Galaxy has published its fourth poll of Senate voting intention commissioned by GetUp!. I don’t put much stock in Senate polls, which invariably inflate the minor party vote, but let the record nonetheless note that the series has run as follows:
| ALP | LNP | GRN | |
| November 17/18 | 34 | 34 | 13 |
| October 20/21 | 33 | 38 | 11 |
| September 8/9 | 39 | 35 | 10 |
| June 23/24 | 38 | 34 | 13 |
| 2004 Election | 35.0 | 45.0 | 7.7 |
There’s only one senate result I’m concerned with, and that’s Tucker getting in in the ACT at Humphries’ expense. That guy really grates on me, especially his moral nonsense. Plus, when he was education minister in the ACT he closed my primary school. What a nob.
The Liberals are a lost cause for the senate in the ACT.Doomed. The Greens candidate will get up. As for the latest SCANDAL… I think it has helped a lot of ‘undecideds’ to decide against the Liberals
Aussieguru01 @ 2. I think you’re right about the undecideds. But I also think – especially the way the papers (even Murdoch’s tabloids) are pitching this as a race hate slur – that it will seriously dent the Liberal vote in the doctors’ wives electorates. If I had the details to hand I’d be looking at those Liberal electorates that backed the Republican referendum. This is worse than the Willis letter. This is disastrous.
Just did a bit of noseying around on the Republic vote in Liberal seats, apropose my earlier comments.
For my own amusement, on Saturday night (my morning and early afternoon, thankfully), I’ll be keeping a lazy eye on:
Deakin
Boothby
Sturt
Higgins
Goldstein
North Sydney
Ryan.
(I’ve already written off Bennelong to Labor. I think Malcolm will hang on in Wentworth and Petro in Kooyong.)
If would be nice to compare the series with the actual result.
You have to wonder what the point of a Senate poll is that doesn’t break it down to a State by State level. Knowing the national figures doesn’t really tell you much.
I’m absolutely thrilled about the prospects of that plonker Humphries losing his ACT Senate seat. And even more thrilled that as an ACT voter, I can put him last below the line! Whee!
Lousy homophobic, rubbish government – overturn our laws will ya!
Anyway, still grappling with what to do with votes one, two and three in the senate.
I figure I don’t need to put Lundy first as she’ll easily get her quota. So if I put Kerry Tucker first, should I put the Labor #2 candidate second, as the best means of ensuring that if Kerry doesn’t get in, it won’t be Humphries?
I start to lose track at what point votes in excess of a quota get transferred at full value vs half value.
I have trawled the AEC site and also Antony’s sit (and 2004 archive), but can’t quite work it out.
comicstriphero, as long as you put Greens and Labor somewhere at the top and vote below the line and put Humphries last then nothing else matters. Realistically, they are the only ones with a chance.
Note Humphries only needs to get slightly below 33% to lose his spot. Fingers crossed.
It’s a big ask for the Liberals to get less than a third of the vote after preferences, even in the ACT.
Thanks LTEP.
Best part would be that ACT Senators change over immediately, and not in June next year.
Comicstriphero@7, as I am in the UK, I voted last weekend. I did as was suggested by LTEP, and had Tcker first, Lundy second, and then fiddled about and stuck Humphries last. It felt really good to stick a big number next to him. Think it was a 16…?
Voterboy, if its a 6%+ swing I cant see Turnbull hanging on.
mmm go ACT!
I’d give Malcolm a better chance than John Howard. Why vote for an inevitable by-election after all? Plus the Chinese and Korean community have consulted and have decided to go with Kevin Rudd this time.
The Greens may well do better than 13% in the Senate which would be amazing. Might even get as high as 15% in some states.
People really are concerned about global warming and don’t like the idea of any government having control of both Houses.
The Liberty and Democracy Party pref the Libs. To be sure if, the Libs + Liberty and Democracy + (non Labor BTL + non Green BTL) are less than 33.3% then its definately Kerry Tucker in.
The LDP received 1% and 1.3% of the vote in the ACT elections in 2001 and 2004 respectively.
However that was under the original party name of the “Liberal Democratic Party”. This election we will appear on the ballot as “LDP”. We do hope our preferences keep the Green-Labor Coalition from having outright control of the Senate (I thought people realised ANY majority constantly siding with the government is damaging?) but it is likely Gary Humphries will need to do most of the work himself.
Shem, there wouldn’t be a Green-Labor Coalition. What makes you think that?
In fact the Greens often side with the Coalition in state parliaments. No reason they won’t do the same in the federal parliament.
The Greens won’t break 10%, these polls aren’t to be taken seriously.
Getups idea of a “balanced” Senate is to replace a coalition of the right with a coalition of the left.
They commision “pollsters” to return an answer that they want to hear and publish it as fact. It looks as though they instructed them to only poll the inner cities.
The Green vote is wildly out of kilter with that assessed by Newspoll.
Gary Humphries handing out leaflets in front of public service department buildings at lunch time today…
No doubt hoping the ‘meat-axe’ comments will bring a few public servants back.
But everyone in Canberra knows that ‘cutting the fat’ is a favourite of opposition parties…
It’s interesting to note that Galaxy has picked up a 13% primary vote for the Greens in their recent marginal seat polling. It could be a real increase in support for them based on their recent advertising splurge.
Otherwise it could just be sampling. Ray, I think it’d be much less of a problem if the ‘coalition of the right’ wasn’t a formal Libs/Nats Coalition. That way there’d be the chance at proper scrutiny, which currently is lacking.
I’d prefer FF to have the balance of power than it to remain in Coalition hands, but overall would prefer either the Dems or Greens to have that balance. The Greens seem more likely.
Ray (19)
It is disingenuous of you to talk about a Labor-Green coalition, there is no formal deal or merge. As LTEP (17) said, the Greens more commonly vote with the Coalition in opposition. So much so that Labor send out letters to the electorate, and set up dirt websites saying there is a Greens-Liberal coalition! Labor is not of the left anymore, so they see the Greens as a threat to their left flank and Union affiliation. Many Unions have been supporting the Greens covertly or openly this election, which is a sign of things to come. As I said on another thread, Liberal and Labor are the parties that will form the ruling coalition, with Labor only resorting to the Greens to break an impasse. On the other hand, the Libs have nothing to fear from the Greens, they are not much of a threat to their vote or membership. To rebuild, the Libs are going to soften their image and take on more ‘wet’ policy positions, so there will be some common ground between the Libs and Greens in opposition, even if it is just hot air to regain power.
In my opinion, the Greens are the true opposition to the Grand Coalition.
I agree Earthrise.