The new government’s first opinion poll is testament either to a striking weakness in its honeymoon effect, the fact that it’s only partly a post-election poll, or the observed tendency towards constancy in results from the pollster in question. That pollster is Essential Research, and its poll is its routine fortnightly average of federal voting intention conducted online from samples of about 1000 respondents each week. The latest result was thus half-conducted over the period of the election itself, such that one might dispute its provenance as a post-election poll (which you can pile on top of general doubts about the value of any polling conducted immediately after a change of government). For what it’s worth, the poll has the Coalition on 44% of the primary vote (45.7% at the election on current figures), Labor on 36% (33.5%) and the Greens on 9% (8.4%). The published 53-47 two-party preferred (the current election result being 53.4-46.6) is weaker for Labor than the primary vote shifts suggest it should be, which may be because they are still using preference allocations from the 2010 election.
Further questions, which unlike voting intention were derived from this week’s sample only, have 38% rating the election of micro-parties to the Senate as “good for democracy” against 25% for bad, although I’d like to see more specific questions in relation to this topic. Forty-four per cent believe the lack of a Coalition Senate majority will make for better government against 30% for worse. Respondents were asked about various aspects they might expect to get better or worse under the new government, including the surprising finding that cost of living and interest rates are expected to be worse. A finding on the state of the economy is an instructive insight into the influence of partisan considerations on such polling. Overall, 40% describe the state of the economy as good and 25% as poor, compared with 36% and 30% when the question was last asked in mid-July. Tellingly, the good rating among Coalition voters is up 14 points to 32% while poor is down ten points to 35%, while Labor voters are down nine points on good to 50% and up four points on poor to 18%.
As to proper election results, this site continues to follow close counts in dedicated posts as linked to on the sidebar. As far as I’m concerned, there are four seats which are still in serious doubt – two in the House, and two in the Senate. The 1550 votes in Indi are too few to reverse Sophie Mirabella’s 405-vote deficit against Cathy McGowan, while the 849-vote lead of Labor’s Julie Owens in Parramatta is enough to withstand anything the outstanding 3258 votes might conceivably throw at it. That leaves:
Fairfax. Continuing an ongoing trend, Clive Palmer’s lead shrank yesterday from 502 to 362. This resulted from a heavy flow of postals against him (758-465) being greater than an advantage on absents (722-569 in his favour on yesterday’s batch), both of which reflect the earlier trend of postal and absent counting. The number of outstanding absents and postals has diminished to around 1000 each, which leaves the ball in the court of about 2500 outstanding pre-polls, which have so far gone nearly 57-43 against Palmer. If all existing trends continue over the remainder of the count, Palmer will land a few dozen votes short. He will then perhaps take the matter to the Court of Disputed Returns, his current Federal Court injunction to have counting stopped presumably being doomed to failure. Palmer has been invoking an anomaly in the count, much remarked upon on this site, in which the Coolum Beach pre-poll voting centre result had a more-than-plausible number of votes for LNP candidate Ted O’Brien and a mismatch with the number of votes recorded for House and Senate. However, much as Palmer might wish to invoke a ballot box-stuffing operation at once brilliantly efficient in execution and bone-headedly stupid in conception, the AEC’s explanation that the Coolum Beach and Nambour PPVC results had been entered the wrong way around is likely to stand up in court. It is a duly troubling prospect that Palmer’s Senate representatives may emerge as important players in the looming round of electoral reform.
McEwen. After late counting initially flowed heavily against him, Labor member Rob Mitchell has rallied with a strong performance on absents and late-arriving postals. He now leads by 192 votes, which will widen if the tide continues to flow his way. However, it remains to be seen what as many as 5000 pre-polls hold in store. The first batch favoured Mitchell 497-458, but the remainder might come from less favourable areas.
Western Australian Senate. The most excellent Senate modelling of PB regular Truth Seeker illustrates the delicate balance of the count here, and the stars that need to remain aligned if Wayne Dropulich of the Australian Sports Party is indeed to find his way to the Senate off 0.2% of the vote. Key to the outcome is Dropulich remaining ahead of the Rise Up Australia party after distribution of preferences from Australian Voice, after which his snowball builds all the way to a quota. This might yet be undone by a gentle trend towards RUA on late counting, together with the unknown quantity of below-the-line votes. Should Dropulich fall short, not only will his own seat instead go to Zhenya Wong of the Palmer United Party, but the complexion of the race for the final seat between Scott Ludlam of the Greens and Labor’s Louise Pratt will change. This is because the comfortable win presently projected for Ludlam is achieved off Palmer preferences, which won’t be available to him if the votes are used to elect Wong. Truth Seeker’s projection is that Pratt will “almost certainly” defeat Ludlam on a scenario in which Wong is elected.
Tasmanian Senate. The issue here can be neatly observed on the ABC results calculator, the crucible of the outcome being the second last count (Count 24). Here the calculator, which treats all votes as below-the-line, has the Liberal Democrats leading Palmer United Party candidate Jacqui Lambie by 29,705 votes to 28,608. Since Palmer preferences favour the Liberals over the Liberal Democrats, their candidate’s exclusion then delivers victory to the third Liberal, Sally Chandler. However, if that gap of 1097 should close, the Liberal Democrats will be excluded instead, and most of the votes then distributed will flow to Lambie and secure election for another PUP Senator. The size of the gap might make that appear unlikely, but Tasmania has an unusually high rate of below-the-line voting, and one might surmise that it will favour the greatly more visible PUP over the Liberal Democrats. UPDATE: Looks like I wasn’t taking the Sex Party challenge with due seriousness – they win the last seat that might otherwise go to Liberal or the Palmer United Party if they stay ahead of Labor at Count 21, as they get Palmer preferences ahead of the Liberals. The current count has them doing this by the grand total of 14,275 to 14,274.
With Shaw headed for court, and Lib premier Napthine relying on his tainted vote for survival, Labor must look at least a chance in Victoria at State level. Napthine is also trying desperately to push through a dubious toll road, that will lump the State with a $6 to $8 billion debt, Campbell-style. Labor should keep the pressure on in Vic, and not get too caught up in navel gazing or rewriting history. They might soon regain a government.
mexicanbeemer
Posted Tuesday, September 17, 2013 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
I wouldn’t call Aged Care providers big business.
—————————————————–
Big enough to steal $4 million from families and the aged.
Achmed
Yes the joke about unions being the risk, when businesses large and small steal millions from the weak every day, is a sick joke indeed.
Whether aged care is a large or small business is beside the point. If they are for-profit or commercial operations, they need to be treated as such. Ay time such regulations are set up differently to those that govern normal businesses, it is a recipe for abuse.
Socrates
The next Victorian election could go either way.
I image the Liberals may well pick-up a few seats around Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong and Bendigo & Macedon regions but they could well lose a few metro seats along the Frankston train line and the middle to outer eastern suburbs.
The Liberals would start as favorites but Andrews has been steady and his team has been fairly unity.
901
Correct. They may even get it before the general election, if there is a Frankston by-election.
AA
That does make them a big business.
A business size is determined by its turnover.
If $4 Million has been stolen then that should be dealt with by the courts.
904
Why would the Liberals pick up in the regions?
AA
That does not make them a big business.
A business size is determined by its turnover.
If $4 Million has been stolen then that should be dealt with by the courts.
MB
[If $4 Million has been stolen then that should be dealt with by the courts.]
The trouble with that approach is that it assumes a group of aged people, possibly lacking in financial and legal resources, and understanding of the law, will be able to defend their rights through court in time to make a difference before they pass away. That could take years. In the mean time they may have no home. The need for an independent umpire is obvious.
[But now you’ve gone and done this. A single woman in your 19-person cabinet. Really? Other competent women, you say, are “knocking on the door” of cabinet – you have appointed four women to your outer ministry and one woman as parliamentary secretary (she has been demoted).]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/we-thought-you-knew-women-tony-but-then-you-do-this-20130917-2twg8.html#ixzz2f9Lxu1Mu
Tom
The Liberals have been under performing in those regions and if they have done a good job then they may find themselves winning a few regional seats.
The Liberals went very close in the Ballarat region last time but fell short due to Green preferences.
If the new boundaries are used i recall Ripon may have been abolished.
Seymour will be on a safer margin than the existing boundaries.
One seat which may swing is Prahran.
[Emma Alberici @albericie 4m
Aus’s Chief Scientist Ian Chubb tells @Lateline Tony Abbott’s decision to scrap the Climate Change Authority will be a big loss @ 10:30pm]
I’ve been waiting for Chubb to come out.
Socrates
There should be someone ensuring all is above board, maybe it is something the Office of Public Advocate should be investigating on behalf of residences.
MB
Agreed re the advocate or someone similar. Tis is why I am so opposed to policy “geniuses” setting up one off systems of administration for different fields of practice. The more general and simpler the rules, the easier it is to apply the normal methods of redress.
Regarding Victoria, why would Labor lose in the regions? What have the Libs done for them? Victorian Labor was politically clumsy in losing office, but they were neither corrupt nor incompetent in office in the manner of NSW State Labor. The state was in relatively good shape financially when handed to the Libs. All that has happened since is on the Libs.
my say linked this earlier. Abbott, et al has trashed our relationship with Indonesia. Well done
[MARK COLVIN: There may be trouble brewing for Tony Abbott on his first prime ministerial overseas trip.
Indonesia’s president is expecting Mr Abbott in Jakarta before the end of the month. But the meeting looks likely to be tense because of one subject: asylum seekers.
Indonesia has now made it clear at the highest level that it will reject some of Mr Abbott’s plans, including a scheme to buy back boats from fishermen, and his naval operation to turn other boats back to Indonesia.]
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3850768.htm
Socrates
Posted Tuesday, September 17, 2013 at 9:43 pm | Permalink
Achmed
Yes the joke about unions being the risk, when businesses large and small steal millions from the weak every day, is a sick joke indeed.
Whether aged care is a large or small business is beside the point. If they are for-profit or commercial operations, they need to be treated as such. Ay time such regulations are set up differently to those that govern normal businesses, it is a recipe for abuse.
—————————————————
As I have said previously, never seen a Union declare bankrupt leaving people destitute or loosing their life savings. While the bosses (ie Bond and Skase come to mind) continue to live millionaire life styles.
There are over 100 Unions in Australia and two or three corrupt officials. More corruption among politicians than Unions
Socrates
If the ALP can hold the regions then it should be able to win the next election.
I can’t think of any city seats that they might pick up.
In Victoria the Office of Public Advocate (OPA) is responsible for accommodation issues
Whilst the legal and financial affairs can be administrated by State Trustees or some other trustees agency.
Elder abuse is something which these two agencies take seriously.
I think there are good and bad in any organisation
There are good business, their are corrupt business just as there are good unions and corrupt unions.
Australia ranks very well for being a low corruption country
[There should be someone ensuring all is above board, maybe it is something the Office of Public Advocate should be investigating on behalf of residences.]
If you’re referring to aged care, then there is:
http://www.agedcarecommissioner.net.au/introduction.php
victoria:
It’s been apparent for a while now that a coalition govt was always going to have trouble with Indonesia.
The price of foghorn diplomacy I guess.
Night all.
victoria @ 910, is she an idiot?
confessions
Trouble is putting it mildly
[lefty e
Posted Tuesday, September 17, 2013 at 9:01 pm | PERMALINK
Yes, and Ill be right too Guytaur.
The reason is this: through the prism in which Gillard and her backers are faultless, Rudd must be an insane driven whiteanter who’ll stop at nothing (why would ANYONE SANE object to the perfectly reasonable actions of 2010 given the polling, well ok maybe not the polling, but given THE VIBE)]
You’re right. It was nothing to do with the polling. It was to do with Rudd’s incompetence.
He was replaced before he could do any more damage to Labor. Because it is Labor that matters after all, the collective rather than the individual.
Always has been. Always will.
Nothing to do with feelings of superiority or faultlessness, but a recognition that the leader was not up to scratch, to put it colloquially.
Rudd had left too many vital Labor reforms on the backburner by 2010. Too many. He was indecisive. He couldn’t make up his mind, one way or the other.
This was not just to do with the “greatest moral issue of all time”, it was to do with ‘minor’ stuff, like the BER and Pink Batts. He kept stuffing it up, apart from winning the health debate in May of that year.
He couldn’t sell Labor if he tried.
And, if you recall, I was there in the background telling you all about Murdoch’s vendetta against him.
It’s not as if I didn’t acknowledge what he was up against.
[But it wasnt like that. Rudd was hurt a deeply cut,]
Gillard acknowledged Rudd’s hurt. She didn’t want to take over but gave in to the politics within Labor. She gave him the FMship to compensate his hurt. Instead of being grateful, he used that position to undermine her.
[(Rudd)continued to be supported by may in caucus and in the public, and he had his vindication against the specific forces that took him down, when they had to invite him back to save their bacon, after making an appalling hash of the politics.]
Total revisionism. As has been realised, if Rudd had any popularity at all, it was to send him out of office at an election.
Labor didn’t need Rudd to save them. Labor needed to get rid of Rudd’s acolytes who successfully undermined the party.
But. thanks to trippers like you, who couldn’t get over the gender-bender, Rudd got rid of some of the best and the brightest in Labor.
It’s to Gillard’s credit that she managed to stop the bleed of talent, when she could so easily have accepted mass resignations.
What did Rudd actually do?
I applauded the ratification of Kyoto.
The Apology to the Stolen Generations. On February 13, 2008. And, if my horn had been working, as I was on my way to nurse my terminally-ill brother, I would’ve tooted with the best of them.
After that, nothing. Lots of ideas, lots of talk of reforms, lots of bullshit about gunna do.
He didn’t deliver. Pure and simple.
He was apathetic. He was a ditherer; he was a procrastinator.
He busied himself with useless paraphernalia. And he exhibited the same stuff when he resumed the leadership.
He couldn’t for the life of himself reel off any Labor successful enterprise. He blathered about crap.
Cf Gillard’s succession where she said those infamous words “a good government had lost its way” but proceeded to proclaim the good things Labor had done, whereas when Rudd resumed the leadership, he couldn’t even look himself in the eye.
All he cared about was that he had prevailed.
To watch his triumphantly obnoxious concession speech said it all about him. He didn’t give a toss about Labor. It was all about his vindication of removing one of Australia’s best performing PMs.
The best thing though was that he finally and inadvertently acknowledged, even through his hubris, that he’d never hold a candle to her.
People were waiting with baseball bats for Rudd back in 2010. And they got him in 2013.
But they didn’t get Gillard.
DisplayName
Are you referring to the journo Jacqueline Maley? If so, yes.
AA
Night
Mb and AA
I agree there is not much corruption in unions, less than in most organisations. NSW Labor got in trouble not because Thomson and Williamson did what they did, but for trying to delay and cover for them, rather than recognising they had let the side down and letting justice take its course.
Night all.
victoria, yes, Maley.
Ugh.
[I note that with 84% counted, the Liberals are now short of a full quota in the ACT Senate race. That one is going down to the wire too! Obviously the flow of preferences will be critical from the minor parties. But as counting has progressed, the Liberals have fallen from just above a full quota to 98.5% of a quota. With 10% of votes remaining to be counted, more nervous times ahead for Mr Ned.]
Surely not?
Good post, kezza2. Agree 100%. But I’ll bet you get some stick from the usual suspects.
I particularly liked this bit, which I hadn’t really considered:
[ People were waiting with baseball bats for Rudd back in 2010. And they got him in 2013.
But they didn’t get Gillard. ]
Also, there is the fact that history will be much kinder to her than it will be to her opponents … on both sides of politics!
[People were waiting with baseball bats for Rudd back in 2010. And they got him in 2013.]
LOL. Thats hilarious, cos even John Howard publicly stated his view that Rudd would have won easily in 2010.
No serious commentator has ever suggested otherwise. Which is, hardly surprising,since serious commentators go off real evidence like polls, not made up stuff.
Whitlam’s First Cabinet no women.
Hawke’s First Cabinet – one woman, Susan Ryan.
Keating’s First Cabinet- one woman, Ros Kelly.
Howard’s First Cabinet – two women
Tony Abbot’s First Cabinet – one woman, Julie Bishop
Sean
You left out Rudd’s cabinets and Gillard’s cabinet
Sean Tisme@933
I noticed you skipped the ones that didn’t fit the “meme” you are so desperate to push.
In fact, all that you seem to be demonstrating is that Abbott really has taken us back to last century.
[ No serious commentator has ever suggested otherwise. ]
Pull the other one, righty o – it plays Jingle Bells.
I believe the Rudd 2.0 Cabinet only had 3 women…. SHAME LABOR SHAME
Hey, Abbott’s got one more female minister than Pell.
lefty e
[LOL. Thats hilarious, cos even John Howard publicly stated his view that Rudd would have won easily in 2010.]
Yeah, and Howard was just as convinced he wouldn’t lose his seat in 2007.
And he was wRONg.
History’s funny like that.
Sean
I believe you talk crap
[I believe the Rudd 2.0 Cabinet only had 3 women…. SHAME LABOR SHAME]
Actually it had a record 11 Sean. If you’ve ever wondered why people dont take you seriously here, this sort of thing is probably why.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/kevin-rudds-new-cabinet-packed-with-women/story-fni0cx12-1226671941530
[I believe the Rudd 2.0 Cabinet only had 3 women]
You believe a lot of things. The actual number though was six.
[Surely not?]
I don’t think so. Seselja gets preferences from Rise Up Australia and, lest we forget, the Animal Justice Party. Even allowing for late count deflation, RUA alone should get him over the line.
[I believe the Rudd 2.0 Cabinet only had 3 women…. SHAME LABOR SHAME]
Wrong.
What is it with Liberals and not being able to count?
6 of those 11 were in Cabinet, which was a record too.
Sean, exactly who do you think you are impressing with these stupid posts? All you are doing is proving what a fool you are.
The Rudd Cabinet has six women: Penny Wong, Jenny Macklin, Tanya Plibersek, Jacinta Collins, Julie Collins and Catherine King.
[Actually it had a record 11 Sean.]
Actually the Cabinet had 6 from memory.
There were 11 women in the full ministry.
[ Actually it had a record 11 Sean. If you’ve ever wondered why people dont take you seriously here, this sort of thing is probably why. ]
Give him a break! Hockey is still hogging the LNP’s only calculator that goes up as high as eleventy.
[…and, lest we forget, the Animal Justice Party]
Yeah, just like their voters would have wanted. A LNP member over a GRN.
The Ponzi scheme for hacks aka ‘our upper house electoral system’ scores another victory.
Sean does what he has told, he is the perfect example of the modern liberal soulless, mindless, heartless and fundamentally and totally dishonest.
Sean
Pilbersek
Wong
Macklin
Roxon
Gillard
Jacinta Collins
Julie Collins
Catherine King
Kate Lundy
All were more successful than half the dregs in Tone’s cabinet.
How does Howard feel about his hair apparent having Andrews the author of the policy which ended his political career in the cabinet.