Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Federal Politics 2013-

Mar 31, 2014

Galaxy: 50-50 (plus quarterly Newspoll breakdowns)

The first Galaxy poll since the federal election finds nothing in it, while Newspoll's quarterly breakdowns suggest the swing is weakest in the state where voters head to the polls on Saturday.

User login status :

Share

The Daily Telegraph has results of a Galaxy poll of federal voting intention showing the two major parties tied on two-party preferred, and while the accompanying graphic is spoiled by a production error, it’s clear enough the primary vote results are 43% for the Coalition, 37% for Labor and 10% for the Greens. It also finds 56% opposed to cuts in welfare spending against only 34% in support. The poll was conducted from Friday to Sunday from a sample of 998. The Australian also brings Newspoll’s quarterly aggregates of voting intention broken down by state, gender, age cohorts and capitals-versus-regionals, which have Labor leading 53-47 in New South Wales, 57-43 in Victoria and 54-46 in South Australia, and trailing 51-49 in Queensland and 54-46 in Western Australia.

UPDATE (ReachTEL): Channel Seven reports the monthly ReachTEL result has Labor leading 52-48 – primary votes will have to wait until the morning. The Seven report also relates that 26% of respondents support the Prime Minister’s decision on imperial titles with 45% opposed, and that only 19% expect to be better off financially over the next year compared with 43% who expect to be worse off, respectively down five and up four on three months ago. More on this poll either this evening or tomorrow.

UPDATE (Essential Research): A considerable move to Labor on Essential Research’s fortnightly rolling average, with the Coalition moving from 51-49 ahead to 51-49 behind. There are also two-point shifts on the primary vote, Labor up to 39% and the Coalition down to 42%, with the Greens steady on 9% and Palmer United down one to 3%.

William Bowe — Editor of The Poll Bludger

William Bowe

Editor of The Poll Bludger

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, is one of the most heavily trafficked forums for online discussion of Australian politics, and joined the Crikey stable in 2008.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from William Bowe

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

2028 comments

2,028 thoughts on “Galaxy: 50-50 (plus quarterly Newspoll breakdowns)

  1. @K17/1998

    Maybe if we had John Howard Malcolm Turnbull as Comms Minister and not Alston or Vanstone, but not this current bunch.

  2. mad dog – You’re going to get fibre a lot quicker than me, because I am NEVER going to get it (I’ve got telstra cable).

  3. Centre @ 1990

    I think the ” unsolicited proposals ” legislation was drafted by the Libs to allow fishy deals to proceed without being views as corrupt

    Bring an idea to the Government ..l assessed as worthy… No need to then have open tender…
    Others can see it as ” per planned” corruption

  4. […ental boycotts have on the economy, then you can be snide about how much I’m “bleating”.]

    I have already been snide and in relation to this last post I could respond in depth tonight if I had a sense you were genuinely interested.

  5. MTBW and Psyclaw, many thanks for explanations of AWH.

    It sounds like AWH was essentially a front for large scale corruption. No wonder Sinodinos is unable to remember his time at AWH.

  6. WWP – the only thing about this whole discussion, as with a number of previous discussions where you have jumped on a phrase I have included, is the impression that you read my comments starting from the assumption that I’m an ignorant idiot, and it goes downhill from there.

    If you weren’t so frequently critical and openly contemptuous of my expressed viewpoint I wouldn’t need to engage so robustly. If you disagree, fine, but you seem to invariably feel the need to demonstrate how I’m clearly an idiot, when I don’t generally think that’s warranted.

    if I had a sense you were genuinely interested

    Fundamentally no. I think you’ve articulated your viewpoint that unions should not have any restrictions placed upon their activities at all. That’s your opinion. It’s not mine.

  7. [Fundamentally no. I think you’ve articulated your viewpoint that unions should not have any restrictions placed upon their activities at all. That’s your opinion. It’s not mine.
    ]

    Thanks and this is the kind of thing I jump on because the statement that my view point is that unions should not have any restrictions upon them is absolutely absurd, and either borne of dishonesty or stupidity or both.

  8. Psclaw
    [Sydney Water had problems keeping up with building infrastructure…]

    And why do they have problems keeping up with it? Because government departments and their owned corporations have had their capability squeezed out of them. This is a consequence of the ideology that private is always better than public.

    The ideology is a screen for ‘lining the pockets of our pals who line our pockets and help us win elections in return’. They need to do it this way because they are too lazy and/or incompetent to make money the normal way.

  9. WWP –

    point is that unions should not have any restrictions upon them is absolutely absurd, and either borne of dishonesty or stupidity or both.

    Sigh.

    So I said originally, in the context of criticizing a proposed crackdown on environmental boycotts that there was a reasonable basis for banning secondary boycotts by unions.

    You jumped on that as logically indefensible. That implies that either I have to support complete freedom for unions to boycott whatever they like, or I have to accept that environmental boycott bans are justified.

    Now if you apply that logic to yourself, you have to fall into one camp or the other. I’m assuming you’re not in the camp that thinks it’s ok to ban secondary boycotts by unions and therefore it’s ok to ban environmental boycotts. If I’m wrong in that assumption, and you are in favour of banning all these various types of boycotts then I apologize, but it makes my opinion of your fundamentalism in this respect even lower.

    Anyway, I disputed the basis for your assertion that a secondary boycott ban was logically the same as an environmental boycott ban – you haven’t bothered to respond to that, but here you come again with the contempt.

  10. [And why do they have problems keeping up with it? Because government departments and their owned corporations have had their capability squeezed out of them. This is a consequence of the ideology that private is always better than public.

    The ideology is a screen for ‘lining the pockets of our pals who line our pockets and help us win elections in return’. They need to do it this way because they are too lazy and/or incompetent to make money the normal way.]

    Agree 100%

    There is only one way that private business almost always is more ‘efficient’ than government and that is they almost always they pay real workers less than the private sector. However this ‘disadvantage’ that government overcomes by getting rid of real employees is far smaller than the management overhead and profit the government has to pay for as soon as it is outsourced.

  11. Going back a step earlier in the AWH family history, the original company was owned by Lend Lease and Stocklands, so in fact the developers put in the infrastructure and billed Sydney Water, fair enuf.

    When they had no further need for the shares the gave them to the two longest serving employees. Thinking the shares would be worth nothing, another fair assumption.

    But it was pounced upon by NSW white collar criminals.

  12. If unions were allowed to perform secondary boycotts, they could tell their members not to shop at X because they didn’t have a unionised workforce. That has to be a conflict of interest.

  13. [Anyway, I disputed the basis for your assertion that a secondary boycott ban was logically the same as an environmental boycott ban ]

    You kind of drew this distinction and kind of asked me to do it for you, previously having not drawn this distinction at all as far as I was aware, the distinction you did draw was that unions had misbehaved and deserved to be prohibited from exercising rights that everyone else should enjoy. I don’t at all mind you elaborating on your position and that was why I offered to respond in detail tonight. In fact I was trying to draw out your position.

    You declined and totally misrepresented my position which you had just asked me not to expand on.

    Fair suck of the sauce bottle mate.

  14. Diog

    [If unions were allowed to perform secondary boycotts, they could tell their members not to shop at X because they didn’t have a unionised workforce. That has to be a conflict of interest.]

    How?

  15. NBN I have had fibre to the edge of my garden for 2-3 years now.
    They pulled it in when they replaced the copper line.(lighting strike)
    We are not not on any list for connections.
    100 meters away the fiber goes along to a Fibre to the Node Cabinet up the road 4 K to the next few homes.

    This is Shixx

  16. WWP –

    You declined and totally misrepresented my position which you had just asked me not to expand on.

    Go on, summarize your position with respect to whether you think that (a) unions should be allowed to engage in secondary boycotts, and (b) environmental boycotts should be legal or not.

    That will clear up whether ‘I totally misrepresented your position’ in context, and will only take a few words from you.

  17. Richard Willingham ‏@rwillingham 36s
    IBAC has requested information from Victoria Police on the ‘Lawyer X’ matter #springst

  18. [WWP

    Private also had a big advantage over public in that it is much easier to retrench people.
    ]

    Good point – but when private business does this it is the government that picks up the check for the consequences in any event – so I’m not sure as a society whether or not we are behind or ahead on a purely economic scoreboard. I suspect without any evidence at all that when you factor in the social and medical costs of the stress job insecurity and job loss causes that we are far behind.

  19. WWP
    I am not anti private sector tho’, when dealing within the private sector and when there is reasonable competition (both at company level and competition for staff) it works reasonably well for all – sometimes very well.

    When it involves winning public money its very different. But again, I dont mind private companies tendering for this work….but its imperative that the government department running it has the capability to control the process AND preferable if there is government body independent of the tenderer that can also compete for this work to keep the private b*stards honest.

    Unfortunately these days the tendering, the contractual setup, the overseeing, the auditing, the project managing and the actual work is done privately. All with a good deal of sickening siphoning, sycophantic schmoozing and a canoodling of cronyism.

  20. [That will clear up whether ‘I totally misrepresented your position’ in context, and will only take a few words from you.
    ]

    Will do so tonight or in the morning – I’m a lawyer I don’t do anything fun in just a few words.