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 65 of 66
1 64 65 66
  1. briefly

    Its very different to thinking its the truth to having it in black and white and documented.

    I am so glad Murdoch will soon be out of business. I base this on the fact he has appointed Lachlan of OneTel and Channel Ten fame to manage his remaining assets.

  2. guytaur @ #3194 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 5:55 pm

    MikeCarlton01: Our winner of the inaugural Gold Kenny for Right Wing Fuckwit of 2017…it just has to be: The taxi drivers’ friend…with a chip like a railway sleeper on each shoulder…raging at clouds…that RW Bully and Brown Noser Extraordinaire…MARK LATHAM !!! pic.twitter.com/QOzqDlgEDL
    https://twitter.com/mikecarlton01/status/947718843811512322

    Magnificent achievement Mark, what a career!!!!

    Potential Labor Prime Minister to RWFW of the year.

    You are unique, very few people would be capable of such a transformation.

    Although to be honest you were always a bit of a FW!!! 😁 😁 😁

  3. guytaur says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 10:08 pm
    briefly

    Its very different to thinking its the truth to having it in black and white and documented.

    I am so glad Murdoch will soon be out of business. I base this on the fact he has appointed Lachlan of OneTel and Channel Ten fame to manage his remaining assets.

    The Murdochs have had a wholly baleful effect on social, economic and political outcomes for at last the last 42 years. They are truly vile.

  4. Briefly, I am a Republican and believe democracy to be the only reasonable political organisational process.

    That said, unless there was a minimalist change to the Constitution (whereby a subordinate president is voted in by our political representatives) I would vote against a Republic. I far prefer our Constitutional arrangement whereby a first term PM can be removed than one which would entrench a popularly elected President.

    What am I doing wrong?

  5. Barney in Go Dau says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:48 pm

    I’m certainly resistant to your attempts at the moment, but if you ever start making one I might be receptive.

    Oh, goodie.

  6. Windhover

    You are ignoring Reserve Powers.

    Why should we continue a system designed for appointment by a Monarch?

    I personally want real change so we can restructure who has power. With a PM we get one person deciding if we go to war.

    For that reason alone I want more than minimal change. I want to restrict the power of one person putting lives into harms way. Make it a decision of parliament.

    Take executive power away form legislators. Let legislators be legislators. Just hem in the President so power is very hard to be abused.

    I am open to ideas on how to do that. If we decide to go for ceremonial role of President I want the executive power codified.

    As we learnt with the ME survey case in the High Court there is very little check on executive power in this country. We can’t even restrain the executive with “emergency” funding in legislation.

  7. IndigenousX: An Indigenous voice to parliament could never be a third chamber of parliament anyway. The IPA is already the 3rd chamber, so an Indigenous voice would have to settle for being the 4th.

    *snap*

  8. Cape Town is in the throes of a severe drought because unseasonably dry winters have led to dangerously low dam levels. As of mid-December, the city’s dams were at about 33 percent capacity, according to the mayor’s office, and what officials have dubbed “Day Zero” is looming: that’s the date the dams will drop below 13.5 percent, taps will be turned off, and residents will have to line up at 200 checkpoints across the city to collect daily water allotments, with police and military deployed to monitor the situation. As of Dec. 18, based on current consumption and expected rainfall, Day Zero is projected to be April 29, 2018.

    That is serious. The photo in the article is of a public toilet with signage asking patrons not to flush in order to conserve water.

  9. Windhover says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 10:14 pm
    Briefly, I am a Republican and believe democracy to be the only reasonable political organisational process.

    That said, unless there was a minimalist change to the Constitution (whereby a subordinate president is voted in by our political representatives) I would vote against a Republic. I far prefer our Constitutional arrangement whereby a first term PM can be removed than one which would entrench a popularly elected President.

    First, I don’t think it is correct to describe removing the Crown from the Constitution as minimal. On the contrary, it would be a momentous step. It would be the deliberate adoption of a greater democracy and a more complete equality.

    That said, there need not be any “entrenchment” of an HoS. They need to be subject to summary dismissal no matter whether they are elected or appointed. As long as the House has superior tenure, as long as the HoS may not send the House to an unwanted election, then it will have greater power than any HoS. As long as a defiant HoS may be removed by the legislature, rather than the other way around, the system we know will endure.

    The PM is required to prove a triple majority. First they must win their own seat; then they must prevail in their own caucus; and then they must command a continuing majority in the House. The so-called “minimalist” position would grant an appointed person a degree of invulnerability that no PM has ever enjoyed. This is not minimalist. It is radical. It is undemocratic and it would invite the repression of both the House and the Senate.

    The issue boils down not only to the installation of a HoS but also to the mode of their removal. They must have an inferior tenure to that which applies to the House and Senate – to the colleges that comprise the legislature.

    Those who would hold great power should be subject to summary dismissal. This is our safeguard.

  10. Guytaur

    If you want more than minimum change in the move to a republic you will get nothing.

    At the end of the day the politicians will have to decide the model and an idea that appears to entrench their power (and they won’t do anything that weakens it) will fail at a referendum.

    I had no problems with the model proposed originally: a president approved by two-thirds of a joint sitting.

    That pretty much guaranteed in my mind that we would get a worthy person for what would remain a ceremonial role.

    In my time there have only been two unworthy GGs chosen by the PM of the day: Kerr and Hollingworth. So most of the time the politicians have got it right.

    Direct election will favour the rich and powerful and well connected over the worthy.

    Turnbull probably has the money to buy the job for himself. Barnaby Joyce would probably nominate Gina Reinhart.

  11. Anyone who think Gina Rinehart could win a national election is not in touch with reality. She would do very well to achieve 3% of the vote.

  12. MikeCarlton01: Our winner of the inaugural Gold Kenny for Right Wing Fuckwit of 2017…it just has to be: The taxi drivers’ friend…with a chip like a railway sleeper on each shoulder…raging at clouds…that RW Bully and Brown Noser Extraordinaire…MARK LATHAM !!! pic.twitter.com/QOzqDlgEDL

    I once told Mark Latham to his face to find that cabbie he hit and make up with him; try to get him on the front page of Sunday Telegraph saying “Mark Latham: He’s my best mate!”

    Latham looked at me as if I was mad.

    “Why would I want to do that?” he said.

    It was at a pre-election function in Parramatta NSW, circa 2004.

    (I have to say… Laurie Ferguson, who had just introduced me to Latham, nearly died of embarrassment).

  13. Briefly

    I agree regarding the appointment of the PM. I just want whoever is the executive to have curtailed powers. Be that if its a PM legislator in the Westminster Tradition or an executive President.

    In both systems the executive is given free reign without real accountability for the period of the term.

    I was not of this mind when we still had the concept of Ministerial Responsibility and we saw real accountability.

    Most of this can be addressed with a Bill of Rights but the decision to go to war should be changed along with adopting the Makkarata recommendations while we are having constitutional models debated. It will be centuries before we get an overview chance to change how our constitution works.

    I don’t think we should waste it by being minimalist. The fact that for their time the founding fathers were progressive in trying to adopt the best of the British and US systems should be followed not the Monarchists push for the so called minimalist approach.

  14. Bushfire Bill,
    Latham could have done that but Murdoch still would have had the first wife up his sleeve to deploy at the appropriate time.

  15. And incidentally, why does Fairfax persist in using this photograph of Hockey?

    It makes him look far more intelligent than he is.

  16. Ross

    You ignore the Reserve Powers. You can’t do this. Take away the Crown and the President has enormous power.

    He is in charge of the military.
    His assent is required for every piece of legislation.
    The list goes on.

    How it works is due to convention. However it is not Law. Thats the crux of it.
    Calling it “minimalist” is a con.

  17. Ross

    Also whats the point of putting a referendum model to the people that you know will lose.

    People want to vote for the President.

  18. briefly –

    Those who would hold great power should be subject to summary dismissal. This is our safeguard.

    What great power would your Republican HoS have exactly? Assuming a roughly equivalent position to the GG now, then they can’t make law, they can’t direct the public service, they can’t employ the resources of government as the executive can. You want to strip the position of the power to sack the government and call elections. So what exactly is this power that this HoS would have. The power that is ‘great’ and to be feared?

    I think you’ve got entirely the wrong end of the stick as to who holds, and would hold, the power, and who we want to be afraid of being dismissed.

  19. Until Australia grows up, childish quests for political father figures are pointless.

    We don’t need to elect a leader directly. We have plenty already elected. But the nation has to get over its collective cringe.

  20. Guytaur

    Well I guess I am in a minority. Not the first time but so what.

    As mentioned before I don’t want a popularly elected president (who will almost certainly have political connections) getting delusions of grandeur and interfering in our political process.

    Do you reckon a Tory opposition with a Tory president wouldn’t try to revisit 1975?

    It may never happen but why risk it?

    A ceremonial HoS elected by the parliament and able to be dismissed by the parliament is a safer option.

  21. Another thing that could be sorted out.

    Who is responsible for Health.

    When the constitution was written it was to turn colonies into states.
    We are a long way from that now. States have lost most of their taxation powers. We should adjust service provision to reflect the reality of what has happened in the 200 years since.

    Should we abolish the States? I think that would be going too far. However we could make some changes to reflect decisions the High Court has made about how our Federation works so the blame game stops and we get real accountability.

  22. BB

    Yes France is so not adult.

    Same with Ireland and Germany.

    Lots of other examples of directly elected models. Stop thinking US so much.

    Directly elected is growing up. Its accepting the people choose their head of state. Just like most Republics.

  23. guytaur @ #3218 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 10:43 pm

    You ignore the Reserve Powers. You can’t do this. Take away the Crown and the President has enormous power.

    You are spouting twaddle again, by conflating the codification of the “reserve powers” with the mechanism of choice of our head of state. The reserve powers exist now. They could be used by the GG today. Yes, it would probably be better to have them properly codified – but this has little to do with whether Australia becomes a republic or not.

    It is just another green herring.

  24. P1

    Thats the very point I have been making. Its why just being so called minimalist is not the way to go.

    Thank you for making my argument for me.

  25. P1

    No you just don’t understand what the exception of John Kerr proves about exceptions of the rule defining the law.

    Conventions are not law.

  26. The best thing about our recent GGs is that since Kerr only Bill Hayden was an ex-politician and all with the exception of Hollingworth seem to have been good appointments.

    Not sure about Cosgrove … early yet

    But does anybody think people like Zelman Cowan or William Deane or Quentin Bryce would ever put themselves up for election as president?

    A popular election wil almost certainly turn up an ex politician.

    If the process could be run tomorrow the Tories would almost certainly nominate John Howard.

  27. P1

    In general, the Governor-General observes the conventions of the Westminster system and responsible government, maintaining a political neutrality, and has almost always acted only on the advice of the prime minister or other ministers or, in certain cases, the Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia

    Note General. That means exceptions. Its up to the GG alone to follow convention by his own choice.

  28. Ross

    What is wrong with this directly elected model?

    The President’s powers include

    Appointing members of the Government, judges and other officials

    Summoning and dissolving the Dáil

    Convening the Oireachtas

    Representing the people

    Signing Bills and referring Bills to the Supreme Court

    Acting as Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces

    Page edited: 17 May 2016

    Related Documents

    President of Ireland and legislation
    The President of Ireland has certain powers in relation to legislation. Overview of President’s powers.
    President – Summoning and dissolving the Dáil
    This document describes the functions of the President in summoning and dissolving the Dail
    Unconstitutional legislation
    The High Court has the power to cancel any law or part of any law that is unconstitutional. Discusses what constitutes unconstitutional legislation and how legislation is judged to be unconstitutional.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/the_president/functions_of_the_president.html

  29. guytaur @ #3230 Monday, January 1st, 2018 – 11:01 pm

    P1

    No you just don’t understand what the exception of John Kerr proves about exceptions of the rule defining the law.

    Conventions are not law.

    You keep repeating this, so I know you think it has some kind of relevance. But it really doesn’t. You don’t like the reserve powers – fine. You think they need to be codified – also fine. But this is a different issue to whether our head of state is appointed by the crown, by the parliament, or by the people.

  30. Guytaur

    Probably nothing.

    But that is Ireland.

    I live in Australia and I like the idea of a worthy Australian, not an ex politician, being honoured by being asked to be president of the country and taking on what is largely a ceremonial role and acting at all times in line with the advice of the government of the day.

    With one notable exception that is what our GGs have done and it seems to have worked pretty well.

  31. P1

    You keep trying to box me into your argument.

    My point is if we do change then lets do it. Lets not pretend the Reserve Powers as they exist now are a figment of imagination and we could look at that at the same time.

    Anything to have real debate avoided.

  32. Any president, whether the people`s choice or the parliament`s (or some kind of electoral college, probably involving the state Parliaments somehow), is more likely to act in the way Kerr did than a GG subject to a higher reserve power (the Queen/her successor(s)) due to greater job security and a more democratic mandate.

    The 1999 model had the PM as being able to sack the President but a President in the same situation as Kerr would just sack the PM without notice, just as Kerr did with Gough, and thus the provision would likely have been useless in such circumstances.

    The best way is for there not to be a president, at least not one with any constitutional authority whatsoever, and for most of the GG`s powers to be handed to the House of Representatives.

  33. Jackol says:
    Monday, January 1, 2018 at 10:45 pm

    The HoS currently has the power to dismiss the House and send it to an election. The Senate also has the power to send the House to an election without itself facing an election. This essentially means the results of House elections can be overturned, as was attempted in 1974 and actually occurred in 1975.

    The Senate has not used this power since 1975, but there is no doubt the LNP would use this power if circumstances permitted it.

    The so-called minimalist position would in fact make it even more likely that House elections could be overturned unless some way could be found to “codify” the powers of the HoS. The only really safe way to protect the House from a determined Senate and HoS is to ensure the House can send them to an election rather the other way around.

    The power to dismiss an elected Government is great power by any measure. It should not be possible to exercise this discretion against the will of the House.

  34. Ross

    Remove the Crown from the Constitution and you are doing radical amendment to the Constitution.

    Look at other models around the world.

    As Ireland has shown make the role ceremonial you get representatives that do that role.

    The so called minimalist approach leaves dangerous powers in place. Does not look at issues we know are problems like recognising our First People. The evolution of taxation and services in our Federation. S44.

    This is just a few.

    Don’t be fooled appointed doesn’t deliver any better than directly elected in terms of functions of the role.

    We are not choosing Australian of the Year.

  35. Sorry I should have posted this earlier too.

    AusRepublic: The ARM welcomes the Prime Minister’s statement today that the next step towards an @AusRepublic could be a postal survey @Peter_Fitz:”The leaders on both sides of politics clearly want this to happen. Now it’s not a question of if, but how.” #auspol republic.org.au/turnbull_opens…

    https://twitter.com/ausrepublic/status/947674777132482560

  36. briefly – you didn’t answer the question.

    Apart from being able to dismiss the executive and call fresh elections – which you have argued numerous times should not be part of the HoS’s powers – what other power would they have. Actual power to make life unpleasant for the people of Australia?

    Having the power to dismiss the government is great, indeed, but without any other powers all this entails is sending the people to an election. Unless you are suggesting that there is a real possibility of some vindictive asshole getting to be president who would just delight in sending people to elections for no good reason until their term expires … I don’t see what the issue is. The GG effectively has one power up his sleeve to act as a check on executive government. They can’t otherwise affect the citizens of this country. I’m fairly sure you’ve made a link to potential dictatorship, of the HoS somehow (in a manner you haven’t explained) taking over government through, what, the threat of calling an election?

    The executive has massive power in this country. They are the ones who should fear being dismissed – the ones we need to feel that fear. The GG or HoS has no other power so your description of the GG/HoS as having massive power just strikes me as … not the way reality is or ever would be.

  37. Australia`s head of state, the Queen, does not have the power to dissolve the Parliament. The Queen has the power to appoint and dismiss the GG, who can dissolve the House of Reps and if (and only if) the conditions in section 57 are met can dissolve the Senate.

  38. Jackol, the executive power you mention is Crown power, exercised by their proxies, the Minsters. Ministers act in an executive capacity – that is, as delegates of the HoS. Without the powers delegated to them by the HoS, Ministers would have no power whatsoever.

    At present, because of the forced historical acquiescence of the Crown to the Commons, the Crown is expected to play no part in legislative affairs. To this day, the Crown is not permitted to enter the House of Commons. In Australia Kerr broke with this convention and dismissed an elected Government against its will as a part of a political conspiracy with the Opposition. This was a gross abuse of power. It entailed the replacement of the members of the Executive and the repression of the House majority.

Comments Page 65 of 66
1 64 65 66

Leave a Reply

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