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 29 of 30
1 28 29 30
  1. 1400

    Parliamentary Secretaries are more middle-benchers. The House of Reps has several rows of benches and Parliamentary secretaries do not tend to sit in the front row of benches.

  2. [Ok, fess up now. Who has been out to dinner with Senator Johnston at the Adelaide casino?

    at $330 a head…]

    Next time he’s in Adelaide, if he wants someone to dine with and that kind of money’s being thrown around, I’ll gladly put my hand up!

  3. I wonder if Pyne is the sort of person to tell his boss “everything’s fine it is all under control”, until thr wheels fall off.
    I could imagine him telling Tone that.
    Having said that, as mentioned above, for him to have new legislation ready to present to parliament , someone would have to be drafting for several days

  4. For those who don’t partake of Murdoch tabloids..

    [EXCLUSIVE

    AUSSIE troops may be facing a pre-Christmas pay cut but Defence top brass are spending thousands of taxpayer dollars wining and dining industry figures vying for billions of dollars in government contracts.

    Documents obtained by News Corp show that many of the five-star meals hosted during November — at a total cost of $6384 and up to $300-a-head — included $200 wines, $20 cocktails and exotic culinary delights such as oysters verjuice.

    Soldiers who travel on official business can claim up to $47 for dinner, $28 for lunch and $24 for breakfast provided there is no flight meal involved.

    The government is offering them a pay-rise of just 1.5 per cent which is well below inflation.

    Guests included foreign dignitaries who were hosted by the Minister David Johnston and his Chief-of-Staff Sean Costello.]

    http://www.news.com.au/national/defence-pay-debate-minister-and-senior-staff-spent-thousands-of-dollars-on-wine-and-food/story-fncynjr2-1227142684363

  5. RE: the argument on AI overtaking the humans but not destroying them unless programmed to do so.

    In the Matrix, the AI eventually subjugated the humans because humans pose a threat to its own habitat, and this threatened the AI’s source of power: the sun. Mankind has polluted the Earth enough that the AI could no longer rely on solar power. Seeing the humans as a threat, the AI decided that the final solution was to harvest humans as batteries for power instead.

  6. [Unfortunately for the Liberals I think a lot of people are starting to question whether the Abbott government is sustainable.]

    Have people stopped listening to Abbott I wonder?

  7. [Bill is getting somewhat a reputation for his “Zingers” – they make people groan, but he can laugh it off as they are all scripted.]

    I recently heard the explanation for why Christmas Bon-Bon jokes are all so bad: humour is such an individual taste that any genuinely funny joke is guaranteed to be seen as crass, confusing or just unfunny by many people. Really bad jokes, on the other hand, have mass appeal: we can all groan at them together.

    Maybe the same theory is in play?

  8. confessions

    My son who is focussed on work, his social life and renovating etc, saw Abbott ‘s face appear on tv. He then made fhe comment that Abbott is stuffed and it is all over for him. There is no coming back for him. I actually challenged my son on this, and he was adamant. Abott is a laughing stock and no one believes a word he says.

  9. RE: Wang vs Wong

    It is interesting to note that in our senate, we have both a Penny Wong and a “Dio” Wang. They have similar surnames.

    Wong is a Malaysian of Chinese decent. Majority of the Chinese in Malaysia descended from immigrants from Southern China, of which most speak dialects that most likely would pronounce it as something like “Wong”.

    Wang is an immigrant from Nanjing, China where Mandarin is more widely spoken, and the Anglicised version of the surname would be “Wang”.

    Of course, a native Mandarin speaker would have had the proper intonation of the surname and the limited form of English vowels doesn’t come quite close with “Wong” or “Wang”.

  10. Again, contra Mumble, the Lefty E thesis: “the polls are telling us something”.

    They didnt change under Gillard. That was the same electorate.

    Feel free to point out the error of my ways.

  11. [1415
    confessions

    Have people stopped listening to Abbott I wonder?]

    One thing we will not hear much more of is “debt and deficit disaster”. This is because the debt and deficit problems are going to overwhelm the LNP.

  12. [1423
    confessions]

    Any day now the media will cotton on…the deficit is the only thing keeping the economy growing even a little bit. Hockey got close to saying as much at his presser.

  13. kb 1412 – wonder who that source was who predicted the Coalition would be “Deeply unpopular by December”?

    By the way – I had very transiently noticed your occupation before as “invertebrate research consultant, mainly” and had thought it was a joke about politicians. Now I see you really are an invertebrate ecologist!

    Invertebrates rarely get “good press” compared to vertebrates – if they were fighting an election against vertebrates they would be scorned in the “mainstream” media. And yet they contain some of my favorites especially the (very sadly) extinct trilobites. Which I always think of when I see the picture of a Balmain Bug on the wall chart in the fish and chip shop.

    http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/thezone/fossils/inverts/

  14. lefty e: Well, here’s one difference: at the next election the Coalition can expect some “sophomore surge” in the electorates it took from Labor in 2013 – Labor didn’t have that advantage last year.

  15. [1329
    jules
    Are people here not fans of the TPP?
    ]

    Good grief jules, are you new to PB??

    [1340
    PlayerOne
    One of the key aims of the TPP is to make schemes such as the PBS unlawful.
    ]

    Not only that, but a major component of the TPP is a concept known as “investor-state dispute resolution” which allows corporations to sue governments if they implement policies that hurt those corporations’ interests. Tobacco companies have used this mechanism in our FTA with Hong Kong to sue the Australian Government over the plain packaging laws. The previous Labor Government was refusing to allow Australia to be subject to this in the TPP, but Robb has sold Australia’s arse to American corporations.

  16. Good point about how it’s always Medicare, science, and higher education which have to be sustainable, but never dividend imputation, capital gains tax concessions, superannuation tax concessions, negative gearing, tax havens, the private health insurance rebate, public funds for non-public schools. If the policy favours rentiers, it never has to meet a sustainability test.

  17. 1432

    With the way Investor State Dispute Settlement seems to be heading, it may be necessary to pull out of treaties with it.

  18. [1431
    confessions

    Any day now the media will cotton on

    Hmmm. Not seeing that.]

    The penny will drop for at least one of them when they read MYEFO…the economy is scarcely growing…if the government were to cut its spending, demand/the economy would inevitably shrink…the stimulus is there for all to see.

    Hockey is going to be a bigger stimulator than Swan…a comparison he will hate…

  19. It’s not that simple Tom, many bilateral treaties have provisions that punish one party for pulling out. And ISDS inclusions have been specifically designed to make it difficult to get out of once signed up to. This is one of the reasons why Labor was so resistant to it’s inclusion.

  20. ISDS in treaties will have to be legislated for here, and I see great potential for the Senate to say “shove it”. PUP and Lambie and Muir and Madigan and (maybe) Xenophon are quite likely to have problems with ISDS (if they are adequately appraised of what it means in terms of foreign companies being able to effectively sue the Australian government for going about its business). If the ALP doesn’t wave it through, and I don’t see any reason why they should given their principled opposition to it in the past, all of these treaties with ISDS in them could be in trouble IMO, and yet I don’t see any discussion of this in the media wrt to the FTAs being “signed”.

    Have I misunderstood the FTA process?

  21. Jackol @ 1439 – Relying on the Senate to block what is on the face of it an arcane and poorly understood mechanism is problematic at best.

  22. [So … draw your own conclusions.]

    Player One I already have.

    I’m guessing they’re very similar to yours.

    It just surprises me how little vocal resistance there seems to be to it.

  23. Free trade is only useful when done strategically and selectively. It’s a terrible deal if you sign up to it indiscriminately. The trans-pacific partnership is a dud deal because it stifles innovation and economic development by giving excessive US-style protection to intellectual property. Some protection for IP is warranted but the US goes too far. Patents for pharmaceuticals should be limited to ten years and NOT RENEWABLE. There must also be provisions to breach patents if a compelling public interest is at stake. Patents must only be granted to genuinely original and non-obvious discoveries. America’s patent standards are way too low. Patent trolls need to be driven out of business and heavily fined. Copyright should just be a flat thirty years since publication. Life of the author plus seventy years is absurd.

    The Australian community, through its accountable government, should have control over wages, working conditions, work-family balance, environmental standards, public health care, public education, and public utilities. No foreign company should be permitted to sue an Australian entity because Australian standards impinge on its profits. The onus is on the foreign investor to adjust to doing business in a first rate social democracy. We should bear no obligation to dilute our standards to the lowest common denominator. Our aim to is maximize human welfare. Profit-making must be complementary and subordinate to that aim.

  24. It’s not that simple Tom, many bilateral treaties have provisions that punish one party for pulling out.

    I’m not so sure of this. International trade, finance, seem remarkably resistant to any sustained idea of meting out punishment to recalcitrant countries. Argentina defaulted on its debts and a decade later (short of the legal action in the US courts) they faced basically no repercussions.

    I suspect a lot of the handwringing about what you “just don’t do” in international trade and relations is a load of bunk.

    I honestly don’t think pulling out of one of these FTAs would be such a big deal. There’d be some short term international criticism, but particularly if there was good reason – such as companies clearly abusing the process – I don’t think anyone would hold it against us for any length of time, and at the end of the day the various players are more interested in making a buck than trying to punish us for breaking a treaty.

  25. [1435
    Tom the first and best

    With the way Investor State Dispute Settlement seems to be heading, it may be necessary to pull out of treaties with it.]

    Labor should be making it crystal clear that the moment the gain office they will be immediately suspending those agreements and starting renegotiations. No ifs or buts.

    Giving away sovereignty like that to corporate spivs is about as dumb and corrupt as it gets. We will be fleeced blind in a heartbeat, with zero chance of ever getting it back.

  26. And besides they would have to block the entire treaty, not just a specific part. I imagine there would be some reluctance to do that.

    There may be (and should be) reluctance, but ultimately I don’t see the political problem with the Senate rejecting any of these FTAs. The public are only weakly engaged with the negotiation process and are probably only supportive to the extent that any particular agreement is seen as a clear “win-win”. As soon as serious negative consequences are apparent I don’t think the Australian public would punish the ALP, Greens or crossbenchers for making a stand.

  27. Nicholas @ 1142 – agreed. ISDS should not exist (or at the very least, should not exist between two nations that have independent and non-corrupt judicial systems.) as it is a deliberate attack on social democracy by American corporations attempting to export America’s broken and corrupt attitudes to good public policy.

  28. Jackol – I hope you’re right, but I don’t hold much hope that our corporate media would relay Labor’s (and others) message that a FTA with ISDS is unfair for Australia.

  29. [I honestly don’t think pulling out of one of these FTAs would be such a big deal. There’d be some short term international criticism, but particularly if there was good reason – such as companies clearly abusing the process – I don’t think anyone would hold it against us for any length of time, and at the end of the day the various players are more interested in making a buck than trying to punish us for breaking a treaty.]

    I will bet if one or two countries do it, there will be a few more who follow. It is pretty clear that the voters around the world generally do not like such deals, and certainly don’t see much benefit from them.

    This descent into ever more extreme neo-liberalism only works if there is bipartisan agreement. Once one side of politics says no, the Emperor is left naked.

  30. Just me – It is transparently a neo-liberal attempt to adjust the odds in favour of corporations and the rich. Despite what Jackol says, I’m not so sure that Labor would be confident enough or have abandoned neo-liberalism enough to pull us out of a TPP with ISDS.

Comments Page 29 of 30
1 28 29 30

Leave a Reply

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