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.
[But I am with, in the most opportunistic and avaricious fashion a la Harradine, all for him, for SA.]
Definitely nowhere near Harradine on the Conservative scale. Don Farrell of Labor is way closer to the former Tasmanian Senator.
@Carey
10 percent is about where I think it is as well. Given that state breakdowns have given the Greens between 10 and 15% in SA, I am quietly confident that in spite of her being written off time and time again, SHY will be back in the Senate.
Here’s the Coalition’s seven-page document on budget cuts and savings.
http://bit.ly/1477lxv
Now all we need are their costings for all their election promises and spending committments
I take it that was sarcastic, Carey Moore.
sprocket,
The trio got that one perfectly. Thx.
matt31 – GHU.
Your earlier, that is, CM.
And what has Don Farrell ever done for SA?
Even though I think the LNP will win – the odds on the ALP are attractive …
Anyway, whatever.
Do you not think I feel somewhat annoyed to hear on the debate tonight that Western Sydney is being pandered to because it is 10% of Australia’s population.
I may lean to a certain correction, in the case of SA.
I’ve considered 3-2-1 to Libs in SA with X retaining to be on the cards for some time. 3 Libs in SA and Tas (the latter highly likely) gives them 36 – with X and M they would still only have a blocking deadlock on matters supported by X and M, not a majority. To be able to have stuff passed by the Coalition and the non-Greens they need another seat to be lost by ALP/Green somewhere. There are a few chances there.
I was commenting on social conservatism. Definitely X will be SA first like Harradine was for Tasmania
Kevin Bonham.
Thank you for your observation. Much appreciated.
Light is often made, maybe the press, of how seriously or otherwise people take their vote.
In my case it is deadly serious. Division of Boothby, I will have a little fun. That won’t matter, otherwise I would not. I will send my dollars by other means apart from my vote money.
Btw – did anyone else see PVO say Husic was ‘bitching and moaning’ … while Husic was still sitting next to him. Totally unprofessional …
[The second-by-second reactions of over 700 Australians to the third Leaders’ Debate were broadcast live in a Network Ten News Special on ONE HD tonight. The balanced cross-section of over 700 electors from all over Australia reacted in real time via the Roy Morgan Reactor App on their smartphones.
The most decisive moment of the debate was when Kevin Rudd moved not only his own supporters but also the L-NP voters ‘across the line’ with his moving rendition of the rationale for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Other winning moments for Kevin Rudd were his position on aging, aged care and particularly caring for older people at home; education when he called Tony Abbott and the L-NP to fill the 6 year funding gap – $8billion; and his ‘virtual duopoly’ description of the hold Coles and Woolworths have on the farmers and the need for better guarantees for more competitive prices for farmers.
At the end of the debate, the reactors were asked who won. The results were a strong victory for Kevin Rudd 56% with Tony Abbott 23%. 12% thought it was a draw and 9% were undecided.]
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5142-third-leaders-debate-reactor-201308281249
Carey M
[So yeah, not looking good for SHY]
This would provide yet more proof that there is a God in heaven.
I wonder what anti-Rudd headline the Murdoch papers will come out with tomorrow?
Another makeup artist abused by a heartless Rudd?
Kevin Rudd was mean to Margie Abbott?
Margie Abbott beats Therese Rein in the sexy First Wives stakes?
[No doubt covered already but Morgan reactor gave a clear win to Rudd.]
This is because he took the kid gloves off, and brought it – and gave him a bit of lip too.
‘Waffle cubed’! Brilliant. It IS waffle. Abbott somehow manages to combine waffle with economy of words.
Im confident we’ve seen peak Abbott: the question is how much the ALP can close in 10 days. Very big ask, but the themes are exactly on the money now,and Abbott’s looking like the BS artist he is. PPL is a DOG – and that Rooty Hill bloke put it better than anyone. Its just doesnt pass the common sense test.
Bring it on.
So in a format handpicked by Tony Abbott and Murdoch, Rudd is declared the winner?
I am having a quiet chuckle, albeit none of this will probably halt the Abbott victory march.
The Liberals have ramped up the TV advertising this week, ads aplenty all over commercial television.
For every 10 Coalition ads, there is 1 Labor ad and 1 Clive Palmer ad.
tony jones said “cowalition” but obviously really really likes michael kroger. The senator X of the ABC
Interestingly, the Liberal ads are back on the carbon tax.
If victory for Abbott is so much in the bag(as Chris Toolman told us today on the ABC), why then is Tony needing to reinforce his promise to dump the dreaded tax?
Michael K Roguer.
FFS.
The quality Press at it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/undercover-sunday-times-reporter-had-sex-with-dentist-during-mazher-mahmood-sting-8786624.html
Watch out Taxing drivers:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/27/nissan-self-driving-cars/?utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi&utm_content=buffer0d44e&utm_medium=twitter
“Nissan Executive VP Andy Palmer stated today that the plan is to sell multiple affordable models of fully autonomous cars by 2020. And, to meet that goal, the company is constructing a facility to test self-driving systems that’ll be up and running in 2014.”
Nobody gives a crap about the CO2 price anymore.
This is why is going to be SO EFFECTIVE to point out that ONLY ONE CANDIDATE stll proposes a GREAT BIG NEW TAX.
His name is Tony Abbott.
I thought disgruntled Labor supporters had decided to vote 1 Secular Party.
What’s all this backsliding about informal votes or voting for Mr X or the Greens? 👿
who do disgruntled self voters vote for these days
Dio.
As an undecided or even swinger, in the nicest possible sense, I had close to decided in favour of the Seculars.
However. A glance since my most recent told me that the Seculars had obtained about 10,000 votes nation wide last time.
Well. That doesn’t suit me. A little more profile would help.
Moreover, they are not fielding in Boothby. Which leaves me, nil. Unless I want to vote Labor. And I don’t. Because firstly I am really annoyed and maybe primarily it doesn’t make a difference.
And if you read back. You may see where I am coming from.
Fran (on several posts)
I obviously missed your first reference (and, I assume, explanation) to why you refer to the PM as THLV. For some reason I keep on thinking of Louis Vuitton but I can’t see the relevance.
If it’s not too much trouble, I’d be interested to have the derivation explained to me.
Thanks in anticipation.
By the way, I love reading your posts. They bring a certain erudition to the blog and very often food for thought. I wish I had your gift for language. Did you not post some while back at a now defunct blog? Larvatus Prodeo springs to mind.
This ALP ad from WA aint bad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_RX-xf1So
But it needs the GREAT BIG NEW TAX in it.
Here’s an ad:
“For 4 years,since he took over from Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott has had one negative slogan.”
*cut to Abbott, various* “Great big new tax… a great big new tax” *
In 2013, he announced his main policy of PPL. But how will it be funded?
BY A GREAT BIG NEW TAX
Graphic, newspaper: “1.5% tax on 3000 Businesses”
ONLY IT ISNT BIG ENOUGH to fund his unfair PPL scheme. He’s going to hit retirees as well, with a 1.5% tax on their hardearned investments”
Unfair, unfunded, and …. {*background Abbott saying ‘Great big new tax’} …. just unbelievable.’
$1.6 billion from low income workers and retirees.
A bigger and more damaging GREAT BIG NEW TAX than the one he spent 4 years berating to fund Abbott’s gold plated PPL.
Banks have already indicated they will increase interest rates 0.5% to cover the 1.5% levy.
lefty e Posted Wednesday, August 28, 2013 at 11:58 pm @ 1380
Much better than my Youtube video on the same topic
AussieAchmed Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 12:09 am @ 1381
That’s nice of them seeing as they aren’t paying for the PPL anyway.
[Banks have already indicated they will increase interest rates 0.5% to cover the 1.5% levy.]
If this is true, theeh ALP can still win it. Got a link?
Tony Abbott is a dill, an econoomic klutz and the ALP should refuse to lose to him on principle.
GREAT BIG NEW TAX, INTEREST RATES UP, SAYS BANK!
[ Sirius was commissioned in 2006; three years before a purpose-built vessel would have, and at half the cost. The tanker is expected to remain in service until the 2020s. ]
[ HMAS Sirius was introduced in 2006 but is being retired early because its fuel washes around in rough seas, reducing stability. ]
typical Liberal incomptence
You Labor hacks are getting desperate.
Company Tax will remain at 30% for the Top 3000 Businesses.
No increase and no decrease
@Sean/1386
Wrong, Company Tax decreasing under Abbott Gov.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/corporate-tax-cut-promised-by-libs-to-drive-capital-returns/story-fn91v9q3-1226705302650
To 28.5%
Again your wrong.
here we go. all audiences polled clearly gave the 3rd debate to rudd.
but over the rainbow in OZ:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/best-in-the-west-tony-drives-kevin-to-the-brink/story-e6frg74x-1226706068435
‘abbott had the best of the debate’
and
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/genuine-tie-but-tony-abbott-still-ahead/story-fn9qr68y-1226706061562
‘a tie’ (akin the the Kelvin Klein characted in A Fish Called wanda re: the Vietnam War “we didn’t lose – it was a draw!!)
pity the fuckers are going to get their boy over the line, and then they’ll only criticise him if he deviates from rupert’s orders.
@SF/1388
Howard lost all debates, by going what OO are saying, Rudd will win the election?
Zoidlord, check your facts.
The 1.5% PPL Levy applys to the top 3000 Companies.
All companies get a 1.5% Company Tax cut.
Net effect? Top 3000 Companies pay 30% Company Tax just as they do today, all the rest pay 28.5%
The claim it’s a GBNT on Business therefore is Labor Hack Bullshit that doesn’t pass the sniff test
Sean Tisme Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 12:52 am @ 1390
Oops. Appologies for missing the / on the blockquote
And not being able to spell apologies 🙂
ST @1390
this is magic pudding economics. so they are going to pay for their unfair PPL scheme without any new revenue? what are they going to cut this time? they are either going to have to cut family payments, education, health, environment, etc OR simply declare the PPL ‘non-core’ and unaffordable due to Rudd’s big black hole – they’ll say “we’ll pay you 3 months instead”, cutting family payments so the average family is no better off, but the wealthy get their $37,500 (half their $75k).
No one reads the OO, so it doesn’t matter.
most of the millionaires i know are quite insulted at only being offered $75,000 to have a baby
Sustainable…
Surpluses will always be more believable under a Coalition Government
sustainable future Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 1:03 am @ 1394
It’s worse than that. Abbott’s offsetting tax cut actually means less revenue. And the only reason for this tax cut is to placate business who were offside about the levy. So, this means less revenue (the first $5million of profits are taxed at the rate of 28.5% I believe) as well as increased expenditure. The total cost of the scheme should include the tax cut because that’s the only reason they were given.
NZ have apparently bought the Liberal’s billion dollar Seasprites for seventeen dollars fufty
THLV = the happy little vegemite.