Morgan: 52-48 to Labor

Morgan becomes a third pollster to show Greens support at its highest for at least the current term, but otherwise shows little change on a fortnight ago.

Morgan has released its regular fortnightly face-to-face plus SMS poll covering 2955 respondents over the past two weekends. On the primary vote, Labor is down half a point to 34%, the Coalition steady on 38.5%, Palmer United steady on 5% and the Greens up a point to 13% – which, while well short of Nielsen, makes it a third pollster showing the Greens vote at its highest for at least this term, or in this case since July 2012. Labor leads 52-48 on both measures of two-party preferred, compared with 51.5-48.5 on respondent-allocated and 52-48 on previous-election preferences last time. Essential Research will be with us tomorrow.

UPDATE: Essential is with us sooner than I thought, the report having been published on their website. This shows the Coalition down a point to 41%, Labor steady on 37%, the Greens at their highest for the current term with a gain of one point to 11%, and Palmer United also up one to 5%. Labor has recovered the 51-49 lead on two-party preferred it had lost with last week’s shift to 50-50. Also featured are “most important election issues”, showing economic management and health policy have gained in salience since before the election while “political leadership” has declined; a finding that 61% oppose funding cuts to the ABC, with 21% supportive; 45% expecting the government’s motivation to reduce ABC funding would be overall spending reduction rather its dislike of ABC news coverage (45% to 28%); 71% disapproving of raising the pension age with 20% supportive; 58% favouring 65 as the pension age; 64% disapproving of including the value of the family home in asset testing for pension eligibility, with 26% supportive.

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.

1,110 comments on “Morgan: 52-48 to Labor”

Comments Page 20 of 23
1 … 19 20 21 … 23

  2. [
    Jackol
    Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    on the planes yet to be designed

    I’m no fan of the JSF but this is just a silly comment. F35s are flying now. They may not fly well (or in thunderstorms), but they exist and they do fly.

    So describing them as “yet to be designed” is just wrong.
    ]

    In any modern military project the big job is getting the software right. Getting the tin off the ground is only the start.

  3. AA

    Ideally Tone’s retirement occurs sometime in 2016, not sure how old he will be but that would be a good time for him to retire.

  7. And if you can’t keep the tin on one piece the design isn’t finished. In short we are buying planes that have not been designed.

  8. The truth about a real war in Syria__________
    ________________________________
    Seymour Hersch the US correspondent who broke the story about the US torture prison at Abu Ghraib in Iraq,now tells of his recent findings re the war in Syria

    …The Turkish Govt in league with the US set off a series of events which would give the excuse for an invasion of Syria…The Saudis hated Syrian’s secular regime…The Israelis hated it because it supported Hezzibollah and the US neo-cons wanted to dominate the whole Middle anyway
    East(though they failed in Iraq after all)

    Hersch looks at the Turkish PM Erdogan and his sinister role,even to the extent of planning an attack on Turkish forces in a false flag operation on the border with Syria
    A revealing story
    The story from the American Conservative is called”Cooking the Books in Syria”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/turkey-cooks-the-books-in-syria/

  12. frednk –

    In any modern military project the big job is getting the software right. Getting the tin off the ground is only the start.

    I don’t disagree with that, but that’s a long way from “yet to be designed”.

    If you have some information which suggests that they are actually going back to the drawing board, link it for us.

    Otherwise you’re putting forward some sort of false slogan based on nothing.

    There are many reasons to criticize the F35. Describing it as “yet to be designed” is not one of them.

  13. [And if you can’t keep the tin on one piece the design isn’t finished. In short we are buying planes that have not been designed.

    by frednk on Apr 23, 2014 at 9:28 pm]

    An excellent example of in-depth Greens Defence Policy discussion.

  15. [
    Boerwar
    Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    And if you can’t keep the tin on one piece the design isn’t finished. In short we are buying planes that have not been designed.

    by frednk on Apr 23, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    An excellent example of in-depth Greens Defence Policy discussion.
    ]
    So what is your proposal, buy the thing as is or get it designed so it works?

  17. While this boring, pointless flame war is going on between BW, the greens and a couple of others I thought I’d chip in with a short report on an interview between Neil Mitchell and a bloke from the US in relation to our $12B purchase.(I didn’t get his name but he was obviously an expert in the field of fighter planes).

    His most salient comments were”

    1.The planes we bought were “ridiculously over priced”.
    2.They are “ridiculously inefficient”.
    3.They will not suit the purpose for which we bought them.

    It doesn’t get much more damning than that – and apparently the Australian people are not very impressed either, if the poll I saw this morning was anything to go by. (more than 70% against).

  19. Great policy:

    [
    The F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better…. And future enemy planes, designed strictly with air combat in mind, could prove even deadlier to the compromised JSF.”
    ]

    I suppose it is handy if we want air superiority over NZ.

  20. briefly@820:

    The distinction between offensive and defensive capabilities is anything but an illusion.

    Capabilities and weapons systems that allow power projection are offensive: the classic example being aircraft carrier battle groups. On the other hand, a land-based fighter squadron with no capability to forward-deploy would be a purely defensive capability. Obviously many capabilities are potentially useable in either role.

    In the Australian context, we are not realistically able to project power much beyond the immediate neighbourhood so it comes down to whether our defence force is structured to participate in joint offensive operations with our allies or not.

  21. The biggest problem I see with these aircraft is that we are asking pilots to get into inferior planes to fight and put their lives on the line. If they are going to do that, they should do it in the best we can get.

  22. By the way Centre – if you’re still around – what odds can I get that the rubbish washed up on the WA beach has nothing to do with the missing plane?

  25. [ The distinction between offensive and defensive capabilities is anything but an illusion. ]

    Maybe, but in policy terms its a meaningless distinction. A “Defense” force with no ability to do unto another what could get done to it is pointless.

  26. Even Joh BP didn’t go this far

    [HANDING out how-to-vote cards and canvassing at polling booths would be banned under moves being considered by the Newman Government in the aftermath of the rowdy Redcliffe by-election.

    Premier Campbell Newman said Cabinet had given its in-principle support to a proposal that could limit signage at booths and relegate how-to-vote cards to a stand inside, manned by nominated and registered party volunteers.]

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/newman-government-may-ban-howtovote-cards-outside-polling-booths/story-fnii5v6y-1226893787100

  28. 975

    A defence force that can repel an invasion but not mount an invasion is not pointless. If we can sink an invading fleet and wipe out its air support, the invader is still going to be deterred, even if we cannot launch an invasion of them.

    Sea denial is improving compared to sea power projection and this will reduce the ability of large nations to dominate the sea.

  29. And will they be able to do the redesign:

    [
    All may require redesigning of parts and subsequent added weight (since strengthening weak parts often involves adding mass to the component as part of the redesign) when for two of the F-35 versions there is less than a one-percent weight gain margin left for the entire remaining development process, and only a one percent margin available to the F-35C. “Managing weight growth with such small margins will continue to be a significant program challenge” (32); that’s an understatement. Then there’s the issue of retrofit to aircraft already delivered and others on the production line. (There are, of course, other structural issues not listed here—such as the drive shaft for the lift fan (31), now undergoing its second redesign, plus damaged door attachments (31), etc., etc.) Trenchant DOT&E observation: “Results of findings from structural testing highlight the risks and costs of concurrent production with development” .
    ]
    The plane that is to be designed.

  30. [ If they are going to do that, they should do it in the best we can get. ]

    Puff, the problem with the “JSF Debate” is that there has been an awful lot of crap written by people with vested interests or journo’s who just want drama. 🙁

    I’ve followed this for a while and used to have a lot more reservations about it than i do now. In terms of whats available to Australia in the next decade i think its the best option. That doesn’t mean its risk free, but these programs never are.

    I’m still waiting to hear serious opponents of the JSF come up with better ideas than resurrecting F22 (not happening) or buying more F16/F18’s.

  31. [victoria
    Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 9:51 pm | PERMALINK
    Darn

    Currious to know how Neil Mitchell has been reporting on the Napthine govt these days?]

    I can’t update you on that Vic. I mostly don’t listen to Michell these days. But Napthine certainly didn’t come over too well on the Channel 9 news tonight. Both the Robbie Waterhouse issue and the grand promise of a new railway station at Southland were portrayed in a fairly negative light.

  33. [Maybe, but in policy terms its a meaningless distinction. A “Defense” force with no ability to do unto another what could get done to it is pointless.]

    Errm… no.

    The point of defence is to make it not worth attacking you. While being able to inflict as much damage back certainly can do that, assuming you do not have the population or resources to do that, you instead have to rely on:

    1. Creating interdependence with other states via trade, bilateralism etc.
    2. Ensuring that, in the event of an attack, your defence forces can cause enough damage and barriers to enemy progress that it makes an attack infeasible.

  34. Jackol@947

    on the planes yet to be designed


    I’m no fan of the JSF but this is just a silly comment. F35s are flying now. They may not fly well (or in thunderstorms), but they exist and they do fly.

    So describing them as “yet to be designed” is just wrong.

    Yeah, I even saw Tone sitting in the cockpit of one on TV tonight.

    I was watching attentively just hoping the loon would say “What’s this?” as he pulled on the handle to fire the ejector seat. 😀

    Didn’t happen. 😥

  35. Carey Moore

    I am against nuclear weapons. However to make unfeasible an attack because of damage inflicted nothing beats weapons of mass destruction like Nukes

  36. [ 2. Ensuring that, in the event of an attack, your defence forces can cause enough damage and barriers to enemy progress that it makes an attack infeasible. ]

    And one of the best ways to do that is, if you are attacked, to hold at risk assets in your opponents territory like basing and suchlike, without which they can not support an attack on you. I’m actually a great believer that we shouldn’t be attacking anyone, but that if someone goes for us we should try and ensure that most of the breaking stuff and killing people happens in their territory, not ours.

  37. http://electionwatch.edu.au/australia-2013/policy/defence

    More evidence that the claims Boerwar made were in fact garbage.

    Something he is too cowardly to admit.

    But we all know that the Labor and Liberal way is FUD.

    It’s strange his reaction too, he claimed to be ‘abused’ – I suppose in some ways this could be true; I thought I was just observing the truth. However, his defence is interesting as it is the defence of the bully.

    His lies about Scott Ludlum and the Greens policies are a form of abuse, so after abusing the Greens, he claims to be the victim of abuse, which is just more cowardice.

    He then tried the Gish Gallop, and claimed that the Greens had to prove something else… As if that proved his claims correct. Even though we provided proof his claims are wrong.

    He has also appealed to his tribe for support by mocking the Greens (which is again abuse). Mostly to save face because he can’t admit his error.

    Why is saving face so important? Because like all bullies he can’t cope when people fight back, and the shame of having been proved wrong is too great.

    It’s truly fascinating.

  38. [ nothing beats weapons of mass destruction like Nukes ]

    I would have thought something biodegradable like chemicals would be a more Green position to take??

  39. guytaur, that’s widely believed actually. Both (ominously named) theories: END (Extended Nuclear Deterrence) and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) pretty much echo that idea.

    It’s interesting because it doesn’t just appeal to a fear that the other side could destroy your side but also that triggering a nuclear war would kill billions and could destroy civilisation as we know it (if not our species) – a power that (thankfully) very few actually enjoyed having.

    (No, I am certainly not advocating Australia arms itself with nuclear weapons.)

  40. victoria@974

    Darn

    Currious to know how Neil Mitchell has been reporting on the Napthine govt these days?

    Speaking on Neil Mitchell, I listened to the recording of him with Rosie Batty earlier and gave you a response.

    Did you see it? Any comment?

  44. Possum Comitatus ‏@Pollytics 1m

    Waiting with baited breath for the Freedom Fat Cat to denounce the latest restrictions of free speech and political communication in Qld o_O

    …..

  48. [ @sprocket_/976

    It shows that LNP are not serious about our economy, but their own survival. ]

    Shoes they have jumped the fwaarking shark in QLD i reckon. 🙁

Comments Page 20 of 23
1 … 19 20 21 … 23

Leave a Reply

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