BludgerTrack makes a fairly solid move to the Coalition this week on the back of relatively strong results for them in Newspoll and ReachTEL, to the extent that they are now ahead of Labor on the national seat projection, without going so far as to make it to a majority. Labor retains the lead on two-party preferred, but the model grants the Coalition a natural advantage in seat allocation because the decisive marginal seats will be defended by its first-term members. The change returns the two-party vote to where it was three weeks ago, before a 1.2% spike to Labor the following week. However, Labor has gone two seats backwards on the seat projection since then, because of changes in the way the votes are distributed between the states. The Coalition primary vote gain comes off the total for the Greens, which had experienced a spike over the previous fortnight, while Labor’s is essentially unchanged. Three new sets of state-level data were available to the model out of the four polls which published this week, which have caused Labor to drop two seats in Queensland and Tasmania, and one in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia.
Some will be asking how Labor’s two-party vote comes to be at 50.9% when no published result has put it below 51%, for which much of the explanation lies in Newspoll’s rounded two-party numbers this week. As Kevin Bonham observes, the 51-49 result had poll watchers scratching their heads, as a crude application of 2013 preference flows to the published primary votes (Labor 34%, Coalition 41% and Greens 11% and 14% others) puts the Coalition slightly above 50-50. I don’t doubt that Newspoll has done its rounding properly – the result could be explained by primary vote rounding, minor party vote shares and the poll’s internal distribution of state results – but there can be little doubt that Labor was rounded upwards. Then there was Thursday’s 51-49 result from ReachTEL, a large sample poll with a good track record that the model takes seriously, but which is corrected for a slight Labor bias. The model grants Essential and Morgan together about as much weight as a single Newspoll or ReachTEL, and they had much the same results as each other after the fairly considerable Labor bias adjustment for Morgan. So the aggregate this week can roughly be seen as combining a 50-50, a 51-49 and a 52-48.
Newspoll provided a new set of results for the leadership ratings, which have unfortunately come to be dominated by the pollster since Nielsen dropped out of the game. As such, this week’s moves reflect Tony Abbott’s stronger performance in Newspoll, suggesting a second shift in his favour to supplement the one which occurred after MH17. He also widens his lead as preferred prime minister, although Bill Shorten’s net approval rating remains stable and fairly respectable, and solidly higher than Abbott’s.
ESJ@18: despite its nose-thumbing character, your post raised important points and is worthy of a serious response.
Yes, I totally agree with you, anyone on here who thinks that there is any political mileage from Labor opposing anything the Govt is doing re ISIL, local troublemakers, etc. is completely deluded.
Yes, Labor’s current stance will drive some voters in inner city areas from Labor to the Greens. Yes, this will upset some in the Labor Left, who fear losing their heartlands to the Greens, but it’s not going to make any difference at all to Labor’s overall standing. Indeed, as I pointed out in post #1, it is far better for Labor to have the educated, inner city people who hate what’s going on at the moment aligning themselves with the Greens.
In term’s of your suggestion that Labor has failed to make anything of its first year in Opposition. In terms of internal party reform, I completely agree with you: other than the window-dressing of asking branch members to vote on who the leader will be (and then allowing the parliamentary party to effectively overrule them), the ball has been completely dropped. This will definitely be to the long-term detriment of Labor, and – unless it’s addressed within the next few years – I think will ultimately lead to it ceasing to have any serious claims to achieving majority government (like some of its European counterparts, which are declining for the same basic reason: the dwindling significance of trade unions).
But I’m not sure that, in the short term, Labor can be truly said to have had a bad first 12 months. Who really cares what policies they might have to offer: it’s a long, long time since Australian Federal politics was a battle about policies.
The fact is that, other than successfully seizing every opportunity to posture re national security and global politics (largely about issues in which there is only one obvious choice for a government to make), the current government has failed to impress anyone – including itself – with its ability to make the right decisions about the issues that really matter to the economic well-being of the country and its inhabitants.
For as long as the Coalition cannot inspire people to believe it is a competent government, all Shorten needs to do – Like Abbott between 2010 and 2013 – is look like a credible alternative. He is doing fine at that.
Australian politics in the 21st century is no longer about what you do, but about looking like you know what you are doing. Howard was great at that, but no leader since then on either side has impressed me in the same way. I’m not that crazy about Shorten either, but Burke certainly isn’t the answer (the man is so deeply conservatively Catholic as to make Abbott look like Richard Dawkins).
Zoom
Wendy Bacon is verballing Wong. She said the 2nd tranche bill was going to the Joint Security & Intelligence Committee for consideration and public input. Appropriate balance of concern/support/process in her comments.
I waited in vain last night for someone to pick up on this comment:
[confessions@1021 on Newspoll: 51-49 to Labor | The Poll Bludger
]
So confessions is quite comfortable with what Morrison and gang are doing with Cambodia despite almost universal condemnation in Australia and internationally.
Words fail! 😮
Or maybe no-one reads her rubbish or takes it seriously.
So it’s taken all this to deliver a small rise in the polls.
But it’s the only thing that’s delivered any rise in the polls, so we can expect to see more of it. If diminishing returns start blunting the effect, the knobs can be turned up way past eleven.
“@FarrellPF: The bill also makes substantial changes to the maritime powers act http://t.co/OmwiyeJ9Ll some of this goes directly to high court case”
So Labor is weak, and Coalition Party are national risk to our country.
Great, next couple of years is gonna be sh!t.
[33
lizzie
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has told the United Nations that Australia would be “utterly unflinching’’ towards anything that threatened the country’s future as a free, fair and multi-cultural society.]
I think he’s already flinched.
[@MrKRudd: Here in NY. I’ve seen Mr Abbott’s remarks to UN Security Council on current terrorist threat. He spoke well on Australia’s behalf. KRudd
Looking for a job and relevance ?]
Quid pro quo for his lib appointments
@danielhurstbne: Bernardi currently speaking in support of this Madigan bill to remove Medicare funding for gender-related abortions: http://t.co/zlf5dzXz5E
Meher
I am as you know a member of the ALP but feel this year it has moved 5 more steps towards irrelevance. It will lose the inner city green vote such that Albo, Tanya P and probably both Canberra seats will be lost when there is next a change of personnel. Freemantle and Melissa park’s seat will remain, but perhaps they will be independent labor or even join the Greens.
Here is my prediction: In the election of 2025 we will see the greens with 9 seats, PUP, independent or other minor conservative parties will also have 10 or so.
In the election of 2034 The Greens will form the opposition, albeit with a small number of seats – say 25 Green, Labor 22, Libs 80 and the balance independents and minor parties.
By 2042 Greens will be the dominant opposition.
Kevvie probably still thinks he can get Ban Ki-moon’s job 🙂
[By 2042 Greens will be the dominant opposition.
]
I’ll be gone by then luckily.
zoid
When it comes to practicalities, yes, Labor is weak – it cannot defeat any legislation on its own in either House.
This means that, to have any effect on legislation, it has to play the bi partisan game – trading its support to water down measures where possible – but being prepared to vote against anything which poses fundamental problems.
All the moral authority, principled stances, public support etc etc in the world does not alter the fact that opposing for the sake of opposing doesn’t get a single amendment up.
To stay in the game, Labor has to play it.
dtt
[It will lose the inner city green vote such that Albo, Tanya P and probably both Canberra seats will be lost when there is next a change of personnel. Freemantle and Melissa park’s seat will remain, but perhaps they will be independent labor or even join the Greens.]
This is a pseph site. There is no polling which even suggests this is possible.
The Greens – according to Bludgertrack – are about where they were in the 2010 election. They have a long, long way to go from there if they’re to pick up a swag of Lower House seats.
[Here is my prediction: In the election of 2025 we will see the greens with 9 seats, PUP, independent or other minor conservative parties will also have 10 or so.]
PUP will be gone by then.
As for the rest, it’s tea leaf reading.
zoomster
Your whole denial is as much tea leaf reading as that of DTT.
We know pollls are saying Pyne is gone at the mext election.
We do not know if this will actually happen.
daretotread@60
Well, I for one won’t be around to castigate you when your prediction fails!
@zoomster/63
That is the weakest excuse I’ve seen yet, they should refuse.
At the moment the public does not trust Labor to stand up for principles. Part of the pox on both your houses.
Labor can only change that by taking the flak for standing against the government.
See reaction to Bill Shortens budget reply speech. Stand up be counted see polls go up. Pick your battles.
That means not caving on National Security. You can stand for a secure Australia while standing up for the values that Australians have in being a secular democracy.
guytaur
1. Pyne’s seat is not one dtt identified.
2. Pyne has been gone according to the polls for a couple of elections now.
3. dtt is not going by polling, which is my point.
guytaur
[That means not caving on National Security. You can stand for a secure Australia while standing up for the values that Australians have in being a secular democracy]
This is exactly what Labor IS saying.
Don
I will probably not be around either.
Zoomster
Grayndler and the seat of Sydney were very vulnerable to the Greens BUT while the Libs preference Labor ahead of the greens the chances are smaller. However a 30,30,30 10 split is very possible in these inner city seats and it will only take Greens to edge ahead slightly over labor for the seat to go Green. The same is true of Melbourne Ports, Batman,Freemantle, probably ACT seats and obviously Tasmanian seats.
Labor will also be cannibilised by redneck populist parties in its heartland.
zoid
Sorry, that’s the real world for you.
zoomster
You are going to make a killing on the betting market knowing the future like that
zoomster
Yes, it seems like every election we get talk of Pyne losing his seat. I’ll believe it when I see it!
zoomster
Not to the public perception they are not
@zoomster/70
That is not what they are saying, because they are bi-partian support to the liberals.
After a year of blaming the Labor Party, just like ASIO and ABC, they are now doing the dirty work for the libs.
@FarrellPF: Amazing – Scott Morrison calls press conference at parliament but gives no location. Guess it’s an on-water matter? http://t.co/6l3BxIzTnU
Zoomster
Actually I am going on polling. Take a good long look at those essential polls. Long term they are a bloody disaster for Labor. Also take a good look at the demographic of age related voting.
Labor MUST differentiate itself from the Liberals. Stand up and be counted. If it does not it will (has) lost the youth demographic. There are times to take a stand and be principled. Civil liberty attack is one such time.
[60
daretotread
Meher
I am as you know a member of the ALP but feel this year it has moved 5 more steps towards irrelevance. It will lose the inner city green vote such that Albo, Tanya P and probably both Canberra seats will be lost when there is next a change of personnel. Fremantle and Melissa Park’s seat will remain, but perhaps they will be independent labor or even join the Greens.]
Some have delusions of grandeur. Others fantasize about defeat.
dtt
What I’m saying is your basic premise is wrong.
The Green vote ‘grew’ between 2004 and 2010 by about 0.6%. There was then a jump of nearly 4% at the 2010 election, and a counter fall to 8.65% at the 2013 one.
If you draw a spiffy trend graph, basically the Greens vote has grown by less than 1% since 2007.
They’re not even polling, now, at the same rate they were in 2010.
To pick up seats, the Greens have to do one of two things – grow their overall vote dramatically (there are no signs that this is happening; there has always been the occasional ‘blip’ result in between election polling but it’s never replicated in actual results) or abandon the idea that they can represent the whole of Australia and concentrate their efforts in a handful of seats (which is exactly what the Nationals do).
If they did the latter, forgot about running campaigns in seats where they can only pick up a small percentage of votes, and concentrated all their efforts on a few inner city seats, they’d stand a good chance of gaining a handful of HoR seats.
This would, however, cruel their chances in the Senate – hard to get enough for a quota off a few seats in each state.
dtt
[Also take a good look at the demographic of age related voting.]
Yep. Spells disaster for the Liberals, great for Labor.
@Zoomster/81
You are delusional.
+50 Age group is not doom and gloom for liberals.
As a growing aging population, this is where Labor needs to focus.
[78
daretotread
…Take a good look…at the demographic of age related voting.]
At the moment, voting support for Labor is overwhelmingly derived from younger cohorts. If voting affiliation remains stable, then the trend will be for the LNP vote to decline/ Labor vote to increase as older voters pass away – the opposite of what you predict.
The LNP have found ways to make clear appeals to the boomer generation. Parties need to build their appeal to succeeding generations. This is true for all contestants. You see things very much through the lens of the 1960s and 1970s.
The future will be refracted through the experiences of this century, so before pronouncing on how younger people will or will not vote as they mature, form families, establish themselves and go through life, it would be a good idea to turn and listen to them.
I think that’s all pretty fair comment Meher 51 which I agree with. Decline of policy/ institutions disproportionately hurts labor though. Opposition ism to everything works at some level but you still need to pass a credibility test to form govt. it’s beazleyism circa 98 again ie a recipe for respectable failure if such a thing exists.
DTT is wrong!
The Greens will go the way of the Democrats and all the other fringe micro-parties that have preceded them.
Zoomster
First you need to look at trend lines over a longer period.
In 2010 the greens polled 19% in my seat. Sure it was “plague on both your houses stuff” but it still happened.
The Greens, unlike the democrats etc have a geographic base, which makes them stronger.
The trend line for the greens is still strongly upwards, despite decline in 2013
zoid
People don’t automatically stop voting Labor when they hit 55, you know.
What we have is a relatively conservative constituency, which have been conservative all of their lives, gradually dropping off the twig, whilst a relatively Labor voting constituency takes their place.
Poss did these numbers years ago.
It’s the Liberals who are in desperate need of renewal and reform, as their pathetic performance in government in all spheres is showing.
The Liberals aren’t electing MPs who are incompetent or corrupt because being Liberal means you’re necessarily either of these things, but because they can’t attract any other sort of candidate.
Basically, the gene pool for Liberal MPs at present is way too small. This may be age related – there may not be enough people in the Liberal party young enough to give them the range of choice needed – or success related – if you’re any good, you’re making too much money to want to be an MP – but either way, the signs aren’t good.
The WAs – one of the most powerful political arms of the Liberal party – were so desperate for talent that they stuck by Troy Buswell. Victoria has Napthine as Premier because he’s the best the Liberals can come up with.
I am always interested that political types will spend so much time and effort talking about how Labor needs to reform and ignore the obvious woes of the other major party.
@zoomster/87
What are you talking about? Who needs gene pool when you have Mining Council, BCA and groups like IPA to recruited from.
dtt
[In 2010 the greens polled 19% in my seat. Sure it was “plague on both your houses stuff” but it still happened.]
And how did they go in 2013?
2010 is looking increasingly like a blip. As I’ve said, the Greens are not polling at those levels now.
[The Greens, unlike the democrats etc have a geographic base, which makes them stronger.]
As I said, if they concentrated their efforts there, they’d have a chance, but that would be offset by loses in the Senate.
[The trend line for the greens is still strongly upwards, despite decline in 2013]
They still aren’t polling as well as they did in 2013. If you treat 2013 as a statistical blip, the Greens vote has grown by less than 1% since 2007 (as I’ve said).
If you take an (unjustifiable) punt and say the Greens will perform as well at the next election as they are polling at present (using Bludgertrack as a guide) they’ll have grown by less than 3% since 2007.
None of those figures are ‘sharply upwards’.
zoid
OK, name me some Liberal MPs who have come from those organisations.
@zoomster/90
Now your trying a gotchya.
Instead of focusing on the problems of the Labor Party.
The Greens aren’t going anywhere Bemused, because they now have a ‘natural’ constituency of highly educated, soy-latte-sippers such as myself. But nor are any of these fantasies that they’ll be the main opposition party in the foreseeable future likely to be even remotely correct.
lizzie
I think there is something Brandis can’t come out with.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scott-morrison-strikes-deal-with-clive-palmer-to-reintroduce-temporary-protection-visas-20140925-10lpui.html
Well well well!
MTBW@93
Ethics?
Payer One
That to! I should have put “come out” in italics.
Meanwhile, NZ is beating us on rolling out proper FTTP network:
http://www.zdnet.com/au/nzs-ultra-fast-broadband-fibre-rollout-beats-annual-target-7000033994/
“According to the government-owned Crown Fibre Holdings’ annual report (PDF), as of the end of June this year, the company had beat its target of 389,000 homes, apartment blocks, and businesses to be passed by the fibre network, with 420,000 premises passed representing a total 517,000 end users.”
We would have the same if Turnbull didn’t stall on the initial contracts around election time, and didn’t dismiss the rollout improvements via “Project Fox”.
Here’s the transcript of Wong’s interview this morning. As I thought, she didn’t say what was tweeted —
http://www.pennywong.com.au/transcripts/radio-national-breakfast-fran-kelly/
As an earlier poster reported, the legislation is going to Committee for discussion. That’s what Labor’s ‘waved through’ – they’ve agreed to the government’s timetable for the legislation, a world away from agreeing to the legislation itself.
ESJ@84: What Beazley did in 1998 – keep quiet about the issues that caused you to be voted out, maintain a small target stance, look cuddly and credible and keep the spotlight firmly on the Government’s failings – more or less to established the template for how Oppositions need to go about having a crack at getting back into government after one term in the wilderness. The only thing that kept him from victory was the neophyte effect in some key marginals. To have overcome that, he would have needed Howard to have made himself even more unpopular than he did.
I think Abbott/Credlin learnt a lot from it and put it to good effect in 2010, and almost won again (and would have if Abbott had had the wherewithal to put a supportable proposition to Windsor or Oakeshott: which was far more possible than anyone on the Liberal side of politics cares to contemplate).
Andrews seems to be using a similar strategy in Victoria right now.
I don’t think that there is anything Shorten can actually do to improve on the Beazley strategy. Come election time, either enough people will feel sufficiently angry with Abbott and co to vote them out or they won’t. I reckon the latter: the Libs will be able to go to town with ads featuring Gillard’s coup and “no carbon tax” and Rudd’s undermining and Shorten’s role in all of it. But, if there are too many more repeats of the embarrassing chaos we saw between May and July, then even these defences might be swept away and Shorten might triumph.
My problem with what Beazley did was not in terms of its short-term tactical effectiveness – which was terrific – but in terms of its long-term effect on Labor policy: particularly in terms of his backpedaling on the budget surpluses and free market reforms of Hawke-Keating. One can be very critical of Gillard on many fronts, but one thing she did do was to put an end to all that nonsense (which Rudd, to his discredit, had fired up again in his totally ludicrous article in The Monthly).
Shorten has been ok so far on that front. It’s the Labor Party reform agenda that’s gone begging under him. Latham is spot on about this, as he is on so many things.
I agree with zoomster in above discussion re Die Grunen. I’m in Tasmania where we’ve been having this same discussion about imminent Green takeover of opposition status since 1989 and it’s never happened; their vote is actually lower now than then. One reason it doesn’t happen is whenever it gets close to happening they start getting ahead of themselves and gloating about how smart they are and how great it’s going to be, and convince almost everyone that they are from the moon in the process.
Maybe it will happen eventually but on the basis of the level of learning required and the lack of progress in learning how to create broad appeal so far, I’d say much more than 20 years.
Young people who vote heavily Green don’t reliably keep doing so as they age.