Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor

As Newspoll reports for the first time in three weeks, Labor’s 53-47 lead remains set in cement.

The Australian relates yet another 53-47 result from Newspoll, with both major parties down a point on the primary vote: the Coalition to 35% and Labor to 36%, with One Nation steady on 11% and the Greens, despite it all, up a point to 10%. Of personal ratings, only the following at this stage:

Mr Turnbull’s net satisfaction rating — the difference between those satisfied and those dissatisfied with his performance — deteriorated slightly from -23 points to -24 points over the past three weeks. In contrast, Mr Shorten improved his net satisfaction rating from -23 to -20 points in today’s poll, showing another improvement in his standing with voters since he slumped to -28 points in March.

UPDATE: GhostWhoVotes relates that Malcolm Turnbull is steady on 32% approval and up one on disapproval to 56%; Bill Shorten is respectively up one to 33% and down two to 53%; and Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 44-31 to 41-33.

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.

811 comments on “Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 12 of 17
1 … 11 12 13 … 17

  1. It is extraordinary that in this country, where the most commonly-claimed religious affiliation is “none”, religious organs are still trying to assert control over who should or should not be permitted to enter into or cease to belong to legally recognised, voluntary, exclusive and publicly notated relationships.

    Their claims are entirely spurious from the standpoint of the many, who, like me, do not accept the validity of claims made on behalf of a supernatural being or beings.

  3. In more important news, I honestly think the Liberals need to lose government and really think about what they represent. I would love for them to split between the religious numpties and the economically minded.

  5. LittleBertie01: Groups demonised by the LNP gov:
    Asylum seekers
    Muslims
    Disabled
    Elderly
    Unemployed
    Single mothers
    Gays
    Aborigines
    Poor
    “Lefties”
    #auspol

  6. TPOF @10:50, re comments on likelihood of SSM, no I didn’t mean to give ‘safe harbour ‘ to GG.
    I agree with the post on inequality in that it absolute, is either present or not.
    A but like unequal wages for women or say 457 visa holders, being paid $50 or $250 less per week for the same work is still unequal.

    What the census figures on potential number of SSM couples means is that the inequality should be resolved by a simple act of parliament undoing Howard’s 2003 (or 2004?), legislation.

  7. I love how GG and others who oppose marriage equality talk compromise, but the very so-called compromise they speak of actually entrenches the very inequality they support. No thanks. The bottom line is we almost certainly will not get marriage equality under this government. I and I think many others am resigned to that, so be it. But, unless you do not trust the word of Bill Shorten, which I do, we will have marriage equality in this country within one hundred days of him becoming Prime Minister, and not a day too soon. In the meantime, I will happily enjoy the Liberals taring themselves apart on this and many other issues.

  12. P1:
    ‘What a rigid and narrow view of the world, it’s history and it’s people you have!’

    What a crap understanding of basic punctuation rules you have!

  13. Kennett getting exposure by attacking Turnbull. Just heard on ABC NewsRadio.
    Kennett’s government gave birth to a metric that I use internally – the “Opinion to Knowledge Ratio”. Kennett is off-the-scale. Later I found I had been forestalled by the “Dunning-Kruger Effect.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/failed-leader-stunned-jeff-kennett-slams-malcolm-turnbull-appalling-lack-of-political-judgment-20170711-gx8p32.html

  14. I think the splintering is accelerating week by week.

    I vaguely remember that tweet by Turnbull saying he was ‘conservative’, whatever that means.

  15. This refers to an upcoming interview with Louise Mensch on MMM FM

    rhysam: Will do. There’ll be the edited interview (brevity for show format) and the full interview. Will put up link for both when I’ve got it. twitter.com/integrityshine…

  18. From the Kennett article
    ‘Mr Kennett said he was “horrified” by some of the government’s recent policy decisions, such as applying a new tax on the banks and increasing taxes on superannuation ‘.

    The ill feeling on those superannuation changes are not going away.
    The government will never make another change to reduce tax expenditure on superannuation.

  19. CTar1
    Pence ticks quite a few of Uhlmanns boxes. It wouldnt surprise me if he was trying to play kingmaker again on a global scale.

    It probably blew his socks off on how well it went. I would like to think it shows him how succinctly he can portray political analysis and return to simple (doG forbid!), detached political reporting. But methinks it will just encourage his agenda.

  20. So Julie Bishop is preparing for a life post-politics, as she isn’t looking forward to the hard slog of Opposition again?

    I think that, instead of Secretary General of the UN, she would be better placed to consider being a comedian. I heard her say today that the Liberal Party is a ‘Progressive’ party. 😆

  21. John Reidy, I heard that Kennett interview live today on the radio. He equated the Bank Tax, introduced by Turnbull and Morrison, as akin to ‘Renationalisation of the Banks’!

  23. Timothy Reichle @ #535 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 12:11 pm

    I think the main problem with the proposal as said is the following are not prohibited.
    -Multiple wives being called marriage
    -Brother and sister
    -Children.

    That’s a rather disingenuous argument. The current legal definition of marriage is:

    “marriage” means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

    Which at best only excludes polygamy from the things you list. And which is why the Marriage Act also includes a ton of additional sections that explicitly deal with polygamy, child marriage, and so on.

    The only reasonable assumption is either that marriage equality will be enabled within the framework of the existing Marriage Act, in which case all of the standing prohibitions against taboo forms of marriage remain in effect; or that whatever civil construct replaces legal marriage will be drafted with a similar framework that explicitly deals with those same issues.

    There’s no grounds whatsoever for arguing that same-sex marriage or universal civil partnerships somehow open the door to polygamy, incest, and whatever else.

  24. “Re: Essential 54-46. Pinch me, I’m dreaming!”

    Has anyone told Mathias? Earlier this week the Corminator expressed surprise that Shorten Labor wasn’t further ahead in the polls. This should put his mind at ease.

  25. “jeremycorbyn: The money to transform our society is held by an elite few, in tax havens, squandered in tax giveaways & by privatisation.”

    Couldn’t have put it better myself!

  26. ‘Earlier this week the Corminator expressed surprise that Shorten Labor wasn’t further ahead in the polls. This should put his mind at ease.’

    Sadly the gormless interviewer failed to pick up the obvious (to most people) implication of this statement, and ask the obvious question in return.

  27. Interesting C@t
    ‘… I heard that Kennett interview live today on the radio. He equated the Bank Tax, introduced by Turnbull and Morrison, as akin to ‘Renationalisation of the Banks’!’

    And of course he sees himself as the ‘centre of the centre’.

    To borrow a line from Life of Brian:
    “I’m the centre of the centre and so is my wife”

  28. itzadream @ #449 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:54 am

    Pinch me. Remind me what century this is. The Catholic Church has reissued a clarification of its Canon Law that communion bread can’t be gluten free but must have some gluten otherwise the bread won’t change into Jesus’s body. Which people then eat.
    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/catholic-church-confirms-its-opposition-to-going-gluten-free-20170710-gx85zf.html
    (exploding head emoji)

    That is on a par with Voodoo.
    How can any sane, intelligent person take it seriously?

  30. For those of you in any doubt here is the gay community view as expressed by Rodney Croome an actual gay advocating Marriage Equality

    WHY LGBTI AUSTRALIANS SHOULDN’T ACCEPT LIMITED PATHS TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY
    “We can create our own destiny”

    SHARE ON:
    RODNEY CROOME — JULY 6, 2017

    IN 2016 the Turnbull Government managed to convince key MPs, advocates, and journalists who support marriage equality that a plebiscite was the only way forward on marriage equality.

    They accepted the Turnbull Government’s line that it was “a plebiscite or nothing”.

    Other advocates, including myself, spent much of the year making the opposite case.
    When those who swallowed the Government’s line said Turnbull was locked in to a plebiscite because of a deal with right wingers we pointed out that Liberal back benchers, opposition parties, and cross benchers could still work together to move the issue forward.

    For example, they could introduce a co-sponsored bill to prompt another government party room debate on a free vote, or they could suspend standing orders to bring on a vote and then cross the floor.

    We pointed to the fact that only a handful of Liberals need to cross the floor in both houses to get legislation through.

    We pointed to the Senate where non-government members have the numbers to begin the debate, away from the leadership clashes and deeper partisanship of the Lower House.

    Again and again, we said the choice between “a plebiscite or nothing” was a false choice and there were other ways forward.

    http://www.starobserver.com.au/opinion/why-australians-path-marriage/159802?utm_source=Star+Observer+Newsletter&utm_campaign=5decb97ac4-Newsletter+Friday%2C+July+7&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_01815abd36-5decb97ac4-119267901

  31. New evidence says the Republican Party was officially in on the Russian plot to rig the election for Donald Trump

    By Bill Palmer

    The idiocy of Donald Trump Jr. may end up doing more than merely taking down his father. It may end up taking down an entire political party. Junior’s meeting with a Kremlin representative has been identified as the epicenter of the Trump-Russia plot to rig the election for Donald Trump. And now it very much appears that the head of the Republican Party at the time was also in attendance at the meeting between Junior and the Kremlin.

    It turns out Reince Priebus was also at Trump Tower in New York on the day Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with the Russian government representative. ProPublica dug up old documentation confirming that Priebus arrived at the building just before the meeting At the time, Priebus was the head of the Republican Party in his role as RNC Chair.

    If Priebus was indeed in on the meeting, and wasn’t merely at Trump Tower to buy a hot dog, it means that the Republican Party – or at least its leader – was officially in on the plot with Russia and the Trump campaign to rig the election. This was all the way back on June 9th of 2016, when Donald Trump was first settling into having won the nomination. And the RNC Chair appears to have been in on it.

    This leads to the question of who else among the Republican Party leadership was aware at the time that the Donald Trump campaign and Russia were plotting to rig the general election from almost the moment Trump had seized the Republican nomination. Are we to believe that RNC Chair Reince Priebus was in on the plot, but that Republican House leader Paul Ryan and Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell weren’t? Priebus was an errand boy for Ryan and McConnell at the time. When this is all said and done, the entirely GOP leadership might well go down for treason as well.

  32. **The money to transform our society is held by an elite few…**
    And spent on private school ‘education’ (segregation).

  33. JR

    “I vaguely remember that tweet by Turnbull saying he was ‘conservative’, whatever that means.”

    Turnbull will just say he was talking about the economy then (‘financially conservative’), but he’s also ‘socially progressive’ ….

  34. briefly @ #551 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 12:37 pm

    It is extraordinary that in this country, where the most commonly-claimed religious affiliation is “none”, religious organs are still trying to assert control over who should or should not be permitted to enter into or cease to belong to legally recognised, voluntary, exclusive and publicly notated relationships.

    Their claims are entirely spurious from the standpoint of the many, who, like me, do not accept the validity of claims made on behalf of a supernatural being or beings.

    The only spuriosity here is your quoting of figures out of context. The latest Census showed about 50-55% proclaiming a Christian affiliation (of all the differing denominations) and another 20% of other religious inclination (Muslim, Buddhist, etc).

    So, while “No religion” may have topped the pops in numbers, it’s pretty clear that religion is still a driving core value of of the Australian population.

    The positioning of the answer to this question was also changed in the most recent Census. So, while the number are the numbers, a direct comparison with previous results needs to have an asterix until next time.

  36. matt31 @ #557 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 1:01 pm

    I love how GG and others who oppose marriage equality talk compromise, but the very so-called compromise they speak of actually entrenches the very inequality they support. No thanks. The bottom line is we almost certainly will not get marriage equality under this government. I and I think many others am resigned to that, so be it. But, unless you do not trust the word of Bill Shorten, which I do, we will have marriage equality in this country within one hundred days of him becoming Prime Minister, and not a day too soon. In the meantime, I will happily enjoy the Liberals taring themselves apart on this and many other issues.

    I don’t oppose marriage equality. I just don’t believe the concept exists in the real world. I’m also fascinated that your view of political process and debate is the total capitulation of the other side to whatever view of the world you hold.

  37. I think Uhlmann is a mixed bag. Which should make him a pretty good journo. But he was undoubtedly on the Abbott train and that sort of attachment (or career jostling, kingmaking, or whatever it was) is unseemly bordering on vomitous.

  38. GG
    “”So, while “No religion” may have topped the pops in numbers, it’s pretty clear that religion is still a driving core value of of the Australian population.”

    Jeez, what total horseshit. Are you for realz?

    “The positioning of the answer to this question was also changed in the most recent Census. So, while the number are the numbers, a direct comparison with previous results needs to have an asterix until next time.”

    Special pleading. Face it: religion is on the wane, and we’re a better country for it. (BTW, I think you mean “asterisk” not “asterix” – no need to drag pagan Gallic warriors into this.)

  39. GG, why do you see it as ‘total capitulation’? You would be able to hold your belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. And two people of the same gender want to get married (and their friends and family and whoever wants to gather for the ceremony) can hold to their differing view of it.

    We are a diverse bunch these days so why cant we have differing cultural meanings of the term ‘marriage’? Yours that it is only between male and female; others that it is between two people. Legally, the term will make no distinction in order to accommodate both groups.

    I am personally a little ‘meh’ about it as the term marriage doesnt really resonate with me. But I realise that many gay people have long suffered for being themselves (where being themselves has no adverse effect on society) and been excluded and ridiculed. Many have been killed for their sexuality. So whilst I reckon ‘civil union’ should suffice, if they want to call their love and commitment ‘marriage’ – fair enough.

  40. kakuru @ #588 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 2:39 pm

    GG
    “”So, while “No religion” may have topped the pops in numbers, it’s pretty clear that religion is still a driving core value of of the Australian population.”

    Jeez, what total horseshit. Are you for realz?

    “The positioning of the answer to this question was also changed in the most recent Census. So, while the number are the numbers, a direct comparison with previous results needs to have an asterix until next time.”

    Special pleading. Face it: religion is on the wane, and we’re a better country for it. (BTW, I think you mean “asterisk” not “asterix” – no need to drag pagan Gallic warriors into this.)

    I accept your disappointment that the figuress don’t tally with your prejudices. However, if over 70% of the population professes some religious affiliation, then I’d say that shows a population skew to religion in this case.

    As I said, the numbers are the numbers. However, it’s not unreasonable to question the number if the way the questioning is presented to respondents is different to the previous way the question has been asked. Neither is the point that we need a further data point to draw any deep and meaningful conclusions.

    Covering ones “aresisarisk” on PB when other posters run out of arguments and resort to pedantry. It’s a cross I’m happy to bear.

  42. A rare ‘2’ change in the a primary vote figure from Essential, which is usually very gentle due to 2-week averaging, and their panel methodology.

  43. The non-religious have rights that should be respected by the religious. We should not expect to be bound by the observances and traditions of all the varied denominations. If it came to it, which should we choose? It’s not for nothing that we regard ourselves as belonging to a secular society – a society in which religious belief is essentially a private matter. It is really because religious beliefs are treated as private, personal matters that we can also have an open, tolerant and harmonious community, free from sectarian competition.

    At the end of the day, marriage has nothing to do with belief/disbelief in the supernatural. Opposition to ME by religious orders should be seen through the prism of their permanent quest for relevance, legitimacy, power and cashflow.

  44. Simon Katich @ #589 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 2:50 pm

    GG, why do you see it as ‘total capitulation’? You would be able to hold your belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. And two people of the same gender want to get married (and their friends and family and whoever wants to gather for the ceremony) can hold to their differing view of it.

    We are a diverse bunch these days so why cant we have differing cultural meanings of the term ‘marriage’? Yours that it is only between male and female; others that it is between two people. Legally, the term will make no distinction in order to accommodate both groups.

    I am personally a little ‘meh’ about it as the term marriage doesnt really resonate with me. But I realise that many gay people have long suffered for being themselves (where being themselves has no adverse effect on society) and been excluded and ridiculed. Many have been killed for their sexuality. So whilst I reckon ‘civil union’ should suffice, if they want to call their love and commitment ‘marriage’ – fair enough.

    Simply put, the pro SSM protagonists here on PB are forever demanding “total capitulation” to their views and will resort to bullying, hectoring and abuse when another poster puts forward a different view.

    That’s not a tactic that encourages a genuine search for an outcome that meets the requirements of all parties. But, you might see it differently.

  45. I’ve had ABC 24 News on since about 7 this morning.

    Every time I’ve taken any notice the story is always the Libs scrum brawl or Trump.

  46. greensborough growler @ #594 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    Simply put, the pro-****** protagonists here on PB are forever demanding “total capitulation” to their views and will resort to bullying, hectoring and abuse when another poster puts forward a different view.

    That’s not a tactic that encourages a genuine search for an outcome that meets the requirements of all parties. But, you might see it differently.

    ****** = insert issue of choice here.

    PB is not renowned for ‘nuance’ on just about any issue.

  47. P1,

    In the spirit of compromise, you might replace “God’ with “Sun King” and get a few converts from the “solar” lobby on PB.

    The energy intensity scheme generated from such a union might set fire to PB though.

  49. They just keep picking sides.

    A good outcome would be if this only cost them government, it would be a good effort if the party doesn’t split IMO.

Comments Page 12 of 17
1 … 11 12 13 … 17

Leave a Reply

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