The weekly Roy Morgan poll finds Labor’s two-party lead falling back slightly to 54.5-45.5, in from 55-45 last week. However, the pollster has switched from respondent-allocated preference to using the flows from 2019, the former of were producing results more favourable to Labor. The movements on the primary vote are actually in favour of Labor, who are up half a point to 35.5% with the Coalition down one to 34%. The Greens are steady on 13%, One Nation are up one to 4% and the United Australia Party is steady on 1%.
The state breakdowns, which cannot be directly compared to last week’s due to the change in the preference calculation, have Labor leading 51.5-48.5 in New South Wales (a swing to Labor of about 3.5%), 61-39 in Victoria (about 8%), 57.5-42.5 in Western Australia (about 13%) and 62.5-37.5 in South Australia (about 12%). The Coalition leads 53.5-46.5 in Queensland (a swing to Labor of about 5%) and 60-40 from the tiny sample in Tasmania. The poll was conducted Monday to Sunday from a sample of 1401.
Further chatter from around the traps:
• Karen Middleton of The Saturday Paper reports that Liberal polling shows Tim Wilson “headed for defeat” at the hands of independent Zoe Daniel in Goldstein with 37% of the primary vote, while Josh Frydenberg’s vote in Kooyong is “currently tracking at 42%”, putting him “about 2% lower than it needs to be” to hold out against independent Monique Ryan. In North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman could potentially lose to either independent Kylea Tink or Labor’s Catherine Renshaw; both parties’ polling suggests the Liberals are in “a losing position” in the Sydney seat of Reid and the Perth seats of Pearce and Swan; Boothby in Adelaide is “leaning strongly Labor’s way”; Hasluck in Perth and Bass in Tasmania are “tightening”, presumably to Labor’s advantage; and the Brisbane seats of Ryan and Brisbane are “at risk”, as is Casey on the fringes of Melbourne, which I haven’t heard mentioned before. Parramatta and Macquarie in Sydney “are currently looking like staying with Labor”. The government’s anti-China rhetoric is also said to have resulted in a “plunge” in Liberal support among the Chinese community, harming it in Chisholm and putting Bennelong in play for Labor. For all that, the Liberals “remain confident of winning Gilmore” and are “lineball” in Corangamite. They are also “hopeful of seizing McEwen”, although “Labor sources query this”.
• In contrast to the previous assessment, Greg Brown of The Australian reports Liberal sources are “increasingly confident” that Gladys Liu will retain Chisholm and “believe Labor is shifting resources towards Higgins, where incumbent MP Katie Allen’s primary vote has dropped to 42%”. However, Paul Sakkal of The Age reports Labor believes it will win Chisholm while also having a “serious chance” in Higgins, and will “probably” retain McEwen, Corangamite and Dunkley. Sakkal further reports that Anthony Albanese will appear with Daniel Andrews today, defying suggestions he is keeping his distance from the Premier, to announce a promised $2.2 billion in federal funding for the Suburban Rail Loop, a state government project opposed by the Morrison government. The initial stage of the project will cut a north-south path through the eastern suburbs that will run neatly through Chisholm.
• Contrary to Clive Palmer’s earlier position that the United Australia Party would direct preferences against all sitting members, The Guardian reports how-to-vote cards being distributed at pre-poll voting centres have Liberal incumbents ahead of Labor in Chisholm, Reid and Bass, and ahead of teal independents in Mackellar and Wentworth.
• Nine’s endeavour to rate audience response to Sunday night’s debate eventually settled on a tied result between Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese, although this was based on an uncontrolled exercise open to anyone who get the website form to work. The overwhelming view was the combative nature of the debate did neither protagonist any favours. A third debate will be held tomorrow night on the Seven Network.
1,363 comments on “Morgan: 54.5-45.5 to Labor”
Poor Cameron @ #1348 Tuesday, May 10th, 2022 – 10:14 pm
Funny you say that because the only UK seats to vote for preferential voting AKA instant runoff were seemingly the intelligentsia in Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh Central, Glasgow Kelvin and 6 seats in London.
mj @ #1351 Wednesday, May 11th, 2022 – 12:30 am
That backs up Cameron’s point
The YouGov MRP poll for our 2019 General Election did pick some of the Red Wall collapse – but there were some some pretty significant misses in both directions
As mentioned earlier the vote shares were within a percent but the seats were 30 out for Con/Lab .. they undercooked the SNP in Scotland too
I am not going to call YouGov stupid at all, but I am going to question whether its model is going to have any idea how to model independents’ seats, especially at this election without any prior data on how the “Teals” will go. Much as I like having another poll saying Wilson and Frydenberg are gone and the trend in this poll seems to be underrating Indies on the whole I don’t trust it.
I don’t gamble, if I did some of these markets are ripe for the picking IMO.
hazza4257 @ #1351 Tuesday, May 10th, 2022 – 10:31 pm
Yes I agree.
Enjoy this short contribution from one of my favourite parliamentarians of all time, Doug Cameron.
“As mentioned earlier the vote shares were within a percent” and they should be with the massive aggregate sample size. I am very interested in the 2pp number and state by state breakdown from this thing even with the collection period spread out over a month. Just as it ought to be big enough to pick up something macro like the Red Wall flipping it should also have useful state level information here. It is the use of it for individual seat modelling where the thing looks questionable.
“Things are going more nuts.
The Canberra Times says Labor at risk for senate. It is possible Pocock and Zed will get the 2 spots which seems unbelievable.”
Not nuts at all. I mentioned that when the ACT Senate polling was discussed here. It’s exclusion order fun and games and unlike in the reps it would be a huge mistake for Labor voters to tactically vote for a high profile Indie to depose the Lib. If Gallagher is substantially under a quota she’s at risk same as Zed.
Re MRP polling
The Electoral Calculus website ran an MRP poll for the recent Locals – two in fact – and it served up a huge miss in seats won/lost
Not with YouGov, but another polling outfit, although I guess the principles are well understood by the experts
If anyone wants to compare, the 2019 YouGov MRP had a sample of 105,500 for an average of 167 per constituency
Electorate 47.6 million
Can someone post the primaries and 2CP for all 151 seats for those without access?
ACT: I doubt Labor would go under a quota. If they did, and Pocock got elected, that means the Greens got excluded somewhere, which means some of their prefs (not 80%, but still a decent handful) end up with Labor (either directly, or as part of Pocock’s surplus). Rubenstein, same deal.
WA: Hey, someone I used to know is on the front page of the West! I doubt she’d remember me, but Zaneta was one of the uni student lefty ratbags just like me who were angry with Howard, Reith, Ruddock and George Bush back in the day, for the obvious reasons. She didn’t make it onto the bus for the looooong ride to Port Hedland or Baxter (near Port Augusta) for those desert protests, but I’m fairly sure she was there in spirit. If I lived in Swan I would vote for her, and I’d invite her in for a coffee if she knocked on my door. Lefty ratbags for life. (Even if we’re a bit older and grown up now and ditched some of the more questionable shit. It’s a while since 2003.)