The Fairfax papers today carry their monthly ACNielsen poll, which shows a narrowing of Labor’s two-party lead from 58-42 to 55-45. Labor’s primary vote is down from 49 per cent to 46 per cent, while the Coalition is up from 39 per cent to 41 per cent. The movement most likely represents a correction from a somewhat excessive result last time. Now please, for the love of Christ, no more polls until next Tuesday …
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
ACNielsen: 55-45
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
558 Comments
Michelle Grattan does the thing I dislike most about opinion poll reporters. She puts far too much emphasis on the movement. Polls themselves are error-prone enough on their own, and to subtract the result of one error-prone poll from another error-prone poll really is the height of silliness.
That said, 55-45 seems about right. Since it more or less matches what the other pollsters are saying.
Looking back, I tend to agree that last months 58-42 result was “somewhat excessive”. Which is kind of ironic since it accorded well with the previous Nielsen results; but most other pollings outfits were reporting a closer contest at the time.
Considering most pollsters ring around 6pm when people are having dinner etc, I wonder what the rejection rate is and whether they only have a set number of people to ring per electorate, or do they just keep ringing people until they get their quota for the area ?
Hmm, I wonder if Friday’s Sharemarket collapse had anything to do with the small bounce back to the Govt?
“THE Australian stock market posted its biggest one-day fall in six years yesterday following falls on Wall Street, which is still spooked by the rout in the US sub-prime mortgage sector.
The largest fall since the September 11, 2001 US terrorist attacks wiped almost $53 billion from the value of the Australian market, rattling investor confidence and eroding superannuation-linked gains.
The benchmark S&P/ASX200 index was 229.6 points lower at 5936, while the All Ordinaries retreated 222.5 points to 5965.2.
At the close of day trading on the Sydney Futures Exchange, the September share price index contract was 217 points lower at 5934, on a volume of 36,791 contracts. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22224173-20142,00.html
This is the poorest result for the ALP all year, on this particular poll. Wonder if the economic FUD is actually helps the conservative government, rather than a hinders it. Possum seems to think it should.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/05/16/regression-model-for-the-coming-election/
Now please, for the love of Christ, no more polls until next Tuesday …
I can hardly wait.
Poor result in WA compared to Westpoll. Stunning numbers in SA. Small sample sizes for the state by state
The Victorian figures seem ludicrous. There are more Flat Earth Party voters than Liberal supporters in some parts of Melbourne.
Now please, for the love of Christ, no more polls until next Tuesday
Morgan on Friday!
55-45.
In Six months the ALP have dropped from 61 to 55 and with about three months to go I think we can knock of another 3 making the Election result
ALP 52 – Liberals 48. I find the state voting intentions interesting with the ALP dominating in South Australia, NSW Queensland and WA continues to be strong for Liberals, but Victoria appears to have moved toward the Liberals.
I can’t think of any reason for the Victorian numbers except and maybe this is a long bow to draw but were the polled responding to Brumby becoming Premier.
I know that may sound silly, but the news in Victoria has generally been poor for the Federal Government.
What happened to polling at Federal level when Carr departed.
While this poll was done after the rate announcement I wouldn’t expect to see an impact until the next Newspoll.
I agree with the point made by Jackman on his Blog, the swing will be bigger in the 4-9% seats than the Marginals, but I think this as all ways been the way.
As I’ve been thinking for quite sometime while tipping an easy ALP win vote wise, but when looking at the seats I’ve not been able to see the ALP winning more than 80 seats without having seats marked as ALP gains that they don’t normally win.
I note that the previous six months have seen little to no movement in the TPP until this poll, Howard looks gone but and maybe this is something while Rudd has played Howard very nicely.
He appears to have eased off the gas a little and there is a danger that the ALP will let Howard back by not maintaing the front foot which got them the lead in the first place.
bmw , Rudd is out there announcing a big housing policy ($600M) today. I think he needs to get into the ‘front row’ and lay a few tacklesin NRL speak now.
His timing has been spot on to date, but now I think now he needs to convince the electorate that he has a plan for Australia that is DIFFERENT to JWH to enough extent that people can recognise an alternative approach in key policy areas like health, housing, education, environmental issues (climate change) and WATER to back up his trump card (industrial relations:Workchoices). The negative press for JWH will abate, eventually, even in the polls as this poll may be forewarning.
State by state breakdowns from AC Nielsen Poll:
N.S.W: ALP: 56, COAL: 44
VIC: ALP: 51, COAL: 49(WTF)
QLD: ALP: 57, COAL: 43(WTF)
SA: ALP: 62, COAL: 38
WA: COAL: 56, ALP: 44
Victoria I don’t believe(is Howard really that popular down there?), wasn’t the council amalgamation thing said to hurting Rudd in QLD, and why contradictory WA results?
I think I’d rather trust Newspoll, far more reliable.
Despite the poll, ALP odds have shorthened on Sportingbet ($1.58) … and Maxine in Bennelong is at $2.35
The WA sample size would be about 140 out of the 1400 polled, would it not? Built-in dodginess. If we add these voters to the Westpoll lot from last week I think we get about a 52/48 ALP/Lib split, which is probably closer to the ‘truth’.
As I pointed out in today’s post on the rental subject – http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2007/08/alp-to-push-up-rent-prices.html
“Labor seems to think that it can keep the price of petrol, groceries, rent and child care down while introducing a climate change policy that calls for a CO2 reduction of something like 100% by next Wednesday and at the same time control inflation in a wages-growth market. Good luck with that. If Labor wins the next election then we’ll be lucky not to have double digit interest rates within their first term.
Labor leader Kevin Rudd has an understanding of economics akin to Gough Whitlam and the temperament of Mark Latham. It’s not a good combination.”
When the ALP starts costing some of this stuff then the Coalition will close the gap quickly.
The graphs are up.
Thanks Bryan. Love your work.
Out of curiousity, would it be possible for the Govt to win with 48% of the vote?
A-C if it was a uniform swing the Govt would lose 73-77
It’s possible for a government to win with around 25% of the vote (50% + 1 of the vote in 50% +1 of the seats; 0 elsewhere) but it’s not probable.
Howard in 1998 won with the lowest share of the 2PP vote since proper records have been kept at a tick over 49%. So a victory with 48% of the 2PP vote would have to not just break the current record, but smash it.
It’s exceedingly unlikely.
It’s been mentioned before, but the fury that surrounds the release of one poll’s findings is just rampant nonsense. Today’s A C Nielsen release is no exception. From interpreting state swings from samples of 150, to concluding that last week’s interest rate rise was of political benefit to the Coalition. The media’s full of it – in more ways than one.
It reminded me of the example given in Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, where he was explaining how, in the absence of absolute facts, the mind can run wild with speculation. It related to scientists in previous centuries, trying to come to terms with the planet Venus and the difficulty they had in not being able to see the surface of the planet with their telescopes, because of the thick clouds in the atmosphere.
“The absence of anything to see on Venus led some scientists to the curious conclusion that the surface was a swamp, like the Earth in the Carboniferous Period. The argument – if we can dignify it by such a word – went something like this:
‘ I can’t see a thing on Venus.’
‘Why not?’
‘Because it’s totally covered with clouds.’
‘What are clouds made of?’
‘Water, of course.’
‘Then why are the clouds of Venus thicker than the clouds on Earth?’
‘Because there’s more water there.’
‘But if there’s more water in the clouds, there must be more water on the surface. What kind of surfaces are very wet?’
‘Swamps.’
And if there are swamps, why not cyacads and dragonflies and perhaps even dinosaurs on Venus? Observation: There was absolutely nothing to see on Venus. Conclusion: Dinosaurs.
The featureless clouds of Venus reflected our own pre-dispositions….Venus turns out not to oblige our pre-dispositions.”
It seems the last 8 months polling and the opinions of over 70,000 respondents, does not oblige the pre-dispositions of the Canberra media either.
Herald front page had a Pythonesque Black Knight quality about it. JWH is still a limbless political torso but we now discover there’s a couple of teeth left.
Interesting conversation at weekend with a rusted on Lib with close connections to the Howard inner circle. Essentially thinks he’s lost it. Inside the circle Howard was thinking out loud a while back about having a crack at Menzies’ record. Problem is he now actually believes he can do it. And with Arthur gone there’s no-one left that can tell him otherwise. Sad and a bit of a worry because this guy is still PM.
Aristotle, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of ‘The Black Swan’, calls it ‘The Ludic Fallacy’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy
Our minds can’t help but try to come up with a logical explanation, even if based upon incomplete data.
And by ‘logical’, of course, I mean, not really ‘logical’ at all.
And to complete the King George picture there’s no-one capable of moving against him. The Right would rather wait and salvage what they can from the post-election wreckage than triggering something that might end up delivering the prize to the Left. And the Costello forces just don’t have anywhere near the numbers so they’re just waiting for the election to destroy the Right.
Sad and ugly.
Indeed, that polls indicating a victory that would be the largest ever for the ALP, and the largest for any party in 30 years are being hailed as good news for the government really shows what kind of a mess they are in.
(and yes, yes, not getting carried away, long time to go, things could change…)
I note the bookmakers odds on the Govt winning moved out dramitcally after the rate rise and a series of poor regional polls. The AC Neilson poll have moved the odds back in. They are implying a 58% chance of an ALP win. I think this is about right.
The Govt is still pounding away with a tax payer funded advertising campain. I noticed two or three govt ads per break on Sunday night. They still have a pile of cash to throw at marginals. So if the can gain 3 or 4 percent across the board and defend a few keys marginals they are definitely in the game.
Still this is a big ask. I get the impression the ALP is holding back a lot of fire power at the moment. Just avoiding the wedges. I wonder when they will switch to offense?
“Howard in 1998 won with the lowest share of the 2PP vote since proper records have been kept at a tick over 49%.”
He won in 1998 with just a tick under 49%: 48.9% and that still gave him a 13 seat majority. Assuming a ‘uniform national swing’ in 2007, the Government will hold on with 48.6%.
It’s unlikely that they’ll hold on with 48.0% of the TPP, but I’m not sure ‘exceedingly’ is the correct adverb to qualify the unlikelihood with.
d
The SMH and Age are in the garbage business this morning. What’s going on? News Ltd is dumping Howard and now Grattan and Hartcher are doing Dennis Shanahan’s job?
The headline figure is an imaginary one–the primary figures are the ones that count–and this has been spectacularly consistent–Labor with 46-49% for a long, long time.
I think we are getting tunnel vision here. Let’s all go and get another hobby, like stamp collecting or animal cruelty.
In other words, the real task of Howard is to take about 8% off Labor’s primary vote.
Australianpolitics.com says 49.02% but I won’t quibble.
About that anyway: if I read the pendulum correctly Bennelong, and government, would fall with a uniform national swing of 4.0% from last election which would be 51.3/48.7 ALP/Coalition, so on that basis (and to the nearest 0.1%) the Coalition could ‘expect’ to win with a uniform 2PP vote of 48.8% but not less.
I still think that beating this mark by 0.8%, and the previous record by 1.0% is very, very unlikely but I concede that excess is in the eye of the beholder.
In a lot of these polls the 2pp is worked out assuming preference go the same way as the last election. How reasonable is that?
My impression is that a lot of ALP voters went for minor parties in the last election and preferenced the ALP. It would seem that most of these voters have now returned to the ALP primary vote. But does this mean the remaining minor party vote will be less favourable to the ALP than the last election and hence the 2pp vote for the ALP is overstated?
3 things to take out of this poll:
– the PM’s approval rating of 50% is nothing short of phenomenal, when you consider he’s been in the top job for 11 years. If anyone needs reminding, after 9 years the supposedly mega-popular Hawke was languishing in the mid-20s. So despite the squealings from the media, John Howard is definitely not on the nose in the electorate and still comands a great deal of support. This will come into play during the election campaign.
– 83% of those interviewed said that the experience of the candidates would be critical in influencing how they vote. It’s no coincidence, then, that Ministers like Downer and Abbott say in interview after interview that the electorate will ultimately re-elect the PM and his team because of their experience and their amazing record – concerns about Rudd’s inexperience are obviously coming through in the Liberals’ own research. Watch for the Government to keep hammering this point over the next couple of months.
- the Government’s primary vote is now above the 40% mark; indeed, from now on any poll that has the Coalition below 40% should be automatically discounted. And, as I mentioned in another thread, when the naturally pro-Labor Nielsen has the parties at 41/46, then you know the reality is much, MUCH closer. And once again, all astute observers ignore the 2PP figure because it’s just a figure plucked out of thin air by the pollster.
Everything here points to a Government victory in November. You have been warned.
PS: Yet more evidence of how hard our media is campaigning for Labor: at ninemsn’s news site, the story about this poll has already been pushed off the front page, whereas yesterday the story about the poll in the Bennelong was highlighted there for the whole day. And when you do jump to this story, you find that the hack responsible couldn’t resist reminding us about the PM’s supposed troubles in his seat. Lovely. I hope there’ll be a lot of payback all around when the Government is re-elected.
Nice to see renters getting a sniff in the policy wars today. Thats the sort of thing that will keep green prefs tight, and convert more than a few to ALP first pref – nice shoring work on the left flank by Rudd.
Back in the main game: if Rudd sorts out the kinder gap for 3-4 yo (ie the current model is pretty cap where both parents work, seems to be based on giving home Mum a break, there’s very few long day care options in the kinder mix) he’ll solve one major cross-spectrum headache for the punteriat. I predict some moves there.
This latest poll is ace: will keep Lord Wentworth at Bay, and Rodent araldited to the losing seat.
Seriously though – I reckon thats the boomer retirees swinging back some. Check the age group breakdown. Remember they just landed the mother of all bribes last month – the tax free super free kick holiday special.
On that thesis: can someone tell me what the 55+ 2PP vote was last month? August has it 48-52 pro Rodent.
“current model is pretty crap”, that was
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything,” as they say in medical research. The same is true of polls. Polling is an inexact science. Movements of 1% here and 2% there don’t mean very much, so everyone should calm down. All we can usefully say about the polls is that most of them have shown Labor’s 2PV in the 54-56% band for the last three months, after having mostly shown it in the 58-60% band in March-April. So Labor is well ahead, but not as far ahead as they were. *IF* that trend continues (a big if), things will be about evens by November, and the election will then depend on the campaign, as most elections do. The debates will be particularly important.
I’ve found some of the reporting of the Nielsen poll mystifying. One writer this morning suggested the swing back to the government would be a relief to the government after the Galaxy poll in Bennelong. Which is a very odd thing to write, given both polls showed a 7% swing and they were both done in the same few days. The same result from two different polls can’t mean different things.
Martin B,
Correct me if I am wrong but I think Bennelong is the 15th most marginal seat so if Labor won all the seats up to Bennelong that would make it 75-73-2. I presume you are saying that the Government would fall on the basis that at least one of the two independents would support Labor to avoid a hung parliament.
To have a majority Labor would need to win the 16th seat which is Dobell on 4.8%.
All this is academic of course because swings aren’t uniform.
Wouldn’t it be funny if the Man of Steel pushed the election back to January 2008? That would leave Labor looking very silly over all their ‘Kevin 07′ hype !
They’d have to throw away all those ridiculous T-shirts, and change the website. Their rhyming slogan (what genius thought that one up, you’d have to wonder !) would be totally meaningless, and they’d be left looking the bunch of fools that they are.
So says Cerdic Conan.
Here’s an interesting poll on interest rates – funny this one doesn’t seem to get much publicity …..
“Mr Howard seized on a finding in the ACNielsen poll that only seven per cent of Australians believe interest rates would be lower under a Labor government.
“I tell you what, the 93 per cent who don’t think they would be lower under Labor are dead right,” he said.
“Labor has a bad record on interest rates. They hit 17 per cent when they were last in office and on average housing rates under us have been four and a half per cent than what they were under Labor.”
Mr Howard urged voters not to put the economy at risk by electing a Labor government.”
I hate school holidays.
Cerdic – You are far too formal these days. You really must start calling him “My darling John” LOL
AC Nielson actually asks which party people will preference, unlike Newspoll, which assumes last election’s preference flows hold. This poll is in agreement with Newspoll in 2PP, but not on PV, where News has had Labor at 47-48 and Coalition at 39-40 for the last 3 polls. On PV, this poll is close to Galaxy, so I think it can be considered an outlier in terms of the ACN series.
There is some evidence of skew in this poll, with the Dem vote going from 1% to 0% (not
Antony Green Says: The same result from two different polls can’t mean different things.
Actually, that’s exactly what it could mean. Trying to second-guess the rationalle between why someone chooses to say X or Y in a poll is not possible with polling.
The only appropriate information you can get out of polling, is a trend over time, and even then, you’re not going to be privy to the reasons behind the people who make the decisions that go into the polls. That is what is so good these days about having so many polls, and so much analysis. The ‘rogue’ polls are pulled back into the average, and that gives you a clear indication of what poeple are going to vote.
But not WHY they are going to vote a certain way.
You appear to be stuck in Enlightenment rationality
Martin J:
If it came to it, then I strongly suspect that Tony Windsor would support an ALP government, but in any case the point was about the 2PP% that the govt could win with, so “government lose its majority” was really the appropriate point rather than “ALP win a majority” regardless of what I wrote.
But as you said…
My message has been chopped in half (Aaargh!)
I was saying the Democrat decline from 1% to 0%(not less than 0.5%) implies 0 out of 1400+ were going Democrat. This is very significant as std err is prop. to sqrt(p*(1-p)); this could be evidence of skew.
About the state 2PP breakdowns, 2PP for NSW, Vic and Qld were given in July. Here are July and August Labor 2PP for these states and averages.
State Jul Aug Avg
NSW 63 56 59.5
Vic 54 51 52.5
Qld 48 57 52.5
No evidence that amalgamations are hurting Labor in Qld.
“…the PM’s approval rating of 50% is nothing short of phenomenal, when you consider he’s been in the top job for 11 years.”
Steven, it is very possible that some people are approving of Howard, not for his good governing, but for his capacity this year for undermining the Liberal’s chances of a victory. In other words, a LOT of people want to see Howard gone, so if he is seen as doing the things which they think will reduce his chances of winning, then he gets their tick of approval.
Personally, I haven’t been polled, but if I were, I can easily imagine saying YES to a question about whether I approve of Howard’s performance lately. I think he has done a fine job at digging himself into a hole!
“I’ve found some of the reporting of the Nielsen poll mystifying.”
So true A.G. What gets me is Auntys ‘good news for Howard spin’, when the Liberal so called ‘pickup’ is within Nielsen margin for error.
And Antony Green, further to that, the same thing goes for the commentariat on it. Amazing as it may seem to you, there are some people that actually beleive things, that to you, are completely nonsensical. It’s not necessarily a reflection on their intelligence (although, with some it clearly is, e.g. CC) but the order in which a particular belief structure was created.
There are a number of thought experiments for this. (and again, i’m paraphrasing N.N.Taleb) You can ask someone how many Esperanto speakers there are in Australia, how many kilometres it is from the earth to the moon, and then ask how many kilometres it is from saturn to the sun. The order in which you ask these questions will influence the average values that people answer with. It’s seems to be a biological process of our brains to see patterns where none exist, and to form constructs based upon incomplete material. We then, when we see further data, fit the data into already pre-conceived notions.
Poll analysis (like market analysis) is tailor made for this false reasoning.
Bennelong recorded a significant anti-Howard swing at the last election, which was very much against the national average. For Maxine to get a further large swing when people know it’s a real contest this time would be phenomenal, and could only be done in a real Labor landslide, or at least one in Sydney.
How many Esperanto speakers are there in Australia? How do they vote? Do they live in Bennelong? Has Howard ever commented on the level of Esperanti immigration? Is the President of Esperantistan coming to APEC?
Cerdic, thanks for reminding me of the 4th thing to note in this poll: only 7% think interest rates would be lower under Labor. Looks like their attempts to improve their economic credentials have been to no avail – the again, is that really so surprising when you consider they’ve got Wayne Swan – possibly the most unpleasant man in Parliament – as their Shadow Treasurer?
All the Government has to do is keep hammering away at Rudd’s inexperience and their own great economic record and they’re home and hosed.
Cerdic, why aren’t you at school today?
We know that there are no Esperanto speakers in Bennelong. They woulnd’t be welcome.
I think the preferred PM figure is great for Rudd. 48% to JWH 42%. Still a mile in front.
You know you’re scraping the bottom of the barrell there Steven, when you’re looking for validation in CC’s “comments”.
Adam, if memory serves me correctly, the Australian Esperanto headquarters is a 2 bedroom terrace in Newtown – no kidding. In terms of numbers, I think low teens would be a fair bet. Democrats to a man, just because they like to be different.
All you conservative supporters know how important the preferred PM vote is. Remember Denis S and the Australian have told us about that before.
At 75-73-2 Labor would need to convince one of the independents to be speaker. I don’t know much about Tony Windsor, but I expect Bob Katter Jnr as speaker would be, well, interesting.
However, I expect Ken Ticehurst in Dobell will be an unfortunate casualty in a very “presidential” election and my northern neighbours will end up with a union hack from central casting.
Do not feed the troll.
I still think the govt can close the gap – and so do the bookmakers. But they definitely need to get some movement over the next month. Once the campain start I think it will be harder rather then easier for the govt to close. The ALP is definitely holding fire. Remember the burst of work choices add that pushed the 2pp into the 60’s at the start of the year. Another wave is on the way.
I was looking back the the fortnighly newspolls and was surprised to find the govt was travelling quite well long before the election. From the end of May in 7 out of 13 polls they were at 49% 2pp or better. Latham had one rouge poll of 54% and that was it.
Today’s poll is the best the govt has had for a while but still worse than anything in the lead up to last election.
“Looks like their attempts to improve their economic credentials have been to no avail – the again..” On the contrary Steve a very healthy 58% either believe Labor would do much the same job or better economically as the coalition. It just depends on how you want to arrange and interpret the figures Steve and we all know how you want to do so don’t we?
Pi, I think your getting a little bit existential. Two polls conducted on the same day both show a 7% swing. Yet the Nielsen poll has been interpeted as a relief for the government after the Bennelong poll. The results are the same, why is it a relief?
The reporting of the Nielsen poll has followed exactly the same pattern as one or two Newspolls this year. The pattern is where a preceeding poll showed a swing against the government, up to a level of Labor vote people found a bit hard to believe. But when the next poll goes back to the level of the previous poll, at a more beleivable level, suddenly it gets written up as the government getting back in the game. I think it’s more that papers never admit that perhaps the previous poll might have over-estimated the Labor vote.
Second, all the reporting shows that despite the growth of electronic media, the newpaper headlines in the morning still sets the repartage for the rest of the day. We’ve seen that consistently with Australian reports on Newspoll. The obvious example is the report that caused the Australian to turn feral on the bloggosphere.
The charts for Morgan, Nielsen and Newspoll are all tracking in the same, almost identical, direction If they continue along these lines, it will be 52%ALP 48% Coalition on the day.
I cannot believe this latest poll on its own. It has to be read in conjunction with all the other polls.
The state by state figures are not believable, although the overall figure may be reasonably close.
It really is nonsense for the media commentators to get all excited by a single poll.
They have to have something to write about I suppose.
The interesting part will be when the campaign proper begins.
The Howard government is spending millions of our money in the meantime softening us up, but the real fight begins when the election is announced.
Certainly the ALP would seem to have far more ammunition. It depends how they use it.
The Coalition will fall back on its old chestnut about interest rates always being lower under the Coalition, with absolutely no proof to back it up.
The market has come back again today by 60 odd points when last checking. That’s about as reliable as this opinion poll in determining what will happen this week.
Well it clearly hasn’t hurt them (yet). Why is that?
Saluton, the Esperanto Centre of Australia can be found on Lawson St. in sunny Redfern, not Newtown. Apologies. Melbourne Ethnic Community Radio 3ZZZ has a one-hour Esperanto slot Monday 1pm. By god, that`s now. Unfortunately, I`m not in Aus at the moment, but suggest all of you take a step back from the polls for a minute and indulge yourselves.
Dankon
Excellent analysis Antony, there is no MSM reporting on the fact that Nielsen, Newspoll and Galaxy are all now basically 54-56 ALP TPP, a 7-9% swing.
This is still wipeout territory for the government.
Or, in other words, 64% of the people with a firm opinion think that interest rates would be the same, or lower, under Labor. Looks like the governments scare campaign isn’t biting.
But Steven’s already described his methodology in #34; ignore data that show a negative for the government and then we can clearly see that everything points to a coalition victory!
Antony Green, a 7% swing since the last election perhaps. But the latest ACNielsen would be a relief for the government in that, at least, it doesn’t show further deterioration on the last poll, despite the much dreaded rate rise.
Andrew A, I know Tony Windsor well, he is a very honourable man (and I don’t mean that in a Shakespearian sense!) and very conservative. He used to be National Party. His constituents surely would not be happy for him to put Labor in power. That may depend on what Kevin Rudd would be able to do for his constituents, on the other hand!
He would be happy to be Speaker I would imagine, but not if it meant putting the ALP into goverment.
His vote may prove vital.
Ah, you miss the subtlety of the GG’s analysis. Denis points out that the Opposition leader needs to have a preferred PM lead 12 months out from an election. It doesn’t matter how big the PPM rating is when Howard is ‘bottoming out’ closer to the election…
netvegetable, you could run the argument that in uncertain economic times, for example last week’s market meltdown, that people run for cover with the status quo.
It may also be that that poll was very quirky.
Each election there seem to be rogue polls which suddenly have the other side in front or gaining hugely only to swing back the following poll.
Let’s see if Morgan confirms this poll on Friday.
In any case, you cannot take a single poll as a trend.
I didn’t explain my point about Pi’s analysis based on different people seeing the world differently.
It’s more mundane than that. It’s newspapers pay for their polls, so thats what they report. The SMH and Age have reported their poll in comparison to their other polls, not to the polls of other papers.
I’ve only once seen a newspaper ignore its own poll and report its opponent. I was covering the 1997 UK election in London. The Daily Telegraph’s own poll showed no change, a continuing landslide victory for Labour. A Guardian poll out the same day saw Labour’s vote sliding. The Telegraph put its opponents better poll all over its front page. It was remarkable to see.
There is a mindset in Canberra that Bennelong is somhow immune from the national swing. Every single national poll conducted this year has been of sufficient size to see Benelong falling to Labor. The only two polls conducted in Bennelong have shown exactly the same swings as the National polls done at the same time.
Just do a two-by-two probability box, who wins government across the top, who wins Bennelong down the side. The most likely probabilties lie in the Labor-Labor or Liberal-Liberal boxes. The Lab-Lib or Lib-Lab combinations are the least likely. And every poll has backed a Labor-Labor result for Bennelong and government. If the polls improve for the government, I’d expect them to improve in Bennelong and across the country at the same rate.
Sportingbet has moved back to ALP $1.51, Coalition $2.50 at 1pm from ALP $1.58, Coalition $2.35 this morning. Must have been a couple of bets on the ALP
Indeed, one can, and people do, argue that.
In other words, good economic outlook makes people reelect the government.
OTOH bad economic outlook makes people reelect the government.
Hence we conclude that the government will be reelected.
Nor, as has been oft-reminded but apparently needs to be more-oft-reminded can one estimate a reliable trend starting from a single poll. As long as everyone insists on starting their trends from the always-unbelievable 60-40 poll then we will be seeing a trend towards the government all the way to the election because the ALP will never reach those heights again. But it will continue to be an exercise in figure massage.
The 56-44 result in WA would see Swan Cowan and even Brand come into play if Labor is routed in WA Rudd can kiss the election goodbye…the latest westpoll was rogue considering pervious westpolls AC is more in line with a consistent Liberal lead…
Anything below 55-45 once the election is called and Howard has a chance of winning if Labor is ahead by more than 55-45 then it would be over…still i dispute that Labors vote is so high in QLD and SA but clearly they are ahead of the Coalition….
The 56-44 result in WA would see Swan Cowan and even Brand come into play if Labor is routed in WA Rudd can kiss the election goodbye…the latest westpoll was rogue considering previous westpolls AC is more in line with a consistent Liberal lead…
Anything below 55-45 once the election is called and Howard has a chance of winning if Labor is ahead by more than 55-45 then it would be over…still i dispute that Labors vote is so high in QLD and SA but clearly they are ahead of the Coalition….
New to this site. Is that the real Antony Green?
I’ve been a political junkie for years and it seems to me the cycle works something like this: the Libs run the joint for yonks and ignore such things as social equity, fairness, honesty … they would sell their granny for the skin. Then, when it all begins to stink to high heaven, Labor is elected to clean up the mess. I reckon we have reached that point.
If the poll in Bennelong is right and rolls through to the election, it will be a fitting end for the most destructive PM in Australian political history.
Antony, I understand your reasoning, but my point remains. Analysis over the weekend or today, might have depended upon 2PP, or Primary votes. They might depend upon prefered prime-minister, or prime-minister satisfaction levels (which might/might not play a part in the PM’s seat). A given commentators analysis might have depended upon 2PP then P, then Sat, then Pref… or Pref, P, Sat to 2PP. Or P, Sat, 2PP, Pref… or something completely different, and in a completely different combination.
So analysis, depending on which way the data is interpreted, would lead to completely different theories. The funny thing is, probably all of them would be wrong, for a multitude of different reasons. There is reason to be both positive and negative on all of the polls over the past week, and be both right and wrong.
It’s not that what we know about what goes into the polls (a little bit)… it’s what we DON’T know that goes into the polls (a massive amount) that influences any rational analysis. But if we relied upon knowing more than we didn’t know about a subject, before we made the analysis, we wouldn’t have any attempt at forecasting, and only do analysis on previous elections.
Re this poll
still suggests change of Govt
but state figures do not make sense
SWINGS
NSW 10% to alp (best ever?)
QLD 15% ” (never polled that good since at least 1949)
WA 2 to l ib
VIc 2_3 to Alp
SA approx 12_14 % To ALP (sorry Don’t remember 2PP 2004)
I suggest this poll can only be looked at as a total figure only
That’s the interesting thing that I think just could be going on. It would seem to run contrary to the accepted wisdom.
It may well be indeed. Or it may not be. But as you say, we might get an idea from the next Morgan.
On the previous thread it was shown (I can’t remember by who sorry) that according to Bennelong’s demographics, it should now be a Labor seat now. Do you think Howard has a personal vote in that seat that may help him retain it? My irrational feeling is he will still win the seat because there will be a group of voters that like the idea of having the P.M. as their local member. You seem to be saying that Bennelong is a MUST WIN seat for the ALP to form government, but surely Bennelong is an exception because of its status as the P.M.’s seat?
Am I the only one who thinks that the theory of a swampy Venus was actually a fairly logical theory based on the available information at the time?
Yes, it was speculation, but it was speculation that fitted the known facts.
Besides, if your definition of swamp is a place of stagnant pools of liquid or gas, then surface of Venus might be said to have “swamps” of some gases and liquid metals.
The Coalition could win say a tiny majority with 48% of the two party vote. They won a 13 seat majority on 48.6% of the two party vote back in 1998.
The Coalition is trying to keep the marginals, while allowing the margins to decrease in more safer seats.
Remember Rudd is the best hope Labor will have for a while in getting back into office (Bill Shorten could become Labor leader but that is like a decade away and Lindsay Tanner probably does not have the support in the party coming from Left faction).
The only possible alternative to Rudd if Labor loses the election as Labor leader is Julia Gillard. I do feel Howard know this and if he can win this election, winning in 2010 will be easier especially if Gillard is Labor Leader.
Derek Corbett is a touch confused. What happens is that Labor run things for a while, completely stuff up the economy (ruining hundreds and thousands of lives in the process, causing suicides etc) and the Libs are then voted in to sort things out.
Pi, I was wrong, you’re not being existential, you’re dabbling in epistemology. I assure you, journalists have to write up expensive opinion polls commissioned by their papers. A brief page five item saying nothing hasn’t changed won’t do. It has to go on the frontpage with breakouts inside. And as always occurs, to fill column inches, it is easier to write about things that have changed rather than things that are the same. And they don’t engage in obscure debates about the nature of knowledge.
Isn’t this overly cautious? In theory Howard can win with 47.5 or 48, but more likely he needs at least 49 2pp to win. The way preferences are flowing that means a primary vote of 44 or 45, which is about 5% above where has been all year.
Yes Glen. A 1% swing to the government in WA that delivers 2 seats will more than offset a 17% swing in SA that loses 7 seats and a 10% swing in Qld that loses 8 seats.
But I can see that you ascribe to the SK methodology of dismissing negative results as unbelievable while acclaiming the absolute truth of the positive ones.
As Adam says there are many of us here that accept that there is a long way to go and that much can change before the election. But please don’t insult our intellegience by suggesting that the current indications suggest a government win; they don’t. Current indications suggest an electoral wipeout.
Peter Hartcher’s contributions to this genre are at least a lot more balanced than Shanahan’s. Hartcher frequently explains that trends are more important than individual polls, and even quotes the pollster saying this may be the start of the trend, or just a single insignificant blimp. My guess is the editor of the paper decided to run the big headline saying Howard is on the way back.
Simon, no, I’m not saying it is not a ‘must win’ seat. I’m talking probability, not causality. I’m just saying, in the four possibilities of who wins Bennelong and who wins government, the most likely combinations are Lab-Lab and Lib-Lib. The cross-products are less likely, and that’s a view backed by the fact that the only two local polls conducted have tended to reflect the national polls published in the same period.
But Simon it is fair to say that once the election is called some of Rudd’s support will shift…Howard did start the 2004 poll behind 53-47 or 52-48 and ended up with 53-47 on election day that is making up around 4-6 points in the election campaign…if Howard is 55-45 down then it is possible for him to get to 49-51 and barely hang on anything more than 55-45 once it is called and i doubt he could claw back that even though he is good at coming from behind to win…
Preference flows in every poll have savaged the Coalition’s vote and i wonder whether this is truly representative…
In all fairness to Glen, if the Coalition can pick up a couple of seats in WA, it could offset say 2-3 seats lost in SA, 1-2 seats in Tasmania, 2-3 seats in NSW, 5 seats in Queensland, plus Solomon in NT. Giving the Coalition at least the most seats in a hung parliament or a slender majority.
Especially if the election turns out to be far closer than predicted.
I went over this in detail on another thread (except that there the hypothesis was Coalition with 75). Without going over all that again, if one side has 75, the other 73, and there are 2 Independents, the side with 75 seats will not need to convince one of the Independents to be Speaker (although it would help). All they will need to do is convince the 2 Independents that it would not be a good idea to force the country back to the polls almost immediately. I don’t think they will take much convincing.
The polls have been shocking for the Coalition in recent months, any improvement in the polls can be interpreted as a ray of hope.
As I have been saying the Coalition’s Primary vote is now around 41% in the opinion. Say at election day the Greens get 7%, Family First 4% (recent state elections in Victoria and SA have had family first polling that much or more) and Others at 4%. That would put the Coalition at around 47% of the two party vote, by election day in November the Coalition would win 50% of the two party vote, giving it a narrow majority.
I agree Tristan the Coalition if it wants to hold onto power has to pour alot of money and effort into WA it is absolutely crucial they hold their marginals and pick up 1 or 2 seats to offset loses in SA and QLD in particular…
Would a hung Parliament and a Rudd victory mean that if Turnbull got in instead of Costello that Rudd could possibly be defeated in 2010 given the ALP will be barely in power…perhaps the best thing for Rudd is a small Coalition majority say 3-4 but with its safe or fairly safe seats down to around 5% margins so that they can be snapped up in 2010…
Julia Gillard, like Lindsay Tanner, is affiliated with the Left. This has exactly the same effect on her chances of becoming leader as it does on his, namely reducing them to practically nil.
On the other hand, I can’t accept the idea that there is no other possible alternative. Nobody else may be _likely_, but that doesn’t mean nobody else is _possible_. Exactly how long before Steve Bracks became leader did that become possible?
The best thing _for Rudd_ would obviously be a Labor victory of unprecedentedly colossal proportions. I don’t expect this, but it would obviously be the best thing _for Rudd_.
Question…would Hewson havedefeated Hawke in 1993 had Hawky stayed in power???
We are looking at a Hawke vs Hewson contest in 2007 but with Howard and Rudd if the Coalition wins and they dump Rudd their only shining light they would have no talent to lift them back up again…
Could one of you lefties out there please explain to me precisely what credentials Mr. Dudd has to be PM of this country, and why you think he’d be so good at it? In your response, please refrain from making negative comments about John Howard (which are designed to obscure the issue of Dudd’s lack of experience), and point to actual concrete examples of experience and performance that prove that Dudd is up to the job. This is an analysis that needs to be done objectively. You need to list all Dudd’s actual achievements and government experience. These can then be tallied up against John Howard’s actual achievements and government experience, and a judgment can be made as to who has the best experience for the job and the most impressive achievements. Are you up to the challenge? Does Dudd have any actual achievements to his credit? You tell me …. So says Cerdic Conan.
Glen,
A minority Labor government, might actually led to such a Labor government winning by a landslide in 2009 or 2010. The Australian electoral landscape actually favors the Labor party, witness the relative easy state Labor governments have had in being re-elected and difficulty the federal coalition has had, despite a good economy.
This electoral shift started to occur back when Whitlam was PM, over the years while Labor support has declined among tradespersons, it has increased in many other social groups (including professionals, white collar workers etc, who all used to be very strongly Liberal supporting). Plus the increase in people of a Non-European background has benefited Labor as well
Richard, what do you think he would do if his choice lay between allowing Labor to hold government (on the one hand) and forcing the country back to the polls almost immediately (on the other)?
The idea being that the independent has the opportunity to be the umpire rather than be (potentially) sidelined completely after a subsequent poll?
If neither side could form government how long would it actually take for a second poll and (heading into hypothetical fantasy land here) how would the issue of ongoing deadlocked parliaments be resolved?
Oh, I’d like to withdraw my “union hack” comment above. I haven’t yet met a career unionist I’d give time of day to, but no reason to label the Labor candidate for Dobell as such.
Yes but that is speculation based on hypothesised movement between now and the election, not an analysis of the current polls. You can’t just take the WA figure from this poll and ignore the SA and Qld results.
As I said, if you want to say that things will change, and suggest how they will change, then that is fair enough. But it is not reflected in the current poll.
In any case the situation you and Glen describe is IMO unlikely. It is possible that the election will be so close that WA is crucial. But it is far more likely that the swing (or not) in Qld, NSW and SA will be sufficiently large (or small) that WA is irrelevant.
I was chatting to my good friend Aesop and was discussing with him the current political climate in Australia. He mentioned that he had been observing the situation rather closely and offered a couple of his famed fables that he believed, summed up the state of play. You may well have heard of one or perhaps even both, but like a classic film, they are always worth revisiting.
THE ASS & HIS BURDENS.
A pedlar who owned an ass, one day bought a quantity of salt, and loaded up his beast with as much as he could bear. On the way home the ass stumbled as he was crossing a stream and fell into the water. The salt got thoroughly wetted and much of it melted and drained away, so that, when he got on his legs again, the ass found his load had become much less heavy. His master, however, drove him back to town and bought more salt, which he added to what remained in the panniers, and started out again. No sooner had they reached the stream than the ass lay down in it, and rose, as before, with a much lighter load. But his master detected the trick, and turning back once more, bought a large number of sponges, and piled them on the back of the ass. When they came to the stream, the ass again lay down: but this time, as the sponges soaked up large quantities of water, he found, when he got up on his legs, that he had a bigger burden to carry than ever.
Moral: you may play a good card once too often.
THE SHEPHERD’S BOY & THE WOLF
The shepherd’s boy was tending his flock near a village, and thought it would be great fun to hoax the villagers by pretending that a wolf was attacking the sheep: so he shouted out, ‘Wolf! wolf!’ and when the people came running up he laughed at them for their pains. He did this more than once, and every time the villagers found they had been hoaxed, for there was no wolf at all. At last a wolf really did come, and the boy cried, ‘Wolf! wolf!’, as loud as he could: but the people were so used to hearing him call that they took no notice of his cries for help. And so the wolf had it all his own way, and killed off sheep after sheep at his leisure.
Moral: you cannot believe a liar even when he tells the truth.
Poll after poll seem to show no relevance to what has happened in the last week. Its like watching a game at Telstra Dome with the the scoreboard showing the scores from the MCG.
As all four polls have aligned to a 54 – 56 ALP 2pp could it be that most people have decided who they are voting for?
The polls also continue to show the Labor is getting the swing where it needs it – the Galaxy Bennelong poll is further indication of that.
Cannot understand why they bother printing the state by state numbers – it makes everybody look like an idiot.
But Martin every Westpoll bar the recent one had the Libs out by 54-46 or 55-45 thus AC is more in line with consistent Westpolls and is thus more relative to the actual vote…i dont know about local polls in QLD and SA but if the SA vote was the same on election day that would be a 17% swing to Labor highly unlikely, clearly they are ahead but by that much…unlikely…
Cerdic there is no way u can compare Krudd to the Man of Steel one has been PM and Opposition leader and Treasurer and one has worked for Wayne Goss and DFAT…Rudd could well be a good Labor PM but he’ll be terrible if he’s put in with so little experience…
In the similar way that the overall federal result for this AC Nielsen poll is consistent with almost every other federal voting intention poll taken over the last 6 months and hence should be even more believable.
And since we’ve had the “JWH = 3% over the campaign” hypothesis mentioned a few times above I will again remind readers that while Howard certainly did win the 2004 campaign against Latham he at best broke even in his 1996, 1998 and 2001 campaigns.
Cerdic Conan if you would like a serious answer to your question its probably worth referring it to “Kevin Rudd supporters” (as most of us don’t consider ourselves “Lefties”). It would also help if you used his correct name (Kevin Rudd or Rudd).
Likewise I tend to ignore posts that call the PM “Rodent” (although it does make me laugh). In the late ’60s when I was at primary school we used to refer to the DLP as “Dumb Litter Punks” but that was because at the time I only had a grade 5 education.
Oh, and in the interests of accuracy, it’s worth pointing out that only 1 out of the 5 previous Westpolls have shown a movement to the government and hence potential gain of 2 seats. Four out of 5 have shown some movement to the ALP.
If you aggregate the 5 polls you get a swing to the ALP of 4%, which would not just save its 2 marginals but deliver 2 government seats to the ALP.
If you decide that this latest is a rogue and aggregate the 4 previous then you still get a swing of 2.6% to the ALP for the same gain.
Of course if you decide that 4 out of the last 5 were rogue polls and only the June Westpoll was an accurate reflection of voting intention then you can (just) get a 2 seat gain for the coalition.
I fear Stephen Kaye is a touch hysterical (suicides, indeed). Probably reflects the state of mind of the Howard government.
So this poll at best may have 200 people surveyed from WA and is considered more accurate than one that has 400 surveyed showing the opposite to what the conservative supporters here desire. What a joke. Who is kidding who? Whatever makes you feel good people.
We even had one character suggest that this poll proves the Westpoll is wrong, thus giving the state breakup credence then overlooking the Queensland figure. Do you give this Queensland figure credence as well?
J-D If Labor were to gain one more seat than the Coalition, Tony Windsor would most likely allow Kevin Rudd to form government. He would be in a very strong position for a while to gain benefits for his constituency.
You could be pretty certain that Kevin Rudd would call an election before the three year term was up, provided the numbers favoured him.
Also there could be a vote of no confidence in the government before the term was up. One would think that Kevin Rudd would prefer to go at the time of his own choosing and studiously avoid that.
Derek, perhaps in much the same way that those disagreeing with the government intervention in aboriginal communities are supporters of child abuse, those who were against the war in Iraq supported terrorism, people supporting Rudd`s economic policies are promoters of suicide. You know it makes sense. I`m Boll.
As a rider, if the numbers were even, he would favour the Coalition.
Antony Green points out the parallelism between Bennilong and the nation as a whole.
Sportingbet odds have a Cao;ition victory at $2.50 and a McKew victory at $2.35.
Perhaps there is an opportunity there.
I think this is a very good point. Furthermore, Rudd is a far better debater in parliament than Howard. The only TV debate Howard has won was in 1996. There will only be one this time, and Rudd has everything to gain from it, whereas Howard knows at best he can only break even.
Latest Rumor from Crikey re Poll Date.
“The mailman always knows. Whilst out and about on the “Your Rights At Work†campaign in the weekend, a number of Australia Post employees (office and delivery staff) told me that they were told that they are unable to take leave in October. One has had his Long Service Leave (planned for a number of months) rescinded. Now why would that be?”
I reckon Howard will call the poll for December 1 as he will use CHOGM as his swansong with the other Commonwealth Leaders and it woulds be political suicide to be holding a poll smack bang in the middle of the Spring Racing Carnival, especially on the Satgurday before and after the cup.
The game is on ladies and gentleman. Take your seats and grab your binocolars, the horses at at the time clock, about to swing around into the straight- and right on cue it’s beginning to rain. Rudd is out in front on his own at the moment, can he stay the distance ?
Question is STROP can Rudd’s even more inexperienced front bench stay the distance….no…
I think Howard would have a cold sweat with this poll. It looks very ominous.
Scanning down it would have been obvious that the Victorian and WA figures were just plain wrong, not even close.
WA has been at around 50/50 all year and of course 56/44 last week and the opposite this week. So the reasonable assumption would have to be around 50/50 until further notice. Victoria has been 58/42 all year so 51/49 has to be nonsense even for the most optomistic.
NSW has come back a few points to 56/44 and is reasonable. Tasmania and SA have been polled as a white wash all year so no surprises here though a little on the optomistic side for Labor.
Then Qld coming up at 57/43 when it has been 54/46 all year would have made Howard weak at the knees. Thats a whole bunch of seats right there, enough to win the election if all other things stay the same or thereabouts.
So Howard would have scanned the report noting a whole bunch of errors to be basically discarded and then a little voice in the back of his mind about Qld – ‘it cant be that bad can it?’ Probably an over statement, another error – but something to worry about for sure.
The only thing this poll does is raises questions about the vote in Qld. It otherwise as a whole the poll seems titlted towards the Govt but within the error range? Probably 56-57 in line with the other polls. Basically little movement at all.
If internal polling confirms a further shift for Rudd in Qld watch Howard and co run off to Qld giving them squillions.
N.S.W: ALP: 56, COAL: 44
VIC: ALP: 51, COAL: 49(WTF)
QLD: ALP: 57, COAL: 43(WTF)
SA: ALP: 62, COAL: 38
WA: COAL: 56, ALP: 44
Bran Mc, there’s a sever disjoin between the overall adds and the seat odds. All the bookies are firming for Labor overall, but the individual seat odds at both PortlandBet and SportingBet fail to have Labor ahead in 16 seats. To borrow from economics, perhaps the seat odds are a lagging indicator.
Frank Calabrese says “it woulds be political suicide to be holding a poll smack bang in the middle of the Spring Racing Carnival, especially on the Satgurday before and after the cup.”
It wasn’t political suicide in 2001 when the election was held on Nov10, which is also a possible date this year and is the Saturday after the cup.
With the betting market does it depend on which type of people usually take a punt? I know that I have never bet on horse race or the like.
Antony, I think it’s a bit like the footy tipping competition. You know that there will be an upset each week but the problem is which one. Here, you know that with the opinion polls as they are that seats will fall but the problem is to pick which ones. The punters have gone for the obvious marginals but outside those which ones would you put your dough on at this stage as there are just so many that could fall.
Cerdic, your first two comments on this thread were of such poor quality that I deleted them and put you in moderation. Your last two comments haven’t made it through: one boringly repeated a point you had already made, the other consisted of a laundry list of Labor MPs with insults attached (and yes, I have deleted similar efforts from the other side of the political fence in the past and will continue to do so in future). You haven’t done anything to warrant being banned, but you do need to lift your game if you want to avoid wasting your time.
William Bowe
Ministry of Truth
http://www.pollbludger.com
The answer to your first question is: that’s only part of the idea. The idea is also that elections consume time and resources and that therefore: (a) the Independents might sincerely feel that forcing another election so rapidly was not a good thing; (b) the Independents might fear attracting hostility for forcing another election so rapidly; (c) the Independents might want to avoid the drain on their own time and resources of another election so soon.
I don’t know the answer to the first part of your second question, but the only possible resolution for the problem of repeatedly deadlocked Parliaments is constitutional change. This is not so hypothetical as you might think: back when its House of Assembly had a membership of 30, Tasmania eventually developed a procedure to deal specifically with the problem of 15-15 deadlocks.
It wasn’t political suicide in 2001 when the election was held on Nov10, which is also a possible date this year and is the Saturday after the cup.
“Political Suicide” is clearly hyperbolic, but mildly interestingly 2001 is the closest that any federal election has been held to the Cup. The 1925 and 1928 were two weekends after the Cup while the 1937 and 1969 elections were two weekends before the Cup.
Probably largely random noise.
William Bowe – I don’t consider any time I spend educating lefty loonies and pointing out inconvenient truths to them (and by the way, Al Gore stole my line!) to be wasted. I have a difficult, but necessary role. So says Cerdic Conan.
Anthony,
Yes, the divergence between seat odds and overall odds is interesting. I think the overall odds are the best indication as they is far and away where the bulk of the money has been laid on the table.
As this blog shows talk is cheap. Where people are prepared to pony up there own money is much more revealing.
Is it possible to calculate William the numbers of right, left and independent supporters on pollbludger??
There could be a thread where people could voluntarily post the results of the Ozpolitics Test. See here:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/
It probably isn’t completely accurate, but if everyone answers the same questions then it would at least be accurate for that test.
Of course it is, Glen. What’s stopping you? The last time STROP said he was never coming here again, I did a quick count of that particular thread and found 60 anti-government comments against 12 pro-government, which is about what I would have expected.
Seems like the right answer to me William
Lets assume the state breakdowns are correct (just as an exercise) it still means a 24 seat gain by labor. (including losing two in WA).
A comfortable majority.
Make that 3 ALP loses in WA if that figure was uniform across Swan Cowan and Brand…
ruawake,
I did that exercise too (just for fun) but got 35 seats. including 17 in Qld, 10 in NSW and 7 in SA.
Interestingly, applying the nationwide swing of 8% to all states also produced 35 seats so there seems to be a certain robustness in the pendulum.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=96b3d3c73ee94369dbb30c7c43020a9f
No smart comments asking how comfortable the fence is…
I think the reason why the ALP is ahead overall with the bookies, but not ahead in 16 seats, is that people dont know which seats to bet on. There are 10-13 seats that could fall easily, but the rest are up in the air. Portland has the ALP ahead in 14 government marginal seats, and behind in one of its own (Swan). For example in the seats outside the 5% range there are some very close markets at Portland, with the ALP behind
Bowman ALP 2.15, LNP 1.6
Flynn ALP 2.45, LNP 1.5
Herbert ALP 2.08, LNP 1.7
Hinkler ALP 2.20, LNP 1.62
Page ALP 2.00, LNP 1.7
Also there are a couple in the 5% range where ALP is close.
Bennelong ALP 2.40, LNP 1.48
Stirling ALP 1.90, LNP 1.80
Swan ALP 1.90, LNP 1.80
Only takes 3 of these to move to ALP and 16 is reached.
Out of interest Sportingbet has similar seat numbers, except it has the ALP ahead in Stirling and Swan
I’m not sure that holding Government with the help of an independent would be a huge problem it would be better than losing by 2 – 3 seats.
The Bracks goverment did it with 2 independents in 99. The Liberals were in disarray and he won in 2002 with a huge majority, 58 – 59% of the vote.
Sorry forgot to add
Deakin ALP 2.05, LNP 1.70
McMillan ALP 2.45, LNP 1.50
Dear Antony
I have read here and on other sites that Labor needs to get 51.4% of the votes to get a majority. Isn’t this a major flaw in our electoral system? Couldn’t the AEC draw the boundaries so that Labor could take power closer to 50%?
Glen, you’ve made factual inaccuracies in just about every post so far, but please make them a bit harder to spot.
The AC Nielsen WA result was 44/56.
The last federal election result in WA was 44.6/55.4.
Thus this poll shows somewhere between 0.2% and 1.1% swing to the government (depending on the rounding in the reported ACN figure.)
Brand is on a margin of 4.6%. It is not even close to being threatened by a result such as this.
No way, I’m a freakin’ Democrat! So long as I’m on the Senator Murray wing then that’s OK.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3fa2eec8be10036267a547ab40e04dc0
Howard has called 3 elections while being prime minister, they were on the October 3rd 1998, November 10 2001 and October 9 2004.
I posted here some time ago that Howard must like early October elections, and only postponed the 2001 election due to the terrorist attacks in september, however someone pointed out that to have had an election in early october 2001 Howard would have had to call it in the first week if september, before the attacks. So he obviously wasn’t planning an early october election in 2001.
I have not been able to find any reason why Howard didn’t follow the early oct pattern in 2001, but I have a feeling if someone had any idea why it may give an indication of what factors Howard weighs up when considering an election date.
(In case you are wondering, the ALP prefers to have elections in march)
If you noticed what i wrote Martin you’ll see that i said if that result translated to every seat the Coalition would pick up Brand…nevertheless the Union stooge they put in that seat who has links with Brian Burke will win but im betting his margin will be shaved…
Ah, but Late Nov/early Dec is an all-around favourite
Although late in the day, I still think Howard will get the tap from the party. It’s probably the Libs’ last desperate hope, a Costello honeymoon. It would not work, of course, because poor Peter is quite unelectable. And there’s no one else: Abbott is barking mad, Nelson is loopy, Downer is just silly, Turnbull is too new …
Howard would hate it because there’s a slim chance that Costello would undermine his precious legacy. After all, Costello’s brother, the Reverend Tim, might have discussed things like ethics and stuff. Doubt if it would have sunk in, though.
How much credence do we give to leaked internal party polling?
Yes, if the 44/56 result was translated to every seat then the government would win a landslide 15 seats in WA!
Of course if the 56/44 result in NSW translated to every seat there would be a landslide pickup of all 49 seats. ACN poll says that Mitchell will fall with a 27% swing!
Now if you wouldn’t mind, I’d prefer to get back to some rational analysis that might actually be vaguely meaningful.
Bookies odds are just a function of distribution of bets in the pool. These books have been open for months in some cases and the actual odds are really only a good guide when all the bets are in close to polling day
We should be following the weight of new money. Earlier this year the betting told a different story to the polls because the punters expected Howard to come home strongly a la 2004. The rate at which Labor is shortening everywhere suggests the punters now believe the polls and there’s absolutely nothing new going on the Coalition. There’s still a lot of value out there for those of you who fancy a flutter on K07 but get on soon because at this rate they’ll be unbackable before too much longer. And CC – the bookies would really like to see the colour of your money right now.
Simon Howson – that political outlook test on Ozpolitics puts me down as a Nationals voter, and I’ve never voted for the Nationals in my life!
Martin J
I was being conservative
NSW + 11
VIC no change
QLD + 10
SA + 5
WA -2
Of course you could probably add TAS + 2
Given that this time last election the Govt. was leading 42-39 on primary vote (ACN 13-15 Aug) it shows they are much farther behind.
I’m a Liberal who knew????????
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=595ec3e5aade261a11c596120a1f75ee
That’s because you have to problem torturing kittens. If you pick that option, you come out liberal.
sigh… spelling errors in sarcasm never sound right.
74
Martin B Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
“Nor, as has been oft-reminded but apparently needs to be more-oft-reminded can one estimate a reliable trend starting from a single poll. As long as everyone insists on starting their trends from the always-unbelievable 60-40 poll then we will be seeing a trend towards the government all the way to the election because the ALP will never reach those heights again. But it will continue to be an exercise in figure massage.”
Martin, you have just given me an interesting exercise to undertake with “Bryan’s” trend line graphs.
I would assume that from my memory of them, that the “Trend Line” would then drop and “Flat Line”. They would not look very good to the Coalition supporters as it would indicate clearly that the vote is locked in and unlikely to move.
Any movement to give a semblance of hope then would have to exceed possibly two percent movement to the Libs which would be virtually impossible I believe.
I hope no WA Libs are drafted in to help Howard out if this is their level of political strategy.
“Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop has categorically ruled out a move into State politics to help boost the Liberal Party which is suffering historically low levels of support under the leadership of Paul Omodei.
Ms Bishop yesterday snubbed recent calls from a senior member of the Liberal Party for her to take over the leadership reins six years after a similar plan was hatched by former premier Richard Court. ”
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=8876
Huh – can someone explain what my score means – I’ve got Liberal, Labor and Democrats close to each other:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=6088065dd4d6cdf4e5c577bc200c362b
Btw, ruawake, you can probably add +1 for NT as well
I wonder why it said you were a National. A preference for more centrist / protectionist economic policies perhaps?
Which electorate do you live in. You don’t have to say if you don’t want.
It said I am a Democrat, I have voted Democrat once, in 1998. But that was essentially strategic, because the Democrat had a greater chance of winning the seat (Mayo) than the ALP candidate.
Now I’m in Sturt, which is home of the 40 year old (today) Lord Warden of the Aged. Curiously his campaign office is now in the seat of Adelaide.
I think it means you’d either be on the left wing of the Liberal party, or right wing of the Labor party. Your liberal position on traditional values is skewing the free market positions on economic policies. So you are essentially a libertarian, you think government should stay out of people’s affairs be they economic or social.
(No, I’m not trying to start an argument, just trying to decode what it means)
Just a poke in the psephological dark: its strikes me that while part of the “soft vote” thesis has merit (ie that campaigns shift swinging voters) it seems to be travelling in the MSM with a corollary thesis with rather less evidence (that it will trend towards median, narrowing the gap).
My take is that we have a pretty solid range of primary vote support over a long period of time now, and its basically putting ALP primary between a 44 base and 49 high; LNP between a 39 base and 42 high.
My point is not that this will be cast in bronze in an election camapign – it may shift outside the range – but rather this: there’s no inherent reason to suspect that the campaign will shift the floating voters towards the coalition. A good campaign from Rudd may indeed shift LNP primary back to its fairly unshiftable base – which seems to be 39.
And 2nd: the coalition really needs to outperform the ALP now. If the ALP “unshiftable” primary is 44% – the coalition has a very narrow margin of error with the “swingers”. They’ll have to convert the overwhelming majority. eg Can they let it get as high as 45 and still have buckleys??
To be fair to Bryan he does mention that his starting point is arbitrary and questionable. However I don’t think all of the commentators that use those graphs pick up on the significance of that.
I did a quick analysis a little while ago, but it wasn’t super-rigorous so I’d be interested to see what you do. From memory if you do a linear regression from anytime before March or after March, then the “trend to the government” basically disappears.
Fact is the Libs need to have a primary vote equal and more likely above that of Labors to win the election…they are on 41% and ALP are on 46% thus the Libs still need to make up 3% primary vote to get ahead of Labor unless they can do this they’ll lose…nevertheless many national polls downgrade the National Party vote or just combine it into a Coalition vote thus the Nats who i believe will poll at 6% during the election would require the Libs to have a primary vote close to 40% needed to win…
Apparently, according to the poll thingy, I’m Green, Dem, Labor … er, not right. Bit of fun, though.
Yes, if the 44/56 result was translated to every seat then the government would win a landslide 15 seats in WA!
This also could be another one of those mistakes made in writing up the final results. We saw this in a previous poll which took 24 hours or so to be corrected ie they may have inadvertantly reversed the WA figures.
This would make the overall figures look more realistic.
I agree with Lefty E’s observations. The government has two problems, their primary vote is stuck around 40, and they aren’t getting a strong flow of preferences. They need to fix two problems, they need another 5% on the primary vote, and they need a majority of the preferences to make the election line ball. I just can’t see them solving both problems, especially in an election where environmental issues will be more important than at any election since 1990.
Environmental issues alone may add an extra 1 percent on the green reps and senate vote compared to 2004, and thus make it more likely that preferences flow more strongly to Labor than to the government.
In the previous thread some people toyed with the idea that one of the government’s strategies could be to become more green than the ALP. If their primary vote doesn’t move over the next four weeks, then maybe a preference heavy strategy like Labor’s in 1990 is their best chance of creeping home.
Maybe this is where Family First comes in, because the government could expect a majority of FF’s preferences. But surprisingly in some electorates in S.A. Labor gets as much as 40 or 45% of FF preferences. So again, that would leak votes away from the government.
I hate Family First…just as im sure the supporters ALP hates the Greens…
For one simple reason…they TAKE OUR VOTES!!!!!!!
Truth be told the minor parties generally do better than in the national polls and if Labor’s primary lead is made up from Greens who might go back to them come election day Labor’s primary lead may well be inflated…
Simon Howson Says: So you are essentially a libertarian, you think government should stay out of people’s affairs be they economic or social.
… unless you’re a liberal/national party supporter, in which case you believe that if you come from a muslim background, the government should dictate whether you can, or can’t, live in this country.
You’re forgetting that 75 – 80% of Green’s preferences go to the ALP.
Also Possum has shown that what the ALP has acheived under Rudd is getting Liberal first preferences votes to shift to minor parties, but then into Labor first preference votes. See here:
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/for-whom-the-inertia-tolls/
This makes it very difficult for the government to get them back once people have decided to switch over to a different major party. Usually that sort of change takes time, the government needs the change of the last 2.5 years be reversed in the space of 2 or 3 months.
This is why people are starting to feel that only a major screw up on Rudd’s party, or a catastrophy of some sort can save the government.
Actually Pi it was Malcolm Fraser a ‘Liberal’ who let in the majority of Australia’s muslims from Lebanon…but i dont see a problem in deciding whether people would be best able to assimilate into our community as a precursor as to whether they are granted citizenship…
Japan’s immigration policy is Japan for the Japanese yet nobody calls them racist…apparently its ok to lump western countries with the bottom of the barrel of global society…Pi think of the Dutch because eventually they’ll be more Muslim Dutch than anlgo-celtic Dutch people…that is sad!
The current government isn’t very libertarian, they are pragmatic and opportunistic. It only takes a marginal seat in Tasmania to turn Howard into a socialist!
When they do try to turn ideology directly into policy they run the risk of losing the elections, e.g. 1998 and now. My guess is this is because the Liberal party doesn’t really debate their philosophy, they are essentially a loose coalition of anti-unionists. This means they have libertarians, conservatives, and liberals (in the U.S. sense). The fact they are in coalition with the National is funny, because most Nationals are far more protectionist and interventionist than Liberals.
Are there any self confessed Libertarians in the Federal parliament?
That’s why the Nats should join the Liberal Party formally….
Didn’t Rudd say that he would adopt “Family Impact Statements” at the recent God Summit?
If I remember correctly that may equate to more FF preferences flowing to the ALP.
Last election John Howard said he would do the same but didn’t.
If the S.A. elections are anything to go by, FF preferences seem to vary a great deal at different electorates. In some electorates it is close to 50/50 split, whereas in others the flows are far more (70 – 80%)towards the Liberal candidate. Perhaps it depends on if the Liberal and Labor candidates are themselves religious , church goers, or have vocal opinions on issues such as abortion, euthenasia etc?
Personally I hope those topics always remain conscience issues, and that we don’t have candidates attacking each other over things like abortion and gay marriage. I envy the U.S. participatory democracy, but that sort of campaigning is something we don’t need to import.
Well Labor did help elect Fielding in 2004…
Still they are uber conservative…something Rudd would leave alone if he doesnt want to find a knife in his back from Dullard.
Simon says: This is why people are starting to feel that only a major screw up on Rudd’s part, or a catastrophy of some sort can save the government.
Spot on Simon. There’s also the matter of baggage. Australian voters have long memories and it all adds up. Something Howard did maybe five years ago will suddenly ping and the mood changes. Multiply that over the country …
Howard has tried to manufacture scares, but it has not worked. Voters are simply tired of him and see him for what he is: a politician desperately clinging to power.
With the reserve bank predicting inflation will be 3% for the year, does this mean November 3rd or December 1st have firmed as likely election dates? There are interest rate announcements due on the 7th of November, and 5th of December. So my guess is the government wouldn’t want the election on the Saturdays of those two weeks.
QLD: ALP: 57, COAL: 43. So much for the ‘amalgamation’ issue doing serious damage.
This stat supports my contention that Labor will gain 5-8 seats (conservatively) in QLD with Petrie, Flynn and Hinkler the only ones the ALP will kick Beattie around the head over if they only (?) gain 5 (Moreton, Bonner, Blair, Herbert,Longman).
If this 57-43 ACNeilsen result is repeated in a months time you can write off any seats under the 10 % 2PP margin for the Coalition. 57-43 puts other seats in the frame, though I think 55-45 is more realistic come election day, improving Labor’s QLD 2PP signifantly from 2004. Once a Queenslander makes up their mind (aka P. Beattie) its all over.
Fear not Labor ites, Qld will deliver this time, improving Labor’s seat stocks from a paltry 6 out of 28 seats to somewhere between 14-17 from 29. Note my caveat : IF ACNeilsen repeats the dose next time.
But people polled by AC expect Interest Rates to be the same if not higher under Labor so are the rises so bad the government or do they spark fear as to handing over the economy to the inexperienced Krudd and Goose..
November 3rd must be firming as the election date…
Glen I agree Nov 3rd. I think the CPI figures are out around the 24th Oct, so it will be before the RBA can meet.
PS, why use Krudd and Goose it demeans you.
As Steven Kaye might say, The Reserve Bank is full of beurocrats who don’t know anything and these figures are only a survey. Add 2% to those figures and the true inflation rate is at leat 5%. Subtract this from Labor’s lead and we have the true state of the nation.
A brilliant tactical move will be for Howard to abolish Saturdays so there can’t be an election. Time is an area that is just aching for reform. Afterall the last time any alterations were made was hundreds of years ago.
Thanks to Liberal Government productivity gains it is much more efficient to have fewer days in the week.
170, Simon– I think the closest we have is the Liberal tax reform group, who I wish would hurry up and start making their proposals realistic.
Well Rudd and Swan demean themselves everyday when they display their incompetence and utter lack of experience required to govern a 1 trillion dollar economy…
Would you want an officer in your platoon who had 11 years combat experience or less than 10 months experience…i know who id trust and that’s why Rudd will lose in 07 but win in 10 if he’s still around…
Fire Maker Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I’m not sure that holding Government with the help of an independent would be a huge problem it would be better than losing by 2 – 3 seats.
The Bracks goverment did it with 2 independents in 99. The Liberals were in disarray and he won in 2002 with a huge majority, 58 – 59% of the vote.
Also, Peter Beattie in Queeensland in 1998/99 gained Government with the help of Independent Peter Wellington and also gained a substantial majority in the following election.
Glen, is their any danger that you can rely on facts to strengthen your case rather than childish name calling, which actually reflects badly on you and your case?
Glen very true, but if that officer was in the job for a day or a week you would still call him sir.
It is respect for the office, not the man or woman. You make valid arguments but tend to be ignored because of a lack of respect for the office. Give both sides of politics credit – it is tough to get to the top in either party.
Yes but you would have no confidence in his ability to lead as he does not have a combat record…
I agree with you ruawake and i could not use the inexperience with Kim Beazley but Rudd is inexperienced and he is not ready to be our PM…i believe he would do a better job as PM if he was Opposition leader for 3-4 years having fought a close election and then becoming PM…in life nothing comes easy and so it should for the office of Prime Minister…it was hard for Howard it should be hard for Rudd…Im not saying he wouldnt be a good PM down the track but now and with the inexperienced team he leads that is something Australia could do without…
cant be november 3rd im getting married that day.new wife wont be happy if im watching election results out of the corner of my eye.
Well, I did the quiz and it showed me primarily as a Dem (84.9). Never voted for them as far as I can remember, but have long admired some of their leaders Janine Haynes, Cheryl Kernot, Andrew Bartlett. Also scored high for Greens and ALP. Be going for Labor this time. If Cerdic wants a reason: it’s because Rudd’s a credible leader that isn’t John Howard. Worked in 96.
Glen, I wouldn’t place too much faith in a better distribution of preferences for the Libs. It may even occur on a very small basis. But the primary is the big problem. Even if we assume as Grattan did that this offers a glimmer of hope, a 46-41 primary will still sink Howard.
True if Howard is going to win he’ll have to overtake Labor on primaries…
It’s off-topic for this forum, and I really shouldn’t, but I’m a weak man.
1. ‘Anglo Celtic’ is not an opposite category to ‘Muslim’; there are many Anglo-Celtic Muslims.
2. The predominant ethnic group in the Netherlands is Germanic; neither Anglo nor Celtic.
3. Even bearing in mind what I think you mean the substantive statement is simply not true for the forseeable future.
Three significant errors in one statement; you really ought to cut down.
I suppose there is some merit to the experience thing: look at the mess Howard made of the Treasury when Fraser catapulted him into the job after just three years in parliament!
OTOH, I don’t think voters take it much into account.
For those who want to know how the Family First vote splits when undirected by HTV’s you can look back through the Morgan stats. on this.
But I can save you the trouble.
Although the sample size at each individual poll is small, which leads to erratic results, when averaged over the current term it manages to split about 50/50 if you take out the Latham factor at the very beginning of the term. With Beasley it came down to just on the conservative side of 50% with a sharp dive since Rudd has taken over, with the last poll showing only 40% coalition support.
This is consistant with the analysis of the OzPolitics test results, which shows FFP voters with a relative broad span about the centre on socio-economic politics, with a defining right tendancy on traditional values.
As far as Family Impact Statements are concerned, one of the values FFP voters uphold is honesty, and they will penalise Howard for having lied to them on this issue. Who do you trust?… Probably Rudd will be given a chance now that he has made the same promise.
Glen Says:
” Rudd is inexperienced and he is not ready to be our PM…i believe he would do a better job as PM if he was Opposition leader for 3-4 years having fought a close election and then becoming PM…in life nothing comes easy and so it should for the office of Prime Minister…”
Glen, i heard that Mr Rudd intends to get a special phone put in if he wins office that will be a direct line to Paul Keating.
Just so he can run a few things by him if he ever gets any problems with all the inexperience that he is supposed to have.
Probably would have been a good idea for Mr Howard to keep in touch with Mr Fraser when he was first elected PM except Mr Fraser didn’t trust Howard and wouldn’t talk to him in any case.
whilst i am nearing poll and campaign fatigue, I find it interesting that most commentators and posters talk about the possibility of the vote narrowing in john howard’s favour. is it possible the gap may INCREASE. i get the sense that any votes still to change hands will go Labor’s way
Yes and look at the Mess Whitlam made and even he was opposition leader for more than a year and fought an election maybe Rudd would be even worse in 2010 lol!
I’ve been keeping a low profile since I tipped absolutley no rate increases in any of August September and October of 2007.
You probably shouldn’t listen to me anyway, I am only a kid’s entertainer on the ABC with a wierd nose and a fixation on Miss Jane..
However, I wouldn’t mind a peak at the AC neilson’s results, but can’t find the offical stats anywhere. All I can find is the qualitative comments on the fairfax site.
Basically, I don’t like being told what to think by other people’s intepreations of polling. Does anyone know were to find the original numbers?
I just did the quiz and came out as a Green. And that’s pretty much bang on the money for me.
Regarding the finding about interest rates in today’s AC Nielsen:
49% believe rates would be the same under Labor
31% believe rates would be higher under Labor
7% believe rates would be lower under Labor
The interesting part about these findings is that only 31% of people have actually swallowed Howard’s cods wallop on interest rates. Clearly, 69% of people did not align themselves with the “Interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government than a Labor government” mantra that Howard and Costello bang on about night and day.
My guess is that 31% are the hardcore, rusted on Liberal Party voters, like Cerdic, Glen, and Steven Kaye, who believe anything that Howard tells them to believe and would never contemplate voting Labor no matter how incompetent or destructive the Liberals become.
In other words, thankfully, the greater majority of Australians have some common sense about them and realise that a government doesn’t have the kind of control over interest rates that Howard was deceptively suggesting during the 2004 election.
Trying to blame the states on interest rate rises or trying to suggest that they will go through the roof with a Labor win may therefore not be the powerful vote-changing message that Howard was hoping for.
On that logic, once a party has been in government for a decade or so, it must stay in government forever, because the opposition has no experience of government. I’m sure Glen applies this principle to the state Liberal parties as well? And to the British Tories? And the NZ Nationals?
Scorpio Howard didnt need a mentor because he already had enough experience to run the country too bad i cant say the same of Rudd he’d just let the ACTU tell him what to do…
It would be stimulating to have an intelligent Liberal contribute to this blog once in a while. Does anyone know any? All we seem to get are complete fools whose “arguments” are just abuse and sarcasm which wouldn’t convince a three year old. Yes Glen that means you.
Just more fingers in your ears and sing “ting a ling aloo”.
I do…but providing the Government isnt managing the economy well in the UK State Labor parties and NZ they arent so the people have nothing to lose
Adam there is a worrying view that anybody who has centre-right views and votes Liberal is somehow not intelligent and i take offence at that just as i would not say Labor supporters are not intelligent you should not take comments so seriously…the fact is many Labor supporters think just because we Libs think differently were are somehow stupid intellectually that Adam is wrong…
I am more than willing to have an honest debate without the abuse and sarcasm providing that is applied by Labor supporters too…as a minority on blogs in general your job is a lot harder at wrangling in those extreme left wingers who do not add much to the debate…
I’d like to know whether the volatility in the interest rates will hurt or hinder Howard…on the one hand he could spin it into his favour saying if you think they are bad now wait to see how high they’d be with Wayne Swan and Rudd or it will be a bat for the ALP to hit the Libs with as they’ve already done with their election ads?
Yes Glen, there’s no chance of the coalition winning with less primary vote than Labor. Labor will get the majority of green votes, and, I suspect, will do better this time out of Family First, now that Rudd has replaced Latham.
It would be fascinating if the Libs changed leaders. Whether it was Turnbull or Costello, there’d be some significant policy changes, particularly in areas like climate change and the republic. It might not jelp the Libs’ chances, but if they feel they’re heading for certain defeat, they may have no option.
Late leadership changes can backfire (eg Bruce Flegg, Ted Baillieu), but they can also succeed (eg Steve Bracks, Bob Hawke). They certainly makes things exciting, and perhaps voters (younger ones particularly) feel that John Howard offers litte excitement or prospects for change.
Surely Malcolm Turnbull would have to sound out his fellow MPs about a challenge (or a tap on the shoulder for Howard) if he felt that he, personally, would lose his seat if Howard stayed leader? I don’t think he has a suicide impulse. I think Labor would struggle more against Turnbull than either Howard or Costello, though you’d still have to think, on the evidence of the polls, that Rudd will beat any of them. If I was a Lib MP in a seat with a margin of less than ten per cent (and that’s about half of them), I’d support whoever I thought would get me another three years in my job. For a backbencher, being in government is not as important as being in Parliament!
On another issue, I really doubt Howard would go to the polls later than early November. Governments develop a stench if they go beyond their full term, and oppositions can rightly goad them for being scared to go to the people. Keating’s “I want to do you slowly” is probably the best response to these taunts, but Howard couldn’t get away with plagiarism. There’s also the prospect of another interest rate rise by November.
Adam said -
“intelligent Liberal”
Adam, I usually admire your reasoning, but this was a blatant contradiction in terms.
Good one, Noocat. That analysis actually makes sense. The electorate was conned by John Howard’s promises on interest rates at the last election and will not swallow anything he says on the subject.
Yep, stop the childish name-calling.
There is a catch 22…
The thing is Howard is both a massive + and a massive – and thats the problem for the Coalition on the one hand he has experience and managed the economy well on the other people dont like workchoices and believe over the course of his leadership he has been a serial liar thus a big negative when accumulated throughout 11 years in power…
If Turnbull had a few more years in Parliament as a Minister id jump at the opportunity if the Coalition was 2-3months out with Labor ahead by more than 55-45 but he doesnt have enough experience not to say he wouldnt make a good PM…it would certainly flip things up the 2 young guns going at it eh Tony it would make for an interesting election for sure but how well would ‘Deputy Dawg’ go against Rudd i fear that Costello will be the most talented Minister never to be PM…Howard clearly wants Turnbull to lead the party at some stage to offset the Melbourne rise with Costello…but i think handing over to Costello or Turnbull would be an admission of Rudd’s success and a sign of the Coalition’s desperation…not that they arent desperate already because they are…
I fear Howard will either be a Hero or be vilified after the election by Liberals…only time will tell.
Oh, and on the issue of Rudd’s inexperience, the evidence as to whether this matters to voters is pretty mixed.
The election of Steve Bracks, and his subsequent electoral success, would suggest someone relatively inexperienced can succeed in government. However, no-one can argue that Kim Beazley was inexperienced enough to be PM, yet the voters didn’t want him.
I think voters will decide whether Rudd can do the job by the policies he unveils, the way he handles the pressure of the campaign, the way he keeps his party (and the unions) under control, and how he goes head-to-head with John Howard in the debates and the election campaign proper. Howard may struggle in the debates because he’s been in office for so long that there are so many items of baggage that can be thrown at him, so many past decisions and actions that he has to defend. But it will also be a challenge for Rudd, because he’s never done this sort of thing before.
Just watching the usual poll/speculation nonsense on 7:30/Brissenden.
Did anyone hear catch the glitch where the wrong visuals were included? In the background, an angry Kerry O’Brien was broadcast saying ‘what’s going on? I put that bloody link in earlier today!’ etc.
“There’s also the prospect of another interest rate rise by November.”
That’s about as close to a dead certanty as you can get given the underlying inflation figure of 3 percent announced today.
Laurie Oakes said as much on the Channel 9 News not long ago.
Financial markets would already be factoring that in.
Howard is getting caught in his own wedge bigtime.
Its interesting to note that when a poll favors Howard everyone cries foul and when Rudd is way in front its a proper poll Howard was always going to get a bounce lets see if he can make the bounce multiply and bigger.
Glen, I’ve no idea why you keep trying to convince people who are never going to agree with you, or indeed, the Coalition’s mantra about Rudd’s so called inexperience. It’s clearly a silly proposition, as Adam has pointed out. I would have thought you’d be better off trying to think about why the Liberals are in such a parlous state across Australia. The evidence is that at State level, they are a mess. Even here in Victoria, which used to be the crown of the Liberal Party, the Costello faction can’t stop themselves from fighting the Kennet faction, to the extent that Ted Baillieu was recently humiliated by being denied having a go in the by-elections arising from Bracks and Thwaites exiting. Now, there, whatever else it may have been, was an elegant and masterfully executed handover. Bizarre as it may seem for someone who is as unashamedly left as me, I really think the best thing for a democracy is an effective opposition. Should Labor win the next Federal election, the Libs will be in the wilderness for a long time. I think you should be chewing over that proposition. On the AC Neilsen, as others have noted there’s enough silly results at the State level, and at variance with other poll results over the same time period, that I’d rather just keep watching and reading the analyses by people who know what they’re doing.
The way I see it, there are (at least) two ways of looking at the recent polls.
One is that Galaxy is a step to the right; ACN and Newspoll have been showing a Labor primary between 46 and 49 for two months; nothing fundamental has changed since early June, and Labor continues to lead with about 56% on 2PP. Morgan’s recent move to 55-45 can be written off as volatility from an unreliable pollster.
The other is to say that Galaxy says 44-41; Nielsen says 46-41; Morgan has a record of being around 1-2 points to the left and says 47-40. Newspoll’s last poll may be a bit pro Labor, and the underlying ALP primary vote is down to 45/46, Coalition clearly above 40, Labor 2PP below 55, and the government has gained an extra 1, 1.5 or even 2 percent in the last month.
If the latter were true, I’d be inclined to say Haneef and the focus on national security (followed by a focus on matters economic last week) is doing the government good. Talk today of an interest rate rise during the campaign being bad news for Howard I think may be very wrong; it would push economic management front and centre at exactly the wrong moment. Labor needs voters thinking about climate change, IR, education etc when they go into the booth – not interest rates.
The arrival of the business ad campaign (looks nasty, though I haven’t seen the whole thing) is an interesting development. If an ‘issue’ is going to crack Rudd’s lead, people drawing a link between IR, unions and economic irresponsibility is the most likely thing. Interesting to see how it unfolds.
Glen
Try http://www.kevinruddsucks.com they need you
It seems John Howard has:-
Inexperience of the Rudd team.
The Union bosses.
Historical comparisons of interest rates
Not much more.
My test results seems Adam knows me well haha
Political outlook
Your broad political orientation score is -80.3%, which equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Economic policy
Your economic policy score score is -66.1%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Social policy
Your social policy score is -89.1%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Traditional values
Your traditional values score is -81.8%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Glen,
While you are in reflective mood, you might want to consider that Whitlam opened the door to China which has underpinned the economic boom during Howard’s time. He also introduce Universal Health Care which, as far as I can see, is still with us. There was also the practical policy of sewering the outer suburbs of the major cities. It was also Whitlam who is pilloried to this day for introducing tariff reforms.
The point is, Howard’s legacy will be the GST, the sale of Telstra, his response to 9-11 and a desperate attempt to defy the sands of time.
At 68, I do not see any future vision and he has actively destroyed his natural successor in Costello. When the Libs go down, Howard and the people who supported him to the hilt are the reason for their collective demise.
Sure Howard will probably lose the debate…but he has lost every debate and gone on to win id be worried if Howard won the debate against Rudd lol.
Just read a great post on Tim Dunlop’s blog.
“Sorry Tim I forgot to mention in my last piece I agree with one of the bloggers here that you should debate Piers Akerman. However I don’t think it should be Piers, rather I would like to see you debate Andrew Bolt.
Even though you’re a rusted on Labor supporter I like your work because you often criticise the government which I think is great as it leads to better government. I think a debate between yourself and Andrew would be great as I am an admirer of his work as well. I enjoy his columns and his appearances on Insiders is excellent. ”
The Howard supporters minds certainly work in mysterious ways.
Straight out of the Liberal handbook Glen. Keep reading and memorising.
I was referring to one of your earlier posts Glen. Your later contributions a fair and reasonable.
Adam. I suspect there might be a few “intelligent Liberals” out there somewhere. But a rare, endangered species, sadly. Mr Howard has seen to that. To answer your question: No. I have not met any.
General question: Why are Right-wingers so humourless? And bitter.
209
Graeme Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Just watching the usual poll/speculation nonsense on 7:30/Brissenden.
Did anyone hear catch the glitch where the wrong visuals were included? In the background, an angry Kerry O’Brien was broadcast saying ‘what’s going on? I put that bloody link in earlier today!’ etc.
If it is nonsense Graeme in your estimation it begs the question of why you watch it ? I note again, you contribute nothing in your comments except to find fault in ‘the other’. Must be wonderful to so up yourself you find it pleasing to point out the foibles in other people. Get over yourself.
Bill, my pattern of results on the quiz were almost identical to yours. Far left on all dimensions, but only left on economic policy. I guess that makes me (and you) a long way from the centre.
Derek you dont find the intelligent Liberals have a sense of humour then what about Liberals with their names for ALP front people who can forget favourites like
Rudd – Krudd/Dudd
Swan – Goose
Gillard – Dullard/Dillard
Isnt that having a sense of humour lol most likely not look we are no matter which side we support genuine people and both sides want the best for the country we just want to do it a different way that doesnt make either side bad it just means we have different means to our goals.
Why is it that whenever Liberal posters get a pasting from Labor supporters we dont call people stupid that’s what some lefties are posting we dont do it and neither should you Derek…
Classic Kerry O’Brien “I put that bloody link in earlier today!” priceless…
Howard although getting a small boost in the polls got a battering on channel 10 and channel 9 news tonight whats the world coming to when even channel 9 has an ALP slant…
Wonder who’ll be on with Tony Jones on Lateline??
Costello or Swan…
I dont want to do that test. I would be sent to the mental health wing, a red under the bed.
Strop,
It’s a bit like cancer….
Sometimes it is better to know!
“Its interesting to note that when a poll favors Howard everyone cries foul and when Rudd is way in front its a proper poll Howard was always going to get a bounce lets see if he can make the bounce multiply and bigger.”
Bill, there is no question that Howard has made up some ground since the extreme polls of March-April. But to say that the latest AC Nielsen “favours” Howard is an overstatement. It does not favour Howard – it puts the Liberals 10 points behind on 2PP and 5 on the primary.
In most other election years, a 45-55 result against the government would be hailed as a major blow for the incumbents, especially less than 3 months out from an election. But we have become accustomed to almost record figures this year, which makes this latest poll seem good for Howard, well at least in some people’s eyes.
The funny thing (for a left-winger) is that the insults that are directed at John Howard, come from right-wing commentators. “Honest” John, the “lying rodent”…
The humour is that this is how his supporters refer to him.
I’m not sure about this. I would have thought if anyone was going to vote ALP they would have already decided. I mean what else could be put on the table to change your mind?
The flipside of this is that I think the current 55 2pp for the ALP is quite solid and (outside of polling error) has not changed for months. There should be some further movement to the Govt as they pelt money and mud everywhere.
Without some macro event to trigger a further movement –
my guess is the ALP will end up with around a 53% 2pp and a comfortable but not quite landslide victory.
Some interesting comments on the Qld Council Amalgamations by a Liberal MP.
QUEENSLAND Health officials are investigating the origin of a dodgy piece of fish from the Queensland Parliament’s cafeteria thought to have given a Liberal MP a severe bout of food poisoning.
The illness meant Mr Dickson, who was elected to parliament at last year’s state election, missed out on fiery debate about the state government’s forced council merger laws.
“It’s a shame some of those who voted for amalgamations didn’t eat the fish,” Mr Dickson said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22237208-2702,00.html
Noocat,
With the polls, you got to choose your poison and stick with it.
The trend/taste is the thing!
Personally, I like a Morgan. But, that gives me the satisfaction I like.
Everything else , well, doesn’t give me the Labor content I like.
I suck from the occaisonal News or Neilson. But, Galaxy will blow the hairs off your chest.
Pi Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
As Glen proves, in his comments above. Humour, for your average right-winger, is finding a new way to insult someone in the basest form possible… i.e. name-calling.
Or like this Pi!
“It’s a shame some of those who voted for amalgamations didn’t eat the fish,†Mr Dickson said.
The ACNeilsen polls tells us nothing except that the Labor vote is still fairly firm and, that Howard ‘might’ have a bigger problem than expected in Qld. The other splits, NSW and SA are consistent, the rest simply total nonsense and say nothing in terms of those States.
If I were Howard I would ignore the poll entirely and double check what the go is in Qld.
Good one Scorpio. I noted Steve Dickson is the member for the Sunshine Coast-based seat of Kawana.
Kina, if JWH wants to double check what the go is in QLD I can tell him. He will have to do alot better than the amalgamation card to upset the neighbourhood voters here. Sorry Mr Howard, try again sir.
I know plenty of right-wingers how are intelligent, articulate, positive and full of humour. Not sure how many are pro-Howard – I haven’t asked as the potential look of bewilderment on my face might offend. More economic dry than social conservative. Left/right doesn’t really provide sufficient dimensions.
I think it’s simpler than that — Howard is so bloody negative. Don’t vote for Labor or this’ll happen. Don’t vote for Labor or that’ll happen. People are somewhat depreessed by years of Gloom & Doom and want someone who will say, “I know how to make such-and-such better.”
Rudd is saying this.
Well, if the ozpolitics quiz says you’re a Democrat than I guess you people have no choice but to accept the truth – that the Democrats are actually a pretty kick-ar*e party – and vote for us!!!
Of course, if you’re taking instructions from an internet poll on how to vote, then the country is doomed.
HI, i’m Kevin Rudd and i’m from Queensland.
I’m here to help.
I’m a Liberal member, and I hope I’m not disappointing too much. More libertarian personally.
Saw the Greens Senate candidate for SA (Sarah H-Y) get out of her car opposite Don Farrell’s (lead Labor candidate, powerbroker) house today. I’m assuming she was there to talk preferences–not that the Greens (or any minor party) have a chance in SA with Labor’s primary vote so high.
Andrew, perhaps this will ring your bell
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Glen Milne has some interesting things to say about the Howard wedge in Queensland. Only trouble is he is quoting “unnamed Labor sources” and seems to find some paralell with the farsical Joh for Canberra campaign in the 1980’s. I don’t know how they can think this sort of stuff up.
“UP to this point the debate about the federal election fallout over forced council amalgamations in the key battleground state of Queensland has focused on the impact on the ground: whether disaffected voters will vent their anger at Peter Beattie via Kevin Rudd with potentially disastrous consequences for Labor.”
“But that debate has now entered a new and potentially much more dangerous phase for Rudd. The row is fast becoming a test of leadership strength for the new and largely untried federal leader arraigned against the long-term parochial warhorse in Beattie. At the same time darker questions are being raised within the ALP over the Queensland Premier’s real motives and ultimate ambitions in all of this.
There are historical resonances. John Howard, remembering 1987 and his epic battles with Joh Bjelke-Petersen would be allowing himself a quiet chuckle over the entire business. That’s if he weren’t so busy trying to shaft both Beattie and Rudd by announcing commonwealth financial support for Queensland councils wanting to hold local plebiscites in defiance of Beattie’s amalgamation plans. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22232020-7583,00.html
Wonderful! Another reason to vote for Rudd!
Can we please cut back a little on the tedious ideological sloganeering?
239
Michael Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Saw the Greens Senate candidate for SA (Sarah H-Y) get out of her car opposite Don Farrell’s (lead Labor candidate, powerbroker) house today.
Maybe the Greens are trying to ’short circuit’ a (ignore this Bill, it will fan the flames again) FF-ALP preference deal for SA Michael ?
PS: Most here wouldn’t have a problem with you having the courage to declare your Liberal leanings. At least you make sense and contribute intelligent dialogue to this blogspace. Wish I could do that -lol.
On my count, Ive heard 10 Labor election adds on the TV in the last couple of hours whilst my wife watches Home and Away and (heaven help her) Law and Order. (Mostly the interest rate hike one). Wonder when the Coalition are going to start …must be keeping their ‘aces’ for later.
Another one gone for “family reasons”. This time one of Bush’s.
Karl Rove to resign from politics
WHITE House political adviser Karl Rove, who masterminded President George W Bush’s political campaigns in 2000 and 2004, said in an interview published today that he would resign at the end of this month.
“I just think it’s time,” Mr Rove told The Wall Street Journal.
“There’s always something that can keep you here, and as much as I’d like to be here, I’ve got to do this for the sake of my family.”
The paper said Mr Rove’s resignation would become effective on August 31.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22238540-1702,00.html
This might have an effect on the next two polls if it gets much of a run in the media.
A REPORT questioning climate change and calling global warming a “natural phenomenon” today led to accusations Prime Minister John Howard was a climate sceptic, possibly denting his re-election hopes.
A group of four government politicians – two of them former ministers – said climate change had been observed on other planets and moons including “Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Neptune and others”.
But this statement triggered a scornful response from the Opposition.
“Prime Minister, what planet are these government MPs on?” Labor Party environment spokesman Peter Garrett asked Mr Howard in parliament.
The four released a report debating the science of carbon capture and underground storage, or geosequestration, opening a climate rift in the Government.
“Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has always been with us and always will be,” they said in a document challenging the findings of a cross-party parliamentary report looking at carbon capture options for Australia.
“It is the natural property of planets with fluid envelopes to have variability in climate. Thus, at any given time, we may expect about half the planets to be warming. This has nothing to do with human activities,” the four said.
Mr Howard, 11 years in power, is fighting accusations he has been slow to respond on climate change, which is shaping up as a key issue for national elections widely tipped for November.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22234863-1702,00.html
Been there before… it puts me somewhere between Ghandi and the Dalai Lama which is a hoot. If anyone has done that test and doesn’t get labelled as “left libertarian” then yell out. The Authoritarian/Libertarian additions to Left/Right are helpful, though.
I do feel this has strayed a long way from the original blog message. Sorry, William!
244, Strop–
I’m not sure. I don’t think it will even matter who Labor side with because their primary vote will deliver them (imo) Wakefield, Makin and Kingston without the need of any significant preference flows, and nor will they need preferences for their Senate ticket.
STROP Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
On my count, Ive heard 10 Labor election adds on the TV in the last couple of hours whilst my wife watches Home and Away and (heaven help her) Law and Order. (Mostly the interest rate hike one). Wonder when the Coalition are going to start …must be keeping their ‘aces’ for later.
Strop, don’t worry they will come. At the moment the Coalition are quite happy to use up as much taxpayers money as they can in “Authorised by the Commonwealth Government” type adds.
Also the Business loby still has quite a bit left in its war-chest with probably a bit more to come if they think it might help Howard.
They won’t win Sturt or Boothby without a heap of preferences though.
Glen Milne writes, in that article cited by Scorpio (241) –
“Listen to one state Labor figure: “For Beattie to the extent it (council amalgamations) hurts Rudd, it’s a bonus. To the extent it helps Howard, it’s an additional bonus. The Labor premiers have lived in a symbiotic relationship with Howard. Once he’s gone they’ll go over like ninepins “.
Milne is trying to suggest that Beattie may be aiming at Federal Leadership or has an axe to grind with Rudd and Swan re the Goss Govt days and it’s payback time.
One small problem with that Mr. Milne. You can speculate all you like about Beattie’s motives but to suggest Beattie would want to help Howard is just plain crap.
Howard may be trying to (mis) represent the QLD -National Labor party relationship as being as strained and full of dissent as the QLD-National Coalition party relationships; perhaps there is a level of ‘truth’ in that re the amalgamation issue. But beyond that, Milne is talking chitt IMHO.
251, Simon–
Both divisions will take a hit, as the ‘doctors wives’ effect will happen in the richer areas, but the poorer areas will leave the Liberals due to WC’es (they’d previously been getting more Liberal each election since ‘96). But I still don’t think either will fall.
The seats are both spread over low-middle class areas, and very very very filthy rich areas.
I agree, I think they will be close but Pyne and Southcott will probably win by a few percent. But who knows, every election has some surprises, the ALP may get the donkey vote, which could be enough win one of them by a few hundred votes, but I can’t see both of them falling.
The crazy thing is, I’ve only ever met one person that actually likes Pyne, and that was a Young Liberal so they don’t really count.
‘STROP’ you frequent a blog where intense criticism of political views is commonplace. Yet without knowing me from a bar of soap you attack me personally for being critical of someone outside this blog (which is just a tad hypocritical).
If you can’t find a bit of old-fashioned Schadenfreude in Kerry O’Brien swearing on national t.v., then I do hope you are lobbying to get Media Watch off the air.
And for what it’s worth, yes I think Michael Brissenden is a waste of airtime, and evidence of Aunty’s decline in the news/current affairs field. Nil policy analysis and maximum meaningless MSM speculation with a pretence of evenhandedness. There’s a dozen bloggers here and elswhere who would make more interesting and insightful analysis than his segment.
I am a new poster. Interesting and intelligent comment, thank you.
Thought myself that Nielsen poll merely popped the numbers across polls to about similar. Continue to maintain my early post Rudd view that ALP will win, to my current view that we are pretty well likely to see a landslide to ALP.
Landslides are hardly unheard of; reckon the qualms of JH conjuring or having fall into his lap one of the Fear Factor Devices is influencing both contributor consideration and certainly the outside world. Has not worked so far, however. Yet Lib voters of my acquaintance have conceded but continue to hope for the said FFD and Lab voters believe ALP will win but continue to angst against the possibility of same FFD.
Seat by seat, one can think through the lanslide possibilities.
Interesting – no surprises.
Political outlook: Left
Economic: ‘Centre Left’ position
Social Policy: ‘Centre Left’ position
Traditional values: ‘Left’ position
Labour Party 91.4%
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
I don’t exactly see what’s wrong with The 7:30 Report or Lateline. ABC and SBS have more useful discussions and debate of policy than any of the commercial networks. The commercial networks only get interested during election campaigns, which admittedly is when most people start paying attention.
Kina
Are you talking to me? Is so, on what do you base your analysis?
This is the first time I have participated in a “blog”. Interesting experience! Is this par for the course … it goes on, and on … or is this an exception? Good night, political junkies …
Glen,
In the Australian army, a platoon is commanded by a lieutenant, the rank regular army officers have when they graduate from officer training, and such a lieutenant will not have 11 years combat experience. I think lieutenants have probably become captains by then and no longer command platoons.
Kina,
How many chidren?
How much debt?
Do you still play football?
Interesting discussions here today…. couple of general comments:
1.
I reckon the LNP are in for a bit of a rude shock when FF prefs are counted this time. Workchoices is a bit like keeping a pet crocodile in the ‘family friendly’ stakes. Plus Howard is about as spiritual as an income tax return.
Rudd actually looks like he might even be a real Christian.
Whereas Howard just looks like an ex-Methodist turned Anglican. ie In it for the upward mobility.
2.
On the Business Council ads, and their “sliding scale” of countries – the ACTU should just run some newspaper ad pointing out that the top 5 are all in fact highly unionised Scandinavian-style operations and similar. Plus the boom happened essentially on Keating’s EBA legislation.
C’mon Glen you can drop the experience argument now, it’s old and tired. You’ve run it a million times already, we know your position.
Yes Amber but it is an issue that will bite with the public it is a fair issue…if Malcolm Turnbull was leading the Libs are you telling me you wouldnt say he wasnt experienced enough to run the country…
Amber you hate the experience argument because it will be one factor that will prevent Rudd from winning this election but not the one in 2010…
Interesting analogy Glen.
I wonder why so many military figures are signing up as ALP candidates.
There’s some substantial resentments, particularly within the navy, about this government’s politicisation of their function.
eg civilian border patrolling, NT, Iraq blunders
Lefty E Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Interesting analogy Glen.
I wonder why so many military figures are signing up as ALP candidates.
There’s some substantial resentments, particularly within the navy, about this government’s politicisation of their function.
eg civilian border patrolling, NT, Iraq blunders
Speaking of Which.
“Former colonel Mike Kelly, the endorsed Labor candidate for the Liberal-held seat of Eden-Monaro, said Australian resources in southern Iraq could be better used in helping the Iraqi government in other areas.
“Principally they are there now really as a flag waving exercise by the government,” Mr Kelly said on ABC radio today.
“As professional and as wonderful as those troops are, you have got to remember that they are a precious asset and we have to use them to the maximum effect”
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22236108-5005361,00.html
Turnbull is very experienced, he even asked Keating to make him a Labor senator in the mid 1990s.
Graeme, I think it best we ignore each other and leave it at that. Most of the people with any sense ignore me anyway, join them. Lol.
The left wants a leadership change just to see the back of Howard plus they want to rid the Libs of one of their major assets…ill admit Howard also has several negatives attached to his leadership but he’s more of an asset than not…Turnbull would be my preferred leader after Howard if not him then Julie Bishop or Brendan Nelson…Costello has been branded ‘Deputy Dawg’ for too long to be considered a viable leader despite his excellent record as Treasurer.
Glen, nice to see some real commentary from you. I particularly agree with your 7:31 post, but am guessing you’d had another glass by 8:17.
Over the past couple of months I’ve been wondering about whether the trend from the 60% TPP highs earlier this year are likely to last to election day, or whether there will be a hiatus until the election is called. I think this is a key point (leaving aside any unforseen shocks). If the trend continues, the Coalition will be in striking distance come polling day, and my feeling is incumbency will give an added push. However, if the trend is stalled until the election is called, it will be very difficult for the Coalition to make up the needed voted in the election period itself.
I’ve done a couple of quick back of the envelope calculations based on Oz Politic’s excellent Monthly aggregated polls table (primary votes only). For August, on the basis of the last two polls, the primary for the ALP has stabilised at 47% while the Coalition primary has stabilsed at 40%.
Hoever, if the last four polls are included (which incorporates the last Galaxy and Morgan results from the previous month), the ALP primary is down by about 2/3 of a per cent and the Coalition vote is up by about 1/3 of a per cent. This is at a slower rate than the last couple of months.
Both of these calculations suggest that the drop from 60% is a correction rather than a trend, and that the rate of further trends towards the Coalition may become more moderate.
Further polls, of course, are likely to change this as it’s all within the margin for error.
Hi Monica
Re: SA Senate – possibly if Labor is as far in front in SA as some of the polls are suggesting, they may be thinking that there’s a possibility of 3 Labor + 1 Green? If one thinks about the Senate in rough ‘left-right’ terms, Labor has to stop the Coalition (combined with the likes of Family First) from winning 3 seats in at least 2 seats to offset the Queensland and Victoria results from 2004 (or, alternatively, stop them from winning an ACT seat – unlikely but not totally impossible). If that’s going to happen anywhere one might expect that SA might be the most likely – or least unlikely – possibility given recent polling.
Of course, the history of 2004 tells us that preference deals which look clever when the anticipated vote is X can unravel in spectacular fashion if the vote ends up being something different from X. If the ALP primary vote had been a point or two higher in Victoria in 2004 people would have been saying how smart the ALP-Family First deal was which delivered the ALP a third seat over the Greens.
Please not Julie Bishop, she currently seems to be running a campaign that involves telling other people what clothes they are allowed to wear. She doesn’t seem to understand what a minister is meant to actually do.
Plus she’s a hopeless debater in parliament, so it will never happen.
The fact most people hate him is another problem.
But anyway, if Howard loses this election then Costello is going to bolt. He wouldn’t be able to handle being opposition leader, likewise Minchin in the senate.
Hmm, Does Graham Edwards know something we all don’t re the election Date ?
“Retiring Labor MP and Vietnam veteran Graham Edwards has used his last speech to parliament to attack Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war and the RSL.
With the election due to be called any day, Mr Edwards said he wanted to cover a range of issues “in making probably my last speech in the house”.
Mr Edwards announced in January last year that he would quit politics at the next election, after more than 25 years in public life.
In effectively his valedictory speech, the Kalgoorlie-born MP said he failed to see how sending young Australians overseas to fight in the Iraq war had in any way enhanced Australia’s security.
“Indeed, I fear the reverse,” he told the lower house.
“I look forward to the time when our political leaders no longer require young Australian men and women to be sent overseas to fight in unnecessary wars that do nothing to improve security in our own country and our region.” ”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Retiring-MP-Edwards-slams-Iraq-war/2007/08/13/1186857429609.html
Isn’t it reasonably simple, they need to improve their primary vote by 1% every 2 weeks. If they do that they will be on 45 or 46 on election day, which will give them 50 or 51 after preferences. Which if they get it in the right areas will be enough to scrape through with a majority of 2 or 3 seats.
According to ANZUS we were attacked as well. The parliament passed a statement saying as much.
Tony Wright on Sky News Agenda when challenged about Nielsen being within margin of error replied, that 3% off Labor (tpp) and 3% added on to the Coalition figure equals a six point turnaround which is outside the 2.6% margin of error. I think that is what is known as creative accounting.
Glen, a ‘drovers dog’ could have looked good as Treasurer with x years of economic growth largely a gift horse from Australia’s minerals resources in the ‘global economy’. Screwing workers to the wall to make sure labour costs remain as low as possible is not something I would be gloating about if I were Treasurer as Costello did on budget night. Get over Costello, he is finished.
Put your money on Turnbull for the future and move on please from critiquing Rudd’s experience or lack of it. It won’t wash with the electorate who see Mr. Howard as someone who has stayed beyond his (with respect to his status as our PM) use-by-date.
Rudd is seen by some as a viable alternative leader who dosen’t (as yet) have a credibility problem with the electorate. Being ‘inexperienced’ as a drug addict does not make be a poor counsellor of drug addicts any more than you being ‘inexperienced’ at making sense in your arguments precludes you from speaking your mind.
Find something else to pick on Rudd for if you will, but a lack of experience is a poor argument which the electorate don’t appear to be concerned about at the present time.
No, please not Erica!
No, (1) I’ve heard it too many times from you and (2) I’ve said before that I don’t buy that argument of experience — voters will make an assessment of an alternative PM based on the information they have to hand, not on the number of years he has totted up as Opposition Leader.
Similarly, voters would make an assessment of Turnbull based on what they knew of him at the time the assessment had to be made.
Increasingly, it’s looking like Howard should’ve gone to the polls early, say April (or maybe even February instead of playing the Burke card; what a stupid idea that was). Howard would’ve won then since voters wouldn’t've known enough about Rudd to actually hand him power. Voters are now comfortable enough IMHO to vote Rudd in no matter when Howard chooses.
Glen, I just saw one of those Labor “Interest Rates” adds on TV.
Knowing that there is another one on the way, might hurt a bit with responses to the polls due out on Friday and Tuesday next week.
I turn up as
2007-08-13 22:42:50 GRN 75.4 DEM 73 ALP 67.4 FFP 65.6
which is not really that accurate for me.
The problem is I’m “Christian Left”, so some questions sway FFP up and put me with the Christian Right. Christianity (and the anti-Christian attitude of some Greens) is also the reason I’m much more a Democrat supporter than Green.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=98d71cdf3f24cc43c938fffe5e75263c
Figures for voting intention cannot be extrapolated linearly because each successive vote-switch is increasingly hard to win. Any so-called trend will tail off.
Off topic, but another one from Tim Dunlop’s blog. I love it.
{The Coalition have more wedges than a golf pro and are trying them out one after another, hoping for something other than another dropped shot and bogey. But there are so many water hazards and so much rough and they just can’t aim straight anymore. }
Howard is getting Desperate on IR.
“PRIME Minister John Howard tonight warned business that if Labor rolled back industrial reforms future conservative governments could be powerless to bring them back.
In an impassioned speech to business tonight, Mr Howard hammered home the message that Labor would destroy the coalition’s industrial relations (IR) changes, putting at risk the nation’s economic prosperity.”
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22240966-5005361,00.html
OT message to William, Could it be possible for Poll Bludger to have formatting tools like Larvatus Prodeo ?
Desperate is right. What a silly thesis. All they need is control of both houses like they have now and it’s a done deal. If at that time they lack the political will, well that suggests it’s not such a good idea in the first place.
Same as Rudd
Senator Allison’s commments must’ve annoyed you then.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22221340-11949,00.html
Howard’s tripe is for the uninformed public hoping to find some economic fear buttons. Rudd should be running counter messages simultaneously.
Allison’s comments are absolutely rude (they compare to what happened in the SA Parliament when a member complained about prayers) but she does make a point.
Why do politicians make such a big deal out of their Christianity? I don’t believe they should hide it, but neither should they advertise it like it’s a show.
Glen,
I know you don’t want to hear this, but 56-44 isn’t going to bring Brand into play. It’s 0.6% to the Libs – if it were uniform, it wouldn’t be enough to pick up Cowan (0.8) – leaving you with Swan as the only seat to change hands. Of course, Cowan would be within the margin of error, but so would Labor picking up Hasluck and Stirling, and holding both Cowan and Swan. For Brand (on a uniform swing), you’d need 60-40 to the Coalition – or with 56-44, you’d see opposing swings to Labor in other seats, like say Stirling, Hasluck, Swan or Cowan.
It’s as likely to be a rogue poll as last week’s Westpoll – and with a smaller sample size. You might get one good poll by rolling the two together for about 52-48 to the Coalition.
Possibly – I’m not sure what you mean.
William,
Here is an example of how LP have their comments page set up with html tools etc.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/08/13/its-all-about-the-jansenism/#comments
Let’s not forget that there are many people with AWAs in Brand and the ALP put in a Union stooge who had strong links with Brian Burke…Labor will most likely hold this seat Mr Q you are right but i believe Labor’s margin will be reduced significantly…
I believe the Coalition is more likely to win Swan and Cowan than Labor is at winning Stirling and Hasluck…
People like to write WA off but considering this election will be a close one all eyes will be out West come election night.
Glen Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 12:18 am
“Let’s not forget that there are many people with AWAs in Brand and the ALP put in a Union stooge who had strong links with Brian Burke…”
Umm, Gary Gray was a former ALP National Secretary, who until recentlty was employed by Woodside Energy – hardly an ALP Friendly organisation.
Do you mean “share this”, “send to a friend”, gravatars, comment previews, all of the above, or something else?
William Bowe Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Do you mean “share thisâ€, “send to a friendâ€, gravatars, comment previews, all of the above, or something else?
Comments Prieviews with the various buttons for block quoting, URL insertion etc.
Oh and Glen, I got my info on Gray from here.
http://www.alp.org.au/people/wa/gray_gary.php
You see, Glen, that’s why you get no respect here. Calling Gary Gray a “union stooge” – what does that mean? He has never held office in a union, and his most recent employer was a mining company. What is a “union stooge” anyway? This is a meaningless piece of abuse, equivalent to me calling Malcolm Turnbull a lackey of the bloodsucking capitalists. Until you stop doing stuff like this, I will continue to regard you as a fool, and if you find that insulting, you know what to do about it.
On Gary Gray.
Not just any employee of Woodside: their corporate affairs director.
Sorry Adam i just assumed that either they are Union officials or they are ABC reporters or Army Officers…i stand corrected i never knew the ALP had candidates other than from these occupations…I take your point he might not be a stooge in the same way Shorten and Combet is so i apologise for that remark but……..
Still…Gary Gray had this to say in 1999
Gary Gray: Absolutely. Always been a strong union family. I’ve always been a strong unionist myself. I’ve been a member of a union since the day that I had to be a member, that is, the day that I joined the workforce, and I will always be a strong supporter of the principle of unionism.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/natint/stories/s66088.htm
Some things never do change with the ALP though…we live in hope nevertheless.
Hmm, There is trouble for the Libs in Maribyrnong .
“THE federal Liberal Party has dumped its candidate for the Melbourne seat of Maribyrnong in a bid to head off a political furore over his description of a female Victorian cabinet minister as a “bitch”.
Hamish Jones made the offensive outburst against Victorian minister and senior female politician Lynne Kosky on his internet blog site.
Labor, which is running union leader Bill Shorten as its candidate for Maribyrnong, in Melbourne’s western suburbs, had been preparing to publicly call on John Howard today to disown Mr Jones.
But, alerted to Labor plans by The Australian, the Liberal Party dumped him last night as its candidate.
Liberal Party Victorian state director Julian Sheezel said last night Mr Jones had “withdrawn his candidature” for Maribyrnong. “He has published a very indiscreet and improper blog site, which makes his candidacy untenable,” Mr Sheezel said.
It is unclear who the Liberal Party, which feared it would be embarrassed by the revelations during question time in federal parliament today, will now run against Mr Shorten in the safe Labor seat. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22240942-601,00.html
Why do the Libs bother about standing someone in Maribyrnong they’d be better off putting those resources into Bendigo or Issacs…
Things are not getting better for our beloved PM.
“A TOP Liberal fund-raiser and friend of Prime Minister John Howard has been appointed to important Federal Government positions despite an involvement in questionable land deals.
An Age investigation of the property development history of Benjamin Chow, a member of the NSW Liberal Party’s fund-raising committee, has uncovered his key role in multimillion-dollar residential developments in Sydney and Brisbane that became beset by legal disputes, secret payments, false documents and allegations of fraud.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/investigations/pms-mate-in-questionable-deals/2007/08/13/1186857429199.html
Could this be Howard’s own “Burke Affair” ?
The moral is that you should know what you are talking about before you start abusing people, yes? Of course, even calling Shorten a “union stooge” just shows blind class hatred. Shorten is as moderate as it’s possible for a union official to be, and your abuse is based not on anything that he has ever said or done, but merely on the fact that he is a union official. You clearly don’t recognise the legitimacy of trade unions at all. This would be the equivalent of me damning any Liberal candidate with a background in business as an evil capitalist exploiter of the workers.
Question…Adam is it really representative that 100% of ALP Federal MPs are Unionists and 70% of their front bench is made up of ex-Union officials is that healthy for a political organisation to be controlled by a group that represents less than 20% of workers???
Business people or Small Business people are more representative of the community than people like Shorten and Combet…the Unions are growing irrelevant…sorry Adam but to have the ACTU and CFMEU out there as the poster boys for the Union movement makes them look thuggish especially when people like McDonald and Reynolds are members of the ALP.
And Adam you should acknowledge that you have to be a Unionist or in the ABC or in the military to go anywhere in the ALP…
Check out this highly dubious funding roundabout.
Is it possible the taxpayers are partly funding the “business lobby” campaign for Workchoices?
This warrants an independent commision of inquiry.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/business-split-over-funding-ir-ads/2007/08/13/1186857429204.html
All the major political parties are based on classes. There are three major classes in Australia – the working class, the middle class and the farmers. Each has a political party that respresents its interests, although of course there are plenty of people in all three classes who vote for the other party for various reasons. It’s no more healthy or unhealthy that the Labor Party is dominated by the labour movement than it is that the National Party is dominated by farmers or the Liberal Party by businesspeople (and lawyers). Everyone understands that this is how democratic politics works.
I point out in passing that Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Smith, Garrett, McClelland, Albanese, Macklin, Plibersek and Fitzgibbon (not an exhaustive list) have never been union officials. I suspect this 70% figure is bogus – I will do some research on this. Penny Wong, for example, worked parttime for the CFMEU while she was a student, so I presume you class her as a “union official.”
Glen Blabbered:
“And Adam you should acknowledge that you have to be a Unionist or in the ABC or in the military to go anywhere in the ALP…”
Wasn’t Mal Brough a former member of the Army before he ran for the Liberal Party.
And re the ABC:
or example:
• Gary Hardgrave, a former minister in the Howard government, is a former journalist with the Brisbane bureau of the ABC’s 7.30 Report.
• Peter Collins, Leader of the Liberal Party in NSW for several years, was also a former ABC TV journalist.
• Peter McArthur, a former current affairs reporter and TV newsreader for the ABC served several years in the Victorian parliament as a Liberal member.
• Bruce Webster was a sports broadcaster for the ABC and later the Liberal member for Pittwater in the NSW parliament.
• Jim Bonner, after leaving the staff of Malcolm Fraser, held senior editorial positions with ABC radio and television in Canberra and Adelaide. He later resumed his connection with the Liberal Party when he assumed the position of Director of the Liberal Party in South Australia.
• Pru Goward, a Canberra based high profile ABC journalist reported on federal politics for a number of years. She recently won Liberal Party pre-selection for a seat in NSW.
• Cathy Job, a current affairs presenter for ABC radio in Brisbane became a media adviser to David Kemp after resigning from the ABC.
• Vicki Thompson, a senior political reporter for ABC radio in Adelaide became Chief of Staff for John Olsen, Liberal Premier of South Australia.
• Ian Cover, a member of the ABC’s Coodabeen Champions crew, served as a Liberal member of the Victorian Parliament between 1996 and 2002. (Note: the Coodabeens focus was on sport rather than politics).
• Rob Messenger was ABC radio broadcaster in Bundaberg. He is now the National Party member for Burnett in the Queensland parliament.
• Grant Woodhams, National Party member for Greenough in WA worked with ABC radio in Tasmania, South Australia, NSW and Victoria.
• Ken Cooke, State Director of the National Party for 13 years, and a close associate of Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, was an ABC journalist before taking up his position with the National Party.
• Chris Nicholls, an Adelaide ABC journalist, broke a story revealing that Barbare Wiese, a minister in the Bannon Labor government in South Australia, was involved in a conflict of interest. He was accused of improperly obtaining details of Weise’s financial affairs, but was acquitted. Nicholls, and his story, were defended by the ABC’s News Editor, and the ABC State Manager. Some time later he left the ABC to work for Liberal Senator, Grant Chapman.
• Eoin Cameron,the former Liberal member for the federal seat of Stirling, presents the breakfast program on ABC local radio in Perth. He is a popular and respected broadcaster.
• Cameron Thompson worked for the ABC in Longreath and Darwin before winning the seat of Blair for the Liberal Party.
• The current State Director of the ABC in Queensland, Chris Wordsworth, is a former press officer for one time Liberal Defence Minister John Moore
Quoted from: http://friendsoftheabc.org/why-cant-liberal-party-sympathisers-get-jobs-in-the-abc
The Liberal Party is not just made of business people and lawyers its about the middle class the ALP represent the lower class.
Dont Farmers make up alot of the population in the country and dont small business people make up alot of the urban community…
One fact you cannot deny is that to be in the ALP as an MP you’ve got to have Union affiliation and thats a joke…
The point is all of those people bar Garrett have been members of Unions they are not representative of the broader community that is why the ALP is for all intensive purposes a backward party caught up in its past clinging to it…How many times does the ALP have to preselect Unionists like Harkins, Combet and Shorten to get the fact that the Union movement in a dying institution that does not represent wider Australia…
If anything the centre-right Liberal Party is more representative of middle Australia than the ALP will ever be.
They are a LABOR party, the party started as the political wing of the trade union movement. Is it so surprising that it features unionists?
The National Party are run by the National Farmers Federation. To get on the Liberal Party front bench you basically need a law degree. Are those things representative of the general population?
As stated yesterday, the only think the Liberal and National parties have in common is anti-unionism. They define themselves in the negative, not by what they are, but by what they’re not.
Glen Spluttered:
“One fact you cannot deny is that to be in the ALP as an MP you’ve got to have Union affiliation and thats a joke…”
Glen, I’m a rank and file member of the ALP and have no stage been asked to be a member of a union, so that rule – at least at Branch level is generally ignored.
Thats a broad generalisation that you need a law degree to get on the Libs front bench the point is 100% of all ALP Fed MPs are Unionists and thats a a fact not a joke.
Looks like Swan will have to be expelled from the ALP…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22236658-11949,00.html
Swan targeted over Democrats money
“Mr Swan did give money to the local branch of the Democrats in a white envelope. He said the assistance was $500 to buy election signs and there had been no discussion about preferences for the upcoming poll.”
This is too simplistic. Most middle class inner city people vote ALP, most middle class voters in the outer suburbs vote Liberal.
Yeah unionists are terrible, like Bob Hawke, the most popular P.M. of all time.
Shorten and Combet are another two excellent debaters who will be great contributors to parliament.
Oh, those. Yeah, I’ll add that to the to-do list.
But Dear Glen you forgot this important bit.
“The Australian Electoral Commission looked at the provision of the money – alternatively claimed to be $500 or $1400 – and referred it to the Australian Federal Police. No evidence of any breach of law was found. “
Oh and wasn’t Dr Brendan Nelson the Defence Minister a former president of the Austtralian Medical Association – basically a Doctor’s Union, which former WA LIBERAL Premier Richard Court described as the most militant Union he’s ever dealt with.
Says it all really.
So what? Being a nominal AWU or ASU member, as most MPs in the Right faction are, is no more than gesture of solidarity. This is just stupid McCarthyism. I don’t allege that Liberal MPs take their orders from the BCA or Rupert Murdoch (well, not usually).
England 297/5 – I love internet streaming, that’s why I’m still online at this time of night.
Adam Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 1:56 am
England 297/5 – I love internet streaming, that’s why I’m still online at this time of night.
At least here in WA it’s still 11.57pm on a Monday, and another note to William, why is the Timestamp in Eastern Standard Time ? As a fellow sandgroper is t should be set to local time as per the user’s computer.
And Glen, if you are going to play that game, you should remember that Laming and Hardgrave are being investigated for rorting their entitlements, and that Sophie Mirabella is still being investigated by the AEC – all are of course innocent till proved otherwise, but people in glass houses should be careful where they throw stones.
17 of the current Liberal ministry have law degrees. The country is going to be taken over by legal thugs if we keep this up. They will be funding new ambulances just so they have something to chase.
Adam bury the hatchit…we are suppose to debate policy not start petty shouting matches…we are bigger than that…
Last i heard Vasta got off and havent heard the latest on Laming and Hardgrave but if the AFP couldnt charge them in months how are they going to now…its a dead issue anyway Vasta will lose his seat of Bonner its a marginal in QLD he’s a goner.
Rudd wants to pull out from Iraq but he doesnt want a repeat of Latho’s Troops out By Christmas just shows how spineless he is its typical Rudd he doesnt have the ticker to make tough decisions unless the polls tell him to.
Better than Howard’s policy of leaving them there indefinitely.
Rather than argue about politics lets think about what we all have in common footy…
How about those Dees Adam bout time they notched a win up we never usually win by more than 40 so it was a pleasure to watch.
Simon lets agree that each option is a catch-22…neither is perfect by one is worse than the other…
Glen, obviously YOU don’t have a law degree. The AFP investigates people, the DPP decides whether to prosecute them. The AFP has concluded its investigation and made its report to the DDP. The DPP is still studying the report, so Laming and Hardgrave aren’t out of the woods yet. I agree that Vasta is a goner anyway, and I think Hardgrave is too. The real blow to the Libs will be if Laming goes down, since he is a talented member.
And what should the ALP say about Iraq, Glen? As Andrews said in relation to Haneef, if we disagree with the government we are soft on terrorism, and if we agree with the government we are gutless “metooists.” Ho hum.
Yes thanks for pointing out the obvious i know the DPP has the ultimate to make a decision whether to prosecute but the AFP gave no indications over possible charges and they let Vasta off completely although he had to repay some large figure…
The point is the AFP took an long time to prepare the findings to the DPP and the DPP have had the report for sometime now and havent made a judgement yet so it could be a good sign for them or it could be a bad one…i believe they havent committed any wrong they’d have to be idiots to do something so blatantly corrupt and should pay if they did but i doubt they’d be so dumb.
Laming should hold on despite redistributions and a swing against him he had a 9% buffer though i think its less now.
In response to your last comment…that’s politics Adam like it or lump it but you’d have to admit the Labor party seem less like an opposition nowadays…they are acting like they’re in government and they arent in government yet.
* I only point out the obvious when it is necessary to do so.
* A 9% buffer won’t save Laming if he is charged, since he will be ditched as a candidate at once. The seat is probably 50-50 at the moment. Laming being axed will probably tip it to Labor.
* I don’t admit any such thing. What Rudd is doing is refusing to be wedged by your cheap stunts. He is playing the game with great skill and you can’t lay a glove on him, unlike a slow target like Beazley, a bonehead like Crean or a fool like Latham, all of whom you knew how to deal with. That’s why you HATE him so much.
I dont hate Rudd i think he would be an ok Labor PM but he doesnt have the experience to be PM now plain and simple nuff said…Kev in 010 will have to be his new slogan…
Sorry but i thought Rudd had beliefs he obviously doesnt because he hasnt the ticker to
tell us what tax policy he has
tell us what he’ll do with Iraq
tell us the details of his IR policy
His small target strategy will fail because for someone so inexperienced to offer them little detail of his policies will hurt him and thats while Kev in 07 wont pull off a victory…
I’m surprised you’d think i hate Rudd as if i would say you hated Howard though you’d take it as a compliment…your petty comments are sad Adam…I’m going to bed
Interesting Nielson breakdown in The Age:
“Coalition cohort makes for exit
Michelle Grattan
DESPITE the Government’s improvement in the weekend Age/Nielsen poll, it has lost friends almost everywhere this year, according to a comparison of polls over the past five months with those before the 2004 election.
If John Howard is looking for mates as he tries to recover, he’ll find more of them among people over 55, in the west, and outside the cities.
In the latest poll, only older people supported the Coalition on a two-party basis (52 per cent) and those in WA (56 per cent). Outside the cities, it was lineball — 49 per cent.
The Howard Government has always had its base among older voters in particular. Outside the capital cities, support for the Coalition has also been relatively strong over the long term.
A comparison of the two-party average for the past five Age/Nielsen polls (from April on) with the average for the last five before the 2004 election (taken in the month leading to the election) shows where the biggest swings have come and who has been least inclined to desert the Government.
The Government on the 2007 five-poll average has a majority (51 per cent) only among those 55 and over and in WA. It has 47 per cent of the regional vote and 45 per cent of Queenslanders.
The national swing in the batches of polls between 2004 and 2007 is 9 per cent against the Government.
The swing is relatively uniform among states and groups, with the exception of WA.
But the Government has suffered the biggest swings against it in NSW (11 per cent) and South Australia (10 per cent), and among men (10 per cent), people who live in the capitals (10 per cent), people 18-24 (10 per cent) and those 40-54 (11 per cent).
States where the anti-Government swing has been below average are Victoria (8 per cent), Queensland (7 per cent) and WA (5 per cent). The smallest anti-Government swings have been among women (8 per cent), those living outside the metropolitan area (8 per cent), people aged 25-39 (9 per cent) and those 55 and over (8 per cent).
The Government’s problem this year is that it has been losing people across the board.”
All this talk about Unions, and the fact that Liberal (or right wing) supporters tend to have negative views of them, with the converse being true for Labor (or left of centre) supporters got me thinking.
The word, or label, “Union” to me is an anachronism. It’s time for a rewrite. So much mud has been thrown at these organisations over the years that I’m wondering if a name change wouldn’t hurt – such as “association” or “collective” or a similar term. Same function, different name. Negative connotations gone, at least for now, and some respite so that these organisations can do what they’re designed to do: give workers a sense of protection.
Glen Says: “Thats a broad generalisation that you need a law degree to get on the Libs front bench the point is 100% of all ALP Fed MPs are Unionists and thats a a fact not a joke.”
100%? In the first half of the sentence you deride “broad generalisations”, and then, in the second half of the sentence you state an out-and-out falsehood, which is based upon a broad generalization, which has no basis in fact.
Is Peter Garrett a ‘unionist’? No. Is Kevin Rudd? No. Is Gary Gray? No.
Which basically means that your entire opinion about the ALP is based upon either deliberately misleading, or poorly researched information. That’s no way to live your life mate… but unfortunately, it’s the modus operandi of most liberal policy in the past five years (Children overboard, AWB, etc. etc.).
1. William, you’ve got “pollitis” already? And the avalanche has only just started LOL
2. Adam: I checked out your site. Very interesting, and invaluable for a political junkie like myself. Thanks!
3. Speaking of the Poms: Since Gordon Brown took over as British PM, his Labour Party has surged to a 10 point poll lead over the Conservatives – proof a change of leadership does wonders, Costello might argue?
There are intelligent Liberals like Glen….and there are idiots like Nostrodamus and Cerdic Conan.
Glen Says: Sorry but i thought Rudd had beliefs he obviously doesnt because he hasnt the ticker to:
tell us what tax policy he has
tell us what he’ll do with Iraq
tell us the details of his IR policy
You can thank none-other than John Howard for the small target strategy a la 1996. How about you scrape up a bit of research detailing ONE policy that John Howard went to the electorate with in 1996.
The ALP will release its policies in the election proper to ensure that the liberal party doesn’t have all that time to start a deliberate misleading, and poorly researched (liberal party modus operandi) scare campaign. It is, after all, the only thing they excel at.
Glen:
“Scorpio Howard didnt need a mentor because he already had enough experience to run the country”
Yes, he learned a great deal when he was Treasurer. If you follow the adage “Everyone learns from their mistakes”, Howard made enough mistakes in the 70’s to qualify as an economic genius.
Adam – I’m with you. I know quite a few intelligent, thoughtful, non-ratbag Libs. I wish they’d sign up to this list. Instead, all we get are empty vessels making lots of noise.
Yes, Pi, there was certainly no mention of draconian IR laws at the ‘96 election.
Adam
by the looks of it even their candidates are fools
Lib candidate dumped over blog outburst
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22242230-29277,00.html
A bet the ozplogosphere will be quieter today!
Glen Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 1:21 am
{Question…Adam is it really representative that 100% of ALP Federal MPs are Unionists and 70% of their front bench is made up of ex-Union officials is that healthy for a political organisation to be controlled by a group that represents less than 20% of workers??? }
Glen, you really need to get out more mate. It looks as though you need a hobby of some sort, Stamp Collecting comes to mind. And you really need to get some sleep, sitting up all night raving on about “Union Hacks” all night cannot be doing your health any good.
We all would like to see you last till at least the election to read your comments after your idol Mr Howard slinks off into retirement.
{And Adam you should acknowledge that you have to be a Unionist or in the ABC or in the military to go anywhere in the ALP…}
And Glen, in case you missed it somewhere along the line in your haste to post continual comments about Labor and Union Thugs, The Labor Party is the “Political Wing” of the labour movement ie the Union Movement. There is nothing strange or secret about the relationship. It has been ongoing since about 1896 or thereabouts.
In #276 Drop by wrote “Tony Wright on Sky News Agenda when challenged about Nielsen being within margin of error replied, that 3% off Labor (tpp) and 3% added on to the Coalition figure equals a six point turnaround which is outside the 2.6% margin of error. I think that is what is known as creative accounting.”
Tony does seem to be arithmetically challenged because he wrote the following in The Age on Saturday “And for every seat that Howard wins from Labor, Rudd has to win two.”
And this was in an article that starts with “IT’S simple arithmetic. Labor needs to win a net 16 seats — that is, lose none it already holds and strip 16 off the government — if Kevin Rudd is to form a majority government.”
Re:Comment 329
It would appear that Rudd has appeal across the entire spectrum. Not surprising really. Apart from Rudd appearing to be a ’safe pair of hands’ the government has been drifting so far to the right that it has left the middle empty. A Rudd government would practically be a new Liberal goverment ex the dishonesty and IR extremism.
Howard and Co hang on by one single thread, the smoke and mirrors of ‘their’ economy. Break that thread and people will feel liberated to freely punish the government for things like Hicks, AWB, Iraq, Manildra, Cash-for-visas, refugee abuse, fear/xenophobic-mongering, Bushism and so forth. It would be worse than a seal hunt.
The economy isn’t the child of the Howard and Costello of course but this is a hard message to get across to the average punter. They probably understand our prosperity comes from global and Chinese demand would be uncertain on interest rates and inflation. That has been slightly dented recently with the 5th rate rise. Another interest rate rise might actually break the mould and the myth and take steam out of their mantra of having lower rates than Labor.
Labor only needs to point out that collective baragaining is tied to productivity gains so that wages increases come with increased productivity. And a reminder that WorkChoices has only been in a short time.
The RBA has given strong warning that another rate rise is on the way and especially if the govt makes poor election promises by thowing money at the wrong areas of the economy. I believe the RBA is telling Howard that there probably will be an interest rate rise.
The Brisbane Courier Mail flags the idea of an October election for Howard to avoid the interest rate rise that could well come.
Kina,
I agree with you that Howard has been very successful in getting the public, and media, to accept their questionable argument that they are automatically superior economic managers.
I think Rudd and his strategists have been extremely clever in targeting “micro-economics” – food prices, petrol, housing affordability. The biggest challenge for Labor is to start eating away at the “better economic manager” orthodoxy.
Kerry Anne asked viewers what to give Costello for his 5Oth birthday…run over Howard with a Bus that’s what he’s been wanting since 1996 lol.
I wonder if Howard and co go negative on Rudd’s inexperience Rudd will just bring out ads saying experience to fluff up Iraq, Tampa, AWB and stuff like that probably they’ll both go negative.
I am sure Labor have some ads depicting maps of electorates with the 25 proposed nuclear power plants super imposed on them. In my state of NSW I can think of Paterson, Hunter, Hughes, Cook, Eden-Monaro and possibly Richmond and Page as possibilities
Are there really many Anglo-Celtic Muslims? Can you name six? In fact, can you name _any_ six people who are Anglo-Celtic? I think the expression ‘Anglo-Celtic’ is usually a nonsense.
Glen Undoubtedly this will be an extraordinarily negative campaign on both sides. You can imagine the ads are already well prepared and have been run by focus groups.
The Coalition will assert that Labor will wreck the economy and people will risk losing their homes if they vote Labor. They are being backed up by highly dubious “research” showing how interest rates will rise even further under Labor if AWAs are abolished. In other words they will try to turn the rising interest envronment into a plus for them. They will say the Kevin Rudd team is too inexperienced to run a trillion dollar economy and it’s too risky to change.
Labor will run on old and tired, out of date and out of touch. They will advertise how John Howard lied about interest rates in 2004 and can’t be trusted on anything he says. Add to that AWAs, global warming, the education system,the Iraq war and you have a potent campaign on both sides.
It really depends in the end what voters believe.
It is likely the polls will come closer together, partly because of this campaign and partly because people will start thinking about the effects of their votes.
It is likely to be heavily polarised at the end and the Greens and other minor party votes may well get sqeezed.
Nevertheless the Coalition would still need to have a primary vote three to four per cent higher than Labor to be re-elected in an even across the broad swing.
I don’t think that is at all likely this time.
My betting is that the Coalition and the ALP will be close to level pegging on their primaries come election time, with the possibility that the ALP will be a point or two ahead. At 44-44, there is a likelihood that the ALP would win. The preferences would split most likely 8 to ALP 4 to Coalition.
We can all fret about it as much as we like and can abuse each other on this blog but it won’t make a jot of difference to the end result.
We’re just going to have to trust the average Australian voter to see through the lies and exaggerations and make the right decision in the interests of the whole nation. Let’s cross our fingers!
It was 3 Independents.
Blair # 272
The primary votes for the two contending minors in SA Senate (Greens and Family First) are both going to be less than half a quota, and the harvest from other micros (including Democrats) will be insufficient to put them in play.
The only way either of them can achieve quota is to harvest the residue from both majors. This immediately eliminates the Greens as they will not receive Liberal preferences ahead of Labor or Family First. So the only way for Labor to limit the coalition to less than 3 quotas is to put Family First ahead of the Greens in echange for FFP preferences.
Put simply Coalition + FFP is likely to exceed three quotas in all states.
If there is a real Ruddslide as indicated by recent polls such an arrangement may see 4 Labor candidates elected in SA on the back of FFP preferences, but no Greens.
When Kevin Rudd said that he was going to “Mess with Howard’s Head”, he wasn’t kidding.
Glen I think, has just realised what a lot of people have noticed, that Howard has been shown to be vulnerable on so many issues, that he is going to be continually trying to dowse spot-fires all over the place as well as try to shore up crucial marginal seats, that he is going to be somewhat extended.
On top of that, there is the Maxine factor. It won’t do Howard a lot of good to extend himself in so many areas as well as trying to outline Liberal Party Policy, counter Labor Policy and in the process have his margin in Bennalong shot to pieces by a young, enthusiastic and popular opponent.
For a 68 year old warhorse to keep that up for any length of time will certainly have a draining effect. Look out for repeated blunders by Howard as he tries to keep up. Mess with his head? He sure is.
Oh yes and nuclear…..and..
I just did the survey at political compass. I got -4.12 for economics and -1.79 for social. In general, I think of myself as a left-winger, but on some issues I’m extremely right-wing. These include revenge (I really, really want to see Howard thrashed), warfare (the Iraq war is now a mess, but I supported it initially) and, in particular, crime (I believe in giving very nasty criminals the justice that they deserve, and believe in the death penalty). These views would probably be anathema to most of my fellow lefties.
What you have demonstrated Lord D is that the old left-right paradigm doesn’t work. All of us are left on some things and right on others, except the fundamentalists who feel they have to accept everything on the right or on the left, even when it is patently absurd.
I’m what would be called far left on the environment and fiscally quite conservative. No party exists for me.
In a previous thread people were discussing a movement in the betting towards the Coalition on Sunday night previous to the Nielsen Poll being released. Well here is the source of that movement.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22241465-1242,00.html
Either the wisdom of solomon or one two many drinks with his mates.
Lord D. Revenge is not a policy, more a state of mind. I reckon a good tar and feathering is quite in order for Mr Howard. Don’t like your other beliefs, though, too redneck for me.
Characters in some of my fantasy books can be extremely vindictive. I greatly enjoy it when a very evil character dies in a bloody, painful way. I also greatly enjoyed the 5-0 thrashing Australia gave the poor old Poms in the cricket. I just did the test at OzPolitics, and got -41.4 for political outlook, -29.6 for economics, -27.4 for social policy and -35.9 for traditional values, so I’m in the centre-left on all of these. OzPolitics says I’m more of a Greenie than a Laborite, but I wouldn’t consider voting Green; too single-issue and I definitely wouldn’t trust them with the economy.
I’ve probably missed a fair bit of the discussion but Post 116 claims Howard won the 1996 debate??
He won in terms of public perception of winning the debate, but how much of that was a reflection of how entrenched and hard his levels of support were at that time? How much of that debate/campaign victory was a result of the mood for change, the poll figures, and the feeling that Keating shopuld go?
Levels of support appear to have crystalised around the two major parties with some small movements within margins of error. While we are regularily reminded that this does not predict an electoral outcome in November it suggests a pretty healthy labor victory if the poll was held now.
The campaign is unlikely to produce a shift in support large enough to wrest victory from Labor. Particularily if levels of support for Rudd/ALP are as firm as they seem, he would have to do something pretty silly to hand an advantage to JWH. It is fair to say that campaigns are important, but they are intrinsically coloured by a mood about who is winning or losing before the election writs are issued.
face it, it’s probably over……. and it won’t be pretty for the coalition
I thought the idea of the Betting Market being an indicator of the election result was based on the idea that a large number of punters must be supporting one side or the other. One large bet that skewes the odds hardly qualifies as a change in sentiment or represents a ‘general’ movement back to the Govt.
Betting on emotion rather than logic is a sure way to lose money.
LORD.D
The only reason I am against the death penalty for the extreme criminal is the mistakes that fill the system and, the emotion that often overides objectivity in these cases. We might execute someone now based on an overwhelming feeling of need for revenge that we might later regret, having looked at the enitire context and evidence of the crime. Execution to satisfy emotional needs is not a good basis for giving out punishment, I think.
Tony Abbott has once again been emphasising the “experience” theme, as reported by aap:
“The opposition team is the least qualified team ever to present itself to run this country,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“Kevin Rudd, who hasn’t even run a local council, you’ve got Julia Gillard, who’s only ever run Socialist Forum in the mid-80s in Victoria and you’ve got Wayne Swan, who ran a corrupt branch of the Labor Party.
“These are the people who are now offering themselves to run our country. It’s not a very inspiring alternative government, let me tell you.”
It’s obvious this is a something that’s been cropping up in the Coalition’s own research and it’s backed up by the 83% of Nielsen respondents who said that the issue of experience will directly influence who they vote for. Ultimately, the Australian electorate are not going to dump an extraordinarily popular long-standing PM for a glib snake-oil salesman who’s only been Leader for 10 or 11 months. Not going to happen.
And here’s a tidbit from that Bennelong poll that wasn’t splashed across the media on Sunday: 61% of respondents believe the PM will hold the seat.
This just proves that Glen’s constant posts on Rudd’s and his Front Bench “inexperience” is coming from Liberal Party “talking points” sheets.
{Federal Labor’s frontbench is the least qualified alternative government in history, Health Minister Tony Abbott said.
He said federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd hadn’t run a municipal council let alone a major economy.
“The opposition team is the least qualified team ever to present itself to run this country,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“Kevin Rudd, who hasn’t even run a local council, you’ve got Julia Gillard, who’s only ever run Socialist Forum in the mid-80s in Victoria and you’ve got Wayne Swan, who ran a corrupt branch of the Labor Party.}
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Labor-least-experienced-ever-Abbott/2007/08/14/1186857469277.html
A nice, christian gentleman is our Mr Abbott.
Look to hear a lot more of this between now and the election.
Here’s Peter Martin on the Econtech report.
Even its authors note that its terms of reference make the report irrelevant – as no party is proposing to take us back to pre-Keating compulsory arbitration.
“Compiled by the respected modeliers, Econtech, the research predicts five interest rate rises, a loss of more than 300,000 jobs and a $57billion hit to national gross domestic product should WorkChoices be wound back.
But, contrary to the impression you get, the study doesn’t examine what would happen if WorkChoices was wound back to where Kevin Rudd has promised to put it with no Australian Workplace Agreements and a continuation of enterprise bargaining but to an earlier time when wages were set centrally by the Arbitration Commission, something no political party is contemplating. (Labor has even promised to abolish the Arbitration Commission.)
Econtech is scrupulous in its report in making clear that it was restricted by limited, and not particularly relevant, terms of reference.”
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your+say&subclass=general&story_id=1036748&category=opinion
Abbotts mate from WA is a nice type too.
{West Australian Liberal Don Randall said many of his constituents thought the opposition leader was smarmy.
“They just see him as very smarmy, a smarmy sort of oily, snake oil salesman who’s trying to do and say anything he can to win an election,” Mr Randall said.}
He left out the “smoke and mirrors’ quote that is coming up everywhere.
But they seem to be quietening down on the “me tooism” a fair bit now. Probably to give Howard more room to move on any Labor policy ideas that take their fancy.
I suppose, when all else fails, it’s back to “sneer and smeer”.
{Labor workplace relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard dismissed Mr Abbott’s remarks about the opposition’s lack of experience.
“Labor is presenting at this election with the fresh ideas for Australia’s future,” Ms Gillard told reporters.
“All the Howard government is doing in desperation is engaging in personal criticisms and slanging matches.
“There we have Mr Abbott as exhibit A.”}
It would be a nice exercise to compare the Liberal “talking points” sheets with the offerings of political commentators in the major dailies.
Particularly the more rabid variety.
#356 Steven, re. 61% of respondents expecting Howard to hold. Very interesting, surprising more hasn`t been made of this. Still, I imagine it`s considerably less than a few months ago. Does anyone have stats on this?
-7.38 on economic issues
-4.87 on social
Down there with Gandhi apparently. Didn`t realise I was so firmly ensconced in the loony left.
I haven`t noticed any right wingers come forward with their results for the political compass. A little too close to Maggie for comfort, or God forbid, the unmentionable, immediate-loss-of-argument gentleman, just above her? Come on gents, enlighten us.
Strop did the Ozpolitics test, and viola, I’m a Greenie (80.3), just ahead of being Labor (76.5), and no chance of joining One Nation (35.9).
I think that’s pretty close to the mark with the only real qualification that I identify with Labor and vote Labor for pragmatism reasons more than anything else (the Greens do not and can not control the HOR or Senate). I’m supposedly centre left on most policy measures, no surprise there either really. What does that make me, a ’social democrat’ of sorts ?
Who cares. I voted for the Greens when Keating went to the polls in 1996 because I thought he was a dud PM and past his time. I vote for good Government or at least the one whom I think will do more to intercede in the ‘free market’ to offset the deleterious effects of the Modernist project on those who are, for one reason or another, disadvantaged by the ‘competetive’ nature of our economic system.
PS Glen: Most sensible Labor people of this era have learn’t from Hawke-Keating that going into negotiations between labour and capital with an adversarial attitude (us-v-them) and the Labor Party is frequented by people from a wide range of political, economic and social perspectives.
Your stereotyping of Labor candidates as all coming from the ‘old school’ of bloody-minded unionists with that adversarial attitude to industrial relations policy is very dated, probably 2 decades old in my experience. There is, as you noted, a need to bring more of a balance to the pre-selection of candidates in Labor ranks, but the Liberal Party and National Party have equally questionable and biased pre-selection dynamics. The difference is you cant pin one simple label (eg. Unionists) on the power brokers in Liberal politics.
Please don’t assume, by the way, that unionism is evil in and of itself: that is unreasonable and weakens your argument more than it enhances in my opinion. Its like saying all Indigenous Australians are alcoholics because you see them in the parks and in the media. Harkins was one union person, you can’t taint them all with the same brush based on one image.
It is illogical. I see one black duck, now two, now three. Conclusion
Occupation background of Labor frontbench: Liberal lies exposed.
Following a discussion with Glen last night, who repeated the Liberal Party’s line that “70% of the Labor frontbench are (or were) union officials”, I did a bit of research. In fact, of the 30 members of the Shadow Ministry, only 11 (37%) made their primary career in the unions before entering Parliament. Another five (17%) had some secondary union employment. Fourteen (47%) have never been union officials or employees. (Sources: Parliamentary handbook, Wikipedia).
No union background (14)
Anthony Albanese – bank officer
Kim Carr – teacher
Craig Emerson – economist
Joel Fitzgibbon – automotive engineer
Peter Garrett – musician
Julia Gillard – lawyer
Robert McClelland – lawyer
Jan McLucas – teacher
Bob McMullan – party official
Jenny Macklin – economist, advisor
Tanya Plibersek – public servant
Kevin Rudd – diplomat, public servant
Wayne Swan – academic, party official
Stephen Smith – lawyer, academic, party official
Primary union background (11)
Arch Bevis – teacher, union secretary
Tony Burke – union organiser
Stephen Conroy – union employee
Simon Crean – ACTU president
Chris Evans – union secretary
Laurie Ferguson – union research officer
Martin Ferguson – ACTU president
Kate Lundy – union organiser
Kerry O’Brien – union secretary
Nick Sherry – union secretary
Lindsay Tanner – union secretary
Secondary union background (5)
Chris Bowen – economist, union employee
Alan Griffin – public servant, union organiser for one year
Joe Ludwig – barrister, union advocate
Nicola Roxon – lawyer, union organiser
Penny Wong – lawyer, legal officer. Briefly a union employee
For purposes of camparison, I also researched the occupational background of the Howard ministry. As I expected, the majority of the Cabinet are lawyers. The outer ministry is a bit more diverse. The disappearance of farmers from Coalition ministries since Fraser’s day is striking.
Cabinet
Kevin Andrews – lawyer
Julie Bishop – lawyer
Helen Coonan – lawyer
Peter Costello – lawyer
Chris Ellison – lawyer
Joe Hockey – lawyer
John Howard – lawyer
Peter McGauran – lawyer
Philip Ruddock – lawyer
Malcolm Turnbull – lawyer, banker
Ian Macfarlane – farmer
Warren Truss – farmer
Tony Abbott – journalist (has a law degree)
Alexander Downer – diplomat
Nick Minchin – party staffer and official (law degree)
Brendan Nelson – doctor
Mark Vaile – auctioneer
Outer ministry
Eric Abetz – lawyer
George Brandis – lawyer
David Johnston – lawyer
Christopher Pyne – lawyer
Fran Bailey – small business
Mal Brough – businessman
Jim Lloyd – small business
Nigel Scullion – businessman
Bruce Billson – manager
Peter Dutton – police officer
Gary Nairn – surveyor
Andrew Robb – agricultural scientist, party official
Sharman Stone – manager
Don’t you all know that experience is the most important issue. That’s what the Cuban, North Korean and Zimbabwe governments keep telling us.
Maybe we should cancel the elections and make Johnny President for Life.
Do all Liberal and National candidates go around calling people a ‘bitch’ on their blogsite (Maribynong candidate) Glen ? No. Neither do all Labor candidates go around threatening and abusing people.
Derek Corbett Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
{It would be a nice exercise to compare the Liberal “talking points†sheets with the offerings of political commentators in the major dailies.}
How about it Glen, Steven Kaye et al ?
Why not let us in on what Liberal Headquarters is handing out each day. We could have a seperate thread on it and it would be a great opportunity to put forward your supporting arguments in a distinct forum!
Playing the man, not the ball, ain’t gonna work for the Libs this time. Rudd’s too popular at the moment.
So 61% in Bennelong expect Howard to hold? That will no doubt have gone down as a result of the poll. The bookies dramatically shortened the odds on Maxine from $2.75 to $2.25 after that poll.
Ray (347) your analysis of the SA senate situation is entirely correct, if the current polling holds Labor may pick up a 4th in SA and it is more likely that Labor will getting a 4th then the Greens getting one.
This is pretty much the opinion of everyone who follows politics in SA, but what no one can figure out is why, in the name of all that is holy, are Labor ONLY RUNNING 3 CANDIDATES IN SA.
It just makes no freaking sense.
Re: OzPolitics Quiz
Looks like I am one of those rabid lefties:
Your broad political orientation score is -81.1%, which equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Your economic policy score score is -70.1%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Your social policy score is -92.3%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Your traditional values score is -94.7%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Greens 96.3%
Australian Democrats 84%
Labor Party 74.2%
Family First 39.1%
Liberal Party 21.8%
National Party 16.2%
One Nation 19%
Am a bit surprised about my Family First score – I thought even the Liberal Party would have been higher than that. Well, there you have it.
To be fair, Scorpio, all parties are into this caper, but the libs have made it a fine art. However, if exposed, it would cut down the amount of copy filed by the rabids. What would they do without their prompts from HQ?
Like I said… you didn’t answer the “do you like torturing kittens” in the positive, so knocks off about 50% from your liberal score.
I am trying to find photos of all people who have federal electorates named after them. If anyone has a photo, or knows where to find one, of Collett Barker, Ruth Fairfax, Charles Throsby, William Boothby, Louisa Dunkley or Joseph Tice Gellibrand I would be grateful. (Yes, I have tried the nla archive.)
Hi all, I’m going to repost something i posted quite late on the last thread as I’m keen to get some feedback (gusface and J-D, thanks for your input).
Here goes…..
Slightly off topic, but i need to get this outta my system. The other week, Michael Chaney wrote an piece in the Australian about how disastrous an ALP government would be, especially in I.R. I wrote a response to the piece and posted it on The Australian’s website. In what is becoming a regular thing, they chose not to post my remartks. So, what I’d like to do is post those comments here and see if anyone could tell me why The Auistralian would not post them – I mean, as i understand it, they’ll put your remarks up so long as you’re not being offensive or personal…. frankly i think this is rubbish and they scrutinise the comments carefully to exclude opinions they don’t like – I’ve heard too many similar thoughts from other posters to believe otherwise noe. I realise that people will disagree with my comments (and fair enough too), but I want to know if anyone else thinks these comments are too “offensive†to post. Anyhoo – here’s what i wroter in response to Mr Chaney’s article…….
God forbid, the dreaded ALP will drag us back to the dark ages of…..18 months ago.
What an absolutely emabarrasing argument Cheney puts up here. Just as conservatives and big business mocked Labor for predicting the sky will fall with the intro of Howard’s I.R regime, they now turn around and expect to be taken seriously when they claim the sky will fall if Labor gets in – what rubbish. All the evidence is against this argument. The real issue for the BCA, ACCI, AIG and the Liberal party generally is not about the impact on productivity and wealth, its about the redistribution of the wealth that is produced. Howard’s I.R regime is about squeezing more money out of those who can least afford to lose it and directing it toward business interests – true that might see a risde in share prices in some cases, but if you think that means there is equal benefit across the country, you are just plain lying. The pathetic rerasoning that because most aussies have shares through super and therefore would benefit is so nakedly deceptive that it makes me want to vomit. As for the advertising campaigns – the ACTU is far more honest in its campaign than the taxpayer funded ads the Government is running, not to mention the business sector ads (is that music supposed to warn of rates rises or child predators?) The Government ads featuring Barbara (my integrity is worth exactly $50,000) Bennett are utterly misleading…..start with a misleading or obtuse statement and then categorically deny it. You may as well have someone saying †I heard that they can fry your cat for dinner and make you eat it.†at which point Ms Bennet comes onscreen in to say “that;s completely untrue.â€
All very reassuring, but it doesn’t talk about the fact that if you’re an existing employee offered an AWA that you refuse to sign, your employer can easily accept that, go away for a week or two and then come back and say “sorry mate – gotta let you go….operational reasons.†When that employer interviews for new staff, they can then efffectively say – “take these conditions or you don’t get the job.†Great system – very Australian.
….true, my comments aren’t full of cheer, but did that deserve to be censored?
You need to lay off the personal stuff. News is the publisher, and can thus be held liable for defamatory content, and so they have a perfect right not to publish your remarks.
I know I am a little late (well 12 hrs plus really) but I just have to put my two bob in about the “name calling†that went on last night well after I went to bed.
The usually Liberal play of “accusing†all Labor people as “unionist†was the cartelist of this hubbub.
I am reminded of an occasion when I was in year six and as a group our vocabularies were expanding. There was a “fight†between two classmates and one accused the other of being a “heterosexualâ€. The accused had no idea of what a heterosexual was but he assumed it couldn’t be good. So he denied it most strenuously.
Those in the “know†thought it was very funny and all the way through high school this was raised time and time again to condemn him out of his own mouth.
Now you might think this is “smart and clever†when you are 12 but for adults to try the same thing is a trifle silly.
We all have different experiences and opinions that we bring to the table and none of us is limited by one of those experiences. To try and limit the skills and values that any of us may bring to the table to their “union experience†shows a lack of understand of what makes the whole person.
One of those singled out and “accused†of being a “unionist†was Mr Greg Combet†who has a vast experience behind him with qualifications is many areas (see http://www.alp.org.au/people/nsw/combet_greg.php). Singling out his “union†experience and arguing that this is a mark of who he is and his relevance to the rest of us is just plain silly. Why not pick on the fact that he went to University of that he is married or that he goes or does not go to church. All of the characterises/experiences are just as relevant to who and what Mr Combet is, as are his union connections.
Finally, I cannot let the following comment from Glen go without comment.
“The Liberal Party is not just made of business people and lawyers its about the middle class the ALP represent the lower class.â€
I am afraid that this comment very clearly represents one of the reasons why I do not vote liberal. It clearly represents the “born to rule mentality†that epitomises the attitude of many Liberal party members. “How dare, those from downstairs, try and tell, those from upstairs, how things should be doneâ€
I have a number of qualifications including a University degree. I have raised a family, paid my taxes and supported my community but because I vote “Labor†does not mean that I am somehow less than or “lower to†or beneath those who vote for some other political party. Because I am rich or poor or talented or mentally retarded does not place me as lower anything.
I remember when I was very you my parents setting me down and telling me:
“Remember son, there is no one in this world that is superior to you and there is no one you are superior tooâ€.
So next time you looking to describe those who vote “Labor†I suggest that you pick a better descriptive then “lowerâ€.
Stunkrat,
fair enough, but what I’m asking is where is the defamatory language (and i mean legally speaking)? I’m hardly Larry Flynt here.
Something like
would raise my eyebrows.
Optimist.
Not censored. Rejected. There is a difference. What’s your point? Get a copy of Strunk’s “The Elements of Style”. Be precise. To the point. One thought per sentence. Sub-editors on newspapers are generally good, but can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
(Sorry. This is off-topic, but … communication is the key.)
Optimist
You still don’t get it. Your stuff is a ramble, a shamble. Tighten it up and you might get a run. All the best.
Ok, so here’s a wilcard coming out of South Australia:
The ANZ reports today that the South Australian economy is in “technical recession”.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22243014-5006301,00.html
Scorpio 339
In relation to unions and MP’s, try 1874 – Angus Cameron elected as a representative of the NSW Trades & Labor Council. He did, however, break from Labor, not joining the party in 1891 and ending up as a free-trader. http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A030311b.htm
But the point remains the same – the labour movement has had a long and direct involvement in politics, seen as representing the working class for much of that time.
However, I would suggest that class tags no longer apply. Just as Howard can appeal to “Howard’s battlers” Rudd can appeal to “Doctors wives”. We have parties that are now much more about being across a range of issues that are more or less centralist in their political orientation, and no longer class oriented (support for private education/health etc, small Government, support of free market economies but in a stable social-liberal state etc).
Consider Howard now accepting climate change (even while he has very vocal dissenters in his own party) and the need to act accordingly – even while supposed class allies in business still argue against it. Just as Hawke/Keating sold the “peoples Bank” and accepted a deregulated economy which did not immediately benefit their own class allies (and in fact hastened the fall in support of unions). And farmers vote for Liberals, Nationals, One Nation etc – I would have suggested they want a social-liberal government that supports local industry (primary-tertiary) while at the same time providing adequate redistribution for social welfare purposes.
Comment 384:
That was followed by this:
A CENTRE to foster innovation in small and medium manufacturing businesses will be established in Adelaide as part of a $100 million plan by federal Labor.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22239840-5006301,00.html
AND also this:
THE Federal Government’s workplace reforms provoke fear, insecurity and feelings of intimidation, South Australia’s employee ombudsman says.
The ombudsman Stephen Brennan says there’s a lack of transparency in the Howard government’s WorkChoices system.
He was giving evidence today at the SA Industrial Relations Commission inquiry into the impact of the WorkChoices legislation.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22243313-5006301,00.html
No wonder in SA the TPP is 62/38
If only it could remove Downer.
What is a wilcard? Some strange furry animal peculiar to South Australia? Like a bilby, perhaps.
Matt, what has this to do with the price of fish?
Adam – here’s William Boothby.
whoops, that should have said “wildcard”, Derek.
I’m merely trying to engender debate with respect to what impact the poor economic data may have on the South Australian vote at the federal election. Will this story have any impact on people’s future voting intentions ? (as Labor are polling very well in SA)
Need to take issue with this. Business has long been pushing a climate change agenda – why wouldn’t they, when it’s their business that’s at risk? And when there are opportunities to make money from it?
That’s the only reason Howard’s gone down that line.
Will he or won’t he??
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/no-push-to-oust-pm-costello/2007/08/14/1186857474995.html
Lets hope not, he should stay for the final party, where he gets to play the role of the piñata.
Adam, I have a Gellibrand for you:
http://www.nma.gov.au/play/batmania/batmania_html_version/whos_who/
toward the bottom of the page.
d
Dare say there would not be many lollies in a Costello Pinata
Rob my bet is: no.
Does anybody seriously believe that Costello still has even a vague chance of ever leading the Liberal Party?
Apart from the obvious reason why he can’t (i.e, that he’s slightly less popular than avian bird flue), he has form for breaking party unity, and publicly criticizing the Party’s leader. In doing so, he might even have jeopardized the Party’s chances at the next election.
If it was just his lack of popularity, then it might still be possible for him to maybe, someday, be opposition leader for a brief patch when nobody else is willing to take the job. A bit like Simon Crean. Or, Alexander Downer, who was only really propped up as Opposition Leader to make John Howard look good.
But after that act of treachery, I don’t think he would even qualify for such a job. Put yourself in the mindset of a Liberal MP, and ask who the hell would follow him as leader?
re Stunkrat 390
Some business will benefit from going down the climate change road, but others will not. Renewables industry (with an insurance industry – the ultimate risk managers – behind it) could be worth $billions, but the Govt has persisted with the coal industry – and not just because the Mining Division of CFMEU was concerned about immediate job losses. We now see the nuclear industry being touted – which is in reality Big Business writ large, not small or medium businesses, the middle class or professional classes. This should show a move away from previous ‘class’ affiliations – Menzies’ “Forgotten People”, the middle class etc – to one predicated on the individual, the aspirational worker or the self-made ‘man’. The intent is to appeal to these (newly individualised) people with a mix of policy not based on favouring one class above another but appealing directly to the individual or idenifiable section (Tassie timber workers in 2004).
Agree with Veg:
Costello said in that article that he would continue to “serve in whatever capacity I can make a positive contribution”.
Here’s a thought Mr Costello, stay right where you are as Treasurer and don’t duck when the electorate turf you out of office. Politics is a sinister business, as you once said yourself. That should take the chirlish sneer off your face when you realise that (a) Oh my God, they voted us out in spite out our (sic) magnificent economic record and (b) it is time to drag out the CV and spruik it up. There is life after politics, enjoy !
Matt
I suspect the good voters of SA are capable of recognising the difference between State and Federal. To answer your question: No. I do not think one bank’s analysis of the SA economy will have an impact on voters at the Federal election. It’s much bigger than that. I also suspect most thinking voters would view any PR release from any bank as highly dubious.
Can someone tell me where I can find a psephology site?
Rob Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Will he or won’t he??
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/no-push-to-oust-pm-costello/2007/08/14/1186857474995.html
“You’re in Canberra when your colleagues are back in their electorates and Canberra is not the fun place of Australia, I think we’d all agree on that.”
It looks as though Costello agrees with Janette Howard on one thing though.
Yes, but it would be a distaster for him personally to take it after this election. How about the following after this election:
“Australia has clearly indicated their desire for renwal in the Liberal party and I fully support ’s desire to lead us into a new future. Of course I owe it to my electorate to continue to serve them as best I can.”
Then sixteen months or so after the following election…
“The party needs to refocus after failing to make headway against the Labor government and with my experience I am in the best position to challenge PM Rudd and lead us to victory come the next federal poll.”
Of course he’d need to take his lumps and be prepared to sit in opposition for a few years so, on reflection, probably a snowballs’ chance in hell.
hmm… angle brackets get turned into tags. Should read “support [insert gullible aspirant]’s desire”
For the information of members and their guests, there is some analysis here discussing the trials, tribulations, trips, traps and tricks of transient trends – (al) literally.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewforum.php?id=8
It shows how difficult it is to extrapolate trends from polling data, and uses polling from the 1996 election to illustrate the point. It finds that the aggregate polling actually came within 0.2% of the actual two party preferred vote achieved in the election, whereas three identified trends underestimated the final Coalition two party vote by as much as 4.4%.
There’s also comparisons to 2007.
I was wondering what the Coalition would try to do in SA to discredit the State Government’s economic credentials, and there you go, some bank hack trotting out indicators of a ‘technical recession’. Bollocks.
Surely Coalition strategists have something more to offer the electorate than trying to turn this Federal Election into a series of State elections (QLD:amalgamations;Victoria:Water; WA: Burke-gate; SA ‘technical recession’; NSW: Saw Mills; Tassie: infrastructure;NT: Indigenous Affairs) and ‘fear campaign’ tactics on industrial relations and economic viability ?
Thusfar, none of those tactics have worked, according to the polls. I still think if not for 9/11 and Tampa we would have a change of Govt in 2001. Latham killed 2004 off his own (dead) bat.
The electorate will not give them another run in 2007 unless they can do alot better than their current election strategy efforts in the coming weeks and make Rudd……. Never mind: they can figure it out for themselves.
The above link is just the general page, this is the actual page.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=230
Stewart
at 385,
Yeah, thanks for that Stewart. I have always had a fascination for early Trade Union and Labor Party history.
Living in Rockhampton does sometimes have a bonus. I was privileged to witness a re-enactment of the Trial of the “Shearers Strike” participants in the very same Courtroom where the original Trial was held 100 years before.
Even the Courtroom furniture was original, the participants wore 1890,s costume and the original transcript was used.
I think this country is more the poorer that elements of our history like this aren’t given more prominence. To understand where we are now is to understand where we have come from.
Off topic, I know , but thanks again.
Rob
If the polls continue sour for the Libs, the party will tap Howard. Or, he will do one of his celebrated humbles: ” In the interests of the party … it has become clear to me … besides which, my knee hurts .. and blah, blah …”
I doubt his ego can withstand a crushing defeat. Better for Costello to cop that.
Adam, I thought your analysis of the working backgrounds of both the liberal and labor front benches was opportune.
Vote for the liberal party, and it’s a vote for the thugs in the law fraternity.
Stewart, one interesting thing about that event that Glen would no doubt approve of, was most of the participants in that Trial, went on to become Labour Members of Parliament with most being part of the First Labour Government anywhere in the world.
It seems there is a long history of “Union Thugs” becoming Labor front benchers.
David and Darryl, much appreciated
AB
i think its here but you figure it out
Psephology is the predictive or statistical study of elections. (From the ancient Greek psephos, ‘pebble’, which the Greeks used as ballots.) Psephology is possible for a variety of reasons: the compilation of precinct voting returns for all elections going back many years, the publication of numerous public opinion polls asking similar questions on many different dates, and the public availability of campaign finance information
It’s really all just “Black” and “White” then. Pebbles, that is.
#405 Aristotle, as always an informative and interesting read.
Derak,
thanks, I have Strunk actually. Your point doesn’t stand up in comparison to the other ramblings on the site – I’ll go with Stunkrat’s theory.
Thanks anyway.
From Crikey “Tips & Rumours Section”
(No Link, as it is in the sealed section for subscribers only)
“From the grassy knoll: You are making up “retirement letters” for the PM. I tipped you last week that these arrangements are already in hand. Believe me — this is real and it is supposed to happen immediately after the APEC meeting. Could it be before? By the way the election is set for December 8th.”
“From another grassy knoll: Colleague & I had a business meeting with Mal Brough last Friday where we suggested a date for the election as 3/11. Mal indicated 17/11 as more appropriate. Then quickly added “but not sure” Think he spilled more than he intended.”
Interesting times ahead.
Adam
Instructive stuff. Ta. Highlights the misinformation being spewed out by the libs.
This is somewhat off-topic but did you read about those Kiwi parents that want to name their kid “4Rreal” – someone please tell me we have laws against that here!
No we don’t. I think Kevin07 would make a splendid name.
Funny how Labor is so worried about 500,000 of Australians suffering from rental stress that they are going to give 50,000 people in 4 years less money than developers to solve the problem…score one for incompetence…
While the left likes to argue that Howard lies what did we all watch on TV last night…Kevin Rudd and ‘Punch’ as Costello calls him sitting around a table saying to Rosanna Harris that on a rent of 260 she’d get 50 bucks off her rent…funny thing is Kevin Rudd failed to mention to Rosanna oh sorry you dont count because its only for new houses built in 4 years time for 50,000 people and all existing renters get zip…Wow what a another amazing plan by Labor fraudband and now we have the ALP so concerned about rental stress they’ll make 50,000 renters 50bucks better off in 4 years time and give developers tax credits double the amount given to the poor old renters…
Perhaps Swan should have given Rosanna 50 bucks in a paper bag to offset her losses…what’s sad is they peddle around the media like with petrol saying we’ll have a petrol commissioner then saying oh we cant make prices less and saying ohhh we’ll crack down on food prices and then admitting they cant lower prices and now this…Labor is a sham all you have to do is look past the ‘crap’ as Dutton so eloquently put it and what you have left is an absolute joke.
Costello hasnt lost his touch in Parliament…Wayne Swan is a lame alternative to someone who has such a brilliant fiscal record…god help us all if Swan runs the economy and im not religious!
Happy 50th Costello you’re one of the Coalition’s greatest assets…
345 J-D Says:
Are there really many Anglo-Celtic Muslims? Can you name six? In fact, can you name _any_ six people who are Anglo-Celtic?
I can name one. Me. My ancestral stock is English, Scottish, a little Irish, and one swarthy Moor (you know, a Muslim).
And my result from the OzPolitics test is centre-moderate left overall, with a libertarian and a green streak. Which is about right for me.
366 Adam. Nice work, and saved for future reference. But you did forget that Brendon Nelson was head of one of the most powerful, militant, and bloody-minded unions of them all, the AMA.
The more that things change, the more they stay the same:
The Government is not concerned about the fact that the fabric of our society is breaking down, that poor and underprivileged people are living in dire circumstances. It is not concerned about the fact that people cannot house themselves any more, that whole generations of young Australians will never know home ownership.
- Paul Keating, House of Representatives Hansard, August 25th, 1981
And look what they got under Labor…
96billion dollars of Debt
Unemployment at 10% and higher
Interest Rates at 12% and as high as 17%
Hate to say it Keating sounds like a hypocrite to me…
Housing rates are stable 1/3 rent 1/3 own and 1/3 have loans…i dont see it impossible to own a home…we are earning more than we were in 1981…
Esperanto was the lingua franca at the com-intern. The esperanto community are left wing. Even George Soros (esperanto as a first language) is left wing by millionare standards. Howard cannot count on the support of this community and in a tight election is a fool to discount these 250 or so votes.
Good God, fellow political junkies. What have we come to? People call me “buddy” or, even worse, “Bud”.
No, sadly, Peter. No legislation on the horizon on this particular matter.
The above is off-topic, but in this heated political atmosphere it’s a bit of fun.
Is there a link somewhere for general, but reasoned political discussion? This site concerns itself with poll figures and, as someone who can barely add up, I feel I am an imposter. Numbers make my brain hurt. Words make more sense.
Derek: Yes i was just trying to lighten the mood even though it was off-topic. It should be harder to give your children weird names – or indeed to deed poll your own name to something weird.
Happy 50th Costello you’re one of the Coalition’s greatest assets…
Glen, if you waited until later in the day to get off on Costello claiming Rudd misled that woman he was talking about, you would realise that it was shown, in the Parliament, that he got that WRONG. He had egg on his face over it and embarressed the PM. Try again Costello.
If you think Costello making a gaffe like that is an indicator of being a “greatest asset”, you really are in desperate straits. Again, like Costello, you fail to gets your facts straight before you launch into trying to be clever, making yourself look like an ignorant clown instead. Try again Glen.
Oh and Glen stop cross-posting – that same illogical post was also posted here.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=536&cp=1#comment-25733
Glen, I think you underestimate the housing and rental crisis, by poo-poohing policies that attempt to address it. It’s a difficult issue, and really a cyclical thing, rather than any government’s fault. But I suspect a failure by both Federal and state governments to fund enough welfare housing in the past is coming home to roost. The biggest factor is the willingness of banks and other lenders to hand out vast amounts of credit to anyone who asks for it when interest rates are low.
And Optimist…I work for a mainstream media organisation and sometimes have to moderate blogs. If you don’t know why The Australian didn’t post your comment, I suggest you consult a defamation lawyer for advice.
You just can’t suggest people can be bought for a price without providing evidence that this is true, and even then, you might still lose a defamation case.
It’s not for me to give media law advice to the host of this blog, but perhaps Optimist’s comments should not stay in this public domain for too long!
Media organisations may also decline to publish comments if they merely reiterate comments from many others. You may think that the Australian publishes virtually everything that’s sent to it, but in fact it may only publish a fraction of the contribution. I don’t know, and neither do you.
Back to politics though…the consiracy theories about the “technical recession” in SA are interesting. I asked on this blog a few days ago why Labor’s opinion poll ratings were so high in SA (not being very familiar with that state myself), but didn’t get a response. Any ideas?
If the state is indeed in economic trouble, why is the Rann Government still very popular? Do South Australians blame Canberra for everything?
#
288
Michael Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Why do politicians make such a big deal out of their Christianity? I don’t believe they should hide it, but neither should they advertise it like it’s a show.
Thats what i have said before. It seems that advertising your Christianity is a populist thing ATM. One nation came along and the libs started to take on some of their policies and both parties moved to the right. FF comes along and its ‘ Im a Christian’ time. Will both major parties take on more FF policies and move to the religious right?
Glen Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
And look what they got under Labor…
96billion dollars of Debt
Could be another hit and miss Glen. From another site, no link though.
{Oops, forgot to mention the claim that the Liberals have paid off $90B of Labors debt. Ever heard of creative accounting. Last look at the budget charts $50B was still outstanding. The fact that they have sold a heap of assets wouldnt come into the equation would it. J.W.H. selling N.W. gas and Telstra at bargain rates was a stroke of economic brillance. }
Could be that Rudd might inherit $50 Billion plus especially after Howard cuts loose with the election bribes properly. Could very easily exceed $90 Billion Glen.
Molotov do i know you?
Tony,
fair enough. Guess you’re right.
Having said that, I’m amazed at some of the stuff that does get up.
It seems Howard is very scared of Rudd
“PRIME Minister John Howard today dismissed Labor leader Kevin Rudd as superficial and predicted the Coalition would soon begin to catch up in the polls.
In a concerted attack on Mr Rudd, Mr Howard called him the “greatest political contortionist” ever while Water Minister Malcolm Turnbull accused him of causing the drought in southeast Queensland.
But in an upbeat address to caucus, Mr Rudd told Labor MPs that the Government was wasting question time with attacks on them instead of laying out fresh policies for the future.
“This is a government that has stopped governing,” Mr Rudd said to the private meeting.
“They’ve surrendered the advantage of incumbency which governments have.” ”
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22245538-5005361,00.html
Bill, no. Why?
352
Richard Jones Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 11:32 am
What you have demonstrated Lord D is that the old left-right paradigm doesn’t work. All of us are left on some things and right on others, except the fundamentalists who feel they have to accept everything on the right or on the left, even when it is patently absurd.
I’m what would be called far left on the environment and fiscally quite conservative. No party exists for me.
Yes there is a party for you Richard, Im not suggesting you vote for them but Liberals For Forests seems right up your allyway. I believe they may have once even won a seat in WA.
Optimist, So am I. But the internet is really a new world, and the ability to post something, and then delete it, or forward it, means media law isn’t moving fast enough to catch the medium. But smart lawyers, and litigious clients, could easily sue someone on the basis of what’s posted on this blog. Anyway, I hope they don’t, and free speech can reign supreme.
Incidentally, the organisation I work for had a seven-year-old child attempt to post a blog comment, which included the child’s name and address. When the blog moderator informed the child that the comment couldn’t be posted because we weren’t allowed to publish anything that could identify a child, the child replied that it was a false name and address! When a seven-year-old can be as sneaky and web savvy as that, what hope have any of us to control the net.
And please Optimist, understand that I’m not opposed to your comments (or even Cerdic Conan’s!) being posted. I’m all for intelligent political discussion and analysis on the web. I was just answering your question about The Australian.
Molotov Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
“Yes there is a party for you Richard, Im not suggesting you vote for them but Liberals For Forests seems right up your allyway. I believe they may have once even won a seat in WA.”
I Believe Janet Wollard, the Member for Alfred Cove won the seat for the Liberals For Forrest but is now listed on the WA Parlaiment Website as an “Independent Liberal”
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/Legislative+Assembly+-+Current+Members
Optimist
Re your comments to the Australian, I’d say keep posting, I have had quite a few posted and even some letters published that I was surprised were published due to the tone of them.
I think there is a very fine line between defamation and public knowledge when getting comments accepted or not.
That said it is good to see the different views and criticisms and I have found the Australian to be quite accepting of posts of late.
Howard continues to maintain a blind faith in a strong economy equating to election victory for the incumbent –
“We can put a strong argument to the electorate. We have a strong economy, an experienced, disciplined government, a superficial opponent, a better team and better members in marginal seats.”
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22245538-5005361,00.html
And of course he says the interest rate hike last Wednesday is good for the Coalition because (talk about twisted logic) it somehow gives kudos the Coalition’s economic credentials and serves as a reason not to vote for Rudd.
Umm, last time I checked it was the Coalition that has been in Government for the past 11 years, it has been Peter Costello as Treasurer, not Wayne Swan and JWH promised to take care of interest rates as THE key election message, not the Labor Party. No-one is going to swallow that line JWH, unless they are blind faith loyalists like Glen.
Molotov just from past comments you seem to know the things i am involved in
STROP i call blind faith someone who thinks Rudd who has been in Parliament less than 10 years…been leader of the opposition for less than 1 year and never fought an election has the experience enough to be Prime Minister and would do a better job at managing the economy than Howard and Costello…
That is blind faith…
The PM is quite correct in predicting the polls will narrow, because he knows that in the real world – not in the distorted alternate universe of the published polls – the gap between the parties is a helluva lot narrower. One of the main things coming through loud and clear in the Government’s own research is that the support for Rudd out in the electorate is nebulous – they’re interested in him but they have deep concerns about his sincerity and his lack of experience. Apparently the Government’s findings also have the parties practically neck-and-neck on primary votes.
OK. Factor in tonight’s 7.30 Report re Costello and challenge. Go, pundits …
Kerry and Michael Brissenden really had a go at Costello…why dont they talk about policy and how Kevin Rudd lied to Rosanna Harris that she’d have rent relief when she wouldnt…Rudd is a charlatan…
How are the betting markets???
Glen,
Not much change in the betting markets:
Sportingbet 1.51/2.50
Centrebet 1.52/2.55
IASBet 1.53/2.50
Sports Acumen 1.54/2.47
Sportsbet 1.55/2.45
Only main change is Sportsbet, but that’s supposedly because one punter put $100,000 on the Coalition on Sunday.
Why should it be made harder for people to give themselves or their children “weird” names? Who gets to define what is a weird name? Who cares what people call themselves? If the kids don’t like being called 4Real or Jarryd or River or Cornflakebox they can change it when they grow up. Historical snippet: the name Cedric, which sounds very Olde England and traditional, was made up by Sir Walter Scott in his novel Ivanhoe – it was a “weird” name in its day.
Glen if Rudd has never fought an election, why is he a member of Parliament. You really are an ideologue: read my earlier post on Costello’s claims in the HOR about what Rudd said to that woman and take a wash cloth with you to wipe the egg of your face. Costello can loan you his, duhh !!
I have now finished tarting up the electorate pages at my website
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/banks.shtml
opinions welcome. I am still missing pictures of Collet Barker, Charles Throsby, Louisa Dunkley and Ruth Fairfax
*newsflash*
The liberal party has and is rolling out true damascenes
ie Independents in key marginals directly pref to the incumbent
look at various marginals where suddenly a pethora of independents are nominating/announcing candidacy
make no mistake this is the rabbit
wherby a LOCAL name will be able to bleed up to 5% of swinging vote
this segues well into J-HOs local approach and hopefully dilutes impact of WORSTCHOICES etc anger
stay tuned
How many elections had Tony Blair fought? If the voters want to get rid of a government, they will, regardless of the “experience” factor. There is such a thing as too much experience, you know.
Gusface, name some names please.
Again Strop curses himself for trying to engage Glen with rational debate: it is impossible to temper a one eyed person. I give up.
STROP he hasnt fought an election as leader there is a big diff
try DOBELL
Adam,
Love your site (particularly the new pictures…)
Are you planning on doing any more polling place maps for other seats that may be at risk in the election? Examples may be Sturt, Cowper, Dickson, Paterson, etc.
on 4pm news SEA FM
Local councillor and businessman announced he would run as independent in coming Fed Election
I wonder who he would preference?
Quiz question: which is the only federal electorate named directly after a person who never set foot in Australia?
(I don’t mean people who have seats indirectly named after them, like Lord Sydney or Queen Adelaide)
ps flying back from lovely perth (it does look glorious at this time of year)
got chance to read some rather juicy tidbits re strats and angles(read wedges)
most of J-HOs current strategem is heavily guided by ‘rovism”
so i believe the next stage (3?) will involve some form of swiftboating
imvho
Booth-mapping is very time-consuming and hard on the eyes, so I have stopped at the 25 most marginal government seats plus a few others. I may do some more later but other projects are demanding some time.
If Gus is right Adam your going to have a lot of work to do on your seat by seat analysis.
How long before an election can a person nominate for a seat ?
Flooding marginals with pro-Coalition name brand Indy’s eh . I wonder if that would work, particularly if the voters knew what it was about.
Tony
You forgot to mention libel.
This is a published document. It is written, for all to see, as opposed to a spoken outburst, which is slander. There is a difference. Remember stop writs?
So much for the myth about the Unions bankrolling the ALP.
“Mr McAlpine says his 2004 campaign cost about $100,000 and he cannot afford to do it again.
“I’ve withdrawn the nomination because when I look at how much money it takes to run, and there’s no funding from head office, it’s very difficult,” he said.
“It’s getting like America, you’ve got to be a millionaire to run, even to lose. Last time it cost $55,000 plus I forwent a year’s salary. Probably cost about $100,000.” ”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/14/2004636.htm
Strop
must confess it was that paragon of virtue Mrs Gusface driving the sporgs somewhere heard it on local radio
i was otherwise engaged (terminal etc etc) and am currently trying to digest being informed of something that i had just read about
talk about prescient
I thought Liberals for Forrests was one way the libs tried to get more of the vote by running a pretend caring lib party that directed votes back to the main lib party.
I also seem to remember both sides accusing each other of doing the same in recent state elections where an “independent” candidate would run whose sole purpose was to dilute the opposition vote and direct votes through preferences back to the main party.
Arbie Jay, that’s a complete misreading of LFF – the Liberals hate them, and amended the Electoral Act last year to try and stop them using the word Liberal. Their preferences cost Larry Anthony his seat in 2004.
Adam Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Arbie Jay, that’s a complete misreading of LFF – the Liberals hate them, and amended the Electoral Act last year to try and stop them using the word Liberal. Their preferences cost Larry Anthony his seat in 2004.
And in Alfred Cove, Wollard defeated the Sitting Liberal Member Doug Shave in 2001, mainly over his invilvement in the Finance Brokers Scandal (he was Consumer Affairs Minister) and the protection of Old Growth Forrests in the South West of the State.
The forum on SBS with Maxine & Howard and Bennelong crowd was interesting. The swinging voters and even some of the liberal supporters seemed to be swayed towards Labor. If any Bennelong people were watching [and I am sure many were]. The thing that turned them I believe was the polished performance and explanation of Maxine. In the end one so called ’swinging voter’ (though I suspect he was a pretty much liberal) ended up saying he might not vote Labor because he was worried about a landslide.
In the end I think the forum actually helped Maxine quite a bit.
I wonder how Howard and Rudd will go together.
Thanks Adam, Frank
My apologies, I guess I was being a bit too cynical without checking.
Now you mention it I do see to remember the action you mention.
I think back in the 80’s and 90’s Clyde Camerons son tried to register the name “Clyde Cameron Labor Party” but this was blocked by court action by the labor party?. So as you say it was surprising that Libs for Forrests got approval.
Well….
The business ads havent yet been debunked as bullshit – as they shortly will be (sorry guys, no party running at this election is proposing pre-Keating compulsory arbitration. Thanks for the irrelevant study wasting our time)
The next round of anti-workchoices ads will be even more effective than the last
The anti-nuclear stuff hasnt even begun.
And any ‘Rovism’ aint that clever if we’re already gleaning it on the net this far from election day.
Good program of “Insight” tonight.
Started off looking a bit stacked against Maxine, but after a few live switches to Howard, who come off as evasive, uncertain and nervous, the momentum swung back more in Maxine’s favour.
I reackon she is a bloody good chance to turf out Howard. The polls would be pretty well spot on “at the moment”. Still a way to go yet.
Wear the old bugger down and dispose of him, Max.
Adam. Is it Wakefield?
After attending the ALP Colton sub branch meeting tonight (in federal electorate of Hindmarsh) I can tell you that the ALP’s internal polling in SA closely resembles that of the published AC Neilsen SA polling. ie an SA 2PP of > 60% for the ALP.
Phillip Adams has a good article in today’s Australian. Quite a humerous take and well worth a read.
{AT last! Someone with the political acumen to destroy John Howard. Paul Keating couldn’t. Kim Beazley bombed. Simon Crean didn’t get the chance. Mark Latham crashed and burned.}
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22239477-5013491,00.html
Drop By at 11.33 am tried to inform us as to the source of the betting moves before the Nielsen poll was released.
No, two bets of $30k and $12k by one punter would not cause the betting agencies to react the way they did with that one agency temporarily suspending betting.
Proven by the fact that the same punter decided to back the coalition properly by betting $100k the next day after the ACN poll without any dramas whatsoever.
The fact that the coalition are favoured to win the most number of seats yet labor are favourites to win the election is not unusual according to mathematics of wagering probability.
It means that labor have got a strong chance of winning seats that liberal are favourites in.
Eg. Seat 1 ALP 1.01 / LIB 101.0. Seat 2 LIB 1.99 / ALP 2.01 Seat 3 LIB 1.99 / ALP 2.01.
LIB are favoured to win the most number of seats, however their probability of winning the election is approx 1 in 4 whereas the ALP is 1 in 2.
Re Gusface : Coalition setting up Independent’s in marginal seats – Rabbit theory.
The Coalition have 34 seats it will looking to protect, not just the obvious first 16 as some have suggested. The Coalition has-
13 seats with a 2PP margin of 0.1-2.9 percent;
10 with a 2PP margin of 3.0-5.9 percent;
and 11 seats with a margin of 6.0-7.9.
That is, 34 seats with a margin under 8.0 percent. The majority of these seats are in States currently indicating a strong pro-Labor swing (NSW 10; Qld 7; Vic 6; SA 5;Tas 2; WA 3; NT 1)
To set up pro-Coalition Independent’s who are ‘locals’ in order to protect the Government MP in all these seats would be an expensive and pretty fruitless enterprise I would have thought.
Labor can/could/might counter this kind of move with a preference deal with FF (for example) where their presence was strong enough in 2004 to influence the outcome.
The ‘up to 5.0 %’ difference you speculate Gus could be countered by FF preferences in SA for example, where they polled reasonable primary votes in 2004 in Boothby (2.98), Hindmarsh (2.25), Kingston (5.64), Makin (4.92), Sturt (4.78) and Wakefeild (4.43).
An interesting theory, nonetheless.
Very good NJB – Edward Gibbon Wakefield
There is no law against the use of the words Liberal or Labor by other parties – as well as the LFF we have the Democratic Labor Party, we had the Rex Connor Labor Party a few years ago (used by his son Rex Connor Jr) and the Curtin Labor Party which was a front for the LaRouche cult. Last year the government changed the Electoral Act so that all parties which do not currently have parliamentary representation have to apply to be re-registered. George Brandis made it clear at the JSCEM hearings which discussed this that the purpose was that when LFF applied to re-register, the Liberal Party would try to block the use of the word Liberal. I don’t know how this has progressed since then. Is LFF registered with the AEC for this election?
Full Story (presumably from the 7.30 Report Transcript regarding THAT Dinner with Costello and the Journos.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/14/2005181.htm?section=justin
This won’t help the libs if this festering sore continues.
Adam – you’ve stumped me. Which seat IS named after a complete foreigner? I can only guess Murray, but that’s only indirectly the name of a colonial office bigwig.
Thinking about this, for the first time I’ve realised the irony of ‘Dollar Sweetie’ Peter Costello representing the seat of ‘Enry ‘Iggins, the radical liberal who gave us the living wage…
Adam Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
There is no law against the use of the words Liberal or Labor by other parties – as well as the LFF we have the Democratic Labor Party, we had the Rex Connor Labor Party a few years ago (used by his son Rex Connor Jr) and the Curtin Labor Party which was a front for the LaRouche cult.
And at the last Federal Election here in WA there was the New Country Party, which was set up by the Ex WA One Nation MPs Frank Hough & Paddy Embery.
Wikipedia Entry Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Country_Party
Pandora Archived Website here: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/43495/20040927-0000/www.newcountryparty.org.au/index.html
Re Costello story – this looks like serious stuff. If Costello has any guts at all he’d resign. As it is Howard may have to resign him.
Here’s how they do leadership changes in less happy lands (the things you find on Youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr5QgclBIps
Whatever happened to the Party Party Party Party. I liked them.
Someone raised Swan’s assistance to a Democrat candidate (old news, yes). Arguably that kind of assistance is electoral bribery IF preferences are the quid pro quo. Vic Garland, a Fraser minister, faced charges over this very thing.
Otherwise it’s just natural if unlovely assistance between sympatico candidates, and not much worse (if limited to printing costs) than a major party lending activists to hand out how-to-vote cards. Parliament is yet to clarify the law. I suppose in a few years, candidates will return to the custom that Swan naively followed.
Gusface also raised the spectre of dummy ‘independents’ as preference harvesters. Sadly there are no truth in political advertising laws.
But arguably – if there is clear evidence – such behaviour breaches the law against misleading voters ‘in the manner of casting their vote’. Just as misleading how to vote cards offend that law: a protest voter, attracted to the ballot label ‘independent’ and nothing else, is entitled to know that candidate has no party affiliation.
It’d be good to see a disputed returns test case: but I suspect the major parties are smart enough to: (a) encourage dummies with no traceable party affiliations, and (b) keep their negotiations purely oral.
Strop
to register you need as a candidate
$500
30 signatures
gee that is hard and very expensive hmmm20×500=10000
see not hard to get 20 candidates up in say the next two weeks
http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Candidates.htm#whatdoesitcost
Adam, re your quiz question as to which Federal electorate is named after someone who never set foot in Australia…could it be Lowe?
If anybody should resign it should be Wayne Swan if its good enough for Kevin Rudd’s brother to be expelled for giving money to the Coalition then its good enough for Swan to be kicked out for giving money to another political party…
Hey Glen, I’ve got a scoop for you.
Tomorrow’s Liberal “talking Points” sheet has instructions to all Liberal supporters not to “denigrate aspirational voters”.
Got it right from the horses mouth, so to speak, on tv tonight.
Glen, that’s a fallacy. Rudd’s brother left because he was … Rudd’s brother. He would have left happily, mostly because his business as a lobbyist representing all-comers was probably long ago incompatible with (the formal appearance) of being a member of a particular party. Also, there’s a bit of a history of fraternal differences and embarrassments: Billy Carter, Stan Howard, Tim Costello…
In practical politics, there’s a difference between giving an outright donation to a genuine rival party (or, a la Quick, campaiging for them) and during the campaign, engaging in some co-ordination with a sympatico minor party or interest group.
The latter may seem unethical or tawdry to some voters, but it’s neither illegal nor against the party’s interests (the reason for the Labor rule). The Libs still have questions to answer about co-ordination with the Exclusive Bretheren, and of course no-one would question Liberal transfers of assistance to the Nationals, an essentially minor party that fluctuates between rival and coalition partner.
Another thing Glen, there’s too many people out there with long memories for the Swan issue to get much air.
Opening up a can of worms would be a good description of this if it travells to far and too long.
I think your mates at Liberal HQ and the Nats would be feeling a trifle nervous.
What a lovely 50th Birthday Present to Costello from The Bulletin & the 7.30 Report
I love this bit:
“As the allegations were airing on television tonight, Mr Howard was joining Mr Costello for birthday drinks at Parliament House.
Mr Costello’s office was not immediately available for comment.
Mr Howard would not comment as he left the function. ”
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22247236-5005361,00.html
484
gusface Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Strop
to register you need as a candidate
$500
30 signatures
gee that is hard and very expensive hmmm20×500=10000
see not hard to get 20 candidates up in say the next two weeks
http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Candidates.htm#whatdoesitcost
Thanks for the info Gus. Hey thats cheap: I might even reform the PARTY PARTY PARTY PARTY (QLD BRANCH) if it were that simple and swing a few votes Rudd’s way in West End. Not that he will need much help in QLD.
Strop, I just saw your jokey admonition to ignore you. No need to. Bury the electronic hatchet. I think you misread a post where I said I was an academic: I wasn’t pulling non-existent rank, just explaining why I don’t post publicly from the gut (I write about workplace law and electoral law – both very political areas in which I find it more illuminating to talk about them as objectively as possible).
I come from a small business family that was union friendly, so I can see the world from several angles.
But yes, we academics and fence-sitters can sound carping sometimes.
You may indeed be correct Graeme but the fact is what Swan did goes against the ALP constitution…
I agree with your comment about the Exclusive Bretheren they should be outlawed…but assistance to the Nats is allowed after all they are in Coalition with the Libs.
Adam
Disunity is death. This could be the final nail. Lateline might be … interesting.
Strop
now your really talking
i might form the reformed PARTY PARTY PARTY PARTY (QLD BRANCH) (nsw branch)
ps LeftE Rovism starts as soon as the last election finishes (rule 1)
Agreed Graeme. Maybe you can tell me the veracity of Gus’s theory about dropping in ‘Independents’ as a practice in Australian political history.I noted your take on the legal boundaries and how they are stymied.
But is it a habit of major parties these days to pull those kind of stunts ? I wonder if it would be a worthwhile exercise unless you had someone well known and respected by the community with no publicly known major party association-links.
The Big Issues don’ t miss them in the Bulletin and in all the press.. fair dinkum is this what our journalists spend three years studying scuttlebat and trivia… how about issues that matter .. the environment, Iraq War which gets no coverage but a bridge collapsing in America gets full treatment…
Rule 2 Gus – No Barbara Streisand fans. Please !!!
On the Disunity is Death thing Lateline should have something to say. The early morning papers which master Antony Green reminds us sets the agenda for the days ‘news’ and wafts around in the psyche of the punters first thing in the morning (until that babe walks in front your car on the way to work) should be an interesting read if the journo’s milk it for all it’s worth. Bye bye Costello ?
This is a beat up…
The problem is the ALP will have ads on TV saying if Costello doesnt think Howard will win why should you?
WEAK!
And whoever said the media doesnt have it out for the Coalition is a fool they do…
I’ll be watching tomorrow to see Costello’s response on 7:30 report will be interesting…
marky marky says Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
The Big Issues don’ t miss them in the Bulletin and in all the press.. fair dinkum is this what our journalists spend three years studying scuttlebat and trivia… how about issues that matter ..
I don’t know about that marky, now that it has been run in the Bully, no one will want to be left out now.
It will get a run in all the MSM for a day or two and you can bet that Costello is top of the “need to unterview” list at the moment.
They said he had no ticker for a challenge, but he might just have a different strategy to Keating. ie Bring down the King but from a front bench position. Can’t have a drop in pay while we campaign to become PM, can we. Got a mortgage to support and all that hey what.
I just hope that this is a continuation of the unravelling of the Liberals. I’m quite a fan of “blood sports”.
Google News Australia now has 72 News Articles on the Costello, Leadership quotes to the Journalists.
Could be a rough couple of days for both Howard and Costello. This issue will probably be left to Downer and Abbott to try and salvage some sort of face saving.
It will sure take a lot of pressure off other areas where they are bleeding at the moment.
I don’t think Rudd & Co will be too upset at the unfolding saga. It’s looking more and more that the issue is being driven by the Costello camp with quite a few marginal backbenchers giving quiet encouragement from the back.
Glen
This is no beat up. I know. I have written them, but years ago. Wipe the spittle from your mouth and face the real world.
Isn’t this fun!
Glen Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
This is a beat up…
Glen
This is no beat up. I know. I have written them, but years ago. Wipe the spittle from your mouth and face the real world.
Isn’t this fun!
Glen, it looks like your side have had it.
Why don’t you come over here to the “Dark Side”. It’s a lot more enjoyable over here and you will be able to write a lot happier, more enjoyable posts.
Looks like the Coalition’s {woes} leaders are going to dominate the media throughout August the way things are going. I wonder what Costello will have to say about it. How many times did Peter deny knowing JC ? 3 TIMES . Ironic.
Downer in damage control mode on Lateline. Something about wisdom and experience. Didn’t look too happy to be there. It looked like he had sucked a lemon at the start. Still, he knew what was coming. I thought he handled it pretty well. I agree with scorpio, this’ll be all over the MSM for the next coupla days. Just what is Costello doing?
Oh dear. What a mess. When Andrew Bolt calls for Downer to take over, one knows that things are crook.
Robert Lowe had a political career in England after returning from NSW. He had already served in the NSW Legislative Council pre-self government.
Adam, the recent changes tightened the use of names for parties like ‘Liberals for Forests’. However, the change couldn’t be done retrospectively to de-register parties. So the trick adopted was to de-register all parties that did not have parliamentary representation somewhere in Australia and make them re-apply under the new rules. Same result but overcomes a couple of procedural fairness issues that a court might have taken an interest in.
Hehehe. Jeez, anyone would think Costello wants Howard to lose.
Is this the biggest political kamikaze mission since Latho, or wot?
Keating was right. All tip. So much for Smirker’s bollocks about the “best interests of the party”.
He’s just a coward.
There was some argument about the Liberals for Forests in the seat of Federal Seat of Richmond in NSW in 2004 i believe the Nationals made this statement about misleading voters in that marginal seat…im not sure whether they were founded or not.
Antony
can an independent call themselves “independent liberal’ for example or is this outlawed too
Go read the Oz, Glen, it’ll cheer you up.
Lefty E
That’s why Keating called him ‘Deputy Dawg’ and all Tip…by the way i suggest you watch some old episodes of Deputy Dawg on youtube they are quite amusing…
GLEN says –
“The problem is the ALP will have ads on TV saying if Costello doesnt think Howard will win why should you?”
What they will do is nothing of the kind. The media will do it for them.
If Costello wants to make those kind of comments to 3-4 senior journalist’s 2 years ago and not expect it to mean anything now he would have to be politically ignorant or naiive at best, neither of which you would want anyone to say about the wonderful member for Higgins.
He could have said. “Yes, that may have been my view of the political landscape 2 years ago, but my position has changed since then”; It would have diffused the matter somewhat and become next days fish and chips wrapper as Downer tried to reduce it down to on Lateline tonight.
Instead, he LIED again or at the very least left enough room in the mind of the average punter to wonder if he is lying about it. With Howard’s public credibility shot and Costello’s again up for speculation, I would have thought saying
“Yes, that may have been my view of the political landscape 2 years ago, but my position has changed since then” would have been much more beleivable, done a lot less damage, and for a shorter period of time, than flat out denial of something consistent with his ‘biography’ statements.
Costello has created a monster out of this thing – his already tardy public perception as ‘unpopular’ now gives the swinging voter reasonable cause to question his integrity, whether he is in fact telling the truth or not. Tardy.
Yes Antony that’s what I was trying to explain. My question is, since I have not been following this in detail since last year: have LFF re-registered under that name? Brandis for one will be very annoyed if they have, given the effort he put into necking them at JSCEM hearings last year. (If I learned one thing in Canberra it is do not make an enemy of George Brandis – I watched him absolutely skewer Bob Brown one afternoon, he is a very smart guy, if a bit sinister.)
What a fool Costello is – he has broken a basic rule of politics: do not call senior journalists liars to cover your own arse. They will totally do him over now.
Well if Costello lied then STROP you will also have to agree that Rudd LIED to Rosanna Harris…he used her for a photo op and said she’d pay 50bucks less on her rent…what he didnt tell her was that it is for new houses being constructed and only for 50,000 spots out of 500,000 renters who are stressed…
If thats not a lie i dont know what is…
The media have run with Costello about this issue throughout the Howard era…leave it alone and get to the issues…i think people care about interest rates and employment and health and education more than what Costello did or didnt say over dinner 2 years ago.
Quite so, Adam. Brandis is one of the sharp ones.
And incidentally, he coined the term “Rodent” – so its a Liberal party endorsed insult that should bipartisan support on all psephoblogs!
Yes and Brandis got promoted…strange times indeed Lefty E…
Howard’s effort in smoothing the issue over after the “Biography” revelations, even though people didn’t buy it too much, and putting up a vision of a workmanship relationship between himself and Costello is all shot to pieces now.
The media and the Australian people won’t buy it now.
I wonder what effect it will have on Friday’s poll and Tuesday’s Newspoll.
Glen, your assertion that Rudd lied to Roseanna Harris is untrue:
Mr Rudd’s office circulated a transcript of the opposition leader’s conversation with Ms Harris, in which he clearly told her that the scheme only applied to new investments. (Fairfax website)
I await your retraction.
Adam, Antony – I’d love to hear more about the l4f (re)registration. Some years back, 3 Federal Court judges, sitting as the AAT, held that the name wasn’t likely to mislead. It’s not clear to me how the Liberal Party will reverse that decision, except that the re-registration process will allow them another throw of that dice. Presumably they’ll throw in evidence from Richmond or elsewhere to allege that l4f has changed from its original inception and may now be a shell or front.
Otherwise they can’t get over the hurdle that terms like ‘Liberal/liberals’ aren’t proprietary.
Is that ACT based libertarian mob, the ‘Liberal Democratic Party of Australia’ being registered?
Brandis SC taught me once (Rawls ‘Theory of Justice’). He’s smart the way any good barrister is, hence he’s made his name cross-examining pinned insects in committees, rather than in policy. Interesting to watch a man once wedded to welfare-liberalism seek to make his way in the Howard Liberal government.
Glen I fear your best Treasurer ever (sic) has an achilles heel, no political sense.
As Adam rightly assessed:
What a fool Costello is – he has broken a basic rule of politics: do not call senior journalists liars to cover your own arse. They will totally do him over now.
Even my wife with no interest in politics said tonight “Oh no, Howard will be better off without Costello, nobody likes him” after watching the 7.30 report. I think she shows more political nouse that Costello, and she couldn’t tell me who won the election in 2001.
Derek Corbett Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Oh dear. What a mess. When Andrew Bolt calls for Downer to take over, one knows that things are crook.
Hey Derek, have you got a link to Bolters comments. It sounds verrrry interesting!
Hardly Adam…even the great Laurie Oaks said Rudd’s last minute confirmation of Labor’s policy sounded more confused than Hewson stuffing up the GST with the cake and the icing…
If your statements were true Adam…why did we here this….
Rudd: how much your rent?
RH: $260
Rudd: so you’d get 50bucks off your rent
Swan: it will get you off the merry go round where you have nothing else to spend your money on…
I’m afraid that if Rudd told the truth he would of said…Rosanna im sorry but you dont count you get zip from this policy because existing renters get nothing from it…its only for new houses built 4 years from now effecting only 50,000 from 500,000 stressed renters…but did he do it NO!
Hey Lefty ,
I think you might be right. Costello has piled up the bile for so long that it’s “so what, who cares”. He also probably realises the punters will run a mile if he tries to kiss their babies. As they say in the bush: “Nah. Scare the horses.”
For me – tonight’s little Lateline chuckle was seeing Pyne claiming that Costello is “our greatest Trevor esherer”. Trev the Tip. Could catch on…
Gusface, at a fed election, a candidate can be ballot-labelled ‘independent’, but not ‘independent Labor/Liberal’. It’s explicitly forbidden to register a party with such a name.
Candidates used to use ‘independent Labor/Liberal’ in their advertising: eg old Ed Casey, Labor MLA in Mackay Qld, turned ‘independent Labor’, turned back to Labor leader.
It’s a moot point if such advertising would unlawfully mislead voters in casting their ballots. I doubt it – so a candidate could publicise themselves that way. ‘Independent’ clearly qualifies ‘Liberal/Labor’. If not, the Act wouldn’t have had to explicitly ban such terms as names for party registration.
I think this says it all in a nutshell.
Liberal leadership tensions to erupt
{Liberal leadership tensions look set to erupt again after a new airing of claims that Peter Costello threatened to destroy John Howard’s leadership unless the prime minister stepped aside within a year.
Mr Costello is alleged to have told a group of journalists in 2005 that he wanted Mr Howard to stand aside by April 2006, threatening to challenge the prime minister if he would not go willingly.
The revelations could be even more damaging for the Liberals, coming so close to the next federal election, and could sound the death knell for Mr Costello’s leadership hopes.}
Gusface, an Independent can only call themselves an Indepdnent, EXCEPT in S.A., where they can call themselves Independent followed by up to five word, such as Independent Ban Duck Shooting. Indepdnent Labor and Indepdnent Liberal are allowed.
And another exception. Queensland and Victoria only allow party names to appear. Independents simply appear with no affiliation, the word Indepdnent is not used. Independents appear in NSW, WA and at Federal elections.
Adam, Libs for Forests have not re-registered. Section 129(da) was included to make it very difficult for the party. I don’t know if they have tried to re-register.
In 2004, Liberals for Forests in NSW had become a vehicle for Glenn Druery, the man behind the 40 odd parties registered for the 1999 NSW Legislative Council election. The preference deal he directed to Labor was part of a swap for the LC. Very very byzantine. But by standing in a couple of lower house seats, he got LFF slightly ahead of the other flotsam and jetsam in the Senate, allowing the preference deals to come into play.
Glen, since I cannot access the statement Rudd has issued about what he said to Ms Harris tonight, this discussion will have to wait until tomorrow. In the meantime I can tell you what will be all over the media tomorrow morning, and it won’t be that. Tomorrow is going to be a very bad day for the Liberals, and once again it’s all their own work.
Good night all. Im going to rest my eyes for the morning’s papers; Ekka Day -public holiday-get paid- read the papers- sleep in- Can’t get better than this-oh hang on, it will when I see the back of the member for Higgins.
I met his brother (Tim) and saw him cry genuine tears at a youth conference some years ago at Melbourne Uni after reading stats on youth suicide in Australia. It is a shame the wrong Costello is at the helm of our economy, he has heart. Peter may beleive in what he is doing too, but his arrogance and joy at announcing labour costs had not increased at the last Federal Budget typifies his view that its ok to screw some people to get ahead. IT ISNT. So says a leftie.
Howard needs to bring out a big policy tomorrow…flood the airwaves like Rudd did with his policy announcement when the Government made up ground in the polls…
Adam:
“Glen, since I cannot access the statement Rudd has issued about what he said to Ms Harris tonight, this discussion will have to wait until tomorrow.”
Ch 10 News showed the piece of Tape where Rudd mentioned the bit about it applying to new tenancies but said she would still be able to get it if she got a new Tenancy Agreement or words to that effect.
This one says it all, plus has ABC video on the link.
Costello caught out on leadership comments
By Michael Brissenden for the 7.30 Report
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/14/2005181.htm?section=justin
A good one to check out before bed.
Cheers all, Golfer.
For once I agree with Glen. If I was Howard I would announce the appointment of Julie Bishop as Treasurer, and of Peter Costello as Ambassador to Tajikistan.
re re-registration of Libs for Forests: they will not succeed with the name. Section 128 of the CEA (1918) states:
(1) The Commission shall refuse an application for the registration of a political party if, in its opinion, the name of the party or the abbreviation of its name that it wishes to be able to use for the purposes of this Act (if any):
(a) comprises more than 6 words;
(b) is obscene;
(c) is the name, or is an abbreviation or acronym of the name, of another political party (not being a political party that is related to the party to which the application relates) that is a recognised political party;
(d) so nearly resembles the name, or an abbreviation or acronym of the name, of another political party (not being a political party that is related to the party to which the application relates) that is a recognised political party that it is likely to be confused with or mistaken for that name or that abbreviation or acronym, as the case may be; or
(da) is one that a reasonable person would think suggests that a connection or relationship exists between the party and a registered party if that connection or relationship does not in fact exist; or
(e) comprises the words “Independent Party” or comprises or contains the word ” Independent” and:
(i) the name, or an abbreviation or acronym of the name, of a recognised political party; or
(ii) matter that so nearly resembles the name, or an abbreviation or acronym of the name, of a recognised political party that the matter is likely to be confused with or mistaken for that name or that abbreviation or acronym, as the case may be.
Note parts (d), (da) & (e). The intent is to refuse parties registration that have names that contain other party names ie; Libs for Forests, brendan Raynor’s Green Liberals, the Curtin Labor Alliance etc. This was achieved, as was stated previosuly, by deregistering all non-parliamentary parties and forcing them to re-apply for registration.
Also note the detmination of the AEC in relation to the attempted registration of Brendan Raynor’s Green Liberals: http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registration_Decisions/brandon_rayner.htm
Ignoring the fact that they couldn’t pass the membership test, they also failed in respect of the name:
“Because the proposed name and abbreviation contain important elements of the names of political parties already registered at federal and state level, the AEC sought legal advice on whether the provisions of section 129 would prohibit the name Brandon Raynor’s Green Liberals or the abbreviation Green Liberals being registered.
“The advice provided was that the operation of section 129(1)(da) would prohibit the registration of the name “Brandon Raynor’s Green Liberals†or the abbreviation “Green Liberals†because it would be open to a reasonable person to think there is a connection or relationship between a party with that name and/or abbreviation and the Liberal Party of Australia when no such connection or relationship exists. ”
This section of the AEC website also has information regarding the registration (or refusal of registration) for other parties as well.
Ahhh, also note numerous typo’s…must remember to proof-read posts…
Stewart, thanks for that. I actually think both the principle of “da” and the application of it to LFF is fair enough.
Actually Adam i agree with you for once…Bishop should be made Deputy Leader of the Liberals for this….
Costello was right about one thing he’s destroying Howard’s leadership but from the front bench…the Brian Burke saga ended up helping Rudd…the comments in the Howard biography…some left wingers will make a connection and say Costello has been out to do this from the beginning…
Costello should be punished for this he should stay as Treasurer but Julie Bishop should be made Deputy Leader of the Libs to counter balance Gillard…
And on that harmonious note I am signing off for tonight.
Agreed Adam.
Peter Costello: “Why couldn’t i have been sent to a country where people wear nice clothes and speak English?” (*)
* – unashamedly borrowed from a Saturday Night Live sketch
Costello should be punished for this he should stay as Treasurer but Julie Bishop should be made Deputy Leader of the Libs to counter balance Gillard…
That should be fun Glen.
After Bishop’s comments about Julia Gillard the other day, it should ensure a good old cat fight or two. Painted fingernails bare”d across the dispatch boxes. The imagination runs wild with anticipation. lol
Scorpio
Passing ref on tonight’s 7.30 Report. A. Downer interviewed. Yes, interesting considering that Mr Bolt is a hand-picked blossom.
Downer as leader right now would simply be the funniest thing ever! The Libs would be lucky to keep ANY seats with the bumbling private schoolboy prefect in charge!!!
And they’d probably make Julie Bishop the Head Girl as his Deputy.
“Shudder”
further to last nights post on “independents”
http://www.expressadvocate.com.au/article/2007/08/14/4262_news.html
“All they’re saying is that the Government has screwed things up and the Opposition won’t do any better,” he said.
“And let’s face it. Nothing has changed since the state election.
“We’re still screwed.”
Mr Eaton previously stood for the seat of Dobell as a Liberal Party candidate at the 1996 election. He was defeated by 117 votes by Labor’s then incumbent Michael Lee.
The seat is held by Liberal MP Ken Ticehurst. Other challengers for the seat so far are Craig Thomson (Labor) and Scott Rickard (The Greens).
maybe the first of many?
OK, so there is _one_. I still doubt there are many.
(Do you actually think of yourself as ‘Anglo-Celtic’?)
A couple of points in defence of Costello:
Whilst he hasn’t done himself any favours by not trying to grasp the leadership from Howard at various times in the past, I think he genuinely wanted to avoid the turmoil that dogged the Coalition in the 1980’s. There should have been a real succession plan organised within the party, but I don’t think anyone within the party had the authority to try to impose that on Howard.
Having said that there wasn’t anyone in the ALP who was happy to do it to Bob Hawke, and it wasn’t until Keating was really after him and it was clear that Hawke was no match for Hewson and “fightback”, that Hawke’s supporters could see the writing on the wall. Still, it went to a vote, and Keating didn’t get there by as much as Rudd did.
Maybe that’s the only succession plan politicians understand.
Also, I don’t think he said Howard couldn’t win the election, I think he said, Howard couldn’t win the election without him (Costello), whereas Costello believed he (Costello) could win without Howard.
Gee, the Coalition’s rapidly making up ground in the published polls – and doing even better in their own polling – and suddenly three hacks break another tired old story about the Liberal leadership. What a coincidence. A pity for them no-one takes the media in this country seriously.
J-D
Still, off topic, but actually you’re largely right: Celtic as an ethnicity is largely an affectation. Nonetheless it has a conventional usage.
I’m not sure if you are contesting the point that there are many Muslims of Anglo(+) ethnicity, but I can certainly name the (more or less) famous Sarah Cartland, Bilal Cleland, Timothy Winter, Jemima Khan and Peter Murphy (of Bauhaus) as well as the infamous David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Abdul Waheed.
Stewart J #535, I don’t know if it’s so clear. The AEC’s advice on ‘Green Liberals’ is just an advice. Doesn’t the dominant precedent remain Woolard’s case: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/aat/2001/166.html?query=liberals%20and%20forests
It’s not binding. Sub-paragraph da, which you rightly focus on, is new. And because the AAT doesn’t bind itself. But it was 3 judges – the weight of a full Federal Court.
The judges said: ‘the confusion contemplated by s 129(d) extends to confusion as to whether some relationship exists between two registered political parties the names of which appear on the ballot paper’. So they took into account – even prior to the law being changed – that confusing similarity of names included any potential for mistaken assumptions that ‘liberals 4 forests’ were some sub-set or affiliate of ‘Liberal Party of Australia’/Liberals’. Admittedly they went on to state a possibly narrower test, based on confusion as to mistaken identity.
But the judges’ determinative conclusion was that ‘It may be that some persons will draw the inference that members of ” liberals for forests ” are former members or have some affiliation with the Liberal Party of Australia …. It is unlikely that any elector, seeing the two names on a ballot paper, will draw the conclusion that ” liberals for forests ” is a political party related to the Liberal Party of Australia or any of its State divisions’. So they held there was no real risk voters would assume an institutional connection, even if they thought that some ex-Liberals were involved in l4f.
The judges were also strongly against the idea that ordinary political terms like ‘liberal’ could become in effect owned by some party.
That said, the Liberal Party will likely win if they present credible statistical evidence that enough voters read ‘liberals 4 forests’ and imagine an institutional link with ‘Liberal Party’
Strop, the other way a dummy independent might fall foul of the law is if he were paid to run. That might breach the electoral bribery laws, which include payments for (or to stop) a candidature.
Those laws got an airing last week when Harkin withdraw, allegedly having been promised a winnable Senate candidacy. I notice the Libs did not pursue that line too far: I suspect all sides have skeletons in that closet.
My take is the law against incentives to withdraw candidacies evolved in 19th century UK, before strong parties arose to control preselections. It evolved to stop you bribing your rival from another political background from standing – ie to buy the seat by default, an anti-competitive practice, denying electors a real choice. Understood with that purpose, it is not electoral bribery for a party to offer an incentive to move on a dud candidate of their own. Not just because it is now customary: but because it is not anti-competitive.
graeme
didnt the 75 election have quite a few (damascene) independents
from memory this was pivotal in frasers win esp.tasmania and sa
please correct me if im wrong
Thanks for responding Graeme. Dummy Independent’s ruin the electoral process for people who want to think their vote is FOR that person more than it is actually set up to wreak havoc on a genuine candidate who might otherwise have won.
Sure, he/she ought to be good enough to win on primary votes, but on my count many seats were won on 2PP outcomes for both Labor and the Coalition in 2004 so these so called ‘independents’ can/do make a difference. I hope I am not naiive in hoping this practice is not common in Australian politics, and if it is , I dont want to know about it.
It’s not ‘Celtic’ I have a problem with, it’s ‘Anglo-Celtic’. Anglo Muslims, undoubtedly (I was not contesting that point); Celtic Muslims, very likely; but Anglo-Celtic Muslims, obviously, can’t be more common than Anglo-Celtic people, and how many people really are Anglo-Celtic?
Going really off-topic now, but it’s the end of a thread so I suppose there’s no harm
I may not have been so clear. The term Celtic is a bit misleading because the ancient Britons (often called the Celts) were not necessarily that closely related to the continental Celts. The use of it in this context is a 17th century affectation
Genetically speaking ancient Briton heritage is pretty widely spread through the Anglo population. Of course cultural heritage is more important in this context, but I won’t venture an opinion there…
Martin, I was thinking of ‘Celtic’ as a term applying to the Irish, Scots, and Welsh, who are (of course) not ‘Anglo’.
The only problem I might have with that usage is that I wonder whether the people involved really do think of themselves as ‘Celtic’ as opposed to ‘Irish’, ‘Scottish’, or ‘Welsh’ (as the case may be).
gusface, I dunno about dummies in 75. Unlikely they were pivotal in Fraser’s win though!
Maybe in a seat or two. Without ballot labels, dummies were even more dangerous – assuming their how-to-votes are funded by the major party concerned – since punters in those days couldn’t make up their own mind about prefs purely from the ballot paper.
Strop, you’re right dummy independents are at least unethical. (Although if you are really an independent voter, why would you follow their ticket?) The solace I have with them is they by definition attract little of the vote: by definition a high profile independent won’t be a dummy, or is likely to be found out if he is.
But they are an argument for a ‘none-of-the-above’ or at least ‘you can vote informal’ option on the ballot.
It took 3 years for the AEC to consider the application to register Brandon Raynor’s Green Liberals. 3 years!!!!!!
Is it any wonder that we failed the membership test of having 19 of 20 people respond at their original addresses.
I wonder how many people really would confuse Green Liberals or Brandon Raynor’s Green Liberals with the Liberal party of Australia. You would have to be a bit of a moron.
The Labor Party of Australia and the Liberal party of Australia both contain Australia . I am sure there is a moron somewhere out there that would confuse the 2.
It seems like there are 2 parties with the political term Socialist in it, yet why not two with the term liberal. They are both broad political philosophies with many different meanings.
Australia is a corrupt country………..