Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor

Newspoll reports Labor’s two-party lead widening, and Malcolm Turnbull’s preferred prime minister lead narrowing.

The first Newspoll in three weeks is a 54-46, compared with 53-47 last time. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down a point to 36%, Labor is steady on 38%, the Greens are steady on 9% and One Nation is steady on 8%. Malcolm Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has also been cut from 46-29 to 42-31, although this isn’t reflected in the leaders’ approval ratings, which have Turnbull’s net rating improving from minus 20% to minus 17% while Bill Shorten is unchanged at minus 20% (we will have to wait a little longer for the exact approval and disapproval numbers). The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1695. The Australian’s paywalled report is here.

UPDATE: The poll also records a narrowing in the lead for same=sex marriage, down six points since mid-August to 57%, with opposition up four to 34%. However, there is markedly higher support among those who have already voted or definitely tend to (61% to 34%) than among the non-definite (38% to 35%). However, only 15% say they have already voted, which surprises on the low side. A further 67% say they will definitely vote, with a further 7% saying they probably will. Support for the survey being held is down five points to 44%, with opposition up three to 46%. Another question finds 62% supporting “guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage”, with only 18% opposed. Kevin Bonham has a very thorough account of all the polling related to the survey.

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.

1,409 comments on “Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor”

  1. Not too dissimilar to the RGR wars then, in which you frequently partake.

    I haven’t bothered with the RGR wars for some years now. I have my say with matters that are relevant but leave the tediousness and boring arguments to others to fight out.

  2. 18 U.S. Code § 227 seems oddly relevant today.

    (a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
    (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
    (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

    (b) In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
    (1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
    (2) an employee of either House of Congress; or
    (3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

    Only question would be in regards to the “solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation” part. Has Trump called NFL players leftists or commies yet?

  3. I have respect for the people on both sides of this argument, not because of the merit of their causes on this issue, but because, being a visitor here for many years, I have appreciated the sincerity and consistency with which they have held their opinions, the generosity of spirit they have demonstrated when the need has arisen, and their obvious humanity and decency.

    I understand that people are moulded by their life experiences, and that many have been subjected to hurt and humiliation because of their sexual orientation. I have not been immune myself from racism and stereotyping, another source of hurt and humiliation.

    I understand also that those who have faith and belief in the teachings of their religions, and have a view of the world based on them, have difficulty in accepting changes which offend those teachings. As a Catholic I also carry the weight of the teachings of the faith I was born into but no longer practice.

    Once expressed, views are read and understood on this blog, accepted or rejected by the reader on the basis of the reader’s already strongly held positions.

    Argument and counter argument, sometimes abusive and vitriolic, in a relatively small and reasonably static community, such as the posters on this blog, will not change opinions.

    This is not a newspaper or a community of the undecided. Who but a holder of cherished political and social opinion would frequent such a blog as this?

    For what it’s worth, I voted yes. I would hope that that does not cause offence.

  4. Fulvio Sammut:
    As someone who has experienced racism, you might feel differently about the need to respond to negative posts here if we were voting on whether your racial group should be granted the same rights as others. Or would you be content to just let that slide and keep quiet, not wanting to potentially ruin the reading experience of those not interested in hearing your views when responding to such posts? Because that’s what you’re implying gay people should do.

  5. There are two sides to the marriage equality debate, as there are two sides to the climate change debate, the vaccination debate and the flat earth debate.

    This from my social media feed earlier today.

    “Early this morning a transgender friend ended her life. Don’t send sympathy. Take a fucking hard look at yourself if you are voting No. I don’t even know what to say. What is happening in my country is sickening, backward, and vicious. People’s lives are not a fucking postal vote.”

  6. Fulvio,

    As unpopular as it is, I’m not given to the urge to conflate respect for ideas with the completely separate notion of respect for people. There are lots of commonly held ideas that are sincerely held, consistently maintained and even cherished, that are nonetheless wrong and quite harmful.

    I note that its culturally still quite acceptable to cut the skin off the end of boys’ penises. I find that abhorrent. But its amazing how people will defend that practice yet still find wrong the practice of female genital mutilation.

    I reject the murder of non humans with an experiential awareness. Who live a life that matters to them. Its what the philosopher Tom Regan described as “subjects of a life”. I’ve seen this from both sides, growing up on a farm and later having cows as companions and discovering they are actually very companionable. They are playful, wilful, thoughtful, sneaky, affectionate and yes they do have dreams. I accept that my fellow humans deserve respect and love whilst at the same time they deeply disrespect harm, and destroy other lives. I’m not afraid to describe my fellow humans as mostly uncivilised and acting like children with knives. Again, there is a difference between the inherent value of the individual and that individual’s ideas.

    And when it comes to how we treat gay people, I’m quite consistent. I respect the person who holds a deeply hateful, disrespectful and harmful position about other humans. But I’m still going to call it for what it is: wrong and harmful. Every single argument against same sex marriage is a continuation of the same base emotions. They’re sick, they’re evil. They should be punished. They should know their place and hide. I don’t fall for layers of intellectual shit wrapped around that that fear and loathing. Have a read of David Marr’s book “The High Price of Heaven”. About the interference of the Church in the State (it says a lot about Pell) and about the long sordid history of the Church interfering with civil laws such as censorship and in particular its long history of punishing (word used precisely) gay people. Even when we decriminalised gay sex, it was usually done with a flourish such as unequal age of consent. Just to let gay people know they are still frowned on. I view the Marriage Equality issue is just a continuation of the same motivations.

  7. Roger there are very often two sides to a debate and where one side is simply wrong. But as you can see from my last post there are so many issues on which we humans have a long, long way to go. Humans are designed to cling to ideas and to be tribal. The God Delusion describes it well and it doesn’t just describe hard-to-die religious ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *