GhostWhoVotes reports a federal Nielsen poll to be published in tomorrow’s Fairfax broadsheets will show the Coalition, unchanged on last month. More to follow.
UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes further relates the primary votes are Labor 35 per cent (up one point), Coalition 43 per cent (steady) and Greens 13 per cent (down one), and the poll also shows support for gay marriage at 57 per cent and opposition at 37 per cent.
UPDATE 2: The poll finds little change in the leaders’ personal ratings. Julia Gillard is stable on both approval (54 per cent) and disapproval (39 per cent), while Tony Abbott is up two on approval to 47 per cent and down two on disapproval to 48 per cent. Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister is 53 per cent (steady) to 40 per cent (up a point). The Coalition leads as best party to handle interest rates (47 per cent to 33 per cent) and create greater competition between the banks (46 per cent to 32 per cent). Fifty-five per cent now believe the government should serve a full term, against 42 per cent who would like a new election as soon as possible.
UPDATE 3: Essential Research also has the Coalition leading 51-49, for the third week running. Julia Gillard’s approval rating is at 43 per cent, down two on a month ago, and her disapproval up one to 38 per cent, while Tony Abbott is up a point on approval to 40 per cent and down five on disapproval to 40 per cent. Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 49-33 to 45-34. There are also questions on viewing of sport on free-to-air and pay television, presumably apropos of the anti-siphoning issue – although opinions on this are not engaged directly.
Yes – for themselves. They are on the cross benches for another 3 years – and
they know it. No matter what garbage you spew out.
SK @ 400
You really think it is an act???
bemused,
My mother taught me if you can’t say something nice pretend… 😀
Space Kidette@403
SK, but not if a coalition members or supporter is involved. In such cases
always put the boot in. If you don’t while you can you will end up getting
all their boots put into you.
Never trust them, never give them quarter. Ever.
dave,
I love your work 👿
Simon Crean just went off lol.
SK @ 403
My mother was similarly gentle in nature but I managed to shake off such sentiments when the occasion demands.
Jeevers, that $10mill is biting the oppo’n.
Follow the money, indeed.
BOATS ARE COMING TO THE ADELAIDE HILLS. RUN RUN RUN for your liiiiivesss.
[I love it when Sloppy plays dumb…because it let’s JG treat him like he is dumb. ]
I think that this is a risky strategy, to attack someone for being stupid. Not so much for Hockey but for Abbott.
The govt loved to play up Abbott’s gaffes. But these gaffes seemed to cause the people especially his working-class conservative supporters to bind more strongly to him. He became the anti-politician politician. That provided him with the same Teflon that Bush had.
What would have been a better response (in hindsight I know!) would have been to calmy warn Australians to ignore Abbott’s gaffes and to suggest that Abbott is not stupid, he is not ignorantbut he is clever, he is cunning, he is machiavellian. I think that would have cut through much, much better. But you can’call someone dumb and cunning at the same time.
Pyne gone 🙂
RED CARD to the Member for Sturt.
dave @ 404
Fred Daly put it another way: “When you’re dealing with a street brawler, you’re entitled to hit him with a bottle!”
I heard that in a parliamentary broadcast in the life of the Whitlam govt. Was driving at the time and nearly had an accident.
Prissy bowled!
Puff
[Julia is now using enthymemes.
You know, I am googling those words]
Gawd! The definition on wikipaedia was just as bad. Talk about gobblygook for those of us who are ‘uneducamated’. 😆
They should lose pay for the time they are sin-binned.
Fair enough.
Street brawlers tend to have limits as to how low they will go.
The conservatives do not. Give them nothing, take them nowhere. Ever.
Bemused,
Onya Fred, couldn’t have said it better myself.
In regards to immigration someone should ask RAbbott for the direct number for BOAT PHONE!
[Prissy bowled!]
Geez, the carpet from his seat to the door’s getting hammering!
[Bird of paradoxPosted Monday, November 22, 2010 at 6:42 am | PermalinkFrank, stop being a concern troll. Being very quiet and not ‘committing political suicide’ plays right into the hands of that rabid right – it means they’ve won the argument by forfeit. For example, this is why everyone now knows that Labor can’t manage the economy and can’t control asylum seekers: it’s not that Labor made a bad argument which was beaten by that of the Liberals, it’s just that they vacated the field and left perfectly good arguments un-made. The same way, they failed to handle that TV advert during the WA election campaign: the Liberals’ voiceover asked “Name three things Labor have done in government.” I could’ve named three things, and you could’ve named ten, but Labor let it go through to the keeper, and the accepted wisdom became whatever the Liberals wanted it to be, so now they’re the government. Sometimes you have to fight, eh.
I don’t listen to talkback radio, either… I’ve got better things to do with my time than listen to the ravings of One Nation voters in the fear that they might not vote for Labor. RTR FM, please.
]
RTRT FM take their talking points from The Greens and The Socialist Alliance.
Nuff said.
Remember when Howard was PM – Alan Jones said Jump – Howard said How High.
THAT is the political reality.
Probably true but, gee, you’d have to think the MSM would be as culpable, wouldn’t you? If something’s good, it’s good regardless of who’s selling it. Just because you’re backing a lame horse, that’s no excuse for nobbling the other one.
It’s already been fairly well established and agreed by most on here that the ALP have some sizeable obstacles in their path if they want to sell anything. I think the obstacles ought to bear the lion’s share of the blame here.
Dee, here is what I wrote earlier about enthememes.
[“Can’t we all agree that….(insert broad position here)?” should be the starting point in a series of logic that leads to ‘your’ conclusion.
If you starting point is ‘Can’t we all agree that government funds should not be wasted?’ sends you to a different place than ‘Can’t we all agree that Governments should invest in their country’s future prosperity?”]
In lay terms an enthememe is a ‘can’t we all agree that…’ statement that you put at the beginning of an argument. It is the starting point in chain of logic. If your enthymeme includes stuff about fairness or the future then you can easily take people along with you to a progressive policy. If your enthymeme includes stuff about government waste ebing bad then you are likely to get people to agree on a more conservative position.
Steve Fielding and Andrew Wilkie signed confidential agreement:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-22/australia-holds-confidential-lawmaker-talks-on-plan-to-transform-telstra.html
Dee,
Is easy, all Libs are wangers, Abbott is a Lib, therefore Abbott must be a wanger.
Then we say, No Wanger in Shall Get His Hands on this Country’s Levers of Power. (and we all know which wanger that is. 😉 )
[Steve Fielding and Andrew Wilkie signed confidential agreement:]
But X won’t and he won’t vote for the bill without the business case.
b_g
[What would have been a better response (in hindsight I know!) would have been to calmy warn Australians to ignore Abbott’s gaffes and to suggest that Abbott is not stupid, he is not ignorantbut he is clever, he is cunning, he is machiavellian. I think that would have cut through much, much better. But you can’call someone dumb and cunning at the same time.]
Exactly! Wonderful insight.
The Rabbott is a ‘rogue’ scholar. Only a few Aussies can claim that title. He is dumbing himself down for audience support. Successfully outfoxing the ALP & the voters. I’m sure this was done to clearly define himself from the perception of the Nerdy Rudd factor.
How else could one explain his behaviour?
The best example of how an enthymeme changes public views is in yes prime minister: How two different starting points lead Bernard to two completely different conclusions. It is the starting points where major poilitcal battles are won.
[Sir Humphrey: “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”
Bernard Woolley: “Oh…well, I suppose I might be.”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes or no?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”
Bernard Woolley: “Is that really what they do?”
Sir Humphrey: “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”
Bernard Woolley: “How?”
Sir Humphrey: “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”
Bernard Woolley: “Yes”
Sir Humphrey: “There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.” ]
@Triton/425,
I thought that was the point of signing the agreement, is to get access including early access of the business plan?
[Australians to ignore Abbott’s gaffes and to suggest that Abbott is not stupid, he is not ignorantbut he is clever, he is cunning, he is machiavellian. I think that would have cut through much, much better.]
i have some experience in this and i dont think this would of gone down well at all with the australian public during the election not all.
[Dee
Posted Monday, November 22, 2010 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
Exactly! Wonderful insight.
The Rabbott is a ‘rogue’ scholar. Only a few Aussies can claim that title. He is dumbing himself down for audience support. Successfully outfoxing the ALP & the voters. I’m sure this was done to clearly define himself from the perception of the Nerdy Rudd factor.
How else could one explain his behaviour?]
Dee initially I saw Abbott as unelectable because he had the lowest trustowrthy rating of any leader since Keating. If Rudd had stayed the policy course then he could have run on trust and Abbott would have been toast. But Rudd baulked.
And a newly installed JG couldn’t run on trust and Abbott was free to continue.
I was mightily p-ssed when Abbott ran the line that ‘Rudd wasn’t a real Queenslander and that the only time Rudd ever felt at home in Australia was when he was at ANU’. it was the height of hypocrisy that the ALp let through to the keeper.
I love Yes Minister/Prime Minister. The scary thing for me is that Sir Humphrey makes perfect sense.
[i have some experience in this and i dont think this would of gone down well at all with the australian public during the election not all.]
What do you mean My Say?
[Puff, the Magic Dragon.
Posted Monday, November 22, 2010 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
I love Yes Minister/Prime Minister. The scary thing for me is that Sir Humphrey makes perfect sense.]
Thats the power of a good enthymeme.
[Steve Fielding and Andrew Wilkie signed confidential agreement:
But X won’t and he won’t vote for the bill without the business case.]
There is no reason why this should be. He is playing politics IMHO.
Frank
[Remember when Howard was PM – Alan Jones said Jump – Howard said How High.
THAT is the political reality.]
I read an excerpt on Jonestown which stated Howard created a position for a staffer whose sole purpose was to deal with Alan Jones, which became a fulltime job.
Do you remember when Jones’ used his power & influence to bully John Laws?
[DeePosted Monday, November 22, 2010 at 3:37 pm | PermalinkFrank
Remember when Howard was PM – Alan Jones said Jump – Howard said How High.
THAT is the political reality.
I read an excerpt on Jonestown which stated Howard created a position for a staffer whose sole purpose was to deal with Alan Jones, which became a fulltime job.
Do you remember when Jones’ used his power & influence to bully John Laws?
]
Indeed – people don’t realise that Alan Jones on Breakfast sets the day’s agenda for the entire 2GB on air team.
Why do you think Howard went on there, or John Laws to announce Govt Policy ??
[I read an excerpt on Jonestown which stated Howard created a position for a staffer whose sole purpose was to deal with Alan Jones, which became a fulltime job.]
What a terrible job!
[Probably true but, gee, you’d have to think the MSM would be as culpable, wouldn’t you? ]
Possibly Augirre, but you are not going to change the MSM without leading them there, just as b-g shows @#427. The ALP needs to get their message out there in a way the MSM will use it (yes with spin, and the laziness the reporters now seem stricken with). If that’s what you have to do, then that’s what you have to do.
This is on ABC online
Government under attack over NBN deal
Did they see the same question time as me? If the coalition made an attack, it was pretty lame.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/22/3073226.htm?section=justin
Nappin,
Look at my posts at 297 and 301 if you want to see a lazy media effort. And yet that is standard fare.
triton@425
I’m now confident that Sen X will do the right thing now that his new mate Wilkie is on board…….
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-denies-bowing-to-greens-with-deal-to-subject-nbn-sale-to-greater-scrutiny/story-fn59niix-1225958581592
SK
I actually thought QT was tame today, apart from the poodle being kicked out, which I missed.
[Possibly Augirre, but you are not going to change the MSM without leading them there, just as b-g shows @#427. The ALP needs to get their message out there in a way the MSM will use it (yes with spin, and the laziness the reporters now seem stricken with). If that’s what you have to do, then that’s what you have to do.]
If you’re talking about that Yes Minister example explain how that matbe used in parliament or in an interview or a major speech.
It was, the members of the opposition seemed a little distracted. Although the Govt nicely set up the NBN with ehealth and e-education questions before hand. I think they are all counting down to the end of the parliamentary year!
nappin –
I don’t accept bg *has shown* anything. Quite the opposite. Its just opinion on
a political blog. The poster in question is conservative trying his heart out to
spin the fact that his mob are still out of government.
Labor is getting on with the job and do not need bg’s *advice*.
SK
The headline belies the content of that article.
Go Gillard!
[“This is a profound test for the opposition as to whether or not they believe in this kind of competition reform, this kind of microeconomic reform.”
She argued the legislation was necessary to “overwhelm one of the mistakes of the past”.
“That was the failure of the Howard government to deal with regulatory settings when they privatised Telstra.
“We are fixing a major market failure left to us by those opposite.”
Treasurer Wayne Swan said Mr Turnbull was a hypocrite because he was prepared to try and make a “quid” out of the NBN, but was still trying to demolish the project.
“They would rather see the government fail than see the country succeed. They would rather tear the economy down rather than build it up,” he said.]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-denies-bowing-to-greens-with-deal-to-subject-nbn-sale-to-greater-scrutiny/story-fn59niix-1225958581592
[444 GaryPosted Monday, November 22, 2010 at 4:02 pm | PermalinkPossibly Augirre, but you are not going to change the MSM without leading them there, just as b-g shows @#427. The ALP needs to get their message out there in a way the MSM will use it (yes with spin, and the laziness the reporters now seem stricken with). If that’s what you have to do, then that’s what you have to do.
If you’re talking about that Yes Minister example explain how that matbe used in parliament or in an interview or a major speech.
]
Gary,
It’s a waste of time trying to explain to the La La brigade that the ALP can magically win over a hostile media ala Mary Poppins with it being accused of Spin.
In fact #OhMike calls Julia the the “Prime Spinster cos of a) she isn’t married and “b) because of using “Spin Doctors”.
If you don’t believe me have a listen on thev weekend – you’ll get an edcuation on how the conservative mindset, and their complient media operate – oh and if you dare to challenge them – be prepared to be mocked, ignored and jeered at – and that’s just from the host.
Dee,
The lack of any soundbytes from the opposition left them with only real news to report.
[If you’re talking about that Yes Minister example explain how that matbe used in parliament or in an interview or a major speech.]
I can, if you don’t mind. (Although I am sure that you will).
Its the starting premise that counts in politics. If Julia Gillard always starts her speech with somethign about the future and the caring about the future and the need to invest for the future, then everyone will be more likely to come on board with the NBN.
Conversely , Abott starts every speech with enthyemes about waste. No one like wastes. So from that point on Abbott has to argue that the NBN is too big, too fast, not needed, not quite right etc and it ends up being viewed as government waste.
The argument is not about NBN vs no-NBN; it is about future v frugality or investment v waste. If you cede the future/investment bit and just talk about nbn you cede the argument. That is why it is better to weave things like the NBN and carbon price into a narrative (ie the future) than to let them stand alone as pillars of programs.