PDA

View Full Version : The '3'



Pages : [1] 2

Basil
26-11-2007, 12:11 PM
If a week is a long time in politics, then three years must be quite a long time indeed.

A net three people in a hundred switched allegiances on Saturday. The minor parties didn't rate.

ATM there is much talk of Rudd ruling for a life-time - and why not - he may well do so.

However, if two of the three people who switched allegiances decide in that very long long three years that Kevin, Wayne, Julia and Peter actually do have no idea beyond computers and signing Kyoto, then they just might bite back.

Remember, we're not talking about we 'rusted on' voters, we're talking about the true swingers. So we can shout at each other as much we want, but 'the three' will ultimately decide.

Aaron Guthrie
26-11-2007, 12:42 PM
A net three people in a hundred switched allegiances on Saturday.One in a hundred made the big switch from informal to formal (at least in all the electorates I checked up on).

Just checked, it is nation wide (unless postal etc have some weird proportion of the informals or something) http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-13745-NAT.htm

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 01:10 PM
Remember, we're not talking about we 'rusted on' voters, we're talking about the true swingers. So we can shout at each other as much we want, but 'the three' will ultimately decide.
The purpose in our shouting at each other is the hope that some of the three are listening in and will change their minds the correct way.

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 03:39 PM
If a week is a long time in politics, then three years must be quite a long time indeed.

A net three people in a hundred switched allegiances on Saturday. The minor parties didn't rate.

ATM there is much talk of Rudd ruling for a life-time - and why not - he may
Historically it is highly unlikely verging on impossible that a government will be turfed out after one term - the "give 'em a fair go" ethos prevails

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 05:09 PM
Historically it is highly unlikely verging on impossible that a government will be turfed out after one term — the "give 'em a fair go" ethos prevails
Depends on what they try to do. If they try to impose any bill of rights crap, Aussies might turf them out. And if there are strikes and much more unemployment, the fickle electorate might realise that they really never had it as good as under Howard/Costello.

ElevatorEscapee
26-11-2007, 08:11 PM
I would just like to say that it is fitting that the coalition of posters "Jono" & "Howard" are still supportive of the Liberal Party. ;)

Ian Murray
26-11-2007, 08:31 PM
Depends on what they try to do. If they try to impose any bill of rights crap, Aussies might turf them out. And if there are strikes and much more unemployment, the fickle electorate might realise that they really never had it as good as under Howard/Costello.
Give it up, Jono - nobody listens to whingers. The majority of voters prefer the new leadership

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2007, 10:09 PM
A net three people in a hundred switched allegiances on Saturday. The minor parties didn't rate.

Why three? The 2PP swing was double that, so shouldn't it be six?

Basil
26-11-2007, 10:12 PM
100 people. 50 vote one way, 50 the other.
3 people change their mind (assuming all the same way).
Result = 47 v 53.
6 point split.

I will have to go and check that that is what was actually meant by the commentators when they say 'swing'. Nevertheless, if 3 people in 100 change their mind next election, we are back to parity.

Desmond
26-11-2007, 10:18 PM
I believe swing is measured from what the polls said last time, not deviation from 50%.

Basil
26-11-2007, 10:20 PM
I believe swing is measured from what the polls said last time, not deviation from 50%.
Yes. Of course. Crystal now I see it written down. Thanks. Without wanting to confuse though, this thread still concerns 'the three'!

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2007, 10:25 PM
Yes, if 3/100 change their minds next time (and none go the other way) then it's back to 50-50. But despite that, 6/100 changed their minds on Saturday. It's as if 6% were swinging voters and that 6% all went one way last time and all went the other this time (though that's not actually what happened, of course.)

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 10:36 PM
I would just like to say that it is fitting that the coalition of posters "Jono" & "Howard" are still supportive of the Liberal Party. ;)
What about the poster Abbott who hates Abbott? :P

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2007, 10:38 PM
Give it up, Jono — nobody listens to whingers.
They did evidently: all the union whinging about work choices etc.


The majority of voters prefer the new leadership
Give the man a medal.

Basil
23-02-2008, 02:22 PM
So - "the 3". I wonder if there are any ruminations as to their wanting a refund on their KRudd vote. There is no doubt that some of the 3 were motivated by:

-- Give a new bloke a chance (11 years is simply unhealthy)
-- A man to govern "for all Australians"
-- John Howard's broken core-promises (belly-ached about here and in water-cooler land ad nauseam)

and yet, less than 100 days into the Rudd-fest, we have

1. An apology not representative and consultative of "all Australians"
2. Today's announcement that the government plans to cut 2,000 Centrelink jobs. The policy slammed by unions in its entirety and specifically by Public Sector Union as a broken pre-election promise :whistle:

I forget who Jono quoted. "If you're not voting left by age 20, you haven't got a heart. If you're not voting right by 40, you haven't got a brain."

pax
23-02-2008, 02:57 PM
So - "the 3". I wonder if there are any ruminations as to their wanting a refund on their KRudd vote.
There is absolutely no indication (http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0205 Fed 19-2-08.pdf) of that.


1. An apology not representative and consultative of "all Australians"
.. yet one which was apparently supported by the vast majority (http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0205 Apology 19-2-08.pdf) of Australians.


2. Today's announcement that the government plans to cut 2,000 Centrelink jobs. The policy slammed by unions in its entirety and specifically by Public Sector Union as a broken pre-election promise :whistle:
I don't imagine annoying the Unions is going to do them much harm.

Basil
23-02-2008, 03:04 PM
There is absolutely no indication of that.
Ruminations, Watson, ruminations. If true, wouldn't be showing up in the polls yet.


I don't imagine annoying the Unions is going to do them much harm.
Is that arrogance on the back of a 3% ball game, I hear? I hope this sort of silly talk pervades the party quick-smart. Then Kevin B's joke poll option may not be such a joke after all.

The test of your assertion would be "would Kevin say that to their faces?." The answer is no. I reject the same glib answer (your best?) in this thread.

BTW, are you in favour of the cuts? Do you have a rationale? Or do you want what Kevin (either) wants?

Denis_Jessop
23-02-2008, 04:45 PM
<snip>
I forget who Jono quoted. "If you're not voting left by age 20, you haven't got a heart. If you're not voting right by 40, you haven't got a brain."

But whoever it was he, she or it was a nong, or even a ning-nong:P

It must also have been fairly recent as it's not all that long ago that Australians didn't have a vote until age 21. I suspect it was Jono quoting himself:D

DJ

Basil
23-02-2008, 04:56 PM
It must also have been fairly recent as it's not all that long ago that Australians didn't have a vote until age 21.
Perhaps it wasn't the vote, but sympathies.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2008, 05:51 PM
1. An apology not representative and consultative of "all Australians"

Howard peddled "for all Australians" nonsense ad nauseum while frequently engaging in divisive nonsense so I doubt an apology supported by an overwhelming majority is going to annoy those who did not support it (and were not already Liberal voters), especially given that he took it to the election first.

Psephelogically, the apology will do Rudd no net damage, and will probably cost him far less support than he gains. The issues that could quickly hurt his government are coming - they are economic ones, and they are big ones indeed.


2. Today's announcement that the government plans to cut 2,000 Centrelink jobs.

Do you really want me to express an advocative view on this? :lol:

As for the saying you mention, the version of it I'm familiar with is "If you're not a communist at age 20, you haven't got a heart. If you're still a communist at age 30, you haven't got a brain."

There are actually a great many versions of it and they are attributed to just about everyone who is not a middle-aged hardcore leftie: for example see here (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html).

Garrett
23-02-2008, 05:52 PM
Howie - I love your quote (about 20 and 40)

but....

why the F are you worrying about Ruddy's move that upsets Unions ?

Basil
23-02-2008, 06:03 PM
Howard peddled "for all Australians" nonsense ad nauseum while frequently engaging in divisive nonsense so I doubt an apology supported by an overwhelming majority is going to annoy those who did not support it (and were not already Liberal voters), especially given that he took it to the election first.
I think you underestimate (probably deliberately) how many naive starry-eyed fools are out there - especially young uns (a good dozen work with me). There would be many in this country who genuinely believed that Kevin is and will be wholesome and pure and marvelous. It will slowly dawn on them that:
- he is a politician
- expediency is part of the gig
- 2,000 government job cuts actually happen IRL and not because John Howard was evil.


Psephelogically, the apology will do Rudd no net damage, and will probably cost him far less support than he gains.
Well I simply don't know. I accept that you do.


Do you really want me to express an advocative view on this? :lol:
Yes! I wanna see you upset your fellow lefties.


As for the saying you mention, the version of it I'm familiar with is "If you're not a communist at age 20, you haven't got a heart. If you're still a communist at age 30, you haven't got a brain."
Good-o. Thanks.

Basil
23-02-2008, 06:07 PM
why the F are you worrying about Ruddy's move that upsets Unions ?
Not worried at all. I've seen left factions and stakeholders chew each other's arms off in shark-like feeding frenzies on more than one occasion in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

ATM, everyone connected with the left side of politics is on their absolute Sunday best behaviour while Kevin beds himself in. I know as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow that before the next election the knives and will be out and limbs will be missing as the frenzy sets in.

The spectacle will be a far greater one than the considerably dull by comparison versions played out by the Libs at any time in the last decade (both in government and opposition).

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2008, 06:27 PM
There is absolutely no indication (http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0205 Fed 19-2-08.pdf) of that.

.. yet one which was apparently supported by the vast majority (http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0205 Apology 19-2-08.pdf) of Australians.
Which showed that the vast majority don't support compensation, which certainly explains KRudd's honeymoon since this combination is the most unjust of all. If we did wrong people the way the apology states, then those wronged who are still alive should be compensated.


I don't imagine annoying the Unions is going to do them much harm.
Depends on which unions, and the tendency for cross-actions that used to hamstring our country in the bad old days of Labor-Union domination.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2008, 06:32 PM
But whoever it was he, she or it was a nong, or even a ning-nong:P
It has been attributed to Churchill, but likely apocryphal. It is ancient and non-Australian.

And it was talking about normal people, not those Anointed who are insulated from the real world, such as ambulance chasers, bureaucrats, academics and journalists.

Basil
23-02-2008, 06:50 PM
And it was talking about normal people, not those Anointed who are insulated from the real world, such as ambulance chasers, bureaucrats, academics and journalists.
:lol: I would have teleported this to Classic Posts save for its political message which by definition would tickle funny bones on one side or t'other. Suffice to say - enjoyed it immensely.

Gives me an idea for a thread ...

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2008, 06:56 PM
Yes! I wanna see you upset your fellow lefties.

Firstly, the bulk of the cuts may well occur as redundancies and there is still no guarantee that any forced redundancies will occur.

That said (and my sympathies for anyone who loses a job they were performing competently), Centrelink is a bloated, overcomplicated bureaucracy and if job cuts result in a forced simplification of some of its more extraneous nonsense then this will probably be a good thing. It's a small step in the right direction, which would be phasing out every single Centrelink job and topping up the incomes of those who fall below a certain level by means of something along the lines of negative taxation.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2008, 07:00 PM
That said (and my sympathies for anyone who loses a job they were performing competently), Centrelink is a bloated, overcomplicated bureaucracy
That's for sure!


and if job cuts result in a forced simplification of some of its more extraneous nonsense then this will probably be a good thing.
But it is likely that those most in need of assistance will suffer most.


It's a small step in the right direction, which would be phasing out every single Centrelink job and topping up the incomes of those who fall below a certain level by means of something along the lines of negative taxation.
Definitely. And since Estonia and other former Communist Bloc countries are thriving under lower flat tax rates than the 30/30 LDP proposal, it's nonsensical for lefties to downplay this system because of unnamed budgetary concerns.

Desmond
23-02-2008, 07:56 PM
1. An apology not representative and consultative of "all Australians"TBH all the recent carry-on about this seems pretty silly to me.

2. Today's announcement that the government plans to cut 2,000 Centrelink jobs. The policy slammed by unions in its entirety and specifically by Public Sector Union as a broken pre-election promise :whistle:Not sure about any backlash, but I whole-heartedly support reduction in CentreLink jobs. Have you ever been in there? They move slower than the speed of smell.

Aaron Guthrie
23-02-2008, 08:21 PM
-- A man to govern "for all Australians"
and yet, less than 100 days into the Rudd-fest, we have

1. An apology not representative and consultative of "all Australians"If governing "for all Australians" means only doing that which is agreed on by all, then clearly this is an untenable goal.

Basil
23-02-2008, 08:27 PM
If governing "for all Australians" means only doing that which is agreed on by all, then clearly this is an untenable goal.
Sure. A wonderful little trick on the mind for the easily misled.
Governing For All Australians! - Yeah, I'll support that. Not like John Howard.
Governing For All Australians! - Well, most Australians (coz we can't for each and every one - manga just proved it). In power, we'll decide which most.

If yoo look hard enough you'll see very little difference between what is being defended here and what John Howard was vilified for. However, it's not you leftish louts I'm trying to convince (although that would be a bonus), it's 'the 3' that I am wondering about. After all, they voted Liberal once! ;)

Aaron Guthrie
23-02-2008, 08:37 PM
Sure. A wonderful little trick on the mind for the easily misled.
Governing For All Australians! - Yeah, I'll support that. Not like John Howard.
Governing For All Australians! - Well, most. In power, we'll decide which 'most'.Really I would like to see what the phrase means in practical terms. I don't think your interpretation is right, but perhaps there just is no coherent interpretation.
If yo look hard enough you'll see very little difference between what is being defended and what Howard is being vilified for.I have no interest in this debate because I am interested in determining what I think, not if what others think is hypocritical.
However, it's not you leftish louts I'm trying to convinceDo you include me as a lefty? I recall getting a higher right score than you for the most important factor (economic) in the pol quiz. Are you trying to bring down the right from the inside?

Basil
23-02-2008, 08:40 PM
Do you include me as a lefty?
No.

I have absolutely no interest in debating the rest with you for reasons which would be obvious to most (and not necessarily detrimental to you, your character, your intelligence or your grasp of the subject matter).

Basil
23-02-2008, 08:45 PM
TBH all the recent carry-on about this seems pretty silly to me.

Were you happy with the government's stance? If so, I'm not surprised that you feel the carry-on is silly.

Alternately, if you had a position on the sorry issue and John Howard ram-rodded his counter-position by gagging Rudd (little or no consultation, last minute release of details), would you feel the left's ranting about Howard's maniacal behaviour "silly"?

eclectic
23-02-2008, 08:52 PM
Get Over It

Basil
23-02-2008, 08:55 PM
Get Over It
The last time you made an appearance in a political thread, it was an unmitigated disaster.

Get Over What? We are discussing the propensity of The 3. The 3 is a legitimate and vital topic of discussion. In fact, it is because of The 3, that Rudd is in power.

eclectic
23-02-2008, 09:06 PM
In fact, it is because of The 3, that Rudd is in power.

i'll grant you that ... the 3 in the liberal party who couldn't persuade john howard that he should have retired 3 years ago!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Basil
23-02-2008, 09:19 PM
i'll grant you that ... the 3 in the liberal party who couldn't persuade john howard that he should have retired 3 years ago!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Very good. Now off you toddle.

pax
23-02-2008, 09:38 PM
Is that arrogance on the back of a 3% ball game, I hear? I hope this sort of silly talk pervades the party quick-smart. Then Kevin B's joke poll option may not be such a joke after all.
The perception that Labor is in the pocket of militant Unions is still their biggest weakness, since most people (even those who belong to Unions) rightly distrust the barmier Unions such as the Reynolds etc mob at the CFMEU. Therefore a few disagreements with Unions will not do Labor any harm at the ballot box. On the contrary, if they repeatedly give in to Union demands they could well get into trouble in time for the next election.

Bob Hawke may have been the ACTU president, but that didn't stop him from standing up to the Unions when he had to.

Basil
23-02-2008, 09:51 PM
The perception that Labor is in the pocket of militant Unions is still their biggest weakness, since most people (even those who belong to Unions) rightly distrust the barmier Unions such as the Reynolds etc mob at the CFMEU. Therefore a few disagreements with Unions will not do Labor any harm at the ballot box. On the contrary, if they repeatedly give in to Union demands they could well get into trouble in time for the next election.
Well said. Apart from the Hawke tag. IMO Hawke was just mellowing with age (as PM) as well as any standing up he did being politically expedient. Hawke was a vile piece of union loving, business bashing work in his youth.

Other than that, as I said, well said. I will (and have) applaud Kev Rudd for standing up where he has (and no doubt will again) to the unions (so far - obviously each case is different and some unions will have a case), whether his reasons are expedient or not. They haven't been expedient so far.

All that said - whether I enjoy watching or not - there will be union trouble over the next 3 years - and it will cost Labor some votes (rightly or wrongly). I doubt those votes will appear on the conservative ledger and so the impact will be reduced. However, as I said before, it's all about the 3. 3 is a small number and some of the 3 would definitely have been of the opinion that Kev was the Messiah and at the end of three years they will be disabused of that belief.

Desmond
23-02-2008, 10:13 PM
Were you happy with the government's stance?Yeah pretty much. If JH had had a decent set of gonads attached to his body he might have done the same ages ago.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2008, 10:21 PM
Yeah pretty much. If JH had had a decent set of gonads attached to his body he might have done the same ages ago.
Actually JH was the one Lib who had gonads for a long time, in standing up to the globull warm-mongering cult and the "sorry" industry, preferring real solutions.

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:22 PM
Yeah pretty much.
So that's probably why you can't see the fuss.


If JH had had a decent set of gonads attached to his body he might have done the same ages ago.
Well that's your take on the sorry issue, which doesn't belong in this thread. What does belong in this thread is Rudd's singular handling of the situation to which some of 'the 3' may object.

Have we completed the second loop yet?

Aaron Guthrie
23-02-2008, 10:23 PM
However, as I said before, it's all about the 3. 3 is a small number3 out of a hundred of the total vote, but it is not 3 out 100 of the swing vote!

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:24 PM
Actually JH was the one Lib who had gonads for a long time, in standing up to the globull warm-mongering cult and the "sorry" industry, preferring real solutions.
Jono, you know you're wasting your breath don't you? :rolleyes: We've been shoving this down their throats for years. They W.I.L.L.N.O.T.B.U.Y.I.T. (even when Rudd flipped over to the Coalition's line). Give it up! :clap:

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:25 PM
3 out of a hundred of the total vote, but it is not 3 out 100 of the swing vote!
We've already done this at posts #8 through #12 of this thread.

Desmond
23-02-2008, 10:30 PM
So that's probably why you can't see the fuss.So if I think something is silly, then I must not be understanding it? Perhaps I understand and think it's silly. :hmm:



Well that's your take on the sorry issue, which doesn't belong in this thread. What does belong in this thread is Rudd's singular handling of the situation to which some of 'the 3' may object.Well I don't.


Have we completed the second loop yet?Not sure what you mean.

Aaron Guthrie
23-02-2008, 10:32 PM
We've already done this at posts #8 through #12 of this thread.Ah, well I guess you have to keep to "the '3'" since it is the title of the thread, no matter the fact that it is not really 3/100, and thus not really a small number at all.

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:32 PM
So if I think something is silly, then I must not be understanding it? Perhaps I understand and think it's silly. :hmm:
For sure. Only you can tell me ;)


Well I don't.
OK. But you're not one of "the 3"! So your opinion on the sorry subject (or mine) is not what I'm pondering in this thread.


Not sure what you mean.
Going around in circles.

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:34 PM
Ah, well I guess you have to keep to "the '3'" since it is the title of the thread, no matter the fact that it is not really 3/100, and thus not really a small number at all.
Huh? If 3.1 / 100 people switch from Lab to Lib (all other things being equal), the government changes.

Aaron Guthrie
23-02-2008, 10:36 PM
Huh? If 3.1 / 100 people switch from Lab to Lib (all other things being equal), the government changes.We already did this in post #44

Desmond
23-02-2008, 10:37 PM
OK. But you're not one of "the 3"! So your opinion on the sorry subject (or mine) is not what I'm pondering in this thread.I didn't vote Liberal last time and Labor this time if that is what you mean, but I have voted Liberal in the past and I'm sure I will in the future.

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:39 PM
We already did this in post #44
No. Post #44 was your post, by yourself firmly grasping the wrong end of the stick.

The point of this thread has and always will be

If 3.1 / 100 people switch from Lab to Lib (all other things being equal), the government changes.

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:43 PM
I didn't vote Liberal last time and Labor this time if that is what you mean, but I have voted Liberal in the past and I'm sure I will in the future.
I think you voted Labor-lite last time! with full knowledge that your vote (while not #1 Labor) was in reality a vote for Labor on preferences. As for your statement that you have voted Lib previously, you surprise me and I must retract a great deal that I have said previously (regarding your political proclivities). That information does make you one of "the three"!

We've got a live one over here, Jerry! :P

Aaron Guthrie
23-02-2008, 10:45 PM
No. Post #44 was your post, by yourself firmly grasping the wrong end of the stick.Is there any content to respond to here? I think not.
The point of this thread has and always will beThe point of my post #44 has and always will be
3 out of a hundred of the total vote, but it is not 3 out 100 of the swing vote!

Basil
23-02-2008, 10:52 PM
The point of my post #44 has and always will be 3 out of a hundred of the total vote, but it is not 3 out 100 of the swing vote!
Very good. Marvelous stuff. And that point which burst upon this conversation so suddenly and which your are at pains to make has no bearing on anything that we're involved with here.

Aaron Guthrie
23-02-2008, 11:03 PM
Very good. Marvelous stuff. And that point which burst upon this conversation so suddenly and which your are at pains to make has no bearing on anything that we're involved with here.It has bearing on your claim that 3 is a small number, because you only need to convince 3% of the total population, but much more than that of those who actually are at all likely to change their mind. Say 10% of voters are swingers, then of those that actually are likely to change their mind, you need to convince 30% to change their minds.

Basil
23-02-2008, 11:21 PM
I've deleted this (the original #58) message. I'm happy to let your statement stand unchallenged. Life is too short.

Basil
23-02-2008, 11:25 PM
I will add that the final swing against the coalition was 5.45%

"... the Coalition now needs a uniform swing of only 2.1 per cent to win enough seats to govern next time... A swing of only 1.5 per cent on the present figures would produce a hung parliament."

Australian Jan 12, 2008

Aaron Guthrie
23-02-2008, 11:27 PM
I've deleted this (the original #58) message. I'm happy to let your statement stand unchallenged. Life is too short.It really seemed like a simple, fair, and not very controversial point to me. Seems not, but I have no more to say on it.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2008, 12:16 AM
As best I can determine, the Coalition is in a much deeper mess now than Labor was right after its 1996 defeat. It's true that the Coalition needs only a modest swing to win back government next time, and that there are usually swings to an Opposition after a first term.

However, we could be seeing a belated federalisation of the pattern at state level over the last several years of Labor dominance and uncompetitive conservative forces. If that is so then the Liberals will be doing well to even break even at the next election.

(Although things look mega-dismal for the Libs at present, I'm not sticking my neck out with any firm predictions in this regard yet. I want to get a feel for how well or badly Rudd's team deals with economic challenges over the next twelve months or so first.)

Basil
29-02-2008, 08:22 PM
Again, not one for me, the righties or the lefties, but just for "The 3".

I refer to Kevin Rudd's (monument to himself*) - The first 100 days - the book! We've already had the T-shirt. When will the movie be released**?

I'm not sure we have any true members of "The 3" here. To qualify for membership, I'd suggest one has to be able to pen a fairly damning indictment of Labor's past ills as well as (and in equal measure to) that of the Libs.

I continue to muse both what "The 3" make of this (if anything) and what they will make of these types of things at the end of the first term.

I can't stress enough (for the sake of thread clogging and thread differentiation) that this is not an opportunity to attack Kevin Rudd from a position of bias (righties) nor one to to defend his actions (ie that Labor has paid for the book or the report is simply the public's right for a report card or any similar home-ground defence).

*OK that was a cheap and biased shot. The jury will disregard.
**OK that was a cheap and biased shot as well. The jury will also disregard.

Adamski
29-02-2008, 10:13 PM
Interesting story in the paper today (based on just published demographic / psephological - is that a word, Kevin? - research) which pointed to the major factor in Labour winning the last election being Labour's success in getting the Christian vote. Maybe 2 of the 3 were Christian, Gunner (on average).

Basil
29-02-2008, 10:39 PM
major factor in Labour winning the last election being Labour's success in getting the Christian vote.
I wasn't aware of this.

Kevin Bonham
29-02-2008, 11:45 PM
psephological - is that a word, Kevin?

Psephologists think it is.

Adamski
01-03-2008, 09:35 AM
I wasn't aware of this.It was in yesterday's National Business Review or soem other finance mag which was floating around the kitchen at work (not literally). Could be on their web site...

Adamski
01-03-2008, 09:39 AM
I am definitelly still a kiwi - NBR is the NZ mag!! What's the name of the main Aussie finance news mag? 'Cos that's the one. (Note the apostrophe, Gunner!)

Desmond
01-03-2008, 09:45 AM
I'm not sure we have any true members of "The 3" here. To qualify for membership, I'd suggest one has to be able to pen a fairly damning indictment of Labor's past ills as well as (and in equal measure to) that of the Libs.I'm not sure that that restriction serves any purpose. When you consider that the Libs were in for some 11 years, that is the entire adult life of anyone under the age of 30. From that point of view, how can I possibly be expected to list of as many ills of Labor as I can of Liberals?

Adamski
01-03-2008, 10:07 AM
I am definitelly still a kiwi - NBR is the NZ mag!! What's the name of the main Aussie finance news mag? 'Cos that's the one. (Note the apostrophe, Gunner!)See http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx?ATL://20080229000020362090&title=Churchgoers+answered+Rudd's+prayers
Sorry, you have to subscribe to the Australian Financial Review (AFR not NBR!) to see it.

Basil
01-03-2008, 11:40 AM
I'm not sure that that restriction serves any purpose. When you consider that the Libs were in for some 11 years, that is the entire adult life of anyone under the age of 30. From that point of view, how can I possibly be expected to list of as many ills of Labor as I can of Liberals?
OK. Could you suggest any other test of 'swinging' voter? Other than 'I'm a swinging voter'?

Capablanca-Fan
02-03-2008, 11:06 PM
Interesting story in the paper today (based on just published demographic / psephological - is that a word, Kevin? - research) which pointed to the major factor in Labour winning the last election being Labour's success in getting the Christian vote.
This would be a factor. Some of the self-appointed Christian leaders remind me of something on Babylon 5: Centauri ambassador Londo Mollari said to an Earth commander on who was about to take on the Minbari, resulting in the catastropic Earth–Minbari war:


Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you.

Desmond
03-03-2008, 06:47 PM
OK. Could you suggest any other test of 'swinging' voter? Other than 'I'm a swinging voter'?
I'm not sure that one is necessary.

Basil
03-03-2008, 08:25 PM
I'm not sure that one is necessary.
OK. Should we allow the testimony of people who simply say "I'm one of 'The 3'" if their only political contributions have been scathing of the previous liberal government?

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2008, 08:30 PM
I'm not sure that that restriction serves any purpose. When you consider that the Libs were in for some 11 years, that is the entire adult life of anyone under the age of 30. From that point of view, how can I possibly be expected to list of as many ills of Labor as I can of Liberals?
By the same token, how can you be a swinging voter in any real sense of the word, responding to perceived good and bad points of both parties?

Desmond
03-03-2008, 08:35 PM
OK. Should we allow the testimony of people who simply say "I'm one of 'The 3'" if their only political contributions have been scathing of the previous liberal government?
IMO it is not up to you or me to determine who posts or does not post in this thread.

As it stands there is not a whole lot of discusion about state level politics on this site, which is probably not suprising considering that it is essentially a national forum. So unless you want people to harp on about ancient history (they say a week is a long time in politics; 11 years must be an age), I'd say most of the comment will fall on the Libs. As the current goverment's term goes on I'm sure that will change.

Desmond
03-03-2008, 08:37 PM
By the same token, how can you be a swinging voter in any real sense of the word, responding to perceived good and bad points of both parties?
I think you are confusing 'swinging' with 'informed', or perhaps 'seasoned'. Well, I guess you gotta start sometime, and we start at 18.

Basil
03-03-2008, 11:34 PM
IMO it is not up to you or me to determine who posts or does not post in this thread.

As it stands there is not a whole lot of discusion about state level politics on this site, which is probably not suprising considering that it is essentially a national forum. So unless you want people to harp on about ancient history (they say a week is a long time in politics; 11 years must be an age), I'd say most of the comment will fall on the Libs. As the current goverment's term goes on I'm sure that will change.

What a lot of doo doo.

This thread is about 'The 3'. You and I were talking about determining the profile and qualification of 'The 3' (to avoid committed left and rights jumping and skewing). We were making progress, but when I started tightening the noose around your eligibility you launched into ^ dribble which has nothing whatsoever do with the eligibility of the three. You've launched into an 'fg7 I can post anywhere I like type blurb'.

Of course anyone can post here (from a public access POV). That was never in question. I am interested in qualifying those who say they are a true swinging voter. I found your case interesting where you claim to be one, but certainly don't display the characteristics of one.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 11:47 PM
I agree with Gunner that he (Gunner) was not trying to regulate who posts in this thread; he was discussing on what basis a person's claim to be a member of the "3" should be taken seriously (or not).

However I agree with Boris that Gunner has set the bar too high for membership; a swinging voter is not necessarily an informed one who can equally effectively pan both parties - and nor is a non-swinging voter necessarily uninformed. (For instance a person might be able to criticise both parties effectively, but nonetheless feel that one far better serves their interests.)

Many swinging voters are easily bribed with pork, which is why there is so much barrelling thereof in marginal seats.

Basil
03-03-2008, 11:56 PM
However I agree with Boris that Gunner has set the bar too high for membership;
I was happy to keep bringing the bar down (within the realms of common sense) - and still am. Equally I think it's reasonable to maintain the bar above anyone who has clearly demonstrated machine-gun like Labor principles ranging from 'Sorry' to IR over a period of 2 years without (AFAIK) a single word in favour (of any real weight) of the other side. There's been a stack of policy issues discussed and when the scorecard reads 15-zip (as is the case with Boris), it's a monster pill to contemplate that he is by any stretch a swinging voter.

I'd like to make the important point that I was trying to lead Boris to determine for himself that he was ineligible (by inductive Q&A) as opposed to telling him that was ineligible. The record will show that each time Brian said "oh I think that's a bit tough", I said "OK how about this lesser one?".

Desmond
04-03-2008, 04:48 PM
What a lot of doo doo.

This thread is about 'The 3'. You and I were talking about determining the profile and qualification of 'The 3' (to avoid committed left and rights jumping and skewing). We were making progress, but when I started tightening the noose around your eligibility you launched into ^ dribble which has nothing whatsoever do with the eligibility of the three. You've launched into an 'fg7 I can post anywhere I like type blurb'.Presumably my first sentence is what you are referring to as the dribble blurb. The rest of my post, which I stand by, was dealing with the point you raised about being able to raise an equal number of criticisms about either side. I simply cannot that because I was kid the last time Labor was in power. I can make criticisms about state-based labor, and I think I have previously said here a few things I dislike(d) about the Beattie gov't.


Of course anyone can post here (from a public access POV). That was never in question. I am interested in qualifying those who say they are a true swinging voter. I found your case interesting where you claim to be one, but certainly don't display the characteristics of one.You pigeon-holed me from the start, and you see what you want to see.

Basil
04-03-2008, 04:53 PM
You pigeon-holed me from the start
I did.

and you see what you want to see.
I don't.

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2008, 06:33 PM
Paying the price (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23314144-3122,00.html)
Terry McCrann
Courier Mail, 3 March 2008


THE fundamental contradiction between good intentions on climate change and hip pocket reality was deliciously captured on facing pages in a Melbourne yesterday.

The answer to the Vox Pop question whether Australia should make sacrifices in reducing greenhouse gases, received a resounding unanimous endorsement. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes, OF COURSE!

The answer to a Voteline question on the opposite page whether you’d be happy to pay a 10¢ a litre carbon tax on petrol, was just as emphatically, no, no. no. If you accept that 93 per cent is a sufficiently emphatic no.

So here’s the thing. The generic he or she Australian is all in favour of making — theoretical — sacrifices to combat climate change. Just as long as it doesn’t cost he or she [sic] anything.

Here’s the even bigger thing. You think 10¢ a litre is punishing? Try $1 a litre. Maybe $3 a litre. That’s of course if you’re allowed to drive a car at all.

The darker greens would like to save us from both expensive petrol and environmental sin by abolishing private ownership of something so evil.

And all to absolutely, utterly no point.

We can cut our carbon emissions by 90 per cent as suggested by Ross Garnaut and it will make not the slightest difference to any outcome.

Whether or not the rest of the world cuts or does not cut.

Happy cognitive dissonance.

Basil
07-03-2008, 09:31 PM
Scrapping of The Carers' Allowance

I'd be interested to know what 'The 3' think about this issue.

Of course I think Teflon Kev will escape without a scratch despite this being a markedly greater 'crime' than the banal and highly flagellated 'Children Overboard' affair. The Lefties may well say this issue exactly (or nearly) nothing; point me in the direction of a bridge and tell me to get over it.

So back to 'The 3' and the issue of the Carers' Allowance. Four years ago the Howard government introduced a Carers' Allowance of up to $1,600 bucks a year for carers. (Some of these people can't work any more as their life is dedicated to the well-being of others).

I confess to being a little sick in the stomach when I turned on the news tonight.

1. Kev's OS being lauded like a king in PNG.
2. At precisely the same time, his minister Jenny Macklin is confirming that the Carers' Allowance ($600-$1,600) has not been budgeted for due to the need to fight inflation (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23333045-601,00.html).
3. She confirms that the Labor Utility Allowance will increase to $500 as promised in their election blurb (http://www.alp.org.au/media/1107/msagediscfcsloo010.php)

As a father of a son with a profound disability (and husband to a wife whose working life stopped on a five cent piece with Andrew's diagnosis, such is the case with many carers), I have been exposed to a number of families and can testify to how tough (not to mention emotionally debilitating) these things can be.

I know many families where the reliance on this assistance is considerable (we get to meet regularly as one might imagine). In the two hours I have been home tonight, I've seen the outpouring of testimony to verify same all over the media.

My prediction is that Teflon Kev (on his flight back from being received like a hero in PNG) will see which way the wind is blowing, back-flip reinstate the Howard government policy ... and no doubt pick up a ratings boost for his trouble.

Unless of course 'The 3' aren't quite so forgiving.

As an aside, and off topic, are there any Lefties and or Kev Lovers who are prepared to stand up and say "The Milky Bar kid just cocked up. No iffs and butts - just a cock-up."? I'd go as far to suggest Kev's being out of touch, but I know you won't go for that ;)

Desmond
07-03-2008, 09:40 PM
In my view that payment should have been increased, not abolished.

IIRC in the pre-election promises, JH was going to increase that payment. At that time he was attacked for some reason like he was not going far enough; I think his plan had an age limit on it or something along those lines.

But yeah, this is a sh!t decision imo.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2008, 12:13 AM
In my view that payment should have been increased, not abolished.
This could be achieved without the bureaucracy with the LDP's negative taxation scheme, with a higher tax-free threshold for every disabled kid.


But yeah, this is a sh!t decision imo.
Yeah, although KRudd had money for a Labor shrine. And lefties call JH compassionless.

Basil
08-03-2008, 11:10 AM
I hope the typical (albeit second-rate) lefty pile-on that is missing from this thread is due to:
a) silent acquiescence that Teflon Boy has stuffed up, and
b) the acknowledgement is stuck in the throat, or
c) waiting for someone (anyone) called Kevin to appear and tell you what to think

as opposed

d) the inability to comment cogently to due to the cringing nature of discussion of people with a disability.

So ... what do you lefties T.H.I.N.K.? (or are you playing the previously acknowledged off-topic card?)

Kevin Bonham
16-03-2008, 07:24 PM
It's actually due to (e) you specifically asking what "the 3" think about an issue, not long after being very clear that you would carefully scrutinise commentators who were not in fact part of said "3".

Since any of the "3" who might be on this forum probably aren't all that interested in politics, the lack of replies to the question about the carers stuffup isn't surprising.

Basil
16-03-2008, 07:28 PM
Since any of the "3" who might be on this forum probably aren't all that interested in politics, the lack of replies to the question about the carers stuffup isn't surprising.
Quite possibly. And a reasonable supposition.

The lefties however (last line post #86), save pax bless his heart, stayed away in droves. I think many lefties get easily confused without anyone called Kevin telling them what to think.

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2008, 08:15 PM
The lefties however (last line post #86), save pax bless his heart, stayed away in droves. I think many lefties get easily confused without anyone called Kevin telling them what to think.
Yeah, look at the stumbling on the carers issue without Chairman Rudd micromanaging the responses of his ministers.

Desmond
16-03-2008, 08:18 PM
So glad to see we have you two impartials filling the thread. What's the term; Carry on!

Basil
16-03-2008, 08:22 PM
Since any of the "3" who might be on this forum probably aren't all that interested in politics, the lack of replies to the question about the carers stuffup isn't surprising.
Further, assuming we have approx 50 (semi) regular posters (including those that can be occasionally coaxed out of lurker land) then 'The 3' may approximate 1 - 1.5 posters. We might have either already heard from him/ her or perhaps we can expect a visitation shortly!

Aaron Guthrie
16-03-2008, 08:24 PM
Further, assuming we have approx 50 (semi) regular posters (including those that can be occasionally coaxed out of lurker land) then 'The 3' may approximate 1 - 1.5 posters. We might have either already heard from him/ her or perhaps we can expect a visitation shortly!You can get a half a vote out of an informal swinger.

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 08:15 PM
So glad to see we have you two impartials filling the thread. What's the term; Carry on!
Bipartisanship is over-rated :P

Basil
07-05-2008, 02:55 PM
My cursory understanding is that 'The 3' is now 'The 2' :eek: :shock:

And here's (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23659518-5003402,00.html) some more indication of the fodder pap sucked up (or willfully ignored) by a sufficient minority at the last election :wall:

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2008, 03:36 PM
My cursory understanding is that 'The 3' is now 'The 2' :eek: :shock:

The most generous opinion poll for your side that I saw suggested that it is now 'The 7'. :P

Basil
07-05-2008, 05:23 PM
The most generous opinion poll for your side that I saw suggested that it is now 'The 7'. :P
No, you have it wrong. You are referring to the numerical differential. It is half that figure (a blunt instrument) that determines the spill required for a change in government (primary vote).

The poll I was referring to (IIRC) is
Primary Voting Intentions
Smarmy Busy and Useless Rudd: 47%
Libs: 43%

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2008, 05:36 PM
Accusing me of having anything wrong in psephology is ambitious, though it has been known to happen from time to time. :lol:

Even getting level on primary votes would probably not save the Libs in an election at present; they would still lose on Green preferences. But in any case I have not seen anything with 47:43 primary.

The Newspoll released this week had Labor on 47% primary and 57% 2PP; Coalition on 37% primary and 43% 2PP. That is rather better than the Coalition have been doing on Morgan, but if I missed a better one for them, feel free to link to it. 57:43 = 7% swing required, hence 'the 7'.

Basil
07-05-2008, 06:25 PM
Can't link. I defer to your stats. Thanks. My claim was based on something I thought I saw/ heard on Sky on the way out of the door today. It is not out of the realms that Sky mis-reported (their typos are horrendous), but I'm satisfied I simply cocked it up ;)

Basil
03-06-2008, 06:39 AM
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23799748-5005961,00.html)

I know I know ... was always going to happen right?
I know I know ... still light years ahead, right?

Either way, Dr 9% is now Dr 17% - and as I have stated previously a large part of that figure was due to the pathetic starry-eyed vista of the useless Krudd.

I recall Striiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiia did the same with Hawke - useless tit (him) / tits (Strines)

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Two more terms ... two more terms ...

Desmond
03-06-2008, 08:35 AM
Another interesting tidbit from that article you linked, Gunner.


The poll also reveals that despite climate change being a key factor in last year's election, most voters do not support a small rise in petrol prices to help combat environmental issues.

The majority of respondents (63 per cent) said they would not support a small rise in the price of petrol if the money raised was used to tackle climate change and increase spending on things like public transport and renewable energy such as solar power.

pax
03-06-2008, 10:19 AM
I know I know ... was always going to happen right?
I know I know ... still light years ahead, right?
Despite the drastic changes in the leaders' ratings, there was *zero* change in the 2PP. By all means carry on celebrating, Gunner - but it's still '7' ;)

Basil
03-06-2008, 12:19 PM
As was mentioned by a commentator last week - "the paint is coming off".

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2008, 01:06 PM
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23799748-5005961,00.html)

I know I know ... was always going to happen right?
I know I know ... still light years ahead, right?

Either way, Dr 9% is now Dr 17% - and as I have stated previously a large part of that figure was due to the pathetic starry-eyed vista of the useless Krudd.

The poll you're linking to is by Essential Research who are hardly major players in the federal polling game, although I have heard of them once or twice before. As they are just getting started in the game they are probably still making rookie mistakes so any findings they release should be treated with caution until they build up a track record. Their previous 61-39 was too high; Morgan have been getting that in their face-to-face polls but these are known to unduly favour Labor and no-one really knows why Morgan keeps doing them; Nielsen and Newspoll and Morgan (phone) have been in the 57-58 range in recent weeks. So the ER 56-44 is not really news.

Newspoll (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23800746-601,00.html) is showing no 2PP change since previous poll but with preferred PM changing from 70-12 to 66-17.

Most likely some of the gloss is coming off Rudd personally (I'm hoping it's for his clueless stance over Henson!) but because the Liberals are still a wreck they are not getting very much out of it.

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2008, 02:52 PM
Indeed I can't resist linking to the notorious Possum's comments on those of an anti-Labor bent who have taken too much heart from the last fortnight:

http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/the-parallel-universe-of-opinionatas/


One would think that the Newspoll reality being incompatible with what passed for last fortnights fictional narrative of a government in trouble, would have invoked a little reassessment amongst the guilty, perhaps even a little humility, at the very least a reappraisal of the authenticity of the narrative itself - you know, when you’re talking s*** and it becomes pretty obvious, it might be time to stop?

Alas no - not in the rarefied air of political punditry where attachment to electoral reality isn’t a KPI. “Petrol has blown up in Kevin Rudd’s face“, says one pundit this morning, in that sort of Japanese soldier on a deserted Island refusing to believe the war is over kind of way.

Basil
03-06-2008, 04:16 PM
I can feel it in ma water, Scotty ...

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Spiny Norman
03-06-2008, 04:27 PM
I'm old enough that I've seen many governments come and go ... Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard ... and now Rudd.

This too shall pass.

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2008, 04:38 PM
I'm old enough that I've seen many governments come and go ... Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard ... and now Rudd.

This too shall pass.

Indeed so, but when?

The side that is in government doesn't change all that often in this country - only ten times since 1914.

Spiny Norman
03-06-2008, 04:41 PM
Indeed so, but when?
If I knew that I'd opt for a change of career and become a psephologist ... :)

Adamski
03-06-2008, 08:15 PM
Re Spiny and Kevin's recent comments: At Uni in NZ I did a year of Political Studies. One thing I studied was the Erosion of Support Hypothesis, especially in connection with the Holyoake years, for which it held true. The theory says that any incumbent government 's support will gradually erode to a point that the next year it markedly loses support and gets heavily overthrown. In NZ in the 1960s Rt Hon Keith Holyoake ws PM and throughout the decade the theory held true. Late in the piece Holyoake was replaced by the party as PM by Rt Hon John Marshall (who I knew as he was on the NZ Chess Association - as it was then - Council with me; he was President - he was keen on chess). As is well known Marshall was overthrown by a Robert Muldoon coup and Muldoon became PM at just the wrong time as far as the theory goes. Next election he lost badly to Labour's (larger than life, now RIP) David Lange.

I have never studied the theory in connection with Australia or any country other than NZ - has anyone else? Perhaps KB as our resident psephologist you have?

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2008, 08:23 PM
If I knew that I'd opt for a change of career and become a psephologist ... :)

Indeed, psephologists don't know these things either. We know about past voter behaviour and we know when things said about future voter behaviour are silly, but we don't know what future voter behaviour will be.

The median life expectancy of a new Australian government is three and a half terms. Since 1917 only the governments of Scullin (who had to deal with the Great Depression) and Whitlam (and we all know what happened to him) have failed to win two elections as incumbents.

If one looks only at Labor governments it is true that their record for longevity federally is not so good. As mentioned, Scullin lasted only one term and Whitlam a term and a half. Curtin/Chifley lasted two and a half terms and Hawke/Keating five.

When the tories get in they take a lot of digging out. Hughes/Bruce five terms, Lyons/Menzies three and a half, Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon ten, Fraser three and Howard four.

Adamski
03-06-2008, 08:25 PM
So the support of some of your PMs eroded pretty fast! Sir John Kerr was not alowed for by the hypothesis I guess...

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2008, 09:08 PM
So the support of some of your PMs eroded pretty fast! Sir John Kerr was not alowed for by the hypothesis I guess...

Not just Kerr. The situation that allowed for Kerr to act as he did was created by a couple of conservative state governments abusing their Senate appointment powers to stack the Senate with appointees hostile to Whitlam, without which the whole mess would never have occurred.


I have never studied the theory in connection with Australia or any country other than NZ - has anyone else? Perhaps KB as our resident psephologist you have?

A similar theory is often heard here in relation to Labor under Hawke/Keating, the Libs under Howard, the Libs under Fraser (for example).

It breaks down totally (unless you use some kind of fudge factor) when applied to Menzies and his successors. Menzies only narrowly won his first three elections, then thumped Labor in two landslides, then almost lost, then won easily, then his replacement won very easily, and only after that did they tail off (winning the next unconvincingly then losing).

In Australian state politics it works pretty well. It is very hard for a state government to win a fourth term in office outright.

Something else I have noted is that a long-term government that pulls off an unexpected victory will almost always lose the election after that.

Adamski
03-06-2008, 09:11 PM
Thanks, KB. Interesting. Time will tell if the E of S T applies to Rudd.

Basil
03-06-2008, 09:30 PM
The poll you're linking to is by Essential Research who are hardly major players in the federal polling game...
So? Are their figures unreliable?


As they are just getting started in the game they are probably still making rookie mistakes so any findings they release should be treated with caution until they build up a track record.
OK, will treat with caution even though I don't think you've proven anything save cast doubt (that is of course what you said, I've just spun it differently!)


Their previous 61-39 was too high; Morgan have been getting that in their face-to-face polls but these are known to unduly favour Labor ...
You're a good man, Kevin.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2008, 10:09 PM
So? Are their figures unreliable?

Their 61 was, because it is the same figure the Morgan face-to-faces have been getting and those are known to be unreliable ... although they work pretty well if you take two or three points off Labor for each one and add it onto the Coalition,

It's a bit hard to regard a five-point difference between two polls by a company as reliable when the first result wasn't all that believable anyway.


OK, will treat with caution even though I don't think you've proven anything save cast doubt (that is of course what you said, I've just spun it differently!)

That's all I intended to do at this stage.

Actually I recall coming across this Essential Research group in October last year when they did some polling relating to the proposed Tasmanian pulp mill. I wrote an article comparing that poll with some subsequent Newspoll findings and arguing that the latter were more reliable. One point I had against ER was that they asked voters to rank a set of issues immediately after asking them their opinion of a particular issue. I wrote at the time:

Obviously in this case the pulp mill is fresh in respondents’ minds when they are asked to rank issues and therefore they are more likely to rank it as an issue, hence exaggerating the importance of the issue compared to others. This is defective polling practice, and the fact that such an anti-mill skewing factor occurred in a poll sponsored by an anti-mill organisation is a cause for concern.

Disclaimer: I have no advocative view on the mill in question.

Aaron Guthrie
03-06-2008, 10:15 PM
Disclaimer: I have no advocative view on the mill in question.A disclaimer for your neutrality?!

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2008, 10:32 PM
A disclaimer for your neutrality?!

It's quite common for me to add something like that to my psephelogical comments to discourage people from misinterpreting them as support for one side or other of that sort of debate.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2008, 11:48 PM
Late in the piece Holyoake was replaced by the party as PM by Rt Hon John Marshall (who I knew as he was on the NZ Chess Association — as it was then — Council with me; he was President - he was keen on chess). As is well known Marshall was overthrown by a Robert Muldoon coup and Muldoon became PM at just the wrong time as far as the theory goes. Next election he lost badly to Labour's (larger than life, now RIP) David Lange.
From what I remember, Marshall lost to Norman Kirk, also larger than life, in 1972, but Kirk died in office and was replaced by the wimpy Bill Rowling. Meanwhile, Muldoon overthrew Marshall as you said, then defeated Rowling in a landslide in 1975. Muldoon lasted till Lange overthrew him in 1984.

Sounds like you knew Marshall fairly well as a councillor. I met him, but he died when I was overseas for chess.

Adamski
04-06-2008, 07:41 AM
Yes, I got my large men mixed up!:)

I own Marshall's Memoirs, and for those interested in NZ politics they are a good read. RIP Sir John, who was known in politics (but not chess) as Whispering Jack. Sir John was also a Presbyterian Church elder at the church, St. John's in Wellington, I attended at the time.

Spiny Norman
04-06-2008, 07:48 AM
Not just Kerr. The situation that allowed for Kerr to act as he did was created by a couple of conservative state governments abusing their Senate appointment powers to stack the Senate with appointees hostile to Whitlam, without which the whole mess would never have occurred.
I'm rather grateful that they did. Whitlam was a disaster.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2008, 11:22 AM
I'm rather grateful that they did. Whitlam was a disaster.
For a change, even the Media wanted him gone, and he would have lost an election anyway big time. Shame that Fraser wasn't really that different, and just wanted to be PM. Once Kerr had fulfilled his usefulness, Fraser didn't want a bar of him.

snowyriverman
07-06-2008, 05:48 PM
I'm old enough that I've seen many governments come and go ... Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard ... and now Rudd.

This too shall pass.

I presume that putting all these exiting PMs into one sentence is not meant to imply that there is a single reason for the exit?


Re Spiny and Kevin's recent comments: At Uni in NZ I did a year of Political Studies. One thing I studied was the Erosion of Support Hypothesis, especially in connection with the Holyoake years, for which it held true. The theory says that any incumbent government 's support will gradually erode to a point that the next year it markedly loses support and gets heavily overthrown. <>

Erosion of support. Is that a single reason for exit?

snowyriverman
07-06-2008, 05:51 PM
So the support of some of your PMs eroded pretty fast! Sir John Kerr was not alowed for by the hypothesis I guess...

Whitlams support was always going to disappear quickly. He had many Ministers that had their Competence challenged. Cameron. Cairns. O'Connor. And is just the ones at the higher levels.

Adamski
07-06-2008, 06:18 PM
Erosion of support. Is that a single reason for exit?The primary reason - not necessarily the only reason. Stupid policies that the electorate don't like can give a PM short tenure!

snowyriverman
09-06-2008, 02:49 PM
The primary reason - not necessarily the only reason. Stupid policies that the electorate don't like can give a PM short tenure!
Agreed. Stupid policies may be caused by inexperienced Ministers as was seen by Cameron, O'connor and Cairns and other.

The erosion of Howard's govenment co-incided in an awakening that they participated in widespread deceit and hubris.

The erosion of Keating's support similarly had style-factors, rather than policy factors.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2008, 11:38 PM
This set of graphs (http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/putting-the-newspoll-in-perspective-and-us-election-updates/) shows that there has been some fairly consistent movement back to the Coalition in the last few months. Not much but at least it does show that the 10 who were the 3 are now the 7, and that those calling for Nelson to be rolled immediately on the back of one 59-41 Newspoll are silly as he is actually making some progress in what are fairly inhospitable times for his ideologically messed-up party.

The honeymoon effect for the new government is gradually wearing off but it remains to be seen at what support level they will settle.

Capablanca-Fan
22-06-2008, 12:55 AM
The honeymoon effect for the new government is gradually wearing off but it remains to be seen at what support level they will settle.
Voters will still take a while to trust the Opposition. It may be that the QLD state opposition is finally getting its act together after years of idiotic infighting, and voters may finally vote out the scandal-ridden Layba incompetents. Yet Laybe retains the lead. See Poll shows Lawrence Springborg leading Coalition resurgence (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23896213-952,00.html). If QLD and some other state Oppositions finally get their act together and recover their states, KRudd would have to be worried. See also Anger builds around Kevin Rudd as chaos reigns at the top (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23898071-601,00.html).

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2008, 02:17 AM
The Queensland opposition's biggest problem is they can't work out which party is meant to be running the show.

John Hewson had a good article in the Australian last week pointing out how the NSW Opposition was gutless and failed to differentiate itself effectively.

In Tas, our unpopular ex-Premier stepped down after the Liberals finally took the lead in one of the local (and very unreliable) opinion polls; it remains to be seen if they'll get any traction against the new guy.

I find it hard to say which state opposition, if any, will be the first to win.

Of course, once one or two do win, the wall-to-wall Labor scare campaign disappears from the Coalition's armoury. Not that it worked much last election anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2008, 04:08 PM
John Hewson had a good article in the Australian last week pointing out how the NSW Opposition was gutless and failed to differentiate itself effectively.
Is this online? He's attacked the NSW Libs earlier too.


Of course, once one or two do win, the wall-to-wall Labor scare campaign disappears from the Coalition's armoury. Not that it worked much last election anyway.
So it will be no loss.

pax
23-06-2008, 05:31 PM
I reckon the WA Libs are currently leading the pack for "most pathetic opposition". The chair sniffing, bra snapping leader Troy Buswell has just under half of the parliamentary party in open mutiny after failing to sack frontbencher John McGrath for presenting a motion to parliament that had been drafted by Brian Burke (on behalf of his lobbying clients), and then promptly sacking Rob Johnson for expressing dissent. The previous leader Paul Omodei has quit the party in disgust, while ex-Liberal MP Dan Sullivan has joined forces with the remnants of One Nation to form "WA Family First".

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2008, 05:40 PM
I reckon the WA Libs are currently leading the pack for "most pathetic opposition". The chair sniffing, bra snapping leader Troy Buswell has just under half of the parliamentary party in open mutiny after failing to sack frontbencher John McGrath for presenting a motion to parliament that had been drafted by Brian Burke (on behalf of his lobbying clients), and then promptly sacking Rob Johnson for expressing dissent. The previous leader Paul Omodei has quit the party in disgust, while ex-Liberal MP Dan Sullivan has joined forces with the remnants of One Nation to form "WA Family First".
Good grief. Even Labor supporters should not like this, since without a decent opposition there is nothing to keep the bastards honest.

pax
23-06-2008, 05:48 PM
Good grief. Even Labor supporters should not like this, since without a decent opposition there is nothing to keep the bastards honest.

Indeed. The whole thing has overshadowed what would otherwise be regarded as a pretty difficult period for the Carpenter Government, but on the whole they are getting a free run at the moment.

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2008, 07:06 PM
Is this online? He's attacked the NSW Libs earlier too.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23885952-5015664,00.html


I reckon the WA Libs are currently leading the pack for "most pathetic opposition". The chair sniffing, bra snapping leader Troy Buswell has just under half of the parliamentary party in open mutiny after failing to sack frontbencher John McGrath for presenting a motion to parliament that had been drafted by Brian Burke (on behalf of his lobbying clients), and then promptly sacking Rob Johnson for expressing dissent. The previous leader Paul Omodei has quit the party in disgust, while ex-Liberal MP Dan Sullivan has joined forces with the remnants of One Nation to form "WA Family First".

Yikes, what a mess.

They would have turfed Buswell immediately after the chair-sniffing scandal first broke, but the poor blighters have nobody else. :rolleyes:

Carpenter must find it hard to conceal his glee at having such pathetic opposition.

pax
24-06-2008, 01:23 AM
They would have turfed Buswell immediately after the chair-sniffing scandal first broke, but the poor blighters have nobody else. :rolleyes:
The funny thing is Buswell initially didn't want the job, but the Libs were so desperate to replace Omodei. I think he knew some of his behaviour would come out, and would look very bad.


Carpenter must find it hard to conceal his glee at having such pathetic opposition.
Yeah, but he looks smug at the best of times.

Basil
28-06-2008, 06:01 PM
[moved from Information War - KB]


“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” - H. L. Mencken
or the equally despicable

The whole aim of politics is to suggest and imply better things to the populace, much much better - and at the same time not actually explaining how it will be done. Fan this repeatedly with phrases such as 'working families' and 'cunning' - and they will come, they will come in their hundreds and thousands - for they are dense Australian the electorate and it will not realise the duping until other events have long since clouded the charade."
- KRudd (the most cunning of he lot)

Axiom
28-06-2008, 06:20 PM
The whole aim of politics is to suggest and imply better things to the populace, much much better - and at the same time not actually explaining how it will be done. Fan this repeatedly with phrases such as 'working families' and 'cunning' - and they will come, they will come in their hundreds and thousands - for they are dense Australian the electorate and it will not realise the duping until other events have long since clouded the charade."
- KRudd (the most cunning of he lot)
but as you know gunner , my point is that ,you could simply substitute j.howard and his manipulations seamlessly into the above.

Basil
28-06-2008, 06:22 PM
but as you know gunner...
More specifically, 'I know you would', but I wouldn't agree.

Politicians of all flavours are duplicitous, but I contend KRudd is worthy of a quotable quote. He's the champ. He's the cunningest that I've seen.

Axiom
28-06-2008, 06:39 PM
More specifically, 'I know you would', but I wouldn't agree. I said "as you know,my point .." meaning you know my point ! not that you agree with it. (if i comprehended you correctly there! )


Politicians of all flavours are duplicitous, but I contend KRudd is worthy of a quotable quote. He's the champ. He's the cunningest that I've seen. that professed side of politics is certainly guilty of greater hypocrisy.

Basil
28-06-2008, 07:29 PM
I said "as you know,my point .." meaning you know my point ! not that you agree with it. (if i comprehended you correctly there! )
'Roger that', squadron leader. We have détente!

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 08:34 PM
Politicians of all flavours are duplicitous, but I contend KRudd is worthy of a quotable quote. He's the champ. He's the cunningest that I've seen.

He's pretty sneaky, and remarkably impudent about it all. He beat Howard (surname) by being more of a Howard (surname) than even Howard (surname) could still remember how to be. Howard (surname) had got a little bit soft from years of whipping patzers and was ill-prepared to deal with such a tactic.

As Mencken also said:


Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one, at least, is disposed of.

I think it quite likely that many of us who rejoiced in the removal of Howard will also eventually want to be relieved of Rudd. But the Coalition has a big task ahead of it to convince us that any of its number should be the ones to do the relieving, as opposed to one of the "comrades".

Basil
28-06-2008, 08:58 PM
I think it quite likely that many of us who rejoiced in the removal of Howard will also eventually want to be relieved of Rudd. But the Coalition has a big task ahead of it to convince us that any of its number should be the ones to do the relieving, as opposed to one of the "comrades".
'Us' being the smelly lot on your side ;) As for whether 'we' (the sanctimonious and fragrant lot on our side (with a big clue)) remove him, or one of your lot, I don't care - you'll be able to hear me from Queensland.

I still have considerable doubts as to whether Rudd will go down in annals as anything more than a blip.

Odd that two of the words used to denigrate Howard (rodent and cunning), KRudd personifies them in my mind.

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 09:07 PM
'Us' being the smelly lot on your side ;)

Nope. Implicitly, my comment excludes those locked into either.


As for whether 'we' (the sanctimonious and fragrant lot on our side (with a big clue)) remove him, or one of your lot, I don't care - you'll be able to hear me from Queensland.

Yep, I'll be able to hear you waking up screaming at three every night if Julia Gillard takes over. :D

She's got to be far scarier to any Liberal diehard than Rudd - especially if it turned out that while utterly unelectable as a new leader, she might be able to stay there if she ever got the job on a platter.

Surely Rudd's partial imitation of his predecessor is at least vaguely flattering for your mob.

Axiom
28-06-2008, 09:12 PM
He's pretty sneaky, and remarkably impudent about it all. He beat Howard (surname) by being more of a Howard (surname) than even Howard (surname) could still remember how to be. Howard (surname) had got a little bit soft from years of whipping patzers and was ill-prepared to deal with such a tactic. maybe not the sneakiest as he is at least well and truly sprung here, its the finest puppets that avoid such immediate suspicions.






I think it quite likely that many of us who rejoiced in the removal of Howard will also eventually want to be relieved of Rudd. But the Coalition has a big task ahead of it to convince us that any of its number should be the ones to do the relieving, as opposed to one of the "comrades". getting dizzy on this revolving rejoice merry go round ?

Basil
28-06-2008, 09:19 PM
Nope. Implicitly, my comment excludes those locked into either.
Ah, the 90% of Autralians who claim to be part of 'the 3' :wall:


Yep, I'll be able to hear you waking up screaming at three every night if Julia Gillard takes over. :D

She's got to be far scarier to any Liberal diehard than Rudd - especially if it turned out that while utterly unelectable as a new leader, she might be able to stay there if she ever got the job on a platter.
Not at all. I put at least 50% of Laba's traction with the electorate at the feet of Rudd. He's got the Hawke charisma or whatever it is that mesmerises people so.

I'd opine (based on very little beyond gut) that Gillard would be utterly hopeless for Laba. I'd love to have her in pole position (if you pardon the unfortunate turn of phrase).


Surely Rudd's partial imitation of his predecessor is at least vaguely flattering for your mob.
I simply don't see it. I 'get' Children Overboard if I stretch through the jaded eyes of an eclectic. I 'get' Social Security issues (with Howard) if I stretch a peek through the eyes of KB; but in all I just don't get why J.W. Howard was labeled the way he was.

It's not through lack of asking, but all I get back is his statement on record low interest rates or similar. As I have pointed out to SnowyRiverMan, Rudd is already guilty of same. Just wait 'til I start on the computer for every student backflip. How the bloody hell is that reconcilable as not a breach of a core promise when JWH was busted for far less?

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 09:20 PM
maybe not the sneakiest as he is at least well and truly sprung here, its the finest puppets that avoid such immediate suspicions.

I don't think anyone avoids suspicions anymore. It's not as easy as it used to be.

Basil
28-06-2008, 09:20 PM
...its the finest puppets that avoid such immediate suspicions.
Dude, take $30 HCDs. Right there, folks!!! :clap:

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2008, 09:44 PM
Ah, the 90% of Autralians who claim to be part of 'the 3' :wall:

I don't consider myself part of the 3 the 7, but then again the number of potentially changeable voters is much larger than that.

And now that Howard is gone I'm certainly capable of switching to the Coalition should it clean up its act (on many fronts) and should Labor's current communitarian leanings persist. I'm not really expecting the former to happen, though.


Not at all. I put at least 50% of Laba's traction with the electorate at the feet of Rudd. He's got the Hawke charisma or whatever it is that mesmerises people so.

This is true but if Gillard was in then she would do much more damage to many of the ideologies liked by Coalition supporters.


I'd opine (based on very little beyond gut) that Gillard would be utterly hopeless for Laba.

Had she been elected leader instead of Rudd they would have most likely lost, perhaps heavily. But if she were to get it on a platter two years out from an election, I would expect her to retain. The primary things that cause voters to have reservations about her are not political but are to do with her background. These things are fatal obstacles to electing someone to a position untried but, if anything, give a candidate an advantage if they are in power for a while first and do a halfway-reasonable job.

I'm not totally convinced she would be competent. She does have a student political background. When this awful disease gets into the bloodstream of a political figure, it may lie dormant for many years and then suddenly reduce them to a puddle of abject hackery when faced with a relatively simple challenge, (eg Medicare Gold). However, there may be vaccines available.


How the bloody hell is that reconcilable as not a breach of a core premise when JWH was busted for far less?

Howard allowed himself to be seen as too good at his game. Breaking promises is OK if it looks like incompetence; if the people suspect you were too good not to know you'd have to break it, they tend to be a lot less merciful.

PS: moved above 13 posts in here because Ax's thread is too long as it is quite without any actually sane content being added to it. Would be equally happy to move to W2W Labor if desired.

Basil
28-06-2008, 09:55 PM
I don't consider myself part of the 3 the 7...
Just clarifying, 'The 3' relates to polling day. The the 3, the 5, the 7, the 100, the the MINUS 3 :P are all fancies and blips on the way to the next polling day.

I thought the rest of your post was excellent and agree with the vast majority of it.

Basil
29-06-2008, 07:20 PM
From news.com.au

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has admitted there was a clear message for his government in the Gippsland by-election result.

Nationals candidate Darren Chester triumphed with 63 per cent of the two party preferred vote in yesterday's poll, against Labor candidate Darren McCubbin's 37 per cent.

"The people of Gippsland have said loud and clear their concerns about impacts on household budgets," Mr Rudd said.

"The government has taken tough decisions including cutting government expenditure but that's been necessary to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates (which have) hit family budgets, household budgets hard."

Mr Rudd said the government was committed to long-term decision making rather than politically convenient short-term policies.

"The government remains determined to take tough decisions for the future because that's necessary to deal with Australia's future challenges and not avoid them.

"If we avoid them, that puts further upward pressure on interest rates into the future."

Straight out of the mouth of John Howard! *

The difference is that apart from Howard and Costello having a clue, while in opposition, Cunning Rudd, Clueless Swan, Beds Are Burning Garrett and Julia bayed like pack dogs, all the while they


• didn't have a plan (except computers :wall: and some crap about Kyoto that was watered waaaaaaaaaaay back after-the-fact)
• suggested they would do much better (they will do worse)
• played the working families and asleep at the wheel themes to the hilt

They're clueless f***ers to be sure, but those that voted for the seduction, as they say in the classics entirely deserve what the asked for. God bless the electorate.

I want to know who 'The 3' were! Out yourselves! You're responsible for this - not the hard-wired fools who follow Laba into the abyss from birth to drop.

I want to talk to 'The 3'. I will be easy on you. I will forgive you. But I want your vote back next time ;)

And besides, you thought Costello was smug. How's Rudd's form? Are you people awake or are you under the beds cuddling your kids whispering that Julia will save you :wall:

* John Howard was for the large part a conservative. When it suited Laba, they said his conservative policies hurt working families. When it suited Laba, they said the policies didn't go far enough (including fiscal). When there was a budget surplus, Laba said Howard was over-taxing. When it suited Laba, they went for a higher! surplus.

Spiny Norman
30-06-2008, 06:03 AM
... whispering that Julia will save you ...
In my work life I had cause to write to the Deputy PM last week, on a matter of proposed changes to industrial relations (a new award). Will be interesting to see how that goes.

Basil
10-07-2008, 12:55 AM
Straight out of the mouth of John Howard!
And more. Not only did Rudd pinch the conservative economics, he's now pinching the green policy.

Quoting from Sky News, Rudd says

"I indicated that Australia wants to see a grand new bargain, a new grand consensus between developed and developing countries, so that we can act together so that we can bring down greenhouse gas emissions in order to save the planet. Important for the economy. Important for the environment."

He waffled on for six minutes.

I'll spell this out for the dopey lefties (and 'The 3, some of whom were probably soft enough in the head to think that Rudd had a workable and different enviro policy).

1. "A grand new bargain...".
Statesman talk. Hype. Vision building. - All very well, but peel this spin away and what Rudd is pushing for is what Howard wanted.

2. "... between developed and developing nations".
Helloooooooooooooo! This is exactly what Howard was talking about. Not nearly. Not approximately. Not sort of. E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.

3. "Important for the economy. Important for the environment."
Well give the clown a clap. Actually it's not him that needs the slow clap. It's the idiot hard-wired lefties and the idiot easily led 'switcheroos' that thought long and hard and decided that Copy Cat Rudd 747 (he's always on a plane) and that monumental neutered fool of rockstar had the remotest clue about merging the economy and the environment.

And finally, before anyone starts on the 2050 reduction target and Kyoto, that is sooooooooooo far away, it is
a) nothing more than rhetoric, lip service
b) meaningless without what Rudd is NOW calling for

Rudd knows this and THAT is why he is calling for a 1. "A grand new bargain...".

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

You people are nothing but shallow dimwits. Go back to staring at chess puzzles where you can do a lot less damage. By the way, consumer confidence at its lowest since 1993. Mean anything to you?

Aaron Guthrie
10-07-2008, 01:22 PM
No idea where to put this. So I'll say, bloody Labor will end up allowing the demon to win. Bloody Labor.

Inflation demon still lurking, IMF warns Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/10/2299801.htm?section=justin)

(ABC online has some dodgy headlines nowadays. And not one quote in that article.)

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2008, 10:00 PM
In #103 I warned that poll findings by Essential Research should be treated with caution as the group is new and may not have yet straightened out all problems in its polling methods. Although I could not cite any general global problems their methods had, one has just been pointed out by the ubiquitous Possum:


Essential Research use online surveys, but have recruited a survey pool of over 100,000 people with most apparently recruited using non-online means, which I’d imagine were mail outs and phone calls to get them to join that pool. They send out a weekly survey to about 8000 people out of this pool and then weight or otherwise filter the answers they receive by age, sex, income and the usual demographic categories to obtain a bunch of survey answers that are representative of the Australian population as a whole.

However, they have a major flaw when it comes to political polling, or at least had one at the end of June which was the last time I looked.

If you head over to Poll Bludger and download the Essential Media release of 23rd June:

http://www.pollbludger.com/EssentialReport_230608.pdf

And then turn to page 9 of that document, you can see their demographic breakdown by age.

The big problem here is that there were no people over the age of 65 in their sample (probably because they’ve found it difficult to recruit that age group for online surveys like most organisations). But you also might notice that they’ve “overweighted” the 50-65 year age group to make up for the lack of the over 65’s.

The big, big, big problem with doing this is that the over 65’s are the Coalitions strongest demographic of support and the only demographic that the Coalition can be said to dominate politically. The 50-65 are Boomers and vote Labor far more than the over 65 group, yet Essential Research simply takes those Boomers, overweights them and uses them to make up for the shortfall of the over 65s in the sample, skewing the political polling results toward Labor by about 2% on the primary vote and 3% on the TPP by my calculations.

Boomers arent pre-boomers, they vote differently - you cant pretend that they’re the same because it’s convenient, which is what seems to be happening here.

They need to stand in the naughty corner for a bit.

Basil
26-02-2009, 11:36 AM
Any of 'The 3' (yes they have increased in number) have an opinion on

Pearson blasts Rudd (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25107827-2702,00.html) - one of a number of recent calls to account that Rudd continues to be
• the master of gesture politics
• unable to deliver anything of actual social value (God bless the schoolgirls who aren't reading this, while checking his next shopping centre itinerary).

or

Kevin 707 (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25107298-661,00.html)
I very much doubt that KRudd learned a damn thing while overseas and I'm even more certain that he offered less! The man was (until abruptly halted by the present crisis) a preening self-flagellator preparing his global profile for the annals.

or

The Happy Party (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25109367-29277,00.html)
Big government. Big spending. Fests.

Any comments from 'The 3'.

You rusted-on people ... you wanted him ... you love him ... carry on!

Desmond
26-02-2009, 12:21 PM
Any of 'The 3' (yes they have increased in number) have an opinion on

Pearson blasts Rudd (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25107827-2702,00.html) - one of a number of recent calls to account that Rudd continues to be
• the master of gesture politics
• unable to deliver anything of actual social value (God bless the schoolgirls who aren't reading this, while checking his next shopping centre itinerary).
This issue is unlikely to sway my vote much.

Kevin 707 (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25107298-661,00.html)
I very much doubt that KRudd learned a damn thing while overseas and I'm even more certain that he offered less! The man was (until abruptly halted by the present crisis) a preening self-flagellator preparing his global profile for the annals.Yes this does look bad. Can't think of too many foreign leaders coming to visit Kevin so often, so why does he need to visit them? Surely most matters can be discussed remotely. I think some things do require face-to-face meeting, but not all this. And why always the PM? Don't we have finance ministers to discuss the ecomony and foreign ministers to deal with other stuff?


The Happy Party (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25109367-29277,00.html)
Big government. Big spending. Fests. Sounds like a beat-up. We're not talking about $1m weekend in Vegas, this was a series of 5-day courses

Basil
14-03-2009, 07:48 PM
A surprisingly sharp and aggressive piece (IMO and compared to its usual reserve) from 'PM' (the current affairs evening program) on ABC radio on Friday (just past), attacking KRudd. Not Laba, but KRudd.

The piece went like this:

Is Kevin Rudd all talk and no action? Repeatedly? Does his entire repertoire revolve around news headlines, cameras and perception?

2020 Summit. This time last year. KRudd promised results published by Christmas at latest. Could have been earlier, but Christmas at absolute latest. Where are the results? The Prime Minister's office has not returned PM's calls on this issue since Tuesday.

The question was posed 'Did Rudd's interest in the summit finish when the lights went out?'. The PM program produced a range of lefty boffins, academics, bleeding hearts and apologists who loved KRudd for his 2020 stunt and now feel far from love, and even accuse him of the whoring that my side of politics know he's been up to his neck for yonks.

PM then got busy and suggested that the same repertoire has been applied to the homeless, the indigenous and the environment (IIRC).

Did you miss the repertoire?
1. Make a headline statement such such as Indig, Homeless, Ideas Summit
2. Create a concept in the public's mind that appears truly ground-breaking; viz computers on desks, impossible eradication of problem
3. Package it into 30 second tv grabs
4. Move on to the next

In all KRudd creates a perception among the easily fooled that he's busy, on a mission, fixing things. In fact, he's doing sweet fanny adams.

Chuck in the 707 behavior, the grocery watch debacle, the self-serving headline stealing in his non-portfolios and the obligation shifting to his ministers for bad news and ...

... well KRudd-loving pin-up girl (in the form of SWAMBO's mum) was around today - she reckons people are wising up to him! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Garvinator
14-03-2009, 07:59 PM
... well KRudd-loving pin-up girl (in the form of SWAMBO's mum) was around today - she reckons people are wising up to him! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Is this one of the people you were referring to in your previous sig? ;) :P

Basil
14-03-2009, 08:26 PM
Is this one of the people you were referring to in your previous sig? ;) :P
I can't recall which of my dribbling rambling sigs may have contained such a reference, but you appear to have the idea!

Garvinator
14-03-2009, 09:30 PM
I can't recall which of my dribbling rambling sigs may have contained such a reference, but you appear to have the idea!
Gunner, in the signature thread, I commented:


Gunner: do you want to be disturbed for: c) people who have had it re-affirmed that their decision to not vote for KRudd was the right decision after much thought and deliberation.

which was a remark about your signature at that time about you wanting to be disturbed only for two kinds of people, those who voted for Krudd and realised it is a massive mistake etc etc.

So hence my comment now ;) in this thread. :lol: Sheesh, keep up will ya :whistle:

Basil
14-03-2009, 09:43 PM
Right. Got it. Yes, she fits the bill, but was the last person on earth that I would have expected.

Well 'expected' within reason. Nothing is more rusted on than an intellectual lefty and they are the hardest to shift because they have reasoned themselves into that position with their own faulty wiring. In those instances the whole bios needs to be replaced - and medical science hasn't advanced that far in 2009.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-03-2009, 10:15 AM
... intellectual lefty ...
I am a bit at loss here. What are you talking about?:hmm: :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2009, 10:34 AM
Yes, something of an oxymoron. As Thomas Sowell points out in The Vision of the Anointed, the left's strength is articulateness, i.e. skill at using slogans and intentions to cover up the intellectual bankruptcy of leftism. One review summarized (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=484):


This modern-liberal elite exerts its influence through institutions that live by words: the universities and public schools, the media, the liberal clergy, the bar and bench. Its dominance results from its command of the information that words convey and the attitudes that words inspire.

People who live by words should live also by arguments, but--as Sowell richly documents--the modern-liberal elite is not so good at arguing as it is at finding substitutes for argument. Sowell analyzes the major substitutes.

Suppose that you doubt the necessity or usefulness of some great new government program. You may first be presented with a quantity of decontextualized “facts” and abused statistics, all indicating the existence of a “crisis” that only government can resolve. If you are not converted by this show of evidence, an attempt will probably be made to shift the viewpoint: outsiders may doubt that there is a crisis of, say, homelessness, but “spokesmen for the homeless” purportedly have no doubts.

There may also be an attempt simply to declare victory by relabeling current political proposals as inherent rights: it will be announced, in vague yet dogmatic terms, that everyone has a right to decent housing and that government is therefore compelled to provide it. If necessary, substantiation for this new right can be discovered in a Constitution that means whatever the latest school of jurists decides that it means.

If even these methods fail to win you over, attention will be redirected from the political issue to your own failure of imagination or morality. It will be insinuated that people like you are simplistic or perversely opposed to change, lacking in compassion and allied with the “forces of greed.” (As Sowell observes, it is always the payers rather than the spenders of taxes who are considered vulnerable to the charge of greed.)

Perhaps the most potent of all the “tactics in lieu of arguments” that Sowell studies is the practice of assessing political programs by their supposed moral intention instead of their visible effect. Thus, a “poverty program” can always be justified by its compassionate motive, even if it turns out to have a disastrous impact on the poor. The opponents of such programs can be blamed for their hard-heartedness.

These are the kinds of argumentative fallacies that occupy a crucial place, as Sowell shows, in the discourse of influential modern-liberals.

Basil
15-03-2009, 10:41 AM
I am a bit at loss here. What are you talking about?:hmm: :hmm:

Looks like a misnomer, right! ;)

intellectual left = brains in vats that have never been anywhere near a Cash Register* (however big), and certainly not responsible for replenishing it, especially if the float needs to be generated (not appropriated :wall:)

Think Hawke (Rhodes Scholar), fg7 and our own Den Den. The extreme left proposes an (relatively) extreme idealogue that is well thought-out, and upon which copious texts have been written. The rationale is quite deep and layered thickly with a keenly an openly declared sense of moral justice.

The big problem is that the policies don't fargin' work. Despite copious evidence, the intellectual left either doesn't credit that the policies don't work (with fiddling excuses) or more likely aren't aware that their policies don't work (reason is these blokes are only able to read deductive and intellectual texts where these appalling models are developed) and not sit up and assess real world commerce, cause and effect - and importantly - disaster!

These are the most dangerous/ annoying types of lefty. There is no reasoning with them. They are oblivious to evidence. They are arrogant to the degree that makes me look quite ineffectual. The effects of their policies are very deep and take years to undo. Other lefties are easily bamboozled and follow the dribblings of the intellectual left. Intellectual lefties rally and form the backbone of the left. Without the intellectual left, the other body parts would fall away.

Intellectual lefties are distinct from other lefties; the wets, the bludgers, the kids and the clueless.

*The Cash Register is both the financial mechanism by which our society operates (funds itself), and the register in the small business person's shop. Anyone with a commercial background knows that 'nothing happens in this world until a sale is made'. Sales are required to assist people in need, building infrastructure and even funding the arts. Lefties don't get The Cash Register and how it works. To them,The Cash Register is simply something that other people operate and supply (hopefully) the copious amounts of cash required to fund their (the left's) ill-conceived ideas.

Spiny Norman
15-03-2009, 03:31 PM
Lefties don't get The Cash Register and how it works. To them, The Cash Register is simply something that other people operate and supply (hopefully) the copious amounts of cash required to fund their (the left's) ill-conceived ideas.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

eclectic
15-03-2009, 03:39 PM
righties don't use the cash register at all; they shift their cash around in brown paper bags so that the taxman catches no wind of it :uhoh:

Basil
15-03-2009, 04:29 PM
righties don't use the cash register at all; they shift their cash around in brown paper bags so that the taxman catches no wind of it :uhoh:
Eccles, we've discussed your contributions to political matters before :eh:

But seeing as you've raised the point ... all people are capable of shifting and dodging cash and tax obligations, from business to Capone to cash-in-hand welfare-soaking lefties. Again you've missed the point.

Basil
16-02-2010, 10:33 PM
Aaaaaaand after three years of eye-popping, gesture-driven tripe resulting in magnificent, record-breaking popularity for KRudd blowing-out 'The 3' (being the amount of people in every 100 required to flip from left to right)we're back to The 3 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/newspoll-rudd-hits-a-new-low/story-e6frg6n6-1225830702740)

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2010, 11:09 PM
Aaaaaaand after three years of eye-popping, gesture-driven tripe resulting in magnificent, record-breaking popularity for KRudd blowing-out 'The 3' (being the amount of people in every 100 required to flip from left to right)we're back to The 3 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/newspoll-rudd-hits-a-new-low/story-e6frg6n6-1225830702740)

In that one poll, anyway. Though, FWIW, it's pretty typical at the moment and the Pollytics phone poll trend has dipped below 54 for the first time since last election. The non-phone polls are showing slightly higher readings for Labor as usual but that's because they're skewed.

The problem for the Libs is that there is usually a bounce back to the incumbent party of a few points from the undecided category during the campaign. So they need a few points of further improvement to get to the stage of 53-47 being a plausible projected outcome, and 53-47 is of course a relative mashing anyway.

It may look like we are back to "the 3" now but if there was an election next week the 3 would blow out to the 6 and the Coalition would be mutilated.

The good news for them is that if their current rate of steady improvement continues (it's about 3 points in 5 months) then by the time of an election around August they'd be about 50-50 in polling, which would probably pan out to a similar result to last time.

Basil
20-02-2010, 03:39 PM
... then by the time of an election around August they'd be about 50-50 in polling, which would probably pan out to a similar result to last time.
I agree and have known since Rudd swept in the first time that his was a two-term holding. The difference between me and some others (with very little nous and experience) is that they may have led themselves to believe that he was there forever.

This (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/this-town-aint-big-enough-for-both-rudd-and-abbott/story-e6frgd0x-1225832352211) from The Australian agrees with both of us regarding Rudd's second term, but more interestingly for me is that this is the second piece this week basically outing the man as more of a one-hit wonder than an artist of enduring talent - again something I was on about three years ago.

The man's political offerings are a shallow and artificial construct - I'm not sure what other deduction one can make from the commentary of these two pieces in The Australian.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2010, 08:34 PM
The Australian is quite a skewed and non-credible source of psephological commentary and has been for some time. That said van Onsolen is not one of the prime offenders.

I'm actually not all that convinced of his line here. I agree that if the Coalition goes backwards Abbott won't still be there at the next election, but if the result is reasonably close I don't see why Labor would roll Rudd for Gillard. I can't recall any Australian PM who has been rolled by his own party for not winning decisively enough, and furthermore, there are some substantial electoral negatives (some undeserved) attached to Gillard that make me doubt whether she could win in her own right if she had to roll Rudd acrimoniously to get the position.

Parties tend to stick with election-winners even if the margin is closer than expected because fresh issues create fresh challenges and opportunities and the gap may widen again - looking at the inroads Beazley made in 1998, few would have expected Howard to still be there nine years later, for example. Similarly Hawke's first election result as incumbent PM was much closer than anyone expected but that did not create any challenge to his rule.

I think Rudd's problem on climate change issues is that he is not constructed enough - it is the sort of issue born bureaucrats embrace overzealously and he has to be careful how he pushes on it if the public have got sick of the issue. Polling is showing that Abbott's own confused and often apparently clueless/non-serious stance on the issue (which I do think is constructed) does not damage Abbott as much as it would have a few years ago. And I think the polling understates the extent to which this is actually so.

Basil
20-02-2010, 09:24 PM
Your para 1 - News to me, but OK - I'm not a regular reader.

Your para 2&3 - Broadly agree, and was the main issue where I felt the writer was stretching.

Your para 4 - I think you are far, far too kind to Rudd.

While I believe Abbott is 'playing the game' of poll politics on some issues (as taught by Rudd across the board), I also believe that Abbott believes that climate change is broadly rubbish and with his policy has no choice to serve up what is demanded by the electorate. Sometimes the electorate will accept only certain positions, viz

- "The war in Iraq WAS wrong, wasn't it?" There isn't a serving politician on the planet publicly prepared to now defend the policy (although there are many voters who still believe it was a good idea).
- "SOMETHING must be done on climate change" (don't really care what as long as it doesn't bugger anything much up). There are no politicians on the planet who will publicly declare that nothing should be done though there are many voters who hold that view.
- "WORKCHOICES MUST NOT be bought back" although collectively we don't really no what Workchoices was.
and so on.

The writer spoke well about political suicide notes. However, those no-room-to-move issues aside, we have Abbott 'knowing what he knows' and 'what he stands for', whereas Rudd cannot and never could claim that. Rudd is a vacuous, dangerous, expedient, chameleon-like shell - and I, The Australian and I suspect many of The 3 (which blew out to The 6) are calling him on it.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2010, 11:07 PM
The Australian is quite a skewed and non-credible source of psephological commentary and has been for some time. That said van Onsolen is not one of the prime offenders.

That said I found this PDF of PvO howlers (http://www.vexnews.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Wisdom-of-van-Onselen.pdf) just tonight.

And that said that's still probably less mistakes than Shamahan makes in the average poll analysis article.

Basil
21-02-2010, 12:48 AM
Good grief, Kevin - they are hardly what I'd call howlers. Where did you find them? Boys Own Labor Dirt Files?

Basil
28-02-2010, 03:00 PM
Today's Sun-Herald/ Taverner Poll (of which I'm not familiar - Kevin might be good enough to shed light) shows that The 3 is now The zero!

I did note that the poll was confined to NSW and had 600 odd respondents.

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2010, 08:43 PM
Good grief, Kevin - they are hardly what I'd call howlers. Where did you find them? Boys Own Labor Dirt Files?

I found them at VexNews, which is certainly a dirt file but quite evenhanded in usually strongly supporting the right wings of both major parties.

I would call some of them howlers but the main part of them is spread over four years and it is easy to make mistakes in what is hardly an exact science (there are probably some of mine on here just waiting to be exposed!). I can think of some quite renowned pundits (Mackerras especially) who are wrong far more often than that. Indeed Mackerras is wrong almost as often as not and is still living off the glory of getting '93 right when practically no-one else did.


Today's Sun-Herald/ Taverner Poll (of which I'm not familiar - Kevin might be good enough to shed light) shows that The 3 is now The zero!

I did note that the poll was confined to NSW and had 600 odd respondents.

Taverner have hardly been players in the federal opinion polling game lately so interesting to see them pop up.

Anyway the margin of error of that result for that sample is 4 points but I won't be surprised if we get a few national 50-50ish poll results in the near future unless the home insulation thing blows over. A government at serious risk of losing would be polling 46s and below right now.

Basil
28-02-2010, 08:46 PM
Taverner have hardly been players in the federal opinion polling game lately so interesting to see them pop up.

Anyway the margin of error of that result for that sample is 4 points but I won't be surprised if we get a few national 50-50ish poll results in the near future unless the home insulation thing blows over. A government at serious risk of losing would be polling 46s and below right now.
Thanks.

Do you have any idea why a pundit group would use a sample with such a wide margin of error? What is a sample required for 2 point margin for instance?

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2010, 09:01 PM
Do you have any idea why a pundit group would use a sample with such a wide margin of error?

Probably that is all the Sun Herald was willing to pay them for. Polls don't come cheap.


What is a sample required for 2 point margin for instance?

For a 50-50 result you need a sample of 2400 for a 2-point margin of error. Samples that large are more or less unheard of in Australia except for very close to elections. You get more information cheaper by doing two 1000 vote samples (margin of error just over 3% each) and putting a bit of time between them.

Basil
28-02-2010, 09:20 PM
Nice one. Now, what about that Dummies Guide To Voting I was musing the other night. Have you given it any thought?

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2010, 09:35 PM
Nice one. Now, what about that Dummies Guide To Voting I was musing the other night. Have you given it any thought?

I may have missed the suggestion though I do have some vague recall of something of that kind being mentioned.

Basil
28-02-2010, 09:42 PM
I may have missed the suggestion though I do have some vague recall of something of that kind being mentioned.
I think you should consider a 'Dummies Guide To Voting' web-site.
I think you have sufficient knowledge.
I think you have sufficient balance (well nearly) :D
I think you have sufficient interest in the subject matter.

I think the site would quickly become a ready reference for lazy journos and lay hacks - a mini crikey.com . As to whether you'd make a buck, I dunno.

Do it!

Kevin Bonham
28-02-2010, 09:50 PM
Thanks for the suggestion and vote of confidence.

I have been giving setting up my own pseph site some thought for a while, especially because relations with my current leftist host have been a little difficult over moderation issues lately.

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2010, 11:53 PM
The Taverner poll 50-50 in NSW mentioned by Captain Underpants above has been debunked.

The raw results (what little detail was released of them) were Labor 42, Liberal 39, Green 6, Other 3, undecided 9.

They somehow botched the 2PP calculation to get a 50-50 result when it is quite obvious that with Labor having a 3-point primary lead and Greens preferences strongly favouring Labor there is no way you would get 50-50 out of that.

The real 2PP is more like 53-47 or 54-46.

Bogus 2PP calculations are a common problem with some polls.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2010, 12:42 AM
A poster on the pollytics blog has provided the following data on the last six elections giving the worst Newspoll 2PP results for the incumbent government in the "last few months before" each election.

1993: Government trailed by 7 points 2PP, and won.
1996: Government trailed by 8 points 2PP, and lost.
1998: Government trailed by 6 points 2PP, and won.
2001: Government trailed by 6 points 2PP, and won.
2004: Government trailed by 10 points 2PP, and won.
2007: Government trailed by 16 points 2PP, and lost.

So that's four wins from six for governments that on average trailed in their worst Newspoll in the three months pre the election by 8.83 points. The break-even point is around 10 points behind

At present the government's worst newspoll result is a 4 point 2PP lead. Based on this to acheive a 50-50 chance of winning the election, Abbott would need to get a further 7 points of swing against Labor by some time in the 3-month leadup to the election.

As he has thus far moved about 3 points in sentiment in five months there is nothing in the current polling trend to suggest the Coalition is on track to win. Especially not since those 3 points were low-hanging fruit.

Basil
03-03-2010, 08:43 AM
Right - back to 'The 3' again!

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2010, 09:13 AM
A poster on the pollytics blog has provided the following data on the last six elections giving the worst Newspoll 2PP results for the incumbent government in the "last few months before" each election.
Does it mean much without specific factors?


1993: Government trailed by 7 points 2PP, and won.
Hewson lost the unlosable election with the birthday cake interview. Polls still showed him leading right up to the election.


1996: Government trailed by 8 points 2PP, and lost.
1998: Government trailed by 6 points 2PP, and won.
They lost the popular vote, which suggests that the polls were on to something, but didn't take into account the distribution of these votes.


2001: Government trailed by 6 points 2PP, and won.
Tampa then 11-9


2004: Government trailed by 10 points 2PP, and won.
Howard wedging the Greens in Tassie, and the Latham factor.


At present the government's worst newspoll result is a 4 point 2PP lead. Based on this to acheive a 50-50 chance of winning the election, Abbott would need to get a further 7 points of swing against Labor by some time in the 3-month leadup to the election.
I agree that this is not good news for the Coalition.

Goughfather
03-03-2010, 09:30 AM
I haven't read through this thread exhaustively, so I apologise if this has already been brought up, but the "3", is actually more like 6, or slightly less, given that we are talking about 3 of the 53 percent changing their vote at the next election. Of course, this doesn't take into consideration that for this figure to mean anything, the Coalition have to retain its 47 first. This figure is likely to be eroded by those who voted last time primarily on the basis of incumbency and by those who would voted for Howard but for whatever reason, will not vote for Abbott. As such, I would think that its likely that Labor and the Coalition will trade a few percent (for the sake of argument, 2 percent) of the vote each before we can even start to talk about a swing. The "3", which is really more like "6" then begins to look a lot more like 9 or 10. Although it's not an insurmountable figure, I think it's probably pretty unlikely at this stage in the proceedings.

No surprise here, but if I were a Labor strategist, I'd be most concerned about losing back seats in rural Queensland and Western Sydney. Conversely, I suspect that there will be a few seats in Western Australia and perhaps even one or two in South Australia that they will campaign heavily to win.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2010, 12:24 PM
Does it mean much without specific factors?

Yes, because there are systematic tendencies towards so-called specific factors, and similar patterns often occur in state elections as well.

Governments losing the 2PP vote but winning the election because they concentrate the Opposition vote in places where it doesn't matter is a surprisingly common theme - it is a systematic advantage of incumbency through porkbarrelling. As well as Howard in 98, Hawke in 90, Gorton in 69 and Menzies in 54 and 61 all lost the 2PP vote but won the election. Every opposition that has won has needed a 2PP of 51 or more, in most cases much more. The 98 2PP vote was also skewed by the preferencing tactics of One Nation, which would not have been picked up in polling and but for which Howard may well have won the 98 2PP anyway.

Oppositions seemingly on track for victory but then derailed by increased scrutiny or errors during the campaign is another standard theme. You mentioned Hewson with the birthday cake and Latham with Tassie forests (and just being Latham) but there are other instances. Howard in 87 (Hawke strategist: "We couldn't have won it without Joh"), Evatt in 54 (blunder over Petrov affair exploited by Menzies) and so on.

FWIW I am very confident Latham would have lost without the Tassie forests thing though it ended Labor's chances in several seats. And I am not sure Howard would have lost without Tampa/S11 as the polling had already evened out as a result of the failure of Beazley's "small target strategy" before then. Tampa/S11 did put the election out of Labor's reach and they actually did very well to make it close instead of getting thrashed.

Basil
03-03-2010, 01:16 PM
I haven't read through this thread exhaustively, so I apologise if this has already been brought up, but the "3", is actually more like 6, or slightly less,
It has been discussed at length. The broad, naive point is that if 'The 3' were to switch from left to right (not accounting for the existence of other options), then 53 would be come 50, and 47 would become 50.

Goughfather
03-03-2010, 02:48 PM
I understand the broad, naive point and only comment upon the need for a net shift of 3, as well as the capacity of this figure to mislead with respect to the task ahead of the Coalition. That's not to say that I write them off completely. After all, if Howard can return to life by being given a triple-bypass long after the political rigor mortis had set in, then a personality transplant for Abbott should be a relatively simple procedure.

Desmond
03-03-2010, 02:54 PM
I don't think Abbott needs a personality transplant. At least he has one.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-03-2010, 02:55 PM
The polls by itself are not very meaningful and rarely produce a reliable forecast.
Betting, on the other hand, is an excellent predictor.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2010, 05:26 PM
The polls by itself are not very meaningful and rarely produce a reliable forecast.
Betting, on the other hand, is an excellent predictor.

Betting was stunningly reliable in both the 2004 and the 2007 federal elections and has done very well in many international elections. It got the WA state election in 2008 wrong. However in the 2006 Tasmanian state election odds for Labor retaining majority government at one stage were as high as 9-1 against, and had only fallen to roughly even by polling day (as it turned out Labor won very comfortably).

What I have observed is that betting is an excellent predictor only if there are reliable opinion polls for punters to base their assessments on.

Opinion polls taken well out from an election tend to be quite inaccurate.

Opinion polls taken in the last few days before the election and done properly tend to be very accurate. The problem is that the margin of error of the polls can make a huge difference. If a poll on election eve says 52-48 from a sample of 1000 that could be anything from a narrow victory to the trailing party to a 50+ seat landslide for the leading party. If you have many polls from different sources it is easier to predict what is going on.

Another thing worth bearing in mind is that betting odds for elections habitually overstate the chances of the underdog.

Goughfather
03-03-2010, 05:58 PM
Opinion polls taken well out from an election tend to be quite inaccurate.

Well, I'd say they turn out to be quite inaccurate in terms of the final result, but they have to factor in the various occurrences that may or may not happen before the poll. Thus, when Centrebet quotes NSW Labor as being $4.90 to win the next election, I'd regard that as a fairly short price compared to where they would be if an election was held today, but reasonable when you consider that the Right faction of the Liberals have had a history of sabotaging the electoral chances of the party, so I wouldn't rule it out again. Should they make it through to the election without shooting themselves and the broader party in the foot, I'd expect that price to blow out to $8 or $9, or even longer.


Another thing worth bearing in mind is that betting odds for elections habitually overstate the chances of the underdog.

I'm not sure about this, or whether this has more to do with the margin of the betting agency involved.

Basil
03-03-2010, 06:12 PM
I understand the broad, naive point and only comment upon the need for a net shift of 3, as well as the capacity of this figure to mislead with respect to the task ahead of the Coalition.
The Coalition isn't winning this next election. Talk of 'oh can they do it? Nearly. Doubt it. Ooohhh no.' only serves to give lefties a sense of achievemnet IMO :wall: Rudd's a useless tit. He'll get two terms. Mickey Mouse could get two terms (especially after such a long Liberal reign). Whether he (Labor, if he jumps early) gets three or four is the what interests me (right now). Apart from desire to see the country return to competent governance, I am interested in part because he's a useless tit, and part because soooooooo many Lefties thought the man was i) talented, and ii) going to rule forever.

The idea of this thread was to discuss getting 'The 3' in 100 people to change their vote. If the finesses of the voting system, preferences, leakage and goodness knows what else comes in to play - great - but there's no headline there. Perhaps if I could have called the thread 'The 4 and a half' to compensate for all of the above.

That's not to say that I write them off completely.
Of course. Everyone of us needs that caveat.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2010, 09:39 PM
I'm not sure about this, or whether this has more to do with the margin of the betting agency involved.

I am sure about this and it is a well-established psephelogical fact independent of the betting agency margins. Happens in horse racing too (called "longshot bias") but much more severe in elections. Going into federal elections candidates who are at 4-1 and longer practically never win. At the last federal election the favourites won in all but nine seats and the longest-price outsiders to get up were $3.50 and $2.80 with the rest of the upset winners $2.50-ish and under.

If it was just the bookies' margin then the outsiders would win sometimes - the 5-1 against types might win 1/8 instead of 1/6 but this is not what happens; someone who is on a <.2 implied probability in election betting hardly ever wins at all.

The probable reason for this is that while most of the elections betting market is smart, a minority of it is not. As more people wise up to this aspect of elections betting we will probably see more plunges on favourites that will blow out the odds for the outsiders to a realistic level.

Basil
17-03-2010, 12:35 AM
Inching towards 'The 2' according to the latest Newspoll. Casual pundits may be interested to learn that the Coalition has held a superior primary vote over The Klowns the left for some time now,

Igor_Goldenberg
17-03-2010, 08:58 AM
Inching towards 'The 2' according to the latest Newspoll. Casual pundits may be interested to learn that the Coalition has held a superior primary vote over The Klowns the left for some time now,
Not quite true. Coalition has higher primary vote then Labor. If you add greens (who are radical lefties, while Labor are just lefties), the picture is different.

Basil
17-03-2010, 10:25 AM
Not quite true.
What's not true?

Coalition has higher primary vote then Labor.
This is what I said.

If you add greens (who are radical lefties, while Labor are just lefties), the picture is different.
I know this - and that's why The Klowns are in a winning position. The Klowns and The Greens have it by 2 (people in 100).

Igor_Goldenberg
17-03-2010, 03:00 PM
What's not true?

That Coalition has a superior primary vote over the left.
Coalition only has a superior primary vote over the Labor.

Basil
17-03-2010, 06:29 PM
That Coalition has a superior primary vote over the left.
Coalition only has a superior primary vote over the Labor.
I see. Yes I did say left (intending Laba), however I think my meaning (and understanding) was clear when in the same post I mentioned that notwithstanding the coalition's superior primary, the left (lab and ors) had a 2 person in 100 advantage.

Basil
30-03-2010, 08:42 AM
The 6? FFS the electorate is like goldfish :D
100 boats? Meh!
Sound economic draining policy. Woo Hoo. We luv you Kev :wall:

Basil
03-05-2010, 11:32 PM
Rudd cops a pantsing (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/coalition-takes-newspoll-lead/story-e6frgczf-1225861771843). My God he's a fikwcut.

Tea leaves please Kevin.

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2010, 12:16 AM
Rudd cops a pantsing (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/coalition-takes-newspoll-lead/story-e6frgczf-1225861771843).

Wowee. The very first poll (of any repute anyway) with the Coalition ahead in Rudd's entire term. Labor down 5 points 2PP in two weeks. It's worth noting the primary breakdown - 8 points shed but only 3 to the Coalition, 5 to "others". Most of the latter are soft Labor voters who are temporarily cheesed off and will return or at least preference Labor. Newspoll calculates preferences using the results of the last election not what the voters say. So probably 49-51 is a bit harsh on Labor but not much.

My take is that this is not a "rogue poll" (it might be out by a couple of points or so but nothing major). There were also drops for Labor in Essential Report and Morgan over the last week or two, and while those two still have Labor well ahead, by the time you take off their "house effect" it's pretty close to 50-50.

The perception is that Labor is clearing the decks of policy liabilities in preparation for the election where it will focus on the economy and health, but that the cost is Labor being seen as unprincipled and gutless.

It is still nothing to get excited about.

Desmond
04-05-2010, 09:30 AM
The perception is that Labor is clearing the decks of policy liabilities in preparation for the election where it will focus on the economy and health, but that the cost is Labor being seen as unprincipled and gutless.Yeah it is pretty grubby stuff. Reminds me of the Storm coach. We "welcome" the enquiries. We've been cheating, deceiving and cooking the books for years. Now that we're busted and we have no choice, we "welcome" the full investigation.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2010, 09:31 AM
A uniform swing of less then 1.5% is sufficient for Coalition to win (which means about 49% on 2PP). However, the swings are never uniform and usually cost opposition more then the government (because of pork barrelling in marginal seats). If Coalition manages to maintain 51% 2PP, they have a chance. 50-50 is likely to return Labor. Anything over 50% will virtually guarantee a reelection for Labor.

Question to the experts on Australian electoral history:
How many times opposition won office (in either state or federal election) without 2PP majority? (I know government managed to hold quite a few times).

Basil
04-05-2010, 11:18 AM
Wowee. The very first poll (of any repute anyway) with the Coalition ahead in Rudd's entire term. Labor down 5 points 2PP in two weeks. It's worth noting the primary breakdown - 8 points shed but only 3 to the Coalition, 5 to "others". Most of the latter are soft Labor voters who are temporarily cheesed off and will return or at least preference Labor. Newspoll calculates preferences using the results of the last election not what the voters say. So probably 49-51 is a bit harsh on Labor but not much.

My take is that this is not a "rogue poll" (it might be out by a couple of points or so but nothing major). There were also drops for Labor in Essential Report and Morgan over the last week or two, and while those two still have Labor well ahead, by the time you take off their "house effect" it's pretty close to 50-50.

The perception is that Labor is clearing the decks of policy liabilities in preparation for the election where it will focus on the economy and health, but that the cost is Labor being seen as unprincipled and gutless.

It is still nothing to get excited about.
Thanks. Agree with all of the above. Especially about the lefties crawling back to the bosom, no matter how loathsome and despicable.

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2010, 02:49 PM
How many times opposition won office (in either state or federal election) without 2PP majority?

At federal level this has not happened since there were meaningful 2PP statistics.

At state level it is difficult to say because not all state elections have meaningful 2PP figures (two states have optional preferential voting and one has Hare-Clark) and also you don't have to go back too far in some states before malapportionment in favour of rural districts (fewer electors in some electorates than others) distorts the outcome. For instance in SA in 1968, the Liberal Country League under Steele Hall won office from opposition with 46.8% 2PP but that was a result of electoral rigging by an earlier Liberal government that the Labor Party had somehow not been able to fix in three years in office.

The only definite example without a biased electoral system that I am aware of is the SA state election 2002 in which the incumbent Liberals defeated Labor 50.9-49.1 2PP but lost the election with 23 seats to 24.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2010, 04:38 PM
So it means that despite Coalition notionally needing 1-1.5% swing, in reality they need at least 3% swing to form a government (and even that might not be sufficient).

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2010, 05:00 PM
So it means that despite Coalition notionally needing 1-1.5% swing, in reality they need at least 3% swing to form a government (and even that might not be sufficient).

It's not possible to set hard and fast rules since it all depends on where the swings fall, but all other things being normal the Coalition will need a swing of about 3.5% to overcome the incumbent Government's ability to control the result by managing swing in close seats.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2010, 05:04 PM
It's not possible to set hard and fast rules since it all depends on where the swings fall, but all other things being normal the Coalition will need a swing of about 3.5% to overcome the incumbent Government's ability to control the result by managing swing in close seats.
Which brings us back to 51-49 2PP (as in the last poll).

Oepty
04-05-2010, 05:13 PM
The only definite example without a biased electoral system that I am aware of is the SA state election 2002 in which the incumbent Liberals defeated Labor 50.9-49.1 2PP but lost the election with 23 seats to 24.

Labor only got into office thanks to former Liberal turned indepent Peter Lewis very surprisingly supporting the Labor party. Labor would have had no chance of winning that seat, Hammond, otherwise and it has since returned to being a safe Liberal seat. There was also a number of other independents.
Scott

Garvinator
04-05-2010, 05:16 PM
So it means that despite Coalition notionally needing 1-1.5% swing, in reality they need at least 3% swing to form a government (and even that might not be sufficient).And this is why the thread is called the '3'. 3 out of every 100 voters need to change their vote.

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2010, 05:26 PM
Labor only got into office thanks to former Liberal turned indepent Peter Lewis very surprisingly supporting the Labor party.

True; Labor did not win an outright majority at that election, it was actually 23-21-3 to Labor.

Oepty
04-05-2010, 05:48 PM
True; Labor did not win an outright majority at that election, it was actually 23-21-3 to Labor.

With the 3 indepedents, (there was also National Karlene Maywald) being in what would normally be Liberal seats if they were not held by independents. So the Liberals should have won 24 seats and held government but things are almost never that simple.
Scott

Ian Murray
04-05-2010, 07:30 PM
Which brings us back to 51-49 2PP (as in the last poll).
Playing with the Pendulum at www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/calculator, after by-elections and the redistribution the Coalition would need a 2.4% uniform swing to gain government in its own right (even though Labor would still have 50.3% of the 2PP vote).

Basil
04-05-2010, 07:42 PM
Playing with the Pendulum at www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/calculator, after by-elections and the redistribution the Coalition would need a 2.4% uniform swing to gain government in its own right (even though Labor would still have 50.3% of the 2PP vote).
What a clever little goodie.

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2010, 08:12 PM
Playing with the Pendulum at www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/calculator, after by-elections and the redistribution the Coalition would need a 2.4% uniform swing to gain government in its own right (even though Labor would still have 50.3% of the 2PP vote).

Yes, although since two of the three Independents would certainly support the Coalition and the third would at least think about it, a 2% uniform swing, on which Labor would have 50.7% of 2PP, would probably be enough to put the Coalition into office.

Not that that matters all that much because uniform swings do not exist. I think the pendulums are useful for identifying low-hanging fruit and for converting large swings into likely seat gains. But when it comes to trying to pick what size of national swing is needed there is a lot of uncertainty involved.

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2010, 12:07 AM
Roy Morgan have a phone poll out confirming that the Newspoll is not much of an outlier: primaries Coalition 44.5 ALP 39 Grn 9 FF 1.5 rest 5.5. Two party-preferred is 50-50. I think their primary breakdown is far more credible than the Newspoll's. (As I have said before, Morgan face-to-face polls tend to be ALP-slanted by about three points, but their phone polls are highly reliable.)

Rudd approve 42 disapprove 49
Abbott approve 40.5 disapprove 41.5

Pointless beauty contest Rudd 53 Abbott 32

Morgan claims (always take any interpretive claim by Morgan with a lot of caution):


Special Morgan Poll qualitative research shows the big slump in the ALP vote and Kevin Rudd’s approval is due to broken promises including the back down on emissions trading, Government over-spending and electors dissatisfaction with the handling of home insulation and school buildings.

Mining tax 47% approve 45% disapprove

Sample size a bit on the low side at 555.

Adamski
07-05-2010, 08:54 AM
Pointless beauty contest Rudd 53 Abbott 32
So Abbott wins second prize in a beauty contest. Does he collect $10?

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2010, 12:21 PM
So Abbott wins second prize in a beauty contest. Does he collect $10?

Rudd probably collects about 10 votes. That's about how meaningful preferred PM is as an indicator of election results. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
10-05-2010, 03:19 AM
Nielsen poll just out also has "the 3" temporarily as "the zero", with another 50-50 2PP.

Basil
10-05-2010, 11:21 AM
Nielsen poll just out also has "the 3" temporarily as "the zero", with another 50-50 2PP.
Technical name - 'The Zipple' :D

Desmond
10-05-2010, 11:27 AM
The Coalition isn't winning this next election. Talk of 'oh can they do it? Nearly. Doubt it. Ooohhh no.' only serves to give lefties a sense of achievemnet IMO :wall: Rudd's a useless tit. He'll get two terms. Mickey Mouse could get two terms (especially after such a long Liberal reign). Whether he (Labor, if he jumps early) gets three or four is the what interests me (right now). Is this comment still current or have recent events changed this (March) opinion?

Basil
10-05-2010, 11:45 AM
Is this comment still current or have recent events changed this (March) opinion?
It's a very good question. I can only answer it straight. A week ago (or at some stage before the first zipple poll), I started typing a post on this forum acknowledging the existence of the possibility of a Lib win, but scrapped it because of course the existence existed - however the likelihood (when this country was caught in the new age, fresh leaf, fresh think, foreign affairs cringing, US hating, boat people loving, WorkChoices freak-out trance) was just so minor - it occurred to me the post was just a butt-covering waste of bandwidth.

What I posted instead (perhaps shouted), was something to the effect 'it's on'. By that I meant that I had detected a massive shift in sentiment (as I'm sure others had).

What I didn't expect was for Rudd to react to the 'do nothing' jibes as well as ready his position for the poll with the degree of callousness he did across so many issues. It's one thing for me to call the electorate planks (which as you know I enjoy immensely); it's quite another for Rudd to so openly treat them as such.

I stand by what I said in these political threads all those months ago when my Liberal friends were encouraging Abbott's predecessors and the party in general to fight and create issues. What I said was essentially that the electorate had to get over themselves and also understand (and importantly also loathe) the government's ineptitude. The electorate appears to now have achieved that point or at least started to go there, but precipitated with an outstanding hand played by Rudd wrapped in his true colours.

In direct answer to you question, the answer is that it's definitely game on. It was always was mathematically of course (but obviously the odds have changed considerably). Did I foresee it? Yes. Did I foresee it this term? No.

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2010, 06:04 PM
And here's another one:

Roy Morgan phone poll.
Labor 36 LNP 46 (!) Greens 11.5 FF 2 others 4.5
2PP 48-52

Sample size again small (571) but this is the first poll that if replicated at an election would result in a Coalition victory.

There is always a point in polling where the electorate falls out of love with a popular new government; this also happened for Hawke and Howard who fell behind earlier than Rudd.

The problem for Labor has been that the Coalition's sheer incompetence and infighting in the first couple of years of the Rudd term has postponed that moment to much closer to the election than it was for previous PMs. So now the government has much less time to turn the backlash around than a first-term government would normally have. Also the backlash is quite a severe one and that is self-inflicted.

Based on polling history there is still no reason to believe the government is at much risk of actually losing; many governments have won from much further behind than this. The trendline would be a worry for them though, and at this stage the Coalition probably won't be massacred.

Indeed, it is worth noting that while first-term Oppositions generally don't lose, there has never yet been a case at federal level in which a party that lost power at the previous election (rather than between elections - an important difference) has gone backwards in seat terms at the next one. The Libs were showing many signs of making history in this sense but now that they have stopped infighting and Labor has come back to the field in a big way that is no longer likely.

ER
15-05-2010, 08:32 AM
Listen to that it's fun!
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-caught-out-dodging-truth-on-reckless-spending-20100514-v2w6.html

tony abbott - provocateur, patriot, pugilist. australian political renaissance - december 2009.
and a wimp??? :P

Igor_Goldenberg
24-06-2010, 09:57 AM
Question to swinging voters:
Does change of ALP leadership changes your intention to vote?

Desmond
24-06-2010, 10:49 AM
Question to swinging voters:
Does change of ALP leadership changes your intention to vote?
Good question. Since about January I intended to vote coalition, now I am not sure. Depends what happens before the election I think.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2010, 02:32 PM
We'll have to wait a while before the response of swinging voters to the situation becomes clearer. Could be some turbulence in the polls. I expect an initial surge but to what extent it lasts will be interesting.

Garvinator
24-06-2010, 07:56 PM
We'll have to wait a while before the response of swinging voters to the situation becomes clearer. Could be some turbulence in the polls. I expect an initial surge but to what extent it lasts will be interesting.One betting market had the Coalition as favourite at $1.80, another had Labor even stronger favourites at about $1.30 :lol: :lol:

Oepty
24-06-2010, 08:12 PM
We'll have to wait a while before the response of swinging voters to the situation becomes clearer. Could be some turbulence in the polls. I expect an initial surge but to what extent it lasts will be interesting.

Is Gillard better going to the election fairly quickly in an attempt to use a boost she probably will getting in the polls or waiting to try and seperate herself from the Rudd legacy? I doubt she has time to do the latter even if she strings it out as far as possible, but if Labor is going to lose an eletion straight away then it might be her best shot.
Scott

Garvinator
24-06-2010, 08:35 PM
Is Gillard better going to the election fairly quickly in an attempt to use a boost she probably will getting in the polls or waiting to try and seperate herself from the Rudd legacy? I doubt she has time to do the latter even if she strings it out as far as possible, but if Labor is going to lose an eletion straight away then it might be her best shot.I think she is better off waiting for a while till she is able to get out her policies that differentiate her from Rudd. The whole mining tax issue will take some time to work out, especially if it is going to be scrapped or re-written completely as it has budget implications.

Then there will probably be another two week sitting of Parliament and then the election will most likely be called near the end of the year.

I wish governments could set election dates for six months in advance, but they can not because as soon as they call an election, they become a caretaker government, meaning they can not pass legislation, budget matters etc.

Also having the look of trying to rush to the polls to avoid scrutiny is never a good look for a government.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2010, 08:48 PM
One betting market had the Coalition as favourite at $1.80, another had Labor even stronger favourites at about $1.30 :lol: :lol:

Some of the markets reset themselves from zero after the leadership change. This means that initially they were carrying small volumes and hence their odds were unreliable. It will settle down to a real indication soon.


Is Gillard better going to the election fairly quickly in an attempt to use a boost she probably will getting in the polls or waiting to try and seperate herself from the Rudd legacy? I doubt she has time to do the latter even if she strings it out as far as possible, but if Labor is going to lose an eletion straight away then it might be her best shot.

Fortunately it was a relatively clean spill; there is not going to be ongoing doubt about the leadership nor any particular factional division over it. There will still be some who are angry (I've seen a lot of those posting on pollbludger today). I think it would make sense for her to take a little longer than Rudd was going to (he intended to go in August) but I don't think a big break is necessary. Maybe October-November, perhaps earlier.

ER
24-06-2010, 08:54 PM
... Depends what happens before the election I think.
Makes sense! :)If you waited till after the election it might be too late! :hmm: :P

Oepty
24-06-2010, 09:07 PM
I think she is better off waiting for a while till she is able to get out her policies that differentiate her from Rudd. The whole mining tax issue will take some time to work out, especially if it is going to be scrapped or re-written completely as it has budget implications.

Yes that is true and she has sent the Treasurer overseas so it is not like she can get onto it tommorrow with him and she might also replace Tanner as Finance Minister.



Also having the look of trying to rush to the polls to avoid scrutiny is never a good look for a government.

Going striaghtaway would nulify the barbs that she is a unelected Prime Minister but I am not sure this is going to be much of an issue either way.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
29-06-2010, 11:01 PM
Nielsen poll shows Coalition ahead (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/7484727/shock-poll-as-labor-support-slides)

One thing is certain now: Latest polls are grossly unreliable.
It could be because of wrong assumption and unrepresentative sample. Or voters might constantly be changing their intentions.

Basil
29-06-2010, 11:26 PM
Lefties make me wanna puke!

That's my 10,000th. Was going to be about chess, but the heave factor was too much to bear. Better now. Here's to the next 10,000!

Carry on!

Kevin Bonham
29-06-2010, 11:38 PM
Nielsen poll shows Coalition ahead (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/7484727/shock-poll-as-labor-support-slides)

One thing is certain now: Latest polls are grossly unreliable.
It could be because of wrong assumption and unrepresentative sample. Or voters might constantly be changing their intentions.

That is actually a Morgan poll not a Nielsen poll. It is a Morgan phone poll. Morgan phone polls are among the very best conducted polls if you ignore sample size issues, but the sample size is only 600 meaning that the margin of error is four points. Thus, although it shows the Coalition ahead, it is within the MOE that they could be well ahead, or slightly behind.

Just for comparison these are all the (reasonably) reliable polls so far produced since Gillard became PM.

Morgan Phone 48.5/51.5 (small sample size)
Galaxy 52:48
AC Nielsen 55:45
Newspoll 53:47
Essential Report 52:48 (this pollster tends to favour Labor by 2-3 points)

All up the polls are all over the place and perhaps Labor is around 52 2PP at present compared to around 50.5 2PP in the final days of Rudd. Most likely Labor have got a small bounce by changing leaders, but one that yet may fail to last.

There have been some comparisons between the Morgan poll and the last Morgan poll under Rudd (which was 53:47) but that Morgan poll was a face-to-face poll and those tend to favour Labor by 2-3 points. Comparing Morgan F2F with Morgan phone is dumb but that doesn't stop Morgan from doing it in their press releases. :rolleyes:

Igor_Goldenberg
29-06-2010, 11:46 PM
That is actually a Morgan poll not a Nielsen poll. It is a Morgan phone poll. Morgan phone polls are among the very best conducted polls if you ignore sample size issues, but the sample size is only 600 meaning that the margin of error is four points. Thus, although it shows the Coalition ahead, it is within the MOE that they could be well ahead, or slightly behind.

Yes, Morgan poll. Anyway, I think voters intentions are so volatile that those polls are not indicative of anything.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2010, 11:48 PM
Going striaghtaway would nulify the barbs that she is a unelected Prime Minister but I am not sure this is going to be much of an issue either way.
I think this is a very weak argument in any case. Under the Westminster system, we vote for parties, and the winning party elects the PM. Thus I would have no problem with her occupying the Lodge.

Kevin Bonham
29-06-2010, 11:50 PM
Yes, Morgan poll. Anyway, I think voters intentions are so volatile that those polls are not indicative of anything.

I am certainly not reading anything into them beyond that the switch was neither an immediate stunning success nor an immediate catastrophic failure. Even if the election is called for early August, the polls of now will be "water under the bridge" by then.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-07-2010, 03:50 PM
Not sure whether it's a right thread, but anyway:
Principals to manage BER schools stimulus program under Abbott government (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/schools-watch/principals-to-manage-ber-schools-stimulus-program-under-abbott-government/story-fn56ulhe-1225888993339)


Tony Abbott's policy would hand over to schools all unspent funds, enabling them to manage their own projects and to keep any unused money for other needed resources.

The opposition leader and the Coalition's education spokesman Christopher Pyne today outlined their plan to take control of the Building the Education Revolution program from the state governments and hand it to school principals and communities.

They estimated the shift could save schools about one-third of their BER budget.

Not ideal policy, but I understand the problem of some schools not getting the money at all while other schools already did. There is a probability principals will waste money as well, but I don't expect them to do it on the same scale as government did.
Schools might spent money on something other then building, but it's not necessary a bad thing.
Would like to see details, but overall not bad.

One of the readers commentary:
"Let's watch the Labor Government try to palm this idea off as one of their own as well!".

Garvinator
09-07-2010, 12:37 PM
I have decided that I want a change of government for one reason and one reason alone. So we can start hammering Coalition policies, backflips and anything else ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 01:44 PM
I have decided that I want a change of government for one reason and one reason alone. So we can start hammering Coalition policies, backflips and anything else ;)
You can start hammering Coalition policies now, after all they constitute a vast majority of Labor policies (and a 100% of workable Labor policies).:lol:

Spiny Norman
09-07-2010, 05:57 PM
Tony Abbott's policy would hand over to schools all unspent funds, enabling them to manage their own projects and to keep any unused money for other needed resources.

This also is bad policy. Many schools do not have the ability to manage projects of this nature. Giving individual schools the OPTION of self-managing, and linking self-management with accountability for the outcome (i.e. there must be a stick to go with the carrot) would be a decent compromise I think.

Basil
18-07-2010, 08:09 PM
Galaxy poll (the first since the election was called) shows 50-50 after preferences! Gillard preferred PM by a country mile. Labor primary down the toilet requiring hippies and hand-wringing lefties The Greens to get them to the 50% on 2PP.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 08:41 PM
Galaxy poll (the first since the election was called) shows 50-50 after preferences! Gillard preferred PM by a country mile. Labor primary down the toilet requiring hippies and hand-wringing lefties The Greens to get them to the 50% on 2PP.

Yes, oddly enough Galaxy conducted two polls in 24 hours, one before the election was called and one immediately after, showing 52-48 and 50-50 respectively. The first one was 800 voters and the second was probably the same so the difference between the two is probably meaningless. A concern for Labor is that both showed its primary vote in the danger zone (ie below 40) but I still suspect that there is softness in the high Greens vote.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2010, 09:08 PM
I wouldn't take those Galaxy polls seriously, given such a small sample, especially in determining third party preferences.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2010, 09:22 PM
The ere only two election when the winner didn't get 40% of primary votes:
1990 (Labor 39.44%) and 1998 (Coalition 39.50%).
In both case the winning party lost 2PP vote.

If Labor polls below 40% (as it does almost consistently last few months), even Green preferences might not be sufficient (at least that's what I hope for:D :D ).

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 09:34 PM
I wouldn't take those Galaxy polls seriously, given such a small sample, especially in determining third party preferences.

Well you can always merge the two of them together to create a sample size of 1600 and a result of 51-49, though that's a little bit dubious because it's possible the calling of the election had a small effect on the results (I doubt it though.)

800 votes is a margin of error of about 3.5%. 1600 votes is +/- 2.5%. You can never tell all that much from one or two of these things; a rolling trend based on several of them from different companies is a better hope. That's around 52-48 at the moment though the Galaxy 50-50 will drag it down a little.

As for preferences I'm pretty sure Galaxy just allocate as per the last election.

An interesting question asked in the first of the two Galaxy polls was whether each party deserves to win the election.

Labor Yes 40 No 52 Undecided 8
Coalition Yes 30 No 62 Undecided 8