YouGov-Fifty Acres: 51-49 to Labor

The debut entry from a new federal poll series finds low primary support for the major parties and an unusually tight race on two-party preferred – although it would be a different story if preferences flowed as they did at last year’s election.

As reported here in early May, British-based market research giant YouGov has entered the Australian federal polling game, in conjunction with Australian communications agency Fifty Acres. After reporting attitudinal polling on a fortnightly basis over recent months, the pollster has produced its first set of voting intention numbers, which are exclusively related below.

First though, a few points about methodology. The poll is conducted through an online panel, similar to Essential Research, and indeed an increasingly dominant share of public opinion polls internationally. The polling is conducted fortnightly from Thursday to Tuesday from a sample of a bit over 1000 respondents (1125 in the case of the latest survey), drawn from its pool of survey volunteers.

With respect to voting intention, respondents are presented with a mock ballot paper featuring (together with party logos) Coalition options that vary by state, Labor, the Greens, One Nation, Nick Xenophon Team, Katter’s Australian Party, a generic option for “Christian parties”, and “other/independent”. The results are weighted not just by age, gender and region, which is standard in Australian polling, but also by education and past vote. The latter two are common in Britain but, as far as I’m aware, unique in Australia. Needless to say, this leads to two-party preferred results based on respondent allocation, rather than results from previous elections.

The results for this week’s poll are distinctive in the narrowness of the two-party preferred, with Labor’s lead at 51-49, and low primary votes for both major parties, which come in at 34% for Labor and 33% for the Coalition. Results for the minor parties are Greens 12%, One Nation 7%, Christian parties 4%, Nick Xenophon Team 3%, Katter’s Australian Party 1% and other/independent 6%.

The first thing to be noted is that Labor would record a much stronger lead of 54-46 if preferences were distributed as per the 2016 result, rather than respondent allocation. However, such is the size of the non-major party vote that this would be heavily dependent on preference flows remaining stable despite some fairly dramatic changes in vote share. The second point is that the Greens are two to three points higher than the recent form of Newspoll and Essential Research, although not Ipsos. One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team respectively come in at 7% and 3%, which would be fairly typical coming from Essential Research, but the combined vote of 11% for everyone else is around double the equivalent figure from Newspoll and Essential Research over the past two months.

For the regular attitudinal questions, this fortnight’s poll focuses on Donald Trump, with findings that 58% consider him “erratic” and a third “unhinged” (not sure if the one response here precludes the other, or if we should combine them to conclude that nearly everybody considers him unstable or worse); that 47% think his presidency threatens to destabilise the world; that 44% feel he won’t last long; and that 52% think his use of Twitter not suitable for a world leader. The poll also records 52% saying Australia is “ready to be fully powered by renewables”, 47% considering climate change a threat to the economy, and 51% supporting the inclusion of clean coal in a clean energy target.

NOTE: Separate to this one, I have a new post that takes a detailed look at the census results.

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.

688 comments on “YouGov-Fifty Acres: 51-49 to Labor”

Comments Page 9 of 14
1 8 9 10 14
  1. Confession

    The cake thing is being used because its the strongest thing they have. Its whats left after the US Supreme Court ruled banning Marriage Equality is Unconstitutional in the US.

    Thats how weak the argument agaist is. A wait for Labor to do it properly is worth it.
    No exemption especially now we have the No Religion census results

  2. As far as the earlier conversation about the names for the two Lib factions, I always thought ‘Those Mongrel No Good Stinking Bahstards’ and ‘Those Mongrel No Good Stinking Mongrel Fecking Bahstards’ were the go.

  3. confessions @ #398 Thursday, June 29th, 2017 – 10:11 pm

    I loathe that this is where the equality argument has gotten to on SSM: Whether you have a right to a cake at your wedding to your same sex partner.

    That’s a rather sideways way of looking at it. I’m almost positive the issue is whether someone operating a for-profit business is legally entitled to pick and choose which customers they server based upon sexual orientation (or presumably, gender, race, religion, or any other arbitrary thing; because if it’s okay to discriminate against one group, it’s okay discriminate against any group).

    It’s not a matter of uppity gay people demanding cake. It’s a matter of asshole business owners thinking they’re entitled to have their business withhold services (or cake, or whatever else) from anyone they personally dislike. If you want to operate a business and extract value from the rest of society as profit, your obligations should include servicing all segments of society equally.

  4. Guytaur:

    It might be where reactionary assholes have landed on the issue of SSM, but it doesn’t mean proponents of SSM need to buy into their bullshit. If I were PvO I’d have let that pass without comment. You mention it and it gives the issue legitimacy. The reality is that SSM isn’t about who can and can’t buy cakes FFS, but about who can and can’t marry the people they love.

  5. As horrible as it sounds, and I dont agree, its really easy for a place to refuse service to a gay/lesbian couple in such a way thst it doesnt appear to based on sexuality.

  6. It’s not a matter of uppity gay people demanding cake.

    I never said that it was. The issue of SSM is that current laws in Australia prevent same sex couples from legally marrying. Cakes and whatever are second order issues.

  7. question @ #133 Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 11:02 am

    Kevin Bonham, do we know how Essential polls it’s panel? I have an impression, and I’m not sure where I picked it up, that they send out requests to the panel, and then stop when they reach their quota’s.

    It is something like this except that they send out requests to a small subset of the panel, not the whole panel. They are still sending out several times more than they need to get back, so there can be a degree of motivated-response aspect. This can also be argued to apply to other polls in terms of whether the person takes the poll or hangs up.

  8. Confessions

    All PvO has to do is to write as AR just did. Aussies get that. Its as much a red herring as “what about the children”.

  9. **As far as the earlier conversation about the names for the two Lib factions**
    Ohhhhh. I missed that one.

    I am sure Dumb and Dumber got a run. What about Laverne and Shirley…. no no – Lenny and Squiggy!

    Or Marv and Harry?

  10. Peter van Onselen‏Verified account @vanOnselenP 6m6 minutes ago
    We need to remember, whatever the verdict of Pell’s trial, it’s only about what’s he’s done. Not his handling of sexual abuse in the church.

  11. guytaur @ #401 Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    Confession
    The cake thing is being used because its the strongest thing they have. Its whats left after the US Supreme Court ruled banning Marriage Equality is Unconstitutional in the US.
    Thats how weak the argument agaist is. A wait for Labor to do it properly is worth it.
    No exemption especially now we have the No Religion census results

    Would a person making a wedding cake to sell even know who was getting married?
    It all just seems like bs to me.

  12. Guytaur:

    Retailers baking wedding cakes for same sex couples is irrelevant. 100% of wedding cake retailers could be on board for SSM and it wouldn’t mean anything. Heck, the majority of Australians want to see legal SSM and yet still our parliament prevaricates.

    How’s this for an alternative: All those wedding cake retailers and individuals who want to see legal SSM do the only sensible thing and vote Labor. Only then will we see legal SSM.

  13. Pretty well all of the issues raised by opponents of marriage equality, from alleged breaches of the laws of nature through to the supply of cakes, would have been raised decades again in the context of inter-racial marriage. And probably by the same people.

  14. Bemused

    They might if the cake had 2 peopl wa(?) figures as part of the cake. Of course otherwise you are right how would they know?

  15. guytaur @ #415 Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 10:50 pm

    Bemused
    They might if the cake had 2 peopl wa(?) figures as part of the cake. Of course otherwise you are right how would they know?

    Such a cakeshop would not have those figures so they would have to be procured elsewhere.

    A shop needs customers more than customers need a shop.

    It is a hypothetical non-issue.

  16. Confessions

    I am in agreement with you. Its a BS argument. Voting Labor is the only way change is going to happen after Abbott’s games

  17. confessions @ #398 Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 10:11 pm

    Peter van Onselen‏Verified account @vanOnselenP 8m8 minutes ago
    Good to see German Christian Democrat MP @StefanKaufmann condemn those who won’t bake a cake for gay couples as discriminatory on @Lateline

    I loathe that this is where the equality argument has gotten to on SSM: Whether you have a right to a cake at your wedding to your same sex partner.
    Like it’s the absence of gay cake that is holding you back equality-wise, rather than the absence of laws that enshrine equality in the first place. Yeesh talk about horse before cart!

    Personally I don’t have a problem with a business declining customers for discriminatory reasons.

    But any business who chose to do this should be made to prominently display signage on the front of and in their shop and on any business advertising declaring this policy.

    I would suspect that many people would avoid doing business with such places and the viability of their business would suffer.

    Of course that assumes there is a choice of businesses and where that is not the case my position collapses as being untenable.

  18. Bemused at 1047pm.
    They might get an inkling of what was going on if the cake was required to be topped by two gentlemen or two ladies holding hands. Reminds me of Alice Roosevelt Longworth’s famous dismissal of Thomas Dewey as “looking like the little man on top of a wedding cake”.

  19. **Of course that assumes there is a choice of businesses and where that is not the case my position collapses as being untenable.**
    Yeah. I have tried about 10 times to write a post about this and am going around in circles on it. I will leave it for after tomorrow mornings coffee.

  20. From the discussion it sounds like thousands of wedding cake makers are involved. Economics will pretty quickly sort out all but the most extreme. Some firms will rush to cater (both generally and literally) specifically for gay marriages. Money.

    I’m still reeling from the Victorian Police decision today. Thought they would wuss it.
    Trying to imagine what a circus this trial is going to be. Will there be political effects at State or Federal levels? The possible circus act scenarios are limitless. But I wonder how this will effect broader political debate or if it will very much at all.

  21. The cake is not merely ceremonial. The question is whether it should be permissible for vendors to deny supply of goods and services on the basis of the sexuality of potential buyers. There is a multitude of examples. What is the the difference between supplying cake and, say, housing or financial services; or access to transport, sporting venues or restaurants?

    Clearly, we should have equal rights as consumers.

    The vendor of the cake would not be permitted to refuse supply on the basis of a person’s colour, ethnicity, religion, gender or political beliefs. On what basis should such vendors have the right to refuse to serve LGBTQI people?

  22. citizen @ #389 Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Following Bolt and Devine today, we can probably expect a concerted assault by Pell defenders in tomorrow’s Oz. People like Sheridan, Henderson and Shanahan come to mind.

    We can expect many hundreds of thousands of words defending Pell, and hundreds of thousands more attacking those who speak out against him.

  23. Norwester
    Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 11:34 pm
    From the discussion it sounds like thousands of wedding cake makers are involved. Economics will pretty quickly sort out all but the most extreme. Some firms will rush to cater (both generally and literally) specifically for gay marriages. Money.

    Well, we should just recall the good old days when people of colour were not permitted to ride on buses with white fellas; when women were forced to leave the workforce when they married; when females were unable to obtain bank loans; when aboriginal workers were expected to toil without wages. Notwithstanding the operation of market forces, discriminatory exclusion was normal.

  24. Grimace
    Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 11:55 pm
    citizen @ #389 Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Following Bolt and Devine today, we can probably expect a concerted assault by Pell defenders in tomorrow’s Oz. People like Sheridan, Henderson and Shanahan come to mind.

    We can expect many hundreds of thousands of words defending Pell, and hundreds of thousands more attacking those who speak out against him.

    And I will not be among any of them. The complainants are entitled to have the matter heard. Pell is entitled to a fair hearing. The less public controversy there is, the better.

  25. Like many of my fellow Bludgers, I’ve been in a extremely good mood all day as a result of hearing the news about Pell about 730 this morning.

    Well done to all concerned in these proceedings coming to fruition.

  26. briefly @ #426 Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 11:42 pm

    The vendor of the cake would not be permitted to refuse supply on the basis of a person’s colour, ethnicity, religion, gender or political beliefs. On what basis should such vendors have the right to refuse to serve LGBTQI people?

    I agree that any exclusion on stated grounds as above should be a chargeable offence. In practice many businesses subtly and not so subtly discriminate against one section or another of society. I see that with Aboriginal people I know and what happens for some of them in different shops, services etc. Very occasionally someone might be charged but only if they are blatant like if they put a sign up.

  27. Norwester….I dunno about “chargeable offences”, which suggests the operation of the criminal law. The jurisdiction we use is civil…involving the Human Rights Commission and civil courts. The remedies are not penal, but aim at awarding relevant restitution and/or reconciliation. This is good law.

  28. ‘On what basis should such vendors have the right to refuse to serve LGBTQI people?’
    They could argue that they are opposed to gay marriage, not gay people. They might say they’d happily make a birthday cake for a gay person but given they don’t believe in gay marriage, won’t help it happen.You can’t make a Catholic who doesn’t agree with abortions help perform them. It’s not straightforward.

  29. Diogenes

    The would also have to excuse the airline that refused to carry the newly-weds; the hotel that refused to host them; the reception centre that refused to allow the ceremony to be held; the milliner and the taylor who refused to dress them and the liquor store that refused to supply the champagne.

    The cake store is in an indefensible position.

  30. Diogenes @ #433 Friday, June 30th, 2017 – 12:17 am

    You can’t make a Catholic who doesn’t agree with abortions help perform them.

    You might if they chose a career in medicine and were actively operating as a healthcare provider. I assume professional ethics would require them to at least provide referrals to a doctor who will perform the procedure if a patient requests it, and even to perform the procedure themselves if a patient’s life is in imminent danger and no other qualified professional is available. They chose to pursue that vocation, and to stick with it even after gaining the knowledge that abortion is a legal medical procedure (unless you’re in NSW or QLD; wtf?!?) that medical practitioners may sometimes need to provide. In such a context, I have absolutely zero sympathy for their religious misgivings.

    Everyone has a right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want. No one has a right to choose to work a particular job in a particular industry and then claim their religion as an excuse for not doing it properly. If your religion is that important to you, then pick a job that won’t conflict with it. Or if you’d rather have the income a well-paying job provides, then suck it up and do the job you signed up for.

  31. briefly @ #436 Friday, June 30, 2017 at 12:31 am

    Diogenes
    The would also have to excuse the airline that refused to carry the newly-weds; the hotel that refused to host them; the reception centre that refused to allow the ceremony to be held; the milliner and the taylor who refused to dress them and the liquor store that refused to supply the champagne.
    The cake store is in an indefensible position.

    I think the argument regarding this is largely over in Australia. There are ads for a gay dating agency in every QANTAS magazine. Poor Margaret Court on the other hand can’t catch a plane anywhere anymore cos gays. Liquor stores sell to anyone anytime unless restricted by law.
    The majority support gay marriage and there will be economic blowback on businesses that discriminate.

  32. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ana-brnabic-serbia-prime-minister-first-woman-gay-lesbian-lgbt-aleksandar-vucic-a7813951.html

    When President Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia nominated Ana Brnabic to the powerful post of Prime Minister this month, the West hailed it as a landmark decision that put her on course to become the country’s first female and first openly gay premier.

    But some deeply conservative politicians called her nomination part of a degenerate Western plot, and critics on the left and some lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Serbs dismissed her as Vucic’s puppet.

  33. I think business folk should be able to discriminate against whoever they want. In so far as they are a private business and that we as individuals can discriminate as much as we want, by not associating with folk we don’t like.
    But any business which has commercial advantage due to Government regulation or procurement should lose that advantage if they don’t comply with Government policy.
    e.g. no cakes for the for the executive tea party from that shop, no government leases, no small business tax concessions, no protection against organised boycotts

  34. Bryon
    Friday, June 30, 2017 at 1:22 am
    I think business folk should be able to discriminate against whoever they want.

    Businesses invariably have to be registered. It is a condition of registration that they comply with all the laws that are in force, including laws with respect to discrimination.

  35. All this talk about Pell reminds me of the David Marr’s book The High Price of Heaven.

    https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/current-affairs-politics/The-High-Price-of-Heaven-David-Marr-9781865084220

    The paperback edition of David Marr’s perceptive and witty essays on the continuing, and frequently malign, influence of the church on modern Australian society and politics.

    It speaks of the way the Church has interfered with civil society, resisted reforms to laws affecting gay people. And the way its ruined lives, condoned murder and caused countless suicides. And Pell gets more than a passing mention in all of this.

    I don’t care if he’s innocent or not in the current case. He ought to be convicted for the damage he’s done to many people.

  36. Trump Just Went Completely Psycho And Launched A Grotesque Attack On Mika Brzezinski

    Trump went completely bonkers on social media and attacked MSNBC Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski by accusing her of bleeding from the face after a facelift.

    This is not the behavior of a mentally healthy person. The President Of The United States is using his platform as the leader of the free world to attack political commentators who disagree with him in the most personal way. I am not sure that Trump wants to go after anybody for a facelift because he has had plenty of work done on himself. Donald Trump is showing every day that he is not well and should not be occupying the Oval Office.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/29/trump-completely-psycho-launched-grosteque-attack-mika-brzezinski.html

  37. Mika Brzezinski Gets The Perfect Revenge On Trump After His Personal Attack On Her

    Mika Brzezinski got the perfect revenge on Donald Trump, as her reply to the President is twice as popular as his personal attack on her.

    The best revenge isn’t the reference to Trump’s baby hands, although that’s good. The best revenge is that her one tweet got 24,000 retweets and 75,000 likes, which is more than either one of Trump’s tweets

    She kicked him square in the ego and revealed that Trump isn’t even as popular on Twitter as he used to be. Trump is a troll with a shrinking army whose losing in politics is being echoed on social media.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/29/mika-brzen.html

  38. Trump’s Jeff Sessions Problem Just Got Ten Times Worse As Investigation Demands Grow

    All Democrats from the House Judiciary and Oversight committees demanded that the Department of Justice investigate Attorney General Jeff Sessions for violating his “recusal” from the Russia investigation by collaborating in the firing of former FBI head James Comey.

    Sessions, who failed to disclose his now known two meetings with Russian Ambassador Kislyak when he was acting as a top policy adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump when asked about his encounters with Russians during his attorney general confirmation hearings, was forced to recuse himself from the Russia probe due to public outrage after those meetings became public.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/29/dems-doj-investigate-sessions-violated-recusal-firing-comey.html

  39. Trump Accused Of Dereliction of Duty As Russia Scandal Gets More Dire For Republicans

    Calling President Trump’s denial of Russian attack on our election “dismaying and objectionable”, former Ambassador Nicholas Burns said it’s the President’s duty to be skeptical of Russia and that his refusal to take action is “a dereliction of the basic duty to defend the country.”

    Why won’t Donald Trump act to protect the United States, as is his duty? Furthermore, why don’t Republicans care? Republicans are currently trying to undermine the Senate and House investigations into the Russian interference in our election.

    The Russians are still attacking the U.S. and will interfere in our next election, experts warn, unless we stop them.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/29/bush-43-nato-ambassador-trumps-refusal-act-russia-dereliction-duty.html

  40. ‘Inappropriate. Undignified. Unpresidential’: Republicans slam Trump over ‘facelift’ outburst against MSNBC host

    Donald Trump unleashed a brutal personal attack Thursday on respected female television host Mika Brzezinski, sparking an instant backlash, in the latest stunning salvo in the president’s ongoing war with the media.

    “I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore),” wrote Trump, an avid cable news watcher.

    “Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!” he tweeted.

    But the vulgarity of his latest assault triggered a torrent of criticism including within his own party.

    “Inappropriate. Undignified. Unpresidential,” tweeted Jeb Bush, Trump’s rival for the White House nomination last year, while the top Republican on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Paul Ryan, conceded the president’s comments were “not appropriate.”

    “What we’re trying to do around here is improve the tone, the civility of the debate. And this obviously doesn’t help do that,” Ryan told a news conference.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/inappropriate-undignified-unpresidential-republicans-slam-trump-over-facelift-outburst-against-msnbc-host/

Comments Page 9 of 14
1 8 9 10 14

Leave a Reply

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