Newspoll: 55-45

The Australian reports the latest fortnightly Newspoll has Labor’s two-party lead steady at 55-45. This is “despite recent revelations of the Prime Minister’s expletive-laden tirade against factional bosses” which emerged after the poll was conducted. Both Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull have lost two points to “uncommitted” on preferred prime minister, Rudd now leading 65-17. More to follow.

UPDATE: Graphic here. The poll also features questions on the carbon pollution reduction scheme. For what it’s worth, Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings are his best in two months.

Meantime, this week’s Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead down from 59-41 to 58-42. Further questions find support for means testing the health insurance rebate, a slight majority against the previous government’s formula for private school funding, a slight majority finding their working hours have increased in the past 12 months, a slight tendency to credit/blame the Coalition over Labor with/for the past 25 years of economic reform, and strong support for the Australian Federal Police reopening investigations into the Balibo five deaths.

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.

1,517 comments on “Newspoll: 55-45”

Comments Page 2 of 31
1 2 3 31
  1. GP,

    In the spirit of not persecuting the Greens, I’ll be kind tonight.

    However, mindless rhetoric opens you up to ridicule.

  2. Thinks he’s a wit . But, he’s just another Greens troll. We’ve had plenty of them before.

    _Thank you for that valuable insight into your nightmare.As per zoomagain/ster, you have made it it easy to avoid your pultritude and biliousness in the future.

  3. [Thinks he’s a wit . But, he’s just another Greens troll. We’ve had plenty of them before.

    _Thank you for that valuable insight into your nightmare.As per zoomagain/ster, you have made it it easy to avoid your pultritude and biliousness in the future.]

    Umm, I think William’s request also applies to you.

  4. Yes, of course OO, the “tirade” is going to be the next defining poll moment, just like scores, anzac day, therese rein, flight attendant tirade and so on. Funny though, that when they dont get the result they want in the next poll, they pretend they never anticipated a fall for Rudd.

  5. [And so it starts, again, by the same two usual suspects…]

    Excuse me, I was just pointing out to Turk that his request applied equally to him as everyone else – and you’re adding fuel to the fire.

  6. [Driven by indignation at injustice]
    [Julia Gillard is the Deputy Prime Minister. This is one of a series of articles from leading political thinkers about what it means to be on the Left in Australia in 2009.]
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26100893-7583,00.html

    Looks like this is what was telegraphed about a week ago about the Oz’s intention to try and regain left leaning readers, alienated by years of right wing propaganda and bias.

    Going by the misleading statements in the piece about the latest Newspoll, I suspect that not too many people will be fooled by a token, weekly piece by a left leaning correspondent!

  7. [I was just pointing out to Turk that his request applied equally to him

    Thankyou William! (??)]

    Yes, see here:

    [William Bowe
    Posted Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    I think that’s enough Labor versus Greens for one evening]

  8. Excuse me, I was just pointing out to Turk that his request applied equally to him as everyone else – and you’re adding fuel to the fire.

    -frank.i only just saw williams post.

    off to tofuland for me.

  9. bob,

    While you were feverishly pulsating about a movement within MOE, you’ve probably missed the tables on the CPRS.

    Looks like St Bob the boofhead is still on the wrong side of this argument.

  10. [feverishly pulsating about a movement within MOE]

    No, just letting a certain poster from earlier know that the Greens poll around/average 10% 🙂

    Greens for BOP in 2010!

  11. Wiiliam.

    Look at the Newspoll results on CPRS and tell me how the Greens can be excited?

    But tomorrow, so as to avoid any conflict with your proclamation.

    Cheers.

  12. CPRS – only 29% are strongly in favour (ie: stick to Labor’s plan without modification), and 64% believe the legislation should be modified to pass through parliament as opposed to only 19% who think a DD should be called.

    Taken at the same time the Greens go up 1 and Labor goes down 1.

    Fascinating poll indeed 🙂

  13. Just had a scan down the 73 comments following that article by Julia Gillard which the Oz quotes as; “one of a series of articles from leading political thinkers about what it means to be on the Left in Australia in 2009.”

    If their aims were pure the intention noble, then the results demonstrate that it has been provided to just allow another forum for the usual Coalition supporting hacks to vent their spleens and attack the opinions expressed by the Authors of these pieces!

    A shame, really. It could have been so much better and demonstrated that this organ of public information and news provision was actually trying to exhibit a concern that the public discourse needed direction towards a more tolerant and inclusive, acceptance of the diversity of opinion which makes this country so great.

  14. 46
    Generic Person
    Posted Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    No 45

    You cannot move forward….as long as you dwell in the past…..

  15. Gee I am glad that these two so-called Economists don’t have much of a role in the running of the country. I think their calculators need new batteries. I watched their evidence in Monday’s Senate Hearing and it was clear where the Libs are getting their economic advice and strategy to run against the Government.

    Thank goodness Richard Denniss appeared to demonstrate some balance and sensible appraisal of the Government’s actions to avert economic catastrophe during the GFC!

    [EVERY job created by the Federal Government’s $42 billion stimulus package has cost taxpayers $1.5 million, a Senate inquiry has been told.]
    [Yesterday, RMIT University economics professor Steven Kates argued the rescue plan should have focused more on lowering tax and interest rates and calculated every job created cost $1.5 million.

    “That will not create growth and, in fact, wastes resources so comprehensively,” he told the hearing in Canberra. “They are destroying our savings, they are going to push up interest rates, they are going to push taxation in the future, and may push up our inflation rate.”

    Prof Sinclair Davidson, also of RMIT, described the $14 billion school building portion of the stimulus package as the most significant “waste of money we’ve ever seen in our lifetime”.]
    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26106070-953,00.html

  16. Hmm, Nats may campaign separately from the Libs for the Senate.

    [Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce says his party may actually win more Senate places if it ran a separate campaign from the Liberal Party.

    Liberal MP Alby Schultz has stepped up his attack on the Nationals, saying they should be dropped from the joint Senate ballot paper.

    He says Nationals MPs are being elected because of the hard work and finances of the Liberal Party.

    But Senator Joyce says separating the parties may help the Nationals because of its strong stance against the emissions trading scheme (ETS).

    “If for instance there was a separate ticket, then quite obviously you would give a home not only for people in regional Australia to go and vote in, but you would be surprised – you would probably find a lot of places in the metropolitan areas also would like to go to that spot as well,” he said.]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/22/2692532.htm

  17. I would hypothesize that Hawke was a fairly middle of the road Prime Minister who was tolerated by a large number of Liberal and National voters. They ‘approved’ of him, but it didn’t mean they were going to vote Labor.

    What it really means is that approval ratings are no guide to how an election is going to turn out. If you want to know that, look at voting intentions.

  18. [look at voting intentions]

    We only tend to see approval ratings, i’m sure they had primary voting but no 2pp in 1984. Finding them is the issue.

    [I would hypothesize that Hawke was a fairly middle of the road Prime Minister who was tolerated by a large number of Liberal and National voters.]

    You just described Rudd.

    [it didn’t mean they were going to vote Labor]

    I’d like to see the primaries.

  19. The Liberal Party should call Barnaby Joyce on his false bravado.

    Does Fiona Nash want to run separately from the NSW Liberal Party?

    Do the Victorian Nationals want to relinquish third spot on the Coalition ticket?

    Of course not.

    The only state where the Nationals could win a seat on their own is Queensland. But even in Qld Joyce would be in great danger of becoming a one-term wonder. (Are two tickets even possible under the merger arrangement?)

  20. Bob, the preferred PM question is a beauty contest. If you want to know how how an elector is going to vote, ask them which party they are going to vote for, not what they think of the PM or Opposition Leader. Party identification is the glue of the Australian political system. A popular or unpopular leader might vary the support for a party a few percentage points, but election results never match the preferred PM result. Mr Rudd has a 65% approaval, which means that some electors who have said they will vote for the Coalition say that they support the job Rudd is doing.

    If you look at US opinion polls, rating of the President is the dominant question, but that has never been the case in Australia.

  21. 55-45 may look the same as before, but I like to imagine the slope from the current TPP to the value required to change the government.

    Each poll it gets a little steeper.

  22. [But for these five “very serious ladies”, the biggest issue was that earing in his left ear. “And the appointed spokesperson – they all sat on the opposite side of the table – leaned forward and said: ‘You have an earring’. “I said: ‘Yes’. “She said: ‘We believe you’re a homosexual’. “And I said: ‘I am not’ … at which point this woman leaned across the table, banged her fists down and said, ‘Yes, but can you prove it?'”]

    Well, at least with Simon Berger, the poor dears of Bradfield dont have to look for the earing and to prove anything. But i suspect many of them still be gasping for air at the sedate Killara Inns:

    [ONE of the favourites to win Liberal preselection for Brendan Nelson’s seat of Bradfield has candidly addressed the issue of his homosexuality and won plaudits for doing so from senior Liberals as well as his mother.

    Simon Berger, who has served on Dr Nelson’s staff since 2006, was frank about the issue as part of a glossy 21-page brochure he released yesterday to sell his credentials to the 120 party members who will choose a candidate on Saturday.

    ”While many would never suspect it and I certainly don’t parade it, the fact is that I am gay,” Mr Berger says.]

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/proud-to-be-gay-the-liberal-with-an-eye-on-the-safest-of-seats-20090921-fylp.html

  23. [Musrum
    Posted Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    55-45 may look the same as before, but I like to imagine the slope from the current TPP to the value required to change the government.

    Each poll it gets a little steeper.]

    The real question is: when they have that gray lead pencil in their hand will 4% of voters really change a habit of a lifetime. If the answer is yes ( which i don’t think it is) the Liberal Party is truly screwed.

  24. Party identification is the glue of the Australian political system. A popular or unpopular leader might vary the support for a party a few percentage points, but election results never match the preferred PM result.

    -hence the use of
    /a drovers dog could win the lection/

    Does your theory still apply to the minors or are they more akin to garnering votes based on the personality leading the party?

  25. Scorpio @ #69

    Have to agree with your opinion concerning the evidence of Professor Kates.

    It would be nice to know the process of a calculation that arrives at such a figure.

    If it is just a simple calculation of the cost divided by the jobs “saved” or “created” it means that the Australian Schools got some very cheap new buildings.

    But clearly the eminent Professor did not disclose the bases of his calculations.

  26. Kates who?? He is a hand-picked Liberal hack. You can always find an expert somewhere to support any position, climate change a good example. I’d go with the respected commentators and institutions

  27. [It would be nice to know the process of a calculation that arrives at such a figure.]

    Seems to me he’s just divided “$300 billion Labor debt” by 200,000 jobs to arrive at $1.5 million per job.

    Well, of course the “$300 billion” number is looking less and less likely as the recovery proceeds faster than expected.

    Also “$300 billion” was over several years. Nothing like that has been spent or borrowed so far, and is unlikely to be ever spent or borrowed.

    Thirdly, implicit in his statement is that 200,000 jobs were created, so I guess that puts the kybosh on unemployment under “The Rudd Recession” once and for all.

    Lastly, this formula applies all the expenditure to jobs. But the dividend has been much greater than just jobs: school infrastructure, major infrastructure (coming next year), confidence boost (a human emotion, yes, but all important to an economy), the retail sector still bouyant, down-the-track benefits from all of the above and so on. His argument is like saying that if you buy a Mercedes turbo for $300,000 and get a free Mercedes coffe mug (worth $10) as part of the deal then you have paid $300,000 for a coffee mug! Silly rubbish.

    I know he says that the schools program is a waste of money, but that’s his opinion. Apart from the jobs saved, tell that to the kids whose schools have received an asset that will continue to provide value for decades to come in the form of permanant buildings and facilities.

  28. Ratsars,

    I think he has taken the total of all the packages, Stimulus, Schools, Infrastructure etc which are over a period of 5 years and divided it by the estimated number of jobs saved in the first year. (His estimate, not Treasury’s which of course is lower)

    From memory the Libs were claiming each job had cost $150K, so his figure is ten times that. More easy for the Coalition to run on an economic scare campaign on wastage and debt for the grandkids and give it some real teeth.

    Swan and Rudd need to jump in on this and call it for the bull dust that it is and keep hammering it for all they are worth. Labor needs to destroy this Liberal myth of superior economic managers once and for all leaving them virtually nothing to hang their hat on whatsoever.

    Once that myth is called for what it it is and the electors realise that, then there is virtually “NO” reason to support the Libs because they offer nothing in regard to the other measures that voters consider at election time. They would just be left with the “rusted on” rump which would support them no matter what!

  29. And by the way… all this talk of an early DD election. Hasn’t Rudd said he wouldn’t do that? Isn’t it obvious that the “Labor backgrounders” are just putting pressure on the Libs to make a decision on the ETS.

    The gallery journalists are just stirring up muckment, setting up Rudd for a “backdown on early election” headline.

    Rubbish.

  30. BB

    [And by the way… all this talk of an early DD election. Hasn’t Rudd said he wouldn’t do that?]

    I don’t think he’s ever entirely ruled it out. It’s not his intention, he doesn’t want to, etc etc…

    If a DD happens, the Labor line will be that it wasn’t something we wanted, but something that was forced upon us by the recalcitrance of others.

    Everyone knows that early elections are unpopular; the game is to ensure that you’re not the one blamed for causing the early election.

  31. This website is becoming a farce. People attack the OO as a place for conservatives to vent. Apart from a bravee few who keep getting everything thown at them for daring to say that the ALP isn’t perfect, this has become a place for ALP voters/members to chat/vent.

    The only good part of Poll Bludger now is the summary William writes.

  32. zoomster

    I think there will be a big Lib push to vote down the ETS. There is very little voter support for a DD on the ETS and there seems to be a lot of people wondering why we can’t wait until after Copenhagen.

    And an outright CC is in charge of their ETS response with McFarlane taking over from Robb.

    It could be a belter of a vote.

    Pass the popcorn!

  33. If anyone had ever had any doubts as to the uphill battle Labor faces to get “fair” coverage through the MSM as well as critical analysis of the Coalition, this should dispell that notion for all time. These are just a small sample of media moguls and operatives who are uncritical soldiers on behalf of the Libs.

    [Foxtel boss Kim Williams hosted one for candidate Paul Fletcher, a communications consultant; Nine Network boss David Gyngell did likewise for David Coleman, a PBL executive; and former federal family services minister Warwick Smith feted journalist Maureen Shelley.

    Meanwhile, Kinkos and Australia Post have made a killing, courtesy of the glossy brochures candidates have been mailing out to preselectors.

    A feature of the brochures are the endorsements from conservative heavy-hitters. Tom Switzer, a former opinion page editor at The Australian, has former treasurer Peter Costello, columnists Janet Albrechtsen and Miranda Devine, federal MP Tony Abbott and broadcaster Alan Jones singing his praises. ]
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26107056-5013871,00.html

  34. Zoomster,
    [Everyone knows that early elections are unpopular; the game is to ensure that you’re not the one blamed for causing the early election.]

    That of course is the answer to Bob1234’s question in his post at 71. Hawke “was” popular but voters resented having to go back to the polling booths less than two years after having put Labor into government with a whopping majority.

    Many people cannot grasp just how hard it is for Labor to get Legislation passed through a hostile senate. They just see it getting passed through the Reps and cannot understand “why” it isn’t immediately put into operation.

    The Libs have “always” disputed Labor’s right to govern and there is “nothing” they will not do to sabotage that to enhance their opportunity to regain their “rightful” position in charge of the Treasury benches.

  35. From the previous thread:

    Psephos:
    [The era of conservative economic and social experimentation in the US since 1981 has proved conclusively that Thatcher-Reagan policies produce worse social outcomes for everyone except the very rich.]

    An interesting graph shows US national debt as a % of GDP. It shows that national debt rose in the Reagan/Bush years, dipped during the Clinton years, and rose again in the GWB years, very steeply in the last years of his term. The graph has mostly been used to reveal Irving Kristol’s slide into populism, but essentially highlights the failed economics policies of the neocons:

    [The presence of a major ideological movement in the United States of America dedicated to the dual propositions that taxes must never go up, and that government expenditures don’t need to relate to government revenue in any real way as long as the Republican Party is in charge simply makes it almost impossible for the country to be governed in a responsible manner.]

    I think the comment about the economic experimentation of the Republicans is salient indeed: it is fiscal irresponsibility. Am I correct in recalling Julie Bishop during her time as shadow treasurer talking up these same policies?

  36. Scorpio & BB & Andrew

    Perhaps I was being a little too cryptic in my earlier post (#80) but the point I was trying to make was that there are so may variables and assumptions to be made in such a calculation that without a detailed explanation of that calculation it is effectively meaningless.

    When claims like this are made without the presentation of a very detailed explanation than the figure should be suspect in everyone’s mind.

    Andrew you may be right in claiming that Professor Kates is “a hand-picked Liberal hack” (and I tend to concur) (and remember that there are hand picked Labor hacks as well) but to make such statement without the explanations is a sign that these figures are really not worth the paper they are written on (or should I say the breath to utter them). It smacks of political mischief making and I was surprised that the Senate Committee let him get away with it.

    It is also surprising that the Professor would lend his name to such shoddy work for in my opinion it reflects poorly on him.

    I suspect that the claim was made for the ear of the average man in the street who, uncritically accepts the figure, relying on the professionalism and expertise of a Professor to provide a fair and balanced analysis.

  37. Re Scorpio at 69 and Senate Estimates and Mr Kates, here are few quotes from a Quadrant essay which may reveal his political leanings

    [I keep coming back to the idiocies of Keynesian economics. It tells governments to spend money and that doing so will only do good. It encourages useless wasteful expenditures which create no value and which only cause the economy’s wheels to spin. It diminishes our ability to grow and prosper.]

    and

    [Why these questions are important was one of the major ideas developed by Friedrich Hayek, the arch “market fundamentalist” to whose good advice and sound counsel our Prime Minister has closed his mind. Why these questions are important was one of the major ideas developed by Friedrich Hayek, the arch “market fundamentalist” to whose good advice and sound counsel our Prime Minister has closed his mind.]

    Gee, I wonder why he is advocating cutting taxes – it would not be ideology over real data per chance?

  38. [This website is becoming a farce. People attack the OO as a place for conservatives to vent. Apart from a bravee few who keep getting everything thown at them for daring to say that the ALP isn’t perfect, this has become a place for ALP voters/members to chat/vent.]

    Sorry, Dave but “no one” is forced to read or post on “any” political based blog site. If you cared to follow “all” the commentary on particular blogs, you would see that your statement is wRONg!

    It certainly gave you the opportunity to have your “own” rant and there is “no one” who regularly posts here who I know that would deny you that opportunity or right which is kindly offered to you by William, the host of this site!

  39. Stephen Kates is a senior lecturer at RMIT but I don’t know him or his work. Sinclair Davidson is at the same faculty so I infer it leans pretty hard right in economics terms.

    Googling a bit Kates has published a long list of articles like “The tragic failure of Keynesian economics” going back to the 1990s. So he is genuinely hostile to the coneept of stimulus packages and has been for a long time. He is probably as ideologically opposed to a stimulus as the opposition are wedded to Workchoices (Kates teaches on IR too!). So his views may be genuine, not just partisan.

    Of course, his views may still be wrong. A lot of economists are moving in the opposite direction to him now. As BB at 83 shows, his claim about the $1.5 million per job seems to be cooked up on very questionable assumptions. It also assumes that we are left with nothing from the investment at the end. So all that infrastructure and building has zero value? Rubbish.

    His reasearch interests are listed as: history of economics, Say’s Law, macroeconomic theory, monetary policy, labour relations and science and innovation.

    It would be interesting to question him more closely on how he arrived at the $1.5 million/job figure. I found no evidence he does any economic modelling.

  40. William,

    I love the headline, “Newspoll: 55-45”, instead of “Newspoll: 55-45 to Labor”. No need for the last two words now, eh?

    Scorpio (at 12.30am),

    I have made eight attempts to post on the Julia Gillard thread at The Australian. Every attempt is met with an error message, which I put down to technical incompetence, not bias. My post is a little tangential to the main point, but here it is:

    ‘Outcomes based education was not brought in by Labor. The Court Liberal Government introduced it in Western Australia. The 1992-999 Liberal Government introduced it in Victoria, and it has nothing to do with not teaching grammar, spelling and the like. It was introduced to provide cover for the cuts to resources (almost 9,000 teachers dumped, close to 400 schools closed) as the poor people of Victoria were told by the IPA and the like that “inputs” did not matter – only “outcomes” mattered. Hypocritically, those who claim that “inputs” do not matter whenever someone suggests adding a few hundred dollars to the $11,000 per student spent in government schools never open their mouths when private schools charge $20,000 per student in annual fees. Suddenly, “inputs” matter a great deal.’

    Here is what I was responding to:

    ‘Ah yes. If memory serves me right the “left’ and in particular Labor were active proponents and voluble supporters of that abomination known as Outcomes based education. This disastrous experiment of socialism had the effect of leaving less talented or motivated students to sink. I know it happened to my daughter. Though not a dunce she was left to achieve to her “own standard” while teachers fawned on the high achievers. So much for the left’s concern for a fair go for all, so much for motivating all children to achieve. What’s more a major principle of this education system was to throw grammar, spelling ets, mental arithmetic out of the window, with disastrous effects for my daughter. By the way wasn’t it Federal Labor, including Gillard, who attacked the Howard Government for wanting to reintroduce school testing and other measures to take the education system back to the three Rs. Nowadays of course she has changed her tune, or sort of. What a hypocrite. I would have thought that in the light of socialism’s failure with Outcomes education and how it has ruined many lives she would have been reluctant to so proudly proclaim membership of the left. Oh and sticking up Julia Gillard Memorial boards at schools won’t help those people disadvantaged by being forced to undergo lunatic socialist experiments in education.’

    Today there is another article on the ‘why I’m left theme’, this time from Dennis Glover. I have not read it yet.

    The fascination with left-right is fascinating. After all, the right-wing Howard Government did not bring us national tests, league tables, performance pay and unqualified teachers in schools after a six-week summer school (something that the unions would have walked out on 40 years ago), but the left-wing Rudd Government is bringing all the above.

  41. Lovely to watch my town feature as the Satan’s armpit of 7-day cyclical homelessness on 4 Corners last night . . . that motel nestled beside the Great Western Highway is pure evil.
    But anyway:
    I’m just wondering about how much weight the Newspoll “What should the government do?” question re the ETS should be given.
    The popular “Modify the legislation so it passes through parliament” response at 64% feels to me like it’s the standard wish of the populace for compromise, and for the idea that the bloody pollies should just work together because we’re paying the flabby bastards etc etc
    I’d guess it’s soft, and a DD on ETS is certainly sellable to the electorate if, as seems true, there is still majority support to “do something!” (“Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we will do this . . .”)
    I don’t however think the ALP should go to a DD on the ETsw or anything else – firstly because of the retribution effectfor going early (Oh WA, how we loved you), and secondly because the halved quota makes the Senate easier for the usual nutters.
    But it seems the DD odds are shortening slightly . . .

  42. Confessions – 91

    The whole point of the increasing debt during those years was to remove any chance of social spending.

    It wasn’t irresponsibility, it was a cold, hard plan to deprive those who would govern differently the resources needed to carry out change.

    Obama faces the same mess – he will be held accountable for the Bush debt and will have to pay it down. By doing this, he will be left with little left to push any progressive agenda.

    By the time capital is available, the political pendulum will swing again, and the Republicans will carry out the same shell game again.

  43. Chris Curtis,

    [I have made eight attempts to post on the Julia Gillard thread at The Australian. Every attempt is met with an error message, which I put down to technical incompetence, not bias.]

    I think you are being too kind, Chris. Reading through the comments published on that thread, it seems quite clear that the Oz wanted to provide a golden opportunity for their regular right wing commenters to “directly” attack Labor and the left.

    By allowing balance and left leaning posters to comment there would defeat the “real” intent of News Ltd which is to promote the Liberal position at the expense of Labor at every opportunity!

    None of my comments are published on News Ltd sites and this I believe is because I have provided critical analysis of both Coalition policies as well as the Editorial Policy of News Ltd which is latently partisan towards the Libs and against Labor!

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 2 of 31
1 2 3 31