The Australian has published its quarterly geographic and demographic breakdowns of its federal polling data, compiling the results of the four polls it has published this year (it took January off). The national figures are therefore no surprise to us, as they are merely an average of this year’s polling: Labor on 34 per cent of the primary vote compared with 38.0 per cent at the election, the Coalition on 42 per cent compared with 43.6 per cent and the Greens on 13 per cent compared with 11.8 per cent (remembering that phone pollsters seemed to have acquired a tendency to overrate the Greens and underrate Labor). The Coalition holds a two-party lead of 51-49, compared with 50.1-49.9 to Labor at the election.
The real interest in the figures is in the various breakdowns offered, particularly by state. The most distinctive result on voting intention is the solid recovery for Labor in Western Australia, from a dismal base of 43.6 per cent at the federal election to 45 per cent in October-December 2010 to 48 per cent this time. A Labor hike in Queensland from 44.9 per cent at the election to 48 per cent late last year looked rather too much at the time, and sure enough the latest poll has it moderating to 46 per cent. Labor’s decline overall has been driven by NSW/ACT, from 49.5 per cent two-party at the election to 48 per cent in both quarters, and Victoria, from 55.3 per cent at the election to 55 per cent to 53 per cent. In South Australia, where Labor has nothing in the way of tight marginals, they have gone from 53.2 per cent at the election to 51 per cent and 52 per cent.
If such swings were uniform, the Coalition would gain Greenway, Robertson, Lindsay and possibly Banks in New South Wales, plus Corangamite and La Trobe (but not quite Deakin) in Victoria. Labor would gain Hasluck, Canning and Swan in Western Australia, and Brisbane in Queensland. Other things being equal, and leaving Banks with Labor, there would be a net shift of one seat in the Coalition’s direction: from 73 Coalition and 72 Labor to 74 and 71. This of course makes the notably unsafe assumption that all sitting cross-benchers would be re-elected. Furthermore, the capitals and non-capitals breakdowns suggest it would be worse for Labor than that. In the metropolitan areas which are home to most of the marginal seats, the two-party vote is at 50-50 compared with 52.5-47.5 in Labor’s favour at the election. In the non-capitals Labor has gained ground, now trailing 52-48 rather than 53.4-46.6.
On personal ratings, the most interesting finding is that both leaders have soured among the 50-plus age group. The results for Tony Abbott defy some of the stereotypes about his support base: his 52 per cent disapproval among the 50-plus is the highest of any age group, and a once substantially higher approval rating among this cohort has fallen right back to the field. He has also lost ground among 35-49s, as has the Coalition on the primary vote. Gillard is down four points on approval and up five on disapproval among the 50-plus, a situation which is reversed among the 18-34s, now clearly her best cohort.
New South Wales and Queensland are about equal as Julia Gillard’s worst state, owing to a post-election recovery in Queensland. Victoria and South Australia are roughly equal as her best (although her disapproval is up in South Australia), with Western Australia surprisingly close behind. Tony Abbott’s ratings have been consistently mediocre in New South Wales and Victoria and consistently neutral in Queensland, but he has weakened considerably in South Australia and Western Australia: from net neutral to minus 14 and minus 12. Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister is only six points in Queensland, elsewhere ranging from 15 points in New South Wales to 23 points in Victoria. Gender splits lean in the expected directions, though not as heavily as you would think. An exception is disapproval of Gillard, with women notably more reluctant to give her the thumbs down.
Confessions: oops! Looks like I fell for it just like the fascist I am 😀
(apologies to the Young Ones)
The MS Removal Tool is apparently “Scareware” described as;
“MS Removal Tool is a rogue security application that comes up with tons of infections and security threats to make you think that your computer is infected with malicious software.”
To remove;
http://deletemalware.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-to-remove-ms-removal-tool-uninstall.html
Mumble is right about Julia having no instincts for electoral politics. She also has no subtlety. It’s what makes her scream FAKE! to so many of us.
[3078
is that ajoke]
Has a disclaimer at the bottom MySay — which says there isn’t an ounce of truth in the story.
[The Federal Treasury estimates a $30 per tonne carbon price would cost the average household more than $860 per year.]
For the purposes of the modelling, do we know what an “average household” is?
The one I fell for – in the early days of Howard – was that he was going to reintroduce imperial measurements.
It sounded so like him.
[Has a disclaimer at the bottom MySay — which says there isn’t an ounce of truth in the story.]
Tis also why clOdious is here today as well.
👿
vic
Yes I seem to remember him saying it would be “well south” of that figure, in an interview I heard
The good old MSM.
A range of prices were modelled and what do they do ? Headline the top price of $30.
You can rely on them.
[Mumble is right about Julia having no instincts for electoral politics. She also has no subtlety. It’s what makes her scream FAKE! to so many of us.]
So Bob is threatening to bring down the government is he? LOL.
Initial price was going to be $10 a ton for at least the first 3 years was it not ? $5.50 a week for the mythical “average family”
Heh, this makes it seem like the projected price rises come after the compensation:
[AUSTRALIANS would face an $863 hike in annual household costs when a price is put on carbon pollution, new Treasury modelling predicts.
Advice to Treasurer Wayne Swan reveals a $30 a tonne carbon price would lift household costs by $16.60 a week, before any compensation is offered.]
Where else?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/treasury-modelling-forecasts-the-cost-impact-of-putting-a-price-on-carbon/story-e6frg6xf-1226032093086
The average person will not give a fig about what JG thinks of the Greens IMHO and if they do they’ll be Green voters anyway or those swinging voters that think Labor is getting too close to them. The Lib voters will remain just that.
I’ve always been surprised about the vitriol that some Labor people have for Green voters. I vote Green because of social issues, and I suspect many of my viewpoints would be close to the left of the Labor Party. Unfortunately, the left of the ALP don’t seem to have much influence nowadays.
If the Prime Minister really believes that the Greens will never represent mainstream views, then why does she and many like her spend so much time insulting the party and their voters? Surely it would be more productive to use that energy to fight the LNP? The party that represents the real threat to progressive issues?
Basically it wouldn’t take much to have me vote Labor on occasion, but every time a prominent Labor party politician insults the Greens and their voters, I take another step away from that position.
Is there an actual government document that’s available for us to look at, instead of having to rely on the interpretations of the msm?
[Basically it wouldn’t take much to have me vote Labor on occasion, but every time a prominent Labor party politician insults the Greens and their voters, I take another step away from that position.]
And I suppose you also preference the Libs?
Fer Chrissake, can we stop the Greens v. Labor bullshit?
You fall for it EVERY time.
If it’s in the paper then it MUST be true.
Grow up (to borrow a Frankism).
[Fer Chrissake, can we stop the Greens v. Labor bullshit?
You fall for it EVERY time.
If it’s in the paper then it MUST be true.
Grow up (to borrow a Frankism).]
You’ve got a scroll wheel, use it.
[The modelling suggests under a $30 carbon price the cost of electricity will rise $4.20 a week, $2.20 a week for gas, $1.70 for food, and $3.60 for petrol.]
It doesn’t look so scary when you break it down like that.
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/carbon-tax-to-cost-households-1660-a-week-20110401-1cra8.html
[The modelling suggests under a $30 carbon price the cost of electricity will rise $4.20 a week, $2.20 a week for gas, $1.70 for food, and $3.60 for petrol.]
It will look even less scary with compensation.
The latest Morgan poll is ALP 49 LNP 51
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2011/4654/
Done over the last two weekends with a much bigger sample than recent Morgan polls
[HAYDENCOOPER | 1 minute ago
Is this “fight” between Gillard and Brown an April Fools joke?]
[If the Prime Minister really believes that the Greens will never represent mainstream views, then why does she and many like her spend so much time insulting the party and their voters? Surely it would be more productive to use that energy to fight the LNP? The party that represents the real threat to progressive issues?]
What she actually identified is that the Greens tend not to understand the ramifications of many of their policies.
And like it or not, as soon as the hip-pocket-nerve comes into play, idealism flies straight out the window.
This is why Abbott’s scare campaigns work. People see cost, and suddenly climate change isn’t so important (or the mining tax or whatever).
The greens have an over-inflated belief in the average person’s adherence to ideological stands. Those ideological stands are paper thin when economics come into it. What Julia was stressing was that many of the Greens policies are too costly to be feasible for the average Aussie to accept.
I agree with her.
Gary: therein lies the problem.
The Labor Party *assume* – probably correctly – that lefty Greens voters will preference the them, so all the insults mean nothing at the end of the day because Labor will ultimately get their vote.
Except in many inner city seats in which the Greens are ALREADY challenging Labor – and winning seats off them. Remember Melbourne in 2010? Adam Bandt is their local member.
Balmain still might go Green.
My fear is the ultimate loser in a stoush with the Greens will be the Labor Party themselves, and this will put Tony Abbott in the Lodge (or Kirribilli, to be precise).
NONE of us want this; certainly not the Labor Left and not the Greens and, as Frank and co would have us believe, not the Labor Right either.
So you have to ask, who is promulgating this Labor/Greens hatred the most? The Labor Right. Playing right into the hands of Abbott and co.
I’d like them to explain exactly what their game is …
Morgan is using his FTF poll to justify his phone poll. Yeah, sure Gary.
Morgan’s website is the most un-user friendly website I’ve encountered, and it makes it SO frustrating to try to find anything on it! He should seriously consider refreshing the site to make it more readable.
[Except in many inner city seats in which the Greens are ALREADY challenging Labor – and winning seats off them. Remember Melbourne in 2010? Adam Bandt is their local member.]
Wasn’t it the Lib preferences that got Bandt over the line?
New thread.