Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor

Another fortnight, another dire Newspoll for Tony Abbott.

The fortnightly Newspoll in The Australian brings the government little respite, Labor’s lead down from the 55-45 blowout last time to 54-46, from primary votes of 37% for the Coalition (up one), 37% for Labor (down two) and 13% for the Greens (up two). Tony Abbott’s personal ratings continue to deteriorate, with approval down three to 33% and disapproval up two to 57%, while Bill Shorten’s remain broadly stable as they have for so long, with approval unchanged at 39% and disapproval up two to 43%. Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister widens just slightly from 43-37 to 43-36.

Also out today was the regular fortnightly face-to-face plus SMS poll from Morgan. This has the Coalition up a point to 39%, Labor down one to 37.5%, the Greens steady on 12%, and Palmer United down half a point to another new low of 2%. Two-party preferred moves two points in the Coalition’s favour on the respondent-allocated measure, from 55.5-44.5 to 53.5-46.5, and previous-election preferences moves one point from 54-46 to 53-47.

UPDATE (Essential Research): The latest fortnightly rolling average from Essential Research ticks a point in Labor’s favour, from 52-48 to 53-47, with the major parties tied at 40% on the primary vote (Labor up a point, the Coalition steady), the Greens down one to 9% and Palmer United steady on 3%. Further questions:

• Opinion on the balance of power in the Senate is found to be unchanged since July in being slightly favourable, with 37% reckoning it good for democracy, 29% bad and 18% indifferent. When asked if the Senate has been right to block or reject various items of legislation, yes outpolls no in every case.

• A little surprisingly (to me at least), 42% think the 1.5% pay increase for defence personnel fair, versus 47% for unfair.

• Fifty-six per cent disagree with the Prime Minister’s contention that his government has “fundamentally kept faith with the Australian people” with respect to election promises, with 31% in agreement. Opinion is inevitably divided along party lines, but Greens voters are found to be even more negative than Labor ones, albeit that the sample for the latter is extremely small.

• As Essential does from time to time, respondents were asked for their view on various attributes with respect to the two leaders. The last time this was done was at the height of the Coalition’s post-budget poll collapse, and the latest survey finds Tony Abbott’s position very slightly improved, most noticeably with respect to “hard-working” (up five to 62%) and “good in a crisis” (up seven to 42%), the latter being an interesting bit of residue from his now vanishing poll recovery on the back of MH17 and terrorism concerns. However, he has dropped a further four points on “visionary”, to 27%. Reflecting his long-standing poll stasis, Bill Shorten’s readings are little changed, although he is down five on “a capable leader” to 46%.

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.

1,484 comments on “Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 26 of 30
1 … 25 26 27 … 30

  1. Martin Parkinson’s spells it out.

    Outgoing Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson says the latest economic figures show tax reform is urgently needed in order to stop future living standards from falling.
    In one of his last speeches before he steps down next week, Dr Parkinson warned the government needed to make serious changes after his term ends in order to avoid the negative economic effects of mounting debt.
    “There is a very real risk that living standards may actually fall in some years,” he said. “This is not an abstract issue. We have already seen living standards… fall in 2012-13. We saw them flat last year.
    “And today’s national accounts reinforce those concerns that we have been expressing publicly. National income has fallen again for second quarter in a row.
    “This should be understood for what it is – a serious warning to us as a nation that unless we tackle structural reform, including fixing our fundamental budget problem, we will not be able to guarantee rising income and living standards for Australians.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/gdp-figures-send-a-serious-warning-treasury-secretary-martin-parkinson-20141203-11yz63.html#ixzz3KodIKAsb

  2. ltep

    The reason behind my post is that I had a maiden name which every receptionist or shop assistant, without fail, pronounced wrongly when they saw it written down, even when I had just spoken my name, because their way was the “usual” way. A distant, distant strand of the family in America, however, is always pronounced the “right” way. So I never believe anyone except the “owner”.

  3. [All they lack is my more considered and complete contribution “Post Liberalism – a treatise in humanist economics”.]

    Going by the title, it will be loaded with value judgements, WHICH YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO DO, because it leads to the communism, or Yugoslavia, or something.

    *According to the high priests of value-free neo-liberal economics.

  4. My daughter is singing Xmas carols (in robes no less) in Martin Place near the crappy council Xmas tree.

    I raised the storm risk with the organisers, to which they mentioned they had ponchos.

  5. Much of Sydney is enveloped in a severe thunderstorm after a day that was hot and humid away from the coast. It’s dark (even though it’s another 90 minutes to sunset) with lots of thunder and lightning. It’s posutively bucketed down here.

    It must be fun (not) in the evening peak, on the roads and on public transport.

  7. [1248
    lizzie]

    cool, huh. since we are networked, this scrap of an idea – this blip in the imagination – could catch on and become “something”.

    there is no question, we need to move on from the anglophone accountancy that masquerades as liberal economics. we need a new paradigm.

    unbelievably, a moth has just landed on my trousers and crawled up my thighs and settled down in the gusset. i feel as if chaos theory has come over for afternoon tea.

  8. [Much of Sydney is enveloped in a severe thunderstorm after a day that was hot and humid away from the coast. It’s dark (even though it’s another 90 minutes to sunset) with lots of thunder and lightning. It’s posutively bucketed down here.]

    So it’s been a good week to be on the Gold Coast then?

  10. [Anyway – he should ask Wang what the correct pronunciation is, not go round contradicting others.]

    I watched Pyne last night being more than his usual tool self over the pronunciation of Wang. Today, at work , I asked my colleague Ms Wang – an immigrant from mainland China how she pronounced her surname – Wung was her reply. Methinks she lives with Wang but pointed out that it was definitely not Wong.

  20. The poor national accounts prove that the infrastructure PM had better extract the digit real soon or he will drive the economy into recession.

    Oh and why do the ABC persist in getting the views of market economists before the announcement of major economic indicators? They are always wrong.

    Then they interview them so they can ignore being wrong.

  21. victoria@1247

    What would Shorten do without the insight of Latika Bourke

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/there-is-a-lesson-for-bill-shorten-in-the-coalitions-failures-20141203-11zf2w.html

    There are a number of things Shorten could do to improve the bottom line without hurting the vast majority of voters, or incurring their wrath.

    Increase the medicare levy. It has never paid for itself anyhow, the balance comes out of general revenue.

    Increase taxes on all individual incomes above $100 000.

    Get rid of all the superannuation rorts for people on high incomes.

    Get stuck into companies which use overseas tax havens, and make them pay their fair share of tax.

  25. [1265
    Libertarian Unionist

    Briefly, to really shake them up, get a title starting with a definite article.]

    Something imperative….”Don’t leave me in charge – I’m an idiot…case studies in the trickster economy”

  27. Sendell will do what McGovern is doing, what Katter is doing, what Bandt is doing: playing political shag on a rock.

    That is to say, each one of the above is taking a salary for making no practical difference. They do not have the BOP. No-one listens to them. They have no prospect of forming government.

    You’re afflicted with a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy works. It isn’t a binary state of either “in government and exercise influence” or “not in government and make no practical difference”. The reality of politics is complex and messy. Parliamentarians who do not belong to a major party can and do make a practical difference by making arguments which would otherwise not be heard, by mobilizing constituencies which would otherwise not be active, and by changing the cost-benefit calculus which other parties face. The Greens, for example, can make it more costly for Labor to sell out on important principles compared to what they would be able to get away with if the Greens were not there to hold their feet to the fire. The Greens have governed with Labor at federal, state, and territory levels, and have frequently held the balance of power or been essential to Labor legislation in upper houses at all levels. Objectively the Greens matter a great deal in our political system. That significance will expand as our economic and ecological problems grow more acute.

  28. [It is far more likely to turn out that the converse is true – that humans are but one example of intelligence.]

    I completely agree. I mean obviously God is more intelligent than humans and if anything we are a pale reflection of his intelligence. Pardon me … His Intelligence.

    [How do you know? You impute a lot of power to human agency. That’s not unreasonable. But it’s probably a mistake.]

    The machines told me, and so far machines going crazy and killing humans off their own bat has only happened a few times, and then only when the humans pushed those machines beyond their ability to take any more….

    Seriously tho – how do I know what?

    I spose i should have said “its more likely by a huge amount that machines won’t turn on us and wipe us out” rather than “they never will”. But apart from that – the assumption that machines will become conscious then destroy humanity seems stupid. Why would they? What would motivate that process? If anything the assumption that will happen is just another form of anthropomorphism. Even if robots learned to lie 5 years ago its doesn’t automatically follow that as soon as they get some autonomy they’ll embark on a Numanesque orgy of slaughter.

    [Why should we be at the centre of intelligence? We just “assume” that intelligence is a distinctly human property.]

    I dunno why you think I think that. I don’t see how you think i think that based on what I wrote – I certainly don’t think that is the case.

    [We have been anthropomorphising nature from the word go.]

    Yeah but within certain limits that is reasonable. We are a part of nature, we – well the systems we use to process information and react to it (our nervous and endocrine systems) – did not spring fully developed from nowhere. They are the result of natural selection and are shared by animals to some extent. Therefore its reasonable to credit some human traits to animals. Well perhaps that should be stated differently.

    Its reasonable to credit some animal behaviours to humans.

    ie When animals teach their offspring stuff that is a “human trait”. Actually saying it is a human trait that animals share is describing the thing backwards – its an animal trait that humans share.

    So its reasonable to assume that animals have intelligence – ie an ability to receive and interpret signals from their environment. It may even be incredibly similar to humans but shaped by the biological demands those animals deal with.

    That is a long winded way of agreeing with this:

    [It is far more likely to turn out that the converse is true – that humans are but one example of intelligence. Considered from the standpoint of the infinitely large universe, this is practically inevitable.]

  29. [Tony Abbott @TonyAbbottMHR
    A sad, poignant, beautiful service to celebrate the life of Phillip Hughes today in Macksville #RIPPhillipHughes]

    Vampire.

  31. [Something imperative….”Don’t leave me in charge – I’m an idiot…case studies in the trickster economy”]

    Thats a perfect title.

  32. Let me add that the word “anthropomorphism” originally dealt with the process of attributing human features to God. It was only later used to describe the (assumed false) attribution of human features on non-human life.

  39. [Nicholas
    Posted Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Sendell will do what McGovern is doing, what Katter is doing, what Bandt is doing: playing political shag on a rock.

    That is to say, each one of the above is taking a salary for making no practical difference. They do not have the BOP. No-one listens to them. They have no prospect of forming government.

    You’re afflicted with a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy works. It isn’t a binary state of either “in government and exercise influence” or “not in government and make no practical difference”.]

    Democracy works in mysterious ways but basically you are either in opposition and waiting to form government, or you are in government.

    Bandt, Katter, McGovern talk and talk and talk. But if the government of the day is ignoring them, as this one is, then they are shags on a rock.

    [The reality of politics is complex and messy.]

    Well, I know it is for the Greens who have to persuade themselves, and others, that it is better to vote for representatives who will not form government.

    The Greens would be more truthful if the called themselves The Shags On a Rock Party.

    [Parliamentarians who do not belong to a major party can and do make a practical difference by making arguments which would otherwise not be heard,…]

    Perhaps the Greens Party should call themselves the Whistling in the Wind Party. As if the Coalition is listening to anything at all that Bandt, McGovern and Katter are saying. Gimme a break.

    [.. by mobilizing constituencies which would otherwise not be active,..]

    The Greens Party lost the plot when it stopped being an NGO running effective campaigns and started trying to pretend that it was a government-in-waiting and worth wasting a vote on a shag on a rock.

    [.. and by changing the cost-benefit calculus which other parties face.]

    [The Greens, for example, can make it more costly for Labor to sell out on important principles compared to what they would be able to get away with if the Greens were not there to hold their feet to the fire.]

    This is what I have been arguing all along. The Greens play Russian Roulette with the environment by doing their best to damage Labor. The result is Coalition governments which immediately start doing real damage to the environment.

    [The Greens have governed with Labor at federal, state, and territory levels,…]

    I note the past tense here. Quite apt – except for the ACT, these are all governments that ended up in electoral destruction for the Labor Party. IMHO, Labor would be very, very foolish to ever again have anything at all to do with the Greens Party.

    BTW, if the Greens Party wants to govern, let it get the numbers. Federally, you only have to get another 6 million votes to gain a House majority.

    […and have frequently held the balance of power or been essential to Labor legislation in upper houses at all levels.]

    Well, most of the time they have not held the BOP. When the Greens do, the Greens achievements are pathetic, with the core achievements going, rightfully, to the real government of the day.

    [Objectively the Greens matter a great deal in our political system. That significance will expand as our economic and ecological problems grow more acute.]

    Objectively, the Greens’ vote has been flatlining for years. Despite a historic opportunity in Victoria and with the background of a vicious Federal Government that feeds the sort of moral outrage upon which the Greens Party should feast, you guys got a reduced vote in Victoria.

    But I do grant you that the Greens Party has some power to increase the probability of reactionary governments gaining power.

    I also grant you that the Greens, when in control of a BOP, have some power to shift things at the margins. When they do not have a BOP they are essentially meaningless.

    And I do grant you that the Greens Party can be an expert stopper, provided it has the support of other parties in the Senate, for example. (On its own it is useless, BTW.)

    But the Greens start nothing, initiate nothing and carry through – in their own right – nothing.

    In summary: the Greens are mostly completely irrelevant.

    Given that their vote is flatlining, this is unlikely to change any time soon.

    The Greens sometimes affect things at the margins – but never at the core: that is the business of real parties doing real government.

    The Greens will never be able to implement, as a government in their own right, and in an integrated way, all their policies because they will never form government in their own right.

    The most important thing to understand when comparing the Greens with Labor is that the Greens will never be able to walk their talk.

    Labor routinely in government, has to try to make their talk work.

    Talk or walk; chalk or cheese.

    By playing Russian Roulette and electorally damaging the Labor Party, which the Greens always intend to do, and sometimes succeed in doing, the Greens Party ocassionally gifts government to the Liberals and the Nationals.

    Russian roulette.

  42. From the Latika Bourke article:

    [The lesson for Shorten is that if he wants to be bold in government as he should, he will also need to be bold in opposition and risk a pre-election scare campaign for the benefit of a clear mandate to carry out reform in office.]

    So she wants Shorten to present a large target (and be hammered by Murdoch and the MSM including herself). Why didn’t she tell Abbott to do the same before the 2013 election? No answer needed.

  43. lizzie

    Tsk, tsk.

    Nicholas directed his post in my direction. He must have been expecting an answer. He got it.

    You could always request Nicholas and the other Greens to stop bullshitting about how the Greens, flatlining on around 10-12%, are practically in government.

  45. c

    Where was Ms Bourke when Abbott was electioneering, I wonder?

    Oh, that’s right. We got an endless stream of tweets that more or less started with, ‘Mr Abbott said… ‘

  47. Boerwar

    But you’ve repeated yourself endlessly on the same subject. It’s as bad as calling them Loons all the time. We know what you think. It’s just boring and you can be much more interesting than that.

    My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the Greens are a party of protest. They also work well in Committees on their special subjects.

  48. lizzie

    I was responding to a specific post directed specifically at me by a Greens Party supporter.

    Can’t say fairer than that.

    I don’t think an election campaign based around the concept of useful committee work is going to work very well at all.

    The problem with being a protest party is that it does not get you government.

    And it is being in government that makes the real differences.

  49. Boerwar

    Okay, okay. I won’t argue with you. Their vote has flatlined and they’re unlikely to win government on their own.

    And now I’m off. It’s been a very Pyneful day 🙁

  50. BW,

    You answered the specific question.

    Whateveryone would like to know is your general opinion about the Greens and their future role in Australian politics.

Comments Page 26 of 30
1 … 25 26 27 … 30

Leave a Reply

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