I’ve been umm-ing and ah-ing over whether to give this its own thread, as Newspoll have for some reason been sitting on it for the better part of two months. It first appeared in Newspoll’s results archive the other day, has only now been the subject of a normal Newspoll release, and I gather it’s only been reported in the local edition of The Australian. The survey period was January to March, so it does not cover the aftermath of Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith’s claims of secret donations to Labor from the Church of Scientology using what proved to be forged evidence. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out when we do get an up-to-date poll, because Mike Rann’s pursuit of defamation action against Hamilton-Smith after multiple grovelling apologies had me thinking he was over-playing his hand.
Anyway, what we have is Labor’s lead on 56-44, up from 54-46 in the previous quarter. Labor’s primary vote is up three points to 42 per cent while the Liberals are down one to 34 per cent. The Greens are down three to 10 per cent. Mike Rann’s approval rating is up a healthy seven points to 51 per cent, and his disapproval is down two to 37 per cent. Martin Hamilton Smith was evidently in trouble even before the Scientology allegations, his approval down four to 43 per cent and his disapproval up eight to 34 per cent. Rann’s lead as preferred premier is up from 50-26 to 53-24.
Thanks William!
Seems we’ll get Rann Labor for another 4 years. Far better than the alternative.
If we can trust the numbers that is a huge increase for the Greens compared to the 06 election.
In 06 the ALP primary was 45% so this poll puts them 3 points lower.
The Liberals are static compared to 06.
On the other hand the Greens polled 6.5% primary in 06 so their increase up to 10% in this poll is what has given the ALP its comfortable margin in this poll.
Or to put it another way, the ALP decline since the election has been compensated for by a rise in the Greens.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_South_Australian_state_election#Polling
The last five Newspolls for SA have been records for the Greens. 10%-13%-8%-12%-8%. Prior to this there was a gradual and consistent increase too. There’s definately going to be a surge to the Greens come next election, but will flow back to Labor in preferences.
Yeah, people who didnt trust the Libs in 2006 aren’t trusting them now, the only movement I see is disaffected left Labor voters that are going to preferences the Greens 1st.
A Legislative Council is 8.33% so the Greens should at least double their representation. The Libs would get 4 and Labor 5. Who would get the 11th seat? FF?
Does Adelaide have any seats where the Greens do particularly well, to the point of possibly winning, like Fremantle / Balmain / Melbourne? Or do SA Labor still have the left wing vote relatively on board? The Democrats used to take the fight up to the Liberals (even held a seat in the 80’s), and Kris Hanna joined the Greens before getting re-elected as an independent, so there’s some precedent there.
[A Legislative Council is 8.33% so the Greens should at least double their representation. The Libs would get 4 and Labor 5. Who would get the 11th seat? FF?]
I reckon it’ll be 5 Labor 5 Liberal 1 Green.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_state_election,_1985
The difference between the Labor and Liberal vote can be fairly substantial but still wind up giving them 5 each.
Family First polling has collapsed since 2006, I don’t think they’ll win a seat.
[Does Adelaide have any seats where the Greens do particularly well, to the point of possibly winning, like Fremantle / Balmain / Melbourne? Or do SA Labor still have the left wing vote relatively on board? The Democrats used to take the fight up to the Liberals (even held a seat in the 80’s), and Kris Hanna joined the Greens before getting re-elected as an independent, so there’s some precedent there.]
Like the Democrats, the Greens achieved their best vote in Heysen, on 17.7%. All the other well-performing seats are Liberal ones too – 11.4% in Davenport, 10.6% in Unley and Waite, 10% in Kavel. These are the only Green double-digit seats in SA. The best for Labor is 9.6% in Croydon, 9.3% in Adelaide, and 9.1% in Ashford. They didn’t make 2pp in any seats. But with the Green polling increase, I think a lot of seats will have their Green vote go up.
Re Legislative Council.
Depends on preference deals and whether a Xenophon sponsored candidate gets traction.
If we get a weird set of back scratchings the Greens could poll close to a quota but not get a seat, a Xenophon clone could get a seat, maybe even 2 seats at a real outside chance, Family First could score another member, remember FF has lots of money and willing soldiers to call on at an election.
Lots of variables.
And if you were to apply a uniform swing using the last poll on 10%, each electorate would have the Greens on 1.5 times their 2006 vote (6.5%). Based on the previous poll on 13%, each electorate would have the Greens on 2 times their 2006 vote.
[If we get a weird set of back scratchings the Greens could poll close to a quota but not get a seat]
I think the Greens will easily poll 8.33% at the election in the upper house and end up giving away excess quota.
4 quotas is 33.33% and 5 quotas is 41.67% Which would leave the Libs with a surplus of 0.67%, Labor 3.33% and the Greens 1.67% with FF, Nats and Dems on 1% each and other on 11%. It is hard to see who would win from that unless other included a significant independent like Senator X. Would the Nats preference the Libs or Labor?
The Nats don’t poll well at all in the upper. In 2006 they received 0.7% of the vote.
But to answer your question…
http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/archive/2006/candidates/pdfs/E.pdf
In 2006 they preferenced FF, Libs, Democrats, Xenophon ticket, Labor, Green.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_state_election,_2006#Legislative_Council
Even One Nation and HEMP polled better than the Nationals in the upper in 2006.
I was just going on the poll results for the Nats. The more detailed results just show further that the last set is quite unpredictable.
[I was just going on the poll results for the Nats. The more detailed results just show further that the last set is quite unpredictable.]
The poll results are for the lower house. The Nats got 2.1% in the lower in 2006, 0.7% in the upper. Interestingly, the Nats were polling 1-2% prior to the 2006 election, and 0.5-1% after. Polling that low is never reliable, but interesting nevertheless.
Xenophon [aka Brissenden] scored 20.5% in the Leg Council vote last election.
FF got more than the Greens.
[ Like the Democrats, the Greens achieved their best vote in Heysen, on 17.7%. All the other well-performing seats are Liberal ones too – 11.4% in Davenport, 10.6% in Unley and Waite, 10% in Kavel. ]
That’s pretty interesting… reverse of every other state. *looks up the ABC site* If the Liberal vote tanks in Heysen and doesn’t go to Labor, then the Libs could have a reverse Fremantle on their hands… 43.9/28.1/17.7 says it could happen. Especially if Family First voters preference the Greens heavily over Labor like they do in WA. The MP there’ll be hoping Hamilton-Smith doesn’t make too much of a clod of himself (again).
[Xenophon [aka Brissenden] scored 20.5% in the Leg Council vote last election.
FF got more than the Greens.]
FF were also polling 3% before and after the election. They’ve polled 1% in the last three polls now.
Also I put the Greens getting less than FF at the election down to Xenophon – the protest vote went to him rather than the Greens. The Greens got more than FF in the lower.
Fredex, that’s Bressington. Brissenden is the ABC journo. 😉
Does the #3 on Xenophon’s ticket (who replaced him) get up to much?
Of course it is.
I knew that.
It was test to see if you lot were alert.
[Remember be alert, Australia needs lerts.]
Either that or I stuffed up.
As for the #3….Who?????
John Darley, the Xen #3 candidate who replaced Xen when he went to the Senate.
John Darley http://www2.parliament.sa.gov.au/Internet/DesktopModules/memberdrill.aspx?pid=3404
The Greens beat the Liberals on primaries in many of the booths located in Heysen at the Mayo By-election and I think won the 2PP throughout Heysen, the majority of booths anyway.
I don’t think the FF vote will tank that much. This is their homeland, remember? They’ll have loads of propoganda again. I predict 5ALP 4LIB 1GRN 1FF, this will make 9ALP, 7LIB, 2GRN, 2FF, 2MrX (they don’t always vote the same way). Although it is plausible that the Greens will win 2 seats.
Is there any chance at all of the Democrat keeping their seat?
[ The Greens beat the Liberals on primaries in many of the booths located in Heysen at the Mayo By-election and I think won the 2PP throughout Heysen, the majority of booths anyway. ]
Ooo… interesting. So it’s a legitimate concern, then… one more thing the Libs need to worry about before starting on the Labor marginals. Labor had a bit of fun with this sort of thing in the last NSW election, in a couple of north shore seats and wherever Pru Goward got in.
I would think that the last Democrat is not to get back in unless they get a Xenophonesque (Legislative Council 1997)/Fieldingesque preference harvest or a massive vote jump. The former is possible and the latter is unlikely.
Current Democrat David Winderlich is some chance of getting reelected but would need good breaks with preferences. Greens seem certain to win a seat as Mark Parnell has performed quite well. With a combined Greens Democrat vote of close to 12% they could be in the hunt for a second seat. Hard to see X independents doing well as Bressington and Darley are both pretty much non-events on most issues. Because their is no risk of either major party getting a majority the Greens and Democrats could look at preferencing Libs ahead of FF but can’t see ALP doing this. That would make it harder for FF and they haven’t had much of a profile anyway outside their narrow religous circles.
Would the Democrats get ALP preferences ahead of the Greens?
Would FF preference the Democrats ahead of most other small vote getters?
Would No Pokies (former state election vehicle of Senator X) preference the Democrats?
[Would the Democrats get ALP preferences ahead of the Greens?
Would FF preference the Democrats ahead of most other small vote getters?
Would No Pokies (former state election vehicle of Senator X) preference the Democrats?]
http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/archive/2006/candidates/voting-tickets.php
The Greens have taken over from the Democrats as the partie de jour in all those Adelaide Hills seats, populated – as Alexander Downer succinctly put it – by “lefts, greens, ferals and the like”.
Way to respect your constituents, Lecky – no wonder they were so keen to see the back of you.
Anyway, the Green/left vote continues to rise in these seats, so I do think it is only a matter of time before The Greens put up an excellent, high profile candidate and then it will be on for young and old. And I think that once one seat falls, others will follow. It might take 20 years, but I suspect a time will come when Labor will be the “conservative” party and the Greens will be the second party, with the Libs relegated to a rump.
Possum did a very good demographic analysis on the subject last year some time, which showed the dyed-in-the-wool Liberals dropping off the twig (due to old age) and a distinct lack of young people coming through to replace them. At least the Labor Party (and the Greens in particular) have young members, and therefore have a half-decent chance of being around in 50 years. The Libs, on the other hand …
I agree with the lack of young Liberal supportors. However, there are still plent of young Liberals, as well as young people who become Liberal supporters when they get older.
From my experience in Uni and local campaigning, this is how I’d break down youth support.
Members/active supporters: Greens 40%, ALP 50% Libs 8-9%.The rest support either FF or Socialists.
For passive support I’d take about 5% from the Greens, add 3 to the ALP and 2 to the Libs. Most of the others are swing voters.
Thats just personal observation though. It obviously depends where you are.
[It might take 20 years, but I suspect a time will come when Labor will be the “conservative” party and the Greens will be the second party, with the Libs relegated to a rump.]
I vote Green then Labor, and even I think this is wishful thinking on the part of the left.
I’m a Green member and I think it will take 50 years at least. Although thats very optimistic. More like 70 and we would not make government by then. Except maybe is TAS and ACT.
What i’m interested to know is how the redistribution will affect things, especially in the eastern suburb electorates that have been pushed in to the hills areas. We all know the calculated margins are very theoretical.
Pre-redistrib: http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/apps/news/?sectionID=6&pageID=259
Post-redistrib:
Metro: http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/apps/uploadedFiles/news/465/Electoral_Districts_-_Metropolitan_Area.pdf
Rural: http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/apps/uploadedFiles/news/466/Electoral_Districts_-_Country_Region.pdf
Here’s one for Diogenes:
[The funding for the cancer research institute gives Labor the chance to start work on the new RAH site before the election, thus negating the Opposition’s attempts to put forward its plans to redevelop the existing RAH site.
No longer will this election be a referendum on a new hospital versus a redeveloped one, or a new sports stadium in the city. ]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25490770-5018929,00.html
bob
They’d better build the bloody thing. We’ve just expanded our offices and they offered me a few choices so I chose the one with a view directly out over the New RAH site.
Way to evade the issue! 😛
bob
Labor won’t start the new cancer centre until after the election. If they started it now, all their promises of a referendum and a RAH election campaign will be scuttled. The Libs will just whip up anger by saying “They are spending the money as if they have already won” etc etc. They don’t have nearly enough time anyway.
Um…
[gives Labor the chance to start work on the new RAH site before the election, thus negating the Opposition’s attempts to put forward its plans to redevelop the existing RAH site.]