2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (2 Viewers)

[Triangulum]

State governments sooner or later need to end, however I believe the governor general should sack the Lemma government. You've got to be mad to think hes doing a good job

A: Undemocratic. The ALP was reelected with a resounding majority not 8 months ago, and there's no evidence of a groundswell of public support for Fatty O'Barrell. (Yes, I know he's lost weight, but it's still an awesome nickname and I'm sticking with it.)
B: Governor-General can't sack a state government. The person you're looking for is the Governor of NSW.

 

[Triangulum]

More polls! Daily Telegraph/Galaxy polling in NSW marginal seats shows the government likely to lose Lindsay (like that was a surprise) and Dobell, and is 'in danger', whatever that means, in Robertson and Paterson. The cumulative 2PP in those seats is 54-46. Also, voters apparently aren't concerned about union links in some of the Labor candidates. No sample size given, though.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22662512-5001021,00.html

 

[jimmayyy]

all the polls mean nothing. in fact, for howards sake, i hope labour are given an even bigger lead in these polls in the days before the election, because everytime they have, they get thrashed.

also, it should be considered in most of these polls there still between 13 and 17 % undecided.

 

[Iron]

all the polls mean nothing. in fact, for howards sake, i hope labour are given an even bigger lead in these polls in the days before the election, because everytime they have, they get thrashed.

.

Interesting take on things. Perhaps you subscribe to the Howard theory that the polls are evidence of the unique Australian sense of humour? Of course theyll vote Coalition in the end. THis is all just a laugh. On election night, Kevin will laughingly rip off the mask, revealing Jannett

 

[Triangulum]

http://thebulletinelection.ninemsn.com.au/senior_libs_raise_the_white_flag.htm

Ministers are dispirited, sceptical of party-machine spin about how well the government is going in the marginals, and think that Costello will have to fight hard for the leadership in the event of a loss.

I doubt that Peter Costello will ever become PM if the Libs lose. He's already seen as old news by the electorate, and I can't imagine he'd be patient enough to wait three or likely six years in opposition.

 

[Triangulum]

Is it wrong for me to like Costello more than the rest of the Liberal front bench put together.

I find it hard to draw a distinction between the incredibly annoying Costello and the incredibly annoying Abbott/Downer/Bishop/Hockey crowd. If I had to pick one, I'd probably go with Brendan Nelson.

Plus, from a pragmatic perspective, polls have gone rip-roariously towards Labor continually and yet Labor has been losing each time.

The polls were much closer in 2001 and 2004, though. Howard came from behind each time, but he wasn't in the 42-44 2PP doldrums less than a month before the election. Here are comparisons of Newspoll (hasn't been updated with the most recent 58-42 result) and ACNielsen results for 2001, 2004 and 2007.

 

[iEdd]

Is it wrong for me to like Costello more than the rest of the Liberal front bench put together.

I don't think so. I dislike him the least too.

 

[LCollins]

moderators you are a fucking joke taking down my regular posts .Get the fuck over yourselfs and move on with your sad lame lifes. I fuckin say why i think a JH gov makes more sense , 32 yr low unemployment , 17yrs of continued economic growth , magnificent IR laws , interest rates lower than a labor gov. But you both seem to be fucking rudd lovers and what to censore my posts just like the unions will destroy our future and workplaces.
So fuck ya

Dude you have to say more that just recite bloody liberal adds - if all your other posts are much like this, its no wonder your posts get taken down.

 

[jimmayyy]

Interesting take on things. Perhaps you subscribe to the Howard theory that the polls are evidence of the unique Australian sense of humour? Of course theyll vote Coalition in the end. THis is all just a laugh. On election night, Kevin will laughingly rip off the mask, revealing Jannett

not at all, i just don't see these sort of polls as accurate reflections of an outcome. 2001 and 2004 both showed a similar trend. people quickly forget there was the same sense of "a new direction/working families/howard is evil" in both Beazley's and Latham's campaigns and Howard still slaughtered them because he held onto the 3 demographics that matter the most - the old, the rich and the middle classes who like to see themselves as "traditional". as far as i can see, Rudd hasn't gained the support of any of them. every single union member in the country could vote for him, plus all the students who are clearly leftist, and he'd still fall short, regardless of what these polls show.

like i said, these polls show a relatively huge undecided or apathetic group who could swing it for either side. media polls (esp ones like Morgan and Nielson - im still =\ at the fact they have any credability) have never in recent history, esp concerning a politican like howard, shown an accurate outcome. thats all im saying.

 

[LCollins]

There is this test in predicting election outcomes that is very reliable (something like 1 failure in the last 50 years when the government of the day was caught in a scandal days out from the election). Apparently if two out three economic indicators rise over the term - inflation, interest rates and unemployment, then there will be a change of government. Interest rates have risen, inflation has as well (I think). This was not the case at the previous election. Also keep in mind that a interest rate rise is more likely than not at the RBA meeting - which has never happened in an election campaign before. Has Labor ever been in a better position to win the election?

 

[LCollins]

Even if we accept that there has only been one failure in the last 50 years, this does not make it a "very reliable" test. There must have been approximately 17 elections in this time. This is hardly enough tests to confirm the high accuracy of this test. Especially when the test if so vague. Two of three factors merly have to rise by any amount. It also totally ignores other causal factors that may be operating.

The 'one failure in 50 years' was a throwaway line (I wasn't trying to misrepresent facts, I thought that was an obvious throwaway line), I'm too lazy to do research on the inflation, interest rate and unemployment statistics over the last 100 years. What I'm suggesting that this is a test (much like the 'Eden Monaro' test). And of course it ignores other factors, but it does take into account the most selfish and important factor in voting, the hip pocket. Reliability in a scientific sense is achieved by reproducible results, whereas accuracy is how closely your results conform to reality. So this test IS reliable if does achieve the same results with the same criteria (it is a reliable test if the predicted results come true many times). Note the accuracy of this test is limited to a simple win or loss result - it does not predict a winning margin.

 

[LCollins]

moderators you are a fucking joke taking down my regular posts .Get the fuck over yourselfs and move on with your sad lame lifes. I fuckin say why i think a JH gov makes more sense , 32 yr low unemployment , 17yrs of continued economic growth , magnificent IR laws , interest rates lower than a labor gov. But you both seem to be fucking rudd lovers and what to censore my posts just like the unions will destroy our future and workplaces.
So fuck ya

Do you know what a fact is? 'Magnificent IR Laws' is anything but factual, that is just opinionated garbage. 'Unions will destroy our future and workplaces' is also another opinion, not fact. 'Interest rates lower than a labor gov' whilst is true in a recent sense, is a generalisation. This is a fact - John Howard, whilst Treasurer presided over 17% interest rates.

 

[Rafy]

Newspoll 54/46 TPP (from 58/42 last week)

 

[Generator]

Do you know what a fact is? 'Magnificent IR Laws' is anything but factual, that is just opinionated garbage.

Though I'm inclined to agree, you have to admit that others may consider the flip side of the coin to be just as bad.

'Unions will destroy our future and workplaces' is also another opinion, not fact.

This statement from williams180 is what I would call opinionated garbage.

'Interest rates lower than a labor gov' whilst is true in a recent sense, is a generalisation. This is a fact - John Howard, whilst Treasurer presided over 17% interest rates.

Kevin Rudd: Australia's interest rates reached a record 22 per cent when John Howard was treasurer.

Reality: There are many interest rates. The one that hit 22 per cent in Howard's time as treasurer was the 90-day bank bill rate. That is not set by the Reserve Bank, and is not paid by consumers.

The main interest rates Australians pay are mortgage rates. They peaked in 1982 at 13.5 per cent — well below the 17 per cent they reached under Labor seven years later.

The Age

Anyway, I just thought that it would be best to point out that your fact is actually a factoid.

 

[Iron]

Apparently it was Keating who pressed him to bring up Howard's record as treasurer in the deabte

 

[withoutaface]

Howard's record as treasurer is irrelevant when he's proven himself over the last eleven years.

 

[Triangulum]

Howard's record as treasurer is irrelevant when he's proven himself over the last eleven years.

Not necessarily. His record as treasurer can go towards arguing that his record over the past eleven years is based on luck and his inheritance from Keating, rather than on his own economic skills, which based on his performance as treasurer are non-existent. (Not that I'm saying that this is true - I think it's partially true - but that's how it can be argued.)

 

[ujuphleg]

Howard's record as treasurer is irrelevant when he's proven himself over the last eleven years.

But he hasn't proven himself, Costello has proven himself in capacity as Treasurer and economic manager. Clearly, from his own track record as Treasurer, Howard was shit.

Furthermore, the tax cuts promised in this election will only place further inflationary pressures on interest rates and they only have themselves to blame if the RBA raises them next week.

And yes, Rudd is no better for adopting 91.5% of that tax policy.

Nobody is doing the right thing for the country economically.

 

[Triangulum]

Oh my lord, Andrew O-fucking-Keefe has a (self-described) 'quirky' election blog. Thankfully there's only one post and it was more than a month ago, so looks like we won't be subjected to it all campaign. He fills us in on the key election issue that voters see Howard as a labrador, but O'Keefe thinks he's more of a rat.

http://election2007.yahoo.com.au/BlogEntry.23.aspx

We're also treated to the intelligent and well-reasoned arguments that characterise comment threads on Yahoo7:

if labor get in my family can no longer afford to eat.

Funny, but I remember that the Labor party supported the "ME TO" going to war in Iraq stance.

(Not actually the case, but why let facts get in the way of a poorly written diatribe?)

Love you Andrew, think you are so funny and intelligent, and such a superb vocabulary You are a great talent!.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Labor faithful can so easily forget Hawke, then Keatings fantastic economic management which was so good it left us with a debt that John Howard only managed to pay off about 4 years ago.

OMG OMG OMG government debt!!!11!! Whenever someone talks about that it's a dead giveaway that they have no clue what they're talking about.

hey Andrew, I think its great to see celebrities choose sides

What Australia needs is a female prime minister they are calculating and manipulative and i mean that in a good way.

 

[Rafy]

Costello v Swan debate 12.30pm Today. ABC and Nine will broadast it, Nine will have the worm.


PM support best since Rudd took over | Newspoll tables

Garrett's blunder on Kyoto

PETER Garrett's political credentials were in tatters last night after Kevin Rudd forced his environment spokesman to issue a humiliating clarification of Labor's greenhouse gas policy.

The backdown came after a Labor crisis meeting, which followed a day of sustained assault by John Howard and senior ministers on Mr Garrett's approach to a new post-Kyoto climate accord.

Mr Garrett started the day by committing a Labor government to signing a new global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions targets that might not include developing nations, such as China and India.

Last night, Mr Garrett issued a statement, reversing his position. [...]