As Phil observed on Facebook, the political classes are going to work themselves into a lather over a poll on the day when a horse race stops the nation.
Newspoll shows Labor’s primary at 41, down 7 points, and equal with the Coalition’s.
Possum presents a variety of reasons why it is highly likely that this poll is an outlier, and the most recent survey of public opinion on the asylum seeker issue from Essential Research (which also has Labor’s 2PP vote exactly where it was last time), doesn’t bear out the simple equation “asylum seeker crisis = poll shock”.
So, if I understand Possum’s analysis, the under 50’s have shifted more against the Government, than the over 50’s.
And given the usual expectations about age and voting patterns, this suggests that the loss in the Government’s support comes from younger people unhappy about lack of compassion towards refugees.
Not the way the MSM and the opposition is spinning it at the moment.
I know amongst my leftie comrades there’s a feeling of betrayal. Why vote ALP if the head is going to be the same as John Howard?
Er because he’s not the same as John Howard. How quickly some people forget. I could go through all the policies that are different bu it’s too tedious to argue with this kind of ignorance.
What Grace said. I think it IS about asylum issues, but both the ALP and MSM has completely lost track of which way that issue plays today.
We are witnessing a massive upsurge in cynicism among younger voters as the Rudd govt stupidly plays an old broken fiddle belonging to a bunch of discredited losers.
I hope they learn this lesson well. People respected your honesty Rudd – no matter where they stood on asylum seeker issues.
Now you look tarnished. WRONG WAY: TURN BACK NOW.
From this weird poll result many on the left and right claim it is all about asylum seekers. On the left it is because of the heavy duty Rudd approach and Liberals are already crowing it is because he has gone soft on border security. In two weeks time I think it likely that the result will swing well back.
I must admit my first thought this morning (especially after hearing that ALP support had diminished most amongst the younger folk) was that it was likely to be because people think the govt position on reffos is too harsh.
Particularly as it’s an anomolous result, I think the media (especially the Oz and Little Sir Echo at our national broadcaster) have completely misunderstood it. (Even though, as we all know, News Ltd owns the newspoll … )
The Government has seemed weak and confused on the asylum seeker issue for the past few weeks, trying to be simultaneously tough and humane, and not looking in control of the situation, so it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if its popularity has suffered as a result.
However, it’s too early to tell whether this particular poll result means anything. It might be an indication of a loss of support for the government, or it might be an outlier. Once the next few polls come out, we’ll have a better idea.
If your analysis is correct Lefty E, you would expect to see an increase in the Green vote, but it has stayed static. If people are upset at Labor being too harsh, why on earth would they give their vote to the Libs who are even harsher, it doesn’t make any kind of sense.
LeftyE – its a two party preferred poll though so doesn’t that mean its labor voters moving to the libs/nationals rather than to the greens?
http://mumble.com.au/?p=833
Essential is always a bit goofy:
http://mumble.com.au/?p=302
Well yes, but if the other theory was right (swing to LNP over border protection), why would over-50s have stayed put? That doesnt make the slightest bit of sense either.
Maybe possum’s right and its just a rogue.
That, or the LNP is now considered a fringe stopover to lodge a protest vote!
But seriously Adriend/ Chris, if its about disaffection with Rudd becoming “just another pollie” – you wouldnt necessarily expect the Greens to benefit. It might just swing around.
At base my point is this has all been bad politics from Rudd et al. But its not to late to rescue the situation.
Michelle Grattan reckons it’s probably a “rogue poll”.
“The Government has seemed weak and confused on the asylum seeker issue for the past few weeks, trying to be simultaneously tough and humane, and not looking in control of the situation, so it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if its popularity has suffered as a result.”
This asylum seeker issue was running hot and similarly in the weeks of the Newspoll before this one and remember, the governments stocks were particularly strong in that result.
True, joe2, but it still wouldn’t be surprising if the government’s popularity has suffered. As I said before, whether or not its popularity has suffered will take more than this poll to tell.
Tim , I expressed my surprise at the time, here, that the government had not taken flak from the concerted and ugly Liberal/media attack in that period. I am surprised at the level of criticism levelled at Labor now, with the other mob somehow invisable, when I think the coalition part in all this has been quite appalling.
Well, if its an outlier, the kids might just be giving K.rudd a warning.Hope he takes notice.
And, boy, would I love to be fly on the wall at the next Coalition party room meeting the day of the next poll when K.rudd comes surging back.
But then again, maybe everyone is analysing it too much. Maybe it is just an outlier and nothing more.
I don’t understand why so many comments are trying to analyse this only through the prism of asylum seekers and boats.
Yes, that issue has had a lot of press and the Government hasn’t covered itself in glory over it. But thare are a number of other areas in which it is a bit wobbly too. The ETS doesn’t look any more convincing the more people have a chance to consider it, the ridiculous tussle between a government bent on continuing a mega-dollar stimulus spending spree and a Reserve Bank trying to destimulate gets less and less edifying as interest rate rises and the certainty of more hit people’s pockets, more rorts and rip offs in the Julia Gillard memorial halls and dunnies building programs surface, etc.
And for the past couple of weeks, for the first time since about forever, the media hasn’t made the story on any of these the Opposition instead of the Government. Maybe, just maybe, with a bit of time to think for a change about the Government’s deficiencies, people are beginning to have second thoughts.
That said, the size and suddenness of the shift alone suggests only a rogue poll, and Chinda63’s point about tendencies to over-analysis is probably valid re the above.
This seems to be the point where people caste around for a poll that will suit their preferred reading of politics. Essendial Media’s poll this week actually asked asylum-seeker related questions whereas Newspoll apparently did not. The “declined to answer”, “no comment” and the standard error for Newspoll all added up to a sizeable percentage. I’m just as puzzled by Martin O’Shaunnassy’s comments on the poll and his stated belief that this poll represents a turning point for Labour. That seems a bit ambitious just now.
The basic problem, as a number of people have intimated, is that nothing suggests any correlation between this result and the issue. We don’t even know how salient the issue is – ie how many people care much about it at all (which could be relatively few – it often is when there’s a big disconnect between a media “crisis” and what most voters’ concerns actually are) and nor do we know how many of those people would care strongly enough to shift their votes, and in what direction.
There’s an immense amount of speculation about, all of which may prove futile.
I noticed Lenore Taylor saying the poll may be a “rogue” but the “trend” was important – which is quite bizarre, given that if it is, the trend is still pretty much where it was.
I reckon this poll is too big a swing to be an outlier.
The result suggests that quite a few people have changed their minds about something. People are assuming here that it is all about asylum seekers/boatpeople, and disagreement with Rudd’s “policy”.
Is there much in the way of clear policy on the boatpeople, or just a lot of “jaw-boning”? Maybe some of the people who were polled are thinking the latter? Maybe it coincides with a growing awareness about “jaw-boning” on climate change, and a lack of substance in the ETS proposal as well?
As such, this changing perception could be quite damaging for Rudd’s squeaky-clean image of a straight-up-and-down, honest, bookish type. He then is just another manipulative pollie, and not deserving of a marble pedestal.
The fact that the poll didn’t indicate a swing to the soft Green position, says something very telling about motivations. A wild guess would suggest that people may be increasingly disillusioned with the Rudd government, but not necessarily endorsing the Greens position.
It may indeed be a turning point in Turnbull’s fortunes, if he can get his rabble to show some semblance of a consistent party policy on a few key issues…
That doesn’t really make sense, Elise. By definition, an outlier is an unusually large deviation from earlier results. Whether this result is an outlier or not will depend whether the results are reflected in future polling, or whether subsequent polls are closer to previous results.
@21 –
What Tim said, Elise.
An outlier is a poll that registers a movement that is sudden *and* not confirmed by other polls. Note, as I said in the post, Essential Research has Labor’s vote basically steady at the same time as Newspoll finds a big swing away on primaries.
Tim @22, OK you are technically correct “an outlier is an unusually large deviation from earlier results”.
Totally agree that subsequent polls will reveal whether it is an isolated event and we have a “regression to the mean”, or whether it is indicative of a turning point.
If we return to the concept of “outlier” in research terminology, it usually denotes poor experimental control of some important variable. Most people toss the outliers, because they are fixated on proving/disproving some particular hypothesis.
Years ago there was a major scandal at one of our sandstone unis because an Iraqi/Iranian (I forget which now) had developed an equation which did not fit the data. He therefore tossed most of his raw data as “outliers”, which was bad enough academically speaking. However, he compounded the felony by back-calculating the necessary raw data which would give points which fitted close to his theoretical line. With just enough variability to look realistic…
IIRC, the PhD had been granted before the fiddle was discovered by a subsequent researcher, requiring a gruesome investigation and withdrawal of the degree. Bad news for the uni in terms of its scientific review processes, and not least for the supervisor of the project for lax supervision.
Almost by definition, calling something an outlier means that people are suggesting it is not part of the main game. However, a careful study of what caused the outlier can be really revealing of another significant factor.
In some cases, outliers indicate that the original hypothesis or derived governing equation may be a pile of crock!
or a crock of piles
The over fifties are Rudd Supporters!? Now both him and myself know what the problem is,no matter what he decides to do with the Refugees.And I think he has been warned previously.That is Rudd hasnt,left a personality on his decisions so far.Rudd could be seen to be out in a dinghy this weekend facing some big waves to get a feel for the problem of having to decide to travel by boat.And boats and ships have been in the news lately,even a yacht where some people got killed.He hasn’t been able to ride on the theme park news in away that doesn’t seem a hazard to ego.And plenty of that showing too.
When is an outlier not an outlier?
When it is a turning point?
when it is an out-landish liar
See a Controlled (Self-)Demolition thread at a blog site near you….
This “youth pro refugees” element is interesting. Is it because all those Sri Lankans look rather “hot”?
Not really on topic, but here’s a poem about an outlier by Tatjana Lukic. The poem also alludes to the practice of deleting those that cause trouble by standing out from the crowd. The poem itself might make a little more sense to those who have some experience estimating linear models of a quantitative nature (which Tatjana Lukic did).
(I wrote a comment about Tatjana Lukic and her new book of poetry earlier this year.)
My ears pricked up this morning when Michelle Grattan, sounding perhaps a little confused by quite what the poll is as much as what it means, stated that the only issue to impact over the last couple of weeks is the handling of the asylum issue.
Which kinda surprised me – what about:
>Much chat & discussion about another interest rate rise – which indeed has occurred
>The bodgey insulation in your roof, and the decision to decrease the subsidy by $400
>The cost over runs and ‘waste’ in the school infrastructure program (beat up or otherwise)
>The leaking oil rig in the Timor Sea
>The fart arkling both sides of politics are indulging in re emission trading
>The proposed split between Telstra’s wholesale & retail divisions – all those poor bloody suckers who bought at what? $6 a share wouldn’t be too happy
Small stuff that seems to have slipped under the radar, but this stuff either impacts directly on people or unnerves them. A lot of it vaguely smells of mismanagement. Perhaps in combination worth a 2 point shift?
“Is it because all those Sri Lankans look rather “hot”?”
Interesting theory there, Adam.
Apparently they are real tigers in the cot.
If the Sri Lankans are a factor my guess is that it is partly because Rudd just doesn’t look in control. For a control freak that’s a bad look. His nonverbals on TV tonight were awful.
People say, “He could have handled it better”, without themselves having a clue as to how.
Malcolm on the other hand is getting away with not having a policy. Better he doesn’t. If he did there would be people on his side who’d disagree with it and would say so. Also I’d be surprised if Malcolm could come up with a policy that made sense.
This “youth pro refugees” element is interesting. Is it because all those Sri Lankans look rather “hot”?
If they’re ‘hot’, it’s probably because they’re deyhydrating. The youth vote may just be the youth vote.
“His nonverbals on TV tonight were awful.”
True but Rudd did manage to maintain a dignified calm when questioned about “blood on his hands”.It was good work not to ‘lose it’ when accused by Toxic Tony of complicity in the deaths of people, on a sinking boat, closer to Sri Lanka than Australia.
If we hold Rudd to the same standard as Howard then yes he does have blood on his hands. Case closed bring on the double dissolution.
This will be Rudd’s Workchoices.
And I had such high hopes for him.
Comment #34 would have to be the biggest load of rubbish I’ve read on a blog for a long time. Unless you can back it up I suggest you withdraw it, and while your at it learn abit about the differences between Howard’s asylum seeker policies and Rudd’s.
Ignorance is no excuse for stupidity, although the two seem pretty much interchangable these days.
It won’t be anything like Rudd’s Workchoices. The Oceanic Viking will be brought to Xmas Island with refugees long before the election. Thogh WTF K.rudd was doing sending it there in the first place, regardless of the Law of the Sea, is beyond me.
Re the sunk refugee boat – making an effort to save lives, and actually saving lives = no blood on Rudd’s hands.
And anything the Libs might have gained out of this I’d bet they’ll lose it utterly once the debate on emissions trading gets under way. Unless the entire party h\has an ephiphany as they walk to Parliament House and I don’t believe in miracles.
Rudd seems to be trying to out Howard Howard and failing badly. In the meantime people are suffering. And Turnbull is able to wedge Rudd by being able to at least position himself as more firm and perversly enough more compassionate without actually saying anything.
At the same time the Indonesians are using this as an opportunity to mock Australia.
Rudd has badly mishandled this. And now there are reports of deaths at sea.
I know exactly what Howard would have done. i have no idea what our current lot are doing. And neither do they.
OK what would Howard have done, as though anyone gives a flying f–k? How is Rudd ‘out Howarding Howard’?
And please explain how those deaths at sea are directly attributable to Rudd or his policies.
And oh noes not some foriegners ‘mocking Australia’! That will never do, especially when they’re Asians. Don’t they know their rightful place in the world?
Really tssk your comments make no sense.
Well diplomatically the Indonesians are using the Indonesian solution to mock Australia about human rights laws. Nothing to do about ‘knowing their place.’
We know what Howard would have done. Repel them or lock them up. Which is one of the reasons I didn’t vote for him. I voted for Rudd because I wanted a better more compassionate solution.
Rudd is losing ground here because he’s offered a sub standard solution and he’s bluffing and everyone knows it.
One of the strengths (I hope) of the left is being able to critise policy. It’s not too late for him to change tack as the situation demands (despite the cries of ‘flip flopping’ he would cop from News Corp.)
But at the moment he’s losing his support on the left (who know that this is a bluff to try and appeal to the classic Coalition voter and he’s not going to gain from the right as they know that Rudd is bluffing.
All right, Tssk, and you might note that even Toxic Tony withdrew his ‘blood on the hands routine’ because he realised how tacky it was, as a representative of this concerned, letdown, leftist group that you never tire of speaking for, tell us how you would have dealt with asylum seeker issues, of late.
And it will not do to follow the lead of your hero, Turnbull, by being firm and compassionate “without actually saying anything”. Hint: Mal has no policy and no idea, just like you, I suspect.
Yeah, concerned trolls are fun aren’t they?
Like a certain other person on another thread, this one can’t answer a direct question either.
#11 Lefty E Nov 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Immigration is a counter-cyclical issue so far as traditional party stereotypes are concerned. Public Sentiment towards immigration softened under the Howard years, as most folk were satisfied that Howard’s cruel-to-be-kind policies would prevent systemic abuses and excesses, therefore being agreeable to higher rates including NESBs. It makes sense for public sentiment to harden now that the present government is perceived as more of a soft touch to people smugglers and has opened the flood-gates on dodgy business and student visas.
This public perversity principle applies to sub-sections of the polity. A swing to the Right by the 50s are already set in their ways and unlikely to change drastically. Whereas the 50 do change they are more than likely to move in a liberal, rather than “corporal”, direction, as Boomer Geezers replace the Depression-War Geezers in the Zimmer frame cohort. Certainly the ABC seems to thrive on the aging hippy cohort.
Whilst the < 50s might well find it in their interest to move in the opposite direction, from liberal to "corporal". It would make sense for more younger people oppose yet another source of immigration on simple economic and ecologic grounds (stagnant wages, rising unemployment, skyrocketing accommodation prices, lengthening hospital waiting lists, over-crowded schools, traffic jams, dwindling green space, drying reservoirs, stripped top-soil, carbonised air etc).
PREDICTIONS: In recent months I have been predicting a “xenophobic nativist reaction” in response to the Rudd governments headlong plunge towards astronomical immigration and melting-pot meagcities. I suspect that the asylum seeker poll is a harbinger. We shall have to see whether the preferred party poll is an outlier or not.
I will also predict that Rudd will not give into the asylum-seeker sit-down protest. This would be perceived as weakness on his part, resulting in further haemorrhage of votes. So they will most likely be shipped off to Indonesia or some other acceptable destination.
Regarding the LNP and the ETS debate this month, why doesn’t Turnbull get his mob to simply BOYCOTT the vote, i.e. turn up for the debates but if Rudd/Wong push the issue with no major changes, then enmasse decline to vote?
He could justify it by saying that the LNP accepts the need for significant emission reductions, but they don’t think the ETS will deliver said reductions, and furthermore it will distort and damage the economy.
Wouldn’t that approach send a clear signal about the ETS, without compromising the LNP position in terms of modifying the method of emissions reduction (e.g. along the lines proposed by JohnD)?
Yeah, concerned trolls are fun aren’t they?
Like a certain other person on another thread, this one can’t answer a direct question either.
Here’s a thought adrian. How about you put forward an actual arguement rather than indulge yourself in personal abuse for anyone who dares to disagree with you?
Er because he’s not the same as John Howard.
Gee, and he went to so much trouble before the election to tell us he was the same.
Rudd is losing ground here because he’s offered a sub standard solution and he’s bluffing and everyone knows it.
Sub standard solution? What was the problem exactly?
Face it. Rudd has f%$ked it, and it is now up to him to fix it.
And it looks like the electorate has come to a similar view.
Here’s another thought Peter TB. My arguement(sic) is implicit in the posts above. What’s yours?
Addressing some of the points above.
Tony Abbott is one clever cookie. He might have withdrawn the comment but it’s echoing across the media. The arrow once loosed and all that.
Plus the left wing radio show Hack on JJJ had both points of view. Abbott’s AND Turnbull’s! (LOL at claims the ABC is biased towards the left.) Of course no tough questions with Turnbull thus allowing him to play both tough and compassionate. The old Liberal policy of day being day but also night still reigns.
What would I have had Rudd do? Bring the refugees on shore post haste and have them processed poste haste. This current solution seems to be the worst of all possible outcomes no matter your political view!
And yeah, if Howard was doing this I’d be just as angry. Just not as surprised as I am with Rudd.
“Bring the refugees on shore post haste and have them processed poste haste.”
The tssk solution for Australia, we may conclude then, is to naturally assume the refugee status and responsibility for just about every soul, in transit by seacraft, on the entire Indian Ocean.
And another hint ….there is a big difference between the Howard policy and Labor, if you were prepared to check and do some homework instead of just engaging in habitual faux concern.
“And another hint ….there is a big difference between the Howard policy and Labor, if you were prepared to check and do some homework instead of just engaging in habitual faux concern.”
This is what is particularly annoying. As Possum over at Crikey points out, Rudd has been quietly dismantling the more sickening or simply unworkable aspects of the Pacific solution. It doesn’t take a lot of research or effort to find out what these actually are, yet it’s so much easier to to criticise from some imagined lofty peak of righteous indignation.
But their ABC’s latest recruit, the odious Alison carrabine was telling us that ‘at least Howard’s policies worked’, which is a novel use of the word ‘worked’.
Bob Ellis has an interesting take here.
Interesting, the point about telephone polls being skewed to older voters if they neglect to call mobiles, but a very good point I thought.
Helen, I think that (not ringing mobiles) was why the pre-election polls in the US didn’t show Obama doing as well as he eventually did.
Good points Helen but unfortunately during my trawl of the right wing trollumists this morning one that has been disected already by Tim Blair.
tssk, are you suggesting that because Tim Blair has “disected”(sic) the Ellis article -in a most superficial and lazy manner, I would say- that it is somehow, now, made less relevant?
Bob Ellis has an interesting take
Bob Ellis is interesting in the same way as mould on cheese is interesting. He writes like he is deranged.
Given the extreme interest the general media place on the Newspoll results, Ellis has some fair questions to ask about its methodology and the risk of it being compromised, in the light of its owners obvious favouritism for the far right cause. Ultimately, it is just another Murdoch money making tool.
And PeterTB, I have a cheese in my fridge from The King Island Dairy, covered in a blue mould, that I plan to eat tonight combined with a nice wine. I swear it looks most “interesting”.
The problem is that is appears that Ellis has relied on his memory for some of the past facts in setting the frame for the debate. While I have no doubt it was an honest mistake it does allow the right wingers an easy goal thus aloowing them to render anything that follows as inaccurate.
I don’t quite know what to say to someone who thinks Bob Ellis’s article is an “interesting take”. It’s total bullshit from beginning to end, and serves only to illustrate what an utter fraud he is.
I just took it as Bob Ellis sticking up for his mate Kevin Rudd. I’ve always considered Ellis a lightweight (ha!) and a complete pig, best friend the Liberal Party could ever have. Hopefully someone there at ALP central remembers to keep the basement locked next time.