The Australian today offers another editorial on the subject of opinion poll commentary which, despite its querulous tone, is somewhat less absurd than its notorious dummy spit of July 12. The paper nonetheless contrives to exempt itself from its critique of the polling analysis glut, placing the blame on “the rise of the Galaxy Poll and Fairfax newspapers’ attempt to become competitive against Newspoll with its AC Neilson (sic) survey” (to say nothing of the efforts of “a number of internet blogs”). So when its reporter Tony Barrass observes a surprisingly weak Newspoll result for the Western Australian state government and finds federal implications galore, you can rest assured that this is not merely “the reporting of politics as if it were a sporting match”, such as you might get from Michelle Grattan. We should instead consider ourselves privileged spectators to the exercise of The Australian’s mystical power to unlock the hidden secrets behind the only opinion poll that matters.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
The Australian versus everything
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
407 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 9 » Show All
Can someone please explain to the Oz that a poll of a state government (in this case WA) is not a poll of the federal election and that voters have more than single digit IQs to distinguish between the two. My guess would be that if Newspoll did a poll on NSW state government the result would be terrible for Labor because Iemma is very unpopular but the recent Newspoll on the federal election shows the state with the biggest swing away from the Libs is NSW. If such a poll was taken in NSW would the Oz trumpet that NSW is a stronghold for the Coalition? I shake my head.
I can confirm that on page 12 in Today’s Advertiser there is a tabular version of the Boothby poll information.
Questions asked were:
1. If a Federal Election for the House of Representatives (Lower House) were held tomorrow, which party or candidate would receive your first preference ?
Labor 29% (Male: 35%, Female: 24%)
Liberal 44% (M: 40%, F: 47%)
Greens 9% (M: 9%, F: 9%)
Family First 3% (M: 2%, F: 4%)
Democrats 3% (M: 3%, F: 3%)
Indep/Other 2% (M: 2%, F: 2%)
Informal/None 1% (M: 1%, F: 1%)
Undecided 9% (M: 8%, F: 10%)
More to come …
Jasmine,
I may have missed something, but what does Nicole Cornes’ gender have to do with anything? Don’t get me wrong, I want to see many more women candidates and MPs – i just don’t see where Nicole Cornes fits in here.
The Australian is the best newspaper in the country. It is far more comprehensive in its coverage and contains far more in-depth analysis than any other.
Its bias is so obvious that anyone can see through it, and I appreciate this opportunity to put the boot in. In the last nine days, I have sent eight letters to the editor in an attempt to counteract a couple of the lines that The Australian keeps pushing. None has been published. Below is yesterday’s:
‘The obvious fact that more spending on education does not necessarily lead to better results (“More is less in the education battleâ€, 25/9) is not evidence that more spending, when properly targeted and combined with other measures, would not improve our children’s futures. The modest steps the states have already taken to lift education standards have been met by accusations of “squandering†their GST revenue, so any state serious about education would face more screams from The Australian.
‘Yet, serious investment is required to attract and retain good teachers. The Victorian Government needs to reverse the pay cut for teachers at the top of the scale of $31,000 since 1975 (relative to average earnings), to return the almost 2,000 missing secondary teachers to reach both the 1981 Liberal Government staffing ratio and the 1992 Labor Government ratio, to restore the 18-hour maximum teaching load and the time allowance pool (deductions from teaching for very time-consuming leadership responsibilities) and to end the short-term contracts inflicted on the majority of new teachers and the limited tenure promotion positions used to exploit senor teachers.
‘This re-investment needs to be accompanied by cost-neutral reforms such as removing the excessive power that principals have enjoyed for the last 15 years and returning the professional collegiate judgment of teachers to the centre of school decision-making, a reform which would meet howls of protest about “provider capture†and “powerful†teacher unions.
‘Yours sincerely,
Chris Curtis
‘e-mailed to: letters@theaustralian.com.au
as More is more – except in schools?’
I will be sending the ninth letter today in response to yet another one of The Australian’s distortions on education. In an eleven-month period over 2005-06, it took me 48 letters correcting The Australian’s teacher-bashing campaign before one was published. You can find an account of my efforts at:
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/601755
I particularly enjoy reading Christopher Pearson and his obsessions. I suspect he is leaving his election-costing killer blow against Kevin Rudd until the campaign itself, but in order to forewarn Labor strategists I can reveal it here and now: Kevin Rudd is not an advocate for the Latin Mass.
Martin B @ 83
I think that the Libs should be more concerned with the 9% drift than Labor with the 7%.
I have lived in Boothby for 30 years, never voted Labor but always TPP Labor (primarily to encourage the minor parties), but this time FP Labor.
Charlie, that is just it, I don’t live in the electorate, but I haven’t seen any evidence she isn’t a good candidate, just a whole lot of abuse, almost all of which I track back to her being a female rather than male candidate.
I will tackle one thing: her first press conference wasn’t great by all reports. I am aware of members who still couldn’t give a press conference and convince you today was Wednesday. But she gives a sloppy first press conference, badly prepared, and shows she is not a party machine person, and definitely not a boy. The assumption this makes her a bad candidate hasn’t been all that cleverly thought out and hasn’t been debated it is assumped. It is either a standard that will always reward machine people (mostly boys) and disqualify everyone else or it is sexest. You chose which Charlile.
I’ve been sent an email by the Climate Change Coalition advising of their new website
http://www.climatechangecoalition.com.au/
and announcing candidates for the election.
Does anyone know anything about this group? Are they a front for someone, or an attempt to divert greeny voters away from the Greens? In the NSW state election, where did they direct their preferences?
Q2 of the Boothby opinion poll: Would you say you are very likely (VL), quite likely (QL) or not likely (NL) to change your vote between now and when you vote in the federal election later this year ?
Note: Don’t know was also an option (DK)
Labor: VL: 3%, QL: 9%, NL: 87%, DK: 1%
Liberal: VL: 2%, QL: 9%, NL: 88%, DK: 1%
Democrats: VL: 7%, QL: 13%, NL: 80%
Greens: QL: 12%, NL: 88%
Family First: QL: 33%, NL: 67%
let us assume that the Adelaide poll is okay and is in league with the newspoll.
This then means There must be some HUGE swings in other seats ( grey anyone) to compensate for the overall swing to the ALP
Optimist:
The argument is that generally speaking, women candidates face additional scrutiny.
A male candidate would be a “journalist” or “commentator”; Nicole is a “gossip columnist”.
A male candidate would be “unremarkable”; Nicole is “lightweight”.
Male candidates would not have their looks mentioned; Nicole is always described as “blonde”.
Without making any aspersions on Cornes’ talents of which I know nothing, I point out that equality means having run-of-the-mill female candidates accepted as well as brilliant ones.
I have no problem with Nicole Cornes’ candidacy. She’s not typical, but isn’t that a good thing? It is nice to see a bit of variety. However, I do agree she needs to work on her media style a bit (the first press conference was a bit of a shocker).
I think Boothby will be close either way, but there must be some rather extreme swings elsewhere in SA if this poll has some accuracy.
Jasmine, why do you automatically assume that it’s got anything to do with being a woman? You actually haven’t made ANY case for this assumption. It appears that I criticise a female candidate and I am therefore, prima facie, sexist.
In this brief discussion on Cornes I have spoken favourably of Gillard, McKew and Parke – you ignore all of these and focus on the one woman amongst four that I am critical of. For the sake of argument, I also happen to think that Penny Wong, Jenny Macklin, Tanya Plibersek and Nicola Roxon will make fine ministers in the next Labor Government. You don’t think you’re the one being selective?
I tend to like my Labor candidates to at least have a history of voting Labor. I like them to be able to tell me why they want to go into politics. I like them to have life experiences doing something a little more relevant than writing a gossum column. I *love* candidates (yep, even female ones!) to come from outside the machine. I just want them to have something worthwhile to offer.
It’s a cheap shot, Jasmine. Usually I think that you bring some very good points to this blog – but you’re painting with too broad a brush this time.
Martin B,
She writes about how ‘men get better with age’, and other pearls of wisdom. Whether it’s a male or a female, that doesn’t qualify her as a ‘journalist’ by my admittedly high standards.
Absolutely, women get judged by higher standards than men. I’m aware of that. Jasmine would no doubt be shocked to learn that this accused sexist supports the ALP’s gender equality rules, and that I’m often the first to leap to the defence of talented yet maligned women like Julia Gillard. However, I think it’s a bit extreme (not to mention downright offensive) to call anyone who dares to suggest a female candidate might not be a good one a sexist.
Mayo perhaps? One can only but hope and dream.
Yes, I suspect Jasmine is correct when she points out the double standard being used against Nicole Cornes. I can’t pretend that I am totally on top of Adelaide’ Who’s Who, but apart from that first press conference (which was a tad embarrassing), I haven’t heard much negative about her. At any rate, how much male dead wood is there on the back benches of either side? I would hazard a guess that it is within the realms of 25% (obviously much higher for the Nats). And there are any number of dud candidates (on both sides, again no doubt higher for the Nats), but why aren’t we hearing about them? I haven’t heard Ms Cornes being critisized regarding policy, more that she is a ‘bimbo dolly-bird’. THis may be true, but such a criticism is inherently sexist as we can’t make equivalent comments about a man. Unfortunately, most contributors here appear to be men, and like white people with racism, most men don’t quite ‘get’ sex discrimination.
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure how much we can read into this poll. If Labor is as far ahead in SA as EVERY other poll has suggested, it seems pretty unlikely, in such a small State, that Labor won’t pick up Boothby. If the Libs do retain Boothby, then we might just be in for a closer election than we are all expecting.
Charlie: Jasmine will speak for herself, but I think the reaction is not to individual comments, but to the barrage of criticism that occurred when Cornes was preselected, and any time there is an unfavourable event for her.
She may not be the greatest candidate the ALP has selected, but the amount and ferocity of criticism that she has received exceeds all other candidates by a long margin.
Sorry that was in reply to 100.
the MOE in the Boothby poll is 3.8%
Hugo, in case you hadn’t noticed I’m getting a tad annoyed at people not bothering to read comments and instead just assuming that I’m sexist.
Why don’t you go back through the thread – you’ll find that in each of my posts re: Cornes, that what I’ve decried is her lack of any real idea of what she wants to achieve in office.
Nicole Cornes first press conference was worse than embarassing and they replayed it a few times :[ Clearly not coached or prepared in anyway. Total loss on each and every question. Rudd must have been secretly fuming about the lack of professionalism of those preparing her. Basically she would have got an instantaneous swing against her from the very first. It was just terrible. I dont know what she has done since but I hope she is out there knocking on every single door. Her husband did come out and ask that people give her a fair go.
That’s as may be, but there are plenty of men who write about such matters in the newspaper, yet “gossip columnists” are almost always women…
Lawrence Money, for instance, who is a gossip columnist as surely as anyone is, is described most frequently as a “diarist” or “columnist”.
“THis may be true, but such a criticism is inherently sexist as we can’t make equivalent comments about a man.”
I think we can, but none of the male deadwood (as far as I can tell) is particularly good looking…
I agree that criticisms of Cornes is more driven by gender and the fact she’s already got some sort of public profile, as opposed to her actual capability. I’m taking a “wait and see” approach.
So is the more to the Boothby poll table?
We still don’t have any 2PP information…
Martin, getting more attention (be it positive or negative) is part and parcel of being a ’star’ candidate. Maxine McKew is getting the same sort of attention, but with the benefit of either natural ability or (more likely) the credibility and experience she has earned from 30 years in public affairs, she is shining.
Someone like Nicole Cornes is always going to get more attention than some no-name machine hack. That’s why star candidates are selected, and it’s why they have to be better than the average. Cornes is a poor candidate, and I don’t particular blame her – I blame the buffoon who threw her in the deep end.
Climate change?
Coalition of bods, including Genia McCafferty, Mayor of Nth Sydney and head of NSW LGA. They got 0.64% at the 2007 NSW LC election. No Tickets and I doubt they handed out HtVs with a 2nd pref, but if so, probably would have been 1,2 CCC,GRN. There is a web-site- Google on the name and McCafferty.
Martin @ 112. You have me at a disadvantage, as the only gossip columnist I could even name is Nicole Cornes, and that’s only because she migrated to a part of the newspaper that I actually read. I have absolutely no doubt that there are plenty of men who write the same sort of thing as Nicole Cornes – I just don’t happen to know who they are.
Martin there is no other 2PP information that that which was mentioned earlier, ie Liberal 54, Labor 24. (That is not my typo, that is the Advertiser’s, and is in the print and online editions). I assume they mean 54-46 !!
There is a 3rd table which shows how the polled people voted in 2004 if anyone wants me to post it.
I don’t see why Cornes’ gender is a factor here. Bottom line is that she doesn’t seem like a very good candidate. Whether she is referred to as a journalist or a gossip columnist is relevant in so much as she IS A GOSSIP COLUMNIST. If a male gossip columnist is referred to as a journalist, my thought is, “bullcr@p, that’s not a journo, that’s a gossip columnist.” It’s basically about calling a spade a spade rather than a spadette or papa spade or any other gender-related description. If you want to look at gender inequality in politics, look at the overall problem of candidate selection in the major parties – women who are clearly the best candidates for the job are often overlooked for a range of reasons. Ultimately it’s as much about ignoring merit as it is anything about sexism.
Too often it’s about jobs for the boys, but the boys are often girls too…….I’d love to see jobs for the best candidates, boy or girl.
My 2 cents worth
Nicole Cornes’ columns in the Adelaide Sunday Mail ARE lightweight, but often make this mere male think. The sheer fact that I continue to read is despite a life time aversion to “gossip columns”.
Her husband, however, comes across as a (Very) faded sports star banging on about the good old days.
Describing her as a political “bimbo” is a bit rich … have you seen or heard Andrew Southcott in action? If he was any lighter he would float away.
Don’t write her off just yet.
From memory wasn’t there some controversy about a tarty dress Cornes wore to a dinner with the State Governor?
My recollection might be slightly off, and I make no judgement of Cornes based on that event but it did come across badly in the press
I think it is prudent to not assume
in which case we really have no reliable 2PP information to go on.
However if we give preference splits of 80/20, 60/40, 20/80 from Greens, Dems, FF to the ALP, and assume that the ind/oth/und break the same way then we end up with a 2PP of round about 54-46
.
However it seems *just* as reasonable to assume that the “undecided” is being inflated by ex-ALP voters (so yes please, post the thrid table) in which case one would expect the margin to be closer.
Nicole Cornes is getting a pasting on The ABC at the moment.
In the end, candidates should be careful not to make too much of name for themselves if possible and try and ride on the uniform swing into office. This means that if a candidate is to be selected for their profile they should be selected carefully, and only in knowing that they’re very likely to be able to pull it off.
In the end, the views of individual candidates are of no consequence, due to the strict party discipline in Australian politics.
They’re hurting real bad in Holt St. Freaking out in fact. This editorial reminds me of a miffed authoritarian parent chiding a free-spirited child whose imagination and allegiance has blossomed and grown beyond the parent’s control. The Pied Piper of Intertube Oz is luring their precious consumer children away.
Sez Eds of Oz: “Too many polls allows political reporting as sportâ€.
What they fail to perceive is that for many people, not only layabout Poll Bludgers, it’s not JUST sport; it’s also about entertainment! Every day from here to E-day is both a pantomime and drama. A sassy blend of The Globe Theatre and Street Theatre. We love to cheer our heroes and hiss the villains. Engagement and feedback is instantaneous. Who wants to hang about while one’s comments to an online newspaper blog are approved and/or edited ? Spontaneity is the soul of wit. Like Oscar said.
Citizen Rupert’s scribes are boring and predictable. Aged air-guitarists doomed to irrelevency and impotence by fora that they can no longer control, let alone comprehend. One-trick ponies on a on-way ride to the glue factory. Yesterday’s agenda setters.
“G’day, Sol’s me name, psephin’s me game†just doesn’t cut it anymore. Notwithstanding the fact that Solly is a human Geiger Counter when it comes to “soft Labor votesâ€.
Christopher Pearson has been vivisected and placed on permanent display (onya, Possum) in cyberspace. A Vlad the Impaler gesture to serve as a warning to Shill “Newspoll, We Own It†Shanahan and all Eddy-The-Expert wannabes( hellooo Matty) who function as Think Tank filters and stenographers.
The old guard of Politics and Media are rapidly changing and each of us here, contributors and browsers alike has the best seat in the house. I wonder how many other people like me haven’t bothered to spend hard-earned dollars on purchasing hard-copy NEWSpapers for nearly two years.
Adam, The first candidate mentioned on the CCC website is Patrice Newell, ex TV host and partner of Phillip Adams. So if she’s a right wing plant, she’s an odd choice for one. No idea on the second one, Phil Johnson – he’s got the same name as a dingbat intelligent design guy, so it’s hard to find stuff on him with Google. The third candidate listed, Michael Kiely, also appears to be genuine. Their explanation for why they’ve formed a separate party is here
Ah, but I tend to descriptivism rather than prescriptivism in semantics, and hence if it is the case that men are rarely described publicly (sorry, your private thoughts don’t count there
) as “gossip columnists” then I must conclude that “gossip columnist” is to some extented a gendered description.
Adam @98
The Climate Change Coalition is the vehicle for Patrice Newell (partner of ABC broadcaster Philip Adams). At the state election CCC refused to provide any direction of preferences other than ‘1′ for themselves (I’m looking at their HTV as I write). They would be aiming at the ‘blue-green’ vote, and what they will do with their preferences is anyone’s guess. The ‘VOTE Climate’ site rated them behind the Greens as they lacked policy detail, which I am assuming they will have brushed up on by now. I would expect them to preference the Democrats before the Greens, but I have no idea how they will deal with other micro’s or even for that matter the major’s. Possibly for extra policy announcements from Garrett they will preference the ALP ahead of everybody, but I suspect you will need to ask them directly.
from that Oz piece: History shows the polls will narrow before election day
I thought this had been shown to be incorrect? Does anyone have pointers to a source of the polling data for the months leading up to the last few elections, I’m happy to feed that into gnuplot and check…
also on CCC – the NSW ticket had Genia McCaffery, President of the LGSA & North Sydney Mayor #2, Matt Noffs, nephew of Ted Noffs #3, and John McInerney, one of Clover Moore’s “Independents” #4.
Boothby poll question 3: Who did you give your first preference for the Lower House in the last federal election in October 2004 ?
First preference Now (2004 election in brackets)
Labor (Nicole Cornes): (ALP: 72%, LIB: 9%, DEM: 28%, GRE: 31%, ONP: 35%, FFP: 19%, IND: 0%)
Liberal (Andrew Southcott): (ALP: 7%, LIB: 81%, DEM: 22%, GRE: 7%, ONP: 35%, FFP: 28%, IND: 37%)
Democrats (Craig Bossie): (ALP: 5%, LIB: 0%, DEM: 39%, GRE: 0%, ONP: 0%, FFP: 0%, IND: 0%)
Greens (Jodie Kirkby): (ALP: 6%, LIB: 0%, DEM: 8%, GRE: 60%, ONP: 0%, FFP: 0%, IND: 37%)
Family First (Andrew Cole): (ALP: 1%, LIB: 1%, DEM: 0%, GRE: 0%, ONP: 30%, FFP: 31%, IND: 9%)
Indep/Other: (ALP: 2%, LIB: 1%, DEM: 0%, GRE: 1%, ONP: 0%, FFP: 3%, IND: 17%)
Informal/None: (ALP: 0%, LIB: 1%, DEM: 0%, GRE: 0%, ONP: 0%, FFP: 0%, IND: 0%)
Undecided: (ALP: 7%, LIB: 7%, DEM: 3%, GRE: 1%, ONP: 0%, FFP: 19%, IND: 0%)
A delightfully refreshing story from the Oz.
Also from the Oz:
… winning 55% of the vote and losing the election would be a little bit trickier, I think.
This is similar to the claim Sol Lebovic made in his Sydney Institute speech. In his mind, that the polls haven’t moved much all year is an indication that people aren’t thinking about politics yet. It’s remarkably dismissive of the electorate, to say nothing of his own polling. And were the numbers reversed, I very much doubt the Oz would be talking about people having “parked their vote with the Coalition”.
While this piece is not the same level of childish as the previous tanty, it’s still very bad.
Regarding Nicole Cornes – interesting that the topic came up, as I was only discussing this with someone last week. In fact, I’ve spoken to a few people who live in Boothby about it, as well as somebody who works for Andrew Southcott. I, like many, was absolutely baffled when the ALP announced her as a candidate, but I’ll get to that shortly
One person I spoke to about this is what you would call very left leaning – thus by definition, a Greens/Labor supporter. Needless to say, we disagree about many policies, but astonishingly it is actually possible to get along with people from the other side of politics. Amazing, I know. Anyway, I quizzed him about Nicole (his candidate) once, he grimaced and essentially muttered about how he felt somewhat gypped by it. He is voting for Labor – but is parking his vote because he wants Rudd over Howard, not Cornes over Southcott. Coming from an ALP supporter, that was pretty big.
Upon speaking to him, I asked a couple of other locals, who aren’t politically minded, what they thought of the upcoming election. Both also said that they felt like they weren’t really being given a choice, even if they wanted an ALP member they can’t bring themselves to vote for Cornes.
Finally, to the guy who works for Southcott. Obviously he would not be the best person to give an unbiased opinion, but I will share it nonetheless. He says from who he has spoken to, on the campaign trail and so forth, many of them (in his words) are offended more then anything else at the choice before them, they feel the ALP has screwed them over. People know who she is, and judge her by what she has written. Also, it is obvious as all hell that this is a celebrity stunt – which people tolerate if the candidate at least demonstrates some knowledge about policies. Which she didn’t.
I’m sure she is a nice person, and heck who knows, might make a good & fresh politician. Rudd had it right when he said variety is a good thing. But seriously. Cornes wrote a fluffy, back-of-the-paper Sunday Mail column for two years prior to being nominated by the ALP, devoted to tales about women, ‘what men want’ and so forth. She joined the ALP a few days after she announced her candidacy (sorry, a few days after Rudd announced her candidacy, I’m not sure if she spoke at all.) Finally, she specifically asked radio presenters, who interviewed her days after, for ‘no tough questions please’ – something the ’tiser announced to the public via the front page the following day. She was completely unprepared, this was a bungled decision by the ALP. She was literally asked on a Friday night, and announced to the public a couple of days later. It was depressing to watch.
Here’s an article I found:
LABOR’S latest star recruit, Nicole Cornes, is an expert on men (they only want sex), yummy mummies (too much pressure to be skinny) and ageing paramours (greying sideburns can make older men hot property).
But when it came to a taxing issue such as whether the Federal Government should be using its surplus for tax cuts or increased spending on infrastructure, the 37-year-old celebrity newspaper columnist and wife of football legend Graham Cornes was left floundering.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/star-recruit-takes-raincheck-on-tough-issues/2007/04/30/1177788057084.html
That’s from the age – and was quite a flattering piece compared to ones from the ’tiser.
Labor will not win Boothby. They might grab some other seats, almost certainly mine, but as I have said before, this will come down to whether or not a party can capitalize on the water crisis down here. However, I’ve already gone off topic enough and won’t bore you any more.
Charlie I think others have answered for me, but I’m still waiting for genuine analysis of her as a bad candidate that wouldn’t apply to 50% of the field.
If you are saying that the only good candidates are going to be gray suit machine people of either sex then that is the kind of politician you want and I’ll confine my attacks to the machine until they start spitting out boring machine people in the same gray suits, but in different genders. But most people don’t want robot machine people they want something else.
I still don’t see any evidence of her being a bad candidate. Maybe not a good one, but not a bad one. That she dared to wear a dress that showed she was a woman to a dinner with the govenor – really I cannot be too harsh with a stupid comment like that – it is entirely stupidly sexist.
Lets not forget that polls of individual seats often bounce around before and during the campaign. I remember a few seats in the last election where 1 poll had 54/46 for ALP and the next 46/54… I’d wait til we get another poll of this seat to make conclusions.
The parties themselves would have a better indication of how they’re going in the seat as I’m sure they’ve been polling consistantly.
Re: the Cornes response:
“But this morning Ms Cornes told ABC radio: “I must at least see 100 or so people every weekend, and that’s not including those I doorknock or speak to on the phone.”
“That’ not the general feeling I’m getting,” she said. ”
Good lord, does every candidate trot out this tired little cliche? I guess so.
Shame that a seat in South Australia with a majority of 5.4% may be retained by the government for no reason other than the candidate sucked.
Is this a tarty dress? My experience in tartyness-assessment is rather limited.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22483082-5006301,00.html
The CCC did not recommend preferences in NSW this year, allegedly because being outside the political system and not having to worry about ugly machine things like preferences was “liberating” for Ms Newell. Which is a harmful thing to do in optional-ATL voting, because it says “If we don’t get a seat, we don’t care if like-minded people don’t, it’s all about us”.
At the federal, it won’t be much of an issue providing they preference parties who have a record on climate change. That would be the Democrats and the Greens, you’d assume, and if they don’t, I would hope the media hound them to death and 0.1% of the vote.
anthony baxter,
“Does anyone have pointers to a source of the polling data for the months leading up to the last few elections?”
Here’s some:
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=297
Some more:
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/capitulation/
(and yes, I would hope the CCC preference Labor ahead of Liberal. If you’re going to claim Climate Change as your issue, Labor is streets ahead in policy on it compared to the Libs. So Patrice, if you’re reading, you’re part of the machine now, act like it.)
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 9 » Show All