Newspoll: 55-45

The Australian reports the latest Newspoll survey, the first in three weeks, shows Labor’s two-party lead steady on 55-45. Kevin Rudd’s satisfaction rating is up six points to 56 per cent while his dissatisfaction is down five to 32 per cent. Malcolm Turnbull has also performed well on his delayed first set of Newspoll leadership ratings (for some reason the question wasn’t asked last time), with 50 per cent satisfied and 25 per cent dissatisfied.

The weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead down from 58-42 to 57-43. Also featured are numerous questions on attitudes to the financial crisis.

UPDATE: Further detail on Newspoll from Dennis Shanahan: primary votes are 41 per cent for Labor, 38 per cent for the Coalition and a record 13 per cent for the Greens. Kevin Rudd’s preferred leader rating is steady at 54 per cent, while Malcolm Turnbull’s is up two points to 26 per cent. Turnbull in fact has a 1 per cent higher net approval rating (satisfaction minus dissatisfaction) than Rudd, whereas Rudd’s previous worst result relative to his opponent since becoming Labor leader was a lead of 28 per cent.

UPDATE 2 (14/10/08): The West Australian today carries polling on federal voting intention from the same 400-sample survey that produced yesterday’s state poll. Andrew Probyn reports:

The latest Westpoll survey showed the Federal coalition leading Labor in WA 51 per cent to 49 per cent on a two-party preferred status. Though it is the first time the coalition has led the ALP in a Westpoll since last year, it is still well below the 53-47 two-party preferred vote in the Federal election on November 24. However, it showed a significant turnaround from the two polls since the election. In June, when Brendan Nelson was Opposition leader, Westpoll showed the ALP leading 53-47 on the two-party preferred vote, down from a peak differential of 62-38 in April … The Westpoll survey of 400 Western Australians by telephone on the evenings of October 6-8, found that the coalition led on primary vote 46 per cent to the ALP’s 41 per cent (in June it was 42-42). After undecided votes were allocated according to previous elections, the coalition had 47 per cent to the ALP’s 42 per cent. On the measurement of preferred prime minister, Mr Turnbull had eroded Kevin Rudd’s lead. Mr Rudd, who had a preferred PM status of a massive 69 per cent in April against Dr Nelson’s paltry 14 per cent, was down to 54 per cent. Though Mr Rudd’s lead was still commanding over Mr Turnbull on 35 per cent, the gap had narrowed significantly even since June when he led Dr Nelson 59-21 … Asked who was better able to manage the economy, 44 per cent of respondents said Mr Rudd, while 40 per cent said Mr Turnbull. Among men, the leaders were evenly split 43-43. Among women, Mr Rudd was clear favourite, 46 per cent to 37 per cent.

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.

760 comments on “Newspoll: 55-45”

Comments Page 16 of 16
1 15 16
  1. ]…let us have executives who care about something other than their own bonuses.]

    Yes, given the lack of success they’ve had it might be time for some of the less ambitious – the more willing to take a humble million than tens of millions – to get the gongs for CEO jobs.

    I saw somewhere yesterday a line in an article that read “There is no evidence that paying execus huge salaries caused these (banks) to go bust.”

    This misstates the point: there is little evidence to show that paying them huge dollars kept the banks viable.

  2. The other issue that seems to be getting lost in the debate, at least in the media, is that it’s not like these guys are getting tens of millions just when everything is going peachy. They get it then, and they get it when their companies are ‘rationalising, laying off staff, putting their employees on pathetic contracts and gouging their customers.

  3. The brain drain argument is rubbish. There is no evidence that these people will leave if you pay them less. (Why not test the hypothesis anyway?) Nor is there evidence that the best people move countries for more money. The best execs are usually promoted from within by companies with good staff development programs.

  4. You may pay them less but you certainly won’t be paying them badly. If they choose to run off to another country to be paid through-the-roof amounts then we don’t need them. Greed should not be rewarded.

  5. Further to my 755, consider the most succesful CEOs from non-finance companies in Oz in recent years – the heads of BHPB and Rio Tinto. They were promoted from within. Being CEO of BHPB or Rio Tinto remains a coveted prize within the mining industry with no shortage of good quality applicants. Same is true for banks.

    Meanwhile look at the quaity of oveseas CEOs we have attracted with large pay here. Consider Sol Trujillo (Telstra) or Trumbull (AMP). Both were high pay, high profile and caused share value losses.

  6. In fact, we are a very high payer of CEO salaries by world standards, out of proportion to the size of our economy. CEO pay here is higher than in Japan, France or Germany. The US and UK pay more, but those are acknowledged as problematic.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 16 of 16
1 15 16