GhostWhoVotes tweets that Newspoll’s second weekly (I presume) poll for the campaign has the Coalition lead at 52-48, unchanged on last week. However, Labor is down two (to 35%) and the Coalition up two (to 46%) on the primary vote, with a two point increase for the Greens to 11% allowing the two-party vote to remain stable, presumably with help from rounding. Tony Abbott’s numbers continue to improve, his personal ratings now almost equal with Kevin Rudd’s. He is up four points on approval to 38% and down four on disapproval to 52%, while Kevin Rudd is up one apiece to 39% and 48%. Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 47-33 to 46-37.
UPDATE: And now the weekly Morgan multi-mode poll, which normally comes out on Monday afternoon, has made its appearance, and it’s well in line with all the other polling: Labor down 1.5% to 36.5%, and both the Coalition and the Greens up a point to 44% and 10.5%. That pans out to a 51.5-48.5 lead to the Coalition on two-party preferred using 2010 election preferences, but a stronger 50-50 result for Labor on respondent-allocated preferences. State breakdowns are featured, and they interestingly show a five-point shift to Labor on two-party preferred in Queensland.
Morgan also got 1200 responses to an SMS poll conducted this evening on reaction to the debate, which is probably the most reliable data we have on this. It shows an effective dead heat with Kevin Rudd rated the winner by 24%, Tony Abbott favoured by 23%, 5% calling it a draw, and 48% granted that they hadn’t watched (non-watchers presumably also having tended to be non-respondents).
BludgerTrack has been updated with the Newspoll result but not the Morgan. I’ll follow up on that tomorrow after Essential Research comes out (UPDATE: Essential Research will not be out until tomorrow, so I’ve updated BludgerTrack without it).
bemused
[It will be nice to see all the whingers and Kev haters STFU.]
I’m trying hard to work out who they are.
bemused
It shows that Treasury estimates are not to be trusted. Seriously $106B out in four years. That’s just pathetic.
And everyone said the estimates were extremely optimistic at the time so its not like it was a surprise.
[“If they are not looking at changing the GST why have it in the review?”]
And the converse question is – was it nothing more than political cowardice not to include it a “root and branch” review of the political system? Ken Henry, since retiring, has publicly said that it should be included.
Gary 1996 yes although we don’t really know how much it has improved by. It could be a low as 0.2%.
Hockey is now coverd in a sweat after Robb’s crap
Hockey blaming the PBO for the costings secrecy
Is it just me or do Hockey & Robb sound like their grabbing at straws, hello Joe’s starting to bellow.
Never seen Hockey sweating this bad
If you are going to have a comprehensive review of the tax system then the GST has to be included. It’s just political cowadice to leave it out.
Gary@1996
Yes.
[That is a cumulative figure for discrepancies in Treasury estimates GIVEN TO THE GOVT.]
And the government chose to use them – after a few years of figures that were way off they should have been more sceptical.
@strom_m: I’m guessing nothing to do with Five Pillars of Islam “@beneltham: Coalition wants to build a “five pillar economy” http://t.co/JaxTTVLL0U
@SabraLane: Tweeps: this is where Treasury will start posting their analysis of costings: http://t.co/YbnjXqvOWg nothing yet.
“@RobOakeshott1: Yawn…fatwa on Treasury/Finance continues. Expert, independent, public servants doing their best for Oz,still being blamed by politicians”
[if the rolling ALP PV has gone up 1% doesn’t that mean this week’s number for Labor must have improved?]
At the expense of the Greens.
triton@1999
I have been counselled against calling out such people in appropriate terms. 😐
[Expert, independent, public servants doing their best for Oz,still being blamed by politicians]
Add Bemused to that list.
[It will be nice to see all the whingers and Kev haters STFU.]
I’m happy to own up to the latter… and probably the former too.
Hockey has been wiping sweat off his face more then once , will newsltd media have it on thier front pages
Rob Oakeshott @RobOakeshott1 26s
Why is paying down Aust.’s record creditcard/household debt politically positioned as bad?I say well done all involved.Oza was over-exposed
Has anyone pressed Joe on his “range of other sources”? By saying he also uses the PBO he gets the credibility for that but can still produce a nonsense figure. What are those sources, and why are they more reliable than the PBO or Treasury for any chosen purpose?
Here is the PEFO summary of Coalition costings.
http://electioncostings.gov.au/coalition-costings/
LOL BK
Rob Oakeshott @RobOakeshott1 now
Here is the joke of it all – the Parliamentary Budget Office will rely on todays PEFO from Treasury/Finance, even if politicians won’t……
[And the government chose to use them – after a few years of figures that were way off they should have been more sceptical.]
And done what? The figures were off under the Howard Government by 10s of billions too (in the other direction).
Hockey does the runner trick
Journos left dangling again with their questions falling on a quickly vacated podium.
[And the government chose to use them – after a few years of figures that were way off they should have been more sceptical.]
And not use them? If not them, then what?
Now Abbott on 24
Diogenes@2000
Please identify ‘everyone’ and what their background and track record is?
You have just identified yourself as being clueless on how economic forecasting works.
The Treasury models were developed using data from when the economy behave in a certain way and the paradigm has shifted and the models are no longer reliable.
Treasury is still far and away the best source of professional advice and forecasts.
When the Govt is interested in putting some stimulus into the economy, they are hardly going to spend less than what they intend using Treasury forecasts.
However much rubbish that was, for election purposes I think Hockey and Robb did well there. I think Joe is also going to put more policies into the PBO, and then claim he can’t give any costings because he hasn’t got the final numbers yet. Doing that he can drag it out till the next week.
[Here is the PEFO summary of Coalition costings.]
Same as those for Labor and the Greens
Stop the boats, more roads blah blah, carbon tax blah blah
@smh: These numbers are a slap in the face for the Coalition, writes Tim Colebatch. http://t.co/zpRCJ5fO5L. #ausvotes #PEFO
till the last week I meant.
BBS
Exactly! So why was the decrepit Robb continually brandishing Labor’s?
bemused
Treasury, just like all public servants, serve their political masters and are not to be trusted.
Only the very gullible believe in the fearless independence of public servants.
Abbott wants the town hall at the Brisbane Broncos not at Rooty Hill, which is a pity. I assume the Broncos are in a bogan part of Brisbane.
blackburnpseph@2009
How?
Just make up numbers?
What if you assume error in one direction and it is in the opposite direction?
I think all such statements are just nonsense and betray the ignorance of the person making them.
If a set of estimates is the best available, then you should use them, not assume an error of a particular magnitude in a particular direction on the basis of nothing more than a guess.
1 man, 1 woman and 2 dogs listening in Penrith to a repeat of Tony Abbott. Dawkins, he’s dreadful!
[I think all such statements are just nonsense and betray the ignorance of the person making them.]
Bemused, I work a lot with forecasts, we are always given a range and there is always the discretion to use the pessimistic, optimistic or mid range forecasts. Methinks, that the government has veered toward the most optimistic in most cases until the last economic statement.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/these-numbers-are-a-slap-in-the-face-for-the-coalition-20130813-2rtmu.html
You have to salute the courage of Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson and Finance Department secretary David Tune. Under serious pressure from their next political masters to produce a set of numbers favourable to the Coalition, they have stood their ground.
The bottom line of their Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) is effectively identical to the one published 11 days ago in the government’s economic statement. Where it differs, the forecast budget outcomes over the next four years is actually $209 million better than the previous estimate.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/these-numbers-are-a-slap-in-the-face-for-the-coalition-20130813-2rtmu.html#ixzz2boiehikx
==========================================================
have a look at the photo o f abbott
and joe finger shaking not a good look
Dio, what evidence do you have for your claim re Treasury? None, right.
Dio
[Treasury, just like all public servants, serve their political masters and are not to be trusted.]
Which is exactly the opposite of what Tim Colebatch argued in the article linked to above.
In any case, if this is so then the coalition should come clean and say that. They can’t blame the government for bad numbers without also blaming the Treasury for doing a bad or political job, but they keep doing the former while avoiding the latter.
BBP
[we are always given a range and there is always the discretion to use the pessimistic, optimistic or mid range forecasts. Methinks, that the government has veered toward the most optimistic in most cases until the last economic statement.]
That’s what I think is going on as well.
Right and now all this will be swamped any minute by what is happening about Essendon
This is bad for LNP as the message punters will have is they are being treated as mushrooms
The evidence is Treasury being out by $106 B in four years.
They are either incompetent or are putting out fiction to delay the shit hitting the fan.
I choose to believe they aren’t incompetent.
I see public servant put out dodgy figures every day. I can’t see why Treasury is magically different.
The GST scare will have bite if the coalition can identify sufficient savings or other tax hikes to afford to cut mining tax, and carbon price, keep carbon compo and fund direct action and PPL.
At least this campaign, compared to the last, their costings are an issue
If the government is given a range then it should publish a range. It has no reason to believe that a given end of the range will turn out to be the most accurate figure, so it cannot justify relying on it.
Why is Wonder Woman talking to two grumpy old men?