Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor

Malcolm Turnbull records an eight-point deterioration in his net approval rating, as Labor’s lead on voting intention widens still further.

Newspoll breaks out of its 53-47 straitjacket to record a 54-46 lead for Labor, from primary vote of Coalition 35% (down one), Labor 38% (up two), Greens 9% (down two) and One Nation 9% (up one). Leadership ratings also record substantial change for the first time a while, with Malcolm Turnbull down three on approval to 35% and up five on disapproval to 55%, and Bill Shorten down two to 34% and up three to 54%. Malcolm Turnbull leads 43-33 as preferred prime minister, down from 46-31 last time. The poll was conducted from a sample of 1675 from Thursday to Sunday. The Australian’s paywalled report here.

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.

920 comments on “Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 19 of 19
1 18 19
  1. Notice also Shorten has a bigger pile of revenue measures than spending measures, the L-NP just had a budget that mostly tried to be popular (without increasing the Medicare levy it would be an election budget), AND the ALP are well ahead in the polls.

    Shorten has all his shot in the locker.

  2. rex on Shorten’s preselection as Labor candidate for Maribyrnong –

    “The numbers controlled by notorious branch stacker and rorter, George Seitz, were used to destroy a sitting ALP member who had been good enough to make the ministry.

    I have no particular brief for Bob Sercombe and barely knew him.”

    As though Sercombe was an innocent victum of a factional in-fight …

    From Wiki on Sercombe during his time in Victoria’s Upper House –

    “In State politics, he became well known for supporting a leadership challenge on behalf of Ian Baker who attempted to topple then Leader John Brumby in 1994. After the bid failed, he did not contest the deputy leadership.”

    Later in Federal Parliament –

    Within the Labor Party, Sercombe was for many years a leading member of the Labor Right in Victoria, although later became allied to the Left faction in Victoria while being a leading light of the Centre caucus in Canberra.

    Just prior to a local vote of ALP members, in February 2005 Sercombe announced he was withdrawing his candidacy from Labor preselection for his seat of Maribyrnong in favour of Australian Workers’ Union National Secretary Bill Shorten as Shorten had the numbers over Sercombe to win the preselection and Shorten was elected unopposed as a result. He criticised challenges to other incumbent MPs. Despite announcing his retirement Sercombe was kept on the frontbench by Opposition Leader Kim Beazley until December 2006 when he was sacked by new leader Kevin Rudd.

  3. John Boy,
    Turnbull reportedly told King to “Fuck off and get out of my way”. That most quickly summarises the animosity and accusations. King was so pissed with how he was dumped he ran as an independent.

  4. Question

    Yep on Wentworth.

    I wonder who wrote the Sercombe Wiki entry?

    The last sentence –

    Despite announcing his retirement Sercombe was kept on the frontbench by Opposition Leader Kim Beazley until December 2006 when he was sacked by new leader Kevin Rudd.

    As though KRudd was a ‘bastard’ to him.

    KRudd simply choosing to enhance another candidates chance (in this case Duncan Kerr) in the forth coming election.

    Turnbull’s pre-selection involved the Liberal local branch secretary (name I’ve forgotten) supporting Peter King continuing as Wentworth member right up until the moment of the actual vote …

  5. Rex Douglas @ #480 Monday, August 21st, 2017 – 2:28 pm

    In the unlikely event Shorten was found to be ineligible to sit the polls suggest a new leader would deliver a much greater election victory for the ALP.

    Let me guess Rex, Shorten would fall on his sword then Gough Whitlam would rise from the dead and be ahead 417 to -317 in the next Newspoll?

  6. alias @ #518 Monday, August 21st, 2017 – 3:08 pm

    C@tmomma.. you’re right. Batting away the requests is do-able. But it looks really bad. Perhaps this doesn’t matter so much as the Government is imploding. But I would argue that Shorten really has nothing to lose. He can say: “Hey, you made such a big fuss about this. Well here they are.” It would be a winning moment – and one to further drive home Labor’s advantage here. Why endure the growing chorus demanding he disclose? Just yield.

    Shorten has plenty to lose. Just look at the birther conspiracy that dogged Obama in the US. As soon as he produced his birth certificate his opponents started claiming it was a forgery.

  7. Watched Shorten tonight and found him very real. Am quite confident that Turnbull will find some way to to avoid direct one on ones outside of QT with Shorten. He just doesn’t connect in the same way.

    Was pissed at Jones. Seemed to me that Jones was pushing the interruptions and his own points not to clarify, but make it SEEM that Shorten was avoiding answering…even when he wasn’t. Wonder if he would treat Malcolm the same? Doubt he will get the chance. But…..would be interesting if Abbott volunteered to come on.

  8. I also thought Shorten was very good. The audience responded very well to him. He did strike me as being very well prepared….nothing asked came as a surprise and he had formulated his thinking and the tenor off his answers.

    I think his answer to the question about Hanson was interesting….repeatedly said her actions were “dumb”. This is the tag Labor want to use. It is self-evidently accurate and perhaps reflects research into perceptions of Hanson.

    The other very notable feature of Shorten’s answers was, for the most part, the absence of attacks on the LNP. He talked about Labor’s policies and values rather than assailing the LNP. This is smart.

  9. I would like someone to explain why trusts are valid because they can be used to “protect wealth” are they saying not paying creditors is acceptable when a company folds; or are they saying it is acceptable not to pay capital gains when you die and your children inherit the assets?
    Having been caught out by the former use very unimpressed when I hear the words. Not paying debts is straight out theft from the creditors.
    Not paying capital gains is another loop hole that may or may not need closing; family farm for instance.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 19 of 19
1 18 19