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.
glen
[because he’s a politician.]
Nup,its because he aint man enough to admit he was wrong.
glen this is real stoopid stuff
by now blaming labor he just reinforces the wimp meme
Mick Wilkinson. Interesting stuff.
Wagering on elections used to be illegal: long before there were betting agencies and when electorates were small it was a way of disguising electoral vote-buying.
Isn’t political betting unique because it’s about predicting complex social phenomena rather than artificial games or even limited market fluctuations?
Ron and K-man
That’s correct. Labor values all working mothers kids at the same monetary value (more than non-working mums). I’m not complaining about that but I’m saying a disparity exists, as there does for the Lib PPL.
You can’t just argue that the Libs disparity means it can’t be supported as Labor has one too.
William (and other psephies)
Hack on triple J spoke to a lecturer in political science who specialised in “political marketing”. He discussed the campaign ads so far and what the research showed about political ads. Interestingly, voters retain three times as much info about negative ads as positive ads, but they also remember that it was a negative ad and don’t like too many.
He also said the Coalition needs to come up with some positive ads, even more than Labor.
If Julia Gillard never ruled out multiple debates categorically, why isn’t she making that case for herself?
By the by, why does Wayne Swan look so terrible on Lateline. He is badly lit, and it leaves him looking like a dodgy used car salesman. Surely getting these sort of things right is election campaigning 101.
@Generic Person/3401,
I disagree, if that was the case, why would Abbott Call for the debates in the first place, wouldn’t your analogy apply to him as well, now the fact that he doesn’t want one, against the strongest part of Labor?
Diogs,
As you know, the good news is there is nothing negative to say about the Labor Government. So, the Libs are forked.
Diogenes, the ‘action contract’ ads don’t count as positive? The Libs seem to have done ok for themselves so far with mostly negative campaigning.
Punters don’t know any more about elections than anyone else. In fact given that gambling is an inherently dumb pastime they probably know less. The election betting market just follows the polls, with a lag time of a week or so. The seat-by-seat polling we’re seeing now is just a reflection of the bad polls Labor had at the end of last week. If this week’s polls are better, next week’s betting will reflect that.
[If Julia Gillard never ruled out multiple debates categorically, why isn’t she making that case for herself?]
She got the leverage out of it that she needed. She won’t mention it tomorrow, unless asked about it.
[By the by, why does Wayne Swan look so terrible on Lateline. He is badly lit, and it leaves him looking like a dodgy used car salesman.]
Wayne doesn’t need bad lighting to make him look like that
alias@3455
Umm, Swan has no control over the lighting – it is the lighting operator at their ABC.
Nuff Said 🙂
You can use the individual betting markets to estimate expected margins.
By plotting the individual seat probabilities versus the swings needed
you can get an estimate for the markets expected average swing.
The sportingbet figures from today suggest a 1.7% national swing to the
coalition. But some seats are expected to swing more and some less.
The end result according to sportingbet odds is analysed at
http://dr–good.blogspot.com/
They show a slightly different seat by seat result than Evan’s
but the overall result is an ALP majority government (77-73).
You can go further and predict what kind of swings away
from the national swing might be going on in each seat
as well but it gets pretty technical.
No 3448
Oh that’s right. In your world, everything is a News Ltd stitch-up. Get real Adam.
If Labor was serious about more debates, it would have committed to them much earlier, not now in a cynical attempt to detract attention from an egregious week 2 and a drastic poll slip.
Bitar is hopeless.
I don’t think too many people are going to vote Coalition directly because Rudd got the shove (maybe some Qlders, but not many, and next to no-one else IMO).
However, Rudd’s demise is still an issue for Labor, and this won’t change before August 21. Two reasons:
1. The obvious distraction factor
2. It’s a roadblock to the argument “vote for us, we’ve got a good record”. The obvious retort, spoken, unspoken or subliminal, is “well if your record is so good, why did you get rid of your leader?”
Having said all that, I don’t see any reason to change my prediction of a Labor victory. It’s a first-term government and the economy’s going well. Sure, the Labor campaign has been poor, but I’d have to say the Coalition’s effort has pretty much cancelled out the impact of that …
[the ‘action contract’ ads don’t count as positive?]
Not when the content is – LABOR BAD, STOP WASTE, STOP TAXES, STOP BOATS
[By the by, why does Wayne Swan look so terrible on Lateline. He is badly lit, and it leaves him looking like a dodgy used car salesman. Surely getting these sort of things right is election campaigning 101.]
The ALP doesn’t control the ABC’s lighting department. Can you imagine the roasting Swan would get if he refused to go on Lateline because the lights weren’t right?
ltep
I should add that I barely watch TV so I’m not commenting personally.
Abbotts revised PPL getting News oxogen is clever , and appeal to hip pockets typical Liberal , is often successful too Its got legs to win some votes in 2010
Julia today used Tony’s words PPL ‘over my dead body’ , needs to be in an TV Add
GP,
I see Rumplestilsken.
[If Julia Gillard never ruled out multiple debates categorically, why isn’t she making that case for herself?]
Because she’s not running against News Ltd (much though she must be tempted), but against Abbott. She’s made the point, and everyone can see that Abbott has ducked debating her on the economy. Next news cycle, please.
gloryconsequence:
[Tony Abbott doesn’t hate women.]
Tony Abbott:
[“I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or
even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply
because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for
physiological reasons”]
He was asked about these remarks in 2010, some 30 years after he uttered them, and refused to resile from them. If you believe that women can never achieve equality because we have aptitude-based limitations is pretty close to hating women in my view. I read it as him saying that any effort to limit equality can be justified on grounds that women are physiologically unequal. Disgusting stuff as far as I’m concerned.
@GP/3461,
“If Labor was serious about more debates, it would have committed to them much earlier, not now in a cynical attempt to detract attention from an egregious week 2 and a drastic poll slip.”
If your so called Hero Mr Abbott was serious at all, he’d be debating to shut Gillard up and ask for more debates himself.
Labor could only use the ‘over my dead body’ quote heavily if Abbott refused a PPL scheme. Now that he has one, the ad won’t work, because he has one and has admitted that he’s changed his mind on it. But he’s changing his mind to do a popular thing, not a disliked thing.
[Oh that’s right. In your world, everything is a News Ltd stitch-up. Get real Adam.]
Not everything, but many things. They’re by far the largest media organisation in the country, they have an obvious political agenda, and they have no scruples about how they pursue it.
No 3468
No, you’re just another lefty circle-jerker.
I am happy with the fact that Abbott in front of a large audience challenged Gillard to a debate.
Now that same audience and ordinary voters, who may not follow every word spoken by either party, will see that Gillard is prepared to debate Abbott but now Abbott does not want to have one!
The average voter will see it as Abbott is chicken. It doesn’t matter which way those on the Liberal side spin it, that’s the way the voters will see it. 🙂
Diogenes, I don’t watch the commercials at all (yes yes, elitist, latte sipping etc.). All I know is from what I saw on Gruen Nation last week. However, whilst watching Meet The Press on Sunday I did see a couple of ads. The silly Gillard GetUp ad (who exactly is the ad targeted at?) and the silly WorkChoices ones. I’m yet to witness “Stand up for Australia” in all its official gloriousness.
Their ABC on the 7.30reportland Interview and they call it “Bruising”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/03/2972594.htm
GP
Dishwasher hands?
[By the way, I find it increasingly amusing that Julia Gillard is begging for a debate when but 10 days ago she was adamant that no further debates should happen. Abbott has called her bluff and now the PM looks desperate.]
GP, you do come out with some asinine tosh.
Julia Gillard has not been “begging” for anything. That is an outright untruth. She responded to a proposition put by a journo during an interview. From that point on the “debate” issue is a ball in Tony’s court. She has gone on the record as saying she is happy to debate the economy with him anytime. On the surface this is a reasonable position as the ALP is proposing that the economy is the central focus of the campaign.
Under the surface it is a bloody great mine waiting to sink the wormrotten tub that is the Fiberals as they are economic illiterates who would rather have had 000’s of people out of work just so they could fondle a surplus. (precious, my precious…..)
Broadly speaking, on this, Tony obviously agree’s as he has already asserted that the election of 2010 is actually a referendum on the economy. So, the situation we have now is that Tony could pick a time and place to debate the PM on the economy, but he is too frightened to do it. At best he now has to wear the fact that he is being seen to run away (Monty Python style) on an opportunity to nail his opponent with the wonderous economic platform that he intends to enact if his party is elected to govern on the 21st.
Your assertion that Julia is “begging” is wRONg. And just a little bit silly to boot.
Dyno,
If Labor didn’t start talking about the economy and how well they’d done then the election was gorn.
The best compariosn is the Libs when they terminated Turnbull with prejudice. All that ETS agreement disappeared like a flush of the toilet.
Labor, as usual sits around ruminating after the fact.
Dio,
Fair enough. There is disparity in both schemes. But I do think that a clear case can still be made that one scheme’s disparity is entirely fair, and the other’s is insupportably skewed.
The two disparities stem from very different philosophies, though ➡ one aims to provide a needed service with minimal financial damage to the country/taxpayers; whereas the other simply mandates that those with the most shall receive the most (of other peoples’ money).
No 3471
He doesn’t need Gillard to shut up because she’s made herself the issue for the last few weeks. Gillard’s pontification on debates is meaningless blather when she basically deflected any commitment to further debates early on. Now she wants a debate on her terms because the going just got a bit tougher. Abbott’s called her bluff and nobody will care about Julia’s squealing.
Graeme
Yeah, interesting ideas. It is a little peculiar that you can do it legally. I guess, as I said the influence is considered negligible.
Still, an evil idea but I’ll raise it anyway: If a party eschewed just the TV ads and gave members in marginal seats $100 each to have a flutter, this would actually have a more statistically significant effect on the outcome. TV ads contribute one small part of the campaign but is disproportionately expensive.
A 3% gain in 6 weeks is great in an election, pollwise. However, the same money poured into the betting market would make far more than this in terms of marginal seat swing (the snowball effect, people back a winner, then vote that way to make sure they win). The party then wins, wins a bounty and can be re-used. Unlike expensive TV ads which are an expensive risk that drain coffers.
Evil, eh? 😉
[and the silly WorkChoices ones. ]
I’ll let swmbo know you think it silly.
shows how much you know about how workchoices affected Australians
keep peddling your tosh
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/coalition-to-boost-trade-truss-20100803-113ux.html
And so we hear from the possible future Deputy PM finally…
[Speaking at an Australian Institute of Export breakfast in Brisbane, Mr Truss said trade has been a low priority for the Labor government.]
Why dont they just make Barnyard leader of the Nats and be done with it?
I forgot to provide the link to the audio of the political lecturer on the ads.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/election_c_m1904815.mp3
Swan is doing a good job and Leigh is asking a lot of serious economic questions. About time..
GP,
And you’re just another abusive intellectual dwarf.
Claealy, Liberal HO is squeeling if we’re honoured by your presence.
Diogenes
Posted Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 10:47 pm | Permalink
“Ron and K-man
That’s correct. Labor values all working mothers kids at the same monetary value (more than non-working mums).”
“than non-working mums” , you slippd that in , THAT is your self creatd straw man
NO Party is talking about non working mothers , it is not issue , wroking mothers is , PPL
No 3485
Barnyard isn’t in the House of Reps.
@GP/3482,
It’s on her terms because it’s something that Labor can fight for, why bother debating something that is a lost cause from the beginning like Aslym Seekers? (Which the Coalition started to debate ages ago by turning into a an issue).
[Diogenes, the ‘action contract’ ads don’t count as positive? The Libs seem to have done ok for themselves so far with mostly negative campaigning.]
Stop Stop Sop Stop.
Negative — even if the message is supposed to show action.
Barnyard should be there GP can you image QT that’d be a hoot with Barnyard in the House of Reps 😀
GP, as always, you kill your own case by exaggerated hyperbole.
(Still, it’s nice to see you back here. I take it this is because you been banned from campaigning after abusing elderly ladies in shopping centres as egregious obscenities?)
[shows how much you know about how workchoices affected Australians]
I know a lot about how it affected Australians gusface. I just think the ads should’ve been framed differently to remind people of the problems of WorkChoices that we need to avoid going back to.
No 3479
LOL. She is begging for a debate because she hasn’t stopped demanding one ever since the Riley interview. Looks like she had an argument with fake Julia and decided to change course.
Brisoz
Yeah, and I commend the ALP for not sinking to the same depths and promoting offshore detention.. hang on…
No 3488
Oh GG, you’re too easy.
ltep
those workchoices ads are crackers
i suspect that is why you dont like em
[Barnyard isn’t in the House of Reps.]
Only because of the LNP infighting. He couldn’t move otherwise the Nationals would’ve been down a member in the Senate. He’ll likely do it next election or in between if he gets the chance.