Morgan marginal seats polling

Yesterday’s Queensland marginal seat polling from Roy Morgan turns out to have been a teaser for today’s full suite, which also targets four seats each from New South Wales and Western Australia as well as one each from Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. With samples of 200 each, the electorate-level results are of little utility, but where results from four seats are available from a particular state we can combine them to get a meaningful picture from a margin-of-error of about 3.5 per cent. The swing of 4.8 per cent to the Liberal National Party in Queensland has not been borne out elsewhere: the four New South Wales seats collectively show a 1.0 per cent swing to Labor, while Western Australia produces an essentially status quo result with a 0.2 per cent swing to the Liberals. The single-seat polling for the other three states is less useful, but for what it’s worth the result from Hindmarsh in South Australia sits well with this morning’s Advertiser poll. Taken in their entirety, the results point to no swing at all from 2007.

Macarthur 50.1 38.5 -11.6
Robertson 50.1 48.5 -1.6
Eden-Monaro 52.3 59 6.7
Macquarie 50.1 60.5 10.4
Hasluck 51 50 -1.0
Brand 56.1 54.5 -1.6
Perth 58.1 57 -1.1
Fremantle 59.15 62 2.9
Flynn 52.3 45 -7.3
Longman 51.7 43.5 -8.2
Dawson 52.4 49 -3.4
Leichhardt 54.1 54 -0.1
Corangamite (Vic) 50.85 55.5 4.7
Hindmarsh (SA) 55.05 56.5 1.5
Bass (Tas) 51 62.5 11.5

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.

1,357 comments on “Morgan marginal seats polling”

  1. One of the really good things about having Rudd around was that it encouraged the opposition to attack on a range of issues – all negative, but at least there was a bit of variety. It was batts or ETS or mining tax or something. They only went the refugees card if they’d lost steam everywhere else (which even then happened a few times).

    Now Gillard’s come along and idiot-proofed nearly every Labor policy (not saying fixed as such, but at least neutralised to the point where the Liberals can’t get any traction) refugees are all Abbott has. So we’ve had a week now of relentless hammering of the issue, which frankly is very dispiriting.

    I still think it’s only a vote-changer if we’re feeling especially vulnerable as a country – as we were in 2001. The rest of the time it’s an issue where our opinions are latent rather than active. Ask us and we’ll say blah or blah-blah. But it won’t have an effect on the way we vote. It feels bad beating up on those who are asking for our help, and at some level we all know that, no matter how sound we believe our arguments are one way or another. You need an excuse (terrorism, for example) to feel compelled to really put it out there.

  2. I thought that what JG had to say was a good attempt to dispel some stereotypes: you can be apprehensive about asylum seekers and not be racist; and you can be opposed to the detention of children and not be weak on border protection.

    I think it is high time to look for those matters on which Australians can agree and begin again to find a viable policy on A-S.

    In relation to refugees, nearly everyone supports the proposition that Australia can and should take a healthy number of refugees each year, and that they should be given the support needed to successfully re-settle.

    There is also probably recognition that there is a lot of “excess demand” for refugee places and/or re-settlement opportunities when the global population of displaced persons is taken into account.

    There is also no doubt that boat-people are reliable news-makers and have presented a problem for all Governments, while the policies of various Governments have been divisive, expensive and problematic.

    While the Howard Government certainly made political capital out of asylum-seekers in 2001, over time Howard came to be associated with the maltreatment of children, the cruelties of Woomera and Nauru, the unlawful detention and expulsion of citizens, the expense of offshore treatment, the dishonesty of the “children overboard” episode and the inhumanity of the sinking of the SIEVX.

    The same issue has now contributed to the downfall of a Labor PM and is dragging the Liberal Party into commitments that are at once vacuous and cruel, as well as inevitably divisive and retrograde.

    There needs to be a new policy framework. The Pacific Solution did not “work” in a general public policy sense. The current situation opens the Government to sensationalist attack and is unsustainable.

  3. why not – JoeHockey

    Just went for 2hr walk.I will sleep well even if the kids will not.3 under 5 means best sleep on a plane! about 1 hour ago via mobile web – just keeping u uptodate

  4. Gus
    I’m no Ruddite. I can just see the inconsistency with all the Rudd hate now being acceptable from left leaning folk – but before the downfall you were a Liberal or Murdoch stooge if you breathed these talking points…

  5. Gillard’s choice is clear. Either take the path of moving the refugee debate from where Howard took it back to where it was under Fraser and Hawke; or join and encourage the baseless fears of the xenophobes. On or the other.

    One item of irritating crap coming from some resident on-payroll party line spinners around here is that the only people who support the humanitarian treatment of refugees in line with our obligations internationally are “inner city intellectual elites”.

    That is sheer garbage. The fact is that, generally, the more educated and aware people are, the more they are able to see the world in a relatively objective way, to stand apart from themselves and their own interests and fears in assessing situations, and what is right and wrong. That is what ‘educated’ means.

    Paddy McGuiness used to use the same technique with the expression ‘chattering classes’ do the same thing – to trivialise moral and intellectual truth where the political advantage was in supporting ignorance.

    In this debate the labelling of those with higher education and intelligence, and understanding of humanitarian issues, is an exercise designed to diminish the value of intelligent opinion and support for international covenants to promote the perceived electoral advantage for Labor in moving even further to the right by embracing ignorance and irrational fear.

    For party insiders- all of whom know better themselves – to run lines of such wilful ignorance is slimy, dishonest and disgraceful.

    Who is objectively correct in this debate? Those who support international humanitarian standards to which we are a signatory, or the bottom part of the bell curve who are driven by ignorance and irrational fears?

    Once you answer that question, you then arrive at the answer to the question as to what the government should be doing.

    I found it quite disturbing to read some of the suggestions from party people up the thread for Gillard to adopt – all against basic humanitarian standards, and all making us even more of a human rights delinquent. Refuse to give genuine refugees arriving by boat asylum here? Breathtaking.

    When the Labor party is reduced to arguing that what is intelligent, humanitarian, in line with our international obligations is bad; while what is stupid, irrational and baseless is good, then there is no hope, no light, and no use.

    There is NO rational justification for discriminating against boat arrivals. .

  6. darren
    to quote glennies fav PM

    [ I did but see him passing by,and i will love him to the day i die]

    But hey when push comes to shove and the raw reality ,as frank c so eloquently puts it,

    Its labor V liberal

    whose camp do you reside in?

  7. [ can just see the inconsistency with all the Rudd hate now being acceptable from left leaning folk ]

    i would rather say the word hate ( which such a dispised word) should be called

  8. I think Julia will handle the refugee policy in the best and most common sense way

    possible do not know what your all on about really.

    making such a big issue our of its not good. Give our Prime Minister the courtesy of knowing what she is doing
    after all she is a lady a female with so much more intuition than the mere males in the society ( smiley face)
    i am sure you will be surprised what us girls can come up with, multi skilled
    multi talented can use both brains left and right together.

    go jules

  9. Darren Laver
    Posted Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    “…I can just see the inconsistency with all the Rudd hate now being acceptable from left leaning folk”

    wRONg , it is not proper
    Refer my #817 and #1097 posts , and your coments wRONg re left community as well
    Suspect some emotion may came out which happens

    but everyone knows Libs ar focus to defeart

  10. Are you on facebook, Ron? If so, log on to my page there and have a look at the pictures my nephew’s wife posted there.

    They were taken when they did some work for Médecins Sans Frontières in Nigeria in 2008/09.

    No wonder people wish to escape to a better life from places like that. There is two dramatic pictures of him doing surgery on gunshot victims.

    My nephew is a surgeon and his wife is a midwife who was kept fairly busy there delivering babies, many who might not have survived if not for the assistance being provided by the more affluent countries like Australia.

  11. [Give our Prime Minister the courtesy ]

    I suspect the moment she wasn’t there would be none, especially say if the successor had for some time with assistance of a willing media ran a persistent denigration campaign. So well run that people quote Rudd’s ‘failings’ as though they were facts.

    Yet the source of these things the murdoch media and those not so ill disposed toward Rudd but intent on preparing the way for Julia.

    And the campaign intensifies immediately after the event as the party hacks are empowered to ‘openly’ denigrate at every opportunity the former PM.

    As I have said before the ease at which support turns to hate makes the value of that support worthless. And you would do it all over again to JGillard if the same program was run against her, so simple it is to do these things with a compliant MSM having the same intention but from different motivation.

    So now JGillard takes a few jumps to the right and the little fishes follow unquestioning, unthinking, except to not evaluate, only to rationalise so they don’t have to look at the drag to the right of the party.

    And if a shark come and swim through the swarm of fishes, they part and come back together faster and harder. The new and rapid converts JGillard cannot give up the concept in LOLCAT terns ‘Rudd bad’ as it removes the entire foundation for their support of JGillard.

    I wonder if JGillard decided on a policy to continually tow boats back out to sea if there would be a rapid rationalisation of why that would be a smart strategic decision to win the election.

    The PB cage needs to be rattled more often.


  12. [1114
    jaundiced view

    There is NO rational justification for discriminating against boat arrivals.]

    j-v, I am not sure if your comments are directed at me, but I have this to say. There is a rational justification: it would soon stop people-smuggling. Australia could take as many refugees as we liked and treat them well. We just would not grant entry and settlement to unauthorized arrivals no matter how they got here. For my part, if the Liberals would sign up to a bi-partisan policy that treated asylum-seekers as you suggest, I would be very happy.

    But, since they will not, what is the point in permitting a cynical and dishonest Liberal Party make political gains by exploiting popular fears? This issue contributed to the defeat of Kim Beazley in 2001. It helped undermine the credentials of Kevin Rudd. It is a political menace and the Liberals know it. This sounds like a cold-blooded political calculation. Perhaps that’s all it is. Perhaps, as you say, it reduces us to defending the “stupid, irrational and baseless.” But you do over-reach: it is not the end of hope light and use!

  13. Boerwar @ 1057

    I am not advocating censorship on this blog, only a bit more civility. I am all for robust debate on the merits of any issue, and people who post here should be prepared to have to justify their opinions when challenged, but that does not excuse crude, or baseless claims of lies, or racism being made against other bloggers, in my view.

    By all means let’s have a free and frank exchange of ideas and opinions, but when it descends into internecine warfare with too much mindless back and forth on whose pants were on fire first, then I think we should draw a collective breath and get back onto the issues, not dwell on personal attacks, or if the need is felt to give someone a serve, at least do it with some wit.

    Thanks, briefly @ 1078.

  14. Would not notice if there were a thousand refugees at the grand final but would be shattered if a Vevuzela got in.

    Who will turn back the Vevuzelas?

  15. briefly@1125

    j-v, I am not sure if your comments are directed at me,

    No, not aimed at you. I got a bit worked up over reading a day’s posts, and detected a line in spin. I guess I think it’s time to go back to what is right on this.

    If we can’t meet basic standards of human rights, then we have to question who we are. To me it has to be confronted. That damage Howard did is reprehensible. Losing the Presidency of the ICC, while delicious, is nowhere near enough humiliation for that flea in my opinion.

    But Labor has to lead the irrational and ignorant back into their boxes on this issue. Not do what it thinks is safest for the election. The principles involved are nation-defining – too important to be allowed to continue as a political tool (apologies to Sir Les Patterson). If they don’t douse it, but encourage the xenophobes, where does it end?

  16. [If we can’t meet basic standards of human rights, then we have to question who we are.]

    And this is why if JGillard pays homage to the notions raised by Howard and maintained by the Liberals she reinforces same in the hearts and minds of affected people. In effect affirming the rightness of them. Moving the entire issue to the right to where they will be Liberal Light.

  17. I thought Ross Gittins’ article this weekend was excellent. He’s smart, he’s acuminous, and he agrees with me. 😆

  18. The Big Ship,

    A bit of civility and consideration goes a long way to making the blogging experience a lot more enjoyable for both bloggers and readers.

    I have attempted to make this point and suggest that people (posters) consider that the personal attack directed at other posters is very unproductive and drags the tenet of the PB web site down.

    It is far better to read posters countering an argument they disagree with by putting forth valid, considered, counterpoints rather than taking the coward’s route of attacking the poster.

    I certainly don’t enjoy seeing it here and it seems to be getting worse, not better. As a reader, it would go a long way towards encouraging me to look elsewhere for enlightenment.

    Unfortunately, some here have the attitude that if you don’t like it here, then ping off.
    It does them no credit.

  19. Thomas Paine@1130

    If we can’t meet basic standards of human rights, then we have to question who we are.

    And this is why if JGillard pays homage to the notions raised by Howard and maintained by the Liberals she reinforces same in the hearts and minds of affected people. In effect affirming the rightness of them. Moving the entire issue to the right to where they will be Liberal Light.

    Yes, it makes it an establishment position between the two big parties, and there is no coming back from there. It’s bad enough that Gillard supported Howard for the cricket gig. What was she thinking?

    It’s almost an inexorable process with our two party system that they just keep getting closer and closer together on everything. They feel they can’t afford to lose any little niche demographic, and it doesn’t seem to matter at all any more what is right – it’s only what is slightly more popular at the moment that matters. Leadership is missing in all that. The last signs of a capacity to lead were in PJK, but he was very selective too. He looks pretty effective compared to what we have been served up by Labor though. It doesn’t look as if Giillard has much PJK in her so far.

  20. everybody is cool Julia is on twitter – wonder if its better than Kev’s (his was just a rubbot)


    She’s here! RT @JuliaGillard: I’ve decided it’s time to take the Twitter plunge! Hopefully I’ll master it. JG.

  21. Gusface,


    maybe they need to harden the farknuckle up! ]

    Well they tell me that often enough! 😉

    Don’t you have your own web site anymore Gus?

    Notice you have a block on Twitter also. Any particular reason for that?

  22. [I thought Ross Gittins’ article this weekend was excellent. He’s smart, he’s acuminous, and he agrees with me. ]

    A number here though thought that that article was disgusting.

  23. Back later in the morning to see how things are shaping up (or shipping out 😉 )

    Night all.

    ps; Frank & William, I sent a “friend” request to you both on facebook.

    If you check my page, you will see those photos I mentioned earlier. I reckon they are great and worth a look.

  24. j-v, I take your points. But consider, the polls say some 70% of the electorate are unhappy with the Government’s handling of A-S policy. It cannot be that so many of us are xenophobes, or Pauline Hanson would have become PM long ago. I think the reaction against boat-people stems more the sense that our willingness to help is being taken for granted and that the influx of boat people signifies a loss of control. That is why the issue is depicted in terms of “border protection”, as if it were akin to a defense issue. This is very potent mix and is prone to manipulation, as the Liberals have found to their benefit.

    I have to differ from you: this is not a nation-defining issue. Australia can and will take refugees from every place where people are displaced and need help. But the Liberals can and should be denied the chance to exploit that accident of geography: the fact that Australia is an island.

  25. Thomas Paine@1141

    I thought Ross Gittins’ article this weekend was excellent. He’s smart, he’s acuminous, and he agrees with me.

    A number here though thought that that article was disgusting.

    I didn’t notice skimming through the refugee debate posts – but I could probably name them, if decorum and a desire for blessed harmony allowed. 😆

  26. [Notice you have a block on Twitter also. Any particular reason for that?]

    Frank started to spam me


    Actually it was because some ummmmm persons decided to hack my twitter

    all cool but more tinfoil was required


  27. [The last signs of a capacity to lead were in PJK]

    I admired Keating as much as the next true believer, but he was thoroughly rejected by the voters. On the A-S issue, it was Keating’s Government that introduced mandatory detention, as I recall……

  28. briefly

    Not sure of the meaning of your poll figure – Those against current policy includes me and my ilk – not because we want a ‘tougher’ policy but because we want a more humane one.

    I agree with your last sentence as to the objective of taking our share of refugees, as long as the policy is in accordance with the Covenant, rather than trampling on human rights, as it now does.

  29. BOB well disenchanted that i am there is no way im voting for greens u wanker -u have and have always been a pompous bastard and yoiu do youself no favours

Comments are closed.