Results of a poll conducted concurrently with the election on the weekend, and a place for general discussion of the election aftermath.
Kind of old news now, but Essential Research didn’t let Saturday’s election stop them conduct their usual weekly poll, results of which were published on Tuesday and can be found here. I’m continuing to follow the progress of the count here, so you are invited to discuss count-related matters there while continuing discussion of a more general nature here.
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.
View all posts by William Bowe
Hello Lizzie! : )
Is the opposite of discombobulated, ‘combobulated’? If so, Get Combobulated Soon!
Talk later bludgers….
Hi Victoria
Definitely getting stronger. They couldn’t work out what was wrong so I went through a whole lot of brain scans, blood tests, etc., which found nothing. Now I’m concerned I’ll get a bill for the pathology in Mal’s brave new world!
lizzie @ #2903 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:20 am
The brain scan found nothing? You’re not going to turn into an LNP voter are you?
Good to hear you’re on the mend Lizzie – feel well soon.
lizzie @ #2897 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:03 am
Great to see you back Lizzie. I hope you are fully recovered or at least well on the way.
Hi C@t
Anyone know what’s happening about the Labor leadership? I’ve missed a few days…
Thanks P1, Scott, Bemused.
Hospital food is not for the sick. Trust me!
Lizzie, no challengers to Shorten.
I also hope you get better quickly.
TPOF
“If that does not happen, the second paragraph quoted, which provides for the joint sitting says “The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other” (my bolding).’
My reading is that the reference is to any amendments that were made prior to the DD and not to any new amendments.
I imagine that if there are new amendments they would relate to separate sittings, not to a joint sitting.
One issue with new amendments might be that they imply that there are no limits to the scope of the joint sitting.
Full poll not yet on Essential’s site, but Bernard’s (paywalled) article is up.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/07/12/bill-shorten-leads-malcolm-turnbull-in-approval/
Jul 12, 2016
Essential: voters like Shorten more after all
Malcolm Turnbull begins his term as an elected prime minister with voters unhappy with his performance, while Labor voters have warmed to Bill Shorten, Essential Report shows.
Bernard Keane — Politics Editor
Malcolm Turnbull begins his term as an elected prime minister with his worst approval ratings, while Bill Shorten has narrowed the gap as preferred prime minister, this week’s Essential Report shows.
Turnbull’s approval rating has fallen three points since a fortnight ago to 37% while his disapproval rating has increased eight points to 48% — net disapproval rating of -11 and easily his worst ever. Bill Shorten, however, has overtaken Turnbull in approval ratings: he’s now 39%-41%, the same net disapproval of two points as a fortnight ago (when he was 37%-39%). This is the first time Shorten has surpassed Turnbull in voter approval. As recently as March, Shorten’s approval rating was just 27%, illustrating how he has slowly but steadily climbed back from deep disapproval among voters.
Turnbull still leads as preferred prime minister but his once massive lead is now down to single figures — he leads Shorten by 39%-31%; in December, just 15% of voters preferred Shorten.
……………….
On voting intention, the Coalition is steady on 41%, Labor is down a point to 36%, the Greens are steady 10% and “others” on 10%, which leads to a two-party preferred outcome of 51%-49% to Labor, up from 50-50 last week. Hang on — why’s that? Labor goes down on primary but up on the two-party preferred? It’s a rare confluence of numbers that gives us an opportunity to explain the role of rounding. The results from Essential, from around 1800 people and then weighted, plainly aren’t whole numbers, so they round them to the nearest whole, but still calculate two-party preferred based on the original numbers, and those results are rounded too (except the election eve result, which we kept to one decimal place). This week, the Coalition’s primary vote fell 0.3 points, which didn’t change its rounded number, Labor’s vote fell 0.4 points, which led to it being rounded down by a point, and the Greens went up 0.5 points, but that didn’t change their rounding. As a result, Labor’s two-party preferred outcome moved from 50.4% to 50.6%, and thus up a rounded point.
Lizzie
Welcome back. I think we are in the period when potential challengers can nominate but that no-one is nominating. Nominations close fairly soon and it will show that Shorten/Plibersek team rolls on.
kevin-one-seven @ #2880 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:55 am
I never imagined I would say this but… Is there a lawyer in the house?
You would imagine that this sort of thing would have been sorted out many years ago by constitutional lawyers or experienced and qualified judges, and a ruling made.
lizzie @ #2908 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:26 am
I trust you. I have experienced it.
Were you in a public hospital?
RE ESSENTIAL – It’s going to be fascinating to see if Turnbull gets the usual post-election bump for a leader (does that usually happen when a PM is re-elected) or is going to keep heading down into the toilet (as I suspect). Looks like it’s going to be the latter.
kevin-one-seven @ #2885 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 10:08 am
At this election, as many as 30% of the voters giving their primary votes to the Gs assign their final prefs to the Liberals. These are not left-leaning voters. They use the Gs to make a point of some kind…but not to Labor. They should be thought of as Liberal dissenters who do not want to favour rightist or religious 3rd voices. They are most likely conservative-inclined voters who favour stronger environmental policies or, possibly, who are protesting against the treatment of asylum-seekers. In any case, their underlying affiliation is Labor-negative.
It cannot make much sense for the Liberals to pursue these voters by changing their policies. Were they to try that, they would jeopardise their ability to reach the overwhelmingly large part of their franchise. And, in any case, the Liberals do not need to pursue them. They return their prefs in due course.
The same is also true for Labor. There is no point in trying to pursue Labor-leaning G-voters by adopting G-flavoured policies. These voters in any case return their prefs to Labor after first expressing their dissent from Labor. This is useful to Labor but must frustrate the hell out of the Gs.
The G response to this has been to increase its anti-Labor polemics, presumably in the hope this will attract more support from Labor-positive voters for both their Senate and House candidates. This campaigning likely helps the Liberals and centre-right 3rd voices and to that extent it also limits Labor’s appeal. But it is also clear that G-campaigning now also hurts the Gs more than it hurts Labor. G-campaigning is internally contradictory. It is responsible for their very weak performance in this election.
Bemused
Yes, Public. I was taken in by ambulance.
I have no idea why the caterers think that pale green overcooked cabbage, watery butter beans, tasteless white potato and mushy pumpkin, alongside pale chicken, can possibly be appealing. It goes against all the diet recommendations about putting colours on the plate for good health.
Aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!!! If only the election had been a week or two longer, Labor would have had it in the bag! ; )
TPOF – When the second paragraph talks about amendments it is talking about the pre-DD amendments referred to in the first paragraph. I think I’m right. So unless the Senate made amendments (with which X is happy) he cannot be presented at the joint sitting with a bill with which he is happy.
From what I’ve seen when my mum has spent some time in hospitals recently the food has definitely improved from my last stint is the late seventies. Menus even.
I lost a couple of kilos in the Cairns hospital when the only food I could stomach was the fruit salad rescued from the horrible custard. Even the baked beans came in 3 different shades which I could only imagine came from aging effects. Yuk.
DON – I’m a lawyer, but unless you’re paying me, you get the third-rate service (which ain’t very good)
lizzie @ #2917 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:39 am
You should not get any bill provided you are an ambulance subscriber.
My son was in a Public Hospital for an extended period last year and the food was generally good. Labor, when in State Government had changed the dietary guidelines for hospital food after an uproar which saw ill people refusing to eat the food placed before them! I don’t think the Coalition dare change it back now.
Still, with the plethora of fast food joints around the hospital my son was in there was a lot of food brought in for the patients during visiting hours. Also there was a large food hall where you could get takeaways. : )
KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN
Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:44 am
DON – I’m a lawyer, but unless you’re paying me, you get the third-rate service (which ain’t very good)
Bloody capitalists!
president of the solipsist society @ #2850 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 3:25 am
Briefly spoke of the conflict the Greens war on Labor is creating for just these people who have felt supportive of both parties. I am one of them. I was so supportive with my feet firmly in BOTH camps that when the Greens started calling Labor just the same as the LNP, it was a slap in my face and caused me to to recoil my foot from the Greens camp after many long years and pick a side. I keep trying to tell you lot that your strategy is shooting yourself in the foot and you might want to rethink it. The more naive ones might be falling for the cooties on Labor trick but those with brains are going to recoil from you. Think very carefully for the winners of this silly game are the LNP.
lizzie @ #2908 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:26 am
The mashed “potato” in particular, as I recall when I was an inmate.
Bemused
I was talking about the scans and pathology, not the ambulance. Pensioners in Vic get free ambulance transfers.
Shame that Sussan Lley, who protested against the new charges, should be moved aside.
lizzie @ #2927 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:02 pm
You should not get any bills. I had all sorts of scans and things in a public hospital and got no bill.
briefly @ #2854 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 3:47 am
Exactly and for bleeding hearts put in such a position the inner conflict becomes turmoil. I was upset and felt betrayed. I have lost great respect and trust in the Greens now and that is sad and just plain stupid. It was completely unecessary and I just don’t get it. I have even wondered whether the LNP have infiltrated the Greens in attempts to divide the left which was the last thing I ever wanted to see. That green is looking kinda murky now. Excuse my bleeding heart here but I express it to place emphasis on the point I am making.
Don – the High Court will only rule on the correct interpretation of the Constitution if a relevant case is brought before them. To date, nobody has attempted to ride amendments onto a DD trigger, meaning nobody has ever challenged it, hence the High Court has never been asked if it is constitutional to do so.
Hi bludgers,
just checking in after the election. Sad to see the Coalition has scraped home but I think they’re in for serious trouble with a wafer thin majority and huge fractures within their party (that were covered up during the campaign but may very well break into open warfare once parliament resumes and the reality of their situation truly dawns on them).
P.O.S.S.:
Reality:
No wonder no-one takes your nonsense seriously.
Had Di Natale not given Turnbull the DD lifeline when he did, it’s highly likely that Labor would’ve won government in an election held later in the year given the rate at which The Coalition’s (and Turnbull’s) polling was heading south.
Peter Reith may be right. Bill Shorten possibly has run his race. It may well be a lot harder next time.
Remember 1961. Bob Menzies survived by one seat, denying Arthur Calwell his lifelong dream of being prime minister – and then stormed to victory in 1963.
Labor ran a pretty good campaign this time, but a few glitches have cost it dearly.
Instead of picking up two or three seats in Victoria, it actually dropped Chisholm – Labor’s only loss across Australia. You can blame the Daniel Andrews and the firies dispute for that.
Queensland may have a lacklustre state government , but there must be more to it when Labor can lead in more than half a dozen seats on election night and lose the whole bang lot on postals and absents. Overall, one seat gained by Labor off the Coalition, another by the Coalition off Clive Palmer. Even stevens. Very disappointing.
In SA, the Libs have lost two seats, one to Labor and the other to NXT. A bad result for them and it could have been worse if Labor had preferenced NXT outright. Grey and Boothby, possibly even Sturt and Barker, might have been in the gun. Nick Xenophon is mortal. He is not the enemy in the long term. You don’t often get chances to dig it into the Libs in a big way. You shouldn’t let them slide by.
Where the Coalition had state governments, Labor did well. Exceptionally well in Tasmania. Pretty well in NSW (taking two allegedly bellwether seats, Lindsay and Eden-Monaro, for God’s sake!) Not so well in WA, despite all the early promise.
Labor had a lot of things going for it. The long election campaign. The Tories’ somewhat listless effort (though the Nats did well everywhere and put down the Windsor and Oakeshotte challenges with ease). The conservatives’ anger with Turnbull. The GetUp campaign.
Next time the stars may not be so much in alignment.
The part of s57 that addresses the post-dissolution parliament includes potential amendments by the houses prior to the joint sitting. On the face of it, it appears to me that amendments can be made. For me the point of contention is the definition of “proposed law”. How different can the post-dissolution bill be from the pre-dissolution bill and still be considered the same proposed law?
toorak toff @ #2932 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:15 pm
Jeez, it didn’t take long, did it? I expect Rex will be back posting again shortly!
Peter Reith may be right.
The ONLY thing Rieth knows anything about is Doberman guard dogs.
Briefly and Nicole and others
I think the greens/labor war is damaging BOTH parties.
Labor MUST get Green and other minor party preferences, so slagging off the Greens will as you might expect drop Greens to Labor preferences from the typical 83% to say 75%. This translates in an average seat where say Greens get 7% of the vote to a loss of 0.7%. This is greater than the margin in many seats. It remains to be seen if there HAS been a decrease in the % of greens to Labor preferences and if so if that has cost any seats.
Labor slagging off at the greens has almost certainly helped deliver a very right wing Senate and they should be ashamed of themselves. Now all those voters they have scared away from greens, surprise, bloody surprise did NOT come back to labor like prodigal children, but went to all sorts of weird minors including right wing nut jobs. Green leading voters scared away from them by labor slagging voted Animal Justice or sex or Hinch or bllody ghastly LDP or the murderous Health party. Well done Labor. If the Liberals get their IR destruction or cuts to health and welfare through the Seante I know who to blame.
Preferenceing Derryn Hich ahead of the Greens in Victoria was a shameful act. Similarly LDP at 6 in NSW and Lambie ahead of Lazarus in Qld. Shame labor Shame!!!
Greens slagging off on Labor damages Greens, because there certainly are lots of labor voters who are put off by it. It would be less damaging if it was specific ie relating to a few key issues, but the generalised Coles/woolworths is not especially helpful.
Now I think Di Natali made a tactical error in trying to win over the Liberals for preferences. Obviously it it would be of great advantage to the Greens if it happened, but it made him look too much like a Meg Lees repeat.
So let this election be a lesson to you all. Parties of the progressive left MUST work together to stop the parties of the far right.
End of story.
DTT
Fine. Except that the Greens don’t seem to realize that this requires compromise on their part.
Welcome back Lizzie…we all missed you -:)
kevin-one-seven @ #2921 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 11:44 am
Thanks K17, you made my day!
Though there I was, thinking you were a good bloke, and you turn out to be a lawyer. Sigh.
Maybe you are the exception to the rule, no doubt you’ve heard enough lawyer jokes to last a lifetime.
I would expect that Malcolm and Bill can afford to pay for the best advice on what is permissible, so I don’t need to shell out for it.
daretotread @ #2936 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:24 pm
Labor – the Labor campaign – did not slag off the Gs. Not once. Labor complained with good reason about a prospective G-Lib pref deal. That never cam off. Good.
I’m over the discussion about the Greens, over it. I’m not even interested in attacking them. They have one seat in the House of Reps, the same as Xeneophon and Katter Australia Party. Labor best strategy is to attack the Liberals, because if it becomes a contest between Labor and the Liberals the Greens suddenly become irrelevant. It’s the reason the Greens hated the Medicare campaign, because their relevance in the campaign became less when the focus came on bread and butter issues that favored Labor.
“The Greens have told Labor there’s no need for the opposition to run a scare campaign on Medicare.
Leader Richard Di Natale has advised Labor to stick to the truth, saying cuts to hospitals and the rebate freeze are scary enough.
“Of course Labor doesn’t want to go there because they themselves cut hospital funding and froze the rebate, so instead they have chosen to link privatisation and Medicare,” he told ABC radio”
To quote “we don’t want to keep the bastards honest they want to replace the bastards”. In the game of bastards the Greens become bastards; Labor fights back; where is the surprise?
daretotread @ #2936 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:24 pm
This is absurd. How could you possibly know who voted for these outfits or why? What makes you think G voters would abandon their long-held habits and values and support the LDP? Do you think so little of G-voters?
In WA voters came to Labor from all over the place…from the Gs, from PUP and FF, the Gs and the Liberals. Your claims are simply sleding for the hell of it.
I wouldn’t have thought so. Turnbull’s petulant behaviour on the night of the election, and Shorten’s exemplary behaviour since have shown both the Real Turnbull and the Real Shorten.
I find it difficult to accept that the punters threw away almost any chance of a decent NBN as a result of this election. Then again, I found that hard in 2013, too. You have to come to the conclusion that they don’t want one hard enough for it to be a decisive factor in an election.
Same on the Mediscare changes. They clear want to pay more, bit by bit, incrementally over years until “Medicare” is just the name applied to an organization and an idea that is functioning so poorly it can be sold off for scrap.
By all reports they voted for the usual things: a new footy stadium here, a playground there, some other pork in a barrel over there… but only in marginal seats. The safe seats get nothing.
They didnt vote for Senate reform either, as Labor predicted, but the pundits all pooh-poohed them on that. We have a more dysfunctional Senate now than ever before. Can someone remind me just WHY Turnbull thought a DD was absolutely vital? It can’t have been because his party would have a clear majority in a joint sitting, because they don’t. Perhaps he’s relying on Pauline Hanson betraying her working class bogan voters and tipping the scales? Hold on a minute… Pauline Hansen was supposed to be out of politics, wasn’t she? How come SHE got 3 Senate seats, or 2 or even 1?
What else has Turnbull achieved? A majority of either 1 or 2, down from 35 or so!
Many of the RWNJs in his own party are still there, so it can’t be that. The Nats have more power, proportionately, so that’s not a win either for the Liberals.
Most of his Budget will be under the harshest examination, subject to outright rejection, and no-one knows who will vote for what. Bye-bye “certainty” and “stability”.
The Ratings Agencies have given our AAA rating the kiss of death. All that now remains is for them to nudge us over the cliff’s edge, into the abyss. Toodle-oo to “Libs are the best economic managers”.
Come to think of it, I can’t see just WHAT he’s achieved, except to weaken his party on all counts, in all areas of politics.
Lucky for Malcolm he’s still got his cheer squad in the Media barracking for him (after discreetly adjusting just about all their expectations of him and his government in the “downwards” direction). Otherwise Malcolm might be in a spot of bother.
daretotread @ #2936 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:24 pm
lol
If there is one lesson to be drawn from this election it is this – the Gs are in no position to tell anyone what to do. It would help the Gs if they would first stop campaigning against themselves, against their own purported beliefs and against their own supporters.
nicole @ #2929 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:06 pm
Nicole, you are far from alone. There are very many who feel the same as you. The splitters think they can have their cake and eat. In the end, they cannot. Their campaign has now turned on itself.
The Gs will have very practical reasons to reflect on their position. Their Senate representation will likely be cut significantly after the counting is completed, reducing the on-going resources available for political work. They will inevitably measure their own numbers against those of their B-o-P rivals, who will easily out-number them. They will feel nothing but disappointment at this. Yet they have no-one to blame but themselves.
They will also look warily forward to the next half-Senate election, when they may well lose their Senators in SA and Queensland and their prefs will instead help elect additional Labor members, or, possibly, simply exhaust and indirectly favour the election of rightist 3rd voices. Their NSW branch may also lose their Senator, depending on the play between all the other contenders in the coming Parliament.
The Gs really have to think very hard about their program.
The main reason that Turnbull crawled over the line was because of his cheer squad in the media, the con artists known as journalists.
We all know that Australia is a spivocracy, from sea to shining sea, from the urban jungle that is Sydney, being transformed by unparalleled development, to the vast swathes of country being destroyed by mining.
daretotread @ #2936 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:24 pm
Hahahaha Oh my!! Have you ever stopped to consider that calling Labor and Liberal the same will have alienated voters from any traditional camps in the spectrum who see the two major parties as different as night and day? Losing credibility is not something you can blame on anyone but yourselves. Even Steve Wright on Q&A admitted having voted for the Greens. Do you think calling the LNP the same as Labor would have warmed the cockles of his heart and made him more inclined to give you his vote again? Grow up and take some responsibility. This strategy is a bad one. I am not here to attack the Greens but to give critique on this very poor strategy that has hackles rising all across the spectrum. Please stop behaving like the Liberals who like to blame Labor for everything. Take some responsibility and regain some credibility. Don’t lower yourselves to their standards. I have a soft spot for my Green former comrades and would like to see them get back on their horses and rejoin the good fight. Lets all of us get our priorities back in order.
As someone who will boundlessly enjoy voting for the first female POTUS , I don’t find Trump any worse than the previous half century of regressive Republican nominees. Trump has a fair chance to win the Electoral College. The great majority of former Confederate states always vote Republican in order to rollback civil rights and to act upon sincere evangelical beliefs, despite these states’ citizens having the most to lose when Federal welfare funds are savaged by fanatical NeoCons, so the rustbelt marginal states will decide Trump’s fate. If one watches the top attack dogs like O’Reilly, Kelly and Hannity on FoxNews, it’s abundantly clear that they generate the argumentation which corporatocracy Republican donors regurgitate to persuade lower and middle class folks to get out and vote against their own interests.
Accordingly, there is a very steep climb for the Democratic Party to regain a majority in the House of Reps or the 6O/100 Senators required to pass legislation or confirm nominees selected by a Democrat in the White House. The plethora of sagacious Poll Bludgers are better placed than I to know whether the last 24 years of having mostly Democrat presidents has been preferable to the last 20 years of mostly regressive Howard and Abbott policies compounded by the likelihood of 3 more years of Turnbull in thrall to Murdoch’s extremist rightwing Pollies.
adrian @ #2947 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:06 pm
The electorate largely ignores the media. If they had the influence you’re proposing, Labor would win almost no seats at all. Rather, opinion is shaped by voters’ lived experience and by the conduct of politicians and parties. These things sensitise opinion and determine voting intention. It follows, therefore, that good candidates who conduct themselves well, good policies, good programs, good leadership, good communication and good, adequately-funded campaigns will win elections. This is the take-out.