Polls: Morning Consult, Essential Research, Lowy Institute (open thread)

Anthony Albanese’s approval remains in the ascendant, plus further polling on the minimum wage, the gas crisis and foreign affairs.

American pollster Morning Consult’s current read on various international leaders’ domestic approval credits Anthony Albanese with an approval rating of 57%, up six on his debut showing last month, with disapproval up one to 26% and the balance accounted for by a drop in the uncommitted. It seems this poll is conducted on a daily basis and its published numbers are seven-day rolling averages – I’m not sure how often updates are published, but this one came out a week ago, from polling conducted between June 15 to 21.

In the absence of anything to tell us on voting intention or leadership approval, the most interesting finding of the fortnightly Essential Research survey for mine is that 67% support the Fair Work Commission’s decision to increase the minimum wage by 5.2%, with only 15% opposed. It appears Essential Research now has a regular question on whether Australia is headed in the right or wrong direction, the latest figures of 47% and 29% differing little from the result a fortnight ago, which registered a post-election surge of optimism.

The survey also features questions on the gas crisis and emissions targets, which to my mind are flawed by a lack of response options capturing anti-renewables climate skeptic sentiment. Forty-five per cent blamed the gas crisis on “years of neglect and of successive governments” when given a choice between that and “factors that couldn’t have been predicted, like the war in the Ukraine and the pandemic” and the “fossil fuel lobby and the LNP” having “deliberately fought against the transition to renewables”, which scored 35% and 20% respectively. Forty-nine per cent felt the government should implement the emissions reductions target it took to the election and 30% felt it should go further, with “unsure” the only option for those of neither opinion.

There were two questions on foreign policy, one of which found overwhelming majorities felt it important to have close relationships with the United States, Pacific nations and European Union nations, with a more modest 58% feeling the same way about China and 33% doing so about Russia. Sixty-two per cent believed “Australia should take a more assertive role in protecting our national interest”, compared with 38% who favoured the alternative option of “Australia should look for opportunities to increase global cooperation”. The poll was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1087.

For a lot more on the foreign policy front, the Lowy Institute has published its annual in-depth poll on the subject, which I haven’t had time to look at properly yet. It would seem declining confidence in Joe Biden is not a purely domestic affair, with 58% having confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs, down from 69% last year. This places him effectively level with Boris Johnson on 59% and behind Jacinda Ardern on 87%, Emmanuel Macron on 67% and Japan’s Fumio Kishidia (who I’m guessing respondents weren’t required to recognise by name) on 65%. Vlaidimir Putin was down ten points to 6%, placing him on par with Kim Jong-un on 5%. The survey was conducted March 15 to 28 from a sample of 2006.

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.

1,271 comments on “Polls: Morning Consult, Essential Research, Lowy Institute (open thread)”

Comments Page 26 of 26
1 25 26
  1. Me: Your responses are like a bot caught in bad weather Dr John.

    Dr John: I vaguely recall Pi is an inorganic compound that cannot be stored at room temperature.

    It certainly is sunny grey day.

  2. Covid.. what the hell is going on, Australia’s current death rate is 4 times that of the US & UK.. is it booster uptake rate or a data measure issue..

  3. sprocket_says:
    Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 9:07 pm

    In Hostomel… I wonder if ScoMo would have done this trip if re-elected?

    Morrison would have only gone if he could dress up.

  4. sprocket_ @ #1238 Sunday, July 3rd, 2022 – 9:14 pm

    Getting dodgy at Central Station…

    ” rel=”nofollow ugc”>

    That’s Lewisham. My daughter lives in Thomas St. We roped the shark by the tail and she pulled it out with her pushbike. We’ve put it in the pond in her front garden, and will make shark fin soup tomorrow. Will feed the rest to the local sea eagle.

  5. Sceptic @ #1250 Sunday, July 3rd, 2022 – 9:54 pm

    Covid.. what the hell is going on, Australia’s current death rate is 4 times that of the US & UK.. is it booster uptake rate or a data measure issue..

    It’s neither. Covid is seasonal. We’re having winter right now. Those other places are having summer. And a blazingly hot summer, at that.

    Wait six months and the current trend will probably be inverted.

  6. WB at 10.08

    “Snap SMS poll” by Roy Morgan has Labor leading in Victoria by … 59.5-40.5.

    I just checked Bludgertrack. From the beginning of April to the federal election, the last 7 Morgans average ALP 2PP was 55.21 – about 3% higher than the ultimate result. The Morgan closest to 4 months from that election was 17 Jan, 56.5%.

    So, Vic election ALP 2PP 55-56 anyone?

    How many seats would the ALP hold on 55%?

    In 2018 they won 55 on 57.3%; in 2014 47 on 51.99%. So 55% probably suggests 50-52 seats? Maybe 50 as Labor do hold some very marginal seats (not the most marginal – Liberals hold Caulfield on 0.01%!)

  7. Steve777 at 11.27

    ”…not the most marginal – Liberals hold Caulfield on 0.01%!”

    About 5 or 6 votes.

    Admittedly, after redistribution.

  8. Re Cat at 5.48 pm and Cud Chewer at 6.36 pm

    The article by Isabella Higgins (a young TSI Walkley Award winner for a 2019 set of stories on suicide) on the Ukraine war (linked by Cat) is good for the genre. It shows clearly that Russia and Ukraine are further away from ending the war now than they were in late March.

    The main problem within the article is not with the journalist’s compilation of views but rather with the inconsistent or contradictory views expressed by Professor Michael Clarke, an English military expert who has no specialist knowledge of Russian politics. The comments appear under the photo of Putin’s ultra-expensive watch.

    First Clarke predicts that Putin’s war will outlast him because his entourage “all believe” Russia must conquer Ukraine or cease to exist – that’s the meaning of the third para under the watch. It is a huge claim, based on a guess about the subjective views of all conceivable holders of power in the Kremlin.

    A few paras later he fails to note that such postulated views are at odds with growing pressures on the Russian economy as the war drags on (and particularly on military manpower, as Cud notes). There is one similarity between the Russian and US armies. This is that the soldiers who die (overwhelmingly from poor families) come from sectors of society with no political influence. They are cannon fodder, but they are much harder to marshal in contemporary Russian society than in the USSR in the 1980s.

    Artemy Kalinovsky wrote a good book, titled A Long Goodbye (2011), about why the USSR took so long to leave Afghanistan (though not as long as the US subsequently took). His historical analysis is at:


    Clarke hasn’t tried to resolve the contradiction between his subjective and objective postulates of the Russian side of Putin’s war, but over time the objective factors might tend to bend the subjective ones.

    Much depends on the course of battlefield barbarism, but Putin lacks a winning strategy in objective terms, as distinct from subjective propaganda (for the Russian audience). Another English strategist, Lawrence Freedman (who is more experienced than Clarke), makes this clear in a recent essay at:


    See also his assessment in late March of the problem for Putin with just conquering the Donbas:


    If Putin only wanted to conquer the Donbas he would have focused all his forces there from the start. He wanted to grab more, but has failed.

    Cud is correct about poor Russian targeting. The war crime a week ago from the missile attack that hit a shopping centre in Kremenchuk was perpetrated using a weapon modernised in the 1970s. See:


    Clarke may be correct in presuming that Putin will lose power (the great uncertainty) before ending his war. However, there is another possibility. This is that Putin will recognise the impossibility of conquering all Ukraine (Clarke’s first postulate) and declare a pyrrhic victory once his forces have destroyed most of what infrastructure is left in Donbas, then negotiate a cease-fire before winter.

    In the article Clarke is quoted as implying any such scenario would be merely a pause, a chance for Putin to try to overcome his manpower problems before trying to grab even more territory. But that would be to ignore what has already occurred. Putin tried to enforce regime change in Kyiv and failed. His forces are defending occupied territory in southern Ukraine (N of Crimea) from Ukrainian attacks.

    Clarke may be wrong in presuming there could never be any compromise in Moscow, although it would be presented by Russian propaganda as victory. Another view, from Andrey Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council (linked to the Foreign Ministry) is that eventually Putin will have to negotiate with the current Ukrainian regime, precisely because he has failed to destroy it.

    Kortunov’s comment about two inconsistent views in Moscow, expressed in late March, is pertinent. It is in the interview (with key comments in answer to question starting “some patriots”) at this link:


  9. C@tmomma says:
    Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 10:23 pm
    “Oh dear, TaylorMade is going to go postal when he sees that Roy Morgan poll. ”

    I was thinking exactly the same thing, they’ll be apoplectic, after all, how could Victorians possibly get it so wrong? It’s the same thinking Lib supporters still have about the recent federal election, it’s the voter’s fault, they’ve just got it all wrong. I do wonder how Taylormade and Steelydan will explain this Victorian poll result.

Comments Page 26 of 26
1 25 26

Leave a Reply

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