Is protesting during the pandemic an ‘essential’ right that should be protected?

Posted on April 23, 2020 by particularkev

Protests are increasingly breaking out around the world as people begin to chafe against lockdown restrictions to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

In the US, President Donald Trump is fuelling the spread of protest movements nationwide with tweets to “liberate” certain states. This month, car convoy protests were also held here in Australia, as well as in Poland and Brazil.

Hundreds of Brazilians have protested in major cities against the country’s lockdown measures.
Cris Faga/SIPA USA

In Germany, some 300 protesters gathered in a main square in Berlin to protest COVID-19 restrictions, leading to many arrests.

Protest is one of the most important ways we can express disagreement with government action. However, the ability of people to protest in an emergency situation such as the current pandemic is very unclear.

Can we protest outside if we are in cars, maintaining social distancing, for instance? Is protest considered an “essential” activity?

Protests have broken out in the US from Washington state to North Carolina. Some cities have begun fining people.
Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA

What’s at stake when protests are disallowed?

On April 10, activists staged a car convoy protest in Melbourne to highlight the plight of refugees in detention who face a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 due to overcrowded conditions.

Despite the fact everyone was social distancing in cars, police arrested one man and fined 26 others a total of $43,000 because they were not in public for an allowable reason (for instance, work, exercise, shopping for essentials or caregiving).

The ability to voice dissent is vital for a functioning democracy. It is therefore arguable that people should be able to protest against what they see as government overreach in social restrictions or the enforcement of these rules by police.

This is especially true if one considers the role of protesters in giving voice to those who are marginalised or unable to demonstrate publicly themselves, such as asylum seekers in detention.

These protests are different in that they are not about the restrictions themselves or disagreement with policymakers; rather, they are in response to a legitimate health concern and questions of violations of human rights (the right to health and liberty).

Asylum seekers protesting their continued detention during the pandemic in Brisbane.
Dan Peled/AAP

Is limiting protest against our constitution?

In many democratic countries, COVID-19 restrictions must be balanced with protections enshrined in human rights charters.

Although Australia does not have a human rights charter at the federal level and there is no guaranteed “right to protest”, we do have a concept called the “implied freedom of political communication”.

This implied freedom stems from provisions in our constitution about representative government, and has been quite influential in protecting certain forms of protest. For instance, in 2017, former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown successfully challenged Tasmania’s anti-protest law in the High Court, arguing it targeted the freedom of political expression and was therefore unconstitutional.

To determine if this implied freedom is being curtailed, there are several key points to examine.

Does the law impinge on political discussion?
Does it serve a legitimate purpose?
And is it disproportionate in its impact?

As part of the proportionality question, we can examine whether there is an alternative practical or legislative means of achieving the purpose of the law – in this case, reducing the spread of a virus – that has a less burdensome effect on the implied freedom of political communication.

If we apply these tests to the coronavirus restrictions, it is quite clear they do limit our political expression, but also serve a legitimate purpose (by ensuring the safety and well-being of the community).

However, I would argue the requirements imposed by the law are not proportionate. Specifically, I do believe there is way to protect public health while simultaneously allowing a form of protest.

Instead of a wholesale ban on protesting, for instance, the restrictions could be changed to allow protest as a permitted reason to leave home if protesters observe social distancing rules. This could include limiting cars to members from the same household or to a maximum of two people in states where gatherings are severely restricted.

Israelis protesting against government corruption while maintaining social distancing.
Abir Sultan/EPA

Aren’t there other ways to protest?

Online or virtual protests are a possibility. Climate change activist Greta Thunberg has recommended people avoid mass gatherings during the pandemic and instead engage in online campaigns and digital strikes.

However, one of the hallmarks of effective protest is its public, visual impact. And often media coverage of protests is a means of garnering greater public support. This is why taking over city streets or occupying buildings has been a key strategy of protest groups such as Extinction Rebellion.

In this light, online protests are not a substitute for traditional street protests, as they will not necessarily have the same potential to drive change – which is often the whole reason for protesting in the first place.

So, as the pandemic continues, we are likely to see more people protesting on the streets – not fewer. And it is the responsibility of governments to avoid responding with increasingly heavy-handed tactics, such as widespread arrests and fines, as this could inflame public anger even more and further call into question the legality of the restrictions.

During this time, we also need to reflect on the way our legal system operates in Australia to ensure the COVID-19 restrictions do not disproportionately affect the most marginalised in our community. And, ultimately, we need to ask ourselves whether our fundamental human rights protections could be strengthened by a federal charter of human rights.

Maria O’Sullivan, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, and Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Coronavirus shutdowns: what makes hairdressing ‘essential’? Even the hairdressers want to close

Posted on April 18, 2020 by particularkev

Hannah McCann, University of Melbourne

As part of sweeping social-distancing measures, on March 24 Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced nail salons, tanning, waxing and most other beauty services would be closed – but hair salons could remain open with a 30-minute per client time restriction.

There was much criticism this limit was both unfeasible and highly gendered, and it was reversed. Salons can operate if they maintain one person per four square metres.

While many hairdressing businesses have voluntarily closed their doors, others remain open. The issue has become a flashpoint in Australia for debate about what is an “essential” service.

Touch and talk

My previous research on the emotional aspects of salon work has shown hairdressers and beauty workers act like makeshift counsellors for many clients.

The salon is not just about makeovers: it is a space of touch and talk. For some, the salon might be one of the only places they encounter regular verbal and physical contact. Increasingly, salon workers are being recognised as an important channel between members of the community and services such as family violence shelters.

In ordinary circumstances, hair and beauty services might be considered essential due to the social and community welfare aspects of the job. However, in the context of a pandemic the close proximity required for hairdressing is a problem.

Fearing for the well-being of those in the industry, the Australian Hairdressing Council has petitioned the government for hairdressers and barbers to be shut down. The initial mixed messages about rules for salons appear to have created confusion for salons and customers alike. This includes uncertainty about what subsidies are available for salons that have already closed voluntarily.

It is not yet clear why the government continues to deem hair services “essential”. Given the original 30-minute ruling, it is unlikely the decision is based on concern for the maintenance of the social work aspects of hairdressing.

The 67,000 people employed as hairdressers may be a more significant factor in the decision at a time when so many others have lost their jobs. Of course, the shutdown has already affected the 36,100 beauty therapists employed across Australia, but there may be an impression much beauty work (such as maintaining nails and body hair) can be done at home.

There may also be a gendered element to this: these beauty services are more frequented by women and therefore may be more culturally coded as “inessential” or frivolous.

It seems likely we would follow the lead of other countries that have already closed hair salons if further physical distancing measures are required.

Digital salons

In times of severe economic downturn, hair and beauty services remain popular.

Even during the Great Depression people continued to pay for salon visits, forgoing other essentials.

However, the length of time between salon visits appears to expand in times of downturn. Dubbed the “haircut index”, consumer confidence is thought to be signalled by more frequent trips. On the flip side, some argue consumers tend to buy more small luxury beauty items such as lipstick during recession (the so-called “lipstick index”).

Even in difficult economic periods, people still care about keeping up appearances.

In the context of COVID-19, however, social distancing complicates the situation for the beauty industry.

With many shopfronts closed already, businesses have shifted to online services, finding creative ways to maintain connections with existing clients.

Many salons have begun selling “lockdown” product packs online, producing short “home maintenance” videos, and some are even offering one-on-one live digital consultations.

Then there are some who are simply taking matters into their own hands.

Google Trends reveal an exponential increase in searches for “how to cut your own hair” since March 8. Buzzcuts are also gaining popularity as a no-fuss way to maintain short hair at home. People appear to be using the lack of salon guidance as an opportunity to get inventive with their appearance, or to try things at home they might be too scared to ask for from a professional.

Limited social contact and the availability of online filters mean people might feel they can get more creative with their style. #hairtutorials continues to trend on TikTok. #QuarantineHair is being used on Twitter to document some of the highs and lows people are having experimenting with their looks in lockdown.

Zoom beauty

While it may seem ludicrous to some that people still care about makeup and hair products during a public health crisis, there are multiple reasons why this may be the case. Though sociality is reduced, many entrenched beauty norms will persist. People may feel the need to keep up some sense of appearance while still seeing colleagues, clients and friends on screen.

There is also an important ritual element to maintaining one’s appearance. In Western culture, one’s outer presentation is seen as intimately connected to one’s sense of identity and well-being. Maintaining a daily routine, including skin care, putting on makeup and styling one’s hair, might give some people a sense they are looking after themselves – especially when other things around them are much harder to control.

At the very least, sharing mishaps and humorous experiences with self-styling in this digital beauty world offers people a new way to gain a sense of social connection.

Hannah McCann, Lecturer in Cultural Studies, University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What actually are ‘essential services’ and who decides?

Posted on March 31, 2020 by particularkev

Gary Mortimer, Queensland University of Technology

The Morrison government keeps using the word “essential” to describe employees, public gatherings, services and businesses that are still allowed and not restricted as it tries to reduce the spread of the coronavirus.

But what is essential, and who gets to decide?

By its very definition, essential means “something necessary, indispensable, or unavoidable”.

When it comes to dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, there are no recent precedents for governments. There is no pre-determined list in place on what is an essential service. Instead, “essential” appears a moving beast that is constantly evolving and that can be confusing.

Confused messages

On March 22 the Victorian premier Daniel Andrews called for “a shutdown of all non-essential activity” within 48 hours. Supermarkets, banks and pharmacies were some of the things he said were essential but he did not provide an exhaustive list of what was considered an essential service.

Naturally confusion reigned. For example, in the rural Victorian town of Ballan, some stores closed while others remained open.

We’ve now seen a number of retailers decide to voluntarily shutter stores for the safety of their workers and the public, considering their businesses “non-essential”.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said a meeting of the national cabinet had agreed to a raft of new restrictions, such as limiting “shopping for what you need, food and other essential supplies”.

But he also described his wife’s recent purchase of a number of jigsaw puzzles for the family as “absolutely essential”. While toy and hobby retailers may find comfort in this statement, in reality such businesses may not be considered “essential”.

Guns and pastries, essential?

There are differences too overseas in what people consider essential as part of any COVID-19 restrictions.

Is the United States, it’s recommended employees of gun stores and gun manufacturers should be seen as “essential” workers, according to a memo from the Department of Homeland Security.

While in Europe, “necessities” are said to include Belgian Fries, French Baguettes and Dutch Cannabis. In France, it’s also shops specialising in pastries, wine and cheese reportedly declared essential businesses.

In Ireland, reports say the government there has issued a detailed list of what it considers “essential workers”. As for essential retailers, they include pharmacies, fuel stations and pet stores, but not opticians, motor repair and bicycle repair outlets.

The essential essentials

Here in Australia there is broad agreement supermarkets, service stations, allied health (pharmacy, chiropractic, physiotherapy, psychology, dental) and banks are essential business and services.

Similarly freight, logistics and home delivery are also considered essential. Australia Post says posties and delivery drivers continue but some posts offices are temporarily closed.

Some bottle shops can stay open but many are now imposing restrictions on how much people can buy.

The government has moved to progressively add more business, services and activities to its “non-essential services” list.

This includes cafés, food courts, pubs, licensed clubs (sports clubs), bars, beauty and personal care services, entertainment venues, leisure and recreation (gyms, theme parks), galleries, museums and libraries.

Some of these entities do have exceptions. A café can remain open for take-away only. A hairdresser or barber can trade if they comply with the one person per four square-metre rule.

Others remain convoluted, such as outdoor and indoor markets (farmers markets), which are a decision for each state and territory.

In and out of work

In reality, no worker should ever be considered, or consider themselves, as “non-essential”.

But due to how the restrictions have been broadly applied, some workers in one industry may now find themselves out of a job, while others in that same industry remain fully employed.

Take for example chefs. Due to bans on restaurants and licensed clubs, chefs there are being stood down, but chefs inside hotels can continue to cook and provide room service meals.

A barista in a café can still be gainfully employed, as long as they only make take-away coffee, but a barista inside a licensed sports club, is unfortunately stood down.

Further restrictions and essentials

While we have seen many businesses reduce their operations and several retailers voluntarily close their doors, many are standing by waiting for further announcements to potentially close all “non-essential” services.

What should the government consider before deciding what is and isn’t regarded as essential?

Some decisions are easy: we need health workers, police, fire fighters and other emergency services workers, and we need those who maintain services to the public such as food supply, clean water, sewerage and so on.

But we also need those services required to keep these people functioning. The military describe this as tooth to tail ratio: the number of people required to keep any soldier on the battlefield (estimated up to three for every soldier).

In the civilian context this includes those responsible for the supply of consumables, personal protection equipment, transport, power, fuel, computer systems, and someone to look after their families while they do the heavy lifting.

Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How to manage your essential medicines in a bushfire or other emergency

Posted on December 19, 2019 by particularkev

In an emergency, like a bushfire, making sure you have enough of your regular medication can mean the difference between life and death. But there are many ways to prepare.
from www.shutterstock.com

Andrew Bartlett, University of Sydney and Bandana Saini, University of Sydney

Some people find managing their medication difficult at the best of times. But in an emergency, like a bushfire or cyclone, this can be harder still.

As catastrophic bushfires burn across Australia, here’s what to think about as part of your emergency planning to make sure you have access to the medicines you need.

As part of your emergency plan, list your medications and where you keep them, along with contact details for your doctor and pharmacist and any other relevant emergency services.

If you have advanced warning of emergency conditions, check both your supply of tablets and any prescriptions you may need. Your prescription label will tell you how many repeats you have left. Try and keep at least one week’s medication on hand.

I need to evacuate. Now what?

If you need to evacuate, know how best to store and transport your medication. Most medications for conditions such as blood pressure or cholesterol need to be stored below 25-30℃. These medications will be OK if temperatures are higher than this for short periods of time, while you transport them.

Medicines sensitive to temperature will need to be stored or transported with cold packs in an insulated container of some sort, such as an esky. Putting them in a ziplock bag will help protect them from moisture.

Insulin is one common medication you need to store cold. Your current insulin pen can be stored at room temperature. But store unused pens with a cold pack in an esky until you find refrigeration.

This also applies to thyroxine tablets. Fourteen days supply (usually one strip of tablets) is OK if stored at room temperature. But keep the rest with a cold pack. If you don’t think it will be possible to keep the rest below 25℃ for a long time, also keep these with the cold pack.

Many antibiotic syrups, such as cefalexin, also need to be kept cold. But check the dispensing label or speak to your pharmacist if you are not sure.

What if I run out of medicine?

If you are caught without essential medication, doctors and pharmacists can help in a number of ways.

This is easier if you have a regular GP and pharmacist who will both have a complete record of your medication. Your pharmacist can call your GP and obtain verbal approval to supply your medication. Your GP will then need to fax or email the prescription to your pharmacist as soon as possible and mail the original script within seven days.

Pharmacists can also dispense emergency supplies of cholesterol medicines and oral contraceptives, so long as you already take them. Under so-called continued dispensing arrangements, pharmacists can dispense a single pack of these medicines once every 12 months.

If you cannot get in touch with your GP, in an emergency, most states allow a pharmacist to dispense a three-day supply of your medication. But this is only if the pharmacist has enough information to make that judgement.

Some medicines, such as strong pain medications and sleeping tablets, are not covered by these provisions.

Medicines for people with lung conditions, like asthma

People with existing lung conditions (such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or bronchitis), older people, young children and pregnant women are most likely to be vulnerable to the effect of bushfire smoke. They can also have symptoms long after a bushfire if fine particulate matter is still in the air.

If you have a respiratory condition, follow the action plan you will have already discussed with your doctor, which outlines what to do in an emergency.

This plan includes instructions on what you should do if your asthma gets worse, such as taking extra doses or additional medication. It also tells you when you should contact your doctor or go to the emergency department.

If you have a respiratory condition, such as asthma, and live in a bush fire prone zone, this action plan needs to be part of your fire safety survival plan.

You also need to make sure you have enough preventer and reliever medications, for asthma for example, to hand just in case there is an emergency.

If you don’t have an action plan, taking four separate puffs of your reliever medication may relieve acute symptoms. This applies for adults and children.

In a nutshell

Being prepared for an emergency, like a bushfire, goes a long way to keeping you and your family safe. That applies to thinking about your supply of medicines well in advance, if possible.

But if conditions change rapidly and you need to evacuate, an esky containing medicines for a few days, and contact numbers for your GP and pharmacist, could save your life.

Andrew Bartlett, Associate Lecturer Pharmacy Practice, University of Sydney and Bandana Saini, Associate Professor, Pharmacy Practice, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Post-budget poll wrap: Coalition gets a bounce in Newspoll, but not in Ipsos or Essential

Posted on April 14, 2019 by particularkev

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

Six weeks before an expected May 18 election, this week’s Newspoll, conducted April 4-7 from a sample of 1,800, gave Labor a 52-48 lead. That’s a two-point gain for the Coalition since the last Newspoll, conducted four weeks ago, owing to the NSW election and the budget. This Newspoll has the narrowest Labor lead since Scott Morrison replaced Malcolm Turnbull.

An Ipsos poll for Nine newspapers, conducted April 3-6 from a sample of 1,200, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, a two-point gain for Labor since mid-February. While Ipsos was better for Labor, the February Ipsos was the infamous 51-49 after the Medevac bill passed.

Primary votes in Newspoll were 38% Coalition (up two), 37% Labor (down two), 9% Greens (steady) and 6% One Nation (down one). In Ipsos, primary votes were 37% Coalition (down one), 34% Labor (up one), 13% Greens (steady) and 5% One Nation (steady). Rounding probably assisted the Coalition on two party in February, and assisted Labor this time. As usual, the Greens vote in Ipsos is too high, and Labor’s too low.

Respondent allocated preferences in Ipsos were also 53-47 to Labor, and there has been no difference between respondent and previous election methods in Ipsos since Morrison replaced Turnbull. Under Turnbull, respondent preferences were usually better for the Coalition.

In Newspoll, 45% were satisfied with Morrison’s performance (up two), and 43% were dissatisfied (down two), for a net approval of +2, Morrison’s best since October. Bill Shorten’s net approval rose one point to -14, his best since January. Morrison led Shorten by 46-35 as better PM (43-36 four weeks ago).

In Ipsos, Morrison’s approval and disapproval were both down a point, to 48% and 39% respectively. Shorten’s net approval fell three points to -15. Morrison led Shorten by 46-35 as better PM (48-38 in February).

There are three questions Newspoll has asked after every budget since 1988: whether the budget was good or bad for the economy, good or bad for you personally, and whether the opposition would have delivered a better budget.

44% thought the budget good for the economy and just 18% bad; the +26 net score is the best for a budget since 2008. 34% thought they would be better off, and 19% worse off; the net +15 score is the best since 2007. In better news for Labor, by 45-37 voters thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget; this -8 score is the third best for Labor under a Coalition government, just one point less than in 2014 and 2018.

In Ipsos, by 41-29 voters thought the budget was fair, the +12 net is the best since 2015. 38% thought they would be better off and 24% worse off, the +14 net is the same as in 2018. By 42-25, voters thought Labor had better policies on climate change than the Coalition.

The 2018 budget was also well received, and the Coalition had its best polling of the current term during the period surrounding that budget. Six of the eight Newspolls conducted from late April 2018 to August gave Labor just a 51-49 lead, before the Coalition crashed to a 56-44 deficit after Turnbull’s ousting.

While last week appealed to the Coalition’s perceived strength on overall economic management, wage growth and climate change, which are perceived as weaknesses for the Coalition, are likely to be important during the election campaign. Attacks on Labor’s economic policies, such as their plan to abolish franking credit cash refunds, give the Coalition its best chance to win.

After revelations that One Nation solicited donations from the US National Rifle Association, some would have expected their vote to crash, but it has held up well.

In economic news, on March 21 the ABS announced that 4,600 jobs were added in February, well down from the over 39,000 added in January. While the unemployment rate decreased 0.1% to 4.9%, this was a result of lower workforce participation.

The Westpac March consumer confidence index, taken in the week the weak GDP report was released, fell 4.8 points from February to 98.8. House prices have continued to fall.

Essential: 52-48 to Labor

This week’s Essential poll, conducted April 4-7 from a sample of 1,069, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, unchanged from last fortnight. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (down one), 35% Labor (down one), 11% Greens (up one) and 5% One Nation (down two). Essential has tended to be worse for Labor than Newspoll since Morrison became PM.

By 51-27, voters approved of the budget; the +24 net is higher than the +16 net in 2018 or +8 net in 2017. Over 75% agreed with the infrastructure spending program and tax rebates for workers earning up to $90,000. By 26-20, voters thought the budget was good for them personally, a reversal from last fortnight’s pre-budget poll, when voters thought the budget would be bad for them personally by 34-19.

The Coalition was trusted over Labor to manage the economy overall by 44-29, but Labor was ahead by 45-31 on managing the economy in the interests of working people.

I wrote on my personal website about last fortnight’s Essential poll that gave Labor a 52-48 lead. Questions about views of world leaders had Theresa May’s ratings tanking since these questions were last asked in July 2018.

In pre-budget polling, a YouGov Galaxy poll for the News Ltd tabloids gave Labor a 53-47 lead. State breakdowns of primary votes suggested that the NSW election defeat had an impact on federal Labor’s NSW vote.

NSW election upper house late counting

With 68% of enrolled voters in the NSW upper house check counted, the Coalition has 7.9 quotas, Labor 6.5, the Greens 2.1, One Nation 1.5, the Shooters 1.1, the Christian Democrats 0.5, the Liberal Democrats 0.5, Keep Sydney Open 0.4 and Animal Justice 0.4.

Out of the 21 seats up for election, eight Coalition, six Labor, two Greens, one One Nation and one Shooter are certain to win. By also using the now complete initial count, analyst Kevin Bonham currently thinks two seats will go to Labor and One Nation, and the final seat is in doubt between the Liberal Democrats, Christian Democrats, Keep Sydney Open and Animal Justice.

European leaders’ summit on April 10 to decide on Brexit

On April 12, the UK is currently scheduled to leave the European Union, with or without a deal. With no deal likely by then, an April 10 European leaders’ summit will decide whether to grant the UK a long extension to Brexit.

I wrote about this summit for The Poll Bludger on April 6, and on March 30, I wrote about the 58-vote Commons defeat of Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Poll wrap: Coalition’s record Newspoll losing streak, and Rebekha Sharkie has large lead in Mayo

Posted on June 20, 2018 by particularkev

File 20180619 126543 1b92j1s.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — Recently, hard-right Coalition MPs have not had as much influence on government policy as they used to, and Malcolm Turnbull is probably benefiting from this.
AAP/Mick Tsikas

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted June 14-17 from a sample of 1,660, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, unchanged since three weeks ago. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 38% Labor (steady), 10% Greens (up one) and 6% One Nation (down two).

This Newspoll is Malcolm Turnbull’s 34th consecutive loss as prime minister, four ahead of Tony Abbott. According to analyst Kevin Bonham, this is the worst Newspoll losing streak for a government, with Turnbull and the Coalition now one ahead of Julia Gillard’s 33 successive losses as PM.

Prior to July 2015, Newspoll was conducted by landline live phone polling with samples of about 1,100. Since July 2015, Newspoll has been administered by Galaxy Research, using robopolling and online methods with samples of about 1,700. The new Newspoll is much less volatile than the old Newspoll, so trailing parties have far less chance of getting lucky with an outlier 50-50 poll.

In this Newspoll, the total vote for Labor and the Greens was up one to 48%, and the total vote for the Coalition and One Nation was down two to 44%. This matches a late March Newspoll as the highest vote for the left-of-centre parties this term. These changes would normally give Labor a two party gain, but it is likely the previous Newspoll was rounded up to 52%, and that this one has been rounded down.

40% were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance (up one), and 50% were dissatisfied (also up one), for a net approval of -10. Bill Shorten’s net approval was down one point to -22. Turnbull continued to lead Shorten by a large 46-31 as better PM (47-30 previously).

Turnbull’s ratings improvement has been sustained since the budget. It is likely he is benefiting from the tax cuts in the next financial year. Recently, hard-right Coalition MPs have not had as much influence on government policy as they used to, and Turnbull is probably benefiting from this.

While Turnbull’s ratings improved, I believe the greater focus on the government’s tax policies and the publicity regarding Barnaby Joyce are holding back the Coalition’s vote. One Nation probably slumped owing to the split between Pauline Hanson and Brian Burston, who is now a senator for Clive Palmer’s new United Australia Party.

Both Newspoll and Essential’s fieldwork was mostly conducted before the federal Liberal council passed a motion to privatise the ABC on Saturday. This vote is likely to be embarrassing for Turnbull and Coalition ministers.

The Australian has been campaigning against the Australian National University’s refusal to allow a Western civilisation course. Most voters would have heard nothing about this issue. It is not surprising that, when given a question skewed in favour of the Western civilisation course, voters backed it by a 66-19 margin.

Essential: 52-48 to Labor

This week’s Essential poll, conducted June 14-17 from a sample of just over 1,000, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a two-point gain for the Coalition since last fortnight. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up two) and 35% Labor (down two). Tables have not yet been published, so The Poll Bludger’s report is the best for domestic issues.

79% supported the first stage of the income tax cuts that are introduced in the next financial year, but only 37% supported the third stage, which is scheduled to be phased in from 2024 – these tax cuts would flatten the tax scales. Support and opposition to the company tax cuts were tied at 39% each.

From Peter Lewis in The Guardian, 35% thought the agreement between US President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un would make the world safer, 8% less safe, and 41% thought it would make no difference.

Despite Trump’s presidency, 50% consider it very important for Australia to have a close relationship with the US, followed by the UK at 47% and China at 39%. Russia at 17% and Saudi Arabia at 14% are at the bottom of this table.

By 54-11, voters had a favourable view of New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern, followed by Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (54-14), German Chancellor Angela Merkel (43-18), French President Emmanuel Macron (42-15) and UK PM Theresa May (42-19). Trump had an unfavourable 64-22 rating, Russian President Vladimir Putin 56-19 unfavourable and Kim Jong-un 68-9.

Two Mayo polls give Rebekha Sharkie 58-42 leads over Georgina Downer

On July 28, Mayo is one of five seats up for federal byelections. The incumbent, Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie, was forced to resign over the dual citizenship fiasco, but will recontest. The Liberal candidate is Georgina Downer, daughter of Alexander Downer, who held Mayo from 1984 to 2008.

A ReachTEL poll for the left-wing Australia Institute and a Galaxy poll for The Advertiser both gave Sharkie a 58-42 lead over Downer. Primary votes in Galaxy were 44% Sharkie, 37% Downer, 11% Labor and 6% Greens. In ReachTEL, primary votes were 41.4% Sharkie, 35.5% Downer, 11.1% Greens and 8.2% Labor.

These poll results represent a 3% swing to Sharkie in Mayo compared to the 2016 election. The ReachTEL poll was conducted June 5 from a sample of 1,031, and the Galaxy poll June 7 from a sample of 515.

In the Galaxy poll, 62% had a positive view of Sharkie and just 10% a negative view. In contrast, 31% had a positive view of Downer and 41% a negative view.

The Centre Alliance was Nick Xenophon’s former party, and the expectation was that Sharkie would follow Xenophon down. However, it appears that she has built up a strong profile in Mayo that is independent of Xenophon’s appeal. It is likely Sharkie will defy the collapse of her party to retain Mayo.

It could be perceived that Downer thinks she should have the seat because it was her father’s seat. Other weaknesses for Downer are her membership of the hard-right Institute of Public Affairs, and her absence from Mayo for the last 20 years.

The Australia Institute ReachTEL has left-skewed additional questions. Question 2, regarding company tax cuts, gave unpopular examples of large companies — banks, mining companies and supermarkets. It then offered three options for company tax rates (increased, kept the same or decreased), with only one unfavourable to The Australia Institute’s left-wing agenda.

Three weeks ago, The Australian had a right-skewed company tax cut question in Newspoll, but left-wing organisations often do the same thing, though their profile is far lower than Newspoll.

In brief: Darling Range (WA) byelection, Conservatives win in Ontario and Colombia

A byelection for the Western Australian state seat of Darling Range will be held on Saturday. At the March 2017 state election, Labor won Darling Range by 55.8–44.2 against the Liberals, a massive 18.9% swing to Labor from the 2013 election. However, Labor member Barry Urban was forced to resign over allegations of fraudulent behaviour. A ReachTEL poll for The West Australian gave Labor a 54-46 lead in Darling Range.

At the June 7 Ontario provincial election, the Conservatives won 76 of the 124 seats, the left-wing NDP 40, the centre-left Liberals seven and the Greens one. The Liberals had governed Ontario for the last 15 years. The Conservatives won just 40.5% of the popular vote, with 33.6% NDP, 19.6% Liberals and 4.6% Greens. First Past the Post, which is used in all federal and provincial Canadian elections, greatly benefited the Conservatives with the left vote split. You can read more at my personal website.

At the Colombian presidential runoff election held on Sunday, conservative Iván Duque Márquez defeated the left-wing Gustavo Petro by a 54.0-41.8 margin. Duque opposes the 2016 peace deal between the government and guerrilla fighters.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

ReachTEL polls: Labor trailing in Longman and Braddon, and how Senate changes helped the Coalition

Posted on June 6, 2018 by particularkev

File 20180605 175451 c2xlbw.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — Bill Shorten and the ALP will need to work hard to win July byelections in Longman and Braddon.
AAP/Tracey Nearmy

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

Sky News ReachTEL polls, conducted last week in the seats of Longman and Braddon from samples of over 800, gave the LNP a 52-48 lead in Longman and the Liberals a 54-46 lead in Braddon.

These polls represent a three-point swing against Labor in Longman, and a six-point swing in Braddon since the 2016 election. Longman and Braddon are two of the five seats that will be contested at byelections on July 28.

Primary votes in ReachTEL polls do not exclude undecided voters, and thus understate major party vote shares. In Braddon, primary votes provided were 47% Liberals, 33% Labor and 6% Greens. In Longman, primary votes were 38% LNP, 35% Labor, 2% Greens and 14% Others. Strangely, One Nation, which won 9.4% in 2016, does not appear to have been listed.

ReachTEL uses respondent allocated preferences, and this is helping the LNP in Longman. The major party primary votes appear to be about the same as in the 2016 election, but the LNP is benefiting from a stronger flow of preferences.

While the Longman poll is bad for Labor, it is a one-point gain for Labor since a ReachTEL poll for The Australia Institute conducted after the May budget. Individual seat polls have not been accurate in the past. With more than seven weeks left until the election, Labor can reasonably hope to hold Longman.

The March 3 Tasmanian election was a disaster for Labor, and this appears to have flowed into federal Tasmanian polling. Tasmania uses the same electorates for its state elections as the federal Tasmanian electorates. In Braddon, the Liberals won 56% at the state election, to just 27% for Labor and 4% for the Greens.

Analyst Kevin Bonham says that the Tasmanian federal election results have been closer to the state election if the federal election came soon after the state election. In this case, the scheduling of the byelections for July 28 has helped Labor by putting more distance between the state election and the federal byelection for Braddon.

Another problem for Labor in Braddon is that the Liberal candidate is the former MP Brett Whiteley. As Whiteley is well-known in that electorate, Labor’s Justine Keay will not benefit as much from a “sophomore surge” effect.

National ReachTEL: 52-48 to Labor

Sky News also released a national ReachTEL poll, conducted last week from a sample of over 2,000. Labor had a 52-48 lead in this poll, unchanged from early May. Primary votes were 35% Coalition (down one), 34% Labor (down one), 11% Greens (up one) and 9% One Nation (up three).

This poll was probably taken before Pauline Hanson and Brian Burston had a falling-out. Bonham estimated this poll was 53-47 to Labor by 2016 election preferences.

By 49-43, voters supported reducing the company tax rate to 25% for “all” businesses, a similar result to an Ipsos poll in early April (49-40 support). However, a late March ReachTEL that asked about tax cuts for “big” companies had voters opposed 56-29.

Voters were more favourable to the company tax cuts in Braddon (56-38 support) and Longman (58-33 support) than nationally.

By a narrow 47-45 margin, voters nationally opposed refugees on Nauru and Manus Island being allowed to settle in Australia. Opposition was far stronger in Braddon (60-31) and Longman (66-28). By 59-27, voters nationally agreed that there should be a 90-day limit on refugee detention.

National Essential: 54-46 to Labor

This week’s Essential poll, conducted May 31 to June 3 from a sample of 1,025, gave Labor a 54-46 lead, a three-point gain for Labor since last fortnight. Primary votes were 37% Labor (up one), 36% Coalition (down four), 10% Greens (steady) and 8% One Nation (steady).

Essential still uses the 2016 election preference flows, so this poll would be 53-47 by Newspoll’s new methods. Labor’s position in the national polls has improved since late May, when Parliament resumed its sitting.

Turnbull’s net approval was up two points since early May to a net zero. Shorten’s net approval was down nine points to -13. Turnbull led Shorten by 41-27 as better PM (40-26 in May).

37% both approved and disapproved of cutting the “tax rate for businesses from 30% to 25%, estimated to cost $65 billion over the next 10 years”.

50% thought the Newstart payment of $270 per week for a single person with no children was too low, 26% about right and 9% too high. At least 64% agreed with five statements about Newstart that implied it should be increased.

How the Senate has changed since the 2016 election

At the 2016 election, the Coalition won 30 of the 76 senators, Labor 26, the Greens nine, One Nation four, the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) three and Others four. The four Others were Bob Day, David Leyonhjelm, Derryn Hinch and Jacqui Lambie. 39 votes are required to pass legislation through the Senate.

On a right vs left count, the Coalition, One Nation, Day and Leyonhjelm were right-wing senators, and Labor and the Greens left. If all of the right-wing senators voted for Coalition legislation, they needed three of the five centrists on bills opposed by Labor and the Greens. As the NXT controlled three senators, the Coalition needed to work with them.

Since the election, there have been several changes to party composition.

In February 2017, Cory Bernardi resigned from the Liberals to start his own Australian Conservatives party.
In April 2017, the High Court disqualified Bob Day, and he was replaced by Lucy Gichuhi, the second candidate on Family First’s South Australian Senate ticket. Gichuhi joined the Liberals in February 2018.
In October 2017, the High Court disqualified One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, and he was replaced by Fraser Anning, who promptly resigned from One Nation. On Monday, Anning joined Katter’s Australian Party.
In November 2017, Lambie resigned owing to the citizenship fiasco, and she was replaced by Steve Martin. Martin joined the Nationals in May 2018.
In November 2017, NXT Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore resigned over the citizenship fiasco, and was replaced in February 2018 by Tim Storer, who had been expelled from the NXT.
Last week, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and Brian Burston had a falling-out after Burston said he would vote for the company tax cuts, in opposition to current One Nation policy.

As a result of these changes, the Coalition has gained one net seat to have 31 senators, Labor and the Greens are unchanged, One Nation is down two to two, the Centre Alliance (formerly NXT) is down one to two, and Others are up two to six. Others now include Bernardi, Anning, Storer and Burston, but not Day or Lambie.

Bernardi, Anning and Burston are right-wing senators. Including One Nation and Leyonhjelm, there are now 37 right senators. If they all vote the same way, the Coalition requires either the two Centre Alliance senators, or Hinch and Storer, to pass legislation opposed by Labor and the Greens.

The changes to the Senate have improved the Coalition’s position, as they now have two options rather than one if Labor and the Greens oppose legislation.

In brief: Spanish conservative government falls, Italian populist government formed, Ontario election June 7

On June 1, the Spanish conservative government lost a confidence vote, and was replaced by a Socialist government. Three months after the March 4 Italian election, a government of two populist parties has been formed. You can read more at my personal website.

Canada’s most populous province of Ontario holds an election on June 7, with polls closing at 11am on Friday Melbourne time. Ontario uses First Past the Post. After 15 years of government by the centre-left Liberals, the Conservatives looked likely to win this election in a landslide.

However, the NDP, the most left-wing major party, surged, and is currently tied with the Conservatives in CBC analyst Éric Grenier’s Poll Tracker, but the Conservatives are shown as winning a majority of seats. The Conservative leader, Doug Ford, has been compared to Donald Trump.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Democrat Doug Jones wins Alabama Senate byelection in stunning upset; Bennelong is tied 50-50

Posted on December 15, 2017 by particularkev

File 20171213 27565 jztyz5.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1 — Democrat candidate Doug Jones has had an unlikely win in the hard-fought Alabama Senate ballot.
Reuters/ Marvin Gentry

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

With all election-day votes counted, Democrat Doug Jones defeated Republican Roy Moore by a 49.9-48.4 margin to win the Alabama Senate byelection today. Once Jones is seated, Republicans will hold only a 51-49 Senate majority, down from their current 52-48.

Donald Trump crushed Hillary Clinton by a 62-34 margin in Alabama at the 2016 Presidential election, so in Australian terms, this result is a swing to the Democrats of 14.6%.

The massive swing was partly due to Moore’s faults. His extreme right-wing views probably made him a liability even in a state as conservative as Alabama. In November, I wrote that Moore’s alleged sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl, when he was 32, could damage him. Similar allegations against Moore were made by other women.

While Moore was a bad candidate, Trump and national Republicans can also be blamed for this result. According to exit polls, Trump’s approval with the Alabama electorate was split 48% approve, 48% disapprove, a large drop from his 2016 margin.

According to FiveThirtyEight’s poll aggregate, Trump’s national ratings are 37% approve, 57% disapprove, for a net of -20. Trump’s ratings have recently slipped back to near-record lows, probably as a result of the unpopular Republican tax plan.

This tax plan is unlikely to be derailed by Jones’ win. Different versions have already passed the House and Senate, and Republicans still have some time before Jones is seated to pass the same version through both chambers of Congress. The current Senate version was passed 51-49. Even if Jones is seated, there would be a 50-50 tie, which would be broken by Vice-President Mike Pence.

The last Democrat to win an Alabama Senate contest was Richard Shelby in 1992, and he became a Republican in 1994. Southern Democrats used to easily win Alabama and other conservative southern states, but these Democrats were nicknamed “Dixiecrats”, and were definitely not left-wing. Doug Jones may be the first genuinely left-wing Senator from Alabama.

The Alabama result will be a massive morale boost for Democrats, as many will think that if Democrats can win Alabama, they can win anywhere. This should allow Democrats to recruit strong candidates for the 2018 midterm elections.

According to the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate, Democrats lead in the race for Congress by 47.2-37.5. If Democrats win the national popular vote by this margin next November, they should easily gain control of the House.

The Alabama result will make it more difficult for Republicans to pass legislation and get conservative judges approved. It also puts the Senate in play in November 2018, as Jones will not be up for election until 2020. Democrats now need to gain two seats in 2018 to take control, rather than three.

One-third of the Senate is up for election every two years, and Democrats won the 33 Senate seats up next year by a 25-8 margin in 2012. Republicans will only be defending eight seats, while Democrats defend 25. In these circumstances, two Senate seats are far easier to gain than three.

Most Alabama polls gave Moore a three-to-seven-point lead over Jones, with one at a nine-point Moore lead. The Monmouth and Washington Post polls (respectively tied and Jones by three) were the most accurate. Ironically, the Fox News poll was the most pro-Jones, giving him a ten-point lead.

Bennelong Newspoll 50-50

The Bennelong byelection will be held on Saturday, December 16. A Bennelong Newspoll, conducted December 9-10 from a sample of 529, had a 50-50 tie, a ten-point swing to Labor from the 2016 election. Primary votes were 39% Liberal, 39% Labor, 9% Greens, 7% for Cory Bernardi’s Conservatives and 2% Christian Democrats.

Newspoll is assuming that Conservative and Christian Democrat preferences are as favourable to the Liberals as Greens preferences are for Labor.

At the start of the campaign, more than three weeks ago, Galaxy had a 50-50 tie, while ReachTEL gave the Liberals a 53-47 lead. This Newspoll is the first publicly released Bennelong poll since then, though The Australian reported last week that internal Liberal polling had them leading 54-46.

In past elections, individual seat polls have been inaccurate. There is some chance of a Labor win in Bennelong, but there is also some chance of a thumping Liberal win.

Newspoll asked about Labor candidate Kristina Keneally’s performance when she was NSW premier. 19% thought she was one of the worst premiers, 15% below average, 26% average, 23% better than average, and 10% one of the best. The Liberals have attacked Keneally on her record as premier, but this does not appear to have worked.

The national polls below indicate the media frenzy over Sam Dastyari has had little impact on voting intentions. Often issues that excite partisan voters have little resonance with the general public.

Essential 54-46 to federal Labor

The Coalition gained a point in this week’s Essential, but this was due to rounding. Labor led 54-46, from primary votes of 38% Labor, 35% Coalition, 10% Greens, 7% One Nation and 2% Nick Xenophon Team. Essential uses a two-week sample of about 1,800 for voting intentions. Additional questions use one week’s sample.

Despite Labor’s strong lead in voting intentions, Turnbull’s net approval improved from -12 in November to -3. Shorten’s net approval also improved from -13 to -9.

71% thought it is important that sexual harassment claims in the film and TV industry are exposed, while just 17% thought exposing these claims could unfairly harm reputations. 55% thought the current media attention on sexual harassment would bring about lasting change in the Australian workplace, while 30% thought it would soon be forgotten.

Considering energy policy, 37% said costs should be prioritised (up nine since June), 18% thought reliability should be prioritised (down three) and 15% carbon emissions (down four).

YouGov primary votes: 35% Labor, 34% Coalition, 11% Greens, 8% One Nation

This week’s YouGov, conducted December 7-10 from a sample of 1,032, had primary votes of 35% Labor (up 3 since last fortnight), 34% Coalition (up 2), 11% Greens (up 1) and 8% One Nation (down 3).

Although this poll would be about 54-46 to Labor by 2016 election preferences, YouGov’s respondent allocated preferences are tied 50-50, a three-point gain for the Coalition.

By 40-39, voters thought Turnbull should stand down as prime minister and let someone else take over, rather than remain prime minister. 28% said Turnbull’s decision to go ahead with the banking royal commission gave them a more positive view of him, 15% more negative and 52% said it made no difference.

39% expected Labor to win the next federal election, 24% the Coalition, and 14% expected a hung parliament.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Newspoll 54-46 to Labor as Turnbull’s ratings slump. Qld Newspoll 52-48 to Labor

Posted on October 18, 2017 by particularkev

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted 12-15 October from a sample of 1580, gave Labor a 54-46 lead, unchanged from three weeks ago. Primary votes were 37% Labor (down 1), 36% Coalition (steady), 10% Greens (up 1) and 9% One Nation (up 1). This is Turnbull’s 21st consecutive Newspoll loss as PM.

32% were satisfied with Turnbull’s performance (down 3) and 56% were dissatisfied (up 4), for a net approval of -24, down 7 points. Shorten’s net approval was -22, down two points. According to Kevin Bonham, this is Turnbull’s worst net approval since July, and Shorten’s worst since June.

By 63-23, voters favoured continuing renewable energy subsidies. However, 58% said they would pay nothing more for electricity or gas to implement a clean energy target. In a mid-September Essential poll, voters thought renewables better for electricity costs than fossil fuels by a 41-27 margin.

The general public would like more investment in renewables, and expects that renewable energy would not increase current power prices. However, the Coalition backbench is strongly opposed to renewable energy. By siding with the backbench, Turnbull is undermining his standing with the public.

Labor should ferociously attack the Coalition’s new energy policy that was announced today. In recent global elections, major left-wing parties have performed best when they have clearly distinguished themselves from conservatives. Where the left has become close to the conservatives, they have performed dismally, with Austria (see below) the latest example.

While Newspoll was good for Labor, Essential and YouGov below are not as good. All three polls this week agree that One Nation’s vote is up by 1-2 points.

Last week, The Australian published the July to September quarter Newspoll breakdowns by state, region, sex and age. Since the 2016 election, there has been an 8 point swing to Labor in Queensland, WA and outside the five capitals, but milder swings elsewhere.

SSM plebiscite turnout and polling

As at Friday 13 October, the ABS estimated it had received 10.8 million same sex marriage forms (67.5% of the electorate). The turnout is up from 62.5% on 6 October and 57.5% on 29 September. Weekly updates will be provided until 7 November, the final day for reception of SSM envelopes.

In this week’s YouGov poll, 67% of respondents had already voted, a very good match for the ABS. Among these, Yes led by 61-35. The remaining 33% favoured Yes 54-28, including 13% who were very likely to vote.

Wednesday morning update 18 October: In Newspoll, 65% said they have already voted and another 19% definitely will, implying an 84% turnout. Among those who have already voted, Yes led by 59-38, and by 49-37 among those who have not yet voted. For the whole sample, Yes led by 56-37 (57-34 three weeks ago). By 50-43, voters were opposed to the postal plebiscite (46-44 opposed three weeks ago).

Essential 52-48 to Labor

This week’s Essential, conducted over the last two weeks from a sample of 1850, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a 2 point gain for the Coalition since last week. As Essential uses two week rolling averages, this implies that this week’s sample was close to 50-50. Primary votes were 37% Coalition (up 1), 36% Labor (down 2), 9% Greens (down 1), 8% One Nation (up 1) and 3% Nick Xenophon Team (up 1). Additional questions are based on one week’s sample.

Voters approved 65-15 of the Clean Energy Target, 74-10 of renewable energy subsidies and 62-18 of Labor’s 50% renewable energy target. These questions can be said to be “pony polls”, in that the voter is asked whether they approve of something that sounds nice, without considering cost or other issues.

61% (down 10 since February) thought the government was not doing enough to ensure affordable, reliable and clean energy, 15% thought it was doing enough (up 3) and 5% that it was doing too much (up 2).

42% thought Abbott should resign from Parliament (down 1 since April), 14% that he should be given a ministry (down 4), 16% remain a backbencher (up 2) and 9% challenge Turnbull (not asked in April).

In contrast to Newspoll, last week’s Essential gave Turnbull a net -1 rating, up from -5 in September. Shorten had a net -7 rating, up from -11.

Essential asked which people’s interests the major parties best represented, with expected results. Labor was seen as best for low-income working people (+33 vs the Liberals), people on welfare (+28) and students (+22). The Liberals were best for big business (+51) and high-income working people (+49).

By 55-36, voters thought it likely there would be a war between North Korea and the US. 33% said terrorism was the biggest concern for their personal safety, with 20% selecting a car accident and 13% nuclear warfare.

YouGov primary votes: 34% Coalition, 32% Labor, 11% Greens, 11% One Nation

YouGov continues to have Labor much lower than other polls. Primary votes in this week’s YouGov, conducted 12-16 October with a sample of 1067, were 34% Coalition (steady), 32% Labor (down 1), 11% Greens (steady), 11% One Nation (up 2), 3% Nick Xenophon Team (down 1) and 4% Christian parties (steady).

As usual, YouGov’s two party result, using respondent allocation, is skewed to the Coalition; they lead 51-49, though the previous election method would give Labor about a 52.5-47.5 lead according to the Poll Bludger.

56% thought Australia should have stricter gun laws, 34% thought they should remain about the same and just 7% thought they should be less strict. By 45-37, voters thought the Constitution should not be changed to allow dual citizens to run for office.

Qld Newspoll 52-48 to Labor

A Queensland Newspoll, conducted 10-12 October from a sample of 917, gave Labor a 52-48 lead, a one point gain for the LNP since the July to September Newspoll. Primary votes were 37% Labor (steady), 34% LNP (steady), 16% One Nation (up 1) and 8% Greens (steady). The next Queensland election must be held by early 2018.

42% were satisfied with Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s performance (up 1), and 45% were dissatisfied (down 1), for a net approval of -3. Opposition leader Tim Nicholls had a net approval of -11, up five points.

The narrowing in Labor’s two party lead is partly because Newspoll are now assuming that One Nation preferences flow to the LNP at a 60% rate, up from 55% previously. Unlike most state Newspolls, this poll was taken over three days last week, rather than a period of months.

Austria election: conservative/far-right coalition likely outcome

The Austrian election was held on 15 October. The conservative OVP won 31.5% of the vote (up 7.5 points since the 2013 election), the centre-left SPO 26.9% (steady) the far-right FPO 26.0% (up 5.5), the liberal NEOS 5.3% (up 0.3), the Greens breakaway party PILZ 4.4% and the Greens 3.8% (down 8.7). Turnout was 79.4%, up 4.5 points.

Seats are awarded roughly proportional to vote share with a 4% threshold. The OVP won 62 of the 183 seats (up 15), the SPO 52 (steady), the FPO 51 (up 11), the NEOS 10 (up 1) and PILZ 8. Thus the FPO holds the balance of power, and will probably join the OVP in a conservative/far-right coalition government. Although a few votes remain to be counted, the Greens appear to have missed the threshold, losing all 24 of their seats.

The centrist parties, the SPO and OVP, had been in coalition for the last two terms. According to this article in The Guardian, both parties became more right-wing in an attempt to appeal to FPO voters. From what we have seen in other countries, this strategy only helps the far-right.

In the December 2016 Austrian Presidential election, Greens candidate Alexander Van der Bellen defeated the far-right Norbert Hofer 53.8-46.2, showing that a left-wing candidate could win. However, the SPO did not embrace a left-wing agenda.

This election was an utter disaster for the Austrian Greens. The Greens won 12.4% in 2013. With the major parties becoming more right-wing, this should have been an opportunity for the Greens to increase their vote. However, the Greens split into the PILZ and Greens before the election, and only the PILZ made it back into Parliament.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Newspoll 53-47 to Labor, but Turnbull’s better PM lead blows out

Posted on September 6, 2017 by particularkev

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted 31 August to 3 September from a sample of 1610, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, a one point gain for the Coalition since last fortnight. Primary votes were 38% Labor (steady), 37% Coalition (up 2), 9% Greens (steady) and 8% One Nation (down 1). This is the Coalition’s 19th successive Newspoll loss under Turnbull.

There was little change in the leaders’ ratings. 34% approved of Turnbull’s performance (down 1) and 54% disapproved (down 1), for a net approval of -20. Shorten’s net approval was also steady at -20.

On the better PM measure, there was a solid shift in Turnbull’s favour, from a 43-33 lead last fortnight to 46-29 this week. While the Coalition has trailed consistently on voting intentions in Newspoll, Turnbull has led Shorten comfortably as better PM in all these polls.

The better PM measure virtually always skews towards incumbents relative to voting intentions, but Turnbull’s leads have been stronger than expected given voting intentions, and indicate that the public prefer Turnbull to run the country, even as voting intentions favour Labor. An argument can be made that Shorten is holding back Labor, but also that the Coalition is a drag on Turnbull.

According to Kevin Bonham, there have been seven previous cases of a greater better PM lead for the incumbent when the government was behind 53-47 or worse; all occurred with John Howard as PM and Kim Beazley as Opposition Leader from 2005-06.

In the last fortnight, there has been much debate about cultural issues, such as changing the date of Australia Day and amending statues from our colonial past. Turnbull has argued against such changes, and this appears to have boosted his better PM rating.

In this week’s Essential, voters opposed changing Australia Day by 54-26. In Newspoll, voters opposed making changes to the statues by a 58-32 margin, though in Essential opposition was milder at 42-29, perhaps because voters were asked about changing “inscriptions” on public statues, not the statues themselves.

In Newspoll, 45% thought Labor’s 50% renewable energy target would increase electricity prices, 22% decrease and 24% thought there would be no effect, so this is 46-45 for no effect or a decrease. 49% are not willing to pay anything for renewable energy (up 4 since February), 25% will pay $100 a year (down 1) and 13% $300 or more (down 4).

Essential 53-47 to Labor

This week’s Essential, conducted over the last two weeks from a sample of 1780, gave Labor an unchanged 53-47 lead. Primary votes were 37% Labor, 36% Coalition, 10% Greens, 8% One Nation and 2% Nick Xenophon Team. Last week, the Coalition was ahead 37-36 on primary votes, so rounding explains the lack of a headline move to Labor. Additional questions are based on one week’s sample.

Among those who say they will definitely vote in the same sex marriage plebiscite (62% of the sample), 69% will vote Yes and 28% will vote No (67-30 last fortnight). The overall sample supported Yes 59-31 (57-32 last fortnight).

49% blamed private power companies most for rising energy prices, 22% blamed the Turnbull government, 9% environmentalists and 5% renewable energy companies.

In last week’s Essential, voters were asked to rank the last four governments – the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments, and the Abbott and Turnbull Coalition governments. On first preferences, Rudd had 32%, Turnbull 26%, Gillard 22% and Abbott 20%. Labor and Greens voters preferred Rudd to Gillard, while Coalition voters preferred Turnbull to Abbott. Other voters, which included many One Nation supporters, had Abbott at 34% and Rudd at 30%. The Abbott government was the most disliked, with 37% ranking it last.

By 51-40, voters thought the tax system was not fair (55-36 in April 2016). Majorities were bothered a lot by some corporations and wealthy people not paying their fair share of tax.

By 41-40, voters thought dual citizens should be allowed to be MPs. By 41-40, they thought ministers who may hold dual citizenship should stand down while their cases are being decided by the High Court. By 59-25, voters supported a review into all MPs to ascertain who may be a dual citizen. In an additional Newspoll question last fortnight, voters thought politicians entitled to a dual citizenship should be disqualified by 44-43.

By 39-38, voters approved of Pauline Hanson’s burka stunt in Parliament. Kevin Bonham has said that Essential’s online panel appears to have attitudes that are closer to One Nation than a truly representative sample would produce. In effect, Essential may be biased towards non-politically correct responses. This bias may also apply to YouGov.

YouGov 50-50

This week’s Australian YouGov poll, conducted 31 August to 4 September from a sample of 1030, had a 50-50 tie, a one point gain for Labor since last fortnight. Primary votes were 34% Coalition (steady), 32% Labor (down 1), 12% Greens (up 2) 9% One Nation (down 1), 4% Nick Xenophon Team (down 1) and 3% Christian parties (down 1).

The major party primary votes are much lower than in other polls. Votes for Christian parties would probably be Coalition votes in other polls, and this explains why YouGov is skewed towards the Coalition.

Pauline Hanson had a 50-42 unfavourable rating (52-39 in late July). Nick Xenophon had a 52-28 favourable rating (50-25 in July). 66% were worried about North Korea, and views were split 43-43 on military action. Voters would oppose a ban on the hijab 61-29, but support a burka ban 67-24 and niqab ban 64-26.

By 62-24, voters thought Tony Abbott should be reprimanded after he admitted he had missed a vote in 2009 when he got drunk the night before.

State representation changes in the lower house

I wrote on 30 June, following the release of 2016 Census data, that Victoria and the ACT will each gain a House seat, while SA will lose a seat, so there will be one additional House seat after the next election. On 31 August, the Electoral Commission confirmed this outcome, and will begin redistributions in the affected states. Labor will benefit from the new ACT seat.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Sharing my thoughts with the world from a Particular Baptist perspective

What’s at stake when protests are disallowed?

Is limiting protest against our constitution?

Aren’t there other ways to protest?

Share this:

Like this:

Touch and talk

Digital salons

Zoom beauty

Share this:

Like this:

Confused messages

Guns and pastries, essential?

The essential essentials

In and out of work

Further restrictions and essentials

Share this:

Like this:

I need to evacuate. Now what?

What if I run out of medicine?

Medicines for people with lung conditions, like asthma

In a nutshell

Share this:

Like this:

Essential: 52-48 to Labor

NSW election upper house late counting

European leaders’ summit on April 10 to decide on Brexit

Share this:

Like this:

Essential: 52-48 to Labor

Two Mayo polls give Rebekha Sharkie 58-42 leads over Georgina Downer

In brief: Darling Range (WA) byelection, Conservatives win in Ontario and Colombia

Share this:

Like this:

National ReachTEL: 52-48 to Labor

National Essential: 54-46 to Labor

How the Senate has changed since the 2016 election

In brief: Spanish conservative government falls, Italian populist government formed, Ontario election June 7

Share this:

Like this:

Bennelong Newspoll 50-50

Essential 54-46 to federal Labor

YouGov primary votes: 35% Labor, 34% Coalition, 11% Greens, 8% One Nation

Share this:

Like this:

SSM plebiscite turnout and polling

Essential 52-48 to Labor

YouGov primary votes: 34% Coalition, 32% Labor, 11% Greens, 11% One Nation

Qld Newspoll 52-48 to Labor

Austria election: conservative/far-right coalition likely outcome

Share this:

Like this:

Essential 53-47 to Labor

YouGov 50-50

State representation changes in the lower house

Share this:

Like this: