Nielsen: 55-45 to Coalition

GhostWhoVotes tweets the latest monthly Nielsen result has the Coalition lead at 55-45 – an improvement for the government on 57-43 a month ago and their best Nielsen result since March, but shy of their form in other recent polling. This sits nicely with Possum’s recent finding that Nielsen has had a 0.9 per cent “lean” to the Coalition relative to Newspoll, Essential and Morgan phone polls since the 2010 election. The primary votes tell a familiar story in having Labor steady on 30 per cent but the Coalition down three to 45 per cent, with the Greens up two to 14 per cent. This chimes quite well with Newspoll’s respective findings of 32 per cent, 44 per cent and 12 per cent.

Where Nielsen differs is in showing a strong recovery in Julia Gillard’s personal ratings: up six points on approval to an almost respectable 39 per cent, and down five points on disapproval to a still fairly bad 57 per cent. She has also tied on preferred prime minister for the first time in a while, gaining a point to 45 per cent with Tony Abbott down three. Abbott’s ratings are exactly unchanged at 41 per cent approval and 54 per cent disapproval. As always, the poll was conducted by phone from Thursday to Saturday from a large sample of 1400, producing a margin of error of 2.6 per cent (assuming a random sample).

The poll also found support for a mining tax at 53 per cent with 38 per cent opposed, and that Gillard’s handling of the Qantas dispute had 40 per cent approval and 46 per cent disapproval. Michelle Grattan in the Age rates this “surprising”, but it in fact compares favourably for her with Morgan and Essential’s figures. Qantas’s actions had 36 per cent approval and 60 per cent disapproval, very much in line with Morgan and Essential, while the unions fared rather better on 41 per cent and 49 per cent. Grattan reveals the Victorian component of the result had the Coalition’s lead at 53-47 against 54-46 last time. I should have full tables available tomorrow. UPDATE: Here they are.

In other news, closure of Liberal preselection nominations for seats held by the party in NSW on November 4 brought forth a number of challenges to sitting members:

• The Goulburn Post reports Angus Taylor, “45-year-old Sydney lawyer, Rhodes Scholar and triathlete”, and Sydney restaurateur Peter Doyle are among a large field of entrants in Hume, where 72-year-old incumbent Alby Schultz’s future intentions remain unclear. The Post faults both Taylor and Doyle for being from Sydney (Doyle having been mentioned in the past in relation to Wentworth and Vaucluse) and notes the local credentials of three further candidates, “Mittagong accountant Rick Mandelson, Yass grazier Ed Storey and Yass-based IT executive and olive grower Ross Hampton”. The latter has also been a television reporter and has “an extensive CV as a political advisor and was press secretary to the former defence minister Peter Reith during the ‘children overboard’ days”.

• Bronwyn Bishop faces a challenge in Mackellar from Jim Longley, the state member for Pittwater from 1986 to 1995. Imre Salusinszky in The Australian rates Longley “the most formidable candidate she has faced in a preselection challenge”, but nonetheless says Bishop is expected to win.

• Imre Salusinszky’s report further notes that Mitchell MP Alex Hawke faces three little-heralded predators from the David Clarke side of the Right sub-factional divide – Dermot O’Sullivan, Michael Magyar and Robert Picone – but is “expected to survive”.

• Krystyna Pollard of the Blue Mountains Gazette reports Louise Markus faces a challenge in Macquarie from Charles Wurf, state chief executive of the Aged Care Association of Australia. This event has not otherwise excited much interest.

UPDATE: Essential Research has two-party preferred still at 54-46, with the Coalition up a point on the primary vote to 47 per cent, Labor steadyon 35 per cent and the Greens up one to 10 per cent. Its monthly figures on personal ratings have Julia Gillard pulling ahead of Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister, turning a 38-39 deficit into a 41-36 lead. Her approval rating is up three to 37 per cent and her disapproval down five to 54 per cent, while Abbott is down four to 36 per cent and up one to 52 per cent. The occasional question on best party to represent various interests has also been asked, and according to Bernard Keane of Crikey it finds Labor pulling ahead on “families with young children, students, pensioners, indigenous people, ethnic communities” after doing no better than the Coalition in these traditionally strong areas a month ago.

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.

3,332 comments on “Nielsen: 55-45 to Coalition”

Comments Page 62 of 67
1 … 61 62 63 … 67

  1. Puff
    [If Latike is right about Howard not clapping, what was he doing at the State Dinner and why was he there today?]

    Oh, I’m sure he was just following parliamentary protocol. Not the done thing to applaud in the chamber. He wouldn’t dream of being impolite to Obama.

  2. [DavidWH

    Abbott is a total and utter embarrassment.]

    David knows that Abbott is a total fukc wit. David is doing what Glen does i.e. when he has to acknowledge that Abbott is a tosser he throws in Gillard or Rudd as well so that he can say “Your side is just as bad.” Is a cheap trick and should be treated as such. Not to be trusted.

  4. [Finns
    Re the China People’s Daily report you quoted earlier (2780) …what is your assessment of that reaction: pro-forma to be expected or a 9.8 on the richter scale?]

    Laocoon, PRC will give its reaction as expected to its domestic audience. But more importantly, it will not make any difference.

    [Thefinnigans TheFinnigans天地有道人无道
    China will do what is best for China. 1. Be able to feed its 1.34B people. 2. To keep its stability. 3. To have plenty of cash in the wallet
    22 hours ago ]

  7. Hi Guys,

    Don’t worry about Abbott, no one but us wonks really listen to him, although I agree he is cringeworthy.

    But I am a bit awed by what that speech signifies. In the entirety of my being, the U.S has been the Super Power, the go to guys. The beater of dictatorships and evil forces.

    That speech just signified a number of things. One. the rise of the Asia Pacific region and tacit admission that hey expect China and India to become the next super powers.

    And another tacit admission that any expected recovery in the U.S. economy is firmly rooted in their rise, which means the U.S. both need and fear their rise and what it might meet for them.

    I have no doubt Australia would continue to be the poor cousins in this alliance but for the U.S. to both economically benefit and to ‘observe’ their potential future enemies.

    But the biggest tacit admission of them all is that they U.S. admitted to a weakness. In other words they just blinked.

  9. Thefinnigans TheFinnigans天地有道人无道
    Pres. Obama, wtte: “Freedom without prosperity is another form of poverty”. In other words: “You cant eat democracy” #auspol #aubama
    1 minute ago

  12. [awelder Andrew Elder
    @
    @lapuntadelfin Think it’s worth noting that CrosbyTextor are advising Qantas on PR]

    Is that true? If so it explains an awful lot.

  13. SK

    In part what you say is correct. I would not say they blinked. More that the US will not lie down and allow China and India to press on ahead without the US continuing to assert themselves

  14. Oakes on channel 9 reminded viewers of Howard’s comment regarding Ob and terrorists. Good on you Laurie. If only other commentators would bring it up.

  15. [If only other commentators would bring it up.]

    Sky mob mentioned it. Went on however to say that at the time Obama wasn’t even confirmed as the Democrat candidate, as if that made his remarks acceptable.

  19. [US Embassy Canberra
    @USAembassyinOZ
    Campbell High School journalism students prepare for their interview with President #Obama & PM @JuliaGillard. #aubama]

    pic.twitter.com/3NAW4ej6

  25. Rishane 3068

    A great photo of the PM with the President. Julia is wearing a smart blue suit enhanced by a lovely brooch. She’s a true blue-collar girl.

  26. Just telling it how I see it Tom. Gillard has a grating way of communicating in that she lectures her audience rather than communicating with her audience the way the really successful PM’s have done in the past. If she ever developes the ability to lead and take the people with her on the big policy issues then she has the ability to be a good, perhaps great PM, but to date she has failed to develop the skill.

    She has time but I have doubts she has the capacity to change sufficiently to be considered among the good PM’s. Learning to trust people enough to be honest with them would be a really good starting point.

  28. It is still doubtful whether Obi will be able to knock the pre-requisite killer croc off the front page but the NT news has this amazing offer:

    [TheNTNews The NT News
    NOT IN THE TERRITORY? TO GET YOUR LIMITED EDITION NT NEWS OBAMA SOUVENIR HAT, PLEASE EMAIL mccormickj@ntnews.com.au pic.twitter.com/uhFvt1GZ
    ]

  29. [The Big Ship
    Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Gorgeous Dunny @ 2877

    The Big Ship, I don’t think it was a mistake. They were playing up the fact that he made one slip of the tongue as “Julie” even though he made a point several times later of saying “Julia”. I think it was their way of hinting at a “McMann” moment. -ie, she wasn’t really all that important to him.

    See my subsequent post at 2861 where I have rejected their interpretation of what the President said. No-one else has reported on this alleged ‘gaffe’ and it was not noted in any analysis by any pundit I saw last night, and I watched hours of talking heads foaming and gushing over every word spoken, so how come no-one mentioned this calamitous insult to our PM last night?]

    On reflection, I think you’re right, because as you say the rest of the side-show circus would have been all over it.

  30. Note that Obama gave Rudd a big handshake & pat on the back – nice to see.
    Julia did very well, Abbott in comparison was overly political & partisan.

  31. DavidWH,

    What a load of tripe. Gillard’s delivery may grate at times for some, but she is the most honest speaker I have ever seen in a PM.

    I see none of the strangled rhetoric of Rudd, none of the weasel words of Howard, none of the overbearing arrogance of Keating, none of the artificial blokiness of Hawke, none of the patrician disdain of Fraser – all of which was used to dodge the quesion at hand.

    Watch Gillard answer questions and she is absolutely straight.

  34. DavidWH

    If Julia was natural and gave the slightest indication of emotion in her speeches, she would be slated for being “giggly, flirty, too emotional, teary”. It’s bloody hard for a woman to strike the right note. A man speaks seriously – he has ‘gravitas’. A woman speaks seriously – she is lecturing. Pah!
    [Learning to trust people enough to be honest with them would be a really good starting point.]
    Oh, come on…

  38. [NZ was the first nation. South Australia were the first to allow women to stand for parliament though.]

    Depends on definitions of several factors & conditions:

    * nation/ state and the differences between them in which countries;
    * who could vote, for what, when and under what circumstances;
    * for how long women could vote before the right was withdrawn;
    * when they could contest an election.

    Timeline of women’s suffrage is quite a good coverage, with links to more specific cases.

  39. [Puff, the Magic Dragon.
    Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Obi, “climate change, that cannot be denied”; that’s a size ten to the arske of the rAbbott!]

    Not just that, Puff. I guess the highlights were the PM’s and the President’s speeches, but to me that APH camera director stole the show when he focused on Abbott as Obama went on about the urgency for climate change and clean energy action.

    Abbott put on his Neil Riley stare. Brilliant camera work!

  40. Did anyone notice Abbott’s utter frustration at the conclusion of Obama’s speech? Abbott apparently thought he would introduce Obama to his troops – instead Julia whisked him off to the govt benches – Abbott threw his hands up in disgust and looked like thunder!

  42. [#
    george
    Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    BK

    Perhaps it’s the way he relaxes.

    LOL
    #
    2990
    BK
    Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    george
    Erica is a very interesting study. ]

    When the Clean Energy bills finally passed the Senate, somebody tweeted,
    [“Penny, give Erica a hug, He looks so sad.”]

  47. First may I say that the Obama visit has gone well so far and Gillard hasn’t put a foot wrong. I heard part of the joint press conference yesterday and she answered very well. Clearly Obama’s relationship with Gillard and Rudd is good. Abbott is still, well, Abbott, and Obama clearly gets that too. So I see no domestic political harm for Labor from this and only benefit for Gillard via enhanced stature.

    Second, as for the substance of Obama’s visit and statement, I see nothing of benefit to Australia’s national interest. I assume this is an accurate summary of what Obama said:
    [President Barack Obama says the United States will maintain its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region even as it cuts overall defence spending.

    In an address to a special joint sitting of Federal Parliament this morning, Mr Obama told MPs and senators that he had directed his national security team to make “our presence and mission in the Asia-Pacific a top priority”.

    “As a result, reductions in United States defence spending will not, I repeat, will not come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific,” he said.

    He welcomed the rise of China as a world economic and military power but said he wanted more engagement between US and China armed forces “to avoid misunderstandings”.

    And he stressed that the US was “here to stay” as a Pacific power.]
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-17/obama-addresses-parliament/3676964

    Militarily nothing has really chaged. On Climate change, Obama was complimentary but hasn’t promised to budge the US position (do nothing) unless China does (even though theya re already doing more than the US). Economically free trade involving USA in theory means no economic benefit to us with an existing FTA in place. China hasn’t agreed to any new rules, so no progress there either. This visit reassures us that in the event of conflict USA won’t abandon us, but we don’t want conflict in the first place.

    So, sorry, but I am still not seeing how this has advanced Australia’s national interest at all. Not Gillard’s fault, but its no world political scoop either.

  49. [DavidWH…you really are a very unimpressive contributor, same old tripe day after day. A complete utter bore.]
    I really think that is unfair. DavidWH has come across to me as a fair minded Lib.
    Having said that I ask David if he feels that JG has improved on her presentation over the last couple of weeks?

  50. [West Wing Report
    @WestWingReport
    President’s visit to an Australian HS began w/”G’day!” He told them he’s inspired more by young people than adults with “old stodgy ideas”]

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 62 of 67
1 … 61 62 63 … 67