GhostWhoVotes reports the first carbon tax Newspoll has Labor receiving roughly the expected hit on voting intention, with a double dose for Julia Gillard personally. Labor’s vote has dived six points to 30 per cent, with the Coalition up four to 45 per cent and – intriguingly – the Greens up two to 15 per cent. The Coalition two-party lead of 54-46 compares with 50-50 a fortnight ago. An even bigger sting for Julia Gillard comes with a finding that Kevin Rudd leads her as best person to lead the ALP 44 per cent to 37 per cent, and a 23-point reversal in her net approval rating: approval down 11 points to 39 per cent, disapproval up 12 to 51 per cent. Funnily enough, these are exactly the same as the figures for Tony Abbott, who is respectively up one and up two. After a strong showing a fortnight ago, Gillard has lost eight points on preferred prime minister to 45 per cent and Abbott is up five to 36 per cent. For all that, a substantial 42 per cent profess themselves in favour of a price on carbon, with 53 per cent opposed – although the figures are respectively down five and up four on November. Full tables here.
UPDATE: James J points out in comments that this is Labor’s worst primary vote in Newspoll history. The previous record of 31 per cent came in August 1993, shortly after a Labor government broke a pre-election promise on tax. However, this was in an age when there was no Greens scooping up 15 per cent of the vote and feeding three-quarters of it back as preferences.
UPDATE 2: While I’m here, I’ll repost what I said about today’s Essential Research poll, which got buried a few posts back. The first Essential result taken almost entirely after the carbon tax announcement has the Coalition opening up a 53-47 lead. Considering Labor went from 51-49 ahead to 52-48 behind on the basis of last week’s polling, half of which constituted the current result, that’s slightly better than they might have feared. The Coalition is up two points on the primary vote to 47 per cent, Labor is down one to 36 per cent and the Greens are steady on 10 per cent.
Further questions on the carbon tax aren’t great for Labor, but they’re perhaps at the higher end of market expectations with 35 per cent supporting the government’s announcement and 48 per cent opposed. Fifty-nine per cent agreed the Prime Minister had broken an election promise and should have waited until after the election, while 27 per cent chose the alternative response praising her for showing strong leadership on the issue. Nonetheless, 47 per cent support action on climate change as soon as possible, against only 24 per cent who believe it can wait a few years and 19 per cent who believe action is unnecessary (a figure you should keep in mind the next time someone tries to sell you talk radio as a barometer of public opinion). There is a question on who should and shouldn’t receive compensation, but I’d doubt most respondents were able to make much of it.
Tellingly, a question on Tony Abbott’s performance shows the electorate very evenly divided: 41 per cent are ready to praise him for keeping the government accountable but 43 per cent believe he is merely obstructionist, with Labor-voting and Coalition-voting respondents representing a mirror image of each other. Twenty-seven per cent believe independents and Greens holding the balance of power has been good for Australia against 41 per cent bad, but I have my doubts about the utility of this: partisans of both side would prefer that their own party be in majority government, so it would have been good to have seen how respondents felt about minority government in comparison with majority government by the party they oppose.
Why is Robb making comments on foreign affairs?
Is he the Opposition spokesman?
If not, why should his comments be given media prominence?
As for knocking Minchin down, this government is hopeless in trumpeting its achievements and exposing the worthlessness of its opponents.
[As for knocking Minchin down, this government is hopeless in trumpeting its achievements and exposing the worthlessness of its opponents.]
The MSM doesn’t help but let’s just ignore that minor detail shall we?
[Why is Robb making comments on foreign affairs?]
It’s OK. His statements have been checked by Hogwarts.
Vic
No. There is no love lost between Hanson and Oldfield. She was just his puppet.
What would be ideal for Labor, is if Minchin and the other sceptics take on abbott over his direct action policy.
When opposition leader Turnbull pushed for a ETS agreement with the government. He was just as eager as labor to get it done and dusted.
The reason for this apart from his belief in CC was far more pragmatic. He could see where the issue would head over the next few years and he wanted any unrest in the opposition between pro and con CC believers out of the way.
As far as he was concerned Rudd was doing him a favor and he was doing Rudd a favor. Alas, just at the finish post for both leaders the con CC believers won the battle in the opposition.
The tensions with the coalition still exist and Minchin who upset Turnbull is back in play. The apparent campaign against Turnbull is, I think, all part of the CC tensions within the party room. Turnbull could see the damage this argument could cause and he tried to nip it in the bub with agreement on the ETS but more shortsighted colaition members either failed to see his vision or just did not care.
TB
Thanks for link to Deltoid. I like the trillions of degrees out bit. Not that Sen Minchin, erstwhile Minister for science, would notice.
I thought Pellabbott’s strategy was to use Labor’s proposal for a Carbon Price to destabilise the Govt. with a contrived spontaneous “Peoples revolt”……
Seems to me it’s their members who are revolting…… 😀
Minchin has done the government a massive favour plus given a courageous up and coming journalist a chance to make a name.
So Doyley, how will it play out, in the short term and the long term?
I hope Minchin keeps on about it. Would like to see what happens if Abbott tries to slap him down behind the scenes.
Minchin on one side, Turnbull on the other.
Hi PBs – have not posted for ages.
The prestigious Australian Academy of Science published “The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers” back in August 2010.
You can access it from http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html
Maybe Tone should read it?
b-g
The Do-nothings in the Coalition will not fight the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan because it is the nearest thing they can get to pretending to do something while still Doing-nothing. It has other elements much valued by the Coalition:
(1) It taxes the poor to pay the rich
(2) It provides direct taxpayer subsidies to the private sector owners or electricity generators
(3) It provides direct taxpayer subsidies to farmers.
(4) Any costs to he budget will be offset by cuts to welfare
(5) It is not scaleable so it does not address the issue that 5% is not enough
(6) It does not create a market.
(7) It has no impact on King Coal and the Iron Queen.
(8) It underestimates the true cost so it fools the punters.
Perfect. Why would Do-nothings fight it?
If Garnaut isn’t allowed to have an opinion because he isn’t a climate scientist, then shouldn’t everyone then ignore Minchin?
I don’t think the guy he refers to at the Uni of whatever is a climate scientist, either.
Bit like Barnaby – it’s OK to have Carter et al swanning around at events organised by the good Senator, but he wouldn’t do the same for Flannery because he’s a paleontolgist (spelling suspect).
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/climate-change-does-happen-abbott/story-e6freooo-1226019691663
Looks like the CM have picked up the story. It is on their website.
Gary – by saying what KK said was the truth I assumed you were a KK supporting New South Welshman. Now I know you are a disinterested non-New South Welshman.
There also a live blog with Abbott now. Anyone want to ask a question. Maybe one about Turnbull?
[Gary – by saying what KK said was the truth I assumed you were a KK supporting New South Welshman. Now I know you are a disinterested non-New South Welshman.]
Correct but I still think there is some truth in what she says. Baz will have unfetted control. Good luck with that one.
Lynchpin,
I have no real idea just my opinion based on nothing.
On this issue which the PM has made front and centre there will be continued unrest between the pro and con believers and I think between the con believers.
Abbott, who I put in the con group, has stated that the party believes the science is right. Minchin is disputing that. So there is the first small crack between the cons irrespective of what Abbott has said about CC.
On the other side the small pro group with Turnbull will continue to niggle behind the scenes.
Short term, just a bit of slap and tickle, but medium term I think problems for Abbott.
By coming out now and accepting the science Abbott has rattled the cages within.
b
(1) Mr Abbott, given your well-documented frequent changes of opinion about the climate science, how long do you think your current opinion on climate science will last?
(2) Mr Abbott, given your well-documented frequent changes of opinion about responses to climate chance, how long do you think your current opinion will last?
b
Mr Abbott, ‘Is Sen Minchin wrong on CC now? Was he wrong on CC when he organised the knifing of Turnbull and your elevation as Leader of the Opposition?’
Boerwar
Thanks. Have just asked and been put through to the moderator.
I notice Abbott said this in response to someone saying mankind is not responsible for global warming
[
Noted. I suspect that argument will rage back and forth about the extent of climate climate and the extent of human influence on it. That’s fair enough but the current political argument is over how you deal with it. I think there’s a smart way – the Coalition’s direct action plan – and a dumb way: Labor’s great big new tax on everything
]
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/yoursay/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/why_labor_is_clueless/
Lynchpin@4484
Yes, those sorts of national addresses need to be part of the strategy. No spin, just the expert truth. She could start now – there have been 5 Garnaut update papers already. He could do it with her.
had an email about the fact that journalist talk to each other
[
,political correspondents etc) has been a staple of broadcasting for decades. It is
less about what they think as what they have seen, heard and learnt. On Tuesday night it was only one element in a show that included three individual stories and a live interview. It a useful way to offer analysis quickly. It will continue to be used in 730.]
did any of you get the same answer there you go they will be chatting together most night,.
now we know we want have to watch will we
[It will continue to be used in 730.]
now i have been told havent i.
Thanks JV at 4522.
If there is anyone in this group with Combet’s or the PM’s ear, please pass this along.
This battle must be won.
[Perfect. Why would Do-nothings fight it?]
I was thinking abou this and I actually came up with a reason.
It will cost farmers lots and lots of cash. The entire direct action policy is soil carbon, right. They will sucker in farmers to change their practices to build up their soil carbon for a measly $8 per tonne.
There are advantages to doing so- your pastures are more resilient. But the cost is you have to boost your nitrogen fertiliser to maintain your productivity and nitrogen fertiliser costs $ and costs every year.
Everybit of carbon you add to the soil boosts the microbial activity, this microbial activity sucks up nitrogen and makes it unavailable for plants. So if you want more carbon in the soil, you have to subsidies the farmers nitrogen fertiliser use.
I am really amused that Combet hasn’t already got this advice. He could tear it down in the Land and the Weekly Times in a week.
[Thanks. I think everyone has moved on since them ]
madcyril
He also thinks that they have all moved on from the leadership fight and no problem with Turnball.
I note Boerwar’s questions that I asked haven’t been posted.
[Yes, those sorts of national addresses need to be part of the strategy. No spin, just the expert truth. She could start now – there have been 5 Garnaut update papers already. He could do it with her.]
Why now?
shellbell@4514
Lets put it this way – if you currently have (had ?) a job with the NSW Government,
start looking for another one, eg do a course so that you can drive dump
trucks for the miners.
Voters in NSW have hobson’s choice ahead of them.
blackdog
Yes I noticed that one. Wishful thinking on Abbott’s part I think
[I am really amused that Combet hasn’t already got this advice. He could tear it down in the Land and the Weekly Times in a week.]
blue-green:
You could email it to him or his office.
[What would be ideal for Labor, is if Minchin and the other sceptics take on abbott over his direct action policy.]
If Minchin is completely sincere in his flat earth beliefs then he should certainly fight Abbott’s sudden conversion to the reality of climate change. Anything else would be moral cowardice, wouldn’t it?
Tone is having two bob each way!!!
” I suspect that argument will rage back and forth about the extent of climate climate and the extent of human influence on it. That’s fair enough but the current political argument is over how you deal with it.”
He will avoid (as best he can) committing to either side of the argument – just watch which way the wind blows.
Talk about a poll driven pollie!!!
That oldfield/ turnbull exchange was highly amusing.
Both landed blows which was very entertaining. At least oldfield gave
turnbull a chance to reply – put the rope around his neck if you like.
So – everything is not well in the coalition – who would have thunked!
Gary
Because the carbon announcement has been made, and the moon-howlers have been released.
deewhytony
[Tone is having two bob each way!!! …
Talk about a poll driven pollie!!!]
How can you say that! He’s a conviction politician! I know that because the ABC told me.
😉
All Ords down 68 points today so far and 4.8% for the week.
Price action since monday looks like a pile driver. Looking to test
the 200 MA in the coming days. It has long since cut through the
50 MA.
[You were rejected by the Australian people Abbott. Build a bridge and jump off it.]
I can’t believe they let this one through.
Still waiting for mine to come up.
blackdog:
Did Tone have a reply to that one? 😀
[Did Tone have a reply to that one? ]
confessions
!!!
blackdog
That comment cracked me up
More wishful thinking from Abbott here I think
[
Thanks. Yes, it’s important that the Coalition remain a strong and united team. That’s currently the case and I am working to ensure it remains the case
]
madcyril
[I note, Tony, you outline absolutely are no strategic alternatives in your lines above. A bit sad, really, all that negativity. Where’s your vision, mate; indeed, do you have any? Please don’t refer me to your book, “Battlelines”. Read it recently, nothing new there either.]
I like this one too.
Abbott’s answer was that he hoped he bought the book rather than borrow it. He is truly pathetic.
I read through the Abbott blog — then needed to run to the toilet — it wanted to come out of both end explosively!
I wrote some questions, asking when he’d come out with ONE credible policy — as they’ve had nearly 4 years. Whether he was pro or and CC because I wasn’t sure after all his vacillations, and why he runs away everytime a journalist asks a serious question that requires more than a 3 word answer.
Of course it won’t get on … it is, after all, supposed to be an Abbott love in to make him feel good after Julia rocked on the US stage. But he might get to see it. And he will undoubtedly say “intersting observation/a question worth asking … ” but won’t actually answer of course!
It is really, really clear that Tony’s hero worshippers are the climate deniers. He was asked several times to be stronger against the WTTE warministas and all he could reply is “interesting observations”
Fitzy on Friday – talking about fatty ofarrell and hansen – queue jumping and coming to NSW as a boat person over the tweed river (about 3:30 mins)
http://media.smh.com.au/opinion/national-times/fitzy-on-friday-ofarrell-to-win-by-default-2225824.html
Looks like the coalition is slowly being wedged on the CC debate with the deniers and direct action trying to argue against Gillards policy. I was worried that in a 3 corner contest Labor would lose out like the republican debate. If the MSM do it’s job at some point they have to pick a side and the only side with a consistent policy on CC is Labor.
Hmm, if the guy Minchin is quoting is the one I think it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy then he also said this:
[As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that’s certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get.]
This means Minchin is denying CC by quoting someone who believes in it and that humans impact on it.
Note I have put the full context in because I am not a Liberal or the ABC, so I am trying not to edit the context to mislead. This guy is very much saying things are overstated btw and is apparently not funded by oil or mining companies. Again I say this in the interest of fairness, not because I agree with him.
jenauthor
I asked Boerwar’s two questions from the previous page, but mine didn’t get put through either.