ReachTEL: 54-46 to Labor

More evidence that the Barnaby Joyce saga has shut out the Coalition’s glimmer of polling sunlight at the start of the year.

The latest ReachTEL poll for Sky News is the Coalition’s worst result from that pollster this term, showing Labor with a two-party lead of 54-46, out from 52-48 at the previous poll on January 25. On the primary vote, the Coalition is down a point to 33%, Labor is up one to 37%, the Greens are up one to 11% and One Nation are down one to 7%. Malcolm Turnbull’s lead on the forced response preferred prime minister question is 53-47, down from 54-46. The poll was conducted on Thursday, the evening before Barnaby Joyce’s resignation: it found 57% thought he should indeed resign, against 32% who thought he should remain. A question on who should be Nationals leader had Joyce on 23%, Bridget McKenzie on 15%, Michael McCormack on 11%, Darren Chester on 6% and “don’t know” a formidable 40%.

UPDATE: As noted in comments, the Coalition have done well to make it to 54-46 on ReachTEL’s respondent-allocated two-party preferred result. If 2016 election preference flows are applied, the result is around 55.5-44.5.

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.

1,838 comments on “ReachTEL: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 2 of 37
1 2 3 … 37

  1. Really Player 1, Boerwar – it wasn’t that long ago that the ALP including Wayne Swan, Mark Butler et al were wearing sprigs of wattle with Bob Brown and Christine Milne and signing the Alliance document. They were lovely photos.

    Of course the ALP will only ever govern in majority or not at all until it decides to govern in minority when convenience suits.

  3. Agree GG,

    But the pundits and their repetitious hopes for reset annoy me. Regular polling at 55-45% might help focus them on the fact that the electorate has stopped listening.

  4. one thing being bandied about is that the Libs and the Nats have been in coalition for 95 years. This is untrue because:

    1. (As others have pointed out), the Libs were not formed until 1943.
    2. The Libs and the Nats tend to split during times when they are not in Government.

  5. Player One

    Hey, I just want a person like Katherine Murphy to start analysing policies, like she claims she wants to do, but then spends her precious column inches justifying/defending herself.

    Get over it, Katherine. Start reporting, stop deciding.

  6. I don’t think its a case of the electorate stopping listening, its more a case that you won’t even get a hearing if you can’t be united.

    There’s no enthusiasm for Shorten at all and he will be a terrible PM (and most likely declared anti-party by the end of his time too a la Rudd and Latham) but in the absence of a stable united show he wins by default.

  7. I find it comical whoever said that the Gillard govt is indicative of how a Shorten govt will behave.

    I suppose it might be true if you take away all the bullshit that passed for political commentary and outrage from the opposition and actually analyse what the Gillard govt did/tried to achieve during the years from 2010 – 13.

    But the nightmare rubbish that surrounded the govt of that time will not occur unless we get Abbott back as opposition leader and the media play patsy yet again. One would think they’d be slightly immune – just as they are not reacting to, say, the current debt & deficit disaster … even though it is far worse than during the Rudd, Gillard years.

  8. I was thinking that Turnbull handled Trump rather well, but that moment soon passed.

    It occured to me that everyone knows you just have to suck up to Trump. And given getting on with POTUS is in everyone’s interest, most people will give you the benefit of the doubt, as long as you don’t suck too hard.

    Meeting Trump isn’t really that difficult. The right tie and a few platitudes about mateship.

  9. Trog

    The Greens would be worth a book when they achieve something. (Talking about stuff does not count). Which means that the political book scribblers are safe for all time.

    But still, your titles notion is attractive;

    ‘The Greens Party: A Quarter of a Century of Nothing Doing.’
    ‘Bob Brown: His Achievements in Government.’
    ‘Christine Milne: Her Achievements in Government.’
    ‘Di Natale: His Achievements in Government.’
    ‘The Greens Tragedy: From Effective Environmental Achievers to Trot-Ridden Polemicists.’
    ‘The Greens: A Study in the Fear of Success.’
    ‘Greens Policy Making Principles : Everything is the Enemy of Anything.’
    ‘The Greens: Where True Catholicism Went.’
    ‘The Greens: Apotheosis of the Knowledge Industry Exploiters’
    ‘The Thousand Year Greens Reich’
    ‘The Greens: The Never ending March’
    ‘The Greens: From Smashed Avocadoes to Pulled Pork’.

  10. Edwina StJohn @ #51 Sunday, February 25th, 2018 – 4:44 pm

    Really Player 1, Boerwar – it wasn’t that long ago that the ALP including Wayne Swan, Mark Butler et al were wearing sprigs of wattle with Bob Brown and Christine Milne and signing the Alliance document. They were lovely photos.

    If Bob Browne or even Christine Milne were still around then you might have a point. The Greens were more of a true environmental party in those days, and even so it didn’t really work out well for anyone involved, did it?

    At least the ALP learns from their mistakes. The Greens just seem destined to repeat them.

  11. Whats left of the Gillard Government’s “achievements” ?

    I think you could maybe say the NDIS but even that had to be funded properly by the Libs ( and was opposed by the lionhearts of the ALP).

    Everything else washed away like sand at the beach.

  12. “I think the issue is the Government doesn’t seem to be able to go 90 days without a problem blowing up. ”

    Completed tosh ESJ. Experience shows they cant go more than 3-5 days without something blowing up that leads to them inflicting some ridiculous and disproportionate level of self harm.

  14. ‘Question says:
    Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 4:52 pm

    I was thinking that Turnbull handled Trump rather well, but that moment soon passed.

    It occured to me that everyone knows you just have to suck up to Trump.’

    With narcissists you never win. You might survive a bit longer but that would be the optimum you could hope for. What I found staggering was that Turnbull was desperate enough to risk a trip to DC to try to restore his flaccid fortunes.

  17. I was thinking that Turnbull handled Trump rather well, but that moment soon passed.

    I don’t think he did too badly considering that he’s got that inferiority thing going on, and that his and Trump’s relationship after Trump was elected didn’t get off to the best of starts.

  20. From the Canberra Times website and taken by David Pope in the inner north suburb of O’Conner.

    We have a similar duck & ducklings warning sign not far from us to protect the residents of a settling pond along a large drain carrying water from the surrounding hills.

  23. BW,

    I think those meetings get arranged well ahead of events, but with Turnbull’s reverse-midas, it won’t surprise me if Trump has a bad week. 🙂

  25. Interesting afternoon here on Poll Bludger. I’ve learnt a lot.

    For example:

    Criticizing Labor’s position on one particular issue apparently means you want to destroy them.

    One party’s supporters are massively disproportionately represented on Poll Bludger… and that party is the Greens!

    Disagreeing with C@tmomma on anything whatsoever apparently means you are attacking her personally*.

    Boerwar, briefly, and C@tmomma are still really friendly and pleasant individuals, perfectly capable of engaging in polite, non-hysterical discussions with people they disagree with, and definitely don’t ever resort to hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, and accusations of being a “Menzies House troll” on those who support a particular political party that they don’t like. And they clearly do not warrant being called out for their behaviour by more reasonable posters of similar political stripes here.

    Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go see Menzies House about all that back pay they owe me.

    * Dropping the snark for a second: this in no way means I approve of ESJ’s pathetic needling and bullying of C@t. He is a far more unpleasant individual than C@t could ever be.

  29. Make sure you get the Sunday Loading paid at Menzies, Asha. They say they don’t pay it but if you insist they’ll cough up.

  30. citizen:

    We have the duck signs here, but during turtle hatchling season have these signs on a road around the nesting spots.

  34. Disagreeing with C@tmomma on anything whatsoever apparently means you are attacking her personally*.

    As you wel know, I have agreed with you as many times as I have disagreed with you. And the times I have disagreed with you I have tried to put up evidence to support my position. It’s not my fault if you were wrong! 🙂

  35. Don’t know Pegasus re Garrett.

    Given the policy free zone of the ALP its very hard to discern the politics when it descends to being entirely about personalities.

  36. Trog

    Several commentators have noted the obvious: the Greens are riddled with wealthy inner burban knowledge economy people who can afford politically to play around. And they do. Another election defeat, another failure to form government is neither here nor there for these sporting folk.

    They are nimbies, wealthy, mobile and have little or no real understanding of how poorer workers outside the knowledge economy struggle. They are the analogues of the Russian revolutionaries who went to live and work with the peasants in order to raise their consciousness: not a fucking clue about reality.

    The inner-urban knowledge economy folk have wages that are rising far above the rate of inflation.

    It does not matter to them if the Greens fail.

    They are safe, cosy, insulated and cosseted. They will be able to buy their way out of any climate-induced personal stress. They include, of course, Di Natale who is spending the equivalent of the disposable income of 100,000 poor people to set himself up in a mansion in a Greens enclave.

    And one other thing. When push comes to shove they will skip to the Coalition with barely a backwards look.

  37. Edwina StJohn @ #61 Sunday, February 25th, 2018 – 4:54 pm

    Whats left of the Gillard Government’s “achievements” ?

    I think you could maybe say the NDIS but even that had to be funded properly by the Libs ( and was opposed by the lionhearts of the ALP).

    Everything else washed away like sand at the beach.

    The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is hopefully a lasting legacy.

    But sadly the cartel of Rudd/Murdoch/Abbott have destructed the legislative reforms of the Gillard Govt.

  39. Asha Leu says:
    Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 5:03 pm
    Interesting afternoon here on Poll Bludger. I’ve learnt a lot.

    For example:

    Criticizing Labor’s position on one particular issue apparently means you want to destroy them.

    ohhhh, Labor enjoys criticism, make no mistake. Every time the Gs attack Labor thy are declaring to the electorate that Labor do not equal the Greens. This is a way of campaigning for Labor. I welcome it.

    The error the Gs make is to suppose that by assailing Labor they can improve their own ratings. In fact, the reverse applies. Every time the Gs play that old tune “Blame Labor”, they repel support.

    Labor and its electoral base are well and truly aware that the Gs are not to be trusted…at all….ever….on anything. The Gs have become yet another anti-Labor gramophone. It is no wonder the Gs have turned to the privileged elements in a handful of urban centres for solutions to their existential problems. They have alienated everyone else.

  42. C@t:

    I’m not saying you don’t provide evidence to back up your claims, or that you don’t try to thoroughly argue your case. Simply that you are much too quick to read insults (towards yourself or to the Labor party) into what is often just somebody refuting something you have said, and to turn what could have been a fairly polite discussion into something much more negative.

    (I’ll note that I’m not including what I wrote above in that category. That admittedly was rather more insulting than good-natured.)

  43. Edwina StJohn @ #85 Sunday, February 25th, 2018 – 5:12 pm

    Don’t know Pegasus re Garrett.

    Given the policy free zone of the ALP its very hard to discern the politics when it descends to being entirely about personalities.

    If Garrett ran for the Lord Mayoralty, there is no guarantee she would win and if she did win she would be leading a team of that was put together by ex Lord Mayor Doyle (who was previously the Leader of the Liberal Opposition in Victoria back in the “Naughties’). So, my view is it’s not a particularly good fit for her.

    My mail is that she has been slotted to run for the new seat that is being created in the Western suburbs of Melbourne. However, this is not guaranteed because of the changes in factional alignments that is creating a disturbance in the force in the Victorian ALP. She might be using the possibility of running for lord mayor as leverage to get pre-selection and not causing a by-election.

  45. poroti says:
    Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 5:04 pm
    briefly

    Oh yes “economic rationalists” now where have they got the great unwashed ?

    The point being that Tory rebels, Lib-Dems, the SNP, Plain Cymru, members of the European Parliament, local government, business organisations, unionists and UK Labor are getting closer to preventing an unbelievable act of self-destruction that is otherwise about to be carried out by the neo-Imperialists, aristocrats, Putinists, authoritarians and opportunists that comprise the Romantic wing of the Tory party.

  48. A 2010 demographic analysis of Greens voters by Possum:

    https://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/04/15/class-voting-and-broad-left-demography/

    For starters, a large part of the “cultural” aspect of Greens voters living together appears to come as a result of hard cultural issues such as their employment, rather than because of soft, vacuous stereotypes like the cultural pursuit of the perfect latte – the sort of nonsense promulgated by pop-demographers like Bernard Salt (a story of which I should tell you about one day – a question I asked him at the recent Qld population summit resulting in some horseshit about “Metropolitan Chauvinism” and latte drinkers living in West End. Ugh!).

    People working in the arts, education, media and technology industries are more likely to vote Green, and as a result of the distribution of workplaces for these industries having a higher density in the inner suburbs, the people living within close proximity to their workplaces naturally leads to the inner cities having higher levels of Greens voters.

    As the density of these industries reduces, so to does the Greens vote.

Comments Page 2 of 37
1 2 3 … 37

Leave a Reply

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