Morgan: 53.5-46.5 to Labor (open thread)

One item of federal polling news plus confusion over the status of Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party.

I don’t have a huge amount of material off which to hang the new open thread that is now past due, partly because a certain event has crowded other matters out of the media, but mostly because of a threadbare schedule of post-election opinion polling in which this is an off week. All we have on that score is the soon-to-be-superseded Roy Morgan weekly update, which tells us only that its latest voting intention poll comes in at 53.5-46.5 in favour of Labor, out from 52-48. This is at the high end of how the Albanese government has been doing from this particular series since it came to office, which has been substantially softer for it than the two results we’ve had from Newspoll and the one from Resolve Strategic.

The only other item of electoral news to relate is the confusing news of the United Australia Party’s self-deregistration. This came as a surprise to the party’s sole Senator, Ralph Babet, with Clive Palmer seemingly unclear as to whether the decision was made on his own initiative or that of the party’s supposedly independent executive committee. Palmer, who if Forbes is to be believed is worth $2.1 billion, told Matthew Killoran of the Courier-Mail that he wished to spare himself the barely existent expense of maintaining registration, and would re-register the party shortly before the next election, despite not planning to run himself.

However, electoral law maven Graeme Orr told the Age/Herald that he might be in for a disappointment on this score, as the electoral laws appear to leave the United Australia Party name off limits to him and anyone else for the remainder of the parliamentary term. Babet will continue to be identified as a Senator for the party for parliamentary purposes, which do not relate to the Australian Electoral Commission’s party registration process.

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.

1,545 comments on “Morgan: 53.5-46.5 to Labor (open thread)”

Comments Page 29 of 31
1 28 29 30 31
  1. India is part of the QUAD but also part of the other QUAD too, China Russia Iran and India.

    It will look after it’s own interests and I think see itself as a world power in a multipolar world, not a subordinate member of a Western or EurAsian alliance.

  2. Ven at 11.32 am

    Clear answers, but again one key question has been passed over in silence.

    You said LNP farnarkeling and worse re ships and subs has made Australia “vulnerable on national security”. To what?

    Two comments: 1) conceptual – being vulnerable is a fact of life. Anybody who drives or rides in a vehicle or walks in a forest (especially after heavy rain, when trees can fall without a breeze) should know that.

    So vulnerability and insecurity are two different phenomena. The latter is man made, and is I presume what you really meant. It can be a serious problem, but the problem must be specified.

    2) So, who is going to attack Australia? The only state with the capacity to conquer the territory of Australia or part of it is the USA. Clearly it has not the intention nor the need to do so. Conquest is no simple task, as Putin has shown everybody.

    So who is going to attack us? If one looked at poroti’s map and knew only the population size of the countries in colour, then one might worry about India attacking Australia. I presume you don’t worry about that, because you know India a lot.

    Well, then, if not India, who? Indonesia was a bogey for a long while. Unlike China, they have a history of successful invasions, although when Putin was a petty spy (from 1975 on) they learnt that even with much neighbourly acquiescence any successful occupations are rare.

    The orthodox answer presumed in Australia now is China. But evidence for the presumption is never given. As with India, and with Indonesia historically, those who really know about the countries concerned are the least likely to make any such presumption, precisely because of their deep knowledge.

    There is a serious problem in Australia, in that much public debate about such matters is driven by parlour generalists who lack deep knowledge of any other country, and sometimes even of pertinent Australian history. Commentators without comparative knowledge are a scourge of any serious debate.

    It was always the case in DFAT and in its predecessor (the Department of External Affairs) that generalists ruled. Hence young Kevin Rudd, capable in Mandarin, was posted to peruse bookshops in Stockholm etc. The trend was much less so in the old Department of Trade, which valued genuine expertise.

    But what might be defensible for a government bureaucracy is inappropriate for debate about issues of national importance.

  3. Andrew_Earlwood @ #1318 Friday, September 16th, 2022 – 4:29 pm

    “ So you can take your apologia for Xi and Putin and your belittling of me and you can shove them, Andrew_Earlwood.”

    Here is a challenge for you C@t: find one – just one – example of where I have engaged in any form of apologia for either Xi or Putin. Off you go.

    Oh that old chestnut. ‘Go off and find some evidence of … ‘

    No, why don’t you explain, from today, why you condemned someone for simply supporting Ukraine against Putin’s territorial aggression? Sounds like someone refusing to condemn Putin to me. Or, in other words, an apologist for Putin’s aggression. Because you sure don’t sound like you like someone supporting Ukraine’s success against Putin.

    As far as Xi is concerned, you never read that story about how Xi and the CCP have duchessed ‘Useful Idiots’ such as Bob Carr and, yes, PJK, and others of their former stature in other countries, so as to allow them to be acceptable mouthpieces of support for China in the West. And as you support them wholeheartedly, well, I guess that means you’ve signed up to be an apologist for Xi too.

    Now, I fully expect you to, again, reply with yet another blatant attempt at humiliation. Instead of addressing what is not only obvious to me but many learned scholars, who haven’t been captured by Totalitarian regimes that are using economic and energy blackmail, ie China and Russia, to coerce them to tell the stories they want the world to hear, as well as using other more subtle practices to lull people, such as yourself, in the West to stand up so strongly for them, and sell countries like Ukraine and Taiwan, and indeed your own country, down the river, for a few pieces of gold. Have a share portfolio of Chinese companies like your hero, PJK, Andrew_Earlwood?

    Btw, you still haven’t explained why you’re happy for millions of Taiwanese to die defending their democratic country, or, even worse, be subjugated by China, as Hong Kong has been? If that’s not war mongering, I don’t know what is.

  4. Well said Dr Doolittle.

    Much of the debate here discounts cultural differences and associated motivations.

    People find it easier to project their own cultural views and assume that everyone thinks in that way.

    Having lived abroad for nearly 20 years I have a deep appreciation of how these cultural differences play out, but yet most of the time I still don’t understand why.

  5. Well C@t – that spray was completely devoid of any evidence of apologia. Also very confused, but most of all … angry!

    I am not ‘with you’, therefore I am with Putin and Xi seems to be your rationale. Peter Dutton would be proud. SkyNoos after dark beckons I recon.

  6. So Peter Dutton’s latest media salvo is to attack the government about the late Queen’s head on the $5 note. Is this all that is left in the LNP armoury?

  7. “ Btw, you still haven’t explained why you’re happy for millions of Taiwanese to die defending their democratic country, or, even worse, be subjugated by China, as Hong Kong has been? If that’s not war mongering, I don’t know what is.”

    You also have a very feeble memory. I actually explained – at length – how ‘the west’ should deal with the threat to Taiwanese autonomy and personal freedoms a couple of weeks ago. You actually thanked me for my response at the time.

    You see, my grievance is with ‘the west’ using the Taiwanese as mere pawns and potential canon fodder. Zero fucks for their plight are really given. The self stated tactic of the west is to ‘get in China’s face’ in the most provocative way possible. It has been thus for a decade. THAT is the problem. Freedumbs of navigation. High level government visits. And so on. Everything possible to antagonise the ChiComms is being done. Very little is being done to actually improve the security situation. Nothing to de-esculate. Or improve relations. This is deliberate. Why? Because America is leaning in, as China is leaning in. A geopolitical bun fight for preeminence in East Asia. daft of course, because for China this is perceived to be existential. For America it is pure ego.

    You talk about useful idiots. You are one. To think for a minute that America’s commitment to democracy and human rights is anything other that shallow and narrow. A smoke screen for their Gollum like ‘because I wants it’ reality. The Taiwanese will possibly suffer very harshly because of that delusion. Sickening really.

  8. “ So, tell me.”

    What? Again?

    In his own words:

    https://youtu.be/9k3J9q7rMlI

    Of course, I can recall you putting him the bin straight away. Demonstrating a certain incapacity on your behalf: you were/are either incapable or unwilling to comprehend, let alone engage with PJK. A shameful day for you, IMO. I don’t expect any improvement …

  9. Andrew_Earlwood,
    Now you’re against Freedom of Navigation exercises!?! Oh boy. For someone who studied and practices law you don’t seem to have much respect for it:

    Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs)

    Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) are closely linked to the concept of freedom of navigation, and in particular to the enforcement of relevant international law and customs regarding freedom of navigation. The drafting of UNCLOS was driven in part by states’ concerns that strong national maritime interests could lead to excessive maritime claims over coastal seas, which could threaten freedom of navigation. FONOPs are a method of enforcing UNCLOS and avoiding these negative outcomes by reinforcing freedom of navigation through practice, using ships to sail through all areas of the sea permitted under UNCLOS, and in particular those areas that states have attempted to close off to free navigation as defined under UNCLOS and international law and custom.

    FONOPs are a modern operational reinforcement of a norm that has been strengthening for nearly four hundred years. Freedom of navigation has been thoroughly practiced and refined, and ultimately codified and accepted as international law under UNCLOS, in a legal process that was inclusive and consent-based. FONOPs are outgrowths of this development of international law, based on sovereign equality and international interdependence.

    United States Freedom of Navigation Program

    The US Department of Defense defines FONOPs as “operational challenges against excessive maritime claims” through which “the United States demonstrates its resistance to excessive maritime claims”. The United States has an institutionalized FONOPs program called the Freedom of Navigation Program, which undertakes many FONOPs around the world every year. The program publishes annual reports chronicling each year’s FONOPs, and a listing of relevant foreign maritime claims.

    The United States Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program was formally established under President Jimmy Carter in 1979. The program was reaffirmed by the administration of Ronald Reagan in 1983 in its Ocean Policy Statement. The Program has continued under all successive administrations since.

    The FON Program challenges what the U.S. considers to be excessive territorial claims on the world’s oceans and airspace. The position of the United States is that all nations must obey the international law of the sea, as codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

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

    Under all American administrations since Jimmy Carter. But, yeah, it’s America being provocative to China now. 🙄

    To which I might add, I wonder why that is?

    Maybe it has something to do with China’s excessive territorial claims on the world’s oceans and airspace Or maybe I missed the memo where China has claimed and fortified atolls in the South China Sea, regularly uses their ‘fishing fleet’ to intimidate Philippines fishermen and is now regularly surrounding Taiwan in the air with its Air Force and that’s okay?

  10. C@t,

    Basically deal with them like you should with any country, engage in a consistent and respectful way.

    Find common positions that you can work together on.

    Throw the megaphone away and deal with differences in an adult manner.

    Accept that there will be some things you will probably never agree on.

  11. And I don’t expect anything but unquestioning adulation of Paul Keating from you, Andrew_Earlwood. I do know that Keating would respect someone who challenges him rather than someone who never questions a thing he says.

  12. Barney in Cherating @ #1413 Friday, September 16th, 2022 – 6:03 pm

    C@t,

    Basically deal with them like you should with any country, engage in a consistent and respectful way.

    Find common positions that you can work together on.

    Throw the megaphone away and deal with differences in an adult manner.

    Accept that there will be some things you will probably never agree on.

    And that’s fair enough. When both sides engage in good faith. The fact that China haven’t even taken away their Trade blackmail of some Australian goods, plus their Ambassador to Australia gave an intentionally provocative speech here at the NPC, says to me that they aren’t serious about approaching a detente.

  13. Just got back from spending a few days in a Victorian hospital. There was some delays because of staff shortages but I can report that the tents are for staff tea rooms, not for patients, and they are all doing a great job.

  14. “ Now you’re against Freedom of Navigation exercises!”

    I’ve always been against Freedumbs of Navigation exercises, C@T. Please keep up.

    Entirely counterproductive. Impotent, but – as per design – deliberately provocative. Freedumbs preceded the militarisation of all those contested islands, Islets and lagoons in the South China Sea: Freedumbs strengthened the hand of the hawks in China. Freedumbs failed to prevent any of it. Either the Freedumbs CAUSED that outcome; or hastened it. Either way, it was and remains a fucking stupid and counterproductive measure. Absurd from start to finish. Except if there was a larger purpose completely disconnected with the stated policy. Which there clearly is.


  15. Dr Doolittlesays:
    Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:00 pm
    Ven at 11.32 am

    Clear answers, but again one key question has been passed over in silence.

    You said LNP farnarkeling and worse re ships and subs has made Australia “vulnerable on national security”. To what?

    Two comments: 1) conceptual – being vulnerable is a fact of life. Anybody who drives or rides in a vehicle or walks in a forest (especially after heavy rain, when trees can fall without a breeze) should know that.

    So vulnerability and insecurity are two different phenomena. The latter is man made, and is I presume what you really meant. It can be a serious problem, but the problem must be specified.

    2) So, who is going to attack Australia? The only state with the capacity to conquer the territory of Australia or part of it is the USA. Clearly it has not the intention nor the need to do so. Conquest is no simple task, as Putin has shown everybody.
    ……..
    ….

    Dr. D
    If nobody is going to attack Australia, then why is Australia signing up for so many security pacts like ANZUS, AUKUS, QUAD and many other acronym.
    Why is Australia going wherever US is going, no questions asked since WW2 if they are not afraid of some foreign country military invasion? Is it forelock tugging?


  16. nathsays:
    Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:10 pm
    Just got back from spending a few days in a Victorian hospital. There was some delays because of staff shortages but I can report that the tents are for staff tea rooms, not for patients, and they are all doing a great job.

    R U OK Nath?

  17. nathsays:
    Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:10 pm
    Just got back from spending a few days in a Victorian hospital. There was some delays because of staff shortages but I can report that the tents are for staff tea rooms, not for patients, and they are all doing a great job.

    Good to see you back Nath. People here have been saying some very nice things about you since you disappeared.

  18. It was interesting watching China’s behaviours, and the way in which China’s representatives spoke, in the UN and in UN processes. China invariably sought to bury its views among the views of like-minded nations. There was an obvious absence of publicly assertive behaviour.

    The proposition is that it was only America’s attempted containment of China and it was only Morrison’s megaphone diplomacy that forced China to change its behaviours.

    This sort of theory can only be cobbled together by self-loathing Westerners.

    Where it could do so, Communist China has a terrible history of extremely bad behaviours.
    The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans is an example. There was no megaphone diplomacy. There was no ‘encirclement’ by the US. There WAS China behaving badly because it COULD do so and get away with it.
    The observable facts are that China’s behaviours have worsened the stronger China has felt relative to the West.
    It follows that China WILL invade Taiwan as soon as it believes it can get away with it, regardless of ‘containment’ and regardless of anyone doing ‘megaphone diplomacy’.
    This is not an argument FOR megaphone diplomacy, noting that China often uses such ‘diplomacy’ to strengthen the sabre rattling and to push the boundaries a bit further. As it has done with respect to concrete actions over and around Taiwan since Pelosi’s visit.

  19. Bystander says:

    Good to see you back Nath. People here have been saying some very nice things about you since you disappeared.
    __________
    Well that is a turn up. Thanks!

  20. The question ‘so who is going to invade Australia’ is grossly simplistic.

    The assumptions include:
    1. That Indonesia will continue to have a president who is favourable to Australia.
    2. That we do not have to put a time frame on the question. For example, within a century or so 150,000,000 people in the neighbourhood will be flooded out of house and home. Several hundred million more are likely to run out of rice because of monsoon perturbations.
    3. That outright ‘invasion’ is the only scenario. Proxy wars, say in PNG, are an option. Trade wars that include complete or partial blockades are an option.
    4. That Australian can continue to rely on the US. Extremely questionable.
    5. That China is only going to build the current suite of blue water developments.
    6. That China is not going to be able to forward base a thousand PLA planes on Solomons.

  21. ‘nath says:
    Friday, September 16, 2022 at 6:34 pm

    Bystander says:

    Good to see you back Nath. People here have been saying some very nice things about you since you disappeared.
    __________
    Well that is a turn up. Thanks!’
    ========================
    Of course, as soon as you are well, business as normal will resume!

  22. Country women don’t muck around.

    The death of Queen Elizabeth II has reignited debate among New South Wales Country Women’s Association members about dropping the references to God and the Queen in the organisation’s motto.

    “A lot of the older members have been saying, ‘Can we at least wait until the Queen has passed away?’ Well, now that’s happened.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/16/nsw-country-womens-association-considers-dropping-monarchy-and-god-from-motto

  23. a r says:

    It started with Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic, so no.
    ____
    The life expectancy of Republicans must be at all time lows.

  24. Ven @ #1447 Friday, September 16th, 2022 – 7:12 pm


    ItzaDreamsays:
    Friday, September 16, 2022 at 7:00 pm
    The data is interesting. The US life expectancy dipped between 2014-2018 (covid was 2000 -) and has been slightly increasing since, along a similar slope to prior.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/life-expectancy

    Why is China not mentioned in the list of countries listed?

    China:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/life-expectancy

  25. nath at 6:34 pm

    Bystander says:

    Good to see you back Nath. People here have been saying some very nice things about you since you disappeared…………..!

    Fear not, it will be ‘business as usual’ in no time 🙂 I hope your encounter with ‘the health system’ was fruitful.

Comments Page 29 of 31
1 28 29 30 31

Leave a Reply

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