Ipsos: 51-49 to Labor

The first Ipsos poll for the year produces a much stronger result for the Coalition – but another poll finds them struggling in Queensland.

The first Ipsos poll of the year for the Nine newspapers is the best for the Coalition of the five published under Scott Morrison’s prime ministership, with Labor’s lead cut from 54-46 to 51-49 since the December poll. The Coalition gains two on the primary vote to 38% while Labor slips four to 33% (albeit that the last result was something of an outlier, as Ipsos leans on the low side with primary votes for both major parties). The Greens meanwhile are steady on 13%, a characteristically high result for them from Ipsos. The two-party figure is presumably based on 2016 election preference flows – we should have a result for respondent-allocated preferences later (UPDATE: 51-49 on respondent-allocated preferences as well).

There is little corresponding movement on leadership ratings: Scott Morrison is up two on approval to 49% and up one on disapproval to 40%, Shorten is down one to 40% and up two to 52% (relatively positive results on leadership ratings being a further peculiarity of Ipsos), and Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister shifts from 46-37 to 48-38. The poll was conducted from a sample of 1200 from Tuesday to Friday, which makes it an imperfect measure of the impact, if any, of the parliamentary vote on asylum seekers on Tuesday.

The same goes for the other poll this weekend, a Queensland-only affair on federal voting intention by YouGov Galaxy for the Courier-Mail (state voting intention results from the poll can be found in the post below). The news here for the government is bad, with Labor recording a 52-48 lead on two-party preferred, which represents a 6% swing in that state since the 2016 election, and compares with a 50-50 result at the last such poll in November. The primary votes are Coalition 35% (down three on the last poll, compared with 43.2% at the 2016 election), Labor 34% (steady, compared with 30.9%), Greens 10% (up one, compared with 8.8%) and One Nation 8% (down one, and they only ran in a few seats in 2016).

The poll also has a question on the party with the “better plan on border security and asylum seekers” which finds the Coalition leading 44% to 29%, which is a par-for-the-course result for such a question. The poll was conducted Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 810.

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.

2,918 comments on “Ipsos: 51-49 to Labor”

Comments Page 53 of 59
1 … 52 53 54 … 59

  1. JimmyD,

    Why was the Brexit question originally even asked, and have those reasons changed significantly? I put it this way because I think Brexit was sold as the cure for increasing poverty and decreasing opportunity. Framing a question for a new referendum would be fraught. If Brexit is still the scapegoat the same result will likely occur. I am pessimistic. I guess I don’t see a second referendum as the solution.

  2. Kirky

    That’s my experience.

    If you booking a return air trip to Sydney, online is easy.

    For a complicated trip, say North America involving air, sea, rail and land components and more, a good (and I use the word advisedly) agent is worth their weight in gold.

  3. I wonder what it says about the company’s accounting that it had an unpaid bill from July 2017 and did nothing about it.

    Poor accounting. But a more frightening oversight would be if they did a favour for an MP who then seemed utterly unaware of it. Thats no way to run a curry favour.

  4. Late Riser – the reason the referendum happened is because Cameron thought he could see off the rising UKIP threat by promising a vote. He honestly did not think Leave would win.

  5. Barney in Vinh Long @ #2594 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 4:08 pm

    The Bowen comment is clearly talking about the small business tax cuts in that it does nothing to help a struggling business in any way.

    A completely different issue to the franking debate.

    But of course a mischievous self-interested no mark on the internet has twisted it around to suit their own ends.

    QED

  7. JimmyD @ #2597 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 4:14 pm

    PlayerOne
    That’s your solution?

    Yes.

    You have a better suggestion?

    No, I was not making suggestions how to solve it. I was trying to figure out what’s likely to actually happen. Which is that May will neither resign, nor change her mind, nor delay. So a hard Brexit seems inevitable (unless perhaps Labor supports a soft Brexit). Then a no confidence motion in the Govt, which they will lose. Then a general election which Labor wins.

    If I was making a suggestion, it would be to make Northern Island a “special economic zone” within the UK (essentially, remaining part of the EU for the present) with a soft border with Ireland and a hard border in the Irish Sea.

  8. Why would anyone believe the so called ‘explanations” given ?

    The business clearly had a tender in for Government Business – a tender they subsequently won weeks or so after Cormann rang the MD of HelloWorld to make the booking.

    Hey – the charge didn’t hit the credit card and it was all forgotton – until ‘somehow’ the media got the “story”.

    I don’t claim to know what really occurred – but I don’t believe cormann or his story for a minute.

    What matters is – are there more “forgotten” travel charges by other tories and whether the story has further to go.

    I don’t know.

  9. This is America.

    @voxdotcom
    7m7 minutes ago

    Justin Zanders was hit by a pole hanging off the back of a city bus. He was taken to Zuckerberg San Francisco General, where he received stitches and a CT scan.

    Even though Zanders had insurance, he received a hospital bill for $27,660.

  10. JimmyD @ #2601 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 4:18 pm

    Late Riser – the reason the referendum happened is because Cameron thought he could see off the rising UKIP threat by promising a vote. He honestly did not think Leave would win.

    I think we can all agree Cameron was an idiot. But then so were both political parties who promised to respect the outcome of the referendum.

    It’s like a game of chicken in which neither party flinched and so both ended up as roadkill 🙁

  13. dave,
    What matters is – are there more “forgotten” travel charges by other tories and whether the story has further to go.

    I don’t know.

    Earlier this morning Paul Bongiorno said he’d heard that 4 other Liberals had received Helloworld freebies. Though I imagine they’ve all been paid in full now.

  14. JimmyD

    So the British Parliament could vote to block a no deal Brexit.

    But does this take the form of a vote for a postponement, or against a no-deal Brexit? Two different things.

    Why do you think there are sufficient numbers? Evidence? If so, can any member of the House move a motion?

    Next problem is, can there be a consensus on what a postponement is for, and for what purpose? Some would presumably be voting for a postponement thinking a deal is still possible. Some would be after a referendum. Wouldn’t this be an issue?

    Next problem is this. Why would the EU vote to approve a postponement in circumstances where the British Parliament doesn’t actually agree on why they are voting for a postponement and where there is no view to an end game – either an election or a referendum or both. The EU might say well screw you if you think you’re going to get a better deal. They might agree if there is to be a referendum but there’s no guarantee we’ll get that far.

    You think there are enough people in the Parliament who would vote for a second referendum? Is there any evidence for this? Survey of some kind?

    Finally, suppose the Parliament votes for a postponement, is May legally bound to take it to the EU? Or can the Parliament itself lodge the paperwork?

  15. A question for our legally trained contributors – does sub judice apply to judge alone trials? Headline in The West today ‘The Story of a Killer’ about the Claremont serial killer accused.

  16. Someone has been leaned on by the peak national body:

    The Cancer Council of Queensland has retracted its claims donations would be under threat under Labor’s franking credits policy, as Treasurer Josh Frydenberg uses the charity as an example of the unintended consequences of the $5 billion a year policy.

    In a submission to the House economics committee on Wednesday, chief executive Chris McMillan said he “took full responsibility for the error” and requested its original submission be withdrawn from the public record.

    He said the submission was in breach of the Cancer Council’s charter, was not done in consultation with the national body and did “not reflect the position of the Cancer Council federation.”

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/cancer-council-queensland-retracts-error-used-to-attack-labor-s-franking-policy-20190220-p50z28.html

  18. PlayerOne,

    Any of the three options are possible at this time. I am very pessimistic when it comes to the brexit process, so no deal is a very strong possibility in my view.

    As for your suggestion for Northern Ireland, that’s pretty much exactly how the original proposed backstop functioned, and the DUP won’t accept anything that treats NI differently from the rest of the UK.

  20. Among the great reforms of the 19th century in the UK were the repeal in 1845 of the Corn Laws, which removed the tariffs on grain and drove down the cost of food for urban workers. The current Tories have promised to reinstate agricultural protection after Brexit takes effect with the explicit intention of favouring land owners, who are the backbone of the Tory Party. They are about to rescind the repeal of the Corn Laws. Hard to believe…urban workers in England and Wales have been tricked into voting for hunger.

    Corbyn could prevent this. But he won’t. He will be Brexit’s midwife.

  22. JimmyD, thanks.

    If seeing off the UKIP was the political calculus I guess it worked. (I don’t know this for sure, since I don’t follow Brit politics that closely, but there doesn’t seem much written about UKIP recently.)

    But this is disingenuous of me. I’m guided by direct interactions with people who know something of the lives in Britain. It isn’t many, but all of them point to unemployment and low wages as the reason for Brexit. Other reasons are mentioned too, but they come back to these points. If that is the mindset 3 years after the Brexit referendum then I don’t see a 2nd referendum changing things.

  23. A new referendum would likely result in a Remain victory because the voters who have died since the last one are about 2:1 Brexiteers and the various categories of people who did not vote last time (last time abstainers who would vote this time, new voters and newly naturalised citizens(many of them EU citizens)) are heavily Remain favouring demographics.

  24. Poor accounting. But a more frightening oversight would be if they did a favour for an MP who then seemed utterly unaware of it. Thats no way to run a curry favour.

    And I categorically deny I am accusing Cormann of corrupt behaviour.

  25. Rex,

    Darn posted the quote which was attached to something they had received.

    The quote says it refers to Turnbull’s business tax cuts.

    What more do you want?

    Isn’t that clear enough for you? 😆

  26. Cud Chewer @ #2621 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 4:31 pm

    C@t saw the headline but I’m not a subscriber. Can you quote the gist of it?

    It outlines the pros and cons of a Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne HSR, should Scott Morrison go for a big bang election announcement. It’s quite specific and pointed in the writer’s analysis of same.

    I believe that I could put it up for you tomorrow as it will be old news by then and I don’t think that would step on any toes.

    Happy to be corrected by our lord and master though.

  28. JimmyD @ #2615 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 4:28 pm

    As for your suggestion for Northern Ireland, that’s pretty much exactly how the original proposed backstop functioned, and the DUP won’t accept anything that treats NI differently from the rest of the UK.

    Probably because that’s the only deal that would actually work. And if Labor supported it, it wouldn’t matter what the DUP did, would it?

    Of course, May would then lose DUP support and thus lose government, but so what? In my view, she’s finished anyway, and so is her government.

    But at least this way Britain gets a soft Brexit. Isn’t that better than the alternative?

    And please note – I’m not predicting this will happen – it would require Labour to accept some responsibility. My prediction is that Labour will instead allow a hard Brexit to occur.

  29. P1

    . But then so were both political parties who promised to respect the outcome of the referendum.

    Ah yes democracy.” People, have your jolly vote but we, the political class, won’t give a shit about how you actually vote.”

  30. Whatever the broader church of Labor supporters want, Labor is now controlled, via the branches, by extreme left ideologues.

    (This is a similar problem that the Liberals have here, where an unrepresentative swill of far right ideologues control the majority of the branches).

    The Extreme Left Ideologues want a hard Brexit because it is the only way they can deliver the Revolution. As for the Revolution, it will probably eat itself alive.

    Most revolutions do.
    But by then it will be too late.

  32. Rex Douglas says:
    Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 4:28 pm

    Ed Husic on The Karvellis Show pours the bucket on the CI policy.

    …but Bill says it’s fine.

    Where and when did Shorten say it was fine?

  33. P1

    In that scenario it’s not Labor that is the problem. Its the May Tories.

    You may think so what. They don’t.

    Labour has offered to negotiate but after the No Confidence circus and May turning her back on the will of the parliament Labour knows there will be no negotiating

  34. The term “neo-Lib” is basically rubbish. It is used to describe all manner of things. Mostly it’s invoked in political slanging by pop-left groupies. It’s not a meaningful category in economics.

    Political scientists, sociologists, and economists don’t agree with you. It isn’t healthy to pretend that there isn’t a vast literature on the concept of neoliberalism and that the concept is relevant to political, social, and economic changes during the past forty years.

    Inventing idiosyncratic terms of abuse (Libing, Pop-Left) carries no weight compared with the literature on neoliberalism.

    Indulging in sneering anti-intellectual jibes might give you a dopamine hit but ultimately it is a sign of weakness to revel in ignorance.

  35. Referendum one had no Constitutional validity. It was non binding.
    Referendum two would have exactly the same Constitutional validity. It would be non binding.
    The way democracy works in Britain is by way of a majority of votes in the HOC at any time.
    They can all change their minds in the afternoon.
    The current HOC majority consistently votes for various iterations of an ongoing omnishambolic trainwreck.
    That is democracy at work.
    It is also an excellent argument against four or five year terms.

  36. Re Bowen

    I’ve always been a fan of Right faction (or “moderate” if you like) Labor politicians with an interest in economics: Hawke, Keating, Kerin, Dawkins,Willis, Swan, Chalmers, etc. Even Latham, before he started to go off the rails. Therefore, I was drawn towards Bowen from the very start.

    I thought he did a great job with a really difficult task as Immigration minister under Gillard. He was also pretty effective as interim leader between Rudd and Shorten in 2013.: so much so, that I was almost sorry to see him have to step down for Bill. And he started well as shadow Treasurer.

    But, in recent years, Bowen has begun to struggle a bit. He has always looked a bit uncomfortable with the negative gearing/CGT proposals and even more so with the dividend imputation changes. His statement that people who don’t like that policy are free to vote Liberal was quite embarrassing and certainly unworthy of him.

    While I’ve seen no evidence that he doesn’t fully support the proposals he is selling, I don’t think they place him in an easy situation. The sweet spot for a moderate Labor politician like Bowen is to be supporting a combination of a fair taxation system supporting positive outcomes for all Australians, be they disadvantaged people living on welfare, aspirational suburbanites, self-funded retirees, etc. The problem with Labor’s current suite of taxation policies, and the rhetoric around them, is that there is a strong element of Robin Hoodism: that is, Labor is creating a strong sense that some people are doing too well and that the Government is going to have to take money from them and give it to those who aren’t doing so well.

    Hawke and Keating were always careful to avoid ending up in this position. Their focus was always more on presenting their reforms as stimulating a level of economic growth that would end up make everyone better off. My sense is that Bowen would generally be more comfortable promoting this sort of “everyone wins” approach but that he has not been allowed to do so: presumably by the same internal conflicts that have pushed Shorten into such a difficult position around the issue of boat people.

  37. Barney in Vinh Long @ #2622 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 4:36 pm

    Rex,

    Darn posted the quote which was attached to something they had received.

    The quote says it refers to Turnbull’s business tax cuts.

    What more do you want?

    Isn’t that clear enough for you? 😆

    No, it referred to Turnbull tax cuts. Go back and read darns post, then apologise for mis-representing him.

    Then, you can again apologise again for inventing a context that suits your Labor leanings.

    FWIW, Turnbulls tax cuts include personal tax cuts – https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/21/coalitions-143bn-tax-cuts-package-passes-in-parliament

  38. All good questions Cud, and you are straining the limits of my knowledge and opinion.

    It was 14 Labour rebels who voted against Yvette Cooper’s anti no deal brexit amendment -EDIT–> who defeated the amendment. There was no three line whip (essentially when a party instructs that there is a binding vote – breach of which potentially means expulsion) for this amendment

    Cooper’s amendment was an explicit attempt to prevent no deal in that it would’ve led to the UK Parliament taking steps to extend the article 50 negotiating period. Whether the EU would have agreed to that, I don’t know.

    The UK Parliament does have the authority to stop a no deal brexit, but only by voting for an alternative: May’s deal, or extend article 50 to conduct a referendum.

    I believe Cooper is planning to lodge her amendment in revised form again. I’m not sure when. In any case, her amendment in and of itself is not enough to stop a no deal brexit.

    The 17 Conservative rebels who voted FOR Cooper’s amendment may well have supported a second referendum. We simply won’t know the level of support for that until it becomes a more concrete prospect and the numbers start to crystalise. As I said earlier, the main obstacle to a second referendum is Corbyn refusing to allow Labour to support it.

    As for the EU, they don’t negotiate in public (for good reason, as the Tories have found out), so what reason they would accept for postponement is known only to the EU.

  39. Boerwar
    Could you be little more careful with your spelling of Labour; different countries different parties.
    Australia: labor
    England: labour

  40. guytaur @ #2631 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 4:46 pm

    Labour has offered to negotiate but after the No Confidence circus and May turning her back on the will of the parliament Labour knows there will be no negotiating

    There is no negotiation either possible or required. There is a deal on the table the EU will accept, and they have also said there is no scope for renegotiation. Perhaps people didn’t believe that a few months ago, but I think they do now. Between Labour and the Tories there are enough votes in the parliament to support the deal. If instead there is a hard Brexit, who is going to cop the blame? Labour is – in my view correctly – banking on the Tories copping nearly all of it, and losing government as a result.

    That does not make it right, it just makes it likely

  41. Darn @ #2571 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 3:42 pm

    The following quote was part of an email I received today from an obviously anti Labor source. The email was shit canning Chris Bowen, who it claimed had said these words.

    “The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has clearly shown that the unfair Turnbull Govt tax cuts offer no benefit to those who don’t pay tax. This is plainly unfair, that people should not get a tax cut just because they don’t pay tax”.

    Can anyone here know if Bowen actually DID say these words? The second sentence just doesn’t sound right to me.

    No it doesn’t sound right at all.

  42. Speaking of stupid…..
    .
    .
    Cancer Council Queensland retracts ‘error’ used to attack Labor’s franking policy
    ERYK BAGSHAW FEBRUARY 20, 2019
    The Cancer Council of Queensland has retracted its claims donations would be under threat under Labor’s franking credits policy,
    https://outline.com/eAXkCZ

  44. Nicholas @ #2634 Wednesday, February 20th, 2019 – 4:47 pm

    The term “neo-Lib” is basically rubbish. It is used to describe all manner of things. Mostly it’s invoked in political slanging by pop-left groupies. It’s not a meaningful category in economics.

    Political scientists, sociologists, and economists don’t agree with you. It isn’t healthy to pretend that there isn’t a vast literature on the concept of neoliberalism and that the concept is relevant to political, social, and economic changes during the past forty years.

    Inventing idiosyncratic terms of abuse (Libing, Pop-Left) carries no weight compared with the literature on neoliberalism.

    Indulging in sneering anti-intellectual jibes might give you a dopamine hit but ultimately it is a sign of weakness to revel in ignorance.

    Indulging in such jibes as you describe is actually an admission of hidden shame.

  46. @meher baba

    “The problem with Labor’s current suite of taxation policies, and the rhetoric around them, is that there is a strong element of Robin Hoodism: that is, Labor is creating a strong sense that some people are doing too well and that the Government is going to have to take money from them and give it to those who aren’t doing so well.”

    Yes? That is the general idea.

  47. Frednk,
    “Boerwar
    Could you be little more careful with your spelling of Labour; different countries different parties.
    Australia: labor
    England: labour”

    Agreed, and I’m not sure how someone could set themself up as an expert on British Labour if they can spell the name of the party.

Comments Page 53 of 59
1 … 52 53 54 … 59

Leave a Reply

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