The latest fortnightly Newspoll is an especially bad one for Labor, coming in at 58-42 for the Coalition from primary votes of 30% for Labor and 49% for the Coalition. Julia Gillard is down three on approval to 28% and up three on disapproval to 62%, while Tony Abbott is steady on 37% and down one to 53%. Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister has widened from 40-39 to 43-35.
Also:
• JWS Research has conducted automated phone polls in the Melbourne seats of Isaacs, Chisholm and Melbourne Ports, each with a sample of around 500 respondents and a margin of error of slightly below 4.5%. These point to a huge swing in Isaacs, a small swing in Melbourne Ports, and no swing in Chisholm, with an improbably large gap separating the first from the last. Isaacs: Liberal 45%, Labor 35%, Greens 8%, 55-45 to Liberal (15.4% swing to Liberal). Melbourne Ports: Labor 49%, Liberal 41%, Greens 6%, 55.2-44.8 to Labor (2.7% swing to Liberal). Chisholm: Labor 51%, Liberal 42%, Greens 3%, 55.6-44.4 to Labor (0.2% swing to Liberal).
• Essential Research has Labor regaining the primary vote point they lost last week, now at 35%, with the Coalition and the Greens steady on 48% and 8% and two-party preferred steady at 55-45. Other findings suggest support for higher renewable energy targets (11% think the current 20% target by 2020 too high, 33% about right, and 40% not high enough), wind farms (76% support, 11% oppose), compulsory vaccination (87% support, 7% oppose), the right of childcare centres to refuse children who have not been vaccinated (78% support, 11% oppose), and a ban on advertising of sports betting (78% support, 12% oppose), and opposition to privatisation of the ABC and SBS (15% support, 57% oppose). Fifty-two per cent think it important that Australia have a car manufacturing industry against 35% not important; 61% favoured a proposition that “with government support, Australia can have a successful manufacturing industry” against 22% for “there is no future for manufacturing in Australia and government support would be a waste of money”.
• Morgan has Labor down two points on the primary vote to 31.5%, with the Coalition and the Greens steady on 45.5% and 9.5%. The move against Labor is softened by preferences on the respondent-allocated two-party preferred measure, on which the Coalition lead shifts from 54.5-45.5 to 55-45. On previous election preferences, the change is from 54.5-45.5 to 55.5-44.5.
99%
joe carli@189
The Coalition does not have an alternative leader with significant support in the party room. Abbott’s leadership has never faced a formal challenge since he won it, nor has it appeared that there has been serious counting for a possible challenge. In that time Labor has had three spills (albeit two “uncontested”). Any party has internal differences over policy but that is not the sort of stuff the public are worried about. What they worry about is when the party gives the impression of being an inwardly-focused infighting rabble, not just at the factional and backbench level but all the way to the top.
[I honestly thought Kevin tried to be a Howard 2.0
Howard’s policies but with a younger face. But I voted for Howard because of work choices. But that is a separate topic]
Hilarious. Rudd set the agenda from the moment he took over, if anything Howard went to that election as Rudd 2.0. Work choices was the worst thing ever done in this country, I don’t know how any sane person could think otherwise.
We want Paul
Your history teacher clearly has no idea of what is required to launch an invasion of Australia or the Indonesian Military capability or lack there of.
Do you think the US would stand by and let that happen?
The problem labor NOW faces is that it does not have any rabbits to bring out in order to turn the electoral boat around.
The economy is a bit wobbly, the NBN is now an “issue” and Gonski seems unlikely to get over the line. In any case despite accepted wisdom, I thin Gonski has all the electoral appeal as cabbage soup has to a 12 year old.
Sure they know it is good for them but pizza is a bit more exciting.
I think what William is trying to say that you have to treat this 58/42 with some caution because, while it is within the sampling error range of all recent polling, this particular poll is at the edge of the range. In the absence of other polling indicating a break-out of the recent range it’s more likely than not that this result flatters the Coalition.
Welcome back Gary Sparrow!
🙂
[Your history teacher clearly has no idea of what is required to launch an invasion of Australia or the Indonesian Military capability or lack there of.
Do you think the US would stand by and let that happen?]
Tell me why they wouldn’t, don’t they have more to lose than gain by protecting us against Indonesia?
Re Abbott and Libs
________________
many here on PB are reluctant to face the fact that Abbott…however loathsome…has waged a brilliant and unrelenting campaign against Gillard…who while have many good policies…has shown she is inept and has as one ALP member said…” a tin ear”
Bad politics always destroys the positive effect of good policies
the trend is for a result of around 55-45 with only an occasional poll showing a 58-42
[it’s more likely than not that this result flatters the Coalition.]
Of course it does.
But one does not simply get 58/42 results in Opposition if the Govt. is not looking like being baseball batted out of office.
Well I will admit work choices would suck arse if we had an unemployment around 6-7% but we were at the time running under 4% I could see what he was trying to archive. Get more people into the work force to alibi ate the inflation and pressure on the interest rates.
Alleviate ^
Agree MB.
Kevin Essential seems to have lost its bounce again.
Gary
Good to see you back, are you heard to teach some German? there are a few that might be in need
[If Labor *really are* behind 58-42 (keeping in mind that there’s not really anything such thing as an election result until an actual election is held), then 95% of poll results will come in the range of 55-45 to 61-39, assuming the poll has no errors other than sampling error. ]
However, if Labor are at 55-45 then this poll is an outlier, and the result could have well been 52-48.
I’d have like to see Shanahan’s spiel in the latter eventuality. I’d have paid money to see it, actually.
Maybe on election night Mexi but alas I shall be in the USA so doubt I’ll be on PB.
It was this time in mid 2007 that I was saying 58/42 results in Rudd’s favour still meant Unca Howie was a shoe in…ahh simple youth how foolish indeed!
155
1949 was only a landslide in seat terms not in vote terms. Chiffley got about the same vote that Howard got in 1998.
[Well I will admit work choices would suck arse if we had an unemployment around 6-7% but we were at the time running under 4% I could see what he was trying to archive. Get more people into the work force to alibi ate the inflation and pressure on the interest rates.]
Work choices saw women retail workers, already some of the lowest paid in our economy, lose wages during the height of a boom. It was one of the most disgusting policies we have ever seen enacted in Australia.
The JWS Research poll was conducted 02/06/13.
Chisholm: 507 voters
Melbourne Ports: 506 voters
Isaacs: 504 voters
two of the three polls show a shift to the Libs. The likely REAL result is perhaps that there has been a 0.5-1% actual shift. Given the Ford issue it is possible that in reality there has been a bigger shift in Vic and a lesser swing elsewhere
Thanks William, I get what you meant by “real world” now!
217
Rudd was more popular then that Abbott is now, and more stable. Abbott could well crumble during the campaign. The ALP has some very good policy based attack angles.
@wewantpaul I would like to see the evidence of that. That was a union scare campaign. It was a workers market. We lost so many good people to head hunters and jobs were people who said I would like to get paid X and the employer said sure because there was no one else to employ.
In the Bayes’ theory example if the test is being used as a screening test the chance of having the disease if you have a positive result is 1% (a bit like a PSA)
Tom
Tone ran a solid campaign in 2010 and i can’t image him having too much of a problem staying on message
[However, if Labor are at 55-45 then this poll is an outlier, and the result could have well been 52-48.]
…and if the result was 52-48 the result could have well been 49-51 to the ALP.
…and if the result was 49-51 to the ALP, the result could have well been 46-54 to the ALP.
I dont think it works like that BB!
WeWantPaul @219
“Work choices saw women retail workers, already some of the lowest paid in our economy, lose wages during the height of a boom.’
Oh, nooeeeess. The workchoice bogey man… You obviously got (and predictably so) sucked in by the trusting words of trade union propaganda. Please provide proof of widespread rorting of the system because the cases that did happen were dealt with extreme prejudice.
But of course under the watchful eye of the red headed clown, poor poor workers NEVER ever ever get exploited by employers >>> ◔̯◔
K Bonham…194
______________
I choose 1931 as a modern post -WW! landslide.. as a point to start ,,,.though I should have chosen the defeat of Bruce in 1929 who also lost in a landslide
My statements were based,,,and while the ALP vote in 1949 was good..in defeat.)..the effects of a botched redistribution and the increase in the House size were the devestating factors
In 1954 the ALP/Evatt actually secured a slim majority of votes ,but failed to win seats required in Vic and lost.
In effect three conservative PMs.Bruce/Fraser/Howard lost in landslides..and 4 Labor PMs,Scullin/Chifley/Whitlam/Keating.
Labor secured a great victory in 1943 under Curtin… already in office for two years…and nearly defeated Menzies in 1961..both .further landslides too…and there was a the victory of Holt in 1966
Do people reckon Barnaby has a shot in New England?
Can’t believe the dino in Bruce Scott wont budge. Also how come Barnaby couldnt get Hinkler? Surely an easier seat to win.
This blog is the king of wishful thinking.
Gary I don’t think Windsor did himself too many favours by hitting out so savagely against Abbott over Abbott’s change over the election funding issue. He sounded more like a Labor minister than an independent.
[http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/work-choices-pay-cut-up-to-a-third/2007/09/12/1189276810214.html]
Morpheus and Geoff I don’t believe either of you have the intelligence or integrity to admit you are wrong, but I’d love you to prove me wrong about now.
Silky38 @231
Well, they aren’t called the “true deluded” for no reason.
Might as well jump on board http://www.homefrontnj.org/polImage.cfm?Doc_Id=115&Size_Code=small
But I did not mind labor getting rid of work choices but they went back to Keating era worker rights and that went to far.
Geoff
Well they went further than that and that is part of the reason behind the business community displeasure with the Government.
Business never asked for workchoices and were happy with the I.R system pose Keating reforms
http://race42016.com/2012/05/07/polling-101-margin-of-error/
An interesting site discussing the exact issue we have covered tonight!
I found it quite helpful and have downloaded the excel tool which helps with likelihood of actually being ahead when the poll says you are ahead based on the size of the lead and the MOE…..suffice to say its not good for the ALP!
WWP @208
So apart from the long run political and cultural affiliation the US has with us and the ANZUS Treaty, there also the fact that they have vital strategic assets at Pine Gap and Exmouth and really really really like our training and logistic support capabilities we provide.
The Indonesians can’t even run effective search and rescue missions let alone launch amphibious invasions.
Gary
I think you are right to ask why didn’t Scott make way for Joyce. I think Windsor is slight favorite thanks to the flow of preferences
Wewantpaul I am not an expert in over all work force. I work government and at the time we lost up to 80% of our staff because private industry said name your price and they did and left leaving us with the dregs.
229
It is likely that had all seats been contested, the Coalition would have won the 2PP, very narrowly, in 1954.
1961 should have been an ALP victory. If only the ALP had picked up a seat or 2 more.
Can’t wait to buy the books discussing Labor’s self destruction for the sake of protecting factional power, which is exactly what we are seeing.
The collective has decided upon self destruction aka Hale Bop and will adoringly lay down supporting political death for all, for the sake of the Leader’s pride.
Or…the kid will die without a blood transfusion, but the parents beliefs refuse to allow it because their emotional addiction is more important.
None of you will have a right to complain about Abbott either Now or after the election since you are openly supporting the means for him to be PM.
I don’t take any joy in it Morpheus. I feel nothing but loathing for Abbott, Abetz, Bishop’s etc. They’re arrogant beyond belief and lie so casually it’s obscene. But they’re going to be elected. Two and a half years badly behind in the polls is not an accident. It’s 2007 in reverse and it’s totally their own fault. They had their last chance in March and they blew it badly. Very badly so this is what you get. 58-42. Bloody ridiculous.
ALP will lose Coorangimite, deakin, la trobe, chisolm, and bruce. Will be 50/50 in issacs but hold, will be 50/50 in ports but hold, and may lose menzies…that’s it for vic…oh and gain Melbourne
WeWantPaul @233
And you conveniently forgot to mention THIS
“Funded half by the Federal Government through the Australian Research Council, and half by Unions NSW, it asked 8343 people how they worked and how they felt about their work before WorkChoices was introduced and then again almost 18 months later.”
The federal government being the ALP in 2007….
So as I said, union propaganda…
Mexican but if they went back to just before work choices we would be in a better position.
centaur009
Did you mean McEwen
Menzies is held by the other Kevin
[The federal government being the ALP in 2007….]
I’d check that again…
Totally correct Thomas.
yes mcKewen…thanks beemer