GhostWhoVotes tweets that the first Newspoll of the year offers more grim news for the government, with Labor’s primary vote down a further two points from the final poll of last year to 32 per cent and the Coalition up three to 44 per cent. No two-party result has yet been provided, but past experience suggests it will land at either 52-48 or 53-47 depending on rounding. This compares with 50-50 in the final Newspoll of last year. More to follow.
UPDATE: Full tables here. The two-party result is 52-48, which probably flatters Labor a little due to rounding, while the Greens’ primary vote is steady on 14 per cent. Contrary to the findings of an Essential Research poll which gave Labor much better figures on voting intention, the poll also shows a fairly solid majority supporting the government’s proposed flood levy: 55 per cent are supportive (26 per cent strongly, 29 per cent somewhat), with 41 per cent opposed (25 per cent strongly, 16 per cent somewhat). Despite this, Tony Abbott has managed to claw back seven points on preferred prime minister, on which he now trails Julia Gillard 48 per cent (down four points) to 35 per cent (up three). Gillard’s approval rating is steady on 45 per cent but her disapproval is up four to 42 per cent, while Abbott’s numbers are little changed: approval steady on 42 per cent, disapproval up one to 44 per cent.
All told, a most curious set of numbers.
UPDATE 2: Essential Research has the Coalition maintaining a 51-49 lead, with both major parties up a point on the primary vote: the Coalition to 46 per cent and Labor to 38 per cent. The Greens are down one to 10 per cent, further widening the gap in their ratings between Newspoll and Essential (“others” are also consistently higher in Newspoll than Essential – in both cases, the latter has been much closer to the last election result).
My favourite of the supplementary questions is on the party with the best approach to funding flood reconstruction, on which Labor leads 36 per cent to 28 per cent. However, the Coalition performs significantly better on “who would you trust most to manage the program of rebuilding infrastructure”, on which Labor’s lead is 36 per cent to 35 per cent. Respondents were also asked for their opinion on each aspect of the government’s efforts to pay for flood reconstruction. Significantly, this shows strong support for the scrapping of “cash for clunkers”, a program that evidently contributed to perceptions of ongoing government wastefulness. This time the flood levy had 44 per cent support and 50 per cent opposition: better than last week’s Essential, but worse than Newspoll. Cuts in solar energy programs and the scrapping of the higher education capital development pool were strongly opposed.
Questions on leaders’ attributes show a deterioration in perceptions of both leaders since October, in similar ways: both are down sharply on intelligent, hard-working, capable and visionary, but Julia Gillard has also suffered on arrogant, out of touch and narrow-minded. The only question on which Tony Abbott performs better than Gillard is “superficial”, though in many cases there’s not much in it.
UPDATE 3: Essential Research has again set aside a further question for release later in the day by Channel Ten, this time relating to whether the independents should continue supporting Labor or switch to the Coalition. It finds 43 per cent favouring the former option, against 30 per cent for the latter. Breakdowns by age and party support go much as you would expect.
Rubbish we dont need states. I am sure the feds could have coordinated the immaculate disaster relief from canberra. Hmmm.
Actually, Boerwar I think it is the other way around.
The model should be to leave the GST, the feds take over ALL health (from primary healthcare to hospitals to nursing homes etc etc). The money savings would contribute to the burgeoning health costs but also there are efficiencies (not flying sick kids from Lismore to Sydney but flying them/driving them up the road to Brisbane etc etc).
Then in time you could do the same for education- ALL education.
Then you say: hang on a sec….why do we have states again?
Only platonically I trust, BW.
no councils either.
All these things where set up when we had no contact ,
Nsw and Tasmania was the first two states and Tasmania ( vandiemans land) was at some stage gov. from NSW gov Collins new this was impossible so self gov. so the states began.
now the gov here have taken over water ( which will loose this alp gov office) and now all the councils have is sport and rec grounds and roads that need to be fixed up re holes in the ground and not much else we are over governed, but i still like to keep our identity thats important as we all need a space to call our own
The Feds couldn’t run any services other than payment/transactions department (medicare, centrelink and ato). Hospitals pfff, Schools guffaw, highways tee hee, trains- from Canberra he he he.
o forgot garbage collection re the local gov.
may be then local gov could become like a state gov, with essentials like emergency services and the police ect.
the seem to do ok in the UK they dont have states do they
The fed/state balance is actually really good circuit breaker against civil unrest. Imagine how grouchy you lot would all be if Abbott had complete control over the schools, the police, social welfare, hospitals everywhere. NO progressive state to balance it.
Winning govt becomes and all or nothing event. The standard recourse if a sizeable minority become politically disempowered is civil strife.
[blue_green
Posted Friday, February 11, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
The Feds couldn’t run any services other than payment/transactions department (medicare, centrelink and ato). Hospitals pfff]
States havent done all that well either!
What is the difference between Goulburn Hospital being run from Sydney or Canberra? Goulburn Hospital should be run from Goulburn by Goulburnese (apologies). Its the funding and logistics that we are talking about and the State vs. Fed cost shifting (not to mention the time and energy and office space for business managers whose main role appears to be how to do this most effectively).
[We haven’t seen Julia’s equivalent to the Abbott death stare yet, but I’d hope it will be neither pretty nor ambiguous in intent.]
We haven’t SEEN it, but we HEARD it when she was interviewed by Mitchell recently.
Has The Unaustralian started its Punch and Judy show on the PM’s plan yet?
Keiran Gilbert on Sky News commented on Youth Allowance bill. He said the PM stated it was unconstitutional, but there are some Constitutional lawyers who have said that it is not that clear cut, and they have not seen anything like it since 1975. Basically the meme is still out there.
could anyone tell me if the local hospital areas run by regional management boards still part of this proposal ?
I know Qld has spent approx 2.5 million in consultation etc to set up the area breakdowns, selecting the board members etc
Yep Mod Lib,
then lets have independently created charters, processes, payment systems, hr policies, operation policies for every town hospital. Independent complaints precendures. Indpendent regional ombudmans. Specialists and specillaist equipment needed in every town rather than just four machines-that-go-bing for a state.
I would think that regional fiefdowms would create little value for money.
Victoria,
I would be more worried if Gilbert agreed with the PM, I find him that stupid.
I am sure the government has the legal advice all done and dusted by this point.
Boerwar,
[scorpio
How would you handle the so-called ‘waste’ issue? ]
By not keeping on volunteering it up to them all the time.
It’s a prime vulnerability and they keep highlighting it all the time.
It’s own goals all the time. They will never get on top of it now! The horse has bolted.
Everytime they bring it up, the smell of blood becomes fresh & the media hone in on it like flies to a stinking carcase.
Mod Lib, I recommend you read:
[Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions and Political Behaviour]
Especially Chapter 12 on the politcal consequences of federal and unitary systems (p235)
I found little redeeming features of unitary systems.
I think the QLD flood response shows the value of State govts. Local govts could not respond like that and neither could federal govts.
This will be Gillard’s first COAG meeting as PM.
b-g
I am surprised that you are interested in supporting 7 additional sets of snouters.
scorpio
So, if you are in a presser, and a journo asks you about waste, you say, ‘I am not talking about waste?’
That should work.
It is a sad state of affairs that Scorpio feels he has to say this as a preamble to his comments about the Press Conference Julia gave this morning.
[All I am going to say further on this, is that I don’t usually make “any” comments on JG’s performance or make comparisons etc but I did find aspects of this PC disturbing].
Isn’t this blog supposed to be based on everyone’s engagement of opinion. Can’t we have differences in a point of view. Basically he was discussing tactics and suddenly he is having his point of view dissected.
Lord help us! We are not members of a fan club!
Scorpio and others don’t deserve to have every word dissected by others.
Disagree by all means but comments like “sorry Scorpio i have no idea what your talking about” and challenges by others to everyone who doesn’t agree with their every word really are a bit rich.
This place seems like a school playground sometimes. Surely we are better than that!
Mod Lib I am glad you also stand up for your own position. We do live in a Democracy after all.
Can someone explain how these health changes will improve things? It all looks a bit wooly to me.
Boerwar,
Its that or have all or nothing politcal shitfights for federal govt, where you win or lose everything politically.
If you want Australia to be in a permanent political sh_tfight will no opportunities for counterbalancing policies, then I guess I unitary system is fine.
And I guess if you want every big decision in the country to be made by only one party for an electoral period that is fine. And if you want every little decision to be made from behind a Canberra desk, that is also fine.
[The Opposition Leader and his deputy today appeared to put a torrid political week behind them, looking relaxed and joking together at a Liberal policy forum at Parliament House in Canberra.
As she left, Ms Bishop was asked whether she enjoyed Ms Abbott’s support.
“Absolutely,” she said.
She said she and Mr Abbott would host a press conference later today to take further questions.]
JG would have been better served going sailing today and letting the media vultures pick over the carcase of this lot instead.
Who are the MSM going to give priority to in regard to favourable treatment when they have the choice offered today?
The Opposition was doing such a sterling job of eating itself alive. Why interrupt!
For those who are interested. KK will be at National Press Club now.
scorpio
I know the point you are trying to make. But the govt needs to get on with the business of governing.
scorpio
I should add, that Abbott made comments this morning regarding the health policy, even before the press conference. Guess what? He was bagging it and saying that the PM has done a backflip.
Dio
I suggest you ask Abbott, Barnett, O’Farrell and Baillieu. They wrecked the last approach.
Where on earth has anyone had a go at Scorpio? Some people have said they didn’t agree with him and explained why.
I didn’t see the presser have been interested to see different interpretations.
The PM said the new theme was to not be dictated to by the media cycle. They are sticking to it. Who knows if it will work, but at least they have strategy and are applying it.
Gos
I had a go at his views, not Scorpio.
Scorpio,
Their press conference this afternoon should provide some more fodder to keep the story going if the useless media have the gumption to pore over the words said (or not said, in Rabbott’s case).
‘The Australian’ has an item on Gillard’s response to the ‘constitutional crisis’ in its breaking news section. Nothing on the health package so far.
Now, what was it that they were rabbiting on about in today’s editorial?
BW
[I suggest you ask Abbott, Barnett, O’Farrell and Baillieu. They wrecked the last approach.]
Why ask them? It’s not their proposal.
RuddHealth was a dog anyway.
I’m concerned that no-one is able to tell me how this reform is going to help.
KK talking at Press Club. Dead Woman Walking. I do admire her pluck in the face of adversity.
Ulhmann
[The Liberal grievance list is long. Joe Hockey also fears Mr Robb covets his treasury portfolio and his supporters are circling the wagons. Over in the Senate there is much grumbling about the leadership of Eric Abetz. And for months there has been a campaign to get rid of Peta Credlin, Mr Abbott’s chief of staff, and her husband, federal director Brian Loughnane.
That’s just the surface level disputes, there are others too bespoke to mention.
So for much of this week the guessing game in Opposition ranks has been, who is the media briefing about the doings of the party and particularly shadow cabinet?
The better question might be who isn’t. The harder one is why?
Well, sometimes sh-t happens and sometimes you sh-t in your own nest]
OMG, who is grumbling about Abetz?
War, me thinks.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/11/3136317.htm
Dio
Well, they should be able to tell you why this one will not work either. They’re the pros.
Diog,
Healthcare inflation is riduculous. Spiralling costs for the same level of service.
Show me some productivity gains and I will happily encourage a govt to show you the money.
[And I guess if you want every big decision in the country to be made by only one party for an electoral period that is fine. And if you want every little decision to be made from behind a Canberra desk, that is also fine.]
Having decisions made by three different levels of government aint working either, even when they are from the same political party.
Local decisions should be made locally.
Funding decisions, MBS, PBS, waiting lists, primary healthcare, nursing home Mx can all be done at one level of government across states.
The fight between people with minor illnesses going to GPs who bulk bill vs. going to GPs who don’t vs. attending Emergency Departments who dont charge is a huge issue in Australia. This is because there is no incentive on the Feds who manage GPs to care about ED waits (a state issue)
Similarly, there is no incentive on Feds helping to get elderly patients who need nursing homes not acute care hospital beds out of a State Hospital into a Federal Nursing Home.
Boerwar,
[scorpio
So, if you are in a presser, and a journo asks you about waste, you say, ‘I am not talking about waste?’
That should work. ]
I’m watching JG make exactly the same moves as people on here critisised KR for.
If they didn’t work for KR, why should people suddenly think that JG doing exactly the same thing can come up with a different result? Bad for KR to make mistakes in judgement/presentation, OK for JG to do exactly the same thing with exactly the same result.
Madness.
bg
[Show me some productivity gains]
People are living longer.
Dio,
You know that all the reforms in health-care are deck chair maneuvers. The only reform that will work is an explicit limitation of supply – and NO government will suggest that. So instead the aim is to keep the implicit limitation and the level of healthcare user grumbling at acceptable levels.
b-g
this stood out for me in Ulhmann’s piece
[That’s just the surface level disputes, there are others too bespoke to mention].
scorpio
Let’s just pretend you are Gillard. You are in a press conference. A journo says to you, ‘How are are you going to stop the waste?’
What would you say?
STOP THE ELDERLY!
OC
As Sybil would say “I know, I know!”
It’s also very important to look like you are doing something.
[Mod Lib I am glad you also stand up for your own position. We do live in a Democracy after all.]
MTBW: Appreciated!
😉
b-g
what do you think Ulhmann is alluding to?
[People are living longer.]
The rise in life-span has been constant since the early seventies and has nothing to with the cost of healthcare rising at triple the rate of CPI for the last few years.
Just as an observation…
There is never a “constitutional question” or a “constitutional problem”, or “issue”. There are only Constitutional “Crises” and they are always the “most serious since Whitlam”.
s53 of the Constitution says that the Senate may not originate or amend money bills.
That should be the end of the matter, and always has been.
Talk about “democracy denied” and “the government is too scared to let it be debated” and so on is guff. A money bill passed or amended in the Senate is disqualified on constitutional grounds. No ‘crisis” required.