This week’s reading of the BludgerTrack poll aggregate, which has new results from Newspoll and Essential Research to play with, smooths away last week’s movement to the Coalition to the extent of suggesting that Labor would more likely emerge at the head of the projected minority government. Labor makes three gains on the seat projection, including one seat each in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. A drop in the Greens vote is partly down to an unusually strong result in the last Ipsos poll washing out of the system, but there have also been some slightly softer numbers for them in polls released over the last fortnight. The model doesn’t quite yet know how to deal with the new-look Galaxy-conducted Newspoll, which has come in at the high end for Labor on the primary vote in its two polls so far, in contrast with the habits of the Newspoll of old. As a result, it’s not being weighted too heavily just at the moment. Hopefully new results from more established poll series with better-understood biases will help clear the air over the coming weeks. Newspoll’s leadership numbers have caused a further loss of skin for Bill Shorten, putting Tony Abbott with his nose back in front on preferred prime minister.
Furthermore:
• The sudden death of Liberal MP Don Randall on Tuesday will presumably mean a by-election will be held in his outer southern Perth seat of Canning at some point, perhaps in September or October, assuming there’s no early general election on the boil. Mandurah mayor Marina Vergone has been mentioned to me as a potential contestant for Liberal preselection, but all such talk at this stage is in the realm of speculation. Randall’s margin at the 2013 election was 11.8%, but a fair chunk of that appears to have been his personal vote – the Liberal two-party vote in the electorate’s booths was 7% lower at the March 2013 state election than at the federal election, compared with a 1% differential statewide. I had a paywalled article on the subject in Crikey yesterday.
• Michael Owen of The Australian reports Labor’s state executive in South Australia has initiated proceedings for federal preselections in the state’s three potentially winnable Liberal-held seats, together with all those held by Labor, where the incumbents are expected to be uncontested. Steve Georganas is the reported front-runner in Hindmarsh, which he held from 2004 until 2013 when he was unseated by current Liberal member Matt Williams, who sits on a margin of 1.9%. Potential nominees for Boothby and Sturt, respectively held for the Liberals by Andrew Southcott on a 7.1% margin and Christopher Pyne on a 10.1% margin, are respectively said to include Mark Ward, a high school teacher and Mitcham councillor who was narrowly unsuccessful in the Davenport state by-election in January, and Jo Chapley, an in-house legal counsel for Foodland supermarkets who performed strongly against Opposition Leader Steven Marshall in his seat of Dunstan at the March 2014 state election.
• The Australian last week published the regular annual Newspoll survey on expectations in respondents’ standard of living over the six months to come, and found 13% expecting them to improve, down three points on an improved result last year, a steady 22% expecting them to get worse, and 64% expecting them to stay the same, up four points.
• As well as the aforementioned Canning by-election article, my paywalled contributions to Crikey over the past fortnight considered the possibility of a double dissolution, moves at the state conference of Queensland’s Liberal National Party to strengthen state executive powers to reject preselection applications and disendorse troublesome candidates, and the inconsistency of the Greens’ poll results.
[“The Iranians come from our ‘region’?”]
Time to invade?
The left live in a fantasy world where all problems can be solved simply by saying so. Also… White mans fault.
The long term solution is of course these people who are fleeing sort their own country out… easier said than done, but the actual real end solution.
Shorten has some surprises up his sleeve I suspect.
While the two opposing teams, Coalition & the Labor left slag off, Shorten will slide into the middle with a decent and humane compromise.
Vote Coalition or in a way that ensures their return at your peril.
You can see where this idiot Rabbott is taking this nation.
@TBA/201
We invade what?
[“Why are those camps so special? “]
They aren’t special, they are just the most in need.
[“Why not do the same thing in our backyard? “]
Because despite Greens Group think, need does not stem from proximity. In fact those that have made it that far are the least in need.
[“Are their refugees somehow better or more deserving than regionally persecuted peoples?”]
Yes?
shea @ 126 – the class war is the elephant in the room.
Immigants. I knew it was them. Even when it was the bears I knew it was them.
The use of xenophobia to hide an ongoing class war is an old tactic. Its like watching a stage magician or, more accurately, a really skilled pickpocket using misdirection.
Asylum seekers – everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost. We need to suck it up and focus on something else – stuff we can win – for the time being. The Herd were right – we’ve all yelled our lungs out but its to no fucken avail – nothing has changed. Our asylum seeker policy is wrong but if we want to win a long term war then we need to step back and change the way we fight.
Immigrants aren’t threatening our way of life but some might say FTAs and mega FTAs like the TPP and TiSA are.
194
That is the complicated bit.
Equality with the other state would make the Senate massively more malapportioned.
Having a different number of senators to the other states creates issues with proportion maintenance if the Senate gets expanded.
In 1998 the plan was to give the NT 3 Senators, elected all at the same time. This however could easily have been ruled unconstitutional by the High Court and the NT could have ended up with alternating between electing 1 Senator and electing 2 Senators.
@Colvinius: “@guardian Immigration records so poorly kept that IHMS could not locate asylum seekers http://t.co/gPj3OYg4uQ
“They DO however take note of when a party appears to be pushing a policy they dont really believe in.
Rudd saw this. He’s the only ALP leader to win majority government since Keating in 1993. So much for the theory that your need a tough policy to win government.”
You do know that Rudd went to the 2007 election proposing to stop the boats, don’t you?
[Asylum seekers – everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost. We need to suck it up and focus on something else – stuff we can win – for the time being. The Herd were right – we’ve all yelled our lungs out but its to no fucken avail – nothing has changed. Our asylum seeker policy is wrong but if we want to win a long term war then we need to step back and change the way we fight.]
Sad but true. I agree with this, getting angry because we are losing the debate isn’t getting us to win.
Lefty
Fully agree
But I do think that we need to examine what we mean by refugee and set priorities. Given the appalling state of the world today, I think that our quota of refugees MUST focus on those in direst need. That is why I support a refugee scoring system. In times of peace, those with lower priority may get settled, but those with lesser priority might be told well in advance BEFORE they set out that they may face a 10-20 year wait for settlement.
So let us say there is a score out of 100. Now before being critical, these are my first guesses and they would need to be set by an expert committee and reviewed annually.
Political activism gets you a score of 1-20 with a Nelson Mandela getting 20 and someone who went once to a student demo getting a 1.
Being related to someone who is a political refugee gets you a sore multiplied by a factor – so a wife and children might get one half the score of the first, a brother sister, parent or grandchild 1/3. Cousins 1/4. Scores would be additive so political families would mostly score OK. Max score 10
To the extent that most conflicts have an ethnic or religious element, there would be a score for this, that would take into account the severity of the discrimination and the time period since such discrimination had taken place. Let us give a max score of 30, 20 for the severity of persecution multiplied by a time elapse factor. So Jews in wartime Germany would get a 20 for the certainty of death/injury and multiplied by 1.5 to get a maximum score. If you drop the multiplication factor by 0.1 every 3 years, after 45 years the score becomes 0. Sri Lanka Tamils may well have scored 14 for the severity of persecution and while the war raged and the five years after they may score 21. It might now have dropped to 19 or so. Christians or Shiites living under ISIL might get a score of 18 for severity of persecution and since it is recent they may score 27. Africans fleeing the ethnic conflict of the past and now in refugee camps may get a 16 for severity. However as some of these conflicts are now quite old, the score might fall to 15 or 14. Nelson Mandela was a black activist and the government discrimination was quite high. Blacks were not murdered for being black so the score would be less than 10, perhaps 6-8. Hazaras in Afghanistan while persecuted are not being jailed or isolated by the government so they may only score 4-6. Such persecution is still continuing, so they may sore a total of 9. Kurds in Iran might get a score of 3-6 whereas Kurds in Syria under ISIS might get a score of 18 for severity plus 50% for immediacy ie 27. Kurds in Turkey might get a 4 for persecution and a 50% for immediacy so 6. Blacks living in the USA Southern states might score a 1 for persecution and 50% for immediacy so 1.5.
The next 10 points might relate to capacity to return home or to find an alternative secure place of residence. Those for whom there is no homeland left would score highly. Environmental refugees in the pacific might do well on this one. Those where they can return home or where there is a secure alternative country nearby would score more lowly. Those in current conflict zones would score highest. Again a time factor should apply. Syrians fleeing ISIL would score highly. Sri Lankan Tamils might score less because of the availability of Tamil Nadu as a refuge. Should India close its borders then their score would elevate rapidly. Rohinga from Burma may get a lesser score IF they have access to Banglasesh.
Another 10 points should be allocated for TIME waiting in UNHCR refugee camps. Say 1 points for every year to a maximum of 10.
Another 10 (but only a small number) should be allocated for lifestyle refugees. These are people who break the cultural taboos of their country of origin. Homosexuality, adultery or women seeking to work might get points on this one. So too would Chinese women seeking a second child. It is very hard to distinguish these from political issues, but the distinction is between say a gay rights activist in Iran, versus a boy who is gay but stays quiet about it.
The final 10 points would relate to assimilation into Australian society (or the chosen settlement country). education level, language fluency and general health and capacity to work would be factors.
[NT chief minister says the territory is a “second-class citizen” and that’s why they’ve agreed to make it a state by 2018]
A referendum required?
“@ABCNews24: ACT Chief Minister: We need to raise more revenue, taxes are going to have to increase #auspol #COAG”
Whats the firs thing Abbott says? His list of cutting taxes.
[matt31
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 12:32 pm | PERMALINK
@guytaur 188
Interesting from Conroy. I find it hard to believe that the numbers would not have been stitched up for this prior to going public though.]
That’s my take on it too. Shorten is a numbers man and I would be very surprised if he doesn’t already have the support he needs. Either that, or there is a bit of the Whitlam crash or crash through approach about him.
Whatever the outcome it will be a very interesting conference.
[Interesting from Conroy. I find it hard to believe that the numbers would not have been stiched up for this prior to going public though. Hopefully sanity prevails and turn backs are defeated, but I very highly doubt it.]
Setting up the win for Shorten. You don’t win if you don’t beat someone. So the markers are laid out and a few obstacles put in place for him to hurdle. Then the votes are taken, the decision is made and everyone is bound to the new party policy. Shorten’s a winner who overcame opposition to get his way.
Really do you think Shorten is that much of a numpty that he would be out publicly advocating if he didn’t have the numbers? This is the guy who is supposedly the dastardly back room operator who rolled both Rudd for Gillard AND Gillard for Rudd? (his role grossly overstated in both cases, but he’s able to count).
If Shorten doesn’t win this then obviously he is out the door as leader. Simple as that. I get no sense whatsoever that Labor is anything other than unified behind Shorten to win the next election. The vote will be decisive and Shorten will come out of the conference with his leadership endorsed and reputation enhanced. Any other result would be a decision by Labor to enjoy another three years of Abbott’s sneering mug from the left of Bronnie.
The recent kindergarten antics of the NT political entity provide a lot of proof that the NT is not ready for statehood.
Watching the KING of scare campaigns saying that there should be no scare campaigns … ahh, the irony
Re Labor and turning back the boats.
Sometimes Labor leaders have to take a stand on an issue in opposition to what the majority of members and the supporter base believes.
They have to do this for the obvious reason that, in order to get elected, Labor has to reach out to the voters in the middle of the political spectrum.
Whitlam did something similar in the late 1960s-early 1970s when he went hard (harder than the Coalition Government) on the issue of providing Federal Government support for non-government schools. He was strongly criticised by the left of the party – and also experienced single issue candidates (DOGS: Defence of Our Government Schools) running against Labor in some seats in 1972 and in some of them directing their preferences towards the Coalition.
Under Hawke and Keating, Labor was the party that was strongly about stopping the boats and not allowing unauthorised arrivals to gain an unfair advantage over offshore refugee applicants. But, at the prompting of the left of the party, Labor gradually abandoned that position over the 1996-2007 period: in much the same way that – except under Latham – they abandoned and even repudiated much of the economic legacy of Hawke and Keating.
The swinging voters overwhelmingly want unauthorised boat arrivals to be prevented as strongly as possible. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please put it forward.
Assuming that no such evidence exists, then what Shorten is doing is entirely sensible. The boat turnback policy has been highly effective so far, and should be supported. However, it is unlikely to represent the whole of a long-term solution, so Shorten, quite rightly, is also highlighting the need for a regional processing solution and, even more justifiably, reminding the public about the ridiculous blocking of the Malaysian solution by the Abbott-led opposition. This is where Shorten can differentiate himself from Abbott: he will keep the boat turnbacks happening, but also work on a long-term solution that will persist when – as seems likely – the day comes on which the people smugglers find an alternative strategy which works.
The right way to go about this is what Whitlam did in regard to non-government schools: not only change the policy, but make a big song and dance about it.
A mainstream political party which only dances to the tune of its core supporters can’t win government from opposition in normal circumstances. Abbott won in 2013 in abnormal circumstances: ie, against a government which had torn itself into pieces (or, in my version, one man had torn to pieces by undermining the party from within).
Having failed to move to the centre in government, Abbott is now a realistic chance of being the first Federal government to be voted out after one term in 83 years. If he survives, it will probably be by the skin of his teeth, and purely as a result of the sophomore effect and the widespread “we ought to give them two terms” mentality among voters.
The centre of the political spectrum is where elections are won. I understand that a “stop the boats” approach will not look like a policy of the political centre if you are an inner-city Green voter, or a supporter of the declining Labor soft left (I don’t get the sense that the CFMEU/AMWU-aligned hard left cares much about boat people one way or the other). But any policy which has the support of a substantial majority of the population is a policy of the centre. And, as Latham found to his cost in 2004 with his attack on private schools funding, if a Labor leader abandons the political centre, he or she has lost the race.
The 10-15 per cent of the population who don’t like what Shorten has done are free to vote for the Greens. And, unless they are entirely irrational or self-defeating, they can give their second preference to Labor. Perhaps the Greens even might win a few more inner city seats here or there. And then, if they hold the balance of the HoR and are not entirely irrational or self-defeating, they can support Labor.
That’s the way it is folks.
Easy to blame Greens or Labor left for AS policy, but the fact is boats or Refugees have not stopped, blaming someone else is just a deflection to not have an actual working policy.
On boats, all of the headlines blaring that Labor will lose votes are a lot of balderdash. They might lose some votes on the left but they are going to come straight back as preferences (unless in Melbourne or the few seats that matter for the Greens). Greens voters who feel strongly on the issue are hardly going to preference the Libs are they? And Labor might pick votes up from the centre or right on the issue.
Watching, hearing and reading the hysterical comments of the extreme left and the Government Ministers regarding the policy change on boat turnbacks encourages one to believe that Shorten and team may have got this policy exactly where the voters will be.
BBS,
Do we have yours yet?
Re the yes/no answers that Shorten could give.
It does not matter what question the interviewer asks, it should be met with a definite response. Sales asked him last night “do you have any regrets about……” And the best answer is to say “No, no regrets, I look at the past see what I can learn from it and move on”. That’s all, Sales will then either ask a different question or rephrase or get more strident. Bill can say he already answered that question.
She also asked “how can we trust you to do what you promise?” There are lots of ways to answer that. “Most of the ways we got into trouble was because we did exactly what we promised, started the NBN and the NDIS and Gonski, did all the hard work to start these up while everyone was arguing about it. we said we would do it and we did.” End of answer.
He could even sit there and say “if you have got 10 minutes I could explain it all to you chapter and verse”. and I can guarantee she would refuse the offer. The thing he has to avoid is talking too much because he gets a bit lost and loses the thread.
@GG/220
Or further into stupidity regarding turn back boats as it involves other countries to do something, while costing our goverment billions of dollars.
But GG doesn’t care about actual results only wanting Labor in power he cares for.
[Sometimes Labor leaders have to take a stand on an issue in opposition to what the majority of members and the supporter base believes.]
Who is it for you to say that the majority of Labor members don’t agree with Shortens new stance – after all, the way it was handled last time was just a long slow bleed that drained a lot of political life out of the Labor government.
Afternoon bludgers, a new post you might find of some lunchtime interest:
“Oh! For Fuch’s Sake! Where’s the vision?”
New post today: “Oh! For Fuch’s Sake! Where’s the vision?” http://andrewcatsaras.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/oh-for-fuchs-sake-wheres-vision.html …
Fan fare rolling out for Shorten to back him up on punitive politics/negative politics.
GG
My what?
Next on Labor: is more extreme Terrorism laws.
[If Shorten doesn’t win this then obviously he is out the door as leader.]
Yeah, it would certainly put a lot of extra pressure on him. So it should coerce those initially opposed to turnbacks to support his policy position.
But isnt it possible some may see it as an opportunity to put more pressure on him? Could those in the ALP that want someone else to be leader (but havent a hope or the conviction of voting Shorten out as yet) use this to their advantage?
Ratsak, how certain are you (and to what extent) that the ALP are unified behind Shorten?
[And, as Latham found to his cost in 2004 with his attack on private schools funding, if a Labor leader abandons the political centre, he or she has lost the race.]
If it had been more nuanced and him less loony then it might have got somewhere.
Bill’s stunning backflip: ‘We got it wrong’ – News Ltd.
meher
[The 10-15 per cent of the population who don’t like what Shorten has done are free to vote for the Greens.]
How do you come up with that percentage?
You think it is OK for Labor to become a carbon copy of the Libs on this issue?
Labor is selling it’s soul on this and both Shorten and Marles need to have a good look in the mirror and understand they are selling this Party out for the sake of hoping to get more votes.
As I said above disgraceful and lacking integrity.
[If Shorten doesn’t win this then obviously he is out the door as leader.]
A less than good performance in the Canning by election will be his undoing.
[Labor is selling it’s soul on this]
Julian Burnside was pushing a similar line on ABC Melbourne this morning. In my view, nothing more fatuous or sanctimonious than those who tell others what their principles ought to be.
“@ABCNews24: PM Tony Abbott: My preference would be that changes to the #GST are considered not the Medicare Levy #auspol #COAG”
I really want to emphasis that Shorten actually did answer questions directly last night which was excellent, but then he rattled on a bit which allowed Sales to repeat what the TURC Commish said and warn him. I can’t copy from tveeder on this iPad but reading the transcript of Shorten’s interview last night he usually starts well and just needs to trim the talk a bit. He is getting much better and needs a few more tough interviews.
@shanebazzi: UNHCR says turnbacks are “contrary to the spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention” and “sets a negative precedent” http://t.co/q1RMsCu65S
“@shanebazzi: .@PeterDutton_MP presser now”
Coag and violence against women…
Is anyone going to point out the language used by the opposition and their media supporters during Gillard’s time as pm?
Is anyone going to point out how that contributed to the current attitude toward women in our society? Has no one got the balls to laugh in Tony Abbott’s face when he brings this up?
The real danger for Shorten is that he will push too far and cause an actual split or at least some high profile defections to the Greens on this issue.
I am assuming he has stitched up a deal with the left unions on this one BUT I am quite sure the BRANCH based delegates will not be bound on this one. If Shorten wins I expect a display of ALP card burning. Inner city seats may fall to the Greens
BBS
[GG My what?]
I think GG wants your vote.
Hmmm Dutton doing same lines as Desert Fox. I wonder if there is a connection?
[ If Shorten doesn’t win this then obviously he is out the door as leader. ]
Very much doubt that. Why would the ALP roll a leader who is actually doing well overall because of a policy that the Liberals DESPERATLY WANT to be a major focus??
From the ALP’s behaviour to date in opposition i very much doubt that they will be offering such a gift to Tony. There will be argument at the conference as their should be, and there may be blood on the floor and considerable biffo, as there should be.
And of course there will be all the reporting by the usual suspects of the ALP self inflicted apocalypse and how this or that will finish them and its all over move on and can we the media have another hit of #leadershit…..
Then Parliament will go back on August 10th and what’s the odds someone walks in with a helicopter beanie on?? 🙂
dtt
It would depend on the sell.
I assume those in the ALP who are against the policy wont put their hands up for the sell.
Who on the right of the ALP are up to selling it?
There is no way Shorten would have proposed this without knowing he has the numbers.
DiNatale will be thrilled with Bill Shortens further lurch to the right.
It’s a slowbut steady evolution into an even 3 way political system – right/centre/left.
[“@ABCNews24: PM Tony Abbott: My preference would be that changes to the #GST are considered not the Medicare Levy #auspol #COAG”]
Jeez, it’s almost like a rise in the GST was his intention from the beginning, and all the rest is just theatre. Thanks to Mike Baird, for playing the role of sock puppet.
Dio
[There is no way Shorten would have proposed this without knowing he has the numbers.]
I gather you are talking about the numbers in the caucus or at the National Conference.
The bigger question is will the public accept what he is doing.
[Ratsak, how certain are you (and to what extent) that the ALP are unified behind Shorten?]
Rudd getting knocked off was a massive shock, but even before that there was plenty of talk about problems with his office and disappointments making their way into the media.
The best the media can come up with on labor leadershit is the GG making a big deal out of Swan being Facebook friends with Tanya but not Bill. So unless they are running an even more subterranean campaign to roll him I think it’s much safer to assume that Labor is focussing on the real battle and not distracting themselves with the sort of shit that got them in this situation to start with.
“@shanebazzi: .@PeterDutton_MP: “the government uses turnbacks regularly” how regularly? How many times? What happened to the Vietnamese asylum seekers?”