Galaxy: 56-44 to federal Coalition in Queensland

A new Galaxy poll of federal voting intention in Queensland chimes with the general picture elsewhere in finding little change on the election result.

UPDATE 2 (Essential Research poll): The latest Essential Research fortnightly rolling average is unchanged on last week with the Coalition on 44%, Labor on 35% and the Greens on 9%, with the Coalition leading 53-47 on two-party preferred. The poll finds only 28% rating the new government’s handling of asylum seekers as good versus 40% for poor; 65% considering a budget surplus important for the country versus 27% for not important, which becomes 52% and 38% when framed as important to the respondent personally; 12% thinking the government will probably deliver a surplus in its first year versus 68% who think it probably won’t; and 37% thinking it will do so within three years, in line with its promise, against 40% who think it won’t. Also featured are questions on issues of concern and the best party to handle them, which show across-the-board improvement for the Coalition since immediately before the election, reduced concern about the budget surplus (presumably because Coalition supporters have become less inclined to nominate it as a problem) and increased concern about interest rates.

UPDATE (Morgan poll): The fortnightly Morgan multi-mode poll has the Coalition up a point to 42.5%, Labor down 2.5% to 32.5%, the Greens up half a point to 11% and the Palmer United Party down half a point to 5%. The respondent-allocated two-party preferred moves from 50-50 to 51-49 in favour of the Coalition.

The Courier-Mail has today reported findings on federal voting intention from the Queensland poll for which state voting intention results appeared yesterday. The Coalition holds a two-party preferred lead of 56-44, which compares with what will probably be about 57-43 once two-party figures from Kennedy and Fairfax are finally included in the Australian Electoral Commission’s statewide election result. Primary votes from the poll are 46% for the Liberal National Party (45.7% at the election), 30% for Labor (29.8%), 8% for the Palmer United Party (11.0%), 7% for the Greens (6.2%), 3% for Katter’s Australian Party (3.7%) and 6% for others (3.6%). Dennis Atkins of the Courier-Mail wisely notes that the missing Palmer United Party support “might not have disappeared altogether, as it appears to have gone to the ‘others’”, which is up from 3.6% to 6%. The poll was conducted last Tuesday and Wednesday from a sample of 800. Also featured:

• Sixty-three per cent of respondents, including 32% of Labor and 89% of LNP supporters, oppose Labor holding up the carbon tax abolition bills in the Senate. Twenty-nine per cent are in favour, including 59% of Labor and 6% of LNP supporters.

• Fifty-nine per cent think the government “too secretive” on boat arrivals, compared with 36% who disagree. The splits are 86-10 among Labor and 31-63 among LNP supporters.

• Forty-two per cent still feel the government has not done enough to stop asylum seekers, compared with 43% who say it has done enough. The high “not enough” rating seems in large part down to reflexively negative responses from Labor supporters, who split 55% to 28%, while LNP supporters split 33% to 58%.

• Fifty-two per cent say the new government has met expectations, 6% say it has been better, and 36% say it hasn’t been as good (74-9-14 among LNP supporters, 34-3-56 for Labor supporters).

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.

3,296 comments on “Galaxy: 56-44 to federal Coalition in Queensland”

Comments Page 1 of 66
1 2 … 66

  1. Repost from previous thread:

    [178
    leone

    The welfare-bashing begins.

    Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews has given his strongest indication that a crackdown on welfare is coming – and in his crosshairs are the 822,000 Australians receiving the disability support pension.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/federal-government-has-welfare-rorts-in-sights-as-eligibility-tightened/story-fnihsrk2-1226761822856

    Back to the Howard era for people on DSP.]

    It will be much worse than that. Howard’s efforts were token compared to what these guys want to do. Between Andrews in welfare and Dutton in health, with Abbott (Credlin?, IPA?, Rupert?) issuing riding instructions, there is going to be carnage.

    ‘Life on welfare is terrible’, lament conservatives through their permanent veil of crocodile tears, and make damn sure it is.

    Keep an eye out for the name ATOS in relation to disability ‘assessment’ from “allied medical professionals” (meaning nurses with a couple of extra days training ordered to blindly follow an inflexible check box assessment procedure, deliberately designed to discourage and fail as many people as possible, for no good reason other than meeting arbitrary contract targets). I suspect that this company (or at least their appalling tactics) will turn up here soon.

    This issue is going to be a real test of both Labor and Greens values, and their political competence. If they can’t defend even the sick & disabled, then they might as well pack up and go home. They have to firmly unite over this issue and get to working on Clive.

    [Key details of the Government’s 2013 disability support pension report, exclusively obtained by The Sunday Mail, shows that just in the past financial year alone, $15 billion was paid out to almost 821,738 recipients – a 22 per cent increase in 10 years (673,334).]

    That growth in DSP recipient numbers was over 10 years, almost half of that period being under Howard. Does anybody have a link to the historical data about the number of DSP recipients, showing how the numbers changed under each government?

  2. dave@726


    davidwh@720


    I know how you feel Dave and there’s not much I can do to change that. Happy to agree to disagree on that point.


    Its not a matter of agreeing to disagree or not when facts are involved, eg –

    Tony Bourke pointed out this morning on Insiders that the senate have already passed a bill authorising the government to increase the debt limit from $300 B to $400 B, which will met the governments requirements well into the future.

    All hockey and abbott have to do is pass a similar bill in the HoR which they control, yet hockey is still threatening a tea party type shut down of government.

    The alternative is to detail why he needs a $500 B limit when he said in opposition you don’t repay debt by borrowing more – and money he says he doesn’t intend to spend.

  3. I don’t know whether to be surprised or not with over that Queensland Poll result.
    Certainly the views about this government seem to be rather different in Victoria.

  4. So much for those who have posted saying, Australians “overwhelmingly” don’t care about what the Government do on the AS issue.

    They do care and they contradict themselves.

    [ The poll said 59 per cent agreed the Government was “too secretive” while 36 per cent disagreed.

    Surprisingly, there is a substantial mood for even tougher action against asylum seeker arrivals, with 42 per cent saying the Government had not done enough. ]

  7. Dave I said a few days ago I disagree with Hockey’s rhetoric on the debt ceiling issue. I understand the politics of going for $500 billion early to try and put the focus on Labor but it’s just not worth the uncertainty created by US type rhetoric. Having said that I don’t think in reality it makes any difference where the debt ceiling is set as long as it’s adequate for what we need. Personally I think any debt ceiling is artificial.

    Anyway I am saying goodnight. Big weekend to recover from.

  11. Am I the only one with the belief that this ‘Government’ can be confined to just a “one term wonder” ?

    After all, everything they are touching appears to be turning to shyte.

  15. Gillard and the Labor Government were the ones who signed off on the agreement to hand over 2 Navy Boats to the Sri Lankans.

    So it’s really no surprise they have decided this was such a good idea.

  19. AA was so busy giving Labor credit for stopping the boats under a Coalition Government, I thought he would have jumped on this one and proudly proclaimed the Navy Boats we are handing over to Sri Lanka to stop illegals fleeing was the brainchild of Julia Gillard and Chris Bowen(or one of the other half dozen flunkeys in the portfolio)

  21. [Gillard and the Labor Government were the ones who signed off on the agreement to hand over 2 Navy Boats to the Sri Lankans.]

    Do you have a source to back this up? Because everything I’m reading says that Abbott made the decision.

  22. Sean Tisme@19

    to stop illegals fleeing

    Can you please clarify just what an “illegal” is ?
    And if these “illegals” (whatever they are) are “fleeing” something or somebody, doesn’t that imply that whatever they are fleeing isn’t very nice ?

  24. Just Me, this is not an area I claim to know much about, so I’d be interested in your opinion of the general belief that there is widespread rorting of the disability pension, in the sense that lots of people have contrived with friendly doctors to get themselves put on it so they can retire at 50, and that governments have connived at this because it keeps these people out of the unemployment statistics. Is this, to your knowledge, true, partly true, or false?

  25. Would it be correct to say that “illegal” is a euphemism, employed by the Abbott government that is designed to dehumanize refugees whilst at the same time being a dogwhistle to garner support from the racists amongst us ?

  26. @YB/22

    I thought it was Stop the Boats or is it Stop Return the Boats, or was it Boats for Sale, now it’s Stop the Rorts & attacking Disabled People.

  29. It’s not so much contriving with friendly doctors, it’s as Hambleton says; doctors aren’t the policemen of the department and doctors tend to believe what patients tell them.

    With things like a bad back and mental illness, there aren’t objective tests you can do. You have to rely on the patient.

  30. [Gillard and the Labor Government were the ones who signed off on the agreement to hand over 2 Navy Boats to the Sri Lankans.

    So it’s really no surprise they have decided this was such a good idea.]
    Hey Sean, what do you think of Abbott’s new policy of turning boats back around to Christmas Island?

  31. @YB/28

    I am now confused as to what purpose Coalition Party are doing.

    If I wanted a bunch of idiots running the country, I’d let Labor back in.

  32. [t’s not so much contriving with friendly doctors, it’s as Hambleton says; doctors aren’t the policemen of the department and doctors tend to believe what patients tell them.]

    Yes, fair point. Who is Hambledon?

  33. Sean

    My position would have been no different no matter who handed over the boats.

    Same as my position on Abbott ranting about countries that are not signatories to the UN Convention. But he is OK with a policy of turn the boast back to a country that is not a signatory.

    And he was happy to support Nauru from 2001, but not any alternative put forward by Labor. Nauru didn’t sign the UN Convention until 2011.

  35. I have no doubt that the disability pension has been used to keep the unemployment numbers down. The Rules for DSP are much looser than the methods used for workers’ compensation etc. I am sure doctors generally follow the rules but the rule are slack. The other way that was used to reduce the unemployment numbers was the so called burnt out rules I don’t know if this still exists but unemployed males over 60 with no hope of employment could get the age pension.

  36. @OC/35

    As said recently, Gillard tightened the rules-set recently, and the 2 year review when sanction kicks in, it will be under the new rule-set.

    Age pension is at 64/65 now.

    http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/age-pension

    In regards to employment levels, I am not sure that is the case, simply because the only jobs that get a increase is the part-time jobs, the full-time jobs are going in reverse.

    This is no fault of those who are on DSP or trying to get DSP.

  37. If doctors are not willing to police the rules, then presumably the Department will have to do its own medical assessments rather than rely on applicants’ doctors. Although as Diogenes says, I imagine it’s difficult to prove that someone *doesn’t* have a bad back.

  38. I agree I suspect Abbott will regret this. If new full time jobs are not being created removing people from DSP, who in any case obviously have limited ability to work is not going to increase the level of participation/employment.

  39. Who remembers the Greek Conspiracy case when Fraser was going to crack the conspiracy of doctor’s handing out disability pensions – that didn’t end well for him.

    There are methods for accurately measuring disability that are quite complex and require significant training to use- these are used in 3rd party and Workers’ comp. you would not be surprised that it is now quite difficult to get compensation. If Abbott intends to use these assessments he will be paying a large amount in training and employing a large number of doctors.

  40. [I agree I suspect Abbott will regret this. If new full time jobs are not being created removing people from DSP, who in any case obviously have limited ability to work is not going to increase the level of participation/employment.]

    On the other hand, if the unemployment figures go up, Abbott will be able to say: “that’s because I’m kicking all these bludgers off DSP, and because Labor was using DSP to conceal the true level of unemployment.”

  41. @Psephos/40

    If you can find the jobs, and the employers willing to employ you.

    How many jobs they are currently? Can someone find out?

  42. I suspect that Abbott will also regret the political fall-out

    Over 800.000 people on the DSP will in the main have real anxieties.irrespective of how genuine their claims/state of bei, etc.
    It probably effects 6.000 or more people in most federal electorates,and this will be seen and talked of by family and close friendstoo…….none it it to Abbott’s advantage

    ..”those whom the gods would destroy..they first make mad”

  43. I worked out the recent pay rise the politicians get:

    $500,000 million per year
    $336,599 x 10 = $3,365,990 million per year (Cabinet)
    $243,912 x 139 = $33,903,768 million per year (Shadow)

    $37,769,758 per year TOTAL FEDERAL – NOT INCLUDING STAFF etc – NOT INCLUDING STATE LEVEL in the 7 STATES.

    Not final, but, probably not entirely correct of the numbers, but this gives you a clue as to who the real rorters are.

    I did recall that, a number of bills had to go through Parliament in-regards to the National Broadband Network, it costed the tax payer $750,000 for that.

  47. [39
    Oakeshott Country

    If Abbott intends to use these assessments he will be paying a large amount in training and employing a large number of doctors.]

    I doubt he has any intention of doing this properly and fairly. Most likely it will be contracted out, to protect him from the consequences, and he will hide the stats, including suicides. That is the sort of stuff that is happening in the UK, which is the primary model Abbott is going to follow.

    With Abbott it is best to assume the worst from the start.

  48. [8
    zoidlord

    Attacking doctors now.]

    Part of the softening up process, to over rule the medicos. Makes it so much easier.

    [9
    guytaur

    Just Me @ 1

    Great post of the disaster this government is for the vulnerable.]

    Thanks.

    I wish I did not have to make such posts. Does not make me feel good. 🙁

  49. Diogenes burped: It’s not so much contriving with friendly doctors, it’s as Hambleton says; doctors aren’t the policemen of the department and doctors tend to believe what patients tell them.

    With things like a bad back and mental illness, there aren’t objective tests you can do. You have to rely on the patient.

    Bullsh!t

    My partner is profoundly schizophrenic. No objective tests? Go crawl back into your hole. Better still, remind us again of your expertise on diagnosing incapacitating mental illness to the level required by Centrelink. Provided a few Centrelink medical advice forms lately, given your wealth of experience in psychiatry? I thought not…

Comments Page 1 of 66
1 2 … 66

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *