BludgerTrack returns for 2018 with methodological tinkering to address two issues. The first is an effort to account for a different preference environment with the rise of the One Nation; the second puts the various pollsters on a level playing field in calculating the leadership rating treds.
After polling a national primary vote of 1.3% from the fifteen lower house seats they contested, One Nation’s polling has been approaching double figures for at least the past year. This limits the utility of allocating preferences as they flowed at the previous election, which is the most reliable method when the minor party environment experiences little change from one election to the next. The Coalition received barely more than half of One Nation’s preferences in 2016, but they did quite a bit better than that at last year’s state elections, receiving around 65% in Queensland and 60% in Western Australia — presumably because many of their new supporters have defected from the Coalition.
The alternative to previous election preference flows is respondent allocation, which the experience of the state elections suggests is leaning too far in the other direction. The approach now taken by BludgerTrack is to split the difference, which would have worked well if it had been applied in 2016. This is done by combining trend measures of previous election and respondent-allocated flows, with Ipsos and ReachTEL providing the data for the latter.
The chart below shows how these trends pan out in the latest run of the aggregation. Both pollsters had the Coalition maintaining its mid-thirties share from the election until around the middle of last year, when it rose to the low forties. With the major parties now accounting for barely three-quarters of the total vote, a change on this scale would, by itself, result in more than a full point of difference to the two-party total.
The impact of the new method on the BludgerTrack two-party trend reading is illustrated below, with the chart on the left showing how things would look if previous election preferences were still applied. The upshot is that BludgerTrack should be at least half a point less favourable for Labor than it was before, at least for as long as the recent pattern of respondent-allocated preference polling holds.
The second change relates to the leadership ratings measures, which until now made no effort to distinguish between the very substantial peculiarities of different pollsters. This meant its results were saying as much about the pollster that had reported most recently as they did about changes in the standing of the two leaders.
Unlike voting intention, leadership ratings cannot be measured against a real world benchmark. So the approach taken here is to treat Newspoll as the centre of gravity, and adjust the other pollsters by benchmarking them against a trend measure of Newspoll. These results are illustrated in the table below, which effectively shows how different a typical result from each pollster will be from a typical Newspoll.
This shows that both leaders, but Malcolm Turnbull especially, do much worse on Newspoll’s approval and disapproval ratings than they do from Essential, Ipsos and YouGov. Since these differences are now being corrected for, BludgerTrack will tend to record weaker net satisfaction results for both leaders, but especially for Turnbull.
This brings us to the latest BludgerTrack numbers, which as always are displayed in all their glory on the sidebar. Since the Essential poll is the only new data point of the last few weeks, a certain amount of caution is advised. While the Essential numbers were slightly better than the Coalition’s form late last year, more than half the 1.2% shift recorded in favour of the Coalition is down to the new preference method. It hasn’t made much difference to the seat projection, on which the Coalition gain one apiece in Queensland and South Australia, but lose one in Western Australia.
The impact of the new leadership ratings method on Malcolm Turnbull’s net satisfaction is muted by a set of Essential numbers which were, by the pollsters long-term standards, relatively good for him. However, Bill Shorten had a weak result from Essential, and is accordingly well down.
3,076 comments on “BludgerTrack: 52.3-47.7 to Labor”
Name a single Indigenous person, leader or group who has stated publicly that the single most important Indigenous priority is changing the date of Australia Day.
None. Not one. De nada. Zip.
There are, OTOH, plenty of statements about priorities NOT involving the date.
The Bwana of the Woiworung and the White Man’s Burden solves this rather large ethical problem by ignoring it.
That you are still peddling Di Natale’s position DOES tell us about your political priorities.
How long has Gary Foley been the leader of the Federal Greens?
Seems PvO has made the jump.
WeWantPaul @ #2939 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 1:43 pm
I have never visited Melbourne – I live here.
I have visited Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, all of which were fine. But different.
Oh yes, the Domgas reservation a ‘Yuuuge’ plus that . Silly T’othersiders did not follow suit and look what happened 🙂
First saw them in Sydney pubs. It made for a depressing sight but made me appreciate their lack over West even more !
I wish they’d put PvO on the Insiders couch instead of Gerard Henderson or that AFR editor with the sideburns.
But unfortunately he’d have to give up his Sunday morning Sky gig for that to happen.
Gorks @ #2947 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 1:47 pm
Good on you Gorks.
I hope it sets a model for other states to follow. Get rid of those crooks and scamsters and the money laundering facilities they run on behalf of organised crime.
The Greens know that they are perfect and that it is their manifest destiny to condemn everyone else and to brag about how superior they are while never having to be soiled with the muck of power, so they are having trouble internalizing something that is perfectly obvious to everyone else.
One should consider getting into the refrigeration busine$$ …!
Confessions @ #2948 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 1:47 pm
Nope. Live music is alive and well in Melbourne and not hard to find.
The idea is to go beyond the Adelaide CBD. It is just the place people work. No one goes to the CBD to play.
Even the good nightspots are a local secret.
Pokie penetration in WA has been stymied due to bipartisan opposition. Also, WA is not as reliant on this source of state tax revenue as other states such as Victoria are.
I’m ok with pokies as long as they are limited to $1 maximum bets.
One of the great things about Adelaide is the airport. It is between the CBD and the sea, in the middle of the suburbs. It is less than ten minutes by taxi or bus to the CBD.
Anyone living in the area can count the rivets under the wings as the plane lands.
But Barnaby admits he hasn’t read it. This is ‘good government’?
Rachel White’s ‘brave’ decision likely will produce the same result as Jeremy Corbyn’s return to idealism – permanent Opposition. You can’t do much good from there.
I don’t play the pokies and don’t like them, but the argument that people have the right to go to hell in their own way is a powerful one.
If if Rachel were to win in the lower house, the upper house would sink her reform.
— I also was massively surprised / pleased by Glenelg at a recent conference —
You should have headed up to Henley beach where it is said the lefty elite gather to sip on their soy latte chardonnays.
In contrast, bipartisan support for pokies in Victoria:
Dec 1, 2017: https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/12/01/mayne-major-parties-ram-through-another-70-billion-in-pokies-losses/
Rex Douglas @ #2962 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 2:02 pm
How many $1 bets are OK?
Rex Douglas @ #2964 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 10:02 am
Rex, you do realise that they are programmed to pay out less than you put in?
They dangle a carrot of an individual win but the reality is that you will lose.
They are designed to entrap the weak and vulnerable, with no concern for the outcomes.
They are immoral and any promotion of them is completely unethical.
By the way, I don’t like them! 🙂
Re the $1 limit I’m with you on that one…………………………. you were talking about a daily limit weren’t you ? 🙂
I’m anti pokies mainly because it hurts the poor, which also tend to be Labor voting and my local community in Labor heartland.So it is refreshing to see a Labor leader make the decision to stand up to powerful gambling lobby.
Hopefully it will be an example to rest of the ALP leaders and will shatter the aura of invincibility for the lobby group. Go Tas Labor!
“Rachel White’s ‘brave’ decision”
She’s taken on very powerful, Big Money interests.
Poker machines should never have been legalised. I am not familiar with the situation in Tasmania. In NSW, the state government as well as maybe tens of thousands of individuals are addicted to them. In NSW, they’ve been in clubs for 60 years and in some pubs since the 80s and pretty much all pubs by the 90s. I think that pokies in pubs was a sort of quid pro quo in exchange for accepting random breath testing.
Getting rid of pokies from NSW would now be like getting rid of flies or cockroaches.
Simon Katich @ #2968 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 10:10 am
That’s the advantage that the Somerton to Seacliff stretch has.
Henley-Grange are more easily accessed from the eastern suburbs, Glenelg suffers from that as well with the tram and Anzac Hwy, while further south it’s mainly just the locals.
Pegasus @ #2967 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 2:11 pm
I do not agree with Labor’s position on poker machines in Victoria.
poroti @ #2970 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 2:17 pm
poroti @ #2972 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 10:17 am
Lifetime limit to be donated on your 18th birthday! 🙂
Steve777 @ #2972 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 2:18 pm
So it’s a good idea.
Deft diplomacy – something the LNP is renowned for:
Michael Fullilove, executive director of Sydney’s Lowy Institute, doesn’t agree with White that China is guaranteed to assume the leadership of the Asia region, but added navigating the coming years would take deft diplomacy for Australia.
The ALP has quite a lot of ground to make up in this regard too, but IMO are less blinkered than their opponents.
It’s a tourist thing … Visit Smowtown and see where …
I’m confident past comments will show I’m no fan of Di Natale. Doesn’t mean he’s incapable of ever being right about something, though.
But I don’t think priorities even factor. This is very much a ‘walk and chew gum’ issue. A majority of the Indigenous community wants the date changed. So change the bloody date. It should be trivial to do so, without having any negative impact on any other issue.
Governments must walk and chew gum at the same time. Small priorities can run in parallel with bigger ones.
Being from W.A i am NOT ok with pokies anywhere except the casino.
Two things about gambling in W.A. that should NEVER be anywhere ANY political party should go.
1: Do NOT allow pokies anywhere except the casino.
2: NEVER try to sell off or privatize LotteryWest.
Any lobby group that advocates either of the above needs to be crushed like the bugs they are.
And good on Tassie ALP. Will be a hard one for them. They may well fail in this context. But kudos for having a go.
booleanbach @ #2978 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 2:21 pm
It would be a good start if big powers could see each other as rivals or competitors and not enemies.
You can work together with rivals or competitors to mutual advantage.
1. Ignore Indigenous priorities.
2. Give the racist reactionaires a chance to do culture war instead of being held accountable for the way they are smashing Indigenous funding.
3. Verbal Indigenous people.
4. Co-opt Indigenous people.
There are a lot of changes i would like to see on the Insiders panel – a wider selection including some who DO understand economics and have a less neoliberal ideological bent would be a good start – Greg Jerrico, Bill Mitchell for example.
CTar1 @ #2981 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 10:22 am
I didn’t realise they had set up a settlement for some welfare recipients! 🙂
Check the second def.
booleanbach @ #2984 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 2:26 pm
Oh! Well that would exclude Stutchbury. Good.
Having a background in software I’m not, as I understand how trivially easy it would be to rig the code to cheat in the house’s favour, and how difficult it would be for anyone to uncover.
Would rather see pokies replaced with craps/roulette/blackjack/poker tables, because at least then you know the odds are fair.
If the gambling industry can get away with saying Stephen Paddock ‘won’ 300k per year playing video poker machines – and have that unquestionably accepted by the world media – then it can get away with anything.
Paddock was laundering money from somewhere and that has barely been looked at.
Very brave indeed as the NSW nationals discovered when their Liberal colleagues become all nanny state and tried to ban the Doggies. How to loose your working class base.
The Liberals reversed the decision within 6 months
“Problem gamblers can lose thousands of dollars an hour on pokies – the average maximum in Victoria is $840 per hour. A $1 bet limit would limit losses to $120 per hour and make a huge difference to families suffering from the detrimental impacts of problem gambling.
Voluntary pre-commitment proposed by the Napthine Liberal-National Government will do nothing to prevent problem gambling, but could set back effective reforms like $1 bets for years.
The Greens $1 bet limit proposal is evidence-based and was recommended by the Productivity Commission because it is the cheapest, most effective and straightforward solution.
$1 bet limits are effective because they target problem gamblers – 88% of recreational gamblers don’t bet more than $1 per spin so most punters won’t even notice the change. However, since social and economic costs of problem gambling in Victoria are as high as $2.8 billion a year, it’s a critically important, well-targeted reform.”
Remember when the Gillard Government tried to introduce pre-commitment for poker machines. The clubs and pubs embarked on a massive disinformation campaign, with the backing of a cynical Opposition and it’s media wing.
– It was going to mean the end of sport in Australia. Apparently Australians didn’t play sport before pokies were legalised.
– It would collapse the economy (but I thought the economy was totally dependent upon the maintenance of negative gearing?).
– It would mean the end of the Club movement.
– It would cost pubs and clubs $5 billion
— my reaction to that was “tough”,
— then I got on Google and applied some primary school maths to work out that this cost was equivalent to totally replacing every one of the 200,000 machines in the country – a lie that mostly went unchallenged.
Unfortunately, Tasmania can expect more of the same.
Charles Court didn’t push this out of any far seeing future energy policy.
Guaranteeing that WA would buy a big chunk of the gas was needed to get the financing for the N-W Shelf.
I have nothing against most forms of gamblings (and have been known to play the occasional poker game and have a punt on political futures markets at times), provided there are regulations in place to ensure casinos and other gambling venues arn’t taking advantage of problem gamblers or the excessively intoxicated. But pokies are a scourge.
As others have already astutely pointed out, they exist almost solely to fleece the poor and vulnerable. At least things like card games and betting markets have a small element of skill behind them and can actually be fun, rather than involving hours on end sitting in a single spot and pressing a button.
An article putting in historical context the introduction pf pokie machines in Victoria by Joan Kirner.
Now why would Barnaby worry about the prospect of a Federal ICAC?
A R @ #2989 Sunday, January 28th, 2018 – 10:28 am
As an initial measure I would have large signs in venues saying something like,
Maybe you could have plain packaging on the machines with messages like,
“Unfortunately, Tasmania can expect more of the same.”
The backlash will be vicious. Vested interests and RWNJobbies will froth and spit. But, good, ALP style blood on the floor debate to be had regardless.