Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor

Six weeks on, Essential Research finds the budget has done the government more harm than good, as the Lowy Institute reports a mixed bag of attitudes about the United States.

Labor’s lead remains steady at 52-48 in this week’s reading of the Essential Research fortnight rolling average, from primary votes of 38% for the Coalition (steady), 35% for Labor 35% (down one), 9% for Greens 9% (down one) and 9% for One Nation (up one), whose curious resurgence was the subject of an article I had in Crikey on Monday. Also featured are Essential’s monthly leadership ratings, which find Malcolm Turnbull down one on approval to 36% and down three on disapproval to 45%; Bill Shorten steady at 34% and down two to 43%; and Turnbull leading 39-26 on preferred prime minister, up from 39-31 last month. In other findings, the poll also records only 17% saying the recent budget improved their perception of the government, compared with 30% saying it made it worse; a 41-32 majority in favour of a clean energy target if it resulted in price rises of 5%, turning into a 50-21 deficit if they rose 10%; and 64% favouring investment in renewables in a no-strings-attached question compared with 18% for coal.

Also out yesterday was the Lowy Institute’s annual survey on Australian attitudes to international affairs and the direction of the country. Among many other things, the results find Australians continuing to rate the alliance with the United States highly (53% very important and 29% fairly important, recovering to near 2015 levels after a dip to 42% and 29% last year), with Donald Trump’s influence on perceptions of the US rating slightly less badly than George W. Bush in 2007 (60% said Trump contributed to an unfavourable opinion of the United States against 37% for no, compared with 69% and 27% for Bush). However, the proportion of respondents rating the US as Australia’s best friend has slumped from 35% to 17% since 2014, with the beneficiary being New Zealand, up from 32% to 53%. Only 20% now say they have a “great deal” of trust in the US to act responsibly in the world, compared with 40% in 2011.

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.

1,400 comments on “Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor”

Comments Page 28 of 28
1 … 27 28

  1. Alias

    ‘I don’t think it’s a speech defect – it’s just lazy..’

    Ah, so you’re a clinician. Sorry, didn’t realise you were speaking from authority.

    ‘And it doesn’t sound prime ministerial. It may sound elitist but we expect clear enunciation of those aspiring to leader the country. Before electronic media you could get away with poor diction or a painful accent but not any more. It’s just a fact of modern political life.’

    Oh, bollocks. Really. John Howard? Tony Abbott? And many people found Gillard’s voice grating. ..

  2. Cud Chewer
    Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:28 pm

    I think the 2PP run says it all. Voters have largely made up their minds about the LNP, who are inconsistent, ineffectual, out of touch and incompetent. Their record on the economy will bring them down if nothing else does.

  3. I looked this up after listening to the AM report linked earlier.

    Foot off the gas: increased reliance on natural gas in the power sector risks an emissions lock-in

    22nd June 2017

    The future of natural gas is limited, even as a bridging fuel. Continued investments into the sector create the risk of breaching the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature goal and will result in stranded assets, the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) said today.

    As part of its decarbonisation series, the CAT today released an examination of gas in the power sector. The report, titled “Foot off the gas: increased reliance on natural gas in the power sector risks an emissions lock-in”, warns that natural gas will have to be phased out along with coal, if the world is to limit warming to 1.5?C, as spelt out in the Paris Agreement long term temperature goal.

    The CAT foresees a dwindling role for natural gas in the power sector toward the middle of the century, not only to meet the Paris Agreement goals, but also due to increasing competition from renewables.

    This outlook challenges projections that forecast an increase in natural gas consumption. Although these projections have proven too bullish in the past, governments and companies are staking significant investments in natural gas infrastructure on them, ignoring the increasing role of low-carbon alternatives, and the need to reduce emissions to combat climate change.

    “Natural gas is often perceived as a ‘clean’ source of energy that complements variable renewable technologies. However, there are persistent issues with fugitive emissions during gas extraction and transport that show that gas is not as ‘clean’ as often thought,” said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics. “Natural gas will disappear from the power sector in a Paris Agreement-compatible world, where emissions need to be around zero by mid-century.”

    Although the emissions from gas plants can be reduced by up to 90% with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), this is not sufficient for full decarbonisation. Even if these capture rates could be increased, ultimately, the cost of gas with CCS is unlikely to be competitive with renewables and a flexible grid, the CAT said.

    “The idea of a continuing role for natural gas as a bridging technology is not consistent with the reality of advances in flexibility enabling technologies, such as grid expansion, supply and demand response, as well as storage,” said Yvonne Deng of Ecofys, a Navigant company.

    Many projections for the use of natural gas—including from the International Energy Agency, investors, and many governments—not only fail to consider the need for complete decarbonisation within three decades, but they also ignore the increasing role of low-carbon alternatives.

    “One example is China, where in 2016 the IEA projected renewables would rise to 7.2% of the power supply by 2020—but by the end of 2016 they had already reached 8%. Additionally, India and the Middle East are also seeing renewables rising much faster than mainstream projections,” said Niklas Höhne from NewClimate Institute.

    Despite these developments, massive investments into LNG pipelines and terminals continue, even as the utilisation rates of such infrastructure are decreasing. For example, utilisation rates in US natural gas infrastructure are at 54%, and are even lower in Europe at 25%.
    http://climateactiontracker.org/news/282/Foot-off-the-gas-increased-reliance-on-natural-gas-in-the-power-sector-risks-an-emissions-lock-in.html

    That is like a media release, but it contains a link to the full report.
    I doubt P1 will want to read it as it will make (s)he/it cry.
    “This overinvestment in natural gas infrastructure is likely to lead to either emissions overshooting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C and 2°C goals—or a large number of stranded assets as the shift to cheaper renewables takes place, “ said Andrzej Ancygier of Climate Analytics.

  4. Blanket Criticism:

    I partially agree with you. I think he saw an opportunity to spread his beliefs and message

  5. Anyone who thinks linguistic style is the mark of leadership capacity should listen to recordings of John Curtin. He was without and doubt the greatest leader we have seen so far, and he could be a great live public speaker, but his voice was also very dry, hoarse and tight-pitched at times, nasally and broadly-accented.

    What matters in the end is neither what you say nor how you say it, but rather it is what you do and what you stand for. On these measures, Curtin literally made modern Australia possible. We basically owe him and his team nearly everything. Australians knew it and could hardly have cared less how he sounded.

  6. Briefly

    One year on from the EU referendum, it’s become clear that the EU will decide the Brexit deal

    And that was always so.

  7. Player One
    Two questions for you.

    1) Preferred pronoun?
    2) I think your argument is that we need to move to gas now/immediately, then transfer to renewables when they are cheaper/battery storage more developed? Is this the gist of it?

  8. cud chewer @ #1311 Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    WRONG. This is where you show your lack of any expertise and unwillingness to inform yourself.. 100GWhr is more than enough to fill the gap between actual production and actual demand. Its not like the entire fucking system switches off at 4pm and then you need batteries for the rest of the evening. In an ideal system, solar will be somewhat over-provisioned (why not, its cheap) and there is also wind and other sources. On a hot summer day with the production peak at 2pm and the demand peak around 6pm, the actual need for stored energy is around 50GWhr. I was being conservative saying 100GWhr.

    Actually, solar pretty much does switch off at about 4pm in winter, so where is your overnight electricity coming from on winter nights when there is little or no wind? Currently, it comes from coal and gas. But you won’t have that, so your only option is storage.

    According to NEM Watch we are currently at pretty much winter peak consumption, using about 30GW of electricity. Peak demand lasts for about 5 hours (5pm to 10pm), then tails off to about half that over the rest of the evening. You do the maths.

    So on a cold winter’s night with low wind, your 100GWh will not even get you through the peak period, let alone the whole night. And of course, bad weather the next day means you will not be able to recharge your storage.

    Your network is kaput, perhaps for days.

  10. P1, if you can’t be bothered to actually figure out why you’re wrong, then I can’t help you. As I said, the capacity for self doubt is one of those things one expects from intelligence.

  11. CTar1
    Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:46 pm
    Briefly

    One year on from the EU referendum, it’s become clear that the EU will decide the Brexit deal

    And that was always so.

    Indeed. The scales are falling from the eyes…

  14. briefly @ #1355 Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    Anyone who thinks linguistic style is the mark of leadership capacity should listen to recordings of John Curtin. He was without and doubt the greatest leader we have seen so far, and he could be a great live public speaker, but his voice was also very dry, hoarse and tight-pitched at times, nasally and broadly-accented.
    What matters in the end is neither what you say nor how you say it, but rather it is what you do and what you stand for. On these measures, Curtin literally made modern Australia possible. We basically owe him and his team nearly everything. Australians knew it and could hardly have cared less how he sounded.

    Ditto for Chifley.
    But in those days radio was crap and no-one really sounded good.
    And the Australian accent has changed as any old recordings or film clips will demonstrate. In their day they were probably more ‘normal’ in their speech than we might find them.

  15. Briefly – and anyone who thinks the ability to make a speech is a sign of leadership should remember that Obama is widely considered to have been one of the most rhetorically gifted Presidents in history – but achieved very little, and what he did achieve is currently being undone.

  16. For those interested in Alex Malley of CPA Australia, his tenure at CPA Australia has finished today with a $4.9m golden handshake. CPA members were emailed this about half an hour ago:

    Dear Member,

    I am sorry for the lateness of this communication but the Board met today and proceedings have only just concluded.

    CPA Australia advises that Mr Alex Malley is finishing in his role as chief executive, effective 23 June.

    At its meeting today, the Board decided to terminate Alex’s contract in order to allow CPA Australia, CPA Australia staff and Alex to move forward. In the interests of full disclosure, CPA Australia has made a payment of $4.9 million in accordance with our obligations.

    On behalf of the Board, I wish to thank Alex for the significant contribution he has made over the past seven and a half years. He has guided CPA Australia through a period of sustained growth. He brought an ambitious vision for our profession and was dedicated to supporting students and young leaders.

    Alex’s legacy is an organisation with a global footprint and an ambitious outlook. We know that he will be very much missed by his colleagues and friends at CPA Australia.

    The Board intends to commence a thorough executive search process for a new chief executive.

    Chief operating officer Mr Adam Awty, has been appointed as interim CEO. The Board and Adam have agreed that his remuneration for this period will remain as per his current role as COO.

    In addition to the call for expressions of interest for directors that closed on 29 May, the Board will shortly be seeking further expressions of interest for casual vacancies that have arisen from resignations mid-term. The Board will be replenished by 1 October, with a minimum of eight new directors.

    We will continue to provide you with updates both through our website and with further direct email communication.

    If you wish to make comment or have any questions please contact XXXXXXXXX@cpaaustralia.com.au

    Kind Regards,
    Jim Dickson FCPA
    President and Chairman

  17. Shorten doesn’t need to be Sanders or Corbyn. (All Sanders achieved was to help Trump anyways). Our preferential voting system means he doesn’t need to lurch to the left. The reason preferred PM scores are low is because Greens think he is not left wing enough, cool enough, or charismatic enough or whatever. At the end of the day this is irrelevant as long as he gets %80 of preferences flowing his way.

    I don’t understand this obsession of professional Greens with Shorten. No one gives a fuck about opposition leader mid-term and Shorten has shown he is a solid campaigner when it matters.

    I have listened to him give a speech and ran into him on the streets of Melbourne and had a quick chat. Came across like a decent bloke.

  19. alias @ #1315 Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    The “zingers” that Shaun Micallef had such fun with could easily go viral in the heat of an election campaign – and prove politically fatal.

    On the other hand the right zinger could prove fatal for his opponent.

    It only takes one, and that will do the trick.

    Remember Monty Python? One f the most well loved sketch comedy shows of all time. Go back and watch those shows. Most of their sketches were pretty dire. It’s just that when they had a “hit” (Silly Walks, Dead Parrot, Nudge Nudge, Spanish Inquisition, etc) it was a home run. They are fondly remembered solely for their few hits, not their many misses.

    So it is with Shorten’s zingers. It only takes one solid hit that goes viral and Turnbull (or his successor) is instantly confined to the rubbish bin of history.

  22. Confessions .. You didn’t ask anything. You just wrote the words “sure you do”, which would suggest you don’t believe I see those qualities in Tanya Plibersek – which is mystifying.

  24. Alias
    Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:34 pm
    JimmyDoyle.. You know very well that R-G-R delivered the gift of government to Abbott. He would never have come within a bull’s roar in ordinary circumstances.

    Yes, I agree with that. But I find it ironic that it’s coming from you Alias, the one who wants to sack yet another leader mid stream, with all the disruption and ridicule that would bring for the party. Tanya Plibersek, for all her good qualities, wouldn’t stand a chance at the next election under those circumstances. I’m really surprised you can’t see that.

  25. Darn .. Ditching an Opposition leader is not the same as ditching a sitting PM, not by a very long shot. Tanya Plibersek is a natural TV performer – authentic, persuasive, very smart, very articulate – not forgettingher withering dismissive facial expression she deploys so effectively. She is authentic and real, and it comes across powerfully.

  26. You just wrote the words “sure you do”, which would suggest you don’t believe I see those qualities in Tanya Plibersek

    I don’t believe you see those qualities in TB given you haven’t seen any qualities in Labor since forever. So yes, I’m calling bullshit on your sudden Plibersek love.

  27. “Further Clinton has wide appeal among African-American voters”

    Citation needed please. I’d argue the election proved quite the opposite.

  31. alias @ #1375 Friday, June 23, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    Darn .. Ditching an Opposition leader is not the same as ditching a sitting PM, not by a very long shot. Tanya Plibersek is a natural TV performer – authentic, persuasive, very smart, very articulate – not forgettingher withering dismissive facial expression she deploys so effectively. She is authentic and real, and it comes across powerfully.

    Terri Butler has also mastered the ‘withering dismissive facial expression’.
    One to watch!

  32. Yes Bemused .. Terri Butler is excellent too. Why is it that some women – and no male politicians that I can bring to mind _ seem to master that particular facial expression so effectively?

  33. Alias
    Friday, June 23, 2017 at 11:18 pm
    Darn .. Ditching an Opposition leader is not the same as ditching a sitting PM, not by a very long shot. Tanya Plibersek is a natural TV performer – authentic, persuasive, very smart, very articulate – not forgettingher withering dismissive facial expression she deploys so effectively. She is authentic and real, and it comes across powerfully.

    I agree with most of that, as far as it goes. But having to pick up the pieces of a deeply divided party and then get it ready to contest an election (no doubt an early one, called to take advantage of Labor’s turmoil) would be too much of an ask, for even the most skilful of leaders. I think Tanya would be much too smart to want to take something like that on.

  34. alias Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:21 pm

    * They are non-party-machine types
    * They appeal massively to young voters because they speak from the heart with authenticity
    * They find their polar opposites in the wooden, scripted party-machine types eg: Hilary Clinton, Theresa May
    * At a time of political volatility and deep cynicism they are able to cut through for the above reasons

    After a little bit of editing I’m sure Trump and Hanson supports would say the same thing about their favourite politicians.

  35. Progressives have one thing the LNP doesn’t have ..and never will have ..GetUp!!

    ..at the last election they saw off three sitting Libs in Tassie & the useless pr*ck Jamie Briggs in my electorate of Mayo..
    ..next election they have a war chest to see off Dutton ..and no doubt have a list of other LNP marginals they will target!!

    Luvly, innit!! 🙂

  36. alias Friday, June 23, 2017 at 10:15 pm

    C@tmomma .. Several reasons: first, Shorten – if he survives that long – will be the first Opposition leader in a long time to contest successive elections. Second, the next election will be the first federal election at which social media will be utterly dominant. Third, much of the result of the last election was down to the early election and Turnbull’s mis-steps so Shorten went under the radar. He may do so again – but it’s a big gamble.

    Actually, the Opposition Leader prior to Shorten also contested successive elections.

  38. Last night Ian Lamont (sp?) from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was interviewed on ‘The Business’.

    The first question he was asked was what he thought about the proposal that the government would change the law to make it something the CEFC could invest in.

    His answer was that it would make little difference to the CEFC as Carbon Capture & Storage was not an attractive idea from an investment point of view anyway.

    The program is available on IView. The segment starts at the 6 minute 45 second mark.

    http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/business/NU1704H099S00#

  40. Who contested Federal elections ad Opposition Leader?
    1993 Hewson lost
    1996 Howard won
    1998 Beasley lost
    2001 Beasly lost
    2004 Latham lost
    2007 Rudd won
    2010 Abbott lost
    2013 Abbott won
    2016 Shorten lost

    So two Opposition leaders have contested successive elections in recent years, with a success rate on their second attempt of 50%.

  45. Pretty sure the voting public welcome good policy and a party that isn’t going to implode with internal rivalries. They’ve observed the measure of the shit show from both sides now and have basically had enough of it. Anything else (including diction) is pretty much immaterial because although authenticity in political rhetoric is an absolute imperative it is no longer possible to manufacture it, as the public are going to see straight through that.

  46. Whitlam won his second election as Opposition Leader (but lost his third and fourth as Opposition leader). Evatt and Calwell lost 4 and 3 consecutive elections respectively as Opposition Leader (Evatt came closest on his second attempt in 1954, while Calwell very nearly won on his first attempt in 1961). Menzies won on his second attempt as Opposition Leader in 1949 (After previously being PM and scraping through as an incumbent in 1940 and then loosing his party`s support, who them lost crossbench support). Howard won on his second attempt as Opposition Leader, although they were not at consecutive elections. Peacock lost twice as Opposition Leader, again non-consecutively. Scullin won on his second attempt as Opposition Leader but lost on his third as Opposition Leader (after having lost as incumbent PM). Mathew Charlton and Frank Tudor (both ALP) lost on both their attempts. Fisher won as Opposition Leader twice, but lost as incumbent in-between (and had also previously had a minority government before there were majority governments). Cook won his second election, his only as Opposition Leader, but lost as an incumbent PM twice.

  47. Could be ‘interesting’ –

    Japan’s largest warship steamed into the South China Sea this week in defiance of Chinese assertiveness, with Asian military guests on board to witness helicopters looping over the tropical waters and gunners blasting target buoys.
    …
    While the U.S. has confronted China directly by sending warships close to China’s island bases in the South China Sea, Japan so far has shied away from similar provocations.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-carrier-idUSKBN19E138

  48. Trump at it –

    Trump casts doubt on Russia investigator Mueller

    President Donald Trump has questioned the neutrality of Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in last year’s US election.

    Mr Trump said Mr Mueller’s friendship with James Comey, who had been heading the inquiry until sacked from his role as FBI chief, was “bothersome”.

    Asked on Fox News whether Mr Mueller should step down, Mr Trump said: “We’re going to have to see.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40385833

Comments Page 28 of 28
1 … 27 28

Leave a Reply

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