The latest batch of polling from Newspoll, Morgan and Essential has had the effect of confirming the shift recorded in last week’s BludgerTrack result, in which a Morgan phone poll drove a slight weakening in Labor’s post-budget lead. Consequently, there are only very slight shifts in this week’s primary vote and two-party preferred totals, with the latter moving to the Coalition by 0.3%. On the seat projection, the Coalition gains one seat each in Queensland (which has swung implausibly heavily over recent weeks) and Western Australia, but drops one in Tasmania off a particularly bad showing in this week’s Morgan breakdowns. Newspoll has furnished the leadership ratings with a new set of data, resulting in both leaders copping substantial hits on net approval. Bill Shorten is back to where he was prior to a post-budget bounce, and there is also a substantial move in Tony Abbott’s favour on preferred prime minister, although this largely represents a correction after the post-budget results caused the trend line to overshoot the individual data points.
The biggest of last week’s shifts to have been confirmed by the latest result is a two-point drop for Palmer United, which had risen from a base of around 4% before the Western Australian Senate election to over 7% in the upheaval following the budget. It would have dropped still further if I had included the 3% rating the party recorded in this week’s Newspoll, according to The Australian’s report. However, Palmer United results are not featured in Newspoll’s reporting, and taking advantage of sporadic information that appears in newspaper reports runs the risk of introducing a bias, in that the numbers are more likely to be provided in some circumstances than others. I have thus maintained my usual practice of deriving a Palmer United result from Newspoll by calculating a trend result of the party’s share of the total “others” vote from all other pollsters, and applying that share to Newspoll’s “others” result. So far as this week’s Newspoll result is concerned, this has the unfortunate effect of giving Palmer United a vote share over double that reported by The Australian.
There are other reasons why Palmer United’s recent form is of interest, so I provide below a close-up of the party’s polling trend with the most recent Newspoll excluded. While the trend line commences its descent in the middle of May, observation of the individual data points clearly indicates that the party was still at its record peak until the very end of June, but that it slipped substantially thereafter. Mike Willesee’s report on the party for the Seven Network’s Sunday Night, which aired on June 8, may have had something to do with this.
poroti:
😀
Carn Swannies!
William Bowe@1133
William, you are interrupting the stream of rampant misandry.
You have denied it’s existence before. Are you starting to see it now?
Well at least the Greens do something.
National Party just hide somewhere in the background, making themselves non-existent.
This would have to be silliest evening’s proceedings here for some time.
I move the House do now adjourn.
confessions
Back in your box, Swannies now down 42-41 😀
How about this.
You can be proud of Rudd because he did do the apology get the changes to law through giving more equality. Thats to gays as well as the First People.
He set the narrative to the point even today Abbott has to pretend he wants that equality.
Gillard got heaps of great legislation through in the face of an opposition trashing conventional behaviour in and outside of the parliament. Of that legislation which NDIS and Gonski are most connected to her period as PM.
The Greens supported and to this day are supporting most of that legislation put through by Labor.
Honestly there is much more to admire of the politicians than to critique through the Rudd Gillard years which is what history will remember with the footnote of so much potential lost through division letting Abbott becoming PM.
Its that division between Labor factions and the Greens that was masterfully exploited by Abbott’s team. So remember Abbott’s political stocks rise when debate becomes entrenched division.
poroti:
LOL.
Is the game being shown live over here?
[The Greens may well have ushered through the Senate a majority of the then Labor govt’s platform but this doesn’t mean the party didn’t pick and choose its fights in order to leverage a perception of being the ‘good guy’ off of the squabbling between Labor and coalition.]
Well, d’uh. The ALP does the same, the Libs do the same, the Nats do the same, PUP do the same. Because it’s the business.
This is of no real significance. The substantial claim is that this politicking by the Greens was a significant source of the ALP government’s political problems. There’s no evidence offered for that and it is quite evidently highly questionable at best.
1150
The Greens do operate politically. There would be little point to voting for the Greens if they just rubber stamped everything the ALP put up. The decision was taken on the CPRS to seek a better deal, the ALP having made its scheme less effective through a deal with the Liberals, but then the ALP unexpectedly just dropped the issue. The Greens misjudged the ALP and specifically Rudd, which is not something the ALP has any justification for attacking anybody for as they did the same thing with more knowledge of him.
Labor will defend the four pillars banking policy that helped the country through the global financial crisis http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/leave-four-pillars-policy-alone-bowen-20140620-3aj8t.html … #auspol
8:17 PM – 20 Jun 2014
Leave Four Pillars policy alone: Bowen
The Abbott government has dismissed reports that the four pillars banking policy is at risk as Labor says any change would be irresponsible.
[Andrew Leigh ✔ @ALeighMP
Follow
FOFA changes will make bankers richer & pensioners poorer- transcript of my interview on @666canberra: http://www.andrewleigh.com/political_forum_abc_canberra … #inequality
12:51 PM – 20 Jun 2014]
Venturing cautiously, into the current PB war. (Go Tigers)
A baby was shrilling as Tom Koutsantonis SA was delivering his budget.
Although the comment from the Opposition was inaudible, Tom Koutsantonis said wtte ‘that is my child, you will leave my family out of this.’ Insistently.
I can only assume that his wife and that young child were in the Chamber to witness his first Budget delivery. I think he has other children, so most likely they too were there.
An important moment in their lives.
Whomever it was making that objection, revealed the casual dismissal of women and children from political and familial involvement.
Liberals…. Pffft!
from zoom to me
[given that most of Labor’s policies consistently polled well – and continue to do so – I’m not sure that policies were the problem.]
Partly agree. But note that policies did not get a focus in the report so they reckon you are wrong.
In fact several of the ALP policies are better received in the community that the media likes to let on.
Some time ago I linked to a Possum article titled, from memory, “What the Oz public believe” or vaguely similar, and that shows that generally the Oz public supports a lot of the context of ALP policy in detail but not in general eg more taxes for more services eg health schooling but, simultaneously and therefore paradoxically ‘small’ government.
There are a whole stack of such that can be explained by the media distorting the reality.
The media sets the ‘narrative’.
Attack that narrative – its false.
Classic examples are [1] CPRS and the later carbon price [2]the ‘stimulus’ in general with subsets for insulation and schools [3] Gonski [4] disabilities [5] NBN [mining tax], [6] deficit, [7] same sex marriage, [8]the environment eg barrier Reef, R. Murray…
In each case the ALP wimped out and allowed the media to be the effective opposition with Abbott freeloading on their slipstream.
The ALP is too polite, too tactful, too diplomatic – recognize the enemy – no its not the Greens – and attack them – the COALition as the mouthpiece of the vested interests via the msm.
Look at those 8 policies, there are more, the ALP retreated/wimped out on each to a greater or lesser degree.
Scared of the media.
Yet the public broadly support them all.
Worse, it continued with policies that are unpopular with large segments of the population, again scared of the way the media would have portrayed them if they had an independent approach – NT intervention, asylum, single mums and just yesterday Green Army support to hit a current note.
Set the agenda, don’t follow that of Rupert.
I fail to see how a report looking at why the ALP failed can do so without mentioning policies – ignoring some platitudes about being a ‘progressive party’ – and without mentioning Rupert.
ps The only section that had merit in the report, IMO, was the focus on digital and social media and membership etc.
The rest was pretty poor and, if followed, won’t help the party at all..
Meanwhile, in Asia, will have 100 million FTTP connections by the year end, currently adding new connection every 1,563 per hour:
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=486725
4 times the population of Australia.
[The Greens do operate politically. ]
*hallelujah!*
And once again I’m wondering why it takes Labor moving into opposition for Greens fans to finally concede this point.
[Stephen Murray @smurray38
Follow
Splendid piece from The Australian’s @CroweDM on the self inflicted political wounds of the Abbott Government http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/red-card-looming-amid-team-abbotts-own-goals/story-e6frg6zo-1226960449798#mm-premium … (PW)
8:09 PM – 20 Jun 2014
Red card looming amid Team Abbott’s own goals
THERE was more than a hint of frustration last weekend when Tony Abbott got yet another question about whether East Jerusalem was “occupied” or “disputed” territory.]
[Labor will defend the four pillars banking policy that helped the country through the global financial crisis]
I hope so. They have consumer groups on side as well.
The Rudd Gillard Wars is so 2013. 99.9% of the electorate no longer gives a fig.
[but then the ALP unexpectedly just dropped the issue]
LOL I’ve seen some ridiculous claims about Rudd’s concession that the senate including the greens had rejected action on climate change x times (was it three?) and that there was clearly no choice but to wait for a more intelligent senate, but to call it unexpectedly dropping the issue is by far the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve ever seen.
[And once again I’m wondering why it takes Labor moving into opposition for Greens fans to finally concede this point.]
I can’t speak for others but I’ve articulated this position consistently since I first posted here before the last government was even a thing.
1169
They could and should have gone to a DD after the CPRS rejection, if not earlier in the term. At the very least the ALP should have kept up the policy pressure in public.
@stokely: Heartbreaking. 200,000 kids tested by the Fukushima Medical Uni are suffering pre-cancerous thyroid abnormalities. http://t.co/BVg2ZPrGmJ
Apparently Richo in a paywalled The Oz piece reckons the ALP would be beaten in a double dissolution.
Cheer Cheer the Red and the White 🙂
Eh?
Michael Lawler (Kathy Jackson’s boyfriend and Fair Work commissioner) seeks leave to appear for her as a barrister, by video link, in a case where she is defending herself against allegations of corruption by her own union, the HSU.
This is getting weird.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/jacksonville-conflict-of-interest,6593
[They could and should have gone to a DD after the CPRS rejection, if not earlier in the term. At the very least the ALP should have kept up the policy pressure in public.]
It was policy and stayed policy at least until Gillard introduced the idea of the assembley, presumably an idea to try and undo the destruction of popular support for action on climate change Abbott and the Greens and brought.
A double dissolution would have smashed labor into almost nothing, as the libs and greens both attacked labor one from each side. It was the greens that meant a DD election on the issue was impossible.
@Rossmore/1173
So why has Abbott backed down from Double Dissolution, about 4 times already?
[@stokely: Heartbreaking. 200,000 kids tested by the Fukushima Medical Uni are suffering pre-cancerous thyroid abnormalities. http://t.co/BVg2ZPrGmJ%5D
If true, it kinda puts the shame the opinions expressed by a few here recently that nuclear accidents were rare enough and harmless enough to render nuclear energy a viable long-term energy source.
I suppose 4.5 billions years half life of decaying uranium isn’t that a long time, by Big Bang standards.
[They could and should have gone to a DD after the CPRS rejection, if not earlier in the term.]
Exactly. ALP fantasists who want somehow to blame the Greens vote on the CPRS for the rise of Abbott should perhaps reflect on their own party’s failure to call an election against a new but unpopular opposition leader at a time when support for the government was high, on an issue that had broad popular support.
Nah, let’s try and blame the Greens.
[A double dissolution would have smashed labor into almost nothing, as the libs and greens both attacked labor one from each side. It was the greens that meant a DD election on the issue was impossible.]
Absolute piffle.
1179
They should have gone against Nelson in 2008, as soon as there was a post Senate changeover trigger.
“@GlennFowlerAEU: Question: If ‘school choice’ is good, why does Finland not provide any and still lead the world in quality and equity?”
Win the education debate. Shove Finland in the face of the LNP every time.
[Cheer Cheer the Red and the White]
Too true.
Richmond should enter a competition where you only play for two quarters.
Clear air for the Swans until we play Hawthorn on 26 July which will be a good opportunity to see who we are buying for next year.
[They could and should have gone to a DD after the CPRS rejection, if not earlier in the term.]
Yeah they could have. Except the ‘Look at me, aren’t I frickin amazeballs!’ leader the party had at the time didn’t want to trash his personal ratings.
The rest as they say, is history.
[A double dissolution would have smashed labor into almost nothing, as the libs and greens both attacked labor one from each side. It was the greens that meant a DD election on the issue was impossible.
Absolute piffle.]
so you say, I think your view is absurd, and well we can’t run that hypothetical dd election that never happened because the ALP didn’t think it was a wise thing to do.
[Yeah they could have. Except the ‘Look at me, aren’t I frickin amazeballs!’ leader the party had at the time didn’t want to trash his personal ratings.]
LoL we have been drinking tonight I assume that is absurd.
Zoidlord 1177 Agree. Richo flies all sorts of preposterous kites.
@seanbedlam: Protester attacks Julie Bishop’s car my arse. I was there and if that was an attack I’m Captain Cook and this tweet is a pigeon. #auspol
😆
fred
[. But note that policies did not get a focus in the report so they reckon you are wrong.]
Er, no. That demonstrates that they thought the policies weren’t the problem.
[In fact several of the ALP policies are better received in the community that the media likes to let on.]
Wot I said.
[Look at those 8 policies, there are more, the ALP retreated/wimped out on each to a greater or lesser degree.
Scared of the media.
Yet the public broadly support them all.]
Er, what? The ALP did not retreat or wimp out on the policies you mention.
You seem to be projecting – in the case of ssm, for example – what you thought the ALP should have as a policy rather than what the ALP actually had as a policy.
[Worse, it continued with policies that are unpopular with large segments of the population..]
Two of the four policies you mention might tick those boxes. But you’re being contradictory here – one moment arguing that the ALP should stick with policies regardless of their popularity or media reception and the other saying they should have been courageous enough to junk ones regardless of their popularity or media reception.
And Labor passing The Green Army legislation doesn’t make The Green Army ‘Labor policy’.
[I fail to see how a report looking at why the ALP failed can do so without mentioning policies..]
Because policies weren’t part of the problem.
[…and without mentioning Rupert…]
Because Labor reviews what it did during the campaign, not what someone else did.
[A double dissolution would have smashed labor into almost nothing, as the libs and greens both attacked labor one from each side.]
No babe. Your boy had the public on his side on climate back then. He should’ve called a DD election and made a point of it.
At the very least it would’ve most likely herded off Abbott as LOTO.
1185
Not calling a DD during the first term was a bad idea. History has shown that. Carbon pricing could have been passed with an ALP majority in the HoR and the ALP and the Greens in the Senate. The ALP should have gone against Nelson in the second half of 2008.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Looks like a fiery political debate on Lateline appearing to me like another loss for the Liberals. PPL
Watching Brandis’ 7.30 interview with Sarah Ferguson the other night got the distinct impression he’d been completely smacked down by Bishop. And she has secured Abbott’s agreement that Brandis needs to butt out of foreign affairs. I suspect the first Abbott reshuffle will see a demotion for Brandis as everything he touches goes arse up.
[No babe. Your boy had the public on his side on climate back then. He should’ve called a DD election and made a point of it.]
Well babe if the Hon PM who you consider exhibited the following characteristic:
[ ‘Look at me, aren’t I frickin amazeballs!’ ]
thought he would win a DD that very attitude you claim he hadwould have driven him to one because nothing would have been better for him than a second win and a second term and nicer senate.
Either he wasn’t all about himself (and based on what I can see it seems he didn’t lack self confidence) or he thought a DD election would be a bad idea. No doubt Gillard and the kitchen cabinet agreed on this. So your gal was no doubt in the same boat. No convenient for you interesting view of history I suppose.
[Not calling a DD during the first term was a bad idea.]
Well it may or may not have been, removing a PM and giving obvious lies as the reason probably wasn’t a great idea in hindsight either.
[The ALP should have gone against Nelson in the second half of 2008.]
This might be right, I don’t know what I think, but against Abbott post Turnbull would have been a disaster.
@CarbonTaxFan: http://t.co/vpOAROoLoX Didn’t your mum tell you….
Rossmore@1172
Where does the 200,000 figure come from. The article you pointed to is derived from
http://evacuatefukushimanow.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/福島県の甲状腺がん-fukushima-children-thyroid-cancer-cases-spreading-to-their-lymph-nodes-and-lungs/
Which, while not being a peer reviewed scientific article and obviously with an agenda, says of the nearly 300,000 kids tested 0.7% or 2,069 had a nodule > 5mm or a cyst >2cm. It does not analyse this number further but cysts are not pre-malignant and nor are most nodules.
An interesting counter argument is here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/09/fukushima-children-debate-thyroid-cancer-japan-disaster-nuclear-radiation
Is this apparent rise due to radiation, given that the measured release was less than 20msiev or is it that mass screening for cancer picks up cancers that may go undetected and be indolent for many years?
[If true, it kinda puts the shame the opinions expressed by a few here recently that nuclear accidents were rare enough and harmless enough to render nuclear energy a viable long-term energy source.]
Author Harvey Wasserman’s “Solartopia Green Power & Wellness Show is at http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com, and he edits http://www.nukefree.org.”
WWP:
What? Your comment makes no sense unless you are denying the polling your boy got during Labor’s first term in govt.
[so you say, I think your view is absurd]
The view that a first-term government with a popular leader enjoying a ~53/47 or better poll advantage would comfortably win an election against a new but widely disliked LOTO?
That’s an absurd view?
Sure. {maintains eye contact, backs away slowly}
[and well we can’t run that hypothetical]
Then kindly stop running the hypothetical about the Greens voting for the CPRS. Thanks.