The Essential Research fortnight rolling average moves a point back to the Coalition for the second week in a row, reducing Labor’s lead to 52-48. Labor is down two points on the primary vote to 35%, with the Coalition steady on 36%, One Nation steady on 10% and the Greens up a point to 9%. The monthly leaders ratings find Bill Shorten taking a big hit, down seven points on approval to 30% and up three on disapproval to 47%, and Malcolm Turnbull a smaller one, down three on approval to 34% and up one on disapproval to 49%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is out from 39-28 last month to 39-25.
The survey also asked respondents if they would be likely to vote for Cory Bernardi’s Conservative Party, to which 14% said yes – which, as is always the case when questions like this are asked, is well above the party’s plausible vote share. Sixty-two per cent say they would be unlikely to, which is on the high side as these things go. The poll also has 17% saying Bernardi’s defection is good for the Liberal Party, 26% bad, 29% neither, and 28% don’t know. As of next week, the Essential Research poll will be published in conjunction with The Guardian.
We’ve also had federal voting intention results from the weekend’s Queensland poll by Galaxy for the Courier-Mail, which has One Nation on 18% (up six since November), the Coalition on 35% (down four), Labor on 29% (down one) and the Greens on 8% (steady), with the Coalition down a point on two-party preferred to lead 51-49. The poll was conducted last Wednesday and Thursday from a sample of 867.
1,956 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”
Bravo! Although surfing wouldn’t be my choice. There was once optimism that technology would give us all more leisure time and shorter working hours. It was not expected that the employed would be working many more hours, and there would be higher unemployment.
psyclaw @ #1943 Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 1:14 am
I am not one of the people who have made any comment on Pamela Anderson. I have never had much interest in her, but to the extent that I am aware of her, she seems to me to be in the public arena solely because of the play she has made of her ‘assets’. In those circumstances, it is hardly misogynistic to comment on the depreciation of those assets when that seems to be the totality of her public life.
don @ #1948 Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 5:47 am
Batteries don’t stack up financially on any battery at the moment unless you are talking about a massive purchase (as we were) or you are using them to displace diesel. One of my points was that total cost of ownership / life cycle cost has been completely disregarded in the discussion about lithium batteries.
I did the total cost of ownership costings (life cycle cost) across a number of battery products and Redflow came out the best by a fair way, and a big difference was the disposal and replacement cost at the end of its life. Replacing the stack on a flow battery is a lot easier than replacing the batteries on most lithium products, and the old stack can be put in a normal rubbish bin, or recycled using established commercially available processes in Australia.
The cost you quoted for the system is the total cost, including the battery compatible inverter & suitable BMS, which is another cost that often gets missed when talking about batteries. For Redflow, an inverter which could deal with 100% depth of discharge was a bit of a complication in their development process.
For our purposes, degredation of the battery over its useful working life was a significant issue and impacted upon the financial return of the project. We also looked at the actual performance of lithium batteries in existing installations and their performance fell significantly short of the claims that are being made about their performance at the moment. Mini cycles and excessive depth of discharge are killers to the cycle life of lithium ion batteries. There was talk of this problem being overcome, however we couldn’t get anyone to put a Service Level Agreement behind their claims. Redflow on the other hand were prepared to put a SLA behind their performance claims.
If you are talking about the efficiency of batteries, you also need to take into account transformer losses, which take a chunk out of the efficiency of the process.
who is Pamela Anderson?
Afternoon all. I saw this article on a quite absurd statement by SA opposition transport spokesperson David Personi that new trams being ordered for Adelaide were “old technology” and at an “inflated price”.
FFS! Minister Mullighan probably does not need me to point out all of the many things wrong with this statement, but here are a few for starters:
– the trams being bought are state of the art, with upgraded air con for our summer (essential) and regenerative breaking similar to a hybrid car. They are the same as what you would see Alstom supplying in Paris or Bordeaux now.
– by matching the existing fleet there is no increase in maintenance costs or spare parts inventory that has to be carried.
– you cannot compare one off purchase prices in isolation. The NSW and ACT tram prices Personi quotes are part of much larger contracts that include sums for entire new depots with spare parts inventories etc. Wwhereas these prices include all of that with the tram puchase.
In short, Personi’s criticism is rubbish. The thing to criticise would have been if they were extending the tram line and hadn’t ordered more trams. But they have.