It seems Nielsen’s sample of 1400 respondents from its first opinion poll of the year didn’t get the memo: the poll has the Coalition’s two-party preferred lead at 53-47, which although not brilliant for the government in absolute terms is its best result from Nielsen since March last year. The same applies for the primary vote, on which Labor is at 33 per cent, while the Coalition is on 45 per cent and the Greens are on 13 per cent. This looks particularly good for Labor if you compare it with the most recent result from the same pollster, as the media so likes to do. That poll, which was published on December 11, had Labor at 29 per cent, the Coalition at 49 per cent and the Greens at 11 per cent, with two-party preferred at 57-43. Labor’s relatively strong showing has been driven by a quirky looking result from the Victorian component of the poll, which has Labor leading 55-45 – essentially the same as the 2010 election result, and better for them than at any Nielsen poll since. The Victorian component accounts for 330 respondents and has a margin of error of 5.4 per cent; the results for the other states should emerge tomorrow. The margin of error for the poll as a whole, which as always with Nielsen was conducted from Thursday to Saturday, is 2.6 per cent.
Even better for Labor so far as tomorrow’s headlines are concerned is an eight-point improvement in Julia Gillard’s net personal rating and a six-point improvement as preferred prime minister. Gillard’s approval is up five on the previous poll to 40 per cent and her disapproval is down three to 55 per cent, and she has shot to a 48-46 lead over Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister after trailing 46-42 last time. These results are very similar to the November poll, and the shifts probably represent a correction on an aberrant result in December. That Gillard has gained six points on preferred prime minister without taking a chunk out of Abbott’s rating is curious, and calls attention to the much lower undecided rating Nielsen produces on this question (ranging from 6 per cent to 12 per cent since the election) compared with Newspoll (15 per cent to 25 per cent). Tony Abbott’s personal ratings meanwhile are essentially unchanged: approval steady on 41 per cent, and disapproval up one to 54 per cent (his equal worst results from Nielsen on both counts).
One fly in the ointment for Gillard is that Nielsen has, reasonably enough, put her head-to-head with Kevin Rudd as preferred Labor leader, with Rudd predictably holding a commanding 57 per cent to 35 per cent lead. However, even this is a much better result for Gillard than when the question was last asked at Labor’s polling nadir in October, when Rudd led 61 per cent to 30 per cent.
Numbers, it almost goes without saying, courtesy of GhostWhoVotes. UPDATE: Full tables, including state breakdowns and such, here.
UPDATE: Essential Research once again has the two-party vote at 54-46, as it has in every poll since December 12 (and not since September has it failed to produce a result of either 54-46 or 55-45). Labor however has dropped a point on the primary vote for the second week in a row, now at 33 per cent (their weakest result since October 24), with the Coalition steady on 47 per cent and the Greens up a point to 11 per cent. A question on the government’s industrial relations regime finds 24 per cent believing it favours workers, 25 per cent believing it favours employers and 34 per cent finding it balances the interests of both, which would be a very pleasing set of numbers from the government’s point of view. The poll also has 15 per cent of respondents saying Australian workers are “very productive” and 59 per cent “quite productive”. Also canvassed was trust in various public institutions, which has the Australian Defence Force on top. Curiously, the least trusted out of those included were “business and banking regulators”.
This little black duck
[One more bill:
NUCLEAR TERRORISM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011]
Is it as stupid a the law Tony Blair had passed? They passed a law making it illegal to set off an atomic bomb in Britain. I guess killing a hundred thousand and laying waste a city would have been let off with a fine otherwise.
[Funnily enough his experience at the public hospital was far better.]
In my experience, treatment at teaching hospitals far exceeds that of any private hospital. If I could choose, I’d choose to be treated in the major teaching hospitals all the time.
[So what exactly is their “private health insurance” paying for? Elective surgery. That’s it. Is is, as Shows pointed out, an avenue by which they can queue jump when they have a problem that is not life-threatening, but which requires surgery.]
Sometimes not even then. The gall bladder attack I mentioned earlier meant I needed surgery. It was classified as urgent but there was still a five week wait to get a public hospital bed. I was in pain, so I asked my surgeon if it would be faster to go to the only private hospital in town. I don’t have private insurance but I would have paid anything to avoid weeks of pain and eating nothing but steamed vegies. No way. The private hospital didn’t have the equipment he needed.
If I’d been paying for private cover I would have been a bit miffed at not being able to get the benefits I wanted.
gosh our Victoria, our out of pocket expenses with media care pri, is 500. it was 200 but we recently
paid a little less, that gap cover, I ask for a bulk bill anthetist, said to the gyny,. you will bulk bill
me, he looked a bit stunded and said. yes, u have to stand up for your self.
I knowvdrs, study hard, we all know that, but i had reason to go down under the hospital to get something in the car park my polo looked like a poor mans car, I kid u not,
I thought my goodness the system is paying for this
[I did not last the distance listening to Pyne. It was excrutiating]
vic
On his BEST bay Pyne is excruciating!
Gus, victoria:
Who is the journo who asked the question about the tent embassy that day? I missed that one.
Everything about Christina Pyne is faux.
confessions
Gus would probably recall the correct name. but it was ABC reporter Antoniette Collins???
Jonathan Holmes @jonaholmesMW
Reply RetweetedRetweet
Delete
FavoritedFavorite · Close Open Details @stgusface @spudbenbean and others. The q was asked by abc journo Antonette Collins at request of ABC Parlt House. 1/2
I post this with no comment
blackburnseph@4039
Well, that’s the point isn’t it.
On one hand, as you have mentioned yourself, does a life-long, smoker/drinker, with little or no care to their own health, have the same access to the same level of health care, say as someone who has taken as much care with their health as they can?
Or, because of the wonders of medical science a young baby – who, many years ago would have died before the age of one – is born, put on life-support, only to die a year or two later.
These are all ethical questions way beyond the scope of this blog surely?
I come back to the point that essentially all citizens at some point through their taxes pay for health assistance. Some more than others.
The question of whether the needs of some are more pressing than the needs of others is the moot point in relation to the access to scare resources.
We do, in fact, make defacto resource allocation choices. A person with a life-threatening heart problem should have precedence over someone with a bunion. It is not that a bunion is not painful, but nobody is likely to die with the condition.
I am of the view that some medical procedures are probably not all that urgent but I am too much of a coward to say which ones they are just in case the wrath of PD falls on me.
poroti,
I don’t know. It says:
You can get the full text at http://tinyurl.com/7hl78yf
[TheKouk Stephen Koukoulas
Question for Phillip Ruddock: Age 69. In your lifetime, has the Coalition ever delivered a Budget that cut govt spending in real terms?]
Another for Abbott.
If I could just put in my threepennyworth. My OH has had a number of small strokes recently. In each case an ambulance was called, which took him to a public hospital as an emergency.
But on the two occasions when he needed to be shifted into a ward for a longer stay, the public hospital asked him to sign papers so that they could claim the accommodation on his private health insurance.
So there’s a little bit of advantage to the public system there, too.
[Funnily enough his experience at the public hospital was far better]
It comes down to individual experience – Mrs Pseph was a public patient for our first child and private for the others – same hospital. She much preferred being a private patient – seeing the same doctor rather than a different doctor every time at the hospital clinic – and no spending hours in waiting rooms either . Child #1 was also a difficult not made easier by working through several shifts of doctors. The nursing care was the same – same nurses but the care from doctors was infinitely preferable when private.
He means “wrath of PB” not PD in 4060!
the charges dr, charge is really going to have to be bought in to line, somehow
the dr, have to realize the tax payers are paying to much gap.
[gusface
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 7:02 pm | Permalink
vic
No silly
in fact there was a big piece filled in just a day or so ago]
I do so hate trying to work out these coded messages, just have to hope that something will blow up in the Opposition’s face, wouldn’t happen to have anything to do with what Albo said today re Abbott’s Office?
Gus:
That would make sense. The ABC was doing some kind of special reporting piece on the tent embassy anniversary.
I would be delighted to see the so-called health funds go out of business. Their total overheads, for which we are paying like it or not, must be immense. Would feel sorry for the people who would be out of work, though.
[I am of the view that some medical procedures are probably not all that urgent but I am too much of a coward to say which ones they are just in case the wrath of PD falls on me.]
And some … usually involving silicone or botox .. are not urgent at all … but probably paid for by those of us with private health isnurance.
mari,
gusface, like Dawkins, works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. Just lie back and think of your favourite food.
mari
Not sure, but Albo did seem to be signalling something
, I s there a cap on what drs, can charge, this is what it all comes down to
.
mari
Albo was saying something about the coalition interfering re Thomson by calling the NSW police minister etc.
my say,
No cap. It is in the constitution!
what did albo say please was it i. Q T
realy, how astounding is that,
I think we should have the english system. no more bentleighs. then
[victoria
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
mari
Not sure, but Albo did seem to be signalling something]
He said after the smartypants Pyne and Bishop comments on the PM”if that is how you want to play, OK game on, ” Then something about Abbott’s office signalling PM whereabouts or something” and also about Brandis ringing NSW Police re Thompson and influencing them
This is from memory but do think something is about to happen Gussy ????
[Pollytics Possum Comitatus
If households on $258,000 a year can’t cope with paying for their own health insurance, obviously we need to expand the NT Intervention]
Quite so.
my say,
I love it, but it’s Bentleys!
my say
I missed some of Albo responding to the SSO, but as I said earlier he alluded to questions about Abbott’s office backgrounding where the PM might be at any given time. Also about interference from the coalition re Thomson by contacting the NSW police minister about any investigation into Thomson. Not sure where Albo was headed with it all
The only reason Howard introduced the HIR was to improve the price for Medibank Private. He tried to sell it but Hockey told him to wait until Telstra was all sold. Then it was politically unpalatable, too close to an election.
Hockey still has fantasies of $5 billion for selling MP, the figure Howard wanted.
My Heart Bleeds – NOT
[vexnewsvexnews
Joe Hildebrand narrowly escapes death http://bit.ly/AsEeH5
4 minutes ago FavoriteRetweetReply]
Your 8 cents a day at work
[Dumb, Drunk and Racist: ABC crew attacked
A television crew filming for the ABC in Alice Springs have been attacked by two women who set upon staff at the hotel to which the group retreated.
The crew were getting footage at about 6.30pm (CST) on Wednesday for a documentary to be titled Dumb, Drunk and Racist, which had been commissioned by ABC2.
The managing director of production company Cordell Jigsaw, Nick Murray, said there were five on-screen staff and five camera operators working when two women, who appeared to be very drunk, approached the crew.
“They got very upset and attacked the crew with rocks and got very aggressive,” Mr Murray said.
“They broke some of our camera gear and the crew ran back to their hotel.
“Two of these people came and smashed up part of the foyer of the hotel.”
Mr Murray denied earlier reports that the crew were taking footage of the Todd River, a place where some Aboriginals often gather to drink, when the incident took place.
Sydney-based journalist Joe Hildebrand, who was being filmed when the incident began, said the women were not in the shot and he had no idea why they were angry.
Hildebrand said one of the crew stopped a woman about a metre away from him from attacking his group with a rock the size of a mango.
The general manager of the Aurora Hotel, Ron Thynne, told the ABC one of his staff probably saved the life of a cameraman by dragging him away to the back office.
None of the film crew was injured during the incident.
The documentary being made involves four Indian people taken around Australia to investigate the stereotype in the Subcontinent that Australians are drunk, dumb and racist.
Police are investigating the incident.]
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/dumb-drunk-and-racist-abc-crew-attacked-20120209-1rtdl.html
It leaves me feeling ashamed of our national broadcaster. I expect this tripe from channels 7 or 9
there not. in my legue, so how would I know
[Hockey still has fantasies of $5 billion for selling MP, the figure Howard wanted.]
It was Coalition policy at the last election to sell MBP.
[I do so hate trying to work out these coded messages, just have to hope that something will blow up in the Opposition’s face, wouldn’t happen to have anything to do with what Albo said today re Abbott’s Office?]
Yep, Albo did a Germaine Greer this afternoon at #QT to Abbott.
GG went (an urban myth) to a dentist, sat down & grabbed his balls, looked at him lovingly and said: “Now, we are not going to hurt each other, are we?”
fess
funny u say that
*********************************************
aamoi why wasnt JG asked, afterall she is the PM and all that
**********************************************
why was the LOTO asked, as the FIRST Q, in a life saving presser, by a drafted abc radio journo
**********************************************
when was the ahem request made, at whose instigation?
Tom Hawkins
[The documentary being made involves four Indian people taken around Australia to investigate the stereotype in the Subcontinent that Australians are drunk, dumb and racist.]
Well I guess the Indian “Mythbusters” can bring out the “Confirmed” stamp. 🙁
my say:
You can read Albo’s speech here.
http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/suspension-of-standing-sessional-orders-censure-motion
Toolsman better behaves himself tonight interviewing PM
[I missed some of Albo responding to the SSO, but as I said earlier he alluded to questions about Abbott’s office backgrounding where the PM might be at any given time]
I don’t think that was the only reason.
He knew that the 30% rebate would amount to a big tax payer funded gift the people that generally vote Liberal anyway. It was just an attempt to stabilise the Coalition base.
[Patrick Bateman
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
If the govt. phases out the insurance rebate for high income earners, one consequence will be that people in that bracket will feel less socially obliged to support the healthcare of others. It reduces the socialisation of the system by effectively making it user pays for one group, not for another. There would IMHO be understandable bitterness if one’s tax was being used to pay for someone else’s private health (via the rebate) while also being required to pay for one’s own private health (with no rebate).
High earners already get stung by the punishment for not having private health (via increased tax) so why then effectively punish them for doing what the government wanted originally, which is moving most of the burden onto private cover? ]
They are hardly getting punished by having the tax rebate removed if their income is above a certain level. We have to be careful we don’t get a rerun of the $150,000 a year battlers. The reason, or rationalisation, for the rebate was that the real cost of private health cover would make it unaffordable. It does raise the question if the market can’t viably provide it, do we need it or is there a better way?
The universal health scheme makes sense in that respect, even if the cover is not total. Even with the current system, the costs for over-75s are prohibitive. I can’t see why the private health insurers needed to be dragged back into the system in the first place. It would be cheaper overall to spend the money used on that to improve health care.
And one further point, made by a poster here earlier. His health insurance is paid by his employer, but HE is entitled to claim the rebate in his tax. Talk about double dipping. I bet the company gets a deduction for providing his insurance in the first place.
Middle class welfare FWIW. The proposal, by only means-testing the very-high-income-earners, is just a toe in the water. If the health funds become unviable, we’ll probably be better off overall.
[when was the ahem request made, at whose instigation?]
Gussie, so many answers, so few questions
[It was Coalition policy at the last election to sell MBP.]
Yes,true. But industry analysts were saying the price was more like 3 billion not the 5 Howard hoped for.
[Sydney-based journalist Joe Hildebrand, who was being filmed when the incident began, said the women were not in the shot and he had no idea why they were angry.]
Maybe they read The Telegraph?
[Sydney-based journalist Joe Hildebrand, who was being filmed when the incident began, said the women were not in the shot and he had no idea why they were angry.]
maybe they watched #QANDA and didnt like what they saw
I have figured it out. Dumb, Drunk and Racist is about presenting the real Joe Hildebrand to average people.
The natural reaction would be to throw a mango rock in his general direction. 😆
ruawake
[Sydney-based journalist Joe Hildebrand, who was being filmed when the incident began, said the women were not in the shot and he had no idea why they were angry.
Maybe they read The Telegraph?]
I think the key words are his having no idea why they were angry.His smart arse schtick screams out “Backpfeifengesicht”( A face badly in need of a fist)