Comments on: Newspoll: 56-44 to Labor in Victoria http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/ Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:02:58 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Tom the first and best http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-304204 Tom the first and best Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:54:04 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-304204 There is also talk of Les Twentyman running in Footscray. I would think that he is likely to get Green and Liberal preferences again. Would he get the preferences of the Catherine Cumming if she ran again? I suspect that the had the ALP not got the 2.5% less primary vote it did and won one preferences then the result might have been ALP versus Catherine Cumming. How did the preferences flow last time? There is also talk of Les Twentyman running in Footscray. I would think that he is likely to get Green and Liberal preferences again. Would he get the preferences of the Catherine Cumming if she ran again? I suspect that the had the ALP not got the 2.5% less primary vote it did and won one preferences then the result might have been ALP versus Catherine Cumming. How did the preferences flow last time?

]]> By: Tom the first and best http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302793 Tom the first and best Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:45:44 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302793 Labor could pass any bill it liked in Victoria between 2002 and 2006. After 2006 the Greens could have voted with the Government to pass a bill (provided it was a good one). Reforming the definition of a third party helped the Nationals (thus not annoying them) but it would have been good to cut the number from eleven to five (like federally and in WA). Labor could pass any bill it liked in Victoria between 2002 and 2006. After 2006 the Greens could have voted with the Government to pass a bill (provided it was a good one). Reforming the definition of a third party helped the Nationals (thus not annoying them) but it would have been good to cut the number from eleven to five (like federally and in WA).

]]> By: zoomster http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302779 zoomster Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:02:05 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302779 Would speculate (as I don't know) that their votes were needed to get the relevant Acts through the Upper House. Would speculate (as I don’t know) that their votes were needed to get the relevant Acts through the Upper House.

]]> By: Tom the first and best http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302687 Tom the first and best Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:55:39 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302687 Why is it that in some states (WA and Vic) the size of the Nats seems to run the size of party status? Why is it that in some states (WA and Vic) the size of the Nats seems to run the size of party status?

]]> By: ltep http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302661 ltep Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:34:15 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302661 11 does seem too high. 5/6 would be appropriate. I suspect if The Nationals ever fall below 11 members they will rejig th numbers. 11 does seem too high. 5/6 would be appropriate.

I suspect if The Nationals ever fall below 11 members they will rejig th numbers.

]]> By: Tom the first and best http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302229 Tom the first and best Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:25:47 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302229 140 The problem was not lack of googling but that I had missed that particular definition when reading said act previously. 140

The problem was not lack of googling but that I had missed that particular definition when reading said act previously.

]]> By: zoomster http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302224 zoomster Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:22:27 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302224 ....and you didn't even use the 'if you didn't see the thank you in the previous post it's because you didn't look properly' line!! Any time. But seriously, learn how to google. ….and you didn’t even use the ‘if you didn’t see the thank you in the previous post it’s because you didn’t look properly’ line!!

Any time. But seriously, learn how to google.

]]> By: Tom the first and best http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302209 Tom the first and best Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:11:12 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302209 Thank-you. Sorry for not putting that in my previous post. Thank-you.

Sorry for not putting that in my previous post.

]]> By: zoomster http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302191 zoomster Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:00:07 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302191 Gee, you could have at least said 'thanks'. Last time I do your googling for you! Gee, you could have at least said ‘thanks’.

Last time I do your googling for you!

]]> By: Tom the first and best http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/06/30/newspoll-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-302184 Tom the first and best Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:46:40 +0000 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=3746#comment-302184 11 is way too high. Five should qualify as a party as it does in the Commonwealth Parliament. 11 is way too high. Five should qualify as a party as it does in the Commonwealth Parliament.

]]>