Newspoll: 59-41 to Coalition

GhostWhoVotes reports Newspoll has the Coalition’s lead out from 57-43 to 59-41, with the Coalition up three to 50 per cent, Labor steady on 27 per cent and the Greens down two to 12 per cent. The worse damage from the Malaysia solution wreckage is for Julia Gillard personally, who has recorded the fifth worst net satisfaction rating in Newspoll history: 23 per cent approval and 68 per cent disapproval, surpassed only by four results for Paul Keating in the months following the 1993 budget (a pattern emerges of voters reacting unfavourably to unpromised tax initiatives). On the question of preferred Labor leader, Kevin Rudd is apparently up 21 points to 57 per cent – although I’m not sure when the earlier poll was conducted (UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes once again does my homework for me: it was conducted in mid-April). Gillard is down five to 24 per cent. Tony Abbott meanwhile is up three points on approval to 39 per cent and down three on disapproval to 52 per cent, and his lead as preferred prime minister is out from 39-38 to 43-34.

The first tranche of the Newspoll was delivered by The Australian yesterday, with two questions on asylum seekers which were predictably unfavourable to the government. Just 12 per cent were willing to rate its performance on the issue very good (2 per cent) or somewhat good (10 per cent), against 25 per cent for somewhat bad and 53 per cent for very bad. Even as the issue began to escape Labor’s control in 2009, the party was able to maintain a 37 per cent good rating in April and 31 per cent in November, with respective bad ratings of 40 per cent and 53 per cent. However, the current poll shows the Liberals failing to yield a dividend: Labor have plunged 17 points to 12 per cent since a week before the 2010 election, but the Coalition too are down five points to 38 per cent: “someone else” is up five to 13 per cent, with none/uncommitted up 25 to 37 per cent.

Meanwhile, today’s Essential Research had the Coalition going from 56-44 to 57-43 from primary votes of 30 per cent for Labor (down two), 49 per cent for the Coalition (steady) and 11 per cent for the Greens. It should be remembered that Essential Research is a two-week rolling average, meaning half the survey sample comes from before last week’s High Court ruling. The poll also finds 48 per cent favouring an election now against 40 per cent for a full term. The wording of the question, “do you think the Labor government should run its full term until 2013 when the next federal election is due”, is greatly preferable to the somewhat leading effort from last week’s Queensland Galaxy poll, “would you be in favour of or opposed to holding a fresh election to give voters an opportunity to elect a majority Labor or Coalition government”. Similar questions to Essential’s from Newspoll produced 42 per cent each way in May, and 40 per cent for and 44 per cent against in March.

Among the other questions are one gauging levels of recognition and trust in eight media commentators, which I’m pleased to say they took up on my suggestion. Strong results for Laurie Oakes, George Negus and Tony Jones bear out a well-understood tendency of this kind of inquiry to favour those in the medium of television. It might thus be thought all the more remarkable that Alan Jones is rated the least trusted of the eight: he has a near universal recognition rating of 84 per cent, and those outside New South Wales would only know him by television. Andrew Bolt scores a much more modest recognition rating of 52 per cent, but rates quite a lot higher on trust; Melbourne radio rivals Neil Mitchell and Jon Faine record mediocre results, and Michelle Grattan rather better ones. Also in Essential is a question on best leader to handle another global financial crisis, which has 40 per cent choosing one of the three Liberal options (20 per cent for Tony Abbott, 13 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull and 7 per cent for Joe Hockey) and 37 per cent the two from Labor (Kevin Rudd characteristically well in front of Julia Gillard, 24 per cent to 13 per cent). Forty-six per cent support the government’s mineral resource rent tax against 34 per cent opposed, and mining, agriculture and tourism rated the most important industries for Australia’s economic future.

Further afield, yesterday’s Launceston Examiner published results from an EMRS poll of 300 respondents in Bass, which found Liberal candidate Andrew Nikolic leading Labor incumbent Geoff Lyons 46 per cent to 31 per cent on the primary vote after distribution of the undecided. Distributing the 14 per cent Greens and 6 per cent others as per the 2010 election result, this gives Nikolic a lead of 53-47 (the Examiner has figures based on arbitrary preference splits which are slightly more favourable to the Liberals). The poll was conducted from August 22 to August 25, from the same sample that produced EMRS’s recent poll of state voting intention. Comments thread chat suggests EMRS preceded the question on voting intention with attitudinal questions on the carbon tax and detention centres, in breach of fairly well established polling convention which says such questions can influence the responses that follow. However, the suggested swing of nearly 10 per cent is fairly well in line with the national trend.

Last and probably least, the Courier-Mail informs us that a Galaxy poll shows 23 per cent of respondents saying they are “likely” to vote for Bob Katter’s Australian Party. It transpires that voters were specifically asked if they would be either “very likely” or “quite likely” to support the party after first being presented with a more normal question on voting intention, which turned up very little support for it. Beyond that, it is not clear whether this is a foretaste of another Galaxy poll of Queensland or, as I assume more likely, an extra question held back from last week’s poll.

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.

5,512 comments on “Newspoll: 59-41 to Coalition”

Comments Page 105 of 111
1 104 105 106 111
  1. So bk on my way home from.Texas i watched a cnn piece it on this speech looking at whether it would be passable or something to fight an election over – is it clearly the latter

  2. confessions @ 5200

    BK:

    Boehner is looking very uncomfortable.

    Could this be because Obama is coming out swinging?

    When confronted with blind obstinacy and stupidity (sound familiar) it really is time to come out swinging hard and providing leadership.

  3. [Could this be because Obama is coming out swinging?]
    bemused
    Oh yes!
    Obama’s had more than enough of the Republicans’ shit.
    Your turn Julia.

  4. WeWantPaul
    [Michelle gratton and jv ideas i’d rather go to a rickety Perry prayer meeting to hear dovif ‘s analysis of gambling]
    Then Labor policy for onshore processing must also be unendurable for you.

  5. [confessions
    Posted Friday, September 9, 2011 at 9:32 am | Permalink
    I hate how the Americans have a tendency to applause and stand at every sentence. Obama could’ve finished this speech ages ago if he was just allowed to speak!]

    may be the hollywood in them they stand for every entertainer i think we only stand when we are very very impressed
    yes its boring and it must put people off what is or has been said

  6. Richard Ackland amusingly points out how Labor is now to the right of that despised figure Phillip Ruddock – they were his amendments to s 198A in 2001 with the safeguards for asylum seekers that the government now wants to trash.

    And if any party supporters still feel inclined to bag the Chief Justice for the decision, read the article and reconsider. Apart from being highly inadvisable to criticise the Chief Justice the way she did, Gillard was also completely wrong on her facts.
    [Suddenly, Ruddock is a human rights hero
    This was no longer a discussion about executive power; it was all about whether the minister had put his mind properly to the requirements of Ruddock Law.

    Step up Fabulous Phil, friend of asylum seekers.]

    An excellent article.
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/suddenly-ruddock-is-a-human-rights-hero-20110908-1jzrn.html

  7. On asylum seekers labor could meet the compassion and Lindsey tests simultaneously by allowing on shore processing, doubling our humanitarian intake and then settling them all in Lindsey.

  8. victoria @ 5206

    bemused

    Yes. There will need to be a time when our leadership here, need to come out swinging

    IMHO that time was the day after the 2007 election.

    And it should never have stopped or even slowed.

    “When you’re dealing with a street brawler, you’re entitled to hit him with a bottle.” – Fred Daly

    The Fibs are a gang of street brawlers who will stop at nothing, all the more so when led by the likes of Abbott.

  9. Grattan:
    [They both have their eyes firmly on their reading of public opinion. That’s why they want to export asylum seekers.]
    The point is that if the Libs changed their policy and supported onshore proocessing, they could still win the election with the polls the way they are. But not Labor.
    Ironic, isn’t it.

  10. BK
    Posted Friday, September 9, 2011 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    My version –

    “the problem will have been solved if . . . .”.

    The people smugglers business model is broken AND an orderly system of taking AS from Malaysian and other refuge camps is put in place, thus giving those in the camps some hope for their future and that of their families.

    OK dave. Now to proposed solutions. Will the solution satisfactorily address the precisely defined problem statement? And will it provide an outcome that fits the success statement?

    The solution with the greatest probability of breaking the people smuggler business model is the Malaysian solution.

    – Irregular boat arrivals to Australia, such as Christmas Island and other location would be promptly removed to Malaysia in terms of the agreement between Australia & Malaysia.

    – Australia would then increase its AS intake well above the 13,000 or so per annum. This could well reach 30,000 per annum for those identified as genuine AS.

    – Subject to agreement with Malaysia, this arrangement would need to be ongoing and could be broadened to include other regional countries which have AS in refugee camps.

    – Successful implementation of the above would render the people smuggler model broken with irregular boat arrivals to Australia promptly transferred to Malaysia and placed at the bottom of the queue for possible later entry to Australia.

    The above has a far better probability of success than other solutions. In the washup of the recent HC decision, there is nothing to stop almost automatic entry into Australia, at least in the first instance, which if this occurs in significant enough numbers would be totally unacceptable to Australia voters.

  11. Gillard well within her rights to rebuke the ‘activist” High Court:

    “JULIA Gillard was absolutely right to criticise the High Court’s decision to disallow the Malaysia Solution. This decision is part of the disturbing Europeanisation of Australia’s political culture, in this case by accelerating the trend in which courts, quasi-judicial bodies and bureaucratic advocacy institutions usurp the rights of elected parliaments”.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pm-was-right-high-court-went-too-far-and-damaged-democracy/story-e6frg6zo-1226131707353

  12. [Former Libyan leader Moamar Gaddafi sold around 20 per cent of Libya’s gold reserves, worth more than $US1 billion, in the final days of his regime, the country’s central bank governor said.

    Qassem Azzoz said 29 tonnes of gold – worth $US1.7 billion ($1.6 billion) – were sold to local merchants beginning in April as the sanctions-hit regime sought to gather much-needed cash.]

    Almost everything reported out of Libya is garbage. There is just no real information at all.

    39 Tons of gold at even the most optimistic recent price of $US1,800 and ounce is $US83.5Millions not $US1.7 Billion. If Ghadaffi got $US 1 Billion for it, he is an even better money manager than was previously thought.

  13. Pyne on NewsRadio explaining how reasonable the Liberal Party is.

    They even gave Kevin Rudd a paired vote because he was having open heart surgery!

  14. dovif:

    [Do you know how much it would cost to instal a card reader on every single pokies machine in Australia. This would not pass any cost/benefit analysis.]

    DEAR dear, dovif, we do keep urging you to “do your homework before making a fool of yourself again”! In this case, it takes little effort to learn:

    Very little cost: the cost of adding another few characters to current cards’ data strips, esp if implementation date coincides with card renewal time (New Year for mine). The software’s easily updated by staff & should be reusable until the technology changes.

    All our local sporting etc clubs have that sort of card (have for ages). Instead of having to sign in & show cards (requires constant staffing) members just slot cards in & out of a machine. In addition, doing so gets points & can win prizes. Most pubs with pokies (which, in Tmba, serve great cheap meals – saves cooking & shopping – and usually have good free freshly-ground coffee machines) also have loyalty cards.

    Pokies at those venues also have membership card slots, and people use them, because doing can also result in double/ treble points, prizes, jackpots & other goodies.

    BTW My record of winning prizes in anything, from door-prizes & staff room raffles to gee-gees & lotto, must be in contention for World’s Lowest Winnings EVAH. $10pw will do me.

  15. [dovif

    If Rugby League rely on gamblers money to survive, I would say that they have a very bad business model indeed]

    A bit like living off the misery of drug addicts.

  16. BK
    Posted Friday, September 9, 2011 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    No comments about AS should be outside of the type of framework I have explained.

    More info.

    I know what the individual words mean but not the point you are making?

  17. Shows On,

    This continual talk about ‘pairing” is making the Libs look churlish, mean spirited and very small.

    Images of jumped up black board monitors with a whistle come to mind.

  18. gough1
    [On asylum seekers labor could meet the compassion and Lindsey tests simultaneously by allowing on shore processing, doubling our humanitarian intake and then settling them all in Lindsey.]

    Good idea! Perhaps not all in Lindsay though. It would be, on the Immigration Dept estimates (probably on the high side, given their scaremongering lately) of 600 per month, it would be around 40 per year per electorate.

    We already have an average of over 1100 migrants per year per electorate from the normal immigration programs.

    Gee, imagine the civil unrest with another 40 per year? The jostling at the newsagent’s; the turmoil at the fruiterer’s. 😀

    I wonder what the Immigration clerks are taking with their tea? Government instruction pills, I would suggest.

  19. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/us/politics/09payroll.html?_r=1&hp

    First report in NYT.

    [Obama Exhorts Congress on Jobs Plan
    By MARK LANDLER
    Published: September 8, 2011

    WASHINGTON — Faced with a stalling economy, a hostile Congress and a disenchanted public, President Obama challenged lawmakers in a blunt address Thursday evening to enact a sweeping package of tax cuts and new spending designed to revive the stagnant job market.

    Speaking to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama ticked off a list of measures he said would put money in people’s pockets, encourage companies to begin hiring again, and jolt an American economy at risk of relapsing into recession. And he all but ordered Congress to pass the legislation.

    “You should pass this jobs plan right away,” the president declared.

    With Republicans already lining up to condemn the plan, Mr. Obama said, “The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.”]

    More in the article.

  20. Searching desperately for something to cheer me up, I found this. Not cheering, but thought-provoking, esp. on AS.

    [‘The thinking it took to get us into this mess is not the same thinking that is going to get us out of it.’ Albert Einstein.]

  21. [More info.

    I know what the individual words mean but not the point you are making?]
    dave
    The comment was not directed at you who are approaching the problem in a mature and thoughtful way. Rather it is aimed at those shooting from the hip.

  22. [I’ll conclude with a bit of personal news. This will be my last Drum column for the foreseeable future. I’ve been asked to re-join the federal Coalition staff as an advisor, and I’ve responded in the affirmative.

    With the Gillard Government in an advanced state of political implosion, it’s an excellent time to get back in the game. But I’m saddened by the fact that I’ll no longer be able to write independently whilst I’m on the Coalition rolls.]

    IOW, you wouldn’t get me near politics while there was no chance of the coalition winning, but now they are so close to govt, I’m jumping on the bandwagon. I’m only surprised that Ted Lapkin has been so open about his motivations.

    And yet another hard right to join the ranks.
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2877276.html

  23. [Obama putting out an infrastructure stimulus program.
    Now I wonder where he might have heard that before?]

    Would not have to look far, about the only western country that avoided a resession, I wonder who that was, must have been a government that cared about it’s people.

  24. Gillard is not entitled to criticise the High Court when her criticism is completely wrong in fact. The Chief Justice dod not ‘decide differently’ when on the Federal Court, as Gillard charged, because the 198A amendments were not enacted at that time.

    Also, the usual right-wing mantra about an ‘activist’ Court every time there is a decision they don’t like is not applicable in this case.

    All the Court did was examine the Ruddock amendments for the first time to see if the government action was within the power conferred by those amendments.

    That is not legal ‘activism’, unless that term now means ‘failing to find as the governmment and its supporters would have preferred’.

  25. [BER USA style. 35,000 schools to be upgraded.]

    Bloody socialists. Next they’ll be expecting the rich to kick in with some of the cost. Where is Michelle Bachman when you need her?

  26. GG:

    Interesting to compare and contrast Greens outrage at Gillard’s quite reasoned remarks in the wake of the HC ruling, and the silence about Bob Brown’s abuse of public servants.

  27. ‘With the Gillard Government in an advanced state of political implosion, it’s an excellent time to get back in the game. But I’m saddened by the fact that I’ll no longer be able to write independently whilst I’m on the Coalition rolls.”

    So this Abbott phoney has the audacity to claim he wrote independently, yea right and I am a Boeing test pilot!!!

    The last line says it all….
    Ted Lapkin was, and as of next week will again be, an advisor to the federal Coalition.

    Independent my arse.

  28. [Independent my arse.]

    Yep. And where in all his previous articles did it mention this very pertinent piece of information; that the man is a former political advisor for the Coalition?

    With that very important piece of information his articles would have been seen for what they were; politically partisan.

    I wonder how many other “independent” commentators on The Drum are anything but?

  29. Seems to me the public service provided the hyperbole that Gillard was looking for. Drawing an extremely long blow about 600 a month AS and civil disruption aka France. Which is totally ridiculous and added simply to aid govt dog whistling, using the old Howard fear and conquer technique.

    If the advice provide by the public service under Howard all here would be spewing at the obvious dog whistle attempt, and nonsense that it is.

  30. david:

    Yeah, had the same thought. He goes on thank Jonathon Green for giving him the opportunity to write for the Drum, and the way he frames his acknowledgement, he makes it sound as if he was the only pro-Liberal writing for them!

  31. GG
    Thanks for the link.

    [Pacific Island leaders meeting in New Zealand wrapped up several days of talks about issues as diverse as climate change, economic development and the future of Fiji, but Ms Gillard’s involvement in the forum was overshadowed by questions about her border protection policies.

    The Prime Minister says she has now had the opportunity to speak briefly with the leaders of both Nauru and Papua New Guinea in an informal capacity about the situation in Australia.
    Ms Gillard says the discussions occurred on the sidelines of the forum and not in formal bilateral talks.]

    Everything the pM does is “overshadowed” in the reporting – by the Oz msm.

  32. TP,

    It’s called advice and it comes from professionals who deal with the AS issues everyday. I’d consider your opinions if they came from a source with authority. So perhaps you can tell us how you’ve run a a Border protection Plan in the past.

  33. [That is not legal ‘activism’, unless that term now means ‘failing to find as the governmment and its supporters would have preferred’.]
    It would have been interesting to read your posts had the HC gone the other way. I suppose you would have agreed with their decision all of the way.

  34. GG
    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion; I am merely pointing out the factual problems underpinning it, and also Gillard’s spray:

    From Ackland’s discussion today on the earlier Federal court decision (“Priest” is Macus Priest of the Fin Review):

    [As Priest points out, that decision could be made because the statutory extinguishment or abridgement was not yet in place.

    In the High Court case, the government’s lawyers used French’s old words to argue that the government’s responsibility was limited simply to not returning asylum seekers to a place where their life or freedom could be threatened.

    Council for the plaintiffs had a stronger weapon: Ruddock’s section 198A (which had not passed Parliament in time for French’s earlier decision).

    This was no longer a discussion about executive power; it was all about whether the minister had put his mind properly to the requirements of Ruddock Law.]

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/suddenly-ruddock-is-a-human-rights-hero-20110908-1jzrn.html#ixzz1XPSkx7Dz

    And that’s how Phillip Ruddock saved the refugees!

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 105 of 111
1 104 105 106 111