I wouldn’t normally lead with a Morgan poll so soon after a Newspoll result, but today of course is a special occasion (for future generations who might happen to be reading this, Tony Abbott today beat off a spill motion by the unconvincing margin of 61 to 39). After conducting an unusual poll last time in which the field work period was extended and the surveying limited to a single weekend, this is back to the usual Roy Morgan practice of combining face-to-face and SMS polling from two weeks, with field work conducted only on Saturdays and Sundays, with a sample of around 3000 (2939 to be precise about it). So the poll was half conducted in the knowledge that a spill was imminent, and half not.
On the primary vote, there has been a straight two-point shift from the Coalition to Labor since the previous poll, which was conducted from January 23-27, with Australia Day and the Prince Philip knighthood having landed on January 26. This puts Labor on 41.5% and the Coalition on 35.5%, with the Greens steady on 12% and Palmer United down one to 2%. A slightly better flow of preferences for the Coalition blunts the impact a little on the headline respondent-allocated two-party figure, on which Labor’s lead is up from 56.5-43.5 to 57.5 to 42.5. The move is a little bigger on previous election preferences, from 55.5-44.5 to 57-43. Tomorrow’s Essential Research should complete the cycle of pre-spill opinion polling, and I’m well and truly back in my old routine of updating BludgerTrack overnight on Wednesday/Thursday.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research’s reputation for stability emerges unharmed with another 54-46 reading this week, with the Coalition up a point to 39%, Labor steady on 41%, the Greens up one to 10% and Palmer United steady on 3%. It’s a different story on the monthly reading of Tony Abbott’s leadership ratings, with approval down eight to 27% and disapproval up nine to 62%. However, Bill Shorten’s position has also sharply worsened, with approval down six to 33% and disapproval up five to 38%. Given this is nowhere reflected in other polling, one might surmise that Essential has hit bad samples for Labor over consecutive weeks. Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister is nonetheless out from 37-35 to 39-31.
Other questions find 59% approval for the government dropping its paid parental leave scheme versus 25% for disapprove; 59% support for same-sex marriage, up four since December, with 28% opposed, down four; 26% saying support for same-sex marriage might favourably influence vote choice, 19% saying it would do so unfavourably, and 48% saying it would make no difference; 44% favouring a negative response to government retention of personal data and information against 38% for a positive one; and a suite of questions on privatisation that do a fair bit to explain what happened to Campbell Newman.
Libertarian Unionist
A bit like something I heard on RN a couple of months ago. Denmark has an employment/education guarantee and they looked at a shipyard that was to close.
The Danes retrained the workers, engineers etc and it is now a leading place for research and construction of wind turbines. Here they would have all just been turfed out on the streets.
“@nickharmsen: Govt also floating the idea of replacing Payroll Tax with a “cash-flow” tax #saparli @abcnewsAdelaide”
Still great new ideas. Very impressed with Mr Weatherill and team.
[The High Court unanimously found that the decision made by the Minister to refuse to grant the plaintiff a protection visa was not made according to law. The Court found that the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) stated exhaustively what visa consequences attached to being an unauthorised maritime arrival, and the Minister could not refuse an application for a visa only because the applicant was an unauthorised maritime arrival. The Court also held that the amendments to the Act did not affect the plaintiff’s right to obtain a permanent protection visa. It was not necessary for the Court to address the validity of the “national interest” criterion upon which the Minister relied in refusing the plaintiff’s application.]
the problem is that in racist bogan Australia the government gets points for such un-lawful ruling based on prejudice. the high court is just ‘the elites’ not reflecting the xenophobia that swings enough votes in marginal seats to make un-lawful and immoral/amoral treatment of refugees OK. Can I bet the ALP does not make a sound about this?
further on australia’s inherent racism – do you think there’d be more support for the death row bali nine leaders if they were whiter?
Abbott apparently making an annoucement after 12 re foreign investment
@BBCWorld: Jon Stewart to leave Daily Show http://t.co/r0Zz0lP2Ly
The reluctantly positive comments above re. Shorten “improving” are so patronizing.
Why Shorten should be doing anything else but letting Abbott flay himself alive is beyond me.
Why Shorten should be producing half-cocked policy responses to Abbott meanderings and brainfarts, when Abbott himself doesn’t know what he’s saying from day to day, is beyond me.
Why Shorten shouldn’t wait until Abbott is so toxic that the public and even the media beg him to come to the rescue of the nation is beyond me as well.
Abbott’s latest “reset” was nobbled before the starting gun was fired, by his magic pudding promise to the South Australian numpties concerning submarines, and sank without trace before the first bouy was rounded. It was just more Abbott trickery. He and his mob’s “It’s all Labor’s fault” mantra won’t cut it. It is puerile, whingeing in tone and utterly irrelavant, as it is the Coalition who is now in government on a promise of “No excuses”.
Abbott is doing Shorten’s job for him. When the public, in its bones, realizes that a stable, hokey, down-home kind of guy like Shorten appears to be is just what the doctor ordered compared to the Turmoil of Rudd and the anarchy of Abbott, THEN is the time for Shorten to stump up with some good, developed, costed and inspiring ideas on policy.
The people will be willing to listen to him by then. They’ll be over their anger at Abbott, resigned to his political death, fed up to the back teeth with Hockey’s avuncular whining and moaning, and thoroughly pissed off with everything “Coalition”.
Until then, why should Shorten waste a single syllable on policy, why should he wax lyrical on ideas, why should he make promises he’s not fully prepared to make and to justify, when it will all just be sucked up into a vortex of piss and wind, discarded like so much chaff in the sirocco of political life as the media fantasise about making themselves relevant once more via leadershit speculation?
Labor, while looking good in the polls, is NOT the government. They can’t really propose anything themselves and see it through the Parliament. They have sparse numbers in the lower House and only a couple of dozen in the Upper House. They control neither, despite what Joe Hockey says (and all too often says it unchallenged).
Shorten did not get to where he is now by being an idiot, and by being boring and uninspiring. Even if he did, “boring and uninspiring” is exactly what the nation needs, or will need once the Reality TV show that is Tony Abbott has wrung its last rating from an increasingly sceptical viewing audience.
Abbott is on track to inevitable self-destruction. Why should Shorten get in his way?
Why is it that Abbott is so popular with female journalists (and a few males) who always believe everything he promises?
Has he some (well-hidden) sex appeal that persuades them to forgive him every time? Unbelievable.
[The Danes retrained the workers, engineers etc and it is now a leading place for research and construction of wind turbines.]
Those clever Scandinavians.
We have something like 40,000 auto industry workers and suppliers about to face the chop, plus those coming off the mining investment boom, but we can’t do that sort of thing here: It would be interfering with the market.
*head-to-desk*
>Abbott is on track to inevitable self-destruction. Why should Shorten get in his way?
So Shorten can ensure that once he gets an opportunity to Govern he finds it easier. The idea of opposition is not solely to be made PM on the day after the election.
The idea of Opopsition is to try to bring about a situation in which you can make your ideas reality at some future point. Being made PM is a good start and a large part of this, but not all.
BB
Agree with your observations
good points BB, one example of a time for Shorten to lay out some poicies might be the budget reply speech in May, the contents depend on the budget.
if for example the Govt go on a spendathon, then Shorten should echo Rudd’s 2007 campaign launch , where he undercuts the Govt spending promises
[Why Shorten should be doing anything else but letting Abbott flay himself alive is beyond me.]
Agreed: Never interrupt your enemy when s/he is making a mistake.
That’s not to say Shorten shouldn’t present himself as the superior alternative, which is not to say that he isn’t doing exactly that (and quite convincingly too).
poices = policies
BB
Read pysclaw’s post. You read is and my responses wrong.
Disgraceful
[10:57am: So much for bipartisanship.
Up to 10 Coalition MPs walked out during Mr Shorten’s speech. The mini exodus began when Mr Shorten started speaking about the government’s cuts to legal aid and family violence shelters.
Tasmanian MP Andrew Nikolic was one and Victorian Russell Broadbent was another.]
BB – Spot on.
Someone should get the names of those MPs and target them. Perhaps the media might get off their bums and pursue the matter?
BB
[Why Shorten should be doing anything else but letting Abbott flay himself alive is beyond me.]
Me too.
Give abbott ‘clean air’ so he can do as many brain farts as possible.
Bushfire Bill
Wasn’t a fan of Bill and would have preferred a “Tory Fighting ” Albo. However it soon became apparent that Bill’s approach was correct and Abbott, if let be, would punch himself to political death.
It was not that he wasn’t out there brawling with Abbott it was his delivery style and often the content. It may be confidence or growing into the job but on both points he has vastly improved.
No matter how improved he is I certainly don’t think he now start brawling with Abbott. Abbott is still doing a brilliant “whirling dervisher” on himself.
apart from that, how can any opposition make any promises in this environment when no-one (including the Govt), knows what the Government is going to do to the budget.
my guess is they will offer a family package, but keep the Higher Ed, and some form of the co-payment.
Anything Labor might promise could be invalidated by the 2015 budget and again in the 2016 budget
Just read the article on the submarine fiasco yesterday and it’s very clear that Abbott has already broken the promise of an open tender that he made to his SA senator to try and save his own hide.
Why anyone in the liberal party would trust that lying bastard is beyond me.
Sustainable future@1153
As an ALP member I say, don’t judge others by your own standards.
I do not know a single ALP member or supporter who is not totally appalled at the looming executions in Indonesia and we see the two men as Australians, not that it matters as any execution is wrong.
I remember when the young man was going to be executed in Singapore and this staunch heathen ALP member went as far as attending a service in St Patricks Cathedral in Melbourne in support of him.
You are just an offensive grub and typical of the worst aspects of Greens.
ctar
I agree with BB”s post. However I want to make a distinction. That is partisan controversial policies should be left to close to the election.
Most Labor policies are known and already out there as continuation of the last government policies with some changes to come.
Some of those policies that are controversial have been reaffirmed like having a carbon price.
So release of policies for Labor is a small boat not an ocean liner. Abbott brought in an ocean liner after promising a boat and thats his problem.
As Shorten Burke and Bowen have all said that policies are being released to a Labor timetable anyone complaining about Shorten’s performance are Lib trolls or lack political knowledge.
I think we have to reset the counter to zero.
http://goo.gl/SXa9ne
True Darn – it’s yet another example of Abbott promising what he needs to promise in order to get over the line and then worrying about the consequences after.
Surely we must be getting to the point where Bludgertrack will show that more than one SA seat will be at risk at the next election.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-february-11-2015-20150211-13bcdb.html
Report about the Coalition MPs walking out.
[“Whether I’m a rooster or a feather duster I’m still doing my job,” Mr Hockey told radio station 3AW.]
bemused
I think SF was making two separate points – one about Labor’s response to the judgement and one about Australian racism.
BB @ 1156
You said everything that I’ve been trying to say about Shorten’s approach. It is a very clear and disciplined approach (and it does not sound like he needs a Credlin to pull the strings to make sure he does not step out of line).
What is really good about this strategy is that we could get to the point where the public will actually accept some harder measures because the Abbott/Liberal circus has convinced them that a party that promises all gain with no pain cannot ever be believed.
poroti @ 1169
Agree, but you are being unfair to whirling dervishes, who are mystical sufi muslims who whirl themselves into a meditative trance in a mind concentration exercise. It is quite beautiful to watch.
Abbott is the direct opposite. The best analogy I can think off is rope-a-dope, with the variation that he is both the dope and the recipient of the punches.
I generally agree BB. The polls suggest Shorten is more than doing his job.
He can come off as a telly tubby’s story teller in interviews, but his speeches are good, the budget reply was better than anything I’ve seen from Turnbull.
I do think they can start outlining a few areas of revenue, in a non-committal test the waters way. I can’t see how mentioning super rorts would hurt them, they would even have Alan Jones’s support 😀
Re BB @1156: agree. Bill Shorten doesn’t need to go beyond enunciating general principles at this astage, especially fairness, in contrast to what the Government is trying to do.
Moksha@1179
Yeah, the old ‘guilt by association’ trick.
From that link in The Age.
Stephanie Peatling:
[Should government MPs have walked out? Should Mr Shorten have mentioned budget cuts in his speech?
I’m going to leave that discussion to one side ]
Since Abbott politicises every speech he makes, why shouldn’t Shorten mention the disgraceful budget cuts.
lizzie
Looks like The Age is going to name names at least.
[
People have asked me to name the other MPs who walked out (see 10.57 am).
I have a list of names but indigenous affairs reporter Dan Harrison is just checking the footage before the names are published.
]
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-february-11-2015-20150211-13bcdb.html
I was encouraged by his no confidence speech. Especially considering the sharp interjections. Plenty of scope for improvement and I for one am happy for him to take time to grow into the role.
His style (interviews etc) isn’t to my liking but it’s not me he needs to sway. I would like to hear more from the others in a unified leadership team. I think its a trump card for an opposition to have such an experienced shadow ministry. And having a leadership group Worked for the swans.
lizzie
Shorten would have been criminally lax not to mention budget cuts. Those cuts impact on the very things the closing the gap is about. Life expectancy. Education. Other Health issues, crime etc.
In fact at the presser afterwards hosted by Mick Gooda one of the First Austraian’s representatives quoted Mr Shorten.
Steve777@1182
Fair enough to hold back the policies for now, but Shorten needs to establish himself as a credible leader. This takes time and the more exposure he gets with well crafted and well delivered speeches the better.
What a contrast between him and Abbott!
That alone should just about win the next election.
[Wasn’t a fan of Bill and would have preferred a “Tory Fighting ” Albo. However it soon became apparent that Bill’s approach was correct and Abbott, if let be, would punch himself to political death.]
Sort of like the “rope a dope” tactic that Muhammad Ali used so successfully against George Foreman.
bemused @ 1172
I agree with all of your post except the gratuitous smack at the Greens.
As for the two Australians facing execution, the great difficulty is that they are going to be executed for purely Indonesian populist politics. Widodo clearly believes that he has nothing to gain and everything to lose politically by sparing the two men. Executing drug smugglers is politically extremely popular in Indonesia.
My problem, and I suspect that of the Government and Opposition here, is that if no fuss is made, the Indonesian government will say that Australians don’t care and if they do say something then it will be grist for the anti-Australian sentiment in Indonesia.
It is tragic that politics should kill two men who do not deserve to be killed. But I cannot see a way out.
lizzie
Looks like we’ll get to know who the oafs were.
[People have asked me to name the other MPs who walked out (see 10.57 am).
I have a list of names but indigenous affairs reporter Dan Harrison is just checking the footage before the names are published.]
lizzie
Looks like we’ll get to know who the oafs were.
[People have asked me to name the other MPs who walked out (see 10.57 am).
I have a list of names but indigenous affairs reporter Dan Harrison is just checking the footage before the names are published.]
poroti @ 1144
And that’s assuming he understands it in the first place.
poroti
It will be interesting to see which communities they represent.
guytaur @ 1187
Thinking about the walkout, it seems to me that the Liberals think bipartisanship is great, as long as everyone agrees that the only policy action should be mouthing endless platitudes and modern motherhood statements.
I don’t like the idea of partisanship in what are supposed to be agreed positions, but it seems to me that in this case Bill Shorten was absolutely right. Wringing your hands and giving pious lectures while withdrawing the means for improvement is Liberal policy. Bipartisanship is not letting the Coalition get away with not mentioning their deliberate contribution to widening the gap.
Sorry TPOF. I see you beat me to the punch with “rope a dope”.
Darn @ 1196
🙂
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/budget-may-never-get-back-to-surplus-says-joe-hockey-20150210-13b2aq.html
[So big is the hit to the budget from commodity prices and the measures held up in the Senate it may “never get back to surplus”, Treasurer Joe Hockey has told the Coalition party room.
The embattled minister made the claim as an independent assessment of the damage to the budget since May put it at $46 billion to $56 billion.]
This “revelation” simply confirms the Treasurer’s MYEFO statement was a fraud. The Government has lost control of the budget along with its political standing.
New Commonwealth borrowings this week will total $2.85 billion and come in addition to new borrowings last week of $1.9 billion.
http://aofm.gov.au/
Narns
😆 That option would explain everything.
Whenever some dumbarse journo says to Shorten or any other Labor person ‘but what about your policies’ they should simply say ‘what, support for an ETS isn’t a big enough target for ya?’.
It’s already out there and Abbott is already clinging to it so why dissemble? They just need to point out that Abbott claimed that he could axe Carbon Pricing and deliver a surplus without any new taxes or any cuts. Abbott lied. Abbott claimed it was a handbrake on the economy, but the economy is weaker since it was repealed. Abbott lied. Abbott claimed direct action could meet the targets at no cost to taxpayers, but emission have rocketed since Carbon Pricing was repealed and Direct Action is going to waste billions of taxpayers dollars for no benefit. Abbott Lied.
So long as every time you talk about the ETS you use it to reinforce that Abbott is liar (which the majority now strongly believe) then it’s not a negative, it’s a positive. But also bold and risky (in the media’s horserace view) and it has the delicious benefit of wedging Malcolm from either the majority of his party, or those who think he’s different and would vote Lib if he was the leader. It addresses climate change and environment, big business taxation, and budget repair in one go. They just need to tell the story rather than shying away from it.