Three new poll results from Roy Morgan, if you please. Despite its modest sample of 543 and high margin of error of over 4 per cent, the phone poll conducted over the past two nights is the most interesting, both for its currency and for the fact that phone polling has a clearly superior track record to Morgan’s Labor-biased face-to-face polls. Averaging Morgan’s phone poll results back to May gives almost the exact same result as for Newspoll, although the smaller samples mean Morgan has been more erratic from poll to poll.
The latest result is within the margins of recent results from other pollsters, although slightly at the Coalition end of the scale: their two-party lead is 55-45 compared with most others’ 54-46, with primary votes of 31 per cent for Labor, 46.5 per cent for the Coalition and 12 per cent for the Greens. The phone poll does not replicate the issue I keep going on about of Morgan’s face-to-face polling producing wildly different results according to whether preferences are distributed as per the result of the last election or according to respondents’ stated intentions. It instead gives us 55-45 on respondent-allocated and 55.5-44.5 on previous-election, and thus chimes with this week’s Nielsen which in fact had Labor’s share of preferences slightly higher than at the election.
Speaking of which, Morgan has published not one but two sets of face-to-face figures. Normally Morgan either publishes results from its regular weekend polling the following Friday (or occasionally Thursday), but sometimes it holds off for a week and publishes a result a combined result from two weekends. This time they have held off for a week and published separate results for each weekend. The earlier poll, conducted on January 28/29 (Australia Day having been the preceding Thursday), was remarkably positive for Labor: not only did they maintain their lead on the previous-election (51-49) method from the result published a fortnight ago, they also opened a lead on the respondent-allocated measure (50.5-49.5), which for once looked similar to the previous election result. The primary votes were 39.5 per cent for Labor, 41.5 per cent for the Coalition and 10 per cent for the Greens.
However, the polling on February 4/5 told a somewhat different story, with the Coalition up four points to 45.5 per cent, Labor down one to 38.5 per cent and the Greens down half to 9.5 per cent. This panned out to a 53.5-46.5 lead to the Coalition on respondent-allocated preferences and 51.5-48.5 on previous election. The polls individually had a sample of 1000 and theoretically a margin of error of around 3 per cent. However, the more telling point is how much Morgan face-to-face results continue to differ from other series which have consistently proved nearer the mark. In 2011, the average primary vote for Labor in Morgan was 35.9 per cent, compared with 34.1 per cent for Essential Research, 30.7 per cent for Newspoll and 29.5 per cent for Nielsen. The gap between Essential and the latter two is partly accounted for by Essential having a consistently lower result for the Greens: on two-party preferred, Essential and Newspoll were fairly similar.
For a look at the bigger polling picture, Possum surveys a landscape of flat calm 54-46 polling going back to November.
UPDATE (13/2): Another week, another 54-46 Essential Research result. After losing a point on the primary vote over each of the two previous weeks, Labor is back up one to 34 per cent, with the Greens down one to 10 per cent and the Coalition steady on 47 per cent. Essential’s monthly measure of leadership approval finds both leaders’ personal ratings essentially unchanged – Julia Gillard down one on approval to 36 per cent and up one on disapproval to 53 per cent, Tony Abbott steady on 35 per cent and up two to 53 per cent – but Gillard has nonetheless made a solid gain as preferred prime minister, her lead up from 39-36 to 41-34. However, only 31 per cent expect her to lead Labor to the next election against 47 per cent who said they didn’t (hats off to the 22 per cent who admitted they didn’t know); while for Tony Abbott the numbers were 47 per cent and 25 per cent. A question on government control of media ownership has support for more control and less control tied on 24 per cent, with 34 per cent thinking it about right. There’s also a question on the impact of Gina Rinehart on the independence of Fairfax newspapers, which I personally find a little odd – the issue would mean little outside of New South Wales and Victoria. I also had my doubts about the question on whether Australia is “fair and just”, but the question asking for comparison with other countries is interesting: Canada and New Zealand are seen as Australia’s main partners in freedom, the UK does less well, Japan and France less well again, and the United States worse still. China however sits well below the rest of the field.
We also had a teaser last night from Newspoll, which had Abbott favoured over Gillard for economic management 43 per cent to 34 per cent, and Wayne Swan and Joe Hockey in a statistical dead heat for preferred Treasurer (38 per cent to 37 per cent).
Confessions I have never been concerned about who asked the question because it was a fair question given the circumstances and was answered in non-controversial manner by Abbott. What the press did with it after that was very ordinary reporting.
feeney,
CU has always said “Prime Minister”.
No, it is one of the commercial stations. Not sure which. I have visitors from O’seas who are in charge of the remote.
Edmonson is being skewered on sexism, not the usual one but on women being more subject to hacking.
DavidWH
[Confessions I have never been concerned about who asked the question because it was a fair question ]
Absobloodylutely. But that being the case why was it so “top secret” as to who asked the question ?
‘sHonour is very not happy.
It was channel 7 for anyone who is in control of the remote.
Also been told there is some more political trouble brewing with our neighbours.
[I have never been concerned about who asked the question because it was a fair question given the circumstances ]
I disagree with this. We now know it was the ABC, who were doing a special report on the TE anniversary. It makes sense.
OTOH if it was a 2GB reporter…..
Spacey,
I missed something: trouble with neighbours?
Ducky,
Our northern neighbours.
Spacey,
Ta.
Beef may rule, or not, then?
A PD carrying out a journalistic job?
Brian picked up that one quick time.
[Our northern neighbours.]
you mean…Queensland?
Not about beef. About multiples.
Six people I’d like to dine with? Carine Patry Hoskins.
SK.
Here is THAT story from Reilly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pglmZxaCzW0&feature=g-u-u&context=G28e4cbbFUAAAAAAADAA
Spacey,
Please explain for us ignoramuses about multiples.
That would be “has been obtained”? ‘nough said.
I’m not in PR, but what would be wrong in Ms Gillard or any other Minister saying to Uhlmann words to the effect of ” Mr Uhlmann, you didn’t interrupt Mr Turnbull in the course of your fawning discourse with him yesterday, so kindly afford me the same courtesy after you have concluded conveying his party’s talking points to me.”
Spacey,
Not asking to divulge preferences but how does your OH perceive the goings-on in PNG?
In Your Arsk, You Know He’s A Nut
http://twitpic.com/8hkkdv/full
Fulvio,
JG does not embarrass journos in public, seriatim. Julie Bishop, on the other hand, is fair game.
[… what would be wrong in Ms Gillard or any other Minister saying to Uhlmann words to the effect of ” Mr Uhlmann, you didn’t interrupt Mr Turnbull in the course of your fawning discourse with him yesterday, so kindly afford me the same courtesy after you have concluded conveying his party’s talking points to me.”]
Why not just say “Listen you dickhead, stop interrupting.”?
SK
Looks like a Riley beatup. Cabinet seating arrangements.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/12857634/documents-expose-leadership-tension/
Can’t see anything in it myself, but they’re clutching at any straw at the moment to keep the whole leadership thing going.
I’m inclined to think that that’s also fading from the horizon despite Bishop’s desperate efforts to keep it alive with her Rudd questions.
Was pleasing today to see the PM briefing Rudd in whispers while Bishop sorted out her position with the Speaker. Rudd subsequently gave a very good answer.
I don’t think this will keep up for too much longer. When Bishop tried this ploy on Tuesday it worked pretty well (from a Lib perspective), with other ministers and caucus members fairly cool over the earlier leaks. But whatever it was, it seems to have been patched up. Relations were fairly normal today.
[SK.
Here is THAT story from Reilly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pglmZxaCzW0&feature=g-u-u&context=G28e4cbbFUAAAAAAADAA%5D
Thanks for that. Pretty hilarious.
That’s the question though, why not?
an intervention from accross the seas. should send a memo to Paul Whittaker
[Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch
KRudd been promising imminent knifing for months. Believe it when we see it.
]
I can’t see an implosion of the Oops; an explosion is more likely.
Think pressure cooker with a cigar cleaner in the vent.
[I have never been concerned about who asked the question because it was a fair question given the circumstances and was answered in non-controversial manner by Abbott.]
Wrong on both counts. It was most inappropriate and provocative, given the day it was asked – Invasion Day, for some – and in view of the anniversary of the tent embassy. And Abbott could not resist a dog whistle. He could have easily batted it away and showed some respect.
[Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch · Open
Re-reading Charles Murray. Profound. Can Santorum lead moral regeneration and restoration of original American dream? Tall order!]
TheFinnigans天地有道人无道 @Thefinnigans Close
@rupertmurdoch [restoration of original American dream?] you mean like restoration of slavery
10:17 PM – 9 Feb 12 via web · Details
Not Roo, I think: cats have staff.
Frank,
Thanks for the link. Even by Riley’s bizarre logic, Rudd is in the same seat and has moved nowhere. YAWN!
Can’t see where anyone other than Mark Riley has run with the seatgate scandal, so it’s probably bullshit. Tried to pause the video to work out what the totality of the new and old seating arrangements were but it was too indistinct to work out without hours of study. Quite possibly just a general rearrangement to facilitate cabinet discussion. Maybe Rudd asked for the move if he felt a little uncomfortable sitting next to Crean at the moment.
I doubt the seating plan in the Australian cabinet has quite the same significance that a similar plan would have in Beijing or Moscow.
Of course he can; in his parish.
[Rupert Murdoch @rupertmurdoch
KRudd been promising imminent knifing for months. Believe it when we see it.
11m Space Kidette Space Kidette @SpaceKidette
@rupertmurdoch Rudd? More like your Ltd News journo’s.
]
[That’s the question though, why not?]
It’s a long way to go till the election. I’m sure the PM is content to appear prime ministerial and simply and politely swat CU away like an annoying bug.
I’m more interested in seeing the PM address the likes of CU without referencing the opposition at all. Much better IMO to refer to the Australian people e.g. “Chris, we all know that you are quick to take up the opposition talking points but I am here to give you the facts…. “
SK
What kind of trouble with our Northern neighbours?
I sit next to my wife at dinner, Riley. Wanna making anything of it, punk?
Duckie,
Oh, how I’d love to talk but I have to remain tight-lipped on this one because it is a little too close to home.
[When you say “margin of error of over 4 per cent” what is the confidence level of the 4 % ,how many standard deviations to get to 4% ?]
The answer to the first question is, as always, 95 per cent; to the second, if I understand it correctly, is two.
Maybe someone is letting off sneaky ones and they don’t know who he are.
[without referencing the opposition at all]
should read:
without referencing the opposition by name
Have to agree to disagree with you Joe. Don’t see much difference to the annual flag changing rhetoric we get every ANZAC Day which offends large groups of Australians.
[William with respect
because reading your analaysis of polls is like reading a legal docoment
show me where the poll is that had us in frontin the above]
I’ve clarified this part of my post a little:
[The earlier poll, conducted on January 28/29 (Australia Day having been the preceding Thursday), was remarkably positive for Labor: not only did they maintain their lead on the previous-election (51-49) method from the result published a fortnight ago, they also opened a lead on the respondent-allocated measure (50.5-49.5), which for once looked similar to the previous election result. The primary votes were 39.5 per cent for Labor, 41.5 per cent for the Coalition and 10 per cent for the Greens.]
Morgan does face-to-face polling every weekend – this refers to the weekend before last. On last weekend’s result, they had the Coalition ahead again.
[I’m not in PR, but what would be wrong in Ms Gillard or any other Minister saying to Uhlmann words to the effect of ” Mr Uhlmann, you didn’t interrupt Mr Turnbull in the course of your fawning discourse with him yesterday, so kindly afford me the same courtesy after you have concluded conveying his party’s talking points to me.”]
fulvio – how I wish they would do exactly that altho I do think most have started much bettr this year and are not dancing so much to Abbott’s tune
[ALeighMP Andrew Leigh
My parliamentary speech on why government shouldn’t subsidise the private health insurance of millionaires. andrewleigh.com/blog/?p=2180 ]
Ban the Export of Cattle to Australia
Hi guys, this looks very cool. If you’re reading a dead tree version of a newspaper/magazine and you wish you had the digital version to quickly save/tweet/email, etc, then this app can do it for you – you just take a photograph and it recognises the paper and sends you to the digital copy:
http://www.kooaba.com/en/home
4% of what? As William says, 19 times out of a 20 this is within the stated margin of error. If you are saying that you want that level of confidence with a different margin of error (4%) you have to increase or decrease the sample accordingly.
DavidWH how do you think it would go down if on Anzac Day Julia Gillard suggested the wars a fair way back now and it probably a good time to move on and get rid of a few memorials, around the place?
The tent embassy has a lot of significant to people who have been treated abominably in this country and it was completely tactless/cruel, on its anniversary, to suggest its removal.