What The People Want: Budget 2008

« Benchmark Poll with The Australian | Main | Politics of the 2008 budget - quantitative analysis »

18 May 2008

Budget 2008 - the Quants

I'm still analysing the data, and it's going to take longer than I thought, so what I will do is a series of posts which I'll collate into an article at the end.

So far I've analysed the quantitative figures, and it they are good for the government.

We had 1,681 responses, heavily weighted towards males (70%), and those over 55 (48%). As usual, Queensland was over-represented, and Victoria under-represented. 46% of respondents would have voted Labor if there was an election "next weekend", 19% Greens and 20% Liberal.

To make sense of this, the quantitative polling has been weighted in line with the latest Morgan Gallup poll. Morgan was chosen because it is the most recent. Our quantitative results should be regarded as indicative only.

Is the country heading in the right direction?

	Greens	Ind	ALP	Liberal	National	Total
Agree	54%	37%	93%	16%	11%	58%
Disagree	27%	42%	3%	58%	74%	28%
Net	27%	-5%	90%	-42%	-63%	30%

This is an almost complete reversal from previous polls with ALP voters ecstatic (can't think of a better word for it) at the direction of the country. Liberals are fairly concerned and Nationals even more so. There is also a degree of apprehension from Greens voters.

Do you approve of the budget?

	Greens	Ind	ALPb>	Liberal	National	ToTotal
Approve	57%	42%	89%	9%	7%	54%
Disapprove	13%	26%	2%	64%	67%	28%
NeNet	43%	16%	88%	-55%	-59%	26%

This is similarly related to voting intentions, and reflects a similar, although less accentuated division of opinion as the direction question.

Is your personal position better or worse?

	Greens	Ind	ALP	Liberal	National	Total
Better	40%	0%	35%	10%	7%	25%
Worse	13%	37%	8%	38%	67%	22%
Net	27%	-37%	28%	-28%	-59%	3%

To some extent approval or disapproval flows with perceptions of whether the budget has improved personal circumstances, although the close alignment with voting intention suggests that a large proportion of perception is reflected in voting behaviour.

Will it be good for the nation?

	Greens	Ind	ALP	Liberal	National	Total
Better	60%	39%	79%	5%	4%	48%
Worse	5%	22%	1%	63%	70%	26%
Net	55%	17%	78%	-58%	-67%	21%

Some intriguing and minor divergences here from whether respondents approved or not of the budget. For example, while 89% of Labor voters approve of the budget, only 79% think it will make for a better country. Perhaps the deficit can be explained on the basis that they don't think it will make it better or worse, perhaps a tacit approval of the way things were.

Posted by Graham at May 18, 2008 07:33 AM

Comments

Graham,
I agree with ther budget as a hole.

Posted by: JASON ANDREW TOPPIN FROM BORONIA at May 31, 2008 06:27 PM

I agree with Peter Friis. I think that the whole fuel excise debate this past couple of weeks has been transparently cynical politics and that Labor has delivered the best budget it could under the current circumstances

Posted by: Garry Hills at May 31, 2008 08:24 AM

What irks me the most about the new ALP govt, and the same criticism applies to the old Coalition govt, is that there are so few (none?) MP's who have qualifications and/or expertise in technical / engineering disciplines.

That's no way to run a modern highly technical society !!

So it's no surprise that these guys are caught in a luddite / dinosaur mode of thinking about fuels, for cars, electricity generation, everything.

There is not one acknowledgement that ALL fossil fuels could be quickly replaced by "perfect" recyclable fuels, with little or no modification of existing engines / furnaces.

These 'perfect' fuels are known as 'Metal Fuels'.

Go see:
http://envirofuel.com.au/2007/09/22/metal-nanoparticle-fuels/

How will these metal fuels be created ?
Ah, RUDD will have to give up on his holy catechism of "No nuclear reactors in Oz, ever".

And did you all note how the policy "No Reactors" exists nowhere in the 180 resolutions that the ALP made in 2007? This policy was made in a RUDD doorstop interview with press - no caucus support at all, only the blundering prejudices of ALBANESE & GARRET presume it too be a set-in-stone policy.

Funny how the French have been using them safely for over 50 years. Or go see my submission to UMPNER on how to introduce 100% safe nuclear technology into Oz.

Go see: (search for KLINE):
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/79623/20080117-2207/dpmc.gov.au/umpner/submissions.html

Posted by: Colin KLINE at May 30, 2008 06:20 PM

There is some information that Russia may have reached Peek Oil, what ever resources are discovered will take 5 or 6 years to enter production, so it's all going to become more scarce within the medium term and probably even worse in the long term.US Federal Highway reports that US drivers drove 11 to 17.6 billion kilometer less in March and this was followed by a Arabian announcement of an increase of 350 000 barrels a day; it seems that they are scared that petrol costs will reduce demand for oil.
If we ease our petrol costs by tax concessions, OPEC will be so pleased, for they can raise prices while we go bankrupt; let's face it, Reduce private vehicular as much as we can.

Posted by: Peter C. Friis at May 30, 2008 10:43 AM

Hi Graham,
The Nation will realise that the petrol issue is only a political stand taken by the opposition.
The former government would never have considered a 5 cts cut to petrol when in power and never will even if they get government again.
So voters are not that dumb and soon the Labor party will be seen as better economic managers.
ta

Posted by: Camillus at May 30, 2008 09:22 AM

With Rudd's wheels falling off I am looking forward to the next poll. Perhaps we are polarised or ideaology is firmly entrenched.

Posted by: Maggie at May 30, 2008 07:46 AM

very consistent results.keep up the good work

Posted by: Gianni D'Addario at May 30, 2008 12:25 AM