Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor

The Coalition takes a hit in the latest voting intention reading from Essential Research, which also records solid support for anything on same-sex marriage other than inaction.

The Guardian reports Essential Research has Labor’s lead bouncing back to 54-46, after diminishing over recent weeks to 52-48 a week ago. The changes on the primary vote are rather striking by the standards of Essential’s fortnight rolling average, with Labor up three to 39% and the Coalition down two to a meagre 34% (UPDATE: Make that down one to 37% – that didn’t include the Nationals). The Greens are down a point to 9% and One Nation are steady on 8%. Essential’s monthly leadership ratings record Malcolm Turnbull up a point on approval to 38% and down three on disapproval to 46%, with Bill Shorten down one to 35% and down two to 42%, and Turnbull leading 41-27 to prime minister, unchanged on a month ago.

Other results related by The Guardian include 43% approval for a postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage, with 38% disapproving; 43% support for a parliamentary conscience vote, with 31% disapproving; 46% favouring a plebiscite in conjunction with the next election, with 34% disapproving; and 22% in favour of delaying a decision until after the next election, with 55% opposed. Forty-one per cent approved of Labor’s propose to impose a 30% tax rate on distributions from discretionary trusts, with 30% opposed. On Labor’s plans to overhaul the Fair Work Act, 39% rated that the existing system favoured employers compared with 12% for employees, and 29% who believed the interests of the two were balanced.

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.

714 comments on “Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 7 of 15
1 … 6 7 8 … 15

  1. Elaugaufein @ #285 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 12:11 pm

    Huh. That’s a novel approach, via the ABS rather than the AEC. This still seems subject to challenge though.

    Hmmm. In theory, the ABS knows the age, religion, current marital status and income of all residents, and could predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy how each would vote in the plebiscite.

    If you wanted to achieve a particular outcome, the ABS is far better equipped to do so than the AEC. Just sayin’ …

  4. briefly @ #250 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 11:25 am

    For the benefit of bemused…
    ..contd…

    This is about achieving equality before the law, especially in criminal jurisdictions, as between corporations and other legal persons, including mere mortals and other citizens…

    briefly
    bemused
    Yes, you can’t gaol a corporation.

    I’m going to try to change that in a certain sense. A corporate entity cannot be imprisoned but its assets can certainly be detained, its income requisitioned and the freedom to trade its securities can be suspended. That is a financial equivalent to imprisonment. I think it might catch on.

    briefly
    Quaintly, it’s possible to arrest a ship. It should be possible to sequester a corporation.

    bemused

    Corporations ceased being under state decades ago and were brought under Commonwealth law. The Corporations Act 2001. Here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/

    This Act is very extensive and mainly relates to the administration of companies and the operation of markets. It does not exempt corporations from State laws. Corporations have the status of legal persons and are subject to State laws like anyone else. So, for example, when Grocon was fined in relation to the deaths caused by the collapse of a wall in Melbourne, the law that applied was a Victorian law, and the court was a Victorian court:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-21/grocon-fined-250000-over-fatal-wall-collapse/5908292

    Have a look at CHAPTER 2D–Officers and employees for a start and inform yourself as to the duties of Directors and others and penalties that apply.

    And of course if individuals within a corporation commit a criminal offence they should be prosecuted under state or federal laws as appropriate.

    The trouble is that very few such charges are ever laid because of the evidentiary standards in criminal trials. This means, in fact, the laws are frequently without any practical effect in the case of corporations.

    I think this should be changed. To do so will require reform of a range of laws. The Law Reform Commission should be tasked with proposing reforms that will deliver effective equality before the law with respect to corporations and other legal persons.

    Too many repeated (multiple times) words, to say very little.
    Your argument is that the current laws are not sufficiently applied.
    Your solution is more laws which might just as easily not be sufficiently applied.

    This is of course nonsense.

    The present laws should be applied without fear or favour.

  5. I wait for the legal challenges. Injunctions at 10 paces to prevent the postal vote starting. Wonder if they will ask for an expediated judgement.

  6. zoomster @ #254 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 11:27 am

    GG

    My impression is that usually, at this stage of the cycle, we have Greens posters talking excitedly of polls showing 15-18% support and making wild predictions of winning all sorts of Lower House seats off the back of those figures. Obviously they achieve much lower results on polling day.

    If this pattern is followed this time around (note the ‘if’ word, folks), then the Greens will drop well below 10% at the next election.

    So the question is whether they’ve stagnated or whether they’re presently on an artificial high.

    Artificial high? Drug induced?

  7. Bemused

    On the banking thing. To make people accountable under current laws and to see if new ones needed we need a Banking Royal Commission.

  8. @ P1 – yeah, I wonder if by forking it out to the ABS instead of the AEC, the ABS can consider it a survey instead of a vote, and present results after compensating for turnout issues, instead of presenting raw data.

  10. GiovanniTorre: Why not go the whole hog? Spend 10 billion dollars on an army of robot emus that door-knock, ask you your opinion on SSM, then self-destruct

  13. I follow this body language expert on Twitter. She can be very interesting.

    Sara‏ @_sara_jade_ · 2h2 hours ago

    Matthew Guy over explaining (lying) dinner with alleged mobster. Swallowing hard several times shows fear, dishonesty

  14. guytaur @ #306 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 12:28 pm

    Bemused

    On the banking thing. To make people accountable under current laws and to see if new ones needed we need a Banking Royal Commission.

    I agree with holding a Banking Royal Commission and will be seeking to give evidence to it.
    But offences have already been exposed and they should be prosecuted with vigour. NOW!

  15. Voice Endeavour @ #307 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 12:30 pm

    @ P1 – yeah, I wonder if by forking it out to the ABS instead of the AEC, the ABS can consider it a survey instead of a vote, and present results after compensating for turnout issues, instead of presenting raw data.

    I think they would have to present actual numbers, but I wonder if the ABS would use the flawed address register they used in the census, rather than the electoral roll addresses that the AEC would undoubtedly use. This would make a difference to the result.

  16. billshortenmp: My position before the election (and now) is to do our job and have a free vote. Grow a spine and let us vote today. twitter.com/workmanalice/s…

  18. lukehopewell: Imagine being so bigoted that you’d rather spend $122m of someone else’s cash than raise your hand for something that never affects you.

  19. guytaur

    billshortenmp: My position before the election (and now) is to do our job and have a free vote. Grow a spine and let us vote today. twitter.com/workmanalice/s…

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

    Good Post Guytaur/Bill ……….. this whole thing could be settled in 5 minutes this afternoon ….. and the rest of the country/Government could move onto other important issues …

  22. briefly @ #12 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 7:16 am

    I’m going to try to change that in a certain sense. A corporate entity cannot be imprisoned but its assets can certainly be detained, its income requisitioned and the freedom to trade its securities can be suspended. That is a financial equivalent to imprisonment. I think it might catch on.

    So in essence, instead of incarcerating the business for 10 years, you instead lay claim to all (or most) of its profits for the next 10 years? I imagine shareholders will be pissed. Which is actually a good thing, since it:

    1. Provides people with a disincentive towards investing in companies that they know or reasonably suspect will do unethical or illegal things; and
    2. Gives every shareholder a vested interest in demanding that the company operate in an ethical and legally valid manner, where presently they only have a vested interest in demanding that the company do whatever thing it is that makes the most profit.

    And perhaps fitting punishment for the directors and managerial staff involved is to force them to stay there and keep running their impounded company for the duration of the term.

    I like it, sign me up.

  23. What a sad joke this government has become.

    There is no way on earth that this current charade can be justified, but it is typical of the bunch of loons that we have running the country that they can attempt to.

  24. a r @ #321 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 12:45 pm

    briefly @ #12 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 7:16 am

    I’m going to try to change that in a certain sense. A corporate entity cannot be imprisoned but its assets can certainly be detained, its income requisitioned and the freedom to trade its securities can be suspended. That is a financial equivalent to imprisonment. I think it might catch on.

    So in essence, instead of incarcerating the business for 10 years, you instead lay claim to all (or most) of its profits for the next 10 years? I imagine shareholders will be pissed. Which is actually a good thing, since it:

    1. Provides people with a disincentive towards investing in companies that they know or reasonably suspect will do unethical or illegal things; and
    2. Gives every shareholder a vested interest in demanding that the company operate in an ethical and legally valid manner, where presently they only have a vested interest in demanding that the company do whatever thing it is that makes the most profit.

    And perhaps fitting punishment for the directors and managerial staff involved is to force them to stay there and keep running their impounded company for the duration of the term.

    I like it, sign me up.

    You are easily taken in.

  25. The only thing that confiscating a significant portion of shareholder dividends for periods of time like that do will change the method of execution compared to automatic nationalisation. Shareholders will bail the second rumours of behaviour likely to lead to that start and the company will collapse. And for the big 4 banks the government will be on the hook for stabilising the economy in any case.

    Edit – Even if for some bizarre reason that didn’t happen most banks would not be viable over a decade , as the lien on dividends would mean they had virtually no ability to raise capital (no one is going to buy shares in a bank that return nothing for a decade and that’s under restraints that will make capital gains virtually impossible) and would quickly be left behind in a changing market.

    Edit 2 – You’d actually do significantly better by taking a smaller part of the dividends over a longer period (as that probably leaves the bank as a going concern) unless the goal was an effective corporate death sentence (in which case you should just do that).

  26. MichaelPascoe01: A: “Nah, too quick, less chance of being able to fiddle the result, wouldn’t be divisive, RWNJs don’t like it, wouldn’t save my job.”

  28. Elaugaufein @ #324 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 12:52 pm

    The only thing that confiscating a significant portion of shareholder dividends for periods of time like that do will change the method of execution compared to automatic nationalisation. Shareholders will bail the second rumours of behaviour likely to lead to that start and the company will collapse. And for the big 4 banks the government will be on the hook for stabilising the economy in any case.

    Yes and it will most likely be those close to the perpetrators and the perpetrators themselves who get their money out, leaving lots of innocent shareholders to shoulder the burden.

    Those calling the shots are the ones deserving punishment.

  34. guytaur

    The plebiscite money would be better spent on the refugees. This lot of MPs are completely selfish.
    I am also angry that the Christian Lobby (I shld say the non-Christian Lobby) are going to run a campaign. What possible difference does it make to them who gets married?

  35. RWNJ has its origins in American politics I believe and is pretty common as an expression. You just don’t see it in MSM formal reports for reasons that should be obvious.

  42. bemused @ #327 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 12:56 pm

    Yes and it will most likely be those close to the perpetrators and the perpetrators themselves who get their money out, leaving lots of innocent shareholders to shoulder the burden.

    Except the shareholders aren’t entirely innocent. Their shares give them a say (albeit a very small say, in most cases) in what the company does. If they don’t inform themselves about what the business is actually doing, don’t try to leverage their shares to stop the business from doing the wrong thing, and continue to keep their money parked in a business that they suspect might be doing the wrong thing, their culpability is small but nonzero.

    I’m okay with seeing them shoulder some burden, if it means they’ll choose their investments more carefully next time. The reason CBA can/will get away with the things that it has is because investors/shareholders, most of them anyways, don’t care; as long as it’s still making profit, that’s good enough for them. Inflict some consequences for backing a business that does illegal things, and maybe they’ll start taking notice and choosing their investments more diligently.

    I meant taken in by Briefly’s waffle.

    Yes, I was just pointing out why. It’s an attempt to rein in the corporates, which is all I need to hear.

  44. I meant taken in by Briefly’s waffle.

    Of course one person’s waffle is another person’s erudite extrapolation of an argument or point.

    In Briefley’s case it is normally the latter, though I can understand that you may have missed it.

  48. So the Government, without bothering to pass any new legislation, is going to spend over $120m for the sole aim of appeasing a small number of its own party who want a chance to victimise the SS-community before SSM is inevitably passed.

    Has there been a more egregious mis-use of taxpayer money for party-political purposes?

    It would be cheaper and make just as much sense to pay each and every Coalition MP and Senator $1m of taxpayer money in order to simply allow a conscience vote in Parliament, but would that be too blatant even for this Government? I wouldn’t even dare to say so.

  50. Surely it can’t be called a plebiscite given the legislative basis for it – everyone should call it a survey if is being run by the ABS

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 7 of 15
1 … 6 7 8 … 15