Nielsen: 56-44 to Labor; Newspoll: 55-45

The hostile reaction to the government’s first budget comes into sharper focus with two bruising new opinion poll results, both of which show Bill Shorten opening up a big lead as preferred prime minister.

UPDATE (Morgan): The fortnightly Morgan face-to-face plus SMS result sings from the same song sheet, with Labor up 1.5% to 38.5%, the Coalition down 2.5% to 35%, the Greens steady on 12%, and Palmer up a point to 6.5%. Whereas Morgan polls usually combine two weekends of polling, this one is entirely from Saturday and Saturday, so all the responses are post-budget and the sample is somewhat smaller than usual. On two-party preferred, Labor’s lead is up from 53.5-46.5 to 56.5-43.5 on 2013 election preferences, and 55-45 to 57.5-42.5 on respondent-allocated preferences.

After a relatively mild result from yesterday’s Galaxy poll, in which the government may have benefited slightly from an earlier polling period (Wednesday to Friday, the budget having been brought down on Tuesday night), two big name pollsters deliver horror results for the Coalition:

• Newspoll, conducted from Friday to Sunday, has Labor’s two-party lead out from 53-47 to 55-45, from primary votes of 38% for Labor (up four), 36% for the Coalition (down two), 11% for the Greens (down three) and 15% for others (up one). Worse still for the Coalition are the leadership ratings, which have Tony Abbott down five on approval to 30% and up four on disapproval to 60%, while Bill Shorten leaps seven points on approval to 42% and drops two on disapproval to 39%. Shorten has opened up a big lead of 44-34 as preferred prime minister, after Abbott led 40-38 a fortnight ago. The Australian’s report here.

• Even worse for the Coalition is the monthly Nielsen result in the Fairfax papers. Conducted from Thursday to Saturday, it shows Labor’s lead out to 56-44 from 52-48 a month ago. The primary votes are 40% for Labor (up six), 35% for the Coalition (down five), 14% for the Greens (down three from am implausible result last time, but still very strong) and 6% for Palmer United (up two). Tony Abbott sinks nine points on approval to 34% and adds twelve on disapproval to 62%, whereas Bill Shorten is up four to 47% and down two to 39%, and shoots to a 51-40 lead as preferred prime minister after trailing 45-44 last time.

The leadership ratings in particular invite comparison with Julia Gillard’s low points. While Abbott still has a way to go before matching the worst of Gillard’s ratings in Newspoll, his present net approval rating of 28% in Nielsen was exceeded by Gillard on only two occasions, in September and October of 2011, and equalled in July 2011. Gillard’s final result before she lost the leadership in June 2013 was 36% approval and 61% disapproval. Abbott himself scored fractionally worse figures as Opposition Leader in December 2012, of 34% approval and 63% disapproval.

Both pollsters also have results gauging reaction to the budget, with Nielsen finding 63% considering it unfair against 33% for fair. The deficit levy finds support, with 50% in favour and 37% against, but there’s a surprisingly narrow majority of 49% to 46% in favour of abolishing the carbon tax. The poll finds predictably strong opposition to the notion of increasing the GST, with 30% for and 66% against.

Newspoll’s results on budget reaction are particularly illuminating, as it has been asking the same three questions after every budget since 1988. Forty-eight per cent rate this budget as bad for the economy versus 39% for good, with 4% opting for neither; 69% say it will leave them worse off, compared with just 5% for better off and 20% for neither; and 39% believed that Labor would have done a better job, with 46% saying they wouldn’t have.

The latter result can be put into context with the following chart, showing the positive result minus the negative result for the equivalent question going back to 1988, with Labor budgets in red and Coalition budgets in blue. This shows that the only budget to record a net result in favour of yes was in 1993, when the Keating government followed its surprise election win by breaking its L-A-W tax cuts promise. As such, the slight net negative result for this budget is an historically weak one for the government – particularly when taking into account an apparent tendency for governments to perform strongly on this measure when newly elected, and decline thereafter. This takes a good deal of gloss off the consolation the Coalition might have taken in the result being better than the last three for the previous government.

The next chart plots the result for each budget on “impact on own financial position” along the x-axis and impact on the economy along the y, with the current result indicated in red. This shows a clear association between the two results, demonstrating that people generally decide whether a budget is good or bad, and deem it equally so for both themselves and the economy. To the limited extent that variability exists, there does appear to be at least some constituency for the view that the pain inflicted in the current budget will be good for the economy – whereas the trendline indicates that the minus 64% rating on own financial position could be expected to associate with 24.5% on the economy, the latter figure in fact comes in at a relatively presentable minus 9%. Nonetheless, the outstanding fact to emerge from the chart is that the budget inhabits a zone of extreme unpopularity with only 1993 to keep it company. The budget the government might have been hoping to emulate, Peter Costello’s cost-cutting debut of 1996, had a plus 37% rating on the economy despite a minus 21% rating on personal financial situation.

Finally, a table showing the net result for all three measures at each budget, with averages by party at the bottom. This shows that despite the current results, Coalition budgets tend to be better received than Labor ones, with the gap being wider on impact on the economy. Partly this is down to historical circumstance – Labor was marked down for the recession-era budgets of the early 1990s, while the Howard government made political hay out of the revenue boom in its later years in office (though obviously not to the extent of saving them from the electoral cycle in 2007). However, it also reflects the tendency for the Coalition to outperform Labor in “best party to manage the economy” polling, a point illustrated by the averages for “would the opposition have delivered a better budget”. For more context on the individual budgets, here’s a very helpful resource from the Sydney Morning Herald.

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.

1,941 comments on “Nielsen: 56-44 to Labor; Newspoll: 55-45”

Comments Page 33 of 39
1 … 32 33 34 … 39

  1. The Informal Party concurs with the views of Socrates and Dio in relation to the way that Labor Party reform has stalled.

    The tragedy of the current polling is that it has given those mad enough to install, disinstall and then reinstall a rotten apple ‘reason’ to stifle reform progress completely.

    In other words, whatever dreadful shambles the current rotten apple is generating, the structures and frameworks that generated, sustained, broke, then regenerated the other rotten apple remain in place.

    The net result is that the political class, whether blue or red, has not changed one little bit and our democracy continues to be white-anted.

    It was this which drove the formation of the Informal Party and which generated record informal votes in the last Federal election.

    Plus ca change?

  5. Socrates

    Conroy certainly made it easy for Abbott to say Labor was incompetent at delivering programs. The lies and the missed deadlines were and endless source of irritation for voters.

  7. To those wondering about joe on q&a last night, I actually thought he did pretty well, given the indefensible situation.

    Questioners not being quite specific enough or getting a bit tangled over the economic numbers meant that Joe often got free kicks and had the opportunity to go on at length about his tough upbringing etc. He framed everything in terms of economic management and ‘having to make tough decisions to fix the budget’, rather than talking about how cuts will actually impact the people who come into contact with the health and education systems, for e.g (because that would be disastrous)

    Joe also had Tony mostly on his side. When the whole audience laughed in Joe’s face after he’d said ‘I don’t think you have to lie to win government’, Tony j chastised the hecklers. Pffft. Tony also failed to pull him up on broken promises.

    Plenty of angry people, but for the most part, joe kept his cool and talked to numbers. That show is such a frustrating format.

  8. [ I did not see Hockey on qanda last night, but judging from the feedback here, he did okay. Okay in what sense? ]

    He didn’t sweat as much as usual.

  9. Good Morning

    QandA was a fail for Hockey. Broken promises are still highlighted. LNP lying is if anything more entrenched in the views of the public.

    QandA got a record 65 000 tweets. Either censorship or more likely better servers needed. That response tells you Hockey was getting a reaction. I very much doubt the record was reached by people agreeing with Hockey.

  12. Hockey was shown up best by the guy from Tasmania,

    Hockey had no answer. Just repeated the earn or learn slogan.

  15. The AFR has decided the govt’s popularity has fallen far enough. So it has launched Operation Horseshit to hold the line.

  16. What has been quite remarkable about the govt’s slide in popularity is just how constant it has been. Does that suggest that once voters leave, they are not going back?

  17. Joe made some pretty plonking comments about Fairfax last night. I wonder what the fallout will be on that?

  19. K17

    To me that suggests that once lied to they are not going to believe more lies and want facts.

    The only way the Government can reverse the polls is by using facts. Arguing a real case for their actions. Like Howard did with the GST.

    Abbott’s problem is that his extreme agenda alienates the voters and the facts of this cannot be changed.

  20. BB – Has joe sued the Herald yet? Doesn’t take long to draft a statement of claim. What’s happening Joe?

  21. 1558
    Fran Barlow

    I’m just drawing attention to the other possibility – instead of taxing consumption, tax wealth, or both. We do not need to go along with the idea that raising GST is necessary or desirable or unavoidable.

    We also need tp think about what is good for the economy, and improving the real disposable incomes of the lower 3 income quintiles of the population will certainly be good for employment, the budget and economic resilience.

    Topping up the incomes of those disproportionately affected by regressive taxes is obviously possible, but is much easier said than done. Why not just impose fewer regressive taxes? As well, compensating for such taxes with services or goods-in-kind is not enough. It is intrinsically paternalistic. People not only need these things, they need cash in their pockets. This is necessary for a dignified life.

  22. BB – I know, them was fightin words Joe used about the SMH last night! I feel like we’ll probably hear a bit more in the SMH and Age about those Family Impact tables missing from the budget, and how the journalists didn’t make the whole thing up.

  24. Well, I read the article on Labor’s reforms linked to above.

    Firstly, this is the first time I’ve heard that Bill Shorten was pushing for the power of the POSC to be reduced (which is the 50% rule the article refers to), and I doubt he did – it’s exactly the same voting system which was used to get him up as leader.

    There’s nothing wrong, in my view, in having the rank and file membership vote being able to be overruled. It doesn’t happen very often in practice, which is why it makes headlines when it does, and it’s far fairer in operation than the similar voting system used by the Liberals.

    The POSC’s ability to overrule local decision making has kept some candidates with very dodgy stuff in their backgrounds from derailing an entire State or Federal campaign.

    I agree that the convention that the POSC doesn’t get a vote if the local intention is clear needs to be strengthened, but I didn’t see any rule changes proposing to do this.

    Secondly, yes, I would have opposed any on line branch membership. If someone is only going to be an online Labor supporter, why do they need to belong to a branch at all? It makes more sense to me that they stay on a Head Office list, where there are people employed to keep them informed and involved, rather than letting them join a branch like mine (with no intention of ever actually attending a meeting) and adding to the expense and workload of someone like myself, who’s working for nothing.

    I have a couple of effectively ‘online’ members (transferred to this branch from elsewhere and never attended a branch meeting). They add nothing to the life of our branch, not returning phonecalls, let alone attending meetings or helping campaign.

    There’s no point just increasing the numbers of members in the party if they’re effectively just on paper. We need new members who actually want to be involved in doing things.

    I am disappointed that the leadership vote didn’t get up, and will be interested to see what happened to some of the changes I was advocating for (and in some cases, put forward motions for) which this article doesn’t refer to.

  25. guytaur – This govt has been hijacked by a clique which have turned it into the political wing of the mining industry and the finance industry. They don’t give a s… about anyone else. I think they despise most of the electorate. Indeed, their small govt rhetoric is just what those two industries love. After all, if you starve the beast, you don’t need to tax mining coys and you will have less finance regulation.
    I wonder if some of the more centreist members of the Liberal Party are starting to realise that their party has been hijacked. I mean, having Liberal backbenchers wondering, at this stage, if they are going to lose the next election is pretty amazing. Where’s your fight, boys?
    Interesting that Hockey mentioned on Q & A, that the govt is considering the age at which people can access super. Finance industry would love it if that was pushed back, and people can’t take lump sums.

  30. Fran

    Agree with you on 2 fronts.

    1) Despite many comments here saying Hockey did OK on Qanda, IMHO he was his usual self ….. singularly unimpressive.

    No, he did not cry. No, he did not wring his hands “its all so hard”. No, he was not failed for words at any tough question. No, he did not make a fool of himself.

    But he repeated his worn out “all must share the weight” line over and over, in the face of the facts that this is not happening. And he lied and lied. (Said: “No we’re not ending the pensioner concessions” / Unsaid: “But we’re stopping the funding to states for the concessions and states can find another way to fund them or wear it!”)

    And contra to most/all economic opinion, (including the guy I just saw on 24) that what the budget does will not impact on the deb and deficit as the Abbotteers claim, Joe persisted with that myth.

    2) Bring on the GST debate. I’m in favour of a complete goods and services base and couldn’t care if it went up to world parity ie around 20%.

    BUT …. the discussion and the structural outcome must include water tight graded rebates, well thought out, perhaps even up to $100K incomes.

    This would be the administratively simple, logical, and water tight model that would catch everyone in the first instance, and give it back to the lower end of the income spectrum to avoid the regressive effect.

  31. “@vanbadham: So not only will the poorest GET less money, food will cost them more.
    Waiting for the “we also torture kittens” announcement.”

    Including the GST on fresh foods will have health impacts as it costs the poor more to buy.

  32. [1626
    Boerwar

    Bottom line: Victorian State Labor Conference digs in heels over substantive reforms.]

    A pity, really a pity…

  33. “@TheKouk: Wow! The ANZ-ROy Morgan measure of consumer confidence down approx 14% in less than a month. Not great for spending intentions”

  35. [Bottom line: Victorian State Labor Conference digs in heels over substantive reforms.]

    Their focus is to get Labor over the line this year. Starting a fight within the party would be just what the state Libs would be hoping for. There’s time enough between the state and federal elections for Bill to be seen as making reform headway.

  36. Boerwar@1599

    Ms Rhinehardt has been adept at reading the tea leaves. I believe that she picked coal price trends and exited some rather large coal holdings before before the wave.

    What about her massive borrowings for Iron Ore expansion right at the peak of IO prices – which are now well well down from when she borrowed.

  37. [1630
    psyclaw

    Bring on the GST debate. I’m in favour of a complete goods and services base and couldn’t care if it went up to world parity ie around 20%.]

    At 20%, and all in, the GST would then bring in three times as much as it now does, say 10% of the economy, $150 bill. This is a tax increase of $100 bill and will mostly be paid by low-middle income households. The GST would then bring in the same amount as income tax, which unlike GST has the advantage of being relatively progressively sloped.

    Think again. Increasing GST will further entrench socio-economic inequality, hurt jobs, hurt the budget, hurt the economy.

  38. [Was just reading an article about Bangkok tourism predictions falling because of rising tensions when suddenly this pops up

    http://www.theage.com.au/world/thailands-military-declares-martial-law-20140520-zri2o.html ]

    I visited Phuket one time (I think 2005) when they had martial law in Thailand.

    It involved being stopped at a checkpoint on the main highway into the island where a very officious man in a uniform, carrying a very big gun, inspected our passports and then us go.

    I must say I was impressed with the very crisp, military way he deported himself.

    But that was about it for martial law in Thailand, as far as tourists were concerned.

  39. Boer

    Rules Conferences always put up substantive reforms, most of which get rejected, most of the time because they’re batsh*t crazy. This usually doesn’t make headline news.

    I’m certainly concerned that some of the reforms proposed didn’t get up, but what I’m saying is that a. reform for reform’s sake isn’t actually always beneficial; b. to call these ‘Shorten’s reforms’ is inaccurate, as few of those referred to have actually ever been proposed by him.

    Of course the media in the present climate are looking at ways to undermine both Labor and Shorten, but that doesn’t excuse misleading reporting.

    Deferring rule changes until after National Conference isn’t necessarily a bad sign – it often happens when an issue is going to be dealt with at National Conference.

    Rule changes made at Nat Conf are binding on the other branches, so if NC adopts some (or all) of Shorten’s reforms, and Vic Labor has already passed rules of its own, then Vic Labor is going to have to take their rule changes back to the next conference to be changed, a far messier process than just adopting the new Nat C rulings.

    As the article notes, there were reforms which were passed by Vic Labor (ones which relate purely to Vic Labor matters). So the process hasn’t ‘stalled’ and we’re yet to see whether Shorten’s reforms (i.e. the ones Shorten has actually said he wants to see in place) are going to get up or not.

    Reform isn’t an overnight process.

    As someone who was involved in writing some of the proposed rule changes, it was actually news to me that this conference was ‘about’ Shorten. There were reformist rule changes proposed (there always are at Rules Conferences) but they didn’t come from sources I regarded as ‘Shorten’s’.

  40. Nick of Melbourne@1607

    Plenty of angry people, but for the most part, joe kept his cool and talked to numbers. That show is such a frustrating format.

    Hockeys problem is the many people who have already made up their minds against what he wants to do – maybe they have stopped listening as well.

    Many people will believe the measures have already been introduced even though they may not get through the senate – and all the while the tories are busy telling people they heard something different from what was said.

  41. K17

    That article just shows how crushingly stupid Abbott is.

    There a simple narrative here for Labor. Keep the MRRT & don’t change the GST.

  42. Zoomster

    The “online members” are exactly those that Bracks, Carr and Faulkner were concerned to recognise and “capture”.

    They are a legitimate part of the Labor movement, and the real counter argument to the charge that the party is a totally union based organisation (and therefore if you can stuff the unions with a RC, you’ll therefore stuff the Party)

    By all means have them in a separate register, probably at state level.

    What a wonderful description of Labor it would be in 10 years time, if the party could promote itself as having 50K “full” members ( the regular branch participants) and 5 million “associate” members ….. those who have pledged allegiance by forking out annual membership $s, and who are prepared to stand up and be counted as that part of the community that is happy to have the Labor party as its societal and political figurehead.

    Many of those “onliners” will of course be active participants in other spheres of the community.

    It is possible to be a loyal Laborite and simultaneously eschew all that active branch membership implies.

    Just ask Bracks, Carr, and Faulkner.

  46. psyclaw

    No objection to on line members, just can’t see why they’d be allocated to branches (they’re not at present).

    The Labor party has Central Branch members, who are effectively simply ‘on line members’.

    I just don’t understand why you would shift them to branches. It seems pointless.

    If they want to be involved in the party, they are, by definition, no longer on line members!

  47. [1633
    guytaur

    “@TheKouk: Wow! The ANZ-ROy Morgan measure of consumer confidence down approx 14% in less than a month. Not great for spending intentions”]

    I keep banging on about this. To the extent that A&H succeed in selling their political line – that the country is in a bad way and to save the budget there must be biting income sacrifices – then A&H will succeed in talking down the economy.

    Every time Hockey or Abbott go on air to justify their evil cuts, he is stoking consumer fear and talking us into a demand-led recession.

    As has been pointed out numerous times they’re doing this at the same time that export receipts are under pressure.

    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/game-over-for-chinese-steel/

    To add to the risk to real disposable incomes, the currency may finally start to yield to the pressure…

    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/australian-dollar-looks-vulnerable/

    Of course, a high currency is a serious problem too, as the ever optimistic HSBC economist Paul Bloxham opines…

    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/another-bullhawk-down/

    These risks are being felt in Australian interest rate markets. Long term interest rates are falling, a sign that markets expect economic weakness to return.

    I’ve posted here many times and at (probably quite tedious) length about the consequences to incomes, jobs, the budget, property, credit and banking if things come unstuck.

    This Government is actively precipitating the kind of income shock that can bring on a contraction in domestic demand. They seem completely indifferent to this, or to have dismissed these concerns for the sake of their ideological fixations.

    To repeat myself, the last time we were in this sort of situation Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were at the helm. They radically reformed the tax system and strengthened the social wage. Far from starting a recession, they ended one. Now we are going to see what kind of destruction the Tories will conjure up.

  50. In the alternative reality of Murdoch world, one Oz headline is “Murdoch offers G20 vision”.

    I wonder what that vision would be?

Comments Page 33 of 39
1 … 32 33 34 … 39

Leave a Reply

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