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-
Glen
You really are an idiot of the highest order.
by Tom Hawkins on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Agree BK. Come the revolution.
by It’s Time on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Glen
Everyone should want to be in a room full of righteous gas that is going to green the planet, is not a pollutant, and is colourless and odourless and harmless.
People are trying to help you enjoy life.
by Boerwar on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Remember to watch ABC1 to see Aung San Suu Kyi on foreign correspondent at 8
by david on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Glen, just to show how stupid your hero mad Lord Monkcton is.
He mentioned at #NCP this afternoon that some journalist wrote that the CC skeptic should be tattooed on the forehead, as an example of extreme comment from his opponents.
This afternoon on ABC702 Drive, Richard Glover said it was him and he was just sending up the CC deniers.
Your hero cannot even tell when someone was having fun and not s serious comment.
by The Finnigans on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm
jps87,
Yep, she was emphatic about not wanting to implement a price on carbon in the form of a tax. That one line, taken out of context, is the sole source of the beat up. And it was said only once.
Whereas, Gillards promise to have a price on carbon was restated by her many times during the election campaign. In other words in the scheme of things a much more “empathatic” promise. You’d rather her have broken that?
by cud chewer on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm
It was very funny seeing Mr Monckton fire up about something he really cares about.
by Boerwar on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Glen
OTOH, is it possible to have too much of a good thing?
by Boerwar on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Gorgeous Dunny,
Is this the graph?
http://www.alankohler.com.au/sites/alankohler/files/graphs/The%20global%20public%20debt%20problem.png
by Cuppa on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:49 pm
G
Perhaps Gl. would prefer a room full of giggle gas?
by Boerwar on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:49 pm
No no Glen, carbon dioxide is a harmless gas. We need it for life on earth.
by It’s Time on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Now, what is the psychological term for accusing someone falsely of something that’s actually true about you?
I see it used a lot by teenagers.
What about Abbott saying (presumably this is a pre-emptive tactic) that his policy on climate change is sensible, and the government’s policy is “crazy” ?
What’s even funnier is (and I’m damn sure someone is schooling him on this tactic) is that at one stage he used those lines but forgot to mention whose policy the “sensible” and “crazy” attached to and only in another interview did he claim his was the “sensible” one.
by cud chewer on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:50 pm
I just cannot understand why all of you think this is funny?
Had I said that to someone on here I’d be hounded down and yet when one of your own says it you laugh and say I’m carrying on like a child. Some of you really are heartless bastards….
This is meant to be a blog to thrash out political discourse not to say people should be gassed to death!
I’m going away for now.
by Glen on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Glen
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo !
by poroti on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Of course, if you thought Glen was a sensible intelligent open minded individual (and not a Liberal tragic) then you could proceed by pointing out that time and again when the “plant food” bullshit is brought up, scientists point out that its effects on plants are complex and always positive (at least from the point of view of the human eating the plant).
But, since he’s not, why bother.
by cud chewer on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm
But, but, but, it’s a harmless, odourless, colourless, gas.
by Misfit on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Interesting summary from UK Polling Report on the effect of “hackgate” on the polls in England
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3751
by madcyril on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
One really has to question ex Lt. General Leahy’s criticism of the the Government’s Afghanistan policy.
Is it a case of sour grapes that he wasn’t promoted to CDF?
Now he’s an instant professor, he’s wasting no time white-anting the Government – his true political colours having been exposed.
Air Marshall Houston would never be so crass.
Yet another prescient call by the PM & Cabinet.
by charlton on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Glen, the only person who said that someone should be gassed to death is YOU
by The Finnigans on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Linking that statement to the Holocaust, is an exteremly cheap lowrent way to “win” a debating point. You should be ashamed of your self. Still its not surprising, if Monkey man can stoop to those depths no wonder you think that you can to
by MickGCollins on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Yes, we should feel pity. Only problem is even gullible, stupid people get to vote. So it is a concern when they come to a public place and spout crap in the hope of defending the indefensible in the hope of deluding other people.
by cud chewer on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
No don’t go, who else will explain Mr Monkton to me.
by ruawake on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
glen
settle
context mate context
anyways see cud @3462
says it all
by gusface on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Woo Hoo!
Boo!
by Tom Hawkins on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Mr Gusface,
I am deeply traumatized by your reference earlier today comparing Tony Abbott with my very good friend Agent Lancelot Link (retired).
Chimpanzees and lemurs have, in the past, enjoyed a close working relationship, but comapring our species with that unevolved simian is beyond the pale.
An apology to chimps everywhere is required from you to continue that relationship.
It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to compare Abbott with baboons.
I look forward to your response to this very serious matter.
by Dan Gulberry on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Challenge!
Glen, I haven’t seen the argument but that sounds like nonsense to me. The truth is climate prediction just isn’t that exact, which is why honest scientists always have trouble refuting the “I just made it up” crowd.
Pedantically, without a timescale, this claim is meaningless, because excess GHG causes the planet to heat up over time. You cannot link any reduction in GHG to a temperature outcome without a timeframe.
But let us consider what we know:
- the world is forecast to heat up by about 5 degrees (possibly more) this century
- Australia contributes about 2% of anthropogenic GHGs
- To get in balance, we need to reduce anthropogenic GHGs about 60%
- Gillard’s carbon tax will reduce Australian GHGs by 5% at first, rising over time.
- so if you take the 2020 effect of the carbon tax at -5%, assume it does no better over the rest of the century (incredibly pessimistic assumption) and project you get
5/60 x 2% x 5 degrees = 1/600th of a degree within this century.
Even if you only consider the next ten years, you get 1/6000th of a degree, not 1/14000th.
What is it with the Liberals and maths?
It is a stupid argument, but I still don’t see how you can reach that conclusion Glen. It is like saying that your paying tax will only make 1/12 millionth of a difference to ATO revenue so there is no point you paying it. The point is, everyone pays, that is how the system works.
So to with climate change. The point is, everyone needs to contribute to a solution, that is how the problem gets solved. Those who don’t should be financially penalised by the rest, and soon will be.
by Socrates on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Cud,
Projection? A tactic habitually employed by the Right (as in: Right-Wing Projection).
by Cuppa on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:54 pm
The climate sceptics party sent out an email last week drumming up supporters to attend (at $52 each!)
by ShowsOn on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Having checked, I see that, in fact, no such thing was said.
Fooled by Glen for the second time in three days.
Drake – you’re an idiot.
by drake on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:57 pm
dan
hmmm
have spoken to dan’l baboon
there could be a rumble in the jungle
by gusface on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:57 pm
I don’t know why people here keep getting successfully drawn into an inevitable round with Glen. It’s quite predictable and very boring.
I don’t often post but lurk a fair bit and you can see it coming a mile off.
BTW, Boerwar, very nifty stunts posts.
by Harry “Snapper” Organs on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:57 pm
@Glen/3460,
What happened to the old saying, sticks and stones may break my bones, may words never hurt me?
by zoidlord on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:58 pm
And apologies to whomever Glen fooled me into smearing
by drake on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Socrates
And, and, and
at least its an acknowledgement that it makes a difference – even if it is the tiniest amount.
And that’s what it’s all about.
Halting the increase in temperature
so that we can
eventually reverse it.
by Misfit on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Finnigans
The problem with the beautiful numbers is that no one is listening and they do not believe them. Sad but true. Also each one has negatives too.
Not saying this to be negative because I think the government (Rudd, Swan, Gillard and Treasury) have done a first rate job. But the message is not getting out. The following is trying to suggest Why?
1. Unemployment 4.9% – People are still very scared of losing their jobs and we have so much casualised and “contracted” the workforce that this is a real fear. Maybe it is time for the unions to make a crusade of this- just might attract some middle range white collars to the movement (and back to Labor)
2. Inflation 2.7% – People are scared that the CT will push it up – irrational fear perhaps but still a fear
3. Public Net Debts 7% GDP – Too compex for people to understand – unfortunately
4. RBA Interest rate 4.75% – Winners and losers – retirees lose out and they VOTE
5. Growth rate 3.3% Yes a real positive and pity it is not pushed more
6. AUD Vs USD 1.0703 – Yes this is great but from the winging it seems that the naysayers are winning hearts and minds. Obviously tourism and exporters are not happy.
7. Trade Surplus – $2.23B May 2011 – Great- had not caught up – But agian very complex for the average Jill or Joe
8. “ALP best manager of money, history shows” – Mega – Yes well!!! True but hardly likely to get traction
9. Australian families depending on one breadwinner pay among the lowest amounts of tax in the world and have become better off under the Gillard Government – Natsem. Unfortunately 2 incomes now the norm- but still good.
10. Investment in the next year in mining and related infra-structure projects $140B – Yep
11. Labor’s Tax take 21.75% of GDP Vs 25% under Liberals Great- Suggest you send a letter to the papers on this alone. SERIOUSLY – Do not tell us – tell the unwashed masses.
12. No interest rise for the 8th consecutive month Vs 10 consecutive rises under Howard/Costello. It is now expected no rises in the future with a prospect of interest rate cuts. Yes but as I said it is not good for everyone especially self funded retirees – WHO VOTE
13. The number of people filling for bankruptcy in Australia has fallen by 16%. Good news – It should be a marker for better times and an improvement in the polls. If it is still OK 3 months from now I would expect to see Labor polling improve
by daretotread on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:59 pm
harry, every village needs an idiot. we cant all be a smarty pant
by The Finnigans on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:59 pm
drake
no problemo’s
them fibs are slippery with words
by gusface on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Dan_Gulberry Dan Gulberry
Re: Monckton calling himself Lord. As my grandad was a Catholic, I am now officially Pope Dan I, and Monckton can kiss my papal ring #auspol
6 minutes ago
by david on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Oh yeah, I forgot that.
I really don’t know why people place such faith in his comments and not those of reputable, qualified experts.
by confessions on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:01 pm
The Finns/3394….
There are other stats too…..
Business lending……stagnant
Consumer credit …….static, and to the extent it has been expanding, this reflects accumulating interest on existing debt
New Mortgages…..stagnant
Loan delinquencies…..up notably, albeit from a very low base
Real household disposable incomes….up firmly, but reflected in rising savings rather than new spending
Debt Service/Real Disposable Income….11.9%
The last stat is the one that is causing indebted households so much pain. It is at levels that really bite into household incomes, and reflects the really very high levels of debt Australian households carry. It explains why retail spending has been weak and goes a long way to explaining why Labor is so unpopular.
Unfortunately, Australian households have a long way to go to before their debts will come back into a more comfortable balance with their incomes. It also follows that anything that looks like it might eat into disposable incomes – like higher interest rates, higher utility prices or a carbon tax – will be very unwelcome.
The Government have to do three things to sell their carbon tax:
1 They have to hammer the message that Abbott’s plan will cost much more
2 They have to hammer the message that consumer incomes will be protected
3 They have to hammer the message that failure to deal with carbon pollution will cost everyone much more in higher food prices, lost jobs and, eventually, higher energy costs
They may also need to tweak their tax changes so that all households get 100% price compensation. At the moment, quite a large number of households will not be fully compensated, and, in a pessimistic mood, it seems most consumers are identifying themselves as losers. This is a major and unnecessary political obstacle for the government.
by briefly on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:01 pm
if you are trying to take the title of VI from Glen, you have to try harder, much harder
by The Finnigans on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm
3205
You don’t listen, Glen, or seriously engage. George and others have given you references which put these nonsense talking points to rest. You don’t look them up. I tackled it last night from a different angle (not referring to your Monckton stuff today) when you were on the do-nothing theme of wait for everyone else.
I mentioned that 40% of CO2 can be taken up in native forests. One of the biggest is in Indonesia, which forest is at risk of being stripped. Nobody can really blame the Indonesians who are still trying provide their people with a decent living. But what sort of moral authority do we have to urge them to end it if we, as one of the world’s wealthiest countries, refuse to do anything ourselves?
You didn’t respond, as far as I can tell. And that seems typical. As soon as someone calls your bluff you run away.
by Gorgeous Dunny on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Barstitches the lot
by drake on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:03 pm
That would have bought each of them 2 tonnes of carbon emissions with change left over for a packet of ciggies. Why do they spend their money like it grows on trees?
by Tom Hawkins on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:03 pm
“While people think Cameron has handled it badly, it has had only a minor effect on his broader approval ratings.”
The poll will not save him and most likely the government.
by joe2 on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:03 pm
I’m sure that in clubs in England various gentlemen are smirking into their gins or sherries as they note how it is those buffoons in the colonies who allow Monckton to address the NPC
by RNM1953 on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Who paid? I read Gina paid for Monkton’s tour, which must costs in the millions taking into account travel, booking fees for halls and Monktons fee.
Smart move though, target labor on the carbon price, rather than the MRRT, with the same targeted end result, no labor govt and no MRRT. Caron price does not matter except as a vehicle to get rid of the MRRT.
As for Monktons claim, he refuses to recognise the 1999 law that took away from heredity peers a seat in the house of lords. He would find a soul mate in Tone in the refusal to recognise laws and the peoples judgement.
by castle on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:04 pm
And I am now Professor.
But you can call me Profess.
by confessions on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:04 pm
HSO
cf stunts thank you.
I regret Bluey closed the book when he did. Mr Abbott describing his [own] 5% target as ‘crazy’ would definitely have earned a stunt award.
by Boerwar on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Finns,
I’m just not that good I’m afraid
by drake on Jul 19, 2011 at 8:05 pm