Newspoll: 54-46 to Coalition

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.

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.

4,781 comments on “Newspoll: 54-46 to Coalition”

Comments Page 96 of 96
1 95 96
  1. Victoria @ 4673

    Btw the Getup Rally supporting climate change policy is also tomorrow morning at 11.00 a.m. Treasury Place Melbourne. For Melburnians who can attend, please do so. I will be there lending my support.

    I will look out for you Victoria. I am going along and taking my grand daughter to her first such event.

    Start them early I say!

  2. [OPT
    Does this mean that Qlders are the least likely to believe the AGW theory, because to them, the weather is “as usual”?
    From what I have read, Qld weather will not change as much as other regions, at least in N Qld. But perhaps I’m wrong.]

    Lizzie, it means that, because the weather of most of Australia north of Newcastle (NSW), especially in Summer, is affected (if not “controlled”) by the Southern Monsoon’s worst excesses (dry or wet) we have extensive & meticulous weather records. During this years’ Bne floods, BOM said it was recording millions of hits, and because of the nature of the problems, records of floods, cyclones etc, were extensively and frequently consulted. Note that BOM’s “Climate Education” sections cover (in overview) Australian records for cyclone | storm | drought | flood | temperature | fire. More detailed records are in different sections. BTW, Bob Brown’s credibility took a big hit up here when he proclaimed wtte that coalminers should pay to rebuild Q because they caused the floods etc, after so many people had actually looked up BOM stats on floods & cyclones – and Brown obviously didn’t!

    But records exist from well before 1788. Patterns of N Hemisphere Monsoons (and their failure) go back millennia in China, parts of India and other Asian nations affected by them. Some records also exist for Indonesia below the Equator; enough, when combined with other evidence (inc in journals & literature), for reasonable extrapolation to the Southern Hemisphere.

    At present, SH dendrochronological records are nothing like as well gathered, studied, and cross-referenced with geological, historical, literary & pictorial art accounts as they are in the NH – nothing like the recently-published NH cross-referencing in: 2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility The whole paper’s password & copyright protected, so I’m limited to citing the abstract:

    [Climate variations have influenced the agricultural productivity, health risk, and conflict level of preindustrial societies. Discrimination between environmental and anthropogenic impacts on past civilizations, however, remains difficult because of the paucity of high-resolution palaeoclimatic evidence. Here, we present tree ring–based reconstructions of Central European summer precipitation and temperature variability over the past 2500 years. Recent warming is unprecedented, but modern hydroclimatic variations may have at times been exceeded in magnitude and duration. Wet and warm summers occurred during periods of Roman and medieval prosperity. Increased climate variability from ~AD 250 to 600 coincided with the demise of the Western Roman Empire and the turmoil of the Migration Period. Historical circumstances may challenge recent political and fiscal reluctance to mitigate projected climate change.]

    This follows ground-breaking work (also ABC/SBS programme) on cross-disciplinary dendrochronological, ice-core, geological, historical (Europe and China) and literary (ditto) research into the Arthurian Legends’ Wasteland (& Justinian famine) linking it to a much earlier Krakatoa explosion 535AD: there’s an odd but interesting reference (easier to read initially than scientific papers) based on the above @ A parallel (but, unless it’s been recently updated, not as extensive) study of a similar episode in Oedipus Rex was also linked to the Santorini/Thera explosion which

    [provides a fixed point for aligning the entire chronology of the second millennium BCE in the Aegean, because evidence of the eruption is found throughout the region. Despite this evidence, the exact date of the eruption has been difficult to determine. For most of the twentieth century, archaeologists placed it at c. 1500 BCE, but this date appeared to be too young as radiocarbon dating analysis of an olive tree buried beneath a lava flow from the volcano indicate that the eruption occurred between 1627 BCE and 1600 BCE with a 95% degree of probability]

    A perusal of the massive impact of these eruptions gives you some idea of why scientists fear similarly catastrophic atmospheric, sea and land pollution. And why those who do the sciences, or keenly follow them follow them (I developed my passion as an AH teacher trying to keep up with dating -especially “atomic clock” -technologies and the ways they altered what we’d been taught) are far more worried than any “Green” I’ve met about the true impacts of carbon pollution in the planetary gas-layers and water, and the catastrophic effects of mass vegetation losses, esp in the Tropical & Sub-tropical zones.

    Note: Discrimination between environmental and anthropogenic impacts on past civilizations, however, remains difficult because of the paucity of high-resolution palaeoclimatic evidence. IOW, since most CC claims are based on computer modelling that relies on limited records prior to midC18 (& these are not accurate to fine decimal places needed for accurate modelling) they cannot be completely reliable. BTW: Pre1800 carbon pollution due to ubiquitous coal burning for light, heat & industry (in China) and extensive timber-burning & charcoal production (in all other metal & ceramic production) is probably no greater than the Industrial Era’s before the huge expansion of steam power after c1850.

    When you hear scientists, and others who check everything they can lay their hands on, say give Earth the benefit of the doubt it usually means I don’t support the current hysteria; but I know enough to want carbon pollution addressed immediately & seriously, so if takes hysterical over-kill to do it, so be it.

    I’m aware some of PBers would rather trust a proCC politicians and advocates with agendas, with no background at all in hard climate sciences, than serious (& seriously refereed) specialist research scientists meticulously cross-referencing everything before going public – so I expect some to turn abusive, even refuse “Green-politically incorrect” needy people their charity for not believing said politicians.

  3. [There is only one PM.]
    Oh, so only the PM should be fighting for the cause?
    Or only Labor should be fighting for the cause? What about the Greens and any of the C’ttee that feel the need?

  4. [JoeHockey Joe Hockey
    My teams in footy season NRL Souths (until the Bears come back), Waratahs & Richmond Tigers (a paid up member) anyone follow the same??
    44 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply in reply to ?

    Space Kidette
    @JoeHockey Nah. Seems like you have a penchant for picking losers, Joe.

  5. wish there was some say sk to let him know we know that eddies br is now a labor member of parliament in the vic gov.

    gee i hope he is premier one day.

    that why i have a leaning to colling wood only becauce of that we are paid up member of Melbourne.
    when my oh was young he lived in a suburb a poor suburb then call north Hobart and they have the same colours so hence Melbourne

  6. LaurieOakes LaurieOakes
    Nine Netwiork interview guest Sunday morning 8.35ish…Greg Combet.
    1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply in reply to ?

    Space Kidette
    @LaurieOakes Any chance the i/v will move beyond “Liar, Liar” and get to the facts as to how the Carbon price actually works?

  7. Yes victoria they did,

    we should all be telling the sen conroy at least then he is aware, they dont have timeto do all the invetigations

  8. Yes, where are the Greens?

    The local ALP branch is organising a community forum on climate change

    I have not heard anything from local Greens since the election.

  9. OPT

    Thank you. Your explanations put me to shame, but I *had* picked up BBrown’s mistake. My OH reads a lot of climate and volcanic books. I will keep your post to show him as some of your technical words are outside my normal comprehension.

  10. my say

    not sure if Turnbull is on the move, but there is certainly some people around who think he may be up to something.

  11. OMG. The Big Earthquake is near one of my favourite places in Japan. One of the Three most famous sceneries.

    This is Sendai near Matsushima Bay.

    [Most famous among the many designations are probably Japan’s three most scenic places (nihon sankei). Selected several centuries ago, they consist of Matsushima, Miyajima and Amanohashidate: ]

  12. SK

    What can we hope to expect from Mr Oakes? After his stunt this week putting an aspirin in glass and saying wtte that support for the PM is dissolving like an aspirin in water.

  13. Gary@4759

    There is only one PM.

    Oh, so only the PM should be fighting for the cause?
    Or only Labor should be fighting for the cause? What about the Greens and any of the C’ttee that feel the need?

    There is hardly any concern about Bob Brown prosecuting the case for strong action on climate at any, and every, opportunity. The concern, as Garnaut points out, lies with the government’s need to get out of the gates quickly. It is the government of the day that bears the primary responsibility for leading the people to a better place as required by big issues. This is one of those issues.

    THe rest of the multi-party committee -Brown and the indies – and the experts too (I suggested earlier that Garnaut should appear with Gillard) should be involved in what is a major exercise in bringing the voters up to speed. But let’s see Gillar d& co get going.

    The major concern I have is that the inner tensions within Labor about the new policy imperatives will hobble it just when it needs to gallop. No such constraints affect Brown or the indies.

  14. it seems like the earth is cracking all around us in a sort of circle.

    is there a map of fualt lines are any connected.

  15. With Gillard in the USA… Who needs Laxatives

    A writer describes Gillard as” a Loyal Servant of the USA reporting for duty.”
    Pretty accurate in my view…and a new low in the Australian Cringe to our Great and Powerful Friend…I doubt that even Howard could have done better(or worse !)

    She would be favourite for the Harold Holt medal for Absolute Sycophancy!!
    Gillard ‘s speech struck a new low.
    Can you imagine Whitlam or Keating mouthing such crap !
    Bring back Kevin !!

  16. [madcyril
    Posted Friday, March 11, 2011 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    I was wondering when Alexander Downer would crawl out of the woodwork]

    Dolly’s never got over Rudd outclassing him in all aspects of foreign affairs. He didn’t even want to acknowledge Rudd’s Chinese fluency, petulantly complaining that he’d done all right in high school French.

    Goodness knows what possessed Rudd to give Downer a sinecure. Throughout his career Downer has never showed any interest in bipartisanship.

  17. [Danny Lewis
    Posted Friday, March 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Permalink


    oh, you mean THAT Cardinal Pell. Yes, I did, now you come to mention it

    God that was hilarious. And it was such an unnecessary lie. It’s almost like his first instinct is to lie, especially if he suspects the motives behind the question.]

    It is. Just consider the “Jet Lag- Tory Meeting” excuse for not travelling with Gillard to Afghanistan. He wasn’t really under any pressure to tell porkies about that. He could of just said he’d arranged to go later.

    Then he compounded the problem by telling another one about Gillard’s “act of low bastardry”. This could have been right only if Gillard had known that Abbott would lie or say something stupid (or both) after she’d mentioned that he wasn’t going with her. Then again … maybe she did.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 96 of 96
1 95 96