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

    Yes, I proposed we resolve marriage inequality by proposing that we abandon marriage and all just have civil unions.

    We’ve been around this bush several times already. We have civil unions in Australia. There are no other unions. They are called marriages. This is the effect of the Constitution and the Marriage Act. You might abolish the use of the term “marriage”, or substitute an alternative name. But this would not deliver equality. Unless LGBTQI couples could have their unions registered alongside oppositely-gendered couples, they would be deprived of equal protection.

    I think the only way to really resolve this once and for all will be to remove the need for a “celebrant” from the registration of unions. It will then follow that clerics will never again have any role in the creation and affirmation of unions formed between eligible adults. This would be an excellent result.

  2. The other way of looking at the boycott or not argument is that the anti SSM stuff will be out there regardless of if there is a boycott or not. A boycott won’t stop the negative campaign from doing its damage.

  3. Boycotting is a mistake because a low turn out and an even vote will just endorse the pollies to maintain the status quo.

    This thing is rigged. But, unless the HC knocks it out you should be voting for your preference.

  4. I reckon that ad is a niche one (as opposed to one for wide release) – targeted at motivating the fundy converted to be more active in prosecuting the no case. It speaks to a particular religious sub-set who believe that allowing homosexual marriage will invalidate and diminish their marriages. Hence the “can never call her my wife.”

  5. Question @ #1796 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:41 pm

    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.

    But it’s going to persuade all of the 20 to 30 year old intending-to-marry women of faith to vote No, according to GG. And so many of them would have voted Yes until they have see this ad. I bet they’re an even smaller number that gay couples wanting to get married.

    I say spend up and spread this ad far and wide, no voters. It would be the best way to waste your money and confuse the hell out of most people about what the hell you are talking about.

  6. Socrates:

    Progressives cannot be allowed to be baited and divided on this. The process isn’t perfect and it is far from ideal. But it is what it is, and if we truly want to see marriage equality we will engage with the process and push for a yes vote with all we’ve got.

  7. “as part of an article “5 things you should never do in marriage”

    So is one of them, never stand on a beach in a wedding gown when the tide is coming in?

  8. sprocket_
    And so it begins, the ‘political correctness’ will affect the heterosexuals as well

    This could be interpreted in a few ways;

    1. She turned down his proposal because he was an intolerant, homophobic bigot and she didn’t want to spend the rest her life with him.

    2. He decided not to get married because he was an intolerant, homophobic bigot and he didn’t want to share something in common with gays.

    3. He finally had the courage and support to come out and so the sham relationship he was in to conform to perceived norms of society and the planned marriage will no longer occur.

    4. If they’re trying to say the the word wife will be lost if there is ME this is obviously complete bullsh!t and it won’t even cause confusion. If a man refers to his wife the relationship is clear, if a woman refers to her wife then their relationship is just as clear. The same would be true for husband.

    Of course a woman/man could refer to her future husband/wife when dealing with a homophobic cake maker just to f@#$ with them completely. 🙂

  9. confessions @ #1800 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:48 pm

    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. 😀

    Unfortunately my posts are getting screened by crikey’s antispam settings
    The guy behind that votenoaustralia website,Lewis Freeman-Harrison, is an ex sex-party member, who was by all account quite progressive.
    “He also supports same-sex marriage, saying: “I think its funny that the current government doesn’t want to put a free vote to it”. At the same time, he doesn’t believe in holding a plebiscite, “because it’s going to cost $150 million to the taxpayer”
    Googling him and finding his facebook it seems hes now a born again, hard-line christian. The guy was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome at 6yo. In the space of 6 months has seemed to completely flip his position.

  10. I think the point in the “NO” ad is not the use of the term “WIFE”. It’s the usage of the word “MY”.

    According to RWNJs, SJWs object to the use of the possessive word MY because it “drags people down to the level of possessions.” Apparently.

    It’s the only explanation I can think of.

  11. Steve777
    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?
    ****************************************************************
    Do. Your. Job.

  12. Lord Haw Haw of Arabia @ #1815 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:55 pm

    Steve777
    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?
    ****************************************************************
    Do. Your. Job.

    Send the flying twitter monkeys off with an octothorped #DoYourJob
    I think it could get some traction.

  13. Dan Gulberry @ #1813 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:53 pm

    I think the point in the “NO” ad is not the use of the term “WIFE”. It’s the usage of the word “MY”.

    According to RWNJs, SJWs object to the use of the possessive word MY because it “drags people down to the level of possessions.” Apparently.

    It’s the only explanation I can think of.

    I agree Dan. The my really jarred me.

  14. Player One @ #1790 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:36 pm

    Gee. I disagree with your conclusion. Shoot me.

    You seem to have some kind of martyrdom thing going on. How odd.

    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.

    No, because “the problem” SSM resolves is broader than just the present legal discrimination. It includes the symbolic endorsement of discrimination that is conveyed by the history of legal discrimination followed by failure to replace it with actual recognition of worthiness of the same status. There is no reason that existing recognition of marriage, which is valued by many people for whatever reasons, needs to be compromised in any way!

    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?

    If it was a grudge I could have jumped in and derailed your blathering in dozens of other instances. I didn’t. I just find it useful to remember things that may be helpful in ensuring that certain tactics can’t be got away with here.

  15. It’s Time @ #1811 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:50 pm

    Question @ #1796 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:41 pm

    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.

    But it’s going to persuade all of the 20 to 30 year old intending-to-marry women of faith to vote No, according to GG. And so many of them would have voted Yes until they have see this ad. I bet they’re an even smaller number that gay couples wanting to get married.

    I say spend up and spread this ad far and wide, no voters. It would be the best way to waste your money and confuse the hell out of most people about what the hell you are talking about.

    Nice of you to misrepresent what I said which is it is “Targeted” at that particular demographic.

    It looked reasonable to me on that basis.

  16. That “i dont get to call her my wife” ad??

    Ok, i just dont get it?

    If they are married, of course she’s his wife and he’s her husband. Convention.

    How SSM couple refer to each other is up to them, although i really dont know if there is a convention that applies at the moment or what it is. Ignorance on my part maybe. Likely one will develop as SSM becomes more mainstream, but it will have no effect on how heterosexual couples are referred to.

    Fwarking Silly.

  17. The ad is an oblique way of arguing that masculine identity will be undermined by ME. If two women can marry it would follow they could refer to one another as “my wife”. In this instance the partner of a “wife” would be female. The patriarchal mind will observe that the partner of the wife is no longer necessarily male. The traditional “male role” is being obscured and possibly feminised. The claim is that ME will emasculate heterosexual men. Gender categories are to be made diffuse or mutable. This is about the worst thing that can happen within a patriarchal order. This is their phobia in all its nostalgic sentimentality.

  18. OK so that Vote No facebook page is just a paranoid crackpot even by anti-SSM standards and not representative of the No campaign, though it probably won’t be much less stupid. The accompanying blurb explains it:

    “It is not fair that HUSBAND and WIFE will become illegal terms and their use regarded as discriminatory against gays…that is where we are heading.”

  19. Re husband husband wife wife, the younger ones use it more, certainly not all, and I’ve found it especially with Americans, who use it often quite strongly, and I detect a bit of an overemphasis, a rubbing it in, because now we can.

    I’ve been living with the same bloke for 30 years, and if we get married, there’ll be no husband husband talk. Way too hetero for us 😉

  20. Kevin Bonham @ #1822 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:59 pm

    Player One @ #1790 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:36 pm

    Gee. I disagree with your conclusion. Shoot me.

    You seem to have some kind of martyrdom thing going on. How odd.

    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.

    No, because “the problem” SSM resolves is broader than just the present legal discrimination. It includes the symbolic endorsement of discrimination that is conveyed by the history of legal discrimination followed by failure to replace it with actual recognition of worthiness of the same status. There is no reason that existing recognition of marriage, which is valued by many people for whatever reasons, needs to be compromised in any way!

    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?

    If it was a grudge I could have jumped in and derailed your blathering in dozens of other instances. I didn’t. I just find it useful to remember things that may be helpful in ensuring that certain tactics can’t be got away with here.

    If anyone’s got the martyrdom thingee going it’s you comrade.

  21. imacca @ #1824 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 11:02 pm

    That “i dont get to call her my wife” ad??

    Ok, i just dont get it?

    If they are married, of course she’s his wife and he’s her husband. Convention.

    How SSM couple refer to each other is up to them, although i really dont know if there is a convention that applies at the moment or what it is. Ignorance on my part maybe. Likely one will develop as SSM becomes more mainstream, but it will have no effect on how heterosexual couples are referred to.

    Fwarking Silly.

    So, do you believe they are actually married or two people meeting for the first time and paid a couple of hundred dollars plus expenses.

  22. imacca @ #1548 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:00 pm

    “Shorten’s conundrum”

    No conundrum here for Shorten. Support SSM and shitcan Turnbull in the process. Help the Lib/Nats tear themselves apart.

    If the ALP gets serious about supporting a yes campaign, the LNP find themselves well and truly up against a well oiled and a well aimed ALP machine…………when they dont have to be.

    Brian Trumble is definitely a Labor sleeper agent within the L/NP.

    He’s assisting the Labor party in several ways: by ensuring they have a national level opportunity to do some fine tuning of Campaign Central before the next election; to update their volunteer database and recruit new volunteers, and; providing the impetus to tens of thousands of otherwise disenfranchised young people to register to vote, and ensuring that their first vote will be for Labor.

  23. ItzaDream
    briefly @ #1821 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 11:05 pm

    The claim is that ME will emasculate heterosexual men.

    Which could well explain some views expressed around here.

    …and not only here, Itza. This is the dread that gives breath to phobia…

  24. briefly
    Does anyone know when the HC application will be presented??
    ********************************************************
    I understood it was lodged today (10/8/17)

    If I knew how twitter worked I would do that # thingy….

  25. CTar1
    Swamprat hates the Labor Party so much he not going to say ‘Yes’ in this ‘plebiscite’ because the ALP is advocating say ‘Yes”???

    He would rather that Labor matched his projection of them than that they campaign for equality. That is nostalgia for past anger. I think it could be called bitterness.

  26. Swamprat hates the Labor Party so much he not going to say ‘Yes’ in this ‘plebiscite’ because the ALP is advocating say ‘Yes”???

    Crazy I know but there are going to be a lot of people like swamprat out there. I just hope that the Greens have the sense to support the yes vote in this plebiscite instead of taking the high moral ground like swamprat and encouraging a boycott.

    Does anyone know the official Greens position on this? Labor is all in for a yes vote.

  27. Lord Haw Haw of Arabia
    briefly
    Does anyone know when the HC application will be presented??
    ********************************************************
    I understood it was lodged today (10/8/17)

    Cheers, Lord. There must be an initial hearing…can’t come soon enough.

  28. sprocket_ @ #1573 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:37 pm

    The legal issues regarding the SSM poll are canvased here, by UNSW law lecturer Paul Kildea, a snippet:

    “Assuming that the ABS gains access to the roll, it is unclear whether it will be able to send ballot papers to all registered voters. The position of silent electors is particularly uncertain.

    The addresses of silent electors are not displayed on the roll: to do so would put their safety, or the safety of their family, at risk. Also, the AEC is not permitted to provide information about silent electors to agencies such as the ABS. As a result, silent electors may wonder if they will be able to participate in the poll.”

    https://theconversation.com/using-the-abs-to-conduct-a-same-sex-marriage-poll-is-legally-shaky-and-lacks-legitimacy-82245

    So, in other words, another one of Brian Trumble’s cunning plans collapses into smouldering ruins shortly after being exposed to informed scrutiny.

    The mean time to failure on Trumble’s cunning plans is getting shorter the longer his tenure goes on, and it never took longer than few days, to begin with.

  29. Greensborough Growler @ #1825 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 11:07 pm

    If anyone’s got the martyrdom thingee going it’s you comrade.

    Quoting my whole post for a single line of nonsense suggests you really don’t know how this works. Now, are you going to advance any evidence for your claim, or will we just leave it flapping in the breeze looking exactly as small and as pathetic as it is?

  30. Kevin Bonham @ #1839 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 11:21 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #1825 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 11:07 pm

    If anyone’s got the martyrdom thingee going it’s you comrade.

    Quoting my whole post for a single line of nonsense suggests you really don’t know how this works. Now, are you going to advance any evidence for your claim, or will we just leave it flapping in the breeze looking exactly as small and as pathetic as it is?

    So much bitterness! So many people that don’t care!

  31. bemused @ #1758 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 10:13 pm

    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.

    Perhaps it’s regional then? All I know is that back in the States basically nobody used “partner” to refer to their spouse. Since coming to Queensland I feel like I get about a 60/40 split in favor of “partner” versus “husband”/”wife”. It’s awkward because my inclination is towards using “wife”.

  32. I thought Shorten’s speech was very good, by the way. Even touching in some sections. But when he said stuff at the end about whilever (is that a word?) Labor is there (etc etc) I did have to remember that his temporal scale doesn’t apply for anyone who hops in a time machine and goes back just five years. And also there are still far too many serving MPs in Labor who do not support their leader’s position on this, but that was conveniently ignored.

    I prefer to commend the progress made and make sure he is held to it in the future.

  33. Kevin, GG has been doing this ever since the beginning of the argument and his only ‘evidence’ seems to the semantics of the word “marriage”

  34. grimace
    imacca @ #1548 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:00 pm

    “Shorten’s conundrum”

    No conundrum here for Shorten. Support SSM and shitcan Turnbull in the process. Help the Lib/Nats tear themselves apart.

    If the ALP gets serious about supporting a yes campaign, the LNP find themselves well and truly up against a well oiled and a well aimed ALP machine…

    Labor can campaign with one voice on this. The LNP cannot campaign at all, though the Phobic Branch will try. The LNP are divided internally and they are also isolated from the community. This is about the worst possible issue for them. No matter what they do they will be self-wedging.

    I actually think Abbott will do more harm than good to the NO campaign. He is so repulsive he cannot do other than hurt any issue he becomes associated with.

  35. Interesting about the silent electors. The biggest flaw I can see in the ‘voluntary’ vote system is the fact that many are unable to avail themselves of this ‘voluntaryness’ because they either have no fixed abode, are not serviced regularly by Aust post or are silent voters.

    This is discriminatory.

  36. jenauthor @ #1845 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 11:26 pm

    Kevin, GG has been doing this ever since the beginning of the argument and his only ‘evidence’ seems to the semantics of the word “marriage”

    Ta; I have had several past discussions with GG on the subject. But in this case he isn’t even on the subject.

    It’s a standard troll MO – one gets exhausted and needs a rest so another one tag-teams into the ring. Happy to do ten of them at a time if there are that many. It’s like a chess simul only easier.

  37. KB,
    At least 5 years ago the ALP had a vote without a plebiscite, and allowed a conscience vote, and Shorten voted yes.
    If Turnbull could do as much (edit: with the LNP) now, 5 years later, after so many other countries have moved, many would regard it as heroic.

Leave a Reply

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