GhostWhoVotes informs us a state Nielsen poll in The Age has Labor with a two-party lead of 52-48, and that the Greens primary vote is steady on 16 per cent. More to follow.
UPDATE: We now also have Newspoll which puts Labor’s lead at 51-49, from primary votes of 37 per cent for Labor, 39 per cent Liberal and 5 per cent for the Nationals. The poll also shows a striking five point drop for the Greens to 14 per cent, which is coming off an all-time high and is not replicated in Nielsen. The two pollsters also give divergent impressions of John Brumby’s popularity: whereas Nielsen has his personal rating at plus 13 (approval 53 per cent, disapproval 40 per cent), Newspoll has it at minus six (42 per cent, 48 per cent). Newspoll also has Ted Baillieu at minus six (40 per cent, 46 per cent), while Nielsen has it at evens (45 per cent). Brumby has a slightly wider lead as preferred premier from Nielsen (53-37) than Newspoll (50-36). As was the case before the federal election, the Coalition’s supporters appear to be firmer in their intentions than Labor’s.
UPDATE 2: Full tables from the Nielsen poll here, courtesy of GhostWhoVotes.
fredn 98
Yes, it’s a never-ending conundrum. People say “We love living far away from the capital city” then in the next breath demand from all levels of government the level of services etc that that same capital city provides.
Really efficient express trains from that 100-150 km arc of regional centres in Victoria would help.
Further out? Hard to know – I have lived in South-West and North-West Victoria, one was closer to Adelaide. Had its advantages. Had its disadvantages. Could those towns and cities become “Newcastles”? Should they? I really don’t know.
“Country” population as a percentage in Australia has, I believe, been falling as a percentage of the total since about 1910. Remote aboriginal communities are like a microcosm of the country town situation – if you stay you are probably going to be unemployed, and if you go away to get an education you are unlikely to come back.
On a minor note, TSOP will tell you one increasingly bad aspect of capital city living is the ambient light at night messing up visual astronomy. It is upsetting to see vast near-empty office buildings with most of their lights on at night!
zoomster 99
[I actually think the best benefit of regionalisation is that it makes for happier humans.]
Which is why I often wonder why I left Darwin! That definitely has the best of both worlds.
On Immigration the Greens are a joke.
The policy goes like this
Cut the immigration rate in particular cut the number of Skilled migration
Increase Asylum Seeker intake
92
Ballarat, Bendigo and other gold mining regional centres grew much faster during the Gold Rush. Suggesting otherwise is ludicrous.
Peg
but that’s what governments are meant to do – change decisions in the light of community feeling.
It’s a ‘damned if you do’ situation. If the government had stuck with the decision blindly, you would have condemned them for being out of touch.
Actually the whole appraoch to development during the 1850s-1890s was way better than it is today.
Ballarat is to become the home of the VicRoads call centre and Bendigo is to receive a Government department. I actually think this is a good idea, Bendigo is a lovely city
Zoom @ 90
[Under the Brumby govt, regions have grown faster than Melbourne and faster than ever in Victoria’s history.]
Agree with a lot of what you are saying but I doubt the regions are growing faster than Melbourne. The majority of growth is still where it’s always been – in capital cities.
In 2008-9 Melbourne grew by 2.4% and rest of Victoria by 1.6%
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~2008-09~Main+Features~Victoria?OpenDocument
John Brumby
[ Our population is growing very rapidly; we’ve got the fastest rate of population growth in the state’s history, faster than the post-war migration boom, faster than the gold rush of the 1850s.]
I’ve heard him say this several times: I’m assuming he knows what he’s talking about.
For those interested in informing themselves about the Victorian Greens Party Land Use Planning Policy:
http://vic.greens.org.au/sites/vic.greens.org.au/files/policydownloads/Land%20Use%20Planning%20Policy-w.pdf
Some of the goals and priorities included in its policy are:
Goals:
5. The maintenance of Melbourne’s existing (2005) Urban Growth Boundary.
6. Decentralisation incentives to industry, commence, and service providers (especially in the Health sector), to take the pressure off Greater Melbourne and create regional jobs by further developing Victoria’s large and medium-sized regional cities and townships.
10. Mixed use medium density residential, commercial, office and (where appropriate) industrial development being increased in regional centres, small towns and suburban centres, with convenient access to frequent public transport.
Key priorities:
6. Prescribing a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare (gross) for residential developments within 400 metres of railway stations in nominated activity centres.
7. Prescribing a minimum average density of 20 dwellings per hectare (gross) for
residential development on land within Melbourne’s growth corridors.
Winston
I checked and stand corrected!
[Decentralisation is one of Brumby’s key passions, always has been (I date my friendship with him from a conversation in 1996 on that subject).
Under the Brumby govt, regions have grown faster than Melbourne and faster than ever in Victoria’s history.]
Yes, as I said, zoomster, Labor have made some positive moves in this direction. I think the process needs to be pushed further, though, and things like the NBN should create real opportunities to do so, especially if coupled with further rail development, etc.
fredn, the advantages include reducing pressure for further Melbourne sprawl( both vertical and horizontal! 😉 ) , reduced impact of transport on greenhouse emissions, maintaining the strength/ viability of existing regional communities themselves, reduction of distances people in rural areas have to travel for “major centre” level health, government and educational services etc., stronger local community sense and identification than you obtain with sprawling outer suburbs, etc etc.
Why a 500kVA power line to Portland? Because of an aluminium smelter that Alcoa wanted to build there and which a state government didn’t want built near Melbourne. But today, instead of a power line across the state we’d be looking at renewables, eh!
Why Albury? Well it was because it was thought that it might reduce pressures on both Sydney and Melbourne. It was probably a bit too adventurous then (hey, we’d only just got subscriber trunk dialling phonecalls, no such thing as the internet, the Hume Highway was a goat track, etc etc!), but with better transport infrastructure, better communications it can make good sense today. My own view , though, is that growing a lot of regional centres a reasonable bit, rather than a very small number of centres a lot, probably makes better sense still.
107
There is a likelihood that on a state-wide basis and in raw numbers of people the state is growing at its fastest because population growth has an exponential nature unless there is decline. On a percentage basis that statement is highly unlikely to be true. During the gold rush gold towns sprang up very quickly and kept growing quickly until the gold declined.
But back to the election and the polls.
Is Paul Austin the most useless state politics editor The Age has had in recent years?
From his article today –
[“Labor with an election-winning advantage over the Coalition”
“the 11-year-old government could be in danger of defeat”
“(the Greens) could seize the balance of power in State Parliament”
“the Government’s position is perilous . . . “]
All possibly true but hardly very illuminating.
Zoomster,
[but that’s what governments are meant to do – change decisions in the light of community feeling.]
In August 2009 council and community opposition to the development had already been established. That is why the application by the developer was refused.
Why did it take until June 2010 to determine that this was the case when it was known in August 2009 there was opposition?
[It’s a ‘damned if you do’ situation. If the government had stuck with the decision blindly, you would have condemned them for being out of touch.]
Resorting to a personal attack is tactic 101 to avoid answering questions 😉
ttfab @ 111,
I doubt that Victoria’s growth in raw numbers is greater than at the height of the Gold Rush. Victoria’s population went from thousands to hundreds of thousands within months. There were a LOT of people who came here under the ‘forest’ of ships’ masts that were abandoned at Port Melbourne and Williamstown!
I got polled tonight but I think it was internal stuff wanting 18-30 year olds and asking people who they voted for in 2006 and why they changed their minds (if they did) and asking us to pick one of two negative statements (1 about Ted and 1 about John) but there was less in the statement on John so I am assuming its a Labor thing to work out how many ppl are switching to the Greens. They also asked who you were going to preference.
The guy seemed pissed off that I was voting independent since I was cynical about both majors he said I was defeatist lol!
Peg
that isn’t a personal attack – don’t be such a sensitive little petal (that is).
Old Tom
ships didn’t hold that many people in those days. Now you could have the same number come in by plane in a matter of weeks rather than months.
114
You did not see the “un” on “unlikelihood” in my post at 111 and you therefore need your eyes checked.
Glen
didn’t think pollsters were allowed to make personal judgements… that’s what PBs for!
ttfab @ 117, apologies, that is because I am ‘old’. 🙂 Therefore we are in furious agreement!
peg @ 116, there were HUNDREDS of ships abandoned, they arrived carrying prospective ‘diggers’and the crews just ‘walked’ as well. By contrast, today most airline passengers are tourists (coming and going) and few migrants – I don’t include Pom / NZ ‘flying-boat people’. 😉
In 1851, Melbourne had a population of a little under 30,000 people and Victoria in toto it was about 75000. By 1854 the population of Melbourne alone had risen to over 120,000.
By 1860 the Victorian population was around half a million.
The population of Melbourne has grown by about 250,000 in the last three years, so in absolute terms it is growing faster today than it did during the gold rush, but nothing like as fast proportionally, of course.
Glen, when I got polled they couldn’t tell me who they were working for; said they weren’t allowed to know, and that it was better that way. Perhaps your interviewer was just trying to make small-talk.
Ah everybody’s got their own opinion I’m just saying it seems like internal polling.
Wonder when the Libs will have ads on the tele all we have are the Ummm Ted ads which are lame.
SOS.. SOS…are other PB’s experiencing difficult with this site
Sometime when I click on”comments” what comes up is something from Crikey.com…which I assume is a Twitter comment…but which blocks my ability to read the comment section or make a comment
I am annoyed and preplexed by this.which has only occured in the past few days.
It doesn’t happen all the time.but I am at a lost to know what to do…William HELP HELP
confessions
Posted Friday, November 12, 2010 at 11:32 pm | Permalink
‘ So why are the media afraid to take the party and its policies seriously? ‘
This is a valid question. Why is it that the only media analysis we get of the Greens consists of hysterical OTT claims that seem more at home in the 1950s, not today? Why is the media not focusing on their policies, matching their public statements to their policies, and holding them to account for their promises, in much the same way the media does for other MPs?
I’d love an answer. ”
If you believe th MSN is not anti Labor , then there is no answer
If you beleive MSN is anti Labor , then that is why
A Media blow torch on Greens wuld expose numerous Greens polisys as uneconamic or extremist and/or impractical represntin a massive reel gulf between ALP & Greens Partys to Voters
(Polls: Labor loses votes to its left and criticolly (from swing centre voters) to Liberals
To follow on from Ron:
the media hates one sided campaigns. They want to create sound and movement where there isn’t any.
Given the absolute hopelessness of the State Liberals, the only chance of doing this in this campaign is to build the Greens up as a threat and to create a Greens/Labor conflict.
They’ve done this very well – so well that most posters on this site now take certain things for granted, and people like Rebecca have gone so far as to call this one of the dirtiest campaigns in Australian history (which has to be up there as one of the most paranoid statements ever made on this blog).
1. The ‘Herald Sun’ came up with the idea that Brian Walters professional actions were hypocritical. They then rang up a few MPs and put the scenario to them – ‘If W did X whilst saying Y what would you think?” or wtte.
That the MPs didn’t understand what was going on is demonstrated by Pike’s later response to a similar slur (again, coming from the media, not the ALP) – by then the penny had dropped and she refused to accept the hypothetical.
2. A member of the Labor party reportedly (there is no proof of anything in the article) made a few phone calls to a few people saying don’t vote for the Greens.
I mean, how unheard of! Party members, during an election campaign, telling people not to vote for another party!! Black operations at their very worst!
And of course, it’s STEVEN NEWNHAM so it must be evil. What more does anyone need to know?
I’m sure Greens members aren’t doing that – no, they’re out there telling people to vote for the ALP or the Liberals because their policies are so good.
3. No analysis of Greens policies, no comparison of what their policies are compared to how they voted, no questioning of the value of the 3 Greens we have (someone here said one of them was good value because they voted for the abortion legalisation bill – a bill put up by a Labor backbencher in the Lower House. A bill that was passed by the majority of MPs – so the Green made absolutely no difference).
Mind you, the Greens always squeal like stuck pigs when anyone questions any of their policies (look at what’s happened on this site).
The Greens are getting a very easy ride from the major parties and the media at the moment – the first want their preferences in the Upper House and the second want an election which looks vaguely interesting.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the Greens start to come under real scrutiny. On present running, it doesn’t look like they’d be able to cope.
[On Immigration the Greens are a joke.
The policy goes like this
Cut the immigration rate in particular cut the number of Skilled migration
Increase Asylum Seeker intake]
Immigration is a Federal, rather than State, issue, mexicanbeemer, but if you read the actual policy you’ll see it isn’t as you say it is, and that the rationale for it quite clearly explained in their document.
The essence of it is that is that:
1) immigration is valuable to Australia
2) the program should be non-discriminatory
3) that humanitarian and family re-union programs should receive primary focus
4) that the “skilled migration” component of the program should not lead to a “brain drain” from other, less well off, countries
5) that the skilled immigration program should not be used to undercut Australian working conditions or to compensate for inadequate expenditure on training in Australia itself
Much of the rest of it focuses on processes for dealing with asylum seekers more equitably, in a fashion that I’ve often enough seen advocated by those with strong “social justice” concerns in both the Labor and even Liberal camps.
All looks pretty sensible and equitable to me, even though it undoubtedly conflicts with the views of the Hansonites and Howardites, and doesn’t respond to their “dog whistles”. Yes, it is a policy that would be hard to ‘sell” to a significant section of the Australian public given the hysteria about such matters that the Hansonites and Howardites generated, but it is certainly not a “joke”. Personally I’m rather glad that there is something coherent out there as an alternative to the “mainstream” Liberal / Labor position on this stuff. I used to worry that The Greens views on such matters would be more dominated by the old, narrowly focused, Bob Birell style of approach to population limitation. There is not much doubt that a minority of old style Greens members hold views of that kind, but to their credit they have come up with a policy that transcends such things.
[3. No analysis of Greens policies…]
I suspect The Greens would actually LOVE to have their policies analysed much more openly in the media, zoomster. The fact that they aren’t makes it easy for both the Libs and the Labs to circulate often outrageous rumours about what they contain.
A comparison, for example, of their real policy on Drugs, Substance Abuse and Addiction with some of the rumours that get circulate about it would surprise many. In reality it is simply a policy that accords with the “harm minimisation” strategies that have been very widely recognised for a couple of decades amongst those working in these areas as having the greatest potential for success.
Rod
heard a Greens candidate – a very competent, well respected one – tie themselves up in absolute knots defending that very policy on local radio the other day.
One of the problems is, of course, that the Greens still lack the experience to sell a policy (which is, as we can see from the Federal Labor experience, very difficult with our present media mind set). They seem to go on the defensive when questioned, which creates the impression there’s something wrong with what they’re saying.
Much the same kind of reaction from Greens supporters.
It’s the same with reaction to political attacks – they take them far too seriously and this makes them sound a little hysterical in response.
I’m with the Greens on harm minimisation but it’s a policy which needs to be sold.
[One of the problems is, of course, that the Greens still lack the experience to sell a policy (which is, as we can see from the Federal Labor experience, very difficult with our present media mind set). They seem to go on the defensive when questioned, which creates the impression there’s something wrong with what they’re saying.
]
Indeed. They are often less effective with the packaging than they are with their policies, in fact. Of course, there are those out there these days who are a bit sick of the emphasis on style over substance, so with some voters the fact that they aren’t as ‘slick” as the “old guard” probably counts in their favour! The trouble you still have to get the actual “product” in front of the “consumer” before they are likely to buy it!
Yes, Labor certainly faced many of the same sorts of issues in the last federal election that The Greens have to deal with, and there is no doubt that substantial sections of the media are complicit in this. The failure of media to deal properly with policy these days undoubtedly works against both Labor and the Greens at present.
I see the Liberal candidate for Melton has got himself into some strife:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/14/3065736.htm
More on the Melton Liberal teenybopper candidate- http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/melton-liberal-candidate-braidy-keans-insult-to-police-chief-commissioner-simon-overland/story-fn5kmqy2-1225953240482
deblonay
William knows about it. Many are having same problems. He suggests use Ctrl F5 to refresh and that the problem will (may) be fixed next week.
Ballieu looking good
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/trendy-baillieu-looking-good-for-big-date/story-fn5sqiu3-1225953166226
How unfair. The Greens are starting to be scrutinised for their “Magic Pudding ” costings. I’m sure the screams of indignation will reverberate around Greens HQ because it’s the House Rag asking the questions. The Greens dropped 5% in the latest Newspoll. How low can they go by election day?
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/something-for-everyone-but-where-will-they-get-the-money-20101113-17rx8.html
GG
You appear confident that the Greens will not have a good showing?
victoria,
86% and rising detestation ranking for the Greens is a good development.
GG
You don’t think they will win inner Melbourne seats then?
I’ve read and understand the Greens immigration policy, but I wish Greens supporters would at least admit that their party wants to cut net immigration.
[Most people think our lifestyle is good, but some of the bigger cities are bursting at the seams. We’re at record high immigration and it’s got to be reviewed. I think immigration levels should settle down much lower than they are at the moment, without cutting humanitarian immigration.”
– Bob Brown, Canberra 1st Feb 2010]
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/greens-want-immigration-cut-20100201-n8f8.html
zoomster,
At: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/12/nielsen-52-48-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-682921 I asked you “Why did it take until June 2010 to determine that this was the case when it was known in August 2009 there was opposition? This question was in response to your comment, “but that’s what governments are meant to do – change decisions in the light of community feeling.”
In this same post I responded to your, “It’s a ‘damned if you do’ situation. If the government had stuck with the decision blindly, you would have condemned them for being out of touch.” with “Resorting to a personal attack is tactic 101 to avoid answering questions”.
I did not express any opinion about the Box Hill development so how can you make any assumption how I would react to any decision made by Madden?
You then followed up at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/12/nielsen-52-48-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-682963 with “that isn’t a personal attack – don’t be such a sensitive little petal (that is).”
Do you see a pattern there?
————————————————————————————–
At http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/12/nielsen-52-48-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-683094 you commented:
[No analysis of Greens policies, no comparison of what their policies are compared to how they voted…..]
Why don’t you?
[Mind you, the Greens always squeal like stuck pigs when anyone questions any of their policies (look at what’s happened on this site.]
The squealing appears to be coming from you whenever your sweeping, uninformed opinions are challenged.
[On present running, it doesn’t look like they’d be able to cope.]
You appear to be the one not coping 😉
Also, zoomster,
At http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/12/nielsen-52-48-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-682913 I posted a link to the Victorian Greens Party Land Use Planning Policy: and supplied quotes for a few goals and key priorities.
Did you or anyone else here provide any analysis of this policy?
Yeah, its just so difficult to understand why progressive voters are leaving the ALP indroves for the Greens 😛 :
[The Greens have been told they will not receive Labor preferences in northern and eastern Victoria and they believe this is because Labor will preference what Mr Barber calls ”gun-toting climate-change denialists”.
Shareholder activist and upper house Northern Metropolitan Region candidate Stephen Mayne yesterday accused Labor of doing a ”sleazy deal” with a party that ”aims to trash the environment through four-wheel-driving, shooting and the like”.
”Inner-city Labor voters, especially those concerned about the environment, will be very concerned to know Labor is preferencing Country Alliance ahead of the Greens in a number of upper house regions,” he said.]
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/alp-greens-still-at-odds-over-preferences-20101113-17rxc.html
[I’ve read and understand the Greens immigration policy, but I wish Greens supporters would at least admit that their party wants to cut net immigration.]
Given that both Labor and the Libs said exactly the same thing in the course of the election campaign (copycats? 😉 ) it is a bit hard to single out Green supporters , Rocket! 😉
The reality, of course, is that immigration numbers already HAVE been reduced very substantially since Brown made his statement, and are continuing to decline at present.
Rod Hagen suggested:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/12/nielsen-52-48-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-683099
[I suspect The Greens would actually LOVE to have their policies analysed much more openly in the media, zoomster. The fact that they aren’t makes it easy for both the Libs and the Labs to circulate often outrageous rumours about what they contain.]
I have declared here at PB that I welcome impartial and fair scrutiny of Greens Party policies. It is not in the interests of the major political parties for this to occur. Deliberately keeping people uninformed and misinformed breeds fear and ensures the status quo.
Yes, I will admit Labor has cut net immigration – which I think is a mistake.
Most Greens supporters I meet will not admit that their party’s policy is to reduce net immigration.
Pegasus
What population do the Greens want in Australia long term?
Rocket Rocket,
If you didn’t watch Insiders this morning, you might find it of interest (yes, really!) when the program is available on iview. Towards the end the conversation turned to Australia’s projected population and “Big Australia”. I prefer to not provide wtte.
I have no idea, Rocket Rocket. I am sure you can find out for yourself in the same way as I research for myself. The issue of level of immigration does not rate for me as a reason why I vote Greens.
Insiders were talking about this article in regards Immigration and Population
[
JULIA GILLARD’s election pitch to avoid a ”big Australia” is to be abandoned after a Treasury warning that strong future immigration is ”probably inescapable”.
In another policy retreat, the government’s population review has been delayed and ”recalibrated” to focus on skills shortages and regional growth, rather than nominating population targets.
Advertisement: Story continues below During the election campaign in August, Ms Gillard said Australia should not ”hurtle” towards a big population. At the time, she said a Treasury projection that Australia would have a population of 36 million people by 2050 was excessive. ”I don’t support the idea of a big Australia with arbitrary targets of, say … a 36 million-strong Australia,” she said.
However, a Treasury briefing sent to Ms Gillard after the campaign suggests she could have no choice. The briefing warns that the prediction of 36 million people ”factors in a significant reduction” in migration, from a recent peak of 300,000 to an annual average of 180,000.
It concludes that even if annual net migration was lowered to an unrealistically low 60,000 per annum, Australia’s population would still reach 29 million by 2050.
]
http://www.smh.com.au/national/population-boom-inevitable-pm-told-20101113-17rtz.html
Looks like the rain is holding off so I now have an opportunity to letterbox for the Victorian Greens Party, as part of my contribution to its campaign to get Damian Magner elected to the upper house seat of Eastern Metro 🙂
[I am sure you can find out for yourself in the same way as I research for myself]
The Greens don’t say, just less generally. Did they say it in Insiders. I always miss Insiders because of work etc, at least today I saw Offsiders which I also usually miss.