Menu lock

Galaxy: 54-46 to Coalition

A poll of federal voting intention from Galaxy comes in at the lower end of Labor's recent form, and offers some rather murky findings on the AWU affair.

GhostWhoVotes reports Galaxy has plugged a hole in the Newspoll and Nielsen schedules with a federal poll conducted from 1015 respondents on Wednesday and Thursday (UPDATE: Make that Thursday and Friday – The Management). The result is at the low end of Labor’s recent form, with the Coalition leading 48% to 34% on the primary vote and 54-46 on two-party preferred, compared with 47% to 35% and 53-47 in the Galaxy poll of a month ago. The Greens vote is steady on 11%.

Galaxy also grapples with the AWU matter, with what to my mind are problematic results. Poll questions are most effective when gauging basic affective responses, namely positive or negative feelings towards a person or thing, and mutually exclusive choices, such as preferences out of political parties or election candidates. On this score, the best question to emerge so far has been Morgan’s effort on approval or disapproval of the Prime Minister’s handling of the controversy. Difficulties emerge where the range of potential opinions is open-ended, as too much depends on the choices offered by the pollster.

A case in point is Galaxy’s question on whether Gillard had “lied” (31%), been “open and honest” (21%) or, as a middle course, been “economical with the truth” (31%). Particularly where complex or half-understood issues are involved, choices like this are known to activate the strategy of “satisficing” (“choosing the easiest response because it requires less thinking”, according one of the pithier definitions available). This results in a bias towards intermediate responses, in this case the “economical with the truth” option.

I have similar doubts about Galaxy’s question as to whether respondents believed Gillard “should provide a full account of her involvement through a statement in parliament”, an over-elaborate proposition that feels tailored towards eliciting a positive response. Sixty per cent of respondents duly gave it one, although it is clear the thought would have occurred to few of them before being put to them by the interviewer. Only 26% offered that such a statement was unnecessary, with 14% undecided.

Then there is the finding that 26% of respondents said the issue had made them less likely to vote Labor. Like any such question, this would have attracted many positive responses from those whose pre-existing chance of voting Labor was zero. However, the question at least allows us to compare the results to those of similarly framed questions in the past. In July, a Galaxy poll found that 33% were less likely to vote Labor because of the budget. In January, 39% of respondents to a Westpoll survey said power price hikes had made them less likely to vote for the Barnett government. In July of last year, The Australian reported polling by UMR Research (commissioned, it must be noted, by Clubs Australia) had 23% of voters less likely to vote Labor due to mandatory pre-commitment for poker machines. And a month after Kevin Rudd was deposed as Prime Minister in June 2010, Nielsen found the proportion saying they were less likely to vote Labor as a result was similar to today’s finding: 25%.

UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes reports News Limited has published a further result from the Galaxy poll, a four-way preferred prime minister question which has Kevin Rudd on 27%, Malcolm Turnbull on 23%, Julia Gillard on 18% and Tony Abbott on 17%.

Topics

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

1659 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
WeWantPaul
Guest

Caucus should pick the best replacement and best hope to win the next election if Gillard was no longer available.

The federal caucus has a terrible record and so probably wouldn’t pick Rudd (which would be totally stupid) even if they did pick Rudd Howse and others would bring him down like the did last time with the same waterfall of lies and hyperbole most here fell for last time.

davidwh
Guest

darkmarg best of luck getting people here to shut up.

frednk
Guest

[lizzie
Posted Monday, December 3, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

fredex @ 1430

http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/ Agreed. Must read.
But anyone know if this is true????

The current Opposition Leader grabbed an inaccurate story on Thursday morning from what used to be a respected newspaper, and now faces libel action as a result of relying on it too heavily.]

An AGE article by Mark Baker had the facts wrong. The article claimed that the PM had written that the AWU was not a union, in fact she had written the association to be registered was not an union. Abbott claimed criminality, the article was corrected by the time Abbott got up to speak. It was interesting that his effort the next day was put up and taken down.

Sustainable future
Guest

Boer – I’ll count myself an honest Green then. We will never form government alone (but green-labor ‘coalitions’ will be more common), and we will remind the Labor party and small L libs what progressive and visionary government could be. From time to time hold a balance of power position to get progressive policies through. If our only achievement was the current carbon pricing system we will still have done more for setting the Australian economy than either of the current major parties have done recently. Sustainable economic policies will some from the Greens and labor left. If we help labor wrest its soul from the NSW Right and CFMEU then we will do this country a great service. My bet is the labor right will do preference deals to take out the greens even if it means loss of government because they’d rather see the libs in power than the greens holding balance of power. Some of them must also fear Gillard winning an election and what it’d do to their political ambitions for the top job. Remember steve fielding? image what Rudd could have done had it not been for the labor preference deals against the greens that got fielding up.

darkmage
Guest

To all those arguing in favour of asylum seeker deterrent policies:

Please shut up until you can refute the statistical argument detailed in the following link. I expect better from you lot.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/19/push-vs-pull-asylum-seeker-numbers-and-statistics/

C@tmomma
Guest

guytaur,
This as you agree that as soon as processed if proved genuine acceptance is being flown to Australia.

If you are saying that only those that come by boat get to be processed in Indonesia, and then only those who then qualify as genuine refugees are allowed to come back to Australia, well I say that is entirely discriminatory, and would just encourage a revolving door that come by boat, go back to be processed, then come back to Australia will be the People Smugglers new line.

dave
Guest

Jackol said –

[ Tony Abbott’s solutions may be completely bogus, but if the PR is such that asylum seekers believe he will turn them away or lock them up or whatever, then he may well get the PR landscape that discourages boat arrivals simply by assuming the PMship. ]

I’ve thought for sometime that it goes further. ie to actually encourage the boat people and to the people smugglers to take the trip asap before the election because of the way he will crack down on them.

Abbott’s aim and that of morrison is of course to keep applying maximum pressure on the government on this issue. The more arrivals between now and the election the better for abbott.

abbott knows those waiting in Indonesia to take the sea trip monitor what is being said about boat people here in Australia and the more noise he makes, the more encouragement there is to make the trip sooner rather than later.

ShowsOn
Guest

ABSOLUTE TOSH AND YOU KNOW IT!

Ratsars
Guest

Psephos @# 1579

I agree that would work. However it would mean refusing entry to a genuine refugee as well. Breaching our treaty with the UN.

As I’ve said here at least 50 times, there is nothing in the 1951 Refugee Convention which obliges any signatory to admit any person to its territory.

This is really a shallow argument though it is correct. The problem is that it is the default arrangement when nothing else can be done which appears to be the case except in the case of the Malaysian proposal.

Australia may not be required to admit anyone to the country but what else can be done if no one else will take them.

zoidlord
Guest

1m Stephen Koukoulas Stephen Koukoulas ‏@TheKouk

RBA need to take a lot of heat over its pig-headedness on inflation, optimism on global growth, misread of fiscal policy and AUD effects

zoidlord
Guest

Stephen Koukoulas ‏@TheKouk

Looking at the run of data this year, the RBA has done a worse job that I 1st thought anticipating the slowdown. Cash rate shld be 2.5% now

zoidlord
Guest

@William/1642

That link is errored.

BH
Guest

[The case could run into next year, prompting another round of headlines in an election year about what Abbott did or didn’t do to a woman in 1977.]

leroy – ‘prompting another round of headlines in an election year’

Piffle. The MSM will leave it alone apart from a few small paragraphs. The reaction will be similar to the Grattan story after MargoK ‘reminded’ her of something she had forgotten. Balderdash and bullsh.t – Grattan had forgotten nothing.

Pardon my disbelief that the Ramjan case will grow legs.

Last week’s kerfuffle by Abbott and Bishop covered up an amazingly good roll out of legislation. We can see now why they did it at year’s end otherwise Labor would be going into the break looking far too competent for their liking.

Ratsars
Guest

I do not understand Psepos argument argument concerning the issuing of visa to refugees.

When refugees/asylum seekers arrive on our shores via leaky boats our options are very limited.

If they are determined not to be refugees we can send them back to their country of origin but that is exactly what is happening now.

I they are found to be refugees our options are also limited. We could try and send them back to from the point of embarkation (ie Indonesia) and all that is likely to do is put great stress on out relationship with Indonesia which I believe would not be to Australia’s benefit. We could try and send them to a third country but can anyone name one country that would accept large numbers of refugees from Australia.

Of cause we could try and send them back to their country of origin but that would result in the High Court imposing the requirements of the Refurgee Convention on the situation which Australia has signed up to and is enforceable by the courts in this country. We could of cause pass a law that reneges on our commitment to the Referee Convention but this would not go down so well with the rest of the developed world.

So it would appear that we would have to accept either in places like Nauru or release them into the community

So what is the benefit of not issuing visas?

Centre
Guest

Stanny

Primary Vote

LNP 44%

ALP 37%

Green 9%

2PP 51/49

CPVI (calculated potential voting improvement)

2PP ALP +3% LNP -3%

Projected 2PP at election

ALP 52% LNP 48

Boerwar
Guest
fran BW: Far left is never going to cut it in Australia. Centre left on a consistent basis is probably as good as it is going to get. Never is a long time. Doubtless, people once believed there would always be slavery, or that humans would never reach the moon so I’m going to assume hyperbole and rewrite it to mean “not in my lifetime, or the lifetime of even younger people I know well, based on what is knowable now”. With that in mind, you are probably correct. Of course, the Greens are not “far left” but centre-left, and I’d contend that somewhere between where we are and where the ALP is now, there is a position that the ALP could pitch that most Greens really would see as much the lesser harm. Right now, the ALP is on the centre-right, scrapping for centre-right votes with a hardcore conservative populist party. That contest tars the ALP with the hardcore conservative populist brush. Ironically, surplus fetishism — which pervades both the major parties isn’t strictly speaking populist, but a pitch at a different kind of conservative. Why the ALp wants this constituency as well is hard to say, because if you were pitching at RW populists, saying you’re the friend of the big banks isn’t the best option. Slavery? False analogy. Honest Greens (We of the Never Never) admit that they will not form a Government in real time. Dishonest Greens pretend that there is a real prospect of forming a Government. Then we have the Greens who want to argue about the number of Greens on the head of a pin: they don’t care about government because they don’t want it. That leaves only one practical impact for the Greens: life on the political margins. The far left loves life on the margins. It is their natural political habitat. It is the place for wringing your hands at the inability of the world to ‘get it’. It is the place for barracking for lost causes. It is the place where real world destruction you cause does not matter because you are pure and right and the others are all the same because they lack integrity. The far left thrives on loss. It suits them for the centre left to be defeated. The lack of a centre left, after all, allows the true dialectic between the oppressed and the oppressor… Read more »
poroti
Guest

David McRae @1622

Absolutely bizarre to hear that should a Hazara in Afghanistan seek to apply for an Australian visa or refugee status in Afghanistan they cannot. Cannot because “for security reasons” the location of the Australian Embassy in Kabul is a secret !!

mimhoff
Guest

[Under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967 Australia is obliged not to expel or return persons who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion to a place in which their life or freedom would be threatened on account of these reasons.

That’s not what the Convention says. It refers to non-refoulement of “refugees.” It doesn’t say that signatories are obliged to accept any person’s claim to be a refugee, not that signatories are obliged to admit any person to its territory because they claim to be a refugee. A refugee is a person whom a signatory has decided to accept as a refugee. Once they are so accepted, they acquire the protection of the Convention.]

Well anyone who does have a well-founded fear of persecution is a genuine refugee and shouldn’t be sent back to the country where they are persecuted. This is a matter of international common law, so it applies to non-signatories as well. Malaysia can’t forcibly repatriate any of its refugees either.

But are these boat arrivals fleeing persecution in Indonesia or Malaysia? I do not see what it has to do with “turning back the boats” or settling refugees in a different country altogether. There are a number of other rights issues concerning those in Australian custody, and there are the political problems in convincing these countries to accept these deals, but I don’t see how it is illegal under the Refugee Convention.

Fran Barlow
Guest
BB [The simple truth is that there is no valid reason for 99% of the people who come here by boat to come here by that method, except for the express purposes of jumping the queue.] That’s not a simple truth. It’s a simplistic truth. The reality is that nearly 90% of IMAs are reckoned to have valid claims, whereas only 20% of those who come by aircraft do. There is no queue and there never has been. The location of the Australian embassy in Kabul, is, according to DFAT, a secret. If you want to apply you must go to some territory where you can approach an Australian officials and seek asylum. Since this can be a dangerous and certainly expensive business, and your family will owe people money and you generally have to turn your possessions into a firesale, you are making a life-altering decision. Being penned up in Indonesia indefinitely and watching your kids grow up in a camp is not most people’s idea of acceptable. Putting aside questions of human compassion, which seem to get short shrift here, one might make the case that people who are as committed as these people are to get themselves and often their kids out of danger, and have staked everything (including risking their lives in the passage) on a successful life in Australia are exactly the sort of people who ought to qualify as migrants. These are people who used their get up and go to get up and go. They cast aside their old life and sought a new life — our life. What’s not to like about that? And how has this country responded? It has debated how to convince them that the price of coming here is more than they can pay — a fate worse than their own death and that of their families. On Nauru, some have finally figured that out and are acting accordingly. The problem with Psephos’s plan — no visas if you come on a boat is that you probably can’t implement it unless Indonesia or Malaysia agrees to take them back — but since neither of them recognises the Refugee Convention and doesn’t want them — why should they? Would we accept them back if the movement were the other way? We could try return to sender — simply shipping them back to the country of origin. Providing we’re relaxed… Read more »
wpDiscuz