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-
What is this about bringing USA skilled workers here? As if we need religious fundamentalist nutters from a basket case country like the USA.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm
So by your logic, people who have already responsibly spent money to reduce their carbon footprint deserve to be punished, while those who irresponsibly have not done so deserve to be rewarded (with money taken from the first group)?
This is the type of thinking that drives some people to become Liberal voters. It is moronic to punish people for doing the right thing while compensating others for failing to do the right thing.
The appropriate impact of an ETS would be to make electricity more expensive for everyone, and thereby force them to use less of it if they want to save money. Not to pay some people to keep using the same amount of electricity.
I would not oppose a sort of ETS safety net to subsidise power for the truly poor. But middle class families with too many children and inefficient houses do not fall into that category.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Because the scheme is being built around you not paying for it if you have dependent children, whether you would otherwise choose to or not.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:05 pm
DL
Nah. Our society has gone to utterly absurd lengths to remove risks from the environment of growing children. The result is a warped generation which does not actually understand real environmental risk at all. They are eloi, waiting to be picked off in any one of a thousand ways. But the big, systemic way, is that they believe that opinion can manage environmental risk. They really believe this. They do so because they have been deprived of the experiences necessary to connect cause and effect between people and their environments.
My advice would be to wack a few sugar bags or flour bags on the floor and let them sort it out from there. It will do them good.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:06 pm
ACCC has already had to take action over alleged false advertising on the Carbon Price and its impact.
Put a big hole in the scare campaign.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:06 pm
PB
Electricity costs have risen dramatically over the past five years. Are consumers reducing their use where possible in light of these increases?
by victoria on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm
the thing that most people are not considering about global warming and the carbon tax issue is that although it may cost money to do something,there is also a monetary cost
to doing nothing,and i refer to the imminent cost increases to insurance.scientists have been reluctant to attribute the cause of catastrophic weather events to gw but they are now just beginning to link them and the frequency world wide,not just here, does seem to be rising.we are paying now indirectly through the tax system and individually through donations but when it becomes personal through our insurance premiums,then people will notice.
i think the conservatives will win this fight short term but reality will get them in the end and they will have irrevocably damaged their brand with the younger generations who will not easily forget that their future was trashed for greed and short term political gain.
by mick smetafor on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:08 pm
57 – 43 it is just unbelievable.
WHY?
Bloody Greens, I know what I would like to do with their stupid bluddy carbon tax, and they can shove the whole environment right up there as well!
by Centre on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:08 pm
JWH convinced the Howard Battlers they deserved to own the universe with no price to pay.
by jenauthor on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm
RBA Board meeting tomorrow. Economic data today is supportive of interest rate cuts (the housing number is a bit of a shocker actually)
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/building-approvals-slide-in-february-20120402-1w7jw.html#ixzz1qqRvevmp
by Laocoon on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm
PatrickB – Jen@415 has said what I wanted to say to you. One of our kids is married, childless, both he and his wife earn decadent salaries for their ages, and both have complained to us about ‘working families’ getting too much help while they get nothing.
We refuse to have whinging kids so you can imagine what we say to them. If things turn down for them in the future just who do they think are going to support our country and them … yep, the kids of working families.
Good article by Mumbles this morning and one for we tragic Laborites to read and memorise. Thanks for the link, Bludgers.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/things_i_dont_believe/
by BH on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I certainly have, and know many others who have too. We probably won’t go on a holiday this year but we’ll have paid off our solar system by the end of it.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Bowen’s presser, is announcing a push to bring skilled workers from the USA for temporary work. As if we need gun-toting religious nutters from a basket case country bringing their fundamentalist craziness here.
whose bright idea was this?
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Pre-GFC skills shortages in the US meant that Oz citizens (particularly truckies) were heading towards the US.
According to the US ambassador just now the focus is on US vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope they are vetted for psychological damage before they arrive.
Other than that, this is a good cheap way of getting grown up people with education and skills without having to pay for them.
It is what the US has been doing for a couple of centuries; our turn now.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm
This is a ridiculous argument. Childless working people produce the absolute lions share of personal tax for the government, and they are perfectly entitled to ask questions when they see friends/relatives/strangers who are apparently living very comfortable lifestyles but paying far less tax due to having achieved the amazing feat of impregnating one another.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I think Patrick you’ve overlooked some basics and you use the very emotive and misleading term punished. You areb’t being punished and u suspect at least the solar panels were subsidized in one or more ways, so you’ve already benefited from charity and having a tanty you aren’t getting more charity when clearly you need none.
Once upon a time liberals wouldn’t have whinged about how much charity they got from the govt. your heroic assumptions about familys (you assume they are both irresponsible and financially capable) are quite special too you demonise them as both irresponsible and wealthy – very clever trick but not very impressive.
by WeWantPaul on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:13 pm
@Centre.
The Green position is clear. We depend on the environment to live. Without that you cannot make profit. Therefore protect longterm profits. Protect the environment.
We all suffer. Little pain financially to save us all greater pain financial and other later.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Ah, wonderful. Centre-lefters hacking away at each other. That should fix the problem. I can just hear the centre righters pissing themlselves laughting a this kamikazi stuff.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Boerwar: in principle I agree with you, but these littlies are foster children. Different rules.
My house must be “vetted” by Families SA to ensure it is child-safe before they will place any children, and once said children are in your care you still have 3 monthly checks to ensure everything is as it should be (from their perspective, that is).
Mostly it is sensible, but sometimes I think their requirements border on nannyism and would never abide by them if I didn’t have to.
As you say; sometimes you just have to let kids be kids.
by Danny Lewis on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Mine never had one. According to my mother, nor did I, or my younger siblings. We had “no nonsense” parents and teachers.
Babies are not naturally afraid of the dark. It’s a learnt response, initially learnt by the first child from parents/ carers.
Just about every non-medical problem a child develops it a learnt response. That’s why those “Tough Nannies tame brats” TV “reality” shows were such hits: the nanny put a stop (or seemed to) to bad habits created by poor parent/ carer responses to baby’s/ toddler’s demands.
by OzPol Tragic on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm
I suppose there is a bright side if Labor get massacred at the election. Abbott will call a DD.
The Greens could start doing something useful in advance I suppose and decide whether or not they should accept a state funeral.
by Centre on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Yes, they were subsidised. The same subsidy was available to everyone in Australia who cared to take advantage of it. As for having the “means” to pay for it, it has not taken a great deal of adjustment to our spending to accommodate it, so I expect pretty much anyone with a modest family income could have elected to do the same.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
I hope Im wrong, but I think this govt is terminally screwed now in 2013. They had a chance with Rudd, but now thats gone too: ALP trashed two leaders with the one move in 2010. Might as well go for legacy reform.
Which brings us to my point: the game then becomes a critical one of preventing Abbott getting a senate majorty which is the nightmare scenario.
With the ALP on 27%, this is a real possibility, and all left-of-centre types need to mobilise to prevent it happening.
by lefty e on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
PB
I too know many that have done this. I have taken steps to minimise electricity use where possible.
We did the same thing with water usage. We installed water tanks years ago, and it has helped reduce water use and costs thereof. I on the other hand, have witnessed first hand people hosing down their drives during the height of the drought, who have not even bothered to collect water in tanks. There will always be those that dont care.
On that note, catch you bludgers later.
by victoria on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
DL
I accept that your individual circumstances are such that the nanny state is nannying you away from sensible parenting.
As with so much in Australian life, legal industry-driven greed has replaced common sense.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Won’t this help the Greens in the senate? As well as other minor parties and independents?
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Boerwar, do not associate a centre party with one on the extreme left.
Have a look at the polls, that’s your problem.
by Centre on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm
PB
Not to one third of Aussies who are renters, I imagine.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Abbott will control the Senate and if the people vote that way, they are entitled to.
by Centre on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:19 pm
An interesting question in my mind – we already have bit problems with there being too many people and not enough housing, yet we now have people refusing to spend money building new housing. How will that play out?
There has been a mini-campaign this past month of people telling the RBA to get its head out of its arse and realise that most of Australia is seeing little benefit from mining. I wonder if it will have any effect.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I think Patrick there is one imbalance in our economic structure that you may have a genuine complaint about: income and consumption is heavily taxed and wealth isn’t. The feat of impregnantion as you so charmingly put it kills income and raises expenses and the system works to help them (and Howard’s legacy is probably over compensate them).
But this ‘punish’ you a man of wisdom and virtue and reward those evil irresponsible and wealthy breeders is really quite silly and one if the worst examples I’ve seen of entitlement issues.
by WeWantPaul on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Hard to see how renters could take advantage of solar panels, unless they mount them on their cars.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Centre
The Labor Party and the Greens party have a fundamental strategic choice: work together to nurture, grow and share the centre-left vote, or hack away at each other in order to achieve righteous MAD.
Currently, they are doing MAD.
IMHO, your attack on the Greens is an example of MAD. Whenever a Green party supporter gets on Bludger and has a slag at the Labor Party, ditto. I believe it will take around 10 years before centre-green voters get sick of the Labor Party and Greens party apparatchiks, hacks and members giving government to a series of rightard governments and demand that the two parties get together and work together.
Before then too many people are going to be emotionally satisified with being ideologically pure rather than compromisingly sensible.
As I said to Pegasus earlier,
Enjoy.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:22 pm
It definitely over compensates them. If their income drops, their tax should drop. But no more than it drops for someone without kids earning the same income. Basically, I regard having children as a personal choice and not something the state should take into account when working out the tax system. It has nothing to do with wealth levels – I am completely fine with those earning a lot to be taxed a lot, so long as those earning a little are still taxed a little even if they have children.
For similar reasons I think the current Medicare tax arrangements are pretty poor.
Again, I have no issues paying tax, so long as everyone else also pays according to their income.
For example, I think family trusts should be abolished, because they are routinely abused by the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Mari, cut and paste cramp actually.
What I’m on about is I’m gettin’ freakin’ angrier by the day.
Why is Australia’s oldest political party, the party responsible for building the place so f8cking inept politically.
by rosemour on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Yes, because nothing bad’s ever come out of a right wing party being elected in the usual way while the public is whipped up into a frenzy over fictional issues and the opposition is weak and divided.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Boerwar stop being ridiculous.
The policies of the Greens and Labor are lightyears apart.
Look, Labor should never had agreed to a carbon tax, their policy was an ETS, very similar to one Howard took to an election, very similar to one supported by half the Liberal Party.
Such a political advantage – all flushed down the toilet because of the stupid Greens in favour of a tax Gillard said she would not adopt before the election.
THAT’S WHY THE POLLS ARE 57 – 43!
by Centre on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Exactly. I honestly believe most of the blame lies with the ALP for the current situation – the venom that you hear from ALP-right types about the Greens is out of control, far worse than the views they express about the Libs.
They need to wake up. The environment is the most fundamental area in which a society-wide approach must be adopted to counter the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism, and should therefore be squarely in the middle of Labor’s agenda. Instead they can’t get away from the (stupid) idea that protecting the environment costs jobs.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Patrick @ 474
No, it’ll kill ‘em off. Abbott’ll pull the DD asap…he’ll still be on his honeymoon after winning the biggest majority since federation. The Know-Nothing Party will then control both houses.
All the benifits of the Rudd/Gillard years – record investment, MRRT, NBN etc – will all start paying big off big time and guess what, it’ll seem to the punters like the good times have returned because the coalition in government.
Holy f7cking clusterf9ck.
I’ve seen the future.
It’s fu4ked.
by rosemour on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:32 pm
I agree with you 100% on family trusts – they are a rort that should be killed soon
by WeWantPaul on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm
patrickbateman
fwiw, the ASX RBA interest rate tracker market moved last week from 73%/27% unchanged/lower to 56%/44% – i.e. move toward expecting a reduction in interest rates, though less than half still. I havent seen today’s number
http://www.asx.com.au/sfe/targetratetracker.htm
by Laocoon on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:34 pm
If Labor adopted the poliocies of the Greens, they would lose EVERY seat in the parliament.
Yes, I agree that a lot of the blame rests with Labor for the state of the polls.
They should have listened, they were warned.
Keep away from the nutcase Greens, they’re bad news!
by Centre on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm
No argument here.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm
just a thought…does the ALP have anyone who does strategy?
I mean anyone, someones cousin? An aunt, family pet? A smart Dalmation?
There’s got to be someone….?
by rosemour on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm
What friggin’ carbon tax?
Seems a lot of us have drunk the cool aid this morning.
by gough1 on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm
You clearly have a balanced view on this issue and it is definitely worth debating with you further.
by Patrick Bateman on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Barrie Cassidy’s piece in the The Drum the other day was right, IMO. Whoever thought letting the PM concede the carbon price operates “as a tax” in that interview is flat out mad, and should have been immediately sacked. It was political madness.
by Burgey on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Not necessarily. I was 6th in a family of 8 children. And the only one who needed a night light. Teased mercilessly by the other kids, but it was parents who were very understanding and supportive of my affliction.
Apparently, if the power went off during the night, I would sit up and scream until mum or dad would come running with a kero lamp. Like a canary down a mine, according to my folks, I was able to warn them that there would be no power to run the dairy, so I gave them the heads up that the generator would be required for milking!
When I was 9 I was diagnosed with nightblindness (nyctalopia).
by kezza2 on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Probably.
Nope.
by ltep on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Channel your anger into making sure TA doesn’t become PM please
by mari on Apr 2, 2012 at 12:38 pm