The first Newspoll in three weeks is a 54-46, compared with 53-47 last time. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down a point to 36%, Labor is steady on 38%, the Greens are steady on 9% and One Nation is steady on 8%. Malcolm Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has also been cut from 46-29 to 42-31, although this isn’t reflected in the leaders’ approval ratings, which have Turnbull’s net rating improving from minus 20% to minus 17% while Bill Shorten is unchanged at minus 20% (we will have to wait a little longer for the exact approval and disapproval numbers). The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1695. The Australian’s paywalled report is here.
UPDATE: The poll also records a narrowing in the lead for same=sex marriage, down six points since mid-August to 57%, with opposition up four to 34%. However, there is markedly higher support among those who have already voted or definitely tend to (61% to 34%) than among the non-definite (38% to 35%). However, only 15% say they have already voted, which surprises on the low side. A further 67% say they will definitely vote, with a further 7% saying they probably will. Support for the survey being held is down five points to 44%, with opposition up three to 46%. Another question finds 62% supporting “guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage”, with only 18% opposed. Kevin Bonham has a very thorough account of all the polling related to the survey.
Fake? Or not?
P1
Yes fact of US Supreme Court ruling that you just ignored because it does not fit with your belief makes you look absurd
/2
Luckily, Australia doesn’t rely on postal ballots to make big decisions… #auspol pic.twitter.com/7GdTPfcpkM
Sorry, P1, the United Nation’s stance is the United Nation’s stance. It doesn’t make something a fact.
guytaur @ #950 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:34 am
You are just being silly now.
“From today’s Essential Research poll. OMG!
https://twitter.com/TheKouk/status/912468241431195651/photo/1
daretotread
Fred
Yes and I would do so again. Your failure to even acknowledge that I have a case .daretotread
ddt you don’t have a case and and your grip on reality is too tenuous to make a rational argument possible.
GT
I have to disagree with your NZ assessment. Nationals are in the box seat. Winston Peters (leader of NZ first) is notorious for having a not saying much approach when it comes to negotiations. Heck where he is lives in Northland is only accessible at low tide. Further, NZ Labour requires NZ First and NZ Greens. Peters and the Greens have a lot of issues. And, the Nationals can almost always rely on ACT (one seat) pushing them closer.
Is that the same US Supreme Court that allows people to carry guns.and upholds the right for the states to execute people?
IOM
Sorry mate. Its simple if the media believed that we would be hearing about it.
Silence tells us Nationals not doing well. If they were the Nationals would be leaking like a sieve as per usual.
Albanese presser
The report referred to concludes with this sentence:
“Indeed, international human rights law recognises that to maintain a traditional view of marriage, as a definitional construct, does not detract from the equality of same-sex persons, including in circumstances where such life-long loving committed relationships are provided state recognition and protection.”
In Australia, the only means by which SS couples will be able to obtain the same degree of State recognition and protection is to amend the Marriage Act. No other instruments exist that can deliver this.
The argument made is that it is not unlawful to discriminate as long as…
….same-sex couples are “in a relevantly similar situation to a different-sex couple as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship”.
Very obviously, this is not possible in Australia without an amendment to the Act. Without saying so much, the No case rests on the very notion that “difference” exists and should be perpetuated. That is to say, the No case is intended to obstruct equal protection.
zoomster @ #954 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:35 am
The fact is that the UNHRC (whose international covenants we have ratified) do not regard same sex marriage as a ‘human right’.
You may disagree with it, you may want to change it – but you cannot seriously argue it is not a fact.
Dan Gulberry
“From today’s Essential Research poll. OMG!
https://twitter.com/TheKouk/status/912468241431195651/photo/1
comment image
The important question was not asked “Is Santa Clause real”.
The Noes wish to have a religious definition of marriage retained in the civil law. It’s as simple as that. The clerics want the State to privilege their doctrines. There is absolutely no public benefit in doing this. The clerics can do what they like. The civil domain should – no doubt, will – soon apply a definition of marriage that serves the whole community equally.
Ki-moon asked religion
What do you gain by making others less equal.
Power
Power to deny certain people the right to live as others choose to live.
Power to threaten people who support the certain people.
Power to carry out that threat by sacking them from jobs they need or excluding them.
Power and fear, fear that they have power to do more.
Fear to speak out in fear that you or family will lose your jobs or be excluded.
What does religion lose by others being equal.
Power.
Some ‘facts’ for P1 –
‘…there is a strong and statistically significant association between higher cognitive ability and a greater likelihood to support equal rights between same- and different-sex couples.’
‘It is worth emphasising that education is controlled for in the models. Therefore, the results cannot be explained by people with high cognitive ability having higher educational qualifications.’
‘The findings do not mean that all who intend to vote “no” in the marriage ballot have a low level of cognitive ability. Nor do they mean that all those who intend to vote “yes” have a high level.
Yet the results suggest that, on average, people who stand against equal rights for same-sex couples are less likely to have cognitive resources that are important to participating in meaningful debate.’
‘These may include the ability to: engage in abstract thinking and process complex chains of ideas; separate arguments based on facts from unfounded ones; not feel threatened by changes in the status quo; and critically engage with new or diverse viewpoints.
These results may thus shed some light over why some on the “no” side may be failing to offer or accept evidence-based arguments, or why they keep relying on philosophically, historically or empirically flawed ones.’
https://theconversation.com/cognitive-ability-plays-a-role-in-attitudes-to-equal-rights-for-same-sex-couples-84276?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign
Player One
zoomster @ #954 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:35 am
Sorry, P1, the United Nation’s stance is the United Nation’s stance. It doesn’t make something a fact.
The fact is that the UNHRC (whose international covenants we have ratified) do not regard same sex marriage as a ‘human right’.
This is a misstatement of the arguments. In any case, the report draws from judicial interpretations of the Covenant. It may well be that the interpretation will change.
zoomster @ #967 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:49 am
Nice diversionary tactic, Z – if you can’t argue the facts then obfuscate and insult!
frednk
Don’t be silly. Of course Santa is real.
briefly @ #968 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:51 am
It may well. But the fact remains until that time.
P1
In a legal fact based setting or the conservative US Supreme Court it was decided equality could only be achieved by recognising SSM
In a fact based legal setting not an emotional one the NO case lost. In a Conservative court. Not a progressive Scandinavian one.
This is fact. Like it or not.
P1
To be clear the marriage equality ruling relied on exactly the same provisions in US law as interracial marriage.
GT
I think silence tells us nothing other than that NZ does their politics different, having a history of minority government. Winston Peters wont telegraph his negotiations.
**Don’t be silly. Of course Santa is real.**
He costs me a shite load of money every year, so he is very real in that sense. All I get in return is a glass of fine whiskey(that i would have drunk anyway) and a carrot.
IOM
Yeah but the Nationals will. If they thought they were doing well they would be shouting to roof tops. Thats the point
Guytaur,
Australia has not ratified the US Supreme Court. But, we have ratified the UNHRC decision.
So, in terms of relevance to influencing our Laws,the UNHRC is more important to us.
P on the pot:
It’s the same argument about progressive views generally: The old adage, “not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative”.
It also explains why three word slogans work a treat on those with lower cognitive ability, and why these people tend to dig in when confronted by rational argument. It is particularly relevant right now.
Try to debate anyone who thinks the ‘clever’ line, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” should put the marriage equality debate to bed once and for all and you’ll see it in all its glory.
It’s these same people, incidentally, who cry “BULLYING!” when, in fact, you are using perfectly respectful language, but all you are doing is asking them to engage their brain and actually THINK about what they are saying, and to reflect on what it actually means to other people.
IOM
The sam argument was made by Abbott about the cross bench supporting Gillard. Yet it happened.
Don’t fall for the spin.
Dan Gulberry @ #8920 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:06 am
Was the poll conducted in Australia or was done in Alabma?
P1
Sorry, how did I do that? I simply presented you with some facts. You’re welcome to dispute them, rather than playing the person.
https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/wa-labor-get-thumbs-up-from-voters-on-tax-hikes-for-big-business-gold-miners-poll-ng-b88609375z
Are those Essential questions real or is it fake news?
Im not falling for any spin because it isnt spin. You simply look at the number required and the parties history.
Nationals on 57 need 4 more seats. NZ First has 9. Where as Labor needs the 9 NZ First plus the 8 Grns. NZ First and NZ Grns dont get along well.
I notice no leaks from NZ Labour.
Friend of mine has just received a text message promoting Harvey & Norman. He is contemplating boycotting TV seats – “It’s Adam and Eve, not Harvey and Norman!”
Player One
briefly @ #968 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:51 am
It may well be that the interpretation will change.
It may well. But the fact remains until that time.
Nah…not at all. The only way that the human rights of LGBTIQ people in Australia can be protected is by amending the Marriage Act. There is no other way to afford them equal protection. The human right at stake is the right to equal treatment.
Ides:
I also think it will be a Nationals-NZ First govt simply because of the numbers.
IOM
Its media spin.
Making out the unity in the Nationals is more secure than an agreement would be amongst the parties of change.
Its BS.
In fact an agreement negotiated between paris is just as secure as one made within a party.
See lots of examples around the world where agreements have prevailed despite infighting in parties
It is STILL raining here. All day yesterday, all night and into the morning.
BK
If it was Alabama the numbers for the bottom three questions would’ve been reversed.
‘fess.
it is real.
http://www.essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport
BK
Dan Gulberry @ #8920 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 11:06 am
“From today’s Essential Research poll. OMG!
https://twitter.com/TheKouk/status/912468241431195651/photo/1
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
One would have to question whether this is real.
Are any or all of the beliefs required to belong to or vote for any particular political party.
I have printed the photo and for a time I will be checking the mirror for various apparitions, spooks, horns or other manifestations that appear abnormal.
The definition of abnormal will requires re thinking.
Confused emoji 😕
GT
I feel you wanting NZ Labour to secure government may be impacting your reasoning. Based purely on numbers (ie National falling only 3-4 seats short of government themselves) they are in the box seat.
SK:
OMG they really did ask those questions. And unbelievably nearly 1/5th of those polled are unsure whether the creation story in genesis is a true account of the first man and woman!
Ides of March @ #995 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 10:16 am
In addition to that Labour needs the support of both the Greens AND Winston Peters mob.
If anything, those Essential numbers might be under given that the pollster should have interviewed people from different cultures and religions who may have a different take. They may disagree with the question, but have another explanation.
Well, at least global warming and vaccines got good support.
If anything labour will be better off being in Opposition. The Nationals have been in co-alition with Peters bdfore and it did not end well for them. To unite them and the Greens in a coalition would fall apart at the first shot of trouble and it would be Labour that pays the price at a subsequent election.