Morgan: 61.5-38.5

The latest Morgan survey combines two weekends of face-to-face polling, and it confirms the message elsewhere that Labor has opened up a lead to rival its honeymoon period early last year. Labor’s primary vote is up 2.5 per cent on the last survey to 51.5 per cent, while the Coalition is down 3.5 per cent to 33 per cent: its worst result since May 2008, and 1.5 per cent below the previous worst result on Malcolm Turnbull’s watch. The two-party split of 61.5-38.5 compares with 59.5-40.5 last time. Furthermore:

• Talk of Attorney-General Robert McClelland abandoning parliament for a diplomatic post had escaped my notice, but the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader has reported on the implications for his seat of Barton should it come to pass:

The reports said he would make room for NSW Senator Mark Arbib who wants to be a minister in the Rudd cabinet and had set his sights on Mr McClelland’s seat. If Mr McClelland was “white-anted” he would take a diplomatic post and Rockdale councillor Shaoquett Moselmane would be called in as a potential powerbroker to help Senator Arbib take Barton in any preselection fightthat might arise for the next federal election.

The story is denied by all concerned.

• Paul Austin of The Age gets a bit over-excited about the Victorian Electoral Commission’s ruling on independent candidate Les Twentyman’s complaint of misleading electoral material during last year’s Kororoit by-election campaign. Twentyman argued that a Labor pamphlet stating that “a vote for Les Twentyman is a vote for the Liberals” constituted material “likely to mislead or deceive an elector in relation to the casting of the vote” under the meaning of section 84 of the Electoral Act, an offence potentially punishable by six months’ imprisonment. Those familiar with complaints of this kind will not be surprised to learn that it was rejected, on the grounds that the section is narrowly concerned with matters such as how-to-vote cards that deceive voters into backing the wrong candidate. The VEC’s report on the by-election states that “legal opinion is that the pamphlet is misleading in its suggestion of an affiliation or agreement between Mr Twentyman and the Liberal Party”, but since this is neither here nor there as far as the Electoral Act is concerned, I can’t help wondering if it’s the commission’s place to say so.

• The Derwent Valley Gazette reports that the Tasmanian Liberals have named six candidate for Lyons at next year’s state election: incumbent Rene Hidding, “Brighton councillor Leigh Gray, vascular surgeon Philip Lamont, transport operator Geoff Page, business consultant Jim Playsted and Meander Valley Mayor Mark Shelton”.

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.

1,210 comments on “Morgan: 61.5-38.5”

Comments Page 24 of 25
1 … 23 24 25

  1. GB
    This ETS effectively makes no difference anyway, so that threat is hollow. If its all that matters, this will cost you votes. What have the Greens and Xenephon got to lose voting it down and asking for a better deal? They could go to a DD with no fear whatsoever. Rudd could have as much egg on his face over this as Turbull had over the stimulus.

  2. [Wong’s comments really mean that they see nothing changing before 2020 – thats 11 years!]
    What do you mean “nothing changing”? There would be a 5% cut from 2000 levels by 2020, which is 26.8 million tonnes less of CO2 equivalent.

    That’s a lot better than the Liberals who want to give polluting industries 100% free permits.

  3. No doubt Wong is intelligent and good at the detail. However it has to be said that her communication style is, er, not exciting (perhaps the phrase that comes to mind is “so boring that it’s a turn-off”).

    I’ve never understood why Rudd gave her the portfolio, therefore. Remember, this was originally going to be the Govt’s major communication challenge this term (WorkChoices died politically on 24/11/07, and back at the start of the term we hadn’t heard of the GFC). Even if Garrett was seen as gaffe-prone and not worth the risk, why choose someone as boring as Wong to lead the charge?

    I’d be interested in others’ views.

  4. Can’t see the Greens voting it down, as they at the end of the day may end up with none come the election and it will be all fear on decks at that time.

    Fear about jobs will trump just about anything else, depending of course on the economy.

    They would be better off getting something in and then push for its strengthening.

  5. [That’s a lot better than the Liberals who want to give polluting industries 100% free permits.]

    The choice doesn’t have to be between Wong’s inadequate scheme and whatever the Liberal’s can cook up.

  7. ShowsOn

    The point is nothing will change for the polluting industries. Permit exemptions, personal action on households, GFC and oil prices mean we will hit 5% with NO impact on cattle, coal or aluminium. So the rest of us pay compensation via taxes to ensure that the guilty parties do nothing. Shame.

  8. [This ETS effectively makes no difference anyway,]
    How does it make no difference? We would finally have a price on carbon in the economy, so as businesses and industries do things, they will have to take their polluting into account.

    There is also a slowly tightening vice put in place as heavy polluting industries slowly lose their free permits, and as the number of permits decreases (thus pushing up their price) as the government needs to hit its compulsory target.

    In the mean time, if the rest of the world agrees to tougher targets, then our government will have to cut permits faster, and maybe even phase out free permits quicker.

    As I see it, at the moment we have NOTHING, businesses can pollute as much as they like, because there is no economic deterrent. Once we get the ETS in place we have a start that forces industry and the government to take emissions into account whenever they make a policy decision.

  9. Socrates, I don’t see Rudd going to a DD over this as much as so many people want it. It’s becoming clear they don’t want to do anything about it other than try and tick an election promise back, so they could well view a rejection in the senate as an escape clause.

    It would be stupid to give up though, because action on climate change has been a very grass roots issue in Australia. The people put it on the agenda, not Kevin Rudd, and they aren’t backing off.

    ShowsOn, what would a 5% cut achieve? I’ll tell you what it won’t do –

    It won’t allow Australia to take international leadership on the issue.
    It won’t allow Australia to be ahead of the curve in terms of transitioning our economy and developing new technology.
    It won’t prevent the loss of biodiversity and natural resources that underpin tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention the environmental issues associated with that.

  11. ShowsOn

    You answer your own question:
    “How does it make no difference?”
    “There is also a slowly tightening vice put in place as heavy polluting industries slowly lose their free permits”

    The trick is in the word “slowly”. For the reasons I listed, the 5% target will do nothing before 2020. That is too late and falls well short of what garnaut recommended.

  13. [The point is nothing will change for the polluting industries.]
    Yes it will. If they are trade exposed at first they get free permits, but overtime these are taken away so they have to pay to pollute.

    Sure it is light weight at the start, but over time the free permits are taken away.
    [personal action on households]
    If households use less energy, that means less energy needs to be produced by coal power, that means industries that can’t work any other way than by polluting (metal refining) will be the industries using up the pollution cap.

    I think it is good to produce energy via non polluting means, and using up our pollution cap on industries that can’t work without polluting. That is a ‘sensible’ use of our pollution.
    [GFC]
    But the GFC is going to dramatically lower living standards by making people unemployed. The challenge is to find a system that let’s us retain our standard of living and cuts pollution. The GFC is temporary, we need a carbon trading system that is permanent.
    [So the rest of us pay compensation via taxes to ensure that the guilty parties do nothing. Shame.]
    Part of those taxes goes to people on low and fixed incomes (e.g. pensioners) that would struggle to pay the inevitable increases in energy prices. I think that is fair, it is about time people that use more energy pay for it anway.

  14. Assuming that Labor has decided not to take effective action on the ETS, I have a suggestion for GW campaigners if anyone is linked to them – consumer information and boycotts may be the only tools left. Lets see a clear, simple central website with each company and its emissions listed, so that people can chose their products, energy supplier etc based on emissions. Maybe that will help.

  15. enough of the ETS whining. Just keep voting for the Greens and when they command the majority of lower house seats, they can bring in the scheme many of you want.

  16. ShowsON
    “But the GFC is going to dramatically lower living standards by making people unemployed.”

    That is false – the two biggest industries affected (coal and aluminium) are NOT job-intensive, and employ less than 3% of the Australian workforce (aluminium less than 1%). For the same investment to save them, we could generate more jobs in other things. That was Garnaut’s point. Meanwhile we haven’t actually faced up to a reduction, yet all scientific groups want at least a 20% reduction by 2020. Labor has given up on that.

  17. [Lets see a clear, simple central website with each company and its emissions listed, so that people can chose their products, energy supplier etc based on emissions.]

    It’s a good idea, but there’s already a groundswell of public support for acting on climate change. A boycott such as you’re suggesting would simply re-enforce that, it wouldn’t have a material effect.

    This is because the manufacture of consumer products is not a substantial source of CO2 pollution in Australia.

  19. [The trick is in the word “slowly”. For the reasons I listed, the 5% target will do nothing before 2020. ]
    It would be unfair to make a change like this quickly. Essentially polluting has been an external cost that has been covered by the public – if the air quality in an area declines, then that decreases land values etc.

    Now polluting will be an internal cost that industries will have to take into account. Initially they are subsidised by the tax payer, but eventually all those free permits will be gone. Either they spend the ‘free time’ transitioning their industries, or they waste that time and end up killing their business.
    [I wouldn’t be surprised if the government is having second thoughts about an ETS given the global meltdown?]
    Wong has stuck to the line that ETS is a policy needed in good or bad economic times, and the longer it is delayed the more costly it will be (because businesses will have less time to make a transition).
    [It won’t allow Australia to take international leadership on the issue.]
    Sure, but the Europeans only took leadership by rigging the numbers. They deliberately had Kyoto based on 1990 levels when the Soviet Union was still running hundreds of polluting but unprofitable industries. Once these were shut down European pollution levels declined, but they deliberately chose a year of far greater polluting so that it was easier for them to make cuts.

    They also have a lot of other advantages like 30% use of nuclear power for their electricity.
    [It won’t allow Australia to be ahead of the curve in terms of transitioning our economy and developing new technology.]
    Of course, because we are well behind the curve, we have a lot of high intensity polluting industries which other countries aren’t so reliant on. So we need an ETS designed for our circumstances, not for say the U.S. circumstances that already has a heap of high tech industry.
    [It won’t prevent the loss of biodiversity and natural resources that underpin tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention the environmental issues associated with that.]
    Unfortunately some of that is already gone irrespective of what we do, because 75% of our power comes from fossil fuel energy sources, and because we are so reliant on cars.

    We simply can’t shut down those things fast enough to have a big enough effect.

  20. Some of it ShowsOn, but in addition to the increase desertification of Australia, the loss of food producing regions, we will soon reach a tipping point which means if we don’t make cuts *quickly*, it won’t matter if cut 500% by 2050.

  22. [That is false – the two biggest industries affected (coal and aluminium) are NOT job-intensive, and employ less than 3% of the Australian workforce (aluminium less than 1%).]
    I was responding to the proposition that we will easily hit a 5% cut target by 2020 because of the GFC.

    I was pointing out 1) that the GFC is killing employment – 300,000 more Australians out of work by the middle of next year. This is NOT a long term solution to pollution, because 2) the GFC will be temporary, it will be a thing of the past in 11 years time.
    [and employ less than 3% of the Australian workforce (aluminium less than 1%). ]
    But you are forgetting about the VALUE of those industries. Last year Australia exported $5.5 billion worth of Aluminium, which is a heap of money sent into the Australian economy.

    And of course, if we stop making Aluminium here at say the Tasmanian hydro, then it will be sent as Alumina overseas and refined using coal power, which effectively means it has cost the world more in terms of pollution.

  24. thewetmale, i think they’ve given up on that, too much egg on their collective faces over the honeymoon’s end, Shanahan and Bolt will be devistated.

  26. Judith

    Yes, I found it interesting that the article online was anonymously authored. I thought the “factual report” (as opposed to the opinion section) was normally done by Shanners.

  30. We could end up with WA, QLD and NSW in the bag before 2012 that’ll put us in a healthy position for 2013 against Rudd…

  32. Oz, Bolt has prophetised that Rudd is a one term PM and the coalition will ride gloriously into power at the next election, thats what he said in last sunday’s Insiders.

  34. Yes Glen, there’s a long history of things being handed over in a bag under Queensland conservative administrations. Do the Liberals intend to extend these operations?

  35. It looks like Mugabe didn’t try to kill Tsvangirai.

    [ZIMBABWE Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has ruled out foul play in the car crash that killed his wife, declaring the collision was an accident.

    “When something happens, there is always speculation but I want to say in this case, if there was any foul play, it was one in a thousand,” he said.

    “It was an accident and unfortunately it took her life,” he told mourners gathered at his Harare home. ]

  36. [It looks like Mugabe didn’t try to kill Tsvangirai.]
    Tsvangiarai could just be saying this for political reasons.

  38. If I was Obama id be sending in the Marines tonight…but Obama is a whimp and the international community will keep doing nothing and keep Mugabe and the ZANU/PF in power.

  39. Glen @ 1180:

    You’ll definitely have NSW. Rees & Co are terminal: the feeling is like the Federal Libs in 06/07: everyone’s stopped listening, minds are made up, and the fact that the cricket-bat moment is still two years away will just make the punters swing harder when they finally get to wield the willow.

    But who’s your leader in 2013, after Costello goes down in a screaming heap in 2010?

  41. [But who’s your leader in 2013, after Costello goes down in a screaming heap in 2010?]

    The Flight Centre Captain 🙂

  42. [Oz, Bolt has prophetised that Rudd is a one term PM and the coalition will ride gloriously into power at the next election, thats what he said in last sunday’s Insiders.]

    Yah, I remember. He said “Forget what the polls say”. What a goose.

  43. Glen just volunteered to join John Howard’s Colonial Expeditionary Forces on another Spiffing Boy’s Own Adventure.

    ‘Cept Sir John left it too late and is probably emigrating to New Zealand to receive his long awaited Knighthood.

  45. Katbloke, when they get to Cossie they’ve definately scraped the bottom of the barrel, dunno where they can go from there, Hockey aint going to cut the mustard— though theres always “people skills” Abbott.

  47. [Glen, Brough aint even in parliament and he certainly hasnt endeared himself to his local libs.]
    Glen is working on a “Mal for Canberra!” campaign.

    He’s working on the butcher’s paper bunting right now.

  48. [It won’t allow Australia to take international leadership on the issue.]

    I can’t even believe that there are people who actually think the international community cares about the action Australia takes on the issue. It won’t make one iota of difference in negotiations with the US or China or India or even Indonesia. Australia contributes a ridiculously tiny amount of CO2 and thus any unilateral action we take is immaterial.

  49. Wow! More Mandy Vanstone immigration screw ups. She allowed members of the Chinese intelligence community to interview Chinese asylum seekers in Villawood detention centre.

    The government has now paid them compensation, but thankfully not the millions paid to Vivien Solon and Cornelia Rau.

  50. No 1196

    Brough is immensely talented and did a good job in the indigenous portfolio whilst in Government. I expect he will find a seat and parachute himself in.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 24 of 25
1 … 23 24 25