ACNielsen: 55-45

The Fairfax papers today carry their monthly ACNielsen poll, which shows a narrowing of Labor’s two-party lead from 58-42 to 55-45. Labor’s primary vote is down from 49 per cent to 46 per cent, while the Coalition is up from 39 per cent to 41 per cent. The movement most likely represents a correction from a somewhat excessive result last time. Now please, for the love of Christ, no more polls until next Tuesday …

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

558 comments on “ACNielsen: 55-45”

Comments Page 12 of 12
1 11 12
  1. Strop, the other way a dummy independent might fall foul of the law is if he were paid to run. That might breach the electoral bribery laws, which include payments for (or to stop) a candidature.

    Those laws got an airing last week when Harkin withdraw, allegedly having been promised a winnable Senate candidacy. I notice the Libs did not pursue that line too far: I suspect all sides have skeletons in that closet.

    My take is the law against incentives to withdraw candidacies evolved in 19th century UK, before strong parties arose to control preselections. It evolved to stop you bribing your rival from another political background from standing – ie to buy the seat by default, an anti-competitive practice, denying electors a real choice. Understood with that purpose, it is not electoral bribery for a party to offer an incentive to move on a dud candidate of their own. Not just because it is now customary: but because it is not anti-competitive.

  2. graeme

    didnt the 75 election have quite a few (damascene) independents
    from memory this was pivotal in frasers win esp.tasmania and sa
    please correct me if im wrong

  3. Thanks for responding Graeme. Dummy Independent’s ruin the electoral process for people who want to think their vote is FOR that person more than it is actually set up to wreak havoc on a genuine candidate who might otherwise have won.

    Sure, he/she ought to be good enough to win on primary votes, but on my count many seats were won on 2PP outcomes for both Labor and the Coalition in 2004 so these so called ‘independents’ can/do make a difference. I hope I am not naiive in hoping this practice is not common in Australian politics, and if it is , I dont want to know about it.

  4. 549
    Martin B Says:
    August 15th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Still, off topic, but actually you’re largely right: Celtic as an ethnicity is largely an affectation. Nonetheless it has a conventional usage.

    I’m not sure if you are contesting the point that there are many Muslims of Anglo(+) ethnicity, but I can certainly name the (more or less) famous Sarah Cartland, Bilal Cleland, Timothy Winter, Jemima Khan and Peter Murphy (of Bauhaus) as well as the infamous David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Abdul Waheed.

    It’s not ‘Celtic’ I have a problem with, it’s ‘Anglo-Celtic’. Anglo Muslims, undoubtedly (I was not contesting that point); Celtic Muslims, very likely; but Anglo-Celtic Muslims, obviously, can’t be more common than Anglo-Celtic people, and how many people really are Anglo-Celtic?

  5. Going really off-topic now, but it’s the end of a thread so I suppose there’s no harm 🙂

    I may not have been so clear. The term Celtic is a bit misleading because the ancient Britons (often called the Celts) were not necessarily that closely related to the continental Celts. The use of it in this context is a 17th century affectation 🙂

    Genetically speaking ancient Briton heritage is pretty widely spread through the Anglo population. Of course cultural heritage is more important in this context, but I won’t venture an opinion there…

  6. Martin, I was thinking of ‘Celtic’ as a term applying to the Irish, Scots, and Welsh, who are (of course) not ‘Anglo’.

    The only problem I might have with that usage is that I wonder whether the people involved really do think of themselves as ‘Celtic’ as opposed to ‘Irish’, ‘Scottish’, or ‘Welsh’ (as the case may be).

  7. gusface, I dunno about dummies in 75. Unlikely they were pivotal in Fraser’s win though!

    Maybe in a seat or two. Without ballot labels, dummies were even more dangerous – assuming their how-to-votes are funded by the major party concerned – since punters in those days couldn’t make up their own mind about prefs purely from the ballot paper.

    Strop, you’re right dummy independents are at least unethical. (Although if you are really an independent voter, why would you follow their ticket?) The solace I have with them is they by definition attract little of the vote: by definition a high profile independent won’t be a dummy, or is likely to be found out if he is.

    But they are an argument for a ‘none-of-the-above’ or at least ‘you can vote informal’ option on the ballot.

  8. It took 3 years for the AEC to consider the application to register Brandon Raynor’s Green Liberals. 3 years!!!!!!
    Is it any wonder that we failed the membership test of having 19 of 20 people respond at their original addresses.

    I wonder how many people really would confuse Green Liberals or Brandon Raynor’s Green Liberals with the Liberal party of Australia. You would have to be a bit of a moron.

    The Labor Party of Australia and the Liberal party of Australia both contain Australia . I am sure there is a moron somewhere out there that would confuse the 2.

    It seems like there are 2 parties with the political term Socialist in it, yet why not two with the term liberal. They are both broad political philosophies with many different meanings.

    Australia is a corrupt country………..

Comments Page 12 of 12
1 11 12

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *