In comments on Mr Denmore’s guest post on the interpretation of polls (particularly Newspoll) through the self-referential lens of the ‘media narrative’, I wrote:
All quantitative polling tells you only so much, without asking questions about strength of voting intention, or whether it is likely to change. The sense of who is moving gets lost.
In an ideal world, it would be read together with qualitative polling which would give us an idea of what voters feel, and how important various issues or factors are to their vote (or one could ascertain something similar with a much larger, say x4, sample size in quant polls).
To some degree, Essential Research has been filling in that interpretive gap in other polls with a range of other questions. Bernard Keane, writing in Crikey today about their latest poll, parses the numbers:
In its more qualitative questions, Essential tried to get a handle on whether the Greens were drawing people to them, or it was the major parties pushing people away. Based on the results, voters rate the Greens pretty poorly. Even on an impressionistic issues such as honesty and ethics, where you’d expect the Greens to have some appeal to voters, they rated worse than the major parties. They weren’t even considered better at standing up to multinational companies?—?that was one of the few areas where Labor still has some brand strength. Only on environmental issues did the Greens out-rate the big parties.
So a substantial chunk of voters are happy to turn to the Greens, but don’t think much of them. That might account for why the Greens have the highest rate of voters who say they might change their minds before the election, and lowest rate of “very firm” votes.
Labor didn’t fare as badly in the qualitative polling, but trailed the coalition in most of the criteria?—?even in areas such as international relations, where the coalition is demonstrably incompetent. That suggests it’s not so much individual issues that people are making a decision on?—?it’s the whole Labor brand that is badly tarnished at the moment.
I was also surprised at the ratings The Greens got on some questions, but the thrust of the polling confirms what I’ve been arguing for some time – that the very high level of support The Greens are currently registering in various polls is not explicable solely by the climate change issue, nor completely reflects enthusiasm for the third party per se.
It’s well worth reading the entire Essential report. Of great interest also is the fact that the media are both the least trusted group and the group respondents feel most strongly has too much influence.
Keane poses the question of whether voters are still listening to Kevin Rudd. There’s also warrant in this poll for asking whether voters are listening to the media narrative.
Ouch! How did that come about?
Ouch! How did that come about?
That’s the one that really surprised me!
That’s the one that really surprised me!
Once again I find it extraordinary that 22% of Green voters think asylum seekers should be returned to whence they came even if they are found to be genuine refugees. Apparently only 10% of Green voters think all asylum seekers who make it here ought to be allowed to stay. Similar numbers of ALP and Green voters (67% and 66%) think that only “genuine” refugees should be allowed to stay.
This is a far less flattering picture of the Greens than I would have imagined though it perhaps underscores that not a few greens are defections from the ALP right and maybe even Liberals on purely environmental issues.
Once again I find it extraordinary that 22% of Green voters think asylum seekers should be returned to whence they came even if they are found to be genuine refugees. Apparently only 10% of Green voters think all asylum seekers who make it here ought to be allowed to stay. Similar numbers of ALP and Green voters (67% and 66%) think that only “genuine” refugees should be allowed to stay.
This is a far less flattering picture of the Greens than I would have imagined though it perhaps underscores that not a few greens are defections from the ALP right and maybe even Liberals on purely environmental issues.
@3 – Fran, remember these are voters who are currently indicating an intention to give The Greens a primary vote. Most voters do not have a particularly consistent ideological view of politics and the world, and that goes in spades for swinging voters (those who do are usually more partisan).
There would be a big difference between core Green identifiers and those who are not on these sorts of questions and attitudes.
And there are always attitudinal/political differences between voters and party activists/professionals. So, to that degree, those are numbers which don’t surprise me.
@3 – Fran, remember these are voters who are currently indicating an intention to give The Greens a primary vote. Most voters do not have a particularly consistent ideological view of politics and the world, and that goes in spades for swinging voters (those who do are usually more partisan).
There would be a big difference between core Green identifiers and those who are not on these sorts of questions and attitudes.
And there are always attitudinal/political differences between voters and party activists/professionals. So, to that degree, those are numbers which don’t surprise me.
The Greens’ ratings on issues are not anomalously low when the poll result for voting intentions has the Greens on 14 per cent and the two major parties both considerably higher. If the Greens were polling higher than either or both majors on several of the issues canvassed and were still only polling 14 per cent of the intended vote, there would be an anomaly worth investigating.
It is also noteworthy that the environmental movement and the trade union movement, in that order, are the two most well regarded groups. The Rudd government will be glad to have the ACTU and ACF entering the lists over the RSPT debate.
The Greens’ ratings on issues are not anomalously low when the poll result for voting intentions has the Greens on 14 per cent and the two major parties both considerably higher. If the Greens were polling higher than either or both majors on several of the issues canvassed and were still only polling 14 per cent of the intended vote, there would be an anomaly worth investigating.
It is also noteworthy that the environmental movement and the trade union movement, in that order, are the two most well regarded groups. The Rudd government will be glad to have the ACTU and ACF entering the lists over the RSPT debate.
Josh #1 and Mark #2, the Greens are actually doing much better on the “honest and ethical” criterion than on the voting intention, especially when one looks at the huge “Don’t Know” figure for that criterion.
Josh #1 and Mark #2, the Greens are actually doing much better on the “honest and ethical” criterion than on the voting intention, especially when one looks at the huge “Don’t Know” figure for that criterion.
@5 – Paul, yes, it would be good to have cross tabs on those questions by party affiliation/voting intention, but it probably hasn’t been done because of sample size issues.
However, to the degree that a fair proportion of the sample responding to such questions must be intending Greens voters, I still think it’s on the low side, though perhaps the effect isn’t as strong as Keane believes.
Again, this is where qualitative polling (Keane is not correct really to say “more qualitative questions”) would be able to drill down into that part of the sample indicating an intention to vote Green and tell us a lot more.
@5 – Paul, yes, it would be good to have cross tabs on those questions by party affiliation/voting intention, but it probably hasn’t been done because of sample size issues.
However, to the degree that a fair proportion of the sample responding to such questions must be intending Greens voters, I still think it’s on the low side, though perhaps the effect isn’t as strong as Keane believes.
Again, this is where qualitative polling (Keane is not correct really to say “more qualitative questions”) would be able to drill down into that part of the sample indicating an intention to vote Green and tell us a lot more.
@6 – but not by much, Paul.
Frankly, I’m still surprised The Greens weren’t higher up there on that question.
I think that, combined with what you rightly say is a very high number of ‘Don’t Knows’, indicates quite a substantial level of disillusion with all the parties and politics generally. That’s why I think characterising in the way I’ve done in the post title is fair.
@6 – but not by much, Paul.
Frankly, I’m still surprised The Greens weren’t higher up there on that question.
I think that, combined with what you rightly say is a very high number of ‘Don’t Knows’, indicates quite a substantial level of disillusion with all the parties and politics generally. That’s why I think characterising in the way I’ve done in the post title is fair.
IMHO, and speaking as an ex-Green voter, I am not suprised that they have polled so low on honesty and ethics. Their attitude lately has been a pox on both their houses, which is fine if you put idealism ahead of everything else, but not much good if you are a political party intent of influencing policy.
Given that for the forseeable future the Greens cannot govern in their own right, it is simply political posturing of the worse kind to resolutely refuse to compromise, or to regard both main parties as equally hopeless. Just recently Senator Hanson-Young is reported to have said that it wouldn’t matter to the Greens if Abbott or Rudd was elected.
The high moral ground is fine for some, but in this case it has resulted in the Greens achieving absolutely nothing. If they don’t realise that with Abbott they’ll have considerably less than nothing, that rarified air up high must be affecting their thinking.
IMHO, and speaking as an ex-Green voter, I am not suprised that they have polled so low on honesty and ethics. Their attitude lately has been a pox on both their houses, which is fine if you put idealism ahead of everything else, but not much good if you are a political party intent of influencing policy.
Given that for the forseeable future the Greens cannot govern in their own right, it is simply political posturing of the worse kind to resolutely refuse to compromise, or to regard both main parties as equally hopeless. Just recently Senator Hanson-Young is reported to have said that it wouldn’t matter to the Greens if Abbott or Rudd was elected.
The high moral ground is fine for some, but in this case it has resulted in the Greens achieving absolutely nothing. If they don’t realise that with Abbott they’ll have considerably less than nothing, that rarified air up high must be affecting their thinking.
I find your comment below, Adrian:
most curious.
I’ve no wish to do another round of whether the CPRS was really a lesser evil worth supporting as it has been done to death and everyone here has pretty much decided what they think of that. The regulars here knows my position on the matter.
That aside, I can’t see how putting idealism ahead of anything else (admitting for the strawman for the sake of argument (though I think the usual formulation is allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good) entails dishonesty or a lack of ethical mettle. If anything, it ought to be rather the opposite. Surely the unwillingness to horsetrade on matters of principle and to defend policies in with which one is substantially unhappy marks one as highly principled, honest and consistent?
Being a fundamentalist is often unwise and can often lead to worse results than could be achieved with a willingness to compromise, and in that sense is often unwise for those who are goal-focussed. Surely though, at least on matters of policy principle, such people are honest to a fault?
I find your comment below, Adrian:
most curious.
I’ve no wish to do another round of whether the CPRS was really a lesser evil worth supporting as it has been done to death and everyone here has pretty much decided what they think of that. The regulars here knows my position on the matter.
That aside, I can’t see how putting idealism ahead of anything else (admitting for the strawman for the sake of argument (though I think the usual formulation is allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good) entails dishonesty or a lack of ethical mettle. If anything, it ought to be rather the opposite. Surely the unwillingness to horsetrade on matters of principle and to defend policies in with which one is substantially unhappy marks one as highly principled, honest and consistent?
Being a fundamentalist is often unwise and can often lead to worse results than could be achieved with a willingness to compromise, and in that sense is often unwise for those who are goal-focussed. Surely though, at least on matters of policy principle, such people are honest to a fault?
adrian, that’s a worry if SHY said that. Can you provide a link?
also, an example of the Greens refusing to compromise would be helpful. I trust you’re not referring to the CPRS, which has been dealt with here many times.
adrian, that’s a worry if SHY said that. Can you provide a link?
also, an example of the Greens refusing to compromise would be helpful. I trust you’re not referring to the CPRS, which has been dealt with here many times.
Demonstrably incompetent?
Demonstrably incompetent?
Two words Howard – Julie Bishop.
Two words Howard – Julie Bishop.
“Even on an impressionistic issues such as honesty and ethics, where you’d expect the Greens to have some appeal to voters”
– especially after the recent performances of the Member for Fremantle and the Tassie Greens who were going to go into Coalition with whoever got the most votes, why would you have any reason to question their honesty and ethics?
Beats me.
“Even on an impressionistic issues such as honesty and ethics, where you’d expect the Greens to have some appeal to voters”
– especially after the recent performances of the Member for Fremantle and the Tassie Greens who were going to go into Coalition with whoever got the most votes, why would you have any reason to question their honesty and ethics?
Beats me.
The ALP are so good at international relations like our great relationship with China. . .
sorry, I meant the high priority we are for a visit from our formerly closest ally – POTUS (what? he’s cancelled again? you’d think he doesn’t really care about us.). . .
No, really I was referring to the wonderful work they’ve done in improving our standing in India and expanding the international student busness. . .
The ALP are so good at international relations like our great relationship with China. . .
sorry, I meant the high priority we are for a visit from our formerly closest ally – POTUS (what? he’s cancelled again? you’d think he doesn’t really care about us.). . .
No, really I was referring to the wonderful work they’ve done in improving our standing in India and expanding the international student busness. . .
Our relationship with China is fine, last I looked.
The POTUS has a highly significant issue to handle at home, which if he left, would allow people like yourself to bleat loudly about him not being on the job.
The Indian student market has been spoiled by bogan fools who are most likely supporting your side of politics.
Our relationship with China is fine, last I looked.
The POTUS has a highly significant issue to handle at home, which if he left, would allow people like yourself to bleat loudly about him not being on the job.
The Indian student market has been spoiled by bogan fools who are most likely supporting your side of politics.
To be fair Razor, the Member for Fremantle had some assistance from the Member for Vasse. Whose own member may have been more of a hindrance.
To be fair Razor, the Member for Fremantle had some assistance from the Member for Vasse. Whose own member may have been more of a hindrance.
Also American priorities in our region are whatever they want us to be. Which part is in power in Canberra has very little influence in their disengagement from our immediate region, unless the PM was to suddenly cancel ANZUS or start up a nuclear program or something like that. Otherwise we just aren’t that important in American thinking – why would we be? When they think of the Asian region their thoughts are engaged considerably northwards of us.
Also American priorities in our region are whatever they want us to be. Which part is in power in Canberra has very little influence in their disengagement from our immediate region, unless the PM was to suddenly cancel ANZUS or start up a nuclear program or something like that. Otherwise we just aren’t that important in American thinking – why would we be? When they think of the Asian region their thoughts are engaged considerably northwards of us.
“Which part is in power” should be “Whichever party is in power”
“Which part is in power” should be “Whichever party is in power”
“Which part is in power” should be “Whichever party is in power”
“Which part is in power” should be “Whichever party is in power”
I think when disaffected Labor voters see Bob Brown supporting Tony Abbott’s idiocy, it confirms a lot of cliches for them about the Greens; no interest in policy, etc.
Furthermore, as Mark states, their vote is softer than undercooked blancmange – if people are voting against someone, it’s not surprising to me that they don’t rate where they park their vote. This is not to take away from the Greens strengths, etc.
re: media influence and said narrative thereof, I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again, people don’t mindlessly believe everything they watch on the evening news. The nexus of media, politics, voting, culture, family, socioeconomic status and a million other things is much more subtle and byzantine than that.
I think when disaffected Labor voters see Bob Brown supporting Tony Abbott’s idiocy, it confirms a lot of cliches for them about the Greens; no interest in policy, etc.
Furthermore, as Mark states, their vote is softer than undercooked blancmange – if people are voting against someone, it’s not surprising to me that they don’t rate where they park their vote. This is not to take away from the Greens strengths, etc.
re: media influence and said narrative thereof, I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again, people don’t mindlessly believe everything they watch on the evening news. The nexus of media, politics, voting, culture, family, socioeconomic status and a million other things is much more subtle and byzantine than that.
Ah yes, Julie Bishop. I have been on my honeymoon.
Is it just me or is international diplomacy getting worse? Or is there some good stuff happening below the surface?
Ah yes, Julie Bishop. I have been on my honeymoon.
Is it just me or is international diplomacy getting worse? Or is there some good stuff happening below the surface?
Don’t gorget, Razor, the Indian student / immigration market / scam was largely a creation of the Howard Miracle (TM), and so fundamentally dishonest.
Don’t gorget, Razor, the Indian student / immigration market / scam was largely a creation of the Howard Miracle (TM), and so fundamentally dishonest.
bugger. s/gorget/forget/g
bugger. s/gorget/forget/g
DI(NR), I had the strangest image of Razor wearing a mediaeval suit of armour.
DI(NR), I had the strangest image of Razor wearing a mediaeval suit of armour.
Which party has a Safe Climate Bill? Which party proposed amendments to the ETS and Labor wouldn’t even talk to them? Which party has been putting the climate on the agenda since Bob Brown shot the rapids on the Franklin? Which party salvaged the infrastructure spending bill [and you can't blame them for the subsequent stuff-ups]? Which party has made constructive contributions to acceptable legislation through the whole of the life of the Rudd Government? Which party has the consistency that comes from ? It’s not the party that some are constructing in this decision.
DISCLAIMER: I am a House of reps Greens !candidate
Which party has a Safe Climate Bill? Which party proposed amendments to the ETS and Labor wouldn’t even talk to them? Which party has been putting the climate on the agenda since Bob Brown shot the rapids on the Franklin? Which party salvaged the infrastructure spending bill [and you can't blame them for the subsequent stuff-ups]? Which party has made constructive contributions to acceptable legislation through the whole of the life of the Rudd Government? Which party has the consistency that comes from ? It’s not the party that some are constructing in this decision.
DISCLAIMER: I am a House of reps Greens !candidate
So, Jim McDonald, what’s your take on the Essential poll’s findings regarding attitudes to the Greens?
So, Jim McDonald, what’s your take on the Essential poll’s findings regarding attitudes to the Greens?
Bigbob @ 16 – I think I really need to dispute that racist Bogans who bash Indians are Liberal voters. If they vote at all they are probably ALP voters who would vote One Nation when it was around.
Bigbob @ 16 – I think I really need to dispute that racist Bogans who bash Indians are Liberal voters. If they vote at all they are probably ALP voters who would vote One Nation when it was around.
That’d work, Tim @ 25 – I believe Razor spent some time in the Armoured Corps.
That’d work, Tim @ 25 – I believe Razor spent some time in the Armoured Corps.