Morgan has released the first federal opinion poll of the new year, showing the two-party honeymoon gap widening to 61.5-38.5 from 60.5-39.5 from the previous survey in early December. Labor’s primary vote is up 2 per cent to 51.5 per cent, and the Coalition’s down 1 per cent to 33 per cent.
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.
View all posts by William Bowe
178 comments on “Morgan: 61.5-38.5”
my favourite would be the duchess of york
or one of her kids
yes! kylie: talented, smart, brave, young and cool….goodbye to the military-legal-political stuffshirts and hello to modernity….i like it!
I vote for the elephant which was stabbed at the Melbourne Zoo. He (or she) would never forget, and would know by now how to deal with pricks.
It should be our very own dame – Dame Edna!!!!
I remain with my original choice. Lowitja. The full circle bit, as the last GG.
Kev would lack courage to do otherwise. Hope he does not fail the test.
I nominate ………Ummmmmmmmmmm – dont know!
Aussieguro01, by the way. I left you a post, above somewhere. Water thing.
Jasmine #8. Who’s this ‘far left’ that you’re talking about? The Socialist Alliance? The Socialist Party? The Socialist Equality Party? They have a tiny influence in Australian politics. And they’re always going to criticise a centre-right Labor government, which is exactly what we have now. I agree that it’d be preferable for people of a left or centrist persuasion to have a centre-right wing government (Labor) than a right wing Liberal/National one.
Only kidding about PJK.
The job needs a duo, Mel & Kochie.
Kath & Kim!
If you wish to piss of Howard, how about Malcolm Fraser.
Seriously though, lowitja odonoghue I think would be a good choice.
Glen opines: “the Nats are not the Country Party after all they hold just 10 rural seats ill bet the ALP holds more Rural seats than them and clearly the Libs hold more than them.”
The Libs hold more party seats because the Nats don’t know what they stand for. They have an identity crisis – should they be too close to the Libs (and lose out to both populist rural Independents and the Libs), or distance themselves and risk a breach in the Coalition? The Nats are caught in a classic pincer movement, stuck between the Libs on one hand and rural Independents on the other.
” They are an irrelevant conservative Rump in Parliament and State Parliaments that weaken the Conservative side of politics.”
The first part of the sentence is correct; but I’m not sure the Nats weaken the Conservative side of politics. What you’re asking for in amalgamation is a conservative party that can appeal to both affluent suburban voters and rural/outback voters (many of whom are doing it tough). The Republican party manages this in the US, but not so well in the ‘blue’ states (especially in the NE) where many affluent suburban voters lean to the Democrats.
Howard was fairly successful at straddling both sides of conservative politics because he was a very conservative leader. But can you see Turnbull, the Member for NetWorth, gaining a strong following among rural conservatives?
The squabbling that arises from 3-cornered contests has nothing to do with the continued need for a rural party – they’re separate issues.
Speaking as a Liberal activist, and supporter of our current constitutional arrangements, I was disappointed to see Beazley ruled out as Governor-General.
In my view, the best appointments Labor PMs have made to the job have in fact been Labor politicians – McKell, and Hayden. Similarly, for the Coalition Lord Casey was an excellent GG.
With 30 years in public life, Kim Beazley would be familiar with the obligations, rituals and symbols associated with representing the Sovereign. Most importantly, as a former political combatant, he would understand the essential nature of observing scrupulous neutrality, and judicious use of the reserve powers if necessary. It was the burden of this duty that seems to have made Bill Hayden something of a semi-monarchist after Yarralumla. Beazley would probably emerge the same.
Maj-Gen. Jeffery is good with statecraft, comfortable with formality, and would consider the use of reserve powers very carefully. I think Beazley would be a worthy successor to him.
TW, the trouble with the Nationals and the Liberals is that they have failed to recognise that Australians are NOT as conservative as has been portrayed by certain media outlets and that the majority of Australians live in cities and not in the bush. On social issues, the Conservative parties are completely out of touch with reality and have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by the religious right. Study Liberal and National candidiates at elections and you soon discover how unrepresentative they are of Australian society in general. No wonder these parties are not in power anywhere.
#148 – Germaine Greer – god no
#150 – Beattie has said he will go into private industry/business
– Sheedy might represent Melbourne and AFL well – what about the rest of the Country?
Lowitja Odonoghue or Mary Gaudron would be good choices (although secretly I would love to see the reaction if Kylie or Barry Humphries/Dame Edna was announced!)
I think that Kim will be the following GG. I agree with Rudd that a GG should be someone who hasn’t stepped straight from politics into the GG role. In the article from Jason he suggested a Republic 2014, so with someone to fill the role 2008-12 Kim would be the ideal transitional GG after ’12 from monarchy to Republic. And come to think of it, as a Republican Kim may not even feel inclined to become GG.
Re both houses of Parliament electing a President, the only problem that I can see is that a President would get elected only along party lines, perhaps a person who represents the dominant party’s ideology…much the same as at present. But if we get into a popular vote then we are entering the American system of elections and big money or the possibility of that happening in the future. Conclusion: dunno.
Brenton: “TW, the trouble with the Nationals and the Liberals is that they have failed to recognise that Australians are NOT as conservative as has been portrayed by certain media outlets and that the majority of Australians live in cities and not in the bush.”
Yet a great many Australians still live in the bush. And they will want a politician that represents their interests. The Libs did a good job of winning country seats, especially under Howard. If the Nats merge with the Libs, there’s no guarantee that this combined party will continue to be successful in rural seats (especially since the ‘new’ party will be dominated by the Libs). A merger may lead to another rural political force – or else Independents will continue to fill the void.
Furthermore, many Australians (a small minority, overall) are in fact extremely conservative, and no more so than in the bush. And certain pockets of suburbia, too. People like Bronny Bishop and Tony “People Skills” Abbott aren’t given their seats out of charity.
Brenton: “On social issues, the Conservative parties are completely out of touch with reality and have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by the religious right. Study Liberal and National candidiates at elections and you soon discover how unrepresentative they are of Australian society in general. No wonder these parties are not in power anywhere.
I agree with the comment about the religious right (it’s something many moderate Libs are concerned about). But the Coalition still continues to win lots and lots of seats, even if they don’t win government. So they’re not doing too badly.
Min: “Re both houses of Parliament electing a President, the only problem that I can see is that a President would get elected only along party lines, perhaps a person who represents the dominant party’s ideology…much the same as at present.”
If the election of a president required a 2/3 majority in a sitting of both houses parliament, it would help guarantee that the president would not be a political hack, but someone who had support from both sides. This was the ‘minimalist’ model on offer before. I thought it was a nice idea.
Part of my many reasons of not wanting to be part of a monarchy is the position and powers of a Governor General. Therefore the republican model of turning the GG position into a president doesn’t make much sense to this individual. Is there anyone out there who can convince me of the need for a president as well as a prime minister?
Works well enough for other countries: Ireland, Germany (post-war, anyway!), etc. As long as the post of president is largely ceremonial (except in the event of a constititional crisis), there’s no real danger of a two-headed monster.
Would you prefer an American-style presidential system, with the prospect of the executive at war with the legislative (congress/parliament)?
“If the election of a president required a 2/3 majority in a sitting of both houses parliament, it would help guarantee that the president would not be a political hack”
Correct. Also a nominating body should be formed to provide a short list of nominations and make recommendations maybe for the parliament to vote on.
There’s no way it would be L O’D – a G-G needs to be acceptable to both sides and many on the conservative side view her poorly.
When are Insiders and Lateline etc back?
Looking good, James J. Appreciate the alert post.
Great to see that some of us are taking notice.
Hugely enjoyed the recent Kev and Julia appearances. Cabinet at large in WA. Julia with Fiona Stanley, talking of longtitudinal work as concerns health and education.
Greatly amused/irritated by Turnbull, talking rubbish. Expected better of him, but.
Suspect that pollbludgers have moved to the next thread, despite William’s efforts.
Good work James J, I’ve opened a new thread for the Newspoll so I’m closing this one.
Comments are closed.