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-
More depressing reading from America. Really puts things here in perspective: http://www.economist.com/node/18958475
by rishane on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:41 am
Gusface
What is the SC?
by blackburnpseph on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:41 am
Oh yes, I remember. There was this yellow one with little pink flowers where I cut the hem off and pulled the threads out until I had a fringe at the end.
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/fashion/mini-skirt.html
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:42 am
bbs
the house may be dissolved within 3 yrs
but it doesnt necessarily have to then immediately go to the people
both howie and rudd tinkered with legN
I AINT A LAWYER
but I reckon its a shot in the locker
ps WOULD YOU CHALLENGE IT?
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:42 am
O many Thanks Mighty Lemur.
May your fur never matt.
by smithe on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:43 am
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-17/french-socialists-harden-deficit-cutting-pledge-as-euro-crisis-escalates.html
Another sign of the times: even the French Socialists are becoming fiscal hawks.
This impulse has its parallel in Australia, where, despite improving real disposable incomes and a growing economy, consumers have been retiring debt and consuming less; and where fiscal restraint is the new fashion. This economic bahaviour reflects underlying anxiety about private and public finances, and, in turn, also underlie many of the difficulties JG has run into.
Meanwhile, Abbott has very skilfully exploited feelings of vulnerability about both the economic outlook and the political capacities and credentials of the Government.
by briefly on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:44 am
Ian @ 599
For starters there are 4 major polling organisations that do regular polling , and they are all coming up with similar numbers.
Otherwise, it all sounds like too much conspiracy theory to me.
by blackburnpseph on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:45 am
BBS
in olden times, a QC
now it means Senior Counsel
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:46 am
smithe, for a start I don’t recall you explaining anything to me.
Look, that is just nonesense. Kevin Rudd on Lateline made it clear that the Greens now are flexible on taking action on climate change. I vividly recall Christine Milne stating that the Greens targets and many other important factors of their policy – were not negotiable.
The Greens should have supported the CPRS because at the time, that was in the best interests of the nation, without doubt. Instead they gambled on playing politics.
The bet by the Greens has been placed. The carbon tax will be legislated. Julia will lead Labor to the next election. The election will be held in about Aug 2013.
They could have accepted the CPRS with action on CC a done issue, instead they have gambled on a carbon tax with the prospect of Tony Abbott followed by a DD and nothing for the environment!
Only one party to blame for the current polling – the Greens.
If that is too difficult for Green supporters to accept, start trying to reprogram the mind. It’s as good a start as any.
by Centre on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:50 am
Gusface, I will leave a High Court Challenge to you.
I too am not a lawyer but you would also probably find that Section 32 would come into play where the writs have to be issued within 10 days of the expiration. And then if I recall, there is something about 33 days but I can’t remember what that refers to.
Anyway, holding an election over to the next year in a country with 3 years terms would be a supremely bad look.
by blackburnpseph on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:50 am
Meanwhile, things are on the slide in the UK. It is no wonder Australian households are also apprehensive, and amazing that the Government do and say so little to lift confidence.
by briefly on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:51 am
It wouldn’t have mattered if the Greens supported it because it still wouldn’t have passed!
In fact, if the Greens supported it, the Liberals would’ve used that as an excuse to oppose it on the grounds it was “too extreme”.
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:52 am
Now it all falls into place Gusface.
Very cryptic of you. Must be off to bed – it being a school night and all.
by blackburnpseph on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:53 am
Passing the ETS so they can talk about other things would lift confidence.
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:56 am
BBS
again
you and me aint lawyers
but
the real date for an elction is et by the AEC
pursuant to current legislation
bothe howie and rudd tinkered withbthat act
as i said , we can go up to may 2014
Care to challenge in the HC
neither will the fibs
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:56 am
Yeah, Unca Rupe and the shock jocks had sweet FA to do with it. Silly me for thinking otherwise.
It’s all Bob Brown’s fault. Riiiight.
by smithe on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:57 am
Exquismy? Abbott and every Liberal supporter from here to the mines have been bad mouthing our economy (the envy of the world) and you call out the government to lift confidence? FFS
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:57 am
blackburnseph@606
Well, we are getting close to 2012
by Ian on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:59 am
I’m not sure when you’re on the end of a 26% primary vote that a ‘supremely bad look’ is that much of an issue one way or the other…
by Jackol on Jul 18, 2011 at 1:59 am
Just a question for GP, considering that the Republicans and their idiotic policies have sent the US to bankruptcy (they are, as we know, on the verge of defaulting), aren’t you embarrassed to have the Republican symbol as your avitar
by MickGCollins on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:00 am
I believe the CPRS had a fair chance of passing the Senate had the Greens supported it.
If not, then and only then, with the support of Labor + Greens + nearly half of the Libs, could Rudd have called a DD and won easily!
*going back to get some sleep*
by Centre on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:00 am
Do you mean before or after Turnbull had been dumped as leader?
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:03 am
Isn’t the latest crazy apocalypse theory to the effect that the world will end sometime in December 2012.
If it’s got legs, geez, isn’t Abbott gonna be pissed.
by smithe on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:04 am
Just like Republicans, G.P. believes that you can cut taxes AND increase revenue at the same time.
He is an unreconstructed Laffer curvist.
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:04 am
What can they do when the Opposition constantly shouts about how the economy is doomed? No matter what evidence there is to the contrary, their claims always mysteriously get a lot of airplay.
by rishane on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:05 am
Gopher Poker
why do you try?
maybe if you armed yourself with facts, you might get some traction
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:05 am
That link about the USA food-stamps reveals a story that is awful. People n Africa ae dying of hunger because of drought, they will dying of starvation soon in the USA because they didn’t vote to keep nutters out of power.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:07 am
608
The Greens voted against the CPRS because it was week and over-compensatory (and had been weakened further by compromises with the Liberals) and the Greens tried to get the ALP to negotiate a stronger scheme with them but the ALP chickened out of continuing. The ALP should have called a DD and then they would likely have been able to pass their original scheme and negotiate on the regulations or negotiate a new deal with the Greens and Keven Rudd would likely still be PM and have a majority. Maintaining the ALP vote is not the Greens job. The Greens successfully got the ALP to negotiate with them although it was not the position they would be in if the ALP had got 2 or 3 more seats.
by Tom the first and best on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:10 am
And ‘Laffer curvists’ probably have a point when your marginal tax rate is 70% … However when your marginal tax rate is <50% you're almost certainly on the wrong side of your tax revenue maximum and barking up the wrong tree to be insisting that lower taxation will result in an increase in revenue…
Interestingly, the increase of the tax free threshold will probably do more to fix high effective marginal tax rates (for low income earners) that might well have a positive government revenue effect …
by Jackol on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:11 am
Gastrointestinal Predliction
btw
would you mount an HC challenge?
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:11 am
Ttfab
there is a truce, my green valley
lets not stir the pot
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:12 am
Shows on
I find him lafferble.
by Dan Gulberry on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:13 am
In honour of the present state of the United states, here’s Al Jolson with Brother Can You Spare a Dime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4yT0KAMyo
by smithe on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:13 am
dan
he justs make me laff
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:15 am
I think that people of whatever political ilk on PB should take the same approach to polls as Australia’s political journalists take to policy examination. Only focus on them when the Federal election is called. Until then just laze around, bank your paycheck or super at the end of the month and have a glass of a good red.
by Scarpat on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:17 am
It’s no laffing matter Gus.
by smithe on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:17 am
This ALSO misreads the history of what happened. Rudd / Labor knew that the only way to get it through the Senate was with the support of the Liberals.
The Nats, led by Barnyard, had unequivocally said that it wouldn’t vote for ANY ETS, the Greens were extremely strident that they wouldn’t make many concessions (far fewer than they have made on the new scheme!), so Rudd knew his only hope was getting it through with the Liberals, which meant he would have to come up with some sort of scheme that would ultimately COMPLETELY alienate the Greens
This I agree with. But it seems that Rudd didn’t do it because he didn’t want to be locked into a 2 year second term.
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:17 am
Anyone have a link to GP’s blog – someone posted it here a little while back
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:18 am
smithe
hmmm
I shall look for the curves
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:19 am
george
@allyourdiseasesisours.com.au?
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:19 am
Yes, scarpat
It’s as though the Journos were calling a race.
Problem is, the nags aren’t even in their floats on the way to the track yet. It’s mid-winter and they’re still lolling about in the paddock, chomping lucerne.
by smithe on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:20 am
Yes, it is hilarious that one of the examples of tax cutting increasing revenue that Republicans cite is the cutting of the highest tax bracket in 1961 by JFK. It was 90%, JFK cut it to 50%.
One of the best things about the ETS is the income tax changes that fix up the stupid tax cuts from the GST where the top 30% of income earners got 60% of the tax cuts.
by ShowsOn on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:20 am
OOOps
tummypump.com.au
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:20 am
Scorps @ 634
Sounds like sage advice. Cheers.
by Dan Gulberry on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:20 am
Thanks Gus
by george on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:20 am
nite bludgers
except bilbo
grrrrr
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:22 am
GP’s blog:
http://rcandelori.wordpress.com/
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:23 am
gus, george
I thought it was pissoirs.com.au
by Dan Gulberry on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:23 am
doctorow RT @literaticat RT @lilithsaintcrow Fry & Laurie, on what might have been without Rupert Murdoch: http://youtu.be/n1aZcsY-O8Q
srs
ly
nite all
by gusface on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:23 am
I was pondering BBs probs, and worrying a bit too, and comforting myself that Space Kidette had offered good advice. Then I thought, well, there you go, lucky BB is not a woman because apparently women like to voice a problem but not ask for a solution.
I considered, perhaps BB is a woman. No acknowledgement of a proffered solution, nothing. S/he just wanted to air grievances/
Not so. BB finally takes on board a solution proffered by Space Kidette early this morning . . . but gives thanks to a male for that advice.
And we wonder why our PM Julia Gillard has a problem.
Just sayin’
by Misfit on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:26 am