Galaxy: 56-44 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes reports that a Galaxy poll, conducted from a sample of 995 from Friday to Sunday, has the Coalition leading 56-44 on two-party preferred, from primary votes of 31% for Labor, 49% for the Coalition and 12% for the Greens. Supplementary questions find 64% believing the government is worse off now than it was under Kevin Rudd, against 20% who think it better off; 59% believing the Prime Minister has failed to deliver an effective policy to reduce carbon emissions, against 59% who believe she has; and 57% saying she has failed in sharing the benefits of the mining boom, against 29% who say she has succeeded. There is also a frankly silly question as to whether the government has succeeded in stopping asylum seeker boats, to which 9% (presumably Labor partisans irritated by the question) wrongly said yes, and 80% offered the obvious response.
UPDATE: Essential Research records two-party preferred steady at 56-44, from primary votes of 33% for Labor (up one), 49% for the Coalition (steady) and 10% for the Greens (steady). Other questions cover most trusted party to handle various issues (Greens environment and climate change, Labor industrial relations, Liberal everything else); whether the economy is heading in the right or wrong direction (43-32 in favour, compared with 36-41 against in March); trust in people and organisations (Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull do better than Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, who do better than Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart; and bias in media reporting in favour or against various groups (Liberals and business seen to do better than Labor and unions).
In other news, some state, territory and local government matters of note:
• Roy Morgan has published three phone polls of state voting intention for New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland on Friday, from a small combined sample of 811. While the margins of error are about 5.5%, the results are roughly in line with other polling in showing little change on the most recent elections, with the conservative incumbents leading 52-48 in Victoria and 62-38 in both New South Wales and Queensland. Personal ratings show a strikingly poor result for Ted Baillieu, at 29% approval and 53.5% disapproval. The polls were conducted on the Tuesdays and Wednesdays of the previous two weeks.
• I have lazily neglected to cover the publication of draft boundaries for the state redistribution in South Australia, but as always Antony Green has been well and truly on the job. The proposals have been uncommonly controversial in that they have essentially ignored the legislative injunction that the commissioners must, “as far as practicable”, draw boundaries which on the basis of the previous election results would have achieved “fairness” with respect to the major parties’ shares of seats and two-party preferred votes. Given Labor’s success in winning 26 out of 47 seats at the 2010 election from 48.4% of the two-party vote, this would have demanded tremendous creativity on the part of the redistribution commissioners, and presumably some very contorted electoral boundaries designed to slash Labor members’ margins.
• Refugee advocate Linda Scott has won the “community preselection” to determine Labor’s candidate to take on Clover Moore in the Sydney lord mayoral election in September. Half of the vote was determined by a ballot open to any of the 90,000 voters in the municipality (albeit that they were required to pledge that they were not members of a rival party), with the other half determined by party members. It attracted 400 party members and 3900 non-members. Labor will now trial the procedure in five yet-to-be-decided seats for the next 2015 state election. However, Andrew Crook of Crikey has reported the party’s various state branches are backing away from the idea of conducting primaries for the federal election, which they had been encouraged to pursue by the December national conference and the Bracks-Carr-Faulkner post-election review.
• Antony Green has published his guide to the Northern Territory election on August 25.
Federal preselection news:
Page 1 of 3 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
r
It saddens me to see you continuing with the way you have framed the carbon pricing meme.
I grant you these:
(1) that the currently legislated arrangements will have only small effects on the behaviour of individual consumers.
(2) that whatever changes the current arrangements make, will make a barely perciptible immediate short-term impact on the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
(3) that it is an expensive way of going about the process
(4) that, having established a market pricing mechanism, there is no good argument for subsidising: coal carbon sequestration, wind power, solar power, nuclear power, or soil carbon sequestration. There is only a good argument for increasing the price of CO2 so that investors choose the cheapest and best way of avoiding CO2 emmissions.
I would assert that:
(1) the world is, and will increasingly, address AGW through policy, regulation and program. It will not in the near term do so through international agreements. So we mere humans will be relying on individual nations to do the right thing – not in the certainty that this will work, but in the now-distant hope that it might do so.
(2) exceedingly wealthy nations such as Australia should take the lead in this.
(3) that the major elements of the DAP are very poor policy indeed in comparison with the Government’s package.
(3) that policy and government uncertainty has depressed low-carbon emission energy generation investment.
What you need to acknowledge is that a bipartisan approach climate policy approach by Mr Abbott could have fixed all of those issues, that his current alternative is a crock and that his approach is designed to create uncertainty, confusion and investment hesitation that are destructive of our national interests.
This has been the norm for the Howard/Costello governments for 11 years: delay, obfuscate, and undermine AGW action.
You do yourself no credit by arguing from your close inspection of the elephant’s toe.
by Boerwar on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:06 am
Nonsense.
Firstly Gillard’s biggest problem is people don’t like her or want her and thus do not listen to her or the Labor govt. This is why they Opposition can be so abysmal and get away with it.
Secondly the public know Rudd already, and stating very clearly they want him over all others. And the people actually listen to Rudd and pay attention.
This would be the worst possible news for Abbott, having a PM the people prefer and will actually listen to.
Thirdly Rudd is far superior politically to Gillard and gets his message over far more effectively than Gillard could in a thousand years of trying.
The truth is the opposite of the statement made above.
All of sudden Abbott comes into focus and persued by a much more effective political leader that actually has some respectable support.
With gillard you have a PM that nobody wants or will listen to. Yeh, stick with her.
by Thomas Paine. on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:06 am
Direct action looks great at the moment. Though Abbott should can it by the next election and put all the money into health care and education.
by rummel on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:07 am
sk
I hope they are still unemployed.
by Dan Gulberry on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:07 am
@AboutTheHouse: House Agriculture Committee supports passing of Wheat Export Marketing bill http://t.co/6WqgAHCq
by guytaur on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:07 am
The next internationally significant election to watch out for appears to be the Mexican Presidential and Parliamentary elections on July 1.
The polls show a substantial difference to each other, but the 2 Left parties have a strong lead over the Right party there.
I expect the Drug Wars there will be a large issue. It really is terrible. Tens of thousands of people dead, many killed gruesomely.
by Von Kirsdarke on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:07 am
I actually believe that Gina Rinehart is not as interested in Fairfax for the dead tree version of it’s media, or only in so much as an appendage to the main game she is playing of getting control of the radio assets and the web portal. People don’t read hard copy as much as they used to but in those dreaded morning and afternoon peak hour traffic jams, and on the radios of the greying nation, they are fed the lines that the media moguls want them to hear. John Singleton figured that out when am and fm radio were provided for people to listen to, talk and music became separate entities.
Now, with the NBN and IPTV on the horizon, and even now able to be hooked up to our television screens, and the AppleTV on the way in a highly portable format, the media baroness/baron who can hook the eyes and ears of the populace up to their pov via their network, will have most of the game won when it comes to setting the agenda. Especially an interventionist proprietor like Gina Rinehart would undoubtedly be.
by C@tmomma on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:07 am
poroti @442
by Dan Gulberry on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:08 am
What does this actually mean? Failed to get it through? Well, that’s happened. Failed to get it running? that’s about to occur. So, what’s the ‘failure’?
by Gary on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:08 am
See my previous comment. The public are not even bothering to give Gillard Labor the benefit of the doubt even.
by Thomas Paine. on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:09 am
guytaur @440,
I too would like to see something along those lines. With the internet providing virtually free publishing and distribution, and a laptop with wifi and smart phone providing virtually free office then a co-operative form would surely make a compelling case.
If they’re after a secure high paying job they’ll go into PR, but if they actually care about real journalism then they can surely find enough like minded to form a small co-op and producing a compelling advertising funded product to fill a niche.
by ratsak on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:10 am
The real fail is newspaper circulation. They are becoming redundant and are pointing elsewhere.
by joe2 on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:10 am
DG
I know, I know. I am but jetsam on history’s tide, mere historical detritus, a mawkish and sentimental discard of a technological change, irrelevant, a relic…
I regret all those things as well.
by Boerwar on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:10 am
What, a broken promise?
by Gary on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:10 am
As American commentator described many voters “Imformation poor” .
by poroti on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:11 am
Call me old-fashioned but ‘yes’ to ‘succeeded’ or ‘yes’ to ‘failed’?
Or ‘no’ to ‘succeeded’ or ‘no’ to ‘failed’?
by Boerwar on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:13 am
Thomas Paine
The A-side of your record is broken. Flip it over and see if the B-side is any better.
by Tom Hawkins on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:14 am
Does anyone have a list of the questions asked, and the order in which they were asked, for this particular poll?
by Roy Orbison on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:14 am
joe2
And this is the week The Advertiser put up its rice by 10%. In business terms, this is akin to the Death Spiral.
http://blog.accountingcoach.com/what-is-the-death-spiral/
by BK on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:14 am
Boerwar
I agree that DAP is a crock.
Agree the world is warming and man may be causing it.
I disagree that join action and support now will fix it even with world wide agreement . to try is a huge waste of money and will not stop the warming for at least 1000 years if you trust Tim $$$ Flanery.
Money should be spent on health, education, science and emergency services.
by rummel on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:15 am
Sorry if this a tad off subject, but it on a poll, and shows the bias of ABC and Murdoch media resident expert and future fiberal minister (I’ll bet on that) John Roskam.
It is also a bit of a ‘point and laugh’ exercise – Q: What do you do when the poll you have commissioned tells you that only 15% agree with you that The Age is biased to Labor and the Greens? A: Put out a press release that screams “70% (of the 21% who think the paper is biased) of people think the Age if biased to the left”.
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2048/new-poll-on-bias-at-the-age-could-explain-circulation-collapse
This might explain why they back the economic/mathematically illiteracy of Hockey and Abbott, and keep funding and promoting such ‘credible’ manipulators of data such as Pilmer, Monkton and Lomborg. (no, the real explanation is the mining and tobacco industry funding)
Applying the same logic as Roskam, my latest reading of the polls is that 100% of Greens voters intend to vote green – I’m looking forward to the landslide, although I have conflicting results – 100% of liberal votes are voting liberal and 100% of labor are voting labour.
What’s the bet the Oz have his media release a feature within hours. (Co-incidentally, 70% is also Murdoch’s ownership of Australian print media). If so, I’m dropping an email to Media Watch.
by sustainable future on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:15 am
rice = price
by BK on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:15 am
Dan,
I don’t know about now, but I do know that they wanted to bring these guys in during peak periods but couldn’t because they didn’t have their head around the technology.
by Space Kidette on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:15 am
Obviously the big number was always going to be the ‘fail’ no matter how people thought they were responding.
by Tom Hawkins on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:15 am
TP@451,
All show, no go, that’s Kevin Rudd alright. Great at ‘messaging’, woeful as a leader of men and women.
I often think of the REM song, ‘Shiny Happy People’ when I think of Kevin Rudd and his followers.
by C@tmomma on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:17 am
64% of people prefer Rudd to Gillard.
All of the spruiking of her here doesn’t change the fact that she’s unpopular, and people still resent the way she knifed Kevin to get the top job.
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:17 am
Most of the community wouldn’t know if their arses were on fire when it comes to this type of thing.
by Gary on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:17 am
BW @465
That’s exactly the point I raised last night (#71, #103 and #135). The questions make no sense with yes or no answers.
by Dan Gulberry on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:17 am
James J said last night that the order of the questions looks dodgy based on the way they were published in The Advertiser today.
On their website, they’ve got the Primary Vote first, 2PP second and the other questions after them. My guess is News Limited wanted to emphasise certain results to fit their narrative
http://www.galaxyresearch.com.au/
by spur212 on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:18 am
Yes. As long as he takes it to he net election and does not hide it untill after and then Labor proof it so the voting public can get ride of it in the future if they vote to do so.
by rummel on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:18 am
And when Labor dumps Gillard, Abbott & the Liberals will be in a panic – a return to Rudd is not what they want.
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:18 am
TP
That’s all you actually need to write from now on.
by zoomster on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:18 am
And how many of those would vote for Labor if Rudd was PM? They rarely ask that question, which is more important.
by Gary on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:19 am
Yes, easier to insut voters when they’re not bowing down at the ranga’s feet.
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:19 am
Last Newspoll before June 24, 2010:
Labor 52
Coalition 48
This was a government that had “lost its way”?
Gillard’s justification for the coup was always flimsy, ditto the argument from Swan & Emerson that Rudd was a “dysfunctional office manager”.
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:21 am
Well done Malcolm Fraser:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-evil-policy-work-20120617-20hzs.html
by Lynchpin on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:21 am
The most absurd thing about rhinehart buying into Fairfax is that is will destroy the Fin Rev as a paper.
The people who mostly buy and read the Fin are business people wanting to make investments. If it is tainted by being owned by a big player in the market (any big player) it will rapidly cease to function as a realistic business paper.
This was partly true of the fairfax empire but they were still a relatively small player in business terms… Not so Gina. The business arm of News ltd has never had real status in business world probably for similar reasons. RIP Fin Rev
by daretotread on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:21 am
The problem with the media industry is that despite the internet being mainstream for the last ten years, they have continually failed to adopt and embrace a new model that derives a return commensurate with the old model.
In dragging their feet they allowed other advertising revenue models to fill the gap. Now instead of receiving 100 percent of rather expensive ad revenue they now get 20% of sweet bugger all.
Those competitive advertising models, affiliate, google etc have been quick, aggressive and opportunistic, news/content will have to go wholesale in some form or other to make it financially viable, but the demand for good quality news has not gone away – it has just gotten a bit more discerning.
by Space Kidette on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:22 am
This is a re-writing of history. The one criticism of Rudd at the time was his lack of ability to communicate policy. He was mocked by the media for using strange words and providing long winded replies in parliament.
by Gary on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:23 am
Online Carbon Pricing False Claims complaint form just launched by the ACCC. Easy to fill in and priority will be given to investigating complaints as additional resources have been provided to the ACCC by the government.
by C@tmomma on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:24 am
Gary
Think that question was asked the other day. Rudd came up much better against Abbott.
Cannot recall if they compared Rudd/Turnbull – think not.
by daretotread on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:24 am
That was a popularity against Abbott. Not a party poll. There is a difference.
by Gary on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:26 am
It looks like we have a duty to perform.
by BK on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:27 am
Morning Bludgers – As one who used to love newspapers I’m sorry to see the decline at Fairfax even tho I’ve helped it along. I thought when many of us stopped buying the papers that the editors might see that they were dudding a fairly large part of the audience and change tack.
I read the SMH last Friday morning at a coffee shop. It was a dismal read and the sports pages made up most of the paper.
So the Advertiser headline today ‘PM Fails” or something similar on the back of a loaded Galaxy poll shows I’ve missed nothing in giving up reading the Tiser on line.
by BH on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:27 am
I agree that the government had lost its way in 2010 and were stumbling about trying to get things back on track. The only problem is that of the four senior ministers responsible for the big decisions one got the sack, two got promoted (including the biggest bumbler) and the fourth one retired. The change of leadership did nothing to steady the ship and then the new captain started making silly decisions.
by davidwh on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:28 am
Rummel – re: ‘will not stop warming for 1,000 years’
the point you are missing, is that we have a certain amount of warming ‘locked in’ due to emissions to date because it’ll take a 1,000 year for the fossil carbon we have released into the biosphere to be reabsorbed in to geosphere, and get us back to pre-industrial levels. we’ll have to live with at least 1-2 oC of warming and the changes that will bring over the next century or so (changes in sea levels, shifts in rainfall patterns, more extreme weather events – all the stuff we are seeing now). The point of being part of global action to reduce emissions is to avoid potentially catastrophic warming over the next few centuries. If global temperatures increase by an average of 3.5 degrees, there may be run-away effects, particularly if the warming happens more at the poles as seems to be happening. To say ‘there is no point’ shows you don’t understand the issue. Carbon pricing will see a dramatic shift in reductions – the related program to shut old coal power stations will see us fall below the weak 5% by 2020 reduction target. In the US, regional trading schemes have seem emissions fall by over 25% over the past decade. Over 30% of the OECD economy is under ETS. China has stated intent to join a global ETS. Despite what the Australian media tells you, this stuff is largely settled and is going to happen. It will make a difference to emissions and the future levels of warming. what’s more, it is hardly going to hurt at all.
by sustainable future on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 am
TLM@484,
This is all the Rudd boosters have by way of justification for their continued attempts to tear down the Labor Party Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. The Coalitiion couldn’t be doing more to destabilise her leadership.
However what these rats in the Labor ranks refuse to point out is the evaporation of the Labor Party’s lead in the polls prior to that oft-quoted snapshot figure, and why.
by C@tmomma on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 am
BB – have you kept all your posts on carbon pricing/reducing costs, etc. I’ve bookmarked a few of them but would like to send some around. Is that OK? This paragraph is particularly relevant and I just hope the advertising which is going to start shortly will incorporate it.
by BH on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:31 am
As Conroy said, this is a sad day for all those about to lose their jobs at Fairfax, but the implications for the rest of us are interesting to say the least.
Apparently the large Fairfax printing presses at Chullora and Tullamarine will be closed down and printing will be done regionally. Not sure how this will work, but cannot help wondering how much an unused printing press might cost…
Apparently 1900 staff will be sacked over three years, and according to Michael Gawenda this means some 300 journalists or almost half the current journalist staff. There are few old journalists who should just retire, but where will the rest go…
Apparently the Age and the SMH will go tabloid, and this is not just the actual size of the papers. With fewer journalists the content will go (even further) downmarket.
Apparently, after the downmarket tabloids predictably fail, the entire Age/SMH content will be migrated to the internet (thanks to the NBN) and paywalled. Who do they think is going to buy?
I hope Gina does take over Fairfax. Then virtually 100% of old media will be owned by the tin-foil hat brigade and crazy old regime changers. The ideological lines will be clearly drawn, and the old media will stumble off into irrelevancy (except for the declining readership of elderly monarchists, climate denialists, libertarians etc).
The ABC is already positioned on the internent to lead the field in news broadcasting, because it is FREE. Big changes ahead, and they might not all be bad for progressives. Perhaps we might even see the resurrection of the old suburban newspaper, with local content and local loyalties.
Now where did I stash that old gestetner machine?
by susan winstanley on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:31 am
Andrew Leigh is getting stuck into The Three Stooges.
by This little black duck on Jun 18, 2012 at 11:31 am