Morgan: 50.5-49.5 to Coalition

The latest Morgan face-to-face poll, combining results from the previous two weekends, is a weak result for Labor as this series goes, with the Coalition maintaining their 50.5-49.5 lead from the poll of March 12-13. The primary vote figures likewise record little change: Labor down half a point to 37.5 per cent, the Coalition down one point to 43.5 per cent and the Greens up half a point to 12 per cent. As always, the two-party figure I have chosen to lead with is the “preferences distributed by how electors voted at the 2010 election” result rather than the “preferences distributed by how electors say they will vote” figure preferred by Morgan (51-49 to the Coalition in this case), and as always the margin of error (2.3 per cent from a sample of 1819) tells you less than this series’ evident bias to Labor.

UPDATE: Essential Research has the Coalition’s two-party lead up from 52-48 to 53-47, from very slight changes in the primary vote: Labor down a point to 36 per cent, the Coalition and Greens steady on 46 per cent and 10 per cent.

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.

2,695 comments on “Morgan: 50.5-49.5 to Coalition”

Comments Page 1 of 54
1 2 54
  1. [Wasn’t it the Lib preferences that got Bandt over the line?]

    What does that matter? All that proves is the Greens were able to come either first or second as the so-called “third party” of Australian politics.

    Not good for the Labor Party if others decide to play politics, like the Libs did in this case.

  2. Re this Morgan: an interesting element is creeping in – the “pox on both your houses”.

    Both Labor and the Libs seem to be suffering from a lack of confidence amongst the great unwashed and the beneficiaries seem to be the “others”. Voters may be pissed off with the “carbon tax” and all that follows, but they are equally – or more, actually – unimpressed with Tony Abbott and what he is failing to offer as an alternative.

    Hopefully Labor can get some clean air over the next few weeks to both put some flesh on their policies and to demonstrate they are the party of both vision and action. One would hope that, compared to Mr No Policies, punters will begin to see that action is much more important than empty rhetoric and the polls will begin to swing back the right way.

  3. I see there is trouble in paradise.

    Is Bob Brown going to bitch slap Julia?
    Will the dynamic duo fight on to bring us the much hated and useless Carbon Tax?

    Stay tuned viewers…

  4. The nation is split down the middle – Morgan’s no different to any other poll, give or take a point or two. Its been this way for 18 months. It will remain that way. We’re unimpressed with our leaders. Rudd was the last to leave a favourable stamp, and that was when he went against a declining Howard. We don’t think much of Gillard, and we just don’t like Tony. So we put up with what we’ve got – and lower our expectations. It could be worse – we could be living in the UK.

  5. Danny Lewis (2) There is no ‘right’ (or wrong) way for opinion polls to ‘swing’, and it is really quite meaningless to wish there is ‘clean air’ for a party you might prefer.

  6. So we put up with what we’ve got – and lower our expectations. It could be worse – we could be living in the UK.

    Lower our expectations to querulously & myopically bemoaning our world-beating economy, and likewise our competent government getting on with business.

    We are in the poo…

  7. SpinsUp,

    …it is really quite meaningless to wish there is ‘clean air’ for a party you might prefer.

    If Murdoch would just stop farting over everything all the time, that’d do me.

  8. [What she actually identified is that the Greens tend not to understand the ramifications of many of their policies.]

    I do not think this means what you think it means. The Greens have their policies based on academic research, because their policies are designed by their members through consensus, and their members are quite well educated.

    The economic policies of the Greens is based on the well-accepted notion that people are happier and healthier in a more equal advanced society, most effectively argued in The Spirit Level.

    The thought vacuum of two-party politics means these notions can not possibly be accepted at any significant level. Lobbyists fill that vacuum for them.

  9. John of Melbourne: ah, gotta love that Fiberal arrogance!

    Remind me again, John; are the Greens and Labor effectively one party – formally – or does that better describe the Liberals/National Party coalition?

    A coalition, I am at pains to remind you, who constantly and seriously disagree on a number of policy fonts … until the agrarian socialists decide to roll over and think of England yet again.

    Gotta love that right-wing projection.

  10. Actually it is a good result for Labor to be essentially in a dead heat with the Coalition at this point. When the Carbon Tax detail comes out and people find that Tony “We’ll All Be Rooned” Abbott’s scary stories were, to use his own word, “crap” it must surely boost Labor support. Unless of course they manage to shoot themselves in the foot………..again

  11. [I do not think this means what you think it means. The Greens have their policies based on academic research, because their policies are designed by their members through consensus, and their members are quite well educated.]

    Just as a lot of Labor & Lib adherents are quite well educated. That doesn’t automatically mean their policies are any more well thought out.

    I’ll give you a for instance: Greens are not wanting to compensate for petrol in the carbon price. That is good in principle … i.e. it would impact behaviour and add a lot to cost. HOWEVER, not compensating makes life more difficult for many (and I agree — the bulk of people are greedy and should shoulder the burden) but!!!! electorally, it would get us a coalition govt faster than you can say Jack Spratt. Jobs would be lost. The welfare burden on all of society, would be greater.

    So, you have shot yourself in the foot … because the coalition would unravel all the good you’ve attempted to do.

    The lesson from not implementing the CPRS might/might not have been learned. Greens actions will show us soon, methinks. Ideological positions are great for one’s moral self assessment, however they are often highly impractical when dealing with a broad spectrum of real people.

  12. JOM: Point me towards ONE – just one – person on the Labor side who is more scary than Sophie Mirabella?

    Or Bronwyn Bishop.

    Or, gulp, YOUR BLOODY LEADER.

    And that is before I even get started on the Nationals.

  13. The Greens have their policies based on academic research, because their policies are designed by their members through consensus…

    There initially seems to be somewhat of a contradiction in that statement, until the words “based on” are considered.

    Leaving aside for a moment the issue of who chooses which research, and how: do the Greens’ well-educated members just rubber-stamp the research, rendering the notion of a consensus meaningless; or are they prepared to compromise on the research if they see compelling ideological or political reasons to do so?

    If the latter, aren’t you being just a wee bit precious?

  14. Ah yes, John of Melbourne, you conservatives are always so sensible and reality-based. Pity your vision extends only to the end of your nose.

  15. PUBLIUS – It’s not fair to call Julia fake, because we’re all fake.

    Was it Brecht who said: “I would love to see what I look like in the moment before I look at myself in the mirror”

    I keep trying, but I’m not fast enough.

  16. The 3rd GRN has now pulled *ahead* of Hanson in the NSW Legislative Council count, even before preferences.

    Not over, but looking good.

  17. [What does that matter?]
    What does it matter? Are you serious? If they’d preferenced Labor the result would have been different.

  18. Danny, I pick Julia Gillard. Why? Because only half way through the election did she realise that she was real. Oh and she wants to introduce a Carbon Tax and is best mates with Bob Brown.

    Lynchpin, capatalism has been the saviour of the world it has brought more people out of poverty then any left wing ideology.

  19. I’m not sure how much serious discussion we should have over the Morgan numbers – I am sure we have previously determined that Morgan is the least preferred/reliable/believable, etc of the main polsters, even if one or two of the others has an inherent bias. The is evident in William using a different preferences distribution for a start.

  20. [PUBLIUS – It’s not fair to call Julia fake, because we’re all fake.]

    Yes rosa, we are all fake, but some of us are faker than others.

  21. JOM,

    “capatalism” as the saviour of the world? I thought you Tories thought Jesus was? Or maybe Jesus in Hillsong mode (ie the entrepreneurial Jesus).

  22. Ah, so Julia Gillard has made ONE misstep in all her years on public life.

    Remind me again how any Tony has made IN THE PAST WEEK?

  23. [G’day Gary, Hope your well mate]
    Yeah thanks John. You sound like you’re fighting fit. Just dropped in for a quick squizz. Keep them on their toes.

  24. Julia knows who she is: a Howard conservative being turned into a conviction politician by those pesky independents. The crazy / ironic thing is that they might make her a great reformist leader and save her from her own most basic instincts.

  25. [Lynchpin, capatalism has been the saviour of the world it has brought more people out of poverty then any left wing ideology.]

    Capitalism works when there are two distinct classes and the upper class who play around with the wealth behaves benevolently towards the class that does all the labor.

    In our society, we have a large group of entrepreneurs who actually make money from the labour of others without actually doing any real labour themselves. The rampant making of money from non-existent labour is what has also been the ‘downfall’ of capitalism. A couple of years ago this caused the GFC. Capitalism gone mad.

    If you want evidence: go see “Inside Job”

  26. [because their policies are designed by their members through consensus, and their members are quite well educated.]

    Oh, well then.

    All hail our Green masterlords! May we bask in the benignity of their condescedation!

    Isn’t this EXACTLY Julia’s point? That the Greens don’t understand the average person’s wants and needs and thus don’t take them into account?

  27. Lynchpin, too true, however I’m into Catholic Jesus.

    Rosa, Julia is a person who wants to fix her mistake! She had no legitimacy when she replaced Rudd and has none now. Where is the bounce political parties get after they’re reelecteed? She is desperate not to go down in history as a failed PM.

  28. [The crazy / ironic thing is that they might make her a great reformist leader and save her from her own most basic instincts.]

    The only thing Julia Gillard knows about reform is that her advisors have told her that it’s a good idea to keep saying that she’s doing it. Whether she actually is or not seems to be immaterial.

  29. JOHN – We’re all desperate,and she’s in a hell of a lot better position than Tony Abbott. He’s obviously costing the libs at least 10 points in the polls.

  30. [Isn’t this EXACTLY Julia’s point? That the Greens don’t understand the average person’s wants and needs and thus don’t take them into account?]

    You think Gillard has any idea herself?

    “a conservative careerist who couldn’t be trusted” is I believe what Lindsay Tanner supposedly used to call her.

  31. [He’s obviously costing the libs at least 10 points in the polls.]
    rosa – this puts the Coalition (in the real world with TA gone) in a pretty strong position. I am not sure it’s really by that much, given Morrison, the Poodle, Bishop and Sloppy do not help the Coalition’s situation.

  32. [She had no legitimacy when she replaced Rudd and has none now. ]

    JOM — that is laughable. Labor has the right to select any leader it chooses — just as the Libs do (after all — they chose a lunatic to lead them and still don’t appear to realise their mistake!)

    Gillard is PM in accordance with our electoral laws. Thus, she is legitimate. She got more votes than the coalition at the election.

    One vote more is all she needs (isn’t that what old Tone got? … and he has since destroyed his own party by grovelling at Minchin’s feet).

    12 months from now, when we have a senate that will operate on ethics rather than partisanship (with no party having automatic sway) … we will have good government.

  33. I have no doubt that Julia Gillard will ultimately be remembered as a great reformist leader.

    The problem is, it probably won’t happen in our lifetime. Once all the poisonous Limited News scribes have gone to meet their maker and some historian in the future looks back upon what was actually ACHIEVED and what the circumstances were, then she (and Rudd) will be lauded.

    And the tone of that academic work will be, one suspects, all about the influence of the media and how fundamentally good policies can be undone by a mischievous media who are running their own agenda.

  34. This is good – discussion about policy including current Labor supporters. We wouldn’t have seen that 12 months ago. In my opinion party policies should be based on what is right – meaning the best expert opinion.

    Jenauthor while I accept what you say about the realities of the costs of necessary policies on sectors of the electorate on some issues such as carbon, such impacts should not dictate policy.

    The difference between Labor and the Greens has been that Labor has dropped those policies with any impact. Since the election however, Labor has been obliged to start from good policy and lead on it – policy that the Greens kept but are negotiating on. That is to me the best approach to public policy.

  35. [Your search – “a conservative careerist who couldn’t be trusted” – did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:
    Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    Try different keywords.
    Try more general keywords.]

    😛

  36. So, the Libyan Half-Arsed War of 1973 is going backwards? The rebs are losing territory? That was not supposed to happen. I do hope that the Ghaddafi regime honours 1973 to protect civilians in recaptured cities.

    OTOH, Moussa defects. So, what do the half-arsed war of 1973 geniuses do? They announce that he has been taken to… ‘a secret location to interrogate him about Lockerbie’. That ought to encourage the filthy murderous regime to implode.

    Another BW prediction, you read it first on PB, came true today, sort of. Not an MSM prediction. Not a rah rah prediction about Mr Rudd’s fabulous No Fly Zone. It turns out that Benghazi does not have an economic hinterland right now. 700,000 people and their port has done nothing for nearly two months.

    The lies.

  37. [In my opinion party policies should be based on what is right – meaning the best expert opinion.]

    An example, closing brown coal power station may be right for many, but wrong for those who would have to change their lives substantially. So it is not as simple of saying do what is right.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 1 of 54
1 2 54