Newspoll’s results have a margin of error of about 3%, so small changes might not mean much. Think of it like a local football game where a last-minute goal can change everything. This is worth remembering when looking at the latest numbers. Poll results can also be shaped by the size of the sample, how questions are asked, and who actually votes. These factors all affect the reliability of the data. The polls show not only the return of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, but also that people are frustrated with rising living costs and pandemic fatigue. Voters seem to want bold solutions, and One Nation is catching their eye. Still, it’s early, and these numbers reflect current feelings, not future outcomes.
Results from Newspoll and RedBridge Group/Accent Research show a big change. The Coalition is at its lowest point, while One Nation has its highest support since 1998, with twice as much backing as in 2019. This is more than a minor change; it shows a real shift in how people feel. To put this in historical context, political landscapes often undergo significant realignments. In Australia, one can consider the emergence of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) during the 1950s, which influenced Australian politics by splitting votes traditionally held by the Labor Party. The rise of the Australian Democrats in the late 1970s also marked a shift, as they became known for their environmental and social policies. Additionally, the Greens’ success in the 2000s reshaped policy discussions on sustainability and climate change. These shifts often come with increased volatility and public sentiment swinging unpredictably, suggesting that what we see with One Nation might be more than just temporary fluctuations but part of a broader pattern.
Three weeks ago, the Coalition fell by three points in Newspoll, landing at 18% – 15% for the Liberals and 3% for the Nationals. One Nation jumped five points to 27%. Labor rose by one to 33%, and the Greens stayed at 12%. Since One Nation is now ahead of the Liberals, “Newspoll has not generated a two-party-preferred calculation.” If we use the same preference flows as in 2019, when 65% of One Nation votes went to the Coalition, the result would be about 56-44 to Labor.
If One Nation keeps growing, it could change the Senate and have a big say on key policies. With 27% of the vote, they could shape debates on immigration, climate, and social welfare, putting far-right ideas in the spotlight. This challenges values like multiculturalism, which supports diversity and inclusion, and egalitarianism, which stands for equal rights. What would this mean for Australia’s democracy and our national identity? These are bigger questions than just politics.
It may come as a surprise, but One Nation is now Australia’s second most popular mainstream party. This shift is more about the Coalition’s missteps than One Nation’s appeal. The LNP failed to offer a clear vision, especially on climate and leadership, leaving a gap. Their uncertainty and leadership troubles made them seem lost, while One Nation appeared steady and confident.
One Nation’s support is rising after the LNP’s poor results in the May election. Many people, young and old, have left the LNP in large numbers.
It’s too early to say what will happen, but if these numbers stay the same, the opposition could face real challenges. This situation shows how unpredictable politics can be. Hansons eadership may not last the year, and the possible outcomes are still taking shape.
Since One Nation probably won’t win enough seats in the Lower House to form a government, they are expected to focus on the Senate. This strategic focus could give them significant leverage in shaping key policies. For instance, they might push for policy changes on water buy-backs, aiming to secure concessions in exchange for their support. By targeting specific legislative areas, One Nation could exert considerable influence, potentially shaping decisions on issues such as vaccine mandates and immigration, despite its limited presence in the lower chamber.
My words are interrupted…
As of February 12th, Angus Taylor has resigned from the Opposition shadow ministry. His stepping down as shadow defence minister raises questions about whether the Liberal Party can properly review defence budgets and influence Australia’s defence plans during tense times. This loss could also mean less oversight of major defence projects, possibly delaying important national security decisions. These changes show how fast things are moving.
Liberal senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a leading conservative in the party, said she would support Taylor and warned that without change, the party could face another big loss at the next federal election.
Supporters of Angus Taylor in the Liberal Party say he has enough votes to beat Sussan Ley in a leadership contest. He does. His 34-17 win is significant compared to past leadership changes. For example, when Malcolm Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott in 2015, he won by 54 to 44, which was a closer result. Taylor’s win shows he has stronger support.
According to ABC News:
”Angus Taylor resigned from his role as opposition shadow defence minister, stating he did not believe Sussan Ley was in a position to lead the party as it needs.”
Others are likely to follow him. Who would want to lead a team that’s so close to falling apart?
In my opinion, the Liberal Party hasn’t had natural leaders since Howard. Those who followed—Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison – also lacked strong leadership. But it’s not just about personalities. Factionalism, in which a party splits into groups based on beliefs or interests, makes things even more complicated. These groups sometimes put their own goals ahead of the party’s, which hurts decision-making and unity. All these issues make it harder for strong leaders to emerge.
Whether they mean to or not, replacing Ley will make many people feel the party doesn’t support women, especially since women are already underrepresented in the LNP. The bigger challenge is picking Shadow Ministers who can help turn around a party that’s close to disappearing.
As I write, the votes are being counted live, and sources in the party room say Angus Taylor will win by a big margin. Now, he has won by a strong 34 to 17. Voting for Deputy Leader is still happening, and Jane Hume wins, though I find her just as irritating as Ted O’Brien. What does this margin say about the balance of power in the Liberal Party? Taylor’s clear win could signal a shift in influence and change how the party operates in the future. Will it return the lost voters who fled to One Nation?
Taylor has struggled to make a big impact as Shadow Treasurer. He missed chances to address important financial issues in parliament and during budget talks. Jim Chalmers often delivers stronger critiques of fiscal policies. I’m now waiting for Taylor’s first press conference as Leader of the Opposition, hoping he’ll take a more strategic and effective approach.
And so the inevitable press conference took place, and two of the main proponents who caused the predicament they say we are in now have the means and answers to make it all go away. And One Nation hardly rated a mention.
My thought for the day
The Liberal Party has always been seen as a party for elites and those who want to be. They don’t like the idea that economics and society are connected. Economics is for the rich and privileged, and society belongs to them. One example is their stance on negative gearing. This policy helps wealthy investors and property owners by letting them deduct certain expenses from their taxable income, but critics say it drives up house prices and makes it harder for average Australians to buy a home. Supporters argue that negative gearing encourages investment in housing, increases the number of rental properties, and boosts the economy by attracting capital to new developments. They also say it creates jobs in construction and related fields. Still, critics believe the policy mainly benefits the wealthy and undermines fairness in society, underscoring how the party’s economic focus often outweighs social concerns.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Yes – ‘Well done Angus’ has knocked out the person who ‘pipped him’ to the post he wanted for himself nine months ago.
Increasingly ‘lizard-like’- Tony Abbott was given air -time on the growing LNP mouthpiece the ABC. Seen on 7.30 -he still has that repulsive sliding tongue action. Perhaps it captures any idiotic ,ideology processes it and regurgitates it at any given time. Now – apparently is a good time to try and regurgitate the ‘White Australian Policy’. Angus Taylor has taken this Twerp’s message onboard. Astonishing.
@ John Lord: History intervened during your writing this article and I am lost in the subsequent confusion. Would you be so kind as to very soon write another article that looks forward through your experience to your expectations for the Anus Faylure + Just Humus LIAZRBRAL$ ”leadership”.
So what will GO-SLO-ALBO propose as policies for the economic & social development of Australia for the benefit of ALL Australian voters, rather than the backward marching, self-serving political mythology ingrained in the concrete brains of the 19th century thinking COALition politicians dreaming of empire and pursuing the White Supremacist dream of wealth by theft of foreign resources.
Let’s NOT muck around ….. a BIG HoR majority demands BIG reforms after too many years of COALition maladministration & misgovernment. So some ideas for the few politicians (and their lackies) who read AIMN to discover what ”the voters” think.
1) Negative Gearing (NG) & CGT Reform – as proposed by Labor in 2019 because presently about 25,000 MILLIONAIRES are the main beneficiaries of the Howard initiated tax deductions while thousands struggle to find shelter.
2) Re-direct current funding for fossil fuel search to funding social housing, especially in regional & remote centres.
3) A new INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS TAX OF $0.01 PER $1,000,000 over one million on all money transfers out of Australia.
4) (Local New England need after 13 years of neglect by Beetrooter). Federal funding the renovation, extension and re-opening of the Main North Line from Armidale north to Jennings Wallangarra then as new standard gauge through to Brisbane by-passing Toowoomba. It may require a new railway line from Tenterfield to the Beaudesert railway easement.
5) Re-establish the motor vehicle assembly industry with an EV-vehicle maker, including a research unit to increase geographical range of vehicles and self- generating capacity from vehicle solar panels rather than tiny on-board generators.
The policies of the past 26 years have turned Australia into a third world export economy for the benefit of a few locals and many foreign owned multinational corporations. The Howard deals gifting Australian CSG being typical example of COALition unthinking, and indeed probable economic treason.
It seems that the Liberals and One Nation will adopt opposition to excessive migration as their main policy difference.
Interestingly I’m reading that the greatest number of migration enquiries are coming from the US and Canada (I wonder why?) That may not be a bad thing but they would need to brush up on their spoken and written English and learn Bradman’s batting average before we let them in.
NEW The interruption did send me off the rails. A very very very short answer to your question is that all parties simply don’t understand what real change means.
Terry. Most of us would’ve pass the immigration test. Bradman was 98.4 or was it 6.
@ John Lord: Bradman went for a ”duck” in his last innings, leaving his batting average on 99.94 which the then ABC General Manager organised to become the PO Box address at the state capital city GPOs.
Airhead Angus the Clueless is a placeholder like Ley and about the only difference is he’ll last a few months longer before being knifed either by Hastie and/or Timmy.