Nielsen: 57-43; Newspoll: 58-42

The latest monthly Nielsen survey of 1400 voters has Labor leading 57-43, up from 55-45 last time. The survey also finds 56 per cent of Coalition voters want Malcolm Turnbull to delay finalising negotiations on the emissions trading scheme until after Copenhagen, rather than pursue his current policy of proposing amendments beforehand (supported by 23 per cent). Labor is up two on the primary vote to 46 per cent; the Coalition is down three to 37 per cent; Kevin Rudd’s approval is up one to 71 per cent and his disapproval down two to 23 per cent; Turnbull’s approval is steady on 35 per cent and his disapproval down two to 53 per cent; and Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is unchanged at 69-23.

UPDATE: The Australian has also published a “special Newspoll survey” conducted over the weekend to ascertain views on the Liberal leadership, which also featured the usual questions on voting intention. These found Labor maintaining the 58-42 lead recorded the previous week, with both Labor (47 per cent) and the Coalition (36 per cent) up a point on the primary vote. The Liberal leadership figures directly contradict Friday’s Morgan poll: where Morgan had Joe Hockey leading Malcolm Turnbull 30 per cent to 21 per cent, Newspoll has Turnbull leading 32 per cent to 24 per cent (or 39 per cent to 31 per cent on a head-to-head basis). This seems outside the normal range of house effects and margin-of-error static, suggesting the events of last week might have produced a move to Turnbull (or away from Hockey).

The West Australian has also published two Westpoll surveys of 400 WA voters in recent days. One shows 46 per cent supporting delaying emissions trading scheme legislation until after Copenhagen, against 47 per cent opposed (63 per cent to 32 per cent among Coalition supporters). From the other, “62 per cent of people believed that changes brought in by Labor were a factor in the increase in boat people, with only 16 per cent believing they were either quite or very unlikely to have made a difference”. Curiously, “it was predominately people identifying themselves as traditional Labor voters who were most likely to believe it was the Government’s policy which had caused the spike in arrivals”.

UPDATE 2: Essential Research has Labor’s lead down from 60-40 to 58-42. It also has 58 per cent agreeing that “Turnbull has shown he hasn’t got the temperament, patience and judgement to be a leader of a major party” (a formulation I have my doubts about) against 42 per cent disagreeing, and sundry questions on annual leave.

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.

1,543 comments on “Nielsen: 57-43; Newspoll: 58-42”

Comments Page 31 of 31
1 … 30 31

  2. GG – My answers, on which I stand or fall

    1) Murali is a chucker (god help us, I think even taxi-doors Gilchrist said so)

    2) a key aim of border protection is to help prevent undesirables getting in. Checking bona fides on entry isn’t dog whistling

  4. [Is it so hard to say that we do have obligations under article 33 to not return people we determine to be refugees?]

    Article 33 creates no obligations whatever in relation to people who are not already in Australia. It also refers to “refugees.” A refugee is a person we determine to be a refugee. Here (for the nth time) we are discussing people we determine *not* to be refugees. This particular boatload of Sri Lankans have not been anywhere near Australia, and we have made no determination about them. Furthermore, we are not sending them back to Sri Lanka. They’re very welcome to stay in Indonesia as far as I’m concerned. All we’ve said is that they have no right to come to Australia.

  6. Psephos at 1504. I agree that the boatload of Sri Lankans in Indonesia has no right to come to Australia. But if by some means they illegally arrived in Australia, and we then determined they were refugees, then under article 33 we could not return them.
    So I think we are agreed.

  8. some observations on Rudd this week:

    1) Someone appears to have advised Rudd that repeating the word “tough” in public will make him appear ‘tough’ – this just isn’t working for me, its jarring each time I hear it.

    2) each time Rudd talks tough, but acts soft, we gain an insight into the way the ALP spins issues.

    3) Rudd has an opportunity to appear proud of his achievements on border protection. Instead, he looks like he is baulking at an opporunity for accountability

  9. OK then, to sum up, no-one has successfully refuted my assertions that

    (a) It is unlawful under the Migration Act 1957 for non-citizens to enter Australia or Australian waters without a visa, and the fact that they are doing so with the intention of claiming to be refugees doesn’t change that.

    (b) The 1951 Refugee Convention creates no legal obligation for Australia to admit any person to Australia or to accept any person’s claim to be a refugee.

    A good night’s work I think.

  10. Squiggle,

    1. You don’t vote for him. So What?
    2. Where has he acted soft?
    3. Rudd has articulated the Government’s policy through out. Suck it up.

  13. [each time Rudd talks tough, but acts soft, we gain an insight into the way the ALP spins issues.]

    And each time Turnbull indulges in crude populist rhetoric he doesn’t believe in order to scrape up a few Hansonite votes and save his own political arse, we gain an insight into what a dishonourable, unprincipled sack of faeces he is. Although actually we already knew that.

  14. Psephos,

    I appreciate your argument.

    I’m trying to put myself in the position of a Tamil in Sri Lankan who has been “persecuted” by the government.

    A sanctuary is nearby. Why should I risk, and the expense of, a dangerous voyage to a doubtful refuge?

  15. Psephos at 1507

    The confusion with regard to your position Psephos, came way back in 1421 when in response to some-one else (in quotes below)

    ‘Since Australia signed up to the UN convention on refugees it is fact
    (and so perhaps not ridiculous) to say that we are under a moral
    and legal obligation to accept such refugees, if they do actually
    arrive here, however they get here and whatever else they
    did along the way’.

    You Psephos then said the following.

    ‘For about the 10th time, the Convention imposes no such obligation on us. Here is the text of the Convention:
    http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf
    Show me where it creates an obligation on any state to admit any person to its territory.’

    The person you were responding to was talking about genuine refugees who had arrived, whereas you were talking about obligations to admit, which is of course quite a different thing.

  16. Squiggle,

    On the contrary. I enjoy your occaisional interludes. Never agree, but that is the fabric of a civilised society.

  22. [I’m trying to put myself in the position of a Tamil in Sri Lankan who has been “persecuted” by the government. A sanctuary is nearby. Why should I risk, and the expense of, a dangerous voyage to a doubtful refuge?]

    Good question. I don’t know what the Indian Navy does with refugee boats found entering Indian waters. I rather doubt they are as humane as the RAN.

  24. [1) Someone appears to have advised Rudd that repeating the word “tough” in public will make him appear ‘tough’ – this just isn’t working for me, its jarring each time I hear it.]

    This is a good thing for Rudd. People will see that Rudd will always do what he needs to do though it appears to be against his general image.

  26. Psephos,

    I know very little about India but doesn’t religion play a much greater part in the politics?

    If Tamil Nadu is as independent as I think it is, does it not control the strait?

  28. The main divide in Indian politics these days is between the secularist Congress and the Hindu chauvinist BJP. I don’t think that’s got anything to do with how they receive boats from Sri Lanka.

    There is no Tamil Nadu Navy, so no.

  29. For those so inclined, some snippets from davos

    [We have shifted from a G8 to a G20 world.We will see an acceleration of G20-like governance reform. First IMF, WB, UN – Malloch-Brown ]

    [Panel discussing: Multi-stakeholder Involvement in Global Governance: A Promising Way Forward? Discussions are under Chatham House rules]

    http://twitter.com/davos

  32. [The connections and contributions emerging from this process will form part of the effort to support major renovation of the structures and the underlying ecosystem of international cooperation. By widening the focus of debate beyond the current G20 agenda of financial stability and macroeconomic stimulus, the Forum hopes to encourage the international community to take more pre-emptive and coordinated action on a wide range of risks that have been accumulating in the international system. The objective is to spur a greater degree of commitment on the part of all stakeholders to improve the state of the world.]

    http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/GlobalRedesignInitiative/index.htm

    [Costello to be our Ambassador to the G20.]

    At these sort of places, you’ve got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
    😉

  33. Turnball actually looks most unconvincing spouting the “I’m tough on illegal immigrants” line, day after day!
    Despite the confected outrage of the Liberal loving elements of the media and the resurrection of those tired old dinosaurs Ruddock/Andrews, I doubt this will save Moneybags Malcolm from his imminent execution.

  34. O.K. That’s it for me. I just can’t stomach Costello being appointed to anything. He hates us, just as Downer does. I’m just gob smacked.

  36. Evan
    the irony is that the fibs created the ‘refugees=boo’ meme to scare the rest of us and makes us wake late at night in a blind panic.

    Now I suspect, it is only the fibs who are scared.

    reap what you sow etc etc

  37. Gusface: You’re Judge Winchester from the other place?
    And I know that Landslide person very well HA HA

    Julia smacked them down well and good earlier today, that lot & their media toadies are scare mongering! While perhaps Rudd’s lead might be reduced by a few points, I doubt this is going to save the conservatives from electoral defeat in 2010, no matter how much Alan Jones and his colleagues in right wing media circles bleat and whine about asylum seekers invading our fair country.

  38. [Gusface: You’re Judge Winchester from the other place?]
    Umm ???
    [And I know that Landslide person very well HA HA ]
    double Umm???

    more info pls!

  40. Psephos @ # 1509

    I don’t completely agree with Psephos’ argument.

    1)

    “(a) It is unlawful under the Migration Act 1957 for non-citizens to enter Australia or Australian waters without a visa, and the fact that they are doing so with the intention of claiming to be refugees doesn’t change that.”

    A non-citizen entering Australian is not immediately guilty of an offence. There had to be a determination by someone or some body that an offence has occurred.

    The non-citizen then has rights and one of those rights is a defence.

    As an example – the fact that I shot someone in the middle of Pitt Street Sydney at 1 pm last Wednesday does not automatically make me a murderer.

    I may have been seen by 1,000 people and caught in glorious colour on 100 CCTV cameras and those witnesses and the camera footage can be used in my trial but at that point in time I am not a murderer.

    I can be charged with the offence of murder and brought to trial.

    I have a right to present a defence against the charges borough against me. That defence may be self-defence or insanity and there may be others. But unless and until a court passes judgement on my actions I am not a murderer. In fact if I am found not guilty I can walk out of court a free man with a spotless record.

    In respect of non-citizens entering Australian territory they have a defence that they are permitted to present in their defence. That defence is that they are an asylum seeker.

    The successful prosecution of that defence gives them certain rights. One of those rights being that we (Australia) cannot send them back to where they were fleeing.

    Once it has been determined that they are asylum seeker it becomes very difficult to do anything but accept them. They are not here illegally (though they are not here legally either) and we have certain responsibilities to them.

    2

    “(b) The 1951 Refugee Convention creates no legal obligation for Australia to admit any person to Australia or to accept any person’s claim to be a refugee.”

    Now that we have an asylum seeker that the system accepts as being an asylum seeker what are we to do. We cant sent them back to where the came from and no one else will take them as most countries that may be able to help have their refugees to deal with.

    Howard’s response was two fold –
    A) don’t let them land so Australian Courts had no say in determining their status and
    B) warehouse them offshore.

    We know how successful this strategy wasn’t.

    So even in theory we may be able to send asylum seekers offshore we have nowhere to send them. They are this countries responsibility.

    I think most would agree that Howard’s TPV were unsatisfactory so the only satisfactory response is to give them permanent residency. Once permanent residency is granted they are here legally and just like the murder case above their character and record a spotless.

    Off cause if they are considered not to be asylum seekers they is nothing stopping the authorities deporting them back to the country they came from.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 31 of 31
1 … 30 31