Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor

Reasonably good personal ratings are the only consolation Scott Morrison can take from another diabolical poll result.

The Guardian reports the Coalition’s recovery in Essential Research a fortnight ago has proved shortlived – Labor has gained two points on two-party preferred to lead 54-46, returning to where they were the poll before last. Both major parties are up on the primary vote, Labor by four points to 39% and the Coalition by one to 38%. We will have to wait on the full report later today for the minor parties. The monthly personal ratings have Scott Morrison up one on approval to 42% and down three on disapproval to 34%, while Bill Shorten is down three to 35% and down one to 43%. Morrison leads 40-29 as preferred prime minister, barely changed on 41-29 last time.

Also featured are questions on Labor’s dividend imputation policies and negative gearing policies. The former had the support of 39% and the opposition of 30%. On restricting negative gearing to new homes, 24% said it would reduce house prices; 21% said it would increase them; and 27% believed it would make no difference. Thirty-seven per cent believed it would lead to higher rents, 14% to lower rents and 24% make no difference. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1032.

UPDATE: Full report here. Greens down one to 10%, One Nation down one 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.

2,545 comments on “Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 10 of 51
1 … 9 10 11 … 51

  4. Don’t worry C@t, I’m not going to waste my time explaining how the right frame debates about security.

    I guess people who never debate the right might accidentally not notice.

  5. @Nath

    LOL

    “No, not at all. The penalty rates changes the Fair Work Commission has made are due to initiation by employers to lower penalty rates,” Shorten replied.

    “The issue here is the Government can step in and change the decision, which is cutting penalty rates, but they’re sitting on their hands. If they sit on their hands they’re supporting the cuts.”

  6. It is called picking your battles. Had Labor chosen to outright oppose that welfare legislation, the very next day you would have had a Coalition campaign claiming Labor as the party of instant welfare for new arrivals. This would have been supplemented by beat up after beat up run by A Current Affair and others bashing migrant welfare recipients. Bingo, you have a fight right where the right want one.

    Of course, it’s easy for the Greens. They can snipe from the sidelines, knowing they do not have to fight for swinging voters in the middle. About ten percent of the population support their agenda and will vote for them. So that’s exactly what they do, in spite of the fact that the people they actually assist by doing this are the right.

  7. ratsak
    says:
    Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:41 pm
    What’s to apologise for Question? It’s a mark of true civilization to provide for the less fortunate.

    😀

  8. Burgey @ #509 Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 – 3:25 pm

    Now, as much as you, I or anyone else would like the ALP to have opposed the Bill, those of us in the real world can see the political consequences of doing so.

    In the abstract, you have a point.

    Specifically in relation to the encryption laws, not so much. The link between the encryption changes and terrorism is tenuous at best, and the changes themselves have been opposed by pretty much every technically competent organization out there. It would have been very easy for Labor to use this particular issue to make the Government look stupid and ineffective, and very hard for the Government to spin it back at them.

    I suspect the outcome of the new legislation will be:

    – 0 terrorist attacks thwarted
    – 10% chance that major tech companies cave and break their encryption, ushering in a golden age of domestic surveillance that will be used for basically everything except finding terrorists
    – 30% chance that major tech companies whose products rely on encryption decide to walk, pulling their products from Australian app stores and leaving Australians to wallow in the Government’s mess (or find a U.S. VPN for their app downloading)
    – 60% chance that the new law is effectively ignored as tech companies are unwilling to comply and the Government is unwilling to risk the 30% scenario by trying to force the matter

  9. Matt31 @ #455 Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 – 4:44 pm

    It is called picking your battles. Had Labor chosen to outright oppose that welfare legislation, the very next day you would have had a Coalition campaign claiming Labor as the party of instant welfare for new arrivals. This would have been supplemented by beat up after beat up run by A Current Affair and others bashing migrant welfare recipients. Bingo, you have a fight right where the right want one.

    Of course, it’s easy for the Greens. They can snipe from the sidelines, knowing they do not have to fight for swinging voters in the middle. About ten percent of the population support their agenda and will vote for them. So that’s exactly what they do, in spite of the fact that the people they actually assist by doing this are the right.

    Are you suggesting that Labor is incapable of winning a debate based on generosity of spirit and inclusion and fairness re new immigrants in our multicultural environment ..?

  10. A-E

    Thank you for your reasoned response.

    No analogy is perfect but here are some considerations.

    The Australian Government did not want war with the Japanese. In any case, Australian governments made the false assumption that the UK would act effectively to defend Australia. Most of our military expenditure was through this prism. We paid for expensive cruisers to ensure troops and supplies to the UK. In the event the UK gave priority to defending India over defending Australia.

    There were a number of key false assumptions here. Those false assumptions cost several tens of thousands of Australians their lives or their freedom. The main lesson seems to me to be to test your assumptions rigorously.

    The Greens do not want war with the Indonesians. Neither does the Australian Government. Neither does the current Indonesian Government. Part of the reason for this is that any war between Indonesia and Australia under current conditions is almost bound to be a stalemate. It would be lose lose. The reason is that Australia is never going to be able to conquer and occupy Indonesia. And the Indonesians are highly unlikely to be able to overcome the Australian air force and navy.

    What are the Greens Defence Policy assumptions and how do they stack up? (It is useful to pop in a time frame so I will say for the next half century).

    The first Greens assumption is that Indonesia would never invade Australia should Australia be defenceless, militarily. IMO, having studied South-east Asian history extensively, this assumption is most probably false. Intermittent wars at various levels of intensity of the militarily strong against the militarily weak have virtually been endemic in Afghanistan, India, China, Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, PNG, and the Philippines over the past half century. Indonesia has shown a willingness to trigger wars. Millions of people to our north have been killed, wounded, or displaced in the past fifty years. The assumption that this will cease being an operating principle if Australia unilaterally disarms, as proposed by the Greens, is highly risky.

    The second Greens assumption is that things will either not change or, if they do change, they will change for the better.
    This assumption is highly questionable given a number of trends. The first trend is that Indonesia’s population is growing and is already pushing Indonesia’s natural resources well beyond their sustainable limits. The second trend is that sea level rise is going to render millions of Indonesians homeless. The third trend is that there is already ample evidence that rice productivity will likely fall with rising temperatures. (There is a useful thought that the Arab Spring and the uprising in Syria were directly linked to falling rainfall trends, for example.) In other words the assumption of limitless improvement is a risky assumption. Indeed, it might be far wiser to proceed on the basis of the assumption that global warming is going to cause massive disruption AND that this disruption might well cause a huge increase in Indonesian domestic and foreign tensions and pressures.

    The third Greens assumption is that the Indonesian polity will continue to operate in a stable fashion with leaders such as the current leader. Sound. Safe. Reliable. One again this assumption is tenuous, to say the least. Take a look at Djokowi’s opponent.

    The fourth Greens assumption is that Indonesian Islam will continue to be dominated by a relatively constructive ethos. I am not at all sure about this assumption. There are indicators both ways.

    The fifth Greens assumption seems to be that if a war is triggered we can defend ourselves by starting from scratch. This is laughable. The Indonesians have an aerospace industry. They manufacture all sorts of their own armaments. They build at least some of their own ships. They have a large navy. The quality of all this is highly variable but against the sticks and stones defence being promulgated by the Greens, they would slice into Australia like a knife through hot butter.

    What all this means is that the Greens are piling risky assumption on risky assumption on risky assumption. Not only that but they refuse resolutely to acknowledge publicly that these assumptions underpin their zero spending, non Defence policy.

    I grew up with both parents and our extended families having suffered horribly in war-torn occupied countries. Dad was POW on the Burma Railroad. I was a war refugee. We essentially migrated to Australia as economic refugees from a war-destroyed economy. There are, IMO, three main lessons: be very, very prepared for war, don’t get into a war, don’t ever, ever, ever lose a war. Ask any Indigenous person how they are being affected by their invasion and their occupation.

    I get the Greens pacifism and I like it. Don’t get into a war. Very, very smart.

    But the Greens seem to think that being totally unready for a war will ensure that we will not get into a war. Having examined the assumptions upon which this is based, the Greens zero defence spending is extremely foolish.

  12. Matt31 says:

    It is called picking your battles

    Perhaps they did not “pick” that battle as they were all on board with the poking immigrants lark ?

  13. I’m reminded here of that Malcolm Tucker quote where he says some bloke is do dense light bends around him.

    Rex,

    The consequences are it enlivens, in the shadow of a general election, an issue with which the government can attack the ALP; saying they’re weak on borders and will open the floodgates of unfettered immigration by people who will take the jobs of everyday Australians and/ or grow fat on the generous teat of welfare when they arrive.

    None of this is true, of course. But it doesn’t need to be. This is politics – perception IS reality. You see a potentially dangerous issue, you neutralise it. And if you or any other Green (or even Labor left) supporter sits here and says people could see through it as a tactic, then you’re wrong.

    You’re wrong because the evidence shows time and again borders and immigration is an issue which bites hard in the electorates which matter if you want to win government rather than sit in your ideological dugout on the sidelines, rocking back and forth in the foetal position while lamenting how bad things have become. You’re wrong because “Stop the Boats” went a long way to winning an election in 2013 and polls since then consistently show the one thing a lot of people actually credit the Tories for is getting the refugee and boats policy right.

    Now, I don’t agree with that policy, nor do I agree with Labor’s policy either. I think the Labor excuse of “stopping drownings” to implement its own draconian policy was an attempted hat-tip to progressives while acknowledging that the reality is they had to fall in step with the Tories if they wanted to win. So they did it.

    And you know what? It’s worked. It’s worked politically for them, because it’s neutralised the boats/ borders thing as an issue. Do I like it? No. Do I think the policies of both the major Parties stink? Yes.

    Do I acknowledge that if the ALP is to win it had to neutralise the issue well in advance of an election? Absolutely. You pick your fights. Then you get into power and you set the agenda, doing the best you can with the parliament you’re given to make things better by your lights.

    Are Labor’s lights perfect? No. But they’re a lot better than the alternative.

  17. Burgey @ #462 Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 – 4:51 pm

    I’m reminded here of that Malcolm Tucker quote where he says some bloke is do dense light bends around him.

    Rex,

    The consequences are it enlivens, in the shadow of a general election, an issue with which the government can attack the ALP; saying they’re weak on borders and will open the floodgates of unfettered immigration by people who will take the jobs of everyday Australians and/ or grow fat on the generous teat of welfare when they arrive.

    None of this is true, of course. But it doesn’t need to be. This is politics – perception IS reality. You see a potentially dangerous issue, you neutralise it. And if you or any other Green (or even Labor left) supporter sits here and says people could see through it as a tactic, then you’re wrong.

    You’re wrong because the evidence shows time and again borders and immigration is an issue which bites hard in the electorates which matter if you want to win government rather than sit in your ideological dugout on the sidelines, rocking back and forth in the foetal position while lamenting how bad things have become. You’re wrong because “Stop the Boats” went a long way to winning an election in 2013 and polls since then consistently show the one thing a lot of people actually credit the Tories for is getting the refugee and boats policy right.

    Now, I don’t agree with that policy, nor do I agree with Labor’s policy either. I think the Labor excuse of “stopping drownings” to implement its own draconian policy was an attempted hat-tip to progressives while acknowledging that the reality is they had to fall in step with the Tories if they wanted to win. So they did it.

    And you know what? It’s worked. It’s worked politically for them, because it’s neutralised the boats/ borders thing as an issue. Do I like it? No. Do I think the policies of both the major Parties stink? Yes.

    Do I acknowledge that if the ALP is to win it had to neutralise the issue well in advance of an election? Absolutely. You pick your fights. Then you get into power and you set the agenda, doing the best you can with the parliament you’re given to make things better by your lights.

    Are Labor’s lights perfect? No. But they’re a lot better than the alternative.

    So we cravenly concede the debate to the dog-whistlers/racists..?

    That is an insult to the many immigrants who’ve built this country.

    It’s the tactic of a cowardly ‘leader’.

  22. Gladys and her train have some fun poked at them.
    .
    .
    Premier’s very fast train wreck

    I’ve been laughing all morning at a sketch from the ABC comedy series Utopia where a political staffer tells a bureaucratic boss played by Rob Sitch that the PM needs to launch a feasibility study into fast rail.

    The laughter comes after Premier Gladys Berejiklian did just that in real life today – ……………………….I once had a former federal adviser tell me that he was on the couch watching Utopia when he realised he had been in the meeting which was on screen. And so it seems here.
    https://outline.com/zzgUJf

  25. Burgey,
    A great series of posts….thanks!
    I have a similar perspective but would not have been able to express it with such elegance.

  29. laughtong
    “This inconsistancy is part of the issue with NDIS.”
    That’s exactly what people are saying; some find it’s very good and some find it worse than before.

  31. I have to admit I am going to be rather surprised when Rex leads his team to a wondrous victory at the next election arguing only for nice things (and without ever once even slightly gilding the Lily) .

    Oh frabjous day!

    All 151 house seats and the 40 Senate seats up for grabs. Never a dirty compromise ever again to be made. Universal acclaim for nice Rex and his indisputable niceness politically killing politics for good.

    What a pleasant surprise it will be.

  32. Dio
    I hear a fair few local stories about the NDIS and the responses are very variable.
    It seems to me that the old disability systems generated systemic failures (and successes).
    I am curious to know whether you consider your family’s experience to be an issue of systemic failure?

  35. The Labor Party isn’t in government, Rex. It hasn’t been in government since 2013, in case you hadn’t noticed.

    And if it adopted your suggested policy positions, it still wouldn’t be in government in 2113.

  36. There will be no need for Labor to run negative attack ads on the Liberals at next years election. The Liberal factions are already doing it for them.

    “Turnbull mocked those pushing for coal-fired power stations as being driven by “ideology and idiocy”, saying they were bereft of the facts on the cost of coal generation compared with renewables. “It has to be grounded in economics and engineering,” he said. “We know that we need to decarbonise.”

    And
    “He criticised the leaking of a private conversation with the state Liberal MP Matt Kean in which Turnbull was reported to have said Morrison just wanted to “keep his arse in C1” [ the PM’s car] for as long as possible.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/04/turnbull-takes-aim-at-insurgents-who-torpedoed-the-neg-and-his-leadership

  40. Socrates – Basically, the man who led the libs two months ago is telling voters to vote them out. Unbelievable stuff. He’s the gateway drug for the labor party.

  43. The numbers were there for the bill to fail, had Labor voted no.

    Lib – Lab both wooing the dole bludgers bashing Hansonite vote. Same – Same.

    Lib – Lab both voting on a budget-saving measure that bastardises migrants.

    Same – Same

  45. Nicko @4:55
    “I think nath has a crush on Bill Shorten ”

    Of course you’re right! It’s so obvious I’m ashamed not to have noticed it!
    He’s a “star crossed lover”!
    All this recuperation he brags about must be after an operation to fix his broken heart!

  47. If ONLY Labor had exactly the same policies as the Greens. Then the ever-lonely Bandt could be either Labor or Greens. Same same?

  49. Coalition – “Trust us” – “We do as we say”.

    Labor – “Trust us” – ” We do as we say”.

    Buy votes. Appeal to base fears.

    Both in the thrall ofpowerful, vested interests.

    Both participating in the revolving door.

    Same – Same.

  50. ‘Barney in Go Dau says:
    Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:24 pm

    Boerwar @ #471 Tuesday, December 4th, 2018 – 12:58 pm

    OK. So it is not GMO cotton. Not goatskins or leathers. Not wool. Bloody mulesing is cruel.
    What ARE the Greens going to wear?

    A fig leaf? ‘

    haha. Bit bare for Canberra in a nippy winter!

Comments Page 10 of 51
1 … 9 10 11 … 51

Leave a Reply

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