Galaxy: 55-45 to Coalition
A Galaxy poll for tomorrow’s News Limited tabloids has the Coalition lead at 55-45, unchanged from the last Galaxy result.
GhostWhoVotes reports a Galaxy poll for tomorrow’s News Limited tabloids, conducted yesterday and today, has the Coalition’s lead unchanged at 55-45. On the primary vote, Labor is steady at 32%, the Coalition is down one to 47% and the Greens are up one to 12%. Kevin Rudd’s lead over Julia Gillard as preferred Labor leader has widened still further, from 49-34 to 53-32 – I believe this is in comparison with November, when Gillard was at the peak of her fortunes. More to follow.
UPDATE: Full tables here. The poll also has Tony Abbott leading Julia Gillard as preferred prime minister 37-33; 59% believing Gillard will lead Labor to the next election against 21% for Rudd; 47% still favouring an election in September against 44% for as soon as possible, compared with 55% and 38% last time (I’m guessing most of those in the election now camp aren’t on top of the half-Senate election timetable); 53% believing Labor made the wrong decision in “rejecting Kevin Rudd and endorsing Julia Gillard” against 32% who thought it the correct decision; and three further question of dubious utility.
UPDATE (25/3/13): Essential Research has Labor dropping two points on the primary vote to 33%, but the dividend goes to the Greens (up two to 11%, their best result since July last year) rather than the Coalition (steady on 47%). The Coalition’s two-party lead is steady at 54-46. Respondents were also asked how likely it was that they might change their mind, with results following the usual pattern for such questions where the more strongly supported party also has the firmer voting intention. The most popular rationale for Labor voters is that they “don’t want Tony Abbott to be Prime Minister” (35%), while Coalition voters were most likely to offer that “the Labor Party has been a poor government” (34%).
Further questions gauged support for and knowledge of media regulation, with 43% saying they were happy with existing media regulation, 29% wanting more and 10% wanting less. Twenty-nine per cent supported the federal government’s recent much-criticised proposals against 34% opposed, a fairly even result allowing for the tone of media coverage.
UPDATE 2 (25/3/13): Now Morgan chimes in earlier than usual with its fourth “multi-mode” poll combining face-to-face and internet surveys, this time scoring 3494 responses, and it shows a Labor gain from last week reversed: Labor down on the primary vote from 33% to 30.5%, the Coalition up half a point to 46.5% and the Greens steady on 10.5%. The Coalition’s two-party lead is up from 54.5-45.5 to 57-43 on respondent-allocated preferences, and 54-46 to 56-44 on previous election preferences.
There’s not much logic in there.
Where is the argument to back up this statement for instance?
“Thursday’s events should leave no doubt that it is Gillard and her rusted-on supporters, not Rudd’s camp, who are wrecking what slim chance remains of lifting the Government’s abysmal standing with voters and averting a monumental defeat in September.”
It stands alone as an assertion, unsupported.
There’s logic in that article?
I see some facts and lots of unsubstantiated opinions, but I see no logic.
Can you point some out?
Yeah all the people that wrote those articles are clearly embarrassed now that Gillard is so far in front in the polls…
oh shit
Has there been another time in Aus political history where the leadership a party in government has consciously decided to lose an election badly, rather than give it a great shake, in order to keep internal power intact?
The Howard/Costello situation isn’t an example.
GG
So did I very early on in the day.
Oh ye of little faith.
Clearly the Coalition experimented with this method when they briefly made Alexander Downer leader.
They didn’t actually let him go to an election though.
womble
Posted Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
Evening All
Have you noticed as the Labor party 2PP goes down other goes up.
The poll results for the last 4 months has pretty much been a refleciton of how “other” is allocated to 2PP.
I notice that Mark Baker was not calling for the Liberals to resinstate Malcolm Turnbull although he has had consistently higher approval ratings than Tony Abbott.
Others have been running at around 9-11% for a long while except in Essential.
Diogs,
I picked it on Tuesday.
Minhoff/JV
This in depth analysis of the spill which wasn’t is going to bring back the armies of Fairfax
jv
It is simple. Boil is lanced. Its going to be unity from now on. Policy going through Cabinet that gets proper debate as Cabinet members do not fear leaks in the press.
Labor’s vote will go up. This will be to the detriment of the LNP.
The Greens vote will not change much.
The Coalition aren’t a million miles behind in the polls.
In terms of improving the ALPs chances in Sept the prognostications of Bemused, TP, Shows etc are neither use nor ornament. They remind me of WW1 Generals arguing for cavalry over tanks.
That said, boy do they believe in their cause and for that it at least provides good entertainment value.
The major flaw in Baker’s article is failing to acknowledge that the PM is now less encumbered than at any other time during her leadership.
She has dispensed with being encumbered to the media, thanks to a hung parliament, and has now dispensed with the leakers and whiteanters in her own party.
If she were any other Prime Minister, this would be acknowledged as a moment of triumph for her, not a moment of weakness or loss of authority.
Baker is quite simply wrong to say she has weakened authority. The opposite is true.
It has been pretty obvious the man is despised by the people that matter for a very long while, and I am no insider.
confessions…thanks…
Feelings run strong, can’t be helped. The Imposter makes trouble for us all.
And indeed they would if he were doing as badly as Gillard in the polls.
Also I think others get allocated 60/40 Coalition/Labor in all the polling.
There are no inconsistencies I have noticed.
We need to arrange some therapy for the few remaining Ruddistas it seems.
Be gentle on the poor petals peeps.
davidwh
I have. That allocation is an educated guess based on past voting.
We do not really know how the preferences would flow.
Are you sure about that, and if so why?
GG
Basically he would have challenged at any time he knew he had the numbers. I suppose if Crean took six with him it might have been very interesting but reportedly only one of his clique went with him and the other four stayed for Gillard.
It depends on whose poll it is.
There was a time, I think end of last year? when the Labor primary vote was rock solid, and Coalition/Others were both bouncing around.
The undecided tend to break the same way as the polls do they not. And the others if they are not available on the day will no doubt break the same way.
it’s been a good week in some ways – the biggest thing coming out of it for mine is that Julia can now focus her attention on things external to the party and not what’s happening in it
well after she works out who replaces who
guytaur
Good luck with that. A change of name from ‘Labor’ might help: “The Australian 0.5% Party”; “The Australian AWUSDA Party.” “The Real Democratic Labor Party”
Has there been another time in Aus political history where the leadership a party in government has consciously decided to lose an election badly, rather than give it a great shake, in order to keep internal power intact?
Well that’s one interpretation. In terms of leadership tensions in Government, we had Hawke – Keating from about 1988 to 1991 and Howard – Costello from about 2002 to 2007.
Has there ever been a more loaded question in political history?
Agree guytaur as is the 80/20 allocation of Green primary votes. Fact is we won’t know for sure until September. However we can be fairly certain that Labor need at least 38% primary to start to be competitive.
Shut up Dio.
At least for a while we can have some peace. If Rudd sticks his head over the parapet again we will deal with it then.
Thomas. Paine.@248
Gosh – for once, I think we agree TP.
Rudd’s support base seems to be largely from the factional warlords of the NSW right, and this is indeed disturbing.
But don’t worry – Rudd won’t be back!
How surreal to see this being spun as some sort of positive result for Labor and Gillard.
The Coalition seems to be able to maintan 54-56 without even trying, just relying on the stench Labor sends out. Can you imagine what’s going to happen when the LNP starts the mother or all negative advertising campaigns in a few months?
The carbon tax might be a dormant political issue now, but blind Freddy could see that the LNP campaign is going to be all about trust. “We can’t them – they can’t trust each other”. It’ll be trundled out as a reminder. I’m sure we’ll also get to see how the Independents handed Labor power in the interests of “stable government”. The campaign writes itself and the actors are all from the government. They’ve dug their own graves.
Mix in a scare campaign of “You never know who will end up being the PM if you vote Labor, fading into a video of Wayne Swan predicting surpluses and massive windfalls from mining taxes”.
This is going to be an annihilation of biblical proportions. It’ll stay in the 54/46 range till a few weeks out from the election, then the angry public will scent blood and go for the throat. Expect around 59/41 at election time. I suspect we will also see a much higher than normal flow of Greens preferences to the Coalition from voters who think they are making a “protest vote” and chalk down the most recognisable minor party but are sure to put Labor last.
I gather it was his intention that none went with him.
Diogs,
The “Crean had ten votes he could deliver” proposition is a fantasy built on an absurdity within a complete fabrication.
When I heard the Ruddistas were counting that as part of their numbers I laughed.
jv
Vote Green then if you do not like it. The point is however the issue is over. Labor has gone with PMJG. Like it or hate it this is what they have done.
Your labels and theories do not change the fact that PMJG is Labor leader at the election.
jaundiced view@234
What logic?
Some of it states what we already know. Rudd is popular. Gillard isn’t. Polls predict Rudd will do better than Gillard. There’s no logic here, just simple statement of what we already know.
The rest is the “her toughness is a flaw and it’s all her fault” bit. Well excuse me for being less than impressed with that. Labor has been divided into two camps. Between them, they have been destroying Labor. Not one side or the other. It takes two to tango, so to speak. Either side giving up on their obstinacy earlier would have been better for the party. There is clearly disagreement on which side that should have been.
Heck, your own analysis was far more interesting, given that it talks about (what you believe to be) the substantive differences (in policy, process, etc) between the two camps. That is, the (perceived/actual) significance of one or the other side winning beyond “how it affects the vote”. The former is what concerns voters, the latter is what you talk about when your audience are politicians. Tells you how he sees himself: An insider playing the game.
Puffy
I was referring to last week.
There are a few twitchy people here tonight.
Poor little sensative Rudd out politiced again, so unfair. Pffft.
Nemspy
How predictable that you cannot see how steady as she goes instead of plummeting to the depths is a positive thing.
Recognising this fact does not mean people are deluded as to Labor’s position if the election had been held today. That is a big loss.
Notice how the Gillardistas don’t want anyone to consider that Tony Abbott is more popular than Julia Gillard?
Frednk based on a comparison of the 2PP results against the primary results and a 80/20 Green split.
Nemspy
In your own head. To give you something to rail against.
GG
I heard six, including himself. Even that was exaggerated and only one shifted with him, someone who presumably has deeply regretted that decision since.
mimhoff
That paragraph is a clear reference to the polling on voters’ overwhelming preference for Rudd and their intentions if he were leader, as we’ve seen reiterated tonight.
ShowsOn@291
Ditto. You as with Nemspy.
Rudd will wont challenge, he wont have to. We know now that the party bosses expect to be wiped out the election but intend maintain factional control anyway. Rudd if the MPs decide to ignore the Shortens of this world will simply demand he take over.
With an “uncommitted” of 30%? – most of whom were probably Rudd supporters who will (eventually) switch back to Gillard?
If it gives you wet dreams to believe Abbott is ahead on this one, then sweet dreams to you, ShowsOn.
briefly:
I am sticking to my prediction that Rudd will retire either at or just after the next election.
Once he’s gone I think Labor need to have good look at itself. The party clearly has been cowed by the Howard years. I’d argue that the only reason a sociopath such as Rudd would ever be entertained for the leadership by the oldest party in Australia is because of the Howard years and Labor feeling it had to find someone who could match the personality cult of Howard that the Liberals had built their identity around. Latham came about for the same reasons, albeit too soon. And so we got Rudd instead.
All of this can be traced back to Beazley walking the post 96 ALP away from its years in govt under Hawke and Keating. No wonder the party had an identity crisis! All fertile ground for the likes of those who saw personal ambition and stepped forward (and fair enough), but sad for the party collective who have seen their party taken over by these types, and yes Rudd is one of them.
Whatever the party does with its reform, I hope that never again a craven, hollowed out opportunist sociopath is given the opportunity to lead it. I recognise this is a hope in vain, but still.
Yes I hope Rudd challenges Shorten for the Opposition Leadership after Gillard loses.