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 am yet to hear a compelling argument as to why OPTIONAL preferential voting wouldn’t have all of the benefits you lot are banging on about with none of the drawbacks.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Patrick Bateman @ 1698
Your use of Green logic suggests you are.
But maybe you are a believer in some other weird political cult? Perhaps Family First? The Trots? CEC?
Obviously not a supporter of a grown ups political party.
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:27 pm
dave
Thanks for the link to the newsletter this morning. Interesting, but I can’t help thinking that a lot of this US/European stuff is a bit pessemistic at present in view of their own circumstances. There may be a degree of “projection” going on when they forecast what applies to Asia (esp China), Australia and South America. The USA and Europe are in trouble. But if you check the IMF, the rest of the world is still chugging along at about +3/4% per annum. Yet Europe and USA assume the rest will fall in a heap with them.
I was just looking at the “Economist Intelligence Unit” outlook for Australia, November 2011. Talk about pessemistic! It could have been a Joe Hockey press release. It talks about a hung parliament, prospects of early polls, below trend GDP growth to 2016. Some of the figures look doubtful too. Export growth for 2011 is listed as falling from about 3%pa to about 1% pa, yet the actual result is already going to be better than that. Coal production has returned to normal nmuch faster than expected after the Qld floods:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5368.0
by Socrates on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Actual grown ups don’t blindly lock themselves into supporting one political party, no matter how pathetically it abandons its principles.
If “Green logic” is “people should be free to not vote for a major party” then maybe I should be a Green.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Just vote 1.
Used succesfully by the Qld ALP to crush the Lib-Nat coaltion are force the un-natural union that is the LNP?
by ruawake on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:30 pm
From the AEC election funding guide. If the greens candidate gets 4% or more of the vote then their funding is dependent on the number of formal first preferences they receive. Patrick Bateman, your screwed up principles cost the greens $2.31191.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:31 pm
I’m not a Green. And your argument appears to be that because the system is broken, it’s broken (i.e. because funding is based on the current compulsory preferential model, the compulsory preferential model is necessary).
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:33 pm
And what is wrong with that?
If enough voters wanted to preference those parties, they would have. Freely.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:34 pm
NSW state elections use optional preferential voting. I like it because I don’t have to give part of my vote to the National Party or to the assortment of religious nutters and bigots who usually run here. I’m a bit over being told that just voting 1 is a wasted vote. It’s not wasted in my opinion if the only candidate I think worth voting for gets my one vote.
In Federal elections I’m happy to number all the candidates if that’s what has to be done. I may wish I didn’t have to give preferences to candidates form the Citizens Electoral Council, or from the National Party but if that’s the price of having a vote I’m happy to pay it.
If you are truly against preferential voting why not lobby politicains to change the law so that optional preferential voting is allowed in federal elections? It would be better to do this than to spread misinformation about shonky numbering methods that if used would just invalidate votes.
by leone on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:34 pm
No Patrick, I’m sorry but my argument is, your being silly. There are thing in life that are important, but this isn’t one of them.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Not if it breaches conditions of international conventions/ treaties to which Australia is signatory (cf Gordon below Franklin case), and the affected person decides to pursue it (probably unlikely, but the right’s still there).
Federal legislation stopping Gordon below Franklin could not be enacted under the Constitution (state responsibility). It passed because the Hawke Gov successfully argued it was covered by Australia’s signature of a UN treaty/ convention, as would be the hypothetical case involving Freedom of Speech and expression.
Note that Article 11′s Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law is the reason Bolt could not have won a HC challenge over his loss of the case concerning his remarks about “white” indigenous persons. Note that, since ALP party discipline is not legislated, it is not legally enforceable under Article 11.
BTW, most Labor members I knew (at least those up to and including the Hawke years) knew that to be the case. Apparently (according to my father’s & other family members’ friends involved in the Grouper years leading up to the 1955 Hobart conference – when Oz’s main UN founding mover & shaker and former president Dr HV Evatt was still Opposition Leader – that problem was discussed in devising strategies which avoided it.
by OzPol Tragic on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Ah, so in addition to deciding for others how they should vote, you are also kind enough to decide for others what’s important in life. I’m so glad Australia is full of people like you.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Yes Patrick that is the way democracy works, you view isn’t worth zip unless you can get a lot of other people to agree with it.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Bemused @ 1561 has difficulty with Green logic. Surely not? They’re quite straightforward, really.
We all know the Greens.
They’re so often seen
Wearing blue jeans
And eating their beans
In simple canteens
Camped in natural scenes
Where they ban nicotine
And its nitrosamines.
They hate submarines
And other machines
Which use gasoline.
They don’t like the Brits’ Queen.
By that they don’t mean
Their own kind of ‘queens’
Whom others demean
Because of their genes.
When their party convenes
With Bob and Christine
They go into routines
On how much it means
That their Mr. Cleans
Hold the balance between
Lib and Labor has-beens,
And how soon will be seen
The day when the Greens
Smash both to complete smithereens!
by PatriciaWA on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Fortunately for me I still have freedom of action as an autonomous individual with my own priorities and thoughts. Except when I vote, apparently.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm
PatriciaWA, it’s harsh but it’s very good.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:43 pm
No BK – similar to his theme with fk this am – very strong on the conscience vote though – don’t think he’ll back down on this one..
by Lyne Lady on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 pm
fredn@1712
I prefer to view it the other way. The intelligence of the electorate is diminished with each informal vote. That includes votes for all parties.
by Musrum on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 pm
When you vote it has nothing to autonomous individual your priorities, it’s about how we are going to run the bee hive.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I agree; it is important to know which party is considered the least bad by the majority if the contest is tight.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm
And in your view the queen bees currently running the bee hive should be entitled to tell the worker bees that they have to continue to vote for the same queen bees (but we will let you pretend to vote for other, insignificant alternative bees first if it makes you feel better).
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm
It strikes me that philosophically this seems to appeal to the worst in people. I.e. it asks them to consider what they hate, not what they love.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Patrick Bateman @ 1703
As you appear incapable of perceiving the vast philosophical gulf between the major parties in Australia then I can see why you don’t understand choosing where one stands.
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:53 pm
http://stephenkoukoulas.blogspot.com/2011/12/rate-cut-its-not-christmas-present.html
More in the article, brief but worth a look
by Leroy on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm
leone @ 1708
That is not how it works.
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm
let’s see how the press reports turnbull’s melbourne press conference – rumblings of a leadership challenge – i think not….. now if the boot was on the other foot…
by Lyne Lady on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Glad to see you sticking to your guns Patrick!
This entitlement attitude of the political parties thinking they have a right to allocate ever more of our dollars to themselves is one reason why politics is held in such low regard.
by Socrates on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:56 pm
PatriciaWA @ 1713
I find that poem quite disturbing.
Should I take off my blue jeans immediately?
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:59 pm
by Leroy on Dec 6, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Patrick Bateman @ 1721
Very pejorative Patrick.
How about consider which will do the least harm?
by bemused on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:01 pm
??????????????????
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Why is Malcolm Turnbull all over the media today? Has Tony let him off his leash or did he gnaw thru it.
by ruawake on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Jolyon Wagg
Ad hominem attack will always persuade me off the ‘merit’ of your argument
Glad I read ahead before answering this as I would have put together a long
post with references to prove that such a vote is informal.
Using Patrick Bateman’s comments to save time….
Exactly. As I have indicated I would like to have a system of optional preferential voting.
Exactly. I reside in the federal electorate of Chisholm that has a margin of around 6 per cent from memory.
A Greens candidate has no chance of being elected in Chisholm. If I cast a formal vote my vote would be distributed to either Labor or Liberal.
Exactly.
I clearly said that I would probably vote informally in the HoR and made no mention of how I would vote in the Senate. I also stated that I would make a donation to the Greens to more than compensate for its loss in public funding for my informal vote.
For the Senate I always number every square below the line after I have researched the parties and individuals standing.
I am not advocating an informal vote in the Senate for anyone. It is in the Senate that the Greens have leverage so, of course, I want my vote to count towards the high probability of having a Greens senator elected.
———————————————————
Fredn
If I lived in Melbourne I would cast a formal vote.
Labor takes my preference for granted. The only leverage I have, in the electorate in which I live, is to send a message to Labor that it can not take my preference for granted in the HoR.
As the Greens are unable to form government in the near future, I want to send a message to Labor that it has to make some changes to public policies in areas of key concern to me.
After Labor’s National Conference, it is obvious that Labor can not deliver on that.
Asylum seekers is a key issue for me so despite my support for Anna Burke for her stance on asylum seekers, there are other key issues just as important to me.
I believe that Labor has very little or no intention to move in the direction that I would like it to go.
Despite some posters attempts to persistently stereotype me as a stupid, uncompromising, pure idealist blah blah blah, the awful truth is that under limited circumstances I am a political pragmatist and understand the political reality of our current system.
by Pegasus on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:07 pm
PB has entered the far side
by gusface on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Socrates
Because the system works so much better when the political parties are beholden to big business donors.
by zoomster on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Put who you love first, they get the two bucks and who you hate last. Lets the herd sort it out, it’s pretty simple really.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Who cares, cos the Libs will preference Labor.
by ruawake on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I hate reading all the posts about “why should we vote”.
I’m glad I don’t live in a country where voting is voluntary, there is only one candidate, and you get shot if you turn up to the booth.
A little exaggeration, perhaps, but I vote for our present system. Otherwise lazy Ozzies wouldn’t bother to leave the barbie for an hour on a Sat’dee.
by lizzie on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm
I can see differences between them. That doesn’t mean I necessarily want to vote for one or the other.
I love how the partisans here assume that I am saying I wouldn’t vote for one of them, by the way. You know absolutely nothing about how I may choose to vote. I am talking about whether, in principle, people should be forced to vote for one of them, which is a separate issue entirely.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Pegasus
The problem I have with you path is your expecting everything to go your way, that is not the way politics is. You have to take the good with the bad because the person who wins has to collect more than one vote.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:13 pm
peg
but voting informally doesn’t send anyone any message at all.
Your first preference isn’t recorded, so the Greens don’t know you voted for them, and the majors don’t know that you didn’t vote for them, either.
by zoomster on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:14 pm
And that only matters if people blindly follow the how to vote cards.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:14 pm
No you are advocating optional preferential voting. Why should a valid vote exhaust just becuase it got in the wrong pile?
by ruawake on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Yep but they do.
by ruawake on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm
gus,
It’s like the Enterprise has wandered in to a gravity belt filled with old chestnuts, wacky ideas and a never ending circle of dreary argument. Poor Scotty “can’ na hold her” much longer as the normally implacably logical Spock has been reduced to a screaming mess of blubbering electoral systems.
All Captain Kirk can do is gaze wistfully in to the future thinking of life on the planet Denny Crane.
by Greensborough Growler on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm
This is an important point I haven’t really made. Under our system, the only way to threaten the left-most of the major parties if you are further left than them (which is not hard) is to threaten not to vote for anyone. Ditto right and right.
But the current set up lets Labor focus on appeasing its right flank and ignore its left flank, which disenfranchises a lot of people at least in practical terms.
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Here is information about vote formality, since 1983, including about Langer Votes.
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/Backgrounders/files/2010-eb-informal-voting.pdf
I think the law should be changed Langer Voting should be legal. It gives the option of voting for a candidate without having to preference any other candidates without making this significantly easier than preferencing.
by Tom the first and best on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Yeah Socs, the RBA cut is being seen as insurance about the Euroland position, not that there is too much to write home about in the US either. The so called *fall* in US employment is people giving up looking for work and just relecting in the number.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/RBA-board-meeting-interest-rates-cash-rate-cut-red-pd20111206-PA6ZR?OpenDocument&src=sph
So the RBA Board can now try to have a quite Christmas break and if something big happens in Europe, they have already moved on it.
by dave on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm
What are you talking about?
by Patrick Bateman on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Yep just another voter not bright enough to number the squares sequentially, just another vote lost to the “other party” because that is the party the morons vote for.
by fredn on Dec 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm