Morgan: 62.5-37.5

Roy Morgan’s fourth published poll of the Rudd era has produced a result similar to the first two, after a slight improvement for the Coalition at the third. Labor’s two-party lead has increased to 62.5-37.5 from 60-40 at the previous face-to-face poll; their primary vote is up from 49 per cent to 54 per cent, with the Coalition down from 36 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.

681 comments on “Morgan: 62.5-37.5”

Comments Page 11 of 14
1 … 10 11 12 … 14

  1. Otiose , unfortunately having been embarassed on history ESC has deserted

    afraid not Obtios , what Rudd did cleverly was to negate the rich PrivateSchool argument that Latham crucified & agreed to the existing formula

    Its inequitable & illogical…Rod Kemp brought it in & generally is based on post codes.
    Believe Rudd will try to offset this inequity not by changing the formula but by giving additional funds to all schools (Laptops , webb etc) & mayu give other capital funding in future

    its the long way around fixing the problem & I think unsatisfactory , but political reality may force him to…thats a short version…hope clarifies abit

  2. Generic Person, I said I would not respond to you any more, and I meant it. I have nothing to say to you.

    Given your near-imbecillic disregard for your own hypocrisy is hilarious.

  3. Harry , may be all of us should simply ignore the two
    but if some break ranks then the 2 have suceeded
    (which is why I respond to such miserable people mate)

  5. 499
    [Surveys indicate that most Australians are happy with their lives, but that wealthy people are not much happier than poorer ones, and that happiness levels have been fairly static in recent decades despite economic growth. Clive says this supports his argument that we should halt economic progress and concentrate on other things. But is this really what the evidence suggests?]

    Yes, I read the book from Clive Hamilton when it came out last year, GP. As Saunders himself says,’people just do not buy the (right wing) arguments’ that he and you continually espouse. If you can’t sell your argument – then has the thought ever occurred to you that you might be barking up the wrong tree. Many people around here seem very happy with the fall of the Howard regime and all it represented.

  11. Aussieguru01 and so you should be with Rudd’s win & w/c gone & CC Ok’ed

    Harry , perhaps we should plead for William to establish a ‘solitary confinement’
    thread JUST for our friendly duo ,
    so they can simply talk each other into ……..) ?

  12. Given tonight’s carry-on it is timely to note that I have been told that hidden in the detail of Stephen Conroy’s looming bill on internet control is a section that will allow government agencies to trace individual bloggers on sites like this who post inappropriately.
    The definition of “inappropriate ” is apparently being worked through at the moment.
    One of the options papers includes targetting of bloggers who, for example:
    1. Never substantiate general assertions;
    2. Abuse those with whom they disagree;
    3. Misrepresent, in order to mislead, their true opinions and general affiliations;
    4. Adopt other bloggers’ ideas as their own without attribution;
    5. Are excessively repetitive;
    6. Are continually off-topic;
    7. Stalk fellow bloggers.

    There will be a warning followed by a small fine (to go into a trust fund forindependent blog site co-ordinators), before the seizing of computers and incarceration options swing in.
    A new ‘Blog Inspectorate’ will also, as it is now drafted, have right of entry into bloggers’ temporary accommodation, kombis, or circuses.

  13. As Saunders himself says,’people just do not buy the (right wing) arguments’ that he and you continually espouse.

    Even the left to a large extent accept the market economy, so it is no longer a domain solely for the right of the political divide. But, aside from that, it is because capitalism lacks the romanticism of other schools of thought. It just works.

    Saunders’ following statement illustrates the dilemma of the intelligentsia quite well:

    But the best explanation for the intellectuals’ distaste for capitalism was offered by Friedrich Hayek in The Fatal Conceit.(29) Hayek understood that capitalism offends intellectual pride, while socialism flatters it. Humans like to believe they can design better systems than those that tradition or evolution have bequeathed. We distrust evolved systems, like markets, which seem to work without intelligent direction according to laws and dynamics that no one fully understands.

    Nobody planned the global capitalist system, nobody runs it, and nobody really comprehends it. This particularly offends intellectuals, for capitalism renders them redundant. It gets on perfectly well without them. It does not need them to make it run, to coordinate it, or to redesign it. The intellectual critics of capitalism believe they know what is good for us, but millions of people interacting in the marketplace keep rebuffing them. This, ultimately, is why they believe capitalism is ‘bad for the soul’: it fulfils human needs without first seeking their moral approval.

  14. Actually, William. I’ve got to say I’ve learned more on this site, about things that are really important to me, such as the politics, the polling, the analyses that matter, than I could ever really thank you for. Not wishing to be a suck, but I truly do appreciate your site and the poll bludgers.

  15. 513 [It just works.]

    So do I. It’s been a long day and capitalism 101 will have to be explained to me some other time I’m afraid.

  16. Jaundiced, funny, laughed. Nite all, have got wounded people to take care of tomorrow. Do you remember when women used to slave over hot stoves? Now we slave over hot families! Bizarre!

  17. 514
    Harry ‘Snapper’ Organs – may I wholeheartedly concur – however to deprecate that thanks with a desire “Not wishing to be a suck” implies that to say thanks (or indeed, in another context, sorry) is somehow shameful – in neither case is it, nor should it be – well done 😉

  18. #513 Friedrich Hayek in The Fatal Conceit.(29) bankrupt philosophy left him embittered and reading his flawed analysis its not a surprise

  22. his absence of public purpose rendered his views ireelevant to any rational economist…your mistake was to believe the theory such as you understand

  23. Ron you can do better than that, or is that you are embarrassed at the sound logic underpinning Hayek’s theories.

    I reiterate Saunders’ conclusion:

    The intellectual critics of capitalism believe they know what is good for us, but millions of people interacting in the marketplace keep rebuffing them. This, ultimately, is why they believe capitalism is ‘bad for the soul’: it fulfils human needs without first seeking their moral approval.

  24. I thought you did not undestand my economic comment and your reply confirmed it. Your high priest his disciples(Howard & you) are arguing capitalist theories long since discredited

  27. Hayek’s remarks are purely rhetorical. They are just theatre, really, trying to characterize his critics as “intellectuals”. Strange too, since Hayek himself was an intellectual.

    The question about captalism is not whether “it works” (though clearly sometimes it does not work too well) but whether it can be made to work for everyone, and, if so, how…

  28. No 527

    I think you’ll note blindoptimist that it was Saunders criticising intellectuals, not Hayek.

    he question about captalism is not whether “it works” (though clearly sometimes it does not work too well) but whether it can be made to work for everyone, and, if so, how…

    No system can guarantee equality of outcome for all its participants: it should only work to provide equality of opportunity. Thereafter, it is up to individuals themselves to pursue their own challenges.

  29. Is capitaism “Bad for the soul”? How bizarre! This is not a serious argument, surely. “Moral approval”? Equally weird. This must be a joke.

  31. And what has equality of any sort – opportunity or results – have to do with capitalism? I don’t see the connection, myself…

  32. I reiterate Saunders’ conclusion:

    The intellectual critics of capitalism believe they know what is good for us, but millions of people interacting in the marketplace keep rebuffing them. This, ultimately, is why they believe capitalism is ‘bad for the soul’: it fulfils human needs without first seeking their moral approval.

    Millions of others are excluded from the marketplace, or exploited by it. Capitalism does not so much cause ‘moral’ harm to the soul, as it causes physical harm to the bodies of the millions not currently benefiting from Hayekian or Friedmanesque capitalism.

  33. Capitalism, in its pure form, does not work.
    That’s why even the most capitalist, free market societies have laws to regulate the market – nearly all of them have anti monopoly legislation (despite economic theory saying that monopolies can’t exist); consumer protection, industrial relations and environmental protection legislation. Nearly all of them prop up business enterprises which should, according to market theory, be allowed to die a quiet death.
    So the argument (intellectually) with capitalism for governments is how far you go with these controls and in which circumstances you let ‘the market’ sort things out.

  34. Zoom, you have summarised it very succinctly, our challenge is to tame the excesses of capitalism in the marketplace. It always amazes me that the proponents of a free market are so opposed to the same forces operating in the workplace. If indeed we have freedom, why then are we not allowed to withdraw our labour by striking or other industrial action. The whole idea of workers having the power to negotiate individually was always the very opposite of freedom, it was a completely imbalanced equation.

  35. I hear on BBC this morning that the British Government has nationalised Northern Rock, typical capitalistic thinking, privatise profits but socialise losses. Just as the good old Fed Reserve in the States is doing.

  37. Yes, Basil Fawlty, the alnernative which a former Victorian government chose is not without pain for people with money invested in such institutions. While companies can in theory be allowed to be weeded out in the interests of a free market, I remain doubtful that people’s life savings should be left solely to free market forces. As people get older, time for rebuilding finances lost by someone else’s actions becomes a limiting factor.

  38. I wonder how much of the so-called “Future Fund” has been lost already? Seemed strange to me the way the investment managers were chosen, we ended up with some Yankees doing the investing, hope they weren’t into home mortgages!

  40. Basil Fawlty @ 539 – If only that were so, but you have a greater chance of flying to the Moon by flapping your arms than seeing any ex-minister being even quizzed by a Royal Commission/the cops, much less charged.

  41. I’m no great fan of Hayek, but he does suffer from selective borrowing by the Right. Totake his economic views without his moral theory is to do him a disservice. Bear in mind also that much of Hayek’s writing was at the height of the threat of global communism and totalitarianism. In his world the alternative to laissez-faire capitalism was very Orwellian.

    Let’s not forget his essay “Why I am not a Conservative” (1960) and its condemnation of conservatism for failing to adapt to change.

  45. GP

    a Neoliberal is a communist (as capitalism is winner takes all, its authoritarian right)..extremem authoritarian left is communism. Left libertarian is in another box – that’s where you get to social democracy (a combination of right.left) and then eventually far left liberal, more socialist…

    As an observation – People of the New Right (and particularly far far right!!) always do the same thing – they make out that anybody who is not a 100% capitalist (r/wing communist which Hayek more or less was economically) is 100% in the opposite direction – they normally say socialist (100% left) but should say communist. You do exactly the same – Alan Greenspan has just done the same thing in an interview – its seems to me because they know they are not going to win the argument on values basis – yes, capitalism is wealth generating, but it is also survival of the fittest, winner takes all and of course, the more exclusively you become for the winners (see a recently released book from financial wiz’s throwing the book at Alan Greenspan) – that ‘s why others with different values than you go for the social democratic left – the COMBINATION – the fact that you have to push everyone to the opposite extreme to what you are says you and the Right do not have an argument..all the radicals of the Liberal Party do the same – when its very unusual that anybody would be a socialist..

  46. Also, GP

    The trickle down effect is a very smart thing to say, technically some can trickle down,…but as capitalism is winner takes all it accumulates in the business elites and everybody else gets to pick up the shit down below.

    I have a degree in development and I did some academic research on the imposition of the radical right (NEOLIBERALISM) on Bangladesh, where I have studied…the evidence was that it did something for the business elites (top 30 per cent) and really nothing for the bottom 70%. It has also been shown the the bottom 20% of America’s poor did not benefit from economy being up during Clinton’s years

    The difference between the “trickle down” effect and social democracy is that everybody gets a fairer piece of the pie….what I do notice is that the business elites always vote for the trickle down – all power to them, …and you can get a reasonable level of unemployment – many euro countries have reasonable unemployment, around US levels

  47. Did everyone see this Galaxy poll in the SMH today about levels of public support for the apology? 68% is pretty decent.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-said-sorry–and-so-said-more-of-us/2008/02/17/1203190653987.html

    I was one of those 1100 people. It was the first time I’d ever been polled and was an interesting experience, to say the least. I was asked about the apology, then a lot of questions about how I felt about buying goods with too much packaging, my personal recycling behaviours (such impertinence!) and then some hilarious questions about what I thought about Australian colloquialisms. The poller was a young Canadian bloke who struggled manfully with ‘budgie smugglers’ and ‘bogans’. Bit of a giggle.

  48. 542 J of M, who I feel ‘sorry’ for are all of the brainwashed women and children, who find themselves at the mercy of their ‘Lord and Masters’ religious male propaganda!!!!!

  49. Excellent to see all is well on pollbludger, unfortunately I have been a rare visitor with things such as lectures to write. Looking forward to the four corners episode tonight, should make for interesting viewing. I can’t help thinking its pretty disloyal for ex-ministers to come out and bitch about Howard when the dust has barely settled. If I was a liberal party member, I’d be quite depressed about it all. Legacy trashing seems to be in full swing.

  50. Ah the trashing of the Howard legacy has come in earnest.

    Howard spin doctors left office a ‘pigsty’

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/spin-doctors-left-office-a-pigsty/2008/02/18/1203190701297.html

    Former ministers come clean over Howard government mistakes

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/17/1203190653100.html

    [‘Mr Costello’s comments about Kyoto confirm the substantial unease in the Howard cabinet about Australia being isolated (with the US). The environment minister Malcolm Turnbull urged cabinet shortly before the election to ratify, but Mr Howard was never in favour. “I think people would have listened to what we were doing — which was quite substantive — on climate change if we had have ratified it. By meeting the target, we were meeting what our obligations would have been anyway,” Mr Costello says.’]

    Just confirming what we all knew, Howard’s policies on Kyoto were illogical and damaged his own party.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 11 of 14
1 … 10 11 12 … 14