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.

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.

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.

3,566 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”

Comments Page 70 of 72
1 69 70 71 72
  1. So we have come down to this?
    Zoomster taking on Nicole yesterday and today we have Colton taking on anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
    I give up! This blog was about opinions on Politics and now it is anything but .

  2. Colton
    “One thing I can guarantee is the likes of you will never say anything that will upset ….. That is why I was so offended by the stupid letter ”

    Self-awareness not your strong point. It rarely is for shouters and boors.

  3. Condolences, but now we know why Colton behaves like an angry attention-seeking 14 year old most of the time (& sorry that sounds so callous). Just stop engaging with him. (& I realise what I did there). it’s boring and feeds his stunted ego. You can have a little rant now Colton. I’m out.

  4. For once and bloody all, the ABS cannot legally release personal information.

    Ajm,

    the problem is that the ABS may be able to release information on individuals under the pretense of anonymity, by pretending that a SLK anonymises that individual, which it doesn’t. Now I’m not going to attempt to interpret the law as it stands. The problem here is that even if the present law forbids the release of “anonymised” data to third parties, that may change with further legislation/regulation. And now we have a mechanism to make it happen.

  5. My take from a position of no expertise, so just streaming consciousness. Proper regional solution to deal with the route from Indonesia to Australia. Bring them here and bring them safe. Provide an alternative avenue so they don’t take a boat..

    Yes, that pretty much sums up my own view of the matter, though I’d note that any “only if safe to do so” requirement in my view should include safety in the place you are sending them back to, not just safety on the voyage as it currently is unfortunately interpreted.
    At present we spend vast sums turning back some and locking up a few , with remarkably little real consideration of the ultimate consequences for the children, women and men whose lives we play with. “saving lives at sea” means nothing unless we are also prepared to save, and make humanly viable, those same lives on shore, either ours or someone elses!

  6. Dtt,

    You didnt upset me.
    I have a much thicker skin than most people.
    In the last week here alone I have been called a Liberal apologist, a cyber bully, a sook and more.
    Water off a ducks back as the saying goes.
    I don’t seek to shut down debate or those I disagree with.
    Mainly because the one thing I have learnt since posting here is that alliances here are flimsy and forever changing.
    For example, Bemused and I agree on the topic of the census and the greens but disagree strongly on topics such as Rudd v Gillard and the ABC.
    You and I probably agree on more than we disagree but we often are in conflict.
    I agree with a lot of Guytaurs comments but sometimes I think he talks utter garbage.
    I even agree with Nicholas on somethings such as some of his posts following the Brexit vote but I strongly disagree with a lot of other things he says and Im pretty sure he would say the same.
    We all have opinions. We are all entitled to give voice to those opinions. We are all allowed to disagree and to state our views forcefully.
    Some people are a lot more precious than others and I appreciate that.
    I am not precious, I take any comment/insult in my stride. Everyone should do the same unless that insult is overtly racist etc.
    The facts are that I was called a sook by Nicole. Unprovoked I might add.
    I took it in good humour and gave a response that was meant in good humour.
    For god knows what reason you and Guytaur thought it was their mission to white-knight Nicole against my harmless barb that Nicole obviously took in a light hearted way.
    Guytaur even called me a supporter of Malcolm Roberts.
    I mean how fucking juvenile.
    Do you and Guytaur like Dogs?
    Because I know for a fact that Adolph Hitler loved dogs.
    Why do you and Guytaur suppoort Adolph Hitler?
    That is how silly that argument is.
    Apparently if you support one thing that some right wing nut supports then you are a supporter of that person.
    Corey Brenardi opposed the Malaysia Solution and so did the Greens.
    Would it be legit for me to say that the Greens support Corey Bernardi?
    No, it would be absolutely fucking stupid.
    Hence my replies to Guytaur.
    A man who bleats when someone calls him a green but sees it appropriate to label me a supporter of Malcolm Roberts and by implication One Nation.

    The difference is that I welcome debate and differences of opinion here.
    If I wanted to participate in a circle jerk of agreement and head nodding then I would join twitter and follow only those who pander and agree with my point of view.
    I don’t do that for the simple reason that I think it is dangerous and frankly boring to sit in an echo chamber all day long.
    I saw what happens when people take that path.
    You get examples such as Bernie Sanders supporters who spent every waking moment communicating with and reading only opinions that confirm their own bias which left them emotionally stunted and unable to cope with the fact that they are in a minority and that they LOST.
    Thats why so many Sanders supporters are still crying that the votes were rigged (Trump like) because they spent months being told that they are right by like minded people and that they were part of some grand revolution when in reality the revolution never extended much past their Facebook/Twitter page and their own close circle of friends.

    That is the very reason that I don’t understand people using STFU.
    Im not here for validation and approval. Im here to hear all opinions and If I disagree I will say so or simply ignore.
    Which all goes back to my original comment last night which started this pointless discussion.
    It is wrong, cowardly, weak and intellectually retarded to try and ban anyone here.
    I would like to hear your opinion on the original post last night that drew my Ire in the first place.
    Do you support the banning of dissenting voices?
    Because I dont and I will call out any weak and gutless hypocrite who does so.
    How about you, Guytaur and others address my original response last night instead of wasting your time trying to one up my every comment.

  7. Colton

    You are singularly the most unpleasant person on this blog/chat.

    No need to respond, I wont be here. It is too much for me.

  8. Interesting.
    Still no comment from the like of Sustainable Future or El Guapo on the original post last night which drew my initial response.
    You know that post penned by another gutless and poncy greens supporter calling for Bemused, C@tmomma and Zoomster to be banned.
    I can only presume they agree with silencing opposing voices as is in keeping with their regressive beta male personas.

  9. [ Lizzie
    Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:01 pm
    Maybe we should have PB divided into two streams.

    1. People who can discuss a proposition in a calm fashion without descending into insults.
    2. People who enjoy fighting and endless arguments and think that rudeness and lack of respect is “normal”.]
    You must hate parliament! PB is tame.
    And when people keep repeating the same misinformation and dow nright lies, what do you suggest?

  10. Haha. what a pussy you are Moksha.
    Throw out an insult then run.
    How very principled of you. What a coward. Im guessing your a green?

  11. Guytaur,

    Shifting goalposts?
    What would you call your post calling me a supporter of Malcolm Roberts be?
    Answer the question I asked or just ignore me.

  12. 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.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVOJla2vYx8

    Ecclesiastes 3King James Version (KJV)

    3 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

    2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

    3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

    4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

    5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

    6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

    7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

    8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

    9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?

  13. rod hagen @ #3463 Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Nicole: My take from a position of no expertise, so just streaming consciousness. Proper regional solution to deal with the route from Indonesia to Australia. Bring them here and bring them safe. Provide an alternative avenue so they don’t take a boat..
    Rod: Yes, that pretty much sums up my own view of the matter, though I’d note that any “only if safe to do so” requirement in my view should include safety in the place you are sending them back to, not just safety on the voyage as it currently is unfortunately interpreted.
    At present we spend vast sums turning back some and locking up a few , with remarkably little real consideration of the ultimate consequences for the children, women and men whose lives we play with. “saving lives at sea” means nothing unless we are also prepared to save, and make humanly viable, those same lives on shore, either ours or someone elses!

    Agreed.

  14. El Guapo,

    Comprehension appears to not be your strong suit.
    No, I am not offended by any comment directed at me.
    Yes, I was offended that some pansy tried to silence the voices of 3 long standing and regular posters here simply because he disagreed with them.
    There is no inconsistency in those two comments because the letter was not written about me.
    How about you give us your opinion on the letter published last night.
    Do you agree with the banning of dissenting views?
    Yes or No. Its an easy question.

  15. Bloody Hell, I knew my new avatar would trigger some people but it appears it has attracted greens like a moth to a light.

    i.e. “look at me. look at me. looook aaaaat meeeeee!!!”

    get help.

    I vote don’t ban anyone – just ignore sad-sack dickhead trolls (& again, I know I just failed to do so).

  16. You know, good people of all persuasions, it isn’t really necessary to defend yourself to the death with a barrage of counterpoints about the personality and past mis-deeds and intellect of anyone who reflects on your own personality and past mis-deeds and intellect. Doing so is, in fact, usually quite counterproductive, and just re-inforces the silly stereotypes all round.

    There was once a great Monty Python sketch where Michael Palin walks into a room expecting argument, but instead receives a blast of ” Don’t give me that you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type makes me puke! You vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert.”

    Palin discovers he’s strayed into “abuse” by mistake. I sadly sometimes feel I must’ve done the same when I call in here these days.

    When people get sillily abusive, let it go. Sure, briefly correct any factual errors not related to your nature, your personal attributes, those of your mother etc etc., but for the most part those who behave in that fashion aren’t worth replying to anyway. Replying in the same fashion just puts you in the same category, diminishing both the value of your thoughts and the chances anyone will really bother reading ’em!

  17. Sustainable Future,

    Seriously. Is that the best you can do?
    Talk about projection.
    The fact you leaped into a discussion in which you were not involved in, not mentioned in and not concerning you in anyway shows that it is infact you looking for attention.
    You also post far more regularly that I do so I wonder who is actually the one seeking attention and validation.
    You must have a sad life.

  18. [Dan Gulberry
    Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:45 pm
    bemused @ #3394 Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:54 am

    Don’t mess with an idiot, he would get you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    Unknown
    I think you’ll find that quote is from Mark Twain.]
    Thanks Dan. Sounds a likely source. I will do a bit of research.

  19. I was hoping to trigger the more intelligent and sensible Greens posters but it would appear I have only attracted the b-team.

  20. Colton
    I do not use stfu much but only when the abuse overwhelms the rationale debate AND I see no possibility of change.

    However it may surprise you to know that you are one of the MOST abusive posters on this site. You do not debate you abuse. For crying out load you are abusing US because some unknown poster complained to Crikey. Now I do not know the poster, cannot recall any comment, yet you are accusing us of wanting to ban people. ii only talked of banning when I reflected back YOUR post.

    However I am going to say this of most of the ALP hacksters. Your hatred for the Greens is bordering on pathological, so much so that you cannot have a rational debate on any topic where there is the merest disagreement. If King Billy does not agree then it must be crazy Green trolling.

    Now you may (probably will) take offence, but in my imagination most of you have personalities reminiscent of Tony Abbott. Ideological in the extreme, hating “lefty commo greens” and acting out your rage and hatred. You are LESS hostile to Cory and co than to green leaners and as such i lump you more in with One Nation and Cory Bernadi than I do with say rational mainstream Labor.

  21. I take it with milk Colton.

    “I was hoping to trigger the more intelligent and sensible Greens posters”.

    No you weren’t. But as George Brandis might have said “People have a right to be dicks you know”.

  22. Ha! Just saw this online – apparently it was just said on ABC24. Can anyone confirm?

    “I haven’t filled out the census form But I am filling out terms of reference for an inquiry” – Xenophon

  23. Hey Rod

    William can I please, please use this one against irritating posters
    “You vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert.” seems to fit quite a few

  24. ‘The fact you leaped into a discussion in which you were not involved in, not mentioned in and not concerning you in anyway shows that it is infact you looking for attention.’

    Everyone’s involved in every discussion if they choose to be.
    It’s the nature of a blog in case you hadn’t noticed.

  25. My view, FWIW, is that posts about posters should be discouraged and posts about issues should be encouraged. Posts about posters diminish the blog IMHO.

  26. the angry white male as a demographic is funny and true.

    Watched a docco on the Klu Klux Klan last night on TV, and the thing that struck me about raving loonies in general – ISIS, the Klan, take your pick – is their tendency to be full of their own seriousness, ugly, and for the blokes to sport full beards.

    That, and the women of both organizations wearing burqhas, of course.

    Maybe the Klan today – revolting, repulsive but basically harmless in their strutting about – is what ISIS will be like in 100 years.

    Too long to wait to find out, unfortunately.

  27. I don’t think there’s any conversation on this forum that anyone is “not involved in”, anything posted so publicly it’s fair game for anyone have a go. Similarly people aren’t “pussies” if they choose to make only one comment and leave it at that. Or if they don’t take the bait when subjected to an abusive vomit of hate. This is an internet forum, not a bar-room brawl. There’s no glory in being so bilious that people decide to walk away backwards and disengage

Comments Page 70 of 72
1 69 70 71 72

Leave a Reply

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