Morgan has released two sets of federal poll results: a mid-week phone poll of 765 respondents, and a face-to-face poll of 897 respondents conducted last weekened. Morgan has gone against normal practice by using “preferences distributed by how electors say they will vote” for the headline two-party measure for the phone poll, which puts Labor’s lead at 64-36. The more reliable “preferences distributed by how electors voted at the 2007 election” has it at 62.5-37.5, down from 63.5-36.5 last week. The face-to-face poll has it at 62-38, the same as the previous such poll conducted a fortnight ago.
Other news:
• The main starters are in place for the Gippsland by-election. The Nationals have nominated Darren Chester, staffer to state party leader Peter Ryan; Labor has nominated Wellington Shire mayor Darren McCubbin; and the Liberal candidate is Central Gippsland Health Service bureaucrat Rohan Fitzgerald. Gerard McManus of the Herald Sun reports Labor internal polling has them on 36 per cent to the Nationals’ 32 per cent and the Liberals’ 19 per cent, which after preferences would mean a comfortable win for the Nationals.
• On Monday, The West Australian published a Westpoll survey of 406 voters concerning federal voting intention in Western Australia, which had Labor leading 62-38 – a 16 per cent turn-around from the federal election. A question on preferred Liberal leader had Peter Costello on 19 per cent, Malcolm Turnbull on 18 per cent, local hero Julie Bishop on 17 per cent, Brendan Nelson on 12 per cent and Joe Hockey on 11 per cent. The survey also gauged support on a republic, finding 51 per cent support against 33 per cent outright opposition, with 70 per cent supporting a referendum on the matter to coincide with the next election (leaving aside the small matter of the model being proposed).
• Norm Kelly, member of the Australian National University’s Democratic Audit and former Western Australian Democrats state MP, peruses the government’s recently announced package of electoral reforms and finds fault with the move to tie public campaign funding to verified expenditure (clearly introduced to prevent a repeat of Pauline Hanson’s $200,000-plus windfalls from her recent Senate campaigns), which he says will disadvantage minor parties in its proposed form.
• Radio National’s The National Interest program had an interesting item recently on campaign funding laws in New York City and Canada. The practice of the former makes it very hard to understand why donations for last year’s federal election won’t be disclosed until February next year (to the extent that they still need to be disclosed at all, following the Howard government’s disgraceful 2006 “reforms”).
• The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is inviting submissions for its inquiry into the 2007 federal election, which will be received until Friday, May 16.
• I have just had to cough up $400 for annual site hosting, so now would be a good time for those who like to make the occasional donation.
UPDATE: Victorian Greens upper house MP Greg Barber drops by in comments to plug a parliamentary inquiry into the state’s donation disclosure laws. Reader ShowsOn tells us he has been Newspoll-ed, and that we can expect Tuesday’s poll to feature responses on who would make the best Liberal leader out of Brendan Nelson, Julie Bishop, Peter Costello and Malcolm Turnbull; who would make the best leadership team out of Nelson/Bishop, Costello/Turnbull and Turnbull/Andrew Robb; and who out of Turnbull and Wayne Swan would be best at handling the economy.
We haven’t heard from Gippslander for a while, I wonder if he can give us some feedback.
HooHoo
The demographics do suggest that the bush population is getting older comparatively, but I can’t believe they’re all so happy with the status quo as to be happy for nothing to change. I’m also not so sure that as the older generation isn’t starting to adopt their children and grandchildren’s ideals – they can’t be happy about their families deserting them out there in the bush.
As I’ve said before, chronic negativity really only has positive effect late in an election campaign. It certainly felt like the coalition was constantly campaigning in the last decade and I just reckon the general population has become conditioned, and therefore unresponsive to it all.
Omimod,
I am only making the chronic negativity comment because as a 24 year old who battled alienation as a child and has worked hard to get into the workforce and into University, I cannot understand why Australians are so negative. It is so sad for a country with great potential.
Thank you for reminding me Thomarse, it had been gathering dust in my wallet for the past six months. I have finally cashed it now, so I hope you’re still solvent.
Just imagine if the Newspolls start showing around 57/43. What will they do then? Will they be frozen for another 18 months until too late to change and the polls still exceed 55/45? Anything above 53/47 pushes the ALP further ahead.
You can just imagine the Nelson supporters believing he can make a further come back and the others becoming more vexed.
Inevitably around election time we will get in the region of 55/45 which will feel like an improvement, but still a disaster. Do they go for another leader hoping to close the gap or do they worry a new leader might widen the gap. All the more reason for the Turnbull faction to have a timetable coming up to the election year that ignores whatever the polls are showing.
I refer to our local Nationals member as ‘the man who stops things from happening’ because that’s become his role – he simply opposes projects the governments are proposing.
To me, that would be too soul destroying to contemplate but I suppose he feels he’s voicing the concerns of his electorate.
Whether he’s meeting their needs is a different issue.
55 – Kina: It is almost in the ALP’s interest that Nelson polling improves a little soon. Also keep in mind that we might be back to the polls sooner rather than later if something major is opposed in the Senate. For example, if some Carbon trading legalisation is meet with opposition, both from the right (for going too far) and the Greens (for not going far enough), we could be back at the booths in March. So it is critical the deed is done fast or not at all.
I standby my guess that there is a minor chance next weekend of a shoulder tap coming Nelson’s way. And a bad newspoll on Tuesday might be some more straw for the camel’s back.
[55 – Kina: It is almost in the ALP’s interest that Nelson polling improves a little soon.]
I want the Liberals to switch to Turnbull ASAP, because that means Rudd will bring on the Republic as a wedge issue.
58 After his performance on the Listening tour. I think the sittings the fortnight after the budget will finish Nelson. He is just not up to the required standard.
steve,
I think you’re right – Nelson will go in the aftermath of the budget. Turnbull will get the job, by default as much as anything.
Why not pre-budget? The budget will give the new guy fresh attack material. If Nelson is still in the job at budget time, then any attack on the budget is basically wasted.
There was division in the Labor Party regarding their choice of candidate for Gippsland. The Liberals have chosen someone with very little profile.
The Nats normally don’t perform well in polling, so I don’t trust those figures. If they are true, Chester will romp home.
ShowsOn
have a read of this:
“As expected, the republic featured prominently in the governance stream, with most delegates favouring constitutional change in the next two years.
The group showed their support for a rapid removal of the monarchy from the Australian system, voting for a deadline of 2010 after a 12-year timeline received lukewarm support. Labor MP Maxine McKew, in charge of that stream, urged delegates to show more passion for the subject after their initial recommendations failed to draw even a single “whoop” from the group.”
2 years means they pretty much have to get things rolling asap after the budget.
Is that representative of the electorate’s views? I hope so.
Then we have this from Nelson:
“I have quite a few ideas but I’m hardly going to come here and tell Mr Rudd what my ideas are for Australia’s future.”
…’cause it’s all about you mate…
what a f*(king stupid selfish pri<k
Why is Nelson there then? He should have stayed away. This bloke has lost it.
Apologies for the language, but that statement from Nelson really makes my blood boil.
It really should ensure he loses pre selection in his own electorate or the seat itself if his local party doesn’t have the guts.
That sort of thing shows outright disrespect of your constituents, and as the opposition leader, the Australian people as a whole. When the hell does he think we DO deserve to hear what his ideas might be? It’s not as though he’s riding so high in the polls that he can afford to meter the treats out as required.
It’s just so 5th grade primary school I can’t believe it.
No wonder people are becoming disillusioned with government in this country. That sort of statement is going to end up giving the ALP cart blanche to rearrange the system, because evidently the LP haven’t bothered to get engaged.
What sort of opposition or alternative is that?
stupid stupid stupid
61 Don’t think the Liberal Party would be capable of organising anything in that timeframe at present BSF. If they could he’d be gone already.
Secondly, the only remnant of Liberal grassroots organisation has snookered itself into believing that the Liberal Party resurrection arrives on budget night 2008. Like a doomsday cult locked in their cave they busily write the modern day version of ‘Letters to the Editor’ on Newspaper blog sites.
Of course when Swan delivers the budget and newspoll doesn’t reflect their doomsday scenarios. Nelson will pay for this heightened expectation that is out there which will turn on the Liberals when the well organised blog commenters realise they have been duped.
The Poisoned Dwarf is in fine form this morning. Not factually correct of course and lacking quotes and sources to back up his claims but true to form.
onimod Says:
The trouble is Rudd is changing the game and poor Nelson isn’t keeping up with the rule changes.
Bolter – you wern’t invited. Deal with it.
It doesn’t matter if the ideas arn’t new. The 2020 summit at least gives people an opportunity to discuss them. Anyone working in government would know how long it takes to get an idea to be heard at the top levels or at least put on the list of considerations.
I just hope a few worthy ideas are put forward, publicly debated and have the opportunity to get legs before 2020 rather than continuing to float around in discussions but going nowhere.
Quick question – does anyone know what happened to Jim Middleton? Chris Uhlmann is so negative.
70 Sarah
Chris certainly struggles with the concept of an outright compliment doesn’t he? Me thinks he should stop sucking on lemons as a start, talk straight like a man, and give the subtext (or at least the impression of it) a break. Say it like you mean it Chris, and if you can’t put in plain english, then it probably means you, as a chief political correspondent, shouldn’t be saying it.
Jim Middleton’s current baby is on right now:
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s2048572.htm
2020 is a toss festival. I don’t normally agree with Bolt but I agree with him on this. You can’t claim to be the elites and claim to represent the masses at the same time. And is there actual debate or just a lot of head nodding going on? The meeting sizes (100 people) are far too large to be seriously productive and the time period is too short for serious policy development.
But in terms of PR, it is not a bad idea but it could fall flat if nothing comes from it. Not that it will any harm to the Government as it is that far ahead of Nelson’s mob.
BS Fairman. If Andrew Bolt got an invite He’d be there with bells on. Notice how he took free kicks at Nelson – Right wing columnist telling the Liberal party that his time is up!
72 Blair S. Fairman are you making your Bolt like comments from a position of observation ie following the summit on sky or from an impression. I really get annoyed how some in the media wrote it off before it even began. For heaven sake at least see the results of it before righting it off as a waste of time. It may be but that is yet to be determined surely.
Make that “writing”
72 Blair
I though it was an ‘ideas’ summit?
The policy is the government’s job in the future.
No one intends that the world is solved before Sunday night, just have some idea on what that world we need to save might be.
Are you against things changing or getting better outright?
Are you happy with the status quo?
What is your idea, and please, to be true to your inference, please communicate this without talking.
Bolt lost me completely when he labelled the participants as a bunch of leftists and other choice labels. This is clearly wrong. This man is obsessed which for me casts a great shadow over the rest of his opinions. I take what he says with a big grain of salt.
I don’t have Sky (that might make me an elite if I did) but I have been watching ABC 2 coverage (which reminds me of primary school concert videos in terms of production values).
I am sure it will deliver some very nice motherhood statements, which are useful in their own way, but the fine details are not going to be given the time to be developed. And a lot of the motherhood statements will be rehashed ideas (like reduce childhood obesity, improve life expectancy for indigenous people, etc) that nobody is going to argue against.
And there is no way Bolt would have gone if invited. He is an obstructionist, so it is not his style to take part. Plus it would be like hell for him, being in a room with so many lefties (might have been funny to watch however).
76 – I am not opposed to change, I just prefer action to talk. We already know the goals, it is the tactics that are really needed.
78 – They were Bolt “lefties” (ie any to the left of him). I don’t think they are all lefties myself.
Blair
We’ve come to a point in our political process where all action is met with resistance and we seem obsessed with that resistance, no matter what the cost on the possible positive outcomes might be.
I don’t think we really do know what the goals are. I feel sure that if we did that we wouldn’t be in some of the predicaments we do find ourselves in.
I think it’s desperately important that we start prioritising the goals so that resistance can be given the proportional response it deserves.
I’ve use this one here before: “there’s nothing so unwelcome as the right idea from the wrong person”
Every politician is that ‘wrong person’ on our society at present, and it’s no wonder that progress is stifled. There’s no mortgage on a good idea, but if it has to come from our community leaders rather than out politicians to gain traction, surely that’s a process worth attempting?
Also, action without thought or discussion is surely best exhibited in the actions of Barry Hall last weekend? How do you think that action you speak of really happens?
It sounds to me like you’d be happy for some results, but that’ you like to be blissfully ignorant of how those results might be procured to me. Action is a process, not an outcome.
71 onimod, thanks for the tip where Jim Middleton has gone. Good for him but a loss for insiders and ABC news though. Also agree with your view on Chris – he does tend to have a one sided view.
79 – I agree tactics are needed but one step at a time. Onto the public agenda, big buy in, corporate and celeb support. Sure we know the goals but the rest of consumeristic Auzzie land doesn’t. Once everyone knows what is going on and there is an alternative to the current situation – then we move forward with the plans to reach the vision. Otherwise everyone gets left behind. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of these ‘ideas’ have already been thought through by the government. It’s getting Australia up off it’s complacent butt and moving that is the trouble. I hope at least 2020 opens some people’s eyes.
80 onimod – well said
I’ve alluded to it often enough – ‘Change Management’
It’s not something new and it’s hardly a lefty construct.
I would have thought Mr Bolt would be a good enough journo to at least enquire about it but apparently not.
Hopefully it’ll avoid me rabbitting on about it. Go on, type it in to google.
Here’s 3 that I found off the first page that give a quick understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management_(people)
http://www.businessballs.com/organizationalchange.htm
http://home.att.net/~nickols/change.htm
80 – Barry Hall actions probably shouldn’t be discussed here (but I thought 9 weeks would have been better).
My point about actions is the government is going to pretend to listen, but they know what their goals are and are not going to be changed. I suspect the results will reflect the current government goals. Give it a couple hours and we’ll see what the final result are.
If the question had been “how” and not “what” I would have said it would’ve been more productive. “How” is what I meant by actions.
83 – the 2020 sounds like change management 101. Maybe someone can give Bolter a copy of Kotter’s?
84 Blair –
There will be no final results in a couple of hours – read the links. It’s a process. We’re at the start and the population of Australia is a very big group.
So far it’s effectively following a tried and true and successful process. If it’s followed effectively, flexibly and shortcuts aren’t taken there’s no reason to think it won’t succeed as a process.
Sure the government has an agenda, but even they won’t have the power to deny the population their wishes if it gets serious. Workchoices is a prime example here.
These processes generally take large corporations years, and most participants don’t even realise what their involvement is in that process, or have the slightest understanding about what is really going on, but if they’re not involved the process will fail. For me, this is going to be fascinating to watch.
Go and buy a few books and have a crack at identifying your character type and role in the process (it’s not all bad!!)
From what i have seen on abc2 there are a lot of “ideals” presented….ie a fair and equitable society…..but what i havent seen much is actual “ideas”….how to get there….but i think if they had one of these summits every year, we’d eventualy get to the true new ideas…….
87 Kat
Experts of the change management process will tell you that too much detail at this stage is actually detrimental to the process long term. This obviously presents political problems for the government and the press who ‘need’ solutions ‘now’. If they can whether the storm of criticism they’ll actually be better off.
There will definitely be more summits as the knowledge and detail are fleshed out by smaller groups.
Have a look at the simple roadmaps in the links and have look for more stuff through google. Spread those maps out over an absolute minimum of 2-3 years and it’ll give you some idea of the length of time required to get through the unfreeze, change and refreeze.
It’s also worth pointing out that these processes and body of thought has been well developed since the 60’s.
‘Future Shock’ by Alvin Toffler is a good read too – we’re already feeling a good deal of it, but if we don’t act it’s going to get worse.
If you don’t short change the process it won’t short change you.
Ok so we have established that it is a process with a little sparkle of celebs to get the general interest mixed with high profile influencers who are getting a little buy in too. Do you think people will ‘get it’ and let the rest of the process unfold?
I am wondering how Rudd will fufil the gen Y style need for instant graification. What does he have up his sleave? I will certainly stay tuned… Almost as good as watching West Wing.
Link from front page of the age isn’t working… Grrr
Dissent in 2020 ranks
1:52pm | Some 2020 summit delegates angry their ideas are going unheard.
[2 years means they pretty much have to get things rolling asap after the budget.
Is that representative of the electorate’s views? I hope so.]
I think the Republic should be brought on in a 3 step process.
1) At the next election (Say late 2009) we vote for the question “Do you want Australia to become a Republic sometime in the future?” We vote either YES or NO.
If the NO vote wins, the issue would be dead for 50 – 100 years.
If the YES vote wins:
2) We then hold a series of constitutional conventions every 8 or 9 months over the next parliamentary term. The goal of the conventions would be to develop 3 substantially different models (e.g. minimal Bob Carr model, direct election, and some hybrid model. The model that was rejected last time (2/3 joint sitting of parliament approval) wouldn’t be an option.).
3) At the following general election (held in roughly 2012). We vote on the models via a plebiscite with OPTIONAL PREFERENTIAL VOTING for the three models. If a voter only wants to vote for one model, that is all they have to do, otherwise they mark the paper in order of preference.
Whichever model achieves the most 1st and 2nd preference votes wins. And comes into effect on January 1 (or maybe January 26th) of the following year.
[1:52pm | Some 2020 summit delegates angry their ideas are going unheard.]
I think that refers to some religious leaders disappointed that child abuse wasn’t on the communities agenda.
I would rephrase 1) as: In the future do you want Australia to become a republic?
Cory Bernardi (Liberal Senator)
“They don’t even have a [Republic] model they agree on, do they want a presidential model like the United states do they want a committee model like Switzerland or do they want a Mugabe model, or a People’s Republic like China or North Korea ?”
To answer the senator’s question. I want a Republic model where Australia’s Head of State:
Could possibly be a Catholic
Could possibly be a Jew
Could possibly be a Muslim
Could possibly be an atheist
Isn’t more likely to be male due to a parliamentary act that enshrines gender discrimination.
Isn’t the head of a religion
Isn’t decided by birth
Lives in Australia
Is an Australian Citizen
President is elected by a simple majority vote. That gives him a power base for refusing to sign repugnant legislation (e.g. Pacific Solution) and for sacking a PM where that becomes necessary.
He has no executive powers, no similarity to US model, Mugabe etc. At most can use moral persuasion etc e.g. to get Hicks released from illegal detention in Cuba.
Similar I understand to the Irish model.
I voted against “Howard’s Flunky” in the last referendum and would vote against a “Rudd’s Flunky” then never ever vote for Labor ever again!
Showson – To change the consitution you need a referendum to change the constitution, and that needs to be a single question to be legal (OPV is not going to be acceptable). So your model would need a final referendum to change the constitution. And then you risk it falling over for the same reason that the 1999 model fell over (People didn’t like the detail). So you need to ask the public three times (something semi-biblical about that).
Not that it is not worth trying, but each time you ask there is a risk of rejection (except the middle one, which could produce a model that is only acceptable to a pularity of the population).
Of your list of excluded groups from head of state, I think legally only Catholics are excluded. And Prince Charles (George VII as he’ll be) plans on trying to remove himself for the role of head of the Church of England.
Andrew Bolt wants to emigrate.
Bon voyage.
Hi all. I was away, now I am back. No, BB..Melrose, SA.
I caught Kev’s closing address on ABC TV.
Did you catch Kev saying there will be a 2020 website up in a few hours? To which we may contribute.
I had time to ponder whilst travelling in my environmentally unfriendly way, so I will be taking him up on his offer.
What about you? After all, as someone mentioned, we can work out election outcomes.
Apart from his go at Nelson for his stupid remarks, Bolt was such a child on Insiders today. Shows that Rudd’s got under his skin. Go Kevin.
Chris Toolman was also hard to stomach, almost grimacing when trying to say something positive. David Spears on Sky not much better, nor suprisingly
89 Sarah
The inter generational mix is certainly one of the most interesting things to watch in change management these days. In my experience [I work in this field], the key to getting the different generations on board is in how they are engaged in the process.
To understand that, you need to understand each group’s motivations.
6 basic groups with rough birth dates and attributes:
Traditionalists [1920’s – 1942] – Dislike change, want security, massive emphasis on morals, values and concistency. The way to engage these people is to appeal to their sense of civic duty, give them the respect that they feel they have earned and defer to their wisdom and knowledge.
Baby Boomers [1943 – 1953] – Live to work ethic, 1 x job for life, materialistic, status and symbols important, optomistic. The way to engage this group is to show them ‘what’s in it for them’, give them the economic arguments.
Jones’s [late boomers] [1954 – 1965] – ‘Keeping up with the Jones’s’, consumerism, striving to change the status quo, veers towards pessimism. The way to engage these people is similar to the Baby Boomers, but to show them what will happen if they do not change and the impact on other generations.
Gen X [1966 – 1978] – Disaffection with authority, short term relationships, rampant individuality, work to live mentality, cynicism. This group are the activists – to get to them you need to appeal to their individualism, mixed with humour, irreverence and the promise of speed.
Gen Y or Echo Boomers [1979 – 1995] – have been educated to work in teams, rarely like being separated from the group, very quick uptake or technology, used to the speed of change, live to live mentality [can’t understand why they can’t use Facebook at work – will blur the lines of social / familial / professional]. The way to engage this group is to talk to them, get their opinions in an interactive way, don’t frighten them with disaster talk, don’t dismiss them becuase they are young. The are most like the Traditionalists – their grandparents and so using that approach is also a good idea.
Millenials or Net Gen [1996 – ] – a little early to say, but hugely effected by September 11 and the 2nd Iraq war.
Sorry, a bit long, but just had to get it all out!