Newspoll quarterly breakdowns: January to March (open thread)

A quarterly aggregation of Newspoll results suggests a deterioration in Labor’s standing in Western Australia and among the 18-to-35 age cohort.

My diagnosis of a quiet week for polling hadn’t reckoned on Newspoll’s quarterly breakdowns, brought to you by The Australian. The headline-grabber here is Western Australia: whereas the other mainland states record changes in two-party preferred no greater than one point either way, Labor has gone from leading 54-46 to trailing 51-49 in the State of Excitement, for a swing to the Coalition of 6% off the 2022 result. However, the sample would have been below 400, putting the margin of error north of 5%. Elsewhere, New South Wales has gone from 51-49 in favour of Labor to 50-50 (a Coalition swing of about 1.5%); Victoria is unchanged at 55-45 to Labor (also little changed from 2022); the Coalition’s lead in Queensland has narrowed from 54-46 to 53-47 (a 1% swing to Labor); and Labor’s lead in South Australia has narrowed from 55-45 to 54-46 (unchanged from 2022).

Two other movements stand out: Labor’s lead among the 18-to-34 cohort is in from 66-34 to 61-39, which reflects parallel five-point movements in both major parties’ primary vote share rather than anything to do with the Greens, who are in fact down a point and no longer lead the Coalition; and its lead among non-English speakers is in from 60-40 to 55-45. The gender gap has re-emerged, with an aberrant 53-47 lead to Labor among men last time making way for 50-50 this time, while Labor’s lead among women is out from 52-48 to 53-47.

These results are compiled from three Newspoll surveys conducted between January 31 and March 22, from an overall sample of 3691.

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.

1,645 comments on “Newspoll quarterly breakdowns: January to March (open thread)”

Comments Page 33 of 33
1 32 33
  1. Biden’s not changing Israel policy after deadly strike on aid workers

    Some of his senior officials think it’s “a blatantly horrific and stupid mistake.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/03/biden-israel-strike-aid-workers-gaza-00150356

    “The Biden administration has no plans to change its policy toward Israel after the ally’s forces killed seven humanitarian aid workers.

    President Joe Biden was privately enraged by the deadly strike and in a public statement upbraided Israel for it, calling for “accountability” to those responsible and demanding more humanitarian assistance be allowed into Gaza. But two senior administration officials said that is as far as he and the White House will go for now.

    “That’s all we have planned,” said one of the officials, who like others was granted anonymity to speak candidly about administration planning or internal reactions.

    It’s the latest example of the United States criticizing Israel’s conduct of the war against Hamas while remaining reluctant to use its leverage to force a change. “

  2. FUBAR @ #1597 Thursday, April 4th, 2024 – 10:00 pm

    Player One says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 9:52 pm

    You’d be happy to sacrifice the freedom of the citizens of Taiwan or South Korea for trade with China?

    And there I was thinking that the Left were supposed to be more concerned about principle than conservatives.

    I would not be willing to sacrifice Australian lives to defend Taiwan just because the US is in a trade war with China.

    Would you?

  3. FUBARsays:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 9:54 pm
    Lordbain says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 9:50 pm

    At what point does trade trump principles?

    We already are a first strike target in a global nuclear exchange – whether in the initial conflict or not.

    Ah yes, tell me about these “principles” that the west holds sacrosanct and totally doesnt ignore at the first hint of pragmatism

  4. Andrew_Earlwood says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 9:57 pm

    Claiming that the defence of Taiwan would be the centre piece of our defence strategy is typical of your ridiculous anti-AUKUS opinions. The possibility of the US not defending Taiwan and us “going it alone” is another level of absurdity.

    That is just one of many scenarios where Australian submarines might be called upon.

    Yes, the project has risks and is likely, as most similar projects in both defence, government and private sectors is likely to be over budget and late – but it is the correct decision. We should have gone down this path many decades ago when the Collins was purchased. We didn’t so we are doing it now. It’s the single best policy decision by the ALP to support and continue it.

  5. “You’d be happy to sacrifice the freedom of the citizens of Taiwan or South Korea for trade with China?”

    Some A-grade stupidity right there.

    Their freedoms are not ours to sacrifice in the first place. it is not our strategic concern.

    In the second place, the best way we could assist our northern hemisphere allies in any showdown with Big Bad Panda (assuming for the moment that a ‘defence of Australia’ doctrine ought to extend to some sort of mutual and collective defence – which does not presently exist in the Asia pacific as anything other than a fable) would be to double down on ‘Defence of Australia’ type stuff via an expanded and integrated A2-AD network that straddles our archipelagic north. Which would as a byproduct also effectively shutter the South Pacific and this archipelagic northern circle (including the vital straits of malacca) to China in the event of a Kinetic war, whilst also defending the vital comms stations within australia. None of which are furthered by parking second hand US Virginia class subs across the Straits of Taiwan.

    We should be looking to long range strike missiles; missile defence shields for existing military assets in australia; the acquisition of ISR satellites and surveillance drones and the like. Nuclear submarines may well play an important role in establishing and maintaining an effective A2-AD network to keep an enemy at bay from the homeland and on the other-side of the equator; but not if the cost for acquiring such a capability means we effectively guarantee them to be used in someone else’s fight thousands of miles away from where that A2-AD network is situated.

  6. Are we discussing Tassie here or elsewhere? I can’t see the Liberals being able to get a supply and confidence agreement with enough cross bench members to get a majority. Labor is not likely to try, the Greens can’t give it a shot. Therefore, it is going to be an unsupported Liberal minority government until it crashes.

  7. Player One says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:05 pm

    A trade war?

    Where the fuck did a scenario of Australia fighting a military war with China in support of a US-China trade war come from?

  8. Socratessays:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:00 pm
    On Taylor Auerbach, I have just been catching up with his evidence. I can’t imagine Bruce Lehrmann will be calling him as a character witness for his Toowoomba rape trial.

    The motivation for Auerbach seems obvious – he was dumped by Seven and not given any credit for their award winning Spotlight story, even though it looks like Auerbach got stuck with all the dirty jobs to make it happen. I’d be annoyed too.

    Regardless of motivation, Auerbach seems to have produced photos and documentary evidence that contradicts earlier Lehrmann statements. And the documents that came to light with Auerbach were miraculously found by Seven, confirming they were not fake.

    Both sides are arguing about how he acquired the evidence. If it was via Lehrmann that would appear to be improper use of court material. Contempt?

    Yet so far nobody seems to have called the evidence false. Even Channel Seven tonight called the situation “Appalling”, not “false” or “defamatory”.

    I am not a lawyer and will not try to predict how this will end up. But I can’t see any good for Lehrmann or Seven coming out of Auerbach’s testimony.
    ======================================================

    A breach of the “Harman undertaking” is certainly considered contempt of court. The jurisdiction involved in this case would be the ACT. I’m not sure what past penalties the ACT court has handed out for “Harman undertaking” breaches in the past though or if they have had someone tried for it?.

  9. Dandy Murraysays:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:19 pm
    “The reality is that the Cops effectively regulated Gambling and Prostitution and did a reasonable job.”

    Fark me.
    ==============================================

    A free one if you were a cop. Plus a brown paper bag to take home too.

    Before it became the Sunshine state. It was the state of bad knights.

  10. On Australia potentially fighting China in the SCS or Taiwan Strait, I have several concerns.

    First, Australia’s surface fleet would make little difference to the outcome. The environment would be like the Red Sea on steroids. Our three Hobart AWDs are the only ships we have with a reasonable prospect of survival there. China has over 60 comparable ships.

    Second, Australia’s current submarines might be useful but would have difficulty reaching the deployment area. Our future SSNs will not arrive till the 2030s (US so zero sum game vs USN) or 2040s (SSN AUKUS) by which time it may be too late.

    So we will make little difference to the result hence that hardly seems in Taiwan’s interest. And getting our navy sunk for nothing is not in our interest either.

    Fourth it would seem both more effective, cheaper and far less risky to send Taiwan critical armaments, medical supplies etc, similar to assistance to Ukraine.

    The US has a national interest in fighting the PLaN in the Taiwan Strait because it would contain China within the first island chain, and prevent China acquiring the Taiwan semiconductor industry. So this is all about preserving advantage for the UsA, not security. The Continental USA is still on the other side of the Pacific, logistically impossible for any navy to support an invasion over such a distance.

    Unless USA is about to develop a Pacific NATO with all the rights and responsibilities for each member state, why should we commit Australia to a high risk war with little to gain from it?

  11. Tricot says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:03 pm

    The M1 Abrams acquisition was done within budget and ahead of schedule. A rare event.

  12. Thank god you are ex military FUBAR. You are a fool. Unfortunately you are also no worse than the current ADF brass.

    Explain to me why a $368 billion project – which depends in equal measure on the continuing grace of the american administration of the day AND then – BAE Marine then doing something that it never has been able to pull off in 65+ years of trying is somehow ‘the right decision’ when we could have had the same capability with a fixed price contract from the french – 15 years before time – and for a fraction of the price. All without effectively signing ourselves away to some American delusion that involves the potential of a war with our main trading partner?

    Some facts:

    What are the most modern nuclear attack subs in the world? They are the French ones.

    The one national nuclear submarine manufacturer that could start building the nuclear subs tomorrow to RAN specifications? French again.

    The cheapest? viva la France.

    Also: the one nuclear capable country that is actually resident in both of the major oceans that australia straddles, and whose Indo-Pacific interests naturally align with us? France.

    What the fuck are we doing? Aligning ourselves with two dumpster fires in America and Britain? Absurd.

  13. FUBAR @ #1606 Thursday, April 4th, 2024 – 10:18 pm

    Player One says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:05 pm

    A trade war?

    Where the fuck did a scenario of Australia fighting a military war with China in support of a US-China trade war come from?

    You think we would be fighting a US war with China for any other reason? Do you really think the US gives a crap about Taiwan because it is keen to defend their democratic rights?

  14. Andrew_Earlwood says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:26 pm

    Your ideological hatred of the US, UK, and LNP are plain to see for all. There’s really no point in discussing the issue with you. Fortunately the professionals are getting on with the job at hand.

  15. FUBAR

    “ The M1 Abrams acquisition was done within budget and ahead of schedule. A rare event.”

    Yes, about 15 years early. No explanation in the DSR of why.

    $5 billion more, Morrisoned.

  16. Socrates @ #1617 Thursday, April 4th, 2024 – 10:35 pm

    Player One

    I assumed the Taiwan discussion is about this story today that US Dep Sec State Kurt Caampell said AUKUs subs might be used to China in the SCS. Campbell simply said out loud what many have suspected for years.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-04/us-official-suggests-a-taiwan-war-could-see-aukus-subs-deployed/103669794

    Yes, it was. But FUBAR is trying to make it out to be about our duty to support the US against China to defend some principle which I am not entirely clear about. The principle of US hegemony, I think.

  17. “Fourth it would seem both more effective, cheaper and far less risky to send Taiwan critical armaments, medical supplies etc, similar to assistance to Ukraine.”

    If an american led western alliance – some sort of neo-con ‘coalition of the willing’ were fair dinkum about the defence of Taiwan, that island would already be producing german designed conventional submarines at the rate of about 2-4 per year. The kenetic energy advantage of nuclear submarines simply doesn’t count when operating in such confined waters: electric boats are much better options: so long as they are stuffed full of the latest naval strike missiles, anti-ship mines and heavy torpedoes.

    You know this whole malarkey is bogus by the fact that american has consistently blocked Taiwan acquiring German submarine technology, and that Taiwan is only now starting to produce its own subs – which are based on a 70 year old obsolete american conventional submarine design.

    the fact that Taiwan similarly has been stymied into upgrading its air defence systems by the Americans is another ‘poker tell’ that this is all bullshit.

    Why the fuck should the ADF step into that breach?

  18. Dandy Murraysays:
    at 10:19 pm
    “The reality is that the Cops effectively regulated Gambling and Prostitution and did a reasonable job.”

    *Fark me.*
    ***************************************************
    No thanks.
    The reality since 1989 is that there’s a Streetwalking problem in Brissy, quite a few women murdered, that didn’t happen when the cops informally regulated the Massage Parlors.

  19. Player One

    “ Yes, it was. But FUBAR is trying to make it out to be about our duty to support the US against China to defend some principle which I am not entirely clear about. The principle of US hegemony, I think.”

    Yes agreed. It is US hegemony. Even if China won, US security is not threatened in the eastern Pacific.

    And currently our only treaty responsibility (ANZUS) is to consult each other, not defend each other.

    As for AUKUS, we keep getting told it is not a treaty, until today, when we find out the strings attached. As a minimum it should be debated in parliament

  20. B.S. Fairman at 10.17 pm

    There’s a separate Tassie/Dunstan late counting thread with comments from Dr Bonham.

    See also: https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/2024-tasmanian-postcount-braddon.html

    Dr Bonham feels confident that the maverick fisherman Garland will beat the Libs for the last seat in the electorate of Braddon. That would drop the Libs + JLN below 18.

    Here is the likely outcome from Dr Bonham’s summary page:

    “SEATS CALLED LIB 13 ALP 10 GRN 5 JLN 2 IND 2
    EXPECTED Lib 3 to beat Green 1, Franklin
    EXPECTED JLN 1 to beat Labor 3, Lyons
    LIKELY Craig Garland likely to beat Liberal 4, Braddon
    EXPECTED OUTCOME 14 Lib, 10 ALP, 5 GRN, 3 JLN, 3 IND”

    https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/tasmania-embraces-chaos-2024-election.html

  21. If anyone reads the Fitzgerald Inquiry, you will find there were multiple instances of sex workers in Brisbane being murdered, in the good old days of the corrupt Bjelke Petersen regime.

  22. Andrew_Earlwood says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:45 pm:

    ““the professionals” are all fuckwits. From bean to cup, they fuck up.”

    Just another example of your arrogance.

    What happened? Failed a selection board? Never forgiven them since?

  23. *If anyone reads the Fitzgerald Inquiry, you will find there were multiple instances of sex workers in Brisbane being murdered, in the good old days of the corrupt Bjelke Petersen regime.*
    Examples?
    2 will do, plus your source.

  24. Socratessays:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:48 pm
    If anyone reads the Fitzgerald Inquiry, you will find there were multiple instances of sex workers in Brisbane being murdered, in the good old days of the corrupt Bjelke Petersen regime.
    =============================================

    Wasn’t Terry Lewis involved in protecting pedophiles too?.

  25. gympiesays:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 11:04 pm
    *If anyone reads the Fitzgerald Inquiry, you will find there were multiple instances of sex workers in Brisbane being murdered, in the good old days of the corrupt Bjelke Petersen regime.*
    Examples?
    2 will do, plus your source.
    ===========================================

    You are not the brightest are you. He gave the source at the beginning of his first sentence.

  26. gympiesays:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 11:04 pm
    *If anyone reads the Fitzgerald Inquiry, you will find there were multiple instances of sex workers in Brisbane being murdered, in the good old days of the corrupt Bjelke Petersen regime.*
    Examples?
    2 will do, plus your source.
    ===============================================

    Simone Vogel and Shirley Brifman are suspected to have been murdered by Queensland police.

    Note: When the people doing the murdering are the ones suppose to be investigating the murder. You don’t get very reliable crime data on the murder of prostitutes. Terry Lewis and his rat pack knew how to hide bodies generally. People just went missing if they spoke out.

  27. >the fact that Taiwan similarly has been stymied into upgrading its air defence systems by the Americans is another ‘poker tell’ that this is all bullshit.

    I watched a video the other day on China & Taiwan .

    The US goal is to convince China & Taiwan that China invading/Taiwan independence is best done tomorrow. And tomorrow never arrives.

    This means arming Taiwan just enough to make invading too hard but not enough that China has to invade now.

  28. The Seven Network says it is “appalled” by recent allegations about conduct at current affairs program Spotlight, as the outgoing commercial director distanced its senior executives from executive producer Mark Llewellyn in fresh evidence in court on Thursday afternoon.

    Appalled.. appalled …. Just like Rupert & the Sun, I know nothin.. I always know nothin.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbJfRe6iGlo

  29. Socrates says Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:23 pm

    On Australia potentially fighting China in the SCS or Taiwan Strait, I have several concerns.

    First, Australia’s surface fleet would make little difference to the outcome. The environment would be like the Red Sea on steroids. Our three Hobart AWDs are the only ships we have with a reasonable prospect of survival there. China has over 60 comparable ships.

    Second, Australia’s current submarines might be useful but would have difficulty reaching the deployment area. Our future SSNs will not arrive till the 2030s (US so zero sum game vs USN) or 2040s (SSN AUKUS) by which time it may be too late.

    So we will make little difference to the result hence that hardly seems in Taiwan’s interest. And getting our navy sunk for nothing is not in our interest either.

    Fourth it would seem both more effective, cheaper and far less risky to send Taiwan critical armaments, medical supplies etc, similar to assistance to Ukraine.

    The US has a national interest in fighting the PLaN in the Taiwan Strait because it would contain China within the first island chain, and prevent China acquiring the Taiwan semiconductor industry. So this is all about preserving advantage for the UsA, not security. The Continental USA is still on the other side of the Pacific, logistically impossible for any navy to support an invasion over such a distance.

    Unless USA is about to develop a Pacific NATO with all the rights and responsibilities for each member state, why should we commit Australia to a high risk war with little to gain from it?

    This I pretty much agree with. If China is as committed to the forceful integration of Taiwan as some people say, then we are highly unlikely to have any nuclear subs before it happens. Even if we did have one or two, they wouldn’t be likely to make any difference. An invasion of Taiwan would likely be effectively over pretty quickly, well before we would be able to get involved.

    I have sympathy for the people of Taiwan. They are living in a healthy democracy in a pretty liberal country. I would very much like to see them continue to live in peace and freedom. However, I don’t think there’s much we could offer in a conflict that would make any material difference.

    At the end of the day, Taiwan is ultimately responsible for its own defence. I read something last year that suggested that the Taiwanese military leadership is probably not up to that task. I could see a role in Taiwan’s friends in this region, including Australia, providing training and other assistance to significantly increase the capabilities of their military. I think that’s the most we could probably do.

    Having said that, there probably is some deterrence value in strategic ambiguity.

  30. For Gympie to turn the tables and start demanding citations given their ludicrous record of making entirely unsubstantiated assertions is quite the turn.

    Bravo.

  31. “What happened? Failed a selection board? Never forgiven them since?”

    The Hunter Class happened. A $46 billion (and counting) lemon. A national scandal of the highest order.

    Then OHFUCKUS. Dwarfing even the scale of disaster that is the Hunter class.

    The most obvious option for a nuclear propulsion pivot was taken off the table for further consideration on grounds that were easily exposed as being complete bullshit. An option that if pursued left the real prospect of the RAN acquiring the most modern, yet mature, nuclear attack submarine design fully 15 years earlier than the British concept (it would be wrong to call the SSN-AUKUS a ‘design’ yet, and in fact it wont be a full design for another 10 years).

    I am a taxpayer. I am paying for this shit. At the same time simultaneously looking down the barrel of massive capability gaps due to the decisions of your beloved ‘professionals’ and unnecessarily entangling my country in a series of delusions that are best avoided.

    But make no mistake – I am not against acquiring american or british kit; when it makes sense to do so (I strongly support the decisions of previous Labor and Liberal governments to acquire the FA18F and Gs, and the F35s for example); but only a fool – ie. You and C@t are on a unity ticket here – would not see the obvious & monumental blunders involved over the past half decade or more. Even within the context of OHFUCKUS we have seemingly gone ahead with the most stupid, needlessly expensive and downright risky options: the most straight forward option would have been to buy 4 SSN Virginia class ‘block VIIs’ between 2038-44 and supplemented them with a replacement of 6 ‘regionally superior’ locally built SSKs to undertake the still vital littoral patrol work through our archipelagic north. But no … from bean to cup, ‘the professionals’ continue to fuck up.

  32. Our AUKUS agreement was handled by Scummo and Spud. Their inability to read the fine print was shown regularly in legislation they drafted. COVID financial assistance for businesses suffering downturn in turnover and profit forgot to include if that didn’t happen you would have to give back the money. Robodebt.
    These subs will cost us a fortune. We are building infrastructure in US and UK for their construction. Control will stay with US for security reasons and followup maintenance.
    Future Presidents can slow project down, suspend construction or keep the finished product.
    And we are expected to trust that Scummo was thorough and acted in our best interests. Ably assisted by the most useless Defence Minister in decades.
    It has not been put under the microscope because it won’t be completed for decades.

  33. Rebecca @ 4.43pm
    Agreed.
    The Victorian Greens pre-selected Lidia Thorpe.
    Bar, a double dissolution election Australia is stuck with her in the Senate for another four years.
    I think Greens supporters will be carefully scrutinising any future candidates, particularly Senate candidates.

  34. FUBAR says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 10:14 pm
    Andrew_Earlwood says:
    Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 9:57 pm

    Claiming that the defence of Taiwan would be the centre piece of our defence strategy is typical of your ridiculous anti-AUKUS opinions. The possibility of the US not defending Taiwan and us “going it alone” is another level of absurdity.

    That is just one of many scenarios where Australian submarines might be called upon.

    Yes, the project has risks and is likely, as most similar projects in both defence, government and private sectors is likely to be over budget and late – but it is the correct decision. We should have gone down this path many decades ago when the Collins was purchased. We didn’t so we are doing it now. It’s the single best policy decision by the ALP to support and continue it.

    ———-
    Claiming the defence of Taiwan is the centrepiece of our defence strategy is certainly the view in US eyes.

    You are aware the AUKUS submarines, when and if we get them, closer to 2040 it seems, as the US is st least 3 times behind in its construction for its own needs, are attack nuclear submarines.
    Nothing to do with defence of Australia.

    Interesting that none who are making these decisions will be in politics when we eventually, if ever, get the subs. So the $368billion goes where?

    And spoken quite clearly. Our National interest is subservient to what the US wants to do.
    Duds in charge in Australia.

    ‘America’s second most-powerful diplomat has suggested Australian nuclear-powered submarines acquired under AUKUS could eventually be deployed against China in any military conflict over Taiwan.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-04/us-official-suggests-a-taiwan-war-could-see-aukus-subs-deployed/103669794#

    US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell has made the comments on the same day he phoned senior Australian and New Zealand officials to discuss “ongoing cooperation to support a secure, prosperous, free and open Indo-Pacific region”.’

Comments Page 33 of 33
1 32 33

Leave a Reply

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