As reported by The Guardian, the latest fortnightly poll from Essential Research shifts in favour of the Coalition, who now trail Labor 52-48 compared with 54-46 in the last poll. While this fits the narrative of Labor taking a hit from dividend imputation better than Newspoll, Essential’s question on the subject produces a better result for Labor than Newspoll’s, with 32% supportive and 30% opposed (compared with 33% and 50% from Newspoll). Primary votes and full report to follow later.
UPDATE: Full report here. As with two-party, the Coalition is up two on the primary vote, to 38%, and Labor down two, to 36%, with the Greens steady on 9% and One Nation steady on 8%.
I believe the mystery of Newspoll’s and Essential’s different numbers on dividend imputation is solved: Essential’s question was preceded by another on how many people were beneficiaries of the existing policy (16% received a tax deduction, 10% a cash payment), which explained how the existing policy works and how much it costs. This is unfortunate in my view, because it put respondents on a different footing from the general population. Some of the “statements about imputation credits” that respondents were invited to agree or disagree with also seem a bit leading (“paying people money to compensate for tax they haven’t paid does not make sense”), although in this case it doesn’t affect the responses to the more important question of support or opposition to the policy, as it came later in the survey.
The poll also canvasses opinion on what other tax policies respondents might support or oppose, and as usual it finds that the public heavily favours a more redistributive approach (class war and the politics of envy, if you will). Nonetheless, 40% favour cutting the company tax rate to 25%, with 30% opposed. Twenty-six per cent trust Labor more to manage a fair tax system, 28% the Coalition, and 31% no difference. Only 7% reckon Australia’s gun laws too strict, 25% think them too weak, and 62% say they are about right. A series of questions on Facebook finds 79% agreeing it should be more regulated, with 12% disagreeing, but 45% finding Facebook “generally a force for good”, with 37% disagreeing.
Can we trust Barnaby’s judgement any more? 😆
Fair, Observer.
@ Boerwar – irrelevant to my point.
8.65% -> 10.2%
results in
4 -> 2
Does not compute.
Discuss.
The real fix requires a system that makes people and corporates pay fair tax, gets rid of tax breaks for the wealthy, and also prevents people being rewarded from arranging their affairs to gain a pension.
The rules are stacked.
VE
This is the money quote:
‘The Greens now sit on an average primary vote for the past 12 months of 9.7 per cent, down from 10.6 per cent in the 12 months before the 2016 election, and 9.6 per cent before 2013.’
At the 2016 election, the Greens vote was 10.2% , a drop of 0.4% from the Newspoll figure.
At the 2013 election, the Greens vote was 8.6, down 1% compared with Newspoll.
Bludgertrack is not comparing apples with apples.
The latest Newspoll has the Greens on 9%. It is reasonable to assume that this is higher than they will get at the next election.
ratsak @ #1738 Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 – 10:02 am
Respectfully disagree, rats.
While I, like most PBludgers, am frustrated by our impotence at getting rid of Trumble’s pack of craven incompetent spivs and arseholes, I am all too aware that I’m an amateur, and that the cohesive ALP, lead (but not dominated) by Bill “meep meep!” Shorten’s considerable political nous, are demonstrating their professionalism. I’m pretty sure that the ALP planned and gamed out scenario’s for their announcement(s) well in advance – including the (non-MSM dependent) feedback-driven modifications and “walk-back” which leave Trumble’s Idiots running in space over the chasm (with the ACME/BCA rocket sputtering to extinction and the full weight of Der UberTuber’s hubris dangling from their jocks), just in time for Easter. Don’t despair (yet) – it’s a long game and the ALP are demonstrating obvious mastery.
VE
You keep ignoring the fact that the analysis is about polling and the relationship between polling and election results.
I can understand why the Greens want to delude everyone else.
Individual Greens go to some lengths to delude themselves, but that is another matter.
It is another thing for the Greens to try and delude each other.
The Greens internal analysis is quite right.
My sincere advice?
Keep doing exactly what you are doing because the sooner you Greens blots on the political landscape disappear, the sooner the real conservationists in the Labor Party can get started on fixing the environmental messes that you are helping the Coalition to create.
Confessions says:
Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:01 am
From Crikey’s version of BK’s morning wrap (via the Oz):
Senior Greens members have submitted polling analysis to the party room and national council warning that the party is “flatlining” and stands to lose over half its senators within two elections.
The Australian ($) has obtained the analysis of Greens’ polling, which dates back to the 2016 election. The Oz reports that the Greens’ federal primary vote has gone back to 2013 levels and, in polling for the 12 months leading to March 2018, went above 10% once just once — compared to 16 spikes in 2016. The analysis follows the Greens’ loss in Batman earlier this month, poor performances at the South Australian and Tasmanian state elections, and months of internal disruptions including the factional leaks and leadership speculation.
No surprises here. They are a failing organisation.
Actually Ratsak – I think you have it backwards.
ALP is telling Hinch and Storer that if they fold, it’ll be a useless thing because Labor will repeal, so stand on your principles because the Coalition are not even going to be able to implement their tax cut.
zoomster @ #105 Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 – 6:30 am
Yep, you beat me to it.
That’s a key point when looking at polls and the Greens.
The polls seem to overestimate their support.
Also – pensioner groups and social services groups are welcoming ALP’s change to imputation policy. So it makes the only people against the policy will be those who wouldn’t entertain voting ALP anyway.
C@t –
“Andrew_Earlwood.
Explain to me how Labor can be ‘increasing taxes’, when they are just not letting the Coalition give a tax holiday to large corporates and multinationals? It’s situation normal, NOT a tax increase. You’re buying the government frame if you call it a tax increase. Silly.”
Have you not been following politics in Australia for the past decade? You are making the mistake of thinking logically and rationally.
Remember the carbon tax debate. The mining tax debate?
Make no mistake – because Labor will have to introduce amending legislation to stop prospective tax cuts going ahead it will be portraited as legislating a tax increase. Remorselessly. Your argument -though logically correct will be seen as mere semantics. This could be the point where history judges that labor lost the debate.
The green Simms has recognized that green voters are turning off, slipping the green pixie boots into SHY.
VE
What you might want to focus on here is that the Greens are now serially leaking against each other.
This leak is obviously a destablization effort to get rid of Di Natale.
The Reds have two revolutions on their agenda.
The first is to get rid of the conservationist control of the Greens.
The second is the Big National Revolution which should be round the corner now.
Step 1: leak against Di Natale and his supporters.
Step 2: replace Di Natale with the red flesh of the watermelon.
Step 3: faster electoral oblivion for the Greens.
If there is one useful lesson to be learned from Australian political history it is that that parties that head with great determination to one or other sections of the lunatic fringe always disappear over time. And that is precisely where the reds inside the Greens are dragging the conservationists.
The Oz is apparently reporting from a document obtained analysing the Greens’ performance in polling since the 2016 election. This document was supposedly put to the partyroom and national council by senior Greens.
As to the Greens losing seats, I understand that six of its Senate seats are up for re-election at the next federal election. Is the party assured it will regain all six of those seats?
VP
‘In a statement Simms said:
“With high unemployment and rising inequality, SA voters are desperate for change. Our state is ripe for a progressive revolution and the Greens are the party to deliver it. This should be our time.’
Can’t even be bothered mentioning even a fig leaf for the environment any more.
They are gooooooooooooooooooorn.
What was the headline?
🙂
Exhibit A: an internal document leaked to the Oz.
Exhibit B: SA Greens wanting a Senate ticket ‘refresh’.
From The Briefing, Sat Paper.
‘The Greens now sit on an average primary vote for the past 12 months of 9.7 per cent, down from 10.6 per cent in the 12 months before the 2016 election, and 9.6 per cent before 2013.’
That’s because Ipsos and Morgan used to inflate the Greens’ polling numbers if you used averages and didn’t adjust for pollster bias.
If you automatically assume BT is wrong, why are you even here? It is the best data source we have.
Regarding the Green’s performance relative to pollsters.
Newspoll said 10.0%, so UNDERestimated by 0.6%
Galaxy (who no longer exist) said 10.0%, so underestimated by 0.6%
Reachtel said 10.7%, overestimated by 0.1%
Essential said 11.5%, overestimated by 0.9%
Ipsos (who no longer report frequently enough to bother) massively overestimated the Greens as usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_opinion_polling_for_the_Australian_federal_election,_2016
That hardly seems like a consistent trend of overestimating the Greens.
Regardless, even if you want to make up an imaginary pro green bias in the pollsters we have data from this year of 1.55% (which would be complete rubbish), then
8.65% -> 8.65% results in 4 seats -> 2 seats still doesn’t make any sense.
Obviously there is some disagreement among Labor supporters here about the change to Labor’s dividend imputation policy but I’m happy to go with Bill Shorten’s judgement on the matter. He’s done alright so far and he’s much closer to the action than any of us here.
Let’s just wait for a few more polls to see how it’s all playing out with the great unwashed.
C@t,
Hinch and Storer aren’t getting re-elected no matter what they do (unless Trumble has another DD brainfart).
I have a very simple philosophy when it comes to the filth. Give em nothin (except a good flogging), take em no where (except the cleaners).
Today Labor was reactive. That hasn’t been the secret of Shorten’s success.
@ Confessions, regarding your point 2 – all parties have preselections. In almost all cases, these preselections have more than one candidate.
if you don’t like it, go somewhere that isn’t a democracy.
The Alt-Tories are in trouble. Personally, I think they should be kicked while they’re down. They need Labor prefs to get their Senators up. Labor should withhold these prefs as long as the A-Ts campaign against Labor in House seats and in the political theatre more widely.
Now, now. There’s no need to get snarky or sooky.
jenauthor @ #109 Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 – 9:36 am
Not sure, Jen. Hinch and Storer may well think “I can get some concessions out of the government now and it won’t cost the country anything because Labor will reverse the cuts.”
However, this may well be what Labor wants to happen. I have written before that actually passed big business tax cuts could be a big plus to Labor in an election because it sharpens the debate so that the only way voters can get rid of the tax cuts is to vote Labor.
If the cuts are not enacted before the election, then some voters may still feel they can vote for the coalition in the HoR and hope that the Senate might still stop the tax cuts.
I don’t have any special inside knowledge, but that’s just my take on the possible political dynamics.
I repeat my comment from 7.57am.
Labor and Shorten have reinforced the opinion of what now appears to be a permanent opinion, now held by more than fifty percent of the population, that the LNP intends both to extend the largesse delivered by them in the past in regard to taxation concessions and contribute more largesse with the proposed changes which involve reducing corporate taxation by a substantial amount.
The rationale being that corporate Australia will feel so grateful for this added largesse that they in turn will reward Australian workers by creating jobs and increasing wages.
Turnbull Morrison and other sundry commentators are convinced that their loosely redefined use of the word pensioner to suit their incredibly out of touch view of the relative fortunes of older Australians is all that’s needed to reset their election appeal. Wrong!
Rorting of the taxation system is wrong in whatever guise it is presented, the LNP support existing rorting and propose extending the possibilities for rorting
Shorten and Labor have exposed another rort (cash refunds)unheard of by less well-off Australians and this will extend Labors polling lead.
The next episode of Turnbull mad dash for a brilliant career involves tax give aways in the upcoming Federal budget.
The increasing numbers of less well off Australians will not accept the nonsense presented by LNP and now expect a change of government.
Fairness is still held in regard by most Australians. Ask Howard Hockey or Smith.
VE
The numbers quoted are from an internal Green party analysis of polling. If they’re getting it wrong, take it up with them.
However, what they’re saying seems broadly consistent with the available evidence, if you compare apples with apples rather than throwing in the occasional orange.
Make no mistake – because Labor will have to introduce amending legislation to stop prospective tax cuts going ahead it will be portraited as legislating a tax increase.
And as it requires legislation it assumes Labor has the Senate numbers after the next election. That isn’t a given. As we saw with the CPRS even when a policy is central to a campaign and even when the Coalition has a similar policy the Senate loons will fuck Labor over just because they can.
Labor should be working Storer and Hinch hard as possible behind the scenes and leave the public pronouncements for much later.
Everyone knows Labor’s position of opposing the cuts. The question of repeal only comes up IF they are passed. Stopping that happening is the ONLY game in town this week.
briefly @ #124 Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 – 6:47 am
How could Labor direct preferences in way that would be more beneficial to Labor?
I think you might be cutting off your nose! 🙂
Greens disunity, as evidenced by the serial leaking in NSW, Vic and now South Australia is death.
This is excellent news for both the environment and the poor.
The presser with Shorten & Bowen gave very clear arguments about the tax cut and imputation that left NO room for the media to misrepresent what they’ve said.
zoomster @ #129 Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 – 6:53 am
Yep, you’re reading quicker than I am today! 🙂
@ Zoomster – yes, I am sure the Australian would always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
It’s great we have such impartial and unbiased media sources, so that we can trust them absolutely without questioning what they say or why they say it.
Labor cannot win if the only allowable position on tax is to cut them. Labor has to be seen to be the Party of tax justice. This involves cuts for some and increases for others. Not a problem.
I suppose Dutton sincerely believes he is a gentle, fair and humble servant of the people.
The interests of working people, the country generally and of the environment would be much better served if the Alt-Tories dd not exist as a political force. Labor should pref against them in future elections.
VE
Actually, you started from the reflex “it’s in ‘The Australian’, it’s anti Green, therefore it must be wrong’ – I did some research and analysis, going to past election results and comparing them with Newspoll.
It’s very lazy thinking to simply go ‘my enemy has said this so it must be wrong’ — but we’ve been seeing a lot of that from both the Greens and the Coalition lately.
Intriguing.
briefly @ #138 Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 – 6:59 am
And what would the Senate look like if they did that? 🙂
Ok, lets phrase it this way.
The BludgerTrack says that the Greens will have an 18% increase in primary vote on 2013.
The BludgerTrack says that Labor will have an 12% increase in primary vote on 2013.
If an unsourced quote in the Australian told you, Labor was expected to go from 12 senate seats won at the 2013 half senate election, to 5 or fewer in the upcoming election.
Would you believe it?
Even if The Australian said that some unspecified person had said that he had seen Labor polling that said it would happen?
You are believing this because you want it to be true. Not because you actually think it possible.
VE:
FWIW the Oz story does include this:
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/sustainability/forestry-agreements-extended-in-victoria-but-big-trees-get-protection-20180326-p4z6c4.html
Also – pensioner groups and social services groups are welcoming ALP’s change to imputation policy.
But is this a small short term gain for large long term pain.
Labor had built up a reputation for announcing ‘brave’ policy and sticking with it despite the wailing of vested interests. That was a massive strength. It discourages such wailing from pragmatic voices that are smart enough to look for other avenues to get something from Labor.
That has taken a severe hit.
The pensioners could have been made happy through the pension system. Very very happy in much larger numbers and at the same time reinforced to the vested interests that Labor isn’t going to bend to scare campaigns. Now every vested interest knows that scare campaigns work on Shorten. It’s an invite to them to go their hardest, just when Labor was demonstrating that such shit wasn’t worth the effort.
Sorry I’m not buying this one is part of a greater strategy. Happy to be proved wrong of course, but this stinks of Labor losing it’s bottle.
Barney in Go Dau says:
Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 10:54 am
briefly @ #124 Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 – 6:47 am
The Alt-Tories are in trouble. Personally, I think they should be kicked while they’re down. They need Labor prefs to get their Senators up. Labor should withhold these prefs as long as the A-Ts campaign against Labor in House seats and in the political theatre more widely.
How could Labor direct preferences in way that would be more beneficial to Labor?
I think you might be cutting off your nose!
This is the conventional wisdom. It allows the Alt-Tories to have it both ways – to campaign against Labor and then draw on their prefs. This is a kind of blackmail. I think Labor should treat their enemies in the same way. Both branches of Tory politics hate Labor. Labor should oppose them equally.
“Actually, you started from the reflex “it’s in ‘The Australian’, it’s anti Green, therefore it must be wrong’.”
No, I started from the reflex “assume everything is wrong until you see some data indicating it is correct”.
I then looked into it, and saw that it was forecasting an increase in the Greens HoR vote would lead to a >50% decrease in the number of senate seats won.
Greens v Greens cage fights are the best.
They are all into Greens victimhood; they are all into holier-than-thou; they are all into moralistic finger pointing; and, they are all 100% self-righteous.
What could possibly go wrong?
Paul Krugman makes the point that tax cuts for big business may actually REDUCE wages because businesses will have a bigger incentive to maximise profits.
Voice Endeavour @ #147 Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 – 7:05 am
So you will now be opposing all Green policies until you see the details! 🙂