Essential Research: 51-49 to Coalition

Slightly better news for Labor from Essential Research, which records essentially no change on last week and has Kevin Rudd maintaining a solid lead as preferred prime minister.

Essential Research’s weekly rolling average bucks the trend just slightly in having Labor up a point on the primary vote to 39%, although the point comes at the expense of the Greens who are down one to 8%, with the Coalition steady on 43%. Two-party preferred is unchanged at 51-49. Tony Abbott’s personal ratings have also failed to improve, contrary to other recent polling, his approval down two to 37% and disapproval steady at 51%. Kevin Rudd’s ratings tell a more familiar story however, his approval down five to 45% and disapproval up eight to 43%. Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is down only slightly, from 50-35 to 47-35.

As it occasionally does, Essential poses a question more concerned with measuring knowledge in opinion: in this case, 25% think Australia’s national debt is higher compared to other developed countries while 46% say it’s lower, with Coalition voters about evenly divided. Forty-eight per cent rate reducing debt more important than maintaining spending on services and projects against 40% who think the opposite. Forty-five per cent would prefer the government cut spending to reduce debt against only 6% who would prefer taxes be raised, with 21% opting for both and 18% for neither. Foreign aid, the arts, subsidies for business and private schools top the list of preferred targets for cuts, with roads, public schools, pensions and health at the bottom.

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.

855 comments on “Essential Research: 51-49 to Coalition”

Comments Page 2 of 18
1 2 3 … 18

  3. [Marcus Priest

    Former Member for Lindsay – Jackie Kelly and Fiona Scott are similar says Abbott – young, feisty and “dare i say it have sex appeal.”]

  6. [Stephanie Peatling ‏@srpeatling 2m Tony Abbott compares candidate Fiona Scott to Jackie Kelly as “good, young, feisty. I think I cd prob say they have a bit of sex appeal.”]

    Well I’ve met Jackie Kelly in her previous life as a politician, and she certainly picked up some “feisty” language in the military.

  12. Kinkajou

    Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Pyne

    “There will never be a GST increase under AN ABBOTT GOVERNMENT”

    Planning sacking him?
    ——————————————————–

    Opening the door….waiting for plane to get to appropriate altitude

  16. Seems relevant to current Oz politics…

    From Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney.

    [1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

    2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

    3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

    4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

    5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

    6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

    7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

    8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

    10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

    11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

    12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

    13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

    14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

    15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

    16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

    17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

    18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

    19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

    20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

    21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

    22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

    23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

    24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

    25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.]

  20. mikehilliard

    Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    guytaur/AA – what are the chances the media will pick up on that Abbott gaffe over the Penrith sports centre?
    ————————————————–

    About as much chance as Greater Western Sydeney wining the grand final.

    About as much chance as the Aussies winning a test match

    About as much chance as Alan Jones having nothing to say

    About as much chance as Bolt wearing an I love Kevin t-shirt

  27. Just heard Antony Green right off the gender gap in the polling as not that significant. Last time I checked there were more women than men in this country.

  31. [Is Kevin Rudd right that GST could be changed without the states?

    PolitiFact rates Kevin Rudd’s claim about the GST: “True”]

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/fact-checker/is-kevin-rudd-right-that-gst-could-be-changed-without-the-states-20130813-2rthd.html#ixzz2bp8309OU

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/fact-checker/is-kevin-rudd-right-that-gst-could-be-changed-without-the-states-20130813-2rthd.html#ixzz2bp7oauQr

  33. “@latikambourke: Tony Abbott’s daughter was standing next to him when he made the ‘sex appeal’ comment about the liberal Candidate.”

  34. The Age has one of those meaningless polls:

    Poll: Do you believe the Coalition when it promises to not increase the GST if it wins the election?

    Running heavily against Mr Abbott.

  35. I must say that I find this argy bargy about the capacity of treasury to forecast/project numbers rather overblown.

    This stuff is always, at best, a well-educated guess, whether it is being done by public servants or major companies — particularly as regards revenues. In this last PEFO a movement of 1 cent in the value of the $AUD v $USD meant a diofference of $288 million in favour of the government since the economic statement. Do it in 4 weeks time and it might be different again, either way.

    Likewise, in a resource-intensive economy the price of commodities is always going to make a huge difference. Traders make/lose fortunes guessing these things over fairly short periods of time. Companies invest or defer investing in projects based on guesses about the factors involved with data that is only roughly useful.

    The reality is that Treasury can be as competent a bunch of people as are available, but they aren’t able to predict with certainty, the future. If they could, they wouldn’t be taking treasury salaries and all the obloquy that goes with it. How were they, for example, going to know about the impact of the Queensland floods on exports of coal and therefore, of revenue? Yet Hockey trolled the regime on this as if it implied incompetence on the part of the regime, or as if he might have done better.

    So what does one do with uncertainty? One makes one’s best guess and hopes the guess is close enough to act rationally. In public policy, there’s nothing inherently better about being more conservative in one’s conduct than being more adventurous in one’s conduct, so there can be no general rule about how to allow for risks.

    A ‘conservative’ fiscal policy (i.e a contractionary one) may result in a negative feedback loop in which employment declines, revenue falls, and the deficit ends up being approximately as bad as it would have been if one took a more expansionary approach. Really, all you get to choose is the kind of problem you’d prefer to face depending on the kind or inaccuracy one is bound to get.

    It’s fair, as I’ve said a number of times, to say that the regime should never have made such a fetish about the return to surplus. They should have made clear from the start that while they’d certainly seek value for money in expenditure and have regard to capacity constraints and financial market conditions when considering fiscal policy, and seek always to balance the budget over the cycle, that a single-minded focus on surpluses or aggressive debt reduction would, like all single-minded things — be sub-optimal, given the other obligations that a responsible government always has — underpinning employment, providing and maintaining quality services, building necessary infrastructure and so forth.

    It is perhaps one of the worst political failures of this government that it has allowed the LNP to own “responsible economic management” by allowing them to have iot measured by a single yardstick — “the surplus” — described vacuously by Pyne last night on QANDA as “money in the bank”. Doing this in circumstances where revenues were bound to come under pressure was particularly inept — given as we saw that it allowed the LNP to point to the government’s failure of their own standard (as it did on “boats”) without being answerable as to what they’d do instead. The attack on the integrity of treasury was simply the logical consequence of the regime’s own mindless and craven populism.

    It would be a step forward if one of the attributes of the “new way” were a determination by the government to give a more coherent and rounded account of what the whole business of government entails. They don’t have much time to do this, and perhaps the moment has already passed, but if the regime is returned, it ought to be the first order of business. They never really did draw a line under the Howard era when they came to office in 2007 but if they win this time, they certainly should.

  36. [My seat-by-seat election guide is now mostly in business ]

    You’ve failed to note that the Liberal candidate for Lindsay has “sex appeal”.

  37. [“@latikambourke: Tony Abbott’s daughter was standing next to him when he made the ‘sex appeal’ comment about the liberal Candidate.”]

    Must be time to insert a new suppository of wisdom.

  42. Another day, another ‘real Tony’ gaffe.

    BACK IN YOUR GIMP SUIT ABBOTT! We’ll unzip the mouth when youve learned to BEHAVE!

  43. Social media is having such fun guffawing at Abbott’s boorish gaffes, that I am beginning to fear people will vote for him so he can keep doing it.

    sort of like voting in the WWE wrestler as mayor, or Boris Yeltsin as the tipsy uncle, or GeorgeW. Have a laff.

  46. [Social media is having such fun guffawing at Abbott’s boorish gaffes, that I am beginning to fear people will vote for him so he can keep doing it.]

    A possible risk among blokes.

    I dare say women arent laughing it up: see Tony’s approval rates slump among women lately for evidence, todays Essentia;.

  48. So Rudd is right & Abbott is wrong, the GST can be changed without the support of the states.

    Does that make Abbott a liar or a clunkhead or a lying clunkhead?

Comments Page 2 of 18
1 2 3 … 18

Leave a Reply

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