There is many a psephologist who will tell you that polls of Senate voting intention are not to be taken seriously. However, a partial exception might be made for a poll of 542 Adelaide respondents, conducted by the Adelaide University politics department and published on the ABC site, in that it gives a unique gauge of support for Nick Xenophon’s Senate bid. The results are remarkable: support for Xenophon is at 24.2 per cent, even higher than his precedent-shattering 20.5 per cent at last February’s state election. While this would probably have been a little lower if the survey had also covered country areas, the poll provides evidence that Xenophon has his own seat in the bag, probably with enough of a surplus to deliver a seat to the Greens on preferences. The distant prospect of a seat for Xenophon’s running mate Roger Bryson has most likely been scotched by Labor’s decision to directly preference the Greens, although it’s still possible to construct scenarios in which the Greens’ seat goes to Bryson instead. The ABC report seems to suggest that Xenophon supporters will be forced to go below the line, which is not the case. Lower house voting intention is also covered, pointing to a swing to Labor of about 8 per cent.
Remi #93,
Yet again, you’ve gotten it wrong.
#1. My primary reason for objecting to your flattering description of the Nats is that THEY AREN’T INDEPENDANT OF THE LIBS!!! They march in lockstep. A true third force is affiliated with neither major party. Why do you think that the 2PP polls have “Coalition” as the L/NP descriptor? Because the two are as inseparable as Siamese twins.
#2. No, I don’t have a high opinion of the Nats. Keating actually got it right when he described them. My opinion is irrelevant to my analysis, however, as their status is that of the rural appendage of the Liberal Party.
Also, stop awarding yourself points, you prat!
86 Remi. It is not a force and never has been, it’s a right wing extension of the Liberal Party.
70 The Speaker. Speak for yourself, it only seems to be you.
Quinlivan @ 97
I live in Canberra and the only poll that has been done was by Morgan a few weeks ago I think. It determined that Humpries (our current Lib senator) was sitting on 24%, Lundy (Lab) was on 47% and Kerrie Tucker (Greens) was on 17%. The other % I don’t know.
I highly doubt the Liberal vote will be this low, somewhere around 30-31% I think, but this will not be enough for them. Kerrie Tucker (and well respected and liked person among Canberrans for her service in the local government) polled 16% of the vote in 2004 and will recieve more this election. Lundy will poll over 45% this time around I think. The Other/Dems will pref mostly Labor and Greens ahead of the Liberals. When preferences are distributed from the minors and only Lib/Lab/Greens are left I reckon about the 15% of the vote from Labor (minues their 33.3% quota) will go straight to the Greens, who will already have about 20% of the vote leaving Humpries stuck an about 31-2%.
William re
“Arbie Jay, it’s a bit of a stretch to call Danny Nalliah “the Family First senate candidate in Victoria”. He was second on the ticket in 2004.”
Sorry, William should have made that clearer, however the same Herald article does say
“Mr Nalliah, who fell foul of Victoria’s religious vilification laws over comments about Islam but won his case on appeal, is actively campaigning in the election through churches in 50 cities across the nation. ”
I haven’t seen anything to say he isn’t still associated wth Family First.
lose the election pls @ 99 – Frightening in one sense, but this time there is more public debate about the senate vote as a distinct activity. Not just GetUP but there is the sense of an increasing awareness – granted only among the 60% of the population who know it exists at present, but the more talk there is the more chance of waking the sleeping giant. It will only take a relatively small number to focus their senate voting to change the outcome a lot and keep the chamber hung, given the subtleties of the preference flows talked about in these threads.
Let’s keep the talk bubbling along out there.
I’m not going to delete anything here, but I sympathise with Generic Oracle’s comment at 31. I doubt the people bandying around terms like “cult” and “looney fringe” would be similarly robust if they were discussing Muslims rather than Christians.
I notice 7% of Labor’s vote in the ACT is BTL.
After reduction due to transferrence.. that will be.. 33 / 45 * 7 = 5.13% (Correct my maths if wrong).
Does anyone here have any stats on how much of the ALP BTL vote leaks to the Libs ?
A 1+ % leak could save Humphries if he falls slightly short of 33%.
re 104 thank you… I hoped for this
If correct the libs have so far lost 3 seats in the senate counting only
SA . TAS & ACT
william, why do you sympathise with GO’s ridiculous whinge @ 31?
he moaned that having a go at religious extremism was as bad as sexism and racism.
but we are talking about politics and political parties here. Family First are a religious extremist party and they deserve to be scrutinised as such.
just as One Nation was scrutinised and critised for its blatant racism.
and just as a blatant sexist party would be scrutinised and critised if there was one.
This is not a go at Christians. this is a go at an extremist christian Political Party.
If there was an extremist muslim party running at this election i can just imagine the civility coming from the FF’ers
I agree with HarryH,
The extremist looney fringe Greens deserve criticism and scrutiny.
HarryH, Bill’s line about those who “speak in tounges and fall on the floor from gods touch” was so a go at Christians (a certain stand of them at least). It served no constructive political purpose and I would prefer it if he didn’t say such things here.
Um Remi they already get lots.
Remi,
please do not call me an extremist looney…….you might hurt my delicate feelings……….and i might just complain to the moderator.
william, it is your blog but i hope you don’t fall for this “delicate sensibilities bs” that seems to get used in numerous threads as soon as a “colourful” description gets used.
Please God save us from extremist religious parties in this great country of ours.
A re-interviewee on Geraldine’s program this morning, said that his ‘undecided’ vote had firmed definitely for the coalition.
Could have knocked me over with how vote card. As if that wasn’t obvious from his first interview of a couple or so weeks ago.
Some of this ‘undecided’ vote must be taken with a dose of salts.
He said some most unflattering things about Kev, but worse, said if the Greens and the Dems get hold of the Senate, God help us! God may think otherwise is in order for the House.
Galaxy poll tomorrow, William. Wentworth. Narrowing, but not telling for whom. Just heard on ABC. Daily Telegraph, think said.
God?
HarryH, Are you Harry Heidelberg ?
@ 117
what the hell is that supposed to mean?
It is unlikely that Xenophon will poll as well on election day as he has in the opinion poll. While he will have a box above the line marked ‘S’ he will have no party name nor the word Xenophon above the line. His name will be below the line only making it harder for voters to find his group. I doubt that he has the wherewithal to staff all the booths and get a HTV in everyone’s hands to show voters where he is on the ballot paper. That will cost his group votes. The other parties of course all have their party name above the line. In the opinoin poll he would have presumably been offered as an option for voters to choose on an equal footing with the other major Senate groups.
Speaker, at No. 65, if a third of Greens lower house voters shift to Xenophon in the Senate, that will be a loss of say 2.5% of potential Senate vote. If approximately a fifth of major party lower house voters drift to Xenophon in the Senate that is a loss of say 7-8% of vote for each major party. That is huge in a Senate race and some of that could easily flow to The greens from Xenothon preferences if his group falls short of a second quota.
Perhaps Xenophon’s candidacy dents the chances of both major parties winning a third seat more than it dents the chances of the Greens winning one seat.
I’ll take that as a No.
Harry Heidelberg is a Margo Kingston sycophant.
Similar names, similar nutty opinions. Who can blame me for drawing a connection ?
Sorry William, I disagree with you here. I have lots of religious friends. But some groups are far less tolerant of others, and this is one of those groups.
They are also extremely intolerant of The Greens.
scaper…that G thing again, I may have meant X.
Remi,
not everyone here on this blog has to be connected to politics ya know.
i, like many here…or maybe just a few lol…..am just a normal bloke from the burbs who is interested in this election, and the removal of John Winston Howard.
#
107
William Bowe Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’m not going to delete anything here, but I sympathise with Generic Oracle’s comment at 31. I doubt the people bandying around terms like “cult” and “looney fringe” would be similarly robust if they were discussing Muslims rather than Christians.
What i dont understand is that when the Greens are called extreme etc everyone seems to ok it but if FF is attacked in a similar way people cry foul.
they cant have it both ways
mathew cole 92
Yeah I was wrong about the greens having balance of power pre 2004. Thanx for correcting me. My point was in the scheme of things the greens are less wacko than the current batch of neo cons running the liberal party.
lose the election please 95
“I’m still yet to be convinced that the Greens deserve the balance of power…”
If the senate is supposed to be place that draft legislastion is reviewed and debated. i would a party advocating such things as the environment and social justice. The greens have more defined policies in these areas than both major party. i agree ff is joke.
[I’m not going to delete anything here, but I sympathise with Generic Oracle’s comment at 31. I doubt the people bandying around terms like “cult” and “looney fringe” would be similarly robust if they were discussing Muslims rather than Christians.]
What if someone hates all religions equally?
Why do people assume that people who despise Christian fundamentalism don’t also despise Islamic fascism?
i meant want a party
What people need to realize is that the AOG and most FF members believe in their doctrine of positive Christianity. Which is that god will fix up all problems if they seriously believe. That means all political issues can be fixed by god and him only. This is the danger in things like climate change, work choices etc. This coupled with their intolerance of Gays, defactos etc is why i get angry with them. One nation dies and FF appears. They have a right as all parties to field candidates in elections but people need to see their hidden agenda which is to make Australia into a AOG type Christian country. Have you ever wondered why the need to keep changing their church name?
Bill, hang up your worry beads.
The Greens can hardly be accused of extremism greater than Pauline Hanson, the Exclusive Bretheren, most Liberal voters, the Lyons Forum, George W Bush, the Government of Australia…………..
When it comes to loony tendencies, I know who I would prefer to wrap in straightjackets.
Geoff at 119 Says:
‘It is unlikely that Xenophon will poll as well on election day as he has in the opinion poll. While he will have a box above the line marked ‘S’ he will have no party name nor the word Xenophon above the line. His name will be below the line only making it harder for voters to find his group. I doubt that he has the wherewithal to staff all the booths and get a HTV in everyone’s hands to show voters where he is on the ballot paper’.
Geoff, gotta disagree. Nick was swamped with volunteers last time round, and I can just see the booth volunteers wearing Nick type placards, sitting on toy car seats, tethered to cows or goats, whatever..
As for the ‘S’, it doesn’t necessarily stand for Silly, voters are not as dumb as we look.
After all, who do we trust to get it right? As some are wont to say.
Well, some of the time. But this time, for sure.
yeah expect x to plead poor with volunteers right up till polling day, saying he is worried about volunteers. Already heard him doing it on 891. come polling day he will have two people for every decent sized booth at most times.
Showson & Bill @ 127 & 129 – Wholehearted concurrence here. All religion is by definition the celebration of medieval ignorance. You only have to read their books (Bible, Koran) to see where their extremism comes from. The ‘moderates’ simply ignore the many calls in these key books to exterminate non-believers. Modern-day ‘moderate’ religions of all persuasions are the cocoons from which extremists emerge. Why we tolerate in our politicians any religion based on sheer unreason is beyond me. We certainly wouldn’t tolerate it in our doctors if they practiced medieval remedies based on unreason. It’s time for more open ridicule of all religion – it’s all based on stubborn primitive belief in the supernatural in the face of overwhelming evidence.
And it’s not just the FFP – look at the Clarke faction of the NSW Libs if you want to be frightened, and the still strong DLP elements in the NSW ALP. Loonies everywhere!
No, Arbie, Bill and Chris, you have missed the point.
Danny Nahliah does not make comments on this blog. Bill this is a political site, the Greens are fair game as are any party here. You consistently cross the line by insulting the beliefs of Australians here and belittling them. This is just bigotry. Like all bigotry, it is founded in Xenophobia. Bill, you think your tiny experience with Christians gives you license to spread this bigotry.
Family First did not switch your bloody signs and you know it. You are sounding loonier by the day and this stunt just underscores it. You know damn well that if you had registered signs in your seat of Kingston, the council would be onto Family First like a ton of bricks.
It is also a lie to say that Danny is the Victorian senate candidate, it is Gary Plumridge and Nahliah is not even running.
Why don’t you go and use your time campaigning.. or are you simply confident enough to call it quits now??
Bill. I used to respect you six months ago. You set me on my journey of finding out about Family First and what you told me was largely inaccurate at best and blatant lies at worst. The party is neither loony with private members bills, nor has the voting pattern been “extreme”. Indeed, out of 197 votes in 2007, Family First voted yes in 110 cases, certainly not schmoozing the coalition. By contrast, the Greens voted no in 193 cases. Hardly what you might call “easy to work with”.
Oh, and in Victoria, just ask Bracksy what he thinks about the Greens. Jumping into bed with the LIBS just to obstruct policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are a typical candidate for the Greens, then these “bully boy” tactics and vilification of the beliefs of others might be right up your alley.
don’t give us this garbage about FF’s voting record so far GO.
FF are still in the stages of conning the public first. Enacting their beliefs comes later.
thats if FF survive long enough. i doubt they will. the public know exactly what they are about.
Using DLP Bracksy as an example???….oh how cute.
your cries of vilification are laughable.
Family First did not switch your bloody signs and you know it. You are sounding loonier by the day and this stunt just underscores it. You know damn well that if you had registered signs in your seat of Kingston, the council would be onto Family First like a ton of bricks.
You have no idea.
Bill this is a political site, the Greens are fair game as are any party here. You consistently cross the line by insulting the beliefs of others.
FF is fair game too. Green principles are my beliefs. so whats the difference. The attack me i attack them. They say they are a family party with family beliefs then 2 get found out looking at porn on the net. Normally i would say thats their business but if they are going to be holly than thou then they deserve a drubbing occasionally. As for personalities i find Brokenshire a good bloke it his parties ideas i cant handle
Bill, you think your tiny experience with Christians gives you license to spread this bigotry.
I have had allot of experience with Christians and a few years with AOG too. there is a difference
Why don’t you go and use your time campaigning.. or are you simply confident enough to call it quits now??
HAHA i work 11 hours a day, i get home and start campaigning etc. I decided to have a day off and just letterbox. I have been doing this since the state election.
We make migrants sit a citizen test before giving them a piece of paper which actually does very little, but the woefully ignorant get to choose who has power over nearly every aspect of our lives,even life itself. Sigh
Bill Weller,
Agree re AOG and Christians.AOG only regard their brand as “Christian”. Need to distinguish between the fundamentalists and moderates. Politicians like John Ashcroft , US, used their power to impliment their fundamentalist agenda. We should be alert and alarmed because they have been working below the radar…have watched them at close quarters since the 70’s….. and the likes of Bush believe in ‘the rapture’ . (Why bother with climate change when you believe you will be handpicked while the rest of us heathens perish here on earth.)
Our secular way of life needs defending.
Can anyone from South Australia, or otherwise well informed about it, say whether or not the following vote count is in the realms of possibility, even if as less rather than more likely? I put it in to see how the preference flow would work.
Group A: One Nation 1.01
Group B: Group B Independents 1.02
Group C: Christian Democratic Party 1.03
Group D: Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party 1.04
Group E: Australian Shooters Party 1.05
Group F: The Greens 7.4
Group G: National Party 1.06
Group H: D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 1.04
Group I: Liberal Party 26
Group J: What Women Want 1.08
Group K: Australian Labor Party 28
Group L: Climate Change Coalition 1
Group M: Citizens Electoral Council 1.09
Group N: Senator On-Line 1.1
Group O: Socialist Alliance 0.1
Group P: Australian Democrats 2.3
Group Q: Family First Party 4.68
Group R: Liberty and Democracy Party 1
Group S: Group S (Xenophon) 19
Ungrouped Candidates (no ticket submitted) 0
Antony Green’s calculator gives this unexpected result, with National Party and other minor ‘right wing’ party’s votes generally flowing to Family First instead of the Liberals…
1 FARRELL Don Australian Labor Party
2 BERNARDI Cory Liberal Party
3 XENOPHON Nick Independent
4 WONG Penny Australian Labor Party
5 HANSON-YOUNG Sarah Australian Greens
6 BATES Tony Family First Party
Family First outpolled the Greens 5.0% to 4.3% at the 2006 SA election. If they repeat the dose in the Federal Election and Xenophon’s support is around 20%, they’ll get the 6th seat. It really comes down to how many potential Green votes vs FF votes Xenophon will nick.
HarryH – “FF are still in the stages of conning the public first. Enacting their beliefs comes later.”
Mate, I am not a fan of FF, not at all, but seriously that is a ridiculous statement… paranoid even.
Fargo,
The minor party vote in SA in 2004 was ~16.5%. You have it on
combined micro: 12.5%
Grn/Dem/FF: 14.4%
Nick X: 19%
Given what the Speaker said earlier about Nick X taking votes from Greens and Democrats, and I’d say generally, people who want a minor party but don’t really care who, you’d need to drop the first two figures by (guessing, which is all any of us can do in this case) 7-10 and 3-6% respectively.
Something like ALP 35% and Liberal 31% would be about right if NickX polls 19%. You can tell me what result that gives.
I have to agree with those who are critical of Family First.
Imagine if a new party were formed, called the “Family Friendly Party”, supposedly for all Australian Families. A bit of investigation releaved that the party was controlled by muslims from a particular mosque.
Family First & other conservative Christian groups would be all over them, demanding that their management & agenda be exposed for pushing muslim beliefs under the guise of family values. They’d run advertising campaigns warning of the dangers of the party & that they’re not really representing all families – only Muslim families.
So, I think its reasonable for Family First to be scrutinised particularly when they won’t publically admit that their core management is in Pentecostal Church, & that they are effectively the Pentecostal Christian Party.
BTW Given that they’re clearly a Christian based party, I find it amazing the way that they dishonestly attacked The Greens at the last election. Its fair enough to criticise the Greensr policies, but to clearly misrepresent them was a disgrace.
I hope I don’t offend by walking into this blogosphere.
I have been reading with interest for the past weeks and see how a person can observe from a distance for a time before itching to comment – several times I have typed in some great words of wisdom only to edit it down to nothing – it is so easy to step back into the ether and hide. However I feel that I have met a lot of people and learnt heaps about how this election is going through this blog. I guess I may be in the wrong veggie patch because I seem to fit somewhere between left of centre on some things and a lot further around the other side of the world on others.
I am in Boothby and 100metres from Kingston border so it is great hearing of peoples opinions and expectations. I think I have decided to vote for the liberal member in Boothby because he seems to be better at this public position – although I don’t know how he will go in opposition. In Kingston I think Brokensire would be the best person by far after listening to the ABC radio forum held in Kingston last week. Amanda Rishworth will most likely get elected.
In the senate it will be interesting to see if X,Y or Z get elected – it is going to be very interesting to watch the counting.
It’s good to see that, in the event that the balance of power in the Senate should be shared by Family First and the Greens, there’ll be such reasoned and understanding debate between the different viewpoints.
The Adelaide Sunday Mail has taken the axe to Nick Xenophon today. The Page 7 lead is headed “Mr X running dry on Murray”. Page 41 is occupied by a a large editorial under the bold heading “Why Mr X does not deserve your vote”. Rupert obviously does not want the Coalition to lose control of the Senate.
The whole paper is an anti-Labor hate sheet. Page 1 covers old ground – how Julia Gillard’s ex-lover ripped off the AWU. Lots of innuendo here and inside. Page 5 leads with “Doubt over Rudd as PM”. Glenn Milne leads Page 42 with “Rudd is engaged in a giant ruse”. Then on Page 43 it’s Piers Ackerman on Rudd’s using “phony crises … to scare votes from punters”, accompanied by an old photo of Russ with Mark Latham.
photo of Rudd with Latham