The Seven Network had a poll this evening from ReachTEL, which records a Coalition lead of 53-47 – a substantial shift on the 50-50 result it recorded on September 15, the evening after the leadership change. That’s all there is from that poll at this stage, but there were some headline-grabbing results today from a Morgan poll, conducted by telephone from a fairly small sample of 574. Bill Shorten could manage only fourth place on the question of preferred Labor leader, with Tanya Plibersek leading on 27% (up a point since July), Anthony Albanese second on 23% (up four), Wayne Swan third on 10% (steady) and Shorten down three to 9%. By contrast, Malcolm Turnbull’s first result for preferred Liberal leader as prime minister has him gaining from 44% to 64%, with Julie Bishop on 12% (down three), Tony Abbott on 8% (down five) and Scott Morrison on 4% (down one). The current leaders’ ratings were 66% approval and 16% disapproval for Turnbull, 25% approval (up one) and 62% disapproval (up two) for Shorten, and Turbull leading 76-14 as preferred prime minister.
UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes relates that ReachTEL has Turnbull leading Shorten 68.9-31.1 on preferred prime minister, with 40.2% saying Labor should replace Shorten as leader versus 26.0% opposed.
UPDATE 2: Full results from ReachTEL here. The sample was 3574 – big even by ReachTEL’s standards – with primary votes of 46.7% for the Coalition (up 3.4%), 33.0% for Labor (down 2.9%) and 11.3% for the Greens (down 0.6%).
GG:
Perhaps Di Natale is finding like Milne did, that it’s hard to get media attention as a minor party without resorting to stunts and cheap rhetoric.
shellbell
Nigel Owens can also sing a bit.
[REF Nigel Owens Singing ‘ Myfanwy ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xipxpHvOKQo
[A possible sighting of father-and-son fugitives Mark and Gino Stocco has sent police racing towards southern NSW.
A member of the public reported a possible sighting of the pair on the Hume Highway at Tarcutta, heading south towards Albury on the NSW-Victoria border.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/possible-sighting-of-fatherandson-fugitives-mark-and-gino-stocco-20151026-gkiklf.html#ixzz3pe5Wunpl ]
Nice of plod to tell the Stuccos about the latest hot tip and where they’re searching for them.
Bushfire Bill@1403
They did it continuously while chasing them in Victoria.
BB
I assume they have a radio in their car 😀
Perhaps the police should stop saying they’re throwing all their expertise at catching the ‘bushrangers’. Puts egg on their face whenever they’re eluded.
“That damned elusive Pimpernel.”
I will use that one!
bemused@1373
New book out about the Whitlam Dismissal apparently that wretch Sir John Kerr was talking to Malcolm Fraser for months before Nov 11th.
Re: the Paul Sheehan piece, I like how he writes off Labor Ministers on the basis they are ex-public service/career pollies, and then praises Morrison and Porter for their previous “successful careers” in the public service and politics.
I realise they’ve ditched editors at Fairfax, but surely at least Sheehan reads the stuff he writes?
[Porter was treasurer and attorney-general of Western Australia before seeking a seat in Federal Parliament..]
Sorry, what? Isn’t the whole contention of this article about life experience outside of politics?
(As for wiping the floor with Labor in QT, I found Porter’s performance dismal – I was genuinely surprised when I realised how it was speaking, because I’d been led to believe Porter was a quality candidate).
[Sorry, what? Isn’t the whole contention of this article about life experience outside of politics?]
He did practice law for a while didn’t he?
[He did practice law for a while didn’t he?]
Wasn’t he a lecturer at UWA for a bit too?
MTBW@1407
Jon Faine interviewed the author this morning and you may be able to get a podcast. If I can get a link I will post it.
[He did practice law for a while didn’t he?
Wasn’t he a lecturer at UWA for a bit too?]
But don’t get me wrong i can’t stand him.
Thanks bemused was it interesting?
WWP
Apparently Sheehan doesn’t know that…
[ poroti
Posted Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:29 am | Permalink
phoenix
Tony Blah’s words “I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong” . Not an apology at all. It is blaming other people . It is also a steaming pile of bullshit to portray himself as just going along with “intelligence” . He actively distorted what he had been told.
As the release of the Chilcot report crawls closer we’ll probably see increasing sightings of Mr Blah spreading his merde .
]
Faux sincerity. Weasel words. The Spin King strikes again: MICHAEL BURLEIGH on Tony Blair’s controversial Iraq war apology
Tony Blair relied on his Machiavellian spin doctor Alastair Campbell
As a result of his spin Blair took Britain to war five times in just six years
Blair struck a secret deal with George W Bush to support the Iraqi invasion
He then spent a year using spin and lies to secure Parliament’s approval
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3289169/Faux-sincerity-Weasel-words-Spin-King-strikes-MICHAEL-BURLEIGH-Tony-Blair-s-controversial-Iraq-war-apology.html#ixzz3pe7gXK1E
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I go right back to Graham Green’s brilliant book – ” The Quiet American” – and the aussie Phillip Noyce’s brilliant film of the same – where the French colonialism of the then Indo China led to the continued birthing of the Viet Min – after World War II, the Việt Minh opposed the re-occupation of Vietnam by France and later opposed South Vietnam and the United States in the Vietnam War as the Viet Cong.
Then onto Afghanistan – where Soviet/US intervention leads to the birth of Al-Qaeda
And the Iraq war and the deposing of strong men Saddam
Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi who kept these ratbag elements under control …..leads to a ‘power vacuum’ that allows the birth of ISIS
As Graham Greene said ….”Innocence is a kind of insanity” and despite the “good intensions” of the Western world to impose it religious and cultural ideas upon the Middle East ( and ITS OIL ) its been an abject failure …and Blair is just trying to excuse HIS role in the disaster of it all …..
MTBW@1414
Well the report in the Age/SMH covered most of it. The author was obviously quite outraged by what she had uncovered and when I can get a link up I do recommend listening. Buck Palace did not have clean hands.
Should be interesting! Thanks!
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/auburn-deputy-mayor-salim-mehajer-hits-out-at-police-over-ferrari-charges-20151025-gkibx0.html
Salim needs to pull his head in.
phoenix
Thanks for the link. Ho Chi Minh also opposed the Japanese and he and his forces were assisted by the Americans. Ho was very much pro American………. until they backed France’s desire to return as the colonial power.
Christian porter had a spell in the WA DPP where he met his second wife. Also worked at Clayton Utz and had a spell as a ministerial staffer, so he is one of the very people Sheehan seems to despise if they are labor MPs.
https://archiearchive.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/know-your-enemy-who-is-christian-porter/
[ poroti
Posted Monday, October 26, 2015 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
phoenix
Thanks for the link. Ho Chi Minh also opposed the Japanese and he and his forces were assisted by the Americans. Ho was very much pro American………. until they backed France’s desire to return as the colonial power.
]
Whatever moral authority the United States gained for helping the Soviets defeat Germany in World War II or for its “victory” in the Cold War has faded in a narrative of unpopular wars and repression that includes Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.
Since the 1980s, exceptionalism has become American leaders’ mantra. Henry Kissinger, despite having blood on his hands from Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Bangladesh and East Timor, wrote that the U.S. acts for “the well-being of all mankind,” explaining that “Americans have always seen their role in the world as the outward manifestation of an inward state of grace.”
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had the temerity to declare, “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation.”
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton stated, “We are the indispensable nation. We are the force for progress, prosperity, and peace,” which might seem an odd statement from a woman who supported the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as well as the bombing of Syria.
What, on the handful of occasions in Australian political history when there has been a Greens-backed Labor Government? The evidence is too scant to warrant the adverb “usually”.
William Bowe’s article in Crikey today shows that the Labor and Green primary votes declined after the handful of occasions when Labor has only been to govern with the support of the Greens. There is no analysis of what else was happening during those periods of government. They could have been difficult times to be in government. There could be a variety of reasons for a decline in both parties’ primary vote. The fact that they were in government together may not be the most compelling one.
Peter Brent could have written this slapdash article.
[Peter Brent could have written this slapdash article.]
Well I’ve said for years mumble and pollbludger should write together both good minds and their interests seem to intersect without really overlapping.
Don’t always agree with them but would love to see some joint writing.
Australians don’t seem to have shown a great love for weak governments that need support to govern, nor the compromises they necessarily make to do so. The stupidity and nastiness of the greens over the RGR period probably didn’t help either labor or the greens either, certainly was fatal for action on climate change.
[There could be a variety of reasons for a decline in both parties’ primary vote. The fact that they were in government together may not be the most compelling one.]
Name four other times when the Greens vote fell between 3.2% and 7.8%.
[Peter van Onselen @vanOnselenP 19m19 minutes ago
Newspoll tomorrow…]
dtt
[Labor needs to consider the real possibility that say in 2019 or 2022, they could scrape into government with support of a Greens Party with 7 or so seats. This could then force Labor to accept in the HoR which would mean that henceforth Labor would only govern with say a Greens vote of 18% and Labor of 33%. A coalition at this point may be a necessity.]
The nature of politics is that everyone is at each others’ throats and five minutes (or the other side of an election) they are cuddling up to each other as though they are BFFs. Whatever happens between now and whenever will be subsumed into whatever negotiations are required to wield power once whenever occurs.
Fess
Did you read Tim Dunlop’s piece linked earlier today by Just sayin?
[Since the 1980s, exceptionalism has become American leaders’ mantra. Henry Kissinger, despite having blood on his hands from Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Bangladesh and East Timor, wrote that the U.S. acts for “the well-being of all mankind,” explaining that “Americans have always seen their role in the world as the outward manifestation of an inward state of grace.”
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had the temerity to declare, “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation.”
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton stated, “We are the indispensable nation. We are the force for progress, prosperity, and peace,” which might seem an odd statement from a woman who supported the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as well as the bombing of Syria.]
Pretty much every dominant empire since dot has fabricated a similar delusional self-image and used equally fraudulent rhetoric to justify its greed & violence against others.
‘Twas always thus. 🙁
[I realise they’ve ditched editors at Fairfax, but surely at least Sheehan reads the stuff he writes?]
I now do a word check for ‘Shorten’ on Sheehan’s articles. If I find it (which is almost always), I know that it is a mindless rant and the article is not worth reading. Saves time and keeps my blood pressure in the normal range.
vic:
Not yet.
My response to “Labor-Greens coalitions don’t work” is the current coalition in the ACT which (from the polling I could see ie that one union poll) had strong results for Labor and the Greens.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/union-polling-shows-labor-vote-soft-as-light-rail-causes-rethink-20150901-gjcliy.html
[ The May polling showed 37 per cent of people would vote Labor, ahead of 32 per cent Liberals and 15 per cent Green.]
Fess
This bit stood out for me
[So my guess is that the support showing up for the Coalition in the polls now is an inch deep and a mile wide. It will retreat, not least because the new PM himself is a brittle personality – as his previous tenure as Liberal leader showed – but because his leadership is built on the fragile alliance of party factions that are at heart incommensurate.
Labor’s best response – if they are capable – is to get their own house in order, present a genuine alternative, and gently assist the internal contradictions within the Coalition to assert themselves. Full-frontal attacks on Mr Turnbull himself are unlikely to be effective for the time being.
But all this stuff is cosmetic.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-26/dunlop-the-post-traumatic-moment-in-australian-politics/6883098
[I now do a word check for ‘Shorten’ on Sheehan’s articles.]
Try doing a Google search for ‘Paul Sheehan dickhead’ and you’ll get about 1,270,000 results…
Nicholas@1423
Relevant causality is not that hard to find:
* in the case of the first Tasmanian Labor-Green accord, in the instability of the government, which began as a formal agreement then became an informal one, then the Greens teamed with the Liberals to sack a Minister, and eventually the Greens brought the government down over pulp quota issues. (This was in large part Labor’s fault for being too keen to get into government and hence giving the Greens much too much, but the Greens themselves chose to pull the trigger).
* in the case of the second Tasmanian Labor-Green government, in a widespread perception that a major forestry peace deal pursued so that the Greens could boast major achievements to their supporters, was in fact destroying the state’s forestry industry. The price of a stable coalition with the Greens was seen as taking the state’s economy somewhere no-one much apart from them wanted to go. At the same time the Greens were divided between pragmatists and purists, suffered from low morale and damaged their brand.
* in the case of the first federal Labor minority government with Greens support, in the whole TWBNCTUAGIL fiasco that created an impression Gillard was captive to the Greens, again as a result of Labor giving the Greens much more from the start than was actually necessary.
Of course there were other causal factors (eg in Tas 1989 the Libs had nearly bankrupted the state without telling anyone, leaving Labor with a terribly hard job to clean up the mess) but I doubt we’ve seen the last of the pattern. A lot of people don’t realise just how soft the Greens vote is. When their vote peaks, probably over a third of their vote comprises people who actually don’t even agree with the party’s ideology and are just voting Green as an up-yours to the majors. Those votes are very easy to peel off.
That said Tasmania is not an exact microcosm of Australia. Forestry issues here result in the Greens being seen as much more distinct from Labor than in other states.
victoria:
Thanks. As usual Dunlop makes some persuasive points.
I also think that as the coalition hasn’t really departed policy-wise from much of the Abbott platform, once MT’s popularity wanes and people realise their expectations aren’t being met, then what?
Airlines@1432
I think the ACT is the one place ALP-Green coalitions should be most expected to work – the downsides of them in the eyes of mainstream voters should be less severe than elsewhere, and the ACT’s “mainstream” is pretty left anyway.
That said, that union polling was Abbott-era. A poll today might be different … and the Greens tend to overperform in polls generally.
[* in the case of the first Tasmanian Labor-Green accord, in the instability of the government, which began as a formal agreement then became an informal one, then the Greens teamed with the Liberals to sack a Minister, and eventually the Greens brought the government down over pulp quota issues. (This was in large part Labor’s fault for being too keen to get into government and hence giving the Greens much too much, but the Greens themselves chose to pull the trigger).]
So the greens were a bloody awful coalition partner both going in and going out of Govt but it was all Labor’s fault (of course).
[That said Tasmania is not an exact microcosm of Australia. Forestry issues here result in the Greens being seen as much more distinct from Labor than in other states.]
So essentially it is not a natural coalition, and unlike the Nationals the greens don’t give a lot away to be on the good side of the house. Which would provide for conflicted and weak government by Labor which would poll poorly.
KB, 1435
As someone who doesn’t pay all that much attention to Tasmanian politics, was the forestry deal good/bad etc? I hear from my other Green friends complaining about it being repealed but they’re not really impartial.
Fess
Yep, he isnt on the Truffles lovefest train
Re the Tim Dunlop article today. He’s spot on with his comment that Labor’s best response to Turnbull is to go gently in presenting themselves as a viable, unified alternative government.
This is always the right strategy for an opposition in the first few years after losing government, unless it is in the unusual circumstance of finding itself up against a seriously incompetent and chaotic government: as was the case with the Libs under Fraser in 1975, State Labor under Palaszczuk and Andrews and, of course, Labor under Shorten while Abbott was PM.
The gentle approach will be right for Labor under Shorten unless and until the Turnbull Government starts to show any signs of serious incompetence and or instability.
Where I don’t agree with Dunlop is where he is asserting that such incompetence and instability is more or less inevitable for Turnbull, nor do I accept his implicit view – shared by many posters on PB – that Labor should expect to have a good chance of returning to government in the short term.
Like the Whitlam years, the Abbott years were an unusual period in Australian political history. Abbott’s behaviour – like that of Newman in Queensland, Geoff Shaw under Baillieu and Napthine, or Ministers Connor and Crean under Whitlam – is not something you see from leading politicians every day. Sure, the 2014 Budget was unpopular, but a less gormless Prime Minister (and, for that matter, Treasurer) would have been able to ride it out to a certain extent, rather than amplify its impact by bizarre decisions like threatening physical assault against the leader of another nation or knighting Prince Philip.
The removal of Abbott removes the unusual circumstances that made Shorten a strong contender to become the next PM. I am confident that Turnbull will lead his party to a victory at the next election. If this occurs, it will not mean that Shorten is a failure, nor will it mean that Labor would have done any better under Albo or someone else. It will simply be another instance of how hard it is for oppositions to come back quickly after losing office unless they are up against posturing numpties like Abbott or Newman or governments featuring bizarre, undisciplined characters like Shaw, Cairns and Connor.
I have read and noted a lot of arguments along the lines of “the policies haven’t changed under Turnbull” and “this is still the bunch that brought you the 2014 Budget”. But I don’t accept them. I think the electorate will forgive governments that introduce unpopular policies, but they don’t forgive governments that are undisciplined and embarrassing.
Even Newman might have survived for a second term if he had stuck to trying to sell his harsh budget cuts on the grounds of necessity, rather than trying all sorts of crazy diversionary stuff about sex offenders and bikies, as well as looking extremely foolish by appointing a Chief Justice in whom none of the judiciary or senior members of the legal profession had any confidence.
(In passing, it’s interesting to reflect on how badly served both Newman and Abbott were by their silly diversionary campaigns re, respectively, sex offenders/bikies and the “Islamic death cult”. The public clearly interpreted these efforts as insults to their intelligence, making them even more angry about the unpopular policies from which their attention was meant to be diverted.)
A lot of the hostility and deep dislike of the Abbott government was about relatively superficial imagery. Examples:
* Knights and dames, and especially Prince Philip of course
* Joe Hockey smoking a cigar after the 2014 Budget
* Joe Hockey talking about poor people not driving cars
* Abbott’s endless self-parody in blathering on about
“stopping the boats” no matter what question he was asked
* The debacle of the PPL, until it was ditched
The fact is that with Turnbull, all of the above are gone, most notably of course Abbott and Hockey.
The vast majority of ordinary voters continue to be relieved we have an articulate, urbane sort of character representing the nation instead of a total goose. All the matters of imagery above are gone too – another big relief. And when it comes to substantial matters that really annoyed people, the likes of the Medicare co-payment are gone too.
On other substantial matters, most notably climate change, I believe many voters are sophisticated enough to understand that Turnbull is constrained until the next election in what he can do by the party’s right.
I expect some very strong coded messages from Turnbull in the lead-up to the next election alluding to what he will do once he has a powerful election mandate in his lap. Turnbull proved very adept at coded but clear messages throughout the period he coveted Abbott’s job – and very many people understood those messages.
meher baba@1441
alias
You are spot on!
Alias – of course he will be sending out coded messages that he can’t control his party now he will be able to control it after the election. The question is whether the electorate is dopey enough to fall for it. They’d be insane (particularly with Tones standing again) but they did elect Abbott.
I chatted to a mate today, who said he’s a labor voter, but is obvoiusly enamoured with Turnbull. He said maybe, with a mandate, Turnbull could control his party. However, I note that he didn’t sound sure about that and he clearly didn’t think much about the party.
I also note that whatever “mandate” he gets, it won’t be a mandate which stops the right-wing nut-jobs being right-wing nutjobs. “Codes messages” aren’t binding upon them. Labor will obviously point that out ad nauseum
alias –
[ On other substantial matters, most notably climate change, I believe many voters are sophisticated enough to understand that Turnbull is constrained until the next election in what he can do by the party’s right. ]
What a gift to Labor – the faceless men and women of the tories are holding turnbull captive in the PM’s job ? – and voters are suppose to give turnbull the benefit of the doubt on it all for another year.
Please!
Apart from the ‘faceless men’ imagery it depicts a party deeply divided – and once again voters are suppose to just forget about it?
turnbull needs runs on the board and soon. The honeymoon period only has a set shelf life. He also needs to spell out what he proposes.
Doubt we are going to see much until New Year but if nothing substantive by then it will be valid to label him a *dud*.
But – “he can’t do anything because his party won’t let him” just won’t work.
K17
[I chatted to a mate today, who said he’s a labor voter, but is obvoiusly enamoured with Turnbull. He said maybe, with a mandate, Turnbull could control his party. However, I note that he didn’t sound sure about that and he clearly didn’t think much about the party.]
I would not at all be surprised by that comment Turnbull will win over a lot of ALP voters.
[ alias
Posted Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
A lot of the hostility and deep dislike of the Abbott government was about relatively superficial imagery. Examples:
* Knights and dames, and especially Prince Philip of course
* Joe Hockey smoking a cigar after the 2014 Budget
* Joe Hockey talking about poor people not driving cars
* Abbott’s endless self-parody in blathering on about
“stopping the boats” no matter what question he was asked
* The debacle of the PPL, until it was ditched
The fact is that with Turnbull, all of the above are gone, most notably of course Abbott and Hockey. ]
The above is a delusional attempt at revisionism.
They were a bunch of frauds who lied about their intentions to gain power. Then they lied about their lies. etc etc.
Many examples of this particularly with abbott – but it was all backed publicly and privately by the party room and their backers.
But the May 2014 Budget brought it all down about them. It was seen as fundamentally unfair by many in the community and they never really recovered – Look at the poll results in the sidebar.
They burnt through their political capital for little return and voters didn’t want a bar of them.
Abbott centrally to blame but all involved share the stench and the damage to brand tory.
meher,
You’ve said a lot of this previously. I note your agreement that Labor has to work on policy, stay united and chip away at Turnbull’s policy problems.
The obvious issues that surround the Turnbula Government are Turnbull’s hubris. Ross Gittins nailed it this morning as his lack of EQ rather than IQ.
The nexs is the competence of the Lib second eleven Ministry. Morrison has not shown he’s on top of his portfolio and his utterances don’t fill me with any “hope’ that he actually knows what he is doing.
The third is will Turnbull play to the big business agenda like his predecssor. This group of rent seekers and shonks sees national interest only in terms of them getting their way. The continuation of the Big Business agenda will not go down well with the punters.
The final hurdle Turnbull must address is the RW loonies. Andrew Bolt this morning was waxing lyrical about how the Party were very concerned about Turnbull’s turn to the left. This is a Govevernment to all intenets and purposes has yet to make any policy changes as yet. Imagine the ferals when and if it does happen.
So, the calling of the election this far out is a bit premature. Turnbull will want to have some policy meat on the bone, Australia does not want to dip in to recession and certainly the stripping away of benefits, $100,000 degrees and the deterioration innhealth services will all play a part in the next election.
Of course Malcolm could curl up in a ball, assume the fetal position and start calling for his mummy as an election winning stategy. But, I woul.;dn’t count on that being a winner.