Essential Research: 51-49 to Labor

A blip back to the Coalition from Essential Research, which also turns in results on climate change, same-sex marriage and foreign investment.

The Essential Research fortnightly rolling average moves back a point to the Coalition this week, with Labor’s lead narrowing to 51-49 from primary votes of Coalition 39% (steady), Labor 36% (down one), Greens 10% (steady) and Nick Xenophon Team 4% (steady). Also featured are occasional questions on issue salience, recording big increases since December 2014 for national security and terrorism and housing affordability, and the best party to handle the various issues, with very little change on the previous such result in June, except that Coalition deficits have narrowed slightly on health and education. A semi-regular question on climate change finds 57% attributing it to human activity, down two points since June, with “normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate” also down two since July to 26%. Support for same-sex marriage is up four points to 62%, while opposition is down one to 27%. Sixty-two per cent oppose public funding of advertising campaigns in the event of a plebiscite, with only 25% in support. Respondents were also asked to state if various types of foreign investment were good or bad for the country, which recorded a neutral result for mining and negative ones for ports, agriculture, infrastructure and real estate.

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.

2,686 comments on “Essential Research: 51-49 to Labor”

Comments Page 50 of 54
1 … 49 50 51 … 54

  1. TPOF
    #2437 Monday, August 29, 2016 at 3:32 pm
    Wonderful stuff to play with “The snark’s flavour is meager and hollow” . I think I better try to remain calm. Fortunately the head of the Mandate party will arrive back on shore with a deft touch to calm his playmates and allay the fears of the hoi polloi.
    I think Inspector Morse tried to track said “Snark” at one time. 🙂

  2. Possibly a dumb question, but do the Coalition actually need to pass a bill to implement the plebiscite?

    The plebiscite is a non-binding opinion poll designed to break a tie in a Coalition factional disagreement. What part of that requires a bill?

    Is the bill just to allow them to get the AEC to run the poll instead of Ipsos, Galaxy etc? And to have fines for non-attendance?

  5. Scott

    On whether legislation is required for a plebiscite, Josh Taylor has an excellent analysis of this question in today’s Crikey

  6. Possibly a dumb question, but do the Coalition actually need to pass a bill to implement the plebiscite?

    I’ve wondered that for a while now.

    There are a couple of explanations:
    * Brandis is involved, and so it’s just complete idiocy (I like this explanation, but I kind of doubt it – Turnbull has his many many faults but he would be across this enough to know what was going on without Brandis’ ‘interpretation’)

    * If you want anything but the bog-standard service then you need legislation – if you want to fund the campaigns or possibly if you want a variant on the voting procedures. I’m guessing.

  7. Even with the updated values for the NT election it seems that only about 50% of ‘voting centres’ have so far been entered.
    We may have to wait for a few more days to know the final outcome.

  8. On the plebiscite …

    What is wrong with having a vote in the house (yes, I know this is likely to fail) but then followed up by a poll of all members to say “will you change your vote to match the result of the plebiscite?”. If the answer is that not enough members would change their votes anyway, then what is the point of having the plebiscite?

    A couple of questions in the parliament could save a cool $160 million.

  9. Scott Bales:

    from today’s Crikey:

    While the rules around a referendum are defined in law now, there is nothing in law to say exactly how a plebiscite will be run. Paul Kildea, a senior law lecturer at the University of New South Wales, told Crikey that legislation would need to set out when the plebiscite will be held, how the results will be announced, and what counts as a formal vote, such as whether a tick or a cross means a certain thing for either a yes or no vote. Kildea said that the government would likely attempt to model the legislation closely on referendum legislation.

    “As much as possible, the government may wish to have the plebiscite act just adopt relevant provisions of the referendum act and that’s probably a simple way of doing it. And then just alter those provisions as is necessary for the plebiscite,” he said.

    One potential change, however, would be to change the threshold for the outcome. Whereas in a referendum it is a majority of votes in a majority of states, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has indicated it would be a simple majority, although results would still be broken down, electorate by electorate — something conservative MPs will likely use to continue to vote against marriage equality in Parliament.

  10. Word is he will quit anyway, and challenge Nigel Scullion for the NT Senate spot

    Thanks Sprocket. That’ll be an interesting challenge.

  11. Oops I left off the first part of the Crikey article that is relevant to Scott’s question:

    Ultimately, the government can hold a plebiscite whenever it wants without needing to pass legislation, but there are a number of factors built into the marriage plebiscite that would require legislation.

    Article then goes on to discuss those factors.

  12. Turnbull has his many many faults but he would be across this enough to know what was going on without Brandis’ ‘interpretation’

    Like how he was so across State funding, horizontal fiscal equalisation, and the role of Income Tax in Federal Fiscal Policy?

    He’s a dope. Once you recognise that fact every thing else starts to make sense.

  14. ‘He’s a dope. Once you recognise that fact every thing else starts to make sense.’

    Tis true.
    Pity is that he fooled so many people for so long, and continues to do so.
    I guess many people look has immense wealth and assume a correlation that just isn’t there.

  16. ‘I guess many people look has immense wealth and assume a correlation that just isn’t there.’

    I listened to a radio interview a while back with an American billionaire.

    He had loaned money to two room mates from college, both of whom were starting up companies.

    One went bust and he lost every cent; the other made him a millionaire within a couple of years.

    He put it all down to luck – being in the right place at the right time and having a little spare cash on hand, and admitted that (in the brain stakes) both his room mates left him for dead (which is why he backed them).

  18. I have been listening to sports radio (SEN) for most of day. Macquarie radio news breaks have led all day with the denial by Daniel Andrews of unnamed labor sources suggesting he made insensitive remarks when Opposition leader. He has vehemently denied same and Neil Mitchell 3aw Melbourne version of right wing shock jock, did an editorial today suggesting there is something going on behind the scenes and Andrews Leadership is at risk.
    What gets me is that here in Vic, we are getting everything as promised by Andrews. Yet, it appears that some within his own party want to tear him down

  19. victoria @ #2468 Monday, August 29, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    I have been listening to sports radio (SEN) for most of day. Macquarie radio news breaks have led all day with the denial by Daniel Andrews of unnamed labor sources suggesting he made insensitive remarks when Opposition leader. He has vehemently denied same and Neil Mitchell 3aw Melbourne version of right wing shock jock, did an editorial today suggesting there is something going on behind the scenes and Andrews Leadership is at risk.
    What gets me is that here in Vic, we are getting everything as promised by Andrews. Yet, it appears that some within his own party want to tear him down

    Name them?
    I see no evidence of this, but I certainly see every effort being made to undermine Andrews by those journalistic cesspits the Herald-Sun and 3AW.

  20. victoria

    What gets me is that here in Vic, we are getting everything as promised by Andrews. Yet, it appears that some within his own party want to tear him down

    A few right faction rats trying to win media support for their own career.

  22. Bemused

    No doubt Herald Sun, Neil Mitchell and co are doing what they can to undermine Andrews. Although, from what I have gleaned from a couple of Labor MPs, the suggestion is that there is undermining taking place from within the party.

  23. victoria @ #2472 Monday, August 29, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Bemused
    No doubt Herald Sun, Neil Mitchell and co are doing what they can to undermine Andrews. Although, from what I have gleaned from a couple of Labor MPs, the suggestion is that there is undermining taking place from within the party.

    You personally raised it with Labor MPs?

  24. So you’d have to wonder whether this internal attack on Andrews is payback from Bill Shortens right faction for addressing the CFA/UFU issue during the federal election…?

  31. Here is ABC report on matter

    “We have our policy differences, we have our discussions, that’s not at issue here,” Ms Allan said.

    “What’s at issue here is that there … is a really small, tiny, really tiny miniscule group of people who are wanting to run around with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims making a bit of noise that’s capturing a bit of attention on the edges.

    “That’s not deterring the Government, the majority of caucus with the backing of the Cabinet to deliver on every single election commitment we’ve made to the Victorian community

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-29/speculation-over-possible-victorian-leadership-spill-dismissed/7794442

  33. Found as I am of Daniel, you could describe him as a careerist hack if you wanted to. Of course, he isn’t from the Right.

  34. I’ve had ABC Newsradio and ABC Radio National on during the day and have heard several news bulletins. Outside of PB, I’ve seen or heard nothing about Daniel Andrews’ problems. It just seems to be the usual shockjock / Murdoch stuff dishing the dirt, possibly real or more likely dubious, on a Labor figure who’s doing well – like Kevin Rudd yelling at hair dressers or whatever. We don’t see much of Neil Mitchell up here in Sydney. He seems to be a less feral version of the rabid commercial radio shock jocks we have here.

  38. Apologies if posted earlier.

    Jonathan Holmes:

    It’s hard to imagine a more serious attack on investigative journalism, and on the ability of the media to hold government to account. If section 79 can be used with reference to some documents about the financial viability of the NBN, it can be used to pursue the recipient of leaks of pretty much any official information.

    Of course, as Bill Shorten has pointed out, it’s arguable that the NBN Co is, according to its own legislation, not a Commonwealth enterprise and its employees are not Commonwealth officers. Neither section 70 nor 79 of the Crimes Act, arguably, can apply, and the AFP is acting well outside its own powers.

    But Labor is obsessed with trying to show that the Turnbull government is behind the AFP raids. Turnbull is outraged that Bill Shorten should even dare to question the AFP’s right to do whatever it likes. To my mind, what these warrants show is that the AFP is an agency that is effectively out of control. No magistrate should have granted them, and the media should have immediately united in outrage against them.

    But it has not.

    I’ve written before that it’s no exaggeration to say that this country is on its way to creating a secret police. And the erstwhile defenders of Australia’s Right to Know — News Corporation Australia, Fairfax Media, the ABC, Seven West Media, and the rest of the MSM — are uttering barely a murmur of protest.

  42. Rex D

    OMG. Frydenberg can try to spin all he likes, no one will believe his sincerity now.

    The climate sceptic Liberal MP Craig Kelly has been appointed chairman of the backbench environment and energy committee, with National party MP Kevin Hogan as secretary.

    The committee will provide feedback on legislation and policies relating to the environment and energy, including to the minister, Josh Frydenberg.

    Kelly served on the committee during the last parliament and previously invited climate sceptics to “balance” a presentation given by top climate scientists.

  43. ‘I’ve written before that it’s no exaggeration to say that this country is on its way to creating a secret police. And the erstwhile defenders of Australia’s Right to Know — News Corporation Australia, Fairfax Media, the ABC, Seven West Media, and the rest of the MSM — are uttering barely a murmur of protest.’

    Mr Holmes needs to get with the program. It’s been a long, long time since any of those organisations have been defenders of anything remotely connected with the ‘Right To Know’, if ever.

  44. Lizzie @ 5.05

    The money paragraph in Jonathan Holmes’s rant is this:

    And the erstwhile defenders of Australia’s Right to Know — News Corporation Australia, Fairfax Media, the ABC, Seven West Media, and the rest of the MSM — are uttering barely a murmur of protest.

    It’s a bit rich bagging politicians for doing their job and trying to get political advantage over their opponents (Shorten obsessed??????) when Holmes’s own colleagues are failing their professional responsibilities so spectacularly.

  45. Adrian

    If Holmes is protesting, the ‘secret police’ thingy must be catching on, because he’s a pretty conservative thinker.

  46. With an election necessarily due by May 2019, to avoid a separate half senate election, the maximum wait time for ME is 2 years. It could be considerably less depending on how badly this government performs.

    That’s what I keep saying about marriage equality. The plebiscite’s already been kicked into 2017, and the WA premier wants it out of the way of his state election so it might get pushed even further.

    That means probably less than two years further waiting before a Labor government could implement marriage equality via parliament (does anyone think for a moment that a Turnbull government defending 76 seats will be reelected?)

    In the meantime the government might be brought down by a by-election or a defection. And does Turnbull really want equal marriage to be a live issue at the 2019 election, with his government on the wrong side of public opinion? There must be the chance of a parliamentary vote this term.

    I don’t think Labor should blink on blocking the plebiscite.

  50. Rex

    No, it doesn’t. Andrews got where he is in exactly the same way an MP from the Right faction would have got there.

    I’ve known Daniel a long time, back when he was a back room boy looking for a safe seat.

Comments Page 50 of 54
1 … 49 50 51 … 54

Leave a Reply

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