Essential Research, which is still the only polling series back in the game after the election, records Labor maintaining a 52-48 lead in the latest reading of its fortnightly rolling average, with primary votes also unchanged at Coalition 39%, Labor 37%, Greens 10% and Nick Xenophon Team 4%. Also featured:
• Support for nominating Kevin Rudd for Secretary-General of the United Nations was finely balanced at 36% for and 39% against, which was predictably split along party lines.
• Thirty-seven per cent said Tony Abbott should resign from parliament; 25% that he should be given a ministry; and 21% that he should remain on the back bench. A similar question in March found 47% saying he should quit at the looming election, with 18% saying he should be given a ministry and 15% that he should remain on the back bench.
• Capping after-tax super contributions backdated at $500,000 recorded 29% approval and 34% disapproval.
• A question on groups that would be better and worse off under the re-elected Coalition government returned the usual results, with large companies and the high-income earners expected to do very well indeed, small businesses somewhat less well but still net positive, and various categories of struggler expected to do poorly.
• As it does on a semi-regular basis, the pollster asked questions on trust in various media outlets. However, this asked specifically on reportage of the federal election campaign, dropped separate questions for the news and current affairs as distinction from talkback programming of “ABC radio” and “commercial radio”, and in the case of the newspapers, dropped the normal proviso that respondents be be a readers of the paper in question to qualify for inclusion. This led to much lower levels of trust being recorded for the newspapers across the board, while the radio results split the difference between the higher results that are normally recorded for news and current affairs, and the lower results for talkback. As far as relativities are concerned, the results as before find television the most trusted medium, public broadcasters favoured over commercial ones. However, The Australian did not perform significantly better than News Corporation tabloids, as it has usually done in the past, whereas the Fairfax papers continued to record somewhat higher levels of trust than News Corporation ones.
3,123 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”
I have now watched the 4corners program.
My take out. It was pretty lame cos whilst there was commentary from Abbott and a few others re the issues with the NSW Liberal party membership, where was the mention of non disclosure of donations that resulted in the AEC with holding funds? For me that was the elephant in the room. Apart from that it was merely subliminal advice for the Party via Costello. The budget needs balancing and the super stuff aint enough to do it. For things to get done, every one has to try and get on same page. ie disunity is death.
It was essentially just an interview with the Liberal party and a platform to sell their message, dressed up as investigative reporting.
Sorry but I cannot remember what I said about that, but I simply can’t understand the public furore that has erupted in the US about which public restrooms transgender people can and can’t use. I’d be very surprised if anyone other than rusted on Republican voters cared about the issue.
These people must be nutters as well then ‘
Yes, I think that some Bemused’s way of coping with a complex world is just to label anyone as a nutter that doesn’t agree with him.
Can’t deal with the actual issue because it’s a trust thing or something.
some = sometimes
Oh and the Yabsley guy on 4 corners, who was former Treasurer of party, dropped enough hints that big reforms within the party, was necessary. My observation is that if anyone bothered scratching the surface they would find heaps of corruptive Conduct. This is whilst they are not mobilising the community to be part of the party. It is an exclusive club and this may eventually be its undoing.
It was more than that, it was a call to the party to think about the way forward
It was essentially just an interview with the Liberal party and a platform to sell their message, dressed up as investigative reporting.’
Yes, and totally ignored all the actual evidence of potential corruption – ie Parkellia.
A very lame effort indeed.
4 Corners just had to join the dots, but first they had to draw the dots.
adrian @ #3104 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 1:47 pm
I think it’s an age thing. If you haven’t grown up in an online world, or in a world where identity theft is a cruel reality (my partner recently had their identity stolen, but I think we found out in time to prevent major damage) – then you simply can’t understand what the fuss is about, or just how easily the apparently ‘innocuous’ information you put down on your census form can be abused.
adrian @ #3104 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 1:47 pm
It’s easier than an Alice in Wonderland type experience. 😀
So Meher Baba from that do I take it that gay males should be banned from using the male toilets, and lesbians banned from using the ladies’, lest the other users of the facilities find it ‘creepy’?
player one @ #3050 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 12:02 pm
Age rather than D.O.B, a very good idea. Cheers.
“L/NP 40(+1) ALP 37(0) GRN 10(0) NXT 4(0) OTH 10(0)” Adds up to 101%. Does Joe Hockey work for Essential?
bemused @ #3074 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 12:55 pm
Regardless of your own personal feelings on the matter, the majority of persons out there do not share your level of trust. There has plenty of polling done before revealing people’s mistrust of government institutions and the government itself. Aside from privacy concerns, there is a greater concern and that is that due to increased distrust, the data received from this census will be a lot less reliable than prior to these changes. That is my primary concern. I just think it is a stupid idea, impulsive and not considered carefully enough. They have not thought this through.
player one @ #3080 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 1:08 pm
Exactly! There are plenty of people out there who are either not “squeaky clean” or are concerned at being discriminated against should things about them be “on the record”. Things they would consider none of anyone’s business and only admit to when they think they can answer anonymously.
Also, consider this. Look what happened to Duncan Storrer after he had the guts to ask a question on Q&A, the way the media dug up his past and the Libs would have just loved that. We hear all the time about “leaks”, corruption. We see the way people manage to drag out criminal histories of aspiring politicians that should be inaccessible due to a statute of limitations. In fact I recall something about a corrupt person in the ABS that was releasing data to another person who was benefiting financially from the information. I cannot recall the details now. It is times like this I generally get on the search engine but it may ring some bells with one of you reading this. Just saying there are plenty of reasons for people to balk at this latest change.
confessions @ #3100 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 1:40 pm
*****5 Gold Stars
Those wondering what “all the fuss is about” with respect to the census should take a listen to the “law radio” blog at https://lawradio.net/2016/08/06/whats-in-a-name-the-census-question/ (where there are links to both iTunes & SoundCloud version)
It is not in the slightest “sensationalist” but it does provide a very good guide to the pros and cons of different ways of approaching the matter, with commentary from the excellent Dr Caroline Henckels – Monash University expert on Constitutional and Public Law.
She also has some useful advice about the pros and cons of using your own name, using no name, or using an alias, for those who do have concerns.
People might also take a look at Ingrid Matthews blog at https://imatthewsblog.com/2016/08/07/trust-and-the-census-who-definitely-benefits/
Ingrid lectures in law at the University of Western Sydney, and has some interesting perspectives on the way many educated indigenous commentators see the issue.
I’m afraid I reckon the ABS are being rather disingenuous about some of the security aspects of the name processing. Yes, they will remove names from the census data set itself, but only after creating a seperate name based “key” which allows the data to be compared with other data sets for which name based “keys” will also be created, now and in the future. Once such “keys” are created the possibility of malfeasance or a subsequent change in government policy being used to undertake “matching” and reverse engineering to establish names undoubtedly exists.
Yes, they are clearly trying, but the only “guarantees” they can really give are ones of “best endeavours and current intent”. they should be much more upfront about such things.
And hey, providing a link on the ABS Census website’s Privacy page to a copy of the Privacy act which has subsequently been amended no less than 9 times to include increased powers for enforcement agencies etc doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence about their competence!
rod hagen @ #3119 Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 3:12 pm
Thanks Rod. I for one will check these out. Unfortunately this thread now appears to be dead. I am thinking of copying over my earlier responses since WIlliam’s new thread link to the new thread.
“This is the first Census we are asked to provide our names. It is mandatory not optional.”
Not according to Andrew Leigh.
Senate Reform Performance Review (parts 1 and 2)
from Choice on milk..
To support Australian dairy farmers, you can do the following:
Buy Australian dairy products, irrespective of brand.
Buy branded milk if your budget allows (but if not, buy private label milk rather than no milk at all). According to Dairy Australia spokesperson, “Branded milk puts more money into the supply chain. That gives the option for processors to pay marginally more to farmers.”
Support initiatives like Aussie Farmers Direct, which offers a premium to dairy farmers over the farm gate price for milk.
Buy directly from a local processor – or better still a farmer at your local farmers’ market – if you have the option.