Roy Morgan’s second poll of the Malcolm Turnbull prime ministership is an even better result for the Coalition than the first, recording a one-point increase in the primary vote to 47%, with Labor down two to 27.5% and the Greens up one to 14%. On the headline two-party figure based on respondent-allocated preferences, the Coalition lead is up from 55-45 to 56-44. Based on preference flows from the 2013 election, it’s up from 53.5-46.5 to 55-45. The poll was conducted over the past two weekends by face-to-face and SMS from a sample of 3011.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Just as the leadership change appears to have cost Roy Morgan its long-established Labor bias, in the short-term it least, so it seems Essential Research has lost its trademark stability. That’s belied by headline figures for this week which show the Coalition’s two-party lead unchanged at 52-48, from steady primary votes of 44% for the Coalition and 35% for Labor, with the Greens and Palmer United both down a point to 10% and 1% respectively. However, the result of last week’s two-week fortnightly average included a 50-50 result from the previous week that is not included in this week’s result, so it follows that this week’s numbers failed to replicate those that caused last week’s sharp movement from 50-50 to 52-48.
Essential’s first monthly leadership ratings of Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership record his approval rating at 47% and disapproval at 17%, with a weighty 35% opting for don’t know. Bill Shorten enjoys an eight-point drop in his disapproval rating since a month ago to 42%, but his approval rating is up only a point to 30%. Turnbull leads 48-19 as preferred prime minister, which is down from 53-17 when the question was asked immediately after the leadership change.
Also featured are questions on which party is most trusted to handle various issues, which was also asked shortly before Tony Abbott was deposed. Only two results are significantly different: the Liberals’ lead over Labor for “political leadership” is up from 9% to 18%, while that for “treatment of asylum seekers” is down from 12% to 7%. The Greens are included as a response option here, which presumably has the effect of weakening the totals for Labor. Further findings have 42% saying private health insurance should be means tested compared with 44% who said everyone should receive a rebate; 56% rating it more important to expand public transport than to build roads and freeways, versus 33% for vice-versa; and 64% saying new roads and freeways should be built only if governments can pay for them without tolls, versus 24% who believe tolls should be charged as necessary.
Tricot@49
The relief at Abbott going is palpable.
He was an absolute joke and made people cringe when he appeared overseas ‘representing’ Australia.
Turnbull at least looks, acts and sounds like a Prime Minister and seems to be attempting to lead a ‘normal’ government.
Sprocket
Keep being complacent. It’s what you do. It damages our country. But it works for you.
Seriously, Turnbull has been faffing around for years, maybe decades. So what, he’s got the PM seat by running the party ballot like some corporate takeover, gifted with Abbott as the idiot CEO that everyone knows must go.
The thing is, if the public get one sniff of his ingrained elitism then things will start heading south.
Bill Shorten is indeed a wretched, hapless figure because even when he talks on his preferred ground he still finds a way to foul it up.
We’re losing but we have a scapegoat so everything is great!
Tricot
A ‘Chuck Out Shorten’ theme would presuppose that there is a compelling alternative with a realistic shot of gaining the Labor leadership and turning Labor’s electoral fortunes around. That clearly isn’t the case.
A leader can be both safe in their job and a prize goof, can’t they? That’s where Bill Shorten is.
Well Sky reported on penalty rates and ZERO mention of the school crapola. Just Bill saying workers have a right to it, it will be an election issue and asking “where is the evidence ?” that removing it will create jobs.
bemused
[He was an absolute joke and made people cringe when he appeared overseas ‘representing’ Australia.]
The G20 speech was the pits.
Negative effects of high penalty rates:
* increase cost of doing business
* may reduce employment (balanced in part by increased aggregate demand from higher wages)
* reduced service options (some shops/services close that would otherwise be open)
* incentivises some workers to sacrifice family/recreation time for higher earnings (healthy & family wellbeing impacts)
* pushes up asset costs (e.g. housing)
* pushes up prices (dependent to what degree they can be passed on)
These of course are balanced by positive factors of which many others on this board will attest (and I agree).
Now it is certain that as we push to extremes (no penalty rates / quadrupling of penalty rates) we get outcomes that are poor. Certainly the best outcomes lie in the middle – but how can we be sure that our current penalty regime has found that perfect balancing point?
Maybe in some industries penalty rates are too high and others too low?
Nicholas #54
“Wretched” is a bit over the top.
He’s a competent minister in the right portfolio, but PM material I’m afraid he’s not.
[50
L G H
briefly
“Retaining floor-rates in the labour market is a profoundly important social and economic issue. It is a key issue in arresting the casualisation of labour; in improving social mobility; and in retarding and then reversing the growth in unemployment. You would all do very well to climb off your ideological horses and volunteer…”
I can agree with much of this but would add that high wages (including from penalty rates) in our economy do act as a drag on employment…]
You’re an exponent of a fallacy, the fallacy that says low paid workers must be paid less so that the high paid may have more.
If low wages were the ideal model for an economy, Bangladesh would have the best economy on earth. The fact of the matter it that the application of capital drives labour-productivity.
We need to build a more capital-rich economy not a more wages-poor economy.
We need to invest. We need to induct and mobilise more and better capital/s. We absolutely cannot do this while also chopping worker incomes to pieces.
We really have to decide to run a knowledge-based, high-productivity, egalitarian economy.
56
Nicholas
You should stop whinging.
Why don’t you give United Voice, the SDA, the AMWO or the CFMEU a call? Ask them if they’d like some help door-knocking the marginals?
I don’t hate Turnbull tonight. The pain of defeat is slowing fading 🙂
[the fallacy that says low paid workers must be paid less so that the high paid may have more.]
Why is it that to motivate the poor we have to take money and security away from them, but to motivate the already rich & secure they must be given even money and security?
briefly
“You’re an exponent of a fallacy… If low wages were the ideal model for an economy, Bangladesh would have the best economy on earth. The fact of the matter it that the application of capital drives labour-productivity.”
I have not and do not argue for a low-wage economy but I do realise we exist in a global system where countries can increase employment by being more competitive and that there are different positives and negatives that come into play as we move wages dials up and down.
In a closed system, such as if Australia did not compete with international entities, what you say is blanket true – a high minimum wage would foster employment and better livelihoods for workers.
But this is not true in a globalised and interconnected system where such conditions are not applied universally. In such a system a high wage can be both a cause of increased employment and decreased employment depending on how trade exposed the industry is.
I am not saying that it is the most important factor, in fact I listed a factor I saw as more important (property costs), but it is a factor and if you really don’t see it that way then I think you’re background in understanding of labour economics is a little lacking.
Your reaction frankly is knee-jerk and over the top. The argument is about the size of penalty rates and not whether they should exist or not.
Would you seriously say that every penalty rate in the country is at its ideal setting at the moment and it is impossible to conceive that their might be an industry or two where penalty rates are set higher than optimum? What qualifies you to know to the dollar what that optimum rate would be?
[Why is it that to motivate the poor we have to take money and security away from them, but to motivate the already rich & secure they must be given even money and security?]
We don’t have to we just have to accept that we will lose some jobs to those markets who have lower cost structures and concentrate on those segments where we are competitive. We have been for a long time a country with a good standard of living and at present we just have to work harder to maintain that.
Like when people rejected Work Choices the people will decide through elections over the long-term.
Is Billy Boy Shorten going to protect Australia from terrorist pedophiles?
Also… this is a Morgan… the Coalition are ahead in a Morgan.
Labor are stuffed
briefly & Doyley
Agreed about today’s framing of penalty rates.
Lots of people depend on them. Widen the whole thing out as much as possible. Make it harder for the bastards to say “…but of course we’re not talking about YOU…”. Because if you’re on penalty rates, they are.
The last Morgan was at least 4% better than the other polling so I wouldn’t get too excited just yet TBA. However it seems apparent that the LNP position is getting stronger for now. It helps when you have a leader that people can respect.
What a week.
Cowboys win the Grand Final.
My Medibank Shares up 10%
And now the Coalition ahead in a Morgan.
I expect tomorrow dancing girls will burst out of a gigantic cake and I’ll win Ozlotto
remember that morgan is now owned by galaxy a Murdoch company. I hope the real story isn’t that Murdoch is going to win another election.
Morgan *is* an incredibly jumpy poll – although it does skew to Labor, it still loves to get right on board with those trends. I was looking on Phantom Trend to see which of the polling companies are most likely to poll outliers – to nobody’s surprise, it’s Morgan.
[We don’t have to…]
Exactly. 😉
Given it’s taken years for the Libs to scrape together a lead in the polls I expect we must tolerate a certain amount of gratuitous gloating.
briefly
“We really have to decide to run a knowledge-based, high-productivity, egalitarian economy.”
This. Yes.
A part of this would be involving workers in a greater degree of decision making, devolving the power and income of company executives and giving workers a greater share of company profits.
We agree on these whole-heartedly. Lower penalty rates in some situations can be part of that equation though. It is all about balance and the right legislation.
Balance is really key – it isn’t just more jobs at the top end that we need, more jobs at the bottom end are good too. Not everyone is suited temperamentally or intellectually or even desires a job in the knowledge economy. Everyone should be paid a fair and equitable wage and benefit (and be penalised) for the success of their enterprises to the extent that they enable it.
We are not living in a Utopia where everything can be aligned to Marxist theory and must remain cognisant of the pro’s and con’s of all policy settings.
It is never the case that the pro’s fall all on one side and I think some consistently try to paint issues as being that way in order to push their own agenda and beliefs.
If you see things that black and white then that is just the way it is for you I guess – but I haven’t found in my experience that this is often the case in reality.
[Why is it that to motivate the poor we have to take money and security away from them, but to motivate the already rich & secure they must be given even money and security?]
Because the rich and secure make the rules?
This same mood will be captured as 52.5-47.5 in all the other polls.
No doubt about it though, Talcum has the LNP in front, now they’ve jettisoned that deadweight formerly known as PM Abbott.
lefty e
That’s the good bit, the more the polls trend toward the cat strangler the less likely the wall puncher has of getting back the precious.
[remember that morgan is now owned by galaxy a Murdoch company.]
Uh … wrong and wrong.
BSA Bob
“Lots of people depend on them. Widen the whole thing out as much as possible. Make it harder for the bastards to say “…but of course we’re not talking about YOU…”. Because if you’re on penalty rates, they are.”
The trouble with Australian politics is exactly this. Too many of us decide to “fight for our side” rather than try earnestly to work with other points of view and other sides for the best result.
I would say these statements are all true:
On aggregate Australian workers are paid highly.
On aggregate it would be a better outcome if workers had more control of their labour and payment rates.
On aggregate corporate executives and shareholders and unreasonably highly rewarded for their efforts and exert undue control.
There are Australian’s who struggle to make ends meet and deserve more.
Some penalty rates are too high and cause detrimental affects to workers, businesses and the economy.
There is an opportunity to unpick the issues, have the parliament work through them and provide great solutions. But this is not what is going to happen. Most will take sides and blast their opinions and win their own little battles to the detriment of proper progress.
There are positive and negative effects for workers from high penalty rates and whilst it is not possible to carve out new policy that does not make some individuals worse off it is possible to craft legislation that sees everyone treated and rewarded fairly for their efforts.
For some that might include high penalty rates and for others lesser.
[5.Bill Shorten is indeed a wretched, hapless figure because even when he talks on his preferred ground he still finds a way to foul it up.]
Never been a Shorten fan but all this moronic dribble from you has me reassessing beyond the reality that if you supported him he would lose in the biggest landslide ever.
Penalty Rates.
NOT ONE employer took up the agreement in South Australia
I have a business that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
From my perspective, any business that is wanting to operate on weekends and public holidays, needs to work out the price of their product to do so and make a profit. No matter what day or what time of day you purchase my services, you pay the same price.
Business demanded and campaigned for weekends and public holidays, and is still campaigning for even longer hours.
When these extended hours fail to deliver the profits, they decide they still want the profit level and the way to get it is to reduce the wages of the workers. They want the workers to pay for their poor business planning
You could have anyone as leader of the opposition at the moment and the polls would be as they are. Pretty simple.
The Shorten haters are out in force. Just an excuse to sink the boot.
Good to see Turnbulls first big spend is on more war machinery. Guess we need it, given Abbo sent us to war.
L G H
Thanks for the considered response. Can’t digest it now, will attempt to do so at a later date. Dinner watching Vera put some more baddies away & then to bed for work tomorrow.
mikehilliard #86
our troops deserve good equipment
WOW….look forward to the next Bludgertrack adjustment.
I reckon Turnbull should be aiming for triple figures in the HOR seat count now.
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/10/05/14/39/nauru-government-announces-end-of-detention-on-island
….I wonder how much influence Turnbull’s administration had on this. Quite a lot I expect.
83
I remember you saying you got a new job. Now you have a 24 7 business. Is qantas still giving its executives 200 million? You have been consistent though on any business that can’t make a profit in the current conditions it is only the greedy owners fault.
Nearly 20% difference on first preferences.
Margin of error be damned that is quite astonishing…..
Gary
Yeah, I can feel a Hudson game over moment coming on.
[65
L G H
What qualifies you to know to the dollar what that optimum rate would be?]
I don’t claim this for myself. Implicitly, however, this is the claim the Liberals make and that you make – that penalty rates are necessarily too high, that wages at the lower levels are too high, that wages will determine investment (and employment) rather than, as we know is the case, investment determines wages.
This “balance” you mention is a pure distraction from the basic goals of the Liberals, which include:
– the further casualisation of labour
– the erosion of standard hours/day and standard days/week so that the marginal cost of labour will tend to be the same at any hour or on any day
– the repression of workers’ ability to withdraw their labour, organise freely and bargain collectively (this is already a feature of non-award bargains on the wharves and elsewhere)
– the (at least) incidental use of indentures and other forms of bond to limit the mobility and choices available to labour and to curtail their legal rights
I am an employer with a business in the traded goods, export-facing sector.
I have discussions with others who are also involved in the traded-goods sectors. They are frank about this. They want to see wages depressed because they think it will advantage them. The wider picture means nothing at all to them….absolutely nothing.
They could not be more wrong but that does not mean they will desist from their project.
AA
[our troops deserve good equipment]
No argument with that. I was hoping we could pull out of the idiotic war in Iraq/Syria however, that would offset the cost nicely.
I’m not terribly interested in the personalities, but did anyone see Malcolm Turnbull’s body language at the AFL Grand Final breakfast…
[However it seems apparent that the LNP position is getting stronger for now. It helps when you have a leader that people can respect.]
You respect utegate / fraudband Mal? What a low low standard you have, must be all that Queensland sun.
[“The Shorten haters are out in force. Just an excuse to sink the boot.”]
Consider me a Shorten Lover
In Victoria, there has been a tsunami of criticism of a new public holiday (restoring one from among many losses that Kennett inflicted).
The argument appears to be that people stop spending because the banks and offices are shut! I think it obvious that the spend for a person in a typical week will remain the same, or increase if they take the long weekend as a vacation! You will spend the same on food, on clothes, and a bit more on fuel for the car. So the only losses to business are the piffling extra paid to the wage slaves like waiters and shoppies!
This argument can be reconstructed in the Sunday penalty rates nonsense! Paying the waiters less will mean more money is spent (not) and so you need more staff at slave-rates! Some very poor economic thinking here!!
[TrueBlueAussie
….”The Shorten haters are out in force. Just an excuse to sink the boot.”
Consider me a Shorten Lover]
Me too
🙂
Thank god you guys don’t ever learn…..keep Shorten as long as you like and then perhaps bring back Gillard (confessions thinks she would have won the 2013 election so it can’t be that risky)
It is far too early to make firm predictions about the next election unless, of course, Turnbull calls a snap election with the polls as they are.
As to Shorten being replaced, that would be a bad move, but if it had to be, Mark Dreyfus QC would be my choice.
Regrettably, Plibersek continues to disappoint me, and as for Wong, no thanks, her sexuality would be the name of the game, and feel she is overrated.