Essential Research: 51-49 to Labor

The latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor maintaining its 51-49 lead from last week, but with the Coalition gaining a point on the primary vote to 44 per cent, Labor stable on 42 per cent and the Greens down a point further to an undernourished 8 per cent. When asked whether Tony Abbott was “unfairly putting roadblocks in the way of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s programs”, 46 per cent rated him too obstructive while 54 per cent believed his actions “appropriate” for an Opposition Leader (not sure where the don’t knows went). A surprisingly large majority agreed there should be a new election, perhaps owing to the question’s rather odd qualification that such an election would allow us “a Government with a working majority”: 55 per cent agreed with only 23 per cent disagreeing. Findings on “attributes to describe the Prime Minister” have Julia Gillard deteriorating on all measures since the questions were last posed on July 5. Her worst reversal is a 15 per drop on “good in a crisis”, which forcefully makes the point that there’s no accounting for taste. The figures for Tony Abbott are little changed, with a general pattern of very slight improvements. Gillard remains better placed than Abbott on each measure, being well ahead on “down to earth” and well behind on “narrow-minded” and “arrogant”.

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.

3,648 comments on “Essential Research: 51-49 to Labor”

Comments Page 1 of 73
1 2 … 73

  1. [ actions “appropriate” for an Opposition Leader (not sure where the don’t knows went). A surprisingly large majority agreed there should be a new election, perhaps owing to the question’s rather odd qualification that such an election would allow us “a Government with a working majority”: 55 per cent agreed with only 23 per cent disagreeing]

    This new election meme thing just dont make sense

    🙁

    I just dont get some of the results

  3. Gus

    The question was very dodgy.

    [Australia would do better to have a new election, so we can have a Government with a working majority…so it can get things done. Do you agree with that or
    not?]

    Even allowing for that, it’s still quite a lot.

    If we had another election, based on current polling, we’d probably get a hung parliament again.

  4. Ron

    Are you saying that ALP policy is for an ETS? I thought they were onto a carbon price now? She clearly said there wouldn’t be a carbon price/tax and now said there would be. The PM, Emerson and Conroy have all struggled to effectively answer this question in the last week. The ALP will be hammered over this issue for the rest of this term in parliament, so I hope they have their lines sorted out. Even Oakeshotte sounded uncertain what was going on on Q&A last week.

  5. Gus

    It does emphasise that Labor-Greens-Indies need to get some runs on the board or that sentiment of “not getting things done” will escalate.

  6. Essential have erred in their wording of the new election question, which incorporates the argument in favour of a positive response – and it’s a flawed argument at that, failing as it does to account for the possibility that a new election might merely produce another hung parliament.

  7. Well they have sat for precisely three days, what is it essential and the punters think they should have achieved?

    Is there some way we can plead with these pollsters to go on leave for about 2 years and leave us alone?

  8. My first reaction was to ask myself “what the hell do the punters want in a PM?”, the second thing was to say to myself “nothing! the footys on, summers coming and politics is the last thing on the minds of most people”. The last thing I thought was “that is the most loaded question for a poll ever posed”. The answer is almost meaningless.

  9. The good people of Caracas have elected one Stalin Gonzalez as one of their representatives in the National Assembly of Venezuela. The joke is that he’s not a member of President Chavez’s Socialist Party (which the Communist Party is part of), but a member of the opposition Democratic Unity Movement.

  10. [Essential have erred in their wording of the new election question]
    Exactly my first reaction. To me it is blindingly obvious, so presumably it would be such to the professionals at Essential, so how did it get through?

    … or has Rupert……?

  12. Finns

    [Gus, i am feeling hungry. time for lunch]

    I had a Lucky Buddha beer last night with my Kung Pao chicken. The bottle was a cute chubby Buddha. It was yummy.

  13. Dr Good

    [“I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”]

    Since when has “not ruling something out” translated into it being your policy?

  14. [The good people of Caracas have elected one Stalin Gonzalez ]

    Well Herr Doktor, there is one Ivan Popov, ex Siberia, representing Australia in Wrestling at the CommGames in India. And he is a hot favourite to win a Gold for Australia. You gotta love this Country.

  15. Harse
    Posted Monday, October 4, 2010 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Ron

    1/ “Are you saying that ALP policy is for an ETS? ”

    that was CPRS/ETS polisy Labor took to 2010 election , ie a MARKET BASED mechanism , with a STATED AIM of getting consensus for that Market based mechanism via 2 Assemblys

    Julia said that repeat in campiagn , despite unknowing noises here to contrary

    Remeber , at that stage , a hung parliament was not considered , simply Labor vs Liberals in HoR

    2/ ” She clearly said there wouldn’t be a carbon price/tax and now said there would be.”

    no , she said there wuld not be a carbon tax

    she DID say her aim was a price on carbon …ie reiterating her EARLIER electon statements of her aim for a market base mechanism , ie CPRS

    3/ “I thought they were onto a carbon price now? ”

    no
    She said she said due to election result of hung HoR , she now wuld not rule anything out

    Tho Greg Combet said a CPRS was base line start for new CC paridym Committee
    No Green MP queried that at all

    (tho one can also take Julia’s no rule out as meaning she is prepared to talk about it , ie no closed mind , and that is in context of Combet’s CPRS base line START point)

  16. Dr Good

    Why then do the ALP stay silent when people such as the horrendous Sophie accuse them of lying when they say they are introducing a carbon price. They have a serious job ahead of them to sell this thing, and I don’t think they have got off to a very good start. I see little difference between a price and a tax, and if it means that prices will increases then that’s a tough one to sell. But they need to have at least something of an answer when the abominable Sophie spouts her bile. Listen to Conroy an Q&A it seemed to me that he really didn’t know what was happening.

  17. Ron

    [Tho Greg Combet said a CPRS was base line start for new CC paridym Committee
    No Green MP queried that at all]

    Umm, no he didn’t. From the ALP website, the article “Building consensus on Climate Change” written by Combet.

    [The Committee will start from the position that a carbon price is an economic reform that is required to reduce carbon pollution and drive investment in renewable energy, low pollution technologies and more energy efficient ways of doing things.]

    STOP THE LIES

  19. That is selective quoting Dio.

    what about

    ” JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.”

    or

    “the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.”

    or

    “She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed.”

  21. Ron

    The ALP need to

    1 – sell the difference between a carbon price and a carbon tax
    2 – be prepared for the onslaught that will come when they say ‘well the hung parliament changes everything’ (technically it may, but morally if you say you won’t do something and then you do, that requires more of an explanation – as Abbott said, you shouldn’t have taken the commission in the first place.
    3 – sell the fact that electricity will not rise by 4 billion percent
    4 – and say it ain’t a great big new tax

    All of these things will make the BER campaign seem mild, so I hope they are prepared.

  22. Harse
    “horrendos Sophie”, “abominable Sophie . . spouting bile”.
    I won’t have a bar of this. She is an adorable lady of many fine attributes.

  23. [ Diog, how hot was your Kung Pao chicken? Plenty of Szechuan peppercorns? ]

    Szechuan pepper is not hot, if a Szechuan dish is hot it likely chillie.

  24. Harse,

    I agree wholeheartedly that the ALP needs a swift kick in the rear about communicating with the punters. The persons responsible for the abysmal decisions being made in this area need to be given jobs with the NSW Govt. However, I disagree with your comment re price and tax – it’s an important difference when you are explaining the facts (over and over again) as to why we have to pay for the resources we use. A tax goes to Govt, the price is something you pay.

  25. Dr Good

    Disingenuous BS.

    [“She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed.”]

    That means it isn’t her policy. You can’t have a huge caveat like “if sufficient consensus exists” and say it’s your policy.

    [” JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.”]

    She is prepared to do it if it other things happen, like it being a political winner, ie it is not her policy.

    STOP THE LIES

  26. [Harse
    “horrendos Sophie”, “abominable Sophie . . spouting bile”.
    I won’t have a bar of this. She is an adorable lady of many fine attributes]

    I watched on ABC24 2 days ago so it’s kind of fresh in my mind. That that is considered acceptable behaviour by a politician on national TV says something about the Liberal party.

  28. [“the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.”]

    So it’s only her policy if it’s a vote winner. If the focus groups don’t like it, then it’s not her policy.

  30. [it’s an important difference when you are explaining the facts (over and over again) as to why we have to pay for the resources we use. A tax goes to Govt, the price is something you pay.]

    I agree it is an important difference, but whichever way it works it will lead to increased prices to consumers, which makes it a hard message to sell, particularly when you start 10 goals behind.

  33. Diog

    from the last thread…

    Quote from Julia Gillard in an interview with Lyndal Curtis on August 21st:

    [PM: Oh well, let’s Lyndal once again focus on the choice. Do you want me as Prime Minister – this is the choice for the Australian people – do they want me as Prime Minister. I believe in climate change and I will work for a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme]

    Sorry, don’t have link – I got sent transcripts during the campaign – but I’m sure it’s findable.

  34. Finns
    Harse is an infrequent (new even?) Bludger so I thought he may not have latched on to our mutual admiration of said lady.

  35. z

    Gillard repeatedly said that she would only go for an ETS if the community wanted it.

    [provided the community was ready for this step]

    That is not a policy; it’s a caveat which means it is not your policy. And it fits exactly with what is and was on the ALP website.

    The ETS is not and was not Labor policy going into the election. They always had weasel words and caveats to get out of it.

  36. [Harse
    “horrendos Sophie”, “abominable Sophie . . spouting bile”.
    I won’t have a bar of this. She is an adorable lady of many fine attributes.]
    … for a puff adder.

  39. Re the essential poll and the questions regarding “attributes of the PM”.

    Comparing the results to when the questions were last asked on July 5 Julia has deteriorated on all measures. It must however be remembered that in that three month period we have had the election campaign includung leaks and two weeks during that campaign of very negative MSM towards her. So I don’t think too much should be assumed from this decline.

    It would more interesting to have been able to see if Julias’ percentages had been on a constant decline since July 5 or if they had flatlined somewhere near or at the end of the campaign and since then started to improve taking into account the negotiations etc. However, these questions were not answered on a weekly or two weekly basis so because of the unique circumstances covered bt this period nothing can be determined.

    Hopefully, these questions will be answered on a regular basis in the future and, if so, we might be able to get a better idea as to how Julia is going.

  40. Can I also point out that, in the context of the election, and thus the context in which Gillard answered the question, ‘carbon tax’ had a very distinct meaning from ‘carbon price’.

    Gillard ruled out a ‘carbon tax’ – that is, the specific policy idea put forward by the Greens as a bridging device to get us through until other mechanisms were available.

    The CPRS was always Labor’s policy. It didn’t have to be restated during the campaign or on the website because that was clear (although there are a couple of references along wtte ‘to achieve the cut in emissions we’re aiming for’ in various policy docs).

    The Citizens Assembly was to see if a ‘people’s jury’ would come to the same conclusion about a CPRS. If they’d said no, all it would have said to the government was that they needed to refine their message – I remember Gillard being asked that, if the CA ruled out a CPRS, then it was dead in the water, and she said no.

    My candidate got pulled up by the PM’s office for a couple of statements during the campaign, but never for saying that Labor wanted to introduce a CPRS or that it was working towards a 5-25% cut.

    I COULD find references for all of this, but it took me five minutes trawling through transcripts to find the one above, and by that time this thread was already 30 posts old!

  41. The Margaret Simons piece linked to by Gaffhook above contains an excellent account of what was really wrong with James Massola’s article, courtesy of media ethics specialist Denis Muller of Swinburne University of Technology:

    [Dishonesty in rationale. The intro contains a gross exaggeration which is then used to provide a public-interest justification for the outing. The gross exaggeration is that the blogger had “prompted Mark Scott to redirect the ABC’s federal election coverage”. “Redirect” suggests that it caused Scott to alter the direction of the coverage. To use a word popular in this debate, that is just bollocks. As the article itself shows, Scott’s reference in his keynote speech at the New News conference was no more than illustrative of the way in which the ABC responded to audience criticism and feedback generally during the election campaign. He ascribed no special influence to Grog’s Gamut. In my view, the public-interest justification does not exist. That makes the outing harder to defend, if a defence is needed. It would have been more honest just to out the man and be done with it.

    Dishonesty in argument. The seventh par states that the blogger shows a strong preference for the ALP, “despite” the Public Service code of conduct requiring the APS to be apolitical. The use of the word “despite” sets up the false proposition that what the blogger was doing in his private capacity was somehow a breach of his obligations in his professional capacity. This is mendacious and indefensible. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would debar public servants from participating as individuals in the political life of the nation, a situation that has never existed in Australia, or any other Western democracy for that matter.

    False comparison. Comparing the outing of Grog’s Gamut – who had merely wished anonymity – with the outing of Helen Demidenko – who had publicly lied about her identity – is utterly without moral or logical foundation.]

  43. z

    [The CPRS was always Labor’s policy. It didn’t have to be restated during the campaign or on the website because that was clear (although there are a couple of references along wtte ‘to achieve the cut in emissions we’re aiming for’ in various policy docs).]

    Yep right. It was so much Labor policy that they just neglected to mention it on either their website or in interviews.

  45. zoomster

    Thank you. I have stayed away from posting recently because everyone seemed very argumentative (hormones rising in spring?).
    You have satisfactorily summed up the reasons why I believe that carbon pricing was on hold, but a carbon tax had been ruled out.
    Some of the posters have been successfully conned by the libs who are simply calling eveything GBNCarbonTax becaase it suits them to use the word tax. “Our Sophie” got away with that on Q&A.
    Thank you again.

  46. [It will come, if the ALP let it.]

    You mean if the god damn media do.

    Last week we had plenty of poignant rhetoric made by the ALP about what spiteful children the opposition are and we saw Abbott slip on his ass with the Deputy Speaker election…

    …unless you only watched the 6 o’clock news, then you saw a passionate opposition beat the government on the floor of the House, the first such instance since 1941!

    Tony Abbott could bludgeon a kitten to death and the feral media would portray him as a hero for doing so.

  47. [BK
    “horrendos Sophie”, “abominable Sophie . . spouting bile”.
    I won’t have a bar of this. She is an adorable lady of many fine attributes.]
    You must have enjoyed a “re-education camp”!

    Why is it that any time I’m here, this same person comes up?

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 1 of 73
1 2 … 73