Newspoll: 55-45

The latest Newspoll confirms the trend of recent Morgan and Essential Research results in showing an easing in Labor’s lead, from 58-42 in the previous two fortnightly surveys to 55-45. Labor’s primary vote has dropped five points to 42 per cent, its lowest level since November, but the Coalition’s is up only one point to 38 per cent. The Greens’ account for two points of the difference, up from 9 to 11 per cent. Malcolm Turnbull’s approval rating has dropped a further point to a new low of 36 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is down three points to 64 per cent, while Malcolm Turnbull is steady on 19 per cent.

UPDATE: Graphic here (how long have they been waiting to use that photo of Kevin Rudd?). Interesting supplementary question on what the government should have done with the stimulus package money – 78 per cent say they would have preferred it be spent on infrastructure, which is the kind of opinion poll response political operatives hesitate to believe. Opinion is divided on whether promised tax cuts should go ahead as planned.

Other news:

• Essential Research has Labor’s two-party lead nudging downwards for the fourth week in a row. It’s now at 57-43, compared with 63-37 on April 6. The survey also reveals slightly more optimism on the economy than was recorded in mid-March, mixed messages on what should be done in the budget, a persistence of illiberal attitudes towards asylum seekers, and a widespread belief that Pacific nations such as Fiji should be “left to sort out their own affairs”.

• An anonymous business figure tells Glenn Milne of The Australian that “major business donors” have a hit list of 14 MPs who must make way for new blood if the Liberal Party is to get their donations. These are Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar) and Philip Ruddock (Berowra), Kevin Andrews (Menzies), Alby Schultz (Hume), Joanna Gash (Gilmore), Judi Moylan (Pearce), Wilson Tuckey (O’Connor), Margaret May (McPherson), Andrew Laming (Bowman), Michael Johnson (Ryan) and Alex Somlyay (Fairfax), along with Nationals John Forrest (Mallee) and Bruce Scott (Maranoa) plus one lone Senator, former Howard numbers man Bill Heffernan. Some of these point to the Coalition’s undoubted surplus of MPs past their use-by date, as noted in detail recently by Peter van Onselen in The Australian. Others on the list fall well below van Onselen’s nominated cut-off point of 60 years of age, the most striking examples being Johnson (39) and Laming (42). Milne’s source also reckons Barnaby Joyce is “divisive and not a team player or a regional centre vote winner” – the latter judgement at least seems a very big call. While Milne describes the list as “non-factional”, Liberal sources are evidently putting it to Andrew Bolt that responsibility for the article ultimately lies with party treasurer and Turnbull ally Michael Yabsley, who scores an indirect compliment from Milne’s source.

• Submissions for the redistribution of New South Wales federal elections have been published, compelling the major parties to suggest which electorate they think should be eliminated. The Liberals have excitingly decided the axe should be wielded on their own turf, suggesting Kay Hull’s seat of Riverina and Alby Schultz’s seat of Hume be merged into a new seat called Bradman. Schultz has reacted by calling for a return to rural malapportionment. Ben Raue notes that the Liberals want territory transferred from Wentworth to Sydney, which would at once make Malcolm Turnbull safer while leaving Tanya Plibersek more vulnerable to the Greens. Labor’s submission calls for the abolition of Pat Farmer’s seat of Macarthur further to the north, where the Liberals propose to strengthen their position by adding territory from Hume.

• Swoon over the new-look Crikey. Now no longer featuring my goofy 2004 vintage mug on the front page, praise the Lord.

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.

1,434 comments on “Newspoll: 55-45”

Comments Page 3 of 29
1 2 3 4 … 29

  2. [All I’m saying is that, likewise, the Australian Greens standing up and saying 40% means they will never attain a significant vote increase and I they backed the position of the more cautious environmental groups they would.]

    The Greens policy is not based on what will simply get them the best votes. If The Greens capitulate on their policy, which they’ve had and maintained for longer than the major parties then why would anyone trust them? The fact that 25-40% is what we need to avoid dangerous climate change is not politically negotiable.

    The Greens may get 10 senators (for example) if they weaken their policy but then I wouldn’t see the point in having those 10 senators.

    The suggestion here has always been that the community doesn’t want anything stronger. This comes from some delusion that the electorate = Woodside. Both Labor and Liberal polling shows that this apparently is a still a very strong issue.

    The discussion about whether The Greens should compromise their policies for further representation and then have a better chance getting their other policies in is a long and boring one.

  3. There’s a large number of public suggestions to the New South Wales redistribution complaining that the ALP is proposing to abolish Riverina. The ALP is not; the Liberals are. I hope all those people find out they were wrong.

  4. ltep

    [She needs to manage the politics of the issue in a way to implement the Government’s policy.]

    My point is that her first priority is NOT trying to implement the Government’s policy. She is more interested in point-scoring. If she wanted to implement Government policy, she would have spoken to Turnbull.

  5. Oz,

    Who’s being self righteous now?

    But, at leat you’ve added sanctimony, hypocrisy and fundamental lack of political nous to the mix of your hysterical diatribes.

    You da man!

  7. JD 97

    Thanks that was my error. It only underscores the point though doesn’t it – all of Labor’s best performers are coming from outside NSW at present, and away from the bitter factional politics that has ruined it. I don’t pretend there is no factionalism elsewhere, but at least the other states can bury it when they are working as a govt.

  9. I think Alan’s right and who would blame the government for doing that given the track record of the Senate since Rudd came to power.

  11. GB

    Regardless of my other concerns, if Turnbull opposes this ETS then a DD would be justified. I think the government needs ot much more forecefully communicate the improvements over the first scheme though (25% instead of 15%; allowance for private action).

    As for the Senate, it would be hard to have much sympathy for them.

  12. I disagree with Alan. Changing the scheme’s timelines to be more palatable to the opposition is not the way you’d go if you wanted a trigger. And the recent experience in WA, NT and Qld state elections suggests that governments are at risk of being punished if they go earlier. Imagine the field day the MSM would have with it.

  13. Socrates,

    The killer quote from that Quiggin article:

    “The scheme may not be perfect, but, on the face of it, the changes are sufficient for me to conclude that the Greens ought to be backing it, and seeking some further improvements, rather than holding out in the name of purity”.

    Another splitter, Oz?

  14. I agree with Kohler because if Rudd delays the ETS a year and the coalition still won’t vote for it then, basically they never will vote for an ETS. In that case some people might prefer Greens to Labor, but I can’t see anyone who cares about CC changing their vote back to the coalition. Hence Labor would get control of the Senate back, or at least only have to deal with the Greens and not Fielding as well. They better get used to Mr X because he won’t lose.

  15. WA, NT and QLD had no reason to go early. None of them were first-time governments either.

    Two very big differences.

  16. GG

    Yes that comment made me think too. It seems from the maths modelling that from a CC POV a years delay may be tollerable – the GFC has also slowed down the rate of growth in carbon emissions. The new 25% limit is far more acceptable too. I am coming around to accepting this compromise, much as I hate the buying off of heavy polluters with my tax dollars.

  17. Yeah, Greensborough Growler, because everyone was with The Greens before (lol) and now that some have changed this means they should too. Another dose of hilarity.

    [Hence Labor would get control of the Senate back, or at least only have to deal with the Greens and not Fielding as well. They better get used to Mr X because he won’t lose.]

    The only way the ETS is going to pass after a DD is through a joint sitting. If the Libs won’t vote for this now then they won’t vote for it after the next election. The Greens won’t vote for this either now or after and Labor is not going to negotiate with The Greens.

  18. Oz at 112 your points are true and very valid, but since when would truth intrude on a MSM anti-Rudd campaign??

  20. I don’t see how we can even get 25% by 2020 in the proposed framework if the biggest polluters only have a 4 year window where it actually costs them not to change.

    I thought the EU example showed that if flood the market with permits the price crashes and you’re system fails. Well not only are we doing that (now with more flooding!) were doing it with cheaper permits! Just because the legislation says 25% by 2020 is no guarantee we’ll get there and this structure looks like a very dodgy way of going about it.

  21. [My point is that her first priority is NOT trying to implement the Government’s policy. She is more interested in point-scoring. If she wanted to implement Government policy, she would have spoken to Turnbull.]

    What utter waffle. Please name the last piece of legislation BY EITHER ALP OR LIBERAL which was written in close consultation with the opposition party prior to being read in Parliament. By your flunky reasoning, every minister who ever wrote a bill is as ‘bad’ as Wong. FMD.

  22. [ thought the EU example showed that if flood the market with permits the price crashes and you’re system fails]

    This was a failure in the grandfathering provisions and it was due to the faulty benchmarking of past emission profiles and it applied to all laible entities. This is not even close to the same issue as Australia has with its free permits.

    Remeber, alos that a 25% reduction is not a real reduction but a 25% reduction of Austrli’a contribution to global emissions. As the Kyoto mechanisms also allow, countries can buy their way into compliance.

  23. [This was a failure in the grandfathering provisions and it was due to the faulty benchmarking of past emission profiles and it applied to all laible entities.]

    You mean using the 1990 standard that didn’t make sense for Europe? But why would this have mattered given it was a Europe wide scheme?

  24. Oz

    I too was concerned about permits from an equity POV. However after the permits are gone (four years) the ETS really will bite. This scheme will effectively give all our brown coal stations four years to restructure/sell out and start another business, because they will not be viable in the market that will be in place headed for a -25% cap by 2020.

  25. Socrates, the point I’m trying to make is whether or not it’s possible to restructure these industries in 4 years. Everyone here was saying it would be almost impossible over 10 years. I don’t think it’s impossible if we start now but I do think that if we wait then we aren’t going get 25% by 2020 even if that’s our stated cut.

  26. Oz

    I agree that it is important not to flood an ETS market with permits as the European fiasco shows. However I don’t think that will be the case here. The permits are time limited for the four years. They are effectively compensating existing heavy polluters to buy another line of business. Both the former and current governments have been doing fairly detailed tracking of actual CO2 emissions for several years now. We are in a good position to accurately assign permits here.

  27. Dario

    The GST and border protection were two that spring to mind immediately. Adam would know the details of more. Howard and Beasley would often meet about upcoming bills.

  28. [This scheme will effectively give all our brown coal stations four years to restructure/sell out and start another business, because they will not be viable in the market that will be in place headed for a -25% cap by 2020.]

    I predict in 4 years time we will get the coal industry crying to the government about how they can’t do anything and need an extension. The Opposition will scream about job losses etc. and the Government will cave in.

  29. Oz

    I don
    ‘t think we can restructure the whole industry in four or ten years. However you can bite off a chunk ata time. The first to go will be brown coal, which is much less cost competitive than black coal. So in the -25% regime, it won’t be economically possible for brown coal plants to remain viable, givne there is a national electricity grid and market for power supply. They will have to shut down. In the mean time other supplies will start building new supply sources, whether they be gas, wind, super heated gas/solar, geothermal (if it can be gotten to work) or nuclear if the policy changes can occurr. So we will see the start of a real change (for better) by 2020 – our brown coal plants (the worst per unit emitters) will be gone. I presume that is why Quiggan supports this.

  30. LTEP

    Then that is why we need a DD to ensure that the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate, and not the Liberals or Fielding.

    The real answer is to establish some of the new alternatives in areas like the La Trobe, so that they gain some jobs in return.

  31. ltep

    I predicted the same last night, esp if we get a target more than 5%.

    Dario

    I should add that Beasley didn’t often work with Howard on the bill but at least he was offered the chance.

  32. Oz,

    You are irritated today

    [You mean using the 1990 standard that didn’t make sense for Europe? But why would this have mattered given it was a Europe wide scheme]

    It mattered because the benchmarks overestimated the businesses’ emission and reductions were done very easily. All the businesses sold their permits rather than acquit them and there was consequently an oversupply of permits.

    In Australia’s case the free permits can be sold, which will reduce the cost of permits for others, but given that the free permits are not for all liable entities and they are confined to businesses which would unlikely be able to reduce emissions more cheaply than the price of a permit, this is not an issue. Further, the CPRS will be based on GHG data of actual emissions from the greenhouse reporting scheme rather than some dodgy benchmarking.

  33. [The GST and border protection were two that spring to mind immediately. Adam would know the details of more. Howard and Beasley would often meet about upcoming bills.]

    Border protection? Are you kidding me? That bill was thrown together and forced through the parliament in order to wedge Beasley for goodness sake… it was ALL about politics. You really are living in a dreamland.

  34. Diogenes,

    If you look carefully at yesterday’s changes, the promise of 5 years of certainty in relation to emission targets is also delayed by a year. Therefore, the real target that will be legislated, does not, in reality, need to be announced now until mid 2010.

    5% and 25% are still negotiable.

  35. There are not going to be massive job losses in the coal industry in four year’s time. The “coal industry” is mostly coal mining and not overly dependent on domestic consumption. It will take decades for other countries to switch off their coal power stations and replace them (even with a strong international cap system to push them along).

    If you mean the local coal-powered electricity generating industry then that has got to be dreaming if it thinks it can create enough of a fuss to resist the pressures to gradually close down.

    But I think the closing down will be painfully slow for most of us. One big problem is the that the grid needs to be carefully managed (as it has a need to balance input with output) and not suffer many big changes at once. This is especially true if there are increasing numbers of novel power sources being included. We don’t really know how many of them will work on a day to day basis.

    This is why it is a pity that we look like having a much slower start to the ETS.

  36. Dario

    Howard got Beasley into his office and discussed it. Beasley considered supporting it with a few changes but decided not to in the end. It’s all in “Dark Victory”.

  37. [Greensborough Growler’s constant self-righteous indignation is one of the funniest things this site has to offer.]

    #96 OZ, GG is an Amigo, that is why he is “the funniest things”. You can also aspire to be an Amigo, like Diog, if you are willing to spend sometime under the Knowledge Tree to rectify your “sanctimony, hypocrisy and fundamental lack of political nous to the mix of your hysterical diatribes.”

    Just close your eyes and I will transport you to the KT:

    😉

  38. [Howard got Beasley into his office and discussed it. Beasley considered supporting it with a few changes but decided not to in the end. It’s all in “Dark Victory”.]

    I know what happened. The REASON why it happened is what I am talking about.

  40. Dario

    What can I say? You just asked for an example where it happened and I gave you one.

    I have to agree that the REASON behind the Border Security offer was pure evil. 👿

    I’m glad Beasley said no.

    I think the GST offer was more genuine.

  41. William, thanks for releasing me from moderation.

    Dear Bludgers, I’m sad to advise that Adam in Canberra is no more. He has asked me to fill in for him.

  42. [What can I say? You just asked for an example where it happened and I gave you one. ]

    Except your reasoning was that Wong was playing politics by not consulting with the Opposition, and yet the Border Protection bill was a prime example of a Government playing politics! Your logic has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

    The GST I might agree with. That’s ONE.

  44. There will invariably be political considerations in both a decision to consult and not to consult. A decision to ‘consult’ the Opposition could be as political a move as a decision not to.

    In the end, what would the Opposition have offered up if they’d been consulted? Probably not a whole lot, as they perceive they have more to gain by opposing the scheme outright than assisting the Government to implement one.

  45. Wong is now officially consulting with Turnbull. I doubt much will come of this but it will make Turnbull clarify his position.

    Wong: I also yesterday wrote to Mr Turnbull inviting him to have discussions with the Government in relation to passage of the legislation and I welcome Mr Turnbull’s change of heart and his indicated response in which he indicates a willingness to have a dialogue with the Government. We are willing to have a discussion with Mr Turnbull.

    But I would say this: if Mr Turnbull is going to walk into a room seeking to negotiate with the Government about the passage of this legislation, if Mr Turnbull is going to walk into the room wanting to have a discussion about climate change, he’s going to have to walk in with a position. He’s going to have to walk in with a position. So before he walks into that room it seems that he’s going to have to take this issue to his party room. Because it’s quite clear from the comments over the last 24 hours that the Coalition remained hopelessly divided, hopelessly divided on this issue which has such importance for the nation. And it’s time for Mr Turnbull to show leadership, to not take a weak position of sending it off to another discussion in the Productivity Commission, but having the strength to stand up to the sceptics in his own party room.

    And I just remind people of some the differences in opinion that have been expressed from the Coalition in the last 24 hours. Mr Robb said: “We will not let this thing go through”. Mr Hunt said: “We will negotiate in good faith”. And Mr Bernardi said – Senator Bernardi said: “The Coalition’s position is that we will be opposing”. So, who is speaking for the Liberal Party? We’re willing to discuss this issue with Mr Turnbull, as with all other parties in the Senate. But if Mr Turnbull is going to have a negotiation, he’s going to have to have a position.

  46. [Dear Bludgers, I’m sad to advise that Adam in Canberra is no more. He has asked me to fill in for him.]

    What? No more Herr Doktor. Life will never be the same again.

    And who is this Psephos? bring back Herr Doktor!!

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 29
1 2 3 4 … 29