Essential Research: leader ratings and protest laws

Discouragement for Newspoll’s notion of an Anthony Albanese approval surge, plus a mixed bag of findings on the right to protest.

The latest fortnightly Essential Research poll still offers nothing on voting intention, though it’s relative interesting in that it features the pollster’s monthly leadership ratings. Contrary to Newspoll, these record a weakening in Anthony Albanese’s ratings, with approval down three to 37% and disapproval up five to 34%. Scott Morrison also worsens slightly, down two on approval to 45% and up three on disapproval to 41%, and his preferred prime minister read is essentially steady at 44-28 (43-28 last month).

Further questions relate to the right to protest, including the finding that 33% would support laws flagged by Scott Morrison that “could make consumer or environment boycotts illegal”, while 39% were opposed. Fifty-eight per cent agreed the government had “the right to limit citizen protests when it disrupts business”, with 31% for disagree; but that 53% agreed that “protestors should have the right to pressure banks not to invest in companies that are building coal mines”, with 33% disagreeing.

The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1075 respondents chosen from an online panel.

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.

1,832 comments on “Essential Research: leader ratings and protest laws”

  1. Guytaur
    Unions are traditionally associated with workers so if the Greens are saying they are pro-union then they are saying they are pro-working class.

  2. Mexican

    Yes for the simple reason that corporate elites in boardrooms are the ones responsible for the excesses of capitalism and the resulting destruction of the environment.

    We see it today with the neo liberal agenda to keep regulations out of the way of making a profit. That’s why 80% of Greens preferences go to Labor. There is a natural alliance of the citizens against the elite.

    I regard any elites the Greens convert to environmental actions as a strike for a more balanced society. I think it’s what scares the LNP and Murdoch so much. Bottom line is they can’t be bought off and survive as a movement.

    Just like Workers.

    It’s just sometimes workers and the environment conflict because of that rapacious greed of neo liberal capitalism

  3. Rex Douglas @ #1746 Monday, November 18th, 2019 – 8:15 pm

    Adelaide forecast 42C Wednesday, 17 degrees above Nov. average! Extreme temperatures in Adelaide projected to keep increasing (red) unless emissions reduced (green). reduced. Fuelled by massive Aus gas and coal exports. #adelaide #auspol #heatwatch https://t.co/DWIOLM5vUP pic.twitter.com/FG36Jt1wyl— Australia Institute (@TheAusInstitute) November 18, 2019

    ” rel=”nofollow”>

    There is phenomenal weather all over Australia at the moment. WA, NSW, SA, QLD …

    Why is it that so few people seem able to put 2 and 2 together? 🙁

  4. P1,
    Because this is abnormal weather.

    If it happens every or nearly ever year then we can start talking about it being a shift in the climate.

  5. There are pathways through our current political impasse.

    For example, the Greens could stop what they are doing, disband, and join the ALP en masse.
    This would lift the ALP primary vote to around 44%, would get rid of the constant attacks by the Greens on Labor, and would virtually guarantee ALP governments.

    ex-Greens involvement in policy processes and as Labor MPs would virtually guarantee that Labor could afford to differentiate far more on carbon emissions than it does now.

    But I doubt that the Greens would do that.

    Vice versa – that Labor disbands and joins the Greens is even less likely.

    The alternative seems to be the current Plan which is to wait until the consequences are so bad that it is too late to do anything sensible. At that stage, changing from a Coalition government to a Greens government would probably not make much real difference.

  6. sprocket @7:55pm

    Love your work, Comrade. The non-building of VFT over the last few decades is a blight on our polity. I do agree that the burgeoning coastal cities/towns to the north and south of Sydney – under 300km – are the ones most likely to meet business case break even.

    Ooo.. I’ve gotten my comrade badge!

    There is a reason we’ve gone nowhere. Its because we haven’t asked what the problem really is. I might digress first..

    Nowhere in the world has anyone built a HSR line for the purpose of replacing air travel. When the Japanese developed the Shinkansen it was because their original rail network could not cope with growing demand. The word “shinkansen” translates as “main line”. It had nothing to do with air travel and everything to do with the need for more capacity.

    In Europe there was a long standing tradition of rail use and a well developed network that in parts was of high standard. When France started introducing the TGV it was done as an upgrade to an established system. Indeed before the Paris Lyon TGV, the existing train already had the majority of passenger trips and car travel was in the minority.

    When England built the channel tunnel a lot of the concern was freight. And when they upgraded the route (HS1) their main competitor was actually ferries, not planes. Likewise HS2 isn’t about aviation. Its about additional capacity and trying to deal with the north-south economic divide.

    Nevertheless its become fashionable in academia to study how HSR has affected air travel and there is a fair body of research on this issue. Its a lot, lot harder to gather data on how HSR competes with car travel. In part its lack of data. In part its fashion. The reality is that HSR works well on routes of up to 2, maybe 2.5 hours. The 2013 Phase 2 HSR network had a Sydney to Melbourne timing of 2hr45m (iirc). In fact, their pursuit of that timing says a lot about the compromises they made in terms of poor access to regional cities.

    Most routes where HSR competes well with air travel are in the 300-500 km bracket. But its routes of under 200 km which are dominated by cars where the economics actually stack up. Where the journey time on HSR is short enough that you’re actually creating new demand.

    Now going back to Australia. A lot of the earlier studies in Australia were well intentioned but under-resourced. It also suffered biases. A common misunderstanding is that you need very large cities. Hence the focus on intercapital routes early on.

    Then we got to Howard and the competition that led to Speedrail. At this stage the bureaucrats had been involved and unsurprisingly they had decided that you needed a HSR route to connect Canberra and Sydney… because? Because Sydney and Canberra were special (I hear that song.. so fucking special..). I get into some pretty heated debates with people who just automatically assume Sydney Canberra is naturally the best and most viable route. It isn’t. But its gotten a lot of attention because its sexy – at least to a lot of the people involved (bureaucrats, well paid consultants, politicians).

    You don’t have to look too far into the Phase 2 Study to find that the EBCR ((wider) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio) for Sydney to Canberra was 0.6 . Yep, its not viable. Whereas they then evaluate Sydney to Melbourne with an EBCR of 2.5 . And of course, that includes Canberra. Makes sense, don’t it? Problem is that they were ultimately justifying some deeply embedded assumptions. And to make the Sydney-Melbourne EBCR stack up they used some pretty dodgy data.

    Here I’ll go down another little rabbit hole. The raw data they used was the National Visitor Survey. A database over a number of years that is focused on tourism. The raw data is presented in this 3D bar chart.. (Note also that the methodology they use excludes short trips and commuting).

    What this shows is the number of trips (2009) between each of ten major geographical zones and each other zone. You’ll notice straight away that the largest bar on the chart (the big red one). Nearly 35 million trips per year. Where is this? Its from “intermediate” – that is anything between the Melbourne zone and the Canberra zone – and Melbourne. So places like Shepparton, Albury/Wodonga.

    Compare this to the Sydney to Newcastle bar (a small light blue bar lurking in the middle of the chart), almost hidden behind the larger orange Sydney to Central Coast. This is all data massaged to exclude commuters.

    Note also the second tallest bar on the chart. The medium blue one – about 20 million trips. This represents trips between the “intermediate” zone (between Sydney and Canberra) and Sydney.

    So how did this bar get to be so big? I don’t have access to the database, but if you look closely, the intermediate zone is defined as including not only the Southern Highlands, but also including Wollongong.

    But the 2013 Phase 2 HSR Study did not locate a station anywhere near Wollongong!

    And if you look carefully, that big red bar from “intermediate” to Melbourne. That intermediate zone includes Geelong – again despite there being no HSR station.

    Even if I factor in the presence of Wollongong and Geelong as a distortion in the raw data, I cannot fully reconcile what they have done.

    Now, guess what? These two large bars artificially bolster the case for Sydney-Melbourne. Funny that.
    Indeed in their analysis of HSR patronage they have 1.6 million people travelling Newcastle to Sydney and (wait for it) 2.6 million people travelling from the Southern Highlands to Sydney.

    This is not the only reason I say “smells like Utopia”.. but its the most visible and easily explained bit.

    Now stepping out of that rabbit hole and looking at the broader history. There were and still are a lot of people pushing Sydney to Canberra as the ideal route. Part of this is that transport “experts” feed off each other. Part of this is lobbying by various parties.

    So where should we build HSR? Precisely where it will get the most people using it, and therefore where it will deliver the most social and economic benefit. And where it will have the greatest effect of getting cars off roads and obviating the cost of new motorways. That’s the Newcastle to Wollongong Corridor.

    And also Brisbane to the Gold Coast.

    There’s nearly a million people living near the corridor between the Hawkesbury and lower Hunter. Another 300 thousand in the Wollongong area. Compared to 400+ in Canberra – and at a greater distance. Every year, more than 30 million people cross the Hawkesbury by road. Its a similar story between Wollongong and Sydney.

    Compare to roughly 5 million trips each year between Sydney and Canberra.

    So an ideal HSR would start in Sydney and connect the CBD with Parramatta, then Hornsby, Campbelltown and then to Newcastle and Wollongong. Can Canberra be the next stage? Yes of course – and once you’ve built the core network you can deal with Canberra on its merits. I think Canberra can be a good investment but only if you start with Sydney and you provide a high speed rail service to Wollongong, southern Sydney (Campbelltown to Wilton), the Southern Highlands and Goulburn in the process.

  7. Boerwar

    Could not open it and so not sure what he bases the claim on but it does make for an ‘exciting’ line. Interesting times ahead for Scrott. Ya reckon the Chinese will fall for his ‘Daggy Dad” flim flam man act ? :loi:
    ——————————————————————
    Economic war with China ‘the beginning’
    Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon warns Australia is at the ‘tip of the spear’ in an information and economic war with China.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/strategic-forum-us-wont-reclaim-its-power-keating-says/news-story/c50eedddfe1838e1ef78edaca4913b88

  8. P1
    Perhaps. Some considerations:
    1. The putative coalition parties compete in every seat. They essentially compete for the same votes. Why would Labor validate Greens inroads into Labor seats by rewarding the Greens by giving them coalition power?
    2. The Greens systematically wedge Labor, reducing its chances of forming government.
    3. There is a long history of Greens treachery to overcome. For example neither Greens nor the Liberals will be forming a coalition with the Greens again. Labor is still suffering from agreements with the Greens during the Gillard days.
    4. Labor being co-badged with the Greens virtually consigns 34 regional seats in the large states to the Libs and NatsCoalition. That means that Labor and the Greens need to gain 76 of the 117 remaining seats to form government.
    5. During the last election campaign Di Natale spent some time bragging about how he was going to force Labor to deliver on the Greens agenda. This occurred during the height of the Adani Convoy.
    6. Any coalition would require give and take. The Greens would have to give up a raft of stupid and destructive policies. There is significant doubt that this would happen.
    7. Coalitions with doctrinaire ideologues are inherently unstable.

  9. Player Onesays:
    Monday, November 18, 2019 at 8:54 pm

    Barney in Tanjung Bunga @ #1756 Monday, November 18th, 2019 – 8:50 pm

    P1,
    Because this is abnormal weather.

    If it happens every or nearly ever year then we can start talking about it being a shift in the climate.

    So, have you finally figured out the difference between weather and climate?

    Always knew it.

    Your comment certain suggested you didn’t!

  10. Cud Chewersays:

    When is someone going to explain to ScoMo that building more roads does not bust congestion.

    He does but it does do something even more important. Keeps the donations and support flowing in to party coffers from those companies raking it in from the many $billions worth of projects.

  11. poroti
    I assume that Bannon is a China War Hawk just like the far right is in Australia.
    What is new about this week is that Morrison has publicly validated the China War Hawks.

  12. Boerwar

    There must be some ‘interesting’ tussles going on behind the scenes as to how the Seppos handle China. Bannon coming out with that and only a day or so ago Kissinger had his 2 cents worth when meeting the Chinese.

  13. Mexicanbeemer @ #1752 Monday, November 18th, 2019 – 5:29 pm

    Guytaur
    Unions are traditionally associated with workers so if the Greens are saying they are pro-union then they are saying they are pro-working class.

    Three of the biggest unions are the Public Service, Nurses and Teachers none of whom could be considered “working class”. Then there’s the Police, Ambos, and Firies as well. No “working class” there either.

    One of the traditional working class unions is the CFMMEU and most of its members make way more money than any of the aforementioned professional classes.

    The very notion of a ‘working class union” is somewhat redundant apart from those covering retail workers, who are the sole remaining bastion of low paid, working class workers.

  14. A former Labor police minister has been dragged into the Lawyer X scandal amid revelations he personally signed off on a $2.8 million ­taxpayer-funded payment to ­Nicola Gobbo.
    News Corp can reveal Bob Cameron — police minister between 2006 and 2010 in the Bracks and Brumby governments — authorised the massive payout to Gobbo shortly before the November 2010 election. When contacted by News Corp, Mr Cameron said he did not comment on “matters of the past”. When asked if he was briefed by police command about Gobbo’s informer status and what instructions he gave, Mr Cameron said: “I don’t recall those details.”

    Now we know why Vic Police are not cooperating with the Royal Commission. I wonder if they would be more cooperative if the coalition were in power in Victoria.

  15. ‘taylormade says:
    Monday, November 18, 2019 at 9:37 pm

    Now we know why Vic Police are not cooperating with the Royal Commission. I wonder if they would be more cooperative if the coalition were in power in Victoria.’

    Most of the top echelons who were involved in that bit of policing lunacy need to be sacked.

  16. Simon Katich is going to go all weak at the knees 😀

    6. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.): A new automated Public Policy Polling survey shows her climbing to 9 percent in Iowa. That’s her highest to date, but it’s hardly the first to suggest she’s climbing in that state. Despite this momentum, she declared she would root for her home-state Gophers against the University of Iowa on Saturday. This Minnesota alumna admires those principles (even if they lost). (Previous ranking: 7)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/16/top-democratic-presidential-candidates-ranked-tiered/

    But Mayor Pete is #4. 🙂

  17. I’ve turned on ABC to watch Qanda and am confronted with Julie Bishop, Waleed Aly and someone who looks like a Clive Palmer candidate.

  18. spr
    It has been an interesting show. I have no idea of the validity and reliability of the stats but interesting nonetheless.

    ‘93% agree that Australians should show more respect for each other.’

  19. sprocket

    Alternatively: the experts predict that in X years there will be Y number of cars on the road, causing congestion. Road B is built to cope with this. In X years, there are Y number of cars on the road.

    In other words, the roads were built in anticipation of increased car numbers. They didn’t cause them.

  20. 93% of Australians want to us to treat each other with more respect – the #1 finding of 55,000 in Australia Votes.

    The 7% are congregating online.

  21. Player Onesays:
    Monday, November 18, 2019 at 9:49 pm

    Barney in Tanjung Bunga @ #1766 Monday, November 18th, 2019 – 9:12 pm

    Always knew it.

    You certainly didn’t know it the last time you tried to explain it. Perhaps you’d like to try again?

    You’re just highlighting your ignorance when it comes to the science of Meteorology that you continue to think so.

    Your comment upthread demonstrates how little credibility you have, even when talking about it on such a basic level.

  22. Today’s largest working class occupations are retail, hospitality, and the lowest paid workers in the caring occupations – especially aged care, disability support, and child care. The conventionally framed working class occupations such as the construction and other skilled trades are probably better understood as a form of professional occupation in terms of the bargaining power and income level that many of these people enjoy.

    Labor and the Greens need to be foregrounding an economic justice narrative that appeals to working class people, and to the poor. It is folly for non-conservative parties to make social policy and cultural issues the primary means of talking with the electorate. Adopt progressive positions on those topics but don’t make them top priorities. State a progressive position when you are asked about these topics but don’t spend heaps of time on it. Every minute spent on social policy and cultural or identity politics is a minute you aren’t spending on discussing economic justice themes that can build election-winning coalitions of voters that transcend cultural and social differences.

    Conservatives are able to use social and cultural signifiers to persuade just enough poor voters and working class voters to vote against their economic interests. Non-conservatives need to use economic justice themes to appeal to just enough socially and culturally conservative voters to vote in favour of their economic interests, and against their preferred positions on social and cultural topics.

  23. ABC going to promote kindness over the next few months. You can nominate a ‘kindness hero’

    Seems to be a reaction to the bile aimed at them from the SmearStralian

  24. We have a boobook in our bushland. Easily my favourite bird at the moment. It chimes in this time every night through winter and spring with the cutest faint ‘boo book’.
    I hope it survives the summer and sticks around. Still getting over losing the treecreepers.

    Planning on setting cat traps soon now the new cat restrictions are in. I think I am supposed to return the caught cat to its owners or take them to the pound – apparently not via a hessian bag and a water tank.

  25. Nicholas – more seriously I think you’ll find that “tradies” are the temporary beneficiaries of government supported forshortening in technical education, rather than holding an actual bargaining advantage.

  26. Boerwar @ #1765 Monday, November 18th, 2019 – 9:12 pm

    Perhaps. Some considerations:
    1. The putative coalition parties compete in every seat. They essentially compete for the same votes. Why would Labor validate Greens inroads into Labor seats by rewarding the Greens by giving them coalition power?

    The Libs & Nats have rules about when “three-cornered contests” are permitted. I’m sure the Greens and Labor could come up with something similar. The goal is to win government, not just seats.

    2. The Greens systematically wedge Labor, reducing its chances of forming government.

    The Greens would probably say exactly the same about Labor. Clearly, some compromise is required on both sides.

    3. There is a long history of Greens treachery to overcome. For example neither Greens nor the Liberals will be forming a coalition with the Greens again. Labor is still suffering from agreements with the Greens during the Gillard days.

    Labor is still wallowing in factional brawls, and because of this they may never win another election in their own right. I think a lot of the Labor/Green argy-bargy you see here and elsewhere is really just a proxy for this perpetual Labor brawl. Labor’s primary vote has been on a declining trend as a result of this for decades (but I acknowledge it has not declined in every election). Once they accept this trend is likely to continue, they may change their tune.

    4. Labor being co-badged with the Greens virtually consigns 34 regional seats in the large states to the Libs and NatsCoalition. That means that Labor and the Greens need to gain 76 of the 117 remaining seats to form government.

    Labor needs to emulate the Lib/Nat style of coalition. The Libs and Nats are not “co-badged”. They know the importance of keeping their identities separate. Labor seems to almost understand this – think of “Labor” vs “Country Labor”. They need something like this, except not quite so ridiculously inept.

    5. During the last election campaign Di Natale spent some time bragging about how he was going to force Labor to deliver on the Greens agenda. This occurred during the height of the Adani Convoy.

    I honestly don’t think Di Natale is the right man for this job. He lacks negotiation and conciliation skills. Also, he is an arrogant, unlikeable prat. He would have to go. But then Albo is probably not the right man either. But I think Albo will go before the next election anyway. He is just not the type of leader required (as I believe he himself would freely admit).

    6. Any coalition would require give and take. The Greens would have to give up a raft of stupid and destructive policies. There is significant doubt that this would happen.

    Agreed. The Green policies are a bit of a crock anyway. Internally inconsistent. But then, so are some of Labor’s.

    7. Coalitions with doctrinaire ideologues are inherently unstable.

    Again, agreed. The Greens need to reform. But then so does Labor.

    Is it going to happen? Still seems quite unlikely. But it may well be the only way Labor will get back into government in time to do any good 🙁

  27. Interesting story – wonder if Mayor Pete knew another McKinsey alum Angus Taylor?

    “A major piece of Pete Buttigieg’s past remains a mystery to voters.

    For nearly three years, he worked at McKinsey & Company, an elite management consulting firm with offices around the world. It was work that took him, he has said, to Iraq and Afghanistan. And for years after that, in his early campaigns for public office, Buttigieg held up his stint at McKinsey as a selling point and proof that he was a business-friendly Democrat, while only vaguely describing what he did and never revealing his clients.

    A deeper understanding of his time there a decade ago would be relevant to evaluating the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who’s now trying to prove he has the experience to be president. But Buttigieg continues to keep most details a secret, citing a confidentiality agreement. He also now describes the job — which informed his views on business issues — as “not something that I think is essential in my story.”

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

Leave a Reply

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