Newspoll: 55-45 to Labor

Bill Shorten almost matches Malcolm Turnbull on preferred prime minister, as the Coalition cops its worst Newspoll result since February.

Newspoll breaks out of its long-established 53-47 to 54-46 rut by recording Labor with a two-party lead of 55-45, compared with 54-46 a fortnight ago. On the primary vote, Labor is up one to 38%, the Coalition down one to 34%, One Nation is up one to 10% and the Greens are down one to 9%. Malcolm Turnbull suffers a body blow on personal ratings, down two on approval to 29% and one on disapproval to 58%, and his lead on preferred prime minister all but disappears, now at 36-34 compared with 41-33 last time. Bill Shorten is up two on approval to 34% and down three on disapproval to 53%. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1625. Full report from The Australian.

UPDATE: The poll also finds Julie Bishop clearly favoured over Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberal Party, by 40% to 27%. Peter Dutton on 11%, being most favoured by One Nation voters on 24%.

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.

860 comments on “Newspoll: 55-45 to Labor”

Comments Page 18 of 18
1 17 18
  1. Roger Miller @ #852 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 9:42 pm

    If someone’s renunciation was not accepted, then it comes back to reasonable steps. If someone has followed the correct procedure, it does not matter if it is accepted or not.

    If the fault was that of the applicant, it would be hard to argue that their steps taken were reasonable because they have failed to comply with the requirements of the other Country.

  2. Barney in Go Dau @ #849 Tuesday, November 14th, 2017 – 1:03 am

    Roger Miller @ #854 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 9:51 pm

    But if they have followed the correct procedure, then it does not matter if it is accepted or not.

    Because they still hold dual citizenship and that Country is not stopping them from renouncing their citizenship, they are just asking them to comply with what they require.

    But that would not be “following the correct procedure”. By definition. There aren’t many plausible scenarios where a renunciation would not be accepted. I’d say there’s roughly:

    1. The correct procedure was not followed (applicant has failed to take reasonable steps, too bad for them).
    2. The correct procedure was followed, and the foreign nation is just dicking them around (applicant took reasonable steps, no worries).
    3. The correct procedure was followed, but accepting would leave the applicant stateless and so it must be declined (irrelevant because if the applicant lacks Australian citizenship they can’t stand for election to the Australian parliament anyways; so they’re either ineligible for not having Australian citizenship, or ineligible because they failed to follow the correct procedure by including proof of Australian citizenship with their renunciation).

  3. The best way of making sure that the correct procedure was followed is to have the renunciation finalised before the nomination. There is a reasonable chance that this is what the High Court will decide is necessary (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer).

    The ban on foreign citizens is a constitutional but the requirement of Australian citizenship is legislation and thus there is no constitutional barrier to the Commonwealth Parliament legislating for states people to stand (this is unlikely to come up, as the Parliament is unlikely to legislate to allow stateless people to vote, let alone stand for election).

  4. Yes , a r.

    Sorry Roger.

    I was to locked into my original train of thought, I get what you mean.

    However, …(sorry)

    there could be a legitimate legal reason for a Country not to allow a citizen to renounce, outstanding criminal charges for example.

    In this case the HC may have something to decide.

  5. Roger Miller @ #854 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 9:51 pm

    But if they have followed the correct procedure, then it does not matter if it is accepted or not.

    Just to explain my misunderstanding further.

    “have followed the correct procedure,” implied to me that the Country had a procedure to successfully renounce citizenship.

    So, I failed to consider the case that those procedures were disingenuous.

    For that situation my thoughts were more of a Country that didn’t allow renunciation and so no correct procedure existed to renounce.


  6. Psyclaw (AnonBlock)
    Tuesday, November 14th, 2017 – 1:15 am
    Comment #841

    Very, very reasonable, he said sagely, obviously (KayJay) being completely clueless about the matter at hand.

    If the defendants could perform the last effort with a triple and a twist I think we have a perfect 10.

    I have missed you, mon ami.

    Now 4.51 A.M and time to go back to bed.

    Wander off mournfully, singing tunefully, ♫♪Have you ever been lonely, ♪♫Have you ever been ……..

Comments Page 18 of 18
1 17 18

Leave a Reply

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