Wednesday 23 May 2018
I regret having to break my promise that I would never mention polls again and without sounding alarmist today’s latest Guardian Essential poll has the party’s at 51/49 in favour of Labor.
I did say a few months back when the figures were bouncing at trampoline heights for Labor, that we couldn’t take the polls seriously until we got closer to an election.
That’s when people declare their hand and we can take the polls more earnestly. As usual, you can look at them from a number of angles.
With a 3% margin of error it could mean anything, but if we were to take the Coalition vote as spot-on and take into account the fact that there is always a swing back to the incumbent, you might conclude that Labor are in real trouble, or at least level-pegging.
51% to 49% is the first time the gap has been that close since November 2016 and is preceded by figures of 52/48 and 53/47.
It is fair to suggest that come the next poll it could very well be 50/50.
The contradiction in the figures comes when you place them aside the Essential survey that accompanies the poll.
It showed that that the punters were more sanguine toward Shortens overall economic plans than Turnbull’s.
I don’t know how one explains the obvious contradiction in terms.
“This is despite a range of results on tax and budget matters that are uniformly favourable for Labor and/or unfavourable for the Coalition. As reported by The Guardian, the poll finds Labor’s income tax policy favoured over the Coalition’s by 45% to 33%, and 44% favouring Labor’s increasing spending on health and education while giving a tax cut to low and middle-income earners”, over “the Coalition’s approach, which is to give both companies and workers a tax cut”.
A further complication arose yesterday morning when Pauline Hanson pulled out of what is alleged to be a signed agreement with the Coalition. The reason I believe was that she didn’t get what she was promised.
But Ashby has her back on the front pages which is where she needs to be to survive.
So, two things arise. One is that she needs to reveal to the Australian people what sort of a deal she had made on behalf of the Australian people.
When a political party deliberately withholds information that the voter needs to make an informed, balanced and reasoned assessment of how it is being governed. It is lying by omission. It is also tantamount to the manipulation of our democracy.
And the second, in the same way as the National Party should come clean and show the signed agreement it made with Malcolm Turnbull. No one could change that much without being bribed.
It means, that the Prime Minister has little choice but to take his Tax Cuts for the rich and privileged to the electorate and let them decide.
As I said yesterday, I know which policy I would rather be selling.
“Sixty per cent said they did not want company tax cuts to proceed; 50% supported Labor’s proposed tightening of negative gearing, with 24% opposed; and 42% supported Labor’s dividend imputation policy, with 27% opposed. However, the two parties were tied at 32% on the question of best party to manage a fair tax system, with 22% saying it made no difference”
Having said all that one can only conclude that if the figures remain at 51/49 Labor is in real trouble and there is only one explanation for it. That being the Shorten factor
Australians do indeed have a love affair with political Polls and I must say they do help me shape my opinions but I also know how they work and how, when put, do questions affect the answers.
As Russell Green, a Facebook friend said to me about the Government:
“They clearly have no claim to a 3rd Term. But then they had no claim on a second either and that failed to materialise.”
My thought for the day
One of the oddities of political polling is trying to understand how 48% of the voting public would willingly return a party that has governed so abysmally.
On yet another American High School massacre:
“It is time that those with the capacity to change laws that might prevent the mass murder of children and refuse to do so we’re made to account. After all, they are as guilty or as mad, whatever the case, as the perpetrator himself.”