Galaxy: 51-49 to federal Labor in Queensland

After a shaky result for the LNP in yesterday’s state poll, today’s federal follow-up brings even worse news from Queensland for the Abbott government.

Tomorrow’s Courier-Mail carries results of a Galaxy poll of federal voting intention in Queensland, going off the same sample as yesterday’s state poll, and it’s the first of four such polls since the election to show Labor in front. Labor’s 51-49 lead on two-party preferred represents an 8% swing from last year’s federal election, and a three-point shift to Labor from the previous result in February. It also sits well with the current reading from BludgerTrack, suggesting serious problems for the government in what may be the most important state in the country in terms of marginal seats. Primary votes and such to follow shortly. UPDATE: The primary votes are 38% for the Coalition, 36% for Labor, 8% for the Greens and 12% for Palmer United. The poll also finds 36% believe the Abbott government has lived up to expectations, down nine points since February, 56% believe it has performed below them, up nine points, and 4% believe it has been better, down two.

UPDATE (Essential Research): The regular weekly result from Essential Research has both major parties down a point on the primary vote, to 40% for the Coalition and 38% for Labor, and the two main minor parties up one, the Greens to 9% and Palmer United to 6%. Labor gains a point on two-party preferred to lead 52-48. Further questions find a remarkable 43% saying the government should respond to its budget difficulties by calling an election, the breakdowns for party support suggesting this mostly bespeaks a desire to get rid of the government rather than secure the passage of its budget. Thirty-eight per cent say they would rather a new budget be introduced, including a majority among Coalition supporters. I’m not sure if the availability of only two options together with “don’t know” succeeds in capturing the full range of opinion on the subject.

Other questions find opinion on the state of the economy little changed since April, with a good rating of 37% (down one) and a poor rating of 26% (up two), but more thinking it headed in the wrong direction, up seven to 41% with “right direction” down four to 35%. Concern about job losses is up a point to 58%, with the “not at all concerned” response up three to 32%. Twenty-one per cent say the impact of the budget on employment will be good versus 49% for bad. Sixty per cent disapprove of sending troops to Iraq versus 28% who approve, and 36% believe current spending on anti-terrorism measures is about right, compared with 28% who want more and 19% who want less.

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.

1,126 thoughts on “Galaxy: 51-49 to federal Labor in Queensland”

Comments Page 4 of 23
1 … 3 4 5 … 23

  1. guytaur

    it will come as no surprise that those changes don’t mean what wikileaks say they mean.

    Note that the section on ‘extradition without charge’ isn’t a blanket ban on such extraditions. It takes into account the protocols of the requesting country’s legal system.

    In Sweden, you cannot be charged unless you are arrested, so you must be physically in the country to be charged.

    This would be taken into consideration under the new provisions, and – as the article you linked to says (did you read that one?) – doesn’t rule out someone being extradited without charge.

  3. guytaur

    I also said that Sweden could just say no extradition if no extradition.

    None of which you have answered.

    Er, yes, I did – I gave you a link to an authorative source which deals with all of these questions.

    That you still haven’t read it suggest you WANT to remain ignorant.

    That’s sad, but all too common.

  4. zoomster

    Also Ecuador has not said its booting him out.

    Its just been sid he will be leaving. Lawyers today are making clear that is going to be to the UK after those law changes.

  5. guytaur

    1. Of course Ecuador won’t say they’re booting him out. But obviously they are.

    2. Ecuador booting him out is further evidence that the US aren’t interested in Assange. They’d keep him on to spite them otherwise.

    3. I doubt the law changes are retrospective, and I also doubt that they’d apply to Assange anyway.

  6. zoomster

    I think you will find that defence lawyers can read legislation before they advise and release to the worlds media including lots of lawyers things like that

    I have not heard any lawyer on the media or UK government spokesperson say Wikileaks legal team is wrong about the changes.

  8. Hadley and Hedley have just been sounding-off about Clive Palmer’s outburst last night on QandA.

    They have him down as a racist, who hate all Chinese. Callers phoned in telling Hadley that their Chinese wives were outraged etc. This would be the end of trade between China and Australia, and so on, and so forth.

    Not too familiar with Hedley’s audience, but highlighting Chinese wives seems a bit of a misogyny on their part?

    Nevermind diplomatic relations and foreign investments, but an earful from “Chinese wives”?

  9. Also Ecuador has not said its booting him out.

    They’re welcome to keep him.

    I wonder how much it would cost to get them to stop him from doing press conferences?

    I’d throw some in.

  11. I doubt the law changes are retrospective, and I also doubt that they’d apply to Assange anyway.

    According to this you would be right.

    London: The UK government has poured cold water on Julian Assange’s hopes he will soon be able to leave the Ecuador embassy behind Harrods where he has spent the last two
    years.

    In a press conference on Monday morning, local time, the WikiLeaks whistleblower said he hoped soon to walk out of the embassy due to legal changes in the UK’s extradition laws.

    Under the new laws a judge may bar an extradition request if there has not been a decision to charge or try the subject of the request.

    However a Home Office spokeswoman told Fairfax Media the changes had come too late for Mr Assange.

    “He has exhausted all his avenues of appeal under the Extradition Act,” the spokeswoman said. “The changes were not retrospective, so they don’t apply.”

    Mr Assange’s legal team hoped that, even if they did not have a legal basis for a challenge, the change in the law may signal a change in the government’s attitude. However the government has not yet given any indication of softening its position.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/uk-government-dashes-assanges-hopes-of-leaving-embassy-20140819-105mu7.html#ixzz3AnvZQ56M

  13. ctar

    I am not defending Assange. He should have a fair trial for the allegations against him regarding Sweden.

    I think Sweden is not acting in the interests of the victims. Their suspect has volunteered for questioning in a London Police Station its Sweden that first played hard ball by insisting that be in Sweden.

    All along I have found Sweden’s actions questionable. On the basis that questioning could have happened two years ago in a location where if answers prove arrest in the Australian sense was necessary they could do so.

    UK police have an arrest for questioning power they could use on Sweden’s behalf.

    Do the questions first then go to court for extradition. ]

    No charges have been laid

  14. Zoom if he can’t even read and understand the note he linked himself there is no point and no hope.

    Assange’s lawyers seem very good with media and hopes but not commensurately capable at actual EU extradition law.

  15. Sir Mad

    Yes the laws are not retrospective. Mr Assange said as much in his presser. He is using them as a basis for negotiation.

    That is all it is.

  16. Raaraa
    Posted Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm | PERMALINK
    Hadley and Hedley have just been sounding-off about Clive Palmer’s outburst last night on QandA.

    They have him down as a racist, who hate all Chinese. Callers phoned in telling Hadley that their Chinese wives were outraged etc. This would be the end of trade between China and Australia, and so on, and so forth.

    Not too familiar with Hedley’s audience, but highlighting Chinese wives seems a bit of a misogyny on their part?

    Nevermind diplomatic relations and foreign investments, but an earful from “Chinese wives”?

    To stay in business the shock jocks must convince their audiences that something which is “bad” on Monday is now “good” on Tuesday. Their elderly listeners have lived through the “Chinese red menace”, and the JBishop tirade against China; they are now expected to switch their thinking overnight.

    Their callers seem to be of two types – the genuine ones who are scared sh*tless about the carbon tax, red menace or whatever and the political plants who mouth the LNP topic of the day.

    You will probably find that the callers with unhappy “Chinese wives” have also predicted Australia’s destruction from the carbon tax and the Muslim jihardists.

  18. Yes the laws are not retrospective. Mr Assange said as much in his presser. He is using them as a basis for negotiation.

    He is very keen on negotiation. When the UK or Australia have criminal justice systems that allow defendants to determine the rules of their own prosecution perhaps Julian might be reasonable. It is ridiculous to trust Ecuador but doubt Sweden.

  19. zoomster

    By the way. Assange could be a conman. However if so he is still entitled to every right under the law any of us are.

  20. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/18/real_green_devil_australia_abbott_climate_disaster

    Abbott’s anti-environment stance has raised eyebrows around the world. Environmental author Bill McKibben has written that Americans who traveled abroad during George W. Bush’s administration should have sympathy for Australians right now: “

    I

    t’s not easy being citizens of countries run by international laughing stocks.” The comparison is apt: Like the Bush administration, Abbott chooses to ignore or undercut federal and international law when it doesn’t suit his interests.

    Back then American backpackers would pretend to be Canadians when they travel. What would Aussies pretend to be? Kiwis?

  22. Their callers seem to be of two types – the genuine ones who are scared sh*tless about the carbon tax, red menace or whatever and the political plants who mouth the LNP topic of the day.

    You will probably find that the callers with unhappy “Chinese wives” have also predicted Australia’s destruction from the carbon tax and the Muslim jihardists.

    I can see it now. The sort of audience who might be scared of the red menace and Muslim jihadists would probably think Australian Chinese and Muslims have their loyalties elsewhere.

    Of course, Clive is exactly trying to attract and probably win votes from the scare of foreign investments buying our assets.

    I can see why these shock jocks are concerned.

  23. Mad

    The UK government has poured cold water on Julian Assange’s hopes he will soon be able to leave the Ecuador embassy behind Harrods where he has spent the last two
    years.

    The immediate locals are much in favour of Julian staying were he is.

    Police response times are very quick if they report anything. Crime stats have plunged in the area.

  25. I think Julian Assange is a narcissist and megalomaniac in general and most probably a creep (at the very least) in his dealings with female fans. If he did commit sex offences in Sweden, he should be punished for that. What I don’t agree with is Sweden’s insistence that they cannot send a judge to question Assange in the UK. Sure, I get that they don’t want to set a precedent of having to follow a person of interest in an investigation all around the world – ‘they are not a travel service’ etc. But couldn’t they have made an exception in this highly unusual case? It isn’t every accused sex offender who is wanted dead or imprisoned by the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies. It seems bloody-minded of them to not send someone over to the UK to ask the questions they want to ask.

    Assange is rightly paranoid. He has enraged a lot of extremely powerful people who don’t have qualms about using torture and extra-judicial killing and kangaroo courts to achieve their ends. Sweden does have form in ingratiating itself with the United States in the ‘war on terror’. The United States used Swedish airports and air space to ferry torture victims around and the Swedish Government did not object. If Sweden really does care about providing justice to the complainants in the sex offence allegations, it should take the special circumstances into account and just get the questioning done in the UK. Then, if charges are justified, bring charges against him and request extradition on that basis.

    The claim that this can’t be done because the Swedish Government are noble sticklers for process and their process is that an accused person must present physically in Sweden in order to be questioned is a dodge. They weren’t sticklers for due process and human rights when America needed help with transporting torture victims.

  28. Icac

    Back after luncheon. Former Newcastle Port Corporation boss Gary Webb is in the witness box. Agrees he’s a “Newcastle boy” #ICAC

  32. Nicholas

    all that is a bit moot now – the highest court in the UK has agreed to extradite Assange to Sweden, full stop.

    I’m sure that Assange’s top flight lawyers would have mounted all the arguments you have – and I refer you to the same link I gave guytaur —

    http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

    Your comments are also based on a misunderstanding of Swedish law. As I said earlier, they do not charge someone until they have arrested them.

    So a judge heading over to interview Assange would be pointless. The Swedes already believe he has a case to answer; they want him in Sweden so that they can arrest and charge him.

  33. Zoidlord

    Boerwar’s observations re Abbott’s comments on Icac could indeed be on the money

    Abbott should know this. For the Prime Minister to be suggesting that there is some wriggle-room in this matter is curious indeed.

    Abbott’s comments show just how vulnerable the federal Liberal Party will be once ICAC turns its scrutiny towards the Free Enterprise Foundation.

  34. Think Big

    How do you know this? What evidence other than assumptions do you have?

    I say its wrong because its been two years and they could have done questioning and then charged to get extradition.

    They have to have a process for arrests outside the country as Assange would not be the only suspect that has been outside the country

  35. The improvement in the government’s recent polling may have plateaued, with the two-party preferred voting intention figures in today’s Essential Report shifting to 52%-48% in Labor’s favour. It’s a small shift from 51-49 the last two weeks, and reflects more or less the status quo:

    the first sign of the Hockey Dividend!

  39. Think Big

    Then because of the unfairness of it Assange went for safety in Ecuador.

    The UK parliament has made crystal clear that the questioning should have happened in the UK that is why they have now legislated it into existence.

    As it was any citizen of the UK could have been extradited for questioning without charge if Sweden so wished. The UK Parliament does not think this is right,

  42. Abbott has built a dam wall of terror/refugees/islamaphobia to keep the tide of the budget and other issues at bay. Hockey and ICAC are holes in his dyke. Will the wall come crashing down!!

  43. Paddy O

    Last night on QandA the closest it got to terror/refugees/islamaphobia was Clive Palmers comments about a Chinese company

  44. The improvement in the government’s recent polling may have plateaued, with the two-party preferred voting intention figures in today’s Essential Report shifting to 52%-48% in Labor’s favour. It’s a small shift from 51-49 the last two weeks, and reflects more or less the status quo:

    No surprises there.
    1 point on the inelastic Essential can mean +3 in other polls.

  47. “@ABCNews24: Richard Marles: Today’s announcement from Scott Morrison raises more questions than it answers #auspol #asylumseekers”

  49. guytaur

    Opposition Immigration spokesman @RichardMarlesMP

    They’re at it today. His turn to say “We really need Kevin back”.

    😆

Comments Page 4 of 23
1 … 3 4 5 … 23

Leave a Reply

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