Newspoll and Ipsos: 53-47 to Labor

Two more pollsters add to an impression of little immediate change on voting intention in the wake of last week’s budget.

Two more sets of post-voting intention budget numbers, though nothing yet on their regular questions on response to the budget:

• Newspoll moves slightly in favour of Labor, who now lead 53-47 after dropping back to 52-48 in the previous poll three weeks ago. Both parties are on 36% of the primary vote, with the Coalition steady and Labor up a point, with the Greens up one to 10% and One Nation down one to 9%. The report states that Malcolm Turnbull’s net approval has improved from minus 25% to minus 20%, while Bill Shorten’s is down from minus 22% to minus 20%, although approval and disapproval ratings are not provided. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has widened from 42-33 to 44-31. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1716.

• The post-budget Ipsos poll for the Fairfax papers, conducted Wednesday to Thursday from a sample of 1401, has Labor leading 53-47, down from 55-45 in the previous poll in late March. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up four to 37%, Labor down one to 35%, and the Greens down three from a hard-to-credit result last time to record 13%. Both leaders have improved substantially on person ratings, with Malcolm Turnbull up five on approval to 45% and down four to 44% – the first net positive result we’ve seen for either leader in a long time – and Bill Shorten up seven to 42% and down six to 47%. The preferred prime minister shifts from 45-33 to 47-35. Newspoll hopefully to follow.

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.

1,160 comments on “Newspoll and Ipsos: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 19 of 24
1 … 18 19 20 … 24

  1. jimmydoyle @ #890 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    PlayerOne subscribes to the school of thought that says things are a certain way at the moment, and CAN NEVER EVER CHANGE i.e. renewable technologies can’t replace coal right this minute therefore they never can.

    You obviously haven’t been paying attention. I have said many times that I support an EIS which would rapidly displace coal with gas, and then gas will be displaced in turn by renewables as they come on stream. Trying to go from coal to directly renewables means we will probably continue to burn coal till 2050. Or didn’t you read the ENA/CSIRO report?

  4. You obviously haven’t been paying attention. I have said many times that I support an EIS which would rapidly displace coal with gas, and then gas will be displaced in turn by renewables as they come on stream. Trying to go from coal to directly renewables means we will probably continue to burn coal till 2050. Or didn’t you read the ENA/CSIRO report?

    P1, you’re actually confirming what jimmydoyle said. You simply cannot acknowledge that you’ve got your basic facts wrong. Or even the possibility that you are wrong.

    Instead what you do is regurgitate the same conclusions. Conclusions based on assumptions that you never challenge or even understand need to be challenged. You think renewables cannot replace coal over the next 15 years. Why? Because you think they are too costly. Any time someone challenges you about your conclusions, instead of going “oh.. yeah maybe they are cheap enough.. maybe they are getting cheaper”.. You just go round in circles. Making the same conclusions which implicit restate the same wrong assumptions of fact.

  5. You just never learn P1. Your basic assumptions of fact are wrong. And if they aren’t totally wrong now, they will be totally wrong in the next 3-5 years. Not 15-30 as you apparently claim. This is absurd and people are tired of you just refusing to accept that the facts change over time and are doing so at a rate that means that your claim we have to go to gas first is just patently absurd.

  6. PlayerOne – I accept that that’s something you sometimes say. However, you have a tendency to move the goalposts to whatever suits your position at any given moment.

  7. This is a good bit from Lewis…

    So for all the bank-bashing and nation-building, the budget appears to have been defined by its corporate tax cuts, the removal of the deficit levy for high-income earners and the introduction of the Medicare levy for everyone else.

    Gee, I wonder who defined it that way Laura and Mega?

  8. boerwar @ #902 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    I thought this was a readable paper on a vital topic and might be of more than passing interest to many a Bludger except for the energy scroll wheelers:
    https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/05/16/the-case-for-nuclear-energy-in-australia/?utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Insider-Subscribe-160517

    Interesting article. However, nuclear will never be an option here in Australia, because of all the numpties who would rather see the planet cook. However, the author also does a good job of describing the scaling problem. The stuff about France vs Germany in the race to decarbonize is is also very illuminating. France went the nuclear route and Germany went the renewables route, and guess which one worked out and which one didn’t?

  9. @ P1 – an EIS would act to hasten the cycle I discussed, as Coal plants would leave at lower spot prices. As I already mentioned, it would not change the fundamental facts of how market signals work. Coal plants would still close 1 at a time, which would still lead to increased spot pricing, which would still incentivise the remaining coal plants to stay in the market to enjoy that spot pricing. It would still require new generation to come online to crash the spot price, and it would still be the case that the faster the market brings on 1 coal plant worth of generation, the faster the cycle repeats with another coal plant exiting. And it will still be the case that Australia can build 1 coal plant output worth of renewables faster than it can build 1 coal plant worth of gas generation.

  10. 12 Features of White Working-Class Trump Voters Confirm Depressed and Traumatized Multitudes Voted for Him

    A nationwide survey reveals the sorry state of middle America.

    Looking to the past, not the future. Feeling lost, resenting immigrants. Feeling broke, picked on. Self-medicating, rejecting education. Wanting a rule-breaking leader to end the misery.

    Here are 12 excerpts from the PRRI/Atlantic White Working Class Survey conducted between September 22 and October 9, 2016. Here’s how they describe Trump’s white working-class base

    1. Nostalgia for the 1950s
    2. Strangers in their own country.
    3. Protection from foreign influence
    4. Losing the American identity
    5. Attitudes on immigrants and immigration
    6. Perceptions of reverse discrimination
    7. Bad financial shape
    8. College doesn’t pay off
    9. Wanted: rule-breaking leader
    10. Yes to restoring felony voting rights
    11. Substance abusers likely
    12. Drug treatment over jail time

    Trump’s America

    The PRRI/Atlantic survey underscores how much of Trump’s base are deeply traumatized, stuck in their lives and think little of education as a path to improvement. (These are not the corporate elites who support Trump because they are seeking to increase their wealth through government deregulation and privatization of public services.)

    MUCH MORE : http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/12-more-features-white-working-class-trump-voters

  11. P1, Nuclear will never be an option in Australia not because of numpties, but because Australians realise that are far more cheaper and more enviormentally friendly options.

  14. So for all the bank-bashing and nation-building, the budget appears to have been defined by its corporate tax cuts, the removal of the deficit levy for high-income earners and the introduction of the Medicare levy for everyone else.

    Gee, I wonder who defined it that way Laura and Mega?

    Ratsack: There answer would be that Shorten clearly has no ability to frame the political debate so once again he and they just cannot believe his luck!!

  15. @ P1 – on the Germany vs France thing.

    Lets say you and I are in a race from Sydney to Perth.

    I start heading South, to where our cars are parked. You start heading West, on the basis that that is where Perth is.

    10 minutes in, you are closer to Perth than me.

    Congrats, I guess. But eventually you’ll have to realise that you can’t walk to Perth, turn around, and start undoing all of the ‘progress’ you made.

  16. @ P1 – you’ve got to work with me here.

    I can’t tell what about the NEM you don’t understand. You need to tell me what point you were following up to, and where you got lost.

  17. The Law Can’t Stop Trump. Only Impeachment Can.

    Since the president can pardon anybody, probably including himself, he can operate with hardly any legal restraint at all.

    “U.S. officials and analysts fear other countries will hesitate to share information with a Kremlin-friendly Trump administration,” reported Politico’s Nahal Toosi in January. “Israeli intelligence officials are concerned that the exposure of classified information to their American counterparts under a Trump administration could lead to their being leaked to Russia and onward to Iran,” reported Ha’aretz that same month.” Now those fears have been vindicated. As one former senior intelligence official tells conservative Weekly Standard editor Stephen Hayes, “sharing of another country’s intel w/o permission is one of the brightest red lines in the intel world.”

    A Republican close to the White House told the Washington Post Trump is “in the grip of some kind of paranoid delusion.” A friend of Trump, trying to spin the latest debacle in the most forgiving way, tells Politico, “He doesn’t really know any boundaries. He doesn’t think in those terms … He doesn’t sometimes realize the implications of what he’s saying.

    The system is designed so that the only remedy for a president who cannot faithfully act in the public interest is impeachment. For the moment, that course of action – the only one that can save the country from the dire risk of its man-child president – is unfathomable to the Republicans who have a hammerlock on government.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/the-law-cant-stop-trump-only-impeachment-can.html

  18. With all the recently published polls pretty much agreeing that Labor is in front 53-47 I can’t wait to see William’s Bludgertrack update this week. From memory I think Kevin Bonham’s roundup had Labor at 53, which if repeated at an election would see a huge loss of coalition seats.

    Whether Labor can maintain that much of a lead of course is questionable. They have never won by that much before. But it’s good to know they are streets ahead at the moment.

  19. voice endeavour @ #916 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:44 pm

    @ P1 – you’ve got to work with me here.
    I can’t tell what about the NEM you don’t understand. You need to tell me what point you were following up to, and where you got lost.

    You’re a classic, VE. Try looking up how an EIS works, and tell me where you got lost.

  20. voice endeavour @ #915 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    @ P1 – on the Germany vs France thing.

    Did you actually read the article Boerwar posted?

    Between 1975 and 1990 France dropped its tCO2/TPES from 61.2 to 36.8. This shows that they’ve basically cleaned up half of their energy problem: electricity. They still need to deal with transport and direct industrial use of fossil fuels. In contrast, Germany during the first 14 years since its Renewable Energy Act in 2000 reduced her tCO2/TPES from 57.7 to 56.4. The numbers tell a truth that all the hype about the German renewable energy revolution can’t hide.

  21. PlayerOne – one recent example was when you attacked others on their pressing about some penetration in WA’s SWIS, and when Grimace pointed out that SWIS comprised something like 95% of WA’s electricity market, you simply sidestepped and continued your attacks undeterred.

    I don’t think you’re being intellectually dishonest, I think you’re just overly wedded to your viewpoint and any number of contradictory of facts only seem to further entrench your viewpoint. I share some of your scepticism of some of the more outlandish claims made here, but equally I think your obdurate pessimism is uneccessary.

  22. Now they brought out the new PM-wannabe, Peter Dutton on sky news bringing up the old blame game of blaming Labor for the debt!

    Didn’t take long for that to happen after budget-fallout..

  23. Okay!

    @William!!

    I have tried two different browsers Firefox and Chrome and both of these have different setups but neither of them I can post at all.

    But on my mobile using Safari I can post…

    Has me stumped..

  27. Ok, I’ll step it out in a bit more detail.

    An EIS is introduced.

    It takes money from coal generators and gives it to renewable generators. Depending on where the baseline is, it may take money from gas generators, or it may give money to gas generators. Either way, they quantity of money taken or received will be fairly low, compared to the amount we are talking about for coal and renewables.
    [Loop starts here]
    The Coal generators ask their financial guy “how are we doing?” The answer is, “making lots of money, just a bit less than without the EIS”. The reason for that, is that spot prices are stupidly high at the moment, as are all the financial products based off the spot price or futures pricing.

    People deciding whether to build renewables (and asking for a loan) now can increase their benefits, without changing their costs. So more renewable projects get funding and get built. Maybe some gas projects do as well, depending on where the baseline is set, as well as some other factors.

    This new capacity decreases the spot and futures prices. Investment in new renewable/gas plant slows (unless spurred on by gov investment, RETs etc) Now, the coal plant financial guys at most plants say “we’re doing alright, still making some money”. However, there is one plant that is not making money. Maybe they have repairs that are coming up soon, which will cost more than the plant is forecast to make. Maybe they are just less cost effective than the other coal plants. For the brown coal plants, it may be because the EIS hits them harder, making them less cost effective.

    So that one coal plant closes. It would have closed anyway, even without the EIS. It just would have taken longer to become unprofitable and thus longer to close.

    So that sends the spot price high, so all the other coal plants breathe a sigh of relief.

    Now, head back to where my post says [Loop starts here], and keep reading.

    The EIS means the spot price doesn’t have to drop quite as far for coal to exit, and makes it more likely that it will be brown coal exiting. It means the spot price doesn’t have to rise quite as high for new gens that will emit below the baseline over their lifetime to come online. It is still the same cycle I have been explaining, it just goes a bit quicker. It also means that the coal plant leaving is a combination of ‘dirtiest’ and ‘most expensive’, instead of just ‘most expensive’, which is obviously great.

    With an EIS, or without, Coal is still going to be replaced 1 power plant at a time. We want to shorten the time between boom-bust spot price cycles, which we can do by decreasing the time it takes for 1 power plant worth of generation to come online, and increasing the speed at which coal plants retire under low prices.

    Renewables are the fastest way to bring 1 coal plant worth of power online. An EIS does not change this.

    You are thinking about this as a technical challenge. It is not. The fastest way to reduce emissions is one that convinces a bank it will make money, because it will actually happen. That is why you need to think about the fastest way to displace one coal generator, not all of them at once.

  29. zoidlord @ #923 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:09 pm

    Okay!
    @William!!
    I have tried two different browsers Firefox and Chrome and both of these have different setups but neither of them I can post at all.
    But on my mobile using Safari I can post…
    Has me stumped..

    Are you using Windows and if so which version.
    Are you you using add ons such as CCCP or the other recent Chrome alternative PB comments plugin? Have you tried posting with either of these last disabled?

  33. Today’s Maddow show gives a good explanation of why Trump has stuffed things with this Russia ambassador revelation. Has several guests who work in field and explain exactly what’s in play

  34. R
    For some reason Bigus Dickus had stuck in my… mind. But Incontinentia was no longer front of brain.
    A good LOL from way back.

  35. @KayJay

    Interestingly PB states that I have already said “test” in a test post.

    “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”.

    But nothing has been posted.

  36. J
    I assume that what is in play will be the virtual end of Israeli intelligence flowing to the US… unless there is a backroom deal in which the operatives in the US and Israel agree a new Security Classification: NFTPE… Never For the President’s Eyes.

  38. jimmydoyle @ #921 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    PlayerOne – one recent example was when you attacked others on their pressing about some penetration in WA’s SWIS, and when Grimace pointed out that SWIS comprised something like 95% of WA’s electricity market, you simply sidestepped and continued your attacks undeterred.

    Ah, so I “sidestep”? I thought I “shifted the goalposts”?

    If I recall correctly, I think that particular discussion was about rooftop PV. Yes, the penetration of rooftop PV into SWIS is high … and yet it makes very little difference overall. From memory, the total rooftop PV capacity in the SWIS is about equivalent to one gas turbine (I stand to be corrected on that one – this discussion was quite a long time ago). WA still gets most of its electricity from coal and gas, and will continue to do so even if the penetration rate of solar PV ever reached 100% (which it never would, of course).

    I don’t think you’re being intellectually dishonest, I think you’re just overly wedded to your viewpoint and any number of contradictory of facts only seem to further entrench your viewpoint.

    That would be because I have yet to hear a cogent argument that contradicts my viewpoint, I guess : )

    I share some of your scepticism of some of the more outlandish claims made here, but equally I think your obdurate pessimism is uneccessary.

    I get that many here don’t understand the sheer urgency of action on global warming. Oddly enough, they mostly seem to be Greens! They seem to believe we have decades or even longer to muddle out an answer, and are quite content to wait for their favorite technology to develop a solution, no matter how long that might take. I don’t share that view, and nor do an increasing number of climate scientists. We will reach 450 PPM C02 within a decade or so without immediate action, and quite likely reach 500 – 600 PPM C02 before renewables can scale to the necessary levels. And we could hit any one of several “tipping points” at any time. There is some evidence to indicate that we have already done so. Do you know what the consequences of this would be?

  39. P1

    ‘However, nuclear will never be an option here in Australia, because of all the numpties who would rather see the planet cook. ‘

    Look, if you don’t understand an issue, why not just stay out of it?

  41. VE
    Yes, I waded through your post. It seems largely irrelevant to whether or not we have an EIS, except for this bit:

    So that one coal plant closes. It would have closed anyway, even without the EIS. It just would have taken longer to become unprofitable and thus longer to close.

    Exactly! This is precisely the purpose of an EIS!

    So you seem to be acknowledging that an EIS would work exactly as expected.

    Therefore I am having trouble understanding why you would oppose one.

  43. Nuclear fan Ziggy Zwitkowski concluded a number of years back that nuclear would not be able to be brought on line in Australia in the time required to address global warming. His main argument was the time it would take to set up all the ancillary industries needed to support nuclear power and train the people required.

  46. Boerwar, apparently some staffers are already doing that I.e. Withholding info from Trump … that’s when they’re not turnin g up their TVs & iPods to drown out the yelling.

    It appears to be a circus

  47. zoomster @ #944 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    P1 – it has never stopped you, so I don’t see why it should stop me…

    So try contributing instead of sniping. Do you support nuclear? I do – but I also accept that it isn’t going to happen here in Australia, because public sentiment is so strong against it. The best we can do is support it elsewhere in the world where it will do some good. China and India, mainly.

  49. zoidlord @ #931 Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    @KayJay
    Windows 10.
    No CCCP or other plugins.
    Chrome install is just basic no plugins etc.

    Very interesting.
    I am using Windows 10 and can post with either Chrome or Firefox although Chrome is exhibiting new (to me) problems with smilies which may be caused by the C+ plugin.
    Possibly a Windows 10 reinstall (with the keep app and files option may sort out the problem.
    Sorry I can’t be of much help. ☮ ✌

  50. On the bus home tonight I wondering whether Clive Palmer would have been a better PM than Malcolm. I think he would. Both spivs, of course. But Clive actually has a clue. Malcolm has no idea.

Comments Page 19 of 24
1 … 18 19 20 … 24

Leave a Reply

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