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”

Comments Page 47 of 52
1 … 46 47 48 … 52

  1. Boerwar @ #2221 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 4:46 pm

    Don

    ‘And when it goes wrong, it does so in a spectacular way!’

    This is true. But, IMO, not entirely a bad thing either. Chernobyl was a spectacular biodiversity bonanza. From memory, the only long term impact was on, of all things, the size of bird brains. Perhaps the Coalition has been doing Party Room meetings yonder.

    Now Fukushima is the real thing. Totally fukt.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-robot-drones-photograph-reactor-uranium-fuel-radiation-power-plant-a8068971.html

    My memory is that Chernobyl had huge impacts on children’s health later on – I remember (15 years ago) watching a documentary on Chernobyl and the deformities children in the area were born with or developed. On a quick search I couldn’t find that film but I did find this:

    “The events of 1986 continue to affect millions of people who live in the fallout zone today and more than one million children live in areas that are still contaminated.

    “In Ukraine, 6,000 children are born every year with genetic heart defects.
    Every year, more than 3,000 Ukrainian children die from lack of medical attention.
    There has been a 200 percent increase in birth defects and a 250 percent increase in congenital birth deformities in children born in the Chernobyl fallout area since 1986.
    In Belarus, 85 percent children are deemed to be Chernobyl victims (they carry genetic markers that could affect their health at any time and can be passed on to their children).
    UNICEF found increases in children’s disease rates, There has been a 38 percent increase in malignant tumors, a 43 percent increase in blood circulatory illnesses and a 63 percent increase in bone, muscle, and connective tissue system disorders.”
    https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-children-of-chernobyl-2861027

  3. ‘Lynchpin says:
    Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 5:41 pm

    Did anyone else think Frydenberg was a bit under the weather in HoR today?’

    Not really.

  4. Socrates @ #2299 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 5:44 pm

    P1
    As SA has demonstrated batteries actually improve the economics of new wind power.

    I agree that wind is our best hope here in Australia. Wind requires much less storage than solar.

    But even so, SA is still a long way from being able to rely just on renewables plus batteries. Gas will be there for a long time yet.

  5. Lynchpin

    Frydenberg’s ‘mood’ was mentioned by a few on Twitter today. I just thought he looked flushed and happy. 😉

    I also noticed that Barnaby read carefully from a scripted question. No carp visible.

  7. ‘Lord Haw Haw of Arabia says:
    Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 5:25 pm

    Someone yesterday posted a comment about Finn Stannard’s speech at his school assembly.

    I took the opportunity to watch (from SBS) and read his address in full.

    It was a wonderful speech. ‘

    ‘Twas moi. One thing I do admire hugely is moral courage.

  9. Player1 – that article you posted was written over a year ago, and so is totally irrelevant to the current price of solar+battery.

    What’s the point Jimmy. P1 has no ability to learn new facts or self examine.

  10. Tim Bailey on the roof of channel 10 Sydney apparently battling the strong winds with a white golf umbrella.
    It is not raining.

    #whydotheydothis

  11. I never watch 7:30 but by accident, I saw the item of the boy at Riverview. It made me cry as life on that front was immeasurably harder for my generation, particularly in the country.

    It seemed even an unreal fantasy event.

  16. Cud Chewer,

    I totally get your frustration, but the point of challenging P1 is to demonstrate to others that P1 is not conducting this debate in good faith, never has, and never will.

  18. ‘swamprat says:
    Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 5:59 pm

    I never watch 7:30 but by accident, I saw the item of the boy at Riverview. It made me cry as life on that front was immeasurably harder for my generation, particularly in the country.
    It seemed even an unreal fantasy event.’

    Yep. I grew up in the country. And when I think of my attitudes then, I cringe. The one thing on the plus side is that I can’t ever recall targetting someone for being gay. But ‘poofter’ jokes, and some very nasty ones at that, were common fare.

    BTW, Abbott and Joyce are alumni of St Ignatius.

  20. Diogenes
    says:
    Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:39 pm
    And batteries have been very slow to improve. Think of the progress in computing power over our generation. My iPhone has more computing power than NASA used to get to the moon. But the battery still doesn’t last 24 hours.

    True enough, but consumer phone batteries have improved on capacity, recharge speed, and cost.

    Processing power can be improved by a range of things, but one of the main ways is miniaturisation. You can increase processing power or storage capacity by bunging more in. Chemical processes are harder to miniaturise.

    The battery in your phone is probably doing a lot more than a battery had to do 10 or 20 years ago. Bigger screens and more processing power consume more energy (although that is always being improved as well).

    There are also decisions made by phone manufacturers. They probably figure people are used to charging their phone everyday, and that offering a bigger battery will mean they will lose appeal in the showroom.

    Industrial batteries don’t suffer from such design considerations. A dam of water is a battery. A tank of compressed gas is a battery. Heated salt etc. 20 years ago we wouldn’t have thought a chemical battery would be much use in the power grid, but they are beginning to be used. And once they start being used, economies of scale start to kick in.

    I have no doubt about renewables and batteries. It is often stated that if you were starting from scratch they are already a cheaper option than fossil alternatives. I’m not sure of the veracity of that, but when you take into account all the costs of fossil fuels I am sure of the option I prefer.

    The main problem with fossil fuels, apart from all the pollution, is that they commodify energy. This is the crux of it, it is why we have vested interests fighting for it. We are less likely to go to war over sunlight.

    Sorry, that started as a short post 🙂

  22. Interesting read on the ethics of genetic engineering of humans.
    https://theconversation.com/the-road-to-enhancement-via-human-gene-editing-is-paved-with-good-intentions-107677

    It appears that researchers in China have facilitated the birth of the first “designer baby” – actually babies, twin girls who are supposedly genetically resistant to HIV.

    This is germline editing, meaning their descendants will carry the modifications, and that this opens the door to a new kind of eugenics.

    like those linked with educational attainment

    The claims are unverified at this stage, but the debate just got earnest.

  23. JimmyD @ #2306 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 5:51 pm

    Player1 – that article you posted was written over a year ago, angle this totally irrelevant to the current price of solar+battery.

    *sigh*. I was trying to keep it simple for Cud Chewer’s sake.

    Try these …

    https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

    https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf

    Very current (released this month). They take a bit more analysis (you need to look at both). But the result is the same. Yes, new renewables are cheaper than new coal. But new renewables with storage are not yet cheaper than new coal. And new renewables with or without storage are not cheaper than existing coal.

  26. Question
    You’d think that chemical batteries like Duracell etc would have improved a lot more than they have. They’re a bit better and cost much the same. I’m surprised that something as important as battery storage hasn’t changed much. I read in business articles that there is heavy investment in the US in large scale energy storage and they were very bullish about it being a game changer in the next five years.

  27. Finally got to see how the tram permanent way would handle a deluge.
    Alison Road has a dip which floods in light rain. So no surprise to see it covered in water this morning. Probably not deep enough to stop a tram.
    Lang Road near the SCG was a different matter. Having seen on the news the Dulwich Hill line came to a halt with a similar amount of water, one really does have to wonder about the project management and preparation. Wasn’t able to see the waterworks in the tunnel.

  29. And new renewables with or without storage are not cheaper than existing coal.,

    Well that would depend on the value you put on the planet’s environment.

  30. a r @ #2328 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 6:22 pm

    Player One @ #2320 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 5:10 pm

    And new renewables with or without storage are not cheaper than existing coal.

    However as we can’t build more ‘existing coal’ this point would appear to be largely moot. From a planning standpoint, anyways.

    That’s true. However, The point is that this means new renewables will not drive out existing coal for purely economic reasons – not unless you add something like an ETS or an EIS.

    And we have to get rid of existing coal. And fast.

    As the IPCC keeps trying to point out, the changes required to reign in global warming are unprecedented. We cannot simply sit back and hope – this is in fact the “business as usual” case, which leads to catastrophic outcomes.

  31. Very current (released this month)

    P1 yet again you make an idiot out of yourself. You have no ability to critically examine this sort of material. Instead you just google shit that seems to suit your purpose.

    Have a read of those reports and tell me what they say about the assumed amount of and cost of storage. Go on, I dare you.

  32. poroti @ #2329 Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 – 6:25 pm

    And new renewables with or without storage are not cheaper than existing coal.,

    Well that would depend on the value you put on the planet’s environment.

    Which (sorry to keep flogging this) is what an ETS actually does – i.e. it puts an economic cost on C02 emissions, as a proxy for the environmental damage they cause.

  37. No, P1 you haven’t understood them. You truly are an idiot.

    Their assumed costs are now out of date and their assumptions about use cases are just that – assumptions.

  38. The IPCC said we needed to do about three times as much (as a species) as we are doing to avert AGW to avoid catastrophic problems. We just have to hope technology can bridge that gap as human will won’t.

  41. Question
    says:
    Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 6:38 pm
    Can we all agree on an ETS?
    ____________________________
    Yep. Everyone is for it except for Morrison and Shorten!

  43. PlayerOne
    This is just childish.

    No, it’s my opinion based on years of observation of your “debate” tactics.

    As for your sources, they do not support your argument. They only compare solar thermal and storage with other sources. They do not compare utility solar plus storage.

    And new renewables with or without storage are not cheaper than existing coal.

    Definitely not true. Your own source quotes fully depreciated coal as costing around $36 (and this price also incorporates assumed returns from salvaging of materials during decommission). In the same table it quotes a price for wind of between $29 and $56. For utility solar, the price is between $36 and $46. Both of these are competitive price-wise with old coal.

  45. Jimmy

    What really nailed P1’s coffin for me was its far-too-clever stance on boycotting the Marriage Equality vote when it turned out that P1 was against same sex marriage anyhow but was being dishonest in not revealing the fact at first. P1 thinks it is clever.

  47. nath
    Yep. Everyone is for it except for Morrison and Shorten!

    If you don’t get that Labor’s intention is to convert the NEG into an ETS then you’re not nearly as bright as you fancy yourself to be.

Comments Page 47 of 52
1 … 46 47 48 … 52

Leave a Reply

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