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%.
DisplayName@497
No, it refers to those afflicted by LOONacy who refused reasonable deals in the Senate.
markjs
Yes they did due to his Asylum Seeker policy. Least evil alternative in his seat from their viewpoint was their public reason.
Good luck trying to get people to not identify with politicians they voted for, bemused :P.
The people who voted for Whitlam aren’t all over 65. The youngest voters who voted in 1972 (when the voting age was 21) are now just turning 63. The youngest to vote in 1974 are now 58 and in 1975 about to turn 57.
As I read it, the Greens made an offer, not a demand, but anti-Greens here and on Twitter are all translating it as “demand”. So do myths grow.
guytaur
[Yes they did due to his Asylum Seeker policy. Least evil alternative in his seat from their viewpoint was their public reason.]
Yet when I said that there might be situations where an independent might be an obviously better choice for Labor than the Greens candidate, you said I was spinning…
If the greens achieve the balance of power, anyone who thinks Daniel Andrews would not try to form a minority govt with them is seriously delusional. Of course when they are successful, we will only hear on PB on what good negotiators they are, and all the green bashing over the last few months will have been thrown out the window. State of Aust Politics 2014 = Pathetic !!!!.
guytaur
[ Thus my comment about cutting off your nose to spite your face ]
Your comment is rejected as usual LOON nonsense.
I’ve always thought Labor’s disproportionate fear of the Greens stems from their terror that progressives might one day realise that there’s an alternative to Labor.
I can’t really argur with Andrews ruling out deals with the Greens though – a very significant base that Labor need to win this election would probably vote Liberal if they thought there was a chance Labor would work with the Greens, so much do they hate the Greens. Baffling. But that is the childish politics so prevalent in Australia.
Anyway, Andrews knows he’ll get most Green votes anyway and if his head isn’t rocks he’ll direct his preferences Green too. Just not officially, because of the politics.
In the last three Victorian Senate elections, Labor has put the Greens second on the group voting ticket.
The Greens put Labor starting at 30, 22, and 43rd place.
As a Laborite, I get both sides. Labor resents the Greens but at the same time understands that the Greens play an important role for Labor in keeping the hard left in line (for the most part) while directing preferences back to Labor. Labor shouldn’t take this for granted though and should keep the Greens on side when possible. I strongly believe that Labor should be preferencing the Greens over Libs at all times (other than in circumstances like Indi). At the same time, the Greens should not expect a much larger and more established party, particularly with a conservative streak running through it, to meet Green demands 100% of the time, especially when Labor has been burnt by the Greens on multiple occasions. The two parties probably should be allies, but given they’re competing for the same voters, it’s impossible. At best, they’re rivals.
taylormade@507
Well I think that.
Not that it will occur. Labor will win comfortably.
[If the greens achieve the balance of power, anyone who thinks Daniel Andrews would not try to form a minority govt with them is seriously delusional.]
An alternative would be an arrangement with the Liberal Party that whichever party holds more seats will form government but no long-standing agreement on appropriations or confidence. This would leave either party open to being tossed out before the expiry of the term but not cede power to the Greens.
Abbott reckons he has G20 all sorted to do what he wants:
[THE countdown is on. Next week, Brisbane will play host to the largest group of world leaders Australia has ever seen when the G20 gets underway.
But far from the usual drawn-out affairs with much discussion and very little action, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has a radical plan to make this G20 meeting one that counts by cutting the jargon and focusing on two key issues; boosting jobs and economic growth.]
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/g20-2014-what-its-about-whos-coming-and-who-we-want-to-impress-in-brisbane/story-e6frflo9-1227116021249
Of course, if Abbott wants to discuss boosting jobs and economic growth, he will need to ask other world leaders how to do it. He is presiding over an economy where both are trending in a downward direction.
I had wondered why the ACTU has been doorknocking in marginal electorates since May. Obviously they knew the Labor party was happier to elect a representative of big business rather than co-operate with other parties with a progressive social agenda
What Silly Nonsence from Labor in an appeal to more con servative voters
__________
Labor’s scared of Liberal claims that they are too close to the Greens and want to seem more right wing(they are anyway!)than the Greens
We all know what this move is about
Last time in Vic Labor needed a substantial level of Green prefs to win about a dozen seats,and there will be no Labor Govt here without them this time …so give up these silly attacks on the Greens and try to focus for a moment on who is the real enemy…we all know the real reasons
BNo wonder so many have given up on the ALP and ,like me and some of my family ALWAYS vote Green after a life of Labor voting
I felt at the last Fed election that the Greens should have taken the opportunity to bring down some of the worst of the Labor Right by prefs to the Liberal…people like the odious Michael Danby
I begin to wonder now about the Vic result
steve777 – the parliamentary committee to look at electoral issues has already made recommendations that were nominally approved of by the Libs, Labor and the Greens. If legislation is put through parliament to implement it it should get up no problem. There is a road block in the form of the current Senate crossbench – many of them are, naturally, actively hostile to any such reform and the government doesn’t want to get them offside at the moment when they may need their support down the track.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/05/09/jscem-interim-report-on-senate-reform/
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2014/05/jscem-recommends-optional-preferential-voting-for-the-senate.html
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-crossbench-revolt-if-group-voting-tickets-abolished-20140620-3ajqk.html
The good thing about the lower house is that preference deals aren’t necessary. And even if there are preference deals, voters still might not toe the party line and will vote the way they want to (and they should be reminded that they CAN).
poroti
[Nothing wrong with Loons]
A lovely, haunting cry. Using the word for supposed mad people is insulting the birds.
billie,
Who will a ‘typical’ green preference? Labor or Liberal?
zoomster
I said you are spinning because of what Andrews said about Balance of Power.
Its Labor using spin to defend itself. Just as the Greens have in the past about preferences.
No clean hands here.
Just so I am clear on my opinion.
If Labor puts a right wing candidate above the Greens I think that is bad for a Labor Government agenda.
On seat by seat we have seen Labor do this in the past. The Senator Fielding result the most well known.
The majors will pass the Senate reforms as late as they can, you’d think – no point irritating the crossbench until absolutely necessary.
But it seems certain the next Senate will be elected under a reformed process.
guytaur..
“Scott Morrison strikes deal with Clive Palmer to reintroduce temporary protection visas
“Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson Young said Mr Palmer had been “played”, calling the Safe Haven Enterprise visa a “furphy”.
“Most people won’t get it,” she said. “Most people won’t be able to be eligible for any type of transfer to permanency, and so they will be back in permanent limbo.”
Seantor Hanson-Young said she believed most asylum seekers would not be eligible for the new visa.
“I think Clive Palmer has well and truly been played. I think he took on something that was too complex and too big for him to handle.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scott-morrison-strikes-deal-with-clive-palmer-to-reintroduce-temporary-protection-visas-20140925-10lpui.html#ixzz3IMQ6BNfw
Was there ever a better example of LOONacy than the 2004 Vic Senate when Labor Prefs elected a mad religious right candidate Feilding before a decent Green ,who recenty won the seat???
That created pronblems in the Senate for Gillard and Rudd
LOONacy the Vic ALP Right-wing way
guytaur
[On seat by seat we have seen Labor do this in the past. The Senator Fielding result the most well known.]
Labor got just over 2.5 quotas in that election.
At what point should they stop making deals in an attempt to get Labor Senators elected, and preference the Greens?
Also note my post above. In the three elections following Fielding in 2004, the ALP *has* put Greens second.
The new laws on citizenship is just ridiculous.
So you can revoke a citizenship? What if that citizen has already renounced his other citizenship?
Someone should go revoke Abbott’s citizenship for his crimes against humanity.
markjs
Yes the Greens made a mistake. However a small one really. A small one given HOR numbers. The Senate is a different story of course.
How many Green seats in the Victorian lower house?
Just askin’ 😛
guytaur
[I said you are spinning because of what Andrews said about Balance of Power.]
Since I have made absolutely no reference to what Andrews said about Balance of Power, this is obviously wRONg.
[On seat by seat we have seen Labor do this in the past. The Senator Fielding result the most well known.]
Except that wasn’t in a ‘seat by seat’ basis. Fielding was a Senate candidate.
On a ‘seat by seat’ basis you seem to be arguing that it was OK for the Greens to preference Clive above Labor because his policies were closer to the Greens but not OK for Labor to reserve the same rights for itself.
The Greens have continually argued that their voters should decide where their preferences go themselves. To a large extent, this is exactly what happens. So doing deals with the Greens on preferences is pretty pointless.
Re Jackol @517: interesting. Certainly something has to be done. The last Senate seat is now basically a (un)lucky dip.
[On a ‘seat by seat’ basis you seem to be arguing that it was OK for the Greens to preference Clive above Labor because his policies were closer to the Greens but not OK for Labor to reserve the same rights for itself.]
Succinctly put zoomster
What citizenship changes are you referring to, Raaraa?
deblonay@516
I make allowance for you because of your advanced age and past service to the Labor Party.
I saddens me to see one such as you led astray by the Greens.
mimhoff
The deals were sealed before the election before results were known.
As for the next lot of Senate elections the Greens being “two:. Thats putting Greens before right wing.
I will also add in a seat where an independent is running in a seat where the preferences have to go to an Liberal seat and Labor wants to send preferences to the independent because neither Labor or the Greens can win thats fine too.
Has to be recognition of reality of voting intentions. Just where there is doubt preference Green above right wing candidates
Although this week’s phone poll must have told the ALP they were riding high, with Gough’s death and what not, there is another 3 weeks to go.
3 weeks for ALP grubby dealings to be exposed in The Age, you can’t tell me there are no skeletons in that closet.
I think the ACTU leadership is genuinely afraid of the Vic ALP’s idiocy and the ALP has shot itself in the foot – AGAIN
Sigh. All of this preference stuff is merely theatre from both the ALP and the Greens.
Seriously – it serves both parties’ best interests to have a bit of distance. When the preferences arrive you’ll largely find that the ALP prefs go to the Greens and the Greens go to the ALP before the Libs.
Most of you should know better.
Tom Hawkins@520
Far too difficult a choice for them… 😛
“Offer” ..or grubby politics?
Adam Bandt @AdamBandt
BREAKING: Labor leaves door open to preferencing Libs & religious right after rejecting Greens offer of pref swap to help kick Napthine out.
[So doing deals with the Greens on preferences is pretty pointless.]
Besides that, in the Senate the Greens get very close to a quota. If they get just under a quota, then they stay in the count for a long time, and Labor gets knocked out. If they get just over a quota and get elected, then they don’t have any votes left to help Labor.
So the ALP has to decide: do they try to maximize its own vote by getting preferences from non-Greens parties? Or do they plan for a loss and decide who deserves their extra part-quota?
If you can tell them beforehand the exact breakdown of above-the-line votes then maybe they’ll make better decisions.
teh_drewski@532
Sorry, this just came from my Facebook feed from ASRC regarding a dog of a bill that Morrison wants to introduce.
zoomster
Senators have seats. They are Statewide but still seats as far as I know. Let me know if their is another phrase that applies.
Take their seats in the Senate is in usage I believe.
I think all parties should go into deals only after an election as a matter of parliamentary stability, rather than before the election.
billie
I know you’re still here. Who will a green preference? Labor or Lib?
The Greens preferenced the Liberal Party in Qld in 1995 over koalas. This led to the ultimate defeat of the Goss Govt after a by-election.
I think the Greens should stay mute on prefs for progressives. 😛
[ (P.S This is not just for refugees but EVERYONE not born in Australia). ]
Does Morrison really want to piss off 22% of the Australian population?
528
At the moment there are exactly the same number of MLAs (and MLCs) from each party because the Parliament has expired and thus there are no MPs of any kind in the Victorian Parliament.
The Greens preferenced the Liberal Party in Qld in 1995 over koalas
I would have voted for the koala ahead of the Liberal.
545
His secret leadership challenge scheme. “Accidentally” remove Abbott`s citizenship.
I believe the power only relates to applicants who have obtained their citizenship by fraud in the ten years before revocation, and that the power cannot be executed if it will render the citizen stateless.
Rua
That seems pretty stupid to me regarding Green Preferences. For same reasons I think its stupid for Labor to preference the right.
My only caveat is how desperate or not it was for the Koalas.