For the third week in a row Roy Morgan has published results from a small-sample phone poll, which have had appropriately erratic results. All three have had the Coalition in front: by 56-44 on March 8-10, 51-49 on March 16-17 and now 54-46 on March 22-24 (as always, the caveat must be added that I am using the “preferences distributed by how electors voted at the 2010 election” figure, rather than “preferences distributed by how electors say they will vote” as highlighted by Morgan). The latest result has Labor’s primary vote down only a point to 34.5 per cent – not so different from Newspoll – but lower results for the non-major parties have pushed the Coalition from 42.5 per cent to 47 per cent. The Greens are down two to 10 per cent. The poll had a sample of 542 and a margin of error of a bit under 4.5 per cent.
Respondents were also asked the rather odd question of who out of Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull “would best represent Australia internationally”. Kevin Rudd led on 35 per cent, with Gillard on 21 per cent, Abbott on 19 per cent and Turnbull on 17 per cent. Curiously, the “good” poll for Labor last week had much fewer respondents thinking they would win the next election (30.5 per cent to 57 per cent for the Coalition) compared with the two worse results on either side (37-54 and 37-52.5).
William
In your estimation and on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being excellent:
Newspoll =
Morgan F2F =
Morgan Phone =
Galaxy =
Essential =
Fairfax =
I’m curious what others think as well.
Fairfax =
should read
Neilsen
The dwarf telling lies.
“In the broader sense Gillard is also seeking to characterise all carbon tax sceptics as climate change “extremists”, linking Abbott to the attendance at the rally of the anti-Semitic League of Rights and the ubiquitous Pauline Hanson. At the same time she gratuitously labels Abbott as a “climate change denier”, deliberately conjuring all the moral associations of a “holocaust denier”. Nasty stuff.”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45620.html
I fail to see the point in polls that use such a small sample.
Doesn’t that make them just as “unscientific” as the various online polls?
So ironic that what was once regarded “the party of decency”, the Liberal Party, justifies it’s grubby behaviour with a whining “but they did it too”. What “they” – the Labor Party – didn’t do was insult half our nation. Since when was “bitch” acceptable political language?
Bitter, unthinking people are not conservatives: that noun implies caution and restraint. These faux ‘Tea Baggers’ are intemperate, spoilt ratbags who cannot accept that a majority of the House of Representatives think the Labor Party best equipped to take steer the ship of state. And I note it is a House of Representatives – not of delegates: Members (including independents) are elected to use their judgement, not to follow the whims and dictates of an electorate (or part thereof).
[Doesn’t that make them just as “unscientific” as the various online polls?]
Not unscientific (whatever that means) but certainly with a higher margin of error.
[Doesn’t that make them just as “unscientific” as the various online polls?]
Not unscientific (whatever that means) but certainly with a higher margin of error.
The ever alert ABC don’t want any feedback on the Abbott/ Uhlmann two old mates down the pub agreeing with each other instead of a proper interview. The amount of editing in this piece made my eyeballs twitch, I’d like to see the out-takes.
Crabby’s piece on the revolting peoples went remarkably lightly on her misogynistic hero.
[He does not want to be associated with extremism of any kind, even when he secretly agrees with it.
But behind him was a large banner reading: “Ju-LIAR: Bob Brown’s BITCH”.
“Ditch The Bitch!” chanted an enthusiastic mike-side group in the crowd.
Is it possible that an Opposition Leader can associate himself with language like this?
It seems repellent; hard to imagine that even the best-intentioned direct action carbon abatement scheme would countenance such brutal talk.
In truth, the rally was otherwise like many political rallies].
It seems repellent……. WTF
[Respondents were also asked the rather odd question of who out of Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull “would best represent Australia internationally”]
How is this useful? Two do represent Australia internationally, but in different capacities. As for the other two…..? I don’t understand why this question was asked.
Stupid f’n website.
[William
In your estimation and on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being excellent:]
Newspoll = 8
Morgan F2F = 2
Morgan Phone = 4
Galaxy = 7
Essential = 7
Nielsen = 7
I don’t think Galaxy’s methodology is any worse than Newspoll’s but it has smaller samples. Same goes to a greater extent for Morgan phone. Nielsen is carrying weight from some dodgy pre-election polls, which may just have been bad luck. Essential might deserve an extra point, but they’re still paying their dues. Morgan F2F for all its failings at least follows the same trends as the other polls.
Uhlmann’s article now has comments – can’t see BB’s there.
couple letters to the mercury to day one with the picture of abbott in front of posters.
wtte. saying how embarrassing it is to be australian once again.
and god help us if ever he is pm.
notice the page at 7.30 with view letter s is down.
The URL for Uhlmann’s piece, for Bludgers who might wish to leave comments:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173608.htm
Don’t tell me The Dwarf hasn’t got a kind word to say about Gillard. Who would have thought?
So, this was done both before, during and after the rally. One wonders how many were done on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th and whether there was any difference over that (albeit small) timeframe. And yes, I acknowledge that the samples for each day would be even smaller.
Still, I guess time will tell, The next 2 weeks of polls will give us a better idea of how the wind is blowing.
having read the comment from ulman i would of liked to have put.
my my you are a man of the oppostion .
its now closed
William
What is it about Newspoll that gives it the edge over 3 other pollsters (forgetting Morgan altogether)? Larger samples?
I rather liked this letter to the editor in the SMH today:
how much long do we have to puy with this person on the 7.30 report
Apologies – you answered the question. My refresh hadn’t refreshed at all well.
bemused. that is quite a good letter.
Well, I may well be burned at the stake as a heretic but I think that Milne article is pretty fair. The “denier” jibe is still a very long bow, but other than that I reckon a lot of what he says is true.
The government could do worse than look to PB and start using the term “do nothings” instead of deniers and shut that line of debate down. The PM does also need to keep above the personal insults, as hard and unfair as that may seem.
That is the sort of article The Drum should be running. Pretty fair analysis and from someone who is not claiming to be a journalist – a very different job from a columnist.
[Posted Friday, March 25, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
The URL for Uhlmann’s piece, for Bludgers who might wish to leave comments:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173608.htm%5D
he said something riduclous about they wtte didnt storm the the door of parliment.
god help us if they had of. Union rallies where so much differnt to this type of thing.
this was a scary lot of people. I would have no fear of union members doing any harm
Cuppa another letter to the directors please about him
enough is enough
[William Bowe
Posted Friday, March 25, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
William
In your estimation and on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being excellent:
Newspoll = 8
Morgan F2F = 2
Morgan Phone = 4
Galaxy = 7
Essential = 7
Nielsen = 7
I don’t think Galaxy’s methodology is any worse than Newspoll’s but it has smaller samples. Same goes to a greater extent for Morgan phone. Nielsen is carrying weight from some dodgy pre-election polls, which may just have been bad luck. Essential might deserve an extra point, but they’re still paying their dues. Morgan F2F for all its failings at least follows the same trends as the other polls.
]
You forgot that mob at Herdsman’s Lake favourite – Westpoll 🙂
bemused
There are many analogies, but the one you referenced is excellent and would take some tossing.
Gos, thats why i only quoted that one section. denier is used all over the world and doesnt have that connotation at all.
I think it is better to call the “do nothings”
the “can’t do, won’t dos”.
Later, when it catches on, this can be shortened to
“can’ts”
[how much long do we have to puy with this person on the 7.30 report]
It seems for as long as their ABC board like what he’s doing.
Bugger the people who used to watch the show regularly.
[I think it is better to call the “do nothings”
the “can’t do, won’t dos”.
Later, when it catches on, this can be shortened to
“can’ts”]
Dr Good
And you’d have to watch the pronunciation!
There is a good explanation of “denier”, history and
distinctions with “sceptics”, at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
so having read some of the comments on the ulman piece.
Well i never i didnt know he also had a science degree.
BK
exactly 😉
30 Dan Gulberry
Posted Friday, March 25, 2011 at 4:46 pm
i have heard the chairman of the board time is up in Novemeber.
middleman @ 24
Yeah, I wish I had written it 😉
I think it brings the issue down to the level that even an idiot should be able to understand. Well’ most idiots anyway, maybe not the revolting people. 👿
my say
Let’s hope he’s replaced with someone with the integrity to restore Aunty to her former glories.
[BERNARDKEANE | 2 minutes ago
Might be easier if Morgan just pulled numbers out of a hat than bothered with their phone poll?]
as much as Ulman ms whats her name crab.may not like it is really only the political tragics who find these comment pieces and bother reading them.
its the pictures in the paper that tells a million words, and from what i see the people dont like what they see.
but i object to a journalist who is also a interviewer on the 7.30 report having an opinion on something and some one out there, how can he possible interview if he has let it known what his personal thoughts are.
and thats what i would think is a good reason to write to the a new director.
Kerry o’brien as far as i know never had a comment piece
morgan was the other way around last week
william why do you bother
Good letter, bemused, good letter. Certainly gives a different perspective. 🙂
[The government could do worse than look to PB and start using the term “do nothings” instead of deniers and shut that line of debate down. The PM does also need to keep above the personal insults, as hard and unfair as that may seem.]
So the PM just has to lay back and think of England? Hardly.
If you deny something is so, you can be called a denier surely.
40
didnt he have two bites at the cherries, one was face to face and one was phone.
really this quite ridiculous.
so this week non face to face then so you can compare,
ROFL,
Commenter at Their ABC, posting to Chris Uhlmann:
[I have always found you to be the only balanced, fair reporter at the ABC. Regardless that you defend them all,(your colleagues) things pop up everyday that are blatant Labor bias. Take Tony Jones, Kerry O’Brien, Steve Kinane and particularly Virginia Triolli. Leigh Sales tries not to be bias most of the time, as does Ali Moore and Melissa Clarke. Lyndall Curtis is still a mystery, but I dont feel we get the depth from her soft interviews, I would much prefer you back in that job, we dont see enough of you on 7.30 . Oh I forgot Barry Cassidy and Heather Ewart – they may as well join the Labor party, they dont even try to hide their Labor leanings.]
Amused Qld:
25 Mar 2011 3:37:00pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173608.htm
Letter just sent to an SA Senator.
[Senator Hurley
I am writing to you because I am represented by Jamie Briggs in Mayo and am seeking a meaningful reply.
I am 100% behind the efforts to introduce an effective ETS and the inherent compensatory adjustments that have been alluded to. The process to structure the legislation is still under way but I cannot see any compensatory instrument other than direct payment when it comes to self funded retirees, particularly those on the borderline.
Could you please enlighten me on whether self funded retirees are intended to be included and if suitable compensatory measures are being developed.
Kind regards.]
Let’s see how we go.
500 people is so silly,.
you could go down the road and ask another 500 and get a completely different answer.
good place to try this would be at a footy match the first 500 ask them who is goiing to win the game
then the next 500 and see what you come up with. crazy
i am giving up pb for lent.
nappin @ 41
Sadly, I can’t take credit for it.
I do enjoy reading the SMH letters and also The Age letters. Some real gems get published, particularly in the SMH.
#Gary
1 Er no, but smashing Abbott in the real debate is much better than giving Abbott’s MSM cheer squad that chance to prortray the PM as getting dragged into a was of insults. You use an interesting allegory given the nature of the insults being thrown around by “middle Australia”.
2 Yes, of course you can. I just think Do Nothings is an equally good put down. I actually think it is worse to say you accept something but won’t do anything about it than it is to deny it exists at all.
I agree with this para by Milne:
[For her part Gillard loses by engaging Abbott at his level in this debate. She can only win by prevailing on the facts of climate change and therefore the necessity for a carbon tax and ultimately the need for a full blown ETS. To take on Abbott on his preferred ground of character is to cede that high moral territory to him and divert the debate from where she needs it to be. As Prime Minister she has the most to lose from these sorts of bruising encounters.]
Plus the fact that Abbott’s weak spot is policy, and that he has a climate change policy that can’t be defended on any logical grounds once you scratch at the surface.
When the govt talks about policy, they win. Abbott can only respond with ‘NO!’ and promises to obstruct, and accordingly looks shrill with no alternative. The govt will win the carbon tax issue by sticking to arguing the policy and its merits. Leave the personal stuff to the rabble opposite.
Gillard is at her best on the attack. When you are up against a bully you don’t want to appear weak otherwise they’ll keep up the bullying. Looking weak is not a good look either and the bully gets the upperhand. I thought this would be “fighting back against bullies” 101.