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 15 of 18
1 … 14 15 16 … 18

  1. antonbruckner11 @ #677 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 6:05 pm

    Gans doesn’t seem to have realised that the Brits took only a few days to pass through the renunciation of Senator Nash. Then he seems to think that Rebecca Sharkie is in a better position because she acted about three weeks before Keay. Oh, really? How does the court make those distinctions. And what happens if a pre-selected candidate stands down and a late replacement is brought in (or say the govt calls a snap election). The replacement IMMEDIATELY sends his or her renunciation papers to the Brits. According to Gans, that person has not taken all reasonable steps. I have great trouble with that.

    I’m still inclined to think that the HC will decide that if:

    1. You submitted a renunciation; and
    2. The renunciation was submitted prior to the close of nominations; and
    3a. The renunciation was ultimately effective; or
    3b. The renunciation was correctly submitted and only ineffective due to malice or obstruction from the other party; and
    4. You can present evidence proving 1, 2, and either 3a or 3b

    …then you’re okay. Otherwise you’re out. 60/40 confidence.

    I don’t think the HC wants a precedent where candidates have to guess how long it will take for a foreign nation to process their renunciation, or where government can exclude potential candidates from standing by calling a snap election that leaves some of them with insufficient time to renounce, or where a sudden change in processing times can result in a bunch of people who thought they had allowed sufficient time based upon historical averages being caught out anyways.

    The best way to avoid that is to count the renunciation from the date the candidate completes their final step, so long as it’s ultimately effective.

  2. With 60+% of voters opposed to them, the right fighting SSM “all the way” to the next election will put one more nail in the coalition coffin.

  5. Another thought experiment.

    Two Australian citizens are also citizens of the same foreign power. An election is called. They both fill in the paperwork to renounce citizenship and send it to the appropriate authority at the same minute of the same day. One application is processed and completed the day before nominations close, the other on the day after.

    So one candidate can validly stand in the election while the other can’t, even though they took exactly the same action under exactly the same circumstances.

    That can’t possibly be right, if the law has anything to do with justice.

  6. a r, BB et al,

    And I think an important point is that such a decision would be consistent with past rulings in that it would not cause any past judgements to be viewed differently.

  8. Steven @ #660 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 6:36 pm

    Bemused

    There seems to be a continual procession of Victorian Chief Medical Officers (CMO). Each time the office of the CMO is interviewed it is someone different.

    What is going on?

    I have very little time for the CMO. They were lazy/incomptent/asleep at the wheel wrt the freak thunderstorm / asthma combination that hit Melbourne a few months ago.

    I have had zero contact with CMOs, but I did a number of years ago have contact with the Chief Psychiatrist. Foremost among his capabilities was the ability to tell shameless lies and contradict himself when it suited.

  10. I note that in an earlier blog entry, Jeremy Gans waxes large on the fact that High Court rulings ‘interpret’ the Constitution rather than applying it.

    The minute – in Sykes v Cleary – the High Court introduced the idea of reasonable steps, it departed from the black letter ruling. Sam Dastyari was, throughout the relevant time period, a dual citizen and remains so. If we are to interpret the Constitution as it is written, he shouldn’t be there.

    He is, and will remain so, because the High Court expanded the clause beyond its literal interpretation to make it possible for people who can’t comply with it to stand.

    If they go all black letter and decide that the whole renunciation process – from the first ‘am I a citizen of your country” enquiry through to the ‘here is the letter saying you’re no longer a citizen’ must be completed before close of nominations, then a whole raft of candidates will be ineligible to stand at any given election, because the timeframe (generally four days, remember) will make it impossible – you not only have to guess at when an election is likely to be going to be held, but apply so far out from when you think this date is likely to be to allow time for any problems along the way (including the relevant country simply not getting around to it).

    The High Court has made it fairly clear that one of their imperatives is that people should be able to stand at the particular election they want to stand for (if your platform is to stop Adani, you are not terribly interested in standing at the federal election four years from now).

  11. Barney in Go Dau @ #696 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 7:21 pm

    There is, the day the country says you are not a citizen.

    You are assuming there is such a definitive date. What if there is not? What if a country replies with “Thank you for your application to renounce your citizenship, which we received on 1/12/2017. Your application is due to be heard by our renunciation committee on the 30/12/2017, and assuming it is successful then your passport will be cancelled as of 1/1/2018. Your residency rights will be terminated as of 2/2/2018. Your pension will be terminated as of 3/3/2018. For all other entitlements you should consider them to be terminated on the date you receive this letter, which we have posted via surface mail with inadequate postage. Good luck with your proposed nomination to the Australian parliament, you traitor!”

  13. “Foremost among his capabilities was the ability to tell shameless lies and contradict himself when it suited.”

    Was he Tony Abbott? It certainly seems he would certainly be comfortable on the Coalition front bench. Also in the Trump administration.

  14. Zeh @7:42, yes they eventually got there. I recorded ch7 to see if Riley has woken up. Nup! Had the Bishop and Wong quotes and said “Both major parties claimed…” and didn’t bother pointing out the truth.

  15. Player One @ #708 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 3:43 pm

    Barney in Go Dau @ #696 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 7:21 pm

    There is, the day the country says you are not a citizen.

    You are assuming there is such a definitive date. What if there is not? What if a country replies with “Thank you for your application to renounce your citizenship, which we received on 1/12/2017. Your application is due to be heard by our renunciation committee on the 30/12/2017, and assuming it is successful then your passport will be cancelled as of 1/1/2018. Your residency rights will be terminated as of 2/2/2018. Your pension will be terminated as of 3/3/2018. For all other entitlements you should consider them to be terminated on the date you receive this letter, which we have posted via surface mail with inadequate postage. Good luck with your proposed nomination to the Australian parliament, you traitor!”

    You are being simply ridiculous and unwilling as usual to concede a point.

    Are we grumpy with the results of the postal thing being imminent?

  16. ‘7:30 mentioning the polls and that the government was dragged to Labor’s position on publishing citizenship docs’

    Followed by bloody Brandis!

  17. lizzie @ #666 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 6:46 pm

    Now that the sun is well over the yard arm, i’d like to share a doggie story with you. (Medical warning)

    Yesterday afternoon my Golden Retriever started bleeding quite profusely from his penis sheath. We had spent an hour or so in the garden and came in for lunch. Of course, it would be on a Sunday. A fair bit of floor mopping went on. He was a little subdued, but not sick-looking. His gums were pink, he ate his tea as usual (well, he’s a greedy Golden) and by bed time the bleeding seemed to have slowed.

    This morning he had cleaned himself up and ate a hearty breakfast, as they say. Nevertheless, I took him to the Vet for a check-up although I had a suspicion about the cause.

    Yes, diagnosis was that a leech had climbed up into the sheath, opened a small vein and sucked until satisfied, then departed, having left a dose of anti-clotting chemical behind.

    So, my male friends, be warned. Never lie down in wet grass with no protection. 😆

    Yep! Known to happen to dogs.
    A friend had it happen to his dog, a low slung Bassett, and the leech was discovered due to the dogs distress. I forget how it was removed. Cigarette method I think.
    Another argument in favour of circumcision.

  18. “I divorce thee – I divorce thee- I divorce thee”. But it doesn’t work like that. The crux of the original case all those years ago, was that just making a declaration was insufficient, proper official rules had to be followed.

    They can whinge all they like about how long their case may take, compared to somebody else. They should have thought of this if they were contemplating standing.

    Player One, in your example you have a non-citizen having full residency rights and drawing a pension. Again, I am sure it doesn’t work that way.

  19. ajm @ #689 Monday, November 13th, 2017 – 7:15 pm

    —
    I was always amused when sitting on committees when a member of the committee resigned and the committee “accepted” the resignation. Why bother – it was surely effective as soon as it was made – the law can not compel you to comply with a right that you have rejected. That is an absolutely basic freedom. You may have a residual “obligation” arising from your prior possession of the “right” but you don’t have the right any more.

    Perhaps this is totally down the wrong track but it’s interesting to speculate. This will be my only contribution to the PB “debate” on the matter. I look forward to the HC exercising whatever ingenuity is necessary to pilot a course through the rapids.

    I was once on a committee of sorts and the Secretary kept threatening to resign as a device to get his own way.

    Eventually, some committee members, including yours truly, had had enough of this and so conspired that the next time he threatened to resign, a committee member would immediately move that the resignation be accepted, the motion would be immediately seconded and a vote held.

    At the next meeting, our Secretary was gooooorn!

  20. Geez. Former Premier of NSW Barry O’Farrell on James Paterson’s SSM bill

    “another example that quality education doesnt guarantee a working braing”

  24. If Ms Keay turns out to have a wrong view of the law and winds up out on her ear, we, the taxpayers, will have to fork out about a million dollars for a by-election. That’s quite a public subsidy for her sentimental attachment to UK citizenship.

    Section 386 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides that a candidate who is convicted of bribery or undue influence is excluded from being chosen or sitting as a member or senator for two years. I’d like to see a similar exclusion imposed on MPs and senators whose incorrect declarations in their nominations impose these sorts of costs on the community.

  26. Ides:

    Paterson has admitted he voted Yes in the postal survey and that he is not religious. Definitely reckon Bazza is on the mark there. How else to explain how Paterson ended up being a patsy for the hard right jesus freaks!

  27. Listening to George Brandis prosecute the government flacid case on S44 today has me thinking “ has Georgie boy waited too long to take the cocktail circuit of London”?

    He had the temerity to equate Justine Keays matter (British by descent, bellatedly submitted renunciation, confirmation received post election) with the ‘honourable’ cases of Baaarnyard and Alexander who, despite knowing, or should have known of this British/Kiwi descendance) did nothing.

    Do nothing, or bellatedly renounce?

    Brandis argues the first is ok, the second a hanging offence.

    And this from our First Legal Officer. Enjoy you short sojourn on the cocktail circuit, George. Come the change of the government you will be ‘boned’.

  29. “I divorce thee – I divorce thee- I divorce thee”. But it doesn’t work like that. The crux of the original case all those years ago, was that just making a declaration was insufficient, proper official rules had to be followed.

    You’re confusing the matter. The current batch of Labor referrals did follow the proper, official rules, and did so on a timeframe where they completed all of their obligations before the close of nominations.

    That specific case has not been ruled upon yet. It’s not comparable to someone simply shouting “I renounce” into the ether. Unless there’s actually a country that actually has that as its formal renunciation process, of course.

  32. Ides:

    IPA is also supposed to be about reducing unnecessary govt regulation. Yet Paterson’s bill simply introduces more unnecessary govt regulation.

    Go figure!

  38. ABC Q&A‏Verified account @QandA
    10h10 hours ago
    Tonight watch #QandA w/ @AngusTaylorMP @terrimbutler @ProfBrianCox Judith Sloan @shara_evans at 9.35pm AEDT on @ABCTV @abcnews & @abciview

  40. Angus Taylor (assistant Minister for Cities) turned up to a GreenStar communities event said we needed to build more motorways to get more land release happening (urban sprawl). Right after Clover Moore gave a speech on the need to encourage more public transport.

  41. IPA members don’t want to be regulated and they don’t want to pay tax, so they fight to reduce and if possible eliminate as much of these two ‘curses’ as they can.

    I wouldn’t have thought they’d be too fussed about social matters like same sex marriage. Indeed, it could provide business opportunities for some members. So it makes me wonder why they seem to be supporting the ‘No’ case.

    I think that there are two reasons:

    1. A cultural alignment with traditional conservatives, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of making money (like penalty rates for working on the traditional Sabbath, or pokie precommitment).

    2. They don’t want to be bothered with anti discrimination laws, part of their wider aversion to regulation. They want to be able to discriminate against anyone they like, on any grounds they like or none, with no repercussions.

  42. Why I support The Poll Bludger:

    Hi William,

    I am delighted to support The Poll Bludger.

    I am thinking very carefully about where to spread my dollars in support of independent media, and Poll Bludger is top of my list.

    The Bludgertariat takes as input all sorts of News, from everywhere, with different Points of View. It then excretes, as a democracy sausage, an excellent precis of the important news. There is no one accepted POV – the Greens and Labor, who are the main denizens of this space – each get their POV heard. The view of the Liberal Party (soft wing) are also heard and considered.

    The most important thing about The Poll Bludger is that all these Points of View are supported by evidence, provided by the collective Bludgertariat. Not all posters are Non-Point-Of-View, but there is enough of a Brains’ Trust in the collective of posters for several evidence-based views to emerge – yes, there is no one way of looking and understanding current events.

  44. Don’t use an election as an Excuse to not do your homework…

    I.e “Dog ate my homework”, “I didn’t know”, “I forgot”.

    It’s bullshitting your tax payers.

Comments Page 15 of 18
1 … 14 15 16 … 18

Leave a Reply

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