Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor

Malcolm Turnbull records an eight-point deterioration in his net approval rating, as Labor’s lead on voting intention widens still further.

Newspoll breaks out of its 53-47 straitjacket to record a 54-46 lead for Labor, from primary vote of Coalition 35% (down one), Labor 38% (up two), Greens 9% (down two) and One Nation 9% (up one). Leadership ratings also record substantial change for the first time a while, with Malcolm Turnbull down three on approval to 35% and up five on disapproval to 55%, and Bill Shorten down two to 34% and up three to 54%. Malcolm Turnbull leads 43-33 as preferred prime minister, down from 46-31 last time. The poll was conducted from a sample of 1675 from Thursday to Sunday. The Australian’s paywalled report here.

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.

920 comments on “Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 15 of 19
1 … 14 15 16 … 19

  1. Barney
    “entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power.”
    Until you apply and are granted citizenship you are not entitled to any of the rights or privileges.

  2. The Constitution says “entitled” so whether you register or not you are still entitled to be a citizen.

    The Constitution says “entitled to the rights or privileges” of a citizen, not “entitled to apply to become a citizen”. That would open up a whole new set of problems. Imagine if you had had a right to permanent residency through your marriage, and then in turn had the right to citizenship (but of course, never exercised it).

  3. No, no, no; you are either a citizen OR entitled to the rights of a citizen.

    Whether or not you’re entitled to be a citizen has nothing to do with it.

  4. …it’s also unreasonable because you can’t really give up your entitlement to be a citizen, just never exercise it. I can’t ‘de-Lithuanianise’ my father.

  5. zoomster @ #687 Monday, August 21st, 2017 – 8:26 pm

    kezza

    I disagree with bemused’s approach to other posters, but that’s not the same as disagreeing with what he says (not saying I always agree either).

    If we play the argument and not the person, then we acknowledge when someone’s right, even if we don’t always like them or agree with them otherwise.

    So, you agree with me then.

    Cool.
    —-

    Don’t patronise me. Okay.

  6. In other areas, Darebin Council (next to Yarra in Melb) also voted to no longer celebrate Australian Day/do citizenship ceremonies on Jan 26. Also to lose its rights?

  7. Until you apply and are granted citizenship you are not entitled to any of the rights or privileges.

    Then why does it say “a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power” (emphasise mine), as if these were distinct things?

  9. Perhaps, William Bowe, the reasoning back then was that a person needed to renounce an entitlement to stop them getting into Parliament and subsequently securing foreign citizenship.

  12. William I believe treaties existing at that time granted “reciprocal rights” to the citizens of each of the signatories. But I’m not really sure if that was reason for the clause.

  17. Yes Ides quite interesting.. but for more years than I can remember we’ve had doom-sayers. I say the following: as long as migration is at significant levels, as long as Australia continues to be a highly desirable place for the burgeoning middle classes of Asia to live, for as long as the amenity of cities like Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart in particular grows more compelling – for as long as that happens, the current market will persist.

  18. Thinking back to MPs of 50 or 60 years ago and if this dual citizenship trawling through people’s families had happened then, I wonder how many of them would’ve been taken out by Section 44.

  20. William

    I provided an example of a treaty (albeit a Middle Ages one!) which granted the citizens of each country the rights of a citizen.

    The more modern day example is renouncing your citizenship but still receiving a pension from your ‘mother’ country, a situation many Brits (for example) are in.

  22. It’s interesting to compare the situation in Ireland with New Zealand. Ireland says you have a right to be a citizen by descent, but you must register to actually become one. New Zealand says you’re a citizen either way, but you must register to make use of it. This could make a world of difference with respect to Section 44, depending on how you felt it should be applied, even though the difference is essentially semantic so far as the exercise Irish or New Zealand citizenship rights is concerned.

  24. @Alias

    True, that’s why LNP is so keen to give us the most crapist internet experience.

    Block everything, spy on everyone, sell your privacy to anti piracy groups.

  27. William in Sykes v Cleary Justice Brennan said

    “The third category mentioned in s. 44(i) covers those who, though not foreign nationals, are under the protection of a foreign power as though they were subjects or citizens of the foreign power. Where non-nationals are under the protection of a foreign power, they may owe a duty of allegiance or obedience to the foreign power by the law of that power. Thus, in Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions, it was held that a non-subject owed allegiance to the Sovereign by reason of the protection afforded him by the issue of a British passport.”

  29. alias

    Without the Internet very little of this S44(i) stuff would have surfaced.

    No wonder the Coalition wanted to destroy the true NBN. It would have come out 10 times faster 🙂

  32. poroti:

    That image reminds me of that British cooking show hosted by two older wealthy women who were politically incorrect unashamed drinkers and smokers who ate high fat, high sugar diets. Can’t remember what it was called though.

  33. ” it was held that a non-subject owed allegiance to the Sovereign by reason of the protection afforded him by the issue of a British passport.””

    Wouldn’t he have had to apply for a British passport, which would amount to actively seeking that protection??

  35. confessions
    Thinking back to MPs of 50 or 60 years ago and if this dual citizenship trawling through people’s families had happened then, I wonder how many of them would’ve been taken out by Section 44.

    It wouldn’t have arisen. Australian Citizenship (and before 1948, to be a British Subject ) was a unitary concept. The idea of a dual citizenship was almost a non sequitur. Whether you became a Subject/Citizen by birth, descent or conferral (naturalisation) a person could be claimed by just one power. There is an important distinction here. Citizenship was not “held” by the person. The person was claimed by the power. Only one such claim at a time could be valid.

    There were naturalised citizens and/or subjects in the population, but they were taken to have renounced any other citizenship by swearing allegiance to Australia (or before 1948, to the Crown). If they had not gone through this process they were regarded as alien residents and could neither vote nor enter Parliament.

    Sykes is predicated on the notion that a person can have a divided allegiance and that to become an MP even an Australian citizen – by whatever means they became a citizen – has to discover and renounce any other possible claim on their allegiance.

    This is a dog’s breakfast. It means the idea of citizenship we have today is in some way a lesser idea than the idea we set out with at Federation. It was enough to be a citizen in 1901. It is not enough in 2017.

  43. This s44i stuff.

    Section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act (1948) provides that, except in relation to ‘an act of marriage’:

    A person, being an Australian citizens who has attained the age of 18 years, who does any act or thing: (a) the sole or dominant purpose of which; and (b) the effect of which; is to acquire the nationality or citizenship of a foreign country, shall, upon that acquisition, cease to be an Australian citizen.

    For most of time the constitution and citizenship laws lines up. This is a new fangled mess.


  44. zoomster
    Tricot

    If you click on ‘Read more” the posts come up in normal font.

    Of course, we know that. But it is a dumb thing to do to make it small before you hit read more.

    It is yet another instance of the coders buggarising around with peripheral issues instead of fixing things like the time order of posts.

    They are amateurs. They are incompetent. And they just don’t give a damn.

  46. ‘Only one such claim at a time could be valid.’

    Historically, that was not so. There are numerous examples of lords holding two allegiances. For example, some English lords owned land in Scotland and were thus subjects of both the English and Scottish kings (pre unification, of course).

    The founding fathers of Federation would have been very much aware of these kinds of situations.

  49. That was a great answer regarding Turnbull from Shorten. Yes most people were excited when he first became leader, and he answered honestly that he felt it made his job harder. But the excitement waned to to disappointment pretty quickly.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 15 of 19
1 … 14 15 16 … 19