The latest fortnightly Newspoll has the Coalition’s lead at 53-47 on two-party preferred, but this obscures a lot of movement on the primary vote: Labor down four after a curious aberration a fortnight ago to 31 per cent, the Coalition down two to 43 per cent (its lowest result in almost exactly a year), the Greens up one to 12 per cent and “others” on 14 per cent (“last that high in September 2006”, GhostWhoVotes advises). Julia Gillard has recovered a preferred prime minister lead she lost two surveys ago, now leading 39-37 after trailing 38-36 a fortnight ago, but this is very much a case of the lesser of two evils: she has recovered only two points from the slump on her approval rating in the previous poll, to now be at 28 per cent, with her disapproval also down two to 62 per cent. Tony Abbott is respectively up one to 32 per cent and up one to a new high of 58 per cent. The incurably spin-happy Australian is selling this as “Wayne Swan’s attacks on the nation’s billionaire mining magnates (having) failed to lift Labor’s electoral support”, despite the figures offering no basis of any kind for making such a claim.
Meanwhile, Essential Research advises: “Because of public holiday in Melbourne our data processing people weren’t working today so report will go out tomorrow. And it will be worth the wait.”
UPDATE: Essential Research continues to part company with the phone pollsters, with its Coalition lead out from 56-44 to 57-43. Labor is down a point on the primary vote to 31 per cent, and has dropped three points over the past four weeks, with the Coalition steady on 49 per cent (up two on four weeks ago) and the Greens steady on 10 per cent. As in Newspoll, the monthly measure of personal ratings has Julia Gillard taking a hit in the wake of the leadership spill, her approval down four points to 32 per cent and her disapproval up eight to 61 per cent. Tony Abbott’s figures are little changed at 36 per cent (up one) and 52 per cent (down one), and he has narrowed his deficit as preferred prime minister from 41-34 to 40-37. Approval of Bob Carr’s appointment to the Senate and foreign ministry is evenly divided at 37 per cent approval and 36 per cent approval, with strong disapproval (17 per cent) heavily outweighing strong approval (7 per cent) (which to my mind doesn’t reflect too well on the insight of the punters).
Other questions included an amusing experimental effort in which half the respondents were asked if they agreed with Wayne Swan that “Australia’s wealthiest individuals are using their wealth to try to influence public opinion and government policy to further their own commercial interests”, and the other half if they agreed with the statement without it being attributed to Wayne Swan. The results were extremely similar – 58 per cent agreed and 26 per cent disagreed when it was attributed to Wayne Swan, compared with 60 per cent and 24 per cent when it wasn’t – but it became so because strong partisan effects cancelled each other out, with Coalition voters especially far more inclined to reject the assertion (36 per cent agree, 51 per cent disagree) coming from Swan than when it was unattributed (55 per cent agree, 30 per cent agree). The poll also finds a decline in support for the mining tax since the question was last asked in February, with support down three points to 52 per cent and opposition up six to 34 per cent. Respondents were also asked to identify what constituted “middle income” ($60,000-$79,000 getting the highest response for individuals), “well off” and “wealthy” (with responses here very widely spread). Eighty-six per cent believed social class still existed in Australia against only 8 per cent who didn’t.
It’s still a bit crazy even with its own thread.
[The incurably spin-happy Australian is selling this as “Wayne Swan’s attacks on the nation’s billionaire mining magnates (having) failed to lift Labor’s electoral support”, despite the figures offering no basis of any kind for making such a claim. ]
We lurvs our billionairz.
1708
crikey whitey
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 12:47 am | Permalink
Hi guys
There I was watching perhaps the least partisan and well considered Q&A I have seen for a long time…..
And the signal went down!
A few minutes of silent fulmination produced an imaginative leap.
I pulled the antenna on the pvr, plugged it into the tv and switched to analogue.
Which I guess was local ABC, as I hardly lost a minute or two of the broadcast.
Think I need a splitter?
Go Tanya, Malcolm for his rightful place. I expect Tanya would be relieved to be debating with a person who uses his brain.
And in all the meantime since Q&A ended, the Internet would not load so this message could not be posted till now.
More silent fulmination!!
[mexicanbeemer
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 12:41 am | Permalink
My reading of the TPP whilst unscientific has 31 v 43 leaving 26 I then surmise that 24 splits 14-12 leaving the TPP at 45-55]
Why you surmise 14-12 split isn’t clear. There is a known preference split for Greens and Others, and although I can’t remember it exactly, its something like 80% Greens and 40% Other go to the ALP
The explanation is that The Australian uses the fortnightly Newspoll result to push whatever barrow and run whatever line it feels like running at the time. The tragedy is that the rest of the media always buys into the BS. What a shithole this country is, honestly.
Bludgers I think I have mentioned before about how I threw my TV out years ago and cancelled my newspaper subscriptions – well now I am getting rid of my home internet access too. I find the internet absorbs too much of my time and keeps me from achieving goals I have set for my life. The internet is little more than a toilet anyway.
So this will be it from me for some time. I may still pop in occasionally if I get access from somewhere else, but I will no longer be a regular reader or contributor.
Best wishes to you all.
Dan. Noticed that piece of idiotic media spin.
Nah it’s the Rudd effect.
….speak of the devil:
[GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
@GenGusface Yes, the ‘Others’ votes are distributed, about 40% of the others goes to the ALP 2PP vote, 60% for L/NP.]
Contrary to appearances, I am NOT Ghostwhovotes (sadly, he or she, appears to know all).
GWV:
Don’t know what “And it will be worth the wait” means do you?????
GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes
@GenGusface Yes, the ‘Others’ votes are distributed, about 40% of the others goes to the ALP 2PP vote, 60% for L/NP.
I always thought it was the other way around
bilbo
care to comment on the 40/60 split
Before you pull the plug/s Larry, and it is very tempting, a little farewell from me.
You did well. Back to books, gardens, or whatever you might find to do again in the world as we knew it.
Bon voyage..
In response to observations from the previous thread, it’s easy to find ways in which these figures could have rounded to the published primary vote figures while producing a two-party result that rounds to 53-47: for example, if you put Labor at 31.4 and the Coalition at 42.6 and leave Greens and others at whole numbers, you get 53.4-46.6, rounding to 53-47.
gusface at 9,
The Greens votes are distributed 80% ALP 20% L/NP, so the final non-major party vote usually splits about 60% ALP 40% L/NP.
The split at the 2010 election was 77/23 for the Greens, 42.5/57.5 for others.
bilbo
i dont with a 40/60 split
pls explain
See darn statistics. Probably close to 52/48 last time.
I’m maybe a little unclear on what was being discussed on the previous thread. What’s the issue with the 40/60 split?
ML now how do we get Turnbull to challenge Abbott?
LSL,
You say the country’s a shit-hole. I don’t agree with that. But the Australian media are about the most unbalanced you’ll find outside of Malaysia and North Korea. And the effects of that situation are incalculable. Given the reach and influence of media (working into the pores of a generally unengaged populace), public perceptions of politics – the whole political discourse – are poisoned accordingly. That’s what’s shithouse.
Gus (77+43)/2=60 thereabouts
Alternatively (23+57)/2 = 40 thereabouts
ghost and bilbo
all clear now
🙂
[gusface
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 12:47 am | Permalink
mod
so your others
are they fib or lab?
u cant tell,so you allocate their vote
IOW dey is undecided]
Gus:
I just don’t know where to start. GWV explained this perfectly clearly to you, yet you still persist.
Lets get back to basics:
Newspoll rings ya
Dey asks “Whodya wanna vote fer”
Ya ses “Uh I dunno”
Dey sey “Aw go on”
Ya ses “OK, ALP”
or “OK, Lib”
or “OK, Nat”
or “OK, Green”
or “OK, Indie”
or “Na, still not sure”
or “Na, not interested mate” (sound of hanging up)
Den dem really smart Newspolly types, add up all dem numbers
Den dem really smart Newspolly types take out dem ones which sed “Na, still not sure” and “Na, not interested mate” and get a total number of usables
Den dey divide all the others by da final total usable. Sum a dem ones what went ta Uni call that a denominator.
Sometimes da numbers dont get ya to 100, and thats gunna need anudda day to explain. Enuff fer now methinks…
The only really bad media players are The Australian and The Daily Telegraph (plus the shock jocks I guess). The rest should be manageable by a decent Labor government which knows what it is and what it wants to do and is led by someone of stature and authority. The North Korea reference is absurd.
Thankyou for your kind words crikey whitey. I hope things are going well for you and you are adjusting well to your changed circumstances. Personally I view the internet as addictive and the pleasures it offers (including online social interactions) as ultimately shallow, illusory and unfulfilling.
[so the final non-major party vote usually splits about 60% ALP 40% L/NP.]
Wow, that summary figure is gonna save me a lot of back of napkin calculations in the future! I can probably manage 60% of others in my head in future.
Thanks GWV!
mod
solly
i no understand manglish
🙁
🙂
Good night!
[Personally I view the internet as addictive and the pleasures it offers (including online social interactions) as ultimately shallow, illusory and unfulfilling.]
cry me a river…
I’m sorry you are leaving too LSL.
We need a few more straight talkers here.
Good night and Good life!
[The North Korea reference is absurd.]
At the risk of irking the sometimes-curmudgeonly William, here’s the challenge, and I think it’s a perfectly reasonable one. You show me one mainstream media outlet in Australia that is pro-Labor, and I’ll show you a mainstream outlet in NK that goes against their party line. If you cannot meet this challenge, then it’s your dismissal of my thesis that is “absurd”.
mod
u have gorn way past beddy byes
there could be trouble
cuppa
does AFV count
🙂
Well I’m not sure whether there is one that is “pro-Labor” as a standing tradition – although if you go over to Andrew Bolt’s blog they all swear the ABC is – but there have certainly been times when many of the Murdoch papers and the TV networks have been very pro certain Labor governments, both state and federal. Not now though obviously. But it certainly could happen again in the future.
[You show me one mainstream media outlet in Australia that is pro-Labor, and I’ll show you a mainstream outlet in NK that goes against their party line. If you cannot meet this challenge, then it’s your dismissal of my thesis that is “absurd”.]
So if every media outlet in Australia is perfectly fair, except for the Australian and Daily Telegraph that are anti-ALP, then we have a media like North Korea.
I think “absurd” stands up pretty well actually.
[ but there have certainly been times when many of the Murdoch papers and the TV networks have been very pro certain Labor governments, both state and federal.]
I love a good bedtime story
Mod Lib – The way I guess the over all TPP is to presume the ALP win the preference flow so I get the total non major party vote, half it then depending on how I read the political mood I proceed to give the ALP a lead on preferences.
Lets say 10% vote non major party therefore depending on the Green vote, I will say 6-4, it is unscientific but seems to be roughly correct
[if you go over to Andrew Bolt’s blog they all swear the ABC is {pro-Labor}]
Even if you’ve thrown out your TV and whatever, you’ve been on this blog long enough and often enough to have seen all the evidence you need to know that what the spin from the bolt heads about the ABC is bullshit. As is much of what they say I’m sure.
[I’m not sure whether there is one that is “pro-Labor” as a standing tradition]
Damn right, there’s not.
[there have certainly been times when many of the Murdoch papers and the TV networks have been very pro certain Labor governments, both state and federal. Not now though obviously. But it certainly could happen again in the future.]
Media outlets that may from time to time for brief periods give the appearance of being sympathetic to Labor, are not by definition pro-Labor. There isn’t one mainstream outlet that advocates for Labor day-to-day. There are plenty that do so for the Liberals, such as News Limited and the shock jocks. There are plenty that are antagonistic to Labor, including the ones named, plus, in many cases (you could almost say systemically), the ABC.
[There isn’t one mainstream outlet that advocates for Labor day-to-day.]
This is not a problem.
[There are plenty that do so for the Liberals, such as News Limited and the shock jocks.]
This is a problem
[in many cases (you could almost say systemically), the ABC.]
This is just bullshit. Dont conflate lazy journalism with systematic bias.
[There isn’t one mainstream outlet that advocates for Labor day-to-day.
This is not a problem.]
Sez who? The Liberals?
Democracy is fundamentally compromised when:
1) Only one party has a media voice
2) That voice is pretty-well uniform across most of the mainstream media.
2) Most of the media is systemically hostile to that party’s principal rival
Please explain how this “isn’t a problem”.
[in many cases (you could almost say systemically), the ABC
This is just bullshit. Dont conflate lazy journalism with systematic bias.]
Making the excuse that it’s “just laziness” is actually a lazy act in itself. An unthinking recourse to mantra/slogan. What’s the other standby you’ll trot out? That it “doesn’t have the resources” to do the job properly?
[Sez who? The Liberals?]
Says me, who doesn’t want media organisations systematically cheering for one side. I live in the US, and its polarized as hell – I dont like watching either the right or the left wing media outlets. (Daily show and Colbert report excepted – if you can call Comedy Central a media outlet). Id rather see the media orgs in Australia who cheer for the Liberals move closer to the centre than some other organization spring up on the left shouting the Labor/GReen worldview – it just reinforces stereotypes each side has and doesn’t lead to intelligent discourse.
[What’s the other standby you’ll trot out? That it “doesn’t have the resources” to do the job properly?]
With respect to the ABC, I think people (the die hards) just see what they want to see. Everyone wants to blame any bad publicity for their team on some sort of bias. The fact that the right whinge as much as the left about the ABC highlights this
[Says me, who doesn’t want media organisations systematically cheering for one side. I live in the US, and its polarized as hell – I dont like watching either the right or the left wing media outlets. (Daily show and Colbert report excepted – if you can call Comedy Central a media outlet). Id rather see the media orgs in Australia who cheer for the Liberals move closer to the centre than some other organization spring up on the left shouting the Labor/GReen worldview – it just reinforces stereotypes each side has and doesn’t lead to intelligent discourse.]
So how can you say the situation we’ve got is “not a problem”? I think by what you’ve said you can see that it is a problem. What we DO have is organisations cheering for one side (and one side only). The organisations that cheer for the Liberals ARE NOT becoming more moderate, quite the reverse! We’ve got shock jocks here saying Gillard should be put in a chaff bag and thrown into the deepest ocean! Stereotypes ARE being reinforced, discourse IS being dumbed down. And there is NO local equivalent here to Colbert or the Daily Show. Nothing that comes close. No “left wing” mainstream media AT ALL.
About 50 per cent of people in the Australian democracy (to put an exact current figure on it, as of this poll it stands at 47 per cent) do not support the Liberals. Again, how can you say it’s “not a problem”, when the Liberal Party (which only has 53 per cent support from the people) is the only party with a media advocacy? Tell me that doesn’t compromise democracy in what’s basically a two-party contest.
Look, if you wish to withdraw the half-baked, hasty, easily disprovable comment about it “not being a problem”, I’ll understand and won’t hold it against you. 😀
[So how can you say the situation we’ve got is “not a problem”? ]
Dont put words in my mouth 🙂 I didn’t say that – I said that i dont see the lack of cheering for Labor as a problem. I do see the cheering for the Libs a problem however.
Ok, I got you on that. I’d like to see no orgs taking sides either. But that we certainly do have – well they take one side, anyway. A most unhealthy situation, leading society to a frightening place if it follows the current trajectory.
I’d agree with this.
Partisan hackery should be rejected in the media whether it’s for your team or not.
Lazy, sloppy, journalism should also be called out all the time, not just when it’s used to bash the ALP.
The 2PP seems to be status quo, but the ALP primary seems low at 31 compared with other polls giving roughly the same 2PP but showing a primary around 34-37. It looks odder still compared with the PPM where Gillard is 39 (admittedly compared with Abbott).
The simplest and most likely explanation is William’s, that the primary is probably a rounding down, but it is still well below the others. There must be something in the different ways pollers attribute less clear voting intentions.
Not a lot to read into it all apart from that, except that the ALP soul-baring of the past two weeks has had no real impact – at least not negatively, as was first feared.
It may get the natives a bit restless on the other side, which is a bit of a worry. Labor has more to gain by Abbott remaining in charge for at least a few more months.
lsl
I would be interested to know, say in a couple of month’s time, how going cold turkey on the internet went.
I wonder whether there have been other periods in the Psephological Era when a minor party+others has consistently been in the order of around a quarter of the electorate?
Good morning Dawn Patrollers.
A thoughtful article by Dick Gross.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/godless-gross/trust-kids-when-it-comes-to-religious-teaching-20120309-1uosf.html
Alan Moir on Obama’s choices re Iran.
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/alan-moir-20090907-fdxk.html
Ron Tandberg on Abbott’s “NO”
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/ron-tandberg-20090910-fixc.html
Oh dear! The wonderful David Row has a “dig” at our Gina.
http://www.afr.com/p/home/cartoon_gallery_david_rowe_1g8WHy9urgOIQrWQ0IrkdO
[So this will be it from me for some time. I may still pop in occasionally if I get access from somewhere else, but I will no longer be a regular reader or contributor.
Best wishes to you all.]
Oh come on Larry, i really didnt mean what i said about you. Please dont go, we are just warming up to you. How could you leave this cute baby face:
Maybe you have seen the light that the beginning of the end of Tony Abbott has started.
Especially afternoon the performance of Malcolm Turnbull last night on #qanda. Hde ripped into Abbott merciless.
The Republicans are a nasty bunch.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-threaten-doctor-patient-relationship
Democratic women are fighting back, though.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/12/1073566/-Women-legislators-turn-the-tables-and-introduce-bills-regulating-men-s-reproductive-health?via=blog_1
And the mighty backlash against US right wing shock jocks continues apace.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/12/1073647/-98-large-corporations-pull-ads-from-Limbaugh-all-right-wing-shock-nbsp-jocks?via=blog_1