A ReachTEL automated phone poll in the Sunday Fairfax papers is another 53-47 result, with primary votes of 40.2% for the Coalition, 38.3% for Labor and 12.8% for the Greens. These results are all but identical to a ReachTEL poll conducted for the Seven Network a week ago, with none of the primary vote changes amounting to more than 0.4%. An all-or-nothing choice of preferred prime minister, with no uncommitted option, records a 58.5-41.5 lead for Bill Shorten over Tony Abbott, up from 55.1-44.9 in the Seven Network poll. Both leaders are found to be in third place as best leader for their party, which for Labor runs 40.1% Anthony Albanese, 34.9% Tanya Plibersek and 25.0% for Bill Shorten, and for the Liberals goes 45.4% Malcolm Turnbull, 24.4% Julie Bishop, 18.9% Tony Abbott and 11.4% Scott Morrison. All we have to go on at this point is this photo of the hard copy, so it’s not yet clear when the poll was conducted or how big the sample size was.
UPDATE: The report in The Age establishes that the poll was conducted on Thursday night from a sample of 2534. I’m anticipating another four polls over the coming days UPDATE: Sorry, make that three.
Not unexpected. Trump’s campaign imploding –
[Donald Trump axed from event over Megyn Kelly blood comment]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33833516
lizzie @46
Yes. I find the ALP response to global warming equivocal and poll driven.
Shorten needs to say coal workers “Your industry is damaging to the environment and in decline, but we will support you through the transition as best we can.”
Morning all.
For Chris Hadfield fans he’ll be in Australia the next two weeks, doing a tour of the capitals.
Dates and venues here:
https://lateralevents.com/public-events/chris-hadfield-live-on-stage/
[Plus the way Reachtel structures the PPM I think gives a distorted view.]
Au contraire, I think it gives a bit more accurate view of the reality. Or at least helps clarify the reality.
Other polls with the option of ‘none of the above’ (ie don’t know or can’t say) show pretty tight PPM. At elections, you don’t get an ‘none of the above’ option unless you’re going to put in an informal vote. Reachtel helps sort through that chaff and put the acid on the respondent to make a call.
And that’s always seemed to support my call that Bill is doing all he needs to against Abbott – stay on his feet. When it comes to the crunch Abbott can’t try the ‘better the devil you know’ gambit, because the clear majority of those who know him will go for the drover’s dog. Plenty of people are less than enthused about Bill for a range of reasons and so go for the ‘none of the above’ option when polled, but they will sure as hell vote for him for PM if the only other option is Tony Bloody Abbott as Reachtel is showing.
Whether Shorten can change his game and compete with a new Liberal leader is the great unknown. I suspect he’d cope just fine and that he’s being greatly under-rated, but I also suspect Bill is lying doggo a fair bit in order to keep Abbott in place. Why help the Libs get a more formidable team in place?
Shorten will know the dangers well as should all Labor people who have seen the problems both Keating and Rudd created for themselves by destroying Hewson and Downer / Nelson and Turnbull. It’s much safer to leave a sure loser in place if you can than to take the risk of having a new guy (and lets face it with the Libs it’ll be a guy) who turns out to not be the joke candidate Howard and Abbott were expected to be (or at least can get enough media polishing to not be as obviously a joke until after he actually won an election in Abbott’s case).
[Shorten needs to say coal workers “Your industry is damaging to the environment and in decline, but we will support you through the transition as best we can.”]
Shorten needs to do no such thing. Shorten needs to choose fights he can easily win and not give Abbott any oxygen to get a scare campaign going. That’s it. Get into government run some enquiries etc that show what a complete disaster the Abbott government was and how the Libs claims to competence on economics and security as so much BS.
Then he needs to govern from the centre, not getting so far ahead of the populace that the right wing media can get another wrecker like Abbott up.
Get that right and he’ll have three terms to set in stone some really important reforms like Carbon pricing and help set the economy up for the future. Get it wrong and he runs the serious risk of more terms of right wing stupid buggering up the country.
[Get into government run some enquiries etc that show what a complete disaster the Abbott government was ]
Oh yes, I really hope this happens. Starting with the farce that is direct action. Not only useless in mitigating GHGEs, but inordinately costly to taxpayers and therefore unsustainable as an emissions reduction strategy.
While I am no fan of Shorten, I agree he should not change strategy unless the Liberals switch to Turnbull or Bishop. The pressure is on the Liberals, and there is no point shifting the focus.
Whereas Adani has the potential to become an embarrassment. While avoiding talk of winding up coal, Labor needs to start talking about protecting jobs, shifting new investment towards renewables, and asking Hunt hard questions about his hopeless departmental management. All those things give Shorten the perfect excuse to walk away from Adani and new coal mines generally. Then he can talk about assisting people in the transition. There are now more jobs making wind farms than making coal mines. The latter has become very automated.
TS
[Yes. I find the ALP response to global warming equivocal and poll driven.]
Bollocks. The ALP stuck with a price on carbon even after losing an election where removing a price from carbon was one of the main issues.
What’s happening with the mine is that it’s a classic case of sovereign risk. There are rules in place. If the mine meets the rules, it goes ahead.
You can’t have a system where the rules get disregarded because of ideology — if you do, you end up with disasters of Abbott government proportions.
It’s again a case of if the rules aren’t doing what they’re supposed to (or what you want them to) then change the rules.
I doubt Adani will get up, because I doubt Adani meets the standards required. But that’s now up to the courts to decide, not the LOTO.
Exquisite timing lol
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/politician-entitlements-former-mps-high-court-bid-to-boost-allowances-20150807-giuc21.html
[Former federal politicians have launched a High Court bid to claw bigger allowances and better travel entitlements from the taxpayer.
Fairfax Media can reveal that even as the Bronwyn Bishop expenses scandal was at its peak last month, four former lower house MPs – Labor’s Barry Cunningham, Tony Lamb and Barry Cohen and Liberal John Moore – issued the court with a writ of summons seeking a boost to their already generous post-parliament payments.]
Zoom
By your own logic Labor should not support Adani for economic reasons. It does not meet the rules for investment even if there were no environmental rules. It does not stack up, does not create many jobs, and requires hundreds of millions in government subsidy in the form of government funded rail lines. One of the problems is that Adani has employed ex Labor and Liberal staffers as lobbyists. So Labor has difficulty walking away from a turkey project.
It is Gunn’s pulp mill all over again. Still time to back out. Have a good day all.
The interesting thing about the Reachtel PPM for me is that Shorten’s lead amongst voters for ‘others’ is almost identical to the overall position.
I don’t know what Abbott/Rudd’s numbers were like in Reachtel amongst others before the last election, but it would be interesting if there was a strong relationship between that and how their preferences flowed. Such a relationship would of course make logical sense. Perhaps Billbowe or KB can assist? Abbott’s overall numbers on PPM locked in within 1% of the final 53.5% 2PP from the 10th of Aug, but I can’t find a breakdown by voting intention.
But assuming there might be a strong correlation between others voters PPM and where their prefs flow, it might add a little more credibility to the theory that Labor’s position is actually understated in the polls by 0.5 – 1% due to much better preference flows coming back to them than were achieved at the last election. Same as happened in Qld, but to a lesser degree. With other’s running at around 10% an improvement of prefs for Labor from 40% to 50-50 would yield a whole percent improvement on 2PP that isn’t showing in the polling.
Wouldn’t be betting my house on it, but I do believe there is a significant number of people out there parked in the others column who can’t stand Abbott, but won’t commit to Labor (or Greens) yet their prefs will head that way in reverse of where they went last time.
Zoomster
Totally agree re Adani. There is nothing to be gained by loudly opposing it, given that it is ready to die a commercial death. And for the same reason there is a lot to be lost by way of spending political capital in opposing it.
Soc
Yes, which is why I think it will fail to get up.
And if that’s also Labor’s reading of the situation, no need to needlessly antagonise investors in the meantime.
As for Gunns, I thought there was a reasonable case for it going ahead. We all use paper. Producing paper here using state of the art technology and where operations can be supervised versus importing paper from overseas when we don’t know (or care) how it was produced seems a good idea to me.
Smarmy, smug Di Natale is on Insiders this morning no doubt to lecture us all with his moral superiority. 🙁
confessions,
Is that a guilty conscience talking?
🙂
LOL maybe!
If politicians do the wrong thing we criticise them
If they do the right thing, we call them smarmy, smug and say they are lecturing us on moral superiority!
Its a tough life being a pollie…
Good Morning
Good to see polling confirmation of my view that Mr Shorten has done well over the expenses scandal.
By that I mean he has attacked in a calm measured way and stayed out of the mess. Of course the reason its so bad for Abbott is he is the one doing the cutting while his side rides high on the entitlement age.
Ah, the smarmy smug one says he’s had his family flown to Canberra at taxpayers’ expense.
H
With this polling how long until Turnbull makes his move?
…so it must be the right thing to do.
zoomster
I don’t see smarmy smug in this interview. Thats just anti Green propaganda.
I have absolutely no problem with politicians flying their kids to see them in Canberra.
Do you?
I reckon he won’t “make a move”, but he might take the job if the move is made.
Making a move tars you for the rest of your career. Shorten is impacted by his moves (his popularity aint that cash hot either).
Bishop is another contender if Abbott falls on his sword.
[how long until Turnbull makes his move?]
As long as it takes for the right to come to him begging. ie never.
Actually note no lecturing on what others should do from the Greens on expenses. I have not seen one Green say a word about the expenses of Mr Burke. Just on Bishop breaking the rules.
Talk about changing the system in a policy sense of course as has the other parties.
H and Ratsak
I think you have summed up things well.
Now Savva getting stuck into Abbott to try and get those moves started
Smarmy and smug and moral lecturing is a pretty apt description of Burke’s comments on Bishop……right before we heard about his Business class trips for his kids to Uluru.
I too think BBishop will retire at the next election.
Shorter Di Natale..
‘My travel claim is more legitimate than Tony Burkes..’
..HYPOCRITE!!..
..smarmy, smug hypocrite..
[I have not seen one Green say a word about the expenses of Mr Burke.]
He mentioned it in that Insiders interview, referencing Uluru as an exotic location.
I ended up muting him because all he did was whinge and complain.
[markjs
‘My travel claim is more legitimate than Tony Burkes..’]
Abolutely.
He is right too.
[..HYPOCRITE!!..]
re you referring to Burke criticising Bishop for spending too much money when he took his kids business class to a resort on taxpayer expense?
Interesting Reachtel Question 3, 9.9% of LNP voters say Shorten is better PM then abbott.
2.7% of Labor voters say abbott would be better then Shorten.
ModLib
again, let’s spell it out – Bishop broke the rules, Burke didn’t.
It was Burke’s job to run the case against Bishop. If he hadn’t, there would have been questions asked as to why he wasn’t. And anyone who did prosecute the case against Bishop would have ended up having their expenses scrutinised.
[ As TEPCO officials face criminal charges over the lack of preparedness with regard Fukushima, and The IAEA Report assigns considerable blame to the Japanese culture of “over-confidence & complacency,” Bloomberg reports,
Japan is about to do something that’s never been done before: Restart a fleet of mothballed nuclear reactors.
The first reactor to meet new safety standards could come online as early as next week. Japan is reviving its nuclear industry four years after all its plants were shut for safety checks following the earthquake and tsunami that wrecked the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station north of Tokyo, causing radiation leaks that forced the evacuation of 160,000 people.
Mothballed reactors have been turned back on in other parts of the world, though not on this scale — 25 of Japan’s 43 reactors have applied for restart permits. ]
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-08/be-afraid-japan-about-do-something-thats-never-been-done
confessions
It is an exotic location. Of course its arguable that Canberra is an exotic location too.
Di Natalie is only a hypocrite if he goes after Burke in the personal sense. Talking about travelling to exotic locations to distinguish from a reasonable expenses for family to go to Canberra in a policy sense is perfectly sensible.
Mr Burke has said the same thing himself in his presser.
You can say the policy is wrong and has to change even while you have legitimately used them.
ModLib
[Burke criticising Bishop for spending too much money]
No, he criticised her for breaking the rules.
[zoomster
Posted Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:34 am | PERMALINK
ModLib
again, let’s spell it out – Bishop broke the rules, Burke didn’t.]
How do you reconcile you post @ 9:34 with your post @ 9:21?
[zoomster
Posted Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:21 am | PERMALINK
Ah, the smarmy smug one says he’s had his family flown to Canberra at taxpayers’ expense.]
[guytaur
….You can say the policy is wrong and has to change even while you have legitimately used them.]
Absolutely. Like being able to reduce your tax burden by making a Meal Entertainment expense for Wedding catering.
Its ridiculous, but you can do it if you work for health.
The point is if you are working within the rules so be it, but don’t castigate a colleague for doing something that you are doing- thats hypocrisy.
Di Natale is a POLITICIAN ..he used his travel entitlements within the rules..
Burke is a POLITICIAN ..he used his travel entitlements within the rules..
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE ..BOTH ARE LEGITIMATE CLAIMS..
Bronwyn Bishop is a POLITICIAN ..SHE BROKE THE RULES..
..them’s the FACTS, folks..
[zoomster
…No, he criticised her for breaking the rules.]
What rule has she broken? That hasn’t been established yet, thats just an allegation.
Why wait for future Royal Commissions to make Labor’s argument for it? Isn’t it a Labor leader’s responsibility to be making that argument repeatedly and eloquently?
If Shorten has no argumentative skill in opposition what makes you think he will suddently gain this skill in government? What you are advocating is essentially what Abbott did and look how that turned out!
Because he’s criticising Burke for not breaking the rules in the same manner Di Natale himself says he didn’t break the rules?
[markjs
….Bronwyn Bishop is a POLITICIAN ..SHE BROKE THE RULES..]
So if the review finds that Bishop did not break any rules, you will come back here and argue for either:
1. Bronwyn Bishop to be restated as Speaker and have her expenses refunded
or
2. Burke should resign and refund the expense claim
Yeah?
guytaur:
Di Natale’s comment was a veiled attack on Burke. Plain and simple.
And fwiw I don’t agree with taxpayers paying for family to travel to Canberra per se, apart from in exceptional circumstances.
This issue isn’t as simple as Di Natale implied in that interview.
This could be interesting
Mr Ball is the first AFL player to come out. So he has a following already.
@greensjason: It’s time to shake up politics, excited to announce that I’ll be running for the Greens in Higgins: http://t.co/HlHYN11V3h #auspol
Di Natale personalised the issue by using Burke’s claim as evidence the rules are wrong..
He could have just said something like ..”We’ve all used the family re-union travel claim within the current rules. WE all now accept the rules need to be changed.”
This is what Burke said in his presser..
ModLib
very easily.
Firstly, calling someone smarmy doesn’t mean you think they’re wrong.
Secondly, I was pointing out that – contrary to the inferred position of some posters here – DiNatale had taken advantage of exactly the same ‘perk’ Burke had.
Neither Burke or DiNatale have broken the rules.
Bishop did.
So that’s the Lib tactic?
“We won’t allow the police to charge her, so what she’s done is only an allegation because she hasn’t been charged”?
Effen brilliant.