Newspoll: 54-46

The Australian reports that this fortnight’s Newspoll has Labor’s lead at 54-46, down from 55-45 last time. However, Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is up five points to 59 per cent, while Malcolm Turnbull is down one point to 25 per cent. Essential Research has Labor’s lead up from 59-41 to 61-39 in its weekly survey, which is Labor’s second successive two point increase. Also included are questions on leadership approval and attitudes to the financial crisis.

UPDATE: Graphic here. An interesting set of figures: despite going backwards on two-party, Labor’s primary vote is up three points to 44 per cent, the Greens having returned to earth from 13 per cent to 9 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings are well up: satisfaction up nine to 65 per cent and dissatisfaction down six to 26 per cent, his best figures since May and June respectively. He’s also taken a commanding lead over Turnbull as best leader to handle the economy, up nine since September 19-21 to 50 per cent with Turnbull down eight to 35 per cent. Also included are questions on the carbon pollution reduction scheme, which over half now believe should be at least delayed.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

871 comments on “Newspoll: 54-46”

Comments Page 14 of 18
1 … 13 14 15 … 18

  1. Generic Person at number 625 wrote of Michelle Grattan:

    [she should get a new prescription]

    Quoting a despicable attack line that originated with one Peter Cowardello, the biggest bully and craven poltroon in federal politics. One who, on occasion after occasion, going as far back as 1994, always chickened out of putting himself into the position of leadership where he’d really have to fight, rather than simply sound his loud mouth off.

    The kind of person Generic Person seems to “admire”.

  5. Generic Person @ 642. You refer to me @ 636, but that’s Gary Bruce. I’d suggest asking your boss, supervisor, manager, whomever, for a break. I’d also be suggesting some proper time to actually research whatever it is you’re going to post about. The endless repetition of particular phrases, etc. is about as interesting as watching football, for me, and as about as convincing for a member of the football indifference club.
    It’s just unutterably stupid and boring. Sorry, but if you’ve got something useful to say about the tensions currently apparent, politically and economically, across both domestic and international scenarios, I’d be more than willing to discuss them.
    I have a step-daughter who is a hot shot corporate lawyer who is a Lib. voter, and I have more intelligent conversations with her than I’ve ever had with you.

  8. The Financial Review, aren’t they the ones who used to kick Howard on a daily basis when he was Treasurer. They seemed to consider him the worst Treasurer in this country’s history and they always had good reasons why they never liked what he did.

  16. Not ashamed to admit it: tears running down my face at the conclusion of tonight’s live ABC presentation of La Boheme.

    Choke… gets me every time. I’m written off even before the end of the first act. By the finale I’m a basket case.

    Long live music. I hope that’s ont thing we can all agree on. Puccini is God.

  17. Generic baby @ 655. When , if ever, will you ever get it, that this is unutterably tedious and unproductive, and really, really, just so unutterably tedious, unproductive and boring. God, it’s so boring, so endlessly, unremittingly boring. If we could distill your essence and manufacture it, we’d have a money spinning sedative. If you’ve got something useful to say, please do.

  18. HSO, all jobs are boring, Liberal shill GP’s moreso than most, I’d imagine. And surely more soul-destroying, coming on here, day after day, defending the meanest, most miserable mob to ever darken the doorstep of Parliament House. And without even a lousy toilet break written into his SerfChoices “agreement”. Must need the money bad, is all I can say…

  19. Harry, you know the old saying ” empty vessels make the most noise”.

    The main problem being that it is not music to the ears. Just a boring, droning, background noise that I’m sure everyone has long wished would stop.

  20. You can never be sure if a story you read in the OO is true, false or manufactured but you can be sure that more often than not they are bent to support the LNP and undermine the Govt, that is what there is little point in buying it.

    The Age is one of the few papers you can buy where you actually might get to the truth of a matter.

  21. No, no, Cuppa, Young Liberal hacks do this stuff for love, not money. GP is no doubt trying to get on the shortlist for the Berowra by-election – the shortlist is known in Sydney YL circles as “the Dave Clarke Five” for reasons I’m sure you can figure out.

  22. Adam, “Young Liberal” seems a contradiction in terms. I actually thought the name was Geriatric P until closer examination. (A bit slow, I’ll have to have a think about the Dave Clark Five one …)

  25. Cuppa,there are parts of my work that are boring, but i actually really love many parts of my work. I get a real kick out of people getting better and finding or developing their own resources to deal differently with life’s vicissitudes, of finding service gaps and ways of getting services to work together to meet those gaps. Innovation in human service delivery is a great buzz.
    Generic Person just seems like a dumb robot, and compared to my step-daughter, who can at least be swayed by logical argument, just boring. Agree the AWA must be pretty ghastly.

  28. Harry, you’re in the helping profession by the sounds, immeasurably more worthwhile than GP’s caper, which is to come on here defending ideological nasties, cowards, liars, and all-round miserable misfits. Good on you.

  31. Ta, Cuppa. GP’s lot is an unenviable one, but he (assuming the gender) is just so awful, even in terms of logic, it just is pointless trying to have a conversation.

  33. [Ta, Cuppa. GP’s lot is an unenviable one, but he (assuming the gender) is just so awful, even in terms of logic, it just is pointless trying to have a conversation.]
    I’m still trying to get Glen to fight G.P. They obviously represent different Young Liberal factions. You got the tossers and the windbags. I can’t figure out which is which.

  35. Another made up story by the OO by the look of things. then when it doesn’t happen they will accuse Kev of a backflip. Sooo predictable, sigh…

    “A spokesman for Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Anthony Albanese dismissed the reports of $600 million and plans to move funding forward, as assumption.

    “We told the Australian that when the story was published. They are just speculating,” the spokesperson told http://www.governmentnews.com.au.

    “I have absolutely no idea where that $600 million figure came from. We have not announced the quantum; we have not announced the final details of the program.

    “I genuinely don’t know what they are talking about,” he said.

    http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2008/10/28/article/HYPCDZMZCQ.html

  36. From a link at the bottom of Adam’s Wiki article

    [{Lyenko Urbanchich} was also the last, and most powerful, of the central and eastern European Nazi collaborators and war criminals who infiltrated the Liberal Party from the 1950s and coalesced with Australian rightists to form the “Uglies” faction.]

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/obituaries/ardent-nazi-took-liberal-to-extremes/2006/03/03/1141191845008.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

    I dunno about everyone else, but when even the party name is a lie (it should be the Anti-Liberal Party or ILliberal Party), if the falsity goes that fundamental, how or why would you trust a word they say?

  37. [Those are actually the formal names for the factions.]
    I just got word through that G.P. edits his faction’s newsletter, it’s called The Daily Tosser.

  38. Perhaps two sentences in th middle of my long #602 post did not get weighting because it was only one sentence each (on agree no guarantee and my suggested use of redeemable funds but not intended by me for redemptions)

    “Managed Investments cann’t be obviously guaranted at all but not on idealology but as govt doesn’t know th viability of there portfolios (being pooled market linked investments)”

    That statement was intended to demolish any argument in favour of a guarantee on prudential grounds alone , irrespective of accounting for people taking a bigger risk in Managed Funds for a higher return

    Th queston that I thought leadd from my supposition of no guarantee is should any Govt proactive ‘action’ be taken (and if so what) or whether ot let them wither

    My view is ‘action’ is desirable rather than no action because :Govts “encouraged” them , did so for a productive economic purpose self funding supa , gave no warning they were as risky as they ar in fact now ar irrespective of th cause , most were/ar well manged & most did hav acceptable liquidity levels for ‘normative’ business but could not be expected to hav liquidity for a foreign imported financia tsarmi , and its undesirable for th big 4 Banks to fully take this Sector as well

    Now none of these reasons rely on th investors ‘deserving’ assistance but on th broader reasons abov I did NOT intend for eg redeemable pref shares to be used (after thorough APRA type audits of viability) for use as redemptions at all but rather to underpin/compatable with a Depoisitors fee also payable for some insurance cover & re-establash some public confidence due to ‘Govt involvement’

    Despite some of th Managers fee rip offs , th sector does perform a valuable role both a as self funding supa conduit , cheaper sourse of funds for our Banks than dear US alternatives , different productive investment utilisation in our economy and a Sector th big 4 Banks don’t control So no govt guarantee , no govt risk , redeemable monies , giv some consumer confidence of govt interest to reverse redempton flood , provide liquidaty (not for redemptions) but for there core business of earning returns & maintain future revenues to Govt that Sector contributes

    It is true chasing bigger returns by taking bigger risks normaly is a capitalism buyer beware …however this is a once in a Centary situation with other considerations in hand Th Govt has gone down my & others here rail track of a no guarantee (fine) but to me skipped a few rail Stations in between where I’m standing and jumped to th last rail Station ending up wanting these Mnaged Funds to be APRA approved almost Banks

  39. [I dunno about everyone else, but when even the party name is a lie (it should be the Anti-Liberal Party or ILliberal Party), if the falsity goes that fundamental, how or why would you trust a word they say?]
    The way I think about it is that Menzie’s chose “Liberal” deliberately to misrepresent what Labor stood for. My understanding is that Labor has NEVER been a socialist party, it has always assumed a version of capitalism would exist to ensure liberty and freedom. It just thinks that wealth creation should benefit workers as well as owners, and that social mobility is best achieved through equality of opportunity to education.

    So, in that sense, Labor are social liberals. The Liberal party is full of neo-liberals, which we generally call conservatives.

  44. GP

    Are you one of the real estate agents harassing Prof Andrew Pittman about his pointing out which properties are prone to damage as a result of climate change?

  46. [I just got word through that G.P. edits his faction’s newsletter, it’s called The Daily Tosser.]

    Named after what goes on in the party room.

    [My understanding is that Labor has NEVER been a socialist party, it has always assumed a version of capitalism would exist to ensure liberty and freedom. It just thinks that wealth creation should benefit workers as well as owners, and that social mobility is best achieved through equality of opportunity to education.]

    Labor has never never had a strong socialist (In the Marxist sense) presence. The furthest left they’ve been is with the reformist Fabians.

    It depends on how you define “socialist” I suppose. Hardcore conservatives would argue that a progressive income tax is “socialist”. But who really cares what they think.

  47. [It depends on how you define “socialist” I suppose. Hardcore conservatives would argue that a progressive income tax is “socialist”. But who really cares what they think.]
    Were they ever socialist in the European “Democratic Socialist” sense of the term? Maybe the Left was. But generally the focus since even Whitlam has been on figuring out ways to make the wealth pie bigger, rather than just dividing the pie in different ways. That was certainly the aim of Hawke/Keating.

    Even minimalist state Libertarians believe in some redistribution, because they believe in a police force and judiciary to enforce private property rights.

    So anti-tax zealots would have to consider minimalist state Libertarians socialist. 😀

  48. Gotta love OUR ABC. Have done alot of driving in the past 2 days and listened to ABC radio. Well blow me down if Turnbull is not our PM. Virtually every political story was from Turnbull’s perspective, yesterday he was getting advice on how to help the funds, today he was saying the funds would have trouble with more regulation etc etc. It is unbelievable

  49. The ALP constitution and previous policy platforms contained a lot of socialist rhetoric. “Nationalisations of industry” etc. but it was never really a goal and no one bothered trying to implement it, except that bloke in the 40’s.

    The British Labour Party also had a controversial phrase in its constitution, stipulating that the party sought the “nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. Tony got rid of that soon enough.

    The disconnect can be explained by the fact that it was the unions that wrote the constitution, but the parliamentary party who, exposed to the realities of politics, implement policy.

  50. [The disconnect can be explained by the fact that it was the unions that wrote the constitution, but the parliamentary party who, exposed to the realities of politics, implement policy.]
    I think the ALP constitution says “socialisation”. But I think this term is ambiguous, it could mean “state ownership”, or it could simply mean “regulation so benefits are shared by society”.

    It leaves a lot of wiggle room IMO.

    I think the ALP has always been pretty practically minded. They were always interested in awards – pay and conditions – as well as public education – and at least initially tarrifs, rather than shutting down every business and replacing it with a state run organisation.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 14 of 18
1 … 13 14 15 … 18