BludgerTrack: 53.4-46.6 to Labor

Labor records a second week of solid movement on the poll aggregate, although this doesn’t yet account for the Coalition’s relatively good result from ReachTEL.

BludgerTrack moves half a point and three seats in favour of Labor this week, which mostly reflects the fact that it’s been a while now since the Coalition had one of the relatively good data points that are discernible in late May and early June on the two-party trend chart below. This week’s movement may have been ameliorated if the ReachTEL result had been included, but it hasn’t been because I haven’t yet seen the primary vote numbers inclusive of the forced response for the undecided. In other words, the only new result is a strong one for Labor from Essential Research. On the seat projection, Labor is up one in Queensland and two in Western Australia. Nothing new on leadership ratings.

Another new poll worth noting is the Political and Social Views Survey from JWS Research, based on an online survey of 1251 respondents earlier this month. Respondents were asked to identify where they placed parties, leaders and themselves on a zero-to-ten scale along two dimensions: left-right politically, and progressive-conservative socially. The average respondent identified as fairly solidly right of centre, with respective mean scores of 6.3 and 6.0. However, this may indicate a bias towards right-of-centre results across-the-board: even the Greens barely made it to the left on the left-right dimension, and all comers were in the conservative half of the conservative-progressive dimension. Respondents overall saw little distinction between the Coalition and One Nation, and regarded Tony Abbott as the most radical actor out of those on those offer. While the average respondent identified slightly closer to the Coalition on left-right, they landed much closer to Labor on conservative-progressive.

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.

337 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.4-46.6 to Labor”

Comments Page 7 of 7
1 6 7
  1. Briefly,

    Thank you for your reply. Some big issues in your post I had not considered.

    Would a Bill of Rights and or any potential future amendments have to go to a referendum just as changes to the constitution are required. It would seem that would need to be the case to make the process ” politician free ” and if so would any such referendum not be in the hands of a majority government and thus render the ” politician free ” goal unattainable.



  2. Poroti:

    I frequently think WTF when it comes to MB’s comments, but at least s/he is respectful with her/his views, and can articulate where s/he’s coming from. That has to count for something.

  3. elaugaufein @ #183 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    They can’t. Its simply not possible to make a business case for FTTP given FTTN is mostly rolled out by the next election. Unless the rollout is stupendously incompetent, it’s only those who can afford to pay for their own fibre extension who are likely to be particularly hampered by the 25-50 Mbps you’ll get from FTTN.
    Its about 2030 when the shit will really hit the fan, when 1 Gbps is common in the first world and most of Australia is stuck at < 50 Mbps and it’ll probably take a decade and a fortune to fix the stupid thing. More if NBN Co is privatised by that time.
    Even FTTC is pushing it, but it seems like NBN Co has done such a shit job of delivering FTTN in some areas that they can make the case.

    Not sure if I agree with this E. Labor can make the case they will fix the last connection from copper to fibre and fixing FTTN to FTTP,
    Internet is now like electricity, water – it’s a commodity and as a first world economy we simply must have FTTP, excluding the 5% where it is not feasible.

  4. DQ,

    The Abbott group are applying the pressure very very quickly.

    The vote today is not binding on the NSW executive and it will be decided in the next two or three months by the executive if it should be accepted. This announcement is just Abbott putting the pressure on the throat of the NSW executive, Turnbull and his supporters.

    Interesting the timing of the Bill Shorten four year term bipartisan call and the vote today at the NSW council.


  5. Judicial review of administrative decisions has existed as of right for hundreds of years. The AAT, federally, and state/territory tribunals, are just venues for the power to be exercised initially.

  6. Briefly
    But the DD allows the House to send the Senate to an election, while the Senate has no reciprocal power. In fact the Senate is generally slightly more subordinate to the Government than a true chamber of review should be: Government appoints Senate Presidents and committee chairs for business like Estimates. I don’t judge whether that’s for good or ill because I agree the Senate is a powerful chamber, we have close to the only Westminster derived Senate in which the Senate can alter / block supply (but can’t originate it), that makes it far more powerful than most similar bodies.

  7. Doyley,

    Most definitely.

    No surprise that North Sydney is their first target. How dare a gay Turnbull supporter sit in a blue ribbon North Shore federal seat?

    Zimmerman may as well have a bullseye on his back.

  8. Obviously Abbott thinks the party machine will do to him what they did to Bronny, and he thinks he has great grass-roots following in the electorate. Shame he hasn’t used his rear view mirror to notice all the bridges that are afire behind him.

    And Mal does his Muttley imitation as the change in policy goes through.

  9. just me @ #286 Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:26 pm

    Four year terms are not a problem (though no longer than that). But fixed terms are a real potential problem.
    There has to be a means for triggering an early election when necessary. We should not just hand over power without any means of taking it back.
    The key issue to resolve is the triggering mechanism/s for an early election. The current mechanism is wide open to abuse by the government of the day, and the decision needs to be taken out of their hands. But what to replace it with?

    I don’t see how there could fail to be an election if the PM lost the confidence of the House and no-one else could win a vote of confidence.

  10. Doyley…Enactment of a Bill of Rights and its entrenchment in the Constitution would be difficult. The LNP have always opposed it. (This alone is practically an argument in its favour from my point of view.)

    There are many things that should be protected…rights of first peoples, rights to petition a court and to a fair trial, the equal franchise, the rights to assembly and to organise freely, a prohibition on the use of torture…there are others….the right to worship or not according to private conscience, the prohibition of discrimination, the right to equal treatment under the law, the right to conscientiously object to compulsory military service….

    We could enact a regular statute. Over time, it would be refined and may eventually be included in the Constitution.

    I’m particularly concerned by 3-strikes provisions. These result in arbitrary imprisonment, especially of young aboriginal men and women, and of youths. They represent punishments for what are purely political reasons – reasons that are separate from the circumstances of individual cases – and are a perversion of justice. But there is nothing to prevent their application. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent the State from seizing and trafficking individuals into captivity and into being held for exemplary punishment without any judicial review whatsoever. This is the situation that applies to non-citizens at present. It is very dangerous.

    We could also incorporate provisions to ensure the domestic, civil domain does not become militarised.

  11. Alex Hawke moved a grandfathering rule to protect sitting members from the Warringah motion.

    It was subsequently voted down.

    They know how real the threat is to members like Zimmerman.

  12. I had the pleasure of meeting Julia Gillard today at a Box Hill Football Club luncheon. She was there in her capacity as Chair of Beyond Blue. I hadn’t been told that she was attending so it came as quite a surprise.

  13. Jeff Kennett‏Verified account @jeff_kennett
    4 year fixed terms for Fed Parliament long overdue.
    Hold a simple Referendum before June 30 next year so result can apply from next election

    Could it possibly be this easy?

  14. Elaugaufein
    Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:03 pm
    But the DD allows the House to send the Senate to an election, while the Senate has no reciprocal power.

    The point is that Senators have tenure, usually 6 years. In the event of a dispute between the chambers, unless the House is also willing to be dissolved, Senators will not face a dissolution.

    In a DD it is a condition of the dissolution of the Senate that the House also face re-election. The best illustration of the risks inherent in this for the House is the last election. A DD was invoked and the Government very nearly lost the consequent election. It is because of these risks that DD elections are very rare.

    Tenure is security….something usually taken to be rare in democratic politics.

  15. It amuses me greatly that Turnbull-fawns like Laura Tingle think that if they call Abbott mean names, he will slink off quietly into retirement.

    This conference should be a wake up call to the commentariat that he is going nowhere. In fact he is more invigorated than ever.

  16. Shellbell
    Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:03 pm
    Judicial review of administrative decisions has existed as of right for hundreds of years.

    Yes….though the LNP are trying to find ways to circumvent this. In the case of refugees, they have basically succeeded.

  17. Confessions
    Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm

    Lucky you!!

    Yes, I was quite chuffed. Couldn’t believe my luck.

  18. A debating point:
    If the senate was “the States’ House” then the senators would be appointed by the State government as they are in the German Bundesrat
    In the US, senators were appointed by the state legislatures until a constitutional amendment in the early 20th century. The push to direct elections were caused because a senate position was such a glittering prize that there were several cases of bribery and deadlocks
    At the Australian constitutional conventions in the 1890s the first draft had state legislature election but after much debate the final draft was for direct election. Of course this was in the context of less strident partisanship. Now a Joh or an Abbott-like figure as premier could wreck the whole joint

  19. Desert Qlder
    I hope you are right. He is the gift to the ALP that just keeps giving, this time around. Very much karma.

  20. Ides,

    I am not totally sure where Hawke’s loyalties lie. But the fact he moved that amendment tells me he is looking to protect sitting MPs from a vote of the party membership.

    It is a curiously desperate move I would say.

    Political correspondentCanberra

    Labor has kept its winning edge against the Coalition after weeks of political debate on national security and economic inequality …

  22. #NEWSPOLL @australian Primary Vote: Coalition 36​ (​+1) ALP 37 (+1) Greens 9 (-1) One Nation 9​ (-2) Others 9 (+1)

  23. ‘fess

    You are right about MB being able to get his argument together and he writes very well.

    Often his anxiety over real estate prices if CGT were to be changed puts a grin on my face. It’s an ‘end of the world as we know it’ scenario for him!

  24. national security and economic inequality …

    Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:37 pm
    #NEWSPOLL @australian Primary Vote: Coalition 36​ (​+1) ALP 37 (+1) Greens 9 (-1) One Nation 9​ (-2) Others 9 (+1)

    Well that went well; what stunts do the Liberals pull next?

  25. The real problem with the Senate is its presumed power to block supply and bring down the government. This was debated extensively at the constitutional conventions and, for mine, the founding fathers left behind a time bomb;
    Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
                       The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.
                       The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people

    In 1975 it was argued that if the Senate can’t amend supply how can it reject it?
    This has never had judicial review and the assumption is that rejection is constitutional

  26. Re Pretty One @8:17PM: I don’t think that fixed 4 year terms would have much impact on the turnover of PMs. That’s more about internal party dynamics. If Malcom were elected to a fixed 4 year term last year, Tony Abbott would still be after his job. Peter Dutton would still be waiting for his opportunity.

  27. The 1975 situation was never really resolved. Back then, it was down to the personalities concerned, as it would be in future. It will happen again next time the Opposition and its allies control the Senate at a time when the Government is well behind in the polls. Tony Abbott would not have hesitated for a nanosecond in 2011 or 2012 had he been able to muster the numbers in the Senate.

  28. Middle East –

    On Friday, Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani called for dialogue to resolve the crisis but stressed that any talks must respect his country’s sovereignty.

    Just reading stuff about the blockade on Qatar.

    Sheikh Al Thani is quoted as saying the above.

    It occurred to me that when Al Thani says ‘my country’ he means ‘my country’ lock stock and barrel!

Comments Page 7 of 7
1 6 7

Leave a Reply

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