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-
In which case the Dutch parties you are worried about are a bit more than fringe groups too.
by William Bowe on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Indeed. There seems to be something nasty in the water.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm
For what it’s worth, I think each and every adult citizen has a duty to cast a vote in elections. After all, it is not compulsory to whinge and whine about how hard done by some of us think they are, to be very quick off the mark to criticise, protest and blame the government for the ills of society etc, it follows that, in order that they have the freedom so to whinge, criticise and protest, then it is only fair that they are compelled by law to get their lazy bums down to a polling booth and VOTE.
by janice2 on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Thefinnigans TheFinnigans天地有道人无道
@
@michellegrattan Miss Grattan, how difficult is it just to say “Prime Minister” rather than Miss Gillard #auspol
20 seconds ago
by The Finnigans on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I’d doubt that, but it’s certainly clear that voluntary voting has nothing to do with it.
by William Bowe on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Shiftaling @ 1193
You have already been shown that is false. Stop making stuff up when reality does not fit your argument.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:21 pm
we are not nasty.
by The Finnigans on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Kezza, I totally agree that if you don’t vote you don’t have a right to complain about the government. Well, you have a right of course but you’d be a hypocrite if you did
by shiftaling on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:22 pm
smithe
If that’s what the voters say, on what grounds could I object?
None. My preference is for a majority Labor government.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Here is a site which shows countries voter turn out histories and whether or not voting is compulsory.Interestingly after subtracting invalid votes “voluntary vote ” NZ had a higher Voting Age Percentage turnout than “compulsory vote” Australia. Somalia is the “Vote Early Vote Often” world champion with 143 % more votes cast than there are people of voting age.
NZ
http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=NZ
Australia
http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?id=15
by poroti on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Jack the Insiders column on the death of Peter Roebuck, I found it very thoughtful.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/death_and_the_death_of_reason/
by david on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Bemused at 1255, I’m not making anything up.
Sorry, I don’t know how to do the quote block but this is from the AEC, 2006:
“Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.
“It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:
High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107
ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13
“On a related matter, it is also an offence under the Electoral Act to remove a ballot paper from a polling place.”
http://111.235.144.34/About_AEC/Publications/voting/files/compulsory-voting.pdf
So we can thank our lucky stars for the secret ballot, it’s the main thing that guarantees that the process is more or less democratic (compulsory exhaustion of preferences excepted of course).
Also, someone said that SA has OPV, can that be confirmed? I thought it was compulsory to exhaust preferences to have a formal vote there.
by shiftaling on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Triton @ 1221
Quite! And the principle is rotten.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Just put the quote in square brackets. Use Preview to test it.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Its like non union members taking a pay rise, that the rep has worked hard to achieve
by my say on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm
bemused
Such a convincing argument.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Enthusiastic democrats, those Somalis.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Shiftaling: that would be me.
In SA state elections, the counters put all the ballot papers with on a “1″, or an “x” or whatever in the informal pile with the other clearly informal votes. The counters then count all the valid votes.
Then the informal pile is taken and those votes that have a 1, x or “tick” or whatever to indicate a first preference are then counted and added to the first preference tallies if – and only if – the candidate/party has lodged a voting “ticket” with the SA Electoral Commission, in which they detail how their preferences will flow in the event of a OP vote being cast.
by Danny Lewis on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Its a shame none of u took the time to help
VOGEN. I would but know nothing about the subject
by my say on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm
smithe
And we whinge about having to vote a mere once !!
by poroti on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:43 pm
I should add that in the event of a candidate NOT lodging a ticket then the vote is considered informal.
So it is sort of “conditionally” Optional Preferential, rather strictly Optional Preferential. You are right to say that every vote has to have preferences – whether voter nominated or candidate nominated – in order to be considered formal.
by Danny Lewis on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Tell you what, triton.
If you don’t want your vote, you can always let someone like me vote for you. What could be fairer than that?
The enthusuasm for voting of some here reminds me a bit of that scene in Sunday Too Far Away where Jack Thompson’s character gets himself elected Union shoppie of the shearing shed.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Compulsory preferences are just an extension of compulsory voting. Since we have a preferential system, if we have a compulsory first preference then for consistency the other preferences are compulsory too.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Triton thanks re quote block
Also thanks Danny for the info, so it’s like voting above the line in the senate, the first preferenced party casts your preferences for you. No thanks, I’ll continue voting for myself I reckon!
by shiftaling on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:50 pm
my say
I missed vogon poet’s post. Wnat was the query?
by victoria on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:50 pm
NZ is having a referendum on voting styles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_voting_method_referendum,_2011
by gusface on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Vogon Poet
This is dredging back more decades than I would care to admit, but this might be useful??
by Laocoon on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm
My Say: actually, that has always been a bugbear of mine, that non-union members get granted the same wage rise that my union fees paid for. It’s like having a lawyer argue the case for free.
I’ve always said that if union/ACTU-sponsored wage rises were only granted to members of the said union then union membership would suddenly skyrocket, and people would realise why unions are important…
by Danny Lewis on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm
victoria
VP @1212
by Laocoon on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:53 pm
thanks Laocoon.
You would be able to steer Poet in the right direction!
by victoria on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Mine too, DL. And it’s exactly like the lawyer analogy.
Often the Industrial Advocates arguing the Union case in the Commission (these days, Fair Work Australia) are indeed lawyers.
It’s the great Australian Tradition of the Bludge (not to be confused with PB) which we’ve also seen on show here this afternoon.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Thanks Triton, always wondered how to do that.
by Smaug on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Good grief. Is this bizarro world?
by victoria on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm
by victoria on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:00 pm
DL
Totally agree. I can’t think of any other organisation where you pay money for membership and privileges, and then see those same privileges passed on to non-members.
by george on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm
shiftaling
[“Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.
“It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:
High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107
ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13]
Interesting.
I wonder if the cases mentioned relate to people who have attended a polling venue, had their name crossed off and deposited the ballot papers in the boxes without entering a booth?
by kezza2 on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Victoria
She should have written: “To say nothing of the contradiction in defusing a roadside bomb”
by george on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:04 pm
my say I couldn’t count the number of somewhat ‘heated discussions’ I have engaged in with non union people over pay rises. What is also damn annoying is the non member asking for advice when in trouble/or needing advice on agreements, leave entitlements etc…grrr
by david on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm
george
Indeed
by victoria on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Re court cases, not sure kezza, might have a look and report back unless someone knows off the top of their head?
by shiftaling on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:09 pm
gusface
[NZ is having a referendum on voting styles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_voting_method_referendum,_2011
I saw a bit on the news about that.For some reason the Australian system rated pretty low. In fact the report suggested its popularity with NZers was on par with that of Quade Cooper ,ouch !
by poroti on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm
The Voting Bludge goes like this:
“I’m too apathetic/dis-engaged/bored/conflicted/nihilistic to be bothered voting, so I’ll let others choose for me who our Government will be for the next 3 years.”
It’s a bit like that scene in Casablance where Ingrid Bergman tells Humphrey Bogart that she can’s decide what to do and asks him to decide for her.
Well, children to paraphrase Bogie a bit later in the same film:
“If that Polling Booth closes and you don’t vote you’ll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the Term of whatever Government you get”
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm
DannyL – No Unions anywhere that I have worked in my lifetime but I heartily agree with you and always thought it unfair that the Unions could be denigrated for taking action to improve wages and conditions by the very people who benefit from the results.
Shiftaling – lost argument, mate. Voting in a democracy is the right thing to do in the same way as taxes need to be paid. They are “the price you pay to live in a civilized society’ and neither should be discarded if we want to retain our way of life.
by BH on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:12 pm
From memory, there was an attempt by the unions some years ago (early in Howard’s years, I think) when the unions tried to get a case up, arguing that pay and conditions should not be passed on to non union members without those workers paying the unions for their services.
Don’t know what happened to it, but.
by zoomster on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:18 pm
I reckon that they should have let him have a go at a real IED.
Assuming ‘shit didn’t happen’, I reckon the Stunt Man would have need a fresh set of budgie smugglers after that little lot.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:18 pm
The first case re complusory voting, Judd v McKeon is here. It is not long and has some statements which seem pertinent to the discussion this arvo:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1926/33.html
by shellbell on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:19 pm
smithe
I’ve never said that I don’t want my vote. I just want elections that are, to the best that you are able to do it, the truest reflection of community attitudes that you can get. The vote should be where you have a clean slate – no assumptions, no ruling out certain attitudes such as apathy or anarchy or anything else that most people would consider irresponsible. Just give each person the freedom to express themselves as they see fit, and if for some people that is not to express themselves, then so be it. Their apathy is registered by their not voting. What matters is that you have the truest possible expression of people’s wishes that you can get. What some people here are advocating here is semi-democracy – democracy, but only on their terms. That is arrogant.
If you have voluntary voting you have fair elections. If people can’t be bothered voting then no candidate deserves their votes. The only votes candidates deserve are those from people who care enough to go to the trouble to vote for them under no pressure or threat of a fine. It is madness that there have been, no doubt, many members of parliament whose victory in their electorate was decided by the donkey vote. Put the names in a different order and get a different outcome! That’s what you get with compulsory voting.
by triton on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:20 pm
What on earth does MG mean by that tweet? Have just come in, a lovely swim and then coffee so feeling very relaxed
by mari on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Regrettably that sort of argument gets nowhere.
Once the Commission (or Fair Work Australia) has determined, after much evidence and argument from the Union, that $x is the appropriate minimum wage for a certain type of work, that minimum applies to all persons employed in such work, whether Union members or no.
Gives the Bludgers a free ride, I know, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:23 pm
BH and others, also, where are the co-ops and businesses run for members’ benefit? Why not get into the business of retail, and offer a range of services/products at reduced rates to members? A great way to provide jobs, and make a small profit for the benefit of the org.
by george on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:25 pm