BludgerTrack: 53.7-46.3 to Coalition

Aggregated poll ratings find Malcolm Turnbull falling short of the heights he achieved towards the end of last year, without giving Labor any real cause for optimism about the election due later this year.

The latest reading of the BludgerTrack poll aggregate finds at least some of the gloss coming off Malcolm Turnbull’s honeymoon poll ratings, with Labor gaining half a point on two-party preferred since last week and clawing back a point on the seat projection. This week’s Newspoll result means there are now two useable data points this year for personal ratings, the other being the monthly reading from Essential Research that was released a fortnight ago, and they collectively indicate a double-digit drop in Turnbull’s net approval rating since the end of last year, and a downturn in his standing on preferred prime minister. Nonetheless, Turnbull retains commanding leads, and the Coalition is credited with a bigger two-party vote and seat majority than was achieved at the 2013 election.

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.

2,129 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.7-46.3 to Coalition”

Comments Page 43 of 43
1 42 43
  1. CTar1
    [A curious way of describing self made -v- inherited.]
    I have noticed your preference for substantially shortening of an explanation without losing any meaning (or even improving the meaning by means of less clutter that could distort the meaning).

    Or, in other words, a preference for ‘brief but comprehensive’ posts.

  2. The full poll is not yet on the Essential site, but see Bernard’s article
    [Essential: voters even more confused than the government on tax
    Bernard Keane | Feb 09, 2016 1:04PM

    Voters are confused about what exactly the government is trying to achieve on tax reform, but it hasn’t tarnished Malcolm Turnbull’s popularity with voters, today’s Essential Report poll reveals.

    Malcolm Turnbull has continued his effortless superiority over Bill Shorten, but voters are thoroughly confused about the point of tax reform, today’s Essential Report shows.

    The Prime Minister has maintained his very strong approval ratings, with 51% approval (the same as in January) and 27% disapproval (up two points since January). At the moment, 36% of Labor voters approve of Turnbull’s performance, and 33% of Greens voters do. And Opposition Leader Shorten has also maintained his appalling approval ratings: his approval rating is unchanged on 27% and his disapproval rating is up one point to 48%, with 26% of Labor voters disapproving of his performance. Turnbull leads Shorten as preferred prime minister by a massive 37 points, 52% to 15%, up from a lead of 33 points in January.



    On voting intention, the Coalition has dropped a point on its primary vote to 43%; Labor and the Greens remain on 35% and 11% respectively, for an unchanged two-party preferred outcome of 51% to 49% in favour of the Coalition.]

  3. Shane Warne cant figure out how it is that his charity gets investigated and shut down while Steve Waughs charities get lauded. Must be because Steve is selfish.

  4. renailemay: OK, I think the @NickRossTech issue is now finished at #estimates. After dinner we may get into @NBN_Australia … I’ll be here 🙂

  5. So supposedly, according to Turnbull, Pyne et al, Robert was on personal leave and therefore the code of ministerial conduct did not apply to him.

    However it turns out that Robert conducted official ministerial business in Singapore immediately following his “personal business” in China (business the Chinese thought was official), and presumably the code did apply.

    I’d like to see the official documentation that revoked and then re-invoked the code of ministerial conduct for Robert so that he could “legitimately” attend both these events (of course, no such documentation exists).

    Otherwise, I think it’s reasonable to assume the government is lying and that the code was in effect (or at least should have been), thus rendering Robert in breach of it.

    Let Turnbull line up his ducks with the PM&C “investigation”, but Robert has to resign.

  6. SenatorLudlam: @GreenJ @KnottMatthew “go out and find something to shit-can labor on” doesn’t quite feel like a higher requirement for balance..

  7. Ratsak

    [It is obvious as tits on a bull you are going to have to make another humiliating backdown on this one]

    FWIW, I think the thing about tits on a bull is not that they are particularly obvious…it is that they are totally useless. So I would rephrase what you had as:

    It is obvious that Malcolm Titsonabull is going to have to make another humiliating backdown on this one.

  8. The removal of negative gearing in 1985 did not fail. Rents in SOME markets in Australia went up, for reasons unrelated to the removal of negative gearing; rents in other markets were unchanged. The claim that removal of negative gearing = higher rents is one of those zombie ideas that defenders of negative gearing seek succour from.

  9. JB_AU: I hope @crikey_news is right and the cross benchers stop the plebiscite. What a stupid waste of time.

    That will be good. No ducking responsibility for the LNP. They will be going into an election opposing SSM when most others will in favour.

    Not a hard choice for people.

  10. Philip Soos on the unhelpful mythology of negative gearing:

    The favourite scare story promulgated by the housing lobby is that when the Hawke/Keating government quarantined negative gearing during 1985-87, it caused rental prices to surge, quickly leading to its reinstatement. Fortunately, not only did the evidence refute this urban myth, it showed that negative gearing can be safely quarantined, if not abolished.

    Rents rose in Perth and Sydney only, remained steady in Melbourne and Canberra, and fell in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin. If the lobby was correct, quarantining should have adversely affected all capital city rental markets equally, not just two out of eight (even when factoring in a lagged response). There were confounding factors at work: rising interest rates, introduction of capital gains tax and a stock market bubble.

  11. Re Stuart Robert. I’m not really across the details of the case, but I have noticed that the “I was on personal leave at the time argument” was used. I cannot see how that can possibly wash. Would it be acceptable for a judge, in between the conclusion of a hearing and the delivery of his/her verdict, fraternising with one of the parties to the case during a period of personal leave?

  12. I’m a bit confused on what that Crikey article on the plebiscite is really talking about (which may be because the government is terminally confused as to what they are doing).

    I was under the impression that Howard (I think?) had already passed legislation that allows the executive to call a plebiscite on whatever they feel like without needing any additional legislation … so if they just want to ask a question I don’t think legislation or even regulation is required.

    If they were following Entsch’s suggestion of passing legislation to legalize SSM in a particular form contingent on the outcome of a linked plebiscite, that would be a different matter, but afaik that is not on the table.

    But hey, we’re talking Brandis here, so who knows whether he’s actually aware of what he’s doing or not.

  13. Nicholas@2020: so why didn’t the Federal Government of the time leave it in place?

    Is it conceivable that they had access to better data, including forecast modelling, than this bloke?

    The idea that it wouldn’t have any impact is like the suggestion that you can pump masses of carbon into the atmosphere and it won’t go anything. Take away negative gearing and, at current house prices and rents, rental property instantly becomes a crap investment anywhere where there aren’t massive capital gains. So why wouldn’t this have an impact on the market in the medium term?

  14. [26.Nicholas@2020: so why didn’t the Federal Government of the time leave it in place?

    Is it conceivable that they had access to better data, including forecast modelling, than this bloke?

    The idea that it wouldn’t have any impact is like the suggestion

    Ok so the stats fail to show a clear impact (indicating that it is likely any impact was simply less significant than other impacts).

    It is more likely than not that the Fed Govt folded to political pressure.

    I guess there is a fine line between no impact (which no one has claimed) and an impact that was utterly trivial compared to other factors.

    It is the weakness with the GST scare campaign, we don’t have a scale of how bad it is. In 2000 it wasn’t that bad.

  15. How the hell can 58% of people think addressing the budget deficit is the main purpose of raising the GST when the Liberals have admitted that the increased gst will coincidence with decreased taxes on the rich to exactly the same $ value??

    Do they honestly not pay any attention to what the Liberals are saying?

  16. [Anyone who thinks the Liberal Party does not want to destroy Medicare as a prime objective has rocks in their heads.]

    They will not succeed IMO. Labor will replace at the first opportunity whatever the Libs manage to take away. And they will do it with the full support of a majority of the Australian people.

    It’s what happened with Workchoices and it will happen again with Medibank if the Liberals are stupid enough to go down that path.

Comments Page 43 of 43
1 42 43

Leave a Reply

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