So Labor moved this motion in the Senate. Govt/Lambie/Patrick amended to remove mention of Canavan and Rennick's names and add "public officials and candidates" to (f). (Labor, Greens, Roberts against amendment, Hanson, Griff absent).
[..]
Then on final motion as amended there was a division. In favour: Labor, Greens, most of govt, Patrick. Against: Canavan (LNP), McMahon (CLP), Roberts (ON), Lambie.
Amendment to (in part) delete Canavan and Rennick's names from motion passed because Canavan and Rennick voted in favour of it.
Also Senator Waters claimed C+R were "utterly unhinged" and "fringedwellers" and no point of order was even attempted from the government side!
Watching the replay of this debate. Hanson while absent spoke (ranted angrily is more accurate) via videolink. Canavan then claimed motion seeks to "silence" people. If the motion had been that he be permanently no further heard, he'd have a point.
Canavan says if members don't agree with someone they should express an opposing view and have a debate. Um that's exactly what's happening here. There's no censorship, not even a formal censure motion.
Correction - only the govt amendment to delete Canavan and Rennick was put to a division. The addition of "public officials and candidates" was carried separately on the voices.
Lambie did not speak so not clear why she voted against the final motion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Incorrect re #Newspoll - they made special adjustments for UAP and PHON pre 2019 and their final poll actually had a slightly weaker preference flow to Labor than actually occurred, reducing their error on 2PP not increasing it.
Even among pollsters that did not make such adjustments, preferencing assumptions were a minor component of the 2PP error, getting primary votes wrong was the major cause.
Across an average of each pollster's final polls, the 2.9% average 2PP error was caused by:
Actually what happened in Tas with anti-discrimination law in 2012-3 is irrelevant to employment-based discrimination on sexuality grounds in religious schools, as the legal situation there was not changed nor did the then government attempt to change it (thread). #politas
The "wind-backs" @BrianWightman76 refers to were in fact Legislative Council (not just Liberal) amendments to lower house legislation. These especially concerned then government's attempts to broaden Section 17 (comments that offend, insult etc on the basis of attributes).
Somehow (and this still staggers me) the government decided it was a good idea to ban statements that would offend, insult, ridicule (etc) a person on the basis of their political opinions or religion, initially without even a good faith/public purpose exemption.
Also re this, people who argue that #Newspoll voting intentions are wrong because of the same poll's leader ratings don't seem to consider the reverse. Or at least that at the moment the leader ratings may not mean quite what they usually do.
Bigger problem is that almost every Opposition gets to 50-50 somewhere along the line (indeed Labor already briefly was a bit ahead early last year) and yet most oppositions do not win. Even oppositions that are at some stage 55-45 up only win half the time.
Seven federal governments have lost in the history of polling. All of them bar Labor 1949 were at some stage being really badly smashed in polling. There wasn't that much polling back in 1949.
I very strongly recommend that anyone thinking of voting Greens above the line in Agricultural region (map here: parliament.wa.gov.au/WebCMS/webcms.…) do their research on Bass Tadros (Health Australia) and see if you really want your vote electing this guy.
In general I recommend everyone in WA seriously consider voting below the line (make sure you number every box without any mistake) to stop preference harvesters but this is an especially bad case.
Greens have directly preferenced views normally associated with the fringe right.
Greens have a lousy position in this region which includes Geraldton and Esperance. Virtually nobody has preferenced them above Health Australia. If the Druery preferencing spiral takes off the Greens will simply feed Tadros who is their preferred candidate in this region.
So I've been doing this for five minutes and have already found a possible scenario in the first region I looked at (E Met) in which Charles Smith polls 0.4% and retains his seat.
Also if I crash the One Nation vote in E Met it becomes rather hard to stop Australian Christians winning instead of ON or WAP, and in some cases this is at the expense of the Greens with a much higher primary. Unless the micro vote crashes in general.
If I hold all the votes at 2017 levels no micros win anywhere (unless you count SFF). But I am sceptical that will be anything much like the case.
"Only [Howard, Abbott and Rudd] as opposition leaders have been behind on the question of who would be the better prime minister and won the next election."
In Newspoll history they're the only Opposition Leaders who have won at all!
It's of course true Albanese is further behind on Better PM than any LOTO who has won. It's also true that there is a pandemic at the moment and that it seems to have done something weird to the historic relationship b/w polled leader scores and voting intention.
A little cautionary tale from state Newspolls about better leader scores: