And it’s not my problem if you won’t take off your rose coloured binoculars. 😛

  48. [Frank

    the FF
    resort to attacking

    1.the chrisitan lobby?
    2.Individual posters
    3.But not St bob who basically is saying the same thing.

    whacky logic?]

    Very Whacky – according to St Bob Parents are incapable of caving in to their kids re Junk food so the Govt must ban same, yet re the Interwebs it is the Parent’s Job.

    That’s Whackey for you.

  50. [C’mon Frank, Conroy’s proposal goes a lot further than that. And it’s not my problem if you won’t take off your rose coloured binoculars]

    See centre,there you go

    Like most FF’s you are shhoting from the hip.

    as Frank requested ,read the info,then come back and present FACTS, not your latent suppositions.

    Ta

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 46 of 47
1 … 45 46 47