Morgan has published results of a large-sample phone poll of 1670 respondents, “including 1,025 electors in 22 key L-NP marginal seats”. This has focused on seven such seats in New South Wales, pointing to a swing of 7.7 per cent, four in Victoria for 4.8 per cent, four in Queensland for 13.9 per cent, three in South Australia for 6.6 per cent, two in Tasmania for 9.9 per cent, and two in Western Australia for a swing of 3.1 per cent away from Labor. I am unsure on what basis Morgan has arrived at the conclusion that “the ALP looks set to win between 14 and 24 seats”. We are told without explanation that the swing in NSW is “not uniform” and that “the L-NP could still hold Bennelong, Dobell and Wentworth”, without any corresponding allowance for Labor gaining seats outside the range. Despite the swing in South Australia, it is apparently the case that Labor might not win Wakefield, which I find extremely difficult to believe. The overall result of the poll is a 46.5 per cent primary vote for Labor and 40 per cent for the Coalition, for a two-party preferred result of 56-44. It would require tremendous creativity to build a scenario from these figures that would only deliver Labor 14 seats.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Morgan phone poll: 56-44
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
678 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 » Show All
Look at Queensland for recent history.
The UAP, disintegrated after suffering a heavy defeat in the 1943 election, from memory Labor won with 56% of the popular vote, from that mess we got the Liberal party.
If Morgon is right we are entering old territory not seen for 63 years.
If anyone is interested in learning about how unions operate, their history and current challenges in the new environment the best and most up to date book is called “Power at Work”
It has been read by unionists and employers alike and you will be able to make your own assumptions about where the movement is heading.
Alan H, can we keep the abuse on a leash please.
ESJ – I currently can’t get access to the files, something is wrong with the AIRC website. But which unions…?
@337 Very Generic
Show us anything in science, medicine, you name it, that is 100% predictive and or accurate.
‘337
Generic Person Says:
November 18th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
No 323
Samuel K, please cite a definitive and 100% conclusive statement from the IPCC or anyone else that confirms anthropogenic global warming.’
Oh GP. Please cite one that doesn’t…no let’s not go around in circles, but accept that this is a pretty serious issue. There is no need for red herrings really, just some positivism.
#337
Not a valid argument. Also, junk science. Big assumption, I know, but if you actually want to learn something you could do worse than reading here or here.
3 most likely to fall over in first 3 years :
NUW
ASU
AMWU
Back from long and enjoyable Labor hacks’ dinner…
Are we getting a Newspoll tonight?
GP, I put it to you that you don’t believe in climate change becuse that would mean that you would be morally obliged/compelled to do something about it.
Your selfishness blinds your ability to objectively analyse the science.
Here’s a start for you from some of the local chaps at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – you might have heard of it?
http://www.csiro.au/resources/psrs.html
In particular, “Why has our climate changed?
Much of the warming since 1950 is due to human activities that have increased greenhouse gases.”
Sooo no Newpoll tonight then?
Hmmm.. well I’m willing to put $100 on it that says you are wrong.
#335
I think the inverse square law of gravity does a pretty good job…
352 BBD -
Michael Crosby, Power at Work -
That book is very dangerous, basically advocates a return to a closed shop and admits organising employees is too hard.
300
Edward StJohn Says:
November 18th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“I dont claim any expertise on the environment but…”
….
… you are ready to dismiss any talk of climate change, as if it were an example of a conspiracy theory or mass delusion. Why don’t you take the trouble to become an expert on the environment. Then we could take you seriously.
GP,
Perhaps they’re hiding the evidence for Global Warming in the same place as Sadaam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction? I always find it interesting that extreme Right Wingers need proof to turn off a light bulb, but no proof to bomb or invade a country.
EsJ… clearly you don’t know what a multi-national engineering consultancy does. But then again… you don’t really know much about most subjects you talk about.
DeSal plants, Chemical treatment plants, Oil refineries, pulp plants, water treatment plants, Green star buildings, roads, cars, power plants, solar farms, wind farms, and every substitute for any one of those things, and any study that either justifies, or doesn’t, for any one of those things either now or in the future.
It’s called having a good understanding. You should try it some time.
‘Sooo no Newpoll tonight then?’
Albert F – I don’t think so. Just climate change denial and anonymous bloggers attacking other anonymous bloggers environmentalist creds. Funny AND informative.
Under what barrier conditions? And must these conditions always apply? And if they do? And if they dont? Then we can argue about temporal variables.
Growing Unions in WA
LHMU (Miscelaneous and Hospitality)
CSA (State Public Sector- but dont let that fool you, in other states they decline)
CPSU (Federal Public Sector- iin the face of pure assault)
ANF (Nurses union)
SDA (Yes the retail union)
CEPU Communications (Aussie Post- also in face of hostility)
I am not sure if there are others, but the declining list is significant because density public+private in WA is now 16%- US figures
The difference in membership levels for these unions is very interesting because these are the unions that have taken orgainsing out of the workplace to the home of members due to I.R. laws. the other unions still rely on limited workplace access.
best summation of the whole day Pancho.
ESJ please stop your union bashing. Just because you haven’t had real life experience & at one time may have had to join a union it don’t mean that they should be demonised whilst you wear your rose colored glasses.
Unions have help Australia attain one of the best standards of living in the world & no amount of right wing bile can deny that.
Phil is on the money, these so called marginal polls are a waste of time, you would be far better of applying a state wide results using the previous non-uniform swing patterns of volitilty for these seats, moderated by some local effects such as retiring popular member or dud candidate. The commercials are copying that goose from UMR that Latham and Beasley used
bO
I unlike others acknowledge if I have limited knowledge in an area. On climate change there is a huge element of taking claims as facts, and where there are facts these are used to extrapolate assumptions like shutting down coal and power stations.
IN NSW we had a group of crazy trots who tried to shut a power station on friday. Crazy stuff.
364
Certainly Power at work advocates the complete oposite of what you suggest. I assume it was said jokingly.
No 360
Samuel, I do believe in Global Warming and Climate Change, but I do not believe that humans can manipulate climate.
304
Generic Person Says:
November 18th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“….. It hasn’t made me any more willing to join the cesspool of leftists.”
…..
Cesspool? Are you an ideological plumber? Once again, you must rate us all as fools.
Non Person @ 337
According to the IPCC report released by the UN today (yes, that bunch of card-carrying commies), the scientists give it about a 90% chance that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. That’s very nearly as good as you’ll get on anything – such as say, UV exposure causing skin cancer…
Geez EsJ you have to be a bit more subtle or we’ll all know that you are actually Andrew Bolt.
Charles the Libs wont disband and start a new party it would be admitting defeat.
Plus the UAP was a unique political Party with ex Labor and Nationalist members, it’s not like that today.
If that happened Rudd would be in for 3 terms at least, the best worst case scenario is Rudd by 4 seats or so and maybe an upset in 2010 if we’re lucky.
William with respect i would ask that you delete Grrs comment about me being the fuhrer. I think this type of abuse in not in keeping with your sites ethics.
see #
285
Gerr Says:
November 18th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Glen is actually the fuhrer, please refer to him as Shatzy Johnny
“which union is growing, the SDA maybe? any others?”
The nurses unions in NSW and Victoria. Even the nurses in private hospitals and nursing homes are nearly all union members.
BBD
16% wow – thats terrible, real question of survival then. Good Luck
AG01
No problem with your last sentence, but what have done for me lately AG01, ie since compulsory super in 1987?
374 Edward StJohn Says: November 18th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
The ALP is making no such assertions that it is. You know, when I don’t know something about a subject, I don’t talk about it.
You really should try to do that too.
Make no mistake about it… coal power stations WILL have to change their ways. Companies like mine built them, and my company and companies like mine will invariably replace them.
Learn about the subject, THEN talk about it.
Anyone else notice that the individual seat betting only really gets a big move straight after a poll is published?
So much for the betting being the ’smart’ indicator. You’d have to conclude that the polls drive the betting from what’s occured in the last few days.
363 Dangerous- The inverse square law of gravity is wrong. Its very close for most objects but it is hopeless with very large or very small objects. I think Einstein showed that a while ago…
Old dog,
This really sounds like a wacko conspiracy theory. A vast majority of the world’s best climatologists say climate change is a serious problem, are you suggesting that they are ALL misleading us?
I’m not questioning that scientists disagree on the severity of the problem, but the general consensus is that there IS a problem that requires changes to the way we produce and use energy.
I completely agree, this was just a stupid way to protest. After they shut the power station down then restart it the burners spend an few hours operating at a suboptimal temperature which releases more carbon oxides than when the burners are running at regular temperatures. So their protest led to more carbon emissions than would normally be the case.
Pi @ 383
I just hope that companies like yours are learning how to build the kinds of large-scale solar electric plants that we’ll be needing to meet our 20/20 and 50/50 goals… There’s money in clean energy – probably a whole lot of it over the next fifty years.
Will “Under the Whitlam Labor Govt. interest rates hit 10.38%, under the Hawke labor Govt they were….” etc. work at all this election?
I have only seen these ads in the last few days. Is there a strategy to leaving them so late (until after a rate rise no less)?
I am incapable of objectively analysing whether they work because I have a reasonable understanding of how the economy actually works. Someone please help – objectively if possible.
Good evening Glen and Edward St John: 5 more days left of your beloved Howard Government. Enjoy it boys!
Ok you can call me the fuhrer if you like.
Subscribe to Scientific America look up climate change and focus on the graphics that show how the poller ice caps are disappearing.
But really this is not relevant. You lot are trying to win an election, why would any sane politician take on a view that is support by a bunch of right wing nutter and not supported by the science community.
The Liberal party has been wedged; walks away shaking his head in disbelief at their stupidity.
GP, you sound an awful lot like cigarette companies asking for proof that smoking causes cancer before acknowledging there is a problem. For the record, before I am also accused of being uneducated about climate change, I am a scientist and an engineer. If you like, I could go through the infrared absorption characteristics of greenhouse gases and why that is leading to climate change, but I’m more than aware that nothing I could say could change your mind.
# 376 Generic Person Says: November 18th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
We managed to stop the ozone hole in the antarctic from expanding by phasing out CFC’s. Thank christ no-one like you was in charge then.
Thank christ no-one like you is going to be in charge in the future.
You know PI,
If you accept the premise that we are emitting to much crap into the atmosphere, the climate change debate basically boils down to 2 things:
1) Do we (and China and India etc) voluntarily reduce our own living standards by reducing emissions ( which wouldnt work because of the prisoners dilemma ie someone always cheatss)
or
2) Use the market to price these things and hope human ingenuity does the rest through new technologies.
Essentially people wont do 1 honestly and willingingly and we’ll only do 2 when we create the market incentives.
Your view on this question is basically determinative of whether your an individualist or collectivist i suspect.
Ironic, isn’t it Pi, that big business has been ahead of the public on climate change, and where running the slide rule over the ramifications at least from a decade or so ago. Lots of very smart people could see it coming, but had to wait for the public and then governments to catch up.
It’s rather amusing to hear the ill-informed talking about CC, it’s like they think it’s an argument about religion, about whether one ‘believes’ in or not!
Generic Person i agree with your position wholeheartedly, i agree that there is climate change but I do not believe that humans can manipulate climate, if they did how would that explain the massive changes in climate during the ice ages and the medieval period??
Sure it wouldn’t hurt to address CO2 emissions but let’s not go nuts here and costs jobs because of the Green lobby.
Nobody wants to talk polls/psephological matters?
Maybe we could have a rotating fuhrer policy?
EStJ @ 300 That was absolutely the most pathetic comment ever. You aren’t an expert on anything, except your own ego. The assembled opinion of thousands of the world’s most eminent scientists, and you say they are a bunch of ‘trots’. You and Glen make a delightful pair.
Believe it or not, intelligent people are able to analyse data to come up with testable hypotheses, and then subject these to experimental tests. Its called science. My three eldest children all work in this general area. You haven’t got the faintest idea of that on which you fart into the wind.
Politics is not the real world. Short term expediency in line with electoral cycles is highly likely to lead to actual disaster. Right wing religious nut cases like George W Bush and Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are actually in positions of influence, even though organised religion is, just possibly, declining. Each one of them is sufficiently unhinged that they may well make Nuclear Armageddon a reality, even if 20 years late. Global warming is here and now. It is real, and the consequences of ignoring it will be catastrophic. As and when it happens, believe you me, your pathetic bleatings will not taken into account.
But dream on, I am sure you will craft a really ‘nice’ few lines pointing out how the ‘trots’ were just deluded fools.
cheers,
Alan H
BBD
Do you think WA will refer its IR powers federally if Rudd wins?
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 » Show All