Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor

No change from Essential Research, as a new Roy Morgan poll finds Malcolm Turnbull losing his position as preferred Coalition leader to Julie Bishop.

Our only new poll of national voting intention for the week is a stable reading of Essential Research’s fortnightly rolling average, which has Labor’s lead steady at 52-48 from primary votes of Coalition 38% (steady), Labor 37% (steady), Greens 10% (steady), One Nation 6% (steady) and Nick Xenophon Team 2% (down one). Other questions find 49% continuing to approve of Malcolm Turnbull’s replacement of Tony Abbott as Liberal leader, down from 58% at the time that it happened in September last year, with disapproval up from 24% to 29%; 6% thinking Australia’s gun laws too strong, 44% not strong enough and 45% about right; 44% in favour of phasing out live exports, with 29% opposed; and 55% supporting taxpayer-funded paid parental leave being curtailed for those with access to employer-sponsored schemes, with 32% opposed. Questions on the attributes of the two presidential candidates evince extraordinary hostility to Donald Trump, even to the extent of being deemed intelligent by 30% and not intelligent by 56% – the only net negative result on this question I’ve ever seen for a political leader. Hillary Clinton rates low for honesty and trustworthiness, but otherwise scores extremely well.

We also have one of Roy Morgan’s occasional phone poll results on leadership ratings, which has Malcolm Turnbull down twelve on approval since May to 31, and up eight on disapproval to 53%; Bill Shorten respectively down three to 31% and steady on 49%; and Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister down from 57-24 to 47-32. Most strikingly, Turnbull has lost his lead as preferred Coalition leader to Julie Bishop, with the two respectively down from 41% to 25% and up from 24% to 34%, while Tony Abbott’s rating has doubled to 14%. Bill Shorten is steady as preferred Labor leader on 14%, with his deficit widening relative to Tanya Plibersek (up three points to 25%) and Anthony Albanese (up four to 24%). The poll was conducted last Monday to Wednesday from a sample of 552.

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.

999 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”

Comments Page 19 of 20
1 18 19 20
  1. There’s probably more truth in that than you know. The Labor Party certainly use the Greens both to shape how they are perceived (as the centrist compromisers) and as political cover to do general leftish stuff they were planning to anyway.

  2. Labor has called on the prime minister to pull Liberal backbencher Cory Bernardi into line over his “campaigning” for US presidential hopeful Donald Trump.

    The conservative senator is on a three-month secondment to the United Nations in New York as a parliamentary observer.

    But Labor’s Penny Wong has accused him of using the taxpayer-funded post to support Trump.

    Senator Bernardi has openly backed the Republican candidate – the only person he follows on Twitter – while criticising the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/pm-needs-to-pull-bernardi-into-line-labor/news-story/634e165d4b19060c700f548dcfe7f63a

  3. Jeepers
    Nate has just flipped North Carolina and RCP has flipped Florida

    What do we know about Colorado and maybe Utah. they seem to hold the balance just now.

    At this rate we had better blow “Trumpets” – joke.

  4. That seems a little hypocritical since Labor has been pretty open about condemning Trump. Not that I think it’s inappropriate to condemn Trump, the man is manifestly unfit for office but you can’t do that then claim another politician should remain neutral.

  5. Y’know, if we’re assigning indirect credit (or blame) for the closure of the Hazlewood power station, and the decline of coal as a power source in general, then we should also give credit to the free market and innovation.

    Specifically, because of relative costs of coal power (due to its scarcity, the increasing maintenance of factories, government regulation), the relative abundance of natural gas
    and continuing innovation, research and funding in renewable energy making such systems cheaper and thus more viable as a mainstream option; coal isn’t as competitive as an energy source as it used to be, and as a result, it’s just not as profitable for energy companies to invest in coal-fired power plants anymore.

    In other worlds, coal is dying because of free-market Capitalism.

  6. Utah is probably Trump. There’s a chance of the Independent but it’s unlikely unless polled Clinton voters are voting strategical for him instead. Clinton has basically no chance but she never really did.

  7. I guess that depends on how you define free market, the fossil fuel industry would have been more than happy to continue squashing any interest in non-fossil fuels with their enormous market and lobbying power. It was political action and government grants and regulations that got renewables a foot in the door. But I’m willing to concede the first situation can’t really be called free-market capitalism by any honest assessment.

  8. elaugaufein @ #909 Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    I guess that depends on how you define free market, the fossil fuel industry would have been more than happy to continue squashing any interest in non-fossil fuels with their enormous market and lobbying power. It was political action and government grants and regulations that got renewables a foot in the door. But I’m willing to concede the first situation can’t really be called free-market capitalism by any honest assessment.

    True, I’m just pointing out that, for energy companies (at least in theory) have an incentive to invest in non-coal powered energy due to the market price being lower than coal powered energy.

    But you are right in saying that government has some serious influence on that market power and on the free market in general, and it has, can and should use that power to encourage non-coal powered energy.

    (I should note that I’m using the term ‘free market’ as a general term to describe Australia’s economy as a whole and not as the conservative ‘laissze-faire’ definition.)

  9. I seem to be failing at changing my name on here?

    I’ve gone to Account -> My Account, then typed something in for first and last names and clicked update. It’s stored there if I refresh the page but doesn’t change my display name.

    Anyone know how to update it?

  10. The best way to view the environmental damage done by the likes of Hazelwood, the old Yallourn power stations and the newer ones further down the Valley is from the old Coach Road Hill where, on a really good day, you can see the brown gunk haze from Warragul to Sale (slight exaggeration). These old power stations are long past their use-by date. Unless some more environmentally friendly way can be found to burn the lignite, it should be left in the ground. The problem is the fuel not the power stations as such.

  11. I feel weird apparently having to explain how protests and collective action works to a Labor dominated blog.

    Protests are almost never aimed at the thing being protested, that’s a waste of time , and will invariably be ignored. The point is to create public pressure, by getting attention, thus raising awareness which may lead to action, either out of economic interest from reputational harm or causing favorable regulation to happen. At its most direct protest is aimed at deliberately shutting down a place by blocking entry and denying function but thats generally illegal these days and the cops are usually quick to respond, while counter activists spin you as Wild eyed hippies or destructive thugs or whatever the current buzz is.

  12. Family First will be needing a modern daymiracle of the Loaves & Fishes to survive, while DisplayName (if he keeps up his incomprehensible drawings) still has no hope.

    If you were winning before by just a couple of votes, and you lose 2 of those votes – while the other side keeps all of theirs – then there is no way losing those 2 votes has been advantageous to you.

    Venn diagram or no Venn diagram, if you’re short on mates, you’re short on mates.

  13. elaugaufein @ #922 Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    I feel weird apparently having to explain how protests and collective action works to a Labor dominated blog.
    Protests are almost never aimed at the thing being protested, that’s a waste of time , and will invariably be ignored. The point is to create public pressure, by getting attention, thus raising awareness which may lead to action, either out of economic interest from reputational harm or causing favorable regulation to happen.

    In theory, yes. But in practice….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

  14. BB

    If you were winning before by just a couple of votes, and you lose 2 of those votes – while the other side keeps all of theirs – then there is no way losing those 2 votes has been advantageous to you.

    Losing a pair of votes is unquestionably disadvantageous.

    Losing one vote while what constitutes a majority is reduced by one may be advantageous or at worst neutral.

  15. E
    Uh huh.
    It was the board of a French multinational who decided to close Hazlewood but only after E & Co applied indirect pressure by way of protests.
    Right.

  16. It’s counter-intuitive. I would not have thought it had it not been brought up. I also find it counter-intuitive, so I won’t hold it against you for sticking to your intuition :P.

  17. Of course, it’s entirely possible I’ve made a mistake, but since you can’t comprehend my diagram, you’ll never be able to point it out ;).

  18. I had 0 personally to do with the Hazlewood closure.

    Though I’m terminating this discussion now because you and Bemused have devolved to personal attacks and its not worth the intellectual effort of continuing at that point as convincing either of you that the Greens have any non-negative value isn’t going to happen.

  19. E
    Good idea. Stop digging. You should never have started this discussion by bragging about obtaining a decision that the Greens simply did not obtain.

  20. Every time the Government introduces some new legislation to bash refugees or ISIS or the like there just happens to be an arrest or two.
    Coincidence?
    Or just blind ‘luck’?

  21. elaugaufein @ #905 Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    That seems a little hypocritical since Labor has been pretty open about condemning Trump. Not that I think it’s inappropriate to condemn Trump, the man is manifestly unfit for office but you can’t do that then claim another politician should remain neutral.

    I think the issue is not that the corgi thinks Trump is trumps, but rather than he is in the USA at the very large expense of you and I and he is using his time there campaigning for Trump, rather than observing the UN, which is the ostensible reason we paid for him to go there.

  22. player one @ #671 Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 9:59 am

    It gets worse. For instance, public finding for research would be determined by whether or not you were willing to release your data to others …

    Public research funding should be prioritised on the basis of progress made by research institutions in making their researchers’ data widely available to other trusted researchers on conclusion of research projects.

    One of the biggest issues in scientific research today is the lack of data sharing, which seriously inhibits both the checking of existing research, exploring alternative analyses of that data, and the generation of further research. There is a massive push from within the broad research community to make data sharing a condition of passing peer-review, and I strongly support that, subject only to the data being adequately anonymised where it involves individual personal data.

    If others cannot check claims via analysis of the raw data, then science is either not possible, or vastly slower and unsafer.

  23. This bit should be a quote that Player One is referring to, not a quote from P1.

    Public research funding should be prioritised on the basis of progress made by research institutions in making their researchers’ data widely available to other trusted researchers on conclusion of research projects.

  24. scott bales @ #915 Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    I seem to be failing at changing my name on here?
    I’ve gone to Account -> My Account, then typed something in for first and last names and clicked update. It’s stored there if I refresh the page but doesn’t change my display name.
    Anyone know how to update it?

    Yes sirree!
    Send an email to:-
    support@crikey.com.au
    Tell them your current display name and advise your required clever new display name.
    It may take a day or so. 🙂

  25. BB
    Assume a group is size X. You need at least floor(X/2) +1 to pass legislation.
    If you have floor(X/2) +1 but lose 1 in such a way it reduces the size of X (ie by absence or abstention) then you have to recalculate the majority as floor((X-1)/2)+1 , in the case X was even it’s now odd so floor(X/2) now rounds down to a number 1 smaller, which means you still pass. If it was odd it’s now even , so the number after flooring remains the same, which is bad, since you now can’t pass the bill.

  26. elaugaufein @ #933 Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    I had 0 personally to do with the Hazlewood closure.
    Though I’m terminating this discussion now because you and Bemused have devolved to personal attacks and its not worth the intellectual effort of continuing at that point as convincing either of you that the Greens have any non-negative value isn’t going to happen.

    Point to a single personal attack either of us have made?
    We treat deluded Greens very kindly.

  27. Oh FFS
    BW, you and Bemused are the only people claiming the Greens are taking full credit and that’s because you’re both so hostile to the Greens you can’t get through a discussion without making persjb

  28. boerwar @ #935 Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    Every time the Government introduces some new legislation to bash refugees or ISIS or the like there just happens to be an arrest or two.
    Coincidence?
    Or just blind ‘luck’?

    Considering the bloke being charged with fighting overseas arrived back in 2014, it does seem like there is an arrest bank

  29. DisplayName – I can see that in an even-numbered Senate, you have to win by at least 2 votes, or multiples of 2 votes, if everyone turns up to vote, or there are pairs for the missing voters from the other side. Say 39-37 (or 38-37 in reality if the President does not vote).

    Reducing your numbers by one also reduces the total number of votes to tally from (say) 76 to 75, and thus the situation would be 37-37, plus-1 for the President’s casting vote, with 1 abstention/absence. Looks like a win anyway… but is it?

    If the President’s casting vote follows Westminster tradition and is automatically “to maintain the status quo”, then would the President be obliged to vote against, and thus the vote would be lost?

    I guess it all depends on whether the Speaker follows Denison’s Rule. Maybe he doesn’t.

    But there are also procedural motions,which require an absolute majority: 39 votes, whether everyone turns up to vote, or not, to wit, suspension of standing orders without notice and to suspend and order of the Senate. Day’s absence would be a definite disadvantage here if , say, standing orders are sought to be suspended so that the ABCC bill could be brought on immediately.

  30. without making personal insults. And think that everyone else is as vaingloriously obsessive and dependent on their party of choice for personal validation as you are.

  31. Display Name

    I get what you are saying.

    A clear majority is a number greater than half of the quorum.

    For 76 members it is any number above 38. So 38.1 is a clear majority. But since we don’t deal in “0.1s” of persons, in a civilised society we say 39 (whole person votes) is required.

    For 75 members it is any number after 37.5. So 37.6 is a clear majority. And again because we do not allow” 0.6s” of a person to sit in the senate, and we deal in whole people, 38 votes is a clear majority.

    BB apparently fails to see the underlying maths theory, which has nothing to do with whether or not you can contemplate a half of a person or a 0.1 of a person or indeed a 0.0000001 of a person.

    Stated another way, the clear majority when only whole persons are counted, is the next whole number after the midpoint. So 75/2=37.5, for which 38 is the next whle person vote.

    When Day goes the Senates clear majority will be 38, and as you say, changes to the various voting combinations to form “yay” and “nay” blocs follow.

  32. elaugaufein @ #943 Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    Oh FFS
    BW, you and Bemused are the only people claiming the Greens are taking full credit and that’s because you’re both so hostile to the Greens you can’t get through a discussion without making persjb

    Oh I beg to differ. The Greens party sent out a press release to that effect.
    If all the PB Greens want to disavow it, that is fine. First tiny step in acknowledging the true nature of your party.

Comments Page 19 of 20
1 18 19 20

Leave a Reply

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