Morgan: 51.5-48.5 to Labor

The first poll conducted since the government’s Gonski reversal finds, not unexpectedly, a sharp move to Labor.

The fortnightly Morgan poll, conducted from a sample of 2018 by face-to-face and SMS, provides further support for the recently recorded move against the Coalition, perhaps exacerbated by the Gonksi debacle. Labor is up no less than six points on the primary vote to 38.5%, with the Coalition down only a point to 41.5% off a below-par base from the previous poll. That leaves the Greens to fall 2.5% to 8.5%, with the Palmer United Party down 1.5% to 3.5% and others down one to 8%. This translates to a 51.5-48.5 lead to Labor on both respondent-allocated and 2013 election preferences.

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.

931 comments on “Morgan: 51.5-48.5 to Labor”

Comments Page 14 of 19
1 … 13 14 15 … 19

  2. Morning

    Quite Surprised that Mark kenny wrote this in his piece

    [It was an open-and-shut case of political deception but it lurched into the downright offensive on Sunday when Abbott declared he would be bound only by the promises he had made, not by those promises that people, through their own fault, had thought he had made. It was an egregious blunder ranking right up there with John Howard’s notorious core versus non-core promises, and his own previous stipulation that he could be held to account only for written promises rather than spoken ones.]

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-gonski-backflip-shows-honesty-in-short-supply-20131202-2ym4t.html#ixzz2mLsHEUNn

  4. Paul Bonjournio (Radion National) on the Government’s performance on Gonski – “what we have is a political shambles”. He contrasts the Government’s modus operandi with the calm, measured, methodical Government we were promised.

  5. One might also add, Psephos, that the first party described as fascist — that led by Mussolini, did not adopt eugenics or any variety of it as one of its central tenets, and Mussolini continued to mock the Nazi claims of racial superiority. Jews were not excluded from the party or government positions until after 1938 (and under pressure from Hitler).

    That wouldn’t make it a central tenet of fascist ideology in Italy.

  6. Steve777

    It most definitely is a shambles. Team Abbott believed that they could do this with the blessing of the Liberal states.

  7. Morning all, and thanks BK for the links. The removal of the Gonski report by the government is telling. If you want an honest debate, why remove the evidence?

    Pyne has proven that he is indeed an idiot with a confusing array of changes in position on Gonski. I honestly am not sure what he intends, but I am sure that he does not intend to deliver Gonski as originally planned. I was not a fan of Gonski, or its ham fisted and politicised implementation under Labor, however clearly, the coalition has broken its promise. Equally clearly, it has lied about its current and recent positions.

    With still no explanation of what gets cut to find the $1.2 billion, this is far from over.

  8. A beauty on twitter

    [I wouldn’t leave the leering Chris Pimpernel in charge of a jam jar full of 5 cent pieces, let alone our childrens’ futures. The horror.]

  9. I agree with Fran on the falsity of Psephos’s definition of fascism. In fact, there is no single clear definition. The different candidates varied quite a bit on ideology and policy on various issues. They really only agreed on the strong central government to crush opposition.

    In fact, if Psephos’s definition of fascisim is what he believes, how does he see the Labor Party when it supported the white Australia party? How does he see the Jewish state, when it ascribes different legal rights to non-Jews living withon its borders? 🙂

  10. Saw channel 9 news at 6 pm last night. Laurie Oakes did straight reporting of the gonski backflip and then showed a clip of of Bill Shorten calling Abbott a liar, and Bronnie’s horrified response.
    I would call that a win for Team Labor

  11. Sorry, I meant when Labor supported the white Australia policy. There was plenty of racism in the Labor party then, which would come close to Psephos’ definition of fascism.

  12. Is this another no surprises no excuses from team Abbott?

    [While many of the sweeping reforms have already been flagged by the Government, some of the changes may shock pensioners living overseas, parents of teenage children and working mums and dads who rely on childcare.

    One of the biggest savings – more than $1.2 billion, will come from not raising indexation on the child care rebate and end-of-year Family Tax Benefit supplements.

    The annual child care rebate limit of $7500 will remain until July 1, 2017, and Family Tax Benefit supplements will remain at current levels for three years.]

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/prime-minister-tony-abbotts-plan-to-claw-back-3-billion-in-family-and-welfare-payments/story-fnihsrf2-1226773756241

  13. I did not see Clive Palmer’s address to parliament (shame 🙂 ) but from reporting it seems to have been an incongruous mix of free speech, free markets and a free lunch on tax. Is he now officially the magic pudding party?

  14. To be honest this is a reform I support. The benefits currently go to many people who are far from poor. Labor stopped them going to the rich, but middle class welfare continued, and that has nothing to do with social justice, only vote buying.
    [One of the biggest savings – more than $1.2 billion, will come from not raising indexation on the child care rebate and end-of-year Family Tax Benefit supplements.]

  17. My theory on the OP’s ‘fly track after mortein’ (thanks BK!) is that the former captain is on leave, and there is a substitute commander who has a different view of things, sort of ‘left hand down a bit’ every five minutes or so, then it’s ‘right hand down a bit’ ad infinitum.

    Or there are random pots shots from Indonesian gun boats, so they are taking evasive action.

    Or maybe there has been a mutiny, all the crew are in life boats on the open seas, no one is at the tiller, and random tugs at the rudder by waves bumps the direction taken every now and then.

    But seriously, I do think there is a different person in charge, with different ideas.

  18. I’m increasingly frustrated – and probably boring you all to death as a result – at the short term nature of analysis adopted by the media.

    Most media reports don’t venture beyond “The government said this. The Opposition said this” — and treating both sets of statements as truths in themselves, without analysing whether or not what the government or Opposition said was actually supported by the evidence (let alone looking at the wider implications of these statements).

    Now, there’s some excuse, when reporting the news, for focussing on immediate events. But we have a plethora of opinion columns, some authored by journos who (at least) would like to portray themselves as analysts, which don’t venture much further.

    This is an obvious concern when it comes to important, long term issues like climate change. But it’s equally frustrating when one wants to work out the long term implications of other decisions as well.

    I’ve talked about the likelihood that the ‘carbon tax’ won’t be repealed (and obviously that’s still just a likelihood, not a certainty). But I haven’t read a word of analysis on this. And just yesterday, I heard some journo refer again that, if the legislation doesn’t go through the Senate by the end of the year (no mention that it might not until next year) that means the government ‘is halfway to a Double Dissolution.’

    Well, every time a bill is rejected in the Senate the government is (theoretically) halfway to a DD. They can be as half way to a DD as they like – if the timetable doesn’t let them get all the way to having the necessary triggers (and I, who have never stepped foot in the Press Gallery, can’t see how they can get there in the time) then it’s irrelevant.

    Likewise, the msm reaction to Pyne’s double backflip with a pike is all about what led him to do it, with the occasional ‘Where will he find the money?” (which doesn’t seem to actually venture far beyond asking the question). The implications long term are either ignored entirely or merely hinted at.

    So the discussion of how Pyne’s funding model is going to operate blithely says that states get the same they would have under Gonski, without explaining (or speculating) about what that means.

    Is Pyne creating a two tiered system, where some states are bound by the provisions of the agreement and others can do just what they want to? Or is it open slather for everyone?

    The first would obviously peeve states who’d signed up to the original agreement. The second simply leaves it up to the states to do what they want with the money – and if they decide to use it to free up money for other areas of state expenditure, then there’s going to be some pretty irate parents and teachers out there.

    Equally importantly, there’s no analysis of the implications that Pyne and Abbott want to free schools from ‘Canberra command and control’.

    Education is unequivocally a state matter in the Constitution. Federal governments have got around this in the past by tying extra funding to agreed outcomes – which is why states needed to ‘sign up’ to Gonski. Without signed agreements with the states, a Federal government can pontificate all it likes on educational matters – but it can’t deliver.

    Pyne’s educational agenda – scant though it is – can only be achieved if he has some control over the way schools operate. He can only get that through agreement with the states.

    In other words, by rejecting ‘Canberra control and command’ when it comes to internal school matters, Pyne has surrendered any ability to deliver on his policy portfolio.

    Analyse that, msm.

  20. …quick thought — isn’t allocating money to the States for education unconsitutional?

    I know that the Feds can’t allocate money, for example, to ordinary classrooms, because that’s a State responsibility (which is why the GFC money went to school halls, science rooms and the like). Similarly, the Feds can’t fund ‘ordinary’ teachers (again, they funded specialist ‘coaches’).

    To go beyond that does require written agreements. (I’m pretty sure that things like MySchool and NAPLAN come with tied funding, through written agreements with the States).

    If I’m right, Pyne needs written agreements with the States if he’s providing funds specifically for education (so those who have signed up to Gonski would be fine). And I don’t think he can just give those who haven’t signed up money ‘for education’. He may be able to simply feed it into the relevant State grant as general revenue.

    Where’s a decent journo when you need them?

  21. Socrates

    [I agree with Fran on the falsity of Psephos’s definition of fascism. In fact, there is no single clear definition. The different candidates varied quite a bit on ideology and policy on various issues. They really only agreed on the strong central government to crush opposition.]

    It’s really much better understood as a violent and repressive rightwing populist movement rather than a specific set of defining ideas. Such ‘ideas’ as typify it draw heavily upon the bundle of ideas associated with populism (especially in its most reactionary and jingoistic iterations: authenticity, nation, family, honour, tradition, communitarianism, disgust at cultural deviance as subversive of the foregoing etc …

    Their mobilisations tend towards the exemplary — violence/repression directed at those percieved by them to be ‘anti-national’ or in some way subversive of their conception of authentic community.

    It’s almost inevitable that a bundle of doctrines such as this will be especially attractive to racists, bigots and xenophobes of all kinds, and for that reason not surprising that most fascist-like organisations are either expressly racist or at a minimum, tolerant of it within their ranks. If one of your goals is to recruit thugs and enforcers, careful discussion of the warrant for your thuggery is not all that important, and one located in the long-established doctrines of national/racial particularism comes right off the shelf and reasy to use.

  23. Here we go again. Another Abbott broken promise.

    now build Badgerys Creek Airport – when they said in January they wouldn’t

  24. zoomster

    […quick thought — isn’t allocating money to the States for education unconsitutional?

    I know that the Feds can’t allocate money, for example, to ordinary classrooms, because that’s a State responsibility (which is why the GFC money went to school halls, science rooms and the like). Similarly, the Feds can’t fund ‘ordinary’ teachers (again, they funded specialist ‘coaches’).

    To go beyond that does require written agreements. (I’m pretty sure that things like MySchool and NAPLAN come with tied funding, through written agreements with the States).]

    Perhaps the question could be put to kate Ellis and Shorten

  25. AA

    Labor want a second airport built. Although i am unsure if this is the preferred location. I know there was another area that was being considered.

  27. Another myth that has to be stamped on – that Federal Labor somehow intended to ‘rip off’ the states that had not signed up to Gonski, and that the nice Mr Pyne came to the rescue.

    If anyone was ripping off schools in Qld, WA and NT it was their own recalcitrant Liberal state governments. Their premiers decided they didn’t want the extra money because they didn’t want to put in the State’s share and/or they did they did not want to have to account for how the money offered was spent.

    A lie repeated loudly and often enough becomes the truth and this has been the clear Liberal strategy over the past four years on any number of policy areas – climate, debt, deficit, asylum seekers and now education. Shorten should call bullshit every time Pyne or Abbott or anyone else tries to perpetuate this insidious meme.

  29. Morning all.

    For Tuesday morning laughs you can’t go past Gerard Henderson. Some highlights:

    [Yet no government in living memory has faced so much media criticism so soon after an election.]
    …
    [The tenor of intensity with which many journalists dislike the Prime Minister and his colleagues…]
    …
    [So much is the dislike of Abbott that it appears some commentators want his policies to fail even if this is damaging to Australia’s national interest. ]
    …
    [It’s possible the overwhelmingly negative coverage may affect the Coalition at the next election.]

    And on and on it goes.

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbotts-anguish-innercity-types-in-media-dislike-him-20131202-2ylyd.html

  30. In article i just posted. Is this correct?

    [Roy Morgan and the Financial Review’s Poll of Polls were the most accurate two-party preferred polls of the 2013 election, with both picking correctly the Coalition’s 53.5 per cent two-party preferred vote]

  33. Steve

    saw it well put somewhere (here? twitter?) — I offer you a dollar. You refuse. I put the dollar back in my pocket. You say “You’ve stolen my dollar.”

  35. Good Morning

    ABC NewsBreakfast on 24 pointing out to people that all those deletions on LNP websites are at the National Library.

    This change from the ABC is probably due to things like this.

    @theage: Malcolm Turnbull rounds on ABC boss Mark Scott over phone-tapping stories http://t.co/vcrPX9Djy5

  37. If we want to have a second airport in Sydney, we could build it at Badgery’s Creek and it may be ready by the time those now starting school are ready to enter the workforce. Or we could go back to scratch and have an airport somewhere else when those now starting school are having their mid life crisis. Or maybe when they’re thinking about retirement.

    We either need to decide to build it at Badgery’s Creek – the Commonwealth has acquired the land, it is close to rail and freeways which could be readily extended, it is reasonably close to Sydney (about 45km) and the local community have been well aware that an airport is likely to be built in their back yard.

    Or we should decide we won’t have a second airport and accept the consequences of that decision – presumably a relative decline in Sydney’s importance nationally and internationally. Would that be a bad thing? Who knows – no one’s asking.

  39. victoria:

    That’s the funniest thing of all. The “many commentators” he references is some obscure person who is editor of the Monthly.

  41. Pyneski Mark #3 is designed to fail.

    It’s as plain as day.

    And when it does Pyne will get up at a presser and say,

    “See? I TOLD you so! Labor’s plan was a mess.”

    The Coalition, quite simply, did not have an Education policy. Three (at least) “policies” in one week – Gonski, Pyneski and Shonkski – should have been an indication of that.

    The entire three years in Opposition was spent tilting at the “Election Now!” windmill.

    Abbott believes a comb-over, changing his trademark fringe into a bizoid look, will turn him into a statesman. Likewise, he thinks a policy comb-over will turn this rabble of a government into one of Australia’s greatest.

    It won’t.

    Underneath the cosmetic alterations is still the swaggering muckmenter, shoving a wrecking ball through our economy and our nations international position.

    If there’s a take-out to all this, it’s that the Coalition are making it up as they go along. There was never any experienced “government-ready” board of directors, ready to take over in a heartbeat, should the call come.

    There was only a gang of slagging, sledging bovver boys, leaning up against the toilet walls, spouting slogans into the playground, with no substance. They heckled the swots, they heckled the girls, they mocked anyone who wasn’t on the boxing or rugby teams.

    Finally given their chance to prove themselves they have made a mess of it. At school it was teachers who protected them. In Opposition their power also came from connections to authority – big business, smart lawyers, corrupt journalists and their proprietors, ratbags on talk-back radio.

    But in the Real World, they are dunces. Absolute losers.

    Yesterday’s performance, where Pyne and Abbott bragged about supporting an Education program they had only a couple of days before said was a total, undeliverable mess,will stick with the punters, long after the controversy has died down.

    No-one will ever trust an Abbott promise again. It’s because when he broke his Unity Ticket pledge he gave no valid reasons for doing so, just assertions. And when he executed the triple backflip, his reasons were just as unconvincing. Her floundering around in a sea of braggdocio and spin. And it’s fooled no-one.

  43. victoria@680


    In article i just posted. Is this correct?

    Roy Morgan and the Financial Review’s Poll of Polls were the most accurate two-party preferred polls of the 2013 election, with both picking correctly the Coalition’s 53.5 per cent two-party preferred vote

    Apparently so Vic.

    William did an article yesterday? behind the Crikey paywall but the table showing Morgan as the most accurate is visible in the article preview.

    I hadn’t heard of the AFR Poll of Polls until now – but its similar to the type that William, Kevin Bonham & Aristotle have been saying for some time is the most accurate.

  44. [AustraliaNetworkNews‏@an_news1h
    The Australian opposition and Greens have teamed up to block the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas]

    Oooh, look – the government has ‘the first half’ of a Double Dissolution trigger (said no journalist anywhere….)

  46. Fool Gilbert on SkyNews interviewing Tony Burke leaving us in no doubt about the suitability of his name, “Fool”.
    Abbott and Pyne have got him completely sucked in. What a super lightweight!

  47. While everyone was looking at the education unicorn the third annual Australia-China Forum was taking place in Canberra. The media conveniently forgot to mention it. Peter Hartcher is now, finally, reporting on what happened there and it’s not good news for the government.

    [China is angry at Australia, and when the doors closed on the meeting room in Canberra on Friday, its delegates let the anger show. The third annual Australia-China Forum was designed to strengthen the relationship. Instead, the Chinese used it to pressure Australia.

    They had a specific grievance: the government’s rejection of Beijing’s announcement that it was asserting new rights over airspace in the East China Sea.

    But they quickly turned the specific into the general, a full-court fusillade of complaints and urgings.]

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/china-vents-its-anger-at-australias-stand-on-airspace-rights-20131202-2ylye.html

  50. [No-one will ever trust an Abbott promise again.]

    To be honest I think that’s a tad optimistic. There are 3 more years until the next election, and anything can happen in that time, even a turn-around for Abbott.

Comments Page 14 of 19
1 … 13 14 15 … 19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *