Morgan: Rudd 77, Nelson 9

Roy Morgan, which normally goes easy on “beauty contest” questions, has today entered the fray with a phone poll of 527 respondents. It gives Brendan Nelson the same 9 per cent preferred prime minister rating he suffered from Newspoll, with Kevin Rudd on 77 per cent compared with Newspoll’s 70 per cent. That’s not the worst of it though: on the question of preferred Liberal leader, Nelson can only manage equal fourth place behind Malcolm Turnbull (24 per cent), Peter Costello (18 per cent) and Joe Hockey (13 per cent). Nelson and Alexander Downer are both on 9 per cent. Kevin Rudd is favoured as Labor leader by 66 per cent over 15 per cent for Julia Gillard; in the absence of Rudd, 50 per cent would favour Gillard over 8 per cent for Wayne Swan.

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.

474 comments on “Morgan: Rudd 77, Nelson 9”

  1. Has anyone read a headline such as “Opposition – ME TOO”. Where are the howls against this me-tooism on the part of the Libs? Is it ok for them but wrong for Labor? Maybe it is just an acknowlegement that the opposition stands for nothing and doesn’t deserve the paper space.

  2. Steve 357

    What fascinates me about that article is that while Howard seems to have thought withdrawel was a good idea, he believed that the discourse of ‘staying the course’ was the more popular line. Either he was out of touch or Australia changed very quickly!

  3. 343#ViggoP

    Who plays ‘Hooker’

    If I understand correctly the Friday sitting is so MP’s can talk about something in their seat or raise an issue that is off importants to their community and the MP’s are not required to attend then what is the problem.

    Are the Liberals going to take an I.R policy to the next election that says if the Boss is not in the building work stops for that appears to be their arguement.

  4. 359

    Don’t disagree. I don’t think Iraq was a big issue in the election for anyone outside of people already voting for Rudd (or the greens).

    But i do find it interesting that while Howard decided to push ‘staying the course’, he was privately thinking of withdrawal. I’m interested as to whether it was Rudds pushing of withdrawal or the attachment of the Liberal support base, to the ‘staying the course’ discourse that made him stay with that policy instead of moving towards a withdrawal.

    Perhaps it more highlights that Howard no longer controlled the agenda once Rudd came into power.

  5. Dyno @ 337 – My understanding is that the Friday half day sitting was bought in to move members business out from the normal sitting days to allow more time to consider legislation, etc.

    As I understand it during the time allocated for this previously very few members attended the chamber other than those who wished to speak. So the fact that ministers aren’t there on Fridays is no different that what happened before.

    As members’ business does not normally require votes to be taken, that also seems a non issue to me.

    I also believe the “plebs” don’t have to be “stuck in Parliament”. Attendance is no more compulsory than it was before. The opposition have chosen to make it so (Downer and McGuaran excepted apparently) to create an Everest out of the molehill for party political purposes, but that’s their problem, no one elses.

  6. No MB @ 360,
    The argument is that Parliament is there to pass legislation and keep the Executive accountable. Neither of these things can happen on a day when Divisions are not permitted (or are compulsorily deferred, it’s a semantic distinction), and the Executive – en masse – doesn’t turn up.
    Rudd is not the boss of Parliament, it’s supposed to be the other way round – the people’s representatives are supposed to be able to hold the Executive accountable.
    It’s all a bit academic in the current Parliament when Labor has the numbers locked up in the House. But these rules form a bad precedent.

  7. MF @ 364,
    Perhaps you can set me straight on this (as I previously invited people to do, but no-one did).
    You say that, in effect, nothing has changed. But am I not right in thinking that it is a new thing to have a day when Divisions (what you and I would call “votes”) are not allowed?

  8. [I am sure that Labor’s PR machine is carefully filing away the video footage of the clowns ready for the next campaign,]

    I believe it’s against the act governing Parliamentry Coverage that such footage is prohibited to be uesed for political advertising – hence the use of Keith Scott to revoice Howard’s words for one of the ALP ads.

    I predict said voiceover artistes will be given transcripts to read 🙂

  9. Dyno @ 363 – Is it a new thing to have a day when votes aren’t allowed? Probably yes.

    But how many votes have ever been taken in the house during members’ business? I doubt one. Whenever I’ve seen footage of it they’ve been 2 or 3 members present plus a Deputy Speaker with only the member speaking fully awake.

    It’s the time when members can raise matters of concern to their constituants, or have a whinge on a personal issue or regail the house about some event that has/will occur in their electorate. Mostly, they are just getting local stuff into Hansard to prove they’re hard at work for their electorate. What is there to vote on?

  10. 363 Dyno, here’s an interesting bit of light reading. You will find in the senate provision has always been made for divisions on the next sitting day.

    “A division cannot be held after 6 pm on Thursdays (SO 57(3)). If a division is called for at that time the matter concerned is adjourned to the next day of sitting at a time fixed by the Senate (11/9/2003, J.2360; 15/9/2003, J.2365-7). (See Supplement)”

  11. In the supplement to that senate article there is this:

    “paragraph 5, end

    ; 13/10/2005, J.1293-4; 3/11/2005, J.1302). A temporary order first passed in 2004 altered this time to 4.30 p.m. (11/5/2004, J.3379; 10/8/2006, J.2450; 17/8/2006, J.2537; 4/9/2006, J.2557). Standing order 57(2) provides for divisions called between 12.45 pm and 2 pm on Wednesdays also to be deferred, but until later on the same day. When a deferred division is called on, the practice is to put the question again, on the basis that senators who originally called the division may change their minds and allow the question to be determined on the voices.”

    Obviously these sort of provisions are not new as the Liberals would have us believe.

  12. And what are we to make of this?

    “If the Selection Committee has determined that consideration of an item of private Members’ business should continue on a future day, at the time set for interruption of the item of business or if debate concludes earlier, the Speaker interrupts proceedings and the matter is listed on the Notice Paper for the next sitting.374 The Chair will also do this even if the time available has not expired but where there are no other Members wishing to speak.375”

  13. [Standing order 57(2) provides for divisions called between 12.45 pm and 2 pm on Wednesdays also to be deferred, but until later on the same day.]

    I would assume that it is so members can attend the National Press club functions.

    It would be funny if the Liberals are cutting off their nose to spite their face!

  14. Jen@250;
    Greg Hunt is the current Shadow Min. for the Environment.
    I think the first tier Liberals will not be successful, if only because of the WorkChoices shadow – which means looking at the 2nd tier group.
    However, with Labor seeming to manage reasonably successful succession planning these days it is quite possible that the next non-Labor Prime Minister is not in Parliament.

  15. 372 The Doctor-
    thanks for that.
    think he might have a way to go yet before he gets to be party leader then!
    That is ,of course, if there is any party left to lead.

  16. 362 [But these rules form a bad precedent.]

    So there we have it Dyno, it is not a precedent or a bad rule. Just a bunch of spoilt brat Tories behaving badly. Funny that both Nelson and Turnbull are listed to appear shortly at the National Press Club. Are they going to turn down the offer in fear of a division being called in their absence? Of course such a thing is too stupid to contemplate. So is their behaviour on Fridays and their ludicrous justification of their behaviour.

  17. “it is quite possible that the next non-Labor Prime Minister is not in Parliament.”

    I would suggest that the next non-labor PM is not even a glint is his/her parents’ eyes yet.

  18. 375


    Or as we used to say in the grey funnel line;

    I had a gleam in my eye in Baghdad before the next non-labor Prime Minister
    was a gleam in the eye of his dad’s bag!

  19. How stupid are Fitzgibbon and Smith thinking they can get Congress to change US law to allow them to sell us their number 1 strike fighter the F-22?

    …bunch of amateurs really, about what we’d expect from an inexperienced government.

  20. 377 MF- That reminds me of the great words Seneca spoke to Nero, “No matter how many men you may slay, you cannot kill your successor.”

  21. Glen is shitscared Smith & Fitzgibbon WILL be able to buy the F22.

    The yanks at the Ministerial meeting seemed to think it was a goer.

    the Doctor, S&F could always approach Russia to buy their planes!

    Give it a rest Glen, the new government is off to a great start!

  22. Glen @ 379 – When Congress gives the “amateurs” what they’re asking for it’ll tell you a lot about what the American’s really felt about Howard and his minions.

  23. Glen @ 379
    if our allies will only sell us inferior planes we should with hold metal storm from them and buy the latest russian planes

  24. I don’t actually think the point was to get the planes. I think it was part of the govts ongoing policy of pointing out the flaws of the previous govt….

  25. steve,
    Good research, thanks!
    Ok, Division-free periods have been done previously in the Senate (not the house where the Govt is formed) and for short periods in the House.
    Assuming that is all, this new change still represents a fairly significant expansion of a practice in which the Executive essentially gives Parliament “the finger”.
    The Liberals behaved like spoilt brats (and a lot else besides), however based on what I have seen to date I still think the Friday rules are poor and the Libs would have been within their rights to make that point in a civilised manner (which, of course, they didn’t).

  26. Scorpio and Rusty

    My brother, Patrick, finally returned from his travels. I saw him this evening. He named you by your real name, Rusty, immediately, when I said, Audrey. Apart from all this discovery, it would be terrific to post on the home builder’s club venture. A lesson for today.

    We had no opportunity to discuss it any length, as a death has occurred and he was busied with this.

    Pat does not know your in-laws, Scorpio. I will venture into the younger family age group.

  27. I still think the Friday rules are poor and the Libs would have been within their rights to make that point in a civilised manner (which, of course, they didn’t).

    Labor’s in charge now. They make the rules. They have expanded Parliament’s sitting days. There is no less QT available than there was before. Yet whingers form the Right still complain.

    This kerfuffle is all because the Opposition THINK they have an edge in QT, possibly because they THINK they caught Wayne Swan out in a curly technical question that he declined to answer on Turnbull’s exact terms. Remember: this was Turnbull, who had criticised Swan for offering opinions on inflation asking Swan to…. offer an opinion on inflation. The Coalition want more QT so they can exhibit their fancied superiority over Labor. It’s got nothing to do with democracy. Most of the questions so far have been of the “Trick Question” variety, eliciting little information that’s useful and causing the maximum disruption with their disruptive interjections on “relevance” (the hypocrites, after what they got up to when in government). It is the Opposition which is irrelevant, no the government’s answers.

    This will all die down and the Coaliton will learn the hard way that they lost the election and that they are not coming back any election soon, despite Robb’s optimism to this effect on Insiders.

    Rudd should stick to his guns. The Opposition can bash their heads (and their electoral prospects) against the brick wall for as long as it takes. They cannot win this one. They do not have then numbers. Parliamentary procedure is whatever the majority decides it is, something Howard taught us very well indeed.

  28. If Nelson and crew keep behaving like that on the Fridays it will only harm themselves. They desperately need credibility and need to be seen as serious professionals. Their ranting and tantrums produces the opposite image, that of a rabble fighting to seem significant.

  29. BB @ 388,
    “They are not coming back any election soon”.
    So what odds are you offering on next time? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I expect Labor to win next time, but with certainty like that you’d have to be offering at least 10-1, pretty juicy odds in a two-horse race which still has nearly three years to run.

  30. [If Nelson and crew keep behaving like that on the Fridays it will only harm themselves. They desperately need credibility and need to be seen as serious professionals. Their ranting and tantrums produces the opposite image, that of a rabble fighting to seem significant.]

    According to Hockey they intend to continue disrupting the Friday proceedings.

    They don’t actually want question time on Fridays. They want Rudd to call of Friday sittings so they can all go home.

  31. 391

    You’re right of course, they don’t want QT on Friday, so what would be a really good thing to give them?

    I know it’s not what Ruddy wanted, but crikey, wouldn’t it be sweet if they got what they asked for?!?!?

    Oh, we could laugh!

  32. Well, I notice The Australian yesterday – in a very long editorial devoted to this matter of parliamentary standards – pointed out that just before he died in 1909, the first Speaker Frederick Holder said he was disturbed by the bitter feelings between opposing MPs. And that apparently before he slumped in his chair saying, dreadful, dreadful, and died. So maybe things aren’t that different?

  33. BB @ 388,
    Your description of me as a “whinger from the Right” is also intriguing.
    I may be a whinger, my family/friends are best placed to comment.
    But I hadn’t previously realised that it was particularly right-wing to think that the executive should be readily accountable to Parliament.

  34. Really!

    Certain among the Opposition have yet to come to terms.

    Dolly and the lunchers and golfers know exactly Opposition means.

    Eedjits bearing cardboard effigies as Scorpio suggested, are those from which any self respecting loser would disassociate themselves.

  35. ShowsOn – but the only thing stopping them from going home is themselves and whatever odium they perceive they may attract if they do. They aren’t required to be there by any rule of the House.

    Fridays is strictly for ‘private members business’ if they haven’t got anything to get off their chest they can go whereever they want. That’s what happened under the old system when typically the only ones in the chamber was the member rabbitting on and maybe one or two others either waiting their turn or bereft of anything else to do, plus a deputy Speaker and the staff – Hansard recorder, clerk, etc – who are the only one’s actually required to be in attendance.

  36. Yes, MayoFeral, the empty nest syndrome in Parliament has been alive and well for as long as TV has made this apparent.

    I have been astonished that a Member can be talking to only a transcript.

  37. Crikey Whitey,

    I can see why Keelty is furiously trying to prop up his well paid position at present!

    The younger generation you are asking about are named, Annette, Judy and John.

    From what my mother in-law said, some of your younger siblings at least, would have had some contact in travelling to, and/or attending the same school at some stage.

    She seems to have a solid memory of what schools you all attended and when.

    Cheers, Scorpio.

Comments are closed.