First Preference Index June 2011

The increase in the Liberal Party vote is much stronger than the small decrease in the Greens vote and the larger decline in the Labor vote.

This reflects an increasing polarisation in the electorate with minor party voters and independents in decline.

First_Preference_Index_June_2011

Note: Our First Preference index is calculated from a self-selecting panel of respondents. All party votes are zero-based as at September 2009 at 100 and the index shows movements in the primary vote since then with relation to that value. It has proven to fairly closely track movements in quantitative polling conducted by other pollsters such as Newspoll, Nielsen, Galaxy and Morgan.

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

Comments   

 
0 #1 I have always taken the polls seriously Jolly 2011-07-18 18:00
I have always taken the polls seriously until the Murdoch media saga. Now I am wondering of the power behind such polls and the constant negativity spewed out by the media and the political parties with vested interested on the 'Carbon Tax' phenomena. Surely a price on carbon is a positive step towards the well being of our globe? We in the developed and industrialised world (who incidentally pollute the most per capita) owe it to the planet by taking action. Democracy apparently is in the hands of media moguls, not in the hands of the electorate. The ordinary people have been taken for a ride!!
 
 
0 #2 I am a reader of The Australian which ofIbbit 2011-08-02 09:33
I am a reader of The Australian which ofers analysis and articles from both major sides of the political spectrum as well as from the "green" point of view.
The criticism of the Murdoch press,particula rly as it relates to The Australian strikes me as unfair. The paper constantly states that it sees its job as being critical of government and opposition as needed as related to their policies.
It has also editorialised consistently in favour of a carbon tax or ETS.
The other Murdoch papers e.g. The Courier Mail, Daily Tellie and others seem to be read more for lighter issues as shown by their "most read" analysis at the bottom of the online papers.
This suggests to me that many are less worried about weighty issues than might be thought.
To my mind talk of a media enquiry is little more than an attempt to make the papers conform to the government line muchmore than they currently are believed to by the Government.
If the independence of the media - all media - was harnessed, then I feel our democracy would be the weaker for it.
 
 
0 #3 What a fallacious misleading slanted argJeff 2011-08-02 09:36
What a fallacious misleading slanted argument "us being big per capita polluters" is. Do you honestly think that in the modern world that individual Australians use more electricity than others from other countries? Of course we don't. I probably use less than others around the world in my circumstance.

How can you believe a claim to be the worlds worst polluter when we only contribute less than 2% of the world's total. Biggest polluters? I'm sorry. China 24% US 18% Europe 14% India 6% Russia 5% Japan 4% Germany 3% Iran 2% UK 2% South Korea, Mexico, Italy, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia... all emitting more than us. Unlike other modern countries, with a fair standard of living, we don't have Nuclear Power we have few Hydroelectric Power Stations, after all the Greens and Labor don't permit either.

just how do you suppose Australians can change their power usage in order to use less power after all making power more expensive to use, IS the idea behind the tax. As for pollution, CO2 isn't... it also isn't CARBON. If you are looking globally then lets look globally and measure our real contribution on a basis of our percentage of the planets surface area. After all the Atmosphere covers the entire planet.

A tax won't solve the emissions problem, we, as individuals, are not the problem nor is our use of power. The problem, if you consider it so, is how we produce electricity. That requires a technological change not a financial burden. It requires regulation not tax.
 
 
0 #4 It is impossible not to agree with Jeff'Ibit 2011-08-02 11:17
It is impossible not to agree with Jeff's commonsense comment regarding so called carbon pollution.

We - each and every one of us- breathe out carbon dioxide every time we exhale or speak or open our mouths. This strikes me as being part of the natural order of things - the order which the greens supposedly worship, yet they see fit to mount an attack, along with Labor (for economic reasons) on a harmless gas.

My plants love the stuff and scientific tests with carbon dioide have shown that the more caron dioxide in the air the better plants do. This can only be beneficial for food production which, we hear, there is a shortage of, leading to starvation eventually.

This whole debate ignores the fact that businesses have done much in the way of cleaning up emissions of harmful particulate matter over the last 25 or so years. This inconvenient fact is completely ignored.

It also ignores the fact that modern cars are engineered with high emission standards, and that not withstanding this, Australia is a country of immense distances with very inadequate to poor public transport.

It is more than time nuclear power was put on the agenda as the only other form of generating base load power wich is essential to our way of life, our economy and life generally - hospitals for instance.

We hear misleading arguments about Canada's low emissions but we are not told that Canadian base load power is mainly generated by hydroelectric and we do not have the water for this.

Other european countries are quoted as examples of low emissions but it is not related that some of these buy nuclear generated power from across borders.Nor are we told that some countries rely on geothermal sources for base load power.

David Cameron does not tell us clearly that they are scrapping alternative and unsuccessful forms of power generation for new nuclear plants. I hear that one of the alternative casualties is the wretched and pretty useless wind farm idea. which is quietly being junked.

A lot more honesty would not go astray in the Australian "debate" and a huge amount of honesty on the part of the government about the economic imperative of a huge new tax might restore a modicum of respect for a very dishonest government as would an open admission that nuclear power is the only real and clean means of base load power generation.