Morgan: 57.5-42.5 to Labor

Polling conducted over the past two weekends finds the Abbott government not unexpectedly going from very bad to worse.

I wouldn’t normally lead with a Morgan poll so soon after a Newspoll result, but today of course is a special occasion (for future generations who might happen to be reading this, Tony Abbott today beat off a spill motion by the unconvincing margin of 61 to 39). After conducting an unusual poll last time in which the field work period was extended and the surveying limited to a single weekend, this is back to the usual Roy Morgan practice of combining face-to-face and SMS polling from two weeks, with field work conducted only on Saturdays and Sundays, with a sample of around 3000 (2939 to be precise about it). So the poll was half conducted in the knowledge that a spill was imminent, and half not.

On the primary vote, there has been a straight two-point shift from the Coalition to Labor since the previous poll, which was conducted from January 23-27, with Australia Day and the Prince Philip knighthood having landed on January 26. This puts Labor on 41.5% and the Coalition on 35.5%, with the Greens steady on 12% and Palmer United down one to 2%. A slightly better flow of preferences for the Coalition blunts the impact a little on the headline respondent-allocated two-party figure, on which Labor’s lead is up from 56.5-43.5 to 57.5 to 42.5. The move is a little bigger on previous election preferences, from 55.5-44.5 to 57-43. Tomorrow’s Essential Research should complete the cycle of pre-spill opinion polling, and I’m well and truly back in my old routine of updating BludgerTrack overnight on Wednesday/Thursday.

UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research’s reputation for stability emerges unharmed with another 54-46 reading this week, with the Coalition up a point to 39%, Labor steady on 41%, the Greens up one to 10% and Palmer United steady on 3%. It’s a different story on the monthly reading of Tony Abbott’s leadership ratings, with approval down eight to 27% and disapproval up nine to 62%. However, Bill Shorten’s position has also sharply worsened, with approval down six to 33% and disapproval up five to 38%. Given this is nowhere reflected in other polling, one might surmise that Essential has hit bad samples for Labor over consecutive weeks. Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister is nonetheless out from 37-35 to 39-31.

Other questions find 59% approval for the government dropping its paid parental leave scheme versus 25% for disapprove; 59% support for same-sex marriage, up four since December, with 28% opposed, down four; 26% saying support for same-sex marriage might favourably influence vote choice, 19% saying it would do so unfavourably, and 48% saying it would make no difference; 44% favouring a negative response to government retention of personal data and information against 38% for a positive one; and a suite of questions on privatisation that do a fair bit to explain what happened to Campbell Newman.

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.

1,707 comments on “Morgan: 57.5-42.5 to Labor”

  1. guytaur

    I’m sure I heard one of the Sky reporters when the subs claim was first raised say an agreement had been made with the Japanese PM . That it had been made PM’s office to PM’s office.

  2. Matt@1402

    Sprocket @1391:

    How does a long-term pollie afford a multimillion-dollar house?

    Either we’re paying them far too much, or someone should audit Mr. Dutton’s accounts!

    He used to be a Qld cop. 😐

  3. [1402
    Matt
    Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 4:55 pm | PERMALINK
    Sprocket @1391:

    How does a long-term pollie afford a multimillion-dollar house?

    Either we’re paying them far too much, or someone should audit Mr. Dutton’s accounts!
    ]

    Dutton was a Qld policeman before entering politics.

  4. Dutton hmmm!!!!!
    He was raised in Brisbane, Queensland, and was educated at the Queensland Police Academy before becoming a Queensland Police officer for nine years, working in the Drug Squad in suburbs such as Red Hill, Brisbane in the early 1990s.

  5. Bemused, Sprocket:

    All the more reason to have an inquiry into how he afforded that kind of property. Police salaries aren’t precisely all that generous, last I checked…

  6. Incidentally, bemused – I agree with you on the relative importance of Bali Nine and Aboriginal deaths-in-custody.

    Not only does the latter happen to far more people with far less justification, it’s also within Australia’s power to fix.

  7. Matt@1409

    Incidentally, bemused – I agree with you on the relative importance of Bali Nine and Aboriginal deaths-in-custody.

    Not only does the latter happen to far more people with far less justification, it’s also within Australia’s power to fix.

    That’s nice to know, but I don’t recall commenting on the Aboriginal deaths-in-custody. 😀

  8. PtMD

    [Barbaric describes how white Europeans/British treated colonised peoples, and their own. The Death Penalty is barbaric, it harks backwards to a pre-modern justice-system past, and is, imo, an accurate description of nations which have the death penalty. How they react to that description is not my concern.]

    I suppose the salient point is that the word trades on notions of ethnic privilege — the classical Greek ‘barbaroi’ meant simply. ‘not Greek’ but was mainly directed against the Persians. Later, the Romans took up the term despite being not Greek and used it loosely to make unflattering comparisons with Greek and Roman cultural achievements. The proto-indo-European root is ‘barbar’ for ‘unintelligible speech’ … the Barbary Coast gets its name from the appellation. By the early 17thC it meant ‘a rude, wild person’.

    In short the term was ethnocentric and expressly vituperative in it. A contemporary equivalent in gender is the term ‘hysterical’ in that the behaviour is condemned due to its provenance in the possession of a uterus.

    One can see easily how with this history, it lent itself easily to the cultural interests of oppressor nations, even if, as with other terms of abuse (bastard, c*nt, sl.t, etc) it traded on ancient prejudices.

    The measure is based on bloodlust and vengeance — ancient prejudices that lurk in semi-public view within the justice systems of quite modern societies and perfectly good alternative descriptors are to hand — ‘cruel, inhuman, murderous, arbitrary’ — without us invoking the usage of colonial masters.

  9. $2.3mill is one helluva lot of money for a policeman/pollie

    It is possible he could afford it is he bought wisely at 24 and then maybe inherited a house from parents/gandparents. It is still one very pricy property for a pollie/plod.

  10. Sometime’s its the pollie’s partner’s money (as per Rudd or Hockey).

    But as best I can tell Mrs Dutton appears to be a house wife. (If you google her, you get her personal facebook as the only inernet reference….)

    Unless Dutton inherited some serious dollars somewhere it seems strange.

  11. Wow I triggered the automod …

    Let’s see if I can fix things with a tweak …

    PtMD

    [Barbaric describes how white Europeans/British treated colonised peoples, and their own. The Death Penalty is barbaric, it harks backwards to a pre-modern justice-system past, and is, imo, an accurate description of nations which have the death penalty. How they react to that description is not my concern.]

    I suppose the salient point is that the word trades on notions of ethnic privilege — the classical Greek ‘barbaroi’ meant simply. ‘not Greek’ but was mainly directed against the Persians. Later, the Romans took up the term despite being not Greek and used it loosely to make unflattering comparisons with Greek and Roman cultural achievements. The proto-indo-European root is ‘barbar’ for ‘unintelligible speech’ … the Barbary Coast gets its name from the appellation. By the early 17thC it meant ‘a rude, wild person’.

    In short the term was ethnocentric and expressly vituperative in it. A contemporary equivalent in gender is the term ‘hysterical’ in that the behaviour is condemned due to its provenance in the possession of a uterus.

    One can see easily how with this history, it lent itself easily to the cultural interests of oppressor nations, even if, as with other terms of abuse (bastard, c..t, $..t, etc) it traded on ancient prejudices.

    The measure is based on bloodlust and vengeance — ancient prejudices that lurk in semi-public view within the justice systems of quite modern societies and perfectly good alternative descriptors are to hand — ‘cruel, inhuman, murderous, arbitrary’ — without us invoking the usage of colonial masters.

  12. Dutton seems very cagey about his business background

    He may have inherited some property and there would have been a bit of cash from family land in Albany creek.

  13. Bemused @1410: Let me look back…Ah, you’re right. It was Boerwar at the 12-something mark.

    But in response to your own comment (#1234): How is it “precious”, “thin-skinned” or “hypocritcial” to express displeasure at the ALP’s policy on refugees, which increasingly seems to be to engage in a race with the LNP to see who can “be tougher” on them?

  14. Fran

    [I suppose the salient point is that the word trades on notions of ethnic privilege — the classical Greek ‘barbaroi’ meant simply. ‘not Greek’ but was mainly directed against the Persians]

    Yes, the word ‘barbaroi’ was invented by the Greeks based on how they imitated foreign speech (‘bar-bar-bar…’). In the Iliad, Homer used the word ‘barbarophonous’ (barbarian-sounding) to refer to a non-Greek people called the Carians. So the word goes back a long way.

  15. Matt@1419

    Bemused @1410: Let me look back…Ah, you’re right. It was Boerwar at the 12-something mark.

    But in response to your own comment (#1234): How is it “precious”, “thin-skinned” or “hypocritcial” to express displeasure at the ALP’s policy on refugees, which increasingly seems to be to engage in a race with the LNP to see who can “be tougher” on them?

    Another Green hypocrite?

    We would not be where we are now if the Malaysian Solution had gone ahead.

    Every time Greens get criticised they squeal!

  16. 1407

    According to Wikipedia he “became a businessman and completed a Batchelor of Business at the Queensland University of Technology” after leaving the police in 1999. He was elected in 2001.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dutton

    His Parliamentary profile says he was also a company director from 1993.

    http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=00AKI#preParliament

    Here is his entry in the register of member`s interests.

    http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/03%20Senators%20and%20Members/32%20Members/Register/44p/CF/DuttonP_44P.pdf

  17. [ “Concern growing inside govt ranks that a deal has already been done with Japan on submarines” ]

    That would be a very much oh sh$t oh dear moment for the Govt if true.

    Still, easily dealt with by the PM fronting questions and categorically, unequivocally, and with no weasel words (LoL!) stating that no such deal has been done to date, and that no such deal will be done until the “competitive evaluation” and/or Tender process has been completed in as transparent a means as possible. 🙂

    Easy one for Tony this. 🙂

  18. Actually, on the subs, i think that there was a deal made to facilitate technology sharing last year?? Thats not the necessarily the same as a a deal to build the subs, but an essential precursor given Japans laws about defence tech / sales i think.

  19. ABC fact check

    [The claim: Christopher Pyne says Labor stripped $6.6 billion from higher education funding.
    The verdict: Of the $6.6 billion in Mr Pyne’s table, at least $2.3 billion relates to measures that have not been implemented. Almost two thirds relates to funding for students, not universities and the $6.6 billion also takes into account forward estimates for the years to 2016-17, which does not fall into “the course of [Labor’s] government”. Mr Pyne is incorrect.]

  20. Matt@1428

    Bemused @1421:

    No squealing here….a bit of a chuckle at how you immediately diverted to an ad hominem rather than address my question, though.

    Care to try again?

    Your question had a wrong premise so I dealt with the real issue.

    Yes, I know it is not what you wanted so go have a bit of a squeal until you feel better.

  21. Bemused @1421

    There is one thing that the Greens and the Libs have in common – both of them are never wrong and both of them have never made a mistake.

  22. adam abdool@1430

    Bemused @1421

    There is one thing that the Greens and the Libs have in common – both of them are never wrong and both of them have never made a mistake.

    Yes, you are right about that. The sanctimony is nauseating.

  23. [The study was ordered by the Abbott government in January 2013 even before the results of a separate review of the issue by the council had been made public. The decision for another review stoked fears that the government was being swayed by anti-wind farm campaigners, including Maurice Newman, a senior advisor to Prime Minister Tony Abbott.]

    [The latest report, released on Wednesday, also ruled out suggestions that wind farm noise impacts would differ from effects from other noise sources at similar levels.]

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/wind-farm-health-review-finds-no-ill-effects–so-lets-study-some-more-20150211-13bcf7.html

  24. [1431
    Nicholas

    Australia without the Greens would be New Zealand.]

    There are Greens in the NZ Parliament…seemingly doing well enough….have a program… could hardly be more ineffectual than the Greens in this country…

  25. adam abdool @1430:

    Not quite true, actually. I’m quite willing to go on record – as I have before on PB – as saying that the Greens should have taken the deal re: Malaysia, and that I was disappointed that they didn’t.

    Doesn’t change the fact that Labor’s rhetoric on asylum seekers was, in 2013, a blatant attempt to compete with the LNP for the xenophobic vote.

    Sling all the ad hominem attacks you want, neither you nor Bemused has ever bothered to address that simple proposition: Has Labor decided that the path to electoral victory is to compete for the racist vote?

  26. [Victorian schools were short-changed $50 million by the former state government under the Gonski school funding deal, an investigation by Labor has revealed.

    It is believed the needs-based funding, which is supposed to address disadvantage in the education system, was used by the former state government to run schools and pay for teacher salary increases.

    Details of the deal struck by the Napthine government have begun to be revealed as part of an Education Department investigation ordered by the Andrews government.

    Education Minister James Merlino accused the Napthine government of failing to honour the Gonski agreement, which they signed with the Commonwealth in 2013 hours before the federal election was called.

    He said there was a $50 million shortfall of state funding in the 2014 and 2015 school years, which meant there was effectively no money to tackle disadvantage.

    The investigation was ordered amid concerns raised by principals, who said they could not see extra funding in their school budgets]
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorian-schools-shortchanged-50-million-under-gonski-deal-alp-20150211-13bzkl.html

  27. [1436
    Matt

    Has Labor decided that the path to electoral victory is to compete for the racist vote?]

    It’s a question that’s not worthy of an answer.

  28. Bemused @1429:

    What’s wrong with the premise? A Green criticized Labor’s policy on refugees, you immediately called him a hypocrite (and, due to sloppy wording, all Greens along with him), rather than addressing his point.

    A classic ad hominem, so I’ll reword the premise that Sustainable Future posed:

    i) Do you agree that Labor is in the business of dehumanizing refugees in their rhetoric, in order to gain votes? If not, why not?

    ii) Whether you believe Labor is or not, do you agree with the proposition that Labor should do so?

    Surely that’s a pair of questions you can answer? Or are you instead going to resort to more mud-flinging to avoid the question, as I’ve noticed you do in this very thread?

  29. The assertion that wanting to ‘stop the boats’ is inherently a racist sentiment is offensive.

    I think the government should implement policies to deter boat arrivals where reasonable to do so. I don’t support the current government’s management of Manus Island or Nauru, or much of their rhetoric and gratuitous secrecy and heavy handed pointless measures, but fundamentally I’m glad that the boats have stopped.

    I would very much like to see the humanitarian refugee intake increased. I have no problem with ‘brown people’ coming to this country. But I insist that it must be an orderly process, and the prospect of bodies being washed up on the rocks of Christmas island must be minimized as much as possible.

    I reject that this is a racist sentiment.

  30. Bemused @1438:

    Given how Labor rattles off the usual tripe about “illegal immigrants”, “queue-jumpers” and “securing the borders” every election, it’s a question that begs an answer, not a question unworthy of it.

    In light of Labor’s rhetorical tack to the Right on this issue, you don’t get to avoid it that easily, mate.

  31. Matt@1436

    adam abdool @1430:

    Not quite true, actually. I’m quite willing to go on record – as I have before on PB – as saying that the Greens should have taken the deal re: Malaysia, and that I was disappointed that they didn’t.

    Doesn’t change the fact that Labor’s rhetoric on asylum seekers was, in 2013, a blatant attempt to compete with the LNP for the xenophobic vote.

    Sling all the ad hominem attacks you want, neither you nor Bemused has ever bothered to address that simple proposition: Has Labor decided that the path to electoral victory is to compete for the racist vote?

    That question is easy. No.

  32. Jackol,

    That’s not a racist sentiment at all. I disagree with the proposition that punishing the refugees is the way to deter people-smuggling, but that’s something to have a debate about, not a racist vs. non-racist position.

  33. [1441
    Matt

    Given how Labor rattles off the usual tripe about “illegal immigrants”, “queue-jumpers” and “securing the borders” every election, it’s a question that ….]

    is based on a false premise. Labor do not rattle out this tune. The LNP do.

    At the end…this is a stick with which Labor is repeatedly beaten by both the LNP and Greens. It hardly matters what happens to asylum seekers these days. Whatever is wrong, by the very convenient reckoning of its competitors, it is always Labor’s fault.

  34. [kakuru
    Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Fran

    I suppose the salient point is that the word trades on notions of ethnic privilege — the classical Greek ‘barbaroi’ meant simply. ‘not Greek’ but was mainly directed against the Persians

    Yes, the word ‘barbaroi’ was invented by the Greeks based on how they imitated foreign speech (‘bar-bar-bar…’). In the Iliad, Homer used the word ‘barbarophonous’ (barbarian-sounding) to refer to a non-Greek people called the Carians. So the word goes back a long way.]

    The Carians, infamous for toothless grins?

  35. Could one of the Bludger lounge’s economic experts explain to this muy non expert why this question is asked ? It always puzzled me when Greece was bailed out the first time claims a pimple on an elephants bum economy falling over would herald the four horses of the apocalypse.

    [Would it matter to the world – or Europe – if Greece left the euro? ]

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae/would-it-matter-to-the-world–or-europe–if-greece-left-the-euro-10037138.html

  36. Bemused @1442:

    Thank you for answering the question. Now, you state that Labor is not competing for the racist vote – how do you square this statement with the following actions:

    i) by Kevin Rudd (May 2010), in which he stopped all processing of Tamil and Afghan refugee claims despite the strife ongoing in both homelands (Sri Lanka and Afghanistan);
    ii) by both Rudd and Gillard (2007-2013), in which Labor extended and supported “offshore processing” for the specific purpose of never letting refugees’ feet touch “Australian soil” as defined by the Migration Act;
    iii) by Julia Gillard (2012), the decision to re-open offshore processing after the Malaysia Solution regrettably (I acknowledge, as I have before, the Greens’ role in that failure) fell through, rather than onshore processing of asylum claims – what motivated this if not pandering to anti-refugee sentiment?;
    iv) by Chris Bowen, then Immigration Minister (2012), the decision to detain whole families for periods in excess of five years so as to ensure “no advantage” was gained by the long and perilous trip; or
    v) by the Labor Government of 2007-2013, the unwillingness to confront the awful conditions of the detention centers, including reports of routine rape of inmates by guards, forced labour, sadistic treatment of inmates by guards and an epidemic of suicidal depression?

    Labor’s rhetoric and actions have both, so far as I can tell, indicated a distinct willingness to pander to anti-refugee sentiment to win or retain office; I presume that you disagree with my conclusion – if so, on what basis?

  37. poroti @1446:

    That’s simple enough. Greece exiting the Euro would set a precedent. And Greece exiting the Euro, then prospering due to having freedom of action restored, would set a precedent that other austerity-ridden countries might be tempted to follow.

    They’re not bailing out Greece to keep Greece in the Eurozone – they’re bailing out Greece to keep Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and possibly the Baltic states in the Eurozone.

  38. Matt

    Ta. Explains why they went ahead with a plan many commentators at the time said the numbers of which just didn’t add up. Concluding it inevitable Greece would be in as deep or even deeper poo in a few years.

    I’ll leave the fight over whether bailing out Greece was right or wrong to other combatants 🙂

Leave a Reply

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