Essential Research: 55-45 to Labor

Essential defies the weekend narrative by recording a move to Labor, and finds Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop in a statistical dead heat for preferred Liberal leader.

After a weekend of relatively good electoral and polling news for the government, Essential Research records Labor’s two-party lead out from 54-46 to 55-45. A preferred Liberal leader question has Malcolm Turnbull down four since July to 21%, Julie Bishop down one to 19% and Tony Abbott unchanged on 10%. More detail on both of these will be available when Essential Research publishes its full results later today. On the question of a potential leadership change, 18% said it would make them more likely to vote Coalition, compared with 13% for less likely and 54% for no difference.

The poll also found 38% wanted the Liberals and Nationals to continue working together, compared with 34% who thought they should be independent – with the former option heavily favoured by Coalition voters. Fifty-four per cent said they favoured majority government, with 25% preferring minor parties holding the balance of power. Fifty-one per cent felt politicians should be forced to resign from parliament if they resigned from their party, with only 24% holding the opposite view.

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.

2,205 comments on “Essential Research: 55-45 to Labor”

Comments Page 37 of 45
1 … 36 37 38 … 45

  1. lizzie says:

    Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 3:46 pm
    Malcolm Farr‏Verified account @farrm51 · 1m1 minute ago

    Barnaby Joyce confirms in Parliament: “I’m currently separated. That’s on the record.”
    Why did he have to say that? Was he bring attacked by someone?

    Don’t know. It is on the Armidale Express site, timestamped DECEMBER 7 2017 – 4:14PM

    http://www.armidaleexpress.com.au/story/5107812/barnaby-joyce-confirms-hes-separated-as-same-sex-marriage-goes-to-vote/?cs=471

    Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has backed the traditional definition of marriage in his second day back in parliament, but says he doesn’t “come to this debate pretending to be a saint”.

    As the same-sex marriage debate rages on across the floor, Mr Joyce confirmed he has separated from his wife.

    “The current definition of marriage has stood the test of time – half of them fail, I acknowledge that,” he said.

    “I’ll acknowledge that I’m currently separated so that’s on the record. I don’t come to this debate pretending to be a saint.”

    Mr Joyce, who likes the traditional definition of marriage, says “it is a special relational between a man and a woman for the purposes, if you’re so lucky, for bringing children into the world”.

  2. It is very interesting when you look at the voting numbers for the various amendments being presented today.

    Most of the amendments are getting over 50 votes in support. Given that labor is voting as a bloc against the amendments the number voting in support of the rubbish amendments must consist of a huge swag of the coalition party room. So not just a small conservative rump.

    Cheers.

  3. matttburke: .

    ┃
    ╱╲ this
    ╱╱╲╲ house
    ╱╱╭╮╲╲ needs to
    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔╲ get on
    ┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃┃ with it

  4. Watching Parliment and they flashed to Tony A. He had a strange rocking motion with an odd look on his face. What on earth is he doing under the desk?

  5. MogwaitheCat: LMAO! Watching the Reps #SSM debate and saw @cpyne get his copy of Andrew Hastie’s revised amendments, scan them and toss them into the bin. #auspol

  13. Triton 12.25

    “bemused, I think you are focusing too much on the meaning of ‘renounce’. As TPOF pointed out, s44 doesn’t mention it, only citizenship. You are a citizen of a country if the country says you are.”

    Triton, s 44 alone is now not the relevant law.

    The relevant law now is s44 and all that the HC has held about s44 in the cases about s44. And the HC has introduced the topic of “renunciation”.

    s44 on its own can not be meaningfully applied to the facts and circumstances of contemporary cases because it does not on its own provide all the answers.

    For example, while it talks about whether or not one is a citizen of another country, it does not talk about how one becomes a citizen of another country, nor how one ends citizenship of another country. The HC fills in the unanswered questions and its answers become part of the law.

    And interestingly, s 44 does not include words and effect that are contained in your last sentence.

  14. booleanbach

    If we can get enough people in the Gallery of Parliament we are well on our way to our own version of Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. Better than the ABC for entertainment.

    Can I have the rotten fruit vendor franchise?

  17. booleanbach

    If we can get enough people in the Gallery of Parliament we are well on our way to our own version of Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. Better than the ABC for entertainment.

    Can I have the rotten fruit vendor franchise?

  18. Guytaur

    Re NRMA buying Manly Fast Ferries. An odd decision given their generally anti-PT stance.

    In the old days the ferry would have been seen as competition to the car and purchased to run it down and close it.

    Funny days.

  20. Psyclaw @ #1813 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 5:09 pm

    Triton 12.25

    “bemused, I think you are focusing too much on the meaning of ‘renounce’. As TPOF pointed out, s44 doesn’t mention it, only citizenship. You are a citizen of a country if the country says you are.”

    Triton, s 44 alone is now not the relevant law.

    The relevant law now is s44 and all that the HC has held about s44 in the cases about s44. And the HC has introduced the topic of “renunciation”.

    s44 on its own can not be meaningfully applied to the facts and circumstances of contemporary cases because it does not on its own provide all the answers.

    For example, while it talks about whether or not one is a citizen of another country, it does not talk about how one becomes a citizen of another country, nor how one ends citizenship of another country. The HC fills in the unanswered questions and its answers become part of the law.

    And interestingly, s 44 does not include words and effect that are contained in your last sentence.

    Could not the HC interpretations be over-ridden by Parliament passing legislation to define such matters?
    And its all very well to consider the laws of other countries, but surely not within Australia?

  28. Basically, Tim Wilson is saying that he doesn’t believe in protections enacted for the people, by the parliament by saying that he is a Liberal Democrat, not a Social Democrat.

    What a worm.

  32. senthorun: The PM degrades LGBTI people by making our rights contingent on a survey and now he wants to take credit for marriage equality while voting for even more legislative discrimination of LGBTI people.

    Where do I find the hose to put out this dumpster fire of ‘political leadership’?

  43. bemused

    ‘Could not the HC interpretations be over-ridden by Parliament passing legislation to define such matters?’

    No. The Constitution trumps any legislature.

    Otherwise Parliament could change the rules anytime they wanted to.

  44. Barney in Go Dau says:
    Did Kelly just say “sodomise” a marriage or was it just a problem with his speaking?

    That’s what I heard as well.

  46. Kevin Andrews putting it about again that Labor didn’t have a Conscience Vote on the Amendments.
    They did.
    Labor HOR MPs just decided en masse that they were rubbish.

  47. AR

    “I believe the position is Sykes is that it’s important to heed and respect foreign law, absent a very good reason to do otherwise. Lazy/incompetent MP’s (or prospective MP’s) is not a sufficiently good reason.”

    Law cannot be based on uncertainty. “Lazy/incompetent MP’s (sic)” is not a term of objective certainty.

    What is an objective definition of “Lazy/incompetent MP’s (sic)” by which all candidates could objectively assess themselves.

    What is an objective definition of “Lazy/incompetent MP’s (sic)” which courts could could consistently and reliably apply?

Comments Page 37 of 45
1 … 36 37 38 … 45

Leave a Reply

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