Polls

William Bowe’s Bludgertrack  and Poll Bludger

At the end of last week Labor’s TPP lead in Bludgertrack was 50.9:49.1. By Friday this week it had extended to 51.9:48.1. That, and all three main parties’ primary vote, are within 0.4 percent of their levels in the 2022 election. This week has seen a continuing fall in the Coalition’s primary vote, and now a distinct rise in Labor’s primary vote.

You can keep up with a flood of polling, updated daily, on Bowe’s Poll Bludger.

Responses to tax and housing proposals

David Crowe, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, reports on a poll suggesting that while voters are pretty well indifferent between Labor’s and the Coalition’s tax and housing proposals, they seem to have more faith in Labor’s commitment to carrying them through: Voters back Albanese over Dutton on tax and housing plans.

When the parties’ proposals are put to separate groups of voters, there is slightly higher support for the Coalition’s tax and excise plan (56 percent) than for Labor’s tax cuts (54 percent). A similar pair of surveys finds slightly higher support for Labor’s housing package (49 percent) than for the Coalition’s (42 percent).

Not much attention should be paid to these small differences: they would be within the poll’s sampling errors. The safest conclusion, in line with the general anecdotes about the election, is that voters don’t see much difference between the parties on these issues.

But when people are asked to choose between the proposals, there is a strong preference for Labor’s offerings: 40 percent to 34 percent on tax, and 40 percent to 27 percent on housing. (This question appears to be a combined sample, which means the errors are smaller.)

Paradoxical, contradictory? Not necessarily. It probably means that people have more faith in Labor’s capacity to carry them out. And before the comrades start congratulating themselves, the simplest explanation is that it reflects the benefits of incumbency, because for the most part Labor’s proposals are simply extensions of programs they already have in place.

Essential – our slow engagement with the election

The Essential poll released this week is the last before polling opens. One thing we learn from that poll is that only 36 percent of respondents intend to vote at a polling station on election day – down a little on 2022. Bad news for democracy sausages and Anglican ladies selling cakes. Younger people and Labor supporters are more likely than other voters to cast their votes on election day. It is notable that there is not much partisan difference in people’s intention to vote by post, which means there may not be any bias in postal votes.

There are the usual questions on approval of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton. Albanese is scoring about 50:50 approval disapproval, while Dutton’s disapproval has been climbing back to where it was shortly after the last election.

There is a question on election engagement. It’s up a only little. Older voters are more engaged with the election than younger people. Respondents are asked for their sources of information. Older people and Coalition voters are heavily reliant on commercial media. Unsurprisingly social media influencers and podcasters are prominent in younger people’s choice.

There is a question on voting firmness. About half of all respondents are firm in their intention and two thirds of those who say they will vote Coalition are firm. Young people are less firm. Some would say that when half of respondents could change their vote the election is up for grabs, but they may be people deciding between Labor and independent, or between National Party and Clive Palmer, rather than between the two main parties.

Respondents are asked which “leader” – Albanese or Dutton – they trust to handle issues. Responses and Albanese’s percentage lead over Dutton are:

Around 40 percent of respondents, however, see no difference between them.

There are three questions about crime: Do we think the incidence of a list of 8 crimes has increased over the last 5 years? How concerned are we about those same crimes? What are our attitudes to prevention vs enforcement as a way to reduce crime?

It’s strange that people should be surveyed about crime just before a federal election. Almost all categories of crime listed fall within state responsibilities. But Dutton, never one to miss a chance to mislead voters, has been raising crime as an election issue, and he did so again in Wednesday night’s debate, unchallenged by the compere.

Youth crime tops the first two lists, and respondents believe that the incidence of almost all crime is rising, except for “white collar crime ­­– fraud, tax evasion, corporate crime” and “terrorism”.

Such it is with surveys on crime. Police and ABS data on crime incidence and victimisation show that the rate of almost all crimes is on a long-term downward trend. So long as there are media and law’n’order scaremongers our perceptions of crime incidence will go on rising, however. It is also revealing that tax evasion is low in our awareness, in spite of the large amount of evidence of evasion of excise on cigarettes.

There is a question on our migration intake. Only 18 percent of respondents believe we should bring in more migrants. That rises to 30 percent for people under 35, but 72 percent of older Australians (55+) want to see a decrease in immigration. Who do they think will look after them in their dotage?

Perhaps the most interesting responses are on expectations of the election outcome. The graph below shows the outcome as a graph, with people’s voting intention on the horizontal axis.

Probably a graph

It seems to be a question about political bubbles.

Trump’s benign influence on Australia

David Crowe has an article in the Sydney Morning Herald We thought Trump was dragging down Peter Dutton. Now we know why. In case you find Crowe’s article is paywall-blocked, you can find the supporting survey data from a Resolve Strategic poll, on William Bowe’s Poll Bludger.

When voters were surveyed about Trump’s influence on their voting preferences, 33 percent of respondents said that their view of Donald Trump has made them less likely to vote for the Coalition, compared with 14 percent who said it would make them more likely to vote for the Coalition. Only 21 percent said their view of Trump would make them less likely to vote for Labor, but this was offset by 22 percent who said it would make them more likely to vote for Labor. In short, Trump is a net negative for the Coalition.

Crowe’s article concludes:

Trump is not the only factor at work at this election, but his impact on Dutton is now abundantly clear. This election may well be remembered for the way Dutton played with the flames from the White House and burnt his campaign.

We’ve fallen out of love with the USA

The Lowy Institute poll, released on Wednesday, is about our confidence in the contestants’ ability to handle foreign affairs, particularly in their handling of our relationships with the United States and China.

Notably respondents believe Albanese would be more competent than Dutton in handling foreign policy: 41 percent of respondents believe Albanese would do better, 29 percent believe Dutton would do better, and 29 percent “don’t know”.

Our trust that the US will act responsibly in the world has fallen sharply – from 56 percent last year to 36 percent this year. It is even well down from its high levels during the first Trump administration. Nevertheless 80 percent of us see the alliance with the US as important for our security.

We believe that Albanese would be better than Dutton at handling Australia’s relationship with China and President Xi Jinping but we see no difference in their ability to handle our relation with the US and President Trump.