ACNielsen has Labor behind the Liberals on primaries 42-41, the first time the Libs have been ahead of Labor in the Nielsen poll since September 2006. Labor leads in the 2PP 52-48, and Kevin Rudd leads Malcolm Turnbull on PPM 56-33. Rudd led Brendan Nelson 65-19 in the August poll.
The Liberals have gained 3% on the primary vote and 3% on the 2PP since the August Nielsen poll.
I observed the other day that Possum had calculated opposition leader change bounce averages. It’s for Newspoll, but here it is for purposes of comparison:
…the average Coalition bounce from a leadership change was 5.7% on the primary and 6% on the TPP.
Speaking of Newspoll, The Poll Bludger reports rumours of an early release for the one that normally appears first on Lateline tomorrow night. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, as otherwise the OO will be reduced to writing their new narrative on the basis of a story in The Age. So get in quickly for Possum’s guess the Newspoll bounce competition.
Update: That was quick. Dennis gets to write his story on the basis of the poll he owns. Newspoll has the primaries favouring Labor 42-38 (down 2 and up 1 respectively, and within the MOE as Shanahan notes). The 2PP is 55-45 in Labor’s favour. It was 56-44 last time. Without mentioning the ACNielsen poll, Shanahan has actually written a story that would fit its findings better than Newspoll’s, having to construct his narrative out of the frippery of the PPM where Rudd leads Turnbull 54-24. As The Poll Bludger observes, this matches the Galaxy Poll in the News Limited tabloids on the weekend.
So if we do the comparison with Possum’s calculations, the Turnbull bounce is almost non-existent. Heh.
In reality, we should wait before passing judgement, but it’s fair to say that the previous trend is still very much apparent. Rudd’s losing some of his shine, but Labor’s vote is holding up well.
More [by Mark]: Peter Hartcher at the SMH puts the “Liberal vote depressed by Nelson” thesis in its strong form (ignoring Newspoll). But actually a more plausible way of looking at all this, if you go back and look at how leadership intersected with issues in the 2007 federal election, is that Rudd allowed Labor to be electable by being a plausible alternative PM – and by unifying the party. But there are a lot of good reasons why Labor’s positioning on the issues and its appeal generally trumped those of the Liberals. My reading of all this would suggest that Rudd’s “popularity” is not all that important, and conversely Turnbull – by looking plausible – may be restoring the Liberal vote to something like what the party itself should be garnering (though there’s more evidence for that from the ACNielsen poll than from Newspoll). Remember that throughout last year all the “significant indicators” were basically irrelevant – leadership might be an intervening variable, as it were, but it’s not the independent variable.
Elsewhere: Possum, OzPolitics, Blogocracy.
More [by Mark]: Peter Hartcher at the SMH puts the “Liberal vote depressed by Nelson” thesis in its strong form (ignoring Newspoll). But actually a more plausible way of looking at all this, if you go back and look at how leadership intersected with issues in the 2007 federal election, is that Rudd allowed Labor to be electable by being a plausible alternative PM – and by unifying the party. But there are a lot of good reasons why Labor’s positioning on the issues and its appeal generally trumped those of the Liberals. My reading of all this would suggest that Rudd’s “popularity” is not all that important, and conversely Turnbull – by looking plausible – may be restoring the Liberal vote to something like what the party itself should be garnering (though there’s more evidence for that from the ACNielsen poll than from Newspoll). Remember that throughout last year all the “significant indicators” were basically irrelevant – leadership might be an intervening variable, as it were, but it’s not the independent variable.
I suspect thats right Mark – a normalisaton of 2PP levels post-Nelson – plus the pensions issue biting.
“…first time the Libs have been ahead of Labor in the Nielsen poll since September 2006..”
I think puts the Nielsen in its place. A highly unlikely change of events.
I would expect as natural for there to be some erosion of Labor’s high TPP over time and this seems to be part of that. Maybe Nelson was holding it up then again Morgan also showed as dip before the Turnbull ascension. Then again the next Newspoll might show 56/44. Too early to know what if anything has changed.
Did we really expect that Turnbull would step in wave the magic wand (or in his case, probably a golden AMEX) and fix all problems within the Liberals within one poll cycle?
Ok, on the face of it, the analysis is right, little bounce for Turnbull, Labor still strong but possibly a bit more challenged by an electorate that wants it’s government to perform. Not so much that the honeymoon is over, but a general want for the government to walk the walk. But were we expecting anything different from this result?
Mark’s pretty much on the money there, Rudd worked to make the Labor party electable, and equally that’s what Turnbull has to do as well. Unite the party and provide a strong policy alternative. If he does that, he’s in with a chance in the next election, still has to get over the incumbency advantage, and probably a raft of good outcomes from the term, as well as the Howard legacy … wow, doesn’t sound as good when you add reality does it
.
PinkyOz
(by the way, this isn’t a lament, I get the impression that I’m being painted as a conservative here, I’m not really. I don’t really know what I’m looking for in a government, so I read widely, and enjoy the contest for what it is. No more no less.)
I think Nielsen polls are well worth listening to and they usually have very nice sample sizes and the 1400 they had this time is no exception. However I think that it may well be an outlier. Surely there has been a 1-2 point shift to the Coalition (2 feels about right) but not a shift of the magnitude Nielsen is showing. If we have another couple of polls that are at this level then I would conclude there has been significant movement. The Newspoll feels about right to me.
This morning’s polls bring back memory of a newspaper headline from the first Sunday of September 1985, after John Howard had replaced Andrew Peacock as Liberal leader – “Howard to crush Hawke”.
Funny how it’s never the same when Labor’s in opposition, because after all it’s the natural order of things for the coalition to be in government. The planets must be realigned!
The Malcolm Troll Pounce strategy wont work. Too many see their hard earned disappearing and are ready to blame his mates. And he wants to deal himself into solutions for problems they created, at least as far as those doing their dough are concerned. In this instance the plummeting economy has a very specific cause and everyone knows who the trolls are.
It was indeed JWH who encouraged us all into little capitalists,(those of us stupid enough to listen) and thus is directly responsible for impoverishing heaps of people in the lasst week or so.But if there’s a bounce against Rudd, its because he hasn’t got rid of Workchoices, he hasn’t brought down grocery and petrol prices like he promised, he hasn’t increased pensions, etc., etc., The list is endless. Dashed hope that could maybe make this a one term Labor Government. But, as I’ve commented before, it would have to buck historical trends to do it.
Maybe Rudd will wake up to himself and realise there are more important things in life than small cheap servings of beef stroganoff in the Parliamentary dining room, while he refuses to increase all pensions. What damning hubris!What you’d expect from Malcolm, not Labor.
Paul, I don’t think it’s all that fair to blame Rudd for the Stroganoff thing – I’m sure he wasn’t egging on John Murphy to complain about it.
Elsewhere: Possum, OzPolitics, Blogocracy.
Glenn Milne clearly doesn’t know what the hell he does or why he does it. From story “Rudd’s control issues”: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24381057-7583,00.html
The “Chatham House Rule” (singular!) actually is:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/
Chatham House, Marquess of Queensberry? Huh?? Rupert Rules, KO?
Chatham – The Elder Pitt. A Dodgy Old Bastard if there ever was one. Won the Sevewn Years War, founded the First British empire. Suffered severely from Gout. Re-established in office in the lead up to the American war of Independence. Went Mad, after predictring Britain would lose America.
Father of extraordinarily brilliant son, who was also British PM, economic genius, alcoholic and friend of Wilberforce, the latter alone being enough to drive a man to drink.
Mark @ 10,
True, not Rudd’s fault, but the hubris is symtomatic of the way Labor felt when all they had to worry about was that weepy Rotwieler whose teeth fell out. Witness the reaction of pensioners. A very justified outrage at a party out of, or dangerously close to, getting out of touch. Hence Malcolm’s minor success.(Not that I want to see him succeed. As I think some-one on LP remarked, even the worst Labor Government is better than the best Liberal Government.)
Paul, the problem is if Labor reacts to every outrage confected by her majesty’s loyal opposition they’ll end up spending most of the time reacting and little of the time actually governing. Plus they’ll give the logical impression that the opposition is setting the agenda.
Just because the generally rabid press gallery run with every taudry stunt that the brains behind the latest coalition leader comes up with, doesn’t mean Labor has to react to it.
Think back to when the invincible Howard was PM, and how the narrative was shaped by the same so called journalists who are now supporting the opposition in crafting the latest narrative to denigrate Labor.
Money quote from Blogocracy:
“So if an election were held now, Malcolm Turnbull would absolutely thrash Brendan Nelson. ”
Ambig@13, Paul @14 — the point about the Chatham House Rule thing is: Milne either doesn’t know what it is and is quoting it in order to appear to be on the inside track of semi-official defence establishment discussion (i.e. big-noting himself as a privileged insider while parading his ignorance of its rules); or he feels free to ignore it if it suits his political purpose … the reason the rule exists to encourage the expression of views that obviously cannot normally be expressed (like an ex-minister criticising his former party). In other words, what a fucker.
Paul, I doubt it’s hubris. Just stupidity on Murphy’s part.
Gold Amex? Pfft. Proper rich folk get a Black Amex by invitation.
Yeah, even I have a gold Amex. Terribly usurious interest rate!
Mark and Paul,the best part of “Stroganoffplate”, predictably, received the least publicity.
“Immediately after Mr Murphy had spoken, the National Party MP for Riverina – Kay Hull – added her own complaint, describing the “quality, presentation and availability of food” as inadequate. Mr Hockey approached Ms Hull in the chamber to reprimand her, but witnesses said Ms Hull told him to “f— off”.”
Love is in the air!
http://www.aol.com.au/news/story/Stroganoff-Affair-MP-says-sorry/995271/index.html
Paul Burns
“It was indeed JWH who encouraged us all into little capitalists,(those of us stupid enough to listen) and thus is directly responsible for impoverishing heaps of people in the lasst week or so.”
Wow, what an absurd remark. Anything JWH did pales into comparison with the effects of PJK’s superannuation guarantee regime. JWH talked the talk about an ownership society, and did little. PJK, on the other hand, deliberately exposed hundreds of billions of dollars of the entire workforce’s retirement income to the vagaries of the sharemarkets. And now look what’s happened. Why does the ALP keep getting these things wrong?
BBB
So, what are you suggesting, BBB?
(a) There shouldn’t be a superannuation guarentee;
or
(b) It should all be invested in government bonds?
I am suggesting, in a (apparently unsuccessful) facetious style, that Paul Burns is talking complete and utter crap.
BBB
Well I’m gald you “inner city” types with your “big pay packets” can have a gold AMEX.
I don’t know, sometimes you cant buy a gag. 
Paul @ 14, It’s all well and good to say that “Even the worst Labor Government is better than the best Liberal Government”, but I wonder sometimes if its more like “We get the government we deserve”.
The longer the Libs stay unelectable, the more likely the up and coming “woudn’t vote for them in a pink fit, Right-leaning, nutjob politicians” will go to Labor to advance their careers. How long will it be before we have no choice but a “conservative” government, if were not already there, or for that matter even had a choice in the first place.
PinkyOz
BBB,
I take your point about PJK and Super, but JWH did set out to actively encourage people to invest in the share market in a big way. If I recall correctly he wanted more than 50% of us to be shareholders and a lot of people bought his prosletysing of Capitalism.
As for the rest, I never respond to insults.
Yes, JWH was a believer in the philosophy behind the ‘ownership society’ narrative of the 90s and 00s. It was really an extension of Menzies’ “home-owning democracy” vision. Even through the tech-wreck and the recent bear market, those who took JWH’s 1997 advice have still made out like bandits. Teh Left has objected to this on the basis that the winners were overwhelmingly high income earners: ie. the ownership society was really only a portion of society. I suppose it’s lucky JWH never bothered trying to extend it too far down (ie. to the bottom 50%, as you suggest). I mean, we’d also have the working class copping a hiding in the “last week or so” [although the market is up over the former timeframe], instead of just the bourgeoisie with their CommSec accounts!
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of any ordinary worker’s exposure to the sharemarket is as a direct result of ALP policy. PJK is directly responsible for that. Not that it’s a particularly bad policy…
As for insults: I’ve played the ball not the man. Your talk was crap, so I said so. Who knows? You may otherwise be a very intelligent and astute person.
BBB
Of course, JWH’s rhetoric anticipated, but did not wholly mirror, the ‘ownership society’ phrasing in the USA: JWH nominated ‘choice’ as a driving force in his public policy and also used the ‘great shareholding democracy’, but the underlying philosophy was the same.
BBB
BBB,
Fair enough. An interesting historical insight. In, I think, 1942, in a parliamentary debate about housing, J. J. Dedman, Labor’s Minister for Housing exclaimed in response to some Opposition jibe that Labor had not got into power to turn Australians into little capitalists. (These were Labor guys who really were socialists). As an astute historian later commented on this incident (I think it might have been L. F. Crisp) “the trouble was Australians wanted to become little capitalists.”
I think people want to be a capitalists when capitalists are making money. When capitalism gives them a kick in the teeth, they tend to go running off to Mummy and Daddy Government, as the recent pleadings of Wall Street-types demonstrates so clearly.
BBB
Outstanding!
.
A functional forward looking PM. A challenging and viable alternative. Both of whom fully aware that live in the 21st century not in 1543.
.
Goodbye John Howard forever!
Of course, the other news is that the Greens are rapidly becoming the natural party of local government in Australia’s inner cities. though the following suggests that an up and coming party called the ALP is at least competitive
“In Marrickville the vote was Greens 40 per cent and Labor 29 per cent. In Leichhardt the vote was Greens 46 per cent and Labor 25 per cent.” http://nsw.greens.org.au/media-centre/news-releases/labor-vote-collapses-in-key-areas-2013-greens-boost-numbers-in-nsw-local-govt-elections
They voted Green in Marrickville? Why? I know. It’s because they want something that’s green there right? They did have a blade of grass when I was living there but some kids set fire to it.
“I think people want to be a capitalists when capitalists are making money. When capitalism gives them a kick in the teeth, they tend to go running off to Mummy and Daddy Government, as the recent pleadings of Wall Street-types demonstrates so clearly.”
Methinks, the whiff of bad times just around the corner played a part in the Labor fed win. Something has been in the wind for a good while and the expectation of a more compassionate mob running the show was likely influential.
Will Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers meet the halfway mark, 50% just before Easter 2009 because most people can’t understand what PM Kevin Rudd is saying ? that makes relevant common sense. Considering the race he is running in not wanting be caught as he tries to keeps one step ahead on yesterday’s news.
“Considering the race he is running in not wanting be caught as he tries to keeps one step ahead on yesterday’s news.”
I can’t understand what you are saying.
Oooh, it’s a domestic.
Why 1543?
Why, because that’s the year Martin Luther published On Jews And Their Lies. A watershed moment in Australian politics, I’m sure you’ll agree.
A watershed moment in Australian politics, I’m sure you’ll agree.
.
Well it wasn’t a relevant year until 1996. Then it became strangely familiar.