Another fortnight (or so), another 53-47 to Labor result from Newspoll. This time out the primary votes are Coalition 36% (up one), Labor 37% (up one), Greens 9% (down one) and One Nation 9% (down two). Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings are slightly improved, with approval up two to 34% and disapproval down two to 54%, and his lead as preferred prime minister out from 41-33 to 43-32, while Bill Shorten is unchanged at 33% approval and 53% disapproval.
UPDATE: Paywalled Australian report here. Kevin Bonham: “Same 2PP five #Newspolls in a row, a new all-time record. #auspol”.
Another nice set of numbers
Bill calling the shots at present
Well if Dutton doesn’t give the remaining 47% the fear of god nothing will.
Not bad at all.
16 in a row?
From previous:
The real problem with the Senate is its presumed power to block supply and bring down the government. This was debated extensively at the constitutional conventions and, for mine, the founding fathers left behind a time bomb;
S53:
Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.
The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people
In 1975 it was argued that if the Senate can’t amend supply how can it reject it?
This has never had judicial review and the assumption is that rejection is constitutional
The Labor leader set out the terms of their next election campaign recently. One built on inequality in our society, and addressing that.
This will prove to be a resounding message in the community I am sure.
He does this with a six point lead already firmly established in the polls.
And what is the interpretation at the Australian?
I watched Shorten’s speech on Insiders today and thought it was excellent. With some time to reflect, was Shorten’s speech the unofficial kick off of Labor’s election campaign?
OC…I thought that in ’75 the Senate “failed to pass” Supply, that they never quite got to the act of rejection….
True – we can then argue that Kerr acted before he needed to!
Geez new polls are coming tick and fast now. I’ll just repeat the following from the old thread:
Steve777
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Re Pretty One @8:17PM: I don’t think that fixed 4 year terms would have much impact on the turnover of PMs. That’s more about internal party dynamics. If Malcom were elected to a fixed 4 year term last year, Tony Abbott would still be after his job. Peter Dutton would still be waiting for his opportunity.
OC
“In 1975 it was argued that if the Senate can’t amend supply how can it reject it?”
The Senate now uses the procedure of adding ‘requests’ to Bills, that is, requesting the House to agree with extra spending (normally for some pork barrel). However, the same technique is used to delay/stall/stymie Bills which the Senate would like to reject, but can’t if they are tied into supply, Approp Bills 1and 2.
The aim is to split off the unagreed items, with their funding, and have the Government resubmit improved Bills which the Senate will agree to. Mind you, if this goes on long enough, and the Government resubmits the same Bills after 3 months, and stalled again, a double dissolution trigger is established.
Puff
I told Julia about the blog and said that you would all be jealous. She just laughed.
It’s very heartening to see the ON vote slumping.
In response to Oakshott Country, from old thread:
Geez new polls are coming tick and fast now. I’ll just repeat the following from the old thread:
Steve777
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:58 pm
The 1975 situation was never really resolved. Back then, it was down to the personalities concerned, as it would be in future. It will happen again next time the Opposition and its allies control the Senate at a time when the Government is well behind in the polls. Tony Abbott would not have hesitated for a nanosecond in 2011 or 2012 had he been able to muster the numbers in the Senate.
And disputes between the House and the Senate rarely (have they ever?) get judicial review. The HC in particular takes the correct view, that the Parliament has to sort things out – is the cant, we have the GG!
Google “Newspoll: Labor keeps winning edge over Coalition” to read Oz article on this poll. It’s a fairly factual summary of the state of play.
I mean the Senate must have the power to reject supply or a Government can pass anything it wants under the aegis of Supply since there’s no limit on what goes in a bill and the States would never have agreed to that.
Stable means wipeout.
Abbott’s jaw is clenching.
Grimace,
I probably wouldn’t characterise it as the start of the campaign. Rather it was the leader looking to set the terms of national debate in the second half of a parliamentary term.
On that score I think Shorten has been very successful, judging by both the media coverage it has received and the offguard manner in which it has caught the Liberal Party.
Shorten has always been exquisite with his timing and I think giving that speech in the middle of an internal war in the Liberal Party was pitch perfect. Labor are presenting as being ready to govern while the Liberals are looking ready for opposition.
darn @ #13 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Sycophant.
OC…this is one of many grey areas. The Senate’s power to “withhold” should be abolished.
Welcome back Bemused.
Kerr should have allowed more time for the parties to sort it out. If that meant an election in January and campaigning over Christmas then so be it. The voters could punish whoever they thought was to blame.
If and when he decided it was time to act, he should have been straight with his intentions. Told Whitlam “If you don’t call an election I will have to dismiss you”. Whitlam would probably have called an election.
In any case, it could all have gone pear shaped. Whitlam could have blocked supply to Fraser had he thought of it and decided to do so. What Kerr and Fraser did was really a one-off.
All ancient history but it will happen again, and next time won’t be so civilised.
Elaugaufein
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:07 pm
I mean the Senate must have the power to reject supply
Are you a Lib?
Briefly
If the Senate cannot withhold Supply what mechanism do you envision to stop the Government framing everything in those terms ?
There’s actually already reasonably significant adjustments in the supply part of the budget bill (since the Government can determine to reduce or remove funding to ongoing programs and simply removing them for separate consideration implicitly zeros them which is a significant change in and of itself).
grimace @ #23 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:11 pm
Thanks Grimace.
Seen a few of your posts in recent days and generally agreed.
You are one of those who add value to the blog.
steve777 @ #24 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:12 pm
Kerr knew the Libs were on the point of cracking and that is why he acted when he did.
Maybe I need to change my avatar to a Greens logo as a public service since many of you seem unable to separate concepts like Labor and Correct and to different between different kinds of Not-Labor.
Or maybe a quote from Labor about SSM around the time of Howard’s amendment as a reminder that the “Loony Left” can be ahead of the Perfect Labor at times.
Trumbles sphincter just got a work out after today’s vote and now newspoll that thing will be working overtime.
Talked being tighter than a fishes ……….
I plead guilty your honour. 🙂
Elaugaufein
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Supply is obtained with the passage of an Appropriation Bill. This is well-defined. If something were enacted that was not an Appropriation but were called such, I think it would be invalid. Such an Act would be justiciable. The HC would apply the Constitutional definition…I suppose….
Am i being stalked again?
Just for fun.
#ReachTEL Poll (Sky News) Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 49 (+1) ALP 51 (-1) #auspol
elaugaufein @ #29 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:17 pm
How about a Leprechaun?
darn @ #31 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:17 pm
Truly sad…. 🙁
Totally surprised there’s a Newspoll tonight. I thought they’d hold off until parliament resumed.
In 1975 there were only 60 senators and the only significant 3rd party had been eliminated in 1974. At a double dissolution the major parties had to get 45% to get 5 out of 10 senators, the chance of a party getting a small majority was significant and with the buggering around of Joh and premier Lewis the stage was set for the crisis.
Since the 1984 enlargement, a DD the quota is just above 7.5%. With plenty of 3rd parties the chance of a major party getting a majority is much less and has only occurred once, with the government controlling both houses thanks to Mad Mark. The possibility of blocking supply is much less but the possibility of legislative review and amendment much greater. I feel that this was why Hawke made the enlargement a priority.
As a result the Senate is a much better reflection of the electorate and more effective as a place of review
Phew! I needed some good news after that dumb ass 50 Acres poll!
…And the fact I’ve just come back from the hospital, where I had to rush to tonight, due to my son having complications from his surgery. 🙁
From the previous thread:
elaugaufein @ 289, & Bemused @ 313
I don’t disagree about the consequences of losing a no confidence motion.
But the question is what happens if the government survives a no confidence motion and so is technically legitimate, but is doing real harm and has lost the support of the voters, and the next election is still years away? A bit like the current situation.
What happens when the parliament and government are seriously out of sync with the voters needs and wishes?
How do we voters get the chance to do a reset in that situation, against the wishes of the parliament and government?
I’ll be very interested to see the imact of Shorten’s speech on Insiders on the next few opinion polls.
We can count on the GG, Devine, Bolt and the shock jocks being hysterical.
I think a couple of Newspoll’s at 54 or 55 and there will be a boilover in the LNP, Between the bedwetters and the DelCons it will be an interesting time to be alive in the L/NP.
Oakeshott Country
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:24 pm
It’s now crackpot arcade.
C@Tmomma
Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:24 pm
ohhhh…i hope he’s ok…and you too!!!
c@tmomma @ #39 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:24 pm
Catmomma, I hope all goes well for your son.
just me @ #40 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:25 pm
The govt in question needs to contrive events so that it loses such a vote.
An opposition is sooner or later going to move one, and all that is required to lose it is for a few members to be late returning to the chamber for the vote.
Before anyone comments 60 senators in 1974, 64 in 1975 due to the territories
So the One Nation deflation is helping the Coalition and the Green’s schemozzle is helping Labor. 🙂
C@t:
Best wishes for you son.
bemused @ #44 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
I was sure I deleted your emoticon.
I expressed the hope that it was just a temporary setback and things would soone be back on track.
Keep us posted.