Nielsen: 56-44 to Coalition

The latest monthly Nielsen survey confirms a recent trend of Labor’s already parlous position deteriorating still further. The Coalition has opened up a two-party preferred lead of 56-44, which I believe is a new low for the government in any published poll. Labor’s primary vote has fallen to 31 per cent (down two on the previous Nielsen poll), with the Coalition on 47 per cent (up two) and the Greens on 12 per cent (steady). Neither Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott are favoured to lead their respective parties, although there must always be the suspicion that such results are contaminated by mischief-making from supporters of the rival party. Kevin Rudd has opened a big lead over Gillard of 55-38, while Malcolm Turnbull leads Tony Abbott 41-28. Gillard’s approval rating is down two to 45 per cent while her disapproval is up three to 50 per cent; Abbott’s approval is down one to 41 per cent and his disapproval is down one to 51 per cent. Both sets of figures are actually better than what they’ve been getting lately from other pollsters.

The poll also gauged opinion on the carbon tax proposal, finding opposition has mounted from 44 per cent to 56 per cent to 59 per cent since February, while support is at 34 per cent. Andrew Wilkie’s call for limits on poker machines is rather more popular, with 66 per cent support. Echoing other poll results, respondents purport to be relaxed about whether the budget returns to surplus as promised by 2012-13, but clearly the government believes the matter will serve as a litmus test of its economic management credentials.

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.

1,387 comments on “Nielsen: 56-44 to Coalition”

Comments Page 28 of 28
1 … 27 28

  1. Also of interest in Nielson, is the number of opponent votes for Turnbull and Rudd.

    The overwhelming majority of Labor voters prefer Malcolm.

    An even more overwhelming bunch of Libs prefer Rudd. (59%?)

    As William says — ‘mischief making anyone?’

    So really — it is a non argument.

  2. jv, no I am not being obtuse.

    The Greens should have supported the CPRS instead of rejecting it twice. The strengths and weaknesses of the CPRS were not a factor given international circumstances at the time. The scheme itself was satisfactory enough as a starting point for action on global warming.

    And for political purposes, with the support of 50% of the Libs and the Greens, it would have been a sure winner.

    If the best friend the environment ever had wins the next election, the Greens will have themselves to thank.

  3. [‘mischief making anyone?’]

    Tragics are capable of ‘mischief making’ but not I suspect the average punter who is probably giving an honest answer to a simple question. I know that Turnbull has much better credentials and qualities to be PM than Abbott so I am not surprised that other Labor voters think the same way. Rudd displays the sort of qualities that conservatives from both the Labor and Liberal parties would be comfortable with – church going; family man etc.

  4. [Rudd displays the sort of qualities that conservatives from both the Labor and Liberal parties would be comfortable with – church going; family man etc….]

    … which would genuinely make him more ‘attractive’ to Liberals than Gillard.

  7. Centre

    The Greens should have supported the CPRS instead of rejecting it twice.

    Isn’t that a little arrogant? Even Rudd, on Q&A, didn’t defend his refusal to negotiate with the Greens leading up to the 2009 votes, when it was pointed out to him. The Greens had no choice but to reject a bill that was negotiated with the Libs, but not with them, despite their repeated efforts.

    The bill was flawed from the start in terms of Greens policy the IPCC Stern and Garnaut so they had no choice but to reject it. Or did you expect them to negotiate with themselves?

    We now have a situation – because of Labor’s decision to dump carbon policy in 2010 – of the minority government, in which a decent policy can be developed that will achieve the 2020 and 2050 targets to keep carbon below 450ppm. All is well this time, because Labor must negotiate with the Greens and independents. Also Garnaut is at the middle of deliberations.

    So because the CPRS wasn’t passed in 2009, we have a chance to get something better – ironically all because Labor wimped out under the hollow men and one woman last year, and their PV collapsed.
    So things are much better than they would have been with a majority government

  8. [One in four voters don’t want Gillard, Rudd or Swan to lead ]

    Now that’s a ridiculous headline from Murdoch’s minions.

  10. 1358 – truly ridiculous when many of 25% might be happy with any of the 3 – they just don’t have a particular preference. Thats preschool stuff.

  11. A Newspoll last month asking voters to chosoe only between Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard showed the Foreign Minister ahead 44-37.

    And now they are both down to 36-29 respectively? That’s a very big drop. What does that say about the primary vote, I wonder, if anything?

  12. [The ABC over the years has made many superb series that are based on true Australian events.]

    Like Blue Murder and Bastard Boys.

  13. jv, not from my understanding.

    Christine Milne made it clear on two occasions on programs she appeared on that her targets, among a few other things, were not negotiable. The question is whether Labor would have been prepared to negotiate with the Greens had they been prepared to be more flexible?

    I also do not believe that a minority government was derived by the fact that Labor chose to delay action on climate change. There were many other more important issues to the electorate at play there.

    OK I will agree that there may be a chance of getting something better on CC this time round. But you most certainly can get something worse!

    If I had to call it this far out from an election, I’d be marking the Liberals on top. And if Abbott leads, you will end with something much worse!

  14. [This notion that replacing PMs now would be deadly to Labor is I think nonsense.

    Replacing Gillard would not be like knifing a popularly elected PM.]

    I don’t think it is. As crap as Gillard has been if Labor were to knife her and stick someone else in they’d be in operation for a generation. Their credibility is shot as it is.

  16. [not from my understanding.]

    That’s probably the issue.

    [THE Greens leader Senator Bob Brown has not been able to arrange a meeting with Kevin Rudd since April last year, despite repeated attempts.

    Mr Brown told Sky News Saturday Agenda that he wanted to talk to the Prime Minister about issues including the response to climate change, but no meeting had taken place – even when the government’s emissions trading legislation was blocked in the Senate.

    Theoretically, climate change legislation would have passed with the support of the Greens and two Liberal senators who crossed the floor to support the government’s bill.

    “I have tried to see the Prime Minister since April last year when I last saw him and have not been successful”, Dr Brown said.

    “There are very important issues I think we should be discussing.”

    “He’s a busy guy, prime minister’s are. My experience with all government’s is they seem to think the House of Representatives is where it stops, they don’t understand, they find complex and very frustrating the role of the Senate.”]

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/greens-leader-bob-brown-hasnt-been-able-to-meet-kevin-rudd-since-april-last-year/story-e6frgczf-1225881639580

  19. [I don’t think it is. As crap as Gillard has been if Labor were to knife her and stick someone else in they’d be in operation for a generation. Their credibility is shot as it is.]

    This time with my teeth in, opposition for a generation.

  20. [The left are in tears]

    I thought you were in tears from peeling too many onions back at the old chunder factory.

    Just remember that Gillard is the PM and she will watch over you as you sleep for the next 2 years and possibly beyond.

  22. As I said Adam, if you are going to publicly announce that major parts of your policy are not negotiable, then I would not have arranged a meeting with you either.

    As St Bob acknowledged, the PM is a busy guy.

  25. [As I said Adam, if you are going to publicly announce that major parts of your policy are not negotiable, then I would not have arranged a meeting with you either.

    As St Bob acknowledged, the PM is a busy guy.]

    Then clearly Rudd/Labor were not interested in negotiating with the Greens. Bob Brown was, Rudd was not. Even though the Greens wouldn’t have been enough to get them over the line Rudd/Labor deserved every bit of that trying to play silly buggers with the Libs.

  26. Centre
    I think you could greatly enhance your understanding as to the preparedness to negotiate at the time with the words of Milne herself. (ABC Unleashed earlier this month):

    One of the enduring myths of the last term, pushed at the time by Labor, was that the Greens would not negotiate on climate policy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    My colleagues and I had been working for decades to get Australia moving on climate action, to see us cutting our pollution and investing properly in making clean, renewable energy cheaper. We jumped at the chance to work with a newly-elected Labor government to deliver the best policy possible. After publicly welcoming Penny Wong’s appointment as climate minister – my experience dating back to work with Graham Richardson is that it is usually when an ambitious and formidable party operative gains an environment portfolio that the biggest steps are taken – I was shocked to find my every approach rebuffed.

    Whilst it was easy for the media to report the Greens as refusing to negotiate, it was not true. I tried on every occasion to engage the minister on amendments and compromises to no avail.

    Her preference was to deal with “Macca”. The prime minister himself made time to talk with Senator Fielding of Family First but did not speak with or meet Greens Leader Bob Brown for a year before he lost his job.

    During the CPRS debate, the Greens developed a suite of amendments to the legislation from the big (lifting the targets to the level that the science demands) to the small (ensuring that voluntary action is appropriately valued) through very important but easy to achieve middle ground (requiring that any permits bought in from overseas are gold-standard accredited, to make sure we can be confident that they do represent real emissions reductions). We moved for the Productivity Commission to assess trade exposure, something that was then rejected but now a key part of current negotiation. We made it clear throughout that we wanted to discuss these proposals, work them through with the Government and find a middle ground we were both comfortable with. The Government slammed the door in our faces, refusing to countenance even discussing a single one.

    They argued that their 5 per cent was non negotiable and would discuss nothing else if that was not accepted.

    After the CPRS was rejected a second time and Tony Abbott took the leadership of the Coalition, we spent the summer working through options for progress. We settled on Professor Garnaut’s wise suggestion that, if agreement on a full emissions trading scheme seemed impossible, legislating for a fixed price on pollution, rising year on year until moving to a flexible price, was an excellent compromise position.

    On January 27 last year, we presented this option to Mr Rudd and Minister Wong. After making it public, our offer received the backing of the broadest array of environment groups, social groups and progressive business that any climate proposal had received in Australia for a long time.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/55386.html

  28. The OO headline

    [Just one in 10 want Wayne Swan to lead: Newspoll ]

    Now honestly – if this is the best they can come up with then they really are first class gold medal winning tossers.

    Seriously.

  29. [Attacking welfare recipients as “dole bludgers” used to be a right-wing stunt. Now it’s gone mainstream.

    Our nation’s resilient economy and its close-to-full employment rate is seen as a triumph of Western capitalism. Yet Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have found it necessary to talk tough on welfare reform. Could it be that there’s some easy popularity to be gained by denouncing people on welfare benefits, just as there are some cozy votes to be found by railing against ”queue-jumping” asylum seekers?

    Might it be that attacking an easy target like the unemployed is an effective distraction from the real issues of leadership, such as providing genuine tax reform or taking substantive action on climate change?

    Political commentators from Michelle Grattan to George Megalogenis have bemoaned the dying art of leadership in Australian politics. Leaders have become followers; slavishly worshipful of polls and focus groups in a ceaseless hunt to discover the magic words that will make the electorate like them.

    Hence the easy, populist opportunities of a welfare reform debate. Sadly, there are always going to be votes in bagging ”dole bludgers”, the same theme so beloved by sleazy TV current affairs programs that seem to ”expose” yet another case of egregious welfare fraud every few days.]

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-vicious-war-on-a-soft-target-20110417-1djo1.html

    It’s shameful and what happens when the only party leader worth a damn is Bob Brown.

  31. [I am fed up with all these squeals for ‘compensation’ due to the price on carbon the govt is establishing.

    Julia should just stare them down.]

    It’s very similar to the GST debate. Howie had every group looking for an exemption as well. We’ll see how tough Gillard is.

  32. Centre

    jv, maybe you should dig out a few transcripts from Sky News and see what you could find?

    That’s an abject failure to accept, or even to address, the truth in front of you.

  33. [Then clearly Rudd/Labor were not interested in negotiating with the Greens. Bob Brown was, Rudd was not. ]

    Your problem is that you only ever comment on half of the story. As a Labor supporter I acknowledge that Rudd thought he could force the Greens into accepting his proposal which was with hindsight an error of judgement BUT if you can’t admit that Brown and Milne also made an error in trying to force the PM to come and knock on their doors to come to some agreement then you are incapable of discussing the issue without prejudice. There was fault on both sides and it almost handed government to CC denialists.

  34. I do think Labor was more interested in wedging Turnbull than anything else at the time. I always said that the Rudd Labor objective was to ensure their re-election, which was understandable. I think Rudd would have been ready to move after the 2010/11 election, on an ETS (where we are now actually) in his second term. But who knows? It is all history now.

  35. [As a Labor supporter I acknowledge that Rudd thought he could force the Greens into accepting his proposal which was with hindsight an error of judgement]

    Correct.

    [BUT if you can’t admit that Brown and Milne also made an error in trying to force the PM to come and knock on their doors to come to some agreement then you are incapable of discussing the issue without prejudice. There was fault on both sides and it almost handed government to CC denialists.]

    BB had been asking Rudd for a meeting to discuss the CPRS for the last 12 months of his prime ministership and Rudd refused.

  36. [BB had been asking Rudd for a meeting to discuss the CPRS for the last 12 months of his prime ministership and Rudd refused.]

    You still insist on wearing an eye patch.

    Nothing more to discuss until you are prepared to look with both eyes.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 28 of 28
1 … 27 28