Polls Thread Mk III

[samFFC]

It also found that PUP has 10.5% support in WA. Unless there has been a massive advertising campaign launched recently that also looks dodgy given nationwide it's only 4.5%. .

There has - many households have received a PUP DVD to promote the party and it's platform.

There have been TV ads, as much or more than Lib/ALP/Greens.

Not saying the figure is correct but the PUP is certainly visible out west.

 

[pjcrows]

Morgan's face to face polls are notoriously Labor biased, but this one is a phone poll I believe.

Either way, 55-45 and 52-48 in WA goes beyond any bias or margin of error.

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Newspoll
ALP: 36 (+1)
Coalition: 40 (-1)
Green 13 (+2)

TPP
ALP: 52 (+1)
Coalition: 48 (-1)

Leaders' Approval (Approve(+/-)/Disapprove(+/-))
Abbott: 40 (+2)/50 (-)
Shorten: 36 (+3)/43 (-)

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/03/24/1226863/729933-cac15d1c-b348-11e3-961d-5192f6c25a65.jpg

I'm willing to credit the Morgan result now. It seemed well out of line with last week's Nielsen and the general trend.


If those Morgan figures are correct, wow.

 

[samFFC]

Newspoll
ALP: 36 (+1)
Coalition: 40 (-1)

TPP
ALP: 52 (+1)
Coalition: 48 (-1)

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/03/24/newspoll-52-48-to-labor-7/

I'm willing to credit the Morgan result now. It seemed well out of line with last week's Nielsen and the general trend.


If those Morgan figures are correct, wow.

Consistently seeing 4+% 2PP swing against the Govt, across the different polling companies. I see that as more relevant than the individual number (as have been said, some seem more favourable to one side or the other).

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Galaxy Research
Primary
Coalition: 43
ALP: 37
Greens: 10

TPP
Coalition: 50
ALP: 50

Support for cuts to welfare spending
Support: 34
Oppose: 56

ReachTel
TPP
Coalition: 48 (+1)
ALP: 52 (-1)

Better/Worse of in the next year, financially:
Better: 19
Worse: 43

Essential Research
Primary
Coalition: 42 (-2)
ALP: 39 (+2)
Greens: 9 (-)
PUP: 3 (-1)

TPP
Coalition: 49 (-2)
ALP: 51 (+2)

Changes to the Racial Discrimination act:
Approve: 38
Disapprove: 44

Reintroduction of Knights and Dames
Approve: 27
Disapprove: 43

Newspoll Quarterlies
Federal voting by state, TPP (ALP-Coalition), Swing to ALP since '13

New South Wales: 53-47, (+7.3%)
Victoria: 57-43, (+6.8%)
Queensland: 49-51, (+6.0%)
Western Australia: 46-54, (+4.3%)
South Australia: 54-46, (+6.4%)

http://resources3.news.com.au/image...0295-6ead3440-b7ff-11e3-a264-cacd3e0700b0.jpg

On the data for primary votes, the Greens' vote in WA has jumped to 15%, up from 9.7% at the last election. It's a reassuring sign for Scott Ludlam.

 

[samFFC]

Galaxy Research
Primary
Coalition: 43
ALP: 37
Greens: 10

TPP
Coalition: 50
ALP: 50

Support for cuts to welfare spending
Support: 34
Oppose: 56

Newspoll Quarterlies
Federal voting by state, TPP (ALP-Coalition), Swing to ALP since '13

New South Wales: 53-47, (+7.3%)
Victoria: 57-43, (+6.8%)
Queensland: 49-51, (+6.0%)
Western Australia: 46-54, (+4.3%)
South Australia: 54-46, (+6.4%)

http://resources3.news.com.au/image...0295-6ead3440-b7ff-11e3-a264-cacd3e0700b0.jpg

On the data for primary votes, the Greens' vote in WA has jumped to 15%, up from 9.7% at the last election. It's a reassuring sign for Scott Ludlam.

But seems an erratic result, with Labor dropping from 36 to 29?

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Given the data has been aggregated over an extended period of time it should be accurate.

I think the increased Greens vote can be explained; the Shark cull, Ludlam's exposure, and IIRC there was some issue surrounding fracking in the Kimberley. Naturally most of this would come from Labor.

I also recall the ALP getting a bounce in the polls from WA immediately following the election, which would generate a spike in the Oct-Dec result.


I suppose Saturday will give a true indication of the sentiment.

 

[The Speaker]

But seems an erratic result, with Labor dropping from 36 to 29?

29 being much closer to last year's Senate vote.

 

[samFFC]

29 being much closer to last year's Senate vote.

Indeed, but essentially Ludlam would be picking up the majority of the swing against the Govt/minors. It's hard to believe Labor would get almost no bounce from this swing.

Don't get me wrong I want to see Ludlam get up, but am cautious.

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Essential Research
Primary Vote
Coalition: 42 (-)
Labor: 38 (-1)
Green: 9 (-)

TPP
Coalition: 49 (-)
Labor: 51 (-)

Leaders' Approval (Approve(+/-)/Disapprove(+/-))
Abbott: 41 (+1)/47 (-)
Shorten: 34 (+2)/38 (-1)

Preferred PM
Abbott: 42 (+3)
Shorten: 32 (-1)

Support for privatising Medibank Private
Support: 25
Oppose: 46

Climate change cause
Man-made: 56
Normal cycle: 34

(These are the strongest figures in favour of man-made climate change ever recorded by Essential)

Favoured action (Change since Oct '13)
Carbon Tax: 17 (+2)
ETS: 22 (+1)
Direct Action: 12 (-3)
Nothing: 30 (-1)

 

[Todman]

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Newspoll - Jan-Mar 2014 Queensland State Polling:
Primary vote (swings from '12 election), (swing from Oct-Dec, '13)
LNP: 40 (-10), (-)
Labor: 36 (+9), (+4)
Green: 8 (+1), (-)
KAP: 1 (-10), (-1)
Other (inc. Palmer): 15 (+10), (-3)

TPP
LNP: 52 (-11), (-3)
Labor: 48 (+11), (+3)

Popularity (satisfied)-(dissatisfied) (swing from Oct-Dec, '13)
Newman: 36-54 (-4)-(+6)
Palaszczuk: 38-30 (+2)-(-1)

Preferred Premier (swing from Oct-Dec, '13)
Newman: 41 (-4)
Palaszczuk: 35 (+3)

http://resources3.news.com.au/image...4547-fe33bc10-bf1b-11e3-83a0-0b9b92f13dc1.jpg

ReachTel Poll - Campbell Newman's Electorate of Ashgrove
Primary vote (swings from '12 election)
LNP: 37 (-15)
Labor: 39 (+2)
Green: 14 (+5)

TPP
LNP: 46 (-10)
Labor: 54 (+10)

A lot of issues surrounding the health portfolio generating negative sentiment (see link):

http://www.reachtel.com.au/blog/asmof-ashgrove-poll-26march2014


There's also another poll with similar TPP figures to the Newspoll, and similar health issues to the ReachTel

The only difference is that there is separate data for PUP. Palmer is polling at 8.0% statewide, his strength being regional Queensland.

http://www.reachtel.com.au/blog/working-for-queenslanders-queensland-poll-2april2014


Still a year to go until the election, and Newman is well and truly being rejected by his electorate. To make things even more interesting, SBS have recently reported that the ALP is trying to convince the former MP Kate Jones to return.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/14/kate-jones-could-take-newman-again

If Newman is going to survive next year he will probably need to jump ship into a safer LNP seat. It would be unfortunate for the LNP if he chose to do so, his toxicity as premier isn't going to help in the next term of government.

 

[samFFC]

Nielsen:





If that is true, perhaps the Scott Ludlam factor has gone national!

 

[samFFC]

Also, wut? Surely this cannot last??

 

[The Speaker]

Also, wut? Surely this cannot last??

Not a chance.

 

[Inferno]

But if they replaced Milne with Ludlum they'd have a chance if significantly increasing their vote, even if it didn't stay this high.

 

[swingdog]

But if they replaced Milne with Ludlum they'd have a chance if significantly increasing their vote, even if it didn't stay this high.

Agree - it seems a bit of a generational divide within the Greens between the Milne and Rhiannon era and the new Bandt and Ludlum cohort.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Also, wut? Surely this cannot last??

That shows the poll isn't really worth worrying too much about. Even with an ~8% margin of error in WA the Green vote is miles above what they actually polled in the senate election just last week. No doubt they've had a bit of a bump since the last election and are clearly above what they were in WA but this poll is definitely rogue and they would not see that sort of support at the ballot box if an election were held now.

 

[The Speaker]

Agree - it seems a bit of a generational divide within the Greens between the Milne and Rhiannon era and the new Bandt and Ludlum cohort.

Except Milne and Rhiannon are hardly on the same page either. The divide in the Greens is more ideological than generational.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Except Milne and Rhiannon are hardly on the same page either. The divide in the Greens is more ideological than generational.

I'd say apart from the NSW Greens (who, like the NSW branches of Labor and Liberal, are a bit nuts) there isn't really a great ideological divide. I mean there really isn't that great a difference ideologically between someone like Milne and Ludlam. Sure they communicate differently and would probably have slightly different priorities but you wouldn't find much ideologically that they actually disagree on.

People seem to classify Milne as a "hardliner" and immediately assume that she's got different views to the younger members of the party. Whilst she might be politically a hardliner but she isn't really ideologically a hardliner. She's willing to put minor issues on the backburner to get important reforms (she was leader of the TAS Greens when they supported a Liberal minority government) which is something the NSW Greens would never do. There was definitely some discontent within the Greens after the last election but that was much more politically based (some candidates didn't like the style of campaign they ran) rather than disagreements on what the party should stand for.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

That shows the poll isn't really worth worrying too much about. Even with an ~8% margin of error in WA the Green vote is miles above what they actually polled in the senate election just last week. No doubt they've had a bit of a bump since the last election and are clearly above what they were in WA but this poll is definitely rogue and they would not see that sort of support at the ballot box if an election were held now.

I don't disagree, but how many times has this been said for state or federal polls post election.

It was said about Queensland, but successive polls have shown an enormous swing against Newman and the libs.

It was said about the Greens pre WA senate election, but again both they and PUP had a huge bump in the primary vote in WA.

It was said about the libs absent a honeymoon period and that they would stabilize or gain, especially in the TPP, yet have continued to be on the nose and are even behind Labor (in certain polls) , despite much of News painting them as a factional rabble.

As for the Greens, they have misidentified their base. If they dropped the anti science stuff, re GMO and took the angle it was a regulatory issue, or focused more on the negative impacts of these FTA to Australian farmers I reckon they would do a bit better. Young educated professionals/the academic set and not crusty hippies is where their present and future lies. If they can moderate certain positions and make the science or evidence based approach an across the board thing, I also think they will carry the youth vote through to an older demographic. Definitely the younger generation are more demanding when it comes to evidence for policy positions, which is a cultural product of the information age, this won't change in the immediate future .

 

[The Speaker]

I'd say apart from the NSW Greens (who, like the NSW branches of Labor and Liberal, are a bit nuts) there isn't really a great ideological divide. I mean there really isn't that great a difference ideologically between someone like Milne and Ludlam. Sure they communicate differently and would probably have slightly different priorities but you wouldn't find much ideologically that they actually disagree on.

People seem to classify Milne as a "hardliner" and immediately assume that she's got different views to the younger members of the party. Whilst she might be politically a hardliner but she isn't really ideologically a hardliner. She's willing to put minor issues on the backburner to get important reforms (she was leader of the TAS Greens when they supported a Liberal minority government) which is something the NSW Greens would never do. There was definitely some discontent within the Greens after the last election but that was much more politically based (some candidates didn't like the style of campaign they ran) rather than disagreements on what the party should stand for.

There are three historical bases for the formation of what we know today as the Greens: Tasmania, NSW and WA. Tasmania is often seen as the home of the Greens, but NSW registered the name first, and they got federal representation from WA first. All three were born from different ideas. If they did not the WA Greens would not have taken until 2004 to officially join the rest of the party.

It's fair enough to say that NSW is probably the furthest removed from the others. Which direction they head ideologically over the next decade will decide what they become. Well, that and the future of our other political parties.

 

[Footy Smarts]

There are three historical bases for the formation of what we know today as the Greens: Tasmania, NSW and WA. Tasmania is often seen as the home of the Greens, but NSW registered the name first, and they got federal representation from WA first. All three were born from different ideas. If they did not the WA Greens would not have taken until 2004 to officially join the rest of the party.

It's fair enough to say that NSW is probably the furthest removed from the others. Which direction they head ideologically over the next decade will decide what they become. Well, that and the future of our other political parties.

The WA and Tasmanian groups have merged pretty strongly. Sure the WA Greens were a separate entity until 2004 but now their make-up is very much the mainstream of the Greens. Basically the Victorian and Tasmanian Greens have become more and more like the WA Greens over the past decade and now it's a pretty solid block. Bandt grew up in WA and it was really noticeable that Milne and Whish-Wilson were out and about in WA campaigning.

Ideologically that's clearly where the Greens are headed since the NSW faction just doesn't have the numbers to even come close to having power. I mean Faerhmann wan preselected in NSW last time and she's as far away from Rhiannon as the NSW Greens get (she'd have much more in common with the WA/Vic/Tas Greens really). QLD and SA are a bit irrelevant since they don't have the background or popularity for those states to make a big impact but they're not really swinging towards the NSW faction.

So the only real questions are: How long does Milne remain leader? Does she hand over the leadership smoothly or will she hang on until pushed? Which of the younger group take over?

Ideally I think everybody would want a smooth transition before the next election and I really don't see Milne fighting tooth and nail to resist. She's smart enough to know her time is limited and she won't be replaced by somebody who is particularly ideologically different. The real issue is whether the younger generation can agree on their next leader or whether there's some internal bickering over it (SHY will fight for it but she's got no chance). That will come down much more to personality than ideology. If Ludlam and Bandt team up to be leader and deputy then I can't see there being many issues but if they both want it for themselves it could get a bit ugly.

 

[The Speaker]

Is Ludlam actually a better choice than Di Natale? I mean, to me those two seem to be the stand outs, but clearly Bandt has been placed in a position of importance.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Is Ludlam actually a better choice than Di Natale? I mean, to me those two seem to be the stand outs, but clearly Bandt has been placed in a position of importance.

Those three are the ones in with a chance I'd think. In all honesty I don't know who would be the most likely or the best but they're now all fairly experienced and are fairly safe in parliament (about as safe as you can get as a Green). But like I say, whoever is the leader of those 3 won't really change where the Greens are headed ideologically because they'd all have pretty strong agreement on most things. Of those 3 Bandt would probably be the one I would least want as leader. Not because of ideology but I think his background as a lawyer means he tends to be a bit more confrontational than the other 2 which works well for inner-city Melbourne but I don't think would work for the rest of Australia quite as well.