The BludgerTrack poll aggregate continues to trend the Coalition’s way, to the extent that it reaches two milestones this week: parity with Labor on two-party preferred, and an absolute majority on the seat projection, albeit by the barest of margins. Three new polls were added to the national figures, those being Galaxy, the regular weekly Essential Research, and the fortnightly Morgan (fortnightly in the sense of publication, although the poll is conducted on a weekly basis). Also out this week was the Newspoll quarterly aggregates, which have been factored into the state breakdowns, along with the regular state breakdowns from Morgan (published) and Essential (unpublished). The combined effect is to add seat each to the Coalition tally in New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia, while removing one in Victoria and Tasmania.
The quarterly Newspoll is a big deal for BludgerTrack, which is never better serviced for state data than it is immediately after being fed with three months’ worth of state-level Newspoll results. To this end, later today I will get around to publishing my own detailed quarterly state breakdowns for BludgerTrack, the previous instalment of which can be seen here.
BludgerTrack is still in the position of being slightly more favourable to the Coalition than any single published poll result, due to a variety of factors. Perhaps this could be best explained if I run through each of the pollsters:
Nielsen of course closed up shop a few months ago, which was significant in that BludgerTrack deemed it to be the most Coalition-friendly pollster, and the only one which adjusted for any substantial bias to that effect. Now that it’s gone, the model has a clear tendency to skew to the right of what a straight polling average would tell you.
Newspoll is rated as neutral by the model, but it hasn’t reported for a fortnight. When it did report, it gave Labor a 51-49 lead when the primary vote numbers looked a lot more like 50-50. It’s the primary votes that BludgerTrack goes off, so this was a 50-50 poll as far as the model was concerned. Clearly Labor got rounded up in the Newspoll result – it follows that they also got rounded down in BludgerTrack.
Galaxy is taken very seriously by BludgerTrack, and receives next to no bias adjustment at all. This week it gave Labor a lead of 51-49, although putting its rounded primary votes into the model produces a result of 50.6-49.4 going off 2013 preferences (as BludgerTrack does). If not for this poll, the Coalition would have moved into the lead.
ReachTEL’s last poll a fortnight ago had Labor leading 51-49, and BludgerTrack adjusts this pollster slightly in favour of the Coalition.
Morgan is reckoned to have the biggest bias in the game, that being in favour of Labor. Its result on respondent-allocated preferences this week was 51.5-48.5 in favour of Labor, but the more telling point so far as BludgerTrack is concerned is that it was the Coalition’s best result since February.
Essential is noted for being slow to respond to changes, and for this reason, BludgerTrack treats its bias in a unique way, by dynamically adjusting it according to how its deviates from the model over time. Since it’s stayed stuck with Labor on the cusp of leading 52-48 or 53-47, while the other pollsters have moved to the Coalition, a Labor bias adjustment is increasingly being factored into its results.
The other development in BludgerTrack this week is that Morgan published a set of phone poll numbers on leadership ratings, and they were relatively very rosy for Tony Abbott, who wasn’t too far off parity on net approval and had a pretty solid lead on preferred prime minister. This has a pretty sharp effect on the BludgerTrack leadership ratings, which aren’t exactly spoiled for data and are always pretty sensitive to the most recent result, even if the poll in question was from a rather small sample, as was the case here.
UPDATE: As promised, here are the detailed state-level breakdowns featuring primary vote numbers and charts tracking the progress of the primary and two-party votes in each state. Crikey subscribers may enjoy my analysis of these results in today’s email, assuming it gets published.
I also promised two weeks ago that I was going to start tracking betting odds in these mid-week BludgerTrack posts, then forgot about it last week. Now that I’ve remembered again, I can inform you that there has been movement to the Coalition over the part fortnight in Centrebet’s federal election odds, with the Coalition in from $1.50 to $1.45 and Labor out from $2.55 to $2.70. Centrebet’s price on Campbell Newman being re-elected in Queensland has also shortened from $1.36 to $1.28, with Labor out from $3.15 to $3.65. There has been a very slight move to Labor for the Victorian election, with Labor in from $1.23 to $1.22 and the Coalition out from $4.00 and $4.10 – which sounds a bit generous to Labor for mine. The Betfair market evidently thinks so, as it has the Coalition in from $4.10 to $3.40 and Labor out from $1.48 to $1.59.
RT…Russia’s Fox?
[RT (an initialism for its former name “Russia Today”) is a Russian-based international cable and satellite television channel that is owned by ANO TV-Novosti. The channel, which is headquartered in Moscow, presents round-the-clock news bulletins, documentaries, talk shows and debates, as well as sports news and cultural programs on Russia aimed at the overseas news market.
RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in three languages; the original English language channel was launched in 2005. The Arabic language Rusiya Al-Yaum was launched in 2007, while its Spanish language channel RT Actualidad was launched in 2009. Since 2010, RT America, which focuses on the United States, has been based in Washington, D.C. It has been heavily criticized for propaganda.
The creation of Russia Today was a part of a larger public relations effort by the Russian government that was intended to improve the image of Russia abroad. RT was conceived by former media minister Mikhail Lesin, and Russian president Vladimir Putin’s press spokesperson Aleksei Gromov.]
But Shorten did just that earlier on, locking onto ETS, and rightfully so, I believe. I think this is all just terminology.
[943
Raaraa
So when Bill Shorten refers to Carbon Pricing, does he mean ETS? I thought this was Labor’s direction since the last election, and pretty much many of the major players in the global solution.]
Which is why Labor should stick to it. We will end up having to fit in with whatever scheme the rest of the world decides on. Domestic political and economic prizes will favour those who correctly predict and prepare for the general form of that global scheme.
Nicholas
It’s just a replay. Labor’s policy is a emission trading scheme. Abbott destroyed an emission trading scheme, not a carbon tax.
Abbott’s miss-use of words is the issue.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ron-tandberg-inducted-into-melbourne-press-clubs-hall-of-fame-20141009-113o97.html
I wonder if BK or anybody else highlighted this earlier.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29571958
[MPs are to take part in an historic vote in Parliament that will call on the government to recognise Palestine as a state.
Labour backbencher Grahame Morris will present the motion on Monday as MPs return to the Commons.
The motion has the full backing of the Labour shadow cabinet, the BBC has been told.
The vote is symbolic and would not change government policy but could have international implications.
Current government policy, as set out by former foreign secretary William Hague, is that the UK “reserves the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace”.]
Raaraa
Shorten did so in the context of replacing the carbon tax. But now we don’t have either a carbon tax or an ETS, and there’s at least another two years until we even have a chance at some sort of carbon pricing.
If the decision had to be made tomorrow, Labor would thus go with an ETS. At present, however, a commitment to carbon pricing is the only sensible option.
briefly@940
Luv’d that post 😉
Just to illustrate how ‘old’ this ‘news’ is, Shorten pledged Labor to price carbon back in July –
http://www.news.com.au/national/carbon-tax-gone-but-labor-leader-bill-shorten-vows-to-revive-it/story-fncynjr2-1226992713084
Why him saying exactly the same thing he said in July (and every month previously) is a revelation to the journalists who wrote today’s pieces is the real mystery.
But note the careful language – back in July, and in multiple articles today, Shorten has been careful to refer to ‘carbon pricing’ not an ETS.
Briefly 956 re UK Labour’s policy on recognition of the Palestinian state
__________
Interesting …as it follows the new left-of-centre Swedish Govt decision to recognise Palestine and support its’ membership in the UN G.Assembly
Given Bishop’s closeness to the zionist here it will be a while before we see any moves like that here…where both parties are wedded to a 1970ies view of Israel..and have little sympathy for the Palestinian cause…in which they lag far behind a changing world opinion
[Labour backbencher Grahame Morris]
*Slow blinks*
http://www.bartondeakin.com/barton-deakins-people/grahame-morris/
😮
😆
frednk@954
No, Abbott being a lying two-faced deceitful piece of goanna crap is the issue,
[958
mikehilliard]
Fashion-sense 🙂
I heard Abbott on the radio this arfo screaming about Labor doing a reintroduction of the CardTax. He sounded either:
1/. Very excited to have a 2016 election issue to rant on about.
2/. Seriously freaked out that Shorten had called his bluff on doing something.
I believe the Carbon Pricing to be a very general term. In the traditional cap & trade ETS, market forces will ensure that carbon will have a price.
[961
confessions]
So reptilian!
[
Puff, the Magic Dragon.
Posted Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
frednk@954
Nicholas
It’s just a replay. Labor’s policy is a emission trading scheme. Abbott destroyed an emission trading scheme, not a carbon tax.
Abbott’s miss-use of words is the issue.
No, Abbott being a lying two-faced deceitful piece of goanna crap is the issue,
]
And Rudd’s misuse of words?
Sadly the one thing we can be sure of is that Abbott and the incompetent joke Libs will continue to stuff stuff up
[
Raaraa
Posted Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 10:23 pm | Permalink
I believe the Carbon Pricing to be a very general term. In the traditional cap & trade ETS, market forces will ensure that carbon will have a price.
]
Exactly.
briefly:
Sorry.
Still, I would pay money to see our own Grahame Morris calling on the current govt to recognise Palestine as a state.
😀
[970
confessions
briefly:
Sorry.
Still, I would pay money to see our own Grahame Morris calling on the current govt to recognise Palestine as a state.]
I would join the queue too!
Frednk,
[And Rudd’s misuse of words?]
You are being very norty.
Do you want to start off another round of apostrophe wars?
[
Puff, the Magic Dragon.
Posted Saturday, October 11, 2014 at 10:38 pm | Permalink
Frednk,
And Rudd’s misuse of words?
You are being very norty.
Do you want to start off another round of apostrophe wars?
]
No. Let the question hang.
I agree that it’s a bit dumb for Shorten to say “No Carbon Tax” because it distances himself from a policy that was close to what the future policy will be, and was actually quite successful. For base political reasons, Shorten should his hand up about the process, and pledge to ‘seek permission not forgiveness’ but shouldn’t walk away from the policy.
Of course he is probably trying not to; he seems to be trying to be to clever and reset the definitional debate. Good luck with that.
I think he should be: I don’t care about what you call it, I know that those people interested in blocking any action will call anything we do a Tax. I am interested in talking about the policy: how we can best manage the risks that climate change poses for our grandkids tomorrow without slugging their grandparents for it today.
If it was Rudd who misused the words, does he own the misuse or is the words that Rudd misused becomes Rudd’s missused words, passing the possessive from the misuse to the words with misuse becoming the adjective?
That was Frednk’s fault.
Frednk
That is a bit harsh, even for Rudd.
As ISIS keeps on its winning ways… How safe is commercial flying going to be
“Islamic State’s offensive on the Iraqi capital intensified as the jihadist fighters advanced as far as Abu Ghraib, a suburb only 8 miles away from Baghdad’s international airport……..
There are reports by the Iraqi military that the militants are in possession of MANPAD anti-aircraft missiles. The short-range, shoulder-fired missiles can shoot down airplanes within a range of 15,000 feet.”
Maybe Qantas can MANPAD proof their aircraft
MartinB
I think it would be stupid of Shorten to support something Labor said it was axing at the last election and which would not exist (regardless of who was in government) at the next election anyway.
Labor’s consistent policy has been to price carbon, preferably with an ETS. That’s what they should stick to.
…if, by some miracle of the electoral system, the Greens had won in 2013, we STILL wouldn’t have a ‘carbon tax’ at the next election…
Was it Bushfire who was speculating when the Daily Tel would conflate ISIS and Ebola….?
Theyve been scooped by CNN…
@thei100: Six signs the US media can’t cope with the Ebola story http://t.co/EIeQbk8wNe http://t.co/P2XZi9OGjK
[Maybe Qantas can MANPAD proof their aircraft]
Not necessary. If Alan Joyce remains as CEO, Qantas won’t be flying anywhere in the not too distant future.
Carbon Trading, It’s like there’s this big foux du fafa
(lol) argument about what the Greens voted against years ago when they went with the Libs. They’re going with the Libs again now. Whats the argument?
Let me go on record here as saying that a carbon tax is a lot better idea than an ETS.
With a CT, polluters pay for the shit they dump into the air, water and land.
An ETS allows the “market” to determine the price of this damage. Can we really trust the “market” to do that. Also, with the GFC still in peoples memories, do we really need another lot of financial derivatives blowing up again (as they always do)?
Of course, that’s just my opinion, for what its worth.
If the Boats were still coming the Telecrap would have screaming headlines saying that asylum seekers might be carrying Ebola.
Shorten ‘distancing’ Labor from a ‘carbon tax’ is all about the atmospherics of drawing a line under previous Labor govts while at the same time committing the party to carbon pricing.
At the end of the day only one major party supports meaningful and substantive action to address AGW.
The ETS is supposed to work with a cap (as in cap and trade), otherwise it would have been useless. The CT led up to it with initially free permits which would later end free polluting when companies have to trade with one another for the right to produce CO2.
[ If the Boats were still coming the Telecrap would have screaming headlines saying that asylum seekers might be carrying Ebola. ]
or 457 Visas
[Maybe Qantas can MANPAD proof their aircraft]
QANTAS aircraft don’t fly at anything like 15,000 feet anywhere near Baghdad.
An ETS: trading in an invisible substance (and idiot Abbott also thinks it’s weightless). A bit like the Futures market.
Dan Gulberry:
Conversely, under an ETS we determine an upper bound on the amount of pollution we are prepared to accept, and won’t go over that.
Whereas under a Carbon Tax, the amount of pollution is produced is not bounded.
caf
With a CT, the more pollution created, the more is paid in tax by the polluters. That forces them to reduce the amount of pollution they create to remain competitive. Either that or just go out of business altogether. A true market mechanism.
If the money that is raised by the CT gets reinvested in “clean” industries, that’s a double whammy. It “incentivises” the polluters to become cleaner with a carrot and a stick.
Become clean, you get carrots, stay dirty, you get the stick.
Over time increase the size of both carrots and sticks and hey presto – a clean future.
The example in 991 is very simple to understand.
Introduce a set of derivatives that the average guy/gal doesn’t understand will lead to the “market” figuring out a way for those whose only motivation is profit to manipulate the system to the detriment of everything and everybody.
It’s happened before, it will happen again.
caf 990
It’s a bit like “it’s ok to keep polluting if you just pay this tax”.
raaraa
Knowing how much corporates hate paying tax, they’ll soon learn that “business as usual” is not an option.
Shareholders will demand action after they see how much their profits are being eroded by tax as well, or just dump their holdings and switch it into cleaner companies.
The “market” in action.
No need for dodgy derivatives at all.
You’d think the Greens would be completely scathing of Abott after his hilarious ‘world should join Australia against carbon pricing’ plea, but no,
Also, if the polluters try and pass on the cost of the tax to consumers, consumers will switch to cleaner (ie cheaper) companies.
Once again, the market in action with no need for dodgy derivatives.
[I think it would be stupid of Shorten to support something Labor said it was axing at the last election and which would not exist (regardless of who was in government) at the next election anyway.]
I understand that Tax ≡Fixed price component; I have been outraged in here about how Gillard’s words were misrepresented.
But they were and it stuck. The popular perception of CT is not centred on the fixed-price aspect; journalists don’t bother to worry about such nuances; IPAbots will certainly label anything they don’t like a tax irrespective of economic subtleties.
What will be different about the architecture taken to the election than the fixed-price component? Anything at all significant? If the fixed-price component is the only real change, and you want to base on that an argument that that makes all the difference about it being not a CT, then, as I said, good luck. I know you’re right and I hope you succeed. I don’t think it’s a very promising position.
It was a good successful policy that much of the world looked to, evidence shows that.
It will be a good successful policy that most of the world has moved to.
That should be the talking point. Fk ruling things in or out based on the wordgames.
paaptsef
Why should they? The rest of the world has already let him know how out of step he his.
Never interrupt your enemy while he’s shooting himself in the foot.
It’s not about “dodgy derivatives”.
It’s saying “We are prepared to allow the emission of X million tons of CO2.”, then auctioning off the rights to do that to those that are willing to pay the most. If any business can’t afford to pay for their emissions, then that means that either they’ve found a way of avoiding the emissions that is cheaper than the going rate of permits, or that their product simply isn’t viable without the hidden subsidy of uncharged emissions.
[ Never interrupt your enemy while he’s shooting himself in the foot. ]
Just volunteer your support (lol)