Morgan: 52-48 to Labor

Morgan becomes a third pollster to show Greens support at its highest for at least the current term, but otherwise shows little change on a fortnight ago.

Morgan has released its regular fortnightly face-to-face plus SMS poll covering 2955 respondents over the past two weekends. On the primary vote, Labor is down half a point to 34%, the Coalition steady on 38.5%, Palmer United steady on 5% and the Greens up a point to 13% – which, while well short of Nielsen, makes it a third pollster showing the Greens vote at its highest for at least this term, or in this case since July 2012. Labor leads 52-48 on both measures of two-party preferred, compared with 51.5-48.5 on respondent-allocated and 52-48 on previous-election preferences last time. Essential Research will be with us tomorrow.

UPDATE: Essential is with us sooner than I thought, the report having been published on their website. This shows the Coalition down a point to 41%, Labor steady on 37%, the Greens at their highest for the current term with a gain of one point to 11%, and Palmer United also up one to 5%. Labor has recovered the 51-49 lead on two-party preferred it had lost with last week’s shift to 50-50. Also featured are “most important election issues”, showing economic management and health policy have gained in salience since before the election while “political leadership” has declined; a finding that 61% oppose funding cuts to the ABC, with 21% supportive; 45% expecting the government’s motivation to reduce ABC funding would be overall spending reduction rather its dislike of ABC news coverage (45% to 28%); 71% disapproving of raising the pension age with 20% supportive; 58% favouring 65 as the pension age; 64% disapproving of including the value of the family home in asset testing for pension eligibility, with 26% supportive.

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.

1,110 comments on “Morgan: 52-48 to Labor”

  1. Player One@594

    victoria@581

    mtbw

    Oh for goodness sake what a stupid question. We have been talking about domestic violence, and men who kill their partners and children in acts of revenge.

    Victoria, the problem is that you are arguing with people who simply refuse to accept that a man would do such a thing unless he was mentally ill. The reason they insist on believing this is fairly obvious (at least it is to me), as is the fact that you’ll never change their minds. You’re just wasting your breath (or your fingers in this case).

    It is a matter of record that Greg Anderson, Luke Batty’s father suffered from a mental illness. It is not simply an assumption being made.

    The problem was that he was not treated for it and nor was he apprehended by police on outstanding warrants.

    This is the best article I read on the topic. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/alone-jobless-and-mentally-ill-a-dads-road-to-murder-20140214-32rlw.html

  2. lizzie@603

    What about that father in Victoria who drowned his three boys in a dam?

    Well I hope he is an object of study to try to find out more with a view to possible prevention of other such cases.

    I have not read any reports that he was mentally ill, so maybe just a psychopath.

    Certainly far outside the range of normal behaviour.

  3. I do not know much about military matters but wouldn’t our alliance with the US be our only defence against serious regional powers like India & China. If we can trust that alliance (not sure about it myself) then the money spent to keep the yanks on side is probably well spent. Certainly cheaper than following North Korean option of an independent long range nuclear capacity.

  4. IMHO we need what we can afford which is three or four squadrons of air superiority fighters.

    War after war has demonstrated that if your air platforms and its systems are inferior in quality then whatever airforce you have gets wiped out.

    Just about everything else, especially the survival of navy ships, depend on at least having the capacity to contest the air.

    Any strategic stance depending on notions of last ditch fight over the sea-air gap therefore depends on getting the fighter choice right.

    The issue, therefore, is not whether to have an air superiority fighters.

    It is whether the USA has led themselves, and by implication, Australia, well and truly up the garden path with the F-35s.

    The Su’s have superior flight capabilities across the board. But there has to be a serious question about their weapons systems and, in particular, their radar signature. Those tail fins are monstrously big.

    There are, literally, no good choices – the Super Hornets are a reasonable interim platform.

    We know that Abbott and Johnston are fools. Let’s hope that their decision never comes to taws.

    The correct decision is, errrr – was: wait and watch.

  5. Tubble at mill.

    [Sandra Sully ‏@Sandra_Sully 5m
    Anger over Govt. plans 4 a multi billion dollar spend on 58 F-35 fighter jets.
    Details, #EyewitnessNews 5pm ]

  6. BW

    [The correct decision is, errrr – was: wait and watch.]

    Given the mindset of the governing parties, this is probably the least stupid of the range of stupid responses that are plausible in context.

    Really though, like the submarine question, until there’s an obvious need for fighter jet capacity, why have them? Aren’t they just large hungry avian elephants?

  7. kevjohnno@608

    I do not know much about military matters but wouldn’t our alliance with the US be our only defence against serious regional powers like India & China. If we can trust that alliance (not sure about it myself) then the money spent to keep the yanks on side is probably well spent. Certainly cheaper than following North Korean option of an independent long range nuclear capacity.

    Yep! If any of the members are attacked, ANZUS obliges the others to ‘consult’. I am sure the USA will be prepared to honour that obligation.

  8. [‏@DctrZaius 6m
    Bahaha! Fantastic cartoon! I’m really enjoying Clive Palmer’s presence right now. #auspol via @_thomasparkes pic.twitter.com/G0GLOczKIA ]

  9. Fran Barlow@614

    BW

    The correct decision is, errrr – was: wait and watch.


    Given the mindset of the governing parties, this is probably the least stupid of the range of stupid responses that are plausible in context.

    Really though, like the submarine question, until there’s an obvious need for fighter jet capacity, why have them? Aren’t they just large hungry avian elephants?

    Given lead times measured in decades, you need to acquire and develop capability long before a threat is imminent.

  10. [Fran Barlow
    Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    BW

    The correct decision is, errrr – was: wait and watch.

    Given the mindset of the governing parties, this is probably the least stupid of the range of stupid responses that are plausible in context.

    Really though, like the submarine question, until there’s an obvious need for fighter jet capacity, why have them? Aren’t they just large hungry avian elephants?]

    I know that the Greens don’t want us to have either an airforce or a navy. This is pretty well what the TNI would like as well, but for different reasons than the Greens…

    Apart from that, modern fighter jets require significant lead times in terms of maintenance and training.

    You can’t just buy a bunch off-the-shelf when a war starts. It would be far too late.

    12-16 submarines would form a significant deterrent even to China. The reason is that that number would be enough to seriously put in question the 40-50% of China’s POL that crosses the Indian Ocean.

  11. I think Labor should announce that anyone who accepts one of Abbott’s Knighthoods will be re-designated a ‘Knave’ when Labor regains office.

  12. lizzie@617


    The men won’t let the women leave.

    But .. but .. but … It couldn’t possibly be the men’s fault.

    The only possible explanation is that they must be mentally ill!

    Sheesh!

  13. Boerwar@623

    Knights and Dames was an Abbott own goal. Labor needs to do nothing about it at all.

    And I notice he’s shut up about them.

    I wonder who the other two were that he was going to “gong”, but now doesn’t dare?

  14. victoria@628

    bemused

    This is the last word, but Roaie batty has said why her husband did it. It was to hurt her. What bit dont you get!!!

    Hell, what would she know! She must have driven him to it! It’s the only explanation that makes any sense at all!

  15. victoria

    bemused has a point. Look at the history of Mental Health assessment and faiures to act by the system.

    Its no less a criminal act to recognise this in this one individual case.

    It does not diminish the true fact that there are those that are not mentally ill that kill children to punish the mother for being out of their control

  16. Boerwar
    [I know that the Greens don’t want us to have either an airforce or a navy.]
    Really?

    Greens’ Peace and security policy: http://greens.org.au/policies/peace-security
    [The deployment of Australian Defence Forces (ADF) must be for defence and peace-keeping, and not for offensive action.

    …..

    An ADF adequate to Australia’s defence and peacekeeping needs.]

  17. victoria@628

    bemused

    This is the last word, but Roaie batty has said why her husband did it. It was to hurt her. What bit dont you get!!!

    She also spoke of his mental illness.

    Since he is dead we can never ascertain for sure just what his final thoughts were.

    Read the article I linked to earlier and learn.

    Mentally ill people also have emotions like fear, anger, desire for revenge etc. And their illness removes their insight and ability not to act on such thoughts.

  18. Player One@629

    victoria@628

    bemused

    This is the last word, but Roaie batty has said why her husband did it. It was to hurt her. What bit dont you get!!!

    Hell, what would she know! She must have driven him to it! It’s the only explanation that makes any sense at all!

    Who has said anything remotely like that?

  19. George Megalogenis ‏@GMegalogenis 2m
    Meet Abbott’s battlers: dad is a fighter pilot, mum is a rich lawyer. He gets a new F-35, she pockets a $75,000 baby bonus.

  20. mtbw

    I have linked an interview she did a few weeks ago, and the one she did today in response to the hate mail.
    Perhaos you could take the time to listen to what she has said

    Shorter

    When her ex could no longer control her and could not exert influence on his son, he deliberately and premediatedly killed her son in front of her to hurt her in an act of revenge. Get it

  21. bemused@634

    victoria@628

    Mentally ill people also have emotions like fear, anger, desire for revenge etc. And their illness removes their insight and ability not to act on such thoughts.

    So, is it “provocation” or “diminished responsibility” you are pleading here?

    Or perhaps both?

  22. [The deployment of Australian Defence Forces (ADF) must be for defence and peace-keeping, and not for offensive action.]

    I’d vote for that.

  23. lizzie 535

    “I demand that journos provide Abbott’s definition of “commitments”. Apparently they are not the same as promises or policies, but they are the ones he’s now promising he will keep”.

    What someone said about Tony.

    Tony Abbott is ‘a bludger’ October 12, 2013 Mike Carlton

    We know that you expect us to be as frugal and prudent with your money, which we hold on trust from you, as you would be with your own hard-earned savings.
    Tony Abbott, policy speech, August 25, 2013.

    The Prime Minister is a bludger. A loaded word, I know, but it is a perfectly good Australian expression and it describes exactly what Tony Abbott was up to as he swanned around from bike ride to fun run at the taxpayers’ expense. He was bludging on us.
    Read more.

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-a-bludger-20131011-2vdkq.html#ixzz2zgvJmsJP

  24. Rex Douglas@643

    Can anyone here remember a time when we had a more inadequate parliamentary representation than we have now ?

    You’re right. I’d say the current mob are even worse than Howard and his cronies were.

  25. bemused

    [Given lead times measured in decades, you need to acquire and develop capability long before a threat is imminent.]

    No imminent or even longterm threat requiring Australian fighter jet capacity has been identified, and if one were identified tomorrow just as the threat was put at 25 years out, the F35 would be due for retirement by the time we had to consider using it. In 2039, it might well be that those planning some challenge to us back here in 2014 would have something rather different than what they have now, and the defensive strategies might be sharply different.

    Imagine, in 1989 planning your IT strategy for 2014. You’d have looked pretty silly in hindsight. The 1989 folks would have laughed at the guesses of those in 1964 about IT’s relevance too. Spending truckloads of money ordering aircraft to serve us against unknown enemies with unknown strategic aims and unknowable technological capacity seems utterly ridiculous.

    Wouldn’t make far more sense to wait until we have a sound basis for thinking there is a threat, evaluating its scope and quality and the timeline on which we have to parry the threat, the costs of missing that timeline and so forth and then working out which solutions meet feasibility?

    I’d say so.

Leave a Reply

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