Morgan phone poll: 57-43 to Coalition
Roy Morgan has simultaneously published phone and face-to-face poll results. The phone poll was conducted from Tuesday to Thursday from a modest sample of 697, with a margin of error a bit below 4%. This tells very much the same story as other recent phone polling: Labor on 30%, the Coalition on 47.5% and the Greens on 11.5%. As is generally the case with phone polling, the two-party result is much the same whether determined by respondent allocation (57-43 to the Coalition) or applying the preference distribution from the last election (56-44).
The phone poll also gauged opinion on global warming and the carbon tax. On global warming, 35% believe concerns exaggerated, up three on October last year; 50% opted for “if we don’t act now it will be too late”, up six points; and 12% chose “it is already too late”, down eight points. Support for the carbon tax was at 34.5%, down 2.5%, with opposition up two to 59%. Support for the Coalition’s promise to repeal the tax if elected was up four points to 49% with opposition down five to 43%.
The face-to-face poll combines results from the last two weekends of Morgan’s regular surveying, with a sample of 1770. On the primary vote, this has Labor down a point on the previous survey to 31%, the Coalition up two to 46.5% and the Greens down half a point to 12.5%. As usual with these polls, and in contrast to the phone poll result, the difference between the two measures of the two-party result is cavernous (though terrible for Labor either way): 55-45 using the previous election method, but 59.5-40.5 using respondent allocation.
UPDATE: Spur212 in comments points out the following fascinating finding on the question of “who do you think will win”, which I normally don’t even bother to look at. Since the last Morgan phone poll in early February – before the Kevin Rudd leadership challenge – expectations of a Labor win have plummeted from 31% to 14%, while the Coalition has soared from 57% to 76.5%.
Also:
• The ABC reports that Dean Smith, a lobbyist and former adviser to former WA Premier Richard Court and federal MP Bronwyn Bishop, has been preselected for the third position on the WA Liberals’ Senate ticket at the election, behind incumbents David Johnston and Michaelia Cash. This makes it likely, though apparently not quite certain, that he will fill the casual vacancy created by the death on March 31 of Judith Adams.
• The Liberal member for Hume, Alby Schultz, has made long-anticipated announcement that he will retire at the next election. This sets the scene for what promising to be a bruising contest for the seat between the Liberals and Schultz’s bitter enemy, the Nationals. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports relations between the two have fractured over the Liberals’ moves to preselect candidates ahead of time in anticipation of a potential early election. The Nationals say this dishonours an agreement that preselections would wait until the two parties had reached their agreement determining which seats would be contested by which parties and the order of the Coalition Senate ticket, which has not left them of a mind to leave Hume to the Liberals. The most widely mooted potential Liberal candidate has been Angus Taylor, a 45-year-old Sydney lawyer, Rhodes Scholar and triathlete. Taylor is said to be close to Malcolm Turnbull, and to have the backing of Schultz. For the Nationals’ part, it has long been suggested that Senator Fiona Nash might try her hand at the seat, and The Australian now reports that Katrina Hodgkinson, state Primary Industry Minister and member for Burrinjuck, might also be interested.
• Imre Salusinszky and James Massola of The Australian further report that friction between the Liberals and Nationals in NSW might further see the Nationals field a candidate in Gilmore, where Liberal member Joanna Gash is retiring (and where one of the Liberal preselection candidates is Alby Schultz’s son Grant), and Farrer, which Sussan Ley gained for the Liberals when Tim Fischer retired in 2001.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
kevjohnno @2792,
Played rugby against Ray Kiley, Dennis Owens and John McNeill.
Went to Uni with Macca.
Our Paths well may have crossed.
Cheers.
P.S Always believed St Lauries was uncool !
by Doyley on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:28 pm
shellbell @2799,
Thanks for that
by Doyley on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Wouldn’t the Speaker argue that voting down the budget amounted to a vote of no confidence, or otherwise very seriously disturbed the status quo?
by William Bowe on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Dee
That is why it will be interesting to see what the full claim against Cth will be.
If the current allegation is left as a vague “the Government knew about Slipper” then the Cth and Slipper, through their lawyers, will be asking Ashby’s lawyers, who, when and what about the knowledge
by shellbell on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:32 pm
d Sunday, April 22, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink
Doyley as a 1973 senior St Laurence’s old boy (uncool CB school I know OPT) the football game against Villanova was one we always looked forward to. 2792
Doyley Posted Sunday, April 22, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Permalink
Further to my post at @2790,
Have you boys heard if s v c cb school
by my say on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Shellbell/Doyley
Members of Parliament are paid via determinations the Remuneration Tribunal:
http://www.remtribunal.gov.au/federalParliamentarians/default.asp
In terms of “employment conditions” type stuff, it is up to the leader of their party to set the standards. The principle is we trust our elected parliamentarians.
by sprocket_ on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:38 pm
my say, @2804,
Sorry my say not real sure what you are asking.
cheers.
by Doyley on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:38 pm
sprocket @2805,
Thanks for that.
Cheers.
by Doyley on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Victoria its always the family you also feel for, also
by my say on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:40 pm
There are plenty of arguments to use either way – but fundamentally Anna would need to decide does she bring down the government (Supply denied) or not? She won’t bring down the government, so the bills will pass on her casting vote (amidst the squeals from the Tories).
by sprocket_ on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:41 pm
What date are the budget bills usually put through the house?
by victoria on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:41 pm
my say
Yes the family are usually collateral damage
by victoria on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Only becauce we have heard of all your schools in qld, old boys networks
by my say on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:42 pm
GloryC
I think Mad Hatter has already stated he would not vote against any kind of Supply Bill and though I would not trust him as far as I could throw him, Abbott made much the same undertaking when this was first mooted in 2010.
Wilkie is a loose canon but he knows full well he is finished one way or another if the current government does not see its term out. None of what he wants would matter any more and he is likely to lose his seat anyway at any subsequent election.
You are just adopting the same approach I mentioned earlier today of working out the possibility of your football team in the 9th spot winning a place in the final 8 by trying to work out every permutation of winning/losing numbers to scrape in. As one wit put it, this is desperation time and you are usually stuffed!
The worst case scenario – for the government – some have worked out as 74-74 with the Deputy Speaker having the casting vote.
Some have queried the Deputy-Speaker casting vote position but people smarter than me suggest that if the 74-74 situation arose on a bill the casting vote would ensure the legislation passed.
Others have commented here on the No Confidence vote situation, but the general feeling is this would not get up – for a variety of reasons.
I have no doubt the Libs will test this but who is to say Slipper may not be back by the Budget Session which is still two weeks away yet?
by Tricot on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:43 pm
usually the last week of sitting in June
by sprocket_ on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Wilkie has usually voted on govt legislation. In fact, he has voted in favour of govt more often than Windsor and Oakie
by victoria on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Watching the beacons field drama i am wondering who will play bill shorten
by my say on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Thanks sprocket. Perhaps Slipper will be back in the chair by then
by victoria on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:45 pm
I just thought I should point out that the Prime Minister cannot, ever, ‘sack’ a Speaker. The members of the house can vote to remove a speaker, that’s it.
It seems Tony Abbott has crunched the numbers, realised (well, derrr) that he can’t succeed with a motion of no confidence in Slipper and is now busy trying to come up with other ways to make Peter Slipper’s life miserable.
To add a bit more – Slipper is an independent, Labor can’t tell him what to do nor can the Labor Party determine his fate. Labor just has the votes to keep Slipper in his job, but that’s as far as their influence goes.
All the howling about Julia Gillard needing to ‘sack’ Slipper today just show how ignorant a lot of so-called political commentators and news writers really are.
by leone on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:47 pm
the Slipper situation bears great resemblance to the Mal Colston defection to get the Senate President job.
Despite the torrent of abuse and invective, entitlement rorts etc thrown at Mal the Rat, the net result was:
- the JWH government got its program through
- Mal got his fat salary and fat pension
- the ALP opposition fulminated far and wide
- the public didn’t give a rats arse, and returned JWH at the next election
Perhaps the same will happen this time?
by sprocket_ on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:51 pm
That’s also what I’ve been thinking. And apart from constitutional considerations, will he continue to collect his increased salary? I don’t think it’s particularly appropriate that he continue to collect the salary of Speaker whilst not undertaking any of the duties.
by ltep on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Leonie thank you for that grest information, ‘very valuable
by my say on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:55 pm
I’m not sure Wilkie would want to cause an election.
I’m pretty sure he’d lose Greens preferences to the ALP if he made such a move which would mean he wouldn’t be able to catapult above the Liberals
by spur212 on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:55 pm
mysay,
My old school Villanova has a strong old boys but i do not have much to do with it. My best mate went to Villanova as well but he was a year ahead of me. I have no regular contact with anyone else from school.
I really enjoyed school and was very happy there but I have just moved on for no specific reason. Just life I think.
Did go to my 30th Reunion. It was good if only to confirm I was not the only one looking old !
by Doyley on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Hi My Say
I’m pesuming you’re asking if we know people from St Virgil’s Colledge in Hobart?
I don’t, but as I’m not part of any old boys network and very lapsed religiously it’s not surprising.
by kevjohnno on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:57 pm
ltep
Most people who are suspended are still on full pay. I don’t know how it works if you voluntarily step aside.
Will he still turn up in parlt and sit on the cross benches?
by Diogenes on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I would posit that even Abbott recognises that another attempt (after 1975) for the conservatives to be seen to be holding up Appropriation Bills would cause all kinds of problems which would be sheeted home to him and he alone.
Think of all those government workers who would not be paid. All those contracts held up.
Last time Fraser was able just to threaten holding up Supply and Kerr buckled at the knees and gave in because, of course, the conservatives had the numbers in the upper house. Not so this time.
This is not a “constitutional crisis” as much as the Murdoch press would like a re-run of 1975 and the beauty of the standing aside of Slipper, by Slipper, has taken any non-normal call for a vote of confidence off the agenda.
Even with Slipper out of the picture the parliament is able to function and I think the conservatives and the even Wilkie and Brandt will recognise they really have nowhere to go on this one.
Mind you, nothing surprises me when it comes to tory bastardry.
by Tricot on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:59 pm
College (education was not strong at Lauries. Amo Amas Amant …not withstanding)
by kevjohnno on Apr 22, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Spur
Lets see what he gets offered by Abbott – the $1b for the Hobart hospital was not enough, but maybe Abbott would raise this with a Tas Senate spot or other inducements for Wilkie to “come home” to his Liberal soulmates?
For a anti-gambling man, Wilkie is truly the WildCard.
by sprocket_ on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:00 pm
I thought there was a convention that the Speaker, if faced with a tied vote, would vote to maintain the status quo.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/slipper-says-role-as-speaker-has-not-materially-changed-20120123-1t6fz.html
Slipper did this not long ago, he voted against a disallowance motion proposed by Rob Oakeshott and saved part of the government’s carbon tax package.
http://stage.qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/slipper-steps-in-on-tax-with-rare-deciding-vote/2493821.aspx
So if faced with having to vote on supply a speaker would surely have to go with the government and vote in favour.
by leone on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:00 pm
They are not silly questions at all. In fact, to boring people like me, they are quite interesting. “Employees of the Commonwealth” is probably not the best description. “Officers of the Commonwealth” is the term used in law.
Again, an interesting question. “The Commonwealth of Australia” may be thought of as the entity created by the federation of Australian States, within which power is divided between a national (or “federal”) government and the States (the evolved status of the colonies).
by drake on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Dio
News24 has been reporting that both the government and opposition agree that Mr Slipper cannot enter the house while in stand down status.
by guytaur on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:01 pm
thanks Sprocket at 2805.
There must be an act as well similar to NSW’s (and other states/territories) Employee’s Liability Act which makes the employer liable for the acts or omissions of employees while acting in the course of employment.
by shellbell on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:03 pm
drake @2830,
You are not boring at all.
Thanks for your reply.
cheers.
by Doyley on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:03 pm
According to the most recent edition of House of Representatives Practice, at the time of publication – 2005 – there had only been 21 occasions when a Speaker or Deputy Speaker had made a casting vote. As far as I can tell, the only one which was decisive with respect to a piece of legislation was the Government Preference Prohibition Bill on 13–14 May 1914 – which the Speaker voted to pass.
Apparently Harry Jenkins made it 22 when he voted down an Opposition motion in November 2010. Presumably there would be other occasions.
by William Bowe on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:03 pm
In the context of your question, “The Commonwealth” is the national, or federal, government. However, the term “government” does not just mean the ruling party or parties. It includes all entities that excercise the power of “the Commonwealth”, such as the federal police, the ATO, customs, etc.
by drake on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Diogs
Got the impression today someone said he is out of the whole picture while this is going on.
He is not Speaker, but he does not return to the Cross Bench while he is not speaker.
Some were speculating that Thompson should “do the same thing” as Slipper but the two circumstances apparently differ.
Thompson could – push come to shove – sit on the Cross Bench whereas, currently Slipper cannot.
I would speculate that if at some future point Slipper lost favour as Speaker he would not return to the coalition (they would probably not want him), he would not join Labor and thus would likely be on the Cross Bench with the other Indies.
Which ever way, his presence in parliament is not much good to Abbott.
It is for that reason I suspect the conservatives were hoping Slipper would be kind of “shamed” out and thus give cause for him to somehow lose his seat. Not quite sure how they intended to engineer this, but I think it is what they really wanted.
by Tricot on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:07 pm
If a government can’t get the Appropriation Bills through the House (remembering that it need not do so immediately), there’s no question of a 1975-style stand-off – it must resign.
by William Bowe on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:07 pm
No worries Doyley.
by drake on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:08 pm
guy
Is it up to them? Surely he can turn up if he’s an elected MP? He stood down as Speaker, not as an MP. Seems a bit weird.
I watched that Berisha penalty. Dismal. Soccer needs to go to a replay system for crucial decisions.
by Diogenes on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:08 pm
shelbell
I think the Federal elected members are above the law, so to speak. The Commonwealth carries its own insurance, pays them according to the Rem Tribunal, and other entitlements bestowed by the Parliamentary Departments. We trust them. If they are no good, they lose their pre-selections or seats at an election. Checks and balances are provided by our democratic institutions.
Staffers are another matter entirely. They are covered by the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act which is loosely based on the Public Service Act, and inherits the “normal” workplace provisions you expect these days.
by sprocket_ on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Dio
I do not know the legalities. I expect though that those in the major parties would point out if this was not so. There is a vote in it for being right.
On the Soccer glad I missed it. It does sound like a major review needs to happen.
by guytaur on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm
So what does “standing aside” mean? Some good analysis here:
http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2012/04/peter-slipper-stands-aside-what-does-this-mean-constitutionally.html
by sprocket_ on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Dio,
Geoffrey Robertson on Qanda the other night seemed to be saying that in the UK the impugned member would sit on the crossbenches till the matter was resolved. The idea being that the government could continue to serve without taint.
I think that’s what he was saying.
by drake on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Thanks William
It’s hard to find exact replications of history.
I was trying to rekindle the era of “constitutional crisis” of the time of 1975.
There are quite clear differences which was really my point. Labor held the HoR back then with a working majority but did not control the Senate, so the the Appropriation Bills in the HoR then were never an issue.
If anything, the boot is on the other foot. Labor with no real majority in the HoR but unlikely to have a hostile Senate.
I just noted that Abbott has said, in 2010, that he would not hold up Appropriation bills and should he do so, he then would rightfully be considered as a solid gold liar.
I also think he is aware that the boot can be on the other foot with Supply bills and should he gain control of the HoR he could still face a hostile Senate who might just return the compliment in spades.
by Tricot on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:17 pm
If the Coalition dissents a speakers ruling amd Wilkie votes with them then it goes to the speaker to vote. Tradition is that the speaker does not vote for themself and would have to consider their position.
by ifonly on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Priceless , shellbell. This must be one of the greatest fishing expeditions since Rex Hunt departed the screen after being busted by Newslimited for having a private life.
Who is funding this? That is the question that needs to be answered.
by joe2 on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Apologies if already posted, but several here have speculated as to what Abbott & Sheridan discussed at their Lygon St dinner. Could this be another possibility, to act as a diversion by accusing Labor of achieves a surplus bydenuding national defence?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/gillard-returning-country-to-deep-neglect-of-military/story-e6frgd0x-1226334745893
And I actually found the article first on Free Republic, a hard right US website.
F
by Fil R on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:21 pm
joe2
One of the joys of modern litigation is anyone can fund anyone else’s claims.
A few generations ago such funding was a crime
by shellbell on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:22 pm
This is what the Peter Black blog says
by Diogenes on Apr 22, 2012 at 9:24 pm