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.
Even if Fukushima in the long run does kill 2,000 or 20,000 or 200,000 Japanese, that is still less than the number who will die if we don’t stop burning carbon. If we can do that by turning to renewables, fine. But the evidence at present is that we can’t, at least not for a long time. In the meantime, turning from coal to gas is the best short-term option, and from carbon to nuclear is the best medium-term option. No-one will be more pleased to me if we get developments in renewables that changes that calculation, but we should plan on the basis that we won’t.
[WWP:
What? Your comment makes no sense unless you are denying the polling your boy got during Labor’s first term in govt.]
Well if you are saying, like Tom that he should have gone early against Nelson (i can’t remember the exact timing of the trigger and Nelsons demise) his polling was good, I’m not sure this would have stayed good during a DD where both Nelson and the Greens said how crap the CPRS was. I think I lean to the view support for Labor and the CPRS would have crumbled, like it later did.
I had assumed you were talking DD against Abbott, and I apologise if i got that wrong, but I’m 130% convinced labor would have been smashed (much worse than 2013)if they’d taken the CPRS to a DD against Abbott and the Greens both of whom had established a position that it was absolutely dreadful and seemed to have convinced quite a lot of the public they were right.
I’m here and rarely post.
Thanks Kezza2…I enjoyed your 8:30
OMG
No wonder ALP have problems was on twitter where there is a war on also between Rudd/Gillard supporters come on here and the same thing
I tweeted Obviously want Tony Abbott and LNP to win in 2016, as unless united that is what will happened
To their credit just about everyone retweeted and favourited that tweet, hopefully people will also take heed on PB
Anyway off to another island tomorrow, where internet is not good so probably about 13 days without internet. The place I go to has just had wifi put on(not for the guests though) but they have told me I can use if I want but very weak signal. I won’t get up the steep steps with my pulled muscle to their house on top of rooms to access
All the best
Mari
Have fun 🙂
The Lib guy on Lateline is brilliant
1202
Nelson was long gone before the CPRS came along. This was before any major mess-ups by Rudd became obvious.
The Abbott Coalition and the Greens were attacking he CPRS from different ends (a much easier position to defend than them both attacking it from the same angle), the Coalition would have been able to be attacked over its flip-flopping on its deal and the Greens` vote would not have gone down like in 2013 and so the Senate would have become more workable. Any talking of it being worse than 2013 is ridiculous.
YIKES!
ET
😆
Oakshott 1197 No idea. Just linked to the article which stated:
More than 48 percent of some 375,000 young people—nearly 200,000 kids—tested by the Fukushima Medical University near the smoldering reactors now suffer from pre-cancerous thyroid abnormalities, primarily nodules and cysts. The rate is accelerating.
Cant speak to the authority of the claim but if verified it is quite shocking … Almost half of one generation condemned to the likelihood of an early death from cancer
[If we can do that by turning to renewables, fine. But the evidence at present is that we can’t, at least not for a long time. ]
What evidence is that?
I was reading just this week in a respected US Oil and Gas news service, analysis of solar that pointed out small things like that the cost of Solar had fallen 70% since 2000 and that solar is already price competitive in a number of circumstances.
Views held until recently that solar costs would stabilise with industry restructure have faded to expectations of a further fall of 20% by 2020.
On the other hand the gas is good view that was held very strongly a couple of years ago has been weakened by studies of fugitive emissions, but then again it seems they can be reduced where effort is put in.
I think renewables are potentially much much closer than many people think, but suffer a lot from the little engine that didn’t both. It doesn’t matter how short a hill is you never get to the top if you decide not to try.
I don’t give them a lot of weight and I haven’t read them in the same kind of publications as the oil and gas industry publication but there are already some views renewables have already crossed over and are more cost effective than oil and gas, certainly the industry is taking talk of ‘stranded’ assets seriously enough to bother to deny it is the case.
It is interesting but given Australia’s advantage, particularly in solar, it is a crime that successive Australian governments haven’t gone hard in this direction. Perhaps a large scale project that used solar to generate power and the Snowy Hydro to store and / or distribute that power.
It is very disappointing.
I wonder if this was one of the topics Obama talked about with Abbott? All influential leaders want the best for their daughters after all
[President Barack Obama and wife Michelle want their daughters Malia and Sasha to get a taste of what it’s like to work for minimum wage. The president and first lady both worked minimum-wage jobs before they went to law school and tell Parade magazine they want the same sort of experience for their teenage daughters. ]
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/06/20/obamas-want-daughters-to-get-taste-of-minimum-wage-life-and-more-must-reads/
Psephos … I cant understand why it is beyond the wit of this sunshine and wind endowed country that it cant seem to emulate a poorly wind and sunshine endowed country like Germany that recently announced 70% of its energy on a recent day was derived from renewables.
[the Coalition would have been able to be attacked over its flip-flopping on its deal and the Greens` vote would not have gone down like in 2013 and so the Senate would have become more workable. Any talking of it being worse than 2013 is ridiculous.]
OK so if you are talking Abbott v Rudd on a CPRS DD, I am of the view that the Libs would have had more seats in the HoR than they won in 2013 and I think they would have had a majority in the senate as well. The greens may well have done better but it would largely have been at labors cost.
And yes I know the greens and liberals were attacking it from opposite sides and for different reasons (libs thought climate change was crap, greens thought the politics in being against it was good) but I personally think that would have been much harder to counter.
Blimey zoom the report doesn’t mention the major reason the ALP lost popularity whether led by Rudd or Gillard.
The media.
Address that problem cos it won’t go away.
Don’t sidetrack, hand wave as if its not important.
Do you want me to go through each of the policies I mentioned, all dozen or so of them. and illustrate how media pressure caused the ALP to backtrack, flip flop, abandon, lose control of the message?
One from Rudd – ‘Insulatgate’, apologise, scapegoat Garrett – totally unnecessary.
One from Gillard – deficit – obsession with a surplus which was never going to eventuate.
Climate change for both – the ALP should have pointed to Bolt and the Australian and laughed out loud, very loudly and frequently and championed, with Greens support, the price on carbon – the public support was wasted with mucking around and kowtowing to the polluters – even Wong said so early on.
SSM is popular yet the ALP won’t support it outright. Lost opportunity – scared of the media and the churches [ditto for chaplains Gillard style].
“And Labor passing The Green Army legislation …” makes a mockery of unions fighting for wages and conditions for workers for longer than I’ve been alive and there are many unionists out there wondering what the hell is going in the “labour/Labor” party.
No training, no compo, no OH&S, no decent wage – what the hell are they thinking?
It doesn’t matter what the ALP does in a campaign Rupert and his mates will attempt to crucify it.
having policies that you stick to and sell will help but you [the ALP that is] will still have to combat a hostile media.
Here, just to get that message across look at Greg Jericho’s collection of front pages and tell me that’s not a problem.
He scores them as:
Anti-ALP 36
Pro- LNP 27
and a stack of ‘difficult to judge cos of multiple headlines’
And that’s just during the campaign – it is ongoing for 3 years.
Interested in the ALP winning in the future?
Put some thought into the media problem.
Rossmore@1210
Alarmism.
I believe Thyroid Cancer is one that can be treated fairly readily with a good success rate.
Far more cancers are caused each year from radioactive fly ash from burning coal. Oh, and then there are the heavy metals and other toxins.
Keep an eye on Morwell.
Goodnight
.
Screening for thyroid cancers will find lots of them, so we need a proper study for Fukushima. The last presentation I saw on this from Japan did not show significant evidence of harm (YET)…
Bemused I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this Fukashima report. Even if treatable, and you claim it is, any form of of cancer is a life changing event that I wouldn’t wish on anyone. And yes I agree the Morwell fire is no laughing matter either with very serious long term potential impacts on the health of the community.
The greatest contribution the ALP could make to Australian democracy would be to support a honest proportional electoral system to, for the first time in our history, elect Parliaments that actually reflected voters intent.
Australia will be badly served by an ALP which hogs the votes but who’s policy position is shadow-Rightist and who’s raison d’être is getting places for apparatchiks numbers men/women.
Everything
We need a proper study into the effects of the LNP’s class war on behalf of the super-rich.
We have those data:
Lower unemployment
Lower interest rates
Higher non-farm real wage rises
High budget surpluses (in fact ALP has been net deficits)
Oops didn’t link to Greg Jericho’s collection of campaign front pages.
http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/election-2013-newspapers.html
“Send in the clown” was quite effective!!!!
Everything@1222
You really must do something to get over your surplus fetish.
After all, a company with no debt would be accused of having a ‘lazy balance-sheet’.
Taken on it’s own, a surplus or deficit is a meaningless metric.
Your other claims are equally dodgy.
Its not having one deficit, its not having a surplus for a quarter century.
Someone has a broken record.
[The greatest contribution the ALP could make to Australian democracy would be to support a honest proportional electoral system to, for the first time in our history, elect Parliaments that actually reflected voters intent.]
The problem being that the voters whose intentions you wish to see actually reflected don’t actually want such a thing.
“if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth”.
We have this data:
aged pensions to be cut in long term
under 30s to be denied support when unemployed
ALL doctors visit to get $7 charge regardless of circumstances
ALL pathology tests to have various upfront charges, regardless of circumstances
super-rich superannuates to get a tax cut
any downloaders to be hit by legislation to protect corporations
super-rich coal industry to protected against cleaner opposition
Public funds (taxes from all, including non-religious) to fund only wacko American funds to prey on children.
Inevitable war to get poor kids killed for the LNP…..
Everything@1226
There’s that fetish again.
The appropriateness of a surplus or deficit is dependent on other economic conditions.
At the present time, there is a fair amount of economic consensus that contractionary budgets are not appropriate as we have still not fully recovered from the GFC.
http://rt.com/usa/166352-us-total-debt-sixty-trillion/
Young people at the forfront of private debt once again, because of decisions by old greedy white men.
William Bowe @ 1228
[The problem being that the voters whose intentions you wish to see actually reflected don’t actually want such a thing.]
Do the voters equally “want” only a single member electorate? How many voters actually know anything about electoral system?
But I bet lots of them are frustrated by the governments we have now.
When was that properly surveyed?
An MMP would give both single member electorates and a Parliament reflective of voters intent.
From the same website, $1 trillion dollar loan debt for Students:
http://rt.com/usa/student-loan-debts-top-trillion-957/
And we want the Coalition Party model ?
Everything 1226 Can you nominate a single large Oz company that has had a single annual budget surplus in the last 25 years?
bemused:
In 40 years you would think there might be some circumstances to warrant a surplus or two. The ALP has hardly had any, and none at all for a quarter century.
Mod lib. Thought not.
Everything
[Its not having one deficit, its not having a surplus for a quarter century.]
The “deficit” is a LNP unicorn, effectively used (albeit with support of an illiterate MSM). It illustrates your obsession with “money” before “people”
You think an “economy” is measured by the monetary numbers it generates when in reality its by the numbers of peoples it supports.
The continued nonsense of Surplus is pathetic responses by liberals, surplus is useless without private debt being contained.
And private debt is hardly being contained because liberals policies forces of the population to borrow morrow.
Everything@1236
Get over your fetish and examine economic conditions at the time.
more*
Goodnight all.
This whole surplus fetish, this debt and deficit disaster theme is a fetish. Ive been on this mortal coil for close to 60 yeArs and have never been in surplus. Am I some kind of failure?different story of course if my assets are counted…..
[Do the voters equally “want” only a single member electorate? How many voters actually know anything about electoral system?]
No doubt most of them are a bit blurry about the mechanics of it, but I think Australian voters have made it clear enough over time that what they want is majority government. Granted that I haven’t held a referendum on the matter lately – but they did in the UK in 2011 on preferential voting and the verdict went two-to-one against, in very large part because it was felt it would increase the incidence of hung parliaments. I’m quite sure a vote on PR in Australia wouldn’t do even that well.
Do companies spend more than they earn in income now do they?
Psephos:
[However, the Zionist movement did not claim “ownership” of Israel. It claimed the right of Jews to live there.]
“Living there” inevitably leads to “ownership”, as (to pick just one example) the Mexicans discovered in Texas.
1222
Everything
While the relevant, contemporary data go to prove….Incomes will always be lower under a Liberal government.
The reduction in median incomes is an objective of LNP rule, reflected in their notorious Work Choices bungling and in their current ideological assault on social security, inter-generational mobility and personal accomplishment.
A budget surplus seems to be some sort of indicator of government incompetence. Taxing people more than you need to spend.
Also seems to indicate a desire to contract the economy.
Reckless spending is what comes of having unionists in charge of treasury.
Money is easy when it flows effortlessly from compulsory dues which you can then slush away in brothels at your leisure…
:devil:
Everything@1245
Just caught this latest piece of rubbish.
A company is not a country.
A company finances it’s operations from shareholders equity and debt. It’s purpose is to make a profit. That is not the purpose of a government.
The role of government is to provide economic stability by regulating the level of aggregate demand.
If inflationary pressures emerge it will put the brakes on by running a surplus.
If the economy is weak, inflation low and demand weak, it will run a deficit.
Please stop displaying your ignorance, it is embarrassing.
Definitely going now.