Ongoing poll bonanza

A recent flurry of opinion polling today reaches a climax with results from ACNielsen and, unexpectedly, Newspoll, which normally reports on Tuesday. The former rains on the recent Coalition polling parade somewhat with a survey of 1403 voters showing no change in the primary vote situation from last month: Labor on 48 per cent, Coalition on 39 per cent. Nonetheless, the two-party result has narrowed just slightly, from 58-42 to 57-43, while Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister lead is down from 51-43 to 48-42. Bryan Palmer’s newly updated graphs can be viewed here.

Newspoll offers a similar result, with Labor leading 56-44 on two-party preferred. However, it’s better news for the Coalition in relative terms – the previous Newspoll three weeks ago had Labor with a quirky-looking lead of 60-40. The Coalition primary vote is up from 35 per cent to 39 per cent; Labor’s is down from 52 per cent to 46 per cent; Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister lead is down from 47-38 to 46-40.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

430 comments on “Ongoing poll bonanza”

Comments Page 9 of 9
1 8 9
  1. Thanks for correcting me on the name of the Exclusive Brethren.
    I have to correct you on the fact that the AEC and the police do think they are not a part of the legal democratic process and are investigating their illegal activities relating to anti-Green advertising and connection to Liberal Party, and not declairing who finaned them.
    Not to mention dodge activities in NZ and Canada where Exclusive Brethren specialise in influencing government of any Party not just Greens.
    I suppose their attention to the Green in Australia is recognotion of the growing vote and influence of the Australian Greens

  2. Generic Oracle,

    I find your posts clear, reasoned and interesting, and I hope that you continue them. No matter how much invective others use, it is never necessary for anyone to respond in the same way, so if you can keep your cool under provocation, keep posting.

    Family First certainly falls between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party on the political spectrum. I would label it as Centre Right, whereas you, I think, tend to label it as Centre Left. I would rate both Family First and the Greens ahead of the Liberal Party, but I may be unusual in that. Steve Fielding voted against the government’s IR laws, which is in his favour; he voted for its VSU legislation, which is not in his favour. W can go through all his votes and express agreement or disagreement with each one. But the idea that Family First is extremist is without foundation. That someone from the AOG Church told Bill that disability is the result of the disabled person’s doing evil reflects badly on the church member making the statement, but it says nothing about Family First. Every party has supporters who do and say dreadful things. This is quite different from the party itself doing or saying something dreadful.

    Family First cannot deny its religious connection, but so what? The Family First booth worker I spoke to in last year’s Victorian election told me that six members of his church were candidates and that when they had asked for help, 500-600 of the 800 church members had volunteered. That’s just the democratic process at work. Anyone who wants to get involved in politics, Christian or atheist, is free to do so, through whatever party suits.

    Family First’s political problem is finding a constituency. The outer-suburban entertainment-style church congregations simply are not big enough. Steve Fielding’s 2004 victory was possible because the Labor vote collapsed. In normal circumstances, the preferences would have gone the other way, but the coalition would still control the Senate. I expect Labor’s vote to be much higher this year. The question is whether or not the coalition vote will collapse to such an extent that its preferences contribute to a successful preference harvest by Family First. I am doubtful. I can see FF existing as a very minor party of around 4 per cent and never getting beyond that level. The Greens will remain the third party of choice for the foreseeable future, taking the spot held by the DLP (1950s-1970s) and then by the Democrats (1970s-2000s).

  3. Firstly, there is a huge difference between saying that something is not inherently immoral or degrading, and saying that you are in favour of or promote that thing. Anyone unable to see this difference should probably stop reading philosophy because they are unlikely to get much from it.

    Secondly if we are going to start playing the “prominent member of party X says this; is that party policy?” then can we also try it with for example Bill Heffernan?

  4. Would the Family First Party really suggest that two women in a relationship with a kid don’t constitute “a family”?

  5. Chris Curtis Says:
    July 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    Family First cannot deny its religious connection, but so what? The Family First booth worker I spoke to in last year’s Victorian election told me that six members of his church were candidates and that when they had asked for help, 500-600 of the 800 church members had volunteered. That’s just the democratic process at work. Anyone who wants to get involved in politics, Christian or atheist, is free to do so, through whatever party suits.

    Thats my point they should be open with the connection so voters know where they are coming from. If they get 500 booth workers to our 100 good luck to them. There is no jealousy’s from me. Just want the openness and for people to dig deeper with this party as many seem delighted to do with the Greens

  6. Chris Curtis Says:
    July 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    Generic Oracle,

    I find your posts clear, reasoned and interesting, and I hope that you continue them. No matter how much invective others use, it is never necessary for anyone to respond in the same way, so if you can keep your cool under provocation, keep posting.

    I agree with you Chris. As i have posted before that even though i don’t agree with many on here. I respect their posts / beliefs and Knowledge and to me its all a learning issue. Yes i have personal issues with the AOG but so do many others. It just scares me having gone down that pentecostal road myself that this same grouping could influence government in the future. The AOG goal is to save society by showing them their version of gods way as do many of the more extreme Christian sects.

  7. from another list

    Some speculation in the press this morning that if Howard gets a Tampa
    like bounce in the polls this week he may call an election as early as
    the end of this week. Apparently the earliest he can go is August 4.

    Just some anecdotal evidence, the letters page of my local paper, The
    Manly Daily has been full of this issue all week. Perhaps a worrying
    sign that this issue is pushing all the same buttons as Tampa. This
    week’s Newspoll will be eagerly awaited.

  8. Sacha,

    To regard the couple and child you mention as a family is a left-wing view; to not so regard them is a right-wing view, so Family First is on the Right in that position. To require secret ballots before employees take industrial action but not before the employer, or more precisely, the employer’s managers, take industrial action against employees is a right-wing view, so the Labor Party is on the Right in that position. You have to look at more than one policy to judge where a party fits on the eighteenth century left-right continuum.

    Bill,

    I am not defending the Assembly of God, and you have every right to be hostile to that church given your experience of it. But I wouldn’t tar Steve Fielding with the same brush. All who pay attention to politics know that there is a connection between Family First and the newer evangelical churches. It doesn’t worry those who vote for it.

    I am a strong advocate of animal welfare. I think personhood for the Great Apes is a bit PC, but they should be protected, as should all animals from experimentation. The idea that mankind is a totally different sort of creature from all others cannot withstand modern knowledge of DNA.

    The Democrats will not recover from this year’s defeat. There is not a strong enough core of belief to hold them together. It’s the Greens’ turn now!

  9. Chris

    Cheers mate, I always enjoy reading your comments too! I’m quite Rhino-skinned, so no fear of me ever getting upset but I just didn’t want this thread going pear-shaped! Agree with your comments but do think that FF is perhaps more centre-right than centre-left, as you suggest.

    Envy

    Cheers and good luck supporting your party! Passion is always a good thing for things you believe in!

    Bill

    Everyone here bags you at some stage and you still top the post-list!! So we all know you have Rhino-skin 🙂 No hard feelings. With regard to the Dems, it doesn’t look good. As I’ve said, Greens represent a lot of the policy and FF may end up filling the middle-minor slot but I wouldn’t discount the Dems just yet.. a long way to go until October(ish)

  10. Chris wrote in part: “To regard the couple and child you mention as a family is a left-wing view; to not so regard them is a right-wing view.”

    I’m sorry Chris, why is one view “left” and the other “right”?

  11. Glen Milne is speculating an early election call based on Coalition concerns about the negative impact the APEC conference is expected to have on the electorates views of the PM, particularly in Sydney.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21842364-601,00.html

    Apparently, the August event is in danger of putting a “wet blanket” over any slow creep momentum gains the Coalition is expecting from the roll out of Costellos ‘heres 30 peices of silver- go on take it- you know you want to’ vote buying scheme targeted specifically at voters considering jumping ship to Labor (grey army, etc).

    Did I have to mention ships; The 2007 Tampa ‘rabbit’ (saving the world in NT) is getting plumper by the day and is wresting momemtum from the Rudd camp for the winter solstace period. No wonder the Unions at the Brissy chat fest were screaming at Rudd to get some POLICY out, NOW !!

    In Aussie rules football terms the ‘championship’ quarter is the third- I think I just heard the half time whistle blow. Should be interesting to see what the coaches (election strategists) have up their sleeves in the coming weeks.

  12. Chris, whether one thinks that same-sex couples with a child are a family is more about social liberalism rather than the 20th century ideological left/right scale.

    You can easily find “right-wingers” (e.g. libertarians or classical liberals) who subcribe to a socially liberal line and probably also find socially illiberal dyed-in-the-wool marxists (who would oppose any focus on sexuality as class is the only political issue that matters).

  13. dembo Says:

    July 1st, 2007 at 10:27 am
    Nice work, Strop.

    I personally don’t think Wentworth is that marginal, as there was a large anti-Turnbull protest vote last time that will return to him, and also Turnbull is cautious enough to devote significant resources to Wentworth that other candidates don’t have.

    Thanks for your comments Dembo. My speculations about the swing required etc was based purely on mathematical reality only. Each seat is going to have to have its pros and cons for either side as you rightly point out regarding Wentworth.

    Will the ‘Brian Burke’ issue or the boom effect WA voters in Cowan, Swan, Stirling, Hasluck? What about the ‘save the world in NT’ policy in Solomon; the ‘missapropriation’ allegations against Vasta et al in 3 QLD marginals; the McKew factor in Bennalong; the impact of Centrelink hard line policy about to be imposed on single parent familes with a high representation in particular marginal seats (Dobell, Lindsay, Page, etc); seats with above average mortgage payers (Bonner, Kingston, Makin, Wakefeild Hasluck) and the ‘local’ issues and political games being played. Fascinating stuff.

  14. up from the now famous/infamous (depending where you stand) 53-47 poll.

    apparently only 25% believe the PM cares about the indigenous crisis.

    58% believe its all an election ploy.

    uh oh.

  15. Chris Curtis said:
    “The Greens will remain the third party of choice for the foreseeable future, taking the spot held by the DLP (1950s-1970s) and then by the Democrats (1970s-2000s)”

    I think there is a distinction to be made between the DLP/Greens and the Democrats and their position in the senate.

    Up until the late 1970s, the senate was dominated by the two majors and any minor party was an attendant extreme party to the majors (ie Libs and Lab were “the center”).

    The big success of the Democrats has been in creating a “middle” for the senate. The DLP was not a centrist party (despite some revision going on nowadays) and while I agree with many of the Greens views, I think they are once again further away from the center than Labor. In effect, a return to the old system.

    Greens with the balance will be something quite different to the Democrats. The biggest shake-up in 30 years I think.

  16. Dembo

    I agree with your assessment of the role of the Greens compared with the Dems. A “major-minor” party like the Greens having reasonable representation is not bad or “evil” but nor does it do much to “balance the senate”. It merely provides a clearer voice for the Left, currently muddied within the Labor party due to the party playing catch-up to the right to sway voters back from the Liberals.

    In part, this has probably been necessary for Labor, since the swinging electorate (mostly) has shifted Right as the Liberal party has assumed a policy set more consistent with the late 1960’s, back from a position as Left as it ever was at about 1995. In essence, the populace had shifted with the incumbent party, just as it tended to do with the previous Labor reign.

    These swinging voters do tend to do what they are told until something makes them realise the pot has “warmed up”, then they start hopping out! In 1996 it was perhaps economics and a revolt against “political correctness”, a rich vein tapped by ONP with immigration, indigenous issues and some small measure of Xenophobia (non- ONP voters tended not to need an explanation).

    Now, it is becoming clear that the workplace has woken up voters. All was comparatively fine (at the suburban lot level) until the public realised that they can’t afford their plasmas with a pay cut. Beyond the poll noise, I agree with those that suggest that the underlying pattern is stablilising rather than closing. The swinging voters may well be making up their minds early.

    Against this background, the Greens in the senate mostly provide a clarion call for the Left in an environment of growing conservatism, however, there is little evidence that this will “balance” the senate significantly. The senate majority “gift” will be (likely) gone this year and Fielding is some comfort to the coalition but no yes man.

    What needs to be considered is this chunk of Gen-Xers that is present in Australia. Overshadowed in population by both Boomers and Generation Y, advertising and media in general focusses on these larger demographics with higher disposable incomes. Politicians would be wise to spend some time wooing the X-ers. They make up a sizeable chunk of swinging voters and are, as a group, more conservative than boomers.

    Xers have young families now. This means they care intimately about Health, Education and the affordability of their mortgages. This means IR is crucial. They absolutely need their jobs. They have a pragmatic approach to the environment, interested more in sustainable building/removating/living, water tanks and PV panels than spending weekends waving placards and chained to trees. Save the climate but help me pay my mortgage too.

    If this group and the blue-rinse set have already decided on their vote, it could come down largely to the young and single voter bloc and here I think Labor and the Greens stand to clean up on the undecideds.

  17. Generic Oracle Says:

    until the public realised that they can’t afford their plasmas with a pay cut.

    I cant afford one now! And i have no interest in having one. My luxuries are an old computer and my political library ( its amazing what bargain books you can buy from charity shops ) My wife ever the bargain hunter buys most of her clothes at charity shops and looks fantastic. Our furnishings are also from these shops. I believe the simpler you live the happier you are. But i do need to buy a new computer.

    I think the Democrats will wither and die with party members joining either the Greens or FF. It would be interesting to know what type of people that did vote Dems now vote FF.

  18. William would you be able to do one of your post list polls to see who has been doing all the postings ( i love polls and voting )

  19. On the Cook preselection: the Supreme Court (?) reinstated the 15 odd preselectors that had been thrown out and the preselection is going to happen in July.

  20. Sacha,

    In applying the labels of left-wing and right-wing to attitudes to same-sex families, I was using a more mainstream traditional continuum, rather than including libertarians, who are such a tiny percentage of the political spectrum. I’d go along with the Marxists as regarding class to be a more significant political issue, but that puts me out on a lonely limb.

    Dembo,

    I agree that the DLP was not a centrist party. It was a centre left party, committed to social welfare, decent working conditions, environmental awareness, democratic electoral systems and much more. Had it retained the balance of power, its senators would have voted with the other Labor senators to stop not only WorknotcalledChoicesanymore but also the first set of Liberal IR laws that the Democrats supported. That puts the DLP to the left of the Democrats on IR. On other issues, I concede the Democrats would be to the left of the DLP, but the middle in the Senate was there well before the Democrats arrived. When it held the balance of power, the DLP joined with the ALP to set up the committee system which has been such an important part of the Senate’s performing its role as a House of Review.

    Both the Liberals and the Labor Party have moved to the right over the last 25 years, so the DLP of old would find itself not only in its traditional position to the left of the Liberals but on some economic issues to the left of the Labor Party as well.

    You are right about the Greens: when – not if – they gain the balance of power they will be to the left of both major parties. This will be the first time that the balance has been held by a party that does not lie between the two majors but beyond both of them. Interesting times!

    Bill,

    My own view has been for several years that the Democrats should have amalgamated with the Greens. It was obvious to me about three years ago that their only chance of survival lay that way. There is just not enough room for two third parties. I’ll put it another way. The record third party Senate vote is Frank McManus’s 19 per cent in 1970. I bet many of those voters voted for Don Chipp in 1977, yet common opinion would regard the DLP and the Democrats as totally different parties.

  21. Chris

    I had occasion to work around politcal groups from 1991 to 2000.
    The democrats I met were mainly young but very on-ball and cool headed.

    Approaching the 2001 election I talked of their prospective wipeout and suggested that they would likely head to the Greens and was quite surprised that this idea was firmly rejected. It was not so much an anti-green feeling but more that the party was not for them.

    My impressions of those dems I met and from other readings is that the dems did mainly stick to Chipps ideal of being a “liberal” party, they liked their independence and status of watchdog. Unfortunately they blew this with their comprises on IR and the GST and their infighting.

    As to where they went, I believe they went to Howard in one form or the other in 04 as Latham was not for them and I believe they will turn to Rudd in 07 as he is more of small “l” liberal for them. They are a sizable block of around 4-5% that could decide the election.

    I don’t think they will go to the Greens, the greens should have polled higher in NSW with both labor and liberal being unpalatable. Likewise I don’t think they will go to FF due to their percieved ties to the religous right which also worked against Debnam.

  22. I think there was a move to join the Greens with the Dems but like Arbie Jay Said it was rejected. Most people i know who voted Dems pre GST saying that the Dems shafted them and would never support them again i believe the Greens would not see an amalgamation with them favorably or worth the risk. The anti Dem feeling is bigger than any anti Green feeling

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 9 of 9
1 8 9