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-
Gus did his masters on it
by george on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:03 pm
My mistake – was wondering why the change ?
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:06 pm
It would’ve been better if William Hague told the Libyan diplomat to “Piss the crap off back home geezers!”
by ShowsOn on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:06 pm
frank
the wording of the leg was a bit ambigious
did it apply from the actual papers date or was it a pro rata implemenatation
this bit is always a worry to historians and anors
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Ahh, thought that was the reason.
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:11 pm
george
my only degrees are from the college of knowledge and the university of adversity
tho many a time I have been called a master debater
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:12 pm
sure you weren’t one of these ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKyp5xko1F8
by Frank Calabrese on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:14 pm
frank
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:16 pm
I understand any refs to nuclear are contained in one of the exemption cats
but the actual discussions of sites would still be available
aamoi
who held the seats encompassing jervis, broome and cooktown?
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Gusface they use terms like ‘special purposes’ to mean nuclear weapons…in the cabinet documents.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:18 pm
glen
all i am saying is that the nuclear stuff ran deeper than the public were fed
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:20 pm
by Space Kidette on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:20 pm
If someone has already mentioned this the I apologies.
However, tonight on the 7.30 Report there was a segment concerning a book of letters ftom Sir Robert Menzies to his daughter. They stated in 1955 when she was married and continued through to just before his death.
One comment that caught my eye was an excerpt of a letter criticiseing the blocking of supply by the Frazier Liberal Government.
The thought that crossed my mind was what would Menzies think of the Liberal Party today. I suspect that he would be in despair over the attitude and actions of 95% of the current Liberal Party.
by Ratsars on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Of course it did. But they would never have considered Cooktown or Broome for one simple reason….
Jervis Bay is in the ACT it’s under the control of the Federal Government.
Having a facility in a State would reduce their level of control of the project and any military purposes of the facility.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:22 pm
glen
firstly
Bzzzt
they could put any number anywhere
secondly who were the members of the affected electorates
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:24 pm
currently the commonwealth has about 15 bases
in the various states
plus a few joint facs
all come under comm control
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:25 pm
eg
richmond air force base is under state or federal jurisdiction?
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:26 pm
aamoi
is lucas heights under state or federal jurisdiction?
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Gusface you’re trying to debate someone who has written an academic paper on it and got 1st Class Honours…you’re out of your depth.
Jervis Bay ticked all the boxes and was the one they picked.
Gussy people weren’t objecting to a nuclear power station because of environmental concerns not even Labor were…so it would have made no difference whose electorate they put it in. Actually they’d probably get a boost because of the jobs and the like.
The only negatives against it were economic. The fact that its electricity would have to be subsidised by the government and the cost blow out in construction costs from 131m to 208m.
But like I said they wanted Commonwealth land and they had Jervis Bay always in mind.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:29 pm
see glen
you keep harping about jervis
was it the one and only site that cabinet considered?
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:31 pm
It is licensed to operate by the federal government. I am pretty sure that since Australia is the signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the operation of any nuclear facilitate must be subject to federal government regulation to ensure compliance with the treaties that the federal government has entered into.
by ShowsOn on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:32 pm
again i ask whose seats did the three areas encompass
clue they were male
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:33 pm
first glass gus, ya hear?
by george on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:33 pm
shows
i am trying to get across to glen that just cos it is comm land it was ideal
jervis was not the only site, in fact it may have been more political than first thought
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:34 pm
george
Ha
6.5 stars generals trumps first class anytimez
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:34 pm
by Space Kidette on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm
The AAEC picked it out.
It was isolated from large populations.
It had access to the sea and salt water for cooling the reactor.
It was on Commonwealth land and thus could be solely run by the Commonwealth.
Jim Fraser the Member for the Australian Capital Territory – ALP 1951-1970.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:36 pm
we iz no-class, gus
by george on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:36 pm
george
we iz the classless class
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:37 pm
you have no clue.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:37 pm
bzzt
any land is effectively commland if the fed will it
Just like lucas heights
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Space Kidette, thanks for the link – most interesting:
by george on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:39 pm
btw
glad you did a masters or whatever
but did you ever question the facts?
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:40 pm
I don’t feed trolls. especially firs-class ones
by george on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:40 pm
pfff.. facts-farqs – who needsem?
by george on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:41 pm
by Space Kidette on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Wrong
You do realise who runs energy in Com-State relations.
You really think the AAEC wanted the states to have a say over the power station…comeon!
Anyway your belief they’d build a nuclear power station in Broome or Cooktown just beggars belief. There’s nobody there. There’s no need for the electricity. It’s so far away from major power grids it’s not funny and they’re in State land not Commonwealth land.
Lucas Heights was a research reactor.
Jervis Bay was to be a 500megawatt reactor.
Big Diff.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Jim Fraser the Member for the Australian Capital Territory – ALP 1951-1970.
ALP as in LABOR
ok
now the two others pls
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:43 pm
so the nuclear reactors were for electricity not weapons?
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:44 pm
I’m telling you Gusface there is no mention of Broome or Cooktown.
I told you who it was. And it doesnt matter whose seat it was.
I keep telling you people werent against it for environmental reason back then it was only on the economics.
Even Labor werent against it because of environmental issues they questioned its economics.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
bear in mind your earlier statements re nuclear weapons
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
so glen
there was one reactor
thats it
never any others proposed
no fissile material
like some fairy reactor in the bottom of the garden?
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Gusface….
The Reactor at Jervis Bay is a 500megawatt reactor. It would have produced electricity.
Over 25 years of operation it would have as a by-product made 6 tonnes of plutonium which is a key ingredient of nuclear weapon making.
The Cabinet documents tell of the fact it would have long term defence implications and that because of the by-products of plutonium these could be used for special purposes.
Gorton was also in favour of a nuclear energy industry as a whole for power generation. He considered the reactor a National Development Project.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:47 pm
glen
the thing that killed nuclear in oz was simple
it wasnt one reactor, it wasnt just for electricity, it was for enrichment and our own nuclear weapons program
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Plenty of action on twitter now
http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23OpPayPal
http://www.abmuku.com/2011/07/27/technology/oppaypal-anonymous-lulzsec-paypal-antisec-boycott-hacker-statement-protest/
E-Bay is droppin on share market already.
by marg on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Gough killed it cos of economics?
you jest!
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:51 pm
As per US documents of the time
by george on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Wrong…
It was never about enrichment.
They considered it a future development not someone for then and there.
It was about the plutonium by-products you get from running a nuclear power
station that could then be used for weapons making.
Yep but McMahon deferred the project twice before he was booted from office but Whitlam did finally kill it off in 1973.
by Glen on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:54 pm
yep, certainly was. Documents show this. facts are facts. Gus you up for some popcorn? What flavour?
by george on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:57 pm
glen
was it only one reactor proposed?
by gusface on Jul 27, 2011 at 11:58 pm