Newspoll: 51-49 to Coalition

Anthony Albanese’s personal ratings take a hit, but no change on the voting intention headline in the third poll since the great federal election miss.

As related by The Australian, the third Newspoll since the fall is unchanged on the second, conducted three weeks ago, in showing the Coalition with a two-party lead of 51-49. The primary votes are Coalition 43% (41.4% at the election), Labor 35% (33.4%), Greens 12% (10.4%) and One Nation 5% (3.1%, although they did not contest every seat at the election). All four are up a point compared with the previous poll, reflected in a four point drop in “others” to 5%. I’m struggling to identify the last time Newspoll had the Greens at 12% – certainly not at any point in the last term (UPDATE: It was in March 2016).

Scott Morrison is up a point on approval to 49%, after dropping three points last time, and his disapproval is up three to 39%, which is still three down on the first poll after the election. Anthony Albanese records a net negative rating for the first time, being down six on approval to 35% (after gaining two last time), and up six on disapproval to 40% (after dropping two last time). Morrison’s preferred prime minister lead is reportedly at 20%, compared with 18% last time, although the exact numbers are not yet provided (UPDATE: Morrison’s lead has increased from 48-30 to 48-28).

The poll comes with a glimmer of improved transparency, in that we are told exactly how many respondents came from its online survey (956) and automated phone poll (705) components. It was conducted from Thursday to Sunday.

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.

1,523 comments on “Newspoll: 51-49 to Coalition”

  1. Bushfire Bill:

    Staff at your aged-care facility should requisition your lap-top in order to stop you using a carriage service to harass or menace – no ageism implied.

  2. You’re deflecting “Mavis”, trying to change the subject.

    You are the one going around accusing others of being imposters.

    Lo and behold, it seems you’re the biggest phoney of all.

  3. The Speaker seems to be working hard to protect Morrison & Liu today.

    Denise Allen @denniallen

    Hmmmmm…..only last year Morrison et al said it Shortens responsibility and a test of his leadership re Sam Dastyari…… #auspol #MSM

  4. “Terri Butler is right, only the Government is refusing to accept there is an issue.”

    Presumably then Terri Butler “accepts” that there is a climate emergency?

    So why not just say so and support the motion?

    Her response was beyond pathetic. Fitzgibbon on RN this morning at least addressed the idea and basically said it was pointless.

    This just reaks of labor once again frantically scrambling for a position but unable to find one.

  5. Wasn’t it the position at one time that a Minister would only answer questions relative to their own portfolio. And didn’t that also apply to Shadows? So much better organised.
    It seems now that anyone can be asked about anything, so it’s really easy to pick up something to complain about.

  6. Gladys Liu is a good example of my proposition the other day: that if you’re going to infiltrate a government, then get yourself in a position of power in the government party.

    Guandong Gladys now holds the balance of power in the Morrison government. Her seat of Chisholm is the difference between majority and minority government for Morrison. He is forced to back her all the way, to the death.

  7. Big A Adrian
    The ALP has always acknowledged it, they don’t need to repeat themselves at every opportunity.

    One thing I notice from years spent on social media is just how insecure some political watchers particularly on the left are. They will often react to one comment while blissfully ignoring all the other comments.

  8. “I am a proud Australian, passionately committed to serving the people of Chisholm, and any suggestion contrary to this is deeply offensive,” said Ms Liu.

    The old “deeply offensive” deflection technique. Now her feelings are hurt. Poor Gladys.

    I’m wondering why our own “Gladys” – Mavis Davis – hasn’t played that card yet?

    We’ve had insuations of mental health issues, ageist sledging, and “I can’t recall” from our own troll-like entity. How long until he/she/it claims to be “deeply offended” at being asked to simply back up his/her/its claim to be one of the old school Gods Of PB?

    As FPMJG would say, “Can’t be too hard”, can it?

  9. guytaur says:

    Now we have Labor partisans arguing burning coal is good for the world. So its great to loosen regulation to enable a mine for the profit of a few.

    No we don’t.

    The combustion of fossil fuels has to cease. It is ceasing because of the use of substitutes – renewables.

    Combusting coal or gas is not the same as extracting them. Curtailing extraction in one locus will not change the rate of combustion globally. Extraction will decline when combustion declines. This is the causal relation. We do not combust coal because we extract it. We extract it because we first combust it. As replacement of fossil fuels accelerates, cessation of extraction will also accelerate.

    This is not complicated.

    It follows that if we want to reduce extraction we should intensify the use of substitutes. That is what Labor is doing. This is a global process. The course proposed by the Greens cannot accomplish these results. They will only impede them.

  10. @Socrates

    I doubt the government will implement the type of stimulus the Rudd government did in 2008, in response to an recession. At most if the recession gets pretty bad, the government will spend money in order to keep those who voted for the government from not revolting at the ballot box.

    Also with the legislation to ban cash transactions over $10,000 and possibility of a nationwide roll lout of the Indue card. The government is expecting the reserve bank to implement possibly as low as minus 5%. Therefore; accelerating Australia’s economy towards a cashless one, where all transactions are electronic would assist greatly in the implementation of negative interest rates.

  11. Mexicanbeemer – you can’t be serious.

    She was asked specifically if she would vote on a specific motion calling for a climate emergency. It wasn’t asking her to confirm what is already known. Specifically:

    “Journalist: Will you be supporting the motion from the crossbench re this climate emergency?

    TB: Well, it’s actually up to the government to decide…. [blah blah blah]” – *FACEPALM!*

    Sorry Terri, its actually up to you to answer a most straight forward question about what you will be voting for. Even a “well our party is still deciding how we’ll vote on that particular motion….” – and then ramble about the government’s responsibility after – would have been infinitely better.

    Clearly she was caught off guard not knowing what the party position was on this motion. As labor always seems to be in recent times.

  12. On the matter of asylum seekers/refugees, my view is that the trafficking route should never have been allowed to revive.

    The trafficking of A-S turns humans into cargo – into goods. It commoditises humans, in the same way that the use of slavery or labour indentures also commoditises humans.

    Commodities are created by market relations. The Green channel for A-S required Australia to serve as the market. The Greens really – without ever acknowledging it – were and would still be agents in the commoditisation of humans.

    They lecture Labor on A-S. They are the shotguns of the traffickers. They are the ushers in the commoditisation of humans. They adopt this role for political reasons.

    They have no moral authority whatsoever.

  13. Bushfire Bill:

    [‘The old “deeply offensive” deflection technique. Now her feelings are hurt. Poor Gladys.

    I’m wondering why our own “Gladys” – Mavis Davis – hasn’t played that card yet?’]

    I deeply offended by you. You’ve hurt my feelings. The moderator may well get sick of this. Anyway back in a few hours.

  14. DJ @dj30057
    So let me get this straight. Politicians refuse to have their integrity questioned and investigated, yet they’re fine with drug testing hundreds & thousands of law abiding citizens. This country is beyond fucked right now #auspol2019 #auspol

  15. Demand and supply both play a role, that is what Adam Smith meant when he talked about the market, he wasn’t talking about free markets at all but the relationship between supply and demand.

  16. Butler was correct. Declarations of emergency are made by governments under the relevant legislation.

    Not by opposition stunts.

    Just another example of where having power matters much more than being right.

    But, for sure, Greens good and Labor bad and both out of power, so as you were.

  17. Demand drives supply. This is axiomatic. If there is no demand for an object, no matter how freely available it is, then no market for it will exist.

    Curtailing the supply of an object will not in itself reduce demand for it. If supply is restricted, the price may rise and this will tend to attract new supply and, because of the impact of price effects, may also reduce demand, if there are no other supplies.

    Australia satisfies only a very small share of world coal demand. Nothing carried out with respect to Australian supply is going to change global demand. On the contrary, as global demand changes so will the volume of Australian supplies.

    We are price takers as well as volume takers in this market.

    Argue about it amongst yourselves.

  18. The proposition that supply creates demand is known as Says Law. It has been long since refuted. Supply does not cause demand. It is the other way around.

  19. I am so lucky. I have such a butterfly mind that I don’t give a money’s uncle how long anyone has been posting on PB.

    Neither did I Lizzie, until the sledging from “Mavis” began, insinuating dishonesty, age-based dementia, and various character flaws on my behalf.

    I conclusively proved my own bona fides (with a link back to September 2007, under the “Bushfire Bill” moniker), and merely asked “Mavis” to prove his/hers/its own bona fides, as he/she/it had used a supposed longevity in these parts as the sole basis of his/her/its accusation.

    We got deflection, many accusations of dementia, “I can’t recall” and now the classic “I am offended” with an invocation of “William”as the responses: all on cue as each successive one fell apart. But no proof (I suspect because it doesn’t exist, but I’m happy to be proved wrong).

    It’s not really about who’s been posting here longer. It’s more a matter of not deceiving others as to who one really is. For better or worse (except for a few parody posts 10 years ago, which fooled nobody, except the editor of The Australian) I’ve always been Bushfire Bill. I don’t go around changing my identity when things get a bit lumpy for me.

    As you regard it, a storm in a teacup, but I would advise you not to take “Mavis Davis” as a serious poster. If you already don’t then that’s great.

    For now, I have a big black dog and his Jack Russell mate to walk along a deserted, golden beach.

    BB out.

  20. Say didn’t argue that supply of a good creates demand for that good. His proposition was that increased supply of goods in general creates demand for goods in general. Because if we all produce more stuff to sell, we all have greater incomes to spend buying more stuff.

  21. Supply does influence demand, It is supply that makes a luxury brand worth more than an ordinary brand. A luxury product is often little different than the ordinary product but because its supply is seen as limited it then creates an impression that owning it is somehow special. Demand and Supply work in lockstep.

  22. briefly
    “The proposition that supply creates demand is known as Says Law. It has been long since refuted. Supply does not cause demand. It is the other way around.”

    But… Atlas shrugged. Laffer curve. And all that.

  23. briefly @ #1330 Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 – 4:11 pm

    The proposition that supply creates demand is known as Says Law. It has been long since refuted. Supply does not cause demand. It is the other way around.

    It has not been refuted. It has been contested. Just like every other sodding “law” in the pseduo science generally known as economics. Including the ones you so glibly cite as being “axiomatic”.

    Try this one, which, as a Labor person, you might understand a little better:

    A higher salary or wage—that is, a higher price in the labor market—leads to a decrease in the quantity of labor demanded by employers, while a lower salary or wage leads to an increase in the quantity of labor demanded.

    Replace “labor” with “coal” etc and you get:

    A higher price for coal leads to a decrease in the quantity of coal demanded by electricity generators, while a lower coal price leads to an increase in the quantity of coal demanded.

    Do you get it yet? Australian Coal is quite literally dirt cheap, and this drives up demand – worldwide.

  24. Player One,
    Umm… Sorry to be pedantic, but a lower price for coal leads to an increase in the quantity demanded, not the demand. That’s in the short term, anyway. In the long term, if more coal-fired plants are built to take advantage of the lower prices, and as a result countries become locked in to relying on coal, that will increase the demand.

  25. Briefly @ 4.11

    You appear to be in good company as a Says Law denier. Those that continue to use this law to justify their own holier than thou views are misguided at best. Particularly with power generation, it is demand that creates supply.

    You have made it abundantly clear in repeated posts that you hold no truck with the coal mining industry and that provision of alternative sources of energy must be the priority to obtain an early transition. Unfortunately your arguments mostly fall on wilfully deaf ears.

    But keep at it.

  26. Anyone still a fan of getting rid of section 44?

    If you mean 44i… They have already outsourced government to the loonies and magnates. Why not to India or China or Tuva?

  27. Briefly, if blowing tons of asbestos particles at a group of people doesn’t make much difference to the overall amount of asbestos in the earth’s atmosphere, does that make it okay? Does it matter if you’re doing it because if you don’t someone else will?

  28. One of the surprising things to emerge from the latest few days of PollBludger is the complete dominance of supply-side arguments in the contributions made by those from the “Green” side of the mountain.

    So we have the (un)Holy Trinity of supply-side: Reagan, Thatcher and the Black Wiggle!

    Breifly makes a straightforward demand-side argument* and is immediately condemned as toeing the LNP line ( etc. etc.)

    Traditionally, it has been the centre-left advancing demand-side arguments (and the modern economy was built on that basis) whilst it is the right who are supply-siders. But it seems that on PollBludger thee traditional positstions are reversed?

    *Possilby factually wrong, but otherwise the logic is impreccable

Leave a Reply

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