Unpredictable Roy Morgan has unloaded two very different sets of poll results: one using its usual face-to-face methodology, but based on one week’s sample rather than the recently more usual two, and the other a phone poll in which respondents were also asked about leadership preference, contrary to normal Morgan practice. The face-to-face poll is from 999 respondents, and shows Labor’s lead narrowing from 60-40 to 58-42. Labor’s primary vote is down 0.5 per cent to 49.5 per cent, while the Coalition is up a quite healthy 3.5 per cent to a still not-healthy 37.5 per cent. The Greens are down a point to 8 per cent.
However, the phone poll has Labor’s two-party lead at a more modest 54.5-45.5, from primary votes of 45 per cent Labor, 40.5 per cent Coalition and 7.5 per cent Greens. At present, a dedicated page for the phone poll result tells us only that Kevin Rudd leads Malcolm Turnbull as preferred prime minister 60.5 per cent to 26.5 per cent; that Rudd’s approval rating is 57.5 per cent; and that Turnbull’s approval rating is 43 per cent. Perhaps it will be fleshed out with more information at a later time.
Two other pieces of news:
It seems Andrew Wilkie will run as an independent candidate for Denison at next year’s Tasmanian state election. Wilkie is the former Office of National Assessments analyst who quit over the Howard government’s actions before the Iraq war, and subsequently ran as a Greens candidate against John Howard in Bennelong in 2004 and as Bob Brown’s Tasmanian Senate running mate in 2007.
A beleagured British Labour Party is considering sweeping electoral reforms, including an elected upper house. House of Commons reforms might presumably include some kind of preferential voting, which Britain’s three-plus party system badly needs, or more radically proportional representation, with which Britons have become familiar through elections for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, its members of European Parliament, and local government.
1,320 comments on “Morgan: 58-42/54.5-45.5”
I would rate the chances of an elected upper house in the UK as extremely slim. But it’d certainly be an exciting development!
Of course the Lords itself would likely reject any attempt to reform the house. Given that the Lords can delay a bill by a year it looks highly unlikely the reform would get through before Labour are turfed out.
OMG, I need Bex and a good lie down. I agree with Andrew Bolt.
[Aussie tourists advised to pack manners and respect – Here’s another moral we could learn. Some Australian “jokes” don’t travel well, especially when they involve stealing stuff from people much poorer, and we could even do with fewer such jokes here, too.
You see, Neil, it turns out that the local police chief had seen other Aussie “jokes” before. Supt Grissak Songmoonnark told of an Australian man who stole a shirt from a deaf-mute street vendor and, when arrested, said that was a “joke”, too.
It strikes me that our public manners in fact no longer meet the standard required in most other countries, and improving them might make us a lot safer when we travel.
It might make life here a bit more pleasant, too. So, Neil, rather than demand Thais show us more respect, how about urging us to deserve it?]
If Brown has got any guts (or even a sense of self-preservation) he’ll go for PR, which would produce a hung parliament unless there is a total Tory landslide, and enable him to cut a deal with the Lib Dems. Of course Labour is so much on the nose that he might finish up the junior partner in a LibDem government! Anything would better than letting the lightweight phony Cameron in.
#3: But why is he saying all this to ” rel=”nofollow”>Neil?
William, because Neil aint got no manner.
[The only poll to have Labor well down and the Libs well up of Nielsen. What does that tell us?]
It means Glen’s favourite polling organisation is now Neilsen, he will conveniently forget how out it was the day before the last election.
[I was referring to the Federal Parliament. As religion isn’t a head of power given to the Commonwealth the states can essentially legislate in any way they like in relation to religion that doesn’t violate their own Constitutions.]
Are you sure? State government legislation is struck down for being unconstitutional all the time. That’s how all the old tobacco, alcohol and petrol excises were found to be unconstitutional, hence the need for federal legislation to collect the taxes on behalf of the states.
[#3: But why is he saying all this to Neil?]
I think Mr Bolt is referring to Neil Mitchell, who like Howard Sattler has been running a campaign defending the woman in question, but poor Howard has discovered that his listeners aren’t behind him – which is strange considering Mr Sattler normal attidude to Law & Order 🙂
[Of course the Lords itself would likely reject any attempt to reform the house. ]
Not necessarily. The majority of the Lords are life peers, not hereditaries, and many of them would support reform. Given that life peers are usually appointed fairly late in their lives, a large chunk of the current members are Labour appointees, such as retired union bosses etc. They won’t just do what Brown tells them, but they are probably not hostile to the idea.
[Not necessarily. The majority of the Lords are life peers, not hereditaries, and many of them would support reform. ]
Couldn’t they just use the Parliament Act to FORCE reform through even if the Lords vote it down?
Psephos I’d have to check but from memory there have been a number of votes on Lords reform proposals (just general motions, not legislation) in the Lords and they’ve all been rejected.
From memory 1 or 2 of them were successful in the Commons.
ShowsOn @ 7
Because the Federal Constitution specifically prohibits the States from imposing excises. It doesn’t say anything about the power of the States to make laws in relation to religion.
One part of one of the referendum questions in 1988 was to extend the ‘freedom of religion’ provisions of the Federal Constitution to apply to the States. This wouldn’t be necessary if they already applied. (The proposal sank with the others.)
[State government legislation is struck down for being unconstitutional all the time.]
The Federal Constitution only restricts state legislation insofar as valid Commonwealth legislation exists. Each of the state constitutions basically grants plenary legislative powers to the state.
Re religious freedom: s116 is not binding on the states, and an attempt to make it so was rejected at referendum in 1988.
[Because the Federal Constitution specifically prohibits the States from imposing excises.]
My vague recollection is that whole case came down to whether imposts on petrol, alcohol, and tobacco were taxes or excises. 😀
[One part of one of the referendum questions in 1988 was to extend the ‘freedom of religion’ provisions of the Federal Constitution to apply to the States.]
I didn’t know this. I do know that it would’ve also extended the Section 116 clause to clarify it also implies a right to NOT practice a religion.
Wilkie link – http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/03/20/62275_tasmania-news.html
I think that your link leads to the wrong article Will, though I have seen an ABC one too.
No, that was the article I meant to link to – there’s an incidental reference to Wilkie as Denison candidate in it. Yours is better though.
Indonesian Vice Presidential candidate owns 27 companies and 90 horses:
Does Morgan know whether he is coming or going? Why two polls released at once and such disparate results?? Not helping his beleagured credibility
Dear Glen, is Morgan still bull butter when it shows 54.5/45.5??
Morgan is to polls what the pre-season comp is the the AFL season.
BH 342 previous thread, I’ve done the same although I have no confidence. I might note though, for what it is worth, we are about .50 the favorite in the betting line the last I checked. The only upset I’ve picked is the Tigers.
“No, that was the article I meant to link to – there’s an incidental reference to Wilkie as Denison candidate in it.”
So it does. My mistake.
Very odd. I can’t fathom why they would release two polls at once with different results. It’s almost an admission that polling isn’t accurate.
If Morgan is so committed to face to face polls, believing them to being a superior measurement stick, why would he even consider phone polls?
ltep previous thread,
Changes to the NT intervention will never pass the Senate. Possible DD trigger there.
BRING it on 😀 ……
Over the past couple of weeks msm have been pushing the $300bil Govt debt. This would worry some and others would believe the Lib lies that it is all Labors fault (don’t mention the GFC) and that labor always gets the country into debt. This could account for the 3.5 increase to Coalition and the drop of the Greens.
SA has two schools shut now. I’m not sure why. We don’t shut schools when we get the common flu in one and there doesn’t seem to be much difference between common flu and swine flu. I’m going to have to find out what this “contain” level means.
[AUSTRALIA’S swine flu alert level been raised to “contain”.
Sky News is reporting the increase in the nation’s threat level.]
That’s a fairly bizarre set of quotes from Wilkie – the Greens in particular seem to have awful luck with “star” candidates coming in from outside. I knew he’d quit, but I didn’t realise he’d gone quite so wacky.
If someone is pro-pulp mill, pro-dam, and pro-canal development, what in the heck were they doing ever joining the Greens in the first place?
The Greens need to learn to vet their damn candidates.
Full details from the Morgan phone poll.
Garnaut has joined the growing chorus of reluctant supporters of the ETS.
[KEVIN RUDD’S climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has changed his position on the emissions trading scheme, telling senators they should pass the legislation.
The Government was forced onto the defensive over its ETS last month when Professor Garnaut said it might be better to drop the proposed model and “have another crack at it and do a better one when the time is right”.]
Rebecca, Wilkie is not pro mill nor pro dam and I don’t know what the canal development is.
http://www.andrewwilkie.org for what his stances are.
I’d vote for him.
Garnaut can see the political realities of the situation. It’s this ETS or the highway.
Such a pity the Greens lost Wilkie, he would’ve made a great senator, but it was probably inevitable once he moved to forestland.
Regarding the UK, it’s worth remembering that the Labour Party has always been theoretically more pro-reform there. The 1997 manifesto promised to introduce PR, and a commission in 1998 proposed a system of top-up seats with single-member seats adopting preference voting, but it got buried and the 2001 and 2005 manifestos were weakened, but still advocated a referendum on PR. Now that pretty much every element of the British political system is up for grabs, I think the pro-reform elements in the party are pushing forward. None of this will happen before the next election, but I could see a referendum getting on the 2010 ballot and a possible yes vote forcing PM Cameron to move on the issue.
I think Obama’s 17% ETS (which looks like getting up) has shifted the debate a bit. It certainly makes it much more likely that the mandatory 5% target will be increased to 17-25% after Copenhagen which has made people like me a lot happier with the ETS II.
If Rudd reneges on increasing to at least 17% if the US, UK and EU all are at 17%-25%, there will be hell to pay.
In regards to Denison, the Greens will easily get one MP elected, and if current trends hold up you would think they would have a shot of getting a second. If Wilkie can garner progressive votes lost to the Greens, a preference swap between Green #2 and Wilkie could see one of them get up. If the Greens then can win a seat in Bass, you’ll see a much strengthened progressive block in the Parliament.
“Garnaut can see the political realities of the situation. It’s this ETS or the highway.”
I disagree, I think this is what the Labor Party wants people to believe. Politically I think the Labor Party could lose quite a bit of support over this. I would think most punters would prefer the Government to err on the side of doing too much than too little.
35 Astrobleme – and what evidence is out there to suggest that?
[Politically I think the Labor Party could lose quite a bit of support over this. I would think most punters would prefer the Government to err on the side of doing too much than too little.]
People will see a Labor Party voting FOR an ETS and the Greens and the Liberals voting AGAINST an ETS. How that makes Labor the bad guys is beyond me and will be beyond many I would suggest.
Following on from the Catholic Church discussion in the old thread:
1. Priests should be allowed to get married. Principles like no sex before marriage would of course still apply.
2. The misogyny needs to end such that women can attain higher positions in the Church.
Unless the Catholic Church enacts these reforms, it will be dead within a couple of decades. It has to move with the times. I can hardly fathom how a married priest would be less devoted to God, and nor can I fathom why men are the only sex suitable to serve God in a higher capacity.
It will hurt the Liberal Party, but I think the message that the ALP’s scheme has been shredded and won’t do anything is getting through amongst the left and that will mean it won’t hurt the Greens to oppose it.
Evidence for which particular opinion? Yours or mine?
Gary, I agree and if Morgan’s poll is on the money IMO the more the GFC bites the more the Lib vote increases at the Greens expense. Food on the table and keeping a job will be more on the minds of people.
Ben Raue #32
[2001 and 2005 manifestos were weakened, but still advocated a referendum on PR. Now that pretty much every element of the British political system is up for grabs, I think the pro-reform elements in the party are pushing forward.]
I’m putting the champagne on ice now in the hope it will happen – even if it’s just a referendum, because a UK debate would generate more interest and awareness here. And if it were adopted, it will make us look even more pre-historic if we stick with our tired exclusivist system. I wish there were something we could do from here to support the UK push towards PR reform.
I think Wilkie is more likely to have problems from being too similar to the Greens than from being too different to them. Then again, Greens can be rather black-and-white in their attitudes to those who don’t quite fit the bill, and they don’t much care for splitters. Tasmania saw especially bitter fights between Greens and Democrats in the nineties and I think Wilkie will appeal to the same demographic who formed the rump of Democrat support here after the Greens had won that battle.
I had a look at what percentage of the vote Wilkie might need to get elected (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/what-chance-andrew-wilkie/) and suggested that half a quota could well do it; Denison is an outside shot for a high enough profile independent because of the amount of preferential slop left over by the Greens and Liberals (assuming the Libs don’t win two) for an independent to surf across the line on. However at this stage I have not seen anything that convinces me that he will get that much. He did poll 2433 primaries as Bob Brown’s #2, which was significant since no other Green #2 in a Tasmanian Senate race has ever polled more than a few hundred.
Did you hear about the Minerals Industry report that 23,000 jobs would be lost? BoH Barnaby saying NO.
When will it get into the pure heads, of some, that an ETS with 1% cuts is incredibly difficult to get up?
Every one who wants a mechanism for reducing CO2 emissions should back the Govt. Not because it is perfect, it has major flaws. But the alternative is zilch. 🙁
“People will see a Labor Party voting FOR an ETS and the Greens and the Liberals voting AGAINST an ETS. How that makes Labor the bad guys is beyond me and will be beyond many I would suggest.”
I disagree, people aren’t so simple-minded as you think. The Greens have made it pretty clear the current ETS is no good, and why they would vote against it. If the Govt just plows ahead without negotiating they will be just as responsible for it failing. With the current Upper House split they need to negotiate.
[1. Priests should be allowed to get married. Principles like no sex before marriage would of course still apply.]
I don’t understand how you can insist on the latter principle but not the ‘no marriage’ principle, that seems to me to be inconsistent.
[Unless the Catholic Church enacts these reforms, it will be dead within a couple of decades. It has to move with the times. ]
Good point! If the government does intervene to make the Catholic Church more democratic, more people will stay in it, which in the long run would be bad.
So keeping these stupid antiquated rules will most likely continue the trend of declining membership and observation.
[Evidence for which particular opinion? Yours or mine?]
I’ve just re-read our posts and wonder why you need to ask such a question. The answer is obvious.
Ben (#34) – that was what I had in mind as to how he would do it but preference swaps are impossible here as how-to-vote cards are illegal. Wilkie would have to hope that Greens supporters decided to give him their preferences. A minor nuisance for him would be that a portion of the Green vote exhausts once there are no Greens left in the count, although it is not as large as for the major parties.
All the polling suggests people want a strong ETS but when given an option between a stronger ETS with a small number of jobs lost, compared with a weak ETS and minimal job losses I think the latter would win.
It’s always easy to say you support a good issue as an isolated outcome (eg CO2 reduction, saving forests, more hospital beds) but when put in an economic context the answer is often quite different.
(Shakes head) I’m sounding like a Labor hack myself now!
Garnaut tells Senate Comittee that the Senate should pass the CPRS in its amended form:
Comments are closed.