Essential Research: state leaders and federal ICAC

Yet more evidence of strong support for struggling state leaders, along with overwhelming backing for a federal ICAC.

For your US election needs, there is a newly launched post on which Adrian Beaumont will be offering live coverage. For some Australian perspective on the matter, the Australia Institute has a poll showing Australians preferring Joe Biden over Donald Trump by 52% to 24%, which is actually narrower than I might have figuered, but the lead extends to supporters of the Coalition (45% to 33%) as well as Labor (64% to 15%). For those of you with a lingering interest in the late count in Queensland, I am continuing to regular-ish updates on the close seats (Bundaberg, Nicklin and Currumbin) to the relevant post.

Then there’s the latest fortnightly Essential Research poll, conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1063, which features leadership ratings for Premiers in the four largest states based on small-sample breakdowns. Out of 345 respondents from New South Wales, 68% approved of Gladys Berejiklian with 21% disapproving, both results being up one on a fortnight ago; Daniel Andrews is up seven on approval to 61% and down seven on disapproval to 33%, out of a sample of 275 Victorians; Annastacia Palaszczuk is up three to 65% and down four to 24%; and reaching deep into low-sample, high error margin territory, Mark McGowan records 78% approval (down six) and 12% disapproval (up five) from 105 Western Australians.

The newly liberated Victorian sample also registered a 55% positive rating for the government’s handling of COVID-19, up ten on a month ago, while the New South Wales government was up three to 68% and Queensland’s was steady on 69%. On the stronger methodological ground of the full national sample, the federal government’s performance was rated good by 61% (up one) and poor by 15% (down three). The poll also found 81% support for “the establishment of an independent federal corruption body to monitor the behaviour of our politicians and public servants”, with only 6% opposition

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.

299 comments on “Essential Research: state leaders and federal ICAC”

Comments Page 6 of 6
1 5 6
  1. Barney

    Read the papers.

    The Washington Post has published the USA is rejoining the Paris accord. The SMH The Guardian to name two have outlined how that changes politics in Australia.

  2. guytaur @ #191 Sunday, November 8th, 2020 – 3:56 pm

    Barney

    Read the papers.

    The Washington post has published the USA is rejoining the Paris accord. The SMH The Guardian to name two have outlined how that changes politics in Australia.

    As I said at the beginning, how does that effect Labor?

    We are still in Paris and they are committed to taking action on climate in Government.

    It’s the recalcitrant mob that’s the current Government that have the problems, as they will be forced to do things that they don’t wish to because of the international pressure.

  3. guytaur

    As I almost endlessly point out here, the regimes where Labor and the Greens work well together are those where the Greens don’t attack Labor.

    We see it here every day: numerous tweets, courtesy of Firefox, where Greens MPs explicitly attack Labor.

    You don’t see the same stream of attacks on the Greens from Labor MPs.

    You certainly don’t see Labor supporters gleefully posting them here.

    The evidence thus suggests one side attacks and the other – at most – tries to correct the record. (Which, if truth in politics matters, is important to do).

  4. The Age
    Victoria’s Premier has insisted the state’s gaming regulator will “do what needs to be done” if action is required against Crown Resorts, but only after a NSW inquiry into the gaming giant is complete.
    ________________
    NSW leading the way.
    Nothing will happen in Victoria. Andrews loves the gambling revenue too much.

  5. Zoomster

    Jacinda Ardern proved that Bullshit wrong. However don’t take my word for it. Listen to Andrew Barr talking to Katherine Murphy on the Guardian politics podcast.

    A Labor leader who knows what he is talking about.

  6. guytaur

    Nice deflection. I’m talking about the Australian Greens.

    The NZ Greens co operate with Labor.

    I doubt you’ll find the same kind of daily attacks on Labor from the NZ Greens.

  7. guytaur

    As I said, where the Greens don’t attack Labor, things work well.

    Federally, in Australia (not New Zealand) the parliamentary members of the Greens party attack Labor on a daily basis.

    I could equally argue that where Labor ignores the Greens altogether – as they do in Victoria – they do even better electorally than when they work with them.

  8. The Greens would be better off if they focused on building their own support instead of begging the ALP because we don’t see the Liberals or Nats begging the other party for attention.

  9. Andrew Barr is not my Labor leader, he is the Labor leader in the ACT.

    I’ve given you evidence. You have obviously been unable to refute it, and tried to change the subject instead.

    Try tackling with these —

    1. Greens MPs attack Labor on an almost daily basis.
    2. Labor MPs rarely attack the Greens.
    3. Labor in Victoria ignores the Greens.
    4. Labor in Victoria does better electorally than ACT Labor.

    If you believe any of these statements are wrong, please provide the evidence to contradict them.

  10. Zoomster

    You have declared zero evidence. You have given your opinion of sour grapes.

    Andrew Barr is your Labor Leader. He is not the Greens leader.

  11. guytaur

    So Labor isn’t in government in Victoria?

    I’d really like to see you provide the evidence for that one.

    If Labor MPs attack the Greens, you should be able to find a few tweets to prove that.

  12. Mexicanbeemer @ #202 Sunday, November 8th, 2020 – 4:26 pm

    The Greens would be better off if they focused on building their own support instead of begging the ALP because we don’t see the Liberals or Nats begging the other party for attention.

    The problem there is that this additional support the Greens are looking for mainly resides with current Labor supporters.

    The Libs and the Nats have a fairly neat city bush divide, that doesn’t exist in the case of Labor and the Greens.

  13. https://www.pollbludger.net/2020/11/04/essential-research-state-leaders-and-federal-icac/comment-page-6/#comment-3510113

    4. The ACT ALP received a higher primary vote at its high water mark election in 2004 than the Victorian ALP did in either of its high water mark elections 2002 or 2018. The ACT ALP has also not been in opposition since 2001, while the Victorian ALP has. The often greater seat shares for the Victorian ALP are the results of the different electoral systems in the house of government, not of relative vote getting power.

  14. Barney

    Listen to Andrew Barr talking with Katherine Murphy

    He says the opposite to Zoomster. He has direct experience of how cooperation works and outlines why it works in the ACT.

    He and Shayne Rattenbury both agree it’s because the ACT does not have Fossil Fuel and Forestry issues dividing the parties.

    No crap about it being a one sided affair.

  15. Zoomster

    You either have not listened or have zero comprehension skills

    A bit like Kevin Rudd ranting about the Greens not supporting his petition and publicly being made a fool on twitter when Adam Bandt refuted him including offering to present the Murdoch petition to parliament.

    It can be brutal being outside your bubble.

  16. guytaur @ #211 Sunday, November 8th, 2020 – 4:44 pm

    Barney

    Listen to Andrew Barr talking with Katherine Murphy

    He says the opposite to Zoomster. He has direct experience of how cooperation works and outlines why it works in the ACT.

    He and Shayne Rattenbury both agree it’s because the ACT does not have Fossil Fuel and Forestry issues dividing the parties.

    No crap about it being a one sided affair.

    That seems to suggest that if the ACT had fossil fuel reserves and a major forestry industry then their relationship would be unworkable.

    Makes a bit of a lie your suggestion that the ACT is proof that the union could work in places where this is not the case.

  17. Barney

    Of course it is when you are against science and for fossil fuels.

    Instead of working cooperatively to get renewables in place and singing the jobs bonanza

    Edit: The difference is that neither Labor or the Greens pretend their political differences and campaign differences is an attack on being progressive or an agent to destroy progress on the environment including climate and energy policy

  18. guytaur @ #215 Sunday, November 8th, 2020 – 4:54 pm

    Barney

    Of course it is when you are against science and for fossil fuels.

    Instead of working cooperatively to get renewables in place and singing the jobs bonanza

    Really!

    Only in magical guytaurworld can you do this.

    You really should begin factoring reality into your starting position.

  19. Barney

    See Kevin Rudd doing your Labor whinge about the Greens in public being made a fool very very quickly when engaging in public.

    This Bullshit exposed very quickly as Labor prejudice on a public social media forum.

    Get outside your bubble.

  20. guytaur @ #218 Sunday, November 8th, 2020 – 5:08 pm

    Barney

    See Kevin Rudd doing your Labor whinge about the Greens in public being made a fool very very quickly when engaging in public.

    This Bullshit exposed very quickly as Labor prejudice on a public social media forum.

    Get outside your bubble.

    You’re not defending your assertion that the ACT is proof that a Labor/Green Government would work outside the ACT, very hard.

  21. Barney

    Unlike you I am not pretending it’s all one sided.

    Your criteria is the Greens must bow down to Labor. No independence allowed.

    The whole point of what Barr and Rattenbury talked about was respecting the others independence.

    Do yourself a favour as “Molly” would say go and have a listen. Stop making a fool of yourself

  22. guytaur @ #220 Sunday, November 8th, 2020 – 5:35 pm

    Barney

    Unlike you I am not pretending it’s all one sided.

    Your criteria is the Greens must bow down to Labor. No independence allowed.

    The whole point of what Barr and Rattenbury talked about was respecting the others independence.

    Do yourself a favour as “Molly” would say go and have a listen. Stop making a fool of yourself

    That’s all easy to do when you remove any potential major disagreements and your post earlier highlighted this point.

    That is definitely not the case in other States and the NT.

  23. guytaur

    “Not attacking Labor” does not equal “bow down to Labor”.

    Of course the Greens can disagree with Labor and can criticise the party.

    That’s a different thing to constant daily attacks.

    If the (Federal) Greens attack Labor on a daily basis, I’m not sure why they would want to be in government with them. Their constant attacks suggest they don’t.

  24. guytaur @ #222 Sunday, November 8th, 2020 – 5:41 pm

    Barney

    As I said go and listen. This was all discussed in the podcast put by political professionals in ways better than I can.

    As soon as you listen you will understand what a fool you are for arguing against cooperation

    I’m not arguing against cooperation, I’m just pointing out why it may be difficult to achieve in other jurisdictions in Australia.

  25. Zoomster

    Your assertions are just wrong. You just want the Greens to do Labor’s bidding because you are representing fossil fuel workers and donors.

    It’s precisely why the amalgamation of the unions was a disaster for the environment even as it was good for unions.

    This even saw a Union voting against a Labor government.

    You are fooling no one about why Labor is attacking the Greens for being independent

  26. Barney

    Then stop using terms as fantasy land when I am telling you whatpolitical professionals with practise at the cooperation between the parties are saying.

    I am calling out the Labor propaganda for what it is.

  27. guytaur

    Labor isn’t attacking the Greens.

    I’ve asked you to provide evidence for this.

    Firefox provides daily evidence of the Greens attacking Labor.

  28. Zoomster

    You do it every time the discussion comes up.

    You demand the Greens must stop attacking Labor and pretend Labor does not attack the Greens every day.

    You fool no one.

    Edit: in fact it is done so consistently people groan about the ongoing Labor/Green wars.

  29. guytaur @ #226 Sunday, November 8th, 2020 – 5:50 pm

    Barney

    Then stop using terms as fantasy land when I am telling you whatpolitical professionals with practise at the cooperation between the parties are saying.

    I am calling out the Labor propaganda for what it is.

    They are talking about what is happening in one jurisdiction and how it works there, the fantasy only enters when you start projecting what they say to other jurisdictions.

  30. Barney
    Guytaur has a bad habit of projecting results. Biden has scored a clear win but the Republicans held their ground in the senate and made gains in the house.

  31. No party owns its voters, all have to argue their case with the public. Critique of policies, or lack of policies, is all part of the everyday work of politics. The never ending inane carping about ‘teh Greens’ seems not so useful and far more abundant than anything else by a factor of 1000 : 1 around here.

    Given how furiously defensive some are, you’d almost think they’d lost a presidential election or something.

    If there’s one reminder over recent days about democratic systems, it is that it the people’s vote that is the final arbiter, or should be. No party owns its voters. MP’s are elected to represent their constituents and their interests, not their party and donors or financiers.

    People should vote for those who are in it for the former rather than the latter

    Barr does also suggest his colleagues really might not want to hear what he has to say Guytaur, a point proven here

Comments Page 6 of 6
1 5 6

Leave a Reply

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