BludgerTrack: 52.8-47.2 to Coalition

For the third week in a row, the BludgerTrack poll aggregate detects movement away from the Coalition.

The BludgerTrack poll aggregate this week mostly splits the difference between a strong result for the government from ReachTEL and a weak one from Ipsos, translating into a 0.3% shift to Labor on two-party preferred and a two-point change on the seat projection, with Labor picking up one each in New South Wales and Victoria. The Ipsos poll also furnished one set of leadership ratings for the week, the impact of which on the trend measures is fairly minor.

On top of that, I’ve got an avalanche of new material to treat you with this week, most of which has been hived off to a separate post dealing with preselection news. There are two further poll results I’ve so far neglected to cover:

• This week’s Essential Research moves a point in favour of the Coalition on two-party preferred, who now lead 52-48. The primary votes are Coalition 43% (steady), Labor 33% (down two) and Greens 11% (steady). Further questions find 28% reporting the Malcolm Turnbull prime ministership has been better than expected, 22% worse than expected, and 41% as expected; a very even divide on the issue of babies born to asylum seekers in Australia, with 39% wanting them sent to Nauru and 40% believing they should remain in Australia; 34% believing conditions for asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island are good, versus 40% for poor; and 64% disapproving of suggestions the administration and payment of Medicare, pharmaceutical and aged care benefits should be outsourced, with only 17% approving.

• The Galaxy Queensland poll that provided state results for the Courier-Mail on the weekend also had a federal voting intention component, which had the Coalition’s lead in Queensland at 57-43 (unchanged from the 2013 election), from primary votes of Coalition 49% (up 3.3% since the election), Labor 30% (up 0.2%), Greens 10% (up 3.8%) and Palmer United 1% (down 10.0%). The poll was conducted last Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 869.

Other notable news:

• The federal redistribution process for the Australian Capital Territory was finalised last month, leaving undisturbed the draft proposal from September. The Fraser electorate, which covers the northern part of Canberra, is to be renamed Fenner, with the Canberra electorate continuing to account for the capital’s centre and south, along with the unpopulated areas of the territory’s south. The two seats are respectively held for Labor by Gai Brodtmann and Andrew Leigh. Around 10,000 voters are to be transferred from Fraser to Canberra, leaving Labor’s two-party margin in Fraser unchanged at 12.6%, while increasing the Canberra margin from 7.0% to 7.4%.

• The process for a redistribution of the Northern Territory and its two federal electorates has commenced, but with a final resolution for the process being scheduled for early next year, the new boundaries will not take effect at the next election.

• The Northern Territory parliament has voted to change the electoral system from compulsory to optional preferential voting, so that voters will be required to do no more than number a single box, as is the case at state elections in New South Wales and Queensland. The bill was passed with the support of cross-bench independents in the face of opposition from Labor.

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.

2,149 comments on “BludgerTrack: 52.8-47.2 to Coalition”

Comments Page 3 of 43
1 2 3 4 … 43

  1. [ Stephen Koukoulas
    Stephen Koukoulas – Verified account ‏@TheKouk

    Morrison says he’s delivered a low tax outcome. Tax to GDP risen every year since 2012-13 & will rise every year till at least 2020 @abc730 ]

    Indeed – its in their DNA –

  3. Good Morning

    We still have our Seinfeld Government. Now even Chris Uhlman is making “judicious” insurance remarks about the government running out of time to show us polices it says it has that we have not seen.

  4. [All of the decline came from full time workers which fell by 40,600.
    With employment missing expectations and the participation rate holding steady at 65.2%, the national unemployment rate rose to 6.0%, up from 5.8% reported previously.
    The number of unemployed rose by 30,200.
    Despite the sharp fall in full time numbers, the ABS reported that monthly hours worked increased by 10.9 million hours, or 0.7%, to 1,656.0 million hours.]
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/here-comes-australias-jobs-report-2016-2

  5. https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

    [February 16, 2016 A Message to Our Customers
    The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

    This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

    The Need for Encryption
    Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

    All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

    Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

    For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

    The San Bernardino Case
    We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

    When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

    We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

    Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

    The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

    The Threat to Data Security
    Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

    In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

    The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

    The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

    We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

    A Dangerous Precedent
    Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

    The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

    The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

    Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

    We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

    While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

    Tim Cook]

  7. [ Bruce Ross
    Bruce Ross – ‏@brucerossbrc

    Scott Morrison: “Workers need to start regarding the pension as a ‘welfare payment’, not an entitlement”

    Yet the old still vote for the LNP

    Justin Warren
    Justin Warren – ‏@jpwarren ]

    So rub that in voters faces in the election run up!

    But lets fix it –

    “business need to acknowledge subsidies, tax breaks and diesel fuel rebates are ‘welfare payments’, not entitlements and are not sustainable”

  9. dave

    “”Yet the old still vote for the LNP””

    And the ALP Gov gave the pensioners the biggest rise in 100 years?.

    They must be senile!.

  12. P1

    The point is exactly that as you read in the letter. This has relevance to every Australian customer of an Iphone. Senator Brandis was asked about it in a presser.

    This is as political as it gets.

  14. [Shaun Carney getting some clarity outside the CPG bubble.

    5 months in, and nothing. Turnbull is giving us incumbency, not leadership http://www.theage.com.au/comment/-gmuxz1.html … @theage #auspol ]

    Written in that “more in sadness than in anger”, patrician way of his.

    His faint hopes remind me of the faint hopes journos had for Abbott to be variously a “statesman”, “Prime Ministerial” and “visionary”.

    Several of them flashed out of the gate too early on one or all of the above, declaring the Abbott Prime Ministership fully functional and mature well before the data was in.

    Now, of course, they have joined the ranks of hecklers, wkthout the slightest embarrassment about their previous stances. Tony Abbott was wlays going to be a failure. He was never a statesman. So the stunning disintrospection of the commentariat goes: “We’re never wrong. So we must have been right both times.”

    Carney is at pains to state that he is “not carrying water” for Labor. As if he needed to tell us. His history as a writer for The Age has been replete with barely disguised adoration for the conservatives and disdain (at the least) for their opponents. He comes at politics from the born-to-rule end of the stick. While he may criticse the Coalition, he’ll never advocate for Labor. The best you’ll get out of him is the grudging admission that Labor’s “scare campaign” on the GST was also their policy position of 31 years. It was also completely justified on the facts, but Shaun will never admit that.

    Oh well, at least there’s some progress. The dimming of the Turnbull Enlightenment is becoming somewhat of the topic du jour among the pundits lately. They still hold out hope, but more and more are drifting away from the Renaissance Man.

    Scott Morrison’s pathetic display yesterday at the NPC did not help, nor did his equally pathetic, literally mouth-breathing effort at filibuster this morning on the ABC’s AM add to confidence that he had a clue what he was talking about. Even Michael Brissenden scored a few boundaries off the “Treasurer’s” lazy off-spinners. Yes: Morrison’s performance was that bad. A few more innings like that and we might find his urbane, sophisticated boss hankering for another Hong Kong scandal so he can reshuffle Morrison off to “12th man” status. Intimidating a bunch of hacks with stern “On Water” dismissals is easy. Waffling to the experts on a subject he clearly does not have anything but an ideological connection to, is another matter altogether. Funny Photoshops of Shorten with smoke blowing out his ears are even less impressive.

    Fact is, Shorten is leading the debate, and people who matter (or who think they matter) are starting to notice. Just mouthing “debt and deficit” or “backing in Australia” won’t cut it for too much longer without some substance – well thought-out substance that has a chance of passing through the Parliament – to back it up.

    That’s what Carney is really afraid of.

  15. [Scott Morrison: “Workers need to start regarding the pension as a ‘welfare payment’, not an entitlement” ]

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/treasurer-scott-morrison-says-to-forget-about-relying-on-the-age-pension-20151127-gl9q2i.html

    Thanks for that dave. Its an interesting quote, particularly in light of ScoMo’s non-speech yesterday. About all they HAVE committed as a direction to is cutting expenditure and cutting pension availability is an area where they may be looking for big savings in the out years.

    [ The Treasurer said government would act next year to alter the Superannuation Act to clarify that the purpose of the country’s compulsory savings system was to enable most Australians to enjoy the “worthy prize” of an “independent retirement”. ]

    Which the evidence suggests is actually is NOT a “clarification” but a “redefinition” along the lines of Liberal philosophy.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-18/fact-check-was-super-designed-to-get-people-off-the-pension/6923582

    [ But the governments of the day did not sell the policy as a way to get people off the pension and instead said that most people would still get at least a part pension. ]

    And who’s a thunk this!! 🙂

    [ Ms O’Dwyer’s statement is ill-informed. ]

  19. Peter Martin was visibly unhappy with ScoMo’s answer to his question at the National Press Club yesterday.
    Today Peter Martin had 3 articles about potential budget measures aimed at the more vulnerable

  20. guytaur

    [ This is as political as it gets. ]

    Why? Apple doesn’t want to comply with a court order in the US. So what? It may be of interest to Apple shareholders, but not so much to anyone else.

    Instead of posting whole articles (something that is generally frowned on here), just post an extract or a link (as you usually do) and also tell us why you think it is relevant.

  22. [The point is exactly that as you read in the letter. This has relevance to every Australian customer of an Iphone. Senator Brandis was asked about it in a presser.

    This is as political as it gets.]

    My understanding is that the FBI is trying to gain access to information authorities always have been able to obtain before Apple introduced additional security protection that prevents the lawful access to the information.

    Is there something I am missing.

  23. P1

    Tell that to the ABC that has it on high repeat and asked Senator Brandis if he had any problems with the Apple stance. Brandis did a bob each way. Saying Australia had not run into this problem.

  24. DWH

    You a fan of encryption and the privacy it affords to do things like using VPN to access Netlix in the US?

    If so you want Apple to win the court case.

  25. Guytaur I am not sure what you are referring to so can’t make any informed comment. However authorities have been using telephone data to fight crime and convict criminals and as far as I know all the FBI wants is access to information they previously could legally obtain.

    Again am I missing something here?

  26. p1 and dwh

    Also the US forcing Apple to put a back door in makes your data on an Iphone potentially available to dictators everywhere and black hat criminal organisations after your date of birth credit card details address and the rest.

  27. [Is there something I am missing.]

    Lol just a whole bundle of legal rights and protections we are throwing away because terror, or cowardice really.

  28. P1

    [ Tell that to the ABC that has it on high repeat and asked Senator Brandis if he had any problems with the Apple stance. Brandis did a bob each way. Saying Australia had not run into this problem. ]

    I still don’t see how you think this is ‘political’. Brandis is the Attorney General. Do you think a Labor AG would have said something different?

  31. Guytaur are the FBI forcing Apple to install that program on all I-phones or just provide the FBI with the program so they can access the data on I-phones seized as part of a criminal investigation?

    My understanding is that it is the latter.

  33. guytaur

    [ Also the US forcing Apple to put a back door in makes your data on an Iphone potentially available to dictators everywhere and black hat criminal organisations after your date of birth credit card details address and the rest.
    ]

    Jeez. If the security agencies really wanted a back door into iPhones (as they already have into all network equipment exported from the USA) do you think they would ask you first? Get real!

  37. David and Player

    The obvious question that you need to answer is this?

    If Apple sells an iphone to a chinese person who is found to have committed a terrorist crime (eg a Tibetan or Uigher) or to a Chechnan terrorist, are you happy to hand over the encryption codes to the Chinese or Putin.

    After all the phones are made in China. If Apple simple moves overseas- becomes registered in Panama or Ireland, what authority does the US court have.

  38. guytaur

    [ Yeah the FBI getting a Court Order is a figment of my imagination. ]

    The court order is to unlock one iPhone, not to install a backdoor.

  39. P1

    Yeah so Tim Cook is lying through his teeth in that letter just public grandstanding. All because you hate Apple and do not want to respect the technical expertise of the company in what it says.

    You want to say Tim Cook is lying so he can grandstand you better prove how he is doing so.

    You do not see letters like that from companies every day of the week.

  40. dtt

    [ If Apple sells an iphone to a chinese person who is found to have committed a terrorist crime (eg a Tibetan or Uigher) or to a Chechnan terrorist, are you happy to hand over the encryption codes to the Chinese or Putin. ]

    The question you have to answer is that if such a phone was recovered by the FBI, and the information it contained could lead to preventing a terrorist action, should Apple be required to assist in unlocking it?

    Seriously, this discussion is getting into tinfoil hat territory.

  42. guytaur

    [ Yeah so Tim Cook is lying through his teeth in that letter just public grandstanding. ]

    He is not lying, but he is grandstanding.

  44. I would have thought the issue is wider than just fighting terrorism but relates to crime generally where information on telephone and telephone records are used by authorities for investigation and prosecution. We don’t have absolute privacy in situations involving criminal investigation and prosecution.

    The key is proper judicial oversight.

  45. Guytaur – the FBI are requesting HELP in getting access to ONE SINGLE device, not all iphones. If you have to post crap, AT LEAST MAKE AN EFFORT TO GET IT RIGHT!!!.

    Talk about childish and naive sensationalism.

    Tom.

  46. P1

    You cannot have it both ways. On this if Tim Cook is not lying he is not grandstanding its that black and white.

    This is about the fact of how encryption works and the consequence of putting in a back door to get around that encryption which is what it would take to comply with the court order according to Apple.

    So if Apple is not lying there is no grandstanding I would think you could understand that.

  47. Peg can give us all the ‘facts’ that she likes (and I don’t doubt her ability with search engines), but it is the perception that counts. It is my perception that the Greens are most interested in negotiating with the Coalition, to prove they’re in the big boys’ league.

  48. One take on the jobs numbers –

    [ Australia Stops “Cooking” Its Jobs Report And The Result Is A Disaster: Full-Time Jobs Plunge Most Since 2013

    One week ago, we were delighted to report that Australia admitted that its glorious, 6 and 8-sigma outlier job numbers from October and November, were nothing but a “technical issue” glitch, in other words, one big political lie.

    Specifically it was Treasury Secretary John Fraser, who admitted during testimony to parliamentary committee that jobs growth for the two months in question “may be overstated.” What’s the reason? The same one the propaganda bureau always uses when its lies are exposed: “technical issues”,

    … but suddenly – as we predicted – the far uglier truth finally emerged, when Australia reported that not only did total jobs tumble by 7,900, far below the +13,000 forecast (down from the December’s 800 job decline)…

    … but the actual number of full-time jobs plunged by 40,600, the biggest monthly plunge since October 2013! ]

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-17/australia-stops-cooking-its-jobs-report-and-result-disaster-full-time-jobs-plunge-mo

Comments Page 3 of 43
1 2 3 4 … 43

Leave a Reply

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