Newspoll: 55-45 to Labor

After a Victorian election result decided entirely on state issues, a poll shows the Coalition doing every bit as badly at federal level.

A weekend to forget for the Coalition has been compounded by Newspoll’s finding that its federal operation is down yet another point, putting Labor’s lead at 55-45. Its primary vote is down a point to 34%, the equal lowest since the 2016 election, while Labor is steady on 40%, the Greens are unchanged on 9% and One Nation are up two to 6%. Scott Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister is down slightly, from 43-35 to 42-36. Nonetheless, Scott Morrison’s personal ratings have improved since a fortnight ago, with approval up four to 43% and disapproval down five to 42%, while Bill Shorten is up two to 37% and steady on 50%. The poll will have been conducted Thursday to Sunday and the sample around 1700, although it’s not specified in the online report.

UPDATE: The sample size was 1717.

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.

2,597 comments on “Newspoll: 55-45 to Labor”

  1. C@tmomma @ #2144 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 3:22 pm

    Rex Douglas @ #1915 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 3:13 pm

    C@tmomma @ #2127 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 3:09 pm

    Rex Douglas @ #1906 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 3:05 pm

    Luke Foley backs down from threat to sue ABC over sexual harassment allegations https://t.co/TgeTxxUK9G— Guardian Australia (@GuardianAus) November 28, 2018

    Do you ever get tired of trying, and failing, to be an agent provocateur?

    Have you sought to expose those ‘dark elements’ of NSW Labor Emma was talking about yet ?

    What a slimy hypocrite you are. One moment you are calling for Emma Husar to be ‘managed out’ of the Labor Party, now, at a time that is opportune for you you think, and for no other reason, you take Emma Husar’s side to goad me.

    Which is the common factor in both instances. To goad me. You don’t really care about Emma Husar, that was made plain at the time of the incidents occurring around her. So I don’t care to respond to you now.

    I predicted Labor would manage her out and I was right.

    Given your outrage at the attacks on Emma I’d expect you, as a member of NSW Labor, to expose what you know about the ‘dark elements’.

  2. poroti @ #2139 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 11:24 am

    How the feck is she worth that amount ?!!! No wonder those NewsCorp orcs work so hard to please Sauron.
    .
    .
    ‘Human error’! News Corp salaries, redundancy entitlements emailed to staff

    The email reveals a redundancy entitlement of nearly $210,000 to The Australian’s contributing economics editor Judith Sloan and details her $357,000 salary.
    https://outline.com/MrBZKF

    There’s got to be some reward for destroying any remaining credibility! 🙂

  3. Big A Adrian@3:17pm
    Cormann on ABC breakfast said those comments by Barry O’Sullivan are offensive and they were made when he was not in the chamber. Those comments were eventually withdrawn by O’Sillivan. When Senate leader believes it is offensive why don’t you think that?
    BTW, what is with Cormann? He is/was not in the chamber when LNP senators do and say terrible things like to vote for “it is OK to be white” and this for example.

  4. From Cory’s blog:

    ‘This week we also saw the Greens party’s prime show phony Sarah Hanson-Young claim her turgid performance and histrionics over the past decade has been due to sexism. She clearly doesn’t realise that her hopelessness and rotten ideas aren’t a product of her gender but of the loathsome ideology she espouses.

    There was even a claim by a Labor senator that, the ‘tone’ used by a Coalition Senator during a formal motion was sexist. Honestly, you cannot make this garbage up. But such nonsense isn’t confined to the kooky Greens and Labor.

    Lady Liberals are now piling on to the supposed endemic sexism and bias in the party. Surprisingly, they remained silent while they rose through the ranks and participated in every Machiavellian maneuver to advance their careers but now they can afford to ‘speak out’ to ‘make change’.

  5. It’s an obvious sexual slur, double entendre Big A.
    Coming from O’Sullivan, who has history in this area, it’s obvious what he’s implying. He is a grub, along with Anning, Leyonhelm etc. Aging frat boys.

  6. Diogenes

    Your reasons re nuclear are exactly the conclusions uber nuclear fan (and actual nuclear physicist) Ziggy Zwitkowski came to about a decade back. So genuine experts agree with you 🙂

  7. Steven Hail explains why the Morrison’s government fiscal surplus target is harmful:

    “Australia’s household saving ratio is threatening to drop below 0% for the first time since before the Global Financial Crisis, having been in the range of 5-10% (10% being a healthy long term average) from 2009-15. The ratio of household debt to disposable income is nearly 200%, having been about 60% in the early 1990s. Australia will continue to have a current account deficit on the balance of payments of 2.5% of GDP or more in the next couple of years – this means a foreign sector surplus on our financial system of 2.5% of GDP. Should the Government add to the above by foolishly aiming for and actually getting a ‘budget surplus’ of (say) 0.5% of GDP, this would push our private sector into a deficit of 3% of GDP. Absent an unexpected boom in business investment, this can only happen if that private sector saving ratio goes back into negative and that household debt ratio – already the world’s second highest – continues to flirt with 200%, which is far too high for financial stability. Either there will be a recession rather soon, as the private sector refuses to accommodate the government surplus by going further into deficit, shrinking people’s incomes, reducing the taxes they pay and pushing the government back into a growing deficit, or somehow the household debt bubble will inflate even a bit further until at some stage there is an almighty crash.

    The point of all this is to emphasize that any promise of a government budget surplus by the Morrison Government is the opposite of a responsible fiscal policy. Not a recipe for stability, but a recipe for recession. Not a guarantee of space to deal with a global downturn, but a lit fuse to detonate our own home grown downturn.

    NOT a sign of economic competence. A total failure to understand the appropriate role of fiscal policy, the limitations of monetary policy, and the foolishness of stoking a housing bubble and a mountain of household debt.

    MMT is not biased against Coalition governments.

    MMT is biased against incompetent macroeconomic policies.

    It so happens that there is not a lot of competence to go around in Australia at the moment, with the worst offenders being in the Liberal and National parties.”

    https://www.facebook.com/green.modernmoneytheoryandpractice/posts/1996771673739299

  8. re: wildfire

    Before looking it up my initial reaction was that ‘wildfire’ in an Australian context could be used to describe something that is faster and more chaotic than a more common-or-garden bushfire. That might be a completely mistaken interpretation on my part.

    Wikipedia suggests that ‘wildfire’ is the most generic term for out-of-control outdoors fire, where the terrain/landscape can be used to provide a more specific description – brush fire, bushfire, grass fire, etc.

    As far as English usage goes, it’s a fairly old word – pre American colonization –

    late Old English wilde fyr “destructive fire” (perhaps caused by lightning); also “erysipelas, spreading skin disease;” see wild (adj.) + fire (n.). From c. 1300 as “Greek fire,” also fire rained down from the sky as divine retribution. Figurative sense from late 14c. By 1795 as “sheet lightning.”

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/wildfire#etymonline_v_25502

    Whether it’s an “offensive Americanism” I guess would be in the eye of the beholder; like many such instances I think people are waaaay too precious about this sort of stuff.

  9. Diogenes@3:31pm
    You posted a comment, which is even worse than what O’Sillivan said.
    It is like “women are getting sexually assaulted because they are wearing provocative dresses”

  10. Don

    lol Delightfully friendly and constructive as always. Just stating a fact.

    If I didn’t “deal with it” I would not have persisted posting and would have departed like the many other diverse and interesting posters that have come and gone over the years much to the detriment of this blog.

  11. Just remember Sloan’s News Corpse salary,which would not be her only income, next time she bangs on about how awful it would be to increase minimum wages or explain the need to cut penalty rates.

  12. Taylor Swift is a Democrat, supports feminism, LGBT rights, and is a recognised philanthropist, donating considerable money and time to a variety of causes. I doubt she’s an Evangelical Christian, but if she is, she’s one of the good guys.

  13. Ven @3:09

    Yes a bit of a ramble.

    The interesting bit though is the lack of understanding by politicians of one basic and well established fact: you don’t cure road congestion by building more roads.

    Nor is immigration more than a secondary issue. The reality underlying this issue is the huge latent demand for personal mobility.

  14. On the one hand we have a government telling us of their “economic success”

    On the other hand we have Murdoch writing down the asset valuations on their Balance Sheet (and getting a tax holiday into the bargain) AND retrenching staff

    And Murdoch is an avowed supporter of this government!!

  15. According to a google search, Taylor Swift never comments on religion but she might be Catholic. Her parents are stockbrokers and she was born on a Christmas tree farm!

  16. ‘Big A Adrian says:
    Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:17 pm

    OK so I’m actually a progressive and greens supporter who has no sympathy for conservative nutjobs like O’Sullivan.

    But I’m really struggling to understand why the remark “she has a bit of Xenophon in her” – after quickly adding (WTTE) “And I don’t imply any double meaning”… is so offensive? Can someone please explain it to me? Is it because he raised the idea of ‘double meaning’ – even though it was to deny it?’

    It is part of serial slutshaming of S H-Y by misogynistic Senate troglodytes.
    The inference here is that she is carrying Xenophon’s semen.
    Mr Di Natale is quite right to get angry about it.
    It is a pity that he is on thin Greens ice on the same general topic.
    Was he publicly angry at Greens’ bad sexual behaviour?
    No.

  17. I’m pro-nuclear but it’s not a goer in Australia. By the time it gets debated, legislation passed, site selected, expertise acquired…

    Dio nuclear is a lot more expensive than renewables + storage TODAY. 20 years time isn’t going to help.

    Why are you pro nuclear when it is clearly a bad choice of technology now and forever?

  18. ‘Boerwar picks his targets carefully…’

    I suppose he does. Firstly, the targets have to have to be stupid or say stupid things.

    Then they have to have persistence, to keep showing how stupid they are.

    Finally, when they have been shown how stupid their arguments are (usually repeatedly) and have their arses handed to them on a plate, they slink off, hoping no-one would notice how stupid they have been.

    Enjoyable watching this process and luckily for us, plenty of people prepared to step up to be done over.

  19. If you count in the externalities of coal and gas then nuclear is cheaper than coal and gas.
    It does not go to sleep.
    It does not have storage costs.
    A properly built and maintained power unit will last for a generation.
    IMO, in pure policy terms vis a vis acting in time for global warming, the major problem for nuclear is the lead times.

  20. Big A Adrian says:
    Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:17 pm
    OK so I’m actually a progressive and greens supporter who has no sympathy for conservative nutjobs like O’Sullivan.

    But I’m really struggling to understand why the remark “she has a bit of Xenophon in her” – after quickly adding (WTTE) “And I don’t imply any double meaning”… is so offensive? Can someone please explain it to me? Is it because he raised the idea of ‘double meaning’ – even though it was to deny it?
    ————————————-

    Bullies humiliate, offend, insult and intimidate all the time, and frequently hide behind the pretence that they didn’t mean it that way, but that their victim perversely chose to take it that way. This is a very common method bullies use to deflect responsibility for their aggression onto their victim.

    Some statements are humiliating, insulting, offensive or intimidating, despite an express denial of such an intention from their speaker. If someone you don’t know or trust very well credibly menaces you with violence, makes a demand upon you, disclaims their threat as “just a joke” once they are assured you are frightened, then repeats the demand as an urgent request, would you say they have intimidated you, and that any acquiescence you give to their demand was under duress? I would say so, despite their threat being immediately followed by a disavowal. Replace the concept “intimidate” with that of “humiliate”, and we have the moral nature of Senator O’Sullivan’s slur yesterday.

    What makes it worse in this case is that, by offering his Clayton’s disavowal of a double entendre, he has actually drawn attention to that degrading meaning of what he said.

    What is more, he could have said wtte “SHY has taken to emulating the practice of Nick Xenophon”, if that was the meaning he wished to convey. Instead, he said what he said, with all the “entendres” carried by what he said (and drawn to our attention by him expressly).

    O’Sullivan truly was a grub in Parliament yesterday. And in a way that targeted a woman the way no man could or would ever be targeted.

  21. Australia will not meet it’s Paris commitments …

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-11-28/climate-un-environment-report-australia-not-on-track-paris/10554058

    And the main reason is population growth …

    Per capita, Australia’s emissions are decreasing alongside many countries around the world.

    However, the steady rise in our population continues to push our overall emissions up.

    You have to wonder how long it’s going to take before people start getting the message. I suspect the answer is going to be “too long” 🙁

  22. PeeBee @ #2185 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 3:58 pm

    ‘Boerwar picks his targets carefully…’

    I suppose he does. Firstly, the targets have to have to be stupid or say stupid things.

    Then they have to have persistence, to keep showing how stupid they are.

    Finally, when they have been shown how stupid their arguments are (usually repeatedly) and have their arses handed to them on a plate, they slink off, hoping no-one would notice how stupid they have been.

    Enjoyable watching this process and luckily for us, plenty of people prepared to step up to be done over.

    I wish he’d target me…

  23. Richard Ferguson will never get a job doing Hansard

    ‘When do we sit?

    Bill Shorten asks Scott Morrison if he can confirm Parliament sits only ten days in the first eight months next year.

    The Prime Minister says the parliamentary sitting calendar reflects the changes in bringing forward the budget by a month, on April 2.’

    The full question skewered Morrison. This reportage is, IMO, pissweak.

  24. One of the problems of nuclear is the eye watering cost of cleaning up and decommissioning the site. Dunnreay will return to a brownfield site by about 2335.

  25. It seems the Senate have altered their procedures to avoid the gross conduct of some Senators which on the face of it removes the need for a cumbersome unworkable conduct code proposed by DiNatalie.

  26. GG

    Thanks. I’m not sure I would reach the same conclusion, but “something” does seem to be up.

    Frydenberg missing G20 is more than a touch odd, even accounting for the events of the last 5 days. Only 5 more sitting days for this year’s killing season to find out

  27. Michael A @ #2187 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 4:00 pm

    Big A Adrian says:
    Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:17 pm
    OK so I’m actually a progressive and greens supporter who has no sympathy for conservative nutjobs like O’Sullivan.

    But I’m really struggling to understand why the remark “she has a bit of Xenophon in her” – after quickly adding (WTTE) “And I don’t imply any double meaning”… is so offensive? Can someone please explain it to me? Is it because he raised the idea of ‘double meaning’ – even though it was to deny it?
    ————————————-

    Bullies humiliate, offend, insult and intimidate all the time, and frequently hide behind the pretence that they didn’t mean it that way, but that their victim perversely chose to take it that way. This is a very common method bullies use to deflect responsibility for their aggression onto their victim.

    Some statements are humiliating, insulting, offensive or intimidating, despite an express denial of such an intention from their speaker. If someone you don’t know or trust very well credibly menaces you with violence, makes a demand upon you, disclaims their threat as “just a joke” once they are assured you are frightened, then repeats the demand as an urgent request, would you say they have intimidated you, and that any acquiescence you give to their demand was under duress? I would say so, despite their threat being immediately followed by a disavowal. Replace the concept “intimidate” with that of “humiliate”, and we have the moral nature of Senator O’Sullivan’s slur yesterday.

    What makes it worse in this case is that, by offering his Clayton’s disavowal of a double entendre, he has actually drawn attention to that degrading meaning.

    What is more, he could have said wtte “SHY has taken to emulating the practice of Nick Xenophon”, if that was the meaning he wished to convey. Instead, he said what he said, with all the “entendres” carried by what he said (and drawn to our attention by him expressly).

    O’Sullivan truly was a grub in Parliament yesterday. And in a way that targeted a woman the way no man could or would ever be targeted.

    Yes. This is about O’Sullivan and the other grubs around him, no-one else.

  28. Diogenes @ #2150 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 3:29 pm

    I’m pro-nuclear but it’s not a goer in Australia. By the time it gets debated, legislation passed, site selected, expertise acquired, built, up and running etc etc it will be twenty years down the track if it happened at all. Renewable is way more practical and feasible in Australia where we have abundant options.

    Agree with this. However, we should continue to export uranium to those countries who do have nuclear power generation capabilities.

  29. Frydenberg may need to sure up his seat given the reports emanating about him and his group deliberately excluding Liberals from Kooyong who don’t meet his loyalty test. Could be fertile ground for a moderate Liberal woman who may be looking for a seat.

  30. Has O’Sullivan not said that he “didn’t mean to imply a double meaning”, noone would have even considered that there was a double meaning. The entire point of adding that was to suggest that not is SHY taking after Xenophon politically, but that she has literally “had Xenophon in her” as well. It was not just a disgusting comment, but also a truly cowardly one too.

  31. As we can’t know O’Sullivan’s mind when he made that comment we can, on the other hand, know what he’s like from past experience. That’s why I believe he meant to draw attention to the double entendre.

Leave a Reply

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