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 |
Great pushback on the gotcha. Be more like that Bill…
Desert Qlder says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 7:24 pm
“I’m not talking about who won the fifth at Flemington”digger”
Shorten destroys Morrison.
________________
phony aussie slang doesn’t work cobber.
Scotty doesn’t know that here in WA we are looking to be one of the biggest exporters of lithium.
POLL: Who do you trust to do more on climate change?
Bill – 53%
Scott – 47%
The problem with ‘growing the economy to grow wages’ is, that it is, and they aren’t.
Riley always wanting to frame the response –
As always, nath is full of shit.
Drop the smirk!
Growth under this govt is at historic lows.
The look on Morrison’s face as he was owned by Bill! Priceless!
C@t found any ‘muslim call to prayer towers’ in your electorate. They are everywhere!
nath @ #1097 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 7:24 pm
Are we doing leader’s debate or fashion show? I thought it was the first thing.
adrian @ #1105 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 7:26 pm
In news that is a surprise to no one in Australia.
Between what I read here and from Amy Remeikis it seems the debate is a shambles.
The debates should be left to the experts, namely the ABC and the NPC.
If Scott Morrison said anything about the Coaltion’s climate policy other than that the Coalition shut down effective action on climate change, tried to shut down the renewables industry, has been actively boosting continued burning of coal and set up a pretext bullshit “Direct Action” plan that didn’t stop a single CO2 molecule from escaping into the atmosphere, he’s lying.
Scotty getting into the gutter over Cleanevent
Thankyou PBers watching the debate, cannot stand to listen to Scrott. I’ve known some teachers/colleagues that had grating modes of vocal delivery and I always pitied their students having to put up with it Day in day out. Grateful I don’t have to listen tonight.
Shorten smirking now over the Cleanevent deal. Morrison is zeroing in now. He’s killing him.
nath is blowing smoke up Scotty’s arse
I’m a bit relieved. Bill’s doing good here.
ScoMo brings up old news. Does anyone watching even KNOW what he’s talking about?
And it was the ‘Suburban Solicitor’ who wore daggy tracky dacks when he did his daily walk, that ruled over us for 12 years. Bring. It. On. Suburban Accountants Rool! 😆
Bill about to launch into Palmer. What an own goal
Bill is absolutely nailing it.
Scomo is drowning and resorting to shouting.
Seconded, Dog’s Breakfast.
BK:
It isn’t a debate. It isn’t a people’s forum. I don’t really know what this is.
Is this one of the debates where there is a group of supposedly undecided voters that will decide who won the debate?
I could watch it too but rather not.
The Cleanevent thing went over my head.
Ok Adrian, but only because you’re one of the best posters here….how long should I give it rest for because I’m fired up again……
Watching the leaders debate, this is a shocker.
Some thoughts:
– Moderators bringing up Labor leadershit from 2007 – 2013
– Poorly moderated with shouty ScoMo interrupting Shorten and cosuming his debating time
– Shorten not responding well on EV’s.
– Shorten not responding well on emissions reduction
– Poor moderating on not enforcing talking time – letting them go over
– “Debate” is all over the place
What value is Basil adding?
All I know is reading the comments on PB is far better entertainment than FTA tv…….lol
Mumble watching a different debate.
Scotty’s waste of$185m based on f*cken Pezullo’s advice!
Leaders debate. Bill is a PM. Scott is a floundering smirker.
Bill is much better when he’s looser.
a r says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 7:27 pm
nath @ #1097 Monday, April 29th, 2019 – 7:24 pm
Bill’s tie is awful. As usual he presents like a rumpled suburban accountant with problems at home.
Are we doing leader’s debate or fashion show? I thought it was the first thing.
___________________________________
No. but ever since Howard’s gold tie it’s somewhat of an issue. I think Bill should have ironed his suit though. Just to be nice.
‘Bill is absolutely nailing it.
Scomo is drowning and resorting to shouting.’
Better not be polishing a turd Henry….sorry Adrian
How the fuck did immigration return to the top of the agenda after Christchurch?
Boats! Sounding a bit stale. Lonnie Scare is very biased in her lead ins..
Henry says:
Monday, April 29, 2019 at 7:29 pm
Bill is absolutely nailing it.
Scomo is drowning and resorting to shouting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Wondered how long it would be before Scrott went CAPSLOCK!
Mumble’s not a blind ideologue. He’s seeing what I’m seeing. Morrison is beating him.
This music
” isn’t a debate. It isn’t a people’s forum. I don’t really know what this is.”
Its an opportunity created by the MSM in the hope that one or other of the contenders will fwark up.
Have these questions come from the audience? And if not then what is the purpose of the audience?
You can take Mumbles out of NewsCorpse, but you can’t take Rupert out of Peter Brent’s world view
Pretty obvious that this debate won’t change much opinion.
Liberals think Morrison is winning and Labor supporters the other way.
Is anyone watching other than political tragics?
I couldn’t be bothered really, that thing was always set up anyway to disadvantage Shorten, as will the Sky thing later in the week.
Howard lost almost every debate he participated in and he still won four elections.
Scotty adamant Labor’s boats policy isn’t the same as the Liberals’. Someone tell the Greens.
Anyone have any commentary on this debate that is not based on a view through thick rose or jade tinted glasses?