Essential Research: 52-48 to Coalition

The weekly Essential Research remains the only regularly reporting opinion poll in town, and it continues to show the Coalition with a weaker lead than they scored at the election.

Essential Research is still the only opinion poll operating to its regular schedule, Morgan having sat out last week and Newspoll presumably holding off at least until Labor sorts out its leadership. The latest weekly result has the Coalition’s two-party lead steady at an unspectacular 52-48, from primary votes of 43% for the Coalition (steady on last week), 35% for Labor (down one) and the Greens on 9% (steady). Other questions relate to internet privacy, including a finding that US surveillance programs such as Edward Snowden revealed are opposed by 45% and supported by 24%, and the importance of our various foreign relationships, showing “very important” ratings of 56% for New Zealand, 51% for the United States, 46% for China, 42% for the United Kingdom and 35% for Indonesia.

UPDATE: And now Morgan comes through with its normal multi-mode poll which was skipped last week, carrying the striking headline that Labor leads 50.5-49.5 on respondent-allocated preferences. However, Morgan produces a strikingly different result from preference flows as per the recent election, with the Coalition lead at 53-47. But I find this hard to reconcile with the primary votes: the Coalition is at 42%, 3.5% lower than at the election, Labor at 37%, which is 3.6% higher, and the minor parties only slightly changed at 9% for the Greens, 4.5% for the Palmer United Party and 7.5% for others. Somehow though, two-party preferred comes out as very similar to the election result, which as best as anyone can tell is about 53.5-46.5.

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.

1,828 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Coalition”

  1. Shorten is certainy lacking in humour and dull as ditchwater

    Abanese’s style and manner seems more agreeable…but….
    who can even quess who the next ALP winner will be
    In 1949 when Chifley was defeated he ramained as LOTO until his death in 1951,having just lost again to Menzies,,both the next two LOTOs Evatt and Calwell failed in their tasks

    Whitlam wasn’t even in the House in 1949….

  2. One problem in all OECD countries which excites concerns is the growing gulf between the rich and very rich…and the rest of society…nearly as bad here as in the USA

    so what policies d social democrats have to end this
    Nothing Labor did during it’s 2 terms seem to have much to say on this matter

  3. 1801

    Calwell nearly won in 1961. Had it not been for the DLP Calwell would have won in a Landslide in 1961. I do not see a split in the ALP, with the splinter group strongly preferencing the Coalition like the DLP did, in the near future.

  4. Tom

    [ I do not see a split in the ALP, with the splinter group strongly preferencing the Coalition like the DLP did, in the near future.]

    Apart from personalities what on earth would the modern ALP split over? They have little ideological passion as far as I can work out.

    In the 1950’s they split over ideology.

  5. 1804

    The lack of ideology is one of the main reasons that I do not see a split coming. The other main reason is a desire not to be split and out of power.

  6. The 1950s split wasn’t really about ideology. It was about the fear of the mainstream unions, particularly the AWU, that Santamaria was trying to take over the labour movement. The ALP and the non-communist unions were happy to support the Industrial Groups while they were fighting communism in the unions, but when Santamaria got too ambitious, and spread his tentacles into non-communist unions like the AWU, he provoked a violent backlash. This was what prompted Evatt to break his previous alliance with Santamaria and attack the Groupers in 1954. The push to expel the Groupers didn’t come from the left, it came from the AWU, led by Dougherty and Bukowski. They were thoroughly anti-communist (communists were banned from AWU membership), but they weren’t going to allow Santamaria to encroach on their power.

  7. Hello all,

    I have sent Phil Diak at the AEC an email outlining 7 issues of concern I have with the count.

    1. Waggrakine Discrepancy
    2. Fernandez additional vote
    3. Senate vs House
    4. Recount mechanics
    5. Below the Line non-numerical data
    6. Below the Line Zeros
    7. Software availability

    and I am very eagerly awaiting their response.

    The whole email text is a cheery little read, so I suggest you check it out on my blog:
    http://originaltruthseeker.blogspot.com.au/

    I will post any response I get to my website and I will also accordingly tweet it.

  8. @paaptsef 1808

    I doubt it. Sarah Hanson-Young does seem to be a perrenial candidate for the leadership, but for all we know the only person voting for her in these ballots is Sarah Hanson-Young. I can’t imagine the rest of the party takes her that seriously. They would be mad to elect her leader.

    If the Greens do oust Milne at some point in the future, i’d say its a good bet it’ll be for someone like Bandt or Wish-Whatsit (or Ludlum if he survives the recount). Who knows, maybe Hanson-Young secretly has massive support in caucus, but… really?

  9. deblonay@1802

    One problem in all OECD countries which excites concerns is the growing gulf between the rich and very rich…and the rest of society…nearly as bad here as in the USA

    so what policies d social democrats have to end this
    Nothing Labor did during it’s 2 terms seem to have much to say on this matter

    Do you have a reference for that?

    My understanding is that Australia is the richest country in the world per capita based on the median, not the raw average (mean) scores.

    We have one of the least disparate wealth figures of any country.

  10. Morgan Poll 8/10/13, Labor 50.5% to the LNP 49.5%

    I think you can put that down to the embarrassment people are feeling over Abbotts suckholing insane apology to Malaysia.

  11. I know it’s getting a bit boring to complain about media bias, but this time I’m going to complain about misinterpretation.

    [The scandal has not been limited to the Coalition. Labor frontbencher Mark Dreyfus, who was leading demands for an investigation into Coalition entitlement claims, had to admit he incorrectly billed taxpayers for accommodation on a family ski holiday.]

    AFAIK only one journo has correctly reported that Dreyfus did not in fact claim for his “skiing holiday”, he simply forgot to remove his weekend Canberra accommodation claim from the fortnight when Parl was sitting. In other words, an administrative error over dates.

    Why am I bothering? Nobody cares. They’d rather have the “taxpayers pay for MPs ski holiday” story.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/mps-behaving-badly-were-fed-up-with-them-20131016-2vmtc.html#ixzz2hvF1cHHL

Leave a Reply

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