YouGov-Fifty Acres: 50-50

YouGov’s latest records primary support for the major parties lower than others, and finds strong support for both same-sex marriage and a plebiscite.

The latest fortnightly YouGov poll for Fifty Acres maintains the series’ established pattern of low primary votes for the major parties and strong minor party preference flows to the Coalition. There is a stable 50-50 two-party result derived from primary votes that would land it in the 52-48 to 53-47 range on 2016 preferences: 34% for the Coalition, down two; 32% for Labor, down one; 11% for the Greens, up one; and 9% for One Nation, up one.

Other findings from the poll are a 34-27 lead for Malcolm Turnbull on preferred prime minister, with an unusually high 38% preferring a “not sure” option; 60% support for same-sex marriage, with 28% opposed; 51% preferring a plebiscite on the matter, compared with 29% for a decision by parliament; 36% believing Turnbull’s position would be threatened by Coalition MPs crossing the floor on the matter, compared with 29% who thought otherwise; and 33% thinking referendums should be held more often, with 26% saying too many such proposals are being made of issues that should be left to parliament.

The poll was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1005.

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.

1,910 comments on “YouGov-Fifty Acres: 50-50”

  1. a r @ #1347 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 2:19 pm

    ItzaDream @ #1339 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 2:05 pm

    Today’s Crikey (BK) :

    It is the idea of “giving voters a say” that is the crux of the issue.

    I take issue with that assessment, because they’re not even doing that much. To “give voters a say” the result would have to be binding on Parliament (or else backed by legislation so that it automatically becomes law with no further action from Parliament). And neither Turnbull nor Abbott will touch that one with a 10′ pole.

    Pretending to care what voters think and then letting MP’s ignore it and vote however they feel like is nothing at all like giving voters a say.

    a r

    He isn’t saying it is a good idea (in fact the very opposite) nor is he saying that they are doing it properly (in fact the very opposite) he is saying the very idea of putting the allocation of human rights into the hands of the majority is unconscionable.

  2. ratsak @ #1312 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 11:18 am

    Voice Endeavour @ #1303 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 12:58 pm

    I can’t take pleasure in others suffering no mater how deserved and prolonging that suffering is unnecessary.

    Don’t worry, I can take pleasure in Turnbull’s suffering for both of us 😉

    I know I’m presuming far too much, but damn I’m going to savour watching the prick chuck the mother of all undignified tantrums when he finally gets axed. We’ve seen what a self obsessed whiny little bitch he was when he won the last election. When he goes it’s going to symphonic!

    I’m really hoping to see Brian Trumble’s concession speech after my fantasy prediction of Labor winning 105 seats in the HoR.

    The public tantrum would be epic and would be played on high rotation for a long time to come.

  3. Stephen Koukoulas‏Verified account @TheKouk · 1h1 hour ago

    Is the $122 million to be borrowed by the government to hold ballot for marriage equality good debt or bad debt?

  4. ItzaDream @ #1350 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 2:26 pm

    He isn’t saying it is a good idea (in fact the very opposite) nor is he saying that they are doing it properly (in fact the very opposite) he is saying the very idea of putting the allocation of human rights into the hands of the majority is unconscionable.

    With that, I completely agree.

    The way I parsed it, it sounded like the author was accepting the government’s assertion that they’re “giving voters a say” at face value. That’s the only part I quibble with.

    Anyhow, has the posting here become significantly more voluminous since the postal survey farce was announced, or am I imagining things?

  5. Labor’s questions are very good. They insist on using the word ‘survey’ – and quite rightly as that is the technical status of this stunt per ScoMo’s direction to the ABS.

    The party of the ‘carbon tax’ lie is about to discover that they are not Humpty Dumpty after all.

  6. [CTar1
    BiDG

    Listening to Turnbull in Question Time,

    I opted for a cooking show instead.]

    I don’t own a TV, but the mouse is poised over the the top right corner of the link.

  7. I don’t really understand the rights arguments as Keane makes it. The universe is not just. Rights are not inherent, if they were there’d be no need to vote on them because they’d be baked into the fabric of the universe. Rights are things that people should inherently have but ultimately are still granted through some kind of political / military / social action because they don’t .

  8. [Mark Di Stefano @MarkDiStef
    The minister in charge of the ABS Michael McCormack is now being called “Survey Monkey” by the opposition in the parliamentary chamber.
    11:43 AM – Aug 10, 2017
    ]

    🙂

  9. According to Massola:

    Labor will pull out all the stops and campaign for a “yes” vote in the looming postal plebiscite on same sex marriage, Bill Shorten will confirm, putting to bed suggestions the federal ALP could boycott the vote.

    Mr Shorten is due to announce Labor’s plan to campaign for a “yes” vote in a speech after question time on Thursday.

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-and-bill-shorten-to-pull-out-all-the-stops-and-campaign-for-a-yes-vote-on-samesex-marriage-20170810-gxt54g.html

  10. Elaugaufein @ #1361 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 2:43 pm

    I don’t really understand the rights arguments as Keane makes it. The universe is not just. Rights are not inherent, if they were there’d be no need to vote on them because they’d be baked into the fabric of the universe. Rights are things that people should inherently have but ultimately are still granted through some kind of political / military / social action because they don’t .

    Without buying into either side of the argument, it seems to be about whether or not there is an inherent human right to “same sex marriage”. Well, the answer seems to be that there might or might not be, depending on where in the world you are. Some countries say yes, some say no. Also, while there may be an inherent right to “marriage”, the UN apparently decided that it is up to each state to define what “marriage” actually is – so even if there is an inherent right to “marriage”, that doesn’t necessarily mean there is an inherent right to “same sex marriage”.

  11. Elaugaufein @ #1360 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 2:43 pm

    I don’t really understand the rights arguments as Keane makes it. The universe is not just. Rights are not inherent, if they were there’d be no need to vote on them because they’d be baked into the fabric of the universe. Rights are things that people should inherently have but ultimately are still granted through some kind of political / military / social action because they don’t .

    That’s actually backwards in most places (excluding Germany, Russia, and North Korea), from a legal standpoint anyways. The law doesn’t grant specific social rights; a social right is possessed by default unless/until a law expressly strips it away.

    The universe can be as inherently cold, indifferent, and unfair as it likes; our system of law isn’t based upon any intrinsic aspects of how it operates and the debate is only concerned with our system of law.

  12. The speaker just shielded the Minister responsible for the ABS. When push comes to shove birds of a feather get a cuddling.

  13. citizen @ #1364 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 2:49 pm

    Labor will pull out all the stops and campaign for a “yes” vote in the looming postal plebiscite on same sex marriage, Bill Shorten will confirm, putting to bed suggestions the federal ALP could boycott the vote.

    Labor is just playing politics on this. What does it matter to them if the vote ends up either “no” or (much more likely) inconclusive? Their policy will still be to have a free vote in parliament when they are elected, which will most likely then pass. They are simply taking the opportunity of using this as an issue to wedge the LNP on the way.

    However, I still think people should boycott the plebiscite as the most effective means of saying “We want the parliament to do its job!”

  14. The government already has rubbery goal posts. They say that everyone should have a chance to express their opinion if we should have equality or not, but then they are saying if the majority say they do they will allow a free vote in parliament. If the government was serious about giving everyone a say, they would legislate that the result of the Postal (Push) Poll would be binding.

  15. I would argue that a Yes vote is at least as much an instruction to do their jobs as abstaining. Frankly given the construction of this idiotic survey, the only effect that a Yes vote has is to instruct Parliament to do their jobs, since it has no possible effect other than getting them to actually hold a god damn parliamentary vote.

  16. PM: ‘Bill Shorten and the Labor Party are standing up for big unions, officials who take payments from employers.’

    Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen hit back at his comments claiming the Prime Minister is running a smear campaign.

    ‘If he wants to go down this road he can, Labor chooses to lead the policy debate and Malcolm Turnbull chooses to go the low road. He should hang his head in shame,’ he said.

    ‘His comments this morning were unbecoming and not befitting the office he holds.

    ‘I think Australians are seeing through Malcolm Turnbull disgusting smear campaign against Bill Shorten. ‘

    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2017/08/10/labor-chooses–secrecy–on-union-laws–pm.html

  17. Elaugaufein @ #1373 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 3:01 pm

    I would argue that a Yes vote is at least as much an instruction to do their jobs as abstaining. Frankly given the construction of this idiotic survey, the only effect that a Yes vote has is to instruct Parliament to do their jobs, since it has no possible effect other than getting them to actually hold a god damn parliamentary vote.

    This would then set a precedent for every difficult issue the government didn’t want to face. The cost of any difficult legislation = $122 million and a bucketload of angst and abuse.

    I don’t want to live in a country like that.

  18. Never mind cosmic rights or legal/social constructs!

    I reckon it is in our collective interests to be nice to each other. Being nice to each other means not standing in the way of people marrying each other regardless of gender, in my opinion.

    How about we just aim for a happier place, at the very least.

  19. [Player One

    Also, while there may be an inherent right to “marriage”, the UN apparently decided that it is up to each state to define what “marriage” actually is – so even if there is an inherent right to “marriage”, that doesn’t necessarily mean there is an inherent right to “same sex marriage”.
    ]

    The UN states the bleeding obvious.

    There is a Right for relationships to be recognised as a marriage.

    As to who has that right is up to the individually societies and what they consider acceptable relationships.

    So if a type of relationship is acceptable to a society then they should have the right to marry.

    Simple. 🙂

  20. P1
    An abstain by Yes, will result in a No. Which the dominant force in the Government want anyway. Unless this gets struck down by the high court, all possible outcomes set that precedent anyway (Yes/No/No because Yes Abstained, the only thing that wouldn’t would be if for some bizarre reason everyone decided to Abstain or the No camp decided to Abstain alone and neither of those things are going to happen)

  21. That has been always my basic premise. Gay people being able to marry will make them and their families happy. It is no skin off my nose if they marry. So make it so they can.

    Anyone who gets their knickers in the twist about it can be directed to a therapist or given a lollipop.

  22. Someone serving a life sentence for murder is entitled to marry. Why isn’t Micheal Kirby? Why isn’t Penny Wong? Equal rights is a human right.

  23. ItzaDream @ #1351 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 2:26 pm

    This would then set a precedent for every difficult issue the government didn’t want to face. The cost of any difficult legislation = $122 million and a bucketload of angst and abuse.

    I don’t want to live in a country like that.

    This is my major dilemma. It is a disgraceful precedent and I am hoping the HC does the right thing and kills this farce stone dead.

    If that can be the catalyst to finally rid ourselves of Trumble and it takes down the rest of the fools as well, then so much the better.

  24. Puff, the Magic Dragon. @ #1378 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 3:05 pm

    Never mind cosmic rights or legal/social constructs!

    I reckon it is in our collective interests to be nice to each other. Being nice to each other means not standing in the way of people marrying each other regardless of gender, in my opinion.

    How about we just aim for a happier place, at the very least.

    This is really the essence of our democracy – we vote on it (or have our elected representatives vote on it) and whoever gets the most votes gets to be happy, and bugger the minority (but not in a literal sense, of course!).

  25. At this point, marriage equality isn’t just about rights, it’s about legalising what has now become a social norm. Nobody in Australia is leading on this issue, we’re merely catching up.

    Frankly, I want it to be over, so we can move onto more modern debates, not ones that should have been resolved years ago.

    Also, I don’t like being on the same side of an issue as libertarians. It makes me feel gross!

  26. Player One @ #1386 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 3:14 pm

    Sure is. We just have to agree which types of relationships are acceptable to our society. Presumably – since we are a democracy – we do that by voting.

    Sorry – should have made clear that I don’t think the current half-arsed plebiscite is a proper “vote”. We need a binding plebiscite, a referendum, or a free vote in parliament.

  27. [Player One
    Barney in Go Dau @ #1379 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 3:09 pm

    So if a type of relationship is acceptable to a society then they should have the right to marry.

    Simple.

    Sure is. We just have to agree which types of relationships are acceptable to our society. Presumably – since we are a democracy – we do that by voting.]

    We already have, anything that can be defined as a de facto relationship.

  28. P1
    This can’t be resolved by a referendum. Unless you want to put some kind of definition of marriage into the Constitution (and frankly I can’t see much positive value in that).

  29. Also, I need everybody who leans left in Australia (because I know you’re all reading this) to promise me something: If the issue is finally resolved this year and same sex couples get to marry, you don’t line up to mount praise on Malcolm Turnbull for it. Likewise, I don’t want the history books to pretend he led on this issue. It’s bad enough Merkel’s been receiving credit for it in Germany, despite her bitter resistance to it – I don’t want to see that nonsense here!

  30. Player One @ #1385 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 3:14 pm

    Sure is. We just have to agree which types of relationships are acceptable to our society. Presumably – since we are a representative democracy – we do that by voting for representatives to sit in Parliament, draft legislation, and then vote on it in Parliement.

    Fixed it for you.

    P.S. we already agree that same-sex relationships are acceptable, because there’s already no legal prohibition on such relationships. There was, at one point, but people realized how oppressively wrong that was and got rid of those laws. Without needing to conduct a national plebiscite first.

Leave a Reply

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