Menu lock

Newspoll: 50-50; Morgan: 53-47 to Coalition

Little change on a fortnight ago for both Newspoll, which repeats its tied result, and Roy Morgan, which finds Labor holding on to recent gains but advancing no further.

UPDATE: Contrary to what it says below, James J in comments relates that there is a Newspoll out, and that it’s unchanged on a fortnight ago: a tie on two-party preferred, with primary votes of Coalition 43%, Labor 35% and Greens 12%. Also unchanged is Malcolm Turnbull’s 55-21 lead as preferred prime minister, but he’s down four on approval to 44% and up three on disapproval to 41%, while Bill Shorten is up two to 30% and down two to 55%. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1815. Full tables from The Australian.

There will apparently be no Newspoll this week, so Roy Morgan gets the guernsey instead. Their latest face-to-face plus SMS poll, conducted over the past two weekends from a sample of 3011, has the Coalition lead at 53-47 on both the previous election and respondent-allocated measures of two-party preferred. This is half a point better for the Coalition than the previous two results, but still two points lower than in any of their earlier polls on Malcolm Turnbull’s watch. The primary vote figures are in interesting study in the effects of survey design, with the “others” vote spiking three points to 13%, its highest level this term. This is very likely influenced by the fact that the Nick Xenophon Team is now being included as an option in the questionnaire nationally, and not just in South Australia as before. The Coalition is down half a point to 43%, Labor is steady on 29.5%, and the Greens are down two to 13%.

UPDATE 2 (Essential Research): Essential Research is unchanged at 50-50, with primary votes of 43% for the Coalition (steady), 37% for Labor (down one) and 10% for the Greens (steady). Also featured are the monthly leadership ratings, which have Malcolm Turnbull down six on approval to 45% and up eight no disapproval to 35%, Bill Shorten steady on 27% and down one on disapproval to 47%, and Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister narrowing from 52-15 to 48-19. Further questions find 41% approval for negative gearing, and 37% disapproval; 35% approving of Labor’s policy to limit it to newly built homes, and 39% disapproving; and 32% saying they would prefer house prices go up, with 34% wanting them to come down.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

1721 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
prettyone
Guest

Hi guys

In reference to Dave’s comment above. SMH did abusive articles about Tony ABbott and his daughters, his colleagues, Liberal policies, for several years and published leaks of conversations that could only have come from Turnbull and Bishop.

But the policies are the same and yet Fairfax adore Malcolm Turnbull.

Now, there’s an inconsistency there and my thoughts are that Fairfax journalists love the style of Malcolm Turnbull – his clothes, shoes, choice of transport, his love of opera etc. His city personna.

Mark Kenny wrote that T Abbott’s RM Williams boots were not suitable and therefore TA was not suitable to be PM.

That tells us a lot about the elitism of Fairfax. That shoes determine a PM’s success.

MrMoney
Guest

Thanks for the replies re my posting early this morning as I said received it in an email and ?? How accurate it was have forward some replies to the person who sent it to me.

Cheers

dave
Guest

Millennial@1696

Coalition hopes for resources-led budget recovery

The federal government is cautiously eyeing a windfall gain from soaring iron ore prices in recent days, fuelling hopes of billions of extra dollars flooding into Canberra, but the financial improvement is not being matched by a rise in political certainty.


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-hopes-for-resourcesled-budget-recovery-20160309-gnegt7.html#ixzz42PQfmsXN

Right on queue –

[ Iron ore tumbles 8.8pc on supply reality check ]

Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/mining/iron-ore/iron-ore-tumbles-88pc-on-supply-reality-check-20160309-gnf0sp#ixzz42RDuHYhw

CTar1
Guest

WB,

Thanks. I’ve just found that Wiki seems to have it covered.

I guess a sense of ‘We’re on a loser’ must add a bit to who chooses to go.

CTar1
Guest
CTar1
Guest

WB

[I count 22.]

It sounds like a lot but is it unusual?

Millennial
Guest

Libertarian Unionist #1701

[It is surprising how low some of the big guys can go and still turn a (small) profit. Hint <$25/t – and these are BIG mines.]

True, but surely it isn't a sustainable business model to base a company's profit margin that is entirely dependent on the price of iron ore?

(As in, a situation where a company does not diversify its business beyond iron ore production.)

And if it’s the case that a company that puts its eggs entirely within the ‘iron ore’ basket is a terrible business decision, it is wise for the Federal Government to do the same?

Tom the first and best
Guest
Tom the first and best

1707

That only applies to parliamentarians elected before 2004. Not all the retirees are pre-2004.

paaptsef
Guest

Canadian?

Question
Guest

Wait for bludgertrack BK 🙂

MrMoney
Guest

Received via email. .?? If accurate

MrMoney
Guest

The cunning buggers … the real reason behind 60 elected MPs not seeking re-election

Sixty elected members of the federal government have now reported they have made the decision not to run in the upcoming election!

It’s a very high number compared to previous elections. Some of them tell us that it’s for family reasons, others for their desire to serve their fellow citizens in other fields and many other great stories to make us cry for them.

Besides all the tear jerking that politicians have been giving about retiring here is something else to consider.

Coming at the end of 2015 a change in the pension for MP’s ensures that the age of full retirement for an MP having served at least 6 years, will no longer be 55 years but 65 years. Thus any MP not yet 65 and who wants to benefit from the present pension scheme need only not run in the next election and thus will draw for 10 years longer a government pension of over $100,000/year.

For an elected MP approaching 55 and who is not running, that means about $1 million that he/she would not receive should he/she run and win again. One should also add the severance premium (between $80,000 and $125,000) upon his/her departure.

We understand better now all these sudden “family emergencies”; “want to spend more time with family” ; appreciate the newfound desire to advance his/her career in a government job or a committee of some sort and have two or three salaries (and possibly two or three pensions).

Not bad as a justification to not run, ​eh?​

boomy1
Guest

I am of that view also Boris. They are people prepared to decide.

Libertarian Unionist
Guest

[Yet Costello’s only regret during these boom years was that he didn’t tax the internet.]

He was a lazy fecker.

Boris
Guest

[It is surprising how low some of the big guys can go and still turn a (small) profit. Hint <$25/t – and these are BIG mines.]

And at $190 at a tonne they were making mega mega profits.
Yet Costello's only regret during these boom years was that he didn't tax the internet.

Boris
Guest

[Attacked from the Left by the Greens candidate, attacked from the middle by Windsor (may he re-enter Parliament!)…all he needs is an attacker from the Right, and he’s officially under siege.]

Reclaim may run a candidate or one nation.

I don’t think Windsors support for Gillard cruels his chances.

Had the carbon price which reduced emissions and favoured renewables.

With barnaby we got increased emissions and coal seam gas.

also increased uni fees,health costs, low wage growth,a new work choices, cuts to paid parental leave, all supported by barnaby.

barnabys a clown as the pope cartoon shows.

One thing that Windsor said stuck with me, that the royal commission into child abuse would not have happened without the hung parliament.

that in itself is a great achievement that previous governments had declined to act on and speaks on the silent hold the churches had on the parties.

In reflective moments I wonder how much Gillards decision to call the RC increased the undermining against her from with her party and without.

Similar with Windsor, did he face a backlash because of his part in it, was there increased anonymous harassment that contributed to his decision to not contest in 2013.

He can stand justified now, as can Gillard, and look the sneerers and doubters in the eye and say look at what you wanted kept hidden. His standing would have increased with those who doubted his stance and now admire he had the courage and conviction.

Nicholas
Guest

That same point has been made here many times

And it never ceases to be wrong.

wpDiscuz