Morgan Queensland Senate poll

Yesterday’s news by now, but let the record note that Roy Morgan has published a poll of Queensland Senate voting intentions derived from its surveys over the past three months. This has been prompted by last week’s flurry of publicity surrounding Pauline Hanson, whose support is put at 5 per cent. However, this is 0.5 per cent lower than the vote recorded for the Australian Democrats, who always do implausibly well in these Morgan Senate polls. For what it’s worth, the Morgan figures suggest that Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett would be re-elected, with the remaining seats going three Labor and two Coalition.

UPDATE: Bartlett joins the scrum in comments (see below).

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.

92 comments on “Morgan Queensland Senate poll”

Comments Page 1 of 2
1 2
  1. The Democrats might have more support at least in the Senate than many realise, many regard the Greens as extremists and workchoices came as a result of government’s senate majority.

    Family First’s appeal is restricted to church going types and can only achieve no more than 5-6% of the Senate vote. Family First perferences would favor the Democrats over the Greens, so would the major parties.

  2. The only problem for the Democrats is that while they voted against WorkChoices they wont support a repeal of AWA’s. Perhaps luckily for them very few people realise that.

    As for the major parties favouring them, well certainly the Libs have had good mileage from them (lets not forget the GST, but also deals over preferences at various stages), and the ALP is likely to get a tasty deal (ALP ahead of Greens anyone? And they did work well during the Hawke/Keating years). The Dems are still keen on pursuing deals with FFP, so with them and either of the majors they should get there (if their vote really is 5.5%).

    But if this is the usual dodgy Senate poll, in a polarised election scenario, then the Dem vote will be compressed along with everyone else’s. Right now it still looks 3-3.

  3. AWAs have been made poison by Labor and The Greens and a complacent media, but what’s so bad about them? Nothing. If someone wants to bargain individually, they should be able to. If someone wants to bargain collectively, they should be able to do that too. Nobody should be forced on an AWA, but people should be able to have them. The Democrats’ position is good common sense, much as I admit the 5.5% is probably fanciful, even though Bartlett is a) a brilliant Senator, and b) probably in possession of more of a personal vote than his colleagues.

  4. Yes but that’s as a result of Workchoices AWAs, not what they were before Coalition control of the Senate. The system pre-Workchoices was fine. (NB I am a union member).

  5. Nobody should be forced on an AWA, but people should be able to have them.

    That’s called a common law contract. It’s what we had before.

    The problem with, and point of, WorkChoices is not individual agreements being possible, but collective bargaining being impossible.

  6. Patrick Bateman Says: The problem with, and point of, WorkChoices is not individual agreements being possible, but collective bargaining being impossible.

    It’s amazing that people still spew forth the propaganda, but still don’t understand this reality.

    Under workchoices, you DO NOT have the ability to collectively bargain. At all. You are, essentially, a serf.

  7. Andrew Bartlett’s thoughts on this poll are here. He appears to rule out the possibility of another deal with FF.

    Regardless of any deal, FF would preference the Dems ahead of the Greens, as FF view the Greens as evil incarnate.

  8. I don’t understand how a party can gain a Senate Seat with less than half a quota. As in I don’t think a party deserves a Senate Seat with such a small vote.

    I don’t agree with Howard very often but he talked about not allowing a Senate seat for parties with less than one quota. While I can see his point I think a full quota would knock out all but the two parties – I think the limit should be half a quota.

    Maybe thats why Keating called the Senate “Unrepresented Swill”

  9. How are all you lefty freaks today? Still trying to explain away Dudd’s latest contoversy as just a “lapse of judgment”? Well excuse me, but we can’t actually afford to have a man who lacks judgment as frequently as Mr. Dudd does occupying the position of head of our national government. He has now proved that he is not only not experienced enough to be PM, but is not fit to be PM either. In fact, he is a Dudd-man walking …. So says Cerdic Conan.

  10. That’s an amazing amount of inaccuracies you’ve managed to put in a small number of sentence Stuart.

    “The only problem for the Democrats is that while they voted against WorkChoices they wont support a repeal of AWA’s. Perhaps luckily for them very few people realise that.”

    Probably “few people realise it” because it isn’t true. The Democrats opposed Workchoices AWAs and support the repeal of Workchoices AWAs. The original AWAs, brought in with the support of the Democrats, had a strong (alebit imperfect) no disadvantage test. This was torn away with Workchoices AWA. As Edward O says, the old version allowed collective bargaining, reasonable protection of conditions, whilst allowing a fair degree of flexibility. They provided more protection than individual common law contracts, which now seems to be Labor’s position for non-collective agreements (and presumably the Greens’).

    As for preferences – I really tire of stoushes over who did what with preferences over however many years, as there is enough evidence to smear every party 100 times over once you get started, but ….. suffice to say (a) the Dems have publicly ruled out any direct preference deal with Family First and the Courier-Mail just today reports FF in Qld specifically saying they won’t preference the Dems, (b) the Democrats have never put the ALP ahead of the Greens in the Senate ever, (c) the Greens have done their share of preference deals with the Nationals and the Liberals over the years, let alone regular ones with Labor, so it seems unbalanced to try to single out and smear the Democrats for doing this

    Senate polls are not overly reliable, as the original post points out, but the Morgan ones have been quite consistent over nearly a year now in showing the Qld Democrat vote at around 5%. The latest poll was taken before Hanson’s latest wave of media publiclity for repeating her Muslim bashing bigotry, so her support might be a bit higher than the 5% shown.

    I don’t think the poll shows I would definitely be re-elected, but it certainly shows I’ve got a very credible chance, which is far more than has been acknowledged in the mainstream media for the last 2 years.

    Labor has favoured the Greens over the Democrats more often than not in recent times, but whether they will do that in Qld this time remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether Labor preferences will even be counted.

    The poll also shows a real prospect, as Stewart says, of a 3-3 split between Labor & Coalition – which would leave Qld with no voice in the Senate independent of the major parties.

  11. Interesting to read Bartlett’s view on the poll, but I remain sceptical as to its accuracy. As to whether there will be a deal, well the devil will be in the detail – a deal doesn’t have to place you number 2 it just has to place you above somebody else – so a Dem-FFP deal (which might well be a national deal that Bartlett has to adhere to, just like it was in 2004) might simply have each other above the Greens and the majors (so they agree to put whoever they like #2, but agree that it’ll go Dem/FFP-Green-ALP/Lib or Dem/FFP-ALP/Lib-Green at the end of the ticket). That’s enough to lock out the Greens.

    Now, I’m not saying that’s what they’ll do, but that’s what they COULD do. And while the Dems may end up ahead of the Greens on the FFP ticket, both parties might also end up behind both ALP & Libs on the FFP ticket, thus all but guaranteeing neither will be elected.

  12. Andrew Bartlett has snowflakes chance. There is no residual support for the Dems in Queensland and they haven’t managed above 2% anywhere in Australia in years. Their death is inevitable.

    To get an idea of the actual result:
    – The FF and Dems results are out of wack- one has booth workers, organisation, money and state party status.. the other doesn’t. Give the former 5% and the latter 2.5%.
    – Use the 2004 preference tickets but remove the Dem/FF deal. Dem goes to Greens and puts FF second last, FF puts dems second last.

    I think a 3:3 major party split.

    However.. if FF get ahead of Pauline they win.
    There’s still a chance of a 4:2 coalition win because of Pauline, but unlikely.

  13. Well Andrew, I remember a fair amount bucketting of the Greens by you prior to and post the last election. Just to be clear, I would prefer you to any other ALP/Lib/Nat/FFP etc candidate – yes, you have been an excellent advocate in the Senate (I just happen to think the Greens do it better – but then you probably think the same of Larissa). However, having done my fair share of campaigning and the premise has always been about who is going to end up with control of the Senate not just getting my own side up. I have felt at times that this has not always been shared by some people within the Democrats (all of whom may or may not still be members, although some definitely are).

    So to sum up, I hope that the Democrats stick to a no-deal-with-FFP nationally and not just in Qld. I also hope that it is a Green (of course :-)) OR a Democrat that is elected 5th or 6th in each state, but I’m not convinced that it’ll happen. 3-3 seems too likely in too many states.

    ps: Greens may have done deals with Nationals (in WA) but not at the expense of the Democrats.

  14. We shall indeed see Stuart, but Queensland Democrats will have the final say over what happens with preferences in Queensland this election – and Family First will not go ahead of the Greens in Queensland. Can’t say what FF will do of course (will probably depend in part on what they might be able to get out of Lib or Labor) although given the very direct attacks that regularly fly backwards and forwards between the two parties, it is not unreasonably to assume Greens will be at or near the bottom of FF’s preferences, and FF will be at or near the bottom of the Green’s.

    From my point of view, I’d really like to hear them rule out preferencing Hanson, cos if they preference her (something she could well be happy to reciprocate) it does start to bring her into the mix of possibilities too.

  15. As to Stuart’s comments @16, I’m not going to engage on that. I’ve been around far too long and seen far too many things done and said by people from every party – including Dems and Greens. The last two federal elections I have mostly spent responding to attacks, not launching them. However, suffice to say no one is pure, which is why I’m not going to engage.

    I’m focusing on Queensland and we’ll see what happens there (not that I’m expecting anything untoward elsewhere). In that context I broadly agree with the rest of Stuart’s comment.

  16. I doubt a 4/2 split in Queensland against the lib-np is likely
    however if it was
    it would mean 2 things
    a change in the balance of power in the senate
    a likely large number of extra seats won by labor
    suggesting a swing in excess of 10 % against the Govt

  17. I had assumed Andrew Bartlett had next to zero chance of being re-elected, and I am very pleasantly surprised to hear he is in with a chance. If I lived in Queensland he would certainly get my vote.

  18. I’d say Andrew Bartlett has a good chance at a seat in the senate, he has lifted his profile in parliament and his blogg spot wouldn’t have hurt, same as Rudd’s time on Sunrise lifted his profile.

    Bartlett would be a good independent choice to return the senate to a proper house of review.

    As to the others chances Boswell may be disadvantage appearing on a joint ticket with the libs, it gives the impression that the nats are just a convenient appendage of the libs and cannot offer an independent voice on issues such as telecommunications and water resources, both of which have seen ants getting vocal about.

    Hanson is currently protesting that she is not in the election for the money, I don’t think the other parties would preference her, though the libs and nats gladly accepted her preferences last time. But if she got in we would have her holding the balance of power for the next six years.

    Family First may be hurt by the current revelations over the Exclusive Brethren and Howards closeness to them, both FF and EB are all part of the assemblies of God outfit and EB has some definetly unfriendly family policies coming to light.

    The only question is that if the libs see Bartlett as a real threat will they turn their dirt unit on him and will it harm his chances.

  19. Even though I am currently going to vote Green in both houses, if I was in QLD I would vote Green Lower and campaign my heart out for Andrew.

  20. The Libs would much prefer the Dems to hold their seats rather than see them go to Labor or the Greens, so Andrew will get Coalition preferences if he can stay in the race long enough to get them. The problem with that is that Qld is the Greens’ weakest state and the most likely outcome is that Labor will get three quotas (43%) outright. On current polling the Coalition won’t get three quotas, but Hanson and other right-wing preferences will probably get them there. Three-three is by far the most likely result in Qld, and indeed everywhere except Tas and possibly WA.

    Andrew might do better if he lost the beard. Voters don’t like beards on men under 60 (grandfatherly white beards like Mal Washer’s are OK), and Andrew’s makes him look like an undertaker.

  21. “Hanson is currently protesting that she is not in the election for the money, I don’t think the other parties would preference her, though the libs and nats gladly accepted her preferences last time. But if she got in we would have her holding the balance of power for the next six years.”

    No chance of that. If the ALP wins the election, but faces an obstructive or hostile Senate, Rudd will simply pull the DD trigger and call a snap poll. One would assume that he would have some sort of prime ministerial honeymoon in the first couple of years.

    Rudd will have some big issues to pass the parliament. Workchoices, Iraq, Republic referendum, climate change targets and electoral laws to name but a few.

    A DD gives Rudd the legislative chance of a lifetime. Certainly the composition of a post DD Senate would be fragmented, but why would he care. His core legislation will have passed the parliament.

    So the Senate vote will probably be neither here nor there beyond early 2009. A DD will also smash the possibility of the coalition controlling the Senate for at least 2 terms.


    I took it as gospel that you were spent Andrew, the Party, not necessarily yourself. I make these observations about Senate winners and losers in QLD between 1996 based on the Morgan figures attached to this stream.

    I wonder how far out I am in reading those figures as suggesting Labor should get 3 , the Coalition 2, and then its a bun fight between a National candidate, The Greens, Democrats, FF and Pauline Hanson (did she get that name registered ?) party with the likely winner being the National.


    1996-2004 PV WINNERS IN QLD (SENATE)

    Since 1996, The Liberal PV suffered a hammering in 1998 (to One Nation), recovered most of it’s primary vote lost to One Nation in 2001, and improved again to better the 1996 PV result (35.4) to its highest post Keating PV in QLD (38.3).

    Since 1996, The Greens vote took a slight hit in 1998, but has improved at the last 2 elections to record it’s highest PV in QLD from 2.4 in 1996 to 5.4 in 2004. Most would argue that the improvement in Green PV in QLD has been at the expense of the diminishing Democrats voters who could not bring themselves to vote for anyone else.

    Ironically, the Other PV vote has risen significantly from 1996 (3.7) to almost 10 percent of the PV in QLD (9.3) in 2004 and this AFTER One Nation and Family First have been accounted for.

    Family First inaugural tilt in QLD in 2004 scored 3.4 PV for the Senate and polls suggest they will do no worse in 2007.

    1996-2004 PV LOSERS IN QLD (SENATE)

    Since 1996, The Democrats PV in QLD vote has declined at each election, from a peak in 1996 (13.2) to a miserable result in 2004 (2.2). This is why the Democrats are considered by some, I suppose, to be a spent force in Australian politics. (Democrat apologists will respond by saying, hang on, how come Morgan’s research shows the Democrats are polling 5.5 at the moment- go figure !).

    Since their first tilt in 1998 when it scored a whopping 14.8 first effort PV in QLD, One Nation slumped to less than the FF primary vote in 2004 (3.4). Morgan’s post 2004 polling suggest One Nation has dipped to 1.0 and Pauline Hanson can expect around 5.0 in 2007. Like the Democrats, One Nation is considered a spent force in Australian Politics, but Pauline Hanson will have some influence in the PV outcome in Queensland.

    Since 1996, The Nationals PV in QLD has not done as well for the Coalition. The Nationals suffered a hammering in 1998 (again to One Nation), slumped further in 2001 and 2004, and has lost PV ground since 1996 (15.0) to fall to its lower PV in QLD (6.6).

    Labor suffered a massive 9.1 PV (Senate) vote slump in 1996, falling to 30.3 PV in the Senate vote for Queensland. A small recovery (2.4) in 1998 was followed by a further fall in 2001 (1.0) and no change in 2004. In 2004, the Labor PV in QLD (Senate) stood at 31.7, a far cry from the glory days of 1993 when Labor commanded 39.4 of the vote in QLD Senate voting.

    According to Morgan’s QLD senate polling, Labor is currently in a position where it would have drawn 40.5 of the Senate PV if the election was held in July 2007. The worst Morgan poll result for the Senate PV in QLD was 39.0 (September-October 2006) and the best poll result was 44.5 (March-April 2007).

    If the worst result in this polling since Rudd became Labor Party leader is taken as the bench mark (41.0), Morgan’s QLD Senate PV polling indicates an improvement of 9.3 in Labor’s QLD senate primary vote (at least in declared voter intent terms), a full recovery of the 9.1 Senate PV thumping Labor copped in QLD Senate PV in 1996.

    I agree with the assertion that it is only the 2PV that matters-Nonetheless, the Morgan Qld Senate polling since 2006 gives QLD Labor supporters some hope of winning 3 Senate seats in QLD and perhaps 4-5 HOR seats (Bonner, Moreton, Longman, Herbert and Bowman if the standing member is forced to resign over DPP prosecution)

  23. As for Antony Green’s assertion that he votes for tranny’s where he can cause more people should be prepared to “put their dicks on the line”, (1) you get my vote for funniest 1 liner of the year here and (2) Here, Here, give me a ‘tranny’ with conviction over someone who dosen’t know if they are Arthur or Martha on most things any day.

  24. The ALP would want to win a few more than 4 or 5 seats in QLD. A 16 seat gain across Australia looks pretty difficult if they only gain 4 or 5 seats.

    Other seats in the gun would have to include Petrie, Herbert, Hinkler and Flynn and Blair. Dickson perhaps an outside possibility. Two or three of these would have to fall, in addition to the “easy” 4 or 5, for the opposition to win

  25. Every time a senate poll comes out the Dems get excited. I consider it my civic duty to re-educate everyone.

    – Check the Dems numbers before the 2004 election.
    The Dems were on 7% in Queensland Actual result 2.2%.
    In SA Dems 7% Actual 2.3% etc

    – When people are asked “who will you vote for in the senate” some say the democrats just for fun. In reality they stick with their lower house party.

    – The Dems haven’t had a member elected since 2002.

    – Have a look at their last few state election performances:
    NSW-1.53% VIC-0.08% QLD-Deregistered SA-1.8% WA-0.9%

  26. William, apparently my credit card is no good until I sign up for PayPal. When I figure out where and how to do that I will get it done. STROP.

    Neil I guess I agree that Labor may need better than 4-5 in Qld, otherwise it may be ‘very difficult’ to get over the line.

    But I dont know, maybe there will be some surprises (wouldnt want to be relying on them if I were Rudd either) in other places like Victoria (Latrobe, Corangamite, McMillan) where most dont see much shift happening or SA (Boothby, Sturt) or even more remotely WA (Kalgoorlie, Brand) or NT (Solomon), or seats one might argue the Coalition have an ‘inflated’ margin (Paterson in NSW, Gippsland, MeEwen, Deakin in Vic) and Dobell (wherever that is) or big swing ‘wave’ seats like Wentworth or Bennelong in NSW.

    It is all up in the air right now- I tend to avoid the notion of a “must win x seats in QLD” view of things these days, particularly those that stake a heavy reliance on all or nearly all of the 16 most marginal Coalition seats ‘having’ to go to Labor to get the 15/16 required to win this election.


  27. In the pre-OneNation days, the Dems collected from most of the minor party vote and could win seats. Then when they went to shut Pauline out, the decline of the minor parties began. These days with the largest 2 minor parties being each others worst enemies, they shut each other out and thus serve the major parties three each.

    With the Senate in its current shape, it is in the best interest of all the non-Coalition parties to preference each other. But they won’t, which will probably result in the continuation of the Senate majority.

    What are people’s opinions in the likelihood of various states returning only two Coalition senators? Given Qld is the state which went 2-4 last time, it would be ironic if it were the one to go 4-2. Probably Vic & Tas are the likelier states.

    And though no one will do a deal with Hanson, all parties secretly hope the prefs come their way, as the last Qld seat may well ride on it.

  28. Strop et al

    I had no problem making a donation. Just click the ‘pay by credit card’ at the left of the PayPal log on and do it.

    This is worth at least as much as Crikey!


    Alan H

  29. Speaker

    I don’t agree with comparing the democrats to the 2004 result or any swings required to the 2004 result, Latham was to Howard as McDonald was to Wran..
    Labor looks to get 3, libs 2 and the third in the air.

    Paulines vote may decline as supporters question whether she is just in it for the money.

    The libs will preference Family First over the democrats, but Family First via Fielding has not done anything except play an amusing game of tag with Baranby Joyce in opposing legislation but never teaming up to actually do anything constructive. Family First has links to the dubious Exclusive Brethren and denied links to the Assebmlies of God as many have pointed out in their “denial of three times before the cock crows.”

    Nothing wrong with a christian party running for office as Fred Nile as shown but when it gets secretive it gets concerning. Tim Dunlops blog has some excellent links on the hidden secrets of the Exclusive Brethren.

    If Andrew Bartlett gets the green prefs and family first poll around the expected 2-2.5% they should get then Bartlett will get elected.

  30. *14 Andrew Bartlett

    Good you hear your views. Just one minor disagreement. The old AWA ststem didn’t really allow for collective bargaining. Also, it didn’t provide more protection than common law contracts if you were already on minimum wage. A redundant argument these days anyway.

    Best of luck at the election.

  31. Arbie:

    The EB and AOG are not part of the same outfit. The Exclusive Brethren are the text-book example of what exclusive means. They exclude everybody but themselves (and split occasionally and exclude part of their own group). Whatever you might say about the AOG, they will co-operate with others.

    See [url][/url] for some tragic details about the EBs.

  32. Family First went head to head with the Democrats in a winner take all contest in 2004. Democrats lost. They are a spent force.

    You can swap the Family First number with the Democrat number from this poll and you would be closer, except the Democrats will not get 2.5%.

    But using these swapped numbers the result would yield 3-ALP, 2-LIB with the fifth to be raffled between LIB, Hansen, FFP, Nat with the winner likely to be the party that harvests the Fishing Party. All of these will put the ALP ahead of the Greens, guarenteeing the ALP their third seat.

    Once again the Balance of Power in this country will be decided by recreational fishermen. Says it all.

  33. Micro parties are single issue
    Minor parties are single position
    Greens=left economic+liberal social+conservation
    FF = middle economic+conservative social
    Pauline=right economic+conservative social
    Dems=lefteconomic+liberal social
    Nats=right economic+conservative social + farmers

    When they were the “third choice” the Dems had a chance but now they don’t have a position.
    Nats are the mirror of the greens
    Pauline will be swamped by the broader appeal of FF.

  34. There’s still a chance of a 4:2 coalition win because of Pauline, but unlikely.

    Respectfully Mr Speaker, no there isn’t.

    I have banged on about this here before. But I point out that no single ticket has ever yielded four seats in a six seat election.

    Whatever remote chance the Coalition had of repeating their four seat fluke in Queensland, it flew out the window with the joint ticket agreement.

    And Hanson’s polling is pretty unspectacular. Despite a considerable drop in her old party One Nation’s vote, her vote has remained stagnant from 2004.

  35. David Walsh @42

    Please forgive my ignorance but your comments don’t make much sense to me.

    1 “But I point out that no single ticket has ever yielded four seats in a six seat election”.

    Just because it hasn’t happened before does not mean history precludes it from happening in the future. You might argue that the way the senate vote system operates, it is mathematically improbable for a ‘single ticket’ to get 4 of the 6 up for grabs at a given election or that the way things are with the political parties in Australia it is improbable. But to argue that history dictates the future makes no sense to me.

    2. Just because you have “banged on about it before” does not mean what you are saying is true or plausible. I have ‘banged on’ with predictions of a Labor victory here many times in my earlier postings, but that does not mean what I was saying was true or correct, only that I constently held that view.

    3. What about “flukes”. Twice in the 2004 Senate vote unexpected results occured. The 4 seat Liberal gain in QLD and Senator Feilding won a seat for FF. We are all experts now on how and why that happened with the benefit of hindsight. “Fluke”? Perhaps, but it DID happen David and there is no reason why other surprising, unpredictable “flukes” are not possible again sometime in the future.

    So can I “respectfully” ask you to explain why “flukes” can not happen again, why “banging on” about something makes it true or plausible and why something that has “never” happened can not happen.

    Your knowledge may well be sound, but your logic is incomprehensible to me.

  36. Unfortunately though if Hanson does get 5% it’s enough to land her a hefty little payment courtesy of the tax payers. Waht a cynical disgraceful ploy. And this from someone who has the gall to accuse others of bludging off the system, especially if they’re Aboriginal.
    What base hypocrisy!

  37. Ifonly @41: re the Greens and Nats being mirrors of each other – that rather depends on the state from you’re from. If its Qld or NSW that does seem to be the case. But if you’re talking WA I suggest you look again at what the Nats have been supporting. Although at times they’ve been pretty rabid on the floor of parliament, under Grylls they’ve also been quite moderate on a few issues – perhaps showing that country under-40’s aren’t all uber-conservative.

    They ARE economically conservative, and lets not talk about native title, but on a range of social issues they had at times been moderate or even left-ish (like drug law reform, LGBTI and welfare issues). They always appeared to be more pragmatic than the Libs – less ideologically driven and more about the needs of their constituency – except when the Libs held a big stick over them and made them do something (privatisation of WA rural freight services for example).

  38. Has it now been decided that the Coalition will run a combined ticket in Qld?

    If so, this makes a 3-3 split more likely.

    Possibly 3-2-1 if Hansen and FFP exchange. This would be a tactical head to head contest, with little ideological common ground.

    Hansen is running on “celebrity” appeal, not policy, and will take all proceeds in excess of 4% to the bank.

    Anyone suggesting the Coalition might get 4 seats again is dreaming.
    A combined ticket is a tactical move to try and sure up the third seat. Having separate tickets only raises the probability that they might be left with only two.

  39. Ray: Yes definite joint ticket in QLD.

    Ifonly: Excellent party analysis but…
    “Pauline=right economic+conservative social”

    right economic .. I find her anti-freetrade anti-rationalist views have much in common with the far left (greens).

  40. Arbie Jay:

    I don’t agree with comparing the democrats to the 2004 result or any swings required to the 2004 result

    I disagree. The last election’s result is the best data available, plus I don’t see how Latham affected the Democrats vote.

    Family First has links to the dubious Exclusive Brethren

    They do ? I’ve never heard this. Url please.

    If Andrew Bartlett gets the green prefs

    He will.

Comments Page 1 of 2
1 2

Leave a Reply

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