ReachTEL: 54-46 to Labor

The first ReachTEL federal poll in quite some time confirms that Tony Abbott’s personal standing isn’t quite as bad as it was at the time of the leadership spill motion, but otherwise offers no joy to the Coalition.

The Seven Network has this evening brought us a ReachTEL poll of federal voting intention which has Labor’s lead at 54-46. The last ReachTEL federal poll was way back on February 5, immediately before the Liberal Party leadership spill vote, at which time the Labor lead was 55-45. All we have on the primary vote, courtesy of The Guardian, is that “the Liberal party’s primary vote is up nearly a point to 35.4%, while Labor is down by the same margin to 40.5%”. The poll finds Tony Abbott’s personal standing to have improved since early February, although that’s not saying much. He ranks third as preferred Liberal leader at 24.2% behind Malcolm Turnbull (42.6%) and Julie Bishop (28.7%).

UPDATE: Full results here. Primary votes: Coalition 39.6% (up 1.2%), Labor 40.5 (down 0.9%), Greens 11.5% (up 0.3%), Palmer United 2.2% (down 0.5%). The poll was conducted last night from a sample of 2417.

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.

1,535 comments on “ReachTEL: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 29 of 31
1 28 29 30 31
  1. I may have the wrong impression, but Abbott & Co seem more interested in spending on Defence, Security and War than on science and education. This can only be harmful in the long run.

  2. [1396
    guytaur

    I am just stating the link between the two is overstated in our society.]

    A modern economy is not possible without a well-developed and developing knowledge sector. It is, for example, already far more important in this economy than manufacturing though the latter would prosper more if its links with the knowledge sector could be deepened.

  3. ctar

    Yes they are and so unemployment is up. Education will not change this fact.

    All education can do is prepare people for the new jobs that may be created in the future. That is the most that education can do. It cannot just make jobs appear

  4. [1399
    guytaur

    briefly

    Alos you seem to miss the initial point. I am not arguing against education at all.]

    You don’t really have a point.

  5. briefly

    You respond as if I am arguing against education and that there are flow ons for employment from that.

    All I have stated is this is overstated. Mainly by right wing ideologues who want education funding cut because they cannot see the value in funding things like pure research and courses teaching in those fields.

  6. [1404
    guytaur

    ctar

    Yes they are and so unemployment is up. Education will not change this fact.

    All education can do is prepare people for the new jobs that may be created in the future. That is the most that education can do. It cannot just make jobs appear]

    This proposition is not supported by the empirical work. In fact, as education spending rises, allowing for all other variables, employment and unemployment rates and incomes also improve. This is true spatially (by comparing different locations) and temporally (by comparing the same populations at different times).

  7. 1406
    guytaur

    You are mistaken. There’s a good reason why you’re wrong. Learning is a form of capital. When capital is added to a labour force, their productivity rises. In turn, this means they earn higher incomes…and more jobs result.

  8. briefly

    The trend rate is clear. That is a fact. Talking a lot of hot air about how education improves just means it would be worse without education.

    It does not change the fact that unemployment is up, This is a fact no matter how many studies or theories you cite can change.

  9. Tories want to cut spending for distributional reasons. They do not want the State investing in working people. Their argument is that social spending is a transfer to private beneficiaries. It’s a lousy argument. But that is what it’s about. The rich do not want to spend any of their money educating the poor.

  10. briefly

    You are wrong. I am not talking about capital. I am talking about the link being made between employment and society that is overstated.

    I am not saying there is no link. Stop posting as if that is what I am arguing.

  11. gt

    [Yes they are and so unemployment is up. Education will not change this fact. ]

    Yes it will if they’re prepared to chase the market.

  12. [1410
    guytaur

    briefly

    The trend rate is clear. That is a fact. Talking a lot of hot air about how education improves just means it would be worse without education.

    It does not change the fact that unemployment is up, This is a fact no matter how many studies or theories you cite can change.]

    On the contrary, the picture you cite supports my argument rather than yours. Rising rates of joblessness are attributable to very poor rates of income growth, a trend that is attributable to weak investment – or weak capital formation. We can reverse trends in income and employment by accelerating capital formation.

  13. briefly

    Try reading my posts. You keep responding as If I am talking grand economic theory.

    I am doing no such thing. I am being very specific about social expectations that overstate economic links to the detriment of planning for future economic growth.

    So look at what I am saying rather than through your grand ecomic theories.

  14. 1417
    guytaur

    It’s quite obvious that you’re evoking some kind of theory even if you have not examined it and even if it is unsupported by evidence or reason.

  15. guytaur

    [I am being very specific about social expectations that overstate economic links to the detriment of planning for future economic growth.]

    Expand on this – I dare you.

  16. don

    My point is that the link between education and employment is overstated.

    Education has to be for people not for getting employment. You do the former the employment comes anyway.

    Back in the 60’s how much input did employers have into the design of education courses as compared to now?

  17. zoomster

    From courses job seekers are forced to go on to the restructuring of university courses away from pure research to more practical research money can be made.

    Its society dong some bad planning because too much is made of the link between employment and education.

    Often when no such link exists. In the case of job search courses an example is the repeat of job search skills every couple of years.
    No testing to accompany so no way of knowing how they are doing and then not recording results to avoid repetition instead of teaching in future.

    Asy you can see the links are there but they are overstated in value.

  18. I am arguing that there is no point in educating someone if there is no job for them, and a person who has a lot to offer Australia and wants to work in Australia should have a job in Australia.

    Danielle’s family and heart are in Australia. Her family and heart “capital” have been disrupted. She cannot work here because of an economic theory to which you subscribe: neoliberalism.

  19. [My point is that the link between education and employment is overstated.]

    Is it? Tertiary educated people are more likely to be in employment than those without formal qualifications. This isn’t just true of Australia, but of OECD countries more generally.

  20. That’s because successive governments have cut back on funding and/or stimulating research. Their education, per se, is not the problem.

    I didn’t say that it was.

    We can fart and chew gun at the same time. The government should spend heavily on education AND spend heavily on direct job creation at different levels – a Job Guarantee for low-skilled workers and more public sector jobs at higher levels of wage and skill, up to outstanding scientists like Danielle.

    The federal government can spend within the economy’s capability to respond by increasing real output.

  21. [1421
    guytaur

    Education has to be for people not for getting employment. You do the former the employment comes anyway.]

    Why would this be so? Why would employment “come anyway”?

    The empirical works shows these two things – the incidence and quality of education and the incidence and quality of employment are not unrelated at all. There is a really very good explanation for this. (see 1409, above).

    This relationship holds for individuals and it holds for the economy more widely. This is to say, education is not only good in itself it creates external benefits. This is essentially because an economy is a network.

  22. And on Danielle the scientist, when I was finishing my doctorate, many of my peers would go to the US or Canada to do their post-doc. This was because there were more research options available to them than in Australia. They’d do their 3-5 years there and return to Australia where they were more competitive as senior researchers.

  23. guytaur@1421

    don

    My point is that the link between education and employment is overstated.

    Education has to be for people not for getting employment. You do the former the employment comes anyway.

    So your point is?

    You are saying that if you educate people, employment follows.

    But you also say that the link between education and employment is overstated.

    For crying out loud, make up your mind.

  24. Confessions

    if you are still around, managed to see the eclipse last night after a day of pouring rain. About an hour befoe the cloud lifted and saw the moon through light cloud, in comfort from my bed, no colour and a bit disappointing. Actually the moon tonight is better (full?) just rose out of the ocean and is beautiful. The holidaymakers are setting off fireworks down on the beach so all go.

  25. guytaur:

    You said quite clearly that the link between education and employment is overstated. These are your exact words.

  26. briefly

    wrong

    The free thinkier is more likely to be employed than someone who has followed a course and not learnt to think for themselves.

  27. [1424
    Nicholas

    I am arguing that there is no point in educating someone if there is no job for them, and a person who has a lot to offer Australia and wants to work in Australia should have a job in Australia.

    Danielle’s family and heart are in Australia. Her family and heart “capital” have been disrupted. She cannot work here because of an economic theory to which you subscribe: neoliberalism.]

    Are you trying to say I’m to blame? This is, of course, an absurdity.

    Fact is, I’m no more a neo-liberal than you’re a neo-stalinist. Yours is not an analytical term. It’s a term of political invective. It’s a piece of rotten fruit.

    I’m interested in trying to understand what is and has been going on in the economy – both here and elsewhere – and in developing some practical prescriptions to improve it. I don’t really know what you’re trying to achieve apart from making yourself feel better by insulting others.

  28. mari:

    We hardly ever get to see these events because our skies are invariably covered with cloud. So last night was a treat for me. 🙂

    I woke around 3am last night to pouring rain, so it could’ve gone oh so differently.

  29. confessions

    Yes. Overstated does not deny the reality. It says people are overstating the link not that there is no link.

  30. Confessions 1435

    So true which is why I was so happy when the cloud lifted, an hour later it was pouriny rain again. But fortunately after a grey start turned into a beautiful day, and the holidaymakers made the best of it. No parking left at all in my street, Glad as often happens noone parked across my driveway. Plus a constant procession of people walking to the beach, but hey 25 celsius and clear water why not?

  31. guytaur:

    Except you and DTT are the only ones claiming the relationship between the two is overstated. It isn’t overstated, it is a real and demonstrable relationship. That’s all you need to say. End of story.

  32. guytaur@1436

    confessions

    Yes. Overstated does not deny the reality. It says people are overstating the link not that there is no link.

    Guytaur, I don’t know what chemicals you are ingesting, but they are not helping your coherence.

    Have a a cup of tea, a bex, and a good lie down.

    You will feel better in the morning, I feel sure.

  33. confessions

    You should go and look at the word overstated. In no way does that deny the reality you are talking about.

    All it says is that people are overstating its effects. I gave some examples of why I think this is so.

  34. There is a clear link between education and employment

    Education is the floor of a house (career), people with a degree or trade certificate are far more likely to be employed or in the current labour, more able to find employment. Not because of the degree but because it tells the employer that you are committed to that line of work and that you have a basic level of knowledge, also it demonstrates a willingness to stick at something for a period of time.

    I make no secret that I don’t like how degree programs are conducted but having a degree does provide a wider level of knowledge based competencies.

    My issue with the degree programs isn’t the lectures or the reading material as that is usually very good but rather the lack of opportunity to put the concepts to work in a detailed manner.

    If Universities were just for research then we don’t need 39 of them, people pushing the line that University wasn’t about preparing people for the workforce overlook that it has always had that duel role of educating and research.

  35. mexican

    Finally a sensible post. However I just say look at what we were doing in the 60’s and compare it to now.

    Then it was too much towards academia and not enough towards applied research.

    I think we have ditched too much of the pure research and courses in moving towards the employment and applied research. It should be both,

  36. Briefly sets up a straw man to cover his IPA rubbish.

    No one is arguing against education. What some of us are saying is that education alone is not enough.

    Nicholas rightly says that it is RW ideology that allows us to blame the unemployed for being lazy and not studying.

  37. [All it says is that people are overstating its effects.]

    Honestly guytaur. The only conclusion I can draw from your series of stumbling comments is that you’re having difficulty expressing yourself.

    I don’t know what ‘effects’ you’re talking about other than people either being in work or not as a result of achieving formal qualifications. But in any case, isolated egs like Danielle the scientist, or unemployed artists with degree quals do not disprove the clear link between education and employment.

  38. confessons

    Thats because you are not reading my posts.

    You will see my references to courses and employer influence. What is so hard to understand about that?

  39. Guytaur 1433

    Not sure about that, lets use politics as a template, people here clearly are interested in public policy but and those who work in government will be able to confirm this, pretty much every professional policy maker has to have a degree.

    A degree is like the floor of a house, you need to lay the floor before building the house, the degree or trade certificate acts as a foundation for the career.

    General knowledge is not really counted as experience unless it is work related or can be shown to relate to a degree.

    Sure you can gain employment and progress someway without a degree but at some point people without a degree hit a professional ceiling, often caused by regulation requiring a certain level of education.

  40. [Nicholas rightly says that it is RW ideology that allows us to blame the unemployed for being lazy and not studying.]

    And here’s another goalpost shift. I admit to not having followed this ‘debate’ closely, mainly because the anti education proponents have descended into hysterical dystopian analogies the likes I never thought I’d see in a supposedly post Enlightenment Australia. But I admit to not having seen anyone claim that those who are unemployed are lazy because they aren’t studying or haven’t studied enough.

    If I’m wrong and you can post such a comment from a PBer which clearly states this, please feel free to do so.

  41. mexican

    I am not arguing there is no need for degrees. I am arguing that their relevance is overstated.

    This is more obvious in the way Tafe is treated compared to University.
    Different education needed for different things. However socially the Tafe graduate does not get the recognition a University graduate does.

    These social things do bleed over to other things too. It does result in poor planning as it influences thinking by politicians and public servants on policy.

    Labor at least sees the validity of Tafe

Comments Page 29 of 31
1 28 29 30 31

Leave a Reply

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