Nielsen: 56-44 to Labor; Newspoll: 55-45

The hostile reaction to the government’s first budget comes into sharper focus with two bruising new opinion poll results, both of which show Bill Shorten opening up a big lead as preferred prime minister.

UPDATE (Morgan): The fortnightly Morgan face-to-face plus SMS result sings from the same song sheet, with Labor up 1.5% to 38.5%, the Coalition down 2.5% to 35%, the Greens steady on 12%, and Palmer up a point to 6.5%. Whereas Morgan polls usually combine two weekends of polling, this one is entirely from Saturday and Saturday, so all the responses are post-budget and the sample is somewhat smaller than usual. On two-party preferred, Labor’s lead is up from 53.5-46.5 to 56.5-43.5 on 2013 election preferences, and 55-45 to 57.5-42.5 on respondent-allocated preferences.

After a relatively mild result from yesterday’s Galaxy poll, in which the government may have benefited slightly from an earlier polling period (Wednesday to Friday, the budget having been brought down on Tuesday night), two big name pollsters deliver horror results for the Coalition:

• Newspoll, conducted from Friday to Sunday, has Labor’s two-party lead out from 53-47 to 55-45, from primary votes of 38% for Labor (up four), 36% for the Coalition (down two), 11% for the Greens (down three) and 15% for others (up one). Worse still for the Coalition are the leadership ratings, which have Tony Abbott down five on approval to 30% and up four on disapproval to 60%, while Bill Shorten leaps seven points on approval to 42% and drops two on disapproval to 39%. Shorten has opened up a big lead of 44-34 as preferred prime minister, after Abbott led 40-38 a fortnight ago. The Australian’s report here.

• Even worse for the Coalition is the monthly Nielsen result in the Fairfax papers. Conducted from Thursday to Saturday, it shows Labor’s lead out to 56-44 from 52-48 a month ago. The primary votes are 40% for Labor (up six), 35% for the Coalition (down five), 14% for the Greens (down three from am implausible result last time, but still very strong) and 6% for Palmer United (up two). Tony Abbott sinks nine points on approval to 34% and adds twelve on disapproval to 62%, whereas Bill Shorten is up four to 47% and down two to 39%, and shoots to a 51-40 lead as preferred prime minister after trailing 45-44 last time.

The leadership ratings in particular invite comparison with Julia Gillard’s low points. While Abbott still has a way to go before matching the worst of Gillard’s ratings in Newspoll, his present net approval rating of 28% in Nielsen was exceeded by Gillard on only two occasions, in September and October of 2011, and equalled in July 2011. Gillard’s final result before she lost the leadership in June 2013 was 36% approval and 61% disapproval. Abbott himself scored fractionally worse figures as Opposition Leader in December 2012, of 34% approval and 63% disapproval.

Both pollsters also have results gauging reaction to the budget, with Nielsen finding 63% considering it unfair against 33% for fair. The deficit levy finds support, with 50% in favour and 37% against, but there’s a surprisingly narrow majority of 49% to 46% in favour of abolishing the carbon tax. The poll finds predictably strong opposition to the notion of increasing the GST, with 30% for and 66% against.

Newspoll’s results on budget reaction are particularly illuminating, as it has been asking the same three questions after every budget since 1988. Forty-eight per cent rate this budget as bad for the economy versus 39% for good, with 4% opting for neither; 69% say it will leave them worse off, compared with just 5% for better off and 20% for neither; and 39% believed that Labor would have done a better job, with 46% saying they wouldn’t have.

The latter result can be put into context with the following chart, showing the positive result minus the negative result for the equivalent question going back to 1988, with Labor budgets in red and Coalition budgets in blue. This shows that the only budget to record a net result in favour of yes was in 1993, when the Keating government followed its surprise election win by breaking its L-A-W tax cuts promise. As such, the slight net negative result for this budget is an historically weak one for the government – particularly when taking into account an apparent tendency for governments to perform strongly on this measure when newly elected, and decline thereafter. This takes a good deal of gloss off the consolation the Coalition might have taken in the result being better than the last three for the previous government.

The next chart plots the result for each budget on “impact on own financial position” along the x-axis and impact on the economy along the y, with the current result indicated in red. This shows a clear association between the two results, demonstrating that people generally decide whether a budget is good or bad, and deem it equally so for both themselves and the economy. To the limited extent that variability exists, there does appear to be at least some constituency for the view that the pain inflicted in the current budget will be good for the economy – whereas the trendline indicates that the minus 64% rating on own financial position could be expected to associate with 24.5% on the economy, the latter figure in fact comes in at a relatively presentable minus 9%. Nonetheless, the outstanding fact to emerge from the chart is that the budget inhabits a zone of extreme unpopularity with only 1993 to keep it company. The budget the government might have been hoping to emulate, Peter Costello’s cost-cutting debut of 1996, had a plus 37% rating on the economy despite a minus 21% rating on personal financial situation.

Finally, a table showing the net result for all three measures at each budget, with averages by party at the bottom. This shows that despite the current results, Coalition budgets tend to be better received than Labor ones, with the gap being wider on impact on the economy. Partly this is down to historical circumstance – Labor was marked down for the recession-era budgets of the early 1990s, while the Howard government made political hay out of the revenue boom in its later years in office (though obviously not to the extent of saving them from the electoral cycle in 2007). However, it also reflects the tendency for the Coalition to outperform Labor in “best party to manage the economy” polling, a point illustrated by the averages for “would the opposition have delivered a better budget”. For more context on the individual budgets, here’s a very helpful resource from the Sydney Morning Herald.

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.

1,941 comments on “Nielsen: 56-44 to Labor; Newspoll: 55-45”

Comments Page 37 of 39
1 36 37 38 39
  1. [Another illustration of the “income problem”…]

    And CPI doesn’t include shelter either. Since this has grown much faster than CPI, disposable income has fallen by even further than those charts illustrate.

  2. I saw speculation this morning that if the Government’s budget measures are blocked it might put our AAA credit rating at risk. It occurred to me that going back to AA might not be a bad thing as we might well see a drop in the Aussie dollar. The high AUD has been one thing that’s been killing our manufacturers.

  3. [The arguments not to tax wealth are even weaker than the arguments not to tax income.]

    Are there any good arguments against taxing wealth?

  4. I’ve never understood why Australia has a credit rating in the first place, it’s not as if our financial position in any way impacts our ability to secure funding.

  5. BC, some economist from S&Ps said if Australia doesn’t reduce spending AAA might be at risk.

    A bit like saying if Inglis doesn’t play the Maroons will lose the State of Origin series.

    Pure speculation.

  6. 1798

    You are mistaken in how profitability thresholds in company tax work.

    They do not work based on the size of the profit, like how personal income tax works, but the percentage profit. There is no little to tax free threshold either.

  7. [From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.]

    And every rainbow ends in a pot of gold… there’s a small problem in that tale, to do with how you get the information on means and needs.

  8. @Lynchpin/1809

    The economist in question obviously doesn’t care where to cut spending, just as long as it happens.

    Abbott never put the tax cuts on the table to be killed off.

  9. Watched Q&A in the hope I’d see Hockey squirm like the grub he is only to have ended up pissing away an hour+ on banal deflections which weren’t really answered for thanks to Tony Jones pissweak inability to moderate a fart, let alone a panel. A shame this waste of space won’t be culled due to the ABC & SBS cuts. :/

  10. I think a progressive company tax rate would have exactly the opposite effect that many here have suggested. Companies would merge.

    Specifically, progressive company tax would give profitable companies an incentive to acquire unprofitable ones, as the rate of tax applied to the larger (in terms of capital) but less profitable company would be less. This would be constrained by the fiduciary duty of the companies managers to maximise returns to shareholders, so that the tax benefit from such mergers would only be pursued up to the point that they stop increasing returns…

    In short, it sounds like a way to induce a whole lot of perverse incentives to managers decision-making and obscure the drivers and operation of capital markets.

    It’s much better to stick to a flat company tax.

  11. [1802….Libertarian Unionist]

    Correct, LU. We need to fix housing as well as per capita disposable incomes and structural inequality. Not impossible.

  12. So it’s ‘Labors $660bn debt” we’re continually being told by the commentators.

    Why aren’t interviewers picking them up on this lie.

  13. [Are there any good arguments against taxing wealth?
    ]

    ‘We quite like our wealth don’t tax us’

    Seems to be all they have other than calling people loons.

  14. To be honest, I don’t think the rate of company tax makes that much difference to small companies anyway. Most of their profits are paid to the owners as either wages (and thus subject to income tax rather than company tax) or dividends (and with dividend imputation are effectively taxed at income tax rates).

    Thus only any retained earnings are subject to company tax.

  15. no indirect or double taxation – one income/business tax system – stop school fees medical insurance gst – stop tax avoidance in this country –

  16. [Lawyers and accountants have made things very difficult.]

    It has nothing to do with lawyers or accountants, and everything to do with self-interest. If you are interested, look up the socialist calculation debate, but, at risk of alienating a bunch of PBers, here’s a quote from Hayek’s The Use of Knowledge in Society:
    [The economic problem of society is not merely a problem of how to allocate ‘given’ resources… It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. …it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge not given to anyone in its totality. This character of the fundamental problem has, I am afraid, been rather obscured than illuminated by many of the recent refinements of economic theory, particularly by many of the uses made of mathematics.” ]

    If you are really interested in this stuff and have a mathematical mind, look at the works of the 2007 Nobel memorial prize winners, Leonid Hurwicz, Eric Maskin, and Roger Myerson.

  17. We Want Paul

    You really are clueless clown.

    Being hit with income tax in addition to the GST is not being taxed twice.

    Clown, nothing more to be said!

  18. BC @ 1824
    I always assumed the same, however a company tax does stop profits from going to overseas investors with very little to no taxation.

    I’m yet to see a good argument against wealth tax – but if I was wealthy then maybe I’d have a different view.

  19. Centre, stop being a wanker and engage i nth earguement, if you want to, or piss off back to the TAB.

  20. [LU, probably. Lawyers and accountants have made things very difficult.
    ]

    I’m pretty sure we lawyers make it all work. We are good – just ask us.

  21. Tom

    [They do not work based on the size of the profit, like how personal income tax works, but the percentage profit. There is no little to tax free threshold either.]

    That wouldn’t work either as a highly profitable company could just buy a large break-even company and greatly reduce its tax bill.

  22. psyclaw

    Thanks I didn’t realise it was only a temporary measure as it was very effective.

    Psyclaw/CW/Sammut Fulvio

    To clarify I am fully aware of the need for Hockey and every other MP to declare family assets as they should for numerous reasons including potential conflict of Interest.

    My issue is more to do with superficial things.

    Regarding the budget it is pretty clear for all to see that Jow has shielded his constituents from the budget axe.

  23. tielec

    [Centre can you explain how paying Goods and Services Tax and Income Tax is not being taxed twice?]

    It’s all to do with the way Centre rounds his numbers. In this case he rounds twice down to once. 😀

  24. My point is that for small companies a cut in company tax doesn’t make much difference. It does provide an incentive to retain earnings. Whether that’s a good thing or not is another debate.

  25. @MB/1839

    And that’s why we need to continue to the call of an early election. Blocking specific items in the budget just gives Abbott & Hockey breathing room.

  26. Diog

    Ah I see, it must have been these prodigious rounding skills that saw him predict a sub 9% vote for the Greens in the recent WA senate election.

    In all seriousness though – is there a valid argument for the position?

  27. As already said, the AFR (House Organ of Crony Capitalism) has launched Operation Bullshit to defend the libs.
    The source must be screaming at the reporter, and the reporter knows Stutchbury dropped him in a big one.

  28. Seriously, the only thing dumber than a Torygraph Reader is an AFR reader. Who would spend $3 on a far-right rag that is basically just a bulletin-board for the IPA.

  29. LU

    Your post re mechanism design theory led me looking back on an interest I had in Elinor Ostroms work. I have been so out of the loop since then I wasnt aware she passed away in 2012.

    RIP Elinor. 🙁

  30. Hey Lib Uni @ 1834

    ooohh touchy today lol.

    You are obviously incapable of following a debate.

    Unlike you, I did not resort to abuse first.

    Somebody says my comment is absurd without putting forward a valid point of view so I called him a clown.

    You see if you weren’t the wanker yourself, you’d well know that I am engaging in the debate by responding, albeit to some stupidity.

    Say something intelligent and you’ll get a response, otherwise you nick off to whatever you nick off to!

  31. Using “double” taxation as a point of argument, for any purpose, is as arbitrary as a making an argument by referring to the difference between a torte and a gateaux.

Comments Page 37 of 39
1 36 37 38 39

Leave a Reply

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