The fortnightly Essential Research release is the second since the election to encompass the monthly leadership ratings. These offer positive signs for Anthony Albanese, who is up four from his debut on approval to 39% and down one on disapproval to 24%, while Scott Morrison is slightly improved in net terms, with approval steady on 48% and disapproval down two to 34%. Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister is effectively unchanged, shifting from 43-25 to 44-26. The poll also features a series of questions on the ban on tourists climbing Uluru, which 44% support and 30% oppose, and 69% professing awareness of the issue.
Of particular interest in this release is the revelation that Essential is inquiring about respondents’ income, which appears to be a new development. The only detail provided in the polling results is that Morrison has 59% approval among higher income earners, but the appendices go to the trouble of telling us that Essential has set three income cohorts for its surveys: low (below $52,000), high (above $104,000) and medium (in between).
I suspect this means Essential’s response to the pollster failure will be to start using income to weight its results. This is a departure from the Australian industry norm of weighting only by geography, gender and age, and would also seem to be a bit unusual internationally. An American pollster noted last year the practice had fallen out of favour there due to the high non-response rate to questions on personal income. The preference is to instead weight to other factors which themselves correlate with income, notably education and, particularly in Britain, social class.
The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1091. In the Guardian report accompanying the poll, the elephant in the room was addressed thus:
There has been controversy post-election about the reliability of opinion polling because none of the major surveys – Newspoll, Ipsos, Galaxy or Essential – correctly predicted a Coalition win on 18 May, projecting Labor in front on a two-party preferred vote of 51-49 and 52-48. The lack of precision in the polling has prompted public reflection at Essential, as has been flagged by its executive director, Peter Lewis. Guardian Australia is not currently publishing measurements of primary votes or a two-party preferred calculation, but is continuing to publish survey results of responses to questions about the leaders and policy issues.
Also in The Guardian today are results from a separate Essential Research poll, this one for Digital Rights Watch concerning recent police raids on journalists. In response to a question noting raids on “the offices and homes of News Corp and ABC journalists who reported on national security issues”, 40% said they were very concerned, 34% slightly concerned and 26% not concerned. Similar results were produced on questions relating to metadata and police powers to break into online communications systems. The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1089.
Victoria @ #46 Thursday, July 25th, 2019 – 8:52 am
It wouldn’t surprise me.
Though, as I pointed out to doyley, due process through ICAC still has to occur. That means it’s sub judice and thus anything 60 Minutes has to say would need to take that into account, or else they could taint the investigation.
zoomster
says:
Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 8:52 am
C@
…and there was a court case in process with Setka. You can’t insist on instant action in one case and demand due process is followed in others.
_____________________________
Obsessed with Albo much?
“Good Morning
Cat.
Labor NSW needs a clean out. That just may have ended Labor winning the next election. Public not seeing action taken.”
Piss off Greentaur. It’s likely that the cause of the problem has already been purged from the party, by the party’s processes: the processes that every other political party singularly lack.
zoomster @ #50 Thursday, July 25th, 2019 – 8:52 am
I never demanded instant action. Due Process wrt Setka is now taking place. Albanese has acceded to that. I’m still glad that Albanese instituted that action promptly. As I’m sure you would agree, yesterday’s spray in parliament by Peter Dutton would have had an infinitely greater impact if Albanese hadn’t acted as quickly as he did. To start the process.
I see the SmearStralian has pulled the ‘agencies’ by-lined article they had up this morning about the bumbling Muller performance, and the ‘disappointed’ Democrats.
Murdoch’s FoxFakeNews and the pro-Trump Bot Army are gaslighting the world.
Andrew_Earlwood @ #54 Thursday, July 25th, 2019 – 8:56 am
Exactly. And thank you for your insight, A_E.
Guytaur won’t be happy until Labor is replaced with The Greens in Sussex Street. 😆
C@t
I would be very surprised if 60 minutes were making such a big deal about something before icac. But then again, many of their supposed big stories are fizzers
Obsessed with me much?
sprocket_ @ #56 Thursday, July 25th, 2019 – 8:58 am
sprocket, read Seth Abramson’s thread of the Mueller appearance. No wonder the Repugs are trying to gaslight the world!
zoomster
says:
Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 9:00 am
Obsessed with me much?
___________________
So are you obsessed with me then? Does pointing out an obsession become an obsession?
Well, I can’t say I’ve heard a thing on Dutton’s spray anywhere but here -and because there’d been comments here about it I googled it this morning to see what people were talking about.
zoomster @ #59 Thursday, July 25th, 2019 – 9:00 am
No, not at all. In fact, I could contend the same. However I’m not that fussed about such trivialities. I was merely addressing your contention. 🙂
Sprocket
There was nothing disappointing in Muellers testimony. It wasn’t anything that wasn’t already known. In any case, there are many ongoing cases that sprung from his investigation that were not in his purview.
If I were Trump and co, I would be more worried about that. Oh and the whole Epstein saga as well as the other guy George Nader who was part of Trumps campaign.
That is where a lot of the action is at.
No, nath, but apparently petty point scoring is important to you, so I’ll leave you to get on with you and repeat: every time you counter a post of mine with ‘you’re obsessed with Albo’ I chalk it up as a win to me, because you’ve basically admitted that’s all you’ve got.
zoomster
says:
Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 9:03 am
No, nath, but apparently petty point scoring is important to you, so I’ll leave you to get on with you and repeat: every time you counter a post of mine with ‘you’re obsessed with Albo’ I chalk it up as a win to me, because you’ve basically admitted that’s all you’ve got.
_______________
OK. Ditto with you and Shorten.
C@
Er, that was obviously a reply to nath, as part of an ongoing conversation I’m surprised you’ve missed.
Don’t be so jumpy.
lizzie @ #64 Thursday, July 25th, 2019 – 9:02 am
‘Tired and emotional’? Did he say, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ 😉
“Interesting development re the NSW labor party and potential illegal donations.”
Isn’t anyone actually paying attention? This issue relates to the 2015 State Election only. The complaint that Labor made this year was, having ruminated about the issue for 3 years the AEC only flicked it to ICAC last year and the ICAC deceived to do a press release dump a few weeks BEFORE this year’s state election.
Those involved in allegations are no longer active in NSW politics (except perhaps Minns and Hussos – and I only raise them because they were close to Clements sloughs both had left Head Office before this incident). The current mob running HO were responsible for expelling Clements and to my observation are excruciatingly punctilious in following the law (one can’t even participate in an ALP raffle these days without filling out a declaration). Indeed Head Office immediately quarantined in excess of the money raised at the 2015 dinner from this year’s campaign fund.
zoomster @ #68 Thursday, July 25th, 2019 – 9:03 am
Apologies. My bad. nath is not on the list of people whose opinion I take note of. 😉
Where does that leave Labour?
With just 19% of the vote –
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=DpnvS7kM4Fs#dialog
nath
No, because what I’m pointing out a pattern of behaviour – you make posts on Shorten for no discernible reason at all.
My comments today were in the context of a discussion.
People weren’t agreeing with my critique of you yesterday because they’re Labor factional hack zoomster fanboys. They were doing it because your obsessive behaviour is blindingly obvious.
zoomster
says:
Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 9:06 am
nath
No, because what I’m pointing out a pattern of behaviour – you make posts on Shorten for no discernible reason at all.
My comments today were in the context of a discussion.
People weren’t agreeing with my critique of you yesterday because they’re Labor factional hack zoomster fanboys. They were doing it because your obsessive behaviour is blindingly obvious.
__________________________
As is yours. Though I do agree that ‘people weren’t agreeing of my critique of you yesterday because they’re Labor factional hack zoomster fanboys.’
They were doing it because they are ‘Labor factional Shorten fanboys’.
…anyway, I’ll consider to consider any reference by you or Lars to my supposed obsession as an admission of defeat by you and a win to me.
NSW Libs must regret reining in the heavy hitters at ICAC.
zoomster
says:
Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 9:09 am
…anyway, I’ll consider to consider any reference by you or Lars to my supposed obsession as an admission of defeat by you and a win to me.
_________________________
Sounds like a plan. At least my dislike of Shorten is based upon more than an ordinary personal interaction. So petty!
nath
I just critiqued an action of Albo’s. You’re welcome to argue – as C@ has done – about the rights and wrongs of that action.
You can’t, so you resort to personal slurs.
That’s an admission you don’t have an argument.
If you do have an argument, don’t leave the heavy lifting to C@. That suggests she’s doing a better job than you are.
Robert Mueller could teach our politicians something about the art of answering questions. Answer the question put, simply and directly, don’t waffle, don’t answer the question you wanted to be put, don’t attack opponents in lieu of giving an answer and don’t make stuff up.
If you do have an argument, don’t leave the heavy lifting to C@. That suggests she’s doing a better job than you are.
_______________
I’m glad C@t has swung around to supporting Albo. Although I expected it. Most ALP hacks just swing behind the leader, unless he/she was rude to them once.
I’m glad that C@t no longer thinks that Albo is a ‘disaster’, a ‘burner leader’ with a copious dirt file available on request.
I gather that Nath doesn’t like Bill Shorten.
I’m also glad that you’ve found the Setka issue after the failure of your Albo is Lebanese and therefore complicit in various corrupt activities. It’s good to find a new peg to hang your dislike upon. Congrats.
Shellbell, oh no they don’t.
AE
My point was about the public perception.
You may hate it but Labor NSW has to earn the public trust. The public has not seen any action. Something dramatic the media can’t ignore. Especially good if it can implicate the Liberals in the process. Probably impossible but worth a try implicating the Libs.
You can say it’s all done and dusted but the public is not buying that yet.
Greentaur – the public will give zero fucks about this issue in 2023: unless Minns or some other frontbencher was involved in organising the dinner in question in 2015.
Shellbell – there is no way the Libs are regretting gutting ICAC.
nath
Thanks for giving me the win. It’s very nice of you.
Steve777 @ #71 Thursday, July 25th, 2019 – 9:05 am
Plus Lib-Dem and Greens is 51%. 55% with SNP. Versus 42% for Conservatives and Brexit. Pretty clear which Brexit train people don’t want to ride.
And divided they will fall.
Tories are quick to lose conviction if it means power. Watch them unite in self interest. Wouldnt surprise me if their noteworthy attempts at climate emission reductions become collateral damage.
I blame Cameron. Weak as,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/24/philip-hammond-quits-johnson-fully-aligned-chancellor-gauke-stewart
Johnson’s first act has been to attack his enemies. He has just broken his party in two. Splitting is debilitating. His opponents will be calculating how to prevent a no-deal Brexit and destroy him at the same time.
Not easy to parse the polling.
Is the doctrinaire Far Left in the UK still strongly pro Brexit?
Yes. The left-of-center parties of various labels need to learn to cooperate or they will only keep losing. It is the same everywhere.
So, looking at the state of British democracy, what do we have?
1. A Government with a two seat majority. One seat will disappear in August. The other seat will presumably disappear as a result of a trial involving three counts of sexual assault.
2. A Government which is there only by grace of a dirty DUP deal. DUP MPs have been involved in serial stenches and might lightly be called sordid scalliwags. In any case, polling shows that the majority of their supporters and the majority of the NI voters are diametrically apposed to the DUP position.
3. A Government which has its own disloyal Opposition! A sizable minority of the Government will vote against the single major promise of the Prime Minister.
4. The Prime Minister has not led his Party to the polls.
5. The Prime Minister was voted into the job by less than 100,000 people out of 66 million people.
6. The primary justification for the Prime Minister’s current position is a three year old non-binding Referendum marked by foreign interference, the interference of big money and by swingeing lies on the part of the Brexiteers. These same Brexiteers now demand that there NOT be another referendum.
7. An Opposition which is itself fractured and out of the control of its leadership.
8. An Opposition Leader whose position could best be summarized as being a little bit for and against Brexit and a little bit for and against Leaving.
9. A so-called ‘United’ Kingdom in which the English are throwing the majority views of the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh to the wolves.
FMD
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/victorian-labor-mp-will-fowles-questioned-over-hotel-disturbance-20190725-p52akt.html
Is it all an act?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/boris-johnson-prime-minister-first-interview-media/11341660
The perfect birthday present for Putin?
AE
Are you Bemused.
? He was obsessed with using Greentaur.
It’s very juvenile of you
Boerwar
Excellent overview of the state of play in the UK.
Cat,
All I am asking for is consistency.
By his own words and actions Albanese has set the bar high. He will determine who is a fit and proper person to be a member of the labor party. He will determine who should be expelled. He will determine on what grounds and by what date that person or persons should be expelled. By his own words and actions.
For the sake of consistency I therefore hope Albanese does not restrict his attention to the union movement or branches outside of his own state and keeps a very close eye on his own backyard and is prepared to act without “ fear or favour “ to remove and member or members of the NSW branch who may, I repeat may, not have embraced true labor values as set out by Albanese.
That is all I am asking.
BTW, in his last intervention Albanese did not consider it neccessaary to wait for the outcome of court action before demanding the explusion of a Victorian branch member but considered it appropriate to intervene on the basis of unsubstantiated and contested allegations.
Anyway, as I have already said all I am asking for is consistency so let us see how it all plays out.
Andrew_Earlwood says:
True but the real problem is it being another coat of “NSW Labor are a Bunch of Crooks” paint on the image of NSW Labor. After working so hard to gain their reputation it only takes a quick dab of paint every now and then from the MSM to keep it looking shiny and new. Meanwhile the Coalition crooks of NSW can keep laughing all the to the bank. 🙁
Because this:
The audience is stupid and/or easily impressed, and Johnson knows it.
lizzie:
[‘It is my understanding that the monarch always takes the advice of the PM…’]
That’s a correct understanding, in accord with Bagehot’s dictum: the monarch has ‘the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’. We’ll never know for sure but I think the Queen is a tad more political than meets the eye.
[‘Also, the conferences between the PM and the monarch in England have always been confidential.’]
Until, that is, Boris opened his big mouth.
[‘In the case of the Dismissal, QE would presumably have ‘taken the advice’ of the GG (who deliberately ignored the Australian PM) as her representative.’]
Jenny Hocking has sought via FOI the communications between the Palace and Kerr. She’s been denied them. Until they’re released, we will never know the full story, leading to conjecture that Gough’s dismissal was an establishment plot.