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.
3,558 comments on “Nielsen: 57-43 to Coalition”
[ 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 … ]
Well, that would be where the “conscience vote” thingy comes in.
I honestly don’t see how you could misunderstand this, unless you are doing so deliberately and maliciously. If the party is going to insist that all members vote the same way, it is not a conscience vote.
Or do you use a different definition of what constitutes a conscience vote?
izatso…great to see you!
cheers one and all
soz, on the table in your grav.
[ 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. ]
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you trying to say that only religious people have a conscience?
Or that those with religion have no conscience?
Or … what, exactly? All you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, but I don’t quite get where the “conscience” and “religious” bits fit in.
Guardian pix of the Midwinter Ball.
PMJg is stunning. Julia and Tim are a dashing couple.
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 10:26 pm | PERMALINK
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.]
How many times do you SSM whingers have to be told that SSM as Labor Party policy decided at National Conference in November/December 2011 and will not come into binding effect until after the next election.
In the meantime it is subject to a conscience vote for Labor MPs.
[ In the meantime it is subject to a conscience vote for Labor MPs. ]
Don’t try and argue with them, Sarah – they just go all “religious” on you!
[ PMJg is stunning. Julia and Tim are a dashing couple. ]
Yes, I agree. Absolutely stunning. But next time, please warn me I’d have to wade through a dozen photos of far less attractive people to find them!
I wonder how much simple jelousy plays a part in some people’s antipathy towards them?
Peter Garrett looks ridiculous.
game almost over but watch out for the 9th batsman
[Puff, the Magic Dragon.
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 10:59 pm | PERMALINK
Guardian pix of the Midwinter Ball.
PMJg is stunning. Julia and Tim are a dashing couple.]
Yay, they look terrific.
Margie looks great too, but she better watch out for the cleavage police led by Sgt Grace Collier – far too muchon display there. Tsk tsk.
Why does Tony Abbott always look like he’s got a touch of conjunctivitis??
Joel Fitz looks like he started early for a good night of leaking. 😆
garrett always a little ridiculous … even worse in the band, but then passion was deep
Well maybe if Rudd trumps Gillard – you may not have to put up with the way he looks 😛
another day business as usual as it can be
beginning to think the ruddster has remaarkble intuition, self confidence and strategic skills (as well as speech making), and deserves to be PM
Aren’t I saying that opposing the removal of discrimination by simple legislative action is unconscionable? I think I am.
That isn’t consistent with any reporting of the issue that I have seen or can locate, and nor with the National Platform, which states, without any indication of expiry clause:
“Conference resolves that the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state
or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any
member of the Party.”
There is nothing to indicate it becomes binding at any future stage.
Advice noted. I think I took out my aggro with the snivelling Creeping Jesus disciple on the next person to come along.
So, don’t take it personally WWP. I’m all for SSM, but it doesn’t really occupy a lot of my thoughts. Sorry.
That’s how I’ve understood it since National Conference. I’m pretty sure zoomster has mentioned this on numerous occasions too.
I think she’s in a far better position to give much more accurate advice than me.
So, over to zoomster.
Alleged rapist Stephen Milne is the spitting image of the Greens leader!!!!…
I have no problem with a conscience vote being granted on same sex marriage. What I object to is the courtesy not being extended on other issues where there is conscientious dissent, such as asylum seeker laws.
If anything, most legislation should be decided by a “conscience vote”
What a cock-up! We’ll be seeing this on media watch next week.
I also am struggling to find anything to suggest Labor will have a binding vote for SSM after the election.
I’ll believe it when I see some evidence for it.
Exactly. These factional heavies who control their troops on everything else suddenly got all warm and fuzzy and concerned for individual consciences? Ha! That’ll be the day. A rare exception because the religious nutters running Gillard saw it as a way to defeat the tide of support for non-discrimination. Cheap and tawdry, and typical. If Abbott does allow a conscience vote, Farrell Conroy & Co will try to bind the vote against.
[ Aren’t I saying that opposing the removal of discrimination by simple legislative action is unconscionable? I think I am. ]
Only if you assume that all Australians believe in your cause. Sadly for you, many Australians simply do not agree with you that this constitutes any kind of discrimination at all.
But if you are convinced it does, by all means lobby the various parties that are standing in your way. But why is it we never hear you complaining about the LNP (who are currently implacably opposed to it). All you ever seem to do here is whine about Labor (who are not).
I think you are fighting the wrong people, my friend!
I always thought there was something odd about her!
Mike Bowers @mpbowers 5h
@stevegibbonsmp gives his valedictory speech in reps a short while ago #politicslive pic.twitter.com/LIOuHqOclc
Wasn’t he the one who deferred stuff from till after election?
[I’m a B.Sc, M.Sc & MBA. You don’t know me so please don’t throw me your ideologically driven clap trap.]
And more importantly you have the good taste to be named after possibly the greatest mathematician ever.
[Hannah Gadsby @Hannahgadsby 3h
look out! there’s a fucking boat behind you “@TonyAbbottMHR: About to head to press gallery #midwinterball. pic.twitter.com/ElaRrByngy”]
Fighting the wrong people? Labor is the govt. It could have been done by now in line with clear public support. All it needed was a simple bill to remove the six discriminatory words inserted in the Marriage Act by Howard. What is the argument against it?
It’s actually rather ironic that Farrell has so much ideological influence in Canberra, as his ideological influence in the state is starting to wane (the soft right are moving away from his hardline positions on social issues)
An “accident” in Rupert`s campaign against the Greens?
[After 8 long years Diogenes will be happy.]
I’m pleased Hillary will almost certainly run but I was well and truly an Obaman.
[ A rare exception because the religious nutters running Gillard saw it as a way to defeat the tide of support for non-discrimination. Cheap and tawdry, and typical. If Abbott does allow a conscience vote, Farrell Conroy & Co will try to bind the vote against. ]
You are a real caution, JV!
Gillard is “cheap and tawdry” and a tool of the religious loonies for supporting a conscience vote on an issue dear to your heart, but Abbott is above reproach even though you seem to be saying his position would be exactly the same, and for much the same reasons.
I think you are exhibiting desperation, double standards and even perhaps a little touch of sexism in your denigration of Gillard and you defense of Abbott for what seems to me to be essentially the same offense – even though on any fair assessment, it is actually Abbott who is the hypocrite here and Gillard who is accurately reflecting public opinion.
And it isn’t my ’cause’, as you assume for some reason. But I know many people whose cause it is, and there is no good reason as to why Labor should have squibbed it for them while it has the chance, which it won’t get for a long time now.
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at 11:25 pm | PERMALINK
I also am struggling to find anything to suggest Labor will have a binding vote for SSM after the election.
I’ll believe it when I see some evidence for it.]
zoomster has posted on many occasions wtte that although SSM was decided as ALP policy at National Conference, binding on all MPs as far as I understand, the reason it is a conscience vote in the 43rd parliament was so that the policy commitment on SSM made prior to the 2010 election was kept.
But, maybe you and Kevin Bonham are right, and it will always be a conscience vote thingy.
Will have to check with zoomster tomorrow if she’s not about now.
[I agree Diog and you know I’m not one to unnecessarily agree with your good self.]
I find myself often agreeing with you in the last year or so. I don’t know whether that’s because either of us has changed or if circumstances have changed.
I really can’t see Farrell, Ludwig etc being forced to vote for SSM.
MY EMAIL TO MALCOLM TURNBULL!
Dear Mr Turnbull,
Today I heard you say in parliament that a 25 Mbps internet connection will be adequate for homes because HD video can be efficiently sent down a 6 or even 4 Mbps connection. I have heard you use this example previously, but it is an extremely misleading and short sighted example to use.
For starters, video encoders are often configured to encode to an average bitrate, but they often have bitrate spikes for difficult to encode sequences, e.g. those that feature a lot of rapid movement or fast changes between light and dark. Thus a file with an average bitrate of 6 Mbps may occasionally have brief bitrate spikes close to double that average. If the connection speed can’t handle those spikes, i.e. the maximum bitrate, the content will pause and have to buffer.
Rather than considering the low bitrates that services like Netflix use in order to reduce their bandwidth costs, you should instead consider the Blu-ray format. Blu-rays nearly always feature 1080p HD content that is encoded with bitrates of around 25 Mbps (or even higher!) to ensure absolutely optimal image quality. Some people are unsatisfied by the low bitrate of internet streaming and downloads which is how content providers achieve such low bitrates, for example, consider this interesting article:
My point here is that as more people buy bigger and better quality displays content providers, like Netflix, will have to increase the average bitrates they use to ensure their content has acceptable quality. Of course they will always try to err on the side of using lower bitrates because this reduces their bandwidth costs which maximises their profits.
Furthermore, do you honestly think that HD video (by which you mean at best a resolution of 1920 x 1080) is the highest quality video format that we will use indefinitely? Sony is already selling “4K Ultra HD” TVs, including on the Australian market, that have about four times the resolution of Full HD 1080p, see here: http://www.sony.com.au/product/kd-84×9000
Of course these TVs costs a fortune now because they are at the bleeding edge of display technologies, but in a few years TVs that display 4K content will be what everyone buys, so services like Netflix will start selling content in 4K to appeal to people who want to see content in the same resolution the digital projectors at their local megaplex use.
The increase in resolution to 4K is like the change from Standard Definition to HD as it equates to a more than quadrupling of the number of pixels for each frame. Sure there will be improvements to compression software and hardware so the higher resolution can be encoded more efficiently, but the over all trend will mean a need for even higher bitrates as people expect higher image quality on their 4K displays. If most Blu-rays have bitrates around 25 Mbps to ensure optimal 1080p HD quality, what do you think 4K Ultra HD will require? Here’s a hint, it won’t be less!
Your argument that 25 Mbps is an adequate download speed based on the current use of HD video is extremely short sighted. It ignores the fact services like Netflix are using very low, and some would say inadequate, bitrates in order to reduce their bandwidth costs. It ignores the fact Blu-ray discs, which are encoded with optimal image quality in mind, feature much higher bitrates. And it ignores the fact the future of video isn’t HD at all, it is 4K which features a quadrupling of the number of pixels which will necessitate even higher bitrates (though perhaps not an increase of four times).
Your assertion that we should judge the adequacy of internet connections based on the type of video content people watch now is astonishingly short sighted. It makes no sense designing an internet network based simply on the sorts of video content (or any other application) commonly in use now when we know for certain that much higher resolution formats and other applications that will require higher bitrates will be widely used in the near future. I know this is true because the devices that will demand such higher bitrates are already on the Australian market, so not only are you ignoring what will happen in the future, you are ignoring what is happening right now.
[And it isn’t my ’cause’, as you assume for some reason. But I know many people whose cause it is, and there is no good reason as to why Labor should have squibbed it for them while it has the chance, which it won’t get for a long time now. ]
Well, good on you for fighting for a cause you apparently don’t even strongly believe in yourself. Neither does Gillard, I understand. So you may actually have something in common there.
But having said that, for some bizarre reason you continue to insist that she should vote against her conscience – and have her insist others do the same – just because you want her to. Democracy, much?
And I notice you still don’t have a bad word to say about Abbott on this whole issue. Why not?
I really can’t see Farrell, Ludwig etc being forced to vote for SSM.]
I suspect more Labor MPs would be included to support it if their leader, e.g. Rudd, supported it.
The 2011 ALP National Platform says
[Conference resolves that the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party.]
I can’t see where it becomes binding after the election.
[@JuliaGillard delivered a smashing hilarious off the cuff speech…Tony puts on his glasses to do a few thanks…. #Midwinterball— Clarabella Burley (@CBBurley) June 19, 2013]
Any news received about Gecko’s Mum?
Diogenes @ 3543 (and others)
I must have my “facts” wrong.
Let’s ask zoomster. She seems to know more of the internal goings on of the ALP.
[I can’t see where it becomes binding after the election.]
It would’ve been better if they said all current MPs could have a conscience vote, but all FUTURE Labor MPs would have to support it.
It would’ve been even better if they all had to support it, because discriminating against people isn’t really a matter of conscience.
Good letter, Showy. Here’s mine:
[ Dear Mr Turnbull,
You are a hypocritical turd, making money out of companies building the very same fibre-to-the-home infrastructure on foreign soil that you propose to deny to your fellow countrymen – and all for short-sighted political reasons.
I hope that one day you find yourself stranded in rural Australia requiring diagnosis by remote imaging and all you can find available is a crackly telephone line and a 56k dial-up modem.
Player One. ]
We’ll see which one gets a response!
The end Game in Afghanistan
As many of us have said…the end in Af’stan is now here and the opening of their Embassy in Goha/Qatar will pave the way to power as the US leaves in the neara furue
So that it then…al over Red Rover
Victory to the Talibam
The Canberra pollies may dance their night away in Canberra …but some 40 or more young Ossie men are dead and families are bereaved in a war that we should never has a part in…and now for what ??..and by the way how many young Afghan woman will we take as refugees who don’t want to live under the Taliban… How many…a 100.000 perhaps 300.000 ? any sugggestions form Gillard and Abbott??
The opening of the Taliban Embassy in Qatar