ACNielsen: 52-48 to Labor in Wentworth

The Fairfax broadsheets today carry an ACNielsen poll from Wentworth taken from an impressive sample of 900. It shows Labor’s George Newhouse leading Malcolm Turnbull 52-48 on two-party preferred, with primary votes of 45 per cent for Turnbull, 36 per cent for Newhouse and 17 per cent for Greens candidate Susan Jarnason. Minor party preferences favoured Labor over Liberal by 86-14, which seems a little much.

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.

836 comments on “ACNielsen: 52-48 to Labor in Wentworth”

Comments Page 14 of 17
1 13 14 15 17
  1. Kev is up for some major journalistic probing tomorrow morning, you’ll be pleased to know.

    I’m pretty sure I heard an ad during the cricket saying he and the missus are going on Mornings with Kerri-Anne.

    Probe away, Kezza!

  2. Pi at 604 is dead right. Punters made up their minds six months ago. The bribes from Howard have not worked. Rudd has wedged. The election campaign itself has been a shocker for the Libs. It will be a very very comfortable win. MacPherson, Forde etc are in play. So is Hughes – and look out for Goldstein on election night. Tomorrow’s newspoll should also reflect the Libs rotten few days with the Auditor, Abbott on WC etc. If it does’nt it won’t matter – it will be more of the same.

  3. “#599
    Lose the election please Says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    LaborVoter… so this poll is just plain wrong then?”

    Exactly. It overstates the Greens vote, understates both Lib and Lab votes and on the day even the “Greens” protest right wingers will probably preference Malcolm first.

    I find it hard to believe the 18% King vote suddenly disappears into no mans land… it will head back to Turnbull.

  4. 648 Pancho,

    LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT 🙂 🙂 🙂 post of the day award at the very least. (surprised though it got through the censors though)

  5. Patrick @ 642 [Or, more simply, I can think someone is a w***er and still agree with something they say.]

    I completely agree with what you are saying.

  6. [Rudd needs to be scrutinised in more detail because we are going to get rid of Howard]

    I find it hard to believe some people are saying they need more scrutiny or detail from Rudd and/or Howard. If you don’t have enough information by now to make up your mind you never will.

  7. Rudd will be scrutinised when he goes to the National Press Club on Wed, with Howard going Thur. That’ll be the final test for Rudd, which I think he’ll easily manage.

  8. I believe Newspoll will be released tonight. I would love to see 55/45 to stick it right up ’em.

    The betting stands at this exact moment:
    – Betfair ALP 1.27 / LIB 4.50
    – Sportingbet ALP 1.22 / LIB 4.25
    – IAS ALP 1.25 / LIB 4.10
    – Centrebet 1.25 / lib 4.00

    Punters have shortened the odds for the coalition in from 4.60 to the present 4.25 with the bookies.

  9. 622 – One of the major difficulties for anyone trying to understand what is going on in IR in recent times has been the government’s refusal to release details about the impact of work choices and AWAs on the labour market and the economy more generally – this even as we enter the last week of the election with mutterings about Labor failing to meet the charter of budget honesty). My own view, based on reports by various economists of the experience of collective bargaining since its introduction by Labor, and my own experience as an employee in a large organisation, is that collective bargaining is likely to produce much greater productivity dividends. However, until we get the data and do a comparison of the effect of AWAs versus collective bargaining no decisive answer is possible. If the Government is so concerned about ensuring ongoing growth in the Australian economy it should have released the data for analysis months ago.

  10. Read an article the other day that they are having trouble filling an audience for Howard at the Press Club. Wonder if it will be filled by the Young Libs?

  11. Excuse if posted before, in one form or another. Too funny, Labor!

    From Milne’s (top half surprisingly rational, before one sip too many) article, the Oz

    Abbott disappeared for a while but last week returned to the forefront of the Coalition campaign, again for all the wrong reasons. He was caught on amateur video at a local electorate meeting seemingly admitting that Work Choices had stripped away industrial protections previously guaranteed by law.

    Abbott argued about context and meaning but the damage was done; so much so that Labor posted the video as an ad on YouTube, finishing with a voice-over that said: “Written and spoken on behalf of the ALP by TonyAbbott.”

  12. Julie @ 630

    Funnily enough you don’t need to support a particular party to predict them winning. I think it’ll be close but still don’t see anything which suggest its impossible for the Coalition to win. Unlike some people I think Labor can lose on 54% of the 2PP.

  13. I completely agree with what you are saying.

    Oh no, I am the one who agrees with you I think…

    Those saying “how could you want to know any more?” – go back to the list of questions and point me to the answers.

    We’ve heard a lot of vague, safe policy from Rudd, sweet f.a. about the underlying, personal philosophies (supposedly) behind them.

    And, once again, this is NOT the same thing as suggesting that people shouldn’t vote ALP on this basis…

  14. Can we please have some really mindless, partisan and totally one sided Labor supporters posting here?

    Oops we already have those in spades.

  15. 664 Lose the election please – just point me to the last Federal election where this scenario has played out and I will gladly agree with you. Otherwise, no way.

  16. tdt, I thankfully am personally responsible for none of that list. But funnily enough, I am bloody sorry about it. Cut, paste, add and subtract as you wish.

  17. Centre @ 659 – does the firming of the coalition ffrom 4.60 into 4.30 odd mean there might be something in Newspoll, or is it more likely a reaction tothe marginals polling and headlines about it being a cliff-hanger?

    I’d be interested in hearing from those who follow the betting markets more closely than I do.

  18. As someone else here has posted previously it’s possible to win on 25% of the 2PP.

    We’ve seen evidence that marginals are not swinging widely and that Labor held marginals and safe seats are swinging 10% and upwards. Add this to rumoured large swings in seats Labor has little chance of winning (eg. Grey) and it’s not impossible that Labor could lose with 54%. It’s possible we could see a move of safer seats in to less comfortable margins, 10-12 marginals moving to Labor and large moves in Labor held seats and still and overall loss.

    All of this is unlikely of course. I’m merely acknowledging it’s not impossible, and quite plausible. Come Saturday, the most likely result is a comfortable win for the ALP. Still, it’s always good to acknowledge the possibilities. To be honest I’m surprised we’re not getting more Coalition supporters acknowledging the possibility of a loss. Thommo, Steven_Kate, Generic Person, Ave It are all absolutely sure the Libs will be returned.

  19. Galaxy Poll feedback FROM GALAXY

    I rang Galaxy who said all states polling were started BEFORE the 2 Launchs

    BUT UNLIKE Bullring’s article some were significantly finished before Rudd’s Launch
    (SA & NSW) whilst Q’d they first said was was done on the 10th , 13th and 14th (Rudd’s launch day) and after repeating the Q’ld inquiry was told Q’LD was finished on the 15th

    Maybe another Blogger can get straight answers

    My take is Galaxy should publicly declare BY STATE when they started & SUBSTANTIALLY finished each state otherwise the WHOLE poll is useless !!

    because if the “majority” of polling in fact has been completed in some states after Howard’s launch but before Rudd’s that State will favor Howard. (alternatively a state would favor Rudd if a state was mostly done after his Launch , except this did NOT happen at all)

  20. Patrick

    Sorry I realise after reading back over the thread that I misunderstood your intention. It is just that the trouble with being too critical of any one issue here is that the forces of darkness (JOM, GG etc) use it as an excuse to run with it a mile and completely derail the discussion. Like you, I am not a Labor Party member or workerr, and aven’t given my first vote to either side in over ten years. For me voting for Rudd is a means to an end – getting rid of Howard.

    That being said, I have some concerns about the logic of the Rudd scrutiny argument. Ultimately, oppositions can’t govern, so you cannot scrutinise their record in government. Scrutinising Rudd on teh basis of past Labor governments is absurd; he wasn’t even in parliament then. I might just as well scrutinise Howard on the basis of Billy McMahon’s performance. You can scrutinise the sense of their promises, but that is all. The government however, can be scrutinised on both its promises and its record. Indeed, if the Howard government has a consistent record of breaking its promises, any new promises might reasonably be discounted, and it may be judged on its record alone. I would argue that on both counts, the Howard government rates poorly.

    Hence, regardless of whatever reservations I may have about Rudd, it seems at this point rational to vote for him in preference to Howard. Of course, I may still give my first vote to the Greens and preference Labor anyway, but I cannot rationally see how I could preference the Liberals, given their ethical failings (Haneef, Hicks, Children overboard, now porkgate), economic failings (interest rate rises, inflationary promises, lack of long term investment), social failings (health, education, Workchoices) and environmental failings (Kyoto ratification, Murray Darling scheme farce).

  21. Centre @ 659 – does the firming of the coalition ffrom 4.60 into 4.30 odd mean there might be something in Newspoll, or is it more likely a reaction tothe marginals polling and headlines about it being a cliff-hanger?

    They started moving back in yesterday morning. I think it was probably a response to the Sunday Tele Galaxy poll which showed a closer result than the Newspoll on Saturday. The market really blew out after newspoll, and the galaxy poll looked a bit better for the libs so the punters snapped up the generous odds of over 4.5 that were on offer.

  22. Gary Bruce, we can suggest Labor will win 100+ seats although this has never happened before.

    We can admit Labor could possibly get over 54% of the 2PP although this has never happened before.

    The thing about history is that it’s always there to be made.

  23. Patrick Bateman @ 622

    I’m surprised that you think my description of you as a “Green Party supporter” was somehow offensive. I intended it as a neutral term based upon your post in which you advocated a vote for the Greens in the Senate, which is certainly a very sound option, if only as an insurance vote.

    My disagreement was with your assertions that Rudd’s policies have not been given sufficient media scrutiny which were similar assertions to what I heard from Green Candidate Organ a fortnight ago. However, I do take your further point that what voters have been told regarding post-WorkChoices policy so far might not be what Labor’s final Industrial Relations package turns out to be. This is, of course, equally applicable to all policies of all parties, including the Greens’.

    I made no comments about your voting intentions in the House of Reps, your lifestyle or anything else about you because personal attacks distract from the discussion of issues. Nevertheless, since you feel mine came across that way, you have my apology.

  24. “All of this is unlikely of course. I’m merely acknowledging it’s not impossible, and quite plausible.”

    It is mathamatically possible, but you’re fooling yourself if you think it’particularly plausible.

  25. 622 Patrick
    don’t forget to stock up on herion for the kindergarten kiddies. You should be able to pick it up from any street corner where we are giving it away.

  26. “We can admit Labor could possibly get over 54% of the 2PP although this has never happened before.

    The thing about history is that it’s always there to be made”

    That is true, but all of the empirical evidence available to us suggests that a Labor vote of 54% is highly likely. There is no such evidence that a party could win with 46% of the vote. Hearts can be scared, but your argument is irrational.

  27. Socrates – I’m not suggesting anyone change their (lower house) vote because Rudd is an “unknown quantity”, and I fully agree that (a) that is not entirely accurate and (b) it sounds like pro-govt nonsense if you’re not careful.

    Nor am I suggesting that scrutiny of Labor’s past will help particularly – but in fact, that’s one of the things I’m interested to know more about. Rudd is curiously anti-Labor in the sense that he does not seem to represent the usual true blue, dyed in the wool unionist type which has dominated the party for most of its modern history. In fact, it’s hard to know what he represents from a personal perspective, and that’s what I want to know about.

    What does he believe in? Does he really understand Australian political, social and constitutional history? Where is he really in the ALP stable? Will he rule by consensus, or will he be a Labor version of the Howard dictatorship, with all ambitious lieutenants eliminated or neutralised? Will he cling to power for as long as he can, or will he gracefully hand over when the time comes?

    In other words, I feel like we’ve heard virtually nothing about Kevin Rudd the man, as opposed to Kevin Rudd the product (07(TM)).

    Perhaps a better understanding of what I mean can be gleaned from this statement: I am deeply afraid of Australia ending up with our own version of Tony Blair.

  28. LTEP – “All of this is unlikely of course. I’m merely acknowledging it’s not impossible, and quite plausible.” I really think you’re over selling it as a possibility. It is extremely unlikely to happen. I would have as much chance of winning tattslotto. Besides the evidence you speak of has been refuted by other polls. I feel you are cherry picking your evidence to give it more credence than it deserves.

  29. LETP 676
    “Thommo, Steven_Kate, Generic Person, Ave It are all absolutely sure the Libs will be returned.”

    I suspect it is more the case thayt they are under orders not to admit that the Libs will lose, or that the sky is blue, until after the last undecided voter has cast their vote on Saturday. In the mean time they will be sprouting as many non-core facts about the polls as they can think of. To confuse the confusable, into doing the regrettable (voting for Howard)

  30. KT at 587: I’m baffled because the commentators are forgetting the sheer number of seats that have to fall. I hope for a Labor win, but would be surprised if it happens this time. Parramatta will fall (Ross Cameron was a turn off last time), but it may not be the only one in NSW.

    Frank at 594: I have put $200.00 up on the Coalition holding on. 100.00 on Thursday (When it was $3.18), and 100.00 yesterday (at $4.50). I don’t earn much so this is no small change for me, but I’m looking forward to having some extra cash at least come Sunday.

    All the analysis I’ve seen offers very little in the way of confirmation of the actual seats that are likely to fall to Labor, apart from adjusting the pendulum and assuming a uniform swing. No-one’s going into the detail of the 18 electorates themselves that will have to ditch Coalition members for Rudd to be PM.

    For examplem, even with Jackie Kelly leaving, and despite widespread belief, Lindsay won’t fall to Labor – too many people think they’re too good to be “working class” – they’ll vote for the Bosses’ party, thank you very much.

  31. Patrick Bateman.

    I totally agree with your point re the need to scrutinise politicians. However I also totally agree with Rudd’s declining to elaborate on important issues prior to election. I will also state neither Howard or Costello are any more open about their true intentions either.

    Unfortunately, such frankness and openness is just not possible under Howard’s opportunistic and divisive politicking style, he has stifled all long term political conceptual and intellectual debate, such as climate change, in favour of short term advantage wedge politics.

    Howard’s reactive politicking is the antithesis of open/forward thinking and inhibits such detailed informed discussion. You will never get what you want while Howard remains in politics.

    Hopefully Rudd will soon bring to an end the era of wedge/fear politics and we can once again have free and open public debate and expression of ideas.

  32. 646
    StanS Says:
    November 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
    Look as far as “knowing” what we are getting with Rudd it is a circular question

    This is of course pure nonsense. They guy has been in the Parliament a number of years and also a shadow minister.

    How long before people are happy? 20 Years? Reminds me of the old office work practice where every person used to be promoted on years in service rather than merit (thats all changed now of coursse).

    AND what of Howard?

    He should not have been elected then as he was a disasterous Treasurer in a disasterous Fraser govt. He was also before that an embarassment as small business minister and had to be moved on to special projects (selling uranium to Westinghouse). No way should he have been elected – a proven failure.

    Now you have a 11 year histroy of a Howard govt that demonstrates racism, xenophobia, lies, deceite and zero accountablility as its method of government.

    This scrutiny nonsense is just that – the press have had all year to find problems with his policies. AND they have his history in parliament to identify anything radical or weird about him.

    What they were really after is another attempt to trip him up – they were not about scrutiny, if they were you would not have people like Ackerman, Bolt, Henderson etc on all the time who are all hard right-wing journalists trying to sell down labor.

    Until journalism turns to serious stuff and forgets about searching for the one-liner or one angle to wedge people on you will not get Politicians campaigning on a total policy front. Why would they?

    Rudd not knowing the tax scales was beat up into a major affair on behalf of the Liberal party – but no such thing was done on Downer or Howard who also didn’t know and got it wrong on tv AND Costello stuffed up a number of times; not evening knowing how tax scales were applied and not even knowing how much his tax cuts were. NONE were made into major issues the same way Rudd’s trivial slip was.

    SO why would anyone campaign except in the presidential fashion when journalists and newspapers are focussed on trivia and wedges?

  33. Patrick – there has been ample discussion of Rudd’s personal convictions and his philosophical views in the media since he became opposition leader (see the article below published some time ago).

    At the same time I would have thought it naive in the extreme to expect to have a transparent window into every last detail of a party/leader’s views and policies and evenmore naive to expect that they have subsequently been enacted to the letter. Would be interested in your list of examples of where this has happened in the past.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/warrior-for-the-future/2006/12/11/1165685613376.html

  34. ABC news had a bemused Ron Boswell complaining that voters were not responding to coalition policies: “We have everything to sell … everything …”

    Get set for a monster fire sale of granny skins!

  35. Its quite possible that Rudd will have a heart attack before Saturday and the Libs will win off the back of uncertainty over Gillard’s leadership. Or some such nonsense. Yeah, its possible to lose on 54% of the 2PP but it is so unlikely that only the deliberately obtuse would allow for such possibilities.

  36. LTEP, you saying that Labor can lose with 54% 2PP is absolutely ridiculous!!! Fair boundaries are used in Federal elections, and Labor is getting a big swing in marginals. Although the last Morgan tried to micro-analyse the marginals, the overall swing across the 22 marginals surveyed was 7.7% to Labor , and they had 54% of the 2PP across those marginals. That would certainly enable Labor to easily win the vast majority of those marginals, and many safer seats would fall too.

    Message: don’t worry about marginal seat polling. If the overall 2PP is 52%+ Labor wins. If it’s 51%, Labor probably wins. If it’s 50%, the Coalition probably wins. If the marginals don’t fall, safer seats will fall. On election night, there will be some seats that people were expecting Labor to win that weren’t won, and others that no-one gave Labor a hope in that were won. 54% would be a crushing win in the single member electorate system we currently have, delivering Labor 85-95 seats.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 14 of 17
1 13 14 15 17