Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

[murphyad]

why not liberal democratic

coz no one cares

 

[Lentern]

Newspoll says 56-44, I say its a rogue poll but also fair one. Abbott is going to get a lot of polls around 55-45 in late April up until October I think when they will narrow by a point or two maybe*. But the honeymoon boost shouldn't have worn off just yet not so sharply and I expect a sample five or six times the size would have produced 53-47 maybe 54-46 and Abbot should have about a month left before he starts polling like Nelson again.

*Parties generally get their shit together heading into the campaign and generally the individual mp's are looking at increasing their seat majorities. Latham had enjoyed the massive poll leads early on in his leadership and still had the sky high approval ratings so mp's still thought they were in with a chance, Beazley always looked like he was going to win, Hewson was leading Keating throughout the campaign and Peacock both times was apparently enroute to increase the coalition vote substantially (and he did). Things could get very ugly for the liberal party if heading into July/August half a dozen MP's realize that they're not gaining ground and that they're about to lose their seats (Pyne, Dutton, Bailey off the top of my head). If they start playing faction games in a campaign(as Bjelke Petersen did in 1987) they will annihilated.

 

[Sokolov]

why is Lentern 0 out of 10 on the fun-o-meter?

booooooring

 

[Slidey]

Newspoll says 56-44, I say its a rogue poll but also fair one. Abbott is going to get a lot of polls around 55-45 in late April up until October I think when they will narrow by a point or two maybe*. But the honeymoon boost shouldn't have worn off just yet not so sharply and I expect a sample five or six times the size would have produced 53-47 maybe 54-46 and Abbot should have about a month left before he starts polling like Nelson again.

I don't think it's a rogue. Sustained? Maybe not.

I think it's partly due to the state election results. Healthcare is now the focus, Rudd beats Abbott at healthcare so Labour gains vote share. Labour held on in South Australia so Labour retains/gains vote share, while the Greens had record-breaking results in Tasmania so the Greens gain vote share (they've been averaging 10% and went up to 12%).

Whenever the Greens gain vote primary vote share like this, the poll agencies all report that vote share going to Labour in the two party preferred breakdown. And they're not really wrong. About 80% of Greens preference Labour over Liberal.

So remember, even when the Liberals are whopping Labour in the polls, Labour can reasonably be expected to win. The Green vote increases a lot each year and there's little sign of it slowing (Bob Brown recently said he planned to stay in parliament for a long time yet, because I know you've used his possible retirement to claim the downfall of the Greens before).

 

[Slidey]

The Greens are doing astoundingly well across all demographics since the last election:

Most noteworthy is the massive rise in support for the Greens from the age 18 to 34 demographic (from 9% support to 17% support) and the Queensland demographic (5.6% to 9.7%).

This is really good news for the Greens because it means that a) they have a really strong power base in the fastest growing demographic, and b) they've completely overcome their problems in their weakest demographic. Indeed, their growth in South Australia was the slowest, making it their weakest demographic now, which is funny.

It's worth noting that the Greens improved in every demographic while Labour and Liberal lost ground in every demographic (eh, actually, labour gained slightly in WA and and no gain or loss among women).

Newspoll Quarterly – Pollytics

Polls consistently have the Greens above 10% vote share, so I think at the election in... September? we can safely expect the Greens vote to be about 10% to 12%.

I'm just happy that this means they should get the balance of power and rape any plans for Internet censorship.

 

[Slidey]

Crunching the numbers, it looks strongly like the Greens will get a senate seat in every single state this election. Tasmania could well provide 2. Coupled with 3 from last election, that gives the Greens 9 or 10 Senate seats, and definitely the balance of power.

And if it's a DD:
Double dissolution minimum seats:
2 VIC
2 WA
2 NSW
2 SA
3 TAS
2 QLD
1 ACT
0 NT

So 14 seats or more for the Greens in a DD. Which is why Kevin Rudd would never call one.

 

[Lentern]

The Greens are doing astoundingly well across all demographics since the last election:

Most noteworthy is the massive rise in support for the Greens from the age 18 to 34 demographic (from 9% support to 17% support) and the Queensland demographic (5.6% to 9.7%).

This is really good news for the Greens because it means that a) they have a really strong power base in the fastest growing demographic, and b) they've completely overcome their problems in their weakest demographic. Indeed, their growth in South Australia was the slowest, making it their weakest demographic now, which is funny.

It's worth noting that the Greens improved in every demographic while Labour and Liberal lost ground in every demographic (eh, actually, labour gained slightly in WA and and no gain or loss among women).

Newspoll Quarterly – Pollytics

Polls consistently have the Greens above 10% vote share, so I think at the election in... September? we can safely expect the Greens vote to be about 10% to 12%.

I'm just happy that this means they should get the balance of power and rape any plans for Internet censorship.

Proceed with caution, it was relatively recently that newspoll began to include "greens" as an option instead of leaving them under other. The consequence of which is that this election unlike previous ones polls which overstate the greens vote whereas they used to do the opposite.

 

[Slidey]

Proceed with caution, it was relatively recently that newspoll began to include "greens" as an option instead of leaving them under other. The consequence of which is that this election unlike previous ones polls which overstate the greens vote whereas they used to do the opposite.

Um, no that's not correct.

Newspoll has included 'Greens' as an option since the polling period the 14th to the 16th of February 1997 up to every poll to this day (and occasionally in 1996).

You can see previous results here: http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl

Newspoll's history with predicting the Greens primary vote for the lower house is quite accurate. None of the polls ask about the Senate, but the lower house is always lower than the upper house vote and is thus a floor:

1998 Election:
Newspoll - 2%
Actual result - 2.6%
2001 Election:
Newspoll - 4%
Actual result - 5%
2004 Election:
Newspoll - 7%
Actual result - 7.2%
2007 Election:
Newspoll - 7%
Actual Result - 7.8%

Newspoll currently predicts: 12%... in fact the Greens have been polling roughly this level of support since very shortly after the last election. If this result is overstated, it's by no more than 1 or 2%.

We could reasonably expect the Greens to be polling something like 15% in the Senate right now.

 

[Lentern]

Um, no that's not correct.

Newspoll has included 'Greens' as an option since the polling period the 14th to the 16th of February 1997 up to every poll to this day (and occasionally in 1996).

You can see previous results here: http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl

Newspoll's history with predicting the Greens primary vote for the lower house is quite accurate. None of the polls ask about the Senate, but the lower house is always lower than the upper house vote and is thus a floor:

1998 Election:
Newspoll - 2%
Actual result - 2.6%
2001 Election:
Newspoll - 4%
Actual result - 5%
2004 Election:
Newspoll - 7%
Actual result - 7.2%
2007 Election:
Newspoll - 7%
Actual Result - 7.8%

Newspoll currently predicts: 12%... in fact the Greens have been polling roughly this level of support since very shortly after the last election. If this result is overstated, it's by no more than 1 or 2%.

We could reasonably expect the Greens to be polling something like 15% in the Senate right now.

You misunderstand me, prior to the 2007 election when newspoll rings a home they ask something like "if a general election were held today, would you vote Labor, Liberal, national, other or undecided" if you said other they would ask which other. After 2007 they slotted a fifth option into the initial question, Greens which most pundits (actually pretty much everyone that weighed in on it) tend to think will cause a little spike in the greens vote.

 

[Slidey]

You misunderstand me, prior to the 2007 election when newspoll rings a home they ask something like "if a general election were held today, would you vote Labor, Liberal, national, other or undecided" if you said other they would ask which other. After 2007 they slotted a fifth option into the initial question, Greens which most pundits (actually pretty much everyone that weighed in on it) tend to think will cause a little spike in the greens vote.

Oh, okay. Interesting.

You should have a read of Antony Green's prediction that there will be a Double Dissolution, too: ABC The Drum - Political logic points to double dissolution

 

[slugboy]

Its very simple.

Tony Abbott is a douche.


Therefore Rudd, flawed as he is, is the only choice

 

[murphyad]

Pretty good for a first post.

 

[Lentern]

Newspoll says 54-46, finally a poll that more or less reflects the current situation, ofcourse we won't read too much into an isolated poll. Still in terms of trends it might be fair to say Abbott's honeymoon peak was the 48's from late January to mid March and now Rudd is pulling away again.

On the stuff about Turnbull possible overturning his resignation, bullshit.

 

[Slidey]

Its very simple.

Tony Abbott is a douche.


Therefore Rudd, flawed as he is, is the only choice

But Rudd wants to censor the internet, which actually makes him a bigger douche.

Therefore Abbott, flawed as he is, is the only choice.

 

[Lentern]

But Rudd wants to censor the internet, which actually makes him a bigger douche.

Therefore Abbott, flawed as he is, is the only choice.

Oh come on Slidey you're being ridiculous. As much as Rudd seems to betray the secular progressivism of Whitlam, Hayden and Hawke he does not come close to the greater of two evils when sparring with Abbott. Ignoring his record as health minister, he would have sat around the cabinet table that decided to cancel Mohammad Haneefs visa, that put children like Shayan Badraie in detention, that raped the natural environment for temporary job creation, that dismantled worker protection laws and refused to make any real steps towards reconciliation whatsoever. You would know that unlike Turnbull, Hockey or Costello, Abbott wasn't dissenting at any of those cabinet meetings? You can't seriously lend your preference to that man over something so trivial as an internet filter that won't work and would for the large part only police activity that is already actually illegal.

 

[Slidey]

You make internet censorship out to be trivial when it isn't, so I'm not going to reply in depth to that.

 

[Lentern]

You make internet censorship out to be trivial when it isn't, so I'm not going to reply in depth to that.

Oh christ, tell me you're not sucked into this chest thumping civil liberties nonsense. Most of what it does will be enforcing already existing laws and the rest isn't imprisoning legitimate refugee children it's denying a handful of perverts pornography. And yes that makes it trivial.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Oh christ, tell me you're not sucked into this chest thumping civil liberties nonsense. Most of what it does will be enforcing already existing laws and the rest isn't imprisoning legitimate refugee children it's denying a handful of perverts pornography. And yes that makes it trivial.

wait you aren't actually supporting it are you?

 

[Lentern]

wait you aren't actually supporting it are you?

No I just don't care about it. Hypothetically if there was a foolproof, efficient way of blocking out content that was unequivocally criminal, eg child pornography I'd support that being used but the proposed clean feed, I just don't care. Pretending I am one of those libertarians for a moment the cutting back the private health insurance rebate to give $900 to students working part time is a much realer attack on freedom.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

No I just don't care about it. Hypothetically if there was a foolproof, efficient way of blocking out content that was unequivocally criminal, eg child pornography I'd support that being used but the proposed clean feed, I just don't care. Pretending I am one of those libertarians for a moment the cutting back the private health insurance rebate to give $900 to students working part time is a much realer attack on freedom.

thats not an attack on freedom thats just stupid government being stupid