Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor

A bad Newspoll for the Liberals, made worse by a sharp deterioration in Scott Morrison’s personal ratings.

The latest Newspoll has Labor’s lead up again after a period of moderating results since the leadership upheaval, the two-party lead now at 54-46, compared with 53-47 in the poll a fortnight ago. Labor is up a point on the primary vote to 39%, while the Coalition is down one to 36%, the Greens are down two to 9%, and One Nation are steady on 6%. Still more worrying for the Liberals is a reversal of the tide in favour of Scott Morrison, who records his first net negative personal ratings to date, with approval down four to 41% and disapproval up six to 44%. Bill Shorten is respectively up two to 37% and down one to 50%, and his deficit as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 45-34 to 43-35. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1646.

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.

3,075 comments on “Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor”

  1. Imagine that this happens:

    The Commonwealth Government agrees to fund the state governments completely.

    The state governments agree to scrap all of their taxes, excises, levies, user charges, and other revenue-raising measures.

    The Commonwealth Government would fully fund every state government. The roles of the state governments would be to

    manage and administer their federally supplied budgets

    design and deliver public services and public infrastructure that meet the needs of their residents

    The state governments would be sovereign over how they design and deliver services and infrastructure that are within the scope of the state governments and they would be sovereign over how they manage and administer their budgets.

    The Commonwealth government would continue to design and deliver services and infrastructure that are within the scope of Commonwealth responsibilities.

    The Commonwealth Government guarantees that no state will be worse off than it is now in terms of combined per capita real spending (federal and state spending combined).

    The Commonwealth and each state government reaches an agreement about how the state government budget allocation will be determined at the start of the new arrangement and how the allocation will be adjusted each year.

    This agreement would encompass factors such as

    the population of the state

    the demographic composition of the state’s population

    the extent of socioeconomic disadvantage in the state

    the population density and the spatial distribution of the state’s residents

    the costs of delivering services in the state (which are typically larger for states with more geographically dispersed populations)

    The federal government alone would impose and enforce tax obligations in Australia. Federal government taxation:

    maintains demand for and therefore drives the value of the Australian Government’s currency (because millions of people need to get their hands on it in order to extinguish their tax liabilities and avoid the penalties for non-compliance)

    creates non-inflationary real resource space for government spending (by deleting some of the non-government sector’s spending power)

    controls inflation (by deleting some of the non-government sector’s spending power)

    influences the distribution of income and wealth

    influences the behaviours of households and firms (e.g. discourages behaviours that the government considers harmful such as pollution, resource depletion, speculative investment, smoking etc.)

    The state governments would be relieved of the opprobrium and hassle of having to extract money from their residents.

    The state governments love the deal – they get to focus on service delivery without having to worry about their budgets.

    Imagine that the Commonwealth Government wants to make the same deal with local governments (i.e. the Commonwealth provides all of the funding for local governments; the local governments scrap all of their taxes).

    All of the state governments are happy with this deal.

    There are no constitutional impediments to the federal government taking over taxation of land and buildings. The High Court has ruled that the federal government can impose these kinds of taxes.

    The federal government already makes grants directly to local governments, although the practice is contentious and the High Court has constrained it.

    The taxes that the state governments rely on the most – transaction taxes (such as stamp duty and conveyancing duties), payroll taxes, taxes on “bads” such as gambling – are economically inefficient and create perverse outcomes (such as governments not wanting the frequency of problem gambling to diminish).

    Everyone would be better off if the state and local governments stopped collecting revenue entirely and the federal government provided adequate untied budget allocations to the sub-national governments.

  2. What’s Shorten’s experience for being PM? 3 years as a relatively junior minister. Leader of a shitty union before that. We are possibly looking at the most under qualified PM in Australian history, at least in modern Australian history.

  3. Windover, you seem to have an adamantine erection for Geoffrey Rush. What’s your story?

    Why do you care so much that another poster states that the suffering of an abuse survivor is typically far greater than the suffering of a very rich and powerful celebrity who takes a hit to their reputation because of their own foolish conduct?

  4. Upnorth. According to a story in the AFR, an exit poll said that 71 per cent of jews in Wentworth voted LNP. They were more conservative than I thought.

  5. Boerwar

    He is/was also excellent at dealing with the pesky Interruptus ButButBut species of journos. I noticed it during the RGR years, he had a way of ploughing on and over journos , there was a tone of voice and style that seemed to stymie them. After a couple of interviews they realised ‘resistance is futile’ 🙂

  6. Rudd, although having no ministerial experience was at least a diplomat and effectively ran the Goss Qld government. So arguably far more experienced.

  7. nath’s comment:

    “What’s Shorten’s experience for being PM? 3 years as a relatively junior minister. Leader of a shitty union before that. We are possibly looking at the most under qualified PM in Australian history, at least in modern Australian history.”

    …would have to be one of the most stupid, banal and puerile postings ever.

  8. poroti says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:42 pm

    nath

    Toned Abs and Lucien Aye were supposedly eminently qualified. How did that turn out ?
    ________________________
    I’m just looking at it from purely an experience perspective. Abbott had been a minister for about a decade, MT only a few years, but was a barrister, ran companies, so plenty of experience there. Howard, Treasurer under Fraser, Keating, 7-8 years as Treasurer.

    I mean there is no evidence that Shorten can effectively run anything more than a dodgy union.

  9. Nath

    “We are possibly looking at the most under qualified PM in Australian history, at least in modern Australian history.”

    Chifley was a train driver, and Keating managed a rock band. Both were brilliant PMs.

  10. Boerwar @ #2698 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 3:24 pm

    Albanese is excellent ministerial material. He understands the issues. He is good at formulating relevant policy. He is across his brief as and when required.
    He will make an excellent contribution in successive Shorten governments.

    And, refreshingly, still loves a good drink!

    nath @ #2712 Friday, November 2nd, 2018 – 3:45 pm

    poroti says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:42 pm

    nath

    Toned Abs and Lucien Aye were supposedly eminently qualified. How did that turn out ?
    ________________________
    I’m just looking at it from purely an experience perspective. Abbott had been a minister for about a decade, MT only a few years, but was a barrister, ran companies, so plenty of experience there. Howard, Treasurer under Fraser, Keating, 7-8 years as Treasurer.

    I mean there is no evidence that Shorten can effectively run anything more than a dodgy union.

    Got up and developed NDIS policy pretty much on his own, as far as I am aware.

  11. Abbott had been a minister for about a decade, MT only a few years, but was a barrister, ran companies, so plenty of experience there. Howard, Treasurer under Fraser

    I’m pissing myself laughing with nath putting holes in both feet here.

  12. Overweening ambition is a discriptor more appropriately applied to your attempts at trolling.

    You’re out of your league here, sunshine.

  13. zoomster:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:16 pm
    —————————————

    I’m not attacking Rush. People are putting any such words into my mouth. I am opposing a system that enables the wealthy and powerful to silence criticism using the bludgeon of defamation laws. I want more progress on top of the advances already made in reforming a system that erects intimidating barriers in the path of victims of abuse and assault and so lets too many perpetrators off unpunished. I kicked off my expression of these views by expressing my disgust at all the hand-wringing at the awful fate being suffered by Geoffrey Rush, while much greater injustices are yet to be addressed. Out of my dozens of posts expressing these views, in one of them I answered one question about whether I thought sexual assault complaints should result in criminal proceedings, and I said it would be best for everyone if they were. I have since added that this is not least the case for the accused, since nothing clears a name falsely besmirched by accusations (if that is what has happened) better than an acquittal in open court.

    Windhover & others have chosen, for reasons best known to themselves, to construe all this as an assertion of Rush’s guilt. I suppose they attack me on this artificial straw man because of their discomfort at morally supporting the actual objects of my attack: defamation laws that favour the rich and powerful in silencing criticism; and the dismissal and demonisation of sexual abuse/assault complainants. If they look honestly at some of their own contributions to this demonisation, they would be ashamed of themselves.

    There. I’ve said my piece. None of those people posting here have, and on the evidence of their arguments thus far ever will, convince me their views on the fairness of defamation law or the treatment of abuse complainants is right. They are wasting their breath. So, I wonder what their motive is in continuing to hang a black hat on me.

  14. I dont think anyone is 100% qualified to be a PM.Its a job earned and learned through being an MP. I’m sure the best PMs are the ones that are always willing to keep learning as they do the job.

  15. Nicholas:
    [Nicholas says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:32 pm
    Windover, you seem to have an adamantine erection for Geoffrey Rush. What’s your story?

    Why do you care so much that another poster states that the suffering of an abuse survivor is typically far greater than the suffering of a very rich and powerful celebrity who takes a hit to their reputation because of their own foolish conduct?]

    Let me answer your questions (surely rhetorical) with the suggestion you do your well deserved reputation for incisive posting no harm by your prurient and utterly misconceived commentary.

  16. “I mean there is no evidence that Shorten can effectively run anything more than a dodgy union.”

    He’s run the parliamentary Labor party reasonably successfully for the last five years, which is more than can be said for any of his predecessors going back as far as the early 2000s.

  17. nath

    Toned Abs, failed seminarian, failed cement factory manager, media lizard, not too flash a job as press sec for Hewson. Now there is a career screaming out “PM material”.

  18. poroti says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 4:01 pm

    nath

    Toned Abs, failed seminarian, failed cement factory manager, media lizard, not too flash a job as press sec for Hewson. Now there is a career screaming out “PM material”.
    ______________________________
    True, Abbott wouldn’t have got anywhere without Howard’s patronage, let alone ten years as a minister.

    However, Shorten went from backbencher to minister in his first term of parliament based upon Gillard’s patronage after he helped do the deed. So he was fast tracked too.

  19. Nicholas, to be honest, I don’t mind them giving me a justification for repeating my objection to the wealthy silencing criticism, and to the silencing of sexual abuse victims, as often as they wish.
    😉

  20. nath is apparently posting various anti-Shorten “memes” to see if any of them might gain traction with pro-Shorten voters.

    One might speculate as to why, but the best response is probably just to ignore them.

  21. Nath you really should try and get at least your facts right.

    Shorten has been
    Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation.
    Minister for Workplace Relations.
    Minister for Education.
    Opposition leader that has seen off two prime minsters, and they way things are going it could be four; one before the election and one at the election.

  22. Here in the deep south of Canberra we’re starting to smell the smoke from the bushfire in rugged terrain to the west of the city. Currently the fire is moving south-east due to the N-W winds and is expected to grow until it reaches containment lines in more gentle terrain. Currently it is 7km from the nearest suburb. The BOM is predicting a 70% chance of showers and a possible thunderstorm with damaging winds. Unfortunately N-W winds are predicted to continue and they are bringing dust from inland NSW as well as smoke from the fire. This afternoon the ESA people are door-knocking houses on the western fringe of the Tuggeranong area including the suburb to our west, to remind people how they should prepare if the fire gets much closer.

    For anyone interested, the ACT ESA site provides updates: esa-(dot)-act-(dot)-gov-(dot)-au

  23. zoomster says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 4:09 pm

    ‘ Shorten went from backbencher to minister in his first term of parliament..’

    No he didn’t.
    _______________
    Ok.Ok. Seven days after his first term ended he was a minister. Anyone else every done that in ALP history? Apart from Hawkey of course!

  24. I see that while I have been out shopping, the Workplace Wowsers and PB Puritan League has been out and about calling for Rush to be hauled before a judge and jury for criminal prosecution.

    His crimes apparently vary from:

    1. Grooming an innocent young gel for sex
    Apart from the fact that even Norvill herself, nor anyone else, claimed this, it should be remembered that at the time Norvill was well over 25, had enjoyed a substantial career in television and theatrical acting, and could be said to be able to look after herself. She was no 14 year old school girl. No babe in the woods.

    2. Sexual groping in the workplace
    The scene required Lear to pick up his dead daughter and lament her passing. It is part of Lear’s famous catharsis.

    A dead body in reality wouldn’t be able to care whether she was being touched up or not, and the lamenting father probably wouldn’t be noticing where his fingers were, his mind being on other things, such as his grief. We’re talking grown-up actors here in a prestige production, not a school play.

    Rush was required to support Norvill’s torso with his left arm and her legs under the knees with his right. It’s pretty hard to, on every occasion, manage to place the fingers in just such a position as not to brush them across a boob or two. A left boob, that is. It’s virtually impossible to fondle her right breast in doing so, as Norvill claims (but not Mark Leonard Winter, who said it was the left one). Here’s the photo.

    Yet the Puritan League here would see this all settled by a lengthy and expensive sexual assault criminal case. In their naivety they see no downside for Rush. I mean if he’s found not guilty, that’ll be that, right? Back to work Geoffrey! Career resumed as if nothing had happened. If he’s done nothing wrong, then he has nothing to worry about, right?

    You idiots.

    Eryn Norvill was not a hostile witness. She was a defence witness. She was there to help the defence, News Ltd, not hinder it. She had changed her story between 2015 and 2018 from admiring and appreciating Rush for his quirky sense of humour and his cheekiness, to condemning him for the same character traits in the space of a couple of years, based on the same factual situation.

    You can put any spin on it you like – an old trooper spruiking the show, an innocent virgin being groomed by the dirty old man, someone who loved Rush’s humour, someone who hated it, someone who was humiliated (by not just Rush, but the entire STC infrastructure), someone who didn’t care enough about what she alleged happened to her to make a formal complaint. In fact she went out of her way to make sure Geoffrey didn’t know.

    But at some stage between the two stories Eryn Norvill was having a very big lend of someone, as she acted out the role of her life.

  25. Player One says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 4:07 pm

    nath is apparently posting various anti-Shorten “memes” to see if any of them might gain traction with pro-Shorten voters.

    One might speculate as to why, but the best response is probably just to ignore them.
    ________________________
    I’ve been judiciously ignoring all the anti-green “memes” lately. quite easy really. Any LNP supporter on here has a harder job of avoiding “meme” minefields.

  26. I seem to spend more of my time when perusing this site for any insightful input bypassing anything contributed by or in response to Nath and Nicholas

    My preference would be that they are given no oxygen which should be the outcome of their serial repetitive “contributions”

  27. Nath, remind me again what ‘ScoMo’ (as he calls himself) was doing before he entered politics.

    Where the bloody hell are you?

    Sheesh.

  28. https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/10/28/newspoll-54-46-labor-6/comment-page-55/#comment-2992792

    If the Commonwealth provides all funding for the states, the states will be under funded because the Commonwealth has less incentive to fund then compared with themselves. This is already an issue with the current vertical fiscal imbalance with both state and local government and clearly should not be made worse. The states do not have the required political leverage to get the required revenue they currently raise from taxes. State Governments would still need to worry about their budgets.

    Commonwealth taxes also have to be uniform across all the states, preventing the Commonwealth from imposing development levies and value capture schemes to collect some of the increased value from government planning decisions and infrastructure projects deliver to specific areas. It also prevents applying property vacancies taxes only to in demand urban areas (Victoria`s incoming vacancy tax only applies in inner and middle suburban council areas), which could be a problem if they are applied to rural and regional areas with lower housing demand.

    Many of the levies and user charges levies by provide a price signal to reduce behaviour that needs to be reduced. Landfill charges being an example.

    State Government do collect land tax, a very fair and efficient tax. The Commonwealth does not any more, partly because they have so many other taxes the can levy that they have less incentive. Land taxation is a natural form of sub-national government around the world because it is so efficient and its is one of the hardest to avoid with jurisdiction shopping. Capping the primary residence tax exemption would raise revenue for scrapping other more problematic state taxes.


  29. The Silver Bodgie says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:36 pm
    Another brain fart from Nath…..

    SB, What is the experience of Hawke before he became PM? He was not even a Junior Minister. Previous to that he was Union Boss. He rolled Bill Hayden one month before 1983 election. He was a drunkard. He cheated his wife.
    But he was rated as one of the best PMs ever had and arguably better than any post World war 2

  30. Player One says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 4:07 pm
    nath is apparently posting various anti-Shorten “memes” to see if any of them might gain traction with pro-Shorten voters.

    One might speculate as to why, but the best response is probably just to ignore them.
    —————————————

    Yes. I noticed that too. Maybe we should do some “black ops” on him, posting disingenuous responses so as to feed him “misinformation”!

  31. Kakuru says:
    Friday, November 2, 2018 at 4:23 pm

    Nath, remind me again what ‘ScoMo’ (as he calls himself) was doing before he entered politics.

    Where the bloody hell are you?

    Sheesh.
    ____________________________
    The ‘where the bloody hell are you?’ campaign is totally underrated.

    The genius who put Lara Bingle in a bikini and on the tv deserves to be thanked at least for that.

  32. “What’s Shorten’s experience for being PM? 3 years as a relatively junior minister. Leader of a shitty union before that. We are possibly looking at the most under qualified PM in Australian history, at least in modern Australian history.”

    How delicious is the Green Fanboy angst at the impending landslide Labor victory?

    And you just know it is going to be a feast too 🙂

  33. Citizen. Was doorknocked here about an hour ago, asked about residents of neighbouring houses regarding likely presence, mobility, etc. Was told to make up a pack of important docs etc but not to panic. Getting quite dark now, though more storm clouds and dust than smoke just yet.

Leave a Reply

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