'; ?> Polls Blog | What The People Want
Polls Blog
Queensland election?
Tuesday, 06 January 2009 22:53 | Written by Graham Young

There is plenty of speculation that Premier Anna Bligh may go to an early election, so we've decided to get in first.

You can find our first questionnaire of the year at http://polling.nationalforum.com.au/index.php?sid=39517&lang=en.

We're also looking at the issue of backyard drownings. The government has announced an inquiry and we will send them the results.

 
Using the media
Friday, 06 October 2006 03:53 | Written by Graham Young
We're analysing our media survey in two parts because there was so much information there. And it was so rich. I've copied our on-air notes below, and you can download the full word document with tables by clicking here. For me, the most exciting thing we've found so far is that while you use public broadcasters the most and find them the most reliable, the Internet is running third on importance, just below newspapers, but is rated higher than newspapers for reliability. I have a suspicion that this has to do with websites being the centre of social networks, but I'll have a better idea about this when I've crunched the qual. This is an important issue, and there were 1265 or so responses, so it will take me a while to crunch - at least two weeks until the next on-air session. Thanks to those who participated, this work really is at the cutting edge of our understanding of how the media landscape is changing.

On-air notes

  1. 1,265 responses. 45% female, 55% male. Weighted towards older Australians
  2. 49% from Queensland, 22% NSW, 11% Vic, 7% SA, 6% WA, 3% ACT, 1% Tas
  3. Most influential media for elections: Radio 15%, Newspapers 14%, Internet 11%, TV 11%, Social 10%, Paid media 6%. Reflects a decline in both newspapers and TV and the rise of the Internet.
  4. The Internet was the most favoured by the under-thirties, particularly women, and was also very popular with under 40s.
  5. Radio fairly uniformly popular across all age groups, while newspapers were preferred by the 40 to 60 age groups.
  6. Some cross-over between social and Internet and between Newspapers and Internet.
  7. TV has some life yet at least with younger women.
  8. When it comes to frequency for news ABC Radio and TV win hands-down over Newspapers and Internet, which more or less tie. Commercial Radio really bombs.
  9. When it comes to increases in frequency of use for news, newspapers are in mild decline, commercial broadcasters in steep decline, public broadcasters increasing in use and the Internet rocketing away.
  10. For entertainment our respondents most frequently turn to the public broadcasters and then to the Internet.
  11. They don’t perceive an increase in their use of most of these media, apart from the Internet. (This of course can’t be correct, unless they are spending more time consuming media in total than they did before).
  12. When it comes to reliability, they favour the public broadcasters, then the Internet. Newspapers are ranked well-below the Internet, and the commercial broadcasters are seen as being more unreliable than reliable.
  13. Take-out message – Commercial broadcasters are in trouble and the Public Broadcasters are filling the gap at the moment, but the Internet is charging in. Newspapers are essentially stagnant. Younger consumers have moved decisively to the ’net and prefer less “official” sites.
 
Recycling sewage
Wednesday, 09 August 2006 21:53 | Written by Graham Young

We discussed recycling sewage for drinking water this morning on the basis of what you told us. I've reproduced the notes below, and if you want notes plus tables, you can click here to download my original word document. Should mention that one of our partners, the Local Government Association of Queensland specifically asked us to do this poll. They did a quantitative poll last week (press release can be downloaded here ). But quants only tell you so much, and they had a specific interest in knowing the "why" of the issue. This information will presumably be taken into consideration in whatever action the south east Queensland mayors take.

  1. Huge turn-around in support since our last poll which was held in October last year.
  2. This time 76% support and only 17% oppose. Last time 47% supported and 35% disapproved. Political complexion of two polls roughly similar, apart from Greens, who are about 10% higher.
  3. Higher level of support than represented in the other available polls – LGAQ 60.9% in favour in SE, 27.6% against. CM poll 66 percent support, 18 percent opposed. I did a sub-sample balanced by voting intention against Newspoll’s results, which gave 73% support, 19% opposed. Reasonably close, but outside the error margin.
  4. Reason for move in support probably lies in the Toowoomba poll. It has educated us about the issue, and it has also set-up a dynamic where the rest of the state doesn’t want to be dictated to by a small, unrepresentative, rural vote.
  5. Greens are most heavily supportive (89%), and Nationals the least (51% support).
  6. Whether respondents thought Toowoomba’s result ought to affect the rest of the state rested pretty heavily on whether they supported the recycling proposal or not.
  7. More people opposed Beattie’s referendum than supported it. Only Labor voters were in support, but only to 51%.
  8. Reasons for opposing the proposal
    1. Not enough knowledge
    2. “Yuk” factor
    3. Rationing, fix waste
    4. Safety of recycled water (including hormones)
    5. Other alternatives, like tanks, desalination
    6. Shouldn’t have to pay the price for other people’s bad planning
    7. Potential for system breakdown
  9. Reasons for supporting the proposal
    1. Much drinking water already originally contains sewage
    2. Less damage to the environment than alternatives
    3. Safe
    4. No alternative
    5. Recycling is good
  10. What would make you change your mind?
    1. More information
    2. Armageddon
    3. Trialed successfully
    4. Only used for industry and agriculture
    5. Full dams
    6. If it was proven to be unsafe
  11. Should the Toowoomba result affect the rest of the state
    1. Should be indicative of the state of Queensland
    2. Every area should decide for itself
    3. Rednecks
    4. Politicians should make decisions
    5. Need better education
    6. Abandoned by state and federal politicians, not enough resources for “Yes” case.
    7. One small group shouldn’t dictate to the rest of the state
    8. Incompetent “Yes” campaign.

Verbatims (please note that all quotes are reproduced exactly as they were typed into our system, including typos and grammatical errors):

“I think Recycled sewerage water could be used as a source of water for other areas of the household preferrably not for drinking however I have heard scientifically that the water after treatment is safer than most water - it is the concept that is difficult to overcome.” Female, 31-40, Greens.

“The debate has been too emotive on both sides. The Greens make recycling sound like the Messiah whilst for Labor it is the Armageddon” Male, 31-40, Nationals

“If every home collected rain water suffient for the household useage, there wouldn't be any need for recycling. We have lost our home to Mr Battie's Wet Dream (the Traveston Dam) and although we oppose the building of dams in unsuitable places, we still stongly oppose recyling sewage water. We live in a very dry area and have three rainwater tanks and an Ozziecycle to protect the environment. This water is supposed to be pure enough to drink. If this is so, why can't people living in the Buffer Zone around the proposed dams stay where they are and continue using the recycling method? No. The State want all septics systems and personal recycling systems no closser than 200m....why if the water is supposed to so pure?” Female, 51-60, Greens

“in some town in germany they did try it, after sometime the company wanted to cut costs and took out about 1/4 of the scrubbing process (part of the filtering) and within 3 months most of the town was sick with stomach problems. The garbage collections company is already talking about cutting costs and yet the want to privatise the water we drink as well !?” Male, 18-30, Labor

“Our water supply is not endless - we MUST get smarter about using it and valuing it. AND anyone who thinks our water supply already doesn't have heaps of sewage, animal droppings, dead animals, rubbish etc - has never gone rowing on Brisbane River!” Female, 31-40, Greens “

It helps to improve water quality in out rivers, saves buidling dams, is cheaper, more sustainble (dams are letting us down), solves the water supply problem, and uses less energy than desalination.” Female, 61+, Greens

“The only objection I've seen is of the "I don't want to drink sewerage" variety - hardly an argument and not what's being proposed. All wate is recycled and the proposal is to speed up/complement the natural cycle by pumping the recycled water into dams from where it will be treated like all the water there. What's not to like about that? They could recycle it to potable water standard and pipe it straight to my tap for all the problems I see with it. It's more energy efficient than desalination and apart from some pipes and pumps to move it from the recyling plants to the dams the infrastructure is largely already in place. Who cares where the water starts as long as what comes out of the tap is to the required standard? This pandering to the fearful and ignorant and calling it democracy is a cowardly abdication of government's responsibility to provide such a basic service.” Male, 41-50, Labor (Liberal last election)

“nothing. i am a microbiologist. i know the truth.” Male, 31-40, Labor

“If the same clowns as have ruined Qld Health and the electricity grid are in charge of purefying the water.” Male, 51-60, Independent

“Because I think we need a vigorous public education campaign to make sure people actually know the facts about water recycling. As far as I'm concerned there is no "No" case they have no facts whatsoever behind them. An small, ill-informed electorate (Toowoomba) should not decide for the wider community something of this importance.” Male, 18-30, Greens.

“N/A If you look at the demographics of the people in Toowoomba it is obviopus that they would not support recycling. they are of that generation. I know my sister lives there and she voted no yet she is quite hgappy to drink my tank water which is probably polluted by bird shit and dead lizards” Male, 61+, Labor

“The toowoomba residents now have bee nrightly portraid as ignorant hics” Male, 31-40, Greens “

The Toowoomba vote was not handled well by the 'yes' proponents in that they appeared arrogant and the perception to the community was 'we know best, take it or leave it'. The community did not like it being shoved down their throats.” Male, 41-50, Liberal “

The residents of Toowoomba were undoubtedly influenced by the prior political rhetoric of Premier Beattie. His government is on record as recently as late 2004 stating the Toowoomba has reserves that would last to at least 2015. A few weeks ago using recycled water in Wivenhoe would only be an "armageddon" solution. Is it any wonder that residents of Toowoomba were lead to believe that use of recyled water was unnecessary!!” Male, 41-50, Liberal

 
Environment Survey, Part II
Wednesday, 12 July 2006 21:27 | Written by Graham Young
On this morning's program we covered the following points:
  1. 1,243 respondents, 47% female, 52% male. Better spread now, but still biased towards those 51-60 (28%)
  2. 43% Greens, 19% Labor, 9% Liberal 5% Democrats and 4% National
  3. More pessimistic than our earlier sample. 87% think world environment is getting worse, 85% think Australia is, and 64% think their local area is.
  4. Looked at the balanced sample to find what issues respondents think are the most important, and what solutions they propose.
  5. Internationally, most think that Global Warming is the biggest issue (36%), followed by Limited Resources (14%), Population (11%), Pollution (11%) and Degradation (11%). This puts a much heavier emphasis on Global Warming than when they are asked what is causing the world to head in the wrong direction. Suggests that to a certain extent they are reserving judgement on Global Warming until they see real evidence.
  6. Nationally, Water comes into the lead (31%), then AGW (21%), Degradation (9%), and Pollution (7%). Limited numbers think we have a problem with limited resources (6%) and over-population is not seen as an issue (3%). This is counter to what international commentators like Jared Diamond have been saying – that Australia is clapped out.
  7. Locally, Water is still in the lead (26%), followed by Pollution, including litter and graffiti (11%), Degradation (10%) and Development 8%. Local issues are more likely to be practical. Motor vehicles and transport issues make an appearance.
  8. Internationally, on the question of solutions, nothing stood out significantly with conservation measures being top (13%) followed by using alternative fuels (13%) and Education (10%). This suggests that respondents don’t feel that the problems are really that pressing, and that responses are split between optimists, who think we can maintain standards of living and those who are pessimistic and think we can’t.
  9. Similar results at a national level. One additional element is that a significant number (11%) say that the government ought to be doing more. Kyoto is hardly mentioned at all (1%).
  10. Locally the government also gets some of the blame. When you look closely at the solutions suggested at a local area they tend to also concentrate more on practical issues, as well as aesthetics, such as keeping things looking good.
  11. Take-out – Water is dominating our environmental fears, and this is because it is something that impinges on each of us most directly. We talk about the issues that environmentalists talk about but we care about those issues that affect us directly.

Verbatims

Global

"Hard to say - global warming immediately springs to mind, but the larger issue is sustainability and acheiving this will require seismic shifts in the world political order, which the US for one does not seem prepared to countenance. So it's not too long a bow to say that the United States is our biggest environmental problem." Male, 41-50, Labor

State

"The supply of good quality water for people and for agriculture so that food can be produced is not assured for any developing nation. The pressures on water supply are not mainly from the much-quoted climate change but from mismanagement, inadequate planning and wasteful use." Female, 51-60, Liberal

Local

"The complete lack of responsibility by the Beaudesert Shire council and its employees in managing environmental issues. They pay more attention to employing a dog catcher and checking the height of residents' fences than they do to environmental matters." Female, 51-60, Labor "Total destruction of our coastal wetlands because nobody knows its happening, media isnt interested, environmental groups are more interested in saving cape york and developers pay big electoral funding to all political parties. So it will just be replaced with a sea of brick and bitumen owned by investors from sydney and melbourne." Female, 51-60, Liberal, normally Greens

National One Thing

"Stop subsiding stupid, obscene 4WD while at the same time penailsing economy cars. Tax cars heavily according to their fuel consumpution. Stop subsidising petrol." Male, 31-40, Labor "Put a bounty on cane toads. When I was a kid, I use to get threepence for a sparrow, and a shilling for a starling, and ten bob for a pig snout. Bring back the bounty system and get rid of all the imported vermin brought in by misguiding people." Male, 61+, Liberal "Take control of environmental issues away from government departments and politicians and place it in the hands of specialists who know what they are doing" Female, 51-60, Greens (normally Labor)

Local One Thing

"Get rid of Ipswich's poor bus system, integrate it with Brisbane's bus system and hence the rail system, so that we could have a proper, workable, user-friendly public transport system that would reduce cars on the road." Female, 61+, Labor The full document, with the tables, can be downloaded by clicking here (pdf 32kb).
 
Domestic violence
Wednesday, 05 July 2006 08:09 | Written by Graham Young
This entry is posted for Paul from Mandurah. I'd be interested in some feedback on it as we're looking for more social issues to explore with the polling. If we looked at domestic violence, what questions should we be asking?
We need to dispel the myth that only women and children are the victims of domestic violence,and that women are good,and men bad.Too much media advertising is perpetuating this myth.Please look at scientifically arrived at statistics and you will be surprised at the total misinformation that is being spread on this topic backed by very vague figures and perceptions that only serve a small minority of our population. Divorce,separation, and the break up of families is increasing at an alarming rate,and the main victims are the children.Our Family Law is under review at this present time,but more pressure must be brought to bear on changing long-held entrenched gender bias in our legal system. Five males per day suicide Australia wide,mostly due to being forced out of their childrens` lives,drained financially by a carefully calculated adverserial legal system forced on them by the "No Fault Divorce" system. If we lost five soldiers per day in Iraq,would not the outcry force the Prime Minister to withdraw our troops from the conflict?why do we not even batt an eyelid at the loss of five good men per day back here at home?the loss to the economy by these losses,and the drain that the fatherless children and custodial mothers place on the economy is a serious subject that nobody seems to be interested in rectifying,or taking up with the government. Five whales a day washed up on Bondi Beach would make worldwide headline news,why does this more serious tradgedy not even warrant a mention? Thanks for allowing me to suggest this subject as one that should be seriously debated.
 
Environment Survey
Wednesday, 28 June 2006 21:09 | Written by Graham Young
These are the notes that I used for this morning's interview with Madonna King on 612 ABC Radio Brisbane. Will do some more work on this tomorrow morning, however, here are the statistical highlights. I think that the take-out is that people are very pessimistic about the international and national environment and feel that things are outside their control - it’s a Doomsday scenario. Where things are within their control, which is at a local level, they can point to many things which make them optimistic, even though even here they still feel on balance pessimistic. Global warming over-all is a big concern, but degradation is the largest. Population and greed (business and consumerism) get most of the blame. We’re caught between our will and our destiny. We’d change things if we could, but there is no mechanism to allow us to do that, so we regrettably go with the community.
  1. Great response to this one. 565 responses with more tumbling in. More male than female, with the bulge in the baby-boomer area.
  2. Most of us believe that the environment is in real trouble at an international, national and local level. Only National Party voters think that on balance things are getting better locally and nationally.
  3. Using a balanced sample, 10% think the International environment is heading in the right direction versus 74% who think it is going in the wrong direction - no wonder Bjorn Lomborg (the skeptical environmentalist) is so unpopular.
  4. Using a balanced sample, 18% think the national environment is heading in the right direction versus 66% who think it is going in the wrong direction.
  5. Local fares the best. 30% versus 57%.
  6. Most of us regard ourselves as “environmentalists” - 92% Greens, 81% Labor, and 61% each for National and Liberal. But check out the sub-categories. Quarter of Libs neutral and almost a quarter of Nats negative!
  7. Why is the International environment in trouble? The big one is degradation - pillaging of forests, seas, disappearance of species (15%) Then comes global warming (13%). Then population (10%) Our lifestyle also gets a touch up - consumerism (8%) and business (8%).
  8. Why is the national environment in trouble? Global warming the winner (15%) Indifference - blame the government- (12%). Initiatives - (10%). A lot of this has to do with failure to ratify Kyoto.
  9. When it comes to local, many people can cite things that their councils have done to make a difference. 26% cite initiatives as the reason for how they think, and this is overwhelmingly amongst people who are optimistic. Planning is a negative (8%) and there is some concern about degradation (9%) although this mainly refers to farmers and industry. Planning includes people in SEQ who are worried about Dams.

Verbatims

International

AGW

“well, all the international climate change scientists are now saying that we are heading for a worst case scenario, big business keeps polluting and greenwashing, we in the wealthy countries are too concerned with consuming, and those in the poor nations too busy trying to survive to care about the environment.” Female, 31-40, Independent (was Greens).

Degradation

“I don't believe we can predict the climate to any great degree, and even if we can a warmer climate isn't so bad - yet this is where the focus is. Yet the world globally is running out of other resouces - water, oil, fish, and land (degradation), and it is obvious problems in these areas will become acute in the next 50 years - unlike climate change.” Male, 41-50, Independent (normally Liberal)

Population

“Population press is a problem for much of the developing world. Meeting the growing population is putting huge pressure on, and depleting resources, and also generating pollution.” Female, 41-50, Liberal (normally swings).

National

AGW

“Landcare has achieved slight slowing in rate of land degradation but only slight. Australia is the largest per capita greenhouse gas creator in the world and has not ratified Kyoto. Government prefers new flirtation with dangerous nuclear energy rather than take hard decisions on reduction or sustainable/renewable energy sources. Deforestation still alarming, usable water an increasing issue. Too many cars a huge problem and governments pandering to the oil/car/expressway lobby.” Male, 51-60, Greens

Indifference

“Rome burns whilst 99% of humans say, "I can't make a difference, so why should i bother." Also politicians talk and do nothing to influence corporate and individual decisions which affect environmental outcomes.” Male, 51-60, Liberal

Initiatives

“Water pollution is on the decline. Air pollution in the major cities is at much lower levels than the past. The great fears of a catastrophic collapse in the Murray systems or the Great Barrier Reef are now found to be baseless. Although much remains to be done, we are clearly moving in the right direction and so long as we continue these efforts, the situation will only improve further.” Male, 51-60, Liberal

Local

Initiatives

“It has improved over the last 5 years. We have a park near us with two rather large wet areas and a large patch of bush. The Council did its best to destroy it several years ago but when local people complained about spraying and rubbish dumping in the bush the Council cleaned up and improved their practices. The area is not 100% but certainly much much better than it was and wild fowl are slowly retruning to the area.” Female, 51-60, Greens (usually Labor).

Degradation

“Because of the extremely poor local council and lack of trust they hold from the electorate. Ron Clarke is a poor politition with hidden agendas and no regard for the people who voted him in. Land is still being clear felled to allow low cost housing estates to be developed with no regard for the environment or the future.” Male, 31-40, Ind (usually Liberal) “We have a sawmill down the road that is operating in 1950's facilities, with OH&S issues that has led to half its staff being retired prematurely in the last decade. I hear noise that is beyond the state noise policy standard for a rural area ignored by the EPA. I see air quality that is dripping in particles ignored.” Male, 51-60, Independent (normally swings).

Planning

“Well its to do with drought. I recall that former PM Keating said that drought was no different to any other event in nature and in proposing to abolish Drought relief to farmers said that farmers should plan for drought. How much planing have state and local govts done recently in planing for drought. The last Premier to open a dam was Sir Joe, nearly 20 years ago. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.” Male, 51-60, Independent “SImilar to above, the local area follows the paradigm that development is more important than sustainability.” Male, 51-60, Liberal.

Pollution

“Watching the carrot and vegetable farmers pump chemicals into the soil, pull water from Warrill Creek for vegetables that get fed to cattle because they don't conform with Woolworths or Coles requirements .... too many resources being stripped for flavourless fodder.” Female, 41-50, Labor. The full document with the tables can be downloaded by clicking here .
 
Nuclear Age
Tuesday, 20 June 2006 03:49 | Written by Graham Young
These are the notes used for on-air analysis on Wednesday 14th June. The sample is much larger now (2,058 as of a minute ago), and some of the percentages have changed slightly. A fuller report will be compiled after close of business this Wednesday 21st June.
  1. Newspoll (pdf 84 kb) says that 51% of Australians are opposed to nuclear power generation in Australia and 38% approve, while Morgan Gallup says that 49% approve while only 37% disapprove. Why the difference? All in the question. Morgan frames it as greenhouse abatement.
  2. Newspoll has their own glitch – they ask about support for uranium mining, but only give three choices – status quo, much more, or none at all. On this basis 22% are totally opposed, 44% go for three mines and 22% want no restrictions.
  3. What is John Howard doing? Is there a chance that he could win the debate?
  4. Our polling combined with the Morgan and Newspoll figures suggest not.
  5. 476 responses analysed up until 4:53 this evening. Many more coming in. Heavy Greens bias – 31%; and male – 60%.
  6. Will send the results to the Government’s inquiry.
  7. Our sample disapproves of the inquiry, but taking skew into account suggests that the community is in on balance in favour, but not as strongly as Morgan suggests.
  8. Many have made up their mind that they don’t want nuclear at all, others see it as a tactic by the government to take attention away from other issues, and some see it as biased because of personnel and the fact that it is not looking at all alternative fuel sources.
  9. Those who approve cite need to investigate properly, many have made up their minds and see it as a way forward for nuclear, others see it as a way of taking partisanship out of the issue. At the same time there is also cynicism about Howard’s motives.
  10. Interesting dissonances when it comes to whether we should export uranium, and whether nuclear power is a good idea for Australia, or for other countries.
  11. 49% disapprove of other countries using nuclear, but this rises to 59% when they are asked about Australia using it.
  12. 44% disapprove of mining more uranium, but this is less than the 49% who disapprove of overseas countries using it, and the 59% who disapprove of Australia. Means that some of those who disapprove don’t have a problem with increased production!
Quotes:
  1. “Despite the probability that the PM needed to get a story on the agenda to justify his trip to USA (I heartily approve of our PMs playing a role on the world stage), a properly constituted enquiry would be most appropriate because the implicit issues are most important and should be in the public arena. This inquiry is constituted in a similar vein to the Repubic referendum and the Cole Inquiry!” Male, Undecided, normally Liberal, 61+
  2. “If it is an enquiry to gather facts and review the science, well & good. If it is for another purpose, probably no harm done but the debate is not progressed.” Male, Liberal previously Labor, 41-50
  3. “Overall an examination of nuclear power is needed and timely, however I am not sure that the personelle and terms of reference will meet the requirements of such an inquiry.” Female, Labor moving to undecided, 18-30
  4. “Both sides need to air their arguments clearly and precisely - not shout scary slogans” Male, Liberal going Labor, 51-60.
  5. “Not safe, waste is a problem” Female, Undecided, 51-60
  6. “I believe there are other options available that do not cause the problem of waste storage that the nuclear industry does.” Female, Undecided from Liberal, 61+
  7. “It is a distraction from rising interest rates and the work place reforms” Male, Liberal going to Labor, 51-60
  8. “I do not think the enquiry is broad enough - it should include comparing the feasability of solar, wind and other energy sources in comparison with nuclear. I am also worried about the bias of the PM's team” Female, Greens going undecided, 51-60.
Word counts: Waste 64 Danger 24 Dirty 9 Bias 21 Clean 27 Good 20 Greenhouse 19 Safe 58
 
Liberal/National Merger
Thursday, 01 June 2006 01:41 | Written by Graham Young
These are the notes used in today's on-air analysis. We are still taking responses and will incorporate the revised figures into the final report.

Quantitative

Total Sample
1. This proposal is not receiving a large “head nod”. 2. The proposal has a slightly negative effective across the whole sample – minus 2% 3. The sample is more balanced than usual – 16% Greens, 27% Labor, 20% Liberal and 18% National 4. Best Liberal representation in one of our samples for a while – suggests Liberals are more motivated on this issue than Nationals of Labor. 5. Both Liberals and Nationals are more positive than negative on this proposal – 51% of Liberals and 46% of Nationals approve, while only 9% and 13% disapprove. However, worrying for them that 40% and 41% are neither more nor less likely to vote for the new entity than the party they now vote for. 6. Leadership still an issue. 35% want Lawrence Springborg, 33% have no opinion, 9% Caltabiano and 8% Flegg.
Swinging Sample
I analysed those Liberal, National and Labor voters who were changing their vote since last election from one side of the divide to the other. Results here are interestingly different. 1. 39% are more likely to vote for the new entity, and 18% less likely, making it a net 21% in favour. 2. Still 42% are still neither more nor less likely. 3. Best leader is still Springborg – 53%. Next best is Flegg – 16%. Then Caltabiano – 3%.
Conclusion
Not enough in this proposal to risk running it without widespread approval within the parties. Will make it more likely for swinging voters to vote against Labor, but the majority of voters couldn’t care less about it. Best combination to gain swinging voters would be Springborg leader with Flegg deputy.
Qualitative
I’ve done the qual just on the swinging contingent. A variety of points of view. Two failure don’t equal one success: “Two horses arses do not make a whole and healthy horse.” Labor voter, traditional Liberal, female, 51-60 Seen it all before: “I cannot for the life of me believe that they are trotting out this rubbish again, I have voted for a Beattie government for the last 3 elections, he has blown all creditability as far as I'm concerned, last week topped everything, the standing of politicians in the community is fairly low, without tinkering with decriminalising lying to committies, city Liberals don't want to take on some of the redneck policies of the boys from the bush, they just need to do it through the polls and become the senior party in the coalition under the leadership of Caltabiano” Liberal voter, voted Labor last election, male, 51-60 Opposed to National Party influence: “I was thinking of perhaps voting Liberal but I would NEVER vote for a party whose leader is Lawrence Springbord or National Party affiliates.I think they represent Qld of old,lack of education and bad image and ideas.” Liberal voter, voted Labor last election, female, 61+ Strength in size: “qld politics is rather lop sided at moment, need a larger second party” National voter, Greens last election, female, 51-60 Liberals and Nats working together: “The merger shows an ability for the Liberals and Nationals to work together and I think this is important.” National voter, Labor last election, male, 51-60 They’ll fight: “The party would have a larger membership base with possible difference of opinions, which may cause debates to become more of an infight.” Undecided, Greens last election, male, 31-40 Less democracy, not more: “I do not believe in less but in more Parties. Good democracy thrives on diversity, not simplicity.” Undecided, no normal voting pattern, female, 51-60.
Total sample pivots
Age Female Male Grand Total
18-30 2% 3% 5%
31-40 3% 8% 11%
41-50 8% 11% 20%
51-60 12% 21% 33%
61+ 13% 18% 31%
Grand Total 39% 61% 100%

First_Preference Total
Christian Democrats 0%
Democrats 2%
Family First 3%
Greens 16%
I don't wish to answer 1%
Independent 7%
Labor 27%
Liberal 20%
National 18%
One Nation 1%
Other 1%
Undecided 5%
Grand Total 100%

Likely_to_vote Greens Independent Labor Liberal National Grand Total
I do not wish to answer 0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Much less likely 28% 35% 31% 7% 7% 21%
Much more likely 5% 9% 4% 43% 33% 19%
Neither more nor less likely 43% 43% 43% 40% 41% 42%
No opinion 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%
Somewhat less likely 16% 0% 13% 2% 6% 9%
Somewhat more likely 9% 9% 6% 8% 13% 8%
Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
More 14% 17% 10% 51% 46% 28%
Less 43% 35% 44% 9% 13% 29%
Net -29% -17% -34% 42% 33% -2%

Leader Greens Independent Labor Liberal National Grand Total
Bob Quinn 6% 0% 4% 4% 1% 4%
Bruce Flegg 4% 10% 6% 19% 2% 8%
I do not wish to answer 11% 6% 10% 2% 2% 7%
Jeff Seeney 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Lawrence Springborg 15% 13% 16% 50% 76% 36%
Michael Caltabiano 6% 10% 7% 17% 6% 9%
Mike Horan 4% 6% 4% 2% 1% 3%
No opinion 53% 55% 52% 4% 9% 33%
Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
 
Budget 2006
Wednesday, 17 May 2006 22:18 | Written by Graham Young
These are the notes used for our interview this morning with Madonna King and the ABC Radio Brisbane Morning Program. I'll do the analysis up more formally later. My read on the total sample is that many of our respondents feel personally squeezed by rising costs including petrol and interest rates (the last must be anticipatory) and don't think that the tax cuts allow them to do much more than catch-up, although most of them rate it as good for them personally and bad for the country. Explains why the government hasn’t gotten much of a bounce from the budget. Our sample is also more concerned with Health and Education than they are with tax cuts. Interestingly, payments to stay-at-home and working mums are not a high priority, nor looking after the elderly. Will the older and middle to lower demographics stay bought? BTW, Julia Gillard is the runaway winner for ALP leader, followed by Rudd, Keating and Beazley. Shorten on a bit less than 5% proves you need more than a walk-on part in a mining disaster to grab the public imagination. On the other side of the ledger Malcolm Turnbull is the second runner after Howard, not Costello. Even amongst online Liberal voters Costello is only just ahead, but the Labor, Greens and Democrats overwhelm him in favour of Turnbull over the whole sample.
  1. Sample heavily left-leaning. 31% ALP, 27% Greens, 15% Liberal, 5% National. Older than average demographic, with highest proportion (31%) between 51 and 60 years of age. Males outnumbered females almost two-to one in the plus 51 age group, and by 60% to 40% overall.
  2. Most believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction. This aligns with voting intention. 21% think we’re heading in the right direction, compared to 70% who think the reverse.
  3. Only 25% approved of the budget, versus 58% who disapproved. However, 89% of Liberals and 88% of Nationals approved. A balanced sample would have shown a majority in support.
  4. However 37% said that they would be better off because of the budget. So 12% benefited but altruistically thought it was a bad budget.
  5. Only 24% thought it would be good for the economy. Again, Liberals 81% of Liberals thought it would be good, as well as 88% of Nationals. A balanced sample would therefore think it was good for the economy.
  6. When it came to alternatives, most favoured either tax cuts, or increased spending on health and education. Because of the bias in the sample, this was distorted. Making allowance for the bias, tax cuts and services were probably pretty evenly matched.
  7. Incentives to working or non-working spouses or to older Australians were not well-supported. Infrastructure also rated very well with a less intense feeling in favour of it than services.
  8. 71% disapproved of Howard’s performance, but 58% disapproved of Beazley’s as well. However, 91% of Coalition voters approve, so sample bias at play again.
  9. 35% want Julia Gillard as leader, compared to 20% for Kevin Rudd, 15% for Paul Keating and 10% for Kim Beazley. None of the above is only 12%
  10. 172% and 75% of Coalition voters want Howard as leader, but only 19% of the total sample. Malcolm Turnbull tops the total sample at 20%, followed by Howard, then Costello. Abbott and Downer both get 1% each.
  11. When it comes to household budgets there are a few obvious factors:
  12. Many households find themselves under price-pressure from petrol, interest rates and food prices (no-one much mentions rent). They find the tax deductions derisory.
  13. Some households are earning lots of money and traveling well - they thought that tax cuts were great.
  14. Because they can’t see that they can earn enough after tax to pay for their needs, they would prefer the government to pay them for them.
  15. Word counts and quotes on the household budget issue provide quantitative support for the issues being caused by higher petrol and money prices with petrol being by far the larger issue.
Petrol 116
Fuel 243
Oil 5
Inflation 41
Interest 122
Rates 99
Rent 42

Student 41
Pension 271
Retiree 66


"The tax cuts will help to ease the squeeze so to speak.  I have grandchildren so the extra child care will be good for us all and there are incentives for my daughter to go back to work when her son starts full time school. I am looking at the more longer term benefits of the budget rather than the what's in it for me right now view. there will still be a surplus for the next several yeras and I think that is responsible and the right way to go." Liberal, Male, 41-50

"I'm just not sure. As much as I am in a bracket that gets a 'saving' on how much tax I pay each fortnight, I don't see that as improving my financial position - in terms of short term - home mortgages have just increased (more so than the tax saving) - and in long term, I don't think that an improvement in my own financial position is a good thing in the big picture of the country's health, for eg. I would prefer the $9-10 per pay packet to go directly to medicare and the public hospital system." Greens, female, 31-40

"Rising prices at every level of living then a slight tax benefit!!!! You have to be joking. After the GST the goverment have been completely rolling in money yet they are tighter than ever & services are lacking more & more funding." Greens, Male, 18-30

"No tax on super is a bit late for me as a self funded retiree for the last 9 years and being taxed on my benefit. I also do not have access to a health card for pharmaceuticals as I am means tested out of elegibility" Greens, Male, 61+

"With the increase in fuel costs that have already happened up around 21 cents per litre and interest rates up .25% costing an extra $10 per week the tax cuts have already been spent." Greens, Male, 41-50

"I am a mature aged woman in the middle income range who works part-time to finance studies that will hopefully lend me enough credibillity to take on consultancy work.  I support my daughter and son-in-law one is a student and the other an adult apprentice, my husband is a TPI pensioner.  I can't live on what the governemtn would pay me to be a carer for my husband or to be a student we have manged in the past and I will continue to manage in the future.  The minute amount of money I may be entitled to in the buget will probably be eaten up in fuel costs." Greens, Female, 51-60

Those who say their personal position is significantly improved appear to live in high income households or be on the verge of retirement.
 
<< Start < Prev 31 32 33 Next > End >>

Page 31 of 33