There are polls and then there is the ABS

So many of the same sex marriage proponents assert Australians are very much in favour of SSM based on ‘numerous’ polls. Yet they are strongly against the proposed plebiscite to be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Jess Irvine of the SMH is one such proponent. She says that an ABS poll would be ‘of dubious … statistical validity’.

That is a common refrain, along with claims that the poll would be divisive which is a great example of sophistry.

An ABS poll will be considerably more statistically valid than all of the other polls which suffer from selection bias, small sample size and leading questions.

It will be interesting to see how people vote by suburb. I don’t think the yes vote will be very large in Lakemba, although I could be wrong.

Irvine also made some ridiculous argument about a stimulus to the economy from all the new SS marriages. While we can be rightly skeptical about the efficiacy of a fiscal stimulus by government, this is not so for individuals where an increase in spending on one think leads to a reduction elsewhere.

About Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

I'm a retired general who occasionally gets called back to save the republic before returning to my plough.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to There are polls and then there is the ABS

  1. Craig Mc

    Jess Irvine of the SMH…

    Pretty much all you need to read.

  2. Habib

    If it doesn’t get up the perpetually outraged will continue to whine, while defaming the majority as homophobic morons. If Little Lord Fartleroy think this irritation will go away he’s even dumber and more delusional than even I imagine.

    Just repeal the bloody marriage act, and get government out of where it has no business anyway. Then privatise the family court and bin all benefits. Won’t be too many kapok crunchers and daphnes lining up then anyway.

  3. max

    I am for plebiscite on sex marriage
    I am for plebiscite of going to war as well.

I am for plebiscite on GST and taxes, and many other thinks.

    some entertainment :
    Brotherhood of the Bell (1970) and Skull & Bones

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_40ah1GhY

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/16710.cfm

  4. HeathG

    A ‘voluntary’ postal plebiscite is arguably going to have more issues with selection bias than a properly conducted survey with proper sampling. As for the ‘small sample size’ and ‘leading questions’, that will vary by survey.

    And we’re yet to see the wording of the question that will be asked in the plebiscite.

  5. Warty

    Irvine just may be right, in that there may well be a brief flurry of weird marriages, but what he overlooks is that three months hence there will be an equally brief flurry of weird divorces, filling he coffers of lawyers and courts.
    The experiment tried, they all go back to the promiscuity bit and laugh at our confusion.

  6. Fang

    What happens if the majority vote is NO?

  7. Art Vandelay

    Irvine also made some ridiculous argument about a stimulus to the economy from all the new SS marriages. While we can be rightly skeptical about the efficiacy of a fiscal stimulus by government, this is not so for individuals where an increase in spending on one think leads to a reduction elsewhere.

    Spot on. The argument that legalising gay marriage will stimulate the economy is simply Keynesian nonsense.

  8. Rayvic

    Homosexual activists oppose a plebiscite or ABS poll or a referendum, as they know they would not achieve a ‘yes’ majority.

    They are even more undemocratic than the Labor Opposition, the majority of whom are being bullied to vote for SSM.

  9. Rayvic

    Homosexual-activist-driven polls are invalid as they are skewed to give a ‘yes’ majority. Even so, the activists oppose a plebiscite or an ABS poll, as they know that they would not achieve an overall majority. The much safer course for them is a parliamentary vote, as they have managed to bully many gullible politicians into
    backing SSM — or rather, the destruction of traditional marriage,

  10. Bruce of Newcastle

    Turnbull should be hammering the Left on their hatred for democracy.
    It should be an excellent political tactic since there is no down side, because it is true.

    The whole argument about the ABS goes out the window then because (a) he is championing the people to have their say and (b) there’d be no such issue if Parliament had passed the plebiscite in it’s original form.

    That the Left oppose a say for the voters is all you need to know about them.

    Turnbull should be making hay out of this. Why isn’t he?

  11. Craig

    I’m voting no just to stick it to the bigoted, intolerant pricks. Sick of being screamed at and then shutting the conversation down, just because 1% of the population has a bed wetting problem and then thinks they are entitled to re-engineer the social construct of marriage and what it has stood for over time.

    Here is a solution, find your own damn word for marriage. Is it really this hard for these nappy wearers?

  12. Crossie

    What happens if the majority vote is NO?

    If/when that happens the calls for defunding and disbanding of the ABS will be deafening from all the usual suspects. After all, what is the point of a government agency they cannot subvert?

  13. Tel

    An ABS poll will be considerably more statistically valid than all of the other polls which suffer from selection bias, small sample size and leading questions.

    Agreed, but if you follow the simple rule: “Journalists can’t do statistics,” you won’t go too far wrong.

    I tend to find most social scientists also struggle with statistics, but there’s at least a handful of exceptions to that.

  14. A year or so ago, the SSM proponents were demanding a plebiscite because they were under the impression that everyone wanted this. The surveys that they haven’t revealed show that this is not the case and so they started the parliamentary ‘conscience’ vote campaign. Basically it’s another case of Leftist lies piled upon more lies.

  15. Senile Old Guy

    Turnbull should be hammering the Left on their hatred for democracy. It should be an excellent political tactic since there is no down side, because it is true.

    Turnbull is of the left, as are many in the Liberal party, and that is why he cannot hammer the left. Also, he is completely politically inept.

    The whole argument about the ABS goes out the window then because (a) he is championing the people to have their say and (b) there’d be no such issue if Parliament had passed the plebiscite in it’s original form.

    The left never, ever want people to have their say. The left only ever wanted a plebiscite on SSM because they thought parliament would not vote for SSM without it. As soon as it became clear that a majority of MPs were in favour, the plebiscite was gone.

    That the Left oppose a say for the voters is all you need to know about them. Turnbull should be making hay out of this. Why isn’t he?

    Turnbull is in favour of SSM. And he is useless.

    People, please remember why Abbott became leader of the LNP in opposition and why he won elections. Turnbull is useless.

  16. v_maet

    The fact that the left are arguing that the plebicite is a waste of taxpayer funds shows how out of touch with reality they are.

    They don’t care about the cost for any of their pet projects, only when it comes to things they don’t like.

  17. cynical1

    “rather, the destruction of traditional marriage”

    That’s what it really is about.

    The way these ratbags take the mickey out of cherished institutions shows the true spirit.

    The Mardi Gras is testimony to that.

  18. zyconoclast

    What happens if the majority vote is NO?

    The Waffen SSM will be mobilised this time with the a Panzy Division supporting the rear.

  19. Mother Lode

    What happens if the majority vote is NO?

    Then the matter will be settled.

    For 5 years.

    After which people, again, will again by crying out, again, for cerdaindee.

    Again.

  20. bobby b

    “So many of the same sex marriage proponents assert Australians are very much in favour of SSM based on ‘numerous’ polls. Yet they are strongly against the proposed plebiscite to be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.”

    After all of the polls so accurately predicted the defeat of Brexit and the election of President Hillary Clinton, wouldn’t you hesitate to take an actual vote?

    Obviously, voting is less accurate than polling.

  21. Mother Lode

    The SSM activist polls are as suspect as the surveys that show that 10% or so of the population is gay.

    In the US the CDC came up with a figure around 2%.

    There is no reason for the number to be substantially different here if it is something ‘built-in’ to the individual (humans are probably the second most genetically homogeneous species on the planet (after The Greens).

    And if there is a difference, then it would not be genetic but cultural (still not that distinct from the US) or even a fashion. In that case there really is no objection to tweaking culture or fashions to get rid of the tendency since it would not be denying anyone their essential self. Just another campaign like the ones to change other distasteful aspects of culture like bullying or stamp collecting.

  22. Roger

    Irvine also made some ridiculous argument about a stimulus to the economy from all the new SS marriages.

    With the immigration Ponzi scheme coming apart and the economy circling the drain we’re now encouraged to look to the stimulus provided by the weddings of sodomites and scissor sisters.

    Polygamy is surely just around the corner, followed by polyamory. After all, who can stand in the way of love, and just think of the stimulus to the economy!

  23. jjf

    Is there anyone in the Liberal party who can at least have a coherent argument and argue strongly against SSM.

    Cormann on lateline with Alberici was woeful. No attack, no ability to counter argue or even the ability to give it back!!!

  24. Haidee

    Please remember the ACL campaign – volunteer or donate to their fighting fund.

  25. H B Bear

    The real money will be in beagle marriages. I’m keeping my powder dry till then.

    Another fine article from Our Jessica. Clearly a great loss to Newscorpse when she returned to her true intellectual home at Fauxfacts.

  26. Mother Lode

    Clearly a great loss to Newscorpse when she returned to her true intellectual home at Fauxfacts.

    Rats returning to a sinking ship?

  27. H B Bear

    Actually there could be a quick fortune to be made in plastic figurines of fat dumpy women with short purple hair and pierced nodes in overalls. Off to Alibaba to place an order.

  28. Spider

    Id
    Is there anyone in the Liberal party who can at least have a coherent argument and argue strongly against SSM.

    Cormann on lateline with Alberici was woeful. No attack, no ability to counter argue or even the ability to give it back!!!

    Which is precisely why Eric Abetz is on Q&A tonight and not Matt Canavan. Usual ABC strategy. Pick the person who will struggle to make an argument, a born waffler and then have Snowcone stick the knife in at regular intervals by way of interruptions and put downs.

    I’d have the barrister who appears on the Drum. Clear, fluent, concise and rational. He’d cut through.

  29. Roger

    I’d have the barrister who appears on the Drum. Clear, fluent, concise and rational. He’d cut through.

    Gray Connolly. But he’s not an MP.

    The ABC quite rightly looks for MPs to make the argument for traditional marriage. Andrew Hastie would be one of the few, but he’s not senior enough.

  30. RobK

    With a bit of practice the ABS might get good at doing mass polling that could pass as a plebiscite done economically. Could be a good thing.

  31. Dr Fred Lenin

    If the vote is NO the left will condemn the NO voters as “white supremacists ” you know like they are doing in the USA with white People who are protesting the destruction of their ancestors sacrifice in the CivilWar by left wing globalist communists ,allied with murderous black grubs ,the usual allies of the left the scum of society .

  32. Oh come on

    Jessica Irvine is a particularly dim bulb so no surprises there. ‘SSM is good for the economy!’ is such a well-worn trope that she should be embarrassed to use it.

    Turnbull should be making hay out of this. Why isn’t he?

    See ruinous ALPGreens renewable energy policies. Cheap power is an election winner which Trumble refuses to countenance. The Libs are doomed.

  33. Robber Baron

    Habib
    #2467879, posted on August 13, 2017 at 11:22 pm
    If it doesn’t get up the perpetually outraged will continue to whine, while defaming the majority as homophobic morons. If Little Lord Fartleroy think this irritation will go away he’s even dumber and more delusional than even I imagine.

    Just repeal the bloody marriage act, and get government out of where it has no business anyway. Then privatise the family court and bin all benefits. Won’t be too many kapok crunchers and daphnes lining up then anyway.

    What that man said! But the elite won’t cede power over our lives.

  34. MACK

    “Irvine also made some ridiculous argument about a stimulus to the economy from all the new SS marriages.”
    The Netherlands is about the same size as Australia, and they’ve had gay marriage for 10 or 15 years. There are a couple of hundred such marriages per year and about a 30% divorce rate. At the start, pent-up demand was only about 800 in the first year. Wouldn’t you think a professional journalist would do some homework before spouting nonsense?

  35. cuckoo

    I see the SBS and ABC are still struggling to find even remotely normal-looking lesbian couples to feature in their segments on SSM. They had someone on last night who looked like a cross between Trigglypuff and a bad Elvis impersonator.

    And in what may be an omen, we’ve now had two episodes in a row of Father Brown without any gay characters.

  36. H B Bear

    … short purple hair and pierced nodes in overalls …

    Noses actually, although nodes kinda works. Stoopid phone.

  37. Mother Lode

    Jessica Irvine is a particularly dim bulb so no surprises there. ‘SSM is good for the economy!’ is such a well-worn trope that she should be embarrassed to use it.

    I think I might go to the Ultimo and start smashing a few windows – that should be a spur to the economy.

    You hear people talking about the Nazis saving their economy by building the Autobahns. I wonder if kristallnacht helped to?

  38. H B Bear

    Cormann on lateline with Alberici was woeful. No attack, no ability to counter argue or even the ability to give it back!!!

    Cormann is no Terminator. If he wasn’t safe in the Senate he wouldn’t be baaack.

  39. Rob

    Australia is being ruined by minority activist groups, PC bullies, the ABC, left-wing journalism, self-important CEOs, and piss-weak politicians.
    An extremely good reason for a majority NO vote at the coming plebiscite is the reality that all those identified above would be put back in their place – well and truly splattered with egg and shrinking with embarrassment.

  40. Wouldn’t you think a professional journalist would do some homework before spouting nonsense?

    Professional journalist? In an Australian news publication? Where?

  41. meher baba

    LQC: good point re the likelihood of a NO vote in Lakemba. Ironically, I expect the YES vote to be easily the highest in the electorates with a preponderance of the White Male Middle Class Hegemony.

    My impression is that the greatest opposition to SSM will come from first and second generation migrants from Africa, the Middle East, the sub-continent, the Pacific Islands (other than Anglos from NZ) and perhaps Eastern Europe and East Asia (I’m not so certain about these last two groups, although there is a strong Christian element among both).

    The vote in remote Aboriginal communities probably won’t be visible, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a strong NO vote from this quarter: my experience in those communities is that there is quite a high level of homophobia.

  42. Brian

    I would not be surprised if the Lakemba vote is very much for it. Muslims consider and almost ensure their communities are completely separate from the rest. But assisting the surrounding Western civilisation crash and burn would probably be considered a good thing. Indeed, it would confirm for many the fact that we are not worthy of any respect.

  43. meher baba

    One rubbish argument I keep reading about SSM is that it is a “human right”. This is complete nonsense, for the following reasons.

    Most people – and particularly those who favour SSM – seem to think that the Marriage Act is primarily about asserting the strength of two people’s commitment to each other. But they’re deluded about this: its main purpose is to establish rights about property. It is therefore no more relevant to human rights than legislation governing land tenure, the establishment of companies, etc.

    In this era of increasingly short-lived relationships, the main practical function of the Marriage Act is to give ex-spouses greater rights over the property of their former partner than they would have in relation to the property of a former partner in a de facto relationship. As anyone who has gone through a marriage separation would know, this aspect of the Marriage Act is a nuisance or worse. Even if the marriage was a Britney Spears-style one-nighter, the marriage certificate will mean that your instant ex- will have a case for a settlement that they would not have had if you had not tied the knot.

    Marriage also means that, if you have no will, and then die after you have separated from (but not divorced) your spouse, they are still likely to inherit much or all of your estate.

    As Habib suggested above, the best thing that could happen would be for the Federal Government to get out of the marriage business altogether. The State Governments would then be able to make their own rules: preferably a light touch approach to marriage based primarily on registration and a few simple ground rules: eg, a minimum age, no incestuous marriages, no polygamy. SSM could be permitted or not as determined by the State legislature.

    Churches and (for the non-believers) selected NGOs would then be able to marry people, issue a certificate, and have those marriages registered. Marriages would have no impact on property rights. They could be dissolved through a simple, low-cost administrative process that would deny the Family Court its current right to gouge over $1,000 out of people for an uncontested divorce.

    I haven’t tended to agree with Julia Gillard about much, but what I have set out here was more or less her view on the matter and I reckon it accords with a truly libertarian position. The idea of marriage as a binding property arrangement is way out of date.

  44. Diogenes

    In this era of increasingly short-lived relationships, the main practical function of the Marriage Act is to give ex-spouses greater rights over the property of their former partner than they would have in relation to the property of a former partner in a de facto relationship.

    All the marriage act concerns itself with is giving the appropriate notice on an appropriate form to an authorised celebrant, who on the nominated day utters a set of prescribed words, and has the couple & 2 witnesses sign 3 approved forms, according the rules you have laid out . That’s it , in toto.

    The Marriage Act is like point 3 below effectively bringing the Family Law Act into play sooner rather than waiting for
    1. the normal 6 months cohabitation as a couple, including owning joint assets/ or comingled finances OR
    2. child (which cuts the 6 months short) OR
    3. registration of union with a state registrar – all states allow both gays & straights to register

    If say ex Justice Kirby & his partner of 40 years, or that Wong chap & her other half split up, both couples would be still subject to the Family Law Act and fall into the clutches of the Family Court, and one could end up paying the other alimony, and losing half his/her property/income.

  45. cohenite

    Marriage also means that, if you have no will, and then die after you have separated from (but not divorced) your spouse, they are still likely to inherit much or all of your estate.

    No it doesn’t. Children and a variety of other potential beneficiaries can trump the (ex) spouse’s entitlements.

    Generally, however, you are correct. This debate is dishonest on both sides. Marriage has a religious context with all the prescriptive elements that can produce and this is one of the main motivations of the pro-ssm activists: revenge on the churches for past oppression. This is the core issue: can and should those who oppose ssm be coerced into participating in the process?

  46. Senile Old Guy

    An extremely good reason for a majority NO vote at the coming plebiscite is the reality that all those identified above would be put back in their place – well and truly splattered with egg and shrinking with embarrassment.

    ALP and the Greens will vote for SSM. A majority of the Liberal party are for SSM. So a majority “no” vote at the plebiscite would create no end of problems for the Liberals. Even a large minority “no” vote will have consequences.

  47. Muddy

    What happens if the majority vote is NO?

    Scream for a U.N. ‘peacekeeping’ force.
    C’mon thweety, you can scweam louder than that, can’t you?

  48. Myrddin Seren

    LQC: good point re the likelihood of a NO vote in Lakemba.

    Counterintuitively, I think it will depend on whether their Muftis and Community Leaders take a long view or not.

    Short term – it is contrary to their faith and they would much prefer a conveyor belt of LGBQTI activists being launched from the roof of the nearest tall building.

    Long term – changing the government sanctioned definition of marriage opens the door to further redefinition.

    Such as polygamy.

    And then, by extension, Sharia Law.

    If they play their cards right, gather up all the ABS letters and let Labor know how the vote will roll depends on the future goodwill of the local Labor MPs – we may see an avalanche of support.

    Followed shortly after the next Federal election with westerns suburbs Labor MPs tabling bills to open the door to polygamy.

    Because Love is Love. And boo hiss racism. etc etc

    And in the fullness of time, inshallah, the Caliphates of western Sydney and Melbourne will arise.

  49. Frank

    The State Governments would then be able to make their own rules: preferably a light touch approach to marriage based primarily on registration and a few simple ground rules: eg, a minimum age, no incestuous marriages, no polygamy.

    I can see the point in disallowing incestuous couplings between heterosexuals but surely if it’s same sex then what is wrong with marrying your sister or brother. Or parent, or worse yet, child.

  50. AlanR

    jjf @ 8.11
    Is there anyone in the liberal party who can at least mount a coherent argument strongly against SSM?

    No – simply because there isn’t one.

    Agree Cormann’s performance with Alberici on TV and latter Penny Wong in parliament was pathetic because the points they were making were spot on.

Leave a Reply

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