Morgan: 56-44 to Coalition phone poll; 50-50 face-to-face

Morgan has published results from a phone poll conducted from Tuesday to Thursday, which shows the Coalition opening a commanding 56-44 lead on two-party preferred (using the superior measure of allocating preferences according to the results of the past election – on respondent-allocated preferences it’s 55.5-44.5), from primary votes of 31.5 per cent for Labor, 47.5 per cent for the Coalition and 10 per cent for the Greens. The poll covered a typically modest sample of 524, with a margin of error of a bit under 4.5 per cent.

Respondents were also asked about the carbon tax (33 per cent support, 57 per cent oppose); whether, in light of Julia Gillard’s pre-election statement “there will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead”, she had lied (72 per cent yes, 19 per cent no); and whether respondents supported Tony Abbott’s policy to rescind the tax in government (46 per cent yes, 42 per cent no). The results on carbon tax are solidly worse for the government than this week’s Essential Research poll, which had 35 per cent supportive and 48 per cent opposed. When compared to the results from Newspoll and Morgan, the voting intention figures in the Essential poll appear to suggest they hit upon a good sample for Labor in last week’s polling. Newspoll asked a broader question on support for paying more for energy sources if it would help stop global warming, rather than engaging with the government’s policy specifically: this had 47 per cent in favour and 49 per cent against.

The phone poll also offers personal ratings which reinforce the finding from Newspoll that Julia Gillard is now less popular than Kevin Rudd. Gillard is down four points as preferred Labor leader to 25 per cent, while Rudd is up one to 28 per cent. On the question of “preferred Labor leader other than Gillard”, Kevin Rudd has 36 per cent against 11 per cent for Stephen Smith, 9 per cent for Greg Combet and Wayne Swan and 6 per cent for Bill Shorten. After a dive for Tony Abbott in late February, the equivalent Liberal figures are back where they were in early February: Malcolm Turnbull leads Abbott 28 per cent (down six) to 24 per cent (up four), with Joe Hockey on 22 per cent (down four). Absent Abbott, Turnbull and Hockey are tied on 33 per cent, with Julie Bishop a distant third on 11 per cent.

Morgan has concurrently published results from their face-to-face polling over the past two weekends, and these are characteristically much better for Labor, showing a dead heat on two-party preferred. Presumably to emphasise the impact of the carbon tax, Morgan has also published separate figures for the two weekends of polling: two weekends ago, shortly after the carbon tax was announced, Labor led 53.5-46.5; one weekend ago, the Coalition had opened up a 52-48 lead. Respondent-allocated preferences from both weekends produced better results for the Coalition. The primary vote figures were 39 per cent for Labor (41 per cent on the first weekend, 37 per cent on the second), 44 per cent for the Coalition (41 per cent and 46.5 per cent) and 10.5 per cent for the Greens (11.5 per cent and 9.5 per cent). The sample for each week was a bit under 900; this technically gives a margin of error of a bit under 3.5 per cent, but equally significant is the consistent Labor bias in face-to-face polling.

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.

2,123 comments on “Morgan: 56-44 to Coalition phone poll; 50-50 face-to-face”

Comments Page 43 of 43
1 42 43
  1. I have just logged in to check the latest. So, only 33% support the carbon tax and 57% oppose.

    Well what did you expect? Another perfect blue sky autumn’s day in glorious Sydney.

    We are dommed I tell you, doomed! 😐

  2. Joe,

    Maybe you could look at ways of… wait for it… reducing your costs.

    Maybe when the consumers stop buying $50 cartons of VB CUB will decide charging $40 and making some profit is better than charging $50 and making none.

  3. [Greensborough Growler
    Posted Sunday, March 13, 2011 at 9:12 pm | Permalink


    You seem to judge everything in terms of today. Which is reasonable . Given you made your money under the old regime.

    The truth is in how you and your business adapt to change.

    Easiest thing in the world is for people like you to sit back and grizzle about change that is happening. The Government’s trying to do you a favour by putting some certainty in to the price of carbon.

    Of course, you want to whinge because you might have to get off your arse, work and innovate.]

    How many nights are you away from home every week sunshine?

  4. Good Evening Bludgers,

    I just sat through the second hit of Insiders. No, I am not a glutton for punishment, but I did want to check that it wasn’t just my own bias that coloured my opinion of Bolta’s performance.

    There is no doubt about it. The man is an intellectual pygmy who is so pro-liberal that he was bending facts to support his arguments. Ok he bent those facts so much they failed to represent the actual facts.

    The entire panel this week needs to be banned. Including Cassidie.

  5. I don’t see how fuel prices going up 6% alone would make a carton of VB $50. It is $40 for a 24 stubby carton now. A $10 increase due to fuel alone would mean that the transport cost for carton is currently $166, more than 4 times than the current retail costs. (10/0.06 = 166)

    However your concern about the consumers abadoning purchases due to presumably even higher oil prices is in a nutshell what the concern about peak oil is all about and what the other posters have been saying.

    How can the economy operate at $200 or $300 US a barrel or worse. At some point higher transport costs will crash consumer demand and this is usually the cause of recessions/depressions.

  6. [You must be made of strong stuff!!]
    I second that!
    Our roof almost disappeared. I thought OH was going to blow a gasket.

  7. Joe6pack,

    i understand your concern. I am sure it is the concern of many out there.

    However, the first thing you have to realise is at thus stage the 6 cents a litre has been pulled out of the air by Abbott. Just as the $300 a year increase in power costs.

    The government has announced a time table, 1 July 2012 and a basic framework, fixed price for three to five years followed by floating price determined by the market.

    Neither of the above have any influence on costs. The main thing that has influence on costs is what the price per tonne will be. This has not been announced.

    Abbott has travelled the country declaring that petrol will increase by 6c a litre and power costs by $300 a year. Yet in QT during the lasat week of seating he complaoned that the government needs to put more detail out there. He “knows ” what the price effects will be but admits that more detail needs to be put out there. He cannot have it both ways.

    No price per tonne has been announced, no decision has been announced as to whether petrol will be included. Abbott is lying to Australia and is causing undue grief to you and other business out there.

    As well, Compensation will be paid to business to cover all or part of cost increases. How this will be determined is yet to be decided but compensation will be paid.
    You and all of your competitors will be subject to price increases if petrol is included. Depending on the size of your business you may receive more compensation than your larger competitors. How much ? Yet to be determined but it will be worked out and teleased in due course. Cost increases outside of petrol will also be compensated. How ? Notification in due course.

    As I said Abbott is causing you grief based on nothing at the moment. All will be revealed within the next three months but I would be surprised if you would be a great deal worse off in absolute terms and in a relative sense with regard to your compeititors you could well find yourself better off.

  8. joe,

    Not nearly enough!

    You complaining because yiou have to work smarter.

    Please spare us all your “poor Joe” solliloquys

  9. Sorry Joe, my “reduce costs” comment was flippant. Shaving margins is not a cure all, I get that. I do however see companies like WalMart that managed to reduce transport costs by engaging with suppliers in a more comprehensive manner and coordinating a whole backhaul program across many different companies. Savings were significant. Ideas like this need to be pursued.

  10. J6P

    The govt is trying to commence to reform our energy sector so that it is sustainable for the future needs of the country, and that the energy is more clean and renewable. The majority of the energy we are using now is dirty, not sustainable and not renewable. The world are competing for all these resources.
    Australia has the opportunity to innovate and produce a sustainable clean energy future.
    Don’t look at this as something to be afraid of. Look at it as securing Australia’s future prosperity.

  11. Scrutineer @ 2107

    If (when) oil goes to $200 or $300 a barrel we will have to use it more efficiently and cut back on consumption.

    A lot of oil is consumed by private motorists making unnecessary journeys by car when alternatives are available. They will have pause to think.

    In the freight transport world, prices will undoubtedly rise and alternatives sought, such as local production rather than bring from interstate.

  12. I read a book on some well to do professional Sydney siders moving to rural areas in preparation for the economic collapse that will come when the shite hits the fan with peak oil.
    They spoke about how all our every day items need oil during manufacturing.
    Absolutely every facet of our lives is dependant on oil. Really scarey stuff!
    For the life of me I cannot remember the name of it.

  13. [Sorry Joe, my “reduce costs” comment was flippant. Shaving margins is not a cure all, I get that. I do however see companies like WalMart that managed to reduce transport costs by engaging with suppliers in a more comprehensive manner and coordinating a whole backhaul program across many different companies. Savings were significant. Ideas like this need to be pursued.]

    Comparing what happens in the usa. to aus is like comparing vic to bogabilla scale is completely different

  14. GG

    I must say it is lovely to hear your dulcet tones again. 😀

    Finns has been really mean to me while you were gone. 😥 😥

  15. [mfarnsworth Malcolm Farnsworth
    So Newspoll, Nielsen and Essential are now in total agreement of 54-46?
    1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply]

  16. [You must be made of strong stuff!!]

    I second that!
    Our roof almost disappeared. I thought OH was going to blow a gasket.]

    Same here,Dee. SK – You is one mighty brave squaw!

    Had son and his wife here and I thought son was going to explode. I was actually good to see him stirred up about it. At last he’s understanding what OH and I have been saying about RWers making up stuff to suit their story.

  17. [it would appear that their ABC jumped the shark today with their Inciter program.]

    The really disappointing thing about the degradation of what was once a good television channel is that the management just don’t care.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 43 of 43
1 42 43