Newspoll: 52-48 to Labor

Full results available from Peter Brent at Mumble. Labor’s 52-48 lead is a slight improvement on 51-49 from three weeks ago, and under the circumstances will come as an enormous relief for the Prime Minister. One sting in the tail is that Labor’s primary vote remains steady on a parlous 35 per cent. The Coalition is down one point to 40 per cent and the Greens are on 15 per cent, one point off their record-breaking effort from three weeks ago. The two-point slack has been taken up by “others” on 10 per cent.

Another sting in the tail is that the preferred prime minister rating has swung to Abbott: Rudd is down three points to 46 per cent and Abbott is up four to 37 per cent, which is respectively a personal worst and the best result achieved by a Liberal leader on Rudd’s watch. This is despite the fact that the leaders’ approval ratings are basically unchanged. Kevin Rudd’s approval is steady on 36 per cent and his disapproval is up a point to 55 per cent, while Tony Abbott is respectively up a point to 38 per cent and steady on 49 per cent.

A further question on prospective standard of living produces a neutral result: “improve” and “get worse” are both on 17 per cent, with 65 per cent nominating “stay the same”.

Next cab off the rank: Essential Research, which should be through at about 1pm EST.

UPDATE: Hats off to Dennis Shanahan, who shows he’s not scared of a renewed round of opprobrium from the Laborsphere.

UPDATE 2: Essential Research joins the party by also showing Labor’s lead up from 51-49 to 52-48, although it gets there by showing a primary vote recovery for Labor (up three to 38 per cent) at the expense of the Greens (down three to 11 per cent), with the Coalition down one to 40 per cent. Again, there’s a sting in the tail for Kevin Rudd – 40 per cent say Labor would have a better chance of winning if they changed leaders, against only 37 per cent who say he is the best person to lead the party to the election. However, the results on this measure are substantially worse for Tony Abbott – 29 per cent and 47 per cent. Kevin Rudd remains preferred prime minister over Abbott by 47 per cent to 30 per cent, and also over Julia Gillard by 36 per cent to 33 per cent. There’s also a very interesting finding on troops in Afghanistan, with 61 per cent saying out troops should withdraw.

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.

1,109 comments on “Newspoll: 52-48 to Labor”

Comments Page 20 of 23
1 19 20 21 23
  1. [First AG, now Mega. Boy is our mud starting to stick. Flash the light on the media and they don’t like it (well at least the better ones don’t like to be connected with the bad ones).]

    Well if they are so worried about being sullied with the rest of the pack why don’t they do something about their professional buddies’ integrity.

    If Mega thinks that NewsLimited is being fair then he loses a lot of respect himself.

    BTW- OH yelled out awhile ago to say he was switching off Australia Story because was part of the media beat up. Did anyone else watch and, if so, what was the verdict.

  2. Scorp I have just said that Labor will campaign as negative if not worse than Abbott and you are preaching to me about trying to win by playing dirty!!

    Read my posts more closely please.

  3. Glen

    Strange logic.

    The Libs have launched a pre emptive smear attack to counter the smear attack that does not exist.

  4. Truthy

    Your fine burghers are on to you

    I understand the raw prawns out the back of your ute have lost their flavour

    back to earning an honest crust for you sunshine

    🙂

  5. BB
    It struck me today that the media pack is behaving just the same as wholesale funds managers who are “index huggers” who are paranoid about being different to the rest with respect to portfolio performance. They are concerned less with substance and company sustainability than not being seen to deviate from the immediate norm of their competitors.

    Nice point, BK.

    Even if they are wrong, they are wrong as a pack. No-one can blame them for following “industry wisdom”.

    I once had this explained to me by a financial advisor, when mine and my wife’s superannuation tanked about 7 years ago. I listened politely and asked him why he bothered styling himself as an expert, when all he did was follow the ASX, up or down?

    That was before I sacked him.

  6. @MWH,

    A carbon tax is better than nothing, but an ETS in a few years is even better.

    And attacking me doesn’t make your basket case of an idea better policy.

  7. [The Libs have launched a pre emptive smear attack to counter the smear attack that does not exist.]
    Would a group photo of the Opposition front bench constitute a smear campaign?

  8. @Glen,

    I’ve known Kevin Rudd for as long as he’s been in parliament. He will campaign positively for as long as possible, and if he does campaign negatively, it will only be by telling the truth, like saying the Liberals will bring back WorkChoices, and will axe the NBN etc.

  9. The Libs have launched a pre emptive smear attack to counter the smear attack that does not exist.

    Yes, on that point there is this quote from the front page of the OO:

    “It is distressing to see the level to which debate has sunk,” (Rio CEO, Leo) Davis writes today in The Weekend Australian.

    “The characterisation of the industry as dominated by vested interest and incapable of contributing to great national debates is one I find deeply and personally offensive.

    “What is at stake here is the future prosperity of Australia.Surely it deserves better than the name calling, misinformation, personal attacks and time wasting we have seen in recent weeks.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/davis-takes-offence-as-debate-sinks-low/story-e6frg9if-1225881547998

    “Kevin OLemon”, anyone?

  10. GG explain what kinds of ads you called the ones brought out the day Abbott became leader by the ALP??

    Wake up will you!

    Both sides will resort to rubbish smear campaigns that lack substance or focus on policy why because they’re effective and it is very sad!

  11. [One of the reasons I’m in favor of a carbon tax is that enables our imports to be taxed and our exports to be tax free]

    Tariffs, well there’s a progressive idea.

  12. john,

    If you’re in Hinkler and going by a couple of other things you have said, I think I might know you.

    If that’s the case, how about giving Neville a nice little shunt into retirement, this time.

    There have been a couple of pretty good chances squandered already and this time he seems ripe for the picking! 😉

  13. BK

    “Would a group photo of the Opposition front bench constitute a smear campaign?”

    Love it!

    Notice they are all in hiding. Apparently, Abbott’s vote went up whilst he was out of the media spotlight.

  14. Jon,

    Not a tariff. A tax on the carbon used to produce any product sold in Australia.

    An export is not sold in Australia – hence no tax.

    An import is sold in Australia – hence a tax.

  15. [You started this shite fight.]

    GG you sound like a 4th grader coming to see Teacher about who hit who first.

    For goodness sake GG with all due respect if you cannot acknowledge that the day Abbott became leader was the day ALP ads went negative especially towards him personally then you’ve seriously got to do some hard thinking!

  16. [Apparently, Abbott’s vote went up whilst he was out of the media spotlight.]

    The government should be using their present uncontested media exposure to really criticise the Liberals.

  17. [Under Rudd’s ETS, any individual, business, council, state government, or federal scheme to reduce emissions (apart from changing the number of permits) thus makes ZERO difference.]
    But the same total quantum of CO2 production is able to power a larger total of economic activity. Later, when the increase in renewable energy contribution to total energy production results in higher energy supply costs, the residents who have had insulation installed will suffer a lesser impact.
    And this ignores the economic stimulus impact which was also a justified major factor in the insulation scheme. As a Green you would appreciate the social equity issues associated with ameliorating unemployment.

    BTW, didn’t the Greens vote for the insulation program as part of the stimulus package?

  18. Glen,

    Oh dear,

    And you who rejoice in all kinds of name calling towards Rudd are now lecturing me on political etiquette.

    You’re a flatulent fraud.

  19. @scorpio,

    I’m in Ryan, actually, but I helped campaigning out in Hinkler last election. Belinda McNeven is a stronger candidate than Gary Parr was, and she should give him a hard time. I think the NBN should be a good plus for Labor, and there’s always the uncertainty with the amalgamation to deal with.

  20. Glen,

    Did you read my post to you @ 923 ?

    I wish you would and give me your thoughts on it in light of a number of your recent contributions towards “dirty” campaigning!

  21. Glen,

    I love the way you think Abbott is an awful so-and-so, but at the same time you’re very pleased with what he has done for your party: which he has done by being an awful so-and-so of truly awesome negativity!

    And then you castigate ALPers for their party’s negativity. Against my will, I’m impressed with your capacity to multitask!

  22. Laocoon @ 336 (I’m just catching up!)

    [Will any journalists ask Abbott whether he agrees with Tuckey??]

    Well I’m not a journalist but I did just that. Also wrote to Tuckey expressing my disgust. I doubt if I will get a reply though, or if I do it’ll be the usual “standard” response saying and meaning nothing.

    Also I know it’s now really a basically meaningless honorific but the quicker they get rid of the title “Honourable” for certain members of parliament, the better. I (and I would guess a large proportion of posters here) have more honour in our toenails. Perhaps they can replace it with the Useless Member for “x” or the Disreputable Member for “y”. It would be nearer the truth in a lot of cases. Add a bit more fun to QT too! LOL!

  23. It’s Time (970),

    I’m not a Greens spokesperson, so I don’t know which part of the stimulus package the Greens were involved with.

    And I can’t quiet see an individual, business, council, or state government saying “let’s spend lots of money so that someone else can emit what we would have”. Given that what these groups do is often not the most efficient way of reducing emissions, I also doubt that overall economic effectiveness would be achieved.

  24. MWH@919
    1. Ken Henry (and other experts) said the mining tax was great too, did not do lots of good. It is not what the experts believe, it is what the people believe.

    2. Middle of the road…of Australians. There are many excellent policies implemented in other OECD countries, but they have a snowball in Sahara’s chance of getting implemented here in the short-term. Like it or not, about 30-40% of the population does not like a climate change policy. I agree, however, that more needs to be done in raising awareness on this issue. However, it takes time, and the election cycle is short. I am sure the Health Department would love to halve the number of people in Australia who are overweight/obese, but it is going to take decades, if not longer, before any significan change can be seen. And yes, the evidence of the detrimental effects of overweightness/obesity is also overwheming, perhaps even more clearcut than that of climate change since it does not involve any predictions. Well, two thirds of all Australians aren’t listening…
    3. A negotiation can only succeed if both party set mobile targets. Not sure if either party was prepared to move. I do not believe the failure to reach an agreement rests solely with Labor, nor do I believe Labor made no effort to negotiate. Kevin Rudd talking to Bob Brown is largely symbolic, I suggest neither you nor me know how much effort Wong put in to negotiate, but it is highly unlikely to be zero.

    If the Coalition wins government, no matter how much the Green manages to poll it has zero chance of forming any sort of agreement. Why? Because the Coalition will see that it manages to attract enough votes without any climate change policy (or even, publically trashing the need to act). Why risk estranging its voter base by doing a deal that they don’t think is required (or don’t want?)? Yes, they might need some support in the senate. The problem is however, that on this issue the coalition’s position is closer to that of Labor than to the Greens.

  25. Thanks, John. I had quite a bit of contact with a certain John in Hinkler who you would probably have come in contact with, especially if you work in the Law field and are similarly a long time staunch Labor supporter.

  26. [You started this shite fight.]
    No, Labor starting throwing mud by reminding the electorate that, if the coalition won the upcoming election then Phoney Tony would be Prime Minister. How dirty can you get? 😉

  27. [Notice they are all in hiding. Apparently, Abbott’s vote went up whilst he was out of the media spotlight.]

    They’re only hiding from the media but they’re all busy sending out hundreds of nasty emails and flyers full of misrepresentations and outright fibs.

  28. MWH – as I’ve outlined on the Rooted blog, the notion that a carbon tax allows for individual action beyond the target is false; a carbon tax will be much the same as an ETS or any other mechanism with closed-loop feedback control – if the mechanism is working, then you end up at the target, what individuals do only changes the internal balance, and this is true of a tax as it is for the ETS. You continue to state the ‘individual action makes no difference’ as if it is such a major weakness, but you are wrong.

    The point about a target is that it is the goal for policy. You have a problem with the target being too weak, and I understand that, but a carbon tax makes no difference if your target is a weak one, so please stop putting up this silly argument.

  29. [ Not a tariff. A tax on the carbon used to produce any product sold in Australia.]

    Tariff – A tax imposed on a product when it is imported into a country.

    Just passing on the the accepted definition MWH. This would amount to industry protectionism, we tax what we import as a punitive disincentive, presumably to protect domestic industries that produce lower carbon goods at a higher price? Do you not think this would likely to trigger tariffs in return from other countries and reduce our international competitiveness?

  30. MWH 967

    Huh? If we are exporting coal and other minerals which contribute to pollution and greenhouse gases why should they be exempt from the carbon tax? Am I not following your argument?

  31. [I’ve admitted my principle didn’t apply in this particular case. It doesn’t disprove the principle that a malignant organization in charge of an Oracular poll (in their own and many others’ estimation at least) can do a great deal of damage if they choose to walk down the dark side with it. ]

    Yes it does. Your “thesis” was that News Ltd rig their polls. You produced no evidence to support this thesis, except that Labor has had a run of bad polls. All you gave us was reams of conspiracy theory rant and abuse of anyone who said your thesis was bunkum. Yesterday’s Newspoll was the big empirical test of your thesis, and it crashed and burned. End of thesis, end of your credibility, end of post.

  32. Jackol,

    As you say, we have debated this before.

    So if anyone is curious see Rooted, and to save PB’ers a repeat I’ll just say that I still disagree with you and think a tax is better than an ETS.

  33. [They’re only hiding from the media but they’re all busy sending out hundreds of nasty emails and flyers full of misrepresentations and outright fibs.]
    BH
    Straight out of the US Republicans’ playbook – and they get an enormous boost from Murdoch’s disgraceful FoxNews Network.

  34. [If the Coalition wins government, no matter how much the Green manages to poll it has zero chance of forming any sort of agreement. Why? Because the Coalition will see that it manages to attract enough votes without any climate change policy (or even, publically trashing the need to act).]

    Just look at how the so-called coalition partners treat each other. And the Greens think they’ll have any kind of leverage.

    If they vote for the coalition to win govt then they are stupider than …. well … anything!

  35. Carbon tax. What rate do you set it at as everyone pollutes at different rates. If it is one set rate you will penalise the relatively ‘clean producers’ and reward the ‘dirty producers’ with no incentives for innovation. Imperfect policy.

  36. [And I can’t quiet see an individual, business, council, or state government saying “let’s spend lots of money so that someone else can emit what we would have”. Given that what these groups do is often not the most efficient way of reducing emissions, I also doubt that overall economic effectiveness would be achieved.]
    Michael, I was discussing the home insulation component of the stimulus package.

    Nevertheless, if people or organisations spend money and decrease their energy consumption and consequentially their energy costs, then provides an incentive whether there is a CPRS or not.

  37. Johnny Button,

    My view of a tax is that each country is responsible for the products and services it uses.

    For example, if another country burns oil to produce hydrogen, and this hydrogen is exported to Australia, which country should be responsible for the carbon emissions.

    Can Australia say that it is green because it is burning zero emissions hydrogen?

    Under a carbon tax the carbon used to produce the hydrogen would be taxed, and so we would be responsible.

    So under my scheme coal which is exported is the responsibility of the importing country, including the emissions made in Australia for mining and shipping.

  38. MWH – again on the tax, how much do you assess small plastic elephants manufactured in Guangzhou province when they are imported into Australia for GHG impact? I’d love to know.

  39. @MWH

    Your scheme is irrelevant.

    Other countries are instituting ETS’s.

    Sorry they didn’t consult you before formulating important long term policy.

  40. Jenauthor. You say “If they (the Greens) vote for the coalition to win …”

    As far as I know there is no proposal for The Greens to preference the coalition. Have you heard differently?

    I expect Labor Greens voters to preference Labor, and Liberal Greens voters to preference the Liberals.

    Don’t blame the Greens because our Liberal voters decide to preference Liberal.

  41. [Under a carbon tax the carbon used to produce the hydrogen would be taxed, and so we would be responsible.]
    So how would you distinguish between hydrogen from carbon emitting process and hydrogen produced by electrolysis from solar power when setting an import tarriff?

  42. The idea of the group photo of the current Opposition front bench is more like a horror story than a smear campaign.

    “The Night of the Living Dead” in the hideous form of Phillip Ruddock, Bronwyn Bishop and Kevin Andrews is enough to send a lugubrious chill down the spine of all voting age citizens, not to mention the sight and sound of the effete Christopher Pyne and the anodyne Peter Dutton.

    With these superannuated ministerial failures and recycled drones from the discredited Howard regime as the alternative Federal Ministry, perhaps it’s as much a comedy as a horror show?

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 20 of 23
1 19 20 21 23