BludgerTrack state breakdowns: December 2016

A detailed view of the federal polling picture at state level, as the Coalition sags and One Nation soars in three states.

No sign of those Newspoll state polls that I hoped might enliven the silly season, and it’s still another week until Essential Research returns. So for your edification, I offer the following state-by-state accounting of where the federal polling picture stands at state level (except Tasmania, for which there has been literally no data at all since the election). This is based on 35 polls in all: 25 from Essential, with unpublished state breakdowns; eight from Newspoll, including the quarterly breakdowns); one from Ipsos; and a Queensland-only result from Galaxy. Note that “Q3” below refers to the third quarter result for 2016, i.e. three months ago.

deluxe-bt2019-2017-01-09

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.

3,569 comments on “BludgerTrack state breakdowns: December 2016”

Comments Page 68 of 72
1 … 67 68 69 … 72

  3. P1

    Probably can’t be challenged legally, because you gave explicit permission for them to share your data. You did read the fine print on your application, didn’t you???

    It doesn’t always need your agreement/permission implicate or explicate at all.

    https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy-law/other-legislation/government-data-matching

    The actuality of data matching is separate from what is then done with the ‘matches’.

    The use by Centrelink of the raw output from the process that they know, and admit, will result in many erroneous ‘payment demands’, combined with, I assume, some legal limitation so that they don’t seem to be able to get a last tax return address from the ATO . This leads onto many of their demand letters being ‘RTS ‘ and then they call in Debt Recovery Agents.

    This is way out there.

    And then there are their efforts to make it as difficult as possible to dispute Centrelinks assertions.

    For mine who ever approved, not the data matching, but the use of the output in the current way needs to be exposed.

  4. Ello ello ello. Mordor Media went for Ley and how did that turn out ? One of the features of the articles was the uncharacteristic “just the facts m’am and lack of spin approach . Current No.1 headline in Dirty Digger’s flagship is below is The Cormannator the next to go ?

    Cormann’s $23k for Broome trips

    Just a few days after Health Minister Sussan Ley resigned it has been revealed Finance Minister Mathias Cormann billed taxpayers more than $23,000 for weekend trips to the beach resort town of Broome with his wife the West Australian Senator and his wife made five taxpayer-funded trips to Broome on weekends for electorate business. A three-day trip in July 2014 cost taxpayers $6696, including $5662 on flights. Senator Cormann also claimed $820 in travel allowance and $214 in car costs. A previous trip from Friday to Sunday at the start of July 2013 cost taxpayers $4563, and a similar trip in May 2012 cost $4831.

    The total cost of the five trips was $23,088.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cormann-bills-23000-for-weekend-trips-to-broome/news-story/3b01fe57263534125d4f151d182138e0

  5. zoomster – since we’re doing another go around the ABS issue for old times’ sake…

    To my mind the big – and basically ignored – issue was the change from the ABS collecting statistics on a population basis to keeping aggregated records on individuals. This has very little to do with the census itself, although the census obviously fits into this process, and a whole lot to do with the ABS pulling in data from across government and linking it all together under one personal identifier.

    No other agency does this, no other agency is allowed to do this – because of the privacy concerns that we have had in the past.

    We get told this is purely to improve the types and quality of research that can be done, but ultimately as far as I’m concerned what is happening (has now happened!) is that this aggregation of linked data is at the mercy of what any future government wants to do with it. We have no control over what future governments may legislate. We have no control over what hackers may do if (when) they get their hands on it.

    This personal data set aggregation – theoretically on every single Australian – has been buried under the census IT stuff ups and various other red herrings, but it is a big fundamental change, and it had no public debate, not even remotely anything approaching public consent for this to happen, and the debate around the ABS and these issues always gets sidetracked based around specific issues of the census, when the census itself was just one component of these systemic changes.

    I did not supply my name on the census (as I filled it in online that necessitated a – very modest – deliberate error in filling in the form, as there was simply no way to not fill in a name – I had applied for a paper form so I could simply leave it blank, but the paper form never arrived). But I am fully aware that this is a symbolic, pointless gesture because the ABS can (and I’m sure has) already resolved who the only person living at the address associated with my login is, and for households with multiple residents it generally wouldn’t be difficult to match up the demographic info to work out who was filling in that bit of the form.

    The ABS’s work in creating a personal “file” on me proceeds apace, and there is nothing I can do to protect myself from that data being abused by future governments or hackers, and there has been no adequate justification for why these risks are worth it – “better research” my arse.

    It’s not a matter of me objecting to any data being collected by any government agency ever – where the ATO needs to collect data specifically for the purposes of adequately keeping the taxation system going to fund government, I accept that this is a reasonable purpose and that they will go to decent efforts to keep my data secure. Likewise for Medicare, etc.

    This is not true in any way of what the ABS has done and I remain very unhappy about it.

  8. AR

    Actually that is NOT quite the case. When you are comparing risks it is desirable that they are done at the same time and by a group that can get a genuine comparative answer. sometimes it is just one person – eg the CEO of a small firm, sometimes it might be a committee and sometimes an external consultant.t – iis Risk assessment what ever form you make it is inherently subjective but the key is for the individual or group to attempt to rank thins as objectivley as possible.

    In the simplest method – ie considering likelihood of the occurrence and severity of consequences, the likelihood can often be reasonably well quantified eg number of people exposed, previous similar incidents – not highly accurately but reasonably. Consequences on the other hand are very, very subjective, unless you have a large number of casualties. For the Military perhaps it is OK to quantify consequences by number of deaths, injuries etc. number of planes lost, but for your typical business you may be comparing the risk of a death every 15 years with a stress incident per month. You MUST come up with some sort of relative assessment that is subjective in that you compare a death with a stress attack.

    So if you are trying to quantify relative risk (go ask you OHS people at work how they do it) you need to somehow try to rate the consequences of a death etc versus a more minor injury. Most use broad grouping eg severe consequences for a death, and minor for a paper cut requiring a bandaid. However for an airline or a hospital or a transport company Category ” severe” may be reserved for large scale incidents involving multiple deaths wheas for an office even a broken leg might rate as severe if it increased workcover premium.

    So get my point. It is inherently subjective but still very valuable if done by the same person at the same time. I will try to explain. We all must die, but we may all have different subjective risk ratings when considering dying from illness or being eaten by a crocodile, or falling from a great height (assuming death was at the same date and age).

    None of that is exactly relevant to the basic issue but does try to address AR’s misconceptions.

  9. Finally a reporter puts the bleeding obvious but unstated in black and white:

    Human services minister Alan Tudge highlights the primacy of the system as a revenue gathering exercise when he claimed this week it has recovered $300m since July, despite that figure only being the amount of debt “identified”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2017/jan/15/the-governments-horrific-start-to-the-year-is-fully-deserved-and-completely-appropriate.

  14. DTT

    None of that is exactly relevant to the basic issue but does try to address AR’s misconceptions.

    No misconceptions. You pull numbers out of your arse and dress it up as some sort of rigorous risk assessment that we should respect (or be “intellectual pygmies”).

    They’re still numbers you’ve pulled out of your subjective arse.

  15. daretotread @ #3248 Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    However Hillary Clinton is to blame for the destruction of Libya. Frankly this is a war crime and she was SoS at the time. obviously Obama ultimately signed off so he too is to blame along with a spate of military advisors. Now I am on record here as being a strong Rudd supporter, but I regarded his support for the Libyan invasion as a blot upon his record. However as SoS Clinton must take one heck of a lot of the responsibility.
    The record Bill Clinton had re Serbia is also appalling since the must have been alternatives than bombing.

    So under Obama it’s largely the Secretary of State’s fault while under Clinton it was the President’s fault or was it Hillary’s influence over Bill.

  16. MTBW,
    My health is wonderful. I’ve lost 50kg and am at the top of my game.

    Unfortunately, it hasn’t cured you of being an angry old biddy.

    But, we have to live these failures.

  17. The ABS’s work in creating a personal “file” on me proceeds apace, and there is nothing I can do to protect myself from that data being abused by future governments or hackers, and there has been no adequate justification for why these risks are worth it – “better research” my arse.

    Yes this has always been my concerns with the changes to how last year’s Census data was retained and used.

  19. Why are people still banging on about the question of whether Clinton is more likely to use military forces than Trump?
    It may of passed some people by but Clinton lost the election, will not be commander in chief and is now but a footnote in history.
    The criticism of her as being too hawkish was always naive and juvenile.
    By the same silly and unfair reasoning then Barack Obama is a war monger.
    Clinton was prepared to use the military. So what?
    In many cases the use of US military power is completely justified and welcome.
    A US president who categorically rules out the use of US forces is any circumstances is a danger and not fit for office.
    The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton would of tried to act diplomatically first, formed coalitions with willing partners and whether you agree with her or not would of acted with some degree of respect for international law and convention.
    I don’t think the same can be said for Trump.
    A complete narcissist who has a skin thinner and more fragile than tissue paper and whos self-love and ego even puts someone like Kanye West to shame.
    Clinton may of had many flaws but any comparison between her and Trump is dumb and now utterly redundant.

  21. GG,

    Are you drinking again?

    Some of our more sanctimonious commentators lack a certain amount of class.

    Possibly they should take a ‘Bex’ and have an afternoon nap.

  22. Saying Clinton is more of a risk than Trump, and then randomly assigning Clinton a higher number than Trump doesn’t prove anything! (This really doesn’t need to be stated – it’s just making sh*t up)

  25. Poroti

    Them are wimps doing the lower river.

    No need for a ‘club’. I shared my ‘exploit’ with my then OH and two CoL Plods.

    The ‘Met’ attempted to be involved but were judged by all to be a failure.

    I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned that on Monday morning I had to explain my behaviour to the Cabinet Secretary (Robert Armstrong was seriously scary!).

  28. PP

    (This really doesn’t need to be stated – it’s just making sh*t up)

    Yep, but it is repeated over and over. A classic propaganda technique.

  31. Jackol

    To my mind the big – and basically ignored – issue was the change from the ABS collecting statistics on a population basis to keeping aggregated records on individuals.

    … I remain very unhappy about it.

    Me too. Excellent post.

  33. GG,

    Im seriously impressed mate.
    I came back from the US and Canada last year carrying an extra 10kg and it was enough of a struggle to lose that.
    I have always been very fit, mainly through work, but even my doctor noted the weight gain and warned me that once you get to 40 it becomes way harder to lost any extra weight.
    My loving wife also made sure I knew about the extra padding I was carrying around everytime she saw me shirtless.
    That was all the incentive I needed to do something about it! haha.

  34. CTar1

    With this moniker I suppose he would be “Robert Temple Armstrong, Baron Armstrong of Ilminster, GCB, CVO ” . I think you were lucky as the Poms seemed to have a bit of a soft spot for the “colonials” or at least expect them to be a bit rough around the edges.

    My 3rd year history teacher and form master at high school ended up teaching at Eton and became what was their 2IC. I was sent an excerpt from some Eton magazine and it noted that he was very popular amongst the pupils because of his “forthright colonial manner”.

  35. DTT

    None of that is exactly relevant to the basic issue but does try to address AR’s misconceptions.

    A R had it right. How about you try to address your own misconceptions for a change?

  36. LNP defending Cormann, after LNP defending Ley:

    Sky News Australia ‏@SkyNewsAust 3m3 minutes ago

    .@ChrisCrewtherMP says he doesn’t see any problems with @MathiasCormann’s travel expenses, but does want to see a review.

  37. Colton,

    I had an operation called a “Gastric Sleeve” in June.
    I did it for health, a chance to enjoy my grand children and to have enough puff to do the things I want to do in life.
    I’m older than you. The destination is the same for everyone. From now on, it’s enjoying the journey.

  39. No kiddiwinks.

    Let us try to walk you simply through the process.
    We will talk about three possible triggers for foreign relations disasters
    1. No fly zone in Syria trigger in hot conflict with Russia
    2. Israel or someone else 9oil interest) triggering reversal of the Iran deal and an invasion of iran
    3. South China Sea incident triggering hot conflict with China

    Note I have used the term hot conflict rather than war – sophistry yes but let us not confuse the issue.

    We are JUST, JUST going to look at the likelihood of those events under potential Presidents.

    We will use a scale of 1-10 – Many risk assessments just use 5, but these lack nuance.

    Now let us for the sake of comparison allocate the extreme hawe position on all three issues to John Bolton or to some other well known extreme hawk. He gets a 9 on all issues (there is always someone hypothetically worse so we will not give him 10)

    At the other end of the scale we have an extreme pacifist – never use war for any purpose. Let us say Mahatma Ghandi. Score 1 .

    Has anyone a problem with the method so far? perfectly replicable eh what?

    Now we have two Democrats Obama and Clinton. Let us first assume that they are roughly in the middle – not extreme but with firm views and reputations based on past actions. This might give them scores of about 5 (OK with you lot – middle of 10 is 5)

    On the Syrian issue, Clinton has a history of supporting invasion of Iraq bombing of Libya and talked about a Syrian no-fly zone during the presidential campaign. She is NOT neutral on the issue. Her score for the no fly zone incident MUST go up. I generously gave her 6 but realistically based on those three know issues she should probably have a 7. if you have problems with this methodology so far I despair of dealing with sentient beings. Obama by contrast is known to have been cautious about a no fly zones and US troops in Syria. He opposed the Iraq war, but did sign off on Libya. We could leave him at a 5 or be generous and give him 4. what of the demon in the room. Well JUST talking Syria Trump has argued against US troops in Syria and less enthusiasm for NATO and a willingness to talk to Russia and Putin. Yes he has an erratic personality, but on this single issue ie Syria and Russia he has stated willingness to be more moderate. We can guess (very subjectively ) on his mental state but possibly this is not sufficient to completely negate public statements of his intentions. Based on public statements he would have to be less hawkish than Obama. We could give him a 3 but add one for insanity. Set him at 4.

    Now in this whole process the ONLY really subjective element is assessment of Trumps mental state. If you only take it on public statements and past actions he would score quite low for likelihood of triggering hot war with Russia based on a Syrian No fly zone. Note oh doubters that it is those who argue AGAINST me that rely on subjectivity. i rely on public statements.

    Now if we turn our attention to Iran the scores may be quite different. In this case Obama has appeared neutral and has certainly NOT supported or listed to Israeli pressure. He definitely deserves a 4 or lower. Clinton while initially hawkish proved herself willing to do a deal and did it well. She also gets a 4 or even a 3. Trump on Iran seems as nutty as Bomber McCain (remember his song, bomb, bomb ,bomb Iran). Based on public statements and his very close links with Israel I would have to score him 7 or 8.

    Finally let us look at China – probably now the scariest of the lot. Both Obama and Clinton were enthusiasts for the pivot to Asia which is code for encircling and containing china. They are NOT neutral so must get a 6 at least. They may both deserve a higher score but I will b e conservative and leave it at 6. Trump well!!!! During the campaign he made anti China trade statements that would automatically bump him to 6. After Tillerson I am now thinking more 7-8 or god help us all 9.

    Now please explain why you have problems with this methodology. It is simple, it can be replicated and it compares people against situations.

    By the way I have NOT addressed in any way shape of form consequences, so it is NOT a risk assessment as such.

  43. DTT

    Now in this whole process the ONLY really subjective element is assessment of Trumps mental state.

    Complete twaddle. Every number you have assigned is subjective, and designed only to get you the result you want and make it look somehow more “objective”. It isn’t.

  44. Bemused @ Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    Still playing the role of grammar cop I see.
    I use to care about my spelling and grammar when posting here. No longer.
    I’m sure most people can understand what i’m saying.
    I try my best, hopefully most people can overlook my lack of perfect grammar and focus on the content of my comments.
    I have mentioned here before that I know I am not the smartest, best educated person to post here. By a fairly long way. That is obvious.
    I have even been honest in admitting previously that it is sometimes a bit intimidating to post here knowing so many of the other comments are made by people who are obviously very knowledgeable and intelligent.
    Im just a humble blue collar shit-kicker. I will try my best to use correct spelling and grammar. I won’t always be successful.
    Luckily in the real world I live in my lack of perfect grammar has not stopped me from building my own successful landscaping business employing 21 people nor from owning 3 houses before the age of 32.
    Im not saying that to big note myself, just that I find some peoples nitpicking on blogs about spelling and grammar to be completely boring.
    In all the blog posts I have ever made here and elsewhere I have only ever had one person make an issue out of it. You.
    People can read my comments or scroll past.
    I don’t care.
    Cheers.

  46. Bemused
    “I have to say I admire your determined attack on the verb ‘have’ as in ‘would have’ etc as you completely eliminated any use of it by substituting the preposition ‘of’.
    I scored you 100% on that.

  49. Re Trump v Clinton and who is more hawkish militarily.
    We should also focus on the just as relevant point that George W Bush is far more interventionist than John Kerry and Al Gore.

    FFS!

    Trump is president.
    Clinton could now be calling for the US to invade Canada and it would be just as relevant as all the other nonsense we are hearing over the last couple of days.

    Hillary Clinton will not be commander in chief.
    Donald Trump will be.
    The focus needs to be on Trump and his administration.
    Any discussion about what Clinton did or would of done is now as relevant as talking about what Mark Latham would of done if he had of won the 2004 election.

  50. Player

    Oh go away and stop being a negative doubter. Try the process with something simple at home. Likelihood of a fall somewhere. You may not explicitly quantify it but when you give instructions to the handyman or you partner about which tile/trip hazard to fix urgently you are without writing it down, rating them according to their relative risk or likelihood of accident – or probably annoyance factor which is sorta the same thing. If you have a long list of car repairs and cannot afford them all you do a risk assessment in your head (as advised by the auto mechanic) as to which pose the greatest risk or likelihood of failure. If tyres are wearing but the likelihood of failure is 6 months away they will rate lower for urgency than if the breaks are already through to the metal,

Comments Page 68 of 72
1 … 67 68 69 … 72

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *