Newspoll: 51-49 to Labor

The Australian has managed to keep its Newspoll result under wraps until publication, possibly because the highly unexpected result was being quintuple-checked to ensure nothing had gone amiss. The surprise is a big rebound for Labor after a string of poor shows, their primary vote up from an all-time low of 30 per cent to an almost respectable 36 per cent, and the 54-46 deficit recorded in the wake of the carbon tax announcement reversed to a 51-49 surplus (one wonders what metaphor Laurie Oakes might be able to employ this week). Labor has taken a chunk out of both the Coalition, down five points to 40 per cent, and the Greens, down three to 12 per cent (it seems the two-point post-carbon tax rise they recorded a fortnight ago was peculiar to that poll).

Newspoll seems to have hit upon a particularly bad sample for Tony Abbott, whose approval is down six to 33 per cent and disapproval up three to 54 per cent. However, this has not transferred into a huge improvement for Julia Gillard, who after a shocking result last week is up a point on approval to 40 per cent and down four on disapproval to 47 per cent. On preferred prime minister however she is almost back to where she was a month ago: over the past three polls it has progressed from 53-31 to 45-36 to 50-31.

While the figures are hard to believe at face value, this isn’t the first evidence to suggest that Labor has actually recovered slightly since the polls fell in behind 54-46 after the carbon tax announcement. The Morgan phone poll published on Friday, albeit that it came from a small sample, had the Coalition lead at just 51-49, and we have since seen the rolling fortnightly Essential Research track a point in Labor’s direction.

This post began life with a headline announcing the 53-47 to Coalition result in Essential Research, which I ran with as it appeared we wouldn’t be getting a Newspoll. It read thus:

Essential has the Coalition lead down from 54-46 to 53-47, with Labor’s primary vote up a point to 36 per cent and the Coalition down one to 46 per cent. Tony Abbott has been thrown a curve ball with a question on where the Coalition stood on climate change: 33 per cent believed it opposed any action, 36 per cent believed it supported action and 29 per cent didn’t know. Opinion on the effectiveness of the carbon tax is evenly divided: 43 per cent believe it will make big polluters reduce emissions, 42 per cent believe it will not; 41 per cent believe it will increase investment in renewable energy, 38 per cent believe it will not. While 79 per cent believe a carbon tax will increase the price of electricity, 78 per cent expect it will increase anyway (though presumably not by as much).

The poll also records a slump in support for nuclear power, to 35 per cent from 43 per cent late last year, with opposition up from 37 per cent to 53 per cent – and strong opposition up from 16 per cent to 32 per cent. The level of support for a full withdrawal from Afghanistan is now up to 56 per cent from 47 per cent in October, a steady 30 per cent support the commitment at the current level, and only 5 per cent (down from 10 per cent) believe it should be increased.

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.

4,659 comments on “Newspoll: 51-49 to Labor”

Comments Page 91 of 94
1 90 91 92 94
  1. The editor of The Drum publicly sought out a pro-rally article via Twitter. Why do people expect any different?

    Martin Ferguson demolished an unsurprisingly hostile Fran Kelly this morning.

    On a couple of pasts last night about people on this site always predicting Abbot’s demise, I find that interpretation interesting.

    My impression has been several posters believe that Abbott will not lead the Liberals to the next election unless Labor implode or take The OO staff on as political advisors. That’s very different from not seeing him as dangerous or that he will be rolled tomorrow.

    He has this week made yet another massive error of judgment to add to the complete alienation of the independents, shit happens, race-baiting and the flood levy.

    The media constantly letting him off the hook for their own commercial or political reasons – most particularly the OO and the ABC – is not the important factor here. The independents will never, ever, give power over to Abbott. Only Labor can do that by some bizarre act of self-immolation that causes a new poll, which they would lose.

    Within his own party the absence of Joe Hockey, Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull from Wednesday’s hatefest spoke volumes. Abbott instead had the right wing acolytes as his attendants (what on earth someone like Ken Wyatt thought he was doing attending a rally of people who wouldn’t vote for an indigenous candidate in a blue fit, heaven only knows).

    The leaks have started again despite the immense efforts that were made a few weeks ago to cover it all up when Bishop, Hockey and of course Andrew Robb were ringing everyone who could spell to drop their cabinet mates in the mire.

    Abbott will survive for a good while longer. There are a dozen or so new MPs who owe him their seats. They will only turn on him when it becomes obvious they are screwed with him in the job. There is also no obvious successor.

    Turnbull’s best hope is to see the government’s carbon tax get passed. For all Abbott’s bluster the Libs can’t go an election promising to reverse tax cuts so it takes the issue that cost Turnbull the job off the table. Hockey has probably gone backwards since the last spill and Bishop is a woman and we know what the Libs and their supporters think of women.

    Maybe Labor will not win an election even if they go full term. However, they can out in place some irreversible improvements for this country.

    The alternative, as shown by the attendance on Wednesday is an Australia that represents only old, white, bitter people. Labor, for all its faults, is a much, much better prospect than that.

  2. desertfox1939: the guy was on radio that afternoon bragging about how his 11 year-old daughter had painted the sign for him and he has also been interviewed by other news organisations since then.

    Also, I’m pretty sure one story actually used his name.

    Google is your friend.

  3. Hang on Bushfire Bill, the person concerned still has to take responsibility for it and the organization he represents. You are effectively agreeing that Abbott shouldn’t be blamed for the sign. Do you think Bill that the person who made that sign should be exposed as a sexist and offensive pig??? Cat got your tongue?

  4. BB
    The signs we were discussing were satirical ones like, “I like my coral white”, nothing I can recall even close to the ones personally denegrating the PM on sexist lines.

    I have said I do not object to the signs being there, as Howard got just as bad and Abbott probably will too in the future, it is that Abbott should not have been there, or at least should have said something to disassociate himself from them.

  5. Danny,

    Google doesn’t reveal his name at all. Even if he gave a name it would undoubtedly be fictitious. His real name is what is required. So you disagree with Bill, that he was a plant???

  6. [it is that Abbott should not have been there, or at least should have said something to disassociate himself from them.]

    Puff

    Absolutely agree.

    I just saw a snippet of Abbott on Channel 9 from this morning saying “Why should I apologise for something I didn’t do.”

    Truly sickening and pathetic bully and sexist.

  7. On the rally numbers. I just checked google earth- the size of the rally can pretty much be determined by the photo I reckon it covers an area of about 50m wide by 40m deep. A total of 2000sq metres. The folk are not that packed in. I reckon an average of less than one person per sq metre is reasonable- we like our personal space. Again that leaves an estimate at under 2000 people.

  8. [are we going the way of the US in the way we do politics?

    Advertisement: Story continues below Wednesday’s events in Canberra suggest so: a street protest over an issue that’s more about adverse effect on big business than little people. It was organised by an outfit with opaque links to conservative political interests. It was spruiked by a radio network that’s long been the local answer to the Fox News Channel in the US. On the day, it saw many of the nation’s highest-standing political hawks firing up the masses from the rostrum. And there in support were reps from even the most esoteric elements of the right.]

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/rally-movers-and-shakers-surf-the-astroturf-of-usstyle-politics-20110324-1c8de.html

    The comments below are worth reading, too.

  9. desertfox1939 said

    [The problem blue is that the truth hurts……………… LOL]

    Truthy… is that you?

    Truthy… how’s Anna going in Queensland? Extremely well I believe.

  10. Coincidence? Googled desertfox1939.
    [desertfox1939. from Phoenix, AZ, Oct 24, 2010. In our Culinary Class it did a great job on knives that would not cut butter. I also sharpened all the knives …]

  11. [Hang on Bushfire Bill, the person concerned still has to take responsibility for it and the organization he represents. You are effectively agreeing that Abbott shouldn’t be blamed for the sign. Do you think Bill that the person who made that sign should be exposed as a sexist and offensive pig??? Cat got your tongue?]

    Whoa there, Desertfox!

    What I was referring to was an on-again, off-again series of several dozen posts by PBers (me being one of them) thinking up “humourous” placards to take to the rally to embarrass Abbott and the protestors. I never intended to do so. For me at least it was just a bit of fun, as I think it was for most, if not all.

    I don’t think anyone from here (except 1 person, who didn’t mention having a sign) actually did attend. I could be wrong.

    What I was saying was that IF the sign was a plant, it sure had the desired effect.

    Furthermore, Abbott (I’m assuming) didn’t either construct or authorize the sign, so he is personally – at least in a direct sense – blameless for it.

    What was wrong was his or the organizers not asking for it to be taken down. In his own defence, he says he didn’t realise it was there. But anecdotal evidence says the guy who made the sign was never asked to take it away. So there’s that little bit of confusion to ponder.

    But Abbott should have checked what was behind him, or had someone do it for him. Not doing so showed very poor judgement (at best) or a tacit agreement with the sign’s sentiment, or with its tone.

    Lastly, if it WAS a genuine sign, then all the criticisms of Abbott still apply, and also the sign maker stands condemned.

  12. Abbott could have started out by saying something like, “I know you all are passionate about XYZ, that is why we are all here and I want to thank you for coming all this way today. I just want to say, however, it is important we focus on the issues. I know some of you are very angry about XXXX, but I think some of the signs here are focussing personally on the PM in ways I can’t agree with, and that these may take away from our argument. It would be helpful if people took down those signs while we discuss these important issues. After all, we do not want a bunch of signs to be the focus of this rally here today, do we?”

    How bleeding hard is it, Tony?

  13. [desertfox1939]
    A curious title. Wasn’t Rommel somewhere in Poland in 1939? He didn’t become the desert fox till 1941.

  14. Commander of the Führerbegleithauptquartier in Poland in 1939. Courtesy Wikipedia. (I just had to post that long word.)

  15. Chris Ulhman has owned up to his own climate scepticism and sympathy for the protesters on the drum if you want to read about it.

    Appaerently there is some disagreement in climate science because, get this, scientists can’t agree over whether Yasi was related to climate change or not. What a total dill. The lack of understanding of science within the journo community is dismal

  16. If he was a plant he would have been rumbled by now.

    The sad truth is he is a genuine Coalition supporter. Just an ordinary bloke who wanted to send a message to the PM and to the Greens.

    Oh, and apparently, also his 11 year-old daughter.

    The Coalition can try to deflect the blame onto JG, onto Labor or onto the Greens. The reality is that this is the end result when you run high on hysteria and hyperbole and low on rationality. The kooks come out.

    The moral here for politicians is: DON’T STAND IN FRONT OF THEM!

  17. And the Drum also published an article from the head of Menzies House and the stop-the-carbon-tax website about — you wont believe this — how the carbon tax can be IMPROVED!

  18. What am amazing coincidence that Chris Uhlmann feels some people are being “precious” about the banners they day after Tony Abbott uses that very same term against a female Prime Minister who has been labelled a bitch and a witch.

    Can someone advise what would happen to an ABC employee who used those terms against a female colleague? Would the female be told to calm down and stop being precious?

  19. Gos,

    I think Ulhmann is obviously put out by the whole thing. You dont write those pieces unless you feel the need to push back against something you dont agree with.

  20. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173608.htm
    Uhlmann’s piece.
    This should be folk lore, not law
    [Of course, in the folk law of the protest groups]
    [According to them I, and the rest of my colleagues, are captured by the Left and don’t even attempt to understand the grievances of that kind of crowd.]
    Ha! ha!
    Rather a muddled piece, Chris. Trying to do a Tone and come down on both sides of the fence at once.

  21. blue-green:

    The Menzies House article doesn’t surprise me: the Liberals at one point were calling for a carbon tax.

    Uhlmann OTOH has a shocker. This for instance:

    [They believe that we dismiss them as aging nutters, unworthy of our attention, except when we want to sketch a caricature. They believed that we would not report the event, or that we would ridicule it.

    Those kinds of sentiments are almost impossible to turn. To my eyes and ears the reports we filed were fair and I have always believed that I work with some of the finest journalists in Australia. But it would not surprise me if attendees watched our work that night and had all their fears confirmed. ]

    What? The ABC’s coverage was pretty much straight down the line. There was no ridiculing, no caricaturing, and certainly no dismissing the revolting people as ageing nutters. Not on the ABC news that I saw, in any case.

    And then this is outright denial:

    [The better arguments in the crowd were made by those who said that climate science is chock full of uncertainties and asked whether a carbon tax would have any effect.]

    Oh my god! Uhlmann sees that as a “better argument”? How has it come to be that this man is 730Report’s political editor for heavens sake!

  22. I wonder if Uhlmann showed this piece to Tone before inviting him for the interview. Tone on reading it would have known he would be “sitting comfortably”.

  23. 4531 Gos

    Your point is well made

    [What am amazing coincidence that Chris Uhlmann feels some people are being “precious” about the banners they day after Tony Abbott uses that very same term against a female Prime Minister who has been labelled a bitch and a witch.

    Can someone advise what would happen to an ABC employee who used those terms against a female colleague? Would the female be told to calm down and stop being precious?]

    You should email your question to the Letters To The Editor page or, in the case of The Age, the section called ‘… And Another Thing.’ Make sure that Ulhmann’s name is included as the ABC journalist involved and keep it to 30 words or less.

    Posting here helps us all let off a little steam occasionally but rarely does it go any further than other PB’ers.

    You never know – you might get published which if nothing else would embarrass the ABC.

  24. [I doubt a regional processing centre will get up in ET. ]

    What do you supposedly KNOW about this that makes you say that? Are you an insider?

    Sorry — but I always wonder when people make such statements, without any context or evidence, just apparent opinion. I could say, I don’t think the sun will rise tomorrow. My thinking it won’t make it true — unless I have evidence for it.

  25. Confessions,

    Ulhman is obviously fighting an internal battle. I imagine all the ABC staff were making jokes about the rally and this is his response.

    [Chock full of uncertainties..]

    Yep, uncertainties about whether were a stuffed or totally screwed.

    [A carbon tax would have any effect…]

    Yep, make the same argument about any international response – war, aid, sanctions. the whole lot.

  26. I’m shocked to find myself agreeing with Barnaby. Conroy is arguing that, because of its nature, a megabit cannot be considered a “widget” for pricing purposes. Barnaby disputes this, and I think he could be right, not that I’m aware of the full context.

  27. Jenauthor,

    I am no insider. Its just my opinion. I thought that was pretty obvious.

    My opinion is based on the series of statements made by regional leaders and by my knowledge of Internation Relations. It would be an unpredecented coup if it did occur and would signal a mass change in the diplomatic culture of the region.

  28. Maybe we should start writing to the editors of the TV Guides (which are published as a weekly supplement in most of the daily papers) pointing out the impartiality of 7.30 since Kerry O departed. Public embarrassment of the ABC might be the most effective weapon available.

  29. [I wonder if Uhlmann showed this piece to Tone before inviting him for the interview.]

    That 7.30 interview was as soft as a featherbed. Uhlmann asks him a “hard” question, but doesn’t press him at all when he gives an unsatisfactory answer.

  30. [And the Drum also published an article from the head of Menzies House and the stop-the-carbon-tax website]

    I maintain it’s only a matter of time before someone with inside knowledge blows the whistle on the politicisation of the ABC. Someone on the verge of retirement who figures there’s nothing to lose. Someone or ones who leak to the media under condition of anonymity. Someone who figures that producing an expose on the white-anting of Australia’s most significant cultural institution will be the making of their journalistic reputation. Or generally some ethical souls who just can’t take any more of the wilful abuse of Charter and Codes.

  31. “Chock full of uncertainties” is just embarrassing. And all the more so because Uhlmann himself goes on to conclude that it’s a journalist’s job to report facts.

    It seems not all facts are equal in Uhlmann’s world.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 91 of 94
1 90 91 92 94