The Australian reports the latest Newspoll records both parties down on the primary vote, the Coalition by one to 38% and Labor by two to 37%, making room for the debut appearance of Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party on 5%. The Greens and One Nation are both unchanged, at 9% and 4% respectively. The two-party preferred headline moves a point in favour of the Coalition, from 52-48 to 51-49 – a lot more on that shortly.
Movements on personal ratings are slightly to Bill Shorten’s favour – he is up two on approval to 39% and steady on disapproval at 51%, and his 45-37 deficit on preferred prime minister is an improvement on his 46-35 in the last poll. Scott Morrison is steady on approval at 45% and up two on disapproval to 46%. Respondents were also asked which leader they most trusted to keep their campaign promises, with Morrison very slightly favoured over Shorten by 41% to 38%. The poll was conducted from Friday to Sunday, with Thursday dropped from the usual field work period because of the public holiday, from a larger than usual sample of 2136, the norm being around 1700.
Beyond that, there is a good deal to unpack. This is the first time a result for the United Australia Party has been published, but the tables in The Australian today reveal the party was on 3% in the poll a fortnight ago, and 2% in the poll the week before that. As Peter Brent discusses in Inside Story, pollsters have an important decision to make in deciding whether to include a minor party in the primary question, or saving it for those who choose “other” out of an initial list – a decision that will have a bearing on their result. I assume the publication of the UAP result in the latest poll marks its elevation from the second tier to the first, but the publication of the earlier results may suggest otherwise.
Then there’s the two-party preferred, which raised eyebrows as the primary votes are of a kind that would normally be associated with 52-48. The answer, it turns out, is that a preference split of 60-40 in favour of the Coalition is being applied to the UAP vote. The rationale is explained in an accompanying piece by David Briggs, managing director of YouGov Galaxy, which conducts Newspoll. First, Briggs confirms this is also what it has been doing with One Nation preferences since the start of last year, earlier statements having been less exact. Of the decision to extend this to Palmer:
With the UAP there is no historical trend data we can refer to in order to estimate the likely preference flow to the major parties. We do know, however, that in the 2013 election 53.67 per cent of the Palmer United Party vote was directed to Coalition candidates. That was without a preference deal, but in the forthcoming federal election the Liberal Party will swap preferences with the UAP and this can only result in an even higher proportion of UAP votes being directed to the Coalition.
In point of fact though, the Palmer United Party’s approach to preferences in 2013 was to put Labor last in every seat (as best as I can tell — its how-to-vote cards are preserved here). I don’t believe this arose from a deal as such, and it didn’t seem to attract any publicity at that time. However, the fact remains that every Palmer United voter who followed the card ended up in the Coalition’s two-party preferred tally, which is no different from the situation at the election to come.
Briggs also points to the party breakdowns from the aforementioned question on leader most trusted to deliver on campaign promises, which found Morrison to be favoured 53-13 among UAP voters – a significant lead, even accounting for the fact that there would only have been around 100 UAP voters out of the poll sample.
The Newspoll preference split may well be vindicated in time, but for now it’s merely a hypothesis. The dynamics of Palmer’s preferences could actually prove rather complex, if the Western Australian election of 2017 is any guide. The Liberals cut a deal with One Nation in that campaign, and they indeed got a bigger cut of their preferences, from the roughly 50-50 split of the 2016 election (out of the 15 lower house seats the party contested) to 60.6%.
However, this may have had less to do with how-to-vote cards than the backlash One Nation suffered as a result of the deal, which the polls of the time indicated had cost them as much as a third of their existing support – presumably among the kind of voter most likely to preference Labor. Since the Liberals were tainted by the deal as well, nobody doubts that it backfired on them, despite its “success” in delivering a higher share of preferences from a diminished One Nation.
As Labor prepares a rhetorical onslaught against Scott Morrison over the Clive Palmer deal, we may well be about to see a similar dynamic play out federally. However, this too is merely a hypothesis. The bottom line is that extrapolating two-party preferred from primary votes right now unavoidably involves an uncomfortable amount of guess work. For better or worse though, the BludgerTrack poll aggregate will continue to be guided by previous election results in allocating preferences – and, notably, the addition of the Newspoll numbers has made almost no difference to it.
The table below compares the results from Newspoll model with two alternative approaches that might have been taken. The results are imprecise in that they rely on the rounded primary votes published by Newspoll, but it’s nonetheless worth noting that the Newspoll method gives Labor 51.4%, suggesting the headline figure was likely rounded in their favour. The next two columns along, under “Past election: A”, apply UAP preferences using Palmer United’s 53.7-46.3 split from 2013, and One Nation’s using the almost 50-50 split from 2016. The last two columns, “Past election: B”, are how it would go if the UAP was treated as just another component of “others”, and thus given the almost 50-50 split such votes followed in 2016.
| Newspoll method | Past election: A | Past election: B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L-NP | ALP | L-NP | ALP | L-NP | ALP | |
| Primary | 38 | 37 | 38 | 37 | 38 | 37 |
| Greens | 1.6 | 7.4 | 1.6 | 7.4 | 1.6 | 7.4 |
| UAP | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| One Nation | 2.4 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Others | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.4 |
| TOTAL | 48.6 | 51.4 | 47.9 | 52.1 | 47.7 | 52.3 |
Patrick Bateman
“Re science vs jobs, the line Labor should be running hard is that drought, bushfires, dry rivers, rising oceans, dying ecosystems are ALREADY costing more jobs and more money than Adani could ever bring in, and that the mine itself will be a net loser on all of those measures.”
Can you please provide some statistics to support your claims:
Statistically significant evidence that there are more droughts, more bushfires, more dry rivers.
You may not be aware of the recent run of record years of WA Grain Harvests or the record WA Rock Lobster Stocks.
And then explain how a mine that may contribute 0.03% to global eCO2 emissions is going to be responsible for the collapse of the GBR ecosystem?
a r
Shorten is consistently perceived as ‘untrustworthy’ in polling. That has to come from somewhere.
From Andrew Earlwood at 12:09
This is the nub of the issue for central Queensland. There is a lot that Labor can do in Government to substitute for the mines – part of that would be upgrading the transport links and sponsoring new industries – that’s what the gas pipeline announcement by Shorten was about (yes I know gas is problematic as well but it is part of the transition to a low carbon economy in other countries and also will fade away quicker as the gas runs out).
The idea of a vast renewable energy province could have some attractions as well – very large areas given over to solar and wind generation with transmission links to make it all work, together with use of renewable power to produce hydrogen for export.
Without looking it up I’m not sure, but I also think there are deposits of high value minerals for use in high tech manufacturing and electronics.
But a lot of this can only be credibly promised from the position of being in government – it’s too easy to nay say if you’re speaking from opposition
The trend is your friend.
That said, I still can’t see the LNP pulling it off in the face of the Union and Get Up money and ground games.
I will be unsurprised by a minority ALP Government – I wonder what the Greens will require?
On Ladbrokes, the odds are narrowed to:
Labor $1.33
Coalition $3.25
We’re almost down to the “Gambling is for mugs. What do the punters know anyway?” level
Morrison is ‘winning’ the campaign. Fortunately or otherwise, few voters pay a lot of attention to this. They are repelled by nearly all of it. Politics is a taboo subject in most households. I think this is a function of decades of Lib messaging – complimented of course by perennial G messaging – which holds that politics is never relevant; that choice does not exist; that no-one can be ‘trusted’. This is an immobilising, paralysing set-up. Voting becomes pointless. Politics becomes a game. Withdrawal, denial and anger are the progeny.
Rocket Rocket – I laid a bit (nothing big but enough to make it a nice return) at 3.25. Very happy to see how that plays out.
“Realise i should not be surprised, but the media are treating it like a sporting contest nothing more, no discussion of policy.”
The media have much to answer for in terms of the debasement of political debate. 🙁
Just watching Bill on the box…he’s got some good lines but just can’t deliver them convincingly.
Still sounds like he’s auditioning for the school play….a shame really…
Bucephalus
It’s not Labor’s fault the the Coalition’s attempts (multiple) at starting a grassroots movement along the lines of GetUp continually fail.
It’s because the Coalition’s agenda doesn’t appeal to the grassroots.
Yes, I was going to point this out too. This means that the only one of the UAP candidates with potential S44 issues listed that matters is the Queensland Senate candidate – if re-running the count with that candidate excluded from the start causes a different result, you’d expect to see a challenge. The kind of tipping-point situations that would lead to that sort of thing are much less likely under the new Senate system, though.
Puffy
It’s very simple.
A disabled person has voted for a party that has a disabled person doing disability policy.
It surprises me you are surprised.
Patrick Bateman @ #551 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 1:01 pm
Yeah, it comes from Tony Abbott’s Royal Commission into “Bill Shorten is a Dodgy Bastard, Isn’t He?”.
And also from legitimate things, like getting wedged on Adani, or caught out telling Excessive Overtime Guy that he’d “look into” those tax cuts.
And also the media, who take all of that and amplify it up to 11.
I remain mystified that Penny Wong is not Labor’s candidate in the seat of Adelaide, with Steve Georganas filling a casual vacancy in the Senate. What a wasted opportunity to get Labor’s standout performer into the lower house.
Bucephalus says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 1:03 pm
The trend is your friend.
——————–
Yes the trend is showing a comfortable win to Labor , lIbs/nats combined primary vote has peaked at 38% and not improving for weeks and weeks despite the media propaganda , they are not getting the voters to make the election a contest
Looks like Newspoll ‘adjustment’ has had the desired impact. The narrowing narrative, defeatism in the progressive side despite no polling evidence.
GG
If any of these 19 candidates fail S44 , should their preferences be counted at all?
‘On Ladbrokes, the odds are narrowed to:
Labor $1.33
Coalition $3.25’
Slipping away….
Two weeks from now;
Labor $15.33
Coalition $1.01
Bucephalus, I have learnt that it is better to ignore climate change deniers than to try to educate them.
As someone living in Adelaide we have just had the hottest day ever recorded and 22.6mm of rain for the whole of 2019 so far. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change and its implications. I am really not interested in your theories about Western Australian lobsters.
Shorten is perceived as untrustworthy because he’s a politician. Nobody would remember he had anything to do with Rudd/Gillard. You’re giving people too much knowledge/memory of ancient history.
Patrick Bateman @ #550 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 11:01 am
It does. Newscorp.
OK Gorks
When it’s 53/47 ALP that’s polling evidence.
When it’s 51/49 that’s some arcane bit of polling shenanigans.
Got it.
ltep says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:46 pm
Does that include if the ineligible candidate makes the final two in the count?
I can understand it for someone who doesn’t make the final two as all their votes are redistributed as preferences, but if they make the final two there’s no redistribution and theoretically the someone who’s been excluded could have won.
Mundo you gotta dial it back a little bit to be more believable.
Patrick Bateman says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:59 pm
“In my book, the Gs are Libs in a different t-shirt.”
Which marks you out as delusional.
Nah. It means I can read.
Labor has been responsible for every important social and economic reform in Australia since Federation. Every single one. Had the Gs existed at the time, they would have found a way to oppose them. They profit from opposition. They are tactically just like Tony Abbott. They are determined to prevent Labor from succeeding. This is their political method. They oppose Labor for expedient purposes. This is just plainly obvious to any observer with a memory and any experience of political endeavour.
SCOUT @ #545 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 12:57 pm
Why just an hour ago we were treated to ‘analysis’ of Labor’s child care package, specifically the rise in pay for childcare workers on The World Today.
This analysis consisted of an interview with a child care worker, complaining about her low wages, then the voice of authority, an economist.
Said economist’s lie was that it was not the govt’s job to mandate pay increases for a sector of the community, and that any wage increases could be achieved through, you guessed it, increased productivity, and increased competition.
Nothing from Labor, defending or explaining their policy. Just a message for the child care worker – get more productive!
If this is the level of analysis on your ABC, it’s no wonder they mainly stick to the campaign theatrics.
You’re right Itep.
$5.33
Please people look at Vote Compass.
They spefically polled on trustworthiness of the leaders.
Bill Shorten came first followed by Senator Di Natale
They did NOT ask who was the most liked. The polling question matters.
ltep
says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 1:10 pm
Shorten is perceived as untrustworthy because he’s a politician. Nobody would remember he had anything to do with Rudd/Gillard. You’re giving people too much knowledge/memory of ancient history.
___________________________________
People remember the footage of Shorten working 2 phones at the Hoang Hau restaurant the night of the coup.
mundo @ #569 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 1:11 pm
Read the (credible) analysis. It’s not 51/49 yet. It’s still 52/48. And perhaps even 52.5/47.5.
imacca
The media we have now in part comes from Labor allowing it to get to this state, mostly under the Hawke/Keating years but again under Rudd/Gillard. Particularly the former were so keen on deregulating the hell out of everything that they happily allowed a media monopoly to rise up in Australia. The latter was never brave enough to put in place some standards for political reporting with real teeth or to start breaking up that monopoly. Rudd, right at the death in 2013, had a massive sook about it but he should have gone after them in 2007.
Too clever by half on such matters in power, Labor. They always seem to forget that the other side will get a turn in due course. The Libs have no such qualms about messing with structural elements of our political system to stack it in their own favour.
It all echoes a lot of what has happened in the US, where the Republicans have stacked a lot of the formal and informal machinery of politics in their favour while the Democrats happily play by the rules and then act shocked when they consistently fail to triumph.
BH @ #565 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 1:08 pm
I’d imagine their votes would be excluded. So, a recount might find another candidate the winner.
Of course, the simple answer may be that Penny is very happy where she is.
Apparently Bill’s nickname in the PLP, one they never use in public though, is ‘Bill the knife’.
The preferences aren’t “theirs” (the candidate’s) – the preferences in question are those of the voters who marked them. So yes, they certainly should be counted.
Is this mundo another sock-puppet account?
Guytaur
‘Please people look at Vote Compass’.
No, look at the kinds of people who take Vote Compass.
They’re mostly people like us (proggo leftie types).
If Scrotty’s bogan army hit the site the numbers would look entirely different.
Re thrend. It seems to me that it was about 52.5/47.5 before the eelection and this latest Newspoll would still be 52.5/47.5 if Newspoll management had not changed their method of allocating preferences for UAP.
So, Labor still on track to win decisively despite all the huffing and puffing.
Firstly, Penny Wong doesn’t want to be an MHR. She’s the Senate leader.
Secondly, the thing that annoyed me about that deal was the fact the Georganas was moved to Adelaide. Georganas was the reason that Hindmarsh was Labor since 2004 (except 2013-16). I know boundaries have changed etc. but the core part of Hindmarsh and the community that Georganas connected with remains the same.
I don’t care if a lot of Port Adelaide got absorbed into Hindmarsh. Butler’s strength is as a senior left-wing figure, not as a local community member. He should have ran in Adelaide. But because Adelaide traditionally “belongs” to the Right, he knows a Left MP for Adelaide would face moves to be pushed out before too long.
Candidates cannot be ruled out under s.44 by the AEC. This is a judicial determination, not an administrative one. It’s most unlikely that a court would become involved in the non-election of an ineligible candidate, something that could only be determined after the election had been conducted.
Why Slackboy, who do I remind you of?
Patrick Bateman @ #550 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 1:01 pm
I think the interpretation of the answers these sorts of questions in polls is often misrepresented, not just in respect of Shorten but all politicians.
The questions are usually framed in terms of “Do you have (positive) trust in X”.
My interpretation of a “No” answer to this sort of question would be: the person answering could be saying anything from they don’t know enough about the politician yet to answer Yes at one extreme to they believe the politician is fundamentally dishonest and treacherous at the other extreme.
Essentially the questiondoesn’t discriminate between “not trustworthy” and “untrustworthy” – they are two different things.
A similar argument applies to assertions that opinion polls show a particular politician is “hated”. There is a difference between “hated” and “not embraced”.
zoomster – It’s more to do with the fact that LNP/Conservative types are generally very busy people who don’t work for the Public Service. Outside of their work (whether as small business owners or employees) they are committed to their family and local community organisations. I don;t have time to weed my front garden at the moment between kids’ sports, music, Committee positions for two different sports and coaching a team and running my own business. Mrs Bucephalus works probably 80 hours a week in a very demanding job – our week days start at 0540 unless it’s a 0500 for a kids sport training and stop after 2100 hours when I get t0 walk the dog. And then we roll into a weekend of sport for kids and adults. Even typing this is a scheduled decision to take some time off from everything else – which I can’t really justify. So, while I’ve considered requests to lend time to door knocking and phones and HTV handing out – I just can’t make it work. And neither can most of our like minded friends.
Guytaur – person with a disability / not disabled person. Language is very important….the person is still there.
“LNP/Conservative types are generally very busy people who don’t work for the Public Service”
The delusion that privilege right wingers on good money have it tougher than the rest of the world continues.
I would bet the farm that on average, Labor voters work longer hours than Liberal voters.
Even if the Coalition start leading and Labor is losing the election, the polling would have to start rapidly, dramatically and consistently swinging in favour of the Coalition to see those odds appear.
slackboy72 @ #584 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 1:17 pm
mundo predicted Labor would lose the Super Saturday elections, that Bill would be consequently replaced and the end of the world was nigh.
Still using the same shit crystal ball.
a r says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 1:00 pm
People’s memories aren’t that bad. I live in a Coalition seat with very low incomes (Cowper). It would be in people’s interests here to vote Labor, but they’re wary of Labor’s (incorrectly) perceived economic management credentials, and of “restarting the boats”. Still, in conversation some Nats voters are quite positive about some Labor policy, like the proposed negative gearing changes, or setting ambitious EV targets, or adopting a NEG approach on climate/energy. But Shorten comes up as a stumbling block over and over. They may just be looking for an excuse not to swing their vote to Labor, but when they look for that excuse, it’s Shorten’s hand in knifing Rudd and Gillard in 2010/2013 that they come up with – either that or worries that he’s a CFMEU puppet (less of a concern up here as being pro-forestry unites the Nats/CFMEU causes somewhat).
One of the factors that’s likely to give Oakeshott an easy run over the top of Labor here is poor perceptions of Shorten. Albanese, particularly given his role in getting the Pacific Highway upgrades funded, is Labor’s star performer here, and gets rockstar treatment when in town for Politics in the Pub or similar. Shorten would struggle to get a crowd. Even on the left here, he’s respected for steadying Labor’s ship, but not liked.
“We are talking about people that think you can eat money. They don’t see the threat to those jobs. They deny the science. They deny the evidence of actual coral bleaching.”
Very true.
Bucephalus @ #549 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 1:01 pm
Are you seriously trying to waste everyone’s time with climate-change denialism?
…and cherry-picking?
Potentially nonsensical cherry-picking, at that. Nothing says that a warmer climate must kill grain and lobsters in WA. That would be…oddly specific.
No. The people who want the mine need to explain why any effort should go into extracting a deprecated carbon-based fuel at a time when the world needs to rapidly decarbonize, and why such effort isn’t better spent investing in renewable energy instead.