Nielsen: 57-43 to Coalition
The latest monthly Nielsen result backs up Newspoll’s 57-43 result from last week, out from 53-47 when Nielsen last polled in the days preceding the leadership challenge. At 27% for Labor (down a dizzying seven points on the previous poll) and 47% for the Coalition (up three), the primary vote results are likewise all but identical to Newspoll’s (28% and 47%). Tony Abbott has widened his preferred prime minister lead from 47-46 to 48-44, while Joe Hockey is found to lead Wayne Swan 45-43 as preferred treasurer. The results of this poll support Newspoll and to a lesser extent Morgan in showing a further blowout in the Coalition lead in the wake of the leadership challenge: the only holdout so far as Essential Research, which shall as usual report tomorrow.
UPDATE: Full tables from GhostWhoVotes. Nielsen also shows Julia Gillard’s approval rating unchanged last time at 36 per cent approval (steady) and 59 per cent disapproval (down one) – a substantially higher approval rating than from Newspoll, though this is partly as a result of the unusual fact that Nielsen produces lower undecided ratings on these questions. Tony Abbott is respectively down two to a new low of 39 per cent and steady on 56 per cent. Also:
• State breakdowns suggest an upheaval of biblical dimensions has driven the northern and southern states apart: compared with last month’s two-party preferred figures, Labor is down ten points in Queensland and eight in New South Wales (and by five points in Western Australia besides), but is up by four in both Victoria (where Labor holds a 51-49 lead) and South Australia. This is a correction – probably an over-correction – from the previous result in which Labor occupied a narrow band from 44 per cent and 49 per cent across the five states, implausibly scoring weaker in Victoria than New South Wales and South Australia than Queensland. It should be remembered that all of these state sub-samples are modest, and that the margin of error approaches double figures in the smaller states.
• There are also some diverting results from the gender and city/rural breakdowns, which being binary offer bigger samples and margins of error of about 3.5 per cent. The gender gap, as measured by the differential in the two major parties’ net primary votes, has blown out from one point to 12. Labor is down nine points on the primary vote among men to 24 per cent, and the Coalition is up six to 50 per cent.
• Labor is also down nine points, and the Coalition up seven, among rural voters.
• The government’s policy (I’m not sure if it was identified to respondents as such) of using the mining tax to fund a 1% cut to company tax is supported by 53% and opposed by 33%.
• Only 5% per cent believe they will be better off with the carbon price and its attendant compensation, against 52% who believe they will be worse off.
• Support for the carbon tax is at 36% against 60% opposed, which is respectively down one and up one since Nielsen last posed the question in October.
• The Coalition is favoured to handle the economy by 57% against 36% for Labor.
UPDATE 2: Essential Research reports that after Labor’s recovery from 56-44 to 54-46 last week, the Coalition has gained a point to lead 55-45. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up a point to 48 per cent and Labor down one to 33 per cent. A semi-regular question on leaders’ attributes finds views of Julia Gillard have soured further since June last year, by double figures in the case of “intelligent” and “hard-working”, with Tony Abbott also going backwards by lesser degree (Gillard is rated slightly more intelligent and Abbott slightly more hard working, and Gillard is 11% higher on “out of touch with ordinary people”). There are also questions on the proposed increase in superannuation payments from 9% to 12% (69% supporting and 13% opposed, perfectly unchanged since May last year), size and role of government (44% believe it presently too large against 28% too small, but 67% maintain government has a role to “protect ordniary Australians from unfair policies and practices on the part of large financial and/or industrial groups” against 20% who sign on for a laissez-faire view of the role of the state) and the appopriate responses for police when faced with various situations. On the latter count, 10% of respondents believe persons under the influence of alcohol should be shot.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
guytaur
Mind you I worked in legal for years, but I am not clear on this aspect.
If you have been referred to the DPP for consideration of criminal charges, do you not have a right to know? Shellbell can you help?
by victoria on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:28 am
smithe @ 2459
It takes a special kind of idiot to write such gratuitously offensive offensive drivel.
Are you competing with wizzer?
by bemused on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:30 am
seen this about the effects of Wivenhoe Dam operation on the floods in Brisbane
http://larvatusprodeo.net/archives/2012/04/04/amazing-rain-and-what-the-flood-engineers-did-about-it/
A detailed analysis from an expert
by billie on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:30 am
Victoria
I am no lawyer. I think notification is only required when charges laid. Otherwise ongoing investigations could be compromised. That is the balance.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:31 am
Chief Minister of Northern Territory doing good tourism selling job for Northen Territory at Defence Presser on welcoming US Troops.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:34 am
Dont know Victoria, but I doubt it. Smithe might know.
If the coppers are investigating you, normally you would only know if they arrested you, searched your premises or if they asked you to come down and answer questions (or if you heard it on the grapevine).
The DPP’s primary role will be to determine whether there is a case on the existing evidence. If it is marginal, they may direct someone to seek out further evidence but it would be the AFP who would do that, I would have thought.
I doubt the DPP would say something along the lines, “we are investigating you – is there anything you would like to say to us as part of our investigation”.
I cannot see why the FWA could not tell the relevant people and they do seem to seek comment etc from people they are investigating.
by shellbell on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:35 am
When the media joins in with the mud flinging (as is the case with the Thomson affair) other flingers will not be held to account for their actions. The media’s role with Labor attacks on Newman was so far as I could tell were reported in a he said/she said manner without the media picking sides or passing judgement.
by Tom Hawkins on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:37 am
Thanks guytaur and shellbell.
It does seem rather curious that those named are not informed.
by victoria on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:37 am
Tom Hawkins
Look at the evidence. The media will turn. Seen in the Uk in such cases. The media will destroy the mud flingers and pretend they were not there cheering them on.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:39 am
Grattan’s latest ‘heads Abbott wins, tails Gillard loses’ brilliant legal analysis:
Grattan’s legal expertise is based on, what exactly? An unwrapped Rumpole boxset?
by Son of foro on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:41 am
Victoria
By not naming until charges laid you help protect innocent until proven guilty. Plus getting more rope to hang the guilty.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:41 am
Son of foro
To give M(?)s Grattan her due she is talking political case not legal one.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:43 am
In 1971 Grattan was a tutor in Law and Politics. I think Paul Bongiorno was in her tutorials
by billie on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:43 am
I think the behaviour of the opposition in the Thomson case is a major reason for the high disapproval ratings for Mr Abbott.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:45 am
The processes ARE very messy, and the Scope probably crosses different record keeping & accounting processes as union rules and state & federal laws changed. For example, changes in laws covering “incorporated” organisations, like local clubs, forced many to hand their books over to accountants (OH used to be treasurer of a few such clubs) – and if that happened in small clubs, you’ve some idea of the effects on big organisations like Unions.
Forensic document analyses I’ve done, and it can be pretty painful; forensic accountancy I don’t do, but have had to work F accountants in the meticulous cross-referencing of payment with a Passed & Minuted Item & rules – every single time. That’s more painful and takes forever! Every item must also be checked against Fed, State, Union etc rules.
Rules change frequently with big bankruptcy & fraud cases (eg OneTel, HIC … ?GFC debacles like ABC Childcare, Storm Finance), as ways of hiding and transferring assets (inc money) were uncovered and addressed. In the HSU case, Abbott & Brandis have looked like total financial idiots; but I assume that their reactions have been for political oppotunism, not a desire for honesty. That so many were made out of Parliament (even even in writing) may indeed build Craig T a financially gratifying retirement.
In the slap-happy days before nit-picking stages’ processes appeared, Credit Cards were easy to access. I used them in former jobs (eg attending meetings, conferences). I’d check my daily accommodation, meal, transport (entertainment if I had a role involving it) etc limits, pick up a card from the office, then return it when back at work. I expected it to be cross-checked, but don’t now if it was every time, or ever. I do recall sometimes signing cards out & in.. Nothing like later cross-referenced paper trails.
I don’t know the time range of the HSU’s & FWA’s investigations; but if they go back a decade or more, I’m surprised it was done as quickly as it was, given the complexity, changing rules, and need to replicate the investigation (ie do it not just once, but as many times as it takes to get the same answers at least twice).
by OzPol Tragic on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:47 am
Bill Hayden drops into the drum to defend a Resource Rent Tax against claims by Peter Reith.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3932142.html
by bluegreen on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:51 am
Victoria,
It looks like Latika is getting her jollies from this Thomson ‘issue’.
by Cuppa on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:53 am
His political case of demanding the DPP goes public with its evidence?
by Son of foro on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:54 am
Son of foro
I see you spotted the flaw right away.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:58 am
This will confirm all prejudice against mad ideas held by religious groups.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/ama-warning-after-christian-group-set-right-performs-exorcisms-on-two-year-old/story-e6frfkvr-1226318228036#ixzz1r26htuzi
by lizzie on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:59 am
z
Same problem with my son. Has huge holes in his sneakers after 1 month but likes it that way.
by Diogenes on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:59 am
The whole Thompson thing has little to do with concepts such as the law, truth and justice. It is pure politics.
This can clearly be seen in the sob approach to the “poor” Lib Senator who actually stole from a place and was found guilty some months ago. There was lot of ‘I was under immense pressure’ and ‘I would not normally do that…….blah, blah and blah’
Big difference is that whether guilty or innocent the political fallout at the time, was of little consequence.
Meanwhile as politics is all to to with appearances, and as much as I hate to agree with Grattan, the issue is all up-side for the conservatives at the minute.
Do we really doubt Labor would not do the same? The AWB scandal was the same though, of course, those concerned covered their tracks as it was only the odd official or two to carry the can.
However, my guess is from what the legal eagles say it could be months, if not years before anything might come of anything in regard to this matter.
by Tricot on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:01 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3932142.html
thanks bluegreen – and take note all you ex Labor pollies. Be constructive not destructive towards the Party that gave you the chance to retire on a comfortable superannuation cushion.
by BH on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm
The ACTU has moved to suspend the HSU’s affiliation to the ACTU.
by MTBW on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm
News was the only one reporting in the last day or two that the FWA report was finalised in advance of FWA’s announcement
by shellbell on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm
lizzie
Legalising faith based bullying can be added to that list.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/03/behind-anti-anti-bullying-backlash
by poroti on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I’m looking forward to Peter Reith’s commentary – on Sky or the ABC – on the mis-use of credit cards by politicians or union officials.
by al palster on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Which makes it curious that Grattan didn’t. She really is blinded by her hatred of Gillard, to the point of not caring the slightest about the quality of what she writes.
by Son of foro on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:11 pm
@al palster
Peter Reith will be keeping his head down if he is halfway of an ex pollie.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:11 pm
A vey good Rupe + James Seweroo cartoon by Steve Bell.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/apr/03/james-murdoch-bskyb-resignation-cartoon
by poroti on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Son of foro
Yes a common theme to critique of Ms Grattan’s work of late.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm
How can they suspend a union which hasn’t had any charges laid against it? What happened to due process?
by Diogenes on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Ged Carney and Jeff Lawrence President and Secretary of the ACTU have given notice of a special meeting of the executive tomorrow to consider the suspension.
Jeff Lawrence: “the ACTU has zero tolerance for corruption.”
by MTBW on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:13 pm
BH
I interpreted this as “time to get off the pot, Peter Reith, you have had your day in the sun”
by billie on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Guytaur
He also knows a thing or two about credit cards.
by al palster on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm
BH,
Yes it is amazing that supposedly pro Labor commentators in the media tend to be has beens, failures, pretenders and never wassers. The easiest way to get a gig or publicity is to bag your own side and undermine support for those you say you support. Playing the “more sorrow than anger card’ with an angst look helps your case as does demanding the bravery from others you were never able to muster in your entire political life.
Of course telling people currently involved in representative politics that they are out of touch with the real supporter is the coup de cherry on top.
It’s a pity they weren’t nearly as wise or knowledgeable when they had the opportunity to do something with their brilliance.
by Greensborough Growler on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Dio
The unions are affiliated or not to the ACTU and as such their affiliation would be suspended if that is what the Executive of the ACTU decides.
by MTBW on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Diogs,
It’s a political move probably to put pressure on the removal of Kathy Jackson. I doubt we’ll see any more principle and good governance from any of the protagonists than what we have seen to date.
by Greensborough Growler on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Diogenes
They are reacting to the conclusions of the FWA report. They are damning of the organisational structure of the HSU. Plenty enough material for suspension.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Son of foro
I would broaden that out to include the whole press gallery. Apply the exception proves the rule thinking of lawyers.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Ultimately the whole FWA process (3 years to complete an investigation?) will bring the government down. The ACTU has kicked an own goal and labor will be hit for six – the horse has bolted and gillard is up the creek gathering no moss.
by wal kolla on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:22 pm
GG
+ 1
Additionally avoid mention ally the Greens at all costs. Then if you must be sure to include “extreme” “loopy” and like adjectives.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:24 pm
al palster
Yes, Mr Reith does. Interesting he and other ex pollies have not been out there baying for blood. Peter Costello has had plenty to say about appointments. Not a word about this case though. Many more. I suspect the restraint is due to recognition of defamation laws.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:26 pm
MTBW et al
Surely the ACTU should discuss the conclusions with the HSU and ask them to show cause why they shouldn’t be dumped. They have to be given an opportunity to put their case forward.
by Diogenes on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm
@Diogenes
The ACTU you would be gold class idiots to ignore the HSU investigation conclusions.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:29 pm
billie – exactly but also a message to media tarts Beattie, Richardson, Latham, etc, etc.
al palster is right – Reith needs to be very silent on some issues. It beats me how these blokes who had some very ‘colourful’ moments while in office are now used by the ABC and SKy or whoever else will give them a a gig, to pontificate on just how insightful they are. The holier than thou attitude gives me the creeps.
by BH on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:31 pm
@Dio/2581
A Warning Shot, Firing to the broadside.
I agree with the ACTU on this one.
We don’t need corruption in AU (Like in UK/US).
by zoidlord on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:32 pm
guytaur
The ACTU has said it hasn’t seen the HSU report.
by Diogenes on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Dio
They may be given the opportunity to do so but ultimately the executive of the ACTU will vote on the motion.
by MTBW on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Diogenes
They too have read the media reports of the conclusions.
by guytaur on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:35 pm