Morgan: 59-41

The first Roy Morgan face-to-face poll in a fortnight shows Labor’s two party lead down from 61-39 to 59-41. Labor’s primary vote is down 1.5 per cent to 50 per cent, while the Coalition’s is up 3 per cent to 36.5 per cent. Possum detects a negative correlation between Morgan’s sample sizes and Coalition primary vote. I would observe that there are two clusters of sample sizes, around 900 and 1800, depending on whether the poll was from one weekend of polling or two (the latter being the case on this occasion). Perhaps the correlation tells us something about how Morgan decides whether to sit on its results for another week (conspiracy theories ahoy).

Elsewhere:

• Tune in for live coverage tomorrow night as voters in three of Tasmania’s 15 Legislative Council districts go to the polls. Independent Ivan Dean, who was approached by John Howard to run in Bass at the 2004 federal election, faces a strong challenge from independent competitors in Windermere, which covers outer Launceston and the eastern side of the Tamar Valley. The retirement of independent Norma Jamieson has produced a tight four-horse race in the Devonport seat of Mersey, the field including Jamieson’s daughter Carolynn. Bartlett government Treasurer Michael Aird is unlikely to be troubled in his bid to keep Derwent (outer Hobart and Derwent Valley) as one of four upper house seats held by Labor. In the regrettably unlikely event that you wish to discuss this, please do so on the dedicated thread. Further reading from Peter Tucker at Tasmanian Politics. Further coverage tomorrow from Antony Green.

• Gary Clark, husband of former MP Jackie Kelly, has been found guilty for his role in the Lindsay pamphlet scandal. This was for the benign-sounding charge of “distributing unauthorised electoral material”, which carries a fine of $750. Former Liberal powerbroker Jeff Egan was acquitted, the court accepting his explanation that he was not aware of the content of the pamphlets. Not content with that, Egan has launched a private prosecution (presumably because his complaints have failed to interest the authorities) for assault against the Labor “possé” who caught the Liberal trio in their act, which includes Senator Steve Hutchins.

• Michelle Grattan of The Age reports that Josh Freydenberg has provided a formidable pair of referees in his application for the Liberals’ Kooyong preselection: John Howard and Andrew Peacock (the latter of whom held the seat from 1966 to 1994, in between Bob Menzies and Petro Georgiou).

• The Warrnambool Standard reports that Sarah Henderson, former host of The 7:30 Report and daughter of former state MP Ann Henderson, has entered the crowded field for the preselection in Corangamite. Others mentioned include former Kennett government minister Ian Smith; Graham Harris, head of the Liberals’ Corangamite electorate council; Victorian Farmers Federation president Simon Ramsay; “Internet expert and former Howard government adviser” Rod Nockles; Simon Price, unsuccessful Colac Otway Shire Council candidate and former electorate officer to Stewart McArthur; and Michael King, “Geelong businessman and owner of Kings Australia funeral services”.

• Peter Brent of Mumble comments on the audacity of Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson expressing concern about the electoral roll in an excellent piece for Inside Story.

• After being reduced to the deadly third position on the Liberal ticket, conservative Tasmanian Senator Guy Barnett reportedly has his eyes on Bass, which Labor’s Jodie Campbell won from Michael Ferguson in 2007.

• If you thought Possum’s booth maps was dope, wait till you see Nathan Lambert’s Google Earth files.

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.

567 comments on “Morgan: 59-41”

Comments Page 12 of 12
1 … 11 12

  1. [Why didn’t Rudd put that issue into the mix, and tell the Left that they the Government would support say a 10% unconditional cut if they were willing to support removing the ban a domestic nuclear power industry? (Which of course would make a 10% cut easy to achieve)]

    And in 10+ years when the first Nuclear power plant came on line, what would you be saying then?

  2. [tell the Left that they the Government would support say a 10% unconditional cut if they were willing to support removing the ban a domestic nuclear power industry?]

    I’d support that, but it would be difficult to undo the effects of 30 years of anti-nuclear sentiment – shared until recently by me among many others.

  3. [I’d support that, but it would be difficult to undo the effects of 30 years of anti-nuclear sentiment – shared until recently by me among many others.]
    It happened on mining after some sections of the left supported it including Chris Evans.

    There needs to be a Labor for Nuclear Power ginger group modelled on the extremely successful Labor for Refugees internal organisation.

  4. Diog, what have you got against that good looking Malaysian born Chinese Hakka woman, Senator Penny Wong.

    😉

  5. SO

    The very low price of carbon removes any incentive for RE or nuclear or any change in the practices of the big emitters. I can just see them turning around in 2016 and saying “There’s no way we can pay these high prices for carbon!”. Just imagine if we have a 15% ETS target. The price will be absolutely crippling for the last four years to meet our 2020 targets.

  8. John Quiggin seems to be very supportive of today’s announcement.

    [This is significant good news. It’s obviously necessary to look at the fine print, but a 25 per cent reduction would be consistent with a global contract and converge agreement which could achieve climate stabilization. In the context of such a commitment, a delay in the start date for the scheme (inevitable in any case given the situation in the Senate) is a small price to pay, as is the temporary cap on permit prices.]

    http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/04/25-per-cent-by-2020/

  9. Thanks William but I don’t think that address works any more, and I don’t know why my email came from that address (these issues are beyond my comprehension I’m afraid). I will send you my current address.

  11. hearing the reactions on our ABC (surprisingly giving a more balanced than usual coverage of federal politics), Rudd appears to have pleased the business groups by the slower roll out and the environmental groups by the increase in maximum targets. Quite a deft political move it would appear. Whether its the best thing for the environment or the economy is yet to be seen. I’m willing to give Rudd the benefit of the doubt given that he seems to have taken methodical and comprehensive approach to government. I really hope they get this right, and I think he has the good will of voters to give this a crack

  12. When I heard the news I went to PB immediatly to see how the ALP hacks reacted.

    OZ:
    [The “forced to negotiate with the Coalition” argument only works if you honestly believe that Rudd/Wong wanted a stronger ETS that didn’t give the polluters a free ride. You can believe that if you like but there’s no evidence to suggest that’s the case.]

    Amen

    Yo ho ho
    [I mean does anyone else feel like they’re part of some nation-wide monty python sketch right now?]
    MP has a sketch about election night coverage with an Anthony Green like host very excited to be on TV. The candidates stand sollumly on a podium awaiting the results and its Serious Party that wins. The Silly Party candidate (dressed as a loopy clown) looses because even though their has been a demographic increase in silly people in the electorate the silly vote was split (bloody 1st past the post!) due to a very silly independent (legs dangle in the air out of a cement block) also running.

    [The Greens have set a bottom line for Australia to make an minimum unconditional emissions cut of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, with a commitment to move to 40%]
    The Greens are working with 1990 levels as their standard whilst the government is using 2000 levels. I wish they’d use consistent scales, we rarely mention gallons and yards anymore. I think 1990 is more universally accepted. The ALP is just using 2000-standard to make their reductions apear larger. So ALP’s 25% is less ambitious than the Greens 25%.

  13. All I heard on the ABC was the usual carping from Turnball, indeed all Aunty seems to show these days are the inconsequential bleatings of the Liberal shadow front bench.

  16. Joshua Gans seems to think that the changes announced today should be passed by the Senate.

    [But, in actuality, today’s changes to the ETS are practical and sensible and if we can’t get a political coalition to pass this, then you can’t believe what those voting against it say about being serious about dealing with climate change.]

    http://economics.com.au/?p=3325

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 12 of 12
1 … 11 12