BludgerTrack: 54.3-45.7 to Labor

Nothing much doing on the poll aggregate, but two ReachTEL seat polls provide further evidence of the Coalition’s low ebb in Victoria.

The BludgerTrack poll aggregate shifts negligibly in favour of the Coalition, who have picked up one on the seat aggregate in South Australia. I won’t be bothering with the leadership ratings until the new year recess, as some fairly heavy reupholstering is required to integrate Scott Morrison’s data into the code.

Two ReachTEL electorate polls have lately emerged from Victoria, recording swings approaching or exceeding double digits against the Liberals – with the caveat that both appear to have identified the names of the parties rather than the candidates.

• In Corangamite, held for the Liberals by Sarah Henderson on a post-redistribution margin of exactly nothing, a poll for the Geelong Advertiser gives Labor what I calculate to be a lead of 59-41, based on 2016 election preferences. The Advertiser’s report has it at 52.1-47.9, but this credits Labor with no preferences whatsoever from “other/independent”, when they in fact scored slightly over half of them in 2016. After excluding the 4.6% undecided from the poll, the primary votes are Labor 42.8%, Liberal 33.7% and Greens 11.7%. I don’t know exactly when the poll was conducted, but the sample was 856.

• The Herald Sun reported last week that a poll for the CFMEU found Kelly O’Dwyer, who holds Higgins on a post-redistribution margin of 10.3%, trailing Labor by 53-47. Primary votes of Liberal 38.6%, Labor 32.5% and Greens 18.8% are provided, which I presume does not exclude an undecided component.

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.

2,197 comments on “BludgerTrack: 54.3-45.7 to Labor”

  1. Steve Davis

    I think thats a fair call excluding a real black swan event at the last minute. The miracle Morrison is probably praying for


  2. C@tmomma
    says:
    It was actually my cousin by marriage, Phillip Toyne, who founded the Australian Conservation Foundation

    Did you know Beverly Broadbent?

  3. C’mon Rex and nath, what would the numbers be without Bill?

    With parliament not due to return until February next year ahead of an April 2 budget and a likely election mid-May, Scott Morrison has maintained his lead over Bill Shorten in the leadership contest.

    Approval ratings for both leaders dropped in the wake of a chaotic final week of parliament with Mr Morrison’s satisfaction rating dropping a point to 42 per while those dissatisfied with him rose three points to 45 per cent.

    Mr Shorten also fell a point with an approval rating of 36 per cent and one point rise in those unhappy with his performance as leader.

    Mr Shorten however managed to close the gap on Mr Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister gaining two points to 36 per cent while the Liberal leader dropped two points to 44 per cent.

  4. Good evening all,

    What a stupid question asking Swan if he is in touch with the labor membership !

    It was the labor membership that voted him in a president over that left wing hypocrite Butler.

    BTW, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of the liberal / national vote. Would not surprise if the increase in coalition primary came from the nats.

    Cheers and a great night to all.

  5. Player One @ #1616 Sunday, December 9th, 2018 – 6:24 pm

    Those are the explanatory notes. Read the actual legislation, and search for “particular person”.

    You’re correct, I was looking at the notes/memo.

    However my read of the legislation doesn’t say that a TCN must target a particular person. The only way “particular person” gets into the TCN section is transitively, via “systemic vulnerability” and “systemic weakness”, which are things a TCN may not order.

    And it’s even transitive in those sections, as the test that allows you to order “systemic vulnerabilities” and “systemic weaknesses” anyways isn’t “does this order relate to a particular person”, it’s “does this order target technologies likely to be used by a particular person”.

    Which would at a minimum allow you to order the spyware version deployed to everyone but left dormant on each device until it received some flag from the operator’s server (which might be sent when logging in or syncing data).

    And if you’re using a TCN to order anything that can’t be considered a systemic vulnerability/weakness, the ‘particular person’ test (weak as it is) does not seem to enter into it at all. The checks-and-balances here seem way out of whack (or deliberately toothless).

  6. Upnorth @ #2147 Sunday, December 9th, 2018 – 6:44 pm

    Pauline Hanson and Greens almost even on Primaries. Might be even come Election Day.

    The Greens have seriously dropped the ball as a genuine 3rd party alternative, and the country is poorer for it. When they stop obsessing about Labor and their own virtue signalling, only to have it blow up in their faces via allegations of misogynistic internal culture, they should get back to their core business: the environment. Playing politics hasn’t served them well either.

  7. Michael A @ #2088 Sunday, December 9th, 2018 – 9:10 pm

    P1, you said earlier there is no point in the Greens criticising Coalition policy, because they would have zero influence over them and they know it (or wtte).

    Influencing the behaviour of the person or group you are criticising is not the only purpose you can achieve in doing so. You could also influence the attitudes of third parties towards the target of your criticism.

    In the realm of politics, if the Greens devote 90% of their time to criticising Labor and only 10% to criticising the Coalition, third parties (voters) will receive 9 times as much negative framing of Labor from the Greens as they receive of the Coalition. This is more likely to result in worsening public views of Labor than of the Coalition.

    On an issue such as the aa bill, this is quite unfair on Labor, since this law was crafted and enthusiastically pushed through Parliament by the Coalition, who are the real villains here. OTOH, Labor were put under political duress to pass it, on pain of receiving 2001 rhetorical treatment in the event of anything going tragically wrong over the summer, whether caused by the lack of this law or (more likely) not.

    Fair points.

  8. Sooooo which will it be ? The Coalition improves after the summer break as out of sight out of mind fades memory of their awfulness orwill the summer break allow attitudes to the Coalition to set rock hard ?

    Tones used to do very well out of being hidden from the public for a while .

  9. Here’s a headline from the Guardian that Sprocket can bounce off..
    “Australia face near impossible first Test task as hopes rest on Marsh”

  10. Without Shorten it would be 59-41 for sure.
    ________________________

    For the Coalition? I know that Shorten is a terrific leader, but I think the team behind him can easily keep Labor ahead.

  11. #Newspoll Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 45 (0) ALP 55 (0)

    Preferred PM: Morrison 44 (-2) Shorten 36 (+2)
    Shorten: Approve 36 (-1) Disapprove 51 (+1)
    Morrison: Approve 42 (-1) Disapprove 45 (+3)
    Federal Primary Votes: L/NP 35 (+1) ALP 41 (+1) GRN 9 (0) ON 7 (-1)

  12. “55-45 is becoming the norm for Newspoll.How the fuck can the Libs win from here?”

    Delusion and help from the Greens? Funny that the Greens seem to be acting like the next election result is a cert? ALP to win and need the Greens cooperation to govern. Their version of responsibility free nirvana.

  13. poroti:

    You left out option 3: Morrison Ad Man decides to use the summer holidays as an opportunity to do his Eddie Everywhere impersonation, and pops up ad nauseum all over the place.

  14. Confessions

    He may have been scared off that cunning plan by the Qld. bus effort. Not sure a pollie being Eddy Everywhere over summer would go down well.

  15. With no Shorten I guess it would be 70-30 to Labor………………….Shoot for the stars I say!
    Rudd managed 60-40 for a short while so clearly he was the best leader Labor ever had…………..
    My timid 54-46 was just that………………………However, with no parliament and the festive season about to hit us, what with goodwill and spirit and all that the LNP might pick up a couple of points just to sheer inertia…….

  16. “Mr Shorten however managed to close the gap on Mr Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister gaining two points to 36 per cent while the Liberal leader dropped two points to 44 per cent.”

    I have little respect for the PPM measure………but…………are the doGs above that agin the Lib/Nats and wanting to really rub their noses in it so bad….that Shorten may catch up on PPM before the election?? 🙂

    Ok, not gunna happen but it would be amusing in extremis if it did. 🙂

    Anyone know if a LOTO has ever had a higher PPM rating than an incumbent PM??

  17. @Nath

    As others will point out, the PM will have better PM by default, thus will have larger lead.

    Kevin Bonham
    ‏ @kevinbonham
    26m26 minutes ago

    #Newspoll Morrison Satisfied 42 Dissatisfied 45 Shorten 36-51 Better PM: Morrison leads 44-36 (Better PM skews to incumbents by average of 16 points)

  18. As the Newspoll is unchanged I wonder if they are polling just marginals still?

    Does anyone know if the random sample does that or is it truly random across the whole country?
    I only ask because of suggestions polling did not indicate the Victorian result by not polling safe Liberal electorates.

  19. “Better PM skews to incumbents by average of 16 points”

    Lol! Ta for that. So, from a historical perspective ScoMo’s PPM is pretty much already fwarked. 🙂

  20. OK. Back from a lovely evening with friends. And what awaits? A Newspoll! So, here is the guess list. PB guessers pat yourselves on the back!

    PB Newspoll-Poll 2018-12-09
    Actual: ALP 55 to 45 LNP
    PB mean: ALP 54.9 to 45.1 LNP
    PB median: ALP 55.0 to 45.0 LNP
    No. Of PB Respondents: 54
    ALP / LNP
    58 / 42 A different Michael
    53 / 47 a r
    56 / 44 Andrew_Earlwood
    57 / 43 Barney in Go Dau
    53 / 47 BK
    no poll Boerwar
    55 / 45 briefly
    53 / 47 C@tmomma
    54 / 46 Confessions
    54 / 46 Cud Chewer
    54 / 46 Dan Gulberry
    no prediction Desert qlder
    53 / 47 DVC
    55 / 45 Felix
    55 / 45 Fozzie Logic
    53.5 / 46.5 Frednk *permanent
    57 / 43 Fulvio Sammut
    56 / 44 Gecko
    56 / 44 Goll
    56 / 44 guytaur
    53 / 47 Harry “Snapper” Organs
    56 / 44 hungry ack
    55 / 45 imacca
    52 / 48 It’s Time
    54 / 46 Jaeger
    56 / 44 jeffemu
    55 / 45 John Reidy
    60 / 40 KayJay
    55 / 45 Klaus Ahlhaus
    56 / 44 Late Riser
    54 / 46 Mavis Smith
    55 / 45 Michael A
    54 / 46 Mr Ed
    55 / 45 nath
    56 / 44 OH
    54 / 46 Paul Turner
    54 / 46 Peter Stanton
    56 / 44 pica
    56 / 44 Player One
    57 / 43 poroti
    52 / 48 Prof. Higgins
    56 / 44 Puffytmd
    55 / 45 Quasar
    55 / 45 Question
    55 / 45 Red13
    55 / 45 rhwombat
    55 / 45 sonar
    53 / 47 Socrates
    54 / 46 Sohar
    55 / 45 steve davis
    54 / 46 Steve777
    56 / 44 Toby Esterhase
    56 / 44 TPOF
    54 / 46 Tricot
    55 / 45 Upnorth
    54 / 46 Whisper

  21. Dan G, poroti:

    Well of course, but Morrison gives every appearance of being committed to his busy, busy, busy, go, go, go schtick that one can see him emulating this over summer.

  22. Holden Hillbilly @ #2166 Sunday, December 9th, 2018 – 9:53 pm

    #Newspoll Federal 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 45 (0) ALP 55 (0)

    Preferred PM: Morrison 44 (-2) Shorten 36 (+2)
    Shorten: Approve 36 (-1) Disapprove 51 (+1)
    Morrison: Approve 42 (-1) Disapprove 45 (+3)
    Federal Primary Votes: L/NP 35 (+1) ALP 41 (+1) GRN 9 (0) ON 7 (-1)

    All hail the negative netsat for Morrison! 😀

  23. “As the Newspoll is unchanged I wonder if they are polling just marginals still?”

    No idea, but yah gotta say the polling has been set in stone, HARD….for months….and then all the indications from actual elections makes the polling look valid……and the rolling fwark ups………

    Must be very depressing for the Libs….and i’m way cool with that…but its still weird. 🙂

  24. Confessions @ #2183 Sunday, December 9th, 2018 – 10:04 pm

    Dan G, poroti:

    Well of course, but Morrison gives every appearance of being committed to his busy, busy, busy, go, go, go schtick that one can see him emulating this over summer.

    So ‘people that know him’ have been saying. He doesn’t lack for energy they say.

    I think what he does lack is political nous. Bill Shorten has it all over Morrison in that respect.

  25. a r @ #2155 Sunday, December 9th, 2018 – 9:49 pm

    Player One @ #1616 Sunday, December 9th, 2018 – 6:24 pm

    Those are the explanatory notes. Read the actual legislation, and search for “particular person”.

    You’re correct, I was looking at the notes/memo.

    However my read of the legislation doesn’t say that a TCN must target a particular person. The only way “particular person” gets into the TCN section is transitively, via “systemic vulnerability” and “systemic weakness”, which are things a TCN may not order.

    On the contrary. A “systemic weakness” or “systemic vulnerability” may be ordered … provided it is targeted at a “particular person”. Otherwise, it is not allowed. For example:

    systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability that affects a whole class of technology, but does not include a vulnerability that is selectively introduced to one or more target technologies that are connected with a particular person. For this purpose, it is immaterial whether the person can be identified.

    The language is tricky. It is the reverse of what you might expect. First it tells you what may not be done (e.g. introduce a “systemic vulnerability”). Then it tells you what would allow this restriction to be relaxed (i.e. if it is targeted at a “particular person”).

    And it’s even transitive in those sections, as the test that allows you to order “systemic vulnerabilities” and “systemic weaknesses” anyways isn’t “does this order relate to a particular person”, it’s “does this order target technologies likely to be used by a particular person”.

    Which would at a minimum allow you to order the spyware version deployed to everyone but left dormant on each device until it received some flag from the operator’s server (which might be sent when logging in or syncing data).

    Not quite. It could only be deployed if it can only ever be activated for a “particular person”. It cannot be deployed if it could be activated for anyone.

    And if you’re using a TCN to order anything that can’t be considered a systemic vulnerability/weakness, the ‘particular person’ test (weak as it is) does not seem to enter into it at all. The checks-and-balances here seem way out of whack (or deliberately toothless).

    There is no doubt this is bad legislation. But there is also no doubt what it is trying to “allow”.

  26. Talking of Leadership, Boris is looking up:

    Nick Robinson
    ‏Verified account @bbcnickrobinson
    9m9 minutes ago

    Nick Robinson Retweeted Nick Robinson

    Leadership klaxon again. “Do not underestimate the sense of responsibility I feel for Brexit…There is a real alternative”.

  27. I’m sure that the RWNJ MPs are happy with these figures. They know that, when the party plunges into the vat of electoral fire, God will save the righteous and destroy the bedwetters. The party will be purged and they will all fit into the Monkey Pod room.

Leave a Reply

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