ACNielsen: 56-44

The latest ACNielsen survey of 1400 voters has Labor’s lead at 56-44, following an aberrant 58-42 result the previous month. Labor leads on the primary vote 46 per cent to 38 per cent. Malcolm Turnbull’s approval rating is down a point to 31 per cent and his disapproval is steady at 60 per cent, which Tony Wright of The Age notes has him the same territory as Brendan Nelson and Simon Crean in the terminal phase of their leaderships. Peter Costello remains favoured as Liberal leader by 35 per cent, against 19 per cent for Joe Hockey, 17 per cent for Turnbull, 10 per cent for Tony Abbott and 3 per cent for Andrew Robb. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is up a point to 68 per cent, against a disapproval rating of 24 per cent, and his lead as preferred prime minister is up from 66-25 to 67-24. Fifty-nine per cent want the government’s emissions trading scheme bill passed as soon as possible, and 58 per cent approve of Rudd’s handling of the relationship with China.

Essential Research should be through any moment now (4.30pm EST), but I won’t be able to help you with that until this evening: Possum‘s often quite quick on that front though (and The Finnigans has a small amount of detail in comments). UPDATE: Here it is. Labor’s lead is down from 60-40 to 58-42. Also featured: the performance of Australian law enforcement in preventing terrorism (most excellent), whether such efforts have been unduly concentrated on the Muslim community (no), who should lead the Liberal Party (Joe Hockey), a really interesting one comparing Kevin Rudd’s performance across various issues with John Howard’s (slight lead to the latter on economy and defence/security, thumping ones to the former on everything else), and whether Malcolm Turnbull is fair dinkum on climate change (no).

Other matters:

• Mumble man Peter Brent has a paper in the latest Australian Journal of Political Science criticising the anachronism of the Divisional Returning Officer, part of what government consultants described as far back as 1974 as the Electoral Commission’s “flat” organisational structure: one national office at the top, six state ones in the middle, and no fewer than 150 divisional ones at the bottom. Occupants of the latter posts have too much to do during election periods, too little to do outside of them, and few paths to promotion, with resulting problems for staffing and morale. “Regionalisation” into offices covering four or five divisions has been advocated by the Electoral Commission itself, but has been resisted in part because MPs enjoy the convenience of a local electorate office, and also because they form troublingly close relationships with their local DROs.

• Two doses of cold water for Alannah MacTiernan’s tilt in Canning. The ABC’s Rebecca Carmody strikes back over past acts of condescension in the Sunday Times, noting she has a big obstacle to overcome in winning over the electorate’s semi-rural areas beyond her Armadale base. Tony Barrass of The Australian concurs, describing her as “a polarising figure, perhaps the most admired-disliked state political figure in the past decade”, and chiding the local media for “talking as though she’s home and hosed”.

• Glenn Milne beats the drum for a Kerryn Phelps candidacy against Malcolm Turnbull in Wentworth. For what it’s worth though, Labor’s local federal electoral council is making noises about the need for a local rank-and-file vote.

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.

1,849 comments on “ACNielsen: 56-44”

Comments Page 33 of 37
1 … 32 33 34 … 37

  1. Bjorn Lomborg is a very famous “denialist” who is much-quoted by Bolt etc. Actually, he’s not a denialist, he just thinks we shouldn’t over-react to AGW. Here he argues for a slowly does it approach to reducing CO2 emissions.

    If I was a Ruddist (type A from earlier) I would note his arguments very carefully as they are rather good.

    He says it will be a lot easier to make rapid reductions once we’ve slowly got RE going.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25954076-7583,00.html

  2. And what will the atmospheric CO2 concentration peak at under a slow approach? Will positive feedback loops be avoided? Or is economics the only reality?

  4. [If I was a Ruddist (type A from earlier) I would note his arguments very carefully as they are rather good.]
    Rudd and Obama aren’t Type A.

  6. Re: Votes on voices
    #1452 triton
    [On that occasion it was reported the next day that the reason was to avoid the Nationals having to cross the floor in a division.]

    #1453 ShowsOn
    [If the Nationals wanted to vote against it they would just need 2 of them to say they oppose the motion. As soon as their are two voices there must be a division.]

    The Nationals didn’t want to vote against it, at least not visibly, although they opposed it. The last thing they wanted was a division.

  7. [The Nationals didn’t want to vote against it, at least not visibly, although they opposed it. The last thing they wanted was a division.]
    It is silly to say the Nationals opposed it considering they voted for it.

  8. [Behind the fear of the campaign, though, I wonder Frank if you don’t actually believe that the costs of greater change outweigh the benefits.

    That is, is your objection solely about electoral pragmatics, or do you disagree with the economics of the policies proposed by those further to the left?]

    It is bothe because of the fact that the economics involved with the Greens proposal will definately result in a political backlash for the reasons I’ve previously outlined.

    Tasmania 2004 is a prime example of this.

  10. ShowsOn

    He fits easily the best into type A.

    1. The world’s greatest risk is from nuclear weapons, most likely from terrorists or a rogue nation. Nuclear power should not be expanded until non-proliferation of nuclear materials can be assured on a worldwide basis.

    Rudd agrees with sentence 2 but not 1.

    2. Climate change is a problem we must begin to deal with, although its severe effects will not be felt until later, possibly at the end of this century.

    Rudd agrees.

    3. Coal is a plentiful energy supply the US does not have the luxury to ignore. Capture and storage of CO2 is a technical problem that must surely have a solution.

    Rudd could have written.

    4. Oil imports must be significantly reduced because the US cannot sustain the outflow of dollars from the US to other countries. Worldwide oil production has not yet peaked.

    Rudd agrees

    5. New technology will emerge in battery storage and solar cell manufacture, which will make electric cars and roof top solar power economical and solve the above #4 problem.

    Rudd agrees

    He’s almost a classic type A. He’s anti-nuclear but for different reasons to part of 1. And he’s 100% A on the rest.

  12. [He’s almost a classic type A. He’s anti-nuclear but for different reasons to part of 1. And he’s 100% A on the rest.]
    Where have Rudd and Obama stated “Nuclear proliferation is a greater concern than climate change”?

    All I need is quotes where Obama and Rudd say this, then it is true. If not, then it is just a piece of verballing.

  13. [Those are all excellent questions for which people like you and I had better come up with some good answers.]
    Is there some fundamental misunderstanding in otherwise intelligent people? For example, do people really appreciate that say a 50% reduction in CO2e emissions would still mean that atmospheric CO2 concentration would be increasing, just not as fast as it is now?

    To reduce atmosphere CO2 to pre-industrial levels, we must not only become a completely carbon-free society but undertake some gigantic industrial processes to take large quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

    How comfortable are people with the present CO2 atmospheric levels and the increased risks of droughts, bushfires, heatwaves and other impacts which we are experiencing? Why are we aiming for a higher CO2 level and the increased chances of such consequences?

  14. SO

    Did you read the points 1 through to 5? That was the only part, half of number 1 that Rudd didn’t agree with. Tell me which of the four he fits in best with. It’s easily A. He’s not a perfect fit for it but that’s the closest for him. And Obama.

  18. Glen,

    i hear your pain.

    Unfortunately, Nuclear Power is like terrorism. There only has to be one disaster to counteract 100 avoidances.

  19. [Who says we need to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels?]

    Pick any CO2 level and you will need to absorb CO2 back to return to that level at some time in the future. Are you happy with today’s CO2 level and the chances of droughts, bushfires, cyclones etc which apply today?

  20. [Tell me which of the four he fits in best with. It’s easily A. He’s not a perfect fit for it but that’s the closest for him. And Obama.]
    I read your entire post but it didn’t contain any quotes proving that Rudd and / or Obama think nuclear proliferation is a more serious problem than climate change. Which is what they supposedly believe given the statement “Nuclear proliferation is a greater concern than climate change”.

    I suspect both of them think that climate change and the nuclear proliferation are both serious issues. I don’t think either Rudd or Obama would’ve been elected if their platform was that there was only one serious issue for political leaders to deal with, and everything else was far less important or not important at all.

  21. [Glen,

    i hear your pain.

    Unfortunately, Nuclear Power is like terrorism. There only has to be one disaster to counteract 100 avoidances.]

    Precisely.

  23. [The longer nuclear power goes with a major incident the harder it will be to say it is dangerous.]
    There hasn’t been a major accident since Chernobyl.
    [Unfortunately, Nuclear Power is like terrorism. There only has to be one disaster to counteract 100 avoidances.]
    Whereas burning coal is a non-stop series of mini disasters going on 24/7.

  24. SO

    I agree the title belief was too simplistic. He should have just said that the four groups are

    A. Think coal technology, RE and petrol replacement are needed.
    B. Think energy reduction, RE and petrol replacement are needed.
    C. Happy to try almost anything
    D. There’s no problem anyway.

  28. I agree with your reformulation.

    Obama was the most pro-nuclear of the Democratic candidates during the primary. Edwards was completely opposed to any expansion of the nuclear industry, Clinton said it was too expensive, Obama said that nuclear shouldn’t receive more or less government subsidises than other clean energy sources.

    Obama has appointed pro-nuclear personal to the U.S. nuclear regulatory agency, and his national security advisor Jim Jones argues there should be a massive expansion of nuclear power to achieve energy independence.

  29. [There is just no rational perspective when people talk abut nuclear.]
    Of course not. I suspect it is because:
    1) because people associate it with nuclear weapons
    2) people can’t relate to it in their every day lives. They understand how burning things makes light and heat, but it is hard to fathom that 1 KG of lightly enriched Uranium is enough fuel to cover one person’s energy use for their entire life.

  30. Obama hasn’t overturned the US ban on reprocessing nuclear fuel though. That’s a huge issue in the US and puts the nuclear industry way behind the 8-ball compared to every other nuclear country.

  32. It’s Time

    I think the goal nowadays wrt to CO2 levels is to try and hold it at around 350ppm (currently we’re at about 387).

    I don’t think much of Lomborgs idea – he’s never really been into environmentalism.
    Not cutting our emissions earlier will great affect our ability to reduce them later. As the world warms the oceans become less able to absorb CO2 (lower CO2 solubility), Melting permafrost will emit methane, clathrates on the coean floor may also become big emitters of methane. There will be albedo changes too (from melting ice) that will be very difficult to reverse. It’s about momentum, once the ball starts rolling it gets harder and harder to stop.

  33. SO

    I knew Anthony LaPaglia when he was younger (I went through Med School with his brother who also became an actor). He’s a great guy.

  34. Glen,

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki always alter the balance when you talk about nuclear deaths.

    No hypocrisy, just a full accounting.

  42. I agree, can we please have no more actors appearing on Q&A?
    Maxine was great as usual, and this one is for Glen……..Tony Smith seems like a nice bloke!

  46. ShowsOn

    Julia Gillard did today disparage Turnbull for displaying such lack of judgement for appointing such a lazy and incompetent Shadow Minister for Health. Guess who that is!

  49. [Yeah, and that should include Pyne.]

    We’ll extend that to the entire rabble pretending that they’re a viable alternative government.

  50. [Guess who that is!]
    Peter Dutton.
    [I vote for a Politics megapanel –> Gillard & Tanner on one side; People Skills and Costello on the other.]
    Cage match or ladder match?

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 33 of 37
1 … 32 33 34 … 37