Julia Gillard’s first Newspoll confirms the trend of other polls, with Labor’s primary vote storming back seven points to 42 per cent, but the yield coming mostly from the Greens (down five to 10 per cent). The Coalition vote is steady on 40 per cent. This results in a relatively modest shift on the two-party preferred vote, with the Labor lead increasing from 52-48 to 53-47, but it makes that vote share a lot less dependent on hypothetical and probably over-generous preference estimates. Julia Gillard leads as preferred prime minister 53 per cent to 29 per cent, compared with Kevin Rudd’s final figures of 46 per cent and 37 per cent. Tony Abbott can at least take heart from a return to a net positive personal rating, with approval up four to 42 per cent and disapproval down eight to 41 per cent.
Preselection news:
• Melissa Fyfe of The Age reports from “senior party sources” that Labor polling in Melbourne showed the Greens running neck and neck with Lindsay Tanner. On the question of Tanner’s successor as Labor candidate, Andrew Crook from Crikey reports there is “little standing in the way” of Andrew Giles, chief-of-staff to state minister Lily D’Ambrosio. Giles is secretary of the Socialist Left faction, which dominates local branches. However, Melissa Fyfe’s sources say they are hoping to find someone with a higher profile. Other possible contenders are ACTU industrial officer Cath Bowtell, who according to Crook is “said to be owed a shot at pre-selection after being turned down for the ACTU presidency in favour of Ged Kearney”, and refugee activist Paris Aristotle. UPDATE: VexNews reports the Socialist Left has endorsed Cath Bowtell, with Andrew Giles agreeing not to run, and that Bowtell’s endorsement by the party is now a fait accompli.
• Scott Buchholz, chief-of-staff to Senator Barnaby Joyce, has won Liberal National Party preselection for the new Queensland seat of Wright, after initial nominee Hajnal Ban was forced out. Most prominent among his defeated rivals was former Blair MP Cameron Thompson.
UPDATE: Essential Research has done what it needed to do by dividing its results between this week’s polling and last week’s, and it confirms the overall picture. Kevin Rudd was on a gentle recovery trend in his last days – his final poll shows Labor improving from 51-49 to 52-48, with Labor’s primary vote up three to 38 per cent and the Coalition’s down one to 40 per cent – followed by a fillip on the primary vote under Julia Gillard. Interestingly, the Greens vote fell solidly over both periods, from 14 per cent to 11 per cent and then to 9 per cent. Labor’s primary vote under Gillard has gone from 38 per cent to 42 per cent, with the Coalition’s down one to 39 per cent. Forty-seven per cent approve of the leadership change compared with 40 per cent opposed, with an even split as to whether respondents declared themselves more (26 per cent) or less (24 per cent) likely to vote Labor now. Gillard leads Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister 49 per cent to 29 per cent, but Newspoll’s resounding improvement in Abbott’s ratings is also reflected in Essential, with his approval up five to 40 per cent and disapproval down 11 to 39 per cent. Again, respondents would prefer a full term (41 per cent) to an early election (28 per cent). There are further questions on parental leave, the mining tax and future economic conditions.
UPDATE 2: Excellent post by Possum analysing polling trends of the late Rudd epoch.
[Yeah, especially when it comes to you and dumb comments about non-existent ABC bias in favour of the opposition.]
Gee, dunno about that, they get this Young Liberal type, can’t remember his name Cardle.. or Candel..something, on Q & A all the time.
Scarpat@1151
And wiorks as the Stomach pump attendant/bouncer in the Famiglia Trattoria 🙂
TTfab
we have suzerainty over the pacific as far as tahiti and as close as tas ooops i mean papua
we own the pacific
😉
And I mean in a financial sense not a proprietorial sense
[And I mean in a financial sense not a proprietorial sense]
Can one be far behind the other?
1150
The Falklands Were under British Sovereignty before the invasion and had been since 1833. Argentina claimed the Islands should be theirs but just because the claimed them does not make them theirs. The British were perfectly within their rights in International Law to take them back. The deaths, injuries and Thatcher becoming popular popular (and so only loosing about 1.5% between the 1979 and 1983 elections) again were the bad points not them not being British.
scarps
i will only mention this dudes name once
ivanov
we own the basin- full stop
TTfab
the falklands contain mega amounts of the black stuff
my shares have increased 16 fold since 1996
Maybe shrub learnt a fewl essons
TTfab
re the falkies, i agree
re FIJI check the constitution and the enabling act from the british parl
btw WW1 really muddied the waters
TTfab
1996 was when the uk high ruled in favour of mineral rights to the oil Co’s
[1113
Gusface
………
rudd said a while back that he would donate his papers etc to a museum type thingy
I think he was prpoposing a sort of US style system where we have the PM’s doco’s preserved for posterity]
What a misplaced idea. Mercifully, we do not have a Presidential system. Prime Ministers are not Presidents. They are accountable to their parties and to the Parliament in a way that Presidents are not. Rudd’s failed attempt to run the Government on Presidential lines is one of the reasons his term ended so abruptly. Presidential Libraries are set up to record and celebrate individual Presidents; in a way to memorialize those involved. How inappropriate this seems in an Australian context, where PM’s are first citizens, then Parliamentarians and neither gods nor princes.
briefly
i think if we adopted a US system we would grow as a body politic
for democracy to thrive,or at least be allowed to thrive, decisions must be revealed for what they were
politically expedient
We can but gain from such insights
Non?
[1124
Gusface
rudd gave some speech where he basically said wtte we need to honour and respect and understand our past,particularly our political, and by implication our PMs
I reckon in that respect the US does do it better]
What a bighead Kev is.
briefly
do the yanks vote for a president as such
or is he installed by a democratically elected electoral college?
[They are accountable to their parties and to the Parliament in a way that Presidents are not.]
Well, under the U.S. system the President can be impeached and sacked. So they ARE indirectly accountable to the legislature.
[Rudd’s failed attempt to run the Government on Presidential lines is one of the reasons his term ended so abruptly.]
Whereas under the U.S. system, the Secretaries have a lot more discretion because they aren’t bound to follow cabinet edicts. For example, the Attorney General in the U.S. system has a lot more power than the Australian Attorney General.
[How inappropriate this seems in an Australian context, where PM’s are first citizens, then Parliamentarians and neither gods nor princes.]
How on earth are U.S. Presidents the same as “Gods” or “Princes”? The whole idea of a Republic is to get rid of the notion that people can be born into positions of power.
How does that compare with our system of having a Head of State who, isn’t an Australian, doesn’t live here, and who was born into the job?
Gusface, I very much like our present system, where it is possible to remove those in power at short notice, and where they can be constantly reminded that they hold office to serve the people, not the other way around. The US system is basically dysfunctional. I think it is a lousy model in many ways.
[Gusface, I very much like our present system, where it is possible to remove those in power at short notice]
Yes, that’s what I thought in the last 6 months or so of Bush’s second term. Any Prime Minister that over saw such a monumental economic collapse, including having to spend $700 billion bailing out banks, would’ve been forced to resign.
We have a Westpoll – and it’s good 🙂
http://www.smh.com.au/national/oddson-gillard-clears-decks-20100628-zf9a.html
briefly
FFO
I am sorry but warts and all the USA system leaves us for dead
In the 21stC we must adapt to to 21stC politics
My own fave is a titular monarchy witha popoularly elected pres who performs as the monarch
a bit of tweaking to the constitution and bobs your uncle
US Presidents are like temporary princes. Certainly, Presidents receive all kinds of adulation that would be very unusual in our terms. As well, they certainly act as if they are above the law fairly often. Think of Johnston, Nixon, Reagan and Bush, who all exceeded their powers to some degree. Impeachment is very rare and does not restrain most Presidents from pushing executive power to the very limit.
Frank
so august it is
🙂
[1167
Frank Calabrese
We have a Westpoll – and it’s good 🙂
A Westpoll to be published in The West Australian today shows Labor has bounced back in that most hostile of states, where it was facing a rout under Mr Rudd.
The poll shows those intending to cast their primary vote for Labor has risen from 28 per cent to 36 and it now trails the Coalition in the state 45.5 per cent to 54.5 per cent, enough for Labor to hold its seats there. ]
It is gratifying to think the federal caucus took my advice, don’t you think, Frank…..:)
[Rudd’s failed attempt to run the Government on Presidential lines is one of the reasons his term ended so abruptly. ]
Yes denigrate the victim in order to settle the guilt and justify the deed as well as help promote Gillard. Shameless really. They did the same with Keating until Rudd bought him back to current history as somebody to be respected.
Rudd replaced on a false premise to satisfy the factions and the requests of the energy and resources sector. The narrative was Rudd was going to lose, we know that was false now as he was going to win; then the meme that Rudd was oh so bad and all those union bosses and officials couldn’t hack his tough style – the meme that needs to be repeated as it remains the only excuse now; and the third leg of the table? The truth.
An untethered and highly successful first term PM by historical standards taken down by his own through the usual leaking but also of providing damaging recommendations – ie gillards insistence to shelve the ETS and Swans instance to go with the mining tax.
So lets just be honest. This was a factional issue against a non factional Rudd given the go ahead/demands of the corporate sector with the participation of a few ministers.
Gillard better not stuff up and lose as the consequences will throw the Labor Party back to the stone age, and this action in cold harsh light of day will be seen for what it was.
deutsch V dutch world cup final
[1168
Gusface
briefly
FFO
I am sorry but warts and all the USA system leaves us for dead
In the 21stC we must adapt to to 21stC politics
My own fave is a titular monarchy witha popoularly elected pres who performs as the monarch
a bit of tweaking to the constitution and bobs your uncle]
very funny….sounds like Joh’s Queensland to me…..
TP
Kev would not go silently in the night, lightly
🙂
[What a bighead Kev is.]
now you out yourself and provide an appropriate filter with which to view future comments.
briefly
sadly you dont seem to understand what the C&B’s are on a prez
I ask again do the people directly elect a president in the USA?
gone*
TP
ditto
Thomas Paine@1172
As the Great Brian Cadd once sang:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgo1Y8c9gmg
I suggest you and others take his advice 🙂
[1172
Thomas Paine
Yes denigrate the victim in order to settle the guilt and justify the deed as well as help promote Gillard. Shameless really.]
I am not denigrating Rudd. That is just what he did – try to run the country as if he were exercising Presidential power. In many ways, he did good job. But in the end it turned to custard. I feel no guilt – for a start I had no part in anything – but I do feel relief and gratitude. Relieved because a perfectly good Government will be returned to power. And grateful because the caucus lived up to its responsibility. Shameless? Not at all. There is nothing to be shamed of.
Westpoll (sample 400): Labor up 8% to 36%, Coalition down 7% to 49%, Greens steady on 9%, Coalition two party lead down from 62-38 to 54.5-45.5.
Not bad numbers, William, not bad. Alannah may have a chance and I guess no seats would be lost. It is possible to improve…..
#
1177
[Gusface
briefly
sadly you dont seem to understand what the C&B’s are on a prez
I ask again do the people directly elect a president in the USA?]
C&B’s? Checks and Balances?
The voters elect a college who in turn elect the President. But that is not the real point. Essentially the President is elected by the people for a fixed term and the powers exercised by a President are quite separate from the powers of the Legislature. A President cannot be meaningfully censured, nor can “confidence” be withheld by the Legislature. Removal of a President is difficult.
In many ways the sovereignty that is vested in the people has also come to be symbolised by the office of President precisely because all voters have a hand in choosing the President. By virtue of both the status of the office and the stated law, the actions of a President cannot be easily abridged by any other political force. This endows the office with great power and results in the elevation of Presidents into something quite distinct from other politicians.
In my opinion, this is quite different from the nature of the office of Prime Minister in this country. For a PM to “act out” the role of a President would be both pretentious and, ultimately, a practical impossibility, as Kevin Rudd has just found out.
William, here are some thoughts:
These changes would seem to be unconnected to Abbott, obviously. The drama has been elsewhere, apart from TA being a bit less visible, his net approval really shouldn’t have changed, which is why you ask the question.
Various commentators have been making statements about Abbott’s period as opposition leader to the effect that he has been successful, in as much as he appears to have been able to damage Rudd’s standing, noting (but not analysing) that he has also suffered a general drop in his own approval along the way.
What about a theory that says that there is a general level of voter jadedness, or generalised disillusion. This could manifest itself as broad levels of disapproval for major parties/incumbents. So what Abbott has been successful at doing (or the MSM has done and he has coincided with) is to increase this overall disillusionment – this hits Rudd, but it also hits Abbott.
An explanation drawn from this theory is that the events surrounding the Julia coup have cut through this voter disillusion, resulting in lifting the approval ratings across the board – including Abbott. This might seem a bit counter-intuitive, but could be the result of Labor voters feeling reengaged/excited by Julia, but also by non-Labor voters feeling sympathy for Rudd in his downfall – that sympathy would include various thoughts that ‘he is a good man, whatever his faults’ which I think would necessarily work against feelings of negativity towards politicians in general.
It’s just a theory, but it would be interesting if the pollsters included a Q along the lines of ‘Generally speaking, how do you feel about Federal politics/politicians from 1 being most negative to 10 being most positive?’ (or perhaps a prospective measure pessimistic/optimistic) – If the theory held I would have expected to see such a measure trending downwards consistently over this year, with a bit of a spike upwards over the last couple of days, but who knows.
New thread.