Newspoll and Ipsos: 53-47 to Labor

Julie Bishop edges Malcolm Turnbull as preferred Liberal leader, amid a static picture on voting intention.

The first Newspoll in three weeks is a better one for the government, with Labor’s two-party lead down from 55-45 to 53-47. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up two to 36%, Labor down one to 37%, the Greens up one to 10% and One Nation down two to 8%. The better result for the Coalition flows through to Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings, with approval up three to 32% and disapproval down one to 57%, and his preferred prime minister lead out from 36-34 to 39-33. Bill Shorten is down one on approval to 33% and up one on disapproval to 54%.

We also have the first Ipsos poll for the Fairfax papers in three months, and it also has Labor leading 53-47, which is unchanged on the previous poll (this is with preferences allocated as per the last election – Ipsos produces a separate result on respondent-allocated preferences, but it’s not available yet). Both major parties are down a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 34% and Labor to 33%. Ipsos continues to record unusually strong support for the Greens, although they are down a point to 13%, and has One Nation on 7%, which I believe is the first result they have published for them. In keeping with Ipsos’s past form, leadership ratings are unusually favourable, and low on uncommitted responses: Malcolm Turnbull scores 42% approval and 49% disapproval, while Bill Shorten is on 38% and 42%. Also unusual is the size of Turnbull’s 48-31 lead as preferred prime minister.

The poll finds Julie Bishop (32%) edging past Malcolm Turnbull (29%) as preferred Liberal leader, with Tony Abbott on 14%, Peter Dutton on 5% and Scott Morrison on 4%. A further question suggests opposition to the notion of dumping Turnbull, but there are problems with it: it does not relate to Turnbull specifically, but to whether governing parties should or should not changes leaders mid-term. As stated, it appears those favouring an affirmative position are required to suggest that leadership changes should happen in all circumstances. So I’m not sure how much to make of the fact that only 25% signed on to this, with 71% opposed. The poll also finds 49% supporting a change to Section 44 with 47% opposed, corroborating last week’s finding by YouGov, and has 71% in support of a royal commission into banks, with just 19% opposed.

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.

724 comments on “Newspoll and Ipsos: 53-47 to Labor”

  1. Confessions

    The full transcript has differences. But pretty much the same. It was a bit long so did not post it all but YOLO so here they both are 2017 followed by 2012.

    I am very firmly of the view that families are the foundation of our society and would be a stronger society if more people were married and by that I mean formally, legally married and fewer were divorced.

    If consulted by friends about marital dramas I always encouraged the singles to marry, the married to stick together and the neglectful to renew their commitment and the wronged to forgive. I am utterly unpersuaded by opposition [to marriage equality] that my marriage to Lucy or indeed any marriage is undermined by two gay men or women setting up house down the road whether it is called a marriage or not.

    Let’s be honest with each other, the threat to traditional marriage is not from gay people but a lack of loving commitment, whether found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery to name just a few manifestations of that loveless desert in which to many marriages come to grief.

    If the threat to marry today is lack of commitment, then surely other couples making and maintaining that commitment sets a good example rather than a bad one.

    Are not the gays who seek the right to marry, to formalise their commitment to each other, holding up a mirror to the heterosexuals who are marrying less frequently and divorcing more often?
    Commitment, loyalty and responsibility.
    John Howard was most definitely not thinking of gay couples when he said in 1995:
    “A stable, functioning family provides the best welfare support system yet devised.”
    But the point is well made Co-dependency is a good thing.
    If we believe two gay people are better off together than living alone comforted only by their respective cats then why should we deprive that realtionship of equal recognition?
    And for those who see this as an idealogical issue recall British Prime Minister David Cameron as he spoke for marriage equality six years ago:
    “To anyone who has reservations I say yes, it’s about equality. But it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us. Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”
    Mr Speaker, as I said at the start of this marriage survey, this is an issue of fundamental fairness

    2012

    I am very firmly of the view that families are the foundation of our society and that we would be a stronger society if more people were married, and by that I mean formally, legally married, and fewer were divorced.

    If consulted by friends about marital dramas, I always encourage the singles to marry, the married to stick together, the neglectful and wayward to renew their loving commitment and the wronged to forgive.

    And I have to say that I am utterly unpersuaded by the proposition that my marriage to Lucy, or indeed any marriage, is undermined by two gay men or two lesbians setting up house down the road — whether it is called a marriage or not.

    Regrettably, this aspect of the debate is dripping with the worst sort of hypocrisy and the deepest pools are all too often found among the most sanctimonious.

    Let us be honest with each other. The threat to marriage is not the gays. It is a lack of loving commitment – whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of the loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief.

    If the conduct of another couple is likely to undermine the marriage of another, it may because they set a bad example. If one husband sees another treating his wife neglectfully, he may, possibly, be inclined to think he can do the same. If one wife belittles her husband, another may feel she can do the same to hers. That, I concede, is possible.

    But, do the bishops seriously imagine that legalising gay marriage will result in thousands of parties to heterosexual marriages suddenly deciding to get divorced so they can marry a person of the same sex?

    If the threat to marriage today is lack of commitment, then surely other couples making and maintaining that commitment sets a good rather than a bad example.

    Are not the gays who seek the right to marry, to formalise their commitment to each other, holding up a mirror to the heterosexuals who are marrying less frequently and divorcing more often?

    There is a strong public interest in people living together and supporting and helping each other.

    John Howard was not thinking of gay couples when he said in 1995 “A stable functioning family provides the best welfare support system yet devised.”[12] But the point is well made. Codependency is a good thing.

    If, for just a moment, I can pretend to be an economist and know the price of everything and the value of nothing, there will plainly be less demand for social services, medical expenses, hospital care if people, especially older people, like Michael and Johan, live together as opposed to being in lonely isolation consoled only by their respective cats.

    Study after study has demonstrated that people are better off financially, healthier, happier if they are married and indeed, I repeat, if they are formally married as opposed to simply living together. [13]

    As for the political or ideological dimension to this consider how British Prime Minister David Cameron framed the issue last year:

    “And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, its about equality, but its also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

    https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/reflections-on-gay-marriage-michael-kirby-lecture-2012

  2. poroti:

    Apologies, I misunderstood. I thought you were claiming the PM had plagiarised a Kirby speech. But all he’s done is touch up an earlier speech of his own.

    This isn’t remarkable and happens all the time. I myself have a half dozen powerpoint presentations I routinely switch out depending on the audience I’m delivering them to.

  3. Confessions

    It shows the “care factor” he has for what he claims as an achievement, SFA. For something important or of great moment you would roll out a new speech rather than rehash.

  4. As one of the 12 senators from Tasmania, Eric Abetz arguably represents, to be generous, 30,000 voters. Every mainland MHR represents about 100,000.

    Why the ABC wastes so many resources giving publicity to this political fringe dweller who has even been booted out of the ministry by his own party is beyond me.

    Especially when he insists on being rude, offensive and plain vicious.

    It is tabloid journalism at its very worst.

  5. Re the New England by-election, the writs have to be returned ‘on or before February 4’. I don’t think they’ll be returned this week, so we won’t have the ‘pleasure’ of seeing Barnaby on the floor of the House before the Parliament rises for the long Christmas break.

    http://www.aec.gov.au/new-england/

  6. Only in Australia do you bring out a former human-rights commissioner and then grill them about a handful of possibly mildly racist students who probably made up a story about how their social media accounts were hijacked while the government continues doing who knows what to hundreds of people in offshore detention centers.

    Who vets these waste-of-time questions?

  7. As good example as you can get of preparation of ‘alternative truth’.

    Trump trying out suggesting that the tape is not ‘authentic’. If he’s not called out on it by the press he’ll claim it is ‘fake news’.

    In this case however it will be difficult to sustain after the Billy Bush Op/Ed in the NYT.

    There should be much more of this direct refuting done by the Press.

    And the difference between being a ‘reporter’ and a ‘journalist’.

    Billy Bush has said it was indeed Donald Trump’s voice captured on a 2005 Access Hollywood tape talking about fame enabling him to grope and try to have sex with women.

    In an op-ed published in The New York Times, Bush said: “Of course he said it.”

    Bush said he felt the need to write the piece following reports Mr Trump had recently suggested in private the tape was not authentic.

    “President Trump is currently indulging in some revisionist history,” Bush wrote.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-04/billy-bush-says-infamous-access-hollywood-trump-tape-is-real/9224358

  8. UK BrExit:

    The BBC is reporting that although the EU look to be satisfied on the UK’s acceptance of financial obligations and citizenship they are looking less so that ‘sufficient progress’ has been made on arrangements for the Irish Border.

    BrExit is seriously in doubt.

    Regardless of ‘exit’ or not it will take decades for the UK economy to recover and I think it will get much worse before it gets better.

    The loss of UK ‘clout’ in Europe and generally in world affairs will probably never be recovered.

    Silly Poms …

  9. Morning all.
    Apparently Morrison said this in his speech yesterday on the SSM bill:

    “Separation of church and state, does not mean the inoculation of the influence of faith on the state.”

    I thought that is precisely what separation of church and state meant.

Leave a Reply

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