Newspoll: 55-45

The latest fortnightly Newspoll has the two-party vote steady at 55-45, with Labor’s primary vote steady on 44 per cent and the Coalition’s up one to 39 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is up three to 64 per cent, and his disapproval down three to 26 per cent. UPDATE: graphic here.

Essential Research has Labor’s lead up from 60-40 to 61-39. Respondents think Labor and Liberal have moved closer together in recent years, are unconcerned about Malcolm Turnbull’s possible past flirtations with the ALP, believe the government’s stimulus package to have averted recession, and are generally more impressed with the Labor Party than Liberal (“out of touch with ordinary people” up two points to 64 per cent). Their responses on religion suggest the sectarian divide to be alive and well.

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.

1,858 comments on “Newspoll: 55-45”

Comments Page 35 of 38
1 … 34 35 36 … 38

  1. To think that the Liberals have to get past, in that order:

    * Julia Gillard
    * Lindsay Tanner
    * Greg Combet
    * Wayne Swan
    * Peter Garrett
    * Bill Shorten
    * Kate Ellis

    and throw in:

    Tim Holding

    Boy, And I think it’s gonna be a long long time, a rocket man, a rocket man.

    BTW: Aussie Kim has just beaten Selina Williams, Selina defaulted on the match point for abusing the lineswoman. Hewitt married the wrong girl.

  2. Andrew @ 1673 says Glen’s comments about Swann are beneath him. Check some of the archives for the way he used to rant before November 2007. He has really grown up.

  4. [How long is Danby going to stay in Melbourne Ports, going to have a crack after he retires????]
    Surely Danby would be a chance at a ministry in a 2nd Rudd government. There’s no reason for him to retire.

  6. [In the discussion about legacies, surely the most damning indictment of the Howard years is the state he has left the party in]

    IMO it’s only a matter of time before they turn on him and declare his name mud, as they did to that other former Liberal hero, Fraser. It might take another election thrashing or two. But eventually it will dawn on them that his selfishly clinging to power, refusal to countenance leadership succession, his absurdly extreme SerfChoices folly that will sit unbudgingly, decaying round their neck for years, the humiliation of losing not only his own seat but presiding over their loss of power in every state and federally – that all these misjudgements conspired to bring their political near-death experience.

    Liberals, when writing their history, will view his efforts less charitably than the currently-smitten do.

  8. No Russians, No Williams Sisters, No grunting, in the US Women Tennis Final. Joy. Belgium Vs Denmark.

    Btw: Selina Williams said: “i’m gonna kill you” to the line judge.

  9. [IMO it’s only a matter of time before they turn on him and declare his name mud, as they did to that other former Liberal hero, Fraser.]

    Hardly. They only turned on Fraser because he didn’t go to the extreme-right like the rest of his party.

  11. [I would add that seeing Mr Hockey on the front bench hunched over, presumably tweetering/twittering away, is not a good look and shows an inappropriate lack of respect for the institution of Parliament]

    You do have to wonder why they ask demonstrably pointed questions in QT. Along the lines of, “Can the minister explain why this dunny block is costing $1,000,000 per square metres and is this not yet another sign of Labor addiction to debt and deficit?”

    I mean, if they cut out the italicised “sting in the tail” might that not evoke a more reasonable, “I thank the member and will look into it for him” type answer, without the added “24 THOUSAND projects, over 9 THIOUSAND schools delivering A HUNDRED-THOUSAND jobs etc. etc.”, generating the usual “Irrelevant to the question” points of order?

    I suppose the hacks here will tell me I dreamin’, but I wonder whether anyone’s actually tried to cool things down a bit in QT to see if it raises the standards?

    I used to criticise Labor for asking smartarsed questions when they were in Opposition, so at least I’m fair to both sides.

  12. [I suppose the hacks here will tell me I dreamin’, but I wonder whether anyone’s actually tried to cool things down a bit in QT to see if it raises the standards?]

    I noticed that Rudd tried it when he first became PM but he reverted to the usual standard pretty quickly when he realised it didn’t get him anywhere.

  13. [New South Wales MP for the Blue Mountains, Phil Koperberg, says he has not made any decision about his long-term future with the State Government – but says he’s not ‘cut out’ for party politics.

    “This is more to do with perhaps the fact that I’m not cut out for the nature of partisan or party politics and I find myself doing and saying things I would rather not do, which my conscience would have me to otherwise,” he said.]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/13/2684272.htm

    That’s the main reason I wouldn’t join Labor… the pledge.

  15. [I suppose the hacks here will tell me I dreamin’, but I wonder whether anyone’s actually tried to cool things down a bit in QT to see if it raises the standards?]

    When I heard the treasurer refer to “Sloppy Joe”, I thought PB had really taken over QT! And it didnt enhance Mr Swan’s dignity, IMHO.

  16. [IMO it’s only a matter of time before they turn on him and declare his name mud, as they did to that other former Liberal hero, Fraser.]

    [Hardly. They only turned on Fraser because he didn’t go to the extreme-right like the rest of his party.]

    Even the radical right-wing warrior will be acknowledged, with the fading of adolescent-like infatuation, to have screwed the party almost to the point of extinction. It will be a wrenching admission, a dislocating revision of much they currently hold sacred, but I believe it will happen. Probably later than sooner, given the propensity of the conservatives for hero-worship. But I believe it’s more than likely, and certainly necessary, if they’re ever to “rebuild”.

  18. [I thought PB had really taken over QT! And it didnt enhance Mr Swan’s dignity, IMHO.]

    To be fair, Swan did coint he term “Sloppy Joe”, but I take your point.

    On the other hands it’s very easy to sit back and criticise allegedly “unparliamentary” forms of speech, but when you’re up against “Toxic bore”, “shit eating smile”, “Bradman of Boredom” and the like, I guess “sloppy Joe” seems pretty tame.

    The Opposition’s excuse is that they’ve only just seemed to realise they’ve wasted 2 years clinging to the past (and give little indication that they’re going to let go of it anytime soon), and are understandably scared of what they’ve done, and hence angry (anger being fear-based). The Labor guys just seem to be enjoying themselves.

  19. [Is there a rule saying they can’t cross the floor?]
    I don’t know. But as far as I know it has never happened.

    Labor members in the past have crossed the floor and faced the consequences. The S.A. power assets were privatised after 2 Labor members crossed the floor.

  20. [I don’t know. But as far as I know it has never happened.]

    I spose it’s much less likely to occur when all of a left-wing party’s MPs are left-wing – as opposed to the centre.

  21. The narrower a party’s base is and the more ideological it is, the less likely it is to have significant internal differences. The Greens are the narrowest and most ideological of the parliamentary parties, almost like a cult or a sect, so they are least likely to have internal dissenters. The Libs and the ALP are much broader parties, containing much greater diversity of opinions and interests.

  23. [The Greens are the narrowest and most ideological of the parliamentary parties, almost like a cult or a sect, so they are least likely to have internal dissenters.]
    What I hate is that the Greens seem to think if you put environmentalism above every other policy interest, then everything will work out fine in the end.

    They don’t accept that sometimes putting environmental concerns ahead of all others creates genuine social or economic problems.

    They pretend that there are no conflicts between these things, and that it is just obvious that the environment should be the only policy concern. If this was true then the major parties would never need to grapple over these issues, the answer to all questions would be obvious.

  24. Psephos wasn’t I think being derogatory in referring the the greens as like as sect. It was a sociological reflection on the different dynamics of different sort of parties. The party Psephos is closest to these days(!?) – the DLP of the 1950s – was also like a sect.

  25. 1714

    I believe that one of the WA Green MLCs (from one of the rural regions) threatening to cross the floor on the one vote, one value reform caused the current malaportionment of the WALC. This was wrong and should not have happened.

  26. [The party Psephos is closest to these days(!?) – the DLP of the 1950s – was also like a sect.]
    I don’t see the Labor Right giving the Liberals preferences. To say the Labor Right is purely the Catholic Right is a massive simplification.

  28. The Greens are a one issue party when it boils down to it.

    I mean when has anybody heard the Greens put out a coherent tax policy or defence policy?

  29. [I don’t see the Labor Right giving the Liberals preferences. To say the Labor Right is purely the Catholic Right is a massive simplification.]

    No, just Family First/Fielding 😉

  30. [The Greens are a one issue party when it boils down to it. ]

    Then why do I vote Green above Labor, when the environment is on the lower end of legislative priorities for me?

  31. If I had been in the ALP in the 1950s I would have supported the Industrial Groups against the Communists, I would have opposed Santamaria’s attempt to take over the Victorian ALP, I would have opposed expelling his followers from the party, and I would have opposed leaving the ALP and forming a new party. That was roughly the position taken by Calwell, and also by NSW Premier Joe Cahill. In the long run that has been proved to have been the correct position.

  32. Showson at 1726. The Labor right these days do have some signficant differences from the DLP and the Catholic Right. I was just having a gentle dig at Psephos that because he has repented from the left wing positions of his youth, he has now ended up with right wing security and defence positions and left centre economic positions that are not all that far away from DLP positions.

  34. Psephos at 1731. I largely agree. And its interesting that the reason the communists in the Labor party and the DLPites in the Labor party were bad for the party, is because they were acting like sects ie parties within a party who believed their way was morally superior so would not accept the vote of the majority.

  35. The Communists weren’t actually in the Labor Party (apart from a few infilitrators), they were in the Communist Party. But because they controlled a number of unions which were ALP affiliates, that gave them unwanted and harmful influence. The Industrial Groups were originally intended to win these unions back for the ALP (as happened with the Ironworkers), not hand them over to Santamaria (as happened with the Clerks). It was when Santamaria tried to convert the Groups into a vehicle for taking over the ALP and turning it into an Italian-style Christian Democratic party that the trouble began.

  36. Psephos at 1735. Does that mean that the delegates for Communist controlled unions who turned up to vote on behalf of their union at Labor Party conferences, were not actually members of the Labor party, but members of the Communist party?
    When did the rule come in that you couldn’t be part of the Labor party and a member of another political party?

  37. The rules varied from state to state, but usually the delegates sent to ALP conferences had to be ALP members, or at least not members of any other party. In WA, however, there was no separate ALP membership until the 1960s – if you were a union member, you were deemed to be an ALP member, regardless of your actual political views. Most unions “controlled” by the CPA were actually controlled by coalitions of CPA and left-wing ALP members, and the latter represented the unions at ALP conferences.

  38. Also, the degree to which the CPA actually “controlled” unions has usually been exaggerated. Just because a union’s national secretary was a CPA member didn’t mean that he could do as he liked with the union. When the CPA opposed World War II in the period 1939-41, they couldn’t carry their union base with them, and in NSW their sympathisers (the Hughes-Evans group) were expelled from the ALP. When the CPA, following Cominform policy, forced a confrontation with the Chifley government in 1949, they rapidly found that very few unions would follow their lead into open conflict with a Labor government.

  40. Kev’s had a busy weekend at the footy. From his twitter
    [My team got walloped last night by Julia’s Bulldogs. Won’t hear the end of it. Will now have to wear their tie on Mon in Parlt. Arrgh! K Rudd]

    [Just coming back from Woori Yallock. Attended Grand Final game between Kinglake and Olinda. Kinglake went down in last 2 mins. K Rudd]
    Some happy snaps with the locals 🙂
    [Kinglake fans cheer with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the Kinglake v Olinda Ferny Creek Grand Final.]
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/photo-gallery/gallery-e6frf94x-1225772181867?page=5

  41. My knowledge of CPA social functions 60 years ago is rather limited.

    The CPA switched backwards and forwards between “united front” and “sectarian” attitudes, following Soviet policy. In the so-called Third Period (1929-34), the ALP was treated as the main enemy and there was no co-operation at all. In 1934-39 the policy was “united front against fascism” and the CPA went out of its way to be nice to the ALP, with limited response from the left (the CPA was too small to be worth bothering with for most ALP members). After the Hitler-Stalin pact, relations were again broken off. Then in the period 1941-45 the united front was revived, and the CPA achieved its greatest penetration due to the wartime populatity of the USSR. In 1947 came Stalin’s “turn to the left” with the onset of the Cold War, and there was open CPA-ALP warfare culminating in Chifley’s crushing of the 1949 coal strike. After 1955 it was back to the united front, but by that time the CPA only had 5,000 members and had no real importance except in a few unions.

  42. Alaska wishing it had been them and not us
    [Australia’s gas-deal gain is Alaska’s loss

    Wouldn’t it be exciting to wake up one morning and read in the Anchorage Daily News that a $40- to $50 billion gas project has been approved and gas will be flowing out of Alaska by 2014?

    A story just like this ran Friday morning in The Wall Street Journal. The Journal reported on the greenlighting of a huge project to produce natural gas reserves tapping into 40 trillion cubic feet of gas, the equivalent of 6.7 billion barrels of oil. The paper reports that even by the standards of Big Oil, the project involving Chevron, Exxon and Shell is huge.

    The only problem is the gigantic project does not involve Alaska. It’s based in a remote corner of Australia. The LNG project, named Gorgon after the offshore field where the gas will be produced, will elevate Australia to the position of a major global energy producer and create 6,000 high-paying jobs.]
    http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/fagan/story/932763.html

    Better be off to watch the footy, Good luck BH with your Eels, even though OH is Dragon supporter 😉

  43. It is wrong to say that the greens are not factionalised and sing in one voice. In Tasmania many differences in the greens came out into the open after Andrew Wilkie quit the greens out of frustration of their rigidness and strong control of the party on its members.

    On the state level in Tasmania there does seem to be a more loon faction and a more moderate one usually demonstrated by what type of hair they have 😛

  44. Are the Libs dumb enough to reject the means testing of the private health insurance rebate?

    Do they really want Health to be an issue at the next election?

  45. Glen!! The best latte in Melbourne is found at Cosi (Toorak Rd South Yarra) in the lovely seat of Higgins.

    I have notices in Paul Kelly’s very enjoyable book “The March of the Patriots. Kelly wrotes that the 1993 Liberal fightback policy. He writes that policy was the first attempt at economic liberalism and while in a federal politics contest that is correct but there is a reason for that which Kelly does not mention

    Kelly mentions the 1909 fusion of the non-Labor side of politics under Alfred Deakin and touched on the bases for Deakin’s policy approach but Kelly did not mention what lead Deakin to that policy.

    Alfred Deakin was apart of the Duncan Giles Victorian Government of 1887-1890 that government was underpinned by an economic Liberalism approach which ended in the Melbourne Landbust.

    Grog! SouthoftheYarra

  46. Johncanb (1724),

    The DLP was not really like a sect, but it did have a more coherent ideological position that meant disagreements within it never stretched to the point that they did in other parties, though there were a couple of occasions when Frank McManus voted one way in the Senate and Vince Gair voted the other. As a Victorian, I assume Frank was right!

    Debate at party conferences was very spirited, even to the point that some, including me, argued against uranium mining. The debate on the proposed amalgamation with the Country Party was passionate, though the NCC had organised to stack the Conference to get it though. In this vote, the party officers (not me then) voted for it and the DLP senators voted against it.

    It was also the case that there were no organised factions within the DLP, though there were two informal factions formed to reform the party at different times during the 1970s. Internal elections were by the free votes of delegates as there were no organised factions, though the party officers sometimes tapped people on the shoulder to go for certain positions. I had to beat the chosen one to be elected vice president in 1976, but I was able to do it. That would be impossible in the ALP.

    I would hate to see Australian political parties become as broad as those in the US, where a president with a majority in both Houses could not get health reform passed, but it does not need to be as strict as it is. Decades ago, Liberal Senators Wood and Wright crossed the floor over a hundred times, if my memory serves me right. The UK system seems about right. The government there can rely on its MPs to pass just about anything, but every now and then there is a revolt to keep it on its toes.

  48. 1746

    I agree on the issue of freedom of votes for MPs. There should be more floor crossing on some issues. The reason that the pledge was introduced was to stop duchessing of individual MPs. The problem is that the ALP itself has been duchessed.

  50. [The reason that the pledge was introduced was to stop duchessing of individual MPs. The problem is that the ALP itself has been duchessed.]

    Hear hear!!!

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 35 of 38
1 … 34 35 36 … 38