Menu lock

ReachTEL: 51-49 to Coalition

A second post-Ruddstoration ReachTEL result finds little change on the first, and confirms the impression that Malcolm Turnbull is strongly favoured over both the current contenders.

ReachTEL has published results of an automated phone poll of 2922 respondents across the country which has the Coalition leading 51-49, down from 52-48 in the immediate aftermath of the leadership change, from primary votes of 39.3% for Labor (up 0.5%, 45.4% for the Coalition (up 0.3%) and 8.3% for the Greens (down 0.4%). ReachTEL shows Kevin Rudd with an unusually narrow 52.4-47.6 lead over Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister, but the knife is nonetheless turned on Abbott by a result on voting intention under a Malcolm Turnbull leadership which has the Coalition lead at 58-42. Turnbull is also favoured 65-35 over Rudd as preferred prime minister.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

2388 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Puff, the Magic Dragon.
Guest
Puff, the Magic Dragon.

Our termite too his wife to Afghanistan?

Hey Boerwar, if you are around, Tick Tock.

mexicanbeemer
Guest

DisplayName

I think you are misinterpreting the situation.

Australia is still accepting refugees

Rudd’s plan if successful may be the best thing to ever happen for refugees.

Howard was able to run a high migration rate yet there was little to no opposition, why because the Government was seen as being in control.

This brings me back to the Rudd plan.

If nothing had changed and the number of boat arrivals kept increasing it would have started to undermine the whole immigration program.

If the number had reached lets say 100,000 boat arrivals, how would the voters have reacted.

Would they have swung to the ALP/Greens or would they have swung to the Hanson’s and Katters.

Lets ask ourselves do we want to undermine a highly successful immigration program and fill the parliament with Hanson’s and Katters.

If we want a real world example lets look at the U.K which has seen in recent times a large increase in the UKIP vote, driven in part by a large number of AS combined by the weak economy.

Put those two together and you are asking for a Hanson/Katter parliament.

The economy is not booming, Rudd knows this
People want job security and end of boats, Rudd knows this

I cannot see how anyone can oppose this policy.

It gives the Government control which enables them to continue with the important work or resettling people that are in need.

People that want to move to Australia need to be encouraged to find the mainstream approach.

Fran Barlow
Guest

People sometimes ask if the ALP will ever become the party of the left-of-centre imagination, or at least, no longer a party ethically and politically indistinguishable from its major centre-right rival.

The short answer is no. This is because those who favour such a course are willing to vote ALP despite the lack of interest in the ALP in doing so, or, these days, even winking at the left. As an old and repurposed aphorism runs: why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?

Until the ALP needs left|sts to support it in order to defeat its rival centre right party, it will happily accept free and unconditional left-of-centre support in defeating that party.

The problem lies with us left-of-centre folk. We say we want progress, but what are we willing to live with to get it? Are we willing to withhold our effective preferences and see the ALP defeated until the ALP is forced to deal with us? Will we continue to do that until the ALP sees that being a progressive party is a necessary (though perhaps not a sufficient) condition of success? Do our principles imply anything substantive at all? Do they bind us to act?

It seems to me that there is only one adequate warrant for advocating that someone exercise authority and discretion over public policy — and that is that in some measurable way, the triumph of that person will approach, at optimum speed in all of the constraints, a condition in which policies that best serve the common good will be realised.

Anything else makes one an accomplice to the very things one claims to oppose. Anything else is thus mere hypocrisy of one form or another.

shellbell
Guest

[1996
crikey whitey
Posted Saturday, July 20, 2013 at 6:28 pm | PERMALINK
AA

‘I really do wonder about these High Court challenges.

They seem to happen when Labor tries to do something’.

Put’s one in mind of the police, State and Fed.

Albeit pursuing only the non LNP suspects.]

Not hard to debunk a myth. TryCommunist Party challenge under the Menzies govt or Patricks under Howard where the High Court resisted or blocked Federal Govt action.

Next time someone cheers a HC result, that person may pause to consider cliched assertions about elites etc which passed for debate last night.

Silky38
Guest

Scott Morrision has a face that just begs to be punched repeatedly.

Fran Barlow
Guest

Psyclaw:

[He said that the method/manner in which a nation honours that obligation is not at all prescribed by the Convention.]

That’s true, but there are some exclusions, namely, not considering the manner in which arrivals present for protection in the claim. There are a bunch of others about ‘free movement’ within the jurisdiction, supply of travel documents, employment and education and housing and public relief, ‘the liberal professions’ and accreditation, not treating them worse than aliens in the territory who aren’t protected and so forth.

Fran Barlow
Guest

AbsoluteTwaddle:

[The whole ‘having influence on policy’ thing didn’t appear to be to their liking. Oh well, gotta try it to knock it!]

Having ‘influence’ on policy is only useful if the influence you get approaches ends you regard as worthy. If you become a mere appendage of policies you abhor, then having no ‘influence’ is at worst, no worse and arguably better, since you can disavow responsibility for bad things.

The Malaysia ‘solution’ — a policy of coercive and punitive rendition on a smaller scale than PNG — is a good example of this. The Greens could not have been party to such a policy without forfeiting a key value of our party — humanitarian treatment of those who are vulnerable. No Green MP or party member who endorsed this policy could have hoped to retain or gain endorsement — and rightly so. At branch level, the disgust and condemnation amongst those who troubled to comment on the policy was universal. To be fair, I don’t imagine it ever occurred to any of them to do so.

Our vote may fluctuate. That’s not something we can actively control, but unlike the major parties, we are in control of our party’s politics, and IMO, we are, most of the time, broadly correct in what we advocate, and certainly, never fundamentally wrong.

frednk
Guest

[bemused
Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 12:14 am | Permalink

johncanb@2333

I think you are right with that.
Attitudes have hardened as may be seen on PB where Psephos has had considerable success in convincing others who previously disagreed with his views.
]

Psephos is one screwed up puppy; hopfully no-one takes him seriously.

Suggesting that there be no Visas policy makes no sense if your only option is to drown them, create an underclass in Australia because they can’t can’t work or lock them up forever.

Rudds brillance in this case is to come up with a forth option.

crikey whitey
Guest

Little wonder we are whatever we are.

Civility and normal decent behaviour? Oh, for the good old days.

Pine Gap drives US drone kills

July 21, 2013 Philip Dorling

Central Australia’s Pine Gap.

Central Australia’s Pine Gap spy base has played a key role in the United States’ controversial drone strikes involving the ”targeted killing” of al-Qaeda and Taliban chiefs, Fairfax Media can reveal.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/pine-gap-drives-us-drone-kills-20130720-2qbsa.html#ixzz2ZbTLS4MR

pedant
Guest

absolutetwaddle @ 2374: Some time back, probably too long ago for you to remember. Back in the days when (a) civility was more common in society than it is now; and (b) when it wasn’t simply assumed that the normal rules of decent behaviour didn’t apply to political discourse.

I wonder how many of you here realise just how much you have in common with Alan Jones and Howard Sattler?

crikey whitey
Guest

Dave

Think we need a Snowden.

Or maybe this is Assange’s motive for office.

crikey whitey
Guest

Absolutetwaddle

Mmmh.

Reminded me of the words I posted the other night.

Oh, I want to be a punk rocker, with flowers in my hair…

lefty e
Guest

Could be right TP & CW. Im just guessing, like all of us.

absolutetwaddle
Guest

pedant

Yeah, the good old’ days when schadenfreude didn’t exist and everyone was friends and disagreements were resolved by the exchange of rainbows and puppies and people weren’t jerks on the internet.

Wait when was this again?

crikey whitey
Guest

Thomas.

Got it in one.

Few could call the events coincidental.

Thomas. Paine.
Guest

There would have been no harm in Indonesia agreeing a forum to nut out a regional solution when Gillard was in the job. That they didn’t was either because it wasn’t put to them, or put to them they way Rudd may have. Or they were not interested in helping a Gillard govt.

The Indonesia change of policy on visas I doubt had anything to do with Gillard, they did it at the request of Rudd.

The willingness of Indonesia to confirm its opposition to Abbott’s policy when the Lib’s tried to twist it, and going on TV. All these things seem to indicate some sort of closer relationship between Rudd and SBY/Indonesia.

Or maybe Gillard Labor never had the nouse or intellect to pursue these ideas, or Indonesia simply wasn’t interested dealing with them on them.

Thomas. Paine.
Guest

Its become a footy match.

lefty e
Guest

To intervene in the Rudd/ Gillared debate, I would make the following observations:

1. Rudd is a former diplomat and FM, where Gillard is perhaps curiously distinguished by her lack of engagement with foreign affairs

2. However, Indonesia doesnt move that quickly. Im guessing some of these annoncements were indeed first cooked up under Gillard for electoral season.

3. However again, PNG does move quick, especially where AU is concerned. It wouldnt surprise me if this one was all Rudd.

Thomas. Paine.
Guest

Rudd comes to power.

That night Carr talks about boat persons being mostly economic migrants.

Rudd states Abbott’s policy could lead to diplomatic conflict and raise the specter of military confrontation. Some say that was going to far…but had the effect of having Abbott’s policy under examination and puts Abbott on back foot.

Rudd goes to Indonesia and gets agreement 1.for a regional solution to be worked 2. Indonesia rebuff Abbott’s policy (and rebuffed it again later in case clothe ears didn’t hear properly)

3. Indonesia cancels policy of giving visas to all ‘fleeing’ muslims coming to Indonesia. At request of Rudd.

Rudd announces huge expansion of Manos facility.

Rudd announces all boat persons will not/never be settled in Aust.

This was a very well planned and organised project using those very Foreign Affair abilities that Rudd is known for.

Gillard and most there lack this type of strategic thinking and the ability to actually get it organised on the foreign scene.

wpDiscuz