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. Darn

    I haven’t heard anything about the missing plane.

    I take it they haven’t found the black box yet? Poor Monkey, my heart bleeds for him 😆

    *night

  2. [Astrobleme
    Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 10:38 pm | PERMALINK
    Wonder what ModLib thought of this tonight]

    I watched it last night.

    It was quite an entertaining interview! 😀

  3. imacca@975:

    That’s just not the case. Defense is an order of magnitude easier than offense, and it absolutely matters to policy whether you’re structuring a force to repel an invasion or tooling up to go invading elsewhere. Worldwide there are _very_ few militaries that have the ability to project meaningful force much beyond their own borders.

  4. Interesting to see an ABC interviewer completely demolished by a climate change “denier” as you like to call them with your religious terminology.

  5. victoria@1000

    bemused

    No. I have missed it

    Damn… it must have been gobbled up. I can’t find it now.

    What I said was that I had listened to it and noted:
    1. There was only 1 nasty letter out of many hundreds.
    2. There was also mention of a nasty Facebook page.
    3. Rosie Batty made no mention of her ex-husband.

    So where did you get your stuff from? Do you just hear what you want to hear or do you make stuff up?

  6. I should point this line out as it is especially hilarious

    “I just look at the evidence. There is no evidence. If people can show there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperature, well then of course that’s something which we would pay attention to. But when you look at the last 17.5 years where we’ve had a multitude of climate models, and this was the basis on which this whole so-called science rests, it’s on models, computer models. And those models have been shown to be 98 per cent inaccurate.”

    There is almost no part of that statement that is true.

  7. ““denier” is religious terminology, as was discussed beautifully on QandA by that Marxist chap.”

    Ok, so this was just baiting by you. And not something you actually believe in.

  8. …denier is a religious term, which fits with the meme that if you question anything on this topic you are essentially an “infidel” or a “heathen”….its the exact same thing IMO.

  9. Reading the transcript I don’t get that sense Everything… Looks like he just spouted a load of rubbish that people who don’t know much about physics have read on various websites and ignored actual science…

  10. Mad Lib@1015

    Alberici had no idea how to counter his proposals!

    Not a clue….

    It is very difficult to counter audacious bare-faced lies. You should know that. It’s the reason it’s in your Liberal play book.

  11. [ de·ni·er 1
    (dĭ-nī′ər)
    n.
    One that denies: a denier of harsh realities.
    den·ier 2
    (dən-yā′)
    n.
    1. also (dĕn′yər) A unit of fineness for rayon, nylon, and silk fibers, based on a standard mass per length of 1 gram per 9,000 meters of yarn.
    2. also (də-nîr′)
    a. A small coin of varying composition and value current in western Europe from the eighth century until the French Revolution.
    b. Archaic A small, trifling sum.
    [Middle English denere, a coin, from Old French dener, from Latin dēnārius; see denarius.]

  12. “…denier is a religious term, which fits with the meme that if you question anything on this topic you are essentially an “infidel” or a “heathen”….its the exact same thing IMO.”

    Well, you should first define ‘religion’ and see if we have a common agreement – I think you’re going to define it differently to me.

    Now, if you were to actually come forward with some claims we could actually explore them together rather than banter about whether people can be labelled… Which is far more boring.

    So tell me, what did Maurice Newman say that was so convincing?

  13. [Alberici had no idea how to counter his proposals!
    Not a clue….]

    Fully agree – its an indictment of the ABC that a star reporter cannot refute the stupid and ignorant claims of a well knowm climate denialist which have been refuted numerous times and such is readily available to any halfway competent journalist.
    Every claim he made was false and easily shown to be so. yet Alberici, and the ABC, dropped the ball.
    Disgraceful.

  14. “@Lateline: “I can’t think of a finance Min. in the Western World that wouldn’t give their left arm 2 be in the position of the Aus Govt.”- Andrew Neil”

  15. [ Defense is an order of magnitude easier than offense ]

    Remarkably arguable.

    [ repel an invasion or tooling up to go invading elsewhere. ]

    Not in our context except for some aspects of the Army. Besides, people are happy enough to have all the “offensive” tools to put a force over a hostile and difficult beach (for example) when they are needed for disaster relief somewhere. We are in fact investing heavily in those (Canberra Class) at the moment.

  16. [ Interesting to see an ABC interviewer completely demolished by a climate change “denier” as you like to call them with your religious terminology. ]

    So you didn’t actually watch it then? 🙂 Newman came across as a slightly befuddled parrot.

  17. [So tell me, what did Maurice Newman say that was so convincing?]

    He didn’t convince me of much, si I might be the wrong person to ask! :devil:

  18. Was it this statement:
    ” Emma, let’s not confuse the issues. Cleaning the atmosphere, which is what carbon pollution is about, not CO2, CO2 is not a pollutant. But cleaning the atmosphere, being more efficient, all of that makes sense. That’s got nothing to do with climate. That’s to do with economics and being efficient.

    But I would say to all of those people who are arguing that CO2 creates global warming and man is adding to the global warming to show the empirical evidence of where this is so. Because I’m saying to you that where this originates is from models. Computer models which are wrong. Now, if you can show me where there is some sort of correlation that proves beyond doubt that what we have is global warming as a consequence of CO2 and man’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, well then we can have a different conversation.”

    because that is hilarious…

    ‘Cleaning the atmosphere, which is what carbon pollution is about, not CO2, CO2 is not a pollutant. But cleaning the atmosphere, being more efficient, all of that makes sense.”

    what does that even mean? Is he talking about getting soot out of the air?

  19. “Yes having a Science Minister would have made a world of difference…”

    Yes, probably would have. Because then when questions of science crop up they would be obligated to speak about it… And would quite probably getting ridiculed for never getting it right. Like a Sports Minister would get ridiculed for constantly talking Sports down.

  20. [ …denier is a religious term, ]

    That it may have been, at some time and place, used in a religious context does not make it a religious term.

    That the Grumpy True Disbelievers have a decidedly religious, fingers in the ears, dismiss and disparage all not one of us devotion to their denial of the current state of the science is something very apparent though.

  21. “He didn’t convince me of much, si I might be the wrong person to ask! :devil:”

    So you’re not disappointed that on such an important issue he would spout a load of garbage, to spread doubt and misinformation?

  22. “Didn’t seem to hurt Jason Clare….”

    What did he say that was ‘crazy’ or quite plainly wrong? Did he say that Cricket causes Lung Cancer? Or that kids shouldn’t pay sport because it causes pneumonia? Because that’s the level of lunacy the Maurice Newman went to.

  23. “I am a big supporter of everyone getting their say, I listen, then I decide.”

    So you just listen and listen and listen??? That’s strange.
    How long do you keep listening for?
    I mean this ‘debate’ has been going on since 1896, I think the evidence is pretty clear now.

  24. I mean this sort of stuff has been resolved ages ago:

    ” Well, if you look at the – if you go back in history, and you look at when the sun has been active and when the sun has been inactive, will you find the climate on earth responds accordingly. So we had the more to minimum, we go back to medieval warm period, you will find they correspond very closely to what happens with the sun. There’s very little correlation with CO2, in fact, if anything, which came out of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, there’s a six to 800-year lag between CO2 and climate.”

    It’s as if he hasn’t actually read anything other than what Roy Spencer posts on his blog.

Leave a Reply

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