BludgerTrack: 53.9-46.1 to Labor

A long period of poll trend stasis appears to have ended, with three pollsters reporting a break to Labor.

Newspoll, Essential and YouGov each offered evidence of break in Labor’s favour this week after a long period of stasis at 53-47. If that’s so, it may take another week or two for the BludgerTrack trend to adjust fully to the new reality. For the time being, Labor is up 0.7% on two-party preferred and two on the seat projection. Two sets of leadership numbers from Newspoll and Essential have a visible effect on the trend measures, with Turnbull heading south on both net approval and preferred prime minister. Full results on the sidebar.

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.

623 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.9-46.1 to Labor”

Comments Page 6 of 13
1 … 5 6 7 … 13

  1. It looks like Lambie’s replacement wants the job but also wants Parliament to refer his circumstance as a mayor to the HC for a decision before he accepts.

    Apart from the constitutional question of whether a local councillor receiving an allowance contravenes s.44, could the Senate even refer somebody to the HC before they have taken up their seat?

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/jacqui-lambies-successor-steve-martin-wants-parliament-to-refer-him-to-the-high-court-20171116-gzn7vw.html

  5. There’s no need for Steven Martin to be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns – exactly as in the case of Hollie Hughes, the Court will have the opportunity to consider and decide on his eligibility before they declare him elected, as part of the referral of Jackie Lambie.

  6. Citizen

    I see it as him daring then to refer him. Not him wanting to be referred.

    He is saying put up or shut up.

    Fair enough I would say.

  8. Solar industry launches campaign against LNP in Queensland poll

    The ASC says it is spending “hundreds of thousands” of dollars in the first stage of its campaign, which will include TV, designed to highlight the implications for the solar industry if the LNP win power.

    “It is a huge step for the Australian Solar Council to do political advertising, but solar companies are concerned,” says John Grimes, the chief executive of the ASC.

    Liberal National Party policies present a direct threat to profits in Queensland’s renewables industry.”
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-industry-launches-campaign-against-lnp-in-queensland-poll-59401/

  9. caf @ #250 Friday, November 17th, 2017 – 8:25 am

    There’s no need for Steven Martin to be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns – exactly as in the case of Hollie Hughes, the Court will have the opportunity to consider and decide on his eligibility before they declare him elected, as part of the referral of Jackie Lambie.

    Not quite.

    You are combining two separate things.

    1. Deciding how Lambie should be replaced.

    2. After the recount, confirming who will replace Lambie’s vacancy.

    But yes, that’s why I don’t understand the talk about referring Bartlett.

    Didn’t the HC consider his position in the same it way it considered Hughes’?

  10. Trog Sorrenson @ #257 Friday, November 17th, 2017 – 12:34 pm

    Liberal National Party policies present a direct threat to profits in Queensland’s renewables industry.”

    I would take them more seriously if they pointed out that the LNP policies are a direct threat to health & safety rather than simply claiming it threatened their profits.

    Still, it is Queensland I suppose – home of Malcolm Roberts.

  11. Caf

    Once again, I point to the Amicus argument in Re: Nash, para 6 onwards

    http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/03-Canberra/c11-2017/Amici_Nash_Subs_13-11-17.pdf

    The HC has considered Andrew Bartlett’s eligibility, and declared him elected. No further appeal or reference.

    The HC has considered Hollie Hughes eligibility, and declared her ineligible. If Jim Molan is the next one provisionally elected by the AEC, his military penzion and government consultancies will be considered.

    When they consider who should replace Lambie, they will consider Steve Martin, and whether he is beholden to George Brandis as Hollie Hughes was.

  14. Player One says:
    Friday, November 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm
    citizen @ #231 Friday, November 17th, 2017 – 11:39 am

    Police then realized that the wounds looked like cat scratches
    Was that “cat scratches”, or “c@t scratches”? I think we may have another case right here on PB

    I thought you said today that you don’t attack other posters?

  16. There is no excuse to not have discrimination laws. They work.

    I didn’t say we shouldn’t have these laws at all. I just said that they are mostly unenforceable, and better suited to essential services, employment workplaces and so on, not discretionary commercial transactions.

    In any case I’d rather not be served by someone I knew was only being nice to me because they were worried I might sue them for unlawful discrimination.

    It’s people who on asking are told “sorry, we don’t / won’t serve your type”. Or worse, providers of goods and services who *advertise* “we don’t / won’t serve that type”. Do you really want a society in which either of those is lawful?

    Why labour the point? I’d just move on and find another supplier. I’ve done this plenty of times in my commercial dealings over the years. You get sick of a supplier’s reluctance, and if you have a choice of who you buy from, you’re mad if you don’t exercise it.

    No, of course I don’t want such a society, but thinking that mere laws forbidding states of mind, matters of opinion and ingrained prejudice will work is naive, in my opinion.

    The best thing to do is avoid those who don’t like you. It makes for an ultimately happier life. Sure, it’s irritating that someone hates you for what you believe to bean irrational reason, but the relief of never having to deal with them far outweighs their prejudice.

    As to why… they may not like you because they don’t like your politics (found plenty of that, have had suppliers literally gape at me in astonishment when I said I was a Labor voter), or because you are gay or a Jew (and once upon a time, many didn’t like others because they were Catholics). They may just not like you personally. I don’t think any law is going to stop that. But in all these cases I wouldn’t press the point. I’d just go elsewhere and let them go broke, or leave them to fester in their own little cesspool of irrationality and make a fortune.

    Some people will never be convinced that homosexuality is not a wilful expression of depravity, worse to some extent than, or even excusing, murder to their way of thinking (there have been killings due to religion-based disagreements over the morality of homosexuality). My answer? Keep away!

    As I said up-thread, I had customers I wouldn’t ever deal with again because they were either actual or potential pests. If I hadn’t had grief from them already, I would in future. You get a nose for it. Better to give an excuse and never be there when they email you, because you know there’s going to be trouble eventually. I am the world’s worst “detector” of gay guys and lesbian ladies, so if I was homophobic, I’d be a lousy discriinator.

    Come to think of it I’m sick of stating that I’m not homophobic. One shouldn’t have to do that, except here, except the Moral Police at PB are quick to lecture and condemn, and never let up. It’s a cheap and nasty tactic – labelling people, telling them to”take a good look at themselves”, insinuating that reading between the lines of their posts reveals latent homophobia, and all the rest of the greasy tactics they use to make themselves feel morally superior.

    I’ve had gay friends and acquaintances all throughout my life, from 45 years back when I was young and pretty at university to today when I am older and wrinklier. Their gayness and my heterosexuality have never affected our relationships in any way throughout that time. I won’t have the resident Moral Minahs here parsing my words and delivering judgement on whether I need re-education or their pity.

  17. Player One says:
    Friday, November 17, 2017 at 9:45 am
    Keerist, people! Just use the ‘block’ function if you really decide you don’t want to see a particular person’s posts. Don’t descend to this kind of personal sniping.

  22. BB

    There you go. Arguing again why these laws don’t work. They do. Thats the point.

    This debate is about legislation. Not what businesses do to minimise their profits in their private business.

    You cannot have it both ways. Either we need these laws and they are put in place for a reason or its a waste of time.

    As you have just admitted the laws work. They are there for a reason get on board the argument for legislative equality. Leave the backsliding we don’t need discrimination laws to the backsliding homophobes.

  23. If I may.

    Shorter Bushfire Bill;

    Only a dumb business owner would get caught by anti-discrimination laws!

    Can we move on! 🙂

  24. guytaur: “I think Labor is ready for that. This survey now tells Labor in no uncertain terms the whole fear and division thing does NOT resonate with Australians. Labor loses when it is painted as weak. Its time Labor started being strong in all its policy areas. On refugees it can be because its regional solution is a strong position and should be argued strongly. Don’t fall for the LNP wedge based on a myth. A myth that only counts if the election is close. With the right imploding and dividing this is not the time for Labor to be appeasing the right.”

    Just to give the opposite view of the world some air: I see the unauthorised arrival issue as the one thing that could still destroy Shorten’s shot at the Lodge in 2018, 2019 or whenever it’s going to come.

    If you take an historical perspective on this problem: during the election campaign in 2007, Labor told Australians that the flow of boat people was entirely determined by push factors and that allowing them to settle in Australia wouldn’t encourage lots more to try their luck. And then ever-larger numbers started arriving and – after Rudd had engaged in some futile ranting and raving about “evil people smugglers ” – Labor pretty quickly abandoned its own policy: first for the Malaysian solution and then, when that was blocked, they turned to the indefinite offshore detention with a guarantee of never settling in Australia. Since 2013, the Libs have implemented a brilliant strategy for turning back unauthorised boat arrivals and have also continued to pursue what they had every right to see as a bi-partisan position that people in offshore detention would never be allowed to settle in Australia.

    So, in short, Labor engaged in an experiment of seeing what would happen if Australia adopted the sort of so-called humane and caring approach that the Greens and like-minded sentimentalists proposed. And very quickly reached the conclusion that this approach was disastrous and nailed a lid on it.

    So why in heaven’s name would they even consider the idea of going back to it? The answer is, internal pressure from the party membership, which seems to be increasingly in favour of the Greens’ approach to this issue. First we saw Rudd claiming that he had never suggested that people in offshore detention would never be allowed to come to Australia (which is a complete porky as far as I can see) and now we have Shorten flirting with Jacinda’s idea of taking some of the Manus people to NZ: which means that they would fairly quickly achieve the right to settle in Australia, therefore breaking Rudd’s commitment in 2013.

    The majority view among Australians on this issue does not derive from prejudice. The results on Wednesday show clearly that the average Australian is nowhere near as prejudiced as some would like to assume.

    No, this is one of the few issues I can think of where the more educated someone is, the more likely they are to be wrong. People trafficking is a dangerous and exploitative racket, and the only effective way to stop it is to make sure that the people who spend a lot of money to use the services of people traffickers don’t end up getting what they want. There are many people fleeing from terrible persecution in this world, but almost all of these are living in camps or other unpleasant circumstances and don’t tend to have access to the financial resources required to fly to Indonesia and pay tens of thousands of dollars for a boat trip.

    The average Australian appears to understand these things. And, if Labor aligns itself to policy positions that look like they are going to bring the boats back, then many average Australians are going to balk at the idea of voting for Labor.

  31. While I appreciate the Solar Council ads are anti LNP, im concerned about the impact of third party political actors and their campaigns. This includes the BCA, AIG, GetUp, Miners etc. Not sure im overly keen on this area being so unregulated.

  32. MB

    Arguing for fairness for refugees is not arguing for the Greens position even though I agree with them.

    Labor has a strong position. Your fear of boats arrriving argument shows how empty the fear campaign has become.

    One the boats are still coming.
    Two no one is jumping up and down about it in the Murdoch media.

    Try as you might to ramp up the fear for the ALP their position is quite clearly continue boat turnbacks while working out a regional solution.

    I don’t agree with the boat turnbacks but I do give Labor the credit of a strong position it can argue in an election.

  33. mb

    Our local member (Cathy McGowan) told refugee advocates during the election campaign that if they wanted action on refugees, they should vote for the Greens.

    Our Labor candidate stood against current Labor policy, and said he would advocate for refugees.

    Cathy’s vote went up, both the Labor and Green candidates went down.

  34. MB

    Of course your whole post is a great example of Labor better be careful showing compassion and empathy. That will just show them as weak.

  35. “Only allowing children aged under 14 to be detained for serious crimes” means “children aged under 14 can be detained for only serious crimes”

  36. Boerwar @ #275 Friday, November 17th, 2017 – 9:04 am

    I saw Bartlett being interviewed the other day and bethought me that he is a plus for the Greens.

    I agree, but I was asking more in the light of questions about his eligibility.

    Sprocket highlights that the Court of Disputed Returns did not have any questions regarding his eligibility while it did in regards to Hughes.

    Despite this, this article appeared yesterday questioning his eligibility.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/16/greens-seek-fresh-legal-advice-over-andrew-bartletts-eligibility

  37. Meyer Baba

    You do realise that Australia gave its word not to refoule asylum seekers. Most other treaty signatories are not breaking their obligations.

    As for Liberals “brilliant” policy it involved breaking international and criminal law. It was what they said they would never do. It was staged as a military exercise with a shroud of silence because of “on water matters”. Now Turnbull is skiting about turning back boats bound for NZ. Now they can be brazen.

    It is to Australia’s everlasting shame. And the public is fed misinformation.

  38. Only in Japan?

    Living up to Japan’s reputation for being precise as well as contrite, a train company in Tokyo delivered a formal apology on Tuesday because one of its trains left a station just 20 seconds early.

    In a country where conductors beg forgiveness when a train is even a minute late, the Metropolitan Intercity Railway Co posted an apology on its website for “the severe inconvenience imposed upon our customers” when the No. 5255 Tsukuba Express train left Minami-Nagareyama station in Chiba, a suburban prefecture east of Tokyo, at 9.44:20am, instead of 9.44:40am as scheduled.

    According to the statement, the train arrived at Minami-Nagareyama on time, at precisely 9.43:40am. But when it came time to leave, the over-eager crew closed the doors prematurely and pulled out of the station ahead of schedule.

    According to Metropolitan Intercity, no passengers missed the train nor complained about the jump-start.

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/japanese-railway-company-offers-abject-apology-after-train-leaves-station-20-seconds-early-20171116-gzn6fo.html

  39. Citizen, I think the the first line says it all:

    ‘Flat Earthers from across the GLOBE assembled in North Carolina last week and it was just as bizarre as you think.’

  41. citizen @ #283 Friday, November 17th, 2017 – 9:13 am

    Only in Japan?

    Living up to Japan’s reputation for being precise as well as contrite, a train company in Tokyo delivered a formal apology on Tuesday because one of its trains left a station just 20 seconds early.

    …

    You beat me to it!

    I agree with the Japanese, this is the greatest sin for public transport running to a timetable.

    You never miss a late train if you arrive on time. 🙂

  45. doyley @ #212 Friday, November 17th, 2017 – 11:24 am

    Despite all the kumbia and warm feelings over SSM there is no way that any of that will flow over to the issue of AS.

    Australians do not want a return to daily arrivals by boat and that will not change short term. Australians are quiet happy to continue their three wise monkey impersonation of hear see and speak no evil on the issue. They just want the issue of AS to go away and do not care and or do not want to know how that is achieved.

    It is going to take a lot more than just a successful SSM campaign to change that.

    Cheers.

    I respectfully disagree, doyley.

    I think the majority of Australians are as appalled by the consequences of current AS policy as they are by the SSM hypocrisy of the reactionary Right – if not more so given the failure of Mordor to suppress the current images from Manus. Given the implication of the ALP in the origin of the current AS policy, Shorten et al. cannot simply disavow it. However the current evil implementation of Operation Sovereign Bastardry by Reichstüber Dutton (and the clever leverage of NZ Labour, via Jacinda “Galadriel” Ardern) can be safely used, by Shorten, as a repudiating circuit breaker for the whole disgusting mess as soon as the ALP wins the next election – and will be.

    Murdoch’s orcs can’t touch Shorten while the Reichstüber is still the only one who knows where Trumble’s testicles are hidden. The SSM debate has the orcs terrified that a significant proportion of the Oz population knows they’re blowing smoke – witness Corgi the Dogbotherer’s sheep crutching exercise with Tea Party wannabes in the Senate, yesterday. Shorten know he’s going to be PM within 2 years (more likely 6 months), so all he has to do is stay schtum. Once there, the parallels with 1972 come into play: I can see Shorten, Plibersek, Wong et al. doing a Gough to reset the country – including acknowledging our collective responsibility for both AS and, more importantly, for an Aboriginal Australia.

  46. frednk @ #171 Friday, November 17th, 2017 – 9:41 am

    guytaur

    I am still at a complete loss as to why you would want to buy a cake from a homophobic baker?

    How would you anyone be able to tell that a baker is homophobic? Or that a customer is gay?

    Are bakers expected to put up “No Gays” and “Gays OK” signs so that people can tell which is which? Are cake buyers going to be required to disclose their sexuality before they start discussing their cake requirements?

    Perfect foreknowledge doesn’t exist on either side of the equation. Which is what makes it possible to catch people out under discrimination laws, as long as those laws actually exist.

  47. Lovey @ #286 Friday, November 17th, 2017 – 1:13 pm

    It is to Australia’s everlasting shame. And the public is fed misinformation.

    I think you are mistaken in assuming most Australians are not quite aware of what’s going on. They continue to elect the LNP in part because of their policies in this area. This is the problem the ALP has to wrestle with. How do you take a conservative electorate and appeal to them as a progressive party? The Greens ably demonstrated just how futile a simplistic approach is.

  48. A reminder.

    When its been a single issue being voted on decency compassion and basic humanity have won the popular vote.

    See 1967 granting voting rights to our First People.
    See Marriage Equality survey

    The people of Australia want a fair go not a country divided by hate and fear.

    Decades apart the votes of the majority of Australians remain clear.

  50. Ides of March

    While I appreciate the Solar Council ads are anti LNP, im concerned about the impact of third party political actors and their campaigns. This includes the BCA, AIG, GetUp, Miners etc. Not sure im overly keen on this area being so unregulated.

    So let’s give Rupert a free hand?

Comments Page 6 of 13
1 … 5 6 7 … 13

Leave a Reply

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