Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor

Newspoll records the same two-party preferred result for the sixth poll in a row.

Yet another 53-47 result from Newspoll, from primary votes of Coalition 36% (unchanged), Labor 36% (down one), Greens 11% (up two) and One Nation 8% (down one). Both leaders recorded better personal ratings, with Malcolm Turnbull up four on approval to 38% and down four on disapproval to 50%, and Bill Shorten up three on approval to 36% and down two on disapproval to 51%. Turnbull’s lead on preferred prime minister has widened from 43-32 to 46-31. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1639.

Stay tuned for federal voting intention results from the Queensland-only poll conducted for the Courier-Mail, from which state results were published yesterday.

UPDATE: The numbers from the Courier-Mail’s Galaxy poll from Queensland, conducted Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 902, are Coalition 37% (up two since April), Labor 32% (down one), One Nation 12% (down three) and Greens 7%, with Australian Conservatives recording a fairly impressive 6%. On two-party preferred, the Coalition records a lead of 51-49, which compares with 50-50 in April and 54.1-45.9 at last year’s election.

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.

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

Comments Page 9 of 15
1 8 9 10 15
  1. GG
    “So even you’re confused about the information you used in your original post. Imagine how the rest of us feel!”

    More sophistry. Marriage between adults (as opposed to individuals we would now consider underage) was only established in the mid-20th century in Australia. So this ‘tradition’ is fairly recent; from Federation to 1961 underage marriage was permitted. Considering you’re always banging on about the importance of religion in one’s opposition to SSM, I don’t understand how recent secular traditions can be also be cited in opposition to SSM.

    Frankly GG, your arguments against SSM are a dog’s breakfast. T

  2. kakuru @ #401 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:53 pm

    GG
    “So even you’re confused about the information you used in your original post. Imagine how the rest of us feel!”

    More sophistry. Marriage between adults (as opposed to individuals we would now consider underage) was only established in the mid-20th century in Australia. So this ‘tradition’ is fairly recent; from Federation to 1961 underage marriage was permitted. Considering you’re always banging on about the importance of religion in one’s opposition to SSM, I don’t understand how recent secular traditions can be also be cited in opposition to SSM.

    Frankly GG, your arguments against SSM are a dog’s breakfast. T

    So says someone who can’t get their facts right! LOL.

  3. Currently in the Oz:

    Nationals MP vows to quit over SSM vote
    3:34PMGREG BROWN, ROSIE LEWIS
    Nationals MP Andrew Broad threatens to plunge Coalition into minority if MPs allowed free vote on same-sex marriage.

    Stalemate ‘due to PM weakness’
    2:52PMGREG BROWN
    Bill Shorten has spoken to Caucus, where he rallied his party on its inequality agenda and spoke of the PM’s “incompetence’’.

  4. Greensborough Growler
    briefly @ #390 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:36 pm

    Greensborough Growler

    But, I’d point out the reality that marriage ceremonies performed in Australia have always been between a man and a woman.

    This is an elision, GG. We know, very clearly from the records, that marriage between members of different races was prohibited; that obstacles existed to re-marriage between formerly married persons; that obstacles were created to prevent the formal dissolution of marriages. All of these barriers to de jure marriage have been dismantled. Opponents of ME are holding out for their tiny sliver of archaic privilege. Why should they be so privileged? On what possible grounds?

    The question is whether SSM is a reform that’s worth having.

    Is bi-gendered marriage a privilege that can be defended?

  5. a r @ #400 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:52 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #586 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:45 pm

    The question is whether SSM is a reform that’s worth having.

    I doubt that’s the question. The real question has more to do with minority rights, discrimination, secularism, and the principle of equality under the law.

    Though why not answer your question by seeing what the actual stakeholders think and listening to what they want instead of telling them what you think they should or shouldn’t settle for?

    I’ve covered all that earlier in the day. Plus, it’s pretty obvious that the SSM advocates don’t like alternative points of view in this debate.

    But, I will say that I do see myself as a stake holder in this debate as it involves changes to the law. I am as entitled as anyone to express a view and prosecute my arguments.

    I’m not that fussed if you can’t handle that!

  6. briefly @ #409 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:04 pm

    Greensborough Growler
    briefly @ #390 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 3:36 pm

    Greensborough Growler

    But, I’d point out the reality that marriage ceremonies performed in Australia have always been between a man and a woman.

    This is an elision, GG. We know, very clearly from the records, that marriage between members of different races was prohibited; that obstacles existed to re-marriage between formerly married persons; that obstacles were created to prevent the formal dissolution of marriages. All of these barriers to de jure marriage have been dismantled. Opponents of ME are holding out for their tiny sliver of archaic privilege. Why should they be so privileged? On what possible grounds?

    The question is whether SSM is a reform that’s worth having.

    Is bi-gendered marriage a privilege that can be defended?

    Will the eagles make the finals?

  7. Greensborough Growler
    briefly @ #409 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:04 pm

    Is bi-gendered marriage a privilege that can be defended?

    Will the eagles make the finals?

    They will have equal rights to try, GG 🙂

  8. C@tmomma
    The Liberal Party SSM meeting is about to get underway in a very chilly national capital. 5c!

    Cold winds with rain and some sleet. Were I a sadist, I would make them hold the party meeting outside wearing only summer clothes.
    Tomorrow when the weather is calmer there will probably be snow on the Brindabellas. It makes a nice sight from southern Canberra.

  9. briefly @ #413 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:07 pm

    Greensborough Growler
    briefly @ #409 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:04 pm

    Is bi-gendered marriage a privilege that can be defended?

    Will the eagles make the finals?

    They will have equal rights to try, GG 🙂

    No they won’t. The draw is systemically prejudiced against them or for them depending on the year.

  10. Greensborough Growler @ #612 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:04 pm

    But, I will say that I do see myself as a stake holder in this debate as it involves changes to the law. I am as entitled as anyone to express a view and prosecute my arguments.

    You’re certainly entitled to have and express an opinion. However unless you’re gay (I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you are not) then you absolutely are not a stakeholder in this debate.

    Whatever changes are made to the law, they won’t affect your marriage or your ability to become married (or divorced). Everything you can do today, you’ll be able to do tomorrow. Your position is substantially unchanged no matter the outcome and no matter how you personally see it; you’ve got no skin in this game.

    So while you’re entitled to your opinion, it’s fairly absurd to argue that your opinion should count the same as the opinion of the 0.38% of Australians who actually do have skin in the game. You’re not a stakeholder until you’ve lived with the oppressive bullshit they’ve had to put up with for decades.

  11. GG:

    No they won’t. The draw is systemically prejudiced against them or for them depending on the year.

    It is NOT a draw. It is a FIXture, much like the pro tempore definition of marriage, which is systematically prejudiced against certain people who love each other for reasons you elaborately avoid trying to explain.

  12. Excuse the black humour…

    Duncan Watson‏ @DuncanWatson8 · 3m3 minutes ago

    #SeaLice threaten to leave LNP unless given a coastal–not postal–plebiscite on issues affecting them. Also demand to run Centrelink.

  13. a r @ #418 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:20 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #612 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:04 pm

    But, I will say that I do see myself as a stake holder in this debate as it involves changes to the law. I am as entitled as anyone to express a view and prosecute my arguments.

    You’re certainly entitled to have and express an opinion. However unless you’re gay (I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you are not) then you absolutely are not a stakeholder in this debate.

    Whatever changes are made to the law, they won’t affect your marriage or your ability to become married (or divorced). Everything you can do today, you’ll be able to do tomorrow. Your position is substantially unchanged no matter the outcome and no matter how you personally see it; you’ve got no skin in this game.

    So while you’re entitled to your opinion, it’s fairly absurd to argue that your opinion should count the same as the opinion of the 0.38% of Australians who actually do have skin in the game. You’re not a stakeholder until you’ve lived with the oppressive bullshit they’ve had to put up with for decades.

    Thank you so much for telling me how I can and can’t think, whether I can participate in the debate and that I don’t have a real interest in this matter.

    But, I’d suggest you worry about your life and views.

    I am quite happy with the way I deal with mine.

    Cheers.

  14. When it comes to rights and freedoms it is best to adopt the position that the restriction has to justify itself, not those seeking the freedom.

    Self evidently there are people who are in homosexual relationships, or relationships with a person whose gender is ‘fluid’ for want of a better term. We have previously made the (quite sensible I’d argue) decision that to place many the restrictions on these people that were in place was not justified.

    These people now have most of the rights of any other couple (sexual congress, shared property, rights of adoption and child rearing etc), but not all.

    So the question is this. Are the remaining restrictions still justifiable? Specifically is there still a reasonable justification for denying people in a same sex relationship the right to have their relationship recognised by the state as the same marriage as others currently are?

    The justifications offered are all fallacious as far as I am aware. Either the fallacious appeal to authority of a deity who of course should hold no standing in a secular society, or the fallacious appeal to tradition as if the fact a history of injustice justifies it’s continuance.

    We accept restrictions on freedoms all the time. We can’t just drive any way we like because it endangers others, we can’t just say anything we like because of the damage slander or malicious speech can cause. The opponents of SSM need to come up with a genuine and compelling justification for the restriction. That’s why they’re losing the argument. They haven’t got one.

  15. lizzie @ #420 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:25 pm

    Excuse the black humour…

    Duncan Watson‏ @DuncanWatson8 · 3m3 minutes ago

    #SeaLice threaten to leave LNP unless given a coastal–not postal–plebiscite on issues affecting them. Also demand to run Centrelink.

    If they’re in the Lib Party Room, today,they might end up PM.

  16. So how long should it take for the right and the cowards to agree to failing to get a plebiscite through the Senate followed by failing to get a postal plebiscite through the courts? Really don’t think that could take longer than 1.5 hours.

    I would say if it’s 5:30 and we still haven’t heard anything, then one or more of the 5 consciences in the Liberal party have declared that they will vote to suspend normal business to move the ME bill and/or resign from the Libs over the issue.

  17. Windhover @ #419 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:22 pm

    GG:

    No they won’t. The draw is systemically prejudiced against them or for them depending on the year.

    It is NOT a draw. It is a FIXture, much like the pro tempore definition of marriage, which is systematically prejudiced against certain people who love each other for reasons you elaborately avoid trying to explain.

    Nobody loves the eagles.

    I have in fact articulated my views rather fulsomely and proffered a reasonable (imho) solution that should/could really satisfy the actual interests of all (save 4 for the I want it my way or no way cadres).

    That you choose not agree is your right.

    But, please save us all from the rinse and repeat tactic of “”You don’t understand” or “”Someone else hasn’t explained themself”. I reckon I’ve put enough out there so people should be able to understand if not agree with my views on this matter.

  18. C@t
    You should be able to see it straight away. It isnt one of those sneaky HTML thingies.

    Hold the ALT key. Whilst it is being held down, type in the numbers 0176. Let go ALT key.

    Should work on loads of programs on Windows machines. Dont know about Mac.

  19. C@tmomma

    G’day.

    To obtain the degree symbol on my computer, I need to use the numerical keypad – the main keyboard numbers fail.

    So – type and hold ALT followed by 0176 – then release the ALT and Voila °

    Shazam – I hope it works for you.

  20. If we don’t hear anything from the LNP Party Room soon they might have drained all their mobile devices prior to draining the swamp.

  21. Afternoon all.
    One factor in how long the Liberal party room meeting is going to take is how many people want to speak.
    It had been reported earlier that a cabinet meeting is scheduled later this evening and they don’t want to delay that, or if they did it wouldn’t look good.

  22. Simon Katich

    Alt codes on my machines require using the numeric keys on the right of the keyboard.

    ♫♪♀☺☻♥♦♣♠•◘○◙♂
    °

  23. SMH just reported the Libs are talking about trying to put plebescite up, if that fails then postal. If thay fails then free vote.

  24. Fairfax blog latest:

    Reporter Michael Koziol says the leadership of the government is telling the party room a free vote will happen by the end of the year if the plebiscite and postal vote are unsuccessful (when I saw unsuccessful I mean fails to get through the Parliament).

  25. Simon Katich

    KayJay,
    yes I forgot that bit. Thanks.

    Praise the imaginary Lord.

    Now, thanks to the post regarding Alt codes for symbols such as degree etc, I have to try to find my missing Numlock key or its substitute.

    I think I know where the Numnuts are; that would be the Liberal Party party room where, as we are well aware, the drinks are on Mr. Malcolm Bligh Turnbull. ☮

    ℃ Obtainable from
    http://fsymbols.com/bookmarklet/

  26. citizen @ #442 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:56 pm

    Fairfax blog latest:

    Reporter Michael Koziol says the leadership of the government is telling the party room a free vote will happen by the end of the year if the plebiscite and postal vote are unsuccessful (when I saw unsuccessful I mean fails to get through the Parliament).

    Under that scenario, it looks like Abbott and co will be able to keep on plotting and undermining.

  27. If that is true citizen they should be done with both the Pleb & postal pleb by the end of the week as nobody is willing except the die-hards.

    Save themselves a lot of time and just go the 3rd option … oh … wait … they have no real legislative agenda so the need to occupy themselves with something!

  28. citizen @ #672 Monday, August 7th, 2017 – 4:56 pm

    Fairfax blog latest:

    Reporter Michael Koziol says the leadership of the government is telling the party room a free vote will happen by the end of the year if the plebiscite and postal vote are unsuccessful (when I saw unsuccessful I mean fails to get through the Parliament).

    So in other words, signalling to the Senate that if they promptly block both plebiscites then the marriage equality issue can finally be resolved.

  29. There’s 4 sitting fortnights remaining, including the one that starts tomorrow.

    Seems like a tight timeframe to have the Senate reject a Plebiscite, reject a postal Plebiscite and then pass ME in 4 fortnights?

  30. Once Turnbull and the Coalition are dragged kicking and screaming to a SSM vote (which will pass due to majority Labor/minority Coalition support), I can already see the headlines trumpeting Turnbull’s stunning victory and hailing this as proof of his impeccable progressive credentials. The Kennys and Hartchers of the media will proclaim the success of his brilliant 4-D chess strategy and tell us that this will be a major political blow to Shorten for some reason.

    It’s as predictable as a State of Origin series.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 9 of 15
1 8 9 10 15