Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor

Overwhelming support for a banking royal commission in the latest Essential poll, which finds Labor maintaining its big lead on voting intention.

The latest Essential Research poll has Labor’s lead unchanged at 54-46. Beyond that, I’m a bit tied up at this point to discuss the attitudinal results (chief among which is 64% support for a royal commission into banking), but they are as ever summarised in The Guardian, and will be available in complete form when the full report is published later today, together with the primary vote numbers. I believe we should also have YouGov along later today.

UPDATE. YouGov/Fifty Acres: 53-47 to Labor

The fortnightly YouGov/Fifty Acres poll has Labor’s lead out to a new high of 53-47, but this is due to preferences rather than primary votes: Labor and the Coalition are now tied on 32% of the primary vote, after Labor led 34% to 31% last time, with One Nation steady on 11% and the Greens down a point to 10%. There is also a preferred prime minister question recording a 31% tie, with Malcolm Turnbull rated strong by 21%, weak by 41$ and neither by 30%.

The poll records an interestingly high level of support for constitutional change allowing dual citizens to run for office, with 46% in favour and 40% opposed. Also featured are national approval ratings for the Bennelong by-election candidates, both of whom do very well on both name recognition and personal support (40% favourable of John Alexander and 28% unfavourable; 39% and 29% for Kristina Keneally). Forty-six per cent support new religious protection laws in same sex marriage legislation, with 36% opposed; 55% say the government has a responsibility for the safety of asylum seekers on Manus Island, with 36% for the contrary. The poll was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1034.

The full Essential Research report has the Coalition up a point on the primary vote, to 36%, Labor steady on 38%, the Greens steady on 9% and One Nation steady on 8%. Sixty-four per cent of respondents favoured a banking royal commission, with only 12% opposed. Questions on the economy produced a mixed bag: 33% rate its state as good with 24% for poor, but 39% think it headed on the wrong direction compared with 31% for right. A question about economic issues of concern finds the highest ratings for anything to do with prices, particularly energy prices, and lesser but still substantial concern about income tax and interest rates. Forty-nine per cent supported incentives and subsidies to speed the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, 16% leaving it to the market, and 12% who wanted intervention to slow the process.

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.

939 comments on “Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 1 of 19
1 2 19
  1. Morning all


    Appreciate today’s fine efforts!

    I managed to see Don Burke interview on ACA last night. What a piece of work. Tracy Grimshaw actually did really well. Very straight forward

  2. I KNEW it! William got me again. 🙂

    Good morning Dawn Patrollers.
    I must say that on Q and A last night James McGrath laid a strong claim to be crowned the prize clown of the Coalition.

    Mark Kenny on how the Coalition should deal with PHON.
    Peter FitzSimons says Pauline Hanson is all bigotry and bullshit and the PM should let her stew.
    Quite a good spit by Jennifer Hewett on Turnbull’s befuddling efforts, or lack thereof. Google.
    And Paul Bongiorno tells us all about Turnbull’s troubles with the rebelling Nats. He says there is no tidy end to this messy year.
    Urban Wronski returns after a three week hiatus and says that Turnbull hides but fails to avoid disaster.
    What a bizarre interview from Don Burke!
    And Kate McClymont follows up with more allegations about Burke’s behaviour.
    Tracey Spicer begins her article with “So many people knew. But no one stopped it. The perpetrators were promoted, while the sufferers were silenced. It was – and remains – a protection racket. These are the initial findings of our investigation into sexual harassment and indecent assault in Australia’s media and entertainment sector.” Spicer means business,
    Jenna Price writes about women’s “coming of rage” and how employers are coming under notice.
    While on the subject of employers covering up such things the most senior Catholic cleric in the world to be charged with concealing the child-sex-abuse offences of another priest will face a two-week hearing starting today. Google.

  3. Section 2 . . .

    Pauline Hanson’s lucrative loss.
    Madonna King says Tim Nicholls must go but the LNP has an even bigger problem. She compares how One Nation and the LNP deal with each other on the right of politics, compared with Labor and the Greens, on the left.–but-the-lnp-has-an-even-bigger-problem-20171126-gztb4e.html
    The re-election of the Palaszczuk Labor Government is a repudiation of the environmentally disastrous coal-first policies of the LNP and One Nation, writes Giles Parkinson.,10974
    Adam Gartrell on how the citizenship spotlight has shifted to MPs’ marriages. Could Nola Perino be gorn? Even Kim Carr?
    The OECD Better Life Index has Australia sitting pretty alongside Scandinavia and Canada – but Greg Jericho drills a little deeper and points out some not too good aspects about life in Australia.
    Dig beneath NBN Co’s sudden decision to stop all HFC connections to the national broadband network for six to nine months, and you will find an unhealthy slackness in the activation processes. Google.
    James Massola tells us that a sweeping inquiry into Australia’s banking and financial system appears inevitable, with a second Nationals MP confirming he will defy Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and cross the floor to deliver the crucial final vote needed to establish the probe.
    Barnaby Joyce has signalled a push by the Nationals to defy the Turnbull cabinet and embrace a banking inquiry. Google.
    A majority of Australians would support a royal commission into the banks, with this week’s Guardian Essential poll showing 64% in favour, including 62% of Coalition supporters.
    Michelle Grattan says Turnbull and Morrison appear to have become hostages to rebel Nationals determined at all costs to secure a commission of inquiry into the banks.

  4. Section 3 . . .

    Elizabeth Knight tells us why the big banks are so scared of a commission of inquiry.
    Why Radio National’s fans fear death by a thousand cuts.
    The SMH is not at all happy about the process behind the stadium spending spree in Sydney. It trots out the “questions to be answered” line.
    As the brutalisation of refugees and barbarity of places like Manus Island becomes obvious, more and more Australians want them brought here, says John Passant.,10971
    Meanwhile five Christian protesters who locked themselves to the gates of Kirribilli House in Sydney in protest of the Federal Government’s treatment of asylum seekers on Manus Island have been arrested.
    Australia’s mining industry has stepped back from its hard line on trying to limit the charity sector’s lobbying on energy and climate change issues.
    Public service agencies have reversed a decade of rising casual staff numbers by slashing non-permanent employees, a new report shows.
    Paul Smith on NBN Co’s “”glitter-to-the-turd” policy and the new heights to which it has taken spin. Google.
    And the NBN rollout issues are really going to hurt in, yes, Bennelong!
    Now is the time to push back on real estate agents.

  5. Section 4 . . .

    There are many things wrong with Australian democracy but stealthy, piecemeal reform by a Coalition Government is not a promising way forward, writes Barry Hindess.,10972
    Why the pathetic neediness of Trump is so dangerous. Jenifer Rubin writes ,“ His bottomless well of insecurity makes him a sitting duck for authoritarians well-versed in the art of flattery. His self-absorption make him incurious about the world – about anything other than himself – and as one who asserts he knows more than anyone else, he cannot learn from others.”
    Michael Koziol on Erica’s last ditch stand against SSM.
    Rodney Croome says the Smith marriage equality bill is flawed as it is. Let’s draw the line at any further exemptions.
    A senior PricewaterhouseCoopers auditor has handed in his ticket after being accused by the corporate watchdog of botching his audit of collapsed listed vocational education outfit Vocation. Yet another example of the failings of the conflicted audit industry.
    Peter Hartcher on democracy, Chinese style.
    How and why low-income earners are more likely to die early from preventable diseases.
    A plan to give seriously ill Australians faster access to potentially life-saving drugs could be delayed because of Turnbull’s decision to cancel a week of lower house sittings.
    Theresa May has big border issues in Ireland as Brexit approaches – and she’s been given just ten days to fix it.
    Power games are going on in Australian soccer.

  6. Section 5 . . . Cartoon Corner

    David Rowe takes us inside the Coalition sauna.

    In celebration of David Rowe’s cartoonist of the year award.×314
    Cathy Wilcox bones Channel Nine’s management.

    And she ventures into Burke’s Backyard.

    John Shakespeare’s take on PHON’s electoral performance.

    Peter Broelman takes the heat out of the cricket headbutt story.

    Paul Zanetti exits Porline.

    Roy Taylor with Don Burke.

    I just LOVE this image from Mark Knight.

    And Knight goes to the headbutt incident.
    Sean Leahy doesn’t believe a word of Don Burke’s protestations.

    Jon Kudelka’s republicans’ commemorative bucket.

    An old one from Alan Moir still has currency.

    Andrew Dyson on the development of the defence white paper.
    And to finish it off this morning have a look at this cracker of an ad for NZ police recruitment.

  7. Flynn could implicate any number of Trump officials — and Trump himself

    Flynn, like former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, has a plethora of legal troubles, some of which overlap with the investigation into possible collusion between the Russians and President Trump’s campaign and some of which seem to be personal and financial but unrelated to the Trump team. Mueller is in a position to trade leniency or even immunity on any of Flynn’s doings (or his son’s) in exchange for implicating more senior officials, including the president, the president’s family, the vice president and the attorney general.

    There are a long list of Trump officials, colleagues and relatives who have reason to worry.

    It’s Trump himself who may have the most to lose from Flynn’s cooperation with Mueller. Trump has denied knowing about contacts with Russian officials. Flynn’s testimony to the contrary could be politically fatal to Trump.

  8. McCain: Trump Has No ‘Principles and Beliefs,’ Just ‘Takes Advantage of Situations’

    “I don’t agree with the way he’s conducting his presidency, obviously,” McCain said in an Esquire interview published Sunday. “He’s an individual that unfortunately is not anchored by a set of principles. I think he’s a person who takes advantage of situations. He was successful as a builder, an entrepreneur and all that. But I don’t think he has the fundamental underpinnings of principles and beliefs.”

  9. Yesterday in the SSM debate Doug Cameron perfectly expressed my feelings and got right down to the core of what’s underneath all the rearguard actions going on.
    Copying and pasting Hansard loses formatting badly so you’ll need to download the pdf of the full Senate Hansard for yesterday and go to page 80 to see it. It’s worth it!;fileType=application%2Fpdf

  10. BK

    I must say that on Q and A last night James McGrath laid a strong claim to be crowned the prize clown of the Coalition.

    Clown. Exactly the same word I used while chewing my sausages, mashed potato and peas over Q&A.
    And this f-wit is the Minister Supporting the Prime Minister (or something).
    Quality is not a word associated with this bunch of lying mongrels.

  11. If $100m and a plebiscite result of 61.5% in favour of SSM means the govt. introduces SSM legislation then a 64%+ survey in favour of a banking enquiry in the latest essential poll should have all the pollies on side, right?

  12. “I think the difference is the greens policies arn’t a complete turnoff for a large portion of Labor voters.”

    Greens policies and those who support them seem weird, extreme and incomprehensible to right wingers because Greens don’t believe it’s all about money, that maximising your after-tax income is the ultimate purpose of human endeavour, that money trumps all else and that taxation and Government spending are work of the Devil (or would be if he existed).

  13. ‘Adam Gartrell on how the citizenship spotlight has shifted to MPs’ marriages. Could Nola Perino be gorn? Even Kim Carr?’

    ALP insiders are going spack on this one. It started, apparently, with one journalist making a claim without checking it, and is now being reported as fact.

    ‘The government has also sought to raise doubts about Labor senator Kim Carr, with The West Australian reporting at the weekend he may have inadvertently obtained Israeli citizenship with his marriage to Carole Fabian.

    Citizenship was automatically granted to spouses under the Law of Return before 1999. But Senator Carr has denied he has dual citizenship.’

    From wikipedia —

    ‘The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a religion other than Judaism willingly. ‘

    ‘Israeli law distinguishes between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their descendants to immigrate to Israel, and Israel’s nationality law, which formally grants Israeli citizenship. In other words, the Law of Return does not itself determine Israeli citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently live in Israel. Israel does, however, grant citizenship to those who immigrated under the Law of Return if the applicant so desires.’

    So – they have to immigrate. They then have to apply (‘almost automatic’). They cannot be members of another religion.

    As Carr is living in Australia, he is not a dual citizen.

  14. BK @ #15 Tuesday, November 28th, 2017 – 7:59 am

    Here’s the direct link to Cameron’s complete speech.;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fd0612196-7e36-4c16-bdc8-e2f1f06b87b8%2F0118%22

    Thanks for the work BK. To everyone else it is a worthwhile read

    Definitely a corker that expresses my view on this rear guard action by RNWJ’s. The church like the RWNJ represent a small a proportion of the population that have a disproportionate access to power.

    It is time to consider that the church (no matter what brand) if it wants this access to power and protection, pays taxes commensurate with that request / access to power.

  15. Good Morning


    Thanks for posting Doug Camerons Speech I missed it yesterday. Off to read it now


    If the right of return exists for Senator Carr it must surely exist for Josh Frydenberg.
    Logic seems to be beyond this LNP mob.

  16. It is a very good speech.

    Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (18:08): I rise to support the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. If people have been listening in, they would think that this is a bill solely about religious freedoms. This is a bill about marriage equality. Fundamentally, it’s a bill that has been the subject of debate in this place on many occasions, and a bill that is the result of what I think is the courage and commitment of Senator Smith in bringing it forward, after having thought deeply about his position on marriage equality, changing his position and becoming an advocate for marriage equality.

    This bill amends the restrictions that limit marriage in Australia to the union of a man and a woman. The bill allows two people the freedom to marry in Australia regardless of their sex or gender. The requirements for a legally valid marriage otherwise remain the same. If you listen to some of the debates that have been in here today, you would think this was the end of religious freedoms in this country. I will come back to that issue, but I want to go to the key issue that we’re dealing with here—that is, for all Australians to be treated equally. For all Australians who love one another—whether that’s in a male-female relationship, a male-male relationship or a female-female relationship—that is acceptable and always should have been acceptable. We should not be here now debating this. It should have been law in this country some years ago.

    We’ve had long debates about this. I congratulate a number of people who have been pushing this forward over the period I have been involved in parliamentary politics: Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Anthony Albanese and Louise Pratt from the Labor side, who have pushed this bill continually and have advocated on behalf of same-sex couples; the members of Rainbow Labor, who have fought for fairness, justice and equality for all Australians; and Shelley Argent and the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays for helping to educate the public and politicians on the rights of gay and lesbian Australians.

    Most importantly I thank the mother of a young gay man from Greystanes, who rang my office in 2009 seeking my support for marriage equality and who outlined to me the discrimination, bullying, violence and social exclusion faced by her son growing up as a young gay man in Western Sydney. I also thank the gay man who approached me around the same time in Albury-Wodonga to outline the challenges faced by gay men growing up in the sixties in regional Australia. It was these personal stories that convinced me as a backbench Labor senator to speak out against my own party’s support for a policy that denied equal rights for all Australian citizens. I decided that love and commitment should be the test for marriage in Australia, not outdated and discriminatory acts of parliament.

    As a result of this I attended a rally of about 2,000 Australians in support of marriage equality outside Sydney Town Hall in November 2010. I broke with party policy and indicated I would be supporting marriage equality at the upcoming national conference of the party. I did this because, in my previous life as a blue-collar worker and a union official, my union had always supported the rights of oppressed minorities in this country, and no-one was more oppressed than gay and lesbian Australians. I’m pleased to have played a small role—only a small role, with many others—in bringing together parliamentary support for marriage equality.

    Unfortunately, it has taken too long to come to the position we’re in today. The parliament should have done its job and provided equality to all Australians many years ago. Politicians should simply have done their job and dealt with the matter, without wasting over $120 million of public money on a divisive and unnecessary postal survey—$120 million of public money wasted on a survey that told us exactly what everyone knew: that the Australian public supports marriage equality.

    I want to turn briefly to the strategy some conservative politicians are adopting in an attempt to delay marriage equality in this country. Arguing that religious freedoms will be affected by this bill beggars belief. In a country where religious institutions have significant economic and political power, to argue that providing equality to same-sex couples will result in religious discrimination is just unbelievable. I know a bit about religious discrimination, having been brought up in the west of Scotland. The divide between Catholics and Protestants when I was being brought up was huge. I married a Catholic, and I was brought up a Protestant. And I must tell you, it was not easy to go through this process with parts of my wife’s family and my own family. It was one of the reasons I decided I’d had enough of that nonsense and would not have my kids brought up with religious discrimination and in such a divide. I was fortunate enough to have a trade and to be able to emigrate to Australia, where I took the view that a much more relaxed position was adopted between different religions in terms of marriage.

    That proved to be true, but to listen to some of the contributions over the last couple of days on this bill would lead you to believe that the end of the world is nigh for those who have a religious faith in this country. I am an atheist, so I come to this with a different point of view from that of some of my fellow senators. I don’t see that religion should impinge upon the rights of atheist Australians, Australians who are agnostics or Australians who do not have a spiritual faith or believe in some spiritual being. I know many, many people, as we all do, who have strong religious beliefs and who use those religious beliefs to try to guide their life, and many of them do that in a very productive and progressive manner. Others, when you hear some of the debate that goes on, use their religion to try to discriminate against individuals who want the same right as they have: to marry the person they love. The proposals we’ve heard today from Senator Paterson are not what I would consider to be appropriate in this debate.

    This is a simple proposition that says that all Australians should be treated equally, that all Australians should have rights in the context of becoming married. The bill itself provides significant protections for those who are religiously minded or have religious views. It protects religious freedoms in relation to marriage. Ministers of religion will be able to refuse to solemnise a marriage, in conformity with their religion’s doctrine, even though I can’t understand why a gay Catholic can’t be married in the Catholic Church. I can’t understand that at all. If you are a practising Catholic or a practising Christian, I always thought the argument put forward by religious proponents was that religion was about tolerance and love—except if you’re gay or a member of the LGBTIQ community. I don’t get that. As an atheist, I just don’t get it. It is unacceptable in my view to discriminate against the LGBTIQ community in relation to marriage, health support and help when they become old and infirm. It is not something that I can understand as being compatible with what people argue religion is about.

    I want to look at the argument that religion is under this huge attack because of this bill. Religious organisations in this country are amongst the most powerful organisations in the country. They are amongst the richest organisations in the country. They are not there as defenceless bystanders in Australian political life. They are not there as defenceless bystanders in the Australian economy. They are big players in the economy. They are big players in the parliament.

    I take the view that there should be the separation of politics and religion, but that’s something that does not happen in this place. When we come together in the morning to commence parliament, and the Senate, we say prayers—I think the Catholics say a different prayer to the Protestants—and we get a different approach to this. I come along because it’s part of the tradition. It’s part of respect for the parliament and respect for other people’s views. But religious people should not be telling me, an atheist, how I should live my life, how my children should live their lives and how my grandchildren should live their lives.

    If you look at the New South Wales public school system, you see religious teaching in public schools in what should be a secular society. But we’ve got religious teaching in public schools. My grandkids, along with about 40 per cent of the other kids in the school, have to go away to a quiet room and do something on their own while religious teaching is taking place. I find that objectionable. It’s a public school system in a secular country and my grandkids should not be stopped from getting an education because of religion.

    Some senators today have the hide to say that religion will be forever changed. Religion has its fingers everywhere in this community, even in the public school system. We’ve got chaplains going into the public school system and they are not supposed to proselytise, but they’re in there. We should have support for children based not on religion, but on their mental and physical health. That’s the thing that should apply, not religion.

    I don’t accept the argument being put up that having marriage equality in this country will lead to the end of religious freedoms in this country. These powerful bishops, these powerful people, have been out there influencing politics in this country for as long as we’ve had an Australian state. They don’t need protection, but the public, young kids, have needed protection from them in the past. I just don’t get this argument that there will be an end of religion if this goes ahead. I want to indicate clearly that I won’t be supporting any amendments to this bill. I want to indicate that I’m concerned that the government has thought it necessary to set up a special inquiry to look at religious freedoms in Australia. I hope it’s a broad based inquiry and that my freedoms as an atheist are taken into account. The single biggest group in Australia is not Catholics, it is not Anglicans and it is not Presbyterians. It is people who have no religion. I belong to that group, and I don’t want religion stuffed down my throat by anyone. It’s unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable in this parliament. That’s really what we’ve got coming here with these amendments: it’s about imposing religious beliefs on the parliament of Australia to give benefits to religious organisations that should not be there in a secular society. If people want to practise a religion, they are free and entitled to practise their religion. This parliament should not be making it more difficult for people who are not religious to have no religion as the basis of their lives.

    I have said before in this place that I’ve been married since 1971. I was offended when I heard Senator Brandis and others talking about the sanctity of marriage, that you can only have a decent marriage if it is sanctified by God or if it is done in the eyes of religion. I’ve been married for a long time, and my marriage is as good and as strong as any religious marriage in this country. We’ve had our ups and downs, as both religious people and non- religious people have, but I’ve got a strong marriage and a fantastic wife, whom I love dearly, and I object to it being treated as second-class because I was not married in a church or under some sanctified mumbo jumbo, as far as I am concerned.

    So this is a big issue. It should not be simply about protection for religion. Religion is privileged in all areas of society in this country. The people who have not been privileged in this country, and who have certainly been placed in a position of deficient rights in this country, are the LGBTIQ community. I say it will now be a problem for some of the atheists in this country if we get more so-called religious freedoms, which is simply code to be able to discriminate against the LGBTIQ community. I’ve got some great friends in the churches, some fantastic political friends, who go out there with progressive views helping people. But just because you’re in a religious position, it should not make you any better than anyone else in this country. It should not be about religious freedoms but about rights for everybody in this country. (Time expired)

  17. I thought the Labor guy did pretty well at Q&A last night. Apart from that the panel was pathetic.

    I was most impressed with the way that McGrath went so totally out of his way to alienate everyone who was not already a village idiot. Bombastic, loud, arrogant…


  18. BW

    I think McGrath must be perfect for Malcolm unplugged then. Especially as Minister assisting the PM.

    Both carry a smarter than you view and seem to want to belittle others that dont agree.

  19. victoria says: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:33 am


    This thread gives a great perspective on Flynn flipping


    THANKS Victoria – for me , I think the most telling parts :

    Ale Ale aliasvaughn

    16. The other thing that’s clear is that EVERYONE from Kushner to Trump Jr. to Pence to Trump himself should be VERY worried, bc Flynn can implicate them ALL.

    17. If I were Flynn, I’d give up Pence and Trump himself first and foremost, in exchange for the maximum possible “kindness” with charges on part of Mueller & team.

  20. workmanalice: “They did a voluntary non-binding survey, you guys know a bit about that” – @Kieran_Gilbert zings @SenatorFifield over triple j’s hottest 100 decision.

  21. Mueller working his way up the chain – getting closer to the top now

    Top White House lawyer prepares for questioning in Russia probe

    One of the next members of President Donald Trump’s administration to enter the Russia investigation spotlight finds himself in a particularly awkward spot: He’s the top lawyer at the White House.

    Don McGahn is expected to be interviewed in the coming weeks in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, along with communications director Hope Hicks and Josh Raffel, who handles press-related inquiries for White House senior adviser Jared Kushner.

  22. Cheryl Kernot‏ @cheryl_kernot · 52m52 minutes ago

    So Sen Fifield is referring JJJ Hot 100 decision to the ABC Board. How’s that for petty micromanaging? Fix the NBN. Justify the $30m to Foxtel. Tell us what you really knew about former Sen Parry’s dual citizenship. That’s your job.#auspol

  23. lizzie:

    So Sen Fifield is referring JJJ Hot 100 decision to the ABC Board.

    Yeah, that’s definitely a constructive use of the government’s time.

  24. Jamie Walker in the Oz

    ‘One Nation’s decision to preference against sitting MPs cost the Liberal National Party any chance it had in the Queensland election, gifting Labor the Brisbane seats that turned the result.

    On Saturday, Pauline Hanson’s supporters did exactly what they were told and followed the how-to-vote card, making the One Nation vote a lose-lose proposition for the LNP.

    The Hanson effect explains why the LNP lost a quartet of key mortgage-belt seats in Brisbane even though the ALP base vote in them was mostly below what it was in 2015. Latest counting gives Labor 42 seats, LNP 37 and Katter’s Australian Party two, with 12 undecided. To win a majority, 47 seats are needed.
    The Coalition gets it. Even if the Greens Party continues to pretend that it does not happen.

  25. TS

    Thats bloody good news. More diverse voices in the Queensland Parliament. A wake up call to the main political parties that calling the Greens extreme has certainly not resonated with voters.

    A claim made by the Murdoch Press The Minerals Council and the LNP.

    As that man on QandA said last night people can be for the environment and for the economy there is no left right divide. People can choose both.

    Its only the vested interests of the old that call the Greens extreme.

    To me its those groups above that are extreme. Ignoring science and facts to bolster their bank balance.

  26. Interesting finding from Essential on the SSM religious protections:

    With the Senate debate now moving to the stage of considering amendments, 32% of the Guardian Essential poll sample believe that same-sex marriage legislation should include religious protections – the position being pushed by Turnbull government conservatives.

    But a larger proportion of the sample (47%) think it is acceptable to address the question of religious protections in a second legislative process, which is the position being advanced by many Liberal supporters of same-sex marriage, including Dean Smith, the architect of the private members bill currently before the Senate.

  27. So with all the real news out there, a certain news outlet’s premier current affairs program decided to devote 5 minutes to a gushing report on the royal reading (lead story) and another 5 minutes to the JJJ top 100 non-story.

    Sometimes you really have to wonder what this country is coming to.

  28. Sharri Markson‏Verified account

    Turnbull will today tip $100 million into the Bennelong electorate to build a major transport hub, as he fights to hold onto the seat.

    Bevan Shields‏Verified account @BevanShields · 12m12 minutes ago

    Bevan Shields Retweeted Sharri Markson
    ‘Construction will begin in 2020’…

    Won’t happen then. Just a porky promise.

  29. How thick (insensitive) are these Libs…

    Gina Rushton‏Verified account @ginarush · 2h2 hours ago

    Mitch Fifield just said “there’s nothing controversial about Australia Day”

Comments Page 1 of 19
1 2 19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *