BludgerTrack: 51.1-48.9 to Labor; YouGov Galaxy: 51-49 to federal Coalition in WA

An overdue review of the BludgerTrack situation, as a new poll from YouGov Galaxy supports its finding that the Labor swing in Western Australia is back to sub-stratospheric levels.

The diversion of Super Saturday meant I fell out of my habit of running weekly posts on the latest BludgerTrack numbers, although I have been updating them as new polls have come through. As no national polls appear likely this week, now is a good time to resume.

There have been three national polls since the last BludgerTrack post, each of which has registered some sort of improvement for the Coalition: the Ipsos poll three weeks ago had Labor’s two-party lead closing from 53-47 to 51-49, and its respondent-allocated preferences result was 50-50 (as it was in the Ipsos poll from early April); and, more modestly, last week’s Newspoll and Essential Research results both had Coalition up a point on the primary vote and Labor steady.

We also had yesterday a Western Australia only poll from YouGov Galaxy, which gratifyingly supported what BludgerTrack was saying already. On voting intention, it had the Coalition on 42%, down from 48.7% at the 2016 election; Labor on 36%, up 3.5%; the Greens on 10%, down 2.1%; and One Nation on 5%. The published two-party result is 51-49 in favour of the Coalition, which is presumably based on previous election flows, and compares with 54.7-45.3 in 2016.

Other findings of the poll: Malcolm Turnbull led Bill Shorten 47-32 as preferred prime minister; they were tied at 40% on who was most trusted to “change the distribution of GST revenue to ensure WA receives a fairer share” (which might be thought presumptuous wording, though few in WA would be likely to think so); and 36% supported and 50% opposed company tax cuts, in response to a question that specified beneficiaries would include “those with a turnover above $50 million a year”. The poll was conducted on Thursday and Friday for the Sunday Times from a sample of 831.

Together with the existing BludgerTrack reading, this poll tends to confirm that much of the air has gone out of the boom Labor was experiencing in WA polling through much of last year and this year. The BludgerTrack probability projections now have Labor likely to pick up Hasluck, but Swan and Christian Porter’s seat of Pearce are now rated as 50-50 propositions.

At the national level, recent polls have produced a movement back to the Coalition on two-party preferred, with Labor’s lead down to 51.1-48.9, its lowest level since late 2016. However, this has not availed them much on the seat projection, which actually credits Labor with a bigger majority than it achieved in 2007, when its two-party vote was 1.6% higher.

Partly this reflects continuing weakness in the Coalition’s ratings in all-important Queensland, consistent with the Longman by-election result. Labor has also made a gain in BludgerTrack against the national trend in Victoria, netting them two projected seats, which is balanced only by a one seat loss from a slightly larger movement against them in New South Wales. BludgerTrack is now registering a small swing in the Coalition’s favour in New South Wales, but thanks to adjustments for sophomore surge effects in all seats the Coalition could conceivably gain from Labor, it’s not availing them on the seat projection.

Ipsos and Newspoll both provided new results for leadership ratings, which have made a small further contribution to the existing improving trend for Malcolm Turnbull, both on net approval and preferred prime minister. Full results through the link below.

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.

2,976 comments on “BludgerTrack: 51.1-48.9 to Labor; YouGov Galaxy: 51-49 to federal Coalition in WA”

Comments Page 46 of 60
1 … 45 46 47 … 60

  2. One of the shibboleths used against Australia is “we only generate 2% of emmissions” and its the big countries, USA, China, India which should be pulling their weight, which they are not.

    Putting aside whether Australia should or shouldn’t be allowing thermal coal to be exported, a Greens command and control idea, one only has to look back a short time to the 2007-2013 last Labor government, which over its course commenced answers to this shibboleth.

    1. By designing a Price on Carbon scheme which included measurement, certificates, a trading scheme, modelling and commencing implementation – a number of countries, including China, were looking at the scheme architecture to apply or adapt in their own countries. So thought leadership in the practical aspects of harnessing CO2.

    2. The Australian scheme, under the leadership of first Penny Wong, and then Greg Combet, had the nascent scheme – especially how abatement offset certificates could be traded across jurisdictions well advanced with the EU, California and others who wanted a way of partipating in the global targets. For example, a number of 3rd world countries with native forests and jungles were wanting to lock these up, have abatement certifcates created, and be recompensed for these in hard cash through trading in the globally connected carbon markets. Australia was an active facilitator.

    To his eternal shame, Tony Abbott and his droogs took power and destroyed this.

  3. Re @tmomma’s post at 4:38:

    “80 cents every dollar goes to reef projects” says their website.

    That is abysmal waste of money. Or more likely the 20% is money that goes to the spivs and mates.

  4. Lovey @ #2248 Thursday, August 9th, 2018 – 5:15 pm

    Roger Miller

    Do any evaluations/studies say the reef is doomed in any circumstances, and of any impact on this measure? I don’t know, but you seem sure. Please elaborate.

    https://independentaustralia.net/error?oops=environment/environment-display/the-great-barrier-reef-is-doomed

    Some scientists think corals have some chance of adapting and reversing a portion of the die-off if temperatures peak at “only” 1.5°C, but the corals’ diversity would be greatly reduced. If the peak is above 1.5°C, there is no chance of recovery.

    Since our current trajectory is well above 1.5°C, there is no chance of recovery.

    Context is usually deficient in media reports, as in ‘Scientists Are Breeding “Super Corals” To Save Reefs From Global Warming’, without mentioning that there are hundreds of species of corals in the Great Barrier Reef and the scientists can’t possibly breed them all. Anyway, the result would be marginal and only defer the inevitable.

  6. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/turnbull-to-tell-shorten-that-husar-investigation-must-go-to-finance-20180809-p4zwh2.html

    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will call for Bill Shorten to immediately hand over Labor’s internal investigation into Emma Husar to the Department of Finance, as Labor figures prepare for the damaging report to be released to the party’s administration committee on Friday.
    ::::
    Wary of setting a dangerous political precedent for any party in opposition, the government hosed down earlier reports that it would launch its own investigation into Ms Husar’s office.

    Instead, it will encourage staff members to come forward to the department, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, and Comcare – the Commonwealth workers’ compensation scheme.

  7. Some qutoes from this article in today’s Brisbane Times.
    https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/the-bigger-questions-about-reef-foundation-s-444-million-windfall-20180807-p4zw3j.html

    What we also need to ask is: what does the foundation do? What are its outputs, its activities? And why would the federal government be so keen to direct such a huge chunk of funding to those activities?

    The foundation has standard governance structures, and the support of credible, dedicated scientists. But what it does it essentially triage.

    The article includes links to why the reef is likely already doomed and concludes with

    Australia’s choices about climate are closely watched by other countries; if our government is seen as giving up on saving the reef from the underlying causes of climate change, and focusing only on local resilience and long-shot fixes, it could send a terrible message to the rest of the world.

  8. Player One @ #2254 Thursday, August 9th, 2018 – 3:23 pm

    Lovey @ #2248 Thursday, August 9th, 2018 – 5:15 pm

    Roger Miller

    Do any evaluations/studies say the reef is doomed in any circumstances, and of any impact on this measure? I don’t know, but you seem sure. Please elaborate.

    https://independentaustralia.net/error?oops=environment/environment-display/the-great-barrier-reef-is-doomed

    Some scientists think corals have some chance of adapting and reversing a portion of the die-off if temperatures peak at “only” 1.5°C, but the corals’ diversity would be greatly reduced. If the peak is above 1.5°C, there is no chance of recovery.

    Since our current trajectory is well above 1.5°C, there is no chance of recovery.

    Context is usually deficient in media reports, as in ‘Scientists Are Breeding “Super Corals” To Save Reefs From Global Warming’, without mentioning that there are hundreds of species of corals in the Great Barrier Reef and the scientists can’t possibly breed them all. Anyway, the result would be marginal and only defer the inevitable.

    I’d tend to agree. I keep freshwater fish/turtles in an aquarium, and they are rather forgiving of variances in their living environment.

    I have friends who keep saltwater fish/coral/larger animals and they are completely unforgiving of any sort of change in the water conditions. One small mistake and you’re looking at thousands of dollars worth of dead fish/coral/larger animals.

  12. Roger

    That report says nothing about these measures, admittedly short-term.

    But I see the meme here is that the reef would not have been DOOMED if only Abbott had not ditched the carbon tax.

  14. “Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will call for Bill Shorten to immediately hand over Labor’s internal investigation into Emma Husar to the Department of Finance”

    And did he call for the rorts associated with Barnaby, BBishop, Ley et al to be treated the same way? Has he called for the Nationals’ investigation of sexual abuse allegations to be referred to the AFP?

  15. Spiky starfish!

    Those are basically the only colorful things left worth taking pictures of in the bleached areas. Though of course, they kill the coral even more.

  16. Are the Greens ignoring sexual assault for the ‘greater good’ of the party?
    HOLLY BROOKE
    Former convenor of the NSW Young Greens:

    Sexual violence happens inside the Greens, just as it likely happens inside most organisations. What is remarkable, however, is that the Greens so egregiously failed — and continue to fail — to investigate allegations of sexual violence, including my own, against members of the party.

    The Greens’ institutional response to sexual violence is just one illustration of a dangerous political logic taking hold in the party, one that values electoral success and vote-winning above principle, including the principle of justice for survivors of sexual assault.

    Those who report sexual assault in the party are cast as troublemakers who must be silenced, no matter the cost to their wellbeing, to justice or to the safety of others in the party…

    …It’s up to all members to question the prevailing logic that compromising on principle in order to win seats in parliament is the way to bring about social change.

    For as long as this logic stands, the party will become evermore unsafe and unprincipled.

    From today’s Crikey. I would publish all of it except Mr Bowe doesn’t like us doing that on the day it is released in the daily subscribers email.

  17. “adrian says:
    Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 5:34 pm
    Note the coal fired heater!”

    Looking like Rowe’s depiction of Abbott. Also Sky News in the background.

  18. Lovey
    What part of this do you not understand
    “Water quality and fishing pressure had minimal effect on the unprecedented bleaching in 2016, suggesting that local protection of reefs affords little or no resistance to extreme heat. Similarly, past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of bleaching in 2016. Consequently, immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs.

  25. grimace @ #2258 Thursday, August 9th, 2018 – 5:27 pm

    I’d tend to agree. I keep freshwater fish/turtles in an aquarium, and they are rather forgiving of variances in their living environment.

    I have friends who keep saltwater fish/coral/larger animals and they are completely unforgiving of any sort of change in the water conditions. One small mistake and you’re looking at thousands of dollars worth of dead fish/coral/larger animals.

    It makes sense if you think about it – fresh water temperatures usually vary by tens of degrees across the day/month or year – but salt water temperatures typically don’t vary that much (except for the surface temperature). Then along comes global warming 🙁

  27. Roger

    I couldn’t read it, but that is motherhood. Of course climate change is the greatest stressor by far, I acknowledged that. And that as a country we should do more than our fair share.

    But you are saying that no local measures -such as what is presumably countenanced here – can do any good at all. In that case the reef, as we know it, is certainly doomed. I presume when/if Labor is in power and propose regional mitigation, you will change you tune.

    And no need to be patronising BTW.

  30. Is there something in the water in NSW?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-09/jeremy-buckingham-says-allegations-part-of-smear-campaign/10096756

    A NSW Greens MP in danger of losing his endorsement in the next election amid allegations of sexual misconduct claims he is the victim of “trial by media” and a “determined smear campaign” by factional rivals.

    Mr Buckingham denies the allegations and says two female witnesses corroborate his version of events.
    :::
    In his email, Mr Buckingham also took aim at the ABC, saying it was “improper and irregular that the ABC aired the allegations before they had assessed the findings of the independent investigation.”

    “It was extremely bad journalism, a seeming act of serious malice, and I will be making a complaint to the Press Council and assessing other legal options.”
    :::
    The Greens have commissioned an investigation into Ms Buckland’s complaint by an outside company, Workdynamic Australia, which is still underway.
    :::
    “Ella has concerns about members of both factions in the handling of her complaint,” Mr Markham said.

    “The investigation appears to have been bungled and appears to be dictated in timeframe by senior members of the Greens party.

    “The concern that Ella has, is her only engagement [with the investigator] other than about her initial statement, was only triggered when an ABC journalist first contacted the Greens for comment.

    Sound familiar.

  31. Citizen @5:22lm
    “80 cents every dollar goes to reef projects”. Where are the auditd for that. Shouldn’t they provide it because it is public money?

  33. Lovey
    I’m not saying that. These scientists are saying that.
    Article | Published: 15 March 2017

    Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals
    Terry P. Hughes, James T. Kerry, Mariana Álvarez-Noriega, Jorge G. Álvarez-Romero, Kristen D. Anderson, Andrew H. Baird, Russell C. Babcock, Maria Beger, David R. Bellwood, Ray Berkelmans, Tom C. Bridge, Ian R. Butler, Maria Byrne, Neal E. Cantin, Steeve Comeau, Sean R. Connolly, Graeme S. Cumming, Steven J. Dalton, Guillermo Diaz-Pulido, C. Mark Eakin, Will F. Figueira, James P. Gilmour, Hugo B. Harrison, Scott F. Heron, Andrew S. Hoey, Jean-Paul A. Hobbs, Mia O. Hoogenboom, Emma V. Kennedy, Chao-yang Kuo, Janice M. Lough, Ryan J. Lowe, Gang Liu, Malcolm T. McCulloch, Hamish A. Malcolm, Michael J. McWilliam, John M. Pandolfi, Rachel J. Pears, Morgan S. Pratchett, Verena Schoepf, Tristan Simpson, William J. Skirving, Brigitte Sommer, Gergely Torda, David R. Wachenfeld, Bette L. Willis & Shaun K. Wilson

  34. In the latest edition (August 2018) of Scientific American there is an informative article about coastal communities ‘fleeing the sea’ in New Jersey, owing to rising sea levels. One response is the Blue Acres Buyout program, others are the building of more dykes, levees, sea walls etc.

    It seems to me that we in Australia need a similar response for the desertification of our landscape and the destruction of the GBR from silt runoff from rivers into the GBR seas.
    For the GBR we need to buy many of the worst contributors to soil runoff or insist on extensive riverside re-vegetation by farmers to prevent it.
    For marginal inland farms that will be obviously made unviable by climate change we need to buy them out and leave them to manage as best they can in a warming world, rather than spend year after year trying to prop them up. Most farmers recognise this reality – unfortunately too many politicians do not.

  35. Why would you trust the scientifically, technologically and mathematically illiterate mob who are our current government to make good decisions about anything? They have been and are on the wrong side of history for pretty much everything. Unfortunately, they’re also determined to drag all of us along with them.

  36. I find it hard to believe Andrew Bolt would apologize for anything.

    @AmyRemeikis
    Andrew Bolt talking about how a mistake which has been apologised for should be enough has just caused my eyes to roll so far back in my head I am now doomed to stare at my brain for the rest of my life.

  38. From the Fordham interview
    Repeatedly dodging the question, Mr Frydenberg then attempts to direct the spotlight.

    “The Labor party gave millions of dollars to the foundation over many years when they were in government.”

    Weren’t they saying a couple of days ago that Labor did nothing for the Reef and it was on the endangered or embuggered list?

  40. For those who think a lot about Graham Richardson and his connection with Renée Rivkin, tomorrow the Supreme Court of New South Wales hands down its judgement in the civil case arising from the murder conviction subsequently quashed for Gordon Wood, Renee’s driver

  42. Gee, The Greens’ luvvies don’t like it when the pleather sexual harrassment shoe is on their feet, do they?

    However, thank you Pegasus for exemplifying the institutional solidarity of The Greens and the circling of your MP’s wagons when they are accused of something as egregious as sexual harrassment. 🙂

    Rule Number 1: Circle the wagons.

    Rule Number 2: Shoot the messenger.

    Rule Number 3: Ignore it.

    Rule Number 4: Expel the victim from the party.

  43. Bank /Super fraud Royal Commission alluded to a document between APRA & the Government which is subject to parliamentary privilege, is this a letter from Mal trying to backdoor the retail super funds?

  44. Various articles are creeping into MSM publications (as well as radio & TV interviews) that are critical of the government over #reefgate and #negfail.

    Some journos at least seem to be covering themselves in the event both issues turn nasty for Turnbull & associates.

  48. Regarding Trumble’s half billion dollar giveaway:

    The appropriateness of the GBRF being given the money is a total red herring. It doesn’t really matter who got the money.

    The only issue is that the decision to hand out half a billion dollars of our money (plus interest on government borrowings) was made by one person – Trumble – and solely based on the evidence of his own opinion of the fund.

    I’ll say it again – half a billion dollars of taxpayer money was given to a private organisation based on the Prime Minister’s personal opinion and without any due diligence WHATSOEVER.

    Before we can discuss how the money should best be spent and who should control allocation decisions there needs to be some basis on which we can see why the decisions were done.

    This conduct may not be criminally corrupt because there is no offence legislated, but it goes to the very depth of political and ethical corruption.

  49. Those who have stolen workers Super are still chasing an amnesty with the Government chasing Senate number to get the Bill passed.

    Why aren’t they already in jail for theft ?

    The Institute of Public Accountants has called on the Senate crossbench to back in the Coalition’s superannuation amnesty, warning the plan is currently operating without legal foundation.

    In May, Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer introduced a bill to Parliament for a 12-month amnesty to encourage non-compliant employers to correct underpayment to workers.

    Under the plan, employers are required to pay all outstanding super owed to workers with interest, but a 50 per cent penalty to the government will be waived.

    The one-off amnesty is expected to provide about $230 million of super and interest payments to some 50,000 employees around the country.

    https://www.afr.com/news/crossbench-senators-should-back-in-coalitions-super-amnesty-institute-of-public-accountants-20180808-h13pnk

Comments Page 46 of 60
1 … 45 46 47 … 60

Leave a Reply

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