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 13 of 17
1 12 13 14 17
  1. GG **But, you might see it differently.**
    I have skimmed most of the comments on this so my question was pretty much based on your post alone.

    Please please dont make me read through them all and just accept my apologies for not being fully informed of the current PB debate.

    That apology goes for ALL my posts to all posters both now, in the past and in the future.

  2. @a r
    That was in reference to my proposal to replace the term ‘marriage’ in the law in every instance with ‘civil union’.

    So the law you reference will actually say ‘Civil Union Act’ not ‘Marriage Act’

  3. Simon Katich @ #603 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 3:33 pm

    GG **But, you might see it differently.**
    I have skimmed most of the comments on this so my question was pretty much based on your post alone.

    Please please dont make me read through them all and just accept my apologies for not being fully informed of the current PB debate.

    That apology goes for ALL my posts to all posters both now, in the past and in the future.

    This might be handy in future.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KniUNdVZvH4

  4. Yeah, solar energy is really about worshipping a sun deity.

    We can say that the sun deity is more predictable than all the others, who are, to say the least, capricious!
    Which somehow reminds me that

    The rain it rains upon the just
    And upon the unjust fellow.
    But more upon the just, because
    The unjust steals the just’s umbrella!

  5. Rational Leftist
    “Yeah, solar energy is really about worshipping a sun deity.”

    Devout Christians like GG might be interested to know that, at its origins, Christianity was not too far removed from solar worship. After all, the date for Christmas was stolen from the winter solstice, the holiest day for worshippers of the sun (Sol Invictus).
    The Roman emperor Constantine converted to Christianity after being inspired by a solar apparition.
    The roots of modern Christianity are deeply embedded in paganism, especially solar worship. This is not something modern Christians like to admit.

  6. Using the term Civil Union as the sole available legally recognised term not only creates international legal compatibility issues but also domestic constitutional issues as the Commonwealth does not have any power to make laws for Civil Unions, unless it is in some other power it possesses.

  7. Jeff Kennett says he’s “perplexed that Turnbull is talking about domestic politics while he’s O/S”.

    It wouldn’t occur “Jeff”

    * that our Press would interview Micky Mouse on this, if he held up his hand and said he was a Liberal Party member, and

    * that Turnbull, the rest of the Liberal Party, and 99.9% of voters, couldn’t care less about him being perplexed.

  8. Sorry been working. No, I don’t lie about other posters.

    I don’t troll for reactions and I usually ignore trolls but I won’t have lies told about me without a response.

  9. Greensborough Growler @ #594 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 3:08 pm

    Simply put, the pro SSM protagonists here on PB are forever demanding “total capitulation” to their views

    It’s unclear what “total capitulation” means in this context. Nobody is saying that you have to marry someone of the same sex if you don’t want to. Nobody is saying that you have to condone or participate in same sex marriages. Nobody is saying that you can’t continue to believe and express that same sex marriage is wrong, sinful, abominable, or whatever else, if that happens to be your desire.

    What capitulation is being asked of you, other than that you tolerate the existence of something that you may not personally agree with, and which has zero impact on you personally?

    Honestly I don’t think the people trying to stand up for gay rights are bullies, or that you have any sort of legitimate claim to victimhood in this debate. Nobody has denied or is proposing to deny you legal access to exercising a basic and harmless civil liberty.

    That’s not a tactic that encourages a genuine search for an outcome that meets the requirements of all parties.

    Enumerate these requirements then. I hope they’re more cogent than “gays can’t have access to anything that’s called ‘marriage'”.

  10. I’m a bit of a moon guy. Last night’s full moon came up a spooky streaked orange and I said out loud

    O My God

  11. Though I have to acknowledge that there are people, such as GG and KayJay, who are inspired by their religious devotion to do very good deeds and help people who cannot help themselves very easily. They are a godsend. 🙂

  12. GG @2:21pm:
    “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.”
    What a load of tripe, GG. No, seriously – Australian church attendance is a pitiable 17%….monthly(1). That’s right; fewer than one in six Australians can even be bothered attending ONCE a week. In fact, some surveys have put the number as low as 8% (2).
    For the few people who attend weekly Mass to think that YOU get to dictate how WE arrange OUR lives is a testament to the incredibly privileged position Christianity continues to enjoy in our public sphere, despite its increasing irrelevance to most Australians!
    “B-b-but God SAYS!” just doesn’t resonate with most Australians these days as far as justifications for public policy go, I’m afraid. And none of your mendacity about just HOW important it is that a set percentage of people tick a box on a form once every five years can change that!
    If you want to say “I don’t like it, and won’t have anything to do with it”, then fine – as far as I’m concerned, that’s your right as a free person in a free society. But don’t pretend that most people care what the (denomination of your choice) Church says (we don’t), and don’t go around acting as if your mob have an exclusive patent on the “m”-word (you don’t). What’s more, most people don’t give a toss.
    .
    (1) National Church Life Survey, 2012.
    (2) http://www.mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/church_attendance_in_australia_infographic

  13. When I finally leave this life I want to go to Silicon Heaven…..watchhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm6YnAqPv4w

  14. If you’re going to be into religion I think it makes a lot more sense to have multiple gods.
    Sex, wine, war etc.
    That way, when you pray, you know you’re on the right channel.

  15. Shellbell

    The corporate shareholders structure never made much sense to me.

    I remember S&G rushing in because they wanted to be first.

  16. Tom The First And Best
    Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 3:49 pm
    Using the term Civil Union as the sole available legally recognised term not only creates international legal compatibility issues but also domestic constitutional issues as the Commonwealth does not have any power to make laws for Civil Unions, unless it is in some other power it possesses.

    There’s a good reason for this. Civil unions are otherwise generally known as marriages, which is the matter referred to in the Constitution.

  17. a r @ #613 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 3:54 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #594 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 3:08 pm

    Simply put, the pro SSM protagonists here on PB are forever demanding “total capitulation” to their views

    It’s unclear what “total capitulation” means in this context. Nobody is saying that you have to marry someone of the same sex if you don’t want to. Nobody is saying that you have to condone or participate in same sex marriages. Nobody is saying that you can’t continue to believe and express that same sex marriage is wrong, sinful, abominable, or whatever else, if that happens to be your desire.
    What capitulation is being asked of you, other than that you tolerate the existence of something that you may not personally agree with, and which has zero impact on you personally?
    Honestly I don’t think the people trying to stand up for gay rights are bullies, or that you have any sort of legitimate claim to victimhood in this debate. Nobody has denied or is proposing to deny you legal access to exercising a basic and harmless civil liberty.

    That’s not a tactic that encourages a genuine search for an outcome that meets the requirements of all parties.

    Enumerate these requirements then. I hope they’re more cogent than “gays can’t have access to anything that’s called ‘marriage’”.

    Well where “marriage” has been seen as synonymous with “heterosexual union”, it is passing strange that homosexuals wish to indulge in it.
    So if successful and “marriage” becomes a more inclusive term to include both homosexual and heterosexual unions, how long will it be before a word is coined to uniquely apply to heterosexual unions? And then how long before the homosexual community decide they want to appropriate that term too?
    And on it goes…

  18. Shellbell

    Yep.

    I recall being absolutely amazed on the “$1.35 billion in cash buying the British legal business Quindell.”

  19. c@tmomma @ #617 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    Though I have to acknowledge that there are people, such as GG and KayJay, who are inspired by their religious devotion to do very good deeds and help people who cannot help themselves very easily. They are a godsend.

    I am inspired by common humanity to seize every opportunity to do a good deed.
    I don’t need no spook or anything telling me to do so.

  20. Matt @ #619 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 4:16 pm

    GG @2:21pm:
    “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.”
    What a load of tripe, GG. No, seriously – Australian church attendance is a pitiable 17%….monthly(1). That’s right; fewer than one in six Australians can even be bothered attending ONCE a week. In fact, some surveys have put the number as low as 8% (2).
    For the few people who attend weekly Mass to think that YOU get to dictate how WE arrange OUR lives is a testament to the incredibly privileged position Christianity continues to enjoy in our public sphere, despite its increasing irrelevance to most Australians!
    “B-b-but God SAYS!” just doesn’t resonate with most Australians these days as far as justifications for public policy go, I’m afraid. And none of your mendacity about just HOW important it is that a set percentage of people tick a box on a form once every five years can change that!
    If you want to say “I don’t like it, and won’t have anything to do with it”, then fine – as far as I’m concerned, that’s your right as a free person in a free society. But don’t pretend that most people care what the (denomination of your choice) Church says (we don’t), and don’t go around acting as if your mob have an exclusive patent on the “m”-word (you don’t). What’s more, most people don’t give a toss.
    .
    (1) National Church Life Survey, 2012.
    (2) http://www.mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/church_attendance_in_australia_infographic

    The context for my comments was in response to briefly who raised the statistics from the recently held Census. His point was that ‘No religion” topped the pops and so that justified a flurry of commentary from him about a specific social issue. My point is and was that over 50% responded as a Christian of some some denomination and that there were a further collection of about 20% from other religions. This says to me that religion and especially Christian religions are still a major driving force of underlying values in this country.
    Regardless of whether people attend Church or are particularly pious, the underlying values still dominate our culture and self perceptions. That is a clear message from the Census.
    I respect this might not specifically apply to you. However, it is what it is.

  21. What I am fully expecting, that the female Russian lawyer who met with Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner, and who the Russians are now saying they have never heard of, is probably going to end up with a bad case of Polonium poisoning, or will ‘accidentally’ fall out of a window somwhere, very soon.

  22. Bemused,
    I am inspired by common humanity to seize every opportunity to do a good deed.
    I don’t need no spook or anything telling me to do so.

    I say exactly the same thing, myself. In fact, I call myself a small ‘c’ christian. That is, I am inclined towards behaving as a good christian who supports the 10 Commandments would. Except for ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain’. I can’t seem to help myself there sometimes. 🙂

    Nevertheless, I would like to do unto others, as I would have them do unto me. Also, turn the other cheek. Also, the secular, ‘what comes around, goes around’, in the positive sense, appeals to me.

  23. c@tmomma @ #636 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    Bemused,
    I am inspired by common humanity to seize every opportunity to do a good deed.
    I don’t need no spook or anything telling me to do so.

    I say exactly the same thing, myself. In fact, I call myself a small ‘c’ christian. That is, I am inclined towards behaving as a good christian who supports the 10 Commandments would. Except for ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain’. I can’t seem to help myself there sometimes.
    Nevertheless, I would like to do unto others, as I would have them do unto me. Also, turn the other cheek. Also, the secular, ‘what comes around, goes around’, in the positive sense, appeals to me.

    I am more a “fellow traveller” with the likes of Fr Rod Bower from up your way.

  24. C@tmomma @ #636 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 5:21 pm

    Bemused,
    I am inspired by common humanity to seize every opportunity to do a good deed.
    I don’t need no spook or anything telling me to do so.

    I say exactly the same thing, myself. In fact, I call myself a small ‘c’ christian. That is, I am inclined towards behaving as a good christian who supports the 10 Commandments would. Except for ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain’. I can’t seem to help myself there sometimes. 🙂

    Nevertheless, I would like to do unto others, as I would have them do unto me. Also, turn the other cheek. Also, the secular, ‘what comes around, goes around’, in the positive sense, appeals to me.

    As long as you choose not to undo others as they would attempt to undo you then everything is fine.

  25. C@tmomma @ #628 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 5:06 pm

    Expert analysis by a 28 year veteran of the CIA, and the NYT journalist who broke the story, of the meeting between the Russian Lawyer and Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner:

    https://youtu.be/aXBOE02IBrE

    momma,

    I saw an interview earlier with a GW Bush White house ethicist (yes Virginia….) who basically said that regardless of whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, the first port of calling in this situation was the FBI.

  26. The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, are a set of biblical laws relating to ethics and worship, which play a fundamental role in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The commandments include instructions to worship only God, to honour one’s parents, and to keep the sabbath, as well as prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, dishonesty, and coveting. Different religious groups follow different traditions for interpreting and numbering them.

    The Ten Commandments appear twice in the Hebrew Bible, in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Modern scholarship has found likely influences in Hittite and Mesopotamian laws and treaties, but is divided over exactly when the Ten Commandments were written and who wrote them.

    The 10 commandments (wtf?? why not just “commands”?) are not especially Christian. Their origin is in Hebrew story-telling.

  27. I propose that marriage be renamed sausage and viewed accordingly.

    Can’t understand why all the gays in the village want to be sausaged, but who understands young people these days.

    Can understand less why some people are so hung up on sausages, who get to be sausaged and the sanctity or otherwise of sausage.

  28. bemused @ #638 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 5:26 pm

    c@tmomma @ #636 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    Bemused,
    I am inspired by common humanity to seize every opportunity to do a good deed.
    I don’t need no spook or anything telling me to do so.

    I say exactly the same thing, myself. In fact, I call myself a small ‘c’ christian. That is, I am inclined towards behaving as a good christian who supports the 10 Commandments would. Except for ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain’. I can’t seem to help myself there sometimes.
    Nevertheless, I would like to do unto others, as I would have them do unto me. Also, turn the other cheek. Also, the secular, ‘what comes around, goes around’, in the positive sense, appeals to me.

    I am more a “fellow traveller” with the likes of Fr Rod Bower from up your way.

    While not trying to put religious motives in your mouth, it’s interesting that both you and momma have made comments that reflect the underlying values that I suggested came out of the recent Census.

    Cheers.

  29. adrian @ #643 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 5:41 pm

    I propose that marriage be renamed sausage and viewed accordingly.

    Can’t understand why all the gays in the village want to be sausaged, but who understands young people these days.

    Can understand less why some people are so hung up on sausages, who get to be sausaged and the sanctity or otherwise of sausage.

    Clearly, you are a silly sausage.

  30. Gartrell and Knott in Fairfax claim:

    Malcolm Turnbull’s cabinet was prepared for a conservative backlash to his speech about the Liberal Party’s ideological direction, coordinating an early morning media blitz to defend the Prime Minister’s “sensible centre”.

    But the firestorm never came.

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cabinet-backs-malcolm-turnbulls-sensible-centre-as-conservative-critics-keep-quiet-20170711-gx8v9o.html

    So what does silence, so far, from those inside the parliamentary party (like Abbott and Abetz) mean? There is the eerie feeling that they may be planning something that Turnbull won’t like.

  31. citizen @ #648 Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 – 5:48 pm

    Gartrell and Knott in Fairfax claim:

    Malcolm Turnbull’s cabinet was prepared for a conservative backlash to his speech about the Liberal Party’s ideological direction, coordinating an early morning media blitz to defend the Prime Minister’s “sensible centre”.

    But the firestorm never came.

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cabinet-backs-malcolm-turnbulls-sensible-centre-as-conservative-critics-keep-quiet-20170711-gx8v9o.html

    So what does silence, so far, from those inside the parliamentary party (like Abbott and Abetz) mean? There is the eerie feeling that they may be planning something that Turnbull won’t like.

    It might be a situation where Turnbull has the numbers. But, not their numbers in the Parliament.

Comments Page 13 of 17
1 12 13 14 17

Leave a Reply

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