UPDATE: Now we have Newspoll as well, and it’s Labor’s worst result since July: the Coalition leads 56-44 on two-party preferred, compared with 51-49 a fortnight ago, from primary votes of 32% for Labor (down six), 48% for the Coalition (up four) and 9% for the Greens (steady). The poll also has Julia Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister all but vanishing, down from 45-33 to 41-39. Gillard is down two points on approval to 36% and up three on disapproval to 52%, while Tony Abbott is up four to 33% and down two to 56%.
GhostWhoVotes reports a Galaxy poll to be published tomorrow shows the Coalition leading 54-46 on two-party preferred. The primary votes are 35% for Labor, 48% for the Coalition and 10% for the Greens. Tony Abbott does unusually well on personal ratings relative to Julia Gillard, with 36% satisified and 57% dissatisfied against 38% and 57% for Gillard. Fifty-five per cent say the election should be held in September against 38% who want an election now. As is all too often the case with Galaxy, a further question seems to have been set as bait for anti-government headlines in the News Limited tabloids which publish the poll. In this case, respondents were asked if they believed Julia Gillard’s explanation for announcing the election date, rather than the more obvious question of whether they approved of her doing it. Trust in politicians being what it is, this came in at 53% for no and 41% for yes, which if anything is surprisingly high. The poll was conducted from Friday to Sunday from a sample of 1015, for the usual margin of error of around 3%.
UPDATE (5/2/13): Essential Research, reporting a day later than usual, has Labor down a point on the primary vote for the second week in a row, down now to 34%, its lowest since September. However, the Coalition and the Greens are unchanged at 48% and 10%, with the Coalition’s two-party preferred lead likewise steady at 54-46.
UPDATE (6/2/13): Morgan published a result from last weekend’s face-to-face polling while I wasn’t looking, and it has the aggregate major party vote returning to normal after a slump in the poll for the previous two weekends. Labor is up 2.5% to 38.5% while the Coalition is up 3.5% to 42.5%, with the Greens down 3.5% to 8.5%. That pans out to a slight gain for the Coalition on two-party preferred, extending their lead from 50.5-49.5 to 51.5-48.5 on respondent-allocated preferences and reversing a 50.5-49.5 deficit on the previous election measure.
re #6222 – nah, Glen sometimes had something to same. Gary Sparrow is an utter twit, please come back Glen?
O dear someone fetch the helmets this could get ugly 🙂
Abbott’s successor is an interesting question. Turnbull doest stand a chance now. Bishop is the permanent deputy. the rest are ornaments. That leaves Hockey. Be happy with JG in any contest with JH.
Matty D
[they lied about the carbon tax]
As reported in The Australian just before the election this is what the PM said “”I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament.” Which is what we have. How was that a lie ?
It’s obvious someone is taking the piss when they join, call everyone Labor hacks, then complain that they’re suddenly the centre of attention :P.
I seem to recall this pattern.
Matty D Oh in regards to your NBN comments earlier, I think you find it very easy to understand.
1. Upgrading Existing Infrastructure.
2. Migrate Customers off Telstra network to NBN.
3. Enjoy another lifetime of awesome internet.
Someone’s been putting $$$ on the Liberals to win Denison; they are in from $26 to $7.50.
The Libs have also called for applications for potential Denison candidates with applications closing Feb 16.
[out with the ratsak.]
Was it something I said?
I hadn’t read that article by Lenore Taylor before, but this bit gives me the irrits–
[Several ideas in the developing northern Australia discussion paper were ditched by Abbott almost as soon as they saw the light of day – including different taxation zones (which he conceded was likely to be unconstitutional, the same reason John Howard and Peter Costello rejected it on every one of the many, many occasions it was raised by the Nationals during the Coalition’s last term) ]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/policies-show-us-the-money-20130208-2e3ji.html#ixzz2KOq8n26U
There’s no ‘likely’ about it at all – it is clearly unConstitutional. In fact, when the Constitution was being drawn up, it was very clear that the founding fathers were very concerned that differential taxation zones should not exist.
Their main concern, ironically enough, was that such zones would be detrimental to regional areas – they feared that the government might impose higher taxes in the regions to compensate for the higher cost of delivering services there.
(That’s why, for example, incentives paid to rural students to go to University are called ‘scholarships’ rather than just being lumped in with their study allowance.)
But we didn’t get this explained by the media, many of whom are still pretending that, even if the rest of the package has fallen over, we can still have differential taxation zones.
Again – although the media have started peddling backwards on this too – the analysis and criticism of Abbott’s Far Northern Expedition didn’t come from the msm. It was only when Abbott and co themselves started backing away from it that they suddenly discovered what a flawed package it was.
And here we have Lenore still disingeneously pretending that she herself can’t tell us whether the proposed taxation zones are unconstitutional or not – but gee, just as well Abbott told her, or she’d never have worked it out…
[AC
That program was full of nasty characters!]
Too true, BK.
However, they make the current Libs look like the Waltons.
Zoomster,
You are being a mite unrealistic. They are flatstick remembering what Abbott said yesterday! 😉
Marrickville Mauler@6251
Glen – Whatever he calls himself these days has run out of comment.
Post and prove it otherwise ! 🙂
Said very politely of course.
The ALP do have a potential PR problem (and it’s not more than a PR problem) with those 2 issues.
Julia Gillard can in no way be considered to have lied about the carbon price. I understand that a good section of the public have bought the LNP spin and media laziness on this.
At the end of the day the question is whether people think the government has done the right thing by bringing in the carbon price. Given the negative impacts have been negligible (as the government said at the time, and despite all the woe-iz-us from the LNP), if there is a public belief that we really should be tackling AGW then the public may give the government a pass on this issue.
The budget surplus is not a lie either. Perhaps a promise that should not have been made at worst. (It’s worth noting that it is still possible that the budget will end up in surplus this year!) Assuming that a small deficit is the result, it is possible to explain (correctly) that further austerity would have dampened a weak economy further which is not in anyone’s interests.
Whether the ALP can sell this or not, who knows? I think they should be able to but whether the media allows any such message through is anyone’s guess.
I am not touchy, and I do have evidence. Labor can’t even achieve a surplus today, even though it was promised over 500 times, and look at all of the school halls and canteens on which money was just thrown with reckless abandon.
And she finishes off with this gem…
[Australians might indeed want to see some brave policy vision and instead of sending out almost a dozen ministers to ridicule the Coalition plan, Labor might have been better advised to explain its deficiencies.]
Really? the Liberals run a thousand miles backwards at high speed from a policy five seconds after it’s been released, and she thinks the policy should have been treated with grave consideration?
Of course, if the media did its f**ing job and analysed ‘policy’ like this properly, without waiting until the Coalition tells them it’s a piece of fetid dingo’s kidneys before they accept that, maybe the government wouldn’t have to leap around waving pompoms and blowing whistles to get them to pay attention….
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/policies-show-us-the-money-20130208-2e3ji.html#ixzz2KOsL6F89
Mmm Matty,
Leave your Economic Forecasts white paper for 2008 and we’ll get back to you.
As reported in The Australian just before the election this is what the PM said “”I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament.” Which is what we have. How was that a lie ?
Maybe ask Labor themselves, as they are the ones who have admitted that it is more or less a tax, which it is, as many small business and homeowners will tell you.
How about the surplus lie, as well as the health rebate and strong borders?
Matty D would you have preferred the Government instead of funding those school halls instead pay the tradesman unemployment benefits?
There is plenty of historically and current evidence to support the stimulus for the alternative would have been to cut spending only to see an increase in unemployment.
Just look at the U.K
Matty D@6264
Would you care to explain the inherent virtue of a surplus?
Were the audits of the BER program that showed in the overwhelming majority of cases value for money was obtained wrong?
Matty spending money on schools makes absolute sense to me. I cant think of a better use of my taxes.
Kate Lundy should resign and then resign now! For her to smear every Australian sports men and women to divert attention from ICAC and Craig Thomson is appalling. Why should innocent, sports mad children be used as pawns by the filthy ALP? Lundy must go!
And I’m bloody proud of the carbon tax. Sound policy.
Geez I wonder what the pro surplus people think of those companies that are working their way though falling profits or in a few cases losses.
A roll-out of Solar may have been better than the pink batts.
and a special welcome to tonights mingho duty troll…
mexicanbeemer@6273
Needed some thing that could be got going quickly.
Time was of the essence.
If Matty D is still around would you like to explain the policy responses to the Great Depression and the Melbourne Land-bust and what were the consequences of those policies.
For some insight check out the U.K
Bemused I am aware that in 2009 urgent action was needed and pink batts were the quicker option
Matty D @ 6248 – well,Carbon pricing was the right thing to do. While Ms Gillard almost certainly had no intention to implement Carbon Pricing in this term, the exigencies of a hung parliament brought things forward. It was not a lie. In Google you’ll quickly find a video of Tony Abbott supporting a ‘Carbon Tax’ in 2009.
What about John ‘Core Promises’ Howard? What about Tony Abbott lying about the reason for the postponement of the Olympic Dam expansion last September (although I concede that it is entirely possible that he was ignorant).
As for the deficit, well what level of unemployment would have been acceptable to achieve a surplus this year? What programs should have been cut? What taxes should have been increased?
I think Matty D’s brain cell has gone into melt down.
I think he might have left 🙁
[As for the NBN, no bloody idea, I am only in my early 20s and haven’t a clue about how it will work,….. I will say, though, that Labor is sure to spend way more than necessary on]
You could try looking it up on Google, read a few articles written by people with different perspectives on it. You know, inform yourself, then form an opinion.
or not??
Matty
(http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/)
everyone’s welcome there…
Steve
Then they shouldn’t have promised to deliver a surplus 500 times. That looks really stupid now.
People said to Gillard that the economy might change making a surplus very difficult.
She replied ” Failure is not an option. ”
Well it turned out it was an option.
steve777,
Please note your statement
“While Ms Gillard almost certainly had no intention to implement Carbon Pricing in this term, the exigencies of a hung parliament brought things forward.” Is incorrect.
For confirmation see here: http://bit.ly/12xAJyh
Matty D – can you tell us what you think a “lie” is? You seem to have a definition different to the rest of the English speaking world.
Most of us understand that a “lie” is a statement that you know to be untrue that you say in order to deceive. In terms of a future event this only occurs when the person speaking has no intention of doing what they say they will.
If you say “I will go to town this afternoon” but not intend to or even try to do so, that’s a lie.
If you say “I will go to town this afternoon” and intend to do so but your car breaks down and you can’t go … that’s not a lie and it never was.
You can’t retrospectively turn a non-lie into a lie just because what someone said doesn’t end up turning out the way forecast – there has to be intent on the part of the speaker to deceive and to know that what they are saying is untrue.
In the case of the “carbon tax” lie, more to the point, Julia Gillard, during the 2010 election campaign, was making the distinction between an ETS that the ALP was proposing (and had put up previously as the CPRS) and a Carbon Tax proposal from the Greens. Julia Gillard said “no carbon tax, we’ll be arguing for an ETS”. What the government has implemented is almost exactly what they promised to do so before the election. The only difference is that the carbon price starts a year or so earlier than what Julia Gillard intimated pre-election. Post-election there was this unexpected thing called a hung parliament. Negotiations were had. Plans were changed. No lying involved.
And can someone, anyone, find a single individual who voted for the ALP in 2010 who felt deceived when Julia Gillard negotiated to legislate for the ETS? Please, just one person? There aren’t any. Seriously.
Diogenes@6283
Yet another Gillard own goal.
And so unnecessary. 🙁
I don’t know why they feel the need to come over here…well I do really…they’re rostered…
[well,Carbon pricing was the right thing to do. While Ms Gillard almost certainly had no intention to implement Carbon Pricing in this term, ]
Absolutely not true.
I don’t think if the Government had won outright that the PM would have introduced a carbon tax, an ETS maybe but no carbon tax.
[Then they shouldn’t have promised to deliver a surplus 500 times. That looks really stupid now. ]
Part of the reason they had to was Rudd’s inability to talk about Labor’s achievements with the GFC.
Gillard has taken on Rudd’s cowardice with the economy, and had to turn it into something tangible. Such a shame.
mb:
Australia does not have a carbon tax.
confessions@6290
Absolute bollocks.
[ … thanks Scringler for your anchovy tip ..]
My pleasure, Crikey Whitey,
To do a bol sauce, take a couple of brown onions, dice, fine. Dice, fine, around eight cloves of garlic. Maybe some bacon, fine dice.
Suss out the good olive oil. Not the grease pressings from the supermarket.
On a low pan, sweat the onions and garlic. At this point, the oglets begin to sniff. Ignore them.
Add the minced meat, beef or lamb. Stir. Brown roughly. Sweat out. Drive off the moisture. Add the diced anchovies. Lots.
Add tomatoes, a can of Romas will do, and some tomato paste. Lots. Then oregano, basil, fresh bay leaves, flat leaf parsley … stuff like that. And nutmeg and a wee dash of cinnamon.
Cover with what remains of the red wine.
Locate another bottle of red wine. Open. Check that it’s fit for human consumption and proceed. Pour some red wine into pan, to cover.
Place pot on low heat and simmer for around four hours. Adding oil, when necessary.
Meantime, mow lawn.
Best served with home-made pasta.
To do this, take some OOO flour …
No. Bugger that. Get the supermarket stuff. Italian.
[and look at all of the school halls and canteens on which money was just thrown with reckless abandon.]
MattyD, speaking as the parent of a young child whose school got a new teaching block with specialist art and music rooms as well as a couple of much updated classrooms, the BER was far from a waste.
That’s the Fibs problem on a number of fronts. The spin from their media mates says one thing, and the lived experience is often different.
Fess true it has a carbon price
Bemused… Give it up …. It aint gonna happen.
Rossmore@6296
What isn’t going to happen?
I worked in the Northern Territory in 1966 and 1967 in Darwin in a government job.
I am pretty sure we got a different taxation rate because we were in a “zone”.
It helped to pay for the very expensive milk which was half powdered and half fresh and about 4 times Sydney price.
mb:
Liberals like to paint the fixed price as a tax, but it isn’t.
We’ve had this conversation here many times.