Menu lock

YouGov-Fifty Acres: 50-50

YouGov's latest records primary support for the major parties lower than others, and finds strong support for both same-sex marriage and a plebiscite.

The latest fortnightly YouGov poll for Fifty Acres maintains the series’ established pattern of low primary votes for the major parties and strong minor party preference flows to the Coalition. There is a stable 50-50 two-party result derived from primary votes that would land it in the 52-48 to 53-47 range on 2016 preferences: 34% for the Coalition, down two; 32% for Labor, down one; 11% for the Greens, up one; and 9% for One Nation, up one.

Other findings from the poll are a 34-27 lead for Malcolm Turnbull on preferred prime minister, with an unusually high 38% preferring a “not sure” option; 60% support for same-sex marriage, with 28% opposed; 51% preferring a plebiscite on the matter, compared with 29% for a decision by parliament; 36% believing Turnbull’s position would be threatened by Coalition MPs crossing the floor on the matter, compared with 29% who thought otherwise; and 33% thinking referendums should be held more often, with 26% saying too many such proposals are being made of issues that should be left to parliament.

The poll was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1005.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

1910 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
lizzie
Guest

Why would a government under extreme pressure, license a three-month campaign just to allow the opposition leader to look the good guy?

A toxic dynamic is already emerging. Now that Shorten and Tony Abbott have so clearly stated their positions, Turnbull risks being sidelined by a much clearer fight between an ascendant opposition leader with public opinion on his side, and a rampaging Abbott intent on internal havoc and recreating the 1950s.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/this-speech-was-one-of-the-biggest-moments-in-bill-shortens-path-to-the-lodge-20170810-gxtj2c.html

kezza2
Guest

Puff, hi there,

I’m so sorry about your loss of Chelsea, and the last connection with your husband (has it been that long since he died, and my sister died?)

But I hope that it goes the same way for Ginnie.

Aren’t they most faithful, stoic little companions?

They don’t complain, but I’m sure I detect a ‘resignation’ in Ginnie that’s not been there, before; like she’s just going through motions of life now.

My kids keep telling me to get another dog, another puppy, now. But I don’t want to. I think 3 x 17-year-old dogs, is enough, thank you very much. And that’s not counting the ones who didn’t make it that far.

So many tears.

bemused
Guest

Diogenes @ #1482 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:08 pm

bemused
The article says the government will still set fees and charges but I suppose we all know what that really means. And customers will “not notice any difference to the service”. And I suppose we all know what that really means. And there will be no job losses.
Sounds a bit too good to be true, doesn’t it.

It means they are dupes, liars, or both.

Inexcusable for a Labor Govt.

adrian
Guest

Typical fascist government procedures 101.

Decrease funding to public housing, sell existing public housing in the city to developers, don’t mandate a proportion of new developments for public housing, then act surprised when there are more homeless on the streets, so criminalise them to ‘move them on’.
All the while as rents become more and more expensive.

Bastards.

Puff, the Magic Dragon.
Guest
Puff, the Magic Dragon.

The problem I have with polygamy is it always seems to be in favour of men, who can take on multiple wives but the same is not allowed for women. The reports of how women are treated and the negative consequences for the wives in such marriages cause me to be very wary of polygamy. I also associate this with cults.

kezza2
Guest

Adrian

Shades of the Occupy folk, in Melbourne, being moved for the Queen’s visi., whenever.

Gotta keep the hoi polloi from having a say. I wonder how many of them are Ordinary Australians.

Player One
Guest

don @ #1498 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:34 pm

Same sex marriage of two people first, three or more later!

I reckon that to get maximum value for our $122 million, allowing polygamy should be included as an option in the plebiscite. Otherwise we’ll just have to do it all over again once Sharia Law is imposed!

paaptsef
Guest

Have people say they are going to/did boycott the survey but they vote actually vote yes. Then apply spin.
It’s a sham anyway so why not game it to the max

mikehilliard
Guest

Yes, and how long till the tents in Wentworth Park are moved on. Seems to me Gladys bill gives the government the right to push the homeless around however they wish.

Steve777
Guest

I think that Bill Shorten’s made the correct choice to campaign all out for ‘Yes’. Guy Rundle puts the case well: https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/08/10/the-postal-plebiscite-is-happening-and-marriage-equality-supporters-need-to-start-campaigning-to-win/#comments?utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Insider-Subscribe-100817

“Boycott campaigns always have some leakage, even the best-run. A disorganised boycott would split the pro-SSM campaign down the middle, and make achieving a majority all the more precarious.”

A narrow ‘No’ result on a low turnout (say 30-40%) would be declared by a win by the anti- brigade and they will get cover from the mainstream media. A future Government would be perfectly justified in ignoring the result, but that would be likely to be very difficult politically. Boycotters might end up doing the homophobes’ work and post postpone same sex marriage for this Parliamentary term and the next.

adrian
Guest

kezza2 @ #1497 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:33 pm

Aqualung @ #1490 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:24 pm

What’s the bet the Martin Place tent city is “quietly” moved in the middle of the night?

I heard, already, that it had to be moved by Friday.

Out of sight and out of mind is a well established principle among the right in Australian politics.

cud chewer
Guest

The first item on the ABC radio national news before PM was “activists had lodged a challenge with the High Court”.

No mention of which activists. No mention on PM. No mention here.

Any info?

don
Guest

Diogenes
Barney
For argument’s sake, why shouldn’t three people who love each other be allowed to get married?

It wouldn’t bother me, and various religious sects have been doing it for yonks. The bible condones it.

But at the moment in Australia, I think it would be difficult to get into legislation.

Same sex marriage of two people first, three or more later!

kezza2
Guest

Aqualung @ #1490 Thursday, August 10th, 2017 – 5:24 pm

What’s the bet the Martin Place tent city is “quietly” moved in the middle of the night?

I heard, already, that it had to be moved by Friday.

imacca
Guest

“It’s totally consistent. If he could stop this farce he would, but he can’t, so he is not going to sit it out.”

Agree. It may not be a massive game changer…unless it leads to Turnbul getting the flick and the whole “revolving door of PM’s” thing. which with Abbott exploiting this to the max it could well do.

However, its hard to see how the ALP can lose anything politically from this. Good time and issue for Shorten to go for the throat.

kezza2
Guest

Interestingly, about the Lands Title Office stuff:

In Victoria, about 2009, I had cause to seek out information about some properties – my wretched brother and his then fiancee doing dirty deeds.

Anyway, whilst one had to pay for some of the documents, it was rather easy to access through Landata, anything you needed to know about the property.

A couple of days ago, a friend asked if I could look up something about his neighbour’s property.

No problems, except now, all it will give you is an outline of the said property, and no other details. Unless, of course, you fork out the dollars.

No wonder the Land Titles offices are pulling in the bucks, and making them lucrative business propositions.

cud chewer
Guest

TPOF what I’d like to see is a standard printout (maybe AME can do this) which protests the process and you slip the printout into the reply envelope alongside the official ‘ballot’. That way it may itself get counted.

alias
Guest

One practical step is to nail down every Coalition MP who is a likely “No” vote in the postal vote on what they intend to do if the national vote is “Yes” – including a situation where the national vote is “Yes” but their electorate vote is “No”. They should all be put on the record with no wriggle room. I’m making that very inquiry of my own Liberal MP.

TPOF
Guest

I’m pretty conflicted. My preference is still to send back a defaced ballot paper as a protest against this farce, but if the AME and other LGTBIQ groups follow Shorten’s lead and decide to take part, then my sending back an abstention won’t have any impact at all. In that case I will follow the lead.

I think Shorten has taken the position he has because he sees this campaign as one where he can demonstrate his leadership credentials in the same light as Turnbull’s vacillation on a matter he historically strongly supported. It could well be a game changer for him and Labor in terms of public perception of character.

JimmyDoyle
Guest

Meher Baba
It seems rather inconsistent that Shorten, having consistently blocked a comprehensive plebiscite conducted by the AEC (and one which he previously supported), looks like he will tacitly support the stupid postal ballot/survey by campaigning for a Yes vote.

Having a close family member who is very keen to marry their same sex partner as quickly as possible, I wish Labor had just voted for the wretched plebiscite when it first came up rather than play political games with it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Seeing as you pride yourself as some supposed centrist pragmatist, it is rather wretchedly hypocritical of you to attack Labor for taking steps to deal with the new situation that is unfolding. Are seriously suggesting that the only way for Labor to be “consistent” is to be totally silent?

Labor has consistently opposed peoples’ rights being put up to a vote. Simple as that.

Because of circumstances outside the party’s control, a postal vote may take place. Because of Turnbull’s gross abrogation of his basic moral duty, he is “too busy” to campaign in favour.

The homophobes in the ACL have already launched their smear campaign on gay people.

It falls to Labor to campaign for LGBT people, to counter the fear campaign of lies from the right.

I find it galling that in your usual political GAME of rushing to attack Labor using whatever the issue du jour is, you accuse Labor of playing political games!

The reality is that the Labor Party is the only party that has consistently listened to the LGBT community, which DOES NOT WANT a vote on its rights.

I’m curious – have you actually ASKED whether your close family member wants every single person in the country to be asked to pass judgement on THEIR relationship?

wpDiscuz