BludgerTrack: 53.3-46.7 to Labor

A solid move to Labor in this week’s reading of the poll aggregate, although its concentration in Victoria means it makes no difference to the seat projection.

New results this week from Newspoll, Essential Research and YouGov cause the BludgerTrack two-party reading to bounce back in favour for Labor, who did particularly well this week out of Essential. There was also a new set of Queensland numbers from Galaxy, which, together with the similar poll last week from Western Australia, means the model has fairly robust data to work off at present from each of the four largest states. Last week I warned against reading too much into a slump in the Greens’ national vote and a swing to the Coalition in Victoria, and that’s borne out on both fronts this week: the Greens are the big mover on the primary vote, such that Labor’s two-party gain comes largely in the form of preferences from them, and the pendulum now leans back the other way in Victoria, albeit that it’s still Labor’s weakest state in swing terms.

Despite the Labor surge, there’s no change on the seat projection, which is down to the fact that the Coalition did relatively well out of the Galaxy result from the crucial state of Queensland. This results in them picking up a seat there against the overall trend, cancelling out the solitary gain Labor made from its big two-party improvement in the strategic wasteland of Victoria. The Coalition are also up a seat in Western Australia and down one in New South Wales.

Newspoll and Essential both provided new sets of leadership numbers, which have yielded some slight change in what has been a remarkably static picture since the wake of last year’s election. The change is that both leaders have recorded an uptick on net approval, although Malcolm Turnbull has slightly widened his lead as preferred prime minister.

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.

716 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.3-46.7 to Labor”

  1. TPOF @ #275 Friday, August 11th, 2017 – 1:52 pm

    This is an interesting analysis. A bit circle jerk cynical, but, in my opinion, spot on.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/11/marriage-equality-debate-abbott-sees-path-to-relevance-shorten-sees-path-to-pm

    I don’t see the cynicism. To me it is Murphy’s finest work. Startling actually. (my dedication to hold the media in contempt isn’t going well is it 😉 )

    All of the important themes and threads are there. Abbott has his hobbyhorse to ride, Shorten has sensed his opportunity and leap to take it. It is a proxy battle for modernity. Labor is looking to use this to rebuild it’s base with a huge new injection of young forward looking people. The Libs are turning them away to pander to a frightened backward looking and shrinking cohort. Trumble is no where and screwed whatever he does. The yes vote is holding all the cards. The HC knocking it off is only going to pile on the pain for Trumble, because the issue isn’t going away.

    I don’t think she’s missed an important point, nor unfairly characterised any player. If this was the standard our media usually brought to political coverage this country would light years ahead of where it is.

    Making the insight that this is a proxy battle for the future explicit is the piece’s best part. This is a battle for definition of who we see ourselves as to rival the Republic referendum. It is a battle between people who want to throw off old superstitions and limitations and want to assert confidence in a world where old monocultural norms have been shattered by diversity on one side, and those who want to reinforce the old certitudes and restrictions that privileged and/or coddled them in the past.

    I think that explains why it is a 2nd order issue for most people, and yet no less emotional and valent for it. I’d posit for many people including myself that the restriction is emblematic of an ongoing meanness of spirit and fearfulness that is debilitating and which we’d like to see ourselves grow out of. I think as we increasingly experience the benefits of diversity we see these sorts of restrictions as petty and unbecoming. The fact that the older you are the less likely you are to have grown up in diversity and experienced it as the natural order of things explains very well why it operates as a proxy for modernity. The fact most young people are familiar with and relaxed about homosexual people explains why it is perhaps a proxy for modernity far more immediate and engaging for them than a more symbolic issue like republicanism.

    Murphy has done exceeding well to pick up on this. I congratulate her. (this time…)

  2. [Player One
    Barney in Go Dau @ #279 Friday, August 11th, 2017 – 1:54 pm

    You have no clothes and you have no shame!

    You are just being boring now. If you have not been comprehending my posts in the past, and have just been assuming I support SSM because “surely everybody must” then I suggest you read them a little more diligently in the future.]

    I certainly have never assumed you support equality in marriage because your posting history clearly demonstrates this is not true.

    If you think that is what I’ve been saying then it is you and your comprehending abilities that are in question.

  3. How powerful a message would it be for you and the Prime Minister to stand side-by-side on a unity ticket to legalise same-sex marriage? Would you do it?

    Ooh, that’s just nasty, Sabra.

  4. Tom – I was wondering whether voters in the yes camp should have a slogan, like “answered under protest” to show they disagree with the survey.

  5. ACL gets a knock back, and probably many more to come:

    A Sydney Uniting Church congregation has rejected a call from the Australian Christian Lobby to “activate” against same-sex marriage.

    The ACL, which is leading the charge against the marriage law change, has written to churches across the country asking them to join its “no” campaign in the postal ballot launched by the government this week.

    The Reverend Meredith Williams, from St David’s Uniting Church in Dee Why, wrote back to ACL director Lyle Shelton asking that she and her congregation be taken off the lobby group’s mailing list.

    “Please be advised that I am fully in favour of marriage equality and do not in any way feel it threatens me, my marriage, my children or the society in which I live,” she wrote.

    “Neither do I think the voluntary, exclusive union of two adult people who love each other contravenes Christian concepts of love, relationships, fidelity and mutual life enrichment.”

    She said she resented the ACL’s assumption all Christians shared its views.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/church-rejects-lobby-group-no-campaign/news-story/70802d711fe2932cab730bb58a8d1e72

  6. The hearing this afternoon is to address whether work on the postal vote should stop pending final hearing.

    Those seeking the injunction will need to establish:

    (a) an arguable case;
    (b) the balance of convenience favours the making of the order stopping the final hearing

  7. I agree with Bemused summation of Shorten v Lane.

    Shorten got. Avery good run and apart from a couple of gotcha attempts, Shorten was permitted to explain the case clearly in any question he was asked

  8. Yes, Sabra Lane was vicious in the way she gave Shorten long periods of uninterrupted time to explain his points.

    Totally unacceptable, I’m sure the Liberal Party has already made a formal complaint.

  9. This article notes that those electors with a silent enrolment (details not publicly available) may not be sent a letter unless some special arrangements are made to give ABS access to those names and addresses.

    The article also notes that 16 and 17 year olds would be able to vote if they enrolled by the cut-off date.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/mps-may-miss-out-on-postal-ballot/news-story/d1b197e777732dcf75dacea31ddb0f8e

    Allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote (if on the electoral roll), along with Cormann being forced into legislating to prevent ‘hate’ material being circulated, could put a dent in the ‘no’ vote.

  10. Barney in Go Dau @ #302 Friday, August 11th, 2017 – 3:11 pm

    I certainly have never assumed you support equality in marriage because your posting history clearly demonstrates this is not true.

    And nor does it clearly demonstrate the opposite. The closest I have come to expressing an opinion on the issue of SSM is that in one of my very early posts here I said I had very little feeling one way or the other, but if pushed I would probably vote ‘no’. (Ask Kevin Bonham to dig that post out for you. I’m sure he will have it in the folder he apparently keeps of all my posts). However, since I didn’t feel very strongly, I also said even at the time that I would be happy to accept the vote of the public or the parliament on it. If you like, you can take my recent decision to boycott as meaning I will no longer vote against SSM. But I guess you will instead prefer to believe I have some dark and ulterior motive to sabotage the whole process. This is of course utter nonsense, except inasfar as I think the whole process is disgraceful and should not be supported by anyone – pro or anti. But I have been (I believe) quite clear and unambiguous on this.

    If you think that is what I’ve been saying then it is you and your comprehending abilities that are in question.

    I don’t generally have trouble with comprehension, but I must admit that given all of the above, I do have trouble understanding what this “no clothes and no shame” stuff is about – but please don’t bother to try and explain it to me. For the sake of everyone else on this blog, let’s just agree to disagree.

  11. shellbell @ #309 Friday, August 11th, 2017 – 3:24 pm

    Those seeking the injunction will need to establish:

    (a) an arguable case;
    (b) the balance of convenience favours the making of the order stopping the final hearing

    And ‘b’ seems like a fait accompli (on the basis that delaying the survey poses no real detriment to the government, while allowing it to proceed may leave the plaintiffs in an untenable position even if they ultimately win the case), so all they really need to establish is ‘a’?

  12. Not sure if reported here. AEC has reported 68,000 enrollments/updates instead of the normal 4000 its gets a day. Might also be getting a bunch of reluctant younger people signing up = bad for Libs next election.

    Plus if you’re in NSW we have council elections coming up soon which are mandatory… could be a few please explain why you no vote letters.

  13. citizen

    She said she resented the ACL’s assumption all Christians shared its views.

    Good stuff.

    I hope the ACL gets lots of such replies.

  14. ‘I agree with Bemused summation of Shorten v Lane.

    Shorten got. Avery good run and apart from a couple of gotcha attempts, Shorten was permitted to explain the case clearly in any question he was asked’

    Presumably you also agree with his use of demeaning insults directed at my mental health.

    I have no trouble with people disagreeing with me, and the transcript doesn’t convey the full impact, but Bemused’s continual bullying and harassment of posters that he disagrees with is beyond the pale.

  15. I know that Qantas is a special case (with Joyce as CEO), but other large corporations are likely to follow suit to protect their reputations. Turnbull has opened a pandora’s box with the PP.

    Qantas says yes to SSM
    2:55PMSIMONE FOX-KOOB
    Qantas will support the Yes campaign in the lead up to the postal vote on same-sex marriage.

  16. And Lane telling Shorten that he’d be in jail under the current laws didn’t make it to the transcript.

    If people disagree after listening to the audio , then fine, but lets not pretend that both have the same impact.

  17. Citizen

    I think a lot of corporations who just want to get on with business are like Qantas.

    They want some surety about the regulated operating environment.

    So they want things like the RET settled and see waste of governing time on things like SSM/ME, regardless of them being in favour or not, as distracting the government from getting on with things.

  18. Adrian – don’t conflate the two things. I did not even read the tirade from Bemused about you – as soon as he started getting personal I moved on.

    I don’t believe in dignifying ‘personal attacks’ on this blog.

    I just agree that after hearing the podcast, that Shorten got a very good opportunity to state the case.

  19. adrian @ #323 Friday, August 11th, 2017 – 3:44 pm

    And Lane telling Shorten that he’d be in jail under the current laws didn’t make it to the transcript.

    Yes it did, according to the link Bemused posted:

    SABRA LANE: Laws passed Parliament on Wednesday to ban sweetheart deals between unions and employers and the Prime Minister says that the new laws could have captured your behaviour as the leader of the Australian Workers’ Union; and that you possibly could be in jail if these applied back then.

    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4716684.htm

    She was clearly playing ‘gotcha’, and definitely interrupted Shorten several times while doing so. But she doesn’t seem to have couched things quite so aggressively as your original paraphrasing implied. And Shorten ultimately got the last word in.

  20. In fact I’m going to demand that the poster known as ‘bemused’ unreservedly withdraw those remarks made st 3.05pm today.

    I have had enough.

  21. And Lane telling Shorten that he’d be in jail under the current laws didn’t make it to the transcript.

    They also didn’t make it to the recording. What the hell are you talking about?

  22. I just listened to the interview with Shorten on the ABC radio app and Lane did indeed state that Shorten might have been jailed if the laws were in effect when he was a union leader

  23. Thanks shiftaling.
    That was what the hell I was talking about, WB.

    It would be good if people would listen to the actual audio before commenting.

    And the reference in the transcript to jail was NOT the one I was reffering to.

    Still waiting for the retraction from the poster known as bemused.

  24. Just noticed something.

    To my understanding, BludgerTrack gives each seat in the same state the same swing, but itnstead of saying that a party on 50.1% chance to win the seat, it assigns a probability based on expected margins of of error. These probabilities are summed, and then rounded.

    Whereas most people use a much simpler method, simply using a constant swing, maybe by state, and giving it to whoever has 50.1%

    If BT were to use the simpler methodology, the number of seats for the Liberals in NT, ACT, Tas, Sa would be 0. Fully half of Australia’s jurisdictions would not have a Coalition MP.

    Total change if you were to just apply the simple swing, Libs would lose 2 more in SA, wouldn’t lose the 1 seat in Vic, and would lose 1 less in NSW, so total would be the same.

  25. I just listened to the interview with Shorten on the ABC radio app and Lane did indeed state that Shorten might be jailed if the laws were in effect when he was a union leader

    She said that’s what the PM said, as indeed he did. I took Adrian’s reference to “the current laws” to mean the ones existing at the time he did what he did. The reason I was struggling to get his point is that the transcript gives an entirely accurate account of what Lane said.

  26. I listened to the podcast and read the transcript as I listened and both were exactly the same and DID have the jail bit, which Shorten laughed off.

  27. Anyway, it is really not that big a deal either way.

    Still waiting for the retraction, which I do actually consider to be a big deal.

  28. adrian
    In fact I’m going to demand that the poster known as ‘bemused’ unreservedly withdraw those remarks made st 3.05pm today.

    I have had enough.

    adrian…”bemused” takes a lot of pleasure from sledging other bludgers. Lawd knows theres no joy in it for the rest of us, but it is one of his favoured pastimes. The best thing to do is ignore it.

    On the other hand, he’s using mental illness to insult you. Of all the bludgers, “bemused” should know better than this.

  29. I thought Lane’s interview had a nasty tone. She implied that Shorten was the intransigent party in the same sex marriage plebiscite, that Shorten would have criminal charges against him under the current laws, and that Shorten had no right to use Richard Pratt’s jet.

    Meanwhile Liberal Matthew Guy has been caught eating lobster with a mobster, tapes have surfaced discussing ways of avoiding public listing of the donation.

    Malcolm Turnbull was mentioned in this week’s business press because he has preferred creditor status so got his investment money out of Play Up at a time the workers hadn’t been paid wages or super for 12 months.

    Shorten managed to say that the current workplace laws are rotten laws and agreed with Sabra that they are aimed at unions and at individuals like him.

  30. Given the jail quip was from the PM it would have been very strange for Lane not to ask Shorten about it. It gave Bill a good chance to show how the new laws could negatively affect workers families. The whole interview seemed reasonable to me. I can’t help but feel that the people who shout loudest about bias are the ones who want bias, just as long as it goes their way.

  31. Big advertising firms will not participate in promoting the ‘no’ campaign:

    Some of Australia’s biggest advertising agencies have pledged not to work on anti-marriage equality ads in the lead-up to the postal plebiscite, potentially forgoing millions of dollars in revenue…

    In response to the plebiscite’s confirmation, members of Australia’s biggest ad firms including Ogilvy, Leo Burnett, M&C Saatchi and BWM Dentsu have signed up to the ‘Say No to No’ campaign, pledging not to work for the anti-marriage equality push.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/08/10/big-ad-agencies-wont-do-ads-for-plebiscite-no-campaign_a_23074245/

  32. billie @ #339 Friday, August 11th, 2017 – 4:04 pm

    I thought Lane’s interview had a nasty tone. She implied that Shorten was the intransigent party in the same sex marriage plebiscite, that Shorten would have criminal charges against him under the current laws, and that Shorten had no right to use Richard Pratt’s jet.

    Meanwhile Liberal Matthew Guy has been caught eating lobster with a mobster, tapes have surfaced discussing ways of avoiding public listing of the donation.

    Malcolm Turnbull was mentioned in this week’s business press because he has preferred creditor status so got his investment money out of Play Up at a time the workers hadn’t been paid wages or super for 12 months.

    Shorten managed to say that the current workplace laws are rotten laws and agreed with Sabra that they are aimed at unions and at individuals like him.

    Which is pretty much what I was trying to say.
    Obviously there will be different interpretations of such things as interviews, but that is no reason to make potentially defamatory statements about another poster’s mental health.

  33. adrian….fwiw, I think your complaints about the ABC have a lot of merit. Sexism, racism, elitism and their dancing partners – phobias, repression, shame, deprecation – are linguistically embedded. The ABC are story-tellers. Very often, in the hands of idiots like Sabra Lane, they peddle the handy myths of the LNP and the IPA.

  34. VE- Complaint to the ABC done.

    The use of the term “same sex marriage” and the avoidance of the term “marriage equality”

    Why does the ABC in it’s news and current affairs reporting have such an aversion to the term “marriage equality”?

    Why is the emphasis on gender and not equality?

    We are a country where someones gender is irrelevant in how they should be treated or valued within it.

    The issue at stake is equality for a group of men and women within our community who are treated and considered different from the majority of us by the Marriage Act.

    Sabra Lane’s interview with Bill Shorten this morning (11/8/2017) is an example of this. In her first question she refers to “same sex marriage” while Mr Shorten replied using “marriage equality”.

    As I said, I believe equality is the issue at hand with gender an irrelevancy and as such “marriage equality” is a much more accurate way to describe the issue at hand.

    Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you.

    Regards,

    Barney Hall

  35. @ guytaur – any word on the temporary injunction? Mail is meant to start arriving from September 12, which presumably means being posted before mail pick up Friday the 8th. If the HC don’t make their decision until late on the 6th, that is literally 1 business day before the letters get mailed out.

  36. And the reference in the transcript to jail was NOT the one I was reffering to.

    Then what were you referring to? Tell me where the transcript provides an inaccurate account of what Sabra Lane said. I ask this question with a certain trepidation, given your habit of talking flat out bullshit when you talk yourself into a corner.

Comments are closed.