BludgerTrack is now updated with all of the federal polling published over the past few days, results of which are displayed at the bottom of this post. As has been the case since at least the start of the campaign period, the tracker is resolute in recording an effective dead heat on two-party preferred, with the seat projection continuing to point towards a slender absolute majority for the Coalition. The latest addition to the aggregate is the weekly reading of Essential Research’s fortnightly rolling aggregate, which echoes BludgerTrack in coming in at 50-50 on two-party preferred. This follows a two-point movement the previous week that turned a 51-49 Coalition deficit into a 51-49 Coalition lead. On the primary vote, the Coalition is steady at 41%, Labor is up one to 36%, the Greens are up one to 9%, and the Nick Xenophon Team is steady on 4%.
Further questions offer some encouragement for Bill Shorten with respect to perceptions of the two leaders during the campaign, although I wonder how good respondents are at isolating that period specifically. The results find 20% saying they have become more favourable towards Shorten versus 21% for less favourable, but these are much better than Malcolm Turnbull’s respective figures of 7% and 33%. Another dose of Essential’s “party trust to handle issues” records a big drop in the Coalition’s lead on managing the economy since a month ago, down from 20% to 12%, with most other measures remaining fairly stable. An occasional question on climate change records a four point drop since March in those attributing it to human activity to 59%, and a one point increase in those favouring the alternative option of it being “a normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate” to 28%. Most of the survey period was before large parts of Sydney’s northern beaches crumbled into the sea. Further questions confirm the impression that the electorate has been less than fully switched on during the first half of the campaign marathon, with only 14% claiming to have shown a lot of interest in the campaign, compared with 39% for some interest, 27% for very little interest and 18% for no interest.
Federal election bits and pieces:
• Labor’s candidate in Malcolm Turnbull’s seat of Wentworth, Evan Hughes, has provided Fairfax with results of a ReachTEL poll he commissioned showing a 10% swing against Turnbull, reducing his margin from 18% to 8%. The poll was conducted last Tuesday from a sample of 626.
• Steven Scott of the Courier-Mail reports Labor optimism about the regional Queensland seats of Capricornia and Herbert is not matched for the state’s capital. The northern suburbs seat of Petrie, held by the LNP on a margin of 0.5%, is identified as a seat where Labor is falling short. A similar prognosis was offered in my own paywalled article in Crikey on Thursday.
• More of my words of wisdom on the campaign can be found on a podcast for The Conversation, and in a review of northern Tasmania’s flood-stricken marginal seats in a paywalled Crikey article yesterday.
• Mark the Ballot tracks Sportsbet’s win probabilities for all 150 electorates to the start of the campaign. Sportsbet has substantially revised its odds over the course of the campaign in favour of the Liberals in Banks, Hindmarsh and Lyons, the Liberal National Party in Leichhardt, the Greens in Batman, Labor in Cowan, and Bob Katter in Kennedy.
• Fairfax reports the Victorian Liberal Party’s administration committee discussed, but ultimately decided against, disendorsing McEwen candidate Chris Jermyn following his struggles before the news cameras as he gatecrashed a Bill Shorten event in Sunbury last weekend.
• An alleged promise by South Australian property developer Roostam Sadri to donate $500,000 to the Liberal Democratic Party in exchange for the top position on its South Australian Senate ticket has been referred to police by the Australian Electoral Commission, as reported yesterday by Josh Taylor of Crikey. This followed last week’s publication by Fairfax of an apparent written agreement to that effect. Sadri denies having paid such an amount, or that there was ever a “formal agreement”. The section of the Electoral Act pertaining to bribery offences provides, with helpful exactitude, that “a person shall not ask for, receive or obtain, or offer or agree to ask for, or receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind, whether for the same or any other person, on an understanding that the order in which the names of candidates nominated for election to the Senate whose names are included in a group in accordance with section 168 appear on a ballot paper will, in any manner, be influenced or affected”. Graeme Orr of the University of Queensland’s TC Beirne School of Law notes that Section 362 of the Act states that candidates forfeit their seats if involved in bribery, and that this requires only the civil rather than the criminal standard of proof. This could equally apply to David Leyonhjelm’s bid for re-election in New South Wales as to Roostam Sadri’s run in South Australia, if the Fairfax report’s assertion that Leyonhjelm “considered entering” an agreement was substantiated.
Further afield:
• The Northern Territory News offers a reminder that a territory election looms on August 27, and the Northern Territory News offers a helpful reminder with a Mediareach poll of 400 respondents in the Alice Springs electorates of Araluen and Braitling. The pollster appears to have failed to ask a follow-up question to prompt the 23% undecided, rendering it of little value, but it’s presumably instructive that less than 40% of decided respondents said they would vote for the Country Liberal Party, compared with 68% at the 2012 election.
• The Sydney Morning Herald reports the NSW Electoral Commission is investigating allegations of vote-rigging during Labor’s American primary-style “community preselection” process for the seat of Ballina ahead of last year’s state election. It is alleged that a party official used details on enrolled voters from the party’s database to fraudulently vote on their behalf during the online ballot, although the unnamed official is quoted saying he had merely “played along” when asked to do so by persons unidentified. The proposed beneficiary was the favoured candidate of head office and the ultimate victor in the preselection, Paul Spooner, with no suggestion that Spooner himself was involved. The formerly Nationals-held seat went on to be won by the Greens.
Section 4 . . . Cartoon Corner
Alan Moir – Trump is ready to step outside now he’s dealt with internal matters.
Ron Tandberg on Victoria’s CFA dispute.
Andrew Dyson is wondering about the ten year plan.
David Pope shines the light on both major parties here!
David Rowe and the economic fortune teller.
Bill Leak responds to riding orders from his employer again.
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/b8ce0cc1bf8634adde012a5117db21a4?width=1024
Love the Rowe fortune teller!
Good Morning Bludgers,
Just heard on the radio the interesting statistic that Labor have been announcing policy by the ratio of 5:1 compared to the Coalition during the campaign.
Which makes sense. All the Coalition are concentrating on is:
* Attacking Labor’s policy announcements
* Announcing penny ante pork barrelling giveaways in marginal seats
* Trying to hide away from and obfuscate about embarrassing revelations of their venality.
Thanks BK
re Jennifer Hewett on how Turnbull’s DD has blown up in his face.
What the punters really need to understand, and clearly don’t, that a reelected Turnbull government with only a slim majority and hostile senate will rapidly descend into chaos.
They will look back at the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years as a political millpond of positive and effective governance and stability compared to the full on RWNJ zombie invasion of Turnbull/Abbott Mark 2.
I don’t know why Labor aren’t hammering the Lib party divisions more, I guess they want to stay positive.
Trog.
Completely agree. The Liberals can’t be surprised, surely not? They have spent the last three years pissing off and alienating large sections of the community without building any back up (aka Howard’s battlers). Turnbulls knifing and subsequent campaign has alienated half the base in the process of chasing Lefty/Green votes that Turnbull clearly desires.
For the sake of the Libs, I hope the are removed this election and do not form a minority Government as I don’t think they could handle it like Gillard/Labor
Trog
Yes – basically, whatever the outcome on July 2, Labor wins.
Turnbull has shown that he is totally unable to negotiate. At least Abbott had a go; Malcolm is so aware that he wouldn’t get anywhere if he tried that he went straight to blackmail and strong arming without even an attempt at charm or persuasion.
Even if he wins, he’s not going to get the more malleable Senate he wants (and I still maintain that the whole DD thing was an attempt to bring the present Senators into line which backfired badly). He’s also going to have a far more restive HoR, who were reluctant to follow him to begin with and for whom he has now lost what value he had.
The Coalition winning would be scary if they had the ability to deliver on their program. They don’t. The number of zombie measures which are going to start piling up in the Senate will make 2014’s look tame. So it’s likely the Coalition will be a government in name only.
Very quickly, it will become apparent that their options are limited. A new leader might offer them hope, but I doubt that they have anyone who is capable of doing anything with the Senate. Calling another DD – and the triggers will start lining up very quickly, because we know there’s a raft of Budget measures that the Coalition will need to get through both Houses as quickly as they can – will look desperate, and they know they’ll lose.
So worst case scenario, with a re elected Turnbull government, is three years where nothing much gets done. That’s not ideal, of course, but it’s not as devastating as, say, electing Abbott was.
If Turnbull limps over the line he will be 63 at the next election and Bill Shorten will still be only 52. Labor would be invigorated by a close run thing this time and a chaotic and dysfunctional Coalition with a restive backbench going rogue taking up most of Turnbull’s time to keep them at bay and paper over the cracks. Labor will also keep toiling away at mature policy.
What’s not to like about that scenario? Let alone the prospect of a weakened Turnbull being toppled by the Tonyistas.
Of course, the most pleasing prospect is if the voters realise this themselves at this election. 🙂
As for the ‘higher taxes for the well off means you’re a leftie’ idea, that would make Menzies one of the pinkest post War PMs.
At one time, paying tax was understood to be a civic duty (not saying people were happy about it – they’re not too chuffed about going out to vote, either), and both sides of the House pretty much accepted the idea that those on higher wages paid more tax. (In the US at one stage the highest tax rate was 90% — and people paid it).
Arguably, the Western world has moved too far in the other direction, to the point where the services people expect their governments to deliver are unaffordable. The only way governments can deliver these services sustainably is through taxes, and the people who can afford to pay higher taxes are those earning higher incomes.
To gripe that those who earn the least aren’t sharing the burden is a myopic thing to do. It’s always been the case that those earning least are taxed least – it’s a common sense proposition.
During the GST debate, I went to a forum on the issue. One of the speakers was a tax lawyer, and he spread out thirty or more big books on tax law on the table and told the assembled crowd that the GST would get rid of them all.
I stood up and said that yes, it might for the immediate future, but if we didn’t change our attitude towards paying tax, the number of books would very quickly reach the same levels – because the problem is not so much what kind of taxes we pay, but our attitude towards paying them.
There are signs that people are beginning to understand this. There are even signs that the World Bank is beginning to understand it.
We can’t lift revenue and pay our expenses – let alone pay down debt, if that’s what we wish to do – without raising taxes. We need to have the conversation around the connection between the services people want and how these can be paid for.
kevin bonham @ #1234 Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:55 am
That is a superb summary of how to use your vote effectively for the senate, thank you, it clears up a lot of misunderstandings.
Good Morning
I think the economic savings announcement by Labor today shows they are serious about winning this election. Its the type of tough economic measures Paul Keating was so famed for.
This sits well with voters as they see real economic management not the pretend we get from the LNP.
Its a risk but one well worth taking and the tactical team from Labor have been spot on so far.
momma,
Turnbull is 61 now and will turn 62 in October. He’ll be closer to 65 when the next election is scheduled to happen.
@Kevin Bonham:
and the AEC should simply post and publicise that explanation heavily instead of the legalese bumpf it has put out already.
Good morning all,
Interesting to me that the MSM appear to be doing a very good job for labor this morning.
In their rush to paint the savings measures to be announced this morning as all bad and harsh and back flips etc etc etc without having any idea what the real deal is they have boosted expectations that the measures will be hugely draconian.
When labor does make its announcement and the measures are not as bad as the MSM has made out then that will be a big advantage for labor.
BTW, the MSM are squealing re labor supporting the cutting of Family tax benefits. No details have been released but according to the MSM this is a given and something ” unexpected”.
Labor flagged weeks ago it would support a small number of changes to the system announced by the liberals do the savings today should not be a surprise. They will be nothing more than previously announced. The MSM really have no idea.
Anyway, labor has had its plan ready to go for months and today is not a matter of labor being ” rattled” or being forced into announcing these measures no matter how hard the MSM cry.
The measures today have been through the PBO and fully costed, not something you do overnight.
Today will be interesting.
Cheers.
Thanks, GG!
More reason to vote for the team with a more youthful, dynamic leader, leading a more youthful and dynamic front bench.
So on the day that the ALP announces major economic policy, who does AM have on to talk economics. Tony Bourke, Chris Bowen? No Scott Morrison of course.
That makes it 4-2 to the LNP for the second successive week. That’s balance on your ABC.
Reading what Doyley just wrote and a thought occurred to me.
Why is it that if Labor make changes to Family Payments, or anything really, it is classified as draconian, and the subtext is mean, but if the Coalition does the same thing they are characterised as being economically responsible and ‘taking the tough decisions’?
guardian: Air pollution now major contributor to stroke, global study finds https://t.co/qeWRxol699
We can fix global warming, and we can do it quickly. All it needs is will. And a carbon price.
https://theconversation.com/new-technology-offers-hope-for-storing-carbon-dioxide-underground-60707
Morrison out before announcements made calling it a backflip just make him look silly.
702sydney: See @billshortenmp in studio here https://t.co/wVkfs2COPl #ausvotes https://t.co/Ay5PJltRic
Remember when The Greens rejected the Malaysia Solution? Well, guess what they are proposing now?
IPA claims that “white collar criminals” should not be sent to jail. Save jail for those unwashed working class types.
DOYLEY – I think labor is doing the right thing. Three weeks before the election and they are putting to rest the Lib’s budget irresponsibility meme”. They are also making clear that some of the zombie measures will never come back to life, so the libs had better do something about them. I think this is the smart play. Then the last few weeks on health and education (and company tax cuts).
The apparent temperature at my house been below 10° for 20days.
Stupid Adelaide Hills weather.
kevin-one-seven @ #1274 Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:47 am
It is also an opportunity to draw attention to those zombie measures that Labor continues to oppose. These will have a quite significant impact once people are aware that they are not just ‘spending cuts’ but actual changes in policy that will financially affect many people.
You may have seen it on the Chaser, but the you may not know that it was the CFS that helped push Turnbulls bus out of trouble in the Stirling Tiers Carpark last week.
No donations to the CFS from Turnbull or Briggs have been forthcoming.
C@t, I was in a good mood today until I read your post re Malaysia.
Labor announcing its plan to bring the budget back to surplus
LABOR today will announce big spending cuts it hopes will convince voters it has a tough-guy economic side as well as a commitment to fairness.
Families and business are expected to be hit by the “tough, unpopular” decisions to be revealed by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and shadow treasurer Chris Bowen.
The Opposition will identify “the hard decisions necessary” to boost their credibility as budget managers and pay for massive election promises, while keeping some distance from Coalition policies.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/labor-announcing-its-plan-to-bring-the-budget-back-to-surplus/news-story/ab94c61b1a4304b88f0d9159f3acfe36
Other handy guides to Senate voting apart from the KB one noted above:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/06/2016-senate-calculators.html by Mr Green and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BqgiUarZDo from the PRSA (Vic-Tas branch)
As KB says the PRSA is a bit fanatical about voting BTL – his list of the (limited) circumstances when you should do so is good. (I’m a member of the PRSA but I don’t share the fanaticism.)
Antony’s page has a lot of questions below, with his (sometimes terse) answers. A lot of people are asking about voting strategically/tactically – his answer is that it only makes sense if you know what everyone else will do, and you don’t, so vote according to your actual preferences. KB, rather cautiously, suggests some reasons for tactical voting but they don’t persuade me – I’m with Antony on this one.
Labor has followed a set path ever since the election was announced.
Not the path the coalition was trying to push them and certainly not the path the MSM wanted them to go.
The MSM cannot gets their head around this fact and everything outside of what they think labor should do is viewed through the lens of risky, dangerous etc etc. and is based on “if it is different to what has gone before in previous election then it is no good “.
Perhaps labor has rewritten the template and we are looking at the first real 21 st century Australian election campaign.
Only time will tell.
BTW, labor has not been too scared to offer surprises over the last few months re policy release etc so perhaps one or two ” out of left field ” announcements today.
One thing is for sure, the Liberals will have nowhere to hide once labor confirms which of the ” zombie” savings measures it will refuse to back.
Cheers.
Simon Katich
And right on cue here is the rain just as I am preparing to leave with four other old local to liberate 4000 metres of agricultural irrigation pipe and risers. We managed to score it as a donation towards a major project to irrigate and drain the oval here. I will probably finish up wet through!
Doyley
I don’t see this as new. I see this as a return to the sensible campaigning Labor did when the Hawke Keating government was in power.
Labor should never have left that template of campaigning by being scared into the small target strategy so talked about by the MSM.
The small target strategy only works for the LNP because as we saw with Abbott the real policies are toxic to the voters.
I am very pleased Labor has gone back to this. As you say it leaves the LNP with nowhere to hide.
Geez, there was an awful lot of un-informed tripe about the police shooting posted on here yesterday..
..credibility of many posters went down several notches imo. Maybe William should rename the blog as: ‘Gossiping Over The Back Fence’..
………………………………………………………………………………..
In previous AFR articles on this matter, they reported this mans father is a corporate mover and shaker as well as wealthy.
So….surprise surprise the IPA are advocating the wealthy buy their way out of jail. People who asked uncomfortable questions on Q&A on the other hand…….
If ‘daddy’ was so rich why act unlawfully in the first place….
Well Simon you presumably knew about the weather in the Hills when you decided to live there. Does cherry-blossom time make up for it?
simon katich @ #1278 Friday, June 10, 2016 at 8:55 am
How so?
Markjs
Not really. UK police manage these situations without firearms. Its the training. So reviewing innocent bystanders injured due to a police shooting should include how the UK police manage to handle such situations.
When innocent bystanders are injured from a police shooting that shooting is very questionable. Reasonable questions being raised.
All I have heard this morning is Corman….Meanwhile the venerable West, without any kind of explanation, has a small piece on the front page in which it heads that “A wounded Bill Shorten…………blah………….blah………..” which is really about the measures Labor tends to table soon. According to the West the “Where’s the money coming from” theme is, “biting” hence Shorten MUST be wounded. The West, never much of a paper, and even worse after an appalling piece on sharks on its front cover a few days ago, must rate as one of the worst 20 daily papers in the English speaking world – and boy, there are plenty to chose from. The irony is the West occasionally deludes itself with comments like “The most widely read newspaper in WA”.
Where’s the real Bill Shorten?
Would the real Bill please stand up?
That’s the question Triple M’s Grill Team wanted answered when the Labor leader dropped by for a chat on Friday.
They were delighted to meet the man they described as a “really good bloke”.
But, why don’t we see more of that in front of the camera, on the news?
The question brought back memories of a moment in the 2010 election when then prime minister Julia Gillard promised mid-campaign to be the “real Julia”.
Mr Shorten said he’s learnt a lot being opposition leader over the past 1000 days.
“There’s been some good days, plenty of bad days,” he said.
“And what I’ve learnt in particular, is the more you’re just yourself I think people relate to that.”
But it’s hard.
“Sometimes you’ve got a whole battery of cameras on you and you feel you’ve got to speak differently or present in a particular manner.”
Mr Shorten said he’s enjoying getting out and about talking to people during campaign.
“The more I just talk to people I think the more you come across as relaxed,” he said.
“And I’m enjoying myself I’ve got to say.”
© AAP 2016
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/06/10/08/44/where-s-the-real-bill-shorten#XywKokgscEt4YW1t.99
Very interesting article re AEC trying to figure out how to count the Senate vote promptly under the new rules:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/electoral-commission-grapples-with-counting-votes-in-new-senate-system-20160607-gpdexq.html
In short, it’s not going to be easy.
Markjs
PBer’s are probably above average in their knowledge of psephology. On other subjects, not so much …
meher baba @ #1239 Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:24 am
Mr Barber, why do you keep raving on with such repetitive nonsense?
The people you describe are caricatures of your own crazed imaginings.
How on earth do you propose to tax those who have no income or a very meagre income as seems to be your preference?
Of course the tax burden falls on those who can pay it.
And you bemoan those who are not working. More blame the victim. There is a very high level of unemployment out there, much greater than the official 6% which is a work of fiction. It is more like 20%.
And woe betide any person over 50 who loses their job. Many will never get another job despite all the efforts they make.
We urgently need action to stimulate the level of economic activity to increase employment.
We need serious action to end age discrimination in the workforce, including some serious penalties when proven.
Your claim the Labor has no appeal to the Asian community is just bizarre, I work alongside campaign volunteers of Asian ethnic background and we have strong support in those communities. We also have Asian candidates and MPs.
It is actually Labor which has the policies to promote economic growth, science, technology, innovation, education and employment for the future while your heroes are busy destroying the CSIRO and building the telecommunications network for the 21st Century with the technology of the 19th Century. Such visionaries!
Player One Friday, June 10, 2016 at 9:29 am
Markjs
“ ..credibility of many posters went down several notches imo. ”
PBer’s are probably above average in their knowledge of psephology. On other subjects, not so much …
*************************************************
Oxymoron – Unbiased opinion ( smile )
Player One..
I come to PB for the excellent coverage on all things psephological ..and I’m never disappointed. In fact, I’m in awe of people like William, Kevin and Antony…
But yesterday saw a new low, for me at least, with posters pontificating about a serious matter they know next to nothing about..
Rummel was the exception as a lone voice of reason..
delimiterau: Digital Rights Watch calls for fair use, end of Internet censorship: https://t.co/VdVDLgl2Ii https://t.co/06CqXSOy20
..and, Guytaur..
..you completely miss the point ..as usual..
markjs
I did not miss the point at all. To question is the first point. Of course those without expert knowledge will make mistakes in reacting to news.
Still valid questions to be answered as they represent the majority of the public who do not have expert knowledge
It think a discussion about three coppers shooting at a man 5 metres away, and not only hitting him, but three other members of the public in the middle of a crowded shopping mall, is worth having.
It’s worth considering whether the police panicked or at least over-reacted. It’s worth considering their training, which apparently leaves no provision for managing a situation between shouting and shooting.
It also raises questions about how the assailant got out of the “mental health facility” (Hornsby Hospital Mental Health) he was in, and why it took so long to report that a potentially dangerous person was on the loose.
It raises questions about the right of police to carry out the death penalty (or in this case to attempt to do so) without recourse to judge, jury or due process.
It’s a very worthwhile discussion, not to be easily dismissed by cop worshippers just saying, “You had to be there,” or references to how notoriously difficult it is to shoot someone with a revolver and not hospitalize innocent bystanders in the process. If gunning down four people is the only practical solution, then we desperately need a better solution. Fast.
Citizen @ 8.47am: I rather think the IPA is making a bad mistake in arguing for white collar crooks only to be fined, not jailed. If you put the question to the average voter, he or she would most likely favour hitting such people with a jaw-dropping fine AND a prison sentence.