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 40 of 43
1 … 39 40 41 … 43

  1. An inspirational article by Johann Hari about the UK Uncut campaign.
    http://www.johannhari.com/2011/02/04/how-to-build-a-left-wing-tea-party-a-guide-for-americans

    [Instead of the fake populism of the Tea Party, there is a movement based on real populism. It shows that there is an alternative to making the poor and the middle class pay for a crisis caused by the rich. It shifts the national conversation. Instead of letting the government cut our services and increase our taxes, the people demand that it cut the endless and lavish aid for the rich and make them pay the massive sums they dodge in taxes.

    This may sound like a fantasy–but it has all happened. The name of this parallel universe is Britain. As recently as this past fall, people here were asking the same questions liberal Americans have been glumly contemplating: Why is everyone being so passive? Why are we letting ourselves be ripped off? Why are people staying in their homes watching their flat-screens while our politicians strip away services so they can fatten the superrich even more?]

    Another article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/27/uk-uncut-stage-protests-banks

  2. Dee @ 1949

    Panic never helps. Exaggeration and alarmism lead to panic.

    This is a major issue that needs the best available expertise to determine how to handle it and protect people in the affected area.

  4. The initial preferred sites for reactors.
    [Qld: Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Sunshine coast, Bribie Island.
    NSW: Port Stephens, Central coast, Botany Bay, Port Kembla, Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet
    Vic: South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip, Portland
    SA: Mr.Gambier/Milicent, Port Adelaide, Port Augusta/Port Pirie]

  8. The situation in Japan is very ugly but a nuclear explosion is hard to envisage.

    The reason is that a nuclear explosion is very difficult to achieve and nuclear weapons require some very sophisticated technology. From what I have read, 2 or more pieces of fissile material must be brought together to exceed ‘critical mass’ in a very short period of time. This is achieved by conventional explosives surrounding the fissile material being detonated simultaneously to that the fissile material is driven together rather than blown apart.

    This is no mean feat of technology and the possibility of it occuring ‘accidentally’ is difficult to imagine.

  9. [ MichaelByrnes Michael Byrnes
    by bow_and_arrow
    Just how ignorant, ill-informed and objectionable do you have to be before the ABC sacks you as a panelist on either #insiders or #qanda ?
    1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply in reply to ?

    @SpaceKidette
    Space Kidette
    @MichaelByrnes Sacked? Sacked? You have to be joking! They get bonuses and promotions for being ill-informed, objectionable and biased. ]

    Dan_Gulberry Dan Gulberry
    @MichaelByrnes Better question – Just how ignorant, ill-informed and objectionable do you have to be before the ABC HIRES you as a panelist.

  12. BK @1937,

    Perhaps,

    But Abbott has declared that he agrees with the science.

    Interesting to see what twist he will try and put on it. Interesting to see what the commissioners say in return.

    Abbott does not want a argument on the science. He is locked into agreement on it now.

    Anyhow, only time will tell.

  13. GG @ 1961

    I am shocked. Are we on the same side? Glad we have common ground, let’s build on it.

    It is difficult to argue, on the one hand, that the science of climate change should prevail, and then take an anti-science attitude in relation to matters nuclear or anything else.

  15. Gus @ 1964

    I am aware of that.

    I left North Sydney off my list. Not familiar enough with Qld, SA, and WA to pick sites there. Where is the Fibs heartland?

  17. bemused,

    I think I’m on my side.

    Bolt holding a pre eminent nay saying situation is proof that good science means jack.

  25. [It is difficult to argue, on the one hand, that the science of climate change should prevail, and then take an anti-science attitude in relation to matters nuclear or anything else.]

    Not exactly. Nuclear power plants have the ability to cause widespread damage to current and future generations, what to do with nuclear waste and the main reason we’ll never see the nuclear industry take off here in our lifetime they aren’t economically viable.

  26. I don’t believe it…

    ABC Sydney TV news now running a spot on how ONE family “doesn’t think the government is doing enough” to find their son who was in the tsunami zone.

    For freak’s sake.

  27. Dee @ 1974

    bemused
    What about Portsea? 😀

    Now you’re getting in the groove!! Top suggestion, politically OK and plenty of water for cooling. 👿

  28. bemused,

    I’m glad your’e on board. I now hope I’m heading in the right/left/middle direction.

    Bolt’s media influence overpowers his factuality and decency.

    He helps sell newspapers.

  30. Adam @ 1975

    Not exactly. Nuclear power plants have the ability to cause widespread damage to current and future generations, what to do with nuclear waste and the main reason we’ll never see the nuclear industry take off here in our lifetime they aren’t economically viable.

    And they are matters of scientific controversy and disagreement, not a strong consensus like climate change.

    If technical issues are ever resolved and there is a strong scientific consensus then rationally, we would have to accept nuclear power.

    In the present situation Japan is faced with an emergency situation and it is best resolved by the scientists.

  31. BB
    [I don’t believe it…

    ABC Sydney TV news now running a spot on how ONE family “doesn’t think the government is doing enough” to find their son who was in the tsunami zone.

    For freak’s sake.]
    From where we sit we know this is a ridiculous ask, but imagine if you were in that position. Time in angst goes very slowly.

  32. He didn’t finish with ” shit happens”. Thank God for ABC 24.

    But… but… “Shit happens” is such an inoffensive and Aussie figure of speech.

    All the journos told us so.

  35. GG @ 1978

    I am by inclination left of centre but this is tempered by an evaluation of what is achievable in particular circumstances. I work with anyone on the left, centre and moderate right in common cause.

    I also have an engineering background that shapes some of my thinking.

  39. Anybody see Bob Brown today on Aus Agenda?

    He said Julia was honest, trustworthy, kept her word, is making a great PM.

    Not often I like what Bob says (because he often doesn’t look at the ramifications of what he says e.g. “Abbott outgreening the greens”) but in this I thought he gave her a great deal of backing up!

    Though the silly Australian journo took that to mean Bob had undue influence.

  40. [The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) today said it has developed the first of its kind nuclear reactor for thorium utilisation, whose design was under review of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).

    “We have developed the first of its kind Advance Heavy Water Reactor(AHWR) having 300 MW capacity for thorium utilisation, whose design is under review of AERB,” NPCIL director (technical) SA Bhardwaj said.]

    http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_npcil-develops-first-nuclear-reactor-for-thorium-utilisation_1519117

  42. For what its worth, I saw this elsewhere –

    My expertise comes from being
    a chemist and health physicist at a nuclear submarine construction and
    repair facility for nine years, plus a MS in nuclear chemistry and PhD
    in analytical chemistry.

    Normally a reactor is cooled with highly purified distilled or deionized
    water in a closed cooling system – i.e. it just goes around and around,
    and around. The water servers two ways.

    Water “moderates” the reaction by slowing down the two neutrons released
    when a uranium atom splits so that the neutrons will stand a better
    chance of sticking to other uranium atoms. When this happens the
    uranium atom with the extra neutron also splits and releases two more
    neutrons. Cadmium rods, which suck up neutrons, are used to control the
    amount of slow neutrons in the reactor so that it puts out power at
    steady levels. When everything is properly done, a controlled chain
    reaction which can lead to power production results.

    Fast neutrons are not as “sticky” so a reactor without a moderator is
    basically impossible to build. A moderator would, however, just get in
    the way of a bomb. They are built with pure uranium or plutonium or
    their oxides.

    Water circulation is also the way the reactor core is cooled and energy
    is removed to be used in generating electricity. Pressurized cool water
    goes into the reactor, is heated and comes out. Next this water, which
    will pick up small amounts of highly radioactive corrosion particles
    from the reactor core, is passed through a heat exchanger where it is
    cooled before returning to the reactor core. Hot steam from the heat
    exchanger turns the electricity generators.

    The water normally used for cooling was lost so they are using seawater,
    probably in an open system, i.e. once through the reactor then out to
    the ocean.

    They would only do this if their normal cooling system was broken since
    the seawater would contain suspended solids and dissolved minerals which
    could become radioactive. This radioactive material will contaminate
    the surrounding ocean bottom and sea life. This is still better than
    letting the reactor core become dry and melt down, which would release a
    huge amount of radioactive material into the environment.

    The pH of seawater is not low, it is slightly high. Normal pure
    distilled water has a pH of 7, which is the middle of the pH range.
    Acids have lower pH levels, bases have higher ones. Seawater pH is
    limited to the range 7.5 to 8.4, which makes if barely basic. Actually
    the pH of seawater is similar to that of blood, which is normally 7.35
    to 7.45.

    What can happen is that when water is in contact with extremely hot
    metals, the metals can corrode rapidly. This will strip the oxygen atom
    out of water (H2O) and can release a hydrogen molecule. The hydrogen
    molecule is not very soluble so it will “bubble” out of solution as a
    gas. If enough of this hydrogen gas accumulates and mixes with air all
    that is needed is a spark to set off an explosion. The explosive range
    of hydrogen in air is 4% to 75%, one of the widest explosive ranges of
    gases.

    This hydrogen production, leading to an explosion rupturing the
    containment building, was the big worry at Three Mile Island. It is
    probably what caused the explosion at the Japanese nuclear reactor.

    In the Chernobyl reactor they were using graphite as the reaction
    moderator. When they lost control the reactor overheated and the
    graphite (i.e. charcoal) caught on fire. The fire cause a release of
    radioactive material from the nuclear fuel and released enormous amounts
    of radioactive material into the environment in the plume of smoke.

    Maybe some here can comment on the above. Not me.

  44. [The Finnigans
    Posted Sunday, March 13, 2011 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Excellent real Football Grand Final. CCoast 1 Brisbane 0

    and GG, Time is On My Side]

    Gotta feel sorry for bris. was the best side all year.

  45. [ABC Sydney TV news now running a spot on how ONE family “doesn’t think the government is doing enough” to find their son who was in the tsunami zone.]

    Grrrr!!

    And SBS showed glimpses of the rallies The voiceover said that there is division in the community over the carbon tax but the pictures shown made it look as tho both rallies were of equal size.

    I was so incensed I rang SBS newsroom and asked why the numbers at each rally were not given. I was told ‘but we said there was division in the community’. I asked for the number to be included in the next bulletin was told to ring the complaints dept.

  50. I’ve just received some spam from Octopus Travel offering me special deals on hotel accomodation in Japan …

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 40 of 43
1 … 39 40 41 … 43