The latest Newspoll has Labor’s lead down from 53-47 to 51-49, which is the Coalition’s best result since the start of what is now Malcolm Turnbull’s run of 31 successive Newspoll defeats. This doesn’t reflect much activity on the primary vote, on which the Coalition and Labor are both steady at 38% and 37%, with the Greens down one to 9% and One Nation steady on 7%.
There is also encouragement for Malcolm Turnbull on leadership ratings, with his approval up four to 36% and disapproval down four to 53%, although Bill Shorten also improves by two on approval to 34% and three on disapproval to 53%. Turnbull maintains only a very modest lead as preferred prime minister, of 38-35, out from 38-36 last time. The poll also finds strong support for a reduction in immigration levels, with 56% rating the present level too high, 28% about right, and only 10% too low.
A point that should be noted about the Coalition’s apparent improvement in Newspoll is that at least part of it would seem to be down to an adjustment in their preference allocations, from a model based purely on results from the 2016 election to one which gives the Coalition a stronger flow of One Nation preferences, presumably based on the experience of the Queensland and Western Australian state elections. The chart below compares the published two-party results from Newspoll with how the raw primary numbers convert using a) a 50-50 split in One Nation preferences, as they were in 2016; and b) a 60-40 split in the Coalition’s favour, which seems more likely based on state election experience.
It will be noted that Newspoll (the grey line) closely tracked the 50-50 model (the blue line) until December last year, when it snapped to the 60-40 model (the orange line). Also noteworthy is the overshoot of the grey line for the very latest result, which reflects the fact that the Coalition may have been a little lucky with rounding this week. As Kevin Bonham notes, a calculation from the published, rounded primary vote totals using the 50-50 preferences model yields a 52.4-47.6 lead for Labor – a result that would have generated considerably less buzz than this, the “best Coalition result in 18 months”.
Confessions @9:11AM: the sign means that all dogs are prohibited from riding scateboards, smoking cigars or drinking alcohol (or maybe it’s only wine) in the area covered by the sign. It’s OK for people.
In counts where I have scrutineered for Labor, the direction of G prefs could be seen to fluctuate quite a lot. When they came from Lib-leaning booths, the Lib share would be higher – up to about 35-38%. When they came from Labor-leaning booths they would run far more strongly to Labor.
It’s possible the composition of the G PV is changing. It’s certainly seems to be shrinking. This could be no more than statistical error, or it could reflect a decline in the willingness of Labor-positive voters to support the Gs while some Liberal-positive voters are willing to use the Gs as protest tool.
Steve777:
The sign is emblematic of ASIC – the corporate watchdog is too busy partying and having fun to take the stick to criminal conglomerates.
http://www.theshovel.com.au/2018/04/23/kelly-odwyer-refuses-to-tell-barista-what-coffee-shell-have-this-morning/
This poll is just a timely reminder that you’ve got to keep working right up to polling day to throw out governments even bad ones.
It’s better to be in front in these polls but for me an effective campaign is still the most important factor in winning elections. What’s happening now with Banking RC, Super etc doesn’t really filter through to most voters until the distilled messages are pushed in those last couple of weeks when a few more people are actually listening.
Read more: http://www.afr.com/brand/rear-window/dead-woman-walking-amp-chair-catherine-brenner-in-sights-of-raging-insto-bulls-20180422-h0z3g6#
Voice Endeavour says:
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:14 am
“Considering the persistence of anti-Labor campaigning by the Gs it’s a wonder their prefs go to Labor at all.”
So, what you have just stated is:
1) If A then not B.
2) B = True.
Lol.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. My statement was intelligible the first time but I will restate it:
Considering the persistence of anti-Labor campaigning by the Gs it’s a wonder their prefs go to Labor at all.
That is, the Gs tell their audience that Labor are unworthy of their support. They position themselves as an anti-Labor voice. Implicitly, they are appealing for anti-Labor voting expression. It should be no surprise to the Gs that their ability to attract Labor-positive supporters will recede. If they are lucky, they may attract Liberal-positive support to make up for the declines elsewhere.
Josh Butler@JoshButler
I keep reading ‘Clayton Ute’ in royal commission stories and having to do a double-take as to why they’re talking about the lawyer from The Simpsons https://twitter.com/JoshButler/status/988197563038773248/photo/1
I paid my annual company registration 2 days late in March, and ASIC fined me $78.
Their computer sent me two, undated demand letters in five days, so I paid up.
The first thing I will do when we get back to Australia, is call them and demand remittence of that money, under pain of suit, for defrauding me.
mundo @ #67 Sunday, April 22nd, 2018 – 10:35 pm
I hope you listened to RN Breakfast this morning.
It might have assisted you to emerge from your fog of stupidity.
Fran and Michelle Grattan were not at all sympathetic to Turnbull.
@ briefly.
You start with the hypothesis that the Greens campaign against Labor.
Then you say that you would expect that if the Greens campaign against Labor, you would expect greens preferences to go to the Liberals.
Then, you state the fact that Greens preferences go to Labor.
And yet, you haven’t yet looped back around to conclude that your starting hypothesis (Greens campaign against Labor) is incorrect.
Legalising marijuana for recreational use would boost the budget by up to $1.8b a year, the Parliamentary Budget Office has revealed http://ow.ly/H2V330jCtkQ
The Gs will be thrilled to bits by the apparent rise in the LNP vote share.
Briefly continues to campaign for Greens voters to vote Liberal.
The difference between who vote ‘lower tier’ parties (i.e. non big two) are not rusted on in the same way as the base of the big two.
Therefore, it seems to me they are less likely to vote on party lines and are more likely to vote on issues.
In the next election, despite the apparent conflict between ALP & Greens on this blog, I reckon the issues that Labor espouse will be much more Green-friendly than in the past and should garner a high flow of prefs from that channel.
The reverse will probably be true with ON voters as they appear to be more conservative (but who knows – they’re the most unpredictable quantity in the electorate to my way of thinking).
So will things polarise further?
The concentrations of non-big two voters are specific. Moreso for ON – and I still think that 7% is highly unlikely in an actual election. Greens stay around 10-11%. Last election ON was only a couple of %. There’s no way, when the election comes around, that they’ll get 7% … so it is a matter of where those votes fall.
lizzie @ #2528 Monday, April 23rd, 2018 – 9:23 am
There is probably a reason for this. Has Ms Campion access to a shotgun?
Voice Endeavour says:
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:30 am
@ briefly.
You start with the hypothesis that the Greens campaign against Labor.
Then you say that you would expect that if the Greens campaign against Labor, you would expect greens preferences to go to the Liberals.
Then, you state the fact that Greens preferences go to Labor.
And yet, you haven’t yet looped back around to conclude that your starting hypothesis (Greens campaign against Labor) is incorrect.
The syllogism is:
1. The Gs campaign against Labor all the fucking time
2. They hope to attract disaffected Labor-positive support
3. The law of diminishing returns set in some time ago for this strategy
4. G anti-Labor messaging has begun to repel Labor-positive supporters
5. G positioning as an anti-Labor voice is attracting Liberal-positive support
You may like to deny the starting proposition…the one that says “The Gs campaign against Labor all the fucking time.” Good luck with that.
Plenty of re-writing of history at the moment!
Damn – I just wrote a long post … and sigh … the inter webs ate it
Lovey
Again – it’s quite impressive – you avoid my main point and concentrate on a tangent.
Either you don’t get it or you can’t answer it.
Either way, no point continuing the discussion with you if you can’t engage meaningfully.
Voice Endeavour says:
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:30 am
@ briefly.
Then you say that you would expect that if the Greens campaign against Labor, you would expect greens preferences to go to the Liberals.
No, I didn’t. There’s a subtlety that’s obviously lost on you. Too bad.
Jen
Rule of thumb. I know its a pain. When doing a long post do it in a word processor even if its as simple at a notes application.
The trouble comes in remembering to do this
briefly says:
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:30 am
…”The Labor share of the ON vote is likely to be lower than 3/7. 6/9 G prefs is about right.
There are also “Other” prefs. Maybe run about 5/5″…
…
I agree with you about “others” but I am fairly certain they will run at 55% to Labor, One Nation will go close to half, and Green’s will be nearer to 90 percent than 80.
Gist?
One nation votes cannot be 7% next election … a rise of 6% from last.
Greens like Labor policies on the whole so they are likely to pref Labor same as last time as smaller parties tend to vote on policy rather than simple behave like ‘rusted ons’
Zoomster
Pleas restate your main point.
I listened to the 7:45am ABC radio news here and no mention of the Newspoll. Usually it is one of the lead items. Interesting.
guytaur & jenauthor
Or copy before you press submit, then it’s not lost. Much easier than mucking about with Word proc.
lizzie @ #173 Monday, April 23rd, 2018 – 6:43 am
Headlinenot:
🙂
lizzie @ #113 Monday, April 23rd, 2018 – 7:25 am
I don’t think voters need to be “encouraged” to blame migration. This has been an issue that has been on the backburner for some time. All that is happening now is that some of our more opportunistic politicians have finally picked up on it.
Our present rate of migration is clearly too high – it will lead to a population of 40 million by 2050. This is unsustainable. The only beneficiary of a Big Australia is Big Business.
Absence of Empathy says:
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:41 am
briefly says:
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:30 am
….One Nation will go close to half…
I can recall attending an open meeting run by SKY for broadcast during the last State election. The audience comprised mainly disaffected Lib-leaning voters. From the comments made by the audience, which included self-identifying ON-attracted voters, Labor would have received a remarkably low PV or pref share – maybe 10%. The Labor share of ON prefs at the State election was dismal….about 20% in many booths.
The Pop-Right contains very few Labor-inclined supporters. Disaffected past-Lib voters that wish to support Labor can do so directly…by switching to Labor. They do not need to take a detour through the byways of the Pop-Right to support Labor. A minor share of the ON PV has been drawn from Labor and will likely return as prefs…but this share is modest. It is nothing like 50% of the ON PV.
Opposition Leader @billshortenmp joined @jaseandpj on the air this morning! He’s promised to deliver our very precious @abracadabaaah prototype to Parliaments gym in Canberra #KeepKIISLoud https://twitter.com/kiis1011/status/988197574094958592/photo/1
lizzie @ #174 Monday, April 23rd, 2018 – 6:46 am
I leave my computer and browser on most of the time.
In doing this it seems like I get logged out by this site every 24 hours.
So if you are posting around this time lizzie’s suggestion is a very good one and one I use, …
when I remember! 🙂
Another thing to do is if you have been away for a while refresh the page before commenting.
If you have been logged out, you will see so clearly and be able to log back in! 🙂
“You may like to deny the starting proposition…the one that says “The Gs campaign against Labor all the fucking time.” Good luck with that.”
The Greens campaign for exactly what they put on the how to votes.
1) Greens
2) Labor
3) Liberals.
I get that you would like the Greens to campaign for the order of Labor 1, Greens 2, Liberals 3. But it’s not really realistic an expectation. Be content with the Greens campaigning for Labor over the Liberals – it’s the best you’re going to get.
Briefly
Oh dear. Greens condemning Liberals no mention of Labor
Remember when the banks had to write to the Liberal Party to tell them to call the royal commission. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-30/banking-royal-commission-how-did-we-get-here/9210248 https://twitter.com/AndrewBartlett/status/988204789430239232/photo/1
Voice Endeavour @ #181 Monday, April 23rd, 2018 – 6:56 am
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Very well put!!
guytaur says:
Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:33 am
Briefly continues to campaign for Greens voters to vote Liberal.
Nice try, g.
The campaign is for Labor-positive voters to vote Labor.
The anti-Labor vote is sought by the various anti-Labor voices, among whom the Gs certainly rank along with ON, the Cories, NXT/SAB, the LNP, the Lib-Dems…and all the others.
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/federal-2pp-aggregate-methods-45th.html
Not sure if posted I feel more settled now ,especially last paragraph
.
Am behind with comments as packing for overseas
VE
Except that doesn’t always happen. In Indi, for example, the Greens often run open tickets.
I thought it quite insulting, personally, to think that voting for me or voting for Mirabella was seen as equally valid by the Greens.
zoomster
Thats called trusting the voters to make the choice.
No reflection of you or the other candidate.
Its the Green default position on how to vote cards
The Gs are part of the bunch of assorted reactionaries that have sought to destroy the Labor plurality – the plurality that stood throughout the 20th century for social democracy, for egalitarian reform, for action on the environment, for law reform and social justice.
The Gs are saboteurs. Their record speaks for itself.
Voice Endeavour @ #183 Monday, April 23rd, 2018 – 9:56 am
Yes, this is what most Greens say when you push them hard on it, but the rest of the time there is a very vocal Green cohort that clearly and loudly claims Labor and Liberal are “same-same”, implying that Labor and the Liberals are politically and morally equivalent. We have a perfect example of this right here on PB.
I think that this is what gets up the noses of progressive Labor voters. Greens should stop using this as a tactic. It is lazy and mendacious. If the Greens had the ethics they claim then they would themselves call it out whenever they see it happening
MikeJanda@Live blogging the #BankingRC again today http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-23/live-banking-royal-commission-amp-board/9686898 Hasn’t taken long for #ShockAndOrr to hit: “Why did ANZ need the FOFA reforms to tell it to emphasise the best interests of the client over the growth of the business?”
@ Zoomster – I believe you are mistaking split and open tickets?
The point of an open ticket is that the Greens weren’t telling you anything about who to vote for (beyond Greens #1).
Refusing to provide a recommendation is not the same as saying all options are equal.
Briefly
Your record speaks for itself. Like Trump when it comes to the Greens you are untethered from reality
Zoomster
Found another one-
https://www.smh.com.au/money/tax/labor-s-dividend-imputation-changes-a-tax-on-widows-20180406-p4z87t.html
Guess I’m not the only person on the planet with my doubts.
Your main point, as you seem to say, is that if no savings accrue, nobody is worse off. But why then does not Labor say this, and why go through the political embarrassment?
Anyway, perhaps you can provide a link to the modelling?
guytaur @ #187 Monday, April 23rd, 2018 – 7:04 am
If that was the case then the Green’s shouldn’t print any how to vote cards anywhere.
Just think of the trees they’d save!!! 🙂
@P1 – oh, I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware you had such strong evidence as the opinions of a single person who votes for the Greens but isn’t part of the party.