The first Newspoll in three weeks is a better one for the government, with Labor’s two-party lead down from 55-45 to 53-47. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up two to 36%, Labor down one to 37%, the Greens up one to 10% and One Nation down two to 8%. The better result for the Coalition flows through to Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings, with approval up three to 32% and disapproval down one to 57%, and his preferred prime minister lead out from 36-34 to 39-33. Bill Shorten is down one on approval to 33% and up one on disapproval to 54%.
We also have the first Ipsos poll for the Fairfax papers in three months, and it also has Labor leading 53-47, which is unchanged on the previous poll (this is with preferences allocated as per the last election – Ipsos produces a separate result on respondent-allocated preferences, but it’s not available yet). Both major parties are down a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 34% and Labor to 33%. Ipsos continues to record unusually strong support for the Greens, although they are down a point to 13%, and has One Nation on 7%, which I believe is the first result they have published for them. In keeping with Ipsos’s past form, leadership ratings are unusually favourable, and low on uncommitted responses: Malcolm Turnbull scores 42% approval and 49% disapproval, while Bill Shorten is on 38% and 42%. Also unusual is the size of Turnbull’s 48-31 lead as preferred prime minister.
The poll finds Julie Bishop (32%) edging past Malcolm Turnbull (29%) as preferred Liberal leader, with Tony Abbott on 14%, Peter Dutton on 5% and Scott Morrison on 4%. A further question suggests opposition to the notion of dumping Turnbull, but there are problems with it: it does not relate to Turnbull specifically, but to whether governing parties should or should not changes leaders mid-term. As stated, it appears those favouring an affirmative position are required to suggest that leadership changes should happen in all circumstances. So I’m not sure how much to make of the fact that only 25% signed on to this, with 71% opposed. The poll also finds 49% supporting a change to Section 44 with 47% opposed, corroborating last week’s finding by YouGov, and has 71% in support of a royal commission into banks, with just 19% opposed.
and on Foley, he got a good run just now on the 7 news bagging out the stadium spending. Will be interesting to see if this issue can get some traction. I don’t think it’s going to be hugely popular.
I can see through Rex’s uncunning plan!
Greensborough Growler @ #259 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:13 pm
Confidence is pretty high amongst bludgers !
I would have thought the job of getting everyone to a division is the whip and deputed, they are paid additional for this.
That would be Marino, presumably this arrangement allows for the manager of government business to focus on coming up with a cunning plan.
Hence Christensen had to resign so he could run nice FB ads about penalty rates.
Boerwar
snap!
Wakefield
Only 64mm to 9am this morning. The rain hasn’t been roolly heavy, but continuous.
lizzie @ #586 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 5:52 pm
Que ❓ ❤
Quoth he after being told blood test results excellent.
KayJay
Oh, well done. I got a good result too – stable.
lizzie @ #605 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:16 pm
I reckon we’ve had twice that in Greensy!
Rex Douglas @ #603 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:15 pm
Confidence has nothing to do with it.
You’re a one trick pony, Rex.
It’s not hard to see through the blather.
Greensborough Growler @ #266 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:25 pm
You’re confident Labor will win, aren’t you ?
I think it’s a given.
Rex Douglas @ #610 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:28 pm
Elections are always competitive and the next election is not due for a few years yet.
I don’t take any notice of personal popularity ratings and poll results don’t necessarily reflect the outcome at a real election.
That said, Labor are travelling well. Turnbull, not so much.
Greensborough Growler @ #611 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:34 pm
Very measured.
Cool, Van vs Miranda on the Drum.
Given the Abbott/Turnbull Govts performance though Labor couldn’t possibly lose.
Glad to see Bludgers passed their medicals. 🙂
mikehilliard
Strength is needed to beat the Trumble crowd.
Jackol says:
Monday, December 4, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Yeah, I’ve long felt that an appointed public servant that had to be approved by 50%+1 MPs (and can be removed by 50%+1 MPs) would be great for Speaker.
I don’t see the essential nature of the Speaker being an MP. The Speaker serves at the pleasure of the House, and would continue to do so
The Speaker – likewise the President of the Senate – has to have tenure and standing that puts them on the same footing as those over whom they preside. They have to be elected lest they be treated as no more than clerks or messengers. They are the voices of their chambers. They cannot be ring-ins. They have to be the embodiment of the democratic authority of the members for whom they speak. This is the foundation of the sovereignty of the Parliament and the primacy of the Legislature.
briefly
Am I right in thinking that in the UK Parl the Speaker, once elected, does not have to go back to the people? He is in effect, a permanent position.
Message for Joe root!
briefly – as I’ve said, I don’t buy those arguments. The Speaker has the authority given to him/her by the House. Whether an MP or a public servant is not relevant to that authority and how the Speaker uses it.
Jackol @ #620 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 7:03 pm
i agree with briefly, this time!
Jackol says:
Monday, December 4, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Yeah, I’ve long felt that an appointed public servant that had to be approved by 50%+1 MPs (and can be removed by 50%+1 MPs) would be great for Speaker.
Yes, it could only occur via referendum, and it will never be a priority, so it’s pure fantasy.
I don’t see the essential nature of the Speaker being an MP. The Speaker serves at the pleasure of the House, and would continue to do so
I understand the opposing Party will not contest a seat against a sitting Speaker, though of course anyone can run in an election, so Speakers must occasionally have to defend their seats. To the extent they are unopposed at elections, Speakers have superior tenure when compared to other members.
Tenure is vitally important. It is a pre-requisite for authority.
lizzie @ #618 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:58 pm
tradition is they are not opposed by the other side.
Jackol says:
Monday, December 4, 2017 at 7:03 pm
briefly – as I’ve said, I don’t buy those arguments. The Speaker has the authority given to him/her by the House. Whether an MP or a public servant is not relevant to that authority and how the Speaker uses it.
In the first place, authority arises because members have won elections. The Speaker is among peers in that respect. If they have not had to win their seat, then they have no democratic rights. They are decorations.
The Speaker is so named because they speak on behalf of the House to the Crown. The Crown derive their authority by the rights of god and kings, supposedly. The speaker derives their authority by virtue of elections. They embody the will of the people. They have to be elected…end of story, really.
Thanks GG.
Britain getting ready for one of the biggest protests in its history:
#ShowYourRumpToTrump
Can you imagine if Browyn Bishop had a long tenure as speaker.? She was a total disgrace and did nothing to dignify the position. A total partisan political hack.
mikehilliard @ #615 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:43 pm
Possibly on light duties until further notice.
Thank you.
As Lizzie noted, strength is required to manage the horror that is the hallmark of Monsieur Malcolm and his multitude of miserable misanthropes.
I had a go at the “Autism Spectrum” test yesterday and wound up with a score of 10.
I have, in my wild and fevered imagination, pictured Trumble, a Cortes aficionado, prior to burning his boats (Trumble’s) in preparation to subduing the native population and plundering the continent; assessing the crew with a test which would indicate those with empathy or impulse to kindness. Those so assessed would be to the forefront of any deadly confront and so be killed the soonest.
“Lest we forget” would ring out the message.
Who do we remember ❓ I forget ❗
Who do we blame ❓ William the false God and pretender to the throne.
Many years ago when I was just a simple country boy attending the picture palace “The Roxy”, on occasion would be shown travelogues, the most memorable thing about which was the sheer boredom engendered. They would invariably end with something like “as we say a fond farewell to …………….(followed by a succession of trite hackneyed, banal, clichéd, platitudinous, vapid, commonplace, ordinary, common, stock, conventional, stereotyped, predictable utterances.
If followed by “Tom and Jerry” or other cartoon, the sound of kids coming back to life would be enough to reinvigorate the bronze digger standing on the round a bout outside the theatre. “Roxy” still going, bronze digger gone to his rest elsewhere.
And so, as we say a fond farewell to the Poll Bludgers on this Monday evening……………………………….
Goodnight all. 😴😴💤💤💤
briefly –
Tony Smith embodies the will of the people of Casey. And I doubt that the people of Casey voted for Smith because they thought he should be Speaker.
The Speaker has authority by virtue of a vote in the House of Representatives, not the ‘will of the people’.
If you want to argue that the Speaker should be elected by a national vote of the public, fine, that would be an interesting variant.
But that is not how the Speaker is elected. The Speaker has authority because (literally as I just said) the House votes to give him/her authority; not for any other reason, and there’s no reason the Speaker needs to be an MP to have that authority bestowed upon them (apart, obviously, from the current constitutional description).
Anyway, there is no prospect of any change so I’m not going to comment on this anymore.
sonar says:
Monday, December 4, 2017 at 7:13 pm
Can you imagine if Browyn Bishop had a long tenure as speaker.? She was a total disgrace and did nothing to dignify the position. A total partisan political hack.
She was sacked because her conduct was inconsistent with the duties and the standing of a Speaker. Had she been a Minister, she would have been ignored notwithstanding her profligacy and megalomania.
The Speaker serves the House alone. Notionally, Ministers serve the Crown while answering on behalf of the Crown to other elected members of the House. Minsters are delegates of the Crown. Speakers are their protagonists, in a sense; and within the House, the Speaker has control of all Members, including Ministers. Speakers cannot have a standing that is inferior to those whom they are expected to control.
Just looking through the Senators citizenship declarations.
Rex Patrick, NXT replacement for Xenephon was ineligible at election time. Only renounced his NZ citizenship on 16/10/2017…
sprocket_ @ #631 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 7:21 pm
Gorn!
Some people seem to be forgetting that the Speaker of the House is not just a ceremonial or procedural role – the Speaker has a deciding vote in the case of a tie. Therefore, they also have to be an elected member of the House.
Has Nick McKim renounced his UK citizenship?
He has records that the Home Office received his documents just before he was appointed in 2015. But nothing since then. Did they lose the paperwork?
If he was a Coalition member it would have only taken three days.
sprocket_ @ #631 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 3:21 pm
But he replaced a casual vacancy, so that’s not relevant!
Linda Reynolds
Anne Ruston
Both have English grandparents – have no documentary evidence of renunciation, both claim to have ‘been told’ they had no rights by UK embassies
BiGD, yes that’s true, but if you read the Amicus on Hollie Hughes ineligibility, the process of ‘being chosen’ starts on nomination day, and goes all the way through to appointment. Probably doesn’t apply therefore to casual vacancies…. thinking out loud (:
Skye Kakoschke-Moore said that too. Then she checked again and decided she had to resign.
sprocket_ @ #637 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 3:30 pm
Yeah, but as you get to Hughes was a recount and not a casual vacancy.
I believe Nick McKim posted his renounciation letter on his twitter.
So has the court published its reasoms for booting Hollie Hughes?
Looking forward to reading through the 150 Reps declarations tomorrow 🙂
See-no-donors claims he’s not greek because he’s not “registered” as a greek. Oh, really?
9fer
I say trial by dunking chair.
If they float they’re guilty and we burn ’em to the stake.
If they sink and drown, they’re innocent, and will spend a glorious eternity in heaven with all the other innocents.
Ides
That’s the same letter McKim put in his declaration- the one saying the Home Office received his application.
As of July he hadn’t received a response: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-20/nick-mckim-seeking-confirmation-on-uk-confirmation-renunciation/8727042
Where will the Court of Disputed Returns draw the line about a reasonable time to apply to renounce? After the election is called (Keay, but also Alexander for his by-election)? Before it’s called (Sharkie)? Months before (Gallagher)? 1 *year* before (McKim)?
Mimhoff
Surely a year though would be considered reasonable steps?
ratsak @ #601 Monday, December 4th, 2017 – 6:10 pm
Good to hear. Any mention of Fitzies idea that if you want to chuck money around, spend it on sports venues and the like in the country, every country town a whatever they need for a billion or two, redolent of your comments on the need to address the lack of support from the bush for Labor.
10fer
I am sure labor will have its lawyers all over the documentation released today.
Due to its years of due diligence the big advantage that labor will have over the coalition and others is the fact that its lawyers will be very very experienced in the citizenship requirements of a wide range of countries and will have years of hands on knowledge of the ins and outs on citizenship.
The coalition much so much.
Cheers.