Galaxy: 58-42 to federal Coalition in Queensland

A new Queensland-only poll of federal voting finds a nine-point reversal since Malcolm Turnbull deposed Tony Abbott.

Today’s Courier-Mail brings a Galaxy poll on federal voting intention in Queensland, which finds a dramatic reversal since the last such poll, which was conducted on Tony Abbott’s watch in late August. The Coalition is up nine on the primary vote to 50%, with Labor down eight to 29%. A 51-49 lead to Labor on two-party preferred has transformed into a 58-42 to the Coalition. The poll also finds 61% believe Malcolm Turnbull has the “best plan for Queensland”, compared with 14% for Bill Shorten. The poll was conducted by phone on Tuesday and Wednesday, from a sample of 800 respondents. It will presumably be followed shortly by a result on state voting intention from the same sample.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

934 comments on “Galaxy: 58-42 to federal Coalition in Queensland”

Comments Page 1 of 19
1 2 19
  1. When a major party leader gets this low, you can only assuming that a lot of his own rusted-ons are dissing him. I guess they are yearning for Albo.

    But nowhere near as much as Malcolm and the Libs would be yearning for Albo! Sure, they’d prefer Corbyn to take out Aussue citizenship and join the ALP. But Albo will do nicely. Turnbull vs Albo might give Fraser’s crushing of Gough or Wran’s of Coleman and McDonald runs for their money.

  2. A nine point turnaround. And all that has happened is that Turnbull has replaced Abbott as leader of the Liberal Party and therefore PM and that the rhetoric has gone from Apocalypse Now to Candide.

    What does this incredible response from the polled voters suggest about the quality of our press gallery corpse? If it had been Julia Gillard we would have had pontificating articles from Hartcher and Kenny and a dozen from Grattan and endless editorials demanding she go for the good of the nation. Come to think of it, we did. But until the backbenchers set to lose their seats took action the Press Corpse was still thinking it was business as usual – although they thought the former PM was going through a bit of a rough trot.

    With their stupid groupthink replacing genuine observation the whole mob is not worth feeding from a dumpster.

  3. [When a major party leader gets this low, you can only assuming that a lot of his own rusted-ons are dissing him]

    No need to assume. You only have to read the obsessively repetitive posts of some here to know that is happening.

  4. More proof that the mainstream political pundits of Australia should be hanging their heads in shame and embarrassment for getting so much wrong for so long.

    For years we were assured that like him or not Abbott was ‘cutting through’ with the public, that because of, not despite, his 3 word slogans ‘the master politician’ was ‘communicating with the public’ and ‘responsible for the demise of Rudd, Gillard/Rudd”and ‘led the COALition to victory”.

    Bollocks.

    The massive leap since his departure, 6% in 2PP federally and now this in QLD, show that Abbott was always a drag on the popularity of the COALition.

    Whatever the reasons for the victory of the COALition and the defeat of the ALP, Abbott as politician and LOTO was not one of them.

  5. From the day that Turnbull took the leadership from Abbott this kind of margin was always going to be the case.

    Shorten had higher figures over a long period against Abbott because the public couldn’t stand the sight of Abbott and that was all it came down to.

    The public now have a man who knows the game and how to play it.

  6. I agree with meher baba, many on the left seem to think that the way to help the poor is to just attack the rich, I accept WWP’s point that we can’t all be rich but I see no reason why we can’t at least ensure everyone is living above the poverty line and is able to be an active member of the community.

    I suspect the reason for this narrow mindedness comes from many who claim to be on the left as it feels all nice but really have no real understanding of the lives of the disadvantaged.

    meher baba

    I am not sure people on welfare can be said to be better off than the rich of 200 years ago, it might be true that most people would be but people on welfare don’t have the financial freedom of the rich had even 200 years ago.

    200 years ago the rich were able to live pretty comfortably.

  7. I seem to recall many on the political right were strongly of the view that the good people of Queensland would never accept a Liberal PM like Turnbull, they had to have some kind of hard right nutjob.

    Maybe they would like to step forward and explain these numbers.

  8. The problem, when talking about wealth, is in mentioning people at all. It’s not necessary to talk about people.

    The question is not about how we view rich or poor people. The question is how successful (more or less) different activities – or perhaps strategies or classes of strategies – should be under a system of our design, and the behaviour (of people) attendant on carrying out those activities/strategies.

    It is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether some strategies are rewarded too much, or others too little.

    If we are to mention people and the wealth they accumulated at all, it should just be to note that it’s fair enough that they earned it under the system at the time. That’s irrelevant to a discussion of the system as we want it to be, and to discuss the system as we want it to be is not necessarily to belittle people who have done what they could under the system as it is/was.

    Lastly, it should be obvious that equating wealth with success only makes sense in context of a discussion within a given system. If we are discussing what system we want, then deciding what success is based on wealth is circular.

  9. Shea

    The rich or most middle class people are too busy to be thinking about the poor.

    Many on the left keeping saying otherwise to justify their lack of policies, many on the left don’t give two f’s for the poor.

  10. [The rich or most middle class people are too busy to be thinking about the poor.

    Many on the left keeping saying otherwise to justify their lack of policies, many on the left don’t give two f’s for the poor.]

    Lets leave the middle class out, the rich got rich by getting money from other people even TBA could work that one out, but you seem to have missed it.

  11. WWP

    Everyone gets money from someone else, I agree the middle class should be excluded but many on the left seem to view them as being rich, this is why I wonder if we need a clear definition of what is rich.

    We have previously talked about wealth being different to income.

  12. mb
    [The rich or most middle class people are too busy to be thinking about the poor.]
    I guess you missed all the talking down of wages, arguments over the cost of labour, talk of controlling how the poor spend their money (e.g. welfare cards), etc?

    Besides, we’re not necessarily talking about a discussing directly between people, we’re talking about a discussion via proxies, either in the media, politics, or elsewhere.

  13. ESJ @1028 (previous thread)

    Fair enough meher baba agree with your cgt comments.

    I’d say 15 gst
    Cgt sliding scale of tax based on length of ownership
    20 and 45 per cent rate of income tax
    Death duties
    Cgt on home sales with gains of 10mill or more
    25 company tax
    Guaranteed minimum income for all

    It would be much better to broaden the GST base (and lower the rate) rather than have a high rate with a narrow base

    If there is a public purpose in discouraging short term capital holding then the appropriate tax mechanism is a penalty for doing the wrong thing rather than a bonus for doing the right thing: tax penalties work and are not able to be exploited; tax bonuses largely do not work as intended and are susceptible to exploitation. In this case I doubt there is public purpose: buy and hold of the index beats trading unless either arbitrage or insider information is involved. The former is better closed by ensuring market transparency; the latter is a criminal offense. Other than that if people want to waster their money (but perhaps entertain themselves) by asset trading then they should be allowed to do so.

    It is better to lower the top marginal income tax rate (to 35% say) but eliminate all deductions excepting self education goods purchases and other personal capital (e.g. uniforms). Payroll tax should also be eliminated as this is borne by low paid workers through reduced real wages.

    Death duties don’t work as intended. Reverse mortgages against land tax obligations do, due to the fact they are unavoidable.

    The accumulation of assets in family homes is extremely harmful to economic efficiency as it creates a confused capital structure. Special status of “the family home” should be limited to access to a reverse mortgage scheme but it will take a very courageous leadership to effect this.

    Company taxation was poorly understood until recently. It was assumed that it was a tax on capital and was thus bad for similar reasons to taxes on labour being bad (but shared the pain between labour and capital). However it turns out that company taxation is mostly a tax on labour and beyond that is a tax on supra-normal profits that arise due to a business succeeding through innovation. The headline company tax rate should be decreased, probably to 20% or even 15% and in addition there should be 150% or even 200% deduction of PAYG withholding to mitigate the incidence on labour (thus boosting real wages). According to the Treasury the marginal excess burden of this tax is zero at an average net rate of about 10% and this should be the target. Additionally there should be some sort of adjustment to eliminate the penalization of the success of innovative new businesses

    Regarding guaranteed minimum income: people need to start thinking about the situation where less than 20% of the population are economically viable suppliers as this will be here sooner than most think.

  14. [Everyone gets money from someone else, I agree the middle class should be excluded but many on the left seem to view them as being rich, this is why I wonder if we need a clear definition of what is rich.

    We have previously talked about wealth being different to income.]

    There is nothing wrong of itself in getting money from others. Being really really good at it starts to speak to brilliance or ruthlessness but lets leave that for another day.

    The wealthy have been best at looking after their best interests over the last 30 years and it has cost the poor and the middle class dearly and unfairly, the distribution of the income of Keating’s boom has been misdirected. It is perhaps unnecessary for them to do anything that looks like ‘war’ because money buys influence but they’ve been using that influence to their own advantage very very successfully.

    And yes the greens that consider everyone from lower middle class and up to be disgustingly filthy rich are stupid and doing a labor a favour you aren’t going win the hearts and minds of most Australians if you hate the middle class and as you point out they do.

  15. DisplayName

    In the U.S that would be seen as beltway talk, most people are not sitting around talking about those things.

    Topics like Welfare cards come up from time to time as certain media outlets raise them, most people who watch ACA and listen to 2GB are not the rich, some might be financially secure.

    The likes of Twiggy and Shephards are mostly blowhards looking to protect their business interest.

  16. [It would be much better to broaden the GST base (and lower the rate) rather than have a high rate with a narrow base]

    Politically when you hit health education and food you deserve to lose by a long way, you’d be an idiot to try and expand the base in Australia regardless of the theoretical merits.

  17. Nicholas @1127 (previous thread)

    But we don’t need foreigners to buy land here. Any additional spending that our economy needs can be provided by our national government in accordance with public needs.

    Incorrect. The Australian government needs a considerable amount of foriegn currency (e.g. for acquisition of weapons systems). This foriegn currency must be acquired from foreigners and by far the best way to acquire it is by selling $AU to those foreigners to enable them to pay an unavoidable tax liability.

  18. WWP

    It is fair to say that the reform agenda has lost its way, this is partly why Ken Henry made his comments about the dismantling of the public sector and the resulting loss of sound robust policy making.

  19. MB

    [Many on the left keeping saying otherwise to justify their lack of policies, many on the left don’t give two f’s for the poor.]

    If many on the left don’t give two f’s for the poor how would you characterise those on the right?

    It is apparent from the 2014 budget that the right feel that the poor can’t be screwed over enough.

  20. mb @ 25
    You missed the point, which is the image you raise of wealthy people sitting around and discussing poor people is a strawman.

    [Topics like Welfare cards come up from time to time]
    Sometimes they even come up as actual trials, not mere “topics”, imagine that.

    Also, when talking tax, we inevitably end up discussing wealth. Why is it then, that talk of shifting the tax burden up is considered an attack on the rich, class warfare, the politics of envy, etc, while talk of shifting it down (as the Coalition keep suggesting) is not an attack on the poor, class warfare, the politics of somethingorother?

  21. It’s not a level playing field..
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/disadvantaged-uni-students-drop-out-in-droves-20151119-gl3c40.html
    [One in three disadvantaged students drops out of university, according to new research which highlights serious inequity in Australia’s higher education sector.

    This compares with one in eight wealthier students abandoning their university studies.]

    I spent nine years over two separate periods studying part-time for two higher ed qualifications while supporting myself working full-time and renting for part of that time. Meanwhile my wealthier friends and acquaintances were partying hard, travelling the world and having a generally great time.

    It was an incredibly hard slog to graduate. Fortunately, I am resilient, focused and full of self-determination and resolve – qualities which stand one in good stead being a Greens {smile}

  22. MB

    [The 2014 budget was a shockingly bad budget that quite rightly lead to the downfall of Joe and Tone]

    Agreed….and which political groups prevented it’s harsh impacts on the poor? I guess it would be those on the left.

  23. mb’s

    the tall poppies need to be cut down. Otherwise they will hog all the sunlight. They succeed in doing this not by merit (of how they got to be tall) but succeed merely by being tall.

  24. WWP
    [And yes the greens that consider everyone from lower middle class and up to be disgustingly filthy rich are stupid and doing a labor a favour you aren’t going win the hearts and minds of most Australians if you hate the middle class and as you point out they do.]

    Your generalisations and stereotypes of the Greens are hilarious.

    Speaking for myself I hold no hatred in my heart for any class of people.

  25. DisplayName

    The reason why wealth becomes an issue in any tax debate is that middle income earners and wealthier people are more likely to be the marginal seat voters, they are more likely to be focused on issues surrounding tax, super, property etc

    The Liberals talk like they do as they happen to represent many of the wealthest areas thus just like the ALP often lace everything with talk about working people as that is the core make up of many of their seats.

    Adding to this as was discussed the other week, as most journalist are well paid, they themselves are reporting on things which impact upon themselves and the people they know.

    Both sides of politics know that most voters are seeking to get ahead thus they know the voters wont take kindly to hearing that they will potentially face barriers to getting ahead although I suspect if the government was honest and straitlaced then it might find most people would begrudging accept it.

  26. [WWP

    It is fair to say that the reform agenda has lost its way, this is partly why Ken Henry made his comments about the dismantling of the public sector and the resulting loss of sound robust policy making.]

    I think that is our biggest social weakness a weak underpaid under performing, under used public service.

  27. [Speaking for myself I hold no hatred in my heart for any class of people.]

    You are a truly wonderful green then. On the other hand I give you Nicholas. I probably don’t need to reach for a better example.

  28. So many people have bought into the “aspirational dream” little realising how they have been manipulated into voting against their own best interests.

  29. Pegasus

    Aspirations have always driven humans, its not a new concept, pretty much since the dawn of time people have actively looked to improve their lot.

  30. Pegasus@41

    So many people have bought into the “aspirational dream” little realising how they have been manipulated into voting against their own best interests.

    I think everyone has aspirations.

    The difference is that some have aspirations that are very narrowly focussed, reflecting little other than personal greed.

    Others have aspirations for a more just and fairer society.

  31. MB

    [So, that doesn’t alter what I wrote]

    So the left protecting the poor from an attack by the right is consistent with your contention that the left doesn’t give two f’s about the poor. Righto.

  32. JW

    I am talking generally, many on the left are good at talking about being compassionate but when they are faced with someone in real disadvantage, what do they do, in many cases they look the other way.

  33. Aspiration
    [we urge you…to aspire to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands…so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.]

  34. There is nothing wrong with being aspirational. The problem is that the word is too often used to disguise the actual changes to the system being discussed.

    e.g.
    A change to a aystem where 10% hold 90% of the wealth to a system where 1% hold 99% of the wealth, and framing this as allowing people to aspire to even more wealth than previously possible.

Comments Page 1 of 19
1 2 19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *