Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

A move in Labor’s favour in Essential Research this week, but further questions find support for a tougher regime on disability support and the government’s handling of boat arrivals.

The only new federal polling result we look to be getting this week, the regularly fortnightly rolling average from Essential Research, has Labor up a point on two-party preferred to lead 53-47, as the bad result which saw them drop two points a fortnight ago washes out of the system. On the primary vote, Labor is up two to 40% and the Coalition down one to 39%, with the Greens and Palmer United steady on 9% and 6%. We also have Essential’s monthly leader approval ratings, which have Tony Abbott down one on approval to 34% and steady on disapproval at 58%, Bill Shorten down two to 36% and down one to 39%, and Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister shifting from 40-36 to 37-34. Other questions find approval of the government’s handling of boat arrivals up two since March to 41% and disapproval down three to 35%, with 27% thinking the government too tough, 18% too soft, and 36% “taking the right approach”. Another result suggests paring back the disability support pension to be a relatively popular cost-cutting measure, with 46% supporting recent recommendations to that effect and 37% opposed.

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.

941 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 10 of 19
1 … 9 10 11 … 19

  1. Transcript of the first application re boat on 7 July

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2014/148.html

    Usual type of hearing one gets when an urgent application is made on short notice which is dedicated to working out how the case is going to run.

    The local contact for those on the boat is Ian Rintoul who is a vastly better spokesperson than George Newhouse.

    When you get a court to stop an activity, an undertaking as to damages associated with the stopping (and restarting) must be given. Here it has been offered by the Tamil Refugee Association.

  3. [Premier Colin Barnett believes West Australians are grumpy with his Government after a luckless period in which “relatively insignificant” issues have accumulated to cause him political headaches.

    And he is annoyed about his “Emperor” tag, saying it was “disrespectful” to the office of the Premier and “belittled” WA on the international stage.]
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24414983/barnett-wa-grumpy-with-us/

    He has fully earned the Emperor tag, as well as that grumpiness from voters. He and his govt have treated us like fools, believing they could promise whatever they wanted in an election campaign, only to walk away from their promises after the election.

    No sympathy from me.

  4. BW

    Let me add my name to those wishing your new grandchild the very best of happenstance. Your joy must be great. May you renew it on each occasion the young one comes to mind. 🙂

  5. Ross Gittins wrote a nice piece today in the SMH on the Abbott regime’s abandonment of serious action on climate change.

    http://www.theage.com.au/comment/australia-risks-becoming-a-fuel-fossil-20140708-zszsx.html

    In the comments section I said the following:

    [Abbott pays lip service to climate change mitigation by endorsing the 5% target but is insisting that the ‘heavy lifting’ on climate change abatement be done by others. Constructively, he’s arguing for Australia to be amongst the ‘leaners’ rather than the ‘lifters’ on this matter. He is doing, effectively, Homer Simpson on this issue: Can’t somebody else do it?

    As in so many other areas of policy, Abbott seems determined to drag the reputation of this country through the mud: to shame us all; to make us seem like small-minded, parochial, ignorant, lazy, beggar-my-neighbour louts. Abbott is inviting the populace of this country to redefine its vision from good citizens to reckless freeloaders, bullies and public policy vandals both here and abroad.

    I’d like to suppose that most people will recoil in horror at what this regime is doing, and the polls suggest they are beginning to process the meaning of Howard’s dictum that to change the government was to change the country. Abbott tried pretending before the election that nothing much would change, but all that pretence has vanished as his horde of vandals and louts swagger about trashing the progress of the last three decades and adding us to the international list of malfeasants on climate change, human rights and who knows what else.

    It’s time for this regime to test its authority for this radical and bizarre new course. We should have an election now. ]

  8. Confessions

    My suggestion to you to re-read was in good faith and I still think you need to do so.

    I originally proposed that the “we don’t dump first term governments” rule is no longer potent, based on 1998 and 2010 near-miss results combined with Abbott’s worst-ever-first-few-months as a fresh, “popularly” elected PM (and after10 months sinking deeper with multiple policy issues with little sign of resolution).

    You blandly reply (single word answers ….. no argument as such) that the reason the Coalition will survive in 2016 is history, and precedence.

  9. [He has fully earned the Emperor tag, as well as that grumpiness from voters. He and his govt have treated us like fools, believing they could promise whatever they wanted in an election campaign, only to walk away from their promises after the election.
    No sympathy from me.]

    IMHO they incompetent lying b gets of lightly. Dreadful government mountains of debt that would be ok if he delivered what we need but he has delivered almost nothing.

  10. Pretty clear that Abbott and co are subtly goading Shorten in to a comment on asylum seekers. They’re waiting for him to come out and publicly denounce the Coalition rhetoric. Politically, Shorten is smart to keep quiet and not impulsively respond. But it must be hard. Refugees attempting suicide is moral blackmail? What a twat.

  12. psyclaw

    yes, it’s hard to see how the government can get back from here.

    Using the 2010 election as a precedent is badly flawed – Labor was clearly leading in the polls for most of the period, and was competitive at least in the last couple of months.

    This government is already well behind in the polls, a couple of years out, and on the basis of sticking to an unpopular agenda whose impacts have yet to be felt.

    The best comparison I can think of is Howard after 1996, where he was left unable to run on his record and had to resort to the ultimate unicorn, the GST.

    Even then, Howard was leading at this stage of the game.

    With the last two changes of government, in both cases (Howard 1998, Rudd/Gillard 2010) the result came down to the wire, with the incumbent barely surviving – Howard lost the 2PP, Gillard could only form government with the support of the crossbenches.

    In both cases, going in, the incumbents were at least competitive when it came to polling.

    So, whilst it’s true to say that the electorate has not (in recent times) thrown out a first term government, you certainly have to give them marks for trying.

    With Abbott, it looks like they might succeed.

    (And I can’t see them changing it around with any other leader, either, given that all putative candidates are either worse than Abbott or have not sufficiently distanced themselves from his government to have plausible deniability…)

  13. psyclaw:

    Not a fan of repeating myself so I’m not going to. And if simple answers don’t work for you, then I’m pretty sure more wordy responses wouldn’t either.

  14. [Peter of Marino
    Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Boerwar @ 441

    I see that the entire Brazilian team has asked Morrison to put them in Manus cos it’s safer.

    How did you know that? I’m sure that’s an operational matter….]

    Because they were all at sea.

  17. Look, I know it’s not p.c. to keep mentioning it, but I watched Abbott walking with the Japanese PM, and apart from his rocking gait, he was doing that tongue thing and opening and shutting his mouth as he walked. I can’t think of any public figure who has retained these childish habits. Can’t Peta DO something? She’s got him into a blue tie, but that was easy. Now she needs to stop the mouthing.

  19. Fran

    re: Gittins…

    I cannot recall a reputable MSM journalist ever delivering such a withering judgement on any government of the day.

  21. Zoomster – I generally agree with you – the post-budget slump has pushed the LNP into the position of being more likely to lose the next election than to win it, although I still think it’s probably going to be a close run thing either way with lots of votes going to “others”. And a Tampa/9/11/GFC event could come along and change the dynamic.

    BUT:

    And I can’t see them changing it around with any other leader, either, given that all putative candidates are either worse than Abbott or have not sufficiently distanced themselves from his government to have plausible deniability

    I am not a Turnbull fanboy, really!, and I realize that Turnbull getting the nod is extremely unlikely, but hypothetically if the LNP got desperate enough to dump Abbott and switch to Turnbull in the next few months and Turnbull could credibly make the case that he had stamped his authority on government (rather than being a factional sock puppet with no control) and the LNP reinvent themselves and revamp a lot of their positions, I genuinely think they could still turn their fortunes around.

    I’m still of the view that the survival of Abbott, and the LNP, pretty much just comes down to what happens with the economy, and with the present polling that is coming down to the next few months.

    If the economy tanks, Abbott and co are done for.

    If the economy picks up, Abbott will have a story to tell and will be in a fighting position.

    It could go either way. Business confidence and conditions are up. Consumer confidence is down. Without a major external shock I’d expect consumer confidence to win, but who knows?

  23. 447
    daretotread

    You presuppose the existence of strategic conflict and then seek to explain why it is inevitable. If the cause of conflict is not some preposterous claim about debts, it’s about sea lanes.

    The actual boiled-down fact of the matter is there is no strategic competition over vital rights that must bring the US and China into conflict with each other.

    Other States – including this one – may feel unable to defend themselves against China and have their anxieties. But these fears do not originate in the US. They are locally-produced.

    This explains Japan’s overtures to Australia. Japan may know it cannot rely on the US step up to defend Japan’s claims to sovereignty over a few rocks in the East China Sea. So it’s nationalist government is trying to enlist other possible allies, including Australia. Japan is now trying to persuade us that its vital interests and ours overlap along the 135th line of longitude. As much as it’s not true for the US, it’s not true for us either.

    The US, naturally, has been at pains to affirm that its allies can rely on it. But, deep-down, the real-politik says the US will only risk its blood and treasure to defend its own vital interests. Rather than encouraging Japan to test its claims over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, the US will be wishing this dispute would fade back into obscurity.

    China’s internal politics is responsible for the elevation of these disputes. They do not arise because of US pressure, whose best commercial and strategic interests are served by peace in this region.

    By the same token, if China actually felt militarily threatened, they would not be sending oil rigs, customs vessels and fishing boats to demonstrate their claims. They would be far more assertive than that.

  24. I’ve just watched the Lord Deben interview on Lateline. Alberici fails completely in her desperate attempt to defend Abbott. Lord Deben is most impressive and knowledgeable. He is scathing of Abbott’s absurd scheme in Canada to recruit an anti-climate-change conservative coalition.
    I’ve tweated the link in the hope that more people will see this. The abolition of the carbon tax is about short-term political gain: it has absolutely nothing to do with the national interest. Is this the most morally bankrupt government we have ever known?

  27. “@KateLundy: I was about to give my speech opposing the Govt farcical ‘direct action’ climate change bills & they have guillotined it! #senategagged”

  28. Labor stop playing good guys, time to pay back for what Coalition Party did while they are in Opposition.

    Block everything, they know all they have to do is gag the senate!

  30. Re: Alberici and Deben

    I think a lot of people fail to understand how the ABC is obliged to work.

    When a critic of the government comes along, as Deben clearly is, the ABC interviewer is basically obliged to take the position of the government to provide “balance” in the interview.

    If the person being interviewed has a solid case and can argue their points well, as Deben certainly did, this approach doesn’t cause a problem and prevents the ABC of giving a “soft interview” to critics of the current government.

    Playing ‘devil’s advocate’ with interviewees is as old as the hills, and in this case is both journalistically reasonable and sensible to protect the ABC against the very real prospect of giving the government ammunition against the ABC.

    Alberici is a good interviewer. Not quite up there with Sarah Ferguson, but much better than Tony Jones or many others.

    I think Alberici does need to work on her ‘devil’s advocate’ thing, though – she needs to be a slightly better actor to pull it off. You could see her look at her notes and think “I’ve got this government position to put, I better set my face in the best aggressive angry look to make this convincing”.

  31. “@Simon_Cullen: The Fed Govt has lost its bid to gag debate on the carbon tax repeal legislation (the vote was tied)”

  35. Lord Deben has the Abbott government pegged . This from him last month. Subtle as a train crash with his opinion of Abbott’s mob.

    [“I think the Australian government must be one of the most ignorant governments I’ve ever seen in the sense, right across the board, on immigration or about anything else, they’re totally unwilling to listen to science or logic,” ]

  37. “@spicertracey: Informant on #ChristmasIsland says there are #asylumseekers threatening to jump off roof. Women with children. More to come…”

  38. Just read emperor Barnett’s lament in The West Australian.

    Nearly shed a tear in my wheatbix.

    All those grumpy people and it has nothing to do with him.

    Well Col, it has. You are just another barefaced lying Tory leader.

  40. What a giraffe. The Libs senate whip says we (Senate)are all in agreement with the science of climate change and that it is real.

  42. [absolutetwaddle
    Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 2:20 am | PERMALINK
    I remain 99% sure the Coalition will win the next election. I simply do not have the faith in the average voter a lot of you guys have. Happy to be proven wrong but this year’s post-budget ‘rage’ will be a distant memory in 2016 when the Libs throw a few timely scraps off the table.    ]

    AW

    If you are that certain you really should be having a sizeabe bet on the coalition at the $1.60 now on offer. I would. The odds are heavily in your favour if your judgement is correct.

    Personally, I wouldn’t back them with monopoly money. These are strange times in Australian politics with a far more volatile electorate than ever before and so many more things that can turn pear shape for this government, especially with such a moron at the helm.

    If the Liberal party should suddenly come to its senses and reinstate Turnbull I would also be 99% certain that they would win in 2016, but that seems very unlikely.

  44. Briefly

    I suggest you read a little more widely.

    Firstly there are warmongers in the US of whom sadly Hilary Clinton is a leader. I do not pretend to understand their rationale or motive but they do exist.

    Secondly ANY country with difficult to defend access points for essential goods and exports will be twitchy about hostile or marginally hostile governments along their routes – forget about open conflict but costs go up if there are any barriers in the way. This is not rocket science and almost every war in history has resulted from these issues.

    Thirdly I assume you ARE aware of the openly outlines containment policy of the US. Australia was a willing nay enthusiastic supporter of this line although I am not sure Rudd (or indeed Latham) were quite so Gungho. I have a gut feeling that Howard was cautious too (but no evidence). In case you are not aware of this policy it involves japan, South Korea, Philippines, Thailand and India. Vietnam and Myanmar were/are being recruited to the cause. I honestly do not know where Malaysia and Indonesia sit with this policy.

    It is very hard for Australians and Americans or even English people to grasp this threat concept because with huge coast lines and virtually no potential rivals near 80% of it it is not an issue. However imagine if you will the nation of Tropical Northern Australia dependent on trade. Now for some reason Southern Australia hates the North and will not allow trade transit. All of Northern Australia’s trade must go into or close to Indonesian, PNG or Solomon Is waters. The new nation of TNA would either have to bow down and worship Indonesia to keep them sweet OR they would become aggressively expansionist towards the Solomons and PNG. They might do both.

    China in the years 1980 -2010 has adopted approach 1 -that is be super, super friendly to the USA. You want money – Hey take 5 trillion of so. No Wucking Furries.

    However as the US economy falters (it is back on its feet again now but still wobbly)and they start to feel antsy about their military dominance and economic power, this approach may not work so well and China is now looking at option 2.

  45. Lady Van Badham ‏@vanbadham 1m

    Dear Labor, When you wade after your enemy into the mud, the battle gets harder: stupid move, to lose the advantage of higher ground. X van

  46. Re this whole China vs Japan thing – I don’t think that Australia needs to or should want to touch any of this with a 90 foot pole. Keep neutral, support negotiations on any issues between the two, especially while we are still on the Security Council, but don’t take sides.

    As for the territorial issues in hand, I have no knowledge or opinion of the issues regarding the Diayu / Senkato islands. On the map, they look as though they logically belong to Taiwan. On the other hand, judging by the map, China’s South China Sea claims look absurd. But beyond expressing support for a peaceful, negotiated solution, it seems to do us no good to get involved and certainly we shouldn’t take sides.

  48. Confessions

    1) Thanks for the white flag. I accept.

    2) You have just above agreed with Zoomster in her post which argues the same as mine. This represents a 180 degree shift from your original post which I replied to.

    Here it it is:

    confessions
    Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 9:23 pm | PERMALINK
    There is no doubt that regardless of what the current polling may be suggesting, the Coalition are still more likely to win the next election.

    You don’t need to look to betting agencies to tell you that.

    Confessions says that you don’t need the betting market to think that the Coalition will win in 2016.

    Psyclaw gives contra argument and evidence doubting the “first term government is safe” scenario.

    Zoomster supports that view.

    Confesssions now agrees with Zoomster.

    Go figure that one out!!!!

Comments Page 10 of 19
1 … 9 10 11 … 19

Leave a Reply

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