BludgerTrack: 52.9-47.1 to Labor

Movement to the Coalition on the BludgerTrack poll aggregate, after a better-than-usual result in the only new federal poll for the week.

With Newspoll holding its fire over the weekend of the New South Wales state election, the only new federal poll of the week came from Essential Research, which produced a relatively strong result for the Coalition. The BludgerTrack aggregate accordingly moves slightly in their favour, with Labor’s lead down from 53.3-46.7 to 52.9-47.1. This translates into a gain for the Coalition of two on the seat projection, with New South Wales and Victoria providing one apiece.

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.

1,589 comments on “BludgerTrack: 52.9-47.1 to Labor”

  1. WeWantPaul @ #1546 Monday, April 1st, 2019 – 7:40 pm

    Really? It’s a no-brainer that Facebook should just be leaned on to deactivate Facebook Live. Problem solvered.

    It isn’t a no brainer, it is exactly the kind of thing a democracy should have a sound policy grip on, before diving in, or you’ll have things like the PM ringing up and silencing social media exactly the same way he rang up and silenced SBS and the ABC when he didn’t like what they were saying. And that my friend is very very bad. Very very bad.

    Facebook are already being pressured to deactivate Facebook Live, so your indignant outrage may be moot.

  2. To all those on this blog who call for the Greens to behave like pledged members of the ALP Caucus and/or criticise them for not doing so I make the following points:

    If the people who voted for the Greens preferred politicians who behaved like members of the ALP Caucus, they could give their first preference to the ALP candidate (except at occasional by-elections where the ALP chooses not run). Greens voters vote Greens because the Greens better represent their views than the ALP does and in a democracy elected representatives listen to the people ho voted for them. Australia is a multi-party democracy, not a one party state or first past the post mess, so they can do that without breaching any monopolies or vote splitting.

    In 2009 voted down the ALP-Liberal negotiated watered down CPRS, after the ALP did not take up Greens offers of negotiation. Their tactic was obviously to get the ALP to take a CPRS like policy to the next election and get enough votes that the ALP and Greens could negotiate a compromise and then get it through the new Senate. Instead the ALP, for its own internal reasons, went to water and largely dropped the subject, later going to the election with a much weaker policy. The Greens then got a record vote at the election. After the election the Greens negotiated with the ALP to get a carbon price deal through parliament, although the deal had to be weaker than it should have been because of the combined numbers of ALP and Green MPs in the House of Representatives was less than a majority.

    The main reasons for the defeat of the ALP in 2013 were leadership instability, leaks (from within, almost certainly by a person or persons who wanted Rudd back as leader attempting to justify Rudd`s return as leader) whenever the Government had good going, Gillard saying no carbon tax and then stating the new policy could be called a carbon tax, the newly elected Senate not taking their seats until the start of the new tax year (which held up the introduction of the carbon price and thus allowed 12 months of scaremongering to drain support for the government) and Rudd`s poor campaigning in 2013.

  3. This social media thing is a distraction.

    Ask yourself the following questions:

    1. Is the behavior criminal behavior in Australia?

    If no, well then if you don’t want it criminal, you need to make a case why social media can’t do it. Explain why social media should be prevented from doing something, even something awful, that is lawful if sky does it, but unlawful if it is done on facebook?

    2. If it is already criminal you have an enforcement issue. Why isn’t it being enforced? You can’t argue for a second the Govt doesn’t have enough digital powers to enforce the law, if it is not being enforced it is because the Govt can’t be bothered, not because it is too hard.

    3. So lets say it isn’t criminal but it is a matter that ‘might’ have redress as a civil matter. What is different about online to ‘real world’? Not much at all really. In the real world almost all of us can be silenced by threats of legal proceedings, silenced from even expressing lawful opinions. Because defo law is terrible, it is largely inaccessible for most of us, and it does much more harm than good. Online, particularly anonymously, it is much harder to hunt down and silence people not breaking the law.

    Sky for example outed people who follow or actively promoted that Sleeping Giants Oz twitter account, not because it was breaking the law, but because it wasn’t and it wanted to misuse money and power to get people sacked and silenced. It was, even on their account a deliberate and target effort to get people fired and silenced. This is really what the anti-social media stuff is about. It is about silencing legitimate political speech online, like it can be silenced in the real world.

    I have not seen one single example that has made me think otherwise. But I’m open, convince me. But be specific and focused, not just all ‘social media bad, people angry’.

  4. Facebook are already being pressured to deactivate Facebook Live, so your indignant outrage may be moot.

    Of course it is. Murdoch wants it so. *rolls eyes*

  5. Facebook are already being pressured to deactivate Facebook Live, so your indignant outrage may be moot.

    My apologies, my rage should definitely be saved for something more important than defending freedoms and democracy … *sighs sadly and turns away sorrowing*

  6. “Yes, one has to wonder how many ‘individual’ Australian White Supremacists who become mass murderers it will take before the Coalition changes that tune?”

    White supremacist political lies don’t kill people. Individuals who believe white supremacist political lies kill people.

    Don’t blame the liars, just because they instigate the violence. Focus on the perpetrators, very narrowly.

  7. “To all those on this blog who call for the Greens to behave like pledged members of the ALP Caucus and/or criticise them for not doing so I make the following points:”

    I’m not asking the Greens to behave as pledged members of the ALP. Just to NOT be mindlessly obstructionist and see beyond whats to their immediate political advantage, particularly on matters environmental.

  8. Tom

    I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to make that post. At least 90% of it most posters here would agree with. The other 10% is a matter of opinion.

  9. I’m not asking the Greens to behave as pledged members of the ALP. Just to NOT be mindlessly obstructionist and see beyond whats to their immediate political advantage, particularly on matters environmental.

    I’d settle for the Greens to not behave as pledged members of the LNP!

  10. Trump trying to act like America isn’t connected to Mexico by land and with centuries of history and culture and movement between the two countries, via his atempt to close the border, is ridiculous in the extreme.

  11. If Labor defeat the LNP at the coming election no thanks at all will be due to the Gs, who have spent every waking minute since the last election campaigning against Labor. They are promising to continue to campaign against Labor after the election. The Gs are an LNP auxiliary. I think they should be placed alongside the LNP on Labor HTVs. They are Lib-kin.

  12. @ briefly

    Agree on the G’s. A Labor Government for the G’s is like Garlic to a Vampire.

    As with the Communists in the 50’s, the G’s attack Labor at every opportunity and try to canabalise Labor votes. They don’t want Labor to succeed.

  13. ajm says:
    Monday, April 1, 2019 at 5:10 pm
    I suspect the current prices of EVs contain a substantial premium being extracted from “early adopters” by the manufacturers.

    I can’t see how they would be much more expensive to build than a petrol or diesel car. Sure the battery is an extra cost but the power train is much simpler and cheaper. It may need a bit more in electronics but I would think not much more than in a cheapish laptop.

    In addition, the rest of the vehicle does not have to be engineered to support a heavy vibrating mechanism powered by explosions.

    Does anyone here have the figures to prove or disprove this?

    ***********

    I recently had access to pricing for a utility scale battery (with a reasonable number of megawatt hours of storage) and even applying the cost per kWh from that battery to an EV, the EV is still considerably more expensive than the equivalent model internal combustion engine vehicle.

    The utility scale battery price per kWh was about 2/3 of a reasonable quality residential battery before installation costs.

  14. Rex Douglas says:
    Monday, April 1, 2019 at 8:37 pm
    Pegasus @ #1472 Monday, April 1st, 2019 – 8:31 pm

    Will Labor show strength and commitment to the environment in the senate

    Of course Labor will be resolute in the Senate.

    negotiate with the Greens…?

    I certainly hope not. It’s very unwise to try to negotiate with a party that will never agree to anything. The Gs do not want to reach agreement. They want a permanent stand-off. They will never negotiate in good faith on anything. Their business plan relies on a state of eternal antagonism.

    The Lib-kin and the LNP are same/same.

  15. https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/30/bludgertrack-52-9-47-1-labor-2/comment-page-32/#comment-3115162

    It often seems that the definition of “not mindlessly obstructing” and “seeing beyond their immediate political advantage” of many of those on this blog who strongly prefer the ALP to the Greens seems to me little different to ignoring the Greens actual reasons for not disgreeing with the ALP, ignoring the Greens not being negotiated with (except when they want to like the Greens not being negotiated with, out of a wish for the Greens to be powerless and eventually virtually voteless), ignoring the Greens long term political interests in standing up for what their voters believe in and generally shut up and rubber stamp the ALP`s decisions like an ALP Caucus member (except without the voice in the ALP Caucus).

    https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/30/bludgertrack-52-9-47-1-labor-2/comment-page-32/#comment-3115164

    I felt the need to make those points because there are several people on this blog who whose posts indicate they do not, in practice, believe most of what I wrote there because they are stuck in a two-party mindset (despite Australia`s multi-party system) and view almost every criticism of and disagreement with the ALP as illegitimate and/or supporting the political right (even or especially if it actually comes from the left).

  16. What Greens hopefuls must constantly be reminded of in advance of the election is that, as a minor party, the best they can hope for is to negotiate with a Labor government on the finer points of any climate change bill.

    And if Labor doesn’t agree with their demands, they then have a choice to either vote for Labor policy or for Coalition policy.

    Make no mistake, siding with the Coalition to block any bill is not a vote against Labor’s climate change policy – it is a vote *for* the Coalition’s policy of inaction and paralysis.

    Adam Bandt and the Greens might like to campaign saying what they “will” do but they need to be held to account on what they actually can do given the reality of their minor party status.

  17. Tom, the G’s adopt positions precisely so they afford anti-Labor campaign opportunities. Barely a single campaign statement issues from the Gs that is not an anti-Labor missive. The Gs are not to be taken at face value. They are systematically disingenuous. Their business model relies on never ever agreeing with Labor on anything.

    The single best example of this is in relation to asylum seekers and the so-called Malaysia option. The G s opposed this for the most cynical of reasons, along with the LNP. They wanted a stick with which to beat Labor. As a result, thousands of people have been subjected to absolutely shameful political exploitation by Australian politicians, including the LNP and the Gs. The Gs are beneficiaries of the conspicuous depravities and cruelties we have witnessed on Manus and Nauru. The Gs are co-authors of this. They chose it for no other reason than it enabled them to campaign against Labor.

    I for one will never forget the absolutely shameless anti-Labor conniving and hypocrisy of the Sanctimonious Party. You’ll have to go a very long way before you might find a Labor member who thinks much differently. The Gs have entirely discredited themselves as far as Labor are concerned. They are just totally untrustworthy.

  18. tom the best

    rubbish – greens crossed floor to vote with liberals against a carbon measure that would have laid foundations for stable govt and carbon action …. they directly empowered liberals esp anti carbon libs who have bedevilled australian politics since

    green are no babes in the woods

    then they forced a tax on gillard – not a ets – heaven’s knows why

    but hey it’s always labor’s fault in they are in unison with liberals

  19. there’s adam bandt today slagging off at labor on climate – along with libs – sanctimoniousness from both sides – i hope labor makes both of them redundant

  20. The Gs play politics by Tony Abbott guidebook, which calls for Labor’s competitors to oppose, oppose, oppose. They choose opposition for its own sake. Abbott was reflexively hostile and rejectionist. The Gs exhibit the same intransigence…and do so for reasons of political tactics. Labor faces obstruction everywhere and at all times. We can see now that this awaits Labor even in victory.

  21. https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/30/bludgertrack-52-9-47-1-labor-2/comment-page-32/#comment-3115190

    The Greens have done and do do deals with the ALP to get measures through they both support. The Senate would not work if such deal did not happen and Gillard would have been unable to Govern in 2010 without the deal struck with the Greens.

    The Greens Opposed the return to Malaysia mainly because it contradicted their policy and was too anti-refugee for them to contemplate. It was on principal. Convincing the ALP of the need for a policy position does not automatically convince the Greens as they are different people with different views on many issues, rather than people who have agreed to rubber stamp anything the ALP Caucus agrees to.

    The ALP can trust the Greens when they come to an agreement. What the ALP cannot do is expect the unquestioning support of the Greens, even when then do not negotiate with them. I accept there is significant dislike of the Greens within the ALP membership, which is entirely to be expected given that they are two different and competing political parties, however this does not make the Greens illegitimate.

  22. https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/30/bludgertrack-52-9-47-1-labor-2/comment-page-32/#comment-3115191

    As pointed out by this comment, crossing the floor is voting against can only be against your own party: https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/30/bludgertrack-52-9-47-1-labor-2/comment-page-32/#comment-3115200

    That makes you comment a perfect example of what I complained about earlier, people on this blog treating the Greens as though they should behave as members of the ALP Caucus.

    The Greens came to an agreement with Gillard with a price on carbon, because Australia needs a price on carbon, both wanted something done to reduce carbon pollution, the Greens were in a good position to negotiate and the ALP (unlike in 2009) negotiated with them.

    The Greens Oppose the Coalition more than the ALP does, this is matter of parliamentary voting record.

  23. The Gs hierarchy would do well to listen to what Scummo is presently firing at PHON. Labor could also go down that path with Gs.
    Many who vote Green support their position on one or two major issues. If the ALP highlights the difference between its policies and the LNP on those issues, those voters (about 75%) could move to Labor.
    It is great to care about the environment, refugees etc, but support for an elected group that spend its whole time undermining and blocking the only party that will implement these wishes should end badly. If you cant run your own troops, your not much use when there is a direct alternative available that can get the job done.

  24. Interesting discussion and the two issues that made me stop voting Green in the Senate have been raised.

    Malaysia “Solution” they scuppered. Bad decision that led to Manus Island / Nauru. Not an intentional consequence on the Greens part but they have to own their role in that.

    Rudds CPRS they scuppered. Started a chain of consequences that made Abbott relevant led directly to him becoming LOTO and then PM.

    And they dont seem to have learned anything. 🙁

  25. “telegraphing strong opposition to heavy polluters using international permits to meet their emissions reduction targets.”

    So, the Greens object to participating in an international solution to a global problem??

    Will they oppose OS companies investing in efficient abatement projects in Australia as well??

    FFS difficult to believe they are stupid enough to come out with this. 🙁

  26. https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/03/30/bludgertrack-52-9-47-1-labor-2/comment-page-32/#comment-3115207

    One Nation are a party who have lots of really nasty bigoted policies and have just been caught having tried to get large donations from the National Rifle Association of the USA (noted pro-gun extremists famous for making gun control very hard in the USA), with this revelation coming just after a shooting by someone with (all be it rather more extreme) bigotry against Muslims, with One Nation having a history of bigotry against Muslims.

    The Greens are in not such position and have a far more stable vote than One Nation, far better insulating it from attacks by the ALP. Most Greens voters will not be convinced out of voting for the Greens by the ALP pointing out it is not as bad as the Coalition, the Greens` voters want better than that.

  27. Tom,

    As 3z said, the Greens are a minor Party which gives them the opportunity to negotiate with the Government on any legislation.

    But even with the Greens on board the numbers won’t exist to pass the Senate, others will be needed.

    So a balancing act is required, if Labor make too many concessions to the Greens, they may come to a position that others are unable to accept, killing the legislation.

    The Greens are in no position to determine Government policy and if a piece of legislation moves things towards the Greens position, I fail to see how they can not support it.

    If they continue to wait for their version of perfect, then progress will continue to be nonexistent. 🙂

  28. C@tmomma @ #1418 Monday, April 1st, 2019 – 7:37 pm

    booleanbach @ #1413 Monday, April 1st, 2019 – 7:29 pm

    Damn, Barnaby and his cronies in the Nats will not be happy:
    “The rapidly dropping cost of renewable energy has upended energy economics in recent years, with new solar and wind plants now significantly cheaper than coal power.
    But new research shows another major change is afoot: The cost of batteries has been declining so unexpectedly rapidly that renewables plus battery storage are now cheaper than even natural gas plants in many applications, according to a report released this week by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).”

    https://thinkprogress.org/renewable-energy-coal-natural-gas-a3828fd843cb/

    P1 won’t be happy either. 😆

    Sorry, but any article that refers to something as nonsensical as “dispatchable peak power” is clearly written by someone who has little clue 🙁

    The fact that in some cases new wind is cheaper than fossil fuels is not really news – this has been true in specific instances for some while. The interesting bit of the original Bloomberg report – which for some reason never seems to get a mention – is that despite the drop in price, renewables are not by themselves going to be sufficient allow us to keep global warming under 2 degrees.

    Doing that will rely on us actively forcing the closure of coal plants, and in many cases replacing them with gas plants – with up to four times as much capacity as we currently have. Greens don’t seem to like that bit – it doesn’t fit with their “purer than pure” ideology.

  29. C@t

    I’ve no desire to defend Rex, and whatever comment lead to your response. But steel production uses metallurgical coal(and not thermal), an extra high carbon grade.

    Steel contains a small amount of alloyed carbon, and carbon is the reducing agent used industrially to make iron from its oxide(releasing lots of CO2). But other reducing agents are also feasible. Hydrogen (another chemical reducing agent)seems the way of the future for me, but it remains for someone to turn a lab procedure into a scaled industrial process. It’s the sort of thing the CSIRO should be investing research into, given Australia’s iron ore and renewable energy resources.

Leave a Reply

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