After giving Labor its worst poll result of the Rudd government era a month ago, ACNielsen has now returned to the field. This month’s survey has Labor’s lead up from 52-48 to 56-44, from primary votes of 46 per cent for Labor (up five) and 39 per cent for the Coalition (down three). Remarkably, both leaders’ approval ratings are up 10 points, Kevin Rudd’s to a personal best 71 per cent and Malcolm Turnbull’s to 55 per cent. However, Rudd has blown out to big lead on preferred leader, 64 per cent (up eight) to 26 per cent (down seven). Further detail on attitudes to the financial crisis from Michelle Grattan at The Age.
UPDATE: The weekly Essential Research survey has an unusually sharp two-point move in favour of Labor, who now lead 59-41 on two-party preferred. Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister has also blown out to 55-20 from 45-25 a month ago. Interestingly, respondents are more confident the economy can withstand the financial crisis than they were a week ago. Also included are questions on the government stimulus package, the emissions trading scheme and more.
Paul Bonjorno just said latest essential research poll (I think it was) has given the PM a big tick at the expense of Turnbull for handling of crisis.
No 1595
Yes, I agree that spending was too high in the final term of the Howard Government. Any honest conservative would agree.
Yes I agree superannuation was a good policy.
No, I don’t think 17% interest rates and double digit unemployment are great things.
No 1598
Because the left believes in stealing my property.
dave
Yes wealth transfer would be a better description. I saw some good papers on the real rate of returns by private super (not very flattering) at UQ way back in the early 90s. Its a long standing problem. Lets not forget the Howard government’s wimp out on regulation after the collapse of HIH, with them opting for self-regulation by the investment industry! ROTFL. Swan should remind his opposite numbers of that one, though in truth the only perceptive comments agaisnt the decision at the time came from the democrats as I recall.
If I have one bit of satisfaction over this, it is not investing once cent more of my own money than I had to in super and paying off the house instead. I also advised a few former PS colleagues never to transfer out of defined benefit super schemes in favour of market schemes. I hope they listened. Imagine retiring on an indexed 70% of final salary now!
SNIP: Tedious bickering deleted – The Management.
GP don’t you have any concerns about what the right has done to your liberty of late?
[Because the left believes in stealing my property.]
So does the right through taxation. Even if you believe in a minimalist state, you need to find some way to pay the police and run the judiciary.
[Your posts present nothing of value to read.]
So why do you keep replying to them!? 😀
[GP don’t you have any concerns about what the right has done to your liberty of late?]
I think their plan is to make all governments completely insolvent, so the left won’t have enough money to do anything. Then we will all revert back to bartering.
#1601
Is that a new poll?
So as this marathon thread draws to its conclusion, any predictions on tonights Newspoll? I’ll guess a moderate but clear shift from 55/45 to 57/43.
No 1606
The left intends to erect a compulsory internet censorship regime in Australia. The threat to liberty comes from both sides.
No 1610
Yes, ALP 29, LIB 71.
OZ That’s what Bonjorno suggested. No details just that Rudd got big tick at expense of Talcum
Vera I saw a Yahoo news poll yesterday where Turnbull was thumped too. You would think that when all their mudslinging against Rudd backfired on them last year they would have learned not to come out and try to trash the economy at the time of a global crisis. It is shaping up to be one of the most significant Newspolls tonight since the last election.
Soc
54-46
the fear and ill-advised gossip by the fibs may actually scare some of the punters
So long as Talcum takes a >3% hit on satisfaction and PPM I’ll be happy.
[The left intends to erect a compulsory internet censorship regime in Australia. The threat to liberty comes from both sides.]
So why didn’t the Howard government privatise the OFLC?
Gusface
You could be right. After all Bob Hawke once described Australia as “the intelligent electorate” so the opposite must be true. I foolishly assumed we’re not fools.
GP 1611 I agree with the censorship bit. Its dangerous in principle, and unlikely to work in practice anyway. Conroy is one of the current government ministes I’d trust least.
[The left intends to erect a compulsory internet censorship regime in Australia. The threat to liberty comes from both sides.]
The Labor Right and Steve Fielding are not “the left”.
[GP 1611 I agree with the censorship bit. Its dangerous in principle, and unlikely to work in practice anyway. Conroy is one of the current government ministes I’d trust least.]
I think it is a silly idea too, but there aren’t many votes in telling parents to monitor their children whenever they are online.
[The Labor Right and Steve Fielding are not “the left”.]
There is no way the legislation would pass if all M.P.s had a conscience vote.
[There is no way the legislation would pass if all M.P.s had a conscience vote.]
It looks unlikely to pass anyway, with the Liberals and The Greens likely to vote against it.
No 1617
I don’t know. I wouldn’t privatise it though, I would simply liberalise by allowing grown adults view what they wish, whilst retaining protections for children.
[It looks unlikely to pass anyway, with the Liberals and The Greens likely to vote against it.]
That doesn’t matter, they only need Xenephon. Fielding will support it because he is a nanny stater.
Xenephon will probably support it if the government does something against internet gambling at the same time.
SNIP: Poor quality comment deleted – The Management.
Shows on, If the Libs and one other senator vote against it goes down. Good thing too.
No 1624
What do you mean….to pass legislation, the ALP requires the Greens and the two independents.
of course I was lumping the Nats in with the Libs – who could forget them?
No 1626
Yes. Surely no-one here would support such an idiotic totalitarian policy.
Best case for the Liberals 55-45
Best case for the ALP 60-40
I presume we all agree the ALP are still in front!! followed by daylight a neck further back is nighttime followed at the rear by the Liberals clearly struggling to handle the track!!
GP 1623 – Thats sounds good but its increadibly difficult to achieve. People more tech savy than me tell me that the real internet criminal element will be around such restrictions before the ink is dry on the legislation. That leaves you with the alternative of a chinese style fire-wall, with all the dangers of govenment interference that brings. Happy to hear if someone has a solution that solves those problems.
[I don’t know. I wouldn’t privatise it though, I would simply liberalise by allowing grown adults view what they wish, whilst retaining protections for children.]
I just don’t understand why media at the cinema is classified by a government statutory authority – http://www.oflc.gov.au yet free to air television is self regulated by an industry body http://www.freetv.com.au/ (The latter was a brilliant reform introduced by Keating)
I think ALL media should be classified by industry bodies. It just makes absolutely no sense to me that we effectively pay government employees to do it. It means that the issue gets hijacked by moralist morons who don’t know anything about what they are critiquing. Then to counteract that, they put silly “artistic merit” clauses in the classification code which is just absurd. So, for example, an R18+ film can feature actual sex provided it is “artistically merited” (WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MEANS!). But ordinarily (a non-artistic film I guess!) would be banned if the sex wasn’t simulated! So the code is full of absurd ambiguities that really boil down to a debate of what is or isn’t art!
The test for classifying media should be “will this harm children?” and those decisions should be backed up by psychological research, not hunches. My second point is that this “harm test” doesn’t need to be made by employees of a statutory authority that is part of the Attorney General’s department. It can be done by a board selected AND PAID FOR by the relevant industry, e.g. computer game makers / distributors, or film distributors and exhibitors.
We are stuck with the Government model that we imported from Britain almost 100 years ago. It is time that we move to the U.S. system of self classification based on industry regulation. It is a system that has worked in the U.S. for about 75 years.
OF COURSE, If a piece of media is a record of an actual crime, then that is a CRIMINAL MATTER that should be handled by the Federal police, it has absolutely nothing to do with classification of media that will be shown at a cinema, or sold in a shop! The fact the nanny state right wingers conflate these two issues demonstrates that their argument is stuffed.
No 1631
I was referring to the Office of Film & Literature Classification.
I would certainly not support any government mandated internet filter. The key here is to encourage and promote parental supervision, not top-down government solutions that punish law-abiding citizens. The reality is that, as Mark Newton has argued, internet filtering is invariably imperfect because there are several ways to get around them – private VPNs being one; and further, they substantially degrade the performance of the internet – which contradicts the National Broadband Network policy of increasing internet speeds.
ShowsOn
Industry regulation has been panned in many countries, and is not the norm in MOST OECD countries outside the US and here. Sure make them pay for the studies, but let an independant third party commission them. Otherwise its a huge conflict of interest.
In media, as in finance, I am a huge skeptic of self-regulation.
No 1632
I somewhat agree and there is certainly a lot of room for reform of the OFLC. But I don’t think the US system is that much better. Witness the absurdity surrounding the attribution of PG-13 ratings whereby movies such as Die Hard 4 cannot feature expletives, but are allowed to display gratuitous violence and multiple deaths. The same arrant contradiction can be witnessed in other similarly classified films.
Self-regulation is no regulation.
Essential Research has Labor up two points for the second week in a row, to 61-39. Preferred prime minister has gone from 45-25 on 22/9 to 55-20 last week to 60-19 this week.
[he key here is to encourage and promote parental supervision]
Take that to your next Young Liberals meeting G.P. It will get voted down though, there’s no votes in telling parents to do a better job.
[In media, as in finance, I am a huge skeptic of self-regulation.]
Well, we already have self regulation for the CONTENT of what is shown on TV. Why can’t we have the same for films? What makes a television so different from a cinema?
I’m not talking about changing the amount of Australian content, or how much kids TV gets shown. I am talking about when the OFLC decides to ban a movie because they think adults shouldn’t have the right to choose to watch it if they want to. To me that makes no sense in a liberal democratic country. There is no evidence that violent media harms ADULTS, so they shouldn’t be allowed to ban anything that isn’t an actual documentary record of a criminal act.
61-39 you have to be kidding.
And Turnbull is at 19%????
What was Nelson’s peak? Please tell me it’s higher than 19.
I wouldn’t have a clue as to the next poll since I have no idea what the public have been seeing or how they see Sinister Malcolm. And are international bad news items overshadowing local events?
If the public were properly informed as to exactly what has been going on with Slippery Malcolm and his media remoras they would be punishing him him severly in the polls.
I’m not that sure that the polls in all the current ‘confusion’ will that meaningful anyway. However I wonder that if in times of confusion people will tend to stick more stongly with what they know, in which case Turnbull could be shooting himself in the foot.
So we know the next issue for sinister treatment by the Libs will be immigration. Wonder if they will get Andrew’s to be their spokesman?
[I somewhat agree and there is certainly a lot of room for reform of the OFLC. But I don’t think the US system is that much better.]
The U.S. system is WAY better because it is run by the industry, not the government. The industry therefore has to agree on the standards for the different classifications, and classifies films accordingly. Instead of the whole issue getting turned into a political football whenever someone remakes Lolita.
If the industry refuses to give a classification seal to a film, it can STILL be shown in Art-House cinemas. Whereas here a film that can’t get an R18+ classification is banned, it can’t be screened or sold.
[Witness the absurdity surrounding the attribution of PG-13 ratings whereby movies such as Die Hard 4 cannot feature expletives, but are allowed to display gratuitous violence and multiple deaths. The same arrant contradiction can be witnessed in other similarly classified films.]
But since it is industry regulated the distributor can re-cut the film. Or ask for a higher classification. Or appeal the decision.
Whenever a distributor does the same at the OFLC they have to pay a fee of a few thousand dollars, and the OFLC will not tell them what parts of the film to cut out to get a lower classification!
The U.S. system works cooperatively, the Australian system operates bureaucratically.
[It will get voted down though, there’s no votes in telling parents to do a better job]
I reckon this current proposal for the internet filter is never intended to pass… it’s being floated as a more extreme version to be toned down after consultation and ‘outrage’
In Australia the issue is not with the structure of the OFLC itself, and the board, but with the legislated benchmarks that must ticked off when deciding ratings.
But seriously, we have a poll now.
[But since it is industry regulated the distributor can re-cut the film. Or ask for a higher classification. Or appeal the decision.]
Yes but that routinely does not happen because that will mean lower ticket sales. That’s why Die Hard 4, to use the same example, could display plenty of murder and destruction, yet the bit where Willis says “motherfxxxxx” is edited out.
No 1642
You wouldn’t think so given the fact that Conroy likens any critics to the scheme to kiddie fiddlers.
[In Australia the issue is not with the structure of the OFLC itself, and the board, but with the legislated benchmarks that must ticked off when deciding ratings.]
Well I think it is. The OFLC is full of lawyers, if it had any credibility it would be full of psychologists with histories of research into media and violence.
The Classification Code itself isn’t a piece of legislation.
[Yes but that routinely does not happen because that will mean lower ticket sales. That’s why Die Hard 4, to use the same example, could display plenty of murder and destruction, yet the bit where Willis says “motherfxxxxx” is edited out.]
Well I see no problem with that. The distributor made a choice, do they want to leave the swearing in, or potentially harm ticket sales? They were given a CHOICE.
The OFLC does not do that. They do not suggest cuts or deletions from a film=, they classify it as delivered to them. If the distributor wants to release a different version they have to pay another few thousand dollars to have another version classified.
Thanks for that William.
A ringing endorsement of whet a pillock Talcum has been throughout the finance crisis.
[if it had any credibility it would be full of psychologists with histories of research into media and violence.]
Psychologists are often called upon to give evidence. There is in fact a psychologist on the board. Three lawyers.
Anyway, so this poll. There’s no way this can be spun to be positive for Turnbull. Let’s watch the media try.
[Psychologists are often called upon to give evidence. There is in fact a psychologist on the board. Three lawyers.]
MARRIED lawyers, so they know about “family values”. LOL 😀
Oh, and a token filmmaker.