BludgerTrack: 53.5-46.5 to Labor

Some slightly better numbers for the Coalition improve their position in the final BludgerTrack reading for the year, although they remain fatally weak in Queensland.

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.

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.

3,297 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.5-46.5 to Labor”

Comments Page 59 of 66
1 58 59 60 66
  1. Question @ #2889 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 11:55 am

    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 because with the help of sulking direct election people.

    Yep, the tough step is the middle one, coming up with something that can be accepted.

  2. Jolyon Wagg @ #2891 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 3:56 pm

    Briefly

    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.

    I am pretty sure that Whitlam didn’t try to procure Kerr’s dismissal.

    Correct.
    It was a brilliantly effective ambush that was completely successful.
    The only chance I think he and Labor had would have been if they had immediately used their majority in the HoR to block supply there, before the Libs could pass it in the Senate.

    That would have led to the interesting situation where the GG had replaced a PM with a majority in the HoR who could not secure supply through the Senate, with a ‘PM’ with no majority in the HoR and who could not get supply through the HoR. Fraser got the PM ship because he said he could guarantee supply and Whitlam couldn’t.

    How that would have played out no-one can really say, but it would have put Labor in with a strong chance.

  3. olyon Wagg says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:56 pm
    Briefly

    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.
    I am pretty sure that Whitlam didn’t try to procure Kerr’s dismissal.

    You’re right about that. My point was mis-stated. That is, as long as the G-G cannot be removed summarily with the support of a simple majority in the House, their tenure means they will always be more powerful than the PM and that the results of elections can be overthrown.

  4. Perhaps the thing we need to change first is the constitutional requirement that all referendum questions must be binary “yes/no” questions.

    I think the best way forward would be to have a referendum that allowed for preferential voting (where you have to vote 1,2 and 3) on the following options:

    1) Status-Quo (i.e. monarchy)
    2) Republic with President appointed by 2/3 majority of house of Reps.
    3) Republic with directly elected president (along with required constitutional changes).

  5. GG 3.52 – scratch under the surface and there’s always a reason to back the status quo with GG and oppose change.

  6. Bemused

    We have worse now.

    I am not advocating US style executive power.

    I am advocating our own style. Very restricted powers.

    More restricted than US.

    I think we can learn from both Westminster and US systems and have a better one of both.
    Closer to French model than US to be honest.

    I particularly want the ability to declare war restricted so not one person can make that decision.
    Even an official cabinet majority vote would be an improvement on one person making the decision.
    When parliament as a whole cannot.

    These are things a Constitutional convention would have to address.
    Do read the Conversation and SMH articles and you will get some idea of why I am arguing this.

  7. JW

    Thats Turnbull’s postal survey proposal.

    I think its wrong. I think Labor is ready though.

    I think Labor advocate for a Republic and will go with what the public wants.

    That is a directly elected President.

    The model can be decided later.

    US style. German Style French Style Irish Style. There are plenty to choose from

  8. Jolyon Wagg says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:08 pm
    Perhaps the thing we need to change first is the constitutional requirement that all referendum questions must be binary “yes/no” questions.

    They did something like that for the anthem, but I don’t think the anthem is in the constitution. The blandness of our anthem is topped only by “God Defend New Zealand”.

  9. As soon as a H-o-S is no longer hereditary – as soon as they hold their position by virtue of the results of elections – they will acquire political authority. This is just inevitable. They will have more political authority than any single MP or Senator. For mine, as a democrat, I think this means the H-o-S should be accountable to the voters. For sure, this will give the H-o-S authority that is independent of the authority of the House and Senate. But as long as their powers with respect to the other parts of the Parliament – the legislative chambers – and with respect to legislation are tightly specified I don’t think this is a problem. If the system has to be reformed to remove the vestiges of monarchic power, then so be it.

  10. I think Labor advocate for a Republic and will go with what the public wants.

    That is a directly elected President.

    You keep saying that as if it’s a proven truth.

  11. Question

    Read the SMH and Conversation articles.

    Its as proven as we are going to get. Of those that are Pro Republic most support a directly elected President.

    Its that simple.

  12. JW

    Thats Turnbull’s postal survey proposal.

    Well actually it isn’t (and I am not sure how you could construe it as such!). What I am saying is that there are essentially three schools of thought on our constitutional arrangements and that change is stymied by the requirement to put a binary choice to a referendum.

    On way around the problem would be to change the constitution to allow voters to use preferential voting to choose amongst three options.

  13. JW

    I saw the presser a second time and Turnbull’s postal survey is to put the two models for the Yes voters
    The no voters just get to pick the monarchy.

  14. Barney in Go Dau says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:01 pm
    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.

    But if his tenure was more secure, then there would have been no reason not to open and honest with Whitlam.

    If their tenure were made more secure, the House would be reduced to serving at the discretion of the Senate and the H-o-S. This would be thoroughly undemocratic.

    We need more democracy, not less. We need those who hold power to be made more accountable.

    A super-majority would give a H-o-S tenure that no directly-elected MP would have; a longevity that the House would not have. The entire point should be that those who hold powerful offices should be subject to summary dismissal. This is the best check on the abuse of power.

  15. Jolyon Wagg @ #2911 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 4:19 pm

    JW

    Thats Turnbull’s postal survey proposal.

    Well actually it isn’t (and I am not sure how you could construe it as such!). What I am saying is that there are essentially three schools of thought on our constitutional arrangements and that change is stymied by the requirement to put a binary choice to a referendum.

    On way around the problem would be to change the constitution to allow voters to use preferential voting to choose amongst three options.

    This is one of your many great insights you contribute.
    More please.

  16. Question

    Nope thats just an assumption.

    Thats why the yes or no vote for a Republic should be a Referendum question.

    Then a plebiscite to choose the model.

    Then a Referendum to confirm the model as the new Constitution.

  17. Guytaur,
    I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t try, just that when vote 2 chooses minimalist, the direct election people shouldn’t sulk in vote 3.

  18. Question

    Until we have said no more Monarchy we just won’t know.

    Monarchists will keep arguing for appointed to keep the no vote alive.

  19. All things being equal, the flowrate impacts of any particular drought will get worse because even quite small increases in average temperature result in disproportionate falls in run off.

    In other words, even less of what little rain falls, will reach streams.

  20. The Republican Movement is promoting the 2-step path to reform. It has been adopted by Labor. Shorten has suggested he agrees that the public need to be involved in choosing a H-o-S. I concur with that view. The LNP is seriously divided and essentially anti-republican, in the same way that it was both divided by and opposed to SSM.

    Turnbull appears to wish to try to shift LNP-positive opinion in favour of the republic. He will find this very difficult to do. The RW will use this to mobilise against Turnbull. However, maybe he thinks this is an issue he can use to promote his own credentials with the electorate.

    It’s hazardous for Turnbull. He will be accused of making common cause with Labor against the wishes of the LNP base. This was the charge used against him 2009.

    Really, if a Republic is to be achieved in Australia, it will be because Labor fight for it.

  21. Guytaur, Monarchists choosing minimalist seems perfectly consistent to me, but yes, they will also be hoping for a repeat of 1999.

  22. Thanks for your contribution JW.

    Yes Bemused – its saddening.

    I can see the beginnings of our own socialism in one country debate looking at the posts.

  23. Good afternoon and a happy 2018 to all.

    The republic is a second ( even third ) order issue for the majority of Australians.

    Cost of living including electricity bills, wage stagnation, casualization and lack of job security are the top tier issues that are top of the list.

    Turnbull with his republic/ plebiscite comments and Victorian government bashing is clearly showing he has nothing on the agenda to address the major concerns of Australiansas we head into 2018. Just more of the same from his ” successful ” 2017.

    Whether Australia should be a republic and how the HOS is elected are nothing issues in the overall scheme of things.

    Cheers.

  24. Question

    The whole debate changes once its what type of Republic not if we become a Republic. Assuming Yes vote wins the Referendum.

    As always assumptions before the vote become very different with the reality.

  25. Question @ #2917 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 4:23 pm

    Turnbull hasn’t proposed anything beyond a few off-the-cuff responses to hypothetical questions.

    The response that comes from tory RWNJ’s like abbott, dutton etc to turnbull’s lastest brain fart will be interesting.

    Will they see it as an attack from turnbull – going around them to put the Republic issue back on the agenda?

    Those same RWNJ’s lost control of the ME issue by the same postal survey process. OK its not the same obviously and many things associated with a Republic are yet to be worked through, but abbott etc are likely to hate the whole notion with a passion.

    More tory infighting ignited for 2018 and Newspoll will be back doing its work in 6 weeks or so.

    Happy days.

    A Happy New Year to all Bludgers 🙂

  26. Turnbull didn’t bring up the Republic, Keating did.

    I like the way Turnbull says Keating came-out-swinging after he just held a presser to slag off Andrews and Labor in a good old crime fighting rant.

    He rejected criticism by former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, as reported in The Australian, that he has “no system of prevailing beliefs” and his republicanism was a “chameleon act”.

    “Paul’s remarks today were … barely coherent,” Mr Turnbull said at Bondi Beach.

    In an interview with The Australian, Mr Keating questioned Mr Turnbull’s commitment to Australia becoming a republic, saying he “has little or no policy ambition and commensurably little imagination, no system of prevailing beliefs”.

    “Was [his republicanism] just Malcolm being another chameleon doing another chameleon act as he has on so many other things?” he asked.

    Mr Turnbull said he did not know what prompted Mr Keating to “come out swinging at everyone”.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/given-the-success-of-the-marriage-postal-survey-turnbull-flags-an-australian-republic-vote-20180101-h0bzlu.html

  27. Ihnatko: What if, like Phil Connors in “Groundhog Day,” God makes us re-do 2017 over and over and over again until we finally get it right?

  28. dave,
    Let’s hope so 🙂

    Guytaur,
    I’m not too fussed with the model, but I can see a lot of political hurdles in the DE model.

  29. Question

    Maybe. Once Monarchy is out of the way we will have proper constitutional modelling done.

    That is repeat the process of the past and have constitutional conventions that can get a model up for popular support.

    The public prefers to vote directly for the very reason they don’t trust politicians.

    With so many direct election models available to be put to the people and so few appointed ones I see not too many hurdles at all.

  30. briefly @ #2915 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 12:22 pm

    Barney in Go Dau says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:01 pm
    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.

    But if his tenure was more secure, then there would have been no reason not to open and honest with Whitlam.

    If their tenure were made more secure, the House would be reduced to serving at the discretion of the Senate and the H-o-S. This would be thoroughly undemocratic.

    We need more democracy, not less. We need those who hold power to be made more accountable.

    A super-majority would give a H-o-S tenure that no directly-elected MP would have; a longevity that the House would not have. The entire point should be that those who hold powerful offices should be subject to summary dismissal. This is the best check on the abuse of power.

    Once again you make assertions out of nowhere, without addressing the point I made.

    If Kerr rightly of wrongly feared removal if he was too open with Whitlam then the uncertainty you desire played a major factor in ’75.

  31. MrDenmore: Republicans are raising Australia UP. You are the one running it down with your creepy servitude to an anachronistic hereditary monarchy of transplanted Germans on the other side of the world. twitter.com/tonyabbottmhr/…

    TonyAbbottMHR: We don’t need to dump the Queen to be a great country. Republicans will never win by running Australia down

  32. Barney

    Yes. Confusion of Convention being followed but the actual law being different.

    Why a minimalist approach is not possible.

    Too much grey in this area. Too much uncertainty about what the GG can do.

  33. victoria says: Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:47 pm

    Just catching up on today’s posts.

    Appreciate the feedback in the grief space.

    Thanks to all

    ***********************************************

    Hopefully 2018 will be better year, for all of us , Victoria – and we get rid of you know who 🙂

  34. Barney

    its only politicians who fear another politician having authority and thus theirs reduced.

    The people don’t.

    The very fact people think voting now is Presidential shows people want to vote directly for a President.

    The amount of times I have seen posts here saying we don’t have a Presidential election is proof of this alone.

  35. GeorgeBludger: Welcome to “Government by Postal Vote”. WIN a brand new policy, a get-out-of-embarrassment card, postpone-a-decision cloak, or a punch in the face. ENTER NOW! pic.twitter.com/L8XiR43h9s

Comments Page 59 of 66
1 58 59 60 66

Leave a Reply

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