Morgan: Liberal swing in Perth marginals

Steaming hot off the press: a Roy Morgan phone poll of 435 voters conducted last night (that’s a couple of hours ago at the time of writing), covering the Perth marginals Brand, Cowan, Hasluck, Stirling and Swan. The result of 50.5-49.5 in favour of the Liberals points to a tiny swing in their favour of 0.8 per cent. To allow direct comparison with Morgan’s national poll of marginals on the weekend, a result for Stirling and Hasluck has been hived off from the other three. It shows that the respondents surveyed in these seats generated the overall swing to the Liberals, with the others moving slightly to Labor. For what it’s worth, the Stirling and Hasluck result was replicated in the similarly small sample survey on the weekend.

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.

584 comments on “Morgan: Liberal swing in Perth marginals”

Comments Page 10 of 12
1 … 9 10 11 12

  1. By definition the non-core ones because they are the ones they either cant or wont keep Albert Ross.

    Yes Socrates lots of “engineers” on this site I am a social engineer.

  4. Fortunately I am a chemist, not an engineer, and please remember “chemists have solutions”. Oh, I am also a part-time comedian. 🙂

  5. Hi all… I have a question that’s off the topic.

    Are you allowed to vote both above the line and below the line in the upper house? I’ve heard conflicting info on this and the AEC is less than forthcoming.

    Suppose you attempt to vote BTL, and as an insurance policy, label a box ‘1’ for the ticket of your choice ATL. I’ve heard that if you stuff up the BTL vote, then your ATL vote is still vaild, but otherwise, your BTL takes preceedance.

    However, today I heard from another source that doing so makes your vote invalid.

    Which is correct? Does anybody know?

  6. Does anyone know Possum’s real identity? He (or she) has become something of an online celebrity during the campaign.

  10. [Does anyone know Possum’s real identity? He (or she) has become something of an online celebrity during the campaign.]

    He is a QLDer in the seat of Lilley. So he must be Wayne Swan.

  11. [413
    Edward StJohn Says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
    Socrates,

    Are you an academic? You really have no idea then.]

    Really flourishing the cap and gown today, arn’t we Eddy? As you are one of Australia’s leading contempory Historians, you appear singularly unaware that such pomp and posing really pisses off the sort of Aussies who are primed to throw your similarly detatched hero overboard this Saturday. It’s important for you to develop a broader understaning of these mores if you are to grapple successfully with the social realities of 21st Century Australia.

  15. ESJ,
    I laugh at your economics lesson. Maybe you should drag out those texts and read up again on your Swan-Solow and SRAS models (not to mention the definition of public goods) before you start making proclamations such as “government investment is really wasted money”.

  16. William. Just a quick note to thank you for this website, the intelligent contributions from (most) of the people here have provided some valauble and interesting insight into the political workings of this country, much more informative than what is published in the (spin doctored) mainstream media. Through your website and the other linked pseph sites, especially Palmers Ozpolitics, my understanding of the political process, the dynamics, the parties, the ideologies etc.. is worth more than anything learnt through college and uni (Although I will admit humanities were not my subjects of choice) but the science of politics here has certainly piqued my interest.

    Could someone in the know please enlighten me on what will happen in the event that Labor win the HOR but the Liberals still control the Senate. I have seen a few posts and reports of a possible double dissolution and by-election. What are the likely repercussions for a Rudd Govt if the Coalition continues to control the senate until July 1st. Is there a mechanism whereby a double disssolution can be called and on what basis, what would be involved and under what circumstances would this happen?

    Thanks 🙂

  17. [I laugh at your economics lesson. Maybe you should drag out those texts and read up again on your Swan-Solow and SRAS models (not to mention the definition of public goods) before you start making proclamations such as “government investment is really wasted money”.]

    Hear, Hear!

    At least we got him to agree that the Howard and Costello mantra of “economic management” is a complete sham.

  19. Chris C: There are a few cases of a Senate’s vote being valid or not.

    1) Valid ATL with no BTL – Valid ATL
    2) Valid BTL with no ATL – Valid BTL
    3) Invalid ATL with no BTL – Invalid
    4) Invalid BTL with no ATL – Invalid
    5) Invalid ATL with valid BTL – Valid BTL
    6) Invalid BTL with valid ATL – Valid ATL
    7) Invalid ATL and BTL – Invalid
    8) Valid ATL and BTL – Valid BTL

    The rule is, a valid BTL will override the ATL, and a valid vote either way overrides the invalid vote. Note, I think that if the BTL is considered valid, but has errors within the margin accepted, but there is a valid ATL then I think the ATL is considered ‘more valid’.

  21. #462, when i lived in the UK, you simply register as an overseas elector and vote in the electorate from which you were last registered. You then have to request a postal vote at every election. (Or you can vote in person at Australia House, for example, which is quite fun. I even got a free anzac biscuit in 2004).

  22. NB: It is a seat they were last in, or they can select a seat they had most association with. I.e. when I was overseas, I could of nominated Kooyong or Herbert. I lived in Kooyong before going overseas, but I could have nominated Herbert because I lived there for 20 odd years.

  23. I heard Bob Brown interviewed on Radio National and he was interrupted when he said geothermal energy was potential baseload with the comment “but that’s ten years away.” That’s absolute nonsense. Green Rock are planning to build a 400mw power station in six years. We could have a substantial portion of our electricity provided by genuinely clean geothermal well within ten years.
    I note Geodynamics (GDY) and Petratherm (PTR) have been rising lately. Green Rock (GRK) curiously stays around 12-12.5c and yet they are likely to be the first cab off the rank. I reckon it’s a bargain at that price. Time will tell.
    By the way, as a reminder, we have enough geothermal energy already discovered to power all of our electricity needs for at least 800 years.

    On the undecideds, many of these are not in fact undecideds but merely say they are. Not everyone likes to say how they are voting. It particularly applies when you may be voting Labor for the first time and not your usual Liberal. You simply want to keep that decision private, even from a polling company. The “undecideds” will almost certainly break down to the genera”decideds” pattern.
    The Liberals are desperately clutching at straws in the hope they won’t drown.
    They might as well plan for who will take over the leadership next week and start jockeying for shadow portfolios.

    My betting is there will be a swag of by-elections in the coming months with the likes of Alexander Downer, Tony Abbott and so on going off into the sunset.
    Maybe with a bit of luck we will get some genuinely liberal Liberals replacing them.

  25. Doug@446 “The seat by seat betting will be an interesting test of the reliability of the betting markets”

    I trust overall result as a collective outcome from individual seats.
    But it should be pointed out that seat-by-seat bettings are not always correct/accurate.

    In 2001, CentreBet offered bet on 33 individual marginal seats. Guess what?! Punters’ accuracy was 27/33 🙂
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2645

  26. razzmataz:

    Consult the Constitution, s57

    “If the House of representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

    If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.

    The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent. “

  27. Edward StJohn Says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    Are you an academic? You really have no idea then.

    Someone like Frank Lowy has impact in the economy or Rupert Murdoch people who take risks and create wealth.

    So which are you then ESJ, a risk taker, a creator of wealth, an economist or an academic? From all you have written on these blogs I believe I would be on very safe grounds suggesting you are none of the above.

  28. 473 I was reading the Tasmanian Budget papers earlier this year and found Tasmania is capable of producing electricity from ‘hot rocks’ too. Who’d have thought it was up there with the Queensland, South Australia border in this regard?

  29. 412
    ShowsOn Says:
    November 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
    [Grobb is still banging his drum about the ineligibility claims. I guess they will have special material at all electorates on polling day.]

    Also he is demanding a recount in Tasmania.

    The press had to inform in that the election is on Saturday.

    I believe Labor produced the letters of resignation for 11 people to prove the lie of Robb’s assertion.

    Is it not a criminal offence to make continuing claims when you have no evidence to support them. I remember someone yesterday posting the relative part of the Act here. I wonder if in fact the original claims were in fact criminal given they were simply based on google searching govt web-sites.

    Maybe they should ask Robb if he is willing to do 6 months prison for each false claim given that Labor has produced the evidence.

  31. razzmataz, there is very little chance of Kevin Rudd winning the election and the Coalition controlling the Senate. Almost always, the vote swings in both Houses.
    If it did happen by chance then Kevin Rudd will call another election in a year to eighteen months and claim his mandate is being blocked. He would win both Houses relatively easily.

  32. Oh, and the last DD was in 1987, the trigger being legislation for the Australia Card. The Labor Government did not achieve the numbers it desires and I don’t believe they pursued a joint sitting.

    Am I right that the last joint sitting was in 1974?

  34. And if Costello and Howard want to keep criticising that States they might want to ask how they get their budget surpluses if the States were doing so badly.

  37. 478 I hadn’t read that Steve. I wonder if any of the four current major hot rock companies are exploring the possibility. Hot rock energy is being explored all over the place, in the USA, Europe and so on. Japan is an obvious place. It’s about as clean as you can get.

  40. LTE – ok then.

    But it does raise the issue of underhand play.

    Any desperate party could simply check to see who has previously worked for government and, then make the claim that they could be inelligible to win [which would be true if requirements were not adhered to]. If you are a day out from an election and get an allegation that 54 Liberal party candidates ‘may’ be inelligible – it really would be an abuse.

  43. Actually, regarding hot rocks, no one has been able to give me a compelling scientific reason how the engineering factors have improved hot rocks technology in recent years. The concept has been around for a long time as far as I am aware. I’d be fascinated to know the big breakthrough ? (Since the 1970’s according to a geologist I know) I’m not saying I’m a sceptic, but I’d like my scientific curiosity to be satisfied.

  44. Richard Jones @ 487:

    I got some shares in Geodynamics, investement in the future. They are doing well so far both project wise and share-price-wise.

  45. 476
    Lose the election please

    Thank you! Reading through the double talk language of this section of the constitution, can it be summarised that in the unlikely event a double dissolution occured prior to July 1st and the Governor General called a joint sitting of the Senate and HOR the total vote majority required to pass a bill is more than 50% of 226 votes (150 HOR votes + 76 Senate votes) In other words if the ALP held a majority of say 20 votes in the HOR, a proposed law would be carried even if the Coalition held a small majority in the Senate, therefore this process would eventually pass new laws, but after further delays, and as the HOR has been dissolved no other laws could be passed until the joint sitting vote has been concluded. Is this a correct assumption?

  46. 495

    No, you need to hold another election first. The combined sitting is after the DD election.

    The Coalition would almost defintiely lose control of the Senate at the Double Dissolution election (assuming Rudd wins the HOR).

  47. Kina, yes I have shares on both Geodynamics and Green Rock and am happy to hld on to them for the long term. You simply can’t go wrong in the long term.
    Matthew, check out the information on GRK, GDY and PTR to see what they are up to. Also see who they have put on board lately. They have some top expertise. They are working with overseas experts including Icelanders. They are also exploring overseas. It’s the next frontier.

  50. Howard’s statements that you can’t change the government without changing the country just show how utterly clueless he and his party remain in this campaign.

    They still seem to believe that Rudd is running on some kind of streak of good luck that never ends.

    They simply cannot fathom that a majority of people don’t like WorkChoices, want to ratify Kyoto and do something about global warming, and don’t like constant cuts to education and health. As pointed out in Adam Carr’s excellent analysis regarding unions and WorkChoices, the Libs have therefore been running a campaign based on false assumptions and resonating with no-one.

    People are unhappy about those things. And they WANT to change them, Ratty. Your complete failure to comprehend this spells your doom.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 10 of 12
1 … 9 10 11 12