Essential Research: 52-48 to Coalition

Australian politicians: overpaid, and more corrupt than New Zealand’s. On voting intention, steady as she goes.

Essential Research continues its regular Tuesday appearance, with Morgan having moved to fortnightly. Newspoll, one suspects, has been holding off for resolution of the Labor leadership. The latest Essential Research result records only the most negligible change on last week, with the Greens up a point to 10% and the balance subsumed by rounding: the Coalition, Labor and others are respectively unchanged at 43%, 35% and 12%, with the Coalition’s two-party lead steady at 52-48, compared with an election result of roughly 53.5-46.5.

In other findings, 71% of respondents considered the current $195,000 salary for backbenchers too high, against 27% for about right and just 2% for too low; 48% considered George Brandis unfit to review politicians’ entitlements given his recent form, against 26% who think otherwise and 27% who don’t know. Respondents were also asked whether politicians should or shouldn’t be reimbursed for various expenses.

Other questions asked whether respondents considered corruption a problem in various sectors, with government and the media coming off worst. Australian politicians were nonetheless considered less corrupt than those of the US and the UK (though not New Zealand), and especially those of Indonesia and China. A question on lobbying found general support for more regulation and disclosure.

On the question of best party to handle another global financial crisis, the Liberals were favoured over Labor 38% to 29% with 23% for no difference.

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.

3,418 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Coalition”

Comments Page 68 of 69
1 … 67 68 69

  3. Bandt should not have been making cheap political points, particularly when the people most directly impacted are more likely than most to understand the CC issue.

    Bandt has three years to ask question after question of the government.

    Insensitive and unnecessary, yes there is no doubting that CC is an important issue but Bandt should pull his head in.

  4. Haven’t posted anything today but I hope everyone is safe, and their friends and family. Brings back memories of our Tassie fires.

    And kudos to Rummel. Take care and thanks. Firefighters are wonderful.

  6. [mexicanbeemer
    Posted Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    ….

    Insensitive and unnecessary, yes there is no doubting that CC is an important issue but Bandt should pull his head in.
    ]
    So you can’t walk and chew gum? Difficult to see why others should refrain from having a go.

  9. Frednk

    The sorts of people that are attracted to the Blue Mountains tend to be more environmentally aware so they are more likely to understand the CC issue.

    Many people are suffering real lss at this time yet Bandt rather than offer confort as mouthed off about CC claiming that there will be more.

    Bandt should bite his tongue allowing the electorate to join the dots as they may well if we have a severe bushfire season.

    When Parliement returns then Bandt can raise question after question, particularity when one of the Blue Mountain fires looks like being man-made with a tree repeatably falling over power-lines.

  10. MB

    [Bandt should not have been making cheap political points, particularly when the people most directly impacted are more likely than most to understand the CC issue.]

    They are not “cheap political points”. They are salient ones. And Bandt’s commentary was not merely for the people directly affected but for people more broadly.

    [Bandt has three years to ask question after question of the government.]

    Indeed, and now is an excellent time to begin.

    [Insensitive and unnecessary, yes there is no doubting that CC is an important issue but Bandt should pull his head in.]

    On the contrary, this is a time to create as much of a racket as possible. Let the metaphoric heat be on those who would dismantle climate abatement policy in the service of a genuinely cheap political point by making a self-serving attempt to silence their critics.

    Years ago, Gore called Charney Sensitivity and its consequences an inconvenient truth. The rightwing response to Bandt’s observation underlines how apt this description is.

  12. If the hints are suggesting the ALP are going to move heaven and earth to give Farrell a seat post-July I would suggest the ALP need to think again.

    This period has to be about renewal for the ALP. It has to be about finding fresh talent and giving them a go.

    The Farrells of the party have had their chance to make a mark. If there is a seat available give it to a Mike Kelly or a new face.

    (And, of course, reforming the ALP processes to have members determining Senate preselections would be a very sensible move.)

  13. Fran

    Did you notice that the last election saw a drop in the Green vote.

    Reason because the Greens style has worn thing, Bandt’s comments will do nothing to repair that.

    The voters are tried at being spoken at, its time to talk to them.

    As i wrote earlier it makes sense for you to explain to school children about climate and how it impacts on fire behavior as they are at school to lean and its topical.

  14. Nobody can say for certain that the 93 outbreaks of fire we say on Thursday were caused by climate change either.

    OTOH, it is clear that climate change will nurture many of the predisposing conditions for fires, and ensure that sufficient conditions for such fires will occur more frequently, and with greater intensity, and that when they did, they would impose upon us all much as these outbreaks have if not worse.

    The question at each moment a bushfire breaks out, should not be was this fire the result of climate change?, (which we will probably never know) but rather how much more frequently would I like fires like this or worse to occur? For every rational person, the answer should be no more frequently at all.

    This bushfire is a taste of what is in store, and even if one could somehow prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it had nothing at all to do with climate change, the point would be entirely moot because the general claim would stand. That’s why discussing climate change is germane.

    Indeed, even if one could demonstrate conclusively that arson was a factor in some fires, the climatic conditions would still be an important factor, because the prevailing conditions make arson far more devastating.

  17. Fran

    The old saying rings true.

    Its not what you say, its how you say it.

    These fires do seem very early with summer still a month away.

    Bandt’s comments would be perfectly find if he had said them when Parliament returns in about a months time.

  18. MB – completely and utterly disagree with you. Bandt 100% right. Fran right on the money on this one too.

    MY high school evacuated.

    MY 80 year old dad 300 metres from there .

    MY former neighbours losing their homes.

    MY sometime comrades in Blue Mountains firefighting risking their lives

    YOU should STFU.

  19. MB

    [Did you notice that the last election saw a drop in the Green vote.]

    Yes. You keep confusing my party with one that is concerned mainly with how many votes we get, rather than one concerned with arguing what needs to be argued.

    [Reason because the Greens style has worn thing, Bandt’s comments will do nothing to repair that]

    I don’t accept your banal premise, and Bandt is doing exactly the job he needs to be doing.

    [The voters are tried I assume “tired” here} at being spoken at. It’s time to talk to them. {text edited}]

    How would you know any better than anyone else what ‘the voters’ are ‘tired’ of? And in any event, the distinction between “speaking at voters” and “talking to voters” is one you’re imposing on Bandt rather than one founded in any substantive analysis.

    This is the sort of vapid populist commentary one expects from the Murdoch press and Liberal trolls rather than someone who presumably takes him/herself seriously.

  20. Marrickville Mauler

    Thanks mate clearly you don’t get my point, We don’t see Shorten out there saying it and why because he knows that this is not the right time.

    Sure when the CC and carbon price debate moves forward Shorten may draw a link between this fire event and the need for a carbon price.

    Yes, i am fully aware of the great work that the firies do as a member of a CFA family so maybe it is Bandt that STFU

    Could the bloke even lift a fire hose.

  21. [On the contrary, this is a time to create as much of a racket as possible. Let the metaphoric heat be on those who would dismantle climate abatement policy]

    and certainly let the heat be on the cheaparse nsw govt for economising on firies

  23. Fran

    My reasoning for thinking the voters appear to have turn off maybe is tainted by the media.

    But also in the recent election result the Greens did see drops although it doesn’t appear to be uni formal.

  24. MB

    The question MB is not about whether voters find what Bandt said appealing. It begins and ends with whether is right.

    That is the most important test of any party or its reps.

  26. I should conclude by saying that the ALP should hold the line on an ETS and challenge Tone to a DD as a carbon price is needed and that debate needs to be won

  27. [mexicanbeemer
    Posted Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 12:21 am | Permalink
    ….
    When Parliement returns then Bandt can raise question after question, particularity when one of the Blue Mountain fires looks like being man-made with a tree repeatably falling over power-lines.
    ]
    In one word; bullshit. You can’t walk and chew gum, your problem.

    As to trees falling on power lines; it requires wind to make it happen and heat to make the fire.

    -Should power lines go underground with those in the area paying for it. Possible.
    -Should the power be turned off on a hot day. Possible.

    -Should there be soeme sympathy for thos that have lost their houses. Definitly.
    -Given climate change should they still be living in the blue moountains. Probable not.
    -Will people come back and live in the blue moutains and risk it all again. Definitly.

  28. Re Fires and Globalwarming
    ____________
    Only the lunatic right would seek to deny that the world-wide weather disturbances and fires are not in some way linked with GW…they are in complete denial like one suffering from some terminal disease who won’t listen to the medical advice

    This northern summer saw a two months long heat wave over coastal China and was followed by immense flooding rains’…that’s the pattern everywhere

    The US western states are in the grip of a never-ending drought it seems…travelling recently across the Rockies by train I saw the vast areas of pine forest devestated by last summers fires and this summer saw the Sierras near the Yellowstone Park devastated by some of the greatest fires ever recorded
    The recent cyclone in India mirrored the cyclone last year on New York in it’s intensity

    what more proof do they need ?????????
    In Vic we had the horrific Black Saturday fires several years ago of an intensity never seen before

  30. frednk

    You are missing your point or maybe just prefer a different strategy.

    This week has occurred in October.

    I think the image of large scale bush fires in October may be more powerful in turning the public back onto the need for a carbon price without the help of a Politician who actually did very well in his own seat and his comments may well have been aimed at his own community.

    I just feel that his comments were insensitive sure Tone needs a grilling when parliament returns.

  31. I think Brandt’s timing leaves a lot to be desired. When folks are scratching through their ruins isn’t the best time for a lecture.

  33. [Bandt should bite his tongue allowing the electorate to join the dots as they may well if we have a severe bushfire season.]

    For God’s sake… if you can’t discuss Climate Change in terms of its effects on the climate and the disasters that flow from that, in what terms CAN you discuss it?

    By your logic the more disaster that occur from Climate Change the LESS we should discuss it (and presumably do anything about it).

  35. Bushfire Bill

    Of courser we can debate CC and its impact on fire behavior and weather.

    My point was Bandt’s comments just came across as insensitive.

    To repeat the old saying, its not what you say, its how you say it that matters.

  48. Labor’s carbon tax bind: surrender or die fighting

    She’s offered it only within the confines of the government, but word is Peta Credlin has some world-weary advice for rookie Labor leader Bill Shorten: if you’re serious about making Labor competitive again in 2016, you best swallow hard, take a deep breath, and turn your back on carbon pricing. And you best do it now.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/labors-carbon-tax-bind-surrender-or-die-fighting-20131018-2vs3h.html#ixzz2i6TNRNUo

  50. Defence all at sea on new submarines

    Submarines are the stealthy killers in maritime warfare. They are the queens on the chessboard, the strategic game-changers. Any country has to think long and hard about messing with another country that has an advanced submarine fleet. You can’t be sure there isn’t one sitting quietly off your own coast or waiting in hiding to sink your ships.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/defence-all-at-sea-on-new-submarines-20131018-2vsd6.html#ixzz2i6TyTLUe

Comments Page 68 of 69
1 … 67 68 69

Leave a Reply

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