Kevin Rudd’s agreement with Papua New Guinea on handling asylum seekers has drawn strong support from voters, according to a new poll from Essential Research. And it may have prompted a rise in the Greens’ vote.
Some 61% of voters approve of the PNG deal, compared to 28% who disapprove, with Labor voters most strongly supportive, 75-16%, then Liberal voters on 58-32%. The majority of Greens voters are opposed, 62-32%.
The agreement has significantly altered perceptions of the issue, with 25% of voters now rating Labor’s policy best compared to 26% of voters rating the Liberals’ policy as best — a huge turnaround from June, when the Coalition led 38-13% on the issue. Just 6% of voters think the Greens’ policy is best, but a very large 28% say “none of them”.
More than a third (35%) of voters say the asylum seeker issue is either the most important issue or one of the most important issues in deciding how they’ll vote. This cuts both ways, with 38% of Greens saying it’s the most important or one of the most important, and 39% of Liberal voters.
Malcolm Turnbull has also surged far ahead of Tony Abbott as preferred Liberal leader, with 37% of voters preferring him compared to 17% who prefer Tony Abbott and 10% who prefer Joe Hockey. That’s a rise of seven points for Turnbull since the question was last asked in April 2012, and a fall of six points for Abbott.
On voting intention, Labor’s primary vote remains on 39%, but the Coalition has lost another point to fall to 44%. The Greens has halted their slump, which saw them reach 7%, and have lifted to 9%, suggesting the asylum seeker issue may be playing well for them.
Overall, the two-party preferred outcome remains on 51-49% to the Coalition.
How about some decent graphs Crikey.
If you’re going to pay Essential for polling, you could at least present it in a nice, simple to read form.
(I find Essential’s website a bit of a dog’s breakfast.)
a thoughtfull piece by John Mendaue, worth reading in full
[In my blog of July 20, I referred to the Regional Settlement Agreement with PNG. With some reservations I described it as the least-worst option. Some were surprised at my comments. I wish it were otherwise, but in the toxic and poisonous political debate over refugees since John Howard’s time, we have had to face up to many unpalatable facts.
The coalition has been the principal cause of this toxic situation. It broke with bipartisanship on refugees because it felt it was to its political advantage to focus our fears on the foreigner. I don’t think the coalition has genuinely wanted the boats to stop whilst ever it was in opposition. It was political manna from heaven to have the boat arrivals continue.
The Greens have taken a “holier-than-thou” political position and have sided with Tony Abbott in the Senate on the key issue of the agreement with Malaysia. The Greens and many NGOs have wanted the government to undertake a political ‘mission impossible’.
The government has failed to provide political leadership or rebutted the crude politics of the coalition. So paralysed by boat arrivals it has failed to develop effective ‘upstream’ policies to reduce boat arrivals on our doorstep. These upstream policies offer the best prospect of success. I will refer to them below.
]
http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=629
Thanks Bernard. Just one small point – I would hardly call a 2% rise in the Green vote a “surge”. Probably within the MOE as well?