Newspoll and ReachTEL: 52-48 to Coalition

ReachTEL has opened the election campaign polling account in very short order, while Newspoll has published a poll following its normal Friday-to-Sunday schedule. The two concur on two-party preferred, with the latter finding Kevin Rudd taking a hit on his personal ratings.

As we enter the first full day of the September 7 federal election campaign:

• Newspoll, conducted between Friday and Sunday, has the Coalition’s lead unchanged on its poll of a fortnight ago at 52-48, from primary votes of 44% for the Coalition (down one), 37% for Labor (steady) and 9% for the Greens (down one). Equally worrying for Labor is a significant drop in Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings, his approval down four points to 38% and disapproval up six to 47%. However, he still leads Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister 47-33, down only slightly from 50-34 a fortnight ago. Abbott has had remarkably constant personal ratings from Newspoll since Rudd’s return: after three successive polls at 35% approval and 56% disapproval, this time he’s down one to 34% and steady at 56%. Full tables from GhostWhoVotes.

• More current still is the result from ReachTEL, which conducted an automated phone poll of 2949 respondents for the Seven Network in the immediate aftermath of yesterday’s election announcement. This too showed the Coalition leading 52-48 on two-party preferred, compared with 51-49 in the ReachTEL poll of a week ago, from primary votes of 37.5% for Labor, 45.7% for the Coalition and 8.2% for the Greens. ReachTEL continues to find Tony Abbott doing well on preferred prime minister, this time leading 50.9-49.1, which is bafflingly at odds with other pollsters (notwithstanding the methodological difference that the survey is only deemed completed if all questions put to respondents are answered, hence the totals adding up to 100). On the question of effective management of the economy, 60.7% favoured the Coalition compared with 39.3% for Labor. While the sample on the poll is certainly impressive, it’s considered better practice to conduct polls over longer periods.

• The BludgerTrack poll aggregate has been updated with these two poll results and some further state-level data that has become available to me, and while the 50-50 starting point from last week slightly blunts the impact of two new 52-48 data points, there has nonetheless been a weighty shift to the Coalition on the implied win probability calculations. On the seat projections, the latest numbers find air going out of the Labor balloon in Queensland (down four seats), together with one-seat shifts to the Coalition in New South Wales and Tasmania. However, the projection of a second gain for Labor in Western Australia, which I looked askance at when it emerged in last week’s result, has stuck. I will resist the temptation to link this to unpopular recent actions of a state government which is flexing its muscles during the early stages of a four year electoral cycle, at least for the time being.

Tomorrow will presumably bring us the regular weekly Essential Research online poll and the Morgan “multi-mode” result, at around 2pm and 6pm EST respectively. The Poll Bludger’s regular guide to the 150 electorates will, I hope, be in action by the end of the week.

UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research has two-party preferred steady at 51-49 to the Coalition, from primary votes of 38% for the Labor (down one), 43% for the Coalition (down one) and 9% for the Greens (steady). The survey finds only 44% saying they will definitely not change their mind, with 30% deeming it unlikely and 21% “quite possible”. Respondents were also asked to nominate the leader they most trusted on a range of issues, with Tony Abbott holding modest leads on economic management, controlling interests rates and national security and asylum seeker issues, and Kevin Rudd with double-digit leads on education, health, environment and industrial relations. Kevin Rudd was thought too harsh on asylum seekers by 20%, too soft by 24% and about right by 40%, compared with 21%, 20% and 31% for Tony Abbott.

UPDATE 2 (Morgan): Morgan has Labor down half a point on the primary vote to 38%, the Coalition up 1.5% to 43%, and the Greens up one to 9.5%. With preferences distributed as per the result at the 2010 election, the Coalition has opened up a 50.5-49.5 lead, reversing the result from last week. On the respondent-allocated preferences measure Morgan uses for its headline figure, the result if 50-50 after Labor led 52-48 in the last poll.

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.

2,158 comments on “Newspoll and ReachTEL: 52-48 to Coalition”

Comments Page 37 of 44
1 … 36 37 38 … 44

  2. [Sean @6:40pm – there was no point in hding the local government referendum because the Liberal Party were divided by the issue and decided their purposes would be best served by playing politics with it. I don’t know where the $20 million figure came from. ]

    Read the article… the “Yes” campaign have laundered $20 Million Dollars of Taxpayers money.

    The “No” campaign refused to accept the $500,000 Token Gesture and so hasn’t cost me a red cent.

    I want my money back from the Yes campaign

  4. [The ALP are supposedly the friends of the weak, downtrodden and poor but do nothing to generate cheap affordable land releases – this is complete idiocy in one of the biggest countries in the world – so much effing land and so many effing NIMBYs stopping it being developed.]

    The problem CC isn’t so much releasing the cheap land, although it is a problem because developers wont release cheap land they will make it as expensive as they can get away with. So unless the Government itself gets into the selling land game then the ‘cheap land release’ is just not going to happen.

    To make it cheap you have to get rid of developer contributions, why should the developer provide parks and land for schools.

    But lets assume you release the cheap land, and it sells and lots of people put houses on it. They expect parks, public transport, schools, local government services, state government services, federal government services. So the tax payers have to pay.

    And sensible ones amongst us might say that is a good idea, and to pay for it we would need to put up income tax, make miners pay a fair levy for our mineral wealth they are digging up and selling etc etc etc.

    Then your type would do about 3000 posts about Government putting up taxes.

    Bottom line ‘cheap land’ is a very very foolish illusion that is just not possible and anyone who has looked at the problem knows this.

    I remember one of the smarter liberal leaders of the opposition in WA, Matt Burney, still thick as two bricks but look at Barnett and the others, talking about how under his Premiership we’d have the most wonderful planned communities, with all amenities, looking like East Perth on a really good day. Then he said he’d get rid of planning law because it was holding back development. Yep he was that dumb about three para’s apart in the same speech.

    Need a fairy godmother to have everything, regulate nothing and pay nothing. I know even liberals don’t believe in that, on the rare occasion they sit down and think things through.

  5. Boerwar@1785. What a stupid article. “All that glitters is not gold” is incredibly widespread and very old, quite possibly predating Shakespeare. In what sense can it be seen as “wrong”? “Glitters” is a word used in modern English, “glisters” is not.

    “Champing at the bit”. Show me one work in the history of English literature in which this very old expression is rendered “chomping at the bit”.

    What a compete and utter wank from the wankingest newspaper on the planet. I think I even prefer the Sydney Telegraph to this self-satisfied Tory fish wrapping.

  6. Another comment about that public forum. There were around 200 people in attendance, fantastic given the cold, rainy, windy winter night. The debate went for approx 1.5 hours and was conducted in a civil manner with no talking over each other, in stark contrast to the interview just shown on 7.30 between Wong and Corman.

  7. @cc 1705

    Does it occur to you that in many families, both parents actually want to work? Or, is what you are really saying, that women should get back in the kitchen where they belong.

  8. [Our council and Brisbane City council were and are rife with Liberal infestations.]

    Ours is stacked with Liberals and numpty Nats. One councillor proudly declares his grandfather (or maybe it’s his father) once ran as a UAP candidate.

  9. [Read the article… the “Yes” campaign have laundered $20 Million Dollars of Taxpayers money.

    The “No” campaign refused to accept the $500,000 Token Gesture and so hasn’t cost me a red cent.

    I want my money back from the Yes campaign]

    The NO campaign has got about as much as it should, and the other money would have been well invested if the least capable least honest least consistent fool in Australian politics, Tony Abbott honored his word. Tony Abbott betrayed Australian Local Government and dishonored his word, Tony Abbott will betray any fool stupid enough to vote for him.

  10. Davo489 at 1793. Was pondering that earlier in the day.

    ‘In response to Murdoch’s disgusting media outlets, why not start a campaign to get people to stop using Murdoch products. There are many ALP and Greens supporters who use his products e.g. Foxtel. The impact of even a 5% reduction would be significant’

    In light of ‘poverty package’ discussed yesterday, I am thinking disgust package.

  11. [The NO campaign has got about as much as it should, and the other money would have been well invested]

    Did you miss the bit about the referendum not actually happening?

    Geez if you Labor supporters think thats a “Good investment” no wonder we are in $30 Billion dollar debt.

  12. [george wright ‏@wrightgb 4m
    Hockey: “I don’t know if we’re taking money from Big Tobacco” RU4Real? Hey Joe, you have graciously accepted almost $2m since ’04 #AusPol]

    Hockey is incredibly foolish. Does he think these things can’t be checked?

  13. [If you can’t discern the importance of Labor winning then you are a miserable excuse for a human being.]

    That is a bit harsh, there are many reasons you might want Abbott to win:

    1. You sold your soul to the same evil spirt …
    2. You are a total moron

    … there must be others ….

  15. Lizzie @1771

    You try getting high density development into established neighbourhoods.

    Mired in years of approvals and appeals.

    Local Councils talk all sustainability and public transport but try doing what it requires – high density development and you are scum of the earth.

  17. There’s no possible defence for what Anna Burke said. She should resign from her party.

    I’d put her in the same category as Dougie Cameron, whose constant undermining of his party during the Gillard years was a disgrace.

    I note that Dougie has been good as good since Rudd’s return. It’s amazing what a promotion, plus having your sub-faction leader mate deputy PM, can do for one. Plus, of course, some potentially damaging ICAC evidence about one’s previous support for a certain I Macdonald, which makes one needful of a bit of support from above……

  18. [Actually committing to her values and principles would mean she’d walk from the party and run as an independent.]
    My what a high bar you set. How pure 😉

    Global warming, asylum seekers and international aid are but three policy areas out of a multitude. She would support the multitude.

    She obviously believes that she can work within the ALP for the change she wants to see.

    My advice to Anna Burke is to join the Greens Party rather than continue to labour under this delusion.

  19. Pegasus

    ‘I can see why some Labor people are interested in attacking Burke. She is being honest. She has integrity. She is respectful of others. She is committed to her values and to her principles.

    As I said in an earlier post, AB put in a strong performance at the forum.

    Consequently, I am now reconsidering my informal vote, as my preference to her above the Lib candidate, would demonstrate my support for her as an individual who has taken a principled stand’

    I won’t argue with that line of logic.

  21. TP

    ‘Everybody should be offended at The Daily Telegraph headline today, no matter their political leaning.’

    Quite right. The democracy thieves are abroad; they are many and varied and you have certainly identified one particular nest of democracy thieves.

    You know, of course, who the two biggies are, so I won’t bore you with the repetition.

  22. Matt @1807

    I took a year off in 2010 to be a stay at home Dad. I’d love to be able to do it permanently but we can’t afford it.

    Be interesting to survey parents and ask if they’d like to have at least one of a couple stay home. My bet is majority answer would be yes.

  23. Antony Green, wtte: “Something would have to fall off the campaign for the coalition to end up with less than 75 seats”.

  24. I have just phoned Foxtel to lodge a complaint over the Daily Telegraph.

    Explained why, and that I am not the only one.

  25. confessions@1799

    She is committed to her values and to her principles.


    Actually committing to her values and principles would mean she’d walk from the party and run as an independent.

    😮 I agree.
    Her other option would be to run on Labor policy.

  26. everybody now knows that they are in bed with Abbott and Murdoch with murdoch holding the whip and ky gel

    TP # 1800 I beg your forgiveness for anything I have ever said questioning you. THat is gold, albeit a deeply disturbing image.

  28. [Meguire Bob
    Posted Monday, August 5, 2013 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Davidwh

    The betting markets proved in 2010 – the ydont have a clue

    i still can not work out why after Katter said clearly labor was going to be retained

    the betting markets put the coalition $1.10

    when they were going to lose]

    Bob, you’re making things up. The Coalition never shortened in to $1.10 to form government even on election night when people just assumed the independents from conservative electorates would back them. If such a bizarre situation came about then there’d be stories about how the bookies were wiped out by knowing punters.

    But let’s forget all that and assume that your factoid actually has some truth to it. What about the countless times the betting market calls the election? Sure, it’s sometimes wrong but not too often.

    What were the odds in the Northern Tablelands election. Were bookies/punters “proven to have no clue” on that day or was “someone else”?

  34. Sean Tisme re local government – if Rudd gets back in the referendum will be held in due course. Because of Abbott’s backflip and politicking, the $20 million would have gone down the toilet if the referendum had been held now. If Abbott gets in and decides not to hold it he can refund any moneys lodged to support the ‘yes’ case.

  35. Pleasing to see at least some media picking up Abbott on his total lack of understanding of maths and economic stuff:
    [Tony Abbott’s first election campaign photo opportunity was at a Queensland meat packing company the opposition leader claimed was “under direct threat” from carbon tax costs of $5m, but which would actually face a bill of one-tenth that amount next year if Labor is re-elected.]
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/05/tony-abbott-carbon-tax

    Labor should provide free transport to keep Guardian reporters near Abbott every day for the next six weeks.

  38. [She obviously believes that she can work within the ALP for the change she wants to see.]

    Then why not say that, esp in an election campaign?

    Wong was able to publicly express her dissatisfaction with the party’s then policy stance on same sex marriage in a way that didn’t denigrate the party, yet convey to voters that she continued to beaver away behind the scenes to get change.

  41. [Did you miss the bit about the referendum not actually happening?]

    The referendum was destroyed when Abbott betrayed Australian Local Government and dishonored his own word. Actually having it would have wasted millions more. No one in Australia is more reckless with tax payers money than Tony Abbott and liar and a disgrace.

  44. [Then why not say that, esp in an election campaign?]
    The questions asked at the forum were mianly on issues she said she has had a hard time grappling with.

    She was refreshingly honest in expressing her humanity.

  45. [You try getting high density development into established neighbourhoods.

    Mired in years of approvals and appeals.

    Local Councils talk all sustainability and public transport but try doing what it requires – high density development and you are scum of the earth.]

    Voters don’t like or want high density development because they think it will destroy their amenity. They are largely uneducated because it is high quality high density that actually provides the money (through rates) for high amenity.

  48. ….AB was received positively by the audience as evidenced by the level of applause. Imo she would have won some voters over to her side so she ‘played’ the audience well as is the objective for the participants.

  49. [She was refreshingly honest in expressing her humanity.]

    If Greens voters lapped it enough to give Labor their 2nd preference, then good luck to her.

Comments Page 37 of 44
1 … 36 37 38 … 44

Leave a Reply

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