YouGov-Forty Acres: Coalition 34, Labor 32, Greens 12, One Nation 9

A largely unchanged result on voting intention for a poll that records a slight improvement in Pauline Hanson’s personal standing, and growing concern about North Korea.

The latest fortnightly YouGov poll has Labor down a point on the primary vote to 32%, the Coalition steady on 34%, the Greens up two to 12% and One Nation down one to 9%, with the combined result for all others steady on an ample 13%. The respondent-allocated two-party result shifts a point in Labor’s favour to reach 50-50, with the Greens both increasing their primary vote and recorded a somewhat stronger flow of preferences to Labor. The results remain peculiar for the high overall level of minor party and independent voting.

Also featured are a comprehensive seat of leadership ratings: Malcolm Turnbull on 44% approval (down one on six weeks ago) and 48% disapproval (up one); Bill Shorten on 43% (up one) and 46% (down one); Pauline Hanson on 42% (up three) and 50% (down two); Richard Di Natale on 26% (up one) and 39% (up one); Nick Xenophon on 52% (up two) and 28% (up three); Bob Katter on 36% (up three) and 41% (down two); Tony Abbott on 34% (steady) and 57% (up one); and Christopher Pyne on 32% (up one) and 44% (steady). Other findings are that 66% are worried about North Korea, up 12% on eight weeks ago, with 29% not worried, down 11%. Fully 43% would support military action in response to the missile test, with an equal number opposed. Sixty-four per cent would support banning the niqab, with 26% opposed; for the burqa, 67% support and 24% opposition; but for the hijab, 29% support and 61% opposition.

The poll was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1032.

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.

1,400 comments on “YouGov-Forty Acres: Coalition 34, Labor 32, Greens 12, One Nation 9”

Comments Page 19 of 28
1 … 18 19 20 … 28

  1. No I think a yes is basically done and dusted and it will be passed by Christmas. No need for the hysteria that some are going on with.

    Don’t youse just love the word hysteria used by someone who gets rather hyperventilated every time Labor wins another Newspoll under Bill Shorten.

  2. l

    He might have added 40 million subcontinental people with no houses, no work, no farm animals, no crops, no clean water, no power and no sewerage.

    Harvey is estimated at $100 billion and they reckon that that is pretty big.

    If the cost of each displaced continental is $1000 (rehousing, replacement of infrastructure, health, stock, finance for crops… etc, etc, etc) then the total cost is another $40 billion.

    But do not mention global warming.

    It is these figures that demonstrate how seriously pseud Lomborg’s ‘economic analyses’ have been all along.

  6. Boer

    It depends on how you define sustainability, doesn’t it?

    Bangladesh doesn’t emit as much Co2 as Australia, but I can’t see how it can be argued it is more sustainable.

    Ditto New York – for different reasons.

  9. Z

    I define ‘sustainability’ in general as whether current levels of resource use, and there consequences, can be sustained more or less indefinitely.

    It is clear that Australia’s resource use is utterly unsustainable.

    Adding to this use by large scale migration merely hastens the arrival of the consequences.

    On a global basis, the movement of people from low to high resource use states hastens the arrival of the consequences of unsustainability.

  12. BK
    The posts I saw came and went a bit. I understand that the Gerbils barrack for the Giants and are doing their best to discompose Crow eaters.

  13. I do have a problem with people instantly crying racism when people talk about lowering immigration. Its not racist to want a lower intake. It is racists to specify want race you want to refuse/accept.

  14. Player One
    I’m pretty sure Dick Smith and the Greens disagreement over immigration policy goes back over a decade. So unless you’d like to have that discussion with Bob Browne it’s hardly relevant.

  16. Barney in Go Dau
    Excellent lizzie,

    How would Trump react to such an act of doG?
    ****************************************
    He will find some way for the taxpayer to pay for the repair…

  17. BK @ #908 Thursday, September 7th, 2017 – 6:46 pm

    I can see no posts from after 2:09pm today. Only me?

    Post have been coming through thick and fast.

    Maybe clear cache and refresh ❓

    Good luck.

    As I remember you were using Internet Explorer.

    I use Windows 10 Insiders latest and Firefox and have the usual repeat posts and mistimed posts which correct after a few more posts.
    EDIT. Restart computer ❓

  21. Reply to question from Jimmy Doyle posed earlier in the day:

    JD, I have noticed over the 2 weeks of Pre Polling that people have been tending back to the major parties with their votes and The Greens vote has become minimal. I think this is peculiar to the situation, that being that they are voting for 3 Councillors per Ward and so it will break down to 1 Labor, 1 Liberal, and because Council Elections tend to attract community activists that aren’t associated with political parties, it’s more likely than not that one of them will be elected too. Also, the major political parties,well, no, it’s basically the Liberals, brazenly use some so-called ‘Independents’ as preference funnels and vote catchers. In Council elections people are able to easily and successfully go, ‘a pox on both your houses!’ and vote accordingly for a real or seeming Independent, and it’s not like it will be the end of the world as we know it and they will have gotten it out of their system before the next State or Federal election.

    So, basically, people are voting Labor, Liberal or Independent.

  22. Another prediction, GWS to flog the Crows, who will go out in straight sets.

    Looking forward to the Swannies, have reserved seats in the SCG Members. Hoping it’s not the last kick again.

  27. Elaugaufein @ #914 Thursday, September 7th, 2017 – 6:49 pm

    Player One
    I’m pretty sure Dick Smith and the Greens disagreement over immigration policy goes back over a decade. So unless you’d like to have that discussion with Bob Browne it’s hardly relevant.

    I’m not really a fan of Dick Smith (not since I discovered some of his supposedly “aussie” products were imported from China), but is it worth pointing out that he’s essentially correct about the contradiction of a supposedly “green” party having an unlimited immigration policy?

  32. “is it worth pointing out that he’s essentially correct about the contradiction of a supposedly “green” party having an unlimited immigration policy?”

    The latte left generally have a lower fertility rate, so the Greens need to recruit voters from somewhere.

  34. Boer

    ‘It is clear that Australia’s resource use is utterly unsustainable.’

    I repeat: is there a country in the world which is sustainable?

  36. Bw

    The Greens carefully avoid putting a number on their migration policies.

    And not only in their written policies. It’s one of the thing they all seem well drilled on.

  38. ‘zoomster

    Boer

    ‘It is clear that Australia’s resource use is utterly unsustainable.’

    I repeat: is there a country in the world which is sustainable?’

    Australia is not responsible for the unsustainability of other states.

    Australia is responsible for setting its own house in order as the primary responsibility.

  39. Ides

    ‘ Its not racist to want a lower intake.’

    But – whatever the intent – the result is racist, because we have a largely white population saying that they won’t take any more migrants – just as the complexion of migration is changing.

    It’s a bit like the complaint developing countries make about climate change – the ‘white’ developed countries are effectively saying that, alas, it turns out that their lifestyle cannot be extended to others.

    Most posters here would label the bogan hooning around yelling “F*ck off, we’re full!” as racist without hesitation – but his argument is the same, just worded more crudely.

  41. Boer

    We could always lower our standard of living AND take more migrants. Now that would be really responsible.

    No man is an island and all that.

  42. zoomster

    Boer

    The issue is sustainability full stop.

    Australia’s immigrants largely come from countries with greater population densities than ours. Arguably, therefore, coming to Australia makes the world population more sustainable.

    Really, of course, it’s just shuffling deckchairs.

    Is there a country in the world with a sustainable human population?

    If the answer is no, then let’s stop worrying about Australia per se and focus on the real problem.

    Some interesting comments here.

    Firstly Australia’s immigrants largely come from countries with greater population densities than ours. Arguably, therefore, coming to Australia makes the world population more sustainable.

    This is absolutely correct. Generally, developed countries, Italy particularly comes to mind, have negative population growth, without immigration. Hong Kong and Singapore are also countries that come to mind – both have advertising campaigns reminding people to get married and have children, for the good of the country.

    So, immigrants to Australia are likely to have fewer children than their parents in the “old country”. I know that of which I speak. I am a duel Irish/ Australian citizen. But even if the first generation have lots of children, the next generation certainly does not, signing up to the negative population growth.

    There is the added advantage that those in the “New” country have strong links to the “Old” country, and help those in the “old” country financially, so that people do not need to rely on having a large family, and the stochastic probability of one of those kids “doing good” to make sure the parents and family survive in countries with out social safety nets.

    Really, of course, it’s just shuffling deckchairs.

    Is there a country in the world with a sustainable human population?

    Yes, compared to 50 years ago, most countries are moving towards sustainable populations (if we ignore climate change, but let’s not conflate these issues right now, as it will not help with the solution).

    I can hunt down a reference if needed, but the Earth’s population will likely stabilise and then gradually decrease after ~2060 (Lizzie, I think you mentioned this?).

    One of the most depressing aspects of news reporting about the developing world, is how it ignores the amazing social and developmental gains made in these countries, including the very important benefits of foreign aid. There seems to be a political need to see foreign aid as “wasteful”, “corrupt”, and “making no difference at all”, and it undermines the foreign aid that is making a material difference.

    And now for something completely different ……

    Will someone remember when the Irish were poor people that no-one wanted them, in Australia, the US (Ku Klux Klan in New York were after them) and the UK? They did not believe in the “established religion” and had too many children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWWAC5ZMKeM

    I feel I have the right to speak about this. In the 1970s my family regularly sent money “home” to support our Irish family in County Cork. Ireland was genuinely quite poor then. We (not my branch of the family, but the Victorian branch) were asked to contribute to the brave IRA freedom fighters. It took me until my 20s to really abhor the whole “troubles”, which is why I made a conscious choice not to pass my “Irishness” on to my children. Friends of mine from both sides of the Protestant/ Catholic divide felt the same way, and across the barricades this abhorrence of the violence is common ground.

    Now I work in Ireland from time to time, Belfast, Dublin and Galway. It is all Ireland, and very prosperous. However,what made this possible is the legalisation of contraception in 1980. All of a sudden, women did not need to have big families. The economy boomed as women finally entered the workforce. Fast forward to the year 2000, and the economy of the republic was booming. The population of Northern Ireland saw how well the Republic was doing, and how the politics of 1916 was stopping the North from sharing in prosperity. The IRA (provos) in the north suddenly became persona non grata.

    So, I think Dick Smith is taking a very narrow and completely wrong view of how immigration affects Australia, and how such immigration plays a small part in stabilising the World’s population.

    Perhaps “Tricky Dicky” (how my friends who were into building their own amplifiers and quad systems in the 1970s referred to him) needs to read “collapse” by Jared Diamond, and then decide whether immigration is the problem, or whether Australia is just incredibly sensitive to climate change, and population growth is neither here nor there. In fact, stabilizing the World’s population (immigration to Australia), and reducing both its energy needs and carbon footprint will actually help Australia.

  44. Z

    I find our accusations of racism to be insulting.

    I am not some bogan yelling ‘Fuck off we’re full’ because that bogan hates blacks or arabs.

    I note that you have so far completely ignored the unsustainability of Australia’s current population.

    I am someone who is very concerned that Australia is unsustainable.

    On nearly all metrics you care to discuss.

    But I notice that you appear to have decided this is about race and therefore cannot possibly be about anything else, including sustainability.

    The notion that we must have two hundred thousand migrants a year to ensure that someone does not think us to be racist is, to be honest, naive. Why stop at 200,000? Why not 500,000? Why not a million a year? Maybe we could have fewer hundreds of thousands a year as long as they are not white? What, in your view would be the intake that would mean we are not racist in our immigration policies?

    The result of the current rate of around a million extra Australians every five years (regardless of race) is an Australia that is even less sustainable than it was before AND an Australia which gobbles up an even more disproportionate share of the world’s resources than it does now.

  45. D&M

    ‘Really, of course, it’s just shuffling deckchairs.’

    It is not. Zoomster ran the same line.

    Australia is among the highest per capita emitters of CO2 in the world. Large numbers of migrants adds not only to Australia’s gross emissions, it adds to the PLANET’s gross emissions.

  46. ‘zoomster

    Boer

    We could always lower our standard of living AND take more migrants. Now that would be really responsible.

    No man is an island and all that.’

    I support this position. Please let me know when this is a practicality and not a pipe dream.

    In the interim, and noting that this position would be shared by a small minority of the general population, I maintain that until such time as we become sustainable, we should stop accepting large numbers of migrants.

  47. I personally support a lower immigration intake than at present: not so much for population policy reasons as because of the strain currently being placed on public infrastructure in Sydney and Melbourne and also the diatorting effect on economic development: eg, by steering too much investment into property speculation.

    But ive found over the years that, if you scratch a “zero population growth” advocate (eg, Australians for Sustainable Population), you will find racist undertones. I’m not accusing Dick Smith of racism, but he needs to watch who he runs with.

  50. It’s not racist to want to reduce immigration intake. There are valid arguments to be put. And I think at the moment we don’t seem to have a strong rationale for our current policy. Do we know what immigration is actually meant to achieve? Still, I like the idea of Australia being big and strong. Although these extra people will mostly move into our big cities, not into these ‘boundless plains’ we have to share. Like energy, it would be good if we had a population policy.

    Our natural growth is well below replacement level. Were we to stop immigration tomorrow, our population would drift up another few million over the next decade or two because of our relatively young age structure, a legacy of several decades of high immigration, stabilise then slowly decline for a while, then crash late this century, all other things being equal (which they won’t be).

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 19 of 28
1 … 18 19 20 … 28