Newspoll: 55-45 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes tweets that the latest fortnightly Newspoll has the Coalition’s two-party preferred lead at 55-45, from primary votes of 32 per cent for Labor (up two on last time) and 46 per cent for the Coalition (up one). The personal ratings are good news for Tony Abbott: his approval rating is up four to 36 per cent and his disapproval is down three to 52 per cent, and he has opened up a lead over Julia Gillard as preferred prime minister of 40 per cent (up three) to 37 per cent (down three). Julia Gillard is respectively up down one to 32 per cent and up two to 57 per cent. Newspoll also ran a teaser last night showing Abbott favoured over Gillard for economic management 43 per cent to 34 per cent, and Wayne Swan and Joe Hockey in a statistical dead heat for preferred Treasurer (38 per cent to 37 per cent).
We also today had yet another 54-46 result from Essential Research. After losing a point on the primary vote over each of the two previous weeks, Labor was back up one to 34 per cent, with the Greens down one to 10 per cent and the Coalition steady on 47 per cent. Essential’s monthly measure of leadership approval found both leaders’ personal ratings essentially unchanged – Julia Gillard down one on approval to 36 per cent and up one on disapproval to 53 per cent, Tony Abbott steady on 35 per cent and up two to 53 per cent – but contrary to Newspoll, Gillard made a solid gain as preferred prime minister, her lead up from 39-36 to 41-34. However, only 31 per cent expected her to lead Labor to the next election against 47 per cent who said they didn’t (hats off to the 22 per cent who admitted they didn’t know); while for Tony Abbott the numbers were 47 per cent and 25 per cent.
A question on government control of media ownership has support for more control and less control tied on 24 per cent, with 34 per cent thinking it about right. There was also a question on the impact of Gina Rinehart on the independence of Fairfax newspapers, which I personally find a little odd – the issue would mean little outside of New South Wales and Victoria. I also had my doubts about the question on whether Australia is “fair and just”, but the question asking for comparison with other countries is interesting: Canada and New Zealand are seen as Australia’s main partners in freedom, the UK does less well, Japan and France less well again, and the United States worse still. China however sits well below the rest of the field.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Gary
I should have added, I like you too, but definitely not your team!!
by victoria on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:26 am
Gee, Abbott knows how to play the press gallery like a fiddle, doesn’t he.
I just love the confidence he has that he will improve his economics reputation simply by appointing Sinodinos… aaand it seems to be working. All Abbott needs to do, apparently, is tell journalists that Sinodinos will be on board and then, hey presto, all their economic problems are solved because ‘good ol Arthur’ is such a respected figure. It doesn’t seem to matter that he still has to get both columns to actually add up based on the promises of Abbott to rip out huge chunks of income streams whilst increasing spending at the same time. I wonder if journalists will actually start asking what exactly is going to be cut, or if they just go “oh, Arthur’s there now, he’ll get on top of it” and leave it at that.
As an aside, it reminds me of an exchange I saw between Mischa Schubert, Stephanie Peatling and Grog earlier in the week about Peta Credlin on the day she was interjecting in Parliament:
So Credlin is ‘whip smart’ with a great handbag. I seem to recall people saying simliar stuff about Julie Bishop – dead smart with great shoes. In Parliament and as a shadow minister, however, Bishop has shown herself to be a lightweight (even if she does still wear nice shoes which all the female jounos go on about incessantly).
I wonder if Credlin will still be considered ‘dead smart’ if Abbott ends up getting the prize they’re after with all of the obvious problems that are going to arise due to their just-say-no policy-free-zone approach to politics.
Probably not. They’ll all still be talking about her handbag.
by Fiz on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:26 am
The MSM are clueless and are making it up as they go. What’s the call – is chinese whispers.
Not very long to go now before the punters get some money in the wallets and purses, the pensioners get a bonus and a payrise.
Oh and don’t forget the big popular policies are going through, or will go through.
Steady as she goes for me.
by jeffemu on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:27 am
Let’s just see what good it does before the crowing begins shall we?
by Gary on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:28 am
Fiz
I reckon Credlin’s strategy is going to fall flat as time wears on. The coalition are eventually going to be mightly pissed with her
by victoria on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:28 am
Disgraceful.
by Haydn on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:30 am
Choosing between Gillard and Rudd is like comparing two cars – one missing a wheel and the other with no transmission – both are politically damaged goods.
Gillard is carrying so much political baggage and since the downfall of Rudd – so much more is known about his competence (or lack of it) – but the third option would be a poisoned chalice for anybody silly enough to take it on – any kamikazes with blind ambition out there?
by blackburnpseph on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:31 am
Why do you believe the next 10% are more Rudd friendly. I have this amusing theory that if there was a change back to Rudd, suddenly Gillard (or someone else) would be preferred leader of the ALP in the polls.
Further to my amusing theories, I theorise that from day one a Rudd PM would suffer non stop attacks from the media ranging from pink batts, to BER, to mining taxes, to his undermining of Gillard, to his speech patterns and to his inability to work with colleagues.
Add to that, the media would go on about faceless men, how the ALP is like the NSW ALP, how ALP members show no loyalty, no honour, no backbone and no hope. How they are poll driven, how they only want to remain in power, etc…
A change would only embolden the media to write more garbage. Because they know they only have to be right once, like a stopped clock, and all the other times they were wrong are ignored.
There is a certain advantage in sticking with a leader through difficult times. That was my believe when Rudd was rolled. I wasn’t aware at the time that his leadership style had pissed off most in the ALP. However I wish more effort would have gone into telling him he was doing things wrong and maybe giving him time to change.
by Mithrandir on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:31 am
Bbp
I dont think any Labor MP wants a poisoned chalice.
by victoria on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:31 am
Mithrandir 5452 – spot on.
by Gary on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:33 am
Victoria
Poisoned chalice or sacrificial lamb – the metaphorical possibilities are endless.
by blackburnpseph on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:33 am
Doyley
I fully agree.
Either you and I (and a small number of other PBs) are mad or everyone else is.
by Darn on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:34 am
Do we know that he wasn’t warned?
by Gary on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:34 am
Gary,
“The independent MP, Rob Oakeshott, has sent another warning to Labor MPs that his support cannot be counted upon if the party changes its leader”.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/all-bets-are-off-if-rudd-gets-back-in-oakeshott-20120215-1t4rm.html#ixzz1mgZ5tpqi
by Greensborough Growler on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:37 am
Darn @5456,
Everyone else is !
True believers are called true believers for a reason.
cheers.
by Doyley on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:37 am
Actually, I disagree with that. There are many people holding their nose while saying they would vote for Abbott. In their guts they know he is nuts. Put in a Shorten and many of those people could very well switch.
by Gary on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:38 am
Good question.
by Mithrandir on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:39 am
Methinks that Rudd has the type of personality where warnings would be futile.
by blackburnpseph on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:40 am
Fiz:
I read the Credlin handbag tweet as referring to Abbott!
by confessions on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:41 am
Gary
Even the blind ambition that is on show to all of Bill Shorten may pass on this one at this time … anyway hasn’t he been quoted that he “has no ambition to be PM” Ha Ha
by blackburnpseph on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:41 am
How do we know how many who tried to tell him he was pissing off all his colleagues were simply treated in the manner he treated the back-bench delegation who went to him to air their concerns? It was only when Guillard went to him to ask for a leadership ballot in June 2010 that Rudd pleaded and begged for a stay of coup proceedings.
by janice2 on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:44 am
as an aside. Got my latest electricity bill. Not bad at all. I have compared bills in terms of usage etc with friends and family. Their bills are twice as much as mine. Difference seems to be type of airconditioners being used. We have an evaporative cooling system. Our electricity bill is half of those with wall mounted air conditioners.
by victoria on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:46 am
Rudd was not popular in Queensland in July 2010. People were waiting for the election so they could hit him with a metaphorical base ball bat. That they couldn’t back then, given a second chance they will. As for Katter supporting a Rudd governemnt – why? Just because they are both Queenslanders? Rudd would not implement Katter’s 20 point plan as outlined.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/bob-katters-20point-wish-list-20100902-14rv2.html
by hugh moran on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:48 am
Shorten, and I did say “a” Shorten, would have nothing to lose. Labor would be expected to lose. He would be seen as stopping the rot not necessarily expected to win. If he could restrict it to a respectable loss it would set him up for the following election after Abbott destroys the economy. If he couldn’t it wouldn’t be blamed on him. Simple really.
by Gary on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:48 am
I personally could never support Rudd again. Not after he gave oxygen to the Pink Batts “fiasco” line to, of all people, Barrie Cassidy.
There’s an old 1963 Phillip K. Dick science fiction story called If There Were No Benny Cemoli. It describes a post-apocalyptic America recovering from “The Misadventure”. Before the Misadventure newspapers had become automatic, printing themselves, writing their own stories. The term coined for these robotic newspapers was “homeopapes”. They had been dormant since the Misadventure.
Suddenly one of them come to life and starts printing and distributing itself again. It contains stories of a freedom movement led by one “Benny Cemoli”. Benny Cemoli is marching on the United Nations. Benny Cemoli is holding rallies. There are riots at Benny Cemoli speeches.
The authorities, alarmed, send officials to the site of these rallies, marches and riots to check out exactly what’s happening. They find nothing. No signs of disturbance, no frenzied followers, no assemblies of Cemoli supporters.
It turns out the Benny Cemoli existed once, before the Misadventure, and the newspaper is just running old stories with a new dateline. It’s not clear whether there isn’t some embellishment, news aspects being robotically made up, being mixed in with the old news. There were even letters to the editor.
The few remaining people are reading these stories, and absent any other evidence to the contrary are starting to believe them. They accept that there is a revolution happening. But it’s always somewhere else. The authorities don’t like this turn of events. It’s bad for morale in an America recovering from the Misadventure.
The powers that be find a way to access the homeopape’s database so they can manipulate the story themselves, to their own benefit. They do so. Things turn out well. They calm down. Cemoli’s non-existant revolution withers. It is all made up, the revolution and its demise. The authorities agree that, if the were no Benny Cemoli, they’d have had to invent him.
I read this story when I was about 15, I guess, and its potency never left me. I realised how easy it would be for a news organization, immune to reader input (or at least capable of ignoring it), and dedicated to just churning out endlessly repetitive bad news, beat ups and bootstraps, could convince its readers and even the people who were the subjects of its stories, that revolutions (and whatever else they wanted) were all over the place.
A few years later, in the early 1970s Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian launched its first “Tax Revolt”. It has had many since, but the first one stuck in my head. By simply reading the newspaper you could have been forgiven for being afraid of going out into the street, there was so much tumult about.
The first, and subsequent Tax Revolts were total bootstraps. Cheap to produce and run from a small circle of newsdesks at News Ltd’s Holt St. headquarters, they gave the less discerning of of their readers the impression that mayhem and revolution was in the air. They all fizzled out after about a week as people started literally opening their windows to look down on the parades of pin-stripe bizoids marching on Canberra.. and saw nothing of the sort.
I’ve written a lot about bootstraps here, and if I’ve ever seen one, this Ruddstoration is a classic of the genre.
There must have been, by now, hundreds of individual predictions by “senior journalists” going back for the past year as to when and where the Rudd Forces would strike. Every single one of them has failed to come true, yet they persist, just as certain, just as cocky, totally oblivious to their falling readership, their tanking sales and to the hundreds of thousands of viewers who are switching off. They are literally destroying their own businesses, and they don’t seem to care.
Other bootstraps abound. A reduction in unemployment is treated an aberration, a joke. Everyone knows someone who can’t get a job. That’s better proof that our country is going to hell. Air Australia failed. How long until even this is blamed on the government (if it isn’t being blamed on them already)?
Senior Treasury officials plead for calm. Tell us that things are looking very much up, not down. This is headlined as “You Never Had It So Good: Treasury”, a reference to Howard’s and Whitlam’s hated use of that form of words in decades past.
I could go on, but I won’t. You’ll all have your favourites.
To my mind the current Ruddstoration push is the last throw of the dice. Sober heads (and there are many of them) at the news organizations know that things really are on the up, and will only get better. They desperately need to get their Kevin “Benny Cemoli” Rudd up now to topple the Prime Minister, because they won’t be able to hide the truth for much longer. Their readers will start opening windows, looking for the battalions of misery marching on Canberra (Convoy, anyone?) and they will see nothing, or if not nothing, only a few desultory astroturfers making lots of noise, without real substance.
These journalists and their employers who have been running confident predictions for over a year now, and who have been wrong every time, refuse to admit that there is little to the story. They refuse to admit that they look like the fools they are. They refuse to see the Grand Canyon of disconnect opening up between them and their readership.
They tell us how “The Media” won’t let this go, referring to other members of the media, not themselves. They claim to be swept up in a tsunami of speculation and spin, with a core of truth. It’s always someone else’s story, one they feel obliged to cover. IT is a story because it is a story: perfect bootstrap material.
Barrie Cassidy’s recent murmurings on this subject have been revealing, but he’s only one of the worst offenders. The story is not covered because it’s a story, but because others treat it as a story. Cassidy doesn’t even have the guts to claim the story as his own. Rudd leaks to other journalists. Cassidy reports on unsourced leaks to other journalists and the “story” slouches on.
If this isn’t Phillip K. Dick’s nightmare-come-true of the “homeopape”, what is? A story without concrete sources run simply because it is a story, run by “media” in full robot mode, a media that exists only as something to be pointed at, so that blame can be apportioned when the story fails to produce results yet again.
If there were no “Kevin Rudd”… they’d have to invent him, because they’ve invented just about everything else.
by Bushfire Bill on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:49 am
Doyley:
So is Rudd being willfully obtuse, thinking he can win over more people, or convinced that if he keeps up with his war of attrition that the Party will have no other choice but to go back to him because it won’t matter who is PM, whether it is Gillard or anyone else – if it ain’t him then he’s going to ‘wreck the joint’.
Yeah, I think Simon Crean had something there with the ‘team player’ comment. Rudd should watch himself. I made a comment a couple of weeks ago to Latika Bourke that he was on a path to being actively detested within the Party and that he would be regarded more along the lines of Latham than Hawke or Keating. He may end up with a few pockets of tight support that will defend him to the end of days, but all the membership I’ve been talking to recently are absolutely aghast at his white-anting. If he’s not careful he won’t be seen by members as a venerable elder in the future, but rather he will become persona non gratis. Not even the defeat of Howard or the Apology will save his reputation as a wrecker.
by Fiz on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:50 am
Mith @5452
I agree.
The change in polls for Gillard would be instant nostalgia by those who dislike change and also those who would hate feel sorry for her dumping (including many here).
It would be the end of functional democracy in Australia as government would be the plaything of the most effective media company. The voters would just be mug punters to be manipulated to vote for the dominant media’s preferred puppet.
In ya guts
ya know he’s nuts
by It’s Time on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:52 am
Hartcher makes an elementary blunder:
-just because Rudd’s supporters “claim” that number of votes, Hartcher concludes “this has happened”. Piss-poor, Peter.
by Ozymandias on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:54 am
Bushfire Bill,
Wow! What an outstanding piece of writing.
I knew you were good. But, not that good.
by Greensborough Growler on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:55 am
Mithrandir 5452. I agree.
Let’s not forget that Mr Abbott has will be widely congratulated as the most successful position leader in living memory – ever? He’s seen will have seen off two PM’s.
Oh, and if the best rebuttal to that is ‘yeah but the first one is back’, then I think we should all just pack up and go home…
What a complete mess they have gotten themselves into. AND during the best of economic times to do some useful things and stay in power for many terms…
What a waste.
by Julian Watson on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:55 am
Oh dear!
https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewFraserMP/status/170656326274392064/photo/1
by confessions on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:57 am
BB
Brilliant.
by victoria on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:57 am
Sorry about the typos – I’m just so pissed off.
Should have read:
“Let’s not forget that Mr Abbott will be widely congratulated as the most successful position leader in living memory – ever? He will have seen off two PM’s.”
by Julian Watson on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:58 am
Just watched Crabb and Meredith Burgmann on ABC24.
Billed as promo of “Kitchen Cabinet”, but continued with good discussion on the govt “situation” and likelihood of spill.
Can’t summarise, but worth watching IMO.
Said Coalition won’t dump Abbott until poll figures trend downwards, even if Hockey is “quietly weeping into his hands” at Abbott’s economic promises to undo everything.
by lizzie on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:58 am
Confessions:
Doh! You could be right there! But I have also seen other journos (notably Samantha Maiden who also likes to prattle on endlessly about Bishop’s shoes) make comments on Credlin’s accessories.
by Fiz on Feb 18, 2012 at 10:59 am
The last time I weighed in on Ruddstoration! I put forward the idea that the pressure was less likely to be coming from Rudd to MPs than the other way. Logically speaking, anyway. Rudd has a lot to lose by making a challenge. His ministry for a start, and likely his place in parliament. If he sits tight and does nothing, he keeps his high-profile job and gets to travel the world meeting important people and ‘making a difference’. If he challenges and loses, it’s going to be difficult for him to make a case that he’s useful to the ALP.
However, there are a number of MPs holding small margins, worried about even having a place in parliament after the next election. They’d be highly motivated to act to keep their jobs, and no doubt be looking for ways to secure them. I can see some of them getting in Rudd’s ear to save their jobs.
Trouble is, the closer an election gets, the less useful a change of leader would be. And of course the other danger is that a change of leader may well not shift the polls and will undoubtedly present a whole new set of problems.
The biggest danger of all is that a change of leader would re-energise the opposition. They would have plenty to talk about once again, and they will talk their heads off. You think you’ve heard enough of the words “unstable” and “dysfuntional” already? That’s all you’ll hear if the ALP change leaders again. And “election now!” will dominate all political discussion. I can’t see it being anything but a disaster.
Listen to the language the opposition are using to describe the ALP right now. It’ll transfer seamlessly, and double its applicability, if the leadership changes.
The media focus now is on presenting the challenge, and if possible the success of that challenge, as inevitable. There are reasons for that, prime amongst them that it’s a political story that sells like hotcakes, and gives half the press gallery a reason to exist.
My feeling is that if this is the only story going around, it doesn’t mean much. There’s no trigger to pull. The reasons Rudd went in the first place – machinations aside – were clear policy-related failures. He got hammered on BER, batts, ETS relentlessly, which left him vulnerable as a leader on policy.
On policy, Gillard has no such difficulties. She’s negotiated difficult stuff through parliament, and snuffed the fuse on asylum seekers, carbon pricing and pokies. She’ll only be a lame duck (and the MSM can huff and puff all they like on that claim) if she starts to fail on real policy issues.
Rudd’s a watch-this-space topic. Other things would need to happen to trigger it.
by Aguirre on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:01 am
Gillard should call a press conference on some pretense and then ask every journalist to raise their hand if they believe:
a) She will not make it to the next election
)
b) She will be challenged in March (this year, not next
c) She was going to be challenged in November last year
She should tell them that for every incorrect prediction they should donate $1000 to charity.
Have cameras ready to record that. I wonder how many journalists would be game.
by Mithrandir on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:02 am
I wonder what would happen if the backgrounding, white-anting weasels just quit it for a month. Stopped talking incessantly to journalists about Rudd and instead just shut up and did their job. I wonder if journalists would continue on with the bluff and bluster if it were only Rudd talking to them.
I know, it won’t happen. The white-anting wreckers don’t want the govt to have clear air.
by Fiz on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:03 am
BB:
Great comment. Thanks for that.
by confessions on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:03 am
BB 5469 – Excellent piece of work.
by Gary on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:05 am
I think you can assume a sizeable block (10) of Gillard’s supposed support in caucus would move automatically when a spill is called over to Rudd.
Gillard is finished either way if a ballot is called
Personally though I believe Rudd would do a good job against Tony Abbott and maybe then a good enough job to the point where Malcolm can come back
by Gary Sparrow on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:06 am
And possibly see himself off as well!
by Son of foro on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:06 am
confessions
Was that A Katter campaign truck that got stuck under the sign?!
by victoria on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:07 am
Fiz:
I was half joking about Abbott the handbag, but you never know.
by confessions on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:08 am
victoria:
Apparently.
by confessions on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:08 am
I can’t see why any Labor MP would back Gillard in a spill.
It would be like the Turkey’s voting for Christmas…they’ll take their chances with Rudd and lets face it he is popular with a lot of voters.
by Gary Sparrow on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
george has been busy with photoshop again:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64041833@N04/6893814077/sizes/l/in/photostream/
by confessions on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
GS:
How is Canberra treating you?
by confessions on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:10 am
You don’t know that.
by Gary on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:10 am
Follows on from his campaign double decker bus getting stuck at the transit centre because of its height.
Not the sharpest tools in the shed.
In ya guts ya know he’s nuts.
by It’s Time on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:11 am