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.
rossmcg@245
Easily fixed!
Become one of those doing the accosting by handing out HTVs for your ALP candidate. 😀
Boerwar
At least MZ managed to get their Super Seasprite choppers. on time and , miraculously , under budget 😉
Astrobleme
Show me where it says the Greens are going to purchase of jet fighters, ships and tanks and I will fully support your position.
poroti
Well, we easily beat that. We bought some second hand bodies, spent around a billion faffing around with trying to make the fly, etc, etc, and then finally gave the whole thing up as utterly hopeless.
bemused@249
Zoomster’s post is quite sensible – naturally so, since it is just pointing out exactly what I have been trying to tell you since yesterday – i.e. that assuming mental illness is the cause of such events is incorrect.
Your posts on the same subject are simply abusive and prejudiced nonsense.
But if you want to quit the argument while you’re behind, suits me. On the other hand, I am happy to continue pointing out your nonsense for as long as you continue to post it.
poroti
Call me old fashioned but the way these guys are waving their muskets around would have had me asking for a replacement haka designer.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/artwork/38079/haka-with-muskets
“Show me where it says the Greens are going to purchase of jet fighters, ships and tanks and I will fully support your position.”
I don’t care if you support my position. You are arguing with yourself about this. Nor have you bothered to find out what the Greens think on your own.
If you had made this point yesterday; ‘Labor wants to spend more on the military than the Greens’, No one would have argued with you.
Instead you went on this weird rampage about how the Greens wanted to disarm Australia. And how this would encourage an invasion from Indonesia
It was simply FUD peddling.
Things must be looking grim in Lib HQ – Tony was out stunting on his bicycle “for charity” again. Something about raising money for war heroes. They raised … $5000 for charity!
Now how much was Abbott’s security detail for this? I assume he’s not going to claim travel expenses.
Astrobleme
Show me where the Greens are going to buy what it really takes to defence Australia – jets, ships and tanks – and your argument is tenable.
But the Greens have an open plan (it is the one definite thing in their so-called Defence Policy) to cut defence spending and then reallocate what is left to peace initiatives.
But putting garlands of flowers around the necks of invading TNI soldiers is just not going to cut it.
@Jackol/258
Didn’t Abbott’s book cost to the tax payers cost more than he raised?
Jackol
Abbott’s stunt yesterday, sitting in the cockpit of the JSF model, was vomitous. Even more so than loading the fishboxes in Japan.
I don’t understand it. Presumably he or Credlin believe the fluoro vest frolics still have the potential to fool voters.
Those fooled by the fluoros are by definition so dumb that they should not be allowed to vote.
[Jackol
Posted Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 4:30 pm | Permalink
Things must be looking grim in Lib HQ – Tony was out stunting on his bicycle “for charity” again. Something about raising money for war heroes. They raised … $5000 for charity!
Now how much was Abbott’s security detail for this? I assume he’s not going to claim travel expenses.]
Abbott has a problem. He cut a couple of hundred thousand dollars from the orphans of war heroes. (All of our 150,000 veterans are heroes these days which rather debases the coinage).
Palmer has been making considerable political hay out of what was probably a minor policy oversight.
So Abbott’s solution is to piss away his valuable time as prime minister and piss away tax payers’ dollars on stunting security: all so that he could ‘donate’ $5,000 to war heroes.
C’est fou.
Bomber Beasely did the same thing as Abbott. Gorton at least did the real thing.
I have found an image of the RAAF by the time the Greens have finished with it:
http://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/photo/paper-airplanes-high-res-stock-photography/108090368
Boerwar
Obviously you have no comprehension skills.
Keep arguing with yourself…
Naval construction under a Greens Government?
Note, consistent with Frednk’s assertion that you can get a 20 tonne plane in the area without having a design, these naval surface combatants do not require a design.
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Paper-Ship
ps These non-offensive surface naval combatants are guaranteed not to frighten the enemy.
Just found out from my son that, if you leave on a navy ship from Darwin you get a border protection medal No kidding!
A
So, which fighter, ships and tank purchases do the Greens support?
Fess up. The Greens Defence Policy cupboard is bare of everything except, ‘Hey Man, Peace!’
Boerwar
Are you drunk?
pom
You might recall Soviet WW2 veterans with chests and stomachs covered with war decorations, aka fruit salad.
Consistent with the endless trend of militarization of Australia there has been an steadily expanding list of ‘reasons’ for putting medals on uniforms’ chests.
It used to be that you got one for going to war and anothery for doing something exceptional.
Now you just have to breathe in the vicinity of something or other and you get a gong.
It debases real decorations for real stuff.
First one out of Boerwar vs Astrobleme and Bemused vs Player One to stop arguing wins.
A
I note that you have become personally abusive again. What is it with the Greens? They lose an argument about keeping the peacevand they resort to verbal violence.
rats.
Actually, that’s a little unfair on Boerwar, who isn’t being anything like as big a prat as Astrobleme.
bw
I don’t think you win a rat 🙂
Astrobleme@265
Not wanting to take sides in this argument when you are both so obviously enjoying yourselves …. but I did try reading the Green’s “Peace and Security” policy, and I couldn’t figure out whether you would actually support defence spending. The closest I could find was:
[ A reallocation, and where possible, reduction in Australian military expenditure consistent with the defensive security needs of Australia and the peace-keeping role of Australian forces. ]
But it seems to me the two parts to this statement are somewhat contradictory. We certainly need to spend more money than we have to date, just to keep our defence security needs up to scratch. Even if you don’t like the JSF, we have to buy something. Same with the submarines, which we tried to do on the cheap (and look how well that turned out!).
I just can’t see how that is consistent with a “reallocation, and where possible reduction” in defence expenditure. Unless you can interpret that to mean taking money away from some other parts of defence. But which parts?
Care to explain?
Player One@255
Zoomster’s post is quite sensible – naturally so, since it is just pointing out exactly what I have been trying to tell you since yesterday – i.e. that assuming mental illness is the cause of such events is incorrect.
Your posts on the same subject are simply abusive and prejudiced nonsense.
But if you want to quit the argument while you’re behind, suits me. On the other hand, I am happy to continue pointing out your nonsense for as long as you continue to post it.
There you go again. Just straight out lying.
I said it was a cause in a particular case because Rosie Batty had said so.
I have never said it is the cause in all cases. You just made that up.
William
Seriously?
Jeepers. He makes a claim, that is demonstrably wrong, refuses to admit error, then prattles on about other irrelevancies; claiming that the Greens will allow Indonesia to invade, making ridiculous jokes about Green ‘military examples’ and I am the Prat?
I know your political allegiances lie with Boerwar, but seriously…
There is one thing and one thing only that will drive companies to reduce emissions and that is money. Unless there are worthwhile cost reductions achievable by way of price signals or penalties companies will do nothing. The bigger the price signal the greater will be the opportunity to gain a competitive advantage through effective net energy reduction.
Boerwar
How about a shotgun haka ? From the movie Utu set during the Land Wars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZlMwO4u_ok
p
From what I can see hakas have a big energy in terms of barely suppressed violence.
Do they ever get out of hand?
Player One
The aim of the Greens policy is to spend less on Military and more on aid. The aim of this is to increase the security of the region so you don’t need to spend as much.
Sure it lacks details.
That wasn’t Boerwar’s argument though. He claimed the Greens wanted to disarm.
The last person I heard say “are you drunk?” was this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGkBvY3deic
William Bowe@271
William, can you institute a ‘no verbaling’ rule?
“The last person I heard say “are you drunk?” was this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGkBvY3deic”
Not sure what you mean… A little cryptic for my brain.
bemused
Make that no deliberate verballing. We all do by accident sometimes and apologies usually follow swiftly once this is realised
William Bowe@271
Aww, William!
Actually, since bemused seems to now accept that mental illness does not have to play a role in deaths such as Luke Batty’s, nor does alcohol, nor do drugs, or any explanations other than a desire for revenge or control, and also that he has no actual evidence that any of these played a role even in this particular case, I am ok to call it a day.
guytaur@286
Well Player One is just a chronic liar.
Good work, Player One. You’re still a prat though.
Astrobleme: I don’t know why you’re bothering to argue defence matters with someone who posts under the name of the most morally bankrupt episode our military ever had the misfortune to be involved in.
Astrobleme@282
Hmmm. Not quite. I thought he was claiming you wouldn’t spend more money on new equipment.
So would you? If (as seems self-evident) it is necessary for Australia’s defence? Or not?
Simple question, simple answer required.
Caf
Yeah, well, I am sucker when people make incorrect claims…
And I wasn’t actually arguing about Defence, that’s a little sideline Boerwar introduced to cover from his earlier blunder…
And for some reason he dishes out abuse, but moans when people send it back.
William Bowe@289
You’re a bit like bemused – you just don’t know when to quit 🙂
When Howard and Costello introduced the last tranche of their superannuation ‘reforms’ we could hardly believe our luck. It was like free money. Of course it was a vote buying exercise with other peoples’ money.
We realized pretty well straight away that it was unsustainable.
It is nice to think that Hockey/Abbott are now going to have to go through the politically-unpopular process of winding it back.
Meanwhile, banks meet DIY folks.
Player One@287
You clearly believe your own bullshit.
It is a matter of record that Luke Batty’s father was mentally ill. Luke’s mother has said so and the cops have too.
Mental Illness, alcohol and drugs underlie a lot of violent behaviour, but not all. I have held this position all along while you seem to have been listening to your voices or something.
Bzzzt! You lose! Again!
PLayerone
“Hmmm. Not quite. I thought he was claiming you wouldn’t spend more money on new equipment.”
Well he made the Greens want to disarm claim, then we showed him the policy which says we support the ADF, so he changed his argument rather than admitting error. Reducing expenditure where possible is quite different from disarming.
Obviously the Greens want to spend less on the military. This is something we all agree on (in the Greens) – I don’t know what the Greens would spend money on.
[caf
Posted Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
Astrobleme: I don’t know why you’re bothering to argue defence matters with someone who posts under the name of the most morally bankrupt episode our military ever had the misfortune to be involved in.]
Well, I do believe that our military’s role in the conquest of Australia was actually worse than their role in the Boer War. The proportion of outright murder, real dispossiion, rape and use of concentration camps lasted for a lot longer, affected more people and covered a greater geographical range. It required a sustained effort over two centuries.
But I do get your general gist about the Boer War and could not agree more with your POV.
My choice of posting name is, ahem, intended as irony.
FAIL, I suppose.
William
While Astro has become a little overwrought, BW has simply conjured a bunch of trollish strawmen in the service of jingoism.
Often he is sensible, but it seems that on this issue he simply can’t stop himself from simply venting.
Astrobleme@297
How is this “Obvious”? It isn’t obvious to me that it is even possible, given our aging fleet of aircraft and submarines.
Also, isn’t the whole point the fact that neither you (who are presumably a Green) and we (who presumably you want to entice to vote for the Greens) appear to know what the Greens would spend money on?