With last week’s results from Newspoll and Essential Research added to the mix, the BludgerTrack poll aggregate records a solid shift back to the Coalition after a recent Labor blowout, converting into a 0.6% increase on two-party preferred and four on the seat projection. The Coalition is up even more on the primary vote, although this is basically at the expense of One Nation (see the sidebar for full results). Furthermore, The Australian published the Newspoll quarterly state breakdowns for October to December this week, which is the last polling data we will get until well into January, and this too has been added to the mix.
I’ve been noting in recent weeks that BludgerTrack’s readings for Western Australia and especially Queensland were looking off beam, and anticipated that the long-awaited addition of Newspoll data would ameliorate this. However, the Newspoll result backed up the picture of a huge swing to Labor in Queensland, of 9%, resulting in a two-party lead of 55-45. Labor’s lead in Queensland has nonetheless narrowed in BludgerTrack this week, reducing their projected seat gain from an entirely implausible 16 seats to a still rather unlikely 11, but this is as much to do with more normal-looking numbers from Essential over the past two weeks than Newspoll.
A very likely problem here is that both Newspoll and BludgerTrack are assuming preferences will behave as they did in 2016, which means a roughly even split of preferences from One Nation. The Queensland state election result suggests the support One Nation has built since comes largely from former Coalition voters, resulting in a stronger flow of preferences to them – of about 65%, in the case of the state election. In the new year, I will begin calculating preferences by splitting the difference between 2016 election flows and a trend measure of respondent-allocated preferences (which have been leaning too far the other way). This will result in more conservative readings of Labor’s two-party support.
In addition to the five seat shift to the Coalition in Queensland, BludgerTrack has the Coalition up a seat in New South Wales – but down two in Western Australia, where the Newspoll numbers (again with some help from a more normal-looking result from Essential Research) have taken the wind out of an outlier result from the state in the Ipsos poll a fortnight ago.
The leadership rating trends have been updated with the latest Newspoll results, producing a slight drop in both leaders’ net approval ratings. However, this too suffers a deficiency to which I will make an overdue correction in the new year, namely that no account is made for the idiosyncrasies of particular pollsters – such as lower approval and higher disapproval ratings from Newspoll, and lower uncommitted ratings from Ipsos. This means changes from week to week often reflect the specific pollsters that have published results, as much as meaningful change in the numbers.
Moving to a Republic, or not, because we like or dislike the current Monarch is precisely the opposite attitude which should guide the decision.
guytaur @ #2830 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 2:57 pm
I notice in amongst all your strawmen that you never answer even the simplest question.
Is that because you don’t understand them, or because you don’t like the answer?
Guytaur,
With all due respect, that SMH article was 2009. If you are going to cite polls, it is your job to link them, not ours.
briefly,
You focus on the HoS being chosen by one person as the GG is now, but that has never been suggested as a serious option.
The minimalist option was to have the HoS elected by a 2/3 majority of a joint sitting of the Parliament and their removal would require a similar vote.
I don’t see any value in giving the HoS any sort of political mandate and the 2/3 requirement would ensure that it was a bipartisan appointment unlike now.
Renewables….
#
Lizzie
Yes thats indeed one of the red herrings Turnbull used as an excuse for his failure to win the Republic vote instead of admitting it was accepting Howard”s model.
guytaur
Back in the day during the republic push talk of Truffles standing for and being elected was frequently bandied about. He would likely have stood a good chance , what with him being the “Father of the Republic” and all 🙂
Well, I for one am not going to bang on about a republic just because
Truffles is beating that drum.
The question is, what screwup is Turnbull trying to distract us from this time?
Further to my post @3:13 about Turnbull’s presser.
I wasn’t paying much attention because he’s not very charismatic, but I don’t think he even tried to make the Republic an issue, it came up in the Q&A.
His main talking point was how Labor deliberately creates gangs to terrorise the community.
guytaur says:
Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:08 pm
Briefly
I am surprised at you. You mentioned the Constitution and did not mention S44.
I disagree with you a little about election timing. As we have seen having Senate terms as they are now has been a good check on executive power.
lol
44(i) will b abolished, of course.
Regarding the Senate, it is less representative than the House and yet has superior tenure. This is undemocratic. The Senate has the power to force an election on the House without itself going to an election. This is archaic. The Senate’s powers should be abridged.
Malcontent.
PuffyTMD @ #2855 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 11:21 am
The interesting thing is, he’s using a previous failure to distract. 😁 😁 😁
Recent polling on becoming a republic that I can recall showed a not much difference between support and oppose, but a somewhat reasonable percentage of people with no opinion. Think it was Essential from memory.
puffy
Bill Shorten like with Marriage Equality has put the agenda on the table. He even has a shadow minister appointed.
Even with distractions Trumble is following Labor.
Its the same politics. Turnbull thinks he won with the ME survey. Not realising he lost as his right wing got humiliated.
Same is going to happen again. More division. More chaos on display.
Labor should embrace it with gusto to keep that division and thus polls as they are.
PTMD
Exackery !
Socrates @ 10:34
“I miss Keating as a leader (we have had none since; just a manipulator folled by cowards) but on climate change he was wrong. None of the advice suggests anyone saw the potential for the jobs climate change responses could create.”
It’s very hard to tell the future! Who would have thought digital cameras would replace silver halide film? or that clockwork wrist watches would be a fashion accessories rather than a timepieces. 1950s predictions about the computer are outlandishly wrong!
I remember an article in a 1870s edition of Encyclopedia Britannica that said the electricity would never replace gas lighting!
Don’t blame Keating for being wrong about climate change in the 199os— nearly everyone was! Blame him if he thinks the same now!
Turnbull probably floated a republic postal survey because there are not “Sudanese gangs” across Australia that suddenly need his attention.
Briefly
I am for more accountability. I just don’t want the election at the same time.
The US again shows us why thats a bad idea.
The mid terms when no president running gives a check on Presidential power.
The at the same time November elections do not.
Both Houses should have fixed terms just on a different cycle.
Puffy
Malcolm has tried the “Look at me in my new shirt feeding the poor” schtick, and that went down like a lead balloon. So now it’s “look over there at the lawless Victorians”.
He’s not doing too well, is he 😆
Hippy New Year everyone
Hope you had great one.
And that all your resolutions are in place.
Barney in Go Dau says:
Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:18 pm
briefly,
You focus on the HoS being chosen by one person as the GG is now, but that has never been suggested as a serious option.
The minimalist option was to have the HoS elected by a 2/3 majority of a joint sitting of the Parliament and their removal would require a similar vote.
I don’t see any value in giving the HoS any sort of political mandate and the 2/3 requirement would ensure that it was a bipartisan appointment unlike now.
Voters will not cede this power to the Parliament. They want to elect the H-o-S themselves. A republic fully embodies the democratic impulse. That’s why we should have one. If we are to be a more complete democracy, let us elect our own H-o-S. I’m a republican and a democrat, but I’ll be damned if my power to choose should be delegated to the LNP.
It is inevitable that a non-hereditary H-o-S will acquire political power. This power should be conferred by voters rather than in spite of them.
Yeah, as far as polling goes I’m fairly sure that there has not been a clear, sustained majority for a Republic in quite a long time. The polls that there have been get muddled by the issues of the model coming into play in surveying opinion, and while they generally have ‘pro’ somewhat ahead of ‘anti’ there are large chunks of undecideds or not of firm opinion.
With a FUD campaign I don’t think there’s a core majority there, and that’s really why there’s been no movement in recent times.
And while I voted yes in 1999, it’s since become a total non-issue for me personally. Of all the issues with our modern world our Head of State being an English monarch is waaaaaay down the list.
Kezza
I resent hippy! Its the hip association with deconstructed coffee that does it. 🙂
Thanks for posting I got the gist and wish the same back to you and your loved ones.
Happy new year to you too Kezza!
briefly @ #2868 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 11:30 am
Your thinking seems to be make some very large leaps in logic and I fail to see much convincing argument amongst them.
guytaur says:
Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:28 pm
Briefly
I am for more accountability. I just don’t want the election at the same time.
The US again shows us why thats a bad idea.
The mid terms when no president running gives a check on Presidential power.
The at the same time November elections do not.
Both Houses should have fixed terms just on a different cycle.
Simultaneous elections are inherently more democratic than staggered elections, which deliver as much power to old decisions as to new ones. It is in order to retard democracy that in the US the House is always due for a new election while Senators can serve 3 terms before facing elections. This makes the Senate very much more powerful than the House. In Australia, where government is determined in the House, such staggering of cycles is reactionary. It helped bring down the Whitlam government, for example.
Briefly
I just say stagger the cycles. Both fixed terms same length If you have legislative power seperate from executive power you are giving people a check on power.
With a directly elected President and fixed terms no Senate power to dissolve either House.
Legislature separate from Executive power.
Jackol @3:30,
I thought Guytaur had found an interesting poll and I had missed the link.
It could be a possibility if the PM has a bit of time to put in. Shorten plans a plebiscite in his first term, which would not be as pointy as a referendum and might be a good end of year distraction for him to put a few weeks of campaigning into.
It might also depend on where the opposition leader at the time stands.
EDIT: Found an ABC article that says the first vote would be a referendum. It still wouldn’t be as pointy because the first vote wouldn’t have the constitutional changes.
Question
We need to know the opinion of the IPA. They are currently our real rulers. 😉
lizzie,
I’m sure they’re all queuing up for honours.
Until the pro Republicans sort out the model that will be put to the voters, then the debate will continue going in circles for years to come.
I’ll never vote for a directly elected HOS or even the possibility that it would arise.
GG
Then you will never vote for a Republic.
Jackol says:
Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, as far as polling goes I’m fairly sure that there has not been a clear, sustained majority for a Republic in quite a long time.
Polls suggest a majority of voters support a republic, but the numbers are not yet sufficient to deliver a double majority in a referendum. Support is patchy. Younger voters are not tuned in to the idea. Female voters are less supportive than males. Support is highest in Tasmania, Victoria and NSW. To achieve change, republicans have to campaign to and build engagement with younger voters, especially in QLD and WA.
There is also some resistance to direct election among older, nominally-pro-republican voters. This is inherently problematic. Direct election is preferred by most voters but is opposed by the LNP and parts of Labor too.
Question @ #2875 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 11:40 am
The idea of the plebiscite is to decide whether we become a republic.
If the vote is “yes”, then we would move onto the discussion of the type of republic and finally a referendum proposing the required Constitutional changes.
guytaur
As someone ancient enough to vaguely remember ‘hippies’ I creckon they would want zero association with “hipsters’ . They may not mind being ‘hip’ but ‘hipster’ would be an insult !!!!
Guytaur,
It is all very well to whip up a grab bag of ideas for constitutional reform, but to change anything a referendum will have to be put to the Australian people.
I don’t think there would be a “Yes” vote for a directly elected president along with the substantial rewrite of the constitution that would be required.
Just finished this brilliant article linked to by who else but BK!
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australias-leastcompetitive-industries-earning-superprofits-20171230-h0bn66.html
I sincerely wish every Australian voter could read and understand such articles.
And since I mentioned BK, I wish you a Happy New Year and thanks for all your great work curating the media every day. Just because I don’t repeat this on a regular basis does not mean I am not appreciating your efforts greatly each and every day.
My only regret is I don’t have the time to get through all your links. 😛
Poroti
Yes. I think hipsters are the opposite of traditional hippies. They have hijacked the label though.
A lot of them think of themselves as hippies too. Maybe they think its having a beard. 🙂
guytaur @ #2879 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 3:46 pm
Probably.
The Republican Movement claim we need an Australian as our HOS. Every GG since 1968 has been Australian. Fixed!
Next issue!
guytaur @ #2874 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 3:39 pm
What??? You want the President to be the Executive Branch of Government?
No thanks.
Barney in Go Dau says:
Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:34 pm
briefly @ #2868 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 11:30 am
I don’t see any value in giving the HoS any sort of political mandate and the 2/3 requirement would ensure that it was a bipartisan appointment unlike now.
The existing arrangement is highly bi-partisan. The PM consults the LOTO. They find consensus. The G-G is appointed and can be removed on a moment’s notice. It’s highly efficient but not at all democratic.
I think it’s worth reflecting on the events of 1975. If a 2/3 majority of either or both Houses had been required to remove Kerr, it would never have been possible. As it was, the PM acting alone on 11/11 was unable to procure the dismissal of the G-G.
The idea that a super-majority will protect the results of democratic elections for the House is entirely erroneous. It will instead just make more powerful the already-undemocratic Senate.
BigD
Yes, you would need 2 votes. To determine if people wanted a republic and then which model.
But then you would need a referendum where you listed the constitutional changes and said “Yes or No”.
So you might end up with the same result as last time.
1. People vote Yes
2. Minimalist model wins with help of Monarchists
3. People vote no on the constitutional changes with the help of sulking direct election people.
Greensborough Growler @ #2881 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 3:45 pm
Overly-conservative tendencies such as this gets us nowhere.
I’m in favor of a 3-stage strategy.
1. ‘Do you want Australia to be a republic ?’ – postal plebiscite
2. Direct elected President or parliamentary appointed President ? – postal plebiscite
3. Referendum on constitutional changes proposed by peoples convention – yes or no ?
Briefly
I am pretty sure that Whitlam didn’t try to procure Kerr’s dismissal.
Question @ #2889 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 3:55 pm
Right on the money Question.
I have no doubt that would happen.
A directly elected head of State would probably be very rich, or backed by someone like Gina Rinehart.
briefly @ #2888 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 11:54 am
But if his tenure was more secure, then there would have been no reason not to open and honest with Whitlam.
lizzie @ #2893 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 4:00 pm
The only fair way to do it would be a giant Tattslotto Draw.
JW
I disagree with you because of this.
https://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-1994-95-how-the-republic-was-doomed-without-a-directly-elected-president-88394
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/unpalatable-choice-sank-the-republic-20091105-i03d.html
Bemused,
I think it will only work when it is bipartisan. A strong “Yes” for the first vote might help that. I’m not sure where the current crop of future L-NP opposition leaders stand.
🙂