The second Newspoll conducted under the new regime of online polls conducted by YouGov records the Coalition with a 52-48 lead, out from 51-49 a fortnight ago. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up a point to 42%, Labor is steady on 33%, the Greens are down one to 11% and One Nation is steady on 5%. Both leaders’ personal ratings are improved after weak results last time, with Scott Morrison up two on approval to 45% and down four on disapproval to 48%, and Anthony Albanese up two to 40% and down four to 41%. Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister is out from 46-35 to 48-34.
Respondents were also asked to rate the leaders according to nine attributes, eight positive and one negative. Morrison scored higher than Albanese for the experience (68-64), decisiveness and strength (60-51) and having a vision for Australia (60-54), while Albanese had the edge on caring for people (60-55). There was essentially nothing to separate them on understanding the major issues (57-56 to Albanese), likeability (56-56), being in touch with voters (50-49 to Albanese) and trustworthiness (49-48). However, Morrison’s worst result was his 58-40 lead on the one negative quality that was gauged – arrogance.
The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1503. The Australian’s paywalled report of the results is here.
In other poll news, a uComms poll (apparently minus the ReachTEL branding now) for the Courier-Mail ($) suggests Queensland’s embattled Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, is in grave danger of losing her seat of South Brisbane to the Greens. The poll shows the Greens on 29.4%, Labor on 27.5% and the Liberal National Party on 26.6%, with 10.4% undecided. Labor is credited with a 52-48 lead on respondent-allocated preferences, but this may flatter Labor given the LNP’s announcement that they would direct preferences against them. No field work date is provided that I can see, but the sample size was 700. The deficiencies of automated phone polls in inner city seats were noted by Kevin Bonham, among others.
UPDATE: In better poll news still, the results from the post-election Australian Election Study survey are available in all their glory, courtesy of the Australian National University. You can view the ANU’s overview of the findings here, but the real fun of this resource is that it allows you to cross-tabulate responses to 3143-respondent survey across a dizzying range of variables. The survey also includes demographic weightings that presume to correct for the biases introduced by the survey process. The survey also addresses a long-standing criticism by including a component of 968 respondents who also completed the 2016 survey, allowing for study of the changing behaviour of the same set of respondents over time.
Rest assured you will be hearing a great deal more about the survey going forward, but for the time being, here’s one set of numbers I have crunched for starters. This shows the primary vote broken down into three age cohorts, and compares them with the equivalent figures from the 2016 survey. This produces some eye-catching results, particularly in regard to a probably excessive surge in support for the Coalition among the middle-aged cohort – mostly at the expense of “others”. By contrast, the young cohort swung heavily to the left, while the boomers were relatively static.
Boerwar @ #295 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 2:01 pm
Today you had Albo confirming that Labor would continue to support coal. This is the new “blithe” policy, apparently.
In other words, Labor have learned nothing from their last election loss, and are in fact doubling down on their failure.
Given that Labor have not shifted a millimeter, why would that part of the electorate that wants action on climate change give Labor their vote?
Labor are clearly worried that those people who are concerned with the issue are sending their votes to the Greens, and not to Labor. And in significant numbers. And they are probably right to be worried. The next election that they might have a chance of winning could be 5+ years away, and the demographic trends are emphatically not in their favour.
lizzie @ #297 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 2:05 pm
She is 100% correct that Labor is already well on their way to losing the next election. But they have no-one to blame but themselves. By supporting coal, Labor has given their opponents all the ammunition they need.
Watching Labor these days is a bit like watching the Hindenberg approaching the landing tower 🙁
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/09/climate-change-concern-helped-labor-at-2019-election-but-coalition-won-on-economy-survey
For those that missed it.
ALL Labor has to do is convince voters there is economic life without coal.
Plan for transition for when existing mines close not opening new ones.
You have treaty obligations Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard signed Labor up to.
guytaur says:
Monday, December 9, 2019 at 10:20 am
Not Sure
…”Not all comments using Nazi analogies are the Godwin’s Law immediate discredit”…
For his crimes against rational and thoughtful debate, Mr Godwin should be forced to read all of the daily musings of the person known as Guytaur.
Which would be loosely equivalent to a 21st century version of the gas chamber.
guytaur,
But that would mean having a policy position and then arguing the case.
I trust that COP 25 clarifies that it is emissions equivalent at the point of consumption that matters. This sheets home accountability.
Otherwise we will have the endless circular inanity of gaggles of economists arguing futilely about supply side and demand side policies.
That way lies madness in which, for example, the Inner Urbs consumers sit back, enjoy their consuming regardless of the emissions consequences*, and point the finger at everyone else. It would sheet home the answer to the central question: ‘Who pays?’
*They do not like having it pointed out to them that their entire habitat (housing, services provision, roading, vehicles, clothing, food miles, etc, etc, etc) is emissions rich.
They also hate having it pointed out that they have largely destroyed their biodiversity.
They also hate having it pointed out to them that they provide no ecosystem services.
They also hate having it pointed out to them that they get nutrients and clean air and clean water from elsewhere, and that they produce dirty air, dirty water, garbage and shit in return.
Even in as little as a few months perception changes are coming without the natural disaster impact. Add that in and it’s crystal clear Labor is backing the wrong side of history
https://www.racv.com.au/royalauto/moving/news-information/electric-vehicle-strategies.html
Change is coming. Labor can get onboard or fight it. The LNP has chosen to fight it. Labor is stupid for joining them on the Titanic.
Edit: Thats also assuming Trump wins the US election along with Johnson.
Di Natale and the Nader Gambit.
Bush for Gore.
Johnson for Corbyn.
Morrison for Shorten.
Again, and again, and again.
Greens heads meet brick wall.
Not Sure
Nice try
“Watching Labor these days is a bit like watching the Hindenberg approaching the landing tower”
***
Or like watching a car crash in slow motion…
Boerwar there is a big difference between US, UK and Aus. We have preferential voting.
It means that the Monster raving looney party doesn’t get it’s vote split by the loonier faction. The vote is passed down the chain in full…
guytaur:
[‘ALL Labor has to do is convince voters there is economic life without coal.’]
How do you think that would go down in regional Queensland, where Labor was trounced in May?
Remember
Don’t take my word for it. Bob Carr and Peter Garrett are also saying Labor is on the wrong side of history in choosing coal over the future.
mundo says:
An observation I’ve made in the past.
It’s why so many here were completly blindsided by the May Scrottslide.
————————————–
This site has always been dominated by a lend towards the left and an older age group but it has a good record of picking election results but it wasn’t alone in getting the May result wrong with even Liberals inside and outside the party thinking they were gone and many business leaders, Investors and other corporates were expecting an ALP win because of the Victorian state election result and the polls all pointed to a swing against the Liberals in their heartland which did occur but not as strongly as expected.
Watching Labor is nothing like the Hindenberg, or a slow-motion car crash.
It’s like watching someone who was once young and idealistic with fire in the belly and visions fizzing in the brain, now becoming old and sensible.
Mavis
I think it would go down well. There they would be more concerned about their future than existing coal jobs.
Just plan for one. You know the climate concern is real. Just give them an economic future after coal.
That’s not calling for shutting existing coal down as the LNP has been lying about.
Tell the workers. After your jobs go we have plans to help you. It’s happening one way or the other. With Labor it’s a safe landing. With the LNP you aren’t for hardship and being poor.
Edit: point to the LNP destroying the car industry as proof
‘Alpha Zero says:
Monday, December 9, 2019 at 2:32 pm
Boerwar there is a big difference between US, UK and Aus. We have preferential voting.’
The similarities are more striking, though.
The Greens gave us Bush instead of Gore. They are taking 3% out of the UK voting system. That 3% would probably make the difference between, at the very, very least, a Johnson majority and a Johnson minority government. And in Australia the Greens spent MOST of their political energy Killing Bill rather than Murdering Morrison. So they helped get us Morrison.
In all three cases, in chasing the perfect the Greens sacrifice the good and help deliver merde.
The other huge similarity is that in all three cases the Greens are in total denial about the real-world consequences of their political actions.
P1
I think you are over-reacting. You’ve picked out only one sentence of Emma’s.
A volcano has erupted on New Zealand’s White Island. One hundred people are unaccounted for.
Player One, Guytaur and others – Labor lost the election primarily on the back of big swings against them in several regional seats, without compensating swings where needed elsewhere. Much of the defeat had nothing to do with coal or Adani (Shorten’s underlying unpopularity coupled with a complicated policy agenda probably loomed larger), but Labor’s conflicted position on Adani possibly hurt it in seats like Capricornia, Dawson, Herbert & Hunter.
There is clearly a battle for hearts and minds going on inside the the ALP at the moment, between those who believe that climate change action needs to remain front and centre of Labor policy deliberations, and those who think that the politics of it is too hard. The former group appear to be gaining ascendancy, but Albanese will need to toss the latter a few bones to keep them onside. Keeping this is mind, Albanese’s comments this week (about the importance of global agreements around climate change, while at the same time acknowledging that coal will continue to be a significant export) makes some sense political sense.
The politics of climate change are volatile and hard to handle – it’s been a significant factor in the end of several Prime Ministers and Opposition Leaders over the last decade – but it is also fluid. This summer’s fires may yet prove to be a major turning point, though of course we won’t know that for a while yet.
I note that you and other posters are busily writing off Labor’s chances for 2021-22, but frankly I think that’s a bit silly. The terms that the next election will be fought on are not yet settled (there could well be a recession between now and then, for example, or we could see another series of climate disasters that put up in lights the rank inaction of the Morrison government on climate change), and so sensible commentators should wait and see how that plays out before making predictions.
I get that you are disappointed by Labor’s rhetoric (and that’s all it is at the moment) on climate change, but in the end, there’s only one other party in any position for form government after the next election, and that’s the ALP. Part of the problem in May was that Labor’s fellow travellers banked in a Labor win ahead of the fact, and so spent more time trying to influence the policy of the future Labor government, rather than trying to actually make sure one was elected. If you want to see any progress on climate change issues, it’s going to a Labor government that carries it out.
Here is what looking at the Greens is like. Except that they finally did make helicopters get of the ground to do useful things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPF9OP7Jync
Jackol @ #301 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 2:12 pm
Yes, you did. And I apologized. But this is not what I said today. I said that the Four Musketeers oppose effective action. The UN report points out that demand-side policies have proven ineffective in addressing global warming, and you now apparently oppose supply-side policies, which might be effective.
If you feel this is misrepresenting you, you are free to clarify your position on supply-side policies.
For those of you on this site who put the boot into the Greens on behalf of Labor, John Quiggin (johnquiggin.com) has some thoughtful comments to make about the ALP’s current position regarding the bushfires and climate change. Juxtaposed with Quiggin’s comments is Anthony Albanese’s latest defence of thermal coal exports.
Perhaps Albanese is hedging against the rise of Joel Fitzgibbon and Terri Butler, but it looks as though rather than building towards the next election with a strong set of policies for combating global warming, the Labor Party of the 2020s will be one that will be distancing itself from the “great moral challenge of our (your) generation”, presumably, in the hope of winning a handful of “coal” seats in regional Queensland; seats that are now well-and-truly in the LNP camp.
Hugo
It may have escaped your notice. South Western Sydneysiders are experiencing the direct effects of climate change. Many have had to buy air purifiers.
I am sure Regional people are concerned too.
Look at the survey. Labor won on climate concerns and lost on economic ones.
All Labor has to do is convince voters that both are possible. It cannot do this when it accepts the LNP argument that planning transition is shutting down existing coal mines and exports.
By the time of the next election Adani and coal will be anchor dragging across the ocean floor of Labor’s out of control voter appeal.
Vic says:
Monday, December 9, 2019 at 11:00 am
If people haven’t realised, Australia is a conservative country. Thanks to Reagan, Thatcher & Keating, people have embraced deregulation & the significantly rising wealth inequality (that can be starkly demonstrated graphically).
Labor has over time become more like the LNP than vice versa.
Anthropogenic global warming won’t be dealt with – we don’t live long enough to concern ourselves with the consequences
——————————–
The argument about the role of the state stretches all the way back to the colonial governments and goes in cycles with NSW long being home to free traders and Victoria was protectionist with each other state having its own political traditions. Australian politics hasn’t changed much from the old protectionist v free trader days.
Hugoaugogo @ #321 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 2:42 pm
I appreciate your post, and I can agree with all of it. It just really irks me to see Labor making so many “rookie” mistakes. I also don’t think the divisions within Labor can be papered over in time for the next election. There are just too many vested interests that will seek to exploit these continued divisions. This is why they will lose once again unless they sort out their messaging. Which they cannot do until they sort out their policies. Which they cannot do until they sort out their factional differences 🙁
I have said before, and I will say again – Labor only wins when they are united. Currently, they are anything but.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-09/new-wa-epa-carbon-emissions-guidelines-released/11779738
Here we have the Greens National Conference doing some top secret policy work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw_C_sbfyx8
Then there’s a ‘crisis meeting’ and the new standards were shelved. Does anyone really believe that we can move forward on emissions?
John Quiggin not only jumped the shark, he jumped the shark the shark net.
I see from BK’s links an article on NSW Government threatening to pull out of the MDB Plan. The Feds, the Irrigation Council, the NFF, the South Australian Coalition Government and the Victorian Government are against NSW pulling out.
From P1’s favourite report:
Anyone who says:
… is misrepresenting the statement. The report says, in fact, that a proper suite of demand management policies could do the job, and in fact are the obvious way to do the job – but these policies have not materialized – not that they have proven ineffective. If the proper suite of demand management policies and actions did materialize, the implication is that no one would even be talking about supply-side action.
Such a misrepresenting con-artist would be conflating the efficacy of the policies (which the report thinks would be quite effective if implemented properly) with the efficacy of the politics (which the report doesn’t directly comment on of course, but the fact that the effective policies are not being implemented is necessarily a political question).
Another reminder about Queensland for all the usual suspects.
State Queensland almost lost the last state election by supporting Adani.
Labor cannot win by being against the environment the LNP have a very tight grip on that space.
Labor started out being with the Greens when they stopped the Franklin Dam.
Labor cannot win by being the LNP Lite Party. Too much history to convince the deniers.
guytaur:
[‘Mavis
I think it would go down well. There they would be more concerned about their future than existing coal jobs.’]
That’s probably the case for big population centres, but unlikely in regional Queensland, even though the number employed in mines is only around 20,000.* Albanese claims you can export coal and still have strong climate change policies. We’ll soon see how that pans out from polling.
* https://www.tai.org.au/content/facts-jobs-coal-and-queensland
lizzie @ #330 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 2:58 pm
No. I believe Labor are on the verge of simply giving up, and are just hoping the next election can be decided on other issues.
This will not happen, of course. Climate change will be pretty much the only issue that matters by the time the next election rolls around. If both major parties simply vacate the field, we are in for decades of political turmoil with the minors (and the miners!).
Boerwar
The NSW gov seems to have gone completely rogue on water, although I think they have been tending that way for some time.
Now there are warnings that the fires may well affect the quality of the Sydney drinking water.
Guytaur while I agree that this should happen – its actually a very hard thing to do.
I think ehat people here should be doing – both Labor and Green – is exploring the question of how. Instead of bitching.
‘lizzie says:
Monday, December 9, 2019 at 3:06 pm
Boerwar
The NSW gov seems to have gone completely rogue on water, although I think they have been tending that way for some time.
Now there are warnings that the fires may well affect the quality of the Sydney drinking water.’
Feral. Tick.
Sydney drinking water. Could well do.
Stuart
There are three positions to vote for.
1) Liberals: There is no problem.
2)Labor: There is a problem we have to reduce demand ASAP and take advantage of the green revolution, we are not going to refuse to export coal just so someone else can dig up theirs. We are not exporting jobs for a Green stunt.
3)Greens: There is a problem, we have to reduce demand and export job, if you vote for us we will force Labor to execute our Green stunt.
I will take no 2, thankyou.
The other side of the fence to watch is to how many dollars comes from the coal lobby to each party.
FredNK
No you are arguing the position of transition is impossible now. You will argue the same for the next unopened coal mine.
This is what happens when you’re denying that coal has a limited life span an hard decisions need to be made today for tomorrow.
No New Coal Mines just is not closing down existing coal and exports.
Try this. Labor will oppose expansion of the coal industry. In the meantime Labor will work to meet our treaty commitments. We will look after workers. We do see an economic future and not gloom and doom.
Jackol @ #333 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 3:02 pm
If you are now trying to argue that a nonexistent policy can be an effective policy, you are just being absurd. Me and the UN are in favour of both demand-side and supply-side policies. Here is another quote from the report:
Remind us again why it is that you support opening new coal mines and oppose supply-side policies?
Stuart @ #324 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 2:46 pm
Yeah, whatever Greens dude. 🙄
Conflating what Rudd thought, tried and failed to do with some sort of Labor Comedia Del Arte involving Joel Fitzgibbon and Terri Butler as the Evil Ones holding back the party from doing what is right and proper and noble and good, is some sort of risible, and just plain comedic.
And, boo hoo to you that ‘Labor just want to win a handful of Queensland coal seats.’ To which the answer to that is, yep, they sure do because those people are Australians too like you and they deserve to be respected. In fact, having actually talked to someone who represents those people on behalf of Queensland Labor, it has become obvious to me that, firstly, they aren’t the stupid oiks you condescend to with your characterisation of them as uncaring fools. Secondly, they are very well aware of the effects of Climate Change and really wanted to vote for Labor as the best compromise party. However, southerners blew through their part of the world acting all high and bleeding mighty, and because those southerners also told them what they were demanding Labor do ‘when’ they won the election, those fair-minded people, pretty much in the last week or so of the campaign decided to turn their backs on Labor and vote, not for the LNP, whose vote only went up marginally, but for the ‘Up Yours!’ parties, who then directed their preferences to the LNP.
So, also contrary to your other glib pronouncement that those voters are lost to Labor, they aren’t. They just want Labor to prove to them that they care about them, and their families, as well as Climate Change. Which is all Terri and Joel are doing.
A massive emergency operation is underway after a volcano eruption at New Zealand’s Whakaari/White Island.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said up 100 people were on or near the island at the time of the eruption and a number were “currently unaccounted for”.
It’s understood many of those on the island were tourists visiting on a cruise ship.
Emotional families of those affected — some with critical injuries — are currently gathering at Whakatane wharf, The New Zealand Herald reports. People covered in ash can be seen arriving for treatment after being transported from rescue helicopters.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2019/dec/09/new-zealand-volcano-tourists-injured-and-missing-after-eruption-on-white-island-live
Cat
First question.
Do you have a conflict of interest? Does anyone you know benefit from coal money?
I really want to know why Labor is arguing opposing future expansion is destroying existing jobs. I know why the LNP is doing it see Matt Canavan.
Why are you accepting the LNP rhetoric?
Finland is a different country:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/09/finland-anoints-sanna-martin-34-as-worlds-youngest-serving-prime-minister
There is still hope for competent, progressive government, even if not around here. It needs generational change. Finland has just elected their youngest ever PM, a 34 year old woman. Every leader of the five party governing coalition is female, 4 out of 5 are under 40.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/09/finland-anoints-sanna-martin-34-as-worlds-youngest-serving-prime-minister
Also Marin was raised in a single sex couple family. Seems she turned out OK. I would love for Scomo to meet her on a state visit, just to see his head explode.
No doubt a well educated public and strict media and political donation laws help a little in this outcome.
Let’s have a look at this “production gap”. It’s what P1’s favourite report is based on.
It doesn’t represent actual emissions – there’s another report for that that looks at what is actually happening, and best guesses as to what will happen in the future – ie the stuff that actually matters: how much fossil fuel will be burnt and turned into greenhouse gases to contribute to global warming.
The “production gap” doesn’t represent emissions – it represents the oversupply of fossil fuels for the emissions commitments made. Fair enough, that’s something that people should be aware of, and pay attention to, but does not in itself represent the problem.
A “production gap” in any other commodity, say peaches, or rice paper, or cotton, would simply become excess production that would result in increasing inventories.
The “production gap” only becomes an issue if you assume that the excess production will actually be burnt – and if it’s going to be burnt then it will appear in the emissions gap report. The authors have assumed the “production gap” is a problem and worked from there.
If the “production gap” is a problem, it is a problem only in the indirect sense that it probably indicates that governments are telling fibs and/or using bad stats in their own forecasting. It doesn’t alter the fundamentals of the market where fossil fuel usage – and coal, in particular, since this whole discussion has primarily focused on coal mining – is driven almost entirely by demand.
Since the “production gap” doesn’t represent the actual problem, “closing the production gap” is largely meaningless. Expending political capital on it is … duh duh duh … a distraction.
The primary focus has to be on ensuring that actual emissions are kept down, and the best tools we have to do that are demand-side. Changing/diluting the political focus to the supply side – to coal mines – is a distraction from the important stuff that needs to be done.
Read this:
https://theconversation.com/finally-your-electricity-bill-looks-set-to-fall-heres-how-much-you-could-save-128459
The universal positive foundations need to be laid – renewables save us all money.
Repeat.