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-
davidwh. Thomson can only be thrown out of Parliament if he is convicted of a criminal offence which carries 12 months gaol. Until then, I suggest you take a breath. The FWA report is simply that. A report.
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm
kezza2,
Jackson and Feeney are factionally aligned and personal friends. They all went to Uni together.
by Greensborough Growler on May 14, 2012 at 12:57 pm
I thought there was no such thing as a free lunch?
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 12:57 pm
I am surprised Jackson is still a member of the ALP.
Fancy addressing the HR Nicholls Society. Turncoat.
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 12:59 pm
kezza2
That is factional loyalty at it’s very best! Sense doesn’t come into it!
by MTBW on May 14, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Lynchpin I am fine and at my age appreciate every breath I take
I actually think your comment could be better directed elsewhere.
by davidwh on May 14, 2012 at 1:00 pm
I had a meet-and-greet 2 minute chat with Latham before the 2004 election at a Labor Party function (no, I am not a member, it was just a donation of $50 for a Chinese nosh-up).
I suggested to him face-toface that he had an (undeserved) reputation for being a “violent” man. I had been speaking to two couples over the past week, both of whom had wanted to vote Labor, but both of whom were worried about his “cabbie” incident.
He looked at me as if I was off in cloud Cuckoo Land. He told me the “cabbie” incident was a thing of the past. No-one cared about it. Everyone had forgotten.
My suggestion was to find the cabbie and get a photo taken of the two of them patting each other on the back and making up. Or something similar.
He dismissed it out of hand.
Well, at least I’d said my piece… better than just shaking hands and saying “Good on yer, Mark!”.
Months later, at the election, the “Cabbie” incident was brought up time and time again. The “Handshake” with Howard was woven into his “violent” personality. There was a “videotape” of him being violent to his ex-wife (or something similar). The ex-wife came out and told Australia that he had been cruel to her. There were stories his Mum ran a brothel. And on and on it went.
The man suffered from extreme pain due to pancreatitis. He broke down in the first week of the campaign. He was vilified and mocked for that (health too bad to be PM) and for his supposedly “violent” personality, especially the handshake.
Out of the two couples, one of each pair (actually both blokes) voted Labor, one female voted Liberal in the House and Green in the Senate. One voted Liberal across the board. These had been, all four of them, good Labor voters. Don’t ask me how I knew. I just knew.
I don’t hold the hatred for Latham that a lot do here. I know he’s said some incredibly stupid things, and some very hurtful ones. He seems to think he’s the only one in politics who ever got done over by the factions, or a rival. I can understand his sensitivity and him wanting to get some measure of revenge. He’s only human.
But he’s a bright bloke, too, and a thoughtful one. I thought he would have made a good Prime Minister. But you can find hardly anyone who’ll agree with that sentiment. To most people he’s an unhinged nutjob who bashes people and stands over them. The media meme of the time has solidified and is now cast in concrete. Everything he says or does is observed through that prism.
Mark Latham didn’t have a clue what they were going to do to him, and he wouldn’t be proactive about fixing up the problem. It was a real problem, even if it either never happened or really had been forgotten. You can always rely on the media, especially the News media to dredge up anything at all. The closer to election day, the better, when it can’t be denied.
I tried to strike up a conversation with im leter on in the evening, over a beer, down near the bar. When I started talking he just looked straight through me. I don’t know if he even remembered me, or knew I was there. Or whether he was there, either.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 1:00 pm
C@tmomma,
You know never to take rightwingnuts at face value. New2this is old to this.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 14, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Glad you finally managed to look in the mirror.
by kezza2 on May 14, 2012 at 1:00 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/beattie-in-tough-line-on-thomson-20120513-1yl52.html
Not sure I understand Beattie’s involvement. He musn’t be worried about the numbers.
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm
davidwh
Fair enough.
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Since when did Kathy Jackson become a protected species, able to engage in the character assassination of others, without her own motive and practices able to be subjected to an equivalent amount of scrutiny and discovery?
by C@tmomma on May 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm
rightwingnut nooo. But Puff I do you like your comments…
by New2This on May 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Beattie still thinks he’s relevant.
by davidwh on May 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Gauss, BG, DWH etc are all making the same mistake.
They are confusing a commitment to supporting the separation of powers with support for Thomson.
For me this issue is not about the credibility of an individual, it is about the long-term future of the country.
Once you give politicians the ability to decide who is or isn’t gulity of an offence and who can sit in parliament and when you are setting up a scenario ripe for exploitation by the wrong people.
Let’s say for example that we have a finely balanced Senate and a Liberal dominated government after the next election. How tempting it would be for a party currently controlled by idealogues to think their mandate should alow the override any Senate difficulties. How tempting it would be to suddenly find allegations against a Senate member to change the balance. Allegations mind you, not proven acts, just allegations.
That is the road people want us to tread. I am of the opinion that to create a precedent that could be followed in future by the unscrupulous is extremely dangerous, no matter what you think of the person currently being targeted.
by roaldan1000 on May 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm
BB
Interesting story. I too liked Latham, but was very disappointed with his resignation and subsequent bitterness towards the party.
Your comment above is telling, I think.
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm
When her aims and the Coalition’s coincided?
by rishane on May 14, 2012 at 1:09 pm
I think he still is in Qld.
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Good one!
by MTBW on May 14, 2012 at 1:09 pm
C@tmmma
Jackson reminds me of a woman on a mission – similar to that “child protector” in Qld who went overboard about art depicting young girls (tired, can’t remember details).
by lizzie on May 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm
That was sad, BB. I wouldn’t know Latham at all. So he was done over by Murdoch too, his failings amplified, his good points buried. I would probably go batty if it were me.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Spot on roaldan1000.
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm
You’re lucky he didn’t hit you.
by William Bowe on May 14, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Actually I’m not so sure of that.
The Constitution say this is one definite way of getting rid of a member, but not the only way.
The Constitution also allows both houses to make provision for their own regulation. Standing orders are part of this, I believe, which is why it’s so hard to suspend them (as Pyne had found out). I wouldn’t think it was impossible for the House to vote that “The Member be no longer heard” permanently.
The only thing stopping it so far has been convention and the sure knowledge that one day the other side will do the same thing to your own side.
The Coalition seems to be so confident that they can spin any attempt at retaliation by Labor as sour grapes or a petty, grubby descent into the gutter, in the newspapers that they almost literally have no fear of blowback, now or in the future.
Theoretically it would be possible for an entire side of politics to be dismissed from the services of the House, permanently, although the ensuing rots in the streets might make that difficult in practice to sustain for any period of time.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 1:12 pm
DavidWH – do you weep for the thousands who were ripped off by Turnbull and HIH. Wasn’t it Turnbull who allegedly arranged for the sale HIH to FIA for a wildly inflated price or somesuch.
Share your despair for those whose insurance policies were denied because of it, for the shareholders who lost their life savings and for others in similar situations through the callousness of business managers.
Until we know exactly how much of Thomson’s spending was part of salary/bonuses or similar we cannot say the FWA report is accurate. FWA did not seek information from others apart from Williamson and Jackson as far as I am aware. Correct me if that is wrong, please.
by BH on May 14, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Essential
ALP 43 (+1), L/NP 57 (-1)
Primary Vote: ALP 30 (+1) L/NP 50 (0) Greens 11 (0)
Julia Gillard: Approve 31 (-1) Disapprove 60 (+2)
Tony Abbott: Approve 36 (-2) Disapprove 53 (+3)
Better PM: Gillard 38 (0), Abbott 37 (+1)
Trust to handle the economy: Swan 34, Hockey 33
http://essentialvision.com.au/documents/essential_report_120507.pdf
by spur212 on May 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Beg your pardon
http://essentialvision.com.au/documents/essential_report_120514.pdf
by spur212 on May 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Latham may be channelling his lost mate Greg Wilton who suicided in June 2000 due to the pressures of Parliament and life in general.
For once, Latham needs to be given the benefit of the doubt as he pleads for a degree of compassion with regards to Thomson.
by Greensborough Growler on May 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Shellbell pointed out earlier that the presumption of innocence only starts once a person has been charged with an offence. At present we are still dealing with foreplay. If you are referring to whether Thomson should be suspended from parliament then I agree until he fails the test set out in the Constitution or law then he is free to represent his constituents. That’s our democracy.
by davidwh on May 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm
William, that’s exactly what I mean. You’ve bought the bullshit.
I was never in any fear of being hit by him. His eyes didn’t bulge when we spoke, he didn’t chuck a spaz a la Abbott, there was no twitching of the eyes, or a winding up of the haymaker. He listened courteously and quietly to what I had to say then disagreed with all of it.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm
roaldan1000,
I agree wholeheartedly too. Craig Thomson may well be guilty of the misdemeanours as levelled, and I don’t believe he is guilty of any crime as such, well not as elucidated so far. However, what I also believe with all my heart is that we should not go down the road of the Kangaroo Court or the Star Chamber. Let the dispassionate objective officers of the judicial system make their judgements free of the self-interest of political players.
by C@tmomma on May 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm
MOE Budget bounce!
by Danny Lewis on May 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm
The long road back!
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Don’t bother watching Q and A tonight I can save you the trouble of listening to the very talented Penny Wong. Ask her any question you like and the answer will be Abbott Abbott Abbott.
As for Tim Costello being a Liberal you are surely joking?
Stephen Mayne specializes in being anti News Limited anti Abbott. Next you will tell us that Eric Beecher or John Pilger votes Liberal.
The show is boring anyway and all the politicians just spin the whole time what was the last time it broke any news?
by stanny on May 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Well, at least treading water.
Remember: Budget “bounces” are largely fictional, being put in place so that we can see the types of stories we saw over the weekend, e.g. “Gillard’s Bribe Rejected!”
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Which is exactly why it would be inappropriate for one house of parliament to determine the membership of the other. Or for that matter for any house to expel/suspend one of its own members. Any ‘offences’ should be dealt with under the general law, and political pressure should be the only sort applied to any ‘offenders’ who cannot be dealt with under the current constitutional provisions.
by ltep on May 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm
BH I did say IF I was to weep. I don’t consider this saga to be of the weeping kind. The weeping wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
by davidwh on May 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Reading all these stories
One thing that stands out
Is that JULIA GILLARD, is one i mpressive strong lady
She needs our support, our postives and strength.
An occassional phone call to her ele ctorate office would be thoughtful.
by my say on May 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm
GG
Re Friends/factionally aligned stuff.
Fair enough, but don’t you think that when you discover you are holding totally contradictory positions you need to jettison one or the other.
Or make a comment along the lines of: hey, she’s my best friend but on this issue I think she is wrong – because what she is doing is bringing the whole union movement into disrepute. And that’s just plain wrong. Sanger’s a lawyer. She knows all about the rule of law, the basis of our democracy, and the presumption of innocence that underpins it all.
Take the Kroger/Costello fracas.
Kroger had finally had enough of sticking up for Costello.
However, he let it go too far because he didn’t expose Costello earlier.
If he had even mildly rebuked Costello, told him to pull his head in, without sacrificing the friendship (I mean, what the hell are friends for if not to tell you you’re going too far). Instead he had to finish a 35-year friendship in the public domain – with all the ramifications that involves.
Funny isn’t it, I never once though of her name like that! Good one.
by kezza2 on May 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Agree 110%, C@tmomma.
by Bushfire Bill on May 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm
C@tmomma
I agree with this. That’s why I find Beattie’s intrusion odd.
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm
The interesting table is the one where all Labor’s Budget initiatives are solidly supported.
by Greensborough Growler on May 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm
If Thomson is “guilty” of visiting houses of ill repute, how come not one worker has come forward asking huge money to appear on some television program either openly or pixelated? Not one. You can bet these programs have been sniffing around for the scoop.
by Gary on May 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm
lynchpin (from earlier on)
No, still no news as yet. If there is any substance to the rumour, it will be broadcast far and wide.
I’d imagine that the news will be released before the 21st when parliament sits again – once again if there is any substance to it.
If no news has been released when parliament resumes, I’ll let you know what it was. By then it won’t matter.
by Dan Gulberry on May 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Thanks Dan G. I think I now know what the possible scenario is. If I am right, I do hope it comes about. How reliable is the initial source?
by Lynchpin on May 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm
essential reading for anyone using the term
by Leroy on May 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm
For a party that has a huge lead in the polls and a reputation (rightly or wrongly) of being good economic managers that is a very poor result for Hockey.
by Gary on May 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Danny Lewis @ 3114,
C@tmomma @ 3378 beat me to it wrt Kathy Jackson’s star turn at the HR Nicholls Society’s annual dinner in a few weeks’ time.
Gee, the Society has some “interesting” people on its Board.
If I recall correctly, isn’t Ian Hanke the chappie that the Libs have preselected for Eden-Monaro? He’d really go down a treat there!
By the way, I must make an admission: I attended the first annual dinner of the Society way back in 1986.
by fiona on May 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm
I have just been scammed by Woolworths. Apparently some specials are not specials unless you have their “Everyday rewards” card.
The ticket on the shelf indicated the item was on special but there was apparently a coded symbol to indicate that you paid full price unless you had the card and scanned it at the checkout. Obviously I wasn’t in on this little secret.
I don’t want their card, nor the Coles card, nor any other card which allows the business to collect spending and lifestyle data on me. However, much as I would like to restrict my retail spending to the smaller stores, some products are available only at Colesworths.
Presumably there is nothing illegal about what Woolworths is doing but it does seem to be ethically questionable.
by citizen on May 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm
MTBW
It is the Coalition doing the hounding. I read the article that way too. As my comment reflects.
by guytaur on May 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm