YouGov-Fifty Acres: Labor 35, Coalition 34, Greens 11, One Nation 9

Gains for Labor in the latest YouGov poll, as private polling records solid support for One Nation in the Hunter region.

The latest fortnightly YouGov poll for FiftyAcres is more conventional than its previous efforts in that the major parties’ share of the primary vote has increased, with Labor gaining three points to 35% without biting into the Coalition’s 34%. Of the others, the Greens are down a point to 11%, One Nation is steady on 9%, the Nick Xenophon Team is down one to 3%, “Christian parties” are steady on 3%, Katter’s Australian Party is steady on 1%, and others are down two to 3%. Despite Labor’s improvement on the primary vote, two-party preferred is unchanged at 50-50 due to weaker respondent-allocated preference flows to Labor, of 67% from Greens voters, 22% from One Nation voters and 50% from the rest. With preference flows more like last year’s election, at which Labor got 82% of Greens preferences and 49% of everybody else’s, Labor would lead 54-46.

Also in the poll:

• Malcolm Turnbull has a 37-29 lead over Bill Shorten as preferred prime minister, compared with 34-27 last time. A high “not sure” result has been a feature of the pollster’s form in this area.

• Head-to-head questions on leadership attributes found Bill Shorten leading Malcolm Turnbull 30-17 for being in touch with the concerns of ordinary Australians; Turnbull leading 28-20 on being a strong leader; and Shorten leading 24-22 on sticking to what he believes in. For a lot more of this sort of thing, I had a paywalled article on Crikey which placed the detailed leadership attributes polling of Essential Research into broader perspective.

• Support for same-sex marriage was at at 59%, with 33% opposed. Eighty per cent rated themselves likely participants in the postal survey compared with 13% for unlikely, but there are no breakdowns for the yes and no camps.

• Sixty-six per cent favoured the proposition that “Australia should move towards more alternative energy source (e.g. wind or solar)” over an alternative, that “Australia should continue to use coal-fired power stations”.

• Forty-three per cent of respondents thought it likely a country would be attacked with a nuclear weapon during their lifetime, compared with 44% for unlikely.

Elsewhere:

• Progressive think thank the Australia Institute has polled the Hunter region seats of Hunter and Shortland, to gauge the impact of AGL’s decision to close the locally situated Liddell coal-fired power station. On two-party preferred, Labor holds respective leads of 60-40 and 58-42, which compare with 62.5-37.5 and 59.9-40.1 at the last election. The other story is that the primary votes show the One Nation well into double digits in both seats. After including results of the follow-up prompt for the undecided, primary votes in Hunter are Labor 44.1% (51.8% at the election), Nationals 21.9% (26.3%), Greens 7.3% (7.1%) and One Nation 15.8%. In Shortland, the results are Labor 44.8% (51.2%), Liberal 26.5% (35.2%), Greens 7.8% (9.5%) and One Nation 14.3%. Despite everything, the poll finds more support than oppose AGL’s decision, and that renewables are heavily favoured over coal. The polls were conducted by ReachTEL on Friday and Saturday nights, from respective samples of 714 and 643. Full results from GhostWhoVotes.

• Sky News reports that polling conducted by the “no” campaign has support for yes down over the first ten days of the campaign from 67% to 60%, although there’s no insight into how this was conducted or by whom.

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.

1,776 comments on “YouGov-Fifty Acres: Labor 35, Coalition 34, Greens 11, One Nation 9”

Comments Page 28 of 36
1 … 27 28 29 … 36

  2. JimmyDoyle @ #1348 Friday, September 22nd, 2017 – 2:51 pm

    Jolyon Wagg
    {Abbott} said he had a very, very very slightly swollen lip.

    Geez what a whiny wuss. So much for the “macho” image he tries to project.

    Then again if there’s one this campaign has shown, its that conservative men are the biggest bunch of thin-skinned, whinging, sooks.

    We even have our own PB iteration in GG.

    Thanks for your respectful contribution.
    You’re such a brave keyboard warrior, aren’t you!

  3. ‘adrian

    The RC has pulled up its ethical socks and is as entitled as any other organisation to speak to its views.

    Evidence please.

    Sorry, I forgot that your views are faith based.
    ‘
    Evidence? Reports of child sexual abuse by the RC clergy in Australia have stopped.

    As for my views being ‘faith-based’, ludicrous rubbish.

  5. Guytaur
    GiovanniTorre: Attorney General George Brandis says the guy who allegedly head-butted Tony Abbott is not connected to the ‘yes’ campaign.

    When have conservatives ever let “facts” get in the way of their Unspeak?

  7. In democracies religious people are as entitled to vote as anyone else and they are as entitled as anyone else to to vote according to their values – whether religiously inspired or not.

    So you can still hate poofters Bw, Is all I’m saying.. You think that ‘s right . I think it’s wrong,

  10. ‘boomy1

    In democracies religious people are as entitled to vote as anyone else and they are as entitled as anyone else to to vote according to their values – whether religiously inspired or not.

    So you can still hate poofters Bw, Is all I’m saying.. You think that ‘s right . I think it’s wrong,’

    I await your final solution for religious people who disagree with you.

    Shoot them all?

  11. GG – why should I, or anyone, extend you any respect when you refuse to extend your respect to LGBT people? That’s the thing about fairness – by definition, it is a two-way street. You can’t demand fairness, or respect, when you don’t give it.

    As usual, your thin skin is showing.

    As for being a “keyboard warrior”, only one of us is getting obsessive with our daily commenting on PB over this debate, and it ain’t me.

  12. GG
    “You are doing a “Donald Duck” Lot’s of angry squawks when you lose the argument”

    So are you. You’ve lost your pants.

  14. cud chewer @ #1286 Friday, September 22nd, 2017 – 1:29 pm

    C@,

    So far GG has refused to answer the simple question.

    If the civil marriage law were changed to not exclude gay people, which actual persons would be harmed and how?

    I know GG can’t and won’t answer. Now I’m not pucking on GG personally. I’m just using this to illuminate how every so called argument against SSM is fundamentally roited in fear and loathing of gay people.

    The moment someone claims that gay marriage harms a real person is the moment that someone exposes thrir beliefs about gay people.

    I am married. My marriage will be weakened if same sex couples are allowed to marry.

    The only reason I can think of as to why my marriage will be weakened by the change in definition is that either I or my spouse (or both of us) have unexpressed homosexual inclinations which, if let loose by the public recognition of SSM, may threaten our union.

    It follows that the extent my marriage is weakened is equal to the extent to which my “true” feelings and those of my spouse are given expression. I am not sure why this is supposed to be a bad thing. True, I will be unhappy if my beloved leaves me for same sex frivolity, but since I love my spouse unselfishly I want what is best for my spouse, not me.

    Shorter: the argument that SSM will weaken the union of opposite sex marriage is based on an irrational fear of homosexuality. I understand this. I have my own fears. I do not believe Collingwood supporters should marry, irrespective of the sex of the individuals involved.

  18. BW : I have been busy modelling chook delivery schedules.
    Questions: How many of the child molesters which were known and recognised by their management hierarchy have the Australian Roman church reported to the police? Ever! Of the large amount of evidence which they hold concerning such behaviour, how much have they provided to the police, in Australia, and throughout the world? Ever! The organisation closely resembles the Mafia, in the way that they protect their own. I will believe that they have reformed when they provide the evidence that they undoubtedly hold to the civil authorities. Otherwise they remain, as they have always been, a law unto themselves.

    As I linked earlier, they are still at it.
    In the past week “The Vatican has recalled a high-ranking priest from its embassy in Washington after US prosecutors said they wanted to charge him in a child abuse images investigation.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/vatican-recall-priest-child-sexual-abuse-images-us-state-department-a7949871.html

  21. Normally intelligent and sane people are barracking for a guy who allegedly assaulted a politician.

    They support the physical assault itself while paradoxically condemning the physical assault on Rudd’s godson.

    Others are frothing at the mouth because people who disagree with them even have a vote in a democracy.

    Still others make a point of accusing their opponents of supporting child rapists.

    Anyone who opposes them is instantly attacked for lacking evidence or being irrational.

    Yet others assume that all people of religion are homophobes. By definition. What arrogant judgemental and silly rubbish!

    Some attack secularists because the secularists dare cry barley charlie to all this rubbish! They must be people of the faith as well!

    And this is on the relatively sedate Bludger!

    Perhaps those who warned that the Survey would turn ugly were projecting?

  22. ‘boomy1

    No
    I await your final solution for religious people who disagree with you.

    Shoot them all?
    No respect, that’s all.Pity, really.’

    Boomy1, you should know from my posts that I do not support organised religion at all. I am not a person of faith, either. But I do subscribe to an evidence-based approach to issues.

    To be frank, your notion that all people of religion are homophobes by definition is utterly irrational. And your self-righteous abuse of same is, if anything, counter-productive.

  23. BW

    No normally sane people have been questioning Abbott’s version of events.

    Normally sane people have been pointing out that the hate fest has fuelled anger amongst the vulnerable group targeted.

    Why this is an amazing thing for a rational person to note is itself amazing to me.

  24. Boerwar
    Perhaps those who warned that the Survey would turn ugly were projecting?

    LOL – the only people who said the campaign was going to be “respectful” were the people in the Liberal Party who needed it to paper over their factional problems. Every one else saw the truth: sexuality is an inherently divisive topic, as is asking people to vote on a minority’s rights.

    You should direct your anger where it belongs: at Turnbull.

    The real projection is by the no campaigners, who insist they’re being “oppressed”, when the reality is that the media is giving them way more attention than the yes campaign, and they’re the ones doing the oppressing.

  25. A vote boerwar, It’s the only way. Dickheads like you and me would have been shut down as miserable sods.It should have been done in the house of reps but they were cowards. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  27. RichardDiNatale: Violence or aggression isn’t acceptable in our community, regardless of where it comes from. A shirtfront is never OK.

  28. Yabba

    You are dancing at shadows. I was quite specific about three things, which you persistently ignore.

    1. I referred to the RC in Australia, not anywhere or everywhere else. (The situation in the Philippines and elsewhere, for example, is atrocious.)

    2. I stated that the RC in the past was an organisation that protected pedophiles and, in doing so, routinely made the suffering of their victims worse. I should know. I gave evidence Project Argo which contributed to two perps going to jail.

    3. I also stated that, with the heightened scruitiny, improved reporting procedures, improved behaviour guidelines, mandatory reporting to the civil authorities, and heightened awareness of parents, there are no recent reports of child sexual abuse by catholic priests in Australia.

    Neither you, nor Guytaur not Yabba have been able to point to any evidence that RC priest in Australia are currently carrying out child sexual abuse.

    The notions that religious organisations cannot or will not reform is ludicrous.

  31. boomy1
    A vote boerwar, It’s the only way. Dickheads like you and me would have been shut down as miserable sods.It should have been done in the house of reps but they were cowards. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    This has never been about “cowardice”. The Noes always wanted a campaign opportunity. They get to use the issue to parade themselves. This is all about the politicisation of sexuality….or, more correctly, the re-politicisation of gender, sexuality, religious privilege and personal privacy. The Noes get to molest the rest of us.

  32. The notions that religious organisations cannot or will not reform is ludicrous.

    Based on evidence, the notion that religious organisations are capable of reform has often proven to be untrue.

  33. YaThinkN: All these “Yes” campaign hurting themselves pieces…

    Unless you have done a similar piece re No campaigns violence get in the effing bin.

  35. People keep leaping to various conclusions about my views and then slaying me on the basis of their leaps of imagination.

    Just to clarify:

    1. I support marriage equality. I acknowledge that the LGBTI community has been bastardized and brutalized from pillar to post since the first Fleet arrived.

    2. I supported a vote in the Parliament by parliamentarians.

    3. I believe that the plebiscite is an expensive waste of time.

    4. I believe that the plebiscite will solve nothing and will make things worse.

    5. I believe that the real fight will involve the wording of the Bill.

    6. I believe that most of the bad behaviour in the plebiscite has come from the NoNos. Most of it. But not all of it.

    7. I believe that the Yes mob would have done well to stick strongly to the moral high ground of respect. IMO, straying from the respect reservation has done damage to the Yes mob.

    8. It has been in the interests of the NoNos to try and drag the debate into every single highway and byway of the cultural wars. To the extent that the Yes mob have either followed down that pit or entered into the spirit of the culture wars themselves, they have done themselves a disservice.

    9. I believe we live in a democracy. IMO, that means that assaulting any politician for whatever reason is an automatic bad thing. It also means having to put up with the fact that each individual has the right to vote. FWIW, for most of my life most voters have voted differently from the way I have voted.

    10. The notion that all people of religion are automatically homophobes is simply untrue, IMO.

    11. I believe that the language and framing used to attack GG has been over the top, disrespectful, unjustified and vicious.

  37. To be frank, your notion that all people of religion are homophobes by definition is utterly irrational. And your self-righteous abuse of same is, if anything, counter-productive.

    Can’t you see the crazy in this? or are you blind.

  42. boomy1

    A couple of my very close friends are deeply religious people. They are very, very active members of their church. Both of them have voted ‘yes’.

    Do wake up to yourself.

  43. The Marine Corps Plans to Accept its First Female Infantry Officer

    For the first time in its 241-year history, the U.S. Marine Corps has plans to assign a female officer to the infantry following her expected graduation from its intensive 13-week training program, the Washington Post reports.

    The woman – who is a lieutenant and whose name has not been disclosed – is the first female officer to complete the Infantry Officer Course (IOC), a grueling program which involves combat exercises, endurance tests, and carrying around up to 152 pounds of equipment. Generally, 10 percent of trainees drop out the first day, and 25 percent drop out over the course of the program. Since 2012, 36 women have attempted the course, and all have failed.

    After the lieutenant officially graduates from IOC on Monday, she is expected to head a platoon of 40 Marines, a position in which she will likely face challenges even greater than lugging around 152 pounds of equipment. As Kyleanne Hunter, a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Advisory Committee for Women in the Services and former Marine Corps helicopter pilot, told the Post, the woman will have to win over those in her platoon, and cope with the attention from those who “want her to fail.”

    https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/marine-corps-plans-to-accept-first-female-infantry-officer.html

  44. markjs

    Let’s see what the “alleged attacker” says in his own defence.

    (Even if Abbott has exaggerated beyond belief, he’s received the publicity he craves.”

  45. So, now that the “butthead headbutt” has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to have had nothing to do with SSM “debate”, we’re back to a similar dilemma to the one I posed yesterday:

    “Is it OK to king hit neo-nazis”.

    (Now, before anyone pipes in, I did not claim that Abbott is a neo-nazi, although he does hold some far-right wing views. The dilemma I posted is based on the trend in America to punch them.)

    I believe I originally asked boerwar the question, however I don’t recall seeing him answer it. From memory I think he’d “just left the building” before I asked it. Since he seems to be around now, I hope he’ll answer it this time.

    I see both sides of the argument. Firstly we risk descending into a spiral of violence begetting violence. On the other hand the recipients of the punches espouse an ideology based on “final solutions” to the “problems” of people who don’t look, think, and act like they do.

    I’d appreciate your insights into this moral dilemma boerwar.

    (And no, there is no sarcasm or snark implied or intended in any of the above).

  46. DG

    It is an interesting question. My gut view is that once the citizenry starts to assault their politicians, democracy is at risk. If it is OK for the Left to physically assault the Abbotts of the world, it must be OK for the Right to assault the Albos of the world.

    IMO, where it all ends is not very good for democracy.

  50. “The ugliness is not coming from the defenders of marriage as it’s always been understood.”

    Complete rubbish. The ugliness is coming from both sides but the No campaign is streets ahead in milking it in order to cement itself as the victim of evil and turn people away from change.

    Be it the sacking of a young Christian woman from a Canberra party firm this week, or the alleged assault on Abbott, the No campaign is dominating the media coverage with its Pythonesque routine of “come and see the violence inherent in the system”.

    Unless the Yes campaign gets its skates on and starts pushing back by highlighting the threats and abuse coming its way, as well as trying to control the crazies in its ranks, then it faces a towelling. No change is achieved without a fight and the bar is set high for the advocates of change in terms of behaviour.
    …
    Following last year’s election campaign, this debate is the second eight-week campaign Turnbull has inflicted on the nation in just over 12 months.

    It runs for another six weeks.

    Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/yes-campaigners-need-to-fight-harder-or-face-a-towelling-20170921-gymbsz#ixzz4tNsEQdcB
    Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 28 of 36
1 … 27 28 29 … 36