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 2 of 73
1 2 3 … 73

  2. The whole of Julia’s climate change speech in Brisbane is one confirmation
    that the ALP wanted to go ahead with a CPRS-like ETS.

    The ALP had been shaken by not being able to deliver on its promises
    by an obstructionist Liberal-Green senate and that was likely
    to continue. It is only fair and truthful to the electors that
    JG promised the Carbon Price if it could be managed politically.

    To put appropriate caveats on promises seems more honest
    than not.

    Dio you will need to show previous examples of where
    an election promise to do A in circumstance B
    is clearly not a policy.

  3. TSOP – Yes, I agree the MSM needs to be fairer (I’m being very, very nice….). But it’s also about how you influence the media to run with your view – the Coalition does this well, albiet bluntly. I believe the Govt needs someone with a refined sense of spin (yes, spin), to turn the tables and get the other side of the stories out there.

    (I am a Consultant, and my OH says I can only speak spin…..so read in context.)

  4. [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?]

    You could almost forgive the “working majority” part but the “so it can get things done” is disgraceful.

  5. Diogenous

    Julia proved you incorrect again

    “Julia Gillard’s full election policy speech:
    ‘Moving forward together on climate change’
    23/7/2010

    …”Our approach to developing an emissions trading scheme to suit the Australian economy – the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) – got a long way during the last two years.

    Ours was an ambitious, economy-wide scheme, which sought to put a limit on pollution – a limit that reflects the true cost of that pollution for our economy and our environment.

    The CPRS would require firms that need to use carbon in their work to acquire permits and allow those permits to be traded so that there is an incentive to reduce carbon pollution and so the permits can be used in the most efficient and productive ways.
    Revenue from the scheme – from the sale of permits – was planned to be used for assistance to help communities, families and firms to make the transition to a low-carbon economy.

    …As I said, it is an ambitious and complex scheme. When we brought it to the Parliament, which we did twice last year, it took up 11 separate bills.

    …..We worked, we listened, we negotiated throughout last year. And at the end of it, the Greens Party and the Liberal Party voted against the legislation that would have brought in the CPRS.

    MY JOB now is to explain the approach that a Labour Government will take to this (CC) challenge as we learn the lessons of the last year and look forward.

    The CPRS is, no doubt, a complex piece of policy. It is full of technical detail and focused on achieving long-term economic change.

    It is effective. I BELIEVE, and I think the scientific and economic consensus shows, that emissions trading is ESSENTIAL to limiting and reducing pollution. It is ambitious, in the sense that the aim was to introduce emissions trading across much of the economy and to introduce it quite fast…..

    In April, the government took a difficult decision which DEFERRED the CPRS until at least 2012.

    This decision followed Tony Abbott’s destruction of a bi-partisan consensus on this issue and the Greens’ decision not to support the CPRS that we put forward.

    This was a consensus supported by John Howard, Peter Costello, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull and many others across the Australian community.

    In the wake of that decision and of the Copenhagen Conference in December, I accept that we should have made OUR position clearer to the Australian community.

    We have not abandoned our commitment to take action on climate change. But if we learn the lessons I have outlined, then we need a different approach. We need national consensus on this vital, long-term issue of national interest….

    And so today I ANNOUNCE that if we are re-elected, I will develop a dedicated process – a Citizens’ Assembly – to examine over 12 months the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a MARKET-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions….

    The SECOND commitment I will give today is that, if we are re-elected, I will USE the CPRS as the BASIS for this Citizens’ Assembly and community consultation on the way forward in reducing pollution through a MARKET mechanism.

    In doing so, I RECOMIT TO the NEED for a MARKET (CPRS) mechanism. “

    http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/analysis/2266967/julia-gillard-climate-change?page=1

    Ron
    “Julia went to electon saying on TV that Labor CC polisy among MANY other CC actions) was a 5% ETS (CPRS) and her AIM was to get consensus for it with review of tht outcome in 2012 “

    Diogenes
    Posted Monday, October 4, 2010 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
    “You are the only person who believes what you are saying. Either that or you are lying.”

    Julia above said what i said

  7. Dr

    [Dio you will need to show previous examples of where
    an election promise to do A in circumstance B
    is clearly not a policy.]

    Umm. If it’s your policy, you don’t have to say “if the people want it we’ll do it”.

    That is not a policy.

  8. nappin, you will notice whenever Labor make a good point that actually gets repeated in the media, it’s very quickly dismissed as “Labor spin” see the Libs are that good at spin, they’ve convinced everyone that Labor are the spinmasters.

  9. nappin

    I think the Coal were very clever to run the line throughout Rudd’s leadership that he was the “King of Spin” or wtte. They got in first, so from then on Lab were on the back foot.
    We have the opposite in Victoria, where even when Lab is caught out spinning, somehow they retain their dominance-popularity. Brumby is so Kennett-lite.

  11. [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?]

    Actually I think everyone in Australia (except maybe the independent MPs) would agree with that proposition – I certainly do. The question the pollster forgot to ask is when this “new election” should be. Now? Next year? Or in late 2013?

  12. It will come, if the ALP let it.

    You mean if the god damn media do.

    The ALP just need to keep hammering on with the wrecker tag. Then need to be persistent and use it (and adjectives like it) for months and months – if not years.

    Part of the ALPs problem has been labelling the Libs. The Libs have nailed the ALP with the ‘poor economic management’ tag for near on 15 years now, and it has been deadly in its effectiveness. The ALP are just coming out of that fog now, albeit very slowly. The wrecker tag works well for Abbott, but they really need to find that negative tag that resonates with voters for the Lib party as a whole.

  14. [BK, next time we need a disclaimer I AM ONLY JOKING. Then, they will get it]

    I understood the sarcasm. Next time i’ll preface my remarks so you now that I know.

  16. Ron

    More lies. All she talks about is building consensus and letting someone else determine her policy, which may or may not be an ETS.

    That is not a policy and that’s why an ETS was not on the website as a policy.

  17. Yes, but true spin isn’t noticed. It’s not about making a good point, you are already behind if you are discussing a point. It has to be part of the conversation to work properly.

    I am not saying it would change tomorrow – it’s going to be a long hard road. lizzie, as you pointed out, the Coalition started early and are therefore on the front foot. The Roosters were ahead at half time on Sunday, but got done nicely in the end.

  19. I’m not actually sure who specifically owns Essential Media, but it was basically established to do work for the union movement, where many of its principals had previously worked. So notwithstanding that they might have been a bit sloppy in their wording of one survey question, I don’t think this hidden-agenda speculation gets you very far.

  20. [The ALP just need to keep hammering on with the wrecker tag. Then need to be persistent and use it (and adjectives like it) for months and months – if not years.

    Part of the ALPs problem has been labelling the Libs. The Libs have nailed the ALP with the ‘poor economic management’ tag for near on 15 years now, and it has been deadly in its effectiveness. The ALP are just coming out of that fog now, albeit very slowly. The wrecker tag works well for Abbott, but they really need to find that negative tag that resonates with voters for the Lib party as a whole.]

    You’re probably right there. We probably need Abbott to shoot down some meaningful, beneficial legislation, or pull some cowardly trick before that rhetoric can start having an effect. (I don’t think people care that much about minor parliamentary motions or changes to the House rules)

  22. Psephos

    1. How do you know that we’d get a majority govt in a re-election?

    2. How do you know this one won’t get things done?

  24. The ‘rabble’ tag worked well against the Libs for a while, but they have since co-opted it and reduced its effectiveness.

  26. Is this the first time, the News rags have quoted Essential Poll(very selectively I might add)? Wonder Why?????? Don’t think you have to be too bright to answer that question

  27. [Yes, but true spin isn’t noticed. ]

    Completely agree, nappin.
    It’s more about building a narrative in which everything feeds into it in a subtle way.
    Somehow, Labor aren’t getting the right professional help.
    Whereas Libs are using the old sales technique of “sell your weakness” and all the rest will follow. People actully believe that Hockey knows what he’s talking about on the economy 😆

  29. Any blogger reading Julia’s full CC comit in her Polisy SPEECH per #55 , can see you misrepresented what both I and Julia said about a Market based mechanism a CPRS

    your false one liners in th face of contrary full election polisy speech words from Julia is lame

    Your lies here is a disgrace to nuance attack Labor , even when evidence is presented so showing , but then you is an annoying pest idea

  30. Diog

    the reason that the ALP didn’t go hard in the election campaign was that they knew that they could effectively do nothing until the new Senate was appointed.

    Thus it was recognised that anything else was filling in time, which is not something political parties, particularly governments, like to admit to.

    But the ALP followed a perfectly consistent path – Rudd said that the CPRS would be delayed but that work would go ahead to make sure the targets were still being achieved. The policies on the website outline how this was going to happen – and, as I said, many of them refer to ‘working towards the targets’ or wtte.

    You have shifted from your hardline “Labor never said that!” to “Labor said that but they didn’t mean it!” – just demonstrating yet again that you’d rather shift the goalposts than admit you were……………………………………………….

  33. [You could almost forgive the “working majority” part but the “so it can get things done” is disgraceful.]

    I think it’s reasonable to give the most obvious potential end benefit for having a new election, otherwise some people might be wondering what the poll is getting at. If you are going to ask whether something unusual should be done, there must be a possible benefit that the pollster has in mind or they wouldn’t be asking. The problems the question has are that it comes across as pushing the new-election case and it’s all just too verbose.

  34. [1. How do you know that we’d get a majority govt in a re-election?
    2. How do you know this one won’t get things done?]

    In both cases, I don’t. But I think statistically another hung parliament would still be the least likely of the three possible outcomes of the next election.

  35. BTW, is someone able to give me a reference – other than the Liberals! – for the ‘no carbon tax’ quote?

    I’ve trawled through transcripts of interviews, press conferences, media releases, etc and am still to find it – don’t doubt it exists, just don’t want to keep wasting time!

  37. It would have been better to ask:

    “When do you think the next election should be?
    (a) as soon as possible
    (b) when and if it becomes clear that this parliament is unworkable
    (c) at the end of the three year term.”

  38. Re Essential, i found the question to be very negative and have told them so.
    surely its better to ask positive questions of people because after all this is the
    position its hung parliment and we have to work with it, as many countries in the world do.

    surely better to pose a positive question re the great opportunity this gives us as a nation to have better out comes.

  39. [Psephos

    Why are you pessimistic about this parlt “getting things done”?]

    I didn’t say I was. But obviously I would prefer a parliament with a Labor majority.

  40. z

    [“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.”]

  41. Psephos

    If I were designing a questionnaire, I wouldn’t confuse with an alternative “when and if”.
    Remember KISS.
    People aren’t all that happy about surveys, and anything “complicated” brings stupid responses.

  42. Diog

    find me a quote that says that labor backed away from the commitment to introduce one.

    This was one of the examples of poor salesmanship during the campaign – the ‘Labor has no policy on climate change’ furphy was never challenged officially.

    Labor never changed its policy, it merely changed its implementation date.

    So please find me a quote to prove that Labor decided to trash the CPRS, rather than just getting all coy about how and when they were going to introduce one.

    As I said, my candidate (whom, as you know, I am very close to) was pulled up on a number of occasions for ‘misspeaking’ – but never when they said, as they did repeatedly, that Labor was committed to a CPRS.

    I’m willing to agree that they were too coy about stating it outright, largely I believe because admitting that they couldn’t do anything until a new Senate came in embarrassed them. But I know absolutely that there was never any backing away from a CPRS (and I’ve read ALP briefings on the issue that I would have to kill myself if I disclosed them here…)

  43. z

    [find me a quote that says that labor backed away from the commitment to introduce one.]

    Same quote.

    [“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.”]

  45. Again, Diog, quoting the quote doesn’t answer my question – what is the source of the quote? Which interview? Which press release? In answer to what question?

  47. [“…she said of the next parliament…”]

    As long as she takes it to the next election, there’s no problem and there ought to be no fuss.

  48. Oh and ‘she said of the next parliament’…as I said, they changed the implementation timelines.

    I don’t approve of that, but changing the timeline is not backing away from the CPRS itself.

    The quote you used doesn’t say ‘no CPRS’; it says ‘we may get one in the next parliament’.

  49. [So notwithstanding that they might have been a bit sloppy in their wording of one survey question, I don’t think this hidden-agenda speculation gets you very far]

    No me neither, but it does make you think if every one understands what a hung parliament is.

    I for instance up until last week didnt realise they that ind could actually chop and change their vote on policies, and i wasn’t surprised when i had a comment from my oh and one of the my daughters who said , what are they doing voting with the Liberals when they went to labor.

    Then of course I to realised that its supply and conficence that they quarantee. which makes a workable gov. and keeps it intack.

    This also makes me think that some lib, politicians did not seem to realise that either.

    As i i wondered how they thought they could change gov. last week in qt. and when the libs did get a vote on the floor for the minor policiy they were extactic. I noted the pictures of some of them in the msm laughing across the despatch box, it was quite sickening.

    So al in all i think people may be just starting to realise what a hung parliment is and how it works, that was why i was very annoyed at their question we need educate people even if its with a polling question..

  50. Dio

    You have said several times that an election policy/promise is not one
    if it has the form “We will do A if B”

    Where is your proof?

    You have also arbitrarily decided to only look for JG’s short term
    promises rather than the long term Carbon Price and
    meeting 2020 limits policies.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 2 of 73
1 2 3 … 73