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. Kevin Bonham @ #1696 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:21 pm

    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.

    So, much as P1 likes to argue against SSM, it’s an ingrained position.

    Thanks, Kevin Bonham, for pointing that out.

    It’s just as futile as arguing with GG. We’re never going to change each other’s opinions.

    And that’s fair enough.

  2. Player One @ #1685 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:15 pm

    kezza2 @ <a

    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.

    P1, the process as proposed is going ahead, unless the HC rejects it. Boycotting it will make no difference to the grief incurred.

    Kirby has changed his mind. You gave him as the reason you would boycott. Unless you actually saw boycott as a way to a default no, will you now participate?

    I thought the either/or tactic, and the sideshow slur, pretty unattractive. Although I have been called a lot worse than a freak, and bashed and arrested for my trouble.

  3. Diogenes @ #1680 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:09 pm

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

    They are missing Helen Polley from that list. Anti-SSM, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, all for religious reasons. Barely distinguishable from Eric Abetz on “social issues”. If she is not the very last of the dinosaurs I will be very much surprised.

  4. Diogenes @ #1696 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:22 pm

    sprocket
    I don’t get it. Did she say “no” to marrying him or something? Why can’t he call her “his wife”?

    I think you’ve struck upon it Dio. They were all set to get hitched and then he let slip how he agreed with Tony Abbott and wasn’t going to let the fags get married. So she quite sensibly said ‘see ya later loser’ and later hooked up with a nice young lady.

  5. Kevin Bonham @ #1694 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:21 pm

    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.

    Obvious to who? It is certainly not obvious to me.

    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.

    You are entitled to your dreams, however ludicrously optimistic.

    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.

    I stand by that, and have repeated it more recently (i.e. in the last few days). But I’m glad to know you keep all my old posts in a file. I hope re-reading them may entertain and educate you.

    (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.

    I don’t see why you would conclude that. Others have proposed the same solution. Why would you feel degraded by it? I wouldn’t. And I don’t recall what figures I used then – feel free to remind me. Today it is about 30-40%.

    He certainly didn’t have the interests of those who support same-sex marriage at heart then.

    I have never pretended to. I have said repeatedly that this is a minor issue to me, as it is to many others.

    You really don’t like people disagreeing with you, do you?

  6. I’m assuming that ad is a dogwhistle to paranoia about same-sex marriage causing political correctness to destroy language to such an extent that terms like “wife” get banned.

    But it might be a dogwhistle to guys scared that if women can marry each other they might get outcompeted.

    Bizarrely crackpot. Amusing.

  7. I’ve just watched Bill Shorten’s video in support of a yes vote in the marriage equality opinion poll:
    https://www.facebook.com/BillShorten/videos/1421110457925511/?hc_ref=ARTJqksb0BVeYhoP2yiOnPgA2ocMnvvUi-VGrgZYV1Of6gtWuJaQru5iHG47WFu3f0U

    Shorten has massively improved his public speaking and his delivery of speeches and I am very impressed by this and his other recent speeches. The person writing his speeches is also doing an impressive job.

  8. ItzaDream @ #1706 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:29 pm

    Kirby has changed his mind. You gave him as the reason you would boycott. Unless you actually saw boycott as a way to a default no, will you now participate?

    No. It is Kirby’s reasoning I agree with. I don’t care which way he chooses to vote.

    I thought the either/or tactic, and the sideshow slur, pretty unattractive. Although I have been called a lot worse than a freak, and bashed and arrested for my trouble.

    It was not intended as a slur- it’s just a fact. You are being played.

  9. kezza2 @ #1709 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:31 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #1701 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:24 pm

    kezza2 @ #1688 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:17 pm

    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.

    You just can’t cope with assertive men!

    Nor you assertive women.

    I actually empower the women in my life.

    My only advice for you is, “Get on with it and stop whinging”!

  10. kezza2 @ #1612 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:11 pm

    cud chewer @ #1595 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 7:53 pm

    kezza

    I’ll be replying to the survey. What I would like is for the Australian Marriage Equality people to put up on their website an objection letter to object to the entire process, so that you can print it out and slip it into the reply envelope along with the official form. That form of protest would get noticed and it the number of such objections might even get counted.

    That’s a good idea. I prefer that to defacing the ballot, which could possibly mean a vote not counted.

    Defacing a ballot does not invalidate it unless what you write identifies you.
    Or at least that’s how it works for elections.
    So feel free to comment in whatever way you see fit.

  11. Personal views aside, that ad is just plain weird and ineffective. The message is far from clear. Anyone looking at it is just going to be confused.

  12. Bemused:

    ” Or at least that’s how it works for elections.”

    ———————————–

    It’s very hard to know what this farce is. But one thing it is not is an election.

  13. grimace @ #1713 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:36 pm

    I’ve just watched Bill Shorten’s video in support of a yes vote in the marriage equality opinion poll:
    https://www.facebook.com/BillShorten/videos/1421110457925511/?hc_ref=ARTJqksb0BVeYhoP2yiOnPgA2ocMnvvUi-VGrgZYV1Of6gtWuJaQru5iHG47WFu3f0U

    Shorten has massively improved his public speaking and his delivery of speeches and I am very impressed by this and his other recent speeches. The person writing his speeches is also doing an impressive job.

    Shorten’s speech was great. The only difference between his view and mine is that he knows he can get political leverage over Mal by supporting a ‘yes’ vote, whereas I think it is better to boycott.

  14. Grimace Shorten has always been excellent in parliament, off the cuff. Been doing this for years. It’s just never got any attention. He’s easily the best speaker in parliament (after Tony Burke, of course)

  15. Steve777
    ———-
    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. ……….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.”
    ———

    Hahaha

    nice try re-writer of history.

    They were homophobic…. the ALP has a proud history of homophobia.

    The ALP has NO RIGHT to tell gays to support this farcical survey.

    I can see why to right wing professional politicians like Shorten (who seems to be really shaping up as another useless prick) it’s all about being in the government game with their mates (sorry “buddies”) in the LNP.

  16. Player One @ #1713 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:32 pm

    Kevin Bonham @ #1694 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:21 pm

    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.

    Obvious to who? It is certainly not obvious to me.

    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.

    You are entitled to your dreams, however ludicrously optimistic.

    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.

    I stand by that, and have repeated it more recently (i.e. in the last few days). But I’m glad to know you keep all my old posts in a file. I hope re-reading them may entertain and educate you.

    (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.

    I don’t see why you would conclude that. Others have proposed the same solution. Why would you feel degraded by it? I wouldn’t. And I don’t recall what figures I used then – feel free to remind me. Today it is about 30-40%.

    He certainly didn’t have the interests of those who support same-sex marriage at heart then.

    I have never pretended to. I have said repeatedly that this is a minor issue to me, as it is to many others.

    You really don’t like people disagreeing with you, do you?

    It’s funny, isn’t it, how much we don’t know about a person, until that person reveals their true colours.

    We might never have known about your true bent unless we’d had tabs on you, nor your opposition to gay marriage but for folk who would look out for that stuff.

    So, your true position is anti-gay, so why not come right out and repeat it now.

    Yes, it was obvious you were getting frustrated about the amount of time taken up with the discussion of SSE, but you never once devolved your complete distaste.

    To me, that’s dishonest, and dishonourable.

  17. I do sense that, where Turnbull is concerned, the Canberra Press Gallery have finally had the scales fall from their eyes. His performance has been so weak and cowardly that even they realise that there is nobody inside. A very prominent liberal once told a friend of mine that: “The problem with Malcolm is that he’s never there when you need him” . This was exhibit A.

  18. Player One @ #1628 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:26 pm

    kezza2 @ #1619 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:18 pm

    Everyone I know, which is admittedly not very many out of 25 million, will vote YES for ME.

    And that’s from various religions, and no religions, and secular beliefs.

    I really think YES will get up, but it won’t if people like Michael Kirby say NO.

    What to do?

    Boycott.

    If there are still a handful of people not convinced P1 is a troll then I suggest you consider this post above.

  19. Bill Shorten (and Penny Wong at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/penny-wong-yes-this-postal-ploy-hurts-but-i-plead-with-you–dont-boycott-it-20170810-gxtfa8.html) make good points.

    I am still strongly against this farce going ahead at all. But if it does, I will wait to see which approach – Labor’s or AME’s current position – makes the best use of my ‘vote’. Either way, I would like to see ME get up as soon as possible.

  20. Player One @ #1711 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:32 pm

    Obvious to who? It is certainly not obvious to me.

    That doesn’t exactly speak volumes for your political perceptiveness.

    You are entitled to your dreams, however ludicrously optimistic.

    Nor that. I’d offer you a bet but I’m not convinced you would honour it.

    I stand by that, and have repeated it more recently (i.e. in the last few days). But I’m glad to know you keep all my old posts in a file. I hope re-reading them may entertain and educate you.

    You’ve got tickets on yourself thinking I would retain anything so utterly pointless. When I saw your concern-troll boycott calls I recalled previous contra-SSM posts by you and I was able to find them by Google search for the terms “player one” “same-sex marriage” and my own name pretty quickly.

    I don’t see why you would conclude that.

    Again your failure to comprehend the obvious is not my problem.

    Why would you feel degraded by it?

    Your assumption, you sort it out with your own lack of imagination. It is a common tactic to pretend anyone who strongly supports same-sex marriage must be themselves directly affected by the issue. I am not.

    I wouldn’t. And I don’t recall what figures I used then – feel free to remind me. Today it is about 30-40%.

    You were claiming 40% opposition.

    You really don’t like people disagreeing with you, do you?

    On the contrary. I like it when people disagree with me if they can do it intelligently and logically. I really like it if they are up to that rare standard that they can teach me something. You however are nowhere near that level. The most challenging part of responding to you is trying to format the post.

  21. kezza2 @ #1723 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:45 pm

    It’s funny, isn’t it, how much we don’t know about a person, until that person reveals their true colours.

    We might never have known about your true bent unless we’d had tabs on you, nor your opposition to gay marriage but for folk who would look out for that stuff.

    So, your true position is anti-gay, so why not come right out and repeat it now.

    Yes, it was obvious you were getting frustrated about the amount of time taken up with the discussion of SSE, but you never once devolved your complete distaste.

    To me, that’s dishonest, and dishonourable.

    For goodness sake, Kezza – where have you been for the last few days? You clearly have not read any of my previous posts on this subject. At least Kevin has – he just doesn’t like them.

  22. In that statement from Penny Wong, she says:

    “Labor supports marriage equality and we will campaign for the rights of all Australians to marry the person they love. Unlike Malcolm, we will fight for equality.”

    I though the ALP policy was to “allow” a conscience vote? That is the ALP has no policy on ME.

  23. Player One @ #1733 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:50 pm

    kezza2 @ #1723 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:45 pm

    It’s funny, isn’t it, how much we don’t know about a person, until that person reveals their true colours.

    We might never have known about your true bent unless we’d had tabs on you, nor your opposition to gay marriage but for folk who would look out for that stuff.

    So, your true position is anti-gay, so why not come right out and repeat it now.

    Yes, it was obvious you were getting frustrated about the amount of time taken up with the discussion of SSE, but you never once devolved your complete distaste.

    To me, that’s dishonest, and dishonourable.

    For goodness sake, Kezza – where have you been for the last few days? You clearly have not read any of my previous posts on this subject. At least Kevin has – he just doesn’t like them.

    That was quick.

    I was sleeping, bec. night shift.

    Tell me, again, about it.

  24. Kevin Bonham @ #1728 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:49 pm

    On the contrary. I like it when people disagree with me if they can do it intelligently and logically. I really like it if they are up to that rare standard that they can teach me something. You however are nowhere near that level. The most challenging part of responding to you is trying to format the post.

    Oh dear. You really have it bad, don’t you?

  25. AB @ 9.47

    This:

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/this-speech-was-one-of-the-biggest-moments-in-bill-shortens-path-to-the-lodge-20170810-gxtj2c.html

    I’ve seen Kenny criticise Trumble before, but usually with a pro forma bash at Bill Shorten the same time. I’ve never seen Kenny so clearly and powerfully compare Shorten with Turnbull to Shorten’s advantage. And a lot of other press gallery jerks are now doing the same for the very time.

    Before the last election I maintained that Turnbull’s failure to stand by his expressed principles on this subject will screw him in the election. It is starting to appear that I was only wrong about the timing.

  26. Greensborough Growler @ #1707 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:31 pm

    Diogenes @ #1696 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:22 pm

    sprocket
    I don’t get it. Did she say “no” to marrying him or something? Why can’t he call her “his wife”?

    disagree.

    I reckon it’s pretty effective for the target demogrpahic.

    Cynical old codgers like you need to get a grip.

    If their target demographic is people who were already going to vote ‘No’ anyways, then they’re doing it wrong.

    And don’t Australians generally prefer “my partner” over “my husband/wife” anyways?

  27. bemused @ #1728 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:48 pm

    Player One @ #1628 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:26 pm

    kezza2 @ #1619 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 8:18 pm

    Everyone I know, which is admittedly not very many out of 25 million, will vote YES for ME.

    And that’s from various religions, and no religions, and secular beliefs.

    I really think YES will get up, but it won’t if people like Michael Kirby say NO.

    What to do?

    Boycott.

    If there are still a handful of people not convinced P1 is a troll then I suggest you consider this post above.

    Why don’t your shove it up your fkn arse, bemused?

    Why can no one have a conversation without you sticking your bib in?

  28. Mark Kenny says something I think is very true:

    “For Turnbull, the worst outcome would be for the postal “survey” to return a negative vote. He would be honour-bound to deny a parliamentary debate, but the issue would not go away, potentially consuming another whole year. “

  29. swamprat:

    I though the ALP policy was to “allow” a conscience vote? That is the ALP has no policy on ME.

    ——————————————————-

    My understanding is that Labor’s policy is clearly in support of ME, but that Senators and MPs would not be bound to vote in favour prior to 2019. So two policy points. First – clear support for ME. Second – the normal Labor policy binding all parliamentarians (and not just frontbenchers) to the official policy will not apply for a fixed period after the National Conference.

    This is what allows Shorten, as leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party, to campaign strongly and unambiguously in favour of ME now.

  30. Player One @ #1738 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:57 pm

    The best thing you can do is re-read Kevin’s most recent posts. He is not misrepresenting me at all

    Actually, Kevin does seem to be misrepresenting me on one minor point – I am not opposed to SSM. I have repeatedly said (because it’s true) that I would like to see either a binding plebiscite or a referendum or a free vote in parliament, and that I would accept either outcome of any of these. Kevin perhaps can’t understand how anyone could have no strong feeling either way on this issue.

  31. TPOF

    hahaha

    What contempt for gay people the ALP considers is acceptable.

    Imagine if the ALP allowed members to be anti-semitic or racist though offocially the ALP’s policy is not to be anti-semitic or racist!!!

  32. And GG thinks he’s so pretty,

    Except, like you bemused, and p1, he thinks he doesn’t have to take notice of what women think.

    To your detriment. As always.

  33. Player One @ #1738 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:57 pm

    He is not misrepresenting me at all – I just annoy him because my views don’t accord with his.

    Glad you admit I am correct in pointing out you are concern-trolling. You have tickets on yourself regarding the latter bit though. I don’t have time to do it often, but feeding trolls until they burst is fun. The bit where you said you were disengaging (because you were offended!) in our previous debate and were then too weak to actually do so and kept spawning pathetic new doctrines of fake disengagement was especially hilarious.

  34. a r @ #1737 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:55 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #1707 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:31 pm

    Diogenes @ #1696 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:22 pm

    sprocket
    I don’t get it. Did she say “no” to marrying him or something? Why can’t he call her “his wife”?

    disagree.

    I reckon it’s pretty effective for the target demogrpahic.

    Cynical old codgers like you need to get a grip.

    If their target demographic is people who were already going to vote ‘No’ anyways, then they’re doing it wrong.

    And don’t Australians generally prefer “my partner” over “my husband/wife” anyways?

    What you think is the Australian value is not what a 20-30 year old woman of faith’ considering marriage might be thinking.

  35. Well I’ve just convinced a facebook friend to vote yes as she was undecided about voting v boycotting. Into the bargain are several friends of hers who were similarly going to boycott are now also going to vote yes. They’ve also shared the link circulating about ensuring your electoral roll details are correct and encouraging their friends to check and double check.

Leave a Reply

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