A ReachTEL automated phone poll of 3500 respondents, conducted on Monday and released today by Channel Seven, has the Coalition leading 53-47, unchanged from the last national ReachTEL poll on August 10. The only primary vote provided at this stage is that Labor is down 1.2% to 35.7%. The poll also finds the Coalition paid parental leave scheme supported by 30% and opposed by 48.4%, Tony Abbott leading Kevin Rudd on ReachTEL’s idiosyncratic preferred prime minister measure by 53.6-46.4, 41.9% believing Labor made the right choice in replacing Julia Gillard with Kevin Rudd against 40.5% for the wrong choice and 74% expecting the Coalition to win the election.
We also had yesterday a Galaxy automated phone poll of 575 respondents from the northern Adelaide fringe seat of Wakefield courtesy of The Advertiser, which is presumably treating us progressively to polling from South Australia’s most marginal seats. This one showed Labor’s Nick Champion leading his Liberal challenger Tom Zorich 55-45, suggesting a swing to the Liberals of between 5% and 6%. The primary votes were 45% for Champion and 35% for Zorich.
Further raw material for tea-leaf reading from The Australian, whose lead story yesterday essentially consisted of an account of where its reporters believe things to stand. This was consolidated into a “call of the card” laying out which seats might change hands and with what likelihood. Those of you who might wish to write this off as a contrivance of Murdoch propagandists can feel free, but since the aggregate findings sit pretty well with BludgerTrack, I’m inclined to regard it as welcome intelligence as to how the campaigns are seeing things.
UPDATE: BludgerTrack has since been updated with big-sample state breakdowns provided to me by ReachTEL, so some of the numbers cited below have changed quite a bit.
Where BludgerTrack presently counts eight losses for Labor in New South Wales, The Australian’s list sees six as likely if you include Dobell (which I do) plus one strong chance and two possibles. Aside from Dobell (margin 5.2%), the seats listed as likely losses are Labor’s five most marginal: Greenway (0.9%), Robertson (1.1%), Lindsay (1.2%), Banks (1.5%) and Reid (2.7%). However, the picture of a uniform swing breaks down with Werriwa (6.8%) being rated a strong chance and Kingsford Smith (5.2%) and McMahon (7.9%) as possibilities. So while Labor has fires to fight all over Sydney and the central coast, it appears set to be spared in its seats further afield, namely Eden-Monaro (4.2%), Page (4.2%) and Richmond (7.0%). There also appears to be inconsistency in Sydney to the extent that Parramatta (4.4%) and Barton (6.9%) are not listed.
In Victoria, The Australian’s assessment is well in line with BludgerTrack’s call of three Liberal gains in having two listed as likely (Corangamite on 0.3% and La Trobe on 1.7%) and another as a strong chance (Deakin on 0.9%). Labor’s next most marginal seat in Victoria, Chisholm (5.8%), is evidently considered a bridge too far. The only seat featured from South Australia is the “strong chance” of Hindmarsh (6.1%), but BludgerTrack is not quite seeing it that way, the swing currently recorded there being lower than what most observers expect.
Redressing all that slightly is a list of seats which Labor might gain, albeit that it is very short. Brisbane (1.2%) is rated a “likely Coalition loss”, and despite what published polls might say Peter Beattie is rated a strong chance in Forde (1.7%). The Western Australian seat of Hasluck (0.6%) is also listed as a possible Labor gain. However, a report elsewhere in the paper cites Labor MPs saying hopes there have faded, while Andrew Probyn of The West Australian today relates that Liberal polling has them leading 53-47 from 46% of the primary vote against 36% for Labor and 9% for the Greens.
Queensland and Western Australia also have seats listed on the other side of the ledger, especially Queensland. With Queensland we find the one serious breakdown with a BludgerTrack projection, one which in this case I have long been noting as problematic. The Australian lists Moreton (1.2%), Petrie (2.6%) and Capricornia (3.7%) as likely Labor losses, to which are added the strong chance of Blair (4.3%) and the possibility of Kevin Rudd indeed losing Griffith (8.5%). However, the latter seems a bit hard to credit if neighbouring Brisbane is to be deemed a likely Labor gain, and Lilley (3.2%), Rankin (5.4%) and Oxley (5.8%) left off the chopping block.
In Western Australia, Labor’s possible gain of Hasluck is balanced by a possible loss of Brand (3.4%). This tends to confirm my suspicion that BludgerTrack, on which Labor’s numbers in WA have soured considerably recently, is erring slightly on the harsh side with respect to Labor. Bass and Braddon are listed as likely Labor losses for Tasmania, with Lyons (12.3%) only rated a possibility and Franklin (10.8%) not in play. Powered by what may have been an exaggerated result from ReachTEL on the weekend, BludgerTrack is calling it three losses for Labor in Tasmania with only one seat spared. The Northern Territory seat of Lingiari (3.8%) is rated by The Australian as a possible loss, while BludgerTrack has it as likely.
@davidwh/1299
We still don’t know the extent of the Coalition Savings since they still haven’t released all of it’s measures, savings, costings, policies etc.
http://www.news.com.au/opinion/jessica-irvine-we-simply-cannot-afford-pollies8217-election-spending-promises/story-e6frfs99-1226705288717
“Mr Abbott is now promising only that “by the end of a Coalition government’s first term, the Budget will be on track to a believable surplus”.”
“Of the undecided, half say they are waiting to see more detail of the Coalition’s policies before making their minds up.”
“The Coalition’s plans are in need of a haircut – and they know it.”
“My fear is quite the opposite – that Mr Abbott won’t have the mettle to fix Australia’s looming Budget crisis.”
Interesting analysis from News Ltd.
Yeah, like.
Davidwh.
Throw away lines.
Some clown probably Sean of Credibility came up with $100b for NBN last night.
I expect it will have exponentially risen by tonight.
Speaking as someone who holds no brief for THLV I’d say that he had much the better of tonight’s proceedings.
His answers, though often overly discursive, were richer in salient content and his challenges to Abbott more on point. Abbott really had very little to throw back at him.
thanks carey
i am not biased i am an oracle
and betting is a side issue re debate. it was grand affair as you gather – full marks to rudd, i dont think (fairly sure) jules could have done it
Crikey difference is Hockey should have known better.
Good thing they held the debates.
Huzzah!
So very looking forward to an Abbott Government, the decapitation of the ALP in Western Sydney, Rudd losing his seat and Coalition Control of the Senate.
CC – you’re not very clued in outside of your bubble are you?
On a more serious note.
William or Kevin Bonham. Or both.
At 7.00 pm I heard, if I am correct, Anthony Green saying that Nick X’s (assumed, I guess) spillover votes would be directed to the Liberal Party. Which would give, feasibly, the Libs control of the Senate.
Could you help me out on this, please? If you are aware of Anthony’s observation. I am aware of earlier on the matter as it relates the the Greens and SHY in particular.
J @1307 – Control of the Senate is a bit of a stretch at the moment – but everything else is on the cards.
Huzzah!
ALP chances of winning now the lowest they have ever been this term*
http://jackman.stanford.edu/blog/
*although the chances dropping would be expected as the election draws near even if there was no substantive event as the available days for some dramatic change event diminish (10 days to go now)
Gotta love ya, Fran.
Overly discursive!
Pithicus on betting at 1269
no no no no no no no!
Carey M at 1260
makes excellent betting analysis in that another avenue for Rudd to improve closes 😎
Crikey, I think his point would have been that Xenophon’s preferences are going to the major parties (dividing equally between Labor and Liberal) ahead of the Greens. Had it been otherwise, as it was in 2007, there would have been a good chance of the result being as it was then: 2 Labor, 2 Liberal, 1 Greens and 1 Xenophon, and thus three seats for “the left”. But instead, it’s looking very like being 3 Liberal, 2 Labor and 1 Xenophon, meaning only two seats for “the left” and a fundamentally better position for an Abbott government in the Senate.
Although I suppose it’s possible you could get 3 Labor, 2 Liberal and 1 Xenophon. But it would have been a lot better for “the left” if he’d done what he did in 2007.
Also Xenophon is quiet upset with Abbott’s policies atm:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/senate-climate-change-direct-action-paid-parental-leave
I heard Anthony and he said the Coalition would not gain Senate control although he did say the Greens would likely lost the balance of control to other minor independents. Green said the Coalition would come up short of gaining a majority. I think he said they would end up around 36.
Thanks, William.
If one were to hope for a result less likely to favour an Abbott Senate, would it be more helpful to vote Labor not Xenophon?
Not at all asking for a political view, here.
I played around with the Senate calculator the other day and, being generous to Xenophon’s primary vote, I found that the Greens are going to realistically need around a 10% Senate primary vote to get over the line. This assumes other factors fall in line for them. They’d probably want 12% to be comfortable.
So yeah, not looking good for SHY. But stranger things have happened.
Joe Hockey still not releasing costings:
ABC Radio @amworldtodaypm 13m
Despite criticisms @JoeHockey refuses to release findings from Parliamentary Budget Office inquiry @SabraLane #auspol http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3836006.htm …
LL starts with Tone looking dumb.
[If one were to hope for a result less likely to favour an Abbott Senate, would it be more helpful to vote Labor not Xenophon?]
Without question. The only qualification I’d make is that if you vote for Xenophon below the line and give your preference to Labor, you are not increasing the chances of an “Abbott Senate” in the sense of there being a Coalition majority. But Abbott would prefer that you vote for Xenophon than Labor. Xenophon though is surely going to win anyway, so in that sense it’s unlikely to make any difference (unless Xenophon does really well and gets his running mate elected as well, as he did at the 2006 state election).
Lateline debate has the fire.
Zoidlord.
Without even first looking at your link, I am more than concerned about Nick X’s general leanings.
Further as I pointed to what his direction may mean in terms of the Senate.
No question Nick will get in. No question, probably, I suppose that anything (alarming) he may go for, will be challenged.
The bigger worry is electing the Senate.
More rife with contradiction, on my part.
Mmmh.
Anthony Green just then on the radio news.
Something about Nick and Madigan. Control of the Senate.
crikey
Vote 1 either Labor or Green and Preference the other as second.
They continue with …
Am I asleep yet?
F#ck ‘X’.
@Crikey/1323
Xenophon policies don’t see eye-to-eye and Abbott won’t agree to them.
Doubt he will get stateability of control of the senate.
Ctar1
X will not go away, even by a magic incantation.
1321
In 2007 Xenophon had a BTL rate of 20% (half of Harradine`s 1998 BTL rate of 40%).
good night
I think Anthony said the Senate likely balance will be with three independents including possibly one of them being a KAP from QLD.
Thanks again, William.
I expect he will do really really well.
Captured the populist front. More than ever, I think.
[If one were to hope for a result less likely to favour an Abbott Senate, would it be more helpful to vote Labor not Xenophon?]
Is that a serious question?
Xenophon also had 20.5% in the SALC in 2006, which was 2.5 quotas (11 up for election, so 12ths).
the QLD L-NP is the gift which keeps giving
[CLIVE Palmer will issue a writ for defamation against Fisher LNP candidate Mal Brough, saying the former Howard Government minister needed to be brought to account.
The Palmer United Party leader said he wanted the matter resolved in court where he was more than prepared to “swear on a Bible” that Mr Brough had come to him seeking money to fund James Ashby’s failed sexual harassment case against Fisher MP Peter Slipper.
Mr Brough, who has previously denied the allegation and questioned Mr Palmer’s consistency in his recollections of a meeting between the pair at Palmer Coolum Resort last year, refused to comment yesterday.
Mr Palmer said he was taking legal action against Mr Brough because the Fisher candidate was “a liar”.
“I am prepared to protect my reputation,” he said. “I am prepared to protect Joe Hockey’s reputation.”
Mr Palmer said the Judge Steven Rares, who heard the Ashby allegations of sexual harassment by Mr Slipper, had made it quite clear on what Mr Brough’s behaviour had been like.
“It’s not a question of integrity,” Mr Palmer said.
“I agree with the judge. I just really confirmed what the judge had already found that Mr Brough has been lying; that Mr Brough had been trying to cause damage to another Australian and trying to solicit funds from me to do that.
“Would I swear on a Bible that I’m telling the truth?
“Absolutely; there is no question about that. I will be looking forward to the opportunity in court to take that (oath) and to bring forward in court the evidence I’d produce that shows Mal Brough is a liar.
“He’s opened his mouth and now he’s made his own bed. Let him lie in it.”]
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/palmer-to-sue-brough-for-lies/2000406/
CW
[Captured the populist front.]
In Barcelona next week?
I think, with no evidence, that it will be X xor SHY.
Politics has become so black and white, thanks to the Coalition faceless.
does anyone know what Xenephon actually stands for?
@paaptsef/1339
http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/about-me/
“Since starting in the Senate in July 2008, I have fought on key issues for SA – pokies, online gambling, water security, food labelling, education, health, aged care, cost of living pressures and a whole lot more.”
Defiantly anti-Abbott.
paaptsef
‘X’ is in favour of Press attention.
And not much else.
One issue with the Senate is the number of candidates – over 100 candidates on a metre wide ballot in almost unreadable small type. Voting below the line will be very difficult and many who try will end up voting informally. In NSW there are lots of parties and groups I’ve never heard of preferencing the Greens last or near last. All of their votes will end up with the right, weather the Coalition or some far right crackpot.
Tony Abbott is to ban online poker in Australia. So much for winding back the nanny state.
how does his voting record stack up to his blurb zoidlord?
sprocket_,
Too late for the election, my brother.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UIH1KccVlHk
[Tony Abbott is to ban online poker in Australia.]
The clubs and pubs will love it!
TLBD
I have always liked this version better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38bHXC8drHc&list=PL8B4E95E7985D1B0E
Ducky. Are you being irascible?
And others. Look at Nick’s policy leanings.
He is definitely far more conservative than I.
But I am with, in the most opportunistic and avaricious fashion a la Harradine, all for him, for SA.
As I have earlier mentioned. Includes having a former PM in not only my State but my suburb.
Just don’t want it screwed up by an Abbott Senate.
Xenophon is a populist. He stands against things like Pokies and big business. OTOH, he was also against things like the Carbon tax. He is in favour of same sex marriage though (mind you, that’s hardly an unpopular opinion here.)
Kroger campaigning for the Libs on late line. Worst economic record? Low inflation, low interest rates, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western world, one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world, AAA credit rating? How can you tell when a Liberal is talking crap? Their lips are moving.
What about Hockey’s figures today. Gold plated PPL will save money? What sort if contortions produced that. Some heroic fudges or assumptions must have been made. Financed by a tax on big companies. Isn’t that just like the ‘Carbon Tax’?