ACNielsen and Galaxy: 55-45

The latest federal ACNielsen poll, published in today’s Fairfax broadsheets, has Labor’s two-party lead down to 55-45 from 56-44 last month. Malcolm Turnbull’s approval rating is down four points to 51 per cent and his disapproval is up five to 35 per cent, while Kevin Rudd is more or less steady on 70 per cent and 22 per cent. Also included are questions on the government’s economic management (positive) and expectations about the economy (surprisingly optimistic).

UPDATE: Galaxy has also produced a poll showing Labor leading 55-45. The poll has Labor on 43 per cent of the primary vote, the Coalition on 40 per cent and the Greens on 11 per cent. No mention of a sample size that I can see, but in Galaxy’s case it’s usually about 800 (UPDATE: It’s 1004 for Galaxy, 1400 for ACNielsen).

UPDATE 2: A surprise from Essential Research: they too have Labor’s lead at 55-45 in their weekly survey. This is down from 59-41 last week, and as far as I’m aware is the closest result they have thus far produced. Also featured are questions on which party is deemed best to handle various issues (huge leads to Labor on climate change, environment and industrial relations, narrow ones to Liberal on inflation, national security and economic management) and the car manufacturing industry assistance package (47 per cent approve, 35 per cent disapprove).

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.

1,045 comments on “ACNielsen and Galaxy: 55-45”

Comments Page 19 of 21
1 … 18 19 20 21

  4. [… the pity is fran is too dumb to realise clarke & dawe were taking the piss out of her as well.]

    I take it we won’t be watching “The Howard Years” on Monday, will we?

    I certainly won’t be.

    The sight of Reith on last Monday nearly made me throw up. The poor bugger, Howard’s hatchet man, didn’t seem to have a clue about what was going on around him. He’d never heard of the Dubai training scheme, he thought the kids were thrown overboard.

    What amazed me about the latter- and Friendly Fran didn’t cover it – was that Reith originally quoted “ASIO reports” as his justification. We now know that no ASIO officer was on-board the Adelaide when it picked up the boat people. The report he was referring to was an ASIO write-up of his own radio interview from the day before. In other words, ASIO laundered Reith’s interview and the Reith quoted himself as evidence that the kids were thrown overboard.

    At the time this was all “Labor/Lefty paranoia”. But we now know that it wasn’t. There were no kids overboard – ever Reithy admits that now – and the whole thing was a sham, as correctly evaluated by more than one commentator (before they were shouted down).

  5. bob1234@720
    Just in case you are still reading. The answer to your question is still I don’t know. I finally tracked down the source document for the historical South Australian 2PP table I had on the ABC website. The numbers I had on the page are as on the source document. I suspect it is, as I suggested, an artifact of the way 2-party preferred figures were retrospectively created for uncontested seats. But without myself trying to find all the source material prepared in the 1970s and used by the Federal Parliamentary Library, I can’t asnwer the question as to what the Labor 2PP figures was for the 1962 and 1965 South Australian elections.

  11. [And re the bonus, you’ll love this warning from Colin Barnett]

    Indeed, Rudd is a drunk wife-basher by association. None of Howard’s bonuses ever caused violence though I’m sure.

  13. [Indeed, Rudd is a drunk wife-basher by association. None of Howard’s bonuses ever caused violence though I’m sure.]

    And throw in a bit of “B***g” bashing to boot.

  14. {Former attorney-general Philip Ruddock – the man many hold responsible for Mr Hicks’ long incarceration at Guantanamo Bay – said he had no problem with the decision not to renew the control order.

    “I’d have no problem with him living in my street,” Mr Ruddock told Sky News.}

    This time last year, Hicks was the “worst of the worst” according to Ruddock and Howard.

    And now all of a sudden, 12 Months later, Ruddock would have no trouble living next door to him. What the!!!

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/hicks-to-get-his-freedom-back-before-christmas-20081120-6cr6.html?page=-1

  16. Yes Channel 9 does seem to be becoming ‘Liberal Party TV ‘ sometimes. I cant stand it for its morning show and the right wing commentators they invite for comment.

    I guess if they go nutzoid right wing like FoxNews they will corner all the rusted on Howard supporters and lose all else. Though I suspect Government bashing during this economic crisis wont go down so well and may even backfire on them.

    Julie Bishop is going to find that a lot of people will be more grateful for government projects and stimulus packages and employment than concerned about a deficit [where is that $390bn in surpluses by the way]. Or will she say it would have been better to have more unemployed?

    So I gather the Bishop policy as Shadow Treasurer is less spending and more taxes. Time for Rudd to have some economic modeling done on that scenario with which to bash them to death with.

  17. ruawake, one of the many things the Fed.s now have to deal with is the complexity of health service delivery, including dental health. To be honest with you, it’s a mess. I’m dealing with a bit of the health care delivery system, mainly around mental health, but intersecting with primary care service. We do our best, but the silo system of funding at both State and Fed. level make any coherent service delivery system, very difficult.

  18. I’d also recommend reading the latest Political Sword. Haven’t a clue about doing the link thing in this milieu, but easily accessible via Possum and side bar.

  19. If the Opposition go the route of no deficit they leave themselves open to some pretty emotive wedging. Especially if JWH was around.

    Just imagine how Howard would use the GFC to wedge the Opposition and justify all manner of policy. It would be worse than Iraq since this is peoples pockets.

    Howard wouldn’t let a Bishop comment go by free from wedging hyperbole. “Julie Bishop would rather sacrifice thousands of Australian jobs and families to satisfy some selfish foible for neatness and, this is all this is. For the self satisfying feeling of a pointless clinically clean set of books she is happy to dump the entire country down the drain.’ He would say. 🙂

  21. [So I gather the Bishop policy as Shadow Treasurer is less spending and more taxes. Time for Rudd to have some economic modeling done on that scenario with which to bash them to death with.]

    Well Bishop has 2 more weeks in parliament as shadow Treasury, so she might as well go down in flames.

  22. Grog, I know where the link is and how to find it, for goodness sake. Why the hell do you think I suggest people read what he is writing? I don’t know how to embed the link as you did. Plea from aged tech challenged old bastard, WTF ? How do you do it?

  23. [If the Opposition go the route of no deficit they leave themselves open to some pretty emotive wedging. Especially if JWH was around.]
    Well I don’t understand why Swan is still talking as if a deficit would be the end of the world.

    It is text book economics for national governments to spend during times of economic downturn. If that means a small deficit, so be it. In fact, it would be an important way for the Rudd government to differentiate itself from Howard would always seemed to promote a strong economy as an end, and not simply a means to a fairer society.

  24. just cut’n’paste it HSO.

    Sorry didn’t mean to come across so snarky; it’s just when I went to the page I expected some confused @blogspot thing, and it was just the politicalsword.com

    ‘Tis a good page.

  25. Shows On, It an interesting scenario, to say the least. One of the things that is supposedly the case with the GFC, is that no one has ever experienced this before, and that comparisons to the Great Depression are inaccurate.

  27. [Well I don’t understand why Swan is still talking as if a deficit would be the end of the world.]

    Agreed. But he’s gone too far on the we’ll keep the budget in surplus “across the cycle” to go back now… but ffs, wouldn’t you say we’re at the part of the cycle where we would go into deficit? If not, just how bad does it have to be for the budget to stay in surplus on average? Obviously the good times have past for the moment, so if we’re not going to go in defecit now, why bother with the whole “across the cycle” malarky? Obvously they want to always stay in surplus.

    Time for Swan to grow some cajones, and forget boring budget surplus defecit, and say “I will do whatever I have to do to keep unemployment down, and growth up”. When you’re unemployed, no one sits around Centrelink saying, well at least the budget is in surplus…

  30. [Shows On, It an interesting scenario, to say the least. One of the things that is supposedly the case with the GFC, is that no one has ever experienced this before, and that comparisons to the Great Depression are inaccurate.]
    Sure, but a central organising principle of the political Left is that for SOME issues, the Government is the only organisation capable of solving major problems. A willingness to break the “we must have a budget surplus at all costs” could have a political benefit for a long time, and show that the Liberals ultimately just believe in economics for the sake of economics, and don’t see wealth creation as a way of making society more cohesive.

  31. “But he’s gone too far on the we’ll keep the budget in surplus “across the cycle” to go back now”

    That might be true. But all indication are that the budget will go into deficit regardless. Its less than half way through the year and the budget is down to approx $5billion. If you account for the $10billion stimulas, then the surplus halved as a result of cyclical reasons alone. Unemployment has barely budged and everyone is predicting it to go up. We’ll go into deficit.

    Swan has to change the narrative now, otherwise he’ll be caught with his pants down when the tide goes out and he’ll just continue to perpetuate the perception of Labor economic incompetance.

    http://www.orble.com/confidence-doesnt-need-to-clash-with-expectations/

  32. [Swan has to change the narrative now, otherwise he’ll be caught with his pants down when the tide goes out and he’ll just continue to perpetuate the perception of Labor economic incompetance.]

    Good politicians are masters at the art of changing their position. If the government changes to “Desperate times call for desperate measures”, then that will just under score the seriousness of the situation.

    “Worst economic crisis since the depression” but “we can’t go into deficit” sounds kind of contradictory to me.

  33. Antony GREEN #905 and Bob1234 #720

    bob1234 #720

    “In SA, for 1962, the ALP primary vote is 54.0%, whilst in 1965 it is 55.0%. So why do both elections show the ALP 2PP as 54.3%? ”
    http://www.abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/pastelec.htm

    I feel there is a likely scenario involved here However as is known whilst th primary vote %’s ar reel , these 2PP ar not reel & been “estimated” worse still these 2PP %’s were estimated years after th event

    In case of 1962 , Labor Primary vote was 54% actualy , and th years later “estimated” 2PP was 54.3%

    BOB , i tink you should accept this as a “correct estimated” 2PP figure because it is completeley consistent with 1959 electon where Labor’s reel Primary vote was 49.3% , and th years later estimated” 2PP was 49.7% Whilst pre 1959 and post 1965 th “Estimators” seemed to hav used diferent bulk pref 2PP loadings , there is a consistency of 0.3% to 0.4% bulk pref loading th “Estimatators” hav added to Labors primary vote in 1959 , 1962 and 1965 ….not unusual in th pro ‘consevative’ times , Holt landslode then , and a strong DLP and th “Caldwell” factor being not attractive to most ‘other’ Partys to swell Labor’s Primory vote that much

    So Bob suggest accept 54.3% for 1962

    ANTONY , using th same bulk pref loading base as above , it seems th 1965 Labor Primory vote of 55% should be 2PP “estimated” to increase to 55.3% (not 54.3% as per site ) What I tink has occurred is that given my view to Bob that th “correct estimated” Labor 2PP for 1962 is reely correct per th Site of 54.3% with LCP 45.7%) …someone has simply typo repeated those 54.3% and 45.7% figures from 1962 as 1965 as well , instead for 1965 of Labor 55.3% and LCP 44.7%

    Of course these 2PP figures were estimated years later using estimated bulk pref loadings anyway , and so ar only a guide for histary ….and don’t affect today at all

  34. [Swan has to change the narrative now, otherwise he’ll be caught with his pants down when the tide goes out and he’ll just continue to perpetuate the perception of Labor economic incompetance.]

    He has been very careful to say that we should not go into deficit “under the current circumstances”. Clearly if things get worse there is an out clause of sorts to move to a deficit backing position. I think that’s fair enough… this whole thing is all about confidence. As soon as he mentions that we ‘could’ go into deficit, what do you think the headlines will be for the next week (the media is nothing if not predictable), and what do you think that would do to consumer confidence? They are trying to ride this out and it will not be easy.

  35. But Scorpio, you must remember that Phillip Ruddock is a member of Amnesty. His sympathies for a political prisoner are to be expected. (Irony alert, in case anyone is wondering.)
    Re the deficit, to the extent that the stimulus (or strictly speaking multiple stimuli) work, the trend towards deficit will be reduced. That is, the fall in revenue, compared to fiscal year 2007-08 will be less, and the rise in welfare-related expenditures will also not be as great, as would be the case if the pensioners’ bonus and LGA expenditures had not occurred.
    Until the consensus is that we are going into recession in calendar 2009, there is still some merit in having a balanced budget. If it’s certain the economy is about to go into recession, a budget deficit is entirely responsible, and to some extent inevitable (the operation of the automatic stabilisers).

  36. No 927

    We should not go into deficit.

    Took the Liberals 12 years to eradicate the endless cycle of budget deficits under Hawke/Keating, and only 12 months for Rudd to be thinking of going back into deficit.

    Time to go Rudd.

  44. We should not go into deficit.”

    agree ‘should’ , however th GFC may well lead to that irrespective of th ‘levers’ that being th case queston is th discretionary level Govt takes th Country into deficit as against differing econamic models and outcomes G20 hav agreed on joint large scale stimuli , a guaranteed consquence of which many of those Countries can not avoid deficit budgets

  46. [No 927

    We should not go into deficit.]
    If you care to read the budget figures, we went into a deficit in financial year 2000 – 2001.

  50. [Obviously Stevens enjoys spending money he doesn’t have.]
    Well, considering the Reserve bank can simply get more money by selling Government bonds, this sentence doesn’t make any sense.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 19 of 21
1 … 18 19 20 21