Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

The latest Essential records no change on voting intention, be it for a federal election or a same-sex marriage survey.

The Guardian reports the latest Essential Research poll has Labor’s lead steady at 53-47, but provides only incomplete detail of the primary vote. The poll also records 59% in favour of same-sex marriage with 31% opposed, compared with 57% and 32% a fortnight ago, with 62% (down one) saying they will definitely “vote” in the survey if it survives the High Court challenge, and another 16% (down two) saying they will probably do so. Again, this skews towards the yes camp, with 74% of supporters rating themselves as definite compared with 58% of opponents.

On power prices, the poll finds 49% holding energy companies principally responsible, compared with 22% for the Turnbull government and 9% for “environmentalists pushing action on climate change”. It also finds 54% opposed to changing the date of Australia, with 26% in support, and 70% believing “believe everyone can celebrate on that day”, versus 18% against. Forty-two per cent disagree with changing inscriptions on public statues. The full report should be with us later today.

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.

497 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

  1. Bekenstein proved some of the the first “no hair” theorems about black holes. But they have been disproved, and now it widely acknowledged that there are hairy black holes in the universe. I do not jest.

  2. [beware reading judicial demeanor as positive/negative…the interrogatory process involves beating down arguments (but might finally agree)]

    No. 80% plus of cases you can tell, via demeanour, how you are going.

  3. shellbell

    [beware reading judicial demeanor as positive/negative…the interrogatory process involves beating down arguments (but might finally agree)]

    No. 80% plus of cases you can tell, via demeanour, how you are going.
    __________________________________________

    I suppose it depends on how the Government goes tomorrow. I can imagine a few penetrating questions the court might want to ask Commonwealth counsel.

    It’s a shame that we have to rely on the impressions of others to get a feel for what is going on.

  4. Entropy. Boy, do I know about entropy. Every morning, in the mirror. Which reminds me of the only good thing about alzheimers – you meet someone new every morning.

    My place is called ‘Entropy Park’.

  5. Calla Wahlquist at the Guardian:

    The plaintiff’s argument is made slightly more protracted by virtue of splitting the key points between Merkel, acting for Wilkie and co, and Kate Richardson SC, who will speak this afternoon on behalf of Australian Marriage Equality and senator Janet Rice.

    Merkel argued the “urgent” side of the test while Richardson will focus on “unforeseen”.

    Taken together, those two tests are the biggest arguments against the legality of the funding of the survey, which is the biggest argument against the survey itself. But they’re awkwardly split in the proceedings.

    As it is we’re already running over time, which may explain why their honours were rather short with Kathleen Foley as she attempted to explain the statistical argument.

    Solicitor-general Stephen Donoghue, who is obviously answering both cases simultaneously will have the advantage of being able to structure his arguments in a more sensible fashion.

  6. So the court not convinced that this is objectively a vote, or not statistics. So they seem likely to judge that, if this process is to go ahead, it’s fine for the ABS to be running it.

    That’s a shame to hear, but the good guys have many arguments to make, and only need to win a single one of them in order to win the case. The commonwealth needs to win on all points to have the survey go ahead.

    As others have said, the claimants will most likely win on it not being urgent, or not being unforeseen.

  7. [As it is we’re already running over time, which may explain why their honours were rather short with Kathleen Foley as she attempted to explain the statistical argument.]

    When optimism replaces reality.

    Pity Kate Richardson SC did not go first.

  8. shellbell @ #204 Tuesday, September 5th, 2017 – 12:52 pm

    [beware reading judicial demeanor as positive/negative…the interrogatory process involves beating down arguments (but might finally agree)]

    No. 80% plus of cases you can tell, via demeanour, how you are going.

    Particularly when you’re not there. I’d say you would be 99% without the burden of actually being present.

  9. I thought the biggest problem with the statistical basis for the survey was not that personal opinions can’t be the basis for statistical analysis but that meaningful statistical analysis would be impossible given the methodology the ABS was rrequired to employ

  10. Gutaur @1:16PM: brilliant cartoon.

    The inscription is incomplete. The last bit reads “pillaging our welfare system while taking our jobs”.

  11. More interesting commentary from Calla Wahlquist:

    You can’t second-guess immutability
    I promised a bit more background on that 2013 marriage equality ruling, which found that the Australian parliament is able to legislate same-sex marriage by a simple act of parliament.

    The ruling was contained within The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory a judgement striking down the ACT’s Marriage Equality (Same-Sex) Act 2013, which created a separate state-based law for same-sex marriages to fill the gap in the federal Marriage Act 1961, which has, since 2004, defined marriage as “between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.”

    The Abbott government challenged the legislation and the court ruled that it was inconsistent with the federal legislation, and therefore invalid.

    But Australian Marriage Equality joined the case as a friend of the court and also asked for a definitive judgement on whether parliament was able to legislate for marriage equality under the scope of s.51xxi of the Constitution, known as the marriage power.

    In a unanimous judgement, the full bench of the high court found that the definition of marriage was not fixed in time at the point in which the Constitution was written but was rather a “topic of juristic classification.”

    …when s 51(xxi) gives the Parliament legislative power with respect to “marriage”, it gives legislative power with respect to a status, reflective of a social institution, to which legal consequences attach and from which legal consequences follow.

    The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable.

    It said that it was not possible in a global context to contain definitions of the social institution of marriage to jurisdictions that only allowed marriage between a man and a woman.

    At paragraph 37 to 38:

    Other legal systems now provide for marriage between persons of the same sex. This may properly be described as being a recent development of the law of marriage in those jurisdictions. It is not useful or relevant for this Court to examine how or why this has happened. What matters is that the juristic concept of marriage (the concept to which s 51(xxi) refers) embraces such unions. They are consensual unions of the kind which has been described. The legal status of marriage, like any legal status, applies to only some persons within a jurisdiction. The boundaries of the class of persons who have that legal status are set by law and those boundaries are not immutable.

    When used in s.51(xxi), ‘marriage’ is a term which includes a marriage between persons of the same sex. (Emphasis mine.)

    It’s that immutable argument that came back to bite Foley in her argument, before the lunch break, that the court interpret the Census and Statistics Act 1905 as it existed at 1905, rather than as it exists now.

    After all, if the definition of marriage was forever interpreted as it existed at the time the marriage power in the constitution was drafted, marriage equality could not even be under consideration.

  12. shellbell

    The Cth will start today if there is time.
    ___________________________________

    Out of interest, do you have experience before the High Court, or is your commentary from your broader experience of courts and how they behave?

  13. Further on Roberts, should his case not be referred to the High Court to see if he was ineligible for cost recovery reasons? The reason is that if he was ineligible, and he concealed the information that made him ineligible, there is a strong case to ask him to repay his salary. Unlike Day and Culleton, Roberts’ case occurred over a long time, and he was paid probably in excess of $1 million in that time.

  14. Emergence servoces presser going a long time on bushfire risk. One spokesperson just said yes climate change is a factor in increased fire risk.

  15. From Ms Murphy’s blog:

    The Greens have telegraphed a plan to move a motion in the Senate on Tuesday asking senators to declare if they think coal-fired power is a clean source of energy. The Greens have telegraphed a campaign to try to wedge Labor on energy policy, with a big decision on the Finkel review coming up. The Greens will move a motion on Tuesday that “the Senate does not consider coal fired power to be clean” as part of an effort to keep the spotlight on this issue.

    ______________________________________-

    Looks like the Greens are returning to their grassroots objectives – undermining Labor to nobody’s benefit.

  16. TPOF

    I see no advantage to Labor in the Clean Coal concept. No wedging for Labor there or there should not be.
    _________________________________

    Well, take it up with Ms Murphy. She was the one who said it was a wedge.

  17. Apparently PvO has said in his twitter account that he no longer believes that Turnbull will lead the Government to the next election. I don’t twitter so I can’t check.

  18. Peter_Fox59: @resourcefultype @marklevy2gb Plebiscite or postal vote was always going to be ugly for both sides. Gutless politicians created this division, let’s remember that.

  19. guytaur @ #240 Tuesday, September 5th, 2017 – 11:49 am

    Peter_Fox59: @resourcefultype @marklevy2gb Plebiscite or postal vote was always going to be ugly for both sides. Gutless politicians created this division, let’s remember that.

    @resourcefultype @marklevy2gb Plebiscite or postal vote was always going to be ugly for both sides. The L/NP created this division, let’s remember that.

    There, fixed it for him.

  20. @ Guytaur – I really doubt Christine Forster cares about people being diplomatic after:

    “As everyone knows, my distinguished and much-loved sister Chris is on the other side of this argument. Chris has been a very good mother with her partner Virginia, they do a good job, but nevertheless I’m old fashioned enough to think kids do best with a mother and a father.”

  21. @ Guytaur – are you refering to this

    we are very confident that the deputy prime minister and indeed Senator Nash and indeed Senator Canavan will be found not to be disqualified from sitting in this House or indeed in the Senate.

    I feel like the above “we are confident that the HC will find” would not count as contempt of court, as compared to “the HC will find”. It is a statement about Turnbull’s mental state, not a statement about what the HC will do.

Comments are closed.