First up, the latest dispatches from the front:
• The preference deal with the Greens being pursued by the Victorian Liberals at the behest of the party’s state president, Michael Kroger, is meeting resistance from other branches of the party. Rick Wallace of The Australian today cites unidentified Liberal sources expressing displeasure at the idea, and gets Tasmanian Senator Eric Abetz to reiterate that the “very strong view” of his own state division was that the Greens should be put last. The party’s federal director, Tony Nutt, issued a statement yesterday stressing that no decision had been made.
• Labor hit a spot of bother today in the Townsville electorate of Herbert, which it has never quite been able to pick off since it fell to the Liberals in the 1996 landslide. Bill Shorten’s Queensland road trip brought him to the electorate today, but a doorstop he conducted together with the Labor candidate, Cathy O’Toole, was dominated by O’Toole’s involving in a protest at Liberal member Ewen Jones’s electorate office in February pleading for “a more humane policy for refugees”.
• Apropos Dennis Jensen’s announcement he will run as an independent in Tangney, the Australian Parliamentary Library reviews “the electoral fortunes of MPs who left major parties and contested the next election as Independents”, going back to 1949. Out of 17 identified examples, 12 failed to win their seats (several of whom left office under a cloud); three won re-election but were then defeated at the next election subsequently; and another won re-election and then retired at the election subsequently. Only Bob Katter went on to lasting electoral success.
Now to polling. BludgerTrack has been updated with the latest Essential Research, along with state data from Ipsos, Essential and ReachTEL. The Coalition is now credited with a lead of 50.5-49.5, which is full point better than the pre-budget reading from last week. That translates into a net gain of three since last week on the seat projection, with two gains in New South Wales and one each in Victoria and the Northern Territory balanced by a loss in Queensland. At some point in the not distant future, I’ll start including state-level primary vote breakdowns and two-party results from respondent-allocated trends as well as previous election preferences, but for the time being the display looks like so:
Two new polls were released yesterday, and I have a bit left to say about one from the day before:
• Essential Research’s fortnightly rolling average has the Labor lead down from 52-48 to 51-49, with the Coalition up a point on the primary vote to 42%, Labor steady on 38% and the Greens steady on 10%. The poll also records 20% approval and 29% disapproval of the budget, with 35% opting for neither and 15% for don’t know. Twenty-one per cent felt the budget had made them more confident in the government, compared with 32% for less confident and 35% for makes no difference. However, most of the specific measures were well supported; 69% for internships for the young unemployed versus 14% opposed; 72% for the higher tax on cigarettes, versus 21% against; 62% for capping super tax concessions, versus 21% against; and 50% in favour of company tax cuts, versus 34% against. Opinion was evenly divided on the tax cut for those on more than $80,000, at 43% for and 44% against, and there was a predictable result for “cuts of $1.2 billion to aged care providers”. A bonus survey question provided exclusively to SBS recorded a view that the budget would make it harder for young people looking to buy their first home and gain a higher education, migrant families seeking education jobs, and people saving for their retirement – but there was a relatively good result for “young people trying to find a job”, presumably reflecting the internships scheme. The poll also recorded 48% opposition to bringing asylum seekers from Manus Island to Australia with 30% in support, and 39% holding the view that conditions in detention centres were poor, versus 32% for good.
• The Guardian Australia yesterday published a poll by Lonergan Research showing 50-50 on two-party preferred, from primary votes of Coalition 42%, Labor 35% and Greens 12%. It also found only 12% felt they would be better off because of the budget compared with 38% for worse off, and that 29% said it made them more likely to vote for the Coalition compared with 47% for less likely. The poll was automated phone survey of 1841 respondents conducted Friday to Sunday.
• I hadn’t mentioned the budget response results from Newspoll, which are worth a closer look. Among other things, there are breakdowns by income cohort, which you don’t often see in published polling. Those on higher incomes ($100,000 and lower) were more disposed to have an overall favourable view than those on lower incomes ($50,000 or less), but not by a great order of magnitude: 39% good and 22% in the former case, 31% good and 22% bad in the latter. However, bigger disparities were recorded on personal impact, with 11% of low-income earners expecting to be better off and 45% expecting to be worse off, compared with 29% and 27% for higher income earners. There are also interesting differences by age, with the most favourable responses coming from the young and the least favourable from the middle-aged, with the older cohort landing in between. Charts below put all this into the context of the regular post-budget Newspoll questions going back to 1988 (although there’s a slight change this year and that there are no longer neutral as distinct from uncommitted response options), and show the historic relationship between the “own financial position” and “economic impact” questions, with this year’s question identified in red. On pretty much every measure, this was an average response to a budget, although the plus 5% net rating for economic impact compares slightly unfavourably with an average of plus 10.9%. Its also a weaker than usual result for a Coalition budget, which have had historically better results (part of which is to do with the Howard government holding the reins in the pre-GFC boom years).
Guytaur – well said.
For some reason stuff I cut out of the post appeared. For example all the stuff where I mentioned BW.
I cut it because I was referring to the issues and BW was just the latest pushing the Greens toxic line not the only one.
So sorry BW I did not mean to single you out there I cut it for very good reason.
PBer seem to have missed the point of Turnbull’s investment in the Siberian gold mine: it went broke.
So much for the Man With The Golden Touch.
Two Russian Prime Ministers allegedly bribed, and the Russian President had $10 million allegedly put in his account yearly for life (not very long in Yeltsin’s case, unhappily for him) and the project STILL failed!
Turnbull and Wran allegedly extracted $1.2 million in “management fees”…no good. It went belly up.
Panama, British Virgin islands etc. … bankrupt enterprise.
SOME brilliant management there, eh?
POTSS – suffice it to say that if the Greens help Labor lose the next election, you’ll be pissing in the wind with your high-minded rhetoric, and the refugees will STILL be languishing in indefinite detention.
I hope the Greens hold the balance of power with a Labor minority government after the next election, assisted by them gaining a couple of their target seats in the lower house. Then the ALP will learn what compromise actually is.
BW @ 12.49
A couple of points. Handwringing, even this little isolated corner of the body politic, is not going to achieve anything. Secondly, some of those Labor candidates are being hung out to dry because of past expressions of concern about the appalling situation of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus, not what they have said on the campaign trail.
Personally, Labor sticking to its National Conference policy is not a bad thing. And these cases of Labor candidates expressing humane concern for the plight of asylum seekers is not a bad thing. The Liberal Party, in its desperate attempt to blackguard the whole Labor Party for showing a bit of humanity, might well go so far as to increasingly and hysterically sound like real Nazi thugs.
There is huge public disquiet about any prospect of boats commencing to arrive in numbers again, despite what the fairy taled fools in the Greens think. But there is also increasing disquiet about the brutal treatment of asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru, that the vicious lies of Dutton cannot suppress.
This may well play out against the Liberals yet. They have overplayed their hand so many times in the past due to a surfeit of cynicism on their part.
Citizen
If the current NSW Liberal party dilemma were the ALP circa 1980, the answer would be simple
It is the catholic right versus the protestant left. Simple.
Now I wonder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tony Abbott always belonged spiritually to 1955. he is now taking his 1950s politics to the Liberals.
The only reason why a party outside Labor and the Coalition hasn’t formed a government is that the electoral system is specifically designed to prevent parties from getting parliamentary representation and legitimacy that is commensurate with the size of their vote share. It isn’t because Labor is awesome and the Greens suck. A more representative parliament would make negotiation and power-sharing normal and routine. It’s small-minded thinking to assert that winner-take-all outcomes reflect the virtues of the winner; the winner-take-all outcome is produced by a winner-take-all system. If a party needed to get more than 50 percent of the vote to get more than 50 percent of the seats in the house where governments are formed, voters would be incentivized to examine alternatives and vote for the party that best represents their analysis of the problems and their sense of what the solutions might be.
“PBer seem to have missed the point of Turnbull’s investment in the Siberian gold mine: it went broke.”
I dunno. Going broke seems to have been part of the plan…
Panama Papers has moved to first story in 24 intro.
If your example is any indication, I hope BW, TPOF and others are right – the Greens should be kept well away from actual power and influence.
I would suggest we all pace ourselves. It’s a long campaign, and stuff like 30 year-old convictions won’t really resonate for very long.
I am reminded of the first few minutes of a footy grand final, where everyone gets very physical, pumped up and aggressive. Eventually everything settles down into a more sustainable pace.
Look if people can’t refrain from crapping on about the bloody Greens all the time, I’ll bore everybody senseless by crapping on endlessly about the ABC.
I know….
Well they won’t. If there is a minority government, it is more in the interests of Labor to let Turncoat grasp the poison chalice with both hands because he is bound to completely balls up everything and lose his own job to Scummo. A fresh election will go Labor’s way, just like a fresh election any time after 2010 would have gone the way of the Liberals.
It is telling that the people most desperate to talk up a Labor-Greens coalition are the Liberals and the Greens. Like boats, the Liberals are trying to scare the voters and the Greens are trying to convince their supporters that they can have power without responsibility. Labor won’t have a bar of it this time and should not.
Gosh PB has lost the plot with the Labor /green argy bargy- surely not 7 more weeks of this- give them a thread William!
Zoomster, there are countless examples of governments – and oppositions – selling unpopular policies to the electorate. You know this, you don’t need an example. You’re just searching for ways to justify Labor doing what is politically expedient and not what is right.
The denialists who choose to deride Tim Flannery because he is “not a climate scientist” are the same people who are quite happy to listen to the ‘scientific’ musings of ‘Lord’ Monckton and Cardinal Pell.
Ironic, and hilarous.
Shorter Fairfax business commentator…
“Malcolm Turnbull isn’t a criminal. Everybody does it.”
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/malcolm-turnbull-may-be-named-in-the-panama-papers-but-hes-not-a-criminal-20160511-got1sy.html
Great day for Malcolm so far – not. What’s worse, the Panama Papers or Melinda?
If your example is any indication, I hope BW, TPOF and others are right – the Greens should be kept well away from actual power and influence.
Well, if your record of selling out is any indication, the Labor left is soon not going to have any access to power or influence because they’ll have become indistinguishable with their counterparts on the right. Then we’ll see what you want from the Greens.
BB – Yes, but he’s our prime minister, not a scumbag businessman.
kakuru Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 1:06 pm
The denialists who choose to deride Tim Flannery because he is “not a climate scientist” are the same people who are quite happy to listen to the ‘scientific’ musings of ‘Lord’ Monckton and Cardinal Pell.
Ironic, and hilarous.
**********************************************************
Kakuru – you left out the world renowned expert, Andrew Bolt …..
POSS
That was exactly how the Liberals and Abbott did bipartisanship and compromise between 2010 and 2013. If you don’t do exactly what we say and let us publicly rub your political noses in it, it is not bipartisanship and not compromise.
Compromise is not giving way to the party making the dumbest demands because they scream the loudest. Compromise is genuine negotiation where each party gives ground in order to achieve the best possible outcome. The Greens don’t do compromise. They do “my way or the highway” and call that compromise. Same as the Coalition. Which is why they couldn’t get the Senate cross-benchers on board despite all of them being politically somewhere between the centre and the far right.
president of the solipsist society @ #1104 Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 12:58 pm
When have the greens ever compromised ?
If the greens want more than about 10% of the vote they’ll need to compromise.
And it is simple to twist that into “Everybody who can does it”.
’cause there are plenty who don’t.
POTSS – out of regard for others who are sick of this debate, I will not respond to any more of your, frankly, disrespectful pontificating.
TPOF
I think you are wrong about the Greens losing from any resulting election after failure to form a government sends back to the election.
The party that refuses to be part of the deal will be punished at the polls. The party that is most likely to form a deal will be rewarded at the polls. With the Greens promising to work with one party going to an election has to get the ok of the GG and survive the ire of the voters as a result.
kevin-one-seven @ #1120 Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 1:08 pm
Turnbull demonstrates he can be both.
BB ….. for your records :
Cabin fragment and Rolls Royce piece found in South Africa and Mauritius ‘almost certainly’ from MH370
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/cabin-fragment-and-rolls-royce-piece-found-in-south-africa-and-mauritius-almost-certainly-from-mh370/news-story/0649b50d6563371e8b05ec1286d31dd4
Did Malcolm’s management fees from the Siberian Gold get declared in Australia and get subject to income tax? Did he buy a toaster with the money? Questions to answer!
Well said – I did not know how to say this, so thank you for saying it.
Yes so many questions, and you can bet so few of them will be asked, let alone answered.
How Duncan Storrar’s question set in motion a public grilling and more than $50,000 in donations
“The public should know what kind of person he is.”
Australia responded with a mix of support and cynicism. The Australian reported on Thursday that Mr Storrar may not be the “national hero” he is being presented as.
The newspaper interviewed his son, Aztec Major, who said he and his father both developed a drug addiction three years ago and shouldn’t be trusted with a large sum of money.
On the fundraising page, commenters rallied behind Mr Storrar, regardless of his past.
“I give zero f*cks whether he is who or what he claims to be, or whether he spends the money on hookers and VB,” one man wrote.
“It was worth the money I donated to watch someone ask a question that would otherwise never see the light of day and hear answers that fit in that same category.”
Others wrote: “I didn’t donate to Duncan with an agenda on how it was to be spent … as far as I am concerned he can take his girls to the Gold Coast for the weekend and splurge the lot” and “Duncan, I hope you feel like you won the lottery today (and) I love that we have the power to make that happen.”
Mr Oliver said Mr Storrar’s message touched a nerve because it was so raw and so real.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/how-duncan-storrars-question-set-in-motion-a-public-grilling-and-more-than-50000-in-donations/news-story/c1474639eceab6c3b779b2aa66155ad9
Has anyone seen the footage of Malcolm and Melinda yet? From what I’ve read on the Guardian, it doesn’t look good for the Toff.
I now await the GG’s attempt to destroy Melinda.
“”So sad that the company associated with Panama never made any profits:””
Was there a LOSS, was it tax deductible?.
The ALP-Greens thing
MAAAAAAAAAAAKE IT STTTTTTTTOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPP
People can whine about their strawmen of the Greens all they like, but I’ve actually pointed to an actual quote of Julia Gillard insisting on punitive regional processing as part of her asylum seeker solution. As if there’s anything to negotiate on that. That’s basically the antithesis of the Greens’ platform so it’s pretty obviously not any sort of genuine attempt on Gillard’s behalf to ‘give ground in order to get an outcome’. In fact, it has all the hallmarks of strong-arm tactics.
guytaur @ #1126 Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 1:11 pm
I don’t think you are right. People most want a stable government led by a stable leader. More so now than for many years.
An agreement could be nothing more than the Greens saying they will support Labor in confidence motions and will negotiate with Labor on specific issues. Labor would have no choice but to agree with that and would be happy to do so. However, if the Greens or any other cross-bencher (because if a hung parliament is unlikely, the idea of Greens support alone being enough is even more unlikely) that supports Labor starts to demand specific concessions for an agreement, Labor can justifiably refuse to agree – and they won’t be punished by the voters for not doing so. Indeed, Labor will demonstrate that voting Greens in the reps will achieve nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling for voters.
But beyond that, any election in the period soon after a hung parliament will go with the momentum that led to a hung parliament. Necessarily, that is with the opposition that has almost achieved a majority, not the government that lost one. In 2010 that was the Abbott coalition; in 2016 that will necessarily be Shorten Labor.
Labor can afford to play hard ball with the Greens and it would be in its best interests to do so.
Whether the company went broke or not MT is said to have made a million + sending it on its way.
Thought I’d post this. It’s very funny:
http://www.chaser.com.au/2016/panama/
burgey @ #1136 Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 1:19 pm
I feel your pain. However, I think there is an important issue here. As I’ve argued, the Greens are trying to wrest seats and political influence off Labor. They are a significant opponent to Labor. In that respect, they would be in the same position as someone non-committed to either major party coming on here to argue the toss.
8 weeks of walking through shopping centres and trying to avoid the Melinda’s of the world!!!Risky. Me thinks some activist folk should start stalking Turnbull in Panama hats- hint hint!
When have the greens ever compromised ?
I’m not a walking Hansard; doubtless there are tens if not hundreds of bills on which the Greens compromised with the ALP during the Rudd-Gillard years. Labor whingers point to their failure to get an outcome on carbon pricing and asylum seekers as if those two issues were the sum total of all that ever went on during the 6 years Labor was in government. Guess what – we don’t hear about the compromises because they, by definition, were successful. Only the things that blow up in everyone’s faces are the things that make it to the news.
TPOF
I am looking at the experience of Tasmania. Labor did that there. The Greens vote went up. The LNP vote went up. Labor vote went down. There was another hung parliament and the Greens went with the LNP.
Next time Labor got balance of power under Giddings having learnt from last time they accepted a Green Minister rather than go to an election again.
poss
If there’s countless examples, should be no sweat for you to come up with one.
So far your score is zero.
Labor can afford to play hard ball with the Greens and it would be in its best interests to do so.
There you go, Jimmy: Labor’s ideal of compromise out the window in just two posts. Must be a world record.
It’s good to see that the SMH work experience business deputy editor (they’ve got to cut costs somehow) completely misses the point by declaring that Mal has done nothing illegal.
shellbell
Re the Baden-Clay High Court leave to appeal ruling.
In your experience, why would the Court grant leave to appeal, and then the hearing of it?
I’m from QLD and have followed the case closely, was in Court the day the Court of Appeal announced its decision, and have read the judgment fully. It seems to me to be very persuasive.
“8 weeks of walking through shopping centres and trying to avoid the Melinda’s of the world!!!Risky. Me thinks some activist folk should start stalking Turnbull in Panama hats- hint hint!”
At the same time as they are munching on a Polly Waffle bar.
Of course, it’s outrageous when the Greens don’t compromise with Labor, but it’s perfectly okay for Labor not to compromise with the Greens.
TPOF has summed up Labor’s hypocrisy on this issue so perfectly in just two posts. I honestly don’t think I could have done it better myself.