Newspoll: 53-47

Sky News reports a 53-47 Newspoll result, with Labor on 47 per cent of the primary vote against 42 per cent for the Coalition. More to follow.

UPDATE: Graphic here. The 10 per cent shift from Labor to “someone else” on the question of best party to handle the environment is interesting – but then so is Peter Garrett’s 45-33 lead over Malcolm Turnbull. Note the spike in support for Garrett among the 35-49 age group that grew up with Midnight Oil on the radio.

UPDATE 2: Possum Comitatus in Crikey:

This week’s Newspoll figures have the problem of slightly undervaluing the preference flows the ALP receives from the minor parties, meaning that it’s more likely than not that the next Newspoll will probably fix that up. These slight rounding problems and sampling volatility of the minor parties all come out in the wash over a few polls. When you combine that with the ALP primary looking rock solid at 47/48, it’s almost expected that in the next poll or two, the two party preferred headline figure will show the ALP increasing its lead – simply as a result of the high ALP primary vote combining with this minor party sampling error and rounding issues. But should that happen, the headlines will undoubtedly scream “Interest Rate Backlash!” as some new 55/45 poll shows the ALP gaining a two point lead from the previous poll, the best poll the government had enjoyed for 12 months, but one which no-one paid attention to because the ponies were on.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,268 comments on “Newspoll: 53-47”

Comments Page 5 of 26
1 … 4 5 6 … 26

  1. Shanahan can spin whatever webs he wants, no-one but polling tragics like us are actually taking any notice of these polls or the analysis of them right now. I.e. what matters is the expectation of Labor victory – which seems to have grown to very dangerous levels for the Coalition (but paradoxically, also dangerous levels for Labor…).

  3. Yes Darn, quite right. It’s hard to see how an extra 17 people approximately (the difference between 4% and 5% in the sample of 1708) deciding they like the Nats is going to take the 2PP from 55-45 to 53-47. Rounding errors and stuff like that I guess.

    Bon nuit!

  4. Glen,

    but it aint the win expectation tho – pls see earlier post, and explain why this is not a relevant lead indicator as per crosby textor

  5. Hi Unicorn,

    I just went and did the same maths for 2004 preferences and found a 2004 split of 80/20 from the Greens vote and 42/58 from the Others.

    Which would mean the ALP TPP in this poll is made up of

    Primary 47.0
    Greens 4.0
    Others 2.4

    Or 53.4% total, rounded to 53/47.

    Basically, this site has a lot of lefties (some of them are also urban nudists like Darn) who need to go to sleep just now, so its not worth arguing the point very much, but I liked this poll result very much

  7. Darn

    #189

    Well Newspoll are contracted to News Limited, so the figures could be manipulated to order, in order for their masters to get the headline they wan’t.

  10. #172 tabitha Says:”Liberal will win and punish the disloyal”

    Will that be personally dished out by you??? Can we just take a number? Where is the cue forming?????

    From the Newspoll figures, nothing has changed. Only movement in the ALP primary they get back from the Greens. The coalition have again failed to take primary OFF the ALP which is what they need to do have a chance.

    I think we are seeing simple polling volatility, with the 58% result for the ALP a couple of polls ago being a rouge (good for a laugh though wasn’t it!!). Next one will be back up i think to more like 55-56% ALP.

  11. Another Newspoll? Look at this rate we wont need an election. By Nov 24 Chris and Dennis will have polled everyone in the country…we could save a motza, and I’m putting it all on Zipper.

  12. Crikey Whitey at #169

    Garrett will only heal if Labor wins.

    If the ALP lose, Garrett will bow out of ALP politics, he hasn’t got the puff for two terms in opposition.

    Incidently, is the accepted wisdom that a few points of the ALP primary came from the greens?

    IF that’s true, then won’t the green TPP split be closer to 50/50 come the election?

  14. Night all. Celebrate this poll my fellow lefties, we are 10% ahead on primaries than last election, and 6% ahead on 2PP. For all the celebrating on the right, were the ones that are decisively ahead. Go and do some campaigning, remember, dont wish for change, make it happen!

  16. One interesting aspect of the Newspoll is expectations of a Labor win. Only 26% of the population expect a Liberal win, so if they do get up it will be one of the greatest boilovers in political history. The betting markets reflect this reality, and with Labor support rock solid at 47% I would think that any odds above 1.10 provide good value for the punter. At present odds around 1.30, 30% on your money is easy money compared to what the banks or the futures market can deliver.

  17. Kina (206) You will also notice that the Newspoll on 14-16 September apportioned the preferences to Labor at 66% – not 60% and the green vote then was 1% smaller.

  19. Rudd would be wanting to throw Garrett out of a window right about now.
    And a question: When was that footage of him in the Lib’s scare campaign filmed?

  20. 203 Mr Squiggle, seeing that you’re enjoying a poll that suggests a healthy loss for your party you might also want to check out who people think would manage the environment the best. Garrett is clearly the favourite. So much for your BS.

  23. zedder (207) If Labor’s present primary – 47% – and the present 2pp (which as I have said all night should be at least 53.5/46.5) is carried into the final week, Labor WILL be at $1.10 – certainly not much more.

  24. Does anyone know if someone is publishing “how to vote cards”?

    These should be available now from pre-poll voting places.

    It would be very interesting to be able to see them for some
    of the seats where the contests are not straightforward.

  26. Whatever Tofk, no doubt you are probably one of those so called “community activists” from the union campaigns

    Speaking of third party campaigns, we haven’t seen one so heavily resourced before have we?

    Don’t forget the unions dirty tricks campaign means every union member that is a swinging voter in a marginal seat (aparently 20% of them swing and they make up 22% of the population generally) will be visited and called at home in the last two weeks of the election campaign- or so they say. No third party campaign has been that direct either.

    They will alao be at the polling booths seperately to the ALP and lets not forget the massive TV and print ad campaigns.

    I dont see how thats fair that the ALP doesnt have to declare that as donations, just because its not directly the ALP.

    However if it is even half effective it will make a big difference and the polling probably wont pick up the damage till its all over.

    Any thoughts about that third party aspect of the campaign anyone? people I work with mention it more than i like to hear it.

  30. The Labor primary vote is a simple proposition, From Sept 14 to now we have had a range of 47-51%. This will provide Labor with a stunning victory. We can also factor in, or as the market says, discount the interest rate rise. Unless the punters on Struggle St have been living in a bubble, everyone will be aware that an interest rate rise will occur on Wednesday. I am not expecting much of a reaction next week but it will be interesting to see the polls in two weeks time once the financial institutions send their letters out telling all mortgage holders to stump up more money for their home loans. I will also make a prediction that because of the debt position of many people, the tipping point for default is going to be unusually sharp for a lot of people. We live in interesting times!

  31. [218
    Frank Calabrese Says:
    November 6th, 2007 at 12:33 am
    [What’s the excuse for Dolly’s hissy fit?]

    So why doesn’t Dolly say a speech in French then ??]

    Because it’s the language of love.

  34. [Sham – I – am is missing a green edge. Anybody seen it?

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22709756-601,00.html ]

    If you look at the figures, it isn’t going to the Liberals, it is going to “OTHER” which I propose means the Greens.

    A piece of anecdotal evidence to back this up, both my mum and sister are dissapointed with Labor’s environmental policies and are seriously considering voting Green and preferencing Labor.

    Either way, I don’t see Labor’s lead on Green issues slipping as a help to the government. If anything it suggests the Green vote is underestimated.

  35. So if Dolly Downer is determined to play the Nellie Olson role in this election, does this increasingly make Kevin look like the lovable Laura Ingalls?

  36. Looking [with my tinted glasses] at Newspoll, AC Neilsen I doubt a little that Labor’s primary has dropped from 48. I also doubt a little the LNP is at 42. Hmm… ALP 48 LNP 41 Green 5 Other 6 – we are probably still quite close to 55/45. In my opinion. BUT we shall see of course. This is the polling fog people mentioned.

    The temporary AC Neilsen narrowing was also at the expense of minors.

    With Labor’s primary seemingly stuck at 47/48 regardless, the LNP can pick up only so much from minor parties before it runs out of fuel and, has to take back Labor primary. And it looks it has run out of fuel in Newspoll’s minor parties.
    Looking at the Newspoll history it is very hard to see ‘Greens’ under 5% and ‘Others’ under 6% – Total of 11% of which 7% will go to Labor. So I gather the LNP has run out places to find primary votes except Labor.

    Which really means the LNP has get Labor’s primary down to 44% to have a chance. The problem with that also is that any deserting Labor primary may go straight to the Greens. Boosting Greens to 8% from Labor still gives Labor a TPP 53%

    The LNP needs to get the Labor primary down by about 4% [520,000 people] to have a shot.
    ALP 44/44 Minors 12% = ALP 51.6/48.4
    ALP 43/44 Minors 13% = ALP 51.3/48.7
    ALP 44/45 Minors 11% = ALP 51/49
    ALP 44/46 Minors 10% = ALP 50/50
    And so on….

    It is also worth noting that in 2004 Labor’s Primary was always around 40% – they relied entirely on good preferences to be in front on TPP.

  38. Off Topic, but here is an update on the broken Larvatus Prodeo .

    [Update (RC): We are getting absolutely hammered by spam. We’ve implemented some cacheing to see if we can reduce the impact on the database, and comments will be occasionally switched off to see if we can get rid of the spammers. And finally, we’ve got plans afoot to change to a bigger and better host — on the weekend unless I can get to it sooner. Sorry for the inconvenience.]

    First William, now Mark B.

    I blame the Young Liberal Script Kiddies 🙂

  39. #184 –

    “But Steve, Howard has admitted that he can’t control interest rates. Costello said today: ‘there’s not much the Govt can do about it’!

    If the last 3 years has tought us anything, it’s that the Aust Govt doesn’t control the Aust economy. People have cottoned on to the Liberal con.”

    Ah, but you see, dear little Samuel, the present Government can’t do anything about a rise in interest rates because it’s due to things out of its direct control, like soaring oil prices, the drought and of course our booming economy.

    The actions of the Labor Party, though, would have a direct effect on inflation and hence interest rates, what with Union thugs demanding across-the-board wage rises and Swan driving the budget into deficit.

    Love these Labor trolls!

  40. Steven @ 229.

    Who are these inflation-driving union thugs you speak of? What were they doing during the Hawke-Keating years? Names and examples of thuggishness please.

    Or shut up and go back to your cot.

  41. Why is Glen still allowed to post on this blog. His comments are for the most part ridiculous (with the odd exception), but we all have a good laugh at his stupidity anyway. (fair enough)
    Today’s efforts were just appalling, he should have *many things* happen to him as a result of saying them.

    The kindest of which should be a ban.

    Apart from being totally stupid and ignorant they were offensive in the extreme.

    Why is he still allowed to post?

    I have an idea for the mentally ill Glen that will satisfy you. Everybody with an MI that means they occasionally break with reality should tattoo their surname and ph# on thier wrist!.

    Asshole

    Stupid ignorant boy

  42. I feel this is a critical juncture.

    As someone in a weekend paper said, this is Howard’s last stand. He is betting that any talk of the economy at a time when things may seem a bit wobbly is a good thing for him – even an interest rate rise. It’s counter intuitive but perfectly possible, I think. Many voters feel neither party has any real control over interest rates but that the Coalition is the better economic manager.

    A perception of a narrowing of the polls (whether or not it is actually the case) could aid Howard in that pursuit – creating a general sense that the country is ‘coming to its senses’ on the importance of getting the conomy right after a long flirtation with Rudd.

    On the other hand, a perceived narrowing could help Rudd, in that an inevitable Labor win is no longer the prevailing assumption so more voters will be inclined to pay attention and make their vote count.

  43. 229 [Ah, but you see, dear little Samuel, the present Government can’t do anything about a rise in interest rates because it’s due to things out of its direct control, like soaring oil prices, the drought and of course our booming economy.]

    Can you please explain to me how Howard’s string of large, unfair tax cuts biased heavily towards the rich in consecutive budgets and indeed repeated again on the the first day of this very election campaign were intended to be other than inflationary when the Reserve Bank is trying to cool a white hot economy?

  44. mate

    I can understand your post considering how many people had a got at me yesterday when i said that those with mental illness requires joint responsibility to manage their illness from the State and the individual. I never said that those with mental illness brought what ever harm happened to them on themselves because of their situation i merely said that it is difficult to sympathise when things like Rau happen when the individual doesn’t take precautions for their predicament which she obviously didn’t do. Clearly the Rau case has shown that both the State and the individual needs to be jointly responsible for their illness and that’s why i consider Rau to be partly to blame for what happened to her. I do not doubt that immigration and the police failed to do their job properly but Rau didnt help the situation.

    I hardly think mate that saying people with MI should be responsible for their illness as should the State in assisting them. And if you’ll recall mate all i asked was why she didn’t have a wallet or id or mobile on her which made it difficult to discover her real identity and no i do not support your proposal that is worse than anything i said yesterday.

  46. “And if you’ll recall mate all i asked was why she didn’t have a wallet or id or mobile on her which made it difficult to discover her real identity ”

    Because she HAD A MI you idiot!

  48. But mate how come she wasn’t on her medication or was she even on any medication?

    Before you call me an idiot with respect, i think you should consider all the facts.

  49. Glen, You show a remarkable naivete on the subject and it might be better if you just dropped out of the conversation for a while.

    Firstly, it’s crass to talk about “blame”. Only someone who has not the slightest understanding of mental health situations could phrase their take on this as: “I consider Rau partly to blame for what happened to her”. She was mentally ill. That has certain implications for one’s sense of responsibility. Your comprehension of this basic fact is so minimal that you keep coming back to this idea of “blame” – as if she is morally responsible for a health condition that reduced her capacity for responsibility.

    Secondly, yes, the responsibility in these matters isn’t always simply “the government”, but most people would tend to accept that there are people with mental illnesses who have a very limited capacity for responsibility, and that they need to be cared for in a way that doesn’t put them in harm’s way.
    The primary responsibility then might have been to Ms Rau’s family, or the state, or even perhaps her (although given the state of her mental health this is dangerously laissez faire), but to state that the “state” and the (mentally ill) “individual” are “jointly responsible” is uncaring (which probably doesn’t bother you”, and ill-informed (which also probably doesn’t bother you).

    As for your comments about the wallet/ID, they would be taken far more seriously as a counterpoint if you didn’t keep harping on about her “blame” in this matter, simply because it terrifies you to consider the possibility that a Federal agency was negligent.

    It is not difficult for most people to sympathise – even when they can see the complexities of a case. It does, however, seem that you have a real problem in sympathising, and perhaps when you’re older and have matured you might see this.

    FWIW I have no experience of mental illness in my family, although I’ve seen it from time to time among my workmates (most of whom are Liberal/Conservative voters, merchant bankers, and genuinely lovely people) and the people I attend Church with (again, conservatives and lovely people).

    They would be nauseated by your comments, as am I.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 5 of 26
1 … 4 5 6 … 26