GhostWhoVotes tweets that the latest Nielsen poll, conducted for Fairfax from a sample of 1400, has the Coalition’s lead blowing out to 57-43 after a relatively mild 54-46 last month. The primary votes are 29% for Labor (down three) and 47% for the Coalition (up three). That becomes 50-50 under a Kevin Rudd leadership scenario, with primary votes of 40% for Labor and 42% for the Coalition. The poll also finds Julia Gillard crashing on preferred prime minister from 46-46 to 50-41 in Tony Abbott’s favour.
I don’t normally give too much coverage to the internals in these polls, but there is very interesting movement beyond the margin of error in the gender breakdowns. Whereas all voting intention figures and personal ratings are little changed on the last poll for women, Labor’s primary vote among men is down seven to 24%, with Gillard down eight on approval to 28% and up ten on disapproval to 69%, and Tony Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister widening from 48-42 to 56-35. The other noteworthy feature of the breakdowns is a big movement away from Labor among respondents under 40, but little change in the older cohorts.
We also had a Galaxy poll of 996 respondents published in the Sunday News Limited papers, which had the Coalition’s lead up from 54-46 to 55-45, from primary votes of 32% for Labor (down two), 47% for the Coalition (up one) and 11% for the Greens (up one). With Kevin Rudd as leader, the primary votes became 38% for Labor, 43% for the Coalition and 11% for the Greens, with two-party preferred at 50-50. Nonetheless, only 34% said Gillard should make way for Rudd with 52% opposed (32-60 among Labor and 33-51 among Coalition supporters).
UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research has Labor down a point on the primary vote to 35%, but is otherwise unchanged on last week with the Coalition on 47%, the Greens on 8% and two-party preferred at 54-46. Respondents were also asked who they voted for in 2010, an exercise which is generally recognised as being blighted by the tendency of some to mis-remember having voted for the winning party. Sure enough, once “didn’t vote” and “don’t know” are excluded, the results are 44% for Labor, 42% for the Coalition and 8% for the Greens, compared with election results of 38.0%, 43.6% and 11.8%. Respondents saying they had changed their vote were given a list of choices for why, but the samples here are very small and no clear pattern emerges from the results.
The poll also inquires about importance of election issues and the best party to handle them, which for some reason has “management of the economy” declining in importance since February (47% nominated it as one of their three most important issues, compared with 62% in February), with “political leadership” increasing (from 14% to 22%). Labor has gone substantially backwards as the best party for political leadership, along with environmental and population issues. Further questions on asylum seekers have 38% rating the Coalition as having the best policy against 13% for Labor and 7% for the Greens. A five-point scale of the issue’s importance has 37% rating it in the middle, 34% as important, and 24% as less important or not important.
UPDATE 2 (Morgan): The weekly Morgan multi-mode poll defies Nielsen in recording a shift to Labor on last week’s result, their primary vote up two to 33% with the Coalition down 1.5% to 44.5% and the Greens down 0.5% to 9%. The Coalition two-party lead narrows from 56-44 to 54.5-45.5 on previous election preferences, and from 56-44 to 53.5-46.5 on respondent allocated preferences.
My view is that the Liberals should get right into the hubris and enjoy it for all it is worth. From bitter experience we know it will not last.
WWP
Yes anything to excuse the white anting that makes getting a decent poll result impossible.
The fact is that white anting has cost Labor in the polling. Its why News Ltd encourages it so much.
Just Me
You would be thinking Mission Grass in particular, I suppose? Those christians.
Anyway, they are not white ants at all. They are termites.
zoidlord@3423
Gosh, thanks for posting this. I haven’t laughed so much since ST’s last post! I particularly liked this bit:
[ We should elect a prime minister who is a role model for fitness and community service. To date Abbott’s annual pollie pedal, which he co-founded in 1998, has raised $2.5 million for various charities, while simultaneously raising the profile of these charities and their causes. ]
So there you have it. We don’t need a PM who can discuss policy, negotiate agreements and deliver outcomes, we need PM that can pedal a bike while earning more in their own salary than they manage to raise money for charity.
On that basis, I’m going to vote for Lance Armstrong for PM!
[“@lesmurraySBS: And kudos must go to communications minister Steve Conroy for mandating that the World Cup qualifiers must be accessible on free TV.”]
Murdoch – “Abbott! Such events in future will be exclusive to Foxtel”
Abbott – “Yes sir! I’ll see to it right away.”
It’ seems to me that there are a great number of factors that affect climate and we don’t yet have the science to be sure that AGW is absolutely definitely happening or thta it is 100% natural variation. However the argument always seems to be a strident yes or no.
Well I think there is enough evidence to suggest that the probability that AGW is true is much greater than > 1%. I also think that the chance of my house burning down this year is less than 1%, yet I like most folk have fire insurance.
So why we wouldn’t follow a risk mitigation strategy is bizarre.
Just Me
[The choice is only getting more stark with the spread of various introduced weeds that are far more dangerous firewise.]
Yep. Especially Gamba grass.
WeWantPaul
[So Gillard has been fighting valiantly for SSM, oh wait no not really so much at all…
Labor leaders have always ignored policy when it suited them.]
Er, what?
Gillard made a personal commitment that she would not be voting for ssm because it was not Labor party policy at the time.
Party policy reflects this – it provides for a conscience vote on ssm for this term of Parliament, with ssm becoming binding on all MPs after that.
Gillard’s position is totally consistent with party policy.
Note, however, that the example you use simply proves what I’m saying – the party determined the policy. It considered the leader’s position in doing so, but it made the final decision.
No worries Carey Moore. Very decent of you to express regret. It was really no big deal. Far worse gets tossed around here of course.
Yes you’re quite right about the differences of the system over there in the US. Not a fair comparison really. I was strongly supporting Hilary Clinton in the primaries; felt Obama was all talk no substance, though he’s proved to be a far more impressive leader than I had expected (though with some very worrying tendencies such as the drone assassinations). I hope Clinton’s health holds up in order for her to run in 2016.
Time for sleepybys. Good night all.
[The fact is that white anting has cost Labor in the polling. Its why News Ltd encourages it so much.]
It is not a fact it is speculation and your opinion, speculation that in my opinion is entirely wrong. We will never know who is right so do me a favor and stop saying your speculation and opinion is fact, and I wont have to share my opinion that you are wrong. Ironically that your ‘fact’ isn’t fact at all is a fact …
[So an MRRT that doesn’t deliver is good?
Pokies reform that wasn’t delivered is good?
A fixed period leading to the floating carbon price to encourage the carbon tax lie dishonest morons still repeat is good?
Half of gonski is good?
A promised and not delivered surplus is good?]
Some of these weren’t, in fact, party policy.
And a policy being delivered and being ‘good’ are not necessarily the same thing.
[Note, however, that the example you use simply proves what I’m saying – the party determined the policy. It considered the leader’s position in doing so, but it made the final decision.
No it wasn’t what you were saying at all and I don’t disagree that the party determines policy, but the Government implements policy, and it isn’t always what the party has set. Leaders often bend / delay / go soft.
Tom H
You must be bonkers
Of course the coalition could self destruct like labor to give Labor a chance in 2016 but it is NOT the usual pattern.
It will be at least 6 years to recovery and probably 9 or 12.
I am not actually sure there will BE a labor party in 12 years.
WeWantPaul
We have facts. We know who benefits and who does not benefit. We know who has challenged and who has not challenged for leadership.
Facts. Not speculation.
We know media is speculating again due to people speaking to them. Same process. Its commonly known as white anting.
[So an MRRT that doesn’t deliver is good?
Pokies reform that wasn’t delivered is good?
A fixed period leading to the floating carbon price to encourage the carbon tax lie dishonest morons still repeat is good?
Half of gonski is good?
A promised and not delivered surplus is good?
Some of these weren’t, in fact, party policy.
And a policy being delivered and being ‘good’ are not necessarily the same thing.]
My point was and remains, and your ducking and diving suggests to me you know it as well that you can’t distinguish between Rudd and Gillard in relation to implementing policy.
WWP
[My point is that like Rudd and pretty much every leader before her she isn’t necessarily bound by party policy.]
Right. So you use an example where she is.
I get it.
zoomster
Your ‘explanation’ is opaque because you left out the key fact about the national conference:
The ‘conscience’ vote was the strategy won by the catholic elements in the leadership to ensure the defeat of any bill for removal of discrimination.
[We have facts. We know who benefits and who does not benefit. We know who has challenged and who has not challenged for leadership.
Facts. Not speculation.
We know media is speculating again due to people speaking to them. Same process. Its commonly known as white anting.]
Sorry but if I were you I’d go and feed and cuddle my facts because the one fact you asserted was not a fact at all, so i don’t know if you have facts or if they are imaginary friends, but based on what you have posted I’m prepared to take a leap of faith and guess …
[ Leaders often bend / delay / go soft. ]
Well, at least Abbott has some qualifications for the job.
3453
Boerwar
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 10:12 pm | PERMALINK
Just Me
You would be thinking Mission Grass in particular, I suppose? Those christians.]
The two Mission grasses, plus Gamba grass. All now widely distributed.
Was getting some stuff identified a year or three back at the herbarium, and asked one of the senior botanists if we had lost the war on these weeds (and a handful of others, ie Calopo, Humidicola, etc).
“Yes. The ecology of north Australia is going to look very different in 50 years.”
Sorry Boerwar – you’ll have to give me a better clue
WeWantPaul
Yes Rudd resigning and returning to Canberra to Challenge is not a fact. etc etc.
poroti
Yes, Gamba. Incredibly destructive fires.
[ The ‘conscience’ vote was the strategy won by the catholic elements in the leadership to ensure the defeat of any bill for removal of discrimination. ]
And the fact that we would have SSM now if Abbott had done the same is completely irrelevant, right?
Byron @3457. How on earth did you get your 1% figure?
[Right. So you use an example where she is.
I get it.]
I understand the point you are making and I would almost concede, but um sorry the Labor party policy is to support SSM and the ‘procedure’ is to have a conscience vote. Gillard supports the ‘procedure’ but fails to support the policy.
It is perhaps one of the worst examples of her cowardice … but yes I concede that technically the party gave her (and other members of parliament) permission to ignore the policy on grounds of (lack of) conscience.
[WeWantPaul
Yes Rudd resigning and returning to Canberra to Challenge is not a fact. etc etc.]
I don’t know what the hell you are talking about so I’ll have a glass of wine and we’ll both be talking absolute incomprehensible rubbish. 🙂
[ Byron @3457. How on earth did you get your 1% figure? ]
Good point. With poroti, rummel and Boerwar around, I’d say the chance of your house burning down would be pretty close to 100%!
[ I understand the point you are making and I would almost concede, but um sorry the Labor party policy is to support SSM and the ‘procedure’ is to have a conscience vote. Gillard supports the ‘procedure’ but fails to support the policy. ]
Ummm. What part of “conscience vote” eludes you?
briefly @ 3420
And what paradigm is that? I would have thought I had made it clear by my comments over a period on this blog that : –
1. The increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is because of human burning of fossil fuels (despite some evidence by for example Prof. Salby at Macquarie Uni. & others that other causes may exist)
2. The increase in Green House Gases in the atmosphere effectively means the presence of a forcing (W/ Sq M) so that atmospheric temperatures must increase to bring the system back to balance.
3. Feedbacks, both negative & positive, come into play which increase or decrease the purely radiative effects of GHG’s. Anyone who has followed this must now realise that this whole issue of feedbacks is in a state of flux wrt knowledge (climate sensitivity etc).
4. It is becoming clearer that the climate models as exist today are very poor in prediction not only at the regional levels in virtually all variables but also at the global level.
I am interested in this statement of yours: –
While we know climate changes over centuries and also mult-decadal level (e.g. ocean cycles) this in itself says nothing about what the cause is; what component is natural and what is because of GHG’s. Wouldn’t you think enquiring minds would want to know? BTW I’m a Sydneyite.
[Ummm. What part of “conscience vote” eludes you?]
No part of conscience vote eludes me at all, what part of ‘support’ SSM marriage eludes you such that ‘not support’ becomes the same as support … it is confusing Hockey makes more sense than that …
Player One
It certainly is. Faced with blatant discrimination, government should legislate to remove it.
But a simple government bill to remove the discrimination (which is what has happened with every anti-discrimination measure before), would probably pass both houses so they scuttled that prospect with a bit of smoke and mirrors.
I also put this to you – Why allow people to discriminate on the basis of their alleged ‘conscience’? Is that really a “conscience” at all? No, it’s just a religious ploy.
Anyone know what Boerwar was alluding too?
Night
Nite. Tomorrow on day less till 14 Sep.
When it’s Hot… it’s Global Warming.
When it’s Cold… it’s just the weather, shut up!
Love the Warmists hypocrisy.
[While we know climate changes over centuries and also mult-decadal level (e.g. ocean cycles) this in itself says nothing about what the cause is; what component is natural and what is because of GHG’s. Wouldn’t you think enquiring minds would want to know? BTW I’m a Sydneyite.]
And…..
[When it’s Hot… it’s Global Warming.
When it’s Cold… it’s just the weather, shut up!
Love the Warmists hypocrisy.]
Do you just make this up or do they have rats that do it for you?
Tragically for me, all that has kept me going is the idea that daretotread loved me.
“I’m a B.Sc, M.Sc & MBA.” Someone with more degrees than sense.
‘And Clive Palmer’s a Professor. Big deal’ Mr B Bill.
No. Palmer’s an honorary ‘adjunct professor’ in the ‘Mirvac School of Sustainable Development’ at Bond University. With no right to put that title on non-uni documents or websites. Because it’s no more earned than Barry Humphries’ honorary degrees.
But to read comrades here comparing BAs to toilet paper makes me wonder why Whitlam bothered.
[Leaders often bend / delay / go soft.]
Er, yes. Which is why I said that leaders are judged on their ability to deliver.
Please stop proving my points for me.
Sean Tisme
It’s not about weather, it’s about relatively rapid climate change, making some areas of land warmer and others colder, but the ocean generally warmer. That is changing the weather, on average. Have a look at this:
Wen the World Bank is saying it, as are insurers, apart from the world’s climate scientists, it might be time to take a real look, eh?
aaah, zoom. g’night you.
[ Wouldn’t you think enquiring minds would want to know? ]
Of course they do. And 97% of those with sufficient scientific background to publish peer-reviewed papers on the matter agree that global warming is both real and primarily man-made.
What’s your point?
[When it’s Hot… it’s Global Warming.
When it’s Cold… it’s just the weather, shut up!
Love the Warmists hypocrisy.]
Actually, the only people I see using the temperature outside (unless it’s grossly unseasonal) as an argument in the climate change “debate” are right wing hacks who parrot that unoriginal, non-clever and completely false “It’s cold outside! So much for global warming! Hur hur!” BS.
[Gauss….I am interested in this statement of yours: –
Were you genuinely interested to inform yourself about the reality of climate change, you would take advantage of the opportunities to investigate the real, contemporary, 3-dimensioned, palpable, visible, recurring and irrevocable changes in the local environment in WA, where you say you live.]
Are really interested? I doubt it.
[3488
Sean Tisme
When it’s Hot… it’s Global Warming.
When it’s Cold… it’s just the weather, shut up!
Love the Warmists hypocrisy.]
You are a bogus twit.
briefly.
is that green stuff ?