tip off

Newspoll: 52-48 to Labor

The latest Newspoll records little change on last time, while Morgan has Labor pulling well ahead.

GhostWhoVotes relates that the latest Newspoll has Labor leading 52-48, up from 51-49 last fortnight. Labor is up a point on the primary vote to 36%, and the Coalition down one to 40%. More to follow. UPDATE: The Australian report relates that Bill Shorten’s approval rating is up three points to 36%, which is the first time a poll has moved in his favour in quite a while. UPDATE 2: Full tables here; to fill in the blanks, Shorten’s disapproval is steady at 43%, Tony Abbott is up two on approval to 40% and steady on disapproval at 50%, and Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister nudges from 42-36 to 43-36.

Today’s Morgan result, combining its regular face-to-face and SMS polling from the last two weekends, was the Coalition’s worst since the election, recording a 1.5% shift on the primary vote from the Coalition (to 38%) to Labor (38.5%), with the Greens down a point to 11% and Palmer United up half a point to 4.5%. On 2013 election preferences, this gives Labor a 53.5-46.5 lead, up from 52.5-47.5 a fortnight ago, while on respondent-allocated preferences the shift is from 53.5-46.5 to 54.5-45.5. Morgan has also been in the business lately of providing selective state-level two-party results, which are presumably based on respondent-allocated preferences. From this poll we are told Labor had unlikely leads of 56.5-43.5 in Queensland and 52-48 in Western Australia, together with leads of 54.5-45.5 in New South Wales and 55-45 in Victoria, and an unspecified “narrow” lead in South Australia.

UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research has Labor back up a point on the primary vote after it fell two last week, now at 37%, with the Coalition up one for a second week. The Greens and Palmer United are at 9% and 4%, with others down a point and the other loose point coming off rounding. Respondents were quizzed about the attributes of the major parties, which provides good news for Labor in that “divided” is down 14% to 58%, and “clear about what they stand for” is up 8% to 42%. Those are also the biggest movers for the Liberals, respectively down 6% and up 7%, although they are still performing better than Labor on each at 50% and 32%. The worst differential for Labor is still “divided”, at 26% in favour of the Liberals, while for the Liberals it’s “too close to the big corporate and financial interests”, which is at 62% for Liberal and 34% for Labor.

A question reading “as far as you know, do you think taxes in Australia are higher or lower than in other developed countries” turns up the fascinating finding that 64% of respondents believed they were higher versus only 8% for lower, while 65% believed taxes to have increased over the last five years versus 9% for decreased. Forty-seven per cent believe the current level of taxation is enough versus 33% who believe they will need to increase. The poll also finds 50% opposed to following New Zealand’s example in holding a referendum on changing the flag versus only 31% supportive.

1384
  • 1351
    imacca
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    Oh Goody. Brandis on Lateline saying specifically that people should be free to spread untruths.

    Are we sure that Mad Fib isn’t actually Brandis?? Same sort of arguments and just as much of a dick??

  • 1352
    Thomas. Paine.
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    I thought Mod Lib was some middle age hawt chick. She is in my dreams….

  • 1353
    Jackol
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    mexicanbeemer – I trust you are reading 18C and 18D?

  • 1354
    briefly
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:52 am | Permalink

    1340...swamprat

    You’re wrong about this. Racial discrimination is certainly an economic issue. If the right use this issue, it is only to seek to divide potential Labor support and encourage socially conservative working people to vote against their primary economic interests. It is a wedge issue, but cannot be avoided.

    Taking this into account, Labor have to contest the ground with the LNP nearly everywhere. Contending for the economic interests of ordinary people also means defending the personal rights and standing of the culturally vulnerable.

    These things and economic rights are indivisible, which is why the Racial Discrimination Act was passed by the Whitlam Government in 1975. It is also why our greatest economic visionaries – people like HC (Nugget) Coombs – were also such avowed campaigners for legislated protection against racial vilification.

  • 1355
    imacca
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:53 am | Permalink

    I believe you mean the Fremantle monument, imacca.

    Arghhhhhhhh! Your right. My Bad. :(

    Still, with that shirt, you will never be voted best dressed man on campus! :)

  • 1356
    briefly
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    1349
    mexicanbeemer

    There are “public interest” protections. ML/E is making up nonsense in order to distract and mislead, as usual.

  • 1357
    sustainable future
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    I’m not, but his/her defense of the anti-vilification laws reeks of someone who has not been subjected to such vilification, or bothered to think about what it would be like.

    Which makes no sense at all unless you indeed sure that Mod Lib is white.

    ok

    I’m not even convinced modlib/everything is one person – they seem to have shifted from actually being moderate and liberal (and disliking abbott as LOTO) to a very partisan supporter of anything he and his jackboot far-right loons do. perhaps non-white females mixing in elite LNP circles (& never using public transport) don’t get racially vilified to their faces and cannot see the need for such protections? the idea that such laws prevent free speech and naively believe that people will sort it out through rational debate, is not worthy of a moderate liberal. By saying that people should be free to insult people on racial grounds suggests that this is part of rational debate and they should have been able to make their case on the chance they might be right and win the debate.

    You have to love a someone so liberal (like Brandis and abbott and the spine-free followers in the LNP) that they defend the rights of bigots because they are so into freedom, but cannot accept as a right SSM because ….why – bigots will somehow feel it demeans their own marriages (??) or various religious-bigots feel their respective magic sky fairies doesn’t like it? This is all about sucking up to /repaying Bolt for years of loyal propaganda and possing off political ‘enemies’ (abbott doesn’t do opponents – he does ‘enemies to be destroyed.’)

  • 1358
    mexicanbeemer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    Thanks Jackol

    Yes i have just read s18D and it does a pretty comprehensive job of outlining exemptions to s18C which provide public speakers at least three defense options.

  • 1359
    mexicanbeemer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    I should add that don’t slander laws basically say the same thing as s18 does while not focusing on race or faith but rather reputation.

  • 1360
    cud chewer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    Mod Lib is just a sad case of an otherwise intelligent person being suckered into Liberal group think, no matter what the facts point at. But he’s not a patch on Brandis. Brandis would make a good Bond villain.

  • 1361
    cud chewer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    I’m not even convinced modlib/everything is one person – they seem to have shifted from actually being moderate and liberal (and disliking abbott as LOTO) to a very partisan supporter of anything he and his jackboot far-right loons do.

    Yes, I distinctly remember him pointing out his distaste for Abbott and arguing on a number of occasions the need for, and possibility of Turnbull taking over. Since the election he’s basically defended the indefensible to the point of being a good example of how otherwise intelligent people lose the plot when confronted with the Liberal mind-meld.

  • 1362
    cud chewer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:03 am | Permalink

    Slander laws were harder to prove in this case. That’s why they used S18c

  • 1363
    cud chewer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    OH and one other thing, with slander laws you can sue for a heap of damages. IN this case the defendants were only after one thing and that was to correct the record and to have a decent apology. something Bolt squibbed on too.

  • 1364
    deblonay
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:16 am | Permalink

    Asia Times says that Asian countries will ignore any US-Euro plans for sanctions on Russia_
    _____________
    Russian energy supplies and the prospects of big trade deals if Euro exports to Russia stop ,are making Asian countries notably Sth Korea and Japan and Vietnam and Taiwan … interested in new deals with the Russian for gas and oil
    Lavrov the Russian FM barred from the G 7 meeting in the Hague said he had better things to do anyway,and said it was just a talking shop

    The US gave just $1billion to the Ukraine…just 2 weeks Pay for Russian oil,and the Euros only offered a pittance..just a $150 million
    So the chaotic penniless regime in Kiev seems on it’s own.

    ,and the start of April looms as a critical date for a major price rise and payment of the arrears of aeveral billions to the Russian gas board…or perhaps a cutting off of the gas
    to Kiev by Russia…see Asia Times below

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-250314.html

  • 1365
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    Courier-Mail front page mocks Abbott over imperial honours:

    https://twitter.com/PeterFosterALP/status/448466242941108224/photo/

  • 1366
    zoidlord
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:36 am | Permalink

    @William/1365

    Link does not work for me, seems a problem with twitter I see occasionally.

    “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!”

  • 1367
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    Particularly when I cut a bit off the end of the URL.

    https://twitter.com/PeterFosterALP/status/448466242941108224/photo/1

  • 1368
    zoidlord
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    @William/1367

    Is the Black and White cover normal for Courier-Mail?

  • 1369
    mexicanbeemer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    Reading s18D makes me think Andrew Bolt has poor lawyers as it says you are exempt if providing commendatory as as part of a community debate as he is a journalist unless Bolt was indeed pushing a fault-hood

  • 1370
    cud chewer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:48 am | Permalink

    Bolt was arguing the defense of truth. Which makes him an uber-dickhead.

  • 1371
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:51 am | Permalink

    No Zoidlord, I believe it’s part of the joke.

  • 1372
    bryon
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:57 am | Permalink

    Brandis, Latvian by the sounds of it. A snake. All them Leuts are snakes…His sort, if his father wasn’t a snake he was a Nazi collaborator.

    His whole family probably worked at Auschwitz.

    Glad he is clearing the air so we can make it let it be known about the disgusting non anglo scum we have in Oz ..

  • 1373
    cud chewer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:58 am | Permalink

    Well

    a) I think the whole honors thing is a bit of a side show
    b) Abbott seems to have managed to have stuffed up pretty badly creating a side show and deflecting attention from things you’d have thought he’d want in the media. Or maybe the FOFA issue was too embarrassing and getting to much traction?

  • 1374
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 2:00 am | Permalink

    Bryon, I take it that’s an elaborate exercise in irony?

  • 1375
    imacca
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    Reading s18D makes me think Andrew Bolt has poor lawyers

    Listening to Brandis on Lateline makes me wonder what sort of a lawyer he was? He seems to be willfully misunderstanding the judges reasons in the Bolt case. I’m really not sure he is up to making any kind of realistic argument in favor of this move. Pure politics.

  • 1376
    bryon
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 2:07 am | Permalink

    Yes. Feel free to remove it. My wifes mother is Latvian and that’s what she calls them.

    Don’t have to be dark or poor or non mainstream to find hate.

  • 1377
    mexicanbeemer
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 2:24 am | Permalink

    imacca

    I can’t find the case on Law Cite, do you know where i can read the case?

    Thanks

  • 1378
    imacca
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 2:39 am | Permalink

    I can’t find the case on Law Cite, do you know where i can read the case?

    http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Eatock-vs-Bolt-federal-court-judgement.pdf

    is a summary.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/28/bolt-decision-guilty-of-discrimination-judge-declares/

    The crikey article has currently working link to the full judgement as well, as a word doc.

    Para 30 of the summary makes Brandis’ current position look a little contrived i think.

  • 1379
    imacca
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 2:40 am | Permalink

    nite all. :)

  • 1380
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 4:46 am | Permalink

    New thread.

  • 1381
    Fran Barlow
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    Davidwh

    It seems to me that Bolte got pinged because he named specific people rather than make a general observation. Am I wrong?

    No, you’re not wrong.

    Had Bolt simply made the claim that Aboriginality was something any non-Aboriginal could claim to secure social advantatage and that there were some high profile people doing it, and that in his opinion, people who didn’t seem black enough to him ought to be denied the benefits of claiming Aborginal status, then 18C could not have touched him because as offensive as such claims are, no specific person could have claimed they were defamed.

    As a number of people, including the judge in the Bolt case, have said, it was not the right to offend that was examined here, but the right to defame a class of people using the claims of specific people within the class on the basis of their ethnic identity without the efforts to relate the claims to reality that would show a good faith belief.

    If Bolt had not mentioned specific people as exemplars of his general point, the “reasonable man” might simply have treated Bolt’s claims as bigoted venting, but the introduction of supporting evidence in the form of claims about specific people might incline said “reasonable man” to entertain the racially offensive claims, and assume other “insufficiently black” Aboriginals were fraudsters, and that indigenous identity was frivolous, arbitrary and spurious rent-seeking.

  • 1382
    frednk
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    William Bowe
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    If you’re in favour of a law requiring that people be polite in public, you aren’t a “firm believer in free speech”.

    It is not a black and white issue is it. I don’t think many would argue for the right to yell fire in a crowded building when the facts don’t warrant such an action.

    Bolts problem was he could back up his rubbish with facts.

  • 1383
    mari
    Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZN3AI-Bcw guess this has been posted ridicule is way to go “grin”

  • 1384
    psyclaw
    Posted Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    THis email just sent, speaks for itself.

    “Good Morning Senator Brandis

    I was fabulously uplifted by the news that your amendments around s18C have been rejected by Cabinet, at least for the moment. I am enthused that there may be some ministers with integrity after all; it is rarely on display.

    For an allegedly erudite man your understanding of the meaning of “bigot” and your grasp of the societal sequelae as a result of the encouragement of bigotry, is extraordinarily impoverished.

    Your dissertations about the concept of free speech are illogical, distorted and lightweight attempts to clothe your ideological motives in a disguise of rationality. It won’t work, even with your own party. They have now given you the opportunity to cut your losses.

    I am anything but proud to have you as my national attorney-general.

    Regards”

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...