Morgan: 61-39

Unless I’m mistaken, it looks like Roy Morgan has just unloaded two sets of poll results at once: a phone poll of 1128 respondents conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, and a face-to-face poll of 2019 respondents conducted over the previous two weekends. The former has Labor’s two-party lead at 61-39, while the latter has it at 65-35: wider even than the 64.5-35.5 recorded in the previous published (face-to-face) survey from February 29, and probably some kind of all-time record for any agency.

In other news, the new membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has been announced. The spoils are divided thus: Labor gets three MHRs (Daryl Melham, Michael Danby and Jon Sullivan) and two Senators (Carol Brown and Steve Hutchins), the Coalition gets two of each (Scott Morrison and the Nationals’ Bruce Scott from the House, Simon Birmingham and Mitch Fifield from the Senate), and one is determined by the Senate cross-benchers, which effectively means the Greens (with Bob Brown replacing Andrew Murray of the Democrats). It has evidently yet to be announced which of the Labor members will be the chair: previously the position was held by Sophie Mirabella. The only ongoing member from the previous parliament is Michael Danby.

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.

256 comments on “Morgan: 61-39”

Comments Page 4 of 6
1 … 3 4 5 6

  2. Mayo from yesterday’s thread about psych services. In Victoria, there were 2 main drivers for changing the psych service delivery system. One was the change to a rights based mental health act that required that people be treated in the least restrictive environment. Secondly was the fact that prior to taking apart the big institutions, all of the money being apportioned for mental health was being spent on the big institutions, and none of the acute care got Federal funding, as other acute care did. there was no money for community care whether clinical or NGO rehab.
    It got really interesting after that. As a microcosm of how Fed and State relationships have basically buggered things up, mental health is a pretty good example.

  4. The Poison Dwarf has lost it. What crap!! Other than political tragics (and most of those would laugh at him) who would read this junk.

  6. A little bit of history cast a little light on the present.

    In 1815 Robert Owen enlisted the help of Sir Robert Peel in order to get legislation to regulate the employment of ‘free’ children in the cotton mills.

    The proposal met with bitter opposition. The arguments put forward against either fixing a minimum wage of maximum hours of work for children were puerile and ridiculous and provide revealing insight into contemporary thinking of Howard’s liberal party hacks and the range of nonsense uttered by the in protection of Workchoices. Basically no matter how abhorrent a practice ‘neocons’ will offer and believe any argument. I can just imagine the OO back in 1818 vehemently protecting the righ of cotton mills to employ children under any conditions as necessary for business and the prosperity of the country. Indeed an 19th century Turnbull would add that it created xxx jobs.

    In discussing the bill the defenders of he status quo (no regulation) relied on three lines of argument. The first was the danger of interfering with free labour. The children under discussion were not pauper apprentices but children of parent who were free to send them to the factory or not as they pleased. The ere the natural guardians of their children and to interfere was to employ that they were unfit to exercise their parental responsibilities. Surely this, it was argued, must lessen the bond between parent and child and lead to filial disrespect. When the bill was debate in the Lords, Lord Lauderdale took his stand on what he called ‘the great principal of Political Economy that labour ought to be left free’. It was also argued the children’s health could not suffer form these long hours, because the work that they did was light and not in itself exhausting.

    In the debates recorded in Hansard during the discussion of the bill in 1818, speaker after speaker argued that the health of the children was not adversely affected. Mr Curwen declared that he had never seen children with better looks or better health than those he had seen when visiting factories. Indeed opponents of the bill had so much to say about their healthiness that the younger Peel was driven to remark sarcastically that as apparently they were the healthiest places in the kingdom it was clearly the duty of the legislature to set them up everywhere in order to promote the health of His Majesty’s subjects. In the end all that they were prepared to do was to forbid the employment of children under 9. Children between 9 and 16 were limited to 12 hours a day.

  7. Interesting that a story on the ABC from 7 hours ago still sits on the front as a Top Story. ‘Nelson slams proposed public schools ‘hit’ list’

    Firstly the story is basically a lie and secondly Nelson ought to learn that if he is going to do his tantrum acts over something then it has to be something sensible, with substance. This is the sort of thing you do drawing close to an election to create some quick impressions.

    The ABC seems to have become the Liberal party’s constant whore. Dare I say our ABC the Liberal Ho or maybe, the ABC the ‘Liberal Hooker’. I wonder who then is pimping the ABC. The ABC Pimp is whoring stories for the Liberal party.

    Well the ABC Pimp has been busy these last week.

  8. I’m not set on any of the Turnbull nicknames as yet. He is though like one of those bullfrogs that make a loud noise but when you find them are small and insignificant.

  9. 151 – If you look at the polls the period after Rudd’s time on Rove, it is the period of the “narrowing” that was only stopped by the Lindsay leaflet scandal. Rudd should be cautious of any return to light hearted TV shows.

  11. Beat up. A union supporting the ALP? Never…… Hockey looks like he is grasping at straws at the moment. “Newman’s victory marks the come back of the Liberal party”.

  13. B.S.F.

    it is not a beat up. it is the complete sellout of its members by a union.

    it is actions like these by the NSW TWU that make unions on the nose to workers. and that is a terrible situation for workers.

    i was once a rep and got disillusioned.

  16. Talking about TV shows, Andrew Denton want’s Rudd on Enough Rope, he says he’s given up on trying to get Howard and besides who’d want to hear anything he has to say now.

  17. Harry: By beat up, I mean there is nothing new in the story. TWU has always had questionable relationship with some employers. Generally slush funds are not used to support candidates in state and federal elections, but for internal ALP fights (which include council elections).

  18. BS probably a Lib beat up to get the spotlight off themselves

    “NSW Liberals say there is nothing wrong or hypocritical in inviting property developers to a fundraising event – because the party is not in government.

    Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell will host Friday night’s event at Sydney’s Westin Hotel to mark the 20th anniversary of former premier Nick Greiner’s election to office.

    Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson will attend the dinner, where tickets range from $250 to $1,000.”

  19. the union story is just a beat up, the coalition’s desperatly trawling for something–anything to take the spotlight off of their abysmal polls, hence the kerfuffle about carers bonus etc, they knew that it wasn’t true but they still ran with it full out— and fullabulls ranting on about the $18 pay rise till Henry came out and put him back in his box, now fullabull’s trying to make us believe Henrys lying, it shows how desperate they are with their wild stabs in the dark and flailing about.
    If anyone had credible information about a slush fund being used to elect pollies then they’ve got three independant federal bodies to approach–the federal cops {well maybe not lol} or the independant commission against corruption {ICAC} or the Australian electoral commission {AEC} so they can go and report to their hearts content, they won’t of course–why spoil a good story with facts!

  20. Nelson thinks Gillard (a member of the left) is very close to the TWU (a union of the right). That’s got to be a joke. There is more chance of Nelson being popular than that being a close relationship.

  22. The biggest danger for the opposition is that they won’t be viewed to be holding the government to account, but viewed as a bunch of histrionic troublemakers instead. With Turnbull’s lies, the fake hysteria over the carers payments, and now these premature accusations of corruption… the opposition seems determined to make itself as irrelevant as possible.

  23. Kina et al,

    Can you come to your senses and stop having ABC conspiracy theories? Do you honestly think that Janet Albrechtsen sits at home on a weekend sending instructions to ABC Online sub-editors to keep running stories that criticise Kevin Rudd?

    You seem appalled that that the ABC has run a story quoting Brendan Nelson, making some claims about Labor’s education policy? You may well believe that Nelson’s claims are false (so do I, for that matter), but why rip into the ABC for reporting them? It’s not the ABC’s job to ascertain the truth or otherwise of what Nelson says. It’s the ABC’s job to report what the opposition says, and seek a government response. If Nelson’s comments stayed on the ABCwebsite most of the day, it’s probably because the government declined, or was slow to, respond.

    A story that says “Brendan Nelson claims blah blah” is NOT inaccurate. It’s a report of what he claims. It is NOT biased, UNLESS the ABC declines to report the response, when the government deigns to make one. When Howard was in power, the ABC frequently reported claims made by the LABOR Opposition, and sought a government response. That’s what publicly-owned media should be doing. Read the ABC Code of Editorial Practice – it’s on their website.

    ABC Online, as a rule, reports what ABC Radio News has reported. It’s rolling news – someone says something in one news bulletin,someone else responds in the next. The obligation (according to the ABC code of practice) is to provide fair and balanced reporting over a period of time. It’s different with a newspaper – they summarise all aspects of a story, over a day, in one article.

    I am a radio journalist with 30 years’ experience, in both commercial radio and the ABC. Those who think radio journalists have time to consult their board as to what “slant” a particular story should take are living in a dream world. In the majority of my career I was a political reporter, and was never once told by my managers to give a story a particular political slant – either by commercial or ABC managers.

  24. I think it is pretty obvious the ABC is giving the Liberal party a little help along – this much is obvious to those who regularly visit the site over the years. The same was happening in the run up to the election. The ABC is going through a whoring phase. No body has accused any individual of anything.

  25. Antonio – a brave response.
    but are you seriously trying to suggest that the ABC board, stacked to the gunnels with Howard’s neo-cons does not try to exert influence on Aunty? Puhleeeese. (And that is no reflection on the journos who have to work there.)
    Next you’ll be saying that Dennis Shannahan is impartial.

  29. Antonio
    Mar 16th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
    “David S, I don’t think I have ever claimed to be a Liberal party insider, have I? Former party member – yes, insider – no!”
    Well, it’s nice to see we are getting an unbiased opinion from Antonio. Thankyou Frank. Well spotted.

  30. Sure Antonio, sure

    I’m designing and building a new building and I need some engineers to design the structure. I hire 10 engineers; 9 of them have only ever worked with steel, the other has spent half his life on concrete structures, half on steel. I give them an envelope and tell them it’s up to them to design the structure.
    What do you reckon the chances it’s going to be designed in steel, regardless of whether it’s the most efficient?
    I agree, I don’t see that decisions are forced down, but it’s the perceived requirements of the job linked to a desire to get promoted that make bias inevitable, in almost all organisations, unless there is strong cultural control to the contrary at the top.
    It’s pretty obvious how intellectually bankrupt the control at the top of the ABC is right now.
    I could get awfully personal about what the lack of advice, pro or con, in your political reporting means, but hopefully you can work that out for yourself.
    Next time, please refrain from assuming that because it happened to you one way, that’s the only way.

  31. [but are you seriously trying to suggest that the ABC board, stacked to the gunnels with Howard’s neo-cons does not try to exert influence on Aunty? Puhleeeese.]

    The most blatant example was the Biography of Alan jones by Chris Masters called Jonestown, based largely on the original Four Corners program of the same name.

    I think the fact that the book mentions Jone’s friendship with Professor David Flint and the fact that he has the ear of John Howard was the main reason why it wasn’t published by ABC Books.

  32. “Who pays the piper calls the tune”.
    When I get back to my home computer I will post a link here to a recent Salon interview with his highness Rupert Murdoch in which he proudly states/admits that he will decide the editorial line and content of his newspapers, magazines and tv channels [with respect to climate change in this case]and the reporters will catch on to that which is required of them. ‘Don’t you worry about that’.
    I suspect some journos fall into the category of ‘none so blind as those that cannot see’ but they can still tell from sniffing which way the wind is blowing and it surely is blowing a near gale from the right at the ABC.

  33. Back. Turned on the tv, to Order in the House. Has Tony Abbott been doing crown of thorns? His forehead looks a shocking mess.

  34. http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/
    Of the Australian political stories online at the moment we have:
    -Nelson calls for enquiry into TWU slush fund
    -Campbell Newman secures landslide win
    -Union denies slush fund
    -Strong team, policies win elections:Newman
    -Rudd denies snubbing Japan ahead of world tour
    -Bega MP wants enquiry into handling of nurse complaints

    Nope no bias there.
    [Thats sarcasm Antonio]

  35. [When I get back to my home computer I will post a link here to a recent Salon interview with his highness Rupert Murdoch in which he proudly states/admits that he will decide the editorial line and content of his newspapers, magazines and tv channels [with respect to climate change in this case]and the reporters will catch on to that which is required of them. ]

    Paul Armstrong, Editor of The West has been known to personally rewrite journalists copy to fit with his chosen agenda on a story.

  36. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/17/murdoch/index.html?source=search&aim=/news/feature

    I didn’t have to go home, here it is.
    Extracts:
    -“Rupert Murdoch says his entire empire is going green — while telling its audience to do the same — because it’s “simply good business.”

    -” The more I’ve looked into it, the more I’ve been able to see what we can do……. but by subtly introducing [the climate issue] into our content.”
    -“There’s got to be a certain degree of gradualism — it has to feel natural, it has to make sense”
    -Q: “But do you see Fox News and your newspaper outlets covering the climate issue differently as a result of this program?

    A: “Well, certainly giving it more attention. There will be more articles, more references…..”
    -Q: Some of the commentators on Fox News have expressed skeptical views about climate science — take Sean Hannity, for instance, or Bill O’Reilly. Have you heard any reaction from them to this program, or any backlash within News Corp.?”

    A: “I haven’t discussed it with them yet. And, no, I haven’t heard any talk about it. Probably Sean’s first reaction will be that this is some liberal cause or something, you know? But he’s a very reasonable, very intelligent man. He’ll see, he’ll understand it. As will Bill …..”

  37. Antonio
    In the majority of my career I was a political reporter, and was never once told by my managers to give a story a particular political slant

    Ron says
    As an acknowledged liberal party member, your own slant was sufficent enough.
    Glad you believe your dribble , no one else will.

  38. As a journo, you don’t need to be instructed what to write to know what to write.
    You simply need to be aware of which barrows your particular brand of media owner (be it Rupert Murdoch or the ‘impartial’ board) wants to see pushed.
    Anybody with half a brain in any workforce knows what their boss likes or does not like in an employee and – if they wish to ‘get ahead’ in the organisation – behaves accordingly.

  39. Yeah, yeah, yeah… Antonio says what a politician says doesn’t have to be true. It just has to be true he said it. Therefore there’s no slanting of news at the ABC.

    Thsi has been the perennial excuse back through time for the reporting of bare faced lies from politicians: “Don’t shoot me,” says the journo, “I’m just the piano player.”

    Whatever happened to analysis, or filtering? Is Antonio actually arguing that the ABC has a responsibility to report every piece of bullsh*t dreamed up by any Opposition politician (or government one, for that matter) just because he or she said it? With seemingly equal weight to the truth?

    For example: “Kevin Rudd eats babies”.

    Response?

    “A spokesman for Kevin Rudd denies Mr. Rudd eats babies.”

    Response?

    “Opposition members said an investigation was needed.”

    Response?

    “Keving Rudd personally attempted to put accusations that he eats babies to bed yesterday.”

    Response?

    “‘This generates more questions than it answers,’ said Brendan Nelson.”

    Response?

    “There will be no inquiry into whether Kevin Rudd eats babies.”

    Response (by Glenn Milne):

    “It’s the cover-up that counts. What is Kevin Rudd covering up? Rudd was heard to say once, when presented with his newborn daughter, ‘She’s so gorgeous I could just eat her.’ Everybody in Canberra knows he wants to eats babies. The question is , ‘How many?'”

    Response from Shahahan.

    “Rudd makes a meal of eating babies. Judgement questioned over admission he ate daughter.”

    Lastly, from Nelson,

    “Press reports in this morning’s Australia that Rudd eats babies are extremely disturbing…”

    The following has been an amalgam of actual Milne, Shanahan, Nelson and Rudd excerpts from recent press conferences. For “eats babies”, substitute “met Brian Burke”, “went to a strip club in New York”, “wanted to go to Long Tan”, “is thinking of cutting carers’ benefits” and so on.

    All dutifully reported by the Your ABC because, according to Antonio, it doesn’t matter whether it was true or, if true, was a serious news topic. It only matters that it was said. Once any bit of trivia gets reported, it de facto becomes a serious matter. That’s the whole strategy.

    Why do you think Howard stacked the ABC Board, Antonio? For fun?

  41. [Anybody with half a brain in any workforce knows what their boss likes or does not like in an employee and – if they wish to ‘get ahead’ in the organisation – behaves accordingly.]

    Especially with government. You subconcioiusly know what the minister likes and does not like, what wants to see and doesnt want to see and after awhile you draft your submissions accordingly without being concious of it. You know your master. Mine was Shane Stone for a while. The same goes with EOIs and such – they know who must not miss out on being shortlisted.

    Murdoch doesn’t need to tell his journos how to slant stories – the journos are chosen because of their slant. The ABC Pimps only need to install the ‘right’ sort of people in the drafting and selction process of on-line news.

    Like I said, the ABC is being Pimped and whoring stories for the Liberals.

  42. Does anyone alse think that the outlines of the Coalition’s long-term attack on the Rudd Government have now begun to emerge? They appear to be linking things like the developer donations to state parties, the appointment of celebrities to panels, the endorsement of various celebrities, the fact that Rudd has met some celebrities and the fact that, in Abbott’s words, Labor has “too many millionaires” (and therefore doesn’t care about carers) to try and paint a picture of “Labor for the elites” or “Labor for its mates”.

    After 11 or 12 years of Howard’s crony capitalism this is a bit rich. But it’s the sort of thing that lodges in people’s minds because it confirms their worst perceptions about politicians (in it for themselves) and about Labor Governments (beholden to special interests and cultural elites).

    It probably won’t do much damage while the Rudd Government is travelling well, and some of these things actually add star power to the Government, but it’s a good angle for the Coalition because it will provide a narrative for people who eventually go sour on the Government because they feel left out. It also ties in with attacks on Labor State Governments, eg Iemma and the developers, Carpenter and Burke, Lennon and Gunns. A lot of people operate on the principle that where there’s smoke there’s fire, and if these attacks are repeated long enough and with enough linkages to real stories, they could begin to build perceptions.

    I don’t want to overplay this. The Government can side step many of these attacks if they remain focused. But Prime Minister, as a rock-solid supporter of yours, banish Cate now!

  43. You will also find that negative Labor stories hang around much longer on the ABC site while the positive or neutral political ones last a shorter period of time.

    For example –
    The story that proclaimed ‘Nelson slams Labor’ on something lasted all day and then went into the ‘most popular’ list for the rest of the day and the next whilst the counter story with the truth with ‘Gillard….’ in the heading didn’t last that long at all. And that is the pattern of course.

    The ABC at the moment could change its name to the Australian Liberal Corporation. ALC.

    Those neocons thought police infecting the ABC and, pimping it to an incompetent LNP probably feel good lashing out, because their mighty perfect master John Howard got humiliated then skewered by Rudd. I do recall the Gang of Four met an unhappy end in China with Madam Mao copping a prison sentence. Wonder how the Gang of Three will go when they get sentenced to total irrelevance when their tenures are complete.

    The problem the Pimps have is that they would rather have an incompetent hard-neocon LNP rather than a competent reformed LNP thus, they are happy to try and do the work the Opposition is unable to do themselves to, in their little way, try and discredit Labor through their news.

    The OO wounded snakes are of course on the same track.

  44. Frank, love your work. BB, top post. Antonio, it’s probably true that you were never told what stories to write or how to write them. That’s because you already knew.

  46. Yes I have seen what appears to be an attempt to repaint Labor as the uncaring but I suspect that is an attempt to put some scars on Rudd’s caring image.

    They were also trying to run the theme ‘do they know what they are doing…’ The problem for the LNP is that person delivering the message have little credibility themselves (Nelson, Turnbull, Hockey, Abbott). And of course Turbnull made a total fool of himself and ended up having to imply that Ken Henry wasn’t being honest.

    The attemtp to repaint Rudd/Labor as uncaring involved our ALC the OO and the LNP and was fairly obviously a coordinated event based on false premise with little evidence. Wonder if any laws broken in doing that? AFP have an interest?

    They will try and make something out of the Union thing – but that just doesn’t work with the people. It doesn’t really push any buttons. They tried this before the election. AND in a way the government getting a few nicks helps its image in the long run. What Howard called ‘battled hardened’. People dont expect to see a pure and bright white government – they are used to controversies otherwise Howard would not have lasted so long.

    I think the ALC and Murdoch will continue a concerted effort to bring down Labor’s popularity because of the bi-elections that are coming up. It is of course dishonest and a slight on the people that they toy with democracy.

    We have seen all around Australia the same message over and over but the Liberals seem to not learn. There is no point in attacking the government now matter how bad if you are not yourself an acceptable alternative – you will never win. Rudd and Labor won by doing the total opposite – offering themselves as a positive, competent and safe alternative without so much attacking the LNP.

  47. There are also Libs getting on to talkback radio equating the election of the Rudd government with the deteriorating economy. ie “See, as soon as Labor is elected the economy goes to pot. We’re going back to the Keating government.”
    Tom Elliot, yes son of John Elliot, (both Liberal men of course) said on AW that the Rudd government would be blamed for this at the next election. Mitchell, to his credit, said you can’t blame the government for this. Our Tom couldn’t be persuaded saying that people will just naturally blame the government. I’m not yet convinced.

  49. [There are also Libs getting on to talkback radio equating the election of the Rudd government with the deteriorating economy. ie “See, as soon as Labor is elected the economy goes to pot. We’re going back to the Keating government.”]

    And if Howard had been re-elected, they would be telling us how relieved we should be because things would always be worse under Labor.

    The problem with the modern Liberal Party is that most of those who join and represent it do so because it is NOT Labor. It has become a party that is fundamentally based on hatred, whether that is of Labor itself or any section of the community that typically supports Labor – unions, teachers, the latte crowd, etc.

    Because most of the reforms that it once stood for have been carried out, mostly by Labor, the party now stands for NOTHING in its own right. They just want power and they hate all those who seem to stand in their way.

    As a result, Liberals and many of their hardest supporters, have foregone any decent level of fair play.

    Howard opened the door to a new level of deceit and immorality where anything can be sacrificed for the sake of power – a boatload of 300 refugees, the mental and physical health of a Guantanamo detainee, the reputation of an Indian doctor, and so on.

    Liberals everywhere now seem very comfortable with outright lying, fear-mongering, and doing anything to get a grasp on the levers of power, just as we saw with the Lindsay pamphlet saga just days before the election.

    But it is this approach that has left them out of office everywhere. Australians do not give power to a person or a party simply because they want it. They actually have to show that they can do something beneficial with it. This is what Rudd did in the lead-up to the election. He talked about new ideas for the future rather than trying to sneak his way into power by heaping as much dirt as he could on the other side.

    The Liberals, on the other hand, are no longer defined by what they can contribute to the country. They seek only to destroy Labor, presuming that they will then be handed the levers of power as the default option. I wonder how many more state elections it will take before they learn this important lesson – after so many years already, they are very, very SLOW learners.

    Meanwhile, the media is supporting their many myriad attacks on Labor, so they are just helping to perpetuate the same cycle of self-defeating ignorance.

    For now, it suits me just fine. I’m happy to have the Libs out of office everywhere, but at some point, we do need viable oppositions for the sake of a strong democracy.

  50. We are in need of another source(s) of news and opinion that puts either a left or neutral view as a balance for the plethora of anti-labor propaganda courtesy of the conservative (anti-Labor) sections of the media which appear to predominate.

    Given that more and more people get their information on-line an on-line presence is the way to go. Any erstwhile sourced individuals out there willing to undertake the task? They will get my subscription.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 4 of 6
1 … 3 4 5 6