Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

No sign of seasonal goodwill extending to our political leaders, both of whom score declining approval ratings in the first federal poll for the year.

The New Year poll drought has been brought to an end by Essential Research, which will henceforth be conducting fortnightly polls, dispensing with its long establishing practice of polling weekly and publishing two-week rolling averages. As related by The Guardian, the poll has Labor’s lead unchanged on the final poll last year at 53-47 – as usual, primary votes will have to wait for the publication of the full report later today. Both leaders’ personal ratings have weakened: Malcolm Turnbull is down three on approval to 38% and up one on disapproval to 45%, Bill Shorten is down four on approval to 32% and up four disapproval to 49%, and Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is out from 42-28 to 42-25.

Other findings: 53% support a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks, with 38% opposed; 44% support and 29% oppose “Australia becoming a republic with an Australian head of state”, which is all but identical to when the same question was asked a year ago (44% and 30%); and society is widely seen as going to pot, with crime perceived as on the rise across all categories, regardless of what the official statistics might say.

UPDATE: The primary votes are Coalition 37% (steady), Labor 38% (steady), Greens 9% (steady), One Nation 6% (down one). Full report here.

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.

3,426 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 58 of 69
1 … 57 58 59 … 69

  1. Boerwar

    “If not the US, whom? If no-other, what, and how?”

    ———-

    But we do not “have” the USA. That is my point. That is the kurdish point. That is the point of 1942 when the English did not defend us because they had other priorities.

    Most countries do not think thay “have” a guaranteed big brother.

    Does any other country in our area? Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam?

    Australia has an economy as big as Russia. we are the wealthiest nation in our region yet we have this servile childish and ultimately quite wrong idea that we will always be saved by an Imperial uncle in London or now Washington.

    Maybe in a few decades it will be Wellington!!! Anything to pretend to maintain the kindergarten attitude.

  2. Boerwar @ #2847 Sunday, January 21st, 2018 – 9:05 pm

    e or n

    ‘When it is convenient the USA will “betray” Australia. Most imperial countries will do that. ‘

    All states consult the national interest first and foremost.

    The problem for Australia is that the Post WW2 order is crumbling. If not the US, whom? If no-other, what, and how?

    Another 100 fighters? What? Nuclear capability?

    Rockets from NZ! You know it makes sense. 😛

  3. e or n
    There can be little doubt that the US intervened to ensure that our invasion of Indonesian Timor did not turn into a nightmare.

  4. “The US is not, as you imply, a monolith. It still generates the vast bulk of the world’s popular culture.
    I wonder if this is still the case”

    I wonder if this is still the case numerically. The sheer size of India must push Bollywood up high and then there is Japanese anime which is huge, and Chinese films.

    “It is still the single biggest engine of technical invention. Its artistic output is staggering.”

    Actually probably not! Global Innovation Index 2016: Switzerland, Sweden, UK, U.S., Finland, Singapore Lead; China Joins Top 25 – Cornell University study.

    “Its universities are the best. ”

    Yhis is still true but the gap is closing.China now has 7 in the top 50 as do the assorted colonies ie Aust/Canada

    “The dissent elements of its culture are thriving… hundreds of thousands of people get on the streets.”
    What fanciful rubbish. If you call a march of women in pink hats the sort of dissident movment tha topple governments – weeeellll . The last time there was serious dissent was in the vietnam war era. i do not call marces on race issues or women’s issues dissent in the usual sense. The occupy wall st movement maybe but certainly not marches of the elite and comfortable as are the pussy hat walks.

    “In China they would shot. ”

    Maybe but there has not been any major violence against dissenters for many years.

    “The tensions between different strains of Western thought are immense. Its sarcasm industry is the world’s biggest.”
    Can you elucidate. What are these tensions in thought that are so strong. Certainly I havenot noticed them here. Surely someone like Pickety is the one challenging the system or even Varanukis and they are not in the USA

    “Since WW2 it has been the main driver for destroying the west’s colonial empires and promoting representative democracy.”

    Oh dear, Surely you jest. The USA is the worlds largest colonial power. Fake elections of puppets are just the same as the puppet princes favoured by the British. Current colonial states- Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan Philipines (they are trying to escape, South Korea (read some of today’s stuff ere moon was threatened), guantanomo,most of South ameria, Germany (sorta still), Japan (sorta still). Wherever there are US military bases they represent putposts of empire, JUST LIKE THE BRITISH.

    “For all its failings the US is far, far superior to Russia and China. ”
    I wonder if that is the opinion of the Russians or Chinese

    “I am not sure how to rate India. ”

    When India can provide sewerage for its people it can be taken seriously

    “I would mark Japan down for its pathological inability to deal with its history.”

    OK this one I can agree with

  5. “Maybe in a few decades it will be Wellington!!!”

    It would be hilarious if a future Dastyari was reporting to Wellington everything that happened in the ALP!!!!

  7. DTT

    ‘When India can provide sewerage for its people it can be taken seriously’

    You left out when it controls its chronic problems with Ebola.

  8. Boerwar

    “Having disposed of the US, what do you propose?”

    ——-

    Australia being a mature independent country.
    Maybe too radical an idea to you lovers of empire.

    But morally a more defencible and also a more mature and effective stance.

  12. Donald Trump, in each area, has been a colossal failure. The truest measure of his performance comes from comparing his first year not with those of the best — Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — but with those of the worst.

    And boy have there been some shockers. I’m hoping Trump’s period in office mirrors this guy’s – he certainly has begun in similar fashion:

    Andrew Johnson, a vituperative racist, was temperamentally and politically unsuited to succeed the slain Abraham Lincoln. His troubles began when he showed up for his swearing-in as vice president drunk and belligerent. Lincoln, aghast, is supposed to have said that he never wanted to speak to Johnson again.

    After becoming president through assassination, Johnson at first signaled he would take a hard line against the defeated rebels, but then switched to attacking civil rights for the former slaves, siding with the ex-Confederates and engaging in abusive tirades against the Radical Republicans in Congress. He closed his first year by vetoing the Civil Rights Bill, which would have given the former slaves citizenship. Both houses of Congress swiftly overrode the veto, setting in motion the events that would end with Johnson’s impeachment in 1868.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/20/opinion/sunday/trump-bad-presidents-history.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

  13. p

    I can see the Kiwis becoming insufferable.

    Quite quickly.

    I can see it now:

    ‘All Australian live sheep exports are to go by way of New Zealand for quality assurance testing, or Australia gets it!’

  14. boerwar

    “So, strongly armed neutrality?”

    —-

    I have no idea what you mean by “neutrality”.

    I assume by “neutrality” You believe there are two sides……who are they?

    is it still the “free” (i.e. capitalist) world versus the “baddies”?

    The world is a much more complex place. We must engage with everyone.

    We should support rational global objectives certainly not be neutral.

    The main issues confronting the world are environmental and social justice. It would be immoral and non-sensical to adopt a neutral position on those.

  15. BW

    Reality is that all empires rise and fall.The US rose to dizzy heights in 1990 plateaued for a decade and started its decline under GWB.

    Australia needs to stand alone. Build a genuine DEFENSIVE capability but look to no one else to come to our aid. Be friends with everyone, but buy a big stick.

    So what in practice does this mean. Well first and foremost be self sufficient as far as possible.We have food so that is OK. We do not have much oil which means we should invest in diesel and ethanol production. possibly these plants need to be mothballed but we should have the capacity to ramp up rapidly. We once had a fantastic pharmaceutical industry but now I think not. Since this is an area of our competitive advantage it seems to me that this is an area where we should become fully self sufficient and indeed produce so much we can bargain/trade with it. We probably need a machine making industry which can produce farm machinery and other stuff in an emergency.

    No doubt there is other stuff too but these are the ones I can think of.

  17. “I can see the Kiwis becoming insufferable.”
    —–
    NZ is unique in the anglophone world in having a democratic electoral system!!!

  18. e or n
    I do wish you could just say what you want instead of grandstanding with hypotheticals. To help you along with this:

    ‘Do you support a strongly armed country which makes its war and peace decisions on their merits in the national interest on a case-by-case basis.’

  21. Now BW

    Interesting that you mention Ebola. In fact what you say is so completely true. In a country like India with little sewerage, where people defecate in the streets and on beaches and where there is a culture of washing dead bodies in the Ganges (and other rivers) and of swimming in said rivers, the arrival of Ebola would have been a catastrophe beyond imagination. this desease is spread va body fluid so swimming in sewage and washing dead bodies in waters would have very rapidly spread the disease.

    Thankyou for highlighting the issue.

  25. boerwar

    “I do wish you could just say what you want instead of grandstanding with hypotheticals. To help you along with this:”

    ——–

    To state a principle for national independence and against insecure “security” blankets is not grandstanding, it’s stating a desirable objective.

    While it certainly requires an appropriate independent defence it also is based on developing close and respectful relationships and strong social, economic and cultural connections with regional countries and the bigger powers.

  26. They could drag the old C5631 back out for another go! It is in full working order. The only problem is where? The Chinese would object. So would the Russians.

  27. So, given that you are recommending that we rely on staying lucky, what in your view would constitute an ‘appropriate independent defence’.

    Or does that not really interest you?

  28. BW

    Well I for one do support a strongly armed neutrality provided the armaments are DEFENSIVE not forward attacking.

    I am no expert but I think that probably means lots of patrol craft (air and sea), strategically placed armaments (ships, planes anti aircraft systems) and I think mine lying boats – this is the strategy for other largely defensive navies.

    Given our size in conflict situation we could stay neutral and not really need to leave so we probably would not need a large navy even for things like convoys or escorts (assuming self sufficiency).

    Of course the HUGE issue is to nuke or not. I am on the fence on this one.

  31. Well there you go, I stand corrected. I said Dems should give Trump his wall but stand firm on the DACA, and it comes to light this is exactly what Schumer offered.

    When the New York Times first reported it, it seemed unlikely. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered President Trump funding for his wall in exchange for protecting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children? The most powerful Democrat in the Senate was willing to support one of his party’s most-hated proposals, just like that? The Times wrote simply that Schumer “discussed the possibility of fully funding the president’s wall on the southern border with Mexico” — which leaves some wiggle room.

    On the floor of the Senate on Saturday, though, Schumer explained that it was almost exactly that: A deal on those covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that would also potentially fund the wall.

    “On the thorniest issue, of immigration,” Schumer said, “the president said many times he would take a deal that had included DACA in exchange for the wall. I put that deal on the table in the Oval Office in a sincere effort at compromise. I put the wall on the table in exchange for strong DACA protections. … It was a generous offer.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/20/schumer-offered-trump-something-democrats-hate-to-get-something-republicans-broadly-like/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_schumer-725pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.49f26e7d46f4

    And STILL Republicans wouldn’t accept the offer in order to avoid a shutdown.

  33. Boerwar @ #2853 Sunday, January 21st, 2018 – 9:21 pm

    e or n
    There can be little doubt that the US intervened to ensure that our invasion of Indonesian Timor did not turn into a nightmare.

    We did not ‘invade’ East Timor.
    We went there by agreement with UN backing.
    I am glad it did not get any uglier than it did and the USN sitting just over the horizon assisted.
    F-111s bombed up and ready to roll also helped.

  34. Talking of the USA and our subservience to our second imperial power.

    I briefly turned on the state broadcaster, ABC, during the day and it had some gormless employee interviewing a yank in Washington about some
    political budget manoeuvring and the ABC reporter asked the US spokesthing “When will WE get relief”.

    The ABC so identifies with the USA that they forget that this inconsequential stuff affects us!!!

    Un-bloody-believable.

  35. BW

    Once agian stop being an idiot

    Trying have a sensible debate.

    Again i am no expert but craft like littoral landing ships are designed for attack on foreign shores so we probably do not need them except perhaps one or two tp protect Tasmania.

    No sure why you want long range bombers either, but I am perfectly happy with getting lots of fighters.

    Now I am not going to get into a debate on what we should have -I am no expert, but essentially we should have defence items designed to stop foreign incursions into Australai and not ones that are designed for power projection overseas. I think in naval speak it is not to focus on blue water boats

  36. e or n
    We can finish with the anti US fulminations.
    We are up to the rubber bit.
    What should the ADF look like under your preferred scenario?
    1. Should be cut substantially, including no new submarines and fighters cut by two thirds?
    2. The same?
    3. Significant extra expenditure including doubling of fighters, tanks and ships?

  42. Boerwar

    “We can finish with the anti US fulminations.”

    We can, can we!!!

    You sound like a Christian Brother!!! Given that you are biggoted against all Catholics, I hope you are insulted.
    ——
    “What should the ADF look like under your preferred scenario?”

    The ADF will look like a defence force that supports and is loyal to an independent Australia.

    No member of the LNP or ALP (or their financial owners) will be allowed to corrupt the decisions for the defence of an independent Australia.

    So up yours, you old Orange bigot.

  44. e or n
    I see that you are dodging the question. As I thought you would…
    What should the ADF look like under your preferred scenario?
    1. Should be cut substantially, including no new submarines and fighters cut by two thirds?
    2. The same?
    3. Significant extra expenditure including doubling of fighters, tanks and ships?

  46. This is really funny. For all the Gamer Nerds out there:

    Brian Altano
    ‏
    Verified account

    @agentbizzle
    Jan 18

    Nintendo has released Wario’s medical exam results and it’s just the greatest, healthiest medical exam and he’s a perfect 7 feet tall and weighs 165 pounds and he’s 22 years old and he can make love for 30 hours in a row without stopping.

    😀

  47. “I see that you are dodging the question. As I thought you would…”

    —-

    The question is second order.

    i thought that was clear.

    I am not trained in how to efficiently kill people … i will leave it up to the experts.

  48. daretotread @ #2878 Sunday, January 21st, 2018 – 9:49 pm

    BW

    Well I for one do support a strongly armed neutrality provided the armaments are DEFENSIVE not forward attacking.

    I am no expert but I think that probably means lots of patrol craft (air and sea), strategically placed armaments (ships, planes anti aircraft systems) and I think mine lying boats – this is the strategy for other largely defensive navies.

    Given our size in conflict situation we could stay neutral and not really need to leave so we probably would not need a large navy even for things like convoys or escorts (assuming self sufficiency).

    Of course the HUGE issue is to nuke or not. I am on the fence on this one.

    So you simply want to provide a lot of targets.
    What would you arm them with? Slingshots?

  49. daretotread @ #2885 Sunday, January 21st, 2018 – 9:57 pm

    BW

    Once agian stop being an idiot

    Trying have a sensible debate.

    Again i am no expert but craft like littoral landing ships are designed for attack on foreign shores so we probably do not need them except perhaps one or two tp protect Tasmania.

    The same landing ships are very handy for relief work in natural disasters.

    No sure why you want long range bombers either, but I am perfectly happy with getting lots of fighters.

    We have no plans to acquire “long range bombers”. Our fighters with guided bombs are capable of an offensive role.

    Now I am not going to get into a debate on what we should have -I am no expert, but essentially we should have defence items designed to stop foreign incursions into Australai and not ones that are designed for power projection overseas. I think in naval speak it is not to focus on blue water boats

    So how do you design in limits on the mission a ship or aircraft can perform? See what I pointed about above in relation to landing ships.

  50. Bemused
    What are you on about?

    I clearly said I was no expert but there are obviously some armaments that are essentially defensive and some that are offensive. Sure some can do both roles. The point is if you have armed neutrality you put your money where it can be useful.

    I think I actually suggested fighters and mine warfare craft (these are what are used in other heavily defended waters). Probably small armed corvettes/patrol boats anti aircraft and maybe anti ship missiles. But hey I am getting out of my comfort zone, so no wish to be berated about what exactly we should have.

    By the way Player you are a gratuitously insulting person.Given I have never cast any abuse your way (at least not in your incarnation as paid lobbying for the gas industry) you frankly have a bit of a bloody cheek.

Comments Page 58 of 69
1 … 57 58 59 … 69

Leave a Reply

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