Ipsos: 53-47 to Labor

The first Ipsos poll for a while has a conventional two-party preferred result, while continuing to record much stronger support for the Greens than other pollsters.

Courtesy of the Fairfax papers, we have our first Ipsos poll since May, and it’s your usual 53-47 to Labor on the headline two-party preferred. However, the primary vote results are rather less orthodox: only 35% for the Coalition (down two) and 34% for Labor (down one), with the Greens on 14% (up one) – high results for the Greens having long been a feature of Ipsos. Ipsos publishes both previous election and respondent-allocated two-party results, and I’m not sure which is being invoked here: my rough calculation tells me a previous election result would be more like 54-46 to Labor, although the very high minor party vote means the final total is very sensitive to small changes (UPDATE: Turns out this is previous election preferences; respondent allocation is a bit better for the Coalition at 52-48, a pattern now evident across multiple pollsters). On leadership ratings, Malcolm Turnbull is down three on approval to 42% and up three on disapproval to 47%, Bill Shorten is down six to 36% and up five to 52%, and Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is up from 47-35 to 48-31. The poll was presumably conducted Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 1400.

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.

534 comments on “Ipsos: 53-47 to Labor”

  1. Ides:

    Got a life and got sanity. But no judgement if you want to waste time on Jerry Springer for elites. 😀 You aren’t alone in your quest.

  2. Yabba88 @ #567 Monday, September 11th, 2017 – 10:17 pm

    T Lurker, Bayswater has cooling towers. It doesn’t use the lake for cooling.

    Yabba,

    Where does Bayswater source its make up cooling water from? I appreciate that it has cooling towers, but I thought that the
    make up water came from Lake Liddell.

    I did some work there over a decade ago on the hydraulic design as a sub-consultant for the design consultant for a D&C contractor for the ash water return pumping system but didn’t get a tour of the power station, only the ash management components – fly ash was pumped away as a slurry and the water was returned.

  3. Lateline:

    Matt Wordsworth managed to run into the head of AGL (Vessey) late this evening. AGL not interested in selling Liddel or keeping it open.

  4. According to Lateline AGL haven’t budged on Liddell. Of course they don’t want to sell it only to have electricity pumped out by a competitor who is propped up by the government. I don’t really understand the fuss about it anyway? Turnbull talks as if it answers some pressing need.

  5. Wow, it was only 2009 when Turnbull lost Opposition leadership due to belief in action on climate change. Now he’s claiming a “huge victory” after pressuring AGL to reconsider its commercial decision to close down one of the oldest and dirtiest coal fired plants in the country.

    He’s completed his transition to become our “but not as much as” PM.

    He cares about the environment, but not as much as being PM.

    He cares about the plight of the LGBT community, but not as much as being PM.

    He cares about the rule of law and parliamentary convention, but not as much as being PM.

    I can only guess at what justification he gives to himself when he decides that his ends will justify the horrific contorted actions that are his means. Can he really believe that 2 years of frantic retreat are the only plausible path to some greater victory?

  6. AGL has been handed a great deal of leverage by Turnbull. By refusing to sell they will be reinforcing their message to the public that they are getting out of coal. This is gold to AGL. They will be rewarded in the consumer market for sticking with their commitment.

    Of course, the LNP cannot really afford the political cost of a dispute with AGL. By asking for something they cannot have, the LNP will now have to get serious about the CET. They LNP will hate this. AGL will be very pleased.

  7. Anyway, I reckon you could create a shedload of Power up that way with Wind! Not to mention the Sun.

    If they have the Transmission Lines connected to the area they’d be silly not to take advantage of it in some way.

  8. Gas Peaking!?! P1 will be overjoyed!

    C@, That wasn’t P1’s position as it stood a few months ago and as far as I can tell P1’s position hasn’t changed.

    Essentially P1 maintained the following nonsense:

    1. Renewable technology was immature, expensive and it could not be rolled out at a rate to match the decline in coal fired power (which is in the order of 15 years). P1 has never retracted this claim and as recently as yesterday was arguing that the current rate of roll out predicts the future rate, not realising that this has nothing at all to do with capability.

    2. That we needed not just peaking plants but gas fired baseload plants. So its not just a few GW, its tens of GW that P1 was arguing for. Again, never retracted.

    3. That the kind of “backup” we needed of one form or another was in the order of the entire grid (currently 30GW). In other words P1 kept assuming that the entire country would be devoid of wind at the same time and also that the storage needed to shift between the solar peak and the demand peak represented the entire load and not a part of it. Again, never retracted (or even attempted to be understood).

    4. That not only are batteries too expensive but within the relevant time frame (15 years) they would always remain so. Again, never retracted.

    Bottom line here is that its prudent to build a small amount of gas peaking (a GW or so) to reduce risk over the next few years. But beyond that solar thermal, battery or pumped hydro would take over. Again, P1 just never ever contemplates this. Its dream is to have tens of GW of gas fired power – an investment that will never be recouped since these plants will operate over increasingly fewer hours over the coming decades.

    Basically, SA got it right.

    Just thought I’d add that for the record 🙂

  9. Yabba88 @ #513 Monday, September 11th, 2017 – 10:59 pm

    TL, Bayswater has its own reservoir out the back, called Platchett or something like that.

    Yabba,

    Thanks for the heads up – I see from Google Maps that the Platchett Reservoir is west of the power station and looks like it has a water harvesting arrangement further west again on the Hunter River because it only has a very small natural catchment.

    Thank you for setting me straight.

  10. Hola everyone,

    IMHO AGL want to convert (at least one of) the Liddell generators into synchronous condensers, to offset their potential future fast frequency service cost allocation for holding so much wind and solar PV, and make some money off an inertia market – particularly if this service is defined in terms of rotating mass.

    From a technical perspective, it could make great sense to do this, particularly if the transmission network to SA and/or QLD is reinforced to move more of their renewables around. The network is already built, and the SCs would provide inertia and voltage support near large load centres that may end up being quite remote from generation points. I trust Vesey is familiar with the repurposing of old coal-fired units in California and Ohio, to mention but a few.

  11. Paul_Karp: AGL Andy Vesey speaking at parliamentary friendship group for LGBTI people. Joking it’s the “highlight of his day” after meeting Turnbull…

  12. LU

    IMHO AGL want to convert (at least one of) the Liddell generators into synchronous condensers, to offset their potential future fast frequency service cost allocation for holding so much wind and solar PV, and make some money off an inertia market – particularly if this service is defined in terms of rotating mass.

    This would only make sense if market rules defined the service in terms of rotating mass as you suggest. There are numerous more efficient ways to achieve this, as noted by Finkel.

Comments are closed.