Newspoll’s latest state results for South Australia have appeared on their website (hat tip to Sykesie). The poll covers a sample of 873 from a time frame listed as “July-August”, so it was presumably conducted entirely after Isobel Redmond assumed the leadership on July 8. Labor’s two-party lead is at 56-44, the same result as the previous January-March survey. Both parties are down a point on the primary vote, Labor to 41 per cent and the Liberals to 33 per cent, with the Greens up one to 11 per cent and others up one to 12 per cent. However, there are some very encouraging results for the Liberals in leadership ratings. Redmond’s approval rating is a healthy 43 per cent, compared with a disapproval rating of just 10 per cent. While Mike Rann retains a handy lead of 46-27 as preferred premier, this is the narrowest it has been during his premiership with two exceptions: the 43-28 he recorded immediately after assuming office, and an aberrant 48-30 in July-September 2008. Rann’s approval rating is steady on 51 per cent, but his disapproval is up three to 40 per cent.
Interesting results. 56-44 yet Rann’s personal ratings aren’t crash hot. I think this shows that Rann is somewhat but not terminally on the nose, but with no credible alternative. As there’s no overriding criticism of the Rann government people are willing to stay with who they know.
That’s how I explain the 56-44.
Greens 11%.
Those results aren’t as bad as I thought for the Libs. Rann is slipping and MHS was never going to catch him. Redmond is already level with MHS on PP and there are lots of undecideds. Redmond needs to do a lot of media as it still appears no-one has made their mind up about her (I certainly haven’t).
I can’t understand how she is meant to be from the Right (with Chapman more moderate) but Redmond seems pretty left on legal issues, way way to the left of our tub-thumping fire and brimstone Premier.
You could be right with respect to Rann, bob, but I guess how Redmond performs in the months ahead will determine whether this a “honeymoon” reading or whether she can sustain that reasonable effort in the preferred premier stakes – which is rarely an opposition leader friendly statistic.
It would be the Liberal primary vote of 33% that would have me more concerned if I was a Liberal supporter. Just as well they didn’t take this poll in the dying days of the Hamilton-Smith leadership.
[Greens 11%.]
Which is twice the 2006 result and thrice the pre-2006 poll.
[It would be the Liberal primary vote of 33% that would have me more concerned ]
I reckon there’d be a fair number of very soft Labor votes.
and probably a fair number of labor tending soft Green votes bob … In any case labor primary + green primary = 52% .. ouch!
[and probably a fair number of labor tending soft Green votes bob … In any case labor primary + green primary = 52% .. ouch!]
The very soft Labor votes i’m referring to would be swinging to the Liberals, not the Greens.
FF 1% (very low, me thinks they be dead)
AD 1% (Yup, dead)
Nats 1% (meh)
Other 12% ( !!! )
Just who is this 12% Other? Are people forgetting Mr X is federal now? His disciples aren’t credible so whats going on hear? Are Independents going to clean up or what!?!
[Just who is this 12% Other?]
The undecideds. The previous three polls all had other on 11%. The poll just prior to the 2006 election had other on 11%, when at the election other only got 3.4%. Ignore other.
You aren’t going to ask how this effects the Greens chances of coming second in Sydney or Melbourne are you Tom?
[You aren’t going to ask how this effects the Greens chances of coming second in Sydney or Melbourne are you Tom?]
On 11%, the Green vote has doubled since 2006, and trebled since the pre-2006 election Newspoll. And guess which seat had the highest Green vote in 2006?
The Liberal leader’s seat of Heysen 🙂
Woot – I’ll be doing my bit to topple her!
The “other” could be Mr X types or the Save the RAH Party William alluded to earlier.
And don’t forget the Free Australia Party – A.K.A. Bikies Rights Party.
If ‘Other’ figures are useless, how should we distribute that 12%? Say 4%for actual ‘other’ and the remaining 8% distributed amoungst the rest sounds right. Minor Parties would be more likely to get it because saying you support other means you disaprove of the LIB/ALP duopoly. So maybe 2%GRN’s, 2%FF,AD,NATS and 4%LIB/ALP? Do Psepho-Guru’s concur?
Bob1234
[Greens 11%.
Which is twice the 2006 result and thrice the pre-2006 poll.]
Very exciting stuff. The Greens could win 2 upper house seats on those numbers.
Question for those in SA –
Doubling of the vote in a few years is pretty significant. Do you think its coming off the back of the general Greens profile and the work of the Federal Greens (one of whom is from SA) or do you think the work Mark Parnell’s doing is cutting through?
I’ve met him and he’s a hardworking, decent guy, but obviously I’m biased. Is what he is doing have any impact or do people (focussing pretty much on prospective Green voters) have no idea who he is.
Part of that 12% is the DLP vote. How many dissaffected Lib and Labor voters will vote for the DLP who are currently resurging in S.A. is the questions?
Many ALP voters are joining the DLP as they are disenchanted with the ALP and seeking to reengage with a real Labor Party.
If the DLP vote was higher than 1% than it would have been registered.
Your party’s vote is <1%. Accept it.
By registered I mean Newspoll would have noted it.
11
No this is SA caching up to Victorian 2006 levels (or slightly higher) and thus does not have a major message for the Greens` chances in Melbourne.
I think Mark Parnell and Sarah Hanson-Young present the Greens in a fairly articulate light – certainly adds to their credibility. I do think the greens vote is potentially soft though, with some disaffected labor types and people with nowhere else to go. It seems obvious to me that a high profile independent could potentially gate-crash the upper house vote again …
so Oz you are saying there are 12 parties, or independents all under 1%??
[so Oz you are saying there are 12 parties, or independents all under 1%??]
Newspoll is obviously not going to break up the vote for every single potential independent candidate.
Oz
1. Parnell is very good, sensible and likeable.
2. SA is very environment-conscious esp due to the MDB and we know Labor and Lib won’t do anything
3. There has to be a big protest vote; Labor and Lib are absolutely pathetic. If the Greens were seen as more than an environmental party (which will be difficult without a name change) they could get more in SA.
but if no votes under 1% are recorded against that party or individuals name, if there is a vote of 12% for others, then there has to be at least 12 parties or individuals under 12%.
Seems there is something wrong with how these minor parties are counted?
22
Has the preselection for the lead Greens candidate for the Legislative Council been done yet.
12% Idiots. Probably answered with ‘ I’ll have a Hawaiian with extra cheese”
[Has the preselection for the lead Greens candidate for the Legislative Council been done yet.]
No.
Goanna, the poll would not involve reading out a list of every independent candidate in Australia. I would suggest that the “independent” vote was something like 8-10% and the rest broken up amongst various micro-parties.
Parnell is a top bloke. OZ, I suspect the reason Newspoll list the ALP, Liberals, Greens, Nationals, FF and Democrats is because those are the parties represented in parliament. After the next election they will stop asking about Democrats support and they will be lumped with ‘other’.
At the Mayo Bi-Election candidates forum the only candidate to be boo-ed, and boo-ed repeatedly I might ad, was the DLP candidate. No young people have heard of them, older people can barely remember them and probably only associate them with ‘reds under the beds’ stuff anyway.
Diogenes, the name point is interesting. A lot of people think it will hamper The Greens. Perhaps it will. But The Greens are a relatively new party who rose to prominence, generally, on environmental issues. It’s not unforseeable that in a few years, as their credibility grows in other areas (indeed in NSW a large proportion of Greens voters vote for issues like transparency, social justice, welfare etc. and not environmental issues – I’ve seen the polling) and the name will just be a name.
I mean when people talk about “Labor” and “Liberal” who really thinks about industrial relations and individual liberty and equality?
[indeed in NSW a large proportion of Greens voters vote for issues like transparency, social justice, welfare etc. and not environmental issues – I’ve seen the polling]
Can I see this polling or is it private?
[Can I see this polling or is it private?]
It was internal polling.
The Heysen Molotov’s two cents on the name point:
The name ‘Greens’ may lead some who aren’t paying much attention to think of the Greens as a single-issue party but this will occur less with time. I don’t just mean a bit less, I mean almost end entirely. The fact that parties all over the world, in the vast majority of multi-party democracies have a party that call themselves the Greens (or the local language’s equivelant) will cement the brand as a political position. That is, there are conservative pollies, social democratic pollies, faschist pollies, communist pollies and ‘Green pollies’. Faschists are associated with racial hatred but nobody considers them to be single-issue. As Green parties begin to form governments on a larger scale and the name is given increased legitimacy it will become understood that the Greens have policies on everything that a party needs in order to govern.
Furthermore, economics is really just a branch of ecology and as this becomes increasingly recognized, talking about the environment will become just a central pillar of political discussion.
THH at some point those radicals will grow tired of such childish behaviour and will have to face up to giving the DLP the same rights that are giving to each other candidate.
It is the DLPs right in a democracy to put foward their policies like any other party, and they have a right to be treated with respect, as they grant every other candidate that same right.
The voters will eventually take their wrath on parties that treat others with contempt, before even giving them what is their right in a democracy.
The right to express themselves in a public forum in the same manner that is given to others.
[The voters will eventually take their wrath on parties that treat others with contempt, before even giving them what is their right in a democracy.]
The voters took their wrath out on the DLP by demolishing them and continually take their wrath out by refusing to elect them.
oZ the DLP have not stood candidates in SA lower house seats at fereral elections for many years, so how could voters refuse to elect them?????
Federal
[oZ the DLP have not stood candidates in SA lower house seats at fereral elections for many years,]
Because the voters took their wrath out on them.
Mark Parnell is definitely cutting through with his campaign on developers and conflict of interest re the Rann Government proposals for massive increase in urban development in Mt Barker, Gawler etc. The government has become the spokesperson for developers and the Liberals are too scared to say what they think as developers threaten to stop providing any funding. So Greens get the air waves and people are listening. At public meetings in Mt Barker and Gawler over recent weeks Parnell spoke well and was received very well by people who would normally be Labor or Liberal voters.
OZ – having been involved (admittedly fairly marginally) with Green voters (twice) and politics in the state seat of Marrickville in NSW, I would say that two other reasons for Greens voters are:
– hatred of the ALP for their pursuit of “pragmatic politics” and rejection of the purity of hard left ideals; and
– pure kookiness.
Of course, I came from the working class / “ethnic” end of Marrickville which votes Labor and not the “professional” end of Marrickville which votes Green.
The Greens in NSW are watermelons – unreconstructed lefties on the inside while sprouting Green values on the outside.
Having voted Green in the Senate I will not again as Rhiannon is the lead candidate.
The DLP did not stand at the last federal election (in the upper house atleast), and in SA at the last Fed Election received 9343 votes out of Just over a million. That is less than one percent of the vote. The only slight role that DLP aligned people may play is a small role in the right wing of the ALP.
The DLP are as important as the Democrats.
I have predicted in the past that a combination of factors will lead to a slow but steady increase in support for the SA Greens.
A snowball effect of increasing votes in every electorate in every recent election [I think that is accurate, pretty close anyway].
An increase in funding that follows from that.
An increase in public awareness thanks to the solid work done by Mark parnell and Greens federally, its getting harder for the media and other parties to label them as extremists and ignore the growing popular support on a wide range of issues.
But I must admit I am surprised by this high level of double figure support.
If they go close to that next year then the momentum will increase even more.
One extra Leg Council member seems certain with hopes for a second.
More public awareness resulting.
SDnowball gets bigger.
The Newspoll Green vote increased when Xenophon left state politics.
http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?mode=trend&page=continue_results&question_id=2434&url_caller=
Newspoll can’t even get their results right it seems however – the latest one reads 11% National and 1% Green…….
What’s the quota in SA?
[Having voted Green in the Senate I will not again as Rhiannon is the lead candidate.]
I’m not going to waste everyone’s time by attempting to persuade you, but do you honestly believe some Lee Rhiannon is some kind of Marxist in Green clothing, and if elected she will unleash a wave of Stalinism upon Canberra?
I can guarantee you there are more people closer to Stalinism, and Marxism generally, in the Labor Party than Lee Rhiannon.
vote1 The Democrats are a party of the past, and the DLP are the party of the future
8.something percent.
Just under 9%
Which, on the current poll is 1 candidate elected and a bit of a quota for a second and then it depends on other party preferences.
I’ve heard that Xenophon will not be supporting anyone like he did last time so I suspect thats a plus for the Greeens.
I won’t vote for Lee Rhiannon for the Senate either and it’s got nothing to do with communism. Some, but perhaps not many, people in NSW are angry with the NSW Greens for preferencing the decaying, venal Labor government in nearly all the marginals to ensure its survival well past its use-by date, and then not negotiating with the government THEY WANTED, making it easier for it to cut deals with loonies like the Shooters. She’d be better than Kerry Nettle, who achieved precisely nothing in six years, mind you so I wouldn’t be too upset if she did get in, but she won’t get my vote.
I think the DLP is a cult not a political party !
Mind you the SA Greens seem far more sensible, so good on them.