Federal polling: Morgan, Queensland YouGov, Newspoll extras

Labor maintains a thumping lead in the latest fortnightly Roy Morgan, albeit that a fair bit has happened in the world since it was conducted.

For those of you following the South Australian election, note the new post immediately below this one. For the rest of you:

• The latest fortnightly Roy Morgan poll has Labor leading 56.5-43.5, in from 57-43 last time, from primary votes of Coalition 32.5% (down half), Labor 37.5% (down one), Greens 12.5% (up one), One Nation 3.5% (down half) and United Australia Party on 1.5% (steady). The state two-party breakdowns have Labor leading 56.5-43.5 in New South Wales (in from 59-41 for a swing of around 9%), 60-40 in Victoria (out from 57.5-42.5 for a swing of around 7%), 52-48 in Western Australia (in from 53.5-46.5 for a swing of around 7.5%), 59.5-40.5 in South Australia (steady for a swing of around 9%) and 75-25 in Tasmania (a swing of 19%, with the inevitable proviso that this is from a tiny sample). The result in Queensland is 50-50, compared with 51.5-48.5 to Labor last time, for a swing of around 8.5%. The poll had a sample of 2261 and was conducted from February 14 to 23, long lead times before publication having become a feature of Roy Morgan’s polling of late.

• The Courier-Mail had results on federal politics from the same YouGov poll for which it published Queensland state voting intention results on Saturday, though this did not include straight results on voting intention. The poll found Scott Morrison at 41% approval and 47% disapproval in Queensland, with Anthony Albanese at 32% and 38%. Forty-three per cent thought a “Morrison Liberal-National Coalition government” would be better for Queensland compared with 39% for “an Albanese Labor government”. The poll was conducted February 18 to 23 from a sample of 1021.

The Australian yesterday had follow-up questions from the weekend Newspoll on various questions of national security, which found 33% favouring Scott Morrison and the Coalition on handling the threat of China and 26% favouring Anthony Albanese and Labor, compared with 31% and 26% when the question was previously asked a month ago, with respective results of 30% and 24% on a similar question involving the threat of Russia. Seventy-four per cent felt China posed a threat to Australian national security compared with 18% who didn’t, while 64% held such a view in relation to Russia compared with 27% who didn’t.

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.

1,871 comments on “Federal polling: Morgan, Queensland YouGov, Newspoll extras”

Comments Page 38 of 38
1 37 38
  1. Apropos of nothing much:


    Is it true that lawyers used to bill by the word?


    [‘It is true that drafters of legal documents in the U.K., called scriveners, were once paid by the word, as opposed to by assignment. This, of course, encouraged the use of needless boilerplate and verbiage to rack up a high word count. But this hasn’t been the case in some time. A judge recently told me (and he was a Rhodes Scholar and keenly interested in legal history, so I have no reason to doubt him) that the practice of billing on a per-word basis was banned in the 19th century, and after that, remarkably, filings shrunk significantly.’] – Quora.

    “Old habits are hard to break, but not impossible!” – Pearl Cleage.

  2. Been There
    No I’m not in it, lack of rain is my problem but I have a sister in the Sunshine Coast hinterland so I take an interest and watch Higgins reports and they didn’t hold any punches in saying how bad it would be on the east coast over the next few days. Take care and keep up to date with the latest information.

  3. Mavis.

    I recall billing some fees by the folio in some areas of practice. From memory, a folio was 100 words.

    Haven’t seen it done for years now, like twenty or more.

  4. Been following the Ukraine stuff and thanks to whoever linked to https://www.understandingwar.org/ couple of days ago. Apparently a US “think-tank” and though their posts are usually about a day behind recent events they seem to be a reasonable site to get an idea of the bigger picture without a lot of hype.

    A bit has been said about Russian forces striking north from Crimea and south from Kharkiv to try and “kettle” a large part of the Ukrainian field forces in the east of Ukraine. This would mean the Ukrainians would have to cede a lot of territory and withdraw west or get shit-canned. Will be a big decision if they have to make it. Reckon when we start seeing reports of ground fighting in, around, or towards places called Dnipro and Kramatorsk it will mean that’s on for real. 🙁

    That said, daS Ruski as an army, overall, seems to be performing well below expectations and may not be up to the task Putin has set them??

    To me that is not necessarily completely good news, If the current Russian leadership decides that actually, their field forces are NOT really a peer match for NATO, what then?? The bullshit doctrine of “tactical” nukes becomes more likely?? I am wondering if that is influencing the way NATO is trying REALLY, REALLY hard not to directly engage in the Ukraine and activate the NATO alliance? And the whole Kaliningrad thing will go really messy fast if something wider kicks off. 🙁

  5. imacca says:
    Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 12:04 am

    While I don’t have the first clue about military strategy, I wonder whether the Ukrainians, being well-versed in Russian thinking, and with knowledge of the capacities and limitations of Russian equipment, will have figured out ways to stymie the Russians.

    So far at least the Ukrainian forces seem to have been able to repel the Russians. I wonder how this works in 3-D. The Ukrainian forces have had plenty of time to think about their enemies and they will have the advantages of NATO intelligence and weapons supply. Maybe Russia can be defeated in Ukraine in a literal sense…..

  6. William Bowesays:
    Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:38 pm
    Of course William may have specific instructions as to what topics and at what length will be tolerated, but I don’t otherwise see the value in people chiming in with what amounts to little more than “I’m boooooored”.

    Agreed. Wake up to yourself, Elmer Fudd.

    Your blog site, your comments. My opinion on Earlwood’s long winded bleatings about Defence Procurement remains unchanged. Thank you for your erudite, well considered contribution to the discussion. I am much the wiser for it. Not !!


  7. Oh Elmer

    Be like some of us, hit the scroll button.

    It’s magical, makes long posts go away very rapidly!

    See someone’s post you think may be long or something you can’t be bothered reading?

    Then scroll right on, it’s not hard.

    Don’t whinge about it.

    Antony Green in his election review notes that–

    “How the politics of Covid play out in Queensland during the campaign could be critical. Several LNP back benchers have joined with One Nation and the United Australia Party in criticising vaccine mandates. Queensland’s anti-Labor swing in 2019 was built on Labor losing support to One Nation and United Australia and then higher than previously seen flows of preferences to the Coalition”

    “Labor’s Queensland first preference support slipped to 29.8%, the lowest the party had ever recorded. It nudged up a percentage point in 2016 before diving to a new low of 26.7% in 2019. Labor lost votes to the Greens, who passed 10% for only the second time, but also to the Coalition and third parties. Labor’s vote in the Senate was so low the party elected only one Senator. In 2019 the LNP was defending eight seats on margins under 4%, in 2022 there is only one”

    “It is a change that makes Labor’s chances of winning the election much harder. Despite Labor’s first preference vote falling 4.1%, the LNP’s vote rose only 0.5%, translated by preferences into a 4.3% two- The swing was produced by Labor’s loss of support to an increased pool of third party votes, then an increased flow of preferences to the LNP “.
    Not a pretty picture for a Labor supporter.

    There was a strong swing (4.3%) against Labor in 2019, more so in Central Queensland but
    – Most of the first preference swing against Labor went to right wing parties – 3.6% of 4.1% and
    – Coalition second preferences from these groups jumped from 55.3% in 2013 and 54.7 in 2016 to 68.2% in 2019
    Regarding Queensland, Antony Green says

    “The two questions for 2022 are, will this third- party support be repeated, and will the preference flows to the Coalition be as strong? “.

    I would argue that the third-party support of 2019 in Queensland is likely to be repeated, but for different reasons. In 2019, it was repudiation of Labor by the resource dependent labour and small business market in provincial and rural Queensland. Third party options which allowed Labor voters to lodge a protest vote were attractive without the need for vote for the Coalition.

    In 2022, this issue might have some ongoing residue but the main motivation for voting for right wing third parties will be providing a home for the ‘freedom’ voters, anti-covid lockdown and vaccination movement.

    I am going to assume that the alternative right wing third parties will again get around 15 -16% of the first preferences in Qld.

    The question of where these voters direct their preferences in 2022 should be different too –
    1. The UAP went directly after Labor in the last weeks of the 2019 campaign-‘a Bill we can’t afford’;
    2. The UAP made a preference deal with the Coalition in 2019, directing preferences away from Labor;
    3. If either 1 or 2 happens again in 2022, holding the seat status quo in Qld might be Labor’s best outcome;
    4. These voters are more likely to blame the Labor State Government for the lockdowns and vaccine mandates than the Federal Government –

    Queenslanders tend to not give a damn what is happening outside their State, unless you physically go there from interstate and tell them how to suck eggs (Adani, 2019);

    The question I ask myself is what would motivate Queensland voters to change their vote in 2022 in the seats most likely to be up for grabs.

    Lilley (ALP 0.6%) and Blair (ALP 1.2%) are on skinny margins, but these BrIsbane suburban seats give voters there no outstanding reason to change hands. Labor should retain these seats with an improved 2PP, a correction to the norm after the 2019 State -wide disaster for Labor.

    The Greens will be after Brisbane (LNP 4.9%) and Griffith (ALP 2.9) again but it is more likely these 2 will be held by the incumbents, if only just.

    Labor seems to think they have strong prospects in Longman (LNP 3.3%), Leichardt (LNP 4.2%) and Flynn (LNP 8.7%),
    so what is Labor thinking they can do to shift enough votes in these seats back to Labor?

    So far I have come up with donuts. Perhaps PBers living in those electorates can offer some insight about Labor’s chances of improving their lot in these seats.

    Dickson (LNP 4.6%) always comes up in Queensland speculations, but a distaste for Peter Dutton on a National scale is not shared by Queensland voters with equal venom. Again, why would insular Qld voters want to dislodge Mr Potatoe Head ?

    From a Labor perspective, I am hoping that (1) Labor’s first preferences improve significantly enough to gain 2 QLD senate seats in 2022, (2) hold their own seats against Greens malcontents and (3) gain a couple of seats from the Coalition’s Flynn, Leichardt and Longman. The third of these is, I concede, based more on wishful thinking than anything else.

  9. Yes I will just scroll away past Earlwood etc. I just had a gutful of debates about how much more efficient x policy is at killing people than y, being a pacifist. Mia Culpa.

  10. Fulvio Sammut:

    Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 12:02 am


    I recall billing some fees by the folio in some areas of practice. From memory, a folio was 100 words.

    Haven’t seen it done for years now, like twenty or more.’]

    I vaguely remember the folio of 100 words. The firm I worked for before I retired 12 years ago used to, from memory, charge in six-minute intervals, excepting legal aid clients.

  11. Been Theresays:
    Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 1:24 am
    Mea Culpa you mean?

    Look at yourself with great scroll through material !

    Oh I see. Having a dissenting opinion is not acceptable ? Is this an echo chamber ? At least my scroll through material as you put it relates directly to election issues. I’m sure WB will delete it if he thinks it inappropriate.

Comments Page 38 of 38
1 37 38

Leave a Reply

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