Last week, the BludgerTrack poll aggregate disappointed Coalition fans by failing to respond much to the morale-boosting poll result the had received from Ipsos. Now it’s Labor supporters’ turn, with a shift to the Coalition recorded despite Labor’s strong two-party result from Newspoll. This reasons for this are that a) BludgerTrack goes off the primary vote, and the numbers provided by Newspoll were scarcely different from those that produced a two-party result of 53-47 a fortnight ago, suggesting that much of that two-point shift came down to rounding, b) numbers added this week for Essential Research and Roy Morgan were both soft for Labor, and c) the very strong results Labor was recording at the time of the leadership spill have now entirely washed out of the system. All of which adds up to a solid move to the Coalition on two-party that brings with it four seats on the seat projection, numbering one each in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia.
Newspoll and Essential Research both provided numbers for leadership ratings this week, and they collectively find the Tony Abbott dead cat continuing to bounce, to the extent that he’s nearly back to where he was at his previous all-time low after the budget. A surprisingly sharp deterioration in Bill Shorten’s numbers has also moderated with the addition of the new numbers, returning him to a more familiar position just below parity. The new figures also knock some of the edge off Abbott’s recovery on preferred prime minister. Full details as always on the sidebar.
[When there is a margin of error of about 3% in a poll, it makes no sense to quote a value to one decimal place. It is claiming a degree of precision that just doesn’t exist.]
But doesn’t the decimal place just accurately state the results of the survey, to which a margin of error is then applied?
@ Jake, 498
Hear hear. If the Philippines had the death penalty, this person being executed is not a case I would campaign against.
Jake@498: I don’t believe that the death penalty is ever justified. I doubt that self-confessed Rock Spiders like Scully do well, either in a Philippine prison or on his deportation to an Australian one.
Arrnea,
I would have to agree.
rhwombat,
Fair enough. I disagree, but, again – fair enough.
Wise words. Labor is a clique-ridden organization in which most MPs are mere ciphers for some factional thug who thinks he’s entitled to power without responsibility. It’s an absolute disgrace. I am glad that Kevin Rudd, for all his workplace bullying and poor management abilities, made Labor somewhat less oligarchical.
[Peter Piper
Posted Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
When there is a margin of error of about 3% in a poll, it makes no sense to quote a value to one decimal place. It is claiming a degree of precision that just doesn’t exist.
]
By that logic the pollsters should only publish a change when their measured result moves outside the margin of error.
The collapse of Libya
_______________
Asia Times looks at the way foreign intervention destroyed Gaddafi and caused Libya to become a failed state…and an avenue for vast numbers of illegal immigrants to stream into Italy
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-120315.html
[I am glad that Kevin Rudd…made Labor somewhat less oligarchical.]
The ultimate irony.
@ rhwombat, 503
In an Australian prison, he’d be separated from the general population for his own protection (at extra expense to the taxpayer). I’m glad that probably won’t happen in a Philippine prison.
[
Peter Piper
Posted Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
When there is a margin of error of about 3% in a poll, it makes no sense to quote a value to one decimal place. It is claiming a degree of precision that just doesn’t If you know the error to a decimal point then the value the error is placed around has to be quoted to the decimal point or the error made unsymmetrical and the value added to the result to get it to round also has to be added to the error.
Errors are standard deviations to normal distributions and should be treated with respect. Arbitrary rounding because people don’t understand error bands should not be allowed.
exist.
]
If you know your error estimate to a decimal point then the value the error is placed around has to be quoted to the decimal point or the error made unsymetrical and the value added to the result to get it to round also has to be added to the error.
Errors are standard deviations to normal disributions and should be treated with respect. Arbitary rounding because peope don’t understand error bands should not be allowed.
It also made them competitive. Imagine the scrutiny on Shorten’s leadership if he could be rolled as easily as previously.
All those questions are now with the LNP.
@ Jake, 509
Not really – people who want to centralise power over the party in the individual leader will have to deal with the vested interest of the oligarchy in controlling the party at some point.
To use the metaphor of a monarchy, the monarch is only able to be an absolute monarch after he or she has subdued the authority of the other nobles.
Arrange Stormbringer @ 510
Your in prison extra punishment ideas are just as abhorrent now as they were a few nights ago.
lefty @ 512
[It also made them competitive. Imagine the scrutiny on Shorten’s leadership if he could be rolled as easily as previously.]
I cannot get over the extent that the Liberals keep trying to generate reports of Shorten being vulnerable and that some purist Laborites are playing into the same game, when the chances of Shorten being replaced in a hostile takeover are somewhere between nil and zero. It has a potential downside of Labor being stuck with a dud, but the Rudd changes have provided certainty of tenure for a Labor leader and this is to the good of the party.
The only irony is that it is the new machinery for change, rather than the 50/50 voting structure that will entrench parliamentary leaders. And it really has nothing much to do with unions, despite the best efforts of the IPA and HV Higgins society boosters and the purist Labor dullards.
Arrnea@510:
Yes, but he’s more likely to be able to purchase protection in the Philippines. Given that he has murdered at least one child, his likely life sentence without the possibility of rehabilitation or parole (even in an Australian prison with “protective” separation) would be appropriately ghastly.
@ Barney, 515
Prison should be feared by those who would commit crime – it should not be a five-star all-expenses-paid vacation from society but for the lack of doors that open from the inside.
@ rhwombat, 517
True enough, though I wouldn’t go so far as to assume that our prisons are free of such potential for bribery.
TPOF 516
You’ve nailed right on the head.
When ever the Abbott Government is in deep shit some posters here stir up Labor leadership so called leadership woes or rack up Rudd/Gillard or Green/Labor wars. Ignore them.
The concept of applauding ‘extra judicial’ punishments in prison beyond the scope of what a judge/jury decide according to the parameters laid out in the law is just barbaric.
Putting people, no matter what they have done, in harms way for some random ‘jail justice’ of rapes, beatings, death – that’s not the way our system should work, and anyone who advocates that it should do so in any way deserves no respect in my eyes.
As a society we set indefinite detention as the upper limit on criminal sanctions. Let’s keep it that way. None of this sly, wink wink, “he’ll get what he deserves”. That’s not rule of law, that’s mob style vengeance. What we do to a murderer/child rapist can never make up for the evil things they have done – we’re not trying to “make the punishment fit the crime” because that’s not what our criminal justice system is intended to do – we punish people as a deterrent; we lock people up as a punishment and to protect the community depending on the circumstances. That’s it. If someone is genuinely no prospect for rehabilitation, then sure, let’s lock them up forever to protect the community, but this notion that we throw in some “special sauce” of whatever the top-dog bully thugs in prison might dish out while we turn a blind eye is … barbaric.
@ Jackol, 520
Yes, we do. Their detention protects the community from their re-offending. They do not deserve extra protection, at additional expense, within the prison just because their crime is something that other prisoners might consider offensive.
Either house all prisoners separately for safety, or house them all in general population. Answer me this: what has a child molester done to earn the right to greater protection than that afforded to someone in for armed robbery or fraud?
It’s not just child molesters that are subject to assault in prison, after all.
VB used to be called Victoria Bitter.
The name was changed to VB so that the people who drank it could spell it.
AS –
You do go on about all this expense. Perhaps you should quote some figures of how much all of this ‘unnecessary’ jail time for people whom you think are worthy of death costs? And how much for all that additional ‘unnecessary’ protection? Or are you just doing shock jock radio fact-free outrage on this topic?
What a ludicrous debating point. Different prisoners have different requirements. Some are more vulnerable (for a whole variety of reasons) than others and need to be treated differently for their own protection.
Younger, weaker, prisoners would require more care on the part of the correctional services personnel than older, stronger, prisoners. That additional care would be inherently wrong according to your simplistic logic.
A sentence of imprisonment should be just that – imprisonment. Not rape. Not beatings. Not torture. Not death. However it works, the sentence carried out should be what is determined by the courts, and where that sentence is imprisonment whatever additional measures are required to ensure it is carried out reasonably should be done. Whatever the crime. Whoever the incarcerated person is.
Your bleating about “additional cost” of not killing people or of implementing their punishment properly is just rabid nonsense.
Arena, I think it comes down to the state having a duty of care for everyone in the prison population.
Well said Jackol.
*Arnea, sorry.
@ Jackol, 523
I’m not advocating for the death penalty in Australia. This renders much of the rest of your post moot.
My logic is that it would be unfair to provide that care to only inmates who the prison authorities have decided are at extra risk when, in fact, all inmates are at risk of violence from other inmates – even the “stronger, older” ones you speak of.
@ roger, 524
Then the State needs to separate ALL prisoners from each other, for their protection. We often do it in mental words, why not prison?
*mental wards. Hooray for typos.
When it comes to poll sampling bear in mind that the 3% margin of error relates to a sample size of 1,000 with a confidence level of 95%.
This means that 95% of these samples will have results within the 3% margin of error. Hence one sample in 20 will lie outside the 3% margin of error.
Oddly enough, as long as the sample size is much lower than the total population, the actual size of the population has only a minimal effect.
Different sample sizes and different confidence levels give different margins of error.
More info from Wiki, just google “margin of error”.
521 & 527
Saying we should not give prisoners who commit crimes that make them unpopular in prisons` general populations the separation they need to survive when we do not give said separation is like refusing to give prosthetic legs to prisoners who loose their legs during the commission of their crime on the grounds that prisoners with 2 legs do not get prosthetic legs.
AS –
You have advocated in other posts for the death penalty – in the specific case raised you are quite happy for him to be put to death and have talked in terms of how unfortunate it is that we (or whoever might imprison him) would have to keep paying money to keep him alive in prison. It is not “moot”, and even putting the death penalty to one side, the concept of being raped, beaten, tortured in prison is something you have basically advocated for in this specific case. Moot my arse.
More nonsense from you. Different inmates are at different levels of risk. Running prisons inherently involves assessing the risk to each individual. Young, weak, suicidal, etc, necessarily require more care than others. As you say, every prisoner is ‘at risk’ but some are more at risk than others, and the response of the prison must be to tailor their level of care to the level of risk for the individuals in question.
You can’t wave that away by saying that everyone is at risk.
@ Tom, 530
Prisoners who lose their legs during the commission of their crime shouldn’t get prosthetics while they’re in prison. Give them a wheelchair.
Your comparison is still apples and oranges, because all inmates in a prison are at risk of being assaulted by other inmates. That some are at higher risk than others does not mean that others are not at risk. To argue that it does is like saying that there should be no domestic violence services for male victims because females are at higher risk of being victims of it.
@ Jackol, 531
And I have clarified in other posts that my acceptance of the death penalty in such cases is not because I think it is appropriate for such punishment to be meted out in Australia, but because I respect the right of other sovereign nations to make decisions about their legal system (to a point – there’s a big difference between executing someone for drug trafficking and executing someone for apostasy).
For the question of whether I’d support instituting the death penalty for murderers and child molesters in Australia, I still have no answer. It is not something I have made my mind up on.
See my 532 – your argument is akin to saying that there should be no DV services for male victims because females are at higher risk.
AS –
If you have clarified away from the point of view that you think it would be just dandy for this particular guy to be executed or be killed while in prison I have obviously missed that clarification.
It’s a rubbish argument in 532 and it’s a rubbish argument here.
@ Jackol, 534
That’s not what I said and you know it.
How is it any different? Both are talking about not making efforts to to protect people in some Group A because people in some other Group B are at more risk of needing those protections.
Jihadi Jake… The Greens Voting Melbourne Terrorist
Why do almost all extremists in Australia come from the left?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/revealed-jihadi-jake-bilardis-plot-to-bomb-melbourne/story-fni0fit3-1227260554180
@ TBA, 536
LOL.
More details on this guys “thoughts” about Australia and the U.S
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/jake-bilardi-islamic-state-alleged-blog-radicalisation-journey/6306844
Arrnea
See you are back writing more nonsense about prisons.
Before writing more, I suggest you take reading lessons.
In your #368 and #369 yesterday referring to my scenario that stated as a starting point that a middle aged man had been charged and convicted of touching the breast of a 14 year old girl, you went on a garden ramble arguing that he would not be convicted for such an action.
You went on to lecture me about the difference between allegations/charging and being convicted (incidentally, a total non sequitur in the discussion)
I suggest you contemplate why I might use the last 3 letters of my pseudonym. Uni of Sydney BTW.
Seriously, you should refrain from your constant rants about punishment and gaol. And study a little philosophy to understand that stating universal propoitions is a pursuit doomed to lead to error.
What you advocate for all drug smugglers and all pedophiles is as I stated yesterday, the reasoning of a naive youngster, a redneck, or someone truly ignorant of the fact that unique circumstances surround the commission of every crime.
That is why courts take the time to hear every single bit of admissable evidence ….. it’s an essential component of due process and the rule of law.
@ psyclaw, 539
Perhaps you are the one who needs to learn to read?
The matter that we have a system where an allegation does not necessarily to a conviction is quite important when we’re talking about what punishment the convicted should receive. The case that was raised as a comparison (the middle-aged man who was convicted of touching someone’s breast) simply would not exist, because he would have been acquitted in a heartbeat (as a law graduate, you should know that a jury must acquit if there is reasonable doubt about the criminal intent of the accused) or, even more likely, not charged in the first place.
Please, learn to read. I suggest starting with the first two paragraphs of my post at 533, which I will reproduce for you here:
Absolutely. I have the utmost respect for due process. I’m just not as convinced that the people operating our due process are capable of sentencing people appropriately. As I said a few times, I’m open to alternatives to mandatory sentences (I am not deaf to their shortcomings), but the status quo on sentencing is simply untenable.
AS –
Right, so when you said:
So what’s the implication of this? If he isn’t separated from the general population, what is it that you think is likely to happen? And how are you not advocating for this to happen (with the spurious “at extra expense to the taxpayer” as justification)?
Or how about when you said this:
Same question – what is it that general prison population, and explicitly seeding the knowledge of the crime is supposed to do that you are alluding to here? Don’t be shy, spell it out.
Are you really pretending to not understand risk management? Of course all prisoners are “at risk”, but to different degrees. All prisoners deserve protection in prison, and I would hope they all get it. But in assessing how to ensure safety, different prisoners will require different responses from the prison authorities.
How hard is that to understand? It’s true of various vulnerable people – the young, the weak, the suicidal – it’s true of people who are known to have snitched to the police, and it’s also true of those who are known to have committed certain crimes. They all require additional care from the authorities. Your nonsense about fairness is ludicrous – fairness is making sure that everyone who is sent to prison serves a reasonably safe imprisonment; that that might involve different treatment while they are imprisoned is just part of the risk management required of running a prison.
But yeah, let’s talk about male DV victims instead…
Further to this:
I seem to remember someone around here arguing that the context under which capital punishment is imposed by some nations is irrelevant and that, as a result, a nation that executes people only for a few crimes almost globally considered heinous (murder, for example) is just as bad as one who executes people for reasons like adultery, apostasy or blasphemy.
It probably wasn’t you (I’m thinking it was Puff), but it’s still pretty ironic.
Arrnea
Thoughtful people (quite a number have criticised you here tonight, and good on them) understand that in gaols (and in your mind) a hypocritical double standard exists regarding prisoners convicted of child sex offences.
So we have adult rapists, murderers, drunken car crash killers, perps of horrific DV with GBH, robbers, home invaders, etc etc lining up to bash “rock spiders”.
Like you, they neither know or care that within CSA crimes there is a huge range of seriousness.
To spell it out for you who does not understand nuance, some (not all ….. Some!) CSA crimes are far less serious than crimes done by the general prison population.
And so here you are advocating that an aberration in prisons whereby inmates who have comitted very very serious non CSA crimes for which they are serving long sentences should be facilitated in their hypocritical wish to bash inmates who have comitted far less serious CSA crimes for which they are serving brief sentences.
Fortunately our society at large recognises that views such as yours are simplistic notions characteristic of an uncivilised society. Such views point to tearing down the rule of law, not promoting it.
[deewhytony
Posted Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 11:18 pm | Permalink
VB used to be called Victoria Bitter.
The name was changed to VB so that the people who drank it could spell it.
]
I’ve heard stories of how in some places, (not going to name them)it was just referred to as ‘Green Can’.
@ Jackol, 541
As long as we have consistency, I’m happy with that outcome too.
Then why are we not making efforts to protect all prisoners, hm? Why only those we deem to be at extra risk? Is it about saving money, or do those who decide to do this truly only think the people they are making extra effort to protect are the only ones who need the protection?
If the goal of this part of the prison system is to protect the inmates while they are in prison, every single assault upon the imprisoned represents a systematic failure of that part of the prison system. Either fix it (protect all prisoners) or remove that part of the prison system (let what might happen to you in prison be part of the deterrent) – don’t sit on the fence.
[Arrnea Stormbringer
Posted Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 11:04 pm | Permalink
@ Barney, 515
Prison should be feared by those who would commit crime – it should not be a five-star all-expenses-paid vacation from society but for the lack of doors that open from the inside.
]
The only fear a prison should project is the fear of losing your liberty. Their role should be two fold,
1) punishment, by loss of liberty
2) rehabilitation, in an attempt to minimise reoffending.
Any punishment outside that imposed by a court of law has no place in a civilised society.
@ psyclaw, 543
If you willfully sexually assault a child, you deserve to be locked away from society for the rest of your life. End of story. There is no mitigating circumstance that can make willfull child sexual assault any less worthy of the fullest punishment available to our law.
I defy you to try and name one.
@ Barney, 546
When homeless people have an incentive to commit petty crimes to get sent to prison in order to get looked after better, prison is not adequately terrifying.
AS –
Good to see you ducked the part about “clarifying” exactly what you do and don’t advocate based upon your recent statements here.
We are. We should. Not everyone needs the same level of protection because not everyone is at the same level of risk.
Of course money is a factor. We don’t put infinite resources towards ensuring perfect safety in any aspect of government or business. But we expect that there is a tradeoff – where there is a great deal of risk, we expect (in most fields) that more resources will be devoted to mitigating the high risk situations. That doesn’t mean treating everyone and every situation the same because not everyone and not every situation carries the same level of risk. It’s not hard to understand.
I agree that every assault on any prisoner is a failure of the system.
But we don’t attempt to completely remove risk, just bring it down to “reasonable” levels.
I’m not sitting on the fence. Protect all prisoners. Within reason.
Deliberately ignoring risk to individuals in the prison sentence – worse, deliberately increasing their risk as you have advocated – is not a definition of “within reason” that I am willing to accept.
Arrnea
Words fail me ….. You say that a case such as I described in the scenario “would never exist because blah blah blah because he would be acquitted in a heartbeat ……”
Arrnea old son, I was simply describing a past true case I know of, from a common garden variety of relatively minor sex crimes whereby perps take the opportunity to do low level touch ups in crowded settings.
The self confidence with which you naively write quite stupid and incorrect things is breathtaking.