Morgan: 56-44

UPDATE: This post was originally called “Newspoll minus three days”, but has been changed after Roy Morgan broke their normal fortnightly pattern by issuing results from last weekend’s face-to-face polling (i.e. before the stimulus package was announced). From a sample of 853, it shows Labor’s two-party lead down from 59.5-40.5 to 56-44. Labor’s primary vote is down four points to 46.5 per cent, the Coalition is up two to 38 per cent and the Greens are up half a point to 8 per cent.

The excitement of the past few days has quickly overloaded Tuesday’s thread, while adding real interest to the next set of opinion polls. Unless ACNielsen and Galaxy have something planned over the weekend, the next ones up are the regular Monday double of weekly Essential Research and fortnightly Newspoll. John Hewson tells Crikey he’s expecting an election later this year, presumably a double dissolution:

You’d have to think that the odds are narrowing on the possibility of an early election, towards the end of this year. At best, the Rudd Government’s second stimulatory package will just buy some time – simply delay the inevitable. As long as the global recession continues to deepen and, as a consequence, China’s growth continues to stall, the best Rudd can hope for is to hold up consumer spending by the cash handouts sufficient to avoid a technical recession – namely, two consecutive quarters of negative growth … Moreover, the ETS is to be introduced next year with all the scaremongering opportunities that carries for the major polluters. So why not go the people for a “mandate” to continue with the strategy, especially now that Turnbull has so clearly nailed his colours to the mast, becoming such a fixed target, from both outside and within?

Of course, there’s much here that might be contested, not to mention the lack of a double dissolution trigger at this stage. In brief:

• Possum dissects the electoral impact of the stimulus package here and here.

• Antony Green analyses the finalised federal redistribution boundaries for Western Australia.

• The Senate has amended legislation abolishing tax deductible political donations, which will instead be limited to donations from individuals rather than companies. Deductions applied for donations of up to $100 from individuals before the Howard government’s 2006 “reforms” jacked it up to $1500 and extended it to companies. The legislation as amended maintains the $1500 threshold.

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.

1,270 comments on “Morgan: 56-44”

Comments Page 23 of 26
1 22 23 24 26
  1. [RIP. Hopefully the media don’t turn this into a circus and forget the others that have lost their lives as well.]

    Ch 7 & 9 will be the main offenders if they do as Mr Naylor was a long serving Newsreaders for both channels.

  2. Arsonists should have done to them what happened to those burned alive in their cars trying to flee, locking them up is too good for them IMHO….

  3. “they don’t fit the definition for terrorism”

    Why not, more people killed than in the bali bombing, more property damage and more livestock dead.

    Id go as far as saying it is worse, at least a terrorist is fighting for something, an arsonist, whats it about, death and destruction or personal satisfaction.

  4. ru,

    Agree entirely. Many people have died today, the fires are still burning and many brave Australians are out there fighting to protect life and property. This ain’t the time to be pushing partsian political views.

    The arguments will be there tomorrow and the next day. So, let’s leave it for then.

  5. The only view that Brown pushed was that we need to act on climate change.

    The extent to which that is political depends how effective you think the Labor/Liberal/Green policies will be in combating climate change.

    I think I’ll slow a down bit now, I’m sounding a bit like a broken record and we have to agree to disagree in some areas. But Adam put my analogy more succinctly earlier:

    [If an overweight patient has a mild heart attack, what better day to warn them of what will heppen unless they change their behavior?]

  6. [Also there is no need for snide remarks about Rudd because he went and talked to fire victims.

    They aren’t snide Vera, they are the truth. Unless you point out the factual or scientific inaccuracies within them?]
    What are you on about? I said it was petty of you to do a Bolt and infer Rudd was publicity seeking by visiting the fire areas, that’s a fact and what the heck has science got to do with it?

  7. Most firebugs are teenage males with various mental, sexual and behavioural problems. They need help and treatment. “Lock ’em up for life” is a typical primitive populist response to events like this, but as always it is misguided and wrong. Of course they need to be caught and stopped from re-offending if possible, but prison won’t help them. Nor do threats of punishment deter people with this kind of mental illness.

    Official toll now 84.

  8. Whilst i agree with the life argument dependant upon the nature of the crime i do not agree with this without parole nonsense.
    South Australia has a register regarding people who are suspected of arson and the police ring them up on the days of Total Fire Ban and this has tended to work.

  9. [Why not, more people killed than in the bali bombing, more property damage and more livestock dead.]

    The definition for terrorism is not mass murder.

    “terrorism – the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear”

    “terrorism – The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives”

    “terrorism – The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda”

  10. [The only view that Brown pushed was that we need to act on climate change.]

    That is my only criticism, he is correct but not today or in the context of the tragedy. If you cannot see this fair enough – I will agree to disagree.

  11. Oz, obviously we are of a different mindset, to me terrorism is on the same level as arson and often with the same outcome, i cant fault Rann for the example it makes sense to me.

  12. [I said it was petty of you to do a Bolt and infer Rudd was publicity seeking by visiting the fire areas]

    When did I say that? I said he was expressing sympathy.

  13. Oz

    [If a patient who smoked was diagnosed with a lung disease and the doctor knew that if the patient continued to smoke it create more problems and would greatly increase chances of death then wouldn’t the doctor have the responsibility to tell the patient as soon as possible?]

    That’s quite a good analogy, but as Adam says lung cancer is almost always fatal. A better analogy would be throat cancer which is also related to smoking but not as closely. Throat cancer can often be cured but if the patient lives through the surgery, they have a much higher chance of getting a second throat cancer if they keep smoking.

    Lots of patients will ask why they got it, so you tell them it was probably the smoking. But if they didn’t ask, you wouldn’t tell them until they had recovered from the surgery. But you certainly would tell them eventually. It would be negligent not to.

  14. Treatment for criminal acitivity i agree with, nonetheless the treatment and government funding has to be available and these days it is lacking.

  15. Adam if you think those who deliberately light fires can or should be rehabilitated your view of justice is completely different to mine…the justice system is all about rehab not punishment and justice is the loser…

  16. Judith @ 1092,

    [
    Judith Barnes
    Posted Sunday, February 8, 2009 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
    arson is a deliberate crime just like murder, there is a big difference, just as i believe in CC i also believe arsonists should be locked up for life with no parole.
    ]

    You got that one right, most especially those who are reportedly relighting under control fires and/or extinguished fires today 🙁

  17. [Your defence of BB is admirable – but in my view he was using the fires to press his political agenda.]
    Bob Brown is supremely effective at ALWAYS pushing his environmental agenda at EVERY opportunity. Christine Milne even mentioned to the Senate committee on the stimulus package that “on the weekend the hottest place on earth will be Melbourne”.

    Major party leaders like Rudd or Turnbull occasionally drop the partisanship and play the states-person. But minor parties don’t need, or have the time to do that. They just need to run with their agenda at EVERY and ANY opportunity. Because it reassures their small base that they are doing what they promised.

  18. [to me terrorism is on the same level as arson and often with the same outcome, i cant fault Rann for the example it makes sense to me.]

    Well to me (and others), who has experienced terrorism up front over a continuous period of time and seen the political and social repercussions as well as the immediate loss of life, and the scale of that, there’s no comparison. I won’t say I find it offensive as that would be too ironic.

    There’s no comparison to be made between, say, Al-Qaeda, and the combination of a teenage delinquent and dry, hot weather other than the loss of life. But then you may as well say that the arsonists are like drink drivers.

  19. [the justice system is all about rehab not punishment and justice is the loser…]
    It should be about both, more of the latter for the most severe crimes. More of the former for relatively minor crimes.

    Starting a fire that ends up killing people is a very serious crime in my book.

  20. [Adam if you think those who deliberately light fires can or should be rehabilitated your view of justice is completely different to mine…the justice system is all about rehab not punishment and justice is the loser…]

    I don’t see how “life in jail” can be considered “rehab”.

  21. Adam is completely correct (and surprisingly left-leaning) in his comments on arsonists IMHO. Bushfire arsonists are often fire-fighters.

    And the SA policy marky mentions works very well. It’s better than locking them up indefinitely.

    And Mike Rann is being a populist moronic dipstick yet again saying that arsonists are terrorists. We are kind of used to that here in SA. The only similarity is that they can kill lots of people and have a disregard for life. Why aren’t Phillip Morris and BAT terrorist organisations then, Mike?

  22. Oz when they get 3 square meals a day, tv, gym, free medical care and can earn money and do degrees i hardly call that doing hard time or justice!

  23. Regarding arsonists – I think it is a classic case of where the system works if allowed to function normally. I do not pretend that rehabilitation can always (often) be achieved. Detterence is an ethically legitimate fucntion of punishment, provided the punishment is not cruel. However, if someone is mentally ill, then they do not belong in the criminal justice system. That is not to say they should be walking the streets either; we need more psychiatric care facilities. This is just one symptom of that problem.

    I recall that a habitual arsonist was caught in the Adelaide Hills last year and it was a local middle aged woman, not a teenage male. However the mental illness comment may have still been valid; I don’t think she has come to trial since.

  24. Marky Marky, South Australia also has a law going through parliament now to enable the government to lock some offenders up for life regardless of the parole period, Adam some people by their own actions resign from the human race and all the help in the world won’t change that, i’ve been called a bleeding heart before this but on some things i believe there is a time when this new law should be used, maybe i was hasty saying all arsonists, but when their actions cause death then they should be tried for murder.

  25. [And Mike Rann is being a populist moronic dipstick yet again saying that arsonists are terrorists.]
    Well, it is like terrorism, but without a political agenda. 🙂

    Having said that, some arsonists say they do it to help nature regenerate. So that is a kind of demented environmental agenda.

  26. [Oz when they get 3 square meals a day, tv, gym, free medical care and can earn money and do degrees i hardly call that doing hard time or justice!]
    If prison is so good, why don’t you ask to go there?

    Do you HONESTLY think it would be good to be in prison, to not be able to go and do whatever you want when you want, where you want?

  27. Diogenes, I may be right-wing in various ways, but I despise law-and-order populism, which Glen has (unsurprisingly) decided to espouse here. We can see in the US what happens when populist ignorance takes over the justice system – crowded prisons that breed criminals, and no rehibilitation, just means more violent crime.

  28. ruawake

    The 5 year survival of lung cancer in Oz is about 10%. And the cure rate is less. Small cell is almost uniformly fatal. Not all of the non-small cell cancers are linked to smoking (adenocarcinoma isn’t) and their survival is better, about 20% 5 year survival. I think of non small cells, about 1 in ten are cured completely. It all depends on the stage.

  29. Murder is the deliberate taking of human life without a lawful excuse (such as self-defence). To convict an arsonist of murder, you would need to prove that they intended to take human life – which is almost never the case with firebugs of this type. A reckless criminal act that results in the loss of human life, but without spefic intent to kill, such as firesetting, is manslaughter. As such it can carry a heavy sentence, depending on circumstances.

  30. And Mike Rann is being a populist moronic dipstick yet again saying that arsonists are terrorists.

    Dio, have you had a good hard look at the alternative, i know he’s upset some of your profession over the Marge but thats a bit harsh.

  31. very disappointed at the moralising going on here

    86 people died
    700 homes destroyed

    pls donate to the red cross (money and blood) tomorrow

    real people are going to need our help.thats all

  32. ANTONY GREEN

    #883

    Clearly I believe you misunderstood my earlier post on th 2004 Fielding preference deel (which covered 4 inter related issues) , and so will now highlite consequent causes of each first (rather than detailing effects this time) to make my alternative preference deel view more clear

    Firstly you wondered why there was still “annoyance” over Fielding’s 2004 election Short answer is because he is there , and will be for a few years & furthermore actually holding veto power over all Labor Bills , and furthermore Fielding as a social religious conservative shares no social philosophy with th Labor Party , th very Party that directly put him there

    Whether th reason for Fielding’s electon resulted from a (failed) Labor ‘plan’to increase its Vic Senate numbers , is quite irelevent to th above two current consequences of his election that cause current angst

    Additionaly , Labor people will be far from impressed that there is already a live practical policy consequence of Fielding’s anti Labor socialy religious conservatism ….being Fielding’s crazy reaction to Labor Minister Conroy’s justice proposal of an Internet Child Porn filter , with Fielding floating a wish to extend th Child porn Internet filter to include his ‘censorship’ list of socialy consevative religious objections (including filtering euthenasa , contreseption etc) as th ‘price’ of his vote , …..a ‘price’ Labor is unlikely to pay thereby destroying this Labor Party social initiative child porn diminishment proposal…solely on anti Labor socialy consevative religious belief grounds

    If that occurs , such “anoyance” over Fielding being an undeserved beneficiary of a failed Labor preference deel ‘plan’ may be a gross understatement , given th general child porn diminishment issue is deserveably emotive

    Further Fielding has already opposed same sex Laws late last year in th Senate against Labor philosophy & legislaton So practical examples of justified angst at Fielding ar there

    Th second inter related issue with th Fielding 2004 preference deel was that Labor had an illconceived improperly researched risky Victorian Senate ‘plan’ (IN COMPARISON to its similar but significantly safer NSW Senate ‘plan’) to pinch th
    3 rd Victorian Senate position for itself …..

    (RATHER THAN opting specifically in th Vic Senate election for th almost guaranteed per Polls likelihood that a Labor Senator would BE elected (or failing which then a Greens Senator would BE elected (with such Green Senator holding non Fielding non socialy religous consevative beliefs) And further , given that Greens had never won a Vic Senate seat some odds favoured Labor getting that spot notwithstanding

    Distinction from a similar ‘plan’ used in th 2004 NSW Senate elections was that in NSW ‘Fred Niles’ Party was well ‘known’ to Labor , and Labor had a history ‘form’ of ‘Fred Niles’ Party past voting patterns , and therefore th risk that Fred Niles’ Party ‘surprise’ could destroy th ‘plan’ by itself winning th 3rd NSW Senate seat themselves , was significently diminished

    Whereas th Victorian 2004 election ‘plan’ relied on a brand new Party FFP not destroying th ‘plan by winning th 3rd Victorian Senate seat themselves….but unlike th NSW ‘plan’ , Labor had no such past Fred Nile’s Party type voting history info to support its Vic plan risk ..that FFP would not ‘surprise’ would not pinch th 3 rd Senate seat for themselves (because FFP had never contested a Victorian or Federol electon before)

    Furthermore , Fred Nile’ Party NSW ‘s organizational capacity to “gather voters” was also well known from past ‘form’ No such knowledge could be known of FFP nor of th Assembly of God (as they were a new Party) , making th Victorian ‘plan’ risk even further more at risk than th NSW ‘plan” Checks should hav been done , and if done were clearly inadequate

    Additionaly , th capacity of th new FF Party to use political skills itself in maximising its vote and gaining othr Partys first/early preferences appears to hav also been under estimated (FFP in fact gained numerous preferences , including for example first preferences from th Democrats Party as well , and got Labor effective ‘first’ preference) , and/or th voting effect/quota distrib effect of FFP gaining such preference deels was unde estimated , again increasing th Victorian Fielding plan risk compared to th NSW ‘plan’

    Th fact that FFP in Victoia with a mere 0.13% of a quota was able to win th 3 rd Senate seat by converting that 0.13% quota into an ‘efective’ 100% quota ….against Labor (who’d won a surplus 0.50% of a Vic Senate quota) all by itself, AND against th Greens for eg (who’d by themselves won 0.61% of a Vic Senate quota) only highlites th above listed over risk taken with th Vic Fielding ‘plan’ compared to th NSW ‘plan’

    Its not relevant that FFP’s initial chanses of winning were deemed small in advance , nor that in hindsite one knows it didn’t work at all …what is relevent is what was actualy known in advance (or should hav been) being th various clear distinctions of unknown risks actualy present as between th Vic Senate ‘plan’ vs th NSW Senate ‘plan’ , thereby with a significantly higher risk ‘possibility’ that FFP may get up (and queston is , given th higher and unknown Vic Senate ‘plan’ risk , would one then in 2004 recommend that Vic Senate ‘plan’)

    pss/ on this point…Another poster (not you) did suggest th Vic Senate ‘plan’ only failed because Labor’s Victoreian Senate vote had unforseenly collapsed , but this was incorrect because Labor’s Vic Senate vote only dropped by 0.67% (to 36.12%) Th successful NSW ‘plan’ actually occurred with Labor’s NSW Senate vote at 36.37% , and also th SA plan occurred with Labor’s SA Senate vote at 35.49%

    So it was not Labor’s Senate vote that torpedoed th Vic Senate plan but in part th actual crystallising of th comparative higher risk factors listed above of th Vic plan in comparison to NSW …that I critisise & feel were unjustified (and proven to be by Fielding’s unlikely Senate election) That’s my risk view

    ps/ What you THEN may hav miscontstrued from my then subsequent wording or argument (consequently suggesting that Labor should hav preferenced th Greens) , was Labor and Greens hav identical idealologys & ar in sort of ‘coalition’ This was not my view nor intended posted Th point intended was that th FFP Vic plan was over risky and that there were also ‘benefits’ of alternatively preferencing th Greens (who were guaranteed of a Senator elected if a Labor Senator did not get elected and whose benefits also were
    A/ Greens Party ar not social religious conservatives like FFFP and ar closer to Labor there , and B/ Greens ar like Labor a ‘left’ Party and so in some areas such as CC & part IR th Greens share some general principals , unlike FFP Questions of if 2 or 3 cornered Senate negotiations favour Labor ar a separate issue again with both sound pro & anti views Therefore policy collectively Greens were more desirable in Senate than FFP , given higher Vic Senate FFP ‘plan’ risk vs NSW Senate plan

    Th 3rd inter related issue with th Fielding pref deel ( but also with th NSW Senate Fred Nile Party plan as well for this point only) is these deels preferencing a ‘right ‘religious conservative Senate candidate in front of a Greens candidate in Victoria & NSW , may hav been a “cause leading to” a key factor in causing Labor’s 2004 HOR Primary vote to fall to a decades low of only 37.6%…and thereby in part destroying Labor’s chanses of winning HOR Govt in 2004

    Whilst Labor was ‘unnaturally’ preferencing NSW & Victorian ‘right ‘religious consevative Senate candidates on one hand , Labor was also CONCURRENTLY trying to ‘placate’ natural Green’s angst (at these deels hurting them) because Labor wished not only th vital Greens HOR preferences , but to also avoid Greens non too harsh public critisism of Labor’s Senate deels (so that HOR Greens preferences were maximised)

    In this “contradictory Labor /Greens relationship environment” , Labor announced its its ‘Greens friendly’ old growth forest policy (with Union worker fury at Labor & cheers for Howard shown on National TV in th campaign’s last week) Whether Labor’s 2004 unpopular old growth forest policy was at all influenced by wishing to keep th Greens placated needing there HOR preferences on one hand & not wishing th pref Senate deels harshly publicly critisised & potentially affecting those HOR pref flows is unknown , but may hav & if so it was a high price

    What is known is there was National TV coverage at th last crucial electoral moment of Union workers thinking Labor was not for workers jobs (but for Greens forests) and those same Union workers believing Howard was for workers jobs Howard’s ‘trust me (not Labor) on keeping interst rates low’ message was already probably an pre existing pro Liberal factor (& Latham himself) Th resultant decades low Labor Primary vote in 2004 did occur

    Th 4 th inter relatd issue was ‘th act’by Labor in 2004 in preferensing right ‘religious consevative Senate candidates itself , was not condusive to building a longterm cemented guarantee of Greens vital HOR preferenses specificaly in marginal seats that matter , notwithstanding th 2 Partys presently ar doing so out of self interest

    So whilst th 2 partys ar indeed separate Partys & do have there own politcal objectives , they also ar both ‘left’ Partys with clearly more in common than eithr has with th Liberal Party or National Party Further , through Greens HOR prefs Labor can win Govt repeatedly and such pref deels whilst obviousley to Labor’s Senate advantage can risk potential Greens retaliatory (open ticket) action in key marginal seats affecting retaining Govt , a much higher politcal priority “Fairness” I feel applies not just in IR laws

  33. Gusface, I don’t think any discussion not directly related to loss of life and property should be derided as “moralising”.

    The fires are tragic but do we have to isolate ourselves and just keep repeating the death toll in our heads over and over?

  34. yes gusface , ditto re Red Cross donations….my daughter actualy has a close friend who will not see tomorrow , was at my daughters wedding ….& too young to go with her parents losing all possessions by way but family loss obviousley th greatest loss

  35. As I said oz, at least a terrorist has a goal. Dead people are dead people. And as to the fear thing, terrorist would be a lot less successful if people in power put a little less effort into wiping up fear for political ends.

  36. ShowsOn if i were homeless and had no prospects i would be seriously considering committing a crime….

    ShowsOn the only thing that is different for the crims is they get locked up when they go to bed other than that they have it damn easy…Jails are hotels for some of these people and these people commit crimes and we do all that for them yet we do little for the homeless or people in need…

    Justice needs to be about punishment because if it becomes all about rehab we are rewarding criminals and will continue to destroy the publics confidence in the legal system…

  37. Gusface, i’m dribbling on here so i dont have to think of the grief those people are going on through, PB’s has been my bolthole to keep my mind occupied for a long time, arguing the point or responding to others blocks out a lot, please dont call it moralising because it’s not–well at least not for me, it’s therapy.

  38. fredn, I agree with you generally.

    But as Adam pointed out, arsonists very rarely have the goal of killing people. Compare that with terrorists who not only want to kill people, they want to kill them to achieve a particular aim.

    There’s very little comparison. Rann is just posturing and trying to look like a statesman.

  39. Glen @ 1144

    So the solution is to execute all of the bastards in prison and then lock up all of the homeless in the vacant cells. Solves both problems in a jiffy. 😉

  40. More of the usual “privacy be respected at this time” shtick on SKY – of course in reality, trying to grieve alone in private is much more painful then grieving with help – that never seems to occur to people in these situations

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 23 of 26
1 22 23 24 26