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-
It is interesting that the labor fanatics here defend Julia Gillard’s lying over there not being a carbon tax under any government she leads by saying the only reason she brought one in was because she was forced to by the hung parliament. The ironic thing about that is that Gillard always denies this – so one way or the other she’s been telling lies.
The truth of the carbon tax is that Gillard devised a political strategy after her re-election centred around “delivery” – recognising the mistakes of abandoning reforms in the previous term and calling inquiries into everything under the sun but not doing anything real.
A similar scheme to the one we have seen would have been enacted even if Labor had one majorities in both houses. The reason she chose a carbon tax an an interim measure before a full ETS was because this meant she could “deliver” the “reform” sooner rather than later.
by Two Piece Feed on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Will Reily, Oakes, Paul B or the Toolman mention it tonight I wonder?
by Dario on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Glen
tru
primates dont need their good name besmirched by abbott
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Probably his contradicting his own abatement target of 5%.
Someone linked to it earlier.
by confessions on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Says the person whose political hero Unca Howie who turned lying into a fine craft
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:12 pm
spur212
Congratulations for your comprehensive list. Between that and blueys’ efforts, there is enough there for a book!
by victoria on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:12 pm
ahahahahah and you think that means they’re pulling the same weight or even close to what we’re doing???
Long bow there Rua
but I understand your reasons for posting it.
by Glen on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:12 pm
victoria
.
Hopefully the fact that today he told one audience the 5% emissions reduction is “crazy” and to his next audience that he supported the 5% cut. Pigs may need to fly but one day surely the media will pick him up on his expressing so many contradicting views and so get a “Please Explain ?”
by poroti on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:12 pm
dovif
Excuse me? Abbott is proposing a $100 billion market intervention – his climate change policy.
He is also proposing to add a 1.5% super tax on top of the company tax paid by companies that already pay $5 million worth of tax (which will just encourage creative accounting so companies avoid reaching the $5 million mark).
Anyone who supports the Coalition is asking for economic insanity.
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:13 pm
He never sold his soul to the Greens Frank
by Glen on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:13 pm
But he sold it to Rupert Murdoch.
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm
So now it depends on who you sell your soul to does it?
by Gary on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Hey Glen, simple question:
I listen to scientists, academics, economists and treasury…
Whom do you listen to?
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm
A lie is an intentional mistruth. Gillard probably did not intend there to be a carbon tax under a Labor government at the time. She does now.
Changing your mind is not lying. Making a statement that you believe to be true, that turns out to be false is not lying.
Not trying to bat for anybody here but you keep using that word and I do not think it means what you think it means.
by To Speak of Pebbles on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:15 pm
confessions
I see. Wonder if any journo will do a decent reporting of Abbott’s total contradiction?
Silly question
by victoria on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:15 pm
The bullshit premise implicit in this is that Gillard didn’t repeatedly, during the election campaign, say that she wanted to put a price on carbon.
Break it down for you.
If she wanted to put a price on carbon (yes, she favoured a trading system) then after the election you would expect her to try to achieve that aim. And what she negotiated was the best possible compromise. Indeed, if she hadn’t she would be breaking her promise to price carbon. She’d be handing over the reins to that lying bastard Abbott and abandoning something she believes in and betraying the best interests of the country.
Now, in your alternate universe, the repeated promises to price carbon (not the one singular comment taken out of context to the effect that she didn’t want the price to come in the form of a tax) never happened. In other words you’re supporting the lie, promoted by your mate Abbott that there was never anything said about pricing carbon.
So sucked in to your alternative universe are you that the only logical explanation was she suddenly decided to have a carbon price in order to gain power and not because getting a price on carbon she not only wanted in the first place but promised repeatedly during the election.
Your credibility is zero.
I love the bullshit premise to this one. The denial of the fact that during the election Gillard promised a price on carbon. Your premise is she didn’t. In fact what you’re really trying to do is to uphold the lie that she promised not to do anything at all.
Gillard made it clear on a number of occasions during the election campaign that she wanted to put a price on carbon using a trading system.
Now, why the hell wouldn’t she negotiate with the independents to bring about that stated goal. In fact one could argue that if she didn’t do so she would be breaking the larger promise of brin
by cud chewer on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Dario
No mention on channel 10 Brisbane, but Paul B wasn’t on.
Evan14
Do you know how little money needs to be put on an exotic bet for the odds to start coming in? Other punters will just follow the money. It means nothing.
by gayle on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:15 pm
george
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Thanks for the link Frank to the NPC speech – I have been looking for the full version with no luck.
PS I am with poroti on the ground hog day debates. Getting boring guys.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/business-old/supermarket-price-wars-hit-brand-loyalty/story-e6frg2qu-1226096980554
This piece is interesting in the context of price signals. Who would think they could change behaviour?
by Gweneth on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Gus @ 1443. I agree Saint one
Ha try again Even, according to my sources the Crean price move is NOTHING but noise.
Generated by some of the little smart arse Liberals
by Centre on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Victoria, yes, send yourself orf to the norty corner please!
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:16 pm
MTR and 2GB – The Power Station:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D9KA2AzWQ0
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Mike Rann is very lukewarm about the Carbon Tax – he’d prefer moving straight to an ETS, was a supporter of Rudd’s CPRS.
by evan14 on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Looks like evan has gone back to playing with his toy cars.
by Gary on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Glen you still don’t get the difference between slander and libel do you?
by roaldan1000 on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
My mistake, he’s brought them with him.
by Gary on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Howard didn’t have the balls to take WorkChoices to an election.
Oh, and implying Gillard doesn’t have balls is at best stating the obvious, and at worst sexist.
The election where Howard defended WorkChoices he lost. Going by your argument, Howard was a gutless leader for not taking WorkChoices to an election.
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Gary
The answer has two parts. First part is because the leader is a large part of the problem, as the polling is telling us; second part is the known track record of the hollow men now in charge of changing leaders.
I don’t think they should change leader at this stage. But they have to act. Business as usual, and just waiting for a big turnaround in fortunes is almost suicidal. The only hope in doing that from this abysmal position is that Abbott and the Libs self-destruct; but mere hope is not enough.
Assuming they won’t put up PR in the Reps, then they have to go hard with a change in policy approach from the empty and flexible to the visionary and principled – that is over to the progressive. As I have been saying and as Guy Rundle points out today, there is a large group of former Labor voters who are now ensconced with the Greens. They are essential to get the PV back into major party territory.
I can think of no other viable strategy from the awful depths to which the party has now sunk through a litany of terrible decision-making by the leadership cabal.
by jaundiced view on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Its not selling your soul to do a deal with someone with whom you agree with. Again, you seem to be suggesting that Gillard didn’t repeatedly promise to put a price on carbon. She did. You’re making shit up, just like that liar Abbott.
by cud chewer on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm
#newscorpse
just listening to a pommy dude on 702 abc
his quote
“fecking hell”
rupe is gone
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:19 pm
It is an ETS, it just starts at a fixed price.
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Keep your heads in the sand, but Gillard is history…she ought to do the decent thing by the Labor Party, admit she isn’t up to the job, and resign the leadership.
Otherwise, get ready for Abbott winning with a 50 seat majority in 2013.
by evan14 on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Glen
It is in China’s just released 5 year plan, are you seriously saying they will not implement it? They will have a national carbon trading scheme within 5 years. If you miss the significance of this you must vote Liberal.
by ruawake on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm
i take it you dont beleive in ess, poll, that is modern done over the internet
only and picks up young people
to give it an old representation i decieded to join along with the morgan poll,
by my say on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Glen check the meaning of the word “lie” in the dictionary.
When Julia said there will be no carbon tax under her government, she did not mean that there would be AT THE TIME IT WAS SAID.
Do you want me to type the actual definition of lie for you?
by Centre on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:20 pm
imacca
Bluey reckons that the sort of R&R he thrives on.
by Boerwar on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:21 pm
re howard and workchoices
fatty has implemented an even worse version of workchoices
and he promised not to
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:21 pm
i have been away for acouple of days how ever do you people put up with evan
by my say on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Not true. Taken over time it’s telling us the message was not what people wanted to hear and that any leader espousing it is not like either.
The average person doesn’t follow or care about this internal crap.
by Gary on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I listen to Moleman in the Mornings…
But seriously
I listen to reason, facts, and evidence. I listen to those with credentials and scientists and academia.
by Glen on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Sure evan, you know all.
by Gary on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Glen, are you there?
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:22 pm
so can you list some of them?
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Gary: you’d be lucky to get an approval rating for Farrell that’s above a single asterix, ditto for Arbib.
The factional hacks who put Gillard into the top job aren’t well liked.
by evan14 on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:23 pm
So your post at 1416 was a core on non core promise ?
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Three mistakes in once sentence!
A new record!
Congratulations Glen!
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Pilmer, Monckton.. just like your hero Abbott
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm
I bet too that there’ll be a double digit swing against Shorten in his seat at the next election.
by evan14 on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Gusface
Please explain re Rupie?
by victoria on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm
glen
Iz that what u callz the voices….
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm