We haven’t changed our minds on the parties. But we may just be warming to the opposition leader.
New polling from Essential Research shows no change between the major parties on a two-party preferred basis, with Labor leading 51-49. The Coalition is up a point on its primary vote and the Greens are down 1 point to 8%, their lowest level in eight months.
But Essential asked its online panel about the attributes of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, and how voters felt about the two issues to emerge as MPs returned for the first hung parliament in generations: Tony Abbott’s wrecking strategy, and whether each side should compromise on positions they took to the election. The results are telling.
I suggested last week that voters wouldn’t look askance at Abbott’s strategy to disrupt parliament as much as possible in order to undermine the government’s hold on power, and this appears, at least initially to have been borne out. More than half (54%) of voters agree Abbott is “performing the appropriate role for the leader of the opposition”, compared to 46% who thought he was “unfairly placing roadblocks” in the way of the government.
A narrower majority thought both sides should be willing to compromise on the positions they took to the election, with 52% agreeing and 48% believing both sides should stick to the positions they were elected on. For both questions there was a party split — Liberal voters were much more likely to endorse Abbott’s wrecking strategy, and believe that Abbott and Gillard should stick to the positions they took to the election.
On leader attributes, Gillard has suffered considerable damage in the eyes of voters since Essential last asked this question in the early days of her leadership in July, when the newly-minted prime minister was very popular with voters. She’s suffered double-digit falls on attributes like “a capable leader” (72% down to 59%), “understands the problems facing Australia” (68% to 55%) and “good in a crisis” (61% to 46%) and big rises on negative attributes like “out of touch” (up 9 points to 44%) and “inflexible” (up 10%).
The prime minister still benefits from a (small) gender gap, with female voters consistently rating her more positively than male voters, particularly on stylistic traits like inflexibility and demanding. But curiously men regard her as more honest than women do. The only area where Gillard’s perceptions didn’t change were arrogance (whatever other problems she has, arrogance isn’t seen as one of them) and being “demanding”.
Abbott, however, has improved his image with voters since July, albeit not by big margins. He’s now regarded as more capable than he was previously (up 5 points), less narrow-minded (down 3 points), better in a crisis (up 2 points) and less out of touch (down 4 points), although he’s also seen as a lot more demanding (up 8 points) and slightly more arrogant.
There’s no consistent gender gap for Abbott, however, with female voters rating him more highly in some areas (they’re much less likely to think he’s out of touch) and poorer in others — “good in a crisis” or “capable”.
Abbott still has a very strong perception of arrogance, however, and he is coming off a low base. Even after big falls in voter perceptions of her, Gillard still has leads on a number of characteristics: double-digit leads on intelligence and being down to earth; she trails by double digits on arrogance (21 points — 39% to 60%) and narrow-mindedness (18 points), and strong leads on trustworthiness, being out of touch and being capable.
Why do people waste so much time in their lives examining the entrails of the opinions of a few hundred people each week?
Lordy, lordy. Pakistanis are still homeless, Gitmo is still open, the US is still waging many wars.
What do the Australian ‘meeja” go on about? Do you like Joolya or Tony.
It’s pathetic.
Even worse is not one journo picks up the lie of the much lower numbers of Afghans and Tamils being accepted in April when the stupid, illegal suspension was started.
DIAC didn’t publish the figures until September but they are shocking.
QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE
BUDGET ESTIMATES HEARING: 26 MAY 2010
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO
(48) Program 2.1: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance
Senator Parry (L&C 78) asked:
What is the acceptance rate by nationality of onshore protection claims and how
does that compare with acceptance rates in the United Kingdom and in North
America?
Answer:
Table 1 below sets out, for the top eight nationalities, primary decisions (grants and
refusals) and primary grant rates arising from applications for Protection visas by
non-Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) for the full year 2008-09 and 2009-10 to
11 June 2010.
Changes in grant rates between years may reflect, in part, changes in circumstances
in countries of origin or changes in the composition of particular caseloads.
Table 1: Non-IMA Protection visa primary decisions and grant rates
2008-09 2009-10
Nationality
Primary
decisions
Primary
grant rate
Primary
decisions
Primary
grant rate
Afghanistan 51 92% 81 90%
China (PRC) 1202 15% 1093 20%
Egypt 91 42% 129 46%
Iran 158 84% 219 88%
Iraq 174 88% 184 91%
Pakistan 210 66% 233 71%
Sri Lanka 417 80% 243 67%
Zimbabwe 252 76% 292 75%
Source: DIAC systems data as at 11 June 2010
Table 2 below sets out, for the top five nationalities, primary Refugee Status
Assessment (RSA) decisions (approvals and refusals) and acceptance rates for
Irregular Maritime Arrivals for the full year 2008-09 and 2009-10 to 11 June 2010.
There has been a steady decline in the primary acceptance rates of the main source
countries over the past few months, in particular since March-April 2010, due to
significant and emerging changes in country information.
Table 2: IMA Refugee Status Assessment primary decisions and primary
acceptance rates
2008-09 2009-10
Nationality
Primary
decisions
Primary
acceptance
rate
Primary
decisions
Primary
acceptance
rate
Afghanistan 178 99% 1703 84%
Iran 10 40% 91 60%
Iraq 21 81% 203 65%
Pakistan 0 0% 14 36%
Sri Lanka 14 29% 412 69%
Stateless 3 100% 253 66%
Source: DIAC data as at 11 June 2010
Comparisons between Australian grant rates and acceptance rates in other countries
are extremely difficult for a variety of reasons. These reasons include different
systems of refugee status determination, differences in calculation methods, and
differences in the characteristics of the caseload (such as difference in ethnicity or
religion).
Look at the figures – rates for Afghans only “dropped” by 15% over a much larger number of people and over 95% of them are now being accepted anyway.
And the Sri Lankan figures actually rose by 40%, they didn’t drop off as claimed.
Not one useless frigging journalist will write about it.
Guess the lazy fuckers are too busy parrotting their own drivel.
Am I warming to Abbott?
NO!
I’m warming … I’m warming up a nice big bonfire to burn the bastard in.
I mean … seriously … how could anyone warm to a reptile like that?
@ DR GROUSE – I’m with you!
I would have to suggest that there is something seriously flawed with the read on these numbers. When are people going to learn that the only thing on The Petulant Catholic Manchild’s mind is his *arse in the Lodge and he won’t settle for anything less. He would sooner watch the country and the Liberal Coalition implode before he ever gave up on his own ambitions.