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%).
So another person believes that Labor is going to be in opposition now for the next 2,4, 6, 10 years (longer) because of a month of sunshine brought about by a more urbane, sane and outwardly looking Liberal leader?
So, what now?
Labour just bides its time tuning over aspiring leaders in the next 10 years to find a Labor-style urban, sane and outward looking leader?
In an earlier post I suggested, why bother?
Labor members should just potter around their respective electorates and just wait for Turnbull do his 10-20 years in office – bit like Ming?
Talk about being sucked in by the Sun King.
I expect Liberals to feel good about Turnbull, but when so-called friends of Labor want to bathe in the Turnbull sunshine too….well blow me down!
I think a lot of this simply underscores the fact that the two main parties are very centrist, and after years of B-grade leaders, the public is clamouring for a strong, inspiring and articulate leader from the centre. To many people it simply doesn’t matter all that much, which of the two parties she or he is from.
Voters understand that especially where the governing party does not control the Senate, nothing terribly radical is going to get through anyway.
And the issue I would regard as the single most important facing this and any nation – climate change – is not an issue that is the natural constituency of either party (even though delusional types like Abbott wanted it to be that way).
In that regard, I do give Shorten credit for taking a strong, principled stance, though it’s only one that’s in line with a strong global movement over the past two or three years. Turnbull knows this very well, as believe it or not, does Greg Hunt, and they will carefully but decisively move the Coalition to a sane climate policy post the the next election.
The Sioux were smart cookies.
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/09/30/lessons-from-the-sioux-in-how-to-turn-a-boy-into-a-man/
alias@1452
People want good policy over and above all and say this over and over in polls. The tories think they can ‘sell’ lousy policy and failure is just down to poor salesmanship.
It is more the exception than the rule that the Government party/ coalition controls both houses. Having control of the Senate made a significant contribution to bringing down the howard government – workchoices etc.
Not having control of the Senate is ‘managed’ by most government and life goes on.
Gillard passed a huge swag of bills without controlling the senate and being a minority Government in HoR relying on independents and others.
Yet the tories wanted to claim it was a time of crisis which was suppose to fade away as soon as they gained government – in fact they either made things worse or in other cases did nothing.
[Gillard passed a huge swag of bills without controlling the senate and being a minority Government in HoR relying on independents and others.]
Nothing like a bit of histrory rewriting. The ALP after 2010 only needed the votes of the Greens to get legislation through the Senate. If Adam Bandt voted for that legislation in the lower house, they were hardly likely to vote against it in the Upper would they?
[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.]
I now do a word check for ‘Sheehan’ on SMH articles. If I find it, 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.
BBS,
The Libs didn’t need the Greens in the curent Senate. All Abbott had to do was in good faith negotiate with a bunch of like minded ratbags.
And, they couldn’t do it!
alias –
[ In that regard, I do give Shorten credit for taking a strong, principled stance {on climate change }, though it’s only one that’s in line with a strong global movement over the past two or three years.
Turnbull knows this very well, as believe it or not, does Greg Hunt, and they will carefully but decisively move the Coalition to a sane climate policy post the the next election. ]
They have lied through their teeth on all of this in two election campaigns for over 5 years and now the explanation is *they will carefully but decisively move the Coalition to a sane climate policy post the the next election.*
Give us all a break.
What a condemnation of them all is that!
alias,
[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.]
I’d say a larger part of Abbott and the Coalition’s problems was that they promised a whole lot of things that they had no intention on following through on and the public weren’t amused when it was sprung on them in the 2014 Budget. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say voters are now going to trust another politician, Turnbull, to do a whole lot of things he hasn’t actually said he’d do after he wins an election. Turnbull is a politician and to suggest he’s somehow going to float past the actual consequences of his decisions as PM without criticism or rancour and ignore the actions of the Government as a whole because he has nice eyeballs and a less receded hairline is a little silly.
On to “symbolic issues”. I think how Turnbull handles issues such as SSM and other social issues is going to be something to watch. Labor’s played the issue well, I think. Advocates for Marriage Equality aren’t amused by the plebiscite and are even less convinced by assurances that opponents in Parliament are going to keel over and give up just because of an expensive opinion poll. There are all kinds of questions that need to be answered over it – the wording, the effect, how on Earth you’re going to get the likes of Abetz on board – and there’s only so long Turnbull and his supporters can avoid them.
It is an important issue to a lot of people – maybe not significant enough to change an election result but if those supporters (soft Greens, small “l” Liberals and soft Left Laborites) who currently rate Turnbull over Shorten because of issues such as asylum seekers and Marriage Equality will probably move back to Shorten soon enough. Turnbull nailed his colours to the mast and now he’s in a position to do something about it he won’t. Turnbull is going to be painted as a “typical politician” by many people regardless of how fair you think that depiction is.
Now, onto the wider issue of Shorten’s popularity and Labor’s prospects into the next election, I will repeat myself a little. They now can’t attack Shorten for his role in RGR because it’s simply an argument they can’t pull off and whatever dirt they were hoping to get out of the TURC is now unworkable because the whole saga was poorly handled. The request for Labor members details was farcical and undermines Heydon’s argument that the Commission wasn’t partisan because it was an inquiry into the Unions, not Labor. Questions linger over the handling of the HSU investigations, prosecutions into CFMEU officials have fallen apart, the Gillard grilling was pointless and partisan and the accusations against Shorten are getting increasingly bizarre. The Commission will hand down its report at the end of the year, the headlines will last a week, and it will fade into obscurity the same way the other Royal Commission did.
While you doubtless don’t agree another reason Labor is in with a chance is that Labor is unified and has made no serious missteps the entire term of Parliament. That, I suspect and others have suggested today, is a significant reason first term Governments don’t lose after their first term. The Opposition is usually a shambles.
Food for thought
ratsak
I do a word-check for ‘smh’.
If I find it, I know that it is not worth reading. Saves time and keeps my blood pressure in the normal range.
All the Turnbull is a sure bet stuff ignores the elephant in the room. Turnbull’s elevation doesn’t just magically make the economy take off. It doesn’t magically make workers real wages keep pace with let alone exceed inflation. It certainly isn’t going to magically replace all the manufacturing jobs that are going to start disappearing at an alarming rate over the next 18-24 months.
And it ain’t going to make the budget pretty. No matter how hard the Libs spinkle the Magic Pixie Dust around their utter failure on a matter that was central to their claims to government (no matter how much bullshit it always was) will be absolutely clear and unavoidable.
Housing is showing real signs of coming off the boil in Sydney and Melbourne. With luck it will just grow less slowly, but if prices actually drop?
This is as easy as it’s going to get for Turnbull. He can still get a away with being all things to everyone (like Abbott managed in some fashion in opposition). The test is how well he hangs onto everyone who has stars in their eyes once the shine comes off a little and he actually has to make some hard calls that create losers. The economy is very unlikely to make Turnbull’s job easy for him the way it did for Howard.
It’s a looooong way to go till the next election (unless Turnbull decides it’s not going to be easy enough and goes early which will create it’s own problems). Start worrying about the polls around March next year. Until then we’ll probably still be in fantasy land.
PTMD
touche
Interesting thoughts Bugler.
However on SSM, I think the issue is neutralised for now. Sure, plenty will find the idea of a plebiscite a bit unnecessary and expensive as you say. Why not just get on with it? That’s the argument. But Turnbull is quite adept at arguing quite forcefully that every voter should get a chance to have a say on this important issue. And it’s very hard to argue against that when it comes to the perceptions of the average person in the street who is not deeply invested in the issue, but nevertheless believes it is right and inevitable.
I don’t see SSM being a problem for Turnbull at all, on this basis. The plebiscite will loom larger the closer it gets, (and the only thing we can really hope for is that it doesn’t get nasty on either side of the discussion).
[The man reportedly tipped to become Australia’s next Chief Scientist lives in a house entirely powered by renewable energy and believes that everyone will eventually drive an electric car like him.
Dr Alan Finkel is expected to be appointed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday to replace Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb whose four year-plus term ends in December.
Mr Turnbull has remained tight-lipped on what specific role science will take beyond the word “central” in his government’s national agenda.]
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/meet-alan-finkel-the-man-tipped-to-become-australias-next-chief-scientist-20151026-gkijp4.html#ixzz3pez2LQyq
MTBW – Yes, I’m sure quite a few labor voters are giving Turnbull the once over. The guy I talked to said he is tired of the revolving door and, on that basis, wondered if Turnbull could, somehow, get a big enough mandate to deal with his party. But this guy is no dope. When he sits down and really thinks about it in 6 months time, why would he take more Liberal blue-sky bullshit when Labor already has policies he likes.
It’s certainly pretty unusual to front up to an election and say: give me a mandate so that I can sort out my party and then deliver on my “promises”. I’ve never seen that done in Australian politics before. Have you? Be fascinating to watch.
ratsak,
Elephants in the room are an inconvenience. They can overturn furniture and leave large unsightly deposits and stains on the carpet.
What Turnbull has to worry about is the disease ridden mosquitos and their cultures of complaint, the crocodiles of the msm that devour the unwary and the feral pirahnas of the Liberal Party. It’s a primevil swamp Turnbull has to negotiate.
Elephants are cuddly compared to the swamp.
Fascinating Lizzie. Thanks for posting that.
Indications like that one (if it comes to pass) are emblematic of the changes Turnbull is bringing, slowly but surely. What a powerful message that will send, if it’s correct!
[ the crocodiles of the msm that devour the unwary]
Hmmmm. Whatever happens to Turnbull I confidently predict that (much like with Abbott) the media will be the last to fall outta love.
alias
[ Indications like that one (if it comes to pass) are emblematic of the changes Turnbull is bringing, slowly but surely. What a powerful message that will send, if it’s correct! ]
Jeez, you really are smitten, aren’t you?
ratsak,
Only through professional courtesy.
Player One
Not smitten. Just making a fair-minded statement about what such an appointment would mean. Give a try. You might find fair-minded statements work for you too.
Alias,
I don’t think SSM will kill Turnbull. It’s possible to navigate with minimal damage. But he certainly won’t be able to sustain a 62% PPM gap and 66% approval rating with it playing out in the background – a plebiscite isn’t a progressive or even centrist response to the issue and everyone knows it. It will be interesting to see how he handles things once he comes down to Earth. But if 53% is the best he can do in peak honeymoon I don’t think Labor should be panicking. If Labor panics voters will smell the blood in the water and tear them to shreds (it’s kind of what I felt was behind the Cayman Is affair… but I might watch that space a little bit before I make a final judgement).
[ Not smitten. ]
Your adolescent love letters regarding the Turnbott were posted again by someone earlier today. Don’t make me go back and revisit them – they turned my stomach the first few times.
[ Not smitten. Just making a fair-minded statement about what such an appointment would mean. Give a try. You might find fair-minded statements work for you too. ]
Nonsense.
You are waving away all the issues that need addressing while turnbull is avoiding making any commitment to address them.
Its amazing what a fake Oxbridge accent will do to some people – really.
blackburnpseph@1455
What a useless statistic that is anyway.
The great majority of legislation is routine and non-contentious and sails through even with a LOTO like Abbott.
This must be the new WTFD Program that kids will be forced upon them:
http://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-wants-2000-school-kids-to-become-copper-linesmen-411003
Did this come up while I was away?
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/26/matt-keogh-faces-challenge-from-labor-left-in-battle-for-new-federal-seat-of-burt
z
[ This must be the new WTFD Program that kids will be forced upon them:
http://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-wants-2000-school-kids-to-become-copper-linesmen-411003 ]
The LNP education policy: Equipping our children for the 19th century!
ross,
Shorten is supporting Keogh. I reckon he might get up.
Amazing Australian Story tonight.
Ross, GG
If they don’t run Matt Keogh as the candidate for Burt, after how well he did in Canning and how much work he put in, Labor don’t deserve to win the next election and almost certainly won’t. Because they are focussed still on themselves rather than being a good government for Australians generally.
It’s why they lost the last election far more than any other issue.
Bemused @ 1476
Yes most bills are procedural and insubstantive. Also, the Gillard government passed a lot of contentious legislation. However, between the ALP and the Greens they had 40 seats in a 76 seat senate. Just imagine what the 2010 term would have been like if there had been the Leyonhjelms, PUP, Lambies of this world wanting their two cents worth. Counterfactual, but the ALP government would have just died from exhaustion.
Assumes? Surely he would know
[Bevan Shields
Bevan Shields – Verified account @BevanShields
Chris Kenny says he ‘assumes’ the Australian government facilitated access to the detention camp in Nauru for him #auspol
12:37 AM – 26 Oct 2015
31 RETWEETS5 FAVORITES]
[It’s a primevil swamp Turnbull has to negotiate.]
GG, its a Jurassic Swamp inhabited by such beasts as the Abetzosaurus and the Coryodon.
blackburnpseph
you ignore the fact that Labor had to negotiate with Independents/Greens to get the legislation through the HoR where they did not have a majority
Aussie @ 1486
You missed my point. Once they had got through the Reps minefield – which really wasn’t much of one as Bandt, Windsor and Oakeshott nearly always did support the government – the senate was a doddle. Imagine if they had also had a non compliant or even remotely belligerent senate – their legislative progress would have been x times harder.
TPOF@1482
Factional stupidity can intervene in these things.
And I am not pointing at any faction in particular.
blackburnpseph@1483
Yes, a better measure of success is the comparative handful of big reform bills.
[ABC The Drum
ABC The Drum – Verified account @ABCthedrum
As the Paris climate summit nears, climate policy looms as Turnbull’s greatest economic challenge | @IanVerrender http://ab.co/1LVCg9d ]
Not sure if any other Bludgers have noticed but there has just been an election in Poland which the Right have won quite convincingly. The other day – pre election – I saw an electoral results map of Poland amalgamating results over the last few elections. What was very striking was that there was a very strong political difference between those areas that were Poland pre 1945 (which is where the Right polled highest) and areas that were Germany prior to 1945 (where the Right vote was much lower). The difference followed the changed border remarkably closely. Anyone out there with an insight on why this might be the case?
Victoria – And Turnbull is gonna come back from Paris and say “Don’t worry little chickens, we’re going to review direct action in 2017.” Jesus.
[Factional stupidity can intervene in these things.
And I am not pointing at any faction in particular.]
Nor was I. After all the WA right gave the nation Joe Bullock (in a deal with the WA left for some state seat, I understand).
The party either exists for the good of the nation or for the furtherance of the careers of the players (regardless of faction). The same applies to the Liberals. The voters (or at least those who decide elections) know this is going on and will make judgements on the players as not sufficiently interested in the nation and thus not deserving of their vote. Disunity is death.
Blackburnpseph #1487
What you say about a noncompliant and belligerent Senate is quite correct when the persons attempting to negotiate with them are also noncompliant and belligerent. This was Abbott’s problem.
But JG and the likes of Combet would’ve handled it.
Note the comments of Dio Wang the other day. Abbott’s mob ignored him …… but not Turnbull who gave Wang his private mobile number. Turnbull, like Gillard, possesses the rudimentary human attributes which allow mature adults to discuss things. Unlike Abbott.
Aww we could have had a GG Chas and our own landed gentry.
[Prince Charles knew of idea to dismiss Whitlam before 1975 crisis, book claims
Australian governor general Sir John Kerr had regular contact with the palace in the lead-up to sacking, and suggested Charles as future governor general……canvassed the possibility with Prince Charles as early as August of that year
Kerr later suggested to Whitlam that the Australian government purchase a large rural holding with appropriate homestead, servants, upkeep and furnishings, to encourage the Prince of Wales to make more regular and longer trips to Australia,” ]
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/26/prince-charles-knew-of-idea-to-dismiss-whitlam-before-1975-crisis-book-claims
Have we had a van ocelot “wow” yet?
K17
And can we even trust that anything decent will happen in 2017!
Nope, particularly with Tones back in power and trying to protect his “legacy”. Turnbull really needs to dump direct action now. But that would be a big admission we’ve just wasted three years and untold billions. So he’ll use his remedy for every problem: bullshit.
[Have we had a van ocelot “wow” yet?]
Not yet, just an indication that Newspoll is imminent.
What happened to Tony Jones?