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.
Dave @1089
So, repeated deficits will NOT be jeopardise the rating ?
WTF are you suggesting they meant ?
“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.”
You might want to have a look at the background of this statement. In 2012 S&P said the ratings would be safe if as per Swanny’s predictions the budget goes into surplus by 2014/15. Since that is nigh-on impossible, in which context do you think the new statement is meant to be interpreted ? Have fun, get more debt, don’t worry about it ?????
[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.]
???
Oscar and Lucinda.
It was a very poor joke, but, in my defence, I am quite tired and probably going to sign off for the night!
Is that so hard to understand, confessions?
[Mod Lib
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:52 pm | PERMALINK
Oscar and Lucinda.
It was a very poor joke, but, in my defence, I am quite tired and probably going to sign off for the night!]
Oh, Oscar and Lucinda. Never seen it.
So the PM can do live, unscripted press conferences for hours at a time, yet the LOTO can only manage cue cards, scripts and pre-recorded 15min interviews? And even then only on ANZAC day eve when nobody is paying attention.
What a flake and a fraud.
[confessions
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:56 pm | PERMALINK
So the PM can do live, unscripted press conferences for hours at a time, ]
Well the long ones have been when she has been denying allegations, so i would hope Gillard could deny unscripted for hours.
Mod Lib:
It isn’t given you’ve spent all night trying to defend the appalling media and Liberal MPs’ sexist treatment of our Prime Minister.
However it is hard to understand when you badge yourself as a moderate Liberal.
[So the PM can do live, unscripted press conferences for hours at a time, yet the LOTO can only manage cue cards, scripts and pre-recorded 15min interviews? And even then only on ANZAC day eve when nobody is paying attention.
What a flake and a fraud.
]
You are very kind to Abbott he rarely manages an interview it is more usually a question of how badly he fails.
Morpheus
“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..”
Take a chill pill, Keanu. The use of the neologism “rightard
morpheus@1101
You stated –
[ S&P said – they will be lucky to hold on to the ratings ]
Thats crap. Its not said in the article – ie you made it up
They are very simple questions, confessions.
Given your criticism of people referring to Gillard as “Gillard” rather than “Prime Minister”, are you critical, in at least equal measure, when people refer to Abbott as a monkey.
Its not really that hard a question.
Morpheus
“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..”
Take a chill pill, Keanu. The use of the neologism “rightard” also turns me off.
Sorry to burst your persecution bubble.
Don’t know who is the bigger fraud – Leigh Sales or Abbott. One did a poor impersonation of a journalist and the other a pallid imitation of a human being.
[Well the long ones have been when she has been denying allegations, so i would hope Gillard could deny unscripted for hours.]
Yep, esp as she’s innocent. I agree she should be able to deny away for hours on end.
And then there’s Abbott, who routinely cuts short press conferences at even the slightest hint of awkward questioning.
What on earth does this say about his guilt or innocence then? 😆
Sorry for the half-double post about nothing, guys.
confessions @1106
Yeah, it sucks when politicians hide behind other events so that they can’t be smacked down. All Tony had to do is hide behind a natural disaster, you know, maybe an earthquake in a nearby island country with many fatalities, before announcing a policy backflip which he knew was a complete lie. Thank god Gillard would never do that with such an important policy like the carbon tax … I would roll my eyes even out of my head if I could.
And in reference to the “unscripted’ conference. I guess she much be a really good bullshit artist with all the practice she has had (reference Bulldogs/full-forward/sharp knife)
Since you are struggling, confessions, I will give you some time to consider your view!
Good night.
We can come back to this question later.
I condemn the use of the monkey sign for Tony Abbott.
Some of the criticism of Julia Gillard is justified.
Morpheus is right about government revenue. It isn’t declining; it just isn’t going up as much as expected.
Just like university funding.
Mod Lib:
[Given your criticism of people referring to Gillard as “Gillard” rather than “Prime Minister”]
Actually my criticism was way more direct than ‘people’.
Have you forgotten? Please revisit my comment if you have.
confessions @ 1115
everyone is a liar but Gillard who ALWAYS tells the truth…..Keep on telling yourself that …
[We can come back to this question later.]
I’ll be waiting.
poroti,
To his left, unless they were filming through the rear-vision mirror.
[ morpheus
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Permalink
S&P said today they will be lucky to hold on to the ratings.]
You are still telling porkies – this is not said in the article.
[Jackol
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 9:07 pm | PERMALINK
I condemn the use of the monkey sign for Tony Abbott.
Some of the criticism of Julia Gillard is justified.]
High praise for you Jackol.
Not that prise from me would be coveted by most on PB 🙂
Diogenes @ 1120
The problem is that forecasts were made on absurd projections of growth which every economist have admitted to as being wildly confident and more likely insane. The lies Swanny is telling now about the high Australian dollar hurting the bottom line are also just that, lies. Treasury, and everyone else, knew the Australian dollar would be high for years (and they knew that over a year ago) and if that wasn’t factored into their forecasts who’s fault is it. Is anyone being held responsible for such a gross misjudgement.
There was an interesting discussion this afternoon on Q&A. Even the ABC commentator agreed that based on the current economic situation, we SHOULD be getting a surplus because if the future markets and mining revenue falls then there is no better time then now. Imagine if Swanny inherited the current deficit and budget position in 2007. Where would Australia be now ?
There’s been some twitter chatter that Abbott is in effect slinking away from his PPL proposed scheme.
As expected, business has had a word in the LOTO ear, and so just like that (clicks fingers) previously held so-called convictions are evaporated at the drop of a hat.
No wonder the 2GB crowd are revolting. 🙂
Dave @1125
Please enlighten us with YOUR interpretation of what was said. Calling me a liar is irrelevant as I am only presenting what was said. Argue with the article…
Hmmmm…once again, ModLib indulges in false logic.
Of course it is possible to criticise Gillard – or any other human being since the dawn of time – without being sexist. That doesn’t rule out, of course, that some, many or all criticisms of her criticisms of her aren’t sexist.
Criticism of someone’s actions, particulrly someone in controversial line of work such as politics, is always possible. To admit people are criticising Julia Gillard on non sexist grounds is not to say that their criticisms are valid – simply that it’s possible for someone to criticise her and not be sexist.
To go ‘aha! You admit that criticisms of Julia Gillard can be non sexist, therefore you are admitting she is deserving of criticism” is again, false logic.
Notice, however, that ModLib makes no reference to the other side of this logic – an admission that some of the criticism levelled at Julia Gillard is sexist in nature.
No, it’s all one way with ModLib. Never any admission that there might be fault on his side.
As I said previously, all of this simply reaffirms that ModLib is not an honest or logical debater. His partisanship won’t let him be (note his defence of Pyne and Hockey’s behaviour).
[confessions
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 9:08 pm | PERMALINK
Mod Lib:
Given your criticism of people referring to Gillard as “Gillard” rather than “Prime Minister”
Actually my criticism was way more direct than ‘people’.
Have you forgotten? Please revisit my comment if you have.]
Are they the people that talk about “Mad monk” and Abbott’s speedos?
No, it must be another “people” 🙂
You are always good for a laugh, confessions, I’ll grant you that.
Don’t worry, I will probably have forgotten that you can’t bring yourself to condemn the reference to Abbott as a monkey while pontificating about how Gillard being referred to as “Gillard” is somehow appalling! 🙂
morpheus@1129
My interpretation has nothing to do with it.
What you claimed is incorrect. S&P never said said –
[ they will be lucky to hold on to the ratings. ]
Period. You made that up.
[zoomster
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 9:17 pm | PERMALINK
Hmmmm…once again, ModLib indulges in false logic.
……
Notice, however, that ModLib makes no reference to the other side of this logic – an admission that some of the criticism levelled at Julia Gillard is sexist in nature.]
What is this then (#1067)?
[I am very happy to say that there are sexists in Australia who would not vote for a female PM.]
The conventional wisdom was that the AUD was tied to resources, and the high AUD was related to the high iron ore and coal prices of a few years ago.
The expectation from almost everyone concerned was that when commodity prices came off the AUD would come back down.
It didn’t.
This came as a surprise to many people.
The AUD making the transition from being a commodity/risk based currency to magically turning into a safe haven currency wasn’t widely predicted.
Dave @ 1132
It was dumbed down for you. What they actually said is that continued and persistent deficits over 5 years (irrespective of government) means YOU WILL LOSE YOUR AAA RATING…
I still can’t fathom how you don’t understand that. You can’t dance around the words and you can point fingers but those are the facts.
ModLib
It’s a statement that there are sexists in Australia who would not vote for a female PM.
It’s not a statement that says “I accept that some of the criticism of the PM in the media is sexist in nature.”
Try it.
Jackol @1134
However, the Australian dollar has been high for a while now… It didn’t just happen yesterday. For Swanny to use that as an excuse is just ludicrous.
morpheus@1135
No – you misrepresented what was said in the S&P release.
Now you are digging deeper.
Zoomster @1136
So in which category do women “that will only vote for Gillard because she is a woman” fall in ? Or spun by the left as “women vote for Gillard because they hate Abbott”….
[Are they the people that talk about “Mad monk” and Abbott’s speedos?]
Dunno, they might be. This was my original comment from which you’ve inappropriately riffed the ‘Ms Gillard OMG!!!’ reference from:
[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.]
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/04/22/newspoll-55-45-to-coalition-8/?comment_page=21/#comment-1617748
Go to bed Mod Lib, you’ve thoroughly discredited yourself here tonight.
dave @1138
PROVE IT !! of STFU…
dave @1138
PROVE IT !! or STFU…
The value of the AUD depends on how other currencies are valued as safe havens. As long as we have a strong economy the AUD will stay high. Time for our exporters to wake up.
Tone would destroy the economy and the unemployment and interest rates would go ballistic. Nice earner for his exporting friends as the AUD dives.
Ah the land of the free …
A conservative group opposing laws intended to make exercising one’s right to vote easier has sent out a flyer with people of colour photoshopped out.
This is one of those situations when even dishonesty and racism exposes reveals a truth … This group really does want to make it harder for ethnic minorities to vote.
The “excuse” from Swan is about the 2012-2013 financial year, or hadn’t you been paying attention.
The change in the attitude to the AUD has only happened in the last few years. The AUD plunged like a stone during the heyday of the GFC – following commodity prices and “risk off”.
Sometime between 2008 and 2012 the AUD became a safe haven.
morpheus,
I, for one, welcome the views of
reactionariestrue liberals.Care to contribute?
[ morpheus
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
they actually said is that continued and persistent deficits over 5 years (irrespective of government) means YOU WILL LOSE YOUR AAA RATING… ]
No it means that you want it to mean that.
At no point in the S&P release does it say –
[ they will be lucky to hold on to the ratings. ]
You posted that in an attempt to deceive.
morpheus@1142
See 1147.
So is the Aussie $ going to stay high or plummet as Centre tells us?
It would be very difficult as an exporter if it continues for a few years at the current level.
morpheus
I actually don’t believe there is such a thing.
There are women who understand and emphasise with Julia Gillard because she is a woman. But they wouldn’t vote for Sophie Mirabella (for example) just because she’s a woman.
So it’s only superficially about sex – it’s shorthand for something like this – “I’m voting for Julia Gillard because, as a woman, she’s obviously experienced some of the difficulties I myself face. It’s encouraging to think that she’s overcome these and gives me hope that I can do the same.”
Whereas another woman in the same position might get the response — “I can’t vote for X even though she’s a woman. She doesn’t seem to understand what I’m going through and I get the impression she doesn’t think the issues I face are important.”
We vote for people to represent us in Parliament. It’s the core of our system. For them to represent us, they need to have some idea what our lives are like. We empathise with politicians we think are ‘like us’ (Bob Hawke appealed to a lot of men because he appeared to be a ‘regular bloke’ – I had Labor strategists say that Bracks’ appeal was based on being ‘a family man who sits in the outer at footy games’) because we think that, being like us, they’ll be able to do the job we want them to do.