The Newspoll this morning shows Abbott three percent ahead of Gillard as preferred Prime Minister and a ‘margin of error’ of three percent which means Gillard could be three percent ahead of Abbott, as she was a fortnight ago. It also has six percent ‘uncommitted’ and two percent ‘refused’: this is about a million people who could make a lot of difference. The way you get ‘refused’ I hear is ringing at seven pm when people are eating or cooking and hanging up if you hear a migrant accent, thus reducing the Labor vote.
You can bring the Labor vote down further I hear by ringing homes (and never, never, never, of course, mobiles) on Friday and Saturday night when people under thirty, who vote Labor sixty-forty, are out of the house, and people over sixty, who vote Liberal fifty-five to forty-five, are at home, and this of course is what Newspoll does or sometimes does. You can get the Labor vote down further, or this is what I hear, by remembering Rupert Murdoch is your principal client, and sampling 1182 respondents and publishing only 1142, or 1042, and putting the others, wrongly, into ‘refused’ or ‘undecided’ or hanging up on them.
It is by these stratagems, probably, or so I hear, and this might be wrong, and I might be very unjust, you get Abbott up as Preferred Prime Minister after his worst week ever, and sow confusion, panic, mutiny, consternation and suicidal despair in the Labor ranks.
This is what Murdoch requires of you, or so I hear; he is after all the man who published The Hitler Diaries after being told they were forgeries, and commanded poor Hugh Trevor-Roper to back him up and say they were not forgeries; and claimed Gough and Margaret Whitlam were divorcing in November 1975, just after the Dismissal and just before the election, thirty-seven years ago. To believe anything else is to subscribe to the astonishing theory that a news organisation that would bribe Scotland Yard would never bribe Newspoll. It is very, very hard to see why they would not; or why someone in Newspoll, not necessarily the CEO, would not accept that bribe and adjust the figures along lines of Rupert’s desire, as it seems, it powerfully seems, he did this morning, Rupert their principal client, that is.
I do not say this is so. But it is I think a plausible theory.
The simple fact is that the Liberals are a busted flush policy-wise and they need all the polling help they can get. They have declared war on the auto workers and gone to water on gay marriage and said they could, and then couldn’t, and then could, get us into surplus next year, and found over Christmas the hatred of Abbott among women, Protestants and humanists is growing. The ‘turn back the boats and leave it to Indonesia to sort it all out’ policy was seen to be idiotic and their defence of Rhineheart’s unearned billions innumerate. And their defence of the Afghanistan War as moronic as Julia’s.
And yet the Newspoll shows them surging ahead, as it did nine years ago on the weekend of the greatest gatherings in world history that were then protesting the imminent Iraq War, which nobody wanted and they, the Liberals, were keen on. When the Liberals are seen to be losing it is Newspoll’s bounden duty it seems to show them, paradoxically, winning. Why else have a Newspoll CEO? Or so some say, or ask.
Why have a Newspoll CEO? Why? What is he there for?
The greatest proof of this hypothesis if one were needed is Newspoll’s failure to match up anyone other than Rudd and Gillard with Abbott as Preferred Prime Minister. Why not ask do you prefer Shorten to Abbott, Combet to Abbott, Smith to Abbott, Albo, Plibersek, McKew, Brown, Windsor, Turnbull? Why not ask would you vote Labor or Coalition if Smith, Shorten, Plibersek were Prime Minister? Why play only the Rudd card? Why? Because that’s what Hartigan wanted you to do? Because that’s what Kim Williams wants you to do? Or Rupert wants you to do?
Why not ask that essential question, who else would you like to be Prime Minister? Why would you not do that? Why did the obvious not cross your mind? Will you do it now? I ask any Newspoll person, past or present, to answer this.
Why not test how popular Abbott Liberals are? Why not? And if you forgot to, will you do it now?
Newspoll has served too long as Rupert’s WMD and it should be exposed.
A Royal Commission would be nice. A Senate enquiry would do.
See, as in London, which frightened Murdochists start singing.
Or not.
They may be innocent of any wrongdoing.
But they don’t look too flash this week, as more and more Newscorp executives go to gaol.
If Newscorp goes, can Newspoll be far behind?
Name:
Quick point FYI, polling companies are prevented by law from ringing mobile phones. It’s bizaree but true, some legislation introduced a while back when mobiles became popular – no telemarketing and polling.
Gillard voters all have mobiles is my take, that’s why she’s more popular than you think.
Interesting! There are now quite a lot of people who do not have a landline. As well, perhaps like me, many people may say “not interested thanks” and ring off.
I have little trust in the phone polls in any event.
As for voluntary polls, their only value is as entertainment, about 10 seconds worth each.
What hatred? Where’s the evidence that women hate Abbott?
And didn’t he look good in GQ?
My guess is both fairfax and news manipulate their polling to provide the most benefit for their sales.
Fundamentally all the polls show that the ALP will lose unless a game changing event occurs.
Part of the reason is that the bad news always drowns out the good.The bad news usually caused by PMs judgement or strategic leaks such as that to Lauie Oakes tonight regarding her showing the internal polling to colleagues in the week prior to the challenge. Though yet another deal with the greens blessing isn’t necessarily a positive look for voters.
Get on board the Abbott hating train. It’s warm. It’s slow moving.
The truth emerges on Hodges’ leak to Kath Sattler : he told her Abbott said the tent embassy should “move on”,
and Sattler told the woman with the microphone at the embassy’s 40th anniversary party : Abbott said the embassy ought to be “torn down” which message was duly announced, with predictable results.
The video footage was quite clear on “7.30″. The police might now be interested in Sattler.
He didn’t say he wanted to tear down the tent embassy, he said that all Australians have a special respect for Aboriginal people thereby rendering the entire political movement null and void. Presumably, that includes the tent embassy.
What annoyed me was the elder in the purple shirt said find Abbott, and immediately adds on to that “and Gillard”, making the entire protest meaningless. Abbott gets away with it entirely scott free. Even the tent embassy freedom fighters have been A Current Affaired.
Can someone in this country please question Abbott further regarding what he meant? Is that too much to ask?
There aren’t many inches between ‘move on’ and ‘torn down’. Each means the First Australians should yield up home ground to invaders.
‘Pack up and move on’ is perhaps a half-way house. But, on Invasion Day, even that is as incendiary as telling the Palestinians, say, to ‘move on’, go somewhere else, you don’t belong here.
Or perhaps you disagree.
Abbott’s comments on the tent embassy were so elliptical as to offer scope for more than one interpretation
According to a transcript, he said: “Look, I can understand why the Tent Embassy was established all those years ago. I think a lot has changed for the better since then. We had the historic apology just a few years ago, one of the genuine achievements of Kevin Rudd as prime minister. We had the proposal which is currently for national consideration to recognise indigenous people in the constitution. I think the indigenous people of Australia can be very proud of the respect in which they are held by every Australian and yes, I think a lot has changed since then and I think it probably is time to move on from that.”
Move on from what? The tent embassy? Or metaphorically move further on from what has changed?
Not having a landline is fantastic, no telemarketers, no polling, no scammers.
Murdoch aside, the fact that Newspoll only calls 1500-2000 people means it’s hardly a representative sample. This elevation of polls to the status of infallible oracle is a large part of why politics is so shit at the moment, IMO.
What for you silly man? Don, it is not illegal for anyone to say anything.
Remember this is not North Korea and if union people want to repeat what Abbott said and say where he is what the hell is the crime you dingbat.
What a lot of bullshit about nothing our media waffle about while there are still over 560 innocent refugee kids in our prisons for no good reason.
There was no riot, nothing happened except the moron cops behaved like the morons we know they are.
For doing her best to incite a riot.
It was not her fault that Abbott was not assaulted physically. Now some might say so what, it might do him some good, but that is not the way to conduct political debate in Australia in 2012.
And thank you for the very moderate insults; “silly man” and “dingbat” are almost terms of affection by your standards.
Labor won’t replace Gillard. Not now. No chance.
And Bligh will retain government in Queensland.
My predictions, on the record.