Morgan phone poll: 53.5-46.5

Long overdue for a new post, so let the record note that Roy Morgan published results of a phone poll on Friday which had Labor’s lead at 53.5-46.5, compared with 54.5-45.5 at the previous such poll a month ago. It should be noted that Morgan’s headline polls are their face-to-face efforts, which are published weekly or fortnightly depending on the company’s whim, and these tend to show Labor with a bigger lead. The phone polls are from small samples of about 550, with a margin of error of over 4 per cent. Newspoll should report tomorrow evening, unless The Australian decides to get in early, and Essential Research should as always report tomorrow afternoon.

UPDATE (15/2/10): The Courier-Mail has delivered figures on Queensland federal voting in addition to yesterday’s state survey. They too show a lurch to the Coalition, from 46-54 behind in November to 51-49 ahead. This would represent a swing to the Coalition of 1.4 per cent from the 2007 election. However, the federal and state results taken together raise suspicions that this was a good sample for the Coalition.

UPDATE 2 (15/2/10): A Westpoll survey of 407 respondents in Western Australia shows the federal Coalition with a two-party lead of 51-49 in that state, which would amount to a 2.3 per cent swing to Labor compared with the 2007 election result. The previous such survey in December, conducted immediately after the leadership change, had Labor leading 53-47. The margin of error on these surveys is approaching 5 per cent.

UPDATE 3 (15/2/10): The Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead steady at 55-45. It also offers us the unusual spectacle of approval ratings of the parties’ finance spokesman: Lindsay Tanner is plus 7, Barnaby Joyce is minus 11, and both have high “don’t know” ratings. Further questions find Kevin Rudd’s lead over Julia Gillard as preferred prime minister lower than it was, strong approval for a federal health takeover, and disapproval for a population of 36 million by 2050.

Much afoot in the world of Labor preselection:

• The Sydney Morning Herald reports Dobell MP Craig Thomson, who has hit heavy weather over allegations of credit card abuse and failure to disclose donations from his days as a Health Services Union official, will be challenged for Labor preselection by David Mehan, who contested the seat unsuccessfully in 2004. However, “factional number crunchers” quoted in the report do not expect him to be troubled.

Roderick Shaw of the Penrith City Star reports Liberal Senator Marise Payne is said to be hopeful of standing in Lindsay at the next election. The seat’s Labor member, David Bradbury, has denied a rumour aired in Crikey that he wants Roger Price to make way for him in neighbouring Chifley.

Fairfax reports Jason Young, Labor’s narrowly unsuccessful candidate for Bowman in 2007, has withdrawn from contention to stand again this year. The report quotes Young denying his withdrawal was releated to an imminent court appearance for driving with a suspended licence and in an unregistered vehicle. The front-runner appears to be Phil Weightman, who lost his state seat of Cleveland at the March 2009 election, and like Young is a member of the Left.

Mark Kenny of The Advertiser reports Rick Sarre, professor of law and commerce at the University of South Australia, is firming in contention to win Labor preselection for Sturt.

Soraiya Gharahkhani of the Campbelltown Macarthur Advertiser reports Camden deputy mayor Greg Warren has withdrawn from the Labor preselection race in Macarthur, which leaves Nick Bleasdale and Paul Nunnari.

Roma Dickins of the Camden Advertiser reports on Pat Farmer’s hopes to keep his political career alive in the state seat of Camden, where he faces stiff opposition from local mayor Chris Patterson. Farmer has lost preselection for his federal seat of Macarthur.

Stephen Mayne and Graeme Orr discuss party donation disclosures on Radio National’s The National Interest.

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.

885 comments on “Morgan phone poll: 53.5-46.5”

Comments Page 17 of 18
1 16 17 18
  1. So what is it with Q&A Live feed that I don’t understand?

    (Her Indoors is watching the skating from Vancouver so I have to vod view)

    It ain’t workin’.

  2. Ltep,

    [Alternatively it could have been the case that they were so desperate to get rid of Howard that they’d give anyone a go. If the public want to get rid of a Government the other party’s ‘team’ isn’t likely to be considered too harshly by the public.]

    Or alternatively, there was enough exposure of Coalition Front Bench incompetence and enough exposure of Rudd’s Front bench for a decent comparison to be made by electors.

    One man is nit enough to prop up an incompetent Front Bench be it Govt or Opposition.
    Besides that Rudd and his Front Bench outperformed their Howard Government counterparts more than adequately during TV appearances and the “Debates”!

    The electorate were certainly “not” fooled into taking a chance with Rudd!

  3. [Relative to $50 billion, $17 million is statistically very small amount. You want to argue the contrary, instead of putting words in my mouth?]

    Relative to $50 trillion, $17 billion is statistically very small amount.

  4. [Or alternatively, there was enough exposure of Coalition Front Bench incompetence and enough exposure of Rudd’s Front bench for a decent comparison to be made by electors.]

    Since when do swinging voters compare frontbenches?

    Stop living in la-la land.

  5. [Relative to $50 trillion, $17 billion is statistically very small amount.]

    So bob1234, not only do you tell fabulous jokes you also taught Barnaby Joyce arithmetic?

  6. [So bob1234, not only do you tell fabulous jokes you also taught Barnaby Joyce arithmetic?]

    I’m not sure what response you’re looking for to such an odd question.

  7. Sorry, Pseph, but can we clarify your point?

    is it…

    1) Look at the Netherlands as an example;
    2) see? It can be done sucessfully. There are other examples as well
    3) Therefore Australia should attempt to do it too

    Part of my issue with 35m is that it comes with a 2050 deadline. The rate of growth is critical to my concerns. We aren’t coping with the current rate of growth, state and federal governments can’t deal with the rate of increase.

    If someone told me the target was 26m by 2050, on our way to a target of 35m by 2100, I would breathe a little easier on this topic.

  8. Cuppa

    [A question for those who know…

    In the time of Whitlam, and later, Hawke/Keating, was the media so concentrated against Labor as it is today?]

    Whitlam, yes, probably more so!

    Hawke not so much. Bob knew how to massage the ego of the likes of Murdoch and Packer and was good at mixing it with the corporate heavyweights. Fairfax was in turmoil and both of them wanted to take it over. Hawke just strung them along a little.

    Keating, both Murdoch and Packer turned on him with a vengeance and were a big influence in him losing Government to Howard. Keating wouldn’t cave in to them over the Media ownership laws so they sunk the boot into him good and proper!

  9. It’s so amazing to see all these people decrying the bias of the MSM. Freakin hell, they been spending too much time brown-nosing the establishment and thinking they are a part of it to realise that the establishment doesn’t love them. Oh shock, horror.

    No story here….move along.

  10. Bob 123456

    th NO polisy man

    says he suports Greens

    YET in last week on 2 posts YOU says no interested in CC !! , then not interested in environment !!

    I thinbk you only care about bering a Labor knocker , as you can not say what you stand for ,

    exceppt BS

  11. I’m glad on Q&A that they’ve trashed the Tone-in-his-shorts-as-alternative-to-policy-substance rubbish. It’s insulting to Australians.

  12. [I wouldn’t be surprised if Pauline makes over $2 Mill for her Ipswich property.]
    WHo gives a crap. THe fact she is leaving AUstralia demonstrates perfectly that she couldn’t care less about our country, she just pretended she did to win a few racist votes.

  13. Whitlam had a media honeymoon in 1972-73 because there was a widespead recognition that it was unhealthy for one party to be in power for 23 years. That’s mainly why Murdoch supported a change of government. But they turned on him fairly quickly – the Fairfax papers as well as Murdoch. People forget that it was “lefty” Age that broke most of the Loans Affair stories. Hawke actually had a longer media honeymoon than Whitlam did, because he was better at buttering the media up with his good bloke routine. In fact the media never turned 100% against Hawke. They eventually turned 100% against Keating. The amazing thing about Rudd is that the media have been 100% hostile to him right from the start.

  14. Barnaby’s being entertaining. But Tanner looks solid and dependable in contrast to him.

    The guy on the end next to Tanner is very annoying. Obviously relishing having an audience.

  15. [WHo gives a crap. THe fact she is leaving AUstralia demonstrates perfectly that she couldn’t care less about our country, she just pretended she did to win a few racist votes.]

    As the Morgan Poll would say “the country must be heading in the right direction” if Pualine is leaving

  16. [Since when do swinging voters compare frontbenches?

    Stop living in la-la land.]

    The comment wasn’t directed to you ignoramus!

    How about you try and stick with the arguments and debates you already have going!

    Psephos just loves taking you apart. Take him on! 😉

  17. One of the reasons Keating got such flack from the media was that he wasn’t supposed to have won the election (remember the ‘Hewson by a nose’ headlines?)

    They did a bit of rooting for him up to the election, a sort of ‘well, he’s doomed but putting up a gallant fight’ approach. And then he beat Hewson, and made fools of them all.

    After that, they were remorseless. He wasn’t legitimate in their eyes, so he was arrogant and out of touch.

    It’s much the same with Rudd.

    Rudd was admired for the same reason – he was putting up a gutsy fight, but he couldn’t win.

    He couldn’t win because Howard was a safe pair of hands, a political pro, would pull a rabbit out of the hat, had stared death down before, and 16 seats in one go – well, it just wasn’t possible.

    And Rudd proved them wrong.

    So….anyone see a pattern here??

    (A slight aside: two examples in recent days of journos accidentally revealing that their reporting on individuals is coloured by their personal encounters – a diatribe against Garrett, where the author let slip that he had ignored her at a function; and La Grattan’s recent spray against Labor, apparently because no one in caucus leaks to her.

    Journos have personal contact with pollies, ordinary people don’t; hence journos can’t understand why, when they can’t stand X, ordinary people apparently can.)

  18. Tanner is actually the minister, so he gets more serious questions, whereas Joyce is just a clown. It’s actually a compliment to Tanner that he gets tougher questions. It’s like the Biden v Palin debate. Palin “won” just by not actually falling flat on her face.

  19. [Since when do swinging voters compare frontbenches?]

    During election campaigns dolt! What, do you think they spend three years in a coma or something.

    How come the polls suddenly dropped to 52.7% 2PP on November, 24th, 2007.

    Somebody must have been comparing something???? eh what?

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 17 of 18
1 16 17 18