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”

Comments Page 10 of 11
1 … 9 10 11

  2. I wonder how ABS would treat a returned form that had the boxes marked “1” & “2” as for an election?

    There seems to be nothing on the form to say it is voluntary. Might that assist either the “yes” or “no” sides by encouraging more people to vote?

  3. I noticed the software for this blog got a lot of criticism today.
    I agree. Its still awful.
    I’ve taken to having to just click reload on the browser rather than click the new comments button.
    So much for efficiency.
    Please someone, step up and offer to do Crikey’s coding out of the goodness of your heart. Some of these bugs are plain schoolboy errors.

  4. Lidell would actually make a good site for a solar farm and a battery. There’s a huge area of surrounding land (coal stores, ash dam etc) and it has strong access (unsurprisingly) to the grid.

  5. I wonder how ABS would treat a returned form that had the boxes marked “1” & “2” as for an election?

    It says clearly that marking both boxes would invalidate it.

  6. citizen :

    The form clearly says mark only one box not two. That says to me that if someone returns their form with both boxes marked it is immediately discarded as invalid.

  8. Indeed, Boerwar. I’m actually strongly in favour of nuclear – as in capturing some of the energy that comes from that bloody great fusion reactor that cruises across the sky every day. And capturing some of the atmospheric energy that is created by the interaction of the energy from the said bloody great reactor with the rotation of the earth.

  9. cud chewer
    The most irritating thing about the current blog coding and navigation, is the virtual impossibility of reviewing earlier posts.

  13. Trog:

    I never bothered reading back over the day’s or night’s comments because of time constraints and lack of care factor. So I don’t feel I’m missing anything now.

    I have to say I’ve adjusted to the new site. AR’s add-ons help, but otherwise it is what it is.

  16. confessions @ #409 Monday, September 11th, 2017 – 7:41 pm

    For the last 4 years we’ve had the Abbott Government, the first 2 years under PM Abbott and the last 2 years under PM Turnbull.

    That presupposes that there is a difference between an Abbott govt and a Turnbull govt.

    I say this not having read the Murphy article btw.

    The exact opposite in fact.

  19. bemused @ #408 Monday, September 11th, 2017 – 5:40 pm

    antonbruckner11 @ #407 Monday, September 11th, 2017 – 7:37 pm

    AGL knows that if it agrees with this government to preserve lidell beyond 2022 with this govt and this govt loses the next election it will be high and dry with a stranded asset. It also knows it has ALL the cards. Good luck Mal.

    It must be tempting for AGL to sell Lidell. They bank some cash and pass on the costs of decommissioning to someone else.

    I have an awful feeling that “someone else” is going to be John Q Taxpayer of c/o Parliament House, Canberra.

  28. cud chewer
    I wonder how ABS would treat a returned form that had the boxes marked “1” & “2” as for an election?

    It says clearly that marking both boxes would invalidate it.

    You’re right of course. But I was thinking of voters who are so used to the preferential method of voting that they might unintentionally number both boxes. It would be clear that they favoured the option marked “1”, as against somebody who put a tick in both boxes.

    Anyway, that type of thing will be up to the scrutineers to sort out.

  29. Wonder what these 2 are talking about today?

    SHY: I’m sorry, can you say again cause I didn’t understand a word you just said.

  32. Just back from my BBQ at the neighbours.

    AGL will not keep the power station open and it will not sell for a number of reasons.

    Firstly, AGL made a statement to the ASX last week confirming the power station would close in 2022. AGL will not go back on that statement.

    Secondly, AGL was always going to invest in renewerables and exit coal. It made this clear in 2015. Plans would be advanced towards this investment and the whole 90 days to develop a plan is just noise.

    Thirdly, AGL will not sell the plant. The site will be used for its renewerables and battery storage. Why sell and then have to buy a new site ?

    No matter how hard the MSM push the government line the end result will be AGL ignoring the government and moving ahead based purely on a commercial decision to exit coal. The MSM, in its haste to boost Turnbull, is simply leaving him stuck like a shag on a rock and offering false hope and expectation. Turnbull, once again, will not deliver.

    Cheers to all.

  33. Talk about bloody Labor and communism. The Libs are interfering with the free market over AGL. Id have told Turnbull to piss off.Its got nothing to do with you what we decide as a company.

  34. Alice Workman‏Verified account @workmanalice 2h2 hours ago
    Cory Bernardi accidentally crashed a WA Labor ‘Vote Yes’ photoshoot in Parliament

    :large

  35. Thirdly, AGL will not sell the plant. The site will be used for its renewerables and battery storage. Why sell and then have to buy a new site ?

    It all makes good sense. I hope that AGL makes public its plans soon.
    I wonder what the wind resource is like there?
    They could certainly commission a battery before its shut down.

  36. The decommission costs may be $1 billion.

    I imagine that dodging that would be material in terms of Director’s fiduciary responsibilities.

  37. Possum Comitatus‏ @Pollytics 1h1 hour ago
    Possum Comitatus Retweeted Ben Cubby
    The realistic analysis of this is “AGL watched as Turnbull put on a gimp suit, prostrated himself over a barrel and said ‘no safe word'”

    Possum Comitatus‏ @Pollytics 1h1 hour ago
    Replying to @Pollytics
    AGL wins in *any possible decision they make*. Flog Liddell off & avoid rehab costs, keep it & bill the gov or go renewables and still win.

    Possum Comitatus‏ @Pollytics 1h1 hour ago
    Replying to @Pollytics
    Anyways, AGL under @AndyVesey_AGL seems to be 3 decades ahead of the rabble. The outcome won’t be what the political cavemen want

  38. Even the guy on the Sky news biz channel said it doesnt matter if Liddell closes or not it wont make any difference to power prices one way or the other.Its the lack of policy thats causing the constant increase in prices.

  40. Simon I wonder if they’d implement a solar thermal with storage, or a solar PV with battery, or a bit of both?

    Its hard to tell exactly how much land is tied up with the power station. Its huge if you include the mine.

  41. ‘Its hard to tell exactly how much land is tied up with the power station. Its huge if you include the mine.’

    And don’t forget the area taken up by the lake used to store water for cooling purposes.

  42. cud chewer @ #559 Monday, September 11th, 2017 – 9:42 pm

    Simon I wonder if they’d implement a solar thermal with storage, or a solar PV with battery, or a bit of both?

    Its hard to tell exactly how much land is tied up with the power station. Its huge if you include the mine.

    Cud,

    You may not be aware that the dam (Lake Liddell) also serves Bayswater Power Station across the road (New England Highway) which has a design life extending into the 2030s unless a carbon tax closes it prematurely.

    Since the owner is AGL and the site at Liddell is not huge, maybe it will be several gas fired peaker generators – we only have 90 days to wait to find out. Re-using vacant parts of the same site would defer the overall site rehabilitation and the old power station could hang around for a decade or more before it was demolished together with Bayswater. From an NPV perspective, deferring that amount of capital spend might make sense to the AGL Board.

  43. Nice summary Doyley.

    I see it similarly.
    AGL either accept some money from the government (i.e. Us) and end up with an even older crappier coal plant.
    Or scrap the plant take some money (because you know there will be taxpayer money involved), and end up with a fancy new state of the art renewable plant with battery storage.
    Or they could sell it (for not very much), buy a new site and build a renewable plant.

    As the government is ‘technology agnostic ‘ they shouldn’t care, so why is taxpayer money involved again?.

  45. An interesting thing about Liddell power station is that in around 2005 they built a decent sized solar boiler water pre-heating section, like a huge rooftop solar water heater, which was expected to add, as I remember, about 10 MW worth of generation capacity. The array is definitely there on site, I have seen it up close. It is about 200 m long and 50 m across. I don’t think they actually use it, though. Other interesting stuff is that the power station uses its own private Lake Liddell for cooling/condensation of the boiler water, not evaporation towers. Originally, back in the mid 70’s, it used coal from Liddell underground mine, but now the coal comes in via conveyor from Howick and other, more or less adjacent, open cut mines.

  48. TL yes I’m aware is shared with Bayswater, so that’s why I’m not exactly sure how much land is available for what. I suspect that there’s a lot of land out there bundled with both power stations that isn’t being used.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 10 of 11
1 … 9 10 11