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 24 of 26
1 23 24 25 26
  1. [surely a new low for Pollbludger debate…]

    No, just a new low for a post of Glen’s…

    I’m going to get some sleep and hope that when I wake up the death toll isn’t an even more horrific figure.

  2. Glen, if you really, finally, want to persuade people here that you are a complete and utter fool, as opposed to just politically misguided, keep up this line of crap. Have you ever actually seen the inside of a prison?

  3. [ShowsOn if i were homeless and had no prospects i would be seriously considering committing a crime….]
    So you lack a sense of morality that stops you from committing crimes?

    Or rather, the only thing that stops you committing a crime is that you have an income, and a house to live?

    Stop scaring me. 😐
    [Justice needs to be about punishment because if it becomes all about rehab]
    Again, I think it needs to be about both punishment and rehab. More of the former for serious crimes, more of the latter for minor crimes.

    For example, that girl in Sydney, she has no previous criminal record, she does some graffiti and now she has been sentenced to a prison term! That is absurd. She should have to do a few hundred hours community service instead.
    [But as Adam pointed out, arsonists very rarely have the goal of killing people. ]
    Sure, but if that is the EFFECT of their actions, then they should be charged and tried accordingly.

  4. [if that is the EFFECT of their actions, then they should be charged and tried accordingly.]

    So if you accidentally run someone over with your car, is that murder? This robs the word “murder” of all meaning.

  5. Glen, you have no idea what prison is like, selfishly i applaud Rann’s new law, some people should never be released but i’ll leave that argument for another day, i have no probs with prisoners having their comforts, their TV’s, librarys, education and sport, the good meals and accomodation are a must, i can see no gain in giving them draconian conditions or harsh treatment, loss of their freedom is enough, thank god we dont have the death penalty here and hopefully we never will again.

  6. [So if you accidentally run someone over with your car, is that murder? ]
    No, murder by definition can’t be the result of an accident, it has to be pre-meditated.

  7. [if that is the EFFECT of their actions, then they should be charged and tried accordingly.]

    [murder by definition can’t be the result of an accident, it has to be pre-meditated.]

    These two statements contradict each other. Please decide which one you meant.

  8. [These two statements contradict each other. Please decide which one you meant.]
    There is no contradiction, I didn’t state that the people should be charged with MURDER, that is something you introduced.

  9. This is scaring me that I’m stuck out on the “left” of this discussion with Adam!!

    The arson act only indirectly causes death. About 99.9% of arson attacks don’t lead to a death. And arsonists know this. They are not trying to kill people, ie there is no intent to kill. Locking them up forever will mean HUNDREDS of people who have never hurt anyone live in jail forever.

  10. [I didn’t state that the people should be charged with MURDER]

    Yes you did. You said “if that is the EFFECT of their actions, then they should be charged and tried accordingly.”

    So, if I set a fire and the EFFECT is to kill someone, even if that was not my intention, I should be “charged and tried accordingly” – ie, as though I HAD intented to, ie with murder.

  11. [The arson act only indirectly causes death. About 99.9% of arson attacks don’t lead to a death. And arsonists know this. They are not trying to kill people, ie there is no intent to kill.]
    There are aspects of common law that concern conduct that may endanger life. If a person’s actions endanger life, and then a person dies from these actions, there are statutory law that effectively upgrades the crime to a more serious one.

    So if you start a fire near someone’s house, and then the wind turns around, burns down the house and the people inside of it, you can face much harsher charges than simply arson. Parliaments have done this specifically to stop people from starting fires, I know such laws exist in South Australia (Rann government) and it seems they have similar laws in Victoria.

    I completely agree that charging a bush fire arsonist with MURDER would be extraordinarily hard to prove. But I can understand why after the events of the last two days that police commissioners, or firefighting officials may revert to such media statements.

  12. [surely a new low for Pollbludger debate…]

    I’m not sure about a new low for debate. But it’s definitely down there for crass, to assert that prison is some sort of resort lifestyle option.

    AFAIC the low for debate was plumbed earlier in the thread by Generic Person:

    [Indeed, I hope we have the deepest ever recession to teach people that Keynesian economics is illogical nonsense.]
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/02/06/newspoll-minus-three-days-2/comment-page-15/#comments

    Whether low crass or just plain amoral low, the depths are plumbed by prominent “Liberal” posters. Gotta be a message in there.

  13. The EFFECT of a drink-driver is to cause death, if they are one of the unlucky ones who hits someone. The probability of someone drink-driving and killing someone is much higher than the chance an arsonist kills someone. So now all drink-drivers should be locked up forever.

  14. [Yes you did. You said “if that is the EFFECT of their actions, then they should be charged and tried accordingly.”]
    a) This is just an expression of common law! b) “charged and tried accordingly” does not mean murder.

    If I try to shoot myself with a gun, and accidentally shoot and kill someone else by accident, then I can be charged with manslaughter, even though my aim was to harm myself, not others. For manslaughter, the EFFECT of my actions is what is judged, not the INTENT (to hurt myself, rather than the act of hurting someone else).
    [So, if I set a fire and the EFFECT is to kill someone, even if that was not my intention, I should be “charged and tried accordingly” – ie, as though I HAD intented to, ie with murder.]
    The effect is DEATH, the effect isn’t pre-mediation! Try again.

  15. The law says there has to be intent, in order for a killing to be murder. It’s going to be very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an arsonist had intent to kill when he/she (well, nearly always he) lit a fire.

    Whether the law is as it should be is a somewhat different matter. But I can’t see how it would be practical to invent some kind of category of murder which did not involve intent.

    At any rate you would like to think that anyone who is found guilty of arson (and quite possibly, manslaughter) in this instance would get the maximum possible sentence. That’s still going to be a pretty long one.

  16. [So if you start a fire near someone’s house, and then the wind turns around, burns down the house and the people inside of it, you can face much harsher charges than simply arson.]

    Yes, it’s called MANSLAUGHTER as I said about three pages ago. Manslaughter is the crime of causing death through a reckless or unlawful action, but with the intention of killing. Depending on the circumstances, it can result in a very long jail term.

  17. Judith
    I was not referring to you.My apols if any offence was caused.
    I generally find your posts both very emotive and informing.
    (i would never accuse you of moralising btw).

  18. ShowsOn

    The laws on “manslaughter” and “reckless endangerment” allow for enough scope in sentencing that you can get banged up for a good ten years for starting a fire on a day like today, so I trust the judges to use their discretion. Even if they just end up at Club Med like Glens says. 😉

  19. Dio hits on a good point @ 1167. There aren’t too many us of who haven’t done something silly on the roads. Think back to your late teens and it’s silly to the power of 10. Those who are unlucky find that their stupidity leads to serious injury or death. Most of us thank our lucky stars that that hasn’t happened to us.

    You’ve got to be careful with your use of the label “murder”.

  20. [Yes, it’s called MANSLAUGHTER as I said about three pages ago. ]
    And I never disagreed with you, you’re the one who kept on mentioning murder, not me.

  21. [The laws on “manslaughter” and “reckless endangerment” allow for enough scope in sentencing that you can get banged up for a good ten years for starting a fire on a day like today, so I trust the judges to use their discretion. Even if they just end up at Club Med like Glens says]
    Sure, but in S.A. we have specific law regarding arson that essentially encourages the judges to be as harsh as possible. If any human dies from a deliberately lit bush fire, the parliament has effectively told judges to throw the book at the offenders.

  22. Gusface, yes i do get emotive unfortunately, sometimes i wish i could be cool calm and collected and just dissect thing clinically, yet believe it or not in an emmergancy i’m usually the calmist person there, ty re my posts, i sometimes feel out of my depth.

  23. Adam as far as i am concerned someone has kidnapped justice and hidden it in the law, there is no faith in the legal system to properly punish criminals for their actions…they broke the social contract and so the State must punish them accordingly…this hooha over rehabilitating hardened criminals is a joke, as far as i am concerned punishment needs to be the key…sure with first time offenders for minor crimes one could persue rehab but for major crimes i dont think they are punished enough by simply losing their ability to leave a particular place for several years…

  24. I’m fed up. This coverage of the Victorian bushfires by the media has gone way way over the top. Is this what the media has come to? The reputation of the entire media industry has gone down the gurglar in one night.

  25. I give up. I’m clearly an idiot and Ron is a political genius. Next time any party approaches the ALP and beg to give them prefences in an attempt to prevent the Greens winning a seat, under no circumstances should the ALP act in such a way that might elect an extra Labor MP. It is blindingly obvious, as Ron has explained, that Labor should give up on any chance to elect extra Labor Senators and instead help elect the Greens. Clearly Labor has no idea of its own self-interest if it acts in any way to elect Labor Senators instead of Green Senators.

    I hope that the two major parties soon adopt the Green policy of abolishing group ticket voting at which the point the whole debate about Senate preferences will become irrelevant because it will be in the hands of voters rather than party back room deals.

    I lsao mgiht leran to tyep lkie Ron.

  26. pmsl Dio, your only afraid i’ll get on my broomstick and ride over and beat you around the head with it–cackling all the way. 🙂

  27. [I lsao mgiht leran to tyep lkie Ron.]
    LOL 😀

    If the Greens win the balance of power in the Senate after the next election, will they vote as a block? Or are they like the Democrats, are they allowed to vote on conscience?

  28. Judith

    just quietly,mrs G thinks you are the bees knees.

    [i sometimes feel out of my depth.]

    wash your mouth out with soap now! your posts are always a worthy read

    btw Glen ,GP etc are ALWAYS out of their depth.

  29. [I’m fed up. This coverage of the Victorian bushfires by the media has gone way way over the top. Is this what the media has come to?]
    I think it has been fair enough, it is a horrific event.

  30. Gusface of course we are because we post on a blog of which 98% are left of centre posters…we are always on a hiding to nothing coming on here but we do because otherwise you’d all attack each other (as seen previously)….

  31. [I think it has been fair enough, it is a horrific event.]

    I think Bree’s upset because her beloved Liberals have been pushed off the front page:-)

  32. If those figures of 80 burns admissions with 8 on ICU, I’m a little surprised that Victoria hasn’t decanted any patients for other Burns Units.

  33. Bree – How is it over the top?

    Would you prefer it if it was just quickly mentioned that a lot of people had died in fires during the day and then moved on to another story?

  34. The majority of arsonists in these situations have personality defects or mental illnesses. They may have a careless disregard for the potential death or injury from their actions but they are not able to appreciate the potential consequences of their actions. They should be be removed from society for a long time to provide some minimal level of deterrence to others and protect society from their uncontrollable behaviour. However if they aren’t rehabilitated in this time then they will present the same danger to society when they are eventually released. Same strategy for pedophiles.

    I hope that the death of one well known person in this tragedy is not going to become a media circus and detract from the due regard which should be given to every other victim who was only known well by their own friends and families. For example, the victims of the Bali bombing are not lost in the anonimity of an event labelled “the bombing that killed [insert recognised name here] and many others.”

  35. I presume there will be an inquiry into the devastation of the Victorian bush fires.

    We are shocked by the horrendous destruction of life and property yet it seems we were unprepared for it.

    It seemed that the state was coping with the extreme conditions until the first reports of deaths late on saturday night. Later we heard that at least one whole town was virtually destroyed. The news just keeps getting worse.

    Yet we knew it was going to be bad. The State Government told us so.

    The toll is now greater than Ash Wednesday. But surely we have learned something about fighting fires since then.

    Questions need to be asked about how prepared the state was to combat the fires, why people weren’t evacuated, how a whole town was destroyed, why the defence forces were only deployed after the devastation became apparent, whether there were sufficient resources to fight the fires.

    I have a feeling that these may be uncomfortable questions.

  36. [They should be be removed from society for a long time to provide some minimal level of deterrence to others and protect society from their uncontrollable behaviour. However if they aren’t rehabilitated in this time then they will present the same danger to society when they are eventually released. Same strategy for pedophiles.]
    Fair enough, I agree with this.

  37. Glen, we have a legal system not a justice system but at the present time it’s all we have and it’s better than what most countries have, if i was in America i would probably be spending all my time outside jails waving my anti death penalty placards, i find our legal system frustrating and at times i could happily strangle a judge or two, but thats life, i’m sure my couple of lawyer pals could happily strangle me at times especially when i have digs at them about their work, the best way to get laws changed is to court the pollies, thats how we got the unsworn statement banned.

  38. It must be a conspiracy by all news agencies in the world if Bree is correct. Every major international agency has the bushfire on their front page; NYT, BBC, CNN etc

  39. Anthony
    [I give up. I’m clearly an idiot and Ron is a political genius.]
    There are other alternative explanations. However, if you persist in trying to convince Ron of something contrary to his own thinking then you reinforce the first part without supporting the second part.

  40. In other news, got to love the infinite hypocrisy of the Catholic church. As the Pope is revoking the excommunication of a holocaust deniers, a Queensland Priest Peter Kennedy has been sacked. His crime:
    [At the church, unorthodox masses are conducted, women can preach and homosexual couples are blessed. ]
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25024482-421,00.html

    Yes, that’s right, failing to discriminate based on gender and sexuality is a crime in the Catholic church, but denying the holocaust isn’t.

  41. ANTONY GREEN

    #1182

    Antony I never said what you claimed in my#1136

    I criticised th Vic Senate preference deel ‘plan’ on excessive risk grounds , not th NSW Senate preference deel plan (which in fact I actualy compared favourably in comparison to vic Senate ‘plan’)

    If you wish to differ on th respective risk issues I raised then thats fine , however i do feel you shouldn’t represent a view I didn’t put in #1136

  42. Glen

    [btw Glen ,GP etc are ALWAYS out of their depth.]

    Sometimes Glen I think their is hope for you and then you go off and start prattling neoconnery again such as jail being a holiday camp.

    [otherwise you’d all attack each other (as seen previously)….]

    As Ming said of Curtin “at least all his attacks are from the front”

    Most “lefties” are like that-open honest debate without in the main backstabbing and destabilisation
    BTW How is Peter (will he,wont he) Costello going.
    🙂

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 24 of 26
1 23 24 25 26