The Age has published the bi-monthly Resolve Strategic poll of Victorian voting intention, which has both major parties down slightly on the primary vote: Labor by two points to 38% and the Coalition by one to 34%, with the Greens steady on 10%, independents up two to 11% and others up one to 7% (with due regard to the fact that the pollster’s questionnaire likely causes independent support to be overstated). How this converts to two-party preferred, for which the pollster offers no guide, depends heavily on how preferences from the latter two are allocated: around 55-45 in Labor’s favour if they are allocated 50-50, which is roughly in line with the 2018 result, to 53-47 if Labor’s share falls to 40%.
A preferred premier question finds Matthew Guy doing rather better on his return to the job than Michael O’Brien did in his last poll, with Daniel Andrews now leading 45-32, compared with 50-24 for O’Brien. The poll combines the results of the pollster’s last two monthly surveys, with a sample of 1105.
Please note that this thread is specific to the Victorian poll. The main thread continues here.
With a year till the next Election these are very solid polling numbers for Andrews and his Government. The Government created Budget space for a few spending initiatives next year which will enhance their popularity just as they come in to the Election. Guy has got his bounce in this poll. So, it’s all down hill from here given he is leading a divided and demoralised bunch with nothing to offer apart from shoutiness and rancour.
Further lockdowns might change the paradigm and the current IBAC inquiry may snare something. But, Andrews seems to be unworried atm.
Sure the media have been the only real Opposition. for Labor and that is likely to continue. But, given the polling, News and the Age seem to be failing in their effort to impact the voter psyche.
So, random events seem to be the only likely impediment to Andrews securing another term of Government.
Smuthurst and the Costello forces at 9 Entertainment will be dismayed
At the last State election, despite their polling instructing us that it was “neck and neck” on Election Day, Labor won in a landslide
Taking a raft of Liberal Party seats including Hawthorn and another blue ribbon seat being narrowly held against an 19 year old with a $1,500- budget
And the Liberal primary vote has fallen 1% since then
Despite an ongoing and concerted attack on Andrews (and Sutton) orchestrated by the Liberal Party and promoted across media by Murdoch, Stokes and Costello (so print, tv and radio, such is their ownership)
Plus, intimidated by funding concerns, the ABC is bought into line, accused of being “left wing” (whatever that is)
But wait
The drop in primary vote for the Coalition is because of the Nationals, not the Liberals
It is not us
It is never us
It is always someone else’s fault
So it is the Nationals who have driven voters away from the Liberals
The Liberals who have gone back to the Leader who led them to a landslide loss
A leader who occupied and occupies that position (and his Lower House seat) due to certain property developers who are Liberal Party heavies
And look at the Planning approvals when the Liberals were last in government – and who the beneficiaries were
Funny about that
But Smuthurst and the rest of media keep trying
As I have put before, being born and educated in SA, I have seen it all before with the media and Dunstan
Day after day after day
Dunstan retired in Office, handing over to Corcoran (and apart from the Establishment Liberals for one term here and there before imploding – which we see again now and the cross bench) – a Labor dynasty in SA
The days of the gerrymander of Playford are gone (so one third of seats only in Greater Adelaide)
Observer,
Hawthorn was won by Labor by John Kennedy who was in his late sixties.
19 yo Declan Martin ran in Brighton and nearly won.
I’d be interested to see how the two surveys combined in this poll differed, because I can imagine different stages of lockdown do influence results.
All in all though this is a good result for him. We’re at the tail end of an exhausting 18 months where he has been hammered from all angles and Victorians’ lockdown fatigue was at its highest point, while the media were creating a narrative that NSW were “leading the way” and Victoria were being locked down forever (not true since both states were taking almost the identical approach).
It should all be uphill from here. We’re opening up. People will want to forget these past 18 months and look to the future, and being reminded about it by the opposition, who appear to have no other plan (Guy said his pledge for the 2022 election is to “end lockdowns”, well it’s bit late for that now), won’t be a winning strategy.
Voters will trust Labor & Andrews to rebuild the state far more than Guy; because firstly I think that as it did last time, things will snap back faster than the grim predictions, and secondly Andrews has a track record of being productive in government. The Liberals ‘2010-14 tenure was defined by complete inaction with next to nothing achieved.
In other news, today is a fitting day for a Victorian state poll to be released, because the final boundaries are also due to be released today. I’m interested to see what happens with the Albert Park & Prahran proposal because it had the most objections. I thought it was great personally, but I fear it will be reversed due to the volume objections, even though most of them made little sense.
Solid result for Andrews after everything.
If McGowan, Palaszczuk and Andrews all get re-elected without any hitches after one of the most concerted efforts from legacy media outlets to smear them by any means necessary while ignoring Liberal premiers with similar pandemic policies (Marshall, Gutwein), that’s an excellent result for Australian democracy.
Starting to feel like the days of influence from these outlets are in their last throws, not only is their reach shortening, anecdotally it seems like more and more of the general populous are aware of their agendas, highlighted by high-profile figures like Rudd and Turnbull and confirmed by the way they’ve reported on the pandemic.
I think the legacy outlets have largely misread how this level of open partisanship will affect them in the long-term, the more people aware of their agenda, the less trust they’re given by the population and the smaller their influence becomes. The backlash against the Herald Sun over the last year is a good example, their ability to influence the electorate has been drastically reduced from even the 2019 election following their reporting across the Melbourne lockdowns.
I guess the tell will be whether the Fairfax/News coalition can drum-up enough outrage to save the LNP government, if they can’t it could be a bit of a shock to the corps.
deleted, soz.
All polling points to a 3% or 4% swing and that sounds about right because one thing to remember about Victoria is that a number of traditional marginal seats are held by double digit margins and safe Liberal seats held by the ALP or are marginal.
The hit and run tactics by liberals and Murdoch’s from other states doesn’t like to be bullied in Victoria.
In a nutshell:
The ICAC is investigating whether Gladys Berejiklian breached public trust or turned a blind eye to any alleged corrupt behaviour by her ex-boyfriend Daryl Maguire.
ICAC is examining whether Ms Berejiklian breached the public trust through a conflict between her public duties and her personal life because she oversaw decisions about public money that was going to her secret boyfriend’s electorate.
The inquiry is focusing on two community grants which Mr Maguire pursued on behalf of a clay target association and music conservatorium in Wagga Wagga.
Ms Berejiklian was treasurer when there was conditional sign off on the $5.5 million to the target association
The grant provided to the clay target association was bigger than it had initially sought and the club’s then-CEO Tony Turner was told by a government official that an unidentified government minister “wants it bigger”.
Throughout this week witnesses, including former premier Mike Baird and former deputy premier John Barilaro, have told ICAC that Ms Berejiklian should have declared her relationship with Mr Maguire so the conflict of interest could be managed.
ICAC will also consider whether Ms Berejiklian should have reported Mr Maguire to ICAC for his suspected corrupt behaviour.
Ms Berejiklian has insisted she executed her duties with the “highest degree of integrity” and she limited the information Mr Maguire told her about his business dealings.
After Ms Berejiklian made the bombshell revelation about the pair’s relationship last year, the current ICAC investigation was launched, forcing her to resign last month. – Aunty
Berejiklian’s counsel’s making an application to have the details of the former lovers’ relationship to be heard in private, McColl having the discretion to do so. Counsel assisting opposes the application.
Just one further comment.
The State and Territory Leaders, along with the Commonwealth (but the States and Territories actually leading the Commonwealth, which was, from the outset of this Pandemic, “throw off the doona, learn to live with the virus and grow the economy”, even before the development of vaccines so how would that have played out?) subscribed to a National Plan (noting the proving of vaccines – plural – and then the distribution from manufacture to our arms, the proving of vaccines and vaccination the turning point and the foundation for that National Plan).
The National Plan, promoted by the Pentecostal as it was, falsely claiming he was the driver, has been, basically, trashed because it addressed the Nation, not individual States and Territories.
So it was not just NSW getting to 70% then 80% (plus) “fully vaccinated” (noting the advantage NSW has had from the Commonwealth in the distribution of vaccine).
It was a NATIONAL Plan, contributed to by State and Territory Leaders.
And handed to the prime minister (as 1 of 8)
I’ll repeat that, ONE of EIGHT
So the Commonwealth, Queensland, the ACT, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, the NT and WA.
So covering the lowest common denominator, by City, by Region and by State as the criteria (and a driver itself by identifying lagging constituancies, or should that be cohorts because our First Peoples are now in focus?)
So we protect the most vunerable, and bring them up to requirements as per the NATIONAL Plan.
You are only ever as strong as your foundations.
And, as Andrews, as one, has consistently said, Victoria is honoring that NATIONAL Plan.
The NATIONAL Plan is underwritten by the Burnet Institute, peer reviewed by the the Grattan Institute (noting the noise from other so called “experts”, seeking publicity and relevance, except McLaws).
It is most detailed as to future strategy – and the need for flexibility in regard such as test, trace and isolate and other interruption strategies, including targeted lock-downs as data dictates
Then you get to WHO advice.
Final boundaries for the 2022 & 2026 elections have been released on the EBC website now.
I haven’t looked at it all properly, I had a look at Prahran / Albert Park (my area) and just as I expected, their proposal to unite St Kilda in Prahran, and send the Postcode 3004 corridor into Albert Park, was reversed.
Albert Park remains as is, but loses a small portion of Southbank to Prahran, while Prahran sends its portion of Toorak into Malvern (that was much needed), and sends a pocket of St Kilda East into Caulfield in exchange for a pocket of St Kilda.
I’m disappointed the proposal didn’t go ahead because I think it made sense, and the objections to me seemed ridiculous. They were all worded as if St Kilda was being “tacked on” to Prahran and separated from its home, while ignoring the fact that a third of St Kilda is already in Prahran and this would have united it. Surely the western two-thirds of St Kilda have more in common with the remainder of St Kilda, than with Port Melbourne & South Melbourne.
And when I read the transcripts of the hearings, it was clear that it had nothing to do with uniting or dividing a community, but the organisations opposing the change just didn’t want to lose having a senior cabinet minister as their local MP (and get a cross-bencher instead). I can understand that, but it’s not a valid reason to object.
Organisations like CAPP (Community Alliance of Port Phillip) had really baffling objections, where they said that the seat of Prahran has no history of dealing with St Kilda’s unique needs & issues, and that it would make it more difficult for them to provide services in St Kilda as a result, so they need to stay “united” in Albert Park. However, a significant portion of St Kilda has been in Prahran since 1992, and this portion includes ALL of St Kilda’s public housing, services like the St Kilda PCYC and Betty Day Community Centre, some of St Kilda’s last remaining rooming houses, St Kilda Primary School, St Kilda Police Station and St Kilda Town Hall! Does that mean CAPP has struggled to provide services to the most vulnerable residents in St Kilda for the last 30 years, because it’s not in Albert Park?
Some objections then also said that the part of St Kilda on the other side of the highway doesn’t cross St Kilda Road or consider itself to be St Kilda. I have to disagree because I live in that part, and that objection ignores the fact that Princes Highway runs through the middle of the Prahran District and that’s apparently no barrier..?
Anyway, disappointed with the backflip on the proposal, but not surprised. I expected it after the volume of objections, and that nobody in support of the change was represented in the hearings to outline the factors above. I don’t change seats – I’m a St Kilda resident who was in Prahran before and would have remained in Prahran either way – but would have liked to see the suburb united because I think St Kilda is a particularly unique community of interest that is quite different from the suburbs around it.
On the new boundaries, Labor are losing a 70% ALP 2PP booth (based on 2018) with no additions in Albert Park so it will probably just slightly reduce their margin; and in Prahran it will remain very close between the Greens & Labor (the St Kilda / St Kilda East swap will have little impact, while the Southbank booth is better for Labor) but the seat moves further out of reach for the Liberals, as they gain a 70% ALP 2PP booth and lose the seat’s only strong Liberal booths in Toorak.
That’s a very long (although genuinely interesting and informative) way of saying that the boundary objections were motivated by ALP gerrymandering. Much like the Macnamara stoush.
“A report on the final electoral boundaries is now available.
In this report you’ll find an overview of the changes and a map for each region and district.
These State electoral boundaries will take effect when the writ for the 2022 State election is issued on 1 November 2022”
https://www.ebc.vic.gov.au/CurrentRedivision/FinalBoundaries.html
Also, the VEC annual report has been released today.
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/file_uploads/VEC_Annual_Report_2020-21_JLxPXX7j.pdf
Furtive, I agree completely. They were looking at the long game here.
In the short term, the ALP have a 13% margin in Albert Park so they wouldn’t have lost it anyway next year, while they probably would have gained Prahran from the Greens. So on that alone, it seems strange that they would fiercely object to a proposal that nets them a seat.
But in the long term, on the originally proposed boundaries the Liberals would have won Albert Park in both 2010 & 2014; while the long term trend in Prahran favours the Greens.
So in 2022, the proposed boundaries would have basically been a +1 net gain for the ALP, likely winning both seats; but as early as 2026 it could have meant they lost both, with the Libs snatching Albert Park and the Greens winning Prahran.
And most disappointing is that I think it was quite transparent what the real motivations for the objections were in both cases – federal & state – and they are not valid ones. In the case of Macnamara, the Jewish community groups not wanting to lose an MP they have established influence with; and in the case of Albert Park, not wanting to lose a high profile cabinet member as their MP.
In both cases, it ignored the fact that the proposed federal boundaries would have created a stronger community of interest for the Jewish community (with an even larger concentration in their new seat), and the proposed state boundaries would have created a stronger and more united community of interest for St Kilda and its associated community groups; but I guess in their minds, a strong community of interest is less important if you lose an MP you have influence with…
Matt Foley will be relieved that St Kilda stays in Albert Park.
Pushing the Prahran boundary across to Queens Rd makes sense.
Hawthorn was won by Labor by John Kennedy who was in his late sixties.
Alot of eyes will be on Hawthorn and whether John Pesutto can win it back. The loss could be compared to the LNP’s David Crisafulli losing his seat of Mundingburra in 2015 and Federal Labor’s Michael Lee losing his seat of Dobell in 2001. Crisafulli retired hurt in his seat in North Queensland and found a nice safe seat on the Gold Coast.
Pesutto has just announced he will be seeking pre-selection for Hawthorn at the next state election.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/mornings/john-pesutto-seeking-preselection/13607286
The Queens Road boundary is remaining the same, it’s been there since 2014.
I think the arguments about Queens Road, Punt Rd, or even St Kilda Rd in between as the boundary north of St Kilda Junction all have merit and either would work to be honest.
But I think there is more merit in uniting St Kilda in a single seat. That’s coming from somebody who for the last 15 years has lived in the Prahran section of St Kilda, then the Albert Park section of St Kilda, then in Prahran itself, and now back to the Prahran section of St Kilda. As far as I’m concerned, all 4 locations have been a very similar community of interest and well connected. St Kilda Road (south of the junction) has never been a barrier, or signified a different community.
While I think there are advantages to the Queens Road boundary which is being kept, I think the St Kilda Road corridor between Queens Road and Punt Road could just as comfortably fit in either Albert Park or Prahran, in all aspects. Whereas the western half of St Kilda undoubtedly fits a lot better with the remainder of St Kilda, East St Kilda, Windsor & Prahran than it does with Port Melbourne, South Melbourne, Albert Park & Southbank.
But most importantly, St Kilda itself – both sides of the highway – is such a strong community of interest that is quite different to its surrounding suburbs in both electorates, that uniting them far outweights any comparison about whether a separated western half of St Kilda fits better with South Melbourne or Windsor.
In any case, it’s done now and just another disappointing outcome where I think commission only really heard one side of the argument, and ruled in favour of it because there was no counter-argument to debunk some of the claims that were made.
John Kennedy was totally unexpected to win in Hawthorn by the ALP (normally you avoid candidates in their 70s outside of America). Basically they got lucky. The party insiders I have spoken to doubt he will run again but he might; And despite having been the standard-bearer for a good local member, he probably won’t be re-elected.
There were several close calls in which the Liberals only just scrapped home and there were one or two extremely nervous ALP candidates who were actually hoping not to be elected on election night as a single term in state parliament wasn’t in their career plans.
Another seat to watch is Burwood as Will Folwer (of door kicking fame) is the current member. Whether he stands again or not is yet to be established but the Liberals should be able to make some hay there.
The seat of Burwood will be the seat of Ashburton…
That reminds me a bit of being involved in the campaign (such as it was) of someone who fell 200 votes short in a 15% seat in 2002. Actually getting elected certainly wasn’t part of her plan, either (the main campaign objective was to support the candidate for the Legislative Council, which still had single-member electorates in those days).
No doubt anyone who’s been involved in a political party has been on the receiving end of a “Help! We don’t have a candidate for unwinnable seat X” e-mail when an election is called.
So, BSF, where does the reason Turnbull introduced a “no bonking rule” sit against a MP having a health issue and seeking to access his medication, which he was denied?
So will the ALP be able to “make hay” in the seats held by the bonkers?
Just asking
Just be careful’: Berejiklian urges Maguire to be wary over Icac probe
Gladys knew there was suspicion of corrupt behaviour from Maguire