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 @ #1746 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:04 pm

    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.

    Keep re-reading those old posts,Kevin. I’m sure if you do so often enough you’ll eventually convince yourself that you were the winner of that encounter.

  2. confessions
    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.

    ———
    Good for you.

    I will try the opposite tack.

    i have some very right wing friends who are very Liberal but are gay friendly, obviously.

    I am sure they will probably vote yes as it is a Liberal supported “survey”. I will try to convince them to boycott. 🙂

  3. The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
    23 mins ·
    The Mooch’s first TV interview since leaving the White House will be Monday, August 14, on the Late Show… seriously.

    Should be interesting 😆

  4. a r @ #1735 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?

    Nope.
    ‘Partner’ is rubbish. Dancing partner? Business Partner? What?
    And it is not just a generational thing, my son refers to his wife as do others of his friendship group.

  5. It’s Time

    I support a boycott so as NOT to give legitimacy to this Turnbull-LNP farce.

    It’s the ALP that is going along with “Trumble’s scheme”.

    Keep up sunshine.

  6. kezza2 @ #1737 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 9:58 pm

    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?

    Well your truce and civility didn’t last long did it.
    In case you are unaware, this is a blog and not a one on one conversation.
    Get used to it.
    Kevin Bonham has rightly picked what the trolls are up to.

  7. Bemused:

    “No shit!
    But the same principle will probably be applied.
    It is to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.”

    ——————————————————–

    OK. I’ll spell it out for you. There is a whole slew of legislation in the Electoral Act to protect the privacy of the ballot box and the voter in elections and referendums conducted by the AEC. Something vaguely looking like SOME of these protections can be cobbled together from other legislation to cover this statistical inquiry by the ABS – but it is a weird graft full of holes and stitches coming apart at the seams.

    To put it another way, there is no basis to simply assume that the legal protections provided in the Electoral Act can apply to this farce, which is not being carried out under that Act.

  8. swamprat @ #1760 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:14 pm

    It’s Time

    I support a boycott so as NOT to give legitimacy to this Turnbull-LNP farce.

    It’s the ALP that is going along with “Trumble’s scheme”.

    Keep up sunshine.

    Strange, you seem to be spending all your time on criticising Labor. Are you afraid that they are going to achieve something worthwhile out of Turnbull’s cynical delaying tactic?

  9. Swamprat:

    I’m trying to wrap my head around the absurdity of your argument that a yes vote in the SSM plebiscite in some way represents a homophobic standpoint. I reckon you need to give that some more thought.

  10. Greensborough Growler @ #1749 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:04 pm

    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.

    BUT, you didn’t answer the question.

    Because it is totally false that he can’t call her his wife, unless of course, she doesn’t want to be called wife.

    Why aren’t you honest, GG?

  11. kezza2 @ #1743 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:03 pm

    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.

    Hahahaha… gone the full nutter again I see.
    Yeah, I don’t care what women think, that’s why I was giving Anne Summers comments on RN Breakfast a big wrap earlier today. She is a woman who is smart and has things to say. You on the other hand are a woman…

  12. swamprat @ #1750 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:08 pm

    confessions
    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.

    ———
    Good for you.

    I will try the opposite tack.

    i have some very right wing friends who are very Liberal but are gay friendly, obviously.

    I am sure they will probably vote yes as it is a Liberal supported “survey”. I will try to convince them to boycott. 🙂

    Another concern troll.

  13. The trolls wait with baited hooks beneath the bridge of bored opportunism tonight.
    Best to hop out of the boat of self-righteousness and take to the quiet path.
    It’s quite pleasant…

    But on the other hand, THE INTERNET!

  14. It seems clear that finally, after the rest of Australia has seen, the CPG is recognizing Trumbull for who he is.
    Who can remember:
    Agility and Innovation
    The tax discussion where everything apart from company tax cuts was taken off the table.
    States income tax
    Renewables causing SA power lines to collapse.
    The masterful prorogued parliament.
    The election night dummy spit.
    Energy – repeatedly.
    Now SSM.

    Labor has done well, but the striking thing about these is that most if not all, are unforced errors. With planning and care they could have been avoided.

  15. kezza2 @ #1766 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:18 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #1749 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:04 pm

    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.

    BUT, you didn’t answer the question.

    Because it is totally false that he can’t call her his wife, unless of course, she doesn’t want to be called wife.

    Why aren’t you honest, GG?

    Um, advertising is about conveying concepts, ideas and perceptions to a target market.

    Honesty is an optional extra.

  16. Player One @ #1743 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:02 pm

    Actually, Kevin does seem to be misrepresenting me on one minor point – I am not opposed to SSM.

    See, you’re not even good at this; can’t get your story straight before opening your electronic mouth.

    Keep re-reading those old posts,Kevin. I’m sure if you do so often enough you’ll eventually convince yourself that you were the winner of that encounter.

    Winner? You have tickets on yourself to even think that was a contest! And I didn’t have to reread anything to remember your indecisive running-away-and-running-back act.

    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.

    Ah you’ve retreated to clothing your ambit potshots in wimpy language like “perhaps” so you have somewhere to hide when you are blown out of the water. Actually I understand very well that many people have no strong feeling on how to best resolve the issue; indeed I wrote about it in my article released today – and used it as a reason why Labor should not support a boycott and why a boycott is therefore pointless!

    The difference is that you have, less than a year ago, espoused “resolving” the same-sex marriage issue by having the state derecognise marriage altogether. While being a position that technically eliminates the present discrimination (but endorses it on a nasty symbolic level, intentionally or otherwise), that is clearly, by definition, an anti-SSM position. Therefore I was correct to label you as having been opposed to SSM.

  17. Greensborough Growler

    disagree.
    I reckon it’s pretty effective for the target demogrpahic.
    Cynical old codgers like you need to get a grip.

    Great, now can you explain what it means, because it makes absolutely no fucking sense.

  18. TPOF @ #1761 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:17 pm

    Bemused:

    “No shit!
    But the same principle will probably be applied.
    It is to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.”

    ——————————————————–

    OK. I’ll spell it out for you. There is a whole slew of legislation in the Electoral Act to protect the privacy of the ballot box and the voter in elections and referendums conducted by the AEC. Something vaguely looking like SOME of these protections can be cobbled together from other legislation to cover this statistical inquiry by the ABS – but it is a weird graft full of holes and stitches coming apart at the seams.

    To put it another way, there is no basis to simply assume that the legal protections provided in the Electoral Act can apply to this farce, which is not being carried out under that Act.

    It is likely to be even less restrictive than the Electoral Act provides as there are currently no rules. If they do somehow apply rules in some way, I doubt they would be more restrictive than the Electoral Act.

    I could be wrong, but I think that’s what logic dictates.

  19. Puff
    Sympathy on your loss of Chelsea. I’m sure she knew she was loved. It sounds like you gave her a long and happy life. Good for both of you.

  20. Question @ #1776 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:26 pm

    Greensborough Growler

    disagree.
    I reckon it’s pretty effective for the target demogrpahic.
    Cynical old codgers like you need to get a grip.

    Great, now can you explain what it means, because it makes absolutely no fucking sense.

    There’s an operation involved and you’ll have to shed 20 or 30 years!

  21. Confessions,

    1. It is not a “vote”, it is a voluntory POSTAL survey.

    2. Any participation is homophobic to the extent it gives legitimacy to the right of a Government to put a minority’s rights to a general “vote”, particularly one with far fewer controls than a proper vote. (most young people have probably never posted a letter in their life!!).

    3. If you support that the ‘rights’ of a minority should be determined through an inherently bad process, you must support that being extended to any other minority group, eg why not have a postal survey on muslim immigration? Or do you think it is only ok for homos?.

  22. Maybe a message of the ballot paper (remembering “No dams!” all those years ago) on a clear “Yes” vote would have the effect that the boycotters are seeking. Something that means “I participate in this farce because Parliament won’t do it’s job”, but condensed into a pithy slogan. Can anyone come up with something?

  23. Um, advertising is about conveying concepts, ideas and perceptions to a target market.
    Honesty is an optional extra.

    All good. I see it makes absolutely no sense to you either.

  24. swamprat @ #1778 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:28 pm

    Confessions,

    1. It is not a “vote”, it is a voluntory POSTAL survey.

    2. Any participation is homophobic to the extent it gives legitimacy to the right of a Government to put a minority’s rights to a general “vote”, particularly one with far fewer controls than a proper vote. (most young people have probably never posted a letter in their life!!).

    3. If you support that the ‘rights’ of a minority should be determined through an inherently bad process, you must support that being extended to any other minority group, eg why not have a postal survey on muslim immigration? Or do you think it is only ok for homos?.

    Your love of the status quo is puzzling.

    But hey, most of what you write is puzzling.

  25. Greensborough Growler @ #1779 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:28 pm

    Question @ #1776 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:26 pm

    Greensborough Growler

    disagree.
    I reckon it’s pretty effective for the target demogrpahic.
    Cynical old codgers like you need to get a grip.

    Great, now can you explain what it means, because it makes absolutely no fucking sense.

    There’s an operation involved and you’ll have to shed 20 or 30 years!

    Looks like GG doesn’t understand it either but, because it’s from his side, he has to endorse it.

  26. Wow it’s day 2 on this plebiscite stuff and already the fangs are out. I can’t imagine where we’ll be at say day 10.

    #Justvoteyes and give the middle finger to this crap.

  27. Socrates:

    I believe a PBer called the ABC staff gag in the event of a plebiscite some time ago. I can’t remember who it was though. Boerwar or Barney rings a bell.

  28. My reading of the no SSM ad is it is an attack on politically correct language, like the war on Christmas.
    The argument is this: if SSM is legalized I can’t refer to my partner as a ‘wife’ because it isn’t fair and/or may upset a same sex couple, so I will have to use the non gender specific term ‘partner’.

  29. Steve777 @ #1781 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:30 pm

    Maybe a message of the ballot paper (remembering “No dams!” all those years ago) on a clear “Yes” vote would have the effect that the boycotters are seeking. Something that means “I participate in this farce because Parliament won’t do it’s job”, but condensed into a pithy slogan. Can anyone come up with something?

    Ummm, it might provide amusement to some of the casual staff processing the surveys but they won’t be reported to anyone.

  30. Kevin Bonham @ #1775 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:25 pm

    Ah you’ve retreated to clothing your ambit potshots in wimpy language like “perhaps” so you have somewhere to hide when you are blown out of the water. Actually I understand very well that many people have no strong feeling on how to best resolve the issue; indeed I wrote about it in my article released today – and used it as a reason why Labor should not support a boycott and why a boycott is therefore pointless!

    Gee. I disagree with your conclusion. Shoot me.

    The difference is that you have, less than a year ago, espoused “resolving” the same-sex marriage issue by having the state derecognise marriage altogether. While being a position that technically eliminates the present discrimination (but endorses it on a nasty symbolic level, intentionally or otherwise), that is clearly, by definition, an anti-SSM position. Therefore I was correct to label you as having been opposed to SSM.

    Yes, I proposed we resolve marriage inequality by proposing that we abandon marriage and all just have civil unions. Glad to see you at least acknowledge it would solve the problem. And I suppose technically it is ‘anti-same-sex-marriage’ since it essentially turns all marriages into civil unions.

    But don’t you feel just a little stupid about making it so obvious that you’ve been carrying this grudge around for – what – a year?

  31. swamprat:

    Your position makes no sense. The govt is offering the community a chance to have its say on whether SSM should be legal. The circumstances of that say aren’t ideal, but they are what they are.

    In any case, anyone supporting SSM should take this opportunity to have their say. Most esp if that say is a resounding HELL YES! I support marriage equality.

    When was the last time you had your shot at having your voice on this issue heard in a formal process orchestrated by the govt? I’ve never had this opportunity before, and therefore I am SO on this.

  32. John Reidy @ #1788 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:34 pm

    My reading of the no SSM ad is it is an attack on politically correct language, like the war on Christmas.
    The argument is this: if SSM is legalized I can’t refer to my partner as a ‘wife’ because it isn’t fair and/or may upset a same sex couple, so I will have to use the non gender specific term ‘partner’.

    I may be wrong here (it’s not my special subject) but don’t gay male married couples refer to each other as ‘my husband’ and female gay married couples refer to each other as ‘my wife’? I’m sure I’ve heard instances of both.

    So what’s the big deal?

  33. swamprat @ #1780 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:28 pm

    2. Any participation is homophobic to the extent it gives legitimacy to the right of a Government to put a minority’s rights to a general “vote”, particularly one with far fewer controls than a proper vote. (most young people have probably never posted a letter in their life!!).

    Sorry, but this argument is much too similar to that made by Bernard Keane in today’s Crikey sealed and I’m afraid that’s simply not allowed. As Gough famously put it “only the impotent are pure”. When confronted with injustice and only offered unjust methods by which to remove it, using those methods strategically does not legitimise them. The proviso is that one should also express judgement -use what is available, but also publicly condemn it as sub-optimal (even if just in a comment on Poll Bludger or whatever) and seek to prevent it in the future as the chance arises.

    If the process does turn out to be as junky as it looks then same-sex marriage is only as far away as the next ALP government whatever the outcome, which is also the case if the High Court nukes it.

    I will be participating in the plebiscite should it occur, although I disapprove of it particularly strongly. I will take Rodney Croome’s word on whether I am homophobic by so doing over yours.

  34. swamprat

    If we were voting on whether to have this bull shit thing, then I’d agree with you absolutely. (Like the senate voted down Pleb 1). But we aren’t. It is going ahead. I agree that boycotting is the pure thing – as B Keane* said there is no ethical way to participate. But, the gloves are off here. It’s a nasty game. Feeling good about not getting soiled will not help advance the interests of SSM, and in the absence of a boycotted vote being registered as such, then boycotting effectively registers a no vote as Mr Bonham has outlined and cutting of your nose to spite, etc etc.

    I am not looking for a fight, believe me.

    *pace Mr Bonham

  35. JR,
    That’s as good as explaination as any, although I can’t see how husband and wife gets destroyed by husband and husband or wife and wife.

  36. That occurred to me also P1, from same sex couples I know.

    I don’t say they line of argument is sound, just trying to guess what it makes get be.
    Beside I guess the people behind the campaign probably don’t know that many same sex couples.

  37. Fess, thanks. It was a good call.

    Regarding the postal survey, I intend to vote yes. I hate the process but it has already started. LGBTI people are already being villified anyway, witness Penny Wong’s kids. So let us not let that happen for nothing. It was designed to split the Yes vote, to justify doing nothing if a majority do not vote yes. It is the republic referundum all over again. Divide and rule, by the cruel. So don’t be split! You can still hate the process and vote yes. The fundies will all be voting No, and imagine it means something if fewer vote yes. Deny them that delusion.

  38. I have to say I don’t get that anti-SSM advert either. If legal SSM means that for some reason the guy can’t refer to his wife as his wife, then it can only mean that marriage equality dictates he must refer to her as his husband. Which makes no sense seeing as she is clearly depicted as a woman. Unless of course she’s a transsexual which I’m sure wasn’t the underlying message that advert was pitching at. 😀

Leave a Reply

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