A tale of four pollsters:
Newspoll
GhostWhoVotes relates the first Newspoll in four weeks has delivered Labor its best poll result in some time, with a two-party lead of 53-47 that compares with 51-49 last time. The Coalition is off three points on the primary vote to 38%, but the direct beneficiaries are the Greens, up three to 14%, with Labor steady on 34%. Tony Abbott is down three on approval to 38% and up one on disapproval to 53%, but Bill Shorten’s numbers have also declined – his approval is down three to 35%, and disapproval up three to a new high of 46%. On preferred prime minister, Shorten closes the gap from 41-37 to 39-38.
The poll also has 63% saying Tony Abbott should “confront” (not “shirt-front”) Vladimir Putin over MH17, against 27% who don’t.
Morgan
This fortnight’s result from Morgan, encompassing 3131 respondents from its last two weekends of face-to-face and SMS polling, is little changed on last fortnight, which was the Coalition’s best result from this series since February. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down half a point to 39.5%, Labor is up half a point to 35.5%, and the Greens and Palmer United are unchanged on 12% and 3.5% respectively. On two-party preferred as measured using preference flows from the 2013 election, the Labor lead increases just slightly from 51.5-48.5 to 52-48. On respondent-allocated preferences it goes the other way, down from 53-47 to 52-48, minor party preferences evidently having been a little more favourable to the Coalition this time out. Keen poll watchers will be aware that Morgan has lately taken to including two-party preferred breakdowns by age. These results appear to indicate that Morgan’s noted Labor skew is being driven by the younger respondents. I mean to get around to taking a closer look at that some time.
Fairfax Ipsos
The big news in polldom this week is that Fairfax has announced Ipsos, a major international market research concern whose local operation Iview has done some scattered online polling around the place this year, will fill the void created by Nielsen’s shutdown earlier in the year. Best of all, it will replicate Nielsen’s methods in conducting live interview phone polling from 1400 respondents each month. State polling will also be conducted, starting with a Victorian poll which we can expect very shortly.
Essential Research
It will, as always, publish its weekly result at around 2pm EST. Watch this space.
UPDATE: Essential concurs with Newspoll in having Labor’s lead at 53-47, which is up from 52-47 last time, although the primary vote numbers suggests there’s not much in the shift: the Coalition is down a point to 40% and everyone else is steady, Labor on 39%, the Greens on 10% and Palmer United on 3%. Some indication as to why the Coalition is in this position is provided by a further question on perceptions of economic indicators, with very large majorities finding everything has gotten worse except for “company profits”. Forty-four per cent think their own financial situation is worse versus 16% for better, and the economy overall fares similarly. Other findings are that 66% favour voluntary euthanasia with 14% opposed, and 58% believing Australia is doing enough to fight Ebola versus 21% for not enough.
RUDD put a lot of political capital into Copenhagen and backed a loser. The change in OL was just a minor irritation.
mikehilliard
I think ABS said that the price fall was so small as to be insignificant. Depends which ‘expert’ you listen to.
In any case.
There was a carbon price.
There was compensation.
Emissions fell.
So behaviour changed, even if you admit to not understanding how.
Emissions have been falling because demand has been falling post-GFC in most world economies.
bemused
yes, I got my Roman Emperors mixed up there! (Tsk…)
My last word on the Greens’ tribute to Gough: I find this whole argument very tacky. The only beneficiaries are the the right wingers who are working assuduously to tear what’s left of Gough Whitlam’s legacy.
Davidwh
[RUDD put a lot of political capital into Copenhagen and backed a loser. The change in OL was just a minor irritation.]
i’ve never liked this use of the term ‘capital’. I know it is common, but it seems to me that ‘goodwill’ would be a better term for what you probably intend.
[E/1047]
The main (and intended) effects of the carbon price were to shift electricity generation away from high-pollution fuels to low-pollution fuels; and to drive capital into less-polluting power generation technologies. It was doing these things very effectively at little or no cost to consumers and no cost to jobs.
It is precisely because it worked so well that the LNP want to destroy it. They loathe the very idea that we could be smart enough to improve our common economic destiny. They want to uproot this incredibly dangerous idea and exterminate it.
And your claim is the carbon price has nothing to do with it?
briefly
Another lovely piece of whimsical writing. Well done!
Nicholas
[The government could have created one by putting its legislation to the House and Senate in July 2008 and repeating the process three months later!]
1. The government didn’t have any legislation to put to the House and the Senate.
2. There was no reason to believe (and if there was, I’d be fascinated to see the information) that the Liberals would walk away from their own policy.
3. In the context of the time, not the musings of hindsight (in which case, I raise “if the Greens had voted with the government when the two Liberals crossed the floor…”) there was no particular reason for haste, and every reason to try and get a bipartisan policy up which the Liberals would thus not walk away from in the future.
[3. Compensated folk for the increased prices
4. Thereby not affecting energy usage]
That’s quite wrong as far as conventional economics go. The incentive to save through the price signal remains whether there is no compensation, part compensation or full compensation. People are on average no worse off financially but they have an incentive to reduce power. (There’s alao the other point about the price signal is that it has effect all through the process and doesn’t rely wholly on producing pain at the end user point.)
The fall in energy demand happened in economies where there was no carbon price or where the market price had fallen heavily. I think the fall in demand was more down to the economic downturn caused by the GFC.
Right, so you’re starting and ending with your conclusion.
If that works for you, that works for you.
lizzie
If you look at the figure ABS CPI its up 2.3% since Sept 2013 with a 3.5% increase in the cost of food. We can all turn the odd light off or not run the A/C, missing a meal is another matter altogether.
Fran I think capital gives the meaning more substance than using goodwill. However either word explains the assertion of my post.
I favour an immediate move to optional preferential voting for federal elections. The voter should have maximum power over how they express their view. They shouldn’t be forced to manufacture a view they don’t really hold.
In the long term I’d like a unicameral national legislature elected by a proportional voting system.
DN I thought that was standard MO here.
I see that Lambie has jumped the shark and nominated Ebola infected suicide bombers as an existential threat to our civilization.
Ms Lambie ignores the practicalities:
(1) Ebola victims are only infectious for around four days. After that they are dead or start getting better.
(2) There is no evidence that ISIL has the medical infrastsructure to monitor Ebola patients and then keep them alive for long enough to blow themselves up.
(3) Why would ISIL people want to hang around highly-infectious Ebola victims?
(4) Would the Ebola virus survive the extreme heat generated by suicide bombers?
Lambie is a Tasmanian disgrace.
To add to my point above @1065 the OZ has totally cherry picked the electricity price fall from the ABS stats. Lazy journalism.
Do we have an economist in the Bludger House?
Is Australia deflating?
[ Oh, the slings and arrows, Fran. Labor are the whipping boy in our politics. It doesn’t seem to matter what wrong has been done, and whether real or imagined, someone will offer Labor a hiding proper, and for their own good too. ]
Yep.
On the other hand we have the green loons – the all knowing always correct virtuous eunuchs.
and …Irrelevant without a balance of power situation.
Not yet BW.
Everything@1047
1. correct
2. correct
3. FALSE – compensation was paid in ways not connected with electricity prices.
4. FALSE – electricity usage went down.
5. STUPIDITY
6. FALSE & STUPIDITY – modest revenue to the govt but largely cancelled out by compensation. Not a revenue raising measure.
7. FALSE & STUPIDITY
8. correct as fully compensated.
So 3 out of 8 correct. Better than your normal score.
I meant that Whitlam and Fraser moved beyond the party political vitriol that they had engaged in in the past. As one who has canvassed and letter boxed for both Labor and the Greens, I find the Green vs Labor sniping tiresome as I have friends in both camps and find we have more in common than LNP followers.
dwh
I note that trend inflation is falling…
My follow up question, should an economic cognoscenti admit same, was this:
How can COL be going up when inflation is falling?
zoomster@1055
See, being older than you, I had the benefit of a proper education including the classics. 😉
can anyone please explain to me what has happened in the HofR the last hour or so and what is happening right now.
Madame Speaker is making a lot of noise.
Thanks in advance
Davidwh
[The fall in energy demand happened in economies where there was no carbon price or where the market price had fallen heavily. I think the fall in demand was more down to the economic downturn caused by the GFC.]
It’s true that emissions had fallen, but it’s not too hard to match a bigger decrease following the ETS. As the ETS and the GFC were many years apart.
I want Labor to do well, and in order for that to happen the party needs to heed the constructive criticisms of John Faulkner, a giant of the party and probably the greatest parliamentarian in Australia today.
I welcome constructive criticism of the Greens. How can any party enlarge its influence without learning from experience? We need our party to be a learning organization. I think that of all the parties in Australia, the Greens have the best feedback system for promoting learning and improvement. It truly is a member-driven party.
[1060
Fran Barlow]
You are a supple reviewer, and a subtle one too…. 🙂
Ms Bishop is needed back at her day job.
7.30 report doing the Wonderlich Asbestos factory’s (long since closed) continuing impact on Sunshine residents.
Someone has to step in and defend the spivs.
Many of you posters from the Green side remind me why I am still in the ALP not in the Greens.
The very idea that Rudd should have gone for a Double dissolution in 2008 is whacky. Not only was there barely a trigger – you first need the legislation which needed at least 9 months to develop, then it needs 6 months to pass through parliament twice to be rejected. the absolute earliest a DD could have been held would have been March April 2009.
Now in case you have not forgotten there was a trivial little matter of a GFC. Also there was the Copenhagen conference coming which Rudd would until about August 2009 have expected to go well for Australia and Climate Change. If Rudd had been stupid enough to go for a DD before Copenhagen he would have been a twat.
So Greens pick on him (and the Cabinet) for poor handling in February 2010. But please do not give us rot about DD in 2008 or 2009.
Now I am not sure why there was such enmity between Rudd and the Greens, although if Bemused, Zoomster, Darren et al are followed then it is clear there is a deep visceral hatred from many ALP members and I assume Rudd shared that. This was very unfortunate because ALP did not need a hostile senate. Mind you it takes two to tango in a hate fest and Bob brown and Milne must share a lot of the blame.
I also think in Nicholas’ case people are confusing defending the Greens, with attacking Labor. The argument started with an attack from Labor.
Erasmus
Oh, I’m sure that many of us who have a good stoush here now will, in our twilight years, be more like Fraser and Gough.
(I’d go further, and suggest that if we had a get together, most of us would get along just fine. After all, I have close friends in all parties and we have no problems, even when discussing politics).
Nicholas is probably just getting his dates wrong… It was 2010 that there was an opportunity for the DD.
Just as Labor is unlikely to win Greens supporters over without appealing to the things they want, the Greens are unlikely to win Labor supporters over without appealing to those things they want.
That must be a depressing thought for the Greens, given what a depressing bunch Labor supporters are ;).
OK, some calcs.
We pay about $500 per 1/4 electricity.
We spend $6,500 per 1/4 on food.
Thus according to the ABS figures:
Saving on electricity 5.1% = $25.50
Extra cost in food %3.5 = 227.50
Thanks Hunt. 😛
The Coalition has been in government for a year. In that time it has dismantled as much Global Warming action as possible. It has white-anted renewables investment such that it has dropped by 70%.
Has one iota of Direct Action happened?
dtt
I don’t hate the Greens. Far from it. I work very closely with them in this electorate (I got a rock star welcome when I gatecrashed a Green fundraiser, Christmas cards from a former Greens candidate, and always get a good hug from another).
Just as Greens here say they are expressing their disappointment with Labor, because they beleive Labor could be better, I express my disappointment with the Greens, for the same reasons.
I am very frustrated when I find myself fighting environmental battles in the community and there’s no support for these (not so much as a letter to the editor) from the local Greens.
Just as Greens supporters here say they want Labor to be their best selves (but interpret that as being more like the Greens, which I disagree with) I want the Greens to do their job properly, too.
I’ll also point out that when Rudd was riding high, and people were gloating about it (I did, a little, too) I argued that a good Opposition is necessary to good government, and a poorly performing Liberal party wasn’t necessarily something to be celebrated.
Boerwar, I’m sure someone here on PB planted something recently.
[Everything@1047
….
8. Have no effect on struggling families]
[bemused:
….
8. correct as fully compensated.
So 3 out of 8 correct. Better than your normal score.]
Are you suggesting Rudd was a liar when he said the carbon tax was an impost on struggling families and that was why he was going to “Axe the Tax”?
Rudd…..a liar? No, tell me it aint so…..
However you look at it, Rudd was being cheeky in one way or another.
bemused
alas, all I can plead is a momentary lapse of memory, which happens even to those classically educated.
As Roman History was one of my subjects at Uni, it’s not as if I didn’t know the difference between the two gentlemen.
[The boss of the corporate regulator says Australia is too soft on corporate criminals and increased civil penalties including more jail terms are needed.]
[The Australian Securities and Investments Commission chairman, Greg Medcraft, told journalists at a Walkley Foundation function that “Australia is a paradise for white collar crime.”]
[“[In] most countries the penalties are two to three times the amount gained or lost,” he told the function.]
[“Often [in] Australia it’s actually worthwhile breaking the law to do the trade. You can’t have that.”]
I like it!
The carbon price was always meant to use the market to drive behavioural change and innovation.
So yes if you didn’t or couldn’t innovate and you were too lazy to change behaviours you paid.
It was amazingly successful given it wasn’t in place long enough to drive really significant change.
But then the dishonest deniers would deny it was working even when it does.
Some clowns complained that the price falling through the floor in Europe because of the GFC was a sign it didn’t work and now I see other clowns are saying it didn’t work because the GFC did all the work. Unbelievable.
Astro
[Nicholas is probably just getting his dates wrong…]
No, because he is arguing Rudd should have gone for a DD while Turnbull was Liberal leader.
[1080
Nicholas
I want Labor to do well…]
No you don’t. You take pleasure in their stumbles and go looking for them. Being possessed of two equal legs and a matching set of feet, well, you are very fine and straight. Quite the image of the bipedal being. An excellent specimen of the vertical property combined with the ambulatory. You are, in fact, a pedestrian among the halt and the lame, and are therefore a champion of the footpath.
I also challenge the short term view that Copenhagen was a failure – it just didn’t achieve an instant outcome – and it needed more not less Rudds.
But now we have the situation most countries are moving in the right direction towards carbon prices. Many us states China etc etc. what we are doing is particularly stupid and based largely on lies.
A different poster argued there should have been a DD in late 2008. Personally I think that mid 2009 would have been better, in order to allow more time to develop the legislative language.
There would have been nothing twattish about having a DD before Copenhagen. Labor would have been highly likely to retain government and to face a more favourable Senate. Then the ETS could have been passed and Kevin Rudd could have gone to Copenhagen a hero.
The government’s excellent response to the Global Financial Crisis was already in hand by mid 2009. It would have been possible to shift the focus on the ETS – in fact, it would have been in the government’s own interests to deliver its central domestic policy promise as quickly as possible. Gambling on Copenhagen producing a strong international agreement which would somehow make conservatives in Australia more likely to vote for the ETS was a very risky and weird play. The United States, the EU, Japan, China, India, Brazil all agreeing on big and binding reductions in carbon emissions? A lot of moving parts there – more than an election in Australia. Hoping that Australian conservatives would have so chastened by an international deal that they would vote for an ETS? The link between international and domestic politics is not so straightforward. Kevin Rudd’s faith in Copenhagen was much more risky than a double dissolution election when the government was miles ahead of the Opposition on voting intention and the Prime Minister was the most consistently popular Prime Minister in the history of Newspoll.
I think Rudd made the wrong call because he was risk-averse about making a complex argument in an election campaign, and his love of diplomacy lured him into betting the farm on Copenhagen.