Nielsen: 58-42 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes reports the latest monthly Nielsen poll has the Coalition lead at 58-42, compared with 57-43 in the previous month’s poll. The primary votes are 28% for Labor (up two), 48% for the Coalition (steady) and 12% for the Greens (down two). That these shifts should send Labor backwards on two-party preferred can be put down to fortuitous rounding in Labor’s favour last time. Tony Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister has widened, from 46-44 to 46-42, but personal ratings are little changed. Julia Gillard is down a point on approval to 35% and steady on disapproval at 60%, while Abbott is steady at 39% and down two to 55%.
Nielsen also has 88% of respondents wanting “the political parties to compromise to find a policy solution” on asylum seekers, not unreasonably (a more specific question regarding the arrangement which passed the House last week would perhaps have been more illuminating), with only 10% opposed. Labor (58%) fared worse than the Coalition (42%), the Greens (39%) and the independents (18%) when respondents were asked of each party in turn if they bore some responsibility for the impasse. The poll also has opposition to the carbon tax at 62%, up from 59% in October, while support is down from 37% to 33%. Only 5% believed they would be better off after carbon tax compensation, with 51% believing they would be worse off.
UPDATE: Essential Research has two-party preferred steady at 56-44, with the Labor primary vote down a point on last week to 32% and the Coalition and the Greens steady at 49% and 10%. Presented with the favoured policies of Labor (offshore processing in Malaysia), the Liberals (offshore processing in Nauru) and the Greens (onshore processing), respondents divided 18%, 35% and 14%. However, 57% favoured an option that the government should negotiate a solution over the alternative that it should adopt the Liberal policy. Further questions gauge use of newspapers and concern about their decline, culminating in a finding that 52% would approve of the government “taking action to maintain the publication of daily newspapers” against 27% who would disapprove.
We also have the quarterly Newspoll breakdowns by state, gender, age and capitals/non-capitals. The star attraction here is a collapse in Labor’s vote in Queensland, their primary vote down to 22% from 30% in the previous quarter and their two-party vote down from 42% to 35%. How much of this might be put down to static from the state election, and how much to the defeat of Kevin Rudd’s leadership challenge and the manner in which it was effected, is a subject for further discussion. I also note that the Greens primary vote appears to be down on the 2010 election result among men and voters under 35, but not among women and older people. The availability of state breakdowns from Nielsen allows us to combine their results, with due weight given to their respective sample sizes. This produces quarterly samples ranging from about 3300 in New South Wales to 1200 in South Australia/Northern Territory.
The Nielsen figures corroborate Newspoll’s result for Queensland (their last three monthly polls have had Labor’s two-party vote at 34%, 36% and 32%), and point to a Labor collapse there dragging the party down nationally. Queensland appears to have far surpassed Western Australia as Labor’s worst state, the latter having recorded only a 1% swing off the low base of 2010. The other states are recording swings of around 5% to 6%, off bases ranging from 48.8% in New South Wales to 55.3% in Victoria.
Preselection news:
Page 1 of 3 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Triton
The quote is from FB and I am acknowledging her misuse of the word syntax.
by psyclaw on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:25 am
Psyclaw:
Punctuation is a subset of syntax. The rules about forming plurals, possessives and contractions are described under (1) above.
Psyclaw quoted me:
then followed with:
Both are orthodox. Mine is a little more Drydanesque. It’s a personal taste matter here.
by Fran Barlow on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:25 am
pysclaw
I gave you my answer. You come and post that I did not answer it. Just because my answer does not fall in line with your fallacy of an assumption.
I will say it again to get it crystal clear to you. Until the government flies people to avoid getting on boats you have absolutely no grounds to say anyone is for people drowning at sea. Not even as an inadvertent consequence. This because you are supporting a policy that lets people drown today by not having the government use its executive powers to prevent people drowning at sea by using planes to avoid such an event.
You and others have no business accusing people of supporting drowning at sea when you support policies and lack of action that today does result in drowning at sea.
It is very simple.
Until that happens no Labor supporter can go around accusing other people of supporting people drowning at sea when they do not go around attacking the government for their lax behaviour in not flying people out so they do not get on boats to avoid people drowning at sea.
Get it. This is a complex policy area. There are many solutions for preventing drowning at sea and blaming the Greens On Shore policy does nothing to stop the reality that the government has the ability and resources to stop drownings at sea today if that was the priority.
by guytaur on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:28 am
lizzie
Commandeering a vessel and looting it sounds like piracy to me.
by Dan Gulberry on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:28 am
Boerwar
Of course syntax is more important than drowning.
It is a principle and must be adhered to no matter what.
principle is the Greens’ raison d’être
by psyclaw on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:28 am
I think that Andrew Elder said that the best way for Julia Gillard to win the next election is to destroy Abbott’s political career. “Abbott delenda est.”
With 2 big political court cases running at the moment, neither looking good for the LNP, she might just manage to do this.
by Von Kirsdarke on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:28 am
Boerwar obviously I wasnt referring to those claims but referring to the general state of happenings since July 1 and specifically to the story posted this morning about the butcher.
Look if I’m wrong about the refrigeration gasses increase then I will glady retract. But why bring irrevelancies?
by davidwh on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:29 am
Guytaur
Still no answer!
At what rate of AS drowning will the Greens move from “principle” to humane reality.
No rhetoric needed.
by psyclaw on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:30 am
Psyclaw:
Thanks.
by Fran Barlow on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:32 am
Boerwar
I was referring more to future plans. I have no idea about past activities.
by lizzie on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:32 am
by Leroy on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:34 am
psyclaw
Same right back at you about the Government not flying people to Australia to avoid drowning.
That is the answer. I told you in my post. Your assumption is a fallacy.
by guytaur on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:34 am
Deblonay
Good post. There is little doubt that our food security crisis is going to be made much worse by AGW. (Arguably, AGW, our ever-growing food security crisis, global overpopulation, and our mass extinction event are marching along parallel but connected roads. They are mutually reinforcing symptoms of the stupidity of H. sapiens.
BTW, Arab Spring is probably connected to hunger arising from the decline in Winter rainfall in the Mediterranean which resulted poor winter crops and dry soil for spring plantings.
People who think that AGW will be some sort of gradual onset event which we will hardly notice in our lifetime have not got the faintest notion of how chaotic systems behave.
by Boerwar on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:34 am
Christ!
We think FB’s bad here.
Imagine being one of her real students where you had to sit through it, hour after droning hour, no scroll wheel.
Pity the children…
by Bushfire Bill on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:37 am
Morning All again
Thanks Castle for your answer – TPV’s
Heard SHY on AM – she is out of her depth – the reporter was spot on, if you just take the 2500 (or whatever the figure was) out of Indonesia of course it will attract more asylum seekers to replace them. The answer is more about processing them there, not taking them directly from there.
So back to my earlier question – with Indonesia saying no to turned back boats again and the navy saying it’s dangerous it will most likely get taken off the table eventually. Are Labor voters willing to accept Nauru and TPV’s – no Malaysia???
Anyone know what time Lewis is in court???
by womble on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:38 am
On a morning when the Coal is refusing to budge an inch on working towards a cross-party ‘solution’ on AS (or refugees), I thought that supporters of everyone else might be a little kinder to each other.
by lizzie on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:38 am
psyclaw
I didn’t think the definition of syntax was so precise. Intuitively, punctuation seems to be to be a component of syntax. An errant apostrophe might be better referred to as an error of punctuation, but is it wrong to call it an error of syntax?
P.S. Some programming languages give you a “syntax error” if they detect any error in the structure of a statement, command etc. in a program, including an error in punctuation.
by triton on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:39 am
psyclaw
When are you personally going to put money into charter flights to avoid people getting on boats to prevent drowning at sea?
If the answer is not this hour, today, tomorrow, next month, year etc then you have no grounds to accuse people of letting people drown at sea.
So stop with your adopted dog whistle slogans to denigrate people who have different ideas on policy settings to reduces the flow of AS.
by guytaur on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:40 am
psyclaw
“There was a Caucus panic when … polling collapsed and lots of people began to think they’d lose their seats”
what, now or then? so months of panic with JG are ok, but a few weeks of rudd and he’s out. what, julia has been the answer to past panic, polling has recovered?
julia did not have to take the role – but she did, thereby hangs her fate
i am not concerned about intricacy of plot or now in 2010 – however it happened the public did not accept it – then or now – but am concerned at the presumption of any talk of leadership as msm or worse alan jones plot. so the argument goes anyone would raises leadership is allied to alan jones. this is poor and misleading logic.
rudd will be back, as surely as day follows night
by geoffrey on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:40 am
psyclaw
“There was a Caucus panic when … polling collapsed and lots of people began to think they’d lose their seats”
what, now or then? so months of panic with JG are ok, but a few weeks of rudd and he’s out. what, julia has been the answer to past panic, polling has recovered?
julia did not have to take the role – but she did, thereby hangs her fate
i am not concerned about intricacy of plot or now in 2010 – however it happened the public did not accept it – then or now – but am concerned at the presumption of any talk of leadership as msm or worse alan jones plot. so the argument goes anyone would raises leadership is allied to alan jones. this is poor and misleading logic.
rudd will be back, as surely as day follows night
by geoffrey on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:40 am
FB
(1) “Mine is a little more Drydanesque.”
Hmmmmmm!
(2) Punctuation is a subset of syntax. The rules about forming plurals, possessives and contractions are described under (1) above.
Apostrophes are part of punctuation. Punctuation is part of syntax. Syntax is part of language. Language is part of speech. Speech is part of communication. Communication is part of human behaviour ………..
But plain language beats obtuse rhetoricism every time.
by psyclaw on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:42 am
Fran Barlow
I may have missed it, but would you mind telling me what subject(s) you teach?
by lizzie on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:44 am
BW:
In the past couple of days I’ve been doing some lazy scrolling around Google Earth, mostly looking at Siberia.
If Siberia thaws out substantially, I appreciate that the methane releasewill be gargantuan, as well as other effects related to AGW.
But, of you were a Russian President, with Siberia being one of the world’s largest “untapped” land masses – full of resources – becoming potentially mega productive as a result of AGW (and with, say, the North-West Passage about to be permanently opened) you’d be pretty chuffed wouldn’t you?
What I’m asking is: what if Russia doesn’t play the “low carbon emissions” game?
by Bushfire Bill on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:44 am
Guytaur
Matter closed.
You have no intention of answering……just more rhetoric, more obfuscation and more return questions.
For Greens, reality simply does not rule.
by psyclaw on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:45 am
FB@5151 That’s a very computer-sciency umbrella use of ‘syntax’: you are conflating it with grammar.
Syntax and things like punctuation are related sub-systems of linguistics, which consists of grammar, phonology etc etc.
Related as the system of punctuation must adapt to the underlying syntax (ie things like word order, how units combine to form meaning).
Nothing like a stoush over semantics between pedants.
by Graeme on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:46 am
It’s been obvious for a long, long time that the Coalition only had half a policy on AS. “Turn back the boats” was clearly just a glib line to shut the debate down. That it’s being analysed and found wanting (of course) is a clear demonstration that it wasn’t meant to be analysed in the first place. Like ‘direct action’ it’s just there to give the Coalition a reason to say No to the ALP. That’s all.
That’s the dangerous thing about it though. What’s happened with both carbon pollution and AS is that the media have gone “Do the Coalition have a policy? Check. Now let’s criticise the Government policy.”
So I’m glad the Coalition policy is getting a bit of a work-out. The more it’s discussed the stupider their position looks.
by Aguirre on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:46 am
For those who rubbish Graham Richardson, two points:
1. He hates Rudd and has been pro Gillard for a very long time (pessimistic about her chances but he’s generally been on her side)
2. He was the one who exposed a couple of the people undermining Gillard last October in favour of Rudd.
I strongly suggest people on here take their heads out of the sand. The PM has exhausted her political capital, attacking Abbott from the left, the Slipper scandal blowing up in the Coalition’s face and Kathy Jackson doesn’t solidly make the case or solve the electoral, communication or policy issues for the ALP.
The reaction to any of that stuff is “yeah, but she knifed Kevin, caused the hung parliament, made a deal with the Greens, lied about the carbon tax, created massive uncertainty etc etc etc” … This is called a narrative and it is entrenched because the ALP have failed to construct a theme around their agenda. It’s all “carbon price here, mining tax there, NBN here, health and education policy there.”
by spur212 on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:46 am
We are her subjects. She teaches us. Whether we want to be taught or not.
by Bushfire Bill on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:47 am
psyclaw
Still dogwhistling with slogans I see.
Your personal denial of reality must hurt.
by guytaur on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:48 am
FB
I’m “surprised” that a writer like you would cherry pick quotes out of context.
Of course syntax is more important than drowning.
It is a principle and must be adhered to no matter what.
principle is the Greens’ raison d’être
by psyclaw on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:48 am
davidwh
What an unusually twee post from you.
The ‘fisher in Darwin’ you refer to made those claims in a presser with Abbott.
The full text of his remarks show that the reason refrigerant cost him so much last year was because of leakages.
Refrigerant should be a once only expense. How many people do you know who have had to replace the refrigerant in their fridges? Ours is well over a decade old and we’ve never had to do it.
So his expenses last year for refrigerant were – as he himself admits in the presser – because his system was leaking. If he incurs an increased expense after the introduction of carbon pricing, it’s because he hasn’t fixed the leaks.
If carbon pricing gives him the incentive to maintain his equipment properly – surely a basic of good business management – than that’s a good outcome.
by zoomster on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 am
by Leroy on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:50 am
Guytaur
psyclaw
Still dogwhistling with slogans I see.
Your personal denial of reality must hurt.
????????????????????????
A new form of rhetoric?
by psyclaw on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:52 am
Water off a duck’s back, I’m afraid. The Australian regards itself as a law unto itself.
Expect the General to be the target of much nastiness from The Australian from now on. Chris Mitchell never forgets.
by Bushfire Bill on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:53 am
Reposted from earlier this morning. Later arriving PBers may have missed it.
Retired Admiral Chris Barry, Chief of Navy at the Howard / Tampa time just told FKelly on RN that “tow back the boats” is not on
(1) It conflicts with International Maritime Law
(2) It makes the boat travellers more desperate and they will sabotage boats and place themselves in danger.
(3) in the end it is ship’s captains’ decisions which must prevail, not the will of “land authorities”
by psyclaw on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:55 am
pysclaw
It is you going around accusing others of letting people die. Not me. It is you doing the dog whistle.
by guytaur on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:55 am
womble
Why are you forcing people to take a card?
If Nauru and TPVs don’t work, why should Labor accept them at all? Particularly when the evidence appears to be that they will encourage boats, not deter them.
The situation we have at present is bad, and can clearly be improved. But there’s not much point changing it to make it worse.
by zoomster on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:58 am
guytaur:
That claim is based on a complete fiction. There’s no evidence, or even a cogent argument, that providing planes will stop boats. It’s based on an assumption that there are a relatively small number of asylum seekers looking to come here. Provide enough planes to fly 12,000 a month and there will still be others who come by boat.
Because there’s nothing to prevent us from accepting the ones who come by boat at the moment. No matter how others get here.
How does it work anyway? Do we have officers over in Indonesia patrolling the coastline, and then running up to AS boarding a boat and shouting, “Don’t do it! We’ve got planes!” What happens when we reach our quota of AS we fly over and there are still thousands upon thousands of them who want to come? Do they just shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh well, we missed out”?
It’s a basic fact that if we want to prevent the boats from coming – and being scuttled where necessary in order to force us to process the people on board, and thus in some cases result in drownings – that something has to be done to discourage the boats. Whatever solution you come up with, that has to be a component of it. An alternative option won’t cut it. There has to be something that says “if you get on a boat you won’t get to Australia”. Otherwise the boats will come.
by Aguirre on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:58 am
zoomster the fisher I heard was on the ABC but regardless of that is it a fact or not that refrigeration gasses have been hit hard by the climate change legislation? If they have then business reliant on these will have a genuine reason to increase their prices or suffer business consequences. The point I was making was that some business will have genuine reasons for increasing prices and not every claime can be dismissed as spin.
Regarding refrigeration plant generally I spent over 30 years in the meat and seafood industries and gasses in plant like plate freezers, cold rooms, chillers etc had to be regularly serviced and maintained. Many of these business have plant that is a liitle more complex than a domestic refrigerator.
by davidwh on Jul 6, 2012 at 9:59 am
Me Tarzan, You Grandmar
by The Finnigans on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:02 am
spur212 @5176
Richo did predict abbott to win by 10 seats in the 2010 election
and he hasnt really been glowing praise of the gillard government ever since
by Meguire Bob on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:03 am
Aguirre
I am not advocating planes to fly to Indonesia to pick people up. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of those that claim the Greens are letting people drown because they have a different policy.
No more no less. I am just saying that those people so concerned about drowning at sea can go complain to the government and get planes flying to stop that.
I am actually still not making my mind up in this complex policy area. i am wary of simple slogans and solutions.
The Greens are accused of letting people drown at sea for not voting for Labor policy.
I just point out the same can be said of Labor too.
That is the dog whistle I refer to.
The solution to the problem I do not know. SHY talking about processing in Indonesia and then flying them here sounds right to me as a solution. Then again I also can see the argument Labor mounts about its deterrence. The Coalition of course is a slogan fest policy free zone in this area.
by guytaur on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:04 am
Zoomster
Because I want to know where people will draw the line – there is no way the current situation will be in place when parliament next sits, the government will give more ground to Abbott – how much ground is surely in part up to those that support Labor
Almost forget to mention, I stayed up and watched a bit of the NRL footy show – “Whyalla Wipeout” got a run on there as well
by womble on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:05 am
Zoomster
IO notice you have never replied to me about the REAL costs of the CT on small businesses.
Rabbiting on about refrigerant gases is a side issue. The reality is simply this
A typical small business (baker grocery store, butcher) use about 50,000 – 500,000 KWH per year of electricity. Translating that into the ACTUAL direct impact of the CT is at LEAST $1,150 – $11,500 per year. Possibly by good practice they may be abler to reduce use by 5-10% but it is not usually an option to replace items like refrigerators, cold rooms, ovens or air conditioners (if renting).
Now at the lower end of this (50,000 KWH) the impact will be minimal but for those facing an additional $11,000 may be make or break – it will certainly mean that the part time extra staff member may be moved on. Remember that many of these smaller businesses are barely making a good income as it is – $40,000 if they are lucky , so losing $10,00 straight out of profit is a real loss of income and could force many top close.
Mind you because of the low returns many of the new “boat people” might be willing to buy the business since $30,000 is still much better than where they came from (or Malaysia)
, 
by daretotread on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:05 am
davidwh
I don’t know anyone anywhere who is claiming that businesses won’t have to increase prices. As Julia said on QandA, that’s been made clear from Day One.
Businesses are simply being asked not to claim the carbon price is the reason for a price rise unless they can justify it. If they can justify it, then that’s fine.
Of course I recognise business use of refrigerant is different from households. But – in a properly maintained system – it’s a minimal cost in the scheme of things. In the case you refer to (and I’ve posted the link here previously, but you can find it on the liberal website) the fisher clearly states he used 100 k of refrigerant last year because of leaks.
So if the cost of refrigerant goes up, he has more incentive to fix those leaks.
Given that the whole aim of carbon pricing is to force people to take action to reduce emissions, if carbon pricing makes him do that, it’s doing exactly what it’s designed to do.
by zoomster on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:06 am
Whyalla Wipeout again on Jon Faine and the Friday Wrap – plenty of coverage – it was perfect, a stunt too far – it reduces the value of all stunts from now on
by womble on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:08 am
daretotread
I ‘rabbitted on’ about refrigerants because that was the issue raised.
Yes, businesses face increased costs. No one has denied this. These costs will be passed on to customers. That’s what’s meant to happen.
You can rabbit on about a variety of costs facing businesses, but that’s the bottom line.
by zoomster on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:08 am
There may be other issues in play but to me the 3 main ones are.
1) Are there some people you don’t want to arrive in Australia? If so, then you need a screening process.
2) Should there be a figure placed on the number of people who arrive? If so, what is that number? Would 1 million a year make the country unsustainable?
3) Assuming you take new arrivals, given 1 and 2 what is the most effective and safest method to have new arrivals come to Australia?
by RNM1953 on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:13 am
Zoomster
There are many businesses which cannot pass the costs on – mostly those already challenged by the big supermarkets -butchers and local grocery stores. These are the ones I feel for.
You are much more influential in ALP circles than me.
Try to get some policy change to soften the impact.
by daretotread on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:14 am
I dislike all attempts at singing by politicians to the point where I just want to avoid it by switching off or changing channels. Every day this week I’ve thought that surely that’s it for repeats of Emerson in the media and I’ve finally escaped him for good, and every day he pops up somewhere. It’s not enough just to talk about; they have to play it again.
by triton on Jul 6, 2012 at 10:15 am