Morgan: Turnbull 70, Shorten 24

A snap SMS poll finds Malcolm Turnbull with a resounding lead over Bill Shorten as preferred prime minister, while Essential Research offers its final poll of the Tony Abbott era.

The first nugget of polling of the Malcolm Turnbull era is impressive even by the usual honeymoon effect standard, with Roy Morgan finding Turnbull enjoying a 70-24 lead over Bill Shorten as preferred prime minister, including a 50-44 lead among Labor supporters. The poll was conducted today from a sample of 1204 respondents.

Also out today is a now-redundant final reading of voting intention under Tony Abbott from Essential Research, which shows the pollster’s usual steady form in having the Coalition on 40%, Labor on 38% and the Greens on 11%, with Labor leading 52-48 on two-party preferred – none of which is changed from last week. Most of the remaining questions concern refugees, including a factual question on Australia’s refugee intake that produced fairly unremarkable results, with the highest response being for the broadly accurate total of “about 15,000”. Nor did Essential find evidence that opinions dramatically differed between a sub-sample that was advised of the actual figure and the other sub-sample that wasn’t.

Regarding the 12,000 additional Syrian refugees, Essential recorded 19% saying the number should be higher, 36% opting for lower and 30% saying it was about right. Forty-eight per cent expressed support for Australian involvement in air strikes on Islamic State in Syria, with 29% opposed. Other questions found 38% saying the unions’ take on the China free trade agreement, specifically that it fails to protect Australian workers, to be more credible than the government’s line that the agreement contains adequate protections; and 38% saying the coal industry should continue to expand with 33% saying it should not do so, which is a more positive result than you usually get concerning non-renewable energy sources.

Other polling intelligence of recent times that remains of at least historical interest:

• Liberal internal polling reported by InDaily had the Nick Xenophon Team, which is yet to announce candidates, ahead of Labor in the South Australian seats of Barker and Mayo, and ahead of the Liberals in Adelaide and Kingston – suggesting the NXT would very likely win the seats on respective Labor and Liberal preferences.

• Labor internal polling reported by the Herald-Sun suggests the Greens are a big show in the blue-ribbon Melbourne seat of Higgins, held for the Liberals currently by Kelly O’Dwyer, and in the past by Peter Costello, John Gorton and Harold Holt. The poll had the Greens on “between 24-26 per cent” with Labor on 24%, panning out to 50-50 in Liberal-versus-Greens two-party terms if the Greens did indeed finish ahead of Labor.

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.

1,190 comments on “Morgan: Turnbull 70, Shorten 24”

Comments Page 23 of 24
1 … 22 23 24

  2. aa @ 1048

    I hate to sound like a cynic, but Abbott learnt early on how incredibly dangerous it was to discard someone who was loyal to you. His sticking loyally to people has as much to do with personal protection as anything. Indeed, it was only the circus over marriage equality, coming on top of other circumnavigations around cabinet processes, that showed his closest supporters on the socially wet side of the party that he would do anything to save his job.

    And he never showed support or loyalty to Turnbull from the time he took over leadership until now. Turnbull owed him nothing. He also undermined Julie Bishop many times and left Joe Hockey as the fall guy for Abbott’s economic flip flops.

  3. [Anastasia P needs funding for the Gold Coast RT, without strings attached. The ideological idiocy of Abbott that insisted that money is only available if they sell assets meant Anastasia could not move, given the electoral hatred for asset sales.]

    You assume Turnbull can deliver… I see a wedge.

  5. True Blue

    I am pretty saw that I heard Hockey with my own ears, he and Tony made it clear that a surplus would be achieved and Hockey did mention it would happen in the first year.

  7. While Abbott kept repeating three word slogans, Mugabe repeated a full 25 minute speech to parliament:

    [Zimbabwe’s 91-year-old president Robert Mugabe has read the wrong speech at the opening of a new session of parliament, repeating an address he gave to the legislature last month.

    The veteran leader read the 25-minute speech through to the end, apparently unaware that he was delivering the same text he presented during his state of the nation address last month.]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-16/zimbabwe-president-mugabe-delivers-wrong-speech-in-parliament/6779412

  8. [ While Abbott kept repeating three word slogans, Mugabe repeated a full 25 minute speech to parliament ]

    No connection between mouth, ears and brain in either one!

  12. Sir Pajama Pudding of Lake Disappointment @1096

    Thank you for that link to Gillard & Abbott’s resignation speech’s. Intelligence & grace v belligerent moron.

  13. AJH @818:

    [paaptsef@ 815

    The agreement is already done and dusted. To change it would require going back to the negotiating table. And China have made it clear that they have given us a good deal, and aren’t willing to do that.

    It’s this deal or no deal. And this deal is a damn good one.]

    Unless you’re an Australian worker who’ll lose his job to cheap Chinese workers on 457 visas. Or one of the workers who now has to accept less for her work because of the oversupply of Australia’s domestic labour market. Or one of the farmers who’ll be pushed out of business with the lifting of restrictions on foreign “investment” to turn farmland into coalmines.

    CHAFTA is a terrible, no-good, very bad “deal” for Australia, and any Parliamentarian who agrees to it should be tried for violating their oath of office to loyally serve Australia.

  15. AJH @847:

    [In return for the temporary worker concessions (which only kick in if China is investing in Australia anyway – which is a good thing to begin with)]

    How? Please specify how it’s a “good thing” for Australia when a Chinese company comes in, sets up a mine using Chinese workers, operates it using Chinese miners, then ships both the minerals and the profits to China.

    Seriously, please do explain what Australia gets out of it. Sure, the GDP goes up – but as anyone who’s done Economics 101 will tell you, GDP is just a number on a piece of paper (Y=CIGNX) and has little to do with public finance, standards of living or the real economy.

    Which Australians will get jobs or careers? Which Australians will get money in their pockets? How is the tax base broadened for sustainable public finance?

    None, a couple and not, in that order!

  16. Madonna King on ABC774. Only heard last part of her comments. She said wtte that judging by talkback radio in Qld, they are angry that Abbott dumped. They believe that if anyone should get rid of PM, it should be them the voters

  18. The government is now running adverts to promote the three Asian trade agreements. I heard one today on radio where some wine exporter claimed a great deal for him and his suppliers, including increased employment.

    He didn’t mention whether his winery was foreign owned and would import its own labour.

  19. 1113

    Read the constitution (specifically section 42 and the Schedule at the end). Parliamentarians do not swear an oath to serve Australia, they swear or affirm an oath to serve the Queen.

  20. Re: Chafta (AJH @847):

    Australia gets:
    – Cuts in commodity tariffs (e.g. coal and alumina).
    – Cuts in tariffs on almost all classes of manufactured exports.
    – Elimination of tariffs on beef, dairy, sheep, pork, live animals, hides, skins and leather, horticulture, wine and seafood.
    – Tariff reductions or elimination for many classes of processed foods.
    – The ability for Australian companies to wholly invest in Chinese hospitality industry (a huge deal – China point blank insists on joint ventures usually).
    – The same deal for aged care.
    – Elimination of the requirement for Chinese companies to have a majority stake in joint ventures in agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing on the Mainland.
    – Better access for financial services companies to the Chinese market.

    (1) Tariffs are NOT the only way by which China protects its domestic market. A combination of subsidies, red tape (quotas, import permits, local partnership requirements, etc. etc. etc.) and currency manipulation are how China protects its domestic market.

    Sure, some local partnership requirements are going – in a very few, very specific areas. That still leaves national, provincial and local-level red tape to wade through (which has a severe chilling effect on investments, particularly when provincial and local bureaucrats are in the pocket of local operators) and currency manipulation, neither of which are being addressed by CHAFTA.

    (2) In general, what you’re saying is that CHAFTA is good for the Australian monied classes – the investors with the wherewithal to invest internationally. Even assuming you’re right (and I think you’re severely overblowing the “win” on that front), how does that benefit Australians on the street? Will that wealth trickle down to us? And how can it POSSIBLY make up for opening the floodgates to unlimited importation of 457-visa workers to fill jobs for $1.50/hour?

  21. TTFAB @1119:

    [1113

    Read the constitution (specifically section 42 and the Schedule at the end). Parliamentarians do not swear an oath to serve Australia, they swear or affirm an oath to serve the Queen.]

    Is Elizabeth Windsor the Queen of China now? No, she’s the Queen of AUSTRALIA.

  22. mike @ 1112

    [Thank you for that link to Gillard & Abbott’s resignation speech’s. Intelligence & grace v belligerent moron.]

    It certainly provides a clear explanation of why Windsor and Oakeshott supported Gillard, rather than Abbott. And why that support got stronger every day of the 43rd Parliament.

  23. Wait, Chinese firms will be able to sue the Government for “adverse policy decisions” now?

    No. No, no a thousand times NO! It is up to the elected Parliament to determine what the rule of law is, not some ticked-off corporate executive!

  24. Hmmm

    [Bridget O’Flynn
    Bridget O’Flynn – ‏@BridgetOFlynn

    PvanO on Sky said that if Abbott has decided to leave parliament &trigger a by-election he should say so. @afcoory @YaThinkN @Perorationer]

  25. TOF @873:

    [Indeed, that is what the now demoted Captain Chaos would do. But Shorten has not done that, despite the incredible lies that are being reported uncritically by the media. On the contrary, Shorten has offered to work with Turnbull to keep the ChAFTA on track for passage. It is the Coalition who are making the specious all or nothing argument, not Shorten.

    It would be nice for people to actually listen to what Shorten says, not what opponents with their own agendas pretend he said.]

    An overdose of neoliberalism apparently rots the brain. Making up strawmen about what opponents to CHAFTA say is the only way they can make anything resembling a coherent argument, other than telling us to just have faith in the invisible hand of the free market.

  26. Matt #1121

    Matt, I think what Tom the First and Best means is that the Queen is the monarch of the United Kingdoms of England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland foremost and Australia secondarily, so any policy that is not in Australia’s best interest would not violate the Queen’s oath, unless it involved U.K. interference.

  27. Matt@1113

    But what if you’re an Australian company looking to invest into China and take advantage of those “Cheap Chinese workers”?

    Then the deal looks very good indeed.

  28. Millennial @1126:

    Incorrect. Our politicians don’t take an oath of office to serve the Queen of the UK, but the Queen of Australia – who is legally a distinct, separate person who happens to share a body with the Queen of the UK. She has different duties, different interests and different priorities from Her Most Britannic Majesty.

    Consequently, serving the interests of Australia is serving the interests of Her Majesty the Queen of Australia, and that’s what politicians swear to do. Constitutionally, the Queen of the UK is irrelevant.

    (Also, it’s “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.)

  30. It’s occurred to me that the opposition leader at every federal election since 2004 has in hindsight had some serious personality flaws that made them unsuitable for the job.

  31. AJH @1127:

    [But what if you’re an Australian company looking to invest into China and take advantage of those “Cheap Chinese workers”?

    Then the deal looks very good indeed.]

    I repeat: How does this benefit Australians who aren’t part of the monied class?

    Last I checked, Labor was elected to represent the workers’ interests, not the bosses’ interests. And please don’t pretend that mum-and-dad businesses will benefit from this to nearly the same extent as big business.

    Now, I must go for a couple of hours (shopping for the week’s food) – later!

  32. Matt,

    [Incorrect. Our politicians don’t take an oath of office to serve the Queen of the UK, but the Queen of Australia – who is legally a distinct, separate person who happens to share a body with the Queen of the UK. She has different duties, different interests and different priorities from Her Most Britannic Majesty.

    Consequently, serving the interests of Australia is serving the interests of Her Majesty the Queen of Australia, and that’s what politicians swear to do. Constitutionally, the Queen of the UK is irrelevant.]

    That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. Do you have an authority for that proposition?

  33. [ But what if you’re an Australian company looking to invest into China and take advantage of those “Cheap Chinese workers”?

    Then the deal looks very good indeed. ]
    Plenty of countries do that already without a FTA with China and without selling out their own countrymen from now until eternity!

  36. victoria@1116

    Madonna King on ABC774. Only heard last part of her comments. She said wtte that judging by talkback radio in Qld, they are angry that Abbott dumped. They believe that if anyone should get rid of PM, it should be them the voters

    I simply forlornly repeat my now worthless advice that the Libs should have gone to an early election under Abbott and made sure he lost. It would have solved their main problem: how to minimise the cost of removing Abbott.

    Sigh. 🙁

  38. [Mr Denmore
    Mr Denmore – ‏@MrDenmore

    @drmarkhayes @Pollytics I really do think the party will split soon enough. More like a broad kennel than a broad church
    11:59 PM – 15 Sep 2015
    6 RETWEETS5 FAVORITES]

  39. From the commentary linked by Just Me at 1129

    [If we are to take Mr Abbott at his word – and why shouldn’t we? – he will not be embarking on a course of wrecking, undermining and sniping.

    So there should be no reason why he wouldn’t stick around in Parliament as a humble backbencher.]

    I misread that second sentence initially as ‘there should be no reason why he would stick around in Parliament’, because that is what is logical.

    For a man who wanted to spend $160 million of our money to solve and internal political difficulty, I would hardly think he was concerned about putting us to the hassle and expense of a by-election.

    As I’ve said a few times in the last two days, it does not matter what Abbott says he will do (or not do) in regards to leaking and undermining, it is whether he sits in the Parliament as a lightning rod for all disaffection on the right and for all the grass roots Liberals, or whether he goes quietly.

    My money (figuratively speaking) is on him remaining. Remember, Abbott really thinks he is a great campaigner. He will, no doubt, believe that Turnbull could so make a mess of things that they will turn back to Abbott to save them or, indeed, deliver them a famous victory.

  42. BC @ 1130

    [It’s occurred to me that the opposition leader at every federal election since 2004 has in hindsight had some serious personality flaws that made them unsuitable for the job.]

    Can’t agree. Beazley was fine. And Brendan Nelson was quite normal, for all his lack of cut-through (or perhaps as a result of it). I also have heard nothing particularly bizarre about Bill Shorten to suggest he will not make the transition should he be elected.

  44. “Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”

  45. AJH #1137

    [You’re referring to ISDS. They are a very bad idea, but unfortunately now a part of almost every preferential trade agreement.]

    OK, then so don’t feature ISDS clauses in trade agreements from now on, and remove them from any existing trade agreements.

  46. Reachtel reported on chanel 7 just now.

    50/50 TPP and Turnbull ahead of Shorten 62/38.

    That’s not too bad from Labor’s perspective for a sugar hit.

  48. TPOF –

    [ My money (figuratively speaking) is on him remaining. Remember, Abbott really thinks he is a great campaigner. He will, no doubt, believe that Turnbull could so make a mess of things that they will turn back to Abbott to save them or, indeed, deliver them a famous victory. ]

    Its not only abbott – its the other RWNJ’s will be looking constantly to pickup the 4-5 votes to roll turnbull. Hard to believe that they accept this is all done and dusted.

    As for abbott – why wouldn’t he line up to ‘repay’ the favour to turnbull. He was prepared to sell his arse to get the job – why not to get it back – but turnbull may be the one to go to the next election.

    When turnbull slips – they will be there to kick him and seek to knife him.

    How long before the leaks start up again ??

    BTW – *There will be no wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping* wasn’t in writing and we know what that means.

  49. Since the Australia Acts 1986, the Crowns have been legally entirely separate. However the Note in the Schedule is still published as saying that the name of the current King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (note the lack of any Northern in there) is to be used although it is likely that the relevant Acts of the British Parliament such as the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 changed that without any need for a referendum.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Australia_Constitution_Act

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_Parliamentary_Titles_Act_1927

Comments Page 23 of 24
1 … 22 23 24

Leave a Reply

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