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. To quote Kevin Bonham..

    It doesn’t help here that nobody has any idea really what sort of turnout there should be, so the impact of a boycott would be very hard to gauge, unless it was on such a massive scale that it was obvious most same-sex marriage supporters were refusing to vote.

    In other words a boycott is unlikely to achieve what its meant to do: send a clear message. It’ll be hard to tell to what extent it happened. However, other forms of protest are more easily visible and countable. Those include petitions, adding a protest form with your return envelope. etc.

  2. Greensborough Growler @ #1650 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:42 pm

    kezza2 @ #1647 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:39 pm

    GG: I was actually referring to to the famous line “fasten your seat belt, it’s going to be a bumpy ride” line.

    Sorry if I confused you.
    —-

    Oh, you did, And so typical of you. To pretend one thing, while meting out another.

    I have a little dungeon where I like to keep people who think they’re onto something because they remember lines from movies of bygone days. As if they’re important.

    So do I!

    Yes, but I meant for people like you. Who think they’re important.

  3. Kevin Bonham @ #1640 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:35 pm

    My article covers the boycott idea but for anyone whose computer disintegrates if they click on a link, the only people who should be boycotting (apart from No supporters, all of whom should get out of other people’s lives) are those who are directly affected and just feel absolutely that they cannot vote. And a lot of those who are saying that now may well change their minds by the day (assuming the thing isn’t struck out by then.)

    Yeah, I don’t think a boycott is a goer. The ALP are going all out for a yes so it’s hope for the HC but prepare to do everything to hand the troglodytes their arses to them if the HC let it go ahead.

    The HC knocking em out is the best message to this and future governments not to try this sort of malarkey again. The next best way to send the message is a huge yes vote on maximum turnout (and the mother of all electoral thrashing as soon as an election can be organised).

  4. kezza2 @ #1656 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:44 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #1650 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:42 pm

    kezza2 @ #1647 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:39 pm

    GG: I was actually referring to to the famous line “fasten your seat belt, it’s going to be a bumpy ride” line.

    Sorry if I confused you.
    —-

    Oh, you did, And so typical of you. To pretend one thing, while meting out another.

    I have a little dungeon where I like to keep people who think they’re onto something because they remember lines from movies of bygone days. As if they’re important.

    So do I!

    Yes, but I meant for people like you. Who think they’re important.

    Mine is full of people like you who think they are unimportant.

  5. kezza2
    Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 6:58 pm
    Comment #1563
    “Fess

    The dilemma, for me, is that people like Justice Michael Kirby are urging a NO vote.

    I guess he knows what he’s talking about.”

    Michael Kirby is “reluctantly” going to vote YES..

  6. Kevin if your still here,

    Could the ABS say this is a bullsh!t process and we won’t be able to produce reliable results and then go off and do a more rigorous survey that meets the requirements of the direction?

  7. Player One @ #1652 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:43 pm

    kezza2 @ #1635 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:31 pm

    But, why?

    Do explain your reasons.

    For goodness sake, the government has told you they do not intend to be bound by the outcome of any such survey. So voting yes or no are both utterly futile, except to make you feel good. And ex-justice Kirby has explained very clearly why we should not support governments who engage with this type of nonsense.

    The only thing that will have any effect at all is a boycott.

    Sure, but I’ve outlined my misgivings.

    That doesn’t mean I’ll vote one way or the other.

    I want to support those who want gay marriage; but I’m also influenced by Kirby. I’m sorry if this offends you.

    Just because you’ve made up your mind, and have said you’d rather discuss energy policy, doesn’t make me give credence to your call.

  8. Barney in Go Dau @ #1660 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:49 pm

    Kevin if your still here,

    Could the ABS say this is a bullsh!t process and we won’t be able to produce reliable results and then go off and do a more rigorous survey that meets the requirements of the direction?

    Michael Maley reckons they can. He thinks the order is not specific enough to require a plebiscite-like process. See comments on my site.

  9. “The HC knocking em out is the best message to this and future governments not to try this sort of malarkey again.”

    Yup. The HC has i think a duty to take this very seriously. If the HC knocks it back will be very damaging for the Fibs. Renewed pressure for a free vote and the Fibs will not be able to fall back on the “plebiscite was a promise” argument (poor as it was). The parliaments considered word is more important than a political parties promise on a matter. Are the Libs stupid enough toi keep something like SSM going up to the next election having been shown to be incompetent AND nasty in their handling of it??

  10. Fess

    You have raised an excellent point. I dont think some of the Tasmanian Lab senators are keen. Or the less famous Lab senators from South Aus.

  11. fess
    “If there are Labor hold-outs in the Senate Lambie’s vote could become a factor.”
    It’s a free vote so I’m pretty sure Farrell and Gallacher in SA are voting No. Farrell has said he is voting Yes after the next election.

  12. Thanks Kevin.

    That would create a very interesting scenario for the Government to deal with.

    As has been suggested this would be a lot cheaper, so maybe the ABS could bank the difference to make up for funding cuts. 🙂

  13. kezza2 @ #1661 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:50 pm

    I want to support those who want gay marriage; but I’m also influenced by Kirby. I’m sorry if this offends you.

    It doesn’t offend me. You asked for my reasons, I gave them. You do what you think best.

    Just because you’ve made up your mind, and have said you’d rather discuss energy policy, doesn’t make me give credence to your call.

    Look at it this way – many of the people who might benefit from legalizing gay marriage won’t even get the chance to do so unless we can sort out global warming.

    One of these issues can’t wait. The other can. So which issue is actually important, and which is a sideshow?

  14. A boycott won’t work. The Government will claim a 50.1% No on a 30% turnout as a victory and shut down debate. The media will let them get away with it.

  15. Michael Maley reckons they can. He thinks the order is not specific enough to require a plebiscite-like process. See comments on my site.

    Kevin, as much as I’d like to see the ABS conduct a scientific poll with 10,000 (or even 60,ooo) respondents, I just can’t see them doing something so unexpected. Both from the point of view of the reaction of the public (and the anti gay crowd in particular) and from the point of view of the response of the Minister.

    What I could perhaps envisage is an ABS “poll” that includes not only the question itself but other questions (age, gender etc etc) that allow them to compile a properly weighted figure.

    The question then is, would the government/anti gay crowd still go ballistic about it and would the ABS release both the raw percentages and the weighted result?

  16. The hide of the Labor Party telling marriage equality supporters/gays that they must give legitimacy to this farce.

    Homophobia is the ONLY reason this nonsense is proposed. Imagine if the rights of other groups were put to a farcical postal lottery. I have no doubt the Laborites would be appalled and not participate.

    It is a sign of the rottenness of our political system that this farce is proposed.

    It is a sign of the rottenness of the ALP that this farce is to be given legitimacy.

    No self respecting gay person should participate in this degrading process.

    Let us not forget that in 2012 Gillard, Swan, Rudd, Emerson, Burke all expressed the ALP’s homphobia.

  17. Player One @ #1671 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:58 pm

    kezza2 @ #1661 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:50 pm

    I want to support those who want gay marriage; but I’m also influenced by Kirby. I’m sorry if this offends you.

    It doesn’t offend me. You asked for my reasons, I gave them. You do what you think best.

    Just because you’ve made up your mind, and have said you’d rather discuss energy policy, doesn’t make me give credence to your call.

    Look at it this way – many of the people who might benefit from legalizing gay marriage won’t even get the chance to do so unless we can sort out global warming.

    One of these issues can’t wait. The other can. So which issue is actually important, and which is a sideshow?

    For us, this issue can wait. Like you, I’m not fussed about this. But it matters to a lot of people, despite them being 0.00s38% of the population. Let’s get it over and done with, and move onto more important stuff.

    And, instead of thinking this in so unimportant to you, how about you start taking a more compassionate view of your fellow being? Is that too hard?

  18. P1 “One of these issues can’t wait. The other can. So which issue is actually important, and which is a sideshow?”

    One is clearly far more important than the other but dealing with the issues aren’t mutually exclusive undertakings.

    There are actually parallels. Effective action on climate change was effectively postoned for 10-15 years when the perfect was allowed to be the enemy of the good. Sometimes that extends not just to the good but the less bad. It depends upon the situation but in this case I agree. Pragmatism rules.

  19. On the ALP’s homophobia.

    I realise since the UK and NZ Tories have voted for marriage equality, the ALP thinks it is now politically safe to pretend to be “hip”.

  20. swamprat Your hypothetical self respecting gay person has the choice between being degraded voting for a farce or being degraded by boycotting it and finding out that its not even knowable who or how many people actually boycotted and suffering the further indignation of any potential no vote being used as one would expect regardless of whether the no vote was the result of a boycott or not.

  21. According to the Australian Marriage Equality site, there are four Labor senators who oppose SSM; Farrell, Gallacher (SA), Collins (Vic) and Ketter (Qld).

  22. My fear is that this vote is going to devolve into something that for many people not directly affected by this issue will revolve around a whole swag of unresolved political frustrations and anger – a sort of Trump/Brexit event. Tony Abbott, with his rat-like cunning, zero-ed in on this notion with that line “If you’re against political correctness, vote ‘no’ and stop political correctness in its tracks.” I can’t help being concerned many Australians, fed up with high energy prices, Canberra gridlock, flatlining wages, sky-high housing prices and all the rest will, quite irrationally, take the opportunity here to reject something they perceive as being aligned with the “elite” .. the same way all the poor whites in the US, with their collective primal scream last November, voted Trump in just to blow up the place.

  23. kezza2 @ #1676 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:05 pm

    Player One @ #1671 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:58 pm

    kezza2 @ #1661 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:50 pm

    I want to support those who want gay marriage; but I’m also influenced by Kirby. I’m sorry if this offends you.

    It doesn’t offend me. You asked for my reasons, I gave them. You do what you think best.

    Just because you’ve made up your mind, and have said you’d rather discuss energy policy, doesn’t make me give credence to your call.

    Look at it this way – many of the people who might benefit from legalizing gay marriage won’t even get the chance to do so unless we can sort out global warming.

    One of these issues can’t wait. The other can. So which issue is actually important, and which is a sideshow?

    For us, this issue can wait. Like you, I’m not fussed about this. But it matters to a lot of people, despite them being 0.00s38% of the population. Let’s get it over and done with, and move onto more important stuff.

    And, instead of thinking this in so unimportant to you, how about you start taking a more compassionate view of your fellow being? Is that too hard?

    You’ve contradicted yourself in one sentence.

    Well done!

  24. I coudn’t give a rat’s arse about marriage.

    It was only ever invented to protect property rights, for a man, who had no idea who his wife fkd.

    The only person who knew the identity of their child was the woman who gave birth.

  25. kezza2 @ #1676 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:05 pm

    For us, this issue can wait. Like you, I’m not fussed about this. But it matters to a lot of people, despite them being 0.00s38% of the population. Let’s get it over and done with, and move onto more important stuff.

    I am willing to wait till the ALP legislates it – it will make no difference in the long run, as this government will simply delay any decision until they finally get turfed out anyway. And their process is deliberately designed to obstruct, delay and also to alienate and divide people. As Michael Kirby said – at the very least it’s disrespectful and treats a part of the electorate as second-class citizens – we should have nothing to do with it.

    And, instead of thinking this in so unimportant to you, how about you start taking a more compassionate view of your fellow being?

    I believe I am. The process as proposed will lead to more grief, not less.

  26. Dio:

    My instinct the other day was that achieving parliamentary success in the Senate would be harder than in the House. Esp if Wilson, Zimmerman and Entsch cross the floor. Problem with Entsch is that the window for his vote has passed and he will be on some posting overseas and therefore paired. Presumably with Wilson or Zimmerman if the Liberals’ past form is any guide!

  27. GG

    As usual, you make a claim and don’t support it.

    You copy & paste a whole lot, and then make a statement, and nobody has any idea of what you’re on about.

    And you like it that way.

    But that’s no way to convince me.

  28. Cud Chewer,

    For gay people, the consequences of boycotting/no vote triumphant are just the status quo.

    The LNP and probably half the ALP have NO intention of voting for ME. Regardless ofthe results of an inaccurate voluntory postal survey amongst old age pensioners.

    A major boycott, reflected in a low turnout and a high No vote would be delicious.

    It would show up the major political parties of Australia as to what they really are. It will make Australian politicians the laughing stock of the world. And gays would be in the same position.

  29. Swamprat: “Let us not forget that in 2012 Gillard, Swan, Rudd, Emerson, Burke all expressed the ALP’s homphobia.”

    No, none of them were and are homophobic. Remember that 20 years ago, even 10, same sex marriage was not an issue to the great majority, it wasn’t on the horizon. In 2004 Howard found it a convenient wedge and Labor didn’t bite. As I recall, Labor allowed a conscience vote in any case.

    And public opinion, and the opinion of individuals, has moved rapidly, even since 2012. Recall back then that Julia Gillard was fighting a war on 37 fronts – the miners, the clubs, the Murdochracy, the climate deniers, a feral Opposition, Big Money… This was one battle she probably best thought left ’til later.

  30. Player One @ #1650 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:43 pm

    kezza2 @ #1635 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:31 pm

    But, why?

    Do explain your reasons.

    For goodness sake, the government has told you they do not intend to be bound by the outcome of any such survey. So voting yes or no are both utterly futile, except to make you feel good. And ex-justice Kirby has explained very clearly why we should not support governments who engage with this type of nonsense.

    The only thing that will have any effect at all is a boycott.

    Do you really think anyone is going to fall for this? It should be obvious that if the result is a clear “yes” then the Liberals will be utterly devoured if they try to ignore that result in a free vote having wasted so much money and political energy on it. What will happen if there is a clear yes vote (even if it is close) is that a respectable number of the anti-gay extremist wing will be allowed to vote no but everyone else will switch to yes in the conscience vote and it will pass rather easily.

    SSM supporters on this board should be aware that in a thread last September, Player One took an anti-SSM position, arguing (if you can call it that) instead for de-recognition of all marriages, which P1 persistently maintained would solve the problem. (In fact it would send out a derogatory message that same-sex couples were so bad that marriage had to be derecognised to avoid giving it to them.) He was also making inflated claims about the extent of opposition to marriage equality. He certainly didn’t have the interests of those who support same-sex marriage at heart then.

  31. I think one of the points Shorten was saying vehemently today was white:

    Unfortunately this is going to happen anyway so we cannot just stand by and let a section of our society be vilified without defending their position.

    The process/idea is offensively bad BUT if it must happen, the ALP leadership is going in with guns blazing to advocate for yes.

    Opting out only works if it negates the power of the opponent.

    In this case, opting out will empower the opponent.

Leave a Reply

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