YouGov has conducted an MRP poll for moderate Liberal think thank the Blueprint Institute, a procedure well described in the accompanying release as “different from traditional polling because it uses polling data collected across Australia to model the results across each of the federal 150 electorates by matching the polling data to electorate level data”. Ample detail, and voluminous colour-coded maps, are featured in the accompanying report.
The poll is not concerned with voting intention, but whether respondents would so much as consider voting for each party. With the catch that the survey was conducted some time ago – July 10 to 29, from a sample of 5007 – it finds that only 33% would consider voting Coalition, whereas 58% reported doing so at some point in the past. The equivalent responses on the former question are 42% for Labor, 17% for the Greens and 12% for One Nation. Out of the four Australian Electoral Commission geographic classifications, only in “rural” were respondents more likely to consider voting Coalition than Labor, by a margin of 2.8%, with Labor leading by 8.5% in provincial, 14.8% in outer metropolitan and 17.1% in inner metropolitan.
Helpfully for the poll’s clients, who are presumably resisting a push within the party to abandon its net zero commitment, it finds 49% agreeing the target should be maintained and 30% that it should be dropped, with 51% agreeing they would “only consider a party ready to govern if they have credible policies to address climate change and its impacts”. Among other findings: 24% agreed and 52% disagreed that the Coalition was “in touch with modern Australia”; 33% agreed and 45% disagreed that the party was aligned with their personal values and priorities; and 33% agreed and 42% disagreed that that the Coalition’s values aligned with its own on access to affordable housing.
Wat Tylersays:
Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 9:56 pm
It would be interesting to watch all the monarchists spin that one, since their latest BS is that the monarchy protects us from a far right populist taking over.
___________
I’m coming around to that idea myself. And of course that old chestnut ‘if it aint broke don’t fix it’.
Parliament is sovereign in Britain, not the monarchy.
Re Nick @9:22.
”The UK has to tear up the neo liberal economic bullshit, cut the massively bloated finance industry down and to try and divert resources back into public services and infrastructure.
Yeah the
rauntierrentier class will hate it…”This guy, UK-based political economist Richard Murphy, agrees with you. What are the 678,000 people who work in the square mile that is the City of London actually do? Whatever it is, is it useful?
https://youtu.be/yZYXZR4AXSY?si=3vwsETiyyvpp4dCg
day, September 7, 2025 at 11:20 pm
Re Nick @9:22.
”The UK has to tear up the neo liberal economic bullshit, cut the massively bloated finance industry down and to try and divert resources back into public services and infrastructure.
Yeah the rauntier rentier class will hate it…”
This guy, UK-based political economist Richard Murphy, agrees with you. What are the 678,000 people who work in the square mile that is the City of London actually do? Whatever it is, is it useful?
https://youtu.be/yZYXZR4AXSY?si=3vwsETiyyvpp4dCg
______________________
Having listened to a few videos from that academic, I would warn that they are a poor economist.
Kirsdarkesays:
Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 10:13 pm
I said “more than zero percent” not “it’s going to happen”, Nath. I bet you’d love it if it did happen though.
__________________________
I don’t know where you get these ideas about me but it doesn’t bother me. It’s just another thing you are wrong about.
Nick
“ This guy, UK-based political economist Richard Murphy, agrees with you. What are the 678,000 people who work in the square mile that is the City of London actually do? Whatever it is, is it useful?”
———————————————-
Officially it is financial services. Some are real e.g. insurance. Many would say the biggest services are money laundering and tax evasion.
https://www.ft.com/content/1d805534-1185-11e6-839f-2922947098f0
3.1% in finance and insurance isn’t nothing from a work force of over 30 million. I don’t know what economic output actually mean when it comes to finance and insurance, but I suspect its when ever money is changing hands, rather than actually achieving something necessarily tangible, like creating products or providing a real service.
My point is finance and insurance, and real estate for that matter is bloated with lots of money that gets thrown around to buy stuff that is just taking resources and blowing up prices for everyone else, for a small few who already have most of the assets. I would call this a big cost to the real economy and this is where the governments massive debt is located in the hands of a small few.
That real estate figure is yikes though for “economic output”, but no surprise their
New thread.
Socrates @ #1847 Sunday, September 7th, 2025 – 10:07 pm
This makes sense provided you also have a carbon tax. Otherwise you end up subsidizing ICE vehicles, which is what the fuel excise effectively is since it applies only to fossil fuels.
Bizzcan @ #1850 Sunday, September 7th, 2025 – 10:13 pm
I can understand why that term would be triggering for Labor rusted-ons … 🙁
Re Entropy @12:47.
”On another topic, I can’t help notice pp is now calling Albo a globalist…”
I don’t think that PP means that Albo is a free trader or a particularly keen supporter of globalisation. Nor is he suggesting that Albo is Jewish, another possible interpretation of “globalist”. I think that it’s just a general term of abuse for people that he disapproves of, like “knave”, “blackguard”, “rotter” or “socialist”.