Budget polling: Nielsen, Galaxy and Morgan
Four polls: one from Nielsen, conducted on the two nights after the budget (Wednesday and Thursday) from a sample of 1200; one from Galaxy, conducted on Thursday evening and during the day yesterday from a sample of 600; a Morgan phone poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday evening from a sample of 571; and a Morgan face-to-face poll conducted last weekend from a sample of 1004. Galaxy only canvassed opinion on the budget; Nielsen and the Morgan phone poll canvassed the budget and voting intention; the Morgan face-to-face poll, obviously, missed the budget and only looked at voting intention.
First on voting intention. Nielsen and the Morgan phone poll are in agreement on two-party preferred, which amounts to a combined sample of 1771 putting the result at 58-42 to the Coalition. On the primary vote, Nielsen has Labor up a point on the previous poll six weeks ago to 28%, the Coalition up two to 49% and the Greens down one to 12%. Even allowing for the small sample and high margin of error, the state breakdowns offer the truly extraordinary result of a Labor primary vote in Queensland of 19%, compared with a previous worst of 21% in July last year (and perhaps suggesting a honeymoon for the state government has added a bit of fuel to federal Labor’s recent poll collapse). Remarkably, the poll still has Labor ahead 54-46 in Victoria.
Morgan’s phone poll has the primary votes at 29% for Labor, 50.5% for the Coalition and 10% for the Greens. The face-to-face poll has Labor’s primary vote at 29.5%, down half a point on their previous worst-ever result in the last poll of April 21/22 (there was evidently no polling conducted on the weekend of April 28/29). The Coalition was also down two points, to 45.5%, and with the Greens steady at 12%, the slack has been taken up by “others”. At 13%, the latter figure is at levels unseen since One Nation and the Democrats were substantial concerns, although other, more reliable polls aren’t replicating this. Records have also been set on the two-party preferred figures: the 60.5-39.5 respondent-allocated result is Labor’s worst ever, but the gap between this figure and the 55.5-44.5 previous-election result is also at an all-time high, the previous highest being two polls ago in early April.
Regarding the budget:
• Nielsen and Galaxy both asked respondents if it would leave them better or worse, producing results of 27% better off and 43% worse off in Nielsen’s case, and 23% and 46% in Galaxy’s.
• Morgan has 19% rating the budget good, 43% average and 25% bad; 29.5% believing the surplus would eventuate and 60% believing it wouldn’t; and 49% considering a surplus important and 47.5% believing otherwise. The latter result is remarkably different to what Essential Research elicited a month ago when it framed the question thus: “Do you think it is more important for the Government to return the budget to surplus by 2012/13 as planned – which may mean cutting services and raising taxes – OR should they delay the return to surplus and maintain services and invest in infrastructure?” That produced respective results of 12% and 73%.
• Galaxy asked if respondents believed the Coalition would have done better, which is the one question that allows ready comparison with the three questions Newspoll has been asking after each budget since the late 1980s (Newspoll also asks about impact on personal finances, but it explicitly offers respondents an “unchanged” option which invariably proves very popular). The results were 29% yes and 43% no, which is a surprisingly positive result for the government (or, more likely, a negative one for the opposition) – better for them than Newspoll’s 2010 and 2011 results, and close to Newspoll’s long-term averages of 29.5% and 47.6%.
• Galaxy also found only 17% anticipating that carbon tax compensation would be adequate against 62% who said it would not be.
So much for the good news for Julia Gillard. Personal ratings from Nielsen show up the following:
• Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred Labor leader has further blown out, to 62-30 in a head-to-head contest with Gillard from 58-34 when the question was last asked immediately before the leadership challenge.
• With other leadership options included, the results are 42% for Rudd, 19% for Gillard, 12% for Stephen Smith, 9% for Simon Crean, 8% for Bill Shorten and 4% for Greg Combet.
• Tony Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister has blown out from 48-45 to 50-42, returning him to where he was in September.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Ahhh thanks .. I heard a bit of insiders in the car while travelling must have been there I heard it.
by WeWantPaul on May 14, 2012 at 11:17 am
Persecutor, prosecutor, judge and jury. This dangerous moron should stick to his job.
by WeWantPaul on May 14, 2012 at 11:20 am
This was the puff piece some little time back in March that I think was the Abbott attempt to scotch rumours.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/it-was-a-women-thing-so-tony-found-his-inner-snag-20120324-1vqwi.html
by joe2 on May 14, 2012 at 11:21 am
Could be bad news for Whales in the Southern Ocean.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/attempted-murder-probe-antiwhaling-skipper-faces-deportation-20120514-1ylpf.html
by guytaur on May 14, 2012 at 11:21 am
The budget hasn’t passed yet, only one budget measure (the ‘schoolkids bonus’).
by ltep on May 14, 2012 at 11:28 am
Guesses for tomorrow’s OZ front page:
Poll Despair – Gillard numbers crunched
Budget Blues kill Gillard hopes
Swan Song for Labor – Despair now terminal
Budget Swamped by Ugly Numbers
The People’s Choice – Tony Abbott
It’s Over – Budget kills off Gillard
etc etc
by al palster on May 14, 2012 at 11:30 am
I know there’s still a lot to play out, but perhaps JG is just a better tactician than people give her credit for. (Because OMG THE POLLS ARE BAD SO EVERYTHING SHE DOES IS BAD.)
As for tomorrow’s newspaper headlines, I predict at least one article about how the bad poll shows that the ‘class warfare’ strategy has failed.
by rishane on May 14, 2012 at 11:31 am
So “I am Dr Yes” flip-flops back to “Dr No” – how surprisement.
by Jaeger on May 14, 2012 at 11:33 am
I hope this can be opened (can someone let me know if the URL works), otherwise its free to register.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/health-retail-manufacturing-Australian-dollar-AUD–pd20120514-U9THM?opendocument&src=idp&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=40617&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary
by Leroy on May 14, 2012 at 11:34 am
by guytaur on May 14, 2012 at 11:34 am
guytaur,
How can you tell!
by Greensborough Growler on May 14, 2012 at 11:35 am
yes, al palster, [news laundering] is their specialty.
by joe2 on May 14, 2012 at 11:37 am
Goodness me the journos are very upset with Bill Shorten for challenging rumours about HIS private life. Anyone would think the media was saving them up to release when they were ready for the next government scandal.
by roaldan1000 on May 14, 2012 at 11:37 am
rishane
I always feel that JG is two steps ahead of the pack
by victoria on May 14, 2012 at 11:37 am
Kevin Andrews declares that the Budget has “unravelled” within one week.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:40 am
Now saying that the education bonus will be spent on plasma TVs and Pink Batts (WTF?)
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:41 am
He forgot the pokies.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:41 am
BB
The coalition are the ones unravelling. No one has figured it out yet
by victoria on May 14, 2012 at 11:42 am
These guys are talking as if they are already in government. Talking about how “we” will sit down with the states on the NDIS.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:44 am
Oooh. I have just had some of my work plagiarised by a major government report. Not happy. No referencing. Very disappointed.
by bluegreen on May 14, 2012 at 11:46 am
Joe O Brien lets slip ABC sensitivity on questions of bias
by guytaur on May 14, 2012 at 11:46 am
No Code Of Conduct for the Libs. Prissy knows guilt or innocence when he sees it.
And he has a dig at Slipper by mentioning “sexual harassment”.
The man knows no standards. His mind is in a gutter’s gutter.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:47 am
by guytaur on May 14, 2012 at 11:48 am
bluegreen, you should contact the body responsible for a report and ask them to print a correction.
by ltep on May 14, 2012 at 11:48 am
Does anyone know the consequences for not attributing work? Is their any redress I can seek?
by bluegreen on May 14, 2012 at 11:49 am
JohD
I’ve only had time to dip into it very superficially, but it seemed to me to be pretty lightweight – look at some documents, come to some vague conclusion, ask Thomson for his comments, write the paragraph and move on. Have I summed it up accurately? I didn’t see much evidence of having spoken to other possible witnesses, considered the broad context, etc, but perhaps that was because I haven’t had time to read much of it.
I’ve suggested before that the reason there are so many allegations against Thomson is perhaps that he DIDN’T destroy the paper trail, possibly because he didn’t think he had anything to hide. Wholesale destruction of paper trails appears to have been the province of other people in the HSU.
by ajm on May 14, 2012 at 11:49 am
Brandis now teelling viewers that we don’t have to worry about the presumption of innocence.
That’s just an arcane legal concept, not meant to be applied to the real world.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:49 am
Brandis: “Guilt is a term that is peculiar to the criinal law. Gillard throws it around far too much.”
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:50 am
Now to the Code Of Conduct…
“Codes of conduct don’t make dishonest people honest. Better to judge others by the remorseless scrutiny of the media.”
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:51 am
#3328…. yes, he actually said those words.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:52 am
By God, if Pyne or anyon other Lib MP is found to have connived with Ashby, I’d be willing to bet Windsor would vote to bring them “under the remorseless scrutiny of the Parliament”.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 11:54 am
Brandis is quite right, Thomson is not guilty of anything, he only has had adverse findings made about him from a non-judicial body. If a court imposes civil penalties on him he will still not be ‘guilty’ of anything but will have breached provisions of legislation that carry civil penalties.
He’s also quite right on the code of conduct in my view. It will be a meaningless bunch of papers.
by ltep on May 14, 2012 at 11:55 am
Thanks ltep.
Will do.
by bluegreen on May 14, 2012 at 11:55 am
BB
This mob have lost the plot. Vomit inducing
by victoria on May 14, 2012 at 11:56 am
Brandis: “Guilt is a term that is peculiar to the criinal law. Gillard throws it around far too much.”
http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_%22news%22_uses_to_brainwash_americans?page=entire
by joe2 on May 14, 2012 at 11:56 am
I fear for our democracy if Abbott and team win the next election.
They are totally trashing separation of powers. This while in opposition. Imagine if they get their hands on the levers of power. Guilty off to jail you go.
by guytaur on May 14, 2012 at 11:57 am
guytaur
I may be a complete fool, but I still believe the coaliton will come undone soon enough
by victoria on May 14, 2012 at 11:58 am
victoria
I too believe this. In those dark moments of doubt though I see the deceit winning and our democracy coming crashing down.
by guytaur on May 14, 2012 at 11:59 am
Of course he wants trial by media. Their supporters own the media.
Tin foil hat time? Have a look at Uhlmann’s 2008 pronunciations on climate change and track his rise up the ABC ladder under a chairman who also dismissed climate change and insisted the ABC give non-scientists the same weight as peer-reviewed experts.
by roaldan1000 on May 14, 2012 at 11:59 am
guytaur
I so want to believe that the govt is employing a rope a dope strategy. For some reason that is what I see, despite what is being reported at present
by victoria on May 14, 2012 at 12:01 pm
bb 3328
And this is from a senator? I have an idea. Instead of a code of conduct why don’t we have dumb-sh!t test. Too pig ignorant to sit in Parliament, Brandis would be gone
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 14, 2012 at 12:01 pm
victoria
Yes indeed. This comment by Brandis is proof of it. He has proved the Coalition is a threat to democracy. The media needs to be held to account in reporting it as such.
Otherwise Murdoch will flee the US and British consequences and return to the country run by his dictatorship.
At the moment a bit far fetched. The risk is the Coalition will do in government what it is doing in opposition. In such circumstances dictatorship is not far behind.
by guytaur on May 14, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Have to say that given these people are people elected to debate and pass laws for the entire population then there is an expectation they come with their own codes of behaviour. We are in a bad way if we need to prescriptively set our for our lawmakers what is acceptable behaviour.
What we may be lacking is acceptable methods to deal with those who transgress.
by davidwh on May 14, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Bluegreen
I hope you can get redress for the use of your work. I take a very dim view of the use of unreferenced unattributed work of somebody else’s. Go get your due rights!
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 14, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Smith presser on 24.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/union-dues/story-e6frg8h6-1226270776249
Jackson’s lawyers may want to put a cap on her continuing media presence. Surely the Unions are not staying quiet about her for no reason. She seems quite unstable at the moment and a trifle desperate to cover her own tracks.
by BH on May 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Some one may have linked the latest vex
News, if not take a look
by my say on May 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
roaldan1000, I have always thought that Uhlmann was Maurice Newman’s first choice.
Bruce Belsham, Head of ABC Current Affairs, seems like an important element in the push to editorialise for the opposition, as well.
by joe2 on May 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm
JohD @ 3293
With respect absolute baloney as are your examples. You need to look at how the case is put together and how the dots are joined. e.g. Chapter 6, pp 463- 505.
1. Details of the evidence
2. Mr Thomson’s explanation of the evidence
3. Analysis
Have you actually read the report?
Sorry there is too much to copy even just one example but here is an example of 3. Analysis
by Gauss on May 14, 2012 at 12:16 pm
my say
If the VexNews job on Lawler has any truth in fact, then Abbott’s in for a bit of ride when Thomson makes his statement to parliament.
What’s the word? Blowback . . . he he
by kezza2 on May 14, 2012 at 12:16 pm