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.
Why being ‘married’ makes a difference:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/my-brother-was-treated-like-a-single-man-when-he-died-he-wasnt-20170925-gyodml.html
What it all boils down to is, if you think that committed long term relationships between people of the same sex are inferior to those between those of opposite sex, and should be treated as such, vote no. If someone who is married thinks that relationships between some couples, with the same level of commitment as their own and their spouse’s, is an inferior relationship, then they will vote no. If you don’t know or don’t care, don’t listen to the fear and disinformation coming out of the ‘No’ case*. Vote yes.
But no one will change their mind.
* found more such stuff in the Secretary mailbox today
cud,
This from a Guardian article today looking at the latest Essential figures.
[The Guardian Essential poll shows supporters of marriage equality outnumber opponents 58% to 33%, dominate among Australians who have already voted (72% to 26%) and are more likely to vote.
The poll finds 88% of yes voters have voted or will definitely vote compared with 80% of no voters. If that was born out in the survey, it would translate to a 66% to 34% win for marriage equality]
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/26/marriage-equality-voter-turnout-may-leave-campaigns-chasing-diminishing-returns
I’ve just been polled on my landline by Reachtel:
– Federal voting intention
– Some cost of living questions
– Some industrial relations questions, including a couple naming Michaela Cash.
shiftaling
Briefly if that is the case then why is there a list of religions in the marriage act (or regs, I forget which).
I always marveled at this infringement of the constitutional prohibition on establishment of state religion but I’m no constitutional wonk
I suppose the State wants to ensure that only clerics serving in “recognised” orders may be approved.
monica @ #1264 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 4:47 pm
Are these endless arguments, in which no one convinces anyone else to change their mind, let alone effect anything at all in the world outside PB, going to go on for the next month?
Luckily, GG and PO will accept they’ve been in error and will become advocates for Yes. Then there will be nothing to argue about and we can return to Lib-bashing.
cud chewer
And incidentally, 62% Yes vote on a 82% is just over 50% absolute. Wouldn’t that be fun…
There’s a reasonable chance of this….
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-tusk-brexit-talks-eu-council-uk-london-prime-minister-michel-barnier-david-davis-a7967201.html
Brexit …the Tory Waterloo.
Greensborough Growler @ #1290 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 7:09 pm
Very interesting contrast between Victoria and GG.
A 21st Century Catholic vs a 19th Century (or earlier) Catholic world outlook.
More strength to you Victoria!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-angela-merkel-german-elections-chief-of-staff-awful-complicated-mess-eu-a7966341.html
The Tories just completely misunderstand their own position. They have signed themselves up for their own evisceration.
Remember when many on the blog complained that energy was the hot topic several weeks ago.
What is the hot political topic today?
I think energy or SSM marriage bringing down the Turnbull government is gong to be a close run race.
briefly
More a ‘reverse’ Agincourt.
frednk @ #3834 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 8:22 pm
And the common denominator in both of those issues is?
Tony Abbott!
poroti
briefly
More a ‘reverse’ Agincourt.
Or a Norman Shrug. It will be very interesting to see if the Tories split. They’ve almost never split, but this can tear them apart.
[poroti
briefly
More a ‘reverse’ Agincourt.]
Dunkirk I would have thought.
BK
frednk @ #3834 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 8:22 pm
Remember when many on the blog complained that energy was the hot topic several weeks ago.
What is the hot political topic today?
I think energy or SSM marriage bringing down the Turnbull government is gong to be a close run race.
And the common denominator in both of those issues is?
Tony Abbott!
Exactly…and hence the decline in the LNP PV and 2PPV…Thy will embrace Abbott at their peril.
Shorter Brandis: they’re smart enough to sit in parliament and too dumb to know they might be dual citizens. Pull the other one. Interesting that Barnyard admits he knew it was an issue but claims his staff got assurances from the Kiwis he didn’t have a problem. Not sure that helps him.
Barney in Go Dau
A combo perhaps , what with them involving the French and the ‘Chermans’
Briefly, I suspect that the poms are trying to make the negotiations unworkable in the hope that the Europeans will then have to cut them some slack (or at least restart the clock on negotiations!). In other words, they’re going to dump the whole problem in the laps of the EU and hopes the EU shows mercy. It might work!
We could have had stories like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/26/offshore-wind-power-energy-price-climate-change
Instead we have lumps of coal in parliament;and no investment in generation while investors wait for the RWN to lose control one way or the other.
antonbruckner11
My prediction is Britain will not leave the EU. What will the EU ask to bring their self inflicted misery to and end? Miserable they will be and the EU is going to do nothing to stop it until they give up on BEXIT.
Anton….the problem is there is no automatic mechanism for the reversal of article 50. To revoke it will require an amendment to the treaty and unanimous consent of the 27.
The poms have got themselves into a dire position.
It’s okay, with the way Trump and NK are going we probably won’t make it to the expiration of the Article 50 deadline anyways.
Instead we have lumps of coal in parliament;
Resources seem to be a curse these days. They don’t create jobs. They create wealth, fir the extractors, who try to keep as much as possible for themselve, and enlist politicians as their bigbsupporters. And they create opportunities for corruption, a byword in third workd countries and I’m sure there’s a lot more going on here behind closed doors.
It’s more like a lay Catholic vs hierarchical Catholic outlook. Lay Catholics overwhelmingly support marriage equality, while the conservatives, who staunchly defend the Church hierarchy, tend to parrot the Vatican view: homosexuality is not a sin, but acting on it (or as GG calls it, “homosexual coupling”) is a sin.
briefly
The exit will have to be done under European law which will require the agreement to be approved constitutionally in England; a vote in the English parliament.
It gets rejected; then what?
I am heartily sick of the battles on here between immovable objects and unstoppable forces.
No one is going to move an inch when his/her innate philosophical beliefs are challenged, especially so when they are challenged by equally belligerent proponents of a diametrically opposite philosophy.
Vote (or don’t) the way you want, and move on.
Give us all a break!
In the matter of the Kiwi, Baaaarnyard Joyce, and others of his ilk, the Attorney General has lodged his submission before the High Court
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/03-Canberra/c11-2017/AG_Submission-joint.pdf
Someone called Scott Morrison’s lump of coal his, Pet Rock.
If Fred Daly were still alive and in parliament he would track it down and put a couple of those plastic eyes on it and bring it into the HoR for Question Time, then ask if the Treasurer had lost his pet? : )
Not that I move in the same exalted legal circles as the AG, but I have never yet come across a situation where submissions to the High Court are considered and argued in the media before they are received by the Court.
Don’t know where the AG is going with this bit:
Surely that means that unless some of these people are going to assert that they never knew that one or both of their parents weren’t born in Australia, they’re toast? By the AG’s own argument, even.
Beyond that little discontinuity, appears very much like claiming ignorance as a valid defense. If you don’t think you’re a foreign national, you don’t need to try and find out whether or not you are. If you never bother to find out, you don’t need to take any steps to renounce your citizenship, because not bothering to find out to start with was reasonable in itself.
Fulvio:
Well said re the postal survey.
GG, P1 and guytaur are all cut from the same cloth in the sense all three of them dominate this blog with their world views on SSM. Nobody is changing their minds therefore all three of them are simply wasting time.
Top 10 reasons to vote no —
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/satire/the-top-10-reasons-i-m-voting-no-on-same-sex-marriage-20170925-p4yw43.html
I found this one the most compelling –
‘6. Because if gay people get married there will be no freedom of speech anymore because Tony Abbott and Lyle Shelton and Pauline Hanson and Mark Latham and Fred Nile and Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt and Bernard Gaynor and Ray Hadley and Janet Albrechtsen and Chris Kenny and the entire line-up from Sky News After Dark will be so terrified that they will never stand up in Parliament or go on the telly or the radio, or write columns for The Australian or the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun ever again.’
Think – a world without Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine! Vote ‘no’!!
zoomster
Top 10 reasons to vote no —
dream come true!
Hypothetically if the debate were to really nasty due to “diminishing returns” with the no side looking less socially acceptable, could the yes side try to sway some of the softer no voters, who perhaps regret throwing their lot in with the swastika-scrawlers and rock-throwers, to contact the ABS to change their vote? Or was that idea based on a bit of a misunderstanding of the process?
frednk
briefly
The exit will have to be done under European law which will require the agreement to be approved constitutionally in England; a vote in the English parliament.
It gets rejected; then what?
kaboom
In short, Brandis contends that those who were born in Australia, and did not voluntarily seek foreign citizenship, and were unaware of their status of dual citizenship by descent, should be let off.
This means, if accepted by the HC, that Baaarnyard, Canavan, Nash and Xenophon retain their seats. Larissa Waters oils be renominated as the Qld Greens Senator under a casual vacancy, as her original election was not void. Her resignation was never required.
So the scapegoats are Roberts and Ludlum. Both were ineligible because they were foreign born, knew it, and didn’t do anything in Ludlum’s case, and bumbled in a farrago of idiocy and arrogance in Roberts case. The WA Green seat goes to recount, as does Roberts PHON seat.
Fulvio Sammut:
“Vote (or don’t) the way you want, and move on.
Give us all a break!”
Why should we, as gay people, remain silent when encountering such comments? Sure, we’re probably not going to change GG or P1’s mind; but who cares about that, we have a right to defend ourselves. Unless you are non-entirely heterosexual or non-cisgender yourself, you have no stake in this, so it’s easy to dismiss it as just another silly war. But it has a real impact for some of us.
Is there actualy a formal process to cancel an exit from the EU?
shiftaling, I suspect some of this has already happened. A lot fo softer No voters have either had an attack of conscience or are realising they are either fighting a losing battle or they are realising that its not socially acceptable and are parking their vote with a view to not voting.
confessions:
“Nobody is changing their minds therefore all three of them are simply wasting time.”
Not too dissimilar to the RGR wars then, in which you frequently partake. Except that doesn’t personally affect you.
cud chewer
Last week I looked at the Essential Research results for Marriage Equality. I came up with about 62% Yes. I’m tempted to do the same for this week’s result.
If the Noes haven’t started to shift opinions by now, and if the polling is accurate, the Yes case will win quite easily.
cud chewer
Is there actualy a formal process to cancel an exit from the EU
Apparently not.
Mr Newbie
Fulvio Sammut:
“Vote (or don’t) the way you want, and move on.
Give us all a break!”
I think it’s worth making the arguments as often as required.
Is there a process to rejoin?
briefly:
“I think it’s worth making the arguments as often as required.”
Thanks. I get that people get tired of it; but surely it’s no different to any other ‘war’ here. I don’t even read any of the engergy wars stuff and just scroll past (though I did look at that recent solar panel graph, which was at least something different). Surely people who don’t want to read the SSM ‘wars’ can do the same.
Personally, I know it’s futile arguing with the likes of GG. But now and then, I enjoy using some of his posts against him, like the macmillandictionary site he linked to earlier today, which includes “two people of the same sex” under the definition for marriage, despite his insistence that enabling SSM is an attempt to ‘change’ the meaning of the word.
cud chewer
Is there a process to rejoin?
I suppose that would simply be to commence a new application to join.
What could happen is the exit could be suspended by agreeing on a lengthy “transition” during which the Treaty could be amended to permit cancellation of Article 50. This could mean the Britain would lose its rights to elect members to the European Parliament but continue to belong to the European Economic Area and Customs Union and that other economic agreements would remain in place while terms of formal re-entry were agreed.
It’s hard to imagine the Tories could mange this. They would disintegrate. If such a process were to be administered, Labour would have to do it.
Mr Newbie
briefly:
“I think it’s worth making the arguments as often as required.”
Thanks. I get that people get tired of it
No problem.
LGB people have been in the closet for a very long time. It takes courage to come out. I have seen this struggle in my own family are than once. For mine, I want to bring my solidarity and my reason to their side.
This is about rejecting prejudice and the violence that is implicit in prejudice. Fulvio may not get it. Perhaps he’s been spared violence in his life. I hope so. I hope that in future we all will be spared violence, and, in this case, the specially sinister cruelties of homophobia.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-350-million-nhs-eu-latest-nationalist-liar-newspapers-a7952786.html
Boris does his country great dis-service. He should be sacked.
Player One @ #1246 Tuesday, September 26th, 2017 – 6:26 pm
It is people who were against same-sex marriage who were, in general, most keen for the postal survey to be held. There were a lot of Yes supporters in favour of a national vote (preferably compulsory) but only as an alternative to anti-SSM politicians continuing to stall, and not generally because they saw it as a positive virtue.
Given that the vote is being held at all, the best way to discourage conservatives from attempting to repeat the dose is to reject them as emphatically as possible with as big a Yes vote as possible. Especially if the Yes vote is as high as the polling has always been or higher, then their insistence on holding the thing will look especially stupid.
On the other hand, if there is a No vote or the vote is very close, then conservatives may well be emboldened to try the same thing on other issues. Their emboldening will come from the percentage for No, not from the turnout, so by this argument it makes no sense to abstain, if one has any choice. Indeed on this basis an abstention is potentially a vote in favour of similar votes being attempted to obstruct and delay voluntary euthanasia, or as a precursor to reactionary attempts to bring back capital punishment. Abstention is consent to whatever may come after.