Two big bits of polling news with presumably more to follow before the day is out (likely including Resolve Strategic from Nine Newspapers and Freshwater Strategy from the Financial Review). The Australian has treated us earlier than usual to the post-budget Newspoll, which credits Labor with a two-party lead of 51-49, a reversal of the last three results and the first Labor lead since July. The primary votes are Labor 33% (up one), Coalition 37% (down two), Greens 12% (steady) and One Nation 6% (down one). Anthony Albanese is up two points on approval to 43% and down one on disapproval to 52%. Exact numbers are not provided for Peter Dutton, but we are told his net rating is minus 18, down from minus 14 (UPDATE: down two on approval to 37% and up two on disapproval to 55%), and that Albanese now holds a lead of 11 points on preferred prime minister, out from nine points (UPDATE: from 47-38 to 49-38). Despite Labor’s improved position, responses to the budget are not positive: 16% expect it will leave them better off and 35% worse off; 22% rate it good for the economy and 32% bad; but 38% felt the Coalition would have done better compared with 47% who felt otherwise. The poll was conducted Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1249.
YouGov gets the ball rolling on the campaign with its second massive multi-level regression and post-stratification polling exercise, following an earlier effort from late January and early February. This one was conducted from February 27 to March 26 from a sample of no less than 38,629, providing it with a depth of data allowing for estimated results for all 150 seats, based on assumptions that a seat’s voting behaviour can be at least party predicted by its demography.
In common with the general tenor of recent polling, it finds an improvement in Labor’s position: its median seat prediction now has Labor on 75 seats, compared with 66 in the previous MRP and 76 at the 2022 election; the Coalition on 60, compared with with 73 and 58; the Greens on two, compared with one and four; and 13 others (Bob Katter and Rebekha Sharkie plus sundry independents). The projection suggests, with greater or lesser confidence, that the Liberals will gain Bennelong, Gilmore, Werriwa, Robertson and Lyons from Labor (together with Labor’s by-election gain of Aston), but lose Deakin; that Labor will gain Brisbane and Griffith from the Greens (though not Ryan); and that teal independents will gain Cowper and Wannon, together with the return of all non-Greens cross-benchers (with the usual caveat that the record of such exercises traditionally do less well at predicting independent and minor party results). No longer projected as likely Labor losses are Bullwinkel, Tangney, Boothby, Chisholm, Hunter, Shortland, Paterson, Macquarie, McEwen and Eden-Monaro.
Outside of a second high reading for One Nation, its national voting intention numbers are well in line with the tenor of recent polling in having Labor on 29.8% (up 0.7% from the February MRP), the Coalition on 35.5% (down 1.9%), the Greens on 13.2% (up 0.5%), One Nation 9.3% (down 0.2%), independents on 8.3% and others on 3.9%, with a two-party preferred estimate of 50.2-49.8 in favour of Labor (51.1-48.9 to the Coalition last time).
UPDATE (Resolve Strategic): Barely had I hit “publish” on this post before Nine Newspapers followed suit with the Resolve Strategic poll, conducted Wednesday to Sunday from an unusually large sample of 3237. After a distinctly poor result for Labor a month ago, when they trailed 55-45 on a two-party preferred measure using respondent-allocated preferences, this one records a two-party tie from primary votes of Labor 29% (up four), Coalition 37% (down two), Greens 13% (steady) and One Nation 7% (down two). The report notes a two-party preferred measure using preferences from 2022 would have Labor ahead 51-49. The changes on leaders’ ratings are particularly dramatic: Anthony Albanese’s combined good and very good rating is up five to 39%, while poor and very poor is down seven to 49%; Peter Dutton is respectively down eight to 37% and up seven to 47%; and Dutton’s 39-35 lead as preferred prime minister becomes an Albanese lead 42-33.
We are also told that 28% felt last week’s budget would be good for them financially; that Treasurer Jim Chalmers recorded a net approval rating of plus six, while Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor was on minus six; and that Dutton was favoured over Albanese as best to handle Donald Trump by 31% to 20%, though that may have been a loaded compliment for some respondents. Hopefully more detail on these questions will be along later.
UPDATE 2 (Freshwater Strategy): Now the Financial Review brings us the Freshwater Strategy poll, which has the Coalition with an unchanged two-party lead of 51-49, from primary votes of Labor 32% (up one), Coalition 39% (steady) and Greens 12% (down two). The pollster has also conducted an analysis based on the result suggesting 70 seats for Labor, 67 for the Coalition and a cross bench of 13. In contrast to the other polls, it finds Peter Dutton improving on preferred prime minister, on which he now trails 46-45, in from 46-42 last time. We are also told both leaders have net approval ratings of minus 11, compared with minus 10 for Albanese and minus 11 for Dutton last time – the precise approval and disapproval ratings should be along later (UPDATE: Albanese is up one on both approval and disapproval, to 38% and 48%, while Dutton is up two to 37% and one to 47%). Twenty-one per cent felt the budget would make them better off, compared with 27% for worse off. The poll was conducted Friday to Sunday from a sample of 1059.
UPDATE 3 (BludgerTrack): All of which pushes Labor into a 50.3-49.7 lead on the BludgerTrack two-party trend, breaking a 50.0-50.0 tie before the latest batch of polls were added – albeit that I am continuing to apply preference flows from the 2022 election, which pollsters have lately been tweaking to reflect a view that they are unlikely to flow as strongly to Labor this time. A particularly striking feature of the update is a downturn in Peter Dutton’s net approval trend, which has fallen below Anthony Albanese’s for the first time since the middle of last year.
The 25th Amendment is more suited to a situation where a President has suffered a disabling stroke, as happened to Woodrow Wilson, or is in a coma.
Mexicanbeemer says Monday, March 31, 2025 at 9:20 pm
Saw one this evening blaming Labor for inflation.
Hack, woke, Partisan says Monday, March 31, 2025 at 9:09 pm
Even if Labor was prepared to change course, I can’t really see them making an announcement before the election. This is something they probably don’t want to scare the punters on.
I think the idea of resuming the Attack Class for three or four boats to cover any capability gap prior to acquiring subs under the AUKUS deal has genuine merit, and would be reasonably easy to sell (it is after all similar to what Nelson did with the Super Hornets).
If it turns out that the AUKUS deal later falls through it gives us the option to then procure SSNs from France.
I just hope no one has thrown out the work done on the Attack Class.
Le Pen is Le jailed for 4 years banned from parliament 5.
Appeal anyone ?
“Saw one this evening blaming Labor for inflation.”
Albo having the temerity to bring inflation down from 8.5% down to 2.5%.
bob says Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 12:47 am
For some reason they didn’t state the inflation rates at the start and end of this term. Funny that. They mentioned the number of interest rate rises, but nothing about them starting under Morrison.
I think the US Constitution is pretty clear that Trump can’t run again. I also think there’s almost zero chance of this being changed (almost zero because who knows what he could do if he threw all state and federal Democrat politicians in gaol).
However, his supporters are arguing that others could run, then win with the VP resigning, appointing Trump as the VP, then the President resigning making Trump President again. The 22nd Amendment states:
So, it’s possible that a court might allow this. However, how many MAGA politicians could you see actually making way once they got sworn in? Who could Trump really trust?
As an aside, why do the people writing these amendments not make their intentions clear? Look at the 2nd Amendment as another example.
New thread.
Good morning. I’ll start with a couple of comments on subs from last night after I went to bed:
@imacca:
“AIP?? RAN always seems averse to that for some reason. But certainly ditch lead acid and use as many LiFePo as can be jammed in.”
_____
Actually, the most modern german AIP subs – the Singaporean Navy Type 218SG – uses a combination of lead-acid and lithium batteries. The lead-acid batteries form the main battery array and the Lithium ones are used in combination with their AIP system. The thinking being that this combination provides the best of stability and safety AND range/endurance enhancement. Apparently these subs can stay submerged between snorts for up to 45 days and can combine short speed bursts by using the Lithium batteries without the need to snort shortly thereafter, as the lithium batteries will be recharged by the AIP system whilst the sub goes back into stealth mode.
@Socrates:
“From a technical viewpoint AIP does not work well on long range subs. It needs a lot of space to fit it in. That leaves less room for things like fuel tanks. So if you want your diesel sub to have long range (as Australia does) AIP doesn’t help.
AIP is really good for other things like stealth and speed in short bursts but not range. Sub design is complex and involves compromise. There is no sub that is “best” at everything.”
_____
Actually, Naval Group have now created an AIP system specifically for oceanic conventional powered subs. It is a fuel cell which uses an oxygen tank and the subs existing diesel reserves only (so no oxidiser agent is needed). Like tge german subs it can be used in combination with lithium batteries without the- and it seems the philosophy is not to replace the main lead-acid array, but to mould lithium batteries into any available voids to use in combo with the AIP system. For a sub the size of a Barracuda baseline design (97-99.7 metres) it would provide up to 23 days endurance between snorts. The whole unit is modular in design (6M long x approx. 1.2M wide x approx. 1.6M tall). So, if if one of the modules that comprised the Attack Class design was extended in length by about 3M (taking the sub to ~100M in total) an additional ~75 cubic metres of usable space would be opened up, thus allowing for some plant and equipment on the current design to be repositioned to allow for the placement of the 12 cubic metres AIP system, plus additional Lithium batteries.
https://youtu.be/TgIWbOtvr3o?si=yjPbvL57dwlt3syT
@Socrates (and Fred):
“Socrates says:
Monday, March 31, 2025 at 10:07 pm
Frednk
“ So perhaps we should buy two type, one for coastal defense, and one for blue water wandering.
If we don’t get the wanderer, no big deal we still have the defense.”
——————————————-
Fair question but I don’t think so. 2 reasons.
1. Scale – Australia is big. Our patrol range is huge. The entire Baltic is less distance than travelling from FBE (Sydney) to FBW (Perth). We need long range for local missions, forgetting the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait.
2. Cost – Sub maintenance is costly. Over the life of a sub you spend 1.5 to 2 x the construction cost on maintenance. So you want to keep maintenance simple. One class is highly desirable.”
_________
Coastal defence is a disaster in the making as a defence philosophy for Australia. In fact it makes the same mistake that the Greens current defence policy makes: namely to conflate the “Defence of Australia” doctrine first identified in the Dibb Report back in 1986 with “Defence IN Australia”. In both cases it represents an abandonment of the one true great strategic asset that Australia poses – we are so damn far away from any potential adversary AND what’s more, in order for any such adversary to directly threaten the Australian mainland it would have to traverse not just those vast distances, but a series of strategic pinch-points along the way: each of which represents a perfect ambush zone for a submarine.
In short, we don’t want to effectively invite an enemy to Australia before fighting them, we want the ability to sink them hundreds – and indeed in the era of long range cruise and naval ballistic missiles – thousands of miles away. Long range subs – whether they be conventional or nuclear powered gives Australia a capability to leverage our natural strategic assets into a genuine ‘Echidna Strategy’ /“Anti-Access and Area Denial” military doctrine.
However – don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Australia could ultimately defeat the PLA-N if the ChiComms were determined to single us out – to the exclusion of all other adversaries – to work us over, BUT the other part of the echidna strategy relies upon diplomacy to make us unthreatening and also stronger via regional alliances (ie., finding security IN Asia, not from Asia).
If we apply both aspects of the echidna strategy, we would pose a formidable challenge to the ChiComms, and given our generally unthreatening natural (and strong regional alliances in SE Asia – so Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are especially important relationships for us) and the South Pacific (so France is the obvious key ally there) then the PLA-N will not bother … unless we fuck all that up via stupid and threatening follies like AUKUS, Freedumbs of Navigation exercises and generally signing onto America’s ‘contain China’ delusions. …