The second week of Essential Research polling under Julia Gillard has perfectly replicated the first, with Labor and the Coalition steady on 42 per cent and 39 per cent of the primary vote and Labor maintaining its 54-46 two-party lead. This compares with a Coalition primary vote lead of 40 per cent to 38 per cent in the final poll under Kevin Rudd, when Labor’s two-party lead was 52-48. Essential has also surveyed on approval of Julia Gillard for the first time, finding her approval rating at 48 per cent (seven points higher than Rudd’s final result from May 31) and disapproval at 27 per cent (20 points lower). Approval of Tony Abbott has been gauged for the second week running, and it does not replicate the result of the previous week – which was itself reflected in Newspoll – showing a bounce in the wake of the leadership change. His approval has gone from 35 per cent on May 31 to 40 per cent on June 28 to 37 per cent on July 5, while his disapproval has gone from 50 per cent to 39 per cent to 47 per cent. Gillard leads as preferred prime minister 49-29, which is little different from the 47-30 lead Rudd recorded in his final poll. Also canvassed are best party to deal with various issues, which finds Labor gaining ground on every measure since three weeks ago (the interesting exceptions are “being honest and ethical” and “handling environmental and climate change issues”, which are stable). “Attributes to describe the Prime Minister” allow comparisons with Gillard on July 5 with Rudd on May 10, which are uniformly favourable to Gillard (who scores 21 points higher on being “down to earth”). Further questions show clear hostility to any notion of a “big Australia”.
Ooh! I didn’t think of the Finnish! Good one!
Imagine the joke I could’ve made, had Iran with it.
“She should go to the polls as soon as she outlines how Labor will handle climate change in the next parliament. Waiting longer only gives the Liberals more time to regroup.”
Yup, i think once she has done that there is no reason not to go to the polls. She knows that she has got bugger all chance of getting things through the current Senate as this close to an election Greens, X and Fielding will be more about the “look at moi” stuff than actually getting legislation through. the Libs will just block everything to try and prevent the Govt from being seen to have any wins this close to the polls.
I wonder if some of the Libs are thinking about what happened in W.A. when Barnett became leader and the election was announced straight away?? That apparently played well for Barnett as people saw it as the ALP being cynical in their timing. If the Libs did roll Abboott, they may think its a way of delaying an election. Then they get to jump up with the “narrative” that Julia is scared to go the the polls and hanging on for as long as poss?
Erm, if everyone else here has known this for years then I’m sorry… but since spending time on Poll Bludger, I’ve heard of face-to-face polls, and phone polls ➡ but I’ve never heard anyone even mention this method.
Wouldn’t it end up canvassing a rather different segment of the population to landline-based phone polling or face-to-face?
Iran!! I didn’t thing of that…although Iraq’d my brains (and that’ll be it from me)
When Gillard puts the ETS to bed politically, all the media commentators will be talking about is the election.
Gillard will then call the election to stop the media speculation. Oldest trick in the book.
[I wonder if some of the Libs are thinking about what happened in W.A. when Barnett became leader and the election was announced straight away?? That apparently played well for Barnett as people saw it as the ALP being cynical in their timing.]
I don’t think that is much of a risk for Labor in going to the Federal poll soon. Everyone knows it has to be this year; the budget session is done, and Gillard makes a valid point that she needs to get a mandate. As I say, the longer Labor delays now, the more risk the Liberals attacks will start to bite. Plus people will forget the mining tax deal in a surprisingly short time, because it doesn’t affect them.
And what is this extremely simple and obvious solution to the climate question that Gillard will announce, o wise ones?
[n USA there is now an on-line (Glen) Beck University:]
Now I’ve heard it all but I can’t bring myself to have a look a that link, Socrates. The thought is enough to give a kid a nightmare.
[And what is this extremely simple and obvious solution to the climate question that Gillard will announce, o wise ones?]
Whatever it is we be assured certain posters will not be happy.
Kersebleptes, yes it’s been discussed. The only thing we can do is note that recently the Essential figures have not been far from polls using a more traditional sampling technique and await for its reliability to be tested at an election.
Psephos
Two words – Professor Garnaut.
[And what is this extremely simple and obvious solution to the climate question that Gillard will announce, o wise ones?]
My guess is that she will re-state the belief in CC, that we need a genuine concensus position, make some noises about renewables then hope the issue dies a natural death in the election campign.
My suggestion would honestly be to blow some smoke up the Greens’ asses on this, have a few one on ones with Bob Brown and make it abundantly clear that in term 2 the Gillard government, with consultation by the Greens, scientists et al, will put through a “better” climate bill and emphasise that it was obstruction by the climate deniers on the right in the Coalition and FF that prevented it from happening sooner.
It’s cynical and rhetorical, but it may be the best strategy at the moment.
I await the abuse from everyone! 🙄
A 20% carbon tax?
TSOP
should we use a footpump or a compressor?
Of course, 3% is within margin of error, so 0 Greens voters could prefer TA over JG. I’ll be very interested to see how this statistic on Greens voters in particular moves over the next few polls.
Interesting though is the assertion that ‘traditional Labor voters coming back home’. I think quite a few traditional Labor voters are going to Greens than the other way around; the last election had a boosted Labor vote because everyone really wanted Howard out; so the preference flow to Liberal will be lower than people think. The rise of the Greens vote is a reflection of the displeasure of voters with both Labor and Liberal, not particularly due to anything the Greens have done.
Us Greens people can only hope that this openmindedness about the Greens vote means they pursue information on Greens policies because the media does an awful job of that. If the punters do, then the Greens have a strong chance of securing them in the long term – the true danger to Labor/Liberal.
Psephos,
20% or $20
so are the moaners still moaning i hope not.
the election is the main game then sort out some of the detail later
we cannot please every one at the moment
but the alternative would a disaster for the nation and the ordinary man in the street the little person as one used to call the downtrodden and the helpless and the less well off that through no fault of their own have not been able to advance in life.
These are the people the Tories leave behind.
Now its time for every one to take deep breath and say my god we are so lucky
and get behind Jules
ruawake@62
No, that won’t do it, the old ‘mirror and spew’. Making noises and hoping the issue dies is not a substitute for the actual practice of government on critical issues. It is only the party remoras who would happily see essential policies dumped for cheap political expediency.
Psephos@64
Which will allow Phoney Tony & Co to trot out their favourite Nursery Rhyme about the Great Big New Tax.
Speaking of Phoney Tony – The origin of that term can be traced back here 🙂
aka today’s musical lesson 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeF7jqf0GU4
Having tacked to the right on boaties, Gillard should tack (a bit) to the left on climate. A carbon tax would suit, or a pledge to bring in a new ETS bill in 2011. I think the “no action till 2013” line has to go. Either way Abbott will scream GBNT!, but I think Gillard can stare him down on that.
ltep,
Thanks for that!
So whoever brought it in has a bit riding on Essential’s performance this election…
[n USA there is now an on-line (Glen) Beck University:]
? have missed this ?
[My suggestion would honestly be to blow some smoke up the Greens’ asses on this, have a few one on ones with Bob Brown and make it abundantly clear that in term 2 the Gillard government, with consultation by the Greens, scientists et al, will put through a “better” climate bill and emphasise that it was obstruction by the climate deniers on the right in the Coalition and FF that prevented it from happening sooner.]
ToSoP – I go along with that one. There’s no time now to put together and sell a new policy. She needs to emphasise the Libs ‘no vote’ in the Senate and ask the Greens to work with them towards new ETS or tax after the election.
Kersebleptes @ 53
An online panel like Yoursource (the panel used by Essential Media for their research) is a viable and legitimate methodology for conducting research provided that the panel is a well managed one. The jury is still out in regard to opinion polling and it’s efficacy when conducted using an online panel, but in principle it is fine as long as the limitations of the panel universe (which reflects the Internet-connected community and is thus lacking in representative numbers of ‘old people,’ ie: those over 65, who are not Internet connected in numbers relative to their actual numbers) are taken into account.
Yoursource will probably draw a representative sample of their members from their panel each week on age, location and gender of those over 18, then run a ‘hard’ quota to ensure achievements in the right numbers, then ‘weight’ the final data back to a known the ABS demographics.
It is an entirely valid methodology, within it’s known limitations, and not remotely to be confused with ‘online’ polls run in newspapers, or phone in polls on websites.
Psephos
On climate change I’d say the following is sellable:
– remind people Labor tried three times to put an ETS deal through but was blocked in the Senate
– a reelected (Gillard) government will try to negotiate a CC deal through a new Senate as soon as it is seated and won’t wait three years to act;
– an ETS consistent with international action was Labor’s first preference. In the absence of a Copenhagen deal, Labor will introduce a carbon tax and use it to either (a) fund investment in new energy sources and infrastructure (if low level) or (b) make it revenue neutral with changes to personal and business tax if the carbon tax is substantial.
– a carbon tax of $30/tonne is considered sufficient to start shifting energy investment; anything below $15/tonne will get laughed at.
– start working on enforceable national standards for domestic building, insulation etc to avoid problems like roof insulation again.
– other “low hanging fruit” woul be to make solar hot water systems compulsory on all new homes and new installations in all mainland states (Tasmania has hydro power and too little sunlight).
– introduce mandatory emission standards for new cars for both GHG and oil security reasons. Most Australian made cars can meet a standard around 260 G CO2/km except for V8 Commodores and turbo Falcons. But they are precisely the problem.
– better yet, require States to introduce rego fees and/or link import/sales tariffs on cars to emissions. Danger of this latter approach is it will favour many imported models over high emission local cars; a Honda Civic emits abotu 160 g Co2/km; a Falcon emitts 260 g CO2/km; a V8 Commodore or Landcruiser would emitt 350+g CO2/KM.
You could call it a bundle of sustainability initiatives. Net cost to government would be zero.
Psephos@64
No, Professor Garnaut’s post-Copenhagen approach is the answer. An interim price on carbon at $20-423 ton, to be followed by the new 18% by 2020 or thereabouts within a couple of years.
Psephos
[A 20% carbon tax?]
20% of what?
The Big Ship has put it very eloquently.
Not much attention being paid to this result by the ALP/LNP faithful:
[Best party to handle the environment and climate change issues:
ALP 18% (-1)
LNP 18% (-1)
Greens 42%
Don’t Know 23%]
There is more support for the Greens stance on CC than ALP and LNP combined.
Could it be that neither ALP nor LNP have any credibility in this area? Labor’s credentials were trashed when they dropped the ETS. I’m guessing it’s only going to be a positive for Gillard if voters perceive that she’s actually doing something. On the other hand LNP won’t swing many votes running an anti-climate change platform.
77 – That’s $20-$23 per ton. $423 might be a bit high.
Glenn Beck has a university? How interesting. Let’s look the the letters of ‘Beck University’
BECK UNIVERSITY
If we shuffle the letters around a bit, and remove the NIVRIY, you get:
BECK TE US
Which is, in itself, meaningless. But considering the laughter that the elite are having over the USA right now, stick in HA into the mx, you get:
BECK THE USA
Change the BE to an FU
<CENSORED> THE USA!
Highlighting this “University”‘s real intention! Now who is behind all this? Isn’t it apparent? Look at the original words again
BECK UNIVERSITY
That’s right, patriots! The UN! Once again trying to take over
BECKUNIVERSITYTHE UNIVERSE!
(Anyone who has witnessed Glenn Back’s rantings would appreciate the parody)
[20% of what?]
20% of the carbon. We tax everyone 20% of their carbon, use it to make pencils, and sell them to China. Everyone’s a winner.
I think I must have meant $20, not 20%.
Socrates
The problem is though that it what you describe isnn’t going to bite deep enough. It wouldn’t be consistent with stabilisation at 450ppm, or a maximum 2 degrees temperature rise. There needs to be an ETS at some point soon – the carbon price is only interim.
Thanks for that too, TBS @ 75. Knowledge void now filling fast!
I was simply thinking that those willing to become and remain members of the “panel” would have a different profile to those contacted via the other two methods I’ve heard of- which themselves do catch slightly different groups (and miss others such as phone polling missing no-landline homes).
Oh no. I definitely was not confusing it with “online polls”. If it was like that, William wouldn’t be contaminating his thread titles with them!
I doubt Gillard will take any new policy that includes a “tax” to the election.
[I doubt Gillard will take any new policy that includes a “tax” to the election.]
I was going to post that but thought I’d get swooped by jv :p
[(Anyone who has witnessed Glenn Back’s rantings would appreciate the parody)]
Pebbles – OH just saw that and said it should be sent to Beck. You’ve outdone him.
She just needs to make it clear that they will do something next term, and aren’t just trying to, for lack of a better term, “con” the Greens voters into getting them re-elected.
jv
If the carbon price is high enough it will do the job. I am sanguine about carbon taxes vs an ETS. Both aim to give a price signal to consuers and producers to make them prefer low carbon energy and products. James Hansen explained this when he gave a lecture in Adelaide earlier this year.
The dangers for a carbon tax are too low a price to shift any behaviour (eg under $15/tonne) or for an ETS too many free permits (as with Labor’s scheme, contrary to Garnaut’s recommendations). I’d prefer a well designed ETS, but I’ll take a straight carbon tax of $30/tonne. It will get most of the job done till the world reaches a sensible ETS regime.
I would, but but right now my eyes are welling… I’m just crying because… because I love my nation and and I fear for its future…sorry…*weeps*
The sad fact is that in the absence of a global agreement, nothing Australia does is going to make any real-world difference. We are 1.5% of emissions, remember? Of course we need to make a proportional commitment, but it is hard to argue that we should be course making really big cuts at considerable risk to parts of our economy while the US, China and India do nothing. The main game is still getting an international agreement at whatever world climate jamboree is next – Mexico City? If passing an ETS or carbon tax here helps achieve that, fine, but if not it’s just symbolism.
Incidentally, a carbon tax could even take the place of current fuel taxes so that it was revenue neutral for transport. The real game in reducing emissions is changing electricity generation, fewer belching cattle and less land clearing. All forms of transport combined are only about 16% of our emissions; Cars are 55% of that or 9%.
A price on carbon is not a government tax, it is a tradable commodity. It doesn’t look like a tax, or sound like a tax, or smell like a tax.
Cf junior miners, in the current context there are two classes:
(1) those which are in iron and coal and which are gaining, or who are about to gain, profits of $50 million. (These got shafted by the biggies.)
(2) junior miners which are exploring. The latter are tying to sneak in a freebie while there is a bit of confusion in town. In other words they want more than they had before the whole thing blew up. What they want is some sort of deal called flow through shares. I don’t know what it means, except that it is a subsidy for exploration of some sort. I saw something the other day that at quite low cost to the government, Canada has introduced it and it had created an exploration frenzy.
The other thing to remember is that a significant number of junior miners mine woodies as their main investment strategy. They print off a prospectus, find some traces and list on the market. These scammers would have no shame about fibbing about what the Government has done, and it is this sort of shower that Abbott is playing to.
jaundiced view@94
Try telling that to our knuckle dragging Liberal friends ? 🙂
[A price on carbon is not a government tax, it is a tradable commodity.]
That line is a tough one to sell though. Remember how well the Liberals line that their PPL levy was not a tax but ‘an investment in human capital’ went down?
[Darn
Posted Monday, July 5, 2010 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
More evidence that Morgan has a bit of explaining to do.]
This is a modern way of doing a poll across the internet, so i suppose you get different
people.
there is not to many people over 80 who use the internet i would think and the numbers under that would be really good to know any one got any stats on when the age user
graph would zoom up
Also i most cases you are always home to your internet, its not like it rings and you need to answer now.
Maybe just may be essential are first off the rank with a new way of doing things.
any thoughts william
Psephos 92
On that we are in agreement. Hence if we can get a simple carbon tax arrangement in the interim, it would be a constructive start. It should be pitched at a price level heading towards what an international ETS might achieve; it need nto be more. So I’d say around $30/tonne would be reasonable. This would encourage a change away from brown coal in Victoria and SA, but would not stop black coal usage in Qld/NSW except for borderline locations. Gas would be favoured relative to coal.
A carbon tax also has the “market certainty” advantage in its favour. Industry needs to be assured it will be stable over time for it to make any difference. If so it encourages investment in alternatives, a better inter-state grid, etc.
We will never get anywhere near a reasonable target if we keep burning Vic brown coal; it is 30% worse than black coal. So that is a good start – a sufficient carbon tax to at least deter more brown coal capacity and a shift away from it to gas (preferably nuclear but oh well…)
Gillard’s announcement on AGW:
(1) a carbon price committment with a process for obtaining and commencing implementation of yer consensus during the life of the next parliament.
(2) a direct action plan that delivers a genuine 5% compared with Abbott’s shonky five per cent.
(3) an iconic deliverable on the renewable front (Obama has just signed $2b for some solar plant thingies). This delivery can be in a region depressed by the impact of AGW already – somewhere along the national electricity grid.
(4) a significant increase in investment in research in carbon soil sequestration. Some of this can be switched from clean coal, about which we are hearing nothing much that is promising in the time frames required.
(5) a direct action plan element aimed at reducing emissions. A good one would be to introduce progressive regulated increases in km per litre in any new cars.