The Australian reports the latest fortnightly Newspoll is unchanged at 55-45, from primary votes of 32% for Labor (steady), 46% for the Coalition (down two) and 10% for the Greens (down one). Gillard is up two on approval to 30% and down two on disapproval to 60%, while Abbott is up one and down one to 36% and 53%. Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister is up slightly, from 40-37 to 40-35.
Also out today:
• The weekly Essential Research records no change on last week on voting intention, with the Coalition leading 55-45 on two-party preferred from primary vote of 34% for Labor, 48% for the Coalition and 9% for the Greens. The poll also finds 51% thinking Australia made the wrong decision going to war against Iraq against 23% for the right decision; support for same sex marriage at 54% and opposition at 33%; and 68% supporting the Gonski report recommendations against 13% opposed, but 43% opposed to the government’s specific plan against 40% in support.
• The Morgan multi-mode poll has Labor up half a point to 32.5%, the Coalition down 2.5% to 44% (their weakest result since this series began eight weeks ago) and the Greens steady on 10.5%. That pans out to 54.5-45.5 on respondent-allocated preferences (down from 55.5-44.5), which Morgan prefers, and 54-46 on previous election preferences (down from 56-44), which I and every other pollster prefer. The sample this time around was 3270.
The look of relief on monkey’s face when it was over was tangible.
Softball interview, not one lie corrected and still he looked wooden, shifty and clueless.
Interview being slammed on my timeline.
Will there be a longer version of the interview on the website? Ha. 😆
Henry
[The look of relief on monkey’s face when it was over was tangible.]
Almost every politician looks that way at the end of a 730 interview (except for Conroy who looks like he wants to stay there forever).
[Political Tragic @politicaltragic 5m
#abc730 Abbott is reading from a prepared script, you can see it, this is rehearsed! Scandalous!!]
So Leigh had cue cards and Abbott had a pre-prepared script?
Tony wants Aus to be New Zealand to stop the boats and maybe do some other stuff.
Well done.
as predicyed by moi…lee muzzled/sedated and probably spoken to but prerecorded just in case. cards to let her know where the interview would end if…
he’s gawn…
Waste of valuable air time.
ruawake
[
Tony wants Aus to be New Zealand]
So Tones wants same sex marriage ? His personal confessor Georgie Pie will not be pleased.
Guytaur @1029
Oh, how the leftards like to rewrite history. The ALP hasn’t earned anything. They inherited 2 of the more significant ratings and inherited the financial basis for the 3rd. Now, after the announcement from S&P today they will be lucky to hold on to the ratings. I bet all the lemmings were salivating when Gillard and Swanny gave all the bullshit about the surplus being tacked to the mast and “we will NOT fail”. Sadly, because of more bullshit economic predictions dreamt up by Swanny there forecasts on income were completely wrong, exaggerated so that he could hame money to splash around to dumb down the “true believers” even more. There hasn’t been some catastrophic decline in revenue. They have been rising. There has been a catastrophic decline in realistic forecasts and the responsibility stands at the feet of Swanny and Gillard. Now that Swanny hasn’t got 5c to run together, the whole surplus propaganda is out the window replaced with hubris about the dangers of austerity measures and how everyone should be like us.
So based on Gillards “we will not fail” and “failure is not an option” garbage why to the leftards not nail her to the mast for absolute deceit ? Pathetic hypocritical trolls…
[confessions
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm | PERMALINK
Yes, ALP (and Lib Senators) have always treated Howard with such deference, haven’t they?
You’ll recall that Labor’s last LOTO headed for electoral victory referred to the former PM not as ‘John’ or ‘John Howard’, but as ‘Mr Howard’ or the Prime Minister.
Conversely today’s Liberal LOTO, also headed for victory according to current polling can’t find it in himself to refer to our PM in such courteous or respectful terms.]
Haha 🙂
Can I get this straight.
On Pollblduger, where Tony Abbott is referred to as a monkey, we are criticising the lack of proper deference to the Prime Minister?
What a gutless performance. He lacks tha courage and ability to have a searching live interview,
1060
Abbott I think realises that it will happen in Australia soon but is holding out on a conscience vote because he wants to deny the ALP a reform under their watch and possibly he thinks that a Coalition majority would mean a number of pro-marriage equality voting ALP MPs will be replaced by anti-marriage equality voting Coalition MPs and thus it will not happen in the next term either.
Stephen Koukoulas @TheKouk 4m
Whitlam left Fraser zero net debt; Fraser saw debt rise 10% of GDP, rose 8% w Hawke/Keating; fell 22% w Howard, rose 14% w Rudd/Gilllard
rummel
“Low bar, but…….. Abbott survived 730
now for Insiders!”
Or any kind of live interview. I can’t really fault him personally because I’d freeze up on live TV too but Gillard seems to be able handle it.
Why can’t Abbott?
[zoomster
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 7:38 pm | PERMALINK
You’re using extremely dodgy lines of argument, ModLib, ones which don’t pass any test of logic –
1. Other Prime Ministers were male. Their appearance was commented on. Therefore comments on appearance are not sexist.]
No, I do not think comments about the male Prime Ministers appearance are sexist. However, those claiming that comments about Gillard’s appearance are an example of sexism, and worse- misogyny, need to explain why comments about other PM’s are fine.
[2. Some of the criticism of Gillard is not based on her sex. Therefore none of the criticism of Gillard is based on her sex.]
Do we have consensus on PB that some of the criticism of Gillard is justified? That would be an amazing achievement if that were the case! 🙂
I am very happy to say that there are sexists in Australia who would not vote for a female PM.
There are also voters who would vote for a female PM over a male PM based on their gender. I know this for a fact because they have told me thats why they voted that way.
[3. Women don’t like her. Therefore critism of her cannot be sexist.]
If you accept that it is possible to legitimately criticise Gillard for her failings and not be sexist then I am satisfied. No argument there.
[ morpheus
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Permalink
Now, after the announcement from S&P today they will be lucky to hold on to the ratings. ]
Post a link that says they will be lucky to hold on to the ratings. ]
Morpheus
Morpheous ! You of all people would be the last person I’d expect to decide to take the blue pill. What a shame.
It all depends on who is saying it, Mod. If righteous and just people say it, then it’s ok.
Silly Mod, going by the wrong criteria as usual.
ML:
I was talking about how our media in general treats the Prime Minister, not how anonymous commenters on a blog refer to the LOTO.
Mod
Now now, don’t generalise.
morpheus
Stop writing TRIPE!.
Dave @1068
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/4/24/economy/deficits-risk-aaa-rating-sp
In summary, to Swanny (and whatever treasurer comes next), get your shit in order because repeated deficits will put you S&P rating at risk….
paroti @1069
Glad to see that you have absolutely nothing to contribute … Pretty typical of the “true believers” here. Happy to attack “monkey” but have a sook when Gillard and Swanny get called out.
[ Mod Lib
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:24 pm | Permalink
Do we have consensus on PB that some of the criticism of Gillard is justified? ]
Fellow bludgers – kindly indicated if you think that criticism of mod lib is justified ?
Vote early vote often…
Morpheus
I stopped reading after “leftard”. If I wanted that kind of juvenile bullshit I’d read FreeRepublic.
[confessions
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:27 pm | PERMALINK
ML:
I was talking about how our media in general treats the Prime Minister, not how anonymous commenters on a blog refer to the LOTO.]
So you would condemn all commenters using the :monkey: reference then?
It was an infomerical without the info.
dave@1075
This is a typical Mod exaggeration. A few people indicate they might be willing to allow a few criticims of PMJG by, and suddenly it becomes a consensus!
Ha!
:devil:
Tone was reading: eyes fixed left.
I see everyone is backpedalling furiously at the mere hint that any criticism of Gillard might be justified.
LOL 🙂
It was interesting that in effect, a conversation that started about ways to contain costs drifted into a discussion of PPL which, on Abbott’s own description, would be a cost on the budget.
He claimed that small companies would
a) get a tax cut
b) not have to pay the levy
AND
c) large companies paying the levy would be compensated fully (he hoped) with a coterminous fall in the company tax rate
He qualified this by saying before committing to the company tax cut being co-terminous he wanted to see the pre-election EFO, because he suspected it would be “much worse than the Government is admitting”.
OK …
So, best case scenario … nothing in the pre-election EFO deters him from cutting the tax rate on big companies enough to fully compensate them for the levy. He does so. They are no worse off and small companies get the benefit both of a tax cut and the free PPL to offer staff, paid for out of the levy paid by big companies.
SO Abbott gives away enough revenue to large companies to pay for their paying for small companies and also gives as much revenue in percentage terms back to small companies as the large one.
How is this any different from charging no levy on anyone, fully funding the scheme out of revenue and not giving any company a tax cut? That would actually be better in net revenue terms because the small companies wouldn’t also be getting a tax cut as generous as large companies paying the levy.
Conversely, if the company tax cuts are delayed, the cost of the scheme comes straight off the bottom line of large companies, and small companies get no relief at all — thoug they do get free PPL. It’s revenue neutral but the impost is much larger than carbon pricing and levied largely on companies either not subject to it, or that can minimise it by doing abatement.
In short, he is increasing tax on big business — by his own reckoning, making them less competitive — and all to fund an over-generous PPL scheme for upper income people.
Leigh Sales didn’t ask him about how he would effect cost control on direct action either, or whether the old personal tax scales would be restored post abolition of carbon pricing, or how he would save money through “boats” policy, or whether Joe Hockey was wrong to claim that savings would need to be $70bn or not — which Abbott denied (“it’s not anything like that”) — and what led him to the view that Hockey was wrong or that the figure was misreported.
She didn’t challenge him on the “10 surpluses out of 11 claim” or ask him to respond to the claim that there were 2 years of Howard-era reckless spending identified by the IMF in the 200 they’d surveyed in Australia, but just let him witter on about mining price boom fuelled surpluses.
It was a very poor interview, IMO.
Mod Lib@1081
:angel:
Mod Lib @1081
Dissent is impossible… They are NOT allowed.. Gillard is watching..
The smear campaign against Windsor begins in earnest:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-and-joyce-in-spat-over-rednecks-20130424-2iekb.html
I’m sure Windsor is up to the task of whatever the Liberals and Nationals can throw at him. I’m sure it will get worse. 🙁
This little black duck
[
Tone was reading: eyes fixed left.]
Fixed left !! That was the mirror effect means he was looking to his right but to the viewer’s left. Surely ? 🙂
Its not Gillard, its the factional bosses / union hacks! :devil:
[Mod Lib
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:36 pm | PERMALINK
I see everyone is backpedalling furiously at the mere hint that any criticism of Gillard might be justified.]
LOL :monkey:
morpheus@1074
The article in that link doesn’t say they will be lucky to hold on to the ratings. – you are telling porkies.
[Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s that Australia will be at risk of losing its coveted AAA credit rating if the federal government does not demonstrate a stronger commitment to eliminating the budget deficit.
S&P has reportedly told both the government and the opposition that it understands the need for a current budget deficit, but warned that the AAA rating could be jeopardised within five years if the government does not demonstrate a concerted effort to restore the budget surplus and the national debt continues to climb.
“Given Australia’s low level of public debt, the government has space for some slippage in achieving its surplus targets given weaker-then-expected revenues,” S&P associate director Craig Michaels told The Australian.
He reportedly added that “small and declining” deficits pose little threat to Australia’s credit rating, but there must be “a clear intention to return to balanced budgets shortly beyond the budget horizon”.
Australia is one of only eight countries worldwide to hold the coveted AAA credit rating.
The S&P warning follows Treasurer Wayne Swan’s recent admission that Australia was likely to post consecutive budget deficits, which stands as a reversal from Labor’s long-standing pledge to return the budget to surplus during the current financial year. ]
You couldn’t lie straight in bed.
Mod, don’t tease the poor fellow.
Morpheus
[paroti @1069
Glad to see that you have absolutely nothing to contribute ]
So we have something in common then ? 😆
rummel:
Every now and then when I venture into the PB world, I forget that here Gillard is the first leader of any state of country who bears absolutely no blame for her own government.
I call it:
“The immaculate concept”
Hehe 🙂
[So you would condemn all commenters using the :monkey: reference then?]
Why are you changing the goal posts? Is it that you’ve been completely discredited on your acceptance of the disgraceful sexist campaign against the PM and are now looking for an out?
My original comment referenced the media commentary about the Prime Minister. If you have nothing to add to this, then fine. You don’t have to comment on everything that appears here.
confessions:
I don’t understand your fear at making a comment about your views of referring to the Leader of the Opposition as a monkey.
You seem horrified that the media would use “Gillard” to refer to Gillard, but you are fearful of making a comment about what you think of using :monkey: to refer to Abbott.
Why is that?
absolutetwaddle @ 1076
So you are selective on who you bitch about ? Considering the abhorrent lack of respect on this site for non-ALP politicians (and posters) I hardly think commanding consideration for the usual suspects is appropriate unless every plays by the same rules. I know its a hard proposition that goes against everything the crowd here believes and has been spoon fed. But hey..
[Mod Lib
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:43 pm | PERMALINK
rummel:
Every now and then when I venture into the PB world, I forget that here Gillard is the first leader of any state of country who bears absolutely no blame for her own government.
I call it:
“The immaculate concept”
Hehe ]
Yep. Abbott is no where near perfect, but the endless team spin to protect Gillard from her own actions and history is worthy of a oscar.
[In short, he is increasing tax on big business — by his own reckoning, making them less competitive — and all to fund an over-generous PPL scheme for upper income people. ]
Well yes, and this is precisely the argument which has been advanced by me and others. The so called big 4 banks will be hit with Abbott’s PPL tax. Given that our big banks are so adept at passing on costs to their customers, it is entirely plausible that the PPL tax costs will manifest as higher mortgage interest rates. Yet no media outlet ever discusses this, or even makes the connection in the first place.
[Leigh Sales didn’t ask him about how he would effect cost control on direct action either]
No surprise there. Only Steve Kinnane as stand in host of Lateline has managed this, and was promptly shifted to part time hosting roles on News24 afterwards when his questioning rendered Greg Hunt speechless.
rummel:
I think you mean Lucinda.
Lets not be sexist, please…
[Mod Lib
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:50 pm | PERMALINK
rummel:
I think you mean Lucinda.
Lets not be sexist, please…]
I dont get it?
There’s no team here, rummel. If you make N comments and N people here each criticise a different one, you can’t conclude that any one of those N people disagrees with all N comments.