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 |
GetUp is just a political organisation like IPA. They should not have vested interests in determining policies.
Is zoomster here? I have a petty point to make on something. 🙂
Bucephalus @ #839 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 5:03 pm
And to Tony Abbott, for being unable to make the transition from Opposition Leader/Attack Dog, to leader of the nation. What a putz that man is!
The Liberals sure can pick ’em. From Captain Catholic to Pastor Pentecostal.
Firefox says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:00 pm
The Shorten changes to the Leadership process are a fig leaf – they can be changed by a Caucus vote requiring only a 50%+1 vote majority to be disposed of.
Jeez, Chris Pyne just can’t keep himself out of the limelight!
Rational Leftist @ #832 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 5:01 pm
C’mon we all know Shorten will get the flick if it looks like a 1 term Govt is all they get.
@Kieran Gilbert
Just got this in the letter box. Sounds scary #AUSVote2019
Bucephalus @ #854 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 5:05 pm
And the Liberal Party leadership process?
Zoidlord @ #857 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 5:07 pm
I think we can safely call this a Scare Campaign. 🙂
If that happens, then they deserve all the shit they get after that.
Lincoln
I don’t think you read what you write carefully enough.
You claimed GetUp ‘avoided scrutiny’ by the AEC. Clearly, it didn’t.
a r says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:01 pm
I don’t understand why you think Turnbull needs to be told. The “unelectable” Abbott then pushed the ALP to a minority government on the back of Jokeshot and Whinger betraying their conservative electorates and subsequently won.
Rumour is that Gillard is playing nice with Shorten despite knifing because She wants to be GG. Rudd doing the same because he wants support to run the U.N. Something for everyone. Feeney to be U.S ambassador for sure. Look at his twitter page. It’s all about U.S and global issues.
PB?
Re my argument with zoomster who alleged that Gillard was of the Left. This little analysis presents a far different picture:
Despite the Left label she had worn since her University days, Gillard’s career depended on the right. They gave her Lalor in 1998 on the strength of talent alone. After that she voted with the Right and they controlled the numbers in her seat. She had her own tiny subfaction known as the Ferguson Left, but her base in Victoria was broad and at it’s heart were the ShortCons.
David Marr, Faction Man.
“The Shorten changes to the Leadership process are a fig leaf – they can be changed by a Caucus vote requiring only a 50%+1 vote majority to be disposed of.”
Labor would be absolutely insane to remove those rules. Best gift Rudd ever gave them. What happened to him in the middle of the night and what he did to Gillard in return should never happen again.
Before Labor’s last term in government the tax free threshold was @6000, it’s almost 20,000 now thanks to the ALP.
Why hasn’t Labor defused this Tax You To Death crap by reminding/telling people that.
The average punter has forgotten how much of their money they used to get to keep before tax.
Maybe Labor doesn’t really want to win.
mundo @ #847 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 5:03 pm
You don’t get it, do you? Angry Ant campaigns are counter-productive for Labor. They will always be pounced on and bent out of shape by the media, led from the front by the Murdoch media. The Coalition, on the other hand, are allowed to get away with blue murder.
As I said before, thank goodness you are nowhere near the Labor campaign.
No, poodle pics.
Rumour has it the Magical Leprechaun Princess is swearing fealty to the Fairy King because she wants to be the Guardian of the Unicorn Glades.
Parties locked in close contest for second week: ALP 51% cf. L-NP 49%
For the second straight week the two major parties are locked in a tight contest with a slight edge to the ALP 51% cf. L-NP 49% on a two party preferred basis according to a face-to-face Roy Morgan Poll conducted over the weekend of April 27/28, 2019 with a representative cross-section of 826 Australian electors.
Primary Voting Intention
Both major parties managed to increase their primary votes this week at the expense of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation but there was no change to the close overall two-party preferred result ahead of tonight’s first Leaders’ Debate between Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten in Perth.
The L-NP now has a primary vote of 39.5% (up 0.5%) and remains clearly ahead of the ALP on 36% (up 0.5%) while Greens support is unchanged on 9.5%. Support for One Nation is down 2% to 2.5% while support for Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party is unchanged on 2%. Support for Independents/Others is up 1% to 10.5%.
“Rumour is that Gillard is playing nice with Shorten despite knifing because She wants to be GG. Rudd doing the same because he wants support to run the U.N. Something for everyone. Feeney to be U.S ambassador for sure. Look at his twitter page. It’s all about U.S and global issues.”
At least Rudd and Gillard would be well suited to those roles. Feeney though?? US ambassador?? Surely you jest!
C@tmomma says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:07 pm
What don’t you understand about the Party Room voting for the Leader?
How about this, the Liberal party will reduce the tax free threshold back to $6000
Put that in peoples letter boxes.
At least it’ll start a conversation about the best party to let you keep more of your money before tax (and yes I know it was about the carbon price….not the point)
@mundo
No matter how hard they try they are stuffed due to bias media.
Firefox
says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:11 pm
“The Shorten changes to the Leadership process are a fig leaf – they can be changed by a Caucus vote requiring only a 50%+1 vote majority to be disposed of.”
Labor would be absolutely insane to remove those rules. Best gift Rudd ever gave them. What happened to him in the middle of the night and what he did to Gillard in return should never happen again.
__________________________________________
Well it kinda did happen again. In the 2013 leadership contest between Shorten and Albo. Shorten and his factional/union lieutenants put the squeeze on more than a few caucus members who would have liked to have voted for Albo. But who liked their seat more.
Labor would know exactly what is biting atm better than anyone here.
Their nightly tracking polling etc etc would have them well up to speed.
Cheers.
Hockey, US Ambassador???
“Yes, with a lovely little knitted tea cosy on top and some dainty little scones with cream and jam for later.”
chill and see how it goes mundo.
Winners can afford to do the tea and scones thing. 🙂
[citation needed]
Sohar says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 4:32 pm
Shouldn’t Aircrash Investigation be the aftershow? 🙂
@doyley yes. And to all the campaign advertising experts out there, it’s very difficult for a punter from one state/seat to see a targetted advertisement by either major party in another state/seat. It won’t show up on your YouTube/Facebook feeds. It certainly won’t be on your TV or radio either.
‘You don’t get it, do you? Angry Ant campaigns are counter-productive for Labor. They will always be pounced on and bent out of shape by the media, led from the front by the Murdoch media. The Coalition, on the other hand, are allowed to get away with blue murder.’
Why bother then?
If it’s just the big bad Liberal party up against the poor little downtrodden misunderstood Labor party and nothing will ever go right oh woe is us…..WHY FCKING BOTHER>
Yawning
Firefox
says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:13 pm
“Rumour is that Gillard is playing nice with Shorten despite knifing because She wants to be GG. Rudd doing the same because he wants support to run the U.N. Something for everyone. Feeney to be U.S ambassador for sure. Look at his twitter page. It’s all about U.S and global issues.”
At least Rudd and Gillard would be well suited to those roles. Feeney though?? US ambassador?? Surely you jest!
________________________________
Feeney knows where all the Shorten bodies are buried. He helped Shorten bury them. Including details about both coups. Feeney has to be sweetened. He’s waiting for Bill to break out the Lolly big time. If not U.S, then a plum European posting will no doubt suit. Watch this space. The Feeney must be fed.
Zoomster
Nope. Maybe you didn’t read the bottom comment (or my others since arriving at this blog). Get Up was engaged in advertising that I doubt would have escaped the scrutiny of the AEC if it were registered as a political organisation.
The context was the lack of accountability afforded to Get Up by not being clearly linked to a single party. A dangerous precedent.
Shoot. That sailed straight over my head. I must be busy.
Anyway, wasnt that a maltese cross?
‘Shorten and his factional/union lieutenants put the squeeze on more than a few caucus members who would have liked to have voted for Albo. But who liked their seat more.’
Incorrect. It was a non factional vote, with some Left MPs voting for Shorten and some Right MPs voting for Albo.
What did happen was that the Lefties who voted for Shorten were punished by their faction, the righties who voted for Albo weren’t.
No, that’s me.
“Well it kinda did happen again. In the 2013 leadership contest between Shorten and Albo. Shorten and his factional/union lieutenants put the squeeze on more than a few caucus members who would have liked to have voted for Albo. But who liked their seat more.”
True. The Labor Right Faction did disregard the will of the rank and file and made sure Albo didn’t win.
‘No matter how hard they try they are stuffed due to bias media.’
Great, who do I see to get refund on my donations?
Rupert.
Rational Leftist
says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:17 pm
Well it kinda did happen again. In the 2013 leadership contest between Shorten and Albo. Shorten and his factional/union lieutenants put the squeeze on more than a few caucus members who would have liked to have voted for Albo. But who liked their seat more.
[citation needed]
Albanese won 18,230 rank and file votes. Shorten collected only 12,196 but had the numbers in Caucus. “they broke arms and legs to lock in the vote for Shorten” said one veteran MP.
David Marr, Faction Man.
What has Gary Morgan got against Clive, 2%!
Jesus mundo – I think you need a longer sleep.
mundo says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:14 pm
The ALP are the masters at that with their Mediscare Texts last election.
When I read comments by mundo, an image of a headless chook comes to mind. Too bloody funny
Barney in Phan Thiet
After the show it is ‘C.S.I. :Crime Scene Investigators’
Lol
Bucephalus & mundo
Troll bots
Ranting and raving about past.
Here’s the Club House leader for best political ad so far!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1122644073188220929