Nielsen: 61-39 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes tweets that the first post-carbon tax announcement poll from Nielsen, presumably conducted between Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1400, has the Coalition’s lead out from 59-41 to 61-39. Further comment superfluous, but primary votes and leadership figures, and presumably also some attitudinal stuff, to follow.
UPDATE: After falling a point short of overtaking Julia Gillard in last month’s poll, Tony Abbott has rocketed to an 11-point lead as preferred prime minister, up five points to 51 per cent with Gillard down six to 40 per cent.
UPDATE 2: Labor primary vote down a point to 26 per cent …
UPDATE 3: Michelle Grattan in the Sydney Morning Herald:
In results that will send waves of fear through the government, approval for Ms Gillard’s performance has tumbled another 3 points to 34 per cent, while her disapproval rating has jumped 3 to 62 per cent. The carbon plan has been given an unequivocal thumbs down, with 56 per cent of respondents opposed to a carbon price, 52 per cent rejecting the government’s carbon price and compensation package, and 53 per cent believing it will leave them worse off. More than half (56 per cent) say Ms Gillard has no mandate for her plan, and the same proportion want an early poll before the plan is introduced. Nearly half (47 per cent) think Bob Brown and the Greens are mainly responsible for the government’s package. More than half (52 per cent) say an Abbott government should repeal the package while 43 per cent believe it should be left in place under a new government. Ms Gillard yesterday denied she had been ringing around to gauge backbench support for her failing leadership.
The Coalition’s primary vote is up 2 points to 51 per cent, while the Greens’ is down 1 point to 11 per cent. Approval of Mr Abbott has risen a point to 47 per cent. His disapproval is down 2 points to 48 per cent … Ms Gillard’s approval rating is her worst so far and the lowest for a PM since Paul Keating’s 34 per cent in March 1995.
UPDATE (18/7/2011): Essential Research is kinder for the government, showing a slight improvement from last week’s worst-ever result for them: the Coalition’s lead is down from 57-43 to 56-44, with the Coalition down a point to 49 per cent, Labor up one to 31 per cent and the Greens steady on 11 per cent. Essential being a two-week rolling average, this was half conducted immediately before and half immediately after the carbon tax announcement, with the latter evidently having provided the better figures. I have noted in the past that, for whatever reason, Essential seems to get more favourable results for the carbon tax than phone pollsters: as well as being consistent with the voting intention findings (albeit not to the extent of statistical significance), the Essential survey also finds direct support for the carbon tax has increased since the announcement, with approval up four points to 39 per cent and disapproval down four to 49 per cent.
This raises at least the possibility that the phone polling methodology behind the recent Morgan and Nielsen results, as well as next week’s Newspoll, is skewed somewhat against the carbon tax – unless of course the internet-based Essential (or perhaps some other aspect of Essential’s methodology) is skewed in its favour. It should also be noted that Essential’s recovery only returns support to the level it was at in the June 14 survey, before a dive on July 11. For all that, respondents are just as pessimistic about their own prospects under the tax as were Morgan’s: 10 per cent say they will be better off against 69 per cent worse off, and 46 per cent believe it will be bad for Australia against 34 per cent good. Further questions inquire about respondent’s self-perceived level of knowledge about the tax, and their reactions about a range of responses to it.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
TSOP
Perhaps it was more of a clinical trial rather than an experiment – it has not worked. Please do not keep spinning the line that it was a “necessary intervention”. Given current polling it makes it even harder for Gillard. I do not think that the fact that the PM put some Cabinet ministers in detention, a reason for the Rudd removal, any more than I think it OK for school kids to deliberately trip up the teacher – even if they are super mean and have given the class C- on their assignments.
Victoria
The polls are showing the “experiment” has not worked. Hardly shallow assuming you can count. To claim this shallow you will need to show me some evidence that the judgment is premature and that Gillard has a way forward. As I said I had hoped form the CT but this weeks polls are not showing any improvement. I will however be fair and say that it will take at least 3 weeks from the CT announcement to really know if the effort has been a failure. Therefore you are entitled to stay hopeful for a little while yet. However if the polling is as dismal two weeks from k=now I think I will be 95% justified in saying the “clinical trial” has failed.
by daretotread on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Well, mostly it is intended to change investment decisions. The tax is paid by firms who will treat it as a variable input expense. By changing technologies, firms can reduce their input costs. This is about optimal capital utilisation.
At least, for some firms it will work this way. A few very large businesses or politically protected industries will be given support to help them migrate investment from fossil-fuel-intensive technologies to other greener energy sources.
For lots of other firms, however, it is not going to be so easy. Firms that are consumers of electricity or gas or transport-intensive supplies will just get higher bills. They will have to pay more for their inputs and usually will have few ways to reduce those input costs.
Some firms will be able to pass on their higher costs. But many will not. I know the business where I work will have higher input costs of at least $8,000 in the first year, and these will presumably rise in subsequent years. This firm will get no compensation and operates in a market (export) in which input costs cannot be passed downstream. So the cost of carbon pricing will be reflected in other ways – reduced production and earnings, reduced employment, reduced prices for raw materials. This is just one small enterprise. There will be many thousands in a similar situation.
So while there is no doubt that Abbott is exaggerating wildly and that climate change is very real, there is no point pretending this is all going to be cost free. It is not. Lots of small, politically insignificant businesses will be doing more than their share of the heavy lifting.
Small businesses – who usually face higher risks but have fewer choices and have less to work with than big business – will be carrying the load for the country as a whole. It is absolutely no wonder that so many people are fearful of the Carbon Tax, Abbott or no Abbott. At the least, SME’s – who will just face higher costs without any compensation – should also have been in line for a reduction in company tax. This is a serious flaw in the scheme imo.
by briefly on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:35 pm
http://www.box.net/shared/vlef7t9agnvoipfb9tcm
Does this one work?
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:36 pm
To measure the worth and value of a government by its polling at a particular point in time is indeed shallow.
by confessions on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Obviously they believed it necessary or they wouldn’t have done it. Cute accusing me of spin, then putting your own spin out there!
by To Speak of Pebbles on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Thanks george.
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Still too early to tell. You seem to ready to wipe her off.
by Gary on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm
George – you’re a techie.
Have you seen this, a 3D printer, which is much more than *printing* -
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/07/3-d-printing-technology-will-blow-your.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis+%28Mish%27s+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis%29
by dave on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Daretoreads posts are part of a pattern – one which aids the lLiberal Party.
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:39 pm
yes gayle
by shellbell on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm
poroti
Agree with that but I was also relating my comments to the way “sustainable future” addressed Glen’s comments. The response was all the things I expressed in that post with not one angry retort involved.
Makes for much better reading and understanding than abusive comments being thrown around.
by Mytwobobsworth on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm
I find it hard to believe there are so many ready to admit defeat 2 years out with so much to be done. Amazing.
by Gary on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Agreed and one to file for future reference but I betcha we get the same old, same old even after that very informative piece by sfuture.
by BH on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm
shellbell
Thanks, I feel a bity silly, but I am learning so much here.
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:41 pm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/global-fears-wont-stall-carbon-tax-plan/story-fn99tjf2-1226096840377
He has been doing this for months, why is The Australian mentioning it now?
by ruawake on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Dave, I have played with these through a friend at Melbourne Uni. They’re bloody awesome! You can buy small scale printers for just over $1000 for personal use – see here:
http://www.makerbot.com/
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:42 pm
William
For what it’s worth my opinion is that the only poll that is correct is the actual election day result. Some polsters may go close to that result as you say immediately prior to the day. Most elections are in the vicinity of 50/50
Regarding who gets polled, in my immediate family/clan there are 16 people who i regularly talk to. Twenty years ago they all had landline telephones.
Four of them refuse to do any kind of surveys face/phone whatever.
Six of them do not have landlines. Four of that six use mobile or Skype for voice communications and have never been polled. The other 2 are mobile only because they are retired and basicaly traveling with no fixed abode and have never been polled.
Four of them have landlines and mobiles and have never been polled.
Two of them have landlines and mobiles and that household, which is me, was polled before the last election. Mrs 10/0 has never been polled.
The number was polled on one other occasion but they wanted a male 18-30. I wasn’t quick enough to tell them to wait while i got my son and then come back saying i was 23 years old.
Fourteen of the sixteen are Labor voters. The two that are LNP voters are the travelers and i often wish flat tyres on them.
How they ever can claim to have an acurate reflection on what the public is thinking is beyond my comprehension.
The fourteen Labor voters are across the age group 30-60 and if they were flukey enough to get polled first then fourteen LNPs would miss out.
The reverse would also apply.
Three others that i know, Mrs 10/0s daughter and two of her friends share a house. I don’t know how they vote, though i suspect they don’t like Toxic Tony. They do not have a landline, just their own mobile phones.
How is it possible to fit those numbers in to a statistic?
The polls twenty years ago, when almost everyone had L/Line, may have been more stable which allowed statistics to be worked but i do think todays communications are a scatter gun approach for polling.
by Gaffhook on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Essential gone up a bit for Labor 54/46 but certainly up more than the mob above or the mob from newsltd
by my say on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Mytwobobsworth
Exackery right.
by poroti on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm
thanks for the photos Gayle – enjoyed them
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm
George
I’m glad. Thanks for all the help.
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm
William, do the major pollsters seek and/or publish demographics by age?
Thanks
by roaldan1000 on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm
gayle:
Yes that one works. Thanks for sharing!
by confessions on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm
spoke to a person in an members office who said they where cetainly NOT poll driven,
i think thats just wonderful, some people with guts
by my say on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Dont apologise gayle – my five year old takes better photos on the mobile phone than me.
I would have pressed all the wrong buttons.
You have managed to take the photos and share with the audience here.
by shellbell on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Wow less than $150 a week. That will send your employer to the wall.
by ruawake on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:46 pm
confessions
My pleasure. The PM is one amazing lady. To all you doubters out there wait and see what happens.
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:46 pm
dave
.
Forget george’s 3D printer. Go for the one that prints chocolate in 3D !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14030720
by poroti on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:47 pm
I refer to them as being the political version of a Teenage Girlf – ready to jump on whatever teen idol is flavour of the month.
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:47 pm
nappin @ 1246
Can’t agree with your comment that “That’s better, Wayne….. ”
Why doesn’t he just make a bold statement on behalf of his own party and not refer at all to the Opposition. Why even mention them?
by Mytwobobsworth on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:48 pm
The Neilsen has.
http://www.mumble.com.au/pdfs/federal/Nielsen%20Poll%20Table%20July%202011.pdf
by confessions on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:48 pm
[dave
.
Forget george’s 3D printer. Go for the one that prints chocolate in 3D !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14030720
poroti, classic – I want one!
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:48 pm
shellbell
That is the first time I have used it to take photos. I didn’t even think of it until I saw others rushing over and doing the same. I was still excited about meeting her and forgot all about the pictures until then.
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm
briefly 1251
That was the experience in Europe, where trade expose small business were driven out of business, and there products are now being produced in China. The irony is that China has coal fire plants that are older and more inefficient. Once shipping is added, the cheaper goods, now creates more CO2 then privously.
Europe is now thinking of introducing trade barriers, which is not allowed by Free Trade Arrangements
by dovif on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:50 pm
http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/australiar-and-the-fcking-idiot-dilemma/
thanks lefty e – loved it!
by Gweneth on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:51 pm
That’s your take on it but then we have people here saying exactly the opposite, that the government needs to let rip on the opposition. So which is it? Should they or shouldn’t they?
by Gary on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Gayle,
wonderful photos,
would you share these with your local member for labor,
Now would it not have been nice if the abc had put them, up
the abc of years gone by of course may have done we use to have community page on our local abc of great pictures of visitors that came to visit
by my say on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Its 100% true though – even Senior Libs admit they are a policy free zone under Abbott. So essentially, there’s bipartisan agreement on the point.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/peter-reiths-election-post-mortem-urges-liberals-to-tackle-policy/story-fn59niix-1226096406480
by lefty e on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Jackol. I trust you don’t mind that I used your post from the previous thread in an e-mail I have recently sent to a colleague. I work in the resources (coal) sector, and I have two close collegues/friends (that I have known for over 20 years) e-mailing me anti CT messages. The most recent e-mail I recieved from one said colleague contained Prof Carters powerpoint presentation from one of our recent professional society dinners…
____________________________________________________________________
Hi XXXXX, saw this entry in a blog, which pretty well encapsulates my thoughts…
As Engineers we deal in risk and risk mitigation…The same should be applied to the Climate Change debate.
When designing a CPP, if an identified risk has 1% chance of occurring but the consequences are catastrophic (death, environmental damage), we would be required to use control measures to eliminate the risk. The same should be applied in the Climate Change debate, however according to “credible” science (not Plimer, not Carter, not Monckton, etc), the risk is much much higher than 1% (probably >90%), and we say we shouldn’t do anything because we are not 100% sure…
You have known me for > 20 years, so please don’t think I am a messed up Greenie, but rather an engineer with a strong social conscience
I am sure that we will agree to disagree on this, but some off the logic used in this debate (by both sides) really appals me….
Regards
XXXX
by Dubbs on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm
gayle:
Just looking through the photos. Was that the day the PM was accosted by that woman?
by confessions on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm
well most young people have mobiles”"”So??
by my say on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:53 pm
gayle – just walked past Bob Hawke co-incidentally – he is slightly stooped but looks fit as otherwise
by shellbell on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:54 pm
IMHO Mytwobobsworth, they need to attack to get the attention of the majority that only listens to slogans, then worry themselves stupid. The passive approach, relying on the facts and cogent argument is preferred, but is not enough. You need a bit of mongrel to let them know you mean it – look at the attention the PM got by calling the media’s crap.
by nappin on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:54 pm
my say
Yes it would have been nice if any TV station of newspaper showed some of these.
I have spoken to my MP, he introduced me to the PM ,and I’ll see if he wants any of them.
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:54 pm
george@1281
Impressive stuff guys
by dave on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:56 pm
TSOP
My problem is “who is they”
Now I do not claim to know all the caucus but there are seven current members whom I have followed or interacted with and whom I respect as intelligent and competent and honest well meaning people. All 7 of them stuck by Rudd.
There are four members whom I dislike (partly on policy grounds but also their personalities give me the creeps). These four went with Gillard.
Obviously there are many others but from MY perspective that “they had to do something” does not fit with my reality.
So who are “they”. If they are union leaders (Left, right, centre, on the moon or subterranean) then perhaps what you are saying is that union leaders were not happy with the direction Rudd was taking. This may be reasonable but it is a very hard thing to sell to the electorate.
Far more scary is the idea that those who most hated Rudd were those whom he had told off for some incompetence or negligence. I have not any evidence of this but given my respect for the intelligence and commitment of those who stayed loyal, it is my suspicion. Hence my schoolroom analogy. I fear the Rudd coup was from the aggrieved schoolkids who had been given a C minus. So far in the public arena there has been nothing other than that Rudd did not delegate or involve others. Perhaps he did not delegate because he thought them incompetent?
I know this issue is done to death and repetitive but until the polling is back at a respectable level for Labor it is the elephant in the room
by daretotread on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:56 pm
confessions
Thats right. The lady who doesn’t want to be named was in one of the shops, and the shop owners had just thanked the PM for coming to see them. They were horrified as I was, especially when she started talking about manipulation.
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Gayle, get yourself a nice Canon EOS 5D Mk 2, with a good zoom lens, and Eye-Fi X2 card so you can instantly send shots from the camera to an Iphone 4, then use DropBox on the iPhone and send up to the net – make sure your DropBox account is configured to host by creating a CNAME record that points to dl.dropbox.com and then you can share links immediately with the world. Easy
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Er what free trade agreements dovif?
by ruawake on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Good to hear Swan’s mentioning of taking tough decisions. This is a line that the govt should keep referring to.
by Dario on Jul 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm