The weekly campaign YouGov poll provides no relief for the Coalition, who are down two on the primary vote to 31%, maintaining a descent from 37% in mid-March. Less than half of this has bane gained by Labor, the latest result having them up half a point to 33%. The Greens are up a point to 14%, while One Nation enjoys a remarkable three-and-a-half point fillip to 10.5% — their best result in any poll since the 2022 election. Labor’s lead is out from 53-47 to 53.5-46.5 on two-party preferred, using a formula that allocates them 80% of preferences from the Greens, 33% from One Nation, 59% from independents and 49% from others. Anthony Albanese is down one on approval to 42% and steady on disapproval at 49%, while Peter Dutton is down four on approval to 36% and up four on disapproval to 54%. Albanese’s lead as preferred prime minister is out from 48-38 to 50-35. The poll was conducted Thursday to Tuesday from a sample of 1500. We should be seeing something in the way of MRP polling from YouGov over the weekend.
UPDATE: In response to a commenter’s query, some further context for the One Nation spike. “Independent” is down from 9% to 5% in this poll because respondents must now choose a specifically listed independent from their electorate rather than “an independent” in abstract. Presumably a lot of the 4% who made this category their proxy for “none of the above” are now with One Nation, who are fielding candidates everywhere except the three Australian Capital Territory seats. Trumpet of Patriots is unchanged at 2%, though they are only contesting two-thirds of the seats and will duly have disappeared as an option for a third of the respondents, and “Other” is up from 3% to 4%.
Hack, woke, Partisan: “Just watch those Lib-held seats tumble. I think the Nationals will likely provide the LOTO in the new Parliament.”
I mean, I know the Liberals don’t seem to be doing all that well. But don’t you think some Nationals will also be shaken loose in all of this?
Maude Lynnesays:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 10:58 pm
deisis says:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 10:43 pm
It’s a shame that labor refuses to offer meaningful policy on affordable housing, considering that it’s the number one issue for pretty much everybody under ~35.
Yes, it is a shame.
Unfortunately it’s a game of winners & losers. Homeless & renters are currently losers.
But if you could wave a wand and house all the homeless then you would remove the latent demand for rental properties. Within a week that would cause a drop in rents.
This would rattle investors who may start selling off their properties.
This would cause property prices to fall, causing an increase in properties for sale, exacerbating the collapse of prices.
The magician would be blamed.
Now replace that magician with a government.
Now you can see why they refuse to actually solve the problem.
______________________
Except thats not how that works.
Because if you magically wanded to house all homeless, then rents will still rise – because we have phenomenal migration driven population growth. Wage growth was well ahead of rent growth for the full decade before the pandemic (as migration was half the amount), and rents fell during the border closure. Rents outpacing wages has only been a thing since the borders reopened.
And falling house prices are not people being “upset with magicians” – it is called negative equity.
To quote the RBA: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/fsr/2019/apr/box-b.html
“Evidence from Australia and abroad suggests that borrowers who experience an unexpected fall in income are more likely to default if their loan is in negative equity.”
And that is not just investors, but owner occupiers too caught in the crossfire.
But you still want tk engineer say, a 5-10% fall as per the Guardian a few weeks ago. So who will that hit?
Young first home buyers! Great fucking policy there:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-29/negative-equity-emilia-analysis-first-home-buyer-loans-lmi-fhlds/102264554
And besides, house prices have already fallen by quite a bit in Melbourne:
https://www.domain.com.au/news/the-melbourne-suburbs-where-house-prices-have-fallen-up-to-20-per-cent-1352756/
And we know how popular the Vic Labor government is for it…
This is why even the Greens are no longer talking about engineering house price falls (thank christ), which would be an economic and financial disaster for those least deserving of sharp policy change, and ignoring the actual property class.
Alternatively we could also try adding to supply – thankfully, the Labor government established a permanent fund to keep building social housing well detached from the fiscal/budget cycle. My preference would be to massively cut migration too, but that is some policy bravery absent from the parliamentary left atm.
“Hack, woke, Partisansays:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Outsider says:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 10:42 pm
The pendulum for the 2025 election can be found here:
Thanks Outsider.
The Libs are at risk in a lot of seats. It seems to me they have not done a lot of sandbagging. 2-3% will gut them.”
To be fair, Dutts is up in Townsville even the Herbet has a 10% margin….certainly looks like the sand bags are being laid!
It seems to me that a couple of posters here, including one that communicates with rats, might connect to these people:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/private-intel-inside-the-far-right-group-disrupting-the-election-20250424-p5lty3.html
Maude Lynne says:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 10:58 pm
……investors…..may start selling off their properties.
This would cause property prices to fall, causing an increase in properties for sale
More likely, if prices fell buyer interest would increase. Usually cheaper prices will induce higher demand. Not always, but usually.
The solution to the shortage of cheap, available housing is to build a lot more of it. There is no constituency for forced reductions in the price of land. And there is almost no economically- sane means to achieve that anyway.
So build, build, build. This will take time. But it’s the only thing that will work.
One Nation have jumped to 10% because the LNP have preferences them second. They have legitimised One Nation.
All of a sudden all those people who have voted Liberal all their lives, because mummy and Daddy did, have had it rammed unceremoniously down their throats. Dutton = Hanson = Trump = Price = Latham.
The silly old libs finally said the quiet bit out loud….
The Revisionist says:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 11:25 pm
Yes… they need to send Dutton some place where he can’t do any harm.
@Jan:
“Another day of politicians posturing that we’re still a free country. We are a nanny state, we are a surveillance state, we are a police state, we are not a free state. The freedom the Diggers fought for has already been surrendered”
Not happy, Jan?
Clem Atlee, as usual is wrong when he criticises Kokoda for the following reason…
Buchfire Bill wrote, “… and the hammy speech by William McKinnes at the end, real K Mart Shakespeare stuff that was. St Crispin’s Day it was not!”
In fact that final scene, featuring William McInnes, is an exact reconstruction of a parade of members of the 39th battalion before their commander, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Honner at the village of Menari. Every word spoken by William McInnes (playing Honner) in this scene is taken from the official record of the proceedings on that day.
So much for Clem Atlee’s malignant and misinformed opinion.”
So what if it was a real speech. Still hammy and no mention of Bourne’s limp performance as the doctor. You cut that bit out. Boo hoo BB, have a good cry!
Felix says:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 11:23 pm
Hack, woke, Partisan: “Just watch those Lib-held seats tumble. I think the Nationals will likely provide the LOTO in the new Parliament.”
I mean, I know the Liberals don’t seem to be doing all that well. But don’t you think some Nationals will also be shaken loose in all of this?
Some for sure. However, there are a lot of Lib-held seats on very tight margins. The Nat-held are safer on the whole.
BTW, I am of the view tht Kokoda is a far more significant campaign and should be celebrated much more than Gallipoli. The film as I said, is okay, but hardly great. There are some solid performances, but these are undone by the likes of Bourne and a few others. Still, BB doesn’t seem to approve of alternative opinions. His views, are the last word apparently. Lol!
Without getting into state swings, just a simple national swing:
3% swing against the Coalition would lose the Libs 11 seats (leaving with 15), LNP 1 (leaving 21) and NAT 1 (leaving 10).
4% swing would lose the Liberals 12 seats (leaving them with 14), the LNP 5 (18 left) and the NATS 2 (9 left). That would be a tasty result.
5% would lose the Liberals 14 (12 left), LNP 7 (leaving 15), Nats 2 (9 left).
The Nationals losing more than 2 seats would be wildly improbable with the exception of Andrew Gee retaining as an Independent. LNP losing more than 7 also improbable. It’s the Liberals who are at massive risk, they have a dozen seats at risk on normal election results and if there was a proper landslide it would be them getting smashed all over the country apart from Queensland.
Amanda Meade’s media column continues to be the single best thing in the Guardian as it has for years, taking the mickey out of Sharri Markson’s attempts to assure her audience that the science of opinion polling is just sticking a thumb in the air, that the Labor Party are paying off Newspoll “millions” to report in its favour (never mind that Newspoll is published exclusively in The Australian!) , etc. Also enjoyed the clowning of the Daily Terrorgraph for claiming an exclusive over the death of the Pope an hour after it had been announced by the Vatican, and the further clowning of the Daily Terror for “the most significant transformation of our newsroom in years. This is the future of news,” being shelved in less than a year.
Hack, woke, Partisan says: The Nat-held are safer on the whole.
That’s true, but by my quackulations, you’d need a 2PP swing of around 8% to get the Nats in front. Only 17% of seats would be in the hands of the sundry Libs and Nats and Lib Nat parties. But you wouldn’t just be seeing a 2PP swing in this scenario, you’d be seeing massive 2CP swings towards independents and One Nation. They wouldn’t survive the aftermath. The leadership of the opposition would be held by the leader of some as yet non-existent party. There’s just too many horses in federal politics to go all Western Australian.
(Anyway, as always, I reserve the right to be sceptical of the polls. But the weight does seem to be mounting. I might turn quietly optimistic sometime next week. In my comparisons of 2019, I can’t help but get the feeling that the Opposition is trying to wish 2019 into existence by just saying and doing the same things.)
Some sad news from the USA – Russia peace talks over Ukraine. It looks like USA is agreeing to Russian terms. If so, Ukraine will end up a “frozen conflict” like the Korean peninsula. This is not really a peace deal, just a cease fire. The parties still remain far apart on key points.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvg7jnywn5dt?post=asset%3A0d7e108b-fe62-4b7a-9388-f639689c0883
Trump will try to claim this as a win, but it is anything but.
Does anyone know what’s up with Buckleys and None’s forecast? Its estimate of the 2PP and therefore the seat count seems way out of line with all the rest of the evidence. Their methodology page on the “most exciting” part of the model — which should explain how they get the 2PP — isn’t published. Has it been this laggy before in the context of a 2PP swing?
I’ve been thinking about Dutton’s term as opposition leader.
He spent the first half demanding “more detail”on The Voice, suggesting you should vote no if you don’t get it.
Then he spent the second half of the term providing no detail on his own policies. Is he surprised that the answer of the Australian public is again, no?
A few random thoughts.
1. Littlepround might be the leader of a feral rabble – but he’s a much better performer than Dutton or any viable alternative on the Lib bench.
2. I assume Dutton is in Herbert not because it’s in danger but with Townsville being an army town – it’s a good place to campaign on ANZAC Day without campaigning, on his way Leichhardt.
3. I do find it interesting- when he could have gotten equal standing to the PM at a national event in Canberra – he was in SEQ.
Melbourne Storm should be deducted two competition points !
Welcome to country fella.
@Felix – I have to assume that they’re doing a version of what the Guardian is doing and basically assuming the polls overstate Labor by about 3 points because of polling misses in that direction at the last couple of Federal elections. Maybe that plus not having aggregated the last couple of polls yet.
@jt1983 – good guesses as to why Dutton is where he is, I’d say. That and he has to stay out of all the seats where he’s seen as a drag on the Coalition vote.
As to why not Canberra, he has 41,000 reasons to stay away from Canberra right now.
bob says:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 11:49 pm
Without getting into state swings, just a simple national swing:
3% swing against the Coalition would lose the Libs 11 seats (leaving with 15), LNP 1 (leaving 21) and NAT 1 (leaving 10).
4% swing would lose the Liberals 12 seats (leaving them with 14), the LNP 5 (18 left) and the NATS 2 (9 left). That would be a tasty result.
5% would lose the Liberals 14 (12 left), LNP 7 (leaving 15), Nats 2 (9 left).
The Nationals losing more than 2 seats would be wildly improbable with the exception of Andrew Gee retaining as an Independent. LNP losing more than 7 also improbable. It’s the Liberals who are at massive risk, they have a dozen seats at risk on normal election results and if there was a proper landslide it would be them getting smashed all over the country apart from Queensland.
Many thanks for going thru these tallies.
4%…that would be excellent… perhaps we might see a notch more in QLD, which didn’t swing last time.
Felix says:
Saturday, April 26, 2025 at 12:06 am
Hack, woke, Partisan says: The Nat-held are safer on the whole.
That’s true, but by my quackulations, you’d need a 2PP swing of around 8% to get the Nats in front
8%. Ok. I’d like that. Sounds good to me. They would hold no seats in WA. That would be a politically just result. If we could collect a few Green seats as well I’d like that.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/25/trump-tariffs-trade-war-consumer-sentiment
Moronic economic policy in the US harms consumer sentiment
New thread.
Playa Girónsays:
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 9:37 pm
“I don’t know if it’s been mentioned but if people do go to the Greens “The Greens and the CPRS” page, there, in full living colour, one will see one the biggest lies ever perpetrated by a political party in Australia.
When you click on the Treasury modelling link and scroll down the PDF, you will see that the pure as snow Greens presented the Global emission pathways for the global projections for emissions based on the global settings as Australia’s emission pathways.”
Well, being charitable, I would prefer to call it a mistake rather than a lie. I hope you will agree, because whichever it is, it’s yours, not the Greens’. It seems that you only read the first part of the document; you should have read the whole thing.
Chart 1 shows Australia’s emissions “plunging” (as you put it, I’d describe it as a slow decline), and this is repeated at Chart 2.2. Chart 2.1 shows the Global Emissions trajectory that you say makes the Greens’ claim a “brazen lie”. So far, so good.
But where the Greens are right and you are wrong is further down the document. Chart 3.6, labelled “Australia’s trajectory, actual emissions and permit trade” shows what the Greens were complaining about. Australia’s putative decline in emissions is only achieved by the purchase of overseas permits, which rise steadily to cover 1/3 of Australia’s emissions by 2035. Under this plan, Australia achieves no actual emissions reductions between 2010 and 2035. All that is achieved in the first 25 years of the CPRS is that we buy ourselves permission to keep our emissions relatively high.
The Greens’ page claims that “under the CPRS there would have been no reduction in emissions for 25 years”. And that is *exactly* what Chart 3.6 in the Treasury modelling shows. No lie, no mistake by the Greens. Whether your claim is a lie or a mistake, I will leave to you and others to decide.
In fact the real situation was somewhat worse than this, and the Greens’ page lowballs just how shitty the scheme was. The Treasury modelling makes some heroic assumptions about the price of imported permits over the ensuing 40 years, just for one. Important sectors are not in the first cut, but were to be added later, in a variant of a Duttonesque “vote for me now and I’ll give you the detail later”.
Instead of accepting the criticisms (Greens, yes, but also from scientists, business, etc), and performing a simple rework to make a better scheme, Rudd chose a path that had two negative outcomes, because Rudd was incapable of admitting that he was simply wrong (about anything).
One, having been rejected once, Rudd tried to haggle with Turnbull, further weakening the scheme before its second rejection.
Two, Turnbull’s involvement in it gave Abbott the numbers to roll Turnbull just before it dropped the second time. People have this mantra “The Greens’ intransigence gave us Tony Abbott”, but for mine, the first step to getting Abbott was Turnbull shackling himself to the CPRS corpse.
hopefully all that was not tl;dr.
Since your claim is so wildly wrong, I thought it was worth treating in detail, and since this thread will age out shortly, I hope William will not mind if I copy/paste this when he creates a new open thread.
If Max Chandler-Mather married Elizabeth Watson-Brown and they wanted to hyphenate their surnames, well I’ll let you work that one out.
Would they toss a coin to see whose surname comes first.
Today I have received 2 emails and 2 texts from Labor asking for a $50 donation to help with final week ads and help Ali France defeat Mutton.
How could anyone resist an offer like that?