Newspoll: 56-44 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes tweets that the first post-carbon tax announcement Newspoll is one of the happier poll results for the government of the past fortnight: the Coalition’s two-party lead has eased to 56-44 from 58-42 a fortnight ago and support for the carbon tax is up six points to 36 per cent, with opposition down six to 53 per cent. On the primary vote, Labor is up two points to 29 per cent, the Coalition is down two to 47 per cent and the Greens are up one to 13 per cent. Julia Gillard has gained two points on approval to 32 per cent, but her disapproval remains stuck on 59 per cent. Tony Abbott is down three on approval to 39 per cent and up three on disapproval to 52 per cent, and has only just maintained his lead as preferred prime minister, dropping two points to 41 per cent with Gillard up two to 40 per cent.
We also had from the Herald-Sun yesterday a poll of 625 voters in Julia Gillard’s electorate of Lalor, conducted by JWS Research using its usual methodology of automated phone calls. The company has had a rather patchy record with its previous political polling, and the latest survey has been criticised for asking respondents attitudinal questions before proceeding to voting intention. It points to a 14 per cent swing against Gillard – solidly higher than the trend of recent national polling – although she still leads 58-42 on two-party preferred. Gillard has a four-point net positive approval rating among her own constituents, but the carbon tax is opposed by 43 per cent compared with 33 per cent in support. Fifty-seven per cent rate her “honest and trustworthy” (either quite or very), with 34 per cent opting for the negative.
UPDATE: Bernard Keane in Crikey reports the latest Essential Research result has the Coalition lead at 55-45, down from 56-44 last week and 57-43 the week before. Labor’s primary vote is up a point to 32 per cent, and the Coalition’s down one to 48 per cent. However, Tony Abbott’s policy of scrapping the carbon tax has the support of 50 per cent of respondents, with only 36 per cent opposed. There are also questions on trust in the media, which is found to have “slumped dramatically in recent months”. Trust in daily newspapers rates in the low 50s, television and radio news and current affairs in the high 40s and talk radio in the low 30s. With respect to specific outlets, the ABC and broadsheets are more trusted than the commercial media and tabloids. Fifty-eight per cent say the government should not allow one company to own the majority of Australia’s major newspapers – as News Limited does – which is up from 50 per cent since the question was last asked in November.
UPDATE 2: Full Essential Research report here.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
and force a By-election in Hasluck which Sharryn Jackson would retain
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:26 am
george
Sic Gloria Transit
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:26 am
I wouldn’t have thought that terribly likely – but really, so what if he does?
by William Bowe on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:26 am
Bilbo
you jest man
Howard as GG
FFO
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:27 am
Gus, Hogwarts did what they were paid to do. (BTW thay have changed their name since). The Chartered Accountants Institute are investigating them for allowing Joe Hockey to publicly refer to an “audit” being done when they clearly didn’t. They weren’t paid to, but said nothing to correct Mr Hockey.
Hogwarts should be in serious trouble, but since they can have clients like Federal Political Parties they may put into question self regulation of accountants if they are not properly disciplined.
Accountants are watching this case. The time taken is a worry in itself.
by Dr Phibes on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:28 am
if taxpayers pay the governor general’s salary, then I’d rather he get lost instead
by george on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:28 am
It would be torture…
by Tobe on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:28 am
Re Knighhoods in Aust.
_______________
I can’t cite the case,but I recall back when Greiner was Premier in NSW,there was an exchange between he and the Palace re honours.
The Queen pointed out correctly that now there was an Australian system of honours as instituted by Whitlam,the UK system no longer applied in Australia
That killed all speculation and was accepted by Greiner too !
I doubt that the Palace would go against this statement
NZ still awards UK honours ,but who cares what they do !
It has no effect on us.
by deblonay on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:29 am
phibes
its likes the accountant who couldnt budget
He had to use a pencil to work it out!
Boom Tish
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:29 am
deb
the UK gvt can confer a knighthood on whomsoever it wants
her maj then must agree to sign off
if she defers to sign off
the ball is back in the UK gvts hands
since about 1800′s no gvt has tested the monarch’s hand
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:31 am
Hogwarts couldn’t work it out using logs.
by Fulvio Sammut on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:31 am
ps
the right of confering a knighthood rests with the monarch not the parliament
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:34 am
No, never made that claim at all. The G.G. is meant to represent aspects of Australian culture, it is wrong for us to almost assume that the office should be a lawyer.
Plus, the highest legal position in the land is the Attorney General, not the G.G.
And many of our early G.G.s were various members of the British nobility and even military types (e.g. Sir William Slim), not lawyers, so it is wrong to assume that they need a legal background.
The G.G. actually has a staff who’s job it is to give them legal advice on their powers and responsibilities. So the G.G. itself doesn’t need any legal training at all.
I believe the G.G. can also ask for legal advice from the Solicitor General if they are unsure of their powers.
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:34 am
Abbott appoints Howie as GG.
Abbott then sabotages the Govt so it is turfed out after one turn.
Labor get back in.
Libs aided by media engineer a “Constituational crisis” which GG Howard is forced to “intervene”
The resulting outrage will ensure a repeat of the Fraser years of 75-83 all over agian with amore rabid, right wing leader than abbott.
Capice
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:34 am
The previous Labour government got rid of them, but the new conservative government recently brought them back.
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:36 am
I am against “popular figure-heads” being appointed G-G. The ideal G-G in my mind fills a narrowly-construed, legally-necessary but essentially titular role that should be more or less invisible. The last thing we should want is to expand that role by giving it dimensions of popular connection or importance beyond its legal essence.
G-G’s should be seldom seen or heard, and if they get things wrong, should be instantly replaceable. The less extra-legal authority they have the better.
by briefly on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:36 am
shows
the crown advocate?
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:36 am
frank
my thinking as well
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:37 am
I think it would be a bad precedent making any former PM a G.G. in general, but Howard in particular is a divisive figure, who I don’t think is an ideal candidate. I don’t think Keating is ideal for the same reasons.
How about this, why don’t we have a South Australian as G.G. considering there has never been a G.G. from S.A., and no High Court justices from S.A.!
Sadly Lowitja O’Donoghue is too old.
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:39 am
shows
was hayden a bad choice?
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:41 am
Wasn’t there an Aboriginal pastor from SA who became GG? Picture on one of those currency notes I seldom possess? Or was that just Governor of SA?
by Fulvio Sammut on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:42 am
fulv
governor
pastor doug
not GG tho
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:43 am
Apart from that, the best G-G’s we’ve had have been non-controversial and well-versed lawyers – Ninian Stephen, Zelman Cowan, William Deane and Quentin Bryce – and have been very safe hands at the heart of our constitutional processes.
by briefly on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:43 am
To open the batting? No, he…oops wrong Hayden.
by Scarpat on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:44 am
Frank and Gusface, an incoming Labor government could very easily get rid of him.
by William Bowe on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:44 am
I don’t think Howard would do any of this. I think he actually respects the office of G.G., and realised he had screwed up majorly when he appointed Hollingworth.
Of course Howard could execute the functions of the office competently, but the problem is do we want a divisive politician in that role? Sure Howard won 4 elections, but he also lost 2.
On reflection Bill Hayden was a pretty piss weak choice for G.G. too, but it was made for political reasons (not the best basis for selecting a G.G.).
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:45 am
scarps
damn you
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:45 am
I think so yes, because it was essentially pay back.
That’s not a good basis for the role.
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:46 am
that said
would rudd fit the bill?
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:47 am
But is THIS a precedent we want, where incoming governments essentially sack the G.G. and appoint someone they like?
Howard and Bill Deane clearly were from very different ideological planets, but Howard let Deane have his term.
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:48 am
Oh the hypocrisy…from The Australian’s front page:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
Anything to avoid the hard questions to be asked about how News Ltd use people’s personal data.
by Scarpat on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:48 am
How?
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:49 am
Don’t get me wrong, appointing Howard GG would be a very bad idea, as far as it went. But I hardly think it would loom large as a reason Labor would feel they “must” win the next election.
by William Bowe on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:49 am
Well, according to TP and evan14…
by Scarpat on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:50 am
I don’t think so.
The only time I think appointing a former PM would make sense is if the appointment was made by a party that isn’t their own.
If a future Coalition government wanted to appoint Rudd in say 10 years time, then that would be OK.
A Coalition government could do worse than appointing Gareth Evans. But I guess that would break my no lawyers rule.
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:50 am
scarps
double damn you
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:51 am
PvO is basically recycling his own university paper on the subject.
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:52 am
You know, this site reminds me of a footy club bar on a Saturday night.
When the home team wins, the beer flows the mood is jovial and the atmosphere is full of conviviality.
When the team loses most go home early and those that are left criticise and berate each other until a brawn erupts.
Tonight I think the home team won.
by Fulvio Sammut on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:53 am
shows
Ok then
the next cab off the rank in terms of inspired choices would be P georgiou
ticks most boxes
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:53 am
No that was just me wanting them to win so that something that is extremely unlikely becomes effectively an impossibility.
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:54 am
But what if it involved shenanigans which took place during an Election Campaign and the first session of te new Parlaiament ? where the Govt hasn’t got time to appoint a new GG ?
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:55 am
#1931: By advising the monarch to do so. The Governor-General has no security of tenure. Just ask John Kerr.
by William Bowe on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:55 am
#1941: By advising the monarch to do so. The PM has no security of tenure. Just ask Gough Whitlam
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:58 am
Not high profile enough for mine.
Hawke and Fraser are too old (and Fraser would probably find it hard to shut up and just perform the ceremonial role instead of telling the government what to do).
I think Bob Carr should at least be considered.
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:59 am
Re Removal of the GG:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004Q00671
Letter sent to Her Maj when Hollingworth resigned.
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:59 am
Bilbo
for labor to remove a GG would cause a constitutional crisis
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 1:59 am
breaks the same party rule
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 2:00 am
Mr Howard would be the most unpopular GG we have ever had.
by Dr Phibes on Jul 26, 2011 at 2:00 am
Creating a precedent of new governments sacking whoever is G.G. would be very bad for both the office of G.G., and for constitutional stability.
It would also scare off a lot of potentially good candidates for the job, because many of them wouldn’t want to accept an office knowing they would possibly be sacked after an election (it would make them almost a defacto politician).
by ShowsOn on Jul 26, 2011 at 2:01 am
phibes
I doubt anyone will exceed John Kerr post 75
by gusface on Jul 26, 2011 at 2:01 am