Sometime back yonder (April or May one would think), the latest South Australian and WA Newspoll State politics quarterly estimates were released onto the Newspoll public database, but from my poor memory they weren’t actually reported (insert wild conspiracy theory here). This morning the South Australian individual file turned up at Newspoll as well.
So, starting with South Oz, the period covers January to March using a sample of 876 for an MoE around the 3.3% mark. The primaries came in 42 (up 3) /34 (down 1) to Labor, washing out into a two party preferred of 56/44 the same way – a 2 point increase to Labor from the 4th quarter of 2008. The Greens came in with 10 (down 3) while the broad Others got 14 (up 1). The usual charts look a little like this:
The political fortunes of Rann have turned around over the last 6 months, where his net satisfaction rating has increased from it’s inverted level (where more people were dissatisfied with his performance than satisfied) experienced mid way through last year to be now back up into positive territory and above that of Liberal leader Hamilton-Smith. The Opposition leader hasn’t fared so well, dropping 12 points over the first 3 months of the year in what looks like a continuation of a nasty trend for him that’s been running over the course of the last 18 months or so. With the recent Scientology shenanigans and a good bout of silly buggers by the Liberals over the last month or so – it’s probably likely that these figures from earlier in the year are slightly optimistic compared to where the South Australian Opposition finds themselves today.
Moving right along to WA, the first poll of after the election has the new Coalition-that’s-not-really-a-Coalition government leading on primaries 47/33 with the breakdown having the Libs on 42 and the Nats on 5. The two party preferred flows through to a healthy 55/45 lead to the LibNats. The Greens came in with a healthy 13 while the Others were sitting on 7. This too was taken over the January – March period, but we don’t have a sample size for the poll yet, but one would imagine it to be around the 850 mark for an MoE in the vicinity of 3.5% give or take.
Not a lot of charts can be produced since this is the first poll after an election, and a line chart without lines would seem to be a bit superfluous. The long term vote estimates however look like this:
Premier Colin Barnett leads on the question of Better Premier 60/14 over Opposition leader Eric Ripper with 26% being uncommitted. Barnett’s satisfaction/dissatisfaction ratings are 56/23 for a net satisfaction level of 33 and 21% being uncommitted. Ripper’s dynamics on the other hand are running 35/34 for a net satisfaction of 1 and 31% being uncommitted.
6 Comments
Possum, why group non Labor-Liberal-Green in the “broad others”? Others was actually 11% rather than 14% if you keep FFP Dem Nat seperate.
Bob,
In South Australia it’s the Liberals, ALP and Greens which are the only parties that really matter (in the broadest sense) across the State. The Nats, FFP and Dems don’t really rate enough to warrant treating separately. The Nats poll 1%, the Dems between 0 and 2%, FFP between 1 and 3%. Because their numbers are so low, the volatility in their numbers compared to their actual size is enormous (the volatility being up to three times the size of their vote from one period to next).
The numbers of the small parties arent really trustworthy because of their size, so I dump them into “Others”
Poss, SA is probably the Greens weakest state, they got 6.5% last state election [although an increase to 13% and then 10% in these polls is noteworthy].
And SA is probably Family First’s strongest state [they have an Upper House member] at 5.9% last election.
Its worth keeping an eye on FF despite their apparent insignificance in these polls.
You are forgetting Nick X would be polling in the “other” category.
Fredex,
I wonder if Family First has peaked? Their performance in the polls has dropped right off the radar over the last 3 years or so, especially in South Oz.
Scott,
Does Nick X still run a ticket in the State Parliament down there (well, obviously not him, but those operating under his name)?
Begs the question of how much support would a Nick X ticket generate without there actually being a Nick X standing?
Nick X has damaged his brand somewhat since his move to the Senate – don’t think he’s running anybody in the state sphere – but he may run somebody with him in Fed sphere to mop up his excess quota if there’s a DD.