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. Ante Meridian @ #1333 Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 – 4:20 pm

    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.

    The “law” is indeed more general than just the bit I quoted. However, this is a little beside the point. Although it is certainly fair enough to say that a cheap supply of coal creates increased demand for everything, not just more coal. And at that point briefly is quite correct – that demand then creates futher supply. But briefly’s overly simplistic reliance only on demand gives only a part of the fuller picture.

    Another point worth making is that all these economic “laws” – including Briefly’s – only really apply in their fullest sense in a free market – which of course we don’t have. Fossil fuel markets in general and the electricity market in particular are two of the most highly regulated, subsidized, monopolized and gamed markets it is possible to imagine.

    It is sheer madness to rely on economics alone to sort out an issue under such circumstances.

  2. Luke Henriques-Gomes
    Thousands of mature-age students – including Newstart recipients, single parents and the disabled – would have their welfare payments slashed under a revived Morrison government plan.

    On Thursday, the Coalition re-introduced legislation to Parliament that would effectively reduce two top-up welfare payments received by older students who do not study full time.

    The changes, which would save the budget $80 million, mean a person studying part-time would get half the annual $208 education entry payment rather than the full amount. The $62.40-a week pensioner education supplement will also be tightened.

    It comes as the Coalition pushes ahead with plans to drug-test welfare recipients and expand the cashless debit card to the North Territory, and as it refuses to heed calls to lift the rate of Newstart allowance.

  3. E. G. Theodore
    Well written, supply side economics is very much a thing of conservative theory and explains why they believe more in “the wealth” effect of higher asset prices and that tax cuts and lower interest rates are all that is needed.

  4. Just like every other sodding “law” in the pseduo science generally known as economics.

    There’s a broader point embedded there. Something about how backwards we are when a wholly contrived field like economics is spoken about as if its tenets reflect some absolute natural law while climate science (which is actual, real science and not just people describing what other people tend to do when you give them money) is discussed as an issue that people can choose to “believe” in or not.

    Economics is the intangible thing that requires belief. Science is the thing that has facts and laws and absolutes.

  5. Oh, that’s right. Coles had the miniature shop stuff. Show how much notice I take!

    I wish I could ignore it. The looks of immense disappointment on my dear children’s faces every time I went shopping and said no to Oooshies are imprinted in my soul forever. I told them they could get them next time if they chuck out all the other plastic junk they had accumulated. Mean Dad. 🙁

    Mrs Katich was more accommodating. I had to change toothpaste for the brand that got them extra ooshies.

  6. I disagree that science has absolutes as there are many things it doesn’t know with all assumptions and findings are open to review. Economics is a science as it follows proper research processes in the usual form of setting an assumption and testing it and there are known laws in economics. Before people say but it isn’t may like to remember that climate scientist openly say there are many unknowns but that doesn’t lesson the fact that they are scientist.

  7. ‘lizzie says:
    Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:21 pm

    Boerwar
    We can always hope, but I’ve lost faith in logic now.’

    Some pestiferous poster will be around to tell you that you don’t need faith if you have logic.
    But I know what you mean and that is all that counts.

  8. Mexicanbeemer @ #1363 Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 – 5:23 pm

    I disagree that science has absolutes as there are many things it doesn’t know with all assumptions and findings are open to review. Economics is a science as it follows proper research processes in the usual form of setting an assumption and testing it and there are known laws in economics. Before people say but it isn’t may like to remember that climate scientist openly say there are many unknowns but that doesn’t lesson the fact that they are scientist.

    Sorry, but this is just so wrong.

    When scientists have a consensus you can be pretty sure they are correct.

    When economists have a consensus you can be pretty sure we have a recession.

  9. Player One
    All science is open to review, sure there may be consensus but even on climate change there are many unknowns and it is the scientist that say that. Economics is a science more akin to a social science than a hard science but it is still a science as proper research is based on following a certain process. Much of the problem with economist is how it is interpreted by politicians and media but there are certain rules that hold up in the face of being challenged.

  10. lizzie

    Historically in Australia, it has been accepted that stock die in a drought. But, to do so, they have to starve to death and/or die of exposure in their penultimate days.

    There is a sort of gentleman’s agreement that stock are allowed to suffer during a drought. The RSPCA does not act.

    Looking at those three sheep I wonder whether it is time to recalibrate our general acceptance of animal suffering during a drought.

  11. “Gladys Liu, is an Australian politician. She has been a Liberal member of the Australian House of Representatives, representing the Division of Chisholm in Victoria, since her election in May 2019. Liu was the first Chinese Australian woman ever elected to the House.”

    Wikipedia should change that now.

  12. Mexicanbeemer @ #1371 Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 – 5:33 pm

    Much of the problem with economist is how it is interpreted by politicians and media but there are certain rules that hold up in the face of being challenged.

    The only rule of economics that seems to hold true under all circumstances is that, given a set of economic figures, any two economists will disagree before the event on the outcome those figures actually predict, but all economists will claim after the event that they predicted the outcome perfectly!

  13. Boerwar

    I have also noticed that “stock losses” are usually not counted in fires, and certainly not wildlife (unless there is a ‘story’ attached, such as a firefighter giving water to a koala).

    I understand that reports must privatise humans and their assets, but I can’t help but notice the gaps.

  14. Mexicanbeemer @ #1363 Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 – 5:23 pm

    I disagree that science has absolutes as there are many things it doesn’t know and all assumptions and findings are open to review.

    Science has both absolutes and things it doesn’t know. They’re not mutually exclusive.

    And of course everything is open to review. But there’s a wide, wide body of work where the outcome of any review would be a foregone conclusion. Gravity’s not going to suddenly start pulling things up. 🙂

    there are known laws in economics.

    Nope. Tell me one “law” of economics that still works if you ditch the core assumption that people will behave rationally.

    Economics can’t have laws because it’s entirely about the behavior of people, and people are free to choose not to behave in the way economics has concluded they should at any time for any reason.

    Before people say but it isn’t may like to remember that climate scientist openly say there are many unknowns but that doesn’t lesson the fact that they are scientist.

    This is disingenuous. The “unknowns” in climate science are the fuzzy details around the edges, not core principles. For instance, it’s an established fact that CO2 (and methane, and other things) are greenhouse gases that help trap heat in the atmosphere. If you wanted to do science to try and review/disprove that you certainly could, and good luck to you. Because there’s nothing unknown about what result you’ll find.

    The same applies to far more aspects and the level of uncertainty is far less than you’re trying to imply.

  15. Player One
    LOL actually we are seeing one of those rules currently playing out in many western countries where in response to a major economic downturn governments and central banks implemented supply side economics without as much attention being given to demand and after excessive bouts of easy money and tax cuts, it is failing to achieve anywhere near what was expected by those that champion supply side economics.

  16. a.r
    Rule one of economics “scarcity of resources” hasn’t been debunked nor has the concept of supply and demand been debunked. I grant you that economic theory does face challenges when exposed to the real world but some of it has been shown repeatably to be reliable. We saw this in 2009 and we are seeing it in 2019.

  17. The “law” of supply and demand isn’t a law as it has been wrong on numerous occasions. It presupposes rational actors and that is often not the case.

  18. Diogenes says:
    Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:58 pm

    The “law” of supply and demand isn’t a law as it has been wrong on numerous occasions. It presupposes rational actors and that is often not the case.
    —————————
    I can’t think of any time it hasn’t applied. There may be times when demand and supply has been out of wrack but it eventually corrects as we saw in 2008 when excess debt hit the wall.

  19. “Everyone has a bad day in the office and that was one.”

    Good God, they’re brazen!

    “Can’t recall”?

    “Honorary President”?

    “Deeply offensive”?

    … and now…

    “Bad day in the office”?

    If this had been a Labor member of Parliament, all Hell would have been raised.

    Where is Kate McClymont when some deep investigative journalism is required?

    Where is Nine Media when they’re not running Liberal Party fundraisers?

    How bored would Chris Uhlmann be if he wasn’t so busy telling us that nothing was happening, and that’s the way we should prefer it?

    How fearless and independent (always) would David Crowe need to be to turn this into a page turner?

  20. Re the NSW Labor cash donation schemozzle being investigated by ICAC…..is there anyway this could have been a LNP ‘dirty tricks’ sting operation? Just a thought…

  21. mb
    I think eventually supply and demand is true given enough time but they are frequently out of kilter while people act irrationally. Given a big enough population and enough time supply and demand tends towards the truth but I think that’s more of principle than a law which should apply under all conditions.

  22. BB
    The bizarre thing is Liu didn’t seem prepared for very obvious questions by Bolt. I don’t know if she was promised a softball interview and was ambushed. There is some speculation she might have family in China and was scared about repercussions for them.

  23. “It would be a ludicrous statement to say the climate is not changing. I absolutely believe that man has some effect on that. I state as a categorical fact that there’s nothing we can do in Aust that can have any effect on it whatsoever,” @Barnaby_Joyce tells @PatsKarvelas

    Seems like Barnacle has been working on his talking points with some PB coalers, or is in fact just one of them, probably operating under a pseudonym starting with B.

  24. Lead story on PMI this evening is the Liu saga.

    Morrison should be having a very frank and fearless chat with that MP thus evening.

    Very frank. And fearless.

    Even Barnaby J believes there is an issue.

  25. This event about a sustainable economy would be well worth attending if you are in Sydney.

    When: Saturday December 7th, 10 am to 4 pm.

    Where: Sydney Mechanics’ School of Arts, 280 Pitt St, Level 1, Sydney NSW 2000

    Keynote talk by A/Prof Phillip Lawn, modern monetary theory/ecological economist from the Wakefield Futures Group and the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity, currently visiting the University of Adelaide.

    Panel discussion on how to reach a sustainable economy.

    Afternoon workshops on ideas to move towards an ecologically sustainable economy.

    For more info see: https://www.casse-nsw.org.au/

  26. ‘Quoll says:
    Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 6:29 pm

    “It would be a ludicrous statement to say the climate is not changing. I absolutely believe that man has some effect on that. I state as a categorical fact that there’s nothing we can do in Aust that can have any effect on it whatsoever,” @Barnaby_Joyce tells @PatsKarvelas

    Seems like Barnacle has been working on his talking points with some PB coalers, or is in fact just one of them, probably operating under a pseudonym starting with B.’

    My point is that we need the WA, NSW and QLD regional seats in order to gain government and that to do so we need to find a way to persuade voters in regional seats to switch votes from people like Joyce to people like Albanese.

    Your point seems to be that you are an incorrigble fuckwit.

    For once, we are both right.

  27. 5.10
    I feel a bit sorry for her if she is worried about relatives in China but it’s a great example of why we are worried about politicians having dual loyalties.
    Morrison won’t turf her because it would upset China too much.

  28. Soon after Gladys Liu was confirmed as being elected there was some stuff (on the front page of the Australian IIRC) about her receiving an ASIO briefing. This was (of course) mostly (if not entirely) the standard briefing given to all new members, but Ms. Liu has contrived to publicise it in an unprecedented way. I thought at the time that there was something going on that likely involved the Chinese Govt (it’s their SOP) and it would seem this was correct.

    What will Andrew Hastie have to say on the matter?

  29. Dio

    Agree.

    Morrison must privately be furious. Only chance would be to keep GL on the backbench until she gets bored and leaves at the next poll or gets voted out….whether her ‘alleged’ masters have other ideas …

    This can only end very badly.

  30. Poliphili, EGT….cheers.

    W….I think the plaudits should go to actors that actually accomplish that which is in the public interest. If you want to see fewer GHG emissions from coal, combustion has to be reduced. The question is not how to reduce extraction. The question is how to reduce combustion.

    Work on that. Give an actual shit about the environment. Do things that deliver the desired and intended result. At the very least, do not make things worse than they already are.

  31. ‘a r says:
    Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 6:45 pm

    Boerwar @ #1392 Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 – 6:40 pm

    My point is that we need the WA, NSW and QLD regional seats in order to gain government and that to do so we need to find a way to persuade voters in regional seats to switch votes from people like Joyce to people like Albanese.

    So teach them science instead of pretending to them that they can keep having their coal and it’s fine.’

    Who is advocating that we pretend to them that they can keep having their coal and it’s fine.

    Not me.

    The electoral problem is, IMO, this: these voters are not prepared to take the personal economic pain so that all other Australians can continue to enjoy their current lifestyles. They don’t want to live in economically depressed towns and regional cities. They don’t want to lose their houses and their utes because they can’t maintain their payments. They do not want to do this NOW so that the vast majority of the benefits accrue to other people some time in the distant future.

    Treating them like they are ignorant idiots – which is your solution ‘teach them’ rubs in the patronizing condescension of the down south inner urb peeps, not one of whom will suffer an iota as a result of the destruction of Queensland regional economies.

  32. https://theconversation.com/why-gladys-liu-must-answer-to-parliament-about-alleged-links-to-the-chinese-government-123339?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton

    But she is perhaps most admired in the Liberal Party for her fundraising ability. Her claim to be “one of the most effective fundraisers in the Victorian division” of the party is almost certainly true.

    However, her fundraising came under a cloud last month when it was reported by the Herald Sun that the Liberal Party had been forced to return A$300,000 to dodgy donors that she had brought to an event in 2015. (Liu has denied that any funds were returned to donors).

    Then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull refused to have dinner with the donors because he had been warned off by our intelligence services due to “security concerns”. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and opposition leader Matthew Guy did likewise.

Leave a Reply

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