The polls sharply contradict today. Newspoll has a 2pp of 53/47 comfortably in favour of the ALP; whereas Nielsen has a tie at 50/50. Newspoll has a primary split of 42/41 in favour of the ALP; whereas Nielsen has 37/43 in favour of the LNP.
On the personalities, Newspoll has the Beazer’s satisfaction/dissatisfaction at 29/58, and Howard’s at 52/39; whereas Nielsen has Beazley at 32/54, and Howard’s approval at 56/35. On the preferred pm, Newspoll has Howard ahead 58/23; whereas Nielsen has him ahead 59/27.
Out of all this, the Murdoch press reports “Labor’s biggest single comeback in primary vote in a Newspoll survey in 10 years in Opposition”; whereas Fairfax reports that “Beazley’s approval is his lowest ever as Opposition Leader, while the lead John Howard has over him as preferred PM — 59 to 27 per cent — is the largest gap between the two in a decade.”
My guess is that the generally more reliable Newspoll is closer to the money, as its survey was done over the past fortnight, whereas Nielsen’s was (oddly) undertaken over the past month.
More hearteningly, Nielsen further reports that, of those aware of the I/R changes, 60 per cent opposed them in July 2005, 59 per cent in August, 57 per cent in October and 58 per cent now. More women than men are opposed (60/57), which has been a consistent pattern, and a majority of voters in all states, across all age groups and in both capital cities and regional areas are opposed. Even almost a third (28 per cent) of Coalition supporters are opposed. Hope springs.
The Age article says the Nielsen polling was from Thursday - Sunday of last week.
I’m not sure about the Newspoll being generally more reliable - Nielsen have the better record over at least the last two Federal elections (cld be more - my memory doesn’t stretch that far).
The ‘true’ value could be around 51.5 for Labor, in which case neither poll is ‘wrong’. Although there is definitely something odd about a six point rise in Labor’s primary vote over the past fortnight.
cs, you wrote that “Newspoll is closer to the money, as its survey was done over the past fortnight” — but it was actually “conducted last weekend”.
I have some thoughts about the poll results here
It could be 100% to Beazley for all it matters. Remember the huge ALP leads in 1998, 2001 and 2004?
Andy S, you have mixed up the I/R and and party polling (and Newspoll has a better record, including at the last federal election - do I have to explain this again?).
Fair enough Trevor. That’s more accurate.
And I tend to agree with Flutey.
Neilsen is essentially the same as Morgan which means it is more likely that Newspoll has incurred statistical error.
Interesting that Howard unlike Fraser in 82 got no Commonwealth games bounce. Must be that nine bias !!!
Morgan has the primary slightly more in favour of the LNP than Nielsen, and the 2pp slightly more in favour of the ALP.
The most obvious line to join the dots here is that, whereas Nielsen conducted its poll over the past month, and Newspoll conducted its last weekend, Morgan conducted its survey mid-month. Everyone is right, and hope springs.
If Labor can stop the infighting and bickering and focus its attention on WorkChoices I think it will have a huge chance of winning the next election.
I note ABC 774 this morning has covered a story about cabinet makers who were sacked on Monday and offered individual contracts with lower pay rates. Labor has to gain every possible inch of mileage from these types of abuses.
Im with Steve. Put the gag on dissenters and Conroyites, and all the other urgers, bludgers and no-hopers in the ALP (big gag needed, I admit). The Rat’s gone too far on this one. Its an adios wish-list, an apres moi le deluge, unstable little package of hi-explosive “legacy”. Too many losers will be created, and given the complex government red-tape required to comply with its command-economy style reporting , too few new jobs will be created. This is a dead-set vote loser of a package, and it will seriously have the new Howard battlers - apparently, the election winners - thinking again about their vote. Let’s face it, no wages and conditions are likely to *improve* as a result, will they?
It only takes 5% to swing it, folks.
I’m with LE, and not to mention the cost of bosses employing armies of lawyers not paid by state legal aid but commercial rates, 200 bucks an hour minimum–(oh the profitable indirect paradoxical joys of a neoliberal free market!
to interpret the dogs breakfast of Howard’s folly)
Speaking of lawyers, what happens if for instance the High Court invalidates the intrusions into the State jurisdiction over contracts - ie the laws that prevent employers from claiming that their employers are “independent contractors” so as to escape paying entitlements or reduce wages? Could people have a retrospective action?
Kim, good question. If a court finds a contract in a civil case to be unenforceable then the parties go back to the beginning—“void ab initio” —as distinct from voidable contracts. In common law a voidable contract may be subject to “recission” if the parties can be restored to their original position—“restitutio in integrum”— (in effect then the same as “void ab initio”)
It stands to reason that although the IR law may be valid until overturned, it would be against natural justice were employees to lose what they otherwise would have gained under the old “contract”. I base that on a theoretical application of the Communist Party Dissolution Act (1948 I think) under which if CPA property had been confiscated, the High Court would have returned it when they overturned the Act.
Constitutional case law may prove me wrong, and I stand to be corrected. There’s an interesting juxtaposition of contract and constitutional law here.
It would be ironic if the High Court challenge by the states invalidated Howard’s IR legislation.
Howard has survived this long as PM because a hostile Senate has saved him from himself. Now that Howard controls the Senate he appears to be in a terminal decline to political oblivion. IR is going to kill him. Unless the High Court saves him by throwing this legislation out.
State ALP governments saving John Howard’s incumbency by overturning Howard’s own legislation. Perverse.
The wildcard would be whether the punters will remember what the little man tried to do to them. Maybe, maybe not.
Much as I tend to think that the wankers who voted for Howard because they wanted to believe he could save them from (insert applicable electoral distraction is your favourite, here) are about to get what they deserve, lots who didnt will also suffer.
I still wonder what the cunning old Rat has up his sleeve. Even after all this time, people still underestimate him - he’s up to something. This looks too much like a huge mistake to be comfortable.
Peter, thanks for that. It would be rather groovy if employees could take action based on the precedent set by a case about the attempted dissolution of the Communist Party.
Internationale and all that