Taxing credulity

Two pollsters have lowered their colours in recent days with poorly framed questions on the carbon tax. Last week, Roy Morgan conducted a phone poll which, among other many things, asked of respondents: “Australia is only responsible for about 1% of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions. Are you aware of this or not?” This is essentially a political talking point framed as a question: understandable from a political party engaged in the desperate tactic of push-polling, but quite incomprehensible from a market research firm. Beyond that though, I don’t think the Morgan poll did much harm. As Peter Brent of Mumble rightly points out, results for the aforementioned question and those asked thereafter must be regarded as unreliable, but the nature of these questions was such that this is no great loss. The question on voting intention was presumably asked before the ones on climate change, and the first three climate change questions were usefully framed and produced results consistent with other polling. If the voting intention results from the poll do not seem plausible – and they don’t – this must be put down to sampling error and perhaps some systemic bias suffered by Morgan phone polls, although this hasn’t been evident in the past.

More troubling is today’s Galaxy poll, which targeted a small sample of 500 respondents on behalf of the Daily Telegraph. For the most part, its results are of genuine concern for the government. Only 28 per cent answered in favour of a carbon tax against 58 per cent opposed, corroborating the 30 per cent and 60 per cent from Newspoll when it last asked the question on April 29-May 1. Even worse for the government, fully 73 per cent said the tax would leave them worse off against only 7 per cent who opted for better off. Less remarkably, the poll found 20 per cent believe the tax would have a major impact on the environment, 46 per cent a minor impact and 29 per cent no impact.

The problem lies with the following: “Does the PM have a mandate to introduce the tax or should she call an early election?” This gives respondents no outlet for the obvious third alternative: that while the Prime Minister does not have a mandate for a carbon tax (and given her position during the election campaign, it could hardly be argued otherwise), the government should nonetheless govern as it sees fit and face the music at the end of its term. This happens to have been the default position for poll respondents since 1975, when 70 per cent opposed the blocking of supply despite the enormous unpopularity of the Whitlam government. There can be little doubt that many who wished to express a view that no mandate existed opted for the only available alternative. That a substantial proportion would have preferred the option Galaxy did not provide is illustrated by last week’s Essential Research poll, which asked the question the way it should be asked: “Do you think the Government should call an early election over the carbon tax?” Whereas Galaxy had 24 per cent choosing the “has mandate” option and 64 per cent “should call early election”, Essential had it at 42 per cent each way.

Considerably exacerbating the problem is that the poll was conducted for Australia’s most brazenly partisan metropolitan newspaper, the Daily Telegraph (UPDATE: The Herald-Sun is also selling it as its own work). And true to form, the Telegraph has today used the opportunity to run an editorial headlined “voters demand a carbon tax ballot”, in which it argues that “an election now is very necessary”. This is not the first time Galaxy has risked taking a hit from its association with the paper. During the election campaign the Telegraph tasked it with assembling an audience for a “people’s forum” involving the two leaders at Rooty Hill RSL in western Sydney, and there was little doubt that the room was pro-Abbott (sweet revenge, the Coalition might well think, for many a pro-Labor worm in leaders debates of elections past). On that occasion the culprit appeared to be the targeting of “undecided” voters concentrated in a part of the world which had been notably problematic for Labor. If the Telegraph itself had a hand in either the Rooty Hill methodology or the wording of the early election question, Galaxy might want to be a bit more firm with it in future, lest it jeopardise the reputation its polling record suggests it deserves.

For all that, there can be no denying that the carbon tax debate has so far been all pain and no gain for the government. The initial announcement in March saw the polling trend blow out from 51-49 in the Coalition’s favour to 54-46, and attitudinal questions have generally found the tax to be getting less popular rather than more. However, two caveats need to be added. Firstly, the phone polls conducted by Newspoll, Galaxy and Morgan have painted a more negative picture than the online methodology of Essential Research, which last week found 38 per cent support and 48 per cent opposition. Lest it be inferred that this represents a Labor bias from Essential, their two-party average since the carbon tax was announced has actually been worse for Labor than Newspoll’s (aided in no small measure by Newspoll’s rogue 51-49 to Labor result of March 18-20). Phone polling tends to get taken more seriously purely due to its long track record, but it could be that this disparity illustrates concerns that are increasingly raised about it: that in limiting its catchment to those with landline phones, it misses a more technologically fashionable and, perhaps, environmentally minded section of the electoral market.

Secondly, Essential Research found the idea of a carbon tax to be a great deal more popular when it put it to voters that “the money paid by big polluting industries” would be used “to compensate low and middle income earners and small businesses for increased prices”. When the question was asked thus in mid-April, fully 54 per cent expressed support against 30 per cent opposed. However, I’m not inclined to think this offers the government more than limited comfort, unless and until it proves capable of framing the debate in such fortuitous terms.

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.

128 comments on “Taxing credulity”

Comments Page 1 of 3
1 2 3
  1. I have now written a comment on their website suggesting that they have been disingenuous, to say the least, by claims that this is an Advertiser poll.

    Whether they print it or not is another matter.

    I have also tried to find the poll questions and the order in which they were given. Any ideas, William?

  2. “the money paid by big polluting industries” would be used “to compensate low and middle income earners and small businesses for increased prices”.

    While that is a nice way to phase it, the issue for the government can be see via what happen at the introduction of the GST. When the GST was introduced, the price rise at the store was offset by tax cut to everyone, and the removal of sales tax in some circumstances. However, people were paying 10% more for their grocery, their fuel, their electricity etc, and the polls did not pick up for the Liberals for 1.5 years

  3. Perhaps the government should commission a poll without leading questions designed to produce honest answers unlike the Humphrey Appleby example leading to the desired result.

  4. In Bruce Guthrie’s book ‘Man bites Murdoch’ he described a process whereby the editors office was infiltrated by ‘marketing’ execs. Maybe this process is more insidious throughout the newsltd empire than just papers…

    Just wondering where the motivation for such obviously deficient survey design comes from? Is there any explanation other than Galaxy being given the desired result and tasked with producing a ‘poll’ that delivers it? How is this not propaganda?

  5. So not only does the Coalition have the active support of all the AM talk radio stations, all the shock jocks, the OO, Their ABC, the Daily Telegraph, much of Channel 10, etc, they’ve now got professional polling companies manipulating the debate also.

    Our democracy is being strangled. Scratch the topsoil just a little in Australia, and fascism stares you in the face.

  6. William – a couple of quick questions for the uninitiated on polls like this.

    So I take it that, in the cases above, major newspapers have commissioned these polls – that is, paid for them to be undertaken?

    The next assumption is that these companies should try to frame the questions in an objective manner (should they be credible organisations). But the concern here is that the questions do not seem to have been constructed objectively.

    Is this phenomenon becoming more widespread in your opinion? Are there polling companies you tend to give more credence over others?

    Cheers

  7. God this is depressing, particularly when you compare Australia to Germany and UK where the debate on AGW centres on the best way to reduce reliance on inefficient technologies like power generated from brown coal, rather than “Oh it’s not happening – my mother is cold”.

  8. I think this poll was designed to coincide with the “Say Yes” rallies yesterday. It gives News Limited something to put on their front page that fits their narrative instead of Tim Costello and John Hewson advocating for the carbon tax.

  9. A question: do all polls limit themselves to one method of info gathering? That is – only from face-to-face; or by phone; or online? If someone runs a poll where half the respondents are face-to-face and half by phone, or maybe a three way split between the three aforementioned methods, is that not considered kosher?

  10. William, first of all congratulations on your analysis of this poll. You’ve gone into great detail and make some excellent points.
    I’m just wondering though with such question marks over this poll why would it be that “For the most part, its results are of genuine concern for the government.”
    Either the poll is valid or it isn’t and I think you’ve provided a good case for it not being so.

  11. Thanks William,

    I’d just written the following
    http://adelaideclimatenews.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/how-not-to-report-a-rally/

    when via the miracle of twitter I came across your piece, and have updated my post with a link here. The Tiser buries the rally on page 19, but manages to put the poll (which, as Danny Lewis points out, they claim is their own) on page 3. Reminds me of the great UK political thriller series from the late 80s, “A Very British Coup”, where a media mogul in his swimming pool in Spain is telling his London editors what to run polls on (and what the results will be: not that I am claiming Galaxy is that bent…)

  12. [I have also tried to find the poll questions and the order in which they were given]

    Danny

    The questions asked were also in the CM this morning. The order they have them in is

    Based on what you have seen or heard about the carbon tax, on balance, are you in favour or opposed? 28% 58% 14%

    Does Julia Gillard have a mandate to introduce the carbon tax or should she call an early election before she introduces it ? 24%, 64% 12%

    Do you believe that you will be better off finanacially or worse off if the carbon tax is introduced? 7% 73% 20%

    Do you expect the carbon tax to have a major impact or no impact on the environment? Major 20% Minor 46% No impact 29% Uncommitted 5%.

    As William has already pointed out, no mention of the actual policy of taxing polluters and compensation, just based on what you have seen or heard.

  13. Obviously these are blatant cases of push polling, whether questions had been framed in such a way as to engender the kind of response the pollster was looking for. This it is hardly surprising given that these polls were paid for by the same media entities who have been pouring petrol on the flames of dissent against action on climate change all long.

    They know the tide of this debate will begin to turn the very moment the details of the compensation package are released and the vast majority of Australians begin to realise they had been duped by a relentless and baseless fear campaign

    As long as Julia Gillard holds her nerve, these blatantly obvious attempts to influence public perceptions by push polling will be seen in retrospect as the death rattle of the climate change deniers campaign to derail Australia putting a price on carbon

  14. I am sorry, but based on how the questions are presented, I do not see any bias in the Qs.

    The fact is the Carbon tax has to hurt and it will hurt, and Professor Garnot has keep saying the tax has to be increased each year. The Tax is there to drive up prices of electricity, so we eventually uses less of it and so other energy source becomes competative.

    While there will be some compensation, there will be compensation to individual, companies, polluters and multiple government departments will have to be set up to manage them. So I do not see lots of bias in the following questions.

    Based on what you have seen or heard about the carbon tax, on balance, are you in favour or opposed? 28% 58% 14%

    Does Julia Gillard have a mandate to introduce the carbon tax or should she call an early election before she introduces it ? 24%, 64% 12%

    Do you believe that you will be better off finanacially or worse off if the carbon tax is introduced? 7% 73% 20%

    Do you expect the carbon tax to have a major impact or no impact on the environment? Major 20% Minor 46% No impact 29% Uncommitted 5%.

  15. Acidic Muse said

    They know the tide of this debate will begin to turn the very moment the details of the compensation package are released and the vast majority of Australians begin to realise they had been duped by a relentless and baseless fear campaign

    You should tell that to the people who designed the GST, which was accompanied by large tax reduction and removal of sales tax. Beasley would disagree with you, he tried to win the next 2 elections on the unpopularity of the GST.

  16. [I am sorry, but based on how the questions are presented, I do not see any bias in the Qs.]
    Why don’t I find that surprising?

  17. When they (the daily Terror ) PAY for a Poll , they want results to go their way. When will they do a poll and ask if the world is really round or flat ?

  18. [Does Julia Gillard have a mandate to introduce the carbon tax or should she call an early election before she introduces it ? 24%, 64% 12%]

    How can this possibly be correctly phrased? Does yes mean she has a mandate or yes she should call an early election.
    Now add the difficulty of answering quickly over the phone without thinking deeply.
    Definitely not professional survey design.

  19. Gary, you should know that there is only Left bias. If the bias is pro-Coalition then it’s not bias, it’s insight or considered opinion by intelligent commentators.

    That’s how Dovif rolls.

  20. My comment on the Adelaide Now website wasn’t printed, despite the fact I sought a clarification on methodology using sober, respectful language.

    On the other hand, those who rail disrespectfully (and borderline libelously) against the PM always get a guernsey. Or, for that matter, those times I have used a fake name and masqueraded as a “concerned Liberal” who is not a fan of Tony Abbott, who wants to see more humane treatment of asylum seekers, or who would like to see some action on climate change.

    Exactly the same talking points and language I normally use, except “concern troll” gets printed and Danny Lewis doesn’t.

    Hmmm …

  21. dovif

    A couple of points.
    First, the carbon price will have a substantially smaller effect on prices than the GST did, and it won’t be accompanied by the compliance burden that accompanied the GST.
    Second, it’s not really designed to push up the price of electricity. It’s designed to increase the price of electricity from carbon based fuels. The whole point is that as that drives an increase in the use of renewals (and drives down their price with the increasing scale) the price of electricity may actually decrease in real terms. This effect is already biting with solar cells and wind power and in time will do similarly with solar thermal (which can also provide the base load power).

  22. So far both sides of the debate have behaved quite well given the circumstances. Apart from a few radicals none of the protest have become out of control. I fear this won’t last long if this tax is pushed through without it going up at the next election. Firstly you’ll have the anger associated with the implementation. Then we’ll get the lead-up to the election where both sides of the debate will be at each others throat. And finally we’ll get an Abbott lead govt repealing the tax which will cause further unrest.

    The simple solution to this is to take it to the election and have the people vote on a plan. A clear and up front proposal and the opportunity to have a say – that’s all people want.

    Otherwise, I genuinely fear of how this will turn out.

  23. One of the problems with between-election polling is that here isn’t much of a control on it apart from other polling companies, and an explanation can always be found for discrepancies.
    The only times when polling firms more or less have to be both professional and honest is in the run up to an election, because the election itself provides the control.

  24. So Billy you’re in favour of the CT?
    The simple solution is to introduce it and let the people decide at the next election whether they want to keep it or not. Less costly too.

  25. [The problem lies with the following: “Does the PM have a mandate to introduce the tax or should she call an early election?” This gives respondents no outlet for the obvious third alternative: that while the Prime Minister does not have a mandate for a carbon tax (and given her position during the election campaign, it could hardly be argued otherwise),]

    [Only 28 per cent answered in favour of a carbon tax against 58 per cent opposed]

    It’s not a tax. Calling it a tax is itstelf, to borrow your phrase essentially a political talking point. The Abbottistas call this a tax (GBNT) because they want to accuse Gillard (now aka “Juliar”) a liar.

    The interim fixed price permit phase of the ETS allows participants to purchase permits at a fixed price. Taxes don’t get you goods or services and they certainly aren’t tradeable. Simple enough. If the UK Tory Environment Secretary can get it right, why can’t those of us ostensibly paying attention? I had to pull up a couple of people at the rally in Sydney unwittingly doing Abbott’s propaganda yesterday on just this point.

    It’s so tiresome!

  26. What shocks me is how easily people can be manipulated depending on whether the question is framed as a leading question or not. 10-20% difference.

    Ultimately, this wasn’t a poll within the traditional sense. It is marketing for the Coalition, and clever marketing at that – all their theme words are there: “mandate, australia’s small global impact, worse off.”

  27. For the record,

    a) the ALP does have a mandate to introduce a carbon pricing scheme (“a market-based mechanism” to quote Gillard just before the election)
    b) mandate theory is bunkum — our parliaments are sovereign. (We’d never have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq, or introduced WorkChoices is mandate theory applied)
    c) such mandates are moot when a party forms a coalition with parties not endorsing the leading party’s complete program, as occurred here. This conforms to b) above.

    Thus your point on allowing the government to rule and letting the electorate determine it at the next election being an obvious left out option applies.

  28. [My comment on the Adelaide Now website wasn’t printed, despite the fact I sought a clarification on methodology using sober, respectful language.]
    Danny
    My contribution also got binned.
    I think it’s what they call “balance”.

  29. I wonder how News Ltd would have reacted had I designed the poll question:

    Currently, industry, by emitting greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs and O3 to the atmosphere without charge has the freedom to use the biosphere upon which all humans depend as an industrial sewer.

    1. Should the biosphere continue to be a free dumping ground for industrial scale pollutants?

    2. Do you support a charge being placed on this industrial effluent adequate to ensure that ecosystem services to humans now and in the future are not recklessly degraded?

    3. How would you describe your support for parties who agree that use of the biosphere as a free industrial sewer is good public policy?

    4. Some people say that if other countries are willing to use the biosphere as a free industrial sewer, we should too. Do you agree?

    5. Who should bear the cost of foreclosing or cleaning up industrial effluent such as CO2 — a) those who emitted it? b) citizens in general? c) those suffering from it now and into the future?

    6. If forced to choose, which is the greater priority — the preservation of existing job titles or the integrity of ecosystem services to human beings now and in the remainder of this century?

  30. Fran Barlow

    Newsltd will pretend that they don’t even understand the questions. And to a certain extent, I don’t believe they do. 🙂

  31. I agree with Mr Bowe here: pointing out that Australia produces 1 per cent of carbon pollution is not a question even if a token “did you know?” is added at the end. It’s purpose is blatantly to bias the questions that follow.

    The point is a specious one. I earn less (infinitesimally less) than one per cent of the national income. So, does it really matter whether I pay income tax or not? If I stop paying tax will it affect the projected return to budget surplus? That leads to the question of whether other earners are paying their share.

    Applying this principle to the carbon price, the question should not be what per cent Australia contributes to pollution, but whether other polluters pay their dues. A more honest question would be:
    [Do you think Australia should pay more, less, or as much carbon price for its pollution as other comparable countries?
    Do you think Australia does pay more, less, or as much … ?]

  32. [that while the Prime Minister does not have a mandate for a carbon tax (and given her position during the election campaign, it could hardly be argued otherwise)]

    William, it could be argued otherwise.

    Governments can and do do things for which they have no mandate in terms of having explicitly said before the election “we will do this”. Lots of savings measures for instance fall under this category.

    Governments can and do break promises given at election. This is the first election where the opposition has been jumping up and down going “tear down the government” based on a broken promise.

    We vote for governments knowing they can and do, even for good reasons, do something different to what they said they would do at an election. Yes, we all love chanting “you can’t trust the government”. But most people are sensible enough to know its better for a government to break promises than to do something absurd.

    What’s even weirder here is that we have a situation where Gillard would have had to break a more important promise “put a price on carbon” in order to keep the other promise “no carbon tax”. Absurd in the extreme.

    And in the final analysis this I think is really about “was she being sincere about it”. Well, I’m not sure. She could have known that even with a majority government, that the Greens in the Senate would want a carbon tax. Or would they? Maybe she believed it herself that she could negotiate a straight ETS. That to me appears to be the case. I think she has a lot of confidence in her ability to negotiate.

    Now you could argue that there was always an intent to mislead. That there was the plain knowledge that a carbon price would have to start with a form of tax. But the truth is we just don’t know. And even if it was a deliberate lie. Even if she said “no carbon price” knowing it was inevitable under the circumstances then the net result is you can fault her for lying. The simple fact is that even under that situation the promise to implement a price on carbon has clear precedence.

    To sum up.. arguments about “mandate” can be manipulated into the realms of the absurd. She clearly had the “mandate” to implement a price on carbon, but not one based on a tax. In other words she had a “mandate” to introduce a straight ETS. But I complete agree with Gillard on one key point. You can either do nothing because you won’t break a promise, you can sit on things to the next election, or you can call a new election. Clearly, Gillard has taken the correct path.

    We vote for governments knowing they can and will do LOTS of things we never “voted for”.. or at least never fully understood. Its the way our democracy works. It requires some faith. And sadly Abbott and his band of wreckers are trying to destroy that faith – just as the wreckers from the conservative side of politics are trying to destroy trust in US democracy, because it suits them.

    Lets move on..

  33. @Gary – I’m for allowing the people to decide the fate of the CO2 tax at an election. If they put forward the proposal and it wins support, I’ll support it too. After all, that’s the democratic system. To put it through without public support, then to fight an election hoping it will miraculously find popularity in the meantime is simply asking for trouble.

    If Abbott were to win, he can quite legitimately claim a mandate to axe the tax. That will then be held up in the senate controlled by the Greens. That will force Abbott to use the DD election trigger sending us back to the polls again. That will almost certainly result in a rout. This will give us the most volatile period in living memory.

    That’s not good for the environment, the Greens or the ALP.

  34. William,

    Your lucid and cogent comments for this thread are greatly appreciated.

    It’s impossible to see Labor winning the next election when widespread news media attention incessantly gets paid to polls such as this.

    Here’s the link for Network 7 News in which this poll is given credence by positioning it as the introduction to their coverage of the weekend rallies in support of a carbon tax.

    7 News have also inserted a sound-bite of the Fortescue bloke telling us how his industry will be damaged for nothing.

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/national/watch/25447075/

  35. Lizzie – I think we can safely assume that this next election will be pretty clear-cut. I don’t mind waiting 2 years for that to happen – I doubt the damage to the environment will be that great if we do.

    But I thinks it’s critical that this be handed to the people to decide or we’ll get worse unrest than we do today. The only winners will be Abbott and the Coalition. If this is passed before the election the ALP can look forward to another 12 years on the opposite side of the house, regardless of what compensation is handed out.

  36. It needs to be pointed out that the Daily Telegraph ran the headline “Angry Australians demand new election” (emphasis mine).

  37. Billy, you’re really calling for a referendum on an issue not an election.
    The people will get their chance to vote on it again though at the next election. Don’t see the problem myself. Yes, it will be in by then but that just gives the people a chance to make an informed decision rather than a decision based on inaccuracies and fear.

  38. [If this is passed before the election the ALP can look forward to another 12 years on the opposite side of the house, regardless of what compensation is handed out.]
    I’m betting the opposite will occur. Abbott is going to have difficulty fear mongering at the next election. The sky will not have fallen and compensation will have been paid.

  39. Gary: that’s the problem.

    They are afraid that if we wait until the tax is introduced and people can see for themselves that the sky hasn’t fallen in then it renders their arguments redundant.

    If, however, we go to an election now – in this hugely toxic environment – and the government is booted out then we will never have a chance to test the theory that it would have been a huge impost on industry/the community in general and therefore the Libs’ position in this argument will never be contested – ergo they will argue until the end of time that they were right all along.

    The Libs know this – and, more importantly, so does Rupert.

  40. The latest Essential poll shows that very few people list climate action in their top 3 concerns. It proves that the case for us to act has not been made and the govt that introduces this without the consent of the people will be torched come the next election.

    Take out what you may or may not believe, is it worth the pain of many years in opposition and having the tax overturned regardless?

    You can’t achieve much from opposition.

  41. Fran @30, spot on.

    The Greens were the only party to take an ETS/Carbon Tax type policy to the 2010 election, and they achieved a +4% swing. Therefore, there is a mandate for pricing carbon.

    Gillard is head of a minority government, and therefore didn’t achieve a mandate to implement Labor’s program fully.

  42. ajm

    except for the fact that every power bill rise going forward will be blame on the Carbon tax, nad every grocery bill rise (ie electricity use by refrigerating vegetable, fruit, meat and seaford)

    The tax might not be as high as the GST, but it is highly regressive, ie it hit essential good significantly

  43. Johnny Come Lately

    Yeah Green and the 1/8 of Australian who support them have a mandate to push the Carbon tax as is their Policy, and they will be given kudos, if it gets up, and will even attract ALP supporters to their banner.

    The ALP on the otherhand, went to the election campaigning against a Carbon Tax, then flipped once the election was decided, there will be consequences for the ALP, it really is a no-wion situation for the ALP, they lose support to both the Green and the Liberals. The ALP will meet their fate at the next election

  44. The real fear for everyone should be Tones’ great big, direct action, tax that which will redistribute hard won working dollars to polluters.

  45. [So I take it that, in the cases above, major newspapers have commissioned these polls – that is, paid for them to be undertaken?]

    Yes, Galaxy were paid to conduct the poll by the News Ltd tabloids.

    [The next assumption is that these companies should try to frame the questions in an objective manner (should they be credible organisations). But the concern here is that the questions do not seem to have been constructed objectively.

    Is this phenomenon becoming more widespread in your opinion? Are there polling companies you tend to give more credence over others?]

    It seems to me that all of those who conduct phone polls – Newspoll, Galaxy, Nielsen and occasionally Morgan – get very similar results, and are doing much the same thing. On voting intention I think one is probably as good as the other, except insofar as they have different sample sizes: Nielsen generally polls 1400, Newspoll about 1000 and Galaxy 800. But when they are polling on attitudes to issues rather than voting intention, you need to look carefully at how the question was asked. It’s always possible to quibble here, but it’s unusual for questions to be framed as poorly as these two. However, I do not think any problems with poor questioning are “getting worse” necessarily.

    [A question: do all polls limit themselves to one method of info gathering? That is – only from face-to-face; or by phone; or online? If someone runs a poll where half the respondents are face-to-face and half by phone, or maybe a three way split between the three aforementioned methods, is that not considered kosher?]

    I don’t know that it wouldn’t be considered kosher. I’d say the issue is that pollsters like to argue that their preferred method is the best one, and that being so they shouldn’t dilute their findings with polling conducted by lesser means.

    [I am sorry, but based on how the questions are presented, I do not see any bias in the Qs.]

    Dovif, your comment provides no indication you have either read or understood my point.

    [Governments can and do do things for which they have no mandate in terms of having explicitly said before the election “we will do this”. Lots of savings measures for instance fall under this category.]

    Yes, but you’re rejecting the very notion here of mandate theory – and here you are in very good company. However, if you accept the basis of mandate theory (that governments are elected to implement their election platforms, and have a right and duty to do so), you must accept the PM doesn’t have one. If however you reject the basis of mandate theory, the Galaxy question only leaves you with the “early election” option.

  46. For the ALP, the best thing that could happen to them is if Oakshott or Windsor withdraw support for the Carbon tax and it fails

    I really do not understand the ALP position on the carbon tax, and they have spend so much political capital on it (ie all of Gillard’s integrity) that they cannot back down now.

    But even if the Carbon tax gets up for the ALP, there is very little to be gain by the ALP. All those people who are happy with the Carbon tax will support the Greens, the only party who had never flipped position on the Carbon tax, and who eventually force Gillard into one. Anyone who is upset by the carbon tax will go to the coalition.

    There is really nothing but pain for the ALP, I guess it is the cost of doing deals with the devil for power

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 1 of 3
1 2 3