Newspoll: 54-46 to Coalition
GhostWhoVotes tweets that the latest Newspoll has the Coalition two-party lead at 54-46, down from an aberrant 57-43 a fortnight ago. The Coalition is down four points on the primary vote to 44 per cent, which in fact returns them to where they were in the poll before last. Labor is up a point to 31 per cent, which is still a point shy of the previous poll, and the Greens are on 13 per cent, which compares with 10 per cent last time and 12 per cent the time before. Julia Gillard has consolidated the lead she opened up as preferred prime minister a fortnight ago, which ended five months of ascendancy for Tony Abbott: she is now up three to 43 per cent, with Abbott up one to 36 per cent. Gillard also has a less bad net approval rating than Abbott for the first time in eight months, with her approval up two points to 36 per cent (its highest in eight months) and disapproval up one to 56 per cent. Abbott is down one on approval to 33 per cent and up two on disapproval to 57 per cent, in both cases equalling his previous worst results and collectively producing his lowest ever net rating of minus 24.
UPDATE: Essential Research likewise has it at 54-46, unchanged from last week, with primary votes of 47 per cent for the Coalition (down one), 34 per cent for Labor (steady) and 10 per cent for the Greens (down one). Encouragingly for Labor, there has been a shift in sentiment in favour of the government seeing out its full term: support is up seven points since early September to 47 per cent, with “hold election now” down seven to 41 per cent. Less happily for them, a question on best party to handle 15 issues has Labor leading only on industrial relations, and then only slightly – the Liberals hold leads approaching 20 per cent for all economic questions, as well as “political leadership”. On the question of which issues will most influence vote choice, there has been little change since June.
UPDATE 2: Possum charts polling showing a shift in sentiment away from an early election:
However, the apparently radical nature of the shift from the first two polls to the last three is largely a function of the poorly framed question posed by Galaxy in the earlier cases, when respondents were offered the false dichotomy of “Gillard has a mandate for the carbon tax” and “an early election should be called”. Australia’s worst and least trusted major newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, used these obviously flawed results to run a front page lead claiming Australians were “demanding Julia Gillard call a fresh election” and an editorial headlined “voters demand a carbon tax ballot”. It will be interesting to see how the paper reports today’s contrary finding from Essential Research.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
I think it was Crikey the other day sarcastically refering to McCrann as the Shadow/ Alternative Governor of the RBA.
by dave on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:38 pm
BK,
He said he was right behind Tony Abbott’s Leadership.
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:39 pm
According to Grattan that’s an obvious sign that Rudd is about to challenge Gillard.
by Son of foro on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:41 pm
How far GG, knifing distance?
by mari on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:41 pm
fredn @ 1649
No.
And that was Langer’s point. He got done over for publicly advocating it.
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:41 pm
1648
Get out the vote campaigns cost money. They largely work better than being inspiring. The money has to come from somewhere. The world is not perfect.
by Tom the first and best on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I support compulsory voting because:
1)Noone can go around saying I didn’t vote don’t blame me. We are all equally responsible for the outcome.
2)It removes the USA option, deliberate disenfranchising of large sections of the population.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Had to laugh at Kelly O’Dwyer saying Barnaby Joyce was proof a LIBERAL can cross the floor.
by ruawake on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:43 pm
1654
It was a Formal vote but now is not. The Howard Government made that change and at the same time legalised advocating it.
by Tom the first and best on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:43 pm
1655
I meant that the candidates are not inspiring people in the first place. If they did they wouldn’t need to spend that money to get them voting.
by triton on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:45 pm
With the Langr vote all shiftaling now has to do is move to an electorate where a minor party may win and he may stand a chance of casting a vote for a minor party that effects the final count.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Tom the first and best @ 1658
I wasn’t aware of that.
So good ole unca Howie legalised the incitement of people to vote informally?
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Combet on the case, with some progress underway in Durban:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/australia-opts-for-emissions-trading-links-as-climate-talks-roll-20111205-1ofg4.html
We can only trust that more of this will be forthcoming in the final week.
by The Big Ship on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm
1660
I suggest Melbourne.
by Tom the first and best on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm
good ole unca Howie would have loved the USA, fortunately compulsory voting limited the damage, and the courts have done some of his efforts in.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:51 pm
fredn @ 1660
But that would still impinge on his purity and he would be forced to vote informal, thus lessening the chance of his preferred candidate winning.
Green logic at it’s finest!
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Perhaps.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:54 pm
One hour ago I put out an old broken fax machine, an old no longer works electric carpet sweeper and a very very old electric toasted sandwich maker, for the coucil clean up this week, just looked out they have gone and I live in a little village!
by mari on Dec 6, 2011 at 3:55 pm
If you want them back look on ebay.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Sky News have their knickers in a knot over the tender they missed out on.
by ruawake on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:01 pm
It doesn’t. It means a person’s desire for not voting Labor/Liberal outweighs their desire to have a first preference recorded for the Greens (or any minor party) and THEN handed to Labor or Liberal.
No, they don’t “get to vote again” – they HAVE to vote again. That’s the problem. Not the option of preferencing – the requirement. A first preference, clearly expressed, should always be valid regardless of whether further preferences are expressed.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Yep, at scrutineering those votes are treated as informal.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I think it is only illegal to advocate it. Someone here must know for sure.
Maybe I need to turn myself in to the authorities
by Jolyon Wagg on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 pm
My heart bleeds.
by Scringler on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Patrick Bateman @1671
I stand corrected. I am sure you are right as I am working off some fairly old memories.
by Jolyon Wagg on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:05 pm
ROFL, some people are cazy.
It’s ok to be forced to turn up to the polling booth, but oh no, having to number the squares to cast a formal vote, that is a bridge to far, it’s the end of the world, civilisation as we know it is under threat.
God it’s a crazy world.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Not the Langer vote thing again. Why do people keep pushing this crap?
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 Section 240 clearly states that all candidates on the ballot paper must be numbered and all numbers are to be consecutive, without any repeated numbers.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s240.html
Failure to number candiates in accordance with the Act will make your vote invalid. Do it if you want to, no-one will ever know it was you and there’s no penalty for voting this way but just be aware that your vote won’t count.
In addition – Section 329 says it is an offence to ‘print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, any matter or thing that is likely to mislead or deceive an elector in relation to the casting of a vote.’. That means anyone saying that the Langer method is perfectly legal is guilty of an offence and can be fined.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s329.html
by leone on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:06 pm
The point is, it’s not your choice, it’s the voter’s. Why should they be forced to use their vote in a certain way? Is it truly impossible in your mind that both majors be viewed as so abhorrent in their special ways that neither of them deserves your vote?
To use a hyperbolic example, if the choices were Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and some minor party candidate who is never going to win, should you be forced to vote for one of the first three on the basis of which one murdered the fewest people?
This is all premised on an electorate where the real chance of a minor candidate getting up is close to 0 (i.e. so the only real effect of voting is to support Lib/Lab). In a seat where a minor candidate had a real chance I would not advocate voting informal, despite objecting to the compulsory preferential system.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Patrick
er, what?
Except that voting for Anna Burke is voting for one of the two major parties. And putting in preferences in that case is only a formality, as they’re not going to be distributed.
So there’s no reason to vote informal if peg really wants to support Anna Burke. (And from memory, didn’t peg use the inducement of her vote to pressure Burke recently? Surely that means peg wasn’t being honest).
by zoomster on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07 pm
If someone definitely doesn’t want to vote for Lib/Lab, then forcing them to preference or else discarding their vote disenfranchises them. That is a fairly serious thing in a representative democracy.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:08 pm
They have been trying to sink the government for the last 12 months, what do they do now? Do we now have to put up with rudstoration every month?
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Which is an act of parliament and not part of the Constitution. The Constitution calls for representative democracy, and IMHO the High Court got it wrong when it said that forcing people to preference was ok.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Edit: “representative government” not “representative democracy”.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Mate, if the minor party isn’t going to win, it isn’t going to win. If you can decide between Labor or Liberal, Roll flip a coin.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Patrick Bateman @ 1670
Well Patrick, that does it. I’m convinced.
But of course, in the interests of consistency, you now go forth among your Green bretheren to advocate the same principles in the Senate elections.
I am looking forward gleefully to a complete wipe out of Green senators as all the Greens vote informal!
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Most days here.
by dave on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Sorry my last post was messed up, trying to laugh and post at the same time.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:12 pm
While preferencing should definitely be optional in the senate, its consequences are far less severe – there is actually a fairly high chance that your vote will be allocated to the candidate of your choice from a minor party, unlike in the HOR.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:13 pm
A Langer vote is no longer a formal vote. I wouldn’t call it “illegal”.
by William Bowe on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Or just roll flip an informal vote and vote for neither.
Your comment really boils down the whole issue – “if you can’t decide between Labor or Liberal” – that shouldn’t be the mandatory choice.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:14 pm
I used to spend many days responding to Govt tenders, won a few lost most. Some tenders were scrapped. It happens, I thought payments for unsuccesful tenderers was looked into by a Royal Commission,
by ruawake on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Ahhh; so it is ok to vote properly in Melbourne because your vote might count?
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm
The system is still objectionable, but as I posted above:
It’s still BS that people have to do this kind of calculus – is it “worth” voting formally?
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:16 pm
jolyn,
There are three points to having a reliable memory, but I can’t remember what they are.
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:17 pm
A viable tactical voting strategy for a minor party voter in the HoR is to preference for churn (vote against the incumbent) or margin (vote against the projected winner).
by Musrum on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Patrick Bateman I am under the illusion that the funding parties get from the government is dependent on the number of first preferences they receive.
I actually vote for minor parties first because I believe in them and if the government is going to hand over money base on my first preference then they can have it. My second preference is for the party I want to win.
If I am right your refusal to vote formally in the lower house is costing your party money.
The deal is simple, vote formally if you want your preferred party to get the cash. If you don’t like the deal tough.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Patrick Bateman @ 1687
Oh I see, not it’s a principle of convenience.
Very flexible you Greens.
your statement: “there is actually a fairly high chance that your vote will be allocated to the candidate of your choice from a minor party, unlike in the HOR.” Is ludicrous. A fractional value of your vote could end up with a minor party like the DLP, Family First or some other ratbag group.
I don’t think you have a clue how the system works.
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:20 pm
bemused
And the real irony of this is that Greens rely more than most other parties on that public funding!
Also, by voting informal, there is no record of their vote, so there is no message sent – either to the party they supported or to the majors.
I’ve often handed out HTVs alongside Green supporters whose pitch has been, “It’s like your vote counts twice – you get to vote for the Greens, and then for Labor.”
Anyone thinking they’re doing the Greens any favours by failing to fill in their preferences is sadly mistaken. The Greens party would be the first to insist that they do so.
by zoomster on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:23 pm
At what stage have I stated that I am a Green?
And it’s a mixture of principle and pragmatism. If I think my vote will be effective, I use it accordingly. If I don’t, I don’t.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:23 pm
I don’t think you have a clue what actual freedom in a democratic system is. Hint: it’s not being forced to vote for one of two parties on the basis of the one you hate least.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:24 pm