Essential Research: 57-43

The latest Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead down from 58-42 to 57-43, remembering that this is a two-week rolling average which was half conducted before Malcolm Turnbull replaced Brendan Nelson. Also included (just from the last week’s sample) are various questions on leadership and one on industrial relations (45 per cent think the government moving “too slowly”).

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

762 comments on “Essential Research: 57-43”

Comments Page 3 of 16
1 2 3 4 … 16

  1. The disappointing thing about the way a no-change Newspoll and a PPM that was just 24% (alebit it up from Nelson’s 6%) was spun as great news for Turnbull is that those at the OO, Sky news, 7 news etc, seem to have learned nothing from their failed analysis and predictions re: Howard and Rudd. They just cant seem to accept that their darling lost, and dont seem to care about any pretence of balance

  4. [You have completely misrepresented my argument as to creationism v evolution. I did say during that argument that so long as evolution was taught as the principal scientific thesis, I had no problem with children also being exposed to other views.]

    You heavily implied that you thought that students could be taught creationism in the science classroom, which demonstrated that you don’t understand what constitutes a scientific theory.
    [Furthermore, I’m not repackaging denial as skepticism. Those are your words.]
    Well, that is what you are doing whether or not you are aware of it.
    [Those are your words. I’m simply saying that your virulent distaste and vulgar denigration of people who old opposite views is as absurd as it is obscene.]
    But when we ask you for evidence you don’t have any! You are having this about five different ways.
    [Science is not a religion; and nor should it be expounded religiously.]
    So why do you think children should be taught creationism as if it is a scientific theory!

  5. GP,

    I think what Andrew is referring to is the fact that whilst Labor still leads 55/45 in the Newspoll on TPP, more and more commentators are saying that there is increasing evidence that Rudd will be a “oncer”.

    How a 55/45 lead in Newspoll equates to a losing position in an election is beyond me – a 55/45 result for the Howard government last year would have had the scribes out saying that Howard was cruising to another landslide…

  6. No 104

    You can draw whatever implication you wish from my argument, but you’d be wrong to suggest that I think creationism should be taught above evolution.

    [Well, that is what you are doing whether or not you are aware of it.]

    Arrogant dribble. Do not pretend to know what I think and put words in my mouth!

    [So why do you think children should be taught creationism as if it is a scientific theory!]

    I don’t. Again, those are your words.

  7. [Bushfire Bill, it seems you have a short memory regarding the adolescent and indolent behaviour of the Government regarding Turnbull’s wealth, ego and his Venetian sojourn. Albanese, the principal offender!]

    These were not interjections, or frivolous points of order. They were in the ordinary run of debate. From memory, Albanese made precisely ONE point of order today, which was agreed to by the Speaker.

    Contrast this modest performance with the Opposition’s literally dozens of points of order, I think only one of them agreed to by the Speaker (who is regarded as no government partisan like the last hack).

    The Opposition is being clearly disruptive, while the overnment is being clearly humorous. I mean “Merchant of Venice”? “The Helen Demidenko of Australian politics”? These are genuinely funny and enliven an otherwise plodding and disrupted QT.

  8. Adam was right earlier. Turnbull is by far the Liberals’ most credible leader (this football thing, pur-lease, didn’t he even correct himself in the same sentence?). The next election will be competitive if there’s a recession, and will be a canter for Labor if there isn’t.

    Bishop’s had a crap start, though, no point in denying it. Fancy not knowing the cash rate.

  10. Dyno @ 109,

    Agree completely. As a self-confessed “liberal”, I’m waiting for Turnbull to start spelling out his social policies – if he’s going to revert back to Howard capital-C conservatism, he can forget it, but if he actually acts like a true “liberal” (socially liberal, economically liberal), then I’m more than willing to switch my vote to the Libs in 2010…

  11. No 105

    The beauty of a democracy is that you are free to hold your own opinions. Opinion writers are but a slice of the news cycle and most people here seem to give them more credit or status than they are owed.

    At the end of the day, Shanahan and Ackerman (for example) have been beating from similar drums for years, but their commentary had no influence on the outcome of the 2007 election.

  12. GP @ 85

    “What is your problem with skepticism? In no other field of science have I seen such dogmatic ad hominem attacks against those who dare offer a contrarian opinion.”

    Absolute nonsense.

    History is filled with attacks on those who have used science to develop new theories and explanations. The sceptics were the ones who argued that the world was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe, etc, etc.

  13. No 107

    Oh I see, it’s humour when it’s from the Government, but it’s adolescent when it’s from the Opposition.

    Shameful double standards BB.

  14. [You can draw whatever implication you wish from my argument, but you’d be wrong to suggest that I think creationism should be taught above evolution.]

    You don’t have an argument! If you did you’d explain what it was, but instead you just revert to evasion and obfuscation.

    Creationism doesn’t even constitute a scientific hypothesis, so it doesn’t belong in at all in a science classroom. The fact you can’t even acknowledge that demonstrates you have no idea what science is.

    You don’t realise it, but you are espousing an extreme relativist position where all propositions of the truth are considered equally good and equally flawed. Your idea (I can’t even call it an argument) is completely self defeating.

  15. Unfortunately, GP, Shanahan isn’t there to provide opinions (unlike Ackerman) – he’s there to interpret Newspoll and (for better or worse) sets the political climate for the day.

    The problem is that he’s not very good at it. He was the great exponent of the infamous (and non-existent) “Narrowing”, he predicted the day before the election that Howard would win again and he’s running around now saying that Rudd is doomed (2 years before an election).

    I’d expect that analysis from a commenter on this blog – not from one of the chief political writers in the country. I’m sorry, but the standards are not the same for everyone…

  16. [To be fair, from reading the transcript, I think it was more that she was not sure of it.]

    Either way, its the first thing you should know when you take the job

  17. [GP – Steve, just be honest: Turnbull will always fail in your eyes and spare us the senselessly foreboding commentary.]
    Let just modify that sentence GP. GP just be honest: Swan will always fail in your eyes and spare us the senselessly foreboding commentary.

  18. Seems that all these polls are only good news for the libs insofar as they show better numbers than under Nelson. So in a relative sense its great for them.
    In an absolute sense they are still a non-competative rabble, abeit with possibly more potential than a week ago.

    So Turnbull is going to make Tax reform his thing??

    “The new Liberal leader, who plans to elevate tax reform as a key issue in the 2010 election, has boosted his economic team while stressing the importance of the environment and sustainable development.”

    Rudd and Co have already got that well covered with their review of the whole system and it looks like being one of their “evidence based” policies. Boring , but the process is likley to mean that when they do generate a policy to take to the 2010 election it will be well backed by research and evidence.

    Are people really going to trust a merchant banker’s ideas on tax reform by then? After all the fallout from whats happening now? And by 2010 will he have been busted for his involvment in the HIH thing?? Will be interesting to see what he comes up with, but i think he’s missed the boat here.

  20. No 110

    If “socially liberal” means ending same-sex discrimination, then both sides are already in agreeance, even when Nelson was leader.

  21. [If “socially liberal” means ending same-sex discrimination, then both sides are already in agreeance, even when Nelson was leader.]

    You’d have to repeal the marriage act to get rid of discrimination based on sexuality.

  24. imacca,

    We’ll see “in due season”, but I’d be amazed if Rudd can make his “root and branch” tax review achieve anything much. It’s very hard to get any meaningful change through the MSM’s “winners and losers” filter, without inciting a whole lot of fear and loathing.

    On the other hand anyone can understand a tax cut, and most people like them. But whether we’ll be able to afford more big tax cuts, well that’s a different question…

  27. Other social issues are where he stands on immigration, human rights (i.e. civil liberties – a core issue for true liberals) and (possibly) the ETS. If he opposes it by saying climate change doesn’t exist, he can forget about me (and quite a few others) – if he’s got a proper reason for opposing it (which I can’t currently envisage, but I’ll keep an open mind), then it’s a different story…

  29. [It’s very hard to get any meaningful change through the MSM’s “winners and losers” filter, without inciting a whole lot of fear and loathing.]

    Well, according to Megalogenis there is now 100,000 fewer high income earners getting government hand outs. So I think that’s a good start for the first budget:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24387904-2702,00.html

  36. 131 & 133

    Look, I don’t care how much evidence you produce or how many experts you trot out I maintain my right to be a sceptic about “agreeance”.

  39. GP,

    If you wish to use “agreeance”, I shall reserve the right hereafterward to use the words “hereafterward” and “begat” (amongst others…)

  41. ShowsOn, actually if you read the article closely it says further down that the net figure is 44,000 fewer families getting hand outs. But no matter, still not a bad number.

  45. Mr Costello was cringeworthy on Lateline, so much so that he was nearly drawn to tears on the leadership question. Pathetic performance from our greatest treasurer.

  46. Dyno @124

    I reckon if they frame it properly as making the system simpler and fairer they may be able get through more than you think. That would tie in nicely with their theme on IR and hey, maybe the MSM will declare that they have a Narrative then!

    I agree though that the “MSM’s “winners and losers” filter” will be a problem as it always seems to be for any policy. Could come down to simply making sure that most of the losers are from whatever demographic that they think isnt going to vote for them anyway.

  49. I should correct the earlier poster who stated the LCT package has ‘passed the Senate’. It hasn’t. The Senate has requested amendments be made by the House of Representatives. After these amendments are made the Senate will vote on the final LCT bill’s third reading. If either Senator Fielding or Xenephon chose to vote against the third reading the bill would fail to pass.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 16
1 2 3 4 … 16