Newspoll: 51-49 to Labor; Ipsos: 52-48 to Labor

Two polls show Labor maintaining its modest lead, although they have different stories to tell on primary votes and leaders’ ratings.

Two national polls this evening, one being a second Newspoll result in successive weeks, showing Labor’s two-party lead unchanged on last week at 51-49. There is also next to no movement on the primary votes, with the Coalition at 38% (steady), Labor at 36% (down one), the Greens at 9% (unchanged), One Nation at 5% (up one) and United Australia Party at 4% (down one). As was the case last week, this might well have come out at 52-48 before Newspoll adopted its United Australia Party preference split of 60-40 in favour of the Coalition.

There is, however, a significant negative movement for Bill Shorten’s approval rating, which at 35% is down four points on last week’s result (which itself was a two point improvement on a fortnight before). His disapproval rating is at 53%, up two. Scott Morrison was down a point on both approval and disapproval, to 44% and 45% respectively. His lead as preferred prime minister is 46-35, out from 45-37 last time. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 2003.

In the ex-Fairfax papers, Ipsos has Labor’s lead at 52-48, down from 53-47 at its last such poll between the budget and the election announcement. This holds for both Ipsos’s respondent-allocated and previous election preference measures.

The primary votes are such as to exacerbate Ipsos’s peculiarity of having low numbers for the major parties and high ones for the Greens: both major parties are down a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 36% and Labor to 33%, while the Greens are up one to 14%. Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, which has been rather inconsistent in its poll readings, comes in at only 3% in its debut result from Ipsos, while One Nation is unchanged at 5%.

Ipsos’s personal ratings record very different movement from Newspoll’s, which can only be partly explained by the fact that the previous Ipsos was four weeks ago and the previous Newspoll was last week. The movements are entirely to the advantage of Labor, with Bill Shorten up four on approval to 40% and steady on disapproval at 51%; Scott Morrison down one on approval to 47% and up five on disapproval to 44%; and Morrison’s lead on preferred prime minister narrowing from 46-35 to 45-40. The Ipsos poll was conducted Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 1207.

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.

1,544 comments on “Newspoll: 51-49 to Labor; Ipsos: 52-48 to Labor”

  1. If Adani proceeds, it will be because a re-elected coalition provides financial support to the firm and then devises a way to circumvent the Queensland government. It follows that the single best way to prevent the development of the mine would be to support the election of a federal Labor Government. And this invites the question – Why have the Greens set out to make it more difficult for Labor to win? Why? Why have they adopted tactics that make it more likely that Adani will proceed than less likely? Why? Can it be that the Gs actually want Adani to be given development approval because that would give them campaign material for years to come? Why do the Gs take political steps that are so plainly dysfunctional?

  2. Firefox says:
    Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:47 am
    The answer to how you deal with Trump is that you DON’T. Ignore him.

    That is pretty much the approach Labor has used with its opponents.

  3. “Why have the Greens set out to make it more difficult for Labor to win?”

    Let me explain something to you. Say someone who was going to vote Labor decides instead to vote for the Greens because of the Adani issue. That does not help the Coalition, in fact it hurts them. There’s no stronger way to vote against the Coalition and their agenda, including Adani, than voting for the Greens. Such a voter is still almost certain to preference Labor ahead of the Coalition anyway, just as I will be. That isn’t helping the Coalition, it’s making sure Labor will be held accountable and take real action on climate change when they’re (hopefully) in government.

    Shorten has said he supports Adani if it “stack up environmentally”. Well guess what, Bill, it doesn’t. Massive new coal mines don’t stack up environmentally no matter how many reviews you want to do into it. It doesn’t stack up now and it never did. If you’re not sure whether a coal mine stacks up environmentally then you are part of the problem.

  4. “That is pretty much the approach Labor has used with its opponents.”

    Well in Trump’s case it would be justified. We have more important things to do than listen to that ranting nutcase. Hopefully the Americans give him the boot next year anyway.

  5. I just watched the second half of Q&A. I’ve always thought that Bill Shorten is at his best in this sort of forum. When Shorten tries to stick to the script and the rehearsed lines he comes across as wooden and a bad actor. However, in long form interviews when he answers the questions he’s much more effective. In situations like Q&A he’s very impressive.

    I don’t know what the Labour media handlers and trainers do to the party leaders, but they turn good communicators into poor communicators. It’s when the leaders drop the script that they do best.

    If you look back at previous generations of leaders from either party, none of them seemed to have these problems. Perhaps it’s that they weren’t trying to deliver the day’s carefully scripted soundbite.

  6. “Cud,

    It’s been asked.

    He basically said, the legislation was passed, his actions he had no effect in stopping that happening and that he didn’t vote against his electorate’s wishes.

    Pretty pathetic, but …”

    ***

    Which was the same excuse Abbott used for abstaining, even though it was his own damn policy to have the plebiscite and he had previously promised to represent the will of the people. Pathetic indeed, but what do we really expect from a pair of homophobic dinosaurs.

    The plebiscite was just an excuse for the conservative far right to attack and vilify same sex couples along the way to the inevitability that was marriage equality. A delaying and dividing tactic. So the Coalition being the Coalition, pretty much.

  7. C@tmomma: “LGH,
    All your tax scenarios are based upon an altruism by the wealthy that bears no resemblance to reality.”

    Actually the so called Pigovian taxes (taxes on “bads”) are both rather hard to avoid and their incidence tends to be on the rich (who own the resources, generate the pollution, etc). That’s why the “carbon tax” and resources tax generated such furious opposition.

    LGH: Nazi stuff, WTF?

    I suspect you are playing some sort of prank, but it’s not funny

  8. Lars von Trier:

    Richard Di Natale should have also been invited on Qanda. Big fail by ABC.

    I think you’ll find they put the Wiggles on during the day, when the target audience is awake

  9. E. G. Theodore says:
    Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 1:32 am
    Lars von Trier:

    Richard Di Natale should have also been invited on Qanda. Big fail by ABC.
    I think you’ll find they put the Wiggles on during the day, when the target audience is awake
    ———————————————
    I’ll pay that. Well done “Red Ted”

  10. All essential dentistry should be covered by Medicare, as the Greens have proposed. It is a vital part of the healthcare system. People shouldn’t be excluded from getting their teeth looked after because they are doing it tough.

  11. “Richard Di Natale should have also been invited on Qanda. Big fail by ABC.”

    Yes. The solo Q&As aren’t nearly as good as when there’s a panel to provide differing views.

  12. Firefox says:
    Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 1:35 am

    All essential dentistry should be covered by Medicare, as the Greens have proposed. It is a vital part of the healthcare system. People shouldn’t be excluded from getting their teeth looked after because they are doing it tough.

    One step at a time is how most things progress, the Greens always seem to want to jump to the end result.

  13. Fire…your point is not a point. It is an evasion. The behaviour of G+Labor-inclined voters is one thing. The campaign of the Green Leadership/Lib-kin is entirely another thing. The Lib-kin campaign is intended to cost Labor votes and seats. This is an intentional strategy. It is not an accident. It is purposeful. The premise for this is the entirely mistaken belief that a numerically vulnerable Labor will do deals with the Lib-kin. The consequence of this high-risk Lib-kin strategy is that the Lib-Libs have a better chance of winning.

    The Lib-kin are prepared to gamble on the environment and on the chances of a Lib-Lib win in order to procure a sectional advantage; in order to create opportunities for political extortion.

    This is a betrayal of everything the Lib-kin purport to believe in. It is an absolute betrayal of the environment and of voters who want environmentally-relevant policies to be enacted.

    Labor are having none of this. None of it.

  14. “One step at a time is how most things progress, the Greens always seem to want to jump to the end result.”

    Just like the climate, people’s teeth can’t wait forever to be looked after.

  15. “The Lib-kin campaign is intended to cost Labor votes and seats. This is an intentional strategy.”

    The Greens make no apologies for campaigning to win seats. That’s what parties generally do in election campaigns, you know. We’ll take seats off whoever we can. My local NSW state electorate of Ballina for example was won by the Greens at the expense of the Nationals. The QLD state electorate of Maiwar was won by the Greens at the expense of the Liberals. The Greens are targeting three Liberal held seats in this federal election (Higgins, Kooyong and Brisbane). You just sound like a ridiculous broken record with your “Lib-kin” nonsense.

  16. The Greens also won Prahran of the Liberals in 2014 in Victoria, where the ALP would have lost if they has stayed in the count.

  17. Firefox says:
    Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 1:51 am

    “One step at a time is how most things progress, the Greens always seem to want to jump to the end result.”

    Just like the climate, people’s teeth can’t wait forever to be looked after.

    And yet without that first step and then the next one nothing ends up happening.

  18. “The Greens also won Prahran of the Liberals in 2014 in Victoria, where the ALP would have lost if they has stayed in the count.”

    Very true.

  19. “And yet without that first step and then the next one nothing ends up happening.”

    You either do enough to tackle climate change or you don’t. You either look after people’s teeth or you don’t.

  20. Firefox
    From the first time you ventured onto PB you have been unable to extend beyond your adolescent ‘Greens are good’, ‘labor bad’ meme.
    Your arguments are restricted and without conclusion.
    By repeating yourself day after day your argument doesn’t improve nor does the Greens’ contribution.
    Di Natale is the leader of a divided smaller political party and Q&A was about the next PM.
    If you’d ever bother listening, the future of Adani is determined by a set of factors, of which the Greens have a minor role. The Greens have made it more difficult to finalise the expectation that Adani is non-viable by rallying support around the mining industry.

  21. E. G. Theodore says:
    “LGH: Nazi stuff, WTF? I suspect you are playing some sort of prank, but it’s not funny”

    I can explain but many may not understand the explanation.

    In the same way people here might agree Americans have been conditioned (propagandised) into reflexively reacting negatively to any association with Communism or Socialism so too have Westerners been conditioned to react to associations with National Socialism & Nationalism.

    Now here many would say that is appropriate but we need to go a level deeper:
    the associations made to National Socialism matches the anti-NS propaganda of the war but not the actual facts on the ground or reality of what transpired.

    Think the Saddam “weapons of mass destruction” lied into existence, and that lie being maintained post war until it is accepted as fact. This has been the modus operandi of the West for well over a century and ww2 was not a departure from this pattern.

    Because of this conditioning if I make statements that objectively deal with racial groups fairly both in process and outcome, but these pronouncements have been associated with NS and a false history of the period they get reflexively decried as racist when they are not (at least not to the extent departure from the policies would entail). On the other hand, that which you have been conditioned to think is the opposite of the NS position, and so “anti-racist” are in fact extremely racist in process or at least consequence.

    People are left at times identifying NS policy correctly and at others incorrectly but most importantly become blinded to the extremely racist consequences of their own policies & beliefs.

    A statement that “It is okay to be White” is not racist.
    A statement “All deserve unmolested self-determination & demographic safety on the lands of their forefathers” is also not racist > neither preclude any other having the exact same thing, or wish any opposing sentiment on any other nor do they treat races differently at that scale, so inherently are not racist.

    There is a very long haul ahead to wake people up from the genocidal policies they have been propagandised into supporting but preventing genocide is always a worthy task.

    There is no intended subterfuge in anything I say, I earnestly believe it and earnestly wish the best for all groups on Earth and respect their, what I believe to be, natural rights.

    If I am to be tarred as “an evil racist” then you should include people such as Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama with the same brush, as my own sentiment of the right to integrity of each people does not depart from the limits and wishes they set for their own. I believe realistically the Dalai Lama is not motivated by hate, or anything but an earnest desire for good & respect for the rights of all people including his own.

    If I am a person that sees enforcement of “anti-racism” on a selected population (as opposed to all people) as genocidal in consequence, and the pushing of this policy leading to genocide if not opposed, and conversely genocide in reaction if pushed too far, what alternative is there for me to work against genocide (the greatest crime) other than to resist the policy that leads to such a binary outcome?

    People may wish to see me as playing a trick here, or wish me to be deranged, ignorant, unintelligent or hateful, but if you knew me well you would know that none of these terms can in fairness by applied. No, what we have is a difference in opinion regarding nature and the rightness & result of how so called “anti-racist” & “racist” policies interact with consequence & reality.

    I may be labelled a “White Supremacist” but in truth I am a “White Equalist”, a genuine anti-racist concerned with consequence rather than one who basks in the glow of the propaganda support that is unhinged from reality and virulently racist in consequence.

    My world delivers spaces that are mixed and unmixed maximised to the level of providing the greatest number with the place that suits their desires and needs. This is in a very objective sense a maximisation of rights and diversity, rather than its refutation.

    What maintains diversity in nature is no different to what maintains it in man, man being of nature.

    I don’t decry any pressures my realisations bring to me or rage at any attempts to shut me down or marginalise my ideas or speech – the process will be long, and to a very great extent I would not expect large numbers to share my understanding until the consequences & wrongness of the alternatives become more clear.. in short, when harm follows from current policies that I would head off but not while others refuse to see or whilst propagandised into thinking the consequences are “good”.

    Is the ultimate crime not ultimately over-riding & making impossible the self-determination of a group? If you go and read the UN declarations of the rights of the Indigenous person I believe one would get this impression. If I am racist because I believe it is right to extend such policies to ALL PEOPLE, then I say it your understanding of what racism is that is faulty rather than mine.

    Can something that treats ALL fairly whilst recognising they possess difference be the most racist approach?
    More so than refusing to see difference that is there (ask a Black American activist whether race blindness is truly anti-racist)?
    More so than treating races explicitly different with unfair outcomes?

    I say again you have t be deeply conditioned and propagandised to believe so.

  22. “Imagine where we could be now after 10 years of progressive steps on climate policy?”

    Why only 10 years? The Greens have been advocating for action on climate change for far longer than that. Imagine indeed. Imagine if Labor hadn’t abandoned “the greatest moral challenge of our time” under Rudd, afterwhich they plummeted in the polls. Imagine if Labor hadn’t spent three long years engaged in civil war, handed power to Abbot, and allowed him to destroy the well functioning ETS/Carbon Price.

    And don’t bring up the dud CPRS which would have locked in failure.

  23. “Firefox
    From the first time you ventured onto PB you have been unable to extend beyond your adolescent ‘Greens are good’, ‘labor bad’ meme.”

    ***

    Nonsense. I’ve often given credit to Labor when I think they deserve it. I make no apologies for pointing out their flaws. People like you seem to think they can do no wrong.

    ***

    “Your arguments are restricted and without conclusion.
    By repeating yourself day after day your argument doesn’t improve nor does the Greens’ contribution.
    Di Natale is the leader of a divided smaller political party and Q&A was about the next PM.”

    ***

    Well I guess Labor would know what a divided party looks like, wouldn’t you. I can assure you though that we are more united than ever in our shared goals. You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the mainstream media. Write us off at your peril. Your arguments are restricted to baseless attacks on the Greens and me personally. Meh.

    ***

    “If you’d ever bother listening, the future of Adani is determined by a set of factors, of which the Greens have a minor role. The Greens have made it more difficult to finalise the expectation that Adani is non-viable by rallying support around the mining industry.”

    ***

    Haha seriously? Pretty sure the mining industry is going to support mines like Adani no matter what we do. Yes, there are some selfish people who care more about themselves than they do about their kid’s futures. We don’t back away from a challenge like Labor does. We aren’t trying to win over environmental vandals like Labor is.

    If it wasn’t for the Greens and the wider Stop Adani movement then the vast bulk of people wouldn’t even know that Adani exists. If it’s prevented it will be because of relentless campainging by us. It’s because of us that there is such wide opposition to it going ahead.

  24. Firefox,

    You think of a step as an end point, where in reality it’s the point at which the next one begins.

    There is little nuance or strategy in your in your thinking.

    From little things, big things grow.

  25. “So you advocate doing absolutely nothing on climate policy unless it’s what you think is ok?”

    ***

    No, we advocate doing what needs to be done. The Greens are responsible for delivering the effective ETS/Carbon Price. Labor are responsible for allowing Abbott to destroy it.

  26. “Firefox,

    You think of a step as an end point, where in reality it’s the point at which the next one begins.

    There is little nuance or strategy in your in your thinking.

    From little things, big things grow.”

    ***

    The planet doesn’t have time to wait for Labor to learn to walk.

  27. “Green fact or Green fiction?
    Firefox you weren’t there. You don’t known and its showing.”

    ***

    You’ve got no idea who I am or where I was. Talking nonsense as usual. You’re just a Greens hating Labor troll who completely lacks any substance.

    ***

    Goodnight all. 🙂

  28. You mean the ETS that Abbott used so effectively as part of that whole destabilisation process.

    That’s what can happen when you jump.

    You potential give your opponent a weapon that they can use against you.

  29. Firefox
    Look we appreciate your adolescent enthusiasm. Attack me and you attack the start of the green movement.
    The good news for the Greens is that last night you had the opportunity to observe the next PM display the reasons why the election is as good as over.
    With the the new Labor government, the Greens will have the opportunity to champion their genuine desire to see change in policy aimed at improving the many aspects of Australia’s environment that need attention.
    With the new Labor government, action to slow down the ravages of climate change can be put in place.
    The reality is simple for the Greens, help Labor implement change to achieve mutual objectives.
    Many of us were Green before “the Greens” and are far more ambitious for change than you envisage.

  30. Firefox says:
    Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:48 am

    “Firefox,

    You think of a step as an end point, where in reality it’s the point at which the next one begins.

    There is little nuance or strategy in your in your thinking.

    From little things, big things grow.”

    ***

    The planet doesn’t have time to wait for Labor to learn to walk.

    Actually, the planet has plenty of time to wait for a recalcitrant Australia if the rest of the world is doing its bit.

    We ourselves won’t tip the situation one way or the other, so drop the hysterics.

    But there are many reasons why we should and need to act in a sustainable way.

    That’s where practicality comes in and where the Greens with their ultimatums fail the process so badly.

  31. The Gillard Government`s Carbon policies were so successful as a weapon to beat them not because of how much action they took (Abbott would have done about as much attacking of them if they were a tenth of what they were) but because the new Senate started at the same time as the 2011-12 financial year and thus the implementation was delayed by a year and that gave the scare campaign a year it would not otherwise have had.

  32. Last night marked the finish of the LNP government and Morrison presented himself as something akin to a projectile vomit, defacing the role of the PM. Cringeworthy at best!
    A few hours later, Shorten presented himself as PM displaying ths reason he has attained and held the leadership of the Labor Party.
    Many in this country will not change their vote regardless, but all the viewers of both programs last night were left with a clear path forward with Shorten and Labor versus a corrupt and bullying remnant Liberal menagerie of shallow self-interest.

  33. In the blue corner we have a plodding bookend hanging around in the lower grades way past his used-by date, assisted by Josh ‘ive had hard night’ Frydenberg confined to a soiled suit ably assisted by the aging Peter Pan of the Peninsula together with the perennial schoolboy, Greg Hunt, all dressed up in the school photo and not out of place in last night’s Q&A front row.
    The voters just won’t budge.
    For now!

Leave a Reply

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