The first post-budget poll is an ACNielsen survey of 1400 respondents, and it’s given Labor its second weakest poll result since the election of the Rudd government. The first was the same outfit’s 52-48 result from September last year. ACNielsen’s previous survey in March had Labor’s lead at 58-42. The poll finds that:
• Labor’s primary vote is down three points since March to 44 per cent, while the Coalition is up six to 43 per cent.
• The Coalition has opened up a most unlikely sounding five point primary vote lead in Victoria, after trailing by 20 per cent in March.
• Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is down from 69-24 to 64-28.
• Rudd’s approval rating is down 10 points to 64 per cent, and his disapproval is up 10 to 32 per cent. Turnbull’s ratings are unchanged at 43 per cent and 47 per cent.
• While 56 per cent believe the budget to have been fair, only 40 per cent support the budget’s phased increase in the age of pension eligibility from 65 to 67, and 38 per cent say the budget will make them worse off personally. Twenty-three per cent say it will make them better off.
The print edition will presumably feature a full chart with none-too-reliable state breakdowns.
UPDATE: No such budget narrowing from Essential Research, which has Labor’s two-party lead up from 61-39 to 62-38. However, Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is down nine points from three weeks ago to 61 per cent, while his disapproval is up eight to 29 per cent. Turnbull is respectively up two to 30 per cent and up one to 49 per cent. Interestingly, fewer people found the budget bad for them personally than had expected to beforehand. Twenty-five per cent say it will make them more likely to vote Coalition against 22 per cent Labor. Peter Brent has ACNielsen’s state, area, gender and age breakdowns here.
[Most of the main political parties in Australia believe in much the same things, and we all sit here magnifying the marginal differences. ]
Agreed:
[The little bit (two inches wide) of ivory on which we work with so fine a brush as produces little effect after much labour. ]
major apologies to Jane Asuten. 🙂
G P:
Funny how these true believers remain completely silent out their Dear Leader’s alleged abusive, intimidating and thuggish behaviour towards his own staff, isn’t it.
make that Jane Austen (apoligies again, Jane)
[Yeah right, Mr Never Ever is honest!]
Kevin Rudd 2007: “We will maintain the existing private health rebates”
Kevin Rudd 2009: slashes private health rebates.
http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2009/05/08/2565158.htm
[Time to go and read a book.]
There will always be free choice in this country. To each his own.
GP said:
[The last thing people need is a Government making it more expensive to employ people.]
Wrong. The last thing people need is a Government taking the country into an unnecessary war. That is the worst crime a leader can inflict on his own people. Unemployment and the economy come further back in the scale of importance.
510 oh you have cut us to the quick there Patrick.
Yep. Rudd is a prick to work for. Ok, let’s vote him out of office so Turnbull (who is also “allegedly” an arogant condesending boss) can be PM.
What next – you going to say Rudd offends you because you read somewehere that a Liberal MP said he got stroppy over a hairdryer in Afghanistan?
No 498
[What double standard? That the Liberals added so many ON GOING costs to the budget that it was destined to end up in deficit? That’s just a FACT.]
But if you accept that as the truth, then surely the same criticism must be levelled at Rudd for continuing to slash tax in this year’s budget and increase spending to stratospheric levels.
More double standards and hypocrisy.
[The last thing people need is a Government making it more expensive to employ people.]
Howard made it so that companies with less than 100 employees could sack anyone at any time without reason. It’s the reason why my company sacked 10 employees to get them down to 98 employees.
Yeah, what a great job-creating plan for Australia!
[Kevin Rudd 2007: “We will maintain the existing private health rebates”
Kevin Rudd 2009: slashes private health rebates.]
Tony Abbott 2004: The Government will retain the Medicare Safety Net in its current form, it is a “rock-solid, iron-clad” guarantee.
Tony Abbot 2005: “About 400,000 patients are expected to lose out when the tighter Medicare safety net provisions take effect next year, the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, revealed.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-Abbott-sorry-about-Medicare/2005/04/15/1113509928257.html
[Yeah right, Mr Never Ever is honest!
Kevin Rudd 2007: “We will maintain the existing private health rebates”
Kevin Rudd 2009: slashes private health rebates.]
Both politicians. Both broke promises. (Will I ever recover???)
Bringing in GST was a good policy. Means testing health care is a good policy.
No 501
Yes, they think it’s all a media beatup.
The thing is, never in 12 years did we hear of similar antics from John Howard.
[But if you accept that as the truth, then surely the same criticism must be levelled at Rudd for continuing to slash tax in this year’s budget and increase spending to stratospheric levels.
More double standards and hypocrisy.]
But what about Howard?
You’ll criticise Labor but not Liberal.
And must I repeat it again?
[A projected surplus of $18.87billion for that year is now a deficit of $44.53 billion – a turnaround of $63.4 billion.
This is the bit the Coalition will want to ignore. Labor’s spending in 2011-12 is worth $13.2 billion, of which $6.95 billion came from the budget. The remaining $50.2 billion gap is largely Peter Costello’s doing. He left behind a budget structure that couldn’t return to surplus in recovery.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25498284-5013871,00.html
[But if you accept that as the truth, then surely the same criticism must be levelled at Rudd for continuing to slash tax in this year’s budget and increase spending to stratospheric levels.]
I agree there shouldn’t be any tax cuts next financial year or the one after.
But that STILL doesn’t stop Howard from being the most irresponsible spending Prime Minister ever. He spent during a boom as if we were in a recession, which is the complete opposite of what Governments should do.
There were always more double standards and hypocrisy under Howard.
No 510
Reasonable response Grog. The thing is, you can’t have reasoned debate when ShowsOn posits moronic statements like “Mr Never Ever”.
The fact that John Howard went to an election on the GST and won still eludes him.
bob 1234 says: “Howard made it so that companies with less than 100 employees could sack anyone at any time without reason. It’s the reason why my company sacked 10 employees to get them down to 98 employees.” blah blah blah etc etc.
Wrong. Those employees and your company signed employment contracts. Both parties were bound to act according to argreements. The workplace is not anarchy – as much unionists think it is.
[The thing is, never in 12 years did we hear of similar antics from John Howard.]
No, we just heard that Howard would have massive mood swings based on the opinion polls:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2556431.htm
[No 501
Yes, they think it’s all a media beatup.
The thing is, never in 12 years did we hear of similar antics from John Howard.]
That’s because of a fawning media who were as starry eyed of their hero as a Teenaged Monkees Fan 🙂
[Reasonable response Grog. The thing is, you can’t have reasoned debate when ShowsOn posits moronic statements like “Mr Never Ever”.]
WHAT! Are you seriously saying Howard said we would NEVER EVER have a GST? And that he never said it was DEAD and BURIED at the last [1993) election? Stop lying.
[Wrong. Those employees and your company signed employment contracts. Both parties were bound to act according to argreements. The workplace is not anarchy – as much unionists think it is.]
The agreements were also dodgy. But the company’s aim was to get themselves under the magic 100.
GP wrote :
” The thing is, never in 12 years did we hear of similar antics from John Howard.”
Hewson is on the record about the tantrums howard used to throw
[The fact that John Howard went to an election on the GST and won still eludes him.]
Most people that election voted against the Coalition.
[But that STILL doesn’t stop Howard from being the most irresponsible spending Prime Minister ever.]
Rubbish.
The nation’s finances were the BEST in the WESTERN WORLD. Rudd and Co could not have hoped for a better set of numbers to begin their first term.
Oh and what about abbott getting howard walking each morning in order to get him off the bottle ??
[Reasonable response Grog]
I’ll try not to make a habit of it GP 😉
No 521
Of course, Hewson is completely oblivious that he is invoking a cynical self-parody. Hewson is the king of tantrums. Do we not all remember the filth he spilled all over the Fairfax papers a few months ago?
Hewson is the least authoritative person on alleged Howard tantrums.
Anyways, I’ll stop by later when the newspoll comes out tonight.
I reckon there will be two possible general responses eminating from this blog:
If Labor’s vote declines: “ROGUE POLL!”
If Labor’s vote increases or remains the same: “RUDD IS GOD”! / “THE LIBERALS’ BUDGET STANCE IS IN TATTERS!” / “THE EDUCATION REVOLUTION HAS ARRIVIED” etc.
[The nation’s finances were the BEST in the WESTERN WORLD.]
We also exported the most minerals per person. What’s your point?
Here’s a pearler:
[“The one thing that I am inclined to suggest might have changed or developed over the latter part of the Howard government’s term, I think we did start to believe in magic pudding economics,” Mr Abbott said.]
http://business.smh.com.au/business/libs-magic-pudding-years-20090403-9qjm.html
No 522
Ah, you still can’t accept reality that the Coalition won the 1998 election. Geez, and you all talk about me living in a fantasy world unable to accept reality.
[Ah, you still can’t accept reality that the Coalition won the 1998 election. Geez, and you all talk about me living in a fantasy world unable to accept reality.]
Everyone accepts that the coalition won a majority of seats on 49% of the two-party vote.
[The nation’s finances were the BEST in the WESTERN WORLD.]
Incorrect. The budget was in structural deficit, that’s why we would’ve been in deficit in the next financial year even if the government hadn’t spent any money.
[Rudd and Co could not have hoped for a better set of numbers to begin their first term.]
Incorrect. Inflation was far too high, because of the Howard government’s profligate spending.
[Rudd and Co could not have hoped for a better set of numbers to begin their first term.]
Actually they could have. Read Geroge M. Yes the numbers were “good”, but given the mining boom, they should have been better. And that is the point that the Libs can’t run away from.
But to be honest, it doesn’t matter. Most voters don’t read George M or watch Insiders, and the arugment is a hard one to convince people who get their news from a paper that draws Rudd as Wolverine.
Are the Liberal supporters lurking around tonight waiting for Newspoll and hoping to observe a Liberal budget bounce that will probably appear the day after Godot arrives?
GP
[The thing is, never in 12 years did we hear of similar antics from John Howard.]
That would be the “I won’t live in the Lodge” John Howard? Nice little hissy fit that drained the taxpayer’s purse for the whole of his term. Makes a hairdryer or meal look like small beer indeed.
[Geez, and you all talk about me living in a fantasy world unable to accept reality.]
This is correct.
[The fact that John Howard went to an election on the GST and won still eludes him.]
I actually agree with GP on that one. At least Howard admitted he lied (sort of) and then gave the people the chance to vote him out for it. The GST was a huge part of that election and he won it. I dunno how he ever won an election with a platform of a big new tax on everything but he did. God Labor must have been terrible that year.
[What’s your point?]
The nation had money in the bank. No net debt. A $20 billion surplus. Really, those are dream numbers for a new government.
It’s only now, after all the irresponsible spending, that Labor is blaming the Coalition. Well how convenient.
[Yes the numbers were “good”, but given the mining boom, they should have been better. And that is the point that the Libs can’t run away from.]
They would’ve been better if the Costello had enough guts to stop Howard from spending, or at least spend money on infrastructure instead of hand outs.
Diogenes,
Introduce creepy music………
Meg Lees.
[Incorrect. Inflation was far too high, because of the Howard government’s profligate spending.]
More rubbish. Inflation was at 3% when Rudd assumed office.
Also, more hypocrisy and double standards given that this government’s extreme spending record.
[The nation had money in the bank. No net debt. A $20 billion surplus. Really, those are dream numbers for a new government. ]
Not if the budget is in structural deficit, uninsured against a downturn in taxation revenue.
[It’s only now, after all the irresponsible spending, that Labor is blaming the Coalition. Well how convenient.]
Incorrect. Labor campaigned strongly during 2007 on the theme that the government was wasting the proceeds of the mining boom. $200+ million in ONE YEAR on advertising for example.
[Diogenes,
Introduce creepy music………
Meg Lees.]
And WA Voters beware, Adele Carles may be WA’s answer to Ms Lees if Colin needs to buy her vote 🙂
As the old saying goes, beware of sheep in Sheep’s Clothing.
[It’s only now, after all the irresponsible spending, that Labor is blaming the Coalition. Well how convenient.]
irresponsible spending without which we still would have had a deficit of $25.6 billion this year.
Riddle me the explanation to that one GP.
No 535
[That would be the “I won’t live in the Lodge” John Howard? Nice little hissy fit that drained the taxpayer’s purse for the whole of his term. Makes a hairdryer or meal look like small beer indeed.]
How does it “drain” the taxpayer’s purse any more than any other Member of Parliament who has to fly long distances to get to Canberra? In any event, Canberra is only 50 minutes away from Sydney – it’s hardly an impost.
And speaking of tantrums, we never heard of Howard abusing his staff for trivalities like meals and hairdryers. Howard wasn’t nearly as conceited as Rudd.
[Also, more hypocrisy and double standards given that this government’s extreme spending record.]
We are in a RECESSION! You are saying that Howard’s policy was appropriate for being in a recession, when the economy was GROWING! Hypocrisy!
[Howard wasn’t nearly as conceited as Rudd.]
He was just an economic dunce.
[They would’ve been better if the Costello had enough guts to stop Howard from spending, or at least spend money on infrastructure instead of hand outs.]
Costello stood at the dispatch box and delivered the Budget, he can wear the blame as well – after all Howard (decervedly) gets blamed for Fraser’s economic faults.
[I actually agree with GP on that one. At least Howard admitted he lied (sort of) and then gave the people the chance to vote him out for it. The GST was a huge part of that election and he won it. I dunno how he ever won an election with a platform of a big new tax on everything but he did. God Labor must have been terrible that year.]
Is it necessarily a lie to change your mind? We’ll leave that to philosophers, but Howard did the right thing and went to an election. He won against all odds and three times thereafter. It’s time to put “never ever” to bed.
What was the budget surplus that Howard delivered in 07 and what was it, that Rudd delivered in 08? Howards economic legacy has been exposed by the GFC.
The Howard government’s spending was based on the boom times continuing forever and was therefore UNSUSTAINABLE! Face it Patrick Fogarty, it’s not rocket science or brain surgery.
It is that unsustainability in spending which has resulted in a deficit, and the neo liberal ideology which has caused the GFC which has resulted in necessary debt.