Essential Research: 58-42

The latest weekly Essential Research has Labor’s lead at 58-42, down from 60-40 last week and 62-38 the week before. Also featured are yet more questions on the global financial crisis and one on the recent activities of Peter Costello, of which most respondents take a dim view. Also:

• The government’s second go at the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill passed the House of Representatives yesterday. Daryl Melham, Labor’s member for Banks and chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, had some harsh words during the debate for Family First Senator Steve Fielding, who joined with the Coalition to reject the earlier version of the bill in the Senate last week.

• The redistribution of Tasmanian electorates (which uniquely applies to both federal and state elections) has been finalised, with only minor amendments to the boundaries as originally proposed. These have very slightly weakened Labor’s position in both Braddon and Franklin. More from Antony Green.

• The Electoral Commissioner has determined quotas for Queensland and New South Wales, the first stage in the redistributions that will give a new seat to the first at the expense of the second.

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.

1,741 comments on “Essential Research: 58-42”

Comments Page 34 of 35
1 33 34 35
  1. [After Tomorrows Queensland election wipeout for the LNP you can bet there won’t be ever be a Federal LNP]


  2. 57/43 is still pretty good for the ALP, and it really had to happen given what the unemployment rate is doing. Still, the payouts from the next round of the stimulus package comes out in April and that may have an effect on the immediate polling environment.

    I’ll wait to see how it fits into Possums Polytrend plot before i start losing any sleep over it, and even then i’d want to look at how that responds over time. Don’t think there is a lot of joy in these figures for the Libs but i’d expect that some will start yelling “The Honeymoon is Over” (again) and “The Narrowing”!!!

    Will be funny if the Libs TPP istarts looking better, but Malcopops PPM numbers go further down the toilet. Might bring on the bloodletting they have to have??

  3. Gusface 2 1651 off course there won’t ever be a federal LNP the four other National Party state branches have made that clear but the LNP emanating out of Queensland will ensure in the future a more even balance between the National and Liberal parties in Canberra.

  4. It is curious how ABC online always says Labor are “forced to defend” themselves from something, yet they have a ‘top story’ there now which says “Springborg brushes off PM’s attack”

  5. [a. why did the ALP ask for a revote
    b. which idiot from the LP was late]
    a. LNP asked for a revote
    b. Scullion (CLP) I think.
    … but then a Labor senator was late soon after for another vote.

  6. [1649 – I said there will be an inevitable swing away given higher unemployment and general economic negativity.]
    And there have been the same swing aways for a small period of time last year before the GFC. I don’t believe any party can sustain those record highs under any circumstances.
    1650 Paul Nash – the assumption there is that state election results mean federal election results will be the same. You have a short memory my friend. Remember Howard facing a wall of state and territory Labor governments then winning elections himself? Nuff said.

  7. #1660
    Interesting. Either it’s a mistake or means that only a tie is needed to defeat the amendment that’s just been defeated by the House. A majority is needed only to _pass_ something, but the whole bill was already passed last night. It’s confusing and I’m guessing here.

  8. I guess it makes sense. If the 20-worker threshold amendment added by the Senate last night is voted on again in isolation, a tie will defeat it.

  9. The senate procedures are very clear…

    “if a majority votes against the motion that the Senate does not insist on its amendments, the effect is that the amendments are insisted on”

    but considering a motion
    “that the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

    … if a majority votes against this motion, the effect is that the amendments are insisted upon. However, if the votes are equally divided the effect is that the amendments are not insisted on. The rationale for this outcome is that the equally divided vote indicates that the amendments themselves are now not supported by a majority. If they were, the motion would have been defeated by a majority, possibly the same majority required to make the amendments in the first place. So the bill now proceeds without the amendments.”

  10. I’m confused too (but that’s normal)
    triton 1662, that makes sense. But then would there have to be another vote on the original bill with 15 employees and if so wouldn’t the crossbenchers just vote it down because their 20 employee ammendment wasn’t aggreed to?

  11. I’ll try to put my understanding simply: It took a majority of the Senate to pass the amendment last night, so if that majority does not still exist (e.g., if Fielding or X change their mind) then the amendment will now fail, so the 15 threshold in the original bill will stand.

  12. vera, looks like they might get it through then with X but a bit of a bummer that means that the DD is one legislative issue further away, I was kind of looking forward to it in 6 months πŸ˜‰

  13. I doubt Rudd wants an early election, I think he’ll wait until the redistribution is completed in N.S.W and Qld(which could be favourable to Labor, considering that one Coalition seat in N.S.W will likely be abolished).

  14. Does anyone know re. comments in 1668 @ redistribution in NSW/QLD, is there an estimated time of completion for this yet?

  15. #1668

    Isn’t it more likely a Labor seat in western Sydney will be abolished as they have relatively low enrolments? I am assuming here that after the Gwyder controversy in 2006, the committee wont want to abolish another seat west of the divide, as those enrolments are quite low too.

  16. Juliem: I’m sure I read somewhere that Gilmore would likely be abolished, and Throsby would take in everything from Wollongong to Batesman Bay(New South Wales South Coast) – therefore a Labor seat.

  17. #1652 (Imacca) “…start losing any sleep”. Huh, fluctuations in the opinion polls are surely not that important!

  18. The polls can also have MOE movements and outliers. Cant read anything into this poll by itself. However it is inevitable in my view that governments figures will come down once people start to get hit by the GFC or start to worry about it. Many people are quite often unaware of the good things the govt has done and by default blame govt. The media doesn’t help. I don’t think the govt will lose the next election but very much doubt that the final result will be too much different unless the Opposition is a rabble at the time.

    If however we avoid a recession or have only a temporary hit and the economy is well on recovery track? Many people wont know their bacon was just saved because, well nothing much seemed to change. The ship didn’t sink, so there cannot have been anything wrong with it.

  19. Remember, the Government only needs 1 more vote now, either Xenophon or Fielding. They don’t need both because a tied vote means the senate won’t assist on the amendments that the government disagreed to in the house.

  20. For unfair dismissal a small business will be defined as:
    Until 1 January 2011, 15 small time equivalents.
    After 1 January 2011, it will be 15 employees by a head count.

  21. Vera, I’ll always have state and federal Liberal MPs LOL
    The day Labor wins a seat on Sydney’s North Shore, Hell freezes over.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 34 of 35
1 33 34 35