BludgerTrack: 51.1-48.9 to Labor

A closer look at the parties’ polling fortunes this term state-by-state, in lieu of much to go on in the way of new polling over Easter.

Easter has meant that only the regular weekly pollsters have reported this week, which means Essential Research and Morgan. The latter polls weekly but reports fortnightly, which I deal with by dividing each fortnightly result into two data points, each with half the published sample size. Neither Essential nor Morgan is radically off beam, so this week’s movements involve a correction after last week’s Greens outlier from Nielsen. This is not to say that Nielsen’s Greens surge was measuring nothing at all, the 17% result perhaps having been partly a reflection of it being the poll most proximate to the WA Senate election. In fact, both of the new results this week find the Greens at their highest level since at least the last election, and probably a good while earlier. Their 11% rating in Essential may not appear too spectacular, but it comes from what is the worst polling series for them by some distance – indeed, the only one the BludgerTrack model does not deem to be biased in their favour. Nonetheless, their rating in BludgerTrack this week comes off 1.8% on last week’s Nielsen-driven peak.

The dividend from the Greens’ loss has been divided between other parties in such a way as to produce essentially no change on two-party preferred. However, state relativities have changed in such a way as to cost Labor three seats and its projected majority, illustrating once again the sensitivity of Queensland, where a 0.8% shift has made two seats’ worth of difference. The New South Wales result has also shifted 0.6% to the Coalition, moving a third seat back into their column. Another change worth noting is a 2.4% move to Labor in Tasmania, which is down to a methodological change – namely the inclusion, for Tasmania only, of the state-level two-party preferred results that Morgan has taken to publishing. I had not been putting this data to use thus far, as the BludgerTrack model runs off primary votes and the figures in question are presumably respondent-allocated preferences besides. However, the paucity of data for Tasmania is such that I’ve decided it’s worth my while to extract modelled primary votes from Morgan’s figures, imperfect though they may be. The change has not made any difference to the seat projection, this week at least.

Finally, I’ve amused myself by producing primary vote and two-party preferred trendlines for each of the five mainland states, which you can see below. These suggest that not too much has separated New South Wales and Victoria in the changes recorded over the current term, leaving aside their very different starting points. However, whereas the Coalition has had a very gentle upward trend this year in Victoria and perhaps also New South Wales, their decline looks to have resumed lately in Queensland. Last week I noted that six successive data points I was aware of had Labor ahead on two-party preferred in Queensland, including five which are in the model and a Morgan result which is not. That’s now extended to eight with the availability of two further data points this week. The other eye-catching result in the charts below is of course from Western Australia, which clearly shows the effects of the Senate election with respect to both the Greens and Palmer United. The current gap between Labor and the Greens is such that the latter could well win lower house seats at Labor’s expense on these numbers – not that I recommend holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,662 comments on “BludgerTrack: 51.1-48.9 to Labor”

Comments Page 26 of 34
1 … 25 26 27 … 34

  3. @lizzie/1250

    So we taking the wost of the worst policies from both US and UK.

    Leaving no room for an open debate (because it’s left on budget night).

  4. Victoria
    Thanks for the posts

    My mothers parents were tomato farmers out that way, cheap land hard work & nothing to show for it
    Those ( of later generation ) that hung on are now at the centre of all the skulduggery.

    Kate must have enough material for 3 books, plus a closing sequel

  5. BW
    It seems we sort of agree on most things

    1. Not so sure about the resources bit. The Philippines is firmly in the USA quarter, so I doubt China would look long term there. Now I imagine the USA would size islands in the Caribbean if they got too close to China or Russia (AKA Cuba). But the USA is in a much better strategic position than China because it does not have a hostile archipelago on its only sea coast. Imagine how the USA would respond strategically if suddenly 1000 islands controlled by nations friendly to China or Russia popped up along its two coast lines. Naturally the USA would seize a goodly share of these islands to protect sea lanes. Forget the evil empire stuff and just think strategy.

    2. It was the Chinese who suffered in Indonesia and to an extent in Malaysia so it is up to China to forgive and forget. I imagine if it is essential to their strategy long term China may overlook a massacre or three. China has never I understand been involved in any injury to Indonesia. They probably did ferment trouble in Malaysia back in 1955 or so, however that is 60 years ago. Practically prehistory.

    We seem to agree on three to six

    7. China will of course buy of Australia if the price is right PROVIDED we are not in the forerunner to a hot war with Australia clearly aligned with China’s perceived enemies. In this case China will buy from Brazil etc. Indeed it may or may not be significant that our trade with China seems to have taken a bit of a battering since we let the US navy into Darwin. China will buy from us PROVIDED they see us as neutral and that trade can help keep us so, but the MOMENT they see us part of a hostile alliance then expect them to stop buying from us.

    8. 15 centuries of war with France did not stop Britain allying herself with France against Germany. China MUST befriend Russia because it needs gas and oil and its sea lanes are very vulnerable.

  7. zoomster@1244

    It seems highly unlikely Direct Action will get through the Senate.

    …

    Of course, this may be playing into Abbott’s hands, as I’m sure taking absolutely no action on climate change suits him down to the ground, but it raises another question in my mind — is this actually part of a deliberate strategy?

    Direct Action doesn’t look like it will get up. There’s been similar rumblings about the PPL.

    If neither of the government’s ‘signature’ policies get up, they can blame inaction in these areas on the Senate, whilst saving money by not implementing them, and go to the next election saying ‘we wudda if we cudda, don’t blame us for not delivering.”

    I don’t see the government going to a DD on either issue. I don’t think they’ve commited to a DD if Direct Action doesn’t get up, just if they can’t repeal the carbon ‘tax’.

    Yes, I have thought the same. Let all their costly and popular “promises” fail in a way that is “not their fault”, so they have an excuse to get even nastier in other areas – or at least take the “sting” out of their unpopular ones (“See – the senate is forcing is to do this to solve the Budget Emergency!”)

    The next election can’t come soon enough for me – I just hope the ALP manage to get themselves into “repair” mode in time.

  11. MTBW

    So being the know-it-all what is the correct answer.

    Because I got mine from records on doing a Google search

    There is also this:
    In 1983, the ABC’s Four Corners program alleged Mr Wran had tried to influence Chief Stipendiary Magistrate Murray Farquhar to have a charge of misappropriating funds against NSW Rugby League boss Kevin Humphries dismissed. Mr Wran stepped aside and his deputy, Jack Ferguson, became acting premier. After 74 days in political exile, a royal commission headed by Sir Laurence Street — now another Lulworth House resident — “completely exonerated” Mr Wran. He went on to win a fourth election in 1984.

    But Mr Wran never forgave the ABC, or The Sydney Morning Herald, for pursuing him over allegations of corruption. “Balmain boys don’t cry,” he said. “We’re too vulgar, too common for that. But if you prick us with a pin, we bleed like anyone else.”

  12. Now Dave and Jackal and the cheer squad seem OK with Hot war with China. I use the term Hot war here to EXCLUDE Nuclear weapons. What might such a “Hot war look like and how would it affect Australia.

    Well probably the USA would use proxies to avoid MAD. So we would have Japan, Philippines, maybe Vietnam versus China. Not sure about Taiwan or Thailand or Malaysia.

    Now firstly Japan would block China’s trade so even if China wanted to buy from us, little would reach destination so they would not bother. Safer to import via Russia.

    Now if it was a really hot war with Japan then Chinese naval vessels would target Japanese imports of iron and coal. Australia may find trade disrupted.

    In other words Australia would lose MUCH of its export revenue – 30-50% I would expect.

    Now if for some reason Australia was an active participant in hostilities, then expect our fuel imports to be disrupted. The imported items on which we depend are fuel, motor vehicles, some medicines, machinery and spare parts. Some items like medicines and electronic gear may fly in from Europe/USA but not vehicles or fuel.

  15. zoomster:

    [It seems highly unlikely Direct Action will get through the Senate. Not only has Clive Palmer said his mob won’t vote for it]

    Palmer has made more accommodating noises over the past few days w.r.t ‘Direct Action’. We’ll see. My guess is that they’ll be some serious horsetrading, and the policy will get up after Palmer exacts a pound or two of flesh.

  20. kakuru,

    Clive has obviously decided that it is pointless being a power broker if you don’t wield your power.

    Palmer owes Abbott nothing and he’ll be primarily focussed on being a spoiler until he gains the respect and consideration that a person with around 5% of the vote deserves.

  25. DTT

    China and the US do not want a war.

    This was my point about Taiwan. If the US and China were going to be at war that is what it would have been over.

    Now there are two disputes happening. One being China asserting rights it sees it has in South China Sea opposed by the US due to Sea Lanes.

    The other dispute stems from the first one but involves other nations like Japan.

    China is testing two things. The resolve of the US and how much its power has increased and how much the US has decreased. This is being done with no intent to start a war.

    The Russian situation is different. There a new post Soviet Bloc map is being drawn. By breaking the disarmament agreements that led to no nuclear weapons in the Ukraine getting a country like N Korea to disarm becomes more difficult as it sees the Ukraine swept away by might is right.

  26. daretotread@1262

    Now Dave and Jackal and the cheer squad seem OK with Hot war with China. I use the term Hot war here to EXCLUDE Nuclear weapons. What might such a “Hot war look like and how would it affect Australia.

    Well probably the USA would use proxies to avoid MAD. So we would have Japan, Philippines, maybe Vietnam versus China. Not sure about Taiwan or Thailand or Malaysia.

    Now firstly Japan would block China’s trade so even if China wanted to buy from us, little would reach destination so they would not bother. Safer to import via Russia.

    Now if it was a really hot war with Japan then Chinese naval vessels would target Japanese imports of iron and coal. Australia may find trade disrupted.

    In other words Australia would lose MUCH of its export revenue – 30-50% I would expect.

    Now if for some reason Australia was an active participant in hostilities, then expect our fuel imports to be disrupted. The imported items on which we depend are fuel, motor vehicles, some medicines, machinery and spare parts. Some items like medicines and electronic gear may fly in from Europe/USA but not vehicles or fuel.

    So what is going to precipitate all of that?

    The economic damage to all parties would be so great I just don’t see any wanting to start it.

    It will be a long time yet before China’s naval strength rivals the US.

  27. kakaru

    even if Palmer’s mob vote for it, the numbers still aren’t there.

    It’ll be interesting seeing if Abbott et al are able to herd cats effectively enough to get the votes needed.

    Based on their negotiation skills to date, I doubt it.

    The new Senate might actually end up being harder to deal with for the Coalition than the present one.

  30. zoomster

    Pup may be more dificult for Abbott than we think. While Palmer may be bluffing over not repealing carbon price and mining tax he may end up holding to his word.

    Palmer has been strong on his rhetoric and it could just be the likes of Lambie is not bluffing.

  31. PvO sees Abbott smacked with reap what you sow karma:

    [Tony Abbott made a similar mistake when he did an interview with SBS the day before the election last year, an election he had already won. He said there would be “no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, no changes to GST, no cuts to ABC or SBS”. It was an entirely unnecessary pledge to deliver on the eve of the election given the certainty of a Coalition win, and Abbott’s colleagues are scathing about the remarks.

    While I deplore Bill Shorten’s irresponsible populist pitch for votes by opposing necessary fiscal belt tightening, is it any wonder Shorten has chosen the low road when Abbott set up key performance indicators such as the above that he can’t and shouldn’t live up to?

    If the Prime Minister wants to draw a distinction between reducing already prescribed budget increases in these policy areas and “cuts” in the pledge, he has already lost the political debate. I’m not sure how he hopes to get around the rhetoric of “changes” to pensions when all we’ve heard ahead of the budget is planned changes to pensions.

    Consider other policy areas Abbott pledged not to touch. Health Minister Peter Dutton says we need to rein in health spending, to prepare for the ageing of the population. Broken promise? Education Minister Chris­topher Pyne tried to adjust Gonski spending before Abbott’s office reined him in. Broken promise? Treasury head Martin Parkinson has spelled out the need to adjust the GST, something economists nearly universally have advocated. No broken promise, but no good governance in the process. And of course Com­­muni­cations Minister Malcolm Turnbull has outlined an efficiency drive for the public broadcaster. Another broken promise?

    Compare the above (prudent) moves by ministers to Abbott’s unnecessary pre-election pledge and you can see the talk towards good policy decision-making has been made that much harder because of poor politicking. And Shorten, the eternal populist, sits waiting to take advantage.]
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/a-touch-of-swan-in-hockey-game/story-fn53lw5p-1226896160375#

    He also calls out Hockey’s dishonesty over changes to PEFO.

  32. It’s OK to break election promises now if you dealing with the big picture according to Malcolm Maiden.

    The Liberals are screwing up the NBN; they are screwing up our carbon trading scheme; they are spending billions on Jets that can be out run and out maneuvered by the Russian offering and Malcolm Maiden wants us to believe that screwing pensions is ok because of some sort of “big picture”.

    I don’t know who Malcolm Maiden is, but clear thinking is not his long suite.

    “To argue that the government is breaking promises is in any event to ignore the big picture.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/revenue-squeeze-is-joe-hockeys-sticking-point-20140425-379pa.html#ixzz2zxWEQalo

  34. Greensborough Growler

    Posted Saturday, April 26, 2014 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    MTBW,

    It’s quite possible he uttered the words more than once.

    It’s a good line. No doubt he would have said it more than once.

  35. I do love how PvO describes Shorten as ‘the eternal populist’ — in an article whose premise is that Abbott made unnecessary pledges…

    No analysis of why Abbott said he wasn’t going to do anything to upset anyone, so I’ll fill that gap by the shock, horror suggestion that Abbott is far more a populist than Shorten could ever dream of being.

    PvO appears to have several planks in his own eye when it comes to political commentary…

  36. @confessions/1281

    So where was this “calling out” prior to the election?

    All the commentators needed to do was look into the past actions of the liberal party and their “slogans”.

  40. confessions

    On media coverage of LNP in run up to the election that media bias was the closest I think I have seen PB get to consensus.

  41. Bemused and Guytaur

    I wish I had your rose tinted glasses. I am pretty sure Paul Keating agrees with MY fears.

    Now I think the USA would LUUUURRRRRVVVEEEE an excuse to renege on its debts to China and a mild sort of war (luke warm rather than hot) would give them the excuse to do so. I think much of their strategy is focused on this.

    The problem with this sort of thinking is that it is unpredictable and luke warm wars can often become hot. China will not forgive or forget many trillions of debt and would seek to “collect.” Much depends upon how relatively powerful China feels it is.

    Which takes us back to BB and his lost plane. I would love to know just who and what was on board that plane. Could Malaysia and China have been cosying up?. Could vital technology be heading toward ch

  42. guytaur:

    During the 2010 election campaign both my parents remarked that the media coverage, particularly the ABC was appallingly one-sided in favour of Abbott. And my father is a former lifelong Liberal voter!

  43. DTT

    There was nothing rosy about my post. It was just describing the situation. History tells us that in the past war has resulted.

    However it is rare for a power to want to go to war.

  44. Can Hockey/Liberal Govt afford the reduction in revenue by repealing the Carbon Price?

    Do Hockey/Liberal Govt need the revenue to fund the tax cuts and compensation Abbott promised would remain?

    The tax cuts and compensation cost $4.5 billion a year.

    Over the term of the Abbott Govt that’s around $17.5 billion. And then there is (non)Direct Action to fund.

  45. confessions

    Yes. Then after 2010 the MSM amplified leadership tensions past the point where Labor could get its message out.

    Yes there were some real leadership challenges and in fact changes, However most of what the media wrote was BS.

  46. Guytaur

    Wars do happen. Have you studied the events leading to WWI? It was a major part of Modern history when I was at school but I am not sure it still is.

    The think is that WWI started because of a chain of minor issues and steps. it was essentially a trade/ balance of power war between the UK and Germany. The military officers who supported it were thinking in terms of a jolly little cav.

  47. DTT

    Did you not see the bit where I said no one wants to go to war. My point was this is the situation we are in.

    This is why Ukraine is so scary it could start it off. So could the Islands thing. My point is however its more likely the islands thing is because of some gungho fisherman or officer being too aggressive on the pressure point. Not the policy of Washington or Beijing.

  49. That’s a very strange article from Maiden.

    He spends most of the article pointing out the obvious facts that spending is not and has not been out of control.

    Commonwealth government spending was 19.5 per cent of GDP in 1972-73, and peaked at 27.6 per cent of GDP in 1984-85, under the Hawke government. It was down to 23.1 per cent of GDP in 2007-08 as the global crisis emerged, hit 26 per cent in 2009-10 as crisis spending fed in, was down to 24.1 per cent in 2012-13, and is predicted by Hockey’s midyear economic and fiscal outlook to be 25.9 per cent in the current year to June.

    Hockey said this week that if spending was not reined in it would be 26.5 per cent of GDP in 2024, and that forecast highlights the fact that the short to medium-term problem the government faces is not a blowout in spending, but a squeeze on revenue.

    And then Maiden suddenly changes tack to talk about the politics of commitments made pre-election.

    And yes this is particularly ridiculous:

    To argue that the government is breaking promises is in any event to ignore the big picture.

    So we have a revenue problem for government more than a spending problem, and yet this government is making noises about breaking a whole bunch of spending promises they made at the election … 7 months ago.

    The world and all these structural issues identified haven’t suddenly appeared in the last 7 months.

    All this was known 7 months ago, and when the ALP pointed out that the LNP were promising to cut a whole bunch of revenue (cutting the carbon price, mining tax, reinstating FBT rorts, cutting super tax concessions for the rich) and increase spending (Direct Action, PPL), it was pointed out that they couldn’t make it add up and would be out cutting away – but the media refused to analyse this at the time and insisted it was all ALP scare tactics.

    Lo and behold the LNP are trying to cast their cutting (and broken promises) as taking the tough decisions etc etc. It’s such brazen bullshit. And if the problem is primarily a revenue problem, why isn’t Maiden calling the government out for not breaking their promises on the revenue side instead of the spending side?

    And dare I ask why the media humoured the “Juliar” nonsense in the face of logic such as “is in any event to ignore the big picture”.

Comments Page 26 of 34
1 … 25 26 27 … 34

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *