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 58 of 60
1 … 57 58 59 60

  3. ajm

    Victorian Labor would expel the leaker. If they didn’t expel the complainant (once it was clear the complaints weren’t warranted) the person’s career would be effectively over. Labor has very long memories when it comes to things like that.

  4. I have a theory about who leaked the salacious accusations and other material in the letter only 2 people had in their possession.

    John Whelan is a Labor lawyer. Labor lawyers also usually employ staff that are sympathetic to and support Labor. These people can have skin in the game, or friendships with, other Labor people.

    John Whelan would have had clerical staff deal with the letter. I bet it was one of them.

  8. ANTONBRUCKNER11

    Wood could well feel hard done by…

    1344
    Despite what I am well satisfied are demonstrable failures of Mr Tedeschi’s forensic judgment and his persisting lack of insight into their impact on the course of the trial, and despite holding grave suspicions that some of Mr Tedeschi’s closing submissions to the jury might have been a deliberate attempt by him to unfairly influence the jury, or even to deliberately prejudice the plaintiff by the patently and grossly improper technique of utilising smear, innuendo or speculation, I am not persuaded that such suspicions as I do hold provide a sufficient basis upon which to find the element of malice proved to the applicable standard.
    1345
    That being the case, it follows that the plaintiff has failed to establish that Mr Tedeschi prosecuted him maliciously for Ms Byrne’s murder, although I am satisfied Mr Tedeschi prosecuted him without reasonable and probable cause.

  11. Z
    This would be a civil case so Buzzfeed aren’t compelled to reveal their source. They would just have a crappy defense if they refused to verify they had a reliable source who wasn’t being malicious.

  14. Henry says Friday, August 10, 2018 at 6:58 pm

    Hey Rexy, what about michaelias loss of 20 staffers in the last 12 months ?

    Would that include the ones who might have allegedly broken the law?

  21. sprocket_ says Friday, August 10, 2018 at 7:05 pm

    Hmmm, RatBagRadio presenters come from a limited gene pool

    The sort of demographic you might see waiting for a prostate examination

  22. Some females have been on redneck radio but they are obviously only allowed out of the kitchen for a limited time and are not permitted to usurp the role of the “stars”.

    (EDIT: something went wrong. I was meaning to repost the image of the all white male redneck radio presenters.)

  23. I think an accurate report of a legal letter, if that is what was been done by Workman in relation to Whelan, is an unlikely source of a defamation suit.

    That’s rubbish Shellbell, and you know it.

    Whatever privilege Whelan had does not transfer to Workman, just because, well, just because.

    Another thing is that Workman did NOT publish “a legal letter”. She published – via selective quotation – the most salacious aspects of it, and then compounded this selective version by defending her position in the face of categorical denials by two of the three principals, despite the third principal changing his story in the face of his original version’s refutation.

    If Workman sought to take refuge in the reflected glory of Whelan’s qualified privilege -a big “if”- she should have reproduced the entire letter in facsimile. ALL of it.

    This would have revealed dire warnings regarding confidentiality – that Husar was both bound and protected by it. It would have revealed that she was informed she was innocent until found otherwise, that she had a right of reply, that the matters were allegations only… you know the drill if you’re any kind of lawyer. These types of letters are available as templates on every IR web site known to man and in every HR department. Workman published NONE of the ancillary material in the letter and ALL of the shit sheet material. She picked out the bad bits of the Whelan letter and then went in hard, and cruel.

    Her position ain’t so holy and safe from prosecution as you make it out to be.

  27. Workman hasn’t been very careful protecting the identity of her sources.

    We basically know one of them.

    It’s whoever “witnessed” and made the “basic instinct” allegation.

    They were in the room in the meeting with Jason Clair and she was able to get new version quickly after the denials.

  31. C@tmomma@6:00pm
    Londonderry MP(ex-staffer of Carr) ? Why? Do you think she leaked the letter because some body suggested to her she would be pre-selected for Lindsay if Husar is discredited?

  35. I’m feeling a touch of the Rumsfelds coming on.,,,,,,,,,,, ‘because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns’.

  36. Based on his reporting, I think David Crowe seems to be of the opinion that the states are the ones at fault with the NEG. From my limited knowledge, including what I learned from Katherine Murphy’s most recent podcast, it seems to me that the problems are at the federal level. The requests being put by the Labor states seem quite reasonable, and make sense.

    I don’t think it would harm Crowe to widen his enquiries to people outside the Minister’s office.

    (slight edit of the last sentence)

  37. Ven @ #2879 Friday, August 10th, 2018 – 7:39 pm

    C@tmomma@6:00pm
    Londonderry MP(ex-staffer of Carr) ? Why? Do you think she leaked the letter because some body suggested to her she would be pre-selected for Lindsay if Husar is discredited?

    Not necessarily. Though there was certainly bad blood between Prue Car and Emma Husar. Prue Car went to the Young Labor finishing school and worked in Bob Carr’s office and Emma Husar didn’t. Prue Car got pre-selected for a State seat and Emma Husar got pre-selected for a federal seat. Prue Car’s nose was out of joint it seems. It also seems as though the Anderson family believed in nepotistic entitlement to the seat that Emma Husar held. It appears that the plan they cooked up to ‘Get Emma’ was wildly successful and especially thanks to Gumshoe Workman.

    Don’t think that Bill Shorten doesn’t have all this factored into his calculations going forward.

  39. I think the demand for the government to get partyroom approval before they give in-principle support for NEG is pure political grandstanding. In other words situation normal.

  40. bc @ #2886 Friday, August 10th, 2018 – 7:48 pm

    Based on his reporting, I think David Crowe seems to be of the opinion that the states are the ones at fault with the NEG.

    I watched the ABC TV news tonight, for the first time in yonks. Apparently, Turnbull & Frydenberg had a stunning victory over the states on the NEG.

    Words. Fail.

  41. Prue Car went to the Young Labor finishing school and worked in Bob Carr’s office and Emma Husar didn’t. Prue Car got pre-selected for a State seat and Emma Husar got pre-selected for a federal seat. Prue Car’s nose was out of joint it seems.

    It always amazes me when women, esp women who work in traditionally male-dominated professions, compete with each other instead of support one another to succeed.

  42. poroti @ #2884 Friday, August 10th, 2018 – 4:44 pm

    I’m feeling a touch of the Rumsfelds coming on.,,,,,,,,,,, ‘because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns’.

    So how does unknowable fit in here such as doG?

    Is it a known unknown or is it an unknown unknown? 🙂

  44. Player One says Friday, August 10, 2018 at 7:54 pm

    I watched the ABC TV news tonight, for the first time in yonks. Apparently, Turnbull & Frydenberg had a stunning victory over the states on the NEG.

    Words. Fail.

    It’s amazing how two reports (ABC vs Crowe) can say the opposite, and both probably be completely wrong.

  45. From The Oz

    ‘Mr Roberts-Smith, who now works as General Manager for the Seven Network in Queensland, said he was deeply troubled that “alleged evidence’’ given to the IGADF inquiry had been leaked.

    “Not only is it illegal, it is unfair to people who haven’t given evidence and it has the potential to undermine the fairness of the inquiry,’’ he said. “If and when I am given the opportunity to defend each specific allegation, I am very confident that direct witnesses will categorically demonstrate the falsity of them all.”’

    Some points on the B R-S comments as reported in the The OZ. They seem to me to be somewhat opaque or ambiguous.
    1. ‘alleged evidence’ is an interesting usage. Many of the references made by Fairfax are to substantive complaints and to witness statements. That is not alleged evidence. That IS evidence. Whether it holds up is another matter.
    2. the Fairfax information referred to by B R-S as a leak may not have come from the Inquiry. On the face of it, it may not be a leak at all. The basis for the Fairfax report has come from interviews by Fairfax with people who have made various claims direct to Fairfax. If their statements are also part of the Inquiry, so be it.
    3. B R-S goes on to claim that this alleged leak is illegal. Here is where B R-S’s earlier conflation of individuals talking to reporters with a leak from within the official Inquiry process matters.
    4. I find it difficult to understand how, when a two year investigation is nearing the end, B R-S has yet to interviewed during which we could assume he would put his side (defend himself) in relation to the various incidents. But perhaps he HAS been interviewed and has mentally moved forward to when the various allegations will lead to charges being laid against him, at which time he will defend them?

    The question may as well be asked first on Bludger: ‘Has a Victoria Cross award ever been taken from a recipient?’

    I note in passing that not a word in the latest two press articles refers to the possible use of drugs by members of the SAS.

  46. Davidwh @ #2888 Friday, August 10th, 2018 – 4:53 pm

    I think the demand for the government to get partyroom approval before they give in-principle support for NEG is pure political grandstanding. In other words situation normal.

    Well it is always nice to know what you are agreeing to.

    What will emerge next Tuesday from the Party room is very much a known unknown. 🙂

  48. I note in passing that not a word in the latest two press articles refers to the possible use of drugs by members of the SAS.

    So what?

  49. I don’t know Barney. Abbott and a few followers will oppose the NEG but it will get through comfortably . 2GBinc will go crazy saying Turnbull has sold out to the Greens. The MSM will say Turnbull has had a big win. PB will say Turnbull will be replaced by Christmas.

    Maybe none of the above will happen then we will have a few unknown unknowns 🙂


  50. Davidwh says:
    Friday, August 10, 2018 at 7:53 pm

    I think the demand for the government to get partyroom approval before they give in-principle support for NEG is pure political grandstanding. In other words situation normal.

    Aren’t you a little interested in what they can get through the party room?

Comments Page 58 of 60
1 … 57 58 59 60

Leave a Reply

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