Roy Morgan has released a mid-week phone survey of 574 respondents on attitudes to the party leaders, which has 55 per cent favouring Kevin Rudd against 30 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull. Kevin Rudd has a 55 per cent approval rating and 31 per cent disapproval; Malcolm Turnbull’s figures are 43 per cent and 24 per cent. The sample produced a two-party result of 57-43 in favour of Labor: no further detail on voting intention is provided.
UPDATE: Aristotle in comments points out that primary vote figures from the survey are available on Morgan’s poll trends page: Labor 46.5 per cent, Coalition 34.5 per cent, Greens 8 per cent, others 4.5 per cent.
451 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 » Show All
evan14 at number 22:
Three! Don’t forget Akerman, [i]the[/i] most biased commentator in Australia (IMO).
I remember reading him before the election, pasting into his commentary verbatim lines from Howard Ministers (Abbott, if I recall), passing it off as [i]his own[/i] opinion.
He writes to a simple formula (for a knuckle-dragging audience): Liberal good; Labor bad. Can’t get much more simple, or biased, than that.
Take his recent summation of Turnbull. If Turnbull was a Labor leader he would be decrying him for degenerate small [i]l[/i] social attitudes. But because he’s a Liberal, Akerman writes him up as the new saviour … or words practically to that effect.
So GP by your standards Howard, Downer and co were guilty of supporting terrorism the AWB bribes because there was certainly a huge amount of evidence that they were aware of what was going on, or is that different because they are Liberals?
Tom
Adam
The High Court ruled that Governments could no longer justify making laws that took away fundamental rights to discuss and criticise the activities of governments, politicians and public officials.
That is a long way from free speech.
…terrorism through ther AWB bribes…
No 98
ruawake, we have an implied right of political communication in our constitution.
What annoys me more than the very obvious Shanahan’s and Milne’s of this world, is the ABC seemingly and uncritically parroting whatever is dominant in the MSM, as if it’s the Truth. For example, tonight on PM, one of the reporters said that Swan was copying Turnbull’s idea to inject funds to increase liquidity. Now, that is clearly not what Swan’s announcement is about.
No 103
Yes, it is not a complete right of free speech, but the majority of criticisms herewith deal with alleged political bias. And to that extent, the opinion writers are constitutionally protected.
No 106
Swan’s a bloody dill. Why did he criticise Turnbull for suggesting the injection of funds in our own markets?
It’s nearest approach we have to a constitutionally protected right of free speech.
At least Swan doesn’t have to copy his speeches from the Wall St Journal.
“Biased commentators”? Commentators are *supposed* to be biased. That’s what they’re there for, to give their opinions. The correct criticism of Ackerman is not that he’s “biased,” but that he’s a pile of steaming dog turd.
Did it occur to Talcum that it may be best not to telegraph your punches to the market? That the Govt. has a strategy, worked out months ago?
Oh yes great economic guru, good idea, we are thinking about doing it next Friday.
Jesus Wept.
Adam, a reasonably-rounded commentator might be expected to have some light ‘n shade in their views. Say, a small l bias on some topics and a rightward slant on others. But not Akerman. Everything he writes is pro-Liberal, anti-Labor, no matter the topic or the multi-faceted complexity of the issues at hand.
No 111
I agree Adam. Ackerman is useless.
“Free Speech” isn’t the point. It’s that The Australian’s political writers assert, in the most plonking and condescending of tones, that they are unbiased. Wouldn’t mind it at all if they declared their biases, but they actually declare the opposite, and slag off others for THEIR biases.
William, why do all the “generic” avatars on this site look like swastikas?
He could probably be used as fertilser, or landfill.
GP @ 108. Because the banks don’t need it. They’ve parked billions with the RBA, because they’ve got the cash to do so. Swan’s move is very targeted, and oddly what the N.S.W. opposition was calling for just earlier today. I don’t for a minute, imagine that this was what prompted the announcement, BTW, but there you go.
Typical of the dramatic shoot-from-the-hip approach that abnk walahs use. Their life is like one long Amex TV xcommercial. Braces and sleeves rolled up through the night, then out for bagels at 7 when the deal’s done.
Great commercial. Wrong way to run a country.
It’s clear that Labor foresaw that there might be problems looming and wisely made legislative provision for it well in advance.
It’s what I said about football betting scammers the other day: they give half their marks a tip on Team “A” and the other half a tip on Team “B”, then bask in the credit when (inevitably) one of those teams gets up. Spray around enough free advice and some of it is bound to be right. The spin doctor’s job is to make sure that the punters only remember the correct advice.
Sic tansit Turnbull.
When will Politicians be asked “Have you ever snorted coke”? Pot is so ho hum. Maybe Pies could pass his opinion?
No 115
I don’t read Shanahan at all these days. Too boring.
I do read Albrechtsen, and she’s never too shy to declare that she’s a proud conservative.
It is a known fact that Albrechtsen does not wear political knickers. This is the only reason anyone takes any notice of her.
Pity she’s on the Board of the ABC, where “balance” is supposed to be the norm. She should resign in disgrace. Certainly if a Leftie was on the same Board and wrote some of the egregious nonsense she spews out in her (laughingly-called “column”) there would be pitchforks and torches out for them from the right.
No 122
BB, you are impossible. Say whatever you like about Shanahan, but Albrechtsen’s columns are usually very good even if you disagree with her.
Adam in Canberra @ 116. The avatars do very strange things. Mine is a Python Gumby saying “My brain hurts”. Sometimes it shows up, mostly not, but does at Possum’s. Bit like the consistency demonstrated by Her Maj’s loyal opposition.
I think you’re being a little imaginative there, Adam @ 116. Perhaps I should switch to the “MonsterID” avatars used by Possum, where they all look like Piers Akerman.
WB
William @ 125. Avatars as mini-Rorschachs?
No 125
Make the default avatars appear as a hammer & sickle. After all, that is the default philosophical position of 95% of the participants here.
GP
Mine is Socialist International – will that do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International
Ru
sorry been punching numbers re talcum
my projection in 12mths is 40-55 ppm
Agree with BB at 122. I find it unconscionable that someone with plainly-declared political bias such as Albrechtsen should be on the board of the national broadcaster. Only under a rodent like Howard could a prominent partisan commercial commentator be elevated to a position of influence of a public broadcaster that professes to pursue balance.
Gusface, are you saying Malcolm is 55 or 40?
Gusface if you are suggesting Talcum will have a preferred PM lead in 12 months I want some of the stuff you are smokin’
Harry
to clarify:Ruaawke asked for projections re talcums ppm
I gave a vaguely specific numbers and then started on where i thought talcum would be in 12 mths.
The 40-55 band is his top end 55 and his bottom end 40
BTW how old is talcum?
Cuppa @ 131. There’s been no balance evident at the ABC for some time. Any amount of dumbing down, sure; any amount of just regurgitating whatever is being spun in the MSM, increasingly so.
24/10/1954 Freaky – the same day I was born. 54 next month.
Gusface @ 134. Ta. I think Malcolm is the same age as Kevvie. Fiftyish but early.
No 131
Cuppa, how do you explain that obscene piece of lard, Mr Philip Adams, who has no qualms declaring his hatred for conservatives. How dare the ABC employ him! Shame on them!
If all else fails Talcum can get the missus to mail out a another personal letter to all Australians saying how wonderful Talcum is and pleading for everyone to vote for him.
No 137
Rudd is younger.
Ru
cmon dude that ones old hat,isnt it what im snorting
re his ppm ,I just thought i’d use poss’s tres excellent charts as a guide and then do some extrapolation.
While I agree that the Possum charts are tres good, we only have 2 weeks worth of data.
I predict Malcolm will have a PPM in his favour of of 95/5.
HSO, if they’re just going to C&P their news from the mainstream media, then there’s really not much point in having a (so-called) independent news “service”. Obviously budgetary restrictions have a lot to do with the “cheapness” of the product presented.
I guess that was the conservatives’ intention. They weren’t game to go with their ideological inclination to privatise it, so they bastardised it and starved it to the point where it’s such a abomination that even progressives, who would normally staunchly defend a public broadcaster, would be relieved to see it flogged off or killed off.
GP that’s what I call confidence lol
Ru
Im not using the 2 week charts only-if i did talcum would be stratospheric
More running with a line of thought,first espoused at Mumble,that some equilibrium will return to the pendulum
The msm barrage before during and after the election is causing a SHORT term drift which post the next fed election will resume the drift to labor
Talcum is a player and his impact is best overstated rather than downplay his appeal
138
Generic Person
1) They also have Michael Duffy + the Insider panelists, which includes Akerman.
2) Albrechtsen was put on the board, which was more than a symbolic appointment by Howard.
GP, your strange concept of bias strikes again. Adams proclaims his biases. People can adjust their perspectives accordingly if they feel the need. But he is not in a position to pass judgment on other ABC employees or influence decision making in the ABC as Albrechtsen is without being accountable.
BTW, are you as fat as Adams or do you feel safe to make insults from your obscurity?
GP… I’ll give you 100-1 on that
No 148
Janet hasn’t sacked Phil, so I think the perceived bias factor is in fact a meaningless platitude.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 » Show All