Bit of a difference of opinion this week between Essential Research, a series renowned for its stability, and the Morgan multi-mode poll which, until now at least, has adhered very closely to the overall polling trend. The former has the Coalition ahead 52-48, as it did last week when it took the unusual step of publishing a figure for the polling period immediately following the leadership change, instead of its usual fortnightly rolling average. The major parties’ primary votes are also unchanged, with Labor on 38% and the Coalition on 46%, while the Greens are down a point to 8%.
Morgan on the other hand gives Labor an eyebrow-raising lead of 54.5-45.5 on respondent-allocated preferences, up from 51.5-48.5 on last time, although on the more trustworthy measure of previous election preferences the result is a slightly less striking 52.5-47.5, up from 51-49. This is the first time the Morgan multi-mode series has produced a substantial disparity between the two measures, and it’s in the opposite direction of the issue which bedevilled the old Morgan face-to-face series, in which preferences flows to Labor were unrealistically weak. The primary votes are 41.5% for Labor (up two), 39.5% for the Coalition (down one) and 8.5% for the Greens (unchanged).
The Essential poll also gauges views on the leaders’ attributes, which should make enjoyable reading for Kevin Rudd, who is widely rated as intelligent, hard-working and capable, and not seen as narrow-minded, intolerant or out of touch. His worst results on negative measures were for arrogant and erratic, while his weakest on positive measures were for honesty, trustworthiness and being visionary. Abbott rated well for hard-working and intelligent, as political leaders generally do, but also scored high for narrow-minded, arrogant and out of touch. Fewer than a third of respondents thought him trustworthy, honest or visionary.
Forty-nine per cent of respondents thought Labor would be more united in the wake of the leadership change, against 14% for less united. Other questions found a general view that the election should be held sooner than later, and produced unsurprising results on asylum seekers, the NBN, mining tax, carbon tax, disability insurance and the education reforms formerly known as Gonski.
William said:
[Since the multi-mode series began it has adhered extremely closely to the overall poll average. So either it’s developed a new bias all of a sudden, or this is a rogue result (which is certainly possible), or we can expect the Labor poll bubble to inflate further with the next round of results.]
Agreed.
Mod Lib
If the polls go well for the ALP and leadership rumblings start in the LNP there will be a blood bath.
Rabbott will not go quietly.
In fact, if the polls go our way I suspect we’ll start seeing leaks against anyone considered a likely Rabbott replacement.
Boerwar
[
poroti
So, tell me, why are you in Perth already?
]
Chocka full of K one W ones and the weather is waaaaay better. Mind you the nearest weather station was – 1.7 C at ten to 7 this morning . Brrrr. Enjoy the best of both worlds
[…so do you agree that the ALP prospects have improved under Rudd?]
If prospects mean polls, then yes.
But that isn’t what I’m talking about.
[Only a National Conference can change the Constitution.]
So it’s more window dressing then, unless he commits to take the changes to National Conference?
Psephos,
Just what the Party needs an internal fight to the death.
If Rudd’s proposal gets up, Labor will split.
Why would the Union movement fund the Rudd shambles.
Psephos
From memory Rudd said if the changes were accepted by Caucus it would go to Conference.
I wouldn’t buy the Turnbull messiah for the LNP argument. last time he led the LNP he was a disaster. the godwin grech situation destroyed his reputation. He would match the ALP on the ETS which would be good for bipartisan support but I doubt he has the campaigning skils and appeal to the mortgage belt that KRudd has.
[Rod_Hagen @Rod_Hagen 1m
1) Fair suck of the sauce bottle! Kev, we don’t want you as “King”. You’re here on sufferance after a very very “iffy” first try. @_KRuddMP]
Why would the party split? They either do this, or be very limited for two terms.
Although, I suspect, the multi-mode nature of Morgan’s poll (ie three different collection techniques) suggests the rogue possibility is less likely than with just one collection method.
How Morgan tracks over the next month compared to the other pollsters will tell us if it is suffering a bias or not, or if it has picked up a trend earlier than everyone else.
If the Libs change it will be to Hockey, Turnbull is seen as a socialist by many Abbott supporters. 😆
[From memory Rudd said if the changes were accepted by Caucus it would go to Conference.]
I though he said that if the changes were NOT accepted by Caucus he would take them to a Rules Conference. That’s a National Conference whose agenda is restricted to changing the Party’s rules. But as far as I can see the Caucus has no power to do what Rudd as asking, so there will have to be a Nat Conf after the election.
spectator,
The only mistake Turnbull made was he did not apologise for the utegate debacle. If he had, his popularity would have remained and he could have staved off the confected anti CPRS campaign.
[Driving home listening to the radio, coalition red tape announcement thingy relegated to after local WA news. ]
Good idea to make the announced leadership 50/50 thing at 5.00 pm s that the TV news can present it as real news 4 minutes later. If it had been announced at 10.30 am it may have slipped down the scale to second degree importance by late afternoon.
So does our termite announces changes and they just happen or do the plebs in the party get to vote on them?
How would it have been if these rules covered a leader like Latham?
But of course the changes will be accepted by caucus – they’re over a barrel on this.
It’s an autocratic approach. Rudd would be much better off – as I suggested previously, with his other ideas for party reform – STARTING a process, with the aim of taking proposals to the next National Conference.
This would make it clear that he was committed to reform whilst allowing all the issues to be properly debated, and also ensure that what was finally arrived at wasn’t about the whims of one person.
75%! Arthur Caldwell would still be Leader.
First and foremost Rudd needed to kill the LNP election campaign line that even if the electorate voted in Rudd, they could not be sure he would last the term.
[Kelly O’Dwyer @KellyODwyer 38m
Released Coalition deregulation policy today with colleagues Sens Sinodinos & Bushby http://tinyurl.com/k8cpa8t #auspol pic.twitter.com/PE7t9y61tH ]
Halfway through Ch10 news and nothing about it. Was it reported at all in the eastern states?
I have to say I am loving Liberal policy announcements being overtaken by Labor announcements. It’s nice having the boot on the other foot for a change.
ru
Just read your
[Rudd and Albo timing of presser at 5PM is interesting tactic. There were only maybe 10-15 journos in attendance.
No urge to get it on the 6PM News?]
which is the opposite of my thinking.
Whatever.
The lead story on ABC 7.00 pm news was the Rudd announcement. I guess so long as the small number of journalists are the important ones (electronic media) and the announcement is made at a location where they can prepare their story unhindered then then the conditions are ripe for prime time coverage.
[So does our termite announces changes and they just happen or do the plebs in the party get to vote on them?]
There will be a Caucus meeting on 22 July at which they will of course unanimously approve this change. My point is that the Caucus doesn’t have that power.
GG
It is leader for life stuff. How about we cast a crown and look at which rellies are in line to throne?
[How would it have been if these rules covered a leader like Latham?]
Or Gillard?
Confessions
I too am happy to at least see some reporting of Rabbott rorts. Pretty telling isn’t it!
Reading Rudd’s proposed rules…
Oh God, it’s awesome! 😀 Not even Rudd got 75% of caucus in his own petition last week. That means there are NO circumstances under which Rudd is not Glorious Leader for the indefinite future. I love it! After finally making his way back, he’s ensuring everything he can to cement himself there.
In Opposition, Labor won’t be able to change leaders swiftly before an election. Goodbye last minute Hayden -> Hawke swaps. And Keating would never have gotten up until /after/ Hawke had been voted out. These have got to be some of the dumbest rules I’ve seen. I give it 2 years before that 75% is adjusted down and the rules are thrown out (Devout Ruddism and hopefully another good poll result before the vote will ensure they’re voted in – Labor are too afraid to weaken Rudd right now).
Got Him
[ Ross Bowler @BowlerBarrister 30m
Top story: Tony Abbott denies wrongly claiming expenses from 2009 book tour | W… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/08/tony-abbott-book-tour-expenses …, see more http://tweetedtimes.com/BowlerBarrister
]
Psesphos
So this has the potential to get messy?
If the changes to the leadership spill/election do make the party more resistant to polling pressure, then it’s a positive move.
Unfortunately I don’t believe that it will.
What it will do, and cynics will say it’s entirely the point, is to prevent a sudden change such as happened to depose Rudd in the first place.
If there are potential challengers within the party, what these changes mean is that those challengers will have to follow the Rudd ™ method – sabotage, undermine, leak, weaken until the leader has no option but to resign.
Poor polls will still be poor polls, and will still put pressure on the leader. A leader that would be at risk of being rolled will still be at risk – but instead of potentially being procedurally forced to a spill they will be told they have to step down, and if the leader refuses, the challenger’s forces will threaten to use leaks or public disloyalty until the leader’s position is untenable.
That will do wonders for the party in future, I’m sure.
[alias
Posted Monday, July 8, 2013 at 7:13 pm | PERMALINK
Mod Lib
I think you are quite wrong about current outlook for Rudd. You are failing to take account of the rapidly changing dynamic. In the US, they go on and on about “momentum”, to the point of being a bit tiresome, but there is something in the momentum notion, I think.]
Mumble reckons “momentum” is fictitious and I reckon he has a point….probably! The current polling is people saying “Thank God that Gillard is gone”, not “I want to vote for Rudd” IMO.
[I doubt many Australians realise how unuusal this model is internationally (no other Westminster centre-left party does it, AFAIK). But most by now realise its a failed model.]
What about UK Labour?
Tom Hawkins
I could just be that it took all day for Kev and Albo to nut out the plan?
It seems like it is a faux plan that has no teeth, but it will kill an election negative. So maybe that bit is good.
fess
If they covered PMJG it still would not be right. But then again, to counter the inherent sexism in politics, we could apply these rules to only female leaders. 👿
Isn’t caucus like a party of its own (or one party in each state and territory and one Federally)? Don’t they make their own rules?
@mod Lib/180
So Mumble think it’s “fabricated” lol.
Jackol
and then the leader resigns. But there isn’t a spill, because it’s not up to caucus to decide who the leader is going to be. So there’s a month or so without a leader while the ballot papers go out and the nominees electioneer??
Let’s go back to 2010, when Rudd (it seems fairly clear) DIDN’T have the support of 75% of caucus. Under Rudd’s proposed rules, they could depose him, but they couldn’t elect the new leader.
What happens if he renominated and the party membership overwhelmingly voted to have him back, despite the majority of caucus making it clear they were unable to work with him?
[ … it will kill an election negative. So maybe that bit is good.]
Yep, agreed.
Abbott interview prerecorded
Puffy,
Better still, do it as a Special Tattlotto draw.
[ Hands up all those who would’ve been happy with this proposed change had it been proposed by Julia Gillard when she was PM? ]
Exactly. Call me cynical if you will, but this is so obviously just about Kevin super-gluing himself into the leader position.
“Dear Leader” Kevin Rudd, PM for life.
I think even naive voters will wonder why Kevin never proposed any such reform in the three years he had to ponder how best to fix Labor.
And in the meantime, The Libs have ramped up the rhetoric yet again on asylum seekers, and on this issue the ALP again just looks like a bunch of soft-cocks.
Why the f*ck aren’t they tearing shreds off Abbott and Morrison?
What is stopping them, other then Kevin being (as usual) too busy navel gazing, instead of Naval gazing.
God; imagine poll bludger if people actually got a vote.
[Bernard Keane @BernardKeane 6m
So under Rudd’s leadership model, what about the Gallery? Counting Caucus numbers will be pointless because they’ll only be 50% of the vote!]
Sorry Jackol, but there goes your trademarked leadership spill theory.
[So this has the potential to get messy?]
The Constitution also says that nothing in the Constitution can be made the subject of legal action by any party member. (This is an attempt to stop 1955 happening again.) So if the party chooses simply to ignore its own Constitution, there’s probably nothing anyone can do about it until the next National Conference.
fred,
They do, every couple of years.
So Abbott fronts up to 7.30 when lethal Leigh is away once more.
What a gutless wonder.
John64
Doesn’t this apply only to PMs, not LOTOs?
[What about UK Labour?]
1/3, 1/3, 1/3 caucus, rank and file and unions.
Messier IMO.
[Abbott interview prerecorded]
And so could that comment have been.
Credlin still pulling the strings.
At least with the Libs you know Rupert Murdoch runs the Party.
[What about UK Labour?]
UK Labour’s leader is elected by (from memory), one-third the Parliamentary party, one-third local branches, and one-third affiliated unions. Rudd’s model excludes the unions, which is pretty high-handed given that they founded the party and still pay most its bills. I expect the unions will make some loud noises once the import of this sinks in. But Rudd won’t lose any points with the public by having a stoush with the unions.