The Courier-Mail has results from a Queensland-only YouGov Galaxy poll of 848 respondents, conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, which shows the Coalition with a lead in the state of 51-49. This represents a 3% swing to Labor off the 2016 election result, but is an improvement for the Coalition from the 50-50 result at the last such poll in February. On the primary vote, the Coalition are up three to 38%, Labor is down one to 33%, the Greens and One Nation are both up a point to 9%, and the United Australia Party is on an anaemic 4%.
Also featured are gender breakdowns that have excited the Courier-Mail, but to my eye look rather implausible in having the Coalition primary vote six points higher among women than men. Among men, the result is 50-50, from primary votes of Coalition 35%, Labor 32%, Greens 10%, One Nation 9% and United Australia Party 6%; among women, the Coalition leads 52-48, from primary votes of Coalition 41%, Labor 34%, Greens 8%, One Nation 8% and United Australia Party 4%.
Latest calling of the horse race:
• In her column in today’s Weekend AFR, Laura Tingle says there has been “the sound of something snapping in the federal election this week”. Apparently drawing on Liberal sources in New South Wales, Tingle relates a feeling that “Tony Abbott is gone in Warringah”; that Gilmore and Reid “seem lost”, that Lindsay is no longer looking quite so flash either; that Cowper and Farrer might go independent; and that “senior cabinet ministers are panicking and drawing in resources to protect their own seats”.
• However, no such snapping noise has reached the collective ear of News Corp, whose papers today offer a flurry of bullish assessments for the Coalition. According to Sharri Markson in the Daily Telegraph, the Liberals are likely to gain Wentworth, Lindsay, Indi and Herbert; Labor-held Dobell, Solomon, Cowan, Bass and Braddon are “in contention”; and Corangamite and Gilmore are, “at this point”, likely to stay with the Liberals. Only Chisholm and Dunkley are conceded, although there is some prospect of Labor winning La Trobe, Swan and Reid, and independents winning Cowper and Warringah. However, this appears to be entirely based on an assessment related to Markson by Scott Morrison, who might well be suspected of gilding the lily.
• Dennis Shanahan in The Australian also discerns “an almost Trumpian path, difficult and unacknowledged, for Morrison to be re-elected if everything falls his way”. Prospective Labor gains in Queensland “are slipping away and giving Morrison a chance of a net gain”; there is a “likelihood” Labor will lose Solomon; “senior Liberals believe they will hold and even add to the Coalition total” in Western Australia; there is “obviously a big chance for the Coalition to win back Bass and Braddon”, and Labor even fears ousted Liberal candidate Jessica Whelan could pull off a Pauline Hanson in Lyons; while in New South Wales, “expected Labor gains may not materialise” (though it is acknowledged independents may win Cowper and Farrer). That leaves Labor heavily reliant on a brace of gains in Victoria, of which only Chisholm and Dunkley are bolted down, and where they are threatened in Macnamara by the Liberals as well as the Greens.
• The Australian also reports today that, contra Laura Tingle, “Tony Abbott’s prospects of surviving a challenge from independent candidate Zali Steggall appear to have improved, according to internal Liberal Party polling that shows him level at 50-50”.
• In the commentary accompanying the YouGov Galaxy poll, Renee Veillaris of the Courier-Mail reports that “LNP insiders believe they may lose just one seat – Flynn – but pick up Herbert”; that Labor is “retreating from key Queensland marginal seats that they believed they could win just weeks ago” (although Bill Shorten did visit Leichhardt yesterday and Petrie the day before, and Scott Morrison was in Capricornia yesterday); and that incumbency effects are likely to cancel out the advantage to Labor recorded by the poll.
• The last of these viewpoints, at least, is not restricted to News Corp, with Amy Remeikis of The Guardian assessing that Queensland is “looking like a zero-sum game for both major parties”. Labor-held Herbert and Liberal-held Leichhardt are rated as even money, and while Flynn and Brisbane are acknowledged as further possibilities for Labor, the Liberals are thought to have their nose in front in Petrie.
Further reading for today is, as ever, provided by the Seat du jour post below this one, relating to the key Queensland seat of Herbert.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/hypocritical-alp-must-back-our-tax-package-says-scott-morrison/news-story/216e9feeec2af50f02507e2388c6fbce
The barbarians will of course acknowledge that Labor has a mandate to pass their tax legislation. Yeah right.
pica says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:17 am
This may have already been posted, but the ABC is saying Abbott is gone in Warringah. Any thoughts on this in PB land? TIA.
Is that from Laura Tingle’s article? I reckon this article is by a credible journalist with credible sources and is actually how Lib insiders see the campaign (not necessarily close to Morrison though which is probably why they have leaked).
Confessions @ 11.13am
Try the links here: https://github.com/nextgens/anti-paywall
Having said that, these things are a moving feast. I’ve had it in place for quite some time now and it still works, but the paywalls, of course, are always looking for ways to fight back.
‘Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
I just like the way it sounds.
pica
“This may have already been posted, but the ABC is saying Abbott is gone in Warringah. Any thoughts on this in PB land? TIA.”
That was from an article in the AFR from Laura Tingle yesterday.
The actual status of Steggell vs Abbott is anyones guess ATM.
Terminator: “Anyway It’s crossed my mind what chance Steggall joining the Libs if the hard right lose their grip on the party in a post election “restructure”.”
Just about no chance at all, because I don’t think Steggall is at all inclined towards the Liberal Party. Her personal politics seem to be not so much those of an alienated Liberal – in the Oliver Yates or Julia Banks mode – but more those of the old Australia Party and Australian Democrats: basically, she comes across as a moderate progressive from the leafy suburbs who is a bit too posh to want to associate with trade unions or Labor factions.
She’s a really good candidate, and has campaigned well against Abbott. But she would have been even more effective IMO if she had some sort of Liberal Party pedigree, as this would gain her more trust from the voters of what is one of the most economically conservative electorates in the country.
”
Henry says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 10:40 am
Zali is at 1.80 whilst jug head is out to 1.90 on Sportsbet, where I have an account.
Like the campaign in general which is ebbing towards labor, it seems to be breaking her way.
I essentially only want three things from this election,
1: a labor win.
2: Abbott to lose his seat.
3: Dutton to lose his seat.
”
Me too
Pica
If yard signs are anything to go by, some parts of Warringah around Manly are running at about 3 – 1 in favour of Zali over Abbott.
Doug Cameron has prescribed more Bex in his time in the Senate than a 1960s locum
Just Quietly @ #246 Saturday, May 11th, 2019 – 11:20 am
It also suits the Abbott camp to be perceived as the underdog.
Interesting poll from Queensland.
Newspoll over the last few months at least ( and perhaps further back ) has on a regular basis shown in its breakdowns women have been more likely to vote for labor than men. Not by a small margin but by 3 to 4 percentage points. The latest Ipsos poll also reflects this.
I am therefore perplexed as to why this latest poll has it all arse about. It does not seem to reflect the stable trend of other polls which show women are more likely to vote labor than men. I would not think Queensland would be any different.
Perhaps I am missing something.
”
Just Quietly says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:10 am
Or the betting agencies are in cahoots with the pollsters.
”
How are betting odds decided? Correct me if I am wrong.
Once people starting placing money on one particular entity over another, The odds of that first entity of winning will increase. Hence, the returns on the one that is winning will be less.
Brian Dawes podcasts are very funny. He interviews Sir Murray Rivers. Highly recommended.
https://riversqc.podbean.com/
RE ZALI……When you see how the Parliamentary Liberal Party treats women (ask JBishop or Banks for starters)…why would any woman voluntarily sign up for that?
And after the election they will be an angrier, more male, right-wing rump. That’s no place for a lady.
”
doyley says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:27 am
Interesting poll from Queensland.
Newspoll over the last few months at least ( and perhaps further back ) has on a regular basis shown in its breakdowns women have been more likely to vote for labor than men. Not by a small margin but by 3 to 4 percentage points. The latest Ipsos poll also reflects this.
I am therefore perplexed as to why this latest poll has it all arse about. It does not seem to reflect the stable trend of other polls which show women are more likely to vote labor than men. I would not think Queensland would be any different.
Perhaps I am missing something.
”
No. You are not missing anything. There could be error in polling sample of women. If this polling is trying to tell that women have changed their mind in last 1 week. What is reason. Most of the policies that ALP has released are women friendly. Don’t they wan’t that?
Confessions @ #238 Saturday, May 11th, 2019 – 11:13 am
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox
Thanks Pedant but it looks like it’s been removed.
ven
“Or the betting agencies are in cahoots with the pollsters.”
that was my comment.
I laid some bets directly after some marginal seat polls some years back and did very well.
the comment was a bit tongue in cheek though.
Morrison on the campaign trail today!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1126964222863204353
”
Dennis Shanahan in The Australian also discerns “an almost Trumpian path, difficult and unacknowledged, for Morrison to be re-elected if everything falls his way”.
”
Dennis Shanahan said he was born into a poor family. He has a weird way of helping poor people with is so called analysis. Either that or he is greedy, he does not care about poor people & what ever he writes is absolute crap and nonsense
Ven says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:07 am
”
Yor prediction is incorrect because you are considering one side of equation i.e. LNP PV 38%. You are not considering ALP PV between 33-36%
——————-
No
1-Libs/nats are the current caretaker and can not afford to lose seats , which they will on a lower primary vote from the previous election
2- Labor primary vote has increased slightly and will gain seats from the libs/nats loses
The ALP has some good policies – no doubt about it – but their promise to preside over “bigger and better” surpluses is completely unnecessary, it is not an indicator of good economic policy making, and it almost certainly won’t come true because the external sector of Australia’s macroeconomy typically runs surpluses, and the domestic private sector typically runs surpluses. So by definition, the federal government’s fiscal balance is nearly always a deficit (which is NOT a problem because the federal government cannot go insolvent in its own currency). Chris Bowen is setting up the ALP for intense political pain in the next few years. Everything they do will be haunted by this stupid and unnecessary promise that Chris Bowen has voluntarily made a very big deal out of. As far as political own goals go, this one is so bad that it paves the way for the LNP to be back in government in only 3 or 6 years. The LNP deserve a much bigger spell in Opposition than that.
Confessions says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:33 am
If it’s the one I used to use, it died for me a long time ago! 🙁
”
Gareth says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 10:56 am
I’m sure I’m getting more nervous about these things as I get older.
”
Nervousness is one of the characteristics which is added to human beings as they get older
Briefly might be reacting to local conditions in Pearce. A multitude of right-wing parties here. Reps of those parties actively helping Libs on pre-poll. It can get oppressive 🙂
However, it’s been break-even at our small pre-poll station over the past week.
Libs have gone massively overboard today with entirely negative signage. I’d say their internals have Porter in trouble.
“As you and I have discussed on here before, a cap – plus grandfathering (ie, limiting the credit to existing shareholdings at the date on which the measure comes into effect) – would seem to be an approach that could be sold to some cross bench Senators, eg: the Centre Alliance.
I think trying to put any limits based on the value of total shareholdings would be administratively tricky. It’s easier just to put a limit on the amount of credit payable per annum claimed which would apply to all shareholdings of whatever size. A limit of $5,000 seems reasonable. It’s preferable to an approach based on whether or not someone is a part-pensioner, which will create a very large effective marginal tax rate for someone whose income is just beyond the upper limit to receive part pension.”
Meher: I agree with a limited grandfathering, but I don’t want to see a greedy gronk with a $1 million plus SMFS getting government welfare in the form of any franking credit cashbacks. In fact I don’t reckon that any grandfathering should be extended to SMFS’s with anything in excess of $100,000 but would be happy if labor compromised at $500,000 and dam the ‘administrative difficulties’.
The current system is one of the most egregious examples of wealth redistribution upwards that you could find. It has to end. ASAP. I say that as someone that operates a SMFS with about $300K in shares, which should equate to a portfolio worth about $1.5 million when I retire if I keep up my maximum concessional contributions and the wealth of my fund tracks in line with the long term growth of the share market.
So what PvO’s narrative is really about is hoping there is a narrow win and declaring Shorten ‘damaged’, ‘illegitimate’ and generally doing to Shorten what was done to Gillard. It is effectively how to be a sore loser before you’ve even lost. Pathetic. It is also from the narrow authoritarian ‘we need strong govts not checked or balanced by either house of parliament’ school of ‘thought’.
Very much at home in the fox / sky / news sewer of propaganda that published it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-11/reserve-bank-and-the-political-rhetoric-of-the-strong-economy/11102998
In case you missed it.
(From a quick scan of his recent articles Stephen Long isn’t much of a fan of the coalition.)
Part of the problem for Mr Abbott is that I suspect a lot of voters in Warringah may have come to realise that if there’s a change of government and they lose their franking credits, they will have Mr Abbott and his disruption to thank for that as much as anyone. Even hard core Liberals could well take the view that he’s destructive to their economic interests.
”
Scott says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:13 am
The myth that Shorten is unpopular and a drag on Labor gaining seats
The pro coalition media and newsltd/corp hacks, and libs/nats tried a presidential campaign in 2016 federal election
Turnbull vs Shorten
Libs/nats lost 14 seats in HOR , Lost 2 seats in the senate
Labor gain 14 seats in HOR , Labor gain 1 seat in the senate
——
The pro coalition media and newsltd/corp hacks, and libs/nats tried a presidential campaign in the 2018 by-elections
Turnbull vs Shorten
Labor retain 5 seats
Libs/nats failed to regain Mayo
—————————————
The pro coalition media and newsltd/corp hacks, and libs/nats still trying a presidential campaign in 2019 federal election
Morrison vs Shorten
”
You can write all you want. As long as you do not explain how ALP can win from 33-36% PV you are not analysing properly
Penny Wong in CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/10/australia/australia-penny-wong-intl/index.html
PvO is a lightweight (Liberal Party author and academic that thinks Nazism is socialism) – his predictions are worthless.
Barney in Saigon
says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:12 am
nath says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:04 am
ltep
says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 10:59 am
nath – I think you’d find internal squabbles in the Greens aren’t quite as sweet and cuddly as you’d hope for. Unfortunately parties big and small bring out bad behaviour.
__________________________
Probably why I’ve never gotten into politics. I’ve always detested ‘gangs’. My group verses another group mentality. My stupid friend over a talented person in another group. It’s just the worst.
Are you coming out as a libertarian?
_______________________________
left-libertarianism has a few things going for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
The ALP has some good policies – no doubt about it – but their promise to preside over “bigger and better” surpluses is completely unnecessary,
_____
Nicholas
“More sustainable surpluses” would have been better.
Doyley
I note the MOE for that poll is 3%.
No, you are not missing anything from that poll, there is something wrong with it, and most are picking up on that.
The reference to the female voting intentions is deliberate and meant to feed into tomorrow’s Liberal Launch where Morrison will have his wife and mother front and centre to his pitch to women.
More to the point read the accompanying article with the poll, it is nothing short of laughable, given the circumstances. Women are NOW Morrison’s secret weapon in this election.
Typical Murdoch rubbish.
For that matter so is today’s Australian, with the usual suspect journos being so over the top it’s not funny.
I reckon tonight’s Newspoll will show no change.
“Sohar says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:45 am
PvO is a lightweight (Liberal Party author and academic that thinks Nazism is socialism) – his predictions are worthless.”
PvO pops up around the place as a TV political commentator and as a political writer. He writes for Murdoch but also appears on the Ch 10 news.
He cannot have much time to also be a professor or lecturer.
Ven, maybe you’re right but plenty of us are willing to work to deliver that win. We’ll see.
Citizen,
PvO = former academic?
Nicholas says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:39 am
Whether your analysis is correct or not, the reason for the surplus is largely a political one.
The perception in the general population, and a large part of the MSM, is that a surplus is a good thing and it is a sign of good economic management.
Until that meme changes, advocate something different, you will be met with resistance and opposition.
Political reality. 🙂
yabba
Sir Murray looks the very model of a Liberal……modern or otherwise.
Don’t you find the central theme of this Yougov-Galaxy poll weird i.e. More men want to vote for ALP than women? Only in 2004 federal election more women voted for LNP than ALP. Even in 2013 federal it is 50-50. Otherwise, more women consistently voted for ALP than LNP.
The no cash out is a no brainer, like the CGT discount of Howard / Costello it was insanely bad policy that should be binned.
Personally I think SMSF’s should be banned, they are a con. Franking credits should go entirely, if you are a shareholder you ARE NOT THE COMPANY and there is no logical reason, there is no equity reason, the is no legal reason, there is just no reason for giving a shareholder a refund of a different legal entities tax.
Well ok there is one reason, to reward people for being rich, to make the rich richer, so essentially it is core flood up – trickle down* theology# (*the trickle down may not happen, #based on faith without evidence it is good for society).
The value of the investment incentive should be replaced with a targeted superannuation support scheme, which would be orders of magnitude better value for taxpayers buck.
There should just be a cap on superannuation, a calculation of the annual income (a fixed multiple of the pension to put upward pressure on the pension) to super annuitant based on exhausting the entire capital by age 95, with tax payable on amounts of income in excess of the cap, and tax payable on excess capital held in the account. From age 95 lets just pay everyone that multiple of the pension.
In the event a person passes with an amount of capital in a superfund, there should be a strict requirement that capital goes straight into a superfund, or it is taxed (a calculation to estimate the difference between the concessional tax of super into and in the super account and the tax that would have been paid at PAYG rates over the accumulation period, ie make it as if it was normal money when it is used as normal money). This rule could apply to cashouts more generally, as this is an example often used to justify keeping massive tax concessions for the super and ultra wealthy, eg the old ‘if you tax it they’ll cash it out for a world holiday and then claim the pension), ie with a few exceptions, such as paying off the family home (bringing the family home into the assets test in a sensible way that doesn’t encourage massive over investment in the family home would be wise also).
Finally there is a big issue with couples, on every level couples should be taxed payg, and every other way as a single unit, have super as a single unit, so long as the couple remains together.
Ven says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:43 am
You can write all you want. As long as you do not explain how ALP can win from 33-36% PV you are not analysing properly
———————————
Labor is not the government , how can Labor win the election with 33-36 % , if the opinion polls are accurate with the Libs/nats combined primary vote is 38% and below 40% this federal election may prove to you , Labor likely to win with a majority
History of the libs/nats in office , shows they rarely can retained office with a primary vote under 40%
1998 the Howard government did retain office with a primary vote of 39% , the reason was the howard government had a large majority of seats , which could afford a swing against the libs/nats
———————————————
coming into the 2019 federal election , the libs/nats are in a minority and can not retain government with any swing against it
Phelps looks like a 6 month wonder.She is out to $6.50 in Wentworth.
”
sonar says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:19 am
(While I believe everyone has the right to vote the way they wish, if the Libs are returned, I would seriously question the sanity of my fellow citizens.)
”
Yes, you certainly can
Labor can win with a 34-36% primary. Not easily but knowing that the Libs aren’t getting back 100% of their lost primary makes that task easier.
33% ain’t happening – I HIGHLY doubt the ALP primary is under 35%
While Scott is being a little simplistic in his approach – the core thesis is true. Unless the combined LNP primary is 40-42%+ their job is really difficult.
”
mundo says:
Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:21 am
‘Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
Paul Kelly says:
“Labor is ready to govern”
I just like the way it sounds.
”
It was ready to govern immediately after MT gave his victory speech for 2016 federal election. It is just a pity you did not believe it.
palaly @ #274 Saturday, May 11th, 2019 – 11:43 am
Thanks for the link. As you’d expect it’s an overview for a US audience. But I liked this bit at the end referring to Wong pointing out that Australia’s foreign policy will speak with an Australian accent.
I know there is a lot of love for her, I agree that a liberal lite that believes in science, is much better than one that doesn’t, but at a political level she was diabolically bad and actually helped to keep the Overton window to the far right (by defining these very right wing candidates as ‘centre independents’ when on all measures they are a long long way from the centre). On climate change and their wonderful credentials, ie actually believing in science (can you imagine a lower bar), any ‘green new deal’ they approve is going to be thoroughly in the the flood up – trickle down space. I can see Govt’s compensating shareholders while abandoning workers affected by the changes to help mitigate climate change. So six months is more than she deserves.
Yes, I love the nonsense that (for certain tax refunds) YOU ARE THE COMPANY, so if a company goes bankrupt, are you still the company? Are you responsible for the company debts?