Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor

As Newspoll reports for the first time in three weeks, Labor’s 53-47 lead remains set in cement.

The Australian relates yet another 53-47 result from Newspoll, with both major parties down a point on the primary vote: the Coalition to 35% and Labor to 36%, with One Nation steady on 11% and the Greens, despite it all, up a point to 10%. Of personal ratings, only the following at this stage:

Mr Turnbull’s net satisfaction rating — the difference between those satisfied and those dissatisfied with his performance — deteriorated slightly from -23 points to -24 points over the past three weeks. In contrast, Mr Shorten improved his net satisfaction rating from -23 to -20 points in today’s poll, showing another improvement in his standing with voters since he slumped to -28 points in March.

UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes relates that Malcolm Turnbull is steady on 32% approval and up one on disapproval to 56%; Bill Shorten is respectively up one to 33% and down two to 53%; and Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 44-31 to 41-33.

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.

811 comments on “Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 11 of 17
1 10 11 12 17
  1. a r @ #491 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 11:08 am

    Greensborough Growler @ #480 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 10:49 am

    I have also put forward ideas here today about creating legal partnering.

    Good. The next step is to see that if the “legal partnering” option that straight couples have access to is called “marriage”, then the legally fair, consistent, and equal way to extend that same privilege to gay couples is to allow them to marry, too. Or to abolish legal marriage for all couples, and have everyone go through your “legal partnering” process (and retroactively invalidate/convert all standing marriages, etc.).

    You can’t have one law that applies to one demographic, and then a different law that applies to another. If racial segregation taught the world anything, it’s that “separate but equal” is not equal.

    There needs to be one law that works the same for all couples regardless of orientation. It doesn’t necessarily need to be called “marriage” (as long as nobody gets to claim to be legally married), but it is easiest and simplest by a wide margin to keep calling it that.

    You’ve already posted that there is no compromise possible on this matter. So, I doubt any of that is about finding a solution that is acceptable to all.
    You seem to believe that the only logic is your logic, the only answer is your answer and the process is about you triumphing in the end. It’s just angry gesturing, empty rhetoric and a waste of time.

    Not an approach that is particularly appealing to me. Get back to me when you are interested in a proper discussion and a more realistic solution.

  2. The problem with religious belief is the profound fear that they are wrong.

    Religions teach that the only true meaning of life is provided by their doctrine/belief system. That indoctrination usually occurs from an early age.

    If you endanger the foundation of someone’s belief system they become terrified and react accordingly.

    Sadly, marriage equality seems to rock the foundations of many religions.

    When you think logically, basic EQUALITY should be the human condition. For a lot of reasons in a lot of cultures it is not – whether that be marriage/financial/religious equality … whatever.

    When you think REALLY logically, the belief in a greater being, especially one who might be interested in the goings-on in your individual life, is quite prepostous.

    After all, we, as a supposedly ‘superior’ creature, do not afford the kind of respect to the animal/plant kingdom that we believe a mythical ‘god’ gives us. We barely believe any other creature is sentient. Imagine what a ‘god’ thinks of us then.

  3. Guytaur:

    Calling GG a bigot or a troll is neither fair nor accurate. I do not agree with his opinion or argument however. I want my gays married and not civil unions/partnerships as by its wording its a not the same.

  4. kakuru @ #497 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 11:22 am

    P1

    “GG is not a troll. GG simply has religious beliefs that conflict with yours. Get over it.”

    I agree that GG is not a troll. But I can’t agree that his religious beliefs should override those of everyone else’s – including gay people.
    When SSM finally becomes the law of the land, it won’t be compulsory. GG will not be forced to marry a person of the same gender. So I can’t see why SSM is a BFD to conservative religious types.

    This is a discussion blog and not an echo chamber.
    There is a difference.

  5. Another NYT Bombshell: Donald Trump Jr. Knew Russian Government Was Helping His Dad’s Campaign

    Donald Trump Jr. was told in an email that the damaging info on Hillary Clinton that he sought during his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer “was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy.”

    According to the report, which broke a short time ago, “Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.”

    Just to be clear: Not only did Donald Trump Jr. take a meeting with a Russian-linked lawyer who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton, but he knew the Russian government was behind it – and he still met with her.

    The son of the President of the United States knowingly meeting with a lawyer backed by the Russian government with damaging info on his father’s opponent, Hillary Clinton – that’s as close to a smoking gun as one could get.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/07/10/nyt-bombshell-shows-donald-trump-jr-knew-russian-government-helping-dad.html

  6. So, of Australia’s states and territories, NSW, Vic, Qld, SA, Tas, ACT all have net zero emissions (economy wide, not just in the electricity sector) by 2050.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/queensland-labor-unveils-plan-to-make-state-carbon-neutral-by-2050/news-story/6bf1e19c6abda377200e1ec6af5855c7

    WA and NT do not.

    Where the Federal government dares not act, state governments on both sides of the aisle will get it done.

  7. IOM

    When evidence is ignored then yes calling that person a bigot is spot on. It may be religious bigotry not homophobia per se but its still bigotry

  8. shiftaling @ #496 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 11:22 am

    Actually Greensborough Growler has form for trolling on this issue here and has admitted as such in the past. Trolling is stating a point solely for the reaction or annoyance it generates, rather than out of a genuinely held belief. He has definitely admitted to doing this – he refers to it as pouring petrol on the fire. I tend to ignore trolls as it is the only way of denying them their satisfaction.

    Actually, shiftalong comes on this blog and tells outright lies about other posters. He is so unconfident of his views he has to abuse people he disagrees with. Now, that’s real trolling!

  9. Trump Aides: Russia Flap Proves Don Jr. Is the ‘Fredo’ of the First Family

    Former Trump campaign officials said Trump Jr.’s role in the scandal involving a Kremlin-linked lawyer is just the latest in a series of mistakes by the president’s first-born son.

    Ever since the campaign, a popular, behind-his-back nickname for Trump Jr. among some in his father’s political inner circle has been “Fredo,” referring to Fredo Corleone, the insecure and weak failure of a son in The Godfather series who ends up causing major damage to the crime family and contributing little of value.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-aides-russia-flap-proves-don-jr-is-the-fredo-of-the-first-family?source=twitter&via=desktop

  10. IOM

    The argument you just used by the way you would not use in the case of an interracial couple getting married. Its accepted that its prejudice by a bigot to see that as unequal.

    Same applies for gays getting married too. Its why the opponents try and argue its not equal. They then have to accept the fact of that equality

  11. Phoenix,

    Totally off the politics for a second.

    One of the best movie scenes I have watched was the one where Fredo is rowed out to the middle of a bay and a bullet put into the back of his head. No dialogue but very powerful scene.

    Anyway, just a observation with little to do with politics or perhaps Turnbull wishes Abbott was Fredo.

    Cheers.

  12. Al Pal

    It’s not only Fairfax putting up silly headlines or stories written/edited by people who don’t understand the subject, it’s most of the ‘main stream’ press here and internationally.

    Not enough profit in it now to employ people with the appropriate skill and knowledge.

  13. guytaur @ #495 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 11:22 am

    GG

    In fact your dismissal of legal arguments and decisions by courts and parliaments world wide just proves its religious doctrine.

    There is a world wide body of evidence to the contrary despite your religious doctrine like that of Senator Abetz an Lyle Shelton it has to be between a man and a woman. This is just a belief.

    You really are all over the shop.
    You laud one USSC decision favourably because it accords with your view of the world. Yet, you ignore another from the same court about a subject with which you disagree.

    My point again is that we in Australia have our own laws and processes for changing them.

  14. Doyley Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:49 am
    Phoenix,
    Totally off the politics for a second.

    One of the best movie scenes I have watched was the one where Fredo is rowed out to the middle of a bay and a bullet put into the back of his head. No dialogue but very powerful scene.

    *******************************************

    I have a feeling that Don ‘Corleone’ Trump might just be thinking of something similar to happen to his idiot son has just dropped them all in the shit ……

  15. IOM

    This is not an issue of disagreement. Its an issue of denying equality to a minority. People who do that are usually called a bigot a racist or some other ism. This is no different.

  16. CTar1 @ #519 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 11:50 am

    It’s not only Fairfax putting up silly headlines or stories written/edited by people who don’t understand the subject, it’s most of the ‘main stream’ press here and internationally.

    This has been the trend for years now. The Internet began killing mainstream journalism around 2003 or so. Editorial standards have dropped precipitously.

  17. voice endeavour @ #510 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:36 am

    So, of Australia’s states and territories, NSW, Vic, Qld, SA, Tas, ACT all have net zero emissions (economy wide, not just in the electricity sector) by 2050.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/queensland-labor-unveils-plan-to-make-state-carbon-neutral-by-2050/news-story/6bf1e19c6abda377200e1ec6af5855c7
    WA and NT do not.
    Where the Federal government dares not act, state governments on both sides of the aisle will get it done.

    I hate to say it of a Labor government, but this is just a pea and thimble trick. Becoming ‘carbon neutral by 2050’ is just a con – it does not necessarily even meet our paltry Paris commitments, and it certainly does not minimize our total GHG emissions.

    This is just meaningless political rhetoric by a state government that intends to oversee the death of the great barrier reef for the sake of a few decades more of mining coal. Of course, their political opponents are even worse. How depressing.

  18. Here is my compromise proposal on SSM.

    We replace all the instance of the word “Marriage” in the law with “Civil Union”.

    Then we can have same sex civil unions and different sex civil union.

    And anyone who wants to use the term marriage can use it without worry about what the law says.

  19. GG Using the word ‘morality’ in any statement in relation to the Roman church is ludicrous. The Roman church possesses the morality of a leech. It directly protects child rapists.

  20. Noun 1. bigot – a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
    chauvinist – a person with a prejudiced belief in the superiority of his or her own kind
    antifeminist – someone who does not believe in the social or economic or political equality of men and women
    homophobe – a person who hates or fears homosexual people
    drumbeater, partisan, zealot – a fervent and even militant proponent of something
    racialist, racist – a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
    sectarian, sectarist, sectary – a member of a sect; “most sectarians are intolerant of the views of any other sect”
    segregationist, segregator – someone who believes the races should be kept apart
    Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bigot

  21. There is no cogent or rational argument against SSM. All opponents can do is invoke their own faith-based worldview – that marriage should be exclusive to heterosexual couples, based on an interpretation of certain religious documents that were written centuries ago (for Christians, nearly 2000 years ago).

  22. timothy reichle @ #526 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:58 am

    Here is my compromise proposal on SSM.
    We replace all the instance of the word “Marriage” in the law with “Civil Union”.
    Then we can have same sex civil unions and different sex civil union.
    And anyone who wants to use the term marriage can use it without worry about what the law says.

    This would get my vote!

  23. kakuru @ #531 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    There is no cogent or rational argument against SSM. All opponents can do is invoke their own faith-based worldview – that marriage should be exclusive to heterosexual couples, based on an interpretation of certain religious documents that were written centuries ago (for Christians, nearly 2000 years ago).

    What a rigid and narrow view of the world, it’s history and it’s people you have!

  24. Booleanbach – A couple of the comments made on the F-35 price increase story you put up earlier:

    Lrx6h

    Isn’t this Bernie Sander’s favorite weapons system?

    wolfess6h -> Lrx

    Yeppers — Vermont builds them … and now we know why he has shut up again about Medicare for All. What an outstanding president he would have been — maybe there was no blackmail at all to get him to capitulate to the harridan, his fellow senators probably just told him they’d find a way to get his state more money for the F(u#king)-35s!

  25. I think the main problem with the proposal as said is the following are not prohibited.
    -Multiple wives being called marriage
    -Brother and sister
    -Children.

  26. P1
    “What a rigid and narrow view of the world, it’s history and it’s people you have!”

    Substitute “the world” with “religion”, and you’d be right.

  27. Whatever the law ends up being, it will still be up to individual churches whether marriages are performed there. People at the moment get married ‘without the blessing of the church’ and that will remain the case.

    If churches don’t want to marry gay couples (and some do) then that should be their business.

  28. We replace all the instance of the word “Marriage” in the law with “Civil Union”.

    Sorry but that horse has bolted. Same sex marriage is a social norm in the west now. The only opponents are hardline ideologues and they’re the ones who are digging their heels in. The watery centrist approach is not necessary.

  29. ..I have friends, for example, who are Catholics but whose marriages are not ‘recognised’ by the church. They’re still legally married.

    My (widowed) devout Catholic aunt wanted to marry a divorced man. In order for this to be recognised by the church, he had to pretend his first marriage had never been legal. The church would prefer to make his children bastards than let one of their flock wed someone who was divorced.

    And that’s exactly how it will ‘work’ with same sex marriage – the law will recognise marriages as legal which the church does not. If people – like my step uncle – are willing to put up with the church’s rules, that’s their business.

  30. TimothyReichie
    “I think the main problem with the proposal as said is the following are not prohibited.
    -Multiple wives being called marriage
    -Brother and sister
    -Children.”

    The funny thing is, all these things could be categorised as “traditional marriage.” All have precedents that go back centuries, and were condoned by the religious authorities at the time.

  31. There’s a false distinction drawn between “marriage” and “civil union”. A civil union that is voluntary, exclusive, witnessed and registered is called a “marriage”. It has been thus in Australia for nearly 200 years. The debate is about who will be permitted to have their voluntary and exclusive unions also registered. Hitherto, same sex persons are not entitled to have their unions registered. There is no credible reason for this exclusion.

    Marriage is not a religious institution, though the clerics would make it so, given the chance. In this country, marriage is always and only a civil estate. Likewise, divorce – the act of terminating and de-registering a recognised union – is always and only a civil process.

    When “celebrating” a union, religious officials are not exercising a clerical or canonical power. They are exercising a civil power, delegated to them by the State. They should have no more rights to discriminate in the exercise of such power than anyone else acting on behalf of the State.

  32. And with that previous comment, I also point out that, because the holdouts are, at this point, irrational ideologues (and a few wimpy hard-C “centrists”) there’s no point debating it – as minds have already been made up at this point.

    I just want it to be over and done with, so we can move on and stop making this the hill the left fights and dies on, as well as the moral compass we’re judging people with (i.e. giving praise to people with otherwise horrible views because they’re in favour.)

  33. Adam Schiff Lays Out The Devastating Timeline Of Russia-Trump Campaign Collusion

    “This meeting, purportedly in June, in July the Russians start dumping documents helpful to Donald Trump, hurtful to Hillary Clinton.”

    Schiff said:

    This goes back to June of last year, just when the now-president has essentially seized the Republican nomination. If this article is correct, his son gets an email from someone who helped the Trump family do business in Russia saying, “The Russian government is helping your father get elected president, we have some damaging information, you should take this meeting.” Donald Jr. takes the meeting with this woman who’s an advocate for the Kremlin, along with Kushner and Manafort … This meeting, purportedly in June, in July the Russians start dumping documents helpful to Donald Trump, hurtful to Hillary Clinton. … Flash forward after the election, investigation starts, and the family is asked, the president is asked, “Did you have any meetings with any representatives of the Russian government.” The answer is, “No, absolutely not, not in a million years. … In a pattern we have seen over and over again, when confronted with evidence of particular meetings, they’re forced to acknowledge, “Oh, well, yes we did have that meeting.” … Obviousy, there’s a lot to unpack here, but the chronology, I think, is very concerning. It all warrants thorough investigation. Everyone who was in that meeting ought to come before our committee. These emails that are described, we need to see.

    The fact that the son of the Republican nominee and now-President of the United States knew that the Russians were involved in aiding his dad’s campaign before taking such a meeting is, as Schiff noted, a “very serious development” and has the potential to sink Trump’s presidency.

    If the White House was hoping this story would go away, the last 48 hours of New York Times reporting is evidence that it isn’t going anywhere.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/07/10/adam-schiff-lays-devastating-timeline-trump-campaign-russia-collusion.html

  34. RL

    This is the debate Rodney Croome was talking about. Its why when finally Tasmania did decriminalise it got the strongest laws in place to prevent discrimination. That state had just been through a toxic debate with parts of it Nazis could have been proud of conducting.

    The movement on this came to Mainstream attention when gays were being arrested for trying to gather signatures on a petition to present to parliament

  35. Police are looking for those responsible for plastering posters promoting the lynching and deportation of prominent politicians and media personalities across Sydney’s inner west.

    The posters, which have been spotted in Petersham and since taken down, resemble Pokemon playing cards and have photos of Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Waleed Aly and the ABC’s Yassmin Abdel-Magied alongside the phrases “gotta catch and hang em all” and “gotta catch and deport em all”.

    This is much more damaging to Australia than SSM.
    http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/police-investigating-racist-posters-plastered-across-sydneys-inner-west-20170710-gx8mcy.html

Comments Page 11 of 17
1 10 11 12 17

Leave a Reply

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