The Easter weekend has meant the only poll this week has been the usual weekly reading from Essential Research, which records a tie on two-party preferred for the fourth week in a row. Both major parties are steady on the primary vote – the Coalition on 43%, Labor on 38% – while the Greens are down a point to 9%. There is accordingly not much change on the surface of the BludgerTrack poll aggregate, which records a gentle move to the Coalition that yields nothing on the seat projection. However, there’s a lot going on under the BludgerTrack bonnet, as I’m now doing it in R rather than SAS/STAT, and relying a lot less on Excel to plug the gaps. Now that I’ve wrapped my head around R, I can probe a lot more deeply into the data with a lot less effort – commencing with the observation that the Coalition’s two-party vote would be around 0.5% higher if I was using a trend of respondent-allocated preference to determine the result, rather than 2013 election preferences. I’ve also done my regular quarterly BludgerTrack breakdowns, featuring state-level primary votes based on results from Morgan, Ipsos, Essential and ReachTEL, together with the breakdowns published this week by Newspoll.
Further polling:
• The Essential poll found 44% would approve of a double dissolution election if the Senate blocked the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill, with disapproval at only 23%. Respondents also showed good sense when asked the main reason why Prime Minister might wish to do such a thing: 25% opted for clearing independents from the Senate, 30% for getting an election in before he loses further support, and only 14% for actually getting the ABCC restored. Other questions recorded an unsurprising weight of support for income tax cuts (62% more important, 61% better for the economy) over company tax cuts (16% and 19% respectively). Results for a series of questions on which party was best to manage various aspects of economic policy were also much as expected, though slightly more favourable to the Coalition than when the questions were last posed a few weeks before the 2014 budget. A semi-regular inquiry into the attributes of the Labor and Liberal parties allows an opportunity for comparison with a poll conducted in November, shortly before the recent improvement in Labor’s fortunes. Labor’s movements are perhaps a little surprising, with extreme up and moderate down, and “looks after the interests of working people” down as well. The Liberals are down vision, leadership and clarity, and up on division.
• The Herald-Sun has a report on ReachTEL poll commissioned by the progressive Australia Institute think tank in the regional Victorian seat of Indi, which Sophie Mirabella hopes to recover for the Liberals after her defeat by independent Cathy McGowan in 2013. The news is not good for Mirabella, with McGowan recording a lead on the primary vote of 37.3% to 26.9%, while the Nationals are a distant third on 10.6%. The report says a 56-44 two-candidate preferred result from the poll allocated all Nationals preferences to Mirabella, a decision that was perhaps made in ignorance of the level of support McGowan received from Nationals voters in 2013. The primary votes as reported would more likely pan out to around 60-40.
Preselection latest:
• Andrew Burrell of The Australian reports the Liberal preselection for the new Western Australian seat of Burt is a tight tussle between Matt O’Sullivan, who runs mining magnate Andrew Forrest’s GenerationOne indigenous employment scheme, and Liz Storer, a Gosnells councillor. Storer is supported by the state branch’s increasingly assertive Christian Right, and in particular by its leading powerbroker in Perth’s southern suburbs, state upper house MP Nick Goiran.
• The Weekly Times reports that Damian Drum, state upper house member for Northern Victoria region and one-time coach of the Fremantle Dockers AFL club, will nominate for Nationals preselection in the seat of Murray, following the weekend’s retirement announcement from Liberal incumbent Sharman Stone. The front-runner for Liberal preselection looks to be Donald McGauchie, former policy adviser to the then Victorian premier, Ted Baillieu.
Q. Why can the Greens always balance any theoretical budget?
A. Talk is cheap.
Airlines@3145
It was a coalition after all. So 1954 it is.
@3141 – 1975 I believe… (if you combined Liberal and Country Party votes), 1966 was close for the Libs, Labor grazed 50% in both 1972 and 74.
[matt31
Posted Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:36 pm | Permalink
@boerwar
A little bit rich for someone who spent 2 months leading up to the 2013 election advocating for an informal vote to talk about who is relevant and who is not I would have thought. Oh, and did the informal party reach 51%?]
It is no use whinging about that at all.
I was quite right. Rudd and Abbott are both insane. And the Greens were, and remain, irrelevant.
[Q. Why can the Greens always balance any theoretical budget?
A. Talk is cheap.]
Perhaps that’s how Wayne Swan promised us all those surpluses too.
Conversely, the argument that all people were aware of the implications of ATL voting in the old system implies that they are not disenfranchised by the new system.
Anyway, they can still exhaustively vote for every group above the line. The fact that they are also able to vote below the line in exactly the same way that they could under the old system merely underlines the fact that no voter is disenfranchised.
[GVT represents more peoples’ views poorly than it does those well.]
You illustrate my point, you have to assume people are getting it wrong, and there is no evidence of that. You need to assume people are absolute idiots to justify the change then you implement a change that all but below the line voters are likely to find confusing.
[president of the solipsist society
Posted Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
Q. Why can the Greens always balance any theoretical budget?
A. Talk is cheap.
Perhaps that’s how Wayne Swan promised us all those surpluses too.]
Ah, yes. But Swannie had one thing that the Greens lacked, and lack: government.
You guys are all talk. Literally.
Sheridan just slipped the knife into Turnbull.
Jones just slipped the knife into Pyne.
Pyne running the lines.
WeWantPaul@3144
I’m not sure who you’re referring to when you say “you” or “your” here.
I rather people have their own discretion to choose who to preference, just like they do in the lower house.
Not everybody have the luxury of voting below the line in full.
[You illustrate my point, you have to assume people are getting it wrong, and there is no evidence of that. You need to assume people are absolute idiots]
No I don’t. All I need to assume is that people, not wanting to have to spend ages in the ballot box filling in hundreds of tiny boxes in order below the line, simply vote 1 for their party hoping they will preference their ideological allies above their ideological enemies.
BW
Yep Sheridan ain’t buying the Mal the Magnificent line. Strange.
Pyne nimbly avoided a gotcha from Jones.
[Swannie had one thing that the Greens lacked, and lack: government.]
So? It didn’t stop him failing to deliver all those surpluses.
[mikehilliard
Posted Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:45 pm | Permalink
BW
Yep Sheridan ain’t buying the Mal the Magnificent line. Strange]
Sheridan had Abbott in his pocket, national security-wise. They are catholic besties.
WeWantPaul:
[Come up with a way yet to explain how disenfranchising them, so they definitely don’t express a view, is better than GVT which may in some cases represent their view well?]
I’ve asked this more times than I can count, but anyway: Who exactly is being disenfranchised? All of these apparently numerous voters who just want anybody – absolutely anybody, from die-hard socialists to lassez-faire ideologues to lock-up-all-the-gays lunatics to those fearless heroes fighting for the rights of cigarette smokers – elected above the major parties can easily arrange their preferences to do exactly that. Better yet, they can actually completely ensure that their vote will do just that – unlike previously, when many micro parties still often put majors above the minors on their Group Voting Tickets (eg. my aforementioned example of the Secular Party preferences the Liberals ahead of Ricky Muir.) So, once again… who is being disenfranchised here?
Now compare that to the 1984-2016 system, where if one wanted the to actually choose their own preferences, they had to take the risk of making a mistake while numbering 50-100+ different candidates and therefore being genuinely disenfranchised when their vote is rendered informal.
So, I have to ask: which system really disenfranchised voters.
[president of the solipsist society
Posted Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
Swannie had one thing that the Greens lacked, and lack: government.
So? It didn’t stop him failing to deliver all those surpluses.]
Swannie was the Treasurer who saved us from the GFC.
The Greens could not spell ‘GFC’ and they certainly could do nothing about it.
They are irrelevant for all practical purposes.
Libs dump on Mal….
Giving the states full responsibility for funding public schools, as proposed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, would be the biggest mistake in the history of Australian education policy, according to NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccoli.
A war of words has erupted between the NSW and federal education ministers just months before the federal election, with Mr Piccoli accusing his Coalition colleague, Simon Birmingham, of making “incomprehensible” claims about the relationship between school funding and academic results.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-worst-idea-ever-piccoli-blasts-pm-on-schools-20160404-gny3gw.html#ixzz44rEHWONx
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-04/labor-plans-to-put-pat-dodson-in-senate-in-limbo/7298402?section=wa
[Labor’s plan to put Aboriginal elder Pat Dodson into the Senate is in limbo, with the man he is set to replace, Joe Bullock, yet to officially resign from the Upper House.
The issue is causing concern in Labor ranks with a critical debate over the Government’s building and construction bill just a fortnight away.]
[Anyway I get distracted by love of democracy and my genuine concern for the 25% or more of the Australian public that willing chose to vote this way. To let them express the same view now they have to effectively vote below the line (they would need on the case put by one of the OPV fans who I had previously respected something like 20 minor party preferences) and the very reason for change was because they couldn’t do that. ]
Such genuine heartfelt concern here.
The likes of Antony Green has mentioned that this 25% includes Green and Xenophon votes.
I recalled the people mocking the crossbench senators who seems to have been “accidental Senators” according to some.
Rishworth runs the lines.
[No I don’t. All I need to assume is that people, not wanting to have to spend ages in the ballot box filling in hundreds of tiny boxes in order below the line, simply vote 1 for their party hoping they will preference their ideological allies above their ideological enemies.]
Well that wasn’t the argument that was being made at all, just listen to the audio of Turnbull and the Greens on the night of the announcement.
But still you, as the ‘case’ for change, it was so shallow, so dishonest, so laughable case isn’t really the right word, even on your new refined expression needs them to be stupid enough and lazy enough to vote 1 and hope. What kind of person who used to vote 1 and hope is going to now work through more than 20 minor party preferences to get to a minor party result.
I’ll be honest at the start of the campaign I thought OPV could put a good argument why it was better, that no one even bothered and we had the stupid shallow and dishonest campaign we had, followed by a back room deal and rushed ‘just vote 1 it will be ok’ legislation made me realise I was wrong. There wasn’t any good compelling arguments, it is why the proponents went with lies, misdirection, confusion and a backroom deal and rushed legislation.
As I said there were people I really respected at the start who I didn’t at the end.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-04/wa-government-alliance-under-increased-strain-election/7297524?section=wa
[The alliance between Western Australia’s Liberal and National parties continues to show signs of fracturing, as the regional party’s leadership refuses to guarantee the partnership will continue to the next election.
Last month the Nationals torpedoed the Liberal’s plan to sell off Fremantle Port in this term of Government, as part of a program of asset sales to help pay off record debt.]
Jones just slipped the knife into Pyne: ‘You just made a perfectly coherent argument for something that is not happening!’
And Pyne gets as snarky as I have ever seen him get snarky.
WWP, 3174
[followed by a back room deal and rushed ‘just vote 1 it will be ok’ legislation]
Why do you think that savings provisions are a bad idea, considering they will mean that, because less votes will be rendered informal, less votes will be disenfranchised?
What’s all this goss about the hidden splits inside the Greens all about?
Pyne getting three words for every one word for Rishworth.
Good work that man!
Christopher Pyne: blah, blah, blah, blah. Labor bad, state govts bad. Rinse and repeat.
[The likes of Antony Green has mentioned that this 25% includes Green and Xenophon votes.]
Well both the Greens and Xenophon certainly attract a portion of disheartened and disenchanted votes, and they were no doubt hoping those from the parties they were trying to exclude, without having the integrity or honesty to just exclude them, would flow to them.
I did also notice Antony Green’s position, late in the debate, he may have made it earlier but I wasn’t aware of it until late in the debate where my view of the OPV case had hardened against it, but I found the ‘help big minor parties at the cost of minor minor parties, very unconvincing, probably because I considered the foundation to get to that point missing at best.
It seems these days they let Pyne out only for him to make snarky comments on Q&A.
R
I have never seen Pyne in this mood before. He is in a strange place.
@3182 – may as well make use of his only talent.
Sheridan reckons Gonski is a tremendous con.
Someone should ask Sheridan whether the JSFs are a tremendous con.
Pyne is seriously rattled. Notice he made no effort to challenge Sheridan’s description of Turnbull’s federation reform as Rudd like, as Latham like. That must have hurt.
BW, 3183
I almost feel sorry for Pyne – he was Turnbull’s right hand man in essence (given Minister for Innovation and was in charge of enforcing all the innovation and agility stuff that Turnbull reiterated ad infinitum) and now he has to watch it come down all around him.
Pyne should be allowed to talk as much as he likes as far as I’m concerned. The “fixer” is hardly a vote winner, especially when his snappy side inevitably reveals itself. Oh, if only Oakes’s early call in 2007 had come true when he put Pyne in the shredder.
mikehilliard
[
BW
Yep Sheridan ain’t buying the Mal the Magnificent line. Strange.]
Not if you remember how long and how deep Greg and Tones bromance is.
WeWantPaul@3181
He clarified on his blog WTTE that he would rather parties with genuine interests come forward and fill the gap, than have a few show parties of similar interests register just for the purpose of gaming the GVT system.
Or they could be genuine micro parties, but each being the ego of a few strong heads, rather than unifying under one banner of similar interests.
It would be akin to each Labor ego breaking off to form their own version of the DLP than trying to win for their faction under Labor.
Boerwar – Sheridan is a f**king liar. Spending on education by the federal government, which Sheridan just said is ever increasing and which achieves ever worse results, disproportionately goes to private schools, which was the whole f**king point of Gonski!
[JimmyDoyle
Posted Monday, April 4, 2016 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
Boerwar – Sheridan is a f**king liar. Spending on education by the federal government, which Sheridan just said is ever increasing and which achieves ever worse results, disproportionately goes to private schools, which was the whole f**king point of Gonski!]
I may have it wrong but I beg to differ. The whole point of Gonski is to put money where it is most needed, regardless of school system.
[Why do you think that savings provisions are a bad idea, considering they will mean ]
Because they are a dishonest distraction. An informal vote (and the whole GVT was a way to reduce informal votes) is a ‘bad thing’. I had assumed that formal votes that exhausted without impacting the outcome in anyway would be treated / analysed / measured in exactly the same way as an informal vote. And be treated as a bad thing to be minimised.
Apparently though this isn’t the case, so long as you say it is a formal vote that doesn’t impact the outcome, it is a f*cking great vote, even though it is EXACTLY the same in impact as an informal vote that must be avoided at any cost.
If you OPV proponent treated exhausted without impact votes as exactly the same as informal votes and showed the same passion for getting rid of them that they showed for informal votes I’d have SOME respect for them rather than none.
I wonder whether someone will spring Pyne with the $100,000 degree question?
We should never forget that Pyne was to Education as Dutton was to Health: both were miserable ministerial failures.
Boerwar – sorry, my comment was poorly phrased:
Federal funding disproportionately goes to private schools, and fixing this was the whole point of Gonsk.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30585105
[Mehbooba Mufti has been sworn in as the first woman chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir.
The 56-year-old leader is the daughter of the former chief minister, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, who died in January.
Her father’s death led to weeks of wrangling between Ms Mufti and India’s ruling BJP, over the future of their coalition government.]
That is odd. Mr Pyne has yet to mention the fiscal envelope and living within our means.
4 Corners was a huge free kick in front of goal for Labor/Greens.
Let’s see if the atrocities of the Panama Papers actually translates into laws to reduce the abuses.
The problem of corruption is not what is illegal; it is what is legal.
Poroti
Media Watch confirmed Mal’s only media mate is the ABC. How karmaesque.