The Australian’s Troy Bramston tweets that Newspoll has the Coalition leading 57-43, down from 58-42 last time. However, the poll has Labor’s primary vote below 30% for the first time this year, down one to 29%, with the Coalition also down a point to 48% and the Greens steady on 9%. Tony Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister has reached a new peak of 45-33, up from 43-35 at the last poll three weeks ago, but personal ratings are little changed: Julia Gillard is steady at 28% approval and 62% disapproval, while Abbott is down one to 36% and steady at 53%.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research has Labor down on a point on the primary vote for the second week in a row, now down to 34% with the Coalition and the Greens steady at 47% and 8%. The Coalition’s lead on two-party preferred is up from 54-46 to 55-45. Also covered were intention to vote for a different party in the Senate (9% yes, 67% no); leaders attributes (Julia Gillard for some reason doing better than when the question was last asked in April, and Tony Abbott slightly worse); support for a long list of decisions made by the Rudd-Gillard government, the only net negative result being for the carbon tax; Tony Abbott’s intention to scrap the Gonski education reforms (32% approve, 44% disapprove); and sexism and discrimination against women.
UPDATE 2 (Morgan): The weekly Morgan multi-mode poll reverses an unusually good result for Labor last week, with the Coalition up 2.5% to 47% and Labor down the same amount to 30.5%, with the Greens unchanged at 9%. The Coalition’s two-party preferred lead is up from 54.5-45.5 to 56.5-43.5 on preferences from the previous election, and from 53.5-46.5 to 55.5-44.5 on respondent allocation.
I can’t believe we are now debating whether wearing a blue tie makes you a closet sexist.
I pray for September 15th I really do….
should read
it is a woman’s voice saying it.
Not long now ST! About 50 days to the election campaign I think…
Puff, the Magic Dragon.
mod lib just got put on my list, for his arrogant stupidity.
My list’s now so long, catching up on the backlog is fast & easy 👿
[My list’s now so long, catching up on the backlog is fast & easy]
Its like listening to the schoolyard bullies talking about whose head they have dunked in the toilet that day!
So childish 😉
[It doesnt work for someone who is meant to be Prime Minister for the WHOLE COUNTRY.]
So it’s okay for one party to be unrepresentative of the WHOLE COUNTRY, but not for their opponents to point it out?
Sean Tisme
Posted Monday, June 24, 2013 at 10:57 pm | Permalink
I can’t believe we are now debating whether wearing a blue tie makes you a closet sexist.
I pray for September 15th I really do….
——————————————————–
You started it…..you would be out of your depth in a car park puddle….
Finally we have an admission
[Essendon captain Jobe Watson has admitted for the first time that he believes he was administered the banned drug AOD 9604.
Watson said he had signed a consent form last season that included permission to administer AOD 9604, which the World Anti-Doping Authority has deemed to be a banned drug.
“My understanding after it being given through [club doctor] Bruce Reid and the club is that I was receiving AOD, yes,” Watson said on Fox Footy’s On The Couch.
He said he believed the substance to be legal at the time, but confirmed: “it was what I was told I was being given”.]
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/i-took-banned-drug-watson-20130624-2ota0.html
[“I invite you to imagine it. A prime minister – an ice cream – who goes on holidays to be replaced by an ice cream. A treasurer, who delivers a budget as an ice cream, to be supported by a finance minister – another ice cream. Frozen yoghurt once again banished from the centre of Australia’s political life.”]
Or how about something much, much closer to reality:
I invite you to imagine it. A prime minister – a man – goes on holidays to be replaced by another man. A treasurer, who delivers a budget as a man, to be supported by a finance minister – another man. Where are the women in this equation? Shunted to the backbench where they won’t trouble us men while we do important men stuff.”
Any suggestion that Gillard’s sexist comments are anywhere near the biggest faux pas this year are absurd. Here are some far more stupid actions:
1. Calling a September election in January
2. Announcing ‘days of governing’ and then having a four day campaign in Rooty Hill less than 10 days later.
3. Raising the divisive abortion debate from nowhere, whilst behind in the polls. Women are not aligned on this sensitive issue and Gillard needed every vote she could. All it did was turn off male voters…pret-ty clev-aaa!
4. Going to Indonesia to rattle the cage on local politics whilst placing our international relationship with this important country in jeopardy if she does so (o hypothetical.. we don’t know what she will talk about but shame on Gillard if she tells us for political survival).
5. Refusing to stand down. If polls killed Rudd why don’t they kill Gillard? The three key issues that she was going to fix are diabolically worse: Carbon Tax stupidity, Mining Tax revenue embarrassment, complete loss of control of boats.. worst in our nation’s history. Rudd’s no better. Shorten is but he is the only smart one being considered who is not losing his seat (otherwise I’d have a soft spot for Stephen Smith as leader)
No, Gillard is a career politician who, as a PM would make a good lollypop lady.
[I can’t believe we are now debating whether wearing a blue tie makes you a closet sexist.]
I can’t believe that there’s somebody who seriously doesn’t understand how an idiom works. You’re either unbelievably stupid or you’re spinning like a fan.
[I pray for September 15th I really do…]
I suspect that you think a lot of your problems are going to magically disappear on that day but (Spoiler alert!) they actually won’t; the occupant of the Lodge is not going to make a difference to your issues.
confessions:
A slight problem with your thesis is that the hierarchy of power in Australia is as follows:
Queen
Gov General
Prime Minister
Governor
Premier
Lord Mayor
…of which only 1 of the 6 is a male in our case in Sydney.
[ ….honestly, it really aint that complicated…if you just stopped typing for a second, went for a walk and had a little think it would all make sense to you, trust me! ]
No, I simply do not agree with your premise. No amount of “thinking” will make me agree that it is sexist to point out sexism where it exists. To do so is simply a false rationalization by those who refuses to face the issue.
And if you are going to try and argue that it does not exist in Australian society, then again I will point you to the defence forces, which have tried for decades to pretend it did not exist.
And look how well that has turned out for them.
Goodnight
Well, lets hope, for both our interests, that Gillard continues to play the gender card from now until Sep 14th.
Lets see what happens, eh?
Tony Jones came unstuck when he polled Q&A audience asking them if PM should stand down 10% yes 90% No
Brandis and richo were stunned
ML:
A slight problem with your theory is the persistent gender inequality which pervades most of our societal and economic indicators.
Or does the fact we have a woman GG somehow negate the income inequality when it comes to women’s earnings equivalent with male FTE?
And of course let’s not forget that the Coalition does it to.
Did you know that the Labor party is full of *gasp* union people?
[ Tony Jones came unstuck when he polled Q&A audience asking them if PM should stand down 10% yes 90% No
Brandis and richo were stunned ]
Oh, how I wish I had seen that! I ope it is put up on iView!
confessions:
A slight problem with your theory is the fact that it referred to positions of power being filled by men. Therefore, my list of the 6 most powerful positions for someone living in Sydney being filled by women 5 to 1 men is quite relevant.
The issue of pay differences is not relevant to the discussion. Of course everyone supports pay equality, that is just a classic straw (gender neutral) person.
Mod Lib, are you denying systematic sexism exists because some women have made it into positions of power.
Should I show you wage comparison rates, or participation figures of women in upper management?
Perhaps I can show you how domestic abuse and rape is still responded to by far too many in authority.
Heck, let me just show you the comments section of far too many a news story or blog post scratching the surface of the subject.
Or far too much political commentary (coming from both right and left) against female politicians they don’t like.
Gillard’s speech was a bad move but it doesn’t mean everything she talked about was bullshit. This is a big problem in our society and I don’t like people (left or right) trivialising it for partisan gain!
That’s my last word on it because, quite frankly, I am completely bored of the discourse on this topic. Everybody’s wrong.
Some people here just don’t get it.
Whatever shade of meaning there was in Gillards blue tie speech, the upshot is she came across as a divisive desperate person who was playing an sexism card.
It didn’t go down well. The polls have shifted even further away from manageable and her personal ratings are in free fall.
You just can’t find that kind of stupidity if you don’t look very hard for it.
Oh I see, Gillard’s blue tie speech was a fight to end domestic violence…..you are completely right, I missed that entirely!
Tom Hawkins@1358
I hope they suspend the lot of them, especially their obsequious turd of a coach.
And that bag of lawn clipping who tried to drag racism into Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s speech (I bet he hates me using the full title) forgets that women too belong to all the black racial group so and suffer double discrimination through racism and sexism. In trying to prove sexism in a speech that attacks the imbalance of gender in the power structures of the Liberal Party, the author, in my opinion, displays both of those attitudes for all to see.
Isn’t it a problem with the blue tie meme that I have never seen Julie Bishop wearing a blue tie?
[ Therefore, my list of the 6 most powerful positions for someone living in Sydney being filled by women 5 to 1 men is quite relevant. ]
Only if that troubles you, as it so obviously does.
Player One @1322
“Can you be banned here for consistent and apparently irredeemable stupidity?”
You could, but what would all the ALP drones do with some much free time and no delusions to blog down ?
Player One
[Well, glad to hear it. You will naturally then be supporting Gillard on as the only possible hope of preventing the Tories from winning the next election.]
I’m supporting whoever is best placed to beat Abbott.
I don’t know who that is but I hope they win!!
@Mod Lib/1340
So I guess both Gillard and Abbott are the bigots then?
One says something about women in Calibre, other saying about men with ties, but guess which one get’s more communication ? Gillard.
Yup thanks to our media.
[In trying to prove sexism in a speech that attacks the imbalance of gender in the power structures of the Liberal Party, the author, in my opinion, displays both of those attitudes for all to see.]
So using Gillard’s exact words and changing one subgroup with another is proof for you that I am both racist and sexist, whereas Gillard is a champion of integrity (using the identical words which I used, since I cut and pasted her speech)?
OK….if you say so….
ML
The biggest problem with your theory (and I use that term loosely) is in trying to pin the PM’s speech to “the 6 most powerful positions living in Sydney”, while on the other hand trying to position her speech as marginalising 50% of the population.
Which is it? Is the PM pitching to the powerful in pointing out the inherent sexism and gender inequality in our society, or is she simply making a statement of the bleeding obvious, while referencing the LOTO’s shallow use of tie colour as a symbol?
Carey Moore
I recall a Monty Python sketch that might work here.. I seem to recall a working government, when a guy called John Howard ran it..
“So what did John Howard ever do for us?”
“Well he did have enormous surpluses”
“Well, that goes without saying! But apart from the enormous surpluses, what did he ever do for us?”
“Well, We did have no government debt!”
“..and we did have lots of genuine refugees in the country and almost no boats or deaths on the high seas”
“.. and the future fund!”
“Ok, well apart from the enormous surpluses, no government debt, no boats or deaths on the high seas and the future fund, what did John Howard ever do for us?”
“Well he was still better than Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Kev mark II, Kev mark III, New Julia, New-New Julia, Old-rebadged Julia, Misogynist Tony, ETS Turnbull, Earthian Bob, Nails-on-the-chalkboard Milne, Sloppy Joe, FFS Kevvie, New-Old Julia, Kevin, Julia, Kevin or Julia.”
“True.”
“What about Workchoices?”
“FFS”
Jobe Watson would be stripped of his Brownlow Medal if AFL wasn’t a chummy boys club.
mimhoff
[Did you know that the Labor party is full of *gasp* union people?]
No, that’s a modern myth – not real unionists. Less than half of one percent 0.5% of the members of the affiliated unions also belong to the ALP. Labor is not part of the lives of working people any more. The ‘union people’ in Labor actually’ comprise a few party members who were parachuted into unions at the top while they developed their power and influence in the party. They have no connection with actual toiling union members. They then took on power positions in the party or were pre-selected. Want names?
Weekly poll aggregation now available (44.3 to 55.7): http://marktheballot.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/weekly-aggregation-443-to-557.html
[It didn’t go down well. The polls have shifted even further away from manageable and her personal ratings are in free fall.]
If posters here need to find tenuous justifications for something the PM said, the implication is that the PM’s political judgement is unsound.
This is the problem with team Gillard. Even if you all could whisper in the ears of the voters that count, unsound political judgement will not turn them. The most successful political arguments are definitive and require little substantiation.
[Oh I see, Gillard’s blue tie speech was a fight to end domestic violence]
The kind of blokey, sneering, empty response one has come to expect from you.
[confessions
Posted Monday, June 24, 2013 at 11:13 pm | PERMALINK
ML
The biggest problem with your theory (and I use that term loosely) is in trying to pin the PM’s speech to “the 6 most powerful positions living in Sydney”, while on the other hand trying to position her speech as marginalising 50% of the population.]
The biggest problem with your critique, is that Gillard’s point was absolutely the view that “we women” would not want “those men” making all the decisions. Hence, the proportion of women and men in positions of power is directly relevant.
I understand that some here will never be critical of Gillard….after all, after 6 years of either being leader or deputy leader, she apparently bears no culpability for the current situation of her party.
If you hold that kind of denialist view, I would not expect you to think anything she said was dumb.
Fair enough…..all are entitled to their opinions, so lets see what the voters think, eh? :devil:
[Mark the Ballot
Posted Monday, June 24, 2013 at 11:14 pm | PERMALINK
Weekly poll aggregation now available (44.3 to 55.7):]
You continue to refuse to break the glass ceiling of triple figures Mark!
Tony Jones came unstuck when he polled Q&A audience asking them if PM should stand down 10% yes 90% No
Somehow I wasn’t surprised to see that. I remember Barnaby Joyce once asking the audience if they’d like to pay more tax and most of them raised their hand.
[If posters here need to find tenuous justifications for something the PM said, the implication is that the PM’s political judgement is unsound.]
Hilarious. You should see what the LOTO says.
By your logic, therefore whatever comes out his mouth shows him to be of sound judgement.
[If posters here need to find tenuous justifications for something the PM said, the implication is that the PM’s political judgement is unsound.]
What tenuous justifications are there? We’re referring to the actual text of her speech.
Forgive me for not being in the “Look! The polls moved! Obviously whatever Julia Gillard did last week was a terrible mistake!” camp, but I would like to view things on their own merits.
[
Carey Moore @ 1361
I can’t believe that there’s somebody who seriously doesn’t understand how an idiom works.
]
I assumed they worked by people being familiar with their meaning, otherwise they’re just word salad.
[ Whatever shade of meaning there was in Gillards blue tie speech, the upshot is she came across as a divisive desperate person who was playing an sexism card. ]
This is the argument many people used about her first misogyny speech. And look what happened to that. This is what many of her detractors are afraid will happen again. So they play silly buggers by pretending the whole speech was some stupid comment on blue-tie wearers. But all such people do is point out their own stupidity – not hers.
Some people just won’t admit that she could possibly be genuine about this issue – even though she has probably experienced sexism first-hand throughout her entire career – and quite reasonably objects to it!
No, it has to be a political ploy, because otherwise it doesn’t fit the “meme” that she’s a calculating but stupid and politically-inept bitch. It couldn’t possibly be genuine and heartfelt. Oh no!
dio
It may have come across as that to men, but women knew exactly what she was saying and why.
I see also that PMJG is allowed to have her speeches judged good and genuine if they are passionate (emotional, responsive e.g the feminine) but not if they are planned, thought-out and delivered precisely (the masculine) to make a point about her opponents.
She (and I emphasise ‘she’) is allowed spontaneity and re-activity but not planning and pro-activity.
I suggest Dio, you dig deep down and look at what you believe.
The rest of you, as you were, because the exercise is beyond you.
[Hence, the proportion of women and men in positions of power is directly relevant.]
Well even by this piece of tenuous logic, you fail. What is the proportion of women in our nation’s parliaments? How about in our judiciaries? What about on corporate boards? Never mind household earning power.
It’s amusing to see Brandis imply the abc is biased, right after mediawatch nailed the blatant hypocrisy of the Australian claiming the same thing with regard to climate change reporting.
Noise ltd reports Greg Combat trying to get a job in return for dumping PM:
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/greg-combet-reportedly-tried-to-strike-gillard-dumping-deal-with-kevin-rudd-in-exchange-for-treasurer-job/story-fnii5s3x-1226669009221
confessions
Let me make sure I understand you here.
Her Majesty The Queen is a woman, but that’s not enough for you? 😉