Crikey



BludgerTrack: 52.0-48.0 to Labor

With the return of Morgan and Essential Research, the weekly BludgerTrack poll aggregate is also back in business, albeit that it’s on a fairly shaky footing at present given the shallow pool of new data. However, since both polls show little change on the situation as they were recording it before the break, there’s nothing in national figures that should arouse any controversy. Both major parties and the Palmer United Party are down slightly on the primary vote, with the slack taken up by the Greens and others, and there is no change at all on two-party preferred. The seat projection nonetheless ticks a point in the Coalition’s favour owing to the vagaries of the latest state-level data. Full details, as always, on the sidebar (to those wondering why there are three data points after the break rather than two, the Morgan poll has been broken down into two results to account for it having been conducted over two weekends).

The monthly personal ratings from Essential Research also allow for an update to the leadership ratings, but this should be treated with even greater caution given that there’s only one result available from the past month. So while it may be that the air is indeed going out of Bill Shorten’s honeymoon, you would want to see more than one data point from Essential Research before jumping to such a conclusion, which is essentially all the model is reacting to at present. This points to a broader difficulty with the BludgerTrack leadership rating methodology which I aim to address in due course, namely the lack of any adjustment for each pollsters’ idiosyncrasies. There will thus be a tendency for the numbers to move around based purely on which particular pollster happens to have reported most recently. When enough data is available, I will start tracking each pollsters’ variation from the aggregated trend and applying “bias” adjustments accordingly.

Categories: Federal Politics 2010-2013

2049 Responses

Comments page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 |
  1. Trying to scrap the Lord’s Prayer though shows they have a different agenda and it’s not much to do with the environment.

    What you believe is your business, what I believe, is none of your business, stop pushing what you believe down our throats

    by Yesiree Bob on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:06 pm

  2. prettyone

    it’s too late to stop temperatures rising. If we wanted to do that, we should have acted decades ago. It would have been cheaper, too.

    There’s a lag time between feeding CO2 into the system and it showing up as increased temperatures. So even if we stopped releasing any greenhouse gas at all tomorrow – not a whiff – we’d still see temperatures rise because of the stuff we were pumping out up until yesterday.

    What’s being aimed for – and anyone who cared to actually understand the subject, rather than just try and take cheap shots would know this – is to reach a point where temperatures stop rising.

    At present, we’re aiming for temperatures to stop rising at a 2 degree increase in world temps. So it will be hotter than it is now, but it is hoped that it won’t get hotter than that.

    The reason for that is very simple: if we keep pumping out greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise. If temperatures continue to rise, we have absolutely no chance of adapting – because you can’t adapt to constant and continuing change.

    If we can get the temperature to plateau, albeit at a higher average, then we have a stable system, and can work out how to live with it.

    What’s more, having a stable system raises the potential of taking further action and reversing some of the temperature rises.

    The trouble is all this is relatively long term. For anyone who flits prettily from place to place, living in the Now, the idea that we act now to stop things getting worse in twenty years time is probably a bit hard to grasp.

    by zoomster on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:08 pm

  3. Yesiree Bob,

    People who believe in nude bathing shouldn’t push their genitalia down people’s throats either!

    by Greensborough Growler on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:08 pm

  4. I’m positive Bob Brown and Ms Gillard said the temperatures would decrease with a carbon tax.

    I’m positive that that is the winner of brain dead comment of the year.

    by poroti on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:09 pm

  5. ABC news replay the footage of the Spratt tasering.

    With full audio.

    He was screaming so much that my dogs started barking at the TV.

    Yeah sure, legal defence, he was really getting off on the whole experience.

    by confessions on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:09 pm

  6. “Stop pushing what you believe down our throats”

    Yesiree Bob

    I think you may be being disrespectful and not tolerant of others’ spiritual beliefs in that statement.

    by prettyone on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:09 pm

  7. You’re not being very intelligent by asking smarmy smart arsed questions over AGW, PO
    There’s no gotya there, just someone making an idiot of themselves.

    by Yesiree Bob on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:09 pm

  8. prettyone

    I’m positive Bob Brown and Ms Gillard said the temperatures would decrease with a carbon tax.

    And I’m positive they didn’t.

    You should be able to find a quote to support your position – I can’t prove mine.

    by zoomster on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:10 pm

  9. ruawake@401

    Tism

    If a barrel of tapis crude costs less than it did in Oct, why has petrol gone up by 20c a litre under Abbott.

    I hope you can explain. Cos nobody else has a clue why he is letting oil companies get away with it.

    Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!

    by Player One on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:10 pm

  10. Y”ou’re not being very intelligent by asking smarmy smart arsed questions over AGW, PO
    There’s no gotya there, just someone making an idiot of themselves.”

    In my opinion, that’s not respectful at all. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, to ask questions.

    My questions is: why are the temperatures not going down – and we’re told 2013 was the hottest year ever – and yet we’ve had a carbon tax for some years?

    Why is it so? to quote a well known scientist!

    by prettyone on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:13 pm

  11. Prettyone,

    I think you may be being disrespectful...of others’ spiritual beliefs in that statement.

    Why should I respect someone’s spiritual beliefs?

    by Jake on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:13 pm

  12. Prettyone are you happy for the government to decide which large polluter gets your $1200 per year of ‘direct action’ or would you prefer to choose one and donate yourself?

    by paaptsef on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:14 pm

  13. PO, Australia is a secular country, where no one has the right to dictate religion.
    State sanctioned religion is illegal.
    What you believe if fine, but its personal, and not for you to push onto others.

    by Yesiree Bob on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 pm

  14. and yet we’ve had a carbon tax for some years?

    No we haven’t.

    by zoomster on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 pm

  15. Danger Will Robinson, lamest troll effort like EVA.

    by poroti on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:16 pm

  16. paaptsef

    Direct Action is good. Lots of trees doing their job. It’s practical. It’s all we need. Plus shutting down the brown coal mines, that would be good. Apart from that, I can’t think of much else.

    by prettyone on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:17 pm

  17. Everyone is entitled to an opinion

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Pretty Boy.

    But not all opinions are of equal value.

    by Player One on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:18 pm

  18. I can’t think

    +1000

    by poroti on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:19 pm

  19. “What you believe if fine, but its personal, and not for you to push onto others.”

    I’m not. I said the Greens are moving from environmental issues into issues of religion. That’s a big step.

    by prettyone on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:19 pm

  20. PO, think of it, in analogy, in terms of an Ocean LIner stopping and then u-turning.
    The physics of momentum tells us that that Liner will neither stop immediately when the brakes are applied nor turn immediately when her steering is righted. These will still take time after action is taken
    It’s not rocket science

    by Yesiree Bob on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:20 pm

  21. “But not all opinions are of equal value.”

    Well, Player One, that may be a difference between you and me.

    I believe in egalitarianism. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, to reach their potential, and everyone is entitled to the same respect no matter what station of life they are in.

    by prettyone on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:21 pm

  22. State sanctioned religion is illegal.

    Actually, that’s only on the federal level. I don’t know what the rules inside each state are, in regard to this but the federal constitution does not prohibit state governments from imposing religion.

    by Carey Moore on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:21 pm

  23. Direct Action is good

    Could you please explain how it works and why it will cost each household 1200 per year? Why is it not better for polluters to pay for their own pollution aka carbon price?

    by paaptsef on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:21 pm

  24. 31,000 full time jobs were lost last month.

    What an inept government Abbott is leading.

    by AussieAchmed on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:22 pm

  25. ’m not. I said the Greens are moving from environmental issues into issues of religion. That’s a big step.

    Abject rot.
    Australias a secular democracy, live with it.
    If you want to live in a Theology, you can always try Iran.

    by Yesiree Bob on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:22 pm

  26. And Player One, you calling me Pretty Boy says something about issues of respect and tolerance for someone’s differing opinions.

    by prettyone on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm

  27. prettyone@459

    My questions is: why are the temperatures not going down – and we’re told 2013 was the hottest year ever – and yet we’ve had a carbon tax for some years?

    Why is it so? to quote a well known scientist!

    PO, read Zoomster’s explanation at 451.

    It was directed to you.

    Did you read it?

    Did you understand it? It was very well explained.

    If you can’t understand it, just go powder your nose, put on some lippy, and go have a great time at the local pub.

    by don on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm

  28. Prettyone,

    I said the Greens are moving from environmental issues into issues of religion.

    Good. Religion has no place in our Parliament.

    by Jake on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm

  29. Direct Action is good

    ROTFLMAO

    Yep, and smoking doesn’t cause cancer

    by Yesiree Bob on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:24 pm

  30. Indeed, if we could shut down the brown coal power stations, it would go a long way towards solving Australia’s share of the problem.

    Any ideas about how that could happen? You’d be looking at having to replace virtually all of Victoria’s power sources, for starters, which would be a very expensive exercise. You’d also need to compensate the owners of the power stations – even more money.

    There’s simply no way of tackling climate change and not spending large amounts of money. A carbon pricing system similar to the one we presently have in place has been recommended by economists as the cheapest and most effective of all the options.

    by zoomster on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:24 pm

  31. Prettyone

    Think of it like this:

    Let’s say you were fat, I mean really, really fat, obese in fact, so obese that you couldn’t walk through the width of a door way, ugly fat.

    Here’s the catch, if you don’t stop eating junk, you are going to explode.

    You might need to lose like a thou…..sand kilos.

    The problem is, that if you started to eat really, really healthy, you can only lose, say 1kg every 10 years.

    I think you better start before it’s too late.

    What do you reckon? :kiss:

    by Centre on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:24 pm

  32. Carey:

    Hope you got through the awful conditions in Adelaide okay. Watching the news it looked truly appalling for SAers.

    by confessions on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:25 pm

  33. Direct Action is solely about putting taxpayer money from the budget into the pockets of the wealthy supporters of the Liberal Party.

    by AussieAchmed on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:26 pm

  34. Carey,

    Actually, that’s only on the federal level. I don’t know what the rules inside each state are, in regard to this but the federal constitution does not prohibit state governments from imposing religion.

    Wrong. The Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, and any law, state or federal, that is unconstitutional is unenforceable and invalid.

    by Jake on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:26 pm

  35. Carey, re471
    I’m almost certain that the Vic constitution follows the Federal one on this.
    Indeed, wouldn’t the federal one over rule the states on this

    by Yesiree Bob on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:26 pm

  36. Direct Action is good

    How long will it make Australia cooler?

    by paaptsef on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:27 pm

  37. 468

    The Greens are not a single issue party. The Greens have always been supportive of secularism.

    by Tom the first and best on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:27 pm

  38. Direct Action is solely about putting taxpayer money from the budget into the pockets of the wealthy supporters of the Liberal Party.

    Like Abbott’s PPL scheme.

    by confessions on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:27 pm

  39. Sean claimed that Direct Action would be funded by a surcharge on businesses.

    But was unable to provide any evidence to support his claim.

    Just another Liberal Lie

    by AussieAchmed on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:27 pm

  40. Hope you got through the awful conditions in Adelaide okay. Watching the news it looked truly appalling for SAers.

    Barely. I ended up getting pretty badly dehydrated. I am still a bit off colour from it all. But I’ll live. The worst is over and tomorrow is forecast to only be 40 degrees (I never thought I’d live to see the day when 40 would be considered a relief.)

    Thanks for the concern :-)

    by Carey Moore on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:28 pm

  41. confessions

    Posted Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    Direct Action is solely about putting taxpayer money from the budget into the pockets of the wealthy supporters of the Liberal Party.

    Like Abbott’s PPL scheme.
    ====================================

    Like every policy implemented by this rotten Abbott lead gang of misfits

    by AussieAchmed on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:29 pm

  42. 483

    Section 116 specifically restrains only the Commonwealth from religious interference.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Australia_Constitution_Act

    by Tom the first and best on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:29 pm

  43. Centre, that sounds like Elysium. The Bogan family went to see it in the cinema and found it truly excellent, although I thought it was, perhaps, more oriented towards the Mexico-USA border situation.

    It’s no surprise that it was good, though, given that it came from the same people as District 9 which examined both refugee and apartheid issues and was also brilliant.

    by theintellectualbogan on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:30 pm

  44. Why should our national parliament open its sessions with an Anglican religious service, when I would think about 5% of the population are practising Anglicans?

    by Psephos on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:30 pm

  45. -Sean claimed that Direct Action would be funded by a surcharge on businesses.

    Wot, you mean like a t..t…tax ?

    Phesphos RE493
    Exactly.

    by Yesiree Bob on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:33 pm

  46. I dont know if this was posted today

    Where Pyne and the neocons went wrong

    http://www.theage.com.au/comment/where-pyne-and-the-neocons-went-wrong-20140115-30v1u.html

    by victoria on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:33 pm

  47. zoomster

    Posted Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    prettyone

    I’m positive Bob Brown and Ms Gillard said the temperatures would decrease with a carbon tax.

    And I’m positive they didn’t.

    You should be able to find a quote to support your position – I can’t prove mine.
    ======================================
    given that they never said it would impossible to find a link to something that never happened

    by AussieAchmed on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:33 pm

  48. Carey:

    It’s so easy to dehydrate. It’s why I loathe the heat.

    by confessions on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:34 pm

  49. “If we can get the temperature to plateau, albeit at a higher average, then we have a stable system, and can work out how to live with it.”

    Okay, but how does a carbon tax that increases our power bills actually do that? Is our carbon tax so terribly important that it will reduce temperatures around the world including Australia?

    by prettyone on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:34 pm

  50. intellect bogan

    Hey wasn’t the space station a paradise. If all the women up there were like Jodie, count me in :twisted:

    by Centre on Jan 16, 2014 at 10:34 pm

« | »