The Sunday News Limited tabloids have a Galaxy poll of federal voting intention, conducted on Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 1391 – quite a bit bigger than Galaxy polls have traditionally been in the past – which shows Labor leading 52-48 on two-party preferred, compared with 50-50 at the last such poll a month ago. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down four points to 39%, Labor is steady on 37%, the Greens are up one to 11% and Palmer United is up two to 6%. The poll also finds 65% opposed to the paid parental leave scheme proceeding “in the current budgetary environment”, compared with 23% in support. Seventy-two per cent say they would rate the proposed deficit levy a broken promise, after being prompted that “Tony Abbott announced before the election that there would be no new taxes”, compared with 21% who thought otherwise.
UPDATE: Possum, who reads more carefully than some of us, observes that the higher sample size is due to a change in methodology, with the live interviewing (which I believe in Galaxy’s case includes a subset of mobile phone polling) supplemented by an online panel.
UPDATE 2 (ReachTEL): The monthly ReachTEL poll for the Seven Network has Labor’s lead up from 52-48 to 54-46, from primary votes of 40% for Labor and 39% for the Coalition. More to follow.
UPDATE 3: Full ReachTEL results here, showing primary votes of 38.9% for the Coalition (down 1.1% on a poll conducted in fortnight ago), 39.6% for Labor (up 2.2%), 11.2% for the Greens (down 0.3%) and 6.0% for Palmer United (up 0.4%). Also featured are leadership ratings on a five-point scale, in which Tony Abbott has a very good or good rating from 26.5% (down 4.3%) and poor or very poor from 56.8% (up 5.0%), while Bill Shorten’s respective numbers are 20.8% (up 1.8%) and 42.2% (down 0.4%). A 1% deficit levy has a net unfavourable if applied at $80,000 per annum (34.2% to 40.7%), becoming strongly favourable at $180,000 (59.3% to 23.4%), but 60.2% believe such a levy would break an election promise against 23.5% who think otherwise. Co-payments for doctor visits have 33.5% support and 56.5% opposition, with 59.0% thinking it a broken promise against 28.4% not; and 47.2% would support reducing the size of the public service to bring the budget to surplus versus 34.3% opposed.
UPDATE 4 (Morgan): Morgan now offers its fortnightly result as well, part of a glut of polling as everyone returns to the party following consecutive long weekends (Newspoll to follow this evening). It adds to the general picture of a blowout in having Labor’s lead at 55-45 (up from 52-48) on respondent-allocated preferences and 53.5-46.5 (up from 52-48) on previous election preferences, the primary votes being 37% for Labor (up three), 37.5% for the Coalition (down one), 12% for the Greens (down one) and 5.5% for Palmer United (up half).
poroti
[She earnt every penny for her magnificent tea making and barista work]
Looks like she scoffed the cakes & donuts though. 😆
[poroti
Posted Monday, May 5, 2014 at 5:05 pm | PERMALINK
mikehilliard
Vanstone got $85K for her walk on role in the CoA! I call BS on that one.
She earnt every penny for her magnificent tea making and barista work for the men.]
Not to mention her tasty cheese sandwiches!
Tony… Slow learner!
Keeps banging on about public funding of political parties being a drain on tax system
So corruption of Democratic process is OK because it saves drain on deficit
We have it first hand Corruption is cheapest alternative
The banning of political donations isn’t the issue it’s making it transparent… This costs nothing except political will & ethical principals… In short supply with Tony
ruawake Posted Monday, May 5, 2014 at 4:56 pm @ 1380
The cost of this “blatantly political sham” will be nothing compared to the cost of the Royal Commissions into Unions and Pinkbats.
[1388….Dee]
Thanks Dee….this is absolutely right.
btw, If Fran or Pegasus are around, they might like to comment on the proposal to cut the minimum wage by more than 20% and then abolish it completely and use this example to support the proposition that Labor and the LNP are more or less interchangeable from the standpoint of working people.
[Corruption can be seen as an attempt to sell something to which you don’t have title. In this respect, it’s like embezzlement or theft or at the lower levels, the tort of conversion by wrongful user.
]
I kind of agree but have a couple of concerns. Firstly the public don’t own 100% of ministers time. Ministers can go to church, the cricket, hell in theory they could stay at home and watch telly – although those I’ve known couldn’t possibly find much time for this.
They do give large amounts of time to their political party. Influence is a subtle thing. I don’t think there is anything wrong with a minister listening to me at church. If I make a strong case for something I don’t see why she / he couldn’t implement aspects of it.
It comes back to a fine distinction that is all about whether she is exercising executive power because what I said was influential or because I’m influential notwithstanding that my idea is stupid. The first is very normal the second is corrupt.
So in particular I disagree with your concept that selling the time is always corrupt. I’m a backbencher who gets on well with the premier. I’m in a marginal seat and need every cent. I can sell 9 seats at $11000 a head for an intimate dinner with the premier. The attendees will include people who support me, and people who want to be seen to support me in close proximity to the premier.
I agree it is a situation that tends to corruption, but I don’t think it is corrupt without malfeasance by the premier.
I am more concerned if the premier is doing it for their own fundraiser but I can’t think of a way or test to express that misgiving.
Burgey Posted Monday, May 5, 2014 at 5:10 pm @ 1400
It’s a shame New Matilda is closing. They had some good stuff.
[@KathViner: NSW Libs seeking to gag party members & threatening expulsion to those who tweet about politics. By @lenoretaylor http://t.co/qLYlp9TWVm ]
As John Howard may have said .We will decide who comments on politics and the circumstances in which the do.
[1408
poroti
@KathViner: NSW Libs seeking to gag party members & threatening expulsion to those who tweet about politics. By @lenoretaylor http://t.co/qLYlp9TWVm ]
Obviously the LNP is not a member-based organ. It is a donation-assembly machine, a money-scooping racket.
Details of likely closure of NM
https://newmatilda.com/2014/05/05/letter-our-readers
briefly
With several branches in Nigeria 🙂
[1411
poroti
briefly
With several branches in Nigeria]
🙂
[Obviously the LNP is not a member-based organ. It is a donation-assembly machine, a money-scooping racket.]
After what we’ve seen the past few weeks, this is esp the case in NSW. That state’s party banning members from using social media to comment on politics defeats the purpose of being a member-driven party. I can’t understand why they’d even think it!
http://delimiter.com.au/2014/05/05/fictitious-turnbull-rejects-every-senate-nbn-allegation/
“I don’t think I’ve mentioned it enough recently, but what is happening with the NBN right now physically disgusts me. I feel ill when I think about how this fantastic project has been mismanaged and how it has become a political plaything. These back and forth reports merely reinforce that feeling. And I know I am not alone in feeling this way.”
ABC 24 headlines for 5pm news
PM says present donation rules all right.
Malaysian Plane search continues
Odessa battle
A-League championship
How pathetic that even “around the states segment” has nothing on NSW at all. No interest in about Packer/Gyngell or Treasurer for sale.
Second item reported on ICAC allegations about Tinkler because he allegedly gave to both parties secretly, so why wasn’t that a headline?
Oh no! Mod Lib, Rummell, ESJ,Tabitha,Cranky,don’t go!!
Should I have added Rex?
Uggh. Only the NSW Liberal Party can make me end up on the same side of an argument as frickin’ David Flint:
Not to mention, of course, that members that want to make a public comment on the party will just be forced to make properly anonymous accounts that the LNP thought police can’t trace to them.
Has anyone ever heard a Treasurer say that he can’t talk to the press because the matter is now in the hands of his lawyers. Jesus, Joe, you could do a bit better than that.
Isn’t this the same as what Hockey was doing?
[NSW Labor is gearing up its major business fundraising program for 2014-15, offering privileged access to a range of senior players, including the federal leader Bill Shorten, in a tiered pricing structure ranging from $5,000 to $15,000.
The new program offers events including end of year drinks with Shorten in December, lunch with the shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, in September, a health forum with shadow health minister Catherine King in November, a climate change forum with shadow environment minister Mark Butler in April 2015, and an infrastructure forum with shadow transport minister Anthony Albanese in June 2015.]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/nsw-labor-fundraising-program-offers-end-of-year-drinks-with-bill-shorten
Wonder what the federal Freedom Commissioner thinks about the social media ban by NSW Liberals.
Diog – in my opinion, yes, but some here have argued that they’re entirely different somehow.
“The Drum” opens with Packer/Gyngell, but handed straight to Annabell to say ha ha ha, what larks $200K for photos. Now, all panelists joining in the group yuks over it. “James has restored the pride of the family!” Thigh-slapping stuff!
K17
[Has anyone ever heard a Treasurer say that he can’t talk to the press because the matter is now in the hands of his lawyers. Jesus, Joe, you could do a bit better than that]
It’s a classic BS argument.
There is no legal impediment to discussing something that you have sent to the lawyers.
Diogs,
If you go back in the thread you’ll find the difference is Labor reveals the identity of the donors/participants.
Can any Government appointee say anything without breaching the ban?
[Former prime minister John Howard (75), Liberal elder statesman Philip Ruddock (71) and former minister David Kemp (72) are about to produce a blueprint for reform of the faction-riven NSW party.]
Good to see the Libs are looking forward. How to keep their over 70 vote. 😆
Ex-JWH minister Jackie Kelly says Liberal party is ‘undemocratic’ & expects to be expelled for speaking out http://ab.co/1j0Mozl
[Isn’t this the same as what Hockey was doing?
]
It is very close but I would draw a distinction between a ‘business round table club’ that explicitly fundraises and supports a political party and on a year by year basis attracts what talent it can to functions and a single campaign for a particular member. It is a pretty fine distinction though. Logically they are the same thing.
Practically There is a big difference between being in the same as x with 200 others and being at a table of 10 with x for 3 hours.
$85,000 equals around 17,000 cheese sandwiches or around 11,300 co-payments.
No wonder Vanstone was relaxed and comfortable – except when it came to losing her gold card entitlements.
Hockey is reported to be talking to lawyers.
[Christian Brothers’ leaders knew of brothers committing sexual assaults against children and responded by transferring the men to non-residential schools where they would continue to work with children, the royal commission in Perth has been told.]
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/23235634/sex-assault-brothers-only-moved/
This isn’t news, but still sickening all the same that the perpetrators were protected.
Richard Chirgwin @R_Chirgwin 2m
Geoff Cousins on @702sydney: “The problem with really wealthy people is that it’s hard to tax them.”
I call BS on that one.
It’s called unity ticket in Parliament.
rua:
That’s classic. No wonder they are reportedly banning social media for political commentary by members!
[Isn’t this the same as what Hockey was doing?]
No, Hockey refuses to name donors, the ALP disclose every donation over $1,000. So we know who dines with Bill, but Joe’s monthly soirees are anonymous.
Retweeted by sortius
Comrade Esseeeayeenn @esseeeayeenn 10m
Abbot’s net approval rating is MINUS 30.3% “@GhostWhoVotes: #ReachTEL Poll Abbott: Approve 26.5 (-4.3) Disapprove 56.8 (+5.0) #auspol”
Election now?
I think I need to take myself out the back and do some self upper-cuts.
Truzzzz has produced another bit of TV on MH370 that will be shown in many countries in a way that will not make us cringe. Across his brief and restrained.
FM
What a tired old tactic “Hockey is talking to lawyers”.
He has said that for one reason: to shut down the story with regard to other media outlets, and he’s largely succeeded. They’re all treading very warily. He’s almost certainly not going to take legal action.
While the problem is widespread, across both parties, it’s a very bad look indeed right when Hockey has just received the COA report from the very top level business types we know discover are paying $$ for access to him. That’s why he’s so anxious to shut down the story.
[If you go back in the thread you’ll find the difference is Labor reveals the identity of the donors/participants.]
So the bribery and cash for access is more transparent at Labor.
[Has anyone ever heard a Treasurer say that he can’t talk to the press because the matter is now in the hands of his lawyers. Jesus, Joe, you could do a bit better than that]
Maybe he’s worried about that (US – WTTE) warning given to people being arrested “You are not obliged to say anything but anything you say may be held against you in a court of law”.
In Japan:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/05/02/editorials/protecting-the-peace-constitution/#.U2dBg1fYPSc
“Clearly a majority of citizens oppose Abe’s efforts to overturn the government’s traditional interpretation of Article 9, which has enabled Japan to enjoy nearly 70 years of peace and prosperity. He should heed their sentiment and focus instead on improving ties with Japan’s closest neighbors.”
On banning donations entirely and relying on public funding –
My big problem with this is how does a new party bootstrap itself? It can’t get public funding until it has contested an election and won enough votes. Without private donations you’re basically ruling out new parties getting started, and that’s not something I could tolerate.
If party membership fees remain an ok way to raise funds then I guess that’s ok, although how you legally make the distinction between a $10000 membership fee and an illegal donation I’m not entirely sure.
A low threshold (say $500 or $1000) on allowable private donations from individuals (bans on non-individual donations) and an overall (low) cap on election expenses would be my preferred option.
Then the question is how do you deal with 3rd party groups – business groups, unions etc funding expensive advertising campaigns. It would be akin to the US situation where Super PACs can use unlimited funds for campaigning purposes but they are not allowed to be controlled by politicians – so there’s this bogus nonsense about how the Super PACs are controlled by 3rd parties that in theory don’t directly communicate with the candidates or parties they are basically supporting.
I don’t want to ban unions or community groups from running their own campaigns, and that means businesses really should be allowed to do so too, but I don’t want open slather for business to campaign a government into submission either.
Jackol
[I don’t want to ban unions or community groups from running their own campaigns]
High Court says unions cannot be banned
@1442
Perhaps limit it to the two major parties?
So the smaller parties like the Greens can flourish.
[1413
confessions
Obviously the LNP is not a member-based organ. It is a donation-assembly machine, a money-scooping racket.
After what we’ve seen the past few weeks, this is esp the case in NSW. That state’s party banning members from using social media to comment on politics defeats the purpose of being a member-driven party. I can’t understand why they’d even think it!]
The party of Kim Jong-tone…
Diogs,
Very strong words for practices that are legal.
You’re probably in favour of summary executions for organsiers of “chook” raffles as well.
Boerwar
[
Hockey is reported to be talking to lawyers.]
Asking “Is there any chance I won’t end up ICAC road kill ? ” perchance ?
[1436
zoidlord
Abbot’s net approval rating is MINUS 30.3% “@GhostWhoVotes: #ReachTEL Poll Abbott: Approve 26.5 (-4.3) Disapprove 56.8 (+5.0) #auspol”]
I’m surprised they can find one-in-four who think he’s doing a good job.
Possum Comitatus @Pollytics 55s
RT @[PROTECTED]: The mining company LITERALLY DONATED ITS CORPORATE AFFAIRS MANAGER to the LNP
Ghost kind of misquoted the Reachtel figures there. Reachtel do things differently – the actual figures were quoted earlier in the thread – and are good/satisfactory/bad (possibly very good/good/satisfactory/bad/very bad), so they don’t directly line up with the traditional Newspoll-style approval.
And the figures quoted above don’t include the “satisfactory” rating.