Newspoll: 54-46 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes tweets that the latest Newspoll has the Coalition two-party lead at 54-46, down from an aberrant 57-43 a fortnight ago. The Coalition is down four points on the primary vote to 44 per cent, which in fact returns them to where they were in the poll before last. Labor is up a point to 31 per cent, which is still a point shy of the previous poll, and the Greens are on 13 per cent, which compares with 10 per cent last time and 12 per cent the time before. Julia Gillard has consolidated the lead she opened up as preferred prime minister a fortnight ago, which ended five months of ascendancy for Tony Abbott: she is now up three to 43 per cent, with Abbott up one to 36 per cent. Gillard also has a less bad net approval rating than Abbott for the first time in eight months, with her approval up two points to 36 per cent (its highest in eight months) and disapproval up one to 56 per cent. Abbott is down one on approval to 33 per cent and up two on disapproval to 57 per cent, in both cases equalling his previous worst results and collectively producing his lowest ever net rating of minus 24.
UPDATE: Essential Research likewise has it at 54-46, unchanged from last week, with primary votes of 47 per cent for the Coalition (down one), 34 per cent for Labor (steady) and 10 per cent for the Greens (down one). Encouragingly for Labor, there has been a shift in sentiment in favour of the government seeing out its full term: support is up seven points since early September to 47 per cent, with “hold election now” down seven to 41 per cent. Less happily for them, a question on best party to handle 15 issues has Labor leading only on industrial relations, and then only slightly – the Liberals hold leads approaching 20 per cent for all economic questions, as well as “political leadership”. On the question of which issues will most influence vote choice, there has been little change since June.
UPDATE 2: Possum charts polling showing a shift in sentiment away from an early election:
However, the apparently radical nature of the shift from the first two polls to the last three is largely a function of the poorly framed question posed by Galaxy in the earlier cases, when respondents were offered the false dichotomy of “Gillard has a mandate for the carbon tax” and “an early election should be called”. Australia’s worst and least trusted major newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, used these obviously flawed results to run a front page lead claiming Australians were “demanding Julia Gillard call a fresh election” and an editorial headlined “voters demand a carbon tax ballot”. It will be interesting to see how the paper reports today’s contrary finding from Essential Research.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Howard managed to entrench false achievements due to advertising (could have been had up for misleading statements, I reckon) and the compliant media only too willing to fudge the value of those achievements.
Labor needs to get some advertising going throughout the next 2 years. It should do what GetUP does and call for donations to run ads on telly and radio just to remind people of what it has done.
I still can’t get over the person on Gruen Transfer the night they ran those 2 ads re Labor and Kev. She said wtte ‘oh yeah, I’d forgotten all that good stuff they’ve done’.
The electorate hasn’t been given the chance to remember it because Abbott, the Libs and the media have been telling everyone that nothing has been done.
BB keeps reminding us but Labor needs to remind the mob – often.
by BH on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:44 pm
The Big Ship
Thank you, but my question wasn’t clear enough.
I meant, accepting the carbon dioxide levels are now as high as 800,000 years ago, do we know what the climate was like – was it icy, tropical, – what “age” were we in then?
by lizzie on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:44 pm
No, but quotas and factional rigging can make it a failure, or at least unrepresentative and undemocratic… I struggle to accept that the majority of Labor members would want to sell uranium to India or would not want to legalise gay marriage.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:44 pm
So William, wouldn’t you think that it’s reasonable to assume that if the majority of this polled think the government should run its course, that they’re are accepting of said government’s policies and the way they are running the country? Wouldn’t this come through on the weekly polls in primary/2PP? Why the discrepancy? Or do you think the trend over the past month is showing exactly this?
by george on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm
George,
They must have a history – no idea what though.
by al palster on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm
this polled=those polled
by george on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Of course. At least the trend line is improving now.
by rishane on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:46 pm
This is why preferences should be optional. If someone really doesn’t want to preference Labor and would rather vote informally, far better that their vote for the Greens gets counted and then no preferences distributed. The current rules are undemocratic and unfair.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:48 pm
No. The public has never liked early elections, and usually holds the view that whatever their opinion of a government’s policies, the appopriate thing is to allow it to do its job and judge it on the fullness of its record when the time comes.
by William Bowe on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Is it? Primary voting intention seems to be pretty much flatlining for Labor about 8-10 points below where it needs to be.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:49 pm
So why did almost 70% want an early election in June?
by george on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Patrick,
Hyperbolic BS.
The vote system is a democratic process. The system is the same for all so it is fair.
You are confusing your dislikes with reality.
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:52 pm
No, it hasn’t
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2011/11/alptrendlarge.png
by george on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:52 pm
No. You are wrong. Being forced to choose between one of two entrenched major parties is not democratic.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Except legislative provisions for misleading or deceptive conduct do not apply to political advertising (and even if they did it’s highly unlikely the ads would be found to be misleading and/or deceptive).
I’m against optional preferential but can’t quite justify that position at this point in time!
by ltep on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:54 pm
[No, it hasn’t
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2011/11/alptrendlarge.png
Interesting – was just based on my perception that it was stuck around 31. Still, needs to be about 40 for Labor to really be in with a shot, does it not?
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:55 pm
For Patricia at 339. Sorry about that.
Here’s Ross’ article.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/economists-are-playing-politics-over-surplus-20111204-1odh0.html#ixzz1fbDOHpS5
Here’s an online link to the Economist article.
http://www.economist.com/node/18719594
They had a special feature on Australia of which this article was one of several.
by dendy on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Galaxy asked a stupid question on that occasion – “does the PM have a mandate for the carbon tax or should she call an election”. So to oppose an early election you needed to agree that PM had a mandate for the carbon tax, which clearly she didn’t.
by William Bowe on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm
That never helps. Seek data and facts and they will lead you to the truth
by george on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Which seems to imply that the punters have bought the snake oil that no matter how good it is now it’d be better under… Hockey.
Amazing, but I can’t see any other explanation.
They really do seem to believe that you can sack 12,000 public servants, and shave $70 billion off government expenditure to achieve a larger surplus.
But they don’t want the government to have a larger surplus. Only the Libs, it seems.
Further, they seem to believe that this will have no effect on their own personal lives, even if it affects the lives of others (tough cheddar for them).
Interest rates under Howard did nothing but rise from the early 2000s. They have mostly fallen under Labor, and currently sit at a level Howard’s government last achieved in April 2002. The last change under Labor was a fall, with another on the cards tomorrow. Yet the Libs are ahead even on interest rate management!
There is one consoling factor: these easy runs are making the Libs lazy. They are so cocky about their standing with the community, it’s sickening. They feel they can say anything at all, spout any nonsense and get away with it.
I know it sounds like a rationalization, and there’s a bit of that there, I’ll admit. But they can’t keep this up forever. Eventually D-Day will arrive where they have to stump up with at least some policy? Not Hogwarts policy, but the real thing.
These metrics don’t make any sense at all. None.
by Bushfire Bill on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm
William, fair enough – I assume the July poll had an equally stupid question?
by george on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm
This could get interesting:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-05/islamists-surge-ahead-in-egypt-vote/3712738
Will the west continue to support the jasmine revolution if it results in conservative Islamic rule in these countries? Will the revolution be subverted into a regressive theocratic state? Will the US make any attempt to influence things given its weakened standing in the world?
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 5, 2011 at 2:59 pm
For those interested in the QLD contest
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/australian-party-a-potential-third-force-as-katter-shows-he-is-not-quite-ri/
More in the article
by Leroy on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm
@Patrick – So not the government you want, then, let’s not have one ?
by CTar1 on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm
al palster – for years I u read Grattan’s columns without fail. When she was with the Canberra Times a friend used to post her pieces to me. Now I just don’t bother.
by BH on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Patrick,
Under your system, there would be no Greens in the lower house.
by BigBob on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm
They managed to get 49.9999999999999% of the vote last election with no actual policies about anything…
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Given that her peers are also journalists I wouldn’t take that as a ringing endorsement of her talent and character.
by Ian on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm
And we wouldn’t have had Fielding in the senate – fine by me.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm
No.
Possibly.
Yes.
by Carey Moore on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:04 pm
William, does Essential take a break for the Holiday period, and if so long? Also, is there another Nielsen poll due in December?
by Leroy on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:04 pm
The Vostok ices cores don’t go back 800,000 but they give a pretty clear picture for the last 400,000, and a clear indication of the relationship between CO2 and temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
In my view it is not the hot we need to worry about but the sharp dip after. Clearly something happens to start an ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
by fredn on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Itep – I know, I should have put a winkie thing after that comment.
by BH on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Cracker of a piece by Paul Krugman on the various candidates in the Republican Presidential campaign nomination process.
“Mr. Romney’s strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn’t a stupid man — but he seems to play one on TV.
Unfortunately from his point of view, however, his acting skills leave something to be desired, and his insincerity shines through. So the base still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate for the party’s nomination must pretend to believe. Yet as I said, the only way to actually believe the modern G.O.P. catechism is to be completely clueless”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Krugman again (He’s on fire).
Notice any similarities with local politics.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/lies-damned-lies-and-elections/
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Completely different electoral system Patrick. But I suppose the same principles apply there.
by ltep on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:13 pm
GG
Much what I said to my hubby the other day, when he asked why the Republican nomination process seemed to be a complete shambles.
You can’t be in a position to nominate for President AND be completely clueless. You couldn’t have gotten to where you are without something behind you.
by zoomster on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Patrick Bateman @ 413
Quite agree.
If anyone is moron enough not to be able to choose the ‘lesser of two evils’ (by their reckoning), then their vote deserves to end up as informal and their vote for ‘the fairies at the bottom of the garden’ not garner any taxpayer funding for that lot.
by bemused on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:14 pm
On that ER, Labor is considered worse than the Libs on education, health, protecting the environment and protecting jobs which should be their strengths.
Their only winning suit is IR and even that is only 38% to 34%.
by Diogenes on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:15 pm
By jove, what a surprise! The anti-Rudd brigade are out in full force today, joyously celebrating the SMH article bagging Rudd.
Newspoll indicates that, despite Abbott having a large negative in personal and preferred pm ratings, the LNP would still handily win an election if it were held today.
by feeney on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Seriously, how the hell does anyone lose to Hunt-Abbott on “protecting the environment”?
by Diogenes on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:22 pm
The outcome of the national conference was as expected:
No party reform;
the chance for a symbolic progressive approach on gay marriage trashed by the right;
the right supporting the leadership with offshore processing.
As Keane says today:
The right’s Dalek behaviour epitomized thus, as reported by Andrew Crook:
The expected disaster has occurred, all right. Tingle is correct.
However Crook also reports on the determination of the left to recruit vigorously in an effort to topple the current bunch of dimwitted knobs running the party.
I wish them luck.
by jaundiced view on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:22 pm
If last year is anything to go by, Essential and Newspoll will poll up to the week before Christmas. Essential will be back in mid-January, Newspoll at the start of February. We’re unlikely to get another Nielsen until February.
by William Bowe on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Just shows how easily the general public can be CONNED!.
The Noalition have the support of the MEDIA!. (murdoch)
That’s our PROBLEM.
by 1934pc on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:23 pm
His wife writes the same way…
by Scarpat on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:26 pm
GG
thanks for those articles, very interesting…
by zoomster on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm
@bemused #437 – Possibly a little too forcefully put but essentially right. Taking bat, ball and stumps and no responsibility at all.
by CTar1 on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Join the Greens if you are so enamoured by their policies.
Pissing on Labor proves you are not fair dinkum.
by Frank Calabrese on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm
@feeney – Right. So best to dispatch as soon as possible.
by CTar1 on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Sounds like the ABC model of journalism is everywhere.
by Diogenes on Dec 5, 2011 at 3:31 pm