Newspoll quarterly breakdowns

Keen followers of the comments threads will be aware I’ve had my eye off the ball a bit over the past day or so, and hence missed the always enjoyable quarterly Newspoll geographic and demographic breakdowns. These point to swings against Labor of 4.5 per cent in New South Wales, 3.3 per cent in Victoria, 2.9 per cent in Queensland, 3.2 per cent in South Australia and 1.6 per cent in Western Australia – although since they cover the past three months, they are a little more flattering to Labor than the polling picture as it stands right now. More from Peter Brent at Mumble and Simon Jackman at Stanford University.

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.

2,636 thoughts on “Newspoll quarterly breakdowns”

Comments Page 2 of 53
1 2 3 … 53

  1. “publishing doyenne*“. What a marvellous word.

    Gillard must be the parliamentary Labor party doyenne from now on. Has to be:

    “The Prime Ministerial doyenne said ….”

    * a woman who is the senior member of a group

  2. find that a little hard to digest given your comments regarding climate science (yes, I’m trying to be polite here) on the last thread.

    My last thread was about the consequences IF the IPCC lower their projections.

    I admit I find it annoying when somebody tells me to believe something because they said so. I particularly find it annoying when there is a herd mentality and insistence on a position without understanding what they are talking about.

    I asked, what will be the political consequence of…. and had several people accuse me of being anti science, a denier, a witch etc.

    No one disputed the information I purovided from Hadley etc.

    I think there is a significant problem when something evokes so much vitriol, not because the data is wrong, not because the conclusions were wrong (I only said that it was lower than projections) but because it is seen as a challenge to a political position.

  3. Buttrose: “Australians are looking for strong leadership and, because we have a minority government with Labor continually having to capitulate to the Greens and independents, we aren’t getting it.

    The Liberals would capitulate to Big Mining, Big Tobacco, Big Media, the HR Nicholls Society and the IPA – so it’s clear who’d be more evil.

  6. the Coalition may be spending $10b on abatement that would achieve the same effect with $9b in a directly charging carbon production but this has to be weighed against a policy that might include spending $5b on “New Technology” (pet Green projects).

    It is extremely unlikely that a tax and spend program will be anywhere near as close as 90% as efficient as a market mechanism. The productivity commission says Australia currently has a patch work of 226 different abatement programs such as tax rebates, offsets, efficiency measures and direct hand outs, yet if we simply enacted a $9 a tonne carbon tax a decade ago, we would’ve already achieved double the abatement at half the cost to the economy.

    In general, the government tends to be inefficient in picking winners as seen with solar panels.

    Of course, yet that’s the Liberal policy take your income taxes, then let politicians and bureaucrats sit around a table each year so they can pick abatement project winners.

    This policy is economic insanity, because politicians can’t pick winners better than the market. If a new technology is efficient in achieve abatement it will receive relatively more private sector investment than alternatives. If a technology starts out promising but turns out to offer less abatement than expected, other options will receive more investment. Whereas if it is a government program, politicians will be less inclined to admit a policy failure, and will just go through with the project even if there are better alternatives.

    So I will ask questions like
    What is the cost of direct action to get to 5% reduction

    Well we have no idea do we. Abbott says a bit over $10 billion.

    TONY ABBOTT:
    Let me just stress the point that Greg made. Our direct action scheme costs $3.2 billion over the forward estimates period as opposed to Labor’s $40 billion money-go-round. Over the 10 years ours costs a little over $10 billion…

    http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=1650

    But that is based on wildly optimistic estimates of abatement achieved using soil magic:
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm

    Of course Abbott hasn’t explained where this money is going to come from, which is another reason why it isn’t a credible policy that an economic rationalist can’t vote for.

    What is the ultimate carbon cost with an ETS to get to 5% (not starting price)

    Dr Parkinson said a starting price of $26 a tonne of carbon could be needed to achieve a 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020. But he said the starting price could be higher or lower due to the delay in bringing in a carbon price, as well as the pace of development of lower-emission technologies.

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/treasury-chief-allays-fears-on-carbon-costs-20110324-1c8kx.html

  7. ifonly

    No one disputed the information I purovided from Hadley etc.

    Wrong. I did, as Possum did last year. I ‘find it annoying’ when confusion spreaders and deniers link totally discredited graphs at sites designed to look neutral at first glance, such as climate4you.com as you did the other night. Those manipulated graphs are the bodgie ones Bolt uses. The global temperature is rising. 1998 or 2000, or 2001 or any other subsequent year didn’t change that at all.

    The science is in, and action is about to happen based on that science and the excellent economics associated with the science. It’s all good. Too late to attempt to quibble using lies.

  8. Of course you might consider pricing carbon as extremely important, I might give a higher importance to for mental health or carers.

    The socialist tax and spend scheme the Liberals are proposing will ultimately require higher government spending, which means less money for mental health and carers.

  9. Jaundiced View

    That’s a false dilemma of the cheapest kind. It doesn’t help mental health patients for the world climate to become a repetitive circulating maelstrom of extreme weather; for food sources to become problematic; or for unimaginable waves of refugees to be unsettled around the world as huge regions become unliveable

    I think you are over extending. We accept Australia must do its part but as a global impact this isn’t great. Of course you may have a jaundiced view but if you accept that both parties are going to reduce carbon by 5% you then have to look at cost.

    Coalition may reduce by 5% and cost $1b more than a ETS and spend $3b on mental health
    Labor may reduce by 5% and spend $1b on cash for clunkers, $1b on removing the monarchy and $1b on paying Malaysia to take people.

    Net effect of either is the reduction in carbon but over all one seems better to me.

    Of course, if you take the position that either Labor or the Coalition are liars/stupid/evil/witches etc then nothing will change.
    La

  11. No one disputed the information I purovided from Hadley etc.

    I challenged it on the grounds that it doesn’t make sense judging a trend using one data set alone. You also can’t judge the warming trend by just looking at the last 10 years, you need to look at the last 20 – 30. And you missed the fact the last decade was the warmest on record.

  12. Jaundiced View

    Wrong. I did, as Possum did last year
    I used a graph (because it is easy to read) you disputed it…not the data but the source.
    I provided data from Hadley no one challenged except someone who asked isn’t satellite more accurate so I also provided satellite.

    Did you have a challenge to either set of data?

  13. Gusface
    You still haven’t explained your earlier broad brush ad hominem attack. Shouldn’t you do that before you go on to the next one??

  14. ifonly

    Did you have a challenge to either set of data?

    Yes, for one, I linked Possum’s comprehensive exposure of the manipulation as used by Bolt.

  15. Showson

    I challenged it on the grounds that it doesn’t make sense judging a trend using one data set alone

    I wasn’t saying the trend wasn’t up. I was saying the observed temps were about to fall below projections.
    -this would lead to revised projections
    -revisions would have a political impact in Oz

  16. I think you are over extending. We accept Australia must do its part but as a global impact this isn’t great.

    Are you talking about climate change action or our participation in WWII?

    Of course you may have a jaundiced view but if you accept that both parties are going to reduce carbon by 5% you then have to look at cost.

    You can’t call yourself an economic rationalist if you think the government can just tax and spend and achieve the same abatement at the same cost as a market mechanism.

    Coalition may reduce by 5% and cost $1b more than a ETS

    $1 billion? The Coalition would be LUCKY if their plan costs only double that of a market mechanism.

    Labor may reduce by 5% and spend $1b on cash for clunkers

    This is no longer Labor policy because Treasury pointed out that it would have a very high cost for abatement. But this is the kind of thing that the Coalition is proposing to do – tax and spend.

    …and $1b on paying Malaysia to take people.

    It’s interesting that you mention this, because the Coalition is yet to definitively say that they would abandon this deal.

    Of course, if you take the position that either Labor or the Coalition are liars/stupid/evil/witches etc then nothing will change.

    Of course, but what you still haven’t confronted the fact that you know a market mechanism is the cheapest cost method of abatement because markets are better at allocating resources than politicians.

    Anyone interested in sound economic management simply can’t vote for the Liberals at the next election.

  18. ifonly,

    I admit I find it annoying when somebody tells me to believe something because they said so. I particularly find it annoying when there is a herd mentality and insistence on a position without understanding what they are talking about.

    Then stop being annoyed, knuckle down and start learning the basic science.

    And if you hate being told what to believe why are you swallowing the sorts of stuff you’ve been spouting here?

  20. I wasn’t saying the trend wasn’t up. I was saying the observed temps were about to fall below projections.

    That’s exactly what you said the other night, based on the climate4you site’s manipulated data as exposed ages ago as crap.
    That’s the site that says the IPCC results are due to ‘groupthink’.
    I suspect your bona fides.

  29. I wasn’t saying the trend wasn’t up. I was saying the observed temps were about to fall below projections.

    That, itself, is a projection. And one based on much less data.

    You see the problem for you is basic physics. The planet as a whole is gaining heat very smoothly. There’s absolutely no uncertainty about that. We know the basic physics and its been established for well over a century. We also have the technology to measure the energy received by the earth from the Sun and the energy radiated out into space in every wavelength you can imagine. And that data says the Earth is acquiring energy.

    However that energy does not mean a monotonically increase surface air temperature. As you know, energy can be converted. It can take the form of latent heat (heat of vaporization of water). It can take the form of wind or wave energy. And the single biggest disturbance is the rate of heat energy that finds its way deep into the oceans varies depending on currents and other factors such as storms.

    Net result is if you just look at the surface temperature its hard to see the fact that the earth is gaining energy, very steadily, as a result of greenhouse gasses. It doesn’t matter what your climate systems do, or even decadic cycles in ocean currents, the fact is, its going to get warmer.

    Now, if you don’t understand that, try a site by real scientists, such as realclimate.org or deltoid . Have a read, have a long hard think. They have many, many tutorials on the science.

  33. Ouch.

    BOB Brown has a vision of the Australian Greens supplanting Labor as one of Australia’s mainstream political parties in the decades ahead.

    As the Greens leader celebrates 25 years as a parliamentarian and holding the balance of power in both houses of parliament for the first time, with a record 10 Greens MPs, he envisages a much broader political future than the passage of the carbon and mining taxes in the months ahead. “I believe the Greens as a party are in a similar position to what the Labor Party was 100 years ago,” Senator Brown told The Weekend Australian in an interview.

    😀
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-will-supersede-alp-bob-brown/story-fn59niix-1226085967764

  34. I wasn’t saying the trend wasn’t up. I was saying the observed temps were about to fall below projections.
    -this would lead to revised projections
    -revisions would have a political impact in Oz

    Whether by accident or on purpose, ifonly’s claim that the last decade has fallen below IPCC projections is pure Moncktonian nonsense.

    The recent temperature record DOES NOT FALL BELOW THE IPCC PROJECTIONS. Here is a video that explains that the last ten years falls well WITHIN IPCC projections, and demonstrate Monckton’s misleading nonsense for good measure:
    http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/09/temperatures-are-below-projections.html

    What Monckton has done is come up with his OWN inflated projections and then simply asserted that they are the IPCC’s projections!

    If ifonly is intellectually honest, he will admit that he accidentally or deliberately (I don’t want to ascribe motives) presented information that is false, and will move on to other things.

  35. That, itself, is a projection. And one based on much less data.

    Look at the video I linked to in post 84. The data from the last decade doesn’t fall below IPCC projections. They are fake projections made up by Mr Monckton who then simply asserted that they are the IPCC’s!

  36. ShowsOn, yes, I’m aware of that. Thanks for doing the work in finding the video.

    Its still more fun to poke holes in his logic/methodology tho 🙂

  37. Its still more fun to poke holes in his logic/methodology tho 🙂

    It was clearly a fishy claim because it hardly makes sense that the last decade (2000 – 2010) was the warmest on record but that it doesn’t fit with even the lowest bound of the projections.

  38. ShowsOn & cud chewer

    Good work both of you. Monckton (and his apparent acolytes) go to a fair bit of trouble to manipulate data, don’t they? If they can’t get away with “the world has cooled since 1998′” anymore, they’ll try “the temperature is falling below the predictions” by manipulating the extrapolations. It’s important to be aware of their deceptions.

    It’s verging on the sociopathic to knowingly mislead in that way. Quite bizarre, and it brings up all the psychological foundations of denialism in the face of big bad news generally.

  40. It’s verging on the sociopathic to knowingly mislead in that way. Quite bizarre, and it brings up all the psychological foundations of denialism in the face of big bad news generally.

    And yet that line of argument and type of ‘thinking’ is currently the dominant influence on one of Australia’s major political parties.

  41. ShowsOn

    And yet that line of argument and type of ‘thinking’ is currently the dominant influence on one of Australia’s major political parties.

    And parts of the other party as well. I guess they see the “I hate bad news and just won’t accept it.” demographic as their very own constituency.

  44. James J 11

    I have been saying here for a while now that the enemy of the Greens is the ALP and the Greens wants to eventually replace the ALP as the governing party of the Left.

    Now we have prove that Brown is saying the same thing, will the Ostriches in here still keep their head in the sand

  45. “I think that within 50 years we will supplant one of the major parties in Australia.”

    For the ostriches, Brown does not think he will replace the Liberals

  46. Morning all.
    Wow! CASA last night grounded all Tiger airlines flights for five days for posing a serious risk to safety.
    CASA’s statement was extremely strong.

  48. Laurie Oakes

    DURING the week, Tony Abbott lavished praise on a company investing $50 million in a recycling plant “that will convert garbage into power”.

    It was not a bad description of what the Opposition Leader himself is up to.

    Quite a few of the populist policies Abbott hopes will propel him into power are uncosted, inconsistent, impractical or incompatible with the kind of responsible, conservative economic management he claims to believe in.

    Even the power-broker who installed Abbott as Liberal leader – recently retired senator Nick Minchin – has accused him behind closed doors of financial irresponsibility and failure to support good policy.

    But the Opposition Leader is getting away with purveying trashy policy because the nation is mesmerised by the Government’s woes. While Julia Gillard continues to stumble from one mess to another, Abbott largely escapes scrutiny.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/trash-talk-over-political-mess/story-fn56baaq-1226085877353

Comments Page 2 of 53
1 2 3 … 53

Comments are closed.