Today via The Oz comes Newspoll Monday, with a two party result coming in with the 50/50 that we predicted yesterday, suggesting around a 2 point movement to the Coalition over the last week. The vote estimates, change and sample info look like this:
As a result, this brings our Pollytrend down to 50.9 on the phone pollster trend for today. The satisfaction and Better PM ratings came in as:
Newspoll also asked questions on various leader qualities, as well as the standard better party to handle questions:
“Arrogant” is in red because you have to read it in reverse, in that your want a smaller score and to be behind on that particular measure if you were a leader. The issue that the Coalition would be cheering about here is Abbott’s Newspoll debut on “Trustworthy” with what can only be described as a substantial score, as that was always a concern about perceptions of Abbott – a concern that Essential Report has highlighted before when they ask similar questions . As Newspoll doesn’t ask these questions often, we have gaps of up to nearly two years on some of these results, so the change values are mostly useless.
That said,Abbott’s lead on “experienced” shows how Labor has sacrificed one part of the ordinarily beneficial incumbency equation by the ascension of Gillard to PM, while the lack of a large Labor lead on vision, in touch with voters and issue understanding highlights how Labor has thus far failed to sell their program – normally they lead substantially on these measures.
On the Better Party to handle issues, we get:
UPDATE: These are actually Better Leader to Handle questions, not Better Party:
Which is pretty much par for the course. Interesting though is that Newspoll asked these same questions last week and there was quite a change for Gillard on a number of the issues, which we can see if we look at the size of the change in scores over the last 7 days:
UPDATE: These following results are actually Better Party to handle – slightly different wording, so treat the comparisons with care.
Thanks to Andrew Norton for picking that up – so go and visit his site as a show of thanks! 
Labor increased their Better Party/Leader to handle score by a whopping 14 points on climate change (the Citizens Assembly one would presume) , 7 on education and a decent sized 5 on the economy – while Abbott increased the Coalitions Asylum Seeker result by 6 points.
But again, be careful as the wording is slightly different.
As Newspoll doesn’t publish much on the way of cross-tabs, the usual charts come in like this:
42 Comments
So Possum, to put you on the spot – on the basis of these figures, would you still back your recent comment that Labor are in a better position than the opposition at this point in the campaign.
I note that Newspoll are using the same preference flows as in the 2007 election. There has been some recent commentary saying that the preference flows from Greens to ALP this time around are expected to be lower (I think down to 65-70% from 80%). I would assume that this actually makes the 50-50 split slightly overstated for the ALP from the current primary results.
Poss – has there ever been an opposition leader who was so far behind in PPM who won the election?
I can’t recall a case – Fraser was ahead of Whitlam in 77, Hawke was miles in front of Fraser in 83, Howard was ahead of Keating in 96, and Rudd was 3 laps ahead of Howard in 07 -as far as I remember.
I think PPM does have an effect – especially on the last minute ditherers, when they must decide between the incumbent and the challenger, PPM must have some influence, surely?
As much as we pretend that you vote for a local member and not directly for PM, most local members are only there on the basis that they belong to a certain party whom the voters at that time wished to support in order that that party form government, and thus by extension, the leader of that party to be PM. There are a few exceptions to this (independents and really talented and effective local members who actually achieve things for their electorate).
Most local members could be exchanged with a randomly selected chimpanzee and you swouldn’t spot the difference.
In terms of momentum this week will be key the undecideds figures for ppm are coming down.
Streetcred – in an even contest, I’d rather have incumbency with me then against me, even if that incumbency effect has been substantially watered down by a recent leadership change.
Steve – Nielsen uses respondent allocated preference flows, and since Gillard they’ve been rock solid at around 80% flow rate from Greens to Labor.
David – nope. There’s never been a leader who was that far behind in the campaign and actually won.
One Question to which someone might know the answer:
If your second (or third or later) preference goes to an already excluded candidate, does the allocation of preferences from your ballot paper cease, or does it roll over to your next preference?
Thanks possum – It appears, from their comments, that Brent and others have more or less called it for the Coalition on the basis of this and the other recent polls.
David (#6) in both the House and Senate counts, your preference rolls over to the next candidate remaining in the count.
hmm – maybe a slight change to that rule can bring in OPV by another means (ie – preferences stop at the first excluded candidate)
David (comment #3) & Possum (#5) – Peter Brent posted an item the other day arguing that we shouldn’t put any store in the preferred PM question, but rather concentrate on the voting intention. He noted that Keating actually lead Howard on Newspoll’s ‘better PM’ in the lead-up to the March 1996 election, although not by nearly as much as Gillard currently leads Abbott on preferred PM. Possum I think you have argued in the past that the net satisfaction rating is more important than preferred PM.
Did Newspoll provide a state by state breakdown, Possum?
One of the things that struck me about the latest Neilsen poll state level breakdown was the extreme variation from state to state when compared to the previous poll. Yes, I realise the MoE’s are much larger with the state level polling, but even allowing for this it seemed strange.
According to the Neilsen results the “leaks affair” week produced a 17% two party preferred swing against Labor in NSW, but only a 2% swing against them in Victoria in the course of the week and a 4% swing TO LABOR in Queensland!
It also shows a substantial swing away from the Greens in NSW during the period concerned, but a similarly sized swing to them in Victoria.
Does this hint that the sampling might not have been quite up to scratch? Or does Newspoll suggest similar highly variable state by state behaviour?
Possum Comitatus @ #5 said:
Mumbles has been banging on that “new, improved” Gillard-ALP has squandered the benefits of incumbency, in both formal politics and substantive policy. In politics, Gillard is a newbie as PM and has not acquired the insitutional gravitas to come accross as Prime Ministerial. In policy, Gillard’s concessions on assylum-seekers has conceded legitimacy to the L/NP’s key issue. One has to say that Mumbles has had the better of this argument.
I guess the big question is “does the L/NP have the Big Mo?”, as in “Mo-mentum” to carry it through to victory on polling day.
My guess is “No” to the L/NP’s “Big Mo”, but I sure did not predict the L/NP closing the gap with such alacrity so early in the campaign. I have been predicting since 2009 that the ALP will defeat the L/NP comfortably by 53-47 2PP, although I was losing confidence in Rudd after he bungled the MRRT.
On paper the ALP should be a shoo-in for this election:
If the ALP manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory then we will have to toss out most of our psephological manuals, not to mention give the ALP’s so called back-room, number-crunching hard-men the flick.
Apart from the ALP’s incumbency woes, the only explanation for the ALP’s shock polling reversal is that the L/NP are always better campaigners since campaigns generally go negative. Fear and Greed negativity is the L/NP’s stock-in-trade. In the past few elections the L/NP have closed the gap in the few months or so leading up to polling day.
But fear and greed can work to the ALP’s advantage if they manage to paint Abbott-L/NP as a bunch of reckless ideologues on climate change and industrial relations. They better get a wriggle on because time’s running out.
ah – well that does it then – Tony is new PM..
Hand me the Nembutal!
“Fear and Greed negativity is the L/NP’s stock-in-trade.”
Have to second that one. After watching a few negative ads from both sides I noted that the Labor ones attacking Abbott have sources for his quoted views and intentions, the Liberal ones however were almost comically detacted from reality, telling us that Labor were going to impose huge taxes, let hordes of immigrants in and waste enormous sums of money.
What’s the counter to crass and hysterical?
And why the fuck do they endlessly ask about asylum seekers with zero frigging context.
Asylum seekers are human beings with the legal right to come and ask for help.
The fucking pollsters revolt me as much as Abbott and Gillard do as they actively incite genocide.
‘What’s the counter to crass and hysterical?’
To go back to the original narrative Rudd originally introduced as opposition leader but lost with the GFC i.e. rebuilding the nation after the waste and profligacy of the Howard/Abbot years – a positive vision capable of embracing past achievements and providing a unified practical, second term agenda.
You have to hand it to Gillard on the climate change policy in terms of politics.
Make a big speech that announces to not really do anything. Gain 14 pts of approval on handling of issue.
Pitched perfectly to most voters. Climate change is real, someone should do something about it urgently, but not us, not right now, not if it costs me any dollars.
Jack (#12): I’m not sure a lack of Gillard-gravitas has been responsible for the sudden shift; she was doing just fine in the first week of the campaign, after all. Rather, I’m pretty sure the polling drop is directly linked to the ALP suddenly springing a Laurie-Oakes-induced leak.
Rudd, after all, managed to win the 2007 election on a platform that was arguably just as lacking in policy differences with the Libs as Gillard’s is now. But having your party trying to eat its own leader in the midst of an election campaign (with a knifed ex-leader a prime suspect) doesn’t tend to look very good to the swinging voters. And now Abbott’s pulling out Bob Hawke’s old election ad line (from 1990? I wish I could find the actual quote) about “if they can’t run their own party, how could they ever run the country?”
Gillard should probably consider having another debate now, and she needs to go into that debate on the attack. Anything to throw the focus back on Abbott, really — the less people think about what Abbott is and what he stands for, the more he’s likely to win …
Incidentally, David (#3) — the Republican Party in the US went one better in 2000 and 2004, and had a randomly selected chimpanzee win two presidential elections. I’d suggest that randomly selected chimpanzees are actually very popular candidates the world over, but Labor tried to run with one in 2004 and he’s still causing them trouble even now …
Re- economy why isnt Gillard pushing the lack of recession through stimulus argument more?
asylum seekers- why dont they pull some figures on the total nuber of asylum seekers (ariving through airports as well) during the Howard years, and the student Visas rort..
Am I reading this right:
There is a very real possibility that we could have a LNP government with a Green balance of power in the senate?
Seriously.
WTF?
Essential Media this afternoon is still 54-46 to the ALP – I’m interested in whether this poll (in general, not necessarily this result) is credible. Thoughts?
Tristan – if that happens – I hope the ALP gives the Libs a taste of their own medicine and opposes EVERYTHING Abbott puts up. If they wimp out and vote with the Libs – then the Greens don’t matter.
And as Pollytics Projections “Current Phone Poll Trend” is now showing a possible hung House of Reps. i.e. 75 ALP = 72 Lib + 3 Ind, i’m wondering what this may mean if it actually eventuates?
Most of us understand and have experienced what a “hung” or a B o P Senate means but have we ever seen an equal H of Reps? Can’t remember one.
not Federally – but plenty of state examples.
if it was hung – JG should offer all 3 independents ministries.
It is certainly an intriguing result, Alex K.
Some of the internal aspects of the Neilsen Poll (with things going in all sorts of different directions in different states, as I mentioned earlier, and from a probably false high for Labor to a probably false low) seem quite bizarre, and I personally wouldn’t put it past Newspoll to pull a swifty, seeking to generate some “momentum” for one side over the other with a bit of sampling chicanery.
Against that, the Essential Poll is taken over two weeks according to their own information. This one seems to be split between the 27th of July and the 1st of August (or is that just the second of the two weeks?) So the worst of the “leaks scandal” wouldn’t have necessarily soaked through.
Still, given that the “leaks” stuff was basically political journo junk with next to no real content , perhaps people have finally got around to noticing the fact, started thinking about real issues again, and re-adjusted back to the status quo accordingly.
@Alex
Essential Media looks less credible to me (and im not saying its not credible, just less than a random phone survey), as it is based on a database of ‘panel members’, not just random members of the public. Although Essential Media state “…The majority of panel members have been recruited using off line methodologies, effectively ruling out concerns associated with online self‐selection. Your Source has validation methods in place that prevent panelist over use and ensure member authenticity…”
David Richards#22
Do you agree that partisanship or opposition for the sake of opposition is indefensible?
A healthy Labor has to be closer to the Liberals than some watermelon communists such as Lee Rhiannon or equal lunar lefty totalitarian Clive Hamilton.
Or don’t you agree?
Possum
Have you done a comparison of the movements of polls over the course of the last several federal election campaigns?
Possum, Im sure I posted a couple questions here earlier about Essential, but I can’t find them..
chud chewre, #29, you will find that you parked them over in the older “Neilsen- Thump, thread at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/07/31/nielsen-thump/
Oh thanks Rod, geez my brain is going to mush..
Might as well ask here…
Possum, How did Essential Research do at the last poll and what’s your view on it? Their poll is about the only happy news I’ve had all day
JamesK – your beloved Liberals opposed everything for no good reason – so they deserve to get the same treatment. Tit for Tat. You play dirty and expect the ot6her side to play nicely? Who are you? Italy?
Rod,
Newspoll provides state breakdowns after they’ve done enough polls to pool the results and get decent sized state based sub-samples.They should have enough data to produce those breakdowns either next week or the week after (with an 1100 sample poll on the 18th July, and 1700 sample size polls running every week after that). They need a total pooled sample of around 6500-7000 to make the demographic breakdowns.
The wild swings in the small sub-sample results from Nielsen arent unusual, they’re actually what we would expect in terms of variance. That’s why they need to be treated very carefully.
Jack – I’m with you.
This election is becoming the new textbook of “how to lose voters and alienate support – a modern Labor love story!”
Alex – Essential is credible (if it wasnt we wouldnt talk about it here). The interesting thing about Essential is that are putting their balls on the line, as they use an online panel recruited by offline means rather than a telephone poll or a face to face polling regime.
Online panels are the long term future of public opinion polling, but the difficulty comes in getting a truly representative sample of the population. Even though Essential sometimes exhibits a slight lean to labor on the voting estimates (sometimes by up to a few points over a few months, sometimes with a zero lean over a different few month period), they also produce results on supplemtary questions that are entirely consistent with what telephone pollsters get when they ask the same questions at the same time.
This is the first election where their voting intention results will be benchmarked against the actual election result – I’m sure they’re nervous (who wouldnt be!), and I hope they nail it, especially since online polling of this type will probably be the methodology that will eventually replace landline based telephone polling.
Chokyi Nyingpo,
If Parliament is hung, Oakeshott and Windsor will probably back the major party with the largest number of seats. Katter would probably support the party that could give him what he wants – either at his electorate level, or via one of his ‘unusual’ and ‘challenging’ policy positions.
What would make it much more uncertain is if Labor gets 22 seats, the Coalition gets 73 seats, the Greens get one and the Indies get 3.
Then it really would be anyone’s game.
Laocoon,
I have somewhere before, I’ll have a look.
Suffice to say there’s no consistent pattern. SOmetimes (like 2004) the government extends the lead across the campaign, other times (like 2007) the government narrows the loss they are facing and other times (2001) the opposition makes up ground through the campaign.
Cud – Essential werent publishing at the last election, this is their first.
Dave ciò è come un comunista dice sì e poi no rispettivamente?
James – I am far from a communist. Command economy is just as bad as laissez faire capitalism. You really have to stop thinking in a 2dimensional, black/white manner.
Anyway – as the Libs are dominated by bible thumpers, especially Tony “Dumbo” Abbott, they might appreciate a little Eye For An Eye treatment after the way they have behaved the last 3 years, not the least reneging on a deal made by their leader at the time. At least Malcolm Turnbull is honourable, unlike Tony, Minchin, and the rest of that disreputable and dishonest pack of baboons.
Aw Dave……… Tone and Nick are top blokes….. unlike say ….. Kevin 007, Mark Arbib and whasisname son-in-law of our rabid lefty GG (or our rabid lefty FFGG, if you like).
Malcolm is very nice ……. just a bit of a dill sometimes…… climate change for example.
Tony and Nick are slimemoulds
Can you hear the now not so distant rumble of inevitability?
Come over. Join us on the Dark Side Dave………..
I’d rather not if it’s alright with you – besides, it’s the wrong metaphor. I see Tony as more a Dalek – and Howard as Davros – with Minchin as Davros’s security chief.
“E-X-T-E-R-M-I-N-A-T-E!”
..and even if getting gang-raped by the Libs is inevitable – no means no
Never send a human to do a machine’s job?