The Adelaide Advertiser has published a poll on South Australian state voting intention from a sample of 522, showing Labor leading the Liberals 56-44 on two-party preferred. After distribution of the 12 per cent undecided, Labor leads 43 per cent to 37 per cent on the primary vote. Breakdowns between city and country show Labor leading 57-43 outside Adelaide. However, the previous Advertiser poll published last September had the Liberals leading in the country 58-42, pointing to a scarcely credible 15 point turn-around – although the earlier poll had a total sample of just 365. Martin Hamilton-Smith is far ahead of his party rivals as preferred Liberal leader.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Advertiser: 56-44 to Labor in SA
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
127 Comments
The 58-42 was in country areas.
Ah. Best correct that then. Thanks.
Previous: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/files/poll.pdf
New: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/pdfs/statepolitics18mar2009.pdf
If this is correct, for country areas on the primary vote, Labor has gone up 18%, Liberals down 5%. The Greens are down 7% (12% in the country sounded a bit farfetched compared to 6% in metro). Family First down from 8% to 1%. Undecided down 1%.
I blame the sample size of the first one. I recall seeing the graph of the reliability of polling sizes somewhere, it’s one of those graphs that has the line going near vertical, then a sharp curved turn, then a line going near horizontal (how technical of me). A sample of 522 is far more reliable than 365. I think the curve began to slow down in altitude around 400.
And as far as metro goes, Labor is down 4%, Liberals down 8%, Greens up 1%, FF down 2%, Independent/other up 6%, and undecided has doubled to 12%.
Ind/other up 6%? Maybe it’s that new Free Australia/bikie party
Damn I hate the ’tiser, can’t even get a decent pdf together without having headings on a separate page from the section and tables breaking across pages.
I just wonder if all the populism has started to bite Hamilton-Smith. It’s all well and good to go on a crusade for an inner city stadium when the economy is travelling well, but when things start to bite the public is more keen to see it spent in more vital areas. Particularly with people whose jobs are in the more vital areas.
The ’tiser’s crusade against the Rann government has stemmed a bit recently, and I guess there are some rural voters who would be supportive of his proposal to take upstream states (*cough* Victoria) to the High Court over the Murray.
It’s just ridiculous to believe that Rann is more popular in rural areas than in the city. Labor basically hold all the urban seats in SA and none of the rural seats. Hill scrapping the disastrous Country Health package will have helped in the rural areas, as would have Rann’s High Court challenge over water but not by that much.
I also find it hard to believe that only 37% of Labor voters think Rann is doing a good job.
Overall, both leaders would be pretty unhappy with the very lukewarm opinion the electorate has of them. “Fair” came up very often. I’d like to see both go as the are both terrible. Bring in Downer or Pyne for the Libs and promote Weatherall for Labor.
Heh what a rubbish poll, just spent half an hour plugging in the numbers into a MoE calculator, trying to split the vote and get results on metro/country is bad enough. Putting such a flawed headline on the front page is just bad journalism. Posted the below to the advertiser story, id be surprised if it gets published.
A sample size of 522 produces a margin on error of 4.62% (the PDF states 4.3 – that assumes a 50-50 split in the vote )
That means the ALP 2PP result could be anywhere between 51.38% and 60.62% Ie almost 10% area of unknown real value. Remember there is only a 95% chance the correct value lies within this area.
Now if that isn’t bad enough, lets look at the reported country figures.
Of 522 voters surveyed we need to split them into Country and Metro voters. I don’t know the % of country residents in SA, however lets just say its 50-50.
That means 261 voters from Country sa were survey for a 57-43 ALP leading result
261 metro voters with a 56-44 result.
The fact that the ALP result is higher in the area where they have almost no current seats than the area where they have most the seats should of triggered alarm bells… however..
The country vote sample has a margin of error if 6.02%, that means the true value (95% confidence) lies between 51 and 63% for the ALP. The metro figure is much the same.
Ofcourse if you consider we have more metro voters than country voters, I just counted 16 rural seats out of 47 that makes about 32%. Lets have a look at the margin of error on the country vote based on a correct weighting.
32% of 522 is 167, the margin for error on the country voters according to that is 7.53% Thats a 15% effective margin on error… The alp vote could be as low as 49.5 and as high as 64.53.
If you are going to conduct votes with this low a margin of error, don’t split the votes into rural and metro (or male/female). Wait until several polls have been conducted and do a yearly analysis – (in the same way the newspoll conducts State polls from combined forntnightly polls) or if you are going to stick with such sillyness, save calling so few people and spin a wheel – it has as much chance of being right.
There have been no dramatic polling movements, only dramatic interpretation of horrible polling techniques.
Dio, one thing I have heard from people who have attended industry briefings recently is that Rann is remaining very upbeat about the GFC and trying to weather it, whereas people like Foley are much more realistic about it. I think we probably need to have a fairly upbeat and positive premier at the moment just to keep confidence as high as possible; as long as he’s being advised by level heads.
Rann’s probably perfect for that sort of position since he’s always played Mr. Good News; he doesn’t really have strong links to most of the bad news… he generally leaves that to Conlon.
i’ve never given much credence to the Advertiser polls, much as i want to believe this one i find that turnaround a bit hard to get over, i think both the last one and this one go too far in opposite directions, MHS isnt going to cut the mustard, very few people i talk to seem to take him seriously, i think the populist policies have done that, they dont believe them, his vow to apply for the commonwealth games after he was elected even though the winning state would have been announced well before our next election has set in some voters minds he’s a lightweight, the Advertiser does it’s best to push his cause, last week the saturday magazine was all MHS and he did a live blog afterwards, i didnt bother to check it out, MHS is big on talk but theres no substance underneath, he’s big on construction ideas but is hopeless on costings, he’s a bit like a rabbit caught in the headlights when pressed for finer details.
Actually can anyone here much smarter than me (ie most) work out the sample size of rural voters from the voting results?
ALP Metro/Country/ALL: 36/43/38
LIB M/C/A: 30/33/31
IND M/C/A: 9/4/8
Included the last one given the big difference between Metro and country. So yeah is there a way of determining the power (sample size) of each contributing region in influencing the ALL result?
All in the name of poking fun at shoddy poll reporting
Al
That’s very true but it doesn’t explain why his support is so insipid with Labor voters. How can only 37% of Labor voters think he’s doing a good job? (I’d rate him as fair myself). It doesn’t augur well for the Presidential-style campaign we are certain to get. I think most people have seen through the “Good News” Premier routine. They might need a new tactic.
I find this result far more believeable than the previous one for sentiment in Adelaide itself. Given the swing against the Liberals in the by elections, it seems hard ot believe that even the coutrny result was ahead of past trend.
I bet the Advertiser editors must have enjoyed printing this. I can just imagine the tear soaked pages of the proof copy…
Socrates
They’re running it as a ‘Liberals Lose Their Country Heartland’ story.
I’ll bet the Country Health Reforms don’t re-emerge until after the next election. The turnaround in amazing with them off the radar. The Country people are VERY pleased to see they were listened to.
Diogenes,
You have to be cautious with these results. 15% turnaround over one polling period seems extraordinary. I’d want to see a further confirming poll before drawing any conclusions.
GG
Very true but from what I’ve heard, the Country people feel they had a win when the Country Health debacle was U-turned on. They went from furious to being very pleased. The High Court chest-beating over our traditional enemy, Victoria, also went down well esp in the rural areas.
Diogs,
It is nice to be held in such high regard. Where is it you come from again?
I would be looking very carefully at these figures to see if the apprentice hasn’t put some of them in the wrong box. Find me a poll ever in SA with Labor ahead of Libs a lot in country areas.
How about Julie Bishop for SA Premier. Just get her into a safe Liberal state seat and then take the leadership from MHS. Labor would be wiped out I reckon.
Bree 16, you obviously know very little about South Australia or how elections are won in Adelaide. Julie Bishop = Eastern Suburbs= Blue Rinse Ladies Type= No Hope of Winning an election in South Australia.
vote1
I get it as metro was 70% of the poll and country 30%. That’s probably about right as Adelaide is 70% of SA’s population according to wiki.
The problem isn’t Rann, he doesn’t control what the government does. He’s a puppet of the dominant Labor Right, the likes of Don Farrell. Rann does what he’s told. Any other Labor leader wouldn’t make a difference to the outcomes we get here.
At least it isn’t a Liberal government though.
Vote Labor for steady government as opposed to the Liberal rabble who are corrupt and infight en masse as witnessed during the Brown/Olsen/Kerin years?
Bree, Julie Bishop as premier——haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaa, what a hoot, oh my aching sides
Yes it is very amusing. But we’ve learnt that Bree has no credibility when it comes to politics, even GP tells Bree to shut up at times! And that’s saying something!
bob
I don’t think we’ll be seeing what a Lib Government will look like for quite a while. They are totally unelectable. They need a new leader and don’t have one in the party, hence my comment to get a federal in.
I think people are getting sick of Rann though and those figures tend to back that up. All the other long-standing Labor Premiers have gotten out, Bracks, Carr, Beatty and Gallup, and I think Rann should follow them.
I don’t think people are getting sick of Rann, I just think that he’s been serving for a long time. The Rann government has been comparatively free of scandals and issues. If you ask what people don’t like about the government, there’s no underlying theme. If you look at other long serving leaders – Playford, Menzies, Dunstan, Bannon, what has assisted in keeping them in has been a disunited opposition.
I think Rann is the best choice for 2010. Any change before then would be seen cynically. After that, having won three terms, I think Rann should step aside early in the piece. But who would replace him? Weatherall? Hahahahaha. He’s from the left faction. He has no chance.
I agree Brenton. She also = Western Australia. I don’t think any self respecting vter in S.A. would approve of new leader from interstate being helicoptered in. Dumb suggestion from Bree.
bob
I certainly wouldn’t get rid of Rann before the next election. I mean he should step aside after winning the next election, perhaps one year in. I think Marjorie Jackson-Nelson gave Labor a huge free kick when she pulled her name from the hospital. It’s really neutralised the opposition to the MJN.
I hereby officially predict that at the next state election the SA ALP will suffer a significant decrease of votes cf the last election and a loss of seats to the point of defeat. Maybe even defeat.
fredx – one has to say that at this stage Bree’s suggestion has more merit than yours and hers is off the wall.
Well Gary its a little tongue in cheek but not entirely.
I voiced the opinion that “the ALP will go backwards at the next election” to a few persons of influence recently and they reluctantly agreed. I think this current poll is more than a little weird and at best a flash in the plan and between now and the next election we will see anti ALP sentiment re-emerging particularly from the media.
Anyway its a testable prediction so we’ll see.
Dio
Would the effort to reform workers copensation arrangements and union campaign against it have hurt Rann in Labor circles?
Ironically, I finally heard Martin Hamilton Smith say something I agreed with the other day. He said the government should put on free buses into the eastern suburbs during the Clipsal, to manage the traffic congestion and compensate for the inconvenience. Strongly agree about the onconvenience; its not a bad idea.
Julie Bishop as SA Liberal leader, Nicole Cornes as deputy (she admits she is a life-long Liberal voter) and maybe Alexander Downer. A good mix I would say. This would be a nightmare for Rann.
Bree 19
You’ve got to be kidding about Julie Bishop. She’s not really a local, not credible, not media friendly and couldn’t unite the warring local factions. They might as well nominate Mark Latham.
Perhaps if it isn’t Julie, it could be Amanda Vanstone.
Really? You don’t say. Labor got 56.8% of the statewide 2pp vote, the largest in SA state history, 1993/state bank aside.
Grasping at straws there.
Bree 36, Amanda may get the ‘foodies’ vote! Lol
I would say a Labor defeat is more likely in SA than Vic. On Victoria, I reckon Costello would easily beat Brumby, if he chose to go into state politics.
…or Michael Kroger.
Bree, I want what you’re smoking.
Bree, I think it is highly unlikely that the Conservatives will win in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania or the Australian Capital Territory for the present time. Pin your hopes on tonight, New South Wales or the Northern Territory.
I think the main problems for the state Libs in opposition is leadership rather than the 2PP, the problem at the moment is that MHS is the only talented one in there at the moment. 56-44 is not bad, one year out from an election.
Don’t assume I’m not an ALP supporter.
I have spent a lot of time and effort actively campaigning for the ALP at the last two elections.
Don’t forget the ALP vote went down enormously at the Frome by-election, no matter how you spin it. The Libs may not have done well either, but things can change in a whole state campaign and a week is a long time in politics.
I’m certain Costello would beat Brumby but the Coalition needs to save Costello for federal politics.
What I find most amusing is that Bree thinks Bishop or Vanstone could do a better job than MHS. They’re all hopeless, but MHS is the best of these. Who would listen to Bishop or Vanstone? Not everyone is a blindslighted Liberal fanboi.
Out of the many polls on the subject, show which one is encouraging for Costello to become PM?
Not a comparison of Costello to Turnbull or anyone else, because that’s comparing bad with bad. Show us a poll that asks if Costello should become PM (exit poll @ 2007) or compares him to Rudd, and shows Costello in a favourable light?
Liberal fanboi. Even GP laughs at you.
You never know, someone might pop out from the SA Lib backbench four weeks out from the election and do a Barnett.
My tip is for Labor to win with a reduced majority in 2010, MHS to go within a year of defteat for most likely Pyne or possibly Downer after the Libs get wiped federally by Rudd. Rann to step down mid-term for Foley.
You don’t come from SA, so i’ll forgive you for such an ignorant comment. There is nobody of any persona or talent on the frontbench. The SA Libs acknowledge there is a shallow pool and that MHS is the best shot. I guarantee that MHS will be the Liberal leader come the 2010 election
Oh god. Please don’t say that. I just had lunch.
bob, Costello is waiting for Rudd to screw up, then he will go for the leadership. Costello is clever unlike the greed and big ego that has virtually destroyed Turnbull. I think the federal Libs would be in a good position had they stayed with Nelson.
Bree
If you had any idea how bad the people on the Liberal frontbench and backbench are, you wouldn’t be saying that. Trust me, you need a Fed to go back to State. There are plenty to choose from; Pyne, Downer, Minchin or Robert Hill (who I think is the best of them).
Actually, MHS could win next year, if the Barnett pattern plays out. Barnett lost in 2005 than won in 2008. MHS lost in 2006 so he must win in 2010.
Diogenes, Robert Hill would be excellent.
“Don’t forget the ALP vote went down enormously at the Frome by-election, no matter how you spin it. The Libs may not have done well either, but things can change in a whole state campaign and a week is a long time in politics.”
No it went up… Before Brock overtook Labor there was a 2% swing to Labor on 2PP.
If you are going to claim primary vote matters in a regional seat where the ALP is trying to run dead to elect a indie over a liberal then you have been smoking what Bree has been..
bob
Looks like we agree on the lack of talent in the Libs, and incidentally on Foley. I don’t think Conlon, Atkinson or Holloway could lead. J-Lo doesn’t have it. Hill had it and lost it (I’ve heard his Party is REALLY pissd off with him over the Health front pages and have told him he should no longer consider being leader). Weatherall is my fave but is from the left so doesn’t have the numbers. Wright stuffed up Workcover which will bite eventually. It looks like Foley to me. At least they’ve got plenty to choose from. Caica seems to be coming into consideration.
Bree
I know someone who worked for Robert Hill for many years and said he was a really decent, hard-working guy. He was also smart and would stand up for what he thought. He was a bit on the outer with Howard as he is a wet. Hill and Minchin aren’t the best of friends.
Well I actually agree on Robert Hill too. He at least has a brain and some credibility, is local, and would give Rann a run for his money.
As for Labor, I know Conlon won’t be leader, but I have dealt with him through work and I found him very fair – blunt but intelligent and down to earth. Agree on Foley – he scares me.
bob1234 50 Thankyou for educating Bree about the SA Parliamentary Liberal Party! No talent because the factions dont let anyone of talent in! Totally unrepresentative of the wider South Australian community.
No, MHS won his seat in 2006. Kerin lost the election as leader of the Liberals.
Go back to federal politics.
He’s also from the left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frome_by-election,_2009
There was a 1.74% two party swing away from the Liberals to Labor. The Labor primary vote dived more than the Liberal primary vote did because Geoff Brock is a Labor-leaning independent. He was Mayor of Port Pirie, a town of Labor voters. Primary votes don’t mean a thing, it’s the two party vote you look at. 1.74% more of voters decided to put Labor above Liberal in their 2009 by-election vote compared to the record breaking 2006 election.
The by-election was a disaster for the Liberals. They now need 10 seats, not 9, for a win in 2010.
Hill is Australia’s Ambassador to the UN. The Ruddster has kept him on in that role which shows that Hill has good bipartisan support. I imagine being SA Premier is a bit of a come-down after being UN Ambassador.
And to expand on my above post, the Libs went down 9%, Labor 15%, with a Labor-leaning independent winning the election. Only 40% of Nats prefs went back to the Libs, and Family First didn’t contest the election, having received 5% of the vote in 2006. So 9% is a lot, for an election won by a Labor-leaning independent.
But again, primary votes don’t mean a thing, the two party vote does. 1.74% more of voters decided to put Labor above Liberal in their 2009 by-election vote compared to the record breaking 2006 election. What a disaster for the Liberals.
Yes Frome was a disaster all right, quite apart from the comical claiming of victory by the Libs before they realised that the preference flow meant they had to concede defeat. Not only do the Libs now need 10 seats, but I would imagine Frome will be very hard to win back, unless Brock says something silly. I don’t see where they will get the other ten from.
Brock didn’t even give Labor his second preferences.
And Labor didn’t even get into the 2PP race, it was eliminated at number 3.
There was no 2pp swing to the ALP.
And the ALP candidate is a popular well known person, highly respected who received less than 30% of the vote in a purportedly Labor town in Port Pirie.
If the purported Labor supporters in Pirie had wanted to vote Labor they had a perfectly acceptable candidate with that party name next to his.
They didn’t, or nowhere near enough anyway, they voted for someone who didn’t put Labor as his second preference.
You are believing spin.
Don’t accept that what the party says is entirely true.
The Libs need a swing of over 10% to get ten seats. Won’t happen.
Brock, the mayor of Port Pirie, and Wilson, deputy mayor of Port Pirie and Nationals candidate, swapped preferences in a bid to pull the seat from the major parties. Labor was the next pref on Brock’s ticket. Then the Libs, then Green, then One Nation. So on 2PP, Brock did give Labor his prefs.
Yes there was. See http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/byelection2009/results.php – there’s a two party vote and a two candidate vote. There was a 1.74% 2pp swing away from the Libs to Labor.
Because they had an independent Labor candidate, not bound to the party line.
No, you’re creating spin.
And let’s not forget that the SA Nationals are an independent political party, and the only Nationals party in Australia to have an MP of theirs (and their only one) in a Labor cabinet.
The comments @ http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,22638,25219155-5006301,00.html are rather amusing
“Because they had an independent Labor candidate, not bound to the party line.”
What does that tell you?
It takes something significant for 20% of ALP voters plus in Pirie to NOT vote for a respected Labor candidate. Forget the spin, ask yourselves why they did that.
Oh and bob1234,
just to add to the discussion I’ll predict that Karlene Maywald is not re-elected.
Look guys, I’m an ALP supporter and I have campaigned heavily in Frome and elsewhere recently, I’m catching vibes [and more] that the electorate is not supporting the ALP anywhere near as much as this poll suggests and that the prognosis for the election is nowhere near as rosy as this poll and general spin from ALP HQ suggests.
I’m concerned that the ALP could lose the next state election, I’m not alone in that worry.
People prefer a strong well known trusted independent rather than a major party? There was a 1.74% two party swing to Labor from the Liberals. The fact you keep denying this makes me think you are telling fibs about your beliefs. Preferences are redistributed even when an independent wins, to find the two party as well as the two candidate vote. I gave you the electoral commission link. 1.74% more of voters decided to put Labor above Liberal in their 2009 by-election vote compared to the record breaking 2006 election.
You go ahead and think that. People won’t put MHS and the Liberals in power. They need a swing of over 10%. No poll has given them that sort of swing required. People remember what it was like under the Liberals 1993-2002. Infighting, 3 leaders, corruption. Rann has provided stable government.
“People prefer a strong well known trusted independent rather than a major party?”
That is, the ALP, that’s the major party we are talking about.
And the people we are talking about are [nominally] Labor supporters.
Now ask why nominally ALP supporters prefer another candidate, who puts the ALP as his 3rd preference, rather than a respected official Labor candidate.
Not because the party ‘ran dead’, the resources put in were about the same as the previous elections.
Lets see if a party led by a dunderhead can come back by several percent from their last electoral loss when we see what has happening in Qld eh?
Oh and in the last couple of years I have spent thousands of dollars of my own money, and I don’t have a lot, and several hundred hours, just me, not counting my wife who did the same, campaigning for the Labor party so be assured I would far prefer them to the horrifying alternative.
Take this as concern, a lot of ALP voters at the last election in SA [Frome] did NOT vote for the ALP.
You should be concerned.
Against the Liberal Party. The two choices of government. And there was a 2PP swing of 1.74% to Labor.
Did they vote for the Liberals instead?
No.
So should I be worried of a Labor loss to the Liberals in 2010?
No.
I’m off for the evening, cya!
The bottom line on Frome is, if there were a hung parliament after 2010, would Brock vote for Labor or Liberal. As long as the answer is the former, the Liberals lost. Anything else is spin.
Exactly. Brock took a seat off the Liberals. In a hung parliament, Brock would side with Labor, as previous Mayors of Port Pirie turned MP for the electorate it is encased in have done. The majority of his vote is derived from traditionally Labor supporters. I can’t see him assisting in forming a minority Liberal government. He’d either support them, or flap his lips about like the Greens did in the ACT and give the impression he wasn’t an automatic supporter of Labor (I suspect the latter), and probably with some demands that Labor would have to agree to.
That said, I doubt Labor will have to resort to minority government. Just look at QLD! Hehehe.
My prediction for next year: Labor will hold Vic but will lose SA.
lol.
bob
There might ne a few tough times for Rann coming up. You will notice that the front page of the Mail screams “YOU KNEW”. Ploubidis is alleging that Bentley, who is head of the Thoroughbred Racing Board knew all about the goings on in the SAJC and condoned them. Bentley is a close friend of Mike Rann. I know someone very well informed in the SAJC who alleged exactly the same yesterday.
Bentley is about to hit the fan and there will be many allegations that Rann and Wright have tried to protect him. There will be many questions about why Rann opposes a Corruption Commission.
Diogenes,
That’s only one question.
Who? What? Where?
How does that affect me or my standard of living?
Not a vote loser.
GG
It’ll be the same question framed in different ways from multiple sources.
bob
You’re right. Corruption doesn’t lose many votes. Just look at the WA election where they seemed to give a swing towards you if the CCC had unearthed stuff that led to you being ditched. I suppose we all expect a very low standard of rectitude from our politicians, about the same level as journalists and used car salesmen.
Howard was dodgy for 11 years but he still won four elections.
WA Labor was deeply entrenched in corruption. It is nothing like SA Labor. If this sort of thing kept happening people would be pissed off with SA Labor. But this on its own, with no proof Rann did anything wrong, pffft.
Diogenes,
It’s still one question then?
Permanent Corruption Commisssions have a very dodgy record.
GG
Yes, most of them seem to get blinkered and pursue personal vendetta’s. WA’s has clearly perfected the art of failure. A few of the other states have more successful ones.
This is another dodgy effort by the Advertiser to follow their Chaffey opinion poll debacle last year. The overall 2PP is probably at the upper limit of believability – but not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is trying to make a big deal over the trends of the country vote. As various people have already said – its a swing that lacks any credibility. I teach my first year science students about over-interpreting data – I may well use this as an example in an upcoming lecture!
I should add – we should expect a newspoll for SA in about two weeks now that the March quarter is nearly over. Be interesting to see what that shows.
Diogenes,
Name one.
GG
Didn’t NSW’s ICAC find and root out quite an entrenched corrupt RailCorp?
They also managed to destroy Nick Greiner’s career for no discernible reason other than they could.
Diogenes and others. Weatherill cant be premier because he is from left. Why so. Anna Bligh is from a left faction. Ditto Carmen Lawrence, Joan Kirner, Nathan Rees etc. Labor chooses leader based on public perceptions as well as factions. Don Dunstan while in a centre faction was clearly left as far as Labor politics. If Rann goes it is unlikely Foley will be seen as a winner. Boofhead more likely.
Wakefield
Who then? It’s got to be someone.
In my opinion the two most credible leadership candidates in SA if Rann were to leave say this week – would be Jay Weatherill and Paul Caica – despite the fact they are from the left. Even Pat Conlon would have a better chance currently than any candidate from the right. I don’t mention Hill because I don’t think he is an effective enough communicator – his speeches tend to waffle way too much. However, there is absolutely no chance of Rann leaving any time soon. He will never – in my opinion – do a Carr, Bracks or Beattie. He is more like John Howard in this sense in that he lives and breathes politics. It will most likely end in tears, but I don’t forsee that happening for some time. The smokey candidate is probably Michael O’Brien – who I expect to make an excellent minister. So he may well raise his profile significantly by the middle of (I assume) a 3rd term Rann government.
New Advertiser poll and headline this morning: “Keep RAH where it is, voters say”.
This is another attempt by the Advertiser to discredit the new hospital. They have asked a “loaded gun” question in my opinion. The poll of 522 respondents asks the following:
Should the new Royal Adelaide Hospital be ….
a) Built on Railyards site (31%)
b) Redeveloped on current site (62%)
c) Don’t know (7%)
Apparently these poll results tell us that South Australians do not want a new hospital. I would argue that by deliberately mentioning the “railyards” location the response to this poll has been distorted. Maybe its just my political bias – but I think this is a deceitful question and the wrong conclusions have been drawn.
I should add the implication from the article is that this poll used the same 522 person sample which yielded the 56-44 2PP result to which this current pollbludger thread refers.
sykesie
I think you’re clutching at straws there. It looks pretty fair to me. Why does mentioning the Railyards site distort the poll? That’s where it’s going to be built.
I should add that Hill and his minions are totally to blame for this poll. They have totally stuffed up this issue. I thought dropping the MJN name would turn things around but it hasn’t.
Yeah I think the poll is fine. I think the more telling thing is that it clearly isn’t a huge election issue. If the ALP’s option for the hospital can get a low total and yet the ALP vote is strong at 56% then if it is a strong issue in the community it isn’t coming up in the polls.
I suspect a third option of “I want a new hospital – dont care which site” would get a fair chunk of the vote. A new hospital is a new hospital, both sides can argue over costings but both sides are promising a new hospital. Dont think it is a big issue.
vote1
The fact that 58% of people who said they’d vote Labor didn’t want the new hospital certainly backs that up. I’m a bit surprised it isn’t a vote changer as it is a very contentious issue.
I think the poll distorts the outcome in the same way that the republican referendum did in 1999. A large number of people didn’t like the republican model being offered. So they voted no. They didn’t get the option of voting for the question: “Do you want Australia to become a republic?”.
This poll is similar to my republican analogy. The question should be “Do you want a new hospital or the old one redeveloped?” Mentioning the site distorts the outcome.
It won’t be a huge election issue because most people actually want a new hospital – they just don’t like the association with “railyards”. Most of the people who oppose it have the typical Adelaide anti-change mentality. It’s good we have a government with the balls to make a few decisions.
By the way – the only way i would support redeveloping the old hospital is if I had shares in an asbestos removal company – then I’d be all for it.
But it is in the railyards so there will be relentless criticism. I’m sitting here looking out over the site as I blog. It doesn’t look all that toxic to me.
I think TT has a very negative story on the site tonight. Evidently I’m going to be lucky to survive working across the road from the new RAH based on all the earthquakes and chemicals I’m being exposed to.
Good luck with the chemical exposure Diogenes – I hope TT doesn’t want to see what happens in a chemistry laboratory
They also better not research too hard to find out where Flinders Medical Centre sits relative to the Eden Valley fault line.
Strange if the Tiser cooked the RAH poll. Why? Because the Tiser itself ran an editorial in support of the government’s hospital plan only a few weeks ago.
Phil Bentley is a wily operator (and a highly qualified economist) who is currently the subject of a fair bit of innuendo, but so far not a shred of evidence has been produced to link him with the SAJC fiasco.
Oh, and while Tiser polls generally have a pretty good record, the one giving Labor big numbers in the country has to be total bulls—t.
TT
That’s true. The Tiser has been very pro-Marj. They really spat the dummy when the name was changed. They also want a new hospital.
I suppose it will all come out about Bentley in court. As you say, there are lots of allegations that he knew about the problems of the SAJC. Ploubidis looks like a street fighter and I imagine he has documented conversations etc. He’s not going down without a fight. It could all get very interesting.
gawd Dio, does anyone take TT seriously? they have no credibility whatsoever, i cant understand where the Advertiser got their poll from, most of the folk i’ve spoken to really want the new hospital, i certainly do having suffered the discomforts of the RAH as a patient, i guess you’d call it self preservation, last time i went into hospital i’d have preferred the doctors and staff at the RAH but chose calvary instead, thats the good thing with being a war widow i can have whatever hospital i want within reason.
SA Libs release RAH plans
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25227983-5006301,00.html
JB
Please tell me you’re not one of those Labor supporters who doesn’t believe the polls when they don’t show what they want. The AdelaideNow site was full of them, exactly the same ones who were cheering the 56-44 result from the exact same poll.
They asked me if I’d publicly come out in favour of the new RAH. I decided to politely decline. They asked me for the names of any other docs who they could use (”use” being the operative word) to support their case. I could only think of one of any note.
Repeated golden staph alone is reason enough for the new RAH. There’s no way to clear it out completely from the current RAH.
I don’t have a problem with polls – just the conclusions that people draw from them are often incorrect.
hey Dio, much as i’d love to believe the latest Advertiser poll that we’re on now–but i cant, the turnaround is just too much, if you read my blog at the beginning of this thread thats exactly what i said, if you go by these voting thingys the first is the reactions to the libs hospital plan and the second is the results on the new hospital.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/poll/display/0,22621,5038746-5006301-1,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/poll/display/0,22621,5038734-5006301-1,00.html
quite frankly i’m going on personal experience, my stay in the RAH was a nightmare –and Dio i’m very stoical and not a whinger, the staff were marvelous but the facilities were bloody uncomfortable, i couldnt get out of there fast enough and wouldnt willingly go back if i had a choice.
bob1234
The New RAH will get infested with MRSA about 10 minutes after it’s opened. It’s the chronically ill patients the RAH attracts. VRE is more of a problem. We haven’t got rid of it since Bali.
JB
Those online polls are a joke. That’s what Mike Rann uses his two hundred media monitors for. Vote, clear cache, vote, clear cache, repeat etc until you go home. The Libs do the same. The 62-31 poll was a proper phone poll.
Dio, i wonder if it was as spot on as the Queensland polls saying both parties were neck to neck, 500 or so people isnt a very large pool of voters, its got a very large margin of error.
JB
It was 62% to 31%. A poll of 522 has a MOE of about 5%. The “old” RAH camp is miles ahead of the “new” RAH camp. It’s all John Hill’s fault. I’ve been saying this for ages but none of you would believe me. And now I’ve been proven right. I love being right more than anything in the world.
Hahahahahahaha @ Turnbull lavishing praise on Rann’s bikie laws on the 7:30 report. He even said it should go national!
I bet MHS hates Turnbull at the moment.
Dio, that was a fairly smug assertion, can i ask is your anti the new hospital stance because you genuinely believe it’s wrong or because you dislike Hill? look you have your opinion as a doctor and i have mine as someone who was a patient, i was ill enough not to have to put up with the crumbling facilities, four weeks of that and if they had’nt let me go home i’d have gone anyway, thank god for the district nurses who saw to me, actually i’ve got one calling in every day right now for a minor thing they’re great, wild animals wouldnt drag me back into the old hospital, we’re not going to change each others mind and to be quite honest i wouldnt try, my main push with the government is SAPOL funding and law and order policies.
JB
I’m not anti-New RAH. I’m sitting on the fence at the moment coz I don’t trust either lot to tell us the truth. I was anti-Marj. I don’t know enough about engineering to decide between the two. FMC, the QEH and WCH are just as bad as the RAH.
Newspoll steady at 56/44. Preferred PM now 65/20. Last Newspoll PPM 61/21.
I’ve always been of the opinion that people in general approach arguments about the hospital (or other major government projects for that matter) in the wrong way. The approach generally taken is what is wrong with the proposal? The question really being asked should be what is right with the proposal. In the case of the new RAH it should really be a debate about what is good about building a new hospital v what is right about redeveloping the existing hospital. The debate is nothing like this – but it should be. People get way too obsessed with knocking projects rather than focusing on the “good”. There is a general reluctance to accept change because it’s different to what already exists.
I agree with Diogenes – you can’t use any arguments regarding MRSA, VRSA etc for the new hospital being better – as it’s the patients that bring the bugs into the hospital after all! The slightly disturbing thing is quite a lot of us have these bugs already albeit in a dormant form. The epidemiology of the distribution of these bugs in the population as a function of time is quite interesting.
sykesie
Almost all the VRE at the RAH came from the Bali victims. They jumped in the pool and sea etc. Somehow they almost all arrived with VRE, which surprised me greatly as you wouldn’t think Bali would be infested with VRE, unless they use dodgy antibiotic food practices. I literally took years for the VRE to get under control.
Similar trends were seen in the USA after the second Gulf War I believe and the return of injured American troops to American hospitals.
Why is there so much VRE in those places? We always think of these multi-resistant bugs as being the product of over-prescription of antibiotics in first-world countries and the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in animal feed.
The VRE was much worse than MRSA. We had to use antibiotics I’d never even heard of which cost thousands a day. MRSA isn’t nearly as bad as everyone says; it’s pretty easy to treat but VRE was a disaster. We didn’t have any deaths from Bali at the RAH but we certainly had deaths from VRE which came back from there and spread.
The bad news from a drug discovery perspective (which is my field of expertise), is there are very few new antibiotics in phase III clinical trials. Big pharma just don’t see the returns in this area, because any new drugs developed are generally kept as a drug of last resort – which obviously means that the dividends they receive are not as good. Hence the ridiculous costs of using some of these more unheard of antibiotics.
You can’t blame them. As you said, they really were Hail Mary drugs. Still, the NHMRC should be putting money into this as it’s a potentially huge problem.
Bearing in mind that I’m biased because I work for a company tendering for the new-RAH, from an engineering perspective it is generally better to go with a new building than to try and refit an existing one. You can talk about saving costs on construction, but at the end of the day, the space constraints that you have to work with and dealing with existing plant really limits what you can do. Because you end up so highly limited, you then have only limited plant selections you can get by with and may have to go with much more expensive options. Retrofitting old buildings to bring them up to scratch with current BCA requirements can be a huge pain. When you design a building from scratch, you can really make sure there’s enough room to get the equipment in that you need.
Al
Any truth to the very strong rumour that the engineers at the New RAH site have hit Torrens River groundwater and things are looking very grim?
Any idea how long before the Jan-Mar Newspoll is out?
No idea, sorry. I’m not a civil/enviro engineer so it’s not really my area. There will be a huge amount of contamination on the site, so significant civil works will be required. As far as I was aware, I thought they’d discovered the diesel contamination had reached the groundwater. I can’t see how groundwater would stop construction.
Al
I thought the groundwater would just add to the complexity and therefore expense. It might be enough to tip the viability over to rebuild on site or build at Keswick Barracks or the Clipsal site.