Roy Morgan’s second poll of the Malcolm Turnbull prime ministership is an even better result for the Coalition than the first, recording a one-point increase in the primary vote to 47%, with Labor down two to 27.5% and the Greens up one to 14%. On the headline two-party figure based on respondent-allocated preferences, the Coalition lead is up from 55-45 to 56-44. Based on preference flows from the 2013 election, it’s up from 53.5-46.5 to 55-45. The poll was conducted over the past two weekends by face-to-face and SMS from a sample of 3011.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Just as the leadership change appears to have cost Roy Morgan its long-established Labor bias, in the short-term it least, so it seems Essential Research has lost its trademark stability. That’s belied by headline figures for this week which show the Coalition’s two-party lead unchanged at 52-48, from steady primary votes of 44% for the Coalition and 35% for Labor, with the Greens and Palmer United both down a point to 10% and 1% respectively. However, the result of last week’s two-week fortnightly average included a 50-50 result from the previous week that is not included in this week’s result, so it follows that this week’s numbers failed to replicate those that caused last week’s sharp movement from 50-50 to 52-48.
Essential’s first monthly leadership ratings of Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership record his approval rating at 47% and disapproval at 17%, with a weighty 35% opting for don’t know. Bill Shorten enjoys an eight-point drop in his disapproval rating since a month ago to 42%, but his approval rating is up only a point to 30%. Turnbull leads 48-19 as preferred prime minister, which is down from 53-17 when the question was asked immediately after the leadership change.
Also featured are questions on which party is most trusted to handle various issues, which was also asked shortly before Tony Abbott was deposed. Only two results are significantly different: the Liberals’ lead over Labor for “political leadership” is up from 9% to 18%, while that for “treatment of asylum seekers” is down from 12% to 7%. The Greens are included as a response option here, which presumably has the effect of weakening the totals for Labor. Further findings have 42% saying private health insurance should be means tested compared with 44% who said everyone should receive a rebate; 56% rating it more important to expand public transport than to build roads and freeways, versus 33% for vice-versa; and 64% saying new roads and freeways should be built only if governments can pay for them without tolls, versus 24% who believe tolls should be charged as necessary.
[Expat Follower
….Every party after being landslided out of office has won seats back the next election (’84, ’98, ’10) – am talking losing a whole mass of seats in a real dumping.
Can you think of a landslide winner with a big majority increasing its seats in the following election?]
83- Hawke popular but went early in 84 and was probably punished
96- Howard never really loved…..respected now, but not back then
10- Rudd was popular but he was dumped. He may well have won that election but not with a swing! However, had Gillard won in 2007, and then they dumped her for Rudd in 2009, then I think there was the prospect of a swing to Rudd in 2010 if you know what I mean?
Its the fact that Turnbull is so much more popular than both Abbott and Shorten that this is a circumstance we have not seen before and hence I don’t discount the possibility….as amazing as it would be.
If Turnbull can moderate govt policy a bit with a sense of calm and stability then he is unbeatable in 2016… but 2013 has to be pretty close to trough-ALP in federal terms. Even in this situation, unless Shorten is caught with a barnyard animal, the ALP should win a few seats back.
If Shorten does a competent job with some imaginative policies and Turnbull really doesnt do much different (but still is calm/stable), which i think is a realistic scenario for the ALP, then a reasonable swing is on – but i not enough to win 20 seats for the ALP. For that, Turnbull would have to stuff up badly, which is a dream scenario for ALP but not particularly likely.
Idea is for Shorten to do enough to win seats back and we see what Turnbull can do to stem the tide by doing something good rather than just not being Abbott. Hence why i put ‘par’ for ALP at 65 +/-…
The only chance for an increased majority might have been if Rudd had gone to a DD in the immediate aftermath of the ETS debacle and Abbott beating Turnbull by 1 in 2010. Biggest political calculus blunder – ok, maybe not as big as Labor in the UK not supporting the voting system referendum a couple of years back
People here think a 10 seat gain to the ALP is feasible. So, getting 14 instead is not a much bigger stretch.
If the ALP get 14 seats the result is 73:72 and others 5.
That would make for a very interestin House of Reps. with a minority LNP Govt.
I know politicians don’t like hypotheticals, but scientists do.
Hmm now that i think abt it, Whitlam didnt win seats back in ’77 after the ’75 wipeout, if memory serves. Think that was an indictment on him which standard Shorten does not meet despite not being overly awesome
1052
Expat Follower
We don’t know when the election will be held. If it were to be held in the next few weeks the Liberals would be favoured.
But there are redistributions to complete. As well, the Liberals have no policies at all and will need at least a few more months to get their heads around the key issues. It’s also quite likely that Turnbott is just starting to settle into his job. He will likely want to get the hang of it before going to an election.
Of course, the longer he waits, the more opportunity there is for things to go wrong, for the economy and budget to miss expectations, and for Labor to develop its own campaign. As well, if things do start to miss, then the Crazy Right may try for a rebound, Rudd-style.
If the election is held when it’s due – in 12 months – then it may be a lot closer than people think. There are serious issues on the minds of voters that will resonate for Labor. I think it’s far to soon to call a result on an election that has yet to be announced let alone fought.
Boolean, 55+14 = 69? Needs another 4-5 on top of that (ie nearer to 20 seats)… which is a step-change from ~10 imho.
Turnbull is ~30% more popular as PPM in the latest Essential
LNP is ~20% ahead of ALP in best to handle economy
Those side figures make the 55/56 TPP result more believable than it would otherwise be. Even if it is just the 52-48 of Essential, that only represents a small swing (and Bludgertrack shows that to be around 87 seats to the LNP).
Jo Nova right wing climate skeptic nutjob gets slapped down by Lord Deben
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/lord-deben-climate-change-isnt-going-to-wait-for/6832268
Briefly, I do agree with you in one respect… a recession next year (reasonably probable) in the context of not doing much different (reasonably probable) could be very bad for the coalition and an electoral opportunity for the ALP to be treated favourably.
But I do believe all else being equal that overcoming the last election’s seat deficit is a herculean task only achievable with absolute incumbent ineptness. Abbott tick, Newman tick, Turnbull not so much…
The tougher the economic situation gets certainly makes it more interesting. Minimalist Turnbull in that scenario would not go down too well i suspect, but it also gives him an opportunity to be more activist than he otherwise would be – the qn is whether such activism would be mega-right wing or more moderate/centrist
Expat Follower@1048
Although ALP wasn’t technically landslid out of office in ’75 (since Whitlam had been sacked) I think it’s notable that Labor under Whitlam made only very small seat gains in ’77.
On that basis I also wouldn’t rule out the Coalition gaining seats at the next election, but I think it’s quite unlikely, especially given the dodgy state of the economy. The most likely way it would happen might involve Tony Abbott cropping up in campaign week and trying to talk down Turnbull. Labor should be secretly dreading such a thing. 🙂
…or perhaps Gillard coming out to campaign for Shorten?
🙂
1058
Happiness
Yes, the polling suggests that Labor has its hands full. Luckily, Labor can read the polls as well as anyone else and know what to do. Few things can be taken as given in Australian politics, and the certainty of winning elections is one of them. Labor need a further swing of around 2% to be in the race. 2% from the Liberals’ tally of 51.9% is just under one Liberal voter in every 25. I reckon we can persuade 1/25. It’s definitely feasible. We just have to reach the soft, the uncommitted, the woo-able. So reach them we will.
Obviously I am not a scientist!! 55+14 is in fact 69.
briefly:
Indeed, 1 in 25 voters may not be that hard to convince.
The question is whether it will be
1 in 25 LNP voters switching to ALP or
1 in 25 ALP voters switching to LNP
So far in this blog, and in my individual experience, it is ALP voters from 2013 who are switching.
Bridget O’Flynn
Bridget O’Flynn – @BridgetOFlynn
Michael Kroger says Sophie Mirabella is in with a good chance of stealing Indie back.
#asif
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kroger-tells-party-faithful-turnbull-will-save-5-liberal-seats-at-400000-fundraiser-20151007-gk3892.html …
The Age
The Age
Embedded image
Switch to Malcolm Turnbull to save five Liberal seats: Michael Kroger
Victorian Liberal president Michael Kroger has credited Malcolm Turnbull with a dramatic turnaround in the party’s fortunes, telling an exclusive party fundraiser the switch of leader meant just one…
View on web
1:49 AM – 7 Oct 2015
1 RETWEET4 FAVORITES
Kev B
yes techically you right – sacked yes, but the following election was a landslide not especially reversed in ’77. I’m gonna put that down to lack of trust in Whitlam personally – Hayden would surely have done better. Shorten not in that kinda boat (with due deference to the ‘hands not entirely clean’ claims re Rudd/Gilliard, he’s still not either of them).
most likely way Coalition gains seats is for Abbott to crop up?? am sure you didnt mean how that reads?
Bloody hell please lets not have Mirabella back no matter what happens. Also, dont people think Tony Windsor should run for the NSW senate instead of for a seat in the reps… his influence would be much greater there, and i can see enough people preferencing him to winning a quota (myself included)
I’ll go on record here as saying Turnbull will achieve a significantly increased majority if Labor sticks with Shorten. Decisive as it was, the LNP victory in 2013 was undoubtedly dampened by the Abbott factor notwithstanding the hari-kari of Rudd-Gillard-Rudd.
From what I can tell Sophie Mirabella is personally despised across much of Indi. The story of her treatment of Colin Howard got a fairly wide airing, I believe, at the time of the last election.
[Supporters of penalty rates should be encouraged by the fact that their stance is shared by most Australians and that employers have failed to make the economic case for this attack on incomes, writes Tim Lyons. Since the regime change in Canberra, amongst the things that have stayed exactly the same are Coalition ministers supporting calls for cuts to weekend penalty rates, and Sunday rates in particular. This has been part of a “call and response” game that has been playing out between employer groups and the Coalition over some years now.]
Link
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-07/lyons-defending-penalty-rates-does-not-require-political-bravery/6833740
It sounds to me like Mortison will do the smart thing and adjust the tax system so penalty rates can be reduced. Workers will get the same pay. Business costs will reduce. More business will open and put staff on. Everybody wins.
silmaj
Fmd you really do talk crap
1074
I’m not a party hack.
victoria:
What do you make of KJackon’s home being raided?
Im happy to knock a seat off the LNP total to not have Mirabella back.
That is clearly in Australia’s best interest…..
silmaj
Who is going to fund the tax credits?
Has the ALP ever held 90 seats in the reps since ’83… i dont think so. Coalition twice (’96 and now just)… going past 90 seats is pretty hard in Aus – needs a smashing result (like ’75)
I just cant see an incumbent government increasing beyond current levels unless the opposition is an absolute disaster, which Shorten is clearly not. Whether he’s positively viewed enough to cross the PM threshold is an altogether different standard – you either have to be imagination-capturing (Hawke/Rudd), or the incumbent has to be really hated to allow an uninspiring person in (i would apply this to Fraser, Howard, Abbott). Neither applies here, i would suggest.
Why is it that when Labor get tossed out they get really smashed in massive electoral landslides, but the Coalition dont?
Because the LNP are better economic managers
[1060
Expat Follower]
I’m not a pessimist. Turnbott has to maintain unity in a very deeply divided Liberal Party. This may limit his policy and rhetorical discretion. Labor have to make up ground but know very clearly where this has to occur. Labor also have a campaign plan…something the Liberals still cannot have developed. Everything has changed for them.
For all of Turnbott’s talk of “disruption” and “agility”, a lot of households firstly dislike disruption and secondly have little capacity for agility. We don’t know how these themes will play out. Certainly, Labor found it hard to sell modernity when Abbott was selling rejection. The election result must be regarded as uncertain….
[1080
Happiness
Because the LNP are better economic managers…]
lol
This is a fallacy. Th economy performed better during the RGR period than it has since 2013.
1078
No need to fund if extra people employed. In fact the more people working as you all would know means less welfare. This could possibly be targeted at youth unemployment.
Expat Follower #1079
[Why is it that when Labor get tossed out they get really smashed in massive electoral landslides, but the Coalition dont?]
Because the Coalition achieve a higher number of primary votes than Labor does (in the House of Reps), and their primary vote is highly concentrated in more seats/regions than Labor’s primary vote, thus making it harder for Labor to win those seats, even in a landslide.
And the evidence that more people will be working is what?
Is it not just as likely that employers will pocket the savings and say ‘thank you mother for the rabbits’ to the government, with taxpayers left footing the bill?
[Expat Follower
Posted Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:29 pm | PERMALINK
Has the ALP ever held 90 seats in the reps since ’83… i dont think so. ]
90/150 seats is 60%
The times the government had 60% of the seats:
1975
1977
(just missed out in 1980)
1983
(just missed out in 1987)
1996
(just missed out in 2004)
2013
So its not as far fetched as it seems
Bookstores boycott Campbell Newman’s book.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/video/watch/29746399/bookstores-boycott-campbell-newmans-book/#page1
Why is he publishing a book so soon after such a public humiliation and fall from grace? Reckon the last thing people in Qld (and let’s face it, it’d only be Qlders who’d know who on earth he is) want to see so soon is Newman.
Fess
What I think is why has it taken so long to actually conduct the raid?
To tired to write much but I can say today’s Zoomster Lunch was very enjoyable. Interesting building, good food, great company, lovely walk along the beach and jetty.
http://semaphoresa.com.au/history/history-tour/the-jetty/
Business costs will reduce. More business will open and put staff on. Everybody wins.
Business costs will reduce, profits will increase, more businesses will choose to open on weekends…profits will fall due to increased competition…workers wages will again be attacked because the businesses had a stupid business plan and rather than take the responsibility its easier to blame high wages
victoria:
There is that. No arrests though.
…interestingly, 26% of elections since the war have had landslides the seat equivalent of 90/150 seats:
2013
1996
1983
1977
1975 (peak of all elections at 71.7% of seats)
1958
1955
1949
Puff
Excellent. Say hello to zoomster
And what happens when business makes more profit? Could it be more tax revenue.
In relation to my own local member since Abbott was necked, he’s now back to Facebooking as though he’s part of the coalition govt instead of some random independent MP who had nothing to do with the govt. Which looking back was strange given he flanked Abbott walking into the partyroom on the night of the leader ballot, and I believe he’s gone public saying he voted for Abbott.
Bob each way perhaps, or showing a different face depending on the audience.
1090
Go back to harping on about qantas giving their executives 200 million.
if only Labor had embraced Tony Burke when they still had time.
1083
silmaj
It’s a fallacy to suppose that lower wages will result in higher employment in the aggregate. If low wages were the paradigm for a strong economy and full employment, then Myanmar or Bangladesh or Mauritania would have the best economies.
Labour productivity (and wages and employment) are determined by capital application. If we reduce wages, we reduce the incentive to substitute capital for labour; and we are less able to recruit and retain higher-skilled labour (more intensely capital-endowed labour). The result of reducing wages would be to reduce productivity, capital intensity and employment. This has been occurring in the Australian economy in the last few years, as we have seen.
We need to support wages, add capital/s, sustain demand and thereby lift the rates of return to both fixed and human capital. The means for this include both market and social mechanisms. We know what these mechanisms are and we should use them to reduce (really, to abolish) unemployment and lift real wages, starting at the lowest tiers.
This is not complicated. It is expansionary, positive and egalitarian. The alternative – actively reducing real wages – will result in economic and social suppression.
[AussieAchmed
Business costs will reduce, profits will increase, more businesses will choose to open on weekends…profits will fall due to increased competition…workers wages will again be attacked because the businesses had a stupid business plan and rather than take the responsibility its easier to blame high wages]
No imagination.
What if we grow the pie for a change rather than distributing a smaller pie?
More people might want to go out on the weekend and enjoy restaurants and movies and buy stuff in shops because everyone feels happier as we have a fab Prime Minister.
Labor won more than 60% of seats in 1943 and 1929, the Nationalists in 1917 and 1925 (in Coalition with the Country Party) and the UAP/Country Parties in 1931 as well.