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-
geewhiz@626referred to “too many union hacks in Canberra”.
Could he expand on what exactly is a union hack and on how many of these so-called hacks live in Canberra. Obviously he believes it to be a large number, enough to swing an election!
Get real, man and stop writing silly slogans.
by Brian Mc on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:28 pm
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/carbon-price-schizophrenia#.T3kbioXV3Go.twitter
Great link, GG.
The Labor party and the government itself should be gathering this information for use in advertising.
by Gorgeous Dunny on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Brian Mc. is union hack a choice on the census?
by middle man on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm
by ruawake on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Labor has a primary vote at the very best at the moment of around 27%. That leaves it 23% short.
120%* of 23% is 27.6%** growth of primary votes to the right that Labor has to go in order to form government in its own right in the House, which, I assume, is the point of your strategic approachy. Of course it will never form government in its own right in the Senate under this model.
*It needs an additional 20% for every 100% of votes gained to cover the bleed in Greens preferences.
**assumes that Labor loses 1 vote to the Greens for every vote it gains from the Liberals. This seems to tally with what is happening at the moment but I am sure that a psephologist would be able to explore the relationship between Coalition-Labor-Greens better than that.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:31 pm
So, Kezza 2, your screaming was due to a defined medical (optical) problem. I note you failed to include, from my post, the following Just about every non-medical problem a child develops it a learnt response. Very handy, leaving that out! Put it in & you don’t have a case.
I added it because a have a defined medical (optical) problem which meant
* (a) getting into constant trouble, and being derided, for failing to catch/ hit balls during games, falling off bikes & having permanently scraped knees etc
* (b) being light sensitive,
* (c) needing yellowish- spectrum uninterrupted (ie sun, incandescent) light, because interrupted blue-spectrum light (neon/ e’bulb) aggravates my visual problems. In 1973-4, OH & I built this house with neon lights for all but our bedroom and my library – because they added to my visual problems.
You may not see a neon/ ebulb’s faint flickering (unless it’s “dying”); but Neon/ebulb lights also affect epileptics, optical migraine sufferers, schizophrenics (maybe others); some seriously, some very seriously indeed. In addition:
*Operating some machinery without having a non-neon light over the section being operated (over all OH’s metalworking machinery) is banned, so that also requires a shift to expensive QH lights when incandescent did an excellent job.
I and others who have problems with neon/ ebulb lights can no longer buy incandescent lights – I’ve tried – and must use very expensive & dangerous (in some circumstances) quartz halogen which, when used as a bed light, last a shorter time than incandescents (despite costing about 5 times as much) & are NOT a good or safe alternative.
Green ill-informed monomania has cost those listed above & me the ability to purchase the most suitable – and cheapest- lights for our medical conditions – another of the reasons I remain a dedicated greenie but no longer give Greens my compulsory preferential vote, or preferences if I find worthier candidates. Thinking through all aspects of their demands is not a Greens’ characteristic.
by OzPol Tragic on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:31 pm
A union hack is someone in a union pushing the union line that Labor is good and the Liberals are bad because the Libs want a pay-to-performance system whereas the union wants a everyone-gets-paid-the-same-amount-even-if-you-are-lazy system.
Under a Lib system hard workers are rewarded, not punished… but unions hate that.
by GeeWizz on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:32 pm
guytaur
Overseas they have more long weekends and longer annual leave entitlements than Australia. We are completely dudded with our paid leave in this country. Time to copy other OECD countries. (you are talking OECD aren’t you, not Sweatshophalia?)
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:33 pm
I reckon if Guytaur wants to work on the weekends for the same pay as someone working Monday to Friday he should be encouraged to do so.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:35 pm
@Middleman
Just as Asia can learn from us so we cn learn from Asia. Not having an officilal weekend is Asia. Having fair wages is us.
Oing this would be a win win as far as I can see
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Bushfire Bill is one of a minority on this blog who understand that the constant and repetition of the lie, that Julia lied before the 2010, by the Shock Jocks and the Coalition is a major factor of why the ALP is where it is in the Polls.
As far as Daretoread and her son not voting for Labor. Why would he vote Labor if he heard her constant complaints about the ALP?
Also as to how people are suffering in QD and elsewhere.I have 3 sons from 39 to 43 years old and all working, one of them in Gladstone Qld and earning great money, has just bought a house and looking to buy another within 12 months, none have a tertiary education. I have 2 grandchildren of working age and both working, another in high school working part time and has just bought herself a car. None of my family are struggling. Oh I am on the pension and not struggling.
by Muskiemp on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:38 pm
@GeeWizz/655
The problem with performance based systems is:
1. CEO’s are not performance based and neither is Management level.
2. What can be good under a performance based system can be used for abuse.
by zoidlord on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:39 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/
Interesting survey
by mari on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:39 pm
guytaur. implementing policy without regard for local social traditions is bit dumb in my opinion.
by middle man on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Just been watching yesterday’s “Meet the Press” interview with Julia Gillard. Hugh Riminton kept cutting Gillard off and the panel consisted of Michelle Grattan and Greg Sheridan.
Why does she bother to appear for that interviewer and such a panel? Who was she trying to woo? Surely Paul Bongiorno would be more polite?
by billie on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Thank you, I am a little like you, I have daughters who have very good jobs as have their spouses, all tertiary educated and all will vote ALP at next election, even though they will be affected by the Medicare reform, the though of Tony Abbott is enough to scare them off Libs only thing is one of them would consider voting for Malcolm Turnbull if he replaced TA
by mari on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:44 pm
@middleman
The point is that cultural tradition is changing. Highlighted by the fact the banks who thought up the idea of bank holidays now want to ditch such concepts.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Docantk
Useful stuff, but for Labor to get close, the P vote needs to be higher.
In WA, you have rightfully picked two seats that, provided there is an inkling of support for Labor here, they should win. They were tough not to win Hasluck last time and with an ounce of luck could have won the other with Alana McTiernan.
And what a difference just those two seats alone might have made!
I have often made the point that the closer the polls get to 50-50 the more the Liberals need to fear about marginals – as they actually have more of them to lose
However it is all academic unless the missing 8% or so of the vote, nominally Labor, is residing in “other” or sleeping with the enemy.
At the moment, the waters are muddied by the leadership challenge just a few weeks ago and the Queensland demolition – even closer.
I sense the benchmark time will be after the 2013 budget. If by then the CT stuff and other negative stuff has not washed through, and there are no more state elections where the “It’s time factor” is writ large, then it will become clearer where things might be headed.
Our esteemed host tells us over 30% of the electorate do not make up their mind which way to vote until the actual day of the election itself.
My view if it is 57-43 a week out from the election to the conservatives, might as well slit the wrists and be done with it! Only joking!
Much prefer to have lots of energy to then turn the heat on the conservatives who will come up with a million reasons why they can’t keep their elections promises. I wonder if we will hear anything about ‘lies’ then?
I think not.
by Tricot on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Umm, there is asia and there is asia. In some asian countries people will allow themselves to be screwed to the floor for work at any pay and at any time. It is that, or starve.
Is that what is being advocated here?
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm
GG @611
The Newsroom looks like another winner from Aaron “The West Wing” Sorkin. One for the dvd collection for sure.
by Dan Gulberry on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm
no guytaur. cultural tradition isn’t changing. business is trying to change cultural tradition so it suits its need.
by middle man on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Not really. The real problem with performance-based systems for CEOs and management in the private sector is that CEOs and managers will skew outcomes to fit the parameters for their bonuses.
This was actually one of the primary drivers for the GFC.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:48 pm
@Boerwar
Absolutely not. A fair days pay for a fair days work HAS TO remain part of Australias makeup.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Boerwar @ 629
That is rubbish!
The ALP gets about 80% of Greens preferences because the Greens have attracted votes from disgruntled ALP voters. The votes then go to the ALP as preferences.
The Fibs get about 20% of Greens preferences because the Greens have attracted votes from disgruntled Coalition voters. The votes then go back to the coalition as preferences.
That describes the bulk of it and ignores the small number of idiosyncratic individuals who don’t quite fit this pattern.
by bemused on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Yes, they are staggered if they get one.
by poroti on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:50 pm
@Boerwar/670
That would be filled under abuse of the system.
Which was my other point.
My new point would that if you’re mates with the CEO/Management, then you get good performance level, but if they hate you, you’ll just crap pay.
by zoidlord on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:50 pm
@Middleman
Yes the culture is changing. Not all religions demand a Sunday off. The basis for the weekend as inherited from the UK.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Dan,
Yes, will certainly excite the mediatariat.
Sorkin is a wonderful writer.
by Greensborough Growler on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm
guytaur
Well, IMHO, what makes it ‘fair’ in Australia is that you get paid to work extra to work when everyone else is having fun, socialising, watching the footie, taking their kids to the beach, etc, etc.
You don’t apparently.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/02/flannery-hits-back-at-ipa-polling-on-his-credibility/
more in the article
by Leroy on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm
yes weekends were initially for religious observance. however they have long since become secular traditions. it has nothing to do with religion.
by middle man on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Boerwar,
Your grasp of numbers is weak.
Labor needs to get it’s primary to the high 30s to win given the Greens will secure about 10%. If the Greens get less, Labor needs a higher primary vote.
Most polls have the Libs sitting on about 47% atm. I’d suggest getting 10% from them would be the first priority for the political smarties.
Also, votes don’t peal off to the Greens at the same rate as they are gained from the Libs.
Playing house with the Greens will not win Government for the ALP.
by Greensborough Growler on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:58 pm
z
If they hate you it is usually because you are f*cking up the workplace by causing conflicts, keeping the managers sleepless at nights, causing application of the 5%-95% rule, being an all-round pain in the arse to your peers, generally slacking off, and insulting the clients; meanwhile whinging mightilty about a lack of communication and consultation. Such folk are often upwards bullies. In my experience, just because of the proportions involved, there are numerically more workers like that than there are bosses.
There is a serious problem with the bosses who are psychopaths. These guys are severe problems regardless of the pay-based systems.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:59 pm
@Boerwr
No I do not. With staggered weekends everyone i in the same boat. Thus there is no penalty if your weekend is Wednesday and Thursday instead of Saturday Sunday. Everyone will be doing the same. This will increae productivity with smll effort as the economy becomes 7 days a week. Just in a fair way, instead of forced change driving down wages as is occurring now even with penalty rates.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Dear PM @JuliaGillard So finally Tony Abbott has admitted that he got a big NANNY TAX on 3300 businesses to pay the Parental Leave #auspol
by The Finnigans on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:01 pm
I thought the same about that ABC interview, but she really has no alternative but to do all this stuff.
If she knocked back the opportunity she’d be labelled a coward and the howls of ‘Julia is avoiding the media’ would be deafening. So she takes every opportunity to put her case out there and she gets criticised for doing so. Not only that – she has to smile and remain calm while dealing with rude interviewers as well. A man would be allowed to show at least some exasperation, the PM can’t even do that, she has to remain calm and pleasant or she’ll just be dismissed as bitchy and out of control.
The woman can’t win, no matter what she does or does not do. I’m sure she knows this. You have to admire her guts, she just keeps on going, no matter what. I’ve been around a very long time, I can’t remember a male PM who has been treated as badly by the msm as Julia Gillard has been treated nor one who has been publically treated so abusively. I can’t remember any male PM who has continued to be a shining example of how to be have gracefully under pressure.
by leone on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:01 pm
@Boerwar/682
They could be jealous too that you are doing a good job at the place.
You not need to F*cking up a place to piss off CEO/Management.
by zoidlord on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Essential has been the less volatile of the polls although it does come up with results consistent with the others. After trending back to Labor for several months and settling around 54/46 it appears there is a trend away from Labor recently. The trust issue for the PM has been a problem and it appears the leadership spill may have just cemented that problem.
by DavidWH on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:02 pm
@leone
The Media hated Bob Brown pointing this out.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:04 pm
That does nothing for young families. The kids will be home all day on Saturday and Sunday, whereas Mum and Dad will be at home during the week. Probanl on different days as well.
That’s hardly conducive to family bonding.
Then again as long as our corporate master’s needs are served (read “productivity”), families are irrelevant aren’t they.
by Dan Gulberry on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:05 pm
GG
My calculations are based on Labor losing a vote to the Greens for every vote it gains from the Liberals and for the Greens to keep preferencing at 80%. These are the critical assumptions. If the assumptions are correct, then Labor has to get far more than in high thirties primary vote to win.
If Labor gains 10% from the Liberals and loses 10%*80% to the Greens then the Labor would be at 27% + 10% – 10%*80% = to give you a total of 35% of the 2PP.
This is certainly a critical assumption for your strategy. I believe that William provided some ‘identifier’ figures which do, in fact, show that as Labor lost ‘identifiers’ the Greens were picking them up. If so, then the sums should realy be based on gain 1 Liberal, lost 1 Labor to the Greens.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Boerwar @ 690
As I explained above @ 673, that assumption is flawed.
by bemused on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Z
I do know of some weaker managers who were jealous of good performers amongst their staff. But they were rarer than hen’s teeth. OTOH, the overwhelming majority of managers that I know and knew were only too grateful for top quality staff doing a top quality job.
Years after the event, I recall them fondly.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm
@Dan.
Families manage now. As things change it gets easier. You are assuming school hours would stay the say.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm
School ours stay the same.
by guytaur on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Boerwar,
You are totally confusing yourself. Please don’t try and drag me into your tawdry little numerical nightmare.
Nowhere is it assumed that Labor will shed votes at the same rate as they gain them from the Libs.
by Greensborough Growler on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm
b
There is no evidence that this is case, I believe. I would be happy to see it if you can provide some.
There is no evidence that this is the case, I believe. I would be happy to see it if you can provide some.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm
GG
I am not trying to be tawdry but I am interested in sorting it out.
Your strategy assumes that as Labor gains primary votes from Liberal voters it will not shed primary voters to the Greens at the same rate. On the basis of the available statistical information, this is a questionable assumption.
(1) William posted the other day that showed Greens gathering ‘identify as Greens’ as Labor was losing ‘identify with Labor’. That, at least is statistical.
(2) With around 13% polling for Greens and Labor polling at around 27% Labor is losing large numbers of primary votes at the Greens.
(3) With Coalition primaries at very high levels historically, it is difficult to argue that the Greens are picking up primaries from the Liberals.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Vale Jimmy Little.
by middle man on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm
mm
Yep. A good bloke.
by Boerwar on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm