The latest fortnightly Newspoll is an especially bad one for Labor, coming in at 58-42 for the Coalition from primary votes of 30% for Labor and 49% for the Coalition. Julia Gillard is down three on approval to 28% and up three on disapproval to 62%, while Tony Abbott is steady on 37% and down one to 53%. Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister has widened from 40-39 to 43-35.
Also:
• JWS Research has conducted automated phone polls in the Melbourne seats of Isaacs, Chisholm and Melbourne Ports, each with a sample of around 500 respondents and a margin of error of slightly below 4.5%. These point to a huge swing in Isaacs, a small swing in Melbourne Ports, and no swing in Chisholm, with an improbably large gap separating the first from the last. Isaacs: Liberal 45%, Labor 35%, Greens 8%, 55-45 to Liberal (15.4% swing to Liberal). Melbourne Ports: Labor 49%, Liberal 41%, Greens 6%, 55.2-44.8 to Labor (2.7% swing to Liberal). Chisholm: Labor 51%, Liberal 42%, Greens 3%, 55.6-44.4 to Labor (0.2% swing to Liberal).
• Essential Research has Labor regaining the primary vote point they lost last week, now at 35%, with the Coalition and the Greens steady on 48% and 8% and two-party preferred steady at 55-45. Other findings suggest support for higher renewable energy targets (11% think the current 20% target by 2020 too high, 33% about right, and 40% not high enough), wind farms (76% support, 11% oppose), compulsory vaccination (87% support, 7% oppose), the right of childcare centres to refuse children who have not been vaccinated (78% support, 11% oppose), and a ban on advertising of sports betting (78% support, 12% oppose), and opposition to privatisation of the ABC and SBS (15% support, 57% oppose). Fifty-two per cent think it important that Australia have a car manufacturing industry against 35% not important; 61% favoured a proposition that “with government support, Australia can have a successful manufacturing industry” against 22% for “there is no future for manufacturing in Australia and government support would be a waste of money”.
• Morgan has Labor down two points on the primary vote to 31.5%, with the Coalition and the Greens steady on 45.5% and 9.5%. The move against Labor is softened by preferences on the respondent-allocated two-party preferred measure, on which the Coalition lead shifts from 54.5-45.5 to 55-45. On previous election preferences, the change is from 54.5-45.5 to 55.5-44.5.
hopefully the faceless men have now finally got the message. their choice was a dud. they must go back to KRudd and beg him to return. Feeney must be punished for inflicting this on the ALP.
[Voters hit Julia Gillard over funding according to latest Newspoll]
Love the ol’ Shanahan editorial freedom. Making up facts in his headlines.
Is that why the poll dipped, Denis? Did you poll on this exact question? Or are you guessing?
The only win for labor in my opinion is the nbn. With or without the asbestos. But honestly I am happy with fibre to the node. Just like I would love Australia to have a space program but can we
afford it?
[So with a normal distribution the chance of this result “really” being 45-55 is 2.5%.]
You could of course say the same thing about a 58-42 result going off today’s Essential and Morgan results.
Dare to Tread…Tsumani against Federal Labor
a likely electoral landslide
All Labor Govts have been swept out in land slides
Scullin in 1931
Chifley in 1949
Whitlam in 1975
Keating in 1996
(and two conservative PMs,Fraser in 1983-Howard in 2007 suffered the same fate)
Six landslide all ended terms of power
To think that Gillard will escape is sheer fantasy….but I suspect this disaster will be very high on the scale of defeats,given her great unpopularity
I doubt that half of the caucus will survive(Dreyfuss is gone if that poll above is true…a pity..but Danby would be no loss in M Ports )
@Mod Lib,
Also read and weap:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-rejected-telstra-plan-to-speed-up-asbestos-compo-20130603-2nm9y.html
[The only win for labor in my opinion is the nbn. With or without the asbestos. But honestly I am happy with fibre to the node. Just like I would love Australia to have a space program but can we
afford it?]
A space program is predominantly egotistical, an effective sensible NBN is crucial to economic survival. build idiot Abbott’s Fraudband now and you’ll be paying two or three times over to build a real NBN within 20 years.
[zoidlord
Posted Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:06 pm | PERMALINK
@Mod Lib/135
No it’s Telstra contractors that are disturbing the pits under the agreed agreement.
Again stop Telling Fibs.]
Why is Telstra asking contractors to disturb the pits?
Its to build the NBN.
Spin as much as you like, but the voters will not be so easily fooled. The asbestos issue is a massive problem for the ALP and I suspect many ALP hard heads get that.
There will be story after story of asbestos being flung around the streets for the next 3 months. There will be local papers with stories of Ed and Betty seeing dust all over their car parked on the street after the workers came to install the NBN in their street. Janine Carter will be interviewed out the front of her house holding her youngest in her arms telling the TV camera about how she is worried about her kids.
This is terrible, terrible news for the ALP and their presumed get out of jail free card for this election may have just become a go to jail card without passing go.
Well..if we are to consider that the vast majority of voters are somewhat, if not heavily reliant on a social saftey net of high consideration and those poll numbers show the vast majority would vote, out of veangeance or spite, for a party that have already promised to eviscerate the welfare of the majority of voters…then it must be considered that a degree of insanity has pervaded the electorate.
I don’t believe this is the reality as age and experience tells me that the hip pocket is by far the measure of the majority’s consideration.
@Geoff/153
Yes we can afford it, Coalition just use it for political scare campaign.
Indonesia could invade but after they take Darwin what then? Walk across the desert?
The halt to live trade did more damage than turning back boats ever did.
Agree William but no one said that a moe in those poles meant that each result was equally probable
@Mod Lib/158
Again Mod lib, refusing to see what happens just to protect your love for Coalition Party.
[Spin as much as you like, but the voters will not be so easily fooled. The asbestos issue is a massive problem for the ALP and I suspect many ALP hard heads get that.]
All the polling evidence is that voters are REALLY REALLY REALLY easily fooled, this perhaps explains your ridiculous posts.
Hate to be a pedant but Fisher lost government at the 1913 election by one seat.
[Oakeshott Country
Posted Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:06 pm | PERMALINK
So with a normal distribution the chance of this result “really” being 45-55 is 2.5%.]
I don’t think you can determine the likelihood of an individual result from the chance of a result being within a range (if you know what I mean?)
The 95% confidence interval is 55% to 61%, but that doesn’t mean there is a 2.5% chance of the result being 55%.
Thanks William, it would be good if Richard explained it as clearly as you can. So 90% chance or so of an LNP victory at this point on Farmer’s (bookies) odds.
[If you mean a “real world” result of 58-42 carries that implication, then yes. If you mean this particular poll result carries that implication, then no.]
William:
Care to elaborate?
the spectator
Yes I agree.
Julia doesn’t deserve the hiding in store. They should give it to ear wax.
He deserves the belting for the destabilisation he’s caused over the last 3 years.
Mind you, it was insane removing him in the first place!
*night*
[hopefully the faceless men have now finally got the message. their choice was a dud. they must go back to KRudd and beg him to return. Feeney must be punished for inflicting this on the ALP.]
Hopefully His Supreme Holiness will forgive such imperfect sinners for questioning His divine calling.
Of course, blasphemers must be made an example of, so Feeney et al. will need to be punished severely!
[I doubt that half of the caucus will survive(Dreyfuss is gone if that poll above is true…a pity..but Danby would be no loss in M Ports )]
Another prediction of a 36 seat loss, when only one poll out of the *three* today shows a result that terrible.
That certainly makes up for the flogging the Tigers just gave the Eagles.
But zoidlord swan has delivered 5 of the biggest record breaking Australian deficiets. Can we really afford it? Or are we destined to follow Greece and USA?
Mod lib many years since I did stats but if its a normal distribution I think you can
[They are more likely to care about not being run by a government that infights hopelessly, breaks core commitments continually and is beholden to the Greens.]
Of course a majority government for Labor would fix the last of those and as for the first, Rudd has had his chance. Three chances actually.
So we’re actually doing this. Libs to win, and science denial to thrive.
[That certainly makes up for the flogging the Tigers just gave the Eagles.]
Nothing would make up for that.
@Geoff/173
Abbott is not going to save us, look at Can’t Do Man.
90% chance of a Coalition victory.
Basically, in every conceivable measure, Labor will not win.
Time to save some furniture.
But at this stage what choice do I have but give him a chance for 3 years? To see how he goes.
[90% chance of a Coalition victory.
Basically, in every conceivable measure, Labor will not win.]
No, 90% chance (could quibble about the number, but let’s accept it for the sake of argument) that this poll reflects public sentiment about an election in three months’ time, today.
Basically: the polls are an estimate of what’s happening in reality, not the other way around!
We can say, based on the sampling MOE, that “Given that the true TPP is 55-45 (or whatever), we can expect 2.5% of NewsPolls to be 58-42 or worse for the ALP.”
But in order to answer a question like “Given the polls, what is the chance that the true level of support is 55-45?”, you’d need some a priori probability to start with.
I work in IT and I would love fibre to the premise but I have to be realistic. That is all labor has to offer at this stage. It is sad but the truth 🙁
William Bowe@141
Yes, straightforward calculation based on bookies’ odds dressed up as secret and profound herbs and spices when actually nothing of the sort. Rather silly IMO.
Abbott really screwed the pooch by backing out of the Electoral Funding Deal – clearly.
I voted for Kim Beasley because I honestly thought he would have been better than Howard. I did not vote for Kevin because I saw through him.
[But zoidlord swan has delivered 5 of the biggest record breaking Australian deficiets. Can we really afford it? Or are we destined to follow Greece and USA?]
If your understanding of economics is so terrible then perhaps you are just generally very very stupid in which case
[But at this stage what choice do I have but give him a chance for 3 years? To see how he goes.]
That is exactly what you’ll do. Hope you suffer more than the average Australian, we will all suffer quite badly.
There’s a statistical 90% chance three months out?
I’d say that’s a historical 99% chance.
Of course, Mr. Bonham..your observation about the infighting could just as easy be directed at both parties..it’s just that one particular party has had the spotlight unfairly focused on it and it alone.
[Care to elaborate?]
If Labor *really are* behind 58-42 (keeping in mind that there’s not really anything such thing as an election result until an actual election is held), then 95% of poll results will come in the range of 55-45 to 61-39, assuming the poll has no errors other than sampling error. However, it’s rather a lot more likely that the real result is narrower than that, and this particular poll result is one of those at the outer edge of the curve.
William we will have to wait to see if this was an anomaly
[I voted for Kim Beasley because I honestly thought he would have been better than Howard. I did not vote for Kevin because I saw through him.]
You are half right, Beasley would have been a magnificent PM, all the talk of lack of ticker is pathetic Monday night quarterbacking. But ‘see through Rudd’, he was our best PM since Keating. What was your problem with him?
deblonay@155
You missed Fisher 1913 – lost by a seat and then got his job back the next year.
Anyway, 1949 was pretty close in vote-percentage terms, just not in seat terms.
Mod Lib
er yes I think that if the 95% confidence range is 55-61 then there is a just 2.5% chance of the actual result being 55% or less and a 2.5% chance of the actual result being more than 61%
Kevin Bonham
Posted Monday, June 3, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
William Bowe@141
William – just wondering if you could shed any light on Richard Farmers crikey Australian federal election indicator.
I think it’s based on bookies’ odds.
Yes, straightforward calculation based on bookies’ odds dressed up as secret and profound herbs and spices when actually nothing of the sort. Rather silly IMO.
I thought as much.
Disappointed that Larry Anthony didnt get Joyce’s Senate seat but they are a little strange up there in Queensland.
Hmmm this election is just stupid. Parliament sits in June and then from July – Sept 14 we are campaigning. This election is going to be a bore really. It’s a question of what kind of majority Abbott has and whether he controls the Senate (which I hope he doesnt)…
I honestly thought Kevin tried to be a Howard 2.0
Howard’s policies but with a younger face. But I voted for Howard because of work choices. But that is a separate topic
[If Labor *really are* behind 58-42 (keeping in mind that there’s not really anything such thing as an election result until an actual election is held), then 95% of poll results will come in the range of 55-45 to 61-39, assuming the poll has no biases other than sampling bias. However, it’s rather a lot more likely that the result is narrower than that, and this particular result is one of those at the outer edge of the curve.]
It’s all about Bayes’s law. I remember some discussion about this ages ago.
Something like: you go to the doctor, and he gives you a test that correctly identifies the disease 99% of the time, and gives a false positive 1% of the time. It’s known that the disease appears in one in ten thousand people. If the test says you have the disease, what are the chances you actually have it?
[ It’s a question of what kind of majority Abbott has and whether he controls the Senate (which I hope he doesnt)]
Part of me hopes he does, Howard’s biggest political failures were with both Houses fully under control.
Abbott is a weathervane, lets see him fail in circumstances where he has no opposition.
The widening continues. Gillard should resign. For her to stay is just pure madness.