Newspoll: 55-45 to Coalition
The latest fortnightly Newspoll – the first in some time to be released on Sunday rather than Monday night – has Labor’s primary vote down a point on last time to 30%, the Coalition’s up two to 46% and the Greens’ down two to 12%, with the two-party preferred out from 54-46 to 55-45. Julia Gillard has lost most of her lead as preferred prime minister, which narrows from 42-38 in her favour to 39-38, but the individual personal ratings are essentially unchanged, with Gillard down two points on approval to 30% and up one on disapproval to 59%, while Tony Abbott is down one on each to 31% and 58%.
UPDATE: Essential Research has voting intention unchanged on last week, with the Coalition leading 56-44 from primary votes of 33% for Labor, 49% for the Coalition and 10% for the Greens. The poll also gaugues opinion on the carbon tax for the first time since November last year, up to which point it had asked every month after the policy was first announced in late February 2011, and it finds support at a new low with 35% supportive and 54% opposed. Forty-five per cent believe it will increase the cost of living “a lot”, 26% “a moderate amount”, 20% “a little” and 2% that it will have “no impact”, while 44% think it likely and 40% unlikely that Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party would repeal it in government. More happily for the government, its marine reserves policy has 70% support with 13% opposed. The poll also finds 88% rating themselves not likely to pay for online newspaper content against only 9% likely.
UPDATE 2: The latest Morgan face-to-face poll, covering the last two weekends, has Labor down half a point to 32.5%, the Coalition up three to 45.5% and the Greens down 2.5% to 10%. The Coalition’s lead is up from 55-45 to 56.5-43.5 on respondent-allocated preferences and from 52-48 to 54.5-45.5 on previous election preferences.
Matters federal:
• ReachTEL last week published results of two automated phone polls from the electorates of Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, finding both to be headed for defeat. In New England, Nationals candidate-presumptive Richard Torbay was rated at 62% of the primary vote against 25% for Windsor (after distribution of the undecided), which on 2010 preference flows would put Torbay ahead 65.7-34.3. In Lyne, David Gillespie of the Nationals (UPDATE: Commenter Oakeshott Country notes I’m jumping the gun here: the Nationals are yet to confirm their candidate) led Oakeshott 52% to 31%, or 55.4-44.6. The electorates were polled in October last year by Newspoll, at which time no information on likely Nationals candidates was available, which showed Windsor trailing 41% to 33% and Oakeshott trailing 47% to 26%.
• Ben Packham of The Australian reports a “factional brawl” looms in the South Australian Liberal Party over the Senate vacancy created by the retirement of Mary Jo Fisher, who suffers a depressive illness and was recently reported to police for shoplifting for the second time in 18 months. Packham reports that Ann Ruston, former National Wine Centre chief executive and owner of a Riverina wholesale flower-growing firm, might emerge as a moderate-backed candidate. However, the Right’s position – contested by the moderates – is that she would have to renounce her existing claim to the number three position on the Senate ticket for the next election if she wished to contest the preselection. Kate Raggatt, a former adviser to Nick Minchin, is “seen as a possible right-wing contender for the vacancy”. Brad Crouch of the Sunday Mail lists Cathy Webb, Andrew McLaughlin, Paul Salu, Chris Moriarty and Maria Kourtesis as other possibilities.
Matters state:
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Since this is the final day of this sitting, I wonder if anyone wants to play guess the time the senate rises tonight.
by mexicanbeemer on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Yes it is amazing how easily some change ‘their’ ideolgoy, one would think their beliefs depend on something else maybe.
by Thomas Paine. on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Re Greens amendments:
Well that seems exhaustively detailed and comprehensively thought through. Anybody in fairyland care to explain wtf this actually means?
by Gecko on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm
47 ayes 8 noes, but to what, I don’t know! Oh, no QT in the Senate today.
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Puff, I think you and I have the same contempt for those that display religious-like certainty and seek to impose it on others.
by Brian Mc on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Back to debating the Milne/Hanson-Young amendments.
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Just so we are all clear…
http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=214:unhcr-statement-australia-malaysia-mou&catid=35:news-a-media&Itemid=63
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Boerwar @6494, good question. I didn’t think so based on the Milne/SHY press conference. I suspect they would vote for the amendment but against the amended bill.
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm
@Thomas Paine/6505
I don’t know how the Pacific Solution was/is the same as the ones being proposed now?
Quiet frankly this blog lost it’s marbles today.
by zoidlord on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm
As long as you honour your principles, whatever they may be with your vote, I cannot imagine why any of us would complain. That’s democracy at work.
While we would almost certainly disagree with your principles or how you give effect to them, that is an entirely separate matter.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm
6457 Poroti
My guess is that Piaf would have been your true working class girl. Passionate, sincere and kindhearted.
by gigi on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Division was on variation of schedule, as I explained on previous page.
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Thanks paaptsef,
by IMOHO on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm
The Greens amendment is not amending the Bill. It just gets the Senate to send a missive back to the House, listing out the Greens shopping list, if it gets up.
but the Greens are showing their hand finally……
by sprocket_ on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm
mm
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world end
Not with a bang but a whimper
by Diogenes on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm
If the government supports the Greens amendment where will that leave the greens and coalition ?
I have no idea what flow on effects the amendment would have so it will interesting to see what the government does.
by Doyley on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Tom AssPaine
Perhaps we could take some comfort inthe fact that we have reduced by 3200 the number of refugees in Malaysia.
by Jolyon Wagg on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm
by gloryconsequence on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm
The comments are flying through here given current events, but what about the one I read where the Greens would rather uphold principle than lose 99% of its support?
It gets better all the time
by Centre on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I think I have twigged. It was the Piaf stuff than unblinkered the eyes…
FB is the most consummate concern Troll we have ever had on PB. She is pissing off hordes of Greens supporters. It is the only logical explanation.
Congrats FB, brilliant work, and thanks for the laugh.
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm
sprocket @6515,
Just saw your post.
Thanks for the clarification.
by Doyley on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm
THOMAS – What makes you think the greens will do particularly well this time around?
- Their raison d’etre, the Carbon Tax, has been passed;
- Australians like a party holding the balance of power to be a fairly middle of the road honest-broker. Nutty ideologues need not apply.
Be interesting, anyway.
by KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm
I might have some sympathy for the ‘principle not politics’ line if it were true. But it is not.
One of those rare instances when I agree with Abtez and Brandis (actually the only time) is when they argue the hypocrisy of the Greens gagging debate in the Senate to get legislation they approve of through after years of arguing that gagging debate is undemocratic. It either is or is isnt according to principle. Politics is another story.
I actually agree that there are times (rare times) when you need to gag debate. Anyway a bit of reality bites for the Greens.
by Gweneth on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Dio. such an inspiring call to act and enjoy life i find. favourite poem.
by middle man on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm
triton
Thanks for that.
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Sprocket
Thanks for that.
by Boerwar on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Its a little more motivational than
The bed is open; the tooth-brush hangs on the wall,
Put your shoes at the door, sleep, prepare for life.
The last twist of the knife.
by rishane on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm
You must find it very difficult to live in a society where your rigid set of “principles” is breached on a daily basis in multiple aspects of your life in Australia.
Or do you make exceptions?
Do you ever accept pragmatic solutions?
Do you ever accept _progressive_ solutions?
Progressive means “making progress” – the idea is that we gradually move toward making the world a better place, because we cant do it any other way.
If you want to make progress, you have to embrace pragmatism at some point. Or, as you suggest, you can dummy spit and run off to form your own little silo of rigid idealogues and live in an echo chamber. There’s plenty of examples of that.
Aside from what you might think of the man or his performance, why do you think Garrett joined Labor instead of The Greens?
The answer begins with p, but it’s not power or principle – it’s pragmatism.
by Mr Pajama Pudding on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm
mm
I actually prefer The Waste Land and Four Quartets but it’s a wonderful poem.
by Diogenes on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Zoidlord actually I have already said I think the Coalition position on this is less defendable than the other parties. However I haven’t and won’t adopt the prevailing PB culture that says Labor policy is the best policy regardless of common sense.
by davidwh on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm
I’m not suggesting that principles dont matter. I’m asserting that principles need to work alongside pragmatism in democracies.
by Mr Pajama Pudding on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Boerwar,
The Senate will be debating, no guillotine, three bills introduced by the government starting with Oakey’s bill.
by This little black duck on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Thinking of 2 of my past principals, still alive (one I’ve seen on the last week’s videos), navigators for Bomber Command during WW2, and other former colleagues and an honorary uncle, also Bomber Command navigators, who also served, but are no longer alive.
by OzPol Tragic on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Now, if we could only work out which people voted in error, for whom, and where they should have voted, that will be brilliant.
I suppose we can just have an election …
In all seriousness, I don’t believe for a second that substantial numbers of Green voters are hostile to asylum seekers. People tell polls all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.
More broadly though the current system really does make it hard to:
a) establish a large pool of people who can make properly informed choices about public policy
b) translate those policy preferences into the composition of parliaments
Greens advocate a proportional representation system, but IMO, while that would be a measurable improvement, it would not make the system fundamentally better.
by Fran Barlow on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm
IT is clear. The Government supported Oakshott bill and the Malaysia solution is not passing the Senate at this stage.
It is also clear the Government knew this before they started. So why have they done it?
I think Abbott should have considered the immortal words in Star Wars
[Its a trap}
by guytaur on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Gweneth
Me too. And it was even worse late last year. At one stage they were pushing through bill after bill with no debate at all, and all with the Greens’ nod of approval.
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm
No one has suggested they are.
What’s being said is that substantial numbers of Green voters are hostile to the greens leadership
by Tom Hawkins on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm
If you’d like to know how committed the Coalition is to this urgent asylum seekers issue: first question in the lower house, Carbon Tax.
by Aguirre on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm
A very late night for the Senate I suspect, and maybe back tomorrow.
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Mr Pajama Pudding@6532
Principles are fine things. They can be written down, discussed, voted on.
But we don’t elect principles. We elect people.
If I want to know about their principles I’ll read their website.
If I want to know about their values I’ll read Hansard.
by Musrum on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm
What does the concept of “pragmatism” entail when it is decoupled from ethical principle? Isn’t it simply a rationale for making things up as you go along?
If you don’t decouple them, doesn’t this mean that principle must always be decisive in practice?
by Fran Barlow on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:16 pm
@davidwh/6529
I didn’t say nor is anyone else (i don’t think) the Labor party is best solution or policy on this matter, however, I do believe they, should be allowed to implement the policy – being the government of the day.
by zoidlord on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:16 pm
I’m detecting a pissed-off attitude on this forum towards the Greens over this assylum issue. And I can well understand it.
I like the Greens’ policies. Well, most of them. But I have to say that when it comes to being political operatives they are as two-faced (ie efficiently professional) as the rest of them.
I don’t condemn them for that. It’s the reality of politics. In fact it’s probably the one dimension of the Greens that is most genuine. I just have to remind myself not to be naive enough to be taken in by it.
But as to the philosophical basis for some of their policies, the Greens can be quite shallow. And unabashedly populist. They play to their base. Their aim is simple and is the same aim as that of the other parties: to increase their share of the vote. To increase their power.
Why wouldn’t they. Mad if they don’t.
This is not only about the disenfranchised of the earth. It’s also about the power of vested political interests. It’s why the real complexities of the assylum issue are as out of bounds for the Greens as they are for everyone else.
As I write this the entire parliament is clapping some old war hero of some long-past bomber command. It’s the one thing both sides of this football match are always in agreement on, the one time all members sit quietly in their seats. Listening to one or the other ranting on about a war.
by dedalus on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm
I guess QT is cancelled in the House again today as well. All I’m getting is a replay of many past QTs.
by triton on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Tone: CARBON TAX!
Deb O’Neill: BOATS!
by This little black duck on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm
QT is on now.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Received education bonus for my daughter. yay!! Thanks Labor.
by victoria on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm
QT in the Reps is on right now – and it is today’s QT
by Tom Hawkins on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm
triton:
Live HoR QT feed http://aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/LiveMediaPlayer?type=1&vID={A5A59971-2E53-49FD-A62D-6596728F49F5}&accept=true
by This little black duck on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm
triton
Sorry – maybe you were being sarcastic?
by Tom Hawkins on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm