The Australian has published Newspoll’s final quarterly aggregate for the year, with state breakdowns showing Labor leading 54-46 in New South Wales (unchanged on the previous quarter), 56-44 in Victoria (down from 57-43), 54-46 in Queensland (unchanged), 53-47 in Western Australia (down from 54-46) and 58-42 in South Australia (unchanged). As The Australian’s report notes, it also records a nine point increase in Scott Morrison’s disapproval rating outside the five mainland capitals, from 38% to 47%, while his approval is down from 42% to 39%. In the capitals, Morrison is down two on approval to 42% and up five on disapproval to 44%. However, this doesn’t feed through to voting intention, on which Labor’s lead is steady at 56-44 in the capitals, but down from 54-46 to 53-47 elsewhere.
There are no gender or age breakdowns included, so expect those to be published separately over the coming days. We should also get aggregated quarterly state breakdowns from Ipsos in what used to be the Fairfax papers at some point.
UPDATE: Newspoll’s gender and age breakdowns have indeed been published in The Australian today. As with the state breakdowns, these yield little change on voting intention, with the arguable exception of Labor’s primary vote being down two among the 18-34s to 44%, and up two among the 35-49s to 43%. However, the decline noted yesterday in Scott Morrison’s personal ratings among regional voters is matched in the 50-plus cohort, among whom he is down six on approval to 42% and up nine on disapproval to 45%.
Yes, tres amusing how The Greens think they’ve achieved anything of any significance wrt the environment! Remind me when they were in government again?
A-E
The Reds in the Greens want Labor governments to fail even more than they want Liberal governments to fail.
@BW and before A Labor Government.
“Short memory. The Greens helped deliver substantial and sensible policy from 2010-2013, until the Labor rats tore the Govt down allowing Abbott to politically poison this country.”
What I remember happening was uncontrolled boat arrivals every week, pink batts installation with 4 tragic deaths due to improper rushed management of that policy, stopping the cattle trade over night instead of over a couple of years steadily – absolutely no consideration to those whose livelihoods depended on that business. Some really huge mistakes with a huge impact on Australians.
I would hope that if the labor win is even close to some of the predictions the Greens think very hard before voting with the Tories and the fringe dwellers in the Senate to block Labor’s program.
But as they say those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Their supporters can bleat here that shorten is not to be trusted. 90 or more seats in the HoR would suggest the voters have a different view.,
That article by Phillip Coorey: Green opportunism sees carbon policy vanish, June 2014
https://outline.com/BtzLj9
I had not read this before. Thank you for posting. Got me thinking.
If this is the political reality for the Greens since 2014, then to survive the Greens actually have little choice but to target Labor or fade away. This will naturally cement Labor’s hostility towards them. And as a major party Labor’s response to a minor party “irritant” might simply be to ignore and thereby starve of attention. This may explain why Green’s polling has stagnated even while Labor’s has climbed. It isn’t a simply the voters choosing Centre/Left over Far/Left.
Interesting article.
My New Year’s Resolution is to try to mount a crowd-funded legal case against the Commonwealth and the States, fossil fuel producers and fossil-fuel-driven power generators, claiming damages for economic and physical losses attributable to climate change. I will be looking to put together a legal team and to find claimants willing to join such an action or actions.
The aim of the case will be to establish that the defendants have had an obligation to respond to climate change in a variety of ways, that they have failed to respond, and that they’re consequently liable for economic and physical losses that have been incurred.
Similar cases have been mounted or are being mounted in the EU, with varying success. I think we should try to establish the principle that Governments and large-scale producers of GHG emissions have a responsibility to act on climate change as a matter of law.
There is a very long list of potential defendants.
I understand from initial advice that there are legal and evidentiary obstacles to initiating and succeeding in such a claim. Nevertheless, I think it’s worth trying. If any bludgers wish to become involved, they can let me know through William, who has my email details. I’m sure I cannot do this by myself and would welcome support.
It never fails to amuse me that when more polling comes out indicating a massive Labor victory at the next Fed election, various Greens supporters come on here to bag Labor, thus supporting our conclusion that the Greens are not our friends.
Only anecdotal, I know, but everyone in our family who used to preference Greens first in the Senate won’t do it any more, but it’s ten votes.
Bear that in mind, Green folk bagging Labor. Every time you do it, you alienate us, particularly with your re-writing of history to suit yourselves.
Andrew_Earlwood @ #298 Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 – 6:37 pm
That article had no mention of the internal treachery within Labor that divided it so much causing the Govt’s deliberate destruction.
How one can possibly take that article seriously is bewildering.
Fellow Bludger’s will have picked up on Rex’s oft repeated claim that Rudd acted to kill off the Gillard-Green-Indy carbon price deal when he pledged to “terminate the carbon tax”.
This is a lie. Rudd was never re-elected to carry out his promise and even if he was re-elected all that his promise would have done was to bring forward the ETS by one year.
The following extract from the Coorey article provides some context:
“Even when Labor was dying last year and Abbott was at the gates of the Lodge, vowing the carbon tax would be the first policy put against the wall and shot, the Greens attacked Rudd for cowardice when he announced, in a bid to hang on, that if he was elected the fixed price would move to a much lower European-linked floating price on July 1, 2014, one year earlier than scheduled.
Only this week, when there was a rumour Palmer was going to use his Senate numbers to back Labor’s ETS, did the Greens show the first sign of compromise in all those years. Unaware that Palmer’s proposed ETS would have a zero price, be dormant for years, and not be contingent on the abolition of the carbon tax, leader Christine Milne sent signals to the coal baron she would cop a reduced price ETS if that is what it took to save the policy.
“The architecture of the Clean Energy Package means that Australia’s (2020) emissions reduction target has been automatically boosted to 19 per cent. Flexible pricing is now a feasible option, whereas it wasn’t when the target was only 5 per cent,’’ her office was briefing.
“There’s less impediment now to moving earlier to an internationally linked trading scheme. A flexible price with the new stronger reduction target would be preferable to nothing at all and might be more attractive to the new Senate.”
It was too late. ”
It really is interesting to ponder where climate/energy policy would be now had Labor been united under Gillard… ?
briefly
It might be a good idea to suss out the obstacles a bit more. If they are substantial, it may be more useful to pursue political means.
There is no doubt at all that the G campaign is working to drive away their supporters and potential supporters; that they campaign against themselves. This is an important development for Australian politics. It opens the prospect of the restoration of Labor’s historic plurality and the assembly over time of stable Labor majorities in both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.
P1(2) @ 6:57PM.
“What I remember happening was uncontrolled boat arrivals every week”.
Tony Abbott rejected the Malaysia solution to ensure that the boats kept coming. The “Liberal” party cultivated moral panic over a third order issue because they couldn’t reveal their real policies, which were poison. The current prime minister wanted his party to do more dogwhistling and issued a press release accusing asylum seekers of carrying dread disease. Disgusting.
“…pink batts installation with 4 tragic deaths due to improper rushed management of that policy”
A highly successful program that helped prevent unemployment among skilled and unskilled labour going into double digits. Unfortunately dodgy private operators didn’t observe State OH&S laws and many were fined as a result. And four young men died. Tony Abbott exploited the victims of these industrial accidents for political gain. The “Liberals” cheer squad still do. Disgusting.
stopping the cattle trade over night instead of over a couple of years steadily
a barbaric trade which should never have been allowed. The defenders of the slave trade made the same argument. Disgusting.
“absolutely no consideration to those whose livelihoods depended on that business.
you’re talking about the workers in the automobile manufacturing I take it.
Some really huge mistakes with a huge impact on Australians. I beg to differ.
So instead of parroting LNP-Murdoch memes and talking points, tell us what you believe in. Try to convince us of the virtues of “free” markets and low wages, for example.
Andrew_Earlwood @ #309 Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 – 7:17 pm
The article is half-baked.
You do yourself a dis-service putting any credence in it, AE.
I’ll check back in tomorrow but I’m about to go watch the next episode of das boot on SBS. Seriously recommended
Harry “Snapper” Organs says:
Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 7:17 pm
briefly
It might be a good idea to suss out the obstacles a bit more. If they are substantial, it may be more useful to pursue political means.
The obstacles are formidable. But I’m taking my cue from Eddie Mabo. He was odds-on to fail. Those with power have consistently failed to use it to serve the public interest. They should be accountable for this.
What Treason Rex?
It really is interesting to ponder where climate/energy policy would be now had the Greens and Libs not united to vote down Rudd’s cprs….
“That article had no mention of the internal treachery within Labor that divided it so much causing the Govt’s deliberate destruction.
How one can possibly take that article seriously is bewildering.”
Epic deflection you old fraud.
The previous ABC article I linked that provided the Newspoll breakdown for the Gillard government between the 2010 election and the Rudd Restoration illustrate perefectly that public support for the Gillard Government slumpt to terminal levels as soon as the working party to establish a carbon price was announced in November 2010. While there was a partial recovery when the deal was finally announced in February 2011 by the time that Abbott-Credlin went to work support for the government collapsed totally the following month and never recovered. Rudd’s Leaking and the alleged ‘deep state’ shenanigans of ‘labor opertaives’ had nothing to do with that fact. Gillard and her office onl y had themselves to blame (‘we are us’ lol).
Look at those beautiful numbers:
Newspoll results 2013
Date Labor primary Coalition primary
Two-party preferred
(Labor/Coalition)
2010 Election 38 43.6 50.1/49.9
Jan 11-13 38 44 49/51
Feb 1-3 32 48 44/56
Feb 22-24 31 47 45/55
Mar 8-10 34 44 48/52
Mar 22-24 30 50 42/58
Apr 5-7 32 48 45/55
Apr 19-21 32 46 45/55
May 3-5 31 47 44/56
May 17-19 31 46 44/56
May 31-Jun 2 30 49 42/58
Jun 21-23 29 48 43/57
It was Julia Gillard’s personal unpopularity that dragged down the government. If Labor had been led by someone the party liked, the public would have approved of the government, including the fact that it was a minority government. The claim that minority government is inherently unpopular is demonstrably untrue at the state level, where several minority governments have been so popular that the major party went on to give a very large majority on its own, and the public likes the idea of checks and balances. People don’t give a s*** if the government is a majority or minority government provided that it appears to be competent. The main determinant of the public’s opinion of any government is the performance of the person who is the public face of that government.
Laboristas are disingenuous when they blame the Greens for Julia Gillard’s unpopularity, which preceded her association with the Greens and was independent of her link to the Greens during the minority government that she led. She simply wasn’t liked by the public when she became PM. The circumstances of her ascent to the premiership confused and dismayed the public. She was a poor communicator. She tried different personas in public – even going to the bizarre extreme of openly declaring the launch of a “New Julia” – and thereby came across as fake. Her brain fart to good idea ratio was simply far too high for the elite political level. Citizens Assembly. Ruling out a carbon tax. Rushing to an early election instead of establishing a relationship with the Australian people first. Expressing disinterest in foreign policy in the false belief that this would make her look folksy and down to earth.
Steve777
The reasons I stated are why Labor was chucked out. I know it’s a sore point because that is your side, your team, who you believe in.
But that’s the facts. Labor was chucked out due to those big mistakes.
It’s good to see the troll, RD, intends to continue to propagate the same self-defeating lines used in the past. They more they do this, the worse it will go for Liblings.
The greens desperately trying to rewrite history. All in the name of the glorious revolution I suppose.
Andrew_Earlwood @ #319 Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 – 7:25 pm
Absolutely laughable to suggest the internal treachery had no bearing on the Govts polling. 😆
Nicholas
Gillards installation as PM was received with a significant bounce in polling and popularity.
The internal treachery and division killed any consolidation and rather started the destruction of the Govt.
This is really interesting. Most interesting is how so many workers still support Trump despite being screwed. Reminds me of Boxer in Animal Farm.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-small-town-cost-of-donald-trumps-trade-wars
briefly @ #322 Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 – 7:28 pm
The personal sledging and slurs only reflect back on you, briefly.
“Absolutely laughable to suggest the internal treachery had no bearing on the Govts polling. ”
If it did, it was pretty marginal bearing. The rot set in with the announcement that Gillard would work with the Greens to establish a carbon ‘tax’ in November 2010. It was all shuffling the deck chairs on the titanic after that.
I just read Nicholas’s post. I respectfully disagree – in part – with the assertion that Gillard’s unpopularity that killed the government. More accurately it was her perceived untrustworthiness that did her in. And the cause célèbre was her deal with the Greens over carbon. I don’t think that ‘untrusthworthy’ was a fair descriptor, and as a policy I favoured her deal, but politics is perception and her perception in voter land stunk. This had little to do with Rudd or other Labor ‘deep state’ operatives.
The past is long gone. The Liblings can appeal to it as much as they like. It’s all utterly irrelevant. Voters don’t care about it. They do not dwell on any of it, but assess the current choices and the prospects for the future. Absolutely for sure, those prospects are premised among other things on the exclusion of the Liblings from power. Voters are going to change the government within a few weeks or months. They will elect a majority Labor government and they will most likely also vote to diminish the influence of the Liblings in the Senate.
The very good thing is the Liblings themselves are campaigning for these ends, though they may not seek them. Nevertheless, this is the effect of their politics. The more they campaign against Labor, the more they identify themselves as an anti-Labor outfit, the fewer votes they will receive. Political change will involve the repudiation of the anti-Labor voices. This will certainly include the Liblings.
Oh dear;
You got… 10/12
I worry that you have not quite managed to break free of Trump’s vice-like grip on the world’s attention. You have been thinking about him too much. Remember, that’s what he wants.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/dec/26/donald-trump-quiz-of-2018
Rex Douglas says:
Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 7:36 pm
briefly @ #322 Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 – 7:28 pm
It’s good to see the troll, RD, intends to continue to propagate the same self-defeating lines used in the past. They more they do this, the worse it will go for Liblings.
The personal sledging and slurs only reflect back on you, briefly.
There’s no sledging there, RD. I applaud your campaign. You’re actively promoting the success of Labor….though you will it not.
If I wanted to get personal, I’d simply remind the bludgers of what a detestable fucking liar you are. But there’s no need for that. Your lies speak for themselves.
Nicholas “It was Julia Gillard’s personal unpopularity that dragged down the government. If Labor had been led by someone the party liked, the public would have approved of the government, including the fact that it was a minority government.”
Julia Gillard was subjected to a campaign of vilification, smear, ridicule and slander in the media, especially the Newscorp crapsheets, the likes of which I have never seen, even in 1975. Anyone who led Labor would have got the same treatment. And Julia Gillard is far more competent, statesmanlike and has far more integrity than the petty, malevolent clown who now occupies the Lodge.
The Greens I believe still have a policy to introduce a price on carbon, other opponents of the Gillard govt of the time have moved on are now arguing for a price on carbon too.
The climate changes are more apparent and evident to many I’m sure, even since someone trolled through the relatively fresh entrails of the Gillard government
Woodside boss Peter Coleman calls for Australia to introduce a carbon price
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-14/woodside-ceo-peter-coleman-argues-for-carbon-price/10494026
A number of posters have just made the point that perception is politics, which makes me think that since 2014, maybe the Greens leadership believes this about the Greens party? It explains things.
Attempted rewriting of history is all that The Greens have. They are no longer relevant in the current political environment.
Scrolling finger getting callused! Please, please, lay off repetitive green-Labor flames for a while!
P one: “The reasons I stated are why Labor was chucked out. I know it’s a sore point because that is your side, your team, who you believe in.
But that’s the facts. Labor was chucked out due to those big mistakes.”
We could have stopped the boats by sinking them. That doesn’t make it right. Labor, initially at least, tried to do the right thing, then caved into pressure. I will never accept that indefinite detention without trial on remote islands is a solution to any of our problems. A grown up country can deal with it. Australia can’t.
Regarding batts, Labor provided a jobs stimulus and avoided a recession. A Coalition Government would have ordered austerity and made the problem worse.
The live cattle trade is disgusting and should not be tolerated in a civilised society. The workers who lose work can be looked after. Those who profit from the trade can get stuffed.
Without PUP, Abbott would not have had the numbers in the Senate to terminate the carbon price legislation. It would have transitioned to an emissions trading scheme part way through the term, and things might have been different.
Palmer’s campaign came very late in the piece, even a month out from the election it looked like the LNP would have no hope of repealing the legislation because of the near certain senate mathematics.
Honestly, if any of these Greens boosters did more than try to make life uncomfortable for Labor supporters on this blog, they would have kept up with the contemporary evidence to back their assertion that a Price on Carbon is a necessity. Because then they would know that they are talking through their rainbow-coloured beanies.
They would also know that a study was published in the last couple of months which analysed the success or otherwise of the Price on Carbon in those countries which had introduced one.
Guess what? It hasn’t worked. It has been gamed, as it works like a tax, as Julia Gillard acknowledged, to her eternal detriment. And, as we all know, gaming tax is a perennial pastime for companies.
And guess what the conclusion was of the analysts that prepared the paper?
The best method for reducing CO2 Emissions is to have governments mandate very high, up to 100%, Renewable energy sources, as quickly as possible.
And guess who’s policy that is? 🙂
Now, Green grubbies, I might take you seriously in the future if you up your game and be as intellectually rigorous as I, and the Labor Party, have been.
Greens banging on old news, like it’s 2001.
But they never bang on Liberals.
100% renewables Greens policy
50% renewables Labor policy
Idiocy Liberal policy
Phylactella,
Everything was fine until The Greens boosters turned up and started spewing crap. As per standard operating procedure. I doubt they will ever stop either. It’s all they’ve got.
Every time some idiot mentions “pink batts” it strengthens my resolve to vote Labor. Many elections ago I actually, enthusiastically supported the Greens. Not since they pulled that shit on Rudd. The current lot are a dark shadow of Brown’s Greens.
poroti says:
Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:30 pm
Finally, I have found a job for Joe Hockey that uses all his many talents and allows him to unleash Hockeynomics in its purist form. Join the US’s Defense Finance and Accounting Services Joe.
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.
………employees of the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS), which handles a wide range of Defense Department accounting services, referred sardonically to preparation of the Army’s year-end statements as “the grand plug,” Armstrong said. “Plug” is accounting jargon for inserting made-up numbers…………. ….At first glance adjustments totaling trillions may seem impossible. The amounts dwarf the Defense Department’s entire budget. Making changes to one account also require making changes to multiple levels of sub-accounts, however. That created a domino effect where, essentially, falsifications kept falling down the line. In many instances this daisy-chain was repeated multiple times for the same accounting item.
………..he rather than solving the disparity, DFAS personnel inserted a false “correction” to make the numbers match.
DFAS also could not make accurate year-end Army financial statements because more than 16,000 financial data files had vanished from its computer system
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG
**********************
I’m a CPA. That explanation makes absolutely no accounting sense. Perfect for Mr Hockey.
Quoll @ #341 Wednesday, December 26th, 2018 – 4:13 pm
How do you get to 100%?
By first getting to 50%. 🙂
“The United States Army’s finances are so jumbled it had to make trillions of dollars of improper accounting adjustments to create an illusion that its books are balanced.”
Credits: $25,000,000,000,000
Debits: $28,000,000,000,000-
Made up Stuff: $3,000,000,000,100
Surplus: $100.
All OK then.
Quoll says:
Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 8:13 pm
100% renewables Greens policy
50% renewables Labor policy
Idiocy Liberal policy
Oh quoll when will you work it out, Green policy is nothing more than a shout into the wind. They will never be in government and Labor has had enough of their duplicity ( of which your post is a good example). The glorious revolution will not happen.
Q
Coalition wrecks.
Greens fantasize.
Labor does.
“100% renewables Greens policy
50% renewables Labor policy
Idiocy Liberal policy”
Truth time Quoll.
I can pretty much guarantee that Labor will not agree to a 100% renewables policy within your time frame.
Will the Greens block Labor and hold out for the impossible, thereby guaranteeing a continuation of the Idiocy Liberal Policy by default?