Morgan: 53-47 to Labor

The latest Roy Morgan poll records a slight move back to Labor, after last fortnight’s result gave the Coalition its best result since October.

The latest fortnightly result from Roy Morgan finds Labor improving from an unusually weak result last time, their primary vote up two points to 38% with the Coalition down two to 38.5%. The Greens and Palmer United are both down half a point, to 12% and a new low of 1% respectively. However, the respondent-allocated two-party result is steady at 53-47, the preference flow evidently being less favourable to Labor compared with a fortnight ago, and the shift on 2013 preference flows is also rather modest, from 53-47 to 54-46. As usual, the poll was conducted over two weekends by face-to-face and SMS, the sample on this occasion being 3314. I believe this and the regular Essential poll are the only federal polling we’ll be seeing this week.

UPDATE (Essential Research): The only change in Essential Research’s voting intention numbers this week are a one point gain for the Greens to 11% and a one point drop for Palmer United to 1%, leaving Labor on 39%, the Coalition on 41% and Labor’s two-party lead at 52-48. Further questions have been framed with the looming budget in mind, the most striking finding being that 56% believe the Coalition’s policies favour the rich over the “average Australian” (20%), with Labor scoring a fairly balanced response over the available options. Relatedly, it is anticipated that the budget will be good for the well off (49% good, 9% bad) and business (32% good, 17% bad), but very bad for everybody else and for the economy overall (19% good, 33% bad). Eighty-two per cent of respondents signed on to the proposition that “some companies” and “some wealthy people” didn’t pay their fair share of tax. Out of seven listed economic issues, the cost of living rated highest as an issue of concern (87%) with the national debt and budget deficit tied for last place (63%). Opinion on the latest Iraq commitment is fairly evenly balanced, with 40% approval and 44% disapproval.

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.

934 comments on “Morgan: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 1 of 19
1 2 19
  1. I hope this does not distract comment from the South Australian poll thread, although I fear (from experience with non-main threads) it will.

  2. William

    Would I be right in saying that the 2pp you will be adjusting is the 54-46 and that the house effect will bring this down to about 52.3?

  3. First time this term that last-election has beaten respondent-allocated by a point. It has beaten respondent-allocated by half a point four times, most recently a bit over a year ago.

    Last one was also odd because of the respondent-allocated 2PP for the given primaries.

  4. Briefly, you construct a strawman claiming what my position is and is untenable and therefore are bound too lose the argument.

    You have misinterpreted my position. putting it simply, the world is overstocked and we should not encourage more people to have more children. In fact we should be encouraging people to have less children.

    I did not argue that women should be reduced to poverty.

  5. Sohar


    [BREAKING: State Bank of India reneges on $1 billion financing agreement for Adani’s Galilee Basin coal mine
    #qldpol #auspol @AAPNewswire]

  6. ‘fess

    [There are plenty who salivate at the prospect.]

    May be he should start a church – “Pope Kevin, I’m here to help has a ring to it”.


  7. CTar:

    It’s good to see the satirists having such fun with the former PM. I guess there’s loads of cannon fodder for them to draw upon.

    [“I do still wake up crying at 3am but that’s a seperate issue that has nothing to do with being a phenomenal baby. You’ll get used to that.”]

  8. I missed that the PM ruled out any changes in relation to negative gearing – so we aren’t having a serious discussion about tax at all – it is just about raising the GST and reducing the corp tax rate.

  9. [Andrew Elder @awelder · 2h 2 hours ago
    Strangely, no press gallery journo has asked Pyne about SA Libs blaming Abbott for lousy polls.]

    Presumably Pyne has been keeping his head down following the Newspoll.

  10. Sorry – text

    [Serco will no longer provide sterilisation services at Perth’s new hospital after surgical equipment was found to be contaminated – in at least one case with bone fragments still attached.

    The company, which still has around 20 contracts for other work at the $2bn Fiona Stanley hospital, had already been given two breach notices for its sterilisation services before being stripped of the role on Monday.]

  11. CTar1,

    The libs will punt on tax cuts for all balanced by a change to the GST.

    That will be 2016, though. Unless they punt on a quick run to the voters.

  12. [
    Do Coal miners only build stuff if they can rip people off (i.e. LNP)?]

    Pretty sure you could safely delete the word coal.

  13. lizzie:

    It’s unfathomable why Serco, with a history of serious stuff ups with the contracts it has for various things, continues to be awarded government tenders. Is there really such a lack of diversity of contractors in certain sectors, or is just the way of the world that these cookie cutter conglomerates just hoover up tenders naturally and with ease?

    I’ve noticed this hoovering happening elsewhere. Locally, thanks to the federal govt we’ve lost about 3 local employment providers to one provider which is an international company with no history of delivering employment services here, and no attachment to the local community. Not sure I’m fond of the way things are heading.

  14. [16

    You have misinterpreted my position. putting it simply, the world is overstocked and we should not encourage more people to have more children. In fact we should be encouraging people to have less children.

    I did not argue that women should be reduced to poverty.]

    And I did not create a straw man.

    The way to encourage smaller families – to reduce birthrates – is to support them to improve their incomes. So things that seem like they might “encourage people to have children”, such as providing childcare, will have the opposite effect. These measures and others like them improve family incomes and therefore contribute to long-term, recurring, freely chosen reductions in fertility.

    If we set out to reduce social and human services and income support for families, and in particular for women, then, seemingly paradoxically, the birthrate will rise.

  15. Re WWP @26: Joe Hockey has ruled out changes to superannuation tax arrangements as well, so they’re also not serious about fixing the Budget.

  16. Any policy that restricts a family/couple to NOT have children, will not work, there has been countless situations where this is the case, especially in China.

  17. lizzie:

    It’s so shortsighted. The successful tender may be the cheapest at the time, but costs for delivering the service go up exponentially when you have to bring in other providers for clean up when mistakes are made and escalate.

Comments Page 1 of 19
1 2 19

Leave a Reply

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