GhostWhoVotes tweets that the first post-carbon tax announcement poll from Nielsen, presumably conducted between Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1400, has the Coalition’s lead out from 59-41 to 61-39. Further comment superfluous, but primary votes and leadership figures, and presumably also some attitudinal stuff, to follow.
UPDATE: After falling a point short of overtaking Julia Gillard in last month’s poll, Tony Abbott has rocketed to an 11-point lead as preferred prime minister, up five points to 51 per cent with Gillard down six to 40 per cent.
UPDATE 2: Labor primary vote down a point to 26 per cent …
UPDATE 3: Michelle Grattan in the Sydney Morning Herald:
In results that will send waves of fear through the government, approval for Ms Gillard’s performance has tumbled another 3 points to 34 per cent, while her disapproval rating has jumped 3 to 62 per cent. The carbon plan has been given an unequivocal thumbs down, with 56 per cent of respondents opposed to a carbon price, 52 per cent rejecting the government’s carbon price and compensation package, and 53 per cent believing it will leave them worse off. More than half (56 per cent) say Ms Gillard has no mandate for her plan, and the same proportion want an early poll before the plan is introduced. Nearly half (47 per cent) think Bob Brown and the Greens are mainly responsible for the government’s package. More than half (52 per cent) say an Abbott government should repeal the package while 43 per cent believe it should be left in place under a new government. Ms Gillard yesterday denied she had been ringing around to gauge backbench support for her failing leadership.
The Coalition’s primary vote is up 2 points to 51 per cent, while the Greens’ is down 1 point to 11 per cent. Approval of Mr Abbott has risen a point to 47 per cent. His disapproval is down 2 points to 48 per cent … Ms Gillard’s approval rating is her worst so far and the lowest for a PM since Paul Keating’s 34 per cent in March 1995.
UPDATE (18/7/2011): Essential Research is kinder for the government, showing a slight improvement from last week’s worst-ever result for them: the Coalition’s lead is down from 57-43 to 56-44, with the Coalition down a point to 49 per cent, Labor up one to 31 per cent and the Greens steady on 11 per cent. Essential being a two-week rolling average, this was half conducted immediately before and half immediately after the carbon tax announcement, with the latter evidently having provided the better figures. I have noted in the past that, for whatever reason, Essential seems to get more favourable results for the carbon tax than phone pollsters: as well as being consistent with the voting intention findings (albeit not to the extent of statistical significance), the Essential survey also finds direct support for the carbon tax has increased since the announcement, with approval up four points to 39 per cent and disapproval down four to 49 per cent.
This raises at least the possibility that the phone polling methodology behind the recent Morgan and Nielsen results, as well as next week’s Newspoll, is skewed somewhat against the carbon tax unless of course the internet-based Essential (or perhaps some other aspect of Essential’s methodology) is skewed in its favour. It should also be noted that Essential’s recovery only returns support to the level it was at in the June 14 survey, before a dive on July 11. For all that, respondents are just as pessimistic about their own prospects under the tax as were Morgan’s: 10 per cent say they will be better off against 69 per cent worse off, and 46 per cent believe it will be bad for Australia against 34 per cent good. Further questions inquire about respondent’s self-perceived level of knowledge about the tax, and their reactions about a range of responses to it.
8,826 comments on “Nielsen: 61-39 to Coalition”
[12.10pm: The US justice department is preparing subpoenas as part of preliminary investigations into News Corporation relating to alleged foreign bribery and alleged hacking of 9/11 victims’ answerphone messages, the Wall Street Journal is reporting. More as we get it]
It’s not over by a long shot — this News culture is endemic — from the Melbourne Storm to Fox News via the Sun — this is an organisation that leaves ethics at the door, all in the name of Mr Murdoch and his almighty dollar.
Anyone associated with this organisation is morally and ethically compromised, in my view.
I could not Steptoe and son because I felt too sad for young Steptoe – Ditto Arthur in Mother and Son. So I tend to be a bit on the overly sympathetic side
[preventing discrimination against workers who have
What about this point don’t you understand?
[It aint abuse when it’s the truth.
I gave you your evidence that you asked for.
You wont or cant read it or refuse to accept it.
Therefore you’re an idiot.]
[She can’t have it both ways.]
Diog, withdraw. Hokey Pokey is always both ways
Well I have a flight to catch it has been grand, hopefully I’ll have something better to do in the next country.
Depression has become a Convenient get out I think
glen please stop the personal abuse, you are forever squealing about it directed at you.. try and respond in a mature, adult fashion…you have been caught out countless times and run for cover when you are called…it appears this is another case of same. Your intent to have the entire blog centred on yourself is childish and a bore.
glen claimed –
Amuse us Glen –
Where does your *proof* show that it never have happened in real life
Where in your document does it show she’d have cause for unfair dismissal even under Workchoices itself
The section you reference just doesn’t say that.
I have little time for Howes when he sticks his head in where it should not be but in the case of the AWU’s support for the Carbon pollution package it seems to me that the executive did consult and they took a measured decision based on member feedback.
Good on them and, in this case, Howes.
As long as he keeps his focus on the welfare of his members then I have no dramas with him at all.
Oh, also everytime he supports the government I will give him a tick as well. Might sound a bit hypocritical but what the hell. Labor voters can do that. ( smiley face )
thinly attack my foot.
Thefinnigans The Finnigans
Malcolm Turnbull declared war on Tony Abbott tonight #auspol
[Turnbull denies pot shot at Abbott, Mex Cooper, July 22, 2011 – 4:11PM
Malcolm Turnbull has denied a speech he gave on climate change was a thinly-veiled attack on Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.
In a lecture in Sydney last night, Mr Turnbull said it was important to “speak out and loudly” in support of the science of climate change.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/turnbull-denies-pot-shot-at-abbott-20110722-1hser.html#ixzz1SpgMHDUR
RE: Sen Mary Jo Fischer
A police apprehension report obtained by the Advertiser said Senator Fisher allegedly assaulted the security guard in the carpark of the supermarket, when she was stopped from leaving.
The police report said Senator Fisher obliged and accompanied the guard to the office, but later asked to use the toilet, while they were waiting for police.
It’s alleged she instead attempted to go to her car outside, but the security guard stopped her and again they waited for police to arrive.
The report said Senator Fisher told police she was going outside, to call a friend to help pay for the groceries as she did not have enough money on her at the time.
Doesn’t sound like the behaviour of a depressed person to me.
A price on groceries
Senator Mary Jo Fisher doesn’t believe in a price for carbon nor it seems one on groceries
[If Fisher’s depression is so bad that she is committing criminal offences, she has to resign. She can’t have it both ways.]
Which is why a defence of automatism (non-voluntariness) is the riskiest thing. One may be deemed insane and committed to an institution indefinitely, though that would be unlikely here.
She’ll defend herself on other grounds and raise any mental ill-health as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
[Imacca, they showed something that was illegal under the Act and passed it off as what was allowed under the Act.
Now is that or is that not a lie?]
Whether or not it was illegal under the act they showed something that was more likely to happen under WorkChoices.
My understanding of that add was that the “mum” was threatened with losing her job if she didnt turn up for work even though she had not arranged child care because she hadn’t expected to have to work at that time.
Under WorkChoices employers who do not employ more than 100 employees were exempt from unfair dismissal laws. If our “mum” was employed in a small / medium business then Unfair Dismissal doesn’t apply, or they could have used the great “operational reasons” get out clause.
She would have had to prove discrimination and that can be a lengthy and difficult thing.
So, it wasn’t a lie. Someone without Union coverage or the financial wherewithal to defend themselves could have found themselves in that situation quite easily.
The worst you can say about it was that what was depicted in the add, may not necessarily have been applicable in all cases, but that just makes it advertising, not a lie.
I heard some mention of it on ABC24 this afternoon, quoting an item from either The Guardian or The Independent. It definitely mentioned something about them having an affair at some time. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if this was going on while he was working for Cameron, and all the talk about the BSky bid?
No doubt it will be reported in OO tomorrow!!! LOL
Hear, hear, David. Well stated!!
Just because the Senator is a Liberal is no reason for me to not give her the courtesy of waiting for the full story.
A lot of things could be the problem, or she could have just have done something completely stupid for no discernible reason. Until the evidence if presented, it is hard to say. Shoplifting (alleged) can be related to anything from just plain “I am buggered if I am paying for this”, or related to poverty or to being a result of mental illness or dementia etc. I mean, she could have just have subconsciously decided she had had enough of it all the political crap.
I think I will wait for the evidence.
[Fulvio Sammut 8743]
[Why not invoke the old automatism defence, Charlton. That’s a goer if you couple it to the Hokey Pokey in the Senate clip.
Res ipsa loquitor.]
Automatism is a very rare defence & prima facie she doesn’t appear to be off the planet to the requisite extent & even if she was, the defence could backfire in that she could find herself confined to a nuthouse. Moreover, counsel would need to be instructed with the consequential costs being prohibitive.
I love it when you write in Latin, and the phrase res ipsa loquitur could be an answer to the negligence of the security guard’s actions in the car. But again, counsel would need to be briefed and more costs would follow.
Had I been a lawyer I would have defended her thus:
I would seek to have the matters dealt with in the Mags Court, even though the assault charge might be an indictable offence (in Qld indictable offences can be dealt with on the election of the defendant if they aren’t accompanied by a circumstance of aggravation).
I’d seek an absolute discharge on the basis of that odd dance, the fact that she’s probably having treatment for an undisclosed mental condition, that she of very good character (?) and that she hasn’t transgressed before(?).
But one would of course need to full instructions from her in the first place.
Being a Queensland resident could also prove an impediment to a thorough defence.
Posted Friday, July 22, 2011 at 7:47 pm | Permalink
I look forward to ‘The Australian’ doing an in-depth feature on how COL increases are driving desperate senators to crime, an editorial on how Ms Gillard should stop playing with Ms Fisher’s brain, plus an article on how the alleged perp was levitated through security against her will because she was being weightlessed by CO2. I assume ‘The Australian’ will be wanting to answer the following questions:
Was she boot scootin’ or just plain scootin’?
Was it the TimTams?
Did the sky fall down?
Was she on her way to visit her sick mother?
Did it happen on ‘Sunday Bloody Sunday’?
Was she in possession of a dead tuna?
Did she have accomplices from the Murdoch family with her at the time?]
Maybe she was making a bold play to enter your Stunt List, BW. She had that other go with her Hokey Pokey Senate routine.
[Fulvio Sammut @ 8765:
That was a standard plea in mitigation stance in the early 80?s if you were angling for a spent conviction order. Poor depressed little housewife, pleading for hubby’s attention. Only way to get it was to nick things.
Then the feminists came along and it was no longer politically defensible to use it.
Worked for me for a good while but, Charlton.]
I’m not 100% sure but we have never had a system of spent convictions in Queensland, your meaning I presume that after a certain period a conviction would be removed from one’s criminal history.
There is a system in Qld. where you can seek an absolute discharge which doesn’t appear on one’s rap sheet. But these are rarely given.
Hope all TDF bludgers have their coffee pots at the ready! The mighty Alpe d’Huez looms large tonight
Posted Friday, July 22, 2011 at 8:45 pm | Permalink
Read the Workchoices legislation.
You’ll find that under the legislation, the situation/scenario in the ad would have constituted an unlawful termination because it disregarded the mother’s family responsibilities because she had no one to care for her children.
Want to withdraw now Dave??
That ad was the biggest lie of the anti-workchoices campaign….]
As far as I know the ACTU ads were based on actual cases. I don’t know the particular one you refer to, but it has been well-documented that single mothers were one of the most disadvantaged social groups under Workchoices, mostly employed in occupations without much union strength.
While the safeguards you mention should have offered her some protection, the fact is that many small business employers did not understand or chose not to understand Workchoices.
It’s quite possible that the employer dismissal was unlawful but the employee did not call the employer or realize her own rights. Certainly the system was stacked heavily in favour of employers with special provisions to exclude third-party intervention from unions and such.
So without more knowledge I couldn’t agree that it was a lie or based on a lie,
[If proven guilty she must go to jail. ASAP.]
Depends, if there are mitigating circumstances and other factors; whether she will be unduly punished by losing her livelihood, or whether this is her first offense.
I know you conservatives are big on requiring the death sentence for just about any crime, but this is supposed to be a civilised society.
Good morning, fellow Bludgers. 🙂
Just been watching some excellent reporting from the various ABC bureaus overseas and was struck by how good these journalists are. Then an interesting thought struck me:
Wouldn’t it be great if our journos were on rotation? 5 years in Canberra and then 5 years in an OS bureau. That way when they come back here to investigate, analyse and report on what is happening in Australia they are able to do it with the benefit of a worldwide (or at least regional) perspective.
Not to mention losing that ridiculous herd mentality because, depending on where they had last been posted, their perspectives will all be slightly different.
It’s a pipe dream, I know, but it would be good to at least see the ABC employ such strategy.
Comments are closed.