PDA

View Full Version : Federal Election 2010 [Labor Minority Government Elected]



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

ER
06-08-2010, 11:20 AM
Lol, hey who's that???
http://www.inkcinct.com.au/web-pages/cartoons/2010/2010-469--Tony-Abbott%27s-preferred-worm-.gif

Igor_Goldenberg
06-08-2010, 02:49 PM
Liberals would scrap Labor's net filter (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/liberals-would-scrap-labors-net-filter/story-fn59niix-1225901856447)


Mr Hockey said that if elected, the Coalition would scrap Labor's plans, and they would vote against the "flawed" filter policy if they were in opposition.


"The ISP-based filter system does not work," Mr Hockey said, claiming it created an assumption of trust that could not be met by technology.


Rather than a filter, under an Abbott government the onus would be placed on parents to monitor their children's internet usage.

Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2010, 03:09 PM
Liberals would scrap Labor's net filter (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/liberals-would-scrap-labors-net-filter/story-fn59niix-1225901856447)


Mr Hockey said that if elected, the Coalition would scrap Labor's plans, and they would vote against the "flawed" filter policy if they were in opposition.


"The ISP-based filter system does not work," Mr Hockey said, claiming it created an assumption of trust that could not be met by technology.


Rather than a filter, under an Abbott government the onus would be placed on parents to monitor their children's internet usage.
Great news!:clap: :clap:

Desmond
06-08-2010, 03:23 PM
Great news!:clap: :clap:
ya

Igor_Goldenberg
06-08-2010, 04:35 PM
Is there going to be a leadership change in the losing party after the election? (either Lib or Labor)

Desmond
06-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Is there going to be a leadership change in the losing party after the election? (either Lib or Labor)
I think Labor cannot afford to knife another leader so soon.

If Libs lose I think they should give Abbott another go.

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2010, 06:44 PM
If Abbott loses but not too badly I think they'll leave him there a while and see what happens. If Labor loses Gillard may well be replaced quickly and almost certainly won't make the next election. If Labor wins by a very small margin she won't be replaced right away but will be in long-term danger. Not that I'd really know since I never reckoned Labor would roll Rudd. And I'm starting to think my initial reaction that they were nuts to do so was correct.

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2010, 07:23 PM
Check this now Kevin... looks like free money to me. I wish TAB Sportsbet offered election odds.

Yes, "70 or less" has become favourite because it is a much larger bracket than the two-seat brackets above it, and any but the narrowest Coalition outright win leaves Labor with 70 or less. Actually I'm surprised it isn't shorter than $5.50, given that the Coalition winning is $2.45 and the Coalition would probably need to keep Labor to 73 or below to take office.

Goughfather
06-08-2010, 07:38 PM
If Labor was to gain 74 seats and Bandt sided with Labor, do you think that one of the agrarian socialist triumvirate would help Labor to form government? I couldn't imagine Katter bringing himself to do it. Based on Oakeshott's self-designation as a social progressive and economic conservative, I think he might be more than willing to play ball.

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2010, 07:44 PM
Oakeshott is certainly the least predictable and most moderate of the three.

I also think that if there was a 74-72-4 parliament, then assuming Bandt siding with Labor, that would make it very likely Oakeshott would do likewise (subject to deals of course) rather than leave a deadlocked 75-75 house.

73-73-4 he might side with the Coalition for the same reason.

All this said, almost every federal election people talk about a hung parliament but it virtually never happens. I think that since the Australian party system stabilised there has only been one hung parliament election result, and also another very close one won by just two seats. Most of them don't end up that close no matter what is expected in the leadup.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-08-2010, 08:37 PM
I think Labor cannot afford to knife another leader so soon.
Turns out Kevin was right about knifing Rudd being a Labor mistake. But they don't have much to lose if they replace Gillard very soon after election


If Libs lose I think they should give Abbott another go.
I agree, but I think this election is the only chance for him to become PM.

Goughfather
06-08-2010, 09:16 PM
I agree, but I think this election is the only chance for him to become PM.

Quite possibly. Even though Abbott has been incredibly unpopular, he's done well until recently retaining self-control over the last nine months. However, were he to retain his job as Opposition Leader, I think behaving himself for a whole three years would be well beyond his capabilities.

Goughfather
07-08-2010, 12:58 AM
Latest Nielsen poll has the Coalition leading at 51 to 49 percent, down one point from last week's poll. As the SMH states, this is not statistically significant, but I think that any expectation that Labor were going to pick up four or five points was simply unrealistic. My intuition tells me that last week was one of stabilisation for Labor to stop the rot and while it hasn't been entirely convincing, they've done what they've needed to do for the time being.

Analysis of polling throughout the week seems to suggest a north-side divide, with Labor struggling in NSW and Queensland, but apparently polling well in SA and Victoria. Given the analysis I provided in post 229 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=285480&postcount=229) (plus Herbert, as Scott pointed out) I think the next two weeks sets up things quite interestingly and raises a lot of interesting questions:

(1) What will be the impact of Kevin Rudd coming into the campaign at this late stage to help shore things up in Queensland? In the months leading up to being deposed as PM, Rudd was seen as an electoral liability. Could it be that absence makes the heart grow fonder and that after a month of flying under the radar, at least some people could be ready to listen to him again, especially in Queensland? Or will there be too many cooks to spoil Labor's brew and obscure who the true leader of the party is. My thought is that although it is somewhat of a gamble, part of Labor's struggling fortunes come from a perception of disunity and that Gillard and Rudd campaigning together is likely to have a slight positive net effect, especially in Queensland. The one caveat on this is that this is conditional upon Rudd making it clear that he is not the star of the show and that he is campaigning for Gillard, rather than the other way around.

(2) What will be the impact of candidate profiles in individual battles in important electorates? It seems to me that in the absence of convincing leadership from either Gillard or Abbott that the most critical electorates will depend more heavily upon the profiles of local candidates. This seems to be a distinct movement from the last few campaigns which have been run very much like presidential style contests.

(3) What will the impact of state issues be in this federal election? The divide between QLD and NSW, where Labor governments are very much on the nose and SA and VIC, where there seems to be more contentment with the State governments seems to suggest that state issues could be playing a role.

(4) Will SA and Victoria prove to be critical in balancing the swing against Labor in NSW and QLD? Labor looks good in McEwen at the moment. Although I didn't give Labor much chance La Trobe, I think it could be a bit of a surprise. In SA, I think that Labor will want to work hard at winning Sturt and/or Boothby. Even though I don't think that they will, it is worth remembering that but for preselecting the disasterous Cornes, Labor may well have won Boothby at the last election and that perhaps there may still be some swing due to Labor in that seat. Note that by "counterbalance" I mean that the equation may not simply mean that to win government, the Coalition will not only need to win the election in NSW and QLD alone (which is a distinct possibility) but that they will have to do so while successfully defending seats at risk in Victoria and South Australia (which may prove to be a much tougher proposition).

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2010, 01:21 AM
EBtCuvaXK3s&feature=player_embedded

Oepty
07-08-2010, 01:21 AM
Latest Nielsen poll has the Coalition leading at 51 to 49 percent, down one point from last week's poll. As the SMH states, this is not statistically significant, but I think that any expectation that Labor were going to pick up four or five points was simply unrealistic. My intuition tells me that last week was one of stabilisation for Labor to stop the rot and while it hasn't been entirely convincing, they've done what they've needed to do for the time being.

Analysis of polling throughout the week seems to suggest a north-side divide, with Labor struggling in NSW and Queensland, but apparently polling well in SA and Victoria. Given the analysis I provided in post 229 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=285480&postcount=229) (plus Herbert, as Scott pointed out) I think the next two weeks sets up things quite interestingly and raises a lot of interesting questions:

(1) What will be the impact of Kevin Rudd coming into the campaign at this late stage to help shore things up in Queensland? In the months leading up to being deposed as PM, Rudd was seen as an electoral liability. Could it be that absence makes the heart grow fonder and that after a month of flying under the radar, at least some people could be ready to listen to him again, especially in Queensland? Or will there be too many cooks to spoil Labor's brew and obscure who the true leader of the party is. My thought is that although it is somewhat of a gamble, part of Labor's struggling fortunes come from a perception of disunity and that Gillard and Rudd campaigning together is likely to have a slight positive net effect, especially in Queensland. The one caveat on this is that this is conditional upon Rudd making it clear that he is not the star of the show and that he is campaigning for Gillard, rather than the other way around.

(2) What will be the impact of candidate profiles in individual battles in important electorates? It seems to me that in the absence of convincing leadership from either Gillard or Abbott that the most critical electorates will depend more heavily upon the profiles of local candidates. This seems to be a distinct movement from the last few campaigns which have been run very much like presidential style contests.

(3) What will the impact of state issues be in this federal election? The divide between QLD and NSW, where Labor governments are very much on the nose and SA and VIC, where there seems to be more contentment with the State governments seems to suggest that state issues could be playing a role.

(4) Will SA and Victoria prove to be critical in balancing the swing against Labor in NSW and QLD? Labor looks good in McEwen at the moment. Although I didn't give Labor much chance La Trobe, I think it could be a bit of a surprise. In SA, I think that Labor will want to work hard at winning Sturt and/or Boothby. Even though I don't think that they will, it is worth remembering that but for preselecting the disasterous Cornes, Labor may well have won Boothby at the last election and that perhaps there may still be some swing due to Labor in that seat.

Interesting observations/questions.
I don't think the SA Labor party is a very strong position even though they survived the last state elections surprisingly well, but seeing alot of people seemed to have voted against Labor at that election I wonder whether they will want to two elections in a row so close together. Gillard is probably helped by her South Australian connections - she is probably the closest thing to a SA Prime Minister that there has been although Hawke was born in SA.
As far as individual seats go, as you say in Boothby Labor could have thrown away a win by selecting a very poor candidate. On the hand they almost snatched a win with a very strong candidate in Sturt. With both seats returning to more normal level of Labor candidates it is no surprise that Chrisopher Pyne should make considerable ground in Sturt while the total waste of space that is Andrew Southcott should lose ground in Boothby. I still think Southcott will win.
Scott

Goughfather
07-08-2010, 01:38 AM
Interesting observations/questions.
I don't think the SA Labor party is a very strong position even though they survived the last state elections surprisingly well, but seeing alot of people seemed to have voted against Labor at that election I wonder whether they will want to two elections in a row so close together. Gillard is probably helped by her South Australian connections - she is probably the closest thing to a SA Prime Minister that there has been although Hawke was born in SA.
As far as individual seats go, as you say in Boothby Labor could have thrown away a win by selecting a very poor candidate. On the hand they almost snatched a win with a very strong candidate in Sturt. With both seats returning to more normal level of Labor candidates it is no surprise that Chrisopher Pyne should make considerable ground in Sturt while the total waste of space that is Andrew Southcott should lose ground in Boothby. I still think Southcott will win.
Scott

Yeah, I wasn't 100 percent sure about the state of Labor in South Australia and you would know much more about the state of play there than myself, of course. My guess was that they couldn't be doing that badly, considering the fact that they were re-elected. Brumby seems to be doing okay and although his majority will be whittled away at the next election, he should survive.

I was actually surprised that no Prime Minister has ever represented South Australia in parliament, although as you point out Hawke was born in South Australia - Bordertown, if I remember rightly from a biography that I read several years ago.

I pretty much agree with your assessments of Sturt and Boothby. Pyne's bigger profile in the Liberals should help him, while a decent candidate should help Labor this time, although probably not enough to win.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2010, 02:07 AM
Old master enters fray, guns blazing (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/old-master-enters-fray-guns-blazing-20100805-11kxg.html)
Kristy Needham
SMH 6 August 2010

ohn Howard joined the Liberal election campaign forcefully last night, condemning the leadership of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and paying tribute to the ‘’family team’’ of his protege Tony Abbott.

Mr Howard told a Chinese community fund-raising dinner in the seat of Bradfield: ‘’Nothing quite offends me more than her casual approach to attendance at meetings of the national security committee of cabinet.’’ He said the senior ministers of his cabinet had regarded the committee as ‘’a rare privilege, not [a] discretionary pursuit’’.

Mr Howard then zeroed in on what he said was the ‘’confounding’’ issue of the election campaign - Labor had gotten rid of the man who had done the ‘’brilliant’’ job the ALP was now touting as its track record - and told the audience the Liberals could win this election.

Mr Howard said he had watched Ms Gillard in the few weeks she had been in office and said she had failed to fix the boat people issue, the mining tax and respond to climate change. ‘’She has been a total failure and in my view an even bigger failure than her predecessor,’’ he said.

I think Howard nails the defining trouble for Labor in this third week:

Mr Howard also took a swipe at Ms Gillard’s election campaign tactics this week, saying: ‘’Real people don’t need to say that they’re real.’’ By contrast, Mr Abbott was an ‘’authentic believer’’.

UDEpTEExKiQ&feature=player_embedded

ER
07-08-2010, 12:02 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200806/r265006_1106967.jpg

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has joined the surge of former leaders on the campaign trail - saying bluntly the Coalition is not ready for government.

At least he didn't lose his own seat :P

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2010, 01:50 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200806/r265006_1106967.jpg

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has joined the surge of former leaders on the campaign trail - saying bluntly the Coalition is not ready for government.

At least he didn't lose his own seat :P
Silly old fool; a pathetic leader, stopping Howard from necessary reforms, which Hawke and Keating had to make instead, with Howard's support.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 02:36 PM
Latest Nielsen poll has the Coalition leading at 51 to 49 percent, down one point from last week's poll. As the SMH states, this is not statistically significant,

Good on the SMH. Whoever was doing the ABC reports, who was persistently saying that the poll showed Labor's position had improved, should be fired from political reporting. It was a one-point difference in one poll after all.


Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has joined the surge of former leaders on the campaign trail - saying bluntly the Coalition is not ready for government.

We've now had every living ex-PM poking their nose in except for Gough. I think it's an indictment on the present aspirants that ex-PMs (five out of the six of them!) have been so prominent in this campaign - Hawke especially.


Mr Howard also took a swipe at Ms Gillard’s election campaign tactics this week, saying: ‘’Real people don’t need to say that they’re real.’’ By contrast, Mr Abbott was an ‘’authentic believer’’.

But this raises the question why Abbott does not campaign for what he authentically believes.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 04:52 PM
(1) What will be the impact of Kevin Rudd coming into the campaign at this late stage to help shore things up in Queensland? In the months leading up to being deposed as PM, Rudd was seen as an electoral liability. Could it be that absence makes the heart grow fonder and that after a month of flying under the radar, at least some people could be ready to listen to him again, especially in Queensland?

The Rudd-in-Queensland thing is not as strong as people think and indeed had gone before he was rolled. This is shown again by a new Morgan poll on comparative preferred-PM ratings of Gillard v Abbott and Rudd v Abbott:

National Gillard 49 Abbott 40, Rudd 47 Abbott 44
Queensland Abbott 49 Gillard 36, Abbott 53 Rudd 39 (Both Rudd and Gillard on the nose)

The only states with really big pro-Gillard differences are:
WA Gillard 47 Abbott 34, Rudd 44 Abbott 41 (Mining tax change probably driving this)
SA Gillard 59 Abbott 34, Rudd 46 Abbott 44 (Gillard SA connections, possibly amplified by small sample size)

Also the 25-34yo age group shows a massive difference:
Gillard 60 Abbott 27, Rudd 50 Abbott 34.

...while the other age groups do not.

I'd say the Rudd-campaigning thing is for national show to demonstrate unity and no hard feelings and that whether he is effective on the ground in a handful of Queensland seats or not is pretty irrelevant.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 05:16 PM
Since Gillard's ancient political past has been on display, here's some slightly less ancient (http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1995/95-03-31.000&msgnum=45&start=3474) work (c/- VexNews) by the frontrunning Greens candidate for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, showing in his own words that he was a serious marxist 15 years ago and sought to strategically support the "bourgeois" Greens. Not sure how this sits with his current situation as almost the stereotypical middle-class well-off bourgeois Green but devotees of the watermelon theory may find much of interest here if they can decode all the silly jargon. :lol:

Goughfather
07-08-2010, 05:31 PM
Kevin, have you heard about the polling in Lindsay and Dawson? Apparently, Labor were behind on 2PP 51-49 in Lindsay and were 50-50 in Dawson. Obviously, the Lindsay result would be deeply concerning for Labor, while Dawson appears to be relatively encouraging. I don't even know about the sample size or any other details, but how much stock would you place on these results?

Considering the recent Penrith by-election, it could be that polling in Lindsay is actually accurate, which is pretty bad news for Labor. The ironic thing is that apparently Labor would pick up 41 percent of the primary vote (as opposed to 45 for the Liberals), but would lose on preferences due to a lower Green vote, which is not entirely surprising considering that we are talking about an outer western Sydney seat.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 05:51 PM
Kevin, have you heard about the polling in Lindsay and Dawson? Apparently, Labor were behind on 2PP 51-49 in Lindsay and were 50-50 in Dawson. Obviously, the Lindsay result would be deeply concerning for Labor, while Dawson appears to be relatively encouraging. I don't even know about the sample size or any other details, but how much stock would you place on these results?

The sample size is good - 600 in each for a margin of error of four points. But because the figures are so close it's hard to say anything based on the results. The poll shows a swing in Lindsay but doesn't prove it's a big enough one to knock them off. Dawson is similar.

Labor are too fixated on Lindsay. It's only one seat and if they can't keep it, it might be the least of their worries.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 05:55 PM
Centrebet: Labor nationwide 1.62 Coalition 2.27. This has come down quite a bit since yesterday.

Garvinator
07-08-2010, 06:11 PM
Centrebet: Labor nationwide 1.62 Coalition 2.27. This has come down quite a bit since yesterday.Betfair has Labor 1.61 Coalition 2.56.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 06:19 PM
Betfair has Labor 1.61 Coalition 2.56.

Which comes out at about 61%:39%.

I've noticed the true odds on Betfair tend to add up slightly better for Labor than the bookie odds.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 08:33 PM
And thanks to Pollytics I can also bring you the link to a Tony Abbott interview from his student politics days (1979) (http://blog.une.edu.au/tunefm/2010/08/05/election-2010-an-abbott-interview-from-1979/) and a brief reply interview with an opponent from the time.

Interview with Abbott is about 13 minutes long and a lot of it covers the compulsory/voluntary student unionism debate, allegedly leftist/trendy course offerings, student support, and Tony's views on gay rights, gender issues and religion and society.

I look forward to Andrew Bolt's analysis of this one. :lol: :lol: :lol:

(Actually on the VSU issue he is pretty good IMO and it goes to show how little changed in the debate between the late 70s and the 1990s.)

Goughfather
07-08-2010, 09:09 PM
An interesting article from Laurie Oakes in the Daily Telegraph entitled "Will the reborn Rudd be Gillard's Saviour?" (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/election/will-the-reborn-rudd-be-gillards-saviour/story-fn5zmod2-1225902259065). The Rudd-love comes thick and fast, but Oakes does provide a fairly good analysis of Labor's current campaign and Abbott extensive history of back-flipping:

Only in his health policy debate with Tony Abbott did he look like the Kevin '07 voters believed they were electing last time around.

For the rest of the period between Abbott's takeover of the Liberal leadership and Gillard mounting her coup, Rudd was pretty hopeless.

To a considerable extent, he brought his fate on himself. Labor would never have dumped the Rudd we saw in action last Thursday. But that Rudd had been AWOL for too long.

...

In the immediate sense, though, the former PM's intervention was a plus. Gillard needed a circuit-breaker allowing attention to be focused on the Coalition and what an Abbott prime ministership might mean.

Rudd's attack on Abbott was savage and effective. The question now is whether Gillard can build on that.

Rudd was right when he warned that Abbott looked like sliding into office without scrutiny while all eyes were on Labor's soap opera.

Yet, if there are questions about the real Gillard and the real Rudd, the real Abbott is an even bigger mystery.

A fascinating radio interview with Abbott went up on the web a week or so ago. It's from 1979 when he was president of the Sydney University SRC. Abbott calls for education funding cuts, to force unis to crack down on "trivial" and "ideological" courses, especially in arts and economics.

Abbott the student would also like to see overall uni numbers reduced. And he says: "While I think men and women are equal, they are also different and I think it's inevitable and I don't think it's a bad thing at all that we always have, say, more women doing things like physiotherapy and an enormous number of women simply doing housework."

Abbott would argue his views have changed. He told me last week: "That's what people do when they are mature. They are capable of growing and changing in response to changing circumstances." And he is right. But, as the poet says, the child is father of the man.

It is not very hard to recognise the makings of today's would-be PM in that 21-year-old version. A propensity for mind-changing, though, stands out most in the modern Abbott. He has become the ultimate political pragmatist, capable of dumping any belief that might be inconvenient.

Take climate change. Abbott wrote an article urging the Coalition to vote for an ETS, then told a group of Liberals climate change was "crap", explained that away by claiming he'd been trying to persuade them an ETS compromise was the way to go, and finally seized the Liberal leadership to kill off just such a compromise.

Abbott promised no tax increases and no new taxes, then announced he would impose a new tax levy on big business to fund a generous paid parental leave scheme - the same leave scheme he had earlier said would happen over his dead body.

On immigration, Abbott lately announced that a Coalition government would halve the annual intake. But in 2008 he'd boasted: "One of the Howard government's greatest but least recognised achievements was to rehabilitate the immigration program , increasing numbers to record levels."

And last January he said: "There's no reason to think Australia has a fixed carrying capacity. My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia."

Politicians, like the rest of us, are allowed to change their minds. Abbott, however, is a serial mind-changer. Or, more likely, he has adopted Graham Richardson's motto: "Whatever it takes".

Rincewind
07-08-2010, 09:32 PM
Interview with Abbott is about 13 minutes long and a lot of it covers the compulsory/voluntary student unionism debate, allegedly leftist/trendy course offerings, student support, and Tony's views on gay rights, gender issues and religion and society.

His views on CSU are in no way silly and even his views on trivial courses in the context of 1979 are not extreme. I was a student not long after 1979 and there were excesses in universities then, particularly in the politically oriented schools of arts faculties.

His views on cutting courses and student numbers can't be equated to any belief he might have on education policy now. If you wanted to cut student numbers and make universities more elitist, the last thing you should do is make universities places fee paying. That just provides a huge incentive for governments and universities to increase numbers and lower requirements.

Also the labour market is completely different now and there are worldwide shortages in fields like engineering which in the rebuttal interview was cited as a field with poor job prospects for graduates. So now even with huge increases in enrolments on 1979 levels, we still can't graduate enough people to fill the requirements for skilled workers.

Spiny Norman
08-08-2010, 07:22 AM
His views on cutting courses and student numbers can't be equated to any belief he might have on education policy now.
Exactly. It was an interview from 1979 for crying out loud. Ditto for any early Gillard material. What's relevant is stuff from the last decade, and even more relevant, stuff from the past 3-4 years. People change their mind on things and should be allowed to do so without dredging up stuff from 30 years ago.

But I will just throw into the ring the thought that if that Green's candidate for Melbourne (Bandt) was a serious Marxist 15 years ago, then he had rocks in his head; it was already clear, 15 years ago, that Marxism didn't work. So perhaps he was just a dopey student at the time. Wondering if he's grown up? What has he said lately?

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 11:05 AM
But I will just throw into the ring the thought that if that Green's candidate for Melbourne (Bandt) was a serious Marxist 15 years ago, then he had rocks in his head; it was already clear, 15 years ago, that Marxism didn't work. So perhaps he was just a dopey student at the time. Wondering if he's grown up? What has he said lately?
Had he grown up he wouldn't be a Green.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 02:35 PM
Abbott at campaign launch:
"Well, isn’t it great to lead a united political party with a deputy I can trust, a predecessor who’s a friend and a former Prime Minister who’s a hero."
I think "predecessor who's a friend" is a bit rich, but it's remarkable that Turnbull (who seems to have as big ego as Rudd) doesn't try to jeopardise Liberal campaign.

ER
08-08-2010, 03:07 PM
Abbott at campaign launch:
"Well, isn’t it great to lead a united political party with a deputy I can trust, a predecessor who’s a friend and a former Prime Minister who’s a hero."
I think "predecessor who's a friend" is a bit rich, but it's remarkable that Turnbull (who seems to have as big ego as Rudd) doesn't try to jeopardise Liberal campaign.

I haven't met Abbott, but having met both Turnbull and Hockey (*), I can assure you they are both lovable people! It's a shame what politics can do to convert people into something they aren't, very much like this chesschat Forum I suppose! :P

(*) he tells great jokes! :))

Aaron Guthrie
08-08-2010, 03:56 PM
But I will just throw into the ring the thought that if that Green's candidate for Melbourne (Bandt) was a serious Marxist 15 years ago, then he had rocks in his head; it was already clear, 15 years ago, that Marxism didn't work. So perhaps he was just a dopey student at the time. Wondering if he's grown up? What has he said lately?It is a double bluff. He was always a green, but just pretended to be a Marxist so that the Marxist's would think he was pretending to be a green.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 05:36 PM
It is a double bluff. He was always a green, but just pretended to be a Marxist so that the Marxist's would think he was pretending to be a green.
:D :D Gunner should pay you at least 20 HCD!

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 07:22 PM
That really took my breath away:

Mr Abbott confirmed today that he has no economic plan and no economic judgement, just uncosted promises that are threatening our surpluses,' Mr Swan said.
Swan has an audacity to talk about surplus! What a hypocrite!
When was the last Labor budget delivered with surplus? Something 1989 IIRC.
Which surplus is it going to threaten? What a shallow vacuous creep!

Basil
08-08-2010, 07:27 PM
That really took my breath away:

Swan has an audacity to talk about surplus! What a hypocrite!
When was the last Labor budget delivered with surplus? Something 1989 IIRC.
Which surplus is it going to threaten? What a shallow vacuous creep!
Not only audacious, but his disciples (who hitherto couldn't have cared less about the economy) have sucked the whole con up and are busily throwing the mantra around themselves.

Lefties make me wanna puke.

Goughfather
08-08-2010, 07:34 PM
Not only audacious, but his disciples (who hitherto couldn't have cared less about the economy) have sucked the whole con up and are busily throwing the mantra around themselves.

Lefties make me wanna puke.

The 2008 budget was a surplus.

The Coalition's replies to the 2009 and 2010 budgets indicated that they would have produced just as sizable, if not greater deficits than those produced by Labor.

Hockey acknowledged that the Coalition would not have been able to keep the government in surplus.

No need for you to puke, Howie. The bile you regurgitate does the job just as effectively.

Basil
08-08-2010, 07:42 PM
The 2008 budget was a surplus.

The Coalition's replies to the 2009 and 2010 budgets indicated that they would have produced just as sizable, if not greater deficits than those produced by Labor.

Hockey acknowledged that the Coalition would not have been able to keep the government in surplus.


You've tried this one before. It didn't wash then, it doesn't wash now. As for 2008, Rudd was all-but-obliged after he lied to promised the electorate he was an economic chameleon conservative with his scheming neutralising 2007 campaign from the decade of excellent lessons that the left had been taught (not to say that while in opposition Swan and Rudd and co. hadn't objected to all-but-100% of the coalition's fiscal policies).

As for trying to debunk the coalition's credentials on surpluses ... :hand:

And in any event, all this discussion and apparent concern for surpluses from grass roots lefties remains a relatively new phenomenon.

Goughfather
08-08-2010, 07:55 PM
You've tried this one before. It didn't wash then. It doesn't wash now. As for 2008 Rudd was all-but-obliged after he lied to promised the electorate he was an economic chameleon conservative with his neutralising scheming 2007 campaign from the excellent decade of lessons that the left had inherited.

"It didn't wash then" seems to be a euphemistic expression for "Howie threw a tantrum like a three year old before making the unilateral declaration that he wouldn't accept my analysis". Just because you're capable of making a lot of noise and drawing attention to yourself does not mean that you refuted my analysis.

As for the Coalition's economic credentials, appealling to the virtues of the Howard government really says it all. This is different team. They need to establish their own competence. Unfortunately, Abbott, Hockey and Robb don't have a shred of credibility with respect to economic management between them and their $21 billion of uncosted promises is a testament to that fact.

Oepty
08-08-2010, 08:21 PM
"It didn't wash then" seems to be a euphemistic expression for "Howie threw a tantrum like a three year old before making the unilateral declaration that he wouldn't accept my analysis". Just because you're capable of making a lot of noise and drawing attention to yourself does not mean that you refuted my analysis.

As for the Coalition's economic credentials, appealling to the virtues of the Howard government really says it all. This is different team. They need to establish their own competence. Unfortunately, Abbott, Downer and Robb don't have a shred of credibility with respect to economic management between them and their $21 billion of uncosted promises is a testament to that fact.

Why mention Downer?
Scott

Goughfather
08-08-2010, 08:36 PM
Why mention Downer?
Scott

Oops. I've just changed that negative fact. Thanks for picking up on it.

In my defence, Hockey is a fairly forgettable character :)

Basil
08-08-2010, 08:47 PM
"It didn't wash then" seems to be a euphemistic expression for "Howie threw a tantrum like a three year old before making the unilateral declaration that he wouldn't accept my analysis".
Nice try at misdirection. When I said above "It didn't wash then... " my assessment included, among other things, your original obfuscation in supplying a link when you first made the claim. I recall it took you a week to put up a link which turned out not to prove a damn thing.


Just because you're capable of making a lot of noise and drawing attention to yourself does not mean that you refuted my analysis.
You haven't analysed anything. You've attempted to claim surplus credentials for Labor on the basis of a single surpluses, which I pointed out Rudd was all-but-forced to do because it directly followed his election guise that he was an economic conservative.


As for the Coalition's economic credentials, appealling to the virtues of the Howard government really says it all.
It illustrates a decade of conservative policy, whereas I'm illustrating a parallel deficiency in Labor mindset.


This is different team. They need to establish their own competence. Unfortunately, Abbott, Downer and Robb don't have a shred of credibility with respect to economic management between them and their $21 billion of uncosted promises is a testament to that fact.
Nice try again. Uncosted as yet. What does that prove? At the 2007 election, Rudd supplied costings a paltry 24 hours before polling :hand:

You're up to your usual washing machine tricks, broadening parameters by the minute to wiggle out of being trapped. To help you focus let's recap ...

You started this exchange a few posts ago trying to refute the accusation that lefties are deficit merchants. To prop up your now-failed argument you pointed to the 2008 budget. I pointed out that that was obliged and hardly sufficient to refute the charge. You've ignored Labor's history prior to 2008 and had the audacity to pass the whole dribble off as 'analysis'.

Further, my original accusation of the left's deficit tendencies implied the conduct of both parties over time. You've specifically, within your last answer, tried to eviscerate the implied 'history' by saying that my reference to Howard "says it all". That was my very point in the beginning (and my reference to make), you bozo.

You really are a moron. I have no idea why you engage in matters political. You repeatedly demonstrate blunders, foot-in-mouth, obfuscation and lord knows what - and manage to top your delivery off with a universally acknowledged arrogance, when a dunce's cap would be far more appropriate.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 08:47 PM
The 2008 budget was a surplus.
If you mean 2008-2009 budget, it promised a surplus but delivered a deficit.
If you mean 2007-2008, it as still Howard-Costello (which, to it's credit, Labor managed to deliver according to specifications).


The Coalition's replies to the 2009 and 2010 budgets indicated that they would have produced just as sizable, if not greater deficits than those produced by Labor.
Do you have a source that confirms that?


Hockey acknowledged that the Coalition would not have been able to keep the government in surplus.
After huge Labor spending it wouldn't be possible.

Claiming a credit for the budget surplus which at best will happen in three years time and hasn't been done by Labor in the last twenty years is a hypocrisy and deceit bordering on outright lie.

Basil
08-08-2010, 08:50 PM
Do you have a source that confirms that?
Please. Don't. It hurts too much. I asked Goughfather the same question to the same allegation two months ago. What followed was high farce where I berated him for failing to supply a source, obfuscating, high arrogance and an eventual lame article which proved nothing of the sort. I'm heading off now, but I might try and find the thread. Fascinating reading, not least of which because he all-but-duplicated my berating of him and directed it verbatim at another poster a month later.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 08:56 PM
^^^^^^^
As I thought, so I won't hold my breath.
Anyway, the main point was not Labor constantly running deficits (the argument that deficits aren't bad is valid, even though I strongly disagree with it), but the hypocrisy of simultaneously being a big deficit spender and claiming credit for frugality (promised in three years) ahead of a self imposed schedule of reckless spending.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 08:58 PM
Please. Don't. It hurts too much. I asked Goughfather the same question to the same allegation two months ago.
Another "missing link"? :lol: :lol:

Goughfather
08-08-2010, 09:56 PM
You really are a moron. I have no idea why you engage in matters political. You repeatedly demonstrate blunders, foot-in-mouth, obfuscation and lord knows what - and manage to top your delivery off with a universally acknowledged arrogance, when a dunce's cap would be far more appropriate.

Howie, if you want to play Chess Chat's resident rodeo clown, then that's fine with me. Just don't expect me to reward your attention seeking behaviour. If you're really feeling that lonely, adopt a pet.

In response to your criticism of my knowledge of things political, I've pointed out to you before that I have substantially more formal education in politics than yourself. If you are too uncouth and unlearned to realise when you are flailing, then that's not my fault.

As I've said and as you and others are yet to refute:

(1) Despite decrying the deficits in the last eighteen months of the Labor government, the Liberals produced a reply that failed to return a surplus or even failed to return a lower deficit than Labor.

(2) For all his grandstanding, Hockey has been forced to admit that the government would not have been able to keep the government in surplus during the last two years without plunging Australia into deep recession.

(3) If the Coalition wish to convince the electorate that they could manage the economy, the current team need to establish that they have the ability to do so. Living vicariously through some real or imagined Howard or Costello legacy is insufficient, since neither of them will be at the helm.

(4) So far, Abbott, Hockey and Robb have demonstrated themselves to be economically illiterate. Costello said as much about Abbott. And the current "dream team" reinforce this truth each day with the 21 billion dollar spending spree, which is as yet, uncosted.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 10:06 PM
(1) Despite decrying the deficits in the last eighteen months of the Labor government, the Liberals produced a reply that failed to return a surplus or even failed to return a lower deficit than Labor.
Can you confirm it with verifiable source?


(2) For all his grandstanding, Hockey has been forced to admit that the government would not have been able to keep the government in surplus during the last two years without plunging Australia into deep recession.
Government or opposition? A verifiable source confirming the claim will be apreciated.


(3) If the Coalition wish to convince the electorate that they could manage the economy, the current team need to establish that they have the ability to do so. Living vicariously through some real or imagined Howard or Costello legacy is insufficient, since neither of them will be at the helm.
I'll take as a tacit acknowledgement of Howard government economic record.
While Howard and Costello are not at the helm, the rest of the team is. The culture of prudent economy management is also there (last time of Labor sound economic manager was while Keating was a treasure, i.e almost twenty years ago. I can even agree that Keating's years of prime-ministership it was not as bad as the current Labor).


(4) So far, Abbott, Hockey and Robb have demonstrated themselves to be economically illiterate.
That's a strong claim, could you substantiate it?

Costello said as much about Abbott.
That begs confirmation with verifiable source as well.


And the current "dream team" reinforce this truth each day with the 21 billion dollar spending spree, which is as yet, uncosted.
Could you please clarify, is it 21 billion or uncosted?

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2010, 10:15 PM
Current betting round-up. I do this slightly differently, counting from the actual rather than notional position.

Labor current position: 83 seats

Definite loss: Lowe (abolished)

Probable loss: Robertson, Macquarie, Dawson, Flynn, Leichhardt, Melbourne (to Greens)
Lineball potential losses: Hasluck, Solomon
Net loss estimate: 8 seats

Probable gain: McEwen, Greenway (redistributed)
Lineball potential gains: Macarthur, Hughes
Net gain estimate: 3 seats

Net overall estimate: loss of 5 seats (78-68-4).

At the moment I expect it to be very close to that, but that's assuming Labor doesn't find new ways to campaign stupidly.

As noted before I am definitely not considering the Green gain of Melbourne in the bag for them.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 10:36 PM
As noted before I am definitely not considering the Green gain of Melbourne in the bag for them.
I do hope it's not the case.

Goughfather
08-08-2010, 10:38 PM
Current betting round-up. I do this slightly differently, counting from the actual rather than notional position.

Labor current position: 83 seats

Definite loss: Lowe (abolished)

Probable loss: Robertson, Macquarie, Dawson, Flynn, Leichhardt, Melbourne (to Greens)
Lineball potential losses: Hasluck, Solomon
Net loss estimate: 8 seats

Probable gain: McEwen, Greenway (redistributed)
Lineball potential gains: Macarthur, Hughes
Net gain estimate: 3 seats

Net overall estimate: loss of 5 seats (78-68-4).

At the moment I expect it to be very close to that, but that's assuming Labor doesn't find new ways to campaign stupidly.

As noted before I am definitely not considering the Green gain of Melbourne in the bag for them.

Have you taken Wright into consideration, given that it's a new seat that will go to the Coalition?

The ironic thing is that I think Labor could have easily won Melbourne even without Tanner, had they not been forced to the right in an attempt to gain the centre. This could have cost them a number of other seats though and Bandt would probably side with them as a worst case scenario anyway.

One of the sleeper issues that hasn't been discussed yet on Chess Chat is the High Court judgment that 2007 Howard government legislation relating to the Electoral Act was unconstitutional and that 100,000 people who had previously been disenfranchised are now eligible to vote. Assuming that most of these people are aware that they can vote and do so, this equates to an average 650 voters per electorate. If these voters preferenced at a ratio of 60:40 to Labor (it's not clear what this ratio would actually be, but the 18 to 24 age group is quite well represented among these new enrolments), then that would equate to an extra 130 votes to Labor. That could prove to be quite significant in the most marginal electorates.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2010, 10:55 PM
Have you taken Wright into consideration, given that it's a new seat that will go to the Coalition?

Not necessary as it is already covered for by considering it as a Coalition gain resulting from the abolition of Lowe. The net effect of the redistribution was that one Labor seat was abolished, one Coalition seat was created, and six Coalition seats became notionally Labor, but only one of those (Greenway) by any serious margin. The total number of seats (150) is unaltered.


The ironic thing is that I think Labor could have easily won Melbourne without Tanner, had they been forced to the right in an attempt to gain the centre. This could have cost them a number of other seats though and Bandt would probably side with them as a worst case scenario anyway.

I think Labor have preselected well by choosing a candidate who is well to the left. The idea of doing so is not only to compete with Bandt for left votes, but also to give centre-right votes to the Liberals in the hope that this will put Bandt in third place. People forget that Bandt only got over the Lib by 0.7% last time so if some of the incumbency losses from Tanner go to the Libs instead of the Greens then it is no sure thing Bandt will make the last two. Maybe Cath Bowtell should throw more votes to the Liberals by making some very radical Greens-style policy statements. :lol:


One of the sleeper issues that hasn't been discussed yet on Chess Chat is the High Court judgment that 2007 Howard government legislation relating to the Electoral Act was unconstitutional and that 100,000 people who had previously been disenfranchised are now eligible to vote. Assuming that most of these people are aware that they can vote and do so, this equates to an average 650 voters per electorate. If these voters preferenced at a ratio of 60:40 to Labor (it's not clear what this ratio would actually be, but the 18 to 24 age group is quite well represented among these new enrolments), then that would equate to an extra 130 votes to Labor. That could prove to be quite significant in the most marginal electorates.

It may yet swing one or two of the super-close seats. A little while back Pollytics (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/07/21/what-size-the-alp-vote-hit-from-closing-rolls-early/#more-8404) did some very lengthy calculations about how much Labor would suffer from closing rolls early, a loss that has essentially now been reversed. It's all pretty rubbery stuff but reasonable to assume the 2PP gain to Labor from the High Court decision to be something like 0.1% nationwide.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2010, 11:06 PM
Newspoll 52-48.

If the extent to which the Labor campaign is a joke was really getting through to the electorate they would by now be well behind. They're not; they're roughly level-pegging across all polls and governments that are level-pegging two weeks out win about eight or nine times out of ten. Frankly I think the whole campaign is just so mindnumbingly idiotic that voters have switched off and are basing their assessments on other things.

Goughfather
08-08-2010, 11:14 PM
Newspoll 52-48.

If the extent to which the Labor campaign is a joke was really getting through to the electorate they would by now be well behind. They're not; they're roughly level-pegging across all polls and governments that are level-pegging two weeks out win about eight or nine times out of ten. Frankly I think the whole campaign is just so mindnumbingly idiotic that voters have switched off and are basing their assessments on other things.

Such as?

I'm led to believe that up to 20 percent of people make their mind up at the polling booth. Any reliable figures on what share of that 20 percent will vote for the incumbent?

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2010, 11:36 PM
Such as?

What's-in-it-for-me-and-my-family gut-feel would be my guess.


I'm led to believe that up to 20 percent of people make their mind up at the polling booth. Any reliable figures on what share of that 20 percent will vote for the incumbent?

I doubt it is really that high. Maybe that many are still in theory open to changing their minds until the last minute, but even at this stage 89% of voters claim their vote to be definite or only a slight chance of changing. Genuine undecideds virtually always break for the government, often heavily so.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2010, 11:41 PM
Galaxy 51-49:

"The poll reveals only 43 per cent of voters believe he is up to the top job and 48 per cent have major reservations."

Basil
09-08-2010, 07:42 AM
In response to your criticism of my knowledge of things political, I've pointed out to you before that I have substantially more formal education in politics than yourself.
And as I've pointed out, your offerings on all matters politic belie that education. One can only wonder what you were fiddling with in the classroom while you were studying because your demonstrated understanding of working politics pitiable.


And as I've said and as you and others are yet to refute: (1) Despite decrying the deficits in the last eighteen months of the Labor government, the Liberals produced a reply that failed to return a surplus or even failed to return a lower deficit than Labor.
There's nothing to refute. In times GFC, deficits are universally normal. You're an obfuscating dribbler.


(2) For all his grandstanding, Hockey has been forced to admit that the government would not have been able to keep the government in surplus during the last two years.
Refer answer above.


(3) If the Coalition wish to convince the electorate that they could manage the economy, the current team need to establish that they have the ability to do so. Living vicariously through some real or imagined Howard or Costello legacy is insufficient, since neither of them will be at the helm.
Another example of moving your lips, missing the point and pretending to make a point of substance. The two separate and legitimate issues you've fudged together to make an ass (of yourself) are:
1) Yes the present coalition must stand on its own, but its costings still have time to be submitted - and they will be. Whereas, as I said in my last post Rudd/ Swan submitted them in the final 24 hours last election, (this has already been covered, yet you raise it again - are you stupid or disingenuous?) and
2) The Howard/ Costello legacy is not what Abbott is relying on, and at no stage has he done so to promote his own credentials. You are disingenuously (or moronically) fudging the issue that is in play, which is that this legacy is raised in discussion by all commentators as a genuine element as to the present state of the Australian economy.


(4) So far, Abbott, Hockey and Robb have demonstrated themselves to be economically illiterate. Costello said as much about Abbott.
No he didn't. Show me a quote. in context.


And the current "dream team" reinforce this truth each day with the 21 billion dollar spending spree, which is as yet, uncosted.
So? It will be costed under the rules. And I doubt it will take until the last day like Swann/ Rudd. This is the third time you've raised this furfie in two posts.

And so all that we're left with is
a) Your original failure to substantiate your initial defence of the Labor deficit merchants accusation, instead just pointing to one 2008 surplus.
b) My refutation that

i) one surplus is not enough to save Labor's reputation, and
ii) that in any event, that surplus was forced on account of Rudd's recent pretence to be an economic conservative.
c) In your house-style of ever-expanding washing machine obfuscation, your attempt to deny reference to the Howard/ Costello record of surpluses, even when that was my point to begin with :wall:
d) Your repeated claim of hypothetical Liberal 09/10 deficits which you can't substantiate.
e) Your repeated misdirections (similar in effect to repeated and sustained draw offers) about Liberal costings, which you know must be submitted and will be, and further that Rudd/ Swan themselves ran the gauntlet to the very day themselves in 2007.

You're a disingenuous and clueless twit.

Basil
09-08-2010, 07:57 AM
...
The above post details, not for the first time, your blunderings, misdirections and disingenuous evacuations - dumbed-down even to a point a child could follow. This is why I insult you mercilessly.

What specific errors are you claiming I am making.

ER
09-08-2010, 11:00 AM
That's not so long ago! :)


Costello slams Abbott parent tax
THE former treasurer Peter Costello has savaged Tony Abbott's paid parental leave policy as a ''silly'' idea that would reduce the global competitiveness of Australian business and which contravened the Liberal philosophy of low taxes.

ooops I nearly forgot the source!
http://www.smh.com.au/national/costello-slams-abbott-parent-tax-20100316-qclw.html

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2010, 11:19 AM
^^^^^^^
JaK, I doubt anyone on the board commended parent scheme (even though it's hypocritical for lefties. On the other hand, hypocrisy is their distinctive trait).
Anyway, in comparison to Labor waste and mismanagement it's a minor concern.

ER
09-08-2010, 11:31 AM
^^^^^^^
JaK, I doubt anyone on the board commended parent scheme (even though it's hypocritical for lefties. On the other hand, hypocrisy is their distinctive trait).
Anyway, in comparison to Labor waste and mismanagement it's a minor concern.

What are you talking about? Just because none else has commented on the topic, deprives me of the right to refer to it??? Are you setting the freeking agenda here? Obviously you are confusing Parent Scheme and Education here... Additionally do you actually mean that Labor supporters don't have the right to comment on the parent scheme? As for the hypocricy, I don't know if you directed it at me and I am expecting some explanation here! BTW are you calling me a lefty?

ADDITIONALLY: by "commended" did you mean "commented"? because i did not COMMEND the scheme, I commented on Costello's comments on Abbott's inadequacy!
Am I also expecting too much if by the reference to the title "Abbott and Costello" I was hoping that somebody could see the connection to the American comedy duo?

ER
09-08-2010, 11:47 AM
LOL I didn't expect the latest polls results would hurt so much!!! :lol: I am expecting a short (not more than 25 words) reasoning of where and how Phony Tony Rabbott stuffed up! :P

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2010, 02:21 PM
What are you talking about? Just because none else has commented on the topic, deprives me of the right to refer to it???
I wouldn't dare to doubt your divoine right.;)

Are you setting the freeking agenda here?
Absolutely:D :D :D

Obviously you are confusing Parent Scheme and Education here...
No, I don't. What are they, btw?


Additionally do you actually mean that Labor supporters don't have the right to comment on the parent scheme?
I like the beginning "Labor supporters don't have the right...". Why did you need to specify?:lol:


As for the hypocricy, I don't know if you directed it at me and I am expecting some explanation here!
Explanation ETA will be confirmed shortly:D


BTW are you calling me a lefty?
No, just a devoine supporter;)

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2010, 02:29 PM
LOL I didn't expect the latest polls results would hurt so much!!! :lol: I am expecting a short (not more than 25 words) reasoning of where and how Phony Tony Rabbott stuffed up! :P
Labor vicious abhorrent atrocious ferocious reprehensible lying misleading obfuscating deceitful hypocritical sneaky unscrupulous crooked dishonourable petty shameless two-faced smear campaign funded by the unions.

Goughfather
09-08-2010, 02:37 PM
Labor vicious abhorrent atrocious ferocious reprehensible lying misleading obfuscating deceitful hypocritical sneaky unscrupulous crooked dishonourable petty shameless two-faced smear campaign funded by the unions.

Are you alright, Igor? You seem to be a little upset.

ER
09-08-2010, 03:24 PM
I wouldn't dare to doubt your divoine right.;)
righto Howie! :P

No, I don't. What are they, btw?
It's like a family get together to decide about further planning, schooling etc. In Govt and Opp level it's called policies

I like the beginning "Labor supporters don't have the right...". Why did you need to specify?:lol:
Just a simple communication trick so we sound more than our actual number! When you wanna express indignation, anger, fury etc you use the singular "I" technique, otherwise you sound moblike!

Explanation ETA will be confirmed shortly:D
OK make sure it's before the Election cauz after you 'll use it as an excuse for going down!

No, just a devoine supporter;)
Righto Howie!

ER
09-08-2010, 03:26 PM
Labor vicious abhorrent atrocious ferocious reprehensible lying misleading obfuscating deceitful hypocritical sneaky unscrupulous crooked dishonourable petty shameless two-faced smear campaign funded by the unions.

lol you sound like a Lefty... keep up the good work! :lol: :owned: btw are you OK??? I am just down the road you know that don't you? :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2010, 03:42 PM
lol you sound like a Lefty... keep up the good work! :lol: :owned: btw are you OK??? I am just down the road you know that don't you? :lol:
You asked for 25 words or less, didn't you?;) Had to work hard to fill up a quota!

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2010, 03:43 PM
OK make sure it's before the Election cauz after you 'll use it as an excuse for going down!
ETA is about 24hr before the election (like Kevin07 did).

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2010, 03:47 PM
I am just down the road you know that don't you? :lol:
If you don't work on some day, PM me for a lunch!

ER
09-08-2010, 03:52 PM
If you don't work on some day, PM me for a lunch!

yes ok that sounds great! I 'll give you a buzz! :)

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2010, 05:16 PM
Gillard and Abbott will both appear in a town-hall style question and answer thingy on Wednesday from 6-8 pm. This will be shown on Sky News and it is not clear yet whether it will make it to free-to-air.

Not a debate as such since they will each have an hour to take and respond to questions chosen from a grouping of undecided voters. Gillard first then Abbott second.

I find these "town hall" things somewhat frustrating because it is almost impossible to avoid some of the questioners being fringe nutters asking about things nobody cares about. On the other hand, they do provide some opportunities for spontaneity and genuinely unexpected questions.

Goughfather
09-08-2010, 06:00 PM
I find these "town hall" things somewhat frustrating because it is almost impossible to avoid some of the questioners being fringe nutters asking about things nobody cares about. On the other hand, they do provide some opportunities for spontaneity and genuinely unexpected questions.

I was invited to "Politics in the Pub" in Surry Hills in Sydney and found the same kind of thing. Usually, the organisers would invite people from different sides of the debate - the hard left and the even harder left. At the end of the two speakers monologues, the floor was opened up to questions, which audience members assumed was an invitation to make either make a two or three minute speech themselves followed by "What do you think?" or to advertise some fringe political party.

ER
10-08-2010, 08:21 PM
No bad for a rabbot!!! :P
zCVL9vTM_yU

Igor_Goldenberg
10-08-2010, 08:52 PM
I think it is almost guaranteed that we will need more communication bandwidth in the future (one only needs to look at the last 20 years). Of course there is always a big risk in picking winners when it comes to technology, but i don't think wireless even WiMAX has the same theoretical future potential as Fibre.
It might or might not be true, but it's irrelevant. There is a market with private companies that more then capable of providing the right solution. Simply not a government business, be it Coalition or Labor.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-08-2010, 09:15 PM
No bad for a rabbot!!! :P
Be aware, Boris is keeping track on how many times you use a derogative nickname for a politician.

ER
10-08-2010, 09:18 PM
who cares? Abbottoir is a hopeless case anyway! He doesn't need Boris's assistance to lose the gig!

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2010, 09:42 PM
Yet another candidate issue for the LNP in Queensland (how many is it now? five? lost count!) with frontrunner in Dawson George Christensen under the gun after his student press past caught up with him (http://www.vexnews.com/news/10459/george-christensen-lnp-candidate-in-dawson-thinks-the-jews-killed-christ-and-doesnt-think-much-of-women-gays-or-aborigines-either/). (Remind me never to run for parliament!) This is a seat Labor fluked last time and was widely expected to lose this time (one of those listed as likely writeoffs in Goughfather's guide) but there has obviously been enough of a plunge for Centrebet to suspend betting on the seat and it will be interesting to see where it reopens.

Ian Murray
10-08-2010, 10:38 PM
Yet another candidate issue for the LNP in Queensland (how many is it now? five? lost count!) with frontrunner in Dawson George Christensen under the gun after his student press past caught up with him (http://www.vexnews.com/news/10459/george-christensen-lnp-candidate-in-dawson-thinks-the-jews-killed-christ-and-doesnt-think-much-of-women-gays-or-aborigines-either/). .
All is well. Tony assurd Kerry O'Keefe on The 7.30 Report tonight that he knows George well, and now he's a lovely chap.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-08-2010, 11:05 PM
My impression was that Abbott wiped the floor with Gillard.

Kevin Bonham
11-08-2010, 11:36 PM
I haven't seen it but from what reports I'm seeing it appears that Gillard had the self-inflicted disadvantage that she was under attack from multiple political flanks because of Labor's sellouts on gay marriage and climate change and because of the Rudd removal, whereas Abbott had an easier task and did not have to be so much on the defensive.

ER
12-08-2010, 12:34 AM
Are we going to have a Forum Panel of analysts, Party representatives etc in the Election Night? If yes is it going to take place in the Shout Box or will it be a separate thread for it? Is it possible to have a mod specifically assigned to keep in order certain well known troublemakers? Not naming names here although, incidentally of course, certain characters like Jono, Howie and Igor come to mind!

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2010, 01:07 AM
I doubt anyone will misbehave; nobody did last time.

I think my main port of call on the night will be blogging-style posting on Tasmanian Times and the odd cameo on Poll Bludger but I will try to drop in here on this thread as well.

ER
12-08-2010, 01:16 AM
I doubt anyone will misbehave; nobody did last time.

I think my main port of call on the night will be blogging-style posting on Tasmanian Times and the odd cameo on Poll Bludger but I will try to drop in here on this thread as well.

ok I have the link here for those interested http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php? and http://www.crikey.com.au/ what's Lindsay Tuffin like?

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2010, 01:27 AM
Mr Tuffin is a fine character who buys me beer faster than I can drink it in return for my services to his site. He is a former disenchanted Mercury subeditor; politics way to the left, very easygoing and entertaining character. Escaped from a religious cult family (Exclusive Brethren or similar) when much younger.

For anyone wanting a direct link to my election stuff it is at http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/category-article/64, though sometimes articles that aren't by me but that I have commented lots on get indexed there before.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2010, 02:47 AM
Five consequences of Greens' policies that all Australians need to consider on election da (http://www.thinkbeforeyouvote.com.au/)y...

1. Housing affordability will reach crisis point
Availability of new land for housing will be restricted by Greens' policies. Fewer new properties combined with higher business taxes will make homes more expensive.

2. Jobs will be lost
Greens' policies will target construction, manufacturing and energy industries, making them less competitive. Job security for Australian workers will be put at risk.

3. Strikes and industrial thuggery will return
The Construction Industry watchdog, the ABCC, will be abolished. Building sites will be unprotected, exposed again to union bullies. Don't let the Greens take Australia back there.

4. Construction of vital community infrastructure will be halted
New school, hospital, road and workplace projects will be delayed and blocked by the Greens' proposed-planning policies. Our unique Australian lifestyle will suffer.

5. Economic recovery will be threatened
Greens' policies affecting business, taxation, expenditure and industry will stifle the growth of the Australian economy. This will damage national prosperity and limit opportunities for our children.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2010, 09:02 AM
I haven't seen it but from what reports I'm seeing it appears that Gillard had the self-inflicted disadvantage that she was under attack from multiple political flanks because of Labor's sellouts on gay marriage and climate change and because of the Rudd removal, whereas Abbott had an easier task and did not have to be so much on the defensive.
Abbott was indeed received much more warmly then Gillard. He looked like a confident incumbent prime-minister, while Gillard (JaK - she looked terrible in that white jacket;) ;) :lol: :lol: ) looked like a desperate opposition leader.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2010, 09:15 AM
RESERVE Bank director Warwick McKibbin has directly contradicted Labor's claim that its rescue packages saved 200,000 jobs. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-wrong-on-jobs-boost-claims/story-fn59niix-1225904135466)

ER
12-08-2010, 01:39 PM
and a bit of a flashback
http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2010-07-01%20Abbott%20opening%20election%20600unpub.jpg

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2010, 01:39 PM
Betting plunge on Labor continues, Centrebet now $1.40 (Coalition $2.92). The feeling is that the rot has stopped now that the campaign is more normal.

ER
12-08-2010, 01:41 PM
Could you believe it? He (Phony Tony that is) used the old "we Sydneysiders" trick in the campaign. Is he a candidate for Sydney's Lord Mayor position???

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2010, 01:47 PM
Could you believe it? He (Phony Tony that is) used the old "we Sydneysiders" trick in the campaign. Is he a candidate for Sydney's Lord Mayor position???
Despicable indeed. No Labor politician (honest Julia including) uses any tricks.:doh: :doh:

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2010, 01:53 PM
Five factors saved Australia from the GFC, and Labor isn't one of them (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/alps-knight-is-a-thief-in-rusty-armour/story-e6frg6zo-1225904126639)

Goughfather
12-08-2010, 04:24 PM
Abbott was indeed received much more warmly then Gillard. He looked like a confident incumbent prime-minister, while Gillard (JaK - she looked terrible in that white jacket;) ;) :lol: :lol: ) looked like a desperate opposition leader.

The event was organised by The Daily Telegraph which explains everything. The way that Abbott was consistently thrown Dorothy Dixers (with only a few curve balls) was quite ridiculous. The idea that Gillard was singled out for criticism for her stance on gay marriage was absolutely bizarre when one considers Abbott's own statements on the issue.

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2010, 04:52 PM
People expect that from Abbott though. There is a lot of genuine disappointment that Labor could do more on gay marriage and chooses not to because it is scared of being wedged. Couldn't we at least have a citizens' assembly to build consensus on the issue? :lol:

Basil
12-08-2010, 04:55 PM
The event was organised by The Daily Telegraph which explains everything.
What does it explain?

The audience was selected by the Galaxy people - whatever that means!? I assume they're not in the stacking business, regularly enough (through the ages) publishing polls showing Labor ahead.

The commentators that I caught (SKY - however impartial they are?) pointed out the obvious (to me) that there isn't much to hate about Tony Abbott because he hasn't done anything because he's in opposition. It's no one else's fault, except their own, that there is an incredible amount to be disenfranchised about with the present Labor government.

Basil
12-08-2010, 05:03 PM
Just pinched a random comment from the news.com.au site:


margaret Posted at 3:12 PM Today

How can you say that the audience was biased to Abbott. I haven't watched but I heard that of the poll taken silently at the end of the forum by those that attended had 30% labor, 35.5% liberal and 34.5% still undecided. This gives an indication that the audience was probably pretty representative. This result being significantly different to the online poll which put in 70/30 in Abbotts favour

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2010, 05:06 PM
The event was organised by The Daily Telegraph which explains everything. The way that Abbott was consistency thrown Dorothy Dixers (with only a few curve balls) was quite ridiculous. The idea that Gillard was singled out for criticism for her stance on gay marriage was absolutely bizarre when one considers Abbott's own statements on the issue.
Could it be because Abbott and Liberal party didn't pretend to be crusaders on the gay issues (like Gillard and Labor).
BTW, Liberal not only supported Labor legislation (aimed at removing legal disadvantages that civil union might have), but proposed to take it even further to make sure absence of marriage certificate did not affect adversely any domestic arrangements.

As for the event itself - Abbott did look much better.

Goughfather
12-08-2010, 05:20 PM
Could it be because Abbott and Liberal party didn't pretend to be crusaders on the gay issues (like Gillard and Labor).


Gillard and Labor have pretended to be crusaders on gay issues?


BTW, Liberal not only supported Labor legislation (aimed at removing legal disadvantages that civil union might have), but proposed to take it even further to make sure absence of marriage certificate did not affect adversely any domestic arrangements.

So why didn't the Coalition do anything to remove this discrimination in the eleven and half years that they were in power?

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2010, 05:23 PM
Good comments on the stacking or otherwise of the audience here (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/08/12/rumble-in-the-rissole/#comments).

There is no evidence of stacking, although it is possible some people lied to Galaxy about whether they had made up their mind or not.

Spiny Norman
12-08-2010, 05:46 PM
The event was organised by The Daily Telegraph which explains everything. The way that Abbott was consistency thrown Dorothy Dixers (with only a few curve balls) was quite ridiculous. The idea that Gillard was singled out for criticism for her stance on gay marriage was absolutely bizarre when one considers Abbott's own statements on the issue.
Now you know how it must feel for conservatives to have to turn up and be interviewed on the ABC ... :lol:

ER
12-08-2010, 07:13 PM
... while Gillard (JaK - she looked terrible in that white jacket;) ;) :lol: :lol: )
you be quiet youngster! she looked majestic as usual!http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100811/capt.4f8dd664d91b4081b24aa18293be2489-4f8dd664d91b4081b24aa18293be2489-0.jpg
When your PM speaks you be quiet and listen! :P

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2010, 08:16 PM
Morgan face-to-face 57.5-42.5 to Labor. This poll is political junkfood. It is a face-to-face (which inflates the Labor vote by at least 2 points and often 3) and the sample size is only 900. As such it might really mean 51-49 and that's assuming it's not just a rogue. Total rubbish. Ignore.

Basil
12-08-2010, 08:24 PM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100811/capt.4f8dd664d91b4081b24aa18293be2489-4f8dd664d91b4081b24aa18293be2489-0.jpg
Stellaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

ER
12-08-2010, 08:36 PM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100811/capt.4f8dd664d91b4081b24aa18293be2489-4f8dd664d91b4081b24aa18293be2489-0.jpg
Stellaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

lol good one, only a few, if any, will get it though!!! :lol: :clap:

Desmond
12-08-2010, 08:42 PM
I was thinking more Palpatine and lightning bolts from the fingers.

ER
12-08-2010, 08:56 PM
I was thinking more Palpatine and lightning bolts from the fingers.

you and your fingers again! LOL you 're giving me good ideas to fix Phony Tony Rabbotoir though, thanks! :P

Desmond
12-08-2010, 09:07 PM
you and your fingers again! LOL you 're giving me good ideas to fix Phony Tony Rabbotoir though, thanks! :P
Me? I'm not the one who thinks hand gestures while speaking should resemble a reserved mexican wave.

ER
12-08-2010, 09:42 PM
Julia's harmonious movements have nothing to do with the barbaric and rather vulgar gestures such of those of a Bronco like football crowd while executing that rude ritual which is rightly discouraged in cricket matches.
Julia's elegant body and hand expressions remind one (preferably a connoisseur of course) the highly elabore stage mannerisms of a dramatic soprano for example while interpreting breathtakingly complicated and difficult parts of an operatic masterpiece!

Oepty
12-08-2010, 10:21 PM
Julia's harmonious movements have nothing to do with the barbaric and rather vulgar gestures such of those of a Bronco like football crowd while executing that rude ritual which is rightly discouraged in cricket matches.
Julia's elegant body and hand expressions remind one (preferably a connoisseur of course) the highly elabore stage mannerisms of a dramatic soprano for example while interpreting breathtakingly complicated and difficult parts of an operatic masterpiece!

LOL

Hobbes
12-08-2010, 11:26 PM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100811/capt.4f8dd664d91b4081b24aa18293be2489-4f8dd664d91b4081b24aa18293be2489-0.jpg
huge... tracts of land.

Desmond
13-08-2010, 09:09 AM
Julia's harmonious movements have nothing to do with the barbaric and rather vulgar gestures such of those of a Bronco like football crowd while executing that rude ritual which is rightly discouraged in cricket matches.
Julia's elegant body and hand expressions remind one (preferably a connoisseur of course) the highly elabore stage mannerisms of a dramatic soprano for example while interpreting breathtakingly complicated and difficult parts of an operatic masterpiece!A penguin, more like it.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-08-2010, 09:38 AM
John Howard in 2007 was the second Australian prime-minister to lose his seat (as well as election).
The first one was Stanley Bruce, who lost his seat (and election) in 1929.
He was succeeded by one-term Labor government which was wiped out at the next election.
Could that explain Labor nervousness in this election?

Desmond
13-08-2010, 10:21 AM
Be aware, Boris is keeping track on how many times you use a derogative nickname for a politician.
:lol: Are you still smarting from that one?

Goughfather
13-08-2010, 10:53 AM
John Howard in 2007 was the second Australian prime-minister to lose his seat (as well as election).
The first one was Stanley Bruce, who lost his seat (and election) in 1929.
He was succeeded by one-term Labor government which was wiped out at the next election.
Could that explain Labor nervousness in this election?

Indeed. They were replaced by an ex-Labor Party member and a newly formed political party. Are you suggesting that Kevin Rudd is planning a coup and that he has members of the newly formed "On Our Side" party campaigning for Labor in the current election, only to assume power once "Labor" wins the election?

Igor_Goldenberg
13-08-2010, 11:01 AM
Indeed. They were replaced by an ex-Labor Party member and a newly formed political party. Are you suggesting that Kevin Rudd is planning a coup and that he has members of the newly formed "On Our Side" party campaigning for Labor in the current election, only to assume power once "Labor" wins the election?
I am not suggesting anything, just irking Labor supporters.
Former elections shouldn't be relied upon in predicting current (and future) results.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-08-2010, 11:03 AM
:lol: Are you still smarting from that one?
I am still afraid of using GillRudd , because you'll run a search that will say 2==5 and prove Fermi theorem as well.:lol: :lol:

Desmond
13-08-2010, 12:29 PM
I am still afraid of using GillRudd , because you'll run a search that will say 2==5 and prove Fermi theorem as well.:lol: :lol:No idea what you're on about, but if it's important enough that you want a respose go bump the thread and explain what you mean.

ER
13-08-2010, 12:45 PM
A penguin, more like it. lol what would you know of the fine art of (preferably the Majakovskian as in Julia's case) stage movement? Obviously, your level of appreciation on this subject could be easily restricted to (add No. according to taste and level of tolerance) finger salutes or (at best) those barbaric mexican waves you referred to in one of your previous!

ER
13-08-2010, 12:49 PM
No idea what you're on about, but if it's important enough that you want a respose go bump the thread and explain what you mean.
he means is frigging time to butt the shit out of the way and stop behaving like a volunteer moderator's assistant or a two bob dobber in on what other chatters are posting! Not that I would take you seriously anyway! :P :lol:

Desmond
13-08-2010, 12:55 PM
he means is frigging time to butt the shit out of the way and stop behaving like a volunteer moderator's assistant or a two bob dobber in on what other chatters are posting! Not that I would take you seriously anyway! :P :lol:He wants me to butt out of a conversation that has been dormant for a couple of weeks, and to this end he brings it up in a different thread? Makes no sense, but you may well be right. ;)

ER
13-08-2010, 01:51 PM
He wants me to butt out of a conversation that has been dormant for a couple of weeks, and to this end he brings it up in a different thread? Makes no sense, but you may well be right. ;)
I think Igor, like myself and most of the chatters here, enjoy your short and to the point (albeit smartarsy and occassionally infuriating) commentary! Let's face it you are something like those necessary evils, (mother in law type of thing) or enjoyable bad habits. In other words you are doing well young man! Keep up the good work, etc OK enough!!!! :eek:

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 01:52 PM
Are you suggesting that Kevin Rudd is planning a coup and that he has members of the newly formed "On Our Side" party campaigning for Labor in the current election, only to assume power once "Labor" wins the election?

If Labor only wins very narrowly (say 76-70-4 or something like that) Gillard will need to keep a careful eye on Rudd and any lingering Rudd loyalists.

The way Stanley Bruce came to lose his seat is quite an instructive one. His government was forced to an election after Billy Hughes and five of Hughes' buddies brought it down by crossing the floor - a result of Hughes' grievance over being forced to stand down as PM six years earlier.

Goughfather
13-08-2010, 02:45 PM
If Labor only wins very narrowly (say 76-70-4 or something like that) Gillard will need to keep a careful eye on Rudd and any lingering Rudd loyalists.

The way Stanley Bruce came to lose his seat is quite an instructive one. His government was forced to an election after Billy Hughes and five of Hughes' buddies brought it down by crossing the floor - a result of Hughes' grievance over being forced to stand down as PM six years earlier.

Incidentally, Centrebet are now paying $3.60 for a hung parliament.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 03:28 PM
Taking a look at the seat-by-seat betting it's getting much closer than the headline rate suggests. The probable reason for this is that there is a pretty high chance of Labor getting 74-75 which is still likely to be enough to retain office but without majority. There is not that much risk at the moment of them being knocked down to 73 or below.

Labor starts with 83 and loses Lowe to the redistribution.

They are now losing according to Centrebet in Robertson, Macquarie and Lindsay* (NSW), Flynn, Dawson* and Leichhardt (Qld), Melbourne to the Greens (Vic) and Hasluck* (WA). Those marked * are close. Total 9 expected losses including Lowe. They are marginally favoured in Solomon (NT) and the following are reasonably close: Forde (Qld), Bass (Tas), Corangamite (Vic).

The Coalition are losing Greenway (NSW) and McEwen (Vic). Total 2 expected losses. They are marginally favoured in Macarthur (NSW) and Hughes (Vic).

Based on the expected losses Labor are now only on 76. Centrebet's "line" is at 6.5 and the "line" is Labor - Coalition with independents excluded, so that line is pointing to 76-70-4.


Incidentally, Centrebet are now paying $3.60 for a hung parliament.

Seems about reasonable.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-08-2010, 03:35 PM
Incidentally, Centrebet are now paying $3.60 for a hung parliament.
I read somewhere something like "close contest does not usually lead to a close result". Everything is possible, but I doubt hung parliament will happen.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 03:57 PM
I read somewhere something like "close contest does not usually lead to a close result". Everything is possible, but I doubt hung parliament will happen.

It is always more likely to not happen than to happen - there is silly speculation about it virtually every election - but this election it currently looks a more serious chance than normal.

The reason it is always unlikely is that the result has to land within a very narrow range and the swing usually undershoots or overshoots even if it looks headed for a hung parliament. There is only a three or four seat range for a hung parliament to occur in.

The last one was in 1940. Since then we have had 26 majority results in a row. However, some of those have been very close. 1961 (two-seat margin with no Independents) would have been a hung parliament had there been entrenched Independents at the time. We have also had margins of under 10 seats in 1954, 1969, 1972, 1974, and 1990.

Goughfather
13-08-2010, 04:07 PM
They are now losing according to Centrebet in Robertson, Macquarie and Lindsay* (NSW), Flynn, Dawson* and Leichhardt (Qld), Melbourne to the Greens (Vic) and Hasluck* (WA). Those marked * are close. Total 9 expected losses including Lowe. They are marginally favoured in Solomon (NT) and the following are reasonably close: Forde (Qld), Bass (Tas), Corangamite (Vic).

The Coalition are losing Greenway (NSW) and McEwen (Vic). Total 2 expected losses. They are marginally favoured in Macarthur (NSW) and Hughes (Vic).

Obviously, there are going to be some surprises in this elections that even the most insightful of pundits wouldn't have been able to pick beforehand. A week or so ago, Labor was meant to be a sure thing to hold onto Lindsay. One poll and a town hall meeting later and Labor are on the verge of losing the seat. It's makes one wonder to what extent the bets placed are based on the sentiment of the moment and not upon more considered, longer term matters. A week ago, the Coalition were quickly firming on the basis of a few good polls, but they have lengthened just as quickly. Who's to say that Labor couldn't lose seats such as Bennelong, Eden-Monaro and Page or that the Coalition couldn't lose seats such as La Trobe, Boothby and Sturt, notwithstanding the fact that the incumbents look to be strongly placed at the moment?

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 04:14 PM
Sturt is one where we may be seeing the incumbency fallacy at work again - the idea that Pyne will be safe if there's a bit of a swing on because he's an incumbent. He was an incumbent last time too so it's already factored in. All the same I don't think he will lose.

I wonder about the Lindsay plunge. It is on a 6.3% margin after all.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 04:27 PM
Unnamed Lib strategist quoted today in the Australian said Longman was "good as gone" but the markets don't agree (Labor still favourite there, $1.55 v $2.30).

I wonder there if punters are holding Wyatt Roy's young age against him. If so it often isn't that simple; very young candidates do sometimes pull off surprise wins.

george
13-08-2010, 07:00 PM
Hi all,

I live in boothby and can tell you the sitting member is only heard of during election time. We get one newsletter a year - thats it.
He is a do nothing member that a few folks are starting to realise is a waste of space . But this area is pretty conservative but I think Boothby is more of a chance to fall to labor than Sturt where Pyne has a high profile.

Goughfather
13-08-2010, 07:32 PM
Hi all,

I live in boothby and can tell you the sitting member is only heard of during election time. We get one newsletter a year - thats it.
He is a do nothing member that a few folks are starting to realise is a waste of space . But this area is pretty conservative but I think Boothby is more of a chance to fall to labor than Sturt where Pyne has a high profile.

Scott said that too. Interesting.

Normally, you wouldn't expect Labor to even get close in these two seats, but Gillard's numbers are good in South Australia at the moment. Kevin '07 good.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 09:33 PM
Something to note with the seat-by-seat markets is that they can move quite a lot in the last week of the campaign, since that is when most of the money goes in.

At this stage in 2007, Labor were only favourites in 77 seats. They went on to win 83. So it may not stay as tight as it looks now.

Garvinator
13-08-2010, 09:40 PM
At this stage in 2007, Labor were only favourites in 77 seats. They went on to win 83. So it may not stay as tight as it looks now.I agree with this. People who decide at the last minute do tend to favour governments when elections are tight and as we have noted on here, the Green vote is rather high at this stage, but I still doubt it will stay that way. I think it will leak back a few points and those who parked their opinion poll vote for the Greens will change to Labor.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 09:43 PM
If there is a move back to Labor in the last week it could end up being an election where very few seats change hands.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 09:55 PM
Nielsen 53-47 to Labor.

Garvinator
13-08-2010, 10:07 PM
If there is a move back to Labor in the last week it could end up being an election where very few seats change hands.
What I did hear from a talking head about how the betting and polls are going is that the marginals the polls are ahead in the direction of the Coalition, but in the other seats Labor are gaining more percentage points than the Coalition are gaining in the marginals.

I would not be surprised if the Coalition wins, but Labor has the higher 2PP and the higher popular vote.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2010, 10:14 PM
What I did hear from a talking head about how the betting and polls are going is that the marginals the polls are ahead in the direction of the Coalition, but in the other seats Labor are gaining more percentage points than the Coalition are gaining in the marginals.

I would not be surprised if the Coalition wins, but Labor has the higher 2PP and the higher popular vote.

This is a common line in pre-election speculation (and indeed the same was argued in some quarters last time) but if Labor gets anything above 51.5 2PP they will win. If Labor has a high 2PP but is dropping a big bunch of marginals then they will also win Coalition seats not seriously on people's radar.

When parties win despite substantially losing the 2PP they are virtually always incumbent governments.

As for Labor winning the primary vote, I actually think that is unlikely at the moment. If they do win the primary vote they will win easily.

george
14-08-2010, 12:53 AM
Hi All,

Something I forgot I believe the Gillard factor will be BIG BIG Big in Boothby.

Unley High School where she went is in Boothby and she has visited it twice during campaign I believe - she has also paid a visit to Mitcham Shopping Centre in middle of Boothby only 1 kilometre from Unley High.

Locals I believe would like to see one of their own as PM - if I was a betting man I would put money on whoever is the Labor candidate in Boothby - I reckon it could be Humphrey B Bear and they would have a good show.

But as I said in earlier post Boothby is a conservative electorate but I believe the Gillard factor may tip it over the line for Labor.

Oepty
14-08-2010, 01:28 AM
Sturt is one where we may be seeing the incumbency fallacy at work again - the idea that Pyne will be safe if there's a bit of a swing on because he's an incumbent. He was an incumbent last time too so it's already factored in. All the same I don't think he will lose.

I wonder about the Lindsay plunge. It is on a 6.3% margin after all.

I will be greatly surprised if Pyne loses in Sturt. He was run very close last time by a high quality candidate last time and although his current opponent is certainly no slouch I doubt there will be any more gains for Labor in this seat.
In other seats I heard discussed on the radio this morning that the Liberals think they are polling very well in Hindmarsh and even Adelaide and might cause a surprise in those two seats. Would be against all of the polling I have seen about the trend in SA, but who knows.
Scott

george
14-08-2010, 01:51 AM
hi all,

Apart from the fact I coach chess at Unley High School - ALL around the Unley High School and around Mitcham shopping centre are posters of Julia Gillard not that many of the Labor candidate but hundreds of the bloody things of the LOCAL GIRL. (or Goddess Julia as another poster describes her - goddess??)

JAK I can rip off a couple for you on Election night - how much is it worth:) :) :)

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2010, 12:37 PM
This (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-ads-too-soft-on-labor/story-fn59niix-1225905112924) is interesting (especially being in the Australian an' all.)

ER
14-08-2010, 02:08 PM
hi all,

Apart from the fact I coach chess at Unley High School - ALL around the Unley High School and around Mitcham shopping centre are posters of Julia Gillard not that many of the Labor candidate but hundreds of the bloody things of the LOCAL GIRL. (or Goddess Julia as another poster describes her - goddess??)

JAK I can rip off a couple for you on Election night - how much is it worth:) :) :)

They will be worth millions one day, make sure nick a few from the walls - but don't get caught we need you for the Chess Cause! :P Capitalise your Gs for Goddess plz :P

ER
14-08-2010, 02:29 PM
Surge for Labor, Coalition vote falls

August 14, 2010

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/surge-for-labor-coalition-vote-falls-20100813-12393.html

LABOR has surged to a strong 53-47 per cent two-party lead a week from the election, with a new poll also showing a sharp fall in Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's approval.


GO JULIA!

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100813/capt.94f73cc262294dea893e29d93c98e101-94f73cc262294dea893e29d93c98e101-0.jpg

Ladies and gentlemen (none of some of them anti-Julia Drongos here) the PM of Australia Ms Julia Gillard!

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2010, 05:42 PM
Coalition now out to $3.80. Labor back to favourite (marginally) in Lindsay.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-08-2010, 05:50 PM
This (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-ads-too-soft-on-labor/story-fn59niix-1225905112924) is interesting (especially being in the Australian an' all.)
The article is spot on, Coalition is indeed too soft and forgiving.

ER
14-08-2010, 05:54 PM
... Coalition is indeed too soft ...

CORRECT!!!! at last you start seeing the light!!!

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2010, 06:05 PM
The article is spot on, Coalition is indeed too soft and forgiving.

The bit I don't agree with is the claim they should have exploited the Latham situation. Latham is pretty much irrelevant (though it reflects a little badly on Gillard's judgement that she supported him for the leadership) and any advertising targeting him would have been seen as rather pointless.

Goughfather
14-08-2010, 06:46 PM
The bit I don't agree with is the claim they should have exploited the Latham situation. Latham is pretty much irrelevant (though it reflects a little badly on Gillard's judgement that she supported him for the leadership) and any advertising targeting him would have been seen as rather pointless.

Gillard and Latham have a very interesting history. Gillard was reputedly very influential in arranging support among the Left for Latham's win over Beazley for the leadership in 2003. It was also alleged that Gillard was brought into a pub one night to prevent Latham cracking onto the then newly elected member of Adelaide, Kate Ellis.

In the "Latham Diaries", Gillard is probably the only politician who is described positively by Latham and given Latham's well known hostility to Rudd, would have been very happy to have seen Gillard become Prime Minister. I do sense that Gillard has been a disappointment to Latham, but Latham of all people should recognise that one's persona needs to be appropriately modified if one is to gain broad electoral appeal.

As it is, I think Gillard came off looking very good from the encounter with Latham, even if the association is a little embarrassing. However, I think that Labor have sufficiently disowned Latham over the last five and a half years and neutralised any damage that such an association may otherwise cause.

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2010, 11:09 PM
Morgan phone poll conducted today 51-49 to Labor (about a thousand respondents).

There is talk of a massive 4000-voter poll of 17 marginal seats to come out in News Ltd, covering at-risk seats in Qld and NSW. The problem is that the sample size per electorate will still only be good for about +/- 7 points and therefore even if the poll shows a big swing in these seats there is no guarantee all of them will fall.

Oepty
14-08-2010, 11:36 PM
Morgan phone poll conducted today 51-49 to Labor (about a thousand respondents).

There is talk of a massive 4000-voter poll of 17 marginal seats to come out in News Ltd, covering at-risk seats in Qld and NSW. The problem is that the sample size per electorate will still only be good for about +/- 7 points and therefore even if the poll shows a big swing in these seats there is no guarantee all of them will fall.

Details of the Newspoll in the PDF file below.
http://media.theaustralian.com.au/pdf/140610-MarginalsNewspoll.pdf
Swings to Liberals in both QLD and NSW should gain them seats but it appears Labor might gain seats in VIC with a swing accross the 3 marginal seats averages 6.2 towards Labor. It also appears that Herbert in QLD is a possible Labor gain despite the state wide swing to the Liberals.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2010, 11:42 PM
Thanks Scott - that one is not the same as the one still to come out in News Ltd papers, which is confined to Qld and NSW seats.

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2010, 11:48 PM
Actually it looks like it is not confined to Qld and NSW seats at all but it is Qld and NSW seats claimed to be at risk. The pollster is Galaxy; more details here (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/huge-swing-against-labor-puts-tony-abbott-on-bring-of-stunning-election-win/story-fn5z3z83-1225905307127).

Garvinator
14-08-2010, 11:55 PM
With the Coalition blowing out in the betting, it seems that the general electorate have been none too impressed with the Coalitions plans for the internet.

So we have had two swings this election period. The first being Julia Gillard's citizens assembly and now Tony Abbott with his internet plan.

Oepty
14-08-2010, 11:59 PM
I confused News Ltd with NewsPoll and the fact that both polls seem to have covered 17 seats. The Galaxy Poll looks worse for Labor - a whole lot worse.
Scott

Goughfather
15-08-2010, 12:17 PM
Leading analysts cast doubt on poll figures (http://www.smh.com.au/national/leading-analysts-cast-doubt-on-poll-figures-20100815-124ua.html)

ER
15-08-2010, 07:26 PM
Leading analysts cast doubt on poll figures (http://www.smh.com.au/national/leading-analysts-cast-doubt-on-poll-figures-20100815-124ua.html)

the only analyst / pollster I listen to, because he is objective and accurate is Kevin Bonham. He has made observations such as the above throughout the campaign! Not as going as far as in casting doubts but as in showing inaccuracies!

The following is just one of the numerous examples:


Morgan phone poll conducted today 51-49 to Labor (about a thousand respondents).

There is talk of a massive 4000-voter poll of 17 marginal seats to come out in News Ltd, covering at-risk seats in Qld and NSW. The problem is that the sample size per electorate will still only be good for about +/- 7 points and therefore even if the poll shows a big swing in these seats there is no guarantee all of them will fall.

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2010, 08:55 PM
Some other analysts well worth reading/listening to in my view: William Bowe (Pollbludger), Scott Steel (Pollytics), Antony Green (ABC), Peter Brent (Mumble), Peter Tucker (Tasmanian Politics).

Antony is right; this 4000-voter poll stinks to high heaven from a method standpoint, and between us we probably haven't got close to listing all the things that are wrong with it. If you do lots of sampling but your sampling design is bad and your interpretations are bogus then the result = rubbish. But it sells papers. A real shame as there is so much good work that could be done with a sample size of 4000 ahead of this election.

Goughfather
15-08-2010, 09:19 PM
The types of headings and their impact upon the electorate are quite interesting and I'd like to get Kevin's view on the following. With respect to maintaining the line that the election will be close, which party does the interpretation of the poll results help?

On one view, it is suggested that this kind of reporting actually discourages people from "punishing" Labor when there is a real risk that the Coalition will win the election and thus helps Labor.

On another view, it is suggested that this kind of reporting has a drafting effect, in that it creates a perception of momentum that may or may not exist in reality and thus helps the Coalition.

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2010, 09:38 PM
The types of headings and their impact upon the electorate are quite interesting and I'd like to get Kevin's view on the following. With respect to maintaining the line that the election will be close, which party does the interpretation of the poll results help?

The underdog is helped if polls show them in a competitive position. If polls show the underdog in an uncompetitive position then there's a why-bother attitude among their supporters and you start getting stories about why they will lose and whose fault it is.

However when the reporting of the polls says that the underdog has a red-hot chance of winning, I actually suspect that helps the leader more than the underdog. There's no gain for the underdog between "we're in with a chance" and "we're in with a really big chance", but for the government, the latter represents the kind of genuine, serious fear that can be used to motivate support.

It's all not such a big deal, but the one thing incumbent governments really need to avoid is gloating too much about a positive poll position. So even when one party is clearly winning they will always try to spin the line that it is close.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-08-2010, 11:10 AM
It's all not such a big deal, but the one thing incumbent governments really need to avoid is gloating too much about a positive poll position. So even when one party is clearly winning they will always try to spin the line that it is close.
Complacency killed the Kennett government in Victoria in 1999.

Goughfather
16-08-2010, 12:36 PM
Complacency killed the Kennett government in Victoria in 1999.

And apparently, video killed the radio star ...

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2010, 03:54 PM
Newspoll 52-48

Essential Report 51-49. This is interesting as ER normally carries a pro-Labor bias of about three points, so by normal ER standards that's a 48-52. However ER has a two-week sample phase so the implied negatives for Labor may be old rope.

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2010, 11:57 PM
Bennelong odds are closing. Labor now out to $1.70 on Sportingbet and $1.75 on Centrebet.

It is an odd election in that there seems to be little momentum in the individual seat betting although Labor's polling seems to be improving over the last week or two. Labor have sat at a few over majority for much of the campaign.

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2010, 03:56 PM
This being the election about nothing I don't think this will lower the tone any. Both leaders created playlists of their personal musical preferences:

Julia Gillard (http://www.myspace.com/aussiehub/music/playlists/the-pm-s-playlist-1316010)

Tony Abbott (http://www.myspace.com/aussiehub/music/playlists/tony-abbott-s-myspace-playlist-1315567)

Abbott's list is probably no more or less than you'd expect, C+W and sixties with the slightly surprising inclusion of the Pogues. Gillard's list, urgh, pretty mixed and mediocre bunch of safe Aussie lefty AOR that; not sure we can take three years of rule by someone who thinks that Things Of Stone And Wood are a band. Then again Mark Latham and I share the same favourite band, and he's a total political fruitcake. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
17-08-2010, 04:22 PM
Is "donkey vote (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/donkey-votes-to-go-to-coalition-in-key-marginal-labor-seats/story-fn59niix-1225906291988)" really a factor?

Goughfather
17-08-2010, 04:54 PM
Bennelong odds are closing. Labor now out to $1.70 on Sportingbet and $1.75 on Centrebet.

It strikes me that between about $1.30 and $1.70, the betting trends for individual seats aren't based upon too much of substance. If they were, then we wouldn't see such a dramatic reaction to a few poll results of questionable accuracy. I find it very difficult to believe that Maxine McKew's chances of holding Bennelong are in any significant sense worse than when the election was called, even though her odds have lengthened significantly from the start of the campaign.

The odds at the start of the election for Bennelong were quite interesting, considering that only a 1.4 percent (or thereabouts) swing was required to unseat her. Any other seat in Sydney, let alone New South Wales on that margin would have been quite justifiably considered as almost definitely lost by Labor, with very little point in trying to expending energy and resources in defending the seat.

Obviously, when looking at individual seats, one should look at the reasons behind the voting pattern at the last election and then determine how the changing circumstances (i.e. demographic shift) will impact upon the likely voting pattern at the current election. With respect to Bennelong, Labor's relatively short initial odds seem to be attributable to the absence of an incumbent Liberal Prime Minister and the popularity and profile of Maxine McKew. I'm inclined to think that both of these factors, but especially the first have been overstated. The swing against Howard in 2007 was more or less in line with the swing against the Coalition government nationally and there's much to be said for the argument that Howard's candidature in the seat was as much of a hindrance as it was a help. Even though Howard's personal vote would have been helped by his status of Prime Minister, he was extremely unpopular at the time and there was always the threat that if Labor was to win the election, then Howard would resign anyway and Bennelong would have been subjected to a by-election. I suspect that what tipped McKew over the line last time was that by election day 2007, a Coalition win looked very unlikely and thus that the prospect of Howard being Prime Minister were slim, even if he won the seat.

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2010, 05:06 PM
Is "donkey vote (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/donkey-votes-to-go-to-coalition-in-key-marginal-labor-seats/story-fn59niix-1225906291988)" really a factor?

Nowhere near as much as that article reckons. Costar says 2% of all votes are donkeys but last election there were many seats where obscure candidates who drew top of the ballot scored less than 2% of all votes (and that would include genuine votes for the candidates, not just donkeys), and some cases where they scored less than 1% of all votes. So it is unlikely that the donkey vote really exceeds 1%. It may not even be that great.

Another mistake Kerr makes is that he goes from Costar's inflated estimate of 2% donkey voting to saying "Twenty five seats in the House of Representatives - a sixth - have margins of under 2 per cent." But in about half those seats the losing party would have had the donkey vote last time, and therefore changing the donkey vote doesn't change the notional outcome in those seats.

Furthermore while the article starts by spruiking the Coaliton's chances (the heading is "Donkey votes to go to the Coalition in key marginal seats") if you look at the argument closely you can see it is a pile of donkey dung - in all the article lists 14 marginals where the Libs (or in Melboune's case the Greens) get the donkey vote but 16 where Labor does. (For supposedly key marginals the tally is 10-10).

What's also odd is that the article excludes five of the closest marginals in the country based on notional 2PP: Herbert, Macarthur, Gilmore, Paterson, Hughes - all closer than 51-49. Sure, the Libs will probably win all of these anyway but some are much closer in the betting as well as the seat margins than some of those included. And, surprise surprise, Labor gets the donkey vote in three out of those five. It is just not clear why Kerr is picking some marginals as more key than others.

At the moment the most genuinely lineball marginals in the betting are Bennelong, Lindsay, Solomon and Hasluck. And Labor has the donkey vote in three of those.

So the most likely net effect of the donkey vote is zero (because it cancels out with different parties in different seats) or if anything it may help Labor by a trivial amount.

One of the worst articles Christian Kerr has ever written. Thanks for posting it here, I think I'll add it to the list of crap arguments I'm pulling apart in the Tasmanian Times piece I'm writing today. :D

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2010, 05:15 PM
It strikes me that between about $1.30 and $1.70, the betting trends for individual seats aren't based upon too much of substance.

Early in the campaign they're certainly not, because the volume of money on each seat is very small. But I am still surprised by some of them even now.

For instance Bass - there is every reason to expect it to be less marginal than last time since last time the Coalition had an incumbency advantage, with a strong incumbent against a fairly weak Labor candidate (who still beat him). There have now been five polls in Bass, and while they've all been small, all of them have showed Labor winning, most of them have shown Labor winning easily, two of them have been 57-43s which is almost callable even off just 200 voters, there is no polled swing to the Liberals in Tasmania and yet the market still thinks Labor is $1.70 rather than say $1.33? I don't get it. (The Lib candidate is an ex-newsreader and the Labor incumbent was disaster-prone, but they've picked a good replacement for her.)


With respect to Bennelong, Labor's relatively short initial odds seem to be attributable to the absence of an incumbent Liberal Prime Minister and the popularity and profile of Maxine McKew. I'm inclined to think that both of these factors, but especially the first have been overstated. The swing against Howard in 2007 was more or less in line with the swing against the Coalition government nationally and there's much to be said for the argument that Howard's candidature in the seat was as much of a hindrance as it was a help.

Yep - the swing in Bennelong last time was nothing out of the ordinary and: ...


Even though Howard's personal vote would have been helped by his status of Prime Minister, he was extremely unpopular at the time and there was always the threat that if Labor was to win the election, then Howard would resign anyway and Bennelong would have been subjected to a by-election.

Howard being PM was already factored into his vote in 2004 so there was no reason to assume it would help him in 2007.


I suspect that what tipped McKew over the line last time was that by election day 2007, a Coalition win looked very unlikely and thus that the prospect of Howard being Prime Minister were slim, even if he won the seat.

That could have been a factor but the swings in surrounding seats are alone sufficient to explain the fact that Howard lost.

Goughfather
17-08-2010, 10:24 PM
The odds of a hung parliament are shortening by the day and are now $3.10 at Centrebet. According to these odds, a hung parliament is now more likely than a Coalition victory, including a minority Coalition government. This seems very strange and seems to point towards the perception that there is a reasonable chance of Labor winning 74 or 75 seats.

Sportsbet currently offers $5.00 on Labor winning 70 or fewer seats, which, when reading between the lines, indicates that this is also the current price on the Coalition forming government in their own right.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2010, 12:28 PM
Yes, there's a big disconnect between the individual seat odds and the overall odds and this may well correct itself one way or the other in the last few days.

Bennelong crossed the line this morning and is now Coalition favourite on all exchanges I've seen. At present Labor are favourites in 75, plus Hasluck and Lindsay on some exchanges but not others. I think there are still changes to come because I just think 76 is a bit low and they'll do a bit better. On Sportsbet seat betting, 73-74 and 75-76 were the strongest totals (apart from the broad 70 or less) but this is now spreading out with 77-78 and 79-80 getting closer. (First two are now at $5 and latter two at $6).

I just filed a long piece for Tasmanian Times which should go up tomorrow and I'm tipping 78 at the moment, but I might change this over the next few days.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-08-2010, 01:03 PM
I just filed a long piece for Tasmanian Times which should go up tomorrow and I'm tipping 78 at the moment, but I might change this over the next few days.
You'll probably adjust it slightly at 7pm Saturday night and fine-tune it an hour later;)

Igor_Goldenberg
18-08-2010, 01:08 PM
Greens are reminiscent of One Nations a decade ago (even though their rise is more steady, not as meteoritic), just on the far-left instead of far-right (at least that was the label assigned to them by the media).
However, they are not subjected to even a fraction of scrutiny (let along ridicule) of One Nation, despite being even more irrational and radical.
And treatment of Green by Labor is in stark contrast to the treatment of One Nation by Coalition.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2010, 02:02 PM
You'll probably adjust it slightly at 7pm Saturday night and fine-tune it an hour later;)

I'll certainly be doing predictions of the final tally around that time but that's a completely different exercise.

Actually trying to pick final outcomes from incomplete count results is something I think I'm much better at than trying to forecast seat totals before the election. My record for federal elections for the latter thus far has been:

2001 - two seats out
2004 - seven seats out
2007 - four seats out

Igor_Goldenberg
18-08-2010, 02:36 PM
OK then, further refinement on Sunday morning :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2010, 02:57 PM
OK then, further refinement on Sunday morning :lol: :lol:

Now that will certainly not happen!

(I'll be asleep!)

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2010, 03:42 PM
La Trobe shortening dramatically for Labor today and I think they could start favourites in this seat.

Bass has also come crashing down from over $1.70 for Labor to $1.44 in the last few days as punters finally smell the coffee: it has been shown as a Labor hold in six polls now and was way overpriced where it was.

ER
18-08-2010, 04:03 PM
My penultimate prediction (final to be posted before 7.40 p.m. Friday evening):
Julia to win by at least 6-7 seats. Tonight's "debate" at Brisbane's Community Forum will be of interest not so much of who 's going to "win" it but to some late - late - late "surprise" announcements that I am expecting from both parties. Tony's typical chickening out of announcing the "costing" of his vague promises himself will also be a factor.

Goughfather
18-08-2010, 04:10 PM
Greens are reminiscent of One Nations a decade ago (even though their rise is more steady, not as meteoritic), just on the far-left instead of far-right (at least that was the label assigned to them by the media).
However, they are not subjected to even a fraction of scrutiny (let along ridicule) of One Nation, despite being even more irrational and radical.
And treatment of Green by Labor is in stark contrast to the treatment of One Nation by Coalition.

The important difference is that One Nation posed as a real threat to the Coalition, whereas Green votes tend to filter back to Labor for the most part. Accordingly, the stark contrast you mention involved the Coalition denouncing One Nation's policy platform, conspiring to have their leader incarcerated and then filling the resulting vacuum by adopting the policy platform that they had previously denounced. So while your assessment is probably more true than you recognised, it does not portray the Coalition in a particularly positive light.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2010, 04:10 PM
My penultimate prediction (final to be posted before 7.40 p.m. Friday evening):
Julia to win by at least 6-7 seats.

Is that at least 6-7 over the Coalition alone (eg 76-70-4 or 77-70-3) or at least 6-7 over all others (ie at least 78 for Labor)?

Goughfather
18-08-2010, 04:13 PM
La Trobe shortening dramatically for Labor today and I think they could start favourites in this seat.

Bass has also come crashing down from over $1.70 for Labor to $1.44 in the last few days as punters finally smell the coffee: it has been shown as a Labor hold in six polls now and was way overpriced where it was.

Apparently Labor are meant to have fairly strong chances of holding Hasluck in Western Australia too. The same report suggested that they could hold Swan and even win Canning, although I am very sceptical about their prospects in these seats.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2010, 04:14 PM
Bring on the tactical voting!

Why Labor Voters In Melbourne Need To Vote Liberal (http://andrewnorton.info/2010/08/16/why-labor-voters-in-melbourne-need-to-vote-liberal/)

Similarly in my own seat, Denison, Liberal and Green voters who really don't want Labor re-elected need to vote 1 for an Independent instead of for their own team. (In Denison it probably won't work but in Melbourne it's a serious threat.)

Igor_Goldenberg
18-08-2010, 05:42 PM
The important difference is that One Nation posed as a real threat to the Coalition, whereas Green votes tend to filter back to Labor for the most part. Accordingly, the stark contrast you mention involved the Coalition denouncing One Nation's policy platform, conspiring to have their leader incarcerated and then filling the resulting vacuum by adopting the policy platform that they had previously denounced. So while your assessment is probably more true than you recognised, it does not portray the Coalition in a particularly positive light.
Another conspiracy theory.
Coalition rejected radical unacceptable One Nation policy (and put them last on the preference list!), while Labor fails to do the same with Greens.

Goughfather
18-08-2010, 07:29 PM
Another conspiracy theory.
Coalition rejected radical unacceptable One Nation policy (and put them last on the preference list!), while Labor fails to do the same with Greens.

In what sense is a conspiracy? Or is it that you don't know what the term "conspiracy" means and are trying to impress the rest of us by using a four-syllable word?

Just for the record, you might like this 2003 article entitled "Tony Abbott's dirty Hanson trick - and he lied about it, of course" (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html)

Igor_Goldenberg
18-08-2010, 08:02 PM
Just for the record, you might like this 2003 article entitled "Tony Abbott's dirty Hanson trick - and he lied about it, of course" (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html)
Now you try to back a conspiracy theory by an opinion piece.
Btw, when Hanson was jailed (unfairly, IMO), One Nation was politically irrelevant. As such, I can't see any benefit to Liberal from that.

ER
18-08-2010, 10:31 PM
Is that at least 6-7 over the Coalition alone (eg 76-70-4 or 77-70-3) or at least 6-7 over all others (ie at least 78 for Labor)?

ooops sorry I did not specify:
These are my detailed predictions (to be incorporated into one on Fri, Aug 20th by 7.40 pm)



LABOR = 77
COALITION = 70
OTHERS = 3

or



LABOR = 77
COALITION = 71
OTHERS = 2

Also I would like to clarify that the "at least" part indicates No. of seats which according to my prediction will be won by the Australian Labor Party. ie I do not predict ALP to win less than 77 seats and this will not be changed in my final prediction. ex 77< yes, 77 yes but >77 no!

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2010, 11:34 PM
My TT analysis of this campaign and the current state of likely outcomes is up here:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/election-2010-the-campaign-about-nothing/

It's rather long.

Capablanca-Fan
19-08-2010, 03:30 AM
Costello slams all the Labor lot, as well as their allies in Journalism and disaffected morons like Hewson (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/dont-blame-latham-for-highlighting-home-truths-20100817-128av.html)

In an interview with Oakes on Sunday, Gillard stated "voting for me is voting for . . . a budget in surplus". She claimed over and again that Abbott would cut the surplus. Never once did Oakes ask her which particular surplus she was imagining.

This Labor government has never delivered a surplus. Abbott's task will not be to cut a surplus, but to cut the deficit — forecast by Treasury to be $40 billion this year. But if Gillard can get away with saying this over and over she will. Some people might even think it is true. If no one pulls her up on it maybe even Gillard will start to think it true. It is a long time since we have had someone leading a government as weak on economic policy as Gillard.

Oepty
19-08-2010, 06:48 AM
Does anyone think that Independent and former Tony Windsor staffer John Clements has a chance of winning Parkes? I have heard it mentioned a few time, although once was by Tony Windsor.
Scott

Goughfather
19-08-2010, 12:00 PM
Now you try to back a conspiracy theory by an opinion piece.

I recognise that your chronic sloth in both responding to others and substantiating your own arguments on Chess Chat has become infamous. But please, at least attempt to overcome your sheer laziness by attempting to respond to those verbatim, on the record quotes when Abbott talks about his role in sending Pauline Hanson to jail, including his own admissions of profound dishonesty.

Perhaps I am "running my mouth", as you would say. Get over it. Please focus on the topic at hand.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2010, 01:33 PM
Does anyone think that Independent and former Tony Windsor staffer John Clements has a chance of winning Parkes?

Apparently the best Independent chance aside from those already in parliament. The Nats are really struggling to stop high-profile Nat-like independents from threatening their seats.


Costello slams all the Labor lot, as well as their allies in Journalism and disaffected morons like Hewson

I think this comment is unfair to Hewson. Firstly, Costello's article is largely preoccupied with disaffectation with Labor, and does not provide any reason why a person disaffected with the Liberal Party should change that view.

Secondly, the only comment about Hewson is that he joined the party shortly before preselection and thus is not a long-term party loyalist, as Latham was. But bear in mind that Hewson first ran for election in 1987 and that at the time Hewson was a radical Thatcherite dry who had every reason not to be in a hurry to join the party while it was led by wets like Fraser and Peacock. Indeed Hewson was very critical of Fraser while Fraser led. The election at which Hewson was elected was the first one for a long time in which the Liberals had a dry (Howard) in the leadership.

As for "morons", after a campaign as moronic on both sides as this one, guys like Hewson and Keating (and Costello for that matter!) are intellectual giants compared to what we're getting from Gillard and Abbott.

ER
19-08-2010, 02:38 PM
guys like Hewson and Keating (and Costello for that matter!) are intellectual giants What about Hawke, he didn't do that much - geez Hayden has aged!!!


compared to what we're getting from Gillard and Abbott. Abbott yes, he is hopeless, Julia has class! :)

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2010, 02:48 PM
Abbott yes, he is hopeless, Julia has class! :)

She may have but she has spent most of the campaign doing her level best to hide it.

Hawke is basically just a political rockstar. He has not said anything of any real interest or relevance on the campaign trail but Labor sees to see having him around as some kind of positive.

ER
19-08-2010, 02:53 PM
guys like Hewson and Keating (and Costello for that matter!) are intellectual giants What about Hawke, he didn't do that much - geez Hayden has aged!!! I think it should be noted that Dr Hewson and Peter Costello were never PMs. Thank God Julia did not try to involve Gough in this.


compared to what we're getting from Gillard and Abbott. Abbott yes, he is hopeless, Julia has class! :)

BTW I found your analysis most useful. Masterful moves in combining marginal seats / nationwide effects / possible outcomes. As for predictions it's now only a matter of a bit more than a couple days to know!

ER
19-08-2010, 02:54 PM
ops sorry i was editing the above while you posted!

ER
19-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Hawke is basically just a political rockstar. He has not said anything of any real interest or relevance on the campaign trail but Labor sees to see having him around as some kind of positive.

Yes you are referring to this in your analysis too! :)

ER
19-08-2010, 04:38 PM
I did this

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/vote-a-matic/index.html

It was fun!

I got

LABOR 50
COALITION 19
GREENS 31

I did not expect my Green policies preferences to be so high! Shall I worry? :eh: :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
19-08-2010, 04:41 PM
I did not expect my Green policies preferences to be so high! Shall I worry? :eh: :lol:
Definitely. Some symptoms, if untreated, might cause severe complication. See a specialist ASAP:lol: :lol: :lol:

ER
19-08-2010, 04:45 PM
Definitely. Some symptoms, if untreated, might cause severe complication. See a specialist ASAP:lol: :lol: :lol:

:eek: :hmm: :lol:

Hey Igor, how does it feel to know that in our electorate a vote for Tony's mob is a wasted vote??? :P Good luck tonight! :) good luck to Carl too, I hope it 'll be a great attacking game!

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2010, 04:47 PM
I wasn't impressed with that quiz, because it provides so much detail that it's very easy to work out which policy is whose on each question, and hence if you already have leanings against a given party, you'll likely identify the policies with that party and that can colour your result.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-08-2010, 04:51 PM
I did this

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/vote-a-matic/index.html

It was fun!


Fun indeed. My opinion of Liberal policies isn't that high, but pitting them against Labor and Green makes them shine.
Liberal - 93.8%
Labor - 6.3%
Green - 0.
total - 100.1%:hmm: :hmm:

ER
19-08-2010, 04:54 PM
I wasn't impressed with that quiz, because it provides so much detail that it's very easy to work out which policy is whose on each question, and hence if you already have leanings against a given party, you'll likely identify the policies with that party and that can colour your result.

I know but I tried to be as objectice as possible and voted according to
1) what I thought as fair dinkum policies for the present time
2) how they would affect my personal interests
3) effect on country's future

ER
19-08-2010, 04:56 PM
total - 100.1%:hmm: :hmm:

lol it's not only Tony who can't get his sums right! :P

Oepty
19-08-2010, 06:18 PM
LABOR 18.8
COALITION 25
GREENS 56.3

I am shocked.
Scott

Rincewind
19-08-2010, 07:00 PM
lol it's not only Tony who can't get his sums right! :P

Yes, it appears Igor hasn't heard of rounding. :)

I scored around Labor 56, Liberal 13, Greens 31. Which is about right, maybe higher Labor that I would have thought. Although for several questions (e.g. Communication Policy) I was presented with a trilemma.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2010, 08:42 PM
As I expected LaTrobe (Vic) has now crossed the line into Labor favouritism on the Centrebet exchange, which seems to be the fastest moving exchange; it is yet to quite do so on Sportsbet and Sportingbet.

Centrebet now have Labor favourite in 77 76 individual seats.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2010, 11:29 PM
Late polling:

Morgan face-to-face last weekend 52-48. As MF2F notoriously overstates the Labor vote by around 3 points some observers think this poll is bogus.
Newspoll 50-50 as an interim finding two-thirds of the way through a three-day poll
Galaxy 52-48

Capablanca-Fan
20-08-2010, 04:59 AM
I recognise that your chronic sloth in both responding to others and substantiating your own arguments on Chess Chat has become infamous.
I wasn't aware that IG had to jump whenever some leftard made some inane claims.


But please, at least attempt to overcome your sheer laziness by attempting to respond to those verbatim, on the record quotes when Abbott talks about his role in sending Pauline Hanson to jail, including his own admissions of profound dishonesty.
Jailed falsely by a Labor State Government. Have they even compensated her?

Capablanca-Fan
20-08-2010, 05:43 AM
Bring on the tactical voting!

Why Labor Voters In Melbourne Need To Vote Liberal (http://andrewnorton.info/2010/08/16/why-labor-voters-in-melbourne-need-to-vote-liberal/)

Similarly in my own seat, Denison, Liberal and Green voters who really don't want Labor re-elected need to vote 1 for an Independent instead of for their own team. (In Denison it probably won't work but in Melbourne it's a serious threat.)
That's an unfortunate quirk of our Instant Runoff (http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/votesequence.html)form of Preferential Voting: it fails the Monotonicity criterion (http://rangevoting.org/Monotone.html): i.e. no increase in preference for a candidate should hurt that candidate. I had thought that this was a mainly theoretical problem, but this the second example I've seen in recent Australian politics of it working unfairly in practice as well (the first was the Frome by-election in South Australia last year, discussed on this thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=227573)).

Igor_Goldenberg
20-08-2010, 09:36 AM
Given that Greens are to the (far) left of Labor, it's a bit unnatural for Liberal preferences to flow to Greens. While I am aware that was the case in 2007, I expect this flow to be lower this time. Main reason is there is an awareness that Green can actually win, it should decrease the flow to something like 60-70% (instead of 85% at last election).

Watto
20-08-2010, 10:52 AM
I wasn't impressed with that quiz, because it provides so much detail that it's very easy to work out which policy is whose on each question, and hence if you already have leanings against a given party, you'll likely identify the policies with that party and that can colour your result.
I agree with that. It's very easy to identify who the parties are.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2010, 12:38 PM
Given that Greens are to the (far) left of Labor, it's a bit unnatural for Liberal preferences to flow to Greens. While I am aware that was the case in 2007, I expect this flow to be lower this time. Main reason is there is an awareness that Green can actually win, it should decrease the flow to something like 60-70% (instead of 85% at last election).

It was 82.6% in Melbourne last election. I actually don't think it will change that much; Liberal voters are particularly slavish how-to-vote-card followers.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-08-2010, 12:44 PM
It was 82.6% in Melbourne last election. I actually don't think it will change that much; Liberal voters are particularly slavish how-to-vote-card followers.
Haven't heard that before. Is it just your opinion or there is some research to confirm?

Goughfather
20-08-2010, 01:23 PM
I wasn't aware that IG had to jump whenever some leftard made some inane claims.

You're not aware of a lot of things, Jono.

I'm not exactly sure what the basis of your claim of myself being a "leftard" would be and given you've failed to substantiate your slurs when I've taken you to task in the past, my guess is that you'll fail to do so again.

Igor has the perogative to respond or not to respond to whatever he likes. However, when he makes an inane claim, like his accusation that the whole issue was a conspiracy theory, or your claim that a particular claim was "inane", he does confirm his ignorance when he refuses to substantiate the claim.


Jailed falsely by a Labor State Government. Have they even compensated her?

That's right - you have absolutely no understanding of legal theory, process and practice. As I advised you before, it might save you save embarrassment if you refrained from discussing matters of legal import. Feel free to navigate through Abbott's own verbatim, on the record quotes, though.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-08-2010, 01:25 PM
Igor has the perogative to respond or not to respond to whatever he likes. However, when he makes an inane claim i.e. that a particular claim is "inane", he does confirm his ignorance when he refuses to substantiate the claim.

For the record - I didn't make any claims. I just dismissed your irrelevant dribble.

Goughfather
20-08-2010, 01:27 PM
Late polling:

Morgan face-to-face last weekend 52-48. As MF2F notoriously overstates the Labor vote by around 3 points some observers think this poll is bogus.
Newspoll 50-50 as an interim finding two-thirds of the way through a three-day poll
Galaxy 52-48

When was that Galaxy poll taken?

Goughfather
20-08-2010, 01:27 PM
For the record - I didn't make any claims. I just dismissed your irrelevant dribble.

I just pointed to the claim you made. Twit.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2010, 01:29 PM
Haven't heard that before. Is it just your opinion or there is some research to confirm?

I don't know if there is much direct research on it since cases of Liberals being excluded from election counts are rather rare.

But I do know that in those states where there is a high rate of below-the-line voting in the Senate, Liberals do not vote below-the-line nearly as much as Greens, Democrats etc; rather, they vote 1 above-the-line in very high proportions no matter how the party has distributed its preferences.

Goughfather
20-08-2010, 01:42 PM
As I expected LaTrobe (Vic) has now crossed the line into Labor favouritism on the Centrebet exchange, which seems to be the fastest moving exchange; it is yet to quite do so on Sportsbet and Sportingbet.

Centrebet now have Labor favourite in 77 76 individual seats.

Especially for the individual seat markets, I'm not trusting anything between about $1.30 and $3.00. The markets have been so volatile and the bookies seem to be marvelling at the relatively long odds of a Coalition victory - although they have shortened significantly in the last twenty-four hours.

Interestingly enough, while I was in Newcastle the other day I happened to read that a poll was putting Labor ahead in the seat of Paterson, which is a very marginal Liberal electorate, but one in which the incumbent Bob Baldwin is a heavy favourite with the bookies. Perhaps punters aren't factoring in Gillard winning the meat raffle at a local pub?

Igor_Goldenberg
20-08-2010, 01:47 PM
I just pointed to the claim you made. Twit.
So you claim that I claimed that your claim was irrelevant dribble. :clap: :clap: Pat yourself on the back.

Goughfather
20-08-2010, 01:49 PM
So you claim that I claimed that your claim was irrelevant dribble. :clap: :clap: Pat yourself on the back.

I agree with Rincewind. Comprehension is not your strong suit.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-08-2010, 01:51 PM
I don't know if there is much direct research on it since cases of Liberals being excluded from election counts are rather rare.

But I do know that in those states where there is a high rate of below-the-line voting in the Senate, Liberals do not vote below-the-line nearly as much as Greens, Democrats etc; rather, they vote 1 above-the-line in very high proportions no matter how the party has distributed its preferences.
Voting below the line in the Senate is not worth the trouble for most people.
However, it does not indicate following how-to-vote cards in the lower house.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-08-2010, 01:52 PM
I agree with Rincewind.
I am not surprised, you both belong to the same illogical short-sighted obnoxious ill-behaved basket.

Rincewind
20-08-2010, 02:04 PM
I am not surprised, you both belong to the same illogical short-sighted obnoxious ill-behaved basket.

If by ill-behaved you mean blunt, then I would agree with that. Most people would probably agree with the statement, just most of those people are too polite to put it too you that bluntly. However, we are mostly adults here and I see no point in sweetening the truth with euphemisms. Especially when you are simultaneously such a complete wally.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-08-2010, 03:10 PM
Late polling:

Morgan face-to-face last weekend 52-48. As MF2F notoriously overstates the Labor vote by around 3 points some observers think this poll is bogus.
Newspoll 50-50 as an interim finding two-thirds of the way through a three-day poll
Galaxy 52-48
Media loves close election, they will push this line even if result more or less obvious. I have little doubts Labor will sneak in tomorrow. (will be quite happy to be proven wrong!)

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2010, 05:20 PM
Voting below the line in the Senate is not worth the trouble for most people.

This varies by state. In the big state almost no-one does it as there are too many candidates. But in Tasmania 90% of Lib voters and 89% of Labor voters vote above the line, but only 66% of Greens voters do, because they are more independent-minded and knowledgeable about how the preferencing system works. And Greens voters are notoriously difficult to get to follow how-to-vote cards in the Lower House; this has been studied in detail and the Green how-to-vote card only makes about 10% difference to the way their preferences flow. Major party HTVs make a lot more difference judging from comments by scrutineers, but I'm not aware of any formalised study of it.

There are some comments on Bryan Palmer's OzPolitics site along similar lines to what I'm saying here (http://australianpolitics.com/elections/htv/) :

"Overall, how-to-vote cards tend to work for the major parties. Voters for minor candidates are not necessarily so easy to predict. All parties know that it is important to have polling booths staffed on election day so that every voter receives a copy of the how-to-vote card. "

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2010, 05:45 PM
Especially for the individual seat markets, I'm not trusting anything between about $1.30 and $3.00. The markets have been so volatile and the bookies seem to be marvelling at the relatively long odds of a Coalition victory - although they have shortened significantly in the last twenty-four hours.

Yes, the headline rate for the Coalition has come in to $2.67 today and it will be interesting to see if it comes down much further before they close the markets (and I'm not sure when that is).

Hung parliament is now in to $2.15 vs $1.64, ie almost as likely to happen as not!

Lindsay has firmed greatly for the Coalition and both Bonner and Petrie (Qld) have gone marginal - Labor is still ahead but I'm not sure that it will stay that way. And the line has come down to 4.5 from 6.5 with the short side being the Coalition. The line is Labor minus Liberal so that means the punters think it is more likely that Labor will win 76 or less seats than that they will win 77 or more.

The seats inside $1.30 are quite interesting at this stage because some of them plunge unpredictably while others remain the same.

Oddly, Longman hasn't come in although the sitting member there made a serious gaffe at a public forum there yesterday and had to apologise. And another one I'm surprised hasn't moved more is Greenway.


Interestingly enough, while I was in Newcastle the other day I happened to read that a poll was putting Labor ahead in the seat of Paterson, which is a very marginal Liberal electorate, but one in which the incumbent Bob Baldwin is a heavy favourite with the bookies.

I think two polls have shown Labor ahead in this one now but the punters just aren't interested.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2010, 06:15 PM
When was that Galaxy poll taken?

Tuesday - Wednesday.

Today we have an Essential Research 51-49 (over the last week) and a Morgan phone conducted Wednesday-Thursday also at 51-49 off a sample of nearly 2000.

So there seems to be a late softening in the Labor vote but whether that comes back again tomorrow as the undecideds have their say remains to be seen.

ER
20-08-2010, 07:28 PM
My final prediction for tomorrow:



LABOR = 77
COALITION = 71
OTHERS = 2

This is my final statement in regards to tomorrow's Federal Election result prediction.
Now it's time for more serious matters such as Chess and Footy!
I fought a hard and enjoyable campaign.
My main strategical win was to have managed to occupy dangerous exponents such as Howie and Jono by provoking irrelevant and usually negligent quantities such as that goughfather character to enter dogfights against them.
LOL at those who believed my "10 favourite posters" statement that GF has enough wits, knowledge or humour to match it with Howie or Jono! GET REAL!!! :owned: :lol:
However, during the campaign I have to admit that I really enjoyed my joustings vs my friend, neighbour and one of the most brilliant Victorian Chess personalities IM Igor Goldenberg! :clap:
Spiny's imput also provided some very special enjoyable moments! :clap:
Having said all that, good luck to all for tomorrow's final clash and may the best party win! :) Off to the footy now and don't forget tomorrow's best in the West!

ER
20-08-2010, 07:36 PM
I agree with that. It's very easy to identify who the parties are.

we all know that, unless someone is absolutely "out of it", the Parties' policies were well known but as I stated here


I know but I tried to be as objectice as possible and voted according to
1) what I thought as fair dinkum policies for the present time
2) how they would affect my personal interests
3) effect on country's future
with a bit of an effort to be objective someone could draw some interesting conclusions, particularly to their Green preferences! :)

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2010, 09:28 PM
Sheesh, the Coalition price is dropping like a stone. It's down to $2.32 now.
Hung Parliament also $2.32. Not much action in the seat markets though.

Remember that everything that's known about the predictive power of election betting markets applies to the final markets. These can be very different from the ones the day before!

Garvinator
20-08-2010, 09:37 PM
Sheesh, the Coalition price is dropping like a stone. It's down to $2.32 now.
Hung Parliament also $2.32. Not much action in the seat markets though.

Remember that everything that's known about the predictive power of election betting markets applies to the final markets. These can be very different from the ones the day before!Coalition $2.64 on betfair.

Oepty
20-08-2010, 10:47 PM
I will make a prediction with as little confidence as possible when making a prediction. Labor 76, Liberals 70, Independents 3 and Greens 1. I don't think that the Liberals will quite get there although a hung parliment is a distinct possibility.
One unknown that will be tested only by the election because it only happened yesterday is the impact of John Sullivans gaffe and whether it will cost him the seat of Longman to Wyatt Roy. It was a seat I was going to have a look at closely anyway but now it will be even more interesting.
Another thing I heard today is that prepoll votes cast within the electorate they are meant for will now be counted along with votes cast tommorrow. This is a change apparently.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2010, 10:51 PM
Another thing I heard today is that prepoll votes cast within the electorate they are meant for will now be counted along with votes cast tommorrow. This is a change apparently.

Good. There is no reason not to do this; it is commonly done in a lot of State elections. Whether they will count them with the booths they came from or as a distinct category will be interesting to see.

Longman is one that I am still surprised is not closer in the markets. Gaffes aren't always disastrous though; at least he apologised quickly.

Sportingbet have a market on how many seats Labor will lose net in NSW and Qld. For NSW it's currently at 2-3 and for Qld 4-5.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2010, 11:06 PM
A frontbencher of the forum opposition has asked me the following:


In terms of my preferences, Labor's really really lucky that the Libs are so illiberal, else they would not be getting them." KB ... Can you say "LDP" kev ?"

Actually the LDP was my second-preferred party in the Senate last election despite disagreements with them on gun issues and on the niggardly amount of their otherwise excellent welfare solution.

However the LDP are not contesting either my electorate or the Tasmanian Senate this weekend.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 12:11 AM
AC Nielsen (presumably final) 52-48
Newspoll (final of that 2500 over three nights) 50.2-49.8

So all the pollsters are in the 50-52 for Labor range, which should be an easy government hold, but with the state of the seats it will be interesting to see just how they do it if so.

An interesting thing tomorrow if it's really close is that WA voters will go to the polls knowing what their vote could mean.

That Newspoll is interesting because it shows Labor on an appalling primary of 27 in Queensland compared to the Coalition's 49. The sample size for Queensland would be about 500.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 01:17 AM
Graham Richardson predicts Labor majority of two to four seats (ie that's 76 or 77 Labor). Says:

In the 15 elections since 1972, I have picked the winner on every occasion. I was never in any doubt about the result.

I do not have a reputation for being indecisive, but yesterday before 10am I had already given two conflicting answers to the question of who would win. On the Seven Network's Sunrise, I said I was leaning very narrowly towards the Liberals. That was at 7.15am. By 9.35am on Brisbane's radio 4BC I was predicting a very narrow Labor victory.

As is readily apparent, I am confused. I spoke to two very senior Liberals who thought Labor would win and to two very senior Laborites who thought the Liberals would win. I have spent hours staring at the pendulum, analysing the polls, roaming the streets talking to punters and trying to conquer my biases.

...and says that what makes him think Labor will win is ultimately that they are still faves with the bookies.

Full Richo thing here (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/anti-pm-leaks-may-prove-a-fatal-blow/story-e6frgd0x-1225907999024). He's not too happy about it all.

Desmond
21-08-2010, 07:16 AM
Heard on the tele last night that, although there is a lot more money bet on Labor, the number of actual bets is close to 50-50. Just the Labor punters bet bigger.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-08-2010, 08:50 AM
This varies by state. In the big state almost no-one does it as there are too many candidates. But in Tasmania 90% of Lib voters and 89% of Labor voters vote above the line, but only 66% of Greens voters do, because they are more independent-minded and knowledgeable about how the preferencing system works.
No, it's because Green vote is much more likely to be irrational.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 12:06 PM
And now we are out at $2.90 for Coalition again (on Centrebet anyway). Hung Parliament is at 2.55. Centrebet have shut up shop in the safe seats. Labor still favourite to win 76 individually but the line is at 75.


No, it's because Green vote is much more likely to be irrational.

I don't see why. My experience of Green voters is that for all their gullibility and naive idealism, they simply are more aware of the preferencing system than major party voters. And this goes for other minor parties and micro parties too, both left and right, with the probable exception of One Nation supporters.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 01:05 PM
William Bowe (Pollbludger) has shifted his prediction from 79 seats for Labor to a hung parliament!

(I have to say Boris's lone vote for a hung parliament on our poll, which was made ages ago, is looking pretty good sitting there by itself!)

Oepty
21-08-2010, 01:49 PM
William Bowe (Pollbludger) has shifted his prediction from 79 seats for Labor to a hung parliament!

(I have to say Boris's lone vote for a hung parliament on our poll, which was made ages ago, is looking pretty good sitting there by itself!)

What does William base his change of prediction on?
Scott

Basil
21-08-2010, 02:00 PM
What does William base his change of prediction on?
Scott
The vibe of the thing! [/THE CASTLE] :D

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 02:01 PM
What does William base his change of prediction on?
Scott

His view of the seat-by-seat picture changing over the last few days.

Malcolm Mackerras has predicted a Coalition win with 76 seats. :P

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 02:37 PM
Morgan weighted SMS exit poll @ 1pm projects 51-49 (sample 1211 voters). Labor primary 38.5. This is a new method and should be treated with caution.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 03:20 PM
I don't have cable but reports are that Sky News is basically saying the Coalition have it in the bag! The basis for these claims if any is unknown, but they are worth noting, whether right or wrong, for the future.

I doubt that anyone knows what's really going on today. I certianly don't!

Basil
21-08-2010, 04:42 PM
I don't have cable but reports are that Sky News is basically saying the Coalition have it in the bag!
Not ATM, they're not. SKY is is saying
• The undecideds-on-the-day are coming back to Labor.
• Perhaps LAB by a poofteenth.
• Too close to call.
• Still a seat by seat grind.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 05:50 PM
Exit polls are all 52-48s and 51-49s. There is one exit poll being recorded in marginals that said Labor 51-49 in 30 marginals too, but without knowing which marginals and how many of those are already Labor I wouldn't draw too much from that.