Polls: Essential Research and Roy Morgan (open thread)

The fortnightly Essential poll finds Labor’s stocks rising a little — but not as much as Donald Trump’s.

The fortnightly Essential Research poll is one of the more encouraging sets of recent polling numbers for Labor, finding them up three on the primary vote to 32% with the Coalition up one to 34%, the Greens down two to 11%, One Nation down one to 7%, and the undecided component steady at 7%. Labor has its nose back in front on the pollster’s 2PP+ measure, up one to 47% with the Coalition down two to 46% and the remainder undecided. Anthony Albanese also improves on the monthly leadership ratings, up three on approval to 43% and down three on disapproval to 46%, while Peter Dutton is up one on approval to 42% and down one on disapproval 41%.

Also featured are some particularly interesting results on US politics, including a finding that Donald Trump was viewed more favourably in the survey period than he had been after the 2020 election (but before January 6). Trump was viewed favourably by 36% and unfavourably 56%, compared with 20% and 72% in 2020, and 23% felt Australia’s relationship with the United States would improve under Trump compared with 37% who felt it would worsen, the corresponding results last time being 7% and 63%.

A very occasional series of questions on unions suggests they are strongly supported, with 64% rating them important to working people today and 26% rating them unimportant, respectively up four points and two points, and a 63-37 split recorded in favour of them being good for the economy over bad. A third of respondents felt Labor was too close to the unions, another third felt the balance was about right, 10% thought they weren’t close enough, and the remainder weren’t sure. Labor scored higher than the Coalition on a series of questions involving the rights of workers, including a slight edge on the question of “ensuring unions are operating ethically”, with Labor favoured by 27% and the Coalition favoured by 23%. The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1137.

The weekly Roy Morgan poll has Labor leading 50.5-49.5 on its respondent-allocated two-party measure, and by 51-49 when it applies preference flows from 2022. The primary votes are Labor 30.5% (down one), Coalition 37.5% (down two), Greens 13% (steady) and One Nation 6.5% (up one-and-a-half). The poll was conducted Monday to Sunday from a sample of 1652.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,504 comments on “Polls: Essential Research and Roy Morgan (open thread)”

Comments Page 28 of 31
1 27 28 29 31
  1. Socratessays:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 5:51 pm
    On the Reynolds Defamation trial, I will not comment on trial claims or prospects of success for either side. Best left to the Court.

    However with the general outlines of both cases now given, I am not seeing any new information come to light that would cast a negative perception on the behaviour of Labor Party members.

    As far as Labor figures are concerned, there are no new allegations. Yes Senators Wong and Gallagher raised questions about the case back in the Senate in 2019, as was their job as opposition politicians.
    =====================================================

    Just to clarify Labor politicians did not ask anything in parliament about the rape until sometime in 2021. No questions on this subject was asked in parliament until after Higgins interview was aired in February 2021.

  2. Holdenhillbilly at 5:45 pm

    The cricketing world is mourning the passing of England great Graham Thorpe.
    He was 55. Thorpe played 100 Tests, recording 6744 runs with 16 centuries at an average of 44.66, along with 82 one-day internationals. “There seem to be no appropriate words to describe the deep shock we feel at Graham’s death,” the ECB said in a statement.

    ——————

    That’s a bit of a shock, I may well have missed it but I don’t recall hearing that Thorpe had been ill, so I’m not sure they if it was sudden.

    At the risk of being a touch unkind, my memory of him as an Aussie was that he was one of those English players who was heavily hyped as being *the* guy to lead an English resurgence against Australia, and it never quite panned out. He had some decent Ashes innings, but never played in a winning series. His county record was ridiculous, though, and he was quite a pretty batsman.

  3. Is Linda Reynolds legal team still thinking of calling Scott Morrison as a witness
    If so it wouldn’t look to good for Linda Reynolds , Morrison apologised in the house of reps for her incompetency of not informing him of the alleged rape in her office

  4. Entropy

    Thanks for correcting the date from 2019 to 2021. The rest of my statement on Reynolds v Higgins stands as is.

  5. Of course their can be treaty.

    If treaty is agreed and legislated, then Dutton can if he wishes campaign to repeal it. Good luck with that and undoing it.

    But obviously there will be no treaty, as both major parties are forbidden by their corporate masters to share Australia’s natural wealth.

  6. Scott

    “If so it wouldn’t look to good for Linda Reynolds , Morrison apologised in the house of reps for her incompetency of not informing him of the alleged rape in her office”
    ——————————————————

    If Morrison did testify he would get cross examined. The first question he would be asked is why did he apologise?

    I’m off to make dinner.

  7. A treaty negotiated with whom?
    Beyond that, you can’t have a Makarrata without one in all in.
    Nothing Albanese proposes would be supported by the Thug and his Toolie.
    Dutton won. So did Bandt.
    We’ve lost a generation.

  8. Socratessays:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:06 pm
    Entropy

    Thanks for correcting the date from 2019 to 2021. The rest of my statement on Reynolds v Higgins stands as is.
    ===========================================

    That’s fine, before 2021 only a few politicians knew. Though a lot more knew that some sort of security breach had occurred in 2019. I’m not sure if any questions about this incident, defined as a security breach. Were asked or statements made about in parliament about that though?

  9. A treaty negotiated with whom?

    A treaty agreed between the King’s Govt of Australia and FN’s representatives.

    Boerwar, it is bad faith to be peddling what you are peddling in order to protect this weak Labor leader.

    If a fair treaty was agreed and legislated, good luck trying to undo it.

  10. Is there anything BW isnt an expert in?

    Tell us more about how indigenous self determinism is limited by your own imagination 🙂

  11. Boerwarsays:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:13 pm
    So. Reynolds was going to get rid of Lehrmann.

    All along…

    The cross examination is going to be interesting.
    ===================================================

    For an earlier security breach i believe. Though he still had unrestricted access to top secret documents. After that breach had occurred.

  12. FUBARsays:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 12:30 pm
    Stuart says:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 11:02 am
    This is not what I’ve read elsewhere, where the IDF in Gaza has been described as an army made up of heavily-armed, ill-disciplined reservists, with little regard for Palestinian life.

    Your sources would obviously be unbiased experts in military operations and the law of war providing a nonpartisan assessment based on on the ground observations. No?
    ==================================================================
    Yes, because an army made up of soldiers who willingly and actively participate in genocide, blockading of water and food aid from civilian populations, the bombing of schools, hospitals and residential areas killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and the murder of aid workers are obviously a disciplined and professional outfit worthy of our support and respect.

  13. BW: “But for a genuine Voice you need something in the Constitution.”
    —————————————————————————-
    Utter BS.

    All the powers of the Voice and all of its funding were going to be determined by Parliament. Seeking to have it enshrined in the Constitution was largely a symbolic measure, although Indigenous leaders also expressed some hope that this would protect it from being abolished by a hostile government (although, in practice, it would be open to any government effectively to starve it to death by depriving it of funding).
    —————————————————————————-
    “For genuine Makarrata you need something that is national – all in – .”
    —————————————————————————-
    I can’t for the life of me see why you can’t have that without the Voice. Indeed, I think the Voice concept was an impediment to getting it going because, I have posted before, a sizeable majority of the population saw it as a divisive concept. Albo is on the right track now in calling for an “inclusive” Makarrata process: although he isn’t very good at explaining what he means.
    ——————————————————————–
    “As for Indigenous views, they are perfectly entitled to band together and form something they call a national Indigenous Voice. Get back to me when that happens.”
    —————————————————————————
    Yep. How could they dare try to do something like that without the involvement of the superlative ALP. What an outrageous concept.

    If I had the chance to give my advice to Indigenous leaders, I would suggest that they put together their own team of Makarrata negotiators and start a process of consulting with Australian opinion leaders about what sort of treaty/reconciliation process might be feasible. And that team should schedule early appointments with Messrs Dutton and Littleproud. There’s a lot to be said for Indigenous people seeking to take matters into their own hands and to stop waiting for white saviours like the ALP to help them out.

    After all, the Noongar people were able to negotiate a pretty good deal for themselves with the WA Liberal Government under Colin Barnett.

    (Why on earth do I keep posting this stuff? I’m really going to cop it now.)

  14. meher babasays:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:38 pm

    All the powers of the Voice and all of its funding were going to be determined by Parliament. Seeking to have it enshrined in the Constitution was largely a symbolic measure, although Indigenous leaders also expressed some hope that this would protect it from being abolished by a hostile government (although, in practice, it would be open to any government effectively to starve it to death by depriving it of funding).

    Massive assumptions about how the High Court and activist Judges and activist lawyers would interpret the Constitutionally embedded Voice. Look at the shit they are having to deal with in the Immigration sector and shit heads who are Australians, do not have the right to be here, and are out in the community committing hundreds of new crimes – because of the High Court.

    The Noongar Agreement is a land rights settlement under the existing land rights legislation. It doesn’t create new rights nor required new legislation or Constitutional amendments.

  15. Reynolds said she and Brown both formed a “very strong opinion” that Lehrmann was not fit to work in the defence portfolio, let alone in a ministerial office.

    Is Reynolds trying to prove her incompetence or that Lehrmann had connections that kept him in the job?
    This case would appear to be a brilliant tactical move on Reynolds part.

  16. ‘meher baba says:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:38 pm

    BW: “But for a genuine Voice you need something in the Constitution.”
    —————————————————————————-
    Utter BS.
    ==================
    LOL.
    There have been endless variations of non-constitutional ‘voices’ at various levels for nearly forty years.
    What standing do they have other than being at the behest of the government of the day?
    None. Their ‘representativeness’, their TOR, their operating principles, their reporting arrangements, their funding… all completely dependent on the government of the day…
    .. a change in the national or state vote and they were as nothing.

  17. So Lehrmann STILL had complete access to her office when she had ALREADY formed an opinion about whether he should access high security documents?

    Not looking all that decisive, IMO.

  18. meher baba says Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:38 pm

    After all, the Noongar people were able to negotiate a pretty good deal for themselves with the WA Liberal Government under Colin Barnett.

    I have heard some people argue that this agreement is pretty similar to a treaty. I think I also recall Warren Mundine arguing that there should be multiple treaties (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/17/split-emerges-in-no-campaign-as-mundine-says-opposing-voice-makes-treaties-more-likely):

    In an interview with the ABC’s Insiders program, Mundine acknowledged that “people on my side don’t agree with me on these two issues and that is treaties and that is changing the date”.
    “I say treaties in the plural sense because we have to recognise Aboriginal culture,” he said.
    “Aboriginal culture is our First Nations and the first thing we learn about life is that one nation cannot talk about another nation’s country.
    “Only those traditional owners of those countries can talk about those countries, and therefore when you talk about a state treaty or a national-type treaty, it doesn’t make sense in our culture.”

    I do not know enough about the issue to really express more than an opinion. I would think however that Dutton and Co would vigorously oppose a national treaty. It would likely be a very brave government (in the Yes Minister version of brave) that tried to start negotiating a national treaty. It might make sense to start negotiations at the local level, as happened in WA.

  19. FUBAR says Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:48 pm

    Massive assumptions about how the High Court and activist Judges and activist lawyers would interpret the Constitutionally embedded Voice. Look at the shit they are having to deal with in the Immigration sector and shit heads who are Australians, do not have the right to be here, and are out in the community committing hundreds of new crimes – because of the High Court.

    Hang on, I thought that was supposed to be the ALP’s fault. Are you now saying it was because of the High Court? Well who would have known.

  20. Alanah Yukic with a huge run in the 400m hurdles. Through to the finals.

    Brought back memories of Debbie Flintoff-King.

  21. ‘meher baba says:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 6:38 pm

    BW: “But for a genuine Voice you need something in the Constitution.”
    —————————————————————————-
    Utter BS.

    All the powers of the Voice and all of its funding were going to be determined by Parliament. Seeking to have it enshrined in the Constitution was largely a symbolic measure, although Indigenous leaders also expressed some hope that this would protect it from being abolished by a hostile government (although, in practice, it would be open to any government effectively to starve it to death by depriving it of funding).
    —————————————————————————-
    “For genuine Makarrata you need something that is national – all in – .”
    —————————————————————————-
    I can’t for the life of me see why you can’t have that without the Voice. Indeed, I think the Voice concept was an impediment to getting it going because, I have posted before, a sizeable majority of the population saw it as a divisive concept. Albo is on the right track now in calling for an “inclusive” Makarrata process: although he isn’t very good at explaining what he means.
    ——————————————————————–
    “As for Indigenous views, they are perfectly entitled to band together and form something they call a national Indigenous Voice. Get back to me when that happens.”
    —————————————————————————
    Yep. How could they dare try to do something like that without the involvement of the superlative ALP. What an outrageous concept.

    If I had the chance to give my advice to Indigenous leaders, I would suggest that they put together their own team of Makarrata negotiators and start a process of consulting with Australian opinion leaders about what sort of treaty/reconciliation process might be feasible. And that team should schedule early appointments with Messrs Dutton and Littleproud. There’s a lot to be said for Indigenous people seeking to take matters into their own hands and to stop waiting for white saviours like the ALP to help them out.

    After all, the Noongar people were able to negotiate a pretty good deal for themselves with the WA Liberal Government under Colin Barnett.

    (Why on earth do I keep posting this stuff? I’m really going to cop it now.)’
    ===============================
    Are you really listening to yourself?

    Consulting with ‘Australian opinion leaders?’

    What do you think those years of consultation leading to the Uluru Statement from the Heart was all about?

    Babet, Bolt, Hanson, Dutton, Littleproud, Joyce…

    You actually have NFI about what the Voice referendum really meant or what its defeat means.

    There is no current national process for generating a national Indigenous Voice with any standing AT ALL with anyone. None.

    So there is no national Voice.

    Dutton is NEVER going to listen to any of that stuff or doing anything serious about it.

    You can’t have a Makarrata when half the people who should be engaging in Makarrata are not even remotely in the cart.

    So there is zero prospect of anything resembling a real Makarrata.

    How long do you think a Treaty negotiated by Albanese with the opposition of Dutton is going to last when the Coalition next rules Australia?

    So there is bugger all chance of a national Treaty getting up.

    Seriously, you are clueless about this.

  22. BW: “None. Their ‘representativeness’, their TOR, their operating principles, their reporting arrangements, their funding… all completely dependent on the government of the day…”
    —————————————————————————-
    Do you mean more or less how the Voice was intended to operate? Being enshrined in the Constitution wasn’t going to guarantee it any funding, and all details of its day to day operations were subject to legislation by Parliament.

  23. ‘meher baba says:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 7:09 pm

    BW: “None. Their ‘representativeness’, their TOR, their operating principles, their reporting arrangements, their funding… all completely dependent on the government of the day…”
    —————————————————————————-
    Do you mean more or less how the Voice was intended to operate? Being enshrined in the Constitution wasn’t going to guarantee it any funding, and all details of its day to day operations were subject to legislation by Parliament.’
    ============================
    See mine of 7.08.

  24. BW; “You can’t have a Makarrata when half the people who should be engaging in Makarrata are not even remotely in the cart.
    So there is zero prospect of anything resembling a real Makarrata.
    How long do you think a Treaty negotiated by Albanese with the opposition of Dutton is going to last when the Coalition next rules Australia?
    So there is bugger all chance of a national Treaty getting up.
    Seriously, you are clueless about this.”
    —————————————————————————–
    Whinge, whinge, complain, complain, it’s all finished, it’s all hopeless, let’s give up forever, yada yada yada.

    You’re starting to remind me of this song.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBavevjYCY

  25. FUBAR: “The Noongar Agreement is a land rights settlement under the existing land rights legislation. It doesn’t create new rights nor required new legislation or Constitutional amendments.”
    —————————————————————————–
    Yes, this was my point. All sorts of good things might be possible for Indigenous people through negotiation without major legislative or constitutional change. Sure, it isn’t going to be easy to achieve. But anything would be better than the devastating and humiliating defeat inflicted on the Indigenous cause by the outcome of the Voice referendum.

  26. bc

    LOLz.

    There is a lot of confusion all round.

    Ultimately the issue of sovereignty and the issues about the relations between two nations can only be resolved at the national level.

    This is ultimately about how we decolonize Australia with the colonizers living side by side with the colonized… by common agreement. This is something we do not have right now and it is a prime driver of much that is fractured in Indigenous communities.

    Anything other than a national treaty is local and regional deals (call them ‘treaties’ if that is your thing) which cannot cover areas of the Constitution covered by the Commonwealth.

    To gain legitimacy this process needed:

    a legitimate national Indigenous leadership recognized as such by both the Indigenous side and the non-Indigenous side and underpinned by formal standing in the Constitution. The Voice. One thing that WILL NOT change is whether or not Australians will all be subject to one and the same Constitution.

    a Makarrata process one in all in. Makarrata is not just about telling the truth. It is a resolution process. How do I know? I lived in a community that followed a makarrata process. You cannot conceptually have a makarrata when half the people who should be sharing in the Makarrata OPPOSE the makarrata. Simply not possible. It is like trying to make an EV car go by pouring petrol over the battery.

    a Treaty under the Constitution. This Treaty will be… uh, would have been legitimized by a national process involving all Indigenous Australians and by a very large support in the House and the Senate.

    Anyway, we lost it for a generation. There will be lots of flubbing for the next decade ago. But NOTHING fundamental is going to be addressed. Let alone fixed.

    Dutton won. Australia lost.

    Enjoy!

  27. Linda Reynolds went back to court to get her hat…


    Reynolds began giving evidence in the supreme court of Western Australia on Monday and told the court Lehrmann had “boasted” about people he knew and things he had done. In one instance, Reynolds said she had been told by her former chief of staff, Fiona Brown, that Lehrmann claimed to be friends with the then Asio chief Duncan Lewis.

    Brown called Lewis to check if that was the case, but Lewis denied knowing him, Reynolds said.

    Reynolds told the court Lehrmann had left a “highly classified” document unattended in her office that he had “no business” having. She said she and Brown both formed a “very strong opinion” that Lehrmann was not fit to work in the defence portfolio, let alone in a ministerial office.

    So why did Reynolds employ the stooge in the first place?

  28. Employing Lehrmann in the first place is not the issue here, IMO.

    The issue is that someone that she believed was a security risk appears to have had access to classified documents in her office.

  29. Higgins lawyer excoriating Reynolds vexatious claims…

    She said she would present a case demonstrating that claims that Reynolds was not aware of Higgins’ alleged rape by 1 April 2019 were “not credible” and that claims of a conspiracy to ambush the senator were wrong.

    Bennett pointed to a series of text messages, pictures and invitations to show Higgins was a “vivacious” young woman after her rape. But Young said these were “selected text messages” and ignored others that supported Higgins’ claims that she was “isolated”, “depressed” and “confused”.

    In one message, Higgins wrote she was “beyond shitty” with how her boss, Reynolds, was dealing with the alleged sexual assault, adding: “I was literally assaulted in [Reynolds’] office and I collectively maybe took 4 days off/was offered jack shit in terms of help.”

    Young said Higgins was a 24-year-old at the time and had limited job security compared with the senator, who was then the defence industry minister in the Morrison government.

    “The power discrepancy is palpable,” Young said.

    Young also pointed to a submission to the ACT board of inquiry to allege Reynolds was trying to “silence” sexual assault victims.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/aug/05/brittany-higgins-lawyer-outlines-defence-against-linda-reynolds-defamation-claim-ntwnfb

  30. Phew!

    Once Reynolds became aware that someone in her office was a potential security risk what formal steps did she take to report her concerns to ASIO?

    What steps did she take to restrict his online access to classified documents?

    What steps did she take to restrict his physical access to classified documents held in her Office?

    What steps did she take to advise colleagues and their staff who might have direct dealings with Lehrmann that he was a potential security risk?

  31. Any hope of salvaging the reputation diminishing..

    Brittany Higgins uploaded an Instagram post on Monday afternoon, during Linda Reynolds’ defamation case against her.

    The post was a screenshot of a book she contributed to, called ‘How Many More Women’ by Jennifer Robinson and Keina Yoshida.

    The book is about laws around the world that silence female victims.

    Ms Higgins’ rape story was included in the book, but was redacted in the original version due to forthcoming court proceedings.

    The book is now being republished with Ms Higgins’ story included.

    She captioned the post: ‘Pertinent reading.’

    The response?

    Linda Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett has blown up in court about Brittany Higgins’ Instagram post on Monday afternoon, during court proceedings.

    Moments before court wrapped for the day, Mr Bennett said: ‘While my client was giving evidence, Ms Higgins posted on social media.’

    He said Ms Reynolds’ statement of claim would be amended, again, to include ‘aggravating’ commentary.

    ‘If Ms Higgins thinks she can provide a running commentary on my client, it’s extraordinarily inappropriate,’ he told the court.

    ‘One would hope someone would advise Ms Higgins to give up commentary.’

    Ms Higgins’ lawyer Rachael Young SC said the post was a repost of a book that was published, rather than ‘an express reference to today’s proceeding’.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/live/article-13708615/Linda-Reynolds-v-Brittany-Higgins-defamation-trial-LIVE-blog.html

  32. Boerwarsays:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 7:00 pm
    So Lehrmann STILL had complete access to her office when she had ALREADY formed an opinion about whether he should access high security documents?

    Not looking all that decisive, IMO.
    =================================================

    About as convincing as the argument. I knew my dog was dangerous but was going to get rid of him. That’s why i didn’t put any warning signs on the gate.

  33. And PVO has surfaced again in arguably the worst publication on the planet…


    PETER VAN ONSELEN: Redbridge poll shift shows signs of a political earthquake blowing up one of the most enduring truths of Aussie politics – that Victoria is a Labor state
    Redbridge poll shows massive shift in Victoria
    It’s also a sign of trouble for Anthony Albanese’s government
    By PETER VAN ONSELEN, POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
    PUBLISHED: 09:53 AEST, 5 August 2024 |

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13708557/redbridge-poll-victoria.html

  34. Boerwar says:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 7:27 pm

    “This is ultimately about how we decolonize Australia with the colonizers living side by side with the colonized”

    Is that from Yes, Minister, Utopia or The Games?

    Gobbledygook.

  35. Back again. I see the Dow Jones pre market is now over a 600 points loss. Might have to hang around a bit tonight.
    If so, this will be the 8th biggest all time plunge numbers wise. Hopefully the end of Harris, if we look closely at Allan lichtmans keys. Useless Kamala. Everything going so good with scumbag celebrities endorsing her, then we have a stock market hiccup. Hopefully u.s. goes into recession. That’ll be the end for her. That’ll do. A nice recession on election eve.

  36. BW: “Good to see MB and FUBAR are as one in this domain!”
    ——————————————————————————
    I have more respect for FUBAR than most posters on PB, but I suspect that he is far closer to your position of not wanting anybody to lift a finger to try to do anything more to promote the cause of reconciliation and a treaty than he is to mine.

  37. Speaking of stock market crashes, Asia is looking sick…

    BREAKING: Asia-Pacific stocks experienced a massacre today as the sell-off spreads.

    Japan’s stock index is down 12.4%, marking its worst day since 1987.
    South Korea’s stock index is down 8.77%, briefly halting trading.
    Taiwan’s stock index plunged 8.35%, with chip giant TSMC losing 9.75%.

  38. sprocket_says:
    Monday, August 5, 2024 at 7:43 pm
    And PVO has surfaced again in arguably the worst publication on the planet…

    PETER VAN ONSELEN: Redbridge poll shift shows signs of a political earthquake blowing up one of the most enduring truths of Aussie politics – that Victoria is a Labor state
    Redbridge poll shows massive shift in Victoria
    It’s also a sign of trouble for Anthony Albanese’s government
    By PETER VAN ONSELEN, POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
    PUBLISHED: 09:53 AEST, 5 August 2024 |
    =====================================================

    Didn’t you know. State polls are always a good guide to Federal voting intentions when they show a swing to the LNP. Obviously Queensland which has had 9 years of a Labor State Government. Must have been a very good for Federal Labor over that period too. Following the logic of PVO.

Comments Page 28 of 31
1 27 28 29 31

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *