Menu lock

Federal Election 2013

Aug 28, 2013

ReachTEL: 53-47 to Coalition

This morning brings a ReachTEL national automated poll consistent with the result of the last such poll a fortnight ago, and also with the overall polling trend.

A ReachTEL automated phone poll of 3500 respondents, conducted on Monday and released today by Channel Seven, has the Coalition leading 53-47, unchanged from the last national ReachTEL poll on August 10. The only primary vote provided at this stage is that Labor is down 1.2% to 35.7%. The poll also finds the Coalition paid parental leave scheme supported by 30% and opposed by 48.4%, Tony Abbott leading Kevin Rudd on ReachTEL’s idiosyncratic preferred prime minister measure by 53.6-46.4, 41.9% believing Labor made the right choice in replacing Julia Gillard with Kevin Rudd against 40.5% for the wrong choice and 74% expecting the Coalition to win the election.

We also had yesterday a Galaxy automated phone poll of 575 respondents from the northern Adelaide fringe seat of Wakefield courtesy of The Advertiser, which is presumably treating us progressively to polling from South Australia’s most marginal seats. This one showed Labor’s Nick Champion leading his Liberal challenger Tom Zorich 55-45, suggesting a swing to the Liberals of between 5% and 6%. The primary votes were 45% for Champion and 35% for Zorich.

Further raw material for tea-leaf reading from The Australian, whose lead story yesterday essentially consisted of an account of where its reporters believe things to stand. This was consolidated into a “call of the card” laying out which seats might change hands and with what likelihood. Those of you who might wish to write this off as a contrivance of Murdoch propagandists can feel free, but since the aggregate findings sit pretty well with BludgerTrack, I’m inclined to regard it as welcome intelligence as to how the campaigns are seeing things.

UPDATE: BludgerTrack has since been updated with big-sample state breakdowns provided to me by ReachTEL, so some of the numbers cited below have changed quite a bit.

Where BludgerTrack presently counts eight losses for Labor in New South Wales, The Australian’s list sees six as likely if you include Dobell (which I do) plus one strong chance and two possibles. Aside from Dobell (margin 5.2%), the seats listed as likely losses are Labor’s five most marginal: Greenway (0.9%), Robertson (1.1%), Lindsay (1.2%), Banks (1.5%) and Reid (2.7%). However, the picture of a uniform swing breaks down with Werriwa (6.8%) being rated a strong chance and Kingsford Smith (5.2%) and McMahon (7.9%) as possibilities. So while Labor has fires to fight all over Sydney and the central coast, it appears set to be spared in its seats further afield, namely Eden-Monaro (4.2%), Page (4.2%) and Richmond (7.0%). There also appears to be inconsistency in Sydney to the extent that Parramatta (4.4%) and Barton (6.9%) are not listed.

In Victoria, The Australian’s assessment is well in line with BludgerTrack’s call of three Liberal gains in having two listed as likely (Corangamite on 0.3% and La Trobe on 1.7%) and another as a strong chance (Deakin on 0.9%). Labor’s next most marginal seat in Victoria, Chisholm (5.8%), is evidently considered a bridge too far. The only seat featured from South Australia is the “strong chance” of Hindmarsh (6.1%), but BludgerTrack is not quite seeing it that way, the swing currently recorded there being lower than what most observers expect.

Redressing all that slightly is a list of seats which Labor might gain, albeit that it is very short. Brisbane (1.2%) is rated a “likely Coalition loss”, and despite what published polls might say Peter Beattie is rated a strong chance in Forde (1.7%). The Western Australian seat of Hasluck (0.6%) is also listed as a possible Labor gain. However, a report elsewhere in the paper cites Labor MPs saying hopes there have faded, while Andrew Probyn of The West Australian today relates that Liberal polling has them leading 53-47 from 46% of the primary vote against 36% for Labor and 9% for the Greens.

Queensland and Western Australia also have seats listed on the other side of the ledger, especially Queensland. With Queensland we find the one serious breakdown with a BludgerTrack projection, one which in this case I have long been noting as problematic. The Australian lists Moreton (1.2%), Petrie (2.6%) and Capricornia (3.7%) as likely Labor losses, to which are added the strong chance of Blair (4.3%) and the possibility of Kevin Rudd indeed losing Griffith (8.5%). However, the latter seems a bit hard to credit if neighbouring Brisbane is to be deemed a likely Labor gain, and Lilley (3.2%), Rankin (5.4%) and Oxley (5.8%) left off the chopping block.

In Western Australia, Labor’s possible gain of Hasluck is balanced by a possible loss of Brand (3.4%). This tends to confirm my suspicion that BludgerTrack, on which Labor’s numbers in WA have soured considerably recently, is erring slightly on the harsh side with respect to Labor. Bass and Braddon are listed as likely Labor losses for Tasmania, with Lyons (12.3%) only rated a possibility and Franklin (10.8%) not in play. Powered by what may have been an exaggerated result from ReachTEL on the weekend, BludgerTrack is calling it three losses for Labor in Tasmania with only one seat spared. The Northern Territory seat of Lingiari (3.8%) is rated by The Australian as a possible loss, while BludgerTrack has it as likely.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

1413 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Strong UnionsStrongCountry
Guest
Strong UnionsStrongCountry

What do people think of the new format of this blog?

I’m finding it difficult

Lev Lafayette
Guest

ItDoesntAddUpTony@1402

Remove the annoying crashing sounds. A subtle and ominous music score would do.

David
Guest

Rummell you going to believe an article from the NewsCorpse? Where no one puts there name to the comments. Rummell I thinks it’s safe to say Labor has no doubts they are doing better under Rudd. What you think Gillard could of done better on a primary vote of 29% and Labor losing up to 40 seats in the parliament? Yeah nice try.

Andrew
Guest

GREAT BIG NEW TAX- rinse and repeat

mexicanbeemer
Guest

I don’t see any reason why MedicareLocal should be beyond reviewing, just because something looks a good idea doesn’t place it above review.

This is part of the problem with the welfare sector, hiding behind the disabled as the good guys which allows them to be highly ineffective and get away with piss-poor serve standards.

killerbees
Guest
Having a go at amateur speech writing for the launch and some of the things that might get a mention. I think the the target audience is for cynical voters in marginal seats. It’s been very humbling going around the country and talking to Australians who rely on [Labor policies] to help them make their way through life. (personalised examples) As some of you know I grew up on a farm in country Qld and we did it a bit tough after my Father died. Modern Australian families deserve more security for their jobs, their children’s access to a high class education, childcare etc. So win or lose, this election isn’t about me; Therese and I will be OK. But I’m determined to fight for those who want job security, a fair days pay for a fair days work, superannuation increased from 9 to 12%, etc. Past Labor Gov’ts have delivered Medicare, Superannuation etc. etc. (lots of stuff on jobs, economy). Policies that we took to the 2007 election, we have implemented and continue to do so. The current Labor Gov’t have delivered on your rights at work, NDIS, better schools, price on carbon, NBN, trade training centres, GP super clinics etc. Future Labor gov’t’s will keep Australia’s economy, jobs strong by (specific examples, not just “pillars of the economy” and “diversification”) It’s very difficult to build things up, but very easy to tear them down. During the GFC we supported jobs and we spent more on infrastructure than any other Gov’t since federation, now with signs of recovery in the US and Europe’s economy we are paying back the money we borrowed in a responsible manner so we don’t go into recession using austerity measures like the conservative UK Gov’t. When one of Tony Abbott’s political heroes, Margaret Thatcher came to power in England the unemployment rate was very similar to what we have in Australia today. She started cutting and unemployment doubled and they went into a double dip recession. Manufacture decline, pay gap worse etc. Let me quote you directly Mr Abbott’s words- about Workchoices- “was one of the great achievements of the Howard gov’t, he says Workchoices won’t be back under another name”. But he also said “don’t believe everything I say”. I’ll leave it to you to decide. “Whyalla will become a ghost town, climate change is crap but now says he believes the science”… Read more »
rummel
Guest

Well, now the Labor leaks are starting, we can expect a real show in the final days. Gillard was better then Rudd.

John
Guest
Dear bludger, Re : your reply as follows — Sounds like Palmeromics to me. Using that theory we should pay the unemployed $150,000 per year. How about just giving everyone $150,000 per year, that should do the trick. (Apologies if I missed the sarcasm font) My reply : Interesting theory. Pay unemployed $150,000. Made me think would it work. I guess the reason why not is it is unsustainable. Is the govt going to just print the money or borrow it? The problems are many with this. Philosophically your saying we should pay people $150 k for absolutely nothing. Economically this is suicide. It is most ruinous. But I am a disabled pensioner myself with not much of a bank account, so believe me if I saw it would work then Amen. It is worth looking at on a sustainable amount. It would need to take into account everything and everyone else though. You cannot have workers making $50 k and welfare being $150 k otherwise why work. But more money for welfare for sure, Amen. It would greatly benefit the economy. You need to get the right mix and balance to be sure it will actually work and not ruin things. That is the problem with something like this. A mother, and family, having a baby is the greatest thing they can do. it makes the numero uno contribution to the nations wealth and community and all, even the whole universe and cosmos. It is ok to reward a mother sensibly because of this. Economically it works great as said. I’ve argued a lot on this in recent days and you would need to read all else I have said already dear friend. The PPL works and is fair and just ( it depends on your concepts and definitions of these but it is ). If it works fine. Families and mothers get paid fairly and equitably for doing something. It costs $0 and returns a fortune for us all. Genius. Every single person that has ever lived started out as a baby you know. look at the contributions they have all made. Countless billions have made enormous contributions to mankind and society in every way. some of them, quite a lot — millions, have made the most dazzlingly extraordinary contributions for the common good and benefit of all, and the benefits are ongoing. We benefit from all the… Read more »
ItDoesntAddUp Tony
Guest

John Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 2:32 am @ 1401

A govt with great business minds thinks up ways to spend money to make money. So we have a PPL costs $0 and makes a fortune for us all, and we get the benefit of one of the worlds most generous PPL schemes.

Sounds rather brilliant to me and it certainly makes good economic and social sense. If it was not set up capped at $150 k it would not work so well. Kudos to the coalition. a work of genius. keep it up. It’s true dear friends. Think about it.

Sounds like Palmeromics to me. Using that theory we should pay the unemployed $150,000 per year. How about just giving everyone $150,000 per year, that should do the trick. (Apologies if I missed the sarcasm font)

ItDoesntAddUp Tony
Guest

I’ve been playing with Youtube over the last few days. I’ve been creating Youtube videos based on PowerPoint slides. I’ve now created one that looks at who pays for Abbott’s PPL. Any feedback would be welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI0oX7WGvqY&feature=youtu.be

John
Guest
Dear bludgerinos, Re : PPL Many know I have argued extensively on this. I won’t redo old work dear friends. But the PPL costs nothing to anyone or anything at all — fact. You have to think like a chess player to understand this, think many moves ahead. For every cause there is an effect, and that effect creates a cause and on it goes ad infinitum. This is how it works in this world. The coalition have worked out the causes and effects associated with money paid out to families and mothers per year ( within each year time frame ) and over the first 2 yrs which is the remainder of the forward estimates the govt makes $1.1 billion profit on this scheme. You need to go past the cost to the govt of paying out and see very carefully what happens after the govt pays out a PPL insurance policy — I call it that. Taxes and revenues go into govt coffers straight away. And money starts spinning around the economy from this racking up 10 % GST fees each time it is turned over in the economy. And personal and company tax and various revenue streams come into govt coffers from all over the place. The PPL payment does not just go under mums mattress. It goes to work being rolled over multiple times and leveraged throughout the nation multiplying and increasing, and coming back to govt coffers enmasse. This actually continues well beyond the end of that year but standard accounting works on a yearly basis. The taxpayers, all citizens and business whom the govt represents get a great return on investment ( ROI ). You just need to think it thru more fully dear friends. What an absolute work of genius that a govt can provide one of the worlds most generous maternity leave schemes and it costs it or none a cent and they make heaps of money. Would that all govt spending made profits like this, the huge $300 billion debt would dissolve rapidly. It works out like the govt pays out not one single dime but mothers pay into govt coffers. No one or nothing pays a cent. If there are 300,000 births per yr and say 275,000 mothers qualify and you make $550,000,000 profit per yr, then it is like mothers pay govt $2,000 / baby. And a baby is… Read more »
Oakeshott Country
Guest

THLV = the happy little vegemite.

paaptsef
Guest

NZ have apparently bought the Liberal’s billion dollar Seasprites for seventeen dollars fufty

ItDoesntAddUp Tony
Guest

sustainable future Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 1:03 am @ 1394

this is magic pudding economics. so they are going to pay for their unfair PPL scheme without any new revenue? what are they going to cut this time? they are either going to have to cut family payments, education, health, environment, etc OR simply declare the PPL ‘non-core’ and unaffordable due to Rudd’s big black hole – they’ll say “we’ll pay you 3 months instead”, cutting family payments so the average family is no better off, but the wealthy get their $37,500 (half their $75k).

It’s worse than that. Abbott’s offsetting tax cut actually means less revenue. And the only reason for this tax cut is to placate business who were offside about the levy. So, this means less revenue (the first $5million of profits are taxed at the rate of 28.5% I believe) as well as increased expenditure. The total cost of the scheme should include the tax cut because that’s the only reason they were given.

Sean Tisme
Guest

Sustainable…

Surpluses will always be more believable under a Coalition Government

paaptsef
Guest

most of the millionaires i know are quite insulted at only being offered $75,000 to have a baby

lefty e
Guest

No one reads the OO, so it doesn’t matter.

Sustainable future
Guest

ST @1390

this is magic pudding economics. so they are going to pay for their unfair PPL scheme without any new revenue? what are they going to cut this time? they are either going to have to cut family payments, education, health, environment, etc OR simply declare the PPL ‘non-core’ and unaffordable due to Rudd’s big black hole – they’ll say “we’ll pay you 3 months instead”, cutting family payments so the average family is no better off, but the wealthy get their $37,500 (half their $75k).

wpDiscuz