Morgan: 56.5-43.5 to Coalition

Roy Morgan maintains its recent form in recording an unusually strong lead for the Coalition.

The latest fortnightly result from Roy Morgan is essentially unchanged on the extremely strong showing for the Coalition last time, their primary vote up half a point to 47% with Labor up one to 28.5% and the Greens down one to 14.5%. The Coalition’s lead on respondent-allocated preferences is up from 56-44 to 56.5-43.5, while on previous election preferences it’s unchanged at 55-45. The poll was conducted by face-to-face and SMS over the past two weekends from a sample of 3262.

UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research ticks another point to the Coalition on two-party preferred, putting its lead at 53-47, but it’s not based on much action on the primary vote, which has the Coalition steady at 45%, Labor down one to 34% and the Greens steady at 10%.

The poll also finds Scott Morrison on 27% as most trusted to handle the economy, Chris Bowen on 18% and “don’t know” well in front on 56%. Forty-seven per cent supported a ban on new coal mines, with 25% opposed, and 49% opted for “act now, without delay” over four lower-order options. On the economy, 37% think it’s been a good year for company profits versus 18% for a bad year, whereas every other economic and personal finance indicator is well into the negative.

Further questions find 54% approving of the current superannuation system as described, with 24% disapproving, and 64% favouring ”superannuation should be compulsory” over 29% for the alternative of “workers should be able to do whatever they want with their income”. Forty-four per cent supported proposed changes to superannuation taxes, with 32% opposed.

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.

1,349 comments on “Morgan: 56.5-43.5 to Coalition”

Comments Page 27 of 27
1 … 26 27

  2. I’m coming around the the nuclear waste so long as we have absolute guarantees for transit routes and get paid a massive amount for it, very few places can safely store that sh1t it is really bad.

  3. [charged taxpayers almost $17,000 for four nights at a five-star Swiss hotel during her controversially lavish European trip last year.

    Ms Bishop, forced to resign as Speaker in July amid an 18-day scandal over her travel expenses, racked up a bill of almost $90,000 for her two-week trip which was aimed at securing a new plum job abroad.

    The Herald Sun can reveal her four-night stay at Hotel D’Angleterre, on the banks of Lake Leman, in Geneva cost $16,961 — more than $1400-a-night — for her and two staff members.

    Documents released under freedom of information also show she charged the public purse $9,414 for chauffeured limousines while in Switzerland — despite cheaper and even free alternatives available.]

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/former-speaker-bronwyn-bishops-european-trip-cost-almost-90000/news-story/44fd334b3899e07353d31d2b28ddcb38?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=HeraldSun&utm_medium=Twitter

  4. victoria

    She is being quite frugal compared to some of Howard’s hotel efforts.

    Keep in mind this is 14 years ago so imagine the bill now.

    [Prime Minister John Howard today attempted to justify his hotel bill of more than $40,000 for a four-night stay in a Roman hotel.

    A Senate estimates committee was told yesterday Mr Howard and four of his staff incurred a bill of $A42,680 in 2001 when they stayed at the St Regis Grand, the top hotel in Rome.

    ….., Labor asked if he would again be staying in the $8500 a night Claridges Hotel in London in November. ]

    The fee did not include breakfast.]
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/28/1053801437868.html?from=moreStories

  6. WWP

    How in the name of dog can you “guarantee” transit routes.

    Over 100 years if there are two loads a week that is 10,000 trips. Bound to be an accident of some kind.

  7. Earlier someone suggested Shorten’s not so hot dancing would gain him some approval. They may be correct.

    [Shorten ‘gives hope to dorky dads’

    He shuffled his feet out of time, wearing a headdress and a goofy grin. The internet loved it

    A vine of his dance appeared online on Wednesday and garnered more than 257,000 views on the video looping app Vine by late afternoon.]
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-dance-moves-in-kiribati-give-hope-to-dorky-dads-20151104-gkqyru.html

  8. daretotread@1306

    WWP

    How in the name of dog can you “guarantee” transit routes.

    Over 100 years if there are two loads a week that is 10,000 trips. Bound to be an accident of some kind.

    You pack it well so that the containers will survive any mishap.

  9. [Could you imagine Rudd or Gillard racking up a bill like that?!]

    Rudd – yes. Gillard – not so much.

    shorten would do well to have some retrospective policies on pollies’ perks. Means testing would be one great initiative. The next would be a capped expenses account for current, previous and future pollies. Their pensions should be indexed to growth in the median wage, including the unemployed and pensioners. I’d also love to see a 5 year ban on pollies getting government postings or in taking any position where they’d have had a conflict of interest in any portfolio they’ve held 5 years prior to leaving parliament. it stinks at present.

  12. I have no problem with greater Australian involvement in the nuclera industry. Nuclear energy does not emit significant quantities of greenhouse gases, Dig the stuff up, process is into fuel rods, export it, take it back after use (for a suitable price) and store it. By doing so, we make it unavailable for weapons. We have plenty of places to store nuclear waste – remote, geologically stable areas. The waste is dangerous but not voluminous, like slag heaps near mines. It will be safe if buried deep enough. Obviously we need to negotiate appropriate payments for local inhabitants – indigenous and others. If the price is right, sites will be found. Further, in principle, I have no problem with nuclear power stations in Australia, but I doubt at this stage that they are practical here.

  15. [Australia’s peak welfare group has warned increasing the GST to 15 per cent would leave low income earners out of pocket.

    Modelling commissioned by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) indicates the move would cost the poorest families 7 per cent of their disposable income.

    Those in the highest income bracket would be worse-off by just 3 per cent.]
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/lowest-income-earners-would-be-worst-hit-by-gst-rise-acoss-says/6913570

  16. [WWP

    How in the name of dog can you “guarantee” transit routes.]

    I don’t know, “If you don’t pay lots of money if there is any spill we know where you are and will return this stuff … “

  18. [Australia’s peak welfare group has warned increasing the GST to 15 per cent would leave low income earners out of pocket.

    Modelling commissioned by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) indicates the move would cost the poorest families 7 per cent of their disposable income.

    Those in the highest income bracket would be worse-off by just 3 per cent.]

    How did the model the compensation and other offsetting measures?

  20. [Modelling commissioned by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) indicates the move would cost the poorest families 7 per cent of their disposable income.]

    So what is that lowest income it needs to increase by 7%.

    This rise is going to be worn disproportionately by the middle, the bottom will be ok … if Labor is too backing the GST is bad scare campaign that only worked once and then not well enough to actually win they need to scare the middle class not the poor.

  21. WWP
    [This rise is going to be worn disproportionately by the middle, the bottom will be ok … ]

    You do understand that flat taxes are regressive? They simply are not fair.

    Even if the bottom is overcompensated, you have to be confident that things like welfare payments and the minimum wage will be properly adjusted going forward.

  24. [You do understand that flat taxes are regressive? They simply are not fair.]

    Nor is it fair the wealth / capital is largely untaxed but that is the way it is life is unfair.

    You do understand that you don’t need to take the GST alone it is part of a large complex and relatively fair tax and transfer system, its under reliance on capital taxes and its over reliance on income tax notwithstanding?

  25. WWP,

    “Life is unfair”. Is that your 3 word slogan for the GST? Good luck!

    I understand the top end love the idea of the GST because the transfers you speak of work in their favor.

  27. WWP

    The business middle class WILL be scared. The GST hits retail, services, tradies, tourism etc, ie the backbone of the liberal voting middle class.

    Now if we assume that there is no net increase in take home after tax pay to compensate fro the GST increase (a reasonable assumption, because other wise why bother) then Joe’s clients will be out of pocket an extra $20. Given that they will also be out of pocket an extra $25 a month on utilities, much the same on insurance, $10 on petrol extra on alchohol, coffes, takeawy, clothes, movies, white goods etc there will be few households not out of pocket by $100/month or more.

    If you are Joe the Plumber a 5% increase in the cost of a job worth say $400 is an extra $20. The bill goes from $440 to $460.

    However the houshold is already behind by $100/month. To cope with the expense most housholds will either postpone paying Joe or if the job is not urgent, put Joe off until another month when they have no insurance or car service of Xmas etc.

    Expect all discretionary expenditure items to be heavily affected – hair cuts, dry cleaning, dining out, travel.

  28. On that point I’m going to bed.

    Remember my view is the electorate has already accepted the need for new revenue and the GST as the easiest way to do it.

    There needs to be compensation.

    It is the sacrificial pawn to reclaiming some sanity over super and to get rid of the ridiculous capital gains discount.

  29. [The business middle class WILL be scared. The GST hits retail, services, tradies, tourism etc, ie the backbone of the liberal voting middle class.]

    That is excellent then Shorten will win by 60 seats and he wont do a GST increase.

  30. [Remember my view is the electorate has already accepted the need for new revenue and the GST as the easiest way to do it.]

    The GST is not the easiest way to do it… as I think you will discover.

  31. [1320
    WeWantPaul

    Modelling commissioned by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) indicates the move would cost the poorest families 7 per cent of their disposable income.]

    The unfortunate thing is that most people do not want to identify themselves with “the poorest”. So unless they really are on relatively low incomes households will tend to underplay suggestions that a GST increase may also hurt them. Even if there is no real evidence for it, people will likely tend to tell themselves that they will be better off with a changed tax mix, either directly or indirectly.

    Very obviously, a GST increase will be a very big, unavoidable, income-chewing, rolling slug on households in the lower two income quintiles…but these voters are not prone to voting Liberal. The Liberals will figure they can alienate these households if at the same time they can secure support in the middle quintile. (They already have a strong grip on the upper quintiles.)

    Very sadly, this is elitist politics dressed up as “necessary” economics. There is nothing remotely wise or necessary about increasing GST. It is purely about ensuring high income households contribute as little as possible to the social budget.

  33. [Very sadly, this is elitist politics dressed up as “necessary” economics. There is nothing remotely wise or necessary about increasing GST. It is purely about ensuring high income households contribute as little as possible to the social budget.]

    Unfortunately it is all very hypothetical ATM. WWP says it’s about revenue, but the suggestions on the weekend were revenue neutral (tax cuts).

  37. Raising the Medicare levy is another obvious way to get more money for hospitals etc.

    I don’t think even doubling it would be enough but I don’t know the figures.

  38. Y’know, if someone asked me what the best argument against an increase in G.S.T. and/or broadening the base of G.S.T. in exchange for income tax cuts in 20 words or less, I’d probably say this:

    “How will these new income tax cuts benefit Australians who earn less than $18,200 per year or are on government benefits?”

  39. Interestingly there must be a lot of pensioners on Bolt’s blog as they are very anti raising the GST as they say it will hit pensioners and battlers the most and it’s the lazy way to try and balance the budget.

  41. Millennial,

    Yes, the problem is that it hits the poor. You can tweak it so that it doesn’t, but then it becomes a waste of time (I mean why bother unless the compensation isn’t really enough?). Politically it feels very shifty, we were told it would never be raised.

  43. briefly #1342

    […and you would have used 21 words]

    Whoops. My Bad. Try Again:

    “How will these income tax cuts benefit Australians who earn less than $18,200 per year or are on government benefits?”

  44. The trouble with the pensioners and seniors is they will huff and puff about what a GST increase will do to them and then swallow the Tory press and shock jock line that they can’t trust Labor to manage the economy and so vote coalition as they usually do

  45. The GST option is very potent for Turnbull, because it would please many in his party who doubt him. I think he should take note of how much everybody loves him because he is not Abbott and ride that wave.

  47. 1344

    Full pensioners, who are most effected by the changes, are actually a heavily ALP voting demographic, it is the part pensioners and privately/tax concessionally funded retirees who lean to the Coalition.

  48. Steve777@1312

    Further, in principle, I have no problem with nuclear power stations in Australia, but I doubt at this stage that they are practical here.

    And they need lots of water.

    Which, in Australia, means putting them on the sea coast, and they have to be close to large population centres for efficient use of the electricity.

    Which beaches, respectively close to Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, do you plan to use?

Comments Page 27 of 27
1 … 26 27

Leave a Reply

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