Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

[Lentern]

I'll check ACNielsen, but I don't think so. Greens primary vote has been steady between 8% and 12% for a while now (fluctuates with the each month with seemingly no rhyme or reason beyond statistical variation)... Seems ordinary? Check the margin of error. I believe it's +/- 2.5%.

Oh, and Essential Research just came out. They actually give Rudd one percent more this week to 62-38 (up from 61-39). Even so, Turnbull is slightly less disliked in this latest Essential Research poll, and Rudd is slightly less liked.

The primary numbers are not good for the Coalition, though. Essential Research gives 2% Nationals, 30% Liberal, 52% Labour, 8% Greens. Ouch! Somehow I doubt it's quite that bad for Liberals. Those Nationals numbers seem correct though. I see 2% support levels for them a lot. A dying party?

I'll admit I haven't been taking notes or anything but the trend I thought was that Greens had more or less been low double figures. Certainly I thought they were looking on track to improve on the 07 election, todays was 8 percent or so i remember, negligible increase on the last election. (Again just going on vibes) It kind of fits though, it seems as though Brown hasn't been getting the press attention he did during stimulus, alcopos, luxury car tax etc.

 

[Lentern]

For those interested, here's a goodly piece of data.

Newspoll Federal primary vote shares for the past 15+ years: Opinion Polls

I like Newspoll because they seem the most reliable and consistent.

Perhaps they are consistant, but reliable? Newspoll and Morgan were the only ones to get the 01 election wrong. Thats just what i remember off the top of my head vividly, Peter Brent has written extensively on opinion polling, the methods they use, the trends they produce etc. I think it was Galaxy that was called the most reliable.

 

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

I'll admit I haven't been taking notes or anything but the trend I thought was that Greens had more or less been low double figures. Certainly I thought they were looking on track to improve on the 07 election, todays was 8 percent or so i remember, negligible increase on the last election. (Again just going on vibes) It kind of fits though, it seems as though Brown hasn't been getting the press attention he did during stimulus, alcopos, luxury car tax etc.

You do understand MoE right? It's meaningless to assign value to a 1 or 2% rise or fall.

As for actual long-term trends, Greens support seems to rise a lot after an election, fall slightly in the lead-up to an election, and then increase again on election day.

I'd wager nationwide 9% in the House, 12% in the Senate. Last election was 7.8% in the house, 9% in the Senate. Of course many of the states will have the Greens above 12% (likely NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, ACT).

These polls all ask about the House, btw, not the Senate.

Also, I wouldn't say Newspoll got it wrong if its poll was within the MoE. Did you check that? It's silly looking at polls to predict a winner when the election is that close (for reference, 2007 and the American elections were easily predictable as they were outside the margin of error). Although you can lower the MoE a fair bit by aggregating polls (i.e. average Newspoll, ER, ACNielsen, etc).

 

[Lentern]

You do understand MoE right? It's meaningless to assign value to a 1 or 2% rise or fall.

As for actual long-term trends, Greens support seems to rise a lot after an election, fall slightly in the lead-up to an election, and then increase again on election day.

I'd wager nationwide 9% in the House, 12% in the Senate. Last election was 7.8% in the house, 9% in the Senate. Of course many of the states will have the Greens above 12% (likely NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, ACT).

These polls all ask about the House, btw, not the Senate.

Also, I wouldn't say Newspoll got it wrong if its poll was within the MoE. Did you check that? It's silly looking at polls to predict a winner when the election is that close (for reference, 2007 and the American elections were easily predictable as they were outside the margin of error). Although you can lower the MoE a fair bit by aggregating polls (i.e. average Newspoll, ER, ACNielsen, etc).

Was 2001 outside the MOE? I thought after the Tampa Howard got a comfortable lead and labor lost about twenty seats. At any rate im not saying newspoll is complete bull butter, i just don't know why you claimed what you did, as i've said my instinct is Galaxy is normally the closest, then AC.

 

[Rafy]

PM and Swan choke on billion figure for debt and deficit | The Australian

Looks worse avoiding it than if they just came out and said the figure.

 

[Lentern]

PM and Swan choke on billion figure for debt and deficit | The Australian

Looks worse avoiding it than if they just came out and said the figure.

At Joe's press club address in which he was brilliant by the way: laconic, straight up and yet sincere and fiercely intelligent but the idea that was raised was that the government was trying to avoid a damning catch phrase that the coalition could rid into the election. Recall Peter Debnam "We'll hand IR over to Canberra" on all those Iemma commercials.

If they have fiddled the figures it should be a very serious issue like non this government has faced thus far but my instincts say at the present political climate it will blow over in a few weeks. Remember Peter Garrett's "we'll change it all once we get into government" Julie Bishop has desperately been trying to get people to listen as she says "See we told you this was going to happen" but nobody seems to want to listen.

 

[Iron]

At Joe's press club address in which he was brilliant by the way: laconic, straight up and yet sincere and fiercely intelligent but the idea that was raised was that the government was trying to avoid a damning catch phrase that the coalition could rid into the election. Recall Peter Debnam "We'll hand IR over to Canberra" on all those Iemma commercials.

If they have fiddled the figures it should be a very serious issue like non this government has faced thus far but my instincts say at the present political climate it will blow over in a few weeks. Remember Peter Garrett's "we'll change it all once we get into government" Julie Bishop has desperately been trying to get people to listen as she says "See we told you this was going to happen" but nobody seems to want to listen.

 

[Lentern]

Ok you got me, clever as I am and big a fan as I am of anything with Cleese and Booth I don't get. Am I Cleese? Are you Cleese and I Manuel? Is Julie Bishop Cleese? Is Julie Bishop Manuell and perhaps Turnbull is Cleese? This one is just too advanced for humble vessel such as myself.

 

[Iron]

Only one other mangles the Queen’s English so thoroughly and miscomprehends everything.
Search your heart. You know it to be true.

 

[Lentern]

Only one other mangles the Queen’s English so thoroughly and miscomprehends everything.
Search your heart. You know it to be true.

The Queen is protestant. What are you doing exalting her? Traitor!

 

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

Wow. I didn't realise it until I read this, but a double dissolution would absolutely rape the Coalition. Namely, quota in a DD is only 7.7%.

That means a Greens senator in every state on the Green primary vote alone, 2 in Tasmania, and even one in the ACT! (but not NT). On top of that, they'd manage 1 or 2 more from Labour preferences in Vic and NSW (SA would probably go to Xenophon).

On top of that, the Liberals would lose the 'lag' Senators they gained during Howard's boom years in 2004.

If we take Labour at 34, Greens at 10 (min), and 1 independent, that leaves the Coalition with maybe 31 Senate seats maximum. Labour is marginally better off here because they'd no longer need to negotiate with Xenophon or Fielding if they had Greens support, though their biggest gains come in the House (where, ironically, such gains are least useful).

Turnbull should make it his sole aim as Liberal leader to avoid a DD.

 

[Lentern]

Wow. I didn't realise it until I read this, but a double dissolution would absolutely rape the Coalition. Namely, quota in a DD is only 7.7%.

That means a Greens senator in every state on the Green primary vote alone, 2 in Tasmania, and even one in the ACT! (but not NT). On top of that, they'd manage 1 or 2 more from Labour preferences in Vic and NSW (SA would probably go to Xenophon).

On top of that, the Liberals would lose the 'lag' Senators they gained during Howard's boom years in 2004.

If we take Labour at 34, Greens at 10 (min), and 1 independent, that leaves the Coalition with maybe 31 Senate seats maximum. Labour is marginally better off here because they'd no longer need to negotiate with Xenophon or Fielding if they had Greens support, though their biggest gains come in the House (where, ironically, such gains are least useful).

Turnbull should make it his sole aim as Liberal leader to avoid a DD.

Yes and no. Obviously they would lose what power the coalition still has and coalition senators might find it a little embarrassing to see Bob Brown wielding more influence in the parliament then Nick Minchin or Malcolm Turnbull but really there numbers in the senate are cold comfort if any.

Politically there is plenty to win by losing control of the senate. The ball sits entirely in the governments court. The numbers in the senate are currently a vice; its not 1975 where the people hate the government and want someone to stick it to them, any blockades by the coalition will not be well recieved by the electorate.

The safest thing for the coalition to do is just let everything through, push for an amendment where possible but ultimately let everything through. Doing so however will aggravate coalition supporters of the extreme variety and it also makes their rhetoric and voting patterns in the house look a bit funny.

Now change the scenario a bit, the ALP and the Greens can easilly pass anything through the senate. The coalition can get on their soapboxes and launch scathing attacks on the bills and they can actually put their money where their mouths are by voting against in both houses.

Finally there is the very enticing idea from the point of view of the Liberal Party that Barnaby Joyce will lose his seat. He may be popular and serve the nationals well but he's a nuisance for the liberal party who would much rather Nigel Scullion had the popularity instead.

 

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

It's funny because as much as I dislike the National party, Joyce is one of the few Coalition members who I think has the balls to do what's right for his constituents rather than some grand overarching Liberal political scheme, and he's not afraid to cross the floor to show it. It'd be a shame to see him go.

 

[Slidey]

What I think we should do is round up all the Islams and have us a good old-fashioned lynching.

 

[kingbigboyjames]

nah bro, lets lynch jews.

 

[Lentern]

It's funny because as much as I dislike the National party, Joyce is one of the few Coalition members who I think has the balls to do what's right for his constituents rather than some grand overarching Liberal political scheme, and he's not afraid to cross the floor to show it. It'd be a shame to see him go.

I like Joyce as well don't get me wrong I was talking from the perspective of the liberal party leadership and from that perspective he's probably a bit of a headache.

On a different note Iron I take it all back Bob Ellis was just swell. What's the solution to climate change? "what you need is a great bloody pipe." Not the answer of a bonehead at all. Still if it's all the same to you I'll stick with David Marr for Aus political authors. He's got a cool voice.

 

[Iron]

What I think we should do is round up all the Islams and have us a good old-fashioned lynching.

You have been missed my Slidey fren

 

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

Wow. I didn't realise it until I read this, but a double dissolution would absolutely rape the Coalition. Namely, quota in a DD is only 7.7%.

That means a Greens senator in every state on the Green primary vote alone, 2 in Tasmania, and even one in the ACT! (but not NT). On top of that, they'd manage 1 or 2 more from Labour preferences in Vic and NSW (SA would probably go to Xenophon).

I know most people aren't interested, but I like crunching numbers and may as well submit them after I've done so. The below case assumes a DD is called this year. It's not perfect (for one it is based on State instead of Federal voting intentions, but we can assume these are fairly similar).

Greens primary average from last three State voting intention Newspolls (typically over a 6 month period):
Quota needed 7.7% for 1 seat, 15.4% for 2
Tas: 18.3% at 2007 Federal election (no Newspoll available)
QLD: 7.5 (or 8.4% based on result at 2009 State election)
NSW: 14%
WA: 11.7% (or 11.9% based on result at 2008 State election)
SA: 10.3%
Vic: 14.3%
Quota needed 20% for 1 seat, 40% for 2
ACT: 21.47% at 2007 Federal election (no Newspoll available)
NT: 8.82% at 2007 Federal election (no Newspoll available)

In a DD, the Greens would get 2 Senators in Tas, NSW, Vic and possibly WA and/or SA on Labour preferences, as well as one Senator in the ACT on their primary alone. The Greens may gain a third seat in Tasmania from either Labour preferences or their primary alone. An appropriate min/max range seems to be 9 to 12 Senate seats. They currently hold 5 seats, so that's quite an increase.

I'm not sure how the House works in a DD. Does every electorate have 2 eats to fill? If those 2 seats are filled proportionally, that would mean sweeping Greens victories in seats they are normally slightly too weak to topple Labour in (because Labour gets one seat, Greens get the other). Anybody know how the Lower house works in a DD?

 

[Rafy]

It's not perfect (for one it is based on State instead of Federal voting intentions, but we can assume these are fairly similar).

You can't assume that. Better to use the state by state breakdowns provided in the quarterly aggregate newspoll.

 

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

You can't assume that. Better to use the state by state breakdowns provided in the quarterly aggregate newspoll.

Got a link? I searched for something like that but all it gave was Labour primary votes I believe.

Edit: Ah, found it. This isn't much better, since it underestimates the Greens primary as it asks for Lower House voting intentions. Still, by this metric they'd get a 2-3 seats in Tas, 1-2 Seats in Vic, NSW and WA (depending on Labour preferences), 1-2 Seats in SA (depending on Labour and Xenophon's preferences), 1 seat in QLD, and 1 seat in the ACT. A range of 8 to 12. Not much different.