Morgan: 55-45

Morgan has released another poll just five days after the last, from a face-to-face survey of 1067 voters conducted last weekend. The agency’s figures had previously been holding out in the pre-budget Rudd honeymoon zone, but they have now come down to earth with a drop from 60-40 to 55-45. This has partly been driven by a drop in the Greens vote to 7.5 per cent from an anomalous 11.5 per cent last time.

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.

486 comments on “Morgan: 55-45”

Comments Page 10 of 10
1 9 10
  1. Can I clarify something on the philosophy of science.

    Science can NEVER prove a theory, unless it’s a mathematical proof. Science only verifies or disproves theories. To verify or disprove a theory takes evidence. It’s like proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is really just a level of probability with which the jury is comfortable.

    At the moment, the jury (the IPCC) says there is a 95% chance that global warming is happening and is due to human activity, rather than the observations of climate being due to other factors (random changes, solar flares, normal variations etc).

    So people like Bolt who say human-caused CC is not happening are 95% likely to be wrong, ie there is a 1 in 20 chance he is right (which probably is true for most things he says).

    There is a 5% chance that Ron, Jen, etc etc are wrong.

  2. Fielding saying he might block the alcopop rise. I sure that will go down with well with the rest of the fundies.

    If they don’t pass legalisation authorising it, the funds actually have to be returned to the taxpayer….. perhaps a giant booze up is in order. (In the end, it will be retro applied by different legalisation if the bill is defeated or else it will be chaotic to the point of craziness).

  3. Amigo ronnie, i hope this is not the end of our beautiful friendship.

    I have to disagree with you on the selfishness of China and India. Yes the great satan USA is selfish. they simply want to maintain their standard of living and DGAF about everyone else.

    Whereas China and India, the majority of people there are still too poor to be selfish. As survival is still the primary focus of living. Rich man eats whenever he wants, poor man whenever he can.

    In addition, China and India are big emitters because:

    1. their huge population which will take long long time to reduce, if ever. unless we start culling Chinese and Indians. I remember Mao called the USA a paper tiger (with the nuke bombs) by offering Dwight Eisenhower as to how many cities and million of Chinese that the USA wanted to nuke and cull.

    2. China and India are still the factories of the world. making cheap goods for the developed countries so that we can enjoy our standard of living. We are the one that still polluting, not them.

  4. BSF

    No funds will be returned, there is a precendent for this, a tax increase on beer was knocked back by the Senate.

    The Govt. of the day set up a “community fund” to distribute the tax.

    Although Stephen Riden is as usual confused.

    “If the Senate doesn’t authorise the collection of this matter the manufacturers and the wholesalers have the right to go to court to claim it back,”

    “They have paid the tax, they are the ones who have sent the cheques. They do have rights under the tax and customs act.

    Er no Stephen they have collected the tax – not paid it. 😛

  5. “Jan 19, 2001 – Australia’s biggest brewers have taken the government to court to recover excess taxes that drinkers have been paying for six months.

    They want to be repaid tens of millions of dollars in beer excise should the Senate scrap existing increases in the tax. The money could be poured back into drinkers’ glasses through cheaper beer, or donated to charities.

    Drinkers have been paying a doubled excise rate, plus a sales tax, since July 1. The price of draft beer increased as much as 11%, while the tax on packaged beer was up only 1.9%. The tax increase was introduced as a “tariff proposal,” a provision instrument by which the government imposes a tax increase on the condition that it will legislate within 12 months to make it legal.

    However, the Australian Democrats and Labor have said they will scrap the excise increase in the Senate. Both parties say the government promised in the 1998 election campaign that tax reform would increase the price of beer by just 1.9%. ”

    The more things change – the more they stay the same. 😛

  6. Isn’t there a flaw in the alcopop vs spirits argument? As I said before, sales to not equal consumption.

    Alcopops are usually consumed immediately. A bottle of spirits isn’t. A party-goer who switches from alcopops to spirits will buy a bottle of vodka and rum for example. They don’t drink them all on the same night. There will be plenty of those half drunk bottles on their shelves waiting for the next party. So after the initial glut of extra purchases of spirits, there should be a levelling out at a lower amount.

  7. Ron it’s JoM not JoH!

    I am examining the IPCC report at the minute and yes you are correct the IPCC use a likelihood terminology to indicate the “probability” of the occurance/outcome. Had you expressed it like that I would have understood.

    In relation to your questions:

    # 425 I believe Bolt.
    # 432 I am yet to be convinced by the scientist (follow link below)

    Ron I refer you and otthers on this site to the technical summary ecspecially TS.6 Robust Findings and Uncertainties

    Makes for interesting reading 🙂

  8. Diogenes,

    Absolutely. The interesting question is why is the Alcohol Industry is fighting this so hard. Probably because it affects their profits???

    It seems there is a statistics war atm between the government and the industry.

    Now who do you believe?

    Exhibit 1. Makes their living entirely from selling alcohol products.
    Exhibit 2. Makes part of their living from the selling of alchohol products.

    The Alcohol industry are probably concerned that they are about to come under the same scrutiny as the Tobacco Industry.

  9. Diogenoski
    “So people like Bolt who say human-caused CC is not happening are 95% likely to be wrong. There is a 5% chance that Ron is wrong”

    You probabley smiled when you types that knowing in i’d come Biolte has one quack at 95% chance of being wrong and i’ve got 3,700 of th Worlds top scientists EACH saying there’s a 95% chance of being right as a level of certainty IF my first 1,000 scientists have th 95% , whats the use of my other 2,700 troops in adding a little premium , now one cann’t get 100% but reckon the quack got over rated at 5% & i don’t want them deniers to hav anything to hang onto , reckon most of that quacks 5% is nil & the 5% is “not 100% sure”

  10. There is no doubt that the rich countries and rich individuals within countries, generally got that way and stay that way by a disproportionate per capita contribution to CO2 emissions. The usual caveats and qualifications apply.
    There is also no doubt that the poor countries and poor individuals within wealthy countries, are, and will, generally suffer more proportionately from the effects of increased concentrations of CO2. Thus the 800 million who, according to the UN figures, last year went to bed somewhat hungry each night are now going to bed somewhat hungrier because of the increased price impact of biofuels and droughts. The UN figure for children who actually died of starvation is up towards five million. Of course, UN figures can be quite dodgy but there is a core of truth there. The relatively rich will explain that there is plenty of food but that some people are hungry because of poor distribution of the available food supplies. Quite.
    However, some of the relatively rich are starting to get a bit agitated because they understand that it is not only the relatively poor who are going to suffer but that all bets might be off for the relatively rich as well. Now, that really would be nasty. They are beginning to think that there is a Titanic-type situation and know, with reasonable confidence as per discussion above, that (a) once the water gets over the first bulkhead (aka one of the irreversible thresholds), the ship is stuffed, (b) there aren’t enough lifeboats and (c) in any case, the available lifeboats won’t have anywhere much to go.
    Nevetheless, many of the powerful rich in countries like Russia, the US, Australia, China, India and Japan are betting that while they might get a bit warm, they won’t be the ones to get really scorched. Quite rightly, they calculate that, at the very least, they will be last ones to be feeling the heat. So they are happy with any delays in action and absolutely delighted with the do nothing populist tactics of politicians in various countries who are, in effect, saying: ‘You poor (Australian, Indian, Chinese – put in the name of any nation) punters can’t possibly be expected to do something off your own bat. Not fair on the struggling masses!’ The battlers ought to be suspicious that the parties generally held to be representing the wealthy are the ones running these lines. Will the punters be dudded again? I am very, very curious to see what happens next.

  11. A bit of history – Bundy used to sell Bundy & Coke for a short period, they then decided it would be more profitable to sell Bundy & Cola. So they bought out a cola company so they could make profits on the Bundy and the Cola.

    The Bundy company also sold its Cola to other RTD manufacturers and as “no frills” cola in supermarkets.

    The spirits industries were making a squillion from cola, strawberry fizz, peach fuzz etc. That is why they are squeaking now.

  12. JoM

    sorry for wrong name , i could throw some info now to rebut , but as you’ve quoted that secton i should reply re that specificaly as well , will refresg the secton & come back to you

  13. JoM

    By th way as a matter of curiosity , why ar Turnbull & Horatio implementing a CC policy ? Why do they not believe Bolt that th world is not warming ?

  14. Yes Vera, you don’t have to make your party laugh in Q.T. to be a good treasurer.

    Could a country like Russia be blamed for not giving a rats about Global Warming. I mean, you could freeze the balls off over there?

  15. 464 ron

    JoM could use your arguments the other way round. There are 3700 of the “world’s top scientists” “each and every one” who says there is a 5% chance that man-made climate change is not happening. The reasons for that 5% uncertainty are in the IPCC report JoM linked.

  16. You’ve got to laugh: the Liberal Party in 2008 is in favour of teenage binge drinking, fat profits for the petrol companies and the continuation of global warming: Nelson is even more backward looking than Howard, if that’s possible LOL

  17. Diogenoski

    yes i know its there ! it just seems alittle inequitable that a 95% chance by each & every one of of 3,700 top scientiists & a 5% chnace of not being man made because science obviously can not give 100% , allows a single scientist th 5 % argument (and Bolt it) Anyway 95% should be enough for objective

  18. [Ron I refer you and otthers on this site to the technical summary ecspecially TS.6 Robust Findings and Uncertainties

    Makes for interesting reading :-)]

    There is uncertainty in all science. If you can’t handle accepting some uncertainty, then you will never be certain about anything.

    Why is it that climate change denial is ultimately just another form of extremist post modernist relativism? Andrew Bolt should be lecturing about Foucault in some French cultural studies department, rather than giving hilarious interpretations of scientific data.

  19. Amigo FINNS
    No end will occur mate , amigos will always ride Trying to address the nuances of world politcs & CC vs Kyoto is a deep hole The US are the ultimate selfish country , were the biggest emmitters & hav got th standard of living benefits from th CO2 up in th atmosphere PRES Bush actively supports th ‘G8 +5” GED’ and sent his reps to it & opposes Kyoto When I broughtt this subject up elswhere saying da man also suports this aproach I got howled down & my risk to Kyoto’s existense point was missed in partisan da man suport ,despite his written policy NOT mentioning at all ratyfyng Kyoto BUT specifically supporting the “G8+5” forum , in fact it also calls it th ‘GED’ Th othr POTUS candidate also supports th G8+5 ‘GED’ & opposes ratifying Kyoto as well In my view most of th blame here is th selfish US and its power hungry politcians
    There ar 2 poker games happening Under Kyoto presently India & China are legaly bound by a post 2012 emmissions deal is to be negotiated Th Kyoto protocols provide for ‘less developed countries’ (those that contributed less to CO2 up there) eg India & China) to get LOWER targets post 2012 So if the US ratifies Kyoto , India & China will get emmission targets , that they probabley calculate is HIGHER than they’d prefer as they naturally want to look aftr there econamy to th maximum( but because of being ‘less developed’ there targets will be LOWER than say th EU or the US) They’d probabley wear that…reluctantly I assume
    But th US does not like that Kyoto poker game , because th US says selfishly that means India & China get a competittive edge with those ‘less developed countries’ lower emmissions targets , well they woul, d but th US is being selfish on competive grounds So th bully boy US says we just will not suport ratifying Kyoto (Bush AND th 2 curent candidates) , unless India & China from day one hav the same emmssions target criteria as th US , plainly that’s unfair & th US damn well knows India & China would never agree So th US and its politicans instead like a bully supports a competing non Kyoto forum the G8 +5 , because the US emmissions targets will be lower (because there’s no scientists scenarios there to restrict them & only th US will decide Indian , China & Russia also can hav lower targets in such a forum than th ‘less developed country’ lower targets they’d get under Kyoto ALL hav an econamic insentive to get out of Kyoto , and th US an incentive not to go into Kyoto Th US has opened th door for themselves to avoid Kyoto , but th carrot is there for India China & Russia to get out of Kyoto

    Summary , I believe China & India should stay in Kyoto , get the ‘less developed country’ emmissions targets dispensations & the US should ratify Kyoto and join the rest of the world under th scientists scenarios pressures , to CC is solved

  20. Me, a concerned troll? You must be mistaking me with Lose The Election Please, is he still around? LOL
    Grog: The Poisoned Dwarf is as predictable as ever! It’s a shame that his anti-Labor drivel gets so much prominence in the Monday News Ltd rags!

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 10 of 10
1 9 10