The Liberal manoeuvrings for an assault on Sussan Ley’s leadership don’t lack transparency.

As members of the Liberal Party gathered in Melbourne on Thursday to attend the memorial service for former colleague Katie Allen, leadership aspirants Andrew Hastie and Angus Taylor met to discuss their rival ambition.

Both the meeting and why it was needed were well publicised. Hastie and Taylor each wants to run against Ley. But the two right-wingers can’t afford to split the conservative vote on which their tilts would rely.

The timing and public nature of the encounter, attended by conservative factional heavyweights James Paterson and Jonno Duniam, would have seemed extraordinary to those unfamiliar with how things go when a party leadership battle is in full flight.

It looked insensitive ahead of the memorial service, and disrespectful to Ley, given that key attendees (but not Hastie) are her supposedly loyal frontbenchers. Anyway, the discussion, over coffee and pastries, came to no resolution. More wrangling will be needed. The Liberals’ leadership agony continues.

The flaws in Ley’s leadership have been canvassed endlessly, especially that she does not come across as standing for much. The qualities and limitations of the wannabe replacements have been less dissected.

There’s something of the old bull-young bull in the Taylor-Hastie face off.

When he entered parliament for the New South Wales regional seat of Hume at the 2013 election, Taylor was hailed as a future leadership prospect. As one pre-election article had said, his CV read “as if it’s too good to be true”.

At the University of Sydney he’d won the university medal for economics, before a Rhodes scholarship took him to Oxford. That was followed by a successful business career, including co-founding an agribusiness and working as a director of the management consultancy Port Jackson Partners.

Once on the ministerial ladder, Taylor rose to be minister for industry, energy and emissions reduction in the Morrison government. In opposition under Peter Dutton, he was shadow treasurer. But he had trouble landing blows against treasurer Jim Chalmers; his performance was considered by colleagues as mediocre, which is counting against him now. Taylor and Dutton were privately critical of each other.

Hastie’s earlier career path could not be more different. A captain in the Special Air Service Regiment, he served with distinction in Afghanistan. His entry to parliament at a 2015 byelection was surrounded by drama; the backdrop was the spectacular fall of Tony Abbott, his patron, as prime minister, after a challenge by Malcolm Turnbull.

In government, Hastie was assistant minister for defence. Under Dutton he became defence spokesman, where his performance was considered ordinary. He and Dutton fell out, each blaming the other; the result was the opposition’s defence policy delivered late with no flesh on it.

Since the election, the leadership ambitions of both men have been obvious, but their tactics have starkly contrasted.

Taylor ran against Ley and lost narrowly. In a bizarre move, he encouraged Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to defect from the Nationals to be his potential deputy; the plan imploded when he failed and so Price didn’t run. As shadow defence minister, he has stuck to his knitting, avoiding giving any impression of undermining the leader.

Hastie, on the other hand, has been a firecracker. Aggrieved he wasn’t allocated an economic portfolio, he quit as home affairs spokesman, claiming he wouldn’t have a role in formulating the opposition’s immigration policy (one of his constant topics). He has elevated his profile through social media, with slick, professionally prepared, sometimes provocative posts.

Both Taylor and Hastie are socially conservative, but Hastie much more so (he was denounced for ill-judged remarks about late-term abortions). In economics, there is a big gap. Taylor, with extensive knowledge of economics and business at both a theoretical and practical level, is a conventional economic “dry”. Hastie has shown himself something of a throwback to the past, with one of his videos a sentimental lament for the demise of the Australian car industry.

Hastie is attracting the support of impatient younger members of the party, who want generational change. He’s 43 to Taylor’s 59. Taylor’s critics say he has a “born to rule” attitude; those who criticise Hastie find him arrogant.

The reality is neither contender shows much prospect of being a good fit for the opposition’s top job in present circumstances – just as Ley has found herself unable to cut through to today’s voters. This is not just because of the nature of the individuals but because of the political circumstances they face.

These include the challenge of unlocking the women’s vote from Labor, and the public’s current attitude to what “government” should do and provide.

The Liberals can’t regain office without polling much better with female voters. Tackling their gender problem goes well beyond the familiar debate about whether the Liberals should adopt quotas for women candidates, though they might help.

Albanese knows how reliant he is on the female vote and does everything he can to ensure it is cemented in. It’s not just reminding people more than half his caucus are women. It’s serious policy pitched at women, most notably child care, but also improvements in parental leave, superannuation and other measures. It’s leaning often to preferring women for top appointments. It’s support for low-paid workers in feminised industries. The Liberals, whoever leads them, can’t or won’t compete on such fronts and are even conflicted about work-from-home.

Even more fundamental, the Liberals’ natural positioning (whether conservatives or moderates) is to support smaller government, reduce public spending, and tackle debt and deficits. But we’re living in times when voters want big government – for governments to do more, not less, to provide extra services, to help directly with cost-of-living pressures. This has been accentuated since the pandemic. At the macro level, concerns about debt and deficits don’t resonate as they once did.

The times don’t suit the Liberals, and the Liberals don’t have top people to suit the times. Worse for them, there is no sign of either of those things changing.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Five federal polls have been released in the last week, with three of them having some fieldwork after the Coalition split on January 22. One Nation is in second place on primary votes in the YouGov and DemosAU polls, leading the Coalition by five points in YouGov and three points in DemosAU.

In Morgan, the Coalition and One Nation are tied at 22.5% each, while Essential gives the Coalition a three-point lead. The Freshwater poll was conducted before the Coalition split, and gives the Coalition a nine-point lead.

Two polls have given a Labor versus One Nation two-party estimate. In YouGov, Labor led One Nation by 57–43, compared with a 55–45 Labor lead against the Coalition. This was despite primary votes of 31% Labor, 25% One Nation and 20% Coalition.

An early January Fox & Hedgehog poll gave Labor a 56–44 lead against One Nation, compared with 53–47 against the Coalition, from primary votes of 29% Labor, 25% Coalition and 21% One Nation.

Analyst Kevin Bonham said that in the Senate at the 2025 election, with exhaust removed, nationally Coalition preferences favoured One Nation over Labor by 75.6–24.4, while Greens preferences were stronger for Labor against One Nation than against the Coalition.

As the Senate uses an electronic distribution of preferences, all preference flows can be obtained from the electoral commission’s data. This is not the case for the House of Representatives, where only minor party preference flows between Labor and the Coalition are recorded.

Furthermore, the Coalition has already lost its right-wing supporters to One Nation, so preferences of remaining Coalition voters may be better for Labor.

Compared with late December or early to mid-January issues of the same polls, there have been primary vote gains for Labor, suggesting the Bondi effect is fading. The last issue of Freshwater was in October and the last issue of Essential in early December.

YouGov poll has One Nation second

A national YouGov poll for Sky News, conducted January 20–27 from a sample of 1,500, gave Labor 31% of the primary vote (up one since an unpublished late December YouGov poll), One Nation 25% (up five), the Coalition 20% (down four), the Greens 12% (down one), independents 6% (steady) and others 6% (down one).

Video included in the poll article has Labor leading the Coalition by 55–45 and One Nation by 57–43, presumably using respondent preferences.

In rural seats, One Nation led the Coalition by 35–21 on primary votes, putting them on track to gain many conservative rural seats from the Coalition.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval was -16 with 55% dissatisfied and 39% satisfied. Sussan Ley’s net approval was -31. Albanese led Ley as better PM by 47–29. On immigration, 64% wanted it decreased, 28% stay about the same and just 8% increased.

On Bondi, 28% thought Albanese had responded very badly, 21% not as well as can be expected, 38% as well as can be expected and 5% very well.

Morgan poll has One Nation and Coalition tied

A national Morgan poll, conducted January 19–25 from a sample of 1,653, gave Labor 30.5% of the primary vote (up two since the January 12–18 Morgan poll), the Coalition 22.5% (down 1.5), One Nation 22.5% (up 1.5), the Greens 13% (down 0.5) and all Others 11.5% (down 1.5).

By respondent preferences, Labor led the Coalition by 56.5–43.5, a three-point gain for Labor. By 2025 election preference flows, Labor led by 54.5–45.5, a 1.5-point gain for Labor. No Labor vs One Nation two-party figure was provided.

Essential poll best for Coalition

A national Essential poll, conducted January 20–23 from a sample of 1,022, gave Labor 31% of the primary vote (down three since early December), the Coalition 25% (down one), One Nation 22% (up five), the Greens 9% (down one), all Others 7% (down one) and undecided 6% (up one).

Essential hasn’t updated its two-party chart. A Labor vs Coalition two-party estimate based on 2025 election flows would give Labor about a 51.5–48.5 lead. This is the best poll for the Coalition of these five polls.

Albanese’s net approval slumped 12 points to -14, with 53% disapproving and 39% approving. Ley’s net approval was down eight points to -17. By 56–36, respondents thought Albanese had handled Bondi badly.

DemosAU poll has One Nation second

A national DemosAU poll, conducted January 13–21 from a sample of 1,933, gave Labor 30% of the primary vote (up one since the January 5–6 DemosAU poll), One Nation 24% (up one), the Coalition 21% (down two), the Greens 13% (up one) and all Others 12% (down one).

No two-party estimate was given by DemosAU, but seat estimates gave Labor 87–95 of the 150 House seats, One Nation 29–38, the Liberals 9–17, the Nationals 1–5, the Greens 0–2 and all Others 6–11.

A three-way preferred PM question had Albanese on 39%, Pauline Hanson 26% and Ley 16%. Albanese’s net approval was down two points since early January to -14, while Ley was down seven to -18. Hanson had a -5 net approval.

Freshwater poll

A national Freshwater poll for the News Corp papers, conducted January 16–18 (before the Coalition split) from a sample of 1,050, gave Labor a 53–47 lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences, a two-point gain for the Coalition since an October Freshwater poll.

Primary votes were 33% Labor (steady), 28% Coalition (down three), 19% One Nation (up nine), 11% Greens (down three) and 9% for all Others (down two). By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would have led by about 52.5–47.5.

Albanese led Ley as preferred PM by 45–32 (48–31 previously). Albanese’s net favourability was down two points to -9, while Ley’s was steady at -5. Hanson’s net favourability was +6, One Nation’s was +4, Barnaby Joyce’s was -8, federal Labor’s was net zero, the federal Liberals were +2, the federal Greens were -16 and Donald Trump was -34.

By 44–26, respondents thought the Australian economy would worsen rather than improve in the next 12 months. On current immigration levels, 65% thought them too high, 27% about right and just 4% too low. However, by 41–37 respondents thought immigration improves Australia’s economy rather than worsens it.

Australia Day questions in federal Resolve poll

I previously covered the mid-January federal Resolve poll for Nine newspapers. In further questions, by 68–16 respondents wanted Australia Day kept on January 26 rather than moved to another date.

Support for Australia Day on January 26 has surged since January 2023 (47–39 support). By 66–9, respondents thought Australia Day adds to social cohesion rather than detracts.

NSW Resolve poll: Minns gains but not Labor

The next New South Wales state election is in March 2027. A Resolve poll for The Sydney Morning Herald, conducted with the early December and mid-January federal Resolve polls from a sample of 1,145, gave Labor 37% of the primary vote (steady since November), the Coalition 27% (down one), the Greens 10% (steady), independents 11% (down four) and others 15% (up four).

No two-party estimate was given by Resolve, but The Poll Bludger thought Labor led by about 60–40, though this would overstate Labor if One Nation makes up most of the “others”.

Labor Premier Chris Minns’ net likeability surged 11 points since November to +25, his best since May 2023. In late November, Kellie Sloane replaced Mark Speakman as Liberal leader. Sloane’s initial net likeability was +10. Minns led as preferred premier by 40–18 over Sloane (31–19 over Speakman in November).

I previously covered questions on Bondi from the January sample of this poll.

Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The federal Coalition was imploding on Wednesday night, with all Nationals frontbenchers, including leader David Littleproud, quitting the shadow ministry.

They were retaliating against Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s insistence three Nationals senators must resign for defying shadow cabinet solidarity.

The Nationals ratified the mass walkout in a special party hook up at 6pm. This followed Ley accepting the resignation of the trio – Bridget McKenzie, Ross Cadell and Susan McDonald – who voted, in accordance with their party’s decision, against the government’s hate crime bill, which passed with Liberal support on Tuesday night.

The chaos deepened further when Ley declined to accept the latest batch of resignations.

As she desperately tries to hold the disintegrating opposition together, she said in a 9pm statement:

This evening, I spoke with Leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, and strongly urged him not to walk away from the Coalition.

I have received additional offers of resignation from National Party Shadow Ministers, which I and my Liberal Leadership Group have determined are unnecessary.

The Liberal Party supports the Coalition arrangements because they deliver the most effective political alliance for good government. I note that in David’s letter, he has not indicated that the Nationals are leaving the Coalition.

No permanent changes will be made to the Shadow Ministry at this time, giving the National Party time to reconsider these offers of resignation.

The crisis plunges Ley’s leadership into fresh turmoil, and is also putting Littleproud under pressure.

While the resignations do not automatically break the Coalition, its future appears untenable in the present circumstances. Ley sent Littleproud a message on Wednesday evening, asking him to pass it on to Nationals colleagues, in which she said maintaining a strong and functional Coalition “is in the national interest”.

Early Wednesday, Littleproud warned Ley of the walkout if the Senate trio was forced off the frontbench.

The Nationals had put the Liberal leader in a diabolical position. The party’s Senate frontbenchers had defied the principle of shadow cabinet solidarity, and convention would indicate they should resign or be sacked. As Cadell told Sky early Wednesday, “I understand if you do the crime you take the time”.

But the question for Ley was: should she press the convention, or let the “crime” go unpunished to avoid a blow up?

To turn a blind eye, however, would be seen as weakness and further harm her fragile leadership. To let the Nationals get away with their defiance would be interpreted as a dramatic case of the tail wagging the dog.

Liberals, who are now getting blowback for voting for the hate crime legislation, would have been infuriated if the Nationals had been shown lenience.

Former Liberal prime minister John Howard backed Ley, telling The Australian, “She had no choice. She behaved absolutely correctly.”

After hours of public silence in which she consulted with her senior colleagues, Ley issued a statement just before 3pm, indicating the three Nationals would pay the price for their action.

“Shadow cabinet solidarity is not optional. It is the foundation of serious opposition and credible government,” she said.

She said shadow cabinet had on Sunday night examined the government’s hate crime legislation. “The unanimous shadow cabinet decision was to negotiate specific fixes with the government and having secured those amendments, members of the shadow cabinet were bound not to vote against the legislation.”

Ley said that when the Coalition re-formed after last year’s brief split, “the foundational principle underpinning that agreement was a commitment to shadow cabinet solidarity”.

She said she’d made it clear on Tuesday to Littleproud “that members of the shadow cabinet could not vote against the shadow cabinet position”.

Littleproud understood action was now required, she said.

But a letter Littleproud sent Ley early Wednesday made it clear the Nationals’ leader disputed her version of events.

He wrote that there was “also a conventíon of shadow cabinet that a final bill position must be approved by shadow cabinet”.

“This did not take place for this bill, nor was the position presented to the joint party room,” he said.

Littleproud wrote that, “If these [three] resignations are accepted, the entire National Party ministry will resign to take collective responsibility.

"Opposing this bill was a party room decision. The entire National Party shadow ministry is equally bound.”

In her statement Ley said the three senators had offered their resignations from the shadow cabinet, “as is appropriate, and I have accepted them”.

“All three Senators have written to me confirming that they ‘remain ready to continue serving the Coalition in whatever capacity you consider appropriate,’” and she’d asked them to continue serving “in the Coalition team”, outside the frontbench.

She’d also asked Littleproud to nominate replacements.

Last year, Ley was seen as emerging well in her post-election tussle with the Nationals, even though Littleproud extracted concessions.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who a week ago had been on the defensive over his legislation, has now had passed much (albeit not all) of what he initially wanted, and had the additional advantage of seeing the opposition thrown into chaos. The political wheel can turn very fast.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“This is a game changer”.

That’s how Paul Scully, New South Wales Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, described the state government’s launch of a tender for an artificial intelligence (AI) solution to the housing crisis earlier this month.

The system, which is aimed at cutting red tape and getting more homes built fast, is expected to be functioning by the end of 2025.

“This is allowing construction to get underway and new keys into new doors,” Scully added.

The announcement was later endorsed by federal treasurer Jim Chalmers as a model for other states and territories to replicate, to “unlock more housing” and “boost productivity across the economy”.

Speeding up building approvals is a key concern of the so-called abundance agenda for boosting economic growth.

Those wheels are already in motion elsewhere in Australia. Tasmania is developing an AI policy, and South Australia is trialling a small-scale pilot for specific dwelling applications to allow users to submit digital architectural drawings to be automatically assessed against prescribed criteria.

But will AI really be a quick fix to Australia’s housing crisis?

Cutting red tape

Housing and AI were both key themes at last year's productivity roundtable.

In a joint media release, federal Minister for Housing Clare O’Neil and Minister for the Environment and Water Murray Watt said “easing the regulatory burden on builders” is what Australia needs.

They point to the backlog of 26,000 homes currently stuck in assessment under environmental protection laws as a clear choke point. And AI is going to be used to “simplify and speed up assessments and approvals”.

None of this, however, explains AI’s precise role within the complex machinery of the planning system, leaving much to speculation.

Will the role of AI be limited to checking applications for completeness and classifying and validating documents, as Victorian councils are already exploring? Or drafting written elements of assessments, as is already the case in the Australian Capital Territory?

Or will it go further? Will AI agents, for example, have some autonomy in parts of the assessment process? If so, where exactly will this be? How will it be integrated into existing infrastructure? And most importantly, to what extent will expert judgement be displaced?

A tempting quick fix

Presenting AI as a quick fix for Australia’s housing shortage might be tempting. But it risks distracting from deeper systemic issues such as labour market bottlenecks, financial and tax incentives, and shrinking social and affordable housing.

The technology is also quietly reshaping the planning system – and the role of planners within it – with serious consequences.

Planning is not just paperwork waiting to be automated. It is judgement exercised in site visits, in listening to stakeholders, and in weighing local context against the broader one.

Stripping that away can make both the system and the people brittle, displacing planners’ expertise and blurring responsibility when things go wrong. And when errors involving AI happen, it can be very hard to trace them, with research showing explainability has been the technology’s Achilles’ heel.

The NSW government suggests putting a human in charge of the final decision is enough to solve these concerns.

But the machine doesn’t just sit quietly in the corner waiting for the approve button to be pressed. It nudges. It frames. It shapes what gets seen and what gets ignored in different stages of assessment, often in ways that aren’t obvious at all.

For example, highlighting some ecological risks over others can simply tilt an assessor’s briefing, even when local communities might have entirely different concerns. Or when AI ranks one assessment pathway as the “best fit” based on patterns buried in its training data, the assessor may simply drift toward that option, not realising the scope and direction of their choices have already been narrowed.

Lessons from Robodebt

Centrelink’s Online Compliance Intervention program – more commonly known as Robodebt – carries some important lessons here. Sold as a way to make debt recovery more “efficient”, it soon collapsed into a $4.7 billion fiasco.

In that case, an automated spreadsheet – not even AI – harmed thousands of people, triggered a hefty class action and shattered public trust in the government.

If governments now see AI as a tool to reform planning and assessments, they shouldn’t rush in headlong.

The fear of missing out may be real. But the wiser move is to pause and ask first: what problem are we actually trying to solve with AI, and does everyone even agree it’s the real problem?

Only then comes the harder question of how to do it responsibly, without stumbling into the same avoidable consequences as Robodebt.

Responsible innovation offers a roadmap forward

Responsible innovation means anticipating risks and unintended consequences early on – by including and deliberating with those who will use and be affected by the system, proactively looking for the blind spots, and being responsive to the impacts.

There are abundant research case studies, tools and frameworks in the field of responsible innovation that can guide the design, development and deployment of AI systems in planning. But the key is to engage with root causes and unintended consequences, and to question the underlying assumptions about the vision and purpose of the AI system.

We can’t afford to ignore the basics of responsible innovation. Otherwise, this so-called “gamechanger” to the housing crisis might find itself sitting alongside Robodebt as yet another cautionary tale of how innovations sold as efficiency gains can so go wrong.

---

The author would like to acknowledge the enormous contribution of Negar Yazdi, an experienced urban planner and a member of ANU’s Responsible Innovation Lab and Planning Institute of Australia, to this article.

Ehsan Nabavi, Senior Lecturer in Technology and Society, Responsible Innovation Lab, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Three early January national polls have Labor sliding to between 52–53% two party preferred against the Coalition, down from around 55% to Labor before Anika Wells’ expenses scandal and Bondi. These polls are the worst for Labor since they unexpectedly won the May 2025 federal election in a landslide.

The three polls disagree on One Nation and the Coalition’s vote. In Morgan, the Coalition is actually ahead of Labor on primary votes by 30.5–30, with One Nation at 15%. In Fox & Hedgehog, Labor has 29% of the primary vote, the Coalition 25% and One Nation 21%. And in DemosAU, Labor has 29% with the Coalition and One Nation tied at 23% each.

Labor’s slide in the polls began with the expenses scandal and appears to have been worsened by fallout from Bondi. But just because Labor has lost support doesn’t mean they will keep losing it.

DemosAU has One Nation surging to tie with Coalition

A national DemosAU poll, conducted January 5–6 from a sample of 1,027, gave Labor 29% of the primary vote (down four since the October to November DemosAU MRP poll), the Coalition 23% (down one), One Nation 23% (up six), the Greens 12% (down one) and all Others 13% (steady).

Based on 2025 election preference flows, Labor led the Coalition by 52–48, a four-point gain for the Coalition. The pollster estimated a 50–50 tie between Labor and One Nation based on one seat (Hunter), where Coalition preferences were distributed at the election in a contest between Labor and One Nation.

Anthony Albanese’s ratings were 41% negative, 30% neutral, 29% positive (net -12), while Sussan Ley was at 28% negative, 55% neutral, 17% positive (net -11). Albanese led Ley by 42–29 as preferred PM.

Fox & Hedgehog poll

A national poll by new pollster Fox & Hedgehog for the News Corp papers, conducted January 5–6 from a sample of 1,608, gave Labor a 53–47 lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences and a 56–44 lead over One Nation.

Primary votes were 29% Labor, 25% Coalition, 21% One Nation, 14% Greens and 11% for all Others. By 2025 election flows, Labor would lead the Coalition by about 53–47.

Albanese had a net approval of -15, with 48% disapproving and 33% approving, while Ley was at -13 net approval. Albanese led Ley by 39–31 as preferred PM.

Federal Labor’s net approval was -10, the federal Liberals were at -10, One Nation at -1, Pauline Hanson at -3 and Greens leader Larissa Waters at -9, with 45% who had never heard of her.

By 54–19, respondents supported a royal commission into the Bondi terror attack. By 54–22, they thought there should be a pause to all migration to Australia other than tourism. By 47–26, they thought Australia should remain committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Morgan poll

A national Morgan poll, conducted January 5–11 from a sample of 1,676, gave Labor a 52–48 lead by respondent preferences, a 2.5-point gain for the Coalition since the December 8–14 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 30.5% Coalition (up three), 30% Labor (down 0.5), 15% One Nation (down two), 13.5% Greens (up 0.5) and 11% for all Others (down one). By 2025 election flows, Labor led by 52–48, a one-point gain for the Coalition from my estimate for the December 8–14 poll.

The previous Morgan poll was taken after the expenses scandal but before Bondi, suggesting that Bondi caused a further erosion for Labor.

Queensland Redbridge poll has big LNP lead

A Queensland state Redbridge and Accent Research poll for The Financial Review, conducted November 24 to December 8 from a sample of 818, gave the Liberal National Party (LNP) a 56–44 lead, from primary votes of 40% LNP, 27% Labor, 16% One Nation, 12% Greens and 5% for all Others.

By 54–30, respondents thought the Crisafulli LNP government has the right focus and priorities. By 54–28, they did not think Steven Miles and Labor have done enough to deserve to win the next election.

Resolve’s Queensland polls have been weaker for the LNP than other polls. An October DemosAU poll gave the LNP a 54–46 lead. The LNP gained a seat at a recent byelection from the Katter party.

UK Labour falls to third in polls

I wrote for The Poll Bludger on December 27 that United Kingdom Labour has fallen to third in the polls, behind the far-right Reform and the Conservatives. This article also covered polls in major western European countries and in some countries with elections this year.

Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What has the legend of Australian electoral analysis, Malcolm McKerras, been smoking, when he’s aligning with Legalise Cannabis politicians in the Victorian Upper House?

When I was a schoolboy, I was taught a maxim of ethical behaviour: “Honesty is the best policy”. To that was sometimes added: “Honesty is the only policy”. However, as an adult watching our democracy I sometimes wonder whether our politicians believe in that.

Having studied the nine Australian parliaments for over sixty years, I have come to give the benefit of the doubt to all the state legislatures and the two territory parliaments. By contrast, the federal parliament in my view has (metaphorically speaking) erected a second flag to accompany the magnificent Australian flag the flying of which I admire when I drive along Adelaide Avenue in Canberra. This lower flag has written on it a motto: “Dishonesty is the best policy” but the federal parliament can redeem itself in my eyes quite simply. All it needs to do is reform the Senate electoral system along lines I have long advocated. That can be done by a simple act of parliament.

Systems of proportional representation (PR) apply to the election of two Australian lower houses and five upper houses. The system applying to the two lower houses, in my view, is by far the best. That system is known as Hare-Clark and it is candidate-based. The five upper house systems are party-based and in my view that applying to the Legislative Council of Western Australia is by far the best while the Senate system is by far the worst. Though a hard marker in this area I give WA a credit mark of 65 per cent. The Senate system, by contrast, gets a fail mark of, say, 30 per cent. It is wholly without merit or virtue of any kind.

Members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia are elected from the state voting as one electorate. I give WA the highest mark because 37 are elected, NSW the second highest with 21 elected and SA comes third because only 11 are elected.

Victoria is unique in two respects. First, its members of the Legislative Council are elected by regions. There are eight with each electing five members, so its total membership is 40. Second, it retains the institution known as the Group Voting Ticket (GVT).

South Australia and Western Australia once had regions and the GVT. Both have been abolished. My contention is that Victoria should follow WA in scrapping the GVT and the regions simultaneously. Quite simply it should COPY the new WA system, including all its features, and elect 37 members from Victoria as a whole voting as one electorate.

What I want, however, is not wanted by the machines of Victoria’s big political parties: Labor, Liberal, Nationals and Greens. They want to cherry-pick between the two characteristics of the present system. They hate the fact that in November 2022 seven cross bench members were elected representing minor parties, two for Legalise Cannabis and one each for the Animal Justice Party, the Democratic Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party.

The Animal Justice Party best illustrates the problem for the machines of big political parties. There is a female AJP member of the Legislative Council in each of NSW, Victoria and WA. The big party machines would dearly love to get rid of her, but they can’t in two cases because the number elected in NSW is 21 while in WA it is 37. They can’t rig those systems to get rid of her because she will, almost certainly, get re-elected on the low quotas of the system.

But in Victoria’s case they can get rid of Georgie Purcell, the AJP member for the Northern Victoria Region. And as a bonus they can also get rid of Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, the PHON member for the Northern Victoria Region. These two women can be ridden of by the simple act of cherry-picking. The machines of big political parties love the situation whereby only five members are elected. Of course, that must be kept! But it is easy to denounce both Purcell and Tyrrell. Each is a wicked woman who gained election courtesy of employing a “preference whisperer”, that most evil of political consultants who knows how to “game the system” through the GVT.

All this brings me to the report of the Electoral Matters Committee of the Victorian Parliament published very recently. Its title is “Inquiry into Victoria’s Upper House electoral system”. To me it is a dishonest document. However, I can see why those who think like I have described above, and who love the machines of big political parties, would read this report differently. They would say it is very learned, is full of useful information and reflects the submissions of the great majority of submitters.

Having searched high and low to find merit in this report I have found two good parts. The first is on page 34 which shows the results of the WA election in March 2025. The second is the dissents of David Ettershank, the Legalise Cannabis member of the Committee. They appear on pages 89, 90 and 91. The problem is that Table 3.1 on page 34 is under cut by lengthy quibbles under the heading “concerns about a state-wide structure” (pages 35-42) and “problems with large ballot-papers” (pages 55-59). Consequently, the Labor, Liberal, National and Greens members of the Committee were able to vote in favour of the very cherry-picking exercise to which I refer above – and quote “respected independent electoral analysts” to support them!

I am not a Victorian but if I were I would live in the Western Metropolitan Region and I would vote for David Ettershank as a way of commending him for his dissents, the summary of which is: “Should the Government choose to adopt these recommendations, it will be a dark day for political diversity and democracy in Victoria.”

Premier Jacinta Allan will make the decision. To me it is a simple call: choose honesty and reject dishonesty. That may, however, not be good enough for her so let me try a pragmatic argument based on my belief that her Labor government will be defeated at the general election fixed for Saturday 28 November 2026. If she implements this report, she will be handing incoming Liberal Party premier Jess Wilson majorities in both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council.

Of course, I cannot expect Jacinta Allan to accept my predictions which are so pessimistic for her. So, let me try another tack. If Allan wins, her decision to choose honesty would give her a Legislative Council in which the cross bench consists of Greens and other minor parties. Her alternative choice would give her a Legislative Council in which the Greens are the sole holders of the balance of power. The reason for that is simple. The Legislative Council would be like the Legislative Assembly – composed only of members from the big parties – Labor, Liberal, Nationals and Greens.

I have made clear what I think should be done. The 2026 Victorian election should be conducted under the present system. Then, as a matter of the highest priority, a royal commission should be established in 2027 headed by a respected former High Court or Supreme Court justice. In WA the equivalent enquiry was headed by a respected former WA governor. Perhaps Victoria’s royal commission should be headed by a former governor of Victoria or any other state.

I am completely confident that such a royal commission would recommend that Victoria should simply COPY Western Australia’s new system in all its details. Then a referendum could be held that would receive an overwhelming affirmative vote.  Then in November 2030 the result in Victoria would look very similar to the recent result in Western Australia – for which reason I advise my readers to have a look at page 34 of this report!

It’s that time of year when Australia’s best stock pickers swap market charts for form guides and the field for the 2025 Melbourne Cup has drawn more analysis from financiers than a quarterly earnings report.

Switzer Daily has once again assembled a stable of market watchers, fund managers and financial heavyweights to share their Cup tips — and this year, even the quants are getting involved.

Peter Switzer is backing Half Yours, while TenCap’s Jun Bei Liu likes River of Stars. Switzer Group’s Maureen Jordan is taking a spread with More Felons, Buckeroo and Valiant King, and veteran investor Paul Rickard is throwing his support behind Meydaan. Shaw and Partners’ Adam Dawes and Bell Direct’s Grady Wulff are united on Presage Nocturne, with Wulff also adding Al Riffa to her quinella hopes. AMP’s Diana Mousina, ever the economist, said she’s “too busy with the RBA” to call it — a sentiment many market-watchers might share this week. She did message me a few hours later, however to say she "asked ChatGPT", which gave her the favourite: Half Yours.

Finally, we've got a reporter on-ground today in the form of ABC Bullion's Jordan Eliseo. You see, ABC Bullion actually forged the Melbourne Cup trophy. Shiny! Jordan's trackside pick came in this morning as...nothing. "I'm not a great tipper when it comes to horse-racing. I wouldn't want to lead your readers astray with an (at best) highly speculative tip," Jordan confessed. Fair enough.

But perhaps the most unconventional tip sheet of all comes from Macquarie Capital’s team of quants, boffins and bots. In their now-annual Melbourne Cup Quant Style report, the analysts behind the “PunterGPT” experiment used a mix of AI models — including ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok and Claude — alongside their own data-driven model to crunch the field.

Their hybrid approach produced a rare consensus, with both humans and machines agreeing on four frontrunners: Half Yours, Presage Nocturne, Valiant King and Flatten the Curve.

Adding a touch of macro flavour, the Macquarie team even introduced a “tariff handicap” this year — giving international runners like Al Riffa and Flatten the Curve a penalty for being unproven on Australian soil, while rewarding local performers such as Half Yours and Torranzino.

In true quant fashion, the report concludes that they’ll “go for the win on horses identified by both approaches and construct a box trifecta using the top six runners from each model.”

Whether the smart money is with Switzer’s crew or the machines remains to be seen. But if the past few years have taught punters anything, it’s that in both markets and horse racing, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

It's worth noting though: horse racing is still pretty mean. If you're like me and would prefer that the horses get to walk around and eat grass at Flemington instead, I'd encourage you to donate to the RSPCA instead of chucking on a lazy bet. They're for all creatures great and small, after all.

If Rupert Murdoch becomes a white knight standing up to a rampantly bullying US president, the world has moved into the upside-down.

Andrew Dodd, The University of Melbourne and Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University

This is, after all, the media mogul whose US television network, Fox News, actively supported Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election result and paid out a US$787 million (about A$1.2 billion) lawsuit for doing so.

It is also the network that supplied several members of Trump’s inner circle, including former Fox host, now controversial Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.

But that is where we are after Trump filed a writ on July 18 after Murdoch’s financial newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published an article about a hand-drawn card Trump is alleged to have sent to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The newspaper reported:

A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

The Journal said it has seen the letter but did not republish it. The letter allegedly concluded:

Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.

The card was apparently Trump’s contribution to a birthday album compiled for Epstein by the latter’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence after being found guilty of sex trafficking in 2021.

Trump was furious. He told his Truth Social audience he had warned Murdoch the letter was fake. He wrote, “Mr Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but obviously did not have the power to do so,” referring to Murdoch handing leadership of News Corporation to his eldest son Lachlan in 2023.

Trump is being pincered. On one side, The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper that speaks to literate, wealthy Americans who remain deeply sceptical about Trump’s radical initiative on tariffs, which it described in an editorial as “the dumbest trade war in history”.

On the other side is the conspiracy theory-thirsty MAGA base who have been told for years that there was a massive conspiracy around Epstein’s apparent suicide in 2019 that included the so-called deep state, Democrat elites and, no doubt, the Clintons.

Trump, who loves pro wrestling as well as adopting its garish theatrics, might characterise his lawsuit against Murdoch as a smackdown to rival Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant in the 1980s.

To adopt wrestling argot, though, it is a rare battle between two heels.

A friendship of powerful convenience

Murdoch and Trump’s relationship is longstanding but convoluted. The key to understanding it is that both men are ruthlessly transactional.

Exposure in Murdoch’s New York Post in the 1980s and ‘90s was crucial to building Trump’s reputation.

Not that Murdoch particularly likes Trump. Yes, Murdoch attended his second inauguration, albeit in a back row behind the newly favoured big tech media moguls. He was also seen sitting in the Oval Office a few days later looking quite at home.

But this was pure power-display politics, not the behaviour of a friend.

Remember Murdoch’s derision on hearing Trump was considering standing for office before the 2016 election, and his promotion of Ron De Santis in the primaries before Trump’s second term. Murdoch’s political hero has always been Ronald Reagan. Trump has laid waste to the Republican Party of Reagan.

Murdoch knows what the rest of sane America knows: Trump is downright weird, if not dangerous. This, of course, only makes Murdoch’s complicity in Trump’s rise to power, and Fox News’ continued boosterism of Trump, all the more appalling.

But, in keeping with Murdoch’s relationship to power throughout his career, what he helps make, he also helps destroy. Perhaps now it’s Trump’s turn to be unmade. As a former Murdoch lieutenant told The Financial Times over the weekend:

he’s testing out: Is Trump losing his base? And where do I need to be to stay in the heart of the base?

And here is Murdoch’s great advantage, and his looming threat.

A double-edged sword

The advantage comes with the scope of Murdoch’s media empire, which operates like a federation of different mastheads, each with their own market and aspirations. While Fox News panders to the MAGA base, and The New York Post juices its New York audience, The Wall Street Journal speaks, and listens, to business. Each audience has different needs, meaning they’re often presented with the same news in very different ways, or sometimes different news entirely.

Like a federation, though, News Corp uses its various operations to drive the type of change that affects all its markets.

It might work like this. The Wall Street Journal breaks a story that’s so shocking it begins to chip away at MAGA’s unquestioning loyalty of Trump. This process is, of course, willingly aided by the rest of the media. The resulting groundswell eventually allows Fox News and the Post to tentatively follow their audiences into questioning, and then perhaps criticising, Trump.

The threat is that before that groundswell builds, Murdoch is seriously vulnerable to criticism from a still dominant Trump, who can turn conspiracy-prone audiences away from Fox News with just a social media post. Trump has already been busy doing just that, saying he is looking forward to getting Murdoch onto the witness stand for his lawsuit.

If the Fox audience decides it’s the proprietor who’s behind this denigration of Trump, they may decide to boycott their own favoured media channel, even though Fox’s programming hasn’t yet started questioning Trump.

The Murdochs’ fear of audience backlash was a major factor in Fox’s promulgation of the Big Lie after Trump’s defeat in 2020. The fear their audience might defect to Newsmax or some other right-wing media outfit is just as real today.

History littered with fakery

We also need to consider that Trump might be right. What if the letter is a fake?

Murdoch has form when it comes to high-profile exposés that turn out to be fiction. Who can forget the Hitler Diaries in 1983, which we now know Murdoch knew were fake before he published.

Think also of the Pauline Hanson photos, allegedly of her posing in lingerie, all of which were quickly proved to be fake after they were published by Murdoch’s Australian tabloids in 2009.

There was also The Sun’s despicable and wilfully wrong campaign against Elton John in 1987 and the same paper’s continued denigration of the people of Liverpool following the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.

But while Murdoch’s News Corp has a history of confection and fakery, the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for straight reportage, albeit through a conservative lens. Since Murdoch bought it in 2007, it has been engaged in its own internal battle for editorial standards.

Media rolling over

What Trump won’t get from Murdoch is the same acquiescence he’s enjoyed from America’s ABC and CBS networks, which have both handed over tens of millions of dollars in defamation settlements following dubious claims by Trump about the nature of their coverage.

In December 2024, ABC’s owner Disney settled and agreed to pay US$15 million (A$23 million) to Trump’s presidential library. The president sued after a presenter said Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll.

Trump had actually been found guilty by a jury in a civil trial of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and was ordered to pay her US$5 million (A$7.6 million).

CBS’ parent company, Paramount, did similarly after being sued by the president, agreeing in early July to settle and pay US$16 million (A$24.5 million) to Trump’s library. This was despite earlier saying the case was “completely without merit”.

Beware the legal microscope

From Trump’s viewpoint, two prominent media companies have been cowed. But his campaign against critical media doesn’t stop there.

Last week, congress passed a bill cancelling federal funding for the country’s two public-service media outlets, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).

Also last week, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s stridently critical comedy show, although CBS claims this is just a cost-cutting exercise and not about appeasing a bully in the White House.

Presuming the reported birthday letter is real, Murdoch will not bend so easily. And that’s when it will be important to pay attention, because at some point Trump’s lawyers will advise him about the dangers of depositions and discovery: the legal processes that force parties to a dispute to reveal what they have and what they know.

If the Epstein files do implicate Trump, the legal fight won’t last long and the media campaign against him will only intensify.

Right now we have the spectre of Murdoch joining that other disaffected mogul, Elon Musk, in a moral crusade against Trump, the man they both helped make. The implications are head-spinning.

As global bullies, the three of them probably deserve each other. But we, the public, surely deserve better than any of them.

Andrew Dodd, Professor of Journalism, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne and Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has told Anthony Albanese China stands ready to work with Australia “to push the bilateral relationship further”, in their meeting in Beijing on Tuesday.

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

During the meeting, Albanese raised Australia’s concern about China’s lack of proper notice about its warships’ live fire exercise early this year.

The prime minister later told journalists Xi had responded that “China engaged in exercises, just as Australia engages in exercises”.

The government’s proposed sale of the lease of the Port of Darwin, now in the hands of a Chinese company, was not raised in the discussion.

On Taiwan, Albanese said he had “reaffirmed […] the position of Australia in support for the status quo”.

This was the fourth meeting between Xi and Albanese. The prime minister is on a six-day trip to China, accompanied by a business delegation. He is emphasising expanding trade opportunities with our biggest trading partner and attracting more Chinese tourists, whose numbers are not back to pre-pandemic levels.

Albanese has come under some domestic criticism because this trip comes before he has been able to secure a meeting with United States President Donald Trump.

In his opening remarks, while the media were present, Xi said the China-Australia relationship had risen “from the setback and turned around, bringing tangible benefits to the Chinese and Australian peoples”.

Thank you for the warm welcome to Chengdu, Secretary Wang Xiaohui.

Australia’s connection with Sichuan, China includes trade, education, tourism, medical technology, sport and culture.

I look forward to strengthening our ties. pic.twitter.com/gFK4DFg3TE

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) July 16, 2025

“The most important thing we can learn from this is that a commitment to equal treatment, to seeking common ground while sharing differences, pursuing mutually beneficial cooperation, serves the fundamental interests of our two countries and two peoples.

"No matter how the international landscape may evolve, we should uphold this overall direction unswervingly,” he said.

“The Chinese side is ready to work with the Australian side to push the bilateral relationship further and make greater progress so as to bring better benefits to our two peoples.”

Responding, Albanese noted Xi’s comments “about seeking common ground while sharing differences. That approach has indeed produced very positive benefits for both Australia and for China.

"The Australian government welcomes progress on cooperation under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has its 10th anniversary year. As a direct result, trade is now flowing freely to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides, and Australia will remain a strong supporter of free and fair trade.”

Albanese told the media after the meeting his government’s approach to the relationship was “patient, calibrated and deliberate”.

“Given that one in four of Australia’s jobs depends upon trade, and given that China is overwhelmingly, by far, the largest trading partner that Australia has, it is very much in the interest of Australian jobs and the Australian economy to have a positive and constructive relationship with China.

"Dialogue is how we advance our interests, how we manage our differences and how we guard against misunderstanding.

"President Xi and I agree that dialogue must be at the centre of our relationship. We also discussed our economic relationship, which is critical to Australia. We spoke about the potential for new engagement in areas such as decarbonisation”.

Xi did not bring up China’s complaints about Australia’s foreign investment regime.

Albanese said he raised the issue of Australian writer Yang Jun, who is incarcerated on allegations of espionage, which are denied.

Premier Li Qiang was hosting a banquet for Albanese on Tuesday night.

Fu Ni has settled back into life in Chengdu after 15 years in Adelaide. 🐼

She’s not just cute - she's part of a long-standing friendship between Australia and China.

That friendship continues, with pandas Yi Lan and Xing Qiu now calling South Australia home.

Seeing these… pic.twitter.com/CMtxeTHjOs

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) July 17, 2025

An editorial in the state-owned China Daily praised the Albanese visit, saying it showed “the Australian side has a clearer judgement and understanding of China than it had under previous Scott Morrison government”.

“The current momentum in the development of bilateral relations between China and Australia shows that if differences are well managed, the steady development of ties can be guaranteed , even at a time when the political landscape of the world is becoming increasingly uncertain and volatile,” the editorial said.

Australian journalists had a brush with Chinese security, when they were taking shots of local sights in Beijing. Security guards surrounded them and told them to hand over their footage. The incident was resolved by Australian officials.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of a majority at this Saturday’s election (as predicted by Switzer Daily's own Malcolm Mackerras a few weeks ago).

Adrian Beaumont, The University of Melbourne

The Tasmanian state election will be held this Saturday. Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system for its lower house elections. The five Tasmanian seats used at federal elections each have seven members, for a total of 35 MPs. A quota for election is one-eighth of the vote, or 12.5%.

A DemosAU poll for Pulse Tasmania, conducted July 6–10 from a sample of 3,421, gave the Liberals 34.9% of the vote (up 0.9 since the June 19–26 DemosAU poll), Labor 24.7% (down 2.6), the Greens 15.6% (up 0.5), the Nationals 2.7%, the Shooters 1.8% and independents 20.3% (up 1.0).

The Nationals are only contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and the poll would not have included them in the other two electorates of Clark and Franklin, so the Nationals’ vote in the electorates they are contesting would be higher than their statewide vote.

With a total sample of over 3,400, the sample size per electorate would be over 680. Using the results in individual electorates, this poll has the Liberals on a total of 13–14 seats out of 35, Labor on 9–10, the Greens on 6–7, independents on 4–6 and both the Nationals and Shooters either winning zero or one seat.

If the election results reflect this poll, the Liberals would easily be the largest party, but they would not win the 18 seats needed for a majority. There would probably be a majority for Labor, the Greens and left-wing independents, but Labor did not attempt to form government in a similar situation after the March 2024 election.

It’s been 11 years since Labor last held government in Tasmania, with the Labor/Greens government at that time widely blamed for Labor’s heavy defeat in the March 2014 election. But with the continuing decline of the major parties, Labor may have to reach an agreement with the Greens if they want to form government again in Tasmania.

Labor and the Liberals have both supported construction of a new AFL stadium. I believe this partly explains the drop in Labor’s vote, as many on the left would oppose this stadium. Labor’s refusal to attempt to form government after the March 2024 election probably also contributed to its low vote.

Voters may also be blaming Labor for this early election, just 16 months after the previous Tasmanian election. This election is just over two months after the federal election.

Federal election: Coalition’s vote inefficiently distributed

Analyst Kevin Bonham has a pendulum of House of Representatives seats after the results of the May 3 federal election. There are likely to be federal redistributions from July 2026 in some states, so this won’t be the pendulum used at the next federal election.

Labor won 94 of the 150 seats, the Coalition 43 and all Others 13, from a two-party vote of 55.2–44.8 to Labor. Assuming the Others are unchanged, Labor would need to lose 19 seats to drop below the 76 needed for a majority. On the pendulum, this occurs when the seat of Whitlam falls, but Labor won Whitlam by 56.3–43.7, more than 1% higher than their national vote.

This means that, using a uniform swing on the actual results, Labor would have won a majority even if they had lost the national two-party vote by 51.0–49.0, despite 13 Other seats.

Despite the electoral hammering, the Coalition retained many regional seats by large margins. This contributed to an inefficiently distributed vote. With voters in the cities making up a majority of all Australian voters, the Coalition can’t win by appealing just to voters in the regions.

The Coalition would be the largest party if they won 26 seats from Labor. This happens when the Coalition gains Braddon, which Labor won by 57.2–42.8, so the Coalition would need a 51.9–48.1 national two-party margin. For a Coalition majority, they would need 33 gains, and need a 53.7–46.3 national two-party win.

US and UK politics

I wrote for The Poll Bludger on Saturday that United States President Donald Trump’s net approval was nearly unchanged at -6.7 after the passage of the “big beautiful bill” through Congress. I also covered Elon Musk’s new party and New York City mayoral general election polls.

In the United Kingdom, a Labour MP has defected to a potential Jeremy Corbyn-led party. The far-right Reform has led Labour in UK national polls since the early May local elections. In a House of Commons vote on a welfare reform bill, 49 Labour MPs rebelled.

Two Queensland poll give LNP big leads

A Queensland state DemosAU poll, conducted July 4–9 from a sample of 1,027, gave the Liberal National Party a 55–45 lead (53.8–46.2 to the LNP at the October 2024 election). The Poll Bludger said this was a one-point gain for the LNP since a February DemosAU poll.

Primary votes were 40% LNP (steady), 28% Labor (down two), 13% Greens (up one), 12% One Nation (up two) and 7% for all Others (down one). On the recent Queensland state budget, 24% thought it would be good for the Queensland economy, 19% bad and 57% were unsure. By 43–26, respondents thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget.

A Queensland state Redbridge poll gave the LNP a 56–44 lead. Primary votes were 43% LNP, 29% Labor, 11% Greens and 17% for all Others (there was no One Nation breakdown).

Queensland was the only state the Coalition won at the federal election, though only by 50.6–49.4. The state LNP is still benefiting from a honeymoon after ousting Labor at last year’s election.

Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s not inflation. It’s not interest rates. And it’s not even local economic growth. According to Besa Deda, Chief Economist at William Buck, the biggest threat to equity markets right now is growing geopolitical uncertainty — particularly from the United States — and the way it’s reshaping the global trade and fiscal landscape.

Speaking on Switzer Investing TV this week, Deda said that investors and analysts alike are having to move beyond traditional tools like technical and fundamental analysis and now factor in something broader: scenario analysis.

“They are having to focus more on scenario analysis,” she said, “because different scenarios may transpire given the high levels of uncertainty and unpredictability.”

In other words, there’s no single base case to model anymore. The risk environment is being shaped by multiple unknowns — including US tariffs, global trade fragmentation, and fiscal stress in the world’s largest economy — all of which can feed into long-term volatility in equity markets.

And it's not just escalating rivalry between the US and China we have to watch now. It's the prolonged war in Ukraine; renewed conflict in Gaza and rising tensions between Iran and Israel (just to mention a few). Retail and institutional investors alike are grappling with a world where risk is no longer confined to economic data or central bank decisions.

Markets have already shown sensitivity to these shocks. Risk-off reactions to headlines out of Eastern Europe or the Middle East have triggered sudden pullbacks, while defensive assets like gold and US Treasuries have seen renewed buying interest. For equity investors, it adds a new layer of complexity — one where even strong fundamentals may be overridden by fears of geopolitical fallout.

Deda cited comments from local Treasury Secretary Steven Kennedy, who recently addressed the Australian Business Economists Conference, noting that the old rules of global trade are being rewritten — and not in a way that necessarily favours markets.

“The trading rules and norms are changing,” Deda said. “That had already started, but it’s being accelerated since Trump’s inauguration.”

“The US no longer sees those old trading norms as in their self-interest… and that has implications for defence spending, fiscal balances, and the long end of the yield curve.”

It’s that last point that may worry investors most. Long-term US bond yields — especially 10- and 30-year Treasuries — have been rising sharply. Deda says that’s due in part to investor concern over the sustainability of the US fiscal deficit, especially following legislation to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts.

“The bond vigilantes are back,” she warned. “That rise in long-end bond yields does have an impact — not just on borrowing costs in the US, but for other markets too.”

And while stock indices in Australia and the US are hovering near record highs, Deda cautioned that we may be entering a new phase where higher-for-longer yields become a drag on equity performance — especially if earnings falter or growth stalls.

“Markets sold off on April 2, when reciprocal tariffs were announced,” she said. “Then Trump hit pause, and markets rallied again. But it shows how fragile sentiment is.”

“I do wonder how long the share market can really hold at around these levels.”

Deda isn’t just any economist — she was formerly Chief Economist at St George Bank, giving her decades of experience in connecting macroeconomic shifts with market performance. And when someone like that says we’re entering an environment that can’t be explained by charts or historical patterns alone, it’s worth listening.

As global risks mount and traditional signals become less reliable, Deda’s advice is clear: scenario planning isn’t optional anymore. It’s the baseline for any investor serious about what’s coming next.