Menu lock

Queensland Politics

May 23, 2014

Galaxy: 52-48 to federal Coalition in Queensland

A Galaxy poll of federal voting intention in Queensland has a somewhat less bruising result for the Abbott government than it has lately been accustomed to, as Campbell Newman's state government girds itself for a difficult by-election.

Galaxy has produced a poll of federal voting intention in Queensland shows the Coalition leading 52-48, representing a swing to Labor since the election of 5%, with further detail presumably forthcoming courtesy of the Courier-Mail. UPDATE: The primary votes are 33% for Labor (steady since February, as is the two-party result), 41% for the Coalition (steady), 7% for the Greens (steady) and 12% for Palmer United (up one). The poll also has a surprisingly high 48% in support of the GP co-payment with 50% opposed, 46% and 48% for increasing the GST, and 25% and 72% for raising the pension age to 70.

In other Queensland news, it today emerged that a state by-election looms in the inner Brisbane seat of Stafford following the resignation of Liberal National Party member Chris Davis. This neatly coincides with a ReachTEL automated phone poll of 687 residents in the electorate, which did not canvass voting intention, but found Davis’s recent dissident activity had made him considerably more popular in the electorate than the Premier. The poll also furnishes rare data on opinion concerning campaign finance laws, finding 60% opposition to the government’s removal of caps on political donations with only 22% in support.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

685 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
bobball_au
Guest

I’m extremely suspect of this poll. The Courier Mail has hardly a fair and balanced News Corp paper in the past months.
This outcome is quite strange.

bemused
Guest

crikey whitey@666

The problem with Bemused is that he loves to pick baubles. From his lofty perch.

If he had bothered to read my entire post, it was not about me.

Whilst I have a modest claim to my description of the ABC, it is hardly tin foil stuff. As we all know by now, I have a title and a tiara. Albeit Papier-mâché. Since renounced.

Mine was simply a response to Atticus.

Bemused would be well advised to cease copying and criticing what others say and put forward his own formulated view.

He occasionally but rarely does so.

Bemused has a lot to offer. I appreciate his best side.

Don’t appreciate his spiteful side.

Greetings CW from my “lofty perch” which on this occasion is a comfortable lounge chair from which I am watching Insiders and enjoying it.

My formulated view on various topics appear fairly regularly. Favourite topics include Unemployment, 457 visas, public transport, economic management and education issues, together with the issues of the day. You really should pay close attention, you might learn a few things.

Maybe you miss a lot of what I say as I strive for brevity.

Have a great day post birthday.

bemused
Guest

crikey whitey@665

Fran Barlow.

While you are there. Thank you for responding to Bemused’s offensive, to me, remarks. I had no time to do so myself. You exactly represented how I found it. Including the later take up of ‘Their ABC’ by the trolls. I had time enough to save it.

• 1022
Fran Barlow
Posted Friday, May 23, 2014 at 9:22 am | Permalink
bemused

1. I reject the claim that “theirABC” is tin foil hat stuff*.

The ABC clearly launders the Murdochracy’s fantasy visions to make them palatable to left-of-centre audiences. It also empties them of content, doing faux balance, and presenting most of discourse on public policy as not about tyhe substance of policy but about its appearances — “how it will play with the punters”

2. I also stopped paying attention to Fran Kelly and her partner in crime, Michelle Grattan some years ago — probably in 2009.

* I am aware that the far right also uses the term “theirABC” to make the opposite claim — that it’s a nest of leftwing trolls. That simply reflects (variously) their stupidity, disingenuity, studied ignorance and/or malice.

Hi crikey whitey, I hope you had a happy birthday and enjoyed your celebratory swipe at me.

I stand by my comment about “Their ABC”. It is just trite and nonsensical. It is real tinfoil hat stuff. Did you get a new tinfoil hat for your birthday?

The ABC is not the mouthpiece of any political party and at times presents views quite at odds with mine and other ALP members and supporters. That’s its job and I am sorry you and some others don’t understand it.

The Libs are not faring too well on Insiders this morning and deservedly so.

Otiose
Guest

Nett_NEWS++™ @ http://bit.ly/1aQcqOy 25/5

mexicanbeemer
Guest

I agree that Andrew Elder is more than likely wrong but then again in Tone world he might actually think having state ALP governments is a but I don’t see it.

The federal government if anything is actually giving the states greater power thus control which may well benefit them politically.

mexicanbeemer
Guest

Happy Birthday CW, hope you are making good use of the weekend by having a cracker of a time

cud chewer
Guest

crikey, I’ll be voting Labor in the next NSW election. However, I don’t think labor will win. Again, if I’m wrong I’ll be happy about it.

Tom
Guest

psyclaw, the uncle didn’t need to “have it” to challenge the will. If I was your son and you wrote me out of the will, I could probably challenge – you had lost your marbles or some such argument – whilst you are still alive. If the uncle wanted it challenged, he could have asked the Church legalese to help him. Not the trustees though.

At least that is my understanding. I am a trustee with another (not catholic) Church and we had a bequest left to the church via a will. It was challenged by a relative. We didn’t fight it for ethical reasons. The Church still got what was left to it as the courts did not approve the challenge from the relative (actual details not known by the church as we didn’t want to get involved in family matters). That’s why I can’t fathom why the Catholic Trustees would fight a will unless they were specifically instructed to do so by the Uncle.

But without the facts, a lot of this is conjecture.

There is a saying in the Church – where there’s a will there’s a relative. Sounds cynical, but it is very true. The clergy have to deal with grieving relatives a lot, family battles over wills are a major thing for clergy to deal with when they are helping families through the grieving.

Tom.

crikey whitey
Guest

Truly, weirdly, deeply.

Cud Chewer.

Who are you batting for?

cud chewer
Guest

Oh and 28 March 2015 for NSW, but I doubt Labor will win. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

cud chewer
Guest

Hmm.. according to wikipedia the next QLD election can be no later than 20 June 2015
That should be interesting.

BlindFreddy
Guest

Deflationite

But then how would all the reverends dress up in all the lavish gear and jewellery.

Surely you don’t want Pell to have to wear jeans n T-shirt from Lowes and a paira thongs do you!!!

BlindFreddy
Guest

Cud Chewer

I think Vic, NSW, Qld, WA.

deflationite
Guest

If you sold all of the assets of all the christian churches globally slowly over several decades you could easily wipe poverty from the face of the earth.

cud chewer
Guest

What are the next state elections in order?

BlindFreddy
Guest

Tom

The uncle didn’t have it to leave to the church till the challenge to the Will was made and upheld.

I have not referred at all to what and how might have happened to the assets / benefits after the priestly uncle successfully retrieved them by challenging the Will.

deflationite
Guest

I normally like Elder.

But the GST conspiracy is one too far.

That is one aspect of policy they do not care enough about to form a grand fed-state conspiracy to up the GST.

Just does not align to what they believe in.

A grand conspiracy for a massive revenue raiser? Na.

The grand conspiracy would be for a massive cost cutter. Nothing else.

No way different levels of government would agree to raise GST by stealth. More stupid than smart.

BlindFreddy
Guest

WarrenPeace

The “Budget Bills” have 3 elements

1) Appropriation Bills ie legislative authority to spend money, the spending of which has already been legislated ie “Supply”. These won’t be blocked.

2) Bills to create new taxes or change existing ones eg the deficit levy or the co-payments. These are about legislating what the government can do to grab our $s. These are not “Supply” and can be certainly blocked. Some will be blocked/amended.

3) Bills to create new programs / alter old ones eg Direct Action, or PPL. These also are not “Supply” and can be blocked. Some will be blocked/amended.

crikey whitey
Guest

The problem with Bemused is that he loves to pick baubles. From his lofty perch.

If he had bothered to read my entire post, it was not about me.

Whilst I have a modest claim to my description of the ABC, it is hardly tin foil stuff. As we all know by now, I have a title and a tiara. Albeit Papier-mâché. Since renounced.

Mine was simply a response to Atticus.

Bemused would be well advised to cease copying and criticing what others say and put forward his own formulated view.

He occasionally but rarely does so.

Bemused has a lot to offer. I appreciate his best side.

Don’t appreciate his spiteful side.

wpDiscuz