Newspoll: 52-48 to Coalition

Another modest Coalition lead from the second poll in a new-look Newspoll series, which also finds Scott Morrison rated well for strength, vision and experience, but higher than he’d like for arrogance. Also featured: a quick early look at the ANU’s deep and wide post-election survey.

The second Newspoll conducted under the new regime of online polls conducted by YouGov records the Coalition with a 52-48 lead, out from 51-49 a fortnight ago. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up a point to 42%, Labor is steady on 33%, the Greens are down one to 11% and One Nation is steady on 5%. Both leaders’ personal ratings are improved after weak results last time, with Scott Morrison up two on approval to 45% and down four on disapproval to 48%, and Anthony Albanese up two to 40% and down four to 41%. Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister is out from 46-35 to 48-34.

Respondents were also asked to rate the leaders according to nine attributes, eight positive and one negative. Morrison scored higher than Albanese for the experience (68-64), decisiveness and strength (60-51) and having a vision for Australia (60-54), while Albanese had the edge on caring for people (60-55). There was essentially nothing to separate them on understanding the major issues (57-56 to Albanese), likeability (56-56), being in touch with voters (50-49 to Albanese) and trustworthiness (49-48). However, Morrison’s worst result was his 58-40 lead on the one negative quality that was gauged – arrogance.

The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1503. The Australian’s paywalled report of the results is here.

In other poll news, a uComms poll (apparently minus the ReachTEL branding now) for the Courier-Mail ($) suggests Queensland’s embattled Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, is in grave danger of losing her seat of South Brisbane to the Greens. The poll shows the Greens on 29.4%, Labor on 27.5% and the Liberal National Party on 26.6%, with 10.4% undecided. Labor is credited with a 52-48 lead on respondent-allocated preferences, but this may flatter Labor given the LNP’s announcement that they would direct preferences against them. No field work date is provided that I can see, but the sample size was 700. The deficiencies of automated phone polls in inner city seats were noted by Kevin Bonham, among others.

UPDATE: In better poll news still, the results from the post-election Australian Election Study survey are available in all their glory, courtesy of the Australian National University. You can view the ANU’s overview of the findings here, but the real fun of this resource is that it allows you to cross-tabulate responses to 3143-respondent survey across a dizzying range of variables. The survey also includes demographic weightings that presume to correct for the biases introduced by the survey process. The survey also addresses a long-standing criticism by including a component of 968 respondents who also completed the 2016 survey, allowing for study of the changing behaviour of the same set of respondents over time.

Rest assured you will be hearing a great deal more about the survey going forward, but for the time being, here’s one set of numbers I have crunched for starters. This shows the primary vote broken down into three age cohorts, and compares them with the equivalent figures from the 2016 survey. This produces some eye-catching results, particularly in regard to a probably excessive surge in support for the Coalition among the middle-aged cohort – mostly at the expense of “others”. By contrast, the young cohort swung heavily to the left, while the boomers were relatively static.

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.

580 comments on “Newspoll: 52-48 to Coalition”

Comments Page 6 of 12
1 … 5 6 7 … 12

  1. P1

    Your logic is impeccable – you’ve convinced me! How do I invest? Are you going IPO?

    Thanks. I might go IPO if I sense enough interest. In the meantime do you know anyone that has an RV?

  4. C@t

    It’s difficult to know where to start over ‘belief’ in AGW. I don’t think most of us woke up one day and with no previous opinion suddenly thought “Yes, it’s happening,” especially as there was a huge amount of literature swearing it wasn’t. I gradually came to understand after following up links with “deniers” and discovering that they were mostly rich, miners, or geologists. And since then, the scientific evidence has mounted.

    But in order to come to that understanding, I think you have to have an interest in it, which obviously many people simply do not have. 🙂

  5. Player One says:
    Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:37 pm
    RI @ #214 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 11:21 am

    Instead, we fight among ourselves. We will be destroyed as a result.
    I can just imagine my grandkid’s lament – “Oh, if only people had listened to Briefly, and opened more coal mines. Sure, we would all still be dying, but at least we could afford to die in style!”

    Another fatuous remark from a disingenuous heckler.

  8. ‘Pegasus says:
    Monday, December 9, 2019 at 11:44 am

    The Greens party have never advocated closing down the coal industry immediately. ‘

    Whooaaaa. A Greens finally tells the truth about coal. There is a future for the coal industry.

  11. Barney in Tanjung Bunga @ #232 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 11:47 am

    See you miss the point completely.

    Mining is not part of the solution.

    The solution comes from putting renewables and storage in place.

    Do that and there will be little demand for coal.

    You achieve the reduction in mining by making redundant the industries that support it.

    Wrong. Simply wrong. So wrong, in fact, that the UN issued an entire report pointing out that this thinking was not only wrong, but dangerously wrong.

    You clearly have not read the report, or you would not post such obvious and easily refutable drivel. Neither apparently have your Labor colleagues here on PB. Nor, apparently, has Albo.

    Here it is again, because you all seem to have missed it:

    https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/production-gap-report-2019

  12. In terms of holding on to the Labor leadership, it was a great tactical move by Albanese to neutralise the coal issue in Labor and stop any momentum Fitzgibbon had going.

    Shortens next move will be interesting to observe in this 3 way dance for the LOTO position.

  13. Fitzgibbon made an excellent point in relation to Garrett.
    The Green’s nostrums will impact other people negatively.
    But not the Inner Urbs Greens.
    And the Greens will get improved amenity.
    Lose/win.
    The Greens need to adopt a national Party policy that each supporter will commit to reducing their personal CO2 emissions equivalent to zero and to paying half their salary to unemployed coal workers.
    This will demonstrate integrity and a commitment to sharing the pain arising from all their policies.

  14. The people who gave us Bush instead of Gore, and who thereby changed the whole world forever, have the hide to keep parading their so-called ‘wisdom’.

  17. Jolyon Wagg @ #252 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 12:33 pm

    P1

    Your logic is impeccable – you’ve convinced me! How do I invest? Are you going IPO?

    Thanks. I might go IPO if I sense enough interest. In the meantime do you know anyone that has an RV?

    Contact me privately. I am sure we can come to some mutually beneficial arrangement.

    Just remember: Drugs don’t kill people, people kill people! 🙁

  18. Fitzgibbon has no more aces in the pack now that Albanese has neutralised coal.

    I think Fitzgibbon will now fade away, leaving Albanese to fight off a challenge by Shorten.

    Interesting to watch Shortens tactical moves….

  23. The most important paragraph from P1’s bestest-friend-report-ever:

    The focus on demand is important. One could even say that if policies and actions to reduce the use of fossil fuels were sufficiently ambitious and well-designed, it would be unnecessary to focus on supply. Indeed, strong, harmonized, and widespread carbon prices could, in principle, put fossil fuel CO2 emissions on a sufficiently steep downward path (Rogelj et al. 2018). But such policies and actions have not materialized (Rogelj et al. 2016; UNEP 2018).

    So demand is really where it’s at. The report says so. The only reason to look at the wishing-and-hoping-supply-side-stuff is because the world (notably Australia and the USA) have been so hopeless at tackling the stuff that everyone knows they should be doing in terms of acting on demand. It’s a report by people of good intention trying to outline a “hail Mary” pass with not a lot to base it on.

  25. I read it all right, did not get a response to my email asking how the knew what was in the royalty agreement was with Adani as t hasn’t been signed yet.

    Australian coal production would go up 33% over the next 10 years without any demand?

    The report does highlight ( assuming the data from other countries isn’t as silly) that if the demand is there, there is plenty of coal to go around.

    https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/production-gap-report-2019

  26. Jackol @ #274 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 1:13 pm

    So demand is really where it’s at. The report says so. The only reason to look at the wishing-and-hoping-supply-side-stuff is because the world (notably Australia and the USA) have been so hopeless at tackling the stuff that everyone knows they should be doing in terms of acting on demand. It’s a report by people of good intention trying to outline a “hail Mary” pass with not a lot to base it on.

    Bejeezus, you can’t even read a single paragraph without either completely misunderstanding it, or deliberately misrepresenting it. This is truly astonishing 🙁

    Re-read the last sentence of your own paragraph …

    But such policies and actions have not materialized.

    Demand policies have not materialized. Supply policies must now be considered.

  28. poroti says:
    Monday, December 9, 2019 at 12:32 pm

    Firefox

    Gen Xers who have just switched off completely and frankly don’t give a fig leaf about any of it.

    Well they were the original ‘Slackers’
    __________________
    Is that you Mr Strickland?

  29. Ah, P1, such a delight with your put-downs and emojis.

    If we are to take action in the political sphere, and we have limited opportunity to get stuff done as we clearly do, should we be focusing on properly tackling demand – which the report indicates is the most logical, obvious place where the most benefit can be achieved – or this wishful thinking about supply constraint? P1 says, nah, we’ve failed politically dealing with demand, so let’s distract everyone and confuse the issue by failing politically to tackle supply!

    I’m done with you, P1, but when you come out with some of your worst nonsense I’ll be taking aim occasionally just so your simplistic rubbish doesn’t just sit there uncontested.

  30. Rex Douglas says:
    Monday, December 9, 2019 at 1:17 pm
    I have empathy for the Labor partisans who are quietly heartbroken with Labors embrace of coal.

    Very happy with Labor policy. Don’t export jobs just so the Greens can run a Green Stunt.
    Deal with demand.
    Get the renewable economy going.

    Also very happy with the Greens response, once again proving, Green stunts is their game. Makes it exceedingly easy for Labor to distance themselves without having to give up good policy.
    The Green stunts are just too far out there.

  31. Jackol @ #280 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 1:26 pm

    I’m done with you, P1, but when you come out with some of your worst nonsense I’ll be taking aim occasionally just so your simplistic rubbish doesn’t just sit there uncontested.

    The thing I love about you people is that when your nonsense is completely and utterly demolished, as C@t’s was yesterday and yours was today, you all get really upset and threaten to take your bat and ball and go home.

    Drop by again anytime. I’ll still be here.

  32. frednk @ #281 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 1:27 pm

    Rex Douglas says:
    Monday, December 9, 2019 at 1:17 pm
    I have empathy for the Labor partisans who are quietly heartbroken with Labors embrace of coal.

    Very happy with Labor policy. Don’t export jobs just so the Greens can run a Green Stunt.
    Deal with demand.
    Get the renewable economy going.

    Also very happy with the Greens response, once again proving, Green stunts is their game. Makes it exceedingly easy for Labor to distance themselves without having to give up good policy.
    The Green stunts are just too far out there.

    As morally bankrupt as the NRA’s “it’s not guns that kill people…” .

  33. Jackol,

    Section 5.1:

    Policies to address fossil fuel supply are often missing from the climate policy toolkit. Most climate policy interventions seek to address the consumption, rather than the production, of coal, oil and/or gas, through measures such as pricing carbon, fostering alternative energy sources, and improving energy efficiency. Climate policy need not be limited to interventions on the demand side, however. In many other areas of public policy, governments recognize that tackling supply and demand for a product at the same time is the most effective way to limit its use (Green and Denniss 2018). This is true for a diverse range of policy goals, including efforts to reduce the consumption of tobacco, the selling of illicit drugs, and the trafficking of endangered species. The continued growth in fossil fuel extraction suggests that there may be value in similarly seeking to limit the upstream production of such fuels, in addition to their consumption (Green and Denniss 2018; Lazarus and van Asselt 2018).

    Some governments have already begun to enact policies such as those outlined in Table 5.1, providing models for the rest of the world to learn from and emulate (Figure 5.1). The governments of Belize, Costa Rica, France, Denmark, and New Zealand, for instance, have all enacted partial or total bans or moratoria on oil and gas exploration and extraction. Germany and Spain are phasing out coal extraction, and working with workers and communities to plan for an economic future without mining (MITEGO 2018; Wehrmann 2018). And more than 40 countries have endorsed the need to reform fossil fuel subsidies (FFFSR 2019). These actions represent a growing momentum to limit fossil fuel supply for climate and related sustainable development reasons. Most of these policies and commitments have been enacted in the last five years (see online Appendix C), signalling policymakers’ new focus on fossil fuel production.

  34. Albanese & his shadow cabinet should spend a good deal of their time in Queensland, holding only 6 of the 30 seats on offer. As for supporting coal exports, I’m not sure but at least he has a clear message: “Australia can continue to mine and export coal while also having strong climate change policies.” Contrast this message to jumbled message touted at the last election:

    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/anthony-albanese-backs-australian-coal-exports-ahead-of-queensland-tour

    Labor’s private polling must’ve revealed that it was in deep trouble up here, witness the 11.24% swing to the Minister for Manila. Shadow cabinet meetings should be held in regional Queensland.

  36. bakunin – I understand what the writers of the report are trying to do.

    I admire their intentions.

    I disagree strongly with the idea that we should confuse the political debate by conflating supply and demand side measures.

    There is a lot of wishful thinking in that report, as indicated in the section you quoted:

    The continued growth in fossil fuel extraction suggests that there may be value in similarly seeking to limit the upstream production of such fuels, in addition to their consumption

    “there may be value”

    If we had politics that was heading in the right direction and we were properly tackling demand by pricing carbon emissions; driving coal power out of the energy market; stopping land clearing; appropriately subsidizing renewable energy/storage etc, then we could be thinking about expanding the scope of the political discussion and look at tackling the supply side, pre-emptively shutting down coal mines and fracking, etc.

    But if we divert attention on to the latter before we’ve properly tackled the former then all we are doing is scrambling the politics making it even more of a failure.

    In the dysfunctional political environment we are in I strongly think we need to be focusing on the best bang-for-buck measures – focusing on coal mines simply doesn’t cut it and acts as a distraction.

  37. Newsflash to LNP supporters: the Right needs to grow up and get over this one.
    Or Australia is rooted.

    “A Sydney circled by fire could never have hosted the Olympics”

    “I recall arguments on climate with the late right-wing columnist Paddy McGuinness. It was not over data or research, about brittle coral or fire frequency. The thing most distasteful about this climate talk for him, as I think for John Howard or Tony Abbott, was that it was being championed by people on the left.”

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/a-sydney-circled-by-fire-could-never-have-hosted-the-olympics-20191208-p53hva.html

  38. Jackol @ #287 Monday, December 9th, 2019 – 1:38 pm

    In the dysfunctional political environment we are in I strongly think we need to be focusing on the best bang-for-buck measures – focusing on coal mines simply doesn’t cut it and acts as a distraction.

    You are on record as supporting a dramatic expansion of coal mining. Like the rest of the “Four Musketeers” you also pro-actively oppose any action that even so much as looks like it might be effective in reducing our reliance on fossil-fuels.

    I think people can draw their own conclusions as to your motives.

  39. you also pro-actively oppose any action that even so much as looks like it might be effective in reducing our reliance on fossil-fuels.

    Lies.

    Ok, you got me P1, I had to respond to your blatant misrepresentation.

    If you keep lying and misrepresenting my position I’ll have to respond.

    Stop doing it.

  40. Bucephalus says:
    Voters clearly don’t care about the Undergraduate level politics of the attacks on Taylor nor the Climate Change alarmism.
    ————————-
    Going by watching the nightly FTA news it could be a case of people not knowing about it. I don’t usually blame the media but its lack of coverage of anything besides crime stories is embarrassingly bad even the sports coverage has become a mishmash.

  41. Check out the Australian Electoral Study for 2019:

    Political trust
    > Satisfaction with democracy is at its lowest level (59%) since
    the constitutional crisis of the 1970s.
    > Trust in government has reached its lowest level on record,
    with just 25% believing people in government can be trusted.
    > 56% of Australians believe that the government is run for ‘a
    few big interests’, while just 12% believe the government is
    run for ‘all the people’.

  43. Note that the Greens outpolled the LNP among under 35s:

    A divided electorate?
    > Men were much more likely to vote for the Coalition than
    women (men: 48%; women: 38%). Women were more likely
    than men to vote for the Greens (men: 9%; women: 15%).
    > Gender differences in voting have changed over time. In
    the 1990s men were slightly more likely to vote Labor than
    women, in recent elections women have become more likely
    to vote Labor.
    > There is evidence of a growing divide between the voting
    behavior of younger and older generations. The 2019
    election represented the lowest Liberal party vote on record
    for those under 35 (23%), and the highest ever vote for the
    Greens (28%).
    > Working class voters are much more likely to vote Labor
    than middle class voters (working class: 41%; middle class:
    29%). Long-term trends show an erosion of Labor’s working
    class base.
    > Asset ownership, including property and shares, was strongly
    associated with a higher vote for the Coalition

  44. Looking at the Fed Newspoll polling, it all looks a bit plus ca change.

    As for Global Warming, if the drought and the fires have had any impact at all, the Government’s response appears to have firmed support for the Government. The single most significant element in the fight against climate change is that those who say they want it, don’t want to have to pay for it themselves. The Greens in particular have a plan to sacrifice everyone else except themselves.

    The voters apparently don’t care much if Taylor is what he is. They don’t care much if Morrison is what he is., either.

    They do care about house prices, share prices, paying off some of their debt, and such job security as still exists.

    I am not sure what will happen in Queensland but I assume that the Greens will apply their Approved Ralph Nader model to do their level best to give us the Coalition in Queensland. This would certainly help the Greens attain all their policy objectives.

  46. Emma Dawson @DawsonEJ
    ·
    4h
    The moral posturing and hysterical rushing to judgement displayed by so-called progressives on this hellsite (Twitter) today, after a really serious & useful weekend of policy debate within the ALP, leaves me with the sinking feeling that the next election will be a rerun of 2019. #auspol
    ***
    The outcome was anything but doubling down on coal. I was there. I’m disappointed that so many smart people are being sucked in by media coverage that is deliberately misrepresenting serious policy debates in order to wedge the ALP, just as happened during the election campaign.

  48. Osman Faruqi
    @oz_f
    ·
    5h
    Renowned Australian artist Abdul Abdullah has had his anti-war exhibition censored after complaints by George Christensen. This is about 100x more important than Bill Henson, the arts community should be outraged

    https://www.smh.com.au/culture/art-and-design/anti-war-artworks-removed-in-censorship-row-20191204-p53gzk.html

    An internationally renowned Australian artist whose anti-war works were removed from a gallery has accused conservative politicians of misrepresenting his art and stoking outrage.

    What Nationals MP George Christensen slammed as an attack on the reputation of Australia’s armed forces amounted to fair political comment on the emotional cost of war, Sydney artist Abdul Abdullah says.

  49. Bucephalus:

    [‘Voters clearly don’t care about the Undergraduate level politics of the attacks on Taylor nor the Climate Change alarmism.’]

    Taylor suffers pseudologia fantastica and is as crooked as they come. He should be pursued to the nth degree. And polls indicate that most see the climate crisis as an almost existential threat:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/18/climate-crisis-seen-as-most-important-issue-by-public-poll-shows

  50. P1 – I’ll grant that you’re good at trolling.

    So, here’s your chance to clarify – is it only supply-side actions that you oppose?

    It’s not my “chance to clarify” because I have made my position clear on numerous occasions. Amongst many other comments, I’ve had my “chance to clarify” to you, explicitly, when you’ve asked this question before (you seemed perplexed that I might support a carbon price, and asked me previously if that were the case).

    I do support a carbon price. I support subsidizing and promoting renewables here. I support stopping land clearing. I’ve just said this literally minutes ago, that you responded to without reading (again!):

    If we had politics that was heading in the right direction and we were properly tackling demand by pricing carbon emissions; driving coal power out of the energy market; stopping land clearing; appropriately subsidizing renewable energy/storage etc

    And I said it a week or so ago, in a discussion with you:

    diverting scant political will from the actual task at hand which is to get the Australian government to do everything in its power to reduce our greenhouse emissions through promoting renewables, pricing carbon, stopping land clearing, whatever it takes, and to work constructively internationally to promote similar action around the world.

    https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/11/27/essential-research-bushfires-climate-change-asylum-seekers/comment-page-15/#comment-3292662

    You even apologised for not actually reading any of that before responding.

    And then there was the time before that, but I don’t have links for that.

    So yes, we’ve been around this merry-go-round before, and you misrepresented my position then, as you have just done now.

    I support any and all demand-side measures, because they will actually work.

    I don’t support the political distraction of supply-side measures that will likely not have any significant effect on what matters – how much coal gets burnt.

    Quote me and contest what I say, don’t make shit up and just assume you can get away with your portrayal and not-so-sly insinuations.

    And now I’m really done with you, P1.

Comments Page 6 of 12
1 … 5 6 7 … 12

Leave a Reply

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