Essential Research: 58-42

Essential Research has produced its final weekly survey for the year, ahead of a sabbatical that will extend to January 12. It shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly from 59-41 to 58-42. I might proudly note that they have taken up my suggestion to gauge opinion on the internet filtering plan, and the result gives some insight into the government’s apparent determination to pursue this by all accounts foolish and futile policy. Even accounting for the fact that this is a sample of internet users, the survey shows 49 per cent supporting the plan against 40 per cent opposed. Also featured are questions on the government’s general performance over the year, bonuses to pensions and families, optimism for the coming year (surprisingly high) and the target the government should set for greenhouse emission reductions (only 8 per cent support a cut of less than 5 per cent). Elsewhere:

• The West Australian has published a Westpoll survey of 400 WA respondents showing 60 per cent believe the federal government’s changes in policy on asylum seekers have contributed to a recent upsurge in boat arrivals in the north-west. However, only 34 per cent supported a return to the Pacific solution against 48 per cent opposed. Sixty-nine per cent professed themselves “concerned” about the increased activity, but 54 per cent said they were happy for the arrivals to live on Christmas Island while they were assessed for refugee status. Fifty-one per cent were opposed to them being processed on the mainland. Westpoll also found that 62 per cent of respondents “definitely” supported recreational fishing bans to protect vulnerable species, with “nearly eight out of 10” indicating some support. I suspect The West Australian commissioned monthly polling in advance expectation of a February state election, and has tired of asking redundant questions on support for the new government.

• Imre Salusinszky on Bennelong in The Weekend Australian:

The experience of Labor in 1990, when Bob Hawke was mugged in Victoria by the unpopularity of former Labor premier John Cain, shows there are occasions when a Labor state government can throw an anchor around the neck of its federal counterpart. According to Newspoll figures published in The Australian yesterday, federal Labor’s primary vote in NSW is running at 41 per cent, nearly four points down on its level at last year’s federal election. Although this is still much higher than the 29 per cent primary vote recorded in a Newspoll last month for the state Labor government – which, as it happens, was precisely the party’s primary vote in Ryde – it certainly suggests Rudd has problems in NSW. Given Rees’s recent decision to scrap plans for a metro rail system linking central Sydney to the city’s northwest, some of those problems could manifest in Bennelong. And while Howard was a formidable adversary, it would be possible to argue his presence assisted McKew by encouraging every gibbering Howard-hater in the country – including the activist group GetUp! – to get involved in the battle for Bennelong.

The key, obviously, lies in the calibre of candidate the Liberals manage to put up. Two names that have been mentioned are former state leader Kerry Chikarovski and former rugby union international Brett Papworth. Chikarovski represented Lane Cove, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1991 to 2003; Papworth is a son of the electorate who began his playing career there. But if there is one candidate who could give McKew a fright, it is Andrew Tink. Tink represented the state seat of Epping, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1988 until last year’s state election. A true-blue local, Tink would be able to exploit a lingering perception of McKew as a celebrity blow-in. Tink appears to be enjoying his second career as a historian of NSW politics, but there have been approaches from senior Liberals who would like to see him make history of McKew.

• Noting the difficult position of the Canadian Liberals as they pursue power behind an interim leader, Ben Raue at The Tally Room looks at differing methods used overseas for selection of party leaders and offers a critique of Australian practice (part one and part two).

• Possum: “ETS – Why 5% in two charts”. Even shorter version: it all comes down to the Senate.

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.

1,208 comments on “Essential Research: 58-42”

Comments Page 5 of 25
1 … 4 5 6 … 25

  2. [For the last 12 months the Greens have said more negative things about Rudd than the fibs. ]

    I don’t know about that. On most of the big policy things the Government’s had trouble with in the Senate, they’ve gotten them through by negotiating with The Greens.

  3. Diogenes, I appreciate your water concerns as a South Australian, and also your disappointment with today’s outcome. But I don’t think giving up on the Government is the solution when the Liberal alternative is worse, and the dream (at present anyway) is unattainable. Better to work from within than without.

    Having said that, why on earth would you be supporting someone who has to be talked around to get him interested in water in your State?

    You are articulate, educated, intelligent and forthright. Have a go yourself. You’ve obviously got the stuff to make a very good Member of Parliament. Let him support you.

  4. [I don’t know about that. On most of the big policy things the Government’s had trouble with in the Senate, they’ve gotten them through by negotiating with The Greens.]
    The Greens usually come on board before Xenephon and Fielding.

    Herding the independents is the hard part.

    At the end, when it comes down to the divisions, do you really think the Greens will vote against the legislation? How will they go to their base voters and say “oh yeah, that carbon trading scheme, we voted against it”.

  5. Btw, with this GFC that leads to recession, factories closed down, less cars, less consumption, less growth etc etc etc, it must mean less global carbon emission for the next few years. Has anybody done any calculation on this?

  7. The Greens don’t have to worry about being in government. I’m sure they are sincere and I admire their fight but being practical is not one of their strong points. I really wonder if they were in government if they’d be prepared to go down with the ship by sticking by what they are advocating now. I doubt it. They’d realise that government is where changes are made, not opposition.
    Dyno, I’m getting the impression you’d vote for Rudd if he did what the Greens are advocating or are you just s..t stirring. I’m betting on the latter.

  8. True Xenophon, Fielding and Greens all won seats. All they need to do now is win seats in reps, find around 70 more mates to also win seats and they can make pollicies to their hearts content.

  9. [How will they go to their base voters and say “oh yeah, that carbon trading scheme, we voted against it”.]

    ShowsOn, their voter base isn’t stupid.

    They’ll see this isn’t a carbon reduction scheme but a multi billion handout to the energy industries.

  10. The next poll will be interesting, we now have something that might alter things. Bet the green vote goes up and the 2PP stays about the same.

    And as for Telstra being told where to get off all I can say is go Stephen Conroy, but be smart drop the net filter nonsense.

  11. Diogenes, I get your arguments. The bit I have a problem with is your assumption that some of us are supporting it simply because Rudd/Labor has done it. Now I along with others have been critical here and elsewhere of Rudd eg. on pensions, Hensen and internet censorship and I think we are smart enough to have a debate without resorting to the “you only like it because its labor” tag

  12. So th disenters wanted Rudd/oz to be th FIRST country in th World to commit to a sizable 2020 target , and not only that at 15% plus

    That would not hav been in this countrys National interests…and we could left all by ourselves facing econamic ruin That would be naive

  13. [Btw, with this GFC that leads to recession, factories closed down, less cars, less consumption, less growth etc etc etc, it must mean less global carbon emission for the next few years. Has anybody done any calculation on this?]
    No, but you are right.

    We may reduce by 5% just through less mining. Same deal with the U.S. lower growth, would mean less cars on the road, which means less pollution.

  14. Unddoubteldly like our business and industry leaders you cannot see how serious a problem climate change is and what effect it will have on the planet.
    Australia yes Australia are on a per capita basis the worst emitters in the world, we are simply pathetic here and Labor at present seems to think the problem is to hard that is why it is continuing to build roads, help coal plants and spend billons on such projects last week and a pathetic 500 million this week.
    Greensborough Labor is government not the Liberals, and i continue to hear the line oh the libs would never do anything.. Put simply Labor should start to realise that they are in government and running the country instead of playing politics with the environment and our future, especially something like the Murray Darling where the Murray simply is dying because this government is doing nothing.

  15. Frank Calabrese, I don’t think it’s impossible to criticise both Howard’s policies on climate change and Rudd’s.

    [All they need to do now is win seats in reps, find around 70 more mates to also win seats and they can make pollicies to their hearts content.]

    Vera, we don’t have a system where if you get 51% of the seats in the Lower House you have a mandate to do whatever the hell you like.

  17. [So th disenters wanted Rudd/oz to be th FIRST country in th World to commit to a sizable 2020 target]

    Ron, the EU has committed to 20% targets.

    And as Rudd himself pointed out, Australia has the most to lose from climate change compared to any other developed country. We also have the capabilities to make significant reductions. Why shouldn’t we be the first to act?

  18. [Frank Calabrese, I don’t think it’s impossible to criticise both Howard’s policies on climate change and Rudd’s.]

    No, I’m talking about The Libs courting the CFMEU vote (who represent the Coal Workers) by promising to roll back the targets etc.

  19. [So th disenters wanted Rudd/oz to be th FIRST country in th World to commit to a sizable 2020 target ]
    Ronster, the UK government is cutting by 15% by 2020 irrespective of world agreement, and by 20% if there is a world agreement.

  20. So let us pray for a DEPRESSION. No cars, no jobs, no factories, no oil, no coal, No emission, no %. I will vote for that. That will make the Greens very happy.

  22. The only analysis I’ve read on the GFC’s impact on CO2 emissions is that it will bring the annual growth level which is currently at 3% to zero.

  24. Fulvio

    I have no doubt that Labor is better than the Libs. That’s why I’ll support them second after my Green vote. And why GG’s right when he says the Greens shouldn’t split their ticket. Giving the Liberals more seats is the last thing we want.

    The guy I am helping a bit might well not even run but he has run before quite successfully. I think he’s interested in Water but doesn’t know much about it. There’s so much Water stuff in SA that he should be at the meetings showing an interest if he wants to get in.

    I’m not cut out for public life and my wife would kill me. My kids hate it when I go to Broken Hill for two days a month.

  25. True that, Vera. But the Greens, Xenophon and Fielding seem to have more fortitude than the Democrats, whether we agree with their policies or not.

  26. [#213, maybe Rudd’s 5% is the right number afterall with the GFC.]
    But we may get there automatically, so does that really count as changing the economy to make it less polluting during the next boom?

  28. [True that, Vera. But the Greens, Xenophon and Fielding seem to have more fortitude than the Democrats, whether we agree with their policies or not.]
    The first two yeah, but Fielding? I’m pretty sure he just flips a coin to figure out how to vote.

  29. Shows on a split ticket would hurt Labor, as their would be a small proportion of people who would drift away and this would threaten many marginal seats. If it wasn’t a problem why is the Labor Party worried about it. They are using the Greens and the Greens are getting very little in return. Whilist Labor is getting a swag of marginal seats over the line.
    In Victoria ten years of Labor has seen little done on climate change and they have mostly had control of both houses. Instead they continue to spend billions on roads and spin us all about big spending on Transport which is a lie. Their water policy is a fraud.
    Yep if one really thinks that Rudd will do something about Climate Change than they have rocks in their head.

  31. OZ , that is not correct Th EU hav an indicative asperational target only without any meechanism

    Th EU will be adopting Kyoto mark 11 targets , thats what they hav signed up for
    What you want is ‘oz’ to be first to formaly legisalate for 15% with coresponding ETS BEFORE Kyoto mark 11 No one else has done that , and you expect ‘oz to be th goose

  33. [First time I have seen one of their polls read like this.]

    Or considering it’s a News Ltd site, they’re voting too low cos they hate Rudd 🙂

  34. [Shows on a split ticket would hurt Labor, as their would be a small proportion of people who would drift away and this would threaten many marginal seats.]
    Maybe, but there could be some moderate liberals who will go the other way.

    I just think over all it won’t harm Labor’s preferences from the greens. I do not think green voters are going to think they will get a better deal from the liberals, given the environmental record of the Howard government.

  35. Andrew

    That certainly was not a blanket criticism. I was mainly thinking of Ronster and Gary actually but I’m much too nice and discreet to say in public that I think they’re blindly following Rudd and making it up as they go along.

    And before Ron and Gary reply, I’m off to bed to read a satire about a US senator who advocates a Voluntary Transition Bill wherein Baby Boomers can sign up for tax cuts and waiving of death duties in exchange for committing suicide when they turn 70.

  36. Stop thinking that people who vote for any party have some intelligence Shows on, that is why we had ten years of Howard and Bush elected.

  38. Gary,

    As I’m a cynical Liberal-voting bast..d, I always thought it was utterly ludicrous for Rudd to claim we could lead the world in combating CC. So I’m not really opposed to what he’s announced, in fact I think the Libs ought to support it.

    I do, however, think it’s reasonable to point out Rudd has now spent two years talking this issue up, but when it was time to actually deliver, what he delivered was … drum roll … wait for it … 5% on 2000 levels … um, you’ll have to pardon me (and everyone else) for thinking it’s the greatest anti-climax since the year dot.

    And I also think that if Mal and the Libs pass a basic intelligence threshold (and assuming there are no traps in the actual details), they ought to support this. That will be the end of CC as an issue the Libs have to worry about, at least for the life of this Parliament.

  40. [EU has committed to 20% targets.]

    “The EU’s 20 per cent target announced over the weekend is equal to a 24 per cent reduction in emissions for each European from 1990 to 2020.

  41. How come they are so stupid? Amazing.

    [Banks hit worldwide by US fraud – Some of the world’s biggest banks have revealed that they are victims of a fraud which has lost $50bn (£33bn). Bernard Madoff has been charged with fraud in what is being described as one of the biggest-ever such cases. Among the banks which have been affected are Britain’s RBS, Spain’s Santander and France’s BNP Paribas.]

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7783236.stm

  42. sorry

    “The EU’s 20 per cent target announced over the weekend is equal to a 24 per cent reduction in emissions for each European from 1990 to 2020.”

    “Our 5 per cent unconditional target is equal to a 27 per cent reduction in carbon pollution for each Australian from 2000 to 2020 – and a 34 percent reduction for each Australian from 1990.”

    http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2136:kevin-rudd&catid=1:latest

  43. Finnigans makes a good point about the GFC (and let’s be grown up and open about this, the recession which is undoubtedly coming).

    Whilst I think the next year or two could be pretty horrible, at least an economic downturn means a cut in emissions (relative to what would happen otherwise, anyway).

  44. 5% is, of course, a joke, climate-change-wise and everybody knows it, even the Pine Bark Beetles.

    15% by 2020, against whatever base line year, is another furphy. None of the one-eyed promoters is spouting it from the rooftops, but the 15% would not cut in at year one. Even if the targets are reached, the won’t be reached until about 2020. So 15% by 2020, whatever that means, won’t stop CC either. Given lag effects, it might just about begin to slow the rate of CC down by 2020.

    But any decent scientist will tell you the cat will be well and truly out of the bag by 2020.

    The 10% band between 5% and 15% could therefore be called the blather zone – too much ado about not enough. Greens, Labor, Liberal are all irrelevant brand names as CC cuts in.

    BTW, for those who are worried about the impact on Australian industry, the big economic negative for Australia will be on our terms of trade vis a vis our coal prices. The irony is that regardless of what Australia does, we are in for tough economic times as the rest of the world weans itself off coal. Even if we fudge our response, we will still get mugged.

  46. Dyno , I reckon rudd would hav prefferred to simply announse today that th Labor govt will be persuing 15% min at Coppenhaggen and will lobby recaliant Countrys in meantime to suport that min 15% That would hav avoided all th negatives here and inevitable poll hit he’ll take !!

    BUT to get RET and ETS Schemes up and operational (as they’re a long lead time) , he hd to come up with a figure…he picked one that will pass and which is far enough away from 15% it does not affect Coppenhaggen nuanced negotiations with US , China etc Rudd is getting criticised efectively for having to need a figure for RET and ES to get legislated

  47. Paaptsef, even if that was the case the EU would still have far lower per capita emissions than us. Figures were given earlier.

    Dyno, as I said, the modelling shows that the global recession, if we call it that, will stop growth in CO2 emissions whilst it is ongoing.

  48. What I don’t understand is that when Garnaut and Stern said that acting on climate change would not hurt our economies and would be extremely beneficial in everything except the very short term, they were lauded.

    But now even some of you are cracking out the disproven “Gotta save the economy” line.

  49. OZ , they’ve formally signed as both th EU and by annexa Countries to Kyoto mark 11 targets , they cann’t legislate till after Coppenhaggen People here want us to do beforehand

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 5 of 25
1 … 4 5 6 … 25