The Seven Network brings us a ReachTEL automated phone poll of federal voting intention, which was conducted on Thursday from a sample of 2532, showing Labor’s two-party lead unchanged at 54-46, from primary votes of 39.8% for the Coalition, 39.3% for Labor, 11.9% for the Greens and 2.2% for Palmer United. Further questions find strong support for increasing the tax rate on superannuation contributions for high-income earners, at 57.2% with 22.1% opposed, but an even balance of 30.7% support and 31.8% opposition for removing negative gearing on future property purchases. The poll also records 56.1% support for imposing the GST on purchases from overseas companies with 22.3% opposed. Leadership approval questions find a shift for Tony Abbott from “very poor” to “satisfactory”, with Bill Shorten’s numbers broadly unchanged. Hat tip to Leroy Lynch.
There’s considerably less good news for Bill Shorten in a Morgan phone poll on party leadership, which shows Tony Abbott leading him 44-39 as preferred prime minister – the first poll to show Abbott in the lead since November. Tony Abbott’s personal ratings are little changed since the last such poll conducted in mid-January, before the Prince Philip knighthood and leadership spill vote, with his approval steady on 37% and disapproval up one to 53%. Bill Shorten, however, is respectively down three to 34% and up eight to 48%.
With respect to preferred Labor and Liberal leaders, Morgan finds Shorten losing his lead over Tanya Plibersek, who now has 23% support (up five) to Shorten’s 21% (down four), with Anthony Albanese up three to 13% and Wayne Swan steady on 10%. Tony Abbott has lost still more ground in comparison with Malcolm Turnbull (up two points as preferred Liberal leader to 38%) and Julie Bishop (up one to 27%), with his own rating down two to 12%. Scott Morrison is up three to 5%, putting him level with Joe Hockey, who has fallen heavily from favour since the government came to power.
UPDATE (Essential Research): The weekly Essential Research result has Labor gaining a point on two-party preferred, putting their lead at 53-47. The Coalition and the Greens are both down a point on the primary vote, to 40% and 10%, while Labor is steady on 39% and Palmer United is up one to 2%. Other findings:
• The poll shows 40% support for changes to the Senate electoral system to make it harder for micro-parties to get elected, with 33% opposed. Forty-two per cent said minor parties in the Senate were good for democracy, while 35% favoured the alternative proposition that they made government too unstable.
• Fifty-two per cent say they are not confident the government is on track to return the budget to surplus, with 36% confident; 31% believe doing so is very important, 40% somewhat important, and 14% not important.
• Seventy-seven per cent approve of government measures to withhold benefits from parents who do not get their children vaccinated.
• Seventy per cent say the gap between rich and poor in Australia is getting bigger, only 5% say smaller, and 17% say it is about the same.
UPDATE 2: Greens supporters on Twitter are taking umbrage at the wording of the following Essential Research question:
The Coalition, Labor and the Greens all support changes that would make it harder for small parties to be elected to Senate. Would you approve or disapprove of such changes?
And I agree to the extent that I don’t think they should be providing partisan respondents with cues as to what their party’s position is.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/david-pope-20141123-1t3j0.html
[ Thoughtful as usual. ]
Put the exact same speech bubble on Abbott, and put an Asylum Seeker child in place of Sukumaran, and unfortunately that cartoon would work just as well.
SGH,
I’ve seen a few reports that the lawyers for C & S are saying their is another appeal on May 12. Execution is possibly on hold again!
TBA,
The article I posted says that statement you so blithely make is wrong in law.
Read it and educate yourself.
If you don’t, you can keep mouthing your inanities until the wheel brace called reality hits you in the moosh. But, don’t come awhingeing that you didn’t know or understand.
[ An individual handing over by their own choice documents they are entitled to view to others to view by their own choice is not a violation of any privacy laws. ]
Ummm. Where to start with this?
GG
TBA doesnt deal with reality
Player one
TBA is talking in tongues. 😀
I have to say again. Good on the lawyers here. There may yet be a face saving way for mercy for Jodowi
imacca @ 101
[Put the exact same speech bubble on Abbott, and put an Asylum Seeker child in place of Sukumaran, and unfortunately that cartoon would work just as well.]
Which is precisely what David Pope invites the reader to do.
“@AndrewJaffrey: BREAKING:Australia’s ambassador to Indonesia just released a statement that the #bali9 duo will have a leniency appeal heard in early May.”
GG
al-Baghdadi has died a few times so anything is possible.
Diogs,
He should just make up his mind then
[91
Greensborough Growler
Interesting to see how this develops!
http://www.sciencealert.com/audi-have-successfully-made-diesel-fuel-from-air-and-water%5D
Brilliant!
Good from Tim Fischer defending role of Embassy network.
Ever shown that ridiculously high Telstra bill to someone?
Did you call the Fed Police on them afterwards?
Equally as stupid as Billy Gordons “claims”
Further confusing news.
https://twitter.com/newscomauHQ/status/592656646171680769/photo/1
TBA,
Have you read that article?
GG @ 111
[He should just make up his mind then]
That’s a bit unfair. He’s supposed to be brain dead.
“@JoshBBornstein: Employers increasingly using codes & policies to control employees’ after hours conduct
#qanda”
112
Will it have less fine and ultra fine particle pollution?
TPOF,
That is not usually a problem, is it?
Interesting poll numbers, I am not sure why anyone would have expected the government to get a bounce out of ANZAC Day, maybe if it had been a one off event they might have but as it is yearly I would have been more surprised had they received a bounce.
The reality as I see it from talking to people in business and in general, no one seems to have much good to say about this government, even in its political heartland.
Many people seem to be waiting to see if this budget is any better than last years flop although many are not expecting much of an improvement.
The reaction the ALP’s purposed tax changes on super has been pretty mute outside of the Liberal Party cheer squad.
[ I am not sure why anyone would have expected the government to get a bounce out of ANZAC Day ]
Why else would they spend $300 million on it? You don’t think it was because they really believed in the ANZAC spirit?
[@Lateline: Tonight’s debate: Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson and Barrister Greg Barnes on freedom of speech after SBS presenter sacking #Lateline”]
The equivalent of going to watch a fifth grade game of footy
If there was a SSM referendum, I don’t think the yes would win, this is the sort of issue which will only be accepted after the fact.
Its a bit like the GST, opposed before its introduction, now no one is seriously suggesting that it be abolished.
Emma Alberici @albericie · 45s45 seconds ago
#qanda it’s not a stay of execution. Decision of Constitutional Court will not be retrospective Chan & Sukumaran lawyer tells @lateline
@grumpyshortpant: Arty’s memory seems to be a heck of a lot better when he’s on tele. Perhaps #ICAC hearings should be televised to help him out.#qanda
[ Ever shown that ridiculously high Telstra bill to someone? ]
You should stop dialing all those sexy chat phone services?
[I don’t read rubbish.]
So after concluding it to be “rubbish” without having read it, you’re now confirming the totality of your ignorance concerning the subject you’re presuming to discuss by dumping on the non-existent “claims” of Billy Gordon.
Player One
There would be a greater risk of losing support over the mishandling ANZAC Day than gaining from it.
Has this is the 100th year therefore their is extra importance to the occasion.
Politicians trying to connect with certain sections of the community is too be expected but I have never viewed Saturday as about vote winning as I seriously doubt this government could manage such a feat.
[ I have never viewed Saturday as about vote winning as I seriously doubt this government could manage such a feat. ]
They certainly couldn’t.
Are they going to sack this Vietnam Vet for decrying the sanitising of war?
Player One
Agreed! This government is so hopeless and lacking in direction that it can’t even have a real tax debate without screaming no at any suggestion.
This government is the worst government that I have ever seen, including Kirner (yes worst than Kirner)
I think if one had been involved in war, that they have earned special rights to an opinion.
Some sports jurno should stick to sport as that all most of his followers are following him for.
mexican
That is a decision for his followers. Not for Malcolm Turnbull.
Fess @1803 (previous thread):
[Matt:
When I met with Sen Smith when he was down here a couple years ago, he indicated to me that he was resolutely opposed to SSM, even voted against the last bill that was put to the Senate.
Seems he had an epiphany after the Lindt cafe siege.]
In other words, his “epiphany” was him seeing a chance to play wedge politics.
Not gonna work, Sen. Smith.
Guytaur
Surely he didn’t confuse his followers with his friends.
He overstepped the market and should have at minimum received an official warning.
market = mark
Mexican
He did not over step the market. He expressed a private opinion in a public forum.
He has that right. Those that do not like those opinions have the right to unfollow him.
[Are they going to sack this Vietnam Vet for decrying the sanitising of war?]
Does he work as a commentator for SBS?
Guytaur
Yes except when one is employed, they sign up to a contract which sets out certain standards, if he wanted to make those sorts of comments then he should have used an account under a fake name.
Has he is a Jurno, I gather he has some sort of qualifications which would have included the dos and don’t of social media.
He has no excuse, the dangers of social media are well known, if a jurno doesn’t know these things than what else don’t they know about journalist standards.
TrueBlueAussie@36
I’m aware that TBA is a blatant troll who may not even believe what he/she types. However I suspect the suggestion may have some sincere support among some of the more socially conservative/reactionary posters on here.
I would ask this of anyone who supports a referendum on SSM: Why? There are hundreds of political issues dealt with by parliaments every year. Many of them directly impact on far more people than allowing same-sex marriage (which impacts positively on a small percentage of the population and negatively on just about no-one.) What makes SSM special that it merits a referendum while all these other issues do not?
I also ask those who support a referendum that could perpetuate the denial of basic equal treatment under the law, whether they would be prepared to have all aspects of their own lives continually subject to similar referenda.
TrueBlueTroll @36:
[Gay Marriage should be put to a referendum.
Give the Australian people a conscience vote.]
First, what business is it of yours whether I marry an adult woman or an adult man? For a “get the government out of it all” type, you’re extremely quick to advocate that the government tell me how to live my life!
(And please don’t trot out the old “it’s the next step toward bestiality!” furphy…even a Liberal troll should know better.)
Second, when you lose the vote – as every poll for the past several years indicates you will, absent serious 1999-style referendum ratf**king – what will your complaint be then?
Because I’ve seen enough of you to know that you will still have a problem with SSM, even if it gets your cherished seal of democratic approval.
It’s interesting that you don’t think democratic approval is needed for tearing up the social contract, wrecking domestic industries for ideology’s sake or breaking numerous election promises, but it’s needed to tell you that you don’t get to tell me who I can marry.
MB – have you read the relevant parts of the SBS terms of employment before commenting?
I support same sex marriage. I don’t agree with Tanya Plibersek that it should not be a conscience vote because it is too much for some Labor members to cope with. Then again, all Joe de Bruyn has done is show that some Labor members are under orders from his church leaders.
But Dean Smith is just being a politicised prat. He has come to his position very late and is now reflecting the worst of classic Liberal behaviour – for him and them there is no issue that cannot be closely examined to wring out any possible political advantage; and whatever the problem is, even a problem with the internal workings of the Liberal Party, it’s all Labor’s fault.
It’s time they made up their own minds whether they will allow a conscience vote, instead of looking for someone else to blame to justify their gutless wimping of even looking at the issue.
TrueBlueTroll @40:
[Gay people can have a non-religious ceremony with all the same rights and it’s called a Civil Union.]
Incorrect. Domestic partnerships are registered in some States (but not others); however, Commonwealth law precludes civil unions, and for many purposes of Commonwealth law, same-sex partnerships don’t exist and can’t exist.
And in any case, I’m not going to ask my partner to “civil union” me someday, I’m going to ask him to marry me. Your absurd ‘solution’ reeks of separate-but-equal, and how did that turn out when America tried it?
Mexican
That is employer overreach. Private views have nothing to do with the employer and the employer should have no say in censoring the employee.
Employers should keep their noses out of the private lives of their employees. Some church type will use that type of clause to sack gay people. A racist coud use it to sack peoplel of different ethnicity.
Its going too far and will be reigned in as people realise they have the right to say what they like when they are not working as a direct employee of a business. The employer does not get the right to muzzle people’s individual views.
We have laws for real offensive comments and that should be it. Business just has to accept this fact,
Adrian
No, but I am guessing that the terms of employment would be pretty standard.
If SBS are incorrect in how they dismissed him the he may have potential grounds for unfair dismissal.
H.R departments are often pretty cautious about just sacking someone for this very reason.
Yes, the guy has the right to free speech. He exercised it.
His employers also have rights, which they also exercised.
Rights carry responsibilities; exercising them carries consequences.
TPOF @144:
[I support same sex marriage. I don’t agree with Tanya Plibersek that it should not be a conscience vote because it is too much for some Labor members to cope with.]
Why is it that Labor MHRs can be ordered to vote in lockstep on virtually every other issue – including many that actively harm innocent people – but not this one? The last PM who allowed more than one conscience vote in a given year was Whitlam!
What’s so traumatising about the idea same-sex marriage that Labor Party stalwarts suddenly can’t stomach the idea of voting the Party line on this issue?
zoomster
BS. Using the threat of sacking is muzzling free speech. That is not two rights being recognised. That is using the threat of a loss of income to muzzle the right of free speech.