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. PO, your claim is that the arguments raised here by me have a financial motive; that I’m for sale or that Labor is for sale; that there is some bad faith here.

    That is at least as bad as your first imputation.

    Not to worry. You do not have an argument on the merits of the issue. Slurs will not win the debate.

  2. Greensborough Growler @ #1495 Wednesday, September 11th, 2019 – 10:09 pm

    I’m sure tomorrow will be another “Ground Hog day” where the usual suspects lecture and hector about Climate Change and their purity. But, that’s OK. It just means that lots of small furry animals survive another day unmolested.

    The “usual suspects” will indeed post the same nonsense again tomorrow. For the past few weeks they have posted the same party political talking points every day, often starting before most of us are even awake.

    A few of the more sensible posters will then try and point out the irrationality of their positions, and the “usual suspects” will then double down on their nonsense. Since the positions can’t actually be rationally defended, I guess it is the only thing they can do.

    We can only hope this idiocy dies down once Labor finally decides what their policy should be … at least until the next factional bunfight and consequent leadership spill 🙁

  3. Last time I heard, the proprietors with the greatest to gain in the Galilee were Palmer and Gina. Palmer spent at least $50 million trying to ensure Labor lost the election. Gina is a benefactor of the Lib-Nats.

    I have no idea about any other donors or benefactions. They are irrelevant to my observations.

  4. Player One:

    You don’t really ‘get’ science, do you?

    Well I do it, but whether I ‘get’ it has not previously crossed my mind.

    I do think that the contributions of Popper and Kuhn (etc), whom I suppose were attempting to ‘get’ it (whilst not doing it) are profoundly unhelpful, and this is not an unusual view.


  5. Player One says:
    Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 3:52 pm
    ..

    Demand drives supply in the energy market. Axiom number 1.


    Do you find it hard trying to defend the Greens deal with trump to bring back US miners jobs.

  6. William Bowe:

    [‘Mavis, could please clarify what you mean by this.’]

    They’re both defenders of Pell, which is, of course, their right. That, in my strong view, is where their angst lies – eg, GG calling me a dickhead; BB labeling me a fraud. It would be up to them to admit their ostensible religious bias, but viewing their posts over time, there seems little doubt that they’re of the Catholic faith. I could be wrong, but I’d be surprised if I were. I guess it’s a case of apprehended bias – their argument predicated not on law but on faith.

  7. Mavis, I feel I understand BB’s position on the George Pell matter pretty well. It’s of a piece with views he has expressed in the past on Roman Polanski, Bob Ellis and probably others besides, and whatever else might be said of it, it has nothing to do with his religious proclivities. So I’m going to have to ask (by which I mean tell) you for a second (and in this case final) time not to attack people on the basis of the religious denomination they were born into.

  8. Is it worse to attack somebody based upon their religious beliefs than their political beliefs? It’s an interesting question and would be easier to answer if religion was not inherently political.

  9. and probably others besides

    Kavanaugh was one. Not sure about Weinstein. Or Cosby.

    Basically the pattern seems to be that if you’re a (white?) male who’s been credibly accused (and/or convicted) of sexual deviancy then BB has your back so long as you weren’t stupid enough to film it and share the evidence on Youtube.

    Because in the absence of that the word of one accused with a very strong motivation to lie counts more than the word of any number of victims who have no reason to make this shit up and often suffer a second round of denigration simply for raising their allegations. Or something.

Leave a Reply

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