'; ?> Polls Blog | What The People Want
Polls Blog
Education
Wednesday, 26 April 2006 06:57 | Written by Graham Young
These are the notes used for our on-air analysis on Wednesday 19th April. General Comments:
  1. The support for the public system has declined even more on the last survey, even though the survey was chock a block with Labor voters and teachers. Agree/Strongly Agree headed in right direction down from 42% to 28% in 12 months.
  2. Support for public v private schools for your own kids still looks around 50/50, after adjustment for Labor/Green bias in the sample (I think Graham is doing a check here), with two thirds of left wing voters supporting the public system and two thirds of coalition voters supporting the private system.  
  3. Teachers loved the questionnaire, especially teachers in Government schools. The overall numbers were up more than ten-fold on the last survey.
  4. These teachers tended to support the public system, in principal, but, in practice, thought it had had it, with insufficient funding, run down buildings, excessive class sizes, trendy syllabuses and not enough of the basics, lack of male teachers, as some of the problems mentioned.
  5. Many respondents seem to think the Federal Government is to blame for problems with the state education system … it seems the blame shifting we are seeing in health is having some benefits in education, for the Beattie Government. Which leads to the last point, due to Federal Funding of Private School education …
  6. There is perception, mixed into this framework, that the state Government has started to delay building public schools in fast growing areas, leaving the cost burden increasingly to the Federal Government and the private school system … a comment we have heard from other states. This is good news for the private school system, but makes for a pretty dismal report card for the State Labor Government, if it is correct.
Right Direction? The majority of those who strongly agree the education system is headed in the right direction also would send their kids to a public school – 31 out of a total of 42. But a very large proportion of these respondents has major concerns about the public system and simply rejects the non-public system in principle… "Schools are asked to do more and more in an environment where proper parenting has been falling away for many years. This comment from a Labor voting Teacher in the public system, who would send his children to a public school, but who went on to discuss the biggest issues facing primary and secondary schools as … literacy and numeracy, along with a lack of proper science education by qualified science teachers." This is from a rock solid Labor voting teacher in the public system! Half of those who strongly agree the system is headed in the right direction, also think it is under funded and that this under funding is reflected run down buildings, and oversized classes. Many also think there aren’t enough male teachers and that this is not appropriate for public schools, as many public school children are living with their mothers and have no male role models… "Education has been feminised too much (the pendulum thing) and boys are missing out. Outcome based education is a complete waste of time, accountability gone mad, and once again teachers are stressed and the students miss out. This is from a male teacher. This is from a solid Labor voting male teacher, who sends his kids to a private school … because I teach in a state school and the amount of time spent on a minority of kids who do not value education , for one reason or another, is ludicrous. powers to discipline have been taken away. students know they don't have to show respect, so some don't. what are you going to do about it? Nothing." Some who strongly agree the system is headed in the right direction (9 out of 42) think the public system has had it, and regard the Catholic or Private system as successful, by comparison. So, the system they are talking about is no longer the Government or public system. That’s how bad it is, for Government. For example … "I am a teacher in the catholic system and feel we haven't hit the golden secret yet but are well on our way. Children are valued as individuals, taught in a more positive, individual based manner and assessed against set outcomes. They are not judged as failures. There has been a return to some of the basics and this can only be good when included with some of the more wholistic educational practises." (This teacher, unfortunately, couldn’t spell holistic - Private system support, Liberal to Independent). Most of those who think the education system is headed in the wrong direction, support the private school education system, but many don’t… "Public education is being left behind under this (Howard) government. They say the extra funding is about providing choice to parents but one look at the fees rising consistently shows that is not the case. Meanwhile, those already disadvantaged will now fall further behind as the standard of public education falls due to poor funding arrangements. If we want to create a two-tier society then we're heading in the right direction. I do not share this (Howard) government's goals hence I strongly disagree that we are heading in the right direction." – State system supporter, Democrat to Labor This is a typical view of those who think the public system is headed in the wrong direction… "I am a secondary school teacher who has also taught at TAFE and Uni and am deeply concerned about numeracy and literacy levels, behaviour problems and a lack of focus and concentration in the majority of high school students.- Private School Supporter, Green to Green, who also said on the Private school question: My experience of teaching in public schools would not encourage me to have my children attend one." "As an after school tutor from ages 8 - 15 both in English and Maths, I am still astounded, but not completely surprised, how many children have neither the basic skills to do simple arithmetic or have sufficient grasp of basic grammar and spelling. Green to Undecided, private school supporter." "The Queensland State Government is relying on the private/church schools in meeting the needs of communities in rapidly expanding areas such as Hervey Bay. The State schools at both primary and secondary level are absolutely full to the brim, with class sizes ever increasing, but staff, both teachers and support, and resources allocated decreasing. Other to National, private school supporter. "
 
Benchmark Part I
Wednesday, 26 April 2006 04:01 | Written by Graham Young
These are the notes used for our on-air analysis on 5th April.

Dot points

  1. Sample leans to the left but is reasonably balanced by gender and age.
  2. Labor on 26%, Liberal 13%, National 22% and Greens 18%.
  3. Shows two-party preferred win to Labor 51% to 49%. Given sample bias this is a loss.
  4. Only 20% of sample said they would not preference.
  5. Strength of Coalition vote outside the South-East. In Brisbane sample shows 60% vote to Labor after prefs.
  6. Swing appears to be about 9% to 11% away from Labor on first prefs.
  7. Only 29% of voters think the state is heading in the right direction and 56% percent think it is heading in the wrong direction.
  8. Of those who think it is heading in the right direction, their answers are most frequently in the "Yes, but..." format. Significant issues for them are Health, Economy, Growth, Population, Infrastructure, Education.
  9. For those who think it is heading in the wrong direction, their issues are Health, Education, Water, Infrastructure, Planning, Environment, Growth, Population.
  10. Beattie is viewed unfavourably by 30%, unfavourably by 57%. Springborg is 33%, 40% and Quinn 11%, 54%.
  11. ALP voters narrowly prefer Beattie of Bligh 26% to 25%, Springborg easily beats Seeney 36% to 3%, but 44% don’t want any. Quinn comes in last 7% after Flegg 18% and Caltabiano 14%, but 43% want none of them.
  12. A huge hesitation negative for Labor is Beattie 116 responses, while Springborg is a negative for Nats 53 and Quinn for Libs 76 responses.
  13. The Coalition and their partners are significant negatives for National Party and Liberal Party.

Voting intention this election

First_PrefTotal
Democrats4%
Family First1%
Greens18%
Independent9%
Labor26%
Liberal13%
National22%
None of them4%
One Nation1%
Other1%
Grand Total100%

After preferences this is 51% to Labor. 20% of voters will not allocate. Greens – Highest concentrations in from city out to Toowong and Chelmer Also West End. Another concentration in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland (Maleny). National Party mostly represented outside the Eastern Corner. Two-thirds of their vote is from rural areas. Liberal Party is half Brisbane, and 50% Brisbane and one-third Gold and Sunshine Coast. Labor is half Brisbane, but only 15% from Gold and Sunshine Coasts.

2PP

Labor 51% to Coalition 49%. But in Brisbane this is Labor 60%, Coalition 40%, and even on the Gold and Sunshine Coasts ALP 57%. Strength of Coalition vote appears to be outside the south-east.

Approval of direction of the state

Those who say yes 214 Responses frequently in the “Yes, but…” format Quotes: “Overall, I agree e.g. good economic growth, stable interest rates, etc. However, the infrastructure to support the number of people now moving and living in SEQ is appalling. There is inadequate spending on roads, trains, buses. The State School system is unbelievably underfunded as, it appears, may be the hospitals too.” “Just because I believe the state is basicly heading in the right direction it certainly dosn't mean that I believe that everything is OK, far from it , there are major problems in Health, mental health, childern services, education,electricty and water an area they just addressed at all, it great to have all these people moving up hear from southern states, as long as your staying ahead of the infustructure to maintain our standard of living” Those who say “No” 415
 
Aboriginal education
Sunday, 02 April 2006 16:14 | Written by Graham Young

Posted for Bill Gale

I do not know if what I am suggesting is your line of enquiry but here goes.

Some years ago the ABC interviewed an Occupational Therapist from Western Australia who had gone to great lengths to live and then study aboriginal children comprehension.

it was a simple test. I am 75 and when a scout it was called Kim's game. I wonder if it still a test. about 25 items were set out in square say 2 ft sq. they were simple things like a peg, a pen top a rubber =, a paper clip and so on -- any small thing. The O T did the same and gave the aboriginal children a minute or two to study the items they were covered and the children asked to recall the items and a score kept. she did same for Caucasian children at another time.

the findings were aboriginal children scored poorly compared with the Caucasians. BUT when she changed the question and asked Aboriginal children What was next to the rubber their recall was far ahead of Caucasian.

she then tried with Caucasian children who had low attention span in school and had not scored well in the "recall" test by asking them "What was next to the rubber etc?" she found they performed as well as the aboriginal children.

her conclusion was that Aboriginal children need a different form of schooling and why has it fascinated me? I have a son and grandson who are very bright but fit clearly into the ones who's attention is poor and school results to match.

I have tried to get the original research because it could be fundamental to a different approach to the education of the average aboriginal child. As I said I guess this is outside your realm of enquiry but I have been busting to tell someone.

 
Who's to blame on health, and what does it mean?
Thursday, 16 February 2006 02:25 | Written by Graham Young

Queenslanders are not happy with their public hospital system, and they're not happy with Premier Peter Beattie, but that doesn't mean they are satisfied with the Opposition either. While our research suggests that Beattie would lose an election held next weekend, he is improving his position and no-one should assume that he will lose an election held in a year's time. 62% think the hospital system is heading in the wrong direction. This makes 57% of voters less likely to vote for Peter Beattie. But at the same time 42% of them are less likely to vote Liberal and 36% less likely to vote National. The reason for this reaction against all three parties, but particularly Labor and Liberal, appears to be that voters blame the state and federal governments more or less equally for the mess. The National Party attract less criticism. Perhaps Barnaby Joyce has helped them distance themselves from the Liberals. The main points that we made in our on-air analysis are:

  • Peter Beattie is in trouble in this area, but it is not necessarily terminal because of weaknesses on the issue from the Federal Liberal Party.
  • If an election were to be held next weekend Beattie would be cactus with a first preference vote of 29% versus a combined Coalition vote of 39%.
  • Beattie has lost one-third of those who voted for him last time, although the Labor vote has not slumped that much because other voters have come to him, particularly from the Greens and Liberals.
  • The National Party is picking up votes from the Liberals. This is probably part of the Queensland effect, where the National Party always does better at state elections than most polls suggest. The other thing that is happening - see later - is that much of the blame for the health problem is being given to the Liberals, courtesy of John Howard. There is possibly a Barnaby Joyce effect here as well, allowing the Nats to distance themselves from the Libs.
  • An overwhelming percentage of voters think that health is heading in the wrong direction. 62% agree with the proposition, and only 26% disagree, a net -37%. Only group that thinks that things are OK on balance are Labor voters, but even then the result is a net 4%.
  • The issue is damaging Beattie. 57% of voters are less likely to vote for him as a result of this.
  • But, it isn't necessarily positive for the other parties. 36% are less likely to vote National, and 42% less likely to vote Liberal.
  • Beattie's ten-point plan is a small positive. 24% think it will help while 49% disagree, but this is better than the position on health where 26% think health is heading in the right direction, but 62% disagree. He'll need a lot more to fix the issue.
  • Voters who have changed from Labor to Coalition cite the lack of funding, mismanagement, lack of planning and too much bureaucratic control as the reasons the system is in trouble.
  • Quotes on why the system is in trouble are:
    "The problem is not being addressed - simply creating distractions from the main game and not having the gumption to roll some heads in the department." "The hospitals in Qld are getting worse, not better. Beattie obviously hasn't got the money to fix it, and doesn't trust his Minister either, who looks a bit of a buffoon. And Beattie and co are insulting us with that awful faux pas of yellow ribbon-wearing." "It used to provide a response to people in need .. now it is run to suit politicians (ie reducing costs and public relations when suddenly there is a need created to spend more). Doctors have almost no say and patients and the public no say at all. Bring in/back the local health committee (and similar in schools and road safety) so that the politicians and bureaucrats actions can be discovered and critiqued in the public realm.N/A"
  • When it comes to who is to blame, Peter Beattie gets the personal blame, but the Federal Government probably gets more of the blame than the State Government, explaining why the Liberals aren't doing better out of this issue.
 
Latest Morgan Poll shows statistically significant shift
Friday, 10 February 2006 23:16 | Written by Graham Young

Generally the month to month fluctuations in political polls are meaningless because they are within the margins of sampling error. Yesterday's release of the latest Morgan polling shows a 4% increase in the ALP's vote. This was on a sample of 1,033 and was greater than the potential margin of error. After distribution of preferences this would have given an election held on Saturday 4th February to the ALP 52.5% to 47.5%. Morgan credited the Australian Wheat Board scandal with the shift. He can't be sure of this as the questions don't mention the Wheat Board, although a poll to be published tomorrow by Morgan shows that most Australians don't think the federal government has acted ethically over the matter.

 
Public Health Survey - 467 and climbing
Wednesday, 08 February 2006 07:56 | Written by Graham Young

Our health survey is soaring away - 467 responses so far and climbing. The more responses we get, the more attention decision makers will pay. Can't tell you any of the results - it might skew the responses you give us - but there are some great insights there. Thanks to those who've responded so far, and if you know any Queenslanders with an opinion, tell them to go to http://whatthepeoplewant.net/questionnaire-012-public-hospitals.asp and complete the questionnaire. We've also had to reschedule our session until next week. That means that we've extended our deadline until this Friday.

 
Some New Year suggestions from Stanley Corbett
Thursday, 02 February 2006 21:58 | Written by Graham Young

Lots happening at the moment in state and local politics. The stellar rise of Anna Bligh to the position of Treasurer in additional to her Deputy premier and Ministerial positions has come a surprise and possibly 12 months earlier than most people thought.. The sudden and unexpected resignation of the Logan City Council Mayor, John Freeman, came as a shock this week. John was busy with Australia Day activities last week and there was no hint of his stepping down. The reasons for his decision could be interesting. Our local battle, Forestdale versus the Queensland Rail over the destruction of local bushland for creation of a rail terminal continues. There have been some strange internal battles between QR and the EPA since 2000 over this land. My favourite subject, misplaced water restrictions continues to grow. The governments plans to place weirs and dams on rivers is doomed to failure if farmers are allowed to pump the water out before it flows to the wall. All the best for WhatthePeopleWant over the next 12 months.

 
Summary of on air analysis yesterday
Friday, 18 November 2005 03:47 | Written by Graham Young
The sample was a total of 362 responses, and we analysed just those responses from Labor voters who gave Peter Beattie a "D" or an "E", which was a group of 36. We reasoned that for the Coalition to win, voters like this will need to change sides. At 10% of our sample, they could be enough to bring Beattie down. As we had analysed Beattie's results last time we were on air, we analysed the other 5 politicians that we asked questions about. (Note: comments have not been edited, and all typos have been reproduced.)

Views on Springborg

Most criticism is because he is negative: "Lots of carping criticism but little substance." Partly a lack of alternative direction: "Lawrence has a lot to say about the Governments performance, however he does not come up with solutions" Partly a concern he is just a whinger, or inept: "Little Lawrence must addresshis social skills befre he can play with the bigger kids. His whinging and whining are irritating other members of the class and perhps he needs to drop back a year and mature before he moves on to a higher level." "Nit-picking and persistent negativity are no substitute for hard work, creativity and personality. Desperately needs to get a life." Concern he is only interested in country interests: "Has not focused properly on the Government's weaknesses. Needs to adopt a stance on some issues that affect Qeenslanders as a whole and not just the farming community, who these days do not provide many votes overall." But they think he is real: "At least we know who he is - with or without his shirt" And some don't like the alternative: "Better than can be expected from a National. Could not be any worse than Peter Bjelke Beattieson and Anna Hinze. At least we wont have to drink sewage, he will build some dams."

Views on Quinn

Essentially see Quinn as dead and lifeless. "Is he still in Parliament?? I actually thought they had a State Funeral for him last year... or was it the year before?? He never inspired me either.. I seem to recall that he was always trying to dismantle the "Coalition"" Or boring: "He looks like an undertaker. The sort of undertaker that other undertakers make fun of for being so boring" There is concern for his friends: "Can only do so much as the rump of the Nationals. Refuses to take on the government on important issues." Or where they might be: "Poor old Bob, what can he do? Most, if not all, of the true blue "liberals" he should be leading are currently within the Beattie cabinet" Like Springborg voters don't see him having anything positive to say: "Bob is an unfortunate type with little charisma and no obvious vision for Qld or his party. Colourless underachiever throughout his career."

Views on Anna Bligh

Bligh doesn't grab them either. Performance in her various portfolios is a problem: "Her only stance on anything of substance was the misleading info regarding school roofing problems. Welford has met the problem head on and is doing something about it. Sadly Ms Bligh is just another grinning PR face." "Hard to tell lately but not really top notch with Children's Services and Education." And then there is the problem of how to look charismatic next to the Premier: "Hard to get a foothold when your standing beneath Premier Pete." But then perhaps that is a strategy, because others think she is just waiting for it to fall into her lap: "We don't hear enough of her to know what she is about, she is just sitting back waiting for Peter Beattie to fall off his perch, so then she will step in to the leadership." Summed up by: "Who is Anna Blight?? Does she go to work at the same place as Beattie?? Does she have an opinion? Apart from appearing next to Beattie, while he pleads his "Daily Sorry" to the drunken media."

Views on Bruce Flegg

Bruce Flegg gets full-marks for performance, but not necessarily in parliament: "He is good in a crisis. when his colleagues collapse, he can be relied on to help them out of trouble - at least as far as the ambulance." Biggest problem is that not many know who he is: "N/A" "Who" But those that do generally have a positive opinion of him: "The opposition's only effective performer. If the Libs were serious, they'd make him leader ASAP" He engenders respect as a medico, and as someone with solutions: "He gets things done. He should be congratulated for forcing the government to back down on asbestos and for standing up on health." "Very impressed with Bruce he was always in the media gaining attention to various matters especially recently with the Health Inquiry. Good performer" There is also concern about him being a doctor: "He sounds quite good when interviewed about medical matters and things to do with hospitals, but doctors are not good at managing matters, so he probably can't go much further than being anything to do with hosopitals etc." Or perhaps a flash in the pan: "Has made a very strong mid term impact, however one "Hospatel" is not a cure all." Still, out of all of those rated, he appears to have the most potential with this group of voters.

Views on Jeff Seeney

He's not particularly visible: "N/A" "Who" And the only thing people seem to know about him is his behaviour: "Does not do anything at all except try and get publicity by playing up in parliament when it sits." Which they see negatively: "Isn't he the bloke who keeps getting kicked out?? Just another political Boof Head..." Or maybe think he is just playing a game: "A theatrical performer, he certainly has been an outspoken opponent and at least managed to try to sink the boot in every now and again and managed to get booted out himself! Good to see some passion (and humour)" But no threat to anyone's position.
 
Greenhouse
Wednesday, 16 November 2005 21:55 | Written by Graham Young
This is posted for Gillian Axelsen. Having been a conservationist since I was a teen - I am 62 - all the things we predicted are happening: severe storms, melting ice caps, global warming, etc. If we'd been taken notice of then, we would not be suffering now. However, very little was done & I am now concerned about the effect on ordinary people here & now. We have lived on acreage for 30 years. Like all our neighbours, we've always loved the trees, birds, possums, and wallabies. So we let the bush grow. Bush fire: However in 1994 it was a real shock when bush fires suddenly became a problem. We nearly lost our house. If it wasn't for local farmers, rural brigades & a green area around the house, we would have lost it. The Fire Brigade was over stretched & couldn't come. Since then we've spent thousands felling large trees around the house. We hate seeing them go but the change of climate has made it essential. There are still trees we need to remove but we don't have the money yet. If our house burns tomorrow in a bush fire, people will say why didn't they clear around their house ! Well that's the reason, the climate change & not enough cash ! There are lots of people in the same situation. Surely Government could put in a fire prevention clearing programme for private property owners. The Government has access to heavy machinery & trained people. It could prevent a tragedy, like the one in Canberra, happening in the near future. Water: Part of our fire prevention program is keeping a green zone around the house. Now we are not allowed to run the sprinklers/drips which do this. We supply all our own household water by tanks so are less of a drain on the town water than most. But no allowance has been made for this. When town water was put on here, we were all encouraged to pull out tanks & connect to town system. We kept our tanks for the house as we like tank water. We'd love to put in more tanks but we cant afford it. Some councils have given rebates to people putting in tanks, but our council won't. Couldn't this become a Government requirement or a tax rebate ? Weeds: While farmers can claim removal of noxious weeds as a tax deduction, the ordinary private property owner can't. Yet we see degradation happening more each year, as more people move in. We have cactus, groundsel, new weeds, new grasses all taking over. We can't cope with it ourselves. But the Government could, by using the DPI to liaise with Private Landowners. Instead some years ago, the Government changed the Tax Laws, to exclude a lot of small landowners from claiming land improvements. These people fenced their land, treated the weeds, landscaped, planted trees & cared for the land. They could afford this because they could claim such expenses against their wages. But the Government declared they were just "Queen Street" farmers & could no longer make primary production claims. The local landscape really suffered from this decision. People who could no longer afford to maintain their land, sold to developers, who totally cleared the land. Those people probably were not really farmers but the land benefited. May be this kind of thinking needs to be reversed. Any kind of environmental improvement on acreage could become claimable.That would create a big army of people caring for the land. Summary: Everyone seems to be talking about the environment and the big picture. But no-one seems to look at the small, easy to apply, local fixes which could happen quickly with co-operation between the Government and its people.
 
<< Start < Prev 31 32 33 Next > End >>

Page 32 of 33