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 13 of 14
1 12 13 14
  1. I typed my reply knowing Conservatives reply to be diversion not substance

    The extreme Conservatives supporters of unrestrained ‘capitalism’ do NOT like
    to debate the US ton the ground status oday IN DETAIL :

    because the flaws of little regulation & little public purpose nor social justice are right before your eyes in every city ! ..In the US the flaws are undenialable

  2. Regarding tonight 4Corners. There was secret deal between JWH and Cossie. Remember how the Rodent was always going that there was no secret deal ala Hawkie-Keating. How transparent he was about passing on the baton to Cossie blah blah blah blah blah. What a effing hypocrite, he knew full well there was a secret deal.

  3. 599 Diogenes. Thankyou for this piece of information. If only Labor had placed Mia Handshin as the candidiate for Boothby , we could have had not only a Labor member, but put Andrew Southcott back where he would be of more value as a GP, preferably in the country!

  4. GP, there is also the concept of mutual obligation – that is, if I have worked hard all my life, and paid my taxes, I can expect something in return.
    I don’t begrudge tax being taken out of my pay, knowing that it supports others and that similar support will be available to me in the future – it’s just like paying for insurance, except in this case I WILL get something back for it at some point.
    I also find your comments about the nanny state hilarious, given the nannying shown by the Howard government. I presume you are for the legalisation of abortion and euthanasia, and that an adult should be able to imbibe soft drugs in the comfort of their own home? Do tell.

  5. 606 [I also find your comments about the nanny state hilarious, given the nannying shown by the Howard government. I presume you are for the legalisation of abortion and euthanasia, and that an adult should be able to imbibe soft drugs in the comfort of their own home? Do tell.]

    Unfortunately Zoom I think the only freedom GP believes in, is the freedom to be a mirror image of GP. Anything less is to invite castigation. There have been no recorded instances of GP defining egocentricity as yet.

  6. Sorry, I shouldn’t have gone the gratuitous insult option about Generic Person. It’s just the failure to actually engage in debate, and the condescending put downs of people, about whom s/he knows bugger all, that when I get home and visit the bludgers postings, provoke this response. I’ll try, but can’t promise, to be more restrained in the future. Sometimes, the gratuitous insult, the ascerbic comment, the icy cold revenge served with a dash of snark, is just too tempting for such as this mere mortal.

  7. Hey Ron, who said? :

    “All of us as Australians have to insist that we can do so much better as a nation. We ought to be angry, with a deep determined anger, that a country as rich and skilled as ours should be producing so much inequality, so much poverty, so much that is shoddy and sub-standard. We ought to be angry – with an unrelenting anger – that our aborigines have the world’s highest infant mortality rate. We ought to be angry at the way our so-called leaders have kept us in the dark – Parliament itself as much as the people – to hide their own incapacity and ignorance.”

  8. Reasoned refutation of GP’s positions are few and far between on this blog. Instead we have pathetic ad hominem attacks. Why bother? There are many arguments that can be made against his/her positions, as well as many arguments that can be made for them.

    If we could get beyond the extremism often (but not always) displayed on both sides of the argument here, we could get into some very interesting discussions… i.e. how do we effectively address social concerns in a ‘capitalist world’.

    Capitalism is NOT the enemy – it is reality, and it would be preferable to have a balanced debate on how social aims can be best achieved with an understanding that the power of the market is a reality that has benifited us all.

    If GP is a true libertarian then he/she agrees with few positions of the Howard government… prescriptions of the ‘moral right’ are anathema and cosy business deals are similarly frowned upon.

    What’s wrong with belief in the power of the market… billions of individuals making choices… coupled with the right of the community to see the errors of market forces and try to mitigate them? As long as we are rigourously mindful or the weak points of both the extremist left and the extremist right, we can at least address the reality of the situation without falling prey to the propaganda of either side.

    The middle road is subtle, and prone to the strongest influence of forces from both sides, but it takes into account all valid positions.

    There have been brilliant minds on both sides of the debate… we should at least have the discipline to understand that, and participate in discussion with that understanding.

    To conclude… yes, people say dumb, insulting things – what’s the point of sinking to their level.. a discussion of ideas is better than a playground spat (yeah, I know, it’s fun to tee off on someone, but can’t one at least finish with an actual point that advances the discussion?)…

    Even if, in the best tradition of the blogosphere, you feel the need to make a witty putdown (sure, great – we’ll all enjoy it), the occasional consideration of the other’s position would do justice to what could be one of the great blog sites.

    That is all 🙂

  9. Wayaway,

    GP’s arguments are very smart – far right people always are. For example, his assertion that multinationals provide people in 3rd world countries with jobs they would otherwise not have …technically correct. But what he does not tell you is that they crush their wages so they can pay them shitty wages with 300 billion profit margins. Nike admitted it was not paying people properly – they could not afford to live in Indonesia. – so its this 1% going to the many and most going to the Western economic elite.

    When GP talks about equality of opportunity, not outcomes – ok, but to provide that you have to provide universal health care, universal education (not 100,000 dollar degrees) – both primary, secondary and university education – this simplistic thing about “everything being up to the individual” is just that – the truth is multifactoral – eg: if you have likely to come from a have background, then you are more likely to achieve OR exceptional people always rise to the top, regardless of systemic gender discrimmination – to change the life of the average person you will need progressive public policies….and to think socially which is left wing…

    There is increasing evidence now from developing countries that development happens best when the right and left hand side have been integrated – you havethem bothgoing at the same time.

    The whole point of being of the Right is that you only get the Right – especially as you hit Ron Paul, the far Right….you do not move from that – its your dominant ideology and you are working within a narrow ideological base

  10. bird,
    “The whole point of being of the Right is that you only get the Right …
    you do not move from that – its your dominant ideology and you are working within a narrow ideological base”
    Possibly true for the far right. The converse is equally true for the far left.

  11. Fascinating show tonight, wasn’t it?
    Smart thing the Libs did agreeing to that. Sure, there’ll be the odd eruption from time to time (especially over the next few days), but they’ve basically taken the interest out of the story, which otherwise would have dribbled out over a period of years.
    Although it’s a bizarrely amazing story, most of the characters came out pretty much as I expected.

  12. 595, at the risk of taking you seriously, I think you will find – by referece to your definition – that there are no socialists or communists to be found here.

    But what you will certainly discover are people who are correctly cautious about purist dogmas and exaggerated theories, -isms and -arians. You should save your condescension for people who actually deserve it.

  13. I think most cabinet ministers in the Howard government DID understand that you could be worse off under WorkChoices, they didn’t CARE you could be worse off, to them that was what WorkChoices was for!

  14. SO @ 619,
    Funny character Costello.
    A strange mix – on the one hand obviously quite arrogant, and presumptuous in his assumption that he ought to be the heir apparent, but on the other hand aware enough of his own shortcomings not to want to challenge.
    Perhaps he was gutless but I think the real point is that he was never remotely near having the numbers, and he knew it.

  15. It would seem bird that you have no idea of the philosophical make-up of the political compass. To describe Libertarians as far right is ridiculous. I often see people of the far right describe Libertarians as far left as well. Particularly when they want to describe the views of Libertarian social policy.
    I would describe myself as slightly Libertarian, that is I support a free market with only light Government regulation, little or no middle class welfare, low taxes and little government interference in my personal life.
    Like many things in life, there are degrees of libertarianism, just as there is far left and right as well as the centre. I would describe Ron Paul as Far Libertarian.
    Some background reading..

  16. [Perhaps he was gutless but I think the real point is that he was never remotely near having the numbers, and he knew it.]

    So he should’ve challenged in 1996, lost went to the back bench, challenged again in early 2007 and taken over.

    He was gutless, and just didn’t want the job badly enough.

  17. Yes, ShowsOn, you can imagine the conversation:

    Joe: Hey mate, did you realise that workers can lose conditions without compensation under Workchoices?
    Liberal Minister, faking start of surprise: Fair dinkum, Joe, never would have thought it…

    I went to a meeting once when Joe Hockey was Minister for Tourism. Thirty tourism operators, Liberal voters to a man (accurate description of sex distribution), went in – thirty Labor voters came out.
    He didn’t know ANYTHING – didn’t know when the peak time for tourism was for the community, for example, pretty basic stuff – and made three commitments, none of which he kept.

    BTW thought Dolly had overdone the rouge.

  18. H”S”O at 612:
    “Sorry, I shouldn’t have gone the gratuitous insult option about Generic Person. ”

    Fiddlesticks, amigo!

    Here’s his/her nibs at 502 this thread:
    “Given your near-imbecillic disregard for your own hypocrisy is hilarious.”

    Apart from the nightmare of syntax and typos, the commenter is an unabashed sledger. You get what you give in life and in blogdom.
    Always trust your intincts. Give the bastard heaps!


    William Bowe Says:
    February 17th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
    Must be a full moon this evening.”

    Reckon The Trump is onto something there.

    Come to think of it, nobody bullies me in blogdom. My Minister-for-War reckons it’s the new aftershave she gave me for Chrissy.

  19. SO @ 627,
    I reckon his assessment was that the “challenge, go to backbench, and challenge again” strategy had not a snowflake’s chance in hell of working.
    And I reckon his assessment was correct.
    In my view what he should have done was come to terms with his own shortcomings – that he was not leader/PM material – and then either (a) be a loyal deputy or (b) get out of politics.

  20. Excellent work by 4 Corners. I think Dyno is right that it will have the benefit of taking the heat out of the story, but I also think there is some residual despair at the loss of the limelight from these people. Jackson managed to get all of big names – barring, understandably, Nelson, Bishop and Turnbull, and of course that great big rumpus room pachyderm known as JWH – to talk reasonably honestly about what happened and I’m sure some of them have found it cathartic. I am surprised at their honesty, to tell you the truth.

  21. wayaway, as I’ve posted before, I don’t mind, in fact welcome, a discussion of public policy. It’s why I come to this site. As you say, the economic middle road is difficult to navigate, however, the polity as it is currently constituted, mitigates against any meaningful redistribution of responsibilities and funding streams. The rubbish and waste I encounter in my area of health would astonish you. The 7.30 report tonight report on defence procurement, should give everyone nightmares. This country needs a good overhaul.

  22. [I reckon his assessment was that the “challenge, go to backbench, and challenge again” strategy had not a snowflake’s chance in hell of working.]

    He didn’t have the courage to TRY.

    Basically Howard was willing to stand down as long as cabinet took the blame. If Costello was on the back bench then it would’ve been much easier to blame Costello if he (most likely) ended up losing the election.

    The fact Costello was still in the cabinet during the APEC leadership meetings made it impossible for the other cabinet members to support a challenge.

  23. SO @ 635,
    Well it will be an interesting one for historians to ponder.
    I personally don’t mind if people decide to change what they’re doing with their lives, or to settle for a position below the top. Whingeing about the boss but not doing anything about it does seem a bit pathetic though, and that’s what PC did.
    He didn’t come out of tonight in a good light.

  24. Dyno, i think GP is the exception. He’s fallen in love with a 20th century polemic, poor child. The rest of us, mostly, are not infatuated with doctrine…

  25. It’s not whether they’re honest or not that’s the problem for the Libs, it’s how it plays in the long term.
    NONE of those featured on the program can ever reasonably put themselves forward as a leader again (not saying they won’t try, just that it would be foolish).
    “I thought Howard should go but I lacked the courage to tell him.” – plays in the electorate as “I’m a wimp who can’t make hard decisions.”
    “I thought Howard was our best chance of winning the election.” – plays as “I have no judgment whatsoever and am totally out of touch with electorate ville.”
    “I rang Howard and told him he should quit but he ignored me.” – plays out as “Nobody takes my opinion seriously.”
    Let alone “I realised Workchoices was a dud but went out and sold it as the best thing since sliced bread” – I know, I know, party unity and all that, but the electorate don’t judge pollies the way pollies judge pollies. They have this strange idea that, if you think something isn’t working, you should tell people that.
    They would have all been far better off staying at home and not answering the phone.
    If they wanted catharis, I would have recommended taking a long long walk alone, going to some place they could not possibly have been overheard, having a good yell and perhaps a cry…and then going quietly home.

  26. Zoom, I wish the lot of them had gone for a long walk, a long time ago, never to be heard from again, but most of them are what we journalists know and love as the most desperate of media whores. Makes for easy copy – the buggers can’t shut up. It’s a fatal affliction.

  27. Dyno, perhaps I should qualify my commets. Perhaps I should declare I am a revolutionary, but confine my activism to the gym and the garden these days. In this sense, I am a true post-modernist revolutionary. I am happy about the concept of revolutions, but relieved they generally occur elsewhere and not on Saturday nights, when I like to watch “The Bill”.

  28. zoom,
    Beg to differ.
    Costello, Downer and (of course) Howard came out badly,. but they’ve gone anyway.
    Hockey told (what I assume was) a massive lie about the pre-fairness test WorkChoices, but made a pretty clear statement that he gave it to Howard with both barrels on the leadership.
    Minchin said he’d already told him in earlier years.
    Abbott said he was always a supporter (therefore, not his job to tell Howard anything). As far as we know this is true.
    I’ve got no idea what Robb was saying but he’ll never be leader so it hardly matters.
    This story will get the Libs bucketloads of bad publicity for say 1-4 weeks from now. But it’s been 90% killed off in the long run, and most of the people who are likely to play a role in future came out of it moderately ok, or (in the case of the current leadership triumvirate), didn’t appear.

  29. It was interesting, the 4 corners doco. Himself indoors and yours truly were discussing who was the bravest. We decided none, though there was a bit of open sky between Costello and Tuckey. However, I think Uncle Joe has compromised himself to the extent, he can just about kiss his rear end good bye. So too can Glen Milne. While it’s early stages in the new Fed. govt., I think a lot of folk stilll haven’t really taken on board just what this will mean. Quite exciting really, as opposed to stale economic theory from previous times.

  30. Hockey, as I think I made clear before, is lazy and lacks judgment – I also think (the comments on Workchoices also bear this out) he is incredibly naive. Of course, he sees this as being more clear sighted and wise than those others who didn’t recognise WC was ripping off workers’ rights until he drew it to their attention.
    Minchin – well, that solved a mystery for me. Years ago, Minchin was the golden haired boy and JWH’s right hand man. Then suddenly he wasn’t. Now I know why.
    But I digress…Minchin gets tarred with the “Noone listens to me” brush. That isn’t a good look (I suffer from this myself – I’m apt to find that things turn out the way I predicted them, but that doesn’t mean people are any more likely to listen to my next lot of predictions – my mother says I suffer from the Cassandra complex). If your colleagues don’t take your grim warnings seriously, there are reasons why they don’t.
    Abbott – well, as I said, lack of judgment and the inability of Mr People Skills to understand the electorate.
    Yes, this will die a natural death in the short term, but if any of these egos put their heads against the parapet in the future, you’ll be seeing snippets of these interviews being dug out of the archives and replayed and replayed and replayed…

  31. zoom,
    You may have a point abut Minchin, but your criticisms of Hockey and Abbott don’t relate to their inabillity (or unwillingness) to get Howard to resign.

  32. Learn’t nothing new in 4Corners story, just rehashed repackaged told before story

    Massive forgettable letdown

    Stuck around for the “new” Media Watch after it … good lord was that a stinking pile of excrement

    60 minutes of my life I will never get back

  33. Hi TurningWorm. Politicians cultivate journalists as a matter of course, no matter how good or bad they are. (My worst case of ‘cultivation’ was by Santo Santoro – it’s too icky to go into here).

    I can honestly say I haven’t a clue who most of the reporters invited to the dinner are, although I understand there was one email that I can’t seem to track down – can anyone help? – from Burke outlining exactly how stupid each reporter was. It’s a strange and yet true fact that politicians must work through the various media, and most inhabitants of the various media are complete twits. I’m one of them, so I should know.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 13 of 14
1 12 13 14