The latest Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s lead at 59.5-40.5, up from 58.5-41.5 a fortnight ago. Primary votes are Labor 50.5 per cent (up 1.5), Coalition 35.5 (down 0.5) and Greens 7.5 (down 1). Elsewhere:
• The redistribution of Tasmania’s electoral boundaries has been finalised. Several amendments have been made from the original proposal, which you can read about here. Antony Green calculates the new boundaries have increased Labor’s margin in Braddon from 1.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent, while reducing it in Denison from 15.6 per cent to 15.3 per cent, Franklin from 4.5 per cent to 3.7 per cent and Lyons from 8.8 per cent to 8.4 per cent. Bass remains at 1.0 per cent.
• A bill to introduce fixed terms was introduced to the Northern Territory parliament on Wednesday. David Bartlett says similar legislation will be introduced in Tasmania next year, confirming the next election will be held on March 20, 2010 and setting up an ongoing clash with South Australia’s elections (to Antony Green‘s dismay). I’ll have much more to say on fixed four-year terms next week.
• Tomorrow is Victorian local government election day, which in most cases means today is the last day for submission of postal votes. Read and comment about it here. Ben Raue at The Tally Room has council and ward map files for viewing in Google Earth.
• In Queensland, poll-driven decisions on water policy are being seen as a harbinger of an early election.
First!
A coalition opposition for another 13 years. One cannot honestly deny it.
A beautiful set of numbers! Hopefully these will be the year end set, so that Turnbull and co have time to reflect on them over the break.
Juliem
Continuing from the previous thread, I agree the US has seen through Bush’s politics now, but the ugly fact remains that his tactics did get him relected with an increased majority in 2004. We were no better, with the fear card workign for Howard in 2001 and again in 2004.
Antony et. al please excuse this question, but I plead ignorance as I’ve only been eligible to vote in elections since January 2007 when I got my naturalized citizenship. There is obviously something going on under the radar of which I’m not aware.
Why should it make any difference at all if two states vote on the same day? We currently have by-elections on the same day as other state elections. Just this year, the 4 NSW by elections were on the same day as the ACT elections. Each citizen is still going to only vote for their own candidates. On Federal election days, everyone votes at the same time. Not trying to cause trouble, just trying to understand the reasons why Antony 😉 …….
[Why should it make any difference at all if two states vote on the same day?]
Probably because the ABC needs to cover both and would have to spread their resources thinly 🙂
Not 4 year fixed terms. Fixed terms, but 3 years. Until I become President. Then non-fixed 6 year terms.
“but the ugly fact remains that his tactics did get him relected with an increased majority in 2004”
Clinton got in with 370 ECV in 1992, 379 ECV in 1996, Bush got in with 271 ECV in 2000 (just 5 more than Gore), 286 ECV in 2004, and Obama is projected to have 365 ECV.
The Republicans scrape in. The Democrats romp it in.
Socrates,
Yes, I know 🙁 …… weird how the bad political news and tricks paralled each other in each country. I’ve always wondered (and will never know since we can’t get a mulligan on history) if things would have turned out any different for Australia had Howard not been in the middle of it on the day. I think had he not been on the state visit to Washington at the time, the mental and personal impact of the events of 9/11 wouldn’t have hit him as hard and subsequently affected his political and personal judgement on policies …..
BTW, ignoring the absolute result and noting the trend vs previous Morgan polls (ALP +1.5; Lib -0.5) I am delighted ot see that people haven’t bought Turnbull’s stupid budget tactics. Now that the reality of deficits has been faced, I’d love to see the next newspoll too. After Turnbulls ranting on that score, I bet there will be no shift in his favor.
The Indians are in trouble big time. No, not in cricket.
The Mumbai Massacre exposes the soft underbelly of India:
* socially, too diverse and the caste system is illegal in law but still being practised in reality.
* religiously – The Hindu fandanmentalists are just as bad as the islamic fundamentalists.
* politically – democracy is fine on paper, but democracy as practised in India is like dog’s breakfast that can be bought or sold.
* economically – It cannot hope to compete with China.
[Foreign capital, highly instrumental in India’s economic resurgence, is fleeing India’s economy at an alarming rate (more than £10bn this year), driving up the cost of borrowing and curbing the investment on which India’s ‘economic miracle’ depends. Without China’s trillion-dollar trade surpluses, India just doesn’t have the spare cash to cut taxes and announce multi-billion dollar internal investment programs to prop up domestic demand.
* securitywise –
[From a security perspective India is all but ungovernable: a vast landmass that shares porous borders with unstable Islamic states containing a shifting population of 1.1bn people, many of whom go through their entire lives without their names appearing in an official register of any kind.]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/27/do2706.xml
Re 7,
[
The Republicans scrape in. The Democrats romp it in.
]
People love the Democrats and vote for them. When the honeymoon wears off and they forget why the voted for the Dems, some of them switch back. “Opps, we’ve now elected a Republican administration folks”. Then after those people are shown the error of their ways, they come back home to the fold in droves ……
SNIP: To state the ludicrously, blindingly obvious, acknowleding you’re breaking the rules does not change the fact that you’re breaking them. Please wake up to yourself – The Management.
[Clinton got in with 370 ECV in 1992, 379 ECV in 1996, Bush got in with 271 ECV in 2000 (just 5 more than Gore), 286 ECV in 2004, and Obama is projected to have 365 ECV.
The Republicans scrape in. The Democrats romp it in.]
Oh come on, don’t use EV’s to measure “romping it home”. Clinton got 40% in 1992.
Clinton got 43%. Bush Sr got 37.7%. Independent Ross Perot got 18.9%.
Clinton got 370 ECV. Bush got 168 ECV. Perot got 0 ECV.
Clinton romped it home.
[The Mumbai Massacre exposes the soft underbelly of India]
It never needed “exposing”. Anyone who paid attention to the world around them knows about Indians extremely violent and divisive history. The media and Government in Australia and other Western countries like covering it up and referring to India as the world’s “biggest democracy” for a number of reasons – mainly involving money.
I wonder if the Libs are starting to regret getting rid of Brenda?
On another topic, didn’t I read a few months back that the public service were about to revolt over the bad treatment since Rudd took over? Seems the msm can’t get anything right.
[Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s workaholic habits may be forcing some public servants to keep longer hours in the office, but they seem less stressed than when John Howard was in charge.]
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/bureaucrats-more-at-ease-with-rudd/1372523.aspx
[Clinton romped it home.]
You were comparing him to Bush II. Bush II got more votes than Clinton. Bush II romped it home.
[but they seem less stressed than when John Howard was in charge.]
I assume they must be more comfortable regarding their conscience.
[Probably because the ABC needs to cover both and would have to spread their resources thinly :)]
They could have real Antony and a HOLOGRAM Antony!
Socrates, don’t ever do that again.
In fact, I’ve deleted your subsequent non-offensive comments as punishment.
#15 OZ, i think we something good going here.
[The media and Government in Australia and other Western countries like covering it up and referring to India as the world’s “biggest democracy” for a number of reasons – mainly involving money.]
Sorry William.
“You were comparing him to Bush II. Bush II got more votes than Clinton. Bush II romped it home.”
When you have a third, popular, candidate what do you expect?
Bush II got only a slender majority of ECV. Clinton romped it home both times.
🙂
[Bush II got only a slender majority of ECV. Clinton romped it home both times.]
I agree
Is the clock ticking against Malcolm Turnbull? Perhaps he will be taking a U-Turn right out of politics. Peter Brent at Mumble:
[“I just don’t think opposition leaders last very long these days, and expect both Baillieu and Malcolm Turnbull to be gone before their next elections, probably by the end of next year. (In Malcolm’s case the proviso, as always, is no early election.)”]
http://mumble.com.au/ 26 November 2008
About @313 on the previous tread.
The US Constitution cannot be amended by a ballot measure because it is not in line with the ratification process set out in Article V.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_V
The United States should change to the system Australia has.
It’s the un-Narrowing!
[When you have a third, popular, candidate what do you expect?]
Perot was taking votes off the Republicans!
[Perot was taking votes off the Republicans!]
and the Democrats
Didn’t ronny reagan win in a landslide in ’84: from wikipedia: Ronald Reagan defeats Walter F. Mondale with 59% of the popular vote, the highest since Richard Nixon’s 61% victory in 1972. Reagan carries 49 states in the electoral college;
370 isn’t considered a landslide according to FiveFirtyEight.com, 375+ is…
I am completely against fixed 4 year terms. That is an incredibly long time for the public not to be consulted on who are their representatives. I would have 2 year terms if I could but alas I understand the public is probably not ready to go that far.
We have three tiers of government, so why not have fixed 3 year terms for each, rotating between them? For example, in 2010 have a federal election, 2011 have the state elections and 2012 have the local elections (then in 2013 start the cycle again with another federal). Make it the same day each year (like the first Tuesday in November), and make it a public holiday called “Democracy Day” or something.
Presumably there are cost savings, it delivers certainty, it staggers electoral change, it’s easy to educate the kids and it places our democratic system squarely in the national psyche like Christmas or ANZAC day.
[(like the first Tuesday in November), and make it a public holiday called “Democracy Day” or something.]
Melbourne Cup!
Coconaut, the problem with such short terms is that governments will spend their whole time trying to get re-elected, rather than trying to govern. As it is now, with three year terms, governments spend their first year doing anything nasty they need to do, the second year bedding it down, and the third in re-election mode. At least with four year terms governments would be able to concentrate on what they are elected to do (ie govern) for more of their term than at present.
I do, however, agree with you on fixed terms, and in a perfect world we would be able to arrange the electoral calendar so that all of our elections can be run on as few days as possible. I much prefer, though, to see elections early in the year, rather than November. When elections are on late in the year, the entire year is spent politicking (see 2007 for an example), whereas if an election is in, say, early March, there is only a short window for us to be bothered by politicians on the campaign trail. One of the great features of this country is our tendency for everyone to go to sleep between Christmas and Australia Day, so by having a March election, you are limiting the campaign to a maximum 6 weeks.
The Liberals/BCA would go ape if anyone suggested another public holiday. Unless it was called Howard Day. WorkChoices Day of Remembrance maybe.
Good idea, Coconaut, re a fixed election date. I wish that would happen.
I don’t mind 4 year terms for a first term Govt. because it takes them 12-18 months to get the hang of it. 3 years always goes so quickly – it really is 2 years because the last year of the term is usually full on electioneering.
4 years only seems a long time now because the NSW Govt. has been in so long. Altho I hate the thought, it really needed to lose the last election.
But NSW’s fixed date every 4 years is terrific.
On India, I think some posters are being a little harsh. India has been a functioning democracy for all of its existence (minus the two-year “Emergency” in the mid-70s) and I think they deserve some credit for that. It can’t be easy trying to organise elections for 1billion+ people. Certainly I have more time for Indian governance than I do for, say, China (communist dictatorship) or Pakistan (which has traditionally received far more Western backing than India, despite being a military dictatorship for much of its existence). India is of course a massive country, perhaps too big to really govern effectively, but I’d caution against dissing them entirely on the basis of a terrorist attack. Otherwise, to be fair, you’d have to do the same to the US and most of Europe.
Besides, we Aussies need to stick up for other cricketing nations!
dyspnoeia
Apreciate your indepth analysis of th US Constitution , however they ar mere pieces of paper against th knowledge trees tabancle you just can not hav 2 captains on th one ship
Having a duet as apex of authority just does not work Who ever heard at a wedding anniversary of th man buying a woman flowers ? , th women of course does , I mean how would it be if both did , just not enough flower holders Similarly th analogy what th US has achieved is confused responsibilty , meaning reely no efective responsibility Bush has power but no mandate and Obama had no power but mandate
….its called th transition period of a ship with 2 captains but th 2 rudders ar going left and right in message
So whilst I understand your detailed Constitation articles , diog not realising that th knowledge trees ar encryted with Da VinchAmigo Codes of secrecy wastes his time hitting a mere button , a mere Google button , Bill Gates is not that powerful to MP sacred grounds
“The Queensland premier has signalled backflips on recycled drinking water and the Traveston Crossing Dam, delaying the unpopular measures and raising speculation of an early election.”
Oh dear , AAP seem to be parroting the Courier-Mail and ABC’s Madonna King. Anna Bligh repeated again yesterday that the Qld Govt. will run full term, Scott Prasser states he thinks it will run full term.
The only people talking up this beat-up are Mr and Mrs Courier-Mail. 🙁
Hugo, do you know how H L Mencken defined democracy: the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard?
Your logic depends on the assumption that a government ‘trying to get re-elected’ will do the opposite of ‘trying to govern’. In other words, people will only vote for a government that makes bad decisions. If you really think that people will only vote for a government that makes bad decisions, wouldn’t it be better if they didn’t vote at all?
[The only people talking up this beat-up are Mr and Mrs Courier-Mail]
News Ltd publications beating up a story? Nah, I just don’t believe it…
The first mass movement for democracy was Chartism, launched in 1838 with the People’s Charter, which stipulated six goals:
Manhood suffrage (implying abolition of property qualifications for the vote)
Equal-sized electoral districts
Secret ballot
An end to property qualifications for candidates
Pay for MPs
Annual elections
Five down, one to go!
Madonna King is the wife of the editor of the Courier Mail. I think the perception that one family may set the political agenda in Brisbane is not healthy. 🙁
Hugo, you are only right of this point:
[Besides, we Aussies need to stick up for other cricketing nations!]
That is why the chinese are trying very hard to learn to play cricket.
J-D, I wasn’t suggesting that getting re-elected is neceassrily a bad thing for a government to pursue, but rather the pressures of re-election often mean that governments defer “tough” decisions (ie ones that may well be unpopular, but can still be considered “good” for the economy/ society) until after an election (regardless of how frequesnt they are). An example of this might be the private health care rebate. Most experts in the field (and I agree with them) see this as wasteful and bad policy – a huge amount of money is spent basically on propping up an ineeficient industry. But woebetied any government that tries to remove it (see the carrying on when Rudd & co tried to means test in the Budget just some of the middle class welfare that is so popular in this country). If we had more frequent elections than we do now, no government would ever make “hard decisions).
In essence you are arguing for every year to be just like 2007 – with politics (as opposed to policy) being shoved down our throats 24/7 all year. There might be some on this site that finds that idea appealing, but I reckon even we Poll Bludgers would get sick of it eventually.
I can’t see at all how we would be benefited by yearly elections. Once every 3 years is fine by me.
Finns @ 44 – yes, I look forward to the first Test Match (being of course real cricket) being played in Shanghai.
BTW, NZ are currently 228/6. If the Kiwis had one or two batsmen who could stick around after getting their attractive 30s and 40s, they would have a pretty good chance of beating us.
Amigo FINNS
only problam with chinese cricket , is how I read th Peking scoreboard upside down
Bob 1234 “The Republicans scrape in. The Democrats romp it in.”
No Republicans romped in 1972 , Reagan romped in 1980 & 1984 and since then Democrat Clinton romped in twice They all romp , depending on th times
Juliem “I think had he not been on the state visit to Washington at the time, the mental and personal impact of the events of 9/11 wouldn’t have hit him as hard and subsequently affected his political and personal judgement on policies …..”
No , Kevin Rudd was not there in New York , and he still supports Afghanistan incursion which is what 9/11 is about…terrorism Howard suported Afghanistan from day one as did Labor Party In fact Kevin Rudd has signalled consideration of increasing our troops in Afghanistan Don’t confuse Iraq
Just a thought but what about giving any new government (ie a change of government) a 4 year first term. Then as long as the same party retains power the following elections you have 3 year terms. You could even extend that idea to include 2 year terms after a prolonged time in power, eg. longer than 12 years.
I feel a party needs 4 years to set their progam but later in their time in government should become even more accountable to the people.
Hugo, you’re just confirming what I said–that you think people will vote for bad decisions but won’t vote for good decisions. You (and, according to you, most of the experts) find the arguments against the private health-care rebate to be persuasive, but you don’t expect those arguments to convince most people. With more frequent elections, you seem to be predicting, governments would never make the ‘hard’ (unpopular but necessary) decisions. What then? Would things keep getting worse and worse because these decisions were never made? And would people nevertheless keep voting for things to get worse and worse? I find that implausible. But if you really think people are that stupid, wouldn’t it be better if they didn’t vote at all? It’s a serious question. I presume you are, in fact, in favour of democratic elections–but what’s your reason?