May 31, 2006 | Graham

Research Results



Lawrence Springborg claims that the overwhelming majority of voters want a merger. We researched that online for our regular “What the people want” segment on ABC Brisbane radio.
We asked voters whether the merger, as detailed by the Liberal Party, would make them more or less likely to vote for the Coalition parties. The results were mildly negative across the whole sample, with most people thinking it would make no difference to their vote.
The only group where there was significant support was amongst respondents who had changed their vote from last election moving either from Labor to Liberal/National, or vice-versa, plus those who are still undecided. While these people change elections, our earlier research says that there are issues that strongly affect all voters, and get much larger “head nods”. These are issues like health and education. They would be better to run on than an issue which only appeals to swinging voters because they demoralise government supporters when they are raised, making it harder for the government to mount an effective campaign.
I’ve reproduced our notes below. The tables are a little untidy, so if you want a cleaner copy or access to more detailed figures, email me editor@onlineopinion.com.au.
These are the notes used in today’s on-air analysis. We are still taking responses and will incorporate the revised figures into the final report.

Quantitative

Total Sample

1. This proposal is not receiving a large “head nod”.
2. The proposal has a slightly negative effective across the whole sample – minus 2%
3. The sample is more balanced than usual – 16% Greens, 27% Labor, 20% Liberal and 18% National
4. Best Liberal representation in one of our samples for a while – suggests Liberals are more motivated on this issue than Nationals of Labor.
5. Both Liberals and Nationals are more positive than negative on this proposal – 51% of Liberals and 46% of Nationals approve, while only 9% and 13% disapprove. However, worrying for them that 40% and 41% are neither more nor less likely to vote for the new entity than the party they now vote for.
6. Leadership still an issue. 35% want Lawrence Springborg, 33% have no opinion, 9% Caltabiano and 8% Flegg.

Swinging Sample

I analysed those Liberal, National and Labor voters who were changing their vote since last election from one side of the divide to the other. Results here are interestingly different.
1. 39% are more likely to vote for the new entity, and 18% less likely, making it a net 21% in favour.
2. Still 42% are still neither more nor less likely.
3. Best leader is still Springborg – 53%. Next best is Flegg – 16%. Then Caltabiano – 3%.

Conclusion

Not enough in this proposal to risk running it without widespread approval within the parties. Will make it more likely for swinging voters to vote against Labor, but the majority of voters couldn’t care less about it. Best combination to gain swinging voters would be Springborg leader with Flegg deputy.

Qualitative

I’ve done the qual just on the swinging contingent. A variety of points of view.
Two failure don’t equal one success:
“Two horses arses do not make a whole and healthy horse.” Labor voter, traditional Liberal, female, 51-60
Seen it all before:
“I cannot for the life of me believe that they are trotting out this rubbish again, I have voted for a Beattie government for the last 3 elections, he has blown all creditability as far as I’m concerned, last week topped everything, the standing of politicians in the community is fairly low, without tinkering with decriminalising lying to committies, city Liberals don’t want to take on some of the redneck policies of the boys from the bush, they just need to do it through the polls and become the senior party in the coalition under the leadership of Caltabiano” Liberal voter, voted Labor last election, male, 51-60
Opposed to National Party influence:
“I was thinking of perhaps voting Liberal but I would NEVER vote for a party whose leader is Lawrence Springbord or National Party affiliates.I think they represent Qld of old,lack of education and bad image and ideas.” Liberal voter, voted Labor last election, female, 61+
Strength in size:
“qld politics is rather lop sided at moment, need a larger second party” National voter, Greens last election, female, 51-60
Liberals and Nats working together:
“The merger shows an ability for the Liberals and Nationals to work together and I think this is important.” National voter, Labor last election, male, 51-60
They’ll fight:
“The party would have a larger membership base with possible difference of opinions, which may cause debates to become more of an infight.” Undecided, Greens last election, male, 31-40
Less democracy, not more:
“I do not believe in less but in more Parties. Good democracy thrives on diversity, not simplicity.” Undecided, no normal voting pattern, female, 51-60.

Total sample pivots



Age Female Male Grand Total
18-30 2% 3% 5%
31-40 3% 8% 11%
41-50 8% 11% 20%
51-60 12% 21% 33%
61+ 13% 18% 31%
Grand Total 39% 61% 100%


First_Preference Total
Christian
Democrats
0%
Democrats 2%
Family First 3%
Greens 16%
I don’t
wish to answer
1%
Independent 7%
Labor 27%
Liberal 20%
National 18%
One Nation 1%
Other 1%
Undecided 5%
Grand Total 100%


Likely_to_vote Greens Independent Labor Liberal National Grand Total
I do not
wish to answer
0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Much less
likely
28% 35% 31% 7% 7% 21%
Much more
likely
5% 9% 4% 43% 33% 19%
Neither
more nor less likely
43% 43% 43% 40% 41% 42%
No opinion 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%
Somewhat
less likely
16% 0% 13% 2% 6% 9%
Somewhat
more likely
9% 9% 6% 8% 13% 8%
Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
More 14% 17% 10% 51% 46% 28%
Less 43% 35% 44% 9% 13% 29%
Net -29% -17% -34% 42% 33% -2%




Leader Greens Independent Labor Liberal National Grand Total
Bob Quinn 6% 0% 4% 4% 1% 4%
Bruce Flegg 4% 10% 6% 19% 2% 8%
I do not
wish to answer
11% 6% 10% 2% 2% 7%
Jeff Seeney 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Lawrence
Springborg
15% 13% 16% 50% 76% 36%
Michael
Caltabiano
6% 10% 7% 17% 6% 9%
Mike Horan 4% 6% 4% 2% 1% 3%
No opinion 53% 55% 52% 4% 9% 33%
Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Posted by Graham at 4:03 pm | Comments (1) |
Filed under: Australian Politics

1 Comment

  1. Lawrence Spingborg raises animals and then sends them on long cruel sea voyages which some time take over three months.
    They stand in their own piss and shit with others pissing on top of them. They go blind often and the lucky ones die before they get to their barbaric slow cruel death.
    Others are put down mincers alive before they get there. Some are tossed into the sea.
    What type of a party or man would not only support that but be personally involved along with his charming family.
    At least Peter beattie has publicly said Live Exports takes jobs from Australia and a few other things.
    Dont get me wrong they are all involved but the difference is Peter beattie has acknowledged he would rather see animals slaughtered here and for jobs to stay here.
    Springborges so arrogant he can not replyto people in four years.
    His staff afre likewise.
    How would you like your health system run by this bloke with all this compashion?
    No thanks. We need to stop people coming up from South.
    Of course we cant cope with health.
    So to sum it up piss off Lawence you are beyond the pale.

    Comment by Wendy Lewthwaite — June 3, 2006 @ 5:21 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.