Nielsen: 55-45 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes tweets the latest monthly Nielsen result has the Coalition lead at 55-45 – an improvement for the government on 57-43 a month ago and their best Nielsen result since March, but shy of their form in other recent polling. This sits nicely with Possum’s recent finding that Nielsen has had a 0.9 per cent “lean” to the Coalition relative to Newspoll, Essential and Morgan phone polls since the 2010 election. The primary votes tell a familiar story in having Labor steady on 30 per cent but the Coalition down three to 45 per cent, with the Greens up two to 14 per cent. This chimes quite well with Newspoll’s respective findings of 32 per cent, 44 per cent and 12 per cent.
Where Nielsen differs is in showing a strong recovery in Julia Gillard’s personal ratings: up six points on approval to an almost respectable 39 per cent, and down five points on disapproval to a still fairly bad 57 per cent. She has also tied on preferred prime minister for the first time in a while, gaining a point to 45 per cent with Tony Abbott down three. Abbott’s ratings are exactly unchanged at 41 per cent approval and 54 per cent disapproval. As always, the poll was conducted by phone from Thursday to Saturday from a large sample of 1400, producing a margin of error of 2.6 per cent (assuming a random sample).
The poll also found support for a mining tax at 53 per cent with 38 per cent opposed, and that Gillard’s handling of the Qantas dispute had 40 per cent approval and 46 per cent disapproval. Michelle Grattan in the Age rates this “surprising”, but it in fact compares favourably for her with Morgan and Essential’s figures. Qantas’s actions had 36 per cent approval and 60 per cent disapproval, very much in line with Morgan and Essential, while the unions fared rather better on 41 per cent and 49 per cent. Grattan reveals the Victorian component of the result had the Coalition’s lead at 53-47 against 54-46 last time. I should have full tables available tomorrow. UPDATE: Here they are.
In other news, closure of Liberal preselection nominations for seats held by the party in NSW on November 4 brought forth a number of challenges to sitting members:
• The Goulburn Post reports Angus Taylor, “45-year-old Sydney lawyer, Rhodes Scholar and triathlete”, and Sydney restaurateur Peter Doyle are among a large field of entrants in Hume, where 72-year-old incumbent Alby Schultz’s future intentions remain unclear. The Post faults both Taylor and Doyle for being from Sydney (Doyle having been mentioned in the past in relation to Wentworth and Vaucluse) and notes the local credentials of three further candidates, “Mittagong accountant Rick Mandelson, Yass grazier Ed Storey and Yass-based IT executive and olive grower Ross Hampton”. The latter has also been a television reporter and has “an extensive CV as a political advisor and was press secretary to the former defence minister Peter Reith during the ‘children overboard’ days”.
• Bronwyn Bishop faces a challenge in Mackellar from Jim Longley, the state member for Pittwater from 1986 to 1995. Imre Salusinszky in The Australian rates Longley “the most formidable candidate she has faced in a preselection challenge”, but nonetheless says Bishop is expected to win.
• Imre Salusinszky’s report further notes that Mitchell MP Alex Hawke faces three little-heralded predators from the David Clarke side of the Right sub-factional divide – Dermot O’Sullivan, Michael Magyar and Robert Picone – but is “expected to survive”.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Dio @1098 yes, so there is a specific subset of nukes which are known as ‘neutron bombs’
by shiftaling on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:37 am
Er, no.
Although all fission-fisuon bombs operate on the principle of cascading neutron emissions, in “normal’ weapons this neutron release is momentarily contained and fed-back into the core to enhance the reaction and thus the explosive force of the weapon.
In neutron bombs, the a portion of massive pulse of neutron radiation released by the triggering of the fission/fusion reaction is deliberately allowed to escape, reducing the raw explosive force of the weapon but massively increasing its radiation output.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:38 am
Lyne has a significant gay population as well as significant God botherers and rednecks – I am not sure how the electorate would feel about gay marriage
by Oakeshott Country on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:38 am
Dio @ 1098,
Yes but the blast radius is far less than a conventional one, so there is less infrastructure damage.
Of course, the US was playing up that fact when it wanted to deploy them, so they were quite happy for people to think there was no damage.
As I said before, the aim was the maximum number of dead tank crews for the smallest possible nuclear device – a kiloton range device is a tactical weapon.
by BigBob on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:40 am
Dio, you are doing a Tony Abbott and using a technicality to justify the wrong usage of a term. Although technically a “carbon tax”, because it is a tax on CO2 emissions, the carbon tax we are getting is not the full-blown, permanent carbon tax that the term was confined to before the election, and which Julia Gillard ruled out. Similarly, you are using a technicality to argue that all A-bombs are neutron bombs because they all have deadly neutron emissions, even though this is patently a misuse of the term.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:41 am
The super-deluxe model is the deep space neutron bomb, I believe.
It wouldn’t actually killy anyone but it would create an electro-magnetic armageddon for most electrical systems and machines.
I may have this wrong…
by Boerwar on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:41 am
BB and smithe etc
Fair enough.
Wouldn’t the tank armor stop the neutron radiation?
by Diogenes on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:42 am
How would one vote if one was gay, a God botherer and a redneck?
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:43 am
triton
I like technicalities.
by Diogenes on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:43 am
I think we can rule Katter out from supporting gay marriage as he doesn’t believe there are any in his electorate.
by Diogenes on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:44 am
The super-deluxe model is sunspot activity…(it is natural so it must be good)
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:46 am
Surely, on those grounds, he should abstain from the vote, on the grounds that it is of no relevance to the people he represents?
by The Claw on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:48 am
Cuppa – entirely agree. Only a couple in the media do.
by BH on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:51 am
I’d like to live in an ideal world. A world where minerals don’t have dangerous waste after use, fertile lands that don’t become big gaping holes where nothing grows anymore. I suppose this is fairy land.
by gigi on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:54 am
Australians are an interfering lot who like to decide how other people should and shouldn’t live and what they should and shouldn’t do. Ideally people would say that it’s none of their business if two gays want to marry, but that’s not the reality. Another example is voting. Those who believe it’s their duty to be politically engaged and vote believe that everyone else should be the same; hence we have compulsory voting, which is completely contrary to democratic principles.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:55 am
triton
Who would voluntary voting favor; Libs, Labor or Greens?
by Diogenes on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:59 am
AustraliansHuman beings are an interfering lot who like to decide how other people should and shouldn’t live and what they should and shouldn’t do.by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:59 am
Maybe Katter will support gay marriage because of his belief that there are no gays in Kennedy, thus making the issue purely hypothetical.
by why worry on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:01 pm
The argument that the world is a dangerous place already so selling uranium to India will not make a jot of difference is a furphy imo.
Do those who support the sale of Australian uranium to India also support the sale of Canadian asbestos to India?
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/
by kezza2 on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Dio @ 1106,
In an ordinary weapon, yes, the armour provides some shielding from radiation. The point of the Neutron Bomb was to produce enough high energy radiation that could deliver a lethal dose after penetrating the armour.
An interesting question I just thought about is does depleted uranium armour like that used in the M1 Abrams have any shielding effect like lead?
by BigBob on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Dio
Not sure. My guess is that Greens would benefit most, then Libs.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:07 pm
big Bob
One things for sure, there is plenty of uranium in Qld.
The AWU has been wanting to mine it for years.
http://www.awu.net.au/489570_5.html
by Gaffhook on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:08 pm
triton @ 1114
Compulsory voting is a myth and always has been.
The ‘compulsory’ obligation is to attend a polling booth, have your name crossed off the roll, and receive ballot papers.
Since we also have a secret ballot, what you do with your ballot papers in the privacy of the voting booth is up to you. There is simply no mechanism by which you can be compelled to cast a formal vote.
So if you think this very minimal obligation of citizenship is too onerous, I can give you a list of really lovely countries where you won’t have to bother about voting at all and you can go there.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Asbestos. Is a different. Argument altogether
We can only presume people will do the correct thing with uranium, I don’t get it u can sell it to Russia
China. Not india, no logic in That, any way iam not member so do not have a vote
I suggest u all join an go to conf, no good moaning here
Azbestos is a superceded product, any way,
by my say on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I reckon Libs. Look at how voluntary voting in the US has benefited Republicans.
by rishane on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:09 pm
The party with the biggest cheque book to pay for
bribingbussing in the voters.by kezza2 on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Dio,
According to the wiki article I linked:
Looks like the DU armour on US Abrams tanks might offer some protection, but if I were a tanker, I wouldn’t want to chance it.
These weapons are designed to release about 50% of their energy in one massive pulse of highly energetic neutron radiation. That’s a shit-load of power.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:10 pm
I think that’s rather unfortunate from Brown.
by confessions on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:12 pm
When I recently saw the size of the reactor core at Lucas Heights – literally the size of a milk crate – and what incredible energy it produced, plus all the concerns re. radiation, fallout, safe disposal of waste products, all the labs and research companies it supported, it was a rather scary thing.
Scary in that something so superficially small, tiny in fact, needs so much containment and care in its use.
Chernobyl, for example, was – and indeed any commercial power reactor worth its salt is – thousands of times bigger.
I got the feeling that if a reactor wanted to go feral there would be not a hope in hell of controlling it, that we are playing at being “in charge”.
Quite depressing, actually, in an “awestruck” sort of way.
by Bushfire Bill on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Just a reminder to those who support the selling of Uranium to India or anybody else
http://www.mdl4.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Tsar_Bomba.jpg
“Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
by The Finnigans on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:14 pm
[Who would voluntary voting favor; Libs, Labor or Greens?
The Party which could most effectively mobilise their supporters. I imagine that this would vary from election to electio as happens in countries where voting is not compulsory.
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:16 pm
My say, I could never join a party that has shown that degree of disregard for nuclear disarmament. Call me an idealist but nukes creep me out, always have and always will, and I will never change my belief that possessing them is immoral in the extreme. Asbestos has beneficial uses as well, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be banned – superceded as you say
by shiftaling on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm
smithe @ 1126,
So depleted uranium does shield like lead – probably better as it is 1.7 times as dense.
The M1′s for Australia have had the DU removed.
by BigBob on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm
One thought that has been bothering me. Why hasn’t Bob Brown changed his name to Bob Green by deed poll?
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Thefinnigans TheFinnigans天地有道人无道
Abbott’s “surprise visit?” WTF – i tweet Rumour is flying Abbott is coming home via Afghanistan and will visit the Taliban #auspol 13 Nov
21 seconds ago
by The Finnigans on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:19 pm
That was a great post indeed. I reckon part of the MSM’s trouble adapting is that they had what they felt was such a perfect narrative already, so it’d be disappointing to them if it falls away this far in advance. They had the story of ‘Gillard becomes PM by knifing Kevin then throws away her support by telling THE LIE’ all ready to write up, perhaps with some quasi-authoritative doubts about her ‘gravitas’. You know, no matter what she does, TEH POLLS show that the party is doomed and everyone knows it. But unfortunately the turn-around now doesn’t fit the narrative.
by rishane on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:19 pm
The Finnigans
The movie is much better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxD44HO8dNQ
by poroti on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:20 pm
bemused
My objection is on principle. It is illegal not to enroll if you are 18+yo, and once you are enrolled it is illegal not to “vote”. The only reason you can’t be forced to actually vote is that you cannot have a secret ballot and also check that a formal vote has been made. If there was some way they could have done that too, they probably would have. If we ever get online voting a “no vote” probably won’t be an option. Clearly the intention of the law is that everyone put in a formal vote. The mechanics of voting that currently allow you not to vote don’t justify the government’s efforts to betray democratic principles and do their best to force everyone to vote.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:22 pm
shiftaling @ 1131
Yes, as Gough Whitlam once said, it is easy for the impotent to be pure.
Enjoy your purity and impotence.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:23 pm
triton @ 1137
Clearly the principle of citizenship without even minimal obligations.
Disgusting attitude.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:27 pm
rishane
I put Greens first because they are the most idealistic (read unrealistic, or nutty) party and probably have the highest proportion of passionate ideologues voting for them. Those people need no encouragement to vote, so the Greens would have fewer voters dropping off than the other parties.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Bemused @1138 I never asked to be the Boss of everyone else, doesn’t change my stance at all. Enjoy your dirty power
by shiftaling on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Maybe, but underhanded things tend to get done to ‘limit’ the vote when there’s a non-compulsory vote around. And then you get the thrust of things being about ‘rallying the base’, and its all just unhealthy.
by rishane on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Bemused @1130, more disgusting is the illiberal and undemocratic act of forcing people to vote, and then forcing them to preference
by shiftaling on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm
bemused
A ridiculous, no, disgusting summation of my position.
I guess that most other democracies, which wouldn’t dream of forcing their citizens to vote, are just disgusting all round then in your eyes. (Try going to the U.S. and suggest compulsory voting and see how it goes down.)
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Much like the plain cigarette packaging, I understand that this case is being closely followed elsewhere in the world, as one of the first trials of the ratings agencies. I’m not a lawyer, but this exchange does not strike me as particularly helpful for the defence/Mr Chandler’s credibility. Get the black cloth out:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/analyst-unsure-what-emails-meant-20111114-1nfik.html#ixzz1djWI93BD
by Laocoon on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Protection is a relative thing Big Bob.
An enhanced radiation weapon is designed to immediately kill or incapacitate any tank crew within a radius of, say, 3 Km. That means that any crew within that area will be essentially “cooked” and rendered combat ineffective with the detonation. Those outside the “immediately fatal” pulse radius aren’t out of the woods, however, as radiation follows the inverse square curve. They will likely also receive a fatal dose of ionising radiation out to a certain radius, but remain combat effective for a while (perhaps up to a week) before the symptoms of their acute radiation poisoning become too great.
Outside that additional radius any tank crew will survive the detonation and its immediate aftermate but will also likely have received a dosage of radiation that will create serious health problems later in life (in the event they survive the nuclear war itself, that is).
Such are the sorts of calculations made by the people who thought these weapons-up. Real Dr Strangelove stuff.
Abrams’ DU armour might diminish the radii a bit in each case, but that is about the best an Abrams tank crew could hope for.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:35 pm
shiftalong: NO-ONE is forced to vote, let alone preference.
All that is required of you is that you attend a polling place and put a ballot paper in the box.
A very small price to pay – twice every 4 years or so – to maintain a healthy, corruption-free democracy.
by Danny Lewis on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm
He’s apparently launched a vigorous campaign against it….
http://tinyurl.com/crzxw43
by george on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Triton, I’d love to see you explain which democratic principle is “betrayed” by compulsory voting.
Libertarian principles, perhaps, democratic principles – not so much.
by Jackol on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:38 pm