Newspoll quarterly breakdowns: July to September

Newspoll has given us its regularly quarterly insight into how its last three months of polling have broken down according to state, gender and age group.

The Australian has published its regular quarterly Newspoll breakdowns by (mainland) state, gender and age group, from its combined polling over the period of July to September. With this big infusion of state-level data, later this week I will publish the BludgerTrack quarterly breakdown, featuring state-level primary vote numbers and polling trend charts (you can see the previous effort from the end of June here). Also later today should be the regularly weekly Essential Research poll.

In case you missed it, yesterday’s Roy Morgan gave the Coalition its best result since February, its primary vote up 1.5% to 40% with Labor down 2.5% to 35%. On two-party preferred, Labor’s lead was down from 54.5-45.5 to 53-47 on respondent-allocated preferences, and from 53.5-46.5 to 51.5-48.5 on preference flows from the 2013 election. The Greens were steady at 12%, and Palmer United down half a point to 3.5%, their weakest result since January. The poll was conducted over the last two weekends by face-to-face and SMS, from a sample of 3151.

UPDATE (Essential Research): No change whatsoever in Essential Research – Coalition 40%, Labor 39%, Greens 10%, Palmer United 4%, two-party 52-48 to Labor. A suite of questions on major government decisions over the past year turn in predictable responses, with turning back the boats, freezing foreign aid and dumping the carbon tax strongly approved of, and pretty much anything involving the budget disapproved of. The only neutral responses were for military aid to Iraq and dumping the mining tax. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents rated the economy well managed, against 28% for poorly. Respondents were most concerned about cost of living issues, and least concerned about national debt and the budget deficit. Other questions find an even balance between those who think income tax too high (42%) and about right (40%); more favouring less services and lower taxes (28%) than the opposite (19%), but with 35% preferring the current balance; and 59% thinking it would be good for the economy if corporations paid more tax, versus 17% for bad.

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.

768 comments on “Newspoll quarterly breakdowns: July to September”

  1. Mark Kenny writes:

    [The real reason for the extension {of the TURC} now comes to the fore: Simply put, the union royal commission has not yet delivered the political bang for the public buck its champions had so eagerly anticipated.

    Indeed, the “big fish” it was meant to land have wriggled off the hook. Former prime minister Julia Gillard’s hours in the witness box discussing her pre-parliamentary work as a union solicitor promised so much but in the end delivered dull TV.

    There was no smoking gun, no gotcha moment. Ditto it seems for Tory hopes of fatally wounding Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s reputation by linking the former AWU boss materially with dodgy union dealings.

    Perhaps these objectives will be progressed in the final report – or the interim one even.

    In the meantime, the process rolls on with taxpayers footing the likely $61 million bill.

    That will be money well spent, however, if it comprehensively addresses and resolves a culture of corruption and intimidation within the nation’s unions, and the unhealthy influence some of those unions exert within the ALP.


    So was that last paragraph tacked on by some kind of Lib minder, or what?

    Should Labor, when it wins government back (whenever) spend an equal amount “comprehensively addressing and resolving” a culture of influence between say, the Liberal Party and Rupert Murdoch? Or Twiggy and his mining pals? Or Abbott being in the thrall of Big Business generally?

    Was the witch hunt in Gillard and her 20-year-old activities responsible and “money well spent”?

    What a f’kin tosser Kenny is!

    How in the hell could a supposedly mature, responsible, context-rich, political commentator assert that $61 million is an appropriate amount of money to spend in an unprecedented witch hunt by a government against its political opponents?

    Read the top half of the piece and see if the bottom half matches it. Kenny’s been got at.

  2. Tough as nails, mate. Just not used to being called an idiot. Or was it stupid? Something synonymous anyway.

    I prefer passionate and inventive.

  3. [It did read rather oddly, didn’t it. There’s nothing at all in the remainder of the piece that sets you up to anticipate that that’s how it might conclude.]

    Back on topic, the entire tenet of the piece was that the RC was a waste of money.

  4. Re BB @755: Should Labor, when it wins government back (whenever) spend an equal amount “comprehensively addressing and resolving” a culture of influence between say, the Liberal Party and Rupert Murdoch? Or Twiggy and his mining pals? Or Abbott being in the thrall of Big Business generally?

    Yes. Yes. And yes. A Royal Commission into ‘tax avoision’ might go a long way.

    But when Labor gets back in, it should do its utmost to damage the Liberals and its main backers. Exposing the truth should be enough. The Liberals recogise their enemies and treats them as such. The Unions. The ABC. The ‘elites’ – other than the only ones that have clout – those with money. Anyone or anything associated with anything with ‘sustainable’ or ‘renewable’ in its title. Human rights campaigners. But when Labor hints that someone is less than perfect it’s ‘class warfare’.

    Next time the gloves need to be off. None of this Rudd crap about bipartisanship.

    Looking forward to ‘Repeal Abbott Day’ 2017.

    Anyway, it’s way past my bedtime. Good night.

  5. Paul Krugman on Obama:

    [Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it’s working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it’s much more effective than you’d think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.]

Leave a Reply

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