Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

After a bit of a blip over the past month or so, Essential Research finds Labor’s recovering its solid post-election lead.

The latest fortnightly rolling average of federal voting intention for Essential Research returns Labor’s two-party lead to 53-47, after walking a point at a time from 53-47 four weeks ago to 51-49 a fortnight ago and now back again. Both major parties are now at 37% on the primary vote, with the Coalition down one and Labor up one, while One Nation comes off a point from last week’s high to 7%, with the Greens and Nick Xenophon Team steady at 9% and 3%. The poll also features its monthly leadership ratings, which have Malcolm Turnbull down two on approval to 34% and up two on disapproval to 46%, while Bill Shorten is respectively up one to 35% and, oddly, down five to 38%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is now at 39-28, down from 40-28, leaving for a remarkably high “don’t know” remainder. The most interesting of the survey’s remaining findings is the overwhelming support recorded for an increase in the minimum wage, with 80% approving and 11% disapproving. Another question canvases whether respondents would be “likely” to vote for a new conservative party formed around the likes of Tony Abbott, for which 23% answered in the affirmative, although polling exercises of this kind have shown themselves to be of very little value in the past.

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.

1,620 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 28 of 33
1 … 27 28 29 … 33

  1. falconwa @ #1338 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    You seem to have admitted that the cost of externalities is the biggie but cannot provide any figure for it.

    No emitter pays these costs, since we don’t have a carbon tax. So why include them when you are talking about costs? Should I pay them when the emitters don’t have to?

    Your argument that coal is cheaper than wind or solar is at best unproven

    The proof is in the pudding, I’m afraid. And the pudding is getting hot!

  2. ‘fess

    even though there’s no chance constitutional change will occur to reform the national electoral system.

    Yep. The US is stuck with what they’ve got.

    Here we have some anomalies on the popular vote that have to do with the AEC striking problems with getting the votes even within the states of the Federation.

    It’s something that can be understood as making ‘best endeavors’.

    The US not so.

    Anyway that’s my last effort to be sensible for today. 😀

  3. Player One
    Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    falconwa @ #1338 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    You seem to have admitted that the cost of externalities is the biggie but cannot provide any figure for it.

    No emitter pays these costs, since we don’t have a carbon tax. So why include them when you are talking about costs? Should I pay them when the emitters don’t have to?

    The costs exist. They will be borne by all. You will be one who pays whether you wish to or not.

  4. CTar1

    I got a ‘tradesman’ degree from a not distinguished UK Uni.

    I think you are underselling yourself , The LSE (?) location in London shows that is definitely a cut above the “average bear” .

  5. grumps @ #1345 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    What are you arguing PO?

    That the reducing cost of solar PV – by itself – does very little to solve the problem of global warming. In fact it does nothing at all if that solar PV is just connected to the grid, and could even be counter-productive, since it doesn’t change people’s behavior. Just having cheaper energy is not the end-game. Solving global warming is – and there are more moving parts to that problem than just replacing dirty power stations with clean ones. It’s a bit late for that.

    So are you arguing that it is the individual who is going to make a change for global warming by coming off grid? That ain’t going to happen.

    I realize that. But just as I have tried to point out to FalconWA, the problem is that the true cost of being on the grid is not being paid by anyone yet.

    My proposed solution is simple (but it would need to be adopted more widely than just here in Australia) – if you stay on the grid, you pay at least $1 per kwH, no matter what. If you get off the grid, and generate your own power locally, you just pay whatever your own cost is. Applies to both industry and individuals.

    Similarly, petrol (and equivalents) should cost $10 per litre – again, to reflect the actual cost of using it.

    These two things would do more to change people’s behavior than just about anything else I can think of.

  6. briefly @ #1353 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    The costs exist. They will be borne by all. You will be one who pays whether you wish to or not.

    Socializing the costs and privatizing the profits is precisely the game the fossil fuel companies have been playing for decades. How can this be the solution?

    We need to do exactly the opposite of this to solve the problem!

  7. Poroti – Mine was actually KCL. The current London School of Economics & Political Science occupy some of KCL’s old real estate.

  10. Do the Coalition realise how petty and close-minded they look when they criticise Turnbull for merely offering his opinion on a republic? One speech is a distraction? Boy are they easily distracted.

  11. Thank you, lizzie, for the link to Urban Wronski. I especially found this observation made a telling point in my mind:

    Who needs cheap electricity? Who needs clean, green energy when we have a coal industry past its use by date to protect? To most rational investing in a renewable energy industry is another no-brainer the Abbott/ Turnbull government has chosen to defy common sense and the advice of experts including those within its own ranks.

    As it put up in neon lights the compare and contrast of policies towards two of our ‘past it’s use by date’ industries from this government.

    Firstly, the Abbbott/Hockey government could barely wait to draw breath before shutting down the Car Industry in this country.

    However, on the other hand, when it comes to the Coal Industry their Neoliberal horns are pulled in tightly like a bunch of slugs and snails being attacked by a group of kids with a salt shaker.

    No words about how the nation can’t afford to subsidise THIS dying industry. No, let the Neanderthal Resources Minister, Matt Canavan, drag Turnbull around by the hair, give him a lump of Coal for Christmas and demand he pay $1 Billion to Adani to build a train track from a Black Hole to the White Death on the once Great Barrier Reef. And like it!

    Compare and contrast again. With the Car Industry it was time for a bit of hand-wringing for the cameras about the massive number of jobs that will be lost, in the Car Industry itself and the ancillary industries associated with it. Laid on thick with fine-sounding words about the opportunities for the laid-off workers to get new jobs in Turnbull’s ‘Agile and Innovative’ 21st century Australian society (no mention of what an ‘agile’ 55 year old male with no other skills could do). No worries! She’ll be right, mate! say the men and women elected to government to pass this death sentence on their working lives. Anyway, they don’t have to worry, if they lose their job, George Brandis will just find another well-paying one for them on a government Qango, as Brandis behaves like the Manager of the only Commonwealth Employment Service office left.

    However, on the other hand, when it comes to the Coal Industry, a dinosaur on it’s last legs if ever there was one, well, you can’t get a word in edgeways as these same men and women in government bleat incessantly, like Spring Lambs who have lost their mother, about the jobs in this industry that are so, so necessary to save! What about the poor bairns of the Coal Mining families, with their coal-smudged cheeks from the kiss their hard-working dads gave them when they came home from another day down Pit? Actually big, scar on the landscape, Open Cut Mine, but, you know, just close your eyes and think of the jobs! We, the men and women of the Coalition government with Coal Black souls, only care for THEIR welfare. Truly, it is only that which is motivating our actions! Not the shares we have in Mining companies, or the donations we receive from them. Or how we pal around with ‘Twiggy’ and Gina.

    What bloody, two-faced hypocrites, eh?

  13. cud chewer @ #1359 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    Oh dear, P1 extolling the virtues of nuclear as if that will be cheap…

    It is not because it is cheap, it is because it is necessary. All the IPCC projections show we will need nuclear in the mix – more than we have now – to meet any rational emissions goal.

    Go argue with them about it.

  14. P1

    It is not because it is cheap, it is because it is necessary.

    I’m no expert or affectionado of it but I think in the end that will be the way.

  15. ctar1 @ #1364 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    I’m no expert or affectionado of it but I think in the end that will be the way.

    Me too. It’s not a choice between fossil fuels and renewables, as many here seem to think – it’s a choice between fossil fuels and bio-energy and nuclear. Renewables don’t make a significant difference under any of the scenarios. Carbon capture and storage makes more difference – and it’s not even a proven technology!

  16. ‘Do the Coalition realise how petty and close-minded they look when they criticise Turnbull for merely offering his opinion on a republic?’

    For some reason that I find hard to fathom, ABC news was in full anti-Republic mode. The reporter, after quotes from the usual suspects, said that people ‘in the street’ were also against the republic, and proceeded to interview 2 people, one of whom said she liked Mal, but on this issue he’d lost her! Both from central casting.

    This is reporting, ABC style, in the tail end of 2016!

  17. PhoenixRed

    Just caught up with your earlier post re psychiatrists calling for an evaluation of Trump.

    This morning i posted youtube video of Charlie Sheen from back in July recounting a story about Trump. It tells one everything you need to know about him.

  20. Ajm – nevertheless mine was a part time appearance. Scraped through while working full-time. Very convenient between work and home in the day!

  21. P1

    If nuclear is much more expensive that renewables, then it aint necessary. End of story. And if you want to keep pointing at an IPCC source, at least have the courtesy to post an online link to your source (preferably page numbers), so the assumptions inherent to your source can be examined.

  23. Chernoby put Nuclear energy on life support.
    Fukushima killed it.
    Too much real estate involved.
    Olympic dam was abandoned for a reason; project only has value if you can sell the stuff.

  26. Now that Trump has surrounded himself with a Cabinet of ultra RW billionaires, he tells the riffraff who attended his campaign rallies what he really thinks of them. The term SUCKERS comes to mind.

    DONALD Trump has told his supporters that they were “nasty and mean and vicious” during the US election campaign.

    Mr Trump made the comments in Orlando as he continued his Thank You Tour, while also admitting that supporters got “violent.”

    “You people were vicious, violent, screaming, ‘Where’s the wall? We want the wall!’ Screaming, ‘Prison! Prison! Lock her up!’ I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted to win, right?” Mr Trump said. “But now, you’re mellow and you’re cool and you’re not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we won, right?”

    http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/donald-trump-to-supporters-at-orlando-rally-you-were-nasty-mean-and-vicious/news-story/8483d47b46cc8b88b8f89e2b72fe333a

  29. cud chewer @ #1371 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    If nuclear is much more expensive that renewables, then it aint necessary. End of story. And if you want to keep pointing at an IPCC source, at least have the courtesy to post an online link to your source (preferably page numbers), so the assumptions inherent to your source can be examined.

    Try this one – page 19 – https://skepticalscience.com/docs/RCP_Guide.pdf

    Total fossil- fuel use basically follows the radiative forcing level of the scenarios; however, due to the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS)
    technologies (in particular in the power sector), all scenarios, by 2100, still use a greater amount of coal and/or natural gas than in the year 2000.

    …

    The use of non-fossil fuels increases in all scenarios, especially renewable resources (e.g. wind, solar), bioenergy and nuclear power. The main driving forces are increasing energy demand, rising fossil-fuel prices and climate policy.

    As you can see, the models are fairly insensitive to cost. In particular, notice the relative contributions of “cheap” renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) vs “expensive” fossil fuels, nuclear and bio-energy.

    In every scenario renewables are under 10% of the mix – in some they are around 5%. Also in most scenarios renewables contribute less than nuclear. Under the best scenario for humanity (i.e. RCP2.6, which leads to the lowest carbon emissions) the contribution from renewables is so small compared to the contribution of nuclear and bio-energy (and fossil fuels) that it’s almost nonexistent. This is because this scenario relies on CCS.

  30. Ajm

    I’m deficit in my manners .

    One of the most prestigious in the UK after Oxbridge!

    Tks.

    In any educational effort there is a separation between those ticking the boxes and an occasional student who wants to be ‘academic’ about it.

    My choice was to catch enough without interfering with those who wanted to be Law Lords (Some of my Lecturers went on to be so).

    My ambitions were much less.

  34. Kevin
    I would suggest the difference is the two party preferred over the period.
    Turnbull and Billy look the same; Crean and Shorten not so much.

  36. p1
    Read page 19; need a good laugh on a Sunday night:

    Total fossil- fuel use basically follows the radiative forcing level of the scenarios; however, due to the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS)
    technologies (in particular in the power sector), all scenarios, by 2100, still use a greater amount of coal and/or natural gas than in the year 2000.
    So you believe CCS is gonna work. See that bridge over there; I can sell it to you.

  37. kevin bonham @ #1382 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    This is what Bill Shorten Is Simon Crean looked like a year ago:
    https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/669115070446727168
    Crean got the boot at the end of the graph so further comparison became impossible.

    A comparison that could only go so far – Crean got the boot and Shorten didn’t. If Turnbull lasts beyond another six months the comparison will end too. However, that is another six months…….


  38. Too complex for you? I tried to find you a “beginner’s guide”. Most of it is straight from the IPCC, including the stuff on page 19.

    You think so do you P1; having a great chuckle here; keep it coming.

  40. I’ll try bits and pieces.

    From P1:
    *************
    Unlike many here, I have read a lot of the IPCC reports, and understand the scenarios they model. They don’t expect a significant impact from PV solar power in any of their emission scenarios, and some of these scenarios already presuppose a rapid uptake and vastly increased use of all possible clean alternative technologies.
    ************
    In that case, they are talking out of their arses.

    Did you get the comment earlier that rooftop solar is the largest single supplier of electricity in Perth?

    I note you say:

    Ord river and Wellington dam. Sorry there is no list specifically for Perth. But I believe Kwinana is a coal fired Perth power station – 640MW.

    Do you think you have that much rooftop solar in Perth? That would require about 200,000 houses … or 10 times the number of households in Perth.

    Come now – 20 000 housesholds in Perth? Maybe 60 000 people tops? Must have shrunk in the last few days. You are being disingenuous. AKA being careless with the truth.

    Here are the statistics for greater Perth, not the CBD:
    There are 627 099 households. Thirty times your estimate.

    Care to revise your estimates?

    Here are some facts, since you seem to be a little light on in that department:

    From: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-04/rooftop-solar-panels-bigger-than-biggest-turbine-wa/7066240

    Rooftop solar panels in the South-West Interconnected System (SWIS) in Western Australia are now producing as much energy as the state’s largest power turbine, according to research from Curtin University.

    SWIS stretches from Kalbarri north of Perth to Ravensthorpe in the state’s south, taking in the Perth metropolitan area.

    Curtin University sustainability professor Peter Newman said 20 per cent of homes across the grid have rooftop solar panels installed.

    “We are in the extraordinary position of saying that Perth (SWIS) now has rooftop solar as the largest supplier of electricity, it’s the biggest power station in WA,” he said.

  41. P1
    I will give you my beginners guide to reading science papers
    anecdotal evidence = old wives tales
    anecdotal evidence referenced = still old wives tales.
    Think as you read.

  43. frednk @ #1386 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    So you believe CCS is gonna work. See that bridge over there; I can sell it to you.

    You are missing the point. It is not a matter of what I believe, it is a matter of what the climate scientists have modelled. They model various scenarios, but the only practical pathway to actually reducing C02 concentrations relies heavily on CCS. Renewables are not enough. And all other possible pathways see increases in C02 concentration of varying degrees.

    Or do you not believe the IPCC? Befor you answer, I should point out that their modelling has been pretty accurate to date, despite what idiots like Monkton would have you believe.

  44. frednk @ #1391 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:00 pm

    I will give you my beginners guide to reading science papers
    anecdotal evidence = old wives tales
    anecdotal evidence referenced = still old wives tales.
    Think as you read.

    I still don’t get it. What part of the RCP’s used by the IPCC do you think are “old wives tales”?

    Try this link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/30/climate-change-rcp-handy-summary

    You will find the same information.

  45. Malcolm Turnbull
    3 mins ·
    Twenty five years ago, we founded the Australian Republican Movement dedicated to the simple patriotic proposition that our Head of State should be one of us.
    Constitutional reform is not easy – only 8 out of 44 amendments have been agreed to. So those who propose change must approach the task with humility and respect for the people to whom the Constitution belongs, as only they can change it.
    http://aus.pm/iyho

    I’m guessing he didn’t get the disappointment message from those present for his speech. Or maybe he’s still in denial about how much Australians are so disappointed in him and just want him to go away.

  46. So I read some of Player One’s claims about solar and renewable energy, and decided to go directly to the sources.

    This is the conclusion of the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) in 2011, which the 2014 IPCC report references:

    Potential deployment scenarios for solar energy range widely—from a marginal role of direct solar energy in 2050 to one of the major sources of global energy supply. Although it is true that direct solar energy provides only a very small fraction of global energy supply today, it has the largest technical potential of all energy sources. In concert with technical improvements and resulting cost reductions, it could see dramatically expanded use in the decades to come. Achieving continued cost reductions is the central challenge that will infl uence the future deployment of solar energy. Moreover, as with some other forms of renewable energy, issues of variable production profi les and energy market integration as well as the possible need for new transmission infrastructure will infl uence the magnitude, type and cost of solar energy deployment. Finally, the regulatory and legal framework in place can also foster or hinder the uptake of direct solar energy applications

    (page 339)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/Chapter%203%20Direct%20Solar%20Energy.pdf

    And this was the conclusion:

    Many combinations of low-carbon energy supply options and energy effi ciency improvements can contribute to given low GHG concentration levels, with RE becoming the dominant low- carbon energy supply option by 2050 in the majority of scenarios. Ambitious GHG concentration stabilization levels lead, on average, to higher RE deployment compared to the baseline, with above 400 EJ/yr by 2050 as the upper limit of RE deployment. Many scenarios were constructed as sensitivities with explicit limits on the deployment of nuclear energy and CCS, and RE played an increasingly important role in these scenarios. Yet even in scenarios with no explicit limits on these competing low-carbon options, RE often represents well over 50% of the global primary energy supply.

    (Page 796)

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/Chapter%2010%20Mitigation%20Potential%20and%20Costs.pdf

    And this is what the IPCC 2014 Report says:

    The main mitigation options in the energy supply sector are energy efficiency improvements, the reduction of fugitive non-CO2 GHG emissions, switching from (unabated) fossil fuels with high specific GHG emissions (e. g., coal) to those with lower ones (e. g., natural gas), use of renewable energy, use of nuclear energy, and carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). (Section 7.5).

    No single mitigation option in the energy supply sector will be sufficient
    to hold the increase in global average temperature change below
    2 °C above pre-industrial levels.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf

    (Page 569)

    So PlayerOne’s claim that solar/RE cannot play some, most, or all, of future energy supply, while cutting emissions, and Player One’s assertion that this is “supported” by the IPCC, is utter bullshit.

  47. Clearly, support for a Republic at the elite level is at best nominal. If we are to become a Republic, the energy for change will have to come from the people. Such a change will likely be resisted by the elite at every step.

  48. Nuclear? Not uranium fission. Too dirty. Maybe accelerator driven thorium? Fusion too far away to wait on.

    Hey if you want to do something in the short term, buy a second hand Prius and use less petrol. 🙂

  50. frednk @ #1384 Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    Kevin
    I would suggest the difference is the two party preferred over the period.
    Turnbull and Billy look the same; Crean and Shorten not so much.

    It could be counter-argued that Crean was up against a popular PM in strong economic times while Shorten (during the comparison period) was mostly up against a complete dud. Given that OL net ratings have little relationship to netsats – and are largely driven by PM netsats – that’s the more likely explanation for the 2PP difference between Shorten and Crean.

    I don’t think it’s impossible that both sides of politics have weak leaders at the same time. Indeed it appears to be the new normal.

Comments Page 28 of 33
1 … 27 28 29 … 33

Leave a Reply

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