The first voting intention poll of the new year has been conducted by DemosAU for Capital Brief, and it offers the remarkable finding that One Nation has drawn level with the Coalition at 23% of the primary vote. The further surge to One Nation has also taken its toll on Labor, whose 29% is three points lower than in any published poll since the election. The Greens are on 12%, leaving 13% for “any other candidate”.
A two-party preferred result has Labor leading the Coalition 52-48 uses preferences flows from last year’s election, which means the 74.5-25.5 split of One Nation preferences in favour of the Coalition is doing exceptionally heavy lifting. The pollster further stirs the pot with a highly speculative Labor-versus-One Nation two-party result of 50-50, which applies Coalition preferences 83-17 in favour of One Nation based on the result in Hunter, splits Greens preferences 88-12 by assuming the same split as between Labor and the Coalition, and the rest 50-50.
Anthony Albanese’s performance is rated positively by 29%, neutrally by 30% and negatively by 41%, while the respective numbers for Sussan Ley are 17%, 55% and 28%. Albanese leads 42-29 on preferred prime minister. The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday from a sample of 1027 – based on the amount of weighting involved, the pollster estimates an effective sample size of 586 and a margin-of-error of 4%. Demographic breakdowns will be provided in a full report to be published later today. UPDATE: Full report here.
Entropysays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 7:56 pm
So you are making up a sexual harassment claim to try and destroy her career.
_______________________
Am not making anything up. She apologised for her behaviour.
Not sure about Tassie, but from what I have read she would have a case to answer under the Victorian Equal Opportunity and HRC.
Sexual harassment can be physical, verbal or written. Examples include:
– comments about someone’s private life or the way they look. TICK.
-sexually suggestive behaviour, such as leering or staring. TICK
-sexually suggestive comments or jokes. TICK
Quentin Rountree says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 8:54 pm
Hey back again…………..
=======
Good to see you back from time to time Quentin!
Australia’s indigenous people must be wondering when the taxpayer is going to fund Indigenous militias so that they can protect themselves against vigilante groups.
Boerwarsays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 8:56 pm
Entropy says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 8:52 pm
…
Probably true, with the Ukraine drone ecosystem also possibly superior to NATO also.
…’
===========================
We need to develop the ecosystem in Australia, asap.
————————————————
True, but our needs would differ from what Ukraine and NATO’s need. We don’t need anywhere near as many frontline battlefield drones. Just long distance capable surveillance and surgical strike drones.
Basically Ukraine use drones to level out being outgunned by Russian artillery. If we are using drones against artillery we have probably already lost.
I see everyone, especially Hard Being Green…BecauseHeBuysEveryLiberalLine, is already agreeing that Labor should split the Hate Laws from the Gun Laws going through parliament. Can people not see the absolute hypocrisy of the Coalition here? Can you not remember the blithe way the Coalition introduced their own Omnibus Bills and shamed and wedged Labor into voting for them? So why can’t the shoe be put on the other foot and Labor give them a taste of their own medicine? Especially over a subject as serious as one which necessitates the parliament being called back early?
Anyway, we all know that the only reason the Coalition want the Bills split is because Sussan Ley is worried about the Coalition splitting.
Also, could a genuine journalist ask her or David Littleproud to explain in detail, and not with manufactured talking points, why farmers need 10 guns or more?
At whom?
I think that the Coalition have given up on policy. They have a couple of policies they don’t mention explicitly but can be implied through their actions in Government – “anything but renewables”, defend fossil fuels, defund anything that doesn’t boost the Coalition vote, lavish largesse on anything that does or is likely to, suppress wages and salaries, etc.
But in the main, they intend to work with media allies to win the next election through culture-warring, outrage, dogwhistling and scandals – real if there are any, fabricated if not.
Thanks Nadia yeah it popped in from time to time with how the election turnout I tend to come by once in a while just to see what’s happening in the crazy world of the poll bludger community wondering what happened to the crazy people who fought the coalition was going to win when the polling was saying the exact opposite
nadia,
With your latest, ‘it looks like 50-50 to me’ comment, I would be reflecting back to your enthusiastic embrace of ‘Sub _._’ and ‘Labor are likely to lose 7 seats in Victoria alone at the federal election’, comments and so maybe temper your enthusiasm to talk Labor’s polling down and the Coalition’s up that much.
Boerwar/Entropy
The Ukrainians have already offered to share their drone expertise as a defense “export” to supporter countries such as Australia.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ukraine-offers-drone-tech-and-battlefield-expertise-to-australia-20250922-p5mx3m
Looks like a good idea. We could send them something we do well in return, e.g. 200 Bushmasters. Replacing them would provide ,more work in regional Victoria, and still relatively cheap (say $0.5 billion).
Yes Sir Constable C@tmomma!
ACLed: https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/1943781/injury-news-jesse-motlop
What’s the old saying, two wrongs don’t make a right?
The coalition was wrong to play politics so soon after Bondi and Labor is wrong to try and wedge them on gun laws imo
Spilt the bill imo
Taylormade quite happy to have the sort of double standards common to one-eyed Coalition supporters.
Entropy
“ Just long distance capable surveillance and surgical strike drones.”
Ukraine have these too now, some with ranges in the 100s of kilometres.
Look’s like the split might be on with the Legislation.
The Age….
“Hate speech bill blasted by Coalition, Muslim groups”
Link: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/new-racial-vilification-laws-rushed-into-parliament-next-week-20260112-p5nteg.html
Spilt the bill imo
Do you actually have a good reason for wanting this, HBG?
Hard Being Green @ #1713 Monday, January 12th, 2026 – 9:12 pm
I don’t agree. If the roles were reversed and Labor were that disgustingly opportunistic about the political situation as the Coalition was, they’d be finished, well and truly.
For the moment the situation is that the Coalition can get away with being such unbelievable bastards, while Labor would not in a thousand years.
Sexual harassment can be physical, verbal or written. Examples include:
– comments about someone’s private life or the way they look. TICK.
-sexually suggestive behaviour, such as leering or staring. TICK
-sexually suggestive comments or jokes. TICK
————————————————-
Thanks for the list. Have no idea who you believe White did this too? I certainly think I could find post of yours that fit this criteria at point 1 and 3. That would apply to either Wong, Gallagher and Keneally.
‘Socrates says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 9:11 pm
Boerwar/Entropy
The Ukrainians have already offered to share their drone expertise as a defense “export” to supporter countries such as Australia.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ukraine-offers-drone-tech-and-battlefield-expertise-to-australia-20250922-p5mx3m
Looks like a good idea. We could send them something we do well in return, e.g. 200 Bushmasters. Replacing them would provide ,more work in regional Victoria, and still relatively cheap (say $0.5 billion).’
———————
I like this sort of thinking.
The opposition was briefed on the laws late on Monday, but in the afternoon Ley claimed it was unreasonable for a single bill to cover “multiple complex and unrelated policy areas”.
“As is so often the case with this prime minister, he is squarely focused on what he perceives to be his political interests, not the national interest. This is a political decision, aimed at fostering division, not creating unity,” she said.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-racial-vilification-laws-rushed-into-parliament-next-week-20260112-p5nteg.html
Other than your continued targeting of the Prime Minister, Sussan, exactly how does this Bill ‘foster division’? Because gun nuts are unhappy with it? Too bad.
Ley claimed it was unreasonable for a single bill to cover “multiple complex and unrelated policy areas”.
*cough* Coalition Omnibus Bills, which Ley enthusiastically supported with her vote and advocacy.
#hypocrisy
A federal assistant minister and two Tasmanian Labor MPs were overheard having a game of “shoot, shag or marry” about male Liberal MPs at a public festival in Hobart.
__________________
If this were male Liberal MPs playing a game of ‘shoot, shag or marry’ about female Labor MPs the entire country might grind to a halt in outrage.
Socratessays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 9:12 pm
Entropy
“ Just long distance capable surveillance and surgical strike drones.”
Ukraine have these too now, some with ranges in the 100s of kilometres.
—————————————————–
Yep, that’s where we should get involved in cooperation with Ukraine. While NATO should be involved in all levels of drone cooperation with Ukraine but with highest priority on battlefield drone cooperation.
It is not unusual for one bill to contain proposed amendments to
a number of acts.
Tasmanian Labor is different, honestly if all of them resign at the next election and are immediately replaced then that would dramatically increase their election prospects.
William Bowesays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 9:05 pm
-sexually suggestive behaviour, such as leering or staring.
At whom?
_______________________
At several Male Liberal MP’s.
If you are making a judgement on shoot, shag or marry, then that’s leering and staring in my book.
I’ve always tried hard not to leer and state. Sometimes it can be difficult. I see the girls walk by
Dressed in their summer clothes. I have to turn my head. Until my darkness goes
Ley at her fake indignant best in accusing Albanese of playing politics.
Somebody should tell her that that is the name the game.
And you have to be good at it.
If she doesn’t understand that it’s a clue as to why she and her party are languishing in opposition, shouting at the sky.
C@t I think it would be preferable if the laws had broad support across the Parliament in this instance. Not spitting the bills may lead to the coalition voting against
Trump threatens Exxon that they won’t be able to invest in Venezuela, after it called the place uninvestible. Exxon execs response? Cmon punk, make my day?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/12/donald-trump-threatens-block-exxonmobil-venezuela
nadia says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 8:40 pm
I think the loss of the U.S. from NATO would be catastrophic.
I mean, the U.S. pretty much funds it.
If there was ever a meaningless statement this is it.
As a % of gdp the US ranks 3 rd in NATO spending. Per capita the US spends twice as much as Scandinavian countries & the UK..
Better to look at where the money goes.. US NATO expenditure goes into the US economy not Europes .. on that basis the US isn’t the largest NATO contributor .
From
https://thefulcrum.us/democracy/nato-spending-by-country
the United States contributes about 16% of NATO’s budget, despite having an economy that is approximately 55% larger than the EU’s.
Hard Being Green says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 9:38 pm
C@t I think it would be preferable if the laws had broad support across the Parliament in this instance. Not spitting the bills may lead to the coalition voting against
That’s a very idealistic and unrealistic stance to have. The Nationals have already said that they are against the changes to the gun laws. So it was never going to be a case of ‘broad support across the Parliament’.
Anyway, the calls from the Opposition and Sussan Ley are just them trying to show that they are running parliament from Opposition. If they succeed. It would also feed into their and the media’s, ‘the PM is weak’ frame if the PM backed down again to their demands.
Trump threatens Exxon that they won’t be able to invest in Venezuela, after it called the place uninvestible.
———————————————
So Exxon thinks it is not profitable to invest in Venezuela. So Trump say I will block you from doing so. I think Exxon can live with that decision.
The art of dealing with a Doofus.
Sceptic says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 9:45 pm
nadia says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 8:40 pm
I think the loss of the U.S. from NATO would be catastrophic.
I mean, the U.S. pretty much funds it.
If there was ever a meaningless statement this is it.
As a % of gdp the US ranks 3 rd in NATO spending. Per capita the US spends twice as much as Scandinavian countries & the UK..
Better to look at where the money goes.. US NATO expenditure goes into the US economy not Europes .. on that basis the US isn’t the largest NATO contributor …………
======================
Did you actually bother to read that link you posted, Sceptic?
I’ll let you read it, and you can find the section where it says…
“The United States is the largest contributor to NATO’s defense spending”
Scepticsays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 9:45 pm
nadia says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 8:40 pm
I think the loss of the U.S. from NATO would be catastrophic.
I mean, the U.S. pretty much funds it.
If there was ever a meaningless statement this is it.
As a % of gdp the US ranks 3 rd in NATO spending. Per capita the US spends twice as much as Scandinavian countries & the UK..
Better to look at where the money goes.. US NATO expenditure goes into the US economy not Europes .. on that basis the US isn’t the largest NATO contributor .
From
https://thefulcrum.us/democracy/nato-spending-by-country
the United States contributes about 16% of NATO’s budget, despite having an economy that is approximately 55% larger than the EU’s.
————————————————-
Yep, USA gets a disproportionate amount of the NATO defence spend going into their economy for weapons purchase. EU needs to redirect more of the NATO defence spend to production in the EU. I think mass production drone factories are a good place to start.
Just strike a deal with the Greens and pass the bloody thing. If the coalition doesn’t like it, tough.
No doubt we’ll get lots of sob stories in the Daily Rupert from farmers forced to surrender most of their their arsenals whose crops and chooks were eaten by rabbits or feral pigs or whatever… But if it wasn’t this it’ll be something else.
Will be interesting to see how that legislation plays out.
Looks like Hanson & Ley will vote against. This leaves Albo to deal with the Greens and Pocock.
If the Greens, Pocock, Payman & Thorpe get all upset about the free speech issues, then that could leave the bill in limbo.
Albo can play the “we’ve tried our best, but the Senate is hostile”, narrative.
So who loses?
“Hanson & Ley” get blamed.
“The Greens and co, get blamed”, or
“The gov’t get’s blamed for not splitting the bill”.
Who would get the blame.
Possible (and safest) solution would therefore be to split the bill, and use the Greens & co vote to get the firearm restrictions through, and use the LNP/ON vote to get the free speech restrictions through.
I think we’re in for a fascinating fortnight.
Steve777 says:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 10:01 pm
Just strike a deal with the Greens and pass the bloody thing. If the coalition doesn’t like it, tough.
No doubt we’ll get lots of sob stories in the Daily Rupert from farmers forced to surrender most of their their arsenals whose crops and chooks were eaten by rabbits or feral pigs or whatever… But if it wasn’t this it’ll be something else.
Exactly. All the Coalition are interested in is the politics. It’s been tawdry stuff from them from Day 1.
nadiasays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 9:55 pm
Sceptic says:
——————————————-
Did you read they only contribute 16% of the NATO budget. With the other 84% from EU countries and Canada. With a lot more of NATO money going into the USA economy than the European one. EU countries need to do more in house defence spending so they retain more of their defence expenditure in house. Large scale drone production factories in Europe would be good place to start. Initially ramping up to supply Ukraine. As best place to stop an evil despot with imperialistic ambitions is in someone else’s country before they reach your own.
I think it might get even more tawdry.
Look’s like a brutal fortnight coming up.
Who blinks first!
Entropy,
This initial discussion was about the contribution of the U.S. to NATO.
The other poster asserted that the U.S. is the 3rd largest contributor.
The article (he posted) is very clear as to who is the largest contributor.
… and I’m not playing “whataboutism” games on the NATO finances.
It is fairly clear that the U.S. is the biggest contributor to NATO.
Posters think that NATO can survive without the U.S. – ok, that’s fine. They can argue that to their hearts content. I have no beef either way with this.
nadia,
There’s no way the Coalition will be split in their vote for the Gun Reforms, so let them wear the opprobrium for not wanting gun reform after December 14. The government are quite capable of pointing this hypocrisy out. They’re certainly not going to pander to them. They don’t really need their votes in the Senate at the end of the day. Let them take repealing these new gun laws to the next federal election and see how far they get with the Jewish community then.
Far better to talk with The Greens about any minor amendments they may want to get the combined Bill through.
nadiasays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 10:12 pm
Entropy,
This initial discussion was about the contribution of the U.S. to NATO.
The other poster asserted that the U.S. is the 3rd largest contributor.
The article (he posted) is very clear as to who is the largest contributor.
… and I’m not playing “whataboutism” games on the NATO finances.
It is fairly clear that the U.S. is the biggest contributor to NATO.
————————————————-
In a country breakdown of expenditure. Considering they have at least 4x the population of any individual EU country that is to be expected. They are far smaller contributor than the EU zone is though.
Trump wants the EU NATO countries to increase spending but still spend it in the USA. If Greenland is any lesson they should follow the first part and increase spending but spend it on arms production in the EU and not the USA.
The Orange one is full of rat cunning. Remember last year he was having a tantrum and moaning about European NATO member pulling their weight with GDP/defence spending and being too reliant on the USA? Maybe this is the equivalent of taking the ball and going home, then coming back, digging holes in the pitch and burning the goal posts.
It’s okay Nadia, I got a PhD in economics so I think I can explain what Sceptic is trying to say.
All that NATO expenditure doesn’t just go into a big hole in the ground -you may be surprised to learn that every dollar spent is actually also a dollar earned!
Yes, you heard that right. That money is being received as income by whoever is selling the thing that the money is being used to buy.
And if the thing the money is buying comes from the USA, it’s almost like the USA is giving money to itself! Imagine your right hand pays your left hand ten dollars. Would you say that you have spent more than your friend, who just gave you five dollars?
Let’s think about this carefully. You had ten dollars, but now you have fifteen. On the other hand (bwahaha), your friend previously had five dollars and now has zero. The trick here is – we are counting both of your hands instead of just one.
When we talk about NATO in relation to contributions by member countries you need to clarify what is meant by contributions. Are we talking about direct cash contributions that enable NATO to exist as an organization (military structure, administration etc) or are we talking about the actual military forces expenditures that NATO can call on if required.
In terms of real military expenditure the US spends annually around double that of all the combined expenditures of European NATO members. There is little doubt that NATO would be greatly diminished if the US was to be removed from NATO.
We may not particularly like the US administration at present but in any major war it would be better to have them for us rather than against us. That’s just the reality of things.
Doctor Dick Dox Dossiersays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 10:33 pm
It’s okay Nadia, I got a PhD in economics so I think I can explain what Sceptic is trying to say.
——————————————-
So basically NATO expenditure is net positive for the USA economy and net negative for the EU economy. As the USA economy ends up with more money that they contribute going into their economy. While the EU gets less money than they contribute going into their economy. Thus it is a net positive factor for USA GDP and a net negative factor for EU GDP.
Doctor Dick but those European countries get something for any military expenditure in the US. One could assume it’s stuff they want and either can produce themselves or can’t produce at the same quality or price.
In the wash up it’s really the profit that’s a transfer from EU to US not the total amount paid.
davidwhsays:
Monday, January 12, 2026 at 10:43 pm
Doctor Dick but those European countries get something for any military expenditure in the US. One could assume it’s stuff they want and either can produce themselves or can’t produce at the same quality or price.
In the wash up it’s really the profit that’s a transfer from EU to US not the total amount paid.
————————————————-
The wages are paid in the country of production. So not just profit ends up in USA.
Its same as if I bought a car from China. Not only do the Chinese car company get the profit. The rest goes to pay Chinese workers and supply chains. The only money that stay here it what the car dealer gets.
Entropy it’s not as simple as that. If Europe can produce an item at equal or better quality at the same or lesser price than the US supplied item then why aren’t they? If they are sourcing from the US then it’s likely they are getting something they want at an economic rational price.