Menu lock

Federal Politics 2013-

Mar 24, 2014

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.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

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.


Guest guess this has been posted ridicule is way to go “grin”


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.

Fran Barlow


[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.


nite all. 🙂


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

is a summary.

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.



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



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.


[ 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.

cud chewer


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?


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 ..

cud chewer

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


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



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



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

“Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!”