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-
diog,
middle man is right, but it is also because tackling a 100+ kilo athlete going at full tilt is damn hard work. You’re not really looking to avoid the collision, you’re using it as a method to tire your opponents.
Also by the way you hit the defensive line good players increase their chances of getting to their feet quicker. That allows a quick play the ball which allows the next runner to catch the defence disorganised and/or going backwards.
An enormous amount of thought and training goes into every aspect of the game including how be tackled so that you can best advance the team’s chances of victory.
by ratsak on May 23, 2012 at 9:25 pm
The public broadcaster gives too much time and too much importance to this side of the ‘argument’, which btw isn’t taken seriously by most climate scientists, and certainly none of the scientific academies worldwide as far as I can determine.
The question for me is why should the ABC report on the views of those who don’t believe (glad you used that word btw) that human activity has a measurable effect on the climate.
by confessions on May 23, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Except the insularity of the NRL states.
by Dan Gulberry on May 23, 2012 at 9:25 pm
confessions
Here is another article from 2009
http://alpineopinion.com/2009/03/03/sophies-husband-out-of-a-job/
by victoria on May 23, 2012 at 9:25 pm
BW
It is only the Coalition fools in Australia and the Repugs who
don’t getfuriously deny AGW because it would mean a minuscule reduction of their privileged way of life.by fiona on May 23, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Washington Post on the Egyptian Polll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egyptians-vote-in-historic-presidential-election-with-muted-optimism/2012/05/23/gJQAz7FtjU_story.html?hpid=z4
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Diog, tell him that what you do here everyday at PB
by The Finnigans on May 23, 2012 at 9:27 pm
fiona – Justice Kirby would be a treat.
by CTar1 on May 23, 2012 at 9:27 pm
whoa Dan… hope that retort didn’t tax the brain cells…
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:28 pm
There’s an ad on telly at the moment for a solar cell company, telling us that the “Carbon Tax Bomb will be going off in 41 days”, so punters had better get their solar cells now.
At first I thought it was a bad ad, but upon reflection, I think it hits the nail on the head.
If we reduce our carbon footprint we can save not only money but tonnage of carbon pollution.
The Carbon Tax has already inspired our house to cut back, and our savings from just a few major measures have been a whopping 33%, compared to the same period last year.
I am yet to notice any real downside to this from our perspective. We are comfortable, warm in the cooler weather and aren’t stumbling around in the dark due to turning off all our lights.
I’ve also made some saving measures in the money area by doing some chores in-house, rather than paying others to do them (e.g. washing the car).
The aim of Carbon Pricing is NOT to send polluters broke as an end in itself.
It’s to convince them to use better and more efficient techniques to generate their products so that they stay at least in step with their competition, and preferably (for them) ahead of their competition.
But it doesn’t just stop at polluters. Consumers can do their bit too, as I have.
Abbott’s anti-Carbon Tax campaign relies on permitting punters to believe that they can have something for nothing. Under the Abbott wet dream, polluters will be subsidized by an Abbott government. Consumers won’t have to change a thing, or modify their lifestyles one little bit. Carbon savings “just are” under Abbott’s fairy tale.
This has been morphed by the anti-Carbon Tax brigade from an economic into an absolute moral position: “How DARE government tell us to lower our pollution! How DARE government tell us to wind back our lifestyles!”
Hence the current outrage: it’s coming from people who are being permitted to believe that they have no stake in carbon pollution reduction and no responsibility to do anything even if they DID have a stake in it. The buck is being passed from one to the other – consumer to polluter and back to consumer, on it goes in a vicious circle.
When everyone gets tired of this game, it’s being made too easy to blame the government, as if these very same people hadn’t elected that government in the first place (which they did, no matter how much they deny it, and try to wriggle out of it). the current excuse is that Big Bad Witch Julia broke a promise. It’s excited a national tantrum over how she lied to us. But it’s just an excuse, something upon which to hang the national reluctance to do anything.
This national recalcitrance really does need to be busted, and busted big.
For this reason I hope that the current TV ads DO quit emphasizing the “No Pain” compensation angle of the Carbon Tax and start emphasizing the more inspiring aspect of “civic responsibility”.
I think it’s fair enough to start out reassuring people that the compensation is coming. Yes, bed that down initially, but the message must be broadened to WHY the compensation is forthcoming and WHY we need to reduce carbon pollution.
Otherwise the whole argument becomes one like we saw today in QT: Joe Hockey getting up and smirking that the government was only offering 20c more in compensation than they claim the tax would be imposing. In today’s atmosphere Joe’s point WAS a good one: 20c in $10 is one-fiftieth of the compensation. That’s 2%. Swan’s and Treasury’s forecasts have been wrong by much more than that, just in the past few months. Arguing the trivia around these tiny percentages is like shuffling tiddlywinks on the Titanic.
We need more hope and more inspiration than the Treasury getting things right for once in their lives (they were out in Costello’s time too, usually erring on the side of caution, though). We need to be told WHY we’re doing what we’re doing. We need to be encouraged to make carbon footprint reduction a national challenge, and more to the point: fun.
I’ve had fun making simple, non-invasive changes to our lifestyle and seeing our consumption plummetting. I’d like to see TV ads that make suggestions, not just say “For more ideas go to our web site.” Who EVER goes to a government web site (I’ve seen some stats recently that, apart from Centrelink, hardly anyone does go to a government web site). Put something concrete on the nation’s screens: solid,. practical ideas, backed up by confident argument that carbon reduction is the right thing to do. Forget the deniers. They are a minority anyway.
Put the savings ideas on the telly. Put the WHYS of the Carbon Tax on the telly. Challenge people to beat the tax, not by buying solar cells, but by simply turning their refrigerators down, their hot water service down, buying more efficient appliances (TVs, computers, dishwashers) when they are due for replacement. Smaller cars, properly inflated tyres and lots of other things will all not only reduce carbon footprint, but they’ll SAVE MONEY.
And saving money is always FUN.
So, I’ve gone from thinking that solar ad was a cynical misrepresentation to thinking that it’s actually doing the government’s job for it: stressing that savings can be made and that the consumer has a responsibility and a stake in this whole carbon abatement project too. Whoever made that ad should be hired by the Gillard government and whgoever is making their current miserable, incremental, “we’ll save you 20c” ads should be put in a chaff bag and drowned as a service to the advertising industry.
Once the Carbon Tax beds down and the power generators realize that they can’t discount any more without cutting into muscle and even bone, they will HAVE to start reducing emissions. This will take a few years for them to accept that carbon pricing is here to stay. The first one to move on reducing emissions will be in such a great financial position after 12 months that the others will have to follow.
But to insist that carbon pricing is only all about compensation is wrong, wrong, wrong. Carbon pricing is about starting out on a long road to rescuing the planet, and it’s about ultimately saving economic resources, saving money.
The government ads, when they get to their second generation, should shout this message out loud and proud.
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 9:29 pm
confessions
Have a look who is posting these old articles
Gerbilnow has a long interest in sustainable development, and advises government and industry on technology and policy to encourage sound decision making.
http://www.gerbilnow.com
by victoria on May 23, 2012 at 9:30 pm
victoria:
Interesting. I’d be very interested in any insights zoomster might be able to provide.
Sophie’s demise also appears to coincide with her suspension from the parliament by Slipper at around the time the CEF bills were being debated. That was as a result of her extreme arrogance that she ended up in that situation.
With each passing day I can’t help but compare her demeanor to that of Wilson Tuckey. The loudmouthed brusqueness and sneering arrogance with abject contempt for our nation’s institutions are but one and the same.
by confessions on May 23, 2012 at 9:31 pm
confessions
I would like zoomster’s perspective
by victoria on May 23, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Why should they report “views” about a scientific question? “Views” are not important, only the evidence matters.
I have a “view” about lots of things, but I don’t believe the resources of the $1 billion national broadcaster should be deployed to report my “views”. Only a monstrous egotist would expect such.
Save the reporting of “views” to literary criticism, movies, religion, sport and other fictional endeavours.
by Captain Obvious on May 23, 2012 at 9:33 pm
sorry Dan. i dont mean to be brusque.
in my experience though i have found qld/nsw sports fans to have a passable working knowledge of the oval ground game, but have always been surprised by the complete lack of knowledge sports fans from AFL dominated states have of rugby league or union. with most not even able to tell the two codes apart in the first place.
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:35 pm
This could be a big change for Tories.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/23/nick-clegg-massive-push-growth
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:36 pm
I tried some MSM reporting. What he actually said was, ‘Mr O’Farrell has said that it is ‘Nonsense to have state of origin game in Melbourne.’
by Boerwar on May 23, 2012 at 9:37 pm
The ACCC have been investigating these adverts.
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 9:38 pm
BB:
Compare and contrast with how the tabloid shockjocks excuse away electricity price rises when it’s a Liberal govt in power.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/13760625/bitter-price-paid-for-electricity-debacle/
Apparently it’s all necessary and “the right thing to do”.
by confessions on May 23, 2012 at 9:38 pm
You missed ‘just’ but got ‘get’ and where is ‘look’?
by CTar1 on May 23, 2012 at 9:39 pm
BB
Agree with your observations.
by victoria on May 23, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Thanks ratsak and mm
The ball doesn’t spill out nearly as often as in AFL during a tackle. Aren’t you allowed to try and punch the ball out of their hands.
by Diogenes on May 23, 2012 at 9:41 pm
One of the most powerful images in cinema history is that of Mr. Allnutt and Rosie in The African Queen mired in the papyrus reeds at the junction of the river and the lake.
The river is death and danger. The lake is freedom. The reed beds are really a tiny obstacle that, when you are in them, seem insurmountable.
The the camera rises high to show how close the two travellers are.
It’s a classic case of the forest and the trees.
This is where the Carbon Debate is now: bogged down in the reed beds of compensation, incremental advantage, petty disputes about the veracity of science, side issues about brothels and Cab Charge dockets, opposition nitpickers going over every cent and disputing it and government ministers defending every penny of compensation as if it was gold bricks.
The answer is to cut through, not get bogged in the reed beds. As Kelty said, “Just tell the truth”.
He didn’t mean the government was lying, like the media try to characterize it. He meant that the truth is there to be told, and needs telling. Playing Abbott’s trench warfare game, hacking through the biomass with a blunt machete is not the way to get the nation on side.
Bold, truthful statements, made confidently are the only thing this government hasn’t tried.
They should start telling the REAL truth forthwith. Time’s a wasting.
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 9:41 pm
BB
The carbon price has always been about changing behaviour to reduce emissions. It is only the denial cult that says otherwise.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm
mm
I think the comment by the Vic Sports Minister proves your point.
by Diogenes on May 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm
the science v opinion thingo is the clearest indication of the success right wing types have had in utterly undermining rational discussion based on empirical data and scientific reasoning. started with tabacco and is now rolled out the same way for anything they disagree with.
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:43 pm
by Dee on May 23, 2012 at 9:44 pm
diog. exactly.
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Dee:
It was only a matter of time before the msm unearthed a sex worker wiling to sing.
by confessions on May 23, 2012 at 9:45 pm
diog. in league you can only attack the ball in one-on-one tackle. in union the rule is different. in union the ball is always contestable. in union there is no stopping to roll the ball under your foot like league.
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Do you have the Blu-ray? It looks amazing. Jack Cardiff was a genius.
by ShowsOn on May 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Well, if they are, they should be called off. These ads are fantastic. They inspire people to balance their Carbon Tax by going solar.
That’s what the Carbon Tax is for: to force people to make a change.
The government should use them and the person who designed them should be hired immediately.
They harness antagonism towards the Carbon Tax, mix in a genuine way of avoiding it, and urge people to hurry.
These ads accomplich EXACTLY what a government campaign should be doing: accepting that the public is leery, identifying the problem, and turning that into a positive gain.
These ads are actually quite brilliant.
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm
middle man – good thing too otherwise there would be as many disruptions/scrums as union. It is also why some unkind people call AFL fumbleball
by Oakeshott Country on May 23, 2012 at 9:48 pm
oh here we go… ACA… forget the kangaroo court. these guys prefer the Mussolini way out!
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Dee, see this also…
by Leroy on May 23, 2012 at 9:49 pm
ML
Considering the stakes, which are certainly in the order of hundreds of millions of lives over the next couple of centuries, the MSM in Australia is in general, IMHO, criminally negligent in its approach to ‘balanced’ reporting of ‘views’ about AGW.
For example, the only mainstream article I have seen on Arctic sea-ice extent in the last couple of months was by Mr Akerman in ‘The Telegraph’. His view was that Arctic sea-ice extent was higher than normal. I posted here on his article destroying its pretence to any rationality.
The NSIDC sea-ice extent graph, link attached, was available to Mr Akerman. In fact he referred to the site in his article. What he did was to focus on the Bering Sea which did have greater than normal sea-ice extent for that time of the year. Mr Akerman ignored the fact that sea-ice extent in the Barents Sea was much lower than normal at that time. He ignored the Arctic as a whole. As I say, the data which is straightforward and is easily accessible to laypersons, was available to him from the site he referred to at that time.
In recent weeks we have had reports of a landmark study which summarised everything we know about temperatures in the Australasian region for the past millenium. It shows that highly unusual warming has occurred over the past five decades. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the best scientific work we have on the topic for this region. It has virtually gone unreported in the MSM.
IMHO, this is criminally negligent, given the likely consequences.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
by Boerwar on May 23, 2012 at 9:49 pm
OC. i’m a union fan. i prefer the constant battle for the ball than the relative predictability of league.
no footy is bad. they all just offer different aspects which appeal to different types of people.
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Yes I do. Unfortunately it makes the “toy boat through the rapids” scene look hokey.
My grandkids watched it with us and kept on yelling “Green screen! Green screen!”.
But a powerful movie if you can ignore the primitive special effects.
Casablanca didn’t make the same mistake: they had miniatures in the first minute or so then dollied into the back streets and barrooms of Casablanca, and stayed there, giving the movie a much more “Realistic” look to it.
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Also agree with you on the AFL/RL divide.
NSW and Qld people can live with AFL but there seems to be a real hatred of RL in Victoria etc. I don’t think it has anything to do with the game but just part of the nationalism inherent in AFL. Also probably related to the inferiority complex of the Southerners.
by Oakeshott Country on May 23, 2012 at 9:51 pm
For those interested, European share markets are very weak so far today (about lunch time), down 2%. An EU Leaders’ meeting this evening (focus apparently on EU Bonds, which the French want and the Germans don’t want). The AUD has also gone through USD$0.9750 as well.
Time for the more restful land of nod!
by Laocoon on May 23, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Leroy
Who has been sitting on it for a year?
by Dee on May 23, 2012 at 9:53 pm
I don’t mind Union it just seems to favour defence over attack. I watched the 2010 Shute Shield grand final – It was still winnable in the last 10 minutes but University just shut the game down with collapsed scrums and kicks for touch.
by Oakeshott Country on May 23, 2012 at 9:53 pm
BB @ 3809,
I can hear those BISONS roaring MOAR…
… and imho Finns should make you an honorary BISON forthwith.
by fiona on May 23, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Boerwar, you’re still nitpicking and sulking. you’re still pulling the African Queen through the reed beds. There’s not enough time for that anymore.
The government can bypass the media by running a $100 million ad campaign to advertise their Carbon Tax, the benefits, the reasoning behind it, the compensation and ways to beat it.
The government can invite the public to dodge its own tax by making minor adjustments to their appliance settings and saving a motza. In effect the government ads would be promoting tax dodging, but all in a good cause.
that is the EXACT point of the Carbon Tax.
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Boerwar
Piers Akerperson + rationality = oxymoron.
by fiona on May 23, 2012 at 9:55 pm
OC. they have introduced new rules to combat time wasting at the end of a game, and some changes to scrums. it is a work in progress. unions problem is that the demands of being a professional code and a product for tv are pretty new to it….
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Piers Akerperson + rationality = impossibility!
by BK on May 23, 2012 at 9:56 pm
CTar1,
I know, it’s decadent. Plus the addition of pea and ham soup, with celery. In fact, I’m probably in need of a methane meter. Three dogs under a couple of doonas … can result in a somewhat musty atmosphere.
+++
I commented yesterday on Abbott’s pallor during QT. (Thanks, BK, for the pics!) This could be explained by an incorrect white balance setting on the camera, whatever. Easy to do with digital. Never fiddle with the “tint” slider unless you know what you are doing.
It was interesting today that someone mentioned a possible “liver” problem. Others suggested the intake of carotene, hence the yellow tint to his visage. Some crude souls here might suggest it’s simply “shit on the liver” and a good purge would work wonders.
To my untrained medical eye – and IMHO – Mr Abbott has some sort of health problem. I wish no ill health on anyone – friend or foe. But, he looks crook.
by Scringler on May 23, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Dee. ACA have been sitting on it for a year.
by middle man on May 23, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Dee – I’m assuming that Phil is dismissing the idea as a unfounded rumour, given that he heard the same thing a year ago.
by Leroy on May 23, 2012 at 9:58 pm