Newspoll: 54-46 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes reports that Newspoll has the Coalition’s two-party lead at 54-46, unchanged from the previous poll, with the primary votes at 31% for Labor (down one), 44% for the Coalition (down two) and 14% for the Greens (up two). Julia Gillard’s net approval is 4% less bad than last time, her approval up two to 32% and disapproval down two to 58%, while Tony Abbott is respectively up one to 32% and down one to 59%. On preferred prime minister, Gillard is up two to 42% and Abbott is up one to 38%.
It should be noted that most of the polling period (Friday to Sunday) covered what in every state but WA was a long weekend, when an unusually large number of potential respondents would be away from home. Given that absent and postal votes tend to favour the Coalition, it might be anticipated that this would bias the result slightly in favour of Labor, although measures may have been taken to correct for this. As far as I can tell, Newspoll used to abstain from polling over the Queen’s Birthday weekend, but changed this policy last year.
UPDATE: Essential Research has two-party preferred unchanged on last week at 56-44, from primary votes of 49% for the Coalition (down one), 32% for Labor (down one) and 10% for the Greens (steady). The monthly personal ratings have Julia Gillard up a point on approval to 32% and down four on disapproval to 56%, with Tony Abbott down four on approval to a new low of 32% and up one on approval up one to 54%. Funnily enough, Newspoll and Essential concur that both leaders’ approval ratings are 32%. Gillard and Abbott are tied at 37% on preferred prime minister, compared with a 38-37 lead for Gillard last time.
Other questions gauge public trust in various institutions, recording a remarkable drop for the federal parliament from 55% to 22% since the question was last asked in September, and other sharp drops recorded for trade unions (from 39% to 22%), environmental groups (45% to 32%), business groups (38% to 22%) and, for some reason, the Reserve Bank (67% to 49%). The poll also finds 60% disapproving of bringing in overseas workers with only 16% approving, 32% believing labour costs and taxes might drive mining companies away against 49% who expect them to carry on regardless.
UPDATE 2: Roy Morgan makes it three polls in one day by reporting its face-to-face results, which it evidently does on Tuesdays now rather than Fridays. This result is Labor’s best since March, their primary vote up half a point to 33% with the Coalition down 2.5% to 42.5% and the Greens up two to 12.5%. On two-party preferred, the Coalition’s lead has narrowed from 55.5-44.5 to 52-48 on previous election preferences and from 58-42 to 55-45 on respondent-allocated.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Victoria @ 1794
I agree
everyone can see its not abbott who has the coalition where they are , its not even any other member of the coalition themselves its the media mainly via newsltd
Newsltd is the one who is doing the job of the opposition
by Meguire Bob on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Who does she THINK she is? Tony Jones?
by BK on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Gauss
Dozens of ‘hockey sticks’ have been created. They’re all largely in agreement. McIntyre’s dismissal of them has been ignored by the science community – as in the people who make the science.
Where does anyone working on paleoclimate studies cite McIntyre?
Also, Jean S is not McIntyre. I don’t know the specifics of the case you are citing, but it just sounds like normal science process to me. Papers get written, analysed, and some get chucked out. No one has chucked out any of the original Hockey Sticks.
Just ask yourself, why doesn’t McIntyre publish? If it is so important and these errors are so critical, why doesn’t he publish? He stays on his blog with his boutique audience because all of the errors are trivial.
“You cite Grant Forster. Now this is the person who on this subject, in particular the subject of centred PCA, quoted Ian Jolliffe, one of the world’s foremost experts on PCA & author of a seminal book on the subject, as backing a claim of Forster’s. Only problem was Jolliffe repudiated this.”
Go to the Open Mind site and you can find where Joliffe and Foster talk about this exact incident and Foster does apologise to him. This was on a technical detail about PCA. Now Joliffe in no way was saying that what Mann had done was wrong, just that it wasn’t standard. Mann in his later Hockey Sticks didn’t use non-centred PCA (or PCA) at all. Using the different methods he achieved the same sort of result.
I can see you have been reading climate audit for a while, perhaps you should seek an alternative opinion as every issue that McIntyre has brought up is adressed in numerous other blogs.
You still haven’t shown any quantitative analysis on his part. You understand that quantitative means he has to actually show the size of these errors. You know, the error caused x impact to the graph.
by Astrobleme on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm
sorry I do not watch Sky so thought Ashely was a guy. :surprise:
by guytaur on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…….
by Dee on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm
@702sydney: What happens to Afghans who are denied refugee status in Australia and sent home? That’s now w Phil Glendinning. He says they face huge risk
by guytaur on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Dee
I missed this. What is Scott Morrison seeking an apology for?
by victoria on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Any Hazaris at all who are sent back to Afghanistan face risks that we would not dream of countenancing for our families and friends.
by Boerwar on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Victoria
Morrison made a formal complaint to the ABC about bias.
by Dee on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm
The ABC are fast becoming a mere simulacrum of SlyNews it seems, and full of pusillanimous Liberal toadies. Further to my story about Scott Morrison’s complaint to the ABC Management because Stephen Long had the hide to criticise him(Poss is not happy):
by C@tmomma on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm
v
Apparently he is apologising to the people of Australia for being an evil piece of…
Oh, wait… it must be something else.
by Boerwar on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm
If #TheDrum does issue an apology to Scott Morrison for the comments of Stephen Long. It will prove beyond doubt it is now #THEIRABC
by The Finnigans on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm
DWH:
It’s a good point. The answer is that they’re both unpopular. But there’s no possible way Abbott can become popular – if his figures are in the dirt with his party so far in front, how could be possibly gain net approval?
However, it would seem that Gillard’s personal ratings are tied to her party’s in a way that Abbott’s are not. The likelihood is that, with the polls sitting 55-45 Gillard and Abbott are at about the same approval ratings. If you like, that’s parity for the two of them. When the polls tighten a bit, Gillard’s personal approval goes up.
I would say that Gillard’s unpopularity is not personal, but tied closely to the program the ALP have rolled out since 2010. Some very hard sells in there, and great scope to smear her by association with them.
Abbott’s unpopularity is personal. Even supporters of his own party distance themselves from hm – seen it on this board. He’s not liked, but he has been more or less believed. We’re about to hit a point where he not liked, believed or respected.
by Aguirre on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Guytaur, the point about mineral taxation is to tax the economic rents that accrue from their exploitation. Conceptually, these are different from profits, which are already subject to tax in any case.
It is easy to define “economic rents”. Notionally, they can be derived from monopolistic advantages held by sellers (say, for example, the advantages held by print media, power suppliers, toll roads and bridges, the banks, or the AFL in this country), or, in the current context, from the irreplaceable nature of natural resources. Typically, if scarcity can be be exploited, profits available to firms will likely be greater than they otherwise would be. The “excess” profits are the “rent”. Taxing these has a lot of intuitive appeal.
However, in practice, separating rents from normal profits is problematic. The first problem is how to measure what economic rents actually are available from any given venture. Another problem is how best to tax them. But there is another problem too. Consider mineral deposits. What if (and this is a common situation in many mines at some stage in their life-cycle) a deposit exists and can be worked, but, for whatever reason generates, no profits or even losses? Is there any economic rent? There is not even “normal” profit let alone excess profit. From the viewpoint of the custodian of the resource – the State – an irreplaceable resource has been used up. However, if the rent is said to subsist in the profit stream, then no rent has been identified or can be collected.
The solution to this has been to price rents in advance of the exploitation of resources – that is, States have said, “We don’t know if you can make any money from mining a given deposit, but in any case we want $x/tonne from you. If you cannot make it viable today, come back in the future when things may have changed.”
Such a charge is intended to reflect the one-time-only value of resource exploitation, yet is not calibrated around profits. It is an expression of opportunity cost. It is also a way for the State to say “We do not have the practical capacity to measure and compute economic rent in every case, and we are not going to try. But this is the “rent” that we are going to charge miners.” It is a conceptually simple system and it is easy to enforce. It also has the advantages of being transparent and predictable.
The RSPT showed just how hard it is in practice to measure and tax “excess” profits in a way that does not penalise firms that also experience “excess” losses from mining. Henry wanted to tax rents (excess profits) and refund anti-rents (losses). This is anything but elegant. It is just a way of making life difficult for both miners and taxpayers.
Think of the difference between a martini and mulled wine. One is elegant. The other will make you give up drinking.
by briefly on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Dee
He wants an apology for bias?! He must be bloody kidding!
by victoria on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Possum Comitatus @Pollytics
#IApologiseToScottMorrison for assuming the lesson he’d learn from representing a race riot community wouldn’t be promoting its causes
by C@tmomma on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Not enough for his liking?
by Aguirre on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm
the tits were a dead give away
by The Finnigans on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm
briefly
You respond with a wordy post proving nothing whatsoever. So much for your name briefly.
by guytaur on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Time for a Twitterati campaign to get the ABC to apologise for using IPA shills all the time.
by guytaur on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm
If you want proofs that #TheirABC has gone tabloid, Exhibit 1: #TheDrum Exhibit 2: @ABCNews24
by The Finnigans on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm
@TLM/1787
It’s called a honeymoon period.
by zoidlord on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Mrs Chrichton-Cbamberlain would you please stop interrupting my questions with answers?
by Boerwar on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm
30 years ago, most people in Australia just *knew* the Chamberlains had murdered their baby.
Today, most people in Australia just *know* that Slipper and Thomson have been up to no good.
The only thing that all these scenarios have in common is Trial By Media.
by Captain Obvious on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm
@abcmarkscott Mr. Scott, there is nothing in @StephenLongABC comments that warrant an apology to @scottmorrisonmp (Retweet if you agree)
by The Finnigans on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Will The Drum’s Jonathan Green please apologise for serving up endless warmed-over helpings of Chris Berg, Brendan O’Neill and Peter Reith??
by Captain Obvious on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Morrison is without any class,whatsoever. I’ll never forget (or forgive) his specific opposition to the CI disaster refugees attending their family funerals. If the Drum apologises – they’re in the same boat as Morrison. These days the ABC is run by cowering wannabees.
by al palster on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:32 pm
You are obviously not interested in the substance of the ideas that relate to resource taxation and the related politics. This is a pity, because it was on the logic and the practical merits that the RSPT failed. The same conceptual difficulties have determined the shape of the MRRT and the royalties system. These analytical and their allied legal problems drive the politics. But I will not go on. Clearly, I’m wasting my words on you.
by briefly on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Abbott in Adelaide pledges to clear the way for the Olympic Dam mining expansion “by not having a carbon tax, not having a mining tax, and trying to ensure that we don’t have bloated construction costs because of union militancy through the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission”.
If Kloppers and Nasser knock this project on the head later this year, Labor, state and federal, will be wiped out in SA.
by Toorak Toff on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Remarkably disgusting turn of events.
by imacca on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:36 pm
@Jo_Tovey: Law reform commission’s much anticipated review of NSW bail laws just released. Full copy here http://t.co/F3KPA6iK #nswpol
by guytaur on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Guytaur briefly responded well to the flaw in the RSPT. Can people imagine at a time of economic downturn when government revenue is under pressure they are required to pay the big miners their share of the losses. All hell would break out.
by davidwh on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Boerwar
They do indeed but they are not clean skins.Not that there are any of those in Afghanistan.The massacre of Hazaris in Mazar-i-Sharif by the Taliban had some background.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sias/cgi-bin/smunc/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/SMUNC-2010-UNSC-A.pdf
by poroti on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:39 pm
briefly
Yes you are. This because I think Ken Henry has more idea about taxes than you do.
None of your responses change the essential fact. Taxing profit is preferable to taxing inputs to a business.
by guytaur on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Been out, catching uo now..
I mant to say this yesterday but I forgot.
While doing a quick flick around Sky News interactive stuff I saw the carbon price referred to as a ‘pollution price’. I nearly fell off my chair. It’s the first time ever I’ve seen them use any other terms but ‘carbon tax’, usually with a doleful adjective attached.
Someone must have accidentally allowed a work experience pixie near whatever does the text stuff before they had been indoctinated into the correct, alarmist terms to be used at all times. The other odd thing was that the entire story was written with correct grammar and no spelling mistakes – not like Sky at all.
by leone on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Davidwh & Agiurre
From at least the 1987 federal election, PMs have won with negative net approval ratings, even this bad.
No LOTO has ever won with a negative net approval rating.
by Laocoon on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Toorak Toff,
BHPB is already spending millions widening roads and building infrastructure. It’s going ahead.
by PAAPTSEF on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:41 pm
davidwh
There is no flaw. When there is no profit there is no tax.
by guytaur on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm
TT
The Olympic dam expansion is going ahead. What makes you think otherwise?
by victoria on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:44 pm
He appears to be getting away with it in regard to all NSW voters, at least currently anyway.
Not much is being questioned, regarding the budget or his other broken promises and lies.
The ABC TV State Political reporter in the run up to the budget was bending over backwards to do negative carbon pricing stories.
by dave on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:44 pm
briefly
**Sun being well past the yard arm, Laocoon totters off, still pondering**
by Laocoon on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:45 pm
OC
I was told just before the last election that the good Dr Gillespie had been happily booking patients in for surgery for the weeks after the election and telling them that should he win the surgery would not happen and they’d be back on the waiting list with another surgeon. Patients who were booked in for the week after the election were not too happy with the doctor.
It says a lot about his real expectations – he didn’t expect to win.
Should he get pre-selection again we’ll know how he rates his chances next election by the way he treats his patients.
by leone on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:46 pm
What, Scott Morrison making a complaint about ABC bias?
Rotten lousy racist HYPOCRITE!
OK, let’s fix bias for real across all media.
News Ltd, Fairfax, Channels 7, 9, ABC, 2GB, 2UE and Sky News.
Let’s fix it, the lot of ‘em!
by Centre on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:46 pm
WTF is rAbbott on about “not having a mining tax” and Olympic Dam ? Not a milligram of iron ore or coal is being mined there.
by poroti on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Did anyone see the SBS doco “Death Unexplained” last night. The Coroner is a very impressive lady.
by BK on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm
BK
No. What is about a particular case or a general doco?
by victoria on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm
guytaur, this is the view taken by the mining industry. This ignores the problem I mentioned: what to do about mines that make no money? Henry wanted to grant tax credits to loss-making mines. This exposes taxpayers to unnecessary hazards.
Besides, what is wrong with taxing inputs? Consider the transport industry. Firms have to pay, for example, fuel excise whether they make any profits or not. If truckers made no profits, there would be tax collected from the use of fuel. Since trucking is a high-risk industry in which profits can be scarce and business failures are frequent, taxing profits only would make no sense from the point of view of the State.
Excise is an input tax that is expressed in trucking tariffs, so is embedded in the costs of all traded goods. That is to say, the costs are borne by the whole economy one way or another. Likewise, input taxes imposed on, say a granite quarry or a coal mine will raise the cost of concrete production. Is this a problem? Not really. Should the only tax paid by trucking companies and concrete producers be profits tax? Of course not.
There is no reason why business profits – or excess profits – should be the only point at which production is taxed. This is what you are asserting, though have no argument to support your views.
by briefly on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Kloppers and Nasser are being a bit cute on BHP B investment. Maybe bargaining for the best deal possible or maybe seriously thinking of delaying investment because of the world outlook.
by Toorak Toff on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm
The government should privatise the ABC and convert the SBS into a new respectable independent national broadcaster.
There is no point in operating both at taxpayer expense.
by Centre on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm
vic
It is a three part series that goes into the coroner’s investigations, including autopsies, and determinations. A first class effort. You can see it on SBS’s iView eqiuivalent I would think.
by BK on Jun 13, 2012 at 3:53 pm