Numerous pollsters, some previously unknown, have swung quickly into action to record a very rosy view of Labor’s prospects under Julia Gillard. Nielsen surveyed 993 respondents on Thursday night and found Labor’s primary vote roaring back to 47 per cent, decimating the Greens – down seven points to 8 per cent – and delivering them a thumping 55-45 two-party lead. The Coalition primary vote has nonetheless held up: at 42 per cent, it is only down one point on the famous 53-47 poll of June 6. Julia Gillard leads Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister 55 per cent to 34 per cent, widening the gap achieved by Rudd in his last poll from ten points to 21. Against Kevin Rudd, she scores a not overwhelming lead of 44 per cent to 36 per cent: Rudd himself records slightly improved personal ratings, approval up two to 43 per cent and disapproval down five to 47 per cent. Tony Abbott is for some reason down on both approval (one point to 40 per cent) and disapproval (five points to 46 per cent). UPDATE: Full results courtesy of Possum here. Some have pointed that there are some very curious results in the statewide breakdowns, but this provides no statistical reason to doubt the overall result within the margin-of-error. Self-identified Greens preferences have gone from 68-32 to Labor to 81-19, although this is off a tiny sample of Greens voters.
Galaxy produces a more modest headline figure of 52-48 in a survey of 800 respondents, also conducted yesterday. This was achieved off a 41 per cent primary vote, making it a lot more solid than the 52-48 Rudd achieved his final Newspoll, which was based on 35 per cent plus a hypothetical preference share. No further primary vote figures at this stage, but it’s safe to say that here too Labor has recovered a lot of soft Greens votes. The margin of error on the poll is about 3.5 per cent. Opinion is evenly divided on the leadership coup – 45 per cent support, 48 per cent oppose – but most would prefer a full term to an early election, 36 per cent to 59 per cent. Head-to-head questions on leaders’ personal attributes produce consistently huge leads for Gillard (UPDATE: Possum reports primary votes of 42 per cent for the Coalition and 11 per cent for the Greens).
Channel Nine also had a poll conducted by McCrindle Research, who Possum rates “not cut for politics”. Nonetheless, their figures are in the ballpark of the others: Labor leads 54-46 on two-party, with 42.7 per cent of the primary vote against 38.8 per cent for the Coalition and 12.1 per cent for the Greens. Julia Gillard holds a lead as preferred prime minister of 64.8-35.2, the undecided evidently having been excluded. Sixty-three per cent believed she could “understand the needs of Australian mothers”.
Finally, market research company CoreData have produced a hugely dubious poll of 2500 people conducted “at 11am yesterday”, which has Labor on 29.5 per cent and “Liberal” on 42 per cent. This was primarily because no fewer than 21 per cent of respondents would not vote for Labor “because they did not feel that they had elected Julia Gillard”. Possum is familiar with the company, and says the sample would come “from their online panel, probably not perfectly balanced in the demographics and probably not a great fit for instapolitics”.
We’ve also had today the forlorn spectacle of the final Morgan poll conducted on Rudd’s watch. The face-to-face poll of 887 respondents from last weekend had Labor’s two-party lead widening from 51.5-48.5 to 53-47, with Labor up three points to 41 per cent at the expense of the Greens (down half a point to 12.5 per cent) and others (down 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent).
Morgan has also run one of their small-sample state polls for Victoria, this one culled from various phone polls conducted since the start of the month for a total of 430 respondents. It has the Coalition with a 50.5-49.5 two-party lead, from primary votes of 35 per cent Labor, 38 per cent Liberal, 13.5 per cent Greens, 3 per cent Family First and 7.5 per cent others.
UPDATE: Galaxy offers a full set of results, which puzzlingly offers us separate figures for Thursday and Friday. I’m not clear whether the previously published results were a combination of the two, or if they’re springing a new set of polling on us. In either case, the results for the two days are identical in every respect except that the Greens were a point higher on 12 per cent on Friday, and others a point lower on 5 per cent. Lots of further questions on attitudes to the coup and future government priorities, with 52 per cent believing Labor’s election prospects have now improved against 38 per cent who disagree.
my say
His family background apparently is Armenian. Here is a little biography of him. He was active at Sydney Uni at a funny time, when Belinda Neal and Anthony Albanese were there too. Just putting the dates together, he could not have worked as a lawyer for more than a few years
[Joe was born in Sydney in 1965 and has a different background from many of his parliamentary colleagues. His father, Richard, was born in Palestine of Armenian background, and came to Australia in 1948. The family’s original name was Hokeidonian.
Joe graduated in arts and law from the University of Sydney, where he was active in the Young Liberals. He worked as a banking and finance lawyer, then as Director of Policy to the Liberal Premier of NSW, John Fahey.
He won the seat of North Sydney for the Liberal Party in 1996, following the retirement of well-known Independent Ted Mack. He joined the Howard ministry in 1998 as Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. His last ministry was in the Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio, which he held while the coalition was fighting an intense political battle over its contentious industrial relations policy, WorkChoices.
Joe and his wife Melissa Babbage live in the Sydney suburb of Hunters Hill. They have two children, Xavier and Adelaide]
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2287270.htm
[This is why when the PM said we need to purse while we develop sustainble Infrastructure which does include increased use of renewable energy]
If she wants to lock up the Greens vote she should just say as of today, new coal power stations will be banned, and the GST will be removed from electric and hybrid cars.
[ShownOn I suspect the Prime Ministership wore Rudd down to the point of running on an oil rag]
Well he only has himself to blame for that.
ShownsOn – why can’t the renewable energy contribute by paying the GST, they afterall can claim GST back.
In the near future Coal Powered stations will continue to be needed until the renewable sector can increase its performance.
mexicanbeemer – don’t forget Andreotti’s quote that power doesn’t wear a politician out; not having power does.
Borewar
I agree.
As I’m about to have a 6 wks OzPol vac, enlivened by World Cup fever, I’ll miss the ongoing debate; so I won’t know how the following issues progress:
1. How far LNP, the religious right & the media will play the “deliberately barren”, anti-family and/or anti-marriage and other sexist cards.
While the ground has shifted & still is shifting as women hold senior roles in biz & commerce, even mining, horse-racing (& solo yachting), the MSM, religious sects & Liberal Party remain predominantly male, even male preceded by “chauvenist”. Oddly, this is one attitude few GenBlue women who served in or were widowed by wars will cop. Too many remember the struggle to get women into parliament, esp the Reps; a struggle which, ironically, Liberals used to lead.
2. That so many ALP supporters “parked” their vote with the Greens; IOW, that they had no real intention of voting Green, but wanted the ALP to know it needed to resurrect CPRS/ETS. This is of more import to the Greens than the ALP.
I expected the Green vote to rise during the Rudd term, less for policies than exerting pressure on the ALP to move further left on CC & social issues like Gay Rights. Unexpectedly, it didn’t seem to happen, at least in a big enough permanent shift to opine that Greens will significantly increase their Senate representation. Yet as yet, I see little evidence that Greens will rein in “lunatic fringe” extremism, evangelistic self-righteousness, or their own intemperance over issues like the Pacific Adventurer oil & fertiliser spill.
3. Whether/when the Libs move to depose Abbott & hard-right, and whether Julia & the ALP finesse a Lib leadership challenge.
mexicanbeemer – or, in other words, there can’t be anything quite as devastating as not having the arsekissers around to open doors and tell you you’re a genius. Hopefully, though, Kev will have a decent transition in foreign affairs.
[Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she wants Australia to have a carbon tax and is prepared to fight for it.
Ms Gillard told the Nine Network this morning she had doubts about the emissions trading scheme because there was no lasting and deep community consensus for it.]
I didn’t see the Oakes interview. Did Gillard really say she wants a carbon tax?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/27/2938114.htm
Someone mentioned earlier that what happened to Rudd was worse than what happened to Turnbull because Rudd was PM. Anyone told Turnbull that lately? He too was a shattered man and lost his chance to be PM. Of course he may get another go in the not too distant future but not this time. Rudd will get a go at still being in government if everything pans out well for him.
[I didn’t see the Oakes interview. Did Gillard really say she wants a carbon tax?]
Yes.
[In the near future Coal Powered stations will continue to be needed until the renewable sector can increase its performance.]
If we keep building coal power stations we will never reach any substantial emissions cuts. The first so called clean coal power station is 15 – 20 years away.
[I didn’t see the Oakes interview. Did Gillard really say she wants a carbon tax?]
http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1076748
Once Julia and Kevin have sorted out his future and he is treated with respect and given a decent posting or position and if he is seen to be happy with what he gets then the issue of how he was dispatched will fade.
Well that is good news that the government hasn’t been entirely spooked by Abbott nonsense into dropping the issue altogether.
One issue I wish they would drop however is Conroy’s mandatory filter. This is a perfect opportunity to consign it to the rubbish bin.
[Someone mentioned earlier that what happened to Rudd was worse than what happened to Turnbull because Rudd was PM. ]
That is the official Liberal line, yes. They knew they were on a hiding to nothing criticising the knifing of *leaders* because they have done it so many times themselves.
Shorter Liberal: it’s worse because they did it.
Sorry, that came out a little confused.
I mean because *Labor* did it, it is worse than what they did to Nelson and Turnbull (and countless others).
Can they dump Conroy? His net filter idea is another embarrassment about the Rudd years.
I should add that personally I will remain livid that it was done, but recognise that the wider community will probably not be at all concerned come election time.
Excerpt Laurie Oakes & Gillard interview
[I didn’t see the Oakes interview. Did Gillard really say she wants a carbon tax?]
[JG: Laurie, I was concerned that if you were going to do something as big to your economy as put a price on carbon, with the economic transformation that implies, with changing the way in which we live, you need a lasting and deep community consensus to do it. And I don’t believe we have that lasting and deep community consensus now. Now I believe we should have a price on carbon, and I will be prepared to argue for a price on carbon to lead, so that we get to that lasting and deep community consensus, but we are not there yet. We can take practical measures on climate change, I believe in climate change, I believe it’s caused by human activity, and I believe we have got an obligation to act. And I’ll be make some statements about some further things we can do to address the challenge of climate change as we work to that lasting and deep community consensus.]
Emphasis on this sentence:
[Now I believe we should have a price on carbon, and I will be prepared to argue for a price on carbon to lead, so that we get to that lasting and deep community consensus, but we are not there yet.]
Very clever!
mexicanbeemer
City trains are always overcrowded in peak hour, and, IMO, no more so than they were in the 50s & 60s, when most people trained to work. And they’re no more so – in fact, are far less so – than those in big cities like Tokyo, HK, London (haven’t been on USA ones).
It’s a hard political decision to lash out on peak-hour trains that are used for 4-5hrs a day & usually Monday-Friday. No Matter the city, a relatively small number of people used trains (or busses or trams) 9.30-3.30, or on weekends, esp Sunday. In fact, most cities offer cheaper train fares during off-peak, and they’re still not crowded. Like peak-hour road-gridlock, providing more public transport is a situation which, given commercial, educational & PS demands, is unlikely to change for the better as the workforce expands.
Balanced against need, is the financial & environmental impact of purchasing & running extra trains during peak periods. The only true “green” solutions is to up the “sardine” factor, not buy more trains – or, for that matter, busses & trams. Also very expensive ($$ & green) is building more lines to unserviced suburbs, given land resumption’s politics &/or tunnelling’s costs. The obvious solution, elevated urban monorails, are noisy eyesores.
There are some solutions, like London’s congestion tax. Or limited licencing of only tiny solar/electric “city cars”, if we could ever convince Aussie blokes to drive them! Or motor/ bikes (although some cities’ terrain limit pedal-power’s use). Or making city buildings/ leasing so hideously expensive they move into suburban hubs – though that was the initial effect of suburban drive-in shopping centres, and they “killed” the whole “dynamic” of cities.
Or we become a totally on-line society – as in Azimov’s The Naked Sun with the loss of interaction that creates everything we chose to live in /visit cities to enjoy.
Chinda63 #1363
I’m encouraged by the short-sightedness or your post.
Last election, many voters would have turned up to their polling booths not knowing the name of their local candidate, or even what they looked like. They would have responded to huge posters of Kevin 07 and voted ALP.
The libs changed leaders over a specific policy issue. It was painful and very open process. Its very difficult to see many relevant comparisons between Gillard topping Rudd while the ALP was ahead 52/48 and Abbott topping Turnbull over the ETS when they were behind 45-55.
Has Julie B references her source for that, or just plagerised it, as is her wont?
[While some would assure us that the ousting of Kevin was necessary, bloodless and democractic…]
I am less than satisfied about this event and how it came about, how long ago it was planned and if there was any involvement by the senior ministers in the manner of getting the boss to stuff up.
I appreciate the AFR and other places have given a detailed description of what went down and we have Gillard’s words and whatever else ALPers and the media may be saying, but beware of believing everything that comes from the mouths of victors and others who have a vested interest (ie the media).
I get the feeling as others have now suggested that this may have been helped along by Rudd’s own colleagues encouraging him into error. Though that is impossible to prove.
I also have great difficulty in accepting internal polls information from the hands of the conspirators. Of course they are going to say polls were great and improving.
Also the criticisms of Rudd just seem so similar and tight and presented as an open and shut case, as though we have everybody singing from the same song sheet. It gives me the suspicion of an attempt to help give added reason to dump him.
I am developing a bad taste in my mouth the more I read and think about this.
I am coming more to the opinion that this was a plain case of opportunism, to have Gillard installed before the election and they took the first opportunity they could before it was too late. Indeed that may have been their intention way back in 2006 when they gritted their teeth, installed Rudd as the man that would get them in, with intention of replacing him. What they didn’t bargain for was the extended popularity of Rudd.
This stinks to high heavens, it is all too neat with all the ends tied up tightly.
Gillard I belive can be very susceptible to this issue becoming prominent and causing harm to her image and polls should the media start to obsess on it as they did with issues when Rudd was PM.
The reason it can hurt Gillard is the fact that Rudd wasn’t seen a nasty self serving person. On the contrary he was the harding working nerd, nice person just trying to do his best but getting it a bit stuffed up and maybe being a bit silly. But many would have seen him as that bastard, glad he is gone.
So if Gillard is seen to have basically executed an innocent hard working victim for the sake of her own raise to power it will cause some back lash and do damage to her image.
There are many people out there who were disastisfied with Rudd but didn’t want him changed for the sake of it, and would take offence in an uncalled for execution.
I would suggest that Gillard hugg Rudd close to herself, keep him involved, give him a ministry and maintain his self respect.
[But many would have seen him as that bastard, glad he is gone.]
I mean…But many would NOT have seen him as that bastard, glad he is gone.
[I would suggest that Gillard hugg Rudd close to herself, keep him involved, give him a ministry and maintain his self respect.]
Spot on. Gillard should fall over backward to accommodate Kevin and put a big smile on his face.
[I think comparisons to the Libs on changing leaders will produce the following thoughts:
1) A party that stuck with Howard, despite Costello being on ice.
2) Gorton dumped in 1972. The youngest voter in that election will be 58 this year.
3) Menzies/Fadden – no voters from then left alive today.
BY comparison, ALP’s track record on this is very visible and fresh in the memory:
Carmen lawrence, KK, Anna Bligh, Joan Krner. The union officials in the ALP have a history of hiding behind women’s skirts when things get tough.
There is a plain differnece between ALP and Libs on this. Its Australia’s political history.]
Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Troy Buswell, Paul Omodei, Matt Birney, Kerry Chikarovski, Peter Collins, Robert Doyle, Dennis Napthine, Jeff Seeney, Rene Hidding, Iain Evans, Martin Hamilton-Smith. Granted that all of these have happened from opposition, but that’s where the Liberals usually are. This is because – as you have unwittingly demonstrated – they are a less competent and professional political outfit.
why was the alp site taken down
they had already changed he names before it happened
And one of the dummest moves of the lot, was knifing John Brogden for Peter Debnam in NSW. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Shit, how did I miss John Brogden.
[Shit, how did I miss John Brogden.]
Not as much as the Liberal Party missed him in 2007!
OzPol Tragic.
The Melbourne situation is that Public Transport usage is growing across all times of the day including weekends.
This is partly due to increased petrol prices and environmental awareness but is also being driven by increased population and international student population.
Let’s look at the PM’s seat of Lalor. The seat is serviced by two Train lines, one to Geelong via Werribee and the other to Ballarat via Melton. Both these lines were built over 100 years ago to services rural communities.
Today we are seeing an increase in the number of people from the Western suburbs working in the CBD this is adding to the pressures on the community.
These people are not necessary willing to accept overcrowding therefore are demanding from their elected representives increased serves, the State Government’s Melbourne 2030 policy aims to have 20% of all trips taken by the use of Public Transport by 2030.
For the Government to achieve that they need to radically increase the numbers of services so while the State and Federal Governments are working towards that objective the PM is indicating that we need to put that before growing the population.
Thomas Paine – very well said. Of course almost everyone in the ALP now has a massive incentive to paint Rudd as a lonely nutter who had a disfunctional relationship with everyone in his party. What else can they say?
And when you consider that there are over 100 MPs in the parliamentary labor party and Rudd had a huge agenda, it was hardly surprising he wasn’t super close to any of them.
Further, the great problem for any PM is that he can only provide patronage to about 30 per cent of his MPs. The rest are, almost by definition, disgruntled and want a change.
Be very surprised if Julia only talked to Shorten and a few back-benchers before she kicked off the campaign.
Fortunately, Rudd is doing an excellent job of preserving his legacy. Love to know who he talked to just before caucus met. Did he decide himself not to stand and to stay in parliament or did he have wise counsel. maybe it was Tanner??????
Are there really no voters from the Menzies/Fadden days still live?
Thomas Paine
I’m with you on this. The more I think about it, the worse the taste.
There is no doubt in my mind that he was deliberately & slowly brought down over many many months by those he trusted.
As I have said before, the chance of having an Abbott led government is truly scary. The supposedly palatable moderate Abbott we are getting in the media is far from what Australia will get if he won the election. I will still vote Labor, because the policies are good & solid.
I will get Jessica Rudd’s book when it is released in August. What a spook! The events that unfolded with her father are all in her book.
I was under the impression that while Brogden was knifed by his Party he never faced an actually challange.
rosa
Perhaps he took advice from Falkner.
abbotts s…..g himself about gillard going to an early election
A few thoughts:
– There’s no way this was just about the polling. The polling may have been a factor, but if anything, it was improving. (I also don’t trust the leaked internal polling – not saying it was necessarily complete BS, just saying you’d have to put less weight on unverified stuff, put out by people with a vested interest, than on polls done by professional independent polling organisations, whose futures depend on their integrity and accuracy).
– Can’t take out the personal factor. Rudd wasn’t well-liked, Gillard is. Doesn’t matter if you’re talking about the Vice-Presidency of the Tiddlewinks Club, being the CEO of a company, or the ALP leadership, personal relationships matter. Rudd clearly neglected this.
– Also can’t rule out the possibility that this was, first and foremost, a factional hit, done mainly for internal reasons. Some of the plotters have plenty of form.
– Although there are certainly distasteful elements to this (as with most leadership changes), I don’t the nature of Gillard’s accession will change many votes. I think the people who care about how Gillard got the job are, in almost all cases, rusted-on voters (for whatever Party) already. Swinging voters hardly ever care about this stuff. Their votes are decided by questions like “who can do a better job?” and “what’s in it for me?”. They will have been a bit startled by the sudden change, but it’s not like Gillard is an unknown.
– I’ve always been of the view that Labor would win this election, probably with an increased majority. Delete the word “probably” and that’s what I still think.
– Was it a good move by Labor? It was an ok move in the short term. Not so sure about the long term. I tend to agree with Peter Hartcher, Labor has wasted a PM who could have won another election.
Broggers is doing his utmost to be a pain as Head of IFSA.
He’s supported the mining tax and now he’s calling for an increase in the GST. Neither issue is linked to funds management, and he’s just making a fool of himself.
However, William, you have made my point better than I did (me not being that immersed in politics). The libs get most of the leadership changes done in Opposition.
While I’m sympathetic to the observation that this may be a reflection of ‘the messiah’ approach to liberal leadership, or that the Liberal party doesn’t have the same mechanism for dumping a PM as the ALP, the overall point I am trying to make is that changing Prime Minister is an order of magnitude different to changing an opposition leader.
Rudd’s demise will resonate with the “go with the flow” voters more so than Rudd’s removal of Beazley.
[1315
Mr Squiggle
There is a fundamental difference between executing a Prime Minister/Premier and simply changing opposition leaders who have never faced an election.]
It is of no significance to me. I’m just very relieved the caucus could be roused from its
well-practiced forbearance, carried out its duty and – I am certain – averted imminent self-destruction. Rudd should have figured out a long time ago that the Government was not all about him. He can now reflect on that at his leisure.
its not outside the realms of possibility that rudd could return as PM if this all goes tits up
[One issue I wish they would drop however is Conroy’s mandatory filter. This is a perfect opportunity to consign it to the rubbish bin]
Confessions – I agree. But give it time. Gillard has other things on her mind at present. I’m tipping that as soon as she realises it’s a dud policy she’ll scrap it.
Mr Squiggle Its Blackboard here.
The Mining Tax had a great deal to do with Fund Management for the proceeds were to go towards increasing Super contributions.
In a strange way that Internet Filter may well have been the turning point for it was before the Oceanaic Viking, it was before the ETS and it was just after the changes to the Alchopos changes.
I suspect that all combined with the way Rudd appeared to walk away from taking the Liberals on over the ETS.
Povided Gillard is able to sneak past any further focus on the PM transition then the irony for the Liberals would be that Turnbull maybe the only thing that saves them from a massive thrashing.
Turnbull I think will be seen with greater respect if back in the role of Opposition Leader having earned his stripes and gaining respect as someone who has been in battle. He is also apparently more moderate and would produce more moderate policy. He also can actually talk and make sense so he will be seen as at least a non scary credible altgranate leader.
I think that because an election can now happen in such a short time Gillard can gain full effect of her honeymoon. If she gets a bounce to 56/57 then the prospect of 54 or 55 at an election would be frightening for the Libs, and at this early stage it is a possibility.
I know that people will think Turnbull has had his chance and is not acceptable, but I believe Hockey would be much worse. He would be a hopeless campaigner and he is not very good in front of the camera, especially if he has to make sound sense.
Turnbull will be like Rudd before the last election, they need him as a saviour. It would be a risk and could back fire, however I believe Abbott and Hockey team is a disaster whose proportions could be anything.
[Shit, how did I miss John Brogden]
I’ve sometimes wondered whether we are allowed to say “shit” on the blog William. .
I guess i have my answer..
Bascially Rudd allowed himself to be painted as a waffling fuddy duddy.
libs have no talent at federal level just deadwood
Stanford Study shows climate denialists don’t have much expertise
http://www.physorg.com/news196700474.html
Dee @ 1367: Having read the transcript, at no stage does Gillard say she wants a “carbon tax”. She uses the words “price on carbon”, which isn’t necessarily the same thing. The ABC is verballing her.
And her response to Oakes just reads to me like an excuse for delay. At what point would it become apparent to her that the consensus existed? If it’s polling, then isn’t there is already a consensus for action?