ACNielsen and Galaxy: 55-45
The latest federal ACNielsen poll, published in today's Fairfax broadsheets, has Labor's two-party lead down to 55-45 from 56-44 last month. Malcolm Turnbull's approval rating is down four points to 51 per cent and his disapproval is up five to 35 per cent, while Kevin Rudd is more or less steady on 70 per cent and 22 per cent. Also included are questions on the government's economic management (positive) and expectations about the economy (surprisingly optimistic).
UPDATE: Galaxy has also produced a poll showing Labor leading 55-45. The poll has Labor on 43 per cent of the primary vote, the Coalition on 40 per cent and the Greens on 11 per cent. No mention of a sample size that I can see, but in Galaxy's case it's usually about 800 (UPDATE: It's 1004 for Galaxy, 1400 for ACNielsen).
UPDATE 2: A surprise from Essential Research: they too have Labor's lead at 55-45 in their weekly survey. This is down from 59-41 last week, and as far as I'm aware is the closest result they have thus far produced. Also featured are questions on which party is deemed best to handle various issues (huge leads to Labor on climate change, environment and industrial relations, narrow ones to Liberal on inflation, national security and economic management) and the car manufacturing industry assistance package (47 per cent approve, 35 per cent disapprove).
Author William BowePosted on Monday, November 17, 2008 Friday, December 12, 2008 Categories Federal Politics
1,045 comments on "ACNielsen and Galaxy: 55-45"
Friday, November 21, 2008 at 4:04 pm
[If you had a VFT Syd-Canb, then Canberra airport could be upgraded to become Sydney's long-lost second airport.]
If the VFT had several stops then the second airport could be built much closer
Antony GREEN says:
You would give it a small number of stops. One somewhere beteen the rail line and M7 around Liverpool to allow connection with western Sydney. Another around Mittagong-Bowral-Moss Vale, a third near the Goulburn and then Canberra. If it used the Airport Line to Central, it would even tie in to the higher fare structure on that line. There are a variety of things that make such a project possible. It could be financed by tying it to development of airports/hi-tech business parks along the way. It all makes sense, which is why it will never happen because such projects never get up on the big picture, they get stopped on little things.
IMO the biggest advantage of a VFT would be to spread the population centres in terms of Sydney's sprawl. Right now Sydney is just bursting at the seams, but with high speed rail access from new points to the south, it would open up business and residential opportunities along the path, and hopefully begin a realistic movement away from just having Sydney as the centre of everything in NSW. Sydney needs genuinely accessible satellite cities so very, very badly.
[It all makes sense, which is why it will never happen because such projects never get up on the big picture, they get stopped on little things]
So very true, and sadly so. Please Kev, you've got the money!
No Dario. VFT's don't spread residential development. They connect existing population centres or transit hubs like airports. Think of how you get to Gatwick or Luton Airport in London. You can catch the local train there, but it will be slower than the more expensive direct train. You don't build a VFT for commuter transport.
No I fully understand that… it wouldn't be built for that purpose, but it would have the effect of connecting those population centres far more effectively (it takes forever to get to pretty much anywhere by train outside of Sydney right now). Just having that improvement would remove a lot of the barriers to living outside of the Sydney basin for both future business and residents.
MayoFeral says:
Adam, you have to be sensible to earn the tag. Or at least sensible enough to realise Downer was an overblown waste of space and have the gumption to say so.
BTW-I hear his successor has been resorting to similar name calling of all those who fail to appreciate his brilliance. Not that it will hurt him. Unfortunately, about the only thing he needs to do to win is remain capable of fogging a mirror. 🙁
Adam in Canberra says:
Mayo was eminently winnable in 2007 by a good independent, like a retired admiral or ambassador, running against Downer on Iraq, AWB etc etc. Instead we got a weak ALP candidate who had no chance.
Taking water from the dry side of a mountain range to the wet side is not a good idea.
SEQ is getting water recycling so it does not need any new species threatening dams (Melbourne should be getting water recycling not desal because it it more energy efficient). Rain water tanks and storm water harvesting are also better options as is replacing the brown coal power stations with solar/geothermal/natural gas so as not to use vast quantities of water for coal power generation which would also massively reduce Victoria`s greenhouse gas emissions.
High speed rail would cut the drastically number of flights needed between Sydney and Canberra because it would be highly competitive with air so less passengers for aviation and this would free up take-off and landing spots.
Australia`s major airports are retail and parking businesses with aeroplane facilities attached.
I suspect the reason Howard was lukewarm on a VFT generally, but particular in regards to a Sydney-Canberra link was because people might have expected him to use it instead of commuting daily on his our private jet.
Inner Westie says:
Don't forget the former head of the PMC, Max the Axe, was CEO of Sydney Airport Corporation Limited from 2002-06. (Howard wouldn't want to make his chief slaughterman's job needlessly complicated by setting up a VFT!)
The VFT discussion has been interesting, but IMHO appears to be mostly beside the main point. Planes generate scads of CO2 and so do VFTs. The first and major consideration in any major new infrastructure decision has to be the way it structures economies for the foreseeable future. All other considerations should be secondary. The US looks like losing 5 million acres of mature lodge pole pine to add to the north american loss to date of 33 million acres of conifers. Why? As usual with things ecological, a mixed bag. One reason is that overnight temperatures have warmed sufficiently to allow large enough numbers of bark beetles to build up over winter such that they overwhelm the defences of the trees. As far as I know these critters have yet to get to work in the eurasian land mass. It is possible, even likely, that there are similar order, but unknown, thresholds in all major ecosystems, including in the oceans and our very own eucalypt forests. We are engaged in a very large open-ended experiment with CO2.
Anyway, my general point is that we may have to start thinking in terms of reduced-friction Very Slow Trains that 'fly' off magnets and perhaps no planes at all.
Grog says:
[It all makes sense, which is why it will never happen because such projects never get up on the big picture, they get stopped on little things.]
Oh Antony you cynic! 🙂
Have to admit to thinking a Melb-Canberra-Syd VFT a great idea that will never get up.
But such things always remind my of Yes Minister and Hacker's efforts to be "transport supremo"
Oz says:
[You're not wrong. Caught it earlier this year and it was sensational! Flying around Europe just isn't worth it unless you are going from one side to the other.]
Don't forget the TGV. From Germany to Paris, that thing is brilliant.
The bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka (via Kyoto and Nagoya) is prety fantastic as well. Going past Mt Fuji is fantastic – who would ever fly internally in Japan?
juliem says:
"Hillary for State brings Bill baggage"
There is a good reason why these donations to the library and foundation were kept secret. When they go over Bill Clinton's records, what Obama's examiners will find is that many millions came to him when Hillary was the best bet to become the next president. They were the equivalent of playing the American presidential futures market, foreign governments and millionaires making an investment in Hillary's future presidency through Bill's enterprises.
As he assembles his team of rivals for Cabinet jobs, Obama should remember that no one in Lincoln's Cabinet brought along a spouse like Bill Clinton.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20081121/OPINION12/811210370/1002/OPINION
Juliem
Phew. He does not like Hilary Clinton! He doesn't mention Bill's use of Presidential pardons to some noisome individuals. It does raise the interesting questions of when, and to what degree, spouses (good or bad) should be counted into the equation for politicians. Will it come to Hilary explaining to the US public that 'I did not have s-x with that man?'
Boerwar,
I am on record as my heart not wanting the HC SOS posting but my head saying "in the long run, it might not be too bad and it certainly keeps her busy and not able to fight Obama for the campaign in 2012" (assuming she got the job and stayed in it for 4 years). Witness Condoleeza Rice in 08, no way she would have been able to potentially campaign with John McCain and still keep her job. Because my heart and my head are in different places on this issue, I will NOT be upset if this potential nomination comes to nothing. I read a number of articles on this topic this evening and another one of them brought up the excellent point that Obama should make "no hires that he is unable or unprepared to fire {under the right circumstances}". In otherwords, he should not hire HC for this job if she is "untouchable". I thought that very sage advice.
Centre says:
Obama is a very strong leader. He chose his own VP and he will choose his own Secretary of State. I think he will get it right. If he does not really like Hillary, too bad for Hillary. To think that Hillary might challenge Obama in 2012 is ridiculous. She would have a better chance being first women on venus.Maybe Hillary could go for 2016?
She would be too old then (2016), mid to late 60's. I believe only Ronald Reagan has been successful in that age group for their initial foray into the White House. Dick Cheney ruled out a run of his own some number of months, years ago due ostensibly to age but probably because he knew he was unpopular and wouldn't be able to make the distance. Joe Biden has also ruled out a run for himself now (assuming two terms as VP) for the same reason. I don't know how old Eisenhower or LBJ were when they happened upon the Oval Office but I'm pretty sure they were younger than HC will be in 2016.
Her ship has passed her in the night (in 2008) and it isn't coming back 😀
If Hillary can't let it go, I would imagine she would have a much better chance in her mid-late sixties than taking on Obama in 2012. After all she would still be younger than what McCain was this year.
Oh yes Julie I do realise Obama is not officially President yet. 🙂
Turkey makes a goose out of Palin.
[She just gave an entire press conference for five minutes in front of a guy killing turkeys on camera. Oh my God, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. I know it's sick, but she's such a blithering idiot. At one point, oblivious to the fact that some guy is killing turkeys on camera ten feet behind her, she says "we'll probably invite criticism for doing this!" This is a Saturday Night Live skit, with nothing extra needed.]
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/sarah-palin-pardons-turkey-while-others.html
scorpio says:
I always thought that a sitting President was automatically nominated for a second term if they wished to stand again.
Therefore, HC would have to wait till 2016 and would certainly have the handicap of advancing age going against her chances.
Scorpio, Teddy Kennedy fought Carter for the nomination in 1980. It isn't set in stone although as you note, it may be "convention" (pardon the pun).
Friday, November 21, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Antony GREEN
"1965 South Australian election had 39 seats, the LIberal Country League won 3 seats uncontested, and only contested 32 of the 39 seats, and Labor only contested 36 of 39.
The primary totals are votes and percentages calculated from adding up the primary votes in all CONTESTED electorates.
However, the 2PP totals were calculated in an academic project in the 1970s to come up with sensible long term comparisons of election results that corrected for the nature of the contest. So a 2PP figure was produced for every seat, whether it was CONTESTED OR NOT, or whether there as a 2-party contested or not"
Thanks Antony for th full explanation I had assumed a 2PP figure had been "estimated" in th 1970's for 1965 Election based on all contested seats , rather than as you say on all uncontested as well as contested seats , hence my view However in lite of how 2PP was actualy estimated , a lower estomated 2PP % than actual Primary % vote is therefore quite explainable
Naturally once there ar uncontested seats , of course diferent calc methods can arise and stat distortions occur Too late now however would hav thought my assumption (estimating 2PP on just th contested seats) may hav been worthwhile as well…seeing Labor didn't contest 3 seats and LCP 7 , representing 25% of all Seats up for election
You can't "calculate" what the 2PP vote in a tiny rural seat in SA in the 1960s would have been had it been contested. You can only guess.
Michael Kroger was on Lateline. He is of the view that Rudd and Swan cannot handle the economic crisis as they have no experience and need to rely on treasury for advice. On the other hand he says that Turnbull has real world economic experience and is leading the government on bank loan guarantees and payments for pensioners.
[Michael Kroger was on Lateline. He is of the view that Rudd and Swan cannot handle the economic crisis as they have no experience and need to rely on treasury for advice. On the other hand he says that Turnbull has real world economic experience and is leading the government on bank loan guarantees and payments for pensioners.]
Why do they bother having Kroger on? He doesn't provide commentary, he just campaigns. If they are going to have a campaigner on, they may as well invite a sitting Liberal M.P.
What's up with Kroger's bizarre theory that you need direct experience of something in order to make policy on it?
But it is ironic Kroger saying this, considering that Rudd and Swan were partly responsible for setting up Labor Holdings, a trust account used to fund Labor in Queensland:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudds-nice-little-earner/2008/02/09/1202234231971.html
Actualy my assumption was to calculate (estimate) th 2PP on only contested seats , which would give a "truer/closer to actual " guide of actual 2PP based on reel Primary votes cast for all partys , rather than including uncontested seats where disrtortions reel increase (with 1965 % Primary and "estimated" 2PP being 54.3% …which at 54.3% would feel is a meaningless figure)
Under my assumption in relevant SA election , 75% of seats may hav been 'truer/closer to actual " 2PP %'s …rather than having 100% of seats "estimated" but "cost" is with greater 2PP % distortions Admittedly 100% of 100% is preferoble but is not possible when there's uncontested seats
corection: with 1965 election 55% Primary vote but "estimated" 2PP being 54.3% which is meaningless calculatijng including both contested and uncontested seats
Well Kroger would say that. He even tried defending Julie Bishop…
[Well Kroger would say that. He even tried defending Julie Bishop…]
I also note he didn't mention that the Government has actually IMPROVED its position compared to the election! Thus, the opposition has actually gone backwards.
It was actually quite sad watching Kroger. An old Liberal Party stooge debating their cause as if his life depended on it.
Michael how many votes do you think you changed tonight? It was just a bit of wasted oxygen wasn't it! Loser.
In the mean time Rudd continues on with his record breaking sequence lead in the polls.
[It was actually quite sad watching Kroger. An old Liberal Party stooge debating their cause as if his life depended on it. ]
I can see exactly why he and Costello formed a faction; Costello was too gutless to become P.M., Kroger was too gutless to become an M.P.
They have so much in common!
Bushfire Bill
"For those who reckon Grattan is one of the few "decent journalists", read this and weep. After she spends half her article talking up the twin monsters of recession and deficit, she writes this:
The reason the Government doesn't want to speculate about a recession is obvious. To do so increases fear, which plays into business decisions. As Stevens said, "given the underlying strengths of the economy, about the biggest mistake we could make would be to talk ourselves into unnecessary economic weakness".
Do tell, La Stupenda? I suppose it's OK for journalists to continually write it up though?"
I tink you ar being unfair to Michelle grattan on this article I've always thought she is th most talented and objective politcal journao by a long way and what she says there is accurate and econamicaly sound ….recognising why Swan avoids th words however its fair game for journos to speculate thats there job Unfortunately some ar too partisan and contribute to th very thing Swan is trying to avoid It would be irespoinsible for Swan to do otherwise , which Michelle Gratttan sensibly acknowledges
I may add BB that if she gives a 'hit' on th Govt you may find often its justified
Shows, he criticised Swan for not being experienced. Swan is an economist. A real one. He knows far more than Costello about economics. Anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that. Costello was treasurer at a time of prosperity and a resources boom. Now times are serious. We don't need a Question Time clown or a lightweight who couldn't even value an insurance company, in charge of the finances.
Here is a new twist on frostyreceptiongate. *Everyone* gave Bush a frosty reception at the G20. The brutal fact is that Bush doesn't matter any more and no-one has to pretend to defer to him anymore, so whether he likes Rudd or not doesn't matter one little bit. Everyone seems to know this except the Liberal Party of Australia.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/world-leaders-dont-shake_n_145141.html
Kroger also said that Rudd or Swan could never lead a company like BHP.
Well they hadn't applied. Not like his mate Tip who was obviously inundated with all these offers LOL.
And Obama will always like the Labor Party more than the Liberal Party.
Thanks to Coconut 🙂
Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 12:02 am
ShowsOn "I can see exactly why he and Costello formed a faction; Costello was too gutless to become P.M., Kroger was too gutless to become an M.P."
Well tink you ar also unfair tonite there …on Michael Kroger
These Uni mates and 'Nichols' supporters followed diferent paths Costell for "glory" and Kroger for money
Now Costello thought he had attained 'glory' as 12 years revered Treasurer but now finds there is no glory in being deemed too naive initialy in 'beleiving' howard and then having no licker when he realized he'd been had….and he sees th evidence of his 'glory 'in th book sales stats
Kroger ha done very well for himself , no glory …but monies and within Liberal Party respect I tink Kroger came out well , and certainly in front of his mate Costello and get Kroger away from partisan politcs and he's an able man
p/s "Swan is an economist. A real one "
thats no recommendation being a 'but , if what , when , maybe' person after th event Question is whether a pollie is able to listen & understand differing econamic advice and then has capacity to develop overall frameworks for planned outcomes both politcaly , socialy and econamicaly given trends
Thomas Paine says:
Why is Kroger on? He is a nobody, nobody at all. Why on earth is what has to say of any importance or value? And since when was the Rudd govt ever in any trouble poll wise since the election? These people believe their own dreams.
Gary Bruce says:
What a load of rot this is. The Courier Mail have "conducted their own poll" on issues in four marginal seats. They spoke to, wait for it, scores of people in each seat. How scientific.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24686588-952,00.html
Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 2:42 am
Previous Previous post: Victorian council elections: November 29
Next Next post: ACNielsen: 55-45 to Labor in Victoria