As the campaign enters its final week, three new poll results of note:
• Nine Newspapers have a large sample poll from Resolve Strategic finding 49% for no and 38% for yes, respectively steady and up three since last month. Thirty-seven per cent were definite for no, while 25% were definite for yes. Excluding the undecided, the result was 56-44 for no, in from 57-43 last time. Broken down by state, no leads 52.3-47.7 in New South Wales, 54.2-45.8 in Victoria, 64.2-35.8 in Queensland, 61.2-38.8 in Western Australia and 55.5-44.5 in South Australia, with the small sample from Tasmania producing a 56.1-43.9 in favour of yes. The poll was conducted September 22 to October 4 from a sample of 4728.
• Newspoll in The Australian found support for yes continuing to deteriorate, with no up two since the last poll three weeks ago to 58% and yes down two to 34%.
• British pollster Focaldata has conducted a poll showing no leading 61-39, and while details of how it was conducted are currently scarce, it has yielded results at seat level using multi-level regression with post-stratification, similar to an exercise conducted by YouGov before the last federal election (which came in a bit high for Labor and undersold the teals). It has yes leading in 22 seats out of 151, which are overwhelmingly inner-city seats where the Greens are strong, plus all three seats in the ACT. The only teal seat with yes ahead is North Sydney, although Kooyong and Wentworth are lineball.
Its interesting to see the Fairfax headline this morning that Indigenous support for The Voice has fallen to roughly 60%.
Unfortunately, its paywalled. Does anyone know if the sample size is respectable enough to justify the headline?
goll: “The referendum began as an acknowledgement for First Australians and has become a feral monster of bullshit and blame.”
I’ve got to pull you up on this assertion. The first version of the referendum question announced with great fanfare by Albo at the 2022 Garma Festival made no reference to recognition. It was entirely about setting up the Voice.
Even the final form of the referendum question gives the appearance that recogition is only a secondary consideration to the primacy of the Voice proposal: particularly given that, if the referendum is successful, readers of the Constitution will need to plough all the way through to section 129 in order to find the reference to recognition. And, indeed, the Voice will be the only practical manifestation of that recognition: whereas, for instance, the Canadian constitution sets out certain rights belonging to Indigenous people, including land rights.
I suspect that this was another element of Albo’s strategy of flying under the radar: not wanting to make the whole proposal look too transformative. But it hasn’t worked.
It’s part of a thorough set of demographic breakdowns from the Resolve Strategic poll — 59-41 from a sample of 420. “Indigenous sample will not adequately reflect remote communities”, it says.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/indigenous-support-for-voice-falls-but-keeps-majority-20231010-p5eb19.html
The Fairfax result re Indigenous people is consistent with what I have heard is the general feeling of mistrust of the Voice in western NSW. I doubt that anti-Voice sentiment is as strong among Indigenous people futher into the outback and the tropical north, but it’s possible that it is. I would hazard a guess that, as with non-Indigenous people, the strongest pro-voice Indigenous constituency is to be found among wealthier/more educated Indigenous people living in the inner city areas of the the major cities.
Thank you William. Much appreciated
420 is an annoyingly in-between number.
My sense is it is not quite small enough to dismiss, and not large enough to rely on
Mr Squiggle: “My sense is it is not quite small enough to dismiss, and not large enough to rely on”
I don’t think it is at all reliable in relation to estimating the size of the Indigenous No vote. For that, we’ll have to wait to see the booth by booth results on October 14.
However, I think it does illustrate something that is becoming increasingly apparent: that Indigenous mistrust of the Voice is not confined to just a few quislings like Mundine and Price and a few extremists like Thorpe. While Mundine’s speech to the NPC was all over the shop, he did provide an important perspective on Indigenous representation when, in answer to a question from a journo, he stated that he didn’t feel he or any other prominent Indigenous figure could reasonably put himself forward as a spokesperson for all Indigenous people, because his key identity was as a Bundjalung person rather than the post-1788 concept of an “Indigenous person.”
What I’ve heard out of western NSW in recent weeks is that many people there want their “voice” to government to come specifically from their people: that is, people from one of the communities from out that way: that is, one or more respected elders from among the Kamilaroi, Ngemba, Ualarai, Barkindji and a few others. If there were to be, say, three NSW participants in the Voice, and these were to be drawn from, say, the Dharug, Bandjalung and Wiradjuri people, then they would feel totally unheard.
The problem would be compounded by the possibility that Voice participants from across the country would be drawn less from actual Indigenous communities and more from the middle class educated group of Indigenous people who grew up in the suburbs in families that had not previously considered themselves to be Indigenous, but where the younger generation has decided to identify as Indigenous on the basis of an Indigenous ancestor a few generations back. Indigenous people find such newly-identified members of their community to be useful in terms of the knowledge and skills they bring to the table, but some are fearful of their political movements becoming dominated by such people, thereby making it more difficult for people living in regional and remote communities to be heard.
I might add that I think they’re completely wrong and that the Voice proposal, with all its faults, is the proverbial half a loaf that’s better than no loaf, and that it is capable of being improved over time. But there are undoubtedly some people out there who would rather not have it than see it become a talkfest for the high profile Indigenous leaders.
I suspect we’re talking something more like 20 per cent of Indigenous people than 40 per cent, but we’ll find out more when booth by booth figures become available.
“420 is an annoyingly in-between number.”
420? What were they smoking?
Meher
Your use of term “quisling” is extremely offensive. Price and Mundine are not nazi collaborators.
I was pleased to see the effective action taken recently against the term “Final Solution” and I hope similar action is taken in this case.
A No vote wont help us in the contest for influence in the Pacific, btw.
Several Pacific leaders have already made their views on that plain.
We’re our own worst enemies sometimes.
That said, I remain optimistic: I still think that moment of writing “no” will make a lot of decent people feel like shitheads. And Australians are decent people.
Fubar: “Your use of term “quisling” is extremely offensive.”
Your racism is extremely offensive. Weren’t you the guy calling for a royal commission into land that has been handed back to indigenous people because of the Mabo decision, in your opposition to the voice?
You can’t stop with the endless attempts to paint yourself as a victim. It’s pathalogical.
Lefty_e
It’s the attitude displayed in your 1.26pm post that has been adopted by the Yes campaign. It’s offensive to people who ‘dare’ to consider voting No and is spectacularly unsuccessful. I have no doubt it’s hugely responsible for bolstering the No vote.
Quite remarkable that the penny still hasn’t dropped even at this late stage and further confirmation that Yes won’t produce a ‘come from behind’ sneaky win on the day.
“Weren’t you the guy calling for a royal commission into land that has been handed back to indigenous people because of the Mabo decision”
No
Pi
Why do you accuse Fubar of racism then cite an example which doesn’t display any racism, except by a warped interpretation that assumes to be able to discern a person’s motives?
Sorry to butt in (although I suppose I’m only doing what you did tbf), but this ridiculous hypocrisy from lots on the left on this site which shows such venom to anyone more right-wing than them whilst claiming victimhood for minorities that suit them, is getting really tiresome and depressing.
Why can’t we discuss on topic? And if one contributor calls out another one for using Nazi tropes (which is normally offensive to all decent people, especially when clearly inappropriately applied), the rest of us can surely leave it alone to those concerned and the moderator?
Just been catching up on earlier comments on the thread. My word, what a lot of hysteria (and very little mea culpa from the losing side. . . it’s the voters’ fault as usual, stupid lot).
Surprised the Yes side aren’t citing the Roy Morgan poll more to re-energise disheartened Yes supporters to turn out.
Who knows, they may be the ones that are right and their trend shows a possible narrow win for Yes after all. Referenda are notoriously hard to poll accurately for, and maybe Morgan have the magic bullet.
Has anyone analysed why the differences in different pollsters to determine which are most likely to be accurate, or at least to understand what’s causing the differences?
Pi : “Weren’t you the guy calling for a royal commission into land that has been handed back to indigenous people because of the Mabo decision”
Fubar: “No”
Liar.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2023/10/04/indigenous-voice-polling-round-up/comment-page-2/#comment-4169684
Fubar: “I would like to see a full Royal Commission into what has happening to all the money that has been wasted in Land Rights Agreements throughout the nation.”
BT: “Why do you accuse Fubar of racism”
Because of his words.
BT: “Why can’t we discuss on topic? ”
Because you haven’t figured out a way yet of separating yourself from the vocal racists that are an integral part of your no campaign. There’s a reason for that.
Pi
But you don’t show any words which show racism. YOUR deciding to decide WHY another contributor says something (i.e. because they are racist even though their words don’t say anything racist) doesn’t change this.
Looking back over this thread you seem a very stuck record. I’m sure you get ready agreement amongst other like-minded contributors on this site, but not sure who you think you are freshly convincing. . .
BT: “But you don’t show any words which show racism”
Sure I did. Caught him out bald-faced lying about it too.
BT: “you seem a very stuck record. ”
I call out racism when I see it, and I keep on seeing it. You haven’t yet told me how one can tell the difference between the loud and vocal racists in the no campaign and the non-racists in the no campaign. You own the people you share your campaign with. We all objectively know you are on the same no side. You use the same arguments. You parrot the same lies and misinformation. You use the same ‘poor me i’m a victim’ narrative. The racists certainly don’t label themselves as racists after all. You certainly don’t make any effort to disassociate themselves from one another. In fact, you spend an awful lot of time running interference. There’s a reason for that.
All you ever do is try and change the subject.
BT: “not sure who you think you are freshly convincing.”
I stand against racism; You don’t. We’re different that way.
Pi
I’m not changing the subject! I’m calling you out for spouting nonsense which exists only in your head – right on your subject. 🙂
FWIW, as a non-Australian I have the luxury of not taking sides. But I’ll call out elitist despisal of ordinary people wherever it has a polling impact, to keep on topic.
I think I’d support YES at the start if I lived in Australia, but would have switched to NO a few months ago for the attitude described above, as I can’t bear the thought of such tactics being seen as electorally successful. When will the establishment ever learn?
FWIW I believe the same establishment contain in their ranks just as much racism as may or may not exist elsewhere – just maybe hypocritically better hidden, to suit their politics/ambition. Too often the cat has been let out the bag that many of these people don’t care for ordinary/downtrodden people like they claim to.
Re Quisling
While the eponymous Mr Quisling undoubtedly collaborated with the Nazis, in my book the word has come to be used more generally to refer to people who collaborate with invaders and betray their own country for personal gain. In my understanding, it doesn’t have as specific a meaning as “Holocaust.”
And I think it’s an appropriate name to call the egregious Ms Price, albeit a little cruel.. But I will admit that I was probably being a little unfair in roping Mundine in: he’s a guy with serious things to say, even if he isn’t all that good at saying them.
BT: “elitist”
So so so so soooo on brand.
BT: “as a non-Australian I have the luxury of not taking sides”
As a non-australian, I don’t give a shit what you think about this subject.
BT-( 5:40 pm) has anyone analysed why different pollsters etc?
I think Kevin Bonham has made a fair effort at this.
He also has some thoughts on what types of reasons there are for voting NO. One of them, albeit the last on his list, is the closest anyone has come to describing my own reasons.
There is another Indigenous subsample coming that is about half the size of Resolve and best classified as in the mid to high 60s (there is an ambiguity about it that I will discuss further on my site when it’s released). It’s all very rubbery of course but it does make it hard to maintain that it is still as high as it was.
I’m not sure how many voters care whether the Yes vote among Indigenous voters is a moderate majority or an overwhelming one but Yes campaign has left itself wide open on this by (i) not releasing up to date polling (ii) continuing to use numbers like 80-83% and treat them as “recent” and present tense when there was always at least a possibility that Indigenous support would fall at similar rates to the general community.
Pi,
You said – “Weren’t you the guy calling for a royal commission into land that has been handed back to indigenous people because of the Mabo decision”
My call, which you correctly linked to, is for a “Royal Commission into what has happening (sic) to all the money that has been wasted in Land Rights Agreements”.
I didn’t mention anything about land – my concern is about the massive waste of the billions of dollars given to organisations for little apparent gain.
Your comprehension skills are very poor. That’s probably caused by the one eye you are squinting through.
You still haven’t come up with any examples to demonstrate your claim that the YES campaign are routinely calling people racists, BT.
I assume it’s because you cannot.
Fubar: ““Royal Commission into what has happening (sic) to all the money that has been wasted in Land Rights Agreements””
Operative word being ‘wasted’. To the racist, justice for indigenous people is ‘waste’. How many of you chumps have complained about the cost of the voice, eh?
What you were doing, flash, was regurgitating the hateful bullshit that people who hold your views regurgitate. You heard someone else say it once, probably in a forum of people sharing your like-minded views, and like a parrot, you parroted it. Pointedly doing it in the context of something completely unrelated as the voice, because when you want to explain that an indigenous person needs a kicking, it’s best to bring up all of the things that, in your mind, qualify. Your assertion boils down to your belief that indigenous people are not deserving of the equal application of the rule of law, which is what the Mabo decision is. And the problem that ya have, as with all of the people of your ilk, is that you’re not very smart. None of you are. That’s why you ‘think’ the things that you ‘think’, and say the things that you say. Your ignorance is used by others as their weapon.
Lefty_e, I’ve been called racist three times by Yes supporters so far just for tweeting polling facts they didn’t care for or for disabusing false claims about Voice polling. I’ve seen countless cases of baseless racism claims against others (not all of them No supporters either). One expects the No campaign in a thing like this to be dishonest and alarmist and to have some pretty awful people aboard – all of which has been true – but I’ve been taken aback in general by the failure of the Yes campaign to set or encourage a much higher standard in terms of either supporter behaviour or overall credibility. There are exceptions of course but a lot of the online discourse I have seen about the Voice is one bunch of Donald Trumps against another, except that the Yes Trumps pretend that they are on the side of morality and reason, while engaging in rampant poll denying, abuse and conspiracy theories.
I try to work from a position of being intolerant of the intolerant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It’s easy to both sides this, but if one separates the wheat from the chaff, there is one side that is being intolerant here, and there are real people that are targets of that intolerance; indigenous people. If that intolerance didn’t exist, no one would be calling anyone out for it. I would prefer that that intolerance didn’t exist, but we don’t always get what we want.
I don’t believe it’s possible to defeat intolerance by either ignoring intolerant people, nor by appeasing them. That just emboldens them. It has to be confronted. We are a better world for this than we were 50 years ago and even more than a hundred years ago. But some people would still prefer the days of unchecked privilege. We made it such that it wasn’t acceptable to be intolerant of others in the workplace. Or on a sports field. There’s still plenty of work to do. The voice is showing us just how much more work needs to be done.
This referendum was behind the eight ball the second the LNP chose to reject it even before they’d seen the question. And they HAVE hate signalled to racists in an overt tactic of gaining political support. No amount of yes sunshine and roses would have changed that. If there’s a way of calling out racists for doing racist shit that doesn’t involve criticising them for their racist shit, I don’t know what that process is.
From what I’ve seen, every single indigenous person in this country has experienced far more intolerance about anything and everything than I, or any other person that isn’t indigenous, ever has. I try to keep that in mind when I might feel victimised about something that has been said to me or about me.
Kevin @ 11.03pm,
“– but I’ve been taken aback in general by the failure”
That just about sums up ” the Voice”.
“the Voice” of reason it ain’t!.
Has there been any polling that measures the ” level of engagement” generated by the Voice as compared to (my assumption) the general “level of disengagement” of the Australian voters.
“Down came a (racist) to drink at that billabong
Up jumped the swagging and grabbed him with glee
And he sang as he stowed that (racist) in his tucker bag
“You’ll come a Waltzing Matilda with me”
“Whose that jolly (racist) you’ve got in your tucker bag?
You’ll come a Waltzing Matilda with me”
“And his ghost may be heard if you pass by that billabong”
“You’ll come a Waltzing Matilda with me”
Will we ever know what became of the swagging and that thing in his tuckerbag?
The Voice was a chance to find out but the billabong will prevail it seems whatever the final result after the counting is finished.
“And his ghost may be heard if you pass by that billabong
“You’ll come a Waltzing Matilda with me”
Apologies to all!
Did racism exist in what was known as Australia before 1788 ?
Or is it just another introduced feral ?
I suspect there’s a conflation of “YES campaign” and “YES supporters” behind this, Kevin Bonham. The campaign itself has been quite disciplined on that score. That’s because we actually know that most who are still undecided are disengaged, and frequently just confused by the noise.
That’s why BTSays sounds especially clueless here, when referring to pacific leaders’ recent comments “It’s offensive to people who ‘dare’ to consider voting No and is spectacularly unsuccessful. I have no doubt it’s hugely responsible for bolstering the No vote.”
Not even close: Get on the streets and talk to people is my advice. There’s very little anti-elitist sentiment outside solid NO voters who were never swingers. Undecideds are largely open minded but ill-informed, have maybe heard some loose NO stuff that has becomes a doubt, and are frequently converted to YES with a chat and by looking at the facts, including the wording of the proposal. Many are surprised to learn its an advisory body only (thanks media).
I worry there isn’t time for that process to fully play out. We are seeing polls getting closer as a result. If there was, I’m quite sure YES would eventually win this.
Pi
I can see where the deceit, lying and subterfuge is on this thread, and it sure isn’t where you’re laying it, it’s you.
Lefty_e
By all means carry on being wilfully blind and helping your ship sink further in your self-righteousness. I made it plain at the start that I wasn’t going to attempt to cite examples as they are so manifest everywhere you look. Had I cited such examples I would have wrestled with the pig even more to no avail and got even muddier than I have. It was obvious that you wouldn’t change your thinking however many examples were cited, given that you must have been aware of them all along – or simply choose to be blind to them, whichever way you want to spin it.
Kevin Bonham is very on point on this, why don’t you take note instead of trying to explain it away?
Of course there’s some feral people supporting the No side – but doubtless no more feral than the likes of Pi on this site with the abuse he hurls around based on twisted conspiracy theories / shameless venom against anyone who. . . simply. . . disagrees with his world view.
I think we will have to settle on disagreeing, BT says. I’m not trying to give you the shits, or even addressing this point to you in particular, but I suspect the whole “YES campaign is calling us racists!” meme says way more about some people’s feelings than it does about the campaign itself.
Then there’s the quote of the campaign, that Savva reminds us of in her best piece, today: that some Australians are apparently far more concerned about accusations of racism than they are about racism itself.
Do read her piece if you haven’t. Best of luck, Yes campaigners!
Lefty_e
Let bygones be bygones.
Best of luck for Saturday and may the best side win!
You stand on the same side as the racists in a question about racism, you lose whatever moral authority you thought you had.