BludgerTrack: 50.8-49.2 to Labor

With the only new poll being a status quo result from Essential Research, it’s a dull old week for the BludgerTrack poll aggregate.

The only new poll this week was the regular weekly finding from Essential Research, which produced an essentially status quo result. With earlier polling that was stronger for Labor washing out of the system, the latest reading on the BludgerTrack poll aggregate records a minor continuation of the trend to the Coalition, who are up 0.2% on two-party preferred. There is also a one-seat shift on the seat projection to the Coalition, who make a gain in New South Wales. For what it’s worth, this leaves the numbers looking very much as they did at the 2010 election. Nothing new this week on leadership ratings.

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.

1,845 comments on “BludgerTrack: 50.8-49.2 to Labor”

Comments Page 2 of 37
1 2 3 … 37

  6. “@ABCNews24: Bill Shorten: I suspect that the Abbott Government’s only recipe for workplace relations is to cut penalty rates #auspol”

  8. “@ABCNews24: Bill Shorten: I’m sure the Government has an agenda to cut people’s conditions but they’re so chicken they never have a debate #auspol”

  9. My point has nothing to do with numbers – it’s to do with ‘picking on’ the one PM in Australia’s history to allow any kind of a vote at all on ssm whilst giving a free pass to the blokes who didn’t.

    Say ‘it’s a shame no PM in our history had the balls to compel a vote on ssm’ and I’ll be all for it. To single out for blame the ONLY PM to allow a vote at all is perverse.

  12. Overnight the global head of Shell called for the world to embrace cleaner burning natural gas, innovations in carbon capture and storage and adopt policies that impose a price on carbon.

    So not a left wing greenie rather global oil and gas. Wonder if an Aussie journo will put it to Abbott just how out of touch we are.

  14. While I think only a truly crazy person would support criminalization of non commercial domestic infringement – I’m happy for website blocking but clearly the copyright holders should pay for it.

  18. @QuentinDempster: Mike Gallacher is being taken through emails and mobile phone meta data of Tinkler’s Buildev arrangements for financial support for Libs.

  19. “@scott_thewspot: BREAKING: Twitter will remove the “Retweet” function for Australian users to prevent potential copyright infringements of tweets.”

  21. [“@scott_thewspot: BREAKING: Twitter will remove the “Retweet” function for Australian users to prevent potential copyright infringements of tweets.”]

    Player one will be delighted.

  24. briefly

    [ Moves to allow uranium sales to India were initiated by Labor. ]

    Wrong. It’s a lot more complex than that. They were initially disallowed by Fraser. Then allowed by Howard. Then disallowed by Rudd. Then allowed by Gillard.

    The point you seem to be missing is that Abbott could have gone either way, but he seems to have decided – presumably after his recent discussions with them on asylum seekers – to allow them.

    And he didn’t even get to dump the asylum seekers on them!

  25. zoomster

    You seem to have totally missed the point re marriage

    The Louisiana Federal Court ruining & reasoning points to the absurdity of marriage in general ( if you discount ” biblical or religious ” sanctioning or instruction … As any sane person would )

    My recollection is that Julia was not in favour of Gay or hero sexual marriage , ie was against marriage .
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/louisiana-gay-marriage_n_5760012.html

    “For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs,”

    State sanctioned marriage is illogical, Julia was intelligent enough to avoid the whole irrational mess.
    The logical solution to the conundrum raised by justice Feldman is not to have any sanctioned marriages … Of course that will never happen.

  26. WeWantPaul

    [ While I think only a truly crazy person would support criminalization of non commercial domestic infringement – I’m happy for website blocking but clearly the copyright holders should pay for it. ]

    So copyright holders should have to pay to retain their copyright?

    That’s simply insane.

  29. swamprat

    In that case, I apologise – we are in complete agreement.

    I have said here previously that marriage should not be a state matter at all. If people want a marriage recognised by a particular religious institution, then it’s up to that institution to define and regulate the marriages it performs.

    If they simply want some mystic words uttered over them and a group of friends and family witnessing their commitment, then they can also do that without the state having to be involved.

    …and if your gerbil IS particularly attractive, it’s better that you commit to it…

  30. guytaur

    [ Taxpayers paying and citizens losing free speech rights is insane. ]

    Except in certain limited circumstances, the right to free speech does not give you the right to breach copyright.

  31. P1

    The right to free speech trumps copyright. Filtering has failed where tried across the world.

    An exception is the great firewall of China but we know the efforts and cost they have to go through.

    Three strikes rule also fails as online banking government services etc are all online. Its like saying you cannot be a train passenger because you got caught three times travelling illegally.

    Just some examples. Copyright infringement needs sensible workable policies not these draconian proven to fail ones.

  33. guytaur

    [ The right to free speech trumps copyright. Filtering has failed where tried across the world. ]

    Rubbish. You are generally allowed to reproduce copyright material only if it falls under “fair use” clauses – which are quite limited.

  35. P1

    Having access to information is a free speech issue. Blocking sites by government for copyright holders is draconian. Blocking the whole internet even more so.

  36. Player One

    Even ISIS are on board.

    [ISIS bans ‘unauthorized’ images of beheading

    BEIRUT: The Al-Qaeda splinter group ISIS has issued a directive banning the unauthorized publication………The directive says that the group’s upper leadership must give explicit permission before the publication of such images.

    The order specifies that the material should not be relayed via “official” ISIS media or personal social media forums.]
    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Sep-01/269155-isis-bans-unauthorized-images-of-beheading.ashx#axzz3CJ1fTuRs

  37. zoomster@79

    swamprat

    In that case, I apologise – we are in complete agreement.

    I have said here previously that marriage should not be a state matter at all. If people want a marriage recognised by a particular religious institution, then it’s up to that institution to define and regulate the marriages it performs.

    If they simply want some mystic words uttered over them and a group of friends and family witnessing their commitment, then they can also do that without the state having to be involved.

    …and if your gerbil IS particularly attractive, it’s better that you commit to it…

    I’d leave in the requirement that the union be recorded for posterity in freely available state archives. I’m thinking of relatives of the people concerned trying to do family history a century hence. Without birth, death and marriage notices the work is very difficult.

  39. zoidlord

    [ Never argue with Player One guytaur, he’s a know it all. ]

    Not really. But guytaur is simply wrong.

    From http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/copyright-free-speech-and-publics-right-know-how-journalists-think-about-fai

    [ Under fair use, people can quote copyrighted work without permission or payment in some circumstances (broadly, when social benefit is larger than individual owners’ loss). Society benefits, according to copyright policy, when more culture is made. ]

  43. @player one/89

    Copyright was designed to benefit the owners, not the legitimate users.

    Fair use in Australia does not exist.

    The decade alone shows that copyright don’t work.

  44. don

    Births and deaths would still be registered – I would have thought a Birth Certificate, stating the parents’ names, would be all that a family historian really needs.

    I’m not sure, that said, that these things should be dictated by the needs of family historians – but I do know, from personal experience (who my great grandfather is will forever remain a source of speculation, but he seems the likely source of a couple of genetic problems in my extended family) – that it’s useful when tracking inherited illnesses.

  45. Wally is standing the upcoming Vic state election on an anti-major party platform with a focus on education, rural health and indigenous issues.

  46. P1

    I have said to you filtering has failed where tried. Every time it has been free speech trumping copyright. Along with denial oh service when internet blocked.

    We have seen the failure. Reality. You have to argue why it will work this time when it has failed before.

    UK
    France
    US
    EU generally

    How can Australia do that these countries have failed to do?

  47. [WeWantPaul
    While I think only a truly crazy person would support criminalization of non commercial domestic infringement – I’m happy for website blocking but clearly the copyright holders should pay for it.
    So copyright holders should have to pay to retain their copyright?
    That’s simply insane.]

    No simply insane is suggesting another business should pay to protect your property. As stupid as suggesting Coles should pay Kellogg’s insurance premium.

    Like with a patent if you want to take action to protect your patent from commercial infringement you should be entitled to. But to suggest a factory that makes iPhones for Apple should bear the cost of ensuring apple doesn’t breach Samsung patents is laughable.

    And infringement doesn’t invalidate copyright at all so it ain’t about retaining copyright.

  48. Diogs,

    No doubt his vast experience as a celebrity hob nobbing with the music glitterati of the world is exactly the experience required to solve these intractable problems.

    Self glorifying wanker Party might be a good name for his group.

Comments Page 2 of 37
1 2 3 … 37

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *