Morgan phone poll: 55-45 to Coalition

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).

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.

4,682 comments on “Morgan phone poll: 55-45 to Coalition”

Comments Page 90 of 94
1 … 89 90 91 … 94

  1. What a waste of time that 4 corners was, I think if we go back to June 2010 pretty much everything mentioned was raised here on PB

    – the P.M deserves a tick for being interviewed, in too many occasions people run away from a chance to tell their story.

    – So a staffer was writing speeches, just as a few in here did

    – Of course the P.M saw polling that showed her to be popular, we all saw the same polling from various polling companies and the claims that the government was on the ropes, i recall certain posters claiming that the media was making it up

    – Richo revealing that the plot was on for about a week, again isn’t news.

  3. TheFinnigans天地有道人无道 @Thefinnigans Reply Delete Favorite · Open
    So the truth has finally come out by #4Corners. It was the Evil Empire & The CIA that ousted The Ruddster

  4. I second Danny Laver’s comments for I have been told by several people that Jules was recruited.

    As Richo said it all happened in a week or so.

  6. [Clever politician answer but those who have been around a while can read between the lines: she didn’t ask them to write it but she did know 2 weeks before (while she was in the media laughing at the suggestion and saying it had never been raised with her.]
    You don’t know that. You just want to believe that.

  7. [MightyChewbacca: Abbott actually thinks he is PM already. He’s written his PM acceptance speech in private. By now the speech is stained with his DNA #auspol]

  9. [JULIA Gillard’s staff were preparing a leadership speech two weeks before she forced out Kevin Rudd in June 2010, the ABC program Four Corners has found.

    The speech was being written while Ms Gillard, then Mr Rudd’s deputy, was publicly saying she didn’t want to replace him, which she did on June 24, 2010.

    Ms Gillard appeared evasive when asked about the speech in an interview Four Corners broadcast tonight.

    “I did not ask for a speech to be prepared,” said the Prime Minister.]

    So the US emabassy knew a long time before that a knifing was coming…hmmm..and it was serious enough for Clinton to call in Beasly to explain what was going on.. no nothing just a little rumour, no plan.

    Question: Gillard’s staff were preparing her leadership speech TWO weeks before the back stabbing because….

    1. they couldn’t hear Gillard’s assurances that she was not intending to challenge.
    2. staff don’t believe what Gillard says
    3. they spend their days Walter Mitty like preparing all sorts of speeches just in case. They have one for a Nobel Prize, Emmy Award and Booker prize…as you never know.
    3. Gillard told them to.
    4. They knew Gillard was to challenge and prepared one in readiness.

    The ridiculous fig-leaf of deniable/implausibility has been removed. As if anybody would believe knowing Gillard’s long history in the party and connections that anybody would be running a long term plan without her knowledge or express acceptance.

    Fact is then is Gillard was intending to knife Rudd at least a full two weeks before, but could well have been a full 12 months before or more.

    Now if it were found that Rudd’s staffers were preparing a leadership speech, and Rudd said he know nothing about it, what would be the reaction here…lol

  11. Gary:

    True, I don’t know. But I think its pretty safe to guess that when a politician pointedly refuses to state that they didn’t know about something, when asked again and again, they probably did know: 98% chance IMO.

    Perhaps she just got miffed and didn’t want to give the interviewer the true answer: 2% chance IMO.

  12. but she did know 2 weeks before

    It doesn’t mean this at all. What it means is that she may have found out some time before the actual coup that there was a speech being drafted – it could well have been a day or two before and it would have been difficult to make a nuanced answer. It’s quite possible that, given the time that has passed, and the fever pitch at the time, that she can’t clearly remember exactly when she found out a speech was being prepared.

    Julia Gillard can’t afford any more “gotchas” where the reporter wheels out X evidence that she definitely was informed at a certain time, but that she can’t really remember, so she refuses to answer the question.

    I think that’s legitimate. It’s not going to convince you or anyone else who has formed a solid opinion on this, but this notion that she’s a lying backstabber is just not supported by the actual evidence.

    The fact that she did not ask for a speech to be prepared simply reinforces the notion that she was drafted into the coup, rather than being an instigator. I believe her.

  14. [Too many people at the ABC, it seems, don’t know what day it is …]

    Never a truer word spoken, Mr Holmes, at Media Watch.

    IPA on Q&A. Switched off. Now watching “Planet of the Apes”.

  15. [- Richo revealing that the plot was on for about a week, again isn’t news.]

    Slight less reliable than Frank and lots less reliable than twitter but know lets reframe the history around what Richo says.

  17. [- Richo revealing that the plot was on for about a week, again isn’t news.]

    Slight less reliable than Frank and lots less reliable than twitter but now lets reframe the history around what Richo says.

  20. TP I recall talk of leadership changes taken place here of all place, o does that mean we all were plotters 😉

    I recall some claiming that it was all a media beat up but it was clearly discussed here over a period of time during the middle of 2010 and even as early as it was clear that Rudd was not going to call a DD

  23. [I recall some claiming that it was all a media beat up but it was clearly discussed here over a period of time during the middle of 2010 and even as early as it was clear that Rudd was not going to call a DD]
    Don’t forget TP was supportive of the move.

  26. [sprocket___: #4corners @abcmarkscott Looking for equal time with Abbott’sknifing of Turnbull]

    Go sprocket – and while you’re at it, ask for Turnbull to give his side of events – if he’s game.

  27. So I think then this just adds another strong negative to the Gillard persona in the public eye.

    In my view she already has a public perceived legitimacy problem, trust problem and perceived honesty problem. Not to mention poor leadership style.

    These revelations will bring forth all those statements Gillard was making during those two weeks and then move to her statements later denying any prior knowledge or intention.

    The issue again turns to Gillard’s honesty and trustworthiness as far as public perceptions go. And I am sure the Coalition will work very hard from this angle as it would be simply reinforcing an existing perception, and thus make it very powerful. Likewise Rudd will be seen as the victim deceived by his deputy.

    So will be interesting how the media and Libs play this one out.

    Everyone else here will of course be changing the subject, since the matter of leadership changes and knifing PMs early in a term are of no import.

  28. WeWantPaul I have seen interviews from the period after the chance of leadership where those involved have discussed the climax according in the last week or so of the Rudd government

    Of course there may have been talk earlier and clearly there was if the U.S were asking questions

  31. [after the chance of leadership where those involved have discussed]

    And they weren’t admitting to weeks of undermining and plotting – well blow me down with a feather Richo is clearly right then.

  34. WeWantPaul I think we can recall that there was a lot of talk during 2010 about the direction of the government and that was debated here widely with some claiming that it was all a beat up

  36. [TELSTRA will migrate its 4.2 million BigPond customer mail accounts to Windows Live starting in April this year.

    Under a deal between Telstra and Microsoft, all BigPond customers will be required to change their username and password “to ensure a smooth transition”.

    “All new customers will go straight onto the Windows Live platform,” a Telstra spokeswoman said.

    “All old customers will be migrated over the months ahead (from April/May) and will be contacted directly just prior.”

    BigPond customers will be given a Hotmail account but will keep their existing email address.]
    Can any tech head here tell me what this will mean to me as a BigPond user?

  37. [@TP is usually not happy, regardless what happens to Labor anyway, so wtf are you on here @TP ?]

    So what is the problem? The colour of my skin? Religion? Sexual preference? Political opinion?

    So this is this blog is all about supporting Labor (Gillard Labor as I am sure many here wouldn’t support a Rudd Labor). Sorry I didn’t see the sign at the door that said you must support Labor. Never be critical of Labor, especially Gillard Labor.

    I have stated my position a number of times in the past…I am not going to repeat myself.

    The echo chamber can have a bit of time to itself for a few hours.

  38. Their ABC seems to be obsessed with the leadershit meme — even more than the Murdoch press!

    Even Rupert is getting tired of the anonymous Rudd backers, effectively telling them to put up or shut up with his tweet the other day. But not, Mr Scott — his “news” programs on both ABC TV and Radio are full of non-stop leadershit.

    Why has the ABC out murdoched Murdoch when it comes to trivial sideshow stuff? Where is the policy analysis? Investigative journalism? Why is it just cheap and nasty talking heads spewing out “opinion” from morning (Kelly & Grattan) to night (Wilson & Kroger) which is invariably critical of the Government?

    Real news too hard? Too expensive? Might benefit the forces of good?

    Rot in hell, Mr Scott. You’ve killed our Aunty.

  39. **Laocoön toddles off to bed, pondering how much better his education might have been if a Peter Slipper had been in charge of class room discipline**

  41. Poroti

    Pity the Darwin Pooshooter site is not interactive.

    There are a lot of reasons not to swim in Darwin harbour. You have just added one with that link.

  45. Mod Lib –
    You obviously paid close attention to the 4C just shown – the first part was a clear description of what the failures of Kevin Rudd as a leader were. You must have taken that on board since you paid such close attention.

    So, what part of that did you have trouble comprehending:

    why was Rudd rolled?

  46. [Likewise Rudd will be seen as the victim deceived by his deputy.]

    You’d disagree with this anyway, but reasonably Rudd can’t be considered a helpless victim here. First, most sources suggest that Gillard was drafted rather than instigating things. Second, if he hadn’t alienated the caucus so badly thanks to his leadership ‘style’, then they would have stood by him even when polls started to go down or things got tough. Journalists of course missed the real message and assumed it was all about polls, which is why they can’t comprehend that Labor isn’t going to junk Gillard though her polls are lower than Rudd’s.

  48. Not a good performance fromthe PM tonight

    Had she seen the polling?
    – considering it was specific polling it beggars belief that she does not have a pretty sharp recollection of the events that occurred in the weeks leading up to her ascension.
    The Speech being written in her office
    – a very direct “I did not ask for it to be written” -all well and good
    – did she know – again beggars belief that she did not know.

    One one point the PM was direct,the others she shilly shallied and appeared shifty and evasive.

    An own goal for the PM and her office – either she should not have gone on the program or she should have been a lot better prepared.

  49. [QandA still asking today what I have been ridiculed for several times here for asking over the last year: why was Rudd rolled?]
    Time they got over it.

  50. [I didn’t watch 4C but is that basically the same as shown in the program? or did they edit these bits out and insert less emphatic responses?]

    They edited out the answers and left in the gotchas.

    Rather like their coverage of QT, actually.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 90 of 94
1 … 89 90 91 … 94