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 40 of 45
1 … 39 40 41 … 45

  1. Newsflash: unprecedented traffic jams around chadstone shopping centre as mums dash out to buy their sons dresses before the common sizes run out.

  5. Did anyone else notice that the people in HoR broke into “We are Australian” and not the dirge “Advance Australia Fair”? Far more emotional.

  6. bemused

    These are the questions you asked that I answered —

    ‘ I am not talking about over-riding the Constitution, just the bits where it is silent and the HC has filled the gaps. i.e. over-ride HC interpretations, not the Constitution itself.’

    ‘So you would hold, for example, that the Parliament could not pass a ‘Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship Act’ which specified the exact requirements to renounce foreign citizenship, to replace HC decisions?’

    You are asking whether or not the Parliament can legislate to over ride decisions made by the High Court. It can’t.

  7. From Andrew Greenwhich

    Thank you Australia. Together, we did this. Marriage equality is finally the law of the land and it’s time to start celebrating.

    Legislation passed the house with almost every MP voting yes, only a handful voting No, while several abstained, following one of the most intense political and social change journeys in our nation’s history.

    http://junkee.com/thank-you-australia/138309

  8. politicsabc: AG Brandis says as from Saturday Dec 9, same-sex couples will be able to lodge a Notice of Intended Marriage to commence the one month minimum notice period required before the solemnisation of marriages under the Marriage Act.#asupol #SSM2017

  12. Oh, it passed? Excellent! Really, really good news.

    I mean, after the sheer size of the majorities in both the survey and senate votes, it seemed inevitable, really, but I still half-expected the RWNJ’s and their useful idiot Turnbull would find a way to kill it.

    Now, I guess I better go out and buy myself some dresses.

  13. zoomster @ #1956 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 6:21 pm

    bemused

    These are the questions you asked that I answered —

    ‘ I am not talking about over-riding the Constitution, just the bits where it is silent and the HC has filled the gaps. i.e. over-ride HC interpretations, not the Constitution itself.’

    ‘So you would hold, for example, that the Parliament could not pass a ‘Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship Act’ which specified the exact requirements to renounce foreign citizenship, to replace HC decisions?’

    You are asking whether or not the Parliament can legislate to over ride decisions made by the High Court. It can’t.

    I do wish you would make it clear who said what when you quote others.

    You are repeating exactly what you are wrong about in your final sentence.

  15. ABC24 TV commentators talking absolute bullshit.
    A wonder to behold.
    Just told us of the Prime Ministers latest signature achievement.

    Well howdydo and hallelujah brothers and sisters. 😵

  16. Congrats to all. It has been a long road that is for sure.

    But now that it is all done and dusted we (laborites) must stay focussed. We all must ensure that the Mad Monk Abbott is encouraged to remain as a Coalition Backbencher.

    Abbott is one of our best weapons. He must remain in Parliament and as the hard working member for Warringah. He will be fantastic on the opposition bench after the next election.

  19. bemused

    OK, simple test – give me one example of Parliament over riding a High Court decision.

    The Malaysian solution is an example of the High Court over riding Parliament.

  20. Labor has helped undo the damage it did in 2004 when it voted with the Coalition to entrench discrimination and prejudice in the Marriage Act. Yay!!

  21. Don’t get too carried away folks.

    Tony Abbott is even now driving furiously towards Yarralumla to direct the Governor General to disconnect his phone, cut off his WiFi, lock the gates, put his fingers in his ears and go lalalalala, and refuse his assent to the Same Sex Marriage Act.

    This isn’t the swearing in of Barnaby Joyce, you know.

  22. zoomster @ #1969 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 6:27 pm

    bemused

    OK, simple test – give me one example of Parliament over riding a High Court decision.

    The Malaysian solution is an example of the High Court over riding Parliament.

    Off the top of my head I cannot.

    But the HC will only over-ride Parliament when it has made a law or decision that is unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful.

    If the HC makes a decision which fills in gaps in the law, then Parliament can legislate to plug the gap and negate the HC ruling.

    Hopefully Psyclaw or some other lawyer is around and they will correct you.

  26. politicsabc: EX Phil Williams – senior government minister noted how moving it was when the public gallery belted out the “We are One but we are many” song after the ssm vote. He says he might start a campaign to change the national anthem after summer.

  28. bemused

    ‘If the HC makes a decision which fills in gaps in the law, then Parliament can legislate to plug the gap and negate the HC ruling.’

    Again, give me an example of the Parliament doing this.

  31. …if the HC were able to do what you say, bemused, we wouldn’t be auditting MPs about their dual citizenship. The Parliament would have simply passed a law overturning the HC ruling.

    They haven’t because they can’t, not because they don’t want to.

  32. zoomster @ #1978 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 6:37 pm

    bemused

    ‘If the HC makes a decision which fills in gaps in the law, then Parliament can legislate to plug the gap and negate the HC ruling.’

    Again, give me an example of the Parliament doing this.

    I leave that to a lawyer as I do not keep tabs on courts, particularly the High Court.

    Victorian Governments have passed laws to over-ride state courts. I recall legislation providing sentencing guidelines for example.

  33. On issues of statutory interpretation, the Parliament can, at any time, enact a statutory change to negate the effect of a High Court decision. This happens often. For example, when the High Court overturned the convictions of people charged with trespass under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act on the grounds that the prosecution had adduced no evidence to prove that Pine Gap is actually a defence facility, the Rudd Government changed the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act to explicitly remove the requirement for the prosecution to prove that a facility is a defence facility. The Howard Government responded to the Wik decision by amending the Native Title Act to make it easier to extinguish native title rights.

    On issues of constitutional interpretation, the only way to negate a High Court decision is to use the referendum procedure to change the constitution.

  39. All legislation passed by Parliament effect HC decisions.

    Before today any State that passed ME legislation would have that legislation ruled invalid by the HC as it contradicted federal law.

    As of now any such law would likely to be considered valid by the HC.

    The only question there needs to be is, is it Constitutional valid?

  40. bemused

    ‘Victorian Governments have passed laws to over-ride state courts. I recall legislation providing sentencing guidelines for example.’

    Yes, and I think you’ll find the Victorian Constitution allows the legislature to do this.

    Obviously Parliament makes the laws that the courts then apply. They do that because the Constitution says that’s their job.

  41. zoomster @ #1981 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 6:39 pm

    …if the HC were able to do what you say, bemused, we wouldn’t be auditting MPs about their dual citizenship. The Parliament would have simply passed a law overturning the HC ruling.

    They haven’t because they can’t, not because they don’t want to.

    The Parliament could pass such a law to the extent it did not conflict with the Constitution. It would need to be very careful as the HC gets to interpret the Constitution.

    I think such a solution should be explored given the difficulty in passing a referendum.

  43. Yes, I agree with that, Nicholas.

    Another example is the Malaysian solution – the High Court said that the legislation as it existed did not allow it to go forward. The Parliament only needed to amend the legislation and the Malaysian Solution would have been fine.

    bemused is specifically talking about the HC’s rulings on citizenship. Parliament – all sides, Greens included – would have loved to over ride these. They didn’t because they couldn’t.

  44. zoomster @ #1990 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 6:46 pm

    bemused

    ‘Victorian Governments have passed laws to over-ride state courts. I recall legislation providing sentencing guidelines for example.’

    Yes, and I think you’ll find the Victorian Constitution allows the legislature to do this.

    Obviously Parliament makes the laws that the courts then apply. They do that because the Constitution says that’s their job.

    Best you quite while you are behind.
    Young Nicky has helped me out @ 6.41

  45. Malcolm Turnbull‏Verified account @TurnbullMalcolm · 19m19 minutes ago

    It’s time for more marriages.
    More commitment.
    More love.
    More respect.
    Marriage equality has passed!

    But-but-but He was still trying to pass amendments and delaying up until the end. 😡

  46. bemused

    ‘The Parliament could pass such a law to the extent it did not conflict with the Constitution. It would need to be very careful as the HC gets to interpret the Constitution.’

    No. In this case, the HC has already interpreted the Constitution.

  47. JayWeatherill: Tonight we light up @TheAdelaideOval and Riverbank Footbridge RAINBOW to celebrate #marriageequality becoming law #LoveWins pic.twitter.com/hqpwMrqVZg

  48. bemused

    This statement of Nicholas’..

    ‘On issues of constitutional interpretation, the only way to negate a High Court decision is to use the referendum procedure to change the constitution.’

    …directly contradicts what you have been arguing.

  49. In celebration of ME finally passing into law, Queensland LNP leader Tim Nicholls has finally admitted defeat in their state election, almost a week after his own victory was mathematically impossible.

    No just kidding, he still hasn’t admitted defeat!

Comments Page 40 of 45
1 … 39 40 41 … 45

Leave a Reply

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