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-
shiftaling @ 1403
You in fact rank candidates in your order of preference.
I fail to see any problem in that.
In many cases your preferences are never distributed. It is only the preferences of minor party candidates and independents that are distributed as they are eliminated.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Scarpat, you need the latest issue of Boating Life – they test 86 boat phones! smithe can pick one up for himself
http://tinyurl.com/3h3f5rp
by george on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:09 pm
davidwh,
Spare us the nonsense.
Abbott has been encouraged to do stunts everyday. If you didn’t know better you’d conclude he had a personal interest in the yellow vest industry given the number of action Abbott shots we’ve been subjected to this lasy year or so.
Of course he took advantage of a picture op to look like a soldier. That it’s become a Mike Dukakis moment for the Abbott is him running out of luck. it’s amazing what happens when the political tide goes out.
by Greensborough Growler on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:10 pm
bemused that post of adam’s sure puts what we take for granted in some perspective.
by DavidWH on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Danny
Great post at 1448!
by MTBW on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:10 pm
DannyL, perfect
by george on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:11 pm
love it, George
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Danny
You are trying to use a rational argument. That just doesn’t wash with the people who oppose gay marriage. It’s all about “common sense” (a favorite of the Tea Party), faith or beliefs.
by Diogenes on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Danny Lewis
I agree with everything you say, but what happens if the HC find the law change unconstitutional over a technical point of law.
Can you imagine the Daily Telly headline? “High Court rules Gay Marriage illegal”. This scares me as I actually would like to see same sex marriage accepted.
by ruawake on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm
adam
Thanks for your post re voting we take so much for granted and sometimes forget just how lucky we are.
by MTBW on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:15 pm
DavidWH + jenauthor
I agree with you totally re the stunt aspect and tackyness aspect. I just wish MG had been a little more blunt. Subtleties and complexities can be a bit hard with 140 characters. Anyway I am not sure he scored too many bonus points for his latest fancy dress event.
by poroti on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:16 pm
See kezza2. New u would agree with me in the end, I have faith that the prime minister
Our julia, thinks thing s. Through for some time, these days,
I will take your good word for it that it is compeling
And yes jg does deserve more than ms gillard
Abbott gets mr abbott because that’s all he is, just the opp leader
by my say on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:16 pm
GG so do you think that stunt was just an ordinary domestic political stunt we see everyday by politicians of all political presuasion? By the way Bligh has probably done at least as many of those hard hat and vest stunts as Abbott has. So have any number of our politicians. But that’s here and expected.
Personally I just think doing a stunt like that in a war zone where diggers are being killed is in very bad taste.
by DavidWH on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:16 pm
The government shouldn’t always do things because there are votes in it, sometimes it is just the right thing to do even if they have to wear the heat.
by HaveAchat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:17 pm
If Tone wants to dress-up all military, I would suggest he pick something closer to his core beliefs.
A Knight Templar maybe:
http://www.intercessorchurch.com/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Templar_Knight_in_Battle_Dress.jpg
Or maybe this guy: The Fighting Bishop, Bishop Absalon.
http://images.travelpod.com/users/maryandmarty/1.1314389510.absalon-the-fighting-bishop.jpg
‘Course, Tone isn’t real good with horses, but it’s the thought that counts.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Danny spot on if they where my children. I would want their happiness
by my say on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:18 pm
The OO has gotten this cop into big trouble. Please let it come out that they paid him for the information.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/police-officer-simon-artz-faces-trial-for-leak-on-counter-terrorism-operation-neath/story-fn7x8me2-1226195891968
by Diogenes on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Totally agree. The enemy is not firing paintball pellets which bounce off berets.
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm
rua
The Government deals with it when and if it happens.
by MTBW on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm
La Grattan finally sees the light:
[Thefinnigans TheFinnigans天地有道人无道
@
@michellegrattan [Those pics of Abbott being put into military gear are dreadful ] you really should ask why he puts up stunt like that
20 seconds ago ]
by The Finnigans on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm
smithe @ 1443
Maybe they decided to all take it in turns. Not all that many of them so could be feasible.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Chris Kenny on Twitter relates the death of Geoff Anderson, who was chief-of-staff to John Bannon and more recently a political science academic at Flinders University.
by William Bowe on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:21 pm
http://tinyurl.com/3h3f5rp
Excellent work there George.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:21 pm
DavidWH @ 1453
It certainly does and it should not matter which side of politics you are on.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Not the point. Twitter is alive today with indignant people hollering ‘we won’t vote for you now!’ as if voting coalition is a better alternative.
PM gave a concession today … despite her personal stand. But all we get is angry people who expect PM just to what THEY want.
I agree that everyone should have equal marriage rights. But I also know that a lot of people are outright horrified at the idea.
My impression is that the PM is opening it up as best she can given the current climate.
Many forget that 60%+ were all for action on climate change. Until there was a big ruckus in parlt and the ramifications washed through.
If Labor tried to intro legislation, and it is rejected outright, it would have the same effect as the republican vote. It’d go on the back burner for 20 years or more.
Too many are top desperate to have their own way they don’t see there’s a ‘process’ in train.
by jenauthor on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Diogenes,
There is no way, absolutely no way, that The Australian would have paid the police for information. Have you already forgotten yesterday’s news release?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/review-finds-no-hacking-by-news/story-e6frg996-1226194999268
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:26 pm
davidwh,
I think that stunts is the whole strategy for Abbott. There is no plan B as the calls for him to try and confect “gravitas” next year seem to imply.
Sure other pollies use stunts. But, Abbott doesn’t answer questions at pressers, is too gutless to do long interviews because he always stuffs them up and has no alternative vision apart from “I’m not the Government”.
He’s the Nude Politician. There’s nothing on him.
by Greensborough Growler on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Re the Prime Minister not being addressed properly by journalists, I think that may go back to Bob Hawke or even earlier. Hawke certainly encouraged too much familiarity in my opinion.
The PMs Department or staff should issue protocol guidelines on such matters as forms of address and behaviour at events such as press conferences and any journalist in breach should receive some quiet advice and not get any questions for a few days.
by bemused on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I believe in compulsory voting, I am not enamored of preferences though. What I would like to see is a ballot paper that allowed you to choose your candidate of choice and accept their preferences, your candidate of choice and your own spread of preferences or your candidate of choice and a box stating no preferences with your vote so your vote goes to the candidate only and no flow down to someone you don’t want to get your vote.
by HaveAchat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Yes, my wife is absolutely horrified at the thought that I could have the same rights as her…by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:29 pm
What do they deal with? The issue dead for another decade or two. Please sensible people stop the legislative madness route. Force the Govt to a referendum.
Everyone has to cop it and shut up. No Fred Nile political groups popping up to restore the family.
Its not rocket science.
by ruawake on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Some afterthoughts on STOP THE HEADLANDS.
Ms Savva named Ms Credlin in her critical article on Mr Abbott.
It seems to me that Mr Abbott has a severe structural problem in his office. It goes beyond whether it is wise to have Mr Loughnane and Ms Credlin controlling between them two critical bottlenecks.
IMHO, the real structural problem is that Mr Abbott has shared a lot, if not most, of his power with Ms Credlin, and Ms Credlin apparently lacks any sort of recognisable vision thing or much in the way of policy nous. Now, if Mr Abbott was a policy heavyweight, that would not matter much. But he is a policy featherweight.
There may be a further complicating factor to this structural problem. Could it be that the shared catholic background of Ms Credlin and Mr Abbott encourages each to reinforce shared values, assumptions and views of the other, rather than to be open to challenges, questions and opposed views?
Finally, it should be noted that like flocks to like, and Mr Abbott’s close colleagues are not, in the main, policy heavyweights. But that may be more a matter of having to choose from a limited field.
by Boerwar on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:29 pm
GG I was just trying to understand where the “spare us the nonsense” comment came from. So basically you agreed with what I wrote but considered it to be nonsense?
by DavidWH on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:33 pm
It is a question of respect for the Office separate from the everyday respect for the person holding the office.
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Discrimination doesn’t become more acceptable because more people support it, if it is wrong to discriminate because of colour, sexual orientation, religion or physical ability or for any other reason it is always wrong no matter how many support it.
The PM is doing the right thing to allow this to be discussed, if the members of the government are willing to stand up for the rights of all Australians then their consciences wll guide them.
Whether my gay work colleagues are married or anyother gay couple doesn’t affect me at all, I just cannot accept that they be denied due to deliberate discrimination.
by HaveAchat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Jenauthor what are they moaning about, the same marriage or the uranium or both on twitter-
by my say on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Exactly — I too support marriage equality and even voted Greens as a result.
But I am not naive enough to think that abusing the first Australian PM to allow their party a free vote on the issue is a good step.
I don’t enjoy the idea of parliament having to vote on my relationship options especially when others don’t have their relationship rights subject to the whims of parliament — but that is our system, however imperfect it may be.
We are 99% there — only Abbott can stop this now.
I should add, if anyone thinks an Abbott majority government will even consider this issue in the future, then they deserve him and his cretinous and genuinely homophobic Cabinet to rule over them!
by Darren Laver on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Interseting perspective on what is happening in our region.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-10/russia-s-row-with-georgia-plays-out-in-pacific-amid-trade-talks.html
by Greensborough Growler on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Rua: I agree, actually.
A referendum would demonstrate the will of the people once and for all and the Joe De Bruyns of the world would have to STFU.
I like it {extra big grinny smiley face}
by Danny Lewis on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm
In regards to those who say that the High Court is likely to strike-down any Legislation aimed at legalising same-sex marriages (on the basis that for all time ‘marriage’ must mean now what it meant in 1901 when the Constitution came into effect), I’m not sure that this will be an un-surpassable problem.
Sure, they might do so, I guess, but one has to recognise that even the law (and the Judges that interpret it) move with the times.
The Common Law has changed enormously over the course of the 20th Century and there are now (for example) numerous causes of action that would have been simply non-maintainable in Queen Victoria’s day.
Just because a particular word held a specific meaning at one point in time does not mean, even within the confines of the Law, that it will forever hold the same meaning. Various provisions in the Constitution itself have been interpreted and re-interpreted in different ways several times over in the last century.
This is a good thing as it prevents our legal system from completely ossifying.
I wouldn’t necessarily count the Hight Court as a barrier to the proposed Legislative change just yet.
by smithe on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm
For those interested, I have updated my Liberal leadership straw poll — totally unconfirmed of course.
It looks like Abbott has lost one vote in the first round to Robb since my last one — and someone has moved from Abbott to Bishop in the hypothetical 2nd round.
Of course, Bishop will likely only challenge when her margin is larger and therefore safer.
by Darren Laver on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Absolutely.
Marriage was ‘invented’ to control women, to give men reasonable certainty that their kids were the product of the right woman and to avoid genetic defects from too much family intermingling. In the distant past when any local population was very, very small a wise person realised that if free-for-all bonking continued most of the kids would soon be born with two heads and webbed feet so they decided to have rules. A man and a woman would mate for life and there would be penalties for producing children outside that partnership. At first everyone just laughed and kept on bonking their sisters, brothers and cousins. So the wise one decided to pull rank and got religion involved. There would be a pretty religious ceremony to sanctify a union, people would fuss over the bride and she’d get a pretty dress. Whatever god was involved would frown upon rule breakers and would punish them in the afterlife. And so marriage was created.
Why gays want to subject themselves to this arcane ritual is something I’ll never understand, the rest of us seem to spend a lot of time and money trying to get out of a marriage. But if that’s what they want they should be able to marry, just as the rest of us can.
by leone on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:40 pm
“Roy Orbison, the tweet from Grattan followed immediately from this one.
michellegrattan Michelle Grattan
Those pics of Abbott being put into military gear are dreadful
”
Ok. I can see that context. Probably would have been helpful to have seen all relevant tweets. Or, to have Ms Grattan use her 144 characters and done it herself more efficiently. Either way, I look forward to her next 500 word article tearing strips off Abbott about the issue. Almost as much as I’m looking forward to the “Convoy of Incontinence/No Consequence” (not my words, merely what I’ve read here) ringing in to Alan Jones when the same sex marriage thing blows up. Not that I’ll hear it myself but there are those here that will faithfully transcribe the calls that Alan will take from those frothing at the mouth at this latest “Juliar” affront. I’m sure the calls will be in the thousands. It will be even funnier watching Ray Hadley deal with it.
by Roy Orbison on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:42 pm
The thing I always remember about Abbott and Afghanistan is that the first time Abbott had a boys own trip to the North West frontier he wanted to visit the front line and got to fire a rifle. This guy, like so bloody many politicians (although the largest %age are from the Lib side of the fence) grew up in a privileged environment. He never had to struggle and has no understanding of the real world. The Army is all about adventure, never having had to did shell scrapes or spend three weeks eating canned sh*t (corner beef hash #2 anyone?), he doesn’t “get” it, those guys risk being shot, not just when patrolling, the last three were murdered on a parade ground. What in Gods name does his think would happen so soon after such an event? Oh Look, there is Tony playing soldiers, I’ll vote for him now. Jesus wept, who is advising him? Christopher Pyne?
by Smaug on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:42 pm
leone,
You’ve obviously been left on the shelf and are trying to rationalise that as a positive.
by Greensborough Growler on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:43 pm
to have the equal right to receive alimony?
by Scarpat on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:44 pm
[Diogenes
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
The OO has gotten this cop into big trouble. Please let it come out that they paid him for the information.
A VICTORIAN police officer has been committed to stand trial for leaking details of a counter-terrorism operation to a journalist.
Simon Justin Artz, 41, is alleged to have leaked information about the raids on August 4, 2009, to The Australian's journalist Cameron Stewart during a meeting on July 30 that year.
He also pleaded not guilty to disclosing information while being reckless as to whether it might endanger the life or safety of a person or interfere with the administration of justice.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/police-officer-simon-artz-faces-trial-for-leak-on-counter-terrorism-operation-neath/story-fn7x8me2-1226195891968
Can’t imagine him doing it”out of the goodness of his heart” so think they would have had to pay
by mari on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Well said, Leone.
by Danny Lewis on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Boerwar:
You need only look at the key representatives in the shadowy kitchen cabinet at that now-infamous teleconference: JBishop, Hockey, Barnaby, Mattias Cormann and Abbott. None of whom have any demonstrable policy nous – Hockey has presided over the wrecking of the coalition’s economic policies as shadow treasurer to boot.
I just wonder if all the serious policy wonks in the Liberal party were chased out by the reactionaries as they sought to take over and control the party.
by confessions on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:46 pm
What a clever woman your wife is
by mari on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:47 pm