Newspoll: 53-47 to Coalition

The first Newspoll of the year records next to no change on voting intention, although Malcolm Turnbull has lost ground on preferred prime minister.

The Australian has brought us the first Newspoll result of the year, and it supports the trend of other polling in suggesting nothing much has changed over the new year break. The Coalition’s two-party lead remains at 53-47, from primary votes of Coalition 46% (up one), Labor 34% (up one) and Greens 11% (down one). Bill Shorten has at least made up ground on preferred prime minister, which Malcolm Turnbull now leads 59-20, down from 60-14 in the last poll in December. The poll also records 54% opposition to an increase in the goods and services tax to 15% accompanied by tax cuts and compensation, with 37% in support. Stay tuned for Turnbull’s and Shorten’s personal ratings.

UPDATE: The Australian’s report relates that Turnbull is on 53% approval and 31% disapproval, which is up a point on both counts since the last poll, while Shorten is up two to 25% and down one to 60%.

UPDATE 2: A second tranche of results from the poll finds 71% favouring an election late in the year compared with only 21% for an election in the first half of the year. Opinions on Tony Abbott’s future are finely balanced: 46% would have him remain in politics (26% on the front bench, 20% on the back bench), while 45% want him to bow out at the next election.

UPDATE 3 (Essential Research): The latest two-week rolling average from Essential Research has the Coalition lead back to 51-49 after its brief stay at 52-48 last week, from primary votes of Coalition 44% (steady), Labor 35% (steady) and Greens 11% (up one). Further results suggest a curious drop in support for a republic since Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister, with support down three since September to 36% and opposition up two to 31%. When specified that the change might occur at the end of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign, support goes up to 45%, with opposition at 29%. Fifty-six per cent think it likely that Australia will one day be a republic, compared with 24% unlikely. Despite this, there is broad opposition to changing the flag (33% support, 55% oppose), the national anthem (28% support, 54% oppose) and the date of Australia Day (23% support, 59% oppose).

A semi-regular question on trust in various media sources finds a slight across-the-board improvement since June last year, without disturbing the usual pattern of public broadcasting being viewed more favourably than the commercial media, and straight news being rated higher than opinion in its various forms. However, a question on individual newspapers finds opinions of The Australian, the Daily Telegraph and the Herald-Sun have improved, while the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Courier-Mail have not. This all but eliminates the gap between The Australian and the Fairfax titles, although the News Corp tabloids (particularly the Courier-Mail) continue to trail the pack.

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.

2,388 comments on “Newspoll: 53-47 to Coalition”

Comments Page 47 of 48
1 46 47 48
  1. Diogenes

    Cameron can and should have arranged for the questioning of Assange in the UK.

    Much taxpayers money would have been saved. This as Sweden has indicated it will now interview him at the embassy not in Sweden.

    Most likely as mentioned in the SMH article as Sweden has known for months about the UN ruling.

  2. Dio

    [We certainly wouldn’t want our PM intervening in extradition matters and I don’t think they even have the power to do so.]

    I would be a bit surprised if there is not an escape clause in extradition treaties which allow for ministerial or government discretion of some sort or another.

  3. WWP

    I am not happy for Assange to end up in the US because I do not think he would get a fair trial.

    They already have the pitchforks and torches out for him

  4. WWP

    What is more is that the UN has ruled that Assange has a real fear of persecution so a UN court has ruled they do not think Assange would get a fair trial either.

  5. guytaur@2297

    bemused

    This is a document that uses racial profiling. If anyone is a citizen they have rights by being a citizen.

    A Lebanese person has exactly the same rights as you or me. Legislation changing that is racist legislation.

    Police focus on where they perceive the greatest threat lies.

    Both Victoria and NSW have seen fit to establish Middle-Eastern Organised Crime Squads due to the existence of organised crime gangs in that community.

    The Callabrian community has also received special attention due to the Mafia.

    Asian crime gangs have received special attention too.

    It is common sense stuff. No point in devoting a lot of effort on communities with low crime rates.

    That is just the criminal situation. On top of that there is the terrorist threat.

  6. Bemused

    Police do not monitor a race. They monitor real threats.

    Well they are supposed to. As we know with Monis they failed to do that.

  7. [I am not happy for Assange to end up in the US because I do not think he would get a fair trial.

    They already have the pitchforks and torches out for him
    ]

    He deserves the pitchforks and torchers, but why do you think he wouldn’t get a fair trial in the US? Their legal system seems as fair as any around the world?

    I think the real issue is there is a real chance that he has committed crimes with massive punishments in the US and this dangerous idiot isn’t prepared to accept the consequences of his stupid actions.

  8. victoria@2299

    Bridget O’Flynn
    Bridget O’Flynn – ‏@BridgetOFlynn

    Rumour on Sky News (via Paul Murray) is the SSM plebiscite will be held at the election to save $.
    3:33 AM – 4 Feb 2016
    1 RETWEET1 LIKE

    A partial return to sanity.

  9. WWP

    See UN court ruling as to fair trial.

    We know the US court system has a tendency to prosecute on popular sentiment. Its their elected positions system that does it.

    Just look at innocents found by DNA to have been railroaded to their execution.

  10. guytaur@2306

    Bemused

    Police do not monitor a race. They monitor real threats.

    Well they are supposed to. As we know with Monis they failed to do that.

    They monitor criminal and wanna be terrorist elements within various communities.

  11. bemused

    Which is not what the leaked document shows. Lateline was very specific about that.

    The document shows racial profiling not looking at the serious threat.

  12. [2305
    bemused
    Police focus on where they perceive the greatest threat lies.
    ]

    Yeah ok, but the police used to go poofter-bashing, and still treat Indigenous Australians appallingly, so they’re not exactly beyond reproach.

    I think guytaur’s point is not so much that there isn’t a threat from people within certain migrant and refugee communities, but whether anti-terrorism authorities and the police can really be trusted with these kinds of powers, when they’ve shown so many times over the years that they will abuse them?

    Furthermore, Dutton and the Immigration Department showed during the Border Farce episode in Melbourne that they are NOT to be trusted with the powers they currently have, let alone new and expanded powers.

  13. guytaur@2311

    bemused

    Which is not what the leaked document shows. Lateline was very specific about that.

    The document shows racial profiling not looking at the serious threat.

    Unfortunately, criminals and wanna be terrorists of a particular ethnicity are generally to be found within that community.

  14. bemused

    You are arguing the wrong case. This is not that case. This is treating all as if they were genuine threats.

    Using the minority to generalise about a whole race. Its called racial profiling for a reason.

  15. [See UN court ruling as to fair trial.

    We know the US court system has a tendency to prosecute on popular sentiment. Its their elected positions system that does it.]

    Yeah I should probably read the report of whatever UN body is, but I just can’t help but conclude they are wildly and stupidly wrong without reading it, that reading it to see if I’m right or not isn’t very appealing.

  16. JimmyDoyle@2312

    2305
    bemused
    Police focus on where they perceive the greatest threat lies.


    Yeah ok, but the police used to go poofter-bashing, and still treat Indigenous Australians appallingly, so they’re not exactly beyond reproach.

    I think guytaur’s point is not so much that there isn’t a threat from people within certain migrant and refugee communities, but whether anti-terrorism authorities and the police can really be trusted with these kinds of powers, when they’ve shown so many times over the years that they will abuse them?

    Furthermore, Dutton and the Immigration Department showed during the Border Farce episode in Melbourne that they are NOT to be trusted with the powers they currently have, let alone new and expanded powers.

    I certainly agree with your first paragraph and I have my own experience with police to have reservations about many.

    I also have no confidence in Border Farce.

    So who is going to pursue necessary investigations?

  17. WWP

    This is the BBC headline.

    [Julian Assange being arbitrarily held – UN legal panel]

    Not too much work to work out what body did the ruling.

  18. Julian Assange is an odious fellow but Sweden has not been serious about advancing the charges against him. They’ve had five years to interview him but they’ve dragged their feet, apparently because they are more interested in being a judicial transit service for a superpower than running their own criminal justice system. At this point Sweden needs to be dismissed as lacking good faith. Assange deserves to be released. His stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is effectively a confinement. He has spent more time in confinement than the maximum prison term for the remaining charge against him. Sweden screwed up and deserves to lose the UN case.

  19. befuddled

    [ You lack the cognitive ability to join the dots and reach any conclusions. ]

    This from the man who still can’t detect any bias in the ABC? How unsurprisment!

  20. [Julian Assange is an odious fellow but Sweden has not been serious about advancing the charges against him. They’ve had five years to interview him but they’ve dragged their feet, apparently because they are more interested in being a judicial transit service for a superpower than running their own criminal justice system. ]

    What a lot of wild ridiculous unsubstantiated conspiracy theory crap. Get a grip.

  21. Dickhead One@2320

    befuddled

    You lack the cognitive ability to join the dots and reach any conclusions.


    This from the man who still can’t detect any bias in the ABC? How unsurprisment!

    I detect bias everywhere in the media including social media like PB. But I see a lot else besides.

    You, unfortunately, have a ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’ mentality.

  22. WWP

    The ruling unlawfully detained according to the BBC.

    It might not be legally binding on the UK but the opinion of legal experts is crystal clear.

  23. [2317
    bemused
    So who is going to pursue necessary investigations?
    ]

    I don’t know the answer to that question, although I do think a basic bill of rights (setting out the rights of accused persons) and establishing a right to representation would go a long way to making increased investigative powers more acceptable.

  24. [The length of Assange stay in the Embassy is a matter of record.
    Not conspiracy theory.]

    It is quite irrelevant, because it is the idiot Assange choosing deliberately to avoid justice by hiding in the embassy, he a fugitive. One that would be better shot on sight.

    It is entirely up the legal system in Sweden, if and when they travel overseas and for what reason, they get to choose, it is their legal system, and so sex crime suspect shouldn’t be able to demand anything, he should have been a decent human being and attended court to defend his name if he is innocent and go to jail if he is guilty (as his desperate attempts to avoid justice would incline any intelligent person to conclude).

    instead he has convinced pathetic and weak minds that he should be able to avoid trial on sex crimes because of the consequences of other crimes he has probably committed against the US. The US being a key Australian ally.

    He could have been either a genuine journalist, or a helper in whistle-blowing (if he only released that one whistle-blowing video) but no he is a self absorbed moron who has probably committed sex crimes and espionage crimes against one of our closest allies and still complete clowns defend this idiot.

  25. [I don’t know the answer to that question, although I do think a basic bill of rights (setting out the rights of accused persons) and establishing a right to representation would go a long way to making increased investigative powers more acceptable.]

    I would love a bill of rights, but I think that there is more chance of Peter Dutton reigning over us for 30 years as a beloved military dictator than there is of a bill of rights.

  26. WWP

    Also just so you know I don’t think the sun shines out of Assange’s ass.

    This is a stunt as the SMH report reveals Assange already had a fair idea of the ruling of the panel.

    AP_Politics: Assange to accept arrest if UN panel rules against him: https://t.co/TLXK5QkGQf

  27. If the Swedish Government were serious about serving justice in Assange’s case they would have sent prosecutors to interview him in London. Swedish prosecutors have interviewed suspects outside of Sweden in other cases. The claim that the interviews had to be done in Sweden was total bull. Last year the Swedish prosecutor finally conceded that an interview could take place in London, but then they failed to set up a time with the Ecuadorian Embassy. All but one of the charges has been dropped or passed the statute of limitations. The Swedish Government’s handling of the case has been heavily criticized by the Swedish legal community.

    It’s pretty clear that the interests of the complainants have been a low priority for the Swedish Government. That’s an outrage. The bastards would rather reprise the US lickspittle role they played when they allowed the CIA to ferry torture victims through their airports.

  28. [If the Swedish Government were serious about serving justice in Assange’s case they would have sent prosecutors to interview him in London.]

    What a stupid stupid position to hold. It is like saying Australia should move a whole court to NZ if every sex pervert accused in Australia flees to New Zealand unlawfully. Legal systems don’t work like that, and should not work like that.

  29. [WeWantPaul

    You make a wonderfull judge and jury.]

    I do indeed. I still prefer due process but in the absence of due process I would be an excellent backup.

  30. [The UN panel says different. Thus the words unlawfully detained.]

    Yeah must be one of those stupid political activist parts of the UN!

    i must point out i have acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and I was bloody good at it.

  31. WWP

    I see you ignored the point made in the post you are responding to in 2334 that Sweden has done this before.

    So you are saying Sweden has
    [a stupid stupid position to hold]

    as Sweden has done this.

  32. JimmyDoyle@2326

    2317
    bemused
    So who is going to pursue necessary investigations?


    I don’t know the answer to that question, although I do think a basic bill of rights (setting out the rights of accused persons) and establishing a right to representation would go a long way to making increased investigative powers more acceptable.

    I should have also mentioned intelligence gathering which is a key function and in fact relies on the good will of the community concerned.

    The function will remain with the police and other agencies as it does now and would under a change of government.

  33. frednk@2328

    We had the white australia policy in the 50s; getting it back is part of taking us back to the 50s. Seems to be a lot of support on PB.

    WOW! You have not just jumped the shark, but a whole school of sharks.

  34. bemused

    You are wrong. Frednk is right.

    The proposals in the document totally breach the UN Refugee Convention and natural justice according to law that citizens should expect.

    First they came for the Lebanese. Then they came for ……..

  35. Guytaur, nothing much on Lateline that was not on the ABC website.

    It is a draft document and not government policy so it may not go anywhere.

  36. chinda

    I can’t place whom you are on Facebook. use this address to send me your facebook name,please.
    Also anyone else can use this to send me their email address for an invitation. Make sure you send the email addy you use for Pollbludger, as i will ask William to contact you to give permission for verification. (No-one gets on the SA Chapter guest list without their creds being checked.)

    Then you will get the secret handshake. After the initiation of course. 😀

  37. [I see you ignored the point made in the post you are responding to in 2334 that Sweden has done this before.

    So you are saying Sweden has

    a stupid stupid position to hold

    as Sweden has done this.]

    No, unusually for you – you are missing the point entirely. It doesn’t matter a jot if Sweden has done it before, it is a matter for Sweden to decide. For example Australian justice may decide for a whole range of reasons to go to spain to interview a suspected conman, but that doesn’t mean every other conman in the world can demand that Australian justice come to them rather than the usual requirement that they go to Australian justice in Australia. Any other suggestion is absurd.

    I do have a small problem I have done a bit of research on the UN working group on Arbitrary detention and while it is clearly not a court, nor something that could be confused with a court, and is essentially a human rights advocacy panel, at first blush it has a very very impressive panel. I would like now to read the panels findings / opinion guytaur, do you have a link?

  38. WWP

    You are missing the point entirely. The Assange argument is about why Sweden is making the decisions it does.

    Agree or not that is what the argument is about.

  39. chinda

    I can’t place whom you are on Facebook. use this address to send me your facebook name,please.

    zgceduua@zetmail.com

    (This email will last for 24 hours after I close the browser and then all emails are wiped out.)

    Also anyone else can use this to send me their email address for an invitation. Make sure you send the email addy you use for Pollbludger, as i will ask William to contact you to give permission for verification. (No-one gets on the SA Chapter guest list without their creds being checked.)

    Then you will get the secret handshake. After the initiation of course. 😀

  40. bemused

    As usual you dismissing an upcoming danger because it has not been put before the house yet.

    Good thing you are not in charge of the ALP argument on the GST.

  41. The main problem I have with Wikileaks is they released them in backward chronological order. We got some stuff on how Rudd liked his eggs for breakfast (forgotten the actual content), and then it seemed to stop when we got to Howard… and stuff all on the Iraq war.

    Anyway, I’m all for transparent government, and Assange should be left alone, even if I do find him a little annoying. I trust the UN ruling.

Comments Page 47 of 48
1 46 47 48

Leave a Reply

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