Morgan: 58-42

The latest Roy Morgan survey of 1804 respondents has Labor’s two-party lead unchanged at 58-42, with their primary vote down 0.5 per cent to 49 per cent and the Coalition’s down 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent. The Greens are up a point to 9 per cent. Much else to report:

• On Monday, Galaxy published a survey of 1004 respondents showing federal Labor with a two-party lead of 55-45. The primary vote figures of 43 per cent for Labor and 40 per cent for the Coalition are similar to those from the 2007 election, suggesting the two-party result flatters Labor a little. Furthermore, 17 per cent nominate themselves less likely to vote Labor if an early election is called against 12 per cent more likely. Kevin Rudd was rated “arrogant” by 31 per cent against 47 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull, while their respective ratings for being “out of touch with ordinary Australians” were 29 per cent and 48 per cent. However, Rudd performed worse than Turnbull on the innovative measure of “someone who can turn nasty if he doesn’t get his own way”, scoring 43 per cent to Turnbull’s 31 per cent. Peter Brent at Mumble has tables.

• Tasmanian Electrical Trades Union secretary Kevin Harkins apparently plans to proceed with his bid for Senate preselection, despite having been told by Kevin Rudd his chances were “Buckley’s and none”. Harkins was endorsed as candidate for Franklin ahead of the 2007 election, but was compelled to step aside four months beforehand after his colourful activities as a union leader emerged as a political liability. It was reported at the time that the pill had been sugared with offers of “an elevated union position, increased salary and a future Senate seat”. Harkins is the favoured candidate of the Left faction for one of the two safe Senate seats, with incumbent Kerry O’Brien set to be dropped to loseable third. The Hobart Mercury reports that the Left’s position is now likely to go to Australian Manufacturing Workers Union secretary Anne Urquhart, who is seen as acceptable to the Right. The Right’s position at the top of the ticket will remain with the low-profile Helen Polley.

Michael Owen of The Australian reports on tension in the South Australian Liberal camp over Senate preselection, with Right faction colossus Nick Minchin “warning off” moderate state president Sean Edwards. Minchin says Edwards had undertaken not to seek preselection when he ran for the presidency in 2007 so he could focus on next year’s state election. A “party source” says the Right has secured the postponement of preselection until April next year so a newly elected state council can provide them with a more favourable result, potentially leaving the party unprepared for an early election. The Right’s chief concern is to secure a seat for David Fawcett, defeated in Wakefield at the 2007 election, at Edwards’ expense. Alan Ferguson, who is associated with the Right faction and the conservative Lyons Forum, is “expected to retire” rather than seek another term.

• After holding the seat since Malcolm Fraser’s departure after his 1983 election defeat, David Hawker has announced he will retire as member for Wannon at the next election. Andrew Landeryou at VexNews has a comprehensive form guide of potential preselection aspirants, including “complicated Costello loyalist” Georgie Crozier; Victorian Farmers Federation president Simon Ramsay, said to be facing a losing battle against former Howard government adviser Rod Nockles in his bid for the less appealing prospect of Corangamite; Institute of Public Affairs agriculture policy expert Louise Staley, who challenged Kevin Andrews for preselection in Menzies ahead of the 2001 election; former police sergeant and anti-corruption crusader Simon Illingworth; “farmer, vet and former local councillor” Katrina Rainsford; and the similarly credentialled Matt Makin.

• Left faction Victorian state MP Carlo Carli has announced he will not re-contest Brunswick at the next election, perhaps boosting the Greens’ vague chances of snaring the seat. Andrew Landeryou at VexNews once again offers a goldmine of detail on preselection contenders, describing the seat as an “area of conflict” between the competing Left faction camps associated with federal Bruce MP Alan Griffin and Senator Kim Carr. Griffin faction aspirants include former state secretary Eric Locke and Moreland councillor Alice Pryor, while the only identified contender from the Carr camp is 23-year-old Enver Erdogan, a staffer to House of Representatives Speaker Harry Jenkins. Apparently straddling the two camps is Danny Michel, an adviser to Public Transport Minister Lynne Kosky. Moreland’s Right faction mayor Lambros Tapinos is also named as a “wild card”.

• Yet more from the House of Landeryou: preselection challenges apparently loom against two senior Victorian state Liberals, Shadow Police Minister Andrew McIntosh in Kew and Shadow Health Minister Helen Shardey in Caulfield. The story in Kew goes that a Josh Frydenberg federal preselection victory in Kooyong would unleash “irresistible pressure” for McIntosh to be dumped in favour of “Costello loyalist” Kelly O’Dwyer. In Caulfield, “local power-broker” Frank Greenstein proposes that Shardey make way for David Southwick, who previously contested the federal seat of Melbourne Ports in 2004 and was narrowly pipped by short-lived Labor member Evan Thornley for an upper house seat in Southern Metropolitan in 2006. Ted Baillieu is apparently very keen that none of this transpire, as both McIntosh and Shardey are loyal to him.

The Australian reports the June 30 deadline for Victorian Liberal federal preselection nominations has ratcheted up speculation about Peter Costello’s future plans, with the overwhelming expectation he will seek another term in Higgins. Kevin Andrews is expected to face a challenge in Menzies, but is “believed to have the numbers”.

UMR Research has published one of its occasional polls on attitudes to republicanism, showing little change since November. Support is up one point to 51 per cent, opposition is up two to 30 per cent. Support for direct election of the president is up a point to 81 per cent, with opposition stable on 12 per cent. Fifty-three per cent support a referendum during the next term of parliament.

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.

1,451 comments on “Morgan: 58-42”

Comments Page 28 of 30
1 27 28 29 30
  1. Would Green supporters, support a hypothetical National Party Senator who had been ordered to pay costs because he lost a court case trying to make sure a coal mine went ahead.

    Would they support a wealthy “mining magnate” paing these costs for the hypothetical Senator?

    If not they are hypocrits. 😛

  2. [You suggested that the Greens get their instructions with regards to Pollbludger from Party HQ. ]

    I just pointed out that EVERY time the Greens are in a spot of bother here, there magically appears some new posters eager to defend the party line – all I’m suggesting is that either formally, or mor to the point informally Green Supporters are getting people to post here.

  3. [the real story here is the fact that Brown won the case, then Howard and Lennon teamed up to change the RFA and the legal yardstick, then appealed on the new terms and won.]

    Exactly, there is something inherently wrong that allows the rules to be changed whilst you are still playing the game.

    It doesn’t matter who Brown is, the technique could be used against anyone to stiffle and dissuade criticism.

  4. [Why are you calling us “onions” Frank?

    Is it because we always make you cry?]

    Actually it was Vera who called you Onions, I mereley adopted it – and it’s more the other way when you lot cry when we prick a few holes in your precious little arguments 🙂

    Nice try pinning me on that.

  5. Vera 1353, my query to you earlier this morning got lost in the cross fire of other topics. What did you go and do to Barry last weekend? 😀

  6. 1328

    Single member systems favour parties with areas where they are strong and weak as opposed to the a spread support. Hence the Nationals and the governing (after the election) major party doing well. With single member seats a party could get 47% of the vote and have no seats if its vote was spread evenly.

    1329

    How is a pair of safe as houses, except one in a blue moon, Labor seats more democratic than one safe as house, except one in a blue moon, Labor and one fairly safe Labor seat that might become marginal in the next decade? Divide and conquer the Greens. It is like saying a dictatorship is more democratic that a partial democracy like the single member system.

  7. Bob1234, I’m the one who called you lot onions, Frank was replying to me, so as you always are you are wRONg again!

  8. [Would Green supporters, support a hypothetical National Party Senator who had been ordered to pay costs because he lost a court case trying to make sure a coal mine went ahead.

    Would they support a wealthy “mining magnate” paing these costs for the hypothetical Senator?]

    I wouldn’t like it because I don’t like the Nationals. I like the Greens due to their social progressivism and the only electable party with such credentials. But it’s a moot point if the donation is legal.

  9. [Single member systems favour parties with areas where they are strong and weak as opposed to the a spread support. Hence the Nationals and the governing (after the election) major party doing well. With single member seats a party could get 47% of the vote and have no seats if its vote was spread evenly.]

    What is the definition of gerrymandering?

  10. [I wouldn’t like it because I don’t like the Nationals. I like the Greens due to their social progressivism and the only electable party with such credentials. But it’s a moot point if the donation is legal.]

    So it is ok because it is a Greens Senator doing, but not if it’s the Nats.

    Yep – Green Hypocrisy in full bloom.

  11. Frank are you blind?

    If its legal its legal. It is ok for a Nat to do it. Doesn’t mean i’d like it, but its still ok for them to do it.

  12. Juliem, I said earlier that Barry’s lost control and I reckon he should take up boxing like you told me about a few weeks back 🙂

  13. Brown was fighting the rich and powerful. Fighting for a coal mine is fighting for a coal mine. The coal mine company would probably fight for itself. Non-human species cannot sue so cannot fight for themselves.

  14. Sorry Vera, I was out of the house for a couple of hours and I tried to read all of the posts between then and now when I got back but must have missed it …..

  15. Vera, if you get rid of that cow, I’ll have trouble finding you LOL as sometimes I scan through and am only looking at the picture there ;-). When I find a cow, I know it is you 😉 (ditto with my koala I suppose)

  16. [Frank are you blind?

    If its legal its legal. It is ok for a Nat to do it. Doesn’t mean i’d like it, but its still ok for them to do it.]

    No, I’m pointing out how hypocritical you are – legality aside.

  17. [If its legal its legal. It is ok for a Nat to do it. Doesn’t mean i’d like it, but its still ok for them to do it.]

    So its OK for an individual to donate as much a he/she like to a political party as long as its disclosed?

    What was Green policy on this? 😛

  18. [What was Green policy on this?]

    No idea. I don’t blindly follow the policies of the party I support. I have an independent mind unlike some on this forum.

  19. [No, I’m pointing out how hypocritical you are – legality aside.]

    I’m sure if it happened to Rudd and it was above board and disclosed you’d be supporting him.

    But i’m sure you’ll say you wouldn’t anyway.

  20. [This is what Bob Brown said himself on Poltical Donations.]

    Ok…

    [Greens call for public funding of elections and ban on corporate donations]

    How is Dick Smith a corporate donation?

  21. Also:

    [Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown says corporate funding of political parties is corrupting]

    How would Dick Smith be funding the Greens, not withstanding the fact he wouldn’t be a corporate donation? He’d be donating to Brown’s court bill.

  22. Juliem, yep the avatars make it easier to flick over some and read the ones you want to.
    I always read the Koala 😉

  23. 1361

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander

    Gerrymandering is drawing the electoral boundaries to the advatage of one group or several groups over another group or several groups.

    Those who say that we should have single member seats to have single party majorities are openly arguing for a gerrymander against smaller more spread out parties like the Greens.

  24. [Ensure that federally elected Greens representatives, federal preselection candidates, endorsed candidates for a federal election and members of the Greens do not solicit or accept personally any donation to be used for activities on behalf of the Party or to advance the member’s standing within the Party including campaigning or fundraising].

    😛

  25. C’mon kids, this Greens/Labor name calling is very adolescent, surely you can all talk about politics without falling to this level. It’s painful to watch.

  26. [Ensure that federally elected Greens representatives, federal preselection candidates, endorsed candidates for a federal election and members of the Greens do not solicit or accept personally any donation to be used for activities on behalf of the Party or to advance the member’s standing within the Party including campaigning or fundraising]

    And how is Dick Smith’s money to get Bob Brown out of the debt an “activity on behalf of the party” or “advance the member’s standing within the Party including campaigning or fundraising”?

  27. [“advance the member’s standing within the Party including campaigning or fundraising”?]

    Without a donation his standing in the party will be greatly reduced.

  28. Well bludgers, I am moving on from this blog, at least for a while.

    I just don’t have enough time in my day to read all the petty, and – from my perspective, pointless point scoring. I am not at all enjoying the personal spite and nastiness that has crept into this blog. I have probably been a bit guilty of it myself as times, so, OK, a bit of potkettling, and, no doubt, some would say, good riddance.

    Sigh. It is going to be hard going cold turkey.

    cya.

  29. 1379

    Not being kicked out of parliament is not advancing within the party but is instead not declining within the party. The court action was not for advancing within the party but for stopping illegal logging.

  30. The problem with the Anti-Green labroites here is that they are simply making stuff up.

    It’s boring and repetitive.

    Like this:
    “So its OK for an individual to donate as much a he/she like to a political party as long as its disclosed?”
    The donations to Bob Brown are not a donation to the Greens.

    And they make up irrelevant statements like this:

    “I just pointed out that EVERY time the Greens are in a spot of bother here, there magically appears some new posters eager to defend the party line”

    Of course when people attack the Greens or Bob Brown, there will be more Greens posting here.

    The reason many Greens appear here is because the attacks are nonsensical and based in speculation.

  31. [Without a donation his standing in the party will be greatly reduced.]

    Please. Do read. Advancing a Senators standard, and maintaining his standard, are two very different things.

  32. Yes, the insults do get very tiring. They’re used as a way to win debates in the absense of rational argument.

  33. [The reason many Greens appear here is because the attacks are nonsensical and based in speculation.]

    But on the other hand it is quite acceptable for the Greens on this blog to do the same for those who support the Govt.

    Pot, meet Kettle.

  34. [Yes, the insults do get very tiring. They’re used as a way to win debates in the absense of rational argument.]

    That comment also refers to my reply to Astroblume.

  35. [The court action was not for advancing within the party but for stopping illegal logging.]

    Yes, but for what purpose is the donation being made? To preserve Bob Brown’s future in parliament rather than to support the anti-logging cause.

  36. [Yes, but for what purpose is the donation being made? To preserve Bob Brown’s future in parliament rather than to support the anti-logging cause.]

    And how is Dick Smith’s money to get Bob Brown out of the debt an “activity on behalf of the party” or “advance the member’s standing within the Party including campaigning or fundraising”?

  37. This is pathetic, the same stupid catchphrases being used on the last half-dozen pages.

    And of course I expect Frank to respond by saying “Onions can’t take the heat, they roast” or whatever stupid phrase he’s using these days, which just highlights my point.

    We now have a poll to ridiculously over analyse so why can’t we do that like we used to?

    2PP 56-44.

    And a lot of boring questions on the economy.

  38. [And how is Dick Smith’s money to get Bob Brown out of the debt an “activity on behalf of the party” or “advance the member’s standing within the Party including campaigning or fundraising”?]

    It is helping ensure that Bob Brown remains leader of the Party by remaining in the Senate 🙂 – no Bob Brown in the Senate – can’t be leader of Party.

  39. The purpose is to prevent fighting illegal logging from ending the career of Brown. If Brown was to become bankrupt and then pay off the debt before the next Senate election then it would most likely give him a martyrdom factor which would advance him him within the party.

  40. [This is pathetic, the same stupid catchphrases being used on the last half-dozen pages.

    And of course I expect Frank to respond by saying “Onions can’t take the heat, they roast” or whatever stupid phrase he’s using these days, which just highlights my point.]

    Actually YOU have highlighted my own point exactly – it’s called being a Hypocrite.

  41. Frank
    “But on the other hand it is quite acceptable for the Greens on this blog to do the same for those who support the Govt.”

    You are fighting shadows here.

    Itep
    “To preserve Bob Brown’s future in parliament rather than to support the anti-logging cause.”
    This is a dumb statement. Quite simply dumb.
    The donation is to pay a legal bill over an anti-logging court case. How anyone could see this as not supporting anti-logging is beyond belief.

  42. [It is helping ensure that Bob Brown remains leader of the Party by remaining in the Senate 🙂 – no Bob Brown in the Senate – can’t be leader of Party.]

    You evaded the question.

    How is Dick Smith’s money to get Bob Brown out of the debt an “activity on behalf of the party” or “advance the member’s standing within the Party including campaigning or fundraising”? It isn’t.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 28 of 30
1 27 28 29 30