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-
political animal
I am not lying and neither are the Greens. Their position stated on the record at the time. Rudd failed to negotiate with the Greens. Gillard succeeded. That is a Labor change not a Green change.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:46 am
guytaur
Oh dear, so you’re not even following what’s going on.
It was a speech to Parliament made by respected economist (and Labor MP) Andrew Leigh last night and posted on his blog (and linked to several times this morning on this blog).
http://www.andrewleigh.com/blog/?p=2642
The relevant claims about the increase in emissions and thus the increased cost of tackling them comes from a report by ClimateWorks.
How is pointing out that they had the opportunity to pass the legislation in the Senate, with the support of two Libs who crossed the floor, misrepresenting the Greens’ position?
That’s simply a fact.
Again, you dodge the question – how was the delay worth it?
by zoomster on May 23, 2012 at 9:48 am
The Green never had the numbers in the senate either – remember ?
by dave on May 23, 2012 at 9:48 am
dave
They did in the vote in November 2009, when the two Liberal senators crossed the floor to vote with Labor.
by zoomster on May 23, 2012 at 9:50 am
zoomster
I asked a question . Thank you for the answer. I did not need to follow what is being said as it comes down to a simple fact.
Rudd Failed. Gillard succeeded. Delays are due to that failure.
It is up to Prime Ministers to get legislation passed. Rudd failed to do so.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:50 am
guytaur,
There’s nothing to misrepresent.
The Government proposed CPRS was voted down by the Greens in 2009. Leigh makes accurate points that this caused a two year delay in the implementation of action on AGW and that the additional amount of carbon pollution pumped in to the atmosphere as a result is quantifiable.
You also point out that the Greens politically had a hissy fit that they weren’t consulted. The consequence of this hubris and bad temper is the delay in the implementation of action on Climate Change.
People who claim thie Government’s package is different to what was proposed in 2009 are splitting hairs and playing party politics to cover up their shame.
One only has to go to the Hansard to see the Greens voted with the denialists to prevent the implementation of CC legislation. They did it and should wear the opprobrium.
by Greensborough Growler on May 23, 2012 at 9:51 am
Off topic but funny anyway:
by Dan Gulberry on May 23, 2012 at 9:51 am
guytaur
but you won’t extend to me the same courtesy!
by zoomster on May 23, 2012 at 9:52 am
zoomster
This whole thing you are going on about is in fact in my opinion an example of the wise choice in electing JG as leader of the Labor Party and thus Prime Minister.
The passage of legislation speaks for itself.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:53 am
But St Bob has said many times St Kevin hadn’t even spoken to him for many many months, even then.
by dave on May 23, 2012 at 9:54 am
GG
If 2gb had the original voucher and it had been honoured by the bank, then someone has some criminal explaining to do imho, because banks are required to keep their records, for audit, or at least I would think so.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 23, 2012 at 9:55 am
GG
You are either lying or do not understand the Greens position at the time.
A reasonable position as Gillard, Oakshott, Wilkie and Windsor agreed to two years later.
Rudd failed. Gillard succeeded. Now promote that success.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:55 am
As a University of Melbourne law graduate and former law tutor Michelle Grattan should know that seperation of power is tantamount and its not Parliaments role to conduct a kangaroo court that prejudices future actions undertaken by Australian judiciary.
Maybe her Law career was so long ago she has just gone senile, or maybe Melbourne Law isn’t all its cracked up to be.
by billie on May 23, 2012 at 9:55 am
Dave
Two Liberal senators crossed the floor. Had the Greens political party supported the ETS, it would’ve got up.
I think it would help the ALP enormously if they ended the alliance with the Greens political party on July 1st. They have no bargaining power from that point (go vote with the Liberals and see whar happens) and it gives the ALP a chance to own all the legislation created in the parliament along with the independents.
by spur212 on May 23, 2012 at 9:55 am
Which is why St Bob didn’t seize the chance for action when it came.
by zoomster on May 23, 2012 at 9:56 am
An Open Letter to All Australians
Australian democracy stands at the very edge of a cliff today.
Over the course of this year we have collectively climbed over, stepped around and wriggled under all of the safety rails put in place to prevent us from getting too near to the precipice. The last hurdle, a small symbolic yellow line of warning, was crossed when Julia Gillard claimed ownership of the stepping aside of Peter Slipper and the temporary resignation of Craig Thomson from the Australian Labor Party. If these two gentlemen had been allowed to come to their decisions and make the announcements themselves as being for the good of the reputation of the parliament and the ALP respectively then we might still be one barrier away from taking the plunge into dictatorship.
When the Prime Minister finds herself in a position where, in order to govern in an effective manner, she must cede to the apparent wishes of the public as ascertained by a rolling storm of opinion that won’t allow any other meaningful discussion to take place then we have reached a very dangerous place indeed. I don’t assign disproportionate blame to Julia Gillard – that would be like blaming the last straw that broke the camel’s back and discounting the thousands of straws that went before.
In the crossing of this last line of deterrent I don’t blame the Coalition. Craig Thomson had it right when he said that Tony Abbott had launched the lynch mob and the press had fanned the flames. If the press had not adopted such a tone and volume of outrage at what they chose to believe were the wrong-doings of these two gentlemen, the Coalition could have ranted and raved into the wind to no avail. It was the threatened withholding of budget coverage and the replacing of it with hysterical outpourings of rhetoric surrounding the ‘indecency’ of Slipper’s and Thomson’s alleged activities that finally forced the PM’s hand.
The Coalition has most certainly played the biggest role in setting this train of events in motion and in maintaining its momentum but any self-respecting journalist or editor or producer could have looked in the mirror and asked themselves: “What about the presumption of innocence? Should I be a part of the ongoing coverage that will see one of our most fundamental democratic rights undermined?” Pretty much to a man and woman they decided that some other imperative was more important than this basic right which is thousands of years old and underpins almost all of Western society.
It isn’t a traditional dictatorship that threatens to over-run our society. It isn’t one individual with absolute power to change the laws and mete out arbitrary punishment according to his whim. It is a dictatorship where the media can foster a herd mentality (or the appearance of one) that sees perceived wrong-doers judged and punished by the entire population in an opinion poll from Hell. Precedent is the term we should be most afraid of today.
Once the precedent has been set that a high-profile individual who has been accused of the misuse of funds that might be regarded as being public (whether it be the union dues of lowly paid workers or the revenue of a government or the company finances that arguably belong to shareholders) and has had these allegations publicly aired along with what appears to be compelling evidence and is subsequently stripped of the office he holds based solely on whether the public believe him to be guilty, we are one step closer to vigilante groups exercising their own brand of justice based on that precedent.
Once it has been established that a high-profile individual need only be accused of sexual harassment in order for them to be stripped of their position and privileges we open the floodgates to a deluge of complaints designed solely to bring down a political opponent, an estranged spouse, a business competitor, an overbearing boss or a teacher who marks a paper unfavourably. We are already very close to this point now because an individual need only be accused of a crime of a sexual nature involving children and they are immediately demonised. The crime itself is a hideous one but it must be proved in a court of law not in the front bar of a pub.
This is mob rule. It is not the rule of law. Once the judicial process is taken out of the hands of professionals bound by strict codes of conduct and operating within carefully crafted frameworks based on historical precedents and placed in the hands of untrained individuals (be they MPs or journalists or Joe Public) we undermine the very foundations of our peaceful way of life.
The only thing standing between our basic democratic rights and the cliff-edge is a wall of Australian citizens. In the front line should be our politicians of good conscience linked arm-in-arm with our finest legal minds who should now be launching their own counter-attack against this mindless rush into anarchy. Supporting them should be principled members of the press but at the moment they are so few in number as to be insignificant. Behind our front line needs to be the bulk of the Australian public. We can use the comment’s sections of news articles, blogs and e-mails to MPs but our most telling weapon is the opinion poll. Give the Coalition a 10 point drop in its primary vote and it will quickly get the message that trashing the fundamental principle that underpins our justice system is not the way that we expect our elected officials to behave.
It is not good enough to kid ourselves, as some might be tempted to do, that if this government falls and an Abbott government is installed then suddenly everything will revert to its former position. If the media are left with irrefutable evidence that it can not only influence policy but actually bring down a government by guiding public opinion, it will continue to do so and will act with ever more audacious selfishness. It becomes particularly worrisome that this unfettered power is available to the highest bidder and that the collective beast that is the media has no conscience nor sees a moral dilemma in running two conflicting campaigns at the same time.
If one political party is left with the impression that a no-holds-barred assault on democratic principles is an effective way of undoing an opponent then all political parties will adopt this tactic. Of all the things that Tony Abbott can be accused of, the most worrying is that he is indifferent to the precedents that he is setting. These precedents might well come back to bite him but that will be no recompense for the damage that has been done to our institutions. I can think of no more important principle than the presumption of innocence. Without it, one individual can be taken out and shot on the say-so of one other individual.
Australia, we are in deep shit. Each of us as individuals are indeed judge and jury when it comes to the question of morals. When it comes to the question of legal impropriety, that is best left to our institutions that are equipped to deal with such matters. The parliament is not one such institution and the media is the last one that we should ever consider empowering to uphold this most fundamental of rights – the presumption of innocence.
by NormanK on May 23, 2012 at 9:56 am
Couple of things…
1. The “211 – Invalid CVC” code is from an American web site (may be different codes here).
2. “Authorization Code” on the docket may just be something like an “Operator Number”, i.e. not the actual transaction code.
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 9:56 am
spur
You ignore why the Greens did not vote for the ETS back then. Go look at why.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:57 am
Henry at 2581
The credit card imprint shows the credit card itself (hard plastic) was spelled “Thompson”
by clements steve on May 23, 2012 at 9:57 am
spur, why kick the hornets’ nest when good progress is being made with the Government’s legislative agenda currently?
There was nothing in it for the Greens politically in accepting the CPRS, with the Turnbull deforms. If Rudd and Labor had been so desperate to get that passed, they would’ve immediately gone to a DD and probably won.
by ltep on May 23, 2012 at 9:58 am
Funny
Blame the Greens. Do not Blame Rudd. I see its a Ruddstoration.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 9:59 am
We are all required by law to keep records for 7 years, particularly businesses.
Tax and financial ones etc are the biggies.
If someone in a bank has been releasing paper records that is even worse given the way banks hide behind *privacy* and have done so for hundreds of years before privacy laws were even thought of.
by dave on May 23, 2012 at 10:00 am
guytaur,
You can’t seem to handle the truth, comrade.
As I said the facts speak for themself. You Greens love to waffle your failures of honesty away. But, I don’t really care. You’re the one that has to live with your sanctimony and hypocrisy.
by Greensborough Growler on May 23, 2012 at 10:00 am
guytaur
you haven’t been able to explain (i) why they didn’t and (ii) what difference it made to the outcome.
I repeat: the only outcome is that action will cost $2 billion more.
If you disagree, explain what benefits we have from the two year delay which outweigh that.
by zoomster on May 23, 2012 at 10:00 am
zoomster
I have explained. You just have a Rudd can do no wrong and the Greens are to blame mentality.
As not just I have pointed out.
Rudd failed. Gillard succeeded. Promote Labor success.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 10:02 am
guytaur @ 2754
Another simplistic statement clouded by your hatred of Rudd.
Gillard has a much more benign Senate and Rudd had an extremely hostile senate on this issue.
The Greens sabotaged action on climate change. Live with it and hang your head in shame.
by bemused on May 23, 2012 at 10:03 am
GG
Go back and look at what the Greens said at the time. Tell all of us here where listening to the scientific consensus is sanctimonious and hypocrisy.
The simple stark truth is Rudd failed Gillard succeeded.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 10:04 am
ltep,
Nothing to gain apart from preventing two years of carbon pollution entering the atmosphere.
When it’s principle or self aggrandisemnt at stake, the Greens trash the principle every time.
by Greensborough Growler on May 23, 2012 at 10:04 am
Guytuar
The Greens had political motive to vote against action on climate change. Do you think Barnaby or Bernardi cared that the Greens voted with them to defeat the legislation? On top of which, the Greens had no bargaining power while Fielding and Xenephon had the numbers via their route to getting the legislation up. Had they been reasonable, then there would’ve been a start and more action could be taken as needed.
by spur212 on May 23, 2012 at 10:04 am
Beautifully put NormanK. A fantastic post: inspirational and to the point.
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 10:04 am
guytaur
If the Greens were so concerned about the environment and AGW they would have supported the package. They are not. They oppose windfarms and hydro. They oppose a pulp mill in Tassie yet use the products of pulp mills—paper. So they are happy to have a much worse environmentally pulp mill as long as it is out of their sight in some third world country. They are much more NIMBYs than environmentalists. I despise the Greens.
by political animal on May 23, 2012 at 10:05 am
NormanK
Good piece. I would add that if Slipper is cleared of misuse of cabcharges, he should resume the chair whilst his civil case is dealt with. The msm and coalition can carry on all they like. The law is the bloody law
by victoria on May 23, 2012 at 10:05 am
guytaur @ 2774
LOL!!
Usually I get labelled a Gillard cultist….
by zoomster on May 23, 2012 at 10:05 am
guytaur,
You’re stuck on stupid again!
Repeating bullshit doesn’t make it any truer.
by Greensborough Growler on May 23, 2012 at 10:06 am
@cs/2768
Was there actual finger prints of Thompson on the Credit Card? And how recent were they if any?
by zoidlord on May 23, 2012 at 10:06 am
bemused
Thank you for confirming it is Ruddstoration argument.
As I pointed out to Zoomster Gillard had as difficult a makeup to negotiate with.
Gillard is just good at that. Rudd has his talents. Negotiation does not seem to be one of them.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 10:06 am
Guytuar
The analysis that Rudd failed lacks substance. Suggest reading Possum on this as he summed it up best at the time
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/05/01/cowards_and_idiots/
by spur212 on May 23, 2012 at 10:06 am
Settle down. Weren’t the dockets part of the evidence in the defamation case?
Having said that, I don’t know how they got a hold of Thomson’s driver’s licence.
by Bushfire Bill on May 23, 2012 at 10:06 am
GG
Now you are being stupid. Rudd failed Gillard succeeded.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 10:08 am
Oh in regards to the whole Rudd Failed and Gillard success,
They did not, LABOR SUCCEEDED AS A WHOLE.
by zoidlord on May 23, 2012 at 10:08 am
spur
Rudd failed. He was not negotiating with the Greens. That means he left an avenue unexplored.
Now concentrate on the success that Gillard achieved.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 10:09 am
Next Gerry will be trying to convince us that the Pope is not a Catholic…
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/time-to-put-to-rest-claims-of-abbotts-dlp-tendencies-20120521-1z17i.html
by joe2 on May 23, 2012 at 10:09 am
I think that more investigation of this voucher is ‘not helpful’. It almost certainly could be presented for manual processing at the presenters risk.
The montage that is being used is made up of scans of individual items that, I think, were part of the Fairfax discovery activity in their litigation with Mr Thomson. So someone has put together various scans to make a nice picture for the ‘paper’. Intended misrepresentation? or just what seemed a good idea at the time? Who knows.
by CTar1 on May 23, 2012 at 10:09 am
It aint an operator code. It is the authorisation code, why it was actioned the way it was. My question stands, if this was a credit card slip that was used to pay for services. wtflock is the radio station doing with it? It is like someone getting an original honoured cheque from the bank’s archives.
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 23, 2012 at 10:09 am
I agree with this.
by guytaur on May 23, 2012 at 10:10 am
Leroy
I don’t know anything about the methodology of that study. Consumer confidence figures in Australia are in line with the findings of the study.
In particular, it found that very, very high percentage of Liberal supporters have very low consumer confidence.
I have some suggestions as to why:
(1) many Australians have copped a hammering in their share, super and housing values over the past four years.
(2) many Australians have small businesses which are struggling
(3) Australians have been told for four years that the end is night by Mr Abbott and they believe him.
(4) many Australians simply believe that women are no damn good as managers
(5) many Australians believe that the Greens are leading the Government by the nose down the road to economic perdition
(6) Australians are simply not used to minority governments or to sociopathic leaders in both Labor and Liberal. They yearn for the ‘simple’, ‘clear’, ‘decisive’ stuff of the sort the get from Mr Newman.
(7) many Australians realize that there is a paradigm crisis between which has, IMHO, the following polarities:
infinite growth/finite growth; technology solves all/technology magnifies the scale of the problem; endless population growth/limits to population growth; cenrtainties of authority-church-state-school/uncertainties of authority – relativisim, post-modernism; white imperialism/asian dominance; capitalism/GFC-crisis of capitalism; social certainty with male breadwinner – traditional family/social fracture, gay marriage – feminism; national control – border protection/globalisation – mass movements; environment as infinite sink and infinite sump/ environmental blowback.
by Boerwar on May 23, 2012 at 10:10 am
GG, I don’t disagree with you – if there’s something the past 4-5 years have shown it is that the Australian Greens are absolutely shameless when it comes to selling out principle for politics. I’m hoping that Milne’s leadership might signal a change in this but don’t hold out much hope.
Still the lesser of the many evils in my view, unless and until an alternative comes along.
Still, it’s quite true that Rudd rolled the dice in dealing just with the Coalition, and lost on that one. He further gambled by not taking it to a DD.
by ltep on May 23, 2012 at 10:10 am
Rudd voted for CPRS. Greens voted against. Don’t blame Rudd!
by political animal on May 23, 2012 at 10:11 am
Yeah, well how did someone get hold of them for the defamation case? Court order?
by Puff, the Magic Dragon. on May 23, 2012 at 10:11 am
guytaur
no, it’s not a Ruddstoration argument, because I’ve made it clear countless times that I don’t support that.
It’s a ‘can you actually justify what you say or have you just swallowed the Green talking points unquestioningly’ argument.
Yesterday, you showed that, when it came to ICACs, you were unable to sustain the argument once it strayed from what was set out in Bandt’s press release.
Today, you’re showing that all you can do is either say ‘look at what the Greens said two years ago’ (apparently you don’t actually know yourself what that was) or “oh look! over there! a pik unicorn!’.
by zoomster on May 23, 2012 at 10:12 am