A new poll conducted for ReachTEL by Sky News gives Labor a 52-48 lead on two-party preferred, which is down from 53-47 at the last such poll on May 11. At the moment, primary vote figures are limited to the first question which allowed for an undecided response, which comes in a 7.1% – I assume the undecided were then given a forced response question, to which we don’t yet have the results. If the undecided are simply excluded from the available numbers, the results are Coalition 36.5%, Labor 35.6%, Greens 10.3% and One Nation 9.8%.
An all-or-nothing question on the Liberal leadership breaks 68.3-31.7 in favour of Malcolm Turnbull over Tony Abbott, while Turnbull leads Bill Shorten 54.1-45.9 as preferred prime minister. Turnbull’s combined very good plus good rating is “just under 27%”, compared with 36.5% for poor or very poor. Same-sex marriage has 62.4% supportive and 25.9% opposed, with most believing the matter should be determined by a plebiscite, and 64.1% believe penalty rates should be higher on Sundays than Saturdays. The poll was conducted yesterday from a sample of 2389.
All the losing they do actually does do real world damage…
Blair, Brown, and Milliband did immense damage to the Labour Party’s reputation. Corbyn was able to make Labour competitive again despite the damage done by his predecessors. That is an impressive achievement.
“All the losing they do actually does do real world damage…”
Fatuous rot.
BW,
Could you please devote some of your considerable expertise to analysing the political travails of leaders who are actually able to do real damage to their countries and the world. Like Trump. Or May. Or Putin. It would just be nice to appreciate your talents and your literary guns being turned on them for a change. I mean, don’t you think taking potshots at Sanders and Corbyn is a bit too much like shooting fish in a barrel?
N
Losing by 60 seats to the most incompetent Tory campaigner for the last 50 years is not ‘making Labor competitive again’.
It is losing by a country mile.
C
Trump was helped immeasurably by Sanders who kept tearing Clinton down long after it became obvious that Sanders was not going to become the Dem candidate.
May is an utter disaster for Britain.
It is a great pity that Labor could only cough up Corbyn to ensure her victory.
We all knew that Corbyn was going to lose to May. He did. By 60 seats.
It is only the deluded who tell themselves that losing by 60 seats is actually a victory.
Putin is a mass murdering despot.
IT
“All the losing they do actually does do real world damage…”
‘Fatuous rot.’
Sure, sure. Losing is good. Winning is bad. Four legs good. Two legs bad.
Corbyns Labour has a four point lead in the polls.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/878946488201736192
And Corbyn himself is about 20 points ahead of May on job performance.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/879100890631872512
All this after only a couple of years.
What a loser!
@socrates
My wife who is Chinese says her friends not voting LNP next election.
Of course BW’s solution to the inadequacies of Corbyn would be to not turn out to vote.
BTW, when was it obvious that May was an utter disaster for Britain? When she called the election and held a substantial lead in the polls? At that time we all knew that May was going to win handsomely and increase her majority. How did that turn out? Blame Corbyn for it?
Boerwar
In “real world” news, it doesn’t matter a jot, from your point of view, if Corbyn resigns. Enough of the new Labor MPs are Corbynites that they would be able to easily get one of their own on the leadership ballot, who would then go onto win the ballot for the same reason Corbyn did, which means you’d replace Corbyn with someone pretty much identical.
@BW
Don’t be an asshole to other, you like a bully calling someone a loser..
BC
‘And Corbyn himself is about 20 points ahead of May on job performance.’
That would be LOTO Corbyn and PM May.
Loser and winner.
E
The only real world difference that Corbyn resigning would make is to give someone who might actually win an election take leadership of the Opposition.
Meanwhile the hopeless person that Corbyn managed to get thrashed by will be trashing the country.
Just like LOTO Shorten and PM Turnbull ?
Loser and winner
(Actually that’s being unkind to Corbyn because Turnbull managed a 1 seat majority, while May required a Coalition.
And I don’t even dislike Bill Shorten personally. )
Its dry July.
I made it to 21:30.
@BW
What you’re failing to understand here is that no one you would approve of is going to win leadership of Labor in the real world. Corbyn’s factions now have the numbers in the parliamentary party to be able to nominate one of their own for leader and that person will go on to win the membership ballot because as Corbyn’s (repeated) election as leader proved they’ve got the numbers in the membership.
You think Corbyn resigning would yield a new Blair but it won’t , the current reality is that it will yield a new Corbyn. If you think otherwise you’re the one not living in the real world.
c@tmomma @ #554 Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Your mistake is thinking the Bore has a shred of credibility.
At best he is just a windbag.
I agree with Nicholas on Corbyn. He raised Labor’s vote. A lot. In fact, it was the SDP clowns that cost Labor government, not Corbyn. They poor campaign and refusal to deal with Labor split the progressive vote in Scotland, with lots of seats going to the Cons on very small percentages. And who caused the split in Scotland? Blair and Brown.
The fact is, Jeremy Corbyn has been picking up the pieces and making Labor electable again. They were not before him. If an election were held tomorrow he would win.
E
‘You think Corbyn resigning would yield a new Blair but it won’t ,…’
I sincerely hope that we never see either a new Blair or the old one back.
My point is quite straightforward.
Corbyn got thrashed by May.
May is probably the worst campaigner that the Tories have put up for the past century.
If all Corbyn could do is lose by 60 seats by May, and all Labour can do is pop Corbyn back up for another run in five years time…
Masochism writ large.
Like Bemused, it is a complete waste of time arguing with the Bore.
At least Bemused is a genuine Labor supporter and not a thinly veiled reactionary like BW.
Yeah, because we all know opposition leaders tend to lead newly elected Prime Ministers in opinion polls. Oh wait, that’s the complete opposite of the usual convention. Stop being obtuse BW.
I think you’re kidding yourself if you think Mays coalition will last five years. I’d be surprised if it lasts one.
BW should stop sucking up a successful labor leader, have some common sense, because no party or leader will last a life time in power.
If Corbyn had not been leader of the Labour Party, it is unlikely that there would have been an election as the Tories would not have seen the polls giving them such a high chance of a large majority. Then the Tories would still have their majority and not be subject to loosing office at short notice and facing an unfavourable election.
Socrates
Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 10:30 pm
In fact, it was the SDP clowns that cost Labor government, not Corbyn. They poor campaign and refusal to deal with Labor split the progressive vote in Scotland
The refusal of Labour to do deals with the SNP helped Labour in England. There is no question about that.
The SNP proposed a continuation of secessionist policy, a stance that shifted votes to the Tories and LDP in Scotland. Nationalist politics are a total blight on Labour and on modernist politics in general. In Scotland, unionist sentiment translated into support for the Tories, despite the incredible incompetence, weakness and recklessness of Theresa May.
From what I remember of the numbers Corbyn wouldn’t win, an election tomorrow, but May wouldn’t be able to pass the resulting Queen’s Speech (which means May would certainly lose the election).
Labor would end up in the awkward position of having to rely on the SNP without any kind of formal agreement at all (because they can’t be seen to be in alignment with an anti-Union party) and there’s a chance they’d have to rely on the Lib Dems too , who have explicitly said they won’t form a coalition with any party that isn’t anti-Brexit (though that might not stand the test of an opportunity at power) in much the same manner. I don’t think it’s unworkable but it’s not really winning by Anglosphere standards (where you don’t “win” unless you get a majority in your right).
Bemused is a misogynistic, abusive asshole who offers nothing of value to this site. Boerwar at least has intelligent observations, even though you might disagree with his views. I’d rather a hundred Boerwars over and above one single bmused. And it should be noted that William our host never treats Boerwar with the disdain and dismissal that he does with Bemused. That alone should tell you something.
Bemused,
Your mistake is thinking the Bore has a shred of credibility.
The sarcasm emoji would have come in handy, I think. 🙂
In England, both the Tories and Labour increased their share of the vote, a development that coincided with the collapse of UKIP support. The Tories were hoping that nearly all the UKIP not would shift their way. In the event, while a lot of UKIP voters aligned with the Tories, some reverted to Labour, who also benefited from a shift in support more generally among voters aged less than 40.
The very great pity of UK politics is that both major parties are led by Europhobic reactionaries. It is very likely that both the Tories and Labour will split over Brexit….as well they might.
Neither party can take a strongly anti-Brexit stance because doing so would effectively reform UKIP from whichever party that did. Labor would probably actually suffer more from such than the Tories at this point in time, because Labor has now done stupidly well in the pro-Remain city areas, so they’d gain little from such a stance while likely lose the non-City pro-Brexit seats from it. The Tories would at least stand to win some seats back by deciding to go anti-Brexit.
confessions @ #578 Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 10:40 pm
I certainly don’t spew out abuse like that and nor do I encourage others on PB to ostracise anyone.
Confessions is a potty mouthed disgrace.
c@tmomma @ #579 Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 10:41 pm
I refrain from using them for reasons mentioned earlier by CTar1
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/06/30/reachtel-52-48-labor/comment-page-12/#comment-2604746
The Scottish seats the Conservatives won were mostly historically won by the Conservative Party and a large part of the switch to the Tories was anti-EU former SNP voters deserting them over their Scottish Independence (many of these places had weaker Remain votes than the rest of Scotland) but not from the EU position and thus the Conservatives were in a a good place to pick up these votes. The Scottish Conservatives also have a better campaigner (Ruth Davison) as their leader, a significant factor in their victory. Corbyn picked up 6 seats in Scotland and is poised to pick up more at the next election.
As the Brexit cliff draws near and the results for the economy become clearer to the population, the polls will continue to shift away from Brexit. A strongly helping the disadvantaged Labour party will be in a better position to take a less pro-Brexit position without loosing neglected regional voters.
Zoid,
Any reason given?
Elaugaufein
Labour should adopt an overt counter-Brexit position. Were Labour to revoke its current position, the Tories will split into a UKIP-style rump and the modernisers. If Labour fail to do this the Euro-phobic minority in the Tory party will win the greatest Pyrrhic victory of modern times. These voices are not only hostile to Europe. They thoroughly despise Labour and will set out to both further entrench aristocratic privilege and dismantle what remains of social democracy in the UK.
I seem to recall Boerwar predicting that Labour under Corbyn was going to be all but wiped out and that May would win over 400 seats and a massive majority that would see the Tories entrenched in power for a generation. As Maxwell Smart would have said “missed it by that much”.
But we won’t embarrass poor old BW any further by also pointing out that Corbyn actually lifted the Labour vote by 10% from the time the election was called until polling day. Not bad for a total no-hoper.
Tom The First And Best
Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 11:00 pm
As the Brexit cliff draws near and the results for the economy become clearer to the population, the polls will continue to shift away from Brexit.
And power will go the party that most convincingly renounces Brexit.
Darn
Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 11:07 pm
Labour’s vote must be one of the all-time highest losing shares. We should recognise that not only did Corbyn campaign for Labour, so did Theresa May. They both deserve some of the credit.
briefly @ #589 Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 11:08 pm
Maybe Corbyn is just waiting for the full horror of Brexit to become apparent to enough of the electorate.
I base this on nothing more than supposition.
Just a random thought here. While its generally not a good idea to do anything that generates CO2, there is one exception and that’s generating energy from gasification of the waste from landfills (not new garbage, but stuff that’s already been landfilled). The reason is that if we don’t reclaim and reuse landfill, it will generate more CO2 equivalent just sitting there.
I’ve been investigating landfill mining and reclamation technology. I do believe it will become economic to not only produce energy from landfill waste through gasification, but also reclaim metals and render the inorganic fraction into inert materials.
The process involves gasifying anything organic (paper, plastic, wood) – turning it into CO and H2 (syngas). From there you can build (basic industrial chemistry) anything, including transport fuel and plastics. Or you can burn the syngas to produce electricity.
Most likely you’d build a plant that produces electricity, then gradually increment the plant to produce other hydrocarbons (avgas, diesel etc).
Anyhow, this sort of plant has inherent energy storage and is dispatchable. So its a much more sensible choice than building a gas fired power station that burns new fossil gas. And you can incorporate renewable energy into the process and use solar and wind energy at times where there is excess production and electricity from these sources is cheap. It also pays to incorporate a solar farm into the design of the plant. Which means you have a plant that can produce more electricity at peak times and this is what makes it economic.
And, in future (as you run out of old landfill, which is going to take some time unless you go for GW levels) its a plant that’s capable of taking biomass and converting it to both electricity and liquid fuels. So, its not a stranded asset.
Just thinking.. 🙂
Galaxy: 50-50 in South Australia.
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/07/01/galaxy-50-50-south-australia/
Trumps is tweeting;
**Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?**
Trump is trying to prove he would have won the popular vote if it wasnt for voter fraud and the Panel is asking States for all registered voters’ names, addresses, dates of birth, partial social security numbers, political party, a decade’s worth of voter history, information on felony convictions…
Would you blame the States for not giving such data to Trumps henchmen?
Delbert Hosemann, the Secretary of State of Mississippi, a republican, has said the panel can “go jump in the gulf of Mexico.”
And here comes the double down…..
“Crazy Joe Scarborough and dumb as a rock Mika are not bad people, but their low rated show is dominated by their NBC bosses. Too bad!”
He cant help himself.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/30/britons-savings-at-record-low-as-household-incomes-drop-says-ons
This is also a significant factor in the revival of Labour’s vote …younger people, in work and paying their bills, moved to support Labour as their economic circumstances are squeezed.
Not that anyone noticed, with everything else that’s horribly wrong with Trump, but he started a thought some 16 hours ago:
…and doesn’t seem like he’s ever going to bother finishing it.
Young people generally lean left vote wise, probably because they tend to be socially progressive and don’t have a big enough stake in the status quo to vote right to preserve what they’ve got. The thing is they don’t vote reliably while the older demographic that leans conservative do. The weird thing about this election in the UK which lacks compulsory voting, is that young people actually registered and turned out to vote in fairly high numbers. I’d be interested to see if anyone’s tried to determine if it’s because Corbyn or because Brexit.
AR:
He’s probably saving the war card for closer to the 2020 election.
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2017/06/30/reachtel-52-48-labor/comment-page-12/#comment-2604760
The all time high vote-share for a defeated party in UK elections is the 48.8% Labour polled at the 1951 election when the Attlee government was defeated. The Conservatives polled only 40.0% (But would have polled closer to Labour had 4 of their Ulster Unionist allies had received votes, instead of being elected uncontested). The Labour vote was disproportionately locked up in safe seats.