Newspoll and Essential Research: 56-44 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes reports Newspoll has come in at 56-44 to the Coalition, down from 57-43 last time, which exactly matches Essential Research’s progress over the last week. In Newspoll’s case, the picture on the primary vote is very much the same as a fortnight ago, with Labor, the Coalition and the Greens all up a point at the expense of “others”, to 29%, 48% and 12%. Personal ratings offer multiple stings in the tail for Julia Gillard. Where last time she was up three points on approval and down four on disapproval, those results have exactly reversed, putting her back at 28% approval and 62% disapproval. Tony Abbott has seized the lead as preferred prime minister, gaining four to 41% with Gillard down one to 39%, and his approval rating is up three to 35% with disapproval down four to 54%. GhostWhoVotes also relates that Gillard’s “trustworthiness” rating is down from 61% to 44% since the 2010 election, with Abbott’s down from 58% to 54%. Presumably this portends a battery of attitudinal results concerning the two leaders.
Essential Research had the primary votes at 48% for the Coalition (down two), 31% for Labor (steady) and 11% for the Greens (steady). Also featured were its monthly personal ratings, which had Julia Gillard’s approval steady at 32% and her disapproval down three to 58%, Tony Abbott’s respectively up two to 38% and down two to 50%, and Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister shifting from 40-37 to 38-36. Support for the National Broadband Network was up a point since February to a new high of 57% with opposition down three to 22%, and 46% saying they will either definitely or probably sign up for it. There was also a question on appropriate areas for federal and state responsibility, with the states only coming out heavily on top for public transport and “investing in regional areas”.
I now offer a Senate-tacular review of recent happenings relating to the upper chamber, where it’s all happening at the moment:
• There has been talk lately about the potential make-up of the Senate if the Coalition wins next year’s election in a landslide, which might upset long-held assumptions about the political calculus under an Abbott government. Half-Senate elections usually result in each state’s six seats splitting three left and three right, and the territories’ two seats invariably go one Labor and one Coalition. However, four and two results have not been unknown, usually involving Labor winning three and the Coalition two with the last seat going to the Greens or the Democrats. The only four-right, two-left results were when John Howard gained control of the Senate at the 2004 election, in Queensland (four Coalition and two Labor) and Victoria (three Coalition, two Labor, one Family First). There is also the occasional unclassifiable like Nick Xenophon, who is up for re-election in South Australia next year and presumably likely to win, and perhaps even Julian Assange, of whose aspirations we have heard nothing further.
The difficulty for the Coalition is that a four-left, two-right result in Tasmania at the 2010 election (three Labor, two Liberal and one Greens) will carry over to the next parliament. However, on the basis of Newspoll’s recent state breakdowns it is easy to envision this being counterbalanced by a four-right, two-left result in Queensland, either through a repeat of 2004 or, perhaps, a Katter’s Australian Party Senator joining three from the LNP. This would leave the left with 38 and the right with 37 (including the thus-far low-profile Victorian Senator John Madigan of the DLP, a carryover from 2010), plus Xenophon – still leaving the left with a blocking majority, even when Xenophon voted with the right. However, the Queensland election wipeout and a further dive in Labor’s federal poll ratings encourages contemplation of further four-right, two-left results in New South Wales and Western Australia. Assuming no cross-ideological preference deals such as that which produced Family First’s win in Victoria in 2004, a rough benchmark here is that the combined Labor and Greens vote would need to fall to about 40%. This compares with Labor-plus-Greens results in 2010 of 42.2% in Queensland, 43.7% in Western Australia and 47.2% in New South Wales. Any two such results would be enough to get the carbon tax repealed, given the likely support of Xenophon, and all three would leave a Coalition government similarly placed to its state counterpart in New South Wales, where Labor and the Greens can be overruled with the support of the Shooters Party and the Christian Democratic Party.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
geoffrey – Kev-07 is a perfect example of ‘whatever’ popular stuff it takes to win is OK.
If you are OK with that and Kev is God or Dog feel free to advocate.
I’m not a ‘fan’.
by CTar1 on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Abbott
will not allow many neutrals in his community talk fest, if someone praises the government or ask him an difficult question, the are quietly rejected
by Meguire Bob on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:41 pm
The floating of the dollar happened very soon after Hawke won government, and much of the foundation work was done in the death throws of the Fraser government, and yes, it was a good idea. Much of what the Hawke government did at the start was good (including working towards the GST, indeed saying something like “if we dont get this GST through we don’t deserve to be in government” or words to that effect, purely on memory from nearly 30 yrs ago!!!).
I have no problem with you mentioning Keating.
Bring him up as much as you like.
Print Billboards of his face and plant them at every election booth if you like (you might even manage to get the Liberal Party to pay for it if you play your cards right)
by Mod Lib on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:42 pm
How odd.
You consider the term kiddy fiddly to be demeaning.
You conjure suicide victim.
Then, say
you consider me a lightweight!
Whoopdeedoo.
Couldn’t give a stuff, quite frankly.
I long ago assigned the Catholic religion to the bin.
by kezza2 on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Well the Libs had a practice run pulling troops out of Afghanistan so it came easy.
by PAAPTSEF on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Mod Lib: No, Labor has to take some of the blame as well.
As I have said before, if they had gone in hard and loud on the “lie” from Day 1 (as well as nailing Abbott to the wall on his own broken election promise from 2007) then the whole situation may have been largely defused.
HOWEVER, anyone with any ounce of economic nous knows what is coming in is NOT a carbon tax. Abbott has a degree in Economics, as have many other Coalition MPs. Labor should have been calling them economic dunces every time they called it a tax. Doubly so for the media who have gleefully perpetuated the “lie” meme for their own cynical purposes.
The FACT is that it is not a tax. Never has been, never will be. She did not break her election promise and those claiming she did are idiots, liars or both.
by Danny Lewis on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/hot–topics-greet-abbott-in-wantirna-20120417-1x52y.html#ixzz1sHzfWU1W
liozzie – The forum today was in front of a Liberal crowd as usual so I take it the Launceston forum was stacked with Liberal members and supporters as well.
by BH on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Toyota getting a smacking on 7.5
by This little black duck on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:45 pm
I’m really beginning to feel uncomfortable about this hung parliament alliance with the Greens.
Christine Milne saying that the “Coalition should give the government some air on the budget” really made me angry. It assumes that the ALP fundamentally don’t believe in surpluses (an Abbott like lie) and that they should just follow foolish Fairfax journalists like Tim Colebatch and mediawhore economists like Chris Richardson instead of their own judgement and that of the Treasury etc.
Not only this, but a lot of Greens have started to make a lot of noise around issues like the Afghanistan pull out (not good enough for them), Gonski, business tax cuts and of course the WA Greens senator’s Newstart stunt (you challenge the person who doesn’t believe their’s a problem to do it, not yourself).
This is not good stuff for the ALP and merely strengthens Abbott’s hand as one of his key reasons for being in politics is to split the left as often and in as many ways as possible.
I’m uncertain as to how long this hung parliament alliance can last past July 1st, but I also sense the PM has a strategy in regards to dealing with this, so we shall wait and see.
by spur212 on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:45 pm
BH
Abbott loose with the truth. wtte we’ll have a bigger surplus so we’ll have lots of money to give you.
In other words,, Never mind what I say now, wait till I’m PM and all your wishes will come true.
by lizzie on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/hot–topics-greet-abbott-in-wantirna-20120417-1x52y.html#ixzz1sI0MzvxB
Doesn’t it just make you feel all gooey!
by BH on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Now, the catholic church in Victoria.
by This little black duck on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Andrew Wilkie : this pull-out of Afghanistan is merely political.
That man is never satisfied.
by lizzie on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:48 pm
BH
Only if “gooey” is a synonym vomitous
by poroti on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:48 pm
BH
Gooey as in sick at heart …
by lizzie on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Anyone got a photo of Tone with his hand on his heart?
by This little black duck on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Henry , well done with 2gb. Bet you don’t get on again, your number will be flagged. I like 499 too , still catching up.
by Lord Barry Bonkton on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Victorian A-G thinks an “informal” inquiry is better for the victims. Seems the victims don’t agree.
by This little black duck on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:51 pm
TLBD – And followed with a fist in the air?
by CTar1 on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Danny Lewis
OC nailed it earlier.
JG should never have agreed it was a tax.
Simple as that.
I remember the interview clear as day.
Ewart referred to it as a tax and asked if it was okay to do same.
JG said, after saying that there had been a war on words about “price” that she was happy/it was okay to call it a tax.
PM’s can be forgiven for stuffing up, but that was ONE BIG STUFF UP.
Who didn’t know that TAX was a dirty word?
(rhetorical question, zoom)
Every time I think of that interview, I get a picture of JG bending down to pat the cat, not quite hearing the question and, being distracted, answering the way she did.
She should have immediately said:
NO, it’s not a tax.
What we have here is a tradeable commodity.
It’s like selling, say, a poddy calf.
Instead of subjecting the poddy calf to market forces
we’ve decided on a fixed price for the first three years,
after that the price will be what the market dictates.
Fkn tragedy!
by kezza2 on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Then how do you explain Gillard saying “I am happy to use the word tax” on the 7:30 report when asked that specific question?
by Mod Lib on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Who wants to have dinner with Bob Hawke. I got an email today about this
http://t.co/x3n6QfQn
by BH on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm
If it isn’t a tax how is the government funding the reduction in company tax, the personal tax cuts, the clean energy spending etc. and so on.
The problem is not what the PM said, but the lie that a carbon trading system is not a tax.
by fredn on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm
CTar1,
At the same time. Mind you, raising his LEFT arm might be a bit of a problem for him.
This assumes his heart is on the left.
by This little black duck on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm
She didn’t.
by This little black duck on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I think geoffrey does not understand my dislike of Kev-07:
The ‘NSW Right’ do this by themselves? And failed?
by CTar1 on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:57 pm
In the 30 odd years I’ve followed politics Gillard and Swan have to be the most politically inept duo to bumble onto the government benches.
The ALP will lose next year while ever Gillard and Swan remain.
Still, when they lose next year they will leave a hell of a legacy and 2 or 3 terms in opposition to find a decent leadership team.
Oh, and a few strategists with some brains would help.
by rosemour on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:57 pm
yes she did really @874
In her first interview she as good as conceded the point.
She was stupid stupid to have done it.
by rosemour on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:58 pm
@BH/860
There’s an old saying, if it’s too good to be true, then it probably is.
by zoidlord on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:59 pm
[BH
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink
Who wants to have dinner with Bob Hawke. I got an email today about this
http://t.co/x3n6QfQn
Can I pay for Paul Keating to go with a handheld?
by Mod Lib on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:00 pm
The problem with your question is, you know it’s crap.
Have some respect for yourself and admit that it’s not a tax, but that JG made a stuff up.
To your advantage of course. But that is wilfully trading on ignorance, my friend.
by kezza2 on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Add in Abbott and Hockey and I’ll give you a Bingo!
by Mod Lib on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Modlib, this is a “silly little collateral debate”
by PAAPTSEF on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Mod Lib: if you remember the context in which she made the original comment – Abbott had been out and about spruiking a direct tax as a better option and then insisting that what Labor had planned WAS a tax – her intention was clear. They were not going to bring in the sort of “tax” Abbott was talking about. AND THEY HAVEN’T.
Secondly, in terms of that Ewert interview, she was making the point that various people (ie Abbott) had started to jump up and down and insist it was a tax. She was saying – rightly, as it turns out, that people were going to call it whatever suited their particular political bent. The government were going to call it what it was – carbon PRICING – but no doubt the Liberals were going to call it a tax. What she did not anticipate (and whether or not she should have is moot) is that the media would WHOLEHEARTEDLY decide to call it a tax as well. Only the very best of our media do not refer to it as a tax, but they tend to be those in lesser-read journals or behind the paywall. And not by accident, one might suggest.
Whilst I agree with Lizzie’s point that it was a bad political misstep, I think the worst you can accuse Gillard of is being overly optimistic. Believing that an intelligent media will report your policies intelligently is, well, naive to say the least, but in an honest and non-partisan world, should be the norm rather than the exception.
by Danny Lewis on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:04 pm
No she wasn’t, when she said there would be no tax she was dealing with the two names given to the two options, one is called a tax, the other a trading system.
When she conceded the trading system was a tax she was being honest. The trading system is really a tax, both transfer funds to the government sector year in year out.
by fredn on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:04 pm
805 ML
Surely an apples and oranges comparison. NSW in 16 years and probably should have been out in 07 or maybe even 03. Qld somewhat similar with 14 years and again a borrowed time thing with Beattie surviving one and then Bligh getting home before having to abandon most of her assurances. No evidence of federal Labor impropriety or corruption.
Their more logical federal comparison is with Howard in 07, finally running out of steam after 11 years. He should probably have gone in 04, but was able to exploit public uncertainty about Latham.
This government is moving up towards 5 years. Tricot is right that there’s a fair way to go yet before you can write them off. Is there a coherent alternative on offer?
by Gorgeous Dunny on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Err, “I’m happy for you to call it a tax.”
by This little black duck on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm
I am blushing with embarrassment at such flattery! Do continue.
Where am I? Way behind and catching up. Had 2 busy days and late nights.
by bemused on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm
…finally, we are starting to get somewhere. If you want to argue, like Danny, that she stuffed up then we can have a sensible debate, and I might agree with you. Actually, my view is that the Channel 10 interview was the stuff up. A fixed price for something can be called a tax, but you should never say “Never, ever” (and yes I do appreciate the meaning of using this phrase) when you are talking about very subtle issues.
If you say she meant “There will be not permanent fixed price for carbon under a government I lead because I will be implementing a market based mechanism with a brief period of fixed pricing”.
The truth of the matter is she has made monumental flaws throughout (not asking East Timor before anouncing a processing centre there rings a bell, community forum, Medicare gold….).
by Mod Lib on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm
The bad political misstep is to pretend the trading system is not a tax, unless that truth comes out, the question has to be asked “where is the money come from”?
by fredn on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm
She humoured a dumb-as-dog-shit reporter when she shouldn’t have about a transitional aspect?
I’d like to think I would have said ‘get stuffed’.
I’m sure, with 30 seconds of deflection to a irrelevant point, you’d manage not to answer at all – a point of glory and a claim of real ‘Victory’!
Come-on-down.
by CTar1 on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:08 pm
lizzie – gooey as in sick to my stomach. I cannot believe the bloke can tell such bald faced lies and get away with it. I’ve never seen anything like it before. Howard was a sneaky bloke but Abbott is out there on is own for being a cunning fella.
by BH on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Err, no.
Lets go to the tape:
by Mod Lib on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:09 pm
fredn,
PBers have many many times pointed out why it is not a tax.
Have you not been paying attention or … ?
by This little black duck on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Any other 730 scripts you are fond of Mod Lib?
by PAAPTSEF on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:12 pm
@Mod Lib/892
She may have said she was happy to use the word tax, but it’s Carbon Market Based Mechanism.
It is Heather putting words in JG’s mouth by saying it’s carbon tax, as is everyone else is.
by zoidlord on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:13 pm
I gone to the trouble of working out how it works, no amount of bullshit will change the facts. All you have done is open up the question, “where is the money coming from”.
As you want to pretend it isn’t a tax, let me ask you, where is the money coming from?
by fredn on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm
I just call it a far, far better approach to global warming than Mr Abbott’s DAP.
by Boerwar on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:15 pm
I think they have used up all the new government honeymoon and gone straight to the “we are sick of you” vibe. We shall see whether this is right or not soon enough.
by Mod Lib on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Yes, I know, it is always someone else fault.
The ALP and all who sail in her, are perfect.
Pity the ship is heading for an iceberg…
by Mod Lib on Apr 17, 2012 at 8:17 pm