The latest result from Newspoll, featured in tomorrow’s Australian, records the Coalition’s two-party preferred lead unchanged at 53-47. On the primary vote, the Coalition is steady at 46%, Labor is down one to 33%, and the Greens are up one to 11%. Malcolm Turnbull’s ratings eclipse last fortnight’s personal best with a four-point increase in approval to 60% and a two-point drop in disapproval to 22%. Bill Shorten is respectively down one to 26% and steady at 57%, but he has fallen further behind on preferred prime minister, from 61-18 to 64-15. The poll was conducted online and by automated phone polling between Thursday to Sunday, from a sample of 1573.
A first tranche from the results from the poll published yesterday focused on Syria and terrorism. On committing ground troops to Syria, 42% were supportive and 45% opposed; on refugees, 22% took the liberal (“should take more than 12,000”) and 44% the conservative (“should take fewer than 12,000”) position, while 27% opted for neutral (“12,000 is about right”); and 52% rejected the notion that priority should be given to Christians from Syria, with 41% in support. Seventy-six per cent considered it likely or higher that Islamic State would carry out a large-scale terrorist attack in Australia, including 24% for inevitable and 23% for very likely. Sixty-five per cent felt the Muslim community “should be doing more” in condemning terrorist attacks, with only 20% opting for “currently doing enough”, and 66% felt Muslims should be doing more to integrate, compared with 21% for currently doing enough.
UPDATE (Essential Research): The latest fortnightly rolling average from Essential Research has both major parties down a point on the primary vote – the Coalition to 44%, Labor to 35% – with the balance being washed out in rounding, as the Greens and Palmer United stay steady on 10% and 1%. The Coalition’s lead on two-party preferred is steady at 52-48. Also:
• Fully 76% of respondents believe the terrorist threat to Australia has increased over the past few years, with only 2% opting for decreased. Thirty-two per cent support increased Australian military involvement in Syria and Iraq compared with 19% for decreased and 28% for make no change, but 45% believe doing so will make Australia less safe from terrorism, compared with 17% for more safe. Eleven per cent ascribe the motivation for the attacks to “reaction to role of western countries in the Middle East” and 29% go for “hatred of western culture and freedoms”, while 46% opt for “both”.
• An occasional question on climate change has 56% ascribing it to human activity and 32% favouring a ”normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate”, which is respectively unchnagd and up one point on July. Respondents generally considered that Australia was taking more action to address climate change than China, compared with somewhat less for the United States and a lot less for European countries.
[TrueBlueAussie
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
Like Carbon Emissions, smoking rates are naturally decreasing and don’t need Great Big Taxes to reach the same outcomes.]
The right wing role model country NZ is doing it ..or is that they are only a role model when it suits…???
[The biggest group of smokers in the country are Aborigines and Poor People, so these are exactly the same people Bills $40 a packet Ciggies will hit most.]
and so the hypocrisy is put on show. Modelling shows that the GST increase will hit the poor the most.
Hypocrisy – its in the Liberal/right wing DNA
From my experience most smokers seem to be employed in high stress jobs such as heath or work in hospitality or the trades, and a few people in professional roles.
victoria:
Yep there are also questions about Turnbull’s judgement as Dreyfus said in parliament today:
[“Australians are meant to accept that a man who is by his own admission under investigation by the Australian Federal Police for criminal wrongdoing is fit to set standards for propriety in public office,’ Mr Dreyfus said.
“And this is not just about the member for Fisher, the man who we can now see would do anything to advance his own interests, to realise his ambitions and to return to the Parliament.
“No, this is about the judgment of the man who has fulfilled those ambitions – the new Prime Minister “This is about the judgment of a prime minister who appoints as his minister for government integrity a discredited figure over whom loom allegations of serious misconduct.
“The judgment of a Prime Minister who stands by the member for Fisher even after he has been raided by the Australian Federal Police, even as the Australian Federal Police are considering charges against him.”]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/clive-palmer-makes-explosive-claims-against-mal-brough-over-james-ashby-affair-20151125-gl7qq7.html#ixzz3sUuLALy3
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
Now let’s get on with some ground breaking, revolutionary legislation to lift Australia. Let’s do some great stuff around stopping terrorists, increasing employment, increasing our manufacturing industry OR we can support…(sound of trumpets and a drum roll)
THE Greens have continued their war on Barbie dolls, establishing a federal Senate committee to probe the role children’s toys play in fostering gender stereotypes and domestic violence.
[“Yes, naturally decreasing and totally uninfluenced by banning advertising, restricting the age at which they can be purchased, keeping them from being displayed, plain packaging, graphic health warnings, restricting their use from numerous public venues and repeatedly increasing their price. Dickhead.”]
Nice abuse there mate, but did you BOTHER(and I’ll assume you were too ignorant) to look at the nice little graph with what looks very much like a linear line decrease from the 70’s onwards?
If each one of these measures that you so nicely listed had any impact then why doesn’t the numbers drop off significantly after each one?
899
I was polled yesterday. Tpp and a question on penalty rates!
[Nice abuse there mate, but did you BOTHER(and I’ll assume you were too ignorant) to look at the nice little graph with what looks very much like a linear line decrease from the 70’s onwards?]
Where is this linear line you speak of, mate?
[Where is this linear line you speak of, mate?]
It’s the string that goes into one of his ears and out the other and is very, very straight.
silmaj@907
Thanks. One person on Twitter reported getting two ReachTELs tonight, one of them that one. I suspect that one of them is commissioned, probably the penalty rates one given it is being taken over multiple nights.
[The idea Labor could go into a campaign with polling like this week’s then pick up six points and win is one I find extremely unlikely.]
Mumble talked of a 2016 election, I can’t remember if he was assuming full term or not, but if this polling continued into the new year and through a budget and beyond to a mid to late 2016 it probably is very unlikely.
But it is much much more likely that Malcolm cannot sustain this to the budget let alone through the budget and for months afterwards. Mumbles point, which he has made before in articles is, to take just one example based on the Queenland better plan for Queenland question, there is massive upside for Shorten in that when they’ve actually heard his and Malcolm’s plan for Queensland their views might be drastically different and that, given the numbers as they are today that really can only help Shorten. How much is the million dollar question but it is a pretty obvious conclusion of massive upside.
A mantra I often hear from green and labor types is that good policy is good politics. If this is so either Malcolm’s policies (ie Tony’s policies) are GREAT, or the policies haven’t filtered into the numbers yet. If policy starts to filter in and Labor policy is good Shorten’s numbers can only improve. It is possible of course that good policy is not good politics at all and perhaps it is just a popularity contest where policy is going to come a very distant third (policy cannot possibly explain the current numbers, it can’t even be a factor really) in which case you are almost certainly right Kevin and Malcolm is going to romp it in without a sweat.
If Malcolm throws a snap poll now it is a bit of a lottery – the only comparator we have is Gillard and she and Malcolm have taken opposite paths Gillard was determined not to be prime ministerial before the election Malcolm is like he was born to it as of right.
[If each one of these measures that you so nicely listed had any impact then why doesn’t the numbers drop off significantly after each one?]
The first of the anti-smoking measures which I mentioned (restricted advertising of tobacco products in media) began in the 70’s and was progressively expanded. What was the trend prior to the 70’s before the anti-smoking measures were introduced?
Confessions@863
Interesting comments from Mumble.
You are wasting your time putting such excerpts forward, as not a few posts later Mumble is written off as some kind of Ju-Ju man and could not possibly hold a candle to the likes of WB and AG – by one of our one-tune posters.
It obvious that it is better to be leading at any time in the election cycle and to have 52-48 two weeks out from the Big One would be an excellent position to be in.
On the other hand, Turbull’s ratings are getting to silly levels, given all he has done essentially, is be there.
I suspect Shorten will have his work cut out, but so what? If he is good enough – and he has the policies – as Trudeau in Canada showed, and I guess the conservatives getting up in Argentina when they were expected to lose, demonstrates that in a two horse race – either can win.
Still a long way to go yet.
crackpot @ 889
[It was most enjoyable watching Turnbull eviscerate Palmer in QT.]
That took guts.
Tricot:
Commenters here have been dismissing Mumble’s commentary ever since he went to News ltd. Frankly I think that schtick says more about them than it does about his work.
[It was most enjoyable watching Turnbull eviscerate Palmer in QT.]
Sometimes it can be fun watching Turnbull go to town.
Like when he destroyed Tony Abbott. That was great.
Mumble is cool most of the time.
The current situation is unique in that we have had a highly unpopular PM replaced in his first term. That could make previous analysis less relevant.
I don’t dismiss Mumble’s comments any more than I take them as gospel. He certainly is more informed than the average commentator, however I think he can be too reliant on “conventional wisdom” and rigid about it.
For instance, he has repeatedly misread SA in the last few years. Also, the absoluteness of a government never losing in its first term (and certainly not to the immediate OL) was clearly not true by the fact that the Coalition needed to dump Abbott to survive.
[Mumble is cool most of the time.
The current situation is unique in that we have had a highly unpopular PM replaced in his first term. That could make previous analysis less relevant.
]
He is cool all of the time, I miss when you’d brawl on Ozpolitics for a bit, come read what William had to say on pollbludger and possibly hang around a bit to annoy Adam who held an imperious court here, and then pop over to Mumble. I’m not a big fan of his fire wall.
Otherwise david, brace yourself, I agree completely.
[It was most enjoyable watching Turnbull eviscerate Palmer in QT.]
Did he?
Mumble’s commentary certainly doesn’t always play out like he forecasts it will, but then nobody is right all the time. He can rely on the historical precedent stuff a bit too much but that’s hardly a reason to dismiss his observations.
[I don’t dismiss Mumble’s comments any more than I take them as gospel. He certainly is more informed than the average commentator, however I think he can be too reliant on “conventional wisdom” and rigid about it.]
I’m not sure how conventional it is, he has his own conventions but like all conventions they are some times misleading or even incorrect.
[Mumble’s commentary certainly doesn’t always play out like he forecasts it will, but then nobody is right all the time. He can rely on the historical precedent stuff a bit too much but that’s hardly a reason to dismiss his observations.]
I think ‘we’ are dismissing his observation because it runs contrary to the Kill Bill message of the week.
Carey M:
I don’t recall Mumble ever being absolute in his comments about the Abbott govt winning the next election, just (as you and I have noted) that the historical precedent was for first term govts to be re-elected.
He also remarked repeatedly in his columns and tweets that Abbott was looking like he would be replaced before the next election anyways.
Mumble makes highly informed guesses based on unbiased analysis of situations. Few of us here can do that.
[
862
mexicanbeemer
It is high time that someone puts forward an increase to basic welfare payments, particularly DSP which is pathetically low.
]
Way past time for a guaranteed, non-means tested, and adequate basic income.
Would cut out all that inefficient control bureaucracy and toxic morality-play bullshit with one stroke.
Too sensible. Will never happen.
[I think ‘we’ are dismissing his observation because it runs contrary to the Kill Bill message of the week.]
Then they should be cheered with the knowledge that next week he’ll offer something for the Kill Bill-ers. 😀
Yay we have emoticons back!!
Fess 🙂 🙂 🙂
David Pope on domestic violence
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/david-pope-20141123-1t3j0.html
frednk
That’s true but the total cost of health care would be the same for the smoker as the non-smoker. Nowadays we are much better at treating heart disease and lung cancer, so I’m guessing smokers are living longer than before and are costing a lot more to look after.
I remember seeing a 50 year old guy (with Buergers disease) outside the hospital. He had no fingers left and he’d bent a coat hanger so it could hold a cigarette and he could keep smoking.
Someone asked earlier about if everyone is capable of giving up smoking. Everyone can do it but it’s a lot harder for some than others. And they need a lot more support to get there.
The first time I read a Mumble article was when he incoherently dismissed the views of a bunch of other psephologists (such as KB) without ever getting around to properly stating his own view. He didn’t seem to have any point other than “all these other guys are wrong”.
Let’s just say there hasn’t been a second time.
DN occasionally Mumbles loses the plot. You should have perservered.
[Nice abuse there mate, but did you BOTHER(and I’ll assume you were too ignorant) to look at the nice little graph with what looks very much like a linear line decrease ]
At first I thought he was talking about the linear graph that shows boat arrivals decreasing from when Rudd introduced the Labor policy in 2013
david
It’s not a problem. I went and read all those other guys articles and still do, occasionally. So overall a gain.
AussieAchmed, 905
Never thought I’d have to say this on PB, but it is possible for the parliament to do more than one thing at a time.
Kevin provides balanced and well though out analysis despite his left bias.
Sorry Kevin 🙂
Maybe that was his plan all along? A subtle plug for everyone else.
In Australia the incidence of smoking is in decline, with figures from 2011–13 showing 16.1% of the population (over 18) to be daily smokers, a decline from 22.4% in 2001.
[http://mumble.com.au/?p=2252]
Does that link work?
Where’s truthy to explain this “straight line” and the natural decline in smoking?
http://cf.datawrapper.de/ekuTc/1/
You have to cut and paste it but yes.
Peter Brent’s analysis of public opinion and probabilities of electoral outcomes is better than that of a political journalist but that’s not a high bar to clear. His analysis often goes well outside the bounds of the data he presents. He is prone to motivated reasoning and amateurish mistakes. William Bowe, Kevin Bonham, and Antony Green are more rigorous in their use of data. They don’t make firm pronouncements that aren’t supported by sound use of data.
Peter Brent’s sloppiness has nothing to do with his association with News Limited.
[http://www.mumble.com.au/federal/lemmings.htm]
How I first came to love Mumble. Once upon a time you got a picture of the lemmings …
TL is PB?
[ William Bowe, Kevin Bonham, and Antony Green are more rigorous in their use of data. ]
I would put William and Antony in a very different category, and I don’t think I’d put Kevin and Mumble in the same category even if I were trying to reduce the number of categories desperately.
[Kevin provides balanced and well though out analysis despite his left bias.
Sorry Kevin 🙂
]
Warning David I’m largely going to agree, but to maintain the appropriate opposing stance I’d suggest that rather than ‘despite’ I would have said something like is honest, clear and fair about the direction he comes from.
Agreed WWP
[Airlines
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
AussieAchmed, 905
Never thought I’d have to say this on PB, but it is possible for the parliament to do more than one thing at a time]
How condescending of you.
But having the Greens doing all that great breaking investigation will keep them occupied while the adults get on with the important stuff.