The latest semi-monthly Reuters Poll Trend figure, a weighted composite of results from Morgan, Newspoll and ACNielsen, continues the gentle trend back to the Coalition that has been evident since May. On the primary vote, Labor is down from 47.7 per cent to 46.9 per cent and the Coalition up from 39.5 per cent to 40.4 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is steady on 46.4 per cent, while John Howard’s is down from 40.5 per cent to 40.2 per cent.
A little later in the day I get a chance to reply…
Pi 92
ABC report – 1st para – “Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he will back John Howard’s move to override the Queensland Labor Government on council amalgamations.”
I don’t “deliberately take things out of context”. I am concerned that Rudd will wedge himself with a lack of policy differentiation. I am increasingly dismayed and worried by this approach. IMHO Rudd is deliberately giving nothing away until the election is called (not quite small target, really a Boycott (Geoffrey) defence) – but will this be too late to bring the electorate back on board to share his vision?
Sadly, I think Adam 234 is probably closer to the mark and this is really more about a continuing shift of powers from states to Canberra. As it happens I don’t agree with amalgamations, but the lack of funding from states & commonwealth to support their operation (given they are constantly being given tasks by them, just no funding, or worse rates capping and reduced cash flow) may mean that amalgamation gives some Councils some opportunities for economy of scale on basic services. But just as the Commonwealth likes to centralise so do states, and amalgamating Councils is one way doing that. The other way is the Sartor way here in NSW, where you just strip planning powers form them but make them pick up the pieces afterwards.
Antony,
I’m not using it againt an election that has already occurred.I’m using it against the latest quarterly Newspoll data breakdown.That breakdown gave state swings, marginal vs safe government vs. safe opposition seat swings and capital vs. non capital city swings.Those swings could then be used to not only analyse the relationships of the census data in and of themselves, but could be used to construct a weighting mechanism for every seat in the country to obtain a 2 party preffered estimation (although an inflated one due to the feedback in some of those weights).That inflated TPP could then be forced, with a bit of mathematical manipulation (linear programming/matrix algebra), to behave within the known newspoll swings for each demographic Newspoll measured, providing (and I’m not blowing smoke up my back end here) the best seat by seat estimation of any quarterly Newspoll that has ever been produced in this country.
It is those newspoll swings and the derivatives I’ve created that I’m using as a baseline to analyse against the current census data.All of those results can be seen at my site in the pollycide series:
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/pollycide/
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/pollycide-2-–-draft-numbers/
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/pollycide-part-3-the-verification/
I agree with those that guffaw at the conclusion that interest rates werent a major player in the campaign.Crosby/Textor are many things, an awful lot of which I find completely distasteful – but they know what they are doing in their qualitative research for Australian election campaigns, even if it does, IMHO, debase politics.
Data mining doesnt bother me – those problems you mention in the UK simply wouldnt have occured had they employed professional econometricians that knew what they were doing with time series analysis, understood how degrees of freedom actually work and could spell the word “parsimony”.Redundant variables, even significant ones are that hard to remove.In fact, not removing them is an act of pure negligence and should be one of the primary steps in any model specification process.
Any professional that throws an infinite amount of variables at a problem to maximise their fit is, quite frankly, an idiot that needs to get another job.It gives the rest of us that know what we are doing a bad name 😉
considering that it was the states that cerated the commonwealth of australia via various acts etc
is it possible for them TOGETHER to proclaim that certain acts of the howard government are unconstitutional according to the original constitution that THEY enacted and therefore invalid as per their acts to create the commonwealth of australia and therefore appeal to the queen/gg to rescind them
Oops – last 2 paras should read:
Data mining doesnt bother me – those problems you mention in the UK simply wouldn’t have occurred had they employed professional econometricians that knew what they were doing with time series analysis, understood how degrees of freedom actually work and could spell the word “parsimonyâ€.Redundant variables, even significant ones are not that hard to remove.In fact, not removing them is an act of pure negligence and should be one of the primary steps in any model specification process.
Any professional that throws an infinite amount of variables at a problem to maximise the model fit is, quite frankly, an idiot that needs to get another job.It gives the rest of us that know what we are doing a bad name 😉
My very own leader of the opposition is telling me to go to bed 😉
She who must be obeyed and all that.
Thanks all – has been great to see good quality debate return to the PollBludger tonight.
RE:301
Stewart J Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“I am increasingly dismayed and worried by this approach. IMHO Rudd is deliberately giving nothing away until the election is called (not quite small target, really a Boycott (Geoffrey) defence) – but will this be too late to bring the electorate back on board to share his vision?”
On Lateline tonight Mr Rudd stressed it was HE,not John Howard who first mentioned giving the locals a say in the amalgamations,and did so back in April/May this year.Mr Howard once again follows the ALP policy and claims it as his own.But he also said that if the PM is going to people a say in Council Amalgamations then they should have a say about a Nuclear Reactor ,something which the PM is refusing ro do.Why?
It’s all about JWH being re-elected.Nothing more.When the election is over you will hear no more about it.
Comment 229: “If Howard wants to play State politics, he runs the risk of being identified with and infected by the stink surrounding State Liberal oppositions.”
That is quite a good point and opportunity for Rudd I guess. To identify Howard as taking over being each States opposition party. Suggesting he would be better to run for election in that State.
Adam.probably works like in my youth
I have alot of pot, I’m selling it at $200(bought at $150) an OZ today, tomorrow this guy starts selling his for $180. so.. Do I wait and see, or do I dump what I have for $170, buy some more wholesale at $130 and start unloading at $165. There only one way to stay “in touch”, keep up. Dump this stuff that cost me X. buy new stuff at the new “x” … Of course I could hang on to my old stuff that I paid alot for, but I cant, “turnover” is what I need, and the figures only hafta make sense “today”..
After all, I’m greedy and ripped so…
Comment 231: “I don’t think the appearance or non-appearance of the Canadian Prime Minister in the House of Reps will be a deciding factor on the election date.”
The Canadian Prime Minister might be very supportive of WorkChoices since similars got rolled in Canada.
“The decision overturns decisions by the B.C. Supreme Court in 2003 and the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2004 that ruled the law was constitutional.
The sweeping law, which took effect three days after first reading in the B.C. legislature, limited workers’ rights in areas such as contracting out, bumping, layoffs, and transfers to and from various health care institutions in B.C.”
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f55f272e-34b8-464a-aa12-b6b2a972aa86&k=78774
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/collectively-condemning-workchoices/2007/06/19/1182019115981.html
Stewart,
I’d agree that Rudd’s small target strategy is frustrating but Rudd is having to dance in a Redneck mine field. Howard is doing every thing he can to get him to step on a mine.
Watching Rudd on Lateline I got the sense he has played this very dangerous game almost to perfection. He has avoided the wedge and but now has a long list of how Howard is governing for the short term – I thought he made the point well without offering a target. I think this line will be a strong theme in the campain.
The decision to oppose uranium sales is picking the right issue to argue against the Govt. The line that it undermines the non-proliferation treaty and therefore is a security risk is a good one. I’d expect at some point they will join the dots to Howards failure on Koyto and Iraq and start painting him as a reckless and regressive on the global stage.
Antony,
You are right, we hardly saw the Paterson ALP candidate in the press in 2004. I think we will be seeing lots of Jim Arneman and Mr Rudd on our screens in Newcastle.
Albert he avoided the wedge by offering no alternative views…Rudd is not acting like a leader he’s just following Howard on all the issues and where he doesnt want to get wedged he doesnt have an opinion…ie tax reform and Mersey Hospital…
Rudd keeps on saying Howard is running for the short term…but Rudd doesnt tell the people what his plans are he hasnt got any vision and he’s not ready to govern the nation…
Rudd will fall down on the issue of Uranium mining after all bringing India on board with a bilateral agreement is just what the Indians need to be brought inside a non-proliferation process even though they remain outside the NPT…all Rudd is doing is costing jobs and revenue for the Government because he’s anti-nuclear…
Nostra, wake up, wake up you’re dreaming!! Now, isn’t it good to get back to reality? Oh, I suppose it isn’t for you.
It seems to me that all Rudd is doing is exactly what John Howard did in 1996. Howard went to the election against Keating with only some very vague promises, etc. Nothing much he could be pinned down on. It must be frustrating for Howard to see his own tactics used against him.
Hopefully Beattie will include two more questions in any plebiscite held in Queensland. One concerning IR and the other on Nuclear reactors just to remind the elctorate what is at stake here.
I am quite sure Rudd is doing what he is for very good reasons. It is not like him to not know what is going on. It is not pretty and makes him look a little wishy washy disussing it, better if someone else answered these questions for him.
At least with the sale of uranium to India he was quite firm. Very different feel listening to him on things he doesnt have to tip toe around. We need to hear more of the definitive firm statements.
Yeah, Im thinking Rumble in the Jungle, eighth round or so.
Howard is like George Foreman : a huge, formidable opponent, but frustrated and going for KO punches. Fail to block one or two and its night night champ.
But Rudd is Ali: Dancing like a butterfly, messing with his head, wearing him down, taunting him into riskier and riskier strategies.
Then: bam bam! Stings like a bee.
Im sure Rudd’s picked his punches for the 10th round.
Gary then i guess you support ruling by plebiscite do you…what a way to govern a country that’s just silly…council amalgamations are serious issues especially considering they are effectively removing one level of government in some local areas…
Why don’t we have a plebiscite on tax reform then and on every issue Gary this is double standards from Rudd on the one hand he supports plebiscites for council amalgamations but then says we should do it for this this and this…
IR is an issue for the Government and Nuclear power is a matter for government and the market…plain and simple and as far as im aware the Government doesnt have any particular policy on where to build nuclear power stations so it would be pointless having votes for an issue that isnt at this point in time relevant.
Rudd’s going to get burnt in some areas of QLD over this…and his small target strategy will fail because unlike Howard of 1996 Rudd has 1/10 of the political experience Howard had back then…he was ready to lead and Rudd is just a follower of the Union bosses…If Rudd was a leader he’d have a tax policy and a clear cut IR policy but he doesn’t and no one can take him seriously…
[Rudd will fall down on the issue of Uranium mining after all bringing India on board with a bilateral agreement is just what the Indians need to be brought inside a non-proliferation process even though they remain outside the NPT]
Howard’s plan is for the same rules to apply between India and Australia as apply between India and U.S.A. The U.S. yesterday said that the whole deal gets scrapped if India continue producing and testing nuclear weapons. Rudd is simply supporting what is already in the India & U.S.A. agreement. Howard and Downer obviously haven’t even read what they are signing up to.
[all Rudd is doing is costing jobs and revenue for the Government because he’s anti-nuclear…]
You must mean the nuclear bomb industry, which is one industry that no government should support.
[Gary then i guess you support ruling by plebiscite do you…what a way to govern a country that’s just silly…council amalgamations are serious issues especially considering they are effectively removing one level of government in some local areas…]
WTF? They aren’t removing a level of government, the council gets amalgamated to make another bigger council. Your statement is pure rhetoric. Plus you forget that most people don’t even vote in local government elections.
[Why don’t we have a plebiscite on tax reform then and on every issue Gary this is double standards from Rudd on the one hand he supports plebiscites for council amalgamations but then says we should do it for this this and this…]
Sure, so long as we can have one on scraping WorkChoices, and asking voters “Do you approve of the federal government forcing your council to build a nuclear power station?”. And another one “Should taxpayers of other states and territories pay for referenda that only apply to one state or territory?”
I’m sure that would go down great, and Howard would support it because he seems to think pointless referenda that have no legal force somehow support democracy. Instead he is just setting a dangerous precedent where future ALP governments will be able to over rule anything future Liberal state governments want to do.
[IR is an issue for the Government and Nuclear power is a matter for government and the market…plain and simple and as far as im aware the Government doesnt have any particular policy on where to build nuclear power stations so it would be pointless having votes for an issue that isnt at this point in time relevant.]
According to the government’s nuclear task force, there should be 25 nuclear power stations built in the eastern states by 2050. There should be a referendum for everyone of them if Howard wants to be consistent, but he doesn’t, he’s just a political opportunist who knows his days are numbered.
The NineMSN poll should be a warning to all us elitists – Hansonism is not dead, and anti-Muslim sentiment is a very potent force in the electorate, especially among the floaters who will decide this election as they decide all elections. The question for Howard is how he can exploit this sentiment without being too crude about it, and the question for Rudd is how he can avoid getting wedged as Beazley did in 2001. So far Rudd has proved impossible to wedge, as Glen notes with frustration above. Tough tit, Glen, he’s too smart for you.
Other questions to be answered in the coming weeks:
* Is the council amalgamations issue hurting Labor in Qld? If so, Beattie will have to back down, and if he doesn’t he will have to be forced to. There is someone is Qld more powerful than Beattie, and his name is Bill.
* Which of the two polls we have seen from WA is correct, the goooood Westpoll or the baaaaad ACNielson?
* Has the Mersey hospital rort turned things around for the Libs in Tas? They love a good rort in Tassie, but they may just take the money and vote Labor anyway.
* Is there a swing developing in Vic or not? We’ve never liked Howard much down here, but we seem strangely reluctant to do him now we have the chance.
* Is there going to be a financial crisis, and if so how will it affect voter sentiment? I suspect it will drive the nervous nellies back to Howard, but others may have different views.
“Australian electorates are relatively homogenious,” said someone above. Question for tonight: what’s the difference between homogenous, homogenious and homogeneous?
Interesting comment by Possum above, regarding McMansions and swinging voters. I suspect that, unlike the IR laws, the rise in interst rates will not be universally in Labor’s favour, and may even help the Libs in some areas.
Glen said:
I don’t think the ‘union bosses’ themselves would say this. Even if it were true, it’s extremely difficult to believe that the average Australian is cowering under his or her bed in fear at the prospect of ‘union bosses’ turning Australia into a Bolshevik Mafia state.
The racebaiting of Hanson is a concern, but it may not feature so heavily in this election. If anything, it looks like a cynical attempt by her to raise some revenue for herself at this year’s election. To quote from a commenter at another blog, elections for Pauline are like the bogan lottery.
Hanson’s paranoia about Asians in 1996 might have played well to some people, but was ultimately discredited, and any attempt by her to find new targets will not necessarily be successful. The Libs may well have more to lose from her than anybody else.
As for the Mersey hospital – the media reports suggest the locals are divided, and support for Howard’s intervention is far from universal. Far from wedging Labor, Howard just seems to be playing Tasmanians off against each other on this issue.
I can’t see the Libs doing well in Victoria. Many of the more built-up country towns should swing toward Labor, as many thousands of country people are likely to be unhappy with Workchoices. Despite the supposedly wonderful employment rate, jobs in the country can be scarce for the unskilled, and Workchoices is hardly a sweetener.
In the longer term, I also wonder if some of the traditional ‘blue-ribbon’ Liberal seats in Vic will become less conservative over time. I think Vic will remain a good state for Labor. The outer-suburban mortgage belt is not as homogenous as all that – Melbourne has plenty of Labor-voting migrants in the outer suburbs, without any of suburbs being ‘enclaves’, meaning that the dog whistling and fear campaigns by the Libs may not work as well there as elsewhere.
One last comment for now – Victoria’s public sector (nurses, teachers, and particularly, police) seem to be shaping up for an industrial fight with the Brumby Government. It’ll be interesting to see how this fight, (should it occur) plays on the Federal stage.
Meanwhile on Yahoo7.
What do you think of Pauline Hanson’s return to politics?
Thanks for voting 8795 votes since Aug 15 2007
Glad to see her 44% 3889 votes
Not too concerned 15% 1279 votes
Would like to see the back of her 20% 1795 votes
She should stick to dancing 21% 1832 votes
Isn’t Beattie already ‘backing’ down?
I thought he and Minister Fraser were in dicussions with some of the larger affected areas discussing the detail. Presumably they’ll seek compromises in such areas that they think are reasonable policy, and which give the outgoing councillors/mayors a sense of potency and profile outside their present bailiwick (with an eye to their standing in the new wards in the larger councils).
But Beattie has obviously backed himself into a corner on the plebiscite issue: they should have set the terms of any ‘polls’ themselves and it might have let off some steam. But they are worried the majorities against amalgamation in the smaller councils would have been huge, and it is (generally) in those areas where amalgamation is most rational, from an economic perspective.
Beattie used Sky yesterday to say that the state ALP tracking polls of the issue show strong support for the council amalgamation issues.
In terms of Kennett, people forget he went through the council amalgamations in his first term. He got returned at the next election, and by keeping almost every one of the regional/rural seats.
Beattie’s also suggested he might run his own state plebiscites to coincide with the Howard ones – asking people their opinion on workchoices and having a nuclear power plant/waste facility in their electorates.
Which would have more influence on voters – council mergers or the chance of having a nuclear power plant next door? And the idea of reminding people about workchoices on polling day shows that Beattie is just as politically smart as Howard.
In looking at the seats to fall by either side, the ALP are fairly confident of picking up:
Qld: Bonner, Bowman, Moreton
NSW: Eden-Monaro
VIC: None
SA: Kingston, Wakefield, Makin
TAS: Bass, Braddon,
NT: Solomon
WA: None
Thats 10 seats which I think we can all fairly confidently predict are going to fall, unless there are some local issues which may sway the vote toward the incumbent.
The current batch of seats which make up the “to-watch” list which will decide this election for the ALP are:
Qld: Herbert, Blair, Bowman
NSW: Wentworth, Lindsay, Dobell, Paterson
VIC: Deakin
SA: Boothby, Sturt
TAS: None
NT: None
WA: Hasluck, Stirling, Kalgoorlie
Thats another 13 which will be close. Labor needs 6 of these.
Of course, this is presuming that Labor hold all its own marginals. Could it be that we will be waiting on WA results yet again to see if Cowan and Swan can be held?
As you can see, regardless of national TPP, these are the seats which will decide the election.
“Can someone explain to me why people sell into a falling market, thus turning a paper loss into a real loss?”
It’s called ‘cutting your losses’. Sure, you’ve just lost 5% on paper. But 5% is better than 10%, or 15%, or 20%….
Of course, that never stops pickups from either side happening that wasn’t on the cards and we may see more change than I’ve listed through.
On a side notre, are there any figures on the largest swing gained to win a seat from an incumbent in the last 30 years?
More Morgan polling out today?
Swings above 10%: 1996 (all to Coalition), Hughes 11.3, Greenway 10.0, Lindsay 11.8, Lyne 11.2, Macarthur 12.0, Wills 12.3, Fadden 12.7, Fisher 10.0, Hunkler 10.4, Kennedy 12.0, Oxley 19.3, Rankin 12.7
1998 (all to Labor) Reid 10.3, Blair 10.6, Fairfax 13.3, Wide Bay 15.3, Brand 11.4, Braddon 10.0
1998 Gilmore 10.1 to Coalition
None since. Note that in Wills 1996, there was an Indepdnent Factor, in Oxley (1996) Hanson had been disendorsed by the Liberals after the ballot papers had been printed. The big swings against the Coalition Queensland seats in 1998 were all in seats where One Nation had a huge vote.
I haven’t included seats gained by Independents, which always produce huge swings because of the change in the composition of the final two-candidates.
Grooski,
I think you should add Lindsay and Macquarie to the seats that Labor are fairly confident of picking up.
On paper Labor already has 60 seats and one of those is Macquarie. If you want to call Macquarie a Liberal seat, then Labor only starts with 59 seats and needs to gain 17.
Libs getting excited should remember that in 2004 Qld voted 55/45 for the ALP in the state election and 45/55 for the ALP in the federal election. They seem to be pretty good at distinguishing federal from state up there.
Grooski – Parramatta is notionally a Liberal seat – but it would probably fall into your “ALP being fairly confident of picking up” category especially as it already has an ALP member who has staff.
I think Glen said we should all place bets on the party we *don’t* want to win. That’s actually a good idea. We’ll be having an election-night party and to cover myself, I might put some money on the Coalition to win. That way if the ALP gets up, who cares, let the champagne flow. If the unthinkable happens, at least I’ll be able to drown my sorrows in free wine.
Thanks Anthony, I was assuming that the ALP will hold Parramatta, although notionally Liberal, putting the ALP on 60 seats and a seat they should pickup is Macquarie although notionally ALP on 0.5%.
After all the Libs kept on saying how they “picked up” McMillan in 2004, even though it was already notionally Liberal
1. Has Howard found his new Tampa? Ie. QLD Council Amalgamation row?
2. Antipathy towards Latham was a huge factor in 2004, and yes, I think it helped to overinflate the margin of victory in some Coalition seats.
3. Bolter seats in 2007? Boothy, Sturt, Deakin, La Trobe, Wentworth, maybe Hughes, Ryan,………..and in my wildest dreams – Berowra.
Lindsay will be determined by how many Kelly voters remain with Howard. She was very popular and may have rusted on some support. Even with the faction fighting to get her there, the new candidate matches and will appeal to the demographics of the seat. I just can’t see enough of a case to have confidence in it falling.
Antony, from those figures, it shows that very large swings are very improbable unless there is a major impetus for change on a large-scale basis (anti Keating in 96 and One Nation/GST in 98). I don’t feel an impetus is there this election. I would suggest the chances of swings 9%+ are highly improbable this year. Of course, this is usually the case anyway, but with large national swings in the realms of 6-7% at the moment, there are some people discussing seats that require large numbers to fall. I would be seriously downplaying the likelihood of that occurring. This effectively reduces the pot of seats that Labor has to play with.
Grooski, the swing was 5% in both 1996 and 1998. The Standard Deviation on the swing is usually around 2-3%, usually around 2% if you take account of differences between states. So if you had a 6% swing, two thirds of seats would have a swing in the range 4-6%, and only one sixth of seats (25) would have a swing of less than 4%. The closer an election is, the more the variation in the swing matters, but the clearer the national result, the less relevant it becomes. If there is a 6% swing, then it would be unlikely that the government’s most marginal seats would be the only ones that deviate from the average so much.
The solution here is for Beattie to simply hold off till 2008 amalgamations in any seat that may imperial Federal Labor’s chances, and proceed with the rest.
Thats what Rodent would do!
My sense is its only a couple of seats that are in that category. No one in Brisbane gives a hoot, many are in safe coalition areas.
This ain’t the Tampa, folks.
Antony’s point is that because of the strong reaction against Latham in the marginals last time, there will be bigger than normal swings in those seats this time even without the kind of galvanising issue there was in 1996, so seats like Lindsay, Dobell, La Trobe, Sturt and Longman come within reach. My view is that there is in fact a galvanising issue in the marginals this time – WorkChoices.
I think the massive increase in house prices across the nation has made the outer suburban and provincial mortgage belts, more wealthier than they used to.
Unless an electorate has a lot of social professionals and/or people from a non-English speaking background. Income is a major factor if an electorate votes Liberal or Labor in metropolitan areas. The poorest metropolitan electorates are Safe Labor, while the wealthiest are Safe Liberal.
North Sydney is the wealthiest electorate in the country and has a Liberal margin of 10%, while Blaxland is the poorest urban electorate in the country, there are poorer electorates but they are provincial/rural and has a Labor margin of 15.3%.
If I am right that does explain why the mortgage belts have been swinging more to the Liberals. Lower income Labor voters just cannot afford to buy homes out there anymore.
#339
Council Amalgamations in Queensland only effect a number of electorates and people’s reaction to them is mixed. In some areas there is support for it or indifference, in other areas opposition. Only the electorate which is winnable for Labor and have a small chance of being affected by the issue is Petrie, mainly due to the opposition to abolition of City of Redcliffe.
Even then voters do differentiate between state and federal politics.
Yep, and frankly, speaking as an ex-QLDer: messing with a QLD Premier on a states rights issue is a very high-risk strategy.
Howard could easily end up getting spear-tackled on this issue. Dont be too surprised if the next poll show QLD holding, or swinging further to ALP.
RE:340
Grooski
I now live in this electorate.Since the last election Lindsay has had the pro Labor areas of St Marys added to it.Antony Green may will back me up when I say it needs a 2.9% swing to fall.I would be positive that there is a swing against the govt here of more than that,somewhere in the order of 5-8%.One of my neighbours is in the Lib party local branch and she is very downcast.They think they will lose it quite comfortably to Labor.At the last state election Penrith recorded a swing TO the state ALP on one main issue,WORKCHOICES.
The issue of nuclear reactors has barely made a big mention in this yearly election campaign. I expected that such a topic (which many Australians oppose) could be used against Howard by Rudd but it’s only made a comment here and there. I personally think it’s important since it’s definitely on the agenda if Howard win this year’s election.
With Queensland, I really do wonder how these amalgamations will effect that electorate come election time. I am a little pessimistic federally but I know that state-wise, if an election was tomorrow, Beattie would still win it. Not too sure what they think about Rudd though. Someone once told me that “Queenslanders always cheer for another Queenslander”, but for such a conservative state to barrack for the other side seems like a mammoth task. Sort of like asking Texas to vote Democrats.
Andy, I believe Howard’s heading for electoral disaster on the Nuclear issue. Grinly smugly, the ex-political genius thinks he’s got a climate wedge in his pocket, when its in fact the mother of all electoral turds.
I think both Antony and William have offered the the view that Penrith swung to Labor as a correction following a strong swing to the Libs at the previous election. Not too much should be read into that swing in terms of Lindsay. But I agree that Lindsay should be on the “probable” list. There seems to be a substantial swing on in NSW.