Newspoll: 57-43 to Coalition

A bad result for the government in the latest fortnightly Newspoll, with the Coalition’s two-party lead out from 54-46 to 57-43. The primary votes are 28 per cent for Labor (down three) and 47 per cent for the Coalition (up four). Julia Gillard at least has the consolation that her personal ratings have improved from the previous fortnight’s dismal result, with her approval up three to 31 per cent and disapproval down four to 58 per cent. Tony Abbott’s ratings are unchanged at 32 per cent approval and 58 per cent disapproval, and there is likewise essentially no change on preferred prime minister (Gillard leads 40-37, up from 39-37).

Another consolation for Labor is the possibility that a bit of static might be expected from a poll conducted over the same weekend as a state election such as the one in Queensland. They can be fortified in this view by the fact that their standing improved in this week’s Essential Research poll, the most recent weekly component of which was conducted over a longer period than Newspoll (Wednesday to Sunday rather than Friday to Sunday). Very unusually, given that Essential is a two-week rolling average, this showed a two-point shift on two-party preferred, with the Coalition lead shrinking from 56-44 to 54-46. Given that Essential spiked to 57-43 a fortnight ago, and the sample which sent it there has now washed out of the rolling average, this is not entirely surprising. Labor’s primary vote is up two to 34 per cent, and the Coalition’s is down one to 47 per cent. Further questions featured in the poll cover the economy, its prospects, best party to handle it and personal financial situation (slightly more optimism than six months ago, and Labor up in line with its overall improvement since then), job security, Kony 2012, taking sickies and the impact of the high dollar.

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.

3,757 comments on “Newspoll: 57-43 to Coalition”

Comments Page 75 of 76
1 74 75 76
  1. [The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, has received the final report of the Convergence Review officially marking the end of this landmark review of Australia’s media and communications regulation.

    “At a time of significant structural change brought about by digital switchover, the advent of new technologies and the rollout of the National Broadband Network, the work of the Convergence Review will be of particular importance in positioning Australia’s communications and media sector to meet the digital future,” Senator Conroy said.

    In late 2010, the Gillard Government announced a review to examine the policy and regulatory frameworks that apply to the converged media and communications landscape in Australia. It announced the formation of an independent committee to conduct the review in early 2011.

    “I would like to thank Committee Chair Glen Boreham and his colleagues Louise McElvogue and Malcolm Long for their efforts in this highly complex area of reform,” Senator Conroy said.

    Senator Conroy said in undertaking the review the Convergence Review Committee consulted with key industry leaders and organisations, received over 340 written submissions and 28,000 comments and undertook an in-person consultation programme across Australia.

    “The Government will consider the findings of the Review ahead of releasing it publicly by late April.

    “The Government will formally respond to the Review later in the year and will seek to begin delivering reforms during the course of 2012.” ]

    Do nothing Govt. 😛

  2. [On PM just now was a ‘report’ on David Murray’s comments re the Carbon Tax. It goes for about 6 minutes. 5 minutes 40 seconds is devoted to him and a supporter of his views. Swanny gets 18 seconds.]

    It only took 18 seconds to refute 5 minutes 40 seconds of rubbish…

  3. K2

    [I didn’t want to be tarred with the same brush! (*said in a whiny Catholic boys college who had to share physics/maths lessons with Sion girls and the bitches beat us anyway* voice).]

    Gasp. I do hope you were not one of the unfortunates sent over for physics! The fiery tennis ball stunt! Oh my doG!!!!!!

  4. Bemused

    The issue Labor needs to address re the CT is that although YOUR DIRECT bill may only go up say $100 -$150 per year, there will be an additional impost on everything you buy. For example you local convenience store will be paying an extra $10 -$20,000 per year which is they have $1000 customers means you will pay an extra $20. Ditto for the bakery, petrol station, woolworths, dry cleaners, accountants etc. As a rule of thumb assume that assuming they have 1000 customers for every customers the petrol station/convenience stores each go up $15, bakeries, dry cleaners up 5, restaurants and coffee shops up about $8, Services with lots of lights up say $3.

    In general add another $80-$100 onto your purchasing ill. AND NO I have not read the modelling. HAVE NOT INCLUDED TRANSPORT COSTS.

    So while once it is in place people will calm down, currently they are scared.

  5. [“OK; so find one scientist who agrees with you statement that Direct Action might work.”]

    The U.S is taking the direct action path and they got lots of smart guys in white lab coats

    There is no evidence that a carbon tax will have any effect, but we do know incentives work… see Solar Panel schemes

  6. [Or do you think perhaps Morgan is playing silly buggers and is keeping the result up his sleeve?]

    He could be trying to figure out his tax.

  7. Going by one of the charts , Service to property was $22.24 will after 1st July go up to $29.75 , a increase of $7.50 or about 30% + 10 % GST + Carbon price. That’s only to have power to your home . COST OF LIVING GOING UP , CAN-DO NEWMAN.
    Will you guys stop feeding the Fiberal Troll , i know its a sport to poke the dimwits , but what about your Carbon Footprint Wastage on this troll. They only get you Off -subject. They are just a waste of space and ink .

  8. kezza

    [The point was “how you would treat a new leader who was once the deputy at a given point in time.”]

    If that deputy leader was installed in compliance with the rules of the Party with due notice of a ballot given (seven days being the requirement if I remember correctly) then the answer would of course be with respect.

    That is not what happened in 2010. It is what happened a couple of months back.

  9. I’m back 😀 been out all day….

    My mum on the way home from our work purchased some bear at 1st Choice – since the QLD Election the bear has gone up (is that a coincidence?)

  10. 26 years in labor party as a a member, i have helped out in my electorate for 38 years, i would say people like me have more loyalty than mtbw had in his/her big toe

    Bemused before u statart your usual rant, i want be around to read it so donr waste your time
    Ps mtmw do you out in the world daily talk down the party U say you are a member of , just wondering,

  11. [“but in this case, its still not such a great result for the ALP given the headline figure is still 58.5:41.5%…”]

    What Morgan have done here is given us honeymoon numbers for NSW Liberals right after the NSW election and compared it to numbers a year later well and truly past the honeymoon period.

    There is no trend, simply the honeymoon period is over. I expect NSW Libs to be polling 58% TPP a year from now as well.

  12. zoomster @3699,

    When Abbott was the National Press Club recently he also identified savings from the computers in schools rollout.

    Even at that time the scheme had finished on time and within budget but he was not questioned so we can add the non existent savings from that to the BER.

  13. BW
    [Gasp. I do hope you were not one of the unfortunates sent over for physics! The fiery tennis ball stunt! Oh my doG!!!!!!]
    Our male collegiate unfortunates were not so advanced.

  14. GW
    Sorry. I was unclear. The overwhelming consensus of Australian scientists is that the costings of the DAP direct action soil sequestration are hopelessly under. Farmers, predictably, agree. There is insufficient present knowledge to monitor what you are paying for. In other words, it is a turkey program, put in before its time to pander to the rural socialists. So the under costing is well established. And Mr Abbott has said that he will not increase the allocation to the DAP.

    Get it?

    Mr Abbott is not serious about getting 5% by 2020. It is a stunt by a guy who thinks climate science really is crap. If you can get a bet on Mr Abbott never, ever getting 5% by 2020 get onto it. It is a certainty.

  15. Kezza2

    Only responding out of politeness…will not engage further about bemused, including your speculation about his motives.
    [Laudable though that is, you appear quite keen to support bemused’s trashing of JG.]
    Your perception, your assumption. My comments do not support, implicitly or explicitly what UR alleging here.
    [And that was the question.]
    Might have been for u but not what I was addressing in my comments.
    [And I’m sure, despite your purity regarding policy outcomes,]
    I will ignore this as the back-handed ad hominem and straw man that it is.
    [ you do have an opinion on leadership issues.]
    If UR referring to the Greens….no, I do not atm, is not a matter of concern to me. I spend zero time speculating about what will happen in the future…
    [bemused doesn’t discuss policy]
    I do not share your perception.
    [his main game is to trash JG]
    I do not share this perception nor can I understand how u can know this for a fact.

    Being loyal to KR, he will push back against the Gillard supporters who trash KR, as is his right.

  16. [The issue Labor needs to address re the CT is that although YOUR DIRECT bill may only go up say $100 -$150 per year, there will be an additional impost on everything you buy. ]

    It’s already all been worked out DDT: 0.7% on top, everything included.

  17. Zoom

    [Given that that has now all been spent and thus cannot be ‘saved’, I wonder how they’re making up for that shortfall?]

    the cupboard may well be bare when/if the Coalition get back in. So whatever promises they made will be worthless, and some some hard decisions, like increasing GST to 15% will be required, as well as increasing the Medicare co-payment and tertiary HELP.

    to demonstrate the “independent” nature of the task ahead, I don’t think they would put in someone so obviously partisan as Peter Costello, but for the Audit Commission, someone of eminent business standing will be needed.

    I understand David Murray may be available.

  18. Pegasus

    Do the Greens really need a 33% company tax, estate duties on high earners and a top income tax rate of 50%. Is this all needed to fund a carbon neutral future economy?

  19. Wizz

    so you couldn’t find one, then?

    Fair enough.

    (Allan Kohler had an article the other day – alas, paywalled, I believe – saying that for Direct Action to achieve the same targets, it would bankrupt the government. Given that DA style intiatives – including solar panel subsidies – at best cost more than 10 times the carbon price – $300 per tonne instead of $23 – you can see where he’s coming from).

  20. [So why did the Henry Review specifically not recommend the increase in the super guarantee?]

    Cos it was a tax review?

  21. [“Morgan Poll F2F: LNP 55 (+1) ALP 45 (-1)”]

    Trend is now clearly away from the government.

    Seems the Queensland election result is having an effect federally

  22. MTBW
    [If that deputy leader was installed in compliance with the rules of the Party with due notice of a ballot given (seven days being the requirement if I remember correctly) then the answer would of course be with respect.

    That is not what happened in 2010. It is what happened a couple of months back.]

    So, if Kevin Rudd, as Foreign Minister, gave JG a couple of days notice for a leadership spill, and had won – then he wouldn’t have had your respect?

    So, quite obviously you would have regarded that as outside the rules and he should never have challenged?

    Gimme a break. That’s not how it works, so don’t hang your hat on it.

    You’re just like bemused. You want Kevin Rudd – regardless of the rules.

  23. The 9% was one of the things that got us through the GFC. 12% is good, IMHO. I don’t really care how the saving get done.

  24. Of course, the elephant in the room is that the hard right Coalition supporters don’t really believe Abbott will do anything about climate change, which is why poking holes in Direct Action has no effect.

    I find it ironic: they want to hang Gillard because she ‘lied to win an election’ whilst believing that Abbott is doing exactly the same thing.

  25. [Apparently, it’s all about Labor being relentlessly negative, while Abbott’s the positive one and the female voters friend.

    It’s simple, really. The message from Ms Gillard, Mr Swan and their colleagues is now very clearly that Mr Abbott is for the super-rich, and Labor is for the battler. They don’t have very long to build a simple, compelling narrative, and this is the one they’ve picked.

    Labor is so desperate to stoke these flames that it will even chuck working women on the pyre. The view that domestic labours are legitimate work and should – ideally – be recompensed as such used to be a passionately-held one among Labor women.]

    Fair dinkum BB, you’ve just gotta winder about Crabbe.

    Is there a brain of any sort under that shock of ringlets, or just an “I-heart-Tony” pink diary with lots of kisses on the budgie-clad Hero photograph on the cover?

    When I’ve stopped beating my head against the wall I should really shoot-off an email and ask her.

    Still, I think we can finally diagnose the ABC Online’s political commentary problem: It’s caught a good dose of the Crabbes.

    Better get Diogs or some other medico on the case stat.

  26. d

    It is not making immediate sense to me. The LNP primary went down, the Greens primary went up. Others went down and yet the LNP 2PP went up by 1.

    The only way you could get that result, rounding stuff apart, would be if the Greens suddenly started supporting Mr Abbott in their preferences.

    But I guess you never can tell what the centre-left vote will do to itself on a bad day.

  27. [Morgan F2F Primary LNP 45 (-0.5) ALP 36.5 (-0.5) Green 12.5 (+2) Others 9 (-1)]

    I see Morgan still has not fixed the calc bug in his spreadsheet. Best to ignore until there is evidence his numbers add up.

  28. smithe

    you mightn’t have noticed, of course, but for over one hundred years Labor has been the party of the super rich, which is why their switch to supporting the battler is a cynical vote buying exercise.

  29. Pegasus @3723,

    I do not know the reason behind that however one assumption would be a reduction in the taxation of super in some way was the alternative.

    But I have a couple of questions to ask you.

    As the Australian population ages over the coming years on top of the baby boomers explosion that is now about to happen how would you fund the huge increases in pension expenditure that would be needed without better super for those Australians ?

    You could argue that reduction of taxation on super would be the way to go but as taxation revenue is already in a long term decline how would this short fall be offset long term ?


  30. [zoomster
    Posted Friday, March 30, 2012 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
    Yes, sprocket, I make the total vote – including the .5s – 103%]


  31. [“Given that DA style intiatives – including solar panel subsidies – at best cost more than 10 times the carbon price”]

    They don’t cost lots more because it’s mainly privately funded.

    Individuals and Business will invest their own money to get government subsidies, the entire thing isn’t paid for by government.

    Under the Carbon Tax there is no incentive to do anything other than pass your costs onto consumers. All the big players like Bluescope steel are being compensated by the taxpayer… it really is a mess.

    Now if the government said they would subsidise solar panels and solar hot water which the Labor federal government is now starting to cut, then there is incentive on my part to switch to solar and invest my own money.

    Labor don’t want to do that though, they want to punish people and force up their power bills and make them pay the entire thing for solar. Yet coal power will STILL be the cheaper option without subsidies… therefore people will stick with coal power.

    There is no evidence a carbon tax especially one where most people get all their money back will make any difference at all.

  32. Zoomster

    [Of course, the elephant in the room is that the hard right Coalition supporters don’t really believe Abbott will do anything about climate change, which is why poking holes in Direct Action has no effect.]

    Agreed. Spending money to pretended to change the climate is an epic waste. Abbott will can direct action a dump billions of free cash into hospitals, pensions, education and every pet love of at the heart of Labor to drive the knife into Labor.

    The options are clear. Waste billions on a green and lime labor warm fuzzy climate feeling or put money into tangible outcomes and a tone of extra votes 🙂

  33. r

    Mr Abbott will so not can direct action. What he will can is 5% by 2020. He already has.

    Most of the DAP dinero is going to the rural socialists. They would never cut off the soil carbon sequestration tit. It’s up there with the best of the conservative pork barrell rural rorts. As for cutting that and giving it the cities, if you reckon you have already seen all the foam on the lips that Mr Joyce has to offer, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

  34. GeeWizz

    [They don’t cost lots more because it’s mainly privately funded.]

    Er, what?

    It doesn’t matter who funds them, they cost the same.

    Even if – let’s get silly here – the ‘private sector’ is able to deliver a carbon emissions saving initiative 25% cheaper, it still means the $300 tonne is $225 a tonne instead of $23 a tonne. (So DA would only be 10 times more expensive than carbon pricing).

    And no one is going to go down the Direct Action road out of the goodness of their heart. Even Abbott doesn’t expect that.

    So, to achieve the same result, Abbott’s scheme is – at absolute best – 10 times more expensive.


    So, if Abbott plans to do all these wonderful things, why is he so coy about saying so?

    Instead, you’re admitting that your man is lying through his teeth.

    In that case, why would you trust him to keep any promises he made about hospitals, pensions etc – issues which have never concerned him in the past?

Comments Page 75 of 76
1 74 75 76

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *