To set the ball rolling on a new prime ministership, a walk through some highlights of Malcolm Turnbull’s polling record:
• On five occasions, pollsters asked how respondents would vote if Malcolm Turnbull were prime minister, by way of contrast with the headline results. On each occasion, the two-party vote for the Coalition under Turnbull was substantially higher – by 4% in an Essential Research poll in June 2011; by 7% and 8% in ReachTEL and AMR Research polls shortly after Kevin Rudd resumed the prime ministership in July 2013; and by 6% and 9% in Galaxy and ReachTEL polls immediately after the first Liberal Party spill vote in February (compared with 4% and 6% if Julie Bishop had been leader).
• The chart below shows trends in preferred Liberal leader polling during the period of Tony Abbott’s party leadership, encompassing 35 results from Morgan, Essential Research, ReachTEL, Ipsos and Nielsen. There has been some variability in the options available in these polls, but all featured Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop and Joe Hockey, with the exception of the two most recent Morgan results, which dropped Joe Hockey. Scott Morrison only became a regular in the middle of last year.
• The next chart records Malcolm Turnbull’s approval and disapproval trends in Newspoll while he was Opposition Leader. Unfortunately, the trend smooths out the dislocation that occurred following “Utegate” in June 2009, which you can get a clear sense of if you view the individual poll results marked by the circles. More recently, there have been three occasions when pollsters have gauged personal ratings for Turnbull. In January 2014, UMR Research respectively had his approval at 42% and disapproval at 30%. Essential Research recorded 44% approval and 31% disapproval in June 2014, which improved to 47% and 24% last month.
Just Me: He’d also have to renegotiate the agreement with Telstra AGAIN. Wow.
Four days short of a PM’s pension? If I was Margie, I would divorce him for that alone.
Essential is out and no boost to Turnbull. Leadershit failure 🙂
[1037
davidwh
For example I think most swinging voters would be satisfied with a plebiscite on SSM in 1 to 2 years post the next election and don’t see SSM as a deciding issue at present.
It really will come down to the economy and leadership.]
While I agree that the real fight will be the economy, Turnbull’s stance on ssm will damage his reputation for being principled in the eyes of the public, and serve to shorten (hah!) Turnbull’s honeymoon period. It goes to his character, just as it did for Gillard.
davidwh – Most people think we’re having a divisive and expensive plebiscite because the Government is full of knuckledraggers. They’re paid to legislate – then legislate.
Guytaur
A lot of the reaction on Twitter is from people who are already politically engaged and have a position on the issue which is what I said.
Jimmy is quite right to point out that Turnbull stakes his political cred on being a moderate but at this stage the voters are just happy to see the end of Tony, and want to see a clearer message from an unity team.
This partyroom voted for a public vote, he has promised to be a collaborative leader.
As long as he remains a public supporter of SSM, and as long as the opposition support it then it will happen, I will be the first to admit a public vote is a great waste of money on a matter that should be managed by the parliament.
In conclusion, Turnbull has inherited many such policy problems, its now his job to justify his position and in time we the voters will pass judgement.
K17 most people don’t think about SSM except when politicians get all hot and sweaty about it and then only briefly.
[Dareto – He has to provide guarantees that Chinese Labor will not flood into Australia under the Chafta. Surely, he will close that loophole. That will be a very interesting test.]
Nope. He’s already closed off on that one to bash Labor by doubling down on the FTA. To now negotiate a compromise that legislates the protects Labor is asking for would be to admit that all the huff and puff about doing the CFMEU’s bidding was just a bunch of lies.
Silly stuff from Turnbull. He could have done a Howard and said it’s not required, but we’ll do it to make everyone happy and it would have been an instant break from Abbottism and attack. Instead he’s gone all in on beating Labor and the Unions campaign starting from a long way behind.
Why can’t leaders just come out and say they did a deal with the rightwing of their party over SSM? They could explain that nothing can be done without that support and they had to compromise.
davidwh
The point of mentioning these policies is to ask what has changed.
KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN@1055
And why not plebiscites on any number of other issues?
A plebiscite was always a delaying tactic. It still is.
LNP don’t seem to think people realise it.
I’m no fan of Turnbull, but there’s sure been some pretty nonsense analysis on PB this afternoon.
First of all, the far right anger against Turnbull will soon dissipate, and will have no more impact on the chances of the Coalition at the next election than did the Greens’ strong performance in Victoria on the outcome for Labor. If, by some chance, a couple of Federal Lib seats went back to the Nats, or to Family First, or the Liberal Democrats, it’s not going to make an iota of difference to their chances of winning government.
Xenophon, Lambie, PUP (although it’s had it) and some sort of One Nation-type party would be more of a worry, because all of these might conceivably run with populist “free lunch” policies, and might be prepared to sell themselves to Labor if it was the highest bidder. But the strong forces driving these sorts of parties are unrelated to how Abetz, Bernadi, Hadley or Bolt and their fans might feel about Turnbull. Indeed, Turnbull is well placed to neutralise these forces in places like Victoria, SA and Tas by being less stubborn than Abbott was about doling out defence and other contracts.
The other silliness I’m reading here is the view that Turnbull’s “sell-out” on climate change and SSM is going to cost him votes. All the Libs need to do to retain government is to hang on to all the votes they won in 2013. Could someone give me an estimate as to what proportion of people who voted Liberal or National in 2013 would be guided in their choice of party by whether or not it had a left-oriented stance on these issues? That’s right: it’s somewhere between zero and none.
Turnbull might well come a cropper: his judgement is way short of that we have seen from the best political leaders in Australia (eg, think of the trust he placed in Godwin Grech); he comes across as a seriously smug sort of a wanker; he uses far too many words to answer any question he is asked; and he’s trying to mix oil and water in terms of the competing policy views within the party he leads.
But whether or not these sorts of things are going to bring him down will take time to work themselves through.
For a while he will have a honeymoon. His party is far more likely to get coherently behind him than was Gillard’s. He will have a pretty good crack at the next election: far, far better than Abbott would have faced. Abbott was looking set to be another Campbell Newman. Turnbull could be Baird, or he could yet turn out to be Napthine. It’s not clear yet, and it’s silly to assume that it’s all going to end badly. We don’t have enough information yet on which to base such a view, especially given that Shorten is a pretty weak Opposition Leader: clearly more of a Crean than a Rudd.
dwh
Labor disagrees with you. That is why Plibersek asked the question about legislating EM today.
Highlights the cost and delay when outcome already known.
General public even those opposed to SSM really think a plebiscite is a waste of money and don’t want it.
All want parliament to make the decision and save the money. Those opposed are resigned to the reality that its inevitable its just when
davidwh – Lots of young people in particular think about it a lot. I’ve got lots of nieces and nephews in their 20s who have gay friends, etc etc for whom it is very important.
One of the telling lines Turnbull used in his speech was dragging the LNP into the 21st century.
People listening did not think Turnbull was just talking tech.
Pascoe –
[ Day 1: Turnbull leads from the back ]
http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/liberal-leadership-new-day-new-government–sort-of-20150915-gjn2mr.html
Dave I never said it was efficient just necessary to drag the old fogies in the Coalition over the line. It simply won’t happen otherwise unless Labor wins the next election in which case they can pass the necessary legislation without the plebiscite.
Labor should now go full bore on NBN to show that under Turnbull’s watch the price has escalated wildly.
Davidwh:
Let’s take it as a given that, while it’s not terribly important to most people, we generally are in agreement that marriage equality is a good thing.
Why, then, is Parliament chucking away $158,000,000 to run a plebiscite on it, when s.51(xxi) of the Constitution clearly grants Parliament to change the definition of marriage with the stroke of a pen?
If there must be a plebiscite on this – which doesn’t really impact most peoples’ lives – why is there NOT a plebiscite on the Medicare rebate changes, or the Newstart changes, or the health funding changes, or bombing Syria?
Why are peoples’ right to marry being treated as requiring more public input than so many other issues, when most people care so much less? And where have Turnbull’s principles gone? Didn’t he support marriage equality, once upon a time?
meher baba
Turnbull failed abysmally when LOTO. What makes you think he will succeed with all the baggage of the current govt and knifing Abbott?
guytaur@1063: “General public even those opposed to SSM really think a plebiscite is a waste of money and don’t want it.”
I thought the opinion polling I saw – I can’t remember what it was, but William might recall – showed overwhelming support for a plebiscite.
“@workmanalice: Christopher Pyne just described Senator Cory Bernardi as “boutique senator” re three pieces of silver comments. #libspill”
Another fight
The purpose of todays questions fro the ALP had two purposes.
1 est Turnbull’s willingness to go against his party room at this stage
2 Test his positions against earlier positions
Its a test with the answers feeding into the questions when the government starts to fall apart.
victoria @1070:
[meher baba
Turnbull failed abysmally when LOTO. What makes you think he will succeed with all the baggage of the current govt and knifing Abbott?]
Because he’s Malcolm Turnbull, ofc! Investment bankers are a superior breed of being, don’tcha know?
meher baba @1071:
[guytaur@1063: “General public even those opposed to SSM really think a plebiscite is a waste of money and don’t want it.”
I thought the opinion polling I saw – I can’t remember what it was, but William might recall – showed overwhelming support for a plebiscite.]
I recall the poll in question – and I remember thinking about the question, “What a piece of push-polling cr@p!”
The fact that Abbott failed fo attend QT, is indicative of how this is all gonna end in tears
guytaur @1072:
Wow….now the Coalition’s MPs are publicly slagging each other – on the floor of Parliament, no less!
Where’s the media feeding-frenzy on “woeful, dysfunctional circus” that we saw after 2010?
Oh, wait – it’s Liberal Party disarray. Nothing to see here, punters – move along…
[Having said that, I agree the real fight will be on the economy. But Turnbull’s backflip on ssm goes to his chararacter.]
This. He’s popularity is based largely on this stand and on CC. He is (wrongly) seen as principled because he has stood against the right on these and that moderate and realistic approach is what the people who deserted Abbott are looking for. Because they aren’t close watchers of politics they won’t understand the whys and wherefores about him not delivering a real climate change policy and not just getting on with SSM. What these people will see is a guy who used to talk a big game, but now he’s the PM is arguing the exact opposite of what he argued before. That will jar as false.
So it’s not the importance of the issues per se. It’s that Turnbull was seen as Mr ETS and Mr SSM, and now he’s arguing for Tony Abbott’s old positions. People aren’t going to buy it for long. And once they start thinking he’s a fake over those, then they’ll think he’s a fake on everything, especially the economy, especially if it doesn’t miraculously turn around now Abbott and Hockey are gone. Not fair of course, but that’s never stopped Libs using such opportunities to their advantage and neither will nor should Labor.
davidwh@1067
What I said above still applies though –
[ And why not plebiscites on any number of other issues?
A plebiscite was always a delaying tactic. It still is.
LNP don’t seem to think people realise it. ]
If turnbull is going to just parrott abbott’s policies AND Captains picks – people *might* just notice nothing has changed.
So much for turnbull “standing for something”. That didn’t last a day.
I’m judging him by the same standards Labor would be.
Matt agreed that SSM is a good thing and will happen. Turnbull’s problem is simple. He doesn’t currently have the numbers to get a free vote on the issue but suspect he will move if and when the situation changes. If nothing changes in the party room then the plebiscite is a way to make it happen.
Chances are Labor will win in 2016 and legislate change.
Either way it will happen in the next 12-24 months.
[1062
meher baba
First of all, the far right anger against Turnbull will soon dissipate]
That may be so, but the far right members of the Liberal Party will not allow Turnbull to do what is necessary to recover support for the government.
While ssm is not a vote changer, it is a signal that Turnbull is under the control of the right.
Direct action is not supported by the public, the public thinks this government is doing too little on climate change, and it remains to be seen whether Turnbull can convince the right to allow him to increase Australia’s climate commitments.
Nonsense. Abbott took 16 hours to concede and resign. Bernardi was an utter trot this morning, and Morrison is biding his time.
ratsak
I agree and if the economy starts to tank then the lack of cred will just feed into it and the polls could well be back to where they were last week
dwh
Turnbull cannot change on SSM. He has signed a deal with the Nats not to change.
His King Arthur act of incest
davidwh @1080:
[Matt agreed that SSM is a good thing and will happen. Turnbull’s problem is simple. He doesn’t currently have the numbers to get a free vote on the issue but suspect he will move if and when the situation changes. If nothing changes in the party room then the plebiscite is a way to make it happen.
Chances are Labor will win in 2016 and legislate change.
Either way it will happen in the next 12-24 months.]
In the meantime, Turnbull’s very publicly hitched his wagon to Abbott’s (ridiculous) policy on the matter. That it will happen is not much in question – I’m questioning why the $158m spend on a plebiscite when (a) we’re in a “Budget emergency” and (b) Other issues – ones that much more affect how most people actually live! – don’t warrant the same consideration.
[1071
meher baba
I thought the opinion polling I saw – I can’t remember what it was, but William might recall – showed overwhelming support for a plebiscite.]
Yes, and the public also overwhelmingly supported a conscience vote fo Coalition MPs. The public supports any means by which marriage equality can be allowed.
“@AustralianLabor: Turnbull’s first 24 hours:
✔ Commit to ineffective climate change plan
✔ Commit to delay marriage equality
✔ Support Abbott’s unfair cuts”
[Turnbull cannot change on SSM. He has signed a deal with the Nats not to change.]
In that case SSM will just take longer to happen. That’s the reality of the numbers in the Coalition at present.
Maybe blogs with a right wing readership will have Abbott-Turnbull wars for the next few years.
Guytaur
Sometimes I wonder if you spend much time away from your local community.
Many Australians are outright politically incorrect and they vote, of course in saying that, we might find in six months time that the government is stronger enough to say FU to the anti-SSM crowd.
Turnbull was set up by the right wing nutters of his party back in 2009. Does anyone really believe that those same nutters in the party will not be plotting against him again? For those that promises were made for his support, there are others that will be extremely resentful.
MB
Then I am right there with Labor as you can see from their tweet I just posted
Matt
Should we send Turnbull some tissues, no, its up to him to justify such budget waste on an issue which is Parliament’s job.
Guytaur
Yes we saw, tweet but we expect that, in fact we would be disappointed if the ALP didn’t say it.
FFS
The ME issues is a piece of trivia in the REAL battle before Turnbull and he would need his head read if he took it up.
Frankly guys, those of you who rate this issue as more important that jobs, jobs, jobs are elitist w**kers. I think a gay auto worker/sub builder in SA will rank his chance to marry his beloved well below the certainty of having a job Xmas 2017. After all if he has no job he cannot afford a wedding celebration and in any case he may have to move interstate for work, leaving his beloved behind.
Talcum has to restore business confidence and prevent Australia heading into recession. ME is maybe 999th in the list of urgent actions.
victoria@1070: I don’t necessarily think he will succeed. I’m just not prepared to conclude that he won’t. It’ll come down to his leadership skills. He’s got the right sort of ideas and knowledge to make a go of it: like Rudd – and not like Gillard or Abbott – he’s exactly the sort of person the average punter in the 21st century wants to see in the role of PM.
But I think he lacks the ability to bring people with him. So that will probably bring him undone in the end. But I can’t be sure about this.
I don’t think the policies of the current government are going to kill him, if he is able to knock some of the hard edges off them: eg, invest heavily in subs in SA and frigates in Victoria and WA, open up funding for public transport in Victoria, etc.
We’ll see what he does with the fiscal stuff. It won’t be easy, but Labor hasn’t really come up with any brilliant ideas in this space: a couple of reasonable revenue measures which aren’t going to raise bucketloads, but which are more than rubbed out by expenditure cuts they want to reverse, etc.
There is an opportunity for someone – and it might just be Turnbull – to pull together a really excellent and integrated package of revenue and health measures: modestly increased taxes on super, some sort of tightening around negative gearing/CGT, an increase in GST (with adequate compensation to low income earners), properly sustained payments to the States for hospitals and schools, and some modest income tax cuts or improved family payments as a sweetener. He could take this to the election and – if it was put together in the right way – I reckon it would be pretty difficult for Labor to counter.
Re the knifing Abbott issue. It’s not like Rudd for several reasons. 1) The average punter really doesn’t like Abbott, whereas, while they were becoming dissatisfied with Rudd by mid-2010, they hadn’t totally turned against him; 2) It’s been pretty clear for a while that Abbott has been living on borrowed time, so his removal was not the sort of shock that Rudd’s was; and 3) Abbott won’t be able to mount the sort of destabilising campaign that Rudd was: as I have already said, he doesn’t have the wherewithal. And I don’t think he really wants to.
Abbott didn’t do anything to destabilise Turnbull in 2009: the likes of Robb, Andrews and Bronwyn Bishop did it all for him. He’s no Kevin Rudd. Maybe Morrison has this ability, but he can’t lift a finger before the election because the narrative “Turnbull backstabbed the people’s choice as PM and the decision needs to be overturned” is infinitely more effective than “Turnbull backstabbed the people’s choice and therefore we should remove him and install someone else who the people didn’t choose”.
Meher Baba @1062
I think you are on the money in almost every regard in that post.
Turnbull’s job is to win them the next election and to more or less hold the same ground as the LNP gained in 2013. He learnt from this time as Opposition leader that he will need to bide his time on issues like SSM and climate change. The objective now is to do now more than speak intelligently and charismatically to the Australian people, many of whom will be utterly relieved to have an articulate, urbane and intelligent Prime Minister after the nightmare of Abbott. In doing so, Turnbull will convey subtly, as only he can, the constraints he operates under as leader of a broad party. But he will also allude to the future prospect of taking more decisive action on some of these contentious areas once his powerbase is consolidated, an election won, and a new direction charted.
I reserve judgment on whether Shorten is up to this, but prima facie he is not. His awkward TV appearance, weird cadence, odd emphases on certain words in a sentence and seeming lack of confidence were tolerable when the opponent was Abbott. These failings come into far sharper relief with his new opponent.
But let’s see.
mexicanbeemer
Ah, but there’s the thing… If he’d been smart he would have started preparing for a likely 2007 loss and begun cutting his cloth accordingly years before if only because not many governments get 5 terms. His personal economic management seemed to be much the same as his government’s!
Personally we have wasted a lot more than the cost of a plebiscite on much less important issues than removing unfair discrimination against a minority group. If that’s what it takes I can live with the cost. Hopefully things will change before a plebiscite is necessary.
[1078
ratsak
So it’s not the importance of the issues per se. It’s that Turnbull was seen as Mr ETS and Mr SSM, and now he’s arguing for Tony Abbott’s old positions.]
Exactly, that’s what davidwh and meher baba are not getting. Just as Gillard got caught up in the carbon price/tax debate and was then accused of breaking a promise (as well as looking fake on marriage equality) so too is Turnbull starting to look fake and unprincipled because of his backflipping on these two issues, precisely because he staked his reputation ON THESE issues.
Further, Gillard was accused of being beholden to right wing forces in the Labor Party over the ssm issue. This is exactly the same position Turnbull is now in.
DTT
Those that say third order issue are those opposing SSM.
Don’t be fooled. Its a first order issue of importance to many. It goes to their safety mental state due to self esteem etc.
Thats first order issue for them AND their families.
That means for the general public its NOT a third order issue.
This scale of issues is used to degrade the importance of something.
You now add to that how with Climate Change it goes to character and defines Turnbull on trust and thus on promises on the economy makes it a first order issue.