Newspoll: 56-44

The latest fortnightly Newspoll survey shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly, from 58-42 to 56-44. Kevin Rudd leads Malcolm Turnbull as preferred prime minister 61 per cent to 21 per cent. More to follow.

UPDATE (10/3/09): Reporting a day later than usual, Essential Research also shows a four point narrowing on two-party preferred, from 62-38 to 60-40. Also featured: “political party characteristics”, executive salaries, climate change, maternity leave and “confidence in Australian economy to withstand the current financial crisis”, which Essential Research has been tracking since October last year (and which has taken a big hit in the current survey). You also probably know by now that yesterday’s Newspoll featured a headline-grabbing supplementary question on the Liberal leadership showing Peter Costello favoured by 53 per cent against 40 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull.

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.

1,318 comments on “Newspoll: 56-44”

Comments Page 24 of 27
1 … 23 24 25 … 27

  1. [He only has to say “I’m available” and they’ll fall at his feet.]
    And then he wouldn’t do any better than Nelson or Turnbull. I think he realises that if he fails at opposition leader, then people will start reevaluating his years as treasurer.
    [The problem is making the people ’socialist’]
    You can’t do it. Lindsay Tanner said at the press club this week that people are by their nature both competitive and collaborative. You can’t force them to privilege one of these aspects over the other, humans need to express both. The only way to do that is to have a mixed market economy with strong competition backed up by social security and sensible regulation.
    [Pete’s warm up seems to have gone OK]
    I hope he dedicated it to Bernie Banton.
    [Please explain where it has not worked…]
    There was this place called the Soviet Union led by this guy named Stalin that I read about once.

  2. Yep evidence of where the chart came from? None provided.
    By the way how do measure GDP today? Someone could die in a car accident and that would count todays economic growth.
    My statistics are about unemployment and inflation and this period tells us what Shows On?
    Yep mining booms 1979 their was one and in the 00’s another. The reason we had a boom throughout the period was because of Keynesian economics, Government investment and ownership. What about the economic recessions than… did we have any please do another search…

  3. Why do you want minorities to control the majority?

    As for capitalism, I’m always broke but my kids seem to think it supports their lifestyle.

  4. [Socialism, properly defined, is a system under which the means of production are socially owned, in other words in which private property in productive enterprise is abolished]

    Actually,Shows directed me to a Guy called Irving Berlin or somesuch, and he postulated, that we could have the benefitsf socialism,you know the “social contract” and such like, with the enterprise of capitalisms “zest”.

    Sounds pretty reasonable to me
    🙂

  5. So many people who still are in denial.. please tell the countless homeless in this world which is about 80 percent of worlds population why they are in poverty… perhaps it is socialism…

  6. [Actually,Shows directed me to a Guy called Irving Berlin or somesuch, and he postulated, that we could have the benefitsf socialism,you know the “social contract” and such like, with the enterprise of capitalisms “zest”.]

    Isaiah Berlin perhaps? I don’t think he was a socialist.

  8. Marky, 80% of the world’s population are neither homeless nor living in poverty. Do try and get some grip on reality. The abolition of socialism in China has elevated 500 million people out of poverty. That’s what I call empirical evidence.

  10. [Russia was a communist country. Please understand the difference.]

    There is no difference. As I said at #1150, “communism” is just socialism in practice. There’s no other way to abolish private property. “Democratic socialism” is a myth. Where and when has it existed?

  14. [Isaiah Berlin perhaps? I don’t think he was a socialist]

    Ta for the correction, I dont think he was a ‘traditional socialist’ but from what i have had a chance to read he seemed to sway more to the “left’ than the “right”

    Clarification: Communism is state control of basically everything???
    Socialism is the state control of ‘essential industries’ with limited private enterprise, in the areas of commerce, banking and the mercantile class????

  15. [“Communism” is just the theory of socialism applied in practice, in the only way it can be applied. ]
    Communism is the Utopian “classless society” that resulted from the full and proper implementation of socialism. For some reason socialist states never reach that point… I wonder why? 🙂
    [that we could have the benefitsf socialism,you know the “social contract” and such like, with the enterprise of capitalisms “zest”.]
    In that sense Berlin is invoking Kantian notions of social contract.

    Berlin’s criticism of socialism is that it privileges EQUALITY over every other moral value. Berlin thinks this is crazy, because it means you infringe a lot of other values (such as liberty) just so you can maximise equality, thus it becomes a utilitarian system (everything is fine just as long as as much equality as possible is generated). Berlin on the other hand says that it should be left to people to determine what moral values they prefer over others, just as long as they respect the right of others to do the same.
    [world which is about 80 percent of worlds population why they are in poverty… perhaps it is socialism…]
    There are millions of people living in complete poverty in North Korea, and that’s perhaps the most totalitarian socialist state in the world. GDP per capita in North Korea is about $2000 in Australia it is $37,000. That should tell you all there is to know about socialism.

  16. [As I said at #1150, “communism” is just socialism in practice.]

    For someone who has a PHD in history that’s an extremely shallow analysis.

    There are at least half a dozen different types of “socialism”, all different to “communism” which has come to mean the implentation of a Marxist social and economic system.

    “Socialism” has been around longer than Marx.

  17. [There is no difference. As I said at #1150, “communism” is just socialism in practice. There’s no other way to abolish private property. “Democratic socialism” is a myth. Where and when has it existed?]

    Only in the minds of Green Left Readers and the Socialist Alliance 🙂

    And can best be described as:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFo6kmMZr3s

  19. [There are at least half a dozen different types of “socialism”, all different to “communism” which has come to mean the implentation of a Marxist social and economic system.]

    Where and when have these different types of socialism existed? – outside of textbooks, I mean.

  20. ShowsOn’s posts on political theory always remind me of university tutorial discussions for some reason. This is not a criticism, just a comment.

  21. [Ta for the correction, I dont think he was a ‘traditional socialist’ but from what i have had a chance to read he seemed to sway more to the “left’ than the “right”]
    Berlin was first and foremost a theorist of liberal democracy, he started as a neo-classical liberal theorist, but ended up as a moderate social liberal through his theory of value pluralism. He isn’t as Left wing as John Rawls, although some have tried to argue he is.
    [Clarification: Communism is state control of basically everything???
    Socialism is the state control of ‘essential industries’ with limited private enterprise,]
    No, communism is what society is supposed to evolve into once socialism is properly implemented. Remember, socialism is meant to resolve the conflict between labor and capital, it does this by completely revolutionising society into a new form that is an amalgam of these things.

  23. [For someone who has a PHD in history that’s an extremely shallow analysis.]
    Having a Ph.D. doesn’t make you an expert in everything, nor should it.
    [ShowsOn’s posts on political theory always remind me of university tutorial discussions for some reason. ]
    Unfortunately I have had to teach basic Marxist theory to first year uni students.

  24. Oh lets see now warlords, that is capitalism in full flight, so here goes. There are millions of people living in poverty in zimbarbie etc and so on….. That should tell you all there is to know about capitalism.

  25. [communism is what society is supposed to evolve into once socialism is properly implemented. Remember, socialism is meant to resolve the conflict between labor and capital, it does this by completely revolutionising society into a new form that is an amalgam of these things.]

    Yes, that’s the theory, but in practice (remember practice?) no country has ever got past the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (as represented in their absence by the vanguard party). After a few decades the system either collapses (USSR), reverts to capitalism (China) or declines into poverty (N Korea, Cuba). That what happens in the real world. The rest is just intellectual fantasy.

  26. [Unfortunately I have had to teach basic Marxist theory to first year uni students.]

    dude, sometimes you rock, so I wouldn’t worry about some pimply faced pubescents

    [Having a Ph.D. doesn’t make you an expert in everything, nor should it.]

    I’m sure Ron would be proud of you
    😉

  28. [It’s a fact.]

    Of course it is. But depending on how you define “poverty” and what metrics you use, it’s potentially useless.

    [Where and when have these different types of socialism existed?]

    Different levels of, and different methods of, the State (be it democratic or totalitarian) redistributing wealth and owning the means of production and communication have existed in a number of different places throughout history.

    Socialism is a pre-Marxist idea. Communism is how Marx viewed society would end up, if the working class revolting and initially replaced capitalism with socialism. Communism is different from socialism as socialism is different from capitalism as communism strives to remove the state but socialism uses it as a tool for redistribution.

    Of course this is a theoretical debate, and I don’t think anyone can deny that, nor can they deny that communism has ever existed as an economic or social structure.

    Different forms of socialism have existed, but I would argue that the Marxist interpretation has not.

  30. [Yes, that’s the theory, but in practice (remember practice?) no country has ever got past the “dictatorship of the proletariat”]
    Totally. To me one of the whole flaws of the idea is that it proposes a completely unattainable vision of the future that denies human nature.
    [After a few decades the system either collapses (USSR), reverts to capitalism (China)]
    What would you call the Chinese government now? Nationalist? Authoritarian?

    I sometimes wonder what democracy would be like in a country that big and with that many people.

  32. Marky Marky

    Please take an objective view of world history. There is only one significant communist society left, China and it has turned capitalist in economic nature so is an aberration. anyway. What the socialist agenda has shown is no better than capitalism it directs benefits to identified groups in power. Not a different regime at all only a different privilege group. If there was one successful socialist country perhaps you can enlighten me. I only see the same corruption that exists in Wall Street but protected by government not the market.

    As for Costello, he will wait till the next election and be proved correct as he will be Prime Minister in 2013.

  34. [As for Costello, he will wait till the next election and be proved correct as he will be Prime Minister in 2013.]

    let me guess: you are from victoria right???

  35. [Having a Ph.D. doesn’t make you an expert in everything, nor should it.]

    I wasn’t suggesting that, but Adam equating socialism and communism threw me for a bit.

    It’s more likely I just misunderstood.

    [no country has ever got past the “dictatorship of the proletariat”]

    I’d argue that no country has gotten *too* the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The RSDLP and the CCP were not really “proletarian” parties. Though this probably has to do with the fact that Russia in 1917 and China in the 40’s and 50’s were rural, peasant based societies where capitalism barely existed. Capitalism was considered a fundamental pre-requisite for the revolution.

  36. [What would you call the Chinese government now? Nationalist? Authoritarian?]

    Yes of course, both of those. But the real change since 1979 has been the restoration of private property, particularly in land.

  38. [Of course it is. But depending on how you define “poverty” and what metrics you use, it’s potentially useless.]
    The last time I looked at this, in the last 20 years, 200 million Chinese have moved out of “abject poverty”, which was defined as living on less than US$2 a day. I think I got the figures from the World Bank webpage.
    [I’m sure Ron would be proud of you]
    A Ph.D. means you know more and more about less and less until you eventually know everything about nothing. 😀

  39. [I’d argue that no country has gotten *too* the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The RSDLP and the CCP were not really “proletarian” parties.]

    Of course. That’s what I said. The party substituted itself for the class, then the dictator for the party. That’s the way it works.

  42. [China and it has turned capitalist in economic nature so is an aberration. anyway. ]
    It shows you how smart the Chinese communist party are, they were willing to give up socialism in order to stay in power. That would be like the Liberals affiliating with trade unions.

  43. [The last time I looked at this, in the last 20 years, 200 million Chinese have moved out of “abject poverty”, which was defined as living on less than US$2 a day.]

    Which in my opinion is not a very useful indication of anything.

  46. [It shows you how smart the Chinese communist party are, they were willing to give up socialism in order to stay in power.]

    It’s working so far, but I’m sure you’re aware of the theories that suggest economic power and political power go hand in hand. So as the government cedes economic power to a burgeoning middle-class, they’ll eventually cede political power as well.

  47. [Zimbarbie,

    Is that the one where they have Robert Mugabe doll as a substitute for Ken? ]

    Sorry only just twigged
    GOLD
    🙂

  48. Before you all go ballistic and i have to ring for a cavalcade of ambulances…
    I would agree that their are differing forms of socialism and no doubt that practised by China, Russia and many countries in Eastern Europe was its purest form and was very much like communism. These systems have failed and i acknowledge that. They were undemocratic dictatorships which did little for their people and failed to acknowledge the freedom of association which i am against.
    However their are many scandanivian countries which practise the type of socialism i favor and which should be modelled elsewhere. These countries are the types which i believe we should consider as alternative ideologies.

  49. I talk to people from venezeluea ( spelling) and they love him. He at last is doing something as compared to the long list of American leaders whom looked after American interests.. Now please explain Adam why did America try to get him out of Government and what strong evidence do you have that he is corrupt.
    At least he is leader looking after his countries interests and not like here allowing multinationals instead of Australians to own our resources and infrastructrure.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 24 of 27
1 … 23 24 25 … 27