A solid move on BludgerTrack this week, as the Labor primary vote spikes 0.9% at the expense of the Coalition and “others”. This translates to a 0.7% lift on two-party preferred and a gain of three on the seat projection, including one each from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, counterbalanced by a loss in Queensland (NOTE: This post originally gave Labor an extra 0.4% two-party preferred as well as an extra seat; this was based on an error which has now been fixed). Picking that apart:
• The model does not presently grant any weight to Ipsos, except in calculating the state totals and the leadership ratings, as it’s only with the publication of a second result that the model will have something to benchmark it against. This has the unfortunate effect of depriving the current BludgerTrack reading of what’s probably a strong result for the Coalition, perhaps causing it to lean a little more Labor than it should. That’s unless a Coalition lean proves to be a consistent feature of Ipsos, in which case it will be bias-adjusted accordingly. However, this certainly wasn’t evident in its Victorian state poll.
• Poll watchers have been looking askance at Newspoll’s two-party numbers recently, which have consistently been putting Labor a percentage point ahead of what the primary vote numbers would lead you to expect. Since BludgerTrack dispenses with pollsters’ two-party preferred calculations and determines its own after generating the primary vote numbers, Labor’s strong Newspoll showing has been making a less of an impression than some might expect.
• Morgan reverted to type in its latest fortnightly result after successive polls showed the Coalition in its strongest position since February, producing strong Coalition data points after the bias adjustment was applied. This time out, it’s back in the middle somewhere. A re-evaluation of Morgan’s performance this term caused me to very slightly amend its bias adjustment about 0.2% to Labor’s advantage.
• Essential Research has been a little counter-cyclical, nudging Labor downwards slightly where elsewhere they have edged up. Its bias adjustments, which had been factoring in a lean to Labor, are progressively moderating to accommodate the trend.
Ipsos provides a welcome new addition to the leadership ratings game, and early indications are that it has inherited Nielsen’s peculiarly low uncommitted ratings. The BludgerTrack aggregates eliminate such distinctions, and Ipsos combined with the Newspoll result causes Tony Abbott’s preferred prime minister lead to all but disappear, down from 3.1% to 0.7%. Abbott is also down 1.8% on net approval to minus 12.2%, while Bill Shorten is unchanged at minus 4.7%.
guytaur
different situations. There’s a difference between directing preferences via the Senate ticket system and determining them for every single Lower House seat.
Surely even the most rusted on Green can envisage a situation where an independent candidate is more in tune with Labor policies than the Greens one (and vice versa).
Both the Greens and Labor in Indi, for example, preferenced Cathy McGowan over each other, because getting rid of Mirabella was the priority.
I ignore how to vote cards for the lower house, other than to use as a guide to where the independent / micro party candidates stand, so I can number the candidates in my actual preferred order. In the Upper House in NSW I have a choice of voting above the line or numbering 100+ candidates, so the last few times I’ve taken the easy option.
zoomster@449
Yes, I thought the Greens were too ‘pure’ to deal. 👿
zoomster
Good spin. However all I and the rest of the public know is Labor is saying no deal to the Greens. Andrews has also apparently said the same about balance of power and minority government.
He is going to look very stupid if he has to decide deal with the Greens or go to an election or have a coalition with the LNP.
Stick with like minded parties to do less damage to your own cedibility in future helps a lot. Gillard did well because she had not ruled out dealing with the Greens so the LNP attack on that front lacked bite.
Steve777@452
If you vote Labor, that is largely symbolic as preferences are never counted except in very rare such as Indi in 2013.
Lower house HTV orders should be irrelevant, and the Greens would be very hypocritical to complain about anything to do with Labor HTVs there – the Greens say every election that voters should make up their own minds and direct their own preferences, so HTVs should be irrelevant, right?
Group voting ticket preferences are another matter, and if the ALP preference anyone with any chance of winning above the Greens in their preferencing (as they did with Fielding and Day and I’m sure other cases in State elections) then they have rocks in their heads. And those cases indicate that the ALP brains trust is quite poor at working out who might get elected vs who definitely won’t. Be conservative and assume the worst.
Group voting ticket preferencing needs to go. And soon. The Feds, cross fingers, will do so sometime before the next Federal election. It’s already gone at the State level in NSW and hooray for that.
guytaur@454
Andrews quite rightly doesn’t want to lose votes by being seen as too close to LOONs.
[ That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face ]
Who cares what the LOONS say.
Oh good, the greens have taken a break from attacking Labor to whinge about Labor not kowtowing to them
Labor is playing a very foolish game in inner city electorates with large populations revolted by asylum seeker policies.
Liberals have flogged as much of the silver as they can going into caretaker mode –
– blocking tower block to be developed by CFMEU
– rerouting proposed train line wrecking planning already done
– leasing out National Parks to resorts – Kennett tried this
The election is for the ALP to win but it will throw its chance away alienating the electorate with stupid preference deals
Labor doesn’t realise that the voters that got Whitlam over the line are progressive voters who won’t blindly toe-the-line because an authority figure like the local priest tells them to.
Didn’t Bob Brown reject the very notion of preference deals ..or is my memory playing tricks on me?
paaptsef@459
I do love the sound of Greens squealing… 😆
bemused
No you are the Loon for denyiny reality. Its possible Andrews could find himself in the same situation as Gillard and needing Greens support to govern.
Saying you are reasonable and adult and will work with the reults voters deliver is not being close to the Greens
dave
You should care about Labor policies and values. You should care about less votes to the right wing.
The more votes to the socially conservative the economy rules the less Labor’s agenda gets done
guytaur@463
Andrews has learnt the lessons of the Gillard Govt and has ruled out any chance of a Greens supported minority Govt.
It’s a new ball game sonny.
So at exactly what primary vote should Labor stop trying to get Labor members elected to the Upper House and prioritize where to put their extra votes?
guytaur@464
You are slipping into incoherence.
Have a cup of tea, a bex and a good lie down before resuming.
Re Bemused @455: I agree, especially given that I live in the North Sydney electorate. However I number the sqares, Joe Hockey always wins.
Mind you, in 1987 an independent (Ted Mack) managed to oust some sitting Liberal nonentity and served two terms as member for North Sydney. I would consider strategically voting for an acceptable independent (a la Oakschott / Windsor / Mack) if I thought they had a chance of ousting Joe.
guytaur
Don’t tell me what I should or shouldn’t do.
Vote for who you want I really don’t care.
The vast majority of Labor caucus and members just don’t want to deal with the LOONS.
The Greens used not do preference deals because it didn’t know who its voters wanted to preference.
At the last Federal election scrutineers tried to count % Greens preferencing ALP Coalition etc
We all know below the line voting in the Upper House leads to more informal voting as the ballots aren’t filled in correctly. So the Greens have decided to up their count at the ballot box thru the simple expedient of reducing the informal vote.
And why should people opposed to the current asylum seeker policy tacitly support it through a vote for the major parties?
Steve777@468
In your position, I would probably do exactly the same.
[Labor doesn’t realise that the voters that got Whitlam over the line are progressive voters who won’t blindly toe-the-line because an authority figure like the local priest tells them to.]
So who are these ‘progressive’ voters going to preference? The Libs?
billie@470
Oh for goodness sakes, you don’t need your scrutineers to do that. You will get the figures from the AEC except where a seat is won outright.
And if you can’t pick who is the least evil in relation to AS then what planet are you calling in from?
Daniel Andrews has shown a lack of judgement on the importance of principles in politics. He has caved in to the tribal animosity which many in his party harbour against the Greens. The Greens and Labor are much closer to each other on policy than either is to the LNP. When the LNP is in power the policy agendas of Labor and the Greens alike go into deep freeze. Labor and the Greens therefore have an equally compelling interest in keeping the LNP out of power. This Labor announcement on preferences opens the way to some crazy preference deals in which Labor puts a right-wing or unpredictable candidate ahead of a Green who would support Labor in no-confidence motions. It is an incredibly silly stuff-up and God knows there have been far too many of those from Labor over the past 18 years.
Player One@429
Don’t laugh. Spain actually did it.
http://www.thelocal.es/20130821/spanish-solar-law-hits-international-headlines
http://www.thelocal.es/20131112/spains-solar-police-to-kick-in-your-door
I’m curious what the Victorian government is doing about ‘stopping the boats’.
Tom Hawkins@472
So it would seem on planet LOON.
This constant cry of LOONS merely demonstrates childishness.
Tom Hawkins@472
[So who are these ‘progressive’ voters going to preference? The Libs?]
Maybe they are. Those voters are all over 65 now. They will have different priorities.
bemused
Reality check for you. When did the rules of parliament change on forming Government. The numbers of seats to parties the voters deliver still count no matter how you may wish it otherwise
[Labor doesn’t realise that the voters that got Whitlam over the line are progressive voters who won’t blindly toe-the-line because an authority figure like the local priest tells them to.]
Right on, brother!
They should toe the line because the Greens tell them to!
Both major parties inflict mental illnesses on asylum-seekers in an effort to deter others from coming.
Not as bad as being murdered, raped, mutilated, or hooked up to electrodes in the war-torn or repressive countries from which these people flee, but still evil, and totally unacceptable for a civilized nation.
dave
As I pointed out the consequrnces are Labor has less chance of pursuing its agenda.
Thus my comment about cutting off your nose to spite your face
Governments are formed and confidence is tested in the lower house, which is elected by voters ranking every candidate.
[Maybe they are. Those voters are all over 65 now. They will have different priorities.]
If that’s the case then they should simply vote Liberal and be done with it.
guytaur@480
May I have the English translation of that please?
A simple Senate reform would be to count all votes as formal which had sequentially numbered ‘N’ squares below the line (i.e. 1, 2, 3…, N), where N is twice the number of positions to be filled.
So in a State half Senate election ‘N’ would be 12 and in a double disollution it would be 24. This would end the ridiculous business of numbering 100+ candidates you’ve never heard of and groupings you’ve never heard of (the outdoor fishing motorists and shooters’ party) or regard as totally unacceptable. It would cut down on informal votes.
It would especially enable you to more easily bypass any dodgy preference deals, so the main parties would never allow it.
Seems a little petulant for the Greens to complain that the ALP will decide their preferences on a seat by seat basis. I imagine the Greens will be ahead of the Libs but may not be front of the queue in all cases.
It suits Labor to be able to differentiate themselves from the Greens and, I think, is entirely reasonable.
Mind you, if the ALP preference the Liberals ahead of the Greens in Prahran – then i think there will be a lot Green complaints. That would mean an awful lot of resources going to waste.
bemused
You are on a blog where you sould know what a seat is in politics especially when parliament is mentioned.
Steve777
there’s an incredibly simple way to bypass any dodgy preference deals – number below the line.
mimhoff@479
This one is an active member of the Labor Party and has kept the faith and maintained the rage.
I have also watched with bemusement as various bunches of carpetbaggers like the Democrats (remember them?) and now the Greens come on the scene and depart when they implode.
I hope none of you manage to convince Labor that they don’t want votes :P.
MTBW
To share the link from Gmail, I think the simplest way is to actually click on the link, and then to copy the URL from the new tab that has opened.
lizzie
Nothing wrong with Loons 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS0s2T2s6-s
@482
I see Nicky’s got his paragraphs back. Nice! 😀
I actually liked the Democrats. However, it was their own actions that cause them to lose support. Shame about that.
The Democrats should have proposed Basic Income in lieu of introducing a wide GST.
Well the Greens won’t implode as long as there are sufficient people trying to convince Greens supporters that they (the supporters) are loons – which seems to translate roughly as “people we don’t want to vote Labor”.
Didn’t Greens preference that well known environmentalist & mining magnate Clive Palmer in 2013?
Or maybe “people who we are happy to have just their second preference of”.
[This Labor announcement on preferences opens the way to some crazy preference deals in which Labor puts a right-wing or unpredictable candidate ahead of a Green who would support Labor in no-confidence motions.]
Confidence motions are only relevant to lower houses. Right wing minors/independents aren’t likely to be elected to the lower house on ALP preferences, particularly not at the expense of the Greens.