Essential Research: 52-48 to Coalition; Morgan 54.5-45.5 to Labor

Only the two weekly pollsters to keep us entertained in the wake of last week’s glut, and the results offer something for everybody.

Bit of a difference of opinion this week between Essential Research, a series renowned for its stability, and the Morgan multi-mode poll which, until now at least, has adhered very closely to the overall polling trend. The former has the Coalition ahead 52-48, as it did last week when it took the unusual step of publishing a figure for the polling period immediately following the leadership change, instead of its usual fortnightly rolling average. The major parties’ primary votes are also unchanged, with Labor on 38% and the Coalition on 46%, while the Greens are down a point to 8%.

Morgan on the other hand gives Labor an eyebrow-raising lead of 54.5-45.5 on respondent-allocated preferences, up from 51.5-48.5 on last time, although on the more trustworthy measure of previous election preferences the result is a slightly less striking 52.5-47.5, up from 51-49. This is the first time the Morgan multi-mode series has produced a substantial disparity between the two measures, and it’s in the opposite direction of the issue which bedevilled the old Morgan face-to-face series, in which preferences flows to Labor were unrealistically weak. The primary votes are 41.5% for Labor (up two), 39.5% for the Coalition (down one) and 8.5% for the Greens (unchanged).

The Essential poll also gauges views on the leaders’ attributes, which should make enjoyable reading for Kevin Rudd, who is widely rated as intelligent, hard-working and capable, and not seen as narrow-minded, intolerant or out of touch. His worst results on negative measures were for arrogant and erratic, while his weakest on positive measures were for honesty, trustworthiness and being visionary. Abbott rated well for hard-working and intelligent, as political leaders generally do, but also scored high for narrow-minded, arrogant and out of touch. Fewer than a third of respondents thought him trustworthy, honest or visionary.

Forty-nine per cent of respondents thought Labor would be more united in the wake of the leadership change, against 14% for less united. Other questions found a general view that the election should be held sooner than later, and produced unsurprising results on asylum seekers, the NBN, mining tax, carbon tax, disability insurance and the education reforms formerly known as Gonski.

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.

1,135 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Coalition; Morgan 54.5-45.5 to Labor”

  1. [The Abbott stuff has nothing to do with the ALP it was a story by Margot Kingston]
    And that is why the ABC has ticked me off.
    They ran the story themselves in July 2010, so why not just report it instead of putting the Coalitions spin on it?

  2. alias @ 909

    ‘BoerWar

    I note your point of view, but I think I will leave this for now. I think we have to agree to disagree on this, and just observe how things unfold in the lead-up to the election. Post election, there will be plenty of time to debate matters of leadership, whether in Government or Opposition.’

    If Rudd has his way there will be no ‘debate about the leadership’. Rudd’s Plan is that the 75% rule ensures Labor has him as leader for infinity, given that he is obviously immortal.

  3. In any case, it wouldn’t have any traction (what little it has) if the LNP had not gone in hard on Slipper’s mere thousand (in comparison).

  4. We now have proof Rudd is Murdoch’s new darling … the video link to morrison was just hit by the anti-Gillard gremlins

    Abbott is definitely gone!

  5. These polls are all spun by the leftwing media to try and make it look like the election will be tight to sell newspapers.

    Rudd has no chance of winning, he is yesterdays man with an ego.

  6. Form the snouts in the trough dept.

    [The Newman government has told Queensland a blatant lie in announcing a $57,000 pay rise for politicians as the real figures revealed today show much higher increases – as much as double that for the Premier.

    Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk said the true rate of the pay rise had been revealed in the Member’s Entitlement Handbook posted on-line late yesterday which shows the Premier’s salary alone will go from $280,000 to more than $398,000.

    Ms Palaszczuk said the Deputy Premier would now receive another $100,000 and Ministers salaries will increase by more than $90,000.

    “And that is disgusting,” she said.]

  7. Sean Tisme@1106

    These polls are all spun by the leftwing media to try and make it look like the election will be tight to sell newspapers.

    Rudd has no chance of winning, he is yesterdays man with an ego.

    MB is trolling us!

  8. [Ms Palaszczuk said the Deputy Premier would now receive another $100,000 and Ministers salaries will increase by more than $90,000.

    “And that is disgusting,” she said.]

    Will she be donating her pay increase to the Salvo’s?

    If not, why not?

  9. @Sean/1111

    Ms Palaszczuk does not need to do that, not only that Mr Newman failed to protect electricity prices.

    No mandate.

  10. zoidlord,

    The media like a tight election because it helps them sell newspapers. Landslide wins means everyone turns off and isn’t interested, we all like a nail biter.

    Why would people vote for the Labor shenanigans of the last 6 years, for another 3 years

  11. Bemused

    I have noted some things.

    Especially the positioning from the Rudds ad about “Australians want a positive political blah blah blah”.

    Just think through the logic of the rhetoric.

    Australians want a positive blah blah blah

    Unsaid in this is:
    We currently have a negative political landscape.
    But who is causing this negative political landscape?
    Well if it is not Kevin Rudd (cause he is saying this), then who is it?

    Then next time Abbott speaks, he answers Rudd’s unsaid question about who is causing the negativity. And thus reinforcing Rudd as the one to fix the negativity.

    Its pretty clever.

  12. Why would people vote for Tony Abbott?

    Sean, your question and mine are two of the greatest mysteries in life. Our puny minds will never comprehend them, but people were apparently going to vote TA and now they’re apparently going to vote for that Labor rabble.

  13. interesting that Bridie Jabour, the journalist who persisted asking Abbott about his $9k travel expenses he had to repay (claimed them when promoting his BattleLines book) – is employed by the Guardian.

    Wouldn’t get this from Murdoch or Fairfax hacks.

    And Abbott losing his cool, patronisingly saying “Calm down” to Bridie, and trying to turn the source of the questioning onto Kevin Rudd is evidence of dissembling.

  14. [Why would people vote for the Labor shenanigans of the last 6 years, for another 3 years}

    This is a tough one… Perhaps, because they are the party of Policy for a future for ALL Australians and the Coalition is the party of the past with NO policy and no fucking idea?
    Mind you this is just a guess.

  15. Why would people vote for the Labor shenanigans of the last 6 years, for another 3 years?

    Tony Abbott – is one reason
    Climate Change deniers is another
    Fraudband
    Possible confrontation with Indonesia over boat people

    5.4% Unemployment
    lowest interest rates in 50 years
    a strong economy

    Rudd fantastically popular compared to a puppet.

  16. Sean Tisme@1106

    These polls are all spun by the leftwing media to try and make it look like the election will be tight to sell newspapers.

    Rudd has no chance of winning, he is yesterdays man with an ego.

    As another poster has already spotted, you sound exactly like PB’s resident polling denialist Meguire Bob, only Liberal. Substitute “rightwing” for “leftwing” and “Abbott” for “Rudd”, and “will be a landslide” for “will be tight” and I’d be surprised if MB hadn’t made the equivalent post at least 35 times.

    If you’re panicking this much at c. 50-50 imagine where you will be if Labor actually takes the lead.

    The polls weren’t spun by the leftwing media when your crew were a million miles ahead. They are no more so now.

  17. @davidwh/1122

    If you going to take along time to answer something, or being long winded about it, then journos have every right to be interuptive.

    Shows that Abbott is still not ready for PMship.

    I watched that youtube link all he said was “Gary Grey” and try it point it on labor.

  18. [Bridie did interrupt his answer twice before he asked her to calm down.]

    Because he non-answered three times with the same crap response and she didn’t want him to wriggle out of it again.

  19. sprocket_@1118

    interesting that Bridie Jabour, the journalist who persisted asking Abbott about his $9k travel expenses he had to repay (claimed them when promoting his BattleLines book) – is employed by the Guardian.

    Yes, quite recently. Was at brisbanetimes.com.au only months ago.

    Daily Telegraph online picking it up:

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-sparks-storm-on-twitter-after-telling-bridie-jabour-to-calm-down/story-fni0cx12-1226676460305

  20. As usual, j.v. and bemused have missed my point – factions exist in all organisations.

    As someone who has successfully engineered it so that factions don’t have any say at all in my policy committee, I’m scarcely a defender of the way they operate.

    To pretend that there are simple and easy changes which will ‘eliminate’ factional control of the party is ridiculous.

    Indeed, some of the changes proposed by Rudd will – in practise – see factional control of the party strengthen, not weaken.

    Factions are a fact of life. They exist in the Liberal party (no one seems at all concerned about that, or about the way the Libs elect their leader), in the Greens, and in organisations like my local soccer club.

  21. bluegreen@1115

    Bemused

    I have noted some things.

    Especially the positioning from the Rudds ad about “Australians want a positive political blah blah blah”.

    Just think through the logic of the rhetoric.

    Australians want a positive blah blah blah

    Unsaid in this is:
    We currently have a negative political landscape.
    But who is causing this negative political landscape?
    Well if it is not Kevin Rudd (cause he is saying this), then who is it?

    Then next time Abbott speaks, he answers Rudd’s unsaid question about who is causing the negativity. And thus reinforcing Rudd as the one to fix the negativity.

    Its pretty clever.

    Yes, I think part of the cleverness is that when the Libs release their torrent of negative advertising it will just reinforce Rudd’s message and rebound badly on them. The more they spend, the worse it will get. 😀

  22. BEMUSED

    we
    wondered if albo just let MT talk, , was it all spot on what mt said,

    if not, it could be looked at from another position,
    so question did albo just let mt waffle on,
    he a sort of smile on his face as mt was talking
    as though he just did not want to butt in
    was Mt so technical that one could not fault his words
    or otherwise

  23. [Why would people vote for the Labor shenanigans of the last 6 years, for another 3 years]

    Or, maybe its because the Coalition is led by a clueless bully boy who couldn’t lie straight in bed…. is negative… is divisive… full of slogans and full of shit?

    Maybe even, that the alternative represents a return to a past already rejected… y’know little things like: AWB, Never ever, Children Overboard, War on a Lie, Higher tax, 7 interest rate rises in a row, No Infrastructure spend, No Education spend, No Health spend, Profligate waste to get reelected… simple stuff like that.

    Just tossing it out there.

  24. It seems to me that PMKRs proposal to amend the manner in which leaders are chosen for the parliamentary party, if I understand it correctly, may well be a worthwhile reform. I suspect the threshhold is too high — 75% for a spill is catastrophe territory. 60% is plenty. I assume, though I don’t know ‘weighted vote’ implies that ultimately the two form a single ‘electorate’ so that if the leader was popular with caucus then it wouldn’t be a veto, as much as requiring a much more decisive vote for a change and vice versa.

    What this episode does affirm, again, is that Tony Abbott and his advisers are politically inept. Abbott’s response was that {PMKR} was only doing this to protect himself against the factions.

    Ya think? In one pithy grab, Abbott declared that his opponent was taking up the fight against the factions and faceless men that were of such concern to people in his view and allowed that that the measure might be successful. PMKR really ought to send Abbott some flowers.

    Really, whatever PMKRs motives, having Abbott endorse his fight must be a huge bonus.

  25. [Bridie did interrupt his answer twice before he asked her to calm down.]

    I’m pretty sure without even seeing it that Abbott was not ‘answering’ and that her attempts to get Abbott to actually address the question were entirely reasonable. Very surprising Abbott didn’t cut and run like he usually does when the dixers finish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *