GhostWhoVotes reports that Newspoll has the Coalition’s two-party lead at 54-46, unchanged from the previous poll, with the primary votes at 31% for Labor (down one), 44% for the Coalition (down two) and 14% for the Greens (up two). Julia Gillard’s net approval is 4% less bad than last time, her approval up two to 32% and disapproval down two to 58%, while Tony Abbott is respectively up one to 32% and down one to 59%. On preferred prime minister, Gillard is up two to 42% and Abbott is up one to 38%.
It should be noted that most of the polling period (Friday to Sunday) covered what in every state but WA was a long weekend, when an unusually large number of potential respondents would be away from home. Given that absent and postal votes tend to favour the Coalition, it might be anticipated that this would bias the result slightly in favour of Labor, although measures may have been taken to correct for this. As far as I can tell, Newspoll used to abstain from polling over the Queen’s Birthday weekend, but changed this policy last year.
UPDATE: Essential Research has two-party preferred unchanged on last week at 56-44, from primary votes of 49% for the Coalition (down one), 32% for Labor (down one) and 10% for the Greens (steady). The monthly personal ratings have Julia Gillard up a point on approval to 32% and down four on disapproval to 56%, with Tony Abbott down four on approval to a new low of 32% and up one on approval up one to 54%. Funnily enough, Newspoll and Essential concur that both leaders’ approval ratings are 32%. Gillard and Abbott are tied at 37% on preferred prime minister, compared with a 38-37 lead for Gillard last time.
Other questions gauge public trust in various institutions, recording a remarkable drop for the federal parliament from 55% to 22% since the question was last asked in September, and other sharp drops recorded for trade unions (from 39% to 22%), environmental groups (45% to 32%), business groups (38% to 22%) and, for some reason, the Reserve Bank (67% to 49%). The poll also finds 60% disapproving of bringing in overseas workers with only 16% approving, 32% believing labour costs and taxes might drive mining companies away against 49% who expect them to carry on regardless.
UPDATE 2: Roy Morgan makes it three polls in one day by reporting its face-to-face results, which it evidently does on Tuesdays now rather than Fridays. This result is Labor’s best since March, their primary vote up half a point to 33% with the Coalition down 2.5% to 42.5% and the Greens up two to 12.5%. On two-party preferred, the Coalition’s lead has narrowed from 55.5-44.5 to 52-48 on previous election preferences and from 58-42 to 55-45 on respondent-allocated.
William @ 5046
Gee thanks William. 😀
Bemused, Gillard said she would let any journo she backgrounded against Rudd speak out if Rudd did the same. Rudd did not take the reciprocal action so he was and likely is backgrounding journos against Gillard.
Seems I have a longer memory than most. I can remember the vitriol poured on people who suggested that it would be good for Gillard to topple Rudd. The mockery!
“No no” they said, “don’t be so silly. The ALP wouldn’t be so stupid as to topple a first-term PM. It’ll never happen!”
Hartcher cites some qualitative research which most people on here will undoubtedly ignore but it’s very relevant.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/money-cant-buy-their-love-20120615-20fc4.html
Part of the problem with the carbon price is that it looks like the government is ashamed of it. The environmental and economic benefits aren’t properly sold or marketed which makes people uncertain (there’s that word again) and confused as to the purpose of the policy
[confessions
Posted Saturday, June 16, 2012 at 12:11 am | Permalink
I was only addressing your apparent belief that Rudd took over after the election was already as good as won for Labor. That clearly was not the case.
Two points:
1. Rudd took over when he assumed it convenient for Rudd to take over.
2. Mumble (for one) is absolutely of the view that Labor would’ve won in 2007 regardless of who was leader.]
As I recall, Rudd took over only after a series of mistakes by Beazley (who I liked by the way), the last one when he confused Karl Rove with Rove McManus. After that the papers were full of ordinary Labor supporters calling for Beazley to step down.
As to whether Labor may have won with Beazley still in charge, I doubt it. I knew people myself who said they wanted to vote labor but wouldn’t do so while Beazley was still there.
One thing is for certain though. To win, Labor would have had to do it without the 6% Rudd added to its PV when he took over. A very big ask.
Night all.
Martin Smengle @ 5033
Thank you for the intervention, William. It’s the sort of nonsense that’s put me off commenting here for several months. The spectacle of ALP supporters sh!tting all over each other on this blog is a microcosm of what’s wrong with the ALP more generally.
Martin, it’s not for a want of trying …. The blog has a small number of individuals who obsess constantly about a Ruddstoration. Emily Bronte summed up the Obsession:
“I love the ground under his feet, and the air over his head, and everything he touches and every word he says. I love all his looks, and all his actions and him entirely and all together.”
(a purely personal view, Rudd ain’t no Heathcliffe, try as he might)
political animal,
[ I don’t hate Rudd, Scorps. The Ruddistas OTOH, spewing the same repetitive crap or developing whore/whorehouse themes well, does PB need those? ]
Yeah, I know you don’t Tom, but some do, with much venom and are just as constant in their invective as the anti Gillard mob are.
It certainly is a pain in the ask when one reads the same old rehashed nonsense, most of it without any shred of truth attached day after bloody day.
None of it has changed anyone’s mind in regards their support. The Tories must be having orgasms reading this stuff every day.
Their biggest fear is a return of Rudd and the so-called labor supporters on this blog and others expressing so much hate and venom towards the one person who may give Labor a modicum of hope of victory at the next election if Caucus decides in its wisdom to cut Gillard adrift and go back with Rudd.
It makes my poor head spin.
WB
[I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I didn’t consider Bemused in particular to be a pain in the arse. But he’s not a Liberal.]
Well bemused as he is, bemused he will stay,but not one of those using the word whore, which others also object to,but to call the PM a whore and get away with ,Phsaw
political animal @ 5052
Don’t be naive, politicians and journalists talk to each other all the time.
The point at which it becomes ‘backgrounding’ is quite subjective.
Political Animal:
I think she actually gave any journalist she had been backgrounding permission to speak out, secure in the knowledge that there weren’t any; and invited Rudd to do the same. To my recollection he never responded to that.
To me this is all a dead topic. It came to a head with the leadership spill and that’s the end of it. You vote for a party and they select their leader – not only with regard to what ‘plays’ with the electorate, but also with strong regard to how that person operates – whether they run things efficiently, listen to members and MPs, know how to negotiate with a wide variety of interested parties, and lots of other factors. The ALP believe Gillard is the right person to lead the party. That’s all there is to it.
You can talk all you like about what effect Rudd might have based on hypothetical support given to him while he’s not leading the party. But if you only talk about the positive effects he might have while ignoring all the negative ones, you’re in lala land.
Martin Smengle @ 5053
Worked like a charm, didn’t it? Well, at least it did in the PB parallel universe.
Bemused “The point at which it becomes ‘backgrounding’ is quite subjective.”
The coward’s defense.
In 2007, Labor won because its primary vote was consistently above 45% going into the election. That translated into 43.4 on election day. That’s the important number, more so than the TPP. 700,000 people changed their vote to the ALP. With that kind of shift, the TPP takes care of itself.
To have a chance of winning at the next election, the ALP needs to convince an additional 1 million people that are currently leaning towards the tories to change their minds. How does one do that?
Fess #4986, I really dont agree with the “appointing your political opponents weakens you and legitimises them” line. Utterly bored with and not buying into the Rudd / not Rudd stuff but on the more general issue, I prefer to think of PJK’s line when asked about Kennett: “well there is much to admire about jeffrey”. I think it is stupid to waste all the painfully acquired experience by taking a winner takes it all approach. Doesnt mean I’d tolerate domestic appointments like that f..kwit denialist Scott at the ABC, or Costello on the future fund. But in foreign affairs – hell, even Abbott and Costello are pro-Australia when overseas.
British Ofcom has more teeth than ACMA
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/15/leeds-anti-gay-radio-sermon-was-likely-to-incite-crime-regulator-rules/
Martin
The only way I can think of that could possibly shift that many voters over a 16 month peripd would be to bring back Kevin from Queensland
5064
Martin Smengle
Posted Saturday, June 16, 2012 at 12:44 am | Permalink
In 2007, Labor won because its primary vote was consistently above 45% going into the election. That translated into 43.4 on election day. That’s the important number, more so than the TPP. 700,000 people changed their vote to the ALP. With that kind of shift, the TPP takes care of itself.
To have a chance of winning at the next election, the ALP needs to convince an additional 1 million people that are currently leaning towards the tories to change their minds. How does one do that?
,
Martin I think you may be confusing the Primary vote withe two party preferred vote. Boer war or Bushfire Bill (cant recall exactly who) has posted on this and thinks the number that need to switch their vote based on current polling is 700,000. Sounds a lot but that cohort is very volatile and eminently swingable.
Rossmore @ 5063
The idiots comment.
Marrickville Mauler @ 5065
Of course Keating had the advantage of not living in Victoria.
Emily Bronte has made my night so forgive me if I quote her one more time:
“I love the ground under his feet, and the air over his head, and everything he touches and every word he says. I love all his looks, and all his actions and him entirely and all together.”
5069
bemused
Posted Saturday, June 16, 2012 at 12:56 am | Permalink
Rossmore @ 5063
The coward’s defense.
The idiots comment.
Touched a raw nerve, did I? He leaked, blind Freddie knows he did.
Mike Carlton back in Australia and in good form here http://tinyurl.com/85d7643
Rossmore @ 5072
No, just reinforced my perception that you are an idiot.
There are plenty of allegations of leaking but no proof.
Rudd certainly worked the media – it is part of the reason for his success in campaigning and getting the message across. But that is not ‘leaking’.
Ross more
BTW, I stumped up several examples for you last night showing where I made comments supporting the govt etc.
So let’s see yours where I am supposed to be trashing the govt.
Can’t find any? Didn’t think so.
You are just full of crap.
As a matter of fairness and accuracy, Bemused wasn’t the one to use that term for the PM. It was Thomas Paine.
Would like to see mike carlton do a daily piece,a breath of fresh air from most commenters or so called journos.
Being a Labor supporter at any particular time in the past is no assurance that that one is a labor supporter now.
There are a few examples in the West Australian Parliament right now. The corpulent main chancer Richo springs to mind, he got a rousing cheer from his new chums in the Liberal Party when he ventured into the reps a little while ago.
Puffy @ 5076
Since when did fairness and accuracy count here?
Just read the crap vomited out by Rossmore for example.
Bemused, I issued a mea culpa earlier this evening, about 8pm, if you can be bothered to look.
PMoA in fighting mood tonight, on ya Julia!
The Prime Minister also referred to her own political struggles.
”Recently I got the best compliment of my lifetime from an unexpected quarter, when it was said about me that ‘Gillard will not lay down and die’,” she said, an allusion to the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott’s, recent remarks about the Prime Minister to his party room.
”To which I thought, ‘Damn right’.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm-shows-the-cracks-and-warns-of-kicks-20120615-20fd8.html#ixzz1xsJsFrHa
Peter Hartcher makes some good points here: http://tinyurl.com/76hwgkc
Well worth reading the whole article.
Rossmore @ 5080
I read your weasel words and was suitably unimpressed.
Bemused: Just read the crap vomited out by Rossmore for example.
Wow, crap, vomit … So much for civilized discourse……
BillB
[http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/alan-jones-ok-over-slur-on-prime-minister-julia-gillard/story-e6freuzr-1226397205966]
Think latham could be added as well,as to richardson some questions are not being asked by murdoch,regarding swiss accounts,rene rivkin boats with hookers,nearly said whores,but situations change when one is a lackey to the rich and powerful.
Do not know why this did not come up instead of old hat jones rubbish
[There are a few examples in the West Australian Parliament right now. The corpulent main chancer Richo springs to mind, he got a rousing cheer from his new chums in the Liberal Party when he ventured into the reps a little while ago.]
“I love the ground under his feet, and the air over his head, and everything he touches and every word he says. I love all his looks, and all his actions and him entirely and all together.”
Night all….
Goodnight Rossmore, I’m out of here too.
[Gillard failed to learn the lesson. Labor, it seems, is fated to learn it all over again. Voters will take the money, Prime Minister, but they will not respect you for it. You saw that firsthand on Monday. The electoral gratitude you court is a figment of your political imagination. The cost to the national Treasury is not.]
Perhaps. But on the other hand:
[But the wind shifted for the (Howard) government. In May (2001), a crafty Budget targeted older Australians. Then, while the Reserve Bank cut official interest rates-and mortgage lenders followed suit-Howard began to stoke an economic recovery by spending the Budget surplus-and then some. He began looking forward to 2002, 2003, 2004, and promising wedges of taxpayer dollars to every sizeable interest group he needed to capture or hold on to: farmers, first-home buyers, self-funded retirees. By July, Howard could boast that the economy was “roaring along.”]
Hartcher is an utter poltroon.
Good night.
A feast of a day on PB.
In all my time have never heard of wrestling with a rice pudding,think ashbys legal doth put up red herrings.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-16/roxon-says-slipper-case-politically-motivated/4074408
Hartcher makes the mistake of believing the main reason for the ALP gov’t compensating people for the carbon price is to get votes.
Did it ever cross his tiny brain that it is part of the design of the ets scheme, a matter of social justice and the hope that it may be a vote winner a secondary consideration?
Not likely, that thought would not pass through his Coalition-indoctrinated skull.
Mr Bowe. Fence-sitter.
One thing about Rudd
____________
It is 19 years since any Labor leader …other than Rudd led Labor to a clear majority victory at a H o R election
In 1993 Keating did just that.too
In The following 19 years Keating,Beasley.Latham.and Gilard all tried but failed to win a majority in the House on one or more occasions
In 19 years only one victory… 2007
A long time between drinks I think !
Puff, nicely put.
Hartchner and bolt would make a lifetime couple,whose ego would prevail would be awesome to see.
Debonair OTOH Gillard is well placed to surpass Keating as the longest ALP leader of the Gov since Keating himself. Another term would put her ahead of Hawke. Labor hero or not?
Debonair sorry Deblonay
deblonay’s headings
_________________
Surely I’m not the only one that find’s deblonay’s headings really amusing?
Surely this would enraged abbott and morrison, 800,000 allowed to work , even without documents.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/15/obama-stop-deportation-undocumented-immigrants
How many do we have to threaten our lifesyle,when the rich want more foreign workers,maybe be can get some here for gina
Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.
________________________
President Obama has announced that the U.S. will stop deporting illegal immigrants who are minors.