Adelaide’s News Limited Sunday tabloid, the Sunday Mail, today carries a poll with a small sample of 483 showing state Labor with a two-party lead of 64-36 among Adelaide voters. Remarkable as that might sound, Antony Green calculates it’s in the same ballpark as the 2006 election, when the Adelaide two-party result was 62.6-37.4. Antony further observes that the Sunday Mail article absurdly compares this purely metropolitan result with the statewide two-party figure from 2006 to conjure a 7 per cent Labor swing that would cost the Liberals eight of their 14 seats. In reality, the poll points to a roughly status quo result, although that’s quite bad enough for the Liberals given the scale of Labor’s win in 2006.




271 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 6 » Show All
Not directly relevant, but down here in Hobart we’re up to our back-teeth in water.
And we blame Labor!
PS we had a day of sunlight today and Hobart looked like a Chinese Laundry…
Check it out! Mitch Williams is complying with the Adam Carr / Barry O’Farrell “Leader must not have beard” rule. Before:
http://www.saliberal.org.au/images/members/williams.jpg
After:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200811/r317910_1411647.jpg
P.S: He was first elected in 1997, but I swear the first time I heard of him was a few weeks ago when he told M-H-S that he should resign.
SO
I hadn’t heard of him until then either. At least he’s a cleanskin.
If tears could fill the basin, I have wept. And wept. You may or not remember my sadness over the loss of water for SA. Mind you, it was a little petty, but significant, nevertheless.
No chance that the Libs in SA could be elected, next round.
Every chance that Mike Rann and co would be.
Not because they deserve it.
Anyone else wondering what the 5-letter R-word was? I can only come up with words meaning redhead and Russian, and can’t see where either would fit in.
DB
More clues, please.
Raped?
Funny thing about Mitch Williams… he was elected as an independent (against the Liberals) due to a stupid factional argument in the SA Libs. He joined the party again a bit later on, but jeez it’d be funny if he ended up leading it. I think Iain Evans did the same thing, too. What’s with the Liberals over there?
It was Iain Evans’s father that was elected as an Independent Liberal in 1985, defeating Dean Brown. Evans had been a Liberal MP, contested after losing pre-selection to Brown (their seats had been amalgamated in a redistribution) and later re-joined the party. Ian Evans later succeeded his father.
Bingo ShowsOn.
When you compare Rann’s government to the excuse of a government of Brown/Olsen/Kerin, Rann definately deserves it.
The Liberals couldn’t run themselves let alone the state. At least Rann can do both. Even if the latter isn’t all that spectacularly.
The Advertiser has gone very low key on this story this morning. You have to traverse to page 4 of the ’tiser to even find a mention of this story and it’s hidden under the main headline on page 4 which is about today’s Galaxy Poll release.
Reading between the lines we can take this as the Advertiser advocating that Martin Hamilton-Smith should keep his job. It could be that the Sunday Mail is in the anyone but MHS camp, and the ’tiser is backing the status quo. Perhaps we can look forward to the release of electorate level opinion polls in the Sunday Mail next weekend …
I don’t get why the Sunday Mail and Advertiser would have different opinions… I thought they were all part of the multi-headed Murdoch beast. Do they operate as different papers or something?
Yes and no.
But I spose yes, they do operate as different papers.
A classic example of Sunday Mail v The Advertiser was the Nicole Cornes issue. The Sunday Mail announced she would be an ALP candidate and trumpeted her credentials. The Advertiser on the other hand was very scathing of her.
The new RAH has also been a good example with the Advertiser moderately enthusiastic, and the Sunday Mail being neutral to negative on the issue.
Poodle adds his 2c!
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25705590-2682,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25705810-5006787,00.html
Bravo.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/29/2611320.htm
A bit of fizz, and then nothing. MHS to serve for the short-term.
Just for those wondering about Mitch Williams’ background and election as an independent, he was a long-time party member who quit the party to run against powerbroker Dale Baker in 1997. Dale had a lot of questions around his business dealings and was not popular in his electorate. Williams’ election was widely seen as enhancing the SA Libs’ reputation by clearing out Baker.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25705810-5006787,00.html
Is this code for MHS realising he needs to step down but can’t leave the SA Liberals without a leader, as no MP has the numbers so they need to spend time weaving enough support to get one through?
What a bloody shambles the SA Liberals are.
Interesting that News Ltd did not provide the full quote… it took the independent weekly:
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/sa-libs-should-hold-leadership-ballot-pyne/1553400.aspx
And the articles with their juicy tidbits keep rolling in…
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25705590-5006301,00.html
The fact that no one has, as yet, put their hand up publicly is surely an indication that none of the possible alternatives want the job at this stage. What we seem to be watching is the political equivalent of musical chairs. With the next election looking a foregone conclusion none of the aspirants wants to blot their copybook with the blemish of an election loss as leader.
Mitch Williams and Vickie Chapman at a minimum, want the job, but the party can’t decide who it wants – nobody is managing to get the numbers.
Bob,
So you believe everyone is desperate for the spoils of opposition and defeat?
They sense that Rann is on the nose (but not enough to be kicked out), theres only 9 months left till the election, it’s the perfect time for a cleanskin to come in. I believe Williams would certainly have a reasonable chance, though it is more likely than unlikely he would lose.
It’s also this – the Liberals would rather lose by less than the 2006 result. They don’t want to go backward.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,27574,25705590-2682,00.html
I wonder if those 4 votes is including or excluding M-H-S’s own vote?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25705590-5006301,00.html
Antony, small typo in your excellent piece on the SA polling. Port AugustA. Cheers
lol, Pyne and Minchin going at it…
Link would be good…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25710628-5006787,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25705590-2682,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25711811-5013871,00.html
Bwahahahahaha… hilarious.
There’s nothing on the Tiser website. What’s going on?
They’re reusing the same article.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25705590-5006301,00.html
bob
I saw this at Rann’s Twitter site.
Was that Chapman? Looks like “rack em and stack em” will be the attack from Mr Tough on Crime.
I think we already know that Chapman as Liberal leader is a disaster waiting to happen. I don’t know what a worse outcome would be – MHS remaining leader, or Chapman taking over. I think the most sensible option, from their perspective, would be Mitch Williams.
Leadership spill called for Saturday:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25713106-5006301,00.html
Both Leader and Deputy Leader positions will be open. Hamilton-Smith is running again for leader.
The problem seems to be that the anyone but MHS forces can’t decide on a candidate, which threatens to split their vote, and thus allow MHS to stay on as leader.
The Liberals are truly a sad rabble. No loyalty whatsoever. Vickie Chapman looked pretty smug and confident last night on ABC news as she walked past the cameras. She could hardly keep the smile off her face – she’s going to win, I’m sure of it.
Mike Rann gets in some early attacks on Vickie Chapman:
That quote was from Rann’s Twitter account:
http://twitter.com/PremierMikeRann
lullery
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25713106-5006301,00.html
Really? I’d never have noticed…
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25714150-5006301,00.html
Advertiser editorial on “why MHS must remain leader”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/30/2612676.htm
I reckon MHS will win the ballot now. Liberals are definately going to lose next year.
Oh, and in that link Isobel Redmond and Iain Evans also say they won’t challenge.
So it’s MHS vs Chapman. MHS has already won.
There’s 22 Liberals in the S.A. parliament right.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if both candidates get 11 votes?
What if they had a leadership challenge and no one came?
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 6 » Show All