Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

Labor maintains its existing lead in the latest Essential poll, despite improving perceptions on the outlook for the economy.

With Newspoll holding its fire ahead of tonight’s budget, the one new federal poll for the week is the regular fortnightly result from Essential Research – which, The Guardian reports, has maintained its recent form in recording Labor’s lead unchanged at 53-47. Primary votes to follow with the publication of the full report later today. The poll also features Essential’s monthly leadership ratings, which have Malcolm Turnbull on 40% approval (up one) and 42% disapproval (steady), Bill Shorten on 37% approval (up two) and 41% disapproval (down two), and Turnbull leading 40-26 as preferred prime minister, little changed from 41-26 last time.

As related in The Guardian’s report, other questions relate to what respondents would like in the budget, of which the most interesting findings would seem to be an 11% increase for “assistance for the unemployed” compared with last year, along with 8% increases for age pensions, affordable housing and assistance for the needy. The most favoured categories overall are health care, age pensions, education and affordable housing; the least favoured are foreign aid, business assistance and the military. Eighteen per cent expect the budget to be good for them personally (up eight on last year) compared with 24% for bad (down six), and 39% now rate the economy good (up six since November) compared with 24% for bad.

Note also the post below this one on the looming Western Australian state by-election in Darling Range.

UPDATE: Full results from Essential Research here. Both major parties are up a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 38% and Labor to 37%, with the Greens down one to 10% and One Nation down two to 6%.

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.

1,901 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 31 of 39
1 … 30 31 32 … 39

  1. ‘lizzie says:
    Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 1:27 pm

    Vala Afshar‏Verified account @ValaAfshar · 6h6 hours ago

    The Netherlands has become the world’s second largest food exporter, while reducing water usage by 90% and nearly eradicating the use of pesticides

    I think glasshouses are part of their secret.’

    P1 will tell you that this reduction in insecticides is impossible because her preferred experts told that was impossible, that this reduction in water usage is impossible because her preferred experts told he that was impossible and that this is all part of the Netherlands’ grand plan to cause humans to become extinct within decades. She read it in all Chapter 326 of ‘We’ll All Be Rooned Said Hanrahan.’

  2. P1 – they are only seen as serious issues in Netherlands because it is a country that pays very close attention to it. Water management (and attendant sciences) are major courses in their universities and they have an ongoing threat from the North Sea that will never be defeated.

    So they work at it. Hard.

    Here we happily ignore most of that stuff – and the MDB is evidence of how fraught even paying slight attention might be

  3. Boerwar @ #1501 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 5:02 pm

    P1 will tell you that this reduction in insecticides is impossible because her preferred experts told that was impossible, that this reduction in water usage is impossible because her preferred experts told he that was impossible and that this is all part of the Netherlands’ grand plan to cause humans to become extinct within decades. She read it in all Chapter 326 of ‘We’ll All Be Rooned Said Hanrahan.’

    Go away Boerwar. Adults are talking.

  4. It is now really, really, black letter law clear.
    If you want to be an MP make 100% sure you are not a dual citizen when you nominate.
    If you are a dual citizen then don’t nominate.
    End of story.

  5. Oh and one other thing.

    P1 immediately resorts to the most pathetic childish insults when P1 is confronted with facts that she will not or cannot comprehend.

  6. Windhover and others interested in this topic.

    What was most confounding in this sorry S.44 saga was the flip flopping of the Attorney General, via the Solicitor General. The arguments put in defence of Barnyard, Nash et al where totally inconsistent with those put a few months later in Re Gallagher. One could almost suspect a political bias.

  8. grimace @ #1492 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 4:41 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #1480 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 2:14 pm

    Terrific piece on the Intellectuals of the Dark Web. Given the earlier discussion about israel Folau it is a wake up to the politically correct who seek to expunge free speech and thought.

    Just so we’re clear GG, when you complain about “political correctness” in this context you are actually complaining about “treating other people with respect”.

    That it is no longer acceptable to mistreat women, homosexuals, black people and other minority groups who historically have had little in the way of power in our society is not “political correctness”, it is a change in our social structure resulting in a previously mistreated minority now treated with respect.

    Mr Folau is suffering the social consequences of failing to treat other people with respect, or as you would put it, he’s suffering from political correctness. Nobody from the Government has steped in to apply any sanction to him.

    It’s nice that you like to invoke the platitudes of pc speak in your earnest endeavour to virtue signal your alleged moral superiority. However, as the article makes clear, there are alternative definitions of terms/behaviour that don’t meet your rigid definitional framework.

    “But as the members of the Intellectual Dark Web become genuinely popular, they are also coming under more scrutiny. On April 21, Kanye West crystallized this problem when he tweeted seven words that set Twitter on fire: “I love the way Candace Owens thinks.”

    Candace Owens, the communications director for Turning Point USA, is a sharp, young, black conservative — a telegenic speaker with killer instincts who makes videos with titles like “How to Escape the Democrat Plantation” and “The Left Thinks Black People Are Stupid.” Mr. West’s praise for her was sandwiched inside a longer thread that referenced many of the markers of the Intellectual Dark Web, like the tyranny of thought policing and the importance of independent thinking. He was photographed watching a Jordan Peterson video”.

  9. What religions need to realise is that they have the relatively unchallenged freedom to say and believe what they like in their buildings but when they come outside into the Society and express those views the Society has the right to challenge them, this goes equally for their adherents.

    If the Society doesn’t reflect their views it’s not the Society that needs to change but the religion when it interacts within it.

    They are certainly free to advocate change but any change ultimately must meet with the acceptance of the Society. 🙂

  11. jenauthor:
    [Windhover, I am one who actually listens to experts if I know they have credentials in areas I am not expert in. You said, when I asked months ago, you were not.]

    You are wrong as to my response.

    [Regardless of whether you were correct or not, I am more likely to take an argument seriously if I know it has foundation in credible knowledge.]

    I agree with your methodology in the wider world. I disagree with it on a blog site.

    In the wider world it is no doubt the case I would listen more to DTT (if the poster is in fact a doctor as I believe is claimed) than I would to Diogenes (if that poster is not as I believe claimed to be).

    On a blog site I could not care less whether Diogenes is or isn’t a doctor. I will consider each post on its merits. It need hardly be said that generally speaking one is more likely to be interested in a Diogenes post than a DTT post since, generally speaking, a Diogenes post stands up to rigorous scrutiny more than a DTT post.

    Toby claims to be a lawyer. I make no such claim (which does not imply I am not a lawyer). Consider our posts and follow the argument if you are interested. Make up your own mind.

  12. jenauthor @ #1502 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 5:03 pm

    P1 – they are only seen as serious issues in Netherlands because it is a country that pays very close attention to it. Water management (and attendant sciences) are major courses in their universities and they have an ongoing threat from the North Sea that will never be defeated.

    The Netherlands is among the worst in Europe for various types of environmental damage – particularly agricultural runoff and groundwater depletion. This is not entirely surprising, given their historical over-use of their limited resources. Are they trying to improve? Of course they are! But they have not solved these problems yet.

    So they work at it. Hard.

    They work at it hard because they have had to.

    Here we happily ignore most of that stuff – and the MDB is evidence of how fraught even paying slight attention might be

    True. Like the Netherlands, we are over-using and polluting a very limited resource 🙁

  15. Barney in Go Dau @ #1509 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 5:08 pm

    What religions need to realise is that they have the relatively unchallenged freedom to say and believe what they like in their buildings but when they come outside into the Society and express those views the Society has the right to challenge them, this goes equally for their adherents.

    If the Society doesn’t reflect their views it’s not the Society that needs to change but the religion when it interacts within it.

    They are certainly free to advocate change but any change ultimately must meet with the acceptance of the Society. 🙂

    Nothing particularly ground breaking there. Thanks for stating the obvious!

  16. jenauthor

    The Netherlands has some bad things about it, but there are a couple of things that we can only dream about here.

    The first is a national no-nonsense acceptance that facts must be faced and, if they are nation-affecting, the consequences have to be addressed in a social manner.

    So the Netherlands has virtually no debate about global warming. What it does have is a general acceptance that the dykes must be raised (at stupendous cost) and that that the river flood levees must be wider apart and raised. Again at stupendous cost. These are social goods and so must be done.

    The second thing is that the Netherlands is nothing much more than a hole in the sea with a few ssandy rises attached. For people to prosper they must be agile, energetic and innovative. So, inter alia, to be internationally competitive, they know they must reduce input costs – including water and pesticides. So they do.

    This literally does not compute for people like P1. They assume from (erroneous) first principles that all this must be impossible therefore it IS impossible. It is not happening because it cannot happen.

    They nag like harpies about any and all bad side effects and caterwaul about the future, while missing the big picture: this stuff is working big time right now, and it is the harbinger for humanity, not some failing leftover from the past.

  17. Sprocket

    Yes. The about-face of the Solicitor-General was of note. On whose behalf does he act? Does the government include HM Loyal Opposition? It sure looked entirely political.

  18. GG

    Just so we are clear as to how change is happening. The person showing up at the New York Met Gala ( Catholic Church organised) wearing a Rainbow Cape was not thrown out or treated with disrespect.

    This is an indication the times are changing in the Catholic Church too.

  19. Greensborough Growler @ #1514 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 2:14 pm

    Barney in Go Dau @ #1509 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 5:08 pm

    What religions need to realise is that they have the relatively unchallenged freedom to say and believe what they like in their buildings but when they come outside into the Society and express those views the Society has the right to challenge them, this goes equally for their adherents.

    If the Society doesn’t reflect their views it’s not the Society that needs to change but the religion when it interacts within it.

    They are certainly free to advocate change but any change ultimately must meet with the acceptance of the Society. 🙂

    Nothing particularly ground breaking there. Thanks for stating the obvious!

    But that’s at the crux of the Ruddock enquiry, people are arguing that those freedoms should extend out into the Society.

  20. Sprocket:

    Re the SG’s role I think you are a bit unfair re flip-flopping.

    The original argument put for Barnyard et al was that lack of knowledge of dual citizenship was an escape route from the confines of s.44 disqualification. It carried some emotional value (if one could ignore it was Nash and Barnyard) and there was a very clever argument put by the SG (based on historical analysis of the Constitutional debates that I admit I never fully understood). But it was clearly at odds with Sykes v Cleary and the SG admitted as much in argument.

    After the HC knocked back Barnyard et al there really wasn’t a respectable argument left to put on behalf of Gallagher to distinguish her from the fate of disqualification. It is a bit hard to criticise the SG for not seeking to do so.

  21. It looks like One Nation star candidate for Longman, Matthew Stephens, has a questionable background. Does Pauline do any candidate vetting at all?

    It wouldn’t be too hard to check, the same guy ran for PHON in recent Qld election..

    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/one-nation-announces-longman-candidate

    “Sky News has uncovered lewd online comments posted in 2010 by One Nation Queensland candidate Matthew Stephen.”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IMSdaymOUb4

  22. Greensborough Growler @ #1460 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 3:46 pm

    Hugoaugogo @ #1458 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 3:42 pm

    DTT

    I have to say that I find the “loyalty” argument re citizenship but specious and offensive. Are we seriously suggesting that the MPs that have disqualified over the last 12 months were in any way conflicted as to their primary allegiance? Seriously? This argument is even further underlined when we note that some of the MPs in question (eg Waters, Alexander, Joyce) didn’t even realise they would be eligible for dual citizenship. Frankly, the loyalty argument is crock.

    But let’s just say there was a war some time in the future. Are you really suggesting that by simply renouncing their dual citizenship, that would clear up any questions about their loyalty in this theoretical conflict? And are you also therefore suggesting that single citizens would never have any questions raised about their loyalty? The whole concept is so ridiculous as to be absurd.

    My concerns about s44 are that it basically asks of people eligible for dual citizenship that they must prove that they are Australian first and only. This test of loyalty (nor anything like it) is not asked of single citizens. But then, our Constitution, along with a good many native born, doesn’t regard those eligible for dual citizenship as “real” Australians.

    Hugo

    Why is it offensive.
    Standing for parliament is a privilege. It is not as if here is a shortage of candidates (for winnable seats). For every ALP member who gets the nod there are probably 00 who would love it if they could.

    Secondly obviously we do not say it of current people but you do not write constitutional laws with such immediacy. You need to use you noggin and imagine some hypothetical situation which could occur.

    Let us take a simple one – Kiwis. Now sure we all know plenty of Kiwis and find that they are indistinguishable from the rest of us. However let us imagine (as could happen) there s a major trade difference say on milk products sent to China. Now with the best will on the world someone who is still a Kiwi citizen may well have a conflict of interest.

    Think of it like a football team. When you go to a match most people put on the jersey/colours of their preferred team. Very few wear an Essendon Jersey and a Collingwood cap. If you want to represent Australians at the Federal level then I think it is reasonable to make a choice. If you cannot easily make that choice then perhaps you should direct your energies away from the Federal sphere.

    I feel very sorry for those who were caught our unaware and have always considered themselves Australians only, however if I forget to register my car I am still liable for the fine. Indeed I once was fined for driving a relative’s car which unbeknown to me was not registered. Cost me $600. If I fill in wrong information albeit unknowingly (eg not remembering some holding account and declaring interest as income), I still have to pay the money and may well cop a fine. Consider the forms and declarations needed for Newstart or the Pension.

    As it happens yes I DO expect every politician to put Australia first. That is what they are there for. Now the simple act of renouncing dual citizenship will obviously NOT remove emotional ties, but if someone is so in love with their Scottish origin that they cannot renounce it to stand for Parliament in Australia, then they are stating that they value their Scottish heritage ahead of their Australian heritage. Now as one who does have Scottish heritage and am quite the Scots nationalist at heart, I think i can say this with confidence- it is just NOT acceptable.

    Secondly the obvious elephant in the room is the possibility that from time to time there could be actual real conflicts with the nations from which MPs are drawn. We all blithely accepted it as OK when all the MPs were from countries who have the Queen as head of state, on the assumption that there is no possibility of ever being in conflict. Now this is obviously still true and will be for the foreseeable future – but in 100 years?

    When the Constitution was written the REAL fear was about German nationals, especially in the two States with large German immigration (SA and Qld). The Boer war had started (a proxy war with Germany) and Germany was more or less in the position of Russia today vis a vis UK/Australia. Even the French were still not fully trusted. Nobody thought much about those who held British citizenship because it was assumed that they were loyal. However for those who came form other countries the fear of disloyalty was real enough.

    Like it or not the possibility of a real world armed conflict is now real and we need procedures to deal with this. If there is a hot conflict then those who come from countries with which we are at war WILL pose a danger – not all of them obviously and I assume that 99% would be loyal to Australia but that 1% could be a problem. MPs with dual citizenship with say China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Syria would all be potentially conflicted. If the war spread and Africa got involved then a larger number of dual citizens could be conflicted.

    Indeed since I daily am watching the Alliances of WWI reforming, the potential for conflicted loyalties is becoming immense. people from Greece, Turkey, Germany, Italy even Ireland could find themselves on opposing sides and of course those closer to home like Vietnamese and Indonesians and Malaysians. While expectation is that we would be on the same side as India this was not always the case, and most definitely is not the certainly case for Sri Lankans or Bangladeshi.

  23. There’s an easy way to tell who are the target market of Fairfax publications.

    Fairfax websites and print versions have a “Traveller” section and flight reviews are almost always of travel in business class on overseas trips.

  24. I make up my own mind Windhover, but even on a blog, where there is often discussion of political import, if one knows a poster has the relevant credentials, one can be forgiven for paying closer attention than if they say … ‘I am but a simple blogger’.

    It would be akin to saying one should take Wayne or Rex equally seriously. Or, as you say DTT.

    Blogging does not necessarily need to be a mere pastime, it can educate and inform. Being honest about background knowledge/qualification can further inform. If you wish your argument to have gravitas and not appear to be merely talking through your hat, knowing the foundation helps.

    Many here talk through their hats at times. Or deliberately ‘prod’ for effect.

    Societies have also been perverted by ‘well formulated arguments’ put forward by nutcases and those with treacherous intent. (My area of expertise, if you will, is history – thus I have made a study of the power of language to effect social change.)

    Being misinformed by people who claim to be what they are not (or the reverse) plays right into the hands of the so-called ‘fake news’ phenomenon. So. If you are a lawyer, then I’ll pay closer attention to what you have to say on the topic of the legal meaning of the decision. If you are not – then I will relegate you arguments to where others sit … as being one of many that I can choose to ignore if I want – regardless of whether they bear out the decision.

  25. It looks like One Nation star candidate for Longman, Matthew Stephens, has a questionable background. Does Pauline do any candidate vetting at all?

    ____

    They DID vet him, found he was shoddy and untrustworthy.
    Two big ticks and in he comes!

  26. Hugo

    ‘The Boer war had started (a proxy war with Germany) ‘

    To give you the full benefit of the doubt, this statement is only 99% crap.

  28. Barney in Go Dau @ #1519 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 5:19 pm

    Greensborough Growler @ #1514 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 2:14 pm

    Barney in Go Dau @ #1509 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 5:08 pm

    What religions need to realise is that they have the relatively unchallenged freedom to say and believe what they like in their buildings but when they come outside into the Society and express those views the Society has the right to challenge them, this goes equally for their adherents.

    If the Society doesn’t reflect their views it’s not the Society that needs to change but the religion when it interacts within it.

    They are certainly free to advocate change but any change ultimately must meet with the acceptance of the Society. 🙂

    Nothing particularly ground breaking there. Thanks for stating the obvious!

    But that’s at the crux of the Ruddock enquiry, people are arguing that those freedoms should extend out into the Society.

    So? You seem disturbed that others have the temerity to argue an alternative point of view to yours. I’m not.

    The purpose of the Ruddock inquiry is supposedly to canvas opinions.

  29. Windhover @ #1511 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 5:10 pm

    jenauthor:
    [Windhover, I am one who actually listens to experts if I know they have credentials in areas I am not expert in. You said, when I asked months ago, you were not.]

    You are wrong as to my response.

    [Regardless of whether you were correct or not, I am more likely to take an argument seriously if I know it has foundation in credible knowledge.]

    I agree with your methodology in the wider world. I disagree with it on a blog site.

    In the wider world it is no doubt the case I would listen more to DTT (if the poster is in fact a doctor as I believe is claimed) than I would to Diogenes (if that poster is not as I believe claimed to be).

    On a blog site I could not care less whether Diogenes is or isn’t a doctor. I will consider each post on its merits. It need hardly be said that generally speaking one is more likely to be interested in a Diogenes post than a DTT post since, generally speaking, a Diogenes post stands up to rigorous scrutiny more than a DTT post.

    Toby claims to be a lawyer. I make no such claim (which does not imply I am not a lawyer). Consider our posts and follow the argument if you are interested. Make up your own mind.

    Windhover

    I actually agree with you but I think you may have confused me and Diogenese. I am not and have never claimed to be a doctor. Diog is.

    Experts are often very good BUT they also have deep seated biases which can damage their judgement. it is very, very, very hard to change your mind about some certainly you learned at university, even if the set of knowledge changes.

  30. What stood out in Gallagher was the HC saying irremediable in terms of preventing election.
    For Gallagher it was with the HC making it so but HC said particular one instance was not enough.

    It appears to justify this view by saying Gallagher did revoke eventually.

    It sheared away from offering what it would consider were reasonable time lines seeming not wanting to set standards for other countries.

    Potentially could argue a reasonable time line and efforts is one based on requirements for revocation of Australian citizenship. Otherwise another countries laws are taking precedence over Australia’s.

    HC also did not appear to offer view if indefinitely delayed due to war as with UK.

  31. Jen
    I have an alphabet soup after my name and consider it to be virtually meaningless.
    The problem with expert views is how to assess which of their views are a crock and which not.

  32. The purpose of the Ruddock inquiry is supposedly to canvas opinions.
    GG
    I hope Ruddock’s inquiry does follow those lines as opposed to the recent one on drug testing Newstart recipients.

  33. GG
    Love the supposedly. At least you are consistent with your suspicion of the LNP.

    Something we do have in common.

    I suspect we won’t see the report.

    The reason is that I suspect publishing the report and the facts would see momentum rise to end religious exemptions that still exist discriminating against gay people in the medical and nursing professions to name two.

  34. No need to invoke dual citizenship and hypothetical futures to come up with conflicts of interest for MPs. Just suppose that a member of Parliament owned multiple properties, speculating on future home price increases when our country’s tax laws strongly favour real estate speculation. And suppose there were strong calls to change these laws.

    But that’s no hypothetical future.

  36. GG

    It had many purposes:

    1. to enable Turnbull to have a vote on marriage equality legislation before Christmas.

    2. to kick the so-called ‘religious freedoms’ can down the road.

    3. to keep the Right Wing Nutters at Bay over the killing season.

  37. Steve777 @ #1534 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 5:30 pm

    No need to invoke dual citizenship and hypothetical futures to come up with conflicts of interest for MPs. Just suppose that a member of Parliament owned multiple properties, speculating on future home price increases when our country’s tax laws strongly favour real estate speculation. And suppose there were strong calls to change these laws.

    But that’s no hypothetical future.

    Steve

    I 100% agree with you here but two wrongs do not make a right.

    I am in favour of changing laws to better identify and manage conflict of interest. No idea how but I am open to any ideas.

  38. s777
    Yep. As far as we know not a single Liberal or National recused themselves from the Cabinet discussions about what to do about negative gearing.

    The Coalition MP and Senator negative gearing snouters hung in there and protected the trough.

  44. Greensborough Growler @ #1527 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 2:27 pm

    …

    So? You seem disturbed that others have the temerity to argue an alternative point of view to yours. I’m not.

    The purpose of the Ruddock inquiry is supposedly to canvas opinions.

    I have no problems with alternate views.

    As others have said the purpose of the inquiry was to placate the RWFW as their amendments to ME were being voted down and delay their push for change further down the road.

  45. Ides

    It depends on how big the swing to Labor is and how safe Morrion’s seat is. I still regard it as safe despite my tongue in cheek comment

  46. While this is a comment of n=1, in my experience university education does not entrench bias. Most biases I have encountered stem from childhood and religion.

    In my experience, uni released a lot of biased thinking and taught me to widen my sphere of understanding not narrow it.

    That said, I believe the secret is to learn all your life, not just stop at graduation – which I have sought to do.

  47. Boerwar @ #1537 Thursday, May 10th, 2018 – 2:33 pm

    s777
    Yep. As far as we know not a single Liberal or National recused themselves from the Cabinet discussions about what to do about negative gearing.

    The Coalition MP and Senator negative gearing snouters hung in there and protected the trough.

    Would there have been anyone left if they had? 🙂

  48. ‘Boerwar says:
    Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 5:25 pm

    Hugo

    ‘The Boer war had started (a proxy war with Germany) ‘

    To give you the full benefit of the doubt, this statement is only 99% crap.’

    The 1% is that when the British intercepted German freighters carrying war goodies for the Boers, the Germans put two and two together and British actions thereby reinforced the naval arms race that had so much to do with the beginning of World War 1.

    Other than that, the Boer War was 100% triggered by the London gold bugs and by British Imperialist nutters working in concert.

Comments Page 31 of 39
1 … 30 31 32 … 39

Leave a Reply

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