ACNielsen: 59-41 to Labor in Victoria

The Age has today published an ACNielsen survey of 1001 voters on Victorian state voting intention, which shows Labor leading 48 per cent to 37 per cent on the primary vote and 59-41 on two-party preferred. This compares with 54.4-45.6 at the November 2006 election.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

207 comments on “ACNielsen: 59-41 to Labor in Victoria”

Comments Page 4 of 5
1 3 4 5
  1. I’m happy for the Australian Business Council to pick up the tab on a few infrastructure projects so the government can freeze spending……
    (Me thinks they’re in a race to the bottom with the journalists)

  2. Business council have one interest only and that is excessive wage growth for its CEO’s, could not care a stuff about the future of the country.
    Why are they criticising the Howard Government now? Why not last year? The BCA are a bunch of Conservative people who vote conservative along with National Farmers Federation who represent the big end of town and care little for you and me Ominod. Why are our poliiticians so weak with them. It is pathetic.

  3. Dear GG

    Sorry to be on my backside … but ..

    1. i do not think that a few maverick members (on a few points) is the same as having Real minority representations in Parliament ….

    You Lib/Labs don’t get democracy do you??

    It is alien to you

  4. Seeing it was the Business Council that backed workchoices to the hilt, Labor should thank them for their budget submission, throw it in the bin and get on with implementing their election promises and getting the inflation curbed and interest rates back down.

  5. mm @ 153,
    Moreover, it’s not as if there’s anyone who is bound in any way by the BCA’s views.
    If I was a politician and I wanted to know what banks thought, I’d make four phone calls (one to each CEO). If I wanted to know what miners thought, I’d call BHP and Rio and one or two others. And so on.
    Bodies like the BCA are a waste of space in my view – not even representative of those whom they claim to represent. Tell you what, if the NAB felt really strongly about some Government policy, they wouldn’t be sitting back and waiting for the dorks at the BCA to speak on their behalf.

  6. GG

    we have representational government NOT democracy

    as a representational system i just want our Parliament to reflect the primary votes… i know that is an anarchist/radical thing that threatens your Lib/Lab Party…

  7. Commerce Queensland actively campaigned for Springborg and the Nationals a couple of elections ago and have not been taken seriously ever since. The Federal Government could treat this mob who won’t take wage restraint seriously with the same contempt as any other fringe group who will not actively work for the betterment of the nation.

  8. steve,
    Yep, basically agree.
    As I said, if you want to talk to the banks, talk to the four CEOs. And so on.
    Don’t waste your time with a bunch like the BCA who aren’t actually in charge of anything.

  9. Dingo,

    Threatened. You got to be kidding!

    Succes in politics is not an abstract pursuit. You actually need to get support of a group of people, develop policy, allow it to be scrutinised and then soldier on through the blood sweat and tears of political inertia and bastardry.

    The most likely success is through a traditional Party.

    However, if you think you, Fiona and Boris at the local pub are a collective force of political acumen worth dealing with, then prove it.

  10. Tell us how you went next time you put yourself forward for election, Dingo. Look forward to hearing how the system will change to accommodate your view of it.

  11. 162 Very cute semantics there Dyno, and we both know that if the political wing of the Business Community does not believe in wage restraint then nor will any Boards of Directors of the companies, actually.

  12. NSW ACNielsen

    TPP: Labor 51, Coalition 49. (50-50 with 2007 election preference allocation)
    Primaries: Coalition 42, Labor 38, Greens 11, Independents 4, Family First 1, Democrats 1, Others 3.

    Iemma: approval 34, disapproval 44.


    O’farrell has low recognition among the public. However this is understandable given it’s early in the cycle and federal politics has dominated during most of his time in the leadership.

  13. Why should I have to/need to go to the site of an individual politician to find out the policies of a party?
    Individual pollies can (and often do) hold different beliefs to the mainstream of their party.
    My question is not about Bob Brown’s policies on windfarms (which would apply only to Tasmania, anyway) but the Green Party’s policy.

  14. Which gets me off onto another tack, which is the equation that Greens = Bob Brown.
    First of all, one person being seen to be synonymous with the party as a whole is always a worrying development – and one of the problems the Liberals had with Howard (and are still having, which points to the dangers).
    Secondly, there seems to be a ‘BB is god’ mentality amongst many of the Greens I know, which suspends their critical facilities (assuming they have them). Anything
    BB says is taken as gospel and questioning any of his decisions is met with stunned disbelief.
    Thirdly, it skews Green party policy towards BB’s own personal beefs (I have referred before to the placing of Tasmanian forests as of more environmental importance than climate change policy).
    The Greens generally portray themselves as more intelligent and sceptical than the average party member so I’m constantly surprised at their willingness to be part of what appears (from the outside) to be a dictatorship.
    If I am seriously being told that I should go to BB’s site rather than the Greens official site to discover what Green policy is, then that’s just another indication that the merging of the party and the individual has gone too far.

  15. Dyno Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 12:09 am

    That’s the Boards of Directors of the companies, actually.

    You want the official definition or the actual?

    Official: They are appointed by the share holders who own the company to run the company, and this applies to all company big and small.

  16. marky marky Says:
    February 25th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    What does the Labor Party believe in Charles?

    That is a good question.

    In my own view, they are a diverse party, much like the liberals used to be.

    I think they believe in capitalism but not to the detriment of labor unlike the current Liberals who seem to want to screw the young with their changes to the labor laws (thank heavens that nonsense has been put to bed).

    They seem to show a little more respect for minorities than the Howard Government did ( I will never forgive him for the deliberately setting out to divide Australia), I won’t label the Liberal party with divisive policy positions as it still has some decent members.

    But most importantly of all, Labor seems to want to Govern Australia, where the nasties in the Liberal party want to control the party first and set policies that make the party unelectable, winning elections comes second.

  17. charles,
    As I’m sure you know, the official position is that the shareholders appoint the Directors and the Directors appoint (and decide what to pay) the CEO.
    The actual reality of how CEO pay is set? Varies quite a bit from company to company, in my observation.

  18. Dingo: I was not suggesting that corruption does not occur in two party democracy. But if one party is much stronger than other, there is a greater chance. In such cases, it is not really a Two Party Democracy but a Dominant Party democracy where only one party really can form government either by themselves or in a partnership.

  19. Zoom-

    “The Greens will:

    Reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2015.
    Decommission Hazlewood power station by 2015.
    Increase the production and use of solar, WIND and geothermal energy.
    Introduce a carbon levy to fund energy efficiency, production efficiencies and renewable energy.
    Establish an Energy Efficiency Adjustment Fund to assist industrial and commercial consumers.
    Invest in public transport and rail freight instead of roads.
    Promote energy-wise houses and businesses. ”

    from the policy statement for Vic Greens at last election.more detail available on posiion aper on senator’s website.
    RE your comments about over -identifiaction withh BB. Fair comment and we are looking at all of these issues now election is over.

  20. Jen 132
    [I almost miss Jeff. Except he appears to be still around.]
    Yes, I agree that there is a managerialism to how Brumby runs the State that is not unlike Kennett’s approach (very similar to Bracks’s approach and to my workplace as well, and many others). The Grand Prix was Kennett’s baby, much as I wish Bracks had found a way to give it away; the commercial confidentiality excuses are tiresome (again, similar to excuses I hear in my workplace). And I would far prefer to see money invested in public transport than roads.

    But… Brumby doesn’t close down schools and put teachers out of work. He doesn’t force privatisation models on local govt. He doesn’t punish anyone or any organisation that criticises him. He does provide funding to organisations working with marginalised people. Yes, he’s a ‘fiscal conservative’ but he’s nothing like Kennett.

  21. apres –
    bit of poetic license perhaps on my part.
    Afterall – NO one is like Jeffrey Kennett. (Caligula perhaps…??)
    But if the Libs were not so pathetic Brumby wouldn’t dare try on some of this stuff, so happily I can still blame them.

  22. JOM @ 182,

    Only problem for you and the Libs is that Kennett did not spend the money on services when he had the chance.

  23. Jen,

    Rev heads are people too.

    The GP is just an annual circus troupe. It has provided a bit of gusto to the old city, kept the Save Albert Park protestors feverishly busy and fills a gap in Melbourne’s busy schedule of events.

    Has not been the boon for local businesses orginally alleged and the public subsidy of $36m is staring to look a bit rich.

    I’m in the don’t really care if they stay or go camp post 2010.

  24. GG @ 186, if only Howard and Costello were as principled as Kennett and Stockdale when it came to economic management. Whatever you think of Jeff, he had fortitude. He refused to hand out the pork for the ’99 election becuase it wasn’t right thing to do with the public’s money. He stood by what he believed to be right and accepted the will of the people. Whatever side of politics you are on, you have to admire that and give it due respect.

  25. TW,

    1. Politics is about winning power and then retaining it.
    2. What Kennett believed or stuck to is irrelevant.
    3. He failed to adjust to the new reality that people had had enough of the cuts to services and wanted the prosperity to be spread around to important things like schools, police and hospitals.
    4. Jeff left a surplus that Labor used to parlay into two further elctoral routs. Thank you Jeffrey.

  26. Kennet did well but his arrogance got the public off side. His biggest mistake in my mind was trying to remove the independance of the DPP. I’m a liberal supporter and I didn’t support that.

    Can someone tell me why Cate Blanchett, WTF? What has she done besides help a hobbit return a ring?

  27. GG, there could have been another new reality in Victoria, along the lines which Howard and Costello created federally. I am grateful that Kennett had the fortitude not to go down that path.

    JoM, Cate is one of our most celebrated artists and from what I understand she will be chairing Ruddster’s committee on the future of a creative Australia, or something like that.

  28. Apologies, Jen – but, as I said, I did TRY to find it myself!
    Bracks and Brumby undid a lot of Jeff’s ‘reforms’ – for example, restoring the independence of local government.
    They went even further and updated Victoria’s constitution, which had remained unchanged since 1852. This included dramatic reforms to the Upper House, which actually allowed other parties to hold the balance of power (how democratic is that?)
    The reform agenda has been slowed by two main things –
    (i) Labor did not hold power in its own right from 2000-2002, but relied on independents for support. It did not hold power in the Upper house either.
    (ii) Kennett tied up some contracts so tightly that they have proved almost impossible to break and have hampered reform. This is particularly noticeable with rail – the Kennett contracts were so irresponsible that there was no mechanism to ensure that railways were maintained to a reasonable standard. The Labor Government was only able to buy back the Wodonga line late last year and has now had to close it because of its poor condition.
    There are countless other examples – electricity has been privatised, which makes the task of dealing with climate change a bit more complicated than it would have been otherwise, for example.
    Don’t see how you can reasonably fault them on financial management, J of M, given they manage to simultaneously maintain the triple A rating AND employ more nurses, teachers, etc. – a juggling act Kennett was simply not up to.

  29. 189 TW
    ” if only Howard and Costello were as principled as Kennett and Stockdale when it came to economic management. Whatever you think of Jeff, he had fortitude. He refused to hand out the pork for the ‘99 election becuase it wasn’t right thing to do with the public’s money. He stood by what he believed to be right and accepted the will of the people. Whatever side of politics you are on, you have to admire that and give it due respect.”

    Jeff Kennett was a complete prick.
    One of the happiest moments in my otherwise sad, tragic life was when he lost to a complete unknown. Still makes me laugh just thinking about it so I guess at lesat he is fulfilling his role as a crusader for understanding depression- afterall, he caused enough of it.

  30. 180
    John of Melbourne
    [Bracks/Brumby have not repealed any of Kennets reforms.]

    Rubbish. As soon as Labor got in they reversed his manic rules which forced people working in local govt to tender for their own jobs. This was a massive waste of time and resources and good people lost jobs.

    198 Jen
    [I guess at lesat [Kennett] is fulfilling his role as a crusader for understanding depression- afterall, he caused enough of it.]

    Absolutely true. A lot of people had their lives turned upside-down by Jeff’s heavyhanded ‘reforms’

  31. “Don’t see how you can reasonably fault them on financial management, J of M, given they manage to simultaneously maintain the triple A rating AND employ more nurses, teachers, etc. – a juggling act Kennett was simply not up to.’

    Quite right Zoom,
    Any drongo can slash jobs and spending to create a surplus, no skills required for that.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 4 of 5
1 3 4 5