No change in the two-party preferred reading of the Essential Research fortnightly rolling average this week, with Labor maintaining a lead of 52-48. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up a point to 40% and Labor, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team are steady on 37%, 10% and 4%. Monthly leadership ratings find Malcolm Turnbull recovering slightly from his post-election dip, with approval up one to 38% and disapproval down five to 43%, while Bill Shorten is respectively down two to 37% and steady at 41%. Turnbull’s lead on preferred prime minister is up from 39-31 to 40-30. Other questions find opinion finely balanced on the effect on Australia of “globalisation” (29% gained, 29% lost, 18% neither). Forty per cent of respondents were ready to subscribe to the frankly idiotic view that “Australian trade with other countries” causes Australia to lose more jobs than it gains, with only 28% providing the correct and obvious answer. The poll also finds 45% approving of the census keeping names and addresses versus 39% disapproving; 47% saying the state of the economy is getting worse, with only 13% saying it’s getting better and 25% saying the recent interest rate cut will make them better off versus 29% for worse off.
Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor
No change on voting intention from Essential Research, but Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings improve slightly after post-election dip.
3,566 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”
and the winner is……….
“fuck colton give it a rest
you sound like bemused on acid”
I would have said “compact crank not on his medication”
New thread. Now let’s all take the opportunity to usher in a kinder and gentler polity.
colton @ #3542 Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 2:59 pm
Go back and read it yourself. Here’s the link to the letter last night. I was not on PB last night following this letter.
I apologise when I have overs stepped the mark.
I expect any decent person to do the same.
I do not accept your definition of pansy therefore will not apologise on this occasion.
A pansy to me is someone who acts in an unmanly way.
Calling for the banning of those who disagree with you is not the act of a decent Man (or decent woman for that matter) so I will stand by my use of the word.
Also I find it funny that you would criticise someone who owns up to a mistake and publicly apologises.
How very regressive of you.
That comment alone tells me everything about you as a person.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 1:35 pm
nicole @ #3455 Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:59 pm
daretotread @ #3448 Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:49 pm
KayJay and Lizzie
Yes I would add BK and also David WH to you nice people crowd because they are invariably polite. Socrates and Diogenes also can go over.
I suppose the rest of us have to swim in our own cess pool.
The Byrds song, Turn, Turn, Turn comes to mind.
Ecclesiastes 3King James Version (KJV)
And made into a song by Pete Seeger, long before The Byrds were even thought of.
Colton @ 3542,
This may be unwise of me, but as far as I know, my understanding of the moderator’s guidelines, nowhere prohibits people commenting on others postings, This in relation to you wanting to know why Nicole might comment on a discussion between yourself and Bemused.
I’ve been frequenting this blog since before the Palmer blog closed down in the face of a descent into vitriolic abuse and it’s been getting close to that here of late, though the Palmer blog did have some rusted on right wing types contributing to the melee.
I think last week’s Essential sample must have been kind to the L-NP. They have a good day when they stay out of the news… the Olympics might be helping with that. I can’t remember the last time they had a good week.
Surely we will get some other polls soon?
Colton you’re welcome to your own definition but I don’t accept it as you’re not correct. Anyway that’s it for me, enjoy your mood
If you did not read the original post or my reply last night then I again ask why you decided to involve yourself in the discussion between Bemused and I.
If what you say is true than your unprovoked comment to me this morning exposes you as nothing but a shit stirrer with too much time on their hands.
Why would you call me a sook without knowing what I was talking about?
It would appear you are too stupid to even remember a few hours ago.
Again I ask why did you comment to me this morning when I did not once reference you at all? Does not make sense?
william bowe @ #3552 Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 3:08 pm
Couldn’t agree more – as long as you are not channelling Abbott.
bemused @ #3555 Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 3:15 pm
colton @ #3559 Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 3:18 pm
I was trying to use a little humour to settle you down after having read quite a lot of comments where you were making a fuss about the letter from the night before. Now you are making a very big deal about my comment trying to settle you a bit. You seem to be trying to pick a fight or something but I don’t want to fight with you and I am not going to. I am an ALP member btw and I mention it here since you seem to think I am a Greens supporter and have some irrational bias against them which is something else I don’t understand. Anyway, can we just get beyond it now. I am sorry for asking you to stop being sooky. I apologise, ok. Now let’s leave it be now because my kids are home and I need to go shopping with them now.
I have never said that Nicole could not comment on my comment.
With respect that is a strawman.
My point was that this whole shitstorm started when Nicole called me a sook this morning.
I responded to Nicole.
The next think I know Dtt and Guytaur chimed in. Not sure if it was to defend Nicole (against what im not sure?) or simply to pile on against me (again not sure why?)
My comment to Nicole was no more offensive or insulting as the comment made about me.
I then had idiots calling me a supporter of Malcolm Roberts and other such nonsense.
I rightly defended myself against such silly claims which then resulted in El Guapo, Sustainable Future and Moksha getting involved.
That is their right but it should be noted that once again a discussion I was having with others was derailed by those knobs calling me dickhead, a 14 year old child etc.
I have never even mentioned any of those three ever so dont know why they saw fit to respond to me in the first place?
Everything since then has been me defending myself against people who admit they did not read last nights posts and therefore would not really know what Bemused and I were talking about.
I just ask anyone to read back everypost since last night or even this morning.
Look at my few posts this morning before Nicole joined in and tell me where I insulted anyone,
You will not be able to.
My point to Nicole is simply that if as you claim you did not read last nights posts how could you possibly know what I was talking about and see fit to call me a sook?
Surely one would need to know what was being discussed?
Again I simply ask people to look back at the thread and see the time line of events.
Thank you for your reasoned response. it is appreciated. You might find the following of interest.
1. We have all copped the end of William’s moderation and we probably all feel it is unfair. So you are not alone, but we all (eventually) accept it with good grace.
2. I have placed Bemused on stfu because I was tired of his rudeness. This is particularly sad for me because we used to be mates and we had a very pleasant afternoon chat a few years ago in Brisbane. So whatever conversation you were having that involved Bemused I will not know of it.
3. I cannot recall what the particulars of discussion were last night so I cannot comment. However I am pretty sure I cop far more than my share of personal abuse on this site hence the reason I have blocked a few posters. I generally try to give back what I cop to a degree.
4. I had actually to agree with our letter writer because I too have found those three names posters to have been over the top especially in this last week. I was surprised but gratified that someone other than me also had noted how unreasonable the trio were being, especially for Nicole.
5. Given how much anger and hostility and refusal even to acknowledge that she had a legitimate point of view, that Nicole was copping I cannot blame her for being utterly frustrated. I suspect that you copped the end of a very frustrating and unrewarding series of exchanges with the recalcitrant Bemused, stubborn Zoomster and sometimes very nasty Cat.
Just read your post above
Please please do not imply I called you a d* head because i did not and i think I have only ever used the term once and i indicated it was my first time ever. it was a few weeks ago.
I apologise for using the term “run to mummy” which I was totally unaware had special significance, for you.
Fair enough. Perhaps we both had a degree of misunderstanding in the original exchange. I apologise for any fault on my behalf.
I should of not allowed myself to be riled up by a few other dickheads who clearly had no understanding of the discussion at all.
I do not include yourself or Dtt in that comment.
Dtt and I often disagree but usually we manage to keep it somewhat civil.
For the record, I do not think you are a green. I have read enough of your posts to know where you are coming from (probably not much different to me on most things)
It is clear that you and I have a completely different view on the letter last night.
Others obviously disagree but I can assure you I would feel just as strongly about the authors intent regardless of the people named.
My disgust at that comment and its intent is very real and would be the same if those were mentioned were Greens supporters, Trump supporters or anyone.
Trying to shut down discussion and silence opposing voices is the very thing I talk about when I say that the regressive left are just as dangerous as the far right.
The strength of feeling you have about the census is probably similar to my feelings about no-platforming and attempts to silence other voices.
At any rate, I apologise for my part in yet another pointless ‘debate’ on PB.
Ive got to pick my kids up from school now too.
Cheers and best wishes 🙂
Thankyou for your polite reply.
I have no problem with what you posted just now apart from we obviously disagree on the right of someone to call for the banning of others.
William made a good comment last night. I should of just left it there.
You probably know me well enough by now to know that sometimes I get involved in arguments I probably shouldnt.
Im willing to accept that sometimes I probably come across as an immature brat.
The difference between me and some others is that I accept the criticism, apologise when wrong and do make an effort to stay out of many of the wars here.
That is why I will rarely if ever get drawn into the Rudd v Gillard debate.
I just know that I probably could not control myself and would end up saying something truly insulting and way worse than calling someone a sook.
I took no offence to anything you said today.
I did take offence to being called a Malcolm Roberts supporter by someone who should know better especially when they then proceed to sook about being called a sook.
I can take criticism when its fair.
Im no shrinking violet.
I just expect the criticism to be honest not simple shit throwing like the 3 spider monkeys on display earlier flinging their shit around.
And by shit flinging monkeys im talking about Moskha, El Guapo and Sustainable future.
Anyway, its done now. We all move on.
Thanks for taking the time to give a polite and reasoned answer. 🙂