Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

Harmony between the regular pollsters as Essential Research ticks another point back in favour of the Coalition.

NOTE: Nothing new I can report on the comments debacle, sadly. All I can do is reiterate that it’s not supposed to be this way, and the intention is that it will be fixed. If you use Google Chrome, as you should, this plug-in will get the blog looking more like it ought to (with thanks to AR).

UPDATE: We’re all good again. Thank you for your forbearance, where applicable.

Essential Research is now back in line with Newspoll, with the latest reading of its fortnight rolling average recording Labor with a lead of 53-47 after a one point gain for the Coalition. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up two to 37%, Labor is down one to 36%, the Greens are steady on 10% and One Nation is steady on 8%. Also featured:

• Questions on political donations, including from whom political parties should be allowed to accept them, which records a net positive only from “individual Australian voters”, and heavily negative results for unions, companies (especially foreign), property developers and casinos. Forty-one per cent support a ban on foreign donations to activist groups, with only 31% opposed.

• On the government’s proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, there is an all but perfect split between strongly support, strongly oppose and no strong opinion either way, following a question that explains the finer detail of the change.

• Fifty-one per cent support and 20% oppose “a carbon emissions trading scheme in the electricity sector to provide more incentive for investing in renewable energy and low-carbon electricity”, demonstrating how much difference including the rationale in the question makes when gauging such issues.

• A question on who should have tax deductibility for donations has churches and religious groups ranking second after “groups that campaign on social issues” at the bottom of the list.

• Respondents were asked which interests were represented by Labor, Liberal and the Greens, and received the responses you would expect, with little change recorded since the question was previously posed in September 2015.

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.

2,488 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 44 of 50
1 43 44 45 50
  1. **When did the State ever build any infrastructure?**
    Since whenever your definition of ‘build’ isnt based on a cantankerous nature.

  2. They say all politics is local. This might help explain the Prime Minister’s attack on any attempt to rein in the excesses of negative gearing. According to research by The Australia Institute, the people of his electorate are the biggest negative gearers in the country.

    Almost everyone who has looked at negative gearing and the capital gains tax (CGT) discount agree that it needs to be curbed. Even the Treasurer said he was planning to target the excesses of negative gearing only a few months ago.

    Now the Government has gone in the opposite direction claiming, without any modelling, that modest changes will take a “sledgehammer” to house prices and push up rents.

    The Treasurer has continued to push the line that negative gearing is mainly the domain of those on moderate incomes. Those he has dubbed “mum and dad investors”. He cites as evidence that two thirds of those who are negatively geared have an income of less than $80,000.

    Or more precisely, after they make all their tax deductions they have taxable incomes of less than $80,000. This is evidence of the effectiveness of negative gearing in reducing taxable income rather than evidence that negative gearing is used mainly by those on moderate incomes.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-27/grudnoff-facts-about-negative-gearing/7362012

  3. “I tailor my arguments to my audience.”
    You might try it isn’t working. But can you tailor an answer to the question that accepts the dubious premise of baseload you unquestioningly embrace, and tell me what power generation option wins where hydro isn’t an option, the country in question very sensibly excludes coal and nuclear, and is happy to burn gas but doesn’t have its own so is going to be buying LNG. Just for fun, if gas turbines are to win, what acquisition strategy have they got for the LNG price over what term? Do they fix in a long term (say 10 – 20 years) LNG supply now, or do they risk the spot market and the chance the big LNG producers are right in their projections of an LNG shortage in the medium term?

  4. @P1

    “Try pricing a renewable source of baseload power and you may begin to understand.”

    Why do you keep repeating this? You are trying to solve a problem today, that may or may not exist at some unspecified point in the future.

  5. Trump at work.

    Hunters in Alaska can now track and kill hibernating bears thanks to a U.S. House and Senate resolution rolling back Obama-era regulations against the practice.

    President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on Monday, which rolled back Alaska’s ban on killing the vulnerable bears, along with wolf cubs in dens. It also allows for hunters to target the animals from helicopters.

    The Republican-sponsored legislation impacts 76.8 million acres of federally protected national preserves across Alaska

    .

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/congress-officially-made-it-legal-to-kill-hibernating-bears_us_58e93960e4b05413bfe36c1b

  6. It is about time people stopped telling old people what they can live in. Bedroom tax?
    And when has emulating the UK Tories ever led to anything than wasted money, misery and premature deaths?

  7. wewantpaul @ #2156 Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    … tell me what power generation option wins where hydro isn’t an option, the country in question very sensibly excludes coal and nuclear, and is happy to burn gas but doesn’t have its own so is going to be buying LNG.

    Sorry, I didn’t realize you were serious about this question. I thought you must be joking, because the answer is of course ‘gas’ … by a large margin. Even when you have to ship it in using very large and very expensive bulk transports ships.

    Just ask China, Japan, Korea and anyone else who imports our natural gas.

  8. WeWantPaul @ #2156 Monday, April 10th, 2017 – 2:17 pm

    Do they fix in a long term (say 10 – 20 years) LNG supply now, or do they risk the spot market and the chance the big LNG producers are right in their projections of an LNG shortage in the medium term?

    I think they follow Trump’s lead, and declare that “Australian gas is for Australia first” and to hell with any contract provisions that would punish any gas producer for delivering to Australia first; those will be legislated into null and void status.

  9. lizzie Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:21 pm
    Trump at work.
    “Hunters in Alaska can now track and kill hibernating bears thanks to a U.S. House and Senate resolution rolling back Obama-era regulations against the practice.”

    ***************************************

    Trump could not spell the word ‘SHAME’ …… he is an insult to the human race let alone the US …

  10. @ WWP
    I’ll be pricing a renewables based baseload (solar & battery) over the next couple of months, so will have the answer to P1’s question.

    I’ve got a pretty good idea where the number is going to come out at, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than it would be to build the otherwise required hundreds of km’s of HV transmissions lines.

  11. Greensborough Growler
    Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:16 pm
    Enter Tony Abbott being all friendly and understanding and helpful.
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sppagl

    Murdoch puts it this way (Oz headline):

    ‘Give us something to fight for’
    RACHEL BAXENDALE
    Tony Abbott steps in over NSW by-election results, reiterating call for Senate reform and defunding of renewable energy.

  12. I see Player One is still clinging to obsolete ‘facts’. The reason I called her an idiot is not that she is in error. Its that she refuses to self question.

  13. “I’ve got a pretty good idea where the number is going to come out at, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than it would be to build the otherwise required hundreds of km’s of HV transmissions lines.”
    Excellent point, I was just thinking the same thing, if you are building new generation capacity to fit the ‘baseload’ or old coal story, surely you factor in the brand new network and network losses into the equation, and compare that to more localised renewable network you will need.

  14. Easter speculation (Oz headline):

    Don’t rule out Easter decision
    JOHN FERGUSON
    It’s not out of the question Victoria Police will declare their hand one way or another on the George Pell case.

  15. Puff, the Magic Dragon. @ #2159 Monday, April 10th, 2017 – 2:22 pm

    It is about time people stopped telling old people what they can live in. Bedroom tax?
    And when has emulating the UK Tories ever led to anything than wasted money, misery and premature deaths?

    Can a reduction in a benefit accurately be described as a tax? I think that kind of depiction entrenches the sort of stalemate that leads to the systemic problems we’re stuck trying to fix. Nobody can touch anything because if they do it’ll be shouted down as a new tax and result in political annihilation.

    See also: Gillard’s “carbon tax”

  16. “I think they follow Trump’s lead, and declare that “Australian gas is for Australia first” and to hell with any contract provisions that would punish any gas producer for delivering to Australia first; those will be legislated into null and void status.”
    Making contracts null and void could cost the country quite a lot. The US is in a fundamentally different position. They have lots and lots of unconventional oil and gas and situation where landholders actually benefit from their land being used for gas (so you largely avoid the ridiculous and unnecessary war they have on the east coast between gas companies and farmers). I haven’t studied it in detail but the impression I get is that they have, and have had at all times, a total domestic reservation policy but can grant export licences. They also have a fabulous pipeline network. Makes the insane position on the east coast where you clowns are sticking with and stuck with a NO dom gas reservation policy the global laughing stock it is.

  17. voice endeavour @ #2157 Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    Why do you keep repeating this?

    Because you (and others) keep claiming it can be done, and then get all nasty and upset when I point out it cannot.

    You are trying to solve a problem today, that may or may not exist at some unspecified point in the future.

    Good point. If you have your way, and we continue to emit C02 at “business as usual” levels then the whole problem just goes away. Of course, we do too … but at least you’d win the argument, which seems to be more important to you.

  18. Is any journalist going to call Morrison on his obvious bullsh** that “negative gearing has been around for a 100 years”?

    The ability to offset investment property losses against other forms of income was introduced by Hawke in 1985 at the same time CGT was introduced to capture the resulting taxpayer-subsidised capital gains.

    Naturally Howard in the 90’s did what the Coalition does best – they kept the juicy (NG) deductions while gutting the (CGT) revenues.

    As many have pointed out, Morrison has previously admitted that these tax concessions have impacted affordability – that alone should also be a red flag to journalists (if there are any actual journalists left out there!)

  19. “Can a reduction in a benefit accurately be described as a tax? I think that kind of depiction entrenches the sort of stalemate that leads to the systemic problems we’re stuck trying to fix. ”
    Given the massive inequality that is stifling economic growth and causing significant social issues, you’d need to be able to establish that a benefit is excessive in the total context. You are looking for brexit, Trump and riots if you stick with the inane take from the quite poorly off to give to the super poorly off, while not being game to actually try and have those that have benefited most from the last 40 years and contributed least, put their hands in their pockets. You know the take stuff from the poor to give to the very poor stuff that seems so popular with the right wing and the greens in Australia.

  20. “The ability to offset investment property losses against other forms of income was introduced by Hawke in 1985 at the same time CGT was introduced to capture the resulting taxpayer-subsidised capital gains. ”
    Could you elaborate, one tax lover to another?

  21. Because you (and others) keep claiming it can be done, and then get all nasty and upset when I point out it cannot.

    You may knowledgably “point out” that the moon is made of cheese P1, but that doesn’t make it so.
    Simply face up to the fact that virtually all current Australian investment is going into renewables plus storage, not into fossil fuels such as gas. If solar or wind plus batteries weren’t bankable then the current avalanche – 90 or so EOI’s for SA and 100 or more in Vic- would not be happening.

  22. @ P1 – since when have I proposed BAU?

    I have always proposed a market based solution such as an EIS. This removes the taxpayer subsidies given to coal and gas power. I know that, if an EIS is introduced, it will still be renewables that provide the new energy, not gas or ‘clean’ coal. The advantage of the EIS is that it speeds up the whole process, it doesn’t significantly change what the process looks like overall.

    I believe the market can and will handle be able to handle problems that may arise from renewables, such an intermittency and baseload, as long as the market is designed efficiently (5 minute settlement, Demand Response etc). While gas no doubt has some role to play here for a time, I don’t see significant new build of gas generation as likely, particularly not if the AEMO and AEMC do their jobs properly.

  23. Baseload power is becoming irrelevant. You don’t need baseload when you have a suitable mix of power sources and storage:
    e.g. in the intermediate term:
    solar, wind, batteries, pumped hydro, gas peaker plants
    longer term:
    solar, wind, batteries, pumped hydro in conjunction with wind or solar
    or whatever.

  24. Trog, P1 has never bothered to try to understand that a mix of renewables is best described as variable and not intermittent.

    It would either require P1 to think about something that is complex or worse challenge her own assumptiond.

  25. voice endeavour @ #2180 Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    I have always proposed a market based solution such as an EIS. This removes the taxpayer subsidies given to coal and gas power. I know that, if an EIS is introduced, it will still be renewables that provide the new energy, not gas or ‘clean’ coal. The advantage of the EIS is that it speeds up the whole process, it doesn’t significantly change what the process looks like overall.

    I’m ok with this as the outcome, even if I disagree with your belief as to the likely pathway via which it is achieved. Modelling by Frontier Economics indicates that an EIS is the fastest and cheapest way to decrease C02 emissions. It also happens to shows that gas will be the mechanism used, but that is secondary. If it turns out to that we go straight to renewables then I will tip my hat to you. If it turns out to be via gas as a transitional fuel, then you can do the same to me.

    Unlike others here, do not promote one particular fuel source over another.

  26. CC,
    You had me thinking you were pretending to be a silly, angry troll.
    But, you fooled me. You are a silly, angry troll.

  27. Didn’t this fellow’s parents tell him to never go swimming straight after a meal?

    A WANNABE rapper who allegedly downed plates of expensive seafood before jumping into the ocean at Main Beach has said he ‘wouldn’t go back’ to the restaurant because the lobster was ‘overpriced’.

    Terry Peck, 33, was today granted bail after he allegedly chowed down on two lobsters, a baby octopus, 17 oyster shots and drank a number of Coronas at Omeros Bros Seafood Restaurant at Main Beach on Sunday evening to the tune of $620 before fleeing the restaurant.

    He then swam into the ocean and ducked underwater to avoid police.

    When asked if he wanted to apologise for doing a runner without paying the bill he said the top-end seafood joint should be saying sorry to him because the quality of the food was similar to what was being served in the Southport Watchhouse.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/police-apprehend-man-after-an-elaborate-chase-on-the-gold-coast/news-story/de10440436baff4b34d8480335cb037a

  28. CTar1
    I worked at Abbott Pt for a few weeks many years ago. Beautiful area ripe for destruction.

    It sucks we only hear about this thanks to satellite imagery. Locals and employees must have know. Either nobody complained or complaints were ignored.

  29. “If it turns out to be via gas as a transitional fuel, then you can do the same to me.”
    Gas’ cost and attractiveness is going to be different in different places. Australia has, for whatever reasons, largely skipped the gas step and you’ve got almost zero chance of having a gas step on the east coast. WA should have a significant gas step, but we are leaving it very late, renewables are already outbidding non renewables in auctions. The USA has already largely taken the gas step in fact significant uptake of gas over the last decade or so (can’t remember which energy industry publication but graph that showed source of energy generation in the US and Australia).

  30. @ P1 – if we are lucky enough to get an EIS, then I will take that bet. That it will be renewables, supported by batteries and demand response, that take up the majority of the new CO2e reduction under any of the following situations.

    RET+EIS.
    EIS with no RET.
    RET with no EIS.

    Note that I am not saying no new gas would be built – just that it will not be the main source of emissions reduction.

    I am making no predictions as to what would happen under, lets call it the Dutton scenario, where the renewables subsidy (RET) is killed off but the coal/gas subsidy (not having to pay for your carbon emissions) remains in place.

  31. If you want the “right” advice, get one of your sympathisers to head the advisory body:

    Western Sydney airport gets advisory body

    The federal government has appointed former public servant Peter Shergold to head an advisory body to steer the western Sydney airport development.

    Flight-path planning will be among the key issues to be discussed by the group, which will meet three times a year starting next month.

    Mr Shergold, the chancellor of Western Sydney University, will head the body of 22 – including 10 community representatives and five nominated by local councils.

    http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/western-sydney-airport-gets-advisory-body/news-story/61e4e955895cc63b8a4e61a7132cc0d2

  32. CC,
    Once again, you refuse to discuss issues without resorting to personal abuse. Traducing others might make you feel important. I’m not surprised. But, I am disappointed that you think your abusive trolling is in any way assisting you to make your points.

  33. “It amazes me how often you people resort to insults when you can’t win the argument on facts.”
    They are not mutually exclusive one can win an argument on merits and insult people. Obviously insulting people is never cool.

    Not wanting to insult you, you seem, um VERY selective in which posts you respond to, it doesn’t feel like a discussion it feels like you are ignoring pages of stuff and then jumping on something you think is weak and self declaring victory, having not even engaged in much of the relevant discussion.

Comments Page 44 of 50
1 43 44 45 50

Leave a Reply

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