The latest Newspoll result is very slightly better for the Coalition than the last, recording them with a 51-49 lead after a 50-50 result a fortnight ago. On the primary vote, the Coalition is steady on 43%, Labor is down one to 34%, and the Greens are steady on 12%. The leadership ratings provide Malcolm Turnbull’s first net negative approval result, with approval down five to 39% and disapproval up three to 44%. For Bill Shorten, the movement is in favour of undecided, with approval down two to 28% and disapproval down three to 52%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 55-21 to 52-21. The poll also finds 55% expecting the Coalition to win the election, compared with 25% for Labor; 54% rating Turnbull more capable of managing the economy, compared with 20% for Shorten; and 45% rating Turnbull more capable of managing tax reform, compared with 25% for Shorten. It was conducted Thursday to Sunday by automated phone and online surveying from a larger than usual sample of 2049.
UPDATE (Roy Morgan): For the first time since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, a poll records Labor with a lead on two-party preferred, albeit a very narrow one. The fortnightly result from Roy Morgan, conducted over the last two weekends by face-to-face and SMS from a sample of 2948, has Labor moving from a 53-47 deficit to a lead of 50.5-49.5, on both the previous election and respondent-allocated measures of two-party preferred. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down three points to 40%, Labor is up three-and-a-half to 33%, and the Greens are up one to 14%.
UPDATE 2 (Essential Research): The Essential Research fortnightly rolling average is still at 50-50, but both major parties up on the primary vote – the Coalition by one point to 43%, and Labor by two to 38% – while the Greens are down one to 10%. Further questions find 34% saying they would approve of a double dissolution election if the Senate rejected the bill to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission, with 22% disapproving and 44% opting for “don’t know” – a provident question, since it was set before yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister. As for the substance of the bill, 35% supported the government line, 17% were opposed, 27% opted for neither, and 22% said they didn’t know. Another question finds no change in opinion on Tony Abbott’s future since December: 18% wanted him back in the ministry, another 18% wanted him to stay on the back bench, 29% thought he should resign now, and 18% thought he should do so at the election. In response to talk of plebiscites for same sex marriage, another question interestingly asks what other issues should be dealt with in this way. The results suggest strong support for plebiscites on social issues (61% favour one for euthanasia and 58% for abortion), but mild opposition for economic ones, and strong opposition concerning the size of the defence force (14% support, 71% opposition). The online survey encompassed 1003 respondents, with the voting intention question also including responses from last week’s sample.
1,662 comments on “Newspoll: 51-49 to Coalition”
K17 @ 1591
[TPOF – Doesn’t malcolm have the option of accepting amendments to the ABCC and saying “Well, guys, I guess that’s close enough. I’ll get these passed in the HoR. No DD then.”]
Absolutely. But it does not appear that the government will accept the amendments wanted by the necessary number of cross-benchers, which is to extend or at least agree to an ICAC like body. And, in any case, the government is absolutely desperate for a DD. And whatever, escape tunnels Turncoat and his mates have lined up, they are being blocked by public expectation.
Even for the government the ABCC is not essential. It wants a Senate that it can push the whole IPA economic agenda through, not just this bill. And it thinks it will only get that senate by tossing the current lot in and getting a new Senate that it can control. The last bit is ludicrous, but they are not thinking rationally and haven’t since well before they won power.
bemused – inaccurate?
[BUILDERS have hailed a $1.25 million fine imposed on Australia’s biggest construction union as a “defining moment’’ for the industry…
The CFMEU was found to be in contempt for a series of blockades it instituted on the Emporium site in Melbourne’s CBD and at two other Grocon sites.
The protests were seen as retaliation for the company’s decision not to bow to union pressure to gain control over its building sites, although the CFMEU said at the time the conflict was over safety issues.]
It should be noted that the company the CFMEU was protesting was Grocon, the same company responsible for the wall collapse that killed three, and for which Grocon was only fined $250,000.
It should also be noted that CFMEU’s blockade was illegal in much the same way that environmental protests against mining activity is now illegal in NSW.
I was turned into a newt by that notorious radical Marxist-naturalist, David Attenborough, when I was in early high school.
But I got better.
Death tax resurrected.
Great analysis Bluey!
Gee, who HASN’t Malcolm Turnbull pissed off in the last couple of days?
Abbott & Crew, Labor, the Senate Cross Bench, the Greens (Hartcher’s gloating that Turnbull tricked them into voting for Senate voting changes won’t help) and just about everyone else – besides the CPG who continue to swoon at the very mention of Turnbull’s name – are railing and ranting at him.
But a thought occurred to me.
The aim of proroguing parliament is to kill off all bills and motions etc. that are still on the notice paper. as I see it, the Parliament sits for a few days so that the Reps can pass the ABCC bills, Parliament is prorogued, then the Senate is handed the ABCC bill all nice and clean, with noting else on the agenda to distract it.
But what if the Senate sits, immediately suspends standing orders, and votes for an adjournment before the bills are given even their first reading?
How can you “fail to pass” a bill that hasn’t even been read into the legislative record?
Procedural gurus will no doubt have an answer to this, but I thought it might be neat way to get around the “fail to pass” clause in the Constitution.
He writes for his audience.
I will pass your thanks to Bluey.
This bit made me chuckle
[Di Natale jiggled around doing ‘Look at moi. Je suis jejeune’]
As I understand it, the ‘contempt’ meant they had defied court orders.
I am very sympathetic to them but I also think they need to refine their tactics.
Mark Di Stefano
Mark Di Stefano – Verified account @MarkDiStef
Labor’s claims that The Greens are secret Tories is really being helped by these photoshoots
[But what if the Senate sits, immediately suspends standing orders, and votes for an adjournment before the bills are given even their first reading?]
The adjournment of the Senate can only be moved by a minister (without a suspension of standing orders or leave). Suspension of standing orders would require not only a simple majority of the Senate, but an absolute majority, ie 39 senators, because all contingent notices will lapse due to the prorogation.
Apart from that, you’re right that nothing could stop them from doing that, although they’d need to move for a next sitting day as well because the previously agreed sitting pattern will be removed by the prorogation.
I think the Senate adjourning without considering the bills it was specifically called up to consider could easily be seen to be a ‘failure to pass’, but it still leaves issues around appropriations.
We all know the LNP tell lies. Why does gov have to go to a DD, fail or to pass the Bill. More so if the polls are bad at this time, might be better for them in Nov.
Novice asking ?
Stephanie Anderson – Verified account @stephanieando
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten remains in Queensland today and will hold a town hall meeting in Gladstone at 6pm (local time) #auspol
10:25 PM – 21 Mar 2016
9 RETWEETS4 LIKES
global warming works in mysterious ways
It is possible that Labor are saving an about face for later in the campaign, when it is too late for the LNP to do anything about it.
I have no delusions that Labor are squeaky clean, and fully expect that both major parties will take several serious hits from a proper federal ICAC. And so they should.
But what that means is that the first of those two parties that supports it will come out of it less soiled, because they will be able to say with a straight face: ‘We were prepared to face up to the wrongs within our party, and clean up the system.’
That will earn serious kudos from the voters, I think.
Get on with it, Labor.
I think Laura Tingle is having some trouble with her marbles.
Like many here I quite admire her as one of the very best of the CPG (notwithstanding very best of a pretty poor mob).
However I just heard Phillip Adams interviewing her on RN and could not believe my ears.
1. She is lauding Truffles …WTTE “he’s shown in one action that he is not a ditherer; he lulled everyone into thinking he was indecisive, Shorten, the Greens, the Cross bench etc etc. Now with this masterstroke he’s really put the wind up them, especially Shorten. Now they know he is capable of masterstrokes and they will be very wary etc etc.”
2. Regarding the purpose of the Waffler’s masterstroke yesterday …… Tingle says he’d painted himself into a corner where he could not avoid a DD, but now he can get the Senate to pass the ABCC and he’ll avoid a DD without getting egg on his face. Figure that????
3. She goes on to say that the Senate probably won’t pass the ABCC. (So he hasn’t avoided a DD at all!) Logically this destroys points 1 and 2 above.
And then Adams asks her whether a long campaign has dangers for PollyWaffle. “Oh Yes, says Laura” She goes onto list the many various pressures that will impact on PollyWaffle the longer the campaign goes on, as others have done here. Here she rightly points out many possible dangers for him. But this particular aspect of what she had to say sat quite at odds with everything else she said.
The whole thrust of Tingle’s lauding overview of the events of the last two days lacked internal logic.
At the end of the interview she took time to describe the Waffler as a long term risk taker and said that that’s how he succeeded as barrister, banker, and in business. so if the tea leaves gather in an appropriate pattern, yesterday’s risk will be the making of him. And not to leave this aspect of her assessment without a bit of stupid input, she referred to Grech and utegate ….. all the Waffler did there was to take a risk which didn’t pay off, says she.
At no stage did she offer that taking risks is a matter of judgement, and when the risk fails the judgement is proved wrong, and in any case who wants a risk taker PM. I’d have thought that risk taking by a PM would have been a far better topic for her to analyse rather than the other crap she spouted in this interview.
Tingle has been weird. She intimated recently that Turnbull has sonething big up his sleeve. Although she could not articulate what it could possibly be
I see Shorten is doing townhall meetings. Hard to imagine Turnbull doing this.
Hardcore committed Libs prefer Tony and have no desire to go out of their way for Malcolm. His support comes from the wishy-washy faction of the party, so I don’t expect much public enthusiasm for him.
Some on twitter are predicting Labor will indeed announce they support a federal ICAC
[Hardcore committed Libs prefer Tony and have no desire to go out of their way for Malcolm. His support comes from the wishy-washy faction of the party, so I don’t expect much public enthusiasm for him.]
How do you know that? How many Libs do you know?
re: workplace safety.
As I have mentioned before, I worked in the building industry, on site & on tools, for a few years after leaving school. Bosses, and some workers, were bad enough back then, in the days when such issues were starting to enjoy their day in court.
There are very good reasons for having decent, enforceable, and actually enforced, minimum safety standards.
This includes the whole self-inspection/certification scam in the building industry. It was widely regarded by many in the industry at the time as a bad move, that would set us up for some very serious long term problems.
The safety and standards inspectors must be independent, and have serious teeth. Otherwise, more easily preventable injuries and deaths.
It is as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow.
It seems Tingle is a secret admirer of Truffles.
[21.Some on twitter are predicting Labor will indeed announce they support a federal ICAC]
I hope this is true
I work with a few hardcore Liberals and they all do not support Abbott but prefer Turnbull warts and all. Pretty well everyone I know think Abbott is a loose cannon.
Outside on 2GBland I don’t know of any Abbott supporters.
[I work with a few hardcore Liberals and they all do not support Abbott but prefer Turnbull warts and all. Pretty well everyone I know think Abbott is a loose cannon.]
The man was a patent danger to the nation even before he led his party to victory in 2013. That only intensified once he took power. I’m not referring to policy here but to his absolute lack of awareness of the implications of what he did as a PM. It is quite possible that Latham might have turned out the same way if he had won power in 2004. The signs were there, but they were not as glaringly obvious as with Abbott. I have not seen any other leader of either Labor or the Liberals in my memory who I ever regarded as a clear and present danger to Australia other than Abbott.
Yes you do they are the Abetz Christensen mob who would like to wreck the joint.
If only… would actually be a political masterstroke rather than the rather painful-to-watch “will-he-won’t-he” of the past few months. It would be a serious test of authority for Shorten and his shadow Cabinet if he did, since I imagine quite a few pissed off backroom players would start swarming out of the woodwork if that’s the path they chose to take.
As a Lib supporter, how do you explain his ever getting to lead the party and become Prime Minister?
What does this tell you about the type of people in the Liberal Party?
I’m just going by how Tony appears to be greeted at party functions and the less than enthusiastic support Malcolm gets (sometimes jeering). These are the same type of people that turn up to election speeches, etc. Malcolm might have the support of the more silent majority, though.
To add to my 1626
It is therefore odd that anyone could contemplate Abbott as PM or have him back. But there do seem to be people out there. His preselection is not under threat and he appears in no danger of being helped out of Parliament. And those people like Bolt and Devine are not at some far end of a bell curve tail. They do still enthuse a substantial number of people.
Abbott clearly has a solid constituency in his party, even though they are not the kind of nuts we tend to rub shoulders with.
Federal Labor will never support an ICAC. You heard it here first.
Abbott has never and will never accept his defeat in the vote for Prime Minister.
He and his crazies will carry on with wrecking the joint until the end of their days.
They are spiteful hate filled and obnoxious and quite frankly running out of puff and relevance.
(Yes, yes, I know – bookmark away!)
what we have been talking about on Twitter today
davidwh – I agree. I think Abbott supporters are overrepresented on places like twitter, opinion op-eds, comment sections, and within the actual Liberal party (perhaps less so in Vic & SA) but are much less important in the general Liberal voting population, even amongst their dedicated voters. Its easy to get wrong idea if you’re a political tragic. Check the preferred Lib leader rating on preferred lib leader response on page 13 of last week’s Essential.
I hope this situation pushes Labor to change their mind about opposing a Federal ICAC. Turning ABCC into ICAC is a fantastic way to turn the ABCC case on its head, everyone is lined up (Greens and enough crossbenchers) ready to execute that strategy but Labor is hesitating.
Albo on Triple J’s Hack on Turnbull’s campaign policy, and Labor’s negative gearing policy.
I thought you might have a more intelligent explanation than personality power politics.
I remain unconvinced.
This Channel 7 report really heaps it on Turnbull. Fairfax and ABC love for Malcolm not being backed up.
I heard promising sounds from Mark Dreyfus earlier today on Labor’s potential support for ICAC, I hope that means Labor is considering it. It’d be great to make Liberal corruption and “covering for business mates” an election narrative.
I dont have a clue if Labor will gone down the path of a fed ICAC, but there are rumours on twitter that it will be indeed what Labor does
[I thought you might have a more intelligent explanation than personality power politics.]
A more-than-sufficient explanation in this particular context, I would have thought. Occam’s Razor and all that. 🙂
Sorry, it was Chris Bowen, not Albo. Apparently I can’t tell them apart on radio.
Far too clever for me
But they in all probability voted and maybe even donated money, helping abbott become PM.
Plus they support his policies – or most of them ?
The same policies as turnbull.
If so – how can they now complain ?
Without the Senate stopping the worst aspects of abbott’s policies things would be much worse, including the economy.
Recalling parliament in 4 weeks has given Labor plenty of time to work out how they will approach the recalled session.The Waffler should’ve got them back immediately, to prevent their planning.
Hopefully Labor will utilise lots of pragmatism.
If they were to support a federal ICAC and convert the ABCC bill accordingly and PollyWaffle rejects the amendments here’s how Labor can reframe the debate: “We want the new law to apply to all unions and more, but the Conservos only want it to target the construction industry and the construction industry alone”
The Waffler would be well wedged.