Morgan: 59.5-40.5

The latest Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s lead at 59.5-40.5, up from 58.5-41.5 a fortnight ago. Primary votes are Labor 50.5 per cent (up 1.5), Coalition 35.5 (down 0.5) and Greens 7.5 (down 1). Elsewhere:

• The redistribution of Tasmania’s electoral boundaries has been finalised. Several amendments have been made from the original proposal, which you can read about here. Antony Green calculates the new boundaries have increased Labor’s margin in Braddon from 1.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent, while reducing it in Denison from 15.6 per cent to 15.3 per cent, Franklin from 4.5 per cent to 3.7 per cent and Lyons from 8.8 per cent to 8.4 per cent. Bass remains at 1.0 per cent.

• A bill to introduce fixed terms was introduced to the Northern Territory parliament on Wednesday. David Bartlett says similar legislation will be introduced in Tasmania next year, confirming the next election will be held on March 20, 2010 and setting up an ongoing clash with South Australia’s elections (to Antony Green‘s dismay). I’ll have much more to say on fixed four-year terms next week.

• Tomorrow is Victorian local government election day, which in most cases means today is the last day for submission of postal votes. Read and comment about it here. Ben Raue at The Tally Room has council and ward map files for viewing in Google Earth.

• In Queensland, poll-driven decisions on water policy are being seen as a harbinger of an early election.

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.

371 comments on “Morgan: 59.5-40.5”

Comments Page 5 of 8
1 … 4 5 6 … 8

  1. Anyone who believes the Libs can win the next election advocating major cuts to balance the budget needs their head read. Rudd’s big spending program will go down a treat with voters and the Libs will have to answer one question which will spell their demise (at the next election at least). What programs and jobs will you cut in order to gain a surplus? Game over.

  2. “Anyone who believes the Libs can win the next election advocating major cuts to balance the budget needs their head read. Rudd’s big spending program will go down a treat with voters and the Libs will have to answer one question which will spell their demise (at the next election at least). What programs and jobs will you cut in order to gain a surplus? Game over.”

    Indeed. Howard only got in after Labor was in power for 13 years, and their 1996 campaign was the smallest of small target campaigns in history. They promised next to nothing.

    But took away almost everything.

  4. Adam, how on earth can you invoke the example of Scullin when the circumstances, including actions taken by the Scullin government, are so different. Once again I say there is no comparison.

  5. What would really rub it into the liberals is if Labor say how much more they would have had to spend if the Liberals had not wasted the boom times. If we go into deficit the Liberals, rightfully, may be to blame.

  6. Centre, I’ve got one in the moderation queue as well and the only bad word I can see in mine is the name of the Victorian leader prior to Bracks 😀 ……..

  7. I’ve got one in Moderation too Juliem but I think it was a reaction to Howard’s COAG underfunding of hospitals so the machine got it right I think.

  8. Gary, my point is that a government can be popular after one-third of its term but still lose the next election. Anything could have happened by 2010, and Rudd could either be a national hero or in deepest disgrace. I don’t know, and nor does anyone else. To say in November 2008 that Labor will definitely win a particular seat in October 2010 is just wank. Didn’t anyone learn anything from the wildly over-optimistic predictions made by most people here last year?

  10. “To say in November 2008 that Labor will definitely win a particular seat in October 2010 is just wank.”

    Labor will definately win Grayndler. 😛

  11. Found this piece of wisdom browsing another website tonight …. 😀

    Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber – Plato

  16. Fair dinkum, if Labor don’t win the next election the way Turnbull and his mob are going at the moment, I will donate my body to NASA for space travel.

  21. Adam is right – it’s not likely that the Liberals will win the next election, but only a fool would completely rule out the possibility. A couple of points to bear in mind:

    We are living through topsy-turvy times, and they may get more so. Voters who’ve been raised on a diet of “no worries” might punish a Govt (any Govt) which has the misfortune to be in power when there’s a recession. The chances of a recession (in Australia) increase by the day.

    Also, Turnbull is both a bright guy and a pretty inexperienced Parliamentarian, don’t forget. Both of which mean that it is possible that his performance as leader will improve significantly over time (if the Party leaves him there long enough).

    Labor are long odds-on to win in 2010, but not certainties.

  22. On the topic of Canada, people have mentioned both the Conservatives handling of the economic crisis and the removal of subsidies to political parties but I don’t think this has been mentioned yet:

    [They are also angry at proposals to remove civil servants’ right to strike]

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcoalition29/BNStory/politics/home

    What could be is interesting is if there might be some kind of electoral reform in Canada if the new government gets up. It’s definitely in the best interests of the split progressive vote.

  23. Dyno, absolutely agree with both you and Adam. My criticism had nothing to do with that point. It was to do with using the Scullin comparison but Adam cleared that up for me.

  24. The current Canadian Parliament is unlikely to vote for PR because a majority is held together by fptp`s main beneficiaries the Tories and the Bloc.

  25. [The current Canadian Parliament is unlikely to vote for PR because a majority is held together by fptp`s main beneficiaries the Tories and the Bloc.]

    I wasn’t suggesting PR, just putting changes on the table. Isn’t the exact make up of the parliament irrelevant since it would have to come to a referendum anyway?

  26. Comment made to silense other nite on Williams first year charts Trends from last 3 PM’s periods was beauty popularaty contest did not impress me , but there underlying 2PP vote was similar to rudd’s making re -electon more likely But did mention Hake 1984 and Howard 1998 then got scares in electons about 12 mnths later again

    Neither faced a GFC , and turnbull’s 50% pluss approval is extraordinary high , so put away th chardonny for moment , aloyt of water to fall

    Minus , Expect unemployemnt to be heading to 7% and inflation could be also high , Fair Work Bill will add to that , BHP dumped Rio so boom at prior levels may not be there & certainly on in commodity prices , so lower incomes , and budget should be in deficit

    Plus ,Advantage reely will be memory of howard and W/C , and non recent history of Feds getting only 1 term Labor on balanse has th advantage….but not these xxhorbitant curent 2PP margins , delusionary high I tink

  28. Interesting that Julia brings in a once in a century change to IR , and she is Houdini as no one in Media or LCP seems to hav noticed

    We’ve had Unions in IR all tis time as “representaives” of workers , and this is retained
    But my understanding is Julia’s Fair Work also makes Unions a party to th Bill on there own just employers and Workers This opens a minefield of options plus and minus , and tink this was th trojan horse she used to allow Unions to enter Employors where there is no Union members at all But that rojan horse cou;ld go anywhere and wonder about what amendments and coding will occur , but future hot potatos can see in both fronts Why would punditariat and Media not look at (my undrstanding) of unions new separate place in IR additional to being a representaive of workers , magic

  29. Generic Person

    “I’ll ask again: why should unions have a right of entry into workplaces in which there are no union members?”

    Well you got alot of PB’s answers Actualy I went out tonite , enjoyed some Fosters , actualy quite a lot , my wife a non drinker drivers home and a Policeman stioops th car and wants to do a breatherlizer on her so I say to th guy why th hell do you stop us because she is obeying th non 0.05 drinking Law

    Then some hoons drive past and hoot th horn to rub it in

    Now vast numbers of Employers in non Union workplaces actualy pay proper wages , pay th supa levy , holiday & sick pay , giv out weekly pay slips , pay overtime , some often giv unrequired bonus’s , and maintain a safe work place etc They will be unfairly inconvenienced disadvantraged in time etc by Julia’s FWB , and if you ar defending them so would I

    But there ar alot of drink driving Employers , so we need a fairness pendulim John Howards pendulum swung too far against workers working for drink driving Employars , and obviousley encouraged some non drink driving employers to be drinkers Challenge for Liberal Party is to argue where th fairnes pendalum should be Labor has staked out there pendulum position which will somewhat affect productivity & inflation in exchange for deemed fairness

  33. “bob, you think you’re so smart – if federal Labor has a collapse similar to that currently been seen with NSW Labor, the Greens could easily win Grayndler.”

    That’s why I didn’t pick Sydney or Melbourne.

    If the Greens were to win Grayndler at the next election, they’d win a fair few more than Grayndler. And I can’t forsee that happening, in a time like this people will flock back to the right, not to the left of Labor.

    And I don’t think Labor are about to split three ways again. This is not early federal politics.

  34. Ron @ 101 said: “Briefing notes” and th like ar covered by ethical & protocols (and legal) requirements covering Public servants inter- actions with ANY 3rd Partys , with heavy sanctions for P S offenders …..and regarding offending MP’s there’s ‘House’ Priviledge Commitee problams

    Boerwar now says: Ron, you are quite right about the laws covering information flows between public servants and parliamentarians. The point I was making was that it is McArdle who appears to be having difficulty with the concept. Steve has previously made the point that McArdle may find himself trying to explain the following to the ‘House’ Privelege Committee.

    “As a Member of Parliament, any public servant or other person, has a right to speak to Opposition MPs and provide us with information without the fear of a Beattie-Bligh Government political vendetta. That’s a democratic right and it should not be compromised by the Labor Party’s games.”

    Boerwar sums up: Providing Opposition Members of Parliament with ‘information’ is not a democratic right. If McArdle means ‘some’ information but not ‘other’ information he should say so. McArdle is demonstrating that he can’t be trusted with Government responsibility.

  35. 201

    Anyone who believes the Libs can win the next election advocating major cuts to balance the budget needs their head read.

    Well said. Howard got up in ’96 on a promise *not* to make big spending cuts.

  37. youre right ltep, labor is at least 10 % ahead so they dont need to change tactics, the opposition shows NO SIGNS of changing tactics, Turnbull having squandered a valuable opportunity to change the (failed) Nelson strategy.

    Next

  38. Kerri-Anne Whatsername from the Sun-Herald must be on Insiders this morning as she’s written a high-dudgeon piece on the abuse of question time.

    Oh the misery! Oh the perfidy!

    Rudd uses Dorothy Dixers to get his message across. He ignores stupid Opposition gotcha questions and says what he wants to say instead. Not a mention of the Opposition’s constant disruptive points of order. It’s all down to Rudd, for refusing to be relevant. I suppose the idea is that no matter how stupid the question, how banal the concept, Rudd must answer interrogatories from the likes of Joe Hockey, Tony Abbott and Rainmaker in exactly the terms they couch them in, traps, snide inferences, facile schoolyard points and all… or else he will incur the wrath of the Whatsername. Another “The Libs hearts are pure as the driven snow. It’s all Rudd’s fault” diatribe.

    Why answer a Dorothy Dixer from your own side on what the government has done, in concrete terms, to combat the global financial crisis, or keep employment levels going when what Rudd really should be doing is responding, point by excruciating point, to a smart-arsed, spin doctor-crafted piece of drivel regarding whether deficits are bad things and aren’t the government hell-bent on destroying the economy and total hypocrites? What’s the answer to that one? “The government is not hell-bent on destroying the economy, and we believe deficits can be useful when the rest of the world is using them to combat the GFC. Oh, and we don’t thinjk we’re hypocrites either”?

    Whatsername’s basic premiss is that the Opposition should determine the nature of Question Time. Whatever they ask, however nincompoopic, should be responded to, in detail by the Minister, thus neatly delivering them their evening news sound-bite. It’s just another version of the “Labor is illegitimate” line. They have no say in the workings of the Parliament. It is their job to fall for the QT traps the Opposition lays and thus lose dutifully the next election, when rightful posteriors will once again inhabit the Treasury benches.

    Perhaps if the quality of the questions from the Liberals and Nats improved then government mightn’t have to pad out QT with so many long-winded answers to Dorothy Dixers. But that doesn’t seem to have occurred to Kerri-Anne.

  39. Call me a political savant: there she is, Kerri-Anne Whatsername up on Insiders, at the moment acting the instant-expert on Mumbai. They’re getting pretty easy to read. What’s the bet she brings up the “disgrace” of QT in panel discussion and that Pies agrees with her?

    Predictable.

  40. [Howard got up in ‘96 on a promise *not* to make big spending cuts.]

    Raw Prawn

    I don’t think Howard got in on any promise he made, more that he wasn’t Keating, same as Hawke wasn’t Fraser. The drovers dog would have won the 83 election and Hycaniths poodle would conversely have won the 96 election.

  41. Andrew Robb is funny. He’s on Insiders saying that the govt should be changing access rules to superannuation so that it can be used for infrastructure projects, rather than using public money (which apparently just needs to be piled away in a corner for a rainy day – i.e. for the Liberals to use as pork in election years).

    Oh yes Mr Robb, *please* take money out of my superannuation fund and put it into toll roads like the Cross City Tunnel in Sydney – that sounds like a stellar idea!

  42. Centre,

    [
    Centre
    Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 9:37 pm | Permalink
    Julie, I can’t find a reason for my 189 post being moderated. Maybe because I started it with LOL.
    213 Centre
    Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
    Testing Testing… Dessicated Coconut, The Rodent, All Tip No Iceberg, Phillip Ruddock…
    ]

    My post is up now …..

  43. So why did the Howard Government come up with $10 billion to ‘fix the Murray’ then?
    Surely they could have encouraged a superannuation fund somewhere to do it?
    I had to turn off Insiders…it was just boring. Andrew Robb rabbitting on about deficits and how evil they are and continually saying Rudd was going into deficit when it wasn’t necessary and young Barrie not pointing out that Rudd had NOT committed to a deficit but said it was an option if necessary.
    Then the panel started banging on about the same thing.
    Tedious.

  44. Aren’t the MSM a real piece of work! Howard promised to reform QT and for 11 years, with their mob in government, not a word of complaint about QT from the MSM. Now that Rudd is PM they want changes.

    Well I would like to see two changes:
    1. No points of order. The opposition should sit there, lips shut, with their hands behind their back, copping the belting the born to rule mentality deserve.
    2. Answers should be restricted to a reasonable time limit.

    The Liberals were good at dishing it out, but they can’t take it can they?

  45. Dutton backs Bishop and says Swan will go. Methinks he protesteth too much. It’s interesting that he mentions Christmas, as that is the obvious time to remove Bishop by.

    [“She’s a person of incredible capacity, I think she’s doing a great job in the treasury portfolio, she’s got the confidence of everybody that matters,” he told Sky News on Sunday.

    Mr Dutton said it was Mr Swan who should be under scrutiny.

    “Wayne Swan has been a disastrous treasurer of this country,” he said.

    “I’d be very surprised if he survives to Christmas or to the next reshuffle.”]

    Julie Bishop going a great job: Dutton
    http://news.theage.com.au/national/julie-bishop-going-a-great-job-dutton-20081130-6nj5.html

  46. whilst bishop is a dud and will probably go, Turnbull has also failed, and the opposition must realise its not necessarily a PERSONEL issue but a POLICY and STRATEGY issue. It appears that they simply believe that because of the economic slow down that Labor will be voted out next election, so they dont need to do or change much. Rudd’s popularity has INCREASED since the slow down

  47. Kerry-Anne Walsh’s article reads a lot like a review of QT by someone who has never paid attention to politics in their life, turns on the ABC around lunchtime and is very upset that the Government won’t respond to questions like “How goes the war on everything?”.

  48. The thing with QT is that it takes two too tango. If the Opposition wanted to “hold the Government to account” or “Seek information” they could easily do that, and in fact have.

    However they’re far more concerned about scoring political points and making the news that afternoon then any real fact finding. So obviously the Government doesn’t want that to happen so they swing back.

    For an example of how it’s really not that difficult to “get information”, look at some of the questions The Greens raise in the Senate. Yes, if there’s something particularly sensitive the Government waffles around it, but most of the time it’s a simple of question of “Why are you doing A and not B?” and the reply is “We chose option A because the advice we received from a number of bodies, I will forward that too you when I get back to my office”. Easy.

  49. [Howard promised to reform QT ]

    Yeah, but that was a “non-core promise” and doesn’t count.

    It’s only Labor that have to be held to account. The “man of steal” can do no wrong, don’t you know.

  50. Why is Kerrie Anne Walsh even worth a post here?? What has she ever done or reported of significance?? Seems really informed to me and just goes with the liberal talking points of the day

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 5 of 8
1 … 4 5 6 … 8