Reuters Poll Trend: 54.9-45.1

The latest semi-monthly Reuters Poll Trend figure, a weighted composite of results from Morgan, Newspoll and ACNielsen, continues the gentle trend back to the Coalition that has been evident since May. On the primary vote, Labor is down from 47.7 per cent to 46.9 per cent and the Coalition up from 39.5 per cent to 40.4 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is steady on 46.4 per cent, while John Howard’s is down from 40.5 per cent to 40.2 per cent.

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.

429 comments on “Reuters Poll Trend: 54.9-45.1”

Comments Page 2 of 9
1 2 3 9
  1. question time was fascinating.
    Costello confirmed that he had lied on TV about the dinner.
    given that his press secretary who was also there did not quibble with any of the three journalist notes we know they are accurate.
    Indeed the next day he rang them up to tell them it was not even background. Perhaps Cozzie realised even then he had not the guts for what he was proposing.

    He certainly showed yet again what an inept performer he is.

  2. Poster 52. Some heroic assumptions are made by you about who is and who is not telling the truth. In my experience, there would need to be cross examination of all parties, including the journalists, on matters like the date of the meeting and when and in what circumstances the notes of that meeting were made, before any of us are in a position to level (serious) accusation(s) of falsehood against anyone.

  3. STROP, excellent and insightful analysis as always. Thanks!
    However, I keep hearing and reading that ALP members and insiders in QLD are terrified the council amalgamation thing will cost Rudd 4 or 5 possibly winnable Coalition seats, and even the Labor held seat of Caprocornia is at risk, apparently. I wonder if Rudd might do something to take on Beattie, or more forcibly express his opposition to the amalgamations?
    Costello? He’s a terrible performer in parliament, a very bad Paul Keating impersonator! All Cozzie, Abbott and Downer know how to do is get up and fling purile insults at the other side, rather like 7 year old boys in the school playground. And, through it all, the Ruddster calmly sits and does his paperwork.

  4. What does this mean for Costello’s future? After the election [if Howard wins] will he be selected as replacement PM? I am thinking that he is done for and Turnbull will get the nod. Costello would retire then? If so the reality is that the next Howard Govt will be ex- Howard and Costello.

    Thus if voters think they can vote for a stable economy because of Howard/Costello then that reason has now gone.

    Labor should be asking Costello publically if he intends to stay in politics if he doesnt win the leadership after the election. Putting the question of doubt in the voters mind.

  5. What Howard has just announced with his legislation attempting to over ride the Qld governments management of local council amalgamations is an absolute disgrace.

    If I was Beattie – I would appoint administrators to every local council involved with the amalgamations by tomorrow morning.

  6. Thanks again Martin for the link. Neil Mitchell read it out on radio. He was given a list (by Bernie Finn I think – he was interviewed on the show) of former ABC workers on the Labor side of politics and was making a big deal about it. There were 17 on that list. I give him credit for later reading out the list you provided me with. He ended up by saying they’re all in to personality politics. I feel at least the other side of the coin was presented.

  7. As with many things I think Howard will go one step too far in this amalgamations debate and alienate the vast bulk of Queenslanders. It will be seen as an attack on their state by the Feds.

  8. Evan says:

    “Costello? He’s a terrible performer in parliament, a very bad Paul Keating impersonator! ”

    I couldn’t agree more. It’s a huge turn-off. People are tired of this stuff, irrespective of what side of politics it comes from. Remember Costello’s Brian Burke/Kevin Rudd soliloquy, with quotes from “Muriel’s Wedding”. Just silly, not statesmanlike.

  9. 58
    Gary Bruce Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 10:59 am

    As with many things I think Howard will go one step too far in this amalgamations debate and alienate the vast bulk of Queenslanders. It will be seen as an attack on their state by the Feds.

    I agree with you on that issue Gary. The tactic is high risk in State’s like QLD, WA and NT which don’t like the ‘big city’ people from the Canberra sticking their noses into their state politics. But Howard is desperate and his tacticians seem to think its worth the risk.

  10. Evanl, thank you for the positive feed back. I think the amalgamation issue could cost Labor some support in seats they might otherwise have counted on or at least had a serious shot at winning IF enough are ticked off about it and don’t share my assumption that Queenslanders don’t like Canberra sticking their nose into state politics business, Petrie being the obvious one.

    As for Capricornia, any ‘protest’ vote there will NOT lose the seat for Labor because the general swing across the state against the Coalition is strong enough to ‘save’ it from extinction for Labor IMHO.

  11. just be aware that the “dummy independent” strategy is presupposed on this exact type of conflict.
    from what my sis in qld is saying the moves are already underway-just needs the right amount of oxygen to relally flare up
    ps pauline entered the fray as if on cue-wouldnt you say

  12. If Rudd wins the election and we get a Liberal state government somewhere not one Liberal will have any grounds for complaint if Fed Labor overides a Liberal state on an issue. This is the risk Howard is taking as well. I certainly wouldn’t expect complaints from the Howard supporters here.

  13. Tell me Steve, other than mischief making, what good will it do giving people the vote on these amalgamations? Do you agree with the amalgations? Did you support Kennett’s amalgamations in Victoria? Were they a good idea?

  14. What effect will this stockmarket slide and higher interest rates have on the election? Will it help the government (the so called proven money managers) or cause further angst against them, seeing that these things are happening on their watch?

  15. I’ll assume Howard’s private polling in QLD is showing the Council Amalgamation row is playing well for his side of politics, hence today’s further Federal government interference. It’s cynical stuff from the rodent, but clever too. Will it win Howard the election? It might stop Rudd winning a few moderately safer seats in QLD, but I doubt it’ll save the likes of Bonner and Moreton from going over to the Labor column.
    STROP, thanks for the feedback!

  16. Anyone know what Barnaby Joyce’s position is on the council amalgation stuff? Leaving the council amalgamations aside, I can’t see him being too positive on the effective over-riding of QLD State legislation, but then who knows. May be some one here has got some ideas on that.

  17. This is an outrageous attack on states’ rights, and is extremely high-risk. Yes, some people are not going to like amalgamations, and may vote for the Lib/Nats. However, the vast majority of Qlders probably don’t care very much about this issue. Qlders are parochial, and have elected strong leaders like Joh and Beattie. When Whitlam took on Joh, he was absolutely smashed. I think this intervention gives Beattie the perfect license to turn it into a Qld vs Fed issue, and Beattie will smash Howard. Go get ‘im, Pete!!!

  18. Never mind the amalgamations, the current bloodbath on the stock market is more likely to change people’s votes. This currently seems to me to be an emerging threat to a Labor victory. Incumbency can be a powerful weapon at such times. I hope I’m wrong.

  19. My guess is the Rudd ster will stay right out of it completely now and let Swan go to town in the HOR and Premier Beattie rip it up in the papers and media.

    I think this high risk strategy will backfire on JWH as others who took on QLD state Premiers have found out in the past.

    Rudd will be smart enough to sit back and watch the spectacle from a distance and let the cards fall where they will. Setting a flame under one P. Beattie is NOT a good idea Mr. Howard; he will find he has bitten off more than he can chew. Good call Gary, he has taken it too far today.

  20. What constitutional safeguards are there regarding the holding of an election? It occurs to me that if Howard knows he’s going to lose, he might try to change the Federal Electoral Act to grossly advantage the Libs (maybe by imposing a gerrymander, or restricting the vote to only wealthy types and farmers).

  21. Gotta agree with ya there Lord D… it really shows how out-of-touch the coalition is.

    I’m in a bit of shock actually, about how inept the government actually is about dealing with this and many other matters. They’re scoring own-goal after own-goal. It’s almost like federal Labor is perplexed about to best capitalize on an opponent that seems hell-bent on self-destruction. In a week in which Howard desperately needs to wrest the initiative of the agenda from Rudd, they’ve had leadership bickering, senior ministers being caught red-handed telling porkies (again), and an attack on the leadership of the most parochial state in the nation.

    Howard is beginning to act like Latham.

  22. Matthew Sykes Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Never mind the amalgamations, the current bloodbath on the stock market is more likely to change people’s votes. This currently seems to me to be an emerging threat to a Labor victory. Incumbency can be a powerful weapon at such times. I hope I’m wrong.

    Did we just see a rabbit’s ear pop up out of left feild ? No I don’t think so. Some will note the incumbent was/is a the helm and (ignorantly) blame them and some will (equally as ignorantly) worry that a change of Government in a time of ‘economic struggle’ is a bad idea. Net result, nil all.

  23. I think there is probably more sound and fury around this issue rather than substance. You have just got to think back to the noise and protest around Australias involvement in the initial Iraq invasion to realise that some issues despite all the noise and passion have little effect on voting intentions.

    I thought Beatties threat to run a referendum on Workchoices was quite an interesting response. I’m sure the fact that workchoices was introduced without first being run past the electorate is a fact not lost on a lot of punters out there, so for Howard to now be playing the “champion of democracy” it will probably be seen as a desperate act from a desperate man.

  24. Howard is starting to look more like Latham as time goes by. Desperate, swinging punches at ghosts, hell bent on doing it is his way regardless of the fall out and using very high risk strategies to stir up attention to himself. Still, its just another day in politics and there are many swings and roundabouts to be negotiated yet.

  25. Good on John Howard – I’m all with him on this one! We gotta have more elections/referenda in this country. Let’s support him on this direct democracy thing! Let’s get rid of Parliament – except perhaps as an initiating body and vote directly on everything at every level. Athens 500 BC here we come!

    What I don’t understand is how Mr. Howard reconciles this with his position as a constitutional monarchist?

  26. And in thinking abou that further Mr Rocket…

    I wonder what would happen if Peter Beattie decided to hold a referendum on whether they wanted to move the state to a republic. Would there actually be anything in our constitution that would stop them from doing that? Imagine that… two heads of state.

    What Howard is doing, is really no different. He’s denying the constitutional right of the state legislature to make laws that affect their consituents. The people of Queensland already have an ability to address such an outcome… they can vote in a party that works on a policy of re-estabilishing the councils, and vote out Beattie. It might even happen.

    It is this type of policy-on-the-run that Howard/Latham is attempting, that leads to such disastrous outcomes. Civil Wars start this way.

  27. Any objectivity on the Pollbludger has been well and truly poisoned by the socialist hordes on here.

    The polls aren’t healthy but by gee it’d be a fantastic sight to see you all after the election and the Coalition is still around.

  28. Let’s go back in history. Who did the Australian public blame for the Great Depression the government, the world money markets or the opposition? In 1961 who did the people blame for the credit squeeze the government, the world money markets or the opposition? In 1990 and 1993 who did the people want to blame and in 1996 did blame for the high interest rates etc., the government, the world money markets or the opposition? In each case, whether the government managed to be returned or not the government bore the brunt for the unease felt at the negative change of economic conditions.
    In 1932 the government was thrown out. In 1961 Menzies hung on by one seat, just. In 1990 the government was returned with the lesser two party preferred vote, in 1993 Hewson wrote a 900 page suicide note and we all know what eventually happened in 1996.
    So why should any lift in interest rates or share market downturn necessarily favour the government again?

  29. Swordfish, if the Lib/Nats win the election, I’ve got a very nasty alternate national anthem ready to go, which I made up after the 2001 election.

  30. How does Reuters come up with 54.9-45.1 when I’ve only seen one poll result (Galaxy) worse than 55-45? I reckon its still around 56-44.

    Look at Bryan’s 2PP moving average graph:

  31. I changed a few lines myself back in 2001

    replace this
    For those who’ve come across the seas
    We’ve boundless plains to share;
    With courage let us all combine
    To Advance Australia Fair.

    with this
    For those who’ve come across the seas
    We’ve little thought or care;
    let selfish greed and fear combine
    to wreck Australia Fair

  32. My questions about Joyce and this issue was about whether Howard would get it through the Senate?

    By the way, has anyone thought about this referendum issue this way:
    Howard wants it on the legislative agenda, but not even actually pass it before the election: that way Howard can go around QLD and say that the Federal Election is actually a ‘referendum’ on the council amalgamations and ‘make’ it a ‘federal’ issue (without spending money).

    He is also running out of sitting days for an election if he calls it quickly after APEC, and then can make the above claim.

    Don’t know if it would help him protect QLD seats, but that could be the strategy.

    Anyway, hope that people see it as the crazy stunt that it is.

  33. Swordfish, winning this election could very well be a poison chalice for either party economically. If Labor win and there is a downturn you can blame Labor and the “bad economic managers” tag will stick. However if the coalition win and there is a downturn their “great economic managers” tag will be destroyed by the following election.

  34. It would be interesting to hear from the non-socialist/non-hordes on this blog about their reflections on what Mr. Howard is _actually_ doing. (This is for you Swordfish!) We’ll all try to put aside partisan cheer leading and really look at this ‘intervention’.

    What does Mr. Howard really believe in? It seems to me that it all comes down to retaining power – as simple as that. This Queensland move is a complete reversal of over a century of convention. This is not something to be done lightly, and yet, it’s being done! How do conservatives feel about this usurpation of Australia’s governing conventions?

  35. Stewart J Says: Rudd has come out and said he supports John Howard overriding Queensland over amalgamations…

    He’s done no such thing. How about reading the title…

    “Rudd stands back as Howard steps in”

    … before you deliberately take something out of context.

  36. As a bit of fun I just ran a battery of tests on the relationship between the stock market and the primary vote of the government, the opposition, the ALP and the Coalition over the period December 1985 through to the July 2007.

    There is no linear or non-linear relationship between governments/oppositions and the sharemarket.

    There is, however, a slight relationship between the S&P200 and the coalition.

    (warning – what follows may hurt the brain… skip down if it does)

    Because the S&P200 index contains a unit root process, it has to be adjusted to achieve stationarity to allow it’s impact to be modelled on the primary vote accurately.So rather than differencing the index (which ejects to much information), I detrended it against a 4th order polynomial by regressing the S&P200 on a constant, and 4 time variables – t, t^2, t^3 and t^4.

    The residuals of that regression then became a detrended, stationary representation of the stock market movement.

    If the coalition primary vote is then regressed on a constant, the coalition primary vote in the previous period (to account for inertia in the series), the detrended S&P200 and then adjusted for some Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity effects to minimise the volatility, the end result is…..

    (Brain hurters reconnect here 😉 )

    ….At most, over the last 21 odd years, movements in the sharemarket can explain about 4% max movement in the primary vote of the Coalition, but in an inverse way.Upward S&P movements walk hand in hand with a small decline in the coalition primary, S&P declines walk hand in hand with a small rise in the Coalition primary vote.

    Other tests using different types of stationarity adjustment of the S&P200 showed no correlation or covariance between S&P200 movements and primary vote movements.

  37. And Another Howard Wedge on Rudd has failed.

    [Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he will back John Howard’s move to override the Queensland Labor Government on council amalgamations.

    Today Mr Howard said he would move to change federal laws to make it illegal for Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to fine councils who hold referendums on the controversial local government mergers.

    In the latest in a series of high-profile interventions into state affairs, Mr Howard accused the Beattie Government of trampling on basic democratic rights and said it was “outrageous that any level of government should punish people for wanting to express a view.”

    But if the move was an attempt to wedge federal Labor on its support for Mr Beattie’s Government, it looks to have failed.

    Mr Rudd called a press conference shortly afterwards to announce that federal Labor would back the law changes in Parliament and would move to let the Government introduce the necessary legislation as early as today.

    “When it comes to the imposition of fines, or the threat of fines, and the making it illegal for local authorities to test the sentiments of their local voters if they so wish, I disagree with those courses of action on the part of Mr Beattie,” he said.

    “Therefore the course of action outlined by Mr Howard, I’m prepared to support.” ]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/16/2006723.htm

  38. Once again on the amalgamation theme, the Courier Mail reports research shows a low level of support across the State for a vote on the issue.

    According to the local Government Association of Queensland, councils representing just of 550,000 registered voters (as at the 2004 election) would be expected to support a plebiscite on the issue compared to councils representing a whopping 1.85 Million voters would not want to proceed with a vote.

    That is, only 1/4 of the QLD electorate would be expected to have an interest in this issue Mr Howard wants to force on QLD voters. This information suggests that the merger issue is NOT a burning issue across the breadth of the State and those 1.85M voters are not going to be happy about being forced into a plebiscite on something that is and should remain the business of the State Government deal with.

    On a similar theme, I noted that 3 Labor Senator’s including John Hogg and Claire Moore from QLD have backed a damaging Senate report that will put pressure on the State Government to scrap the Traveston Dam plan. Malcolm Turnbull has to wait for an assessment, currently underway, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act before making a final decision, but there is no awards for guessing what he is thinking.

    That won’t do much to improve State-Federal Labor relations, but it will highlight the power of the Federal Government to mess with State politics when it suits their interests.

  39. The funny thing is in response to criticisms about Rudd’s inexperience…Labor supporters just muse that Howard is acting like Latham and i cannot see any justification for this…Latham was all over the place whereas Howard is a steady hand…

    The Coalition has a lot to thank Beattie for after all Rudd will get less than 6 seats on election day…it will be harder to win if Rudd doesnt win a swag of seats in his home state…looks like we could see an Al Gore situation…had he won Tennessee he’d have beaten Bush but he didnt and if Rudd doesnt smash Howard in Queensland he’ll find it hard to make up the 16 seats considering he’ll probably lose one or two in WA.

    Howard is smart to use the stock market falls as a weapon against Rudd…in times of uncertainty why elect someone with so little experience…this will bite…it will be interesting to see the next poll come out.

  40. 74
    Lord D Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
    What constitutional safeguards are there regarding the holding of an election? It occurs to me that if Howard knows he’s going to lose, he might try to change the Federal Electoral Act to grossly advantage the Libs (maybe by imposing a gerrymander, or restricting the vote to only wealthy types and farmers).

    ‘No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.’ (section 41 of the Constitution)

    I don’t think there’s any constitutional restrictions on gerrymandering, though.

  41. Can you believe Beattie’s arrogance and stupidity? Federal Labor must be scratching their heads right now and wondering “Why is Beattie so determined to assist the re-election of the Howard Government?” No other explanation makes sense. There’s no logical reason why Beattie could not have shelved this bizarre move until after the federal election, if he truly wanted to see Dudd become PM. What are his motives? One theory is that he bears a long standing grudge against Dudd and Goose, and wants to pay them back. Another is that he fears that a Federal Labor government would trigger an opposite swing in the states, with state governments toppling to the Coalition one by one. Personally, I think it’s because he knows from long experience that he can do business with Howard, (the current brou-ha-ha notwithstanding), because Howard is a highly professional and nationally-minded PM, where he doesn’t trust Dudd to treat him as fairly, or to behave with the same degree of competence and professionalism. They’re just going nuts about this up in QLD, and Dudd is helplessly watching whilst that swag of seats he was hoping to win in QLD disappear before his eyes. The recriminations when Dudd loses are going to be ugly, folks! So says Cerdic Conan.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 2 of 9
1 2 3 9