Nielsen: 57-43 to Coalition

Nielsen offers more evidence that Labor’s already disastrous position has deteriorated still further.

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

3,558 comments on “Nielsen: 57-43 to Coalition”

Comments Page 72 of 72
1 71 72
  1. The Piping Shrike…for those who haven’t caught up with him as yet..

    [Let’s start at the basics. Behind the Gillard v Rudd contest is an institutional conflict between the traditional power bases of the party and those around Rudd. The source of that conflict is the declining social relevance of the union movement on which Labor had organised itself for the last century. While unions have been marginal now for over 20 years, Rudd was a catalyst for bringing it out through his ability to make an electoral case for dissociating from the traditional power bases of the ALP and all the ‘argy-bargy’ of the old two-party politics. Rudd’s dumping was an attempt by the power brokers to recover control of the party that they were in danger of losing.]

    Summarizing it clearly..

  2. Huge Brazilian Protest re World Cup and Olympics over-spending
    Seduced as always by BIGSPORT…(LIKE BIG Pharme).the Brazilian Govt of the Workers Party have overspent on next years world cup and the coming Olympics(like both Athens and Bombay)…there have been big cuts in transport budgets and other public services…and an outraged public have taken to the streets

  3. @Deb/3553:

    REF: Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue:

    “But the Supreme Court rejected this, concluding the soldiers were within the UK’s jurisdiction at the time of their deaths and so were subject to human rights legislation.”

    ^^ War is costly business.

    NHS ‘cover-up’ unacceptable, says health secretary:

    “The review has shown a senior manager may have ordered the deletion of a report critical of the CQC last year”

  4. Where Thos’ Paine and many, many others make the mistake in simplifying the process of leadership change, is in understimating the power of the person at the centre of that political move…: Julia Gillard!
    However or whatever way ANYONE wants to frame their perception of her time in office…one thing EVERYONE agrees upon is her strength of character and tenacity of pursuit of political agenda.
    When those so-called “faceless men” allowed Julia Gillard to take the PM.’s office, even THEY, I believe didn’t quite realise that they had facillitated that “moment in time” when the first female PM. would be the realisation of that “idea whose time had come” moment.
    That she is there, that she is going nowhere for the moment, that she has enormous approval and representation with the majority of women voters surely has do be delivering the most solid evidence that here is a leader that has to remain in office for at least another term to cement-in the recognition that at last and in the future the roughly 50% of the voting public CAN and WILL be fairly represented.
    Or could it be possible for that gender of the populace to raise the issue, as was done in a past time…: “No Taxation Without Representation!”

Comments Page 72 of 72
1 71 72

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *