Roy Morgan: 51.5-48.5 to Labor (open thread)

Amid a drought of federal opinion polling, a sedate result from the often volatile Roy Morgan series.

The only federal poll for the week was the regular weekly Roy Morgan, which had Labor with an unchanged two-party lead of 51.5-48.5, from primary votes of Labor 31.5% (down half), Coalition 37% (down one), Greens 12.5% (down half) and One Nation 5.5% (up one-and-a-half). The poll was conducted Monday to Sunday from a sample of a 1710.

Aside from a dearth of published polling, the non-external factors that have contributed to this site being light on for posts lately have been the effort I’ve been putting in trying to get live results features up for the Tasmanian election (see above post) and tomorrow’s South Australian state by-election for Dunstan, which in the absence of any polling for the highly marginal seat should prove an interesting litmus test for Peter Malinauskas’s Labor government.

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.

912 comments on “Roy Morgan: 51.5-48.5 to Labor (open thread)”

Comments Page 19 of 19
1 18 19
  1. @Bill Bowe:

    “ Gympie, how was a person of your intelligence able to survive to adulthood?”



  2. Socratessays:
    Sunday, March 24, 2024 at 9:41 pm
    #Newspoll Federal 2 Party Preferred: ALP 51 (-1) L/NP 49 (+1) #auspol
    The government could still get a majority off that TPP. If Dutton was a serious contender we should be seeing regular LNP TPP leads but its just not happening.

  3. gympie

    Labor can’t win it, short of a landslide result, but The Greens could definitely win it on always disciplined ALP preferences. That would require Labor lending the Greens enough votes to ensure they finished 2nd.
    The Greens bargaining chip would be:
    Albanese only squeaked home last time and the history of Governments chasing a second term is they lose bark.
    See: 1951; 1974; 1977; 1984; 1998; 2010; 2016.

    What the hell are you talking about?

  4. AE

    Putting aside our favourite sub funding scandal, the Hunter frigate may not be any better.

    I met another engineer who had resigned from Defence after working on the Hunter project. He felt the time charging and specification practices by BAE were appalling, hence his resignation.

    Lots of time was allegedly charged from BAE UK seniors for “reviews” with nothing obvious to show for it. Meanwhile there had been a huge element of “bait and switch” after the tender whereby BAE had redefined specifications for components in a way that ensured they could only be supplied by their UK suppliers. The % local content is lower than it was for the Naval contract.

    Apart from all the money leaving the country, this will also make the ships harder to maintain locally.

    There needs to be a serious inquiry into Hunter, by NACC, not ANAO. Shoebridge may be onto something here.

  5. Holdenhillbilly,
    Link to your lifted quote @ 9.37pm please. Context makes all the difference to interpretation of the comment.

  6. “ Socrates has his confirmation bias confirmed by a disgruntled former employee of Defence. Quel surprise.”

    Pollyanna Jane jumping in to the defence of anything that might help her shake an angry little fist at the yellow horde … eventually … maybe … and certainly at a premium that is truly eye watering.

Comments Page 19 of 19
1 18 19

Leave a Reply

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