'; ?> April Omnibus - the quant | What The People Want
April Omnibus - the quant
Sunday, 09 May 2010 14:24 | Written by Graham Young

Labor continues to be in the doldrums; the Liberal Party is increasing its vote at the expense of the Nationals; and the Greens are continuing to hold their own, according to our latest omnibus poll.

The poll was conducted between the 21st and 26th April, just before the government back-down on the ETS. Newspoll suggests that there may have been a strong reaction to this. I suspect that this may result in an increase in the Greens vote at the expense of Labor, but not change the two-party preferred vote too much.

FPI_April_2010_500

Perceptions of the direction of the country continue to deterioriate

Direction_Country_10_04

There has been a statistically significant increase in those who think the country is heading in the wrong direction, and essentially no movement in those who think it is heading in the right direction.

As with the last poll, most are still happy with their personal circumstances.

 Direction_Personal_10_04

There is a small change, but within sample error.

Both leaders have deteriorated in their standing. Rudd has had a slight, statistically insignificant decline in approval, but a significant three point increase in disapproval.

Approval_Rudd_10_04

Abbott experiences a strong increase in his net disapproval, as a result of a decline in approval and an increase in disapproval.

Approval_Turnbull_Abbott_10_04

But the vanity polls do not seem to matter that much with Abbott gaining on Rudd on the question of preferred PM. September 2008 our sample favoured Rudd over Turnbull by 65% to 26%. A net 7% of this preference has moved across to the Liberal leader and the figures are 58% against 33%.

 Preferred_PM_10_04

Given the heavy Labor investment in Rudd, this decrease in his standing must be a concern. I wouldn't be surprised to see Labor start to emphasise the team more strongly, and perhaps we are seeing that with the dominance of Wayne Swan on the issue of the budget and Bowen, Tanner and to a lesser extent Emerson on the Resource Rental Tax.

Share this article on your favourite social bookmarking sites:
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Google! Facebook! StumbleUpon! Twitter!
 

Comments   

 
0 #1 Your statistical layout that isolates th — John Peach 2010-05-12 14:44
Your statistical layout that isolates the Nationals as a separate entity from the LNP in Qld & the CLP in NT distorts the result you are quoting and thus makes it in this respect meaningless. The remaining National Party brand exists now only as a minor party in NSW, Vic and WA as you know, although the Fed Coalition partner is still nominally called the "Nationals".
Your nominal voters support estimates will only be legitimate if you re-band your original questions.
After all on a federal perspective all coalition candidates from NT are the CLP partner, from Qld the LNP partner and both are very close to being State Governments.
Your question headings thus produce misleading results!
 
 
0 #2 The media has put the focus on Rudd as b — donkeeohtee 2010-05-12 18:39
The media has put the focus on Rudd as black flipping, but where is the balance in putting as much emphasis of the obstructive nature of the opposition.

Rudd's best option is to get the appropriate balance in the senate and then reintroduce the policies that have been frustrated by a senate elected during the Howard years.

I don't see it as a backflip but a strategic and logical move to withdraw and marshall your forces and attack again.
 
 
0 #3 Hi John, The statistical method relie — Graham Young 2010-05-14 11:21
Hi John,

The statistical method relies on measuring the same thing every time. As my definition of Nationals doesn't change, then movements in their vote will be comparing like with like and will be valid. Having said that, the sample size for the Nats is very low, so changes probably don't mean that much. I had to make a decision whether I left them in or kept them out. I decided, in the interests of relevance, not strict statistical accuracy, to leave them in. The reasoning being that as they are part of the Coalition, which is capable of forming a government from time to time, they should be there. But I have excluded the other minor parties on the basis that the sample size is too small and there is no other good reason for putting them up. I also don't want a table that is too crowded.

The LNP gives me a different problem. They are a branch of the Liberal Party, so I have included them as Liberals, even though they can theoretically sit with the Nats in Canberra. To do anything else over-complicate s the matter, because in both these cases it is the combine National and Liberal vote that determines whether they are in government or not, and it doesn't matter too much how you combine them.

Does that make sense?

Graham