As reported in various News Limited papers, a Galaxy poll conducted over the weekend shows Labor suffering a 2 per cent drop in the primary vote since the previous poll four weeks ago, and a slight narrowing of their two-party lead. Curiously, Galaxy’s figure of 10 per cent for the Greens is at least double what Newspoll has given them in the past four months. Also included are figures on Liberal leadership preference which indicate voters are least unlikely to vote Coalition if John Howard remains Prime Minister. The following table shows two-party and primary vote results from Galaxy’s national federal polls this year:
| TWO-PARTY | PRIMARY | ||||
| ALP | LNP | ALP | LNP | ||
| July 30 | 54 | 46 | 44 | 41 | |
| July 2 | 55 | 45 | 46 | 41 | |
| June 4 | 53 | 47 | 44 | 42 | |
| May 14 | 57 | 43 | 49 | 39 | |
| April 23 | 58 | 42 | 49 | 37 | |
434 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 9 » Show All
Factions tend to follow a leader until they are in power Shrike. The factions are still very much alive and well in the ALP, just dulled over years of Opposition and muted to allow the party to appear unified.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22166791-2,00.html
Ok. I’d like to hear Haneef’s explanation of this convo.
Well, I must say that Haneef doesn’t look squeaky clean anymore but is that a good thing for the government or the ADF? Due to bungling a man very possibly connected to terrorism has been set free.
Andrews and Howard should be careful of the way they play political games with security, if it is percieved that they are playing with information for political purposes they will lose trust over their ability and willingness to handle security for Australians not just the liberal party.
Viewed purely as a political question, this largely lets Andrews off the hook and vindicates Rudd’s decision largely to support the government on Haneef. The floating voters will now be convinced that Haneef had some connection to the UK bombers, and they may well be right.
As a matter of law, Andrews doesn’t have to meet the standard of proof of a criminal court in deciding whether to revoke a visa – all he has to do is form an opinion about whether the person is desirable to have in the country or not. On this evidence, it seems he was correct. (That doesn’t excuse his bizarre attack on Rudd and Gillard for supporting him.)
re Haneef saga
does anyone have a link to what Mr Andrews released?
why is whatever released only part of what is available?
what language were conversations in?
were they translated correctly?
Does any of this prove links to terrorism?
why is this info being released now and not earlier?
There is one thing for sure, the government’s focus groups must have shown the Haneef affair was going against them badly for Andrews to release this information.
The problem is that, according to the polls, Labor IS losing ground and the Coalition is picking up some ground. The government’s had a pretty awful past couple of weeks (the Costello comments i Howard’s book, Haneef, etc), yet why have they seemingly picked up ground then? If the government can increase its poll numbers despite having a leader being called a “terrible economic manager” etc, then come election time, I’ll be scared to see who the electorate will vote for. After 11 years of Howard, it seems that voters are very politically immature and swimming in right-wing politics, so I have to say that despite the positive poll results for a couple of months for Labor, I’m still fairly pessimistic and predict a Coalition win by a thin margin. If that happens, then I’ll just become a really apathetic person and stay away from politics for a while just so I don’t have an early coronary.
You’ll find the conversation here.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22163726-601,00.html
Andy which polls are you refering too?
Totally off topic but does anyone know roughly when a DD would be called if Labor wins but with a really hostile senate, say Coal. having exactly 50% of seats? The 2001 senators go on until umm.. June, right? So must proceedings wait until then? Then they must allow three months for a bill (IR) to be blocked three times so then a sept., oct. or nov. DD. Does this sound about right or could it be much later or even earlier?
I think it is less aimed at the electorate which are probably generally content with Howard’s ‘better safe than sorry’ line, but more aimed at the legal profession who have been calling for Andrews scalp (instead of Keelty or the DPP).
It now puts the ball squarely back in the AFP and DPP’s court.
Gary Bruce,
I still think it shows this government as being completely and utterly hopeless on the issue of security. I have always believed that the security services, being behind the cloak of national security, are also beyond accountability. And conservative governments have even less incentive to make them perform than Labor governments.
However most of the media outrage so far has not been inspired by their incompetence. It’s been inspired by the perception that they are persecuting someone who may in fact be innocent. I think a lot of the bad press they’ve received so far will abate. Which, on the whole, can’t be bad for the government.
Picking up ground within the M of E is not a problem. The coalition are also “picking up” a small amount of ground from a very low base. The last point to be made why assume this as a trend. Afterall most would argue these polls don’t predict the future don’t they?
All in all I think Rudd played a smart dead hand on the Haneef issue. Andrew’s, on the other hand, keeps on fudging the reasons for his existence and JWH has scored some kudos for playing hard ball with any (alleged) threat of Terrorism
National security-muslims-terrorism-patriotic values= retaining votes. How many ? Who knows. I call it a 0-0 draw in election strategy terms.
Gary, according to the above Galaxy Polls, the Primary Vote and TPP vote for the ALP has declined over the year while the Coalition has gained some ground. It’s understandable that maybe 58 TPP is a little colourful, but it’s declined over the months nonetheless. I would have expected that the Costello revelations would have impacted the poll results at least a bit but it’s had the opposite effect. (When not taking into account the Morgan Phone Poll, etc).
The fact that the Opposition supported the government can’t be a bad thing for them either.
I was talking to a divisional returning officer the other day.
She said that they were having real problems with renting premises for polling booths. Some owners were asking very rents for the day and demanding that security be hired. This seems to be outside the AEC’s budget.
Anyone heard anything on this in their areas?
So basing it on one type of poll then Andy? Not a good idea. By the way that poll has gone up and down re Labor’s primary vote.
Aristotle, thank you for your elucidation. Perhaps then we don’t need any more opinion polls between now and the poll which counts. Maybe all of us should put down the binoculars and call it for Kevin.
ACNielsen when ?
My other points still stand re polls.
Politically speaking, that conversation, if it (or how it it has been presented) is true, I think the heat will be off the government, and the fact that he’s out of the country now means that the story will probably die a death in a week or two. I suspect it’s already influenced those who are likely to be influenced by it, and any further revelations will probably just harden views either way.
I think it’s a points decision for the government, but Labor hasn’t really lost much skin over it. Both sides have probably got something out of it, and it’s possible the flak Rudd has got from his left flank has made him look more “independent”, and so a winner on that score too.
But this is a reminder for the Left that such an issue could easily blow up during the election campaign, and it’s hard to imagine the government and the AFP bungling it so badly again (though that’s possible). Whether we like it or not, this kind of issue is a hot button in the community (rightly or wrongly), and it’s clearly something that works for the government and the Right generally. (I guess when “no compassion” is called for, you go for a conservative!)
Labor needs to have a strategy for this, and looking at the wash-up from the Haneef affair (though one suspects there are a few surprises to come), it’s clear that Rudd has taken the only course open to him. If he opposes anything the government does, Labor will be painted as “weak on terrorism”, and if that happens during the campaign (and it will), the whole effect is magnified. The terror card can trump all, in which case it doesn’t really matter what Rudd’s forestry policy is.
AcNielsen is usually due in the middle of each month.
I’m with the Piping Shrike on factions in the ALP. Not only are they a hollow shell and devoid of some quality leadership. A Prime Minister (Labor or Liberal) always has more clout than any Opposition Leader, even in the shadows of a looming winnable election!
All this is unlikely to stop the Liberals reminding the public that factions and god-forbid “union bosses” are pulling the strings. But then again, the Liberals will tell you there are no factions in the Liberal Party, except for in Cook, or Qld, or SA, or Vic, or WA……..
Agree with all posts critical of Patrick Bateman’s misguided analysis!
Thinking back over Rudd’s (public) performance over the last, what 7-8 months I can’t recall him scoring an ‘own goal’ yet.
Moreover, the Coalition’s attempts to find some mud to toss at him that sticks have failed, to date.
He seems ‘untouchable’ at the moment. Costello, Andrews, Abbott and others have tried thier hardest to discredit him without much tangible success.
This makes me speculate on what Rudd could be tripped up on. Costello is itching for him to come out with a taxation policy, something, anything, they can poke fun at or use to discredit his credentials. Nothing so far.
Latham was easy pickings and scored a few own goals pre election: my most apparent memory was the bully in the school yard handshake at the radio station. What could Rudd do or not do to make a mess of things ?
Saw on the TV tonight the member for Franklin with my minister (Centrelink) Joe Hockey at the launch of the Coalition’s campaign. Harry Quick needs to be sorted out, and quick.
WTF is he doing ? I know he has a beef with the union dude who was pre-selected to take over from him but public dissent taken to the extreme being willing (at least) to be perceived as “endorsing” the other team’s candidate is outragous. The margin is 7.6 percent but stranger things have happened is Tasmania.
JWH will milk this cow for all its worth, despite the equally stupid public mess being played out over Cook in NSW which still hasn’t been settled yet.
The Thing that I found interesting about the Adelaide Advertiser poll of federal voting intention in the marginal seats of Kingston and Wakefield apart from the Numbers showing Labor’s support on a two-party-preferred basis remains extremely strong at 57 per cent to 43 in Kingston and 58 to 42 in Wakefield. Is that in Kingston, 85 per cent of ALP supporters said it was unlikely they would change their vote, while 18 per cent of Liberal supporters said changing their votes was either very likely or quite likely.
Perhaps it’s the Lib vote thats soft and the movement back to the libs since March could soon move back to Labor
Arbie Jay Says:
July 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Maybe they worked out that el-Taouk is a scary sounding name and Andrews has detained him.
Good one Arbie.
Anyone willing to make some state by state senate predictions? They are pretty tough and of course highly speculative and require a good disclaimer but how does QLD: 3-Labor, 2-Liberal and 1-National senator sound?
“Better safe than sorry” is code for “Presumed guilty until proven innocent”.
Molotov did you read about the joint Senate ticket deal JWH was trying to get up at the State Liberal_National conference last weekend in QLD.
According to the Courier Mail, the mail is that Qld National Party President Bruce McIvor threatened to resign, unhappy with JWHs edict (via Senator Bosswell, Jeff Seeney and Warren Truss) that a joint Senate Ticket be formed for QLD at the 2007 Federal Election.
The ‘in principle agreement’ would see Senator Boswell take the third senate nominee position and no Liberal candidate standing in the new seat of Flynn (7.9) and Kennedy (10.5) which has belonged to maverick Bob Katter as a National (1993-2001) and then as an Independent.
No big favours won for the Nationals in Kennedy, but Flynn is a seat the Coalition are counting on winning and they are very worried it will go to Labor with the big pro-Rudd swing on up here in sunny Queensland.
If this ‘deal’ gets up it would support your Liberal 2- Nationals 1 speculation.
Im not sure about Labor taking 3 though.
Bob Brown was up here in June trying to wrangle a Greens-Labor preference deal which would give his Green candidate a shot at the (expected) seat which is supposedly ‘up for grabs’ at the expense of the Democrats IF for some reason Labor fails to take 3 seats on it’s own quota.
Still, the National-Liberal ‘deal’ proposal is reported in the media to be meeting strong resistance from National Party people. Who knows.
You would expect Labor to improve its Senate result from 2004 (31.6%: 2.2 quotas) in QLD on current poll trends, enough to win a third Senate seat with Green preference support.
According, to Adam (link below), the Green candidate would have to improve thier primary vote substantially or gain preferences from the Liberals to gain a seat.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/senate3.shtml
Hanson is back in the game to put a spanner in the works again, but her influence is expected to be far less potent than in previous elections.
Thanks STROP,
Are there any seats yet that both the Liberals and the Nationals have declaired they are running in yet?
Was Fielding a fluke or could FF pick up a seat VIC with just around 2%ish again%? What % would they need in SA?
The Senate is rarly mentioned on this site. Is this because until preferences are known its too hard to predict? Did anyone here forecast FF in VIC, 4 coal. in Qld or no green in NSW last time and was not at all surprised?
Have a look at this site
http://www.greenswatch.com/default.aspx
David Charles from this distance, that’s exactly how it appears for 1995/6, but of course at the time, no-one saw it that way. It’s always crystal clear after the event.
[Have a look at this site
http://www.greenswatch.com/default.aspx
It looks like it is registered to someone in Pitt Street, Sydney. It looks like a made up phone number.
Registrant Contact:
GreensWatch
Green Swatch ()
+61.240044004
Fax: none
Pitt St
Sydney, 2001
AU
James, that site is ludicrous propoganda and deserves no attention.
Not too shabby numbers for the government in the Galaxy, 41% of the primary vote. They would need to get around 43-44% to win the election.
Yay! Another YouTube announcement from Howard tomorrow:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22168765-5006301,00.html
What will it be about, housing affordability? Free webcams?
To contact any Greens Watch member by email:
editor@greenswatch.com
Or ring the Greenswatch Hotline on:
0412 365 549
Sounds like a job for REPEATED-PRANK-CALL-MAN!!!!
In Queensland it could more like 3 Labor and 3 Liberals voted to the Senate. The National Party vote has been declining for years.
[The National Party vote has been declining for years.] But it seems to be going straight across to the Liberals.
OCT. 13 looking less and less likely.
molotov
It may be propaganda or may not that in the eyes of the reader, but it freedom of speech
James I agree, I was just pushing my own agenda.
the senate should go
ALP Lib NAT Greens
vic 3 3
nsw 3 3
queenland 3 2 1
wa 2 3 1
sa 3 3
tas 2 3 1
nt 1 1
act 1 1
Or That
Labor 18
Libs 19
Nat 1
Greens 2
Did someone say …..
Pauline Hanson
http://www.101usesforajohnhoward.com/2006/12/20/59-pauline-hanson
Not so shore i agree with you James on NSW. I would suggest the Greens will win at the expence of Labor
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 9 » Show All