BludgerTrack: 53.1-46.9 to Labor

A trend to Labor that first became evident in late September accelerates, on the back of its big showing in Newspoll this week.

A heavy duty result from Newspoll this weeks activates some serious movement in the BludgerTrack poll aggregate, with Labor up a full point on two-party preferred and the better part of 2% on the primary vote. The model is particularly impressed that Newspoll should have Labor’s primary vote as high as 39%, given its traditional tendency to track a little low in Newspoll. This leaves less of the vote for each of the Coalition, the Greens and Palmer United, with the latter once again in the position of recording a new post-election low.

On the seat projection, Labor gains a seat each in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia to reach 83 seats, which is as many as it won in 2007. Bill Shorten has also shot to the lead as preferred prime minister, although you would want to see that corroborated by another pollster. Shorten’s net approval rating remains just below parity, where it has sat with remarkable consistency since the correction over New Year that ended his initial honeymoon period. Tony Abbott on the other hand is back on a downward trajectory, putting his net approval rating back to where it had plateaued following the MH17 disaster, before the second spike in his favour as domestic terrorism concerns dominated the agenda in mid-September.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

882 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.1-46.9 to Labor”

Comments Page 17 of 18
1 … 16 17 18

  1. I just heard James Cook University’s John Brodie interviewed on ABC’s PM on the Julie Bishop — Barack Obama issue over the GBR.

    I’m not going to comment on it, but can I say that Brodie did brilliantly — not only demonstrating his standing as expert on the reef, talking the evidence in language most can understand, but managing the trolling of the reporter in faultless fashion.

    When asked ‘are you being alarmist’ Brodie simply said: I’m just citing a government report.

    If this were a cricket commentary, I’d say his gentle defensive push beat the bowler and clattered into the fence at long on. 😉

    Seriously, check it out.

  3. Lizzie – that is one of the Guardian Au’s few faults: it is slow to update it’s stories. But I suppose that’s to be expected of a new entrant to the market.

  4. Fran

    The fact that the reporter asked ‘are you being alarmist?’ makes me angry. And well done Brodie. I shall chase up the text version. Thanks.

  5. No, the commercial media played her fall, and her consequent lack of dignity for a PM, over and over and over again.

    When Channel Nine News reported TA’s visit to India this year they played the clip of Julia Gillard falling over in India.

  8. [When Channel Nine News reported TA’s visit to India this year they played the clip of Julia Gillard falling over in India.]

    Enough said.

  10. lizzie@804

    Fran

    The fact that the reporter asked ‘are you being alarmist?’ makes me angry. And well done Brodie. I shall chase up the text version. Thanks.

    Why?

    That is just pre-empting what the Libs will say and giving him a chance to respond up front.

    Politicians and others being interviewed should welcome such questions.

  12. meher baba Posted Friday, November 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm @ 637

    Leigh Sales asks a lot of good probing questions. If I have a criticism of her, I think she tries to cover too many issues in the one interview which leads her to keep saying “we have to move on” when it might be better to stay on the topic she is on (either because the interviewee legitimately has some more to say or because they are floundering and deserve a bit more discomfort).

    I think Leigh Sales has created a bit of a rod for her own back with her early success in that award winning Abbott interview. I think she can at times be too aggressive in her interviews.

    Tony Jones is a bit too much in the Carleton/Lyneham mold for my taste. Alberici can be a bit that way inclined as well, as can Jones’ missus Sarah Ferguson (although she demonstrates an impressive command of the detail of issues). But they all seem to behave with objectivity (albeit that I rather suspect that, in their private lives, Jones and Ferguson would be Amnesty International bleeding heart types).

    My opinion of Tony Jones took a large hit when I watched his election night interview with Nicole Cornes (someone who even Andrew Bolt appologised to).

    I quite like some of Emma Alberici’s interviews. She can at times be overly aggressive and sale a bit close to the wind. But then I think she let George Brandis hang himself when she interviewed him over his proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.

    I think Sarah Ferguson struck fear into the hearts of all those who had to appear before her. That’s not necessarily a good thing.

    I think Fran Kelly is a really good interviewer, although I seem to be in a minority on this forum. As I said earlier, I can’t see any evidence that she is pro-Coalition. Nor Lyndal Curtis. Nor Steve Cannane. Indeed, Julia Baird – despite her strong family ties to the Libs – also seems to me to be impeccably objective in her hosting of the Drum.

    I can’t comment much on Fran Kelly as I don’t listen to Radio National. I have no problems with Lyndal Curtis, Steve Cannane or Julia Baird (I was actually surprised when I heard who her brother was).

    As a general comment I think some of the interviews have too much inquisition and not enough conversation. If the interviewer is just trying to trip up the interviewee then the subject will be as careful as possible to say nothing. I don’t think this helps in the public policy debate at all. At times it’s worth letting the interviewee explain their policies and positions. Treat the audience like adults.

  13. [Why?

    That is just pre-empting what the Libs will say and giving him a chance to respond up front.

    Politicians and others being interviewed should welcome such questions.]

    The “devil’s advocacy” approach to interviewing is rarely informative or useful — it’s overused and simplistic and suits tabloid, adversarial formats.

  14. bemused

    It’s the use of the code word ‘alarmist’. To a GW sceptic listening, it ticks their boxes. The Q could have been asked in another way and still drawn the answer.

  15. JD – forgot about the Howard incident with the footwear…but his attempt to bowl a ball in cricket in India was it? was just about as cringe making.

    That politicians do these dumb things is one thing, that the media singles out Rudd picking his ear and eating contents thereto, FMJG falling over and losing her shoe and Howard having a shoe flung at him, is something else.

    So when some come here and kind of say, well when the media personality slips up that shows they are kind of human and all if forgiven.

    Who can forget Ray Martin, nailed outside his own house by a a keen young comedian which got said RM all steamed up about had him ranting about invasions of his privacy.

    Martin went into absolute orbit as a result this action and wanted the wrath of the gods brought down on anyone who dared do this to him.

    Meanwhile the rest of Oz who had seen he and his tawdry show shove their cameras in anyone’s face, and make a ‘story’ of it all had a big loud laugh.

    For mine the ‘personalities’ in the media are fair game within the bounds of the law, and if they show political bias or do something stupid then they are open to criticism and ridicule as far as I am concerned.

  16. lizzie@814

    bemused

    It’s the use of the code word ‘alarmist’. To a GW sceptic listening, it ticks their boxes. The Q could have been asked in another way and still drawn the answer.

    And he was given the perfect opportunity to deal with any such accusation and did so with aplomb.

    One of the things I learnt on a sales course was the need to flush out any objections and deal with them. Otherwise they remain unanswered.

    That question and the response dealt with the issue head on and unambiguously. A softer question and response leaves wriggle room.

  17. Darren Laver@813

    Why?

    That is just pre-empting what the Libs will say and giving him a chance to respond up front.

    Politicians and others being interviewed should welcome such questions.


    The “devil’s advocacy” approach to interviewing is rarely informative or useful — it’s overused and simplistic and suits tabloid, adversarial formats.

    If the interviewee is competent and knows his subject, it is like being bowled full tosses.

    If a politician or anyone acting as a spokesperson can’t handle them, then they are in the wrong game.

  18. bemused

    If one question and answer could have put the “scientists are warmists” narrative to bed, it would have disappeared years ago.

  22. lizzie@754

    At this point in time (cliche I hate ), I don’t think that we lefties are half as worried about where the polls are, as about the damage that Abbott’s RYNJ government will do to the country before he’s through.

    RYNJ? Guessing the NJ stands for nut-job

  23. Gecko

    It’s taken me a time to read back pages so I’m late to send condolences to you. I remember the fighting spirit your OH and you had so all the very best to you for the years ahead.

    Rua

    Are you OK? How is your treatment going? I was thinking of you while watching the Memorial Service today and was hoping you were watching it or even there. Swanny’s speech was lovely as were the others. I shed some tears when the clip of Wayne’s My Way was shown. How terrific was that.

    It seems Goss was the leader we needed to take over from Beazley. Very sad that he wasn’t able to do that.

  27. The UNEP analysis finds that Australia is set to emit 710 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020. This is well above the 555 million tonnes it would emit if it were to meet a goal of a 5% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, based on 2000 levels.

    The report notes that Australia’s Coalition government has “replaced carbon-pricing mechanism with Emissions Reduction Fund. This results in an increase in projected emissions for 2020.”

    After scrapping carbon pricing in July, emissions have risen in Australia, reversing a previous downward trend.

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/21/australia-one-of-four-nations-forecast-to-miss-2020-emissions-target

    TA assured us that direct action would enable Australia to meet its target. The claim was never true and should never have been treated with deference by anyone whose profession demands rigour.

  28. lizzie@825

    Work to rule

    My fault. Right Wing Nut Job.

    I was on the right track 🙂

    Google’s suggestion was Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey – which made only limited sense.

  32. JimmyDoyle@737

    The empire is falling! Let there be rejoicing in the streets and beer halls throughout the land! May fair maidens and their gentlemanly admirers make much merry as the world is liberated from the darkness!

    http://www.theage.com.au/business/rupert-murdoch-lost-his-saudi-prince-and-his-australian-media-empire-is-now-vulnerable-20141121-11q3km.html

    Very interesting article. Despite Rupert’s best efforts to subvert shareholder democracy it is possible that greed will rip apart his vanity projects.

    Ironic? (or maybe just Alanis ironic – I never can tell)

  33. [ B.C.
    Posted Friday, November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    I think Sarah Ferguson struck fear into the hearts of all those who had to appear before her. That’s not necessarily a good thing. ]

    No – the opposite is correct.

    Live on TV both sides of politics were put on the spot when they tried tell porkies or tried to avoid answering questions that voters are entitled to have a straight answer on.

    This applied with Red Kerry and was seldom seen – until Sarah Ferguson came along.

    Where else are politicians held accountable between elections ?

    They are not.

    Leigh Sales *tries* and may well be bound by ABC editorial policy, but the result is just so weak that they might as well not broadcast the show IMO.

    Would be interesting to see the audience figures since Ferguson moved on from 730.

  35. Tim Dunlop with a good read about the erosion of party authority, referenced against Bolt’s to do list for the Abbott govt from the other day.

    [Bolt’s “solutions” to the Abbott Government malaise, then, are just about pointless because he misses this bigger picture. He says the government must execute a reshuffle and then: “Get sharp. Get tough. Get assertive. Get confident. Offer inspiration. And fight.”

    But these all presume that governments, or parties more generally, have some underlying authority, some power to really make a difference in people’s lives. Increasingly, though, that power and authority is absent – dissipated into the gossamer connections of a globalised world – and without it, no amount of sharpness, toughness, assertiveness, confidence, inspiration or fight is going to make any difference, especially in the long-term.

    Bolt is right. The Abbott Government is in big trouble. But the nature of the problem goes way deeper than anything a reshuffle and a better media strategy is able to address.]
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-21/dunlop-abbotts-problems-go-deeper-than-bolt-realises/5908856

  36. [Bolt is right. The Abbott Government is in big trouble. But the nature of the problem goes way deeper than anything a reshuffle and a better media strategy is able to address.]

    The *nature of the problem* is pretty straightforward.

    He lied.

    Its that simple.

    Now the reactionaries are lying about what a lie is.

    Those tories.

  37. dave Posted Friday, November 21, 2014 at 7:50 pm @ 833

    B.C.
    Posted Friday, November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
    I think Sarah Ferguson struck fear into the hearts of all those who had to appear before her. That’s not necessarily a good thing.

    No – the opposite is correct.

    I’m not saying that it’s always a bad thing. I’m saying that it’s not always a good thing.

    Live on TV both sides of politics were put on the spot when they tried tell porkies or tried to avoid answering questions that voters are entitled to have a straight answer on.

    This applied with Red Kerry and was seldom seen – until Sarah Ferguson came along.

    Where else are politicians held accountable between elections ?

    Perhaps I should explain. John Howard regularly appeared on 7:30 to explain his Government’s policies and decisions. I’m not sure he would have been so willing if Kerry O’Brien had used the same interviewing techniques as Sarah Ferguson.

    I thought O’Brien’s interviews were more about eliciting information out of his subject. Politicians were prepared to be interviewed because it gave them a chance to articulate their position.

    I suspect for many journalists interviews are more about catching their subjects out. It’s as much about the superiority of the interviewer as it is about the subject. I think in “gotcha” interviews the subject will be on the defensive and so try to say as little as possible. In which case what reason is there for them to turn up at all. There comes a point where many politicians might just say it’s not worth doing the interview.

    It reminds me of Rod Stewart saying that the good thing about Molly Meldrum was that knew he wasn’t the star. He had no ego.

  38. ‘fess

    [Bolt’s “solutions” to the Abbott Government malaise]

    I struggle with ‘Blot’ and ‘solutions’ in the same sentence.

  39. dave:

    My own view is that all these issues for the Abbott govt started way before the budget and all those broken promises. I said way back at the beginning of the year that they didn’t have a coherent ‘narrative’ (for want of a better word) other than pitching to whatever the reactionary base wanted to hear and appearing lazy and arrogant.

    Whatever limited electoral authority they may have had following the election they blew themselves with self indulgent arrogance.

  40. B.C.

    I always thought JWH relished the stoush with Red Kerry. He knew he would get a more thorough examination there than he would anywhere else and as I recall he handled them pretty well. And I am a “Howard hater”. If there was one thing I admire Howard for is that he would, and could, argue his case. I would love to know what he makes of the current lot.

  43. Ctar1

    My dear old mum, who is 90, watches more current affairs TV than I do. She told me today she almost felt sorry for Turnbull when he was being sliced and diced by Ben Elton on QandA and then trying to defend the indefensible on 7.30.
    She opined that he looked like his heart wasn’t really in it.
    I offered the view that he probably reversed his decision to quit parliament because he thought he might, just might, get another crack at the leadership but now he knows that Abbott is leading the Tories down a dead end street and in the interests of cabinet solidarity he had to follow.
    I wonder if some time in the next little while he, like hockey, might decide he wants to spend more time with his family.

  44. [Only Hunt is more discredited]

    Hunt didn’t start with any credit – Turnbull on the other hand was a strong opposition leader and a strong credible potential PM before utegate it has been a very long steep descent to joke from there.

  45. [If there was one thing I admire Howard for is that he would, and could, argue his case]

    Rossmcg

    I’m with you on this. I disliked Howard for many things but he could sell his message without constant 3 word slogans.

    Howard always had someone else to do the dirty work for him and Abbott was one who relished it. That pretty well left Howard to stand above the fray.

  46. [B.C.
    Posted Friday, November 21, 2014 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    I’m not saying that it’s always a bad thing. I’m saying that it’s not always a good thing. ]

    Well no – you are *amending* what you said and what I replied to.

    This is what you said –

    [ B.C.
    Posted Friday, November 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    I think Sarah Ferguson struck fear into the hearts of all those who had to appear before her. That’s not necessarily a good thing. ]

    I stand by what I said, ie politicians held to account is a good thing applied to both sides and its very bad when no avenue exists for it to happen.

    [John Howard regularly appeared on 7:30 to explain his Government’s policies and decisions. I’m not sure he would have been so willing if Kerry O’Brien had used the same interviewing techniques as Sarah Ferguson. ]

    Howard appeared with Kerry for his own reasons mainly to speak to viewers of the show – to put his version of things and for its subsequent reporting in other forms of media. Thats front and centre – otherwise he wouldn’t have been in the studio.

    Sometimes he did well, other times he less successful put his argument. At times he came off second best and there is no reason why that shouldn’t occur now with politicians of either side.

    Either they are in public life or not.

    If the concept of a politician being required to give a straight answer is a deal breaker when appearing on a program such as 730 with someone as competent as Sarah Ferguson then I agree they shouldn’t go on the show

    – they should just say so and let the public form their own view.

    No one else is currently putting hard questions to politicians anywhere across our media – unheard of until just recently – yet you what it not to happen?

    Crazy.

  49. BH@845


    I’m with you on this. I disliked Howard for many things but he could sell his message without constant 3 word slogans.

    Indeed, I think he stretched it to 10 words

    “Interest rates will always be lower under a Coalition government”

  50. [
    TPP L/NP 47(-1) ALP 53(+1)
    Primaries L/NP 40.2(+0.1) ALP 38.7(+1.2) GRN 11.1(-0.4) PUP 3.1(-2.0)]

    Thanks Leroy.

    No-one is much else interested!

    Too many are taking the lead of Frau Kelly now — polls only matter if Gillard is losing…

Comments Page 17 of 18
1 … 16 17 18

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *