Newspoll: 55-45 to Coalition; Seat of the week: Banks
GhostWhoVotes reports Newspoll has strayed from the pack with its latest fornightly federal poll result, with the Coalition holding a relatively moderate lead of 55-45 on two-party preferred compared with 59-41 last time. The primary votes are 30% for Labor (up three), 45% for the Coalition (down six) and 12% for the Greens (up one). In contrast to voting intention, the leaders’ ratings are essentially unchanged: Julia Gillard is on 27% approval (down one) and 63% disapproval (steady), and Tony Abbott is on 34% (up one) and 56% (up one). Results for reaction to the budget presumably to follow shortly.
UPDATE: The regular annual Newspoll budget questions have 18% saying it will make them better off and 41% worse off (compared with 11% and 41% last year); 37% saying the Coalition would have done a better job and 42% saying they wouldn’t have (38% and 41% last year); and 37% rating it good for the economy and 37% bad (37% and 32% last year). Newspoll has been asking these questions after each budget since the 1980s, with mean results over that time of 17.2% better off and 34.9% worse off; 29.8% opposition-better and 47.4% opposition-not-better; 42.3% good for the economy and 27.6% bad. With respect to “will the budget leave you better or worse off”, the five most positive results ever recorded (with some distance between fifth from sixth) occurred consecutively from 2004 to 2008. Outside of this golden age, the mean results have been 13.5% better off and 37.9% worse off.
Today’s Essential Research had the two-party preferred at 57-43, down from 58-42 last week, from primary votes of 50% for the Coalition (steady), 30% for Labor (up one) and 11% for the Greens (steady). Also featured were Essential’s monthly personal ratings, which welittle changed on April (contra Nielsen, Tony Abbott’s net rating has actually deteriorated from minus 12 to minus 17), and responses to the budget. The most interesting of the latter questions is on the impact of the budget on you personally, working people, businesses and the economy overall, for which the respective net ratings are minus 11, plus 7, minus 33 and minus 6. All of the eight specific features of the budget canvassed produced net positive ratings, from plus 5 for reduced defence spending to plus 79 for increased spending on dental health. There was a statistical tie (34% to 33%) on the question of whether Wayne Swan or Joe Hockey was most trusted to handle the economy.
Seat of the week: Banks
A little over a week ago I promised that my Friday posts would henceforth profile a significant federal electorate, but I was diverted on Friday by the onslaught of budget polling. Today I make good the omission with an overview of the southern Sydney electorate of Banks.
Located on the outer edge of Labor’s inner Sydney heartland, Banks has been held by Labor at all times since its creation in 1949, but over the past few decades the margin has fallen below 2% on three occasions: with the defeat of the Keating government in 1996, when Mark Latham led Labor to defeat in 2004, and – most ominously for Labor – in 2010, when a sharp swing against Labor in Sydney left intact only 1.5% of a 10.4% margin (adjusted for redistribution) from the 2007 election.
Labor’s strength in the electorate is in the suburbs nearer the city in the electorate’s north, from Hurstville through Riverwood to Padstow, which is balanced by strong Liberal support in the waterside suburbs along the Georges River which forms the electorate’s southern boundary, from Blakehurst westwards through Oatley to Padstow Heights. As a knock-on effect from the abolition of Lowe, the redistribution before the 2010 election shifted the electorate substantially eastwards, exchanging areas around Bankstown for the Blakehurst and Hurstville Grove area (from Barton) and Hurstville (from Watson), which cut 1.4% from the Labor margin.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Election 2013, Federal Politics 2010-
Okay, Itep, so now TV advertising is OK, but not in prime time where more people will see it. Is it the medium you have a problem with, or the message?
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 15, 2012 at 1:57 pm
No Puff, I’m saying the purpose of the ads is not to inform, but to persuade. If the purpose is merely for informing people of new payments, a more cost effective way of doing that would be direct contact.
by ltep on May 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm
fiona@649
They must have just switched it to free, I can read it now too.
by ShiftyPhil on May 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Will abbott have to stand down??/
Financial Review@FinancialReview
Tony Abbott is being sued for defamation by CFMEU official John Setka http://bit.ly/KXw8tV
by Schnappi on May 15, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Puff, again, I’m just countering the arguments that the ads are there to inform rather than egage in political persuasion. If the purpose of the ads is to inform self funded retirees they can now access an additional payment, then logic would tell you that they can be reached outside of primetime, saving taxpayers money.
by ltep on May 15, 2012 at 2:00 pm
What does, this mean spiritec gov,, nsw ha e to gain
by my say on May 15, 2012 at 2:02 pm
JG will be addressing the ACTU congress shortly. It is being shown on ABC24
by victoria on May 15, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Itep
the point is that these self funded retirees aren’t recipients of payments. If the government was able to send them a letter, they would have done so (Centrelink has apparently tried a number of ways to contact them).
And they’re just an example. There are probably more out there.
by zoomster on May 15, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Because all he did was slag someone off. Par for the course for Abbott. The public expect no better from him.
Now, if he’d slagged off a prostitute, or James Ashby… that would be a different matter altogether.
If he (God Forbid!) dissed on Ray Hadley, we’d have all the bogans in the nation up in arms against him. Tradies, plummy-voiced matrons from the Lower North Shore, tame Lebanese, and old coots everywhere would get out the torches and pitchforks.
If youse don’t believe me, ask Greg-Smith, NSW Attorney General.
But just your regulation slag-offs – like saying that parents would waste their bonuses on the “clubs and the pokies”, or going on about “union thugs invading workplaces”, kicking Bernie Banton three days before he died, dismissing the death of a soldier in Afghanistan as “shit happens” – why… that isn’t even Class Warfare, much less suspension material.
by Bushfire Bill on May 15, 2012 at 2:02 pm
shellbell,
I just checked, the article has disappeared.
Thanks. Maybe it is what he wants to do, or intends to do rather than has done.
That bit about Abbott not wanting asbestos victims to access subsidised medicine when he was the Federal Health Minister is a shocker too.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 15, 2012 at 2:03 pm
…which is an ad on TV, which everyone watching that TV channel at that time will see and subsequently digest the information.
The problem with direct mail is that people open it, see what it is, label it “junk mail” and throw it in the bin unread.
The problem with non-direct mail (ie stuff that is letterboxed unaddressed) is that it can get mixed up in junk mail and go in the bin unread, or can be binned by the disinterested person who collected the mail, and the information is thereby lost to anyone else in the house who might have been interested in reading it.
Election times are different, of course, because people are seeking information on personalities, policies and parties and are therefore more likely to sift through junk mail in search of election material/information.
Outside of that, your chances are much, much smaller.
Also, TV is much less expensive than you think it is. A great ad can give you really good bang for your buck.
by Danny Lewis on May 15, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Until James Hardie loses its case, it is presumed to be innocent. So anyone dying before the case concludes can’t claim.
I can’t work it out either. Maybe Brandis SC knows more about just when “innocence” morphs into “guilt”. He reckons this “innocence credo is laughable”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/pms-presumption-of-innocence-credo-is-laughable/story-e6frgd0x-1226355234732
by Bushfire Bill on May 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Well I won’t keep going on about it, although I’m sure the attitude of people would be markedly different if it were a Coalition Government running these advertisements are taxpayers expense.
by ltep on May 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm
ltep
..and the more targetted a mailout, the more expensive it is.
The cheapest form of mail is a flier, the next the unaddressed (“To Resident”) letter.
Bang an address on and the cost goes up about ten times, because (i) on the sending end, you need to spend time drawing up your list and individualising the envelopes and letters (mailmerge etc helps but it is still time consuming) and (ii) on the posting end, you now need to sort the mail, rather than just stuff one letter in each mailbox.
by zoomster on May 15, 2012 at 2:09 pm
The Budget allocated $12 million for advertising the CEF legislation. The AG has ticked it off.I guess the Govt will spend it whoever they wish.
by ruawake on May 15, 2012 at 2:09 pm
http://afr.com/p/national/cfmeu_official_sues_abbott_tc3vRuXtTdKfFhM9L61W3M
ShiftyPhil
Yes you can, that’s a free story
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-to-be-sued-over-home-visits-comments-20120305-1uecg.html
Here’s some background
by Leroy on May 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm
ltep
Which is why the (Labor) government put in rules about such advertising, to ensure that government money wasn’t misued on ads which did not inform but were merely spruiking a policy (the kind of ads people here objected to under Howard).
In this case, the ads adhere to the rules.
by zoomster on May 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Can someone enlighten me on this? I don’t subscribe so…….
by Dee on May 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Dee
It’s from the Punch article referred to earlier – Sophie compares Albo to a ‘mafia hit man’.
by zoomster on May 15, 2012 at 2:14 pm
The funniest thing is , abbott would be suspended from the house if the code pf conduct was in, no wonder abbott an the coaliton rejected it
by Meguire Bob on May 15, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Well, if it is not asbestos victims getting the kick in the guts, there is always Autistic kids in Victoria losing their places in special schools, so they get tossed into a mainstream education system where they cannot cope. I suppose this is what’s called compassionate conservatism.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/life/education/autistic-children-lose-education-assistance-in-victoria/
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 15, 2012 at 2:15 pm
zoomster, the agencies handling payments already have the lists and, from time to time, mail out information to recipients of payments. I certainly know my mother receives letters informing her of changes to payments from time to time. I can’t see why it would be any more expensive to do so now.
Of course they will, that doesn’t make it right though.
And yes, I know I said I’d stop talking about it
by ltep on May 15, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Do not have paywall,perhaps some can post.
http://afr.com/p/national/govt_seeks_to_strike_out_ashby_claims_3H0oZNQvmUBCnz3F5ryqSP
by Schnappi on May 15, 2012 at 2:16 pm
ANYBODY know what the polls were for Labor in the first 3 MONTHS of 2009?.
by 1934pc on May 15, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Dee – remember the googling the url of the story to get past the paywall trick?
Here, made it easy for you, just this once mind, and put the resulting long url of the google result in a tiny.url
http://tinyurl.com/7rk6t8l
From now on, no regular on PB is allowed to say “but I don’t subscribe” for Australian or Herald Sun articles.
by Leroy on May 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Leroy@665
It wasn’t when I first posted it, was made free a minute later.
Here’s another one of some interest here as well: http://afr.com/p/national/govt_seeks_to_strike_out_ashby_claims_3H0oZNQvmUBCnz3F5ryqSP
by ShiftyPhil on May 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm
zoomster
Probably largely because,as a Pies blogger moaned about recently, they need to provide their financial details to the gubbermint
by poroti on May 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Hmmm
by ruawake on May 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Pufff at o ne stage there was a web site that had lots of abbots saying on it
by my say on May 15, 2012 at 2:19 pm
ltep
Didn’t you read my posts?
The government is already aware of people who are missing out. Centrelink does not have contact details for them. There have already been attempts to contact these people by other methods.
Self funded retirees do not have to register with Centrelink and many of them don’t.
There will be others on middle or low incomes who also, for various reasons, are not on any automatic list.
As soon as you go off the lists to try and contact people specifically, you’re talking real money, because of the detective work involved.
by zoomster on May 15, 2012 at 2:20 pm
So I guess the AFP have told the Govt – nothing wrong with Slippery’s cab rides.
by ruawake on May 15, 2012 at 2:20 pm
http://thedawnchorus.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/reasons-to-not-vote-for-tony/
Puff try this i dont know what on it had in some old links from last election
by my say on May 15, 2012 at 2:21 pm
JG is fired up.
by This little black duck on May 15, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Commercial television networks are refusing to run a Get Up ad about Woolies and Coles addiction to pokies. Get Up going into the cinemas instead.
by Son of foro on May 15, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Has the PM got a cold? Sounds very raspy delivering this speech. Or is it my dodgy speakers on the computer?
by Burgey on May 15, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Who will pay abbotts legal costs,as abbott is in debt,the liberals or his rich mates,seems he could be bankrupted unless bankrolled
by Schnappi on May 15, 2012 at 2:24 pm
It’ll be the sound system where JG is speaking.
by This little black duck on May 15, 2012 at 2:24 pm
zoomster, self-funded retirees who will receive payments are those holding a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, so there’d be ways to contact them too.
As to self-funded retirees who have chosen to not receive a CSHC, I presume there already exist ways for people to find out how to sign up for a card.
The larger point is that the campaign is, in my view, clearly an attempt to win public opinion, rather than merely to inform.
by ltep on May 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm
here is the full writ lodged today in the victorian Supreme Court against Tony Abbott.
http://www.afr.com/rw/2009-2014/AFR/2012/05/15/Photos/56793b2a-9e3f-11e1-8d01-fe431082ffe9_Setka%20v%20Abbott%20writ.pdf
by sprocket_ on May 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Jeeze Puff. That’s just like you to hold back with your comments isn’t it.
Your right, they are behaving like absolute scum over this.
by imacca on May 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm
JG is giving chapter and verse about Tone.
by This little black duck on May 15, 2012 at 2:26 pm
ru
The govt are looking at getting Slipper back into the Chair?
by victoria on May 15, 2012 at 2:26 pm
thanks my say.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 15, 2012 at 2:26 pm
I don’t agree with people suing politicians for defamation. It leaves a dirty taste in my mouth.
by ruawake on May 15, 2012 at 2:27 pm
zoomster,
I believe I have identified Itep’s to be that the advertisements are advertising something which may be positive for the government, on prime time TV. I suppose it would have been alright if the phrase ‘carbon tax’ had been in the advertisements.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 15, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Yes Puff, that’s exactly my argument.
Although your point does raise something else, why is it only ‘something which may be positive for the government’ that is ever the subject of an advertising campaign, rather than a negative. For instance, payments being decreased or means tested. Why should the public not be informed of those changes? I think you’ll find the way they are informed is via direct mail-out, or not at all. This further highlights how politicised government advertising is.
by ltep on May 15, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Ruawake
I believe this is the point young Christopher was trying to make
by cybercynic on May 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm
http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2006-policy-perfection-isnt-it-great-when-policy-plans-work
Was posted up-thread and is really worth a read. The $AU falling has been something that i think the Govt has REALLY wanted to happen, but have had to be quite circumspect about. Its VERY unfashionable to start talking about currency manipulation at the moment.
The $ coming down will be changing the way a lot of people view the economy. I’m sur e that the MSM will try and spin it as a disaster. Bali Holidays More Expensive!!!
But hopefully the truth will out on this. Hah! Wonder if a sustained fall will feed into the unemployment levels in the non-mining states??
Be afraid Fiberals. VERY afraid.
by imacca on May 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Carbon Price twice in a row on ABC24
by ruawake on May 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm
victoria – the government is likely trying to get that part of the claim which is made against the Commonwealth struck out. I haven’t read the full article though.
by Burgey on May 15, 2012 at 2:37 pm