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. Bemused 808 I have more confidence in the Coroner reaching a fair verdict than a ranting, opinioated mob arguing the toss, often with undeclared personal baggage. What’s the alternative – a lynch mob? .

  2. Also, it would take Australia 1000 years of boat arrivals @ 10k per year for us to end up with the same number of undocumented people currently living in America.

  3. [Pegasus
    Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Boerwar

    Where has any Greens representative EVER supported ANY specific defence expenditure AT ALL?

    Not going to be sidetracked with your ‘look over there’ tactic.

    Where has any Greens representative EVER said they supported doing away with the navy and air force.

    Over to you.]

    The case is:

    (1) No Greens representative has EVER supported any specific item of defence expenditure.
    (2) The Greens routinely question, condem and critise defence expenditure.
    (3) There is no funding commmittment in the Greens policy statement for defence expenditure at all. (Given that the Greens have committed to a balanced budget over a business cycle, they would need to include specific items of defence expenditure to be credible.)
    (4) The Greens are opposed to spending on offensive equipment. This includes, of course, fighters, subs, ships, tanks and artillery.

    It is clear from the above that the Greens have a gut ideological reaction against defence expenditure, and are committed not to spend on fighters, ships, subs, tanks and artillery because these are offensive items.

    What is also clear is that when the Greens are pressed on this they get all sensitive and unpeace loving and start hurling personal abuse.

    The Greens should stop doing Sergeant Schulz and admit that their Defence Policy is essentially to turn Australia into an international door mat.

  4. Boer is kicking butt I must say.

    It’s true, I’ve never heard a Green support any form of defence spending.

    Fighter jets, subs, ships and tanks and the like are not natural.

    The boomerang is the way to go 😈

  5. Do you want me to make some rabid right wing comment to bring things back to order and give the lefties a common enemy so they will stop sniping at each other?

    Happy to oblige! :devil:

  6. victoria:

    I saw it on the TV news tonight.

    There’s still time for Abbott to hop a plane to WA in order to maximise the discovery for his own benefit! It’s not like he’s bothered to keep to discretion on the investigation thus far.

  7. [ It is clear from the above that the Greens have a gut ideological reaction against defence expenditure, and are committed not to spend on fighters, ships, subs, tanks and artillery because these are offensive items. ]

    From my reading of Greens policy positions i would have to agree with most of the above.

    [ because these are offensive items. ]

    Is something i dont agree with. All depends on the context in which they are used. A tank tearing across the countryside breaking things (like other tanks) and hurting people who are invading a country is clearly deployed as a defensive weapon. I dont think declaring military hardware defensive or offensive makes any sense (except for fixed fortifications).

  8. The Greens want to kill two birds with the one stone.

    They’re going to buy the Pacific Jewel cruise liner from P&O and use it to provide a safe and secure journey for all asylum seekers who wish to call Australia home…and when it is not in use…they intend to convert it into a navy ship if ever the situation warrants 🙂

  9. They better add fees for Emergency Departments if they are adding fees for GPs…..otherwise all hell is gonna break loose in hospitals!

  10. imacca

    [I dont think declaring military hardware defensive or offensive makes any sense]

    While tanks can be very useful in defence they are, par excellence, machines designed for offensive action – and in particular designed to overcome the horrific stalements of WW1 trench warfare.

    Anyway, don’t ask me.

    It is the Greens who are opposed to offensive weapons. Ask Astrobleme or Pegasus or Socrates. They must know what they mean.

  11. The Green preference for non-alignment also overlooks the history of large-scale military conflicts between nation states in the modern era. For the most part they have been fought between alliances, rather than between pairs of states or by single states against multiple opponents.

    Given this, if we were unfortunate enough to have to fight another war in our own region again, it is almost certain that the conflict will be multilateral. There are good strategic reasons for belonging to alliances: they give all participants an interest their common, mutual security and this tends to produce stability rather than volatility. As well, in the event of a war, it is a lot less costly for each individual state to share the costs with its companions. Recognising this, we had better make sure we have our alliance policies and strategies well-worked out before any conflict gets underway.

    There is a corresponding reality as well. If we were to eschew the advantages of alliances and a regionally-integrated strategic capability, we would face pressure to massively increase our own Defence spending. Considering the scale of potential Defence requirements (we occupy a large landmass and a huge coastline at the fulcrum of the Pacific and the Indian Oceans) this would be a very large burden on the economy. Meeting such a burden would certainly diminish our welfare in every other way.

    The Greens should reconsider their attitude to Defence if they want to be taken seriously.

  12. Everything

    I’m certain that in time fees will be introduced for emergency departments.

    But not yet. $6 is not going to cause a rush into emergency wards.

    Maybe when the GP tax is raised to $15 you can bet plenty that the use of emergency facilities will incur a fee 😎

  13. centre
    [I’ve never heard a Green support any form of defence spending.]
    If the Greens support having an ADF, it follows they support defence spending 😉

    http://greens.org.au/policies/peace-security

    [A reallocation, and where possible, reduction in Australian military expenditure consistent with the defensive security needs of Australia and the peace-keeping role of Australian forces.

    Decisions on defence procurement to be based on Australia’s defence needs.

    Defence procurements that do not restrict the operations of the ADF by increased reliance on any one country.]

  14. Rossmore@852

    Bemused 808 I have more confidence in the Coroner reaching a fair verdict than a ranting, opinioated mob arguing the toss, often with undeclared personal baggage. What’s the alternative – a lynch mob? .

    Coroners should do their job properly and call upon appropriate experts with no connection to any party involved in a case.

    You can read my submission and oral evidence to the Vic Parliamentary Law Reform Committee Inquiry into the Coroners’ Act 1981 if interested. It was referred to a number of times in their report.

  15. I dont understand why the Greens are not pro-war.

    It could end in a nuclear winter and cool the globe which appears to be all that matters.

  16. Boerwar,

    [I think I have worked it out. The Greens are going to buy fighter jets that fly backwards.]

    They might be able to get a few third-hand Backfire Bombers at a garage sale.

  17. Mad Lib@866

    They better add fees for Emergency Departments if they are adding fees for GPs…..otherwise all hell is gonna break loose in hospitals!

    Well that’s the mob of morons you support.

    Enjoy what happens now.

  18. [
    Everything
    Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    I dont understand why the Greens are not pro-war.

    It could end in a nuclear winter and cool the globe which appears to be all that matters.
    ]
    What a relief; know you couldn’t do logical for too long.

  19. [Then you obviously have no experience with Coroners.
    It seems at times they would have difficulty tracking a bleeding elephant through snow.]

    Sadly that’s true. My experience of coroner’s is that they are basically morons who are out of their depth most of the time.

  20. Peg @ 870

    What does that mean?

    LOL a reallocation to what?

    Define what is defence expenditure consistent with SECURITY NEEDS?

    This is a little bit more complicated than organising a protest rally on a weekend. This is serious stuff!

  21. wonder what this is about:
    [
    Asher Wolf ‏@Asher_Wolf 5m

    In fact, I even know the room number at the Gateway Hotel in Port Moresby where injured asylum seekers were kept: room 409

    Having talked to an asylum seeker who was shot, I can confirm.
    ]

  22. Wonder if this is where the budgie smugglers come into play with the new planes to deal with increased Asylum Seekers? Transport them stealthy?

  23. Andrew elder doesn’t give Mr Baird much chance. He is putting his money on independents:

    http://andrewelder.blogspot.co.uk/

    [
    They are repeating the malarkey that the sale of the distribution system means a better deal for consumers, without explaining how this is to be achieved. It’s bullshit strategy and the government will embarrass itself every time it pushes this. At about the time the distribution systems are to be sold, the Federal government is expected to have demolished the carbon pricing mechanism, and go through the pantomime of acting all shocked when a) household electricity do not go down as promised, and b) whatever pissant concessions are wrung from power companies will not last long and incur no gratitude from voters.
    ]

  24. [The Greens want clean energy jets]

    There’s nothing wrong with that. One of the issues of 21st century science and engineering will be looking at ways to get away from burning fuel for propulsion. Not just because of the carbon emissions but because it depends on a finite product and is extremely inefficient. (While this is more important to space launches, jet planes would receive it as a by-effect.)

  25. By George, I think I’ve got it!

    Loudspeakers placed along the coast line broadcasting the defence policy of the Greens.

    The enemy would find itself re-allocated by reduced spending.

  26. I would recommend that the Greens go for hot air balloons to establish air superiority over the sea/air gap because:

    (1) they would cost less than JSF
    (2) they don’t hurt people
    (3) they could use recycled hot air from Greens Defence Policy Discussions
    (4) they are militarily useless and so would not be offensive to anyone.

  27. [
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Some one wrote earlier that the Navy need air support.

    I don’t dispute that, so why don’t we have an aircraft carrier?
    ]
    The LDH being fitter out at williamstown certainly look like they could serve the purpose; you don’t need the bit at the front to get helcopters into the air.

    [ The ski-jump ramp of Juan Carlos I has been retained for the RAN ships.[19] Because of this, there have been multiple recommendations that the Canberras be used for carrier-like flight operations (primarily with a flight group of F-35B Lightning II STOVL aircraft). Although cross-decking with other nations’ aircraft may occur, the RAN maintains that embarking Australian-operated, fixed-wing aircraft is not under consideration.]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra-class_landing_helicopter_dock

Leave a Reply

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