The Adelaide Advertiser has published a poll on South Australian state voting intention from a sample of 522, showing Labor leading the Liberals 56-44 on two-party preferred. After distribution of the 12 per cent undecided, Labor leads 43 per cent to 37 per cent on the primary vote. Breakdowns between city and country show Labor leading 57-43 outside Adelaide. However, the previous Advertiser poll published last September had the Liberals leading in the country 58-42, pointing to a scarcely credible 15 point turn-around – although the earlier poll had a total sample of just 365. Martin Hamilton-Smith is far ahead of his party rivals as preferred Liberal leader.
[Rann to step down mid-term for Foley.]
Oh god. Please don’t say that. I just had lunch.
bob, Costello is waiting for Rudd to screw up, then he will go for the leadership. Costello is clever unlike the greed and big ego that has virtually destroyed Turnbull. I think the federal Libs would be in a good position had they stayed with Nelson.
[You never know, someone might pop out from the SA Lib backbench four weeks out from the election and do a Barnett.]
Bree
If you had any idea how bad the people on the Liberal frontbench and backbench are, you wouldn’t be saying that. Trust me, you need a Fed to go back to State. There are plenty to choose from; Pyne, Downer, Minchin or Robert Hill (who I think is the best of them).
Actually, MHS could win next year, if the Barnett pattern plays out. Barnett lost in 2005 than won in 2008. MHS lost in 2006 so he must win in 2010.
Diogenes, Robert Hill would be excellent.
“Don’t forget the ALP vote went down enormously at the Frome by-election, no matter how you spin it. The Libs may not have done well either, but things can change in a whole state campaign and a week is a long time in politics.”
No it went up… Before Brock overtook Labor there was a 2% swing to Labor on 2PP.
If you are going to claim primary vote matters in a regional seat where the ALP is trying to run dead to elect a indie over a liberal then you have been smoking what Bree has been..
bob
Looks like we agree on the lack of talent in the Libs, and incidentally on Foley. I don’t think Conlon, Atkinson or Holloway could lead. J-Lo doesn’t have it. Hill had it and lost it (I’ve heard his Party is REALLY pissd off with him over the Health front pages and have told him he should no longer consider being leader). Weatherall is my fave but is from the left so doesn’t have the numbers. Wright stuffed up Workcover which will bite eventually. It looks like Foley to me. At least they’ve got plenty to choose from. Caica seems to be coming into consideration.
Bree
I know someone who worked for Robert Hill for many years and said he was a really decent, hard-working guy. He was also smart and would stand up for what he thought. He was a bit on the outer with Howard as he is a wet. Hill and Minchin aren’t the best of friends.
Well I actually agree on Robert Hill too. He at least has a brain and some credibility, is local, and would give Rann a run for his money.
As for Labor, I know Conlon won’t be leader, but I have dealt with him through work and I found him very fair – blunt but intelligent and down to earth. Agree on Foley – he scares me.
bob1234 50 Thankyou for educating Bree about the SA Parliamentary Liberal Party! No talent because the factions dont let anyone of talent in! Totally unrepresentative of the wider South Australian community.
[MHS lost in 2006 so he must win in 2010.]
No, MHS won his seat in 2006. Kerin lost the election as leader of the Liberals.
Go back to federal politics.
[Caica seems to be coming into consideration.]
He’s also from the left.
[Don’t forget the ALP vote went down enormously at the Frome by-election, no matter how you spin it.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frome_by-election,_2009
There was a 1.74% two party swing away from the Liberals to Labor. The Labor primary vote dived more than the Liberal primary vote did because Geoff Brock is a Labor-leaning independent. He was Mayor of Port Pirie, a town of Labor voters. Primary votes don’t mean a thing, it’s the two party vote you look at. 1.74% more of voters decided to put Labor above Liberal in their 2009 by-election vote compared to the record breaking 2006 election.
The by-election was a disaster for the Liberals. They now need 10 seats, not 9, for a win in 2010.
Hill is Australia’s Ambassador to the UN. The Ruddster has kept him on in that role which shows that Hill has good bipartisan support. I imagine being SA Premier is a bit of a come-down after being UN Ambassador.
[Don’t forget the ALP vote went down enormously at the Frome by-election, no matter how you spin it.]
And to expand on my above post, the Libs went down 9%, Labor 15%, with a Labor-leaning independent winning the election. Only 40% of Nats prefs went back to the Libs, and Family First didn’t contest the election, having received 5% of the vote in 2006. So 9% is a lot, for an election won by a Labor-leaning independent.
But again, primary votes don’t mean a thing, the two party vote does. 1.74% more of voters decided to put Labor above Liberal in their 2009 by-election vote compared to the record breaking 2006 election. What a disaster for the Liberals.
Yes Frome was a disaster all right, quite apart from the comical claiming of victory by the Libs before they realised that the preference flow meant they had to concede defeat. Not only do the Libs now need 10 seats, but I would imagine Frome will be very hard to win back, unless Brock says something silly. I don’t see where they will get the other ten from.
Brock didn’t even give Labor his second preferences.
And Labor didn’t even get into the 2PP race, it was eliminated at number 3.
There was no 2pp swing to the ALP.
And the ALP candidate is a popular well known person, highly respected who received less than 30% of the vote in a purportedly Labor town in Port Pirie.
If the purported Labor supporters in Pirie had wanted to vote Labor they had a perfectly acceptable candidate with that party name next to his.
They didn’t, or nowhere near enough anyway, they voted for someone who didn’t put Labor as his second preference.
You are believing spin.
Don’t accept that what the party says is entirely true.
The Libs need a swing of over 10% to get ten seats. Won’t happen.
Brock, the mayor of Port Pirie, and Wilson, deputy mayor of Port Pirie and Nationals candidate, swapped preferences in a bid to pull the seat from the major parties. Labor was the next pref on Brock’s ticket. Then the Libs, then Green, then One Nation. So on 2PP, Brock did give Labor his prefs.
[There was no 2pp swing to the ALP.]
Yes there was. See http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/byelection2009/results.php – there’s a two party vote and a two candidate vote. There was a 1.74% 2pp swing away from the Libs to Labor.
[And the ALP candidate is a popular well known person, highly respected who received less than 30% of the vote in a purportedly Labor town in Port Pirie.]
Because they had an independent Labor candidate, not bound to the party line.
[You are believing spin.]
No, you’re creating spin.
And let’s not forget that the SA Nationals are an independent political party, and the only Nationals party in Australia to have an MP of theirs (and their only one) in a Labor cabinet.
The comments @ http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comments/0,22638,25219155-5006301,00.html are rather amusing 🙂
“Because they had an independent Labor candidate, not bound to the party line.”
What does that tell you?
[Assuming the description ‘independent Labor’ is accurate, who, however you slice it, did NOT prefer the ALP.]
It takes something significant for 20% of ALP voters plus in Pirie to NOT vote for a respected Labor candidate. Forget the spin, ask yourselves why they did that.
Oh and bob1234,
just to add to the discussion I’ll predict that Karlene Maywald is not re-elected.
Look guys, I’m an ALP supporter and I have campaigned heavily in Frome and elsewhere recently, I’m catching vibes [and more] that the electorate is not supporting the ALP anywhere near as much as this poll suggests and that the prognosis for the election is nowhere near as rosy as this poll and general spin from ALP HQ suggests.
I’m concerned that the ALP could lose the next state election, I’m not alone in that worry.
[What does that tell you?]
People prefer a strong well known trusted independent rather than a major party? There was a 1.74% two party swing to Labor from the Liberals. The fact you keep denying this makes me think you are telling fibs about your beliefs. Preferences are redistributed even when an independent wins, to find the two party as well as the two candidate vote. I gave you the electoral commission link. 1.74% more of voters decided to put Labor above Liberal in their 2009 by-election vote compared to the record breaking 2006 election.
[I’m concerned that the ALP could lose the next state election, I’m not alone in that worry.]
You go ahead and think that. People won’t put MHS and the Liberals in power. They need a swing of over 10%. No poll has given them that sort of swing required. People remember what it was like under the Liberals 1993-2002. Infighting, 3 leaders, corruption. Rann has provided stable government.
“People prefer a strong well known trusted independent rather than a major party?”
That is, the ALP, that’s the major party we are talking about.
And the people we are talking about are [nominally] Labor supporters.
Now ask why nominally ALP supporters prefer another candidate, who puts the ALP as his 3rd preference, rather than a respected official Labor candidate.
Not because the party ‘ran dead’, the resources put in were about the same as the previous elections.
Lets see if a party led by a dunderhead can come back by several percent from their last electoral loss when we see what has happening in Qld eh?
Oh and in the last couple of years I have spent thousands of dollars of my own money, and I don’t have a lot, and several hundred hours, just me, not counting my wife who did the same, campaigning for the Labor party so be assured I would far prefer them to the horrifying alternative.
Take this as concern, a lot of ALP voters at the last election in SA [Frome] did NOT vote for the ALP.
You should be concerned.
[That is, the ALP, that’s the major party we are talking about.]
Against the Liberal Party. The two choices of government. And there was a 2PP swing of 1.74% to Labor.
[Take this as concern, a lot of ALP voters at the last election in SA [Frome] did NOT vote for the ALP.]
Did they vote for the Liberals instead?
No.
So should I be worried of a Labor loss to the Liberals in 2010?
No.
I’m off for the evening, cya!
The bottom line on Frome is, if there were a hung parliament after 2010, would Brock vote for Labor or Liberal. As long as the answer is the former, the Liberals lost. Anything else is spin.
[The bottom line on Frome is, if there were a hung parliament after 2010, would Brock vote for Labor or Liberal. As long as the answer is the former, the Liberals lost. Anything else is spin.]
Exactly. Brock took a seat off the Liberals. In a hung parliament, Brock would side with Labor, as previous Mayors of Port Pirie turned MP for the electorate it is encased in have done. The majority of his vote is derived from traditionally Labor supporters. I can’t see him assisting in forming a minority Liberal government. He’d either support them, or flap his lips about like the Greens did in the ACT and give the impression he wasn’t an automatic supporter of Labor (I suspect the latter), and probably with some demands that Labor would have to agree to.
That said, I doubt Labor will have to resort to minority government. Just look at QLD! Hehehe.
My prediction for next year: Labor will hold Vic but will lose SA.
[prediction]
[PREMIER LAWRENCE SPRINGBORG!!!]
lol.
bob
There might ne a few tough times for Rann coming up. You will notice that the front page of the Mail screams “YOU KNEW”. Ploubidis is alleging that Bentley, who is head of the Thoroughbred Racing Board knew all about the goings on in the SAJC and condoned them. Bentley is a close friend of Mike Rann. I know someone very well informed in the SAJC who alleged exactly the same yesterday.
Bentley is about to hit the fan and there will be many allegations that Rann and Wright have tried to protect him. There will be many questions about why Rann opposes a Corruption Commission.
Diogenes,
That’s only one question.
[There might ne a few tough times for Rann coming up. You will notice that the front page of the Mail screams “YOU KNEW”. Ploubidis is alleging that Bentley, who is head of the Thoroughbred Racing Board knew all about the goings on in the SAJC and condoned them. Bentley is a close friend of Mike Rann. I know someone very well informed in the SAJC who alleged exactly the same yesterday.]
Who? What? Where?
How does that affect me or my standard of living?
Not a vote loser.
GG
It’ll be the same question framed in different ways from multiple sources.
bob
You’re right. Corruption doesn’t lose many votes. Just look at the WA election where they seemed to give a swing towards you if the CCC had unearthed stuff that led to you being ditched. I suppose we all expect a very low standard of rectitude from our politicians, about the same level as journalists and used car salesmen.
[You’re right. Corruption doesn’t lose many votes. Just look at the WA election where they seemed to give a swing towards you if the CCC had unearthed stuff that led to you being ditched. I suppose we all expect a very low standard of rectitude from our politicians, about the same level as journalists and used car salesmen.]
Howard was dodgy for 11 years but he still won four elections.
WA Labor was deeply entrenched in corruption. It is nothing like SA Labor. If this sort of thing kept happening people would be pissed off with SA Labor. But this on its own, with no proof Rann did anything wrong, pffft.
Diogenes,
It’s still one question then?
Permanent Corruption Commisssions have a very dodgy record.
GG
Yes, most of them seem to get blinkered and pursue personal vendetta’s. WA’s has clearly perfected the art of failure. A few of the other states have more successful ones.
This is another dodgy effort by the Advertiser to follow their Chaffey opinion poll debacle last year. The overall 2PP is probably at the upper limit of believability – but not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is trying to make a big deal over the trends of the country vote. As various people have already said – its a swing that lacks any credibility. I teach my first year science students about over-interpreting data – I may well use this as an example in an upcoming lecture!
I should add – we should expect a newspoll for SA in about two weeks now that the March quarter is nearly over. Be interesting to see what that shows.
Diogenes,
Name one.
GG
Didn’t NSW’s ICAC find and root out quite an entrenched corrupt RailCorp?
They also managed to destroy Nick Greiner’s career for no discernible reason other than they could.
Diogenes and others. Weatherill cant be premier because he is from left. Why so. Anna Bligh is from a left faction. Ditto Carmen Lawrence, Joan Kirner, Nathan Rees etc. Labor chooses leader based on public perceptions as well as factions. Don Dunstan while in a centre faction was clearly left as far as Labor politics. If Rann goes it is unlikely Foley will be seen as a winner. Boofhead more likely.
Wakefield
Who then? It’s got to be someone.
In my opinion the two most credible leadership candidates in SA if Rann were to leave say this week – would be Jay Weatherill and Paul Caica – despite the fact they are from the left. Even Pat Conlon would have a better chance currently than any candidate from the right. I don’t mention Hill because I don’t think he is an effective enough communicator – his speeches tend to waffle way too much. However, there is absolutely no chance of Rann leaving any time soon. He will never – in my opinion – do a Carr, Bracks or Beattie. He is more like John Howard in this sense in that he lives and breathes politics. It will most likely end in tears, but I don’t forsee that happening for some time. The smokey candidate is probably Michael O’Brien – who I expect to make an excellent minister. So he may well raise his profile significantly by the middle of (I assume) a 3rd term Rann government.
New Advertiser poll and headline this morning: “Keep RAH where it is, voters say”.
This is another attempt by the Advertiser to discredit the new hospital. They have asked a “loaded gun” question in my opinion. The poll of 522 respondents asks the following:
Should the new Royal Adelaide Hospital be ….
a) Built on Railyards site (31%)
b) Redeveloped on current site (62%)
c) Don’t know (7%)
Apparently these poll results tell us that South Australians do not want a new hospital. I would argue that by deliberately mentioning the “railyards” location the response to this poll has been distorted. Maybe its just my political bias – but I think this is a deceitful question and the wrong conclusions have been drawn.
I should add the implication from the article is that this poll used the same 522 person sample which yielded the 56-44 2PP result to which this current pollbludger thread refers.
sykesie
I think you’re clutching at straws there. It looks pretty fair to me. Why does mentioning the Railyards site distort the poll? That’s where it’s going to be built.
I should add that Hill and his minions are totally to blame for this poll. They have totally stuffed up this issue. I thought dropping the MJN name would turn things around but it hasn’t.
Yeah I think the poll is fine. I think the more telling thing is that it clearly isn’t a huge election issue. If the ALP’s option for the hospital can get a low total and yet the ALP vote is strong at 56% then if it is a strong issue in the community it isn’t coming up in the polls.
I suspect a third option of “I want a new hospital – dont care which site” would get a fair chunk of the vote. A new hospital is a new hospital, both sides can argue over costings but both sides are promising a new hospital. Dont think it is a big issue.
vote1
The fact that 58% of people who said they’d vote Labor didn’t want the new hospital certainly backs that up. I’m a bit surprised it isn’t a vote changer as it is a very contentious issue.
I think the poll distorts the outcome in the same way that the republican referendum did in 1999. A large number of people didn’t like the republican model being offered. So they voted no. They didn’t get the option of voting for the question: “Do you want Australia to become a republic?”.
This poll is similar to my republican analogy. The question should be “Do you want a new hospital or the old one redeveloped?” Mentioning the site distorts the outcome.
It won’t be a huge election issue because most people actually want a new hospital – they just don’t like the association with “railyards”. Most of the people who oppose it have the typical Adelaide anti-change mentality. It’s good we have a government with the balls to make a few decisions.
By the way – the only way i would support redeveloping the old hospital is if I had shares in an asbestos removal company – then I’d be all for it.
[It won’t be a huge election issue because most people actually want a new hospital – they just don’t like the association with “railyards”.]
But it is in the railyards so there will be relentless criticism. I’m sitting here looking out over the site as I blog. It doesn’t look all that toxic to me.
I think TT has a very negative story on the site tonight. Evidently I’m going to be lucky to survive working across the road from the new RAH based on all the earthquakes and chemicals I’m being exposed to.
Good luck with the chemical exposure Diogenes – I hope TT doesn’t want to see what happens in a chemistry laboratory 🙂 They also better not research too hard to find out where Flinders Medical Centre sits relative to the Eden Valley fault line.