Morgan: 58.5-41.5

A Roy Morgan phone poll of 589 respondents, conducted over the previous two days, has Labor on 58.5 per cent of the two-party vote, down 0.5 per cent from the previous such poll a fortnight ago. Both major parties are up 1.5 per cent on the primary vote, with the Greens down 2.5 per cent and others down 0.5 per cent. Also featured is yet more polling on whether the country is “headed in the right direction”.

Other news: sadly, independent Calare MP Peter Andren has been diagnosed with cancer, and has abandoned his plans to run for a seat in the Senate.

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.

127 comments on “Morgan: 58.5-41.5”

Comments Page 3 of 3
1 2 3
  1. 100
    Neil Says:
    August 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
    “Huh? Time to add more water, Neil.”

    Have a look at the 2004 result in Melbourne. The Liberals polled 25% primary vote, The Greens polled 19%. It would take much for The Greens to leap frog the Libs and then benefit from their preferences.

    Then consider the rapidly changing demographics in that seat, with older traditional Laor voters being replaced by trendy yuppies and university students. Especially around Parkville, Richmond and Carlton.

    Anything is possible. In fact it’s quite logical.

    But the demographics did change in 1980s and 1990s. But it funny the demographics change have help the Liberals in Richmond I think at the last election all Richmond went about 50 Labor 30 lib 15 to 19 Greens .One more thing a lot people who vote green is just a protest vote again labor being to far right in their view

  2. 101
    Neil Says:
    August 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
    I meant to say “it wouldn’t take much for The Greens to leap frog the Libs and then benefit from their preferences.”

    and labor vote need go under 50 % not going this election and in the near future

  3. 96% of the vote in Melbourne swirls around between the ALP, Liberal and The Greens. The point I’m making is that if the ALP get under 50% primary, and The Greens finish ahead of The Liberals, then Tanner could be struggling to hang on.

    Of course this relies on a tight preference flow from the Liberals to The Greens. But there is nothing to stop The Greens taking votes off the ALP and the Liberals, and then the Liberals maintaining their existing primary vote due to the changing demographics.

    The enrolment churn in Melbourne is enormous. Who knows how the voting trends will change from 2004.

    The Greens snagged 27% primary at the 2006 State election and their vote seems to be on the increase there. The Liberals received 22% primary, while the ALP received 44%. The Greens received 74.3% of the Liberal preferences, that is very high and indicates that Liberal voters will overwhelmingly put the ALP last on their ballot paper.

    Federal boundaries are different to State boundaries but the possibility is there.

  4. The last state election was the greens best chance for the greens to win lower house seats and they did not because the lib preference did flow as tightly as they need to. (Around 85%)

    The FEA of Melbourne which state seats of Richmond and Melbourne are the greens vote did not move around that much it was the same as 2002 state election their was a swing from the green in Richmond of 3% and think a swing of 1.5 or 2 % to the green in Melbourne

    I think Tanner will win on about 55 to 57% the greens on 15 to 17 % and the Libs 22 to 23

    One more thing I think labor’s vote need to fall under 43 to 44 to loss Melbourne because their is a group of lib around 25% they will preference Labor over Greens

  5. The enrolment churn in Melbourne is enormous. Who knows how the voting trends will change from 2004.

    Yes the enrolment change a lot but the people who are moving in Melbourne are the same kind of people who are moving out “trendy yuppies and left wing ferals”

  6. SirEggo

    You are most likely right about Macquarie and the likely result is for Bob Debus to get up. Remember that the eastern end of Macquarie is strong conservative and a large proportion of that (Hawkesbury and Windsor area) has been hived of to your seat of Greenway.

    As you mentioned the eastern end of Calare was the Labor end and that has been added to Macquarie.

    If you have a look at Adams maps of key seats you can see that the redistribution has strengthen Labor’s position in Macquarie.

    It is worth mentioning that the Blue Mountains was Bob Debus’s state seat so he has a high profile there and as a high profile Minister (Attorney General) in the State Government he should be just as well know as Kerry Bartlett west of Katoomba.

  7. Who give’s a rat’s rectum about Melbourne, it is the domain of latte-drinking godless socialist leftover losers. Hopefully the Greens will be dumb enough do a deal with the Liberals there and thus give the Liberals the seat. That will send the whole riding squirming hehehehe……

  8. Nostradamus Says:
    August 11th, 2007 at 5:52 am
    Who give’s a rat’s rectum about Melbourne, it is the domain of latte-drinking godless socialist leftover losers. Hopefully the Greens will be dumb enough do a deal with the Liberals there and thus give the Liberals the seat. That will send the whole riding squirming hehehehe……

    Then I guess that after the election you will be saying “Who give’s a rat’s rectum about Australia, it is the domain of latte-drinking godless socialist leftover losers.”


  9. “Nah, Australia as a whole is smarter than that. Howard will be re-elected.”

    Nah, Australia as a whole is smarter than him. Howard will be rejected.

  10. Lindsay Tanner got a scare in 2001, but that was a year when a lot of inner-city ALP voters voted Green on the Tampa and related issues. It’s hard to imagine the ALP losing further ground on 2001 in Melbourne in 2007. If anything the major post-2001 demographic changes (the Docklands and inner-city apartment towers) are likely to have made the seat a bit more Liberal-friendly, thereby making it harder for the Greens to get second place.

    Also, about 20% of Liberal preferences typically go to the ALP over the Greens even if the Liberal HTV preferences the Greens. This means that even if the Greens get into second, 45-46% on primaries should be enough for the ALP to win the seat.

  11. Bad luck about that Westpoll. It distracted Steven from his usual entertaining adjustments to the Morgan poll figures.

    My sincere condolences to Peter Andren, a politician of real integrity. Like all others, I hope he pulls through OK.

  12. Adam,

    To be fair, in 2001 Andren took a strong stand against Howard’s refugee hysteria and won.
    That was definitely principled and not populist.
    Viewed from afar here in Newcastle I think he is the fair dinkum independent whose main motivation is his integrity, not populism.

  13. I think that the Greens may go from 3rd last time to 2nd this time and maybe first next time in Melbourne, Sydney, Grayndler and maybe Cunningham.

  14. Tom, on what basis do you think that the Greens are going to come first in these electorates. I can see them coming second in Grayndler, Sydney and Melbourne, but I think the very good showing in Cunningham in 2004 may have been a hangover from Organ being the member at the last election. Can they extract any more?

    In the others to go from third to first is a bit hard. The primary percentages of Green / ALP in each seat is Grayndler (21.1 / 51.2), Sydney (21.6 / 44.7) and Melbourne (19/51.8).

    I don’t think there is anything in the redistributions to overwhelmingly change these proportions.

    I think the challenge in an election where the ALP is expected to do well is too great for the greens, they will get lost in the swing to the ALP. The best chance is a time when the ALP is going backwards.

  15. Adam, I share a few common friends with Peter Andren and I am assured, by people that I trust, that his stands are principled, not populist. I also wish Peter Andren luck with his illness.

    Also, the fact that a policy can be tagged as populist does not mean it is not the correct one. I for one also beleive that some politicians work hard, but unfortunately most of them work harder at getting re-elected through blatant electioneering rather than through a record of achievements. That is not what we pay them for. The record of our legislature is this country is a shame because of it.

  16. 96
    Adam Says:
    August 10th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
    If Tanner hadn’t been so silly as to join the Socialist Leftovers, he would be shadow Treasurer and might one day be a leadership candidate. It’s puzzling because his views on most economic matters are Thatcherite.

    Seems a little less puzzling to me when I consider his pre-Parliamentary career. Who else was he going to align himself with in a campaign against the former controllers of the Victorian FCU?

  17. Just Me,

    My figures are not a prediction, more a possible scenario to illustrate both the impossibility of the ALP’s gaining control of the Senate and the extreme unlikelihood of the Greens’ gaining the balance of power.


    I still haven’t forgotten what Lindsay Tanner did to friends of mine who worked for the FCU.


    It is no surprise to me that a member of the Left has Thatcherite economics. “Socialist Leftovers” – I like that, not that I would not use the term of those in the SL whom I know. Nor did I know about the DLP’s preferences in Forrest in 1969. But I am not surprised that the DLP would preference an ETU candidate, given the DLP’s advanced environmental policy for the times and the ETU’s current support for the Greens to the extent of making donations to them (without being disaffiliated from the ALP – perhaps Kevin Rudd’s brother should join the ETU and then rejoin the ALP!).

    Given some rather than ill-informed comments about Steve Bracks (reported more than once by Paul Austin of The Age), undoubtedly someone will eventually make the following point, so I am going to go first into the hornet’s nest: Kevin Rudd, Australia’s first DLP prime minister.

  18. The Federal seat of Melbourne is less latte drinking than the State seat. It covers areas that are somewhat less yuppified although that is changing. Another factor than stands against the Greens is the massive amount of Housing Commission residents within the seat, that tends to be more ‘old school’ left than Green. Plus Tanners primary would have to fall below 45% or so before there is any real chance for the Greens.

    As for Tanner being Finance spokesperson instead of shadow Treasurer: Finance deals with government spending where as the Treasurer deals with the Economy as a whole. Given that the Governments attacks on the ALPs ability to handle the economy centre around government spending, it is perhaps not such a bad idea to have a solid spokesperson on the subject.

  19. BV – on Morgan’s ‘face to face’ the method has obviously changed. About 2000/01 I was polled by Morgan and the political questions came upfront in the booklet, which I completed either verbally or myself, but with the surveyor sitting by. They’ve obviously made it more anonymous since then.

    Presumably any left bias in Morgan is down to not being able to get the rural weighting correct, or perhaps the sort of people who have time at home to complete all those questions (but the latter cuts both ways surely, as the method must over-include OAPs and under-include young people).

  20. I’d be more likely to expect the Greens to make a serious run at lower house seats when there’s an outgoing Labor government than when there’s an outgoing Coalition one when they can pick up a few disaffected Labor votes to push up their primary.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 3
1 2 3