Essential Research: leadership ratings, US and China, abortion law

Higher disapproval ratings for both leaders in the latest Essential poll, which also records lukewarm feelings towards the United States and cooler ones for China.

The latest fortnightly Essential Research poll again comes up empty on voting intention, but it does offer the pollster’s third set of leadership ratings since the election. As with Newspoll, these record a drop in Scott Morrison’s net approval rating, owing to a three point rise in disapproval to 37%, while his approval holds steady at 48%. However, Essential parts company with Newspoll in finding Anthony Albanese up on disapproval as well, by five points to 29%, with approval down one to 38%. Morrison’s lead as preferred prime minister narrows slightly, from 44-26 to 44-28.

Further questions suggest the public leans positive on most aspects of the “influence of the United States of America” (defence, trade, cultural and business), excepting a neutral result (42% positive, 40% negative) for influence on Australian politics. The same exercise for China finds positive results for trade, neutral results for culture and business, and negative ones for defence and politics. Asked which of the two we would most benefit from strengthening ties with, 38% of respondents favoured the US and 28% China.

The small sample of respondents from New South Wales were also asked about the proposed removal of abortion from the criminal code, which was supported by an overwhelming 71% compared with 17% opposed. The poll has a sample of 1096 and was conducted online from Thursday to Sunday.

Note also the post below this one, being the latest Brexit update from Adrian Beaumont.

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.

1,826 comments on “Essential Research: leadership ratings, US and China, abortion law”

  1. Could it be that the Greens are under the spell of something or other and this spell prevents them from:

    (a) recognizing that they are long term electoral losers
    (b) recognizing that unless they change that won’t change
    (c) recognizing that not criticizing the Government is giving Morrison et al a free pass?

    It could be a spell of some sort. But I doubt it. IMO, it is more likely to be a large number of variables coming together. Rex has identified a lack of a voice. Peg has asserted that she is happy with the analys to date. Di Natale has prophesied that the Greens WILL win government. But he avoided getting into any analysis of why the Greens have failed to form government for 30 years.

    More of the same will not cut it. That much is obvious. But what changes need to be made?

  2. BW

    A new party in Australia that has stuck around and not imploded as Labor partisans keep predicting. The Greens they are doomed they are irrelevant and will never be in government. The same tired old tropes from day one b

    The Greens are still here and in your local have a Minister. Such irrelevance as the Greens push the Overton Window. Something Labor has forgotten how to do by the looks of thing.

    No new Medicare style policy from Opposition for you. Just buy the media you need to be a small target. All to cover Labor can’t sell a policy.

    The Greens can. They have got issues up through hard slogging. Not Labor. When they have access to power they push that window. They don’t accept the Corporate Media framing of how politics works.

  3. The sanctimonious repetition of “the duopoly” and accusations of being on the Labor Right really makes me tired. Can we never discuss anything without venom?

  4. ‘Timid incrementalism does not cut it any longer.’

    And this is the problem we’ve been pointing out.

    The Greens SHOULD NOT be content, or complacent, or in any way blase about the flattening out of their vote. If they are the party with the solution, they should be out there wrestling for every vote they can get. If they’re not, and they see the environment – as peg so often claims – as just one plank in their platform, then they should give their support to whichever party they see as most likely to do what’s necessary.

    IF climate change is THE most important issue – as I believe – we can’t wait around for a couple of decades for the Greens to work out how to get into government.

    Any Green supporter who understands the crucial nature of what’s happening should be gritting their teeth, holding their nose, and taking whatever path they can, regardless, which is likely to lead to real action.

  5. lizzie

    As do the political Greens.

    TBH, I am not convinced the Greens’ political thinking runs that deep. Still stuck in the undergraduate protest party mentality.

    –––––––––––

    guytaur

    The shock of the last election for Labor was the minors of both left and right winning.

    Maaaate, the practical reality is that the Greens did not ‘win’ anything last election.

    Tally up how many of their core policies are implemented by the end of this parliament, and then get back to us.

    –––––––––––

    Boerwar

    Are you also happy with the record run of electoral failure by the Greens?

    Fair question, Peg and guytaur.

    How many of the Greens’ core policies have been implemented (and stayed implemented) since they entered parliament a quarter century back?

    –––––––––––

    The planet is burning. Timid incrementalism does not cut it any longer.

    Being out of power is the great political sin here, Peg.

    No power = no policy implemented.

    It is not a difficult equation to ponder.

    Except, apparently, if you are a Green.

  6. zoomster @ #1506 Sunday, August 25th, 2019 – 1:04 pm

    IF climate change is THE most important issue – as I believe – we can’t wait around for a couple of decades for the Greens to work out how to get into government.

    Any Green supporter who understands the crucial nature of what’s happening should be gritting their teeth, holding their nose, and taking whatever path they can, regardless, which is likely to lead to real action.

    This.

  7. Guytaur: fun fact – the Greens Exhaust vote cost Labor 4 seats at the state election. The exhaust vote from Shooters and other minors cost it another 2.

    Whilst Labor deservedly bears the legacy of its last term in government and wasted the last 8 years, optional preferential voting helped Gladys get across the line in majority government and the Green voters helped contribute to that.

    Other than some fierce campaigning against each other in 3 inner city seats neither the Greens or Labor sought to differentiate themselves from each other in the actual campaign.

    Ultimately Labor lost because it wasn’t able to harness the protest mood into Labor votes. That’s on Labor.

    Compare NSW Labor with Victorian Labor’s triumph in sidelining the Greens

    The federal situation is different. From both state NSW and Victoria. Your distractions don’t assist your arguments, such as they are.

  8. zoomster

    Correct. Just as Labor should. The Greens show spine and Opposition in parliament.

    Where is Labor? Sitting with the LNP.
    Proving every time they don’t believe it’s an existential crisis. Fine with sacrificing the Great Barrier Reef.

  9. Peg
    I wasn’t kicking anyone, just pointing out that some Greens seem to think their policies shouldn’t be challenged and that just because the ALP and Libs sometimes accept something put forward by the other side then they are in cohorts when its more a case of accepting the realities of politics.

  10. The big challenge for the Greens is to do what they did at the 2019 election at every election:

    Gain a senator from each state, which would take their senate representation from 9 to 12. If they can do that regularly it will probably be impossible to improve on 12, but it may get them BoP possibly.

  11. guytaur

    I wasn’t writing a party political post.

    If you believe that there is a path to action which can be taken which bypasses voting in a Labor government, and is achievable in the timeframes necessary, you’re welcome to outline it.

    Otherwise, the nose holding might have to apply.

  12. “Fine with sacrificing the Great Barrier Reef.”

    More feckless nonsense. The reef is not in trouble, or dying. It is 50% dead. 35% of that death occurred in the past 3 years.

    It was nitrogen run off from agriculture (main Cain) on the mainland into the GBR lagoon that did it. The other 50% will likely go the same way – for the same reasons – well before global heating truly turns up and kills the rest of the world’s tropical reef systems.

  13. Homes could soon be acquired by the state government on a voluntary basis as a 2.5-kilometre sky rail is built over Bell Street in Coburg to remove four level crossings from the Upfield train line in Melbourne’s north.

    The design of the new elevated rail line, which will be up to 11 metres high at some points and stretch from Tinning Street in Brunswick, over Bell Street, to O’Hea Street in Coburg, was released on Sunday.

    …the green, open space created underneath the elevated tracks would be almost twice the size of the MCG, and allow for a larger Moreland Station precinct, featuring barbecue facilities and a nature playground.

    “These designs are the product of extensive community consultation and will not only remove these four dangerous level crossings – they’ll create new parks, paths and gardens in the heart of Coburg and Brunswick,” Ms Allan said.

    Anything which turns concrete into grass and trees is welcome.

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/skyrail-to-be-built-over-bell-street-residents-offered-buy-up-scheme-20190825-p52ki0.html

  14. I wonder how many present ALP members of the left persuasion continue to delude themselves they can change the party from within.

  15. If Peter Garrett nominated for the Greens at the next election which seat would he better perform in, Grayndler or Kingsford Smith …?

  16. The market will decide.

    Thermal coal exporters face “significant risk” that demand from India will decline, a report by the Australian office of the chief economist says.

    It also warned of long-term uncertainties in the market considered a “great hope” by miners.

    The report, released on Friday, came as the resources minister, Matt Canavan, prepared to visit India to spruik the Australian resources sector. He argued India has an “astonishing” appetite for Australian thermal coal that could support “three to four new Adani-sized coalmines”.

    But those comments appeared at odds with the conclusions of the government’s economic advisers: that while India and southeast Asia were seen by the resources industry as a “bright light” that could help sustain Australian thermal coalminers as industrialised nations pivot away from fossil fuels, the outlook in India was “finely balanced and uncertain”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/23/australian-thermal-coal-exporters-warned-of-falling-demand-from-india?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

  17. Peter Garrett on twitter

    The cumulative effects of this Arctic burn out & melts in Antarctic, dry rivers & dams in NSW, the Amazon on fire – bad signs of our times. Major parties (inc. the one I loyally served) blind addiction to coal & refusal to see climate crisis a betrayal of the national interest.

    He has seen the light and it aint Labor’s flickering ‘light on the hill’ because the latter died a long time ago.

  18. ‘guytaur says:
    Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 1:37 pm

    zoomster

    Correct. Just as Labor should. The Greens show spine and Opposition in parliament. ‘

    30 years of showing spine and showing opposition in parliament does not seem to explain why the Greens Party has failed electorally for 30 years.

    There must be some other explanations that have more weight.

  19. zoomster

    thanks for confirming my point.

    I thought I did not have to bother after Nath and Pegasus posted. After all I am a lone voter not a political party operative. I just believe you put forward policy to the voters and stand by it.

    Not this Labor thing of we are against Adani so we are going to keep giving it government approval thing. We will campaign with an SEP* field instead.

    *Somebody Else’s Problem

  20. z

    You never tire of your blatant misrepresentations. Times must be uncomfortable for you to revert to type, though you have a way to go to reach the depths you plumbed in previous years.

    Anyway, off to do some weeding in the garden.

    Enjoy the rest of the day.

  21. ‘ I just believe you put forward policy to the voters and stand by it.’

    Which bit of : ‘this is an emergency’ didn’t you understand?

    Or don’t you think there’s an emergency when it comes to climate change?

    We can’t afford the time to wait around for the Greens to get the balance of power in the Senate – which wouldn’t provide any kind of solution anyway, as they would still have to persuade the government of the day to act.

    Changing the government of the day to one which will actually act is the only feasible way forward we have.

    But hey – it’s obvious being pure in word, thought and deed is far more important to the Green spruikers here than actual action.

  22. zoomster

    You are giving excellent examples of why Labor is wrong on Adani. In power with the ability to stop Adani in its tracks.

    Instead it’s been Green light after Green light.

  23. guytaur

    If you can’t answer the questions I’m asking you, at least have the grace to say so, rather than trotting out yet another deflection.

    Here we go –

    1. Do you believe there is a climate change emergency?

    2. Do you have a way to deal with it, in the time frames necessary, which doesn’t involve electing a Labor government? (If so, outline it).

  24. Rex Douglas says:
    Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 2:00 pm

    ‘Boerwar @ #1526 Sunday, August 25th, 2019 – 1:55 pm

    Perhaps Garrett could explain why the Greens have failed for 30 years?

    The Greens have grown support for 30 yrs. That’s hardly a failure in logical terms.

    But yes, for the environments sake, I want them to grow support faster.’

    The core fact is that Greens have failed electorally for longer than any other political party in the history of Federation. That is worth serious introspection.

    The growing support theory is one that was put forward by Peg earlier.

    There are several considerations. The first is how long is too long? Can the planet afford to wait while the Greens grow their support at their current rate. This is a serious issue. The implicit assumption in your reply – as long as it takes – demonstrates a basic willingness to accept existential environmental sacrifices as long as the Greens Party is heading in the right direction.

    The second consideration is a purely psephological one. Greens Party support has flatlined for some years now. Sure, there is some noise plus or minus 10% from election to election but that does not get you government.

    The third argument, the BOP argument, has been a demonstrated flop in terms of achieving sustained positive outcomes. It CAN and does have demonstrated negative impacts but stopping something here and there is nothing like the business of government which is to implement a full suite of your core policies.

  25. I’m starting a list of ALP members likely to pull the pin rather than endure a fourth term on the trot in opposition.
    1. Tanya Plibersek
    2. Andrew Leigh
    3. Tony Burke
    4.

  26. zoomster

    I am in no denial about Labor making things worse not better in Queensland. No fantasy of the Greens being either the Federal or Queensland government.

    Thanks for playing the deflect from what Labor is doing deflection game.

  27. Boerwar @ #1537 Sunday, August 25th, 2019 – 2:11 pm

    Rex Douglas says:
    Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 2:00 pm

    ‘Boerwar @ #1526 Sunday, August 25th, 2019 – 1:55 pm

    Perhaps Garrett could explain why the Greens have failed for 30 years?

    The Greens have grown support for 30 yrs. That’s hardly a failure in logical terms.

    But yes, for the environments sake, I want them to grow support faster.’

    The core fact is that Greens have failed electorally for longer than any other political party in the history of Federation. That is worth serious introspection.

    The growing support theory is one that was put forward by Peg earlier.

    There are several considerations. The first is how long is too long? Can the planet afford to wait while the Greens grow their support at their current rate. This is a serious issue. The implicit assumption in your reply – as long as it takes – demonstrates a basic willingness to accept existential environmental sacrifices as long as the Greens Party is heading in the right direction.

    The second consideration is a purely psephological one. Greens Party support has flatlined for some years now. Sure, there is some noise plus or minus 10% from election to election but that does not get you government.

    The third argument, the BOP argument, has been a demonstrated flop in terms of achieving sustained positive outcomes. It CAN and does have demonstrated negative impacts but stopping something here and there is nothing like the business of government which is to implement a full suite of your core policies.

    The core fact is the Greens have grown support for 30 yrs, so your premise is factually wrong.

    Time for a new angle from you as this one’s another dud.

  28. Have had a gutful of the Labor Greens wars on here. Always remember, when Gillard needed the Greens to prop up her shithouse Govt she could not pick up the phone quick enough.

  29. But the hard electoral reality is that a critical chunk of those voters are already on the right of Labor and will never (and I mean never) vote Green, and will instead move their votes even further to the right, thus reducing the combined centre-left vote, and helping to keep it out of power.

    What is the evidence for this claim that the Greens cause some voters to vote for the Coalition instead of Labor?

  30. taylormade @ #1574 Sunday, August 25th, 2019 – 12:22 pm

    Have had a gutful of the Labor Greens wars on here. Always remember, when Gillard needed the Greens to prop up her shithouse Govt she could not pick up the phone quuck enough.

    The Gillard govt was the most effective govt in recent history, not at all ‘shithouse’.

    But yeah, the Green flame wars were old 6 months ago.

  31. Nicholas

    I’m not sure about ’cause to vote for’ but I certainly would argue that the message “Lib-Lab same-same” dissuades voters from shifting from Liberal to Labor.

  32. zoomster

    No that’s the LNP vote Labor you get Greens line. It’s like the GOP attacking Pelosi as a socialist.

    Reality doesn’t come into it.

  33. Boerwar
    I think when it comes to the Greens, they assume that the demographics favor them with an assumption that young people living in new apartments will automatically be Green supporters and they believe they need to hold firm to certain positions because they are scared of being seen to support anything that could be conservative or indicates a change in position because that might be the death of them as a party.

Leave a Reply

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