Fairfax-Ipsos: 52-48 to Labor

The second poll from Ipsos gives the Coalition relatively respectable readings on voting intention, although Tony Abbott gets another hammering on his personal ratings.

The second federal poll conducted for the Fairfax papers by Ipsos is somewhat less bad than what they’ve been accustomed to recently, while still giving Labor a lead of 52-48 according to preference flows from the 2013 election (up from 51-49 in last month’s poll) and 53-47 on respondent-allocation (steady). The primary votes are 40% for the Coalition (down two), 37% for Labor (steady), 12% for the Greens (steady) and 2% for Palmer United (down one). Ipsos was also about two points below trend on the Coalition primary vote last time, and landed a little high for them in its last poll before the Victorian election.

However, the poll corroborates other recent polling in having Tony Abbott’s personal ratings slumping, with approval down four to 38% and disapproval up eight to 57%. Bill Shorten is up three on approval to 46% and one on disapproval to 41%, and he now leads 47-39 as preferred prime minister after a 41-all result last time. The poll was conducted Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1400.

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.

914 comments on “Fairfax-Ipsos: 52-48 to Labor”

Comments Page 17 of 19
1 16 17 18 19
  1. Perhaps more importantly, if retail super directors are so “independent” how come those funds are gouging such huge fees out of punters. Doesn’t sound like they’re representing the punters at all.

  2. So Abbott is demanding that Labor support this revised measure in the interests of national “budget security”, but all the money is still going into the medical research fund? How does that work?

  3. WTF is he going on about?

    If the new policy is so much better… then why wasn’t it the policy in the first place?

    So he’s acknowledging his original medicare payment plan wasn’t the best as well as the concessions on PPL?

    F*** me drunk.

  4. Now why did you not take it to the election question 😆

    None of the excuses wash. Way Abbott is going press may actually challenge deficit labor fault mantra

  5. Also, the whole rationale behind the original co-payment measure was to “send a price signal” to people who go to the doctor too frequently for what might be frivolous reasons.

    The only people who would have the time or opportunity to engage in such a practice are people who are not in the labour force: that is the people who mostly have concession cards, who are the only people who will – under this revised measure – not get a “price signal”. So how will that work?

  6. I am actually starting to feel sorry for Abbott – the poor bastard doesn’t have a clue.

    So his signature promises have all been ditched and where does he go from there.

    This Government couldn’t organize a chook raffle in a pub.

  7. The new plan is still idiotic. It puts totally unfair pressure on the doctors who will be forced to bill patients. So basically, if you are now a 100 percent bulk-biller you will have to start charging patients. That’s all this govt wants and needs to destroy medicare.

  8. An ‘optional’ payment which doctors will be forced to pass on to their patients because the Government is taking away $5 from their Medicare rebate is NOT an optional payment.

  9. One of the journalists

    “@bkjabour: Government trying to sell previous “compulsory” $ 7 GP co-payment as now “optional” $5. But it is working the exact same way.”

  10. The ‘price signal’ logic never made a lot of sense. There are certainly ways of imposing a price signal that are much fairer and don’t impose a massive new overhead on medical practitioners (such as issuing a yearly bill via the tax system), but they didn’t even try …

    As a measure it was (and still is) all about destroying bulk billing, in my opinion.

    An explicit copayment breaks the seal on having a financial transaction associated with most services, so it would make the leap to charging above the rebated amount much less …

    But now they are just going to squeeze GPs and the various support services until they simply can’t afford to sustain themselves through bulk-billing.

    Plus, the government can probably try sneaking these changes through via regulation to simply vary the rebate, whereas the copayment would have required legislation.

  11. [So his signature promises have all been ditched and where does he go from there.]

    Except the co-payment wasn’t a promise. It was a surprise (and there weren’t supposed to be any of them, either).

  12. What should be pointed out is that the only way this could be viewed as a budget savings measure is if there is the intention to cut the rebate further in the relatively-near future.

  13. I have to say Abbott has brought putting out the trash to an artform.

    He also shafted Hockey over his taxing the mutinationals announcement

  14. The whole announcement is utter tosh is what I meant to say. And Lyndal Curtis saying doctors “could recoup”. Wtf, when ALP introduced CP they all cried how industry would pass the cost onto consumers. Not here though, here it is “could” when we all know most doctors will not just be good samaritans and cop that cost themselves and instead will pass it onto patients.

  15. Someone still love our Tones.

    [United by inaction: climate bromance links Canada, Australia

    Canada and Australia’s prime ministers have a shared interest in opposing climate-change policies that would cost their countries jobs.

    “He has taken me under his wing when he was an experienced prime minister and I was a mere neophyte opposition leader,” Mr Abbott said of Mr Harper in June. “I look forward to a strong partnership in all of the forums of the world in the months and years to come.”]
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/united-by-inaction-climate-bromance-links-canada-australia-20141209-122xv8.html

  16. BB

    A surprise it may be and you are right.

    I am loving how all of the trash is being put out while there is no Parliament sitting.

  17. So the Co payment is not actually gone. Doctors have to either take a pay cut or end bulk billing for most patients. The intention is still to commence dismantling Medicare.

  18. Kinkajou @ 815
    ttfab has a little joke going whenever he mistypes something.

    He says “whoever doesn’t see the ‘t’ on the end of ‘thought’ in my post needs their eyes checked”.

  19. Just got this email from a friend:

    [After readjusting the Medicare co-payment, thankfully all the barnacles have now been removed. Full steam ahead!]

  20. Yeah, Clive, whatever you say.

    As they pointed out in Crikey today –

    Worst of the lot was Clive Palmer, rated positively by just 9%, while 59% rated him poorly.

    and hence:

    At least Abbott will finish the year knowing he’s doing better than Clive Palmer.

  21. “@latikambourke: A wise coalition peep said to me a few weeks ago ‘what you will soon see is poll panic and backflip after backflip.’”

  22. While their talk is all about structural budget problems, I don’t buy their solutions, which are nothing more than attempts to use structural budget problems as an excuse to push their ideology in privatising whatever they can get their hands on.

  23. [ KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN
    Posted Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps more importantly, if retail super directors are so “independent” how come those funds are gouging such huge fees out of punters. Doesn’t sound like they’re representing the punters at all. ]

    Thats without mention that Industry Funds yearly returns are much better then that of Bank’s etc with their so called “independent” directors.

    Oh – its also Industry Funds who have been pushing fees to fund managers lower for years.

    The *problem* is Industry Funds are eating the Bank’s breakfast and they hate it. Add FOFA – no wonder they donated so heavily to help elect the tories.

    Then along came the Murray Report.

    So sad. 🙂

  24. Jackol

    Palmer doesn’t see how iconic Medicare is. He thinks say Pensioners etc are ok and all is ok. Palmer showing why he funded the LNP for so long.

  25. I’m struggling to work out how the proposed measure exactly works: there is still nothing official online about it.

    As the media are reporting it, the co-payment for non-concession card holders will be cut, the minimum time for consultations attracting the standard rebate will be raised from 6 to 10 minutes and the rebates will be frozen. And all of this will raise the same amount of money as the previous proposed measure (which is possibly right).

    My first reaction – which I posted – was that it won’t provide enough of a price signal to concession card holders. But, in reality, it is going to make it very difficult for practices that bulk bill everyone and/or receive a high proportion of concession card holders. So, in practice, a lot more doctors will probably choose to raise their consultation fees above the standard consultation level (especially given that this is no longer going to be indexed). Many concession card holders are going to be hit by this as well: especially in those practices which stop bulk-billing everyone (once a practice starts having to cover the additional expense of handling cash, credit cards, etc., it tends to start looking at charging everyone something: especially older concession card holders, who are often quite well off and who tend to demand more time per consultation than other patients).

    So, in the end, the new proposal will probably send a similar price signal to the old one, but the Government will be able to try to shift some of the blame for it onto the doctors. Very clever.

    But doctors’ organisations are likely to go even more mental about it than they have done up to now: especially the increase in the minimum consultation time for the standard rebate.

  26. Dispname

    I see his point but…Kevin17 DID say 449,(I should have known that) Tom said 440 but he meant 449.(I should have known that)….entirely my fault better get my eyes checked

    So as I said pedant FAIL…

Comments Page 17 of 19
1 16 17 18 19

Leave a Reply

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