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-
Shellbell, re my analysis of tomorrow nights game:
The game will be decided in the same way as we used to when say 4 of us would go to the park to have a game of footy when we were kids.
It’s Thurston & Cronk v Pierce & Carney. NSW will play well, they will be well coached, but experience, combination and confidence will win in the end.
Slater or Inglis first try scorers, QLD to win 21/14
by Centre on May 22, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Well it worked for me. Try Vexnews.
by Toorak Toff on May 22, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Fiona, do you want to do a strip with me at Martin Place tomorrow
by Centre on May 22, 2012 at 9:55 pm
2445
No, because mainly comparatively wealthy people`s children getting a better education because of their parents wealth rather than talent (one of the main effects of expensive school fees) reduces social mobility.
by Tom the first and best on May 22, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Centre
Privately educated Ricky Stuart will be preparing his excuses for tomorrow night’s defeat as we blog. He is an excuse merchant par excellence
by shellbell on May 22, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Go direct…the story is gathering dust.
http://www.vexnews.com/
by joe2 on May 22, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Tom
That’s one of the reasons people try to make money, so they can provide more for their kids.
by Diogenes on May 22, 2012 at 9:59 pm
DEE @ 2433, gotta tell you, they, and in particular, her, have done nothing at all to represent us. I, and a number of others ,spent a lot of time and effort organising meetings, collecting information relevant to EBA negotiations, trying to organise meetings with the relevant HSUA officials.
Didn’t do us any good as they were too busy warring with each other.
We’re a very dispirited bunch in Victoria, as we’re about to be done over by Mr. Baillieu as the Union is borked big time.
by Harry “Snapper” Organs on May 22, 2012 at 10:00 pm
No, doesn’t work for me.
My internet/spam filter is obviously filtering out crap.
by confessions on May 22, 2012 at 10:01 pm
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/craig-thomson-under-the-rain/
by Leroy on May 22, 2012 at 10:01 pm
GG I stand by the statement. As I said it is common parlance in academic educational circles. would you find Australia’s ‘segregated education system’ any better? And ease off the bile and anger.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/familiar-names-at-top-of-the-vce-summit-20101215-18y68.html#poll or
by Rossmore on May 22, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Vex links do not seem to open via crikey at the moment, strangely.
by joe2 on May 22, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Personally, I laugh and laugh and laugh at people who believe paying $15k a year for their childrens education will deliver better results than me when I pay less than $1k for my children to attend the local school.
People seem so up arms about wasting money on Pokies. But, the punt on Private education is the bigger scam from my POV.
by Greensborough Growler on May 22, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Fredn “I don’t think it’s about the money it’s about the student and parent that care about education.” oh really! Well let’s just scrap entirely public funding of education and leave it up to parents.
by Rossmore on May 22, 2012 at 10:04 pm
joe2 – just tried it, no problems jumping from the site to Vexnews
by Leroy on May 22, 2012 at 10:05 pm
GG
Serious question. Why dont you send your kids to a Catholic school?
by Diogenes on May 22, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Catch you later, bludgers, and virtual hugs to those battling the “when bodies goes bad” stuff.
Night.
by Harry “Snapper” Organs on May 22, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Centre:
No, and for two reasons:
(1) I wouldn’t want to show you up; and
(2) Quaintarse wouldn’t get me there on time.
by fiona on May 22, 2012 at 10:05 pm
IndependentAustralia@independentaus
@madwixxy looks at discrepancies in allegations being made against Craig #Thomson. #AusPol #AusDem http://fb.me/1ZFlCFLFB
by Schnappi on May 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Rossmore,
You ease off using offensive terms to rationalise your bullshit arguments.
by Greensborough Growler on May 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Joe2
Which is why the wise of the internet have secret little folders where they can hide these lynx and access them to the surprise and discountenance of all.
by fiona on May 22, 2012 at 10:07 pm
[Go direct…the story is gathering dust.
http://www.vexnews.com/
Well, at least it got a mention. Even if by Oakeshott.
I still think this story holds the key to the whole affair.
Else, why has Lawler gone missing?
by Bushfire Bill on May 22, 2012 at 10:07 pm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/the-flame-haired-martyr.html
by Leroy on May 22, 2012 at 10:07 pm
2456
That is perfectly reasonable for people to do but the Government has to consider the interests of the children who do not have parents who are willing and able to do that. Education is about the children not the parents.
by Tom the first and best on May 22, 2012 at 10:07 pm
BB:
Yes. I am all agog for the next exciting instalment. And believe you me, it will be exciting.
Evidence? The complete disarray of Blood Oaf this afternoon.
by fiona on May 22, 2012 at 10:09 pm
OK – my only comment about Schapelle.
When you go to pick up something, your body does a series of calculations about how much energy you need to exert in order to lift it.
We’ve all had the experience – something is heavier than we expected, we nearly fall over; it’s lighter, and we do the comical throwing-it-in-the-air thing.
Now, we do this automatically, every hour, and usually get it exactly right, even for items we’ve never lifted before.
With an item we’ve handled before – even if it was weeks ago – we rarely get it wrong, ever.
Thus, if you put down a bag for a couple of hours and then lift it up again, you will notice immediately if it’s lighter or heavier than it was before – even if the weight is only slightly out.
When I pick up my handbag, for example, I know immediately whether or not my mobile phone – which weighs very little – is in it or not. I don’t have to look – if it’s not, my bag is way too light.
That’s only a matter of ounces.
Now, you have a boogie board. You would know – without ever picking it up before – how much effort it would take to lift it. If it was your boogie board, you’d know exactly.
There is no way it could weigh even half a kilogram more without you immediately noticing.
by zoomster on May 22, 2012 at 10:11 pm
GG 2462 half agree with that statement. Government subsidies to private schools though are socially divisive and in most OECD countries the private system is negligible. Funilly enough those countries eg Finland have a thriving public funded school system that consistently out scores Oz on educational outcomes etc there’s a compelling productivity and equity argument in scaling back gov funding in private schools and pumping the $ into a world class public school system.
by Rossmore on May 22, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Tom
I think we provide a very good standard of free education in Australia. We can spend more on kids in public schools because we don’t need to spend as much on the private school kids.
My kids both went through public schools through primary school.
by Diogenes on May 22, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Just watching the drum … Tony’s ABC is worse than News Corp, Reith is the intelligent, least biased lefty on that panel, I feel ill and dirty.
Who is the person from CATO, she makes Julie Bishop look like the soft intelligent lefty.
by WeWantPaul on May 22, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Greensborough Growler
It be all about the connections. The old boys network is uber real.
by poroti on May 22, 2012 at 10:12 pm
GG I’ll ease off if you concede we have a segregated school system in oz. deal or no deal?
by Rossmore on May 22, 2012 at 10:13 pm
I think that in a fundamentally lame excuse for subsidising the rich. Just do the math. And yes if they all come back to Govt Schools and all the private schools close we will have a much better, better funded public system. And of course that wont happen.
by WeWantPaul on May 22, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Someone in pynes electorate should ask him how does he spell thomsen or thompson,which one does he use
by Schnappi on May 22, 2012 at 10:14 pm
poroti
I think that true in business circles but it’s much less in the professions. I have literally never been asked where I went to school. I’ve also never asked anyone.
by Diogenes on May 22, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Just in case I wasn’t clear, I’m saying the funds to private schools are REDUCING the funds to public schools, not increasing them.
The whole increasing the funds to public schools is like the trickle down wealth effect, but less logical, and much less real.
by WeWantPaul on May 22, 2012 at 10:16 pm
WWP
If the private schools closed, the government would spend less per head on education.
by Diogenes on May 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm
tlbd – WTF is the chopper doing? Round and round last 40 mins …
by CTar1 on May 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm
by Centre on May 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm
But they would be better, better funded schools. They would have better teachers, they would have better programs for music, for science, for pretty much every damn thing, and yes possibly at a lower cost per head than currently spent.
by WeWantPaul on May 22, 2012 at 10:18 pm
What she’s on the prowl again, better phone me dad make sure he is still home and not in some shed somewhere.
by HaveAchat on May 22, 2012 at 10:19 pm
The recent education review found that some ‘Independent’ schools actually receive 2/3 – 3/4 of their funding from the federal government.
That doesn’t seem very independent to me.
by ShowsOn on May 22, 2012 at 10:19 pm
The argument as I understand it for private schools is that if they folded, you would have serious problems with the flood of students to public schools, and you would then have to pay the full amount.
The argument is that with the present system, less is spent on private than public schools, and the difference is a tax on the wealthy which they are willing to pay.
Happy to be proved wrong.
by don on May 22, 2012 at 10:19 pm
WWP
It would be a bigger system. But it would have less per head to spend on each kid.
by Diogenes on May 22, 2012 at 10:20 pm
And in addition parents in a locality, in an electorate, could be united in demands against govt as opposed to what happens now with just ripping our kids out to the nearest ‘insert religion of choice or elite school’ and take the Govt money with them.
by WeWantPaul on May 22, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Zoomster @ 2475:
Definitely. Case in point – yesterday I went to the fridge, grabbed a couple of things including the margarine tub. We have two margarine tubs: one “lo cholseterol”, the other another variety. Difference in weight = 25 grams.
I knew without looking that I had grabbed the one that I didn’t want.
Our senses, if we trust them, are remarkably acute.
by fiona on May 22, 2012 at 10:21 pm
I’m not sure I’m 100% sure you are right about the less per head, to say that involves all kinds of assumptions, almost all of which a Govt defunding the private sector (as it should) could chose to make wrong.
But even if you are right, each kid is still at a better school, effectively a better resourced school.
by WeWantPaul on May 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Diogs,
My wife’s religious but Anglican. I actually believe secular education is better overall for the child. The local High School is 300m away on the other side of the river as I look out from my backyard.
by Greensborough Growler on May 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Imagine that, instead of spending $10,000 a year (or more) on your kid’s school, you spent it on their education.
Extra tuition, music lessons, excursions, trips abroad, computers, internet access, whatever….
(I read about a couple who did exactly that – put the amount that they would have spent on a private school away in a separate account and used it to fund an educational trip abroad every year).
Or you put it in a trust fund for when they leave home…
by zoomster on May 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Don
I thought the rough figures for combined govts’ (Fed/State) spend on private school children was $7,000 and $12,000 for public
by shellbell on May 22, 2012 at 10:23 pm
So those kids are at a better school, with vastly improved resources and then have a vast pool or resources to make it even better, rather than the money going into duplicating four gyms in every regional centre.
by WeWantPaul on May 22, 2012 at 10:24 pm