Three new national polls to report. Known unknowns include a big sample DemosAU poll that should be along later today, and the inevitable one-last-Newspoll.
• YouGov has a third and final MRP poll, constructing demographically based estimates for all 150 seats off an impressive sample of 35,185, conducted from April 1 to 29. This maintains the pollster’s recent form of strong results for Labor – and, perhaps more to the point, weak for the Coalition ” offering a median projection of 84 seats with the Coalition on just 47, the Greens on three, and 16 for independents and others. Projected Labor gains are Banks, Bonner, Braddon, Menzies, Moore and Sturt from the Liberals and Brisbane from the Greens, while the Coalition is further projected to lose Bradfield, Calare, Cowper and Wannon to independents. A detailed display allows for results to be explored at seat level. The national voting intention results are Labor 31.4%, Coalition 31.1%, Greens 12.6%, One Nation 9.3%, independents 8.1% and others 7.6%, with Labor leading 52.9-47.1 on two-party preferred.
• The final Freshwater Strategy poll for the Financial Review credits Labor with a two-party lead of 51.5-48.5, out from 50-50 in its mid-campaign poll, the first lead for Labor in this series since March last year. The primary votes are Labor 33% (up one), Coalition 37% (down two) and Greens 12% (steady). Leadership ratings are particularly encouraging for Labor, with Anthony Albanese up four on approval to 41% and down four on disapproval to 44%, Peter Dutton down one to 35% and up four to 51%, and Albanese’s lead as preferred prime minister out from 46-41 to 49-39. The poll was conducted Tuesday to Thursday from a sample of 2055, which is nearly twice as big as usual.
• The new online regional news publisher The Gazette has a second DemosAU national poll for the week, recording a two-party lead for Labor of 51-49, compared with 52-48 for the first. The primary votes are Labor 29%, Coalition 32%, Greens 12% and One Nation 9%, as compared with 29%, 31%, 14% and 9% in the earlier poll. It was conducted Sunday to Tuesday from a sample of 1974.
There remains the small matter of how accurate all this will prove to be, and the fresh memory of a general failure in 2019 that was in fact nothing special by international standards. The question of whether this was an aberration in a long-term record of strong performance by the Australian polling industry gets a negative answer from political scientist Luke Mansillo, who has been behind an aggregation model for The Guardian that long appeared quixotic in indicating a Labor primary vote in the high twenties, below what any individual poll was saying. The latter continues to be the case with its current central estimate of 30%, but its two-party preferred measure now has an eminently believable central estimate of 51.5-48.5 in Labor’s favour.
A sense of why such a model should be so bearish with respect to Labor can be gained by comparing final week polling for the most recent elections federally and for the five mainland states with the actual results. The table below goes into detail for two pollsters who have covered enough state elections to make them worth the effort, followed by all final week polls combined for each election (no row is featured for South Australia as the only such poll was the Newspoll).
| ALP TPP | ALP | L-NP | GRN | |
| Newspoll | ||||
| WA 2025 | +0.4 | +2.6 | +0.8 | -1.1 |
| Qld 2024 | +1.3 | +0.4 | +0.5 | +1.1 |
| NSW 2023 | +0.2 | +1.0 | -0.4 | +1.3 |
| Vic 2022 | -0.5 | +1.3 | -2.0 | +0.5 |
| Fed 2022 | +0.9 | +3.4 | -0.7 | -0.3 |
| SA 2022 | -0.6 | +1.0 | +2.3 | -0.1 |
| Average | +0.3 | +1.6 | +0.1 | +0.2 |
| Resolve Strategic | ||||
| NSW 2023 | +1.0 | +2.6 | -1.7 | |
| Vic 2022 | -0.5 | +1.3 | -1.4 | |
| Fed 2022 | -1.3 | -1.3 | +1.2 | |
| Average | -0.3 | +0.9 | -0.6 | |
| All polls | ||||
| WA 2025 (2) | +0.1 | +2.1 | +1.3 | -0.6 |
| Qld 2024 (2) | +2.1 | +0.7 | -0.9 | +2.1 |
| NSW 2023 (3) | -0.5 | +0.7 | +1.3 | -0.0 |
| Vic 2022 (3) | -0.9 | +0.7 | -0.9 | +0.0 |
| Fed 2022 (5) | +0.2 | +2.4 | -0.3 | -0.1 |
| Average (16) | +0.1 | +1.5 | +0.2 | +0.1 |
Thirteen of the sixteen polls covered here overestimated the Labor primary vote, but these errors have tended to be obscured by weaker readings for Labor on two-party preferred, which have shown no bias one way or the other. This was notably the case at the 2022 federal election, at which the last polls by Newspoll and Ipsos both had Labor on 36% – well clear of an actual result of 32.6% – but did well enough in recording two-party preferred at 53-47, compared with an election result of 52.1-47.9. The suggestion of pollsters under-estimating preference flows to Labor is at odds with an emerging narrative about tomorrow’s election that was covered here in depth yesterday.
My own BludgerTrack aggregate, which was given the seal of approval of Laura Tingle of the ABC on 7:30 last night, abandoned the notion of correcting for past observed bias after 2019, and now presumes only to offer a snapshot of what the polls are saying, warts and all. Adjustments are made, but their aim is to reduce distinctions between, on the one hand, Pyxis Polling and YouGov – both of which have had charge of Newspoll at different points throughout the past three years – and the various other pollsters. In two-party terms, these adjustments amount to about three-quarters of a point in Labor’s favour for Freshwater Strategy and half a point for Resolve Strategic, and about a third of a point in the Coalition’s favour for RedBridge Group.
As the table shows, correcting BludgerTrack for the general pattern of errors over the past few years would essentially involve moving about 1.5% from Labor to the “others” column. To extrapolate that to various estimates that were discussed in yesterday’s post on the subject, that would reduce Labor from its present 53.0-47.0 lead in BludgerTrack to 52.3-47.7 based on 2022 election preference flows; to 51.7-48.3 on YouGov’s current preference model; and to 51.9-48.1 on what I take Newspoll to be doing. The latter two are a fairly comfortable fit for what The Guardian’s model says. Then there is what I described yesterday as the “maximal” model, which accommodates what some observes take to be an historic blowout in the share of preferences the Coalition is about to receive from right-wing parties. This tips the balance all the way to 50.4-49.6 in favour of the Coalition by giving them 80% of a 7.9% One Nation vote and nearly as much of Trumpet of Patriots’ 3.5%.
I posted earlier today about the issue of ON preferences “ surging “ to the coalition with some commentary it may be up to 90%.
It is clear and obvious that the PV of each of the majors is splintering. However, I believe this splintering is not structured and it is not a direct transfer of votes from the major parties to particular independents or minor parties. So any assumptions around preferences “ surging “from one of the minor groups to one particular party should be treated with caution.
What I do know is that younger voters are leaning more and more to the left and it is these voters who are sending their preferences significantly to labor from wherever their PV lands. Perhaps their preference flows will play a much stronger role in this election than anticipated.
It is far more complex than the “ ON preferences will save the coalition “ analysis being pushed by some commentators.
Anyway, just the ramblings of a complete amatuer.
Cheers and a great night to you all.
“How stable would a minority government with 73, 70 or 67 seats respectively be? Would they be likely to go full term?”
___________________________
73 Stable, would probably go full term
70 Stable, but with a raft of rejected legislation capable of triggering a DD
67 Unstable. One or two bye elections away from oblivion
MB
I reckon the night before is fine, after dark.
But watch out for how close you can be to the entrance to the polling booth. The AEC staff will take down anything that breached the distance rules.
Pi says:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 4:00 pm
Glen O, is the millenials cohort smaller than the Gen X cohort? Why don’t you show the zoomers in your graph to really prove my point!
Over-preponderance of young people that bleeds to nothing as they get older. The only constant over 30 years is that transition. The primary vote of the greens in 2022 was 12%. In 2025 it’s 12%. They know that that primary vote comes from trashing progressive policy, which is why every greens electorate is a leafy urban suburb.
The third of a third likes to think of themselves as king-makers. But all they really are is a spoiler for the conservatives that feeds off the ignorance of young people. That’s not their fault. They’re young. It’s yours. EDIT: I mean you specifically, just so we’re clear. You carry the drinks for the greens, oppose progressive policy for the base reason of political power, not for the betterment of the Australian people, and you rely upon ignorance to push your political aims.
—–
OK, so you are indeed dense. The graph came from the source I noted, which was a government source. I have no control over which generations they show in their graph. But then, Zoomers wouldn’t tell you a thing about whether young people stop supporting the Greens as they age, since they haven’t stopped being young people.
I also have no idea what you’re talking about, in terms of cohort sizes, since the graph shows only Greens PV, and thus it contains no information about cohort sizes… but a quick google shows that Gen X was about 19.3% of the population in 2021, while Millennials were about 21.5%… so yeah, Millennials are a bigger cohort. Harder to be sure of the voting rates, but I can’t imagine they’d be that different (and based on my experience as a Millennial, I’d say Millennials seem to be a lot more politically aware than Gen X).
I’ve provided evidence for my contradiction of your claim, and that source is governmental. I challenge you to provide counter-evidence – provide a single piece of evidence supporting the claim that Millennials are voting for the Greens less as they get older.
And you clearly haven’t paid any attention to me if you think I “carry the drinks for the greens” or anything like that. I challenge those who make stupid statements. I’ve called out those who support the Greens, and those who attack them. I’ve called out those who support Labor, and those who attack them.
But hey, it’s a lot easier to just dismiss anyone who isn’t dyed-in-the-wool Labor as “carrying the drinks for the greens” or similar.
You want to hear why I don’t always vote Greens? I can do that. Let’s go…
1. They’ve got an unfortunate tendency to be anti-semitic (I have Jewish family, so I’m quite aware of this problem) – not to the point of violence or anything, but basically unconcerned with safety of Jewish people, a tendency to assume that all Jews support the Israeli government in its actions, and an unwillingness to actually court the Jewish vote.
2. They don’t yet understand the value of compromise, and often let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Their biggest error in this regard was when they rejected Labor’s CPRS because it wasn’t “good enough” in 2009. Their decision to block the housing bill more recently, rather than just advocating for improving it after it was passed, was also a stupid decision. They’ve improved since 2009, but they’re not there, yet.
3. They spend too much time asserting that Labor and Coalition are too similar. They are too similar, but not to the extent that the Greens assert. Most Greens voters, and even the Greens MPs, etc, would admit when challenged that they would choose Labor over the Coalition any day of the week (when a Greens volunteer doorknocked my house about a week ago, I challenged him on exactly this point, and he admitted it)… but the whole “same-same” thing makes it sound like they equate the two. Why use that language, and then say vote for them to keep Dutton out?
4. Specific to Max Chandler-Mather in this election: having corflutes calling him an “independent voice”, to try to equate himself to the Teals. Clumsy and misrepresenting himself. Not enough to stop me voting for him in this election, but I’ll elaborate on why below.
5. Preaching to the choir – the Greens need to realise that the path to getting their policies through is to convince people who don’t already see things the way they do. On environmental causes, they should be doing a lot better in rural electorates, but their arguments and advertising are all targeted at city electorates.
6. Inadequate understanding of the boundaries of governmental power. Why are they wanting to freeze house prices? That makes no sense. Why is “Free Palestine” one of their policies (with “Full equality before the law for every person, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, language, race, gender identity, class disability, sexuality or other social status in Palestine and Israel” – how can Australia do that?)?
7. Their policies are always missing addressing anything that doesn’t fall within either “social justice” or “environment”. Why is their entire Trade and Tourism policy “support First Nations trade”, for example?
8. Despite using language implying otherwise, they still want to operate within the current systems, doing as much “tinkering around the edges” as they claim Labor does.
9. An unfortunate tendency to go too far on some issues. For example, we can’t completely end all new coal mining, because coal isn’t just used for energy generation, and until alternatives are generated for those other things, we still need to have *some* coal. Labor are too “liberal” (as in permissive, not Liberal, the party) on coal mines, but the Greens overshoot the mark.
10. Not understanding the value of easing things in. They want to just throw a massive amount of tax onto corporations without considering how those corporations might respond (both politically and in terms of how they do business), for example. You need to do it gradually, small changes at a time, to make it so that at any point, it would be silly to try to end operations in Australia, or move everything offshore, etc.
Those are the ones I could identify on the spot. I’m sure I could elaborate on more if needed.
I could do a similar list for Labor. But I won’t, for now.
Why did I do that list? Because I know you’re unwilling or unable to do a similar list for Labor, because you DO carry the drinks for Labor, and are unwilling to consider that other people might just be opinionated without having any inherent preference.
Oh, and regarding why MCM over Renee Coffey? The main issue is that I don’t know Ms Coffey well enough to know what impact she would have. Terri Butler was part of Labor’s Left, an environmentalist, part of the push to introduce same sex marriage, and skilled enough to be a shadow parliamentary secretary for the environment and water (among others). If Ms Butler had run again, I’d probably vote for her again. I knew what Ms Butler brought to the Labor party, and that her influence would move Labor to the left, even if only slightly.
Ms Coffey? I don’t know enough – I don’t know where she, personally, stands on anything important. The only thing I know is that she’s one of the candidates being supported by LEAN. That’s nice to hear, and if she does win, I won’t be upset… but I don’t just vote on national platforms, I also vote on the candidate, and their impact on the party. MCM is a known quantity now, and unlike some others, I’m not bothered by any of the things I know about him (beyond my general criticisms of the Greens).
In the Senate, I’m likely to avoid letting my preferences go to Larissa Waters at any kind of speed. I find her to be insufficiently intelligent and too willing to attack those who disagree, rather than challenging them. She’s a poster child for most of my criticisms of the Greens, I don’t rate her. Beyond that, I’m still weighing up whether my preferences go to Socialist Alliance, Fusion, JLN, Democrats, Labor, LCP, Greens, or Sustainable first (some, I need to check their policies more carefully). Because I’m not attached to any one party. Can you claim the same?
tldr?
That’s what happens when you get skewered. You flood the zone with shite. If you can’t voice an opinion that is supported by a summary, maybe you’re as confused by your own opinion as anyone who reads that stream of consciousness would be.
Fact: The greens opposed the Rudd carbon reduction scheme, and that led to minoriy government, and subsequent removal by the LNP. Take your trophy. You earned it.
I call these mega-tons of carbon the “greens emissions”.
Yep. Unless i missed it, I havent seen the ALP attacking the LNP much on the preference deals with ON. It is possible that the ALP are losing a small amount of voters to ON and will expect (hope) those votes back in preferences. ON are an odd bunch, many would be traditional ALP voters and thus not immunised from preferencing them.
Pi @ #404 Friday, May 2nd, 2025 – 4:32 pm
✔
The Albonator,
A government with 70 seats for the ruling party would get bugger all triggers for a double dissolution.
Remember, to become a DD trigger a bill must pass the HoR first before being defeated in the Senate. If it’s defeated in the House, no DD.
Double dissolutions happen when the government has at least a comfortable majority, not a minority.
I think that every vote that ON gets above their usual 5-6% of crackpots cookers and hardcore racists, comes directly from and off of the LNP. The way I look at those ON votes is that on balance there is a 10-40% chance that the preferences will filter to the ALP…better than a direct vote to the Libs. Would we rather have a PV for the LNP at 37/38% with a 4% ON vote …or…a 33/34% LNP vote with an 8% ON vote?
Bizzcan,
Yes – as I’ve already said, the ABS data measures the effects of pandemic era government support mechanisms, none of which have been maintained:
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-gap-between-the-haves-and-have-nots-in-australia-is-at-a-20-year-high
During the pandemic the government instituted massive support transfers to ensure that as few people as possible suffered. Given the lockdowns, people didn’t have as much opportunity to spend, so:
– people saved
-people paid down debt
This has been eaten up by house price and rental increases, and inflation. The pandemic era data is exceptional and is not reflective of the macro-trend of wealth inequality in Australia (a trend that is continuing to get worse):
– the top 1% have 24% of the nation’s wealth
– the top 10% have 57% of the nation’s wealth
– the bottom 40% have 5.5% of the nation’s wealth
https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/3906186/MSDI-Transforming-Australia-SDG-Progress-Report-2024.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/12/share-of-wealth-held-by-australias-poorest-falls-by-almost-30-since-2004-report
@The Albonator:
73 Stable, would probably go full term
70 Stable, but with a raft of rejected legislation capable of triggering a DD
67 Unstable. One or two bye elections away from oblivion
—
In fact, 73 is more likely to create a DD than 70. A double dissolution requires the government and any supporters to pass a law, and then the senate to reject it. So the Greens must not be required to pass the legislation. The more the government has to rely on the Greens to get a bill through the lower house, the less likely a double dissolution is (but, conversely, the more likely an early election is). And conversely, the more diverse the support base is for a bill, the more likely it is to get through both houses rather than just one (but the requirement for a broader base will narrow the range of bills that can be passed and increase the chance of the government falling over).
So the actual final DemosAU has the combined major party primary at 63 and the Greens at 12 again
No need to change my figures, we’re still at 3.5/6 hitting my rules
How many polls to come?
#25in25
Pi, I doubt you read (let alone comprehended) Glen’s post in the two minutes between him posting it and you replying to it.
Last newspoll election eve – 2022 was published about 7.30 the night before.
I definitely didn’t bother reading that stream of consciousness, no. In the same vein as not engaging in socratic debate with an unbalanced person screaming at the the side of the road about the finer points of their manifesto.
Pi says:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:02 pm
tldr?
—-
You know what’s funny? I already knew you were going to do that. And it’s to your detriment, because I actually criticised the Greens for how they handled the CPRS in the very comment you ignored.
But hey, anything to allow yourself to think you got one up on them non-Labor voters.
And in future, I recommend that if you’re going to assert that someone “floods the zone with shite”, you at least skim what they’ve said, first. Pro tip: People who can actually back up their claims are usually capable of explaining at length. Those who refuse to pay attention to detailed discussion but attack the person making the detailed discussion are the ones who aren’t capable of backing up their claims.
But then, as already established, you’re dense, so I don’t expect you to learn from this.
Newspoll would be the final poll released before May 3, unless there’s another Resolve Poll tonight of course.
I suspect Newspoll tonight will be something like 52 Labor, 48 Coalition
Kirsdarke says:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 4:19 pm
I’ll watch the Sky News panel, but only if Labor’s clearly winning. I’ll happily report their meltdowns.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Me too !
Election time is when the macabre in me comes out.
Suffer Baby, Suffer.
Glen O: You know what’s funny? I already knew you were going to do that.
Insight is only relevant if you apply it. It’s like saying “I knew that guy was going to win but I bet on the other guy”. You wouldn’t understand.
Any news on The Hunter? I’m not seeing it on the lists of seats that may swap but the One Nation guy is a threat according to The Guardian a few days ago.
That’s interesting, The Age, The Courier Mail and The NT News not bothering to make an endorsement this election it seems, unless they’re holding out for tomorrow.
No editorial endorsements from the Sunday editions last week either.
I liked your list Glen O while not agreeing with your decision. I might vote Green if the right candidate came along.
Not Max.
The seats I think the Coalition will lose tomorrow night – Sturt, Wannon, Cowper, Bradfield, possibly Bonner or Bass or Braddon(one out of those 3 at least).
Seats I think Labor will lose – Aston, Gilmore, Werriwa, McEwen. Possibly another one that is safer on paper for the ALP, like Gorton or Whitlam or Hawke.
No idea about Macnamara, that’s a genuine tossup
Greens will lose Ryan to the LNP, and either Brisbane or Griffith to the ALP.
Teals could possibly retain everything they’ve currently got, or at worst, they lose Curtin to the Libs and Kooyong to the Libs.
Forget Dickson, Dutton will retain it, albeit narrowly. Ali France can always run in the byelection when Dutton presumably retires in the next 3 years.
Glen O, that outline of your position made perfect sense to me, even if the intended audience was too worked up to read it.
Anecdotally, I can personally testify that I was more than happy to vote Greens as an idealistic 20-something, but at 39 I’m unlikely to put them ahead of Labor (my first preference(s) will go Teal or similar). You become pragmatic as you get older, an effect which I think is well documented.
Good on you for outlining the flaws of the Greens. Some of what you mentioned would be what turned me off voting for them.
Democracy Sausagesays:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:21 pm
Newspoll would be the final poll released before May 3, unless there’s another Resolve Poll tonight of course.
I suspect Newspoll tonight will be something like 52 Labor, 48 Coalition
=================================================================
I think there is some chance of another Essential too. Their last poll was 24th to 27th April, so no polling from this week.
Silky @ #413 Friday, May 2nd, 2025 – 5:24 pm
The YouGov MRP poll released this week has polling at 35.6% Labor, 26.4% Coalition, 14.6% One Nation, 11.7% Greens, 11.7% Other for Hunter.
Probably not the most reliable resource, but that seems to be all that’s there for the time being.
Griffsays:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:25 pm
I might vote Green if the right candidate came along.
_____________________________
According to the horseshoe theory you could have fascist inclinations.
Glen Osays:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:00 pm
I’m still weighing up whether my preferences go to Socialist Alliance, Fusion, JLN, Democrats, Labor, LCP, Greens, or Sustainable first (some, I need to check their policies more carefully). Because I’m not attached to any one party. Can you claim the same?
________________________
My personal characterisation of Labor is that it is first, last, and principally, a workers party. For better or worse.
That means it is for low income workers, unionised workers, construction workers, healthcare and education workers, public servants… and yes including coal and nining workers, defence industry workers, salmon workers etc.
Many here debate whether some or all those are worthwhile protecting or defending, i am personally less comfortable with the fate of family livelihoods being debated by activists who reside hundreds, if not thousands of kilometres away from ground zero. Thats my personal framing, transition should always be with the locals and they must be made better off for it.
(and for the current hot topics, being “better off” is very much not on the cards for affected communities).
…
Ok, on big policy, the media is an absolute shitshow in covering party/independents policy. Vast tracks of commitments get no coverage, stuff that might be deal breakers for voters.
– I put Labor 1 for Future Made in Australia, HAFF, quantum investment, and thr ongoing commitment to try and make the renewables build local. Few to none of those got MSM coverage.
– I put Greens a begrudging 2 (least worst) but I am deeply concerned about their policy on imposing Capital Controls – again something getting zero critical coverage.
– Center right goes 3, followed by racists, cookers, religious/ethic parties at the end (One Nation always last).
New Greenbot boiler-room methodology: express equivocation on voting intent before coming down on the side of Max Chandler-Mather.
A bit late in the campaign, methinks.
Silky – I think Dan Repacholi in the seat of Hunter is terrific, and he’s great on social media. I reckon he’ll be OK tomorrow, unless One Nation is getting a vote in the high 20s and sucking up all the Liberals and Nationals preferences.
Glen O
A few counterpoints:
“1. They’ve got an unfortunate tendency to be anti-semitic (I have Jewish family, so I’m quite aware of this problem) – not to the point of violence or anything, but basically unconcerned with safety of Jewish people, a tendency to assume that all Jews support the Israeli government in its actions, and an unwillingness to actually court the Jewish vote.”
This is a gross oversimplification and generalisation – the Greens are concerned with the safety of all people.
2.”Their biggest error in this regard was when they rejected Labor’s CPRS because it wasn’t “good enough” in 2009. ”
Labor refused to negotiate.
“Why is “Free Palestine” one of their policies (with “Full equality before the law for every person, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, language, race, gender identity, class disability, sexuality or other social status in Palestine and Israel” – how can Australia do that?)?”
It’s Foreign Policy. It’s naïve to think other countries can’t affect each other.
Also, Why wouldn’t you want the Palestinians to be free?
“Why is their entire Trade and Tourism policy “support First Nations trade”, for example?”
It’s not.
“We can’t completely end all new coal mining, because coal isn’t just used for energy generation…”
There’s a difference between ending mining and ending NEW mining.
Remember, a lot of coal is exported.
24 hours to go
Bluey has been trying to absorb the Dutton campaign and can think of only one word for it: bizarre.
In an uncanny way Dutton echoes Trump in action.
Bluey reckons that Dutton’ basic value is contempt and, bless their little socks, the Aussie humans picked it. Sure, they went along with it on the Voice when it came to kicking down at Aboriginals and this lulled Dutton into believing he could just keep that up and he was home and hosed. He even started measuring the curtains.
Then the Aussie humans realized that the contempt was also directed at THEM and it was all over red rover.
Lying is fine. Self-delusion is fine. Contradictions are fine. Kicking down is fine. Policy depth is for schmucks. Fuelling division is fine. Linking nasty psycho sexual stuff to people of colour is fine. Expelling citizens from the country is fine. Blaming others is fine. Policy integration with other policies is for schmucks. Dancing around corruption is fine. Numbers – just make them up on the run. Traditions are for schmucks. Wrecking the environment is fine. Foreign aid for poor people needs to be cut. Team work is for schmucks. Sudden policy switches are fine. Racism is fine. Contempt for other nations is fine. Contempt for climate science is fine. Contempt for climate action is fine. The MSM is there to glorify you. MSM that don’t do that are treated to the hate routine.
Contempt.
Trump dot Dutton. Join that dot.
But in Oz? Trump’s great big favour is that he alerted the potential turkeys.
That said, Bluey notes that there are big swings in the primaries and that they to the far right. Bluey reckons that if the Far Right Nuttariat ever gets itself organized, watch out Australia.
Bluey reckons that today did not shift the dial one way or another.
Final campaign summary.
Albanese has played a blinder.
Dutton has played a klutzer.
Bandt stuck to his strengths but got a bit squalid on the way through.
Littleproud kept to the wombat trail and will hold the fort.
Palmer is losing his touch.
Hanson has been bloody brilliant.
Bluey’s prediction. ALP minority government by a couple of seats.
Bluey reckons good bye to all the human Bludgers, thanks for coming, and see youse all in 2028.
Given current state of polls, for the Senate, any one who is a Labor voter should be giving a preference somewhere to Greens and any one who is a Greens voter should be giving a preference somewhere for Labor.
If not, you are objectively making it more likely that an additional LNP, One Nation or other right wing nasty will get elected. That could affect both current and next parliament.
By all means put Fusion, Cannabis etc higher preference but don’t let some personal view of an individual affect a maximum progressive benefit vote.
Holdenhillbilly, gen X conventionally includes 1980 so some are 44 at the moment.
Pi, I’m no Greens apologist and think they have made many mistakes, but let’s not reinvent history. Labor refused to negotiate in good faith with them, thinking they had a deal done with Turnbull. The Libs predictably enough betrayed Labor and withdrew their support, leading to Labor demanding the Greens just rubber stamp the Lab/Lib deal after telling them to get fucked earlier. Not surprisingly they weren’t keen at that point and the rest is history. So in order of culpability it’s the traitorous LNP first, the too clever by half Labor second, and the Greens third.
It’s actually a great example of why Labor’s silly pantomime of hating the Greens is unhelpful. It limits them to negotiating with people who hate the environment instead of the one party that actually has an environmental focus.
Entropysays:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 4:46 pm
I’m tipping tonight’s Newspoll to follow the trend and record an ALP 52.5% figure.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Me too !
nath says:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:29 pm
Griffsays:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:25 pm
I might vote Green if the right candidate came along.
_____________________________
According to the horseshoe theory you could have fascist inclinations.
________________
Well it is in the genes, but I do try to hold them back 🙂
Just voted in Boothby (unlike most of the people there I am genuinely entitled to vote early). Disturbingly I had to put the Libs third in the lower house because the other three options were truly diabolical. Senate also pretty dire, about 3/5ths nutters/foilers/fascists.
There were an enormous number of LNP people there including a State MP and James Stevens (this booth covered Sturt/Boothby). I told one of them loudly that I actually care about my children so won’t vote for any party actively trying to make climate change worse.
As a rule, long posts get panned.
Sometimes someone with a shiteload of experience in a subject gets a free pass.
@Kirsdarke and @Democracy Sausage
Thanks for the update. I’d hate the region I live in to have the distinction of voting a racist climate change denier into Parliament.
very high 51’s for Newspoll.
One day to go, and the main game is between majority or minority ALP Govt. Most likely outcome with the betting markets is an ALP majority. I think the weight of RWNJ preference flows and a late surge in online ads will drag this back to minority Govt, but will be happy to be wrong.
Patrick Batemansays:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:32 pm
Holdenhillbilly, gen X conventionally includes 1980 so some are 44 at the moment.
Pi, I’m no Greens apologist and think they have made many mistakes, but let’s not reinvent history. Labor refused to negotiate in good faith with them, thinking they had a deal done with Turnbull. The Libs predictably enough betrayed Labor and withdrew their support, leading to Labor demanding the Greens just rubber stamp the Lab/Lib deal after telling them to get fucked earlier. Not surprisingly they weren’t keen at that point and the rest is history. So in order of culpability it’s the traitorous LNP first, the too clever by half Labor second, and the Greens third.
It’s actually a great example of why Labor’s silly pantomime of hating the Greens is unhelpful. It limits them to negotiating with people who hate the environment instead of the one party that actually has an environmental focus.
——————
indeed let’s not reinvent history. the greens had an opportunity to introduce a carbon trading scheme. in an act of hubris they chose to demand the perfect rather than introduce a scheme that did not match perfectly their demands. 100% of nothing rather than 50% of something. they have since tried to mount the ridiculous argument that the rudd price on carbon would have made things worse.
one of the side effects of this was that had they supported the rudd scheme tony abbott would now be a footnote in history.
barney, it’s not realistic to present a ‘take it or leave it’ proposition instead of negotiating, particularly when the ALP were happy to negotiate with their actual main opponents over the same issue.
Spence says:
Friday, May 2, 2025 at 5:32 pm
Given current state of polls, for the Senate, any one who is a Labor voter should be giving a preference somewhere to Greens and any one who is a Greens voter should be giving a preference somewhere for Labor.
If not, you are objectively making it more likely that an additional LNP, One Nation or other right wing nasty will get elected. That could affect both current and next parliament.
By all means put Fusion, Cannabis etc higher preference but don’t let some personal view of an individual affect a maximum progressive benefit vote.
—————-
With Fusion as my first preference and a below the line voter in 2022, would you care to explain your workings here?
My MP is a Greens MP called Elizabeth Watson-Brown. I think she’s good. I hope she is re-elected. Ryan used to be a safe LNP seat. There are two other Queensland seats held by the Greens- Brisbane and Griffith. They used to be ALP seats. Griffith was held by Kevin Rudd. There is some seat polling suggesting that it is going to be close in both of those seats. The Greens have a difficult role to play – extracting more resources from an economically illiterate Labor Government without coming across as too obstructionist. I don’t agree with the obstruction narrative but the media pushes it a lot and it has therefore become influential with voters. I think many voters don’t realise that it is good for Labor to get pushed in a more progressive direction and to not become complacent.
Even though we have preferential voting, I don’t think voters use it as effectively as they could. They could put far more pressure on the major parties by electing more Greens MPs, micro-parties, Independents. But instead they often default to the ALP vs LNP frame, as though we have a first past the post system.
Labor is probably going to win the election but only because Dutton lacked basic political skills. Any conservative politician worth their salt would have wiped the floor with this disappointing neoliberal centrist government. A win for Labor won’t be a mandate for Labor – it will purely be a rejection of Dutton.
I’m still getting Trumpet text messages which I’ve never signed up for, never opted in to and do not want.
It makes a mockery of the media blackout laws when parties can still communicate directly with you even when you’ve never asked them to communicate with you!
I’d be happy to see parliament introduce legislation that forces political candidates to at least offer an opt out or unsubscribe option for these communications. Enough is enough!
Confessions
Just now I received missive number 7 from Mr Fong.
@Spence,
Unfortunately I’m in NSW and I can’t stand Mehreen Faruqi – so I find myself in the position of not wanting to vote Green at all above the line, or having to do a below-the-line vote excluding her but knowing the 2nd position Green candidate has no hope.
Being in Bennelong and being happy with Jerome I think it’s straightforward to follow Labor’s HTV for the house.
Ms 98.6 has asked me to go to the bottle shop and buy a zero alcohol Champagne.
SACRE BLUE !
Do the frogs even make one ?
BK:
I’ve had about the same. I keep reporting as spam yet they keep coming.
The other day I saw in a Facebook community group an ingenious individual posted Fong’s mobile phone and asked everyone to text him with anti Clive messages. The person reported back that the messages were now being blocked and couldn’t be sent. Not sure how he was able to do that with his phone when blocking these messages doesn’t work for us!