Update: YouGov Galaxy poll (51-49 to Labor)
The final national YouGov Galaxy poll for the News Corp tabloids has Labor leading 51-49, compared with 52-48 in the previous such poll, which was conducted April 23-25. The Coalition is up twon on the primary vote to 39%, Labor is steady on 37%, the Greens are steady on 9%, and One Nation and the United Australia Party are both down a point to 3%. The poll was conducted Monday to Wednesday from a sample of 1004.
Also, the Cairns Post has a YouGov Galaxy seat poll from Leichhardt which shows LNP member Warren Entsch holding on to a 51-49 lead, from primary votes of LNP 40% (39.5% in 2016), Labor 34% (28.1%), Greens 8% (8.8%), Katter’s Australian Party 7% (4.3%), One Nation 4% (7.5%) and the United Australia Party 5%. The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday from a sample of 634.
BludgerTrack has now been updated with the national YouGov Galaxy result and state breakdowns from Essential Research, which, as has consistently been the case with new polling over the final week, has made no difference observable without a microscope.
Original post
To impose a bit of order on proceedings, I offer the following review of the latest polling and horse race information, separately from the post below for those wishing to discuss the life and legacy of Bob Hawke. As per last night’s post, which appeared almost the exact minute that news of Hawke’s death came through, the Nine Newspapers stable last night brought us the final Ipsos poll of the campaign, pointing to a tight contest: 51-49 on two-party preferred, down from 52-48 a fortnight ago. I can only assume this applies to both previous election and respondent-allocated two-party measures, since none of the reporting suggests otherwise. I have added the result to the BludgerTrack poll aggregate, with minimal impact.
We also have new YouGov Galaxy seat polls from The West Australian, conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, and here too we find tight contests:
Cowan (Labor 0.7%): Labor’s Anne Aly is credited with a lead of 53-47, from primary votes of Labor 42% (41.7% in 2016), Liberal 38% (42.2%), One Nation 5% and United Australia Party 2%. No result provided for the Greens. Sample: 528.
Pearce (Liberal 3.6%): Liberal member Christian Porter leads 51-49, from primary votes of Liberal 42% (45.4% in 2016), Labor 36% (34.3%), Greens 10% (11.0%), United Australia Party 4% and One Nation 3%. Sample: 545.
Swan (Liberal 3.6%): Liberal member Steve Irons is level with Labor candidate Hannah Beazley, from primary votes of Liberal 41% (48.2% in 2016), Labor 38% (33.0%), Greens 9% (15.0%), United Australia Party 5% and One Nation 2%. Sample: 508.
Hasluck (Liberal 2.1%): Liberal member Ken Wyatt is level with Labor candidate James Martin, from primary votes of Liberal 39% (44.9% in 2016), Labor 36% (35.3%), Greens 9% (12.7%), United Australia Party 5% and One Nation 5%. Sample: 501.
Stirling (Liberal 6.1%): Liberal candidate Vince Connelly leads Labor’s Melita Markey 51-49. The only primary votes provided are 2% for One Nation and 1% for the United Australia Party. Sample: 517.
Then there was yesterday’s avalanche of ten YouGov Galaxy polls from the eastern seaboard states in the News Corp papers, for which full results were also provided in last night’s post. Even single one of these produced result inside the polls’ fairly ample 4% margins of error. Labor was only credited with leads in only two, both in New South Wales: of 52-48 in Gilmore (a 0.7% Liberal margin), and 53-47 in Macquarie (a 2.2% Labor margin), the latter being one of only two Labor-held seats covered by the polling. The other, the Queensland seat of Herbert (a 0.0% Labor margin), was one of three showing a dead heat, together with La Trobe (a 3.2% Liberal margin) in Victoria and Forde (a 0.6% LNP margin) in Queensland.
The polls had the Coalition slightly ahead in the Queensland seats of Flynn (a 1.0% LNP margin), by 53-47, and Dickson (a 1.7% LNP margin), by 51-49. In Victoria, the Liberals led in Deakin (a 6.4% Liberal margin), by 51-49, and Higgins (a 7.4% Liberal margin), by 52-48 over the Greens – both consistent with the impression that the state is the government’s biggest headache.
Betting markets have been up and down over the past week, though with Labor consistently clear favourites to win government. However, expectations of a clear Labor win have significantly moderated on the seat markets since I last updated the Ladbrokes numbers a week ago. Labor are now rated favourites in 76 seats out of 151; the Coalition are favourites in 68 seats; one seat, Capricornia, is evens; and independents and minor parties tipped to win Clark, Melbourne, Mayo, Farrer and Warringah. The Liberals has overtaken Labor to become favourites in Lindsay, Bonner, Boothby and Pearce, and Leichhardt, Braddon and Deakin have gone from evens to favouring the Coalition. Conversely, Bass and Stirling have gone from evens to favouring the Coalition, and Zali Steggall is for the first time favoured to gain Warringah from Tony Abbott. You can find odds listed in the bottom right of each electorate entry on the Poll Bludger election guide.
If you’re after yet more of my words of wisdom on the election, Crikey has lifted its paywall until tomorrow night, and you will find my own articles assembled here. That should be supplemented with my concluding review of the situation later today. You can also listen to a podcast below conducted by Ben Raue of the Tally Room, also featuring Elizabeth Humphrys of UTS Arts and Social Sciences, featuring weighty listening on anti-politics (Humphrys’ speciality) and lighter fare on the state of the election campaign (mine).
Newspaper endorsements is such a weird thing. Why should anyone care what a newspaper thinks is best.
And the on GetUp, I’d rather see Labor win government than for them to fall short and cut Abbott and Dutton’s margin. If they still win who cares what the margin is?
Utterly Hilarious:
“Bill is a dealer,” says the former colleague. “And he is a good dealer because he’s not committed to anything in an ideological sense.”
“You can really be a formidable negotiator if you don’t give a f*** about anything.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-17/the-real-bill-shorten/11119242
@guytaur – even as a Labor member (or Partisan, as Rexy calls us) – I think investing a Labor Government’s political capital chasing after the Liberals to get things passed is a recipe for disaster. The Tories, if they lose (even as someone who is pretty optimistic about tomorrow, this is getting WAY ahead of ourselves) will have no interest in cooperating. Bipartisanship is not a single-player game.
Labor+Grn will not be enough in the Senate – that is almost certainly the case, so a Senate coalition of Labor+GRN+CA+(maybe) Hinch would almost certainly be required for passage.
I will also say, as someone who was deep in the lion’s mouth around the CPRS debacle and trying to get it passed – the way it’s reported here is not accurate. I blame Labor and the Greens for ballsing that one up.
@Itep
I predict Getup will succeed in getting rid of Dutton and Abbott, I expect a few more right-wing loonies to lose their seats as well such as George Christensen. That is because a lot of people despise these politicians, including many rusted on Liberal voters. I predicted that was going to happen since the leadership challenge.
Itep
In the age of Social media Editorial’s what are they?
They just appear as just another opinion on social media not authoritative or any more credible than any other opinion.
In fact to some young people they probably don’t even know editorials are a thing.
I’ve been on and off the board, so if not already posted, Bob Hawke’s endorsement of Shorten and Labor tomorrow:
(via John Menadue)
guytaur says:
Friday, May 17, 2019 at 1:19 pm
Your comprehension skills are as poor as ever.
I provided two paths to establish legislative success, I discounted the first by focusing on the issue of building trust, yet you focus on the first with no mention of building trust.
Certainly suggests you didn’t get my point and as usual you run off on a tangent. 🙂
ItzaDream says:
Friday, May 17, 2019 at 1:21 pm
Aspiration is when you inhale your own vomit.
Can be fatal.
Nearly aspirated snorted coffee reading that! *wipes keyboard* 😀
J3
Yes. On climate policy Labor and Greens forming an agreement first makes it harder for CA and Hinch to oppose. We see it all the time with amendments to bills and what gets passed and what doesn’t.
Agreed its way too soon as Palmer maybe very dark horse of a One Nation seat instead of Palmer.
Tristo
NT News had no choice. Burt the Psychic Crocodile had spoken. Although surprised to see this in a Rupert Rag……….
Tristo, I’ll be a little surprised if Abbott loses. Dutton would be less of a surprise. I think George will be reelected too.
On Hawke.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/may/17/federal-campaign-2019-shorten-morrison-hawke-politics-live
@ 13:03
What kind of mind works that way? Hard to fathom.
A telling comment on the Liberal party before Howard, specially the bit on “a genuine sense of the national interest”.
I never lived under Howard’s rule. But I’m beginning to understand the great loathing of the man.
Barney
No you are running off on the tangent. First step is who do you build trust with. There is no point in building trust with people you know are going to vote against your legislation.
Well Turnbull also called it on the belief that he was Mr. Popular and Coated in Teflon, and Shorten was Mr. Super Unpopular and Unelectable, and that he could sleepwalk a Coalition landslide in. But yes, the low quotas required to get a Senate seat in a DD means all sorts of cranks can get in the door if you pull that trigger…
To repeat, should not be hard to ascertain. Simple question really
simon holmes à court
@simonahac
·
1h
turns out the biggest beneficiary of the $80m #watergate scam was
@AngusTaylorMP
’s oxford uni rowing mate’s hong kong based company (via the #caymans, of course) — surprise?
who else received benefit? we don’t know.
who knows? #AngusKnows
Again – you build trust by doing what you say you’re going to and deliver.
It’s how the incumbents in both VIC and NSW got reelected.
guytaur says:
Friday, May 17, 2019 at 1:36 pm
You are an idiot!
I’m talking about building trust with the voters.
Have you lost all ability to read!
GetUp will be judged by the swing in their targeted seats vs others. Getting resources committed to Liberal seats outside the usual marginals is fun and all, but it’s at the expense of progressive resources that could also be used elsewhere. There needs to be clear evidence that GetUp produces results or else change how they work.
Labor Greens CA Hinch is an entirely workable Senate bloc as long as the Greens don’t get smug and decide its their way or the highway again, and that rather than win over the public they’ll just force Labor to break a promise as the price of their help….
One does start to think, looking at that cross bench, that it was a mistake to rack up political pain over measures that probably won’t even be passed this term
In all of the nearly 60 years I have been interested in politics I have been able to accept the results of elections but if this government survives the weekend I fear for what it would mean for society in the long term as the Howard/Costello structural deficit is added to even more as well as leading to a widening of inequality and the social dislocation it would likely cause.
I would be devastated for the sake of my descendants.
Victoria @ #509 Friday, May 17th, 2019 – 1:40 pm
Why? Money-laundering is only difficult when something other than a Federal government is doing it.
Can’t there be a special thread reserved only for the fecking tiresome ALP v Greens vs ALP sniping? It really undermines the attraction of this place.
Few of you seem to understand that most young and middle-aged progressive voters actually don’t give a damn about party identification or even a discrete ideology anymore. They care about outcomes. Sure, many of us vote 1 Green but my 2 is always ALP. Apart from in Melbourne or one or two other seats, you get my vote (and you will this time around now I’m in Maribyrnong).
But personally I don’t care if the Greens never form government, or have a ministry or any of the other markers of ‘power’ – I care about outcomes: environmental, social and economic justice, justice reform, and most of all I care about keeping the Tories and their even worse brownshirt allies as far away from power as possible.
You’ve seen the success of Daniel Andrews as an example: progressive, set out his goals and achieved them. And got rewarded, despite the odd scandal thrown his way from Limited News. Be like Dan.
Re GetUp
The strategy as directed by their members was to target the right. I have been working on ground and phone calling in Dutton’s seat. It was difficult as it’s a pretty disengaged electorate. If GetUp directly targeted swing seats their independence would be challenged. I will share a treasured comment made to me by a well known retired ABC journo that GetUp infact was doing the Liberals a favour by trying clear out the mad right that has engulfed their organisation. Let’s hope the progressive are celebrating tomorrow
From Greg Jericho on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/GrogsGamut/status/1129203067855941632
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6u8M70U8AEK8M2?format=png&name=small
BK: +1
And thank you again for the sterling and truly appreciated public service that is the Dawn Patrol.
poroti@12:07pm
If you look at the polls and want to believe (shudder), this same hard-right rump of LNP is about to be re-elected.
I’m not good with psephology but shouldn’t margin of error, which is usually at least a couple of percent from what I read, mean more variability in the poll results? If your speedometer was +- 2 or 3 you’d expect to see it bounce left and right of the true mark yeah?
(Or am I just not paying enough attention to the polling?
While obviously nobody (I hope) takes these “Animal predictions” seriously (I remember one of them getting an octopus to choose identical food out of containers with different labels on them), I wonder if the animals that have a high “success rate” attached to them are just random and either just lucky or are being evaluated through a confirmation bias lens, or if there’s a “Clever Hans” situation happening and the animals are taking subtle, unintentional cues from their handlers or observers.
GetUp should be focused on actual outcomes though rather than feeling good about themselves for failing to achieve an objective. The way to achieve progressive outcomes is to change the government.
I think those of us scared about what a Liberal win would mean should take a deep breath:
1. It would necessarily be narrow and thus produce another unstable government.
2. There is every sign the world and national economies are teetering and a pretty good chance that with self-aggrandising fools in charge we would have an economic meltdown to some degree.
3. Labor has toughened up remarkably since the late 90s and mid 00s and that is not going to change, nor is the growing contempt for News Ltd.
4. There are also good reasons to think that the Libs are going to continue to be a rabble internally.
All of that adds up to a likelihood of an ineffective and unpopular LNP government should they somehow squeak back in, which only enhances the chances of a major swing against them next time around.
It would be disappointing but hardly a Trump style takeover.
From Gratts Conversation column (https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-bill-channels-gough-as-he-hopes-that-his-time-is-coming-117273)
“If Saturday’s result is a hung parliament (Labor or Coalition) the voters can only blame themselves for delivering a political outcome that would make policy outcomes more difficult to bring about.”
She really struggles with the idea that politics can be messy. I think that’s where quite a lot of antipathy to the Gillard government stemmed from – she hated the idea that a party could make minority government work. That just isn’t how things are meant to go.
Ante Meridian @ #486 Friday, May 17th, 2019 – 1:18 pm
Unsurprisingly I’m in a reflective mood today. Hawke is on my mind.
Turnbull is by all accounts highly intelligent, so was Hawke. Your example of Turnbull calling a DD is instructive in why Turnbull ultimately failed at everything he claimed to stand for. THere are lots of expressions on the type of cleverness Turnbull was prone to. “Too clever by half.” “Watch out you don’t cut yourself.” etc. There is a difference between confident and arrogant, and between audacious and reckless.
I know it wasn’t really your main point but I too doubt that Shorten would call a DD, just not for the reason that it failed for Turnbull.
Yes Fletch. All polls being 51/49 is slightly concerning.
The problem with the ALP + Greens + CA + Hinch path to a senate majority is that Hinch has to be re-elected. If he’s not, and CA doesn’t improve on its two continuing senators, ALP + Greens + CA will probably be stranded one vote short, leaving them dependant on the likes of Hanson, Bernardi, and Lambie. Welcome to Hell.
I’ve said it before, but I’m going to repeat it anyway: Labor might really regret that deal with the Liberals to shaft Hinch with a short term.
Blobbit @ #530 Friday, May 17th, 2019 – 1:19 pm
This type of analysis (Grattan, not you) is idiotic. “Voters” aren’t a single person. They don’t in any sense decide to have a hung parliament.
“Let’s hope the progressive are celebrating tomorrow”
Absolutely. And to be clear, I hope that GetUp is being effective
Barney
To get trust with the voters you don’t lie to them that denying facts is a bipartisan position. Instead you say we will work with those who are willing to embrace facts and the evidence based policy that relies on.
Thats how you build trust. Treat the voters as being intelligent and able to listen to your arguments not that of the science deniers.
“Helen Davidson and Katharine Murphy have an update on the Rwandan suspected murderers refugee story:”
On the Grauniad.
Given it has details of what was discussed in the NSC……Malcolm?
Today you bludgers have cheered me up somewhat.
I woke this morning feeling a little nervous; feeling that the narrowing polls could mean the Libs might just sneak back over the line. Although, if I were a betting man I’d still be putting money on Labor, I have to say I didn’t feel as confident about a Labor win as I did some weeks back.
Of course, no one should ever imagine an election is won before the numbers come up.
But my worry also stemmed from the stream of negative advertising, particularly in the form of Murdoch rags’ front pages, which, even if not widely purchased, can still act as Coalition posters which catch people’s attention.
I’m feeling a bit better, after reading posters’ dissection of the latest information. Which is good as I’m also preparing to captain a booth from early tomorrow morning. Booth captaining can be fun sometimes, but it always entails a long day and a nervous wait.
Anyway, good luck to you all and let’s hope we have something big to celebrate tomorrow.
Sounds to me like you’re very good with psephology, Fletch.
I’m with Goll on this. The feeling is like 1972, except, at least for me, the significance seems even greater (I don’t think it is necessarily) because of my age and a better grasp of the way momentum in politics works and the critical need to abort this poisonous Conservative agenda. I feel a sense of pressing urgency, and there is tension, there must be, but ….
I think I registered Labor with 90+ forever ago when the guessing started, and I don’t resile from it. We are on the cusp.
Reading how many posters have little recall of even early Hawke days makes me feel sooooooo old!
Get Up have targeted hard right candidates in safe seats. This has lead to the coalition putting much more resources into those seats than they have ever done before. This has taken resources away from seats they might have retained. It has also shaken the coalitions cage. Hopefully after the election this will lead to the coalition having a good hard look at themselves. Or self destructing.
Before we start talking about potential double dissolution triggers for Labor next term, can we actually get them elected?
If Labor win, the best plausible case scenario senate-wise is that 3 Labor or 2 Labor-1 Greens are elected in each state (and one Labor in each territory), and Hinch and/or Kakoschke-Moore win in the “3rd conservative” spot in their respective races – then a Labor Government could get legislation through with combined support via Greens and centrist cross-benchers. Not the most ideal but it beats having to trade horses with far rightists, Palmer or depend on the Coalition for everything.
Of course, a 3 Labor + 1 Green result in Vic or Tas would be nice, as would Greens winning the second spot in ACT but I am not going to hold my breath for such an outcome and will leave that in the “pleasantly surprised if it happens” column.
Burgey @ #535 Friday, May 17th, 2019 – 1:59 pm
+1
RM
Yes. GetUp’s success can be measured very directly. Legislation attempted that the LNP took the High Court to strike down to try and limit fundraising efforts. Captain GetUp! Thats a measure of success. I well remember the LNP fury over Bass at the last election. The LNP certainly seems to think Getup! is making an impact.
Guytaur.
Regarding your post that Gillard “shafted” Andrew Wilkie over his pokies policy, I feel I should correct the record. This has been claimed by a large number of anti-gambling campaigners and it is unfortunate because it is untrue.
The fact is, Gillard did not have the numbers in the lower house to push an anti-pokies policy through. Wilkie and the Greens supported it. The two independents, Windsor and Oakeshott did not. In fact they repeatedly stated they would not vote to pass it through the House of Reps. They did agree to a somewhat watered-down version of Wilkie’s bill, but it was one of the first things Abbott abolished when he won government.
It was a sad outcome and a triumph of political bastardry and the clubs’ greed over a worthwhile proposal.
But that’s no reason to impugn Gillard’s record.
The LNP thinks a lot of things that aren’t based in reality though.
Australian Electoral Commission staff have called police to a pre-polling booth in Canberra after an altercation between Liberal candidate Mina Zaki and a Labor volunteer.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-16/canberra-prepoll-station-police-called-candidate-fight/11120166
FWIW the Ipsos 53-47 pre-poll skew to Coalition troubled me so much I did some number crunching off the AEC website to see if there was something in the variability of pre-polling rates that might explain it.
Short answer, it does.
Briefly, Victoria has the highest prepolling rate at an average 32,832 per seat, followed by Queensland at 29,628, NSW at 26,423, SA 20,096 and WA 17,399. Nationally, Flinders is leading the way with 45,557 and Adelaide brings up the rear with just 9957. Plenty to dive into post-election but doesn’t do much to explain Ipsos.
But between Coalition held seats and Labor seats, there is a clear difference – average 27,502 to 25,642. The six crossbench seats are averaging 28,962. Note four are traditionally conservative and two have Labor history.
A bigger differential is the 30,800 average for regional seats against 24,138 for metropolitan seats.
So there seems to be a higher pre-poll propensity on the conservative side and in regional areas where they tend to do better overall. A good topic to dive into for another day. All I can say for now is we needn’t fret too much waiting for the pre-poll count tomorrow night. I’m more confident that it will do what it usually does and roughly mirror the booth results.
Getup has succeeded, even if they fail in all of their seats.
People like Abbott and Dutton are powerful vote winners, in certain electorates. Keeping them confined to their own electorates was a massive win. As was drawing a whole bunch of liberal $ into what would otherwise be safe seats.
Additionally, parties don’t put someone on a narrow margin in as opposition leader or PM. Too risky.