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 41 of 45
1 … 40 41 42 … 45

  2. Malcolm Turnbull “Marriage equality has passed!”
    [vomit emoticon]

    I reiterate again*, NO CREDIT to MALCOLM. No Credit to the “Liberals” who fought tooth and nail for the last two years plus to prevent or delay this day.

    * having previously ‘iterated’

  6. From Mike Carlton.

    So Abbott didn’t have the balls to vote on the Marriage Equality bill. Didn’t even front in the House. What a gutless waste of space he is. When will Warringah come to its senses and fling him to the winds ?

  7. zoomster @ #1993 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 6:49 pm

    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.

    No I am not!
    It is the general principle that HC decisions can be over-ridden by Parliament passing legislation subject to that legislation not conflicting with the Constitution or being otherwise unlawful.

    It may be possible to craft such legislation to eliminate the present citizenship difficulties or at least provide substantial clarification on some matters such as ‘reasonable steps’ and when renunciation takes effect that over-ride present HC decisions, provided they do not conflict with the Constitution. Those drafting such legislation would need to exercise caution.

  8. Steve777

    And around 50 of them fought tooth and nail today, backed sometimes by Turnbull, supporting amendments that were designed with one thing in mind: to delay the vote as long as possible.

    That will be overlooked by the Tory cheersquad but those who saw it won’t forget.

  11. zoomster @ #1998 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 6:51 pm

    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.

    I disagree with that, but he provided an example of Parliament legislating to over-ride a HC decision, which is what you wanted me to provide.

    The only way to change the Constitution is by referendum. But that is rather different to a HC decision.

  15. lizzie says:

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

    History is being rewritten as we watch. Soon Mal will be remembered as a “yes” campaigner.

  16. zoomster @ #1996 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 6:50 pm

    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.

    Yes, usually in the absence of any statutory law to give effect to the Constitution where it is silent on certain matters.

  19. bemused

    We aren’t talking about ‘High Court decisions’ full stop, but a particular type of High Court decision, where the High Court has given an interpretation of the Constitution.

    Parliament can change legislation so that it meets the High Court requirements (as the examples given by both Nicholas and myself show).

    It can’t over ride High Court interpretations of the Constitution. (We only know what the Constitution ‘says’ because the High Court tells us…if we over ride what the High Court tells us what the Constitution says, we are thus over riding the Constitution).

  22. My partner Are very happy. We can marry. It doesn’t mean we will, but we can.

    I cried when the ABS reported the overwhelming vote; I cried when the Senate passed the bill; I have cried again today.

    This has taken the hard work of many people, and ultimately, the survey response of millions of Australians, including the vast majority of those who reside here on PB.

    Thank you. Thank you very much.

  23. The four MPs to vote “no” on Thursday were Queensland independent Bob Katter, and Coalition MPs Keith Pitt, David Littleproud and Russell Broadbent.

  24. GG
    Nah. Other than to note that gay people can and do marry straight people. Sometimes in ignorance and sometimes in full knowledge. And people can find themselves and their life partners along any point in the spectrum of sexuality.

    Love is love.

  31. zoomster @ #2019 Thursday, December 7th, 2017 – 7:05 pm

    bemused

    We aren’t talking about ‘High Court decisions’ full stop, but a particular type of High Court decision, where the High Court has given an interpretation of the Constitution.

    Parliament can change legislation so that it meets the High Court requirements (as the examples given by both Nicholas and myself show).

    It can’t over ride High Court interpretations of the Constitution. (We only know what the Constitution ‘says’ because the High Court tells us…if we over ride what the High Court tells us what the Constitution says, we are thus over riding the Constitution).

    You have become like Guytaur.

    I will leave it for a lawyer to correct you.

    But Parliament is not constrained by the HC, it is constrained by the Constitution.

  32. Wombat,
    I am so happy that you now have the ability to say yes or no to marriage because, as you correctly point out, that’s what the law change is really all about, being able, like us heterosexual couples, to decide whether you want to get married, or not.

    Happy celebration! 🙂

  33. Rossmcg @6:59PM: “And around 50 of them fought tooth and nail today, backed sometimes by Turnbull, supporting amendments that were designed with one thing in mind: to delay the vote as long as possible.”

    Any one of those amendments would have delayed the passing of the Bill until at least February, giving opponents time to regather and continue the fight. This is what Malcolm supported.

    “Liberals” (with a few exceptions, not including Malcolm): You lost. There’s no place on the winning bandwagon for you. So don’t to to crash the party.

  34. Wombat

    Well said.

    I am still absorbing the new reality.

    I too thank all those here on PB who have shown support for equality. In small and big ways.

  35. GG
    Allen was the first husband of Liza Minnelli, with the couple divorcing after seven years of marriage; he later came out as gay. He and his long-term partner, Gregory Connell (1949-1984)[2], died from AIDS-related illnesses eight years apart, with Allen becoming one of the first well-known Australians to die from AIDS.

  36. Broadbent has to have a serious mental problem. His statement about why he voted No is absolute gibberish. Somehow ice, childhood allergies and breast cancer are the reason.

    “There’s a lot of consternation in my community at the moment because, even though the vote for same-sex marriage in my electorate was 61 per cent and about 40 per cent voted no, I, their federal member, will be voting no in this debate. I represent all the people in my electorate. There’s a lot of fear going on in my electorate and across Australia about our changing community. Whether it be concerns about this latest change, with same-sex marriage, whether it be the scourge of ice that is raging around regional communities—and I know in the cities as well, for you who represent the cities—whether it is the allergies we are seeing come out in this generation of children that we’ve never seen before, whether it is breast cancer, which seems to be touching every family, there is a part of my community that says: ‘What is happening? This is not what we’re used to and not what we’re a part of.’

    I have got to tell you that, in my role, I have agreed with people in regard to same-sex marriage, and my agreement with them is more important than the job that I actually do—my agreement with those people that said, ‘This is the way I will vote; this is the way I’ll support you.’ So, for those who have huge concern about the fact that I am voting one way, I put to you that this is the way I will be voting.”

  38. Good for you Wombat.

    Even this grumpy straight white 60-plus male has got a bit misty eyed a few times in the last week.

    I hope in some small way people like me have helped make Australia a better place for you.

  41. When the HC rules on Constitutional matters it sets a precedent, and that precedent is as much a part of the Constitution as the words written in the Constitution.

    Take the implied (limited) freedom of political speech that the HC found to exist; implied by the democratic mechanisms described in the Constitution.

    Parliament cannot remove or alter that implied freedom of political speech regardless of the fact that it is effectively an artifact of a HC ruling.

  42. I think the greatest thing about the SSM marriage bill is that it will largely be forgotten by New Years. Everyone will be able to tie the knot and no one will give a stuff. Some lingering resentment of the postal thingy and all those no sayers will persist but even the pain of their bitter attempts to derail the process will fade.

    A great day really and I’m looking forward to some weddings!

  47. Good on yah Wombat. 🙂
    So SSM is now, for all the kerfuffle, a part of the landscape, a background to all our lives,…as equality before the law should be. Could have taken a better path to it if there had been the political will, but thats all now history. Future is just a little brighter for a lot of people and thats a bloody good thing. Congrats to all the people out there who put a hell of a lot more effort into this than i did. A well deserved outcome to be celebrated.

  49. The abstainers!

    Just need to correct an earlier post:

    I said Scott Morrison voted yes, but I was wrong – I am now being told he abstained.

    My apologies.

    So the abstain list includes:

    Tony Abbott

    Kevin Andrews

    Scott Morrison

    Barnaby Joyce.

    Guardian blog

Comments Page 41 of 45
1 … 40 41 42 … 45

Leave a Reply

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