GhostWhoVotes relates that what I believe will be Fairfax’s second final monthly Nielsen poll has Labor leading 53-47 on two-party preferred, from primary votes of 39% for the Coalition, 37% for Labor and 13% for the Greens. While being well on trend, this marks a big improvement for the Coalition on last month, which was their worst poll result of the post-budget blowout: 56-44 on two-party preferred, from primary votes of 40% for Labor, 35% for the Coalition and 14% for the Greens. Leadership ratings to follow shortly.
UPDATE: The Nielsen poll has Tony Abbott up a point on approval to 35% and down two on disapproval to 60%; Bill Shorten down five to 42% and up two to 41%; and Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister down from 51-40 to 47-40. Questions on preferred party leaders found Malcolm Turnbull favoured to lead the Liberal Party by 40% compared with 21% for Abbott and 11% for both Joe Hockey and Julie Bishop, while Bill Shorten led the Labor pack with 25% to 19% for Anthony Albanese, 17% for Tanya Plibersek and 7% each for Tony Burke and Chris Bowen. A question from the previous poll concerning whether the budget was fair was revisited, again finding 33% agreeing that it was, with disagreement down two points to 61%. On the question of sending Australian soldiers to Iraq, 31% said they would be in favour with 66% opposed.
Other recent polling snippets:
• The Sunday News Limited papers report that a Galaxy Research poll of 1010 women aged between 18 and 44 found 60% thought the government’s proposed paid parental leave scheme was fair, with 29% thinking it not fair and 6% believing it was not enough.
• The Conversation reports a JWS Research poll conducted for the Climate Institute finds a 10% increase in belief in (presumably anthropogenic) climate change since 2012 to 70%, together with a range of negative results for the government: a net rating of minus 18% for the present government’s performance on climate change compared with minus 1% for the previous government in the earlier poll, and a slight majority of 34% to 30% in favour of the carbon pricing laws, a dramatic reversal from the 28% and 52% recorded in 2012.
• Roy Morgan has a phone poll of 638 respondents on the biggest problems facing Australia, which has “politics and leadership” up seven points since February to 18%, the economy up three points to 42% and “religion/immigration/human rights” down seven to 9%.
UPDATE (Essential Research): The weekly result from Essential Research records a move back to the Coalition, who are up one on the primary vote to 40% with Labor down three to 38%, while the Greens and Palmer United are steady on 9% and 5%. Labor’s two-party preferred lead has narrowed from 54-46 to 52-48. Further questions relate to Iraq, with 25% thinking the 2003 invasion the right decision versus 50% for the wrong decision, 53% nominating “to support the USA” as the Howard government’s main reason for getting involved, 39% saying they would approve of US action to support the Iraq government in its current crisis with military action with 31% opposed, and 54% saying they would disapprove of Australia sending troops with 30% approving.
The poll also finds 28% felt the Greens holding the Senate balance of power was good for Australia versus 37% for bad, with 26% and 39% responses for the looming circumstance of Palmer United and micro-parties holding the balance of power. We also get the regular arsenal of “leaders attributes” questions applied to Clive Palmer and Christine Milne, with the former turning up rather poorly, with high rating for arrogant, aggressive and erratic. Christine Milne breaks 50% on “out of touch with ordinary people”, but otherwise seems to have made less of an impression. Both rate quite highly on intelligent and hard-working, but successful politicians nearly always do.
Finally, the poll finds only 19% agreeing with Tony Abbott that no election promises were broken in the budget, with 72% disagreeing.
Stephen Koukoulas @TheKouk 3m
They will be digging deep in the Clive Palmer dirt file at The Australian tonight
Hey Jackol. Relax! Get with the main game.
roger b @ 1939
I agree.
The world’s major polluters should act in unison to adequately address CC.
Australia should make it’s fair share of contribution and would obviously participate in such action.
Of course, the best measures to tackle CC are through a global ETS.
What about the Greens with their unilateral action and non negotiable targets?
Now they get nothing instead of something which their supporters are quite happy with apparently (E cup sized L-OO-NS).
You would have to think Palmer is keeping his options open about what would happen if his ETS proposal doesn’t get support. We will no doubt have inquiries and committees to take a look at things first provided Labor and Greens can agree with PUP to investigate options, get Al Gore to help etc. Could drag on for some time
BB, not sure about your last post. What I am saying is, I think Clive’s intervention today is fantastic.
By the way, I am drinking Steamrail Pilsner.
zoid,
Palmer does not give a flying fig about what News do. If they piss him off enough he’ll buy the Oz.
That would put the fear of God into a few of the athiests on that payroll.
Center a big part of an ETS is the target.
Centre
“What about the Greens with their unilateral action and non negotiable targets?”
Well seeing as what we have now is the result of negotiation, you yet again prove you have no objective ability when it comes to the Greens.
[Clive Palmer has thrown the government’s carbon tax repeal plans into disarray by teaming up with former US vice-president Al Gore to demand Australia be part of a global emissions trading scheme which doesn’t exist.
In an announcement in Canberra on Wednesday night, which the government said it was prepared to consider, Mr Palmer said he would repeal the carbon tax as he promised, but he will also insist the government keep associated climate programs, scrap its “direct action” policy and adopt an emissions trading scheme.]
http://www.afr.com/p/national/palmer_backs_emissions_trading_S0iNXSfPmk92Vo3X3hDrdJ
Astro
Of course I was referring to the Greens’ opposition to the Rudd/Turnbull agreed CPRS.
Loooks like NBN Announcement coming….
Kenneth Tsang @jxeeno 1m
#NBN Co launches new website: http://nbnco.com.au
People didn’t need the benefit of hindsight to criticise the Greens for not passing the CPRS – they were making those criticisms at the time, on the basis that it was better to get something in place than have nothing.
I often challenged Greens at the time to explain the ‘step backwards’ claim — including one of their advisers at the time – but found that their explanations rarely went beyond slogans such as ‘locking in failure’ – and when they did, they were totally incomprehensible.
Underestimate Al Gore at your peril. Planned and executed succinctly.
Michael pascoe’s piece which is stamped 5.16 pm
[There’s something Al Gore should understand before sharing a stage with Clive Palmer. First and foremost, Palmer is a Liberal spurned. Anything else – boredom, mischief, self-interest, public interest, narcissism, whatever – is a purely secondary consideration.
That puts Tony Abbott in a particularly difficult position. When a key player in the Senate balance of power is primarily interested in embarrassing the government and making life as unpleasant as possible for the Prime Minister, “policy” counts for nought.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/what-al-gore-needs-to-know-about-clive-palmer-20140625-3asku.html#ixzz35eHO4Wvd
For me the main game is carbon pricing.
PUP are voting to repeal the carbon price. The stated plan for a new Palmer-ETS is meaningless (implemented as amendments on the CCA repeal bill? Wtf does that even mean?), and I’m sure Palmer knows this.
I am glad that Palmer says they will vote to keep the RET and CEFC, so good on him for that, and yes having him running interference against Abbott and co is perfectly fine by me.
But for anyone interested in having a carbon price in place, Palmer offered us nothing today.
zoidlord
I got:
Thank you for
checking your address
The NBN rollout has not started in your area.
hahaha
Zoomster
“and when they did, they were totally incomprehensible.”
Oh wow… Maybe you just were too stupid to understand.
Seriously, do we have to go over this ALL OVER AGAIN?
If the ALP wanted to negotiate with the Greens in 2009, then they should have. They chose not too. That’s not the Greens fault.
If the ALP thought that package was superior, then why didn’t they stick with it and go to a DD.
All this revisionism is stupid. The Greens weren’t consulted on the 2009 version, they said they wouldn’t pass it because there were too many free permits, and the Govt just trundled along. And now you act all surprised the Greens said “no”.
And apparently when this has been explained to you 70 times, you still decline to understand. This is called “Denialism”
@swamprat/1966
Indeed, I get the same too.
So much for Faster, Cheaper, Quicker, they haven’t even bothered to try, I guess, that’s why they say they will build it cheaper too 🙂
Centre
Good grief
“Of course I was referring to the Greens’ opposition to the Rudd/Turnbull agreed CPRS”
Rudd never negotiated with the Greens on that.
Hmmm maybe Al Gore knows something!
Maybe China, Japan and California may be planning to join Europe in an ETS?
Al Gore is happy to back Palmer, more effective than teaming with Labor who are already onside and smart enough to keep away from the Mooners 😎
Astrobleme,
The only revisionism is coming from the Greens. Zoomster was there in 2009 saying exactly what she said earlier in the thread.
Centre
you do realise that if everyone goes along with the ETS as you indicate in 1970, then that is actually just going along with the ALP-Greens version.
[They will be digging deep in the Clive Palmer dirt file at The Australian tonight]
Failing that, Fox Film Studios in Hollywood will be burning brain cells around the clock to script egregious Palmer fictions for Murdoch’s tabloids, all topped off with some good old fashioned Swift-boating to slime Veep Gore with.
Growler
” Zoomster was there in 2009 saying exactly what she said earlier in the thread.”
I was here too. I was arguing against it too. Apparently what I say in incomprehensible.
Ok, I am away. This discussion was reasonable before, but now is idiotic point-scoring and revisionism.
Not wasting my time anymore tonight.
Night all.
Centre,
Fancy the Greens being done over by mainstream populist Clive on their flagship policy.
Absolutely delicious.
What a pathetic exit.
Maybe Al Gore does know something?
[
Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, a hedge-fund billionaire and major Democratic donor, are linking arms Tuesday to release a report, Risky Business, that argues U.S. companies should treat climate change as any other business threat.
The report, which says climate change could cost the country billions of dollars over the next two decades, is the product of a bipartisan group of former cabinet officers, lawmakers, corporate leaders and scientists.]
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-change-could-cost-us-35-billion-in-15-years-2014-06-24
Astrobleme,
You’ve lost the argument, lost your policy and about to lose your relevance to mainstream politics.
You reverting to form and abusing people who see it how it is, was and will be is the cherry on top.
If anyone thinks Al joined Clive today without doing ‘due diligence’ on the man, then I think they are wrong. The US embassy in Canberra would have fully briefed Al.
Al is not going to be associated with a fly-by-night politician who lacks substance (being an ex pollie himself he would be a good judge).
Having stood next to Al, Clive would face considerable criticism, if not outright condemnation around the world, should he backtrack on his undertakings today.
Astrobleme
if the explanation is crappy, it doesn’t matter how many times it’s repeated.
But my point was more the one GG repeats – it’s not revisionism to repeat criticisms made at the time.
GG
[Absolutely delicious.]
Astro, yes in a way, but Gore is now backing Palmer free from any Greens proposal.
hehe Planet Janet has gone ballistic on Sky News.
Centre,
It gets better and better!
From Possum on twitter
@GMegalogenis The timing is almost chewable. The Paulson/Bloomberg stuff today is arguably the key to when the Oz ETS will happen
A New US report on the effects of great summer heat on the US power system,and the likelyhood of”great heat than ever experienced in the history of the USA:
Perhaps Al Gore can comment on this new report
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-24/what-to-expect-when-your-planet-is-expecting-risky-busines
GG
Al Gore side by side with Palmer and not the Greens – that must be devastating for the Greens.
[Apparently what I say in incomprehensible.]
Case in point.
So. It seems RAbbott has well and truly been Pwned
[Neil Chenoweth Some irony? Abbott sidesteps Obama on G20 climate change by Canada side trip. Now Gore destabilises Abbott’s central policy #auspol]
[Mike Carlton Cute of Palmer to front with Al Gore, though. It will drive the climate change deniers at News Corpse to an apoplectic frenzy. Just watch.]
1980
The Greens were aiming for a better deal after the election, which could have been a DD sooner and thus quicker implementation, but they (like the ALP did when they made him leader) miscalculated Rudd`s political skills. If the Greens had passed the CPRS, as agreed to by the Liberals, in 2009 then the ALP would have been unlikely to come back to negotiate as stronger a deal as would have happened after an election with an ALP HoR majority and a Greens sole balance of power in the Senate had no deal been in place.
[People didn’t need the benefit of hindsight to criticise the Greens for not passing the CPRS – they were making those criticisms at the time, on the basis that it was better to get something in place than have nothing.]
Except that at the time people argued in terms of delay. Nobody thought that ‘nothing’ was going to be achieved post-2010; people said that it was better to get something sooner.
[I often challenged Greens at the time to explain the ‘step backwards’ claim — including one of their advisers at the time – but found that their explanations rarely went beyond slogans such as ‘locking in failure’ – and when they did, they were totally incomprehensible.]
With respect, you couldn’t have been listening very hard. The major criticisms of the CPRS were that it was too hard to lift targets in the future; that it was overly-generous to major emitters to the point of creating perverse incentives to emit; and that it was overly dependent on international abatement with insufficient quality control on such permits. Note that all of these were addressed in the post-2010 bill negotiated with the Greens and Indies (who were as responsible as any for what happened post-2010 but of course are much less fun to blame).
Not that it should matter, but for the record Al Gore isn’t a billionaire, his net worth is around $300m.
[But my point was more the one GG repeats – it’s not revisionism to repeat criticisms made at the time.]
It is when they change.
If you can point to a criticism made in 2009 that the failure to pass the CPRS would mean the downfall of the ALP government and the post-2013 repeal of ETS legislation then I will apologise and withdraw.
Because that is what is now being claimed about the Greens actions.
Frednk
[To get to your destination you have to take the first step, wishing you were there doesn’t work.]
Yes, but the first step has to be forward rather than backward otherwise wishing remains the less damaging strategy. On your argument, voting for “direct action” right now is “better than nothing”.
LAURA TINGLE …..
“Clive Palmer’s stunning wedging of not just Tony Abbott but Labor and the Greens means climate change remains on the table as an issue for the next election. But not in the way the Prime Minister envisaged.”
http://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/tony_abbott_outplayed_by_populist_AHEFiwYllHEcfAvpKf6zlI
Re Gore and Palmer
_____________
With Palmer in the aura of a very persuasive politician like Gore the PUP may well become more”green” than one could ever have been expected ….
I saw Gore at a public meeting some years ago in Chicago ,having already seen him in Melb…and he is very persuasive and in that US tradition of great preachers…derived from US protestant christian tradition….think Martin Luther King and others
I have no doubt of his influencing many in Oz
I guess the media will give him a great run in the days ahead..and Gore is superb in that way
Abbott and Co…must be gobsmacked
How long is he here for ?
Centre@1837
A true legend in your own mind.
In fact, the only person on PM I can think of who is more delusional is Mad Lib.
Libertarian Unionist:
[If every nation, or the five others that Clive listed, agree to the same terms, then cooperation will ensue, and indeed, this us the best thing that each of them can do. I see Palmer’s suggestion as a very clever move.]
Sadly there is no bound on the time until equilibrium is reached, as the case of the CTBT demonstrates.
Centre
[Al Gore side by side with Palmer and not the Greens – that must be devastating for the Greens.]
Hardly. Everyone wins that way, including us. Gore and Milne would not have been a story, precisely because Palmer represents rightwing voters.
Perhaps Palmer is in it for more admirable reasons than most of you here appear to think. He does not come across as vindictive as does Abbott, Abetz, Andrews, Morrison etc etc etc etc etc. One can hope this the shake up Aus politics badly needs and not another exercise in saving the coalition from themselves as was mot of the howard era. I guess time will tell. PS I don’t read Fran Barlow either – typical of the greens oblivious to reality arrogance
BTW I don’t read Fran Barlow’s self promoting posts any more either