Fairfax-Ipsos: 52-48 to Coalition

The first Ipsos poll in three months provides more evidence of a slippage in support for Malcolm Turnbull and the Coalition government.

The latest Ipsos poll for the Fairfax papers is another weaker result for the Coalition, whose two-party lead of 52-48 compares with 56-44 at the previous such poll in mid-November. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down four points to 44%, Labor is up three to 32% and the Greens are up two to 15%. Malcolm Turnbull takes a solid hit on his still very strong personal ratings, with approval down seven to 62% and disapproval up eight to 24%. Bill Shorten is little changed on 30% approval (up one) and 55% disapproval (down two), and his deficit on preferred prime minister has narrowed slightly, from 69-18 to 64-19. The poll was conducted Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1403.

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.

1,969 comments on “Fairfax-Ipsos: 52-48 to Coalition”

Comments Page 37 of 40
1 36 37 38 40
  1. Lets hope the Greens have some smart operators involved with Senate voting reform – experience with WA Upper House not a good example.

    Same time the calculations by Vic academic giving LNP 40 seats seemed pessimistic – do we know what voting projections were used for the calculation – probably 2013 election I guess.

  2. C@tmomma

    [I may have missed it but did The Drum say ANYTHING about Scott Morrison’s speech at the NPC today!?!]

    A little premature at 5:47!

  3. [ Real balance requires a bit of context, rather than providing a misleading quote – which, having just heard it, is then misrepresented by ABC reporters as having Gray say something he didn’t. ]

    Yes context etc was something the ABC asserted was Sooo important in respect to the Nick Ross tapes when the ABC’s conduct was put under a spotlight.

    Different when they are dishing it out though.

  4. [Greens push for a fairer, more transparent Senate voting system. Mass panic occurs due to (?).]

    Have we established that the changes are fairer or more transparent? Have we even established they will achieve Green’s outcome of bigger print on ballot papers (by reducing the number of candidates)?

    I think the third is at least arguable, the first two are much more matters of taste and preference, rather than actually more fair or more transparent.

  5. How ironic that Malcolm Turnbull was supposed to be the voice of moderation leading the liberal party back to the centre, but we now have the most dangerous right-wing “starve the beast” Government in Australian history

  6. I reckon Labor is just boxing clever on the changes to the voting system in the Senate. After reviewing the pov of various psephies, I agree the screaming independents are being screwed. But, I’m not particularly enamoured with their cause anyway.

    The Libs and the Greens are carrying the can for “destroying democracy” which may lead to Independents standing against Libs and preferencing Labor which can only be a good thing.

    The claims about the Libs securing 7 Senators in some States are rubbish.

    I reckon Labor gets 80-90% of their wishlist up which is probably more than they would have by supporting the Libs plan overtly.

  7. I will be very disappointed if senate reforms prevent the likes of Muir and Lazarus having a decent chance at a seat. We need more of that independent-minded ilk.

  8. [The Libs and the Greens are carrying the can for “destroying democracy” which may lead to Independents standing against Libs and preferencing Labor which can only be a good thing.

    The claims about the Libs securing 7 Senators in some States are rubbish.
    ]

    Agree!

  9. Ctar1 @ 1804,

    ‘ A little premature at 5:47!’

    I watched The Drum on ABC1 at 5.30pm. Don’t you get it in Canberra?

    Unless it’s a repeat of last night’s episode but I don’t think so because I was standing next to John Della Bosca yesterday. 🙂

  10. Just watched Shorten’s presser in full. Loved his cheeky question to journos asking if they ever imagined, 2.5 years ago, that he and Labor would be able to get rid of Abbott, Hockey, Bishop, the GST and the 2014 budget.

  11. [20.I will be very disappointed if senate reforms prevent the likes of Muir and Lazarus having a decent chance at a seat. We need more of that independent-minded ilk.]

    A plan designed to just reduce the number of candidates is a pretty clumsy way to try and weed out ‘real’ from ‘fake’ candidates.

  12. If the likes of Glenn Lazarus and Ricky Muir actually have a solid.base.of people who want to see them reelected, they will – IMO – have a better chance under the proposed changes than the existing system anyway. Group Voting Tickets mean that a micro party candidate has a good chance of snagging the final seat, but not neccasarily any of the incumbant micros. In fact, the labrynth process of preference distribution under GVTs mean that the existing micro party and independant senators may well lose their seats to other micro parties with far lower shares of the vote.

    Think about it this way: under the new system, those above who are hoping Lazarus and Muir get reelected can preference them soon after (or even before) Labor (or Greens or whoever their chosen first preference is), and contribute to their reelection. Under the current system, you’ve just got to hope Labor give them a good deal or vote below the line.

    I’m sorry, but I’m still just baffled that anybody who isn’t either a GVT preference power-broker or Glenn Druery would actually be against these changes.

  13. It’s a disgusting attack on democracy that the Libs and Greens are putting together…a plan to deny any Aussie from nominating for the Senate and have a level playing field (as level as is can be taking into account financial backing)to compete against the major Parties…They may not like the way the cross bench vote but some of those cross bench Senators got more first preference votes than some high profile candidates from the big 3

  14. 1826

    The Greens have actually done the micro parties a favour compared to the JSCEM recommendations. The minimum 6 ATL preferences help similar micro parties preference each other and/or the major party/parties of their choice while JSCEM`s fully optional preferential ATL voting would have caused a much higher rate of exhaustion. The Greens are also blocking larger minimum party membership numbers.

  15. 1828

    As I explained in 1829, the Greens` proposal is better for the micro parties than the JSCEM`s proposals, which the ALP backed in the committee`s votes.

    The major parties` candidates would get move first preference votes if the ticket votes were more evenly distributed between the candidates on tickets, instead of all piled on to one of them.

  16. [The major parties` candidates would get move first preference votes if the ticket votes were more evenly distributed between the candidates on tickets, instead of all piled on to one of them.]

    Which would make naff all difference to the result.

  17. http://greens.org.au/news/nsw/senate-voting-reform-%E2%80%93-greens-plan-protect-small-parties-voters%E2%80%99-decide-preferences
    [“A vote Above the Line of 1 – 6 rather than just 1 will ensure more voters are able to indicate their preference for parties and groups including minor parties.

    “We have indicated to the government that our bottom line is that the Greens will not support any changes to party membership that makes it harder for small and emerging parties to obtain registration.

    “A cornerstone of our democracy should be the right of all citizens to run for election, either individually or collectively as political parties, regardless of wealth and background, and the election should be fair. This is the basis for the Greens approach to Senate voting reform.

    “The current method of Senate voting gives political parties power over the preference choices of ordinary people who vote Above the Line.

    “The most democratic way to fix the Senate voting system is to allow voters to decide their preferences and end the backroom party deals by abolishing Group Voting Tickets.

    “The Greens reform plan to vote at least 1 to 6 Above the Line means that parties could issue How To Vote cards for the Senate containing a recommendation to voters on which parties to preference, so preferences can still flow between parties.

    “The key difference is that under the Greens plan the voter will decide the allocation of preferences not party backroom deals.

    “Small parties through preference recommendations would still be in the race for a seat in the Senate, but they would need genuine voter support not just a tiny first preference vote.]

  18. So, I’m curious? How exactly do the proposed reforms bar smaller parties from being elected? Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s no minimum first preference vote requires for a seat, as some people had proposed, right? (I admit that I could be misinformed there.) Meaning that its still possible for candidates with a very small share of the vote to leapfrog ahead on preferences. Only now the preferences will have been directed by the voters instead of too-clever-by-half backroom dealers and oppurtunists like Glenn Druery. Sure sounds like an “disgusting attack on democracy” to me!

    And I have to laugh at the claims that the Greens want to deny other minor parties from being elected, considering their proposed system (minimum six preferences ATL, instead of just one) is better for smaller parties than the JSCEM reccomendations!

    Honestly, I really do wonder if the reactions of aome here would be at all similar if it was Labor supporting these changes instead!

  19. [The Greens have actually done the micro parties a favour compared to the JSCEM recommendations.]

    Ah the old less screwed than they might have been justification.

  20. [Only now the preferences will have been directed by the voters instead of •••]

    Except they were always and completely directed by voters.

  21. 1832

    It would scupper the “these elected major party candidates got fewer votes than these micro party candidates” argument.

    It would also allow voters to choose which of a party`s candidates they elected, like Tasmania`s were successful in doing under pre-GTV proportional representation.

  22. [“The current method of Senate voting gives political parties power over the preference choices of ordinary people who vote Above the Line.]

    Just untrue the voter choses to vote above the line, it is their power and that is how they have been chosing to use it. It is a fiction that voters have been disempowered, except apparently in NSW where you can’ count and get ballots in stupidly fine print.

  23. I won’t even to pretend to understand the detail of the senate reforms other than to say that the Libs wouldn’t be pushing for it unless there was certainty of giving them a majority.

  24. Oh, and another thing: as noted by Antony Greenin his rebuttal of the “Coalition will win a majority!” nonsense, minor parties would also be advantaged by the potentially smaller quotas for the final spots caused by a higher exhaust rate.

  25. [Yeah this Greens-Liberal Government is a rather cynical political strategy.]

    Just imagine the self-righteous squeals of outrage if labor got in bed with the Libs to deliver the same outcome! This is hilarious.

  26. People who oppose these Senate reforms are saying implicitly that there should be a God-given right to play lotto for the last Senate seat in a state. They are saying that it is wrong for Senate seats to be filled according to deliberately expressed intentions of voters.

    The micro-party Senators don’t understand that these reforms won’t reduce their chances of winning re-election. They are in the Senate because they won the electoral equivalent of Powerball. The chances of winning Powerball twice are infinitesimally small. Regardless of whether these reforms are enacted or not, these micro-party Senators will only win a second term if they are able to convince an electorally significant number of sentient human beings to consciously choose them.

  27. 1836

    The voters had a choice between handing their preferences over to a party for a preference deal that takes effort to find a read (especially if you are alread at the polling place) and numbering all of up to 110 boxes. That is/was rather a Clayton`s choice.

    With above the line preferencing, the voters have an easy option for preferencing groups to their choice, rather than having to number up to 110 boxes BTL.

  28. It is a pity to see the Greens indulging in sordid horse- trading with the Liberals in a conspiracy to pervert democracy.

    Q. What is the difference between Turnbull and Di Natale?
    A. What difference?

  29. [Just imagine the self-righteous squeals of outrage if labor got in bed with the Libs to deliver the same outcome!]

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wouldn’t be “squealing” about it. I’ve wanted to be able preference above the line ever since I first voted in a Federal election. I distinctly remember being utterly baffled and rather disappointed at the time when the guy at the polling both told me I had to either number 1 ATL or write out all 60-odd numbers BTL. I still am baffled by it.

    [This is hilarious.]

    I agree. Though I suspect not for quite the same reasons.

  30. As I’ve said before, I’m cool with preferencing above the line, but only if every vote counts – if votes are exhausted because the voter only numbered 6 squares and all of those candidates are excluded, then you have a voter who is not technically represented.

    My only objection otherwise have been to the arguments – the assumption that the election of minor party Senators was not the intention of the voters, and that thus their vote was wasted.

    To propose to replace this with a system where, in many cases, their votes WILL be wasted is scarcely logical.

Comments Page 37 of 40
1 36 37 38 40

Leave a Reply

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