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 4 of 43
1 … 3 4 5 … 43

  2. Lizzie

    He is making it all so much harder for himself – or so it appears – unless he has rabbits in his hat waiting for the election?

    But it doesn’t seem so atm.

  3. Player

    What I heard on the radio this morning was that it is not possible to create a backdoor for the newer phones without making the whole encryption/security system useless.

    Mind you anyone who stores important personal stuff on a phone or even a lap top is batty. If you do not wanbt the world to know, do not use electronic systems.

  4. guytaur

    [ 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. ]

    Utter nonsense. Try this site, which tells you what the real argument is about – and it is a legal argument, not a political one – http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/17/467096705/apple-the-fbi-and-iphone-encryption-a-look-at-whats-at-stake

    Here is the key point, from a prior case that Apple is still fighting on the same grounds:

    [ Last fall, the Justice Department, using the All Writs Act, tried to force Apple to unlock an iPhone running iOS 7 in a case involving a suspected methamphetamine dealer. Apple responded that it might be technically capable of unlocking that phone (since iOS 7 has fewer security features than later operating systems) but said the cost to the company’s reputation — and resulting harm to its business — would pose an “undue burden.” ]

    It is about Apple’s reputation, not about security.

  6. The next election may be the most important since our two decades of complacency began. The electorate might finally start to worry about their future prosperity and actually pay attention to the party with a few ideas and some competence (namely, Labor)>

  7. P1

    Not true. The FBI is specifically asking for a backdoor into the operating system to bypass the auto wipe after ten passcode attempts.

    Thats technical not legal. Especially so going forward with the fingerprint ID instead of passcode.

    The fact remains make a backdoor and anyone that knows it exists can find and use it.

    This can then be used to get YOUR credit card details your date of birth your address etc. All these are on smartphones or you cannot own one as photo ID with proof is required for purchase.

  8. Player 1

    Forget about the FBI

    Imagine an Apple I phone sold to one of the “good guy” rebels in Syria. He uses it to blow up a market in Damascus.

    Are you happy for the encryption code to be given to Assad. This is probasbly a very real situation right now. Or are you saying that if yabnkees are killed then it is OK but if it is evil rag heads then no. Remember that for Assad all the Syrian rebels are terrorists (which in terms of national security they are). Many of the rebels in Syria are Russian nationals – from Chennya. If there is a nother attack in Beslan, are you happy to give Putin the codes. After all probably the worst terrorist event I can ever recall is the Beslan school massacre.

  10. Guytaur

    I used to care alot about the secrity issues but I do rather think the horse has bolted.

    I think we are so tracked these days that even any security Apple uses is pretty ineffective.

  12. dtt, guytaur

    Your scenarios are getting more and more absurd. The argument is about the enforcability of the All Writs Act in the US, which the FBI is using to get Apple to disclose information about a crime.

    Apple doesn’t want to comply because it will damage their reputation. But should the profits of a single company be placed above the law?

  13. P1

    Your argument is absurd because you think tech takes second place to legal orders.

    See Capital Hill questioning Brandis on 24 about this now.

  14. I ignore the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures. They are bouncing as fuark.

    Trend is down to 5.8. That might creep up as some of the funny numbers from Oct/Nov wash out, but I doubt full time work dropped as far as the seasonally adjusted indicate any more than it rose before Christmas. We still seem to be steady without growing employment in any really meaningful way, which is kinda what you would expect with a <3% growth rate.

  15. P1

    That reputation by the way is the reputation of keeping your private information private. It does this through encryption. It is that encryption the FBI is trying to break.

    There is no contradiction between the legal argument about reputation and the facts of how encryption works.

  17. P1

    A reminder how Tim Cook puts the reputation argument in lay terms for us. I totally agree with him about not wanting criminals accessing my data because a company failed to do its best to protect it.

    [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.]

  18. I don’t think the argument is really about Apple protecting a person’s privacy because they have already assisted the FBI to obtain access to this person’s private information. The only problem is the information was six weeks old and that missing six weeks could be the critical period as it was the six weeks leading up to the crime.

    Apple is having a bob each way here.

  19. dwh

    No Apple is backing a principle. That is we have encryption of our private data for a reason.

    Put a backdoor in for one person or organisation to get at that information and it is potentially available to all. As we have seen with the US intelligence community not being able to keep classified data secret.

    Once the key is published online anyone can access the backdoor.

  20. And why Bracket Creep is being backed away from…

    Say you are right on the cusp of moving to the 37c with an after tax income of exactly $80k. Average weekly full time ordinary earnings rose just 2% last year (May14 – May15) (total earnings and total full time earnings less @ 1.3% and 1.8%).

    But hey lets be generous and assume our theoretical person on $80k did really well and got a 3% pay rise.

    That is an extra $2,400 that is now being taxed @ 37c rather than 32.5c. The grand total of difference to if it had been taxed @ 32.5c? $108 a year.

    Yep ScoMo and Turnbull’s great tax adventure is designed to give these people who are going to suffer such hardship around the $80k rate is to give them a $2 per week tax cut. It will cost billions, but no bastard will notice. No wonder they’re scratching around trying to find something, anything to give themselves something to talk about.

  21. Anyway we are going around in circles. This will no doubt play out in the courts and a precedent set one way or the other in time.

    It’s up to governments and courts to determine these things and not private companies.

  23. What happens when hackers get hold of the security keys to your system.

    AP: BREAKING: CEO: Los Angeles hospital paid $17,000 ransom to hackers to regain control of computers.

  24. Victoria and the election campaign proper hasn’t even started. You can expect “great big new tax” to make an appearance at some stage 🙂

  29. Myriam Robin in Crikey.

    [Young property tycoon Zaki Ameer gave an interview to to The Australian Financial Review on Monday, and had his picture splashed on the front page, saying Labor’s proposal to limit negative gearing to new properties would “scare people”. “My clients are freaking out,” he told the Fin’s Larry Schlesinger.

    BuzzFeed’s Mark Di Stefano decided to check out Ameer’s Instagram account and quickly struck gold, in the form of lots of pictures of Ameer posing with Tony Abbott. He had lots of pictures of him at the Liberal Party Mosman branch, which shed a certain light on his comments about Labor policy. Ameer’s political involvements weren’t, and haven’t been, declared by the Fin.

    In a statement posted yesterday by Schlesinger on Twitter, Ameer said he was never asked about his “political preferences”. “If I had been asked, I would have answered truthfully. I was asked my opinion based on my experience as a property investor and I answered the questions posed to me as such.” The Fin hasn’t published anything on the conflict of interest.

    Asked why he contacted Ameer, Schlesinger told Crikey that the young investor was a good source on the topic, given he owns 15 negatively-geared properties.]

  30. Bad new for those having a big bleat yesterday about the Damien Mantach case not attracting the same level of reporting from the ABC as did Slipper and Craig Thomson’s cases.

    The 1:00pm ABC news in Melbourne led off with Mantach.

    Of course why would it attract much attention anyway?

    The fate or even reputation of no government is dependent on the case. There is nothing salacious about it.

    Mantach has entered a guilty plea so there is no trial as such with lots of evidence to report. Not much between now and sentencing.

    Chill people!

  33. Yes but he needs the unicorn because his leprechaun rides it to work. Apparently they have been hired to find the pot of gold needed to pay off Labor’s debt.

  34. Guytaur, if you had intelligance you would realise that I have read your post which reproduces the letter – doh!

    Now tread the actual judgement where it specifically states the “SUBJECT DEVICE” and “reasonable technical assistance”. What part of “SUBJECT DEVICE” or “reasonable technical assistance” don’t you understand?

    Apple’s reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions:

    (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled;

    (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and

    (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.

    P.S. The capitals are in the judgement, they are not mine.

    When you have absorbed that (if you can) then read a non APPLE article to get a more balanced view of the world – one called reality.

    The White House says a court ruling asking Apple to help the FBI access data on a phone belonging to the San Bernardino gunman does not mean asking for a “back door” to the device.

    Spokesman Josh Earnest said the FBI was asking for access to a single device.

    White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the FBI request for access did not mean they were asking for a “back door” – or unauthorised access – into the company’s device or for it to be redesigned.

    “They are simply asking for something that would have an impact on this one device,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35591988

    Tom.

  35. dwh

    The question is which courts in which countries. If Apple complies with the US courts over this it has to do the same in China where it sells the Iphone now.

    Ditto Russia Iran etc etc.

    Given some personal details you want kept private are on the phone by default why should governments and their shady links internationally get into the hands of criminals so they can blackmail you for access to your own devices or bank accounts or whatever in future?

    Thats assuming they don’t get access just to withdraw money.

    Thats the consequence of breaking encryption. The whole system collapses.

  36. Lizzie I think unicorn is being used in the context of a fairy-tale creature. So Morrison is promising to not promise something he can’t deliver.

  37. DavidWH

    You have not answered my question

    If it is OK for the FBI is it also OK for the authorities in Russia, Egypt, China? This is the dilemma, especially when dealing with a mass produced international product.

    These phones are MADE in China. I can easily see the Chinese government demanding that any anti secrity device given to the FBI must also be avaialble to the Chinese security agencies. Are you confortable with that?

  38. lizzie

    [ Morrison vows not to ‘sell the public a unicorn’

    Are we permitted to know what he means by this promise? ]

    All coalition unicorns will be privately funded.

  39. [Spokesman Josh Earnest said the FBI was asking for access to a single device.]

    And you’d trust the FBI no questions asked! Of course you would.

  41. [The question is which courts in which countries. If Apple complies with the US courts over this it has to do the same in China where it sells the Iphone now.]

    Basically that is not correct unless courts in other countries are bound by US precedents. I very much doubt that would apply to China.

  42. Tom

    You did not understand Apples letter did you?

    To break the encryption for just one device to access in this case the 5c autowipe after 10 password attempts requires putting a back door in.

    The reports are clear. Tim Cook is clear. Its creating a back door. He just said that in an interview showed on ABC 24.

    You show how the request can be complied with by not creating software which bypasses the security known as a back door.

    The reports on the ABC are clearly saying the FBI wants to require Apple to write new software to bypass that security.

  43. Keane: The Morrison doctrine.

    [I rise and politely inquire why the Productivity Commission hasn’t been allowed to conduct an analysis the Trans-Pacific Partnership — Morrison says during his speech that the trade agreements negotiated by Andrew Robb would lead to “generations of prosperity” — despite asking repeatedly to do it.

    “The work’s been done,” Morrison says dismissively. “The government isn’t going to manage the economy through the rear view mirror.” It’s an interesting concept — let’s call it the Morrison Doctrine: once a government has made a decision, there’s no point evaluating it to see if it actually achieves what they claim it will achieve, even if they’re continuing to make similar decisions in the future. Just drive on, pedal to the metal, and don’t look back.

    Still, at least it was, finally, policy of a kind.]

  44. [ Are we permitted to know what he means by this promise? ]

    The same as any Liberal means by a promise lizzie. Nothing at all.

    ref: 2013 election.

    Its Liberal, It Lies.

    [ So Morrison is promising to not promise something he can’t deliver. ]

    And to anyone who believes that, I have this title to a bridge you may be interested in……..

    🙂

  46. DTR #187 the issue becomes one of jurisdiction and whether the authorities in those countries can require a US company to comply with any order. But no I wouldn’t want China or Russia to have access to source code that would allow them to access Apple devices worldwide.

    I doubt any of the Apple subsidiaries/agents in China or Russia would have access to Apple source codes and I don’t think Apple US would provide those countries with the information.

  47. http://www.imore.com/apple-fbi-your-privacy-under-siege?utm_medium=slider&utm_campaign=navigation&utm_source=im

    [The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wants Apple to create a version of iOS that would allow authorities to breach the strong encryption on the iPhone and iPad and access the personal data contained within. The demand comes as part of the investigation into the San Bernardino terrorism case, but the implications and ramifications go far beyond any one case, no matter how heinous.

    Earlier today, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook wrote a rare letter to the company’s customers on Apple.com. Here’s the crux:

    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.
    Make no mistake, what is being asked of Apple should horrify not just those in the U.S. but around the world. Nothing made can be unmade. Nothing used once will only ever be used once. The moment after an easy way to brute-force passcodes exists we, none of us, will be safe. A few criminals may be more easily investigated, but catastrophically more people will be subject to unlawful searches, hacks, theft, blackmail, and other crimes. Everywhere.]

Comments Page 4 of 43
1 … 3 4 5 … 43

Leave a Reply

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