Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor

Another stable result on voting intention from Essential Research, which also finds trust in the ABC taking a slight knock since the start of last year.

Essential Research is once again unchanged on voting intention, with Labor’s two-party preferred lead at 52-48. On the primary vote, Labor is up a point to 39%, and the Coalition, Greens and Palmer United are steady at 40%, 10% and 3% respectively. Further questions relate to the G20, include repeats of questions asked before the event as to whether it was an “expensive talkfest” (down from 62% to 55%) or would achieve real outcomes (up from 16% to 26%), and whether the free trade agreement with China was a good thing (up from 44% to 51%) or a bad thing (up from 18% to 20%). Whatever gloss there might have been didn’t seem to rub off on Tony Abbott much, who was rated as having performed poorly by 31% and well by 37%. Forty-two per cent said Australia was taking the wrong approach on climate change versus 28% for the right approach.

As it does from time to time, Essential also asked how much trust respondents had in various sources of media, and as usual public broadcasters came out well ahead of their commercial rivals, with commercial talk radio and internet blogs ranking last. The only movements outside the margin of error related to the ABC – 69% saying they had some or a lot of trust in its television news and current affairs, down 4% since January 2013, and 62% expressing trust in its radio news and current affairs, down 8%. I would be interested to see breakdowns by party support here, as I suspect this reflects the signals that Coalition partisans are picking up from their parties’ leadership. Funding cuts to the ABC register 52% disapproval and 25% approval.

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.

827 thoughts on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”

  1. 797

    Its a section 96 grant. If the Commonwealth`s terms and conditions are not met, the money has to be handed back. Such is Australian federalism.

  2. [Isn’t a tax on the biggest companies in Australia to fund PPL a bit like the ‘Carbon Tax’? ]

    It will impact way more businesses than the carbon ‘tax’, which of course will pass on the costs to consumers. It’s even more puzzling why the Greens would advocate for a tax on everything in order to fund a PPL scheme that clearly advantages the well off.

  3. I know the PPL scheme isn’t so popular here but as far as I can tell the Greens support it because it helps promote gender equality at all levels. There is a real sense that it is more difficult for women to get into senior (well paid) positions because of social expectations that they be the primary carer. Providing them with the option of taking time off to have and look after children for a reasonable amount of time means they don’t have to quit/lose their position when they have kids. And the reality is that someone earning $100,000 isn’t going to see the minimum wage for fourteen weeks (or whatever it is) as much of an equaliser.

    So that’s the ‘progressive’ argument for it.

    Given the Greens support it, as far as I can tell the only reason it hasn’t been put to the senate is because Abbott has no reason to believe his own senators won’t cross the floor on it.

  4. [WWP

    Last night you resorted to just making stuff u

    And a liar.]

    See DN you keep posting this stuff, but every time you have an opportunity to actually express your thesis, or to show why my post failed you don’t actually take it.

    Yeah I abused you, and I called you out for abusing me. The difference is I am prepared to discuss and review my position, you just keep shifting and obscuring yours.

  5. [Tom at 801 would be correct. It’s funding for a specific project and if the project does not go ahead then the funding doesn’t flow.]Tom at 801 would be correct. It’s funding for a specific project and if the project does not go ahead then the funding doesn’t flow.]

    And victoria has senate and HoR seats to use to show the Federal government what a great job it is doing …

  6. [ “Let me repeat: the $3 billion the Commonwealth government has committed for the East West Link is only available to build the East West Link.” ]

    Ok, so who in what could laughingly be labeled the Fiberal
    Brains Trust thought it was a good idea to tell Victorians, a couple of days before the election, that the ONLY infrastructure project they have worth investing in, is this East-West link?

    And, that Abbott should frame this in language that makes it look like a threat and intimidation?? He could have simply said something along the lines that the funding would become “uncertain” since application and approvals would have to be redone, or that if compensation was involved that would be a state not federal responsibility. Send the same message but make it look like you are just following proper procedure.

    But no, he makes it sound like a threat. Very shallow talent pool with this lot.

  7. Your abuse was a generous offer by you to allow me to restate my argument, yet again, in some fashion that might bypass the communication barrier we are clearly experiencing.

    Ok. I don’t think anyone’s going to buy that one.

  8. WWP Victoria is pretty well a lost cause to the LNP both state and federally so they may as well use the $3 billion elsewhere unless the new state government comes up with alternative infrastructure projects that align to the federal government infrastructure policy.

    Besides lots of rhetoric happens during an election campaign which gets forgotten in the reality of governing post-election.

  9. In any case, your order of events is all wrong.

    1) I restate my argument @ 729
    2) You construct a strawman @ 737
    3) I tell you that your paraphrasing @ 737 is not what I said and suggest we both stop beating our heads against a brick wall
    4) Abuse by you @ 743
    5) Abuse by me @ 745
    6) Shameless hypocrisy and lies from you @ 747
    7) An attempt by you to rewrite history @ 804

  10. In any case, this meta-discussion is worthless. As it is, we’re simply slinging mud at each other. I’m not going to convince you of anything. You aren’t going to convince me of anything. All that’s left are 3rd party observers to the argument who can go back and read the whole thing and form their own judgement, if they feel so included. Which I’m sure they don’t.

  11. If you are really enjoying this that much, though, I will gladly stay up all night with you reinterpreting your interpretation of my interpretation of events, ad nauseum. Until Mr Bowe has had enough and bans me, or you, or both.

  12. Are we still talking about the shameless mud thrown at an innocent young lady for accepting a genuine scholarship or has it moved to some other subject?

    There may have been some embellishments in the above sentence 🙂

  13. david
    We moved on from that long ago. We are now discussing whether or not we each understand what the other is talking about. You can see how that might prove difficult when there is no understanding to begin with.

  14. I believe the answer to the conundrum of “When is a scholarship genuine, and when is it merely a gift in disguise?” is quite simple: All scholarships are gifts, regardless of the criteria used to award them.

    A gift in recognition of something is still a gift.

  15. caf
    Do you think we’d be having this argument if all it was is “should he have declared it”? That’s certainly one question, but there is also the question of whether it’s corrupt behaviour.

    The criteria used to to award the scholarship is relevant in the latter case, because we want to know whether it was awarded to Tony Abbott, for services (to be) rendered, or whether it was awarded to his daughter for (potential) academic achievement.

  16. Still doing the Victorian election campaign sh*t.

    A person could think Shorten was running for election in the Victorian Parliament

  17. Last night on Foxtel I watch episode one of season one of Jonathon Creek (A BBC drama about a professional magician who lives in a windmill).
    In this episide one character, a struggling freelance journalist hacks into the voicemail of a target in order to to find information to use to create an ‘accidental’ meeting to get inside information. The journalist explains exactly what she is doing and how she is doing it as she gets into the voicemal box.

    The episode
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0394637/?ref_=ttep_ep1
    was broadcast in May 1997.

    This illegal practice would seem to be so common even then, to make in into popular culture.

  18. ‘Stop texting me’: Glenn Lazarus accuses Christopher Pyne of harassment over university reform

    Didn’t the Poodle spend lots of time texting Ashby ?

Comments Page 17 of 17
1 16 17

Leave a Reply

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