Courtesy of Peter Brent at Mumble comes the first heavy duty opinion poll of the Tony Abbott era. The two-party vote shows little change, with Labor’s lead down from 57-43 to 56-44. However, it seems rounding might have smoothed the result out a little: the Coalition is up three points on the primary vote to 38 per cent (the Liberals on 34 per cent have swallowed a point from the Nationals) while Labor is steady on 43 per cent. No approval ratings on Abbott were sought, but his 60-23 deficit on preferred prime minister compares with 65-14 against for Turnbull last week and 63-22 a fortnight previous. The poll offers further evidence that the popular notion that Abbott has a particular problem with women voters is a load of hooey.
UPDATE: Essential Research: 58-42, unchanged on last week. 21 per cent of respondents say the Abbott ascendancy makes them more likely to vote Liberal; 33 per cent say less. Lots of questions on leadership perceptions, almost all of it more favourable to Rudd than Abbott.
Psephos – 2985
We are still waiting on the mathematicians/statisticians to provide the numbers for the difference between the Greens retention rates of Labor votes in ‘wealthier’ and ‘working’ areas. From Dr Good’s work the retention rate overall in Higgins was 82%. As I understand it, he proposes to calculate the retention rates on a booth by booth basis when he has the time to do so. Until the figures are available it is a bit early to make wild statements about the extent of the difference.
Frank Calabrese #2994
Ok, just made a test post here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/05/saturday-salon-219/#comment-843556
I did. No change on post 3000 situation.
FRom David Irving:
[LP provided a similar page last night, Frank.
I was alarmed, and quite relieved when I got to work this morning and everything was OK again.]
so it seems that depending on the ISP, the domain has been renewed, but the changes haven’t filtered through (I’m on Bigpond)
[2992 Peter Young]
There are no mega bucks at stake here as I don’t gamble – even on a sure thing. I still assert that the Gs are a one trick pony and now that CC is a mainstream issue it will benefit a switched on mainstream party to be all over the issue. The Libs are ripping each other apart but in the years to come CC will be a core policy. It is already a core policy for Labor.
2992
Oops – I made a mistake.
That post should have read:
Anyone over the age of 1 year may collect (Freemantle)
Anyone over the age of 8 years are entitled to collect double (Freemantle and Cunningham).
Damn, if the Greens keep winning seats at like this some very young kids will be able to retire very early. 😆
Steve K – 3004
Yeah I was just off on a flight of fancy when I said mega bucks were involved. 😆
Abbott has just reigned in Barnyard, saying cabinet solidarity started 10am this morning and everyone must watch what they are saying from now on.
Barnyard will not be able to control and contain himself. He wont last long in the Shadow Cabinet now that Abbott has closeted him in the cabinet.
More trouble for Barnyard. Oh boy, everyone is gunning at him now:
[Joyce’s comments ‘unhelpful’ to WA – Senator Joyce wants a total ban on Chinese sovereign investment in Australia. (AAP)
The WA Liberal Treasurer Troy Buswell has criticised comments made by Barnaby Joyce calling for a total ban on Chinese sovereign investment in Australia.
Senator Joyce, who is the Opposition’s finance spokesman, says having state-owned Chinese companies owning Australian assets creates confusion over commercial arrangements.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/11/2769253.htm?section=justin
[Yeah I was just off on a flight of fancy when I said mega bucks were involved.]
You sure were. As I said I don’t gamble – just a belief that gambling is a mug’s game.
Even if the Gs were to win a seat at a general election (not likely now that a mainstream party has adopted CC as a high profile core policy) they would be a remote voice in a large chamber. The chances of winning a seat in a hung parliament are extremely remote and unless the parliament is hung the the Gs would again be irrelevant.
The Gs chance for relevance passed them by last week :-).
Twitter message from Phil @LP:
[LarvatusProdeo: it’s Phil here, yep we got it. Been an issue. FYI, Working for me on Vodafone 3G but not Optus. The site is up. ISP issue?]
[Barnyard will not be able to control and contain himself. He wont last long in the Shadow Cabinet now that Abbott has closeted him in the cabinet.]
That’s like trying to secure a mad dog in a soggy cardboard box.
SteveK
[The Gs chance for relevance passed them by last week ]
The more the Labor supporters shriek that the Greens are irrelevant, the more relevant they become. The Higgins and Bradfield by-elections gave the Greens tremendous media coverage, and will assist in instilling a belief that they are a genuine alternative. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen.
[It won’t happen overnight]
Correct – and it won’t happen soon.
Steve K
[Correct – and it won’t happen soon]
Define ‘soon’ 🙂
[will assist in instilling a belief that they are a genuine alternative]
Where will that belief be instilled? In their own supporters? That amounts to sfa at the end of the day. The Gs need to win over Liberal and Labor supporters and so long as Labor dominate the Gs in the CC debate then the Gs are irrelevant.
[3014 – Define ’soon’]
See 3015
[Where will that belief be instilled? In their own supporters? That amounts to sfa at the end of the day. The Gs need to win over Liberal and Labor supporters and so long as Labor dominate the Gs in the CC debate then the Gs are irrelevant.]
And it doesn’t help when St Bob is seen sitting with the CC deniers and Whackaloons in the Senate 🙂
Astrobleme@3012:
[The Higgins and Bradfield by-elections gave the Greens tremendous media coverage, and will assist in instilling a belief that they are a genuine alternative.]
You are right that they got coverage, and Mungo’s claim that they would take one of the seats was a “sit up and take notice” moment, but in the event they didn’t make the grade.
However I for one used to put Greens as my second preference, (FWIW!) but now they will go last. On this site I have come across too many Green posters who have given the brand a bad name.
And when I looked more closely at the stance Bob Brown has taken with respect to the legislation, no way will I give them anything in the senate, as I used to.
[The Gs chance for relevance passed them by last week.]
Riiiiight, ‘Cause nothing says “relevant” more than passing ineffective legislation that is contrary to your own policy and was the product of negotiations between the two major parties.
The Greens will be relevant after the next election when they hold the BOP and the ALP have to come to them to get their legilsation passed.
[The Higgins and Bradfield by-elections gave the Greens tremendous media coverage,]
Well, firstly I’d dispute that – didn’t hear anything on the msm from either of the Greens candidates, didn’t read anything about them in the papers or hear them on the radio. Perhaps I just missed all the blanket coverage.
Secondly, it didn’t do much for them, did it? The suggestion seems to be that they didn’t perform as well as they expected, let alone anyone else. Which – if they did get the incredibly high media profile you suggest – implies that the more people heard about them, the less likely they were to vote for them.
As someone who runs campaigns in unwinnable seats on the smell of an oily rag and regularly achieves results way above any of the relevant averages, then higher media coverage, an open field, and the loss of the local member SHOULD have been a lay down misere – I would have expected a quite significant swing given the same circumstances.
[And it doesn’t help when St Bob is seen sitting with the CC deniers and Whackaloons in the Senate
Hilarious caption Adam, you are such a card.
BTW, don’t forget it was your dodgy preference deals that put Fielding there.
[3017 Frank Calabrese]
Hadn’t seen THAT photo nor heard about Adam’s caption. Powerful image and text.
luke
[The Greens will be relevant after the next election when they hold the BOP and the ALP have to come to them to get their legilsation passed.]
That’s assuming the Greens are willing to compromise. If they’re not, it will still be easier to deal with the Libs.
It’s also quite possible that the true holders of the bop after the next election will be disaffected Liberal senators, who will be ‘buyable’ to cross the floor on certain issues. If the moderates are sidelined within their own party, this may become a quite feasible option for Labor.
Don, Steve K, Frank
Sorry you feel so negative towards the Greens.
If you cannot see how being in a one on one contest with the Libs gives them more credibility and helps to instill belief that they are a credible alternative then I am sorry for you. Pretty obviously it will raise their profile and make them appear to be credible to the general public. This is jus part of a general move to the Greens that we have seen over many years. I know you will claim that the Greens will never govern and blah blah blah, but in all honesty it doesn’t particularly matter. Given the BOP in the Senate is enough to make a difference.
Don
[On this site I have come across too many Green posters who have given the brand a bad name. ]
This is a strange way to decide your vote… Most Greens voters aren’t that different to Labor voters.
Frank
[And it doesn’t help when St Bob is seen sitting with the CC deniers and Whackaloons in the Senate ]
Obvisouly you have a very low opinion of the intelligence of Australian voters. Pretty obviously they are capable of understanding the Greens policy. Remember 24% supported Labor’s CPRS and 17% supported the Greens CPRS.
don – 3018
Good luck with voting below the line on the Senate ballot paper, instead of in the group square box.
Don
When Frank Calabrese says things like
‘get back to you mutual jerk-off session’ Or however he puts it, does that make you less likely to vote Labor?
Nice one from Professor Garnaut just now on PM. He doesn’t think the Chinese will be too worried about the opinions of “fringe players” in Australian politics like Barnarby Joyce on the subject of foreign investment.
(Said in that very naice semi-plummy voice of his).
[It’s also quite possible that the true holders of the bop after the next election will be disaffected Liberal senators, who will be ‘buyable’ to cross the floor on certain issues. If the moderates are sidelined within their own party, this may become a quite feasible option for Labor.]
I hope so. I think I may find ALP slipping even further to the right (as if that was possible) even more enjoyable than the Greens being in BOP.
Good luck with this strategy!
[However I for one used to put Greens as my second preference, (FWIW!) but now they will go last.]
You are right Don, that if you are putting the ALP ahead of the Greens it is probably not worth much putting the Greens second, it is as good as last.
Nice to see that your political principles are that “flexible” that are prepared to preference One Nation and the CDP above the Greens because someone said some harsh words to you.
Boo hoo, dry your tears.
Astro
[Given the BOP in the Senate is enough to make a difference. ]
They’ve had this before. They helped destroy Keating with it. That’s who his ‘unrepresentative swill’ comment was directed at.
Their refusal to compromise meant that Keating couldn’t get his legislation through and helped elect the Howard government.
The Greens also had bop in Tasmania over many years, which worked so well that there’s been a concerted effort over the last decade or so to make sure it never happens again.
So yes, I’d welcome a Greens bop – we would see a drop in Greens Senate numbers afterwards, just as we did after they screwed Keating.
Do you all realise how desperately boring these Greens v. Labor flame wars are?
I can assure all you Greens I too will never place the Greens 2nd on my Ballot paper again. They had an opportunity to have an ETS in place when the 2 Liberal Senators crossed the floor. Have a look at Copenhagen, Rudd could have promised a 15% cut (not 5%)in emissions but all he can do now is promise to try because the Australian Greens were too blind to the Politics of getting something in place.
Zoomster
[They’ve had this before. They helped destroy Keating with it. That’s who his ‘unrepresentative swill’ comment was directed at. ]
What is this? Revisionism? Suddenly the Greens (who are apparently irrlevant) destroyed Keating?
Astro – as usual, you’re taking me out of context. The word was ‘helped’. I don’t give them ALL the credit.
But certainly their obstructionist attitude in the Senate – skillfully manipulated by the Libs – helped tarnish Keating’s government.
So be very proud.
Update re LP:
[LarvatusProdeo
RT @Daphon: Cleared cache etc. still not showing. May need to propagate again across all the ISPs (ie they need to refresh urls) 2 minutes ago from HootSuite ]
Sorry, BB – we had a nice little thread meandering on here, then Astro and luke turned up.
Will be good.
Astrobleme@3031:
[When Frank Calabrese writes such intelligent things as ..]
Frank is a special case! 👿
And I am not talking about primary school “nyah! nyah! So’s your mother!” comments such as Frank comes out with now and again. Every party has those sort of supporters, as do the Greens. Marg comes to mind.
What gets to me is that I have seen no Greens posters here who have been able to explain the position of the Greens with respect to the recent legislation in terms which make sense.
That is, 100% of nothing is better than 0% of something worthwhile, a starting point, is a position I find difficult to understand. Anyone who has been married will know that a successful relationship needs good will and the willingness to compromise on both sides.
Labor and Liberal were willing to compromise to find a mutually acceptable position. The Greens refused to do anything remotely like that.
The fact that right wing wackaloons from the Liberals torpedoed the Wong/MacFarlane agreement has nothing to do with it, if Turnbull had survived we would have an agreement in law by now.
I have great affection for the Greens historically – I walked into Lake Pedder before it was flooded, and I am very grateful for the Green’s position and success with the Gordon below Franklin scheme, and for Bob Brown’s hard work on that.
[Do you all realise how desperately boring these Greens v. Labor flame wars are?]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear
Don
[What gets to me is that I have seen no Greens posters here who have been able to explain the position of the Greens with respect to the recent legislation in terms which make sense. ]
I have explained it many times, as have others. I would suggest you either missed the posts or ignored them (as so many claim to do automatically).
Last time.
The Greens are not obligated to pass legislation they never agreed with, they were never consulted on, and always said they would reject.
This legislation is the bare minimum that will happen, why should the Greens pass what will happen anyway when they can keep asking for more in the hope that eventually the Govt has to negotiate with them.
Why would they make it easy to pass bad legislation?
Friday night it’s a good excuse for a party game so we have decided to have a sip of chardonay every time some one on PB says
1 “the greens are irrelevent”
2 “the greens will never……”
3 “the greens must (do what Labor hack says)”
Let the games begin….
How powerful is the imagery of the senate vote? Usually imagery is very powerful, but that photo doesn’t really hit the spot.
In NSW I would suggest knowledge of NSW Labor deals with The Shooters Party and Fred Nile (a well known god-botherer and anti-sodomite) in the Upper House, has been part of the reason for NSW Labor’s fall from grace.
Of course, when ex-Premier Rees indicated he would not countenance such deals with
‘the devils’, NSW Labor factional war-lords promptly moved to remove him from the Premiership. The troops obediently voted in Keneally as new Premier.
Mark Riley on 7 news: “Barnaby on L plates.”
Astro@3047:
[Why would they make it easy to pass bad legislation?]
Because legislation with a raft of faults which does some good is better than none at all.
The Greens’ proposal would not have been accepted by the Australian public, and in my opinion it would have been detrimental to Australia.
The version presented by Labor was the best that could have been accepted, the version poor Wong and MacFarlane hammered out was very much second best, but it was a start.
Full marks to them both, I am very impressed, MacFarlane in particular. You expect (though you don’t always get it!) integrity in Labor politicians, but to see it displayed in spades in the Liberals is heartening indeed.
Your explanation does not hold water.
Firefox, Seamonkey, Crome, Opera, IE & Netscape – no Lavartus Prodeo on http://larvatusprodeo.net/ or http://www.larvatusprodeo.net/
From the look on both men’s faces on the news, Barnyard had his cojones handed to him by ‘The Young Fogey’ this afternoon.
I was quite enjoying Banyard’s ramble du jour
Also not found using mini Opera on my mobile.
From the snippet I heard of Joyce on the radio he wasn’t happy and begrudgingly decided to comply.
[The Greens’ proposal would not have been accepted by the Australian public, and in my opinion it would have been detrimental to Australia.
The version presented by Labor was the best that could have been accepted, the version poor Wong and MacFarlane hammered out was very much second best, but it was a start.]
So Don, you do understand the Greens policy, you just don’t agree with it. In that case, don’t vote for them then, vote for the party that best represents your political persuasion.
However, your suggestion that as a result of the behaviour of greens supporters on PB, you had decided to go from putting the Greens second to placing them last does not hold water.
Don
[Because legislation with a raft of faults which does some good is better than none at all. ]
We will get legislation, no worries about that. It’s more a question of what sort will we get. There was no point in the Greens supporting the last bill, because that will eventually come to fruition if the ALP has a DD or the Libs buckle and say yes (again). It was a sensible decision for them to not pass the legislation.
[The Greens’ proposal would not have been accepted by the Australian public, and in my opinion it would have been detrimental to Australia. ]
Well by that recent Essential Poll, 24% supported Labors position and 17% supported the Greens position. So the acceptance level is pretty high (higher than the Greens vote).
[Your explanation does not hold water.]
Why? You continued to explain why you thought the ALP version was good, but never actually addressed anything I said.
Astrobleme@3024,
Sorry I actually agree with zoomster@3020 that the Green candidate did not receive nearly as much media coverage as the liberal candidates (now MPs). I also cannot imagine anyone but the most ardent Green supporters view the party as an “alternative” given the one sided nature of the results in both by-elections. If the result were closer maybe your statement would have carried more weight. Does it instill confidence? Well, I am glad it does for you. Sure, the Green took on Liberal one-on-one, but it says more about Labor than about the Green. I think you will agree that HAD Labor fielded someone it would have been Green, not Liberal, who stood to lose votes to these candidates. As to the claim about the general trend of more and more people voting Green. Sure, maybe this is the case. However, it is not because of something the Green has done right, it is largely because 1. the Green is the only OTHER party that remotely resembles a proper party and 2. The coalition is unelectable yet some people don’t want to hand it to Labor.
I know you will not agree, but the Green is really an one-trick pony with an oversimplistic view of the world, a lot of grandstanding but very little policy that can be viewed as practical. We laugh at the “extremist” Barnaby Joyce, yet some of the Green’s policy is no less, if not more extreme.