The Australian has published Newspoll’s quarterly breakdowns, which combine results of polling conducted from October through December and breaks the results down by state, with gender and age cohort breakdowns presumably to follow shortly. The timing of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership coup in late September means comparison of the previous result with the current provides a neat measure of his impact, which appears to have been particularly big in Victoria and Western Australia. Both states record eight-point shifts on two-party preferred, giving the Coalition respective leads of 51-49 and 54-46. There have also been shifts of four points in New South Wales and five points in Queensland, respectively producing Coalition leads of 53-47 and 52-48. Only in South Australia is Labor still credited with the lead, which is down from 54-46 to 52-48. Two-party tables here, primary votes here and leaders ratings here (with thanks to Leroy Lynch).
UPDATE (29/12): And now the second tranche of the results, featuring breakdowns by gender and age cohort. The results suggest Malcolm Turnbull has had less effect on the gender gap than you might have figured, and that the change had less impact on younger respondents.
fess
Says it all about mtbw. I am not going to respond anymore to her. She cant be taken seriously. A joke is all
Douglas and Milko,
I believe that Turnbull’s popularity will drive a move back to the centre, especially when he has an electoral mandate under his belt (I don’t want Turnbull to win the 2016 election; I simply assume that he will especially if Shorten remains leader, and probably even if a more viable candidate is installed, though the margin would be considerably smaller).
The howls of protest you heard from the likes of Bolt, Rohan dean and the like after Abbott’s ouster reflect a basic truth: they know Turnbull commands the popularity to ensure the hardline policies of Abbott/Hockey will never be pursued under the government.
Most LNP MPs – mindful of political survival – will happily fall in line with a centrist Turnbull agenda. Only the few genuine hardliners will continue to gripe.
MPs are like sheep for the most part. They’ll graze where the paddock is lushest.
Braithwaite ‘out’ caught off a no-ball. WI putting up a bit more of a fight today which is good to see.
vic:
Btw thanks for Andrew Elder’s post this morning. This resonated for me, for obvious reasons 😀
[When the people are badly informed, it is the media’s fault – especially when they coalesce around one side of a story. That’s when you blame the media. They’re not to blame for everything in our political system – but going after the press gallery for failing at their jobs isn’t “shooting the messenger”. We are right to insist on more and better from these people.]
Fess
Agreed. Elder makes a very salient point
[Geoff Pearson
Geoff Pearson – @GCobber99
Ear, throat surgeries to be taken off Medicare Benefits Scheme | SBS News This mob just dont stop
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/12/28/ear-throat-surgeries-be-taken-medicare-benefits-scheme … …]
[153
confessions
When the people are badly informed, it is the media’s fault]
Labor knows the media is unlikely to give them a fair run. It has been ever thus. If Labor want to communicate with voters, we need to do it without relying on the media. That’s hard work but it can be done.
lizzie@113
That is the common perception out in the electorate, although it is fading with time. And of course others were involved, but some of the most visible are now gone.
https://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/07/get-fucked-turnbull-staffer-turns-on-blogger/ nice teacher’s Turnbull has?
ALP Headquarters should give Billy a shiny new sports car, a new iPhone, 1 flaming hot pie and a cup of boiling hot soy latte.
Take him out assassin style
lizzie@121
Trace it back to the event that started all the chaos. Don’t pick a starting point half way through that suits your purpose.
alias
if all that is true, then why isn’t Turnbull going all centrist on our arses now? What is he waiting for?
If he doesn’t change the Liberal policy agenda fairly soon, he will be stuck with it going into the next election. If he wins – and I agree, it is very likely he will, whoever leads the Opposition – then he will face a harder, not easier, task to shift towards the centre.
Liberal MPs who have campaigned and been elected on the old Abbott policies will argue that they have a mandate to impose these. Any attempt to change them will also risk accusations of broken promises.
Basically, your contention is that Turnbull should go to the next election knowingly lying to the public and his party.
Turnbull’s best chance of permanently shifting things to the centre – assuming that that is his wish, which I don’t believe – is to set out a new agenda now. He won’t.
A worthwhile contribution to the question of ABC bias:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/28/the-abc-is-like-a-victim-trapped-in-an-abusive-relationship-with-the-government
I’ve been reading this morning’s leadership discussions with interest & it seems that there may in fact be many apparently contradictory options yet all have at least a kernel of truth. Of course, it is always difficult for us to see & understand different perspectives from party political positions.
Turnbull was a poor Opposition leader whose character traits at that time led to his own demise.
Abbott was the most effective person (I’m gagging as I write this) to defeat the apparently dysfunctional RGR government yet was the worst Australian PM, was widely disliked & was thus overthrown quickly.
Shorten was the best person to rid Australia of Abbott but doesn’t have the gravitas to defeat Turnbull.
Turnbull has enormous popular support (like Rudd) & his advisers will be doing everything possible to stop him imploding in the way that Rudd & Abbott did. At this point in time, nobody is a serious threat to Turnbull but thete is always the risk that he may revert to type, only time will tell.
https://storify.com/BowlerBarrister/stephen-john-ellis
Following up my comment 158 another one of Turnbull ‘s staffers
Zoomster .. Why? Note my phrase “especially when he has an electoral mandate”.
TPOF
Bravo. Good link.
[Journalists and producers at the ABC often deploy a distinct methodology in seeking out an interviewee. “Are you available for an interview? Great. Can you recommend someone else to interview who will disagree with you?” For an enthusiast of wind power, that might mean nominating an advocate of wind turbine syndrome. Or coal. When a suitable contradictor proves elusive, there is always a default-recourse to the Institute of Public Affairs which can usually be relied on to fill the void.
…
Annabel Crabb’s convivials with Scott Morrison over a Sri Lankan curry were not just infused with turmeric but also with the ABC’s survival strategy. The ensuing controversy can be banked for now by the ABC and deployed, as needed, when next the crusaders’ cries of “bias” ring out. One episode of Kitchen Cabinet with Scott Morrison is worth at least two years of former Liberal Party Senator, Amanda Vanstone, broadcasting on ABC radio – and far less eye-wateringly dull.
Annabel Crabb’s convivials with Scott Morrison over a Sri Lankan curry were not just infused with turmeric but also with the ABC’s survival strategy. The ensuing controversy can be banked for now by the ABC and deployed, as needed, when next the crusaders’ cries of “bias” ring out. One episode of Kitchen Cabinet with Scott Morrison is worth at least two years of former Liberal Party Senator, Amanda Vanstone, broadcasting on ABC radio – and far less eye-wateringly dull.]
But look what we have to look forward to. I think this is worth a ‘Yikes!’
[In 2016, the ABC will feature a reality television show about the debate concerning the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. The show will provide star billing to Andrew Bolt, another crusader who wants the ABC abolished, argues that the climate has been cooling and who was been found by the Federal Court to have racially vilified Aboriginal people.
Like a victim trapped in an abusive relationship, there is no way out.]
In 2016, the ABC will feature a reality television show about the debate concerning the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. The show will provide star billing to Andrew Bolt, another crusader who wants the ABC abolished, argues that the climate has been cooling and who was been found by the Federal Court to have racially vilified Aboriginal people.
Like a victim trapped in an abusive relationship, there is no way out.]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/28/the-abc-is-like-a-victim-trapped-in-an-abusive-relationship-with-the-government
Some posters have a fixation on burning political leaders, as though they are firewood. The firewood theory of political leaders overlooks one key thing: political leaders are human beings, not firewood. If an Opposition Leader does a creditable job but they don’t win an election because circumstances are too unfavourable to their party, the election loss does not turn them into ashes and render them useless as an ongoing leader. The riskiest thing Labor could do on the leadership front in 2016 is to stand by Bill Shorten. He has been Opposition Leader for two years and has had insanely high net negative satisfaction ratings for that entire time. There has not been a single policy issue on which Bill Shorten’s work as Opposition Leader has caused voters to express an intention to vote for his party. He is not serving his core function, which is to persuade voters to vote for his party. Labor would lose nothing by giving a more articulate and cogent person a go. If that person still can’t win because of circumstances beyond their control, that doesn’t end their career. Standing by Bill Shorten at this point is bloody-minded, not reasonable.
TPOF:
Thanks for that. A very interesting read, we’ve often said the ABC under a Liberal govt develops a kind of stockholm syndrome.
Charlie Edwards
[ At this point in time, nobody is a serious threat to Turnbull but thete is always the risk that he may revert to type, only time will tell. ]
All the LNP need of Mal the Magnificent is that he win the next election for them so they can carry on with the agenda that Abbott set out to achieve for them but failed. His best chance of doing that is to do absolutely nothing – something which should be within his limited capabilities, provided he can contain his ego.
The only chance the ALP has is if Mal stuffs up badly. Given his propensity to do so, this is not beyond the realms of possibility – but it has bugger all to do with whether or not Shorten is leading the ALP.
Anyone angling for Shorten’s departure at this point is not doing so out of love for the ALP, but just to keep as much attention away from Mal as possible.
Even a mechanic has to inspire enough confidence to be entrusted with a job, and Bill Shorten isn’t doing that, which makes him useless in his current role.
alias
because the mandate applies to the policies he takes to the election, not what people fantasize he intends to do.
Now, the electorate might be factoring in a ‘but he doesn’t mean a word of this’ when they vote for him, but Liberal MPs won’t be. They will have spent the election promoting whatever the Liberal policies are, and will then argue that they have pledged their word to the electorate and can’t break this.
IF there was a mood amongst them to move to the centre, this wouldn’t be a huge problem – but if there was this mood, Turnbull would have tapped into it already.
Moreover, you are assuming that Turnbull actually wants to be more centrist, and is held back from going there. There really isn’t much to support that point of view, other than wishful thinking.
Medicare is being bastardised as we speak. Who is this centrist Malcolm?
[the spirit of George
the spirit of George – @UNCLE80075178
Only the Libs could spend over a billion on Direct Action and emissions go up. Such a failure of a government. #auspol #libmess
9:18 PM – 26 Dec 2015
62 RETWEETS30 LIKES]
Player One at 169
“Anyone angling for Shorten’s departure at this point is not doing so out of love for the ALP, but just to keep as much attention away from Mal as possible.”
I agree, which is why I continue to advocate for Shorten to remain. Those who suggest Shorten should be replaced think that his supporters are bloody-minded but I disagree. Replacing him before the election would further damage the ALP’s reputation & also damage his replacement who is highly unlikely to improve the situation, a lose-lose result.
CE
Yep. A lose lose result
Charlie at least TBA agrees with you. I hope he doesn’t get told off by the likes of Nicholas for not adhering to the party talking points.
One parting comment on this story about the cost of building new submarines in Adelaide reportedly being much cheaper than previously reported.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-26/sa-government-wants-12-sub-build-back-on-agenda/7054704
If the real cost is so much less than warned ($12 billion instead of $20+ billion) then where did the earlier dramatically inflated costs estimates come from? Defense or the Defense minister? Was the whole sub cost fiasco a bunch of lies to justify a pre-determined decision to build them in Japan? Abbott and Johnson are gone, but their legacy festers on.
Have a good day all. More wickets please, Mr Siddle.
Malcolm Mackerras is furious with Antony Green for lending credence to Nick Xenophon’s desired Senate electoral reforms.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/stuff-and-nonsense-on-senate-reform-20151224-gluloq.html
[political leaders are human beings, not firewood]
Human beings burn as readily as firewood.
[173
victoria
Medicare is being bastardised as we speak. Who is this centrist Malcolm?]
Indeed.
“If it’s any consolation I get Bushfire Bill and Greensborough Growler mixed up.”
You and you mates have Malcayman mixed up with The Messiah.
Change the record, FFS
@175 nut job check time:
Replace Shorten with Abbott and ALP with LNP in any comment opposing a change in leader.
If the resulting statement sounds like it belongs on ABolt’s blog you qualify as a nut job…
Malcolm is a centrist on social issues. He’s an economic dry, however, like the rest of the modern Liberals.
“Malcolm is a centrist on social issues. He’s an economic dry, however, like the rest of the modern Liberals.”
Malcayman can be anything he likes but it will make no difference.
He’s only the puppet. It’s the same pig, just new lipstick.
Steve777 #184
[Malcolm is a centrist on social issues. He’s an economic dry, however, like the rest of the modern Liberals.]
I think it’s safe to say that Turnbull’s also relatively hawkish on foreign policy issues as well.
Millenial
[ I think it’s safe to say that Turnbull’s also relatively hawkish on foreign policy issues as well. ]
He is certainly doing his damnedest to annex the Cayman Islands!
Nicholas, 179
Are there psephs other than Mackerras who don’t support Senate reform?
Player One #187
[Turnbull is certainly doing his damnedest to annex the Cayman Islands!]
Nah, a tactical genius like Turnbull knows that installing a puppet government is the most cost-effective measure he has! 😉
[They have no time for Australia’s 19th century constitution (drawn up entirely by men) with its old-fashioned democratic values which take the form of commanding that all our senators be elected in a candidate-based electoral system.]
And the current system is candidate-based at all? If it is, why would the change make it less candidate-based?
[There were influential people in other parties who thought Hanson-Young and Day more deserving of Senate seats than Farrell and Griff.]
In an election shouldn’t the Australian public decide instead of influential people in other parties?
[Wrong! The system wanted by the axis (and the Greens) would still have party boxes so the ballot paper would still invite electors to give their votes to party machines.]
Yeah god bloody forbid that a party put its preferred Senator at the top of the Senate list…
There are three issues that need to be considered before there is any move to remove Shorten.
Firstly what damage would it do to the ALP, already still damaged by the RGR wars. For this reason I am very opposed to removal of Shorten, but a voluntary resignation at some point might be possible although not desirable
Second – what sort of difference are we looking at. Loss/gain of one or two seats is not worth the effort of any change, but loss/gain of 15-20 seats may make a move desirable. On Bilbo’s figures we are well short of that point.
Three – What particular characteristics of any of the ALP contenders would make them better at dealing with Turnbull. I am not covinced that any of the contenders would necessarily do better. Each has stregths but also weaknesses. Now Shorten was clearly the best LOTO against Abbott, even though I voted for Albo. Against Turnbull, Albo would probably be a better choice becuse he has a feet on the ground style that Turnbull lacks. However not sure this is sufficient of a plus to outweigh Turnbull’s perceived erudition and competence. Dreyfus has the erudition and competence, but then it is comparing two people with very similar skill sets. Turnbull is better known, so would probably win in any contest. Plbersek is smart and looks good, but so is Turnbull.
We do need a mechanic to fix the economy, not Picasso to do a wonderful painting of it.
The polls at the moment reflect a situation that just cannot be maintained. Turnbull has done nothing except be Malcolm Turnbull, eschewing running the country in favour of The Vibe. That’s enough for a few months’ popularity, but it’s not enough to actually run a country.
Every time we hear Turnbull he equivocates, “uhms” and “ahs”. He is in love with himself, with his fabulous collection of witticisms and brilliant ideas, and he well knows that at the moment he’s practically bulletproof.
For Labor, to switch leaders now, based on pre-Christmas polls, would be gifting Turnbull the next election, re-invigorating the old “Labor In Disarray” meme. Anyone who advocates this position is not Labor’s friend. Fair enough, they don’t have to be, but I just don’t care to see them claiming to be.
Labor was done over in the last election. For Shorten to usher them to the point where they were 8 or 10 points (at one stage) ahead was an absolute miracle. To keep leads like that up for 2 years was unprecedented. Labor, under Shorten, made it look easy. If he’d matched Abbott in the ranting and raving department, throwing himself on the fire,picking himself up and then throwing himself on the fire again, it would have been a terrible mistake.
As someone said above (wisely) we are back to “normal” in the electoral cycle. If Shorten had been LOTO for 2.5 years and they’d always been behind this far, you might have a case for switching leaders. But instead Labor has been ahead. For this, Shorten is given virtually no credit at all.
In a few days he will be cleared by the TURC officially. This should finally put to bed the idea that he’s done something dodgy, or is dishonest or corrupt. The public will have to accept it, however much they may hate to put their “Goodies v. Baddies”, TV trash view of the world.
Likewise they will need to accept that if you knife your leader, you’ve knifed your leader, whether you’re a member of Labor or the Coalition. The blood’s the same. Strange that we didn’t see any stories from the Gallery on how the public, however mistakenly, must have been so disappointed that “their elected PM” Abbott was turfed out by the Toff. We only seem to “elect” Labor PMs. For the Coalition its Westminster Party Room Rules all the way.
The mirage that is Turnbull has to evaporate eventually, unless you believe, like Elizabeth Farrelly in the SMH, that he’ll be PM “for longer than Menzies” if he wants to be. And when it does, the polls will turn and come back closer to parity.
[ really want as Opposition leader?
At the moment anyone from Labor and in particular a new person to show that Labor can’t hold it together. ]
Ohh yeah! Expect the ALP #leadersh$t theme to ramp up a lot in early 2016. Turnbull and his supporters will have a desperate need for such to distract from:
a: Emerging disunity in the Lib / Nats
b: Brough 🙂
c: ScoMo’s stab at a Budget for 2016.
d: That they are coming after you rights at work……again.
e: That they are going for YOUR incomes while they want to cut companies tax rates.
f: That they have an amusingly shaped tuber running immigration, quarantine and border security.
Their experience shows that if they can get the #leadershit meme up and running the press gallery will follow that bright shiny (and above all easy) thing and ignore everything else.
All that said, there are many opportunities there for the ALP that the time will be right for during 2016.
PeeBee at 177
“Charlie at least TBA agrees with you. I hope he doesn’t get told off by the likes of Nicholas for not adhering to the party talking points.”
I might have thought TBA would have disagreed vehemently with me as he seems anti-Shorten whereas I think he is doing a reasonable job having helped remove Abbott, detailed sound policy & united the ALP.
Any difficulty Shorten is having cutting through I think is due to the msm determining not to telecast/discuss his policies & also due to the long honeymoon period enjoyed by Turnbull.
I still feel the public is continuing to feel relieved over Abbott’s demise but 2016 should now be an interesting political year for all the right reasons. Hopefully a battle between two centrists rather than an extremist.
[Strange that we didn’t see any stories from the Gallery on how the public, however mistakenly, must have been so disappointed that “their elected PM” Abbott was turfed out by the Toff. We only seem to “elect” Labor PMs. For the Coalition its Westminster Party Room Rules all the way.]
The reason for this is people liked Rudd, but people didn’t like Abbott (and liked Turnbull a lot). Even though Rudd was faltering at the polls, he still had some residual popularity with the people, which Abbott didn’t have. At all.
Phil Hudson has misinterpreted Newspoll’s December quarter figures published today. The September quarter figures for the Abbott government should not be used as a basis for assessing the Turnbull government’s polling performance. It should be the 2013 election figures that are shown in the Newspoll tables.
The headline national 2PP figure for the December quarter is 52/48 in the Coalition’s favour. Turnbull has held office in all of that quarter so it’s fair to draw conclusions on that result in absolute terms. That 2PP represents a swing to Labor of 1.5%. So Labor would actually pick up seats [about five] but certainly not enough to trouble Turnbull.
The state breakdowns are more interesting as they provide a more positive outlook for the ALP but, again, not strong enough to trouble Turnbull.
Let’s take WA. According to the Newspoll analysis Labor’s primary vote is set to jump by 6.2% with its 2PP increasing from 41.7% at election time to 46% in the December quarter. A 4.3% swing to the ALP. If replicated in 2016, Labor would pick up the seat of Cowan and, given the strong performance of Labor at the Canning by-election in those parts of it that will form most of the new seat of Burt, Labor would be strongly favoured to take that seat especially with Matt Keogh as its candidate. So there’s a pick-up of two seats.
In SA, Labor would win the seat of Hindmarsh if the December quarter 2PP of 52/48 to Labor is replicated in 2016. Indeed, Labor doesn’t even have to break even in SA to win that seat. So that’s a third seat.
I think the result in QLD is the most interesting of any state because without retrieving its 2 losses in 2013 [Petrie and Capricornia] and gaining a few more seats further up the pendulum, Labor’s task to form government in the election following 2016 would be very difficult. However, Labor should take some heart from the December quarter 2PP figure of 52/48 in favour of the Coalition. It represents a swing to Labor since the 2013 election of 5% [up from 43%]. A 5% swing to Labor in 2016 would mean that it would pick up its two losses in 2013 [Petrie and Capricornia], and win Bonner, Brisbane and Forde. These five seats bring the total gains so far to eight using December quarter figures and based on uniform swings in SA, WA and QLD.
In NSW, the 2013 result was 45.65%, excluding the ACT. The Newspoll analysis includes the ACT which has two fairly safe ALP seats. Let ‘s say the 2PP for NSW in the December quarter was 46%, representing a very small change [if any] on the result three years ago. Following the redistribution [and assuming no amendments are made], Labor lost the seat of Charlton [which I predicted in this blog] but has notionally gained three seats: Barton, Paterson and Dobell. A net gain of two seats.
Newspoll’s VIC 2PP figures show a swing against Labor of 1.2% on the 2013 result, in which case, the Coalition would pick up the seat of McEwen and just miss out on Bendigo.
Therefore, without examining TAS and the NT, Labor would pick up 9 seats [for a total of 64 seats] on the Newspoll figures. On the other hand, a national swing of 1.5% to Labor [based on 52/48 to the Coalition] would only produce 5 additional seats but interestingly they would include the TAS seat of Lyons [1.22%], Reid [1.3%] and the NT seat of Solomon [1.4%]. None of these is included in the nine seats identified above.
Given that there is an analytical basis to these assessments and applying the effects of uniform swings, Labor would be relieved that the Turnbull assault on them only produced a 2PP of 52/48 to the Coalition and a gain of 12 seats, or 67 in total.
It’s worth remembering that Labor suffered violent swings in seats like McEwen and Braddon and that some sort of correction in these seats could be expected. The sophomore effect in Braddon and Banks for example, would be nullified by the swing back. Indeed, if Labor nominated a candidate such as Morris Iemma in Banks, he would win comfortably. Also, if David Bradbury re-contested Lindsay [2.99%] against a very lack-lustre member, he would be strong chance.
The seat of Macarthur, now centred on Campbelltown which strongly supported Labor at the NSW State election despite a popular Premier, should be easily taken if the Party’s candidate is as good as the State member. I’d also watch the seat of Robertson on NSW’s central coast which also supported Labor at the State election but only if the candidate is any good.
If, according to the Newspoll analysis, Labor has strong chances in 12 seats, keeps McEwen, and wins Braddon, Banks, Macarthur, with Lindsay and Robertson thrown into the mix, you’re looking at a minority Turnbull government relying on one or two of Katter, McGowan and maybe Palmer. A 2PP of 52/48 could still do that. 71 seats is not out of the question.
John Anderson
Enjoyed your analysis of newspoll. Thanks
Just finished reading this from BKs links.
[Here’s a very good examination of productivity and the commission’s report.
https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/productivity-feast-famine-and-the-almost-free-lunch,8526%5D
BKs endorsement is understated. It is a great article which I wholeheartedly commend.
John Anderson
Thanks for the detailed break downs.
I live in the seat of Banks and if the State Election is of any worth the seat of East Hills copped a thrashing against the Liberals.
There is a large community of Asians in these seats and they were advised by their leadership to vote Liberal to the extent they were getting some of their “leaders” helping them fill in the ballot papers.
The same goes for the seat of Hurstville and surrounds as I understand it.
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/geelong/greens-leader-richard-di-natale-calls-to-be-included-in-federal-election-debate/news-story/00c3ed43f6a89f7d27c1c1bfacc578d3
[GREENS leader Richard di Natale will push to be included in next year’s federal election debate alongside the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader.
Federal election debates have only included the Labor and Coalition leaders of the day since the first televised duel between Bob Hawke and Andrew Peacock more than three decades ago.]