news New polling data released over the past several weeks has shown that national support for Labor’s version of the National Broadband Network is weakening, in the context that Australians appear to strongly approve of the job that Malcolm Turnbull is doing as Communications Minister.
Historically, Australians have strongly approved of Labor’s version of the NBN, which focuses on a near universal Fibre to the Premises network. For example, an informal online poll taken by the ABC shortly after the Coalition’s rival policy launch in April 2013, for example, appeared to have shown that voters had already rejected the Coalition’s rival NBN policy, with 78 percent of some 5,700 readers noting that they didn’t support the policy.
In March 2013, a poll taken by research house Essential Media showed that support for Labor’s NBN project had risen to a total of 73 percent, with even a majority of Coalition voters supporting the project at that stage, and that same month research in the early stage NBN rollout zone in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick showed that 89 percent backed the NBN as “a good idea”.
However, new polling released by Essential Media over the past several weeks has shown the trend reversing, with the Coalition Government appearing to make headway with the electorate with its radically redesigned NBN model, which partially uses the technically inferior HFC cable and Fibre to the Node and Basement technologies.
In a poll released yesterday, Essential surveyed some 1,028 respondents online. It put the following question to readers:
“The Government’s National Broadband Network plan is to more quickly roll out fibre to local nodes and let Telstra’s copper network carry Internet traffic to households, compared to Labor’s plan to roll out fibre to every household outside rural areas, which would cost more and have taken longer but produced higher speeds. Which plan do you believe is best for Australia?”
In response, 38 percent thought the original Labor NBN plan was best for Australia, while 29 percent through the Coalition’s plan was best. 33 percent did not know.
Support for Labor’s plan was highest amongst Greens voters, 66 percent of which supported the original NBN policy. 43 percent of Labor voters supporter it. 63 percent of Coalition voters supported the Coalition’s policy. The views were consistent across age groups.
The news comes as Turnbull has also been achieving significant success with voters. A similar poll taken by Essential in mid-August showed 47 percent of respondents approved of the job the Liberal MP was doing as a Government Minister. This placed Turnbull second behind Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop on 56 percent, but a ways ahead of the next cluster of ministers on between 27 and 31 percent (George Brandis, Scott Morrison, Christopher Pyne, Greg Hunt and Joe Hockey).
This week’s poll is not the first time that new data has shown growing levels of support for changing the NBN model.
For example, a poll taken in July 2013 showed that 29 percent of Australians believed at that stage that then-new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should either “dump” or “change” Labor’s NBN policy, representing a rise in anti-NBN policy sentiment. 50 percent of respondents, however, believed the policy should be kept. 15 percent did not know.
opinion/analysis
It appears that the Coalition’s message with respect to the NBN is getting cut-through in the electorate and that Turnbull’s personal levels of support are still strong.
Why is this happening? Well, unfortunately it’s a problem which Labor dug with its own hands in Government. The global approach to upgrading telecommunications infrastructure appears to have largely focused, so far, on separating incumbent telcos from their retail and wholesale operations and incentivising them to upgrade their copper networks and open them for access to competing retail telcos.
The best model for the previous Rudd and Gillard Governments to have taken in Australia would have been to work with Telstra on this kind of solution — perhaps also forcing Telstra to divest its HFC cable network. However, for whatever reason, Labor was unable to work with the Telstra management team of the day (featuring former chief executive Sol Trujillo). So it went down an extremely time-consuming and difficult path to setup a new NBN company to build a nationwide network from scratch.
Delays and problems inevitably set in, and — even though Labor clearly had a technically superior model — Turnbull and the Coalition have been able to capitalise on those delays and problems. It’s politics 101.
Image credit: Parliamentary Broadcasting
I still think it’s too early to tell. I’m waiting to see how the Canning election goes, I’ve been asking around to see what people think on the NBN there, and there is a lot of unknowns for the residents.
Especially about a technology change choice “What is a technology change?” is the usual answer :)
The question is biased. It’s wording focusses the respondents on a simplified comparison and unquantified assessment that the LNP NBN would be cheaper and delivered faster. It hides detail like the delay in turning the whole project around, renegotiating with Telstra etc. It avoids talking about recent cost blowouts. It avoids discussing performance based risks once people are using FTTN and NBN over HFC en masse. And it avoids discussing the need to eventually upgrade beyond FTTN in the near future.
Agreed
“The Government’s National Broadband Network plan is to more quickly roll out fibre to local nodes and let Telstra’s copper network carry Internet traffic to households, compared to Labor’s plan to roll out fibre to every household outside rural areas, which would cost more and have taken longer but produced higher speeds. Which plan do you believe is best for Australia?”
The question is poor and based on assumptions which are far from fact at this stage.
Firstly faster it has been 2 years and they have not even started non-test rollout yet.
If the rollout of FttH continued to accelerate rather that having low ball targets put in place how many extra premises would be passed?
Secondly cost with the recent blowouts is this even true?
Not to mention that there’s was suppose to finish in 2016
Agreed.
A leading poll is not a poll at all and should be given as much credibility as how the question is framed.
“…poll reflects only the opinion of those who have chosen to participate…”
Perhaps if they asked a broader audience than 1,000 ppl, say 272,032 ppl they might have gotten a different result!
https://www.change.org/p/the-liberal-party-of-australia-reconsider-your-plan-for-a-fttn-nbn-in-favour-of-a-superior-ftth-nbn
Yep
Nailed it!
As the Nazi’s proved, if you tell a big lie for long enuf ppl will eventually fall for it and Turnbull has been lying his a$$ off for over 3 years now with almost nothing to show for it!
Steve +1 to your comments. The question is framed to get the answer they received.
Absolutely agree that the question is “biased”…it is based entirely on the Coalition rhetoric and doesn’t include the counterfactual that the initial deployment of FTTN might not even be cheaper and the faster claim is an assumption and that the MTM will require continual upgrade and dearer maintenance.
I’m confused, according to this:
“In response, 38 percent thought the original Labor NBN plan was best for Australia, while 29 percent through the Coalition’s plan was best. 33 percent did not know.”
With the exception of those ‘don’t know’ voters, Labors NBN plan is still the preferred.
Or am I just reading this all wrong?
Nope you read that right… the problem is that Coalitions plan has technically increased at this point.
As a previous survey had the support at 73% for FTTP on 2013. Whilst the new survey has the support for FTTN “increasing” to 29%.
That being said it also doesn’t take into account the skewed question of the survey which presumes to ask a person whats better something expensive or something faster w/o any context or assumption that the person answering has some context/knowledge of the topic.
Was this poll done before the NBN Cost Blowout and further rollout delays announced by NBNCo last week?
It was most definitely done before yesterdays Fairfax articles quoting Ovum’s David Kennedy who contributed to the controversial NBN 2013 Cost Benefit Analysis, and some controversial statements from Morrow and Hackett on the matter deserved of their own Renai Analysis in the context of last weeks Aug 28 Alan Kohler NBN rivers of gold NBN will be a bonanza for the Government when they sell/privatise article
http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-government-must-write-off-nbn-investments-20150901-gjcpz6.html
“The taxpayer is certainly not going to get a commercial return on its equity investment – absolutely not – and I believe it’ll lose money for the taxpayer,” he said. “But if they handle it as a write-down of capital then they can actually put it in a profitable situation. “Somewhere along the line here, there will be substantial write-down of taxpayer capital. It’s inevitable.”
The poll just reflects the fact that most people know little about the NBN. Most people seem to have an incredible capacity to hold stong views on topics they really have no idea about. In reality, more like 90% should be in the “don’t know” category. I’d be more interested in a survey of people who work in the telecoms sector.
You would likely get radically different results by framing the question differently. For instance, the question makes the rather dubious assertion that Labors plan would have “cost more and taken longer” (probably true for a switch back to an all fiber build now, but probably not true had they just continued with and optimised the fiber build two years ago). The question also ignores issues like reliability, upgradeability, maintenance and operating costs and impact on future competition policy, which are all major considerations.
Even with such a loaded and biased question they still cannot get Malcolm Turnbulls mess “over the line”.
The question was totally designed to try and validate the complete and utter mess that is the MTM.
So I ask where is this faster and cheaper rollout?
After all the LNP went to the election with a supposedly fully costed ready to go plan and after two years still nothing.
Good point! With the question framed as it is you’d expect a slam dunk answer – means about 30% of the population at least gets that it is a BS position.
That poll just suggests people want something earlier rather than later. It’s not a reflection of the Coalition’s actual policy which appears to be to never actually deliver anything and make it cost more.
I think the big reason Turnbull is apparently making ground is because of the lack of pressure being placed on him by Clare and the media. There are some serious flaws with the rollout, the technology and the business case and the lack of vision that need to be addressed, and highlighted to the public, and its not happening.
Turnbull made lots of noise in the media during his time in opposition about the NBN, typically with made up figures, and he had the media singing from the same hymn book. He was able to largely neutralise the NBN as an election issue by making voters believe he could provide a similar system to Labors NBN, faster and cheaper. He has been unable to deliver on all fronts, and its time the boot was put on the other foot, and that he got a similar kicking with it.
‘The Government’s National Broadband Network plan is to more quickly roll out fibre to local nodes and let Telstra’s copper network carry Internet traffic to households, compared to Labor’s plan to roll out fibre to every household outside rural areas, which would cost more and have taken longer but produced higher speeds. Which plan do you believe is best for Australia?”
Wow Renai.. Thats pretty much a loaded question with the aim to push for a predetermined answer..
True, I’m not the biggest fan of the language they used.
What I’m surprised about is that even worded that way, those in favour of FttP is still pretty high.
Also, only 1,028 people responded to the poll. That’s not even a small town’s population. How can 1,028 ‘random’ people be a true indication of how the population feels about the issue let alone the predetermined answers as others have pointed out. Even the other surveys had at least 5,000 respondents.
Actually that’s a fairly standard number of survey respondents. Governments have changed tack over surveys with fewer respondents. The statistical justification and modelling on extrapolating based on small numbers of people is quite robust at this point.
Do you think the survey results would have been the same if they did it in an area already built with NBN Fibre and with a high take up?
I’m not trying to attack your point, but 1000 respondents in this survey would really depend on their own current situation. People without decent internet access might go automatically and follow that leading question… thinking FTTN gets them faster speeds sooner..
In order for a survey to be considered valid it has to follow certain rules. In order for the statistics to be reported it has to come from an organisation with a proven track record (not sure if there is any certification requirement in place, but it wouldn’t surprise me). In order for a survey to be considered representative it must fairly approach the sample in a way that is representative of the general makeup of the body for which the measurement is to be applied – this requires randomness in the first instance, and questions relating to various factors to either weight or even exclude participants. For example, a typical approach is to randomly choose names from the phone book, evenly spread out across the alphabet (done by a sorting algorithm). Questions such as age, income bracket and location are used to fill quotas in order to ensure you don’t over- or underrepresent particular sectors of the community, and then you collect data on political affiliation, voting habits and interest in political news to get an idea of behaviour (such as whether reasonably informed opinions are being drawn, or whether people are merely sticking to preexisting prejudices).
As I said, the models used for public polling have been pretty heavily tested by statisticians for decades, but that doesn’t mean they don’t get it wrong – just look at the result of the UK elections a few months ago, where every poll got it colossally wrong. There will be more than a few statistical modelling papers published this year looking precisely at that result and postulating various methods of improving the predictive accuracy of the methods employed. But sometimes it just comes down to statistical inaccuracy – a sample is only ever going to be that, leaving a large potential for error. One of the myriad reasons governing by polls is a pretty terrible idea.
Get some petrol trucks and pump thousands of litres of fuel into the old wiring network, and burn it to the ground i say. The copper network is over 100 years old and is only meant to last for 30 years. there are idiots our there that say it will last another 100, its a load of bs.
Remember that old story about “Grandpa’s Old Axe”?
“…it’s amazing, it’s 70 years old…in that time it’s only had three new handles and two new heads…”
The copper network could indeed last 100,000 years if it is properly maintained, and has the “bad bits” replaced as they become “bad bits”.
So Turnbull can pick out any number of years he likes, and be absolutely “correct” that it will last that number of years. That’s the art in his spin.
Fact is – of course – that if anything is going to be replaced, it should be being replaced with fibre, but as we know, that’s a whole different argument with Turnbull.
Obvious leading question completely undermines the validity of the survey. The fact that the LNP have been running around as an elected government continuing to spout misinformation based on deceptive reports and factually challenged ‘reviews’ suggests that a certain proportion of the public is bound to be swayed by their propaganda. As non-experts who derive their entire knowledge of the topic from highly partisan media, how could they not come over to Malcolm’s version of reality? That isn’t a win for Malcolm so much as it is a failure of our political system that the LNP can make a hatchet job of NBN Co and publish factually flawed propaganda without censure or the public having any recourse to investigation or prosecution for this national sabotage and theft of billions of taxpayer dollars.
If anyone feels like a good cry into their beer, this is what good government looks like.
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/editor-s-agenda/the-progressive-state-government-in-victoria-is-being-an-actual-progressive-government-how-strange/201509016214
This whole survey is an absolute crock. If they interviewed anybody who actually has the NBN then they are ALL using FTTP because the government has not rolled anything else out yet. A good majority of those don’t even know what technology they have so of course they are going to say they prefer the Liberals version because, you know, they have NBN. Look at the numbers who don’t know which is best and that applies to everyone, if it was connected under the current government and it is good then they think the Liberals is the best. Further confusion has been put forward to the not so technologically savvy by a plethora of misinformation published by Turnbull, beginning with him still calling it the NBN. Those same people have no idea what FTTN is and when they get it as long as it is significantly faster than what they had before they are going to say the Liberals version is good. I am currently on around 6.5-7MBPS so if one of my uneducated neighbours got FTTN and increased to around 25Mbps they are going to think that is pretty good. They also have no idea how far we have fallen behind the rest of the world, even 3rd world countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh. They have no idea how much Turnbull’s NBN will really cost when ongoing maintenance and remediation of pits and copper lines etc is factored in, nor even the fact that the cost of the immediate upgrade to FTTP has yet to be revealed.
Just wait, when Labour get back into government Turnbull will be flogging them to death on how much they will be spending finishing his MTM (because we all know there will be further massive cost blowouts) and subsequent upgrade to FTTP. By then all those additional costs will be known and Turnbull again will play the blame game on Labour for his own disaster.
Don’t kid yourself – a fair number of those costs are already known, but they are:
A) Not publicly releasing them because it is easier to operate behind an opaque screen of secrecy
B) not writing down anything that may be revealed in a future enquiry by a Labor government that might actually be concerned with holding these criminals liable
C) a strategic advantage if Turnbull can manage to make such a mess of the numbers that Labor will have to run an enquiry just to figure out the costs, with Telstra refusing to release the results of their tests as ‘commercial in confidence’. As you said, it pushes the release of these costs well into Labor’s tenure, and the LNP will crow incompetence and waste that costs were blowing out under Labor, simply because the LNP suppressed their release, like a hand grenade booby trap under their seat.
Probably less than 5% of the public could give you a coherent description of the difference between the old NBN and the MTM.
What the survey seems to represent is a bit of push polling, a bit of partisan political identification and a large dollop of media induced ignorance.
Best we can say is that a portion of the population has been convinced that the MTM will provide an equivalent broadband service to that which fibre would have provided.
However, once the MTM starts being delivered then comparisons with fibre are inevitable. If the MTM fails to deliver, as it will, opinion may change very quickly.
If the question was framed as such.
Question: are you in favour of NBNCo FTTP plan which will last for 80 years
or
MTM NBN plan which will last for 10 years and have to be replaced with FTTP,
you just might get a different answer.
Makes me wonder if the poll was commissioned by News Corp. Turnbull a strong minister ?
As strong (Smelling) as a freshly laid turd. There were more people undecided (or didnt know) compared to people voting for the Liberals NBN.
They promised an NBN, slower, but cheaper and quicker rollout.
Its turning out to be more expensive, their deadline they promised it would be mostly rolled out is 1 year away an they haven’t even started, and it is using a component (Copper cable) which Telstra has openly admitted is far past its use by date, and Telstra themselves admit is having a difficult job of fixing.
The poll just proves, that the NBN is in such a state (Thanks Turnbull), that NOBODY knows what s going on.
If you compare Turnbull to our other government ministers, with the exception of Bronwyn Bishop Turnbull looks positively brilliant.
It’s interesting to note that the next bunch of ministers (27-31% approval) doesn’t include our prime minister – was he excluded from the polling?
Keep in mind that outside of NBN/MTM Turnbull has often been heard as the only minister to issue dissenting statements to the moronic views put forward by Tony Abbott, including making some common sense statements regarding some of the additional issues around increasing red tape for ISPs with data retention, government mandated network design descisions etc.
While I personally feel Turnbull has some serious faults, he is unfortunately one of the best of a bad bunch of ministers.
goes to show that the public have little knowledge on TurnBullshit’s MTM technology . What a mess , the cost blowout now exceeds FTTP . Turnbull & his croney’s are a laughing stock / joke , why the hell isnt Clare making this public knowledge , he too is as useful as tits on a bull . Why is Clare not getting the true story out to the Australian public ? Making contact to his office & getting no response ? Looks like Turnbull & Clare are both failures to the Australian Taxpayer ……. both losers .
“In response, 38 percent thought the original Labor NBN plan was best for Australia, while 29 percent through the Coalition’s plan was best. 33 percent did not know.”
No no no…. it’s more like:
“In response, 38 percent thought the original Labor NBN plan was best for Australia, while 62 percent don’t know a microchip from a potato chip”
In no way, shape, or form… is Liberal’s NBN method acceptable and the “correct path”. There is no version of Liberal NBN that will ever outstrip the need for Labors NBN. Never. Until you realise that, you will be stuck in the past. When you have people who have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING making the decisions, you get a dud outcome. Fact is fact.
Here is a poll for you.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/telstra-threat-myrepublic-details-australia-launch-and-slams-nbn-20150810-givgk6.html
Poll: Is MyRepublic right? Has the NBN lost its way?
Yes 91%
No 9%
Total votes: 9942.
(Poll: Support for Labor’s NBN dives as Turnbull seen as strong Minister.)
Don’t you mean Renai, that in this cesspool of a government Turnbull is one of the very few turds with his head still above water. That’s not because he’s a strong minister, it’s because he’s a big turd.
I also think that the comparassion between the Labor model and the MTM model is lost on the Public because MSM media no longer cover it. Even the ABC hasn’t covered as “the NBN issue was decided at the election” which is MScott for “We don’t want to upset the new boss”.
It is plainly push polling. But with the total train smash that is this Government’s agenda in all but a few areas (mining Tax and Carbon Pricing) , I can’t blame the Public for treating no news as being great news.
But the ABC *did* cover it after the election – they published at least two well-researched & written articles that eviscerated the MTM model – both of which were probably intended by the journos to go out prior to election day, but which weren’t posted until 2-3 days afterwards.
How do you get “Turnbull seen as strong Minister” from a 47% approval rating?
Comparatively strong (in a hugely unpopular government which *must* be factored in) perhaps but historically very poor. You need to work on your writing Renai, this is up there with your comment here where you made the highly equivocal statement “True, I’m not the biggest fan of the language they used.” when what I believe you actually mean was ‘It is a poorly phrased and biased question’.
You’re a writer, treat the language and your readers with respect. Lazy and colloquial phrasing have their place but it’s not for when important points are being made. Precision counts.
Mind you congrats to Renai for actually including the question so that bias can be plainly seen.
Traditional media usually just report the findings leaving the assumption that the question didn’t include push-polling.
Yes, definitely all of what you say. And infinity extra marks for his follow up opinion piece on the NBN today. When he writes like that I think it makes a difference – even if I don’t always agree, though I certainly do in this case.
Please take original comment as the constructive criticism it was intended as.
The problem is not the question but who is asked the question. Most of the electorate has no idea and do not care what form the NBN takes. While Labour was in power we heard lots of arguments back and forth and even technology illiterate people were grasping that the Labour NBN was far superior. Since Liberals took over, there has not been much discussion about it, in particular in the media. This has allowed the Liberals to get away with pushing their agenda. I am hoping that the discussion of the NBN picks up when an election is called, although I expect it will not. It is criminal what has happened to the NBN and I would like a royal commission into the behaviour of the Liberals while in government. The government should provide the right solution for all of Australia, not some pathetic excuse of an NBN that was always going to be marginally different in total cost and time. Very sad…
How about a reword?
“The Government’s National Broadband Network plan has been to compromise the architecture of the NBN and implement second rate, outdated technology using Telstra’s dodgy copper network, compared to Labor’s plan to roll out fibre to every household outside rural areas, which may (arguably) cost more but would produce much higher speeds for more Australians. Which plan do you believe is best for Australia?”
I love this site, but the political read can be very naive at times.
“Australians appear to strongly approve of the job that Malcolm Turnbull is doing as Communications Minister”
Another biased poll, the question being: “Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the job the following people are doing as Government Ministers?”
Maybe the question should have also included ‘Do you know what the minister’s portfolio is?’, as I’d bet that less than 47% knew what his portfolio actually was. That poll was merely a popularity vote of the public on the approval of their favourite minister, which funnily enough represents the two parties who the public approves of being the next PM from the Liberal Party.
Another biased, political fluff piece once again fawning over Malcolm Turnbull. Do we need to again be reminded of Renai’s love for Malcolm?
Is this before or after the $15Billion blowout was announced or after?
Turnbulls face will be the election campaign!!
Maybe a little OT, but methinks a mirror to ourselves and an understanding of the hurdles we face
http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/09/the-world-has-an-attitude-that-americans-are-stupid-as-dirt-watch-this-and-understand/
The following item is also a serious concern which only goes to validate the arguments of so many of the commentators here
“Pap Attack: Anti-Intellectualism Is Destroying Democracy In America”
We know that we’re not going to get the Labor version and with speeds the way they are in Australia we’re happy to get whatever we can. Does this really translate to people approving and Turnbull being the better minister?
This kind of poll gets under my skin a little for reasons that lots of others have described above but I wanted to vent my spleen about another issue because in a few places recently I’ve heard comments like “Malcolm Turnbull is switched on” and “He knows his portfolio” etc. I agree that Malcolm is spectacularly good at telling you things that you might want to hear. He says things that on the surface make sense and sound reasonable but take away the glitter (his progressive tendencies in a few areas and a whole heap of money) and he has a terrible track record as an elected official.
Starting with “fully costed” there are many that have argued about his basic premise of project management. In my experience with project management, the larger the organisation the harder it is to handle complexity in an efficient manner. The original NBN plan had a singular purpose which is easy to digest. Malcolm’s replacement has multiple goals and even worse a finite window before it becomes redundant. It gave no consideration to history either. Never was the Telstra deal going to be quickly sorted so that we could all move on. With the original NBN plan, there was only one key question mark for the project. How low could you get the average build cost and how long would the whole thing take (I know that’s two but they go hand in hand). With Malcolm’s version there are question marks over a major asset purchase in the copper network that will never have an accurate dollar figure on it until the job is finished. He gave performance guarantees that he pulled out of nowhere. They have been watered down subsequently but who believes that if the recent trials were actually good news we wouldn’t be hearing all about how right he was? So we have question marks over the capability of key infrastructure and its cost.
He commissioned a review led by a liberal party crony, well we know the purpose for that but even using that as a benchmark Malcolm’s plan has blown out by $15b. So was his judgment in putting together the review the problem or is it his oversight of the project that failed spectacularly?
The current head of NBN in an interview on 7:30 made the statement that he thought handing over more than $10b to Telstra for an asset who’s capability couldn’t be assessed was a proper thing to do. Give me Mike Quigley anyday.
On that topic, Malcolms treatment of the former head of NBN was disgraceful. Decent people don’t do that kind of thing and I don’t want them anywhere near leadership of the country.
Malcolm was wrong in his call on NBN’s satellites plan. He has consistently underestimated internet usage patterns because the higher they are the more you swing toward a fibre rollout.
The warning signs are out on Malcolms version of the NBN. Unexpected costs from billing systems and delays on key milestones. It’s easy to point the finger in hind sight but in this case all of these things were suggested in the lead up to the last election. People wanted to discuss them, Malcolm didn’t. Malcolm dismissed these things as the work of zealouts and fanboys who wanted gold plated porn delivery services.
When anybody asks my opinion of Malcolm Turnbull I point to the evidence of his tenure. I don’t think it is right to use words such as “intelligent” or “capable” or “strong minister” with him. I’m sure he would be an excellent used car salesman. As a politician he is the most expensive mistake this country has made.
Many of us pointed this out prior to the election, but it’s interesting to see it all laid bare so well in a single post Sam.
+1 we even got this when we were proven to be correct.
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/12/please-accept-apologies-wrong-turnbull/
“Turnbull and the Coalition have been able to capitalise on those delays and problems. It’s politics 101.”
Dumb populace, dumb results. And the world keeps turning.
If the Libs manage to scrape in for another term in this country, I’m out.
EDITED from Essential Media Communication’s own “About” page specifically, the following 2 dot points:
“These tools allow us to plan and execute strategic communications that:”
shift public opinion
change government policy
http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/about/
So what is the poll for?
To change public opinion by sampling a whopping 1028 online respondents?
Such a small sample is a nonsense and with no reference to where it was sampled.
It would be interesting to find out who paid EMC to conduct the “poll”.
Actually, 1040 would give you a pretty good result (99% confidence with a +/-4% variance. Polling/statistics is a pretty well known science.
You can take a look and play around with sample sizes and other aspects of polling here: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
I was always taught 2000 was a bare minimum for reasonable analysis.
If you’re educated (or seeking an education) you will probably find a ton of opportunity in a small town. With good habit
and savings, you can be assured of having enough to start your own business.
A customer is injured while using a product you sold and files
a claim for indemnity.
Comments are closed.