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 9 of 15
1 8 9 10 15
  1. a r @ #340 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 1:16 pm

    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.

    So you were taken in.
    The problem even he has outlined is failure to prosecute those responsible with appropriate vigour.
    The solution he offers is more law(s) presumably to be similarly un-enforced.
    My solution is to use the laws already there to the fullest to go after wrong-doers.

  2. If it comes to a plebiscite, i will vote. A YES vote basically shows that holding the plebiscite was a complete waste of time and money and that it should have been decided by a vote in Parliament.

    And that the RWNJ arseholes who fought for delay were not just dicks….but wrong as well. Some of them will vote against SSM even if a plebiscite returns a yes vote. If they do, they can and should be beaten around the head with that mercilessly.

  3. I’m definitely going to write “yes” on the questionaire. I’m also going to write that Malcolm turnbull is a “gutless dickh…”. I assume it will still be counted.

  4. JimmyDoyle @ #395 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 2:41 pm

    Ratsak, TPOF and others – I am totally disgusted by the possibility that my rights and the rights of LGBT people are being put up for a vote. I am also disgusted with this abuse of Australia’s democratic and constitutional norms.

    Jimmy. If it comes to it I’ll do my bit to help you and anyone else who wants to marry any other willing adult by filling out whatever stupid thing they send. Frankly who another adult person gets it on with, or forms a life bond with couldn’t be of less interest to me so I see no reason why I should have any more say in what they do they than I’d want them having a say in my private affairs.

    But I’ll be hoping this disgusting idea gets knocked on the head before that. Which might put your wedding plans on hold for a bit. If it ends up being done in the ugliest possible way then that might have to do, but I’d like to think this country isn’t so fucked that we can’t just do it the right way.

  5. Presumably, after the postal plebiscite is in the affirmative, and there has been a free vote (during which Turnbull will vote for SSM) he will then proclaim himself as the father of SSM in this country. And, of course, there will be idiots out there stupid enough to believe him.

  6. Ratsak
    But I’ll be hoping this disgusting idea gets knocked on the head before that.

    Likewise. I hope the High Court kills the postal plebiscite.

    I don’t give a shit if that delays marriage equality.

  7. I agree Jimmy Doyle. Let’s not give them any excuse to put this off any further.

    One other thing not everyone who will vote against this are RWNJs or hopeless bigots. Some like my 91 yr old mother are Labor voters but have a long lifetime of cultural (Catholic) conditioning to overcome and aren’t quite there yet. Like GG it seems the word marriage is the major sticking point as she is happy for same sex unions to have the same legal status. It’s seems strange to me to quibble over the definition but that’s where she is at the moment.

  8. I don’t get the word quibble. Frankly if the state removed all reference to marriage and replaced it with civil unions or whatever it’s almost certain that natural language drift would result in marriage being used for all such relationships within a decade anyway. Using the word as a sticking point is only relevant if you believe the state should be enforcing a difference for some reason.

  9. guytaur @ #408 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:01 pm

    Oops sorry list from Labor about what PP (Postal Plebiscite) could be spent on.

    Labor needs to be more consistent with its use of commas.

    I thought the first line was saying that the average teacher’s salary in 1906 was $64,000, which seemed astronomically high unless it had already been adjusted to 2017 dollars. And then the fifth line was downright perplexing.

  10. @mike if SA Labor had just agreed to have their state become uninhabitable, then we could be growing cotton in NSW without anyone having to steal water.

  11. I will vote in accordance with the wishes of those who seek EM.

    That said I hope that the LGBTIQ community turn their back on the questionaire and invite the Australian Public to turn its back on the questionaire. I hope the questionaire is treated as the farce it is.

    One of the big problems with the questionaire is that when people are voting, because they are NOT voting for a specified bill incapable of being amended, many will support EM but vote against the proposition in order to protected bigoted people from being forced to solemnise the marriage etc, etc.

    There are many reasons why our predecessors provided for a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. Working out the many nuances and safeguards necessary social change requires is one of them. That is the proper work of full time politicians. NOT every citizen.

  12. antonbruckner11

    Presumably, after the postal plebiscite is in the affirmative, and there has been a free vote (during which Turnbull will vote for SSM) he will then proclaim himself as the father of SSM in this country.

    And, of course, there will be idiots out there stupid enough to believe him.

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

    or even worse – to vote for him !!!

  13. kevjohnno @ #411 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:03 pm

    Like GG it seems the word marriage is the major sticking point as she is happy for same sex unions to have the same legal status. It’s seems strange to me to quibble over the definition but that’s where she is at the moment.

    That’s where a lot of people are, and will probably stay. GG is by no means unique … or even particularly unusual. You have to look at it from their perspective, because they make much the same point you do – i.e. that same sex unions are perfectly fine, and should certainly have the same legal status as marriage, so why quibble over the term ‘marriage’?

  14. Elaugaufein @ #413 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:06 pm

    .Frankly if the state removed all reference to marriage and replaced it with civil unions or whatever ….

    This has always been my preferred option – and would probably have been passed by now with little argument from either side. But both sides are still hung up on the word ‘marriage’.

  15. VE
    I wasn’t suggesting it happen, merely pointing out that attachment to the word for its own sake is silly. Linguistic drift happens (and for this purpose it pretty much already has, which is why the majority of the voting public don’t object to its extension).

  16. jimmy doyle:

    “It is so important that the bigots, homophobes, craven opportunists, and the selfish all be shown that they are a minority and that those supporting justice and equality comprise the great majority of the Australian people.”

    I understand fully where you are coming from, but if only 40% return a valid paper, and 75% per cent of those vote against, that means that only 30% of voters are against – not enough to argue the public is opposed to ME. And it will show up the process as a farce. As I said earlier, this process is a hugely damaging precedent and, regardless of the issue, cannot be supported by casting a response that validates the process. Returning an invalid document, especially in a non-compulsory survey, will be as powerful as saying ‘yes’.

  17. VE

    @mike if SA Labor had just agreed to have their state become uninhabitable, then we could be growing cotton in NSW without anyone having to steal water.

    I like your sense of humor 🙂

    Worryingly though, I seriously think the LNP are trying to save SA Labor the trouble.

  18. tanya_plibersek: I didn’t have to ask every Australian if my love was good enough. Why is Malcolm Turnbull insisting on this outrageous plebiscite?

  19. Yes – what Windhover said at 3.09. My preferred position is that the ME proponents do what I suggest as a protest against putting their rights up for public inspection this way.

  20. If Labor sets up a federal ICAC it will spend its first three years looking into all the Lib rorts. Will have trouble getting to allegations about labor. Sounds good to me!

  21. Player One @ #419 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:10 pm

    so why quibble over the term ‘marriage’?

    Because separate but equal isn’t.

    Either everyone gets to call their legally-recognized relationship with their partner a marriage, or nobody does. Those are the two options that equal treatment under the law permits. I’m fine with either.

    But it seems simpler to just use “marriage” for everyone than to tell a bunch of existing couples that technically they’re no longer married. And that certainly seems to be the preferred option of the LGBT community, who are the only actual stakeholders in the debate…so I’m going to go along with what they want.

  22. Just catching up, but this proves what a fibber (aka lying hound) Guy is.

    Secretly recorded phone calls directly contradict claims by Opposition Leader Matthew Guy that he had no idea he was meeting Melbourne’s alleged Mafia boss at a lobster restaurant earlier this year.

    Transcripts of the calls, obtained by The Age, also confirm that the Lobster Cave dinner attended by alleged Mafia boss Tony Madafferi was a secretive affair, not a semi-public function as depicted by Mr Guy.

    On Tuesday, Mr Guy told reporters outside Parliament House that he did not know Mr Madafferi would be at the dinner until he was introduced to him in the restaurant as “cousin Tony”.

    But in transcripts of the phone recordings, the Liberal Party figure who organised the dinner, Barrie Macmillan, says he personally briefed Mr Guy’s office about Mr Madafferi’s presence at the dinner, and stressed the need to keep the meeting confidential.

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/it-was-all-kept-fairly-hush-hush-phone-call-transcript-contradicts-matthew-guy-on-dinner-with-mobster-20170808-gxrjox.html

  23. My only problem is that I can’t think of a clever “No Dams” analogue to answer my form with. It’s a matter that affects my community, but I truly believe that the right of the LNP will not allow SSM to go ahead even after a ‘Yes’ postal vote. I’d rather have it done right with Labor running the joint.

  24. Anyone heard confirmation as to which type of SSM we will be voting for?

    Marriage equality – what it says on the tin.

    Same sex marriage with some fun new discrimination – allowances for religious figures to refuse to supply goods/services to gay people

    Complete train wreck – with allowances for florists, bakers and pretty much everyone to refuse to supply goods/services to gay people?

  25. a r @ #428 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:18 pm

    Player One @ #419 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:10 pm

    so why quibble over the term ‘marriage’?

    Because separate but equal isn’t.

    Either everyone gets to call their legally-recognized relationship with their partner a marriage, or nobody does. Those are the two options that equal treatment under the law permits. I’m fine with either.

    I go with the ‘nobody does’ option, except as a purely religious term for a purely religious rite (like being ‘confirmed’ or ‘baptised’) – mainly because this would be acceptable to all sides. I couldn’t care less if my relationship ended up being termed a ‘union’ instead of a ‘marriage’.

    But it seems simpler to just use “marriage” for everyone than to tell a bunch of existing couples that technically they’re no longer married. And that certainly seems to be the preferred option of the LGBT community, who are the only actual stakeholders in the debate…so I’m going to go along with what they want.

    But just look at what a mess we have gotten ourselves in by sticking to this approach. Nobody is winning, nobody is convincing anyone else, and no matter which way any eventual vote turns out, there will be grief and acrimony for a significant chunk of the population.

  26. re: M Guy – “it’s not the crimes, it’s the coverup”.

    With the amazing work D Andrews is doing, the only thing the opposition could campaign on was ‘tough on crime’. Guy has now completely closed that down as an option. if IBAC doesn’t get him, his party will.

  27. [Elaugaufein
    I don’t get the word quibble. Frankly if the state removed all reference to marriage and replaced it with civil unions or whatever it’s almost certain that natural language drift would result in marriage being used for all such relationships within a decade anyway. Using the word as a sticking point is only relevant if you believe the state should be enforcing a difference for some reason.
    ]

    Unfortunately, changing the word would have an impact for people travelling outside Australia.

    Everyone understands what a marriage is but if you chose another word to define marriage it has the potential to cause problems for people trying to demonstrate that they are the same things.

    This has the potential to actually impact on everyone where to allow ME you would not have this potential.

  28. “Gareth

    My only problem is that I can’t think of a clever “No Dams” analogue to answer my form with. ”

    As it will not be an actual ballot paper, does that mean we will be able to mark it any way we please and write whatever we want on it with invalidating our vote?

  29. Looks like certain unsavoury people in Melbourne got their hooks into Matthew Guy long ago (via donations to the Liberal Party) and once these guys get their hooks into you, you can’t just walk away. They’ve got too much. I’d say he’s absolutely done.

  30. Why not just call it Mw/oPIV (Marriage Without Penises in Vaginas)?

    It’s all so silly. It’s two people deciding to live together and commit to each other for life (or until they get a divorce). Two people who are going to (unfairly) split the household chores, pay the bills, do the shopping, bring in the mail, collect the garbage, sit on the couch and watch a movie, get pissed of with each other and not talk for a day or two, sit back together with a bottle of wine and wonder where the hell the last decade went, maybe even have some kids. All perfectly normal stuff that we know of as marriage since like forever.

    It’s just the rumpy pumpy bits that get some strange people feeling a bit icky. A prurient fascination for what a couple might get up to with the lights out and a learned Pavlovian reflexive gagging at thinking about 2 boys or 2 girls doing the deed.

    Absolutely everything about a same sex relationship is the same as any other marriage except the lack of diversity of wobbly bits. The hang ups of some are so adolescent.

    So if we really need two terms to differentiate this insignificant distinction between these relationships we need to be fair about it. So:

    – Marriage With Penises in Vaginas (MWPIV), and
    – Marriage Without Penises in Vaginas (Mw/oPIV).

    Of course quite a few married men in heterosexual relationships might complain that their MWPIV has become a Mw/oPIV without their complete approval, so just sticking with Marriage is probably the easiest for all cases.

  31. Lizzie

    Yep. My view as expressed this morning is solidified by the Age report on Matthew Guy. Thanks for posting it!

    Perhaps now GG has a better understanding of the situation

  32. Barney in Go Dau @ #436 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:32 pm

    Everyone understands what a marriage is but if you chose another word to define marriage it has the potential to cause problems for people trying to demonstrate that they are the same things

    This is not true. Australia does not recognize many types of marriage that are perfectly legal in other countries – e.g. polygamy. There is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a legal marriage.

  33. For many Liberals, the most shameful revelation about Matthew Guy will be the fact he was caught drinking red wine with lobster.

  34. victoria

    I thought you’d enjoy it! ‘Mattie’ is in deep shite. But Libs are desperate for money, which apparently excuses anything. 😉

  35. victoria @ #441 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:40 pm

    Lizzie

    Yep. My view as expressed this morning is solidified by the Age report on Matthew Guy. Thanks for posting it!

    Perhaps now GG has a better understanding of the situation

    My views were and are based on the available facts at that time.

    If Guy has lied about knowing Madefferi was attending the dinner, then he is toast.

    Simon Katich @ #447 Tuesday, August 8th, 2017 – 3:45 pm

    *

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 9 of 15
1 8 9 10 15