Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

[Roy Morgan Research] Morgan Poll (2004)

 

[Lentern]

The latest Roy Morgan Senate poll is out. It's interesting for a number of reasons, not least of all because it is a more accurate representation of Senate voting patterns than the federal election preference polls (which specifically ask about the Lower House only).

You can read it here: [Roy Morgan Research] Morgan Poll
I'm going to list the Greens support levels simply because they're my favourite party:

NSW: 11.5%
Vic: 13.5%
QLD: 12%
WA: 11%
SA: 9% (the Xenophon effect, though he may not field a candidate for this election)
Tas: 15.5%
ACT: 26%
Nation-wide: 12% (compared with 9% last election)

The Greens are likely to gain at least one seat in all states and territories except NT, while the ACT has the Greens tied with Libs (but by ALP prefs that basically means a Greens win), and WA has a toss up between a Greens senator or another Labour senator.

Thus, 5 to 7 new Greens Senators are likely come next election, for a total of 8 to 10 Greens Senators.

This means that as long as Labour ends up with less than 36 Senators, they will not be able to pass legislation automatically (without Greens or Lib input). Unfortunately, this seems unlikely. They have 32 Senators now, and will very likely gain at least 4 more next election (as Libs are faring horribly in the Senate, plus there's lag from the 2004 election). Boo.

ALP get a majority in the senate? Seems pretty hard to imagine. I think the polling will narrow in the coalitions favour as the election draws nearer, out of curiosity what would the senate makeup be if the last election had been a DD?

 

[Lentern]

5-7 new Greens senators? You're talking shit.

Yeah he is, 5 would be considered a great sweep by the greens, not that unlikely either, but anymore is a bit fanciful. SA, WA, TAS, VIC are fairly certain things, NSW they should win, QLD is unlikely the one nation/pauline hanson vote will mean too many 3rd party preferences will go the other way. I think between NSW and QLD they're very likely to get one, very unlikely to get 2.

 

[withoutaface]

Labor Leader At Next NSW Election (Sch 2011) - Leader at Next Election
TEBBUTT, Carmel 2.50
SARTOR, Frank 4.50
REES, Nathan 5.50
ROBERTSON, John 6.50
FIRTH, Verity 8.00
ANY OTHER CANDIDATE 15.00
JUDGE, Virginia 17.00
DELLA BOSCA, John 21.00
WHAN, Steve 21.00
CAMPBELL, David 26.00
TRIPODI, Joe 34.00
IEMMA, Morris 51.00

lol.

 

[jb_nc]

loading life savings on morris iemma @ $51~~

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

5-7 new Greens senators? You're talking shit.

Not really. The quota is 14%. Greens support levels are above 10% in every state (SA included when you count preferences from Xenophon supporters). A handful of states will elect Greens on their own merit, and for the rest, 4% isn't hard to make up for with Labour preferences.

The ACT result is the most amazing one. Quota there is 33% (there's only two seats, not six), but that means all votes over 33% for Labour go to the Greens. Last elect Greens got 21% in the federal upper house for the ACT. Suppose they get 25% this time. Then they only need 8% from Labour to win the seat off the Liberals (i.e. Labour needs to get about 41% primary vote).

I pretty much guarantee 5 Greens seats (i,e. win 5 out of 6 states). The other 2 are wild cards (the ACT and the last state).

 

[whatashotbyseve]

Why do you vote Greens, just out of interest?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

ALP get a majority in the senate? Seems pretty hard to imagine. I think the polling will narrow in the coalitions favour as the election draws nearer, out of curiosity what would the senate makeup be if the last election had been a DD?

Let's see...

Quota for states is 1/13 = 7.7%
Quota for territories is 1/5 = 20%

If we go by the Roy Morgan poll which is pretty accurate give or take 2%, then:

NSW: 46%
Vic: 42.5%
QLD: 42%
WA: 39.5%
SA: 40.5%
Tas: 42.%
ACT: 41.5%
NT: 47% (based on last election)

I.e. Labour gets the following seats in a DD called now:
NSW: 6
Vic: 5 (poss 6)
QLD: 5 (poss 6)
WA: 5
SA: 5
Tas: 5 (poss 6)
ACT: 2
NT: 2
Total: 35 to 38.

Edit: then again, people might punish Rudd for a DD and vote in more Greens, indies and Libs instead.

 

[Lentern]

Let's see...

Quota for states is 1/13 = 7.7%
Quota for territories is 1/5 = 20%

If we go by the Roy Morgan poll which is pretty accurate give or take 2%, then:

NSW: 46%
Vic: 42.5%
QLD: 42%
WA: 39.5%
SA: 40.5%
Tas: 42.%
ACT: 41.5%
NT: 47% (based on last election)

I.e. Labour gets the following seats in a DD called now:
NSW: 6
Vic: 5 (poss 6)
QLD: 5 (poss 6)
WA: 5
SA: 5
Tas: 5 (poss 6)
ACT: 2
NT: 2
Total: 35 to 38.

Edit: then again, people might punish Rudd for a DD and vote in more Greens, indies and Libs instead.

Edit, my rough calculation just delivered an eighty seat senate.

 

[Rafy]

If we go by the Roy Morgan poll which is pretty accurate

Justify this statement.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Why do you vote Greens, just out of interest?

They've just turned out to be the political party I most agree with. I mean I probably agree with 2 out of every 3 of their policy positions and political stances.

It's not a perfect fit: I don't mind military intervention to remove dictators and spread democracy if it's economically viable, I support nuclear power fairly strongly, and they need to support the free market slightly more (but anybody claiming they support socialism is entirely incorrect).

I can't really stand Labour because of all the religious pandering, especially when they violate my civil rights and freedoms (drug & alcohol prohibition, censorship, etc). They're also tied down to unions too much (though I support unionism as a concept) and their environmental policy is only slightly less stagnant than the Coalition's.

I don't like Liberals because they tend to oppose healthcare and welfare too much while focusing on the rich instead. Plus, they are full of social conservatives and xenophobes.

Justify this statement.

It's incrementally above the results of the previous election (for both Greens and Labour), which matches general trends in the electorate since then.

Lentern: I'm pretty sure there's no difference. If Labour got less than 38.5% in any state in 2007 then remove a seat. (Just checked: they did - remove one from SA and WA, and also NSW for a total of 32 - lol, no change).

 

[withoutaface]

Morgan polls are notoriously inaccurate. It's galaxy you want to be looking at.

The Greens polling figures and what they'll actually pull on the day are two quite different things, they'll get 3-4 seats tops.

 

[spiny norman]

Labor Leader At Next NSW Election (Sch 2011) - Leader at Next Election
TEBBUTT, Carmel 2.50
SARTOR, Frank 4.50
REES, Nathan 5.50
ROBERTSON, John 6.50
FIRTH, Verity 8.00
ANY OTHER CANDIDATE 15.00
JUDGE, Virginia 17.00
DELLA BOSCA, John 21.00
WHAN, Steve 21.00
CAMPBELL, David 26.00
TRIPODI, Joe 34.00
IEMMA, Morris 51.00

That's an utter joke, though. There's no way Tebbutt will be the Premier, let alone being the most likely case for it. The only way Rees will be removed (which honestly, I don't see happening) is if the Right decide they don't want a Left Premier. If that's the case, there's no way someone even more left-wing, like Tebbutt or Firth, would get a look in.

Honestly, with Rees' odds that far out I'm pretty tempted to put a bet on him myself. O'Farrell is less likely to be Liberal leader than Rees Labor leader come the next election.

 

[Iron]

I think they had a very small hope of success if they stuck with Morris
Alas...

All the YLs I know are refusing outright to help with the campaign when it comes.
I'm a little curious to see what a real thumping looks like first hand (but i dont want to be stabbed by some public servant or patient etc)

 

[Lentern]

Morgan polls are notoriously inaccurate. It's galaxy you want to be looking at.

The Greens polling figures and what they'll actually pull on the day are two quite different things, they'll get 3-4 seats tops.

Gain or win? WA, SA, Tas and Vic are sure things. My rationale is less based on polling than past election results, party alliances and some educated guesswork. Greens had Victoria in the bag a few years ago but for Fieldings magic preference harvest, he won't get ALP preferences again, last election I reckon they suffered from an "anyone but Howard" sentiment in Victoria which translated into votes for Rudd. Now we know that Kevin isn't the raging leftist that many had hoped I reckon Greens wil get the sixth spot in Victoria and make slight gains in every other state for much the same reason.

Also the brokering over alcopos and stimulus packages have given Bob more press coverage which I also think will get him a few more votes. But the suggestions of two seats in Tasmania, Sydney, Melbourne and Cunningham turning maverick etc are fanciful.

 

[whatashotbyseve]

I think the Greens are one of those aspirational parties that people love to say that they support around the dinnertable, but when the nitty gritty of election time comes, they realise they stand for nothing vastly beneficial and change their vote to Labor, under the assumption that their preferences are just going to flow there anyway.

 

[moll.]

I think the Greens are one of those aspirational parties that people love to say that they support around the dinnertable, but when the nitty gritty of election time comes, they realise they stand for nothing vastly beneficial and change their vote to Labor, under the assumption that their preferences are just going to flow there anyway.

Oh I don't know. If they actually had a clear-cut economic policy and someone a little more economically qualified at their head, I'd vote for them in the lower house. As it is, I'll probably vote Greens for Senate in the next election.

 

[Lentern]

That's an utter joke, though. There's no way Tebbutt will be the Premier, let alone being the most likely case for it. The only way Rees will be removed (which honestly, I don't see happening) is if the Right decide they don't want a Left Premier. If that's the case, there's no way someone even more left-wing, like Tebbutt or Firth, would get a look in.

Honestly, with Rees' odds that far out I'm pretty tempted to put a bet on him myself. O'Farrell is less likely to be Liberal leader than Rees Labor leader come the next election.

Thats why I laugh when I read in the papers that the punters know best. Coalition are paying $5 in Victoria, federally only $2.10. Does anyone believe that Rudd is in more danger than Brumby?

They also have the prospect of Swan leading the ALP to the next federal election paying less than $500, in fact a Swan-Turnbull election pays only 15. I think it'll be Kevin and Malcolm but surely Gillard and Hockey, Kevin and Bishop, are more possible. There is no way in hell Swan will ever become leader, if they go down the rank and file kind of system thats in place now than Smith and Gillard are higher up the pecking order, maybe Crean as well. By the time it filtered down to Swan the titanic shift in alliances that sees someone like Garrett shoot through.

However for all our bonding over the stupidity over the punters, I think they got it right in NSW. Your logic is sound, it would seem odd that the powerbrokers would install a second candidate not of their faction, I doubt Rees was the choice of the hard right though, but of the more centralised candidates probably fed up with the hard right. Remember some mp's will vote for who they think is electable not for who they think would make the better premier, federally Lathamsupposedly a member of the ALP right relied heavilly upon support from Gillard, Ferguson, Faulkner, Swan etc.

 

[Lentern]

I think the Greens are one of those aspirational parties that people love to say that they support around the dinnertable, but when the nitty gritty of election time comes, they realise they stand for nothing vastly beneficial and change their vote to Labor, under the assumption that their preferences are just going to flow there anyway.

I think thats all fine and dandy, but what does it mean? You surely don't think they will lose WA or SA do you?

 

[Iron]

What useless fucking speculation
wankers