Essential Research has Labor’s lead back to 53-47 after a dip to 52-48 last week, with both the Coalition and Labor on 37% of the primary vote, which is one down in the Coalition’s case and one up in Labor’s. The Greens are steady on 10%, and One Nation is down one to 7%. After last week’s poll had a headline-grabbing dip in support for same-sex marriage, this week’s has it back up: support has been registered at 59% three weeks ago, 55% last week and 58% this week, with opposition tracking from 31% to 34% to 33%. Forty-four per cent of supporters report having voted, compared with only 28% of opponents. Further questions probe the impact of the no campaign’s efforts to shift the focus to religious freedom: 34% of respondents profess themselves concerned about the impact of allowing same-sex marriage on religious freedom, with 58% not very concerned or not at all concerned, and 24% say their concerns have increased “over the last couple of weeks”, compared with 61% for stayed the same and 5% for decreased.
The survey also contains an intriguing set of questions on beliefs in various religious and scientific questions, which show rather a lot more people than I might have figured believe in heaven and hell, angels and demons, ghosts, extraterrestrial visitations and the biblical account of creation. However, few outside The Australian’s op-ed page believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by scientists; even fewer believe that vibrations from wind farms can cause long-term health damage; and fewer still believe that vaccines cause the autism. A further series of questions on private health insurance finds strong support for government intervention to keep down premiums.
There was also a ReachTEL poll of federal voting intention in Western Australia in Saturday’s edition of The West Australian, which had the Coalition ahead 51-49, representing a 3.7% swing to Labor compared with last year’s election – a fairly modest result compared with other polling from the state. After exclusion of the 8% undecided, the primary votes are Coalition 39.2% (48.7% at last year’s election), Labor 30.8% (32.5%), Greens 13.3% (12.1%) and One Nation 10.7%. The poll also recorded a 63-37 split in favour of same-sex marriage, and found strong support for measures in the recent state budget to increase the gold mining royalty rate (58% in favour) and increase payroll tax on businesses with payrolls of over $100 million (61% in favour), although the cutting of 3000 public sector jobs had only 34% support, with 37.5% opposed. The poll was conducted last Thursday from a sample of 1723.
but comes up with no display and a security warning on a Samsung Android Tablet using Chrome.
I suppose tablets are sentient then, or have an inbuilt Dutton filter. : )
C@tmomma:
The articles says “(i)t would apply from 2020.” They’ll hopefully be out of government by then.
C@ – All tablets seem to be much less functional than decent lap tops or desktops.
The Samsung does what I need it to do but the Android o/s is a very strange thing indeed!
CTar1 @ #1700 Friday, September 29th, 2017 – 9:27 pm
Works with Win7 and Firefox as well.
dave – I saw Harvey interviewed on this a couple of days ago.
His attitude – “it’s within the rules so they can all get f#cked”.
Inspiring stuff for shareholders.
DG – Microstoft Windows10 phone gives same result as Samsung – no display and then security warning.
I’ve run out of devices to try now!
CTar1 @ #1706 Friday, September 29th, 2017 – 11:54 pm
……….
An ankle tap is, hopefully somewhere out there ?
If I had that much loot, I’d be doing some good stuff, lots of it – and not being such an arsehole.
But is it all a *house of cards* ?
Time will tell….
C@t’s potato site is regarded as insecure by Firefox on my Mac. Its certificate is issued to a name different to that of the site itself. Its a badly built site.
Maude Lynne @ #1709 Saturday, September 30th, 2017 – 12:07 am
Bugger. Such a fine collection of Dutton potatoes it was!
Mr Newbie @ #1703 Friday, September 29th, 2017 – 11:44 pm
Exactly what I am hoping most people will conclude. That is, if we vote against the Coalition, then we won’t have Fracking forced upon our State.
dave – The franchisees don’t like the national ‘discount’ offers. That’s for sure.
One I talked to a couple of years ago determined to bail because of that and numerous other reasons.
Gerry has his own franchisee inspectors / “bounty hunters”.
Night all. : )
Just take a screenshot ?
CTar1 @ #1712 Saturday, September 30th, 2017 – 12:11 am
yep.
If all is Kosher – and it may well be – why all the constant agro from a billionaire of about 80 years old ?
Why not make the most of it all.
News release late at night on a long weedend
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-30/adf-botched-bombing-raid-on-iraq-possibly-killed-children/9002852
We should be ‘out of there’ and al Minahad packed and cleared as well.
New thread.
The effect of S 44(i) is that a person could be eligible to nominate for election at one point in time – say in September 2017 – and contest and be successful in an election and then in October 2017 become ineligible to serve because of changes to the citizenship laws of another country. This could occur without the person being aware of the changes and, in such a case, could never in any sense affect the allegiance of the person involved.
If S44(i) is about anything, it is about conflicted allegiance. How can it make sense for a person to have divided allegiance when they are not aware of either a past or a new conferral of foreign citizenship?
There is undue reverence given to the purported views of the Constitutional Conventions. The men who comprised the Conventions were not prepared to wholly trust the Parliament – and, by implication, the voters – to decide the eligibility of its own future membership. At the same time they decided Aboriginal Australians would not be citizens – and therefore could not become electors or seek election – while British Subjects from NZ, Canada, South Africa, India or the UK would be eligible to sit in the Parliament.
They had quite oppressive ideas about allegiance. They were prepared to exclude from the Parliament people who had settled here and become solely Australian citizens but who had formerly made oaths of allegiance to other powers. In 1901, it was not in itself enough to become a citizen unless on was already a British Subject, in which case citizenship was not an issue at all.
This really did create different classes of citizen with respect to rights to political participation. This discrimination remains embedded in the Constitution. It is wholly archaic. The provision these days is highly undemocratic in its effect. The legislature should be drawn from the people – from all those citizens eligible to vote. As it stands, about half of those people who are to be represented in the Parliament will be disqualified from election on the basis of the entirely spurious notion that their allegiance may be in doubt.
As long as it’s possible to hold dual or multiple citizenships in Australia, it should be lawful for such citizens to seek to represent their peers in the Parliament.
bemused @ #1383 Friday, September 29th, 2017 – 10:33 am
Opening your membership to the anti SSM crowd, what could possibly go wrong?
Are there any current incarcerations due to duel citterzenships in government?0