Newspoll has it at 50-50, with Julia Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister is essentially unchanged, from 50-34 to 50-35. The primary votes are 37 per cent Labor, 44 per cent Coalition and 12 per cent Greens. More to follow.
UPDATE: Full results here, plus bonus stuff on leaders’ personality traits here. Julia Gillard’s approval rating is actually up a point to 42 per cent, but her disapproval is up three to 40 per cent. Tony Abbott’s approval is up four points to 44 per cent and his disapproval steady on 46 per cent.
We also have Essential Research in at 54-46 for Labor, down from 55-45 over recent weeks. As Bernard Keane reports it in Crikey:
Labor’s primary vote has dropped a point to 40%, only slightly ahead of the Coalition, which has remained steady on 39%. The Greens, too, have remained steady on 13%, as yet undented by the impact of the campaign. That yields a 2PP outcome of 54-46.
On approval ratings, however, Gillard has gone backwards, with a three-point fall in approval and a five-point rise in disapproval, to 46-38% — her lowest net approval rating in her limited time as PM. Abbott has picked up three points in approval, although that’s offset by a small increase in disapproval, meaning he continues with a net disapproval rating — 38-48%.
Gillard’s lead as better PM has shrunk seven points from 25 last week to 48-30% this week. There’s still a very big gender gap on better PM: Gillard’s lead among men is 12 points; among women, 24 points — 50-26%. Men and women now equally disapprove of Tony Abbott — 48% — but he leads amongst men in approval ratings, 41-35%. Gillard has a much lower disapproval rating among women.
However, the Coalition will be buoyed by the positive reception of Abbott’s pledge to cap immigration at 170,000, with 64% of voters approving and only 22% rejecting the notion. Support is very strong amongst Liberal voters — 91% — but even Labor voters like it (52-32%). The Coalition has a big lead among voters in perceptions of who is best at handling immigration, 35-23% over Labor.
UPDATE 2: Full Essential Research report here. “Reason for voting preference” has four times as many people voting Coalition because the government has been bad than voting for Labor because it has been good, and four times as many people citing the leaders as the reason for voting Labor than Coalition. Julia Gillard’s personal ratings reflect the overall trend in showing her three points down on approval to 46 per cent and up five points up on disapproval to 38 per cent. However, Tony Abbott records more modest changes, up three on approval to 38 per cent and up two on disapproval to 48 per cent. At 47-30, Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister is basically the same as Kevin Rudd’s in his last poll, although her +8 approval rating compares with Rudd’s -6. A question on attitudes to the Senate finds respondents perfectly divided as to whether a minor party balance-of-power situation is a good thing (though I can only say the 10 per cent who favour Opposition control of the Senate haven’t thought things through). Very strong support is recorded for Tony Abbott’s lower immigration target, and the Coalition are favoured as best party on immigration.
No 3388
She kept responding to questions about whether she would have another debate by deflecting to party officials or saying that “Tony Abbott and I have debated many times over the years”. In both cases, there was no open desire for additional debates. It’s only when Real Julia was uncovered (and the polls had taken a drastic slide) did she challenge Abbott to more debates.
Cud Chewer
[evan @3337 the individual seat markets tend to over-predict losses]
Yeah, nah. Mate.
Any of these books have only one outcome (it is not a place bet or a weighted spread). You either win, or lose. All that happens is that once a bet ‘slides’, it snowballs, which draws in the implicit probability. It does not predict a margin. Electoral betting is also unique because punters have a (small) influence on the outcome. They vote. Unlike betting on Collingwood (which should be a capital crime IMHO) in which you can’t sneak on the field and snap a goal for them, you have say, a 1 in 90 000 chance of making your prediction a reality in that seat. If 5000 people do it, it will actually be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, a seat bet does not predict the margin by which the seat is held and may appear to overstate the probability of an outcome but it is impossible to prove this because there is only one winner. In hindsight, all probabilities are indeed unitary (1).
RE; the debate issue.
Did Gillard actually ever say “No, I totally refuse another debate during this election”? I only ever recall her actually saying “We’ve had one good debate, and I have debated Tony many times in the past”. I could be wrong and am happy to be corrected.
ltep: Gillard and her backers will be to blame for an election loss, not Rudd.
[When exactly was she “adamant that no further debates should happen”? I asked last night for a source for this assertion, and so far as I know none was produced, although I haven’t monitored every post since then]
I have asked various sources on twitter,all they can provide is second Ltd News quotes
No direct quote seems to be forthcoming
Laocoon
Interesting discussion, a work college came to a similiar conclusion about TA just after his ascention the leadership, especially the Mothers and Whores reference, real 19th century prodestant ideas…BTW great book by feminist historian K Alford on early Australian convicts called Dammed Whores and Gods Police.
[Tony Abbott doesn’t hate women.]
I dare say not. However, he clearly holds traditional Catholic views about the role of women, and he personally finds assertive and strong women threatening. His comment about Julie Bishop – “she’s a loyal girl” – was very revealing of the role he sees as appropriate for women. He must have witnessed Gillard’s political castration of Rudd with genuine horror.
[By the way, I find it increasingly amusing that Julia Gillard is begging for a debate]
GP ypu’re working without the facts again.
7 News person asked her. Expected her to say no, I expect. She said yes if on economy. He said here? On Sunday night? she said okay.
If that is begging, a am a male.
Other new
St Gus, what I can remember is that Glen, although a liberal supporter and former very strong liberal supporter, has always had a good opinion and shown respect for Beazley.
Glen always said that Beazley at least kept the Howard government at its best.
Maybe you should do the right thing St.Gus.
“He must have witnessed Gillard’s political castration of Rudd with genuine horror.”
Especially knowing he was next on the chopping block.
Diogenes
Posted Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
Ron
“As I said, I prefer the Labor PPL to the Lib PPL.
I was pointing out that Labor also “values” one baby more than another, which was BB’s complaint about the Lib scheme.
The Labor one is certainly worth supporting.”
I think you misunderstand PPL , its SOLELY for woking mothers and therfore within WORKING mothers Labor treats ALL mothers equally and all babys equaly Libs do not
All Partys , Labor who started whole PPL issue (and Libs and Greens who’ve copied th principal DO ONLY provide for working mothers , and not non wroking mothers , none do
If you saying all Partys neglect non working mothers , well thats true but that is not curent polisy debate in oz , so bit well more than abit of Diognous red hering here Surely that is issue for future whether Sociey wants non workin mothers to be paid simply because they’re mothers whether they work or not
[I have asked various sources on twitter,all they can provide is second Ltd News quotes]
Exactly. It’s a Lies Unlimited stitch-up. In fact, very wisely, she kept her options open about a second debate.
[I dare say not. However, he clearly holds traditional Catholic views about the role of women, and he personally finds assertive and strong women threatening. His comment about Julie Bishop – “she’s a loyal girl” – was very revealing of the role he sees as appropriate for women. He must have witnessed Gillard’s political castration of Rudd with genuine horror.]
I agree totally. He has an old-fashioned view of women, which fits in with his old fashioned views about basically everything. But he doesn’t hate women.
Graham,
Only if it’s a one off.
The reality is that Abbott has a track record of inappropriate statements/utterances about women. Of course, as a guy, you forgive him. But, the interesting view is from the women posters here on PB which seems to be a huge thumbs down and also the female journos, who certainly don’t like it.
This is an issue that will cut through and it ain’t party political.
How Liberals can use the term ‘real Julia’ with a straight face when their own leader is faker than a $2 rolex is beyond me. Aside from those carefully scripted, well rehearsed responses of course.
No 3384
Rubbish. Abbott made multiple requests (as early as February when Rudd was PM) that he wanted at least three debates. After several rebukes by the two PMs and the Labor Party, he moved on. Now that Labor is on the back foot, he is expected to reorganise his campaign late in the game because Gillard wants another debate after saying no repeatedly. Why on earth should he? And it won’t get any further traction in the electorate because the people know they’ll just get more of the same scripted, dull debate with not much on offer.
And poor julie bishop – if tone is the choice “Boy can she pick ’em!” to paraphase herself.
[Those who know me from 2006/7 will know that I have matured a great deal since then and for the better.]
Bullbutter Glen, they’ll tell you anything here.
[As for Abbott’s comments, I agree they are chauvinistic not mysogynist. It would not be wise for Labor to push that too far.]
Is Labor pushing it or is it the media that is running with it? From afar, it seems that it is the media and it is correct to do so. From accounts, Abbott made the comment four times and so it can’t be considered a throw-away line or dismissed as ‘just being Tony’.
I agree. Rudd is yesterday’s man and yesterday’s issue. Whatever happens – win or lose – Rudd’s out of the spotlight after the election. Julia put it well tonight when she said all this obsessing will be history come August 22nd, interesting only to the pollies, journos and writers of books.
My sense is that the public are mature enough to realise the important issues of this election are only now starting to be debated. The first few weeks get the old pus out of the system and the hard-headed analysis kicks in. Wounds heal. Life goes on.
What’s important is first the economy. Labor has a good story to tell, but it’s only a story that says “We did well in the past, therefore we’ll do well in the future”. there’s a kind of logic there but Julia has to make it stick.
Kerry asked a good question tonight: “If you’ve been so good on the economy, why don’t the punters give you the credit for it?”. That will be the defining question of the rest of the campaign. For too long Labor has been taking the kudos for granted. Now they’ll have to rejig everything and remind people of just what a miracle they performed, with help from John Howard and Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, setting it up for them. But it was still the Rudd-Gillard government that took the pass and ran the full length of the field to score right under the posts. That takes nerve, skill and a hearty dose of good luck.
There’s Labor’s story in a nutshell. Dibs to the past governments but take the credit for not dropping the ball or otherwise funking out when the real pressure was on. My guess is they can hardly believe they pulled it off themselves. They should never admit this, though. No-one knew what was really happening, but only Labor took the punt and actually did something about it.
For that they deserve full credit. It’s so easy to naysay, as the Coalition did, but naysaying wasn’t what got us to where we are today: proud, on top of the world and moving forward. That’s entirely Labor’s doing, and they should from now on spruik it until the punter’s ears are hurting.
And good night all.
[Tony Abbott doesn’t hate women.]
No — he just thins he’s god’s gift them and is far superior.
https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Australia_GetsUp_2010&id=1251
A PPL scheme doesn’t provide money to parents as a right, as a gift, or as a feel-good gesture. It does so to cushion the financial shock on parents of having a baby, and to extend the time parents can stay at home with a new child.
But you cannot expect people to accept that some are (as was said earlier this evening) too wealthy to afford a baby. Greater wealth allows easier and fuller planning for the period involved. In the case of stay-at-home parents, their lifestyle should already be factored into the economics of the household in question.
So, bearing in mind the obligation of the Govt not to spend more taxpayers’ money than it has to, the Labor scheme seems to be much the best fit.
Rather obviously so, I think…
[Those who know me from 2006/7 will know that I have matured a great deal since then and for the better]
I’ll second that Glen
GP
What we can argue without a shadow of a doubt that Kevin Rudd was more forthright with the Australian people and by all accounts was going to keep his word for 3 debates.
Calling for a debate was a good political ploy even though if gives Abbott the chance to call Gillard desperate which she is.
[After several rebukes by the two PMs and the Labor Party, he moved on.]
Doesn’t rumour have it that Rudd had agreed to 3 debates?
GP,
You criticise Gillard right up to the moment she agrees with you and then you change your mind.
Does ETS resonate with you hypocritical humbugs.
[Now that Labor is on the back foot, he is expected to reorganise his campaign late in the game because Gillard wants another debate after saying no repeatedly.]
Gillard was responding to a question on Channel 7 and said she was willing. She didn’t demand the debate.
[Bullbutter Glen, they’ll tell you anything here.]
Everyones entitled to their own opinion here even you Steve 🙂
Funny how we’re still not debating policy but two ‘gaffes’ by the political leaders.
We’re becoming as bad as the MSM lol!
what is the second gaffe Glen
JG agreeing to have a second debate?
Does anyone think that there will actually be another debate? Will Tony agree to one, now that he has said no, or will the story fade away?
“Jackson Bentley: You answered without saying anything. That’s politics.”
Lawrence of Arabia
So true of a Kerry Obrien interview by either political leader.
Probably not. Climate change doesn’t exist according to your average Tory. It doesn’t fit with the invisable hand and all of that crap.
[Did I miss it or have you decided to stay out of the prediction caper?]
The latter, for the time being.
Swan on Lateline
[Does anyone think that there will actually be another debate?]
I highly doubt it. Perhaps if there’s another remarkable change in the polling. Otherwise there really is nothing in it for Abbott to agree.
GP #3360.
Totally agree.
There’s a debate every minute on PB.
Glen
if it wasnt you,then it must have been nostro or leopold
but Im man enough to admit i might be wrong
why cant abbott?
[Funny how we’re still not debating policy but two ‘gaffes’ by the political leaders.
We’re becoming as bad as the MSM lol!]
Unfortunately the MSM sets the context in which the political debate takes place. It is more interested in ‘gottchas’ than serious policy reporting and examination.
gloryconsequence.
Really, I think a proper debate on the economy would be good. Each party is releasing their policies at present. Why not debate the merits of each policy. Give the electorate a chance to really hear the policy positions and the economics of it all. After all, isn’t that fundamentally what we need to hear about?
Abbott is good at debating fear and failure. He really does not have a progressive vision for this country. That is why he is not confident debating this topic, and is using a piss poor reason for not agreeing to one.
I’d like a party right between Libs and the ALP. Kind to refugees, two levels of government, a dob-in-a-slack-arse-bureaucrat-so-we-can-sack-the-bastard scheme (OK we’d have to make the names sexy and scripted, I acknowledge that). What else? Ok:
1. An inland sea, more coastal real estate, maybe around Uluru. That would be really nice.
2. Solar power everywhere.. I mean EVERYWHERE. hats, cars, bloody cows (or at least stick a pipe up their bums and generate some Biogas)
3. No suits. It’s too bloody hot. Covered shoes though.. could get union types in thongs in the workplace (WH&S)
4. Public Holidays for Grand Finals, NOT Sunday, it’s already the weekend, we need a day off. Hell we stop for bloody horses.
5. Coke in the school bubblers. NO.. Coke ZERO. Then we can scrap the free dental.
I think we have lost track of what PPL is supposed to be. PPL is pretty much income support insurance, designed to:
keep new mothers in the labour force
protect people taking leave from being sacked
provide incomed to workers on leave that their employer is not able to provide
ease entry back into work after going on PL
prevent a loss of talented workers by encouraging them to stay employed.
How and why it should be extended to stay at home parents and people not in the labour force does not make sence. It is not middle class welfare, it is not a gift, it is to reduce the disadvantage faced by people in small workplaces that dont have access to decent entitlements of either large private sector employers e.g. Banks/insurance companies or decent representation (e.g. public sector, community sector, health/education collective agreements).
victoria
I agree a proper debate would be good – my question was, will we get one? 😉
lateline runs with abbotts sick words
lead.balloon
[why cant abbott?]
because he’s a politician.
At least with Rudd he’d admit when he made a boob whereas politicians are normally scared of admitting that they made a mistake.
Atticus @ 3385
I watched a bit of ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ on Fox Classic last night, but the version they were broadcasting was obviously an older version, and nowhere near as stunning as the recent ‘Deluxe Limited Edition’ version I purchased on DVD – to see this remastered DVD version on the big screen TV with the 5.1 surroundsound was spectacular, and just as exciting as when I originally saw the film in the cinema sometime during a revival in the 1970’s probably at the Valhalla Cinema in Glebe. The bonus stuff on this DVD was also incredibly good value.
A genuinely great motion picture that demands multiple viewings.
gloryconsequence.
I don’t know if Abbott will change his mind.
[After several rebukes by the two PMs and the Labor Party]
[Gillard wants another debate after saying no repeatedly. ]
Let’s have some quotations, please. I don’t believe either Rudd or Gillard ever said there would only be one debate.
As you can see here, this all arises from News Ltd unsourced attributions and not direct quotes from Rudd or Gillard. This is a classic News Ltd stitch-up. What in fact happened was that Bitar refused to commit himself one way or the other, and quite rightly so.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/fight-looms-over-number-of-poll-debates/story-e6frgczf-1225892383843
“Actually — for the most part I think Rudd is a big issue for the media, supported by the libs. Most Aussies have moved on ”
Sure, but people moved on from WW2 as well. Thats not saying anything. Doesnt mean they thought it was good.
When actually *asked*, 60-odd% of people said they didnt like the mode of his dismissal. Wishful thinking aside, I’d say that’ll be a background factor in the public view of labor politics for at least another term.
That alone wont cost the ALP the election. But I think its now pretty clear it alone wasn’t going to win it for them either.
On the other hand, the economy…
Glen@3445
And as soon as he did the polling went south.