As you’re all no doubt aware, the Prime Minister has just held a press conference announcing the election will be held on November 24. Didn’t hear the whole thing, but after all the justified outrage about the government’s changes to electoral laws, I am surprised to learn that the legal formalities will be conducted on a timetable that will leave the rolls open until October 22.
UPDATE: Those who have had time to think about this point out that the writs will be issued on Wednesday, so the deadline for new enrolments is 8pm that evening. The October 22 date invoked by the Prime Minister is the closing date for amendment to existing enrolments.
UPDATE 2: An AEC press release announces: “If you’re not on the electoral roll and you’re entitled to enrol, you must fill in an enrolment form immediately and return it to an AEC office by 8pm, Wednesday 17 October. If you’re already on the roll but still need to update your address details, to ensure your vote you must complete an enrolment form and return it to an AEC office by 8pm Tuesday 23 October”.
726 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 15 » Show All
Rudd should flatly reject Speers as moderator.
I believe Nick Xenophon’s name is actually Xenophou and that at one stage was a member of the Liberal Party but these days is an independent and if anything does have a leaning tpwards the ALP.
Can anyone confirm the poll schedule?
My assumptions/calculations:
Newspoll out tomorrow, tomorrow night on ABC or Tuesday?
Morgan 19/10
Galaxy 22/10
Morgan 26/10
Thanks
Oldtimer,
That’s the “traditional” pre-campaign timetable. I’m sure during the campaign there’ll be polls coming out more frequently (and from some other polling organisations, such as YouGov and Taverner).
As such, we’re all expecting some form of Galaxy poll out tomorrow, with the Newspoll coming out on Tuesday (or Monday night through Lateline). After that, it’s anyone’s guess…
No worm? Australian’s have come to love the worm. Rudd should make a note of it all week that Howard doesn’t want people to see the worm.
Fellow pseph watchers,
I wanted to take a moment to wish all the best to all bloggers on this site for the next six weeks.
Its “game on” as far as I can see and the result will have more relevence to the core of Australian values than anything that has come before since WWII.
should I declare an interst or just keep lurking?
ShowsOn @ 517
“… non-anamorpic hic format …”
What does that mean? Is it a cock up? I like technical stuff.
Those Liberal ads are seriously lame-o.
For some reason the ‘Pro-growth’ slogan is hilarious. Makes me think of Howard’s eyebrows.
And that vox pop one is totally full of blokes. 9 out of 10. Surely thats a bit of an own goal.
Now I know Rudd will win, Howard has started thinking with his gut, rather than his brain:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22585251-5005962,00.html
Declare an interest Mr Squiggle!
And Hurrrrry Uuuuuup :mrgreen”
This election could shape up as a good test of the “Sawford Formula”.
A good chance the next inflation figure will be up and result in an interest rise on November 10th.
The unemployment figure is right out of the equation.
I have once again gone through the occupational backgrounds of the Shadow Cabinet using the Parliament website and Wikipedia. By my count 12 members of the Shadow Cabinet are former union office-holders, either elected officials or appointed officials such as organisers. Another seven have at some time worked for a union, as an advocate, research officer etc. Thirteen have as far as I can discover never held office in or worked for a union. Thus: 13 (33%) have been union officials, or “union bosses” as the Libs like to call them, 7 (23%) have worked for a union, and 13 (43%) have never done either. So where does this 70% figure come from? It’s a total lie as far as I can see. I have drawn up a table here:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/backgrounds.shtml
I would welcome any additional information or corrections.
I can see why Labor have not bothered arguing the “70%” figure, because they don’t want to give oxygen to Howard’s propaganda. But someone in the media ought to have pinged the Libs on this blatant lie. Incidentally, the 43% includes Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Smith, McClelland, Fitzgibbon, Macklin, Albanese, Emerson and Garrett - most of the tall timber of the Shadow Cabinet.
The election is the 24th, should be declared soon after, but how long after? Do they have to wait a couple of weeks for all the postal, absentee votes?
Will Howard still get his last Christmas at Kirrilbilli, if the election is not declared until early-mid December he may have trouble moving out before Christmas, unless maybe he gets some volunteers to help him move?
If I were Rudd I wouldn’ to go anywhere near a debate. Howard can debate well inside and outside the House of Reps.
He will hold his own ground, come across as tired and boring but same old same old. No, gain , no loss. He wont be expecting to do a messianic shift in popular opinion on the strength of a debate.
What he will be hoping to do an ‘enough rope’ on Rudd; give him an opportunity to damage the Labor and Rudd brand. Dangerous territory if you ask me.
However, if Rudd dosen’t have the ‘chops’ to stand his ground and debate well he dosen’t deserve to be PM anyway: it will test him and that’s a good thing. Ok, bring on the debate and see how he goes.
Opps, maths was never my strong point. The correct numbers are 12 (40%), 5 (17%), 13 (43%).
Labor will do well in WA - Premier Carpenter has just donated to the Annual Telethon $1,000,000 because it’s the 40th Anniversary of the event. Normally the WA Govt gives a couple of hundrand grand.
Bluebottle,
JWH got slaughtered (I think that’s the appropriate verb) by Latham and Beazley in their debates in 2004 and 2001. From what I recall, the margins of victory were around 65/35.
Of course, both Latham and Beazley needed the debate more than Rudd - they were either behind (in Beazley’s case) or on level pegging with the PM (Latham) at the time of the debate, but both needed an opportunity to look prime-ministerial. Rudd has been doing this for the better part of a year, he already holds a commanding lead in the polls and people seem to consider him prime-ministerial material already. The only reason why he should debate is that if he doesn’t, he looks chicken…
Actually, it was $100,000 from the WA Govt Plus the $1 Million as well as a Personal Donation from the Carpenter Family.
The WA Opposition also donated, but the amount wasn’t disclosed.
Ideally you want the broadcast image of an advertisment to fill the entire area of a 16:9 widescreen TV. Or appear letterboxed (with black bars at the top and bottom) on an old non-widescreen (4:3) TV.
However what the Liberals have done is send their ads to the TV stations as a 4:3 letterboxed image with black bars on the tape, rather than a “widescreen TV ready” 16:9 anamorphic image (which will be displayed properly irrespective of the TV it is viewed on).
This means their adverts occupy a small space at the centre of the screen, with blackbars around the entire image. In other words, when viewed on a widescreen TV, the image looks like this:
http://gregl.net/images/anamorphic/2.35_on_16×9.gif
When it should look like this:
http://gregl.net/images/anamorphic/2.35_anamorphic_on_16×9.gif
More explanation here:
http://gregl.net/videophile/anamorphic.htm
It just means the image is much smaller (I think by 25%) than it needs to be.
I would’ve thought the TV stations could convert everything to anamorphic 16:9, but they seem to just broadcast adverts in whatever format they receive them in. There is no reason today to broadcast anything non-anamorphic.
Excuse me? The premier’s family personally gave a million dollars? Is that what you meant to say?
Is it Spiers? Speers? Or spears at fifty paces? Or is this just simply the old thing of never naming an enemy?
Edward StJohn Says:
No, the inital donation from the WA Govt was $100,000 THEN there was the $Million Dollar donation.
The Family gave $1,000
I am interested in the discussion about Nick Xenophon. All along people have been assuming that he will poll 14-20% (well, not many are calling 20% but there you have it…).
Consider the case of the WA Nationals. At the last WA State Election they ran in 14 out of 57 seats, and polled a statewide average of 3.69%. Yet at their last serious statewide tilt at the Senate (2001) with former state leader Hendy Cowan running they polled only 2.35%. Hendy had profile being a former Deputy Premier, was well known in the rural areas, and the Nats ran HoR’s candidates in 4 electorates covering rural districts.
There does not seem to be a necessary correlation between Xenophon’s vote in the Leg Council and a potential vote in the Senate. Notwithstanding his own position, he also pulled up Ann Bressington, who has not been so well received from what I hear. I note that the Lib vote dropped (between 2002 & 2006) from 40% to 25% which seems to suggest that Xenophon pulled a lot of Liberal/conservative votes his way, perhaps as a protest against the Liberal Party itself in the 2006 election. Certainly the ALP vote in the Council went up over that period - from 33 to 36%.
So, just as some will argue you can’t take ALP-Lib state results (by-elections or general elections) and transfer them to the federal sphere, I think we should apply the same here. I do also note that Xenophon originally polled 2.86% in 1997.
The Age has a very nice interactive electorate map on their election website:
http://www.theage.com.au/multimedia/federalelection_map/index.html
Adam. the Liberals add portrays Julia Gillard as a Union hack!
Pretty poor form. They wouldn’t want to mislead the Australian public at all would they?
Swing. If Howard did so poorly in 2001 and 2004 why would he agree to another debate..I dont recall him being flogged, but your memory is better than mine. If its been bad for him in the past, his only motive must be to give Rudd ‘enough rope’ and hope he hangs himself on something ?
Hi Poss’m,
My declared interest is that I was once a payed up member of the liberal party which is how I will vote on in late november.
If I get around to it, I will pay me fees again. I’m currently registered in the elctorate of Higgins, so if I get around to it, I’ll offer to hand out HTV cards on the day
I have no special interest now, although I have a varied family history which has, over time, formed part of how I vote. For example,
10 year ago my farther stood for the Greens in a bayside Melbourne marginal
60 years ago my Great grandfather was premier of NSW. I’m told he was a class mate of Menzies, but I’ve never checked it out.
In a distant tree of ‘d’ family’ there lurks about 1/2 doz Parer’s (inlcuding Senators, WWII photographers, early aviators etc0
(seriosly…its all true)
All in all, family connnections considered, my main conclusion these days is
“its hard to smell when you have a pencil for a nose”
good luck eveyone, we’ll meet you on the other side
The debates are pretty irrelevant. As long as neither side does anything crazy (eg. cries) it’ll have no impact at all.
Gillard appeared for unions as a lawyer. That doesn’t make her a union hack, boss or anything else. Appearing as a lawyer for a murderer doesn’t make one a murderer. So far as I can find out, she has never worked directly for a union. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.
To me there is a real going through the motions feel to that advert. It is just lets touch on three things, economy, experience, unions. It is just a generic Liberal attack advert that they would probably run at any election.
Mr Squiggle
Don’t wriggle. Declare interest. Tell us your story …
Scorpio the ALP/Unions have been misleading the Australian public with their advertising for the past 2 years.
Thommo, I’ll bite and ask what is particularly misleading about the union ads? Apart from the ‘do you really think boardroom meetings are like that’ comments I’ve read from Lib supporters I haven’t seen them explain exactly what is misleading.
Supposedly the Galaxy for tomorrow shows the ALP in front in QLD marginals 51/49. In my opinion this isn’t good for the ALP this early in the campaign. They’d be hoping and expecting much higher figures than that.
Adam,
On your list of the Shadow Cabinet:
Gillard was a partner at Slater and Gordon doing work almost exclusively for trade unions
Alan Griffin was an organiser with the ASU under Lindsay Tanner
Robert McClelland was a partner in a law firm, Turner Freeman doing work almost exclusively for trade unions
You should also add the proportion who had only worked for a union to those who had only worked as staffers for the purposes of a fair comparison.
On the same basis Joe Hockey is a hack (given he was a President of the Young Liberals) and shouldnt be counted as a lawyer.
Shows On
The other thing Howard said in the article was
“Love me or loathe me, people know what I believe in and where I stand.â€
That is a big part of the trouble, most people don’t know where he stands.
In 96 he stood for all of us, ministerial accountability a fairer Australia, no GST, but over the years this has morphed into core and not a a core promise, not a sackable offence and divisive statements on immigrants, education, gays and non-christians.
Recently we have seen changes on aborigines, climate change and working conditions.
Howard may have a better chance if Australia did know exactly where he stood and what he believes in.
Who really cares what politicians do before they become politicians. The fact is they are politicians, who could be argued to not be all that representative of Australians in any case.
The only people concerned about ‘union bosses’ are Liberal Party members. The Liberal Party need to think of the bigger picture.
Well, if 584 is right, then tomorrows Galaxy is bad news for the ALP. Or is it?? That represents a pretty big swing from the 2004 result (from a quick look at Poss’s site). I guess Lose the Election Please, that thats 2PP and not primary you are quoting??
No way, don’t give me a heart attack.
And in the interests of openess with all this talk about unions I should state that I have been a delegate for the PKIU and a member of the LHMU. But have also managed several businesses and ran my own.
Having seen and experienced 3 angles in the business sector the worst aspect about Work Choices is the total power given to one and the lack of rights and loss of dignity to the other.
ShowsOn
Thanks. Sounds inept.
LTEP 587
Who cares what people did before politics?
Because some life experience and preferably broad life experience may equip them to make a worthwhile contribution to politics. People who have all come from the same gene pool will tend to group think and having the same world view.
“Thommo, I’ll bite and ask what is particularly misleading about the union ads? Apart from the ‘do you really think boardroom meetings are like that’ comments I’ve read from Lib supporters I haven’t seen them explain exactly what is misleading.
Supposedly the Galaxy for tomorrow shows the ALP in front in QLD marginals 51/49. In my opinion this isn’t good for the ALP this early in the campaign. They’d be hoping and expecting much higher figures than that.”
The fact is that they lie about the implications of work choices. They have since day one. I agree with you that those Galaxy figures are less than encouraging for the ALP. But I never really thought the ALP would make too many gains in QLD.
Yes imacca. I’m just getting this off of comments on Possums blog. I have no inside information of my own.
I presume if there was any significantly good polling to come through for the Coalition it would’ve been leaked for the news tonight, to create the idea of forward momentum. However if the 51/49 is correct, it’s still not good enough for the ALP to win comfortably in my opinion.
Fagin @ 542
Thanks for that. Water.
Well, obviously water’s a huge issue, but just water for SA? Hmm, I guess that’s what the Senate’s all about, states’ rights, but it’s idiotic to look at the Murray-Darling Basin solely in terms of one state. It’s just a tad broader a problem than that….
It will be on the Courier Mail website at midnight EST (1 AM in Tasmania).
I am yet to be convinced by the Coalition or anyone else that Unions equals bad. At my workplace we had a union rep who was a lovely young thing, and sadly missed when she went on extended maternity leave. As well as union rep she was the one who always volunteered to organise the social functions, birthday morning teas, melbourne cup sweeps etc as well as the charity collections that arise over the course of the year. As well as being very nice, she was also well respected for her diligent approach to her work and her readiness to assist others.
Her replacement is a much quieter personality, but no less respected within the workplace.
Neither person would in any way be offside with the 60% or so of the workplace who are not union members.
I don’t believe that this situation would be unusual throughout the nations workplaces.
51/49 2PP in Qld for Galaxy is still good news for the ALP.
It represents a 8% 2PP swing. JWH needs to get it under 6% in QLD to have any chance of survival.
@577, BlueBottle
I asked a similar question a little while ago and was put on to this link
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/116
Explains all you need to know about the results of past debates.
I can’t believe the worm will be ditched, 90 minutes of spin-doctoring with no bullshit-o-meter to cut through it will make very tiresome TV. Will the FTA channels even bother to televise it?
Depends on which “marginals” they polled - if it was Bonner, Moreton, Blair & Herbert, I would agree. If Galaxy took the current swings into account when determining “marginals” and went for something more interesting like Ryan, Leichhardt, Bowman & Dickson, that would actually be quite good. Apparently, the boss of Galaxy said on Channel 7 news that the ALP could win up to ten seats in Queensland and that the Coalition had a 10% chance of winning the election - I doubt he would have said that if the polling was done on the former four seats I mentioned.
Pages: « 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 15 » Show All