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 14 of 19
1 13 14 15 19
  1. It’s not that people don’t understand each others’ points, it’s that they don’t agree with them.

    It depends on what you choose to believe based on incomplete information. Even the people directly involved at the time may not be able to work out exactly what mistakes were made because they’re no more able to read other people’s minds than you or I, despite being closer to the action.

  2. In any case, this whole discussion leaves out the Liberals. The state we’re in is largely due to their contribution. I’m sure they’d be happy to be “blamed” for it.

  3. Astro

    The Greens do an interesting goal shifting thing on this one.

    The statement basically is “If the Greens had voted with Labor to support a CPRS, by now one would be established and it would be very difficult to repeal’ (or wtte).

    Now, you can argue —

    1. That the Greens vote wouldn’t have made any difference (for whatever reason);

    2. That, even if the CPRS had got up, it would still be under threat today.

    Instead, the Greens go off on what are basically red herrings – “You couldn’t have expected us to vote with Labor, we were still sulking”; “If we’d voted with Labor, the Libs wouldn’t have crossed the floor”; “Labor shouldn’t have negotiated with the Liberals”; “We might have had a CPRS but it wouldn’t have been as shiny as the package we have now.” etc etc.

    All or any of these things may be true, but they’re side issues.

    Let’s get back to — “If the Greens had voted with Labor, we would have had a CPRS today.”

    — Yes or no?

    (And another tangent, this time from me – I know I’ve criticised some Labor policies and some Labor voting decisions, and I know Labor doesn’t always get anything right – but, although a couple of Greens are willing to say they don’t agree with Greens policies, I don’t think I’ve seen one question any Green voting decision.

    Would one of you like to nominate a Green voting decision that you disagree with?)

  4. Player One

    [It was the Greens who voted no. That’s the point.

    Having voted down the only scheme that had a chance of bipartisan support, the Greens have to wear the consequences.

    Unfortunately, so do the rest of us.]

    So in terms of the hypothetical.

    Remember you said at the start you were going to say no. Your position never changed. Why would you vote for something you didn’t want/like. So what you are syaing is that if you placed yourself in the hypothetical you would be kicking yourself and taking the blame. The other parties on the Board did the best they could and it’s your fault?

    And remember, both the other teams had much more power and COULD have worked a solution through; or at least attempted to… But no they didn’t even talk to you about it.

  5. Zoomster

    It was the Labor Party that took the CPRS off the agenda, not the Greens.

    The Labor Party delayed it’s start.

  6. [poroti
    Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Boerwar

    Does that have a particular meaning in Indonesian culture ?]

    It is associated with aristocracy.

    I have all my fingers crossed that Subianto will fail.

    Subianto has blood on his hands (Nuremberg Defence offered). One theory is that the Nuremberg Defence does not hold because he was free lancing and a bit of a wild card. Great. That’s all we need.

    I understand that a relation of Marcos is considering tossing his hat in to the PI prez ring. The PNG PM is suss as when it comes to funny money.

    Abe worships at the war criminal shrine. Abbott is Abe’s best international sleeve tugger and our BOP man reckons he can’t recall signing the contract that says the $12 million was strictly constrained.

    The Malaysian PM can’t find a plane, and the Sultan of Brunei has family problems like you would not believe.

    The Thais are under martial law with no real prospect that an election next year will sort their mess.

    HK residents are being arrested by the hundred for wanting a spot of democracy.

    Plus stray fools in Oz politics have emperorphilia.

    What is wRONG with everyone?

    You will recall that Abbott got on a horse as part of his stunt routine.

    IMHO, it is a useful rule of thumb never to trust any electioneering person who feels the need to get on a high horse to make a statement.

    I still regret that they didn’t give Abbott a wild-eyed stallion with a rodeo pizzle rope cinched as tight as.

  7. Zoomster

    Think through the hypothetical. PLace yourself in the three vote camp and imagine it. See if you would be prepared to take the blame.

  8. Sigh. How many times to I have to remind everyone on Bludger that the Greens have done no wrong, are doing no wrong and will never do any wrong. Just ask them.

    They just can’t help themselves.

  9. zoom
    [Instead, the Greens go off on what are basically red herrings – “You couldn’t have expected us to vote with Labor, we were still sulking”; “If we’d voted with Labor, the Libs wouldn’t have crossed the floor”; “Labor shouldn’t have negotiated with the Liberals”; “We might have had a CPRS but it wouldn’t have been as shiny as the package we have now.” etc etc.]
    This is just ridiculous. (Assuming) An honest belief that the CPRS negotiated with the Liberals was worse than doing nothing, these are hardly red herrings.

  10. Zoomster

    [Let’s get back to — “If the Greens had voted with Labor, we would have had a CPRS today.”

    – Yes or no?]

    This is not possible to answer. We cannot know whether the Libs would have crossed the floor.

    In any event it’s a loaded question.

  11. [ … But no they didn’t even talk to you about it. ]

    And there lies the root of the problem. The Greens voted against it because they weren’t consulted on it, not because they disagreed with it.

    I think the Greens still have visions as coming in as “saviors of humanity” one day. Unfortunately, by the time they do many of us will already be underwater.

  12. zoomster

    Your argument fails because it is what if. As does Astrobleme’s if I am reading the post correctly.

    What if is fiction.

    The reality is the votes in the Senate and that Labor failed to get the numbers to pass any price on carbon until it did negotiate with the Greens and Independent Crossbencher’s in 2010.

    That is the reality and a credit to Labor as a government

  13. @zoidlord 642

    I like this comment:

    [Fact Check desperately needs to reduce the number of summary conclusions to only 3: TRUE, UNPROVEN, FALSE.

    These ridiculous little spun sound-bytes like “Scaremongering” & “Overstated” typify the meaningless trash we expect from anti-democratic cash-for-comment commercial operations, not the ABC.

    It is simple: TRUE = claim is majority true; UNPROVEN = claim has as much falsehood as truth, or no evidence; FALSE = claim is majority false.

    Here, I’ll help you out by reclassifying recent Fact Checks (the ones listed down the side of the webpage):

    Carbon Retreat=FALSE; ANZUS Security=UNPROVEN; -$80b Funding=UNPROVEN; -School Funding=UNPROVEN; Carbon Tax Saving=FALSE; -Hospital Funding=UNPROVEN; Forest Not Pristine=FALSE; $1b/month Debt=FALSE; 40c/Week Fuel Excise=TRUE; Financial Commissions=FALSE

    10 summaries: 1 True (from Abbott no less!?!), 4 Unproven, 5 False. That says more about our politicians than ANYTHING ELSE POSSIBLY COULD]

  14. Zoomster

    [Instead, the Greens go off on what are basically red herrings – “You couldn’t have expected us to vote with Labor, we were still sulking”; “If we’d voted with Labor, the Libs wouldn’t have crossed the floor”; “Labor shouldn’t have negotiated with the Liberals”; “We might have had a CPRS but it wouldn’t have been as shiny as the package we have now.” etc etc.]

    And this is why people can’t take you seriously as you are just dishonest and don’t look at things objectively.

    Why do you put quotes around the statements. I have not said any of the things you have written here. No one has said it during this current conversation, it’s all just plucked out of your imagination.

  15. [The Questions is, is this your fault?]

    Well that might be your question, mine would be more like this:

    After years and years of opposing action on climate change the libs embrace a carbon price and take it to an election. It isn’t clear that they or their supporters think it is really important at all but they voted for it. As good greens we think in labor there are a lot of dodgy old industry people who like coal and mining.

    How do I as a greens senator maximize this weak support –

    Let me suggest saying to all those wavering hearts and minds who kind of think they have a moral obligation to do something – who are hearing the libs say any impost will destroy jobs – saying to them that a carbon price is so bad it will do nothing is probably the best way to lose them. They have legitimate economic worries from the libs, the greens saying it will do nothing – let’s do nothing.

    Do nothing has been the nations path of choice ever since.

  16. Boerwar

    Not a symbolic message you’d think would help. As for the Nuremberg defence goes the Abbott government reckons it is OK.

    [Indonesian presidential contender taken off Canberra visa black list

    Australia has removed the name of one of Indonesia’s most controversial Suharto-era generals from a visa black list……..It is understood that Australian officials have been courting Mr Prabowo since last year]

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/indonesian-presidential-contender-taken-off-canberra-visa-black-list-20140708-zszrl.html#ixzz36waPOdYQ

  17. Player One

    [And there lies the root of the problem. The Greens voted against it because they weren’t consulted on it, not because they disagreed with it.]

    No, they did disagree and articulated why at length, at the time.

    You also fail to consider that perhaps the ALP could have found a compromise between the Greens and the two Liberals. But the ALP didn’t even try.

  18. WWP

    [Well that might be your question, mine would be more like this:]

    Seriously? You can’t even play a hypothetical?

    The rest of your post relies on the idea that this was going to be the only ever chance. No one knows the future.

  19. All these what ifs.

    Perhaps the ball was always in the Liberal’s court and Abbott realised this, capitalised on it successfully and there was little Labor the Greens could have done after except limit the damage. Which Labor not only failed to do but managed to worsen with a spectacular implosion.

  20. [ The rest of your post relies on the idea that this was going to be the only ever chance. No one knows the future. ]

    You have a good point! Who would have predicted that the Greens voting down the CPRS would ultimately lead to an Abbott-led government, for instance?

  21. This whole debate relies on the assumption that the vote in 2010 was the only chance – the fact that it was the only chance was CAUSED by the ALP. They REFUSED further negotiation and declared it was going to be delayed. This has nothing to do with the Greens.

  22. Player One

    [Who would have predicted that the Greens voting down the CPRS would ultimately lead to an Abbott-led government, for instance?]

    This is simply remarkable. Nothing else happened along the way? Even the fact they retained power at the next election doesn’t matter?

  23. [poroti
    Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Boerwar

    Not a symbolic message you’d think would help. As for the Nuremberg defence goes the Abbott government reckons it is OK.

    Indonesian presidential contender taken off Canberra visa black list

    Australia has removed the name of one of Indonesia’s most controversial Suharto-era generals from a visa black list……..It is understood that Australian officials have been courting Mr Prabowo since last year]

    Meh… Abbott at least can’t be criticised for being a hypocrite. It is clear that Subianto was responsible for abductions, disappearances and torture.

    But what are abuductions, disappearances, torture… to a government that abducts people on the high seas, that disappears people, burns their hands on exhaust pipes, sets them adrift on under-powered lifeboats and gives a wink and nod while they are bashed to death with rocks.

    Sometimes, perhaps to relieve the banality of it all, they simply send them back to people just like Subianto.

  24. [ This is simply remarkable. Nothing else happened along the way? ]

    Of course things happened along the way. The fault does not lie with any one party. But neither is any party blameless.

    The Greens just happen to be the only ones refusing to accept any responsibility. And they were the ones that voted “no”.

    “As ye sew, so shall ye reap”.

  25. [Any watcher of the union royal commission should be questioning why police and regulators appear to be missing in action in the building industry.

    On Wednesday, Boral chief executive Mike Kane alleged that union boss John Setka may have been committing blackmail by threatening to ‘black ban’ his company if it continued supplying the union’s arch enemy, building firm Grocon.]

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-union-royal-commission-is-too-little-too-late-20140709-zt1fs.html

  26. [ That’s untrue, Player One. Here’s Christine Milne on her reasons why she was against it. ]

    Justify it to yourself however you like. The Greens voted against climate action when such action would have been acceptable to the public. As Milne herself said – it will only get harder later, not easier. She was right about that, if nothing else!

  27. Player One

    [The Greens just happen to be the only ones refusing to accept any responsibility. And they were the ones that voted “no”.]

    Again this presumes that there was no future (and I mean in the short term) possibility to reach an agreement. It was the ALP that dropped the issue, not the Greens.

    Again, implying that the Greens should have supported a package of legislation that:
    1. they didn’t agree with, and openly said why;
    2. they were not consulted on; and
    3. they said they were going to vote against.

    Is just bizarre…

    It also presumes this was the one and only opportunity.

  28. Player One

    [Justify it to yourself however you like.]

    Well, actually what he did was prove that your earlier statement was untrue. It wasn’t a justification.

  29. Guytaur 679
    _______________Re Israeli Twitter Army
    Your comment reminds me of a remark lately by a UK journo that the hate messages from Israel descend in their tousands from an army of young students ands secondary school kids who target any journo anywhere by twitter and email for any critique of Israeli policy

    They are recruited by the IDF as part of the “electronic war” against anyone daring to depict Israel as anything else but the “poor beleagured jewish homeland surrounded byu nazis”
    That is the pose they adopt…in fact there are a nucleur armed state (but Hitler can always be wheeled out and given a run for propaganda purposes)
    If they find PB they might give us a going over

  30. I note no Green has taken up my challenge to nominate a vote of the Greens in Parliament they disagree with.

    I wasn’t hopeful.

  31. [Any watcher of the union royal commission should be questioning why police and regulators appear to be missing in action in the building industry.

    On Wednesday, Boral chief executive Mike Kane alleged that union boss John Setka may have been committing blackmail by threatening to ‘black ban’ his company if it continued supplying the union’s arch enemy, building firm Grocon.

    Whether the blackmail allegation is fair or not, the alleged offence should have been investigated when it arose last year.]

    It was. 😛

  32. [ Again, implying that the Greens should have supported a package of legislation that:
    1. they didn’t agree with, and openly said why;
    2. they were not consulted on; and
    3. they said they were going to vote against.

    Is just bizarre…

    It also presumes this was the one and only opportunity. ]

    It’s plain to me (and others) that it is number 2 that really gripes the Greens.

    The Greens made it clear they would rather have nothing. Which is of course what they got.

    But why do the rest of us have to wear the consequences?

  33. I hear on the car radiio this orning that the Carbon Tax was due to have been repealed by lunch time today.

    Can anyone tell me if it was?

    Listened to 2GB and very little crowing and bragging about it if the Libs managed to finally repeal it.

  34. Zoomster

    [I note no Green has taken up my challenge to nominate a vote of the Greens in Parliament they disagree with.]

    missed the question.

    I disagree on their PPL scheme. Not sure if they have voted on that.

  35. The ETS negotiated between Labor and the LNP would have effectively shut ordinary people from contributing. Every tonne of CO2 saved by using less power, installing solar, buying cars that used less petrol, etc, would have just allowed the creation of another certificate for the polluters, many of them free (PDF). Moreover, by backdating the baseline years to before people started to actively take action it would have negated much of what had already been done. When this was raised with Wong she initially denied the problem, then eventually admitted the flaw and promised to fix it in the next version of the ETS legislation put to parliament, but it never was.

    Nor was the only thing wrong with the legislation. The bottom line in all the versions voted down would have at best done not much and may well have been worse than doing nothing by not allowing folk to take ownership of the issue.

    Yes, the flaws could have been fixed later, but would they have been? I suspect not. Gillard’s legislation was far more effective.

  36. Player One

    [The Greens made it clear they would rather have nothing. Which is of course what they got.]

    Well they got nothing in the short term, but that was because Labor stopped any further activity.

    They certainly never stated that they would prefer nothing, in fact they attempted to negotiate with the Govt extensively.

Comments Page 14 of 19
1 13 14 15 19

Leave a Reply

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