Newspoll: 51-49 to Coalition

A slight lead for the Coalition in the first results to emerge from a new-look Newspoll, which has dropped automated phone calls in favour of an exclusively online polling method.

Big news on the polling front as Newspoll unveils its first set of results based on what The Australian describes as “an improved methodology following an investigation into the failure of the major published polls”. The old series had been limping on post-election with results appearing every three weeks, but this latest result emerges only a fortnight after the last, presumably portending a return to the traditional fortnightly schedule.

The poll credits the Coalition with a two-party lead of 51-49, compared with 50-50 in the result a fortnight ago, from primary votes of Coalition 41% (up one), Labor 33% (down two), Greens 12% (steady) and One Nation 5% (down two). Interestingly, both leaders’ personal ratings are a lot worse than they were in the old series: Scott Morrison’s approval rating is at 43% (down three) with disapproval at 52% (up nine), while Anthony Albanese is at 38% approval (down four, though he was up five last time) and 42% disapproval (up five, though he was down seven last time). No news yet on preferred prime minister, which is presumably still a thing (UPDATE: Morrison’s lead narrows from 46-32 to 46-35).

On the methodological front, the poll has dropped robopolling and is now conducted entirely online. The sample size of 1519 is similar to before (slightly lower in fact), but the field work dates are now Thursday to Saturday rather than Thursday to Sunday. In a column for the newspaper, Campbell White of YouGov Asia-Pacific, which conducts the poll, offers the following on why robopolling has been abandoned:

A decade or so ago, most ­people had landlines and they tended to answer them. There was very little call screening. This meant getting a representative sample was easier and pollsters did not need to be so skilled in modelling and scaling their data. The truth is, the old days are never coming back. In order to do better, we need to consider what we can do differently. We’ve seen a consistent pattern overseas where telephone polling has become less accurate and online polling more so as fewer people answer phone calls and more and more people are online.

White further notes that “annoying and invasive” robopolling is “answered largely by older people or those who are very interested in politics”, while “busy people who are less interested in politics either don’t answer or hang up”. He also reveals that the new series will “weight the data by age interlocked with education and have precise quotas for different types of electorate throughout Australia”, consistent with YouGov’s methodology internationally.

Hopefully the restated commitment to “greater transparency” means we will shortly see comprehensive details of demographic breakdowns and weightings, a commonplace feature of British and American polling that Australian poll watchers could only envy. Stay tuned.

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.

968 comments on “Newspoll: 51-49 to Coalition”

Comments Page 16 of 20
1 15 16 17 20
  1. At the rate things are going, all the ‘union busting’ legislation will be of little purpose as the number of unions, their membership numbers and influence has fallen dramatically in the last 30 years of the post-industrial age.
    If those in the employed workforce do not want to become union members, or see little purpose in it, then maybe the old-style industrial relations model is dead and all that is required is a decent burial.
    As a result and due to heaps of other pressures, Labor must have a real rethink about where its future lies
    Despite the pessimists who seem to abound here, I do not “blame” the Greens for Labor’s loss at the last election any more than the continuous spewing of vitriol from some Shorten critics is of any constructive value at all.
    The plight of centre-of-left parties is not a problem in Oz alone.
    It would seem that the Tories are going to get up in the UK with 40%+ something of the vote – the point being that up to 60% of the voters will not vote for the government which is likely to be in power for the next four years or so.
    We suffer something similar here…………….800,000 or so PVs gets 20 plus Nationals into office while over a million Green votes hardly makes a difference.
    Why bother with so-called democracy some of the young are asking? And, who can blame them?

  2. Pegasus @ #749 Tuesday, November 26th, 2019 – 4:46 pm

    Kevin Rudd has called for a “big Australia” of 50 million people by the middle of the century to defend against a rising China.

    Kevin Rudd is an idiot. He lost touch with voters both for his capitulation on climate change, and for his support for a “Big Australia”.

    He, like Labor, clearly has learned nothing since then.

  3. Why bother with so-called democracy some of the young are asking? And, who can blame them?

    Yep, the scales are falling from the eyes of an increasing number of voters who can see the two-party system for what it is – essentially undemocratic.

    Many of the young who will come of voting age during the next few years will see activism or protest as the only option open to them to affect the change they want.

  4. Pegasus says:
    Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:31 pm

    Peter Lewis, Essential poll

    This completely overlooks the historical reality, which is that the politics of climate change – revolving around fight/flight responses to omnipresent threat – have been working to the advantage of the LNP.

    Even though there has been widespread destruction in the MDB, even though most of NSW is drought, even though there have been disastrous fires, even though there are serial catastrophes in the terrestrial and marine environments…support for the LNP in the most-affected locations has been rising.

    This is counter-intuitive. But it is the observable reality. The conclusion should be that the political culture – a culture in which the LNP is dominant – is stronger than climate change…at least, it has been so far. The question is…what, if anything, can change this?

  5. “Only a country, in my judgment, with a population of 50 million later this century would begin to have the capacity to fund, independently, the defence and intelligence assets necessary to defend our territorial integrity and maintain our political sovereignty for the long term.”

    I was driven from the outer east into the centre of Melbourne this morning, supposedly just after the main “morning rush”. This was via the main highways and toll roads. It took 2 hours (but only 1hr 20mins to return).

    If this is a sample of the congestion now, I dread to think how the cities will cope with a few millions more.

  6. Kevin Rudd has called for a “big Australia” of 50 million people by the middle of the century to defend against a rising China.

    Rudd dusting off Arfur “two Wongs don’t make a white” Calwells good ol’ “Populate or Perish” to keep the pesky ‘asiatic hordes’ at bay.

  7. The Orwellian Morrison government circling the Angus Taylor wagon:

    Simon Birmingham is defending the decision not to stand down Angus Taylor while the police investigation is carried out to Patricia Karvelas on ABC TV:

    Let’s put the investigation clearly in context there. The Prime Minister having had these matters raised purely at the start of Question Time has come out of Question Time, has spoken to the Police Commissioner, has ascertained that apparently the only information there is the referral by the Federal Labor Opposition to the New South Wales police.

    The Prime Minister of course has indicated that, as you would expect, the Government will give full cooperation to their investigation but we have the minister, who has made clear his position for quite some period of time now, in terms of where the information was sourced from, from the City of Sydney website, he has made his public statements, these matters really have been dealt with. Yes, the New South Wales police are acting on a request from the federal Labor Party to look at this matter. We will cooperate with that but that should really be the end of the matter while we get on with governing the country.

    …Patricia Karvelas asks Simon Birmingham if he feels comfortable standing by Angus Taylor while the police investigation is on going:

    Governments are judged on all manner of things. Ultimately the Australian people want us to get on with looking after their interests.

    Their interests, giving them the confidence to plan for the future, giving them the confidence that there will be jobs for them and their children, giving them the confidence that the services they want will be available to them and that is exactly what we as a Government are focused on.

    The Federal Opposition and the Labor Party can play all sorts of games on side issues, but our focus is about actually, in my case today, having passed through parliament legislation for the Indonesian Free Trade Agreement.

    The Senate is now getting on with talking about how we can actually make sure that our construction industry works more effectively and reduces costs in the future so there can be more jobs and more building opportunities without the type of union lawlessness we have seen in the past.

    These are the things that mums and dads around the country care about.

    Well, actually I think people care about whether the federal government or its Ministers act as if they are above the law. Then proceed to treat the law with contempt simply because they are Ministers.

    No, I’m saying that the police need to do their job as I said before. I’m sure the federal Labor Party would criticise the police if they didn’t look at this letter that the Labor Party have sent them and investigated so the police are quite possibly in a no win situation there but I have no doubt the police will do a thorough job and the Government will cooperate with them in so far as this is required.

    (Courtesy of The Guardian)

  8. Especially this bit, a case of absence of evidence equalling innocence in the mind of the government, it seems (and who’s not providing that evidence to the police?)

    has spoken to the Police Commissioner, has ascertained that apparently the only information there is the referral by the Federal Labor Opposition to the New South Wales police.

  9. C@tmomma
    says:
    Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:46 pm
    I’m so glad briefly/RI is back. Such a fine mind and a deeply thoughtful contributor.
    _______________________________
    Almost as fine a mind as that top barrister Tony Burke?

  10. Tricot

    ‘Why bother with so-called democracy some of the young are asking? And, who can blame them?’

    False binary? If the young would like to try something other than so-called democracy they could always pretend to be Uighers or Tibetans or Hong Kong citizens.

    The reason to ‘bother’ with democracy is that it is better than the next best thing. If a democracy is partially broken, and they ALL are partically broken ALL the time, then fix it.

    I know that the Trots in the Greens are slavering for The Revolution but the Inner Urb knowledge economy Greens should understand that they will be first against the wall when The Revolution arrives.

    Egging on The Revolution as your post does, and as Bandt has done publicly, is a very, very dangerous game indeed. This is especially so when the Tree Huggers are indulging in the sort of eco-millenarianism that provides kiddy cannon fodder to the Trots.

  11. Many of the people out in the burbs, the people that matter according to some, wouldn’t even know who Angus Taylor is, or would care.

    Politicians are already held in contempt and not trusted. This saga is another par for the course kind of thing.

  12. And this bit of verbal sleight-of-hand:

    but we have the minister, who has made clear his position for quite some period of time now, in terms of where the information was sourced from, from the City of Sydney website, he has made his public statements, these matters really have been dealt with.

    Angus Taylor has devised a way of explaining it all away, so that should be the end of it!?!

  13. C@tmomma says:
    Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:46 pm

    I’m so glad briefly/RI is back. Such a fine mind and a deeply thoughtful contributor.

    Cheers, C@t…once a bludger, always a bludger 🙂

  14. Pegasus @ #765 Tuesday, November 26th, 2019 – 5:00 pm

    Many of the people out in the burbs, the people that matter according to some, wouldn’t even know who Angus Taylor is, or would care.

    Politicians are already held in contempt and not trusted. This saga is another par for the course kind of thing.

    Totally missing the point, of course, and what a bit of shame-faced hypocrisy from the person who is again trying to gin up interest in supposed crimes committed by Labor and Liberal Councillors in a Local Council in Victoria.

    Anyway, it’s good to have on the record that The Greens don’t care if federal government Ministers break the law and their office alters documents, as long as it’s in pursuit of a politician who isn’t a Greens’ party member or MP.

  15. BW

    I have not heard Bandt “egging on the revolution”.

    Last night on QandA I have heard Tanya Plibersek talking about how the political class has to recognise its failing its citizens.

    She then encouraged young people to get involved. She made Greg Sheridan uncomfortable saying so.

    This approach is why I am cheering a Labor on in regards to Angus Taylor. For voters to have trust there has to be real accountability and transparency.

    Otherwise we will end up with a revolution.
    As Julia Gillard said. “Let the Sunshine In”.

  16. @ Pegasus…”the scales are falling from the eyes of an increasing number of voters who can see the two-party system for what it is – essentially undemocratic.”…..

    I’m not a member of a political party and I don’t really want to get into the Greens V Alp war that goes on here but…….the party you chose to follow……..The Greens……….do present themselves to the public for election to the parliament. That’s NOT undemocratic. The fact the public didn’t vote them in says the public don’t/didn’t want their policies in a MAJORITY of seats and says more about how your side of politics goes about presenting policy than a lack of democracy in the process..

    At the last election the Aus electorate had the choice to vote for whoever they wished. Just because the Greens didn’t win that many seats doesn’t mean the process was flawed.

  17. Sonar

    It’s flawed. The Greens suffer from not having equal value for their vote in purely number terms. This is because of the built in bias model to benefit country and regional areas.

    Agree with it or not it’s very real.

  18. I’m glad to see that there is an interest in working towards getting a different result for Labor in 2022.

    Here a few ideas and I apologize if they have already been canvassed or if they underestimate the challenge of countering the LNP narrative that the media continually propagate.

    A strong social media focus and relentless door-knocking and regular brochure- dropping by volunteers, targeting every electorate where a swing of less than five per cent would produce a Labor gain.

    For example, the material would attempt to change people’s LNP-inspired views that they and not Labor are better economic managers. And that, despite a small number of regrettable industrial fatalities, the insulation programs and the school hall program had very real benefits for Australians.

    A starting point would be that dramatic graph presented by Alan Kohler a couple of months ago that showed that household income which had tracked GDP growth upwards during Labor’s 2007-13 regime, flat-lined as soon as the LNP were elected, as GDP continued to rise and hasn’t moved since 2013.

    Even the dimmest voter out there would recognize that they are not getting their fair share of national wealth.

    Then an account of Labor’s performance during the global financial crisis and the glowing international reviews it produced.

    Then a graph showing the national debt between 2007 and 2019, explaining that much of “Labor’s debt” was recession-fighting stimulus. It would show that instead of “paying down Labor’s debt” the Tories had doubled it since coming to office.

    Then an analysis of the real benefits of “pink batts” in terms of energy savings and the improvements for students in the “school halls debacle.”
    This would, I hope, counter Rudd’s decision to throw Peter Garrett under the bus.

    This material could be produced, perhaps weekly, in an easy to understand form that would not look like partisan political advertising. It could be done in one-pagers. Those social media gurus could adapt the material for reaching smart-phones, especially those of younger voters.

    This could be followed by similar campaigns on a fairer taxation system to counter the “tax and spend” canard, real efforts on climate change, a more comprehensive Medicare and employment and vocational training.

    I know that this will probably have no impact with rusted-on LNP supporters. But managed carefully it could counter the Tories’ agenda-setting
    propaganda among those who might be susceptible to exploring other options.

    And the most important point is that it be started now and not close to the election. As one political operative once said, the first thing a winning or losing campaign should do the day after the election, is to start the campaign for the next election.

    I’m sorry if this sounds like teaching you veteran political apparachiks to suck eggs. But I share Briefly’s frustration at how difficult it will be to dislodge this bunch of spivs and snake-oil salesmen.

  19. Morrison reckons that he has spoken with which Commissioner of Police and that there is nothing to see here other than a Labour Party referral.

    Really?

    If Morrison spoke to the AFP Commissioner of Police, then the referral did not go to the AFP, and what would the AFP know?

    The referral DID go to the NSW Commissioner of Police.

    So, did Morrison talk to the NSW Commissioner of Police? If so, did the NSW Commissioner tell Morrison that Taylor has nothing to worry about because there is no evidence? Really? Are we supposed to think that the NSW would have launched an investigation unless there was a strong stink of criminal behaviour? Did Morrison try to compromise an ongoing police investigation? Did Morrison interfere in a state jurisdiction?

    IMO, there are some serious questions to be answered here – additional to the ones involving allegations of criminal behaviour involving document forgery in other to manipulate a political outcome.

    One assumes that by now Taylor will know that one of his staff cooked the books. This is where it just might get interesting. (Cash responding by sacrificing one of her staffers almost instantaneously.)

    If the perp of the alleged crimes in Taylor’s office TOLD Taylor at the time that the figures were, uh, concocted, then Taylor and the perp are in it together. Which might just be why they are, to date, hanging together. But, if the NSW plods close in and the allegations look a bit like being transmuted into criminal charges, there might be a bit of a temptation not to be the fall guy.

    If, OTOH, the alleged perp did do it without telling Taylor then one assumes that Taylor would have shed the embarrassment some time ago… But, perhaps, the alleged perp might ALSO know something about how water deals went down and how alleged illegal land clearing went down… and whatever else might have gone down between our sunburnt continent and the Caymans.

    Whatever. They are trying to tough it out until the Christmas holidays.

    That Taylor is allowed to continue to act as minister while all this is going on tells us that Morrison operates a no truth/no shame regime, like the other ratbag on the other side of the Pacific. But Morrison, I believe, is way smarter than that other ratbag.

  20. @guytaur….bullshit.
    The Greens get their chance at the ballot box like every other candidate or party.

    Say for example a seat like New England….the people have to mark their ballot paper…..there’s no gerrymander…..the people just don’t vote for them.

    The public are the ones who vote for them ot not. They don’t in sufficent numbers.

  21. beguiledagain @ #777 Tuesday, November 26th, 2019 – 5:15 pm

    I’m sorry if this sounds like teaching you veteran political apparachiks to suck eggs. But I share Briefly’s frustration at how difficult it will be to dislodge this bunch of spivs and snake-oil salesmen.

    No worries. You are making sensible points, and clearly don’t share Briefly’s “We’re fucked for the next millenium” outlook, or the other commonly held view that Labor can do nothing in opposition and should just sit quietly on their hands for the next 3 years.

  22. Pegasus
    says:
    Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 5:17 pm
    The verballing and misrepresentation of my views by Cat is so par for the course that is PB.
    _________________________________
    Pointing out political corruption is not as important as posting obese memes about Morrison and Trump. We both need to do more of that.

  23. Briefly:

    In capitalism, every tangible and intangible object and/or process is capable of being turned into property; and once rendered that way may be monetised for private benefits without limit.

    That’s why it’s critical to get the definition of property correct (per Locke, I would say) and not be subjugated by the self-serving definitions proffered by the rentiers.

  24. sonar

    Look at the numbers who vote National. Look at the numbers who vote Green. Look at how many seats each party gets as a result.

  25. P1, Peg,

    This is a couple of year old, and relates to the effect of New Labour triangulation:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/17/politicians-public-opinion-new-labour

    But what if the causal relationship is actually more complicated? That is to say, what if parties can actually shape public opinion rather than merely responding to it? Though this suggestion might not sound particularly controversial in the abstract, it does raise uncomfortable questions about the logic of the triangulation approach pursued by Labour since the 90s.

    Tom O’Grady, a researcher at UCL, has produced an interesting analysis on public attitudes to welfare and welfare recipients, which significantly challenges conventional wisdom. The usual assumption is that New Labour’s adoption of a “tough” stance on benefits was tracking public opinion, and that concerns about fraud and the belief that unemployment was a lifestyle choice were already widespread. In reality, evidence suggests voters became significantly more hostile towards benefits claimants after the Labour party did.

  26. The Greens have chosen policies that appeal to the Inner Urbs.
    They have done so without any interference from the state.
    The Greens are totally free to sell their policies.
    So far this has netted them 1 MP, getting them within striking distance of three or four others, and a fair proportion of senators.

    If they want to win 30-40 rural and regional electorates, they should cobble together a set of policies that appeal to rural and regional voters more than the policies of the Nationals.

    My suggestion would be that they start that by getting rid of a whole swag of destructive policies which are only on the Greens policy books because no Greens seriously thinks that they will ever have to be implemented for real.

  27. sonar
    “Look at the numbers who vote National. Look at the numbers who vote Green. Look at how many seats each party gets as a result.”

    So it stands to reason then that the Greens need to pull their fingers out and work out how to get those voters off the Nationals so they vote for them instead.

    There is no gerrymander.

  28. Player One @ #781 Tuesday, November 26th, 2019 – 5:19 pm

    beguiledagain @ #777 Tuesday, November 26th, 2019 – 5:15 pm

    I’m sorry if this sounds like teaching you veteran political apparachiks to suck eggs. But I share Briefly’s frustration at how difficult it will be to dislodge this bunch of spivs and snake-oil salesmen.

    No worries. You are making sensible points, and clearly don’t share Briefly’s “We’re fucked for the next millenium” outlook, or the other commonly held view that Labor can do nothing in opposition and should just sit quietly on their hands for the next 3 years.

    Now I know I’m going to cop it but I don’t think it’s necessarily that hard.
    A truly charismatic, confident, articulate leader could make a hell of a difference. Someone who commands attention.
    I’m not saying this person exists, although they have in the past.
    Someone to put Scrott on notice. Someone to even up the contest.
    Someone with fire, passion and self belief.
    Someone not scared of Scrott.
    Someone who see right through Scrott to the voters on the other side.
    Labor won’t always be lead by beige.

  29. ‘If people consistently misrepresent you, it is most likely because your arguments are hitting a bit too close to home.’

    Or that your wording isn’t conveying your meaning.

  30. Matthew Guy was the most developer-oriented Liberal, making millions for them. Unfortunately Greg Hunt missed out on the medal, but tried his little best.

  31. BW

    The only valid part of the Green complaint would be fixed with a multimember electorate voting system.

    Of course if they want to win in country and regional areas they have to appeal to voters.

  32. sonar

    Supporters of the two-party system are blinkered when it comes to how the two major parties benefit from the lack of proportional representation in the HoR.

    It’s not a grumble but fact.

    https://insidestory.org.au/not-what-the-voter-ordered/

    he final count for this year’s federal election revealed that the Coalition parties received 51 per cent of seats in the House of Representatives in return for 41 per cent of the primary vote. Labor’s 33 per cent vote netted 45 per cent of posteriors on shiny leather. But the Greens, with a touch over 10 per cent of the vote, got less than 1 per cent of seats.

    Contrast the minor party’s fate with that of the Nationals, who turned a primary vote of just 4.5 per cent into ten times as many seats as the Greens, or 6.6 per cent of the total. Is it fair, is it right, when votes translate so unevenly into seats?
    :::
    Proportional representation, or PR, is used by about half the world’s democracies. In their elections, parties can expect to receive about the same percentage of seats as they get in votes.
    :::
    PR systems throw up a set of parliamentarians that more accurately represents society in all its complexity. Think of our occasionally colourful senators, who are elected by PR. And because no party generally has a majority, PR encourages consensus, deal-making, and give and take.

    PR’s other big advantage is that virtually all votes have the same value. Contrast this with House of Reps elections, in which safe seats are ignored and marginal ones fetishised and showered with riches. Parties get carried away with “bellwether” electorates, sometimes seeming to perceive them as possessing magical powers: seat X invariably goes to the overall winner, so if we pour lots of resources into winning it then we win government.
    :::
    Around the democratic world, support for major parties is on the decline. SMDs mask this phenomenon. Our May election saw the lowest combined major-party primary vote since the second world war, just 74.8 per cent, but you would barely know it from the seat tally; between them they scooped up 145 of the 151 on offer, or 96 per cent.
    :::
    SMD preserves major-party dominance, with the Australian accessory of preferential voting boosting that dynamic. Because of that — because voters continue to perceive that only one side or other can form government, and because they don’t want to waste their vote (most Australians don’t understand how preferences work) — our system works to prop up major-party support.

    But one day, if the major-party vote continues its decline, something will have to give. Someone else will start to win seats, though we don’t know who that will be.

  33. Pegasus @ #778 Tuesday, November 26th, 2019 – 5:17 pm

    The verballing and misrepresentation of my views by Cat is so par for the course that is PB.

    Verballing? Well then, you shouldn’t have been too-smart-by-half in the way you constructed the sentence in question to give the allusion that The Greens, of which you are their representative here, had no problem letting the Taylor matter slide, simply for the reason that Exurbanites aren’t exercised about it.

  34. P1

    If people consistently misrepresent you, it is most likely because your arguments are hitting a bit too close to home.

    That’s how I see it. The never-ending condescension, abuse and vitriol thrown my way is just positive validation, something I have said here over the years.

  35. bakunin @ #786 Tuesday, November 26th, 2019 – 5:26 pm

    That is to say, what if parties can actually shape public opinion rather than merely responding to it?

    How odd. It actually never occurred to me that some people could think political parties don’t shape public opinion. Does anyone honestly think your average punter deeply researches every policy position before deciding on their opinion?

    I have always assumed it works precisely the other way around – i.e for most people their passion for one or two policy areas (typically, those that affect them most) determines which party they vote for, and their opinion on most other issues is then informed by the views of that party.

    I will read the article with interest, although just glancing at it, I am not sure Tony Blair is a good exemplar of anything to do with Labour. Blair was bit like Rudd – an opportunist who promised much but who turned out to have feet of clay.

  36. I can understand that the Greens want to whinge about a democracy where only about 10% of the population freely vote for the Greens. So, what do the Greens extremists do? Complain about democracy! Let the kiddies take to the streets! Whinge! Wail! Squeal!

    Even bloody Hitler did better than 37% in free, fair and open elections.

    The fundamental problem for the Greens has always been that their full suite of policies is fundamentally opposed by around 90% of the full suite of voters.

    Normally, this might just cause a political party to re-examine its policies.

    But not the Greens Party. They look down on rural and regional voters. Hicks, under-educated, ignorant, greedy and selfish. They run a Convoy of Arrogance into the sticks to rub the noses of this hoi polloi into the dust. They spend six years Killing Bill. And then they wonder why Bill died and Morrison got in. If there is something wrong, it is always something wrong The Other.

    The Greens need to stop being a cult and start being a competitive Party.

Comments Page 16 of 20
1 15 16 17 20

Leave a Reply

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