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. Pegasus, my blood pressure is EXACTLY 120/80 – perfect. Always is.

    My rant may have been uncivil, but lady, someone needs to tell you to GAGF, royally. I suspect it’s been a while.

  2. ‘Andrew_Earlwood says:
    Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 6:29 pm

    “Someone should point out to Brazil that Australia’s north was once all rain forest and that changed when the first Australians started using fire to assist with the hunt.”

    I wonder if this is actually true, or merely speculated? To the extent it is true, I reckon using fire to assist with the hunt was actually limited to low oil content grasslands and open woodlands (that again had trees with a low oil content). Fire in dense rainforests wouldn’t appear to be an effective hunting technique – and not one that Ive heard used in comparable rainforest indigenous communities around the globe. Using fire in southern – high oil content – woodlands seems to be too damn dangerous to undertake. In fact I reckon that most observed instances of aboriginals deliberately lighting bush fires around the time of first contact events are probably conflating hunting with acts of insurgency. Pemulway for example occupied Parramatta for several days after burning the Toongabbie crops to the ground.’

    The evidence from Kutikina Cave is interesting. Basically they used diet evidence (wallaby bones) to figure out that when it gradually got too wet to burn and the rainforest closed in, the wallabies no longer got a feed. Since the wallabies were the principle food source, the occupation record of the cave came to a halt as well.

    Beyond that, fire farming had various outcomes – some obvious, some not so obvious. Some of the benefits were immediate and obvious. Some of the benefits were not so obvious but were systematic in beneficial impact. The main, and massive, disbenefit is that frequent burning caused the loss of scarce nutrients from ancient skeletal soils. That one is a major bummer.

    Fire made immediate hunting easier by clearing cover and enabling easier walking.
    Fire was used in specific contexts for specific game. For example, fire was used to attract raptores to hawk traps.
    Fire was used to flush game in a panic state that made them easy to hunt.
    The immediate regrowth following a fire is nutrient rich and attracts game which means less walking around to find game.
    Fire triggers different age classes and hence triggers different hunting/gathering opportunities.
    Fire was used to protect fire sensitive rainforest and monsoon vine scrub patches. That is, fire was was used to create fire breaks around extremely valuable food resources.
    Above all, probably, fire was an (implicit) grassland management tool and it was grass seeds that formed a high proportion of the diet across much of inland Australia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutikina_Cave

  3. ‘Oakeshott Country says:
    Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 7:33 pm

    The coalition discussion ignores the visceral hatred a large proportion of the electorate has for the Greens.’

    This is abused at every election by the Tories and the Greens, of course.

    The real issue with a Greens/Labor coalition is landing on a policy platform that would be palatable to 51% of the population.

    Would the Greens forego gutting the ADF, gutting the cotton industry, closing down the coal export industry, closing down all aspects of the uranium industry, etc, etc, etc?

  4. BB – I see your ‘coalition’ actually means a merger. In response to that I defer to OC’s comments, which I think is on the money: we need to take that core 35% ‘left-progressive’ and turn it into a sustainable majority.

    Which means … drumroll, bringing those low interest low information (and definitely not left wing or ‘Green’ voters) into the fold somehow.

    I reckon only Labor can do that, but it needs to build a wall of sound around some type of national economic plan of hope (something bold that the LNP can’t and won’t steal) AND divorce itself from the Greens and pop left politics. At least for the foreseeable future.

  5. The point with rising fire farming is what does the future for Brazil look like after decades of bulldozing and now burning of the Amazon.

  6. Horsey wrote:

    I think I will just let BB’s last post speak for itself.

    That was my intention. At last we can agree on something.

  7. Australia and it’s political culture for the last 25 to 30 years has failed in many ways. With much of the process corrupted by donors and vested interests that both the major parties appear beholden to.

    Auspol appears to be continuing to fail spectacularly on climate and GHG emissions.

    The only time it did get on top of it was with a price on carbon under the Gillard-Greens-Indy govt 2010-2013

    As, and if, events proceed as expected regarding our degradation of the Earths climate and living systems, everyone will have failed. Everyone who is not working or making an effort to turn it around is part of ensuring that collective failure.

    Many people of all persuasions recognise the pretty dramatic changes coming down the line, or even those apparent changes right now, and the need for action on many fronts. Do or do not.

    It is pretty clear that in educated developed countries that parties such as the Greens, by whatever name, have arisen because of the growing awareness of the environment and ecological survival and sustainability. In response to the ongoing degradation of our natural world and important life support systems, where institutionalised parties and industries are stuck on a destructive business as usual, forever, track and incapable of change themselves.

    Greens will be putting a motion to declare a climate emergency in parliament when they can, seeing neither of the majors appear to care to address it. We’ll see how many MP’s are really concerned that our collective house is on fire. Many local councils and cites are declaring a climate emergency as recognition of the issues they are likely to be facing.

    No doubt many G voters and members and many others will also be doing whatever they can outside parliament to work for action. For the young, in many ways what choice do they have in regard to their futures? Getting out and taking on all governments and parties who are useless at addressing the issue. Likely millions will be out in the streets in a few weeks around the world, calling for an end to any new fossil fuel and a rapid transition to renewable energy and sustainable culture, and whilst Greens MPs will be standing with them, where will be other parties and MPs? Pondering the obsequious comments of partisans on PB for their political insight?

  8. While BB is at his usual “robust” language stage… 🙂 …. you only have to read Peg’s posts to become despondent that BB’s reasonable stab at an idea just aint gunna happen.

    “I think I will just let BB’s last post speak for itself.”

    Yours certainly do. 🙁

  9. BB:

    [?Your enormous ego was pricked when I recently agreed with a post made by psyclaw (?) in response to one of your rants with “Well said”.’]

    I refuse to admit that your ego beats mine.

  10. quoll

    ‘Greens will be putting a motion to declare a…’

    The Greens have been there and done that for 30 years.

    10% of the vote, the odd period of BOP, and moving motions is not working.
    Environmentalists used to get routine and massive environmental wins when they stayed outside the party system.
    But the Greens have locked up the environmental vote.
    This ensures that neither major party has any political skin in the environment space.
    In fact, it seems to have shifted the Right to actively treating the environment badly.

  11. “Above all, probably, fire was an (implicit) grassland management tool and it was grass seeds that formed a high proportion of the diet across much of inland Australia.”

    This. For the closed woodlands of the GDR – from Cape to Bass Straight, fire would have been an ineffective and (further south) quite dangerous management tool.

  12. Would the Greens forego gutting the ADF, gutting the cotton industry, closing down the coal export industry, closing down all aspects of the uranium industry, etc, etc, etc?

    On a more fundamental issue, and the reason I can’t vote for them is that the Greens actively oppose reducing our GHGEs and uptake of renewable energy. They say they want these things, but their actions speak for them.

    By contrast Labor is the only party of government willing and able to deliver on these things. It’s a no brainer in terms of voting if these issues are important to you.

  13. A Labor-Greens coalition ..??

    😆

    Given that Labor vote for the Govts agenda they’re clearly far more philosophically aligned with the LibNats.

  14. BB’s post

    “My rant may have been uncivil, but lady, someone needs to tell you to GAGF, royally. I suspect it’s been a while.”

    Apparently, because this was directed at a Greens member, it is deemed worthy of no criticism.

    Says it all.

  15. P1
    I have posted many times previously on the massive economic, social and environmental benefits of rain following the plough: triple bottom line win.

  16. A_E wrote:

    BB – I see your ‘coalition’ actually means a merger. In response to that I defer to OC’s comments, which I think is on the money: we need to take that core 35% ‘left-progressive’ and turn it into a sustainable majority.

    My understanding is that the “left progressive” vote is about equal to the Coalition’s. This is by a simple addition of votes for The Greens, plus the Labor vote, with the problem being that these tend to operate against each other frequently enough to allow more conservative/reactionary wins than they deserve.

    There is also the problem of things like convoys. These have proven to be self-indulgent wankfests, and must stop. As must Labor’s pandering to the various mining unions (part of the divestiture of Labor-union affiliation I have suggested this evening).

    Merge or form a coalition between Labor and The Greens and you cut out 3/4 of the internecine shit that is not only keeping the Tories in power more or less continually, but is comprehensively stuffing the planet, at an accelerating rate.

  17. “Environmentalists used to get routine and massive environmental wins when they stayed outside the party system.
    But the Greens have locked up the environmental vote.”

    This is what my brother – a zoologist by profession and a trot by political persuasion- reckons. He also reckons that right wingers make better environmental ministers because they understand the value of a deal and how to play that into the national zeitgeist. I reckon he might be onto something.

  18. “My understanding is that the “left progressive” vote is about equal to the Coalition’s. This is by a simple addition of votes for The Greens, plus the Labor vote”

    nah, I reckon labor would lose another 10 on its right flank with a merger with the Greens.

  19. ‘Andrew_Earlwood says:
    Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 8:05 pm

    “Above all, probably, fire was an (implicit) grassland management tool and it was grass seeds that formed a high proportion of the diet across much of inland Australia.”

    This. For the closed woodlands of the GDR – from Cape to Bass Straight, fire would have been an ineffective and (further south) quite dangerous management tool.’

    Not when you know what you are doing and you do it on a landscape scale all the time.

    I suggest that it is virtually certain that in inland systems not predominantly dependent on root crops, that is to say dependent on grass seed production, fire would have been the routine maintenance tool. We know, for example, that in the absence of regular fire grasslands in these systems are replaced by shrubs that are not nearly as food productive.

    The last Indigenous couple to be picked up in the Western Desert were located by the pillars of smoke lit by the man as he moved through country.

  20. RD

    Imagine the meltdown from the usual opinionated suspects if a Greens had directed such a comment at a female Laborite.

    Hatred runs deep doesn’t it. Sad.

  21. BB, the kind of merger you describe (delinking from trade unions and environmentalists alike) would leave this new entity looking a lot like the old Australia Party, or maybe the Democrats or Reason. It looks a lot like a single digit movement to me. No thanks.

  22. Horsey wrote:

    BB’s post

    “My rant may have been uncivil, but lady, someone needs to tell you to GAGF, royally. I suspect it’s been a while.”

    Apparently, because this was directed at a Greens member, it is deemed worthy of no criticism.

    Says it all.

    This is your second plea for sympathy in the space of 10 minutes.

    When will you wake up to the fact that you’re not going to get any?

    I doubt whether anyone here – including other Greens supporters – cares about you being a “Greens member”.

    If that is what you are then you are the kind of Green that is part if the problem, rather than part if the solution. You have already told us all that a Greens-Labor coalition has missed its opportunity.

    So be it, honey.

    You are still OFF the negotiator list.

  23. ‘Andrew_Earlwood says:
    Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 8:12 pm

    “My understanding is that the “left progressive” vote is about equal to the Coalition’s. This is by a simple addition of votes for The Greens, plus the Labor vote”

    nah, I reckon labor would lose another 10 on its right flank with a merger with the Greens.’

    At least. The first thing that would happen would be that there would be intensive scrutiny of the entire suite of Greens policies.

    As an example, at the moment 90% of Australians aren’t much bothered by the Greens defence equipment strategy. For a suite of other reasons they avoid voting for the Greens.

    But, faced with the prospect of the Greens forming a coalition government with Labor, the vast majority of Australians are very attached to the idea that the ADF is armed with something more than bows and arrows.

    And so on. And so forth.

  24. Fuck me. Ben stokes gets hit on the helmet and he wants to put back the neck guard.

    All helmets are compromised by a heavy blow and should immediately be thrown out. He’s still playing with the same helmet. Pathetic.

  25. BB

    I am not after sympathy. The silence is totally unsurprising to me.

    Highlighting how hatred runs deep is the point I am making.

    Your misogyny is there for all to see.

  26. Well who’d have guessed! Man Baby walks back his previous comments to suit a new audience. The ultimate shrinking man.

    President Trump expressed regret for the first time on Sunday that his trade war with China had spiraled into an international quagmire, answering “yes” when a reporter asked if he regretted the way things had played out.

    Asked if he was rethinking the way things had escalated between the two countries, Trump responded “Yeah, sure why not. Might as well. Might as well. I have second thoughts about everything.”

    He also appeared to dramatically dial back his threat to force U.S. companies to stop doing business with China, something he had insisted he had the power to do despite international alarm.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-for-first-time-signals-regret-china-trade-war-has-escalated/2019/08/25/c942ea78-c67a-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html

  27. “A-E
    What is your prediction for the outcome of this test?”

    I reckon my predictions of cricket outcomes are probably worth the same as my recent predictions of election outcomes.

    So, don’t ask, lol

  28. BB

    I am not after sympathy. The silence is totally unsurprising to me.

    That’s bullshit, Horsey. You expected to have a Knight In Shining Armour ride in to rescue you, or William (whichever comes first).

    And all you scored was Rex, not a knight… but a king!

    Call me all the dreadful names you can dredge up out of your cliche-ridden head. In your fragile world I guess they’re the worst words you can think of.

    But they don’t affect me, or define me, sweetheart. I know what I am, and what I am not.

    I just can’t stand pseuds like you who never saw a virtue that wasn’t worth signalling.

  29. Bushfire Bill @ #1740 Sunday, August 25th, 2019 – 8:29 pm

    BB

    I am not after sympathy. The silence is totally unsurprising to me.

    That’s bullshit, Horsey. You expected to have a Knight In Shining Armour ride in to rescue you, or William (whichever comes first).

    And all you scored was Rex, not a knight but a king!

    Call me all the dreadful names you can dredge up out of your cliche-ridden head. In your fragile world I guess they’re the worst words you can think of.

    But they don’t affect me, or define me, sweetheart. I know what I am, and what I am not.

    I just can’t stand pseuds like you who never saw a virtue that wasn’t worth signalling.

    Classic projection…

  30. William, do you realise what a disaster your blog has become?

    You’d do better to ask Pegasus and Briefly to up their games. They’re driving the site into a brick wall, and your reputation with it.

    If they are all you’ve got to stoke the intellectual fires, then I suggest you sign up for an Uber franchise.

  31. BB

    William likes Peg, Rex, nath etc to contribute. Otherwise it is feared that the joint may become a Labor echo chamber.

    His blog, his rules and fair enough too.

  32. Bushfire Bill @ #1745 Sunday, August 25th, 2019 – 8:40 pm

    William, do you realise what a disaster your blog has become?

    You’d do better to ask Pegasus and Briefly to up their games. They’re driving the site into a brick wall, and your reputation with it.

    If they are all you’ve got to stoke the intellectual fires, then I sugfest you sign up for an Uber franchise.

    If only we were afforded more of your intellectual insights eh …!?

  33. Pegasus doesn’t need a knight to defend her, although in earlier ages I would have stepped forth and beheaded the malevolent oaf. She’s already won by her dignified response to misogyny.

Leave a Reply

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