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 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”

Comments Page 16 of 17
1 … 15 16 17

  3. Rocket Rocket@733

    731 – actually I want to see Murdoch’s papers desperately try to prop up Abbott for as long as possible. They will then lose even more credibility, as even their own readers will see that the Emperor has no clothes. (Sorry for the mental image)

    Agreed with that. The only negative I see with the current unraveling of the conservatives it that it will give them a change to reset if Abbott goes too quickly.

    Still not a reason to hasten his demise though.

  4. All Abbott has to do with PPL is to ‘defer’ it, blaming falling commodity prices, the less favourable world economic outlook, Labor, the Senate… Anyone or anything except himself for coming up with such a dumb idea. The same should happen to Direct Inaction.

  5. Now Bolt is giving Gillian Triggs a hammering.

    For an educated person, she really has made it so easy for her critics. Does not seem to be that quick on her feet as evidenced by her recent performances.

    Her credibility now in tatters.

  6. Abbott will be loathe to drop one of his personal policies, even more so when he’s being called a liar on so many other things. If it goes, it will be because he’s lost the argument to his party and might indicate how weak his position is.

  8. [PPL may be gone as well.]

    I understand Abbott’s PPL is shelved, which I take to mean it can be revived at a moment’s notice when the Senate is less hostile. 🙂

  9. [ PPL may be gone as well. ]

    Maybe, but i agree with Steve777 that they will likely “defer” it. Abbott has too much of what is left of the tatters of his credibility invested in it to let that one go completely.

    Also, even though their PPL is policy by and for morons, its other measures they really need to dump. The welfare changes with their ridiculous 6on/6off proposal rather springs to mind.

    And really, even if they appear drop or defer unpopular policies who the frack is going to actually believe them if they say they are “dead, buried and cremated”??? Thier track record of dishonesty is hurting them and will continue to hurt until they get rid of enough of their current front bench to make the issue go away.

    At best dropping the GP payment and PPL will make the Liberal rusted on’s feel happier. But they are the kind of idiot happy clappers who are going to vote Liberal even with Abbott as PM anyway. Its not the base Abbott has to appeal to and i dont think he has gotten that yet.

  10. david
    The hard part is selling a backdown to himself.

    There are, I am sure, lots of things he never really considered promises. Perhaps they were necessary lies in order to get rid of an incompetent government that was trashing the country, or something. Everyone understood this or would come to understand it through his fixing of Australia.

    However, I think there are a few things he genuinely intended to follow through on, and being called a liar on one of those will hurt quite a bit.

  14. The Greens do not support the PPL as Abbott wants it.

    So do not be sure it would pass the Senate. Its not just his party that stopped Abbott bringing it on so far

  17. Victoria

    The Greens Senators want the Abbott PPL to be funded entirely by business. Abbott wants a 1.5 percent levy on big companies which would only fund part of the scheme’s cost. The rest would come from consolidated revenue.

  19. [All Abbott has to do with PPL is to ‘defer’ it, blaming falling commodity prices, the less favourable world economic outlook, Labor, the Senate…]
    Why bother? It’s not exactly a vote winner.

  20. guytaur/nicholas

    On the Greens website

    [Our plan is funded by a 1.5% business levy on companies’ taxable incomes above $5 million, plus an achievable additional government contribution of $1.9 billion over the forward estimates.
    We will make changes to workplace laws to make sure women have a stronger right to return to their jobs and to make sure low income and casual workers aren’t disadvantaged.]

    http://greens.org.au/better-paid-parental-leave

  21. Abbott’s PPL favours high income earners over others, and excludes women with insecure attachment to the labour market.

    Regardless of who ‘pays’ for it, this is no policy that deserves to be on the radar of a responsible federal govt which is governing for all.

    The Greens support for Abbott’s PPL was borne of pure populism, nothing more.

  22. victoria:

    So if the govt could get a potential 10 Senate votes for its PPL, thereby ensuring it passed into law, one can only conclude that Abbott’s reason for not going there is down to internal tensions in his own partyroom over the scheme?

  24. Confessions

    Elder’s latest sums up the situation perfectly

    [Social media sites do listicles, and while this article defends them they are only useful if they are any good.

    This listicle on Australian politics is no good at all. It is published in Fairfax, a company whose record with social media is to produce low quality, at great cost, unfashionably late. There are no grounds to be impressed with the form of this listicle, so let’s go to the substance.]

    http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/no.html

  25. [722
    Libertarian Unionist

    Rumours about that the pack of drivelling idiots masquarading as our government are sacking 900 CSIRO staff.

    A CSIRO guy I spoke to today said it would be 1200-1400. Put NICTA’s losses on top of that and… it’s just unbelievable.]

    It’s an economic tragedy.

  26. No, he won’t get Greens Senators to vote for it unless he agrees to a higher levy on large companies.

    The Greens were the only crossbenchers supporting Mr Abbott’s scheme but said there had been no negotiations since earlier this year when they demanded the government spelt out the details of how the scheme would work and insisted it be funded entirely by business.

    “We’re just waiting to see if it’s still a policy they want to pursue,” Greens MP Adam Bandt said.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-paid-parental-leave-scheme-deferred-with-no-due-date-in-sight-20140802-zzsbl.html

  29. [The Greens were the only crossbenchers supporting Mr Abbott’s scheme but said there had been no negotiations since earlier this year when they demanded the government spelt out the details of how the scheme would work and insisted it be funded entirely by business.]

    The Greens are still supporting a regressive public policy, only they are requesting it be funded by business. Doesn’t change the fact that the party is advocating in favour of regressive public policy.

    And {gasp!} the Greens are doing it solely on populist grounds.

  30. The CSIRO only has (had) ‘more than’ 6,600 staff, so a cut of 900 staff is appaling – more than one in eight. This is vandalism on a grand scale. Meanwhile an executive who retires with $5 million in super can retire with a tax free pension of about $250k p.a. Abbott wants to hand over $50k to a woman who earns over $100k p.a. to have a baby. School chaplains who must be religious (can they be Muslim or Buddhist?). Paying tax is optional for multi nationals and wealthy individuals.

  31. [So Tony Abbott says he’s given Victoria $3 billion for one purpose and one purpose only.

    It can’t be swapped over.

    “I want to make it absolutely clear to the people of Victoria that the $3 billion the Commonwealth government has committed to this project is for one purpose and that is to build East West Link,” he says in an open letter.

    “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.”]

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/is-this-a-promise-abbott-dare-keep-20141126-11ue94.html

  34. If Sydney’s experience with big highway projects is anything to go by, the business case probably massively overestimates traffic volumes (and hence fee income), in spite of the fact that the contract requires that viable alterntive routes be strangled to force traffic onto the toll road, as well as restrictions on competing public transport development.

  36. [confessions

    victoria:

    So if the govt could get a potential 10 Senate votes for its PPL, thereby ensuring it passed into law, one can only conclude that Abbott’s reason for not going there is down to internal tensions in his own partyroom over the scheme?]

    Exactly. If the PPL is introduced into the Senate, even if the G’s were to vote with the Government, enough LNP backbenchers would cross the floor to ensure that Labor would be able to defeat any bills.

    We would see LNP senators voting with Labor to roll the PM…so it will never get off the ground.

  38. 781
    victoria

    I don’t know how Victorians will react to Abbott’s threat, but in WA, if a PM were to attempt to bully voters this way the reaction would be very hostile.

  41. [790
    victoria

    briefly

    abbott is persona non gratis here in victoria. His bullying is not appreciated.

    Night]

    He’s not much admired here either… 🙂

    Seeya

  42. The Greens are still supporting a regressive public policy, only they are requesting it be funded by business. Doesn’t change the fact that the party is advocating in favour of regressive public policy.

    And {gasp!} the Greens are doing it solely on populist grounds.

    If it’s funded by a tax on the largest companies in the nation, that is hardly a regressive policy. If it were funded by increases in the GST, petrol excise, alcohol excise then yes, it would be regressive.

    It needs to be accompanied by better child care provision for low income earners, and by measures to increase gender equity in the workplace. I suggest making it compulsory for parents to take six months off work on full pay to be with their child – fathers too. If it’s only mothers who take time off, women fall behind in their careers. Making men take time off would level the playing field. It should be mandatory for all businesses to have healthy work cultures in which workers can combine their jobs with the other dimensions of their lives. Businesses that don’t make it easy for parents to pick up their kids or look after sick kids should face a higher tax rate and naming and shaming. There are lots of ways to make the workplace healthier and more equal.

  44. Of course Abbott is a bully and his comments about removing the funding if the voters make the wrong choice are politically inept, as per usual.

    However, the basic concept that the Federal government is providing a certain amount of funding negotiated for a specific project and that that funding is not transferable, is not entirely unreasonable.

    But yes, he should have kept his trap shut and just not said anything.

  49. Isn’t a tax on the biggest companies in Australia to fund PPL a bit like the ‘Carbon Tax’? Won’t it lead to ‘unimaginable’ price increases? Surely Abbott doesn’t think companies will just absorb it? Won’t it wipe out at least one medium-sized regional centre? Won’t big companies bugger off to Guinea or Zimbabwe or Paraguay where they don’t have a ‘baby tax’. Won’t it go up and up and up?

  50. tm 755 – “Now Bolt is giving Gillian Triggs a hammering.”

    This is standard Bolt modus operandi – when he knows the Libs are going to get hammered by the day’s events, he switches to something else. So as not to look so pathetic as Gerard Henderson in today’s Australian – so off it is funny.

Comments Page 16 of 17
1 … 15 16 17

Leave a Reply

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