The latest monthly Resolve Strategic federal poll for the Age/Herald marks a return to this series’ lean to the Coalition relative to other pollsters, with a two-point increase in their primary vote to 39% and a corresponding drop in Labor’s to 32%. The Greens, One Nation and other parties are steady at 11%, 3% and 5% respectively, with the low collective major party vote reflected in a likewise steady 9% for the pollster’s “independents” measure. The latter is a contentious feature of the poll, as it is unclear how or if the pollster deals with uncertainty as to where independents might run, as nothing is publicly known about how its questionnaire is structured.
Resolve Strategic doesn’t provide two-party preferred numbers, but I estimate a 51-49 break in favour of the Coalition on two-party preferred based on 2019 preference flows, reversing the result from last month. Breakdowns for the large states suggest the Coalition leads 53-47 in New South Wales, compared with 50-50 last time, and a swing of a bit over 1% in their favour compared with 2019; Labor leads 53-47 in Victoria, little changed on either the last poll or the 2019 election; and the Coalition leads 56-44 in Queensland, compared with 51-49 last time, for a swing to Labor of about 2.5%. Despite the voting intention numbers, the poll finds Scott Morrison has taken a solid hit on his personal ratings, consistent with the finding of other polls over the past month, with his approval rating down seven points to 40% and disapproval up to 49%. Anthony Albanese is respectively up one to 31% and four to 45%, and he has narrowed his deficit on preferred prime minister from to 44-26 to 40-29.
Full results from the poll, which was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1606, can be viewed here. Further results from the poll concerning the economic outlook (most expect it to improve) and immigration (most believe there should be less of it than pre-pandemic) can be viewed here. The pollster’s bi-monthly New South Wales state voting intention result will presumably be along this evening.
Also out yesterday was the regular fortnightly poll from Essential Research, which now comes with a flash new display, though I personally will miss the PDF that brought it all together in one easily stored file. This release features neither the monthly leadership ratings nor the quarterly dump of voting intention numbers. What it does include is the regular question on COVID-19 response by the federal government, whose good rating is down three to 45% with poor steady on 29%, and the state governments, with New South Wales’ good rating steady on 57%, Victoria’s down six to 50% and Queensland’s down two to 60%.
A question on best party to manage the economy does not follow the usual form for this issue in favouring the Coalition: instead, Labor and Liberal are tied on 34%. Furthermore, Labor leads 40-29 as the better party to “ensure the economy works in the interests of everyday Australians”, and 37-23 as best party to manage household expenses. Perhaps relatedly, fully 62% wanted the government to play a more active role in managing the economy, with only 16% wanting it to be less active and 22% thinking it has it about right. Further questions relate to government help for businesses to recover from the pandemic (respondents overwhelmingly in favour), an emissions target for 2030 (respondents believe it should be more ambitious) and freedom of speech (respondents actually aren’t all that keen on it). The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1095.
Finally, Sky News has a curious set of figures from a poll of 4010 respondents conducted way back in September by unheralded outfit Ergo Strategy, described as “News Corp’s final exclusive survey”, though I can’t find any record of anything earlier. No voting intention figures are provided, but we are told how voters for each party in 2019 intend to vote this time. Eleven per cent of Coalition voters said they were switching to Labor compared with 5% vice-versa, suggesting a shift of around 3% in favour of Labor.
Mexicanbeemer @ #891 Thursday, November 25th, 2021 – 3:11 pm
Are you suggesting that women can’t be sexist? That’s rather sexist of you. 🙂
Asha says:
Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 4:23 pm
C@t:
See, I get all that now. (Sort of.) I definitely did not at the time, and imagine many others were in the same boat.
Also, and I could be wrong here, but I’m pretty sure Gillard didn’t give that explanation until after she had left parliament. While she was PM, it was always just that tired “I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman” line, which sounded completely inauthentic from somebody who is not religious nor a conservative.
_________
What could she do? Say she had a deal with the SDA for their support to roll Rudd? So she began to run with some early 80s feminist line to handle the public perception.
She opposed SSM to be Prime Minister. So would probably 90% of the Parliament back then.
Asha
Ex ABC journalist Zoe Daniel launches her campaign to win Goldstein as an Independent.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1463731059552522243
Sir Henry Parkes,
Thank you. 🙂
I forgot to mention that one of my BFFs is a gay man who also has never believed in SSM. For similar reasons to me on the other side of the equation. He also had to endure during his life the fact that he could never marry, so he sure as hell wasn’t going to do it just because he was finally allowed to! On the other hand, I have gay friends who couldn’t wait to marry their partners as soon as they could. We all have our reasons and our perspectives.
And grubs like nath can NEVER claim to know Julia Gillard’s mind just because he selectively quotes this Labor MP or that, or draws conclusions about her thinking based upon his own perverse biases against her. 🙂
a r
LOL funny you put it like that on a day when a number of women signed a letter calling for exemptions from the sex discrimination act.
Asha @ #898 Thursday, November 25th, 2021 – 4:23 pm
Look, I’m not saying this because I want to make something up, that’s not my way, but I do seem to vaguely remember that Julia Gillard made a personal explanation to parliament before she left, which outlined the reasons for her vote.
Of course, it probably got drowned out by all the other crap going on around her at the time. I mean, she stumbled and broke a heel as she walked over some grass! 😆
poroti,
I genuinely changed my mind about marriage equality, because I grew up in the same era as Gillard, as did many people my age.
Marriage was a poisonous, patriarchal institution to my generation that offered nothing. And for those of us who succumbed to family pressure and tied the knot, the divorce a decade or so later convinced us about what an evil institution it was. Pauling Hanson has not helped – marriages do not break up for no reason, and her insistence on “Mens Rights™ ” has led to a lot of woman and children being exposed to violence and abuse.
It was only in 2006, when trying to get a visa for my partner in Germany, that I realised a lot of countries do not recognise civil partnerships, particularly the “presumptive” legislation in NSW, where no civil registration was required.
And while not every country recognises same-sex couples who are married, many more do now that the movement is growing , so it has been a very worthwhile struggle.
C@t
“I After her time as PM, Julia Gillard explained that her opposition to SSM was part and parcel of her opposition to marriage as the sole definition of a legal partnership between couples. Gillard in fact was reflecting her politics from the early 1980s, when marriage was largely dismissed by the left as a “bourgeois-patriarchal” construct.”
—————
There is a very serious flaw to this as a defence to discrimination against gays, a degree of homophobia.
I have never heard of any left wing party in a democratic country proposing to abolish marriage for everyone.
It would be a surprising policy for any political party to have, especially in a democracy.
It would be extraordinarily unusual as a policy for a party comfortably risk averse as the contemporary ALP.
The alternative to abolishing marriage for everyone is of course a policy that gays are not to be given the choice to marry which is what in fact she supported.
i call this pretend ‘abolition of marriage policy’ utter bullshit.
“Gillard couldn’t exactly say that she had done a deal with the SDA for their support to roll Rudd”
*YAWN*
Is it? We’re not really talking about Rudd v. Gillard here (which probably did take that title back once upon a time, though these days I personally find the RGR wars a welcome reprieve from some of the other subjects that get discussed to death here), we’re talking about Gillard and same-sex marriage. Its certainly done the rounds, but so have a billion other topics.
In any case, not everyone has been here for a decade, nor is familiar with past Poll Bludger history. You might be sick of reading about this. Well, I get fed up with all the copypasta, the spam, the sycophantry, the outright campaigning (this isn’t the hustings, people), the hours-long arguments that have little to do with current events and everything to do with years-long personality conflicts, the juvenile insults and nicknames, the way people freak out whenever one dares to say mean things about a politician or party they like, the refusal of some to format their posts in way that makes them remotely readable, the refusal of others to learn basic spelling and grammar, and about a hundred more things that I won’t bother mentioning because I would be here all day.
God forbid we actually discuss recent Australian political history, rather than far more important topics, like how much (insert bludger here) sucks.
Cat:
Oh, you may well be correct there.
I often tuned out from politics during that period. It all just got too depressing.
There was a time when i didn’t see the point in gay marriage and it was only after a social gathering when i watched a women with one of those gender changing names was giving a gay friend a farewell hug that i thought how strange it was that they could get married but if a bloke sharing the women’s name wouldn’t be able to marry the bloke.
Rikale,
As my explanation about my gay BFF attests, some gays had their own reasons for also opposing SSM. They are not a homogenous group and you certainly can’t accuse THEM of Homophobia.
Also, of course no party has ever suggested abolishing marriage. No matter what any party leader may think personally. It would never get through any parliament in a million years and anyway, that period of time when marriage was seen as an anachronistic ceremony with attendant philosophical underpinnings, is long since past.
Kakuruat 4:40 pm
The cost of doing deals with the effing Shoppies is worth a hell of a lot more than a ‘yawn’.
Kakuru says:
Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 4:40 pm
“Gillard couldn’t exactly say that she had done a deal with the SDA for their support to roll Rudd”
*YAWN*
_________
I wonder what it must be like to be a party loyalist, having no understanding of what actually goes on in the party and why. I suppose it must be similar to being a worker ant, just focused on the task as hand.
I will add too that I have genuinely learned quite a bit today as a result of this discussion, which to my mind gives this topic a hell of a lot more merit than some of the other stuff that consumes much of Poll Bludger’s bandwidth.
C@T
I know a lesbian that was totally against the idea but she isn’t fond of weddings and finds them to be a big yawn.
“And grubs like nath can NEVER claim to know Julia Gillard’s mind just because he selectively quotes this Labor MP or that, or draws conclusions about her thinking based upon his own perverse biases against her.”
***
But you see it really doesn’t matter what her or anyone else’s excuses were for opposing Marriage Equality, it was/is still discrimination and the wrong thing to do. People who do that are seeking to impose their personal beliefs about marriage onto others and force them to live and love according to their rules. They have the same authoritarian approach as the religious extremists but just with a different set of rules that they believe others should live by.
Asha,
That is why, despite everything that TPOF outlined, PollBludger is still worth the time.
Mexicanbeemer @ #917 Thursday, November 25th, 2021 – 4:48 pm
And then there are the Lipstick Lesbians who love any chance to frock up. 🙂
And there are Heteros who hate weddings too. 😉
Rikali:
Yeah, that’s how I’ve always tended to look at it too.
C@t
As my explanation about my gay BFF attests, some gays had their own reasons for also opposing SSM. They are not a homogenous group and you certainly can’t accuse THEM of Homophobia.
———-
I’m gay, and i am not interested in getting married either but I’ve never thought it would be moral for me to support legally stopping other gay men and women from getting married when straights are allowed to. Your gay friends must be very authoritarian or insecure if they support legal discrimination against other gays just to support their personal position.
Whoops, the question I posed in my post@4.30 pm had my question in the italics:
Here it is, about the supposed popularity of Berejiklian, according to Resolve:
So if 47% of NSW voters think ICAC is doing an important job, then Morrison may not be as successful at turning the next election into a referendum on ICAC.
Also, how do the Lockdown electorates feel about Berejiklian? Is her support largely to confined to the North Shore, which she unashamedly favoured.
For those in the locked-down electorates, any thoughts on the feelings on the ground?
PS, I think it was Burgey who pre-emptively mentioned that Berejiklian was not popular south of that south-east to north-west line that divides, roughly, wealthy Liberal voting Sydney, from poorer Labor voting Sydney.
C@T
She doesn’t hate the post wedding stuff but its the wedding ceremony part she finds boring.
nath at 4:46 pm
It would be a bit like being a stoker in a steam powered vessel, say the Titanic, you just keep shoveling like mad , not knowing what is going on above . Blissfully unaware of what is about to happen.
Greensborough Growler says:
Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 4:32 pm
Ex ABC journalist Zoe Daniel launches her campaign to win Goldstein as an Independent.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1463731059552522243
GG…if that doesn’t work in affluent Melbourne, nothing ever will…
poroti says:
Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 4:57 pm
nath at 4:46 pm
It would be a bit like being a stoker in a steam powered vessel, say the Titanic, you just keep shoveling like mad , not knowing what is going on above . Blissfully unaware of what is about to happen.
________
It’s not for me. Which is no doubt why I’ve never joined a political party.
Rikali @ #922 Thursday, November 25th, 2021 – 4:52 pm
I never said he actively campaigned against SSM. He didn’t actively campaign for it either. That’s his choice as a gay man. He also had his personal opinion about the issue. You seem to be wanting to construe his position as something it is not. Shame on you.
Morrison presser for 5.15pm.
Bet he’ll be announcing the ICAC being brought forward, and will say if Labor doesn’t support his model then blah blah blah.
Won’t work. He’s in awful strife. Flailing around desperately hoping something – anything will stick.
Sadly for him, people know Morrison now. And he’s only getting more angry and desperate each day. His “attack” on ICAC today was woeful
Edit: Nope, Solomon Islands.
Naturally we’ll be sending in the troops to try to get a boost in the lead up to the election.
This plus Tyrell is not and should not be Australian law enforcement
https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/highly-unusual-police-hold-missing-camper-suspect-without-charge-for-70-plus-hours-20211125-p59byo.html
The arrest is always for the purposes of charging, and then the bringing before the court.
“I’m gay, and i am not interested in getting married either but I’ve never thought it would be moral for me to support legally stopping other gay men and women from getting married when straights are allowed to. Your gay friends must be very authoritarian or insecure if they support legal discrimination against other gays just to support their personal position.”
***
Well said.
“Shame on you.”
***
No, Cat, shame on you for trying to hide behind someone else’s supposed views and trying to use them as a justification for your own discriminatory attitudes.
shellbell
I’ve been wondering about that. They need to charge him, even if it’s minor. I wonder what the hold-up is.
Shellbell,
It does seem rather unusual. Looking forward to the Police explanation.
Shellbell, are you considering a habeas corpus application, pro bono publico?
Asha
The question is who regurgitates and drives those “contributions” on here?
And why?
The answers are in black and white on these sites – and for posterity
Meanwhile we have the post Howard/Santoro Aged Care “industry” being exposed
Despite “kerosene baths” it has taken how many years?
The industry was not hopelessly prepared for a Pandemic – it was hopelessly prepared full stop
Can do capitalism
His “attack” on ICAC today was woeful
Katharine Murphy said he was looking desperate. And holding Gladys Berejiklian up as some sort of martyr to the Anti FICAC cause is just embarrassingly tawdry.
Nicko @ #886 Thursday, November 25th, 2021 – 4:06 pm
Except that the climate independents wouldn’t support a government that did not agree to act, or which agreed to act and then did not. Whether the government was minority Liberal or Labor.
It may well be the only way we will ever get real action from either party.
Picture of a friendly, consultative prime minister.
From the New Daily:
(A weird day in the HoR)
Yet another government MP has crossed the floor to vote against the Coalition, this time backing a long-awaited integrity bill that the government opposes – and consigning Prime Minister Scott Morrison to an embarrassing defeat in Parliament.
But despite the proposal from independent MP Helen Haines winning a majority of votes on Thursday, the bill was defeated on what she blasted as an “undemocratic technicality”, as she accused the government of lacking bravery.
…….
Dr Haines, who has pushed for a federal integrity body for most of her term in parliament, called for a suspension of standing orders in the House of Representatives on Thursday morning. The motion was moved so she could request her bill for an integrity commission be debated.
Her motion was surprisingly seconded by Liberal MP Bridget Archer, the Member for Bass, who has also backed such a scrutiny body.
…….
The vote to suspend standing orders, supported by Labor and other crossbenchers, came back 66-63 in favour. However, despite the numbers, such a motion requires an absolute majority of the 151-seat House, meaning it was successful but not carried.
It sparked a complicated set of procedural motions in the chamber, after rookie Speaker, Liberal MP Andrew Wallace, initially said the motion was successful – meaning Dr Haines’ bill would have been debated. Instead, after further votes, the motion retained its 66-64 majority – with Ms Archer’s decision to cross the floor as the deciding factor – but was ultimately deemed unsuccessful.
……..
Fellow independent MP Andrew Wilkie called Ms Archer’s position “the single bravest thing” he had seen any politician do.
Dr Haines called on the Morrison government to change its internal procedures and allow the bill to be debated if there was a similar future vote. She scoffed when The New Daily asked whether she would accept a compromise following Mr Fletcher’s commitment on the government’s own integrity commission bill.
“I didn’t come down in the last shower,” Dr Haines said.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/11/25/helen-haines-integrity-bill-vote/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PM%20Extra%20-%2020211125
Instead of attacking Gillard the Greens would do well to consider why Gay marriage is a reform that stuck, and why many consider the Greens trying to claim the reform as a success for them silly with some going as far as contemptible.
Gay marriage stuck because the reform had broad community support, the Greens had very very little to do with generating that support.
Factcheck: Clive Palmer uses 12-minute radio interview to make false Covid claims…
Another FATuous example of serial bullshit from Clive.
Follow science, truth & facts.. not lies.. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/25/factcheck-clive-palmer-uses-12-minute-radio-interview-to-make-false-covid-claims
I note he he had a joint presser with the Qld short-arsed expremier.
Lizzie/FS/GG
Earlwood will be the expert on this, but outside terrorism, I have never heard of a 3 day detention without charging and brought before court.
The records kept while he is under arrest will be fascinating including interviews (did he participate or not) etc. If he said no to the interview, then maybe some results from a hair or saliva sample could take a while but not more than a day. I suppose he may not be capable of being interviewed but arrest in Oz, unlike UK, is not for the purpose of being interviewed.
The process of arrest and detention are regulated/documented to the max in most jurisdictions. With a lot of extensions, in NSW arrest and detention time without charge is maximum 4 hours.
No one had to do a deal with anyone to roll Rudd, MPs were crawling over each other in order to do it.
Gillard was – again, well known – a reluctant starter. She wasn’t running around doing deals.
As for her stance on SSM, never had any trouble understanding it and I don’t recall her being shy about it at the time. I’d sort of also reached the stage (despite being married for thirty years at that point) that it was an unnecessary institution and couldn’t understand why anyone thought it was worth extending (until I had some conversations with some gay couples who really wanted it).
It’s a bit like attitudes to things like ANZAC Day — a couple of decades ago, it was seen as pointless and anachronistic and on the verge of dying out. It would have been unimaginable then that anyone now would give two rats about it.
I wonder if Brigit Archer will consider contesting her seat as an independent at the next Federal election. I know little about Tasmanian politics, but she could be successful doing this.
By the time the SSM voting came up I had been through two divorces and really couldn’t see the point, but I voted for it on the principle that if people were silly enough to want it, I wouldn’t stand in their way. However, I later came to see that there might be advantages for gays in tying a legal knot.
D&M
While you are about – what is your take on the Trailblazer Universities announcements from last night?
“I’d sort of also reached the stage (despite being married for thirty years at that point) that it was an unnecessary institution and couldn’t understand why anyone thought it was worth extending (until I had some conversations with some gay couples who really wanted it).”
***
I totally understand that line of thinking because I too think it’s unnecessary, but that’s a personal choice for someone to make. It is extremely important to many people, so who are we to tell them they can’t.