As the campaign for a July 2 double dissolution election officially begins, three big polling guns have sounded:
• In The Australian, Newspoll records a 51-49 lead to Labor, unchanged on the last result three weeks ago, from primary votes of Coalition 41% (steady), Labor 37% (up one) and Greens 11% (steady). Malcolm Turnbull is on 38% approval (up two) and 49% disapproval (steady), with Bill Shorten respectively on 33% (up two) and 52% (steady). Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is 49-27, little changed on the 47-28 result last time. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of about 1739. Hat tip: James J in comments.
• In the Fairfax papers, Ipsos goes the other way, with a 51-49 lead to the Coalition after a 50-50 result three weeks ago. The Coalition is up two on the primary vote to 44%, with Labor and the Greens steady on 33% and 14%. Despite that, there’s been a big improvement in Bill Shorten’s personal ratings, his approval up five to 38% and disapproval down six to 49%. Turnbull’s ratings, which have been markedly better from Ipsos than Newspoll, have him down three on approval to 48%, and up two on disapproval to 40%. The poll also found the budget to be deemed fair by 37% and unfair by 43%, which compares with 52% and 33% after last year’s budget, and 33% and 63% after the disaster the year before (when the series was conducted by Nielsen rather than Ipsos). Fifty-three per cent of respondents expected the Coalition would win the election, compared with 24% for Labor.
• News Corp’s Sunday tabloids also had a Galaxy poll overnight that had the result at 50-50, from primary votes of Coalition 42%, Labor 36% and Greens 11%. While the Newspoll and Galaxy result both come from the same firm and involved a combination of online and phone polling, the phone polling for the Galaxy result was, I believe, live interview rather than automated. The Galaxy also found low recognition of Scott Morrison as Treasurer (48%) and Chris Bowen as Shadow Treasurer (18%), and had a few attidinal questions whose wording Labor wouldn’t have minded: “Do you consider it fair or unfair that only workers earning more than $80,000 a year got a tax cut in the budget?”, recording 28% for fair and 62% for unfair, and “do you support or oppose Labor’s plan to leave the deficit levy in place so that workers earning over $180,000 a year pay more tax?”, which got 63% for support and 21% for oppose. The poll was conducted Wednesday to Friday from a sample of 1270.
I’ll be running all that through the Bludgermator a little later to produce BludgerTrack projections, so watch this space.
UPDATE: BludgerTrack has had a feel of the four new opinion polls and found them to be, if not exactly budget bouncy, then tending to ameliorate what was probably an excessively favourable reading for Labor last week. The Coalition is now credited with having its nose in front on two-party preferred, assisted by a ReachTEL result that was better for them than the headline figure of 50-50 made it appear. That was based on respondent-allocated preferences, but on 2013 election preferences it comes out as 51.6-48.4. I don’t have any state data from the latest round of polls, so the state relativities are unchanged from last week’s result. The seat projection has the Coalition clearly back in majority government territory after making one gain apiece in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. Note that primary vote and two-party charts are now featured below going back to the start of the year, with a further two-party chart continuing to show progress since the start of the term. Three polls have provided new leadership ratings, including the Morgan poll together with Newspoll and Ipsos. The trend results suggest Malcolm Turnbull’s downward plunge might at least be levelling off, but an improvement for Bill Shorten that can be traced back to the start of the year is, if anything, gaining momentum.
Why are the Greens undermining Labor, & visa versa. We all need to get rid of this stinking LNP government. Really poor start to this campaign from both sides.
Catmomma
I have seen live press denials of any deals by Greens members. This was not brought up on QandA and tweets were happening.
So I need more reliable information before I trust a Murdoch tabloid that a deal has been made. However that said I am not upset at any deals made. IF that has occurred Feeney has just reaped what he sowed by his sneering remarks.
It was said by a few his comments could make a deal happen.
As for the lying yes I am disappointed but hey they are politicians and what do you expect elections are war and we know the fog of truth comes in war.
Airlines
Ditto.
Why are some people so angst ridden about voters deciding for themselves how they will vote.
This just retweeted by Christine Milne
Greens: Let’s set the record straight: the Greens will not preference the Liberals anywhere in the country but the same can’t be said of Labor.
So what deal has been made really? Maybe a Murdoch tabloid is not telling the truth .
Ah, I get it, Dick was being tricky when he said that The Greens would never preference the Liberals AHEAD of Labor. But an Open Ticket, different thing entirely.
That the Open Ticket would also have a negative effect on Marginal Labor Seat holders, is exactly the point. It produces an entirely similar outcome to preferencing the Liberals ahead of Labor.
But it’s not The Greens telling their voters to preference the Liberals. Oh no, that would be too tacky and they couldn’t trot out their too cute by half lines then. But they know full well that they are deliberately not telling their voters to put Labor ahead of the Liberals either. No, no, no. They are leaving it up to their voters to decide. And giving a nod and a wink that it’s OK to preference the Liberals if they want.
Just as slimy and grubby as any other political party, and certainly not the angels they make themselves out to be.
airlines @ #996 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:17 pm
Add idiotic to my other terms of endearment.
HTVs are a recommendation and it is up to the voter to follow or not follow. They do not dictate anything.
jimmydoyle @ #1000 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:20 pm
There should be a difference – to my knowledge, Greens issue open tickets a fair amount of times (such as the 2014 Victorian election) and it didn’t cost the ALP any seats. It will also have, overall, little to no impact on preferences – the Greens preferences, on average, at the 2010 election (and this is extrapolating so it may have changed) shifted from 78% to 76% on average, or something minimal like that. The Liberals are basically giving the Greens Batman as a don gratuit.
Voters decide for themselves how to vote, whatever the HTV says. All a HTV is is advice; it’s not compulsory for anyone to follow them.
…so the Greens advice is, it doesn’t matter whether you put Liberals ahead of Labor.
And right on cue, Pegasus trots out the too cute by half Greens’ line:
Why are some people so angst ridden about voters deciding for themselves how they will vote.
Isn’t Danby preferencing the Liberals above the Greens in in Melbourne Ports?
bemused @ #1006 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:25 pm
And I would prefer parties not to recommend anything. Hence my support of open tickets.
I agree with some that basically Labor and the Greens are on the same side but it should be remembered that the Leadership of the Democrats thought they had all the votes they were going to get from the Left and started moving to the right, hence the deal with Howard on GST the only thing they didn’t relies was the were heading right out the door
Catmomma
It’s Labor people that say Greens people are making themselves out to be angels. Is it there is a guilt thing happening over AS?
IF not I just don’t get it. The Greens lecture the LNP and oppose the LNP more than they do Labor its on the record. The Greens have even supported Labor in government.
THATS the reality.
pegasus @ #1010 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:27 pm
Vic Labor didn’t take kindly to what Danby said and I don’t believe they’ll let him
RaaRaa
Willox represents one of the peak business lobbies.
Business in general will be supportive of land taxation as it reduces their costs, often quite dramtically.
It’s mainly spivs and wankers—rather than people operating genuinely profitable businesses—who support tax measures that increase the price of land.
zoomster @ #1008 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:26 pm
Open-ticket doesn’t mean that – it means that it’s better to make your own choice. Unless you think that Labor threatening an open-ticket in Higgins means that Kelly O’Dwyer is just as good as a Green?
Airlines
Ah Sorry I meant Danby comments not Feeney. My apologies to Feeney.
Airlines – if open tickets make no difference then why would the Liberals be happy to accept that in return for preferencing the Greens ahead of Labor in Batman, Wills and Melbourne?
(I am willing to accept that this may still be a News Corpse beat-up – but if it’s not…)
Airlines:
The Liberals are basically giving the Greens Batman as a don gratuit.
And The Greens are giving the Liberals Corangamite, Dunkley, Chisholm and Bruce.
Looks like a deal between the two parties to me.
airlines @ #1011 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:27 pm
And I would prefer parties not to recommend anything. Hence my support of open tickets.
Normal political parties are in the business of influencing people and achieving outcomes.
So the Greens are not?
Why so angst-ridden over Labor preferences in Melbourne Ports when they won’t be distributed.
i think greens should run open ticket – democrats did that –
i dont think it would hurt labor much
altho then labor in quandary … who to preference
JD
I would like to see these deals and accusations of deals stop. So I would like to see open tickets legislated. I think that means something lie OPV but if just banning deals and mandating open tickets for all electorates would work I would be happy.
Isn’t this the same rumour that floated a month or so ago? The same one that seems cunningly designed to predict unnatural causation of something that happens naturally anyway? Is there more evidence this time around? Or does simply repeating it again and again add more weight to it?
Did Adam, can’t remember his second username, once work for Feeney.
If the Coalition’s campaign is as woeful as Kelly O’Dwyer’s performance on Q&A Labor will win by 15 seats.
Psephos
warrenpeace @ #1025 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:34 pm
Carr
jimmydoyle @ #1018 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:31 pm
Is “because the Liberals are idiots” an appropriate answer?
If not, potentially because the Liberals think it’s a good thing to stir dissent between the Greens and Labor because it will lead to a more fractured government. I think they also think if the Greens have a greater representation, the greater the dissent will be (and getting the Greens to win seats in the HoR would be a part of that since they’re close to their Senate ceiling with their current vote). The Liberals might also want to lowkey encourage the Greens to pour resources into Labor-held seats instead of Liberal-held seats like Higgins (or Coalition-ALP marginal seats like Richmond) to try and keep their lot safe.
C@tmomma
The power of the Greens to determine electoral outcomes. Get real.
You must not think much of Labor’s candidates in these electorates if you think it’s a foregone conclusion.
Or ru prescient. It’s always easier to blame the Greens even before the poll results are in. Ridiculous.
The Liberal Democrats and Democratic Labor Party, and many other misleadingly named parties, thank you for your endorsement.
Goodnight all
Sorry, reading carefully, it’s not the same claim.
A month ago the claim was such a deal had already been done. Now the claim is it’s not done. Are they working their way backwards? They started with a done deal and are un-negotiating it?
bemused @ #1020 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:32 pm
You can influence people’s ideas and not tell them which is preferred out of their 6th and 7th preferences, you know that, right?
Guytaur,
When it comes to elections, The Greens are an entirely different beast.
However, I also don’t support your assertion that The Greens say nice things about Labor and support them in parliament etc. You just have to listen to their rhetoric to know that they, more often than not, say that it is Labor that supports THEM!
Plus the fact that it’s always this malarkey about ‘the old parties’. Since when has it been an Australian political crime to be a party that has successfully existed for over 100 years!?! It’s just Greens’ marketing department spin.
Labor may be an ‘Old Party’, but it’s a goodie.
DisplayName
That’s it.
c@tmomma @ #1019 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:32 pm
Open tickets has not cost Labor any seats in the past – Greens voters are not that great at following HTVs, so those who preference Liberal after voting Green are likely to do it anyway.
mimhoff
lol, I’m not the one who is angst ridden. Just highlighting how absurd and illogical the angst is from some of the Laborites here about a deal between the Liberals and the Greens that only exists in their fevered imaginations.
Halarious reading Labor bludgers squealing about a supposed deal between the Liberals and Greens. Fact; the Greens will not preference the Liberals in any of the 150 electorates nationally. Can the same be said for Labor? Didn’t think so. Even funnier is the amount of Labor supporters who staunchly defended Danby stating that Labor would preference the Liberals in Melbourne Ports. Hipocracy much?
catmomma
Labor is just as bad at that as the Greens. The difference is the Greens don’t pretend they are not in politics as is the accusation Labor makes against them in elections.
Its goose gander fog of war in election time.
As for what the Greens say of course they say that. So would Labor in same position its about attracting voters.
Its called politics and unlike the accusations by some Labor people I see the Greens get that.
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/poll-roundup-and-seat-betting-watch.html
Poll Roundup And Seat Betting Watch: Election Called
2PP 50.2 to Coalition (-0.2) Seat estimate for this 2PP is 79-67-4
c@tmomma @ #1035 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:38 pm
Honestly the Greens and the ALP are pretty good at supporting each other – they’re probably the two most aligned parties in Australia (other than the Liberals and the Nationals, and maybe the Coalition and Family First, for what they are worth).
Labor will occasionally pop in and support a Greens bill, and the Greens support Labor in the Senate (and in the HoR if need be, but that’s irrelevant at the moment). Of course, neither of these things show up in either political party’s advertising.
Airlines – I’ll reserve judgement but if it emerges that there’s a formal deal for open HTVs in exchange for preferences when the Greens created this:
http://greens.org.au/no-deal
Then the accusation directed at the Greens of lies and tricky deals are well deserved.
Good night.
Airlines,
Agree with your analysis @ 11:37 pm & 11:39 pm.
Research supports the fact that Greens voters are least likely to follow any HTV. I never do.
pegasus @ #1030 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:37 pm
Pegasus,
Cute rationalisation, but no cigar.
It’s not about the quality of Labor’s candidates in these seats, as you so sanctimoniously sneer, but ‘the arithmetic’, as Howard put it, and the fact that, in a tightly-contested race a few preferences going one way instead of another can determine the outcome. And if The Greens think that doing a deal with the Liberals NOT to preference Labor in these seats so that the Liberals gain a small but significant advantage out of it is NOT a Preference Deal, then they must think we came down in the last rain shower.
As others have pointed out, Labor have the option of directing preferences towards the Liberals in a seat where the Greens will exhaust before Labor. Doing so will have no effect on the outcome, but may be smart politics for other reasons, e.g. sending messages, differentiation, keeping distance, whatever :-p.
The data seems to show that Greens voters are not very good at following directions from the party. If that’s the case, since it has no effect on the outcome, the Greens have a similar option open to them.
You can’t have it both ways.
a deal between the Liberals and the Greens that only exists in their fevered imaginations.
And on the front page of the Herald Sun tomorrow apparently.
I could post a link to the real enemy again but you get my drift.
Cormann on screen now (730 Repeat) rattling off the LNP talking points of the day. He actually just lied, saying he/the LNP cares about job security, about funding health and education on a ‘sustainable’ basis. Although thinking about it, ‘sustainable’ probably means user pays, mates don’t.
When CC turns up again refer him to this little bit of exciting information
“They show that John Howard is the only treasurer in Australia’s history who’s been able to engineer – simultaneously – double-digit inflation (December 1981 to June 1983), double-digit levels of unemployment (April to October 1983) and double-digit interest rates (November 1980 to October 1983).
In the June quarter of 1983, inflation was 11.1%, the unemployment rate was 10.2% and the official cash rate averaged 12.08%.
The election in March 1983 meant that Labor presided over this economic misery, even though they obviously had not created these outcomes.
Howard won office in March 1996. The June quarter 1996 results put inflation on 3.1% (and on track to average 0.9% in the three years 1997 to 1999), the official cash rate was 7.5% (and on track to average 5.1% in the three years to December 1999) while the unemployment rate was 8.1% (and on track to reach 6.6% by the end of 1999).”
Looks like the ALP actually fixed Howards economic mess!!
c@tmomma @ #1047 Monday, May 9, 2016 at 11:48 pm
I’d define the Herald Sun as having a fevered imagination at times