Since we’ll probably be getting some new polling data on public perceptions of this asylum seeker business over the next week or so, it might be worth having a quick squiz back at the most recent data. There was some stuff in Newspoll back in 2004 sometime that keeps getting mentioned – but that’s a bit too far in the distant past for my liking to be relevant. Thankfully though, Essential Report had some polling on this in July-August last year using a sample of 1013 for a margin of error around the 3% mark.
It will be interesting to see if that general thrust of public opinion has changed much in the intervening 7 months – although I’d be surprised if it would have changed greatly, if at all.
One of the more mundane and nonsensical arguments that ooze from the wingnut right over this issue is the allegation that anyone that believed Howard’s Pacific Solution was inhumane and/or a waste of money, was somehow wanting to “open the floodgates” for refugees to descend on Australia like some rampaging horde. But as we can see, even though around a quarter of the public believed that Australia’s mandatory detention policies of the past were too tough, only 6% of the public believed that the current refugee intake was too small.
13 Comments
Possum, I love you, I really do, but you’re killing me with the apostrophes.
Good grief! I did it again.
Given that very few of the general pop would know what that 13500 figure is as % of total immigration figures, i’m suspicious that the lack of context would skew the figures. How can such an even distribution on the policy feed into a polarised dissatisfaction with the numbers being taken? Just seems weird is all
Poss, I’ve learned to live with your creative punctuation. Carry on, and let the apostrophes fall where they may!
Just keep punching out the data and the occasional rant, and we’ll all be happy!
Doesn’t this simply suggest that one in two Australians are selfish?
Or perhaps that my grammar is poor?
I suspect the responses would be different if the figures were put in context. Increase by how much rather than increased to. And a comparison to what other countries are taking would but it in perspective and also a mentioning of Australia’s responsibility. And even a references to what we took in previous years.
They’re good points Dan and Jon – I might try and hunt down some historical polling on migration issues and see if this sort of disconnect is unusual or not.
Don went:
hear hear!
I read and re-read poss’s words and could find no problems with the use of apostrophes (he doesn’t use many), but there may be a comma issue.
Possum, can you explain the argument you make in that last paragraph? I can’t see how that poll result has any negative effect on that right-wing allegation whatsoever.
Are you sure that you haven’t swapped the meaning of the ‘Too Small’ and ‘Too Large’ answers? If not, then I honestly have no idea what you could be talking about.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/21apr-newspoll.html – latest Newspoll, 58-42 unchanged.
27% say Labor handles the issue of asylum seekers better, against 26% for the coalition. 6% for someone else, and a whopping 41% for none/uncommitted.
Tighter laws to reduce the number of asylum seekers?
Yes/will reduce – 36%
No/no difference – 57%
That splits 31 to 64 for Labor voters, and 47 to 46 for coalition voters.
Still waiting for Andrew Bolt to supply me with the names of just ten children, who were tossed overboard, off the coast of Western Australia.