Essential Research: 56-44 to Coalition
The latest Essential Research result has Labor gaining a point on two-party preferred for the second week in a row, with the Coalition now leading 56-44, and has Labor gaining three points on the primary vote – a very unusual occurrence in this series, which publishes weekly results derived from a two-week rolling average. Labor’s primary vote is at 33%, with the Coalition and the Greens each down a point to 49% and 10% respectively.
The first of the supplementary questions measures respondents’ knowledge rather than opinions: namely, the question of whether interest rates are higher or lower now than they were when Labor came to power, the purpose presumably being to determine whether misapprehensions are behind Labor’s diabolical polling. A majority (35% to 20%) were in fact aware that they were now lower, but only 10% thought they were a little lower against 25% for a lot, when the official interest rate has in fact gone from 6.75% to 3.75%. Respondents were then asked how much credit they gave Labor for the drop: 7% said a lot, 19% a fair amount, 27% a little and 35% none. Further questions cover the casualisation of the workforce, the mining boom, the value of various industries to average Australians, and the notion that the government is engaged in “class warfare” (28% agree, 46% disagree).
Further polling snippets:
• Yesterday’s Sunday Mail reported that the Galaxy poll of Queensland respondents covered in the previous post also found that Kevin Rudd’s lead over Julia Gillard in the state at 67-21, and at 62-37 among Labor voters.
• News Limited tabloids carried another Galaxy poll yesterday, this one conducted online from a national sample of 606, which showed support for gay marriage at 50% against 33% opposed. However, 26% of respondents said legislation to allow gay marriage would make them less likely to vote Labor, against only 22% who said more likely.
• Labor has gone public with polling conducted for it by UMR Research, which apparently found that 25% of respondents “would vote for” Julian Assange if he ran for a Senate seat. This tendency was fairly evenly spread among supporters of different parties: 39% for Greens, 26% for Labor and 23% for Coalition. The combined figure is similar to the 23% of respondents to a Galaxy poll in September last year who rated themselves “likely” to vote for Katter’s Australian Party at the Queensland state election: 11.5% would actually do so. It is not clear if the poll was entirely national, as the report from Phillip Coorey in the Sydney Morning Herald only spoke of results from New South Wales and Victoria, which perhaps surprisingly showed slightly stronger support for Assange in the former.
Preselection:
• Tasmanian Labor Senator Nick Sherry, who had already announced he would not contest the next election, has brought forward his retirement. David Killick of The Mercury reports the vacancy looks set to be filled by Lin Thorp, member for the state upper house seat of Rumney from 1999 until her defeat in 2011. Thorp has the backing of Sherry’s Left faction, including from Premier Lara Giddings. However, earlier reports suggested others in the Left wanted a younger candidate, and that a move was on to have the party’s administrative committee reserve the position for a candidate from northern Tasmanian – with Launceston commercial lawyer Ross Hart fitting the bill on both counts. Notably, Unions Tasmania secretary Kevin Harkins, who was said to have been locked out preselection in 2007 because Kevin Rudd had him confused with Kevin Reynolds, and again in 2010 because Rudd did not want to admit to his mistake, had ruled himself out because “we’re likely to have a very conservative government in just a tad over 12 months’ time, (and) the best place for me is with the union movement”.
Page 1 of 3 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Two questions:
1. Who was the first?
2. Does the government have the numbers to support such a move?
by Darn on May 22, 2012 at 12:10 pm
AFR is saying it is Sophie
by bluegreen on May 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm
confessions
No he is consistent. Just he pushed as hard as he could for as tough as he could before backing down. It was uncomfortable for Labor for a while but he did try as hard as he could to force change. At the end of the day he has shown he is sane and the government calculations are correct.
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm
bg
Not entirely sure. I could not link the AFR article that says she is being referred to the privileges committee. Perhaps someone else can confirm
by victoria on May 22, 2012 at 12:11 pm
AFR here http://afr.com/p/national/mirabella_may_face_privileges_committee_0FCfwhWrv6Wnzho3RsVSCK
by The Finnigans on May 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Wilkie blames Abbott for him deciding to get what he can now. Just in case the numbers on the cross benches change.
So not only has Abbott failed to change the numbers he got Wilkie focussed on reality with poke reform
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Darn
Craig Kelly was referred yesterday. Numbers are not required, only a letter.
by BK on May 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Pffft. They would do no such thing.
by bluegreen on May 22, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Wilkie reckons the government will run full term.
by BK on May 22, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Wilkie admits that this is the FIRST TIME any Federal Govt has intervened in #PokiesReform – the FIRST TIME!!
by The Finnigans on May 22, 2012 at 12:15 pm
How long before the Slipper set up is exposed?
by victoria on May 22, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Two further questions:
1. Does the government have a majority on the committee?
2. What sanctions can the committee impose?
by Darn on May 22, 2012 at 12:16 pm
GUYTAUR – What does the second sentence mean?
by Lynchpin on May 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Darn
1. I believe so
2. None, but parliament can act upon its findings
by BK on May 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm
yes
by bluegreen on May 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Pokies reform – shove that up your arse Abbott.
by Lynchpin on May 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Lynchpin
Wilkie is just saying that due to some unforeseen circumstance (e.g. illness) the numbers could change. So he is getting his reform in now.
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Wilkie giving the MSM a serve for saying that the crossbenchers are “hiding behind the principle of innocent until proven guilty”.
by BK on May 22, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Finns:
The article is paywalled unfortunately, but the headline says it’s Sophie.
MOAR!!!
by confessions on May 22, 2012 at 12:19 pm
poroti,
They will simply absorb the project in to their own narrative. Like the Snowy River Hydro Electricity Project.
by Greensborough Growler on May 22, 2012 at 12:20 pm
So BK, given ALP has the numbers, and given the sensitivity of the Indies to the questions surrounding the degradation of standing of the HoR, it is possible these 2 Libs could be suspended?
by Lynchpin on May 22, 2012 at 12:20 pm
confessions
We may may indeed get MOAR after QT today!
by BK on May 22, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Wilkie telling the media to be cautious. He should have saved his breath.
I agree with him. Its just we know the media now.
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Ted Mack (es-Independent member for North Sydney) does NOT have a very good opinion of the current parliament, and lays the blame squarely on Abbott : “trying to wreck the parliament so they can bring down the government”.
by Bushfire Bill on May 22, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Wilkie
Refusing to give the Media the soundbite they want to go after Gillard.
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Lynchpin
I suspect that would all depend on the attitude displayed by the Opposition.
by BK on May 22, 2012 at 12:22 pm
If that is what the majority of journos in this country are saying/thinking, they really are a fucked up profession. (Apologies for the strong language, but it seems appropriate in this case.)
by Lynchpin on May 22, 2012 at 12:22 pm
2GB journo trying to pin the FWA investigation on the PM, saying she created FWA therefore it’s her fault.
Has our press gallery really come to this?
by confessions on May 22, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Wilkie is being quite good under questioning about Thomson/FWA.
by BK on May 22, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Hahaha take that media. Wilkie totally denies an attack point to the media.
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Wilkie now attacking Abbott saying he suspects if he had accepted the offer for Hobart Hospital he would have ended up with nothing,
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Victoria Oakeshott was saying Abbott may get reported to the privaledge committee for trying to prevent a MP from voting. Seems a long shot because he is not saying the bloke can’t vote just that Labor shouldn’t accept his tainted vote.
There is a lot of grubby and loopy politics being played out from all sides at present.
by davidwh on May 22, 2012 at 12:26 pm
A Wilkie has been listening to his constituents.
by gigi on May 22, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Lynchpin,
Privileges would ascertain the facts and then either dismiss them as trivial or refer them to an appropriate investigative authority.
by Greensborough Growler on May 22, 2012 at 12:27 pm
davidwh
Of course you would say that. The only people playing grubby politics is on your side of the ledger. I wish the Labor side would be more tougher. They have allowed Abbott to get away with Trying to wreck the place. What a piece of shit
by victoria on May 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Darn
On 2,
Parli Priveledges Act
It can jail people for upto six months though. I can’t imagine the circumstances under which that would be possible.
by bluegreen on May 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm
I think this is going to get really ugly in regards to the standing of the parliament
Abbott should stop before consequences happen that he never intended
by spur212 on May 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm
BB – Of course Mack is right. It’s just a simple fact this whole hysteria (and that’s what it is) is completely poll-driven. Does anyone seriously think the Tory filth would be running around screaming “Election Now!” if the polls were running at 50-50 or thereabouts? Of course they wouldn’t.
Which is why, if and when the polls begin to converge towards a tightly run race, the cries will only get more and more shrill.
It’s a tad embarrassing to note that not one journo has picked up the fact that the whole shebang is nothing more than a cynicla, poll driven exercise. Poor simple fools they are.
by Burgey on May 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Seems people om facebook think abbott is mentally ill
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150976628525797&id=274330505796
by Schnappi on May 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm
spur212
What consequences might that be?
by victoria on May 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Burgey
The msm know. They are complicit
by victoria on May 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm
MARK LATHAM:
Well, you know, I was part of a team effort where we drove the Governor-General of the country from office and even better than that, the Labor Party drove John Kerr from the same office basically because he was pisspot and unfit for office and did the wrong thing in sacking the Whitlam Government, so you know, the Labor Party has a rich history, a proud history of driving mongrels from office and no one said, oh, no, John Kerr, presumption of innocence! There’s been no court, there’s been no charges, there’s been no conviction. Maybe he’s a drunk and he embarrassed us at the Melbourne Cup, he sacked the Whitlam Government but no, no, no, presumption of innocence or Peter Hollingsworth, presumption of innocence. Or any number of a dozen ministers in the Howard years that we were trying to drum out of office and out of Parliament as quickly as possible. No one said, oh, no, presumption of innocence. I heard Jenny Macklin talking about presumption of innocence. She’s standing up there chasing Michael Wooldridge one time about crook MRI tenders. She never said oh, look, he’s done all these wrong things but Mr Speaker, presumption of innocence. He’s really not such a bad chap and we’ll let him off on this occasion. So the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy. Thomson should be judged on a moral standard not a criminal standard and on that moral standard he’s as guilty as sin.
by rummel on May 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Interesting start from Howes. This could be well worth watching.
by BK on May 22, 2012 at 12:33 pm
The self-awareness is breathtaking.
by bluegreen on May 22, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Victoria I don’t believe you are an unbiased participant.
Mirabella has been referred for failing to declare she is trustee of an estate.
by davidwh on May 22, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Howes attacking media
by guytaur on May 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm
[Latika Bourke @latikambourke
Paul Howes says Labor forgets it's actually never had the media on its side - goes back to 1890s headlines about Labor. #npc}
Like I said Andrew Fisher started a newspaper just to win back his seat.
by bluegreen on May 22, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Aren’t the rules for expulsion basically
(A) Insanity
(B) Bankruptcy
(C) Conviction of a crime with more than 12 months imprisonment associated.
by Greensborough Growler on May 22, 2012 at 12:36 pm
In the English & Oz systems, everything depends on the assessment of evidence presented, and subject, during a court process, to the most stringent legal scrutiny (cross-examination). In those systems (but not Scotland’s) one is not “cleared” (and “innocence” is presumed); one is either guilty or not guilty of charges brought against one. You don’t have to be Einstein to get it. In the 1950s, I was taught that in Primary School (yrs 5-8), along with what was called The Growth of English Freedom
As the Thomson case now stands, the correct usage is either found no evidence to support the accusation that … or found evidence to support …; but such evidence has not yet been subjected to court processes
That’s it. That’s our Democratic System of Justice. Unless you’re Tony Abbott and his mates.
by OzPol Tragic on May 22, 2012 at 12:37 pm