Seven weeks out from the state election, The Advertiser has published a poll of state voting intention, conducted on Wednesday to make hay out of the paper’s win on the blog comments issue. It finds Labor still leading at 52-48, compared with 56.8-43.2 at the 2006 election and 57-43 at the previous Advertiser poll in December. After distribution of the undecided and otherwise non-responsive, the primary vote figures are 38 per cent Labor, 39 per cent Liberal and 9 per cent Greens. Consistent with all other polling, Isobel Redmond has remarkably good personal ratings, and was deemed by 51 per cent of respondents to be more trustworthy than Mike Rann. The sample as usual is on the low side: 538 respondents, for a margin of error of over 4 per cent. Full tables here.
433 comments on “Advertiser: 52-48 to Labor in SA”
The swing from the previous poll was mainly in rural areas, the metro vote has more or less held up.
But i’ll continue to only take Newspoll seriously, a professional company sampling 1000 will get my attention any day over an ameteur company sampling 500.
I still don’t know how a 2PP can wash out higher than either it’s rural or metro breakdown……….. or how rural could be polling higher than metro………. what a dud poll that was by The Advertiser.
From the previous thread…
[Family First will pick up preferences from all the right-wing groups; the Greens don’t have so many pillow mates.]
You’re forgetting that parties like FREE, G4C, and other anti-stateist (or whatever you want to call them) will most likely preference the Greens ahead of the rest.
Looks like Rann’s on the Run.
Even allowing for MOE it looks like Labor are still headed for victory, but with a reduced rather than increased margin. If so, Holloway and Rann may yet regret yesterday’s questionable approval of the Buckland Park development (aka “Lower Davoren Park”).
Atkinson and his protectors should also hang their heads in shame. His ham-fisted and dishonest handling of the internet censorshop attempt will cost Labor far more votes than the Michelle Chantelois non-scandal. People in safe seats like his will survive, but those in marginal seats, whether hard workign or not, may now struggle.
BTW bob (in the previous thread) I wasn’t suggesting that Labor would lose seats such as Colton but that the swings would be higher than in seats such as Norwood and Hartley.
[Looks like Rann’s on the Run.]
Another comment with no basis in reality TTH? 🙂
TTH has got it wrong but “Rann’s on the Run” might make a nice song title, particularly if sung by Paul McCartney.
Socrates – #4
[ If so, Holloway and Rann may yet regret yesterday’s questionable approval of the Buckland Park development (aka “Lower Davoren Park”).]
As I understand it, once the writs are issued, the government goes into care taker mode – by convention- and accordingly no new decisions should be made.
Am I right on that?
As I also understood from a post by bob1234 the writs could be issued anytime from the end of January until about 1 March.
I don’t understand why a government would hold off issuing the writs, other than to ensure all decisions it wanted to implement were in place before it did.
If this is a doubtful decision, how many more are there to be “slipped” under the door – without proper time for community consultation – and possibly without public knowledge, before the writs are issued?
[As I also understood from a post by bob1234 the writs could be issued anytime from the end of January until about 1 March.]
23 February I believe.
25 days minimum prior to the election.
The election campaign will probably be 4 weeks in duration so another few weeks before the corflutes make an appearance.
a) The new laws stop signs going up on stobie poles.
b) The campaign will likely be lasting one week only due to the plethora of events happening in March.
Bob, unless I’m mistaken, the proposal to ban signs on stobie poles – and, indeed, any advertisement on “a public road (including any structure, fixture or vegetation on a public road) or in any other public place” – were knocked on the head in the upper house.
I can’t remember where I heard/read it but i’m pretty sure they’re no longer allowed… but I stand to be corrected.
This poll doesn’t make sense. What it is saying is that the voters would return Rann even though most don’t trust him but trust Redmond and think she is doing a good job.
[but trust Redmond and think she is doing a good job.]
They didn’t say that. They said they approve of her. But they don’t think the party is fit to govern.
2007 NSW anyone?
The same kind of results were also repeated in the last Newspoll. Libs losing but high Redmond approval.
[Ms Redmond’s APPROVAL rating has leapt to 75 per cent.
Ms Redmond also is regarded by more than half the state’s voters as being more TRUSTWORTHY than the premier – 51 per cent to 34 per cent.]
Anytime you want to explain how my conclusion is wrong, given the above figures go right ahead bob.
Approval would mean 75% think she is doing a good job. If 51% trust her and only 34% trust Rann then she is considered trustworthy by more people.
You are wasting your time arguing with Gary Bruce. He is welded on. Ron has more ticker though. I respect Ron.
[You are wasting your time arguing with Gary Bruce. He is welded on. Ron has more ticker though. I respect Ron.]
What? I’m arguing the merits of a poll. Instead of just getting personal try arguing a case for a change.
[You are wasting your time arguing with Gary Bruce. He is welded on.]
Tell me about it.
Yep, I’ve made my point. No return post arguing a case. That’s always a sure sign my point was spot on.
Gary Bruce #30
[I can’t remember where I heard/read it but i’m pretty sure they’re no longer allowed… but I stand to be corrected.]
[The new law outlaws these posters and forces greater election spending. The Greens saw red and eventually Atkinson’s proposal was deferred to kick in after, but not before, the March 20 poll.]
oops = 23
[ Gary Bruce #22
23 – lol. Another brilliant retort.
Gary Bruce – #26
Just following your lead example.
As the real KK tweeted:
thinks imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
I am sure you would be flattered too. 😆 😆 :devil:
Yes, well. Numbers spell trouble for Rann. Either Redmond’s numbers have to go down, or her party’s vote will inevitably go up, particularly when ppl start to see a lot more of her (or in the case of many voters, wake up and pay attention) during a campaign.
Still Rann has probably got his worst week out the way early, so it’s still his to lose.
[I am sure you would be flattered too.]
I would be if I thought it was by someone who could live up to the high standard. Unfortunately ….. Well you know the rest.
Rogan: Latham had very high approval as well – that didn’t end so well (although I cant see Redmond beating up cabbies or deliver power hand shakes). I recall seeing either here or on Polytics a bit of work showing a oppositions leader’s personal numbers were negatively related to future performance in primary/2pp vote.
Poll to me seems to be a fairly non issue, with the country vote finally ‘correcting’ from what seemed like an illogical result lowering labor’s 2pp result but very little change where it matters, in the metro area.
Since this poll has an error factor above 4 per cent, Labor could be streets ahead or slightly behind. Or, indeed, the poll may be spot on. Tiser polls have a good record, but don’t take too much notice of their city/country breakdown as the sample size from the bush is too small.
Mike Rann says the poll is “probably about right”. Which probably means it isn’t.
[Bob, unless I’m mistaken, the proposal to ban signs on stobie poles – and, indeed, any advertisement on “a public road (including any structure, fixture or vegetation on a public road) or in any other public place” – were knocked on the head in the upper house.]
Bob is correct on this one but the ban on the posters only takes effect after this election.
The definition of approval is very dodgy in this poll. All it means is that you chose either good or fair to rate how Rann or Redmond is going. The only other choice was poor.
It’s pretty obvious to most people why Rann is rated as less trustworthy than Redmond, despite what some people try to tell you.
Bob1234 = #34
That article contains this statement:-
That means the Government has an accrued total of only around three weeks left with which to convince the public it has a vision for the future, rather than a policy manifesto largely ripped off from the last three Liberal leaders.
If it’s true, then the Rann government is just Liberals in drag (with a new wig and fresh lipstick).
What makes me think it might be true is that SA Labor is said to be controlled by Don Farrell.
If SA heads down the track of having a government controlled by right-wing Labor over-lords, it is destined for trouble. Take it from me – I live in NSW.
[What makes me think it might be true is that SA Labor is said to be controlled by Don Farrell.]
Farrell holds the authority (and now he’s a bloody SA Senator…).
He was the one who promised to Rann after the 1993 wipeout that he had two elections to win government or else.
Rann would be a nothing if it weren’t for Mr Lewis in Hammond…
[If SA heads down the track of having a government controlled by right-wing Labor over-lords, it is destined for trouble. Take it from me – I live in NSW.]
I suppose one good thing (from a control/direction point of view) is that unlike NSW where you have various powerbrokers pulling the party in different directions, here in SA, Farrell rules supreme. What he says goes.
I was with a Lib this afternoon who said she’d had dinner with Redmond a few days ago. She was impressed with all the policies Redmond was going to release.
Imagine that. A Liberal policy. That’s almost an oxymoron.
I’m going to take solace in the fact that since the end of the Playmander electoral malapportionment, only 3 of 12 elections in SA have been won by the Libs.
Seriously bob, do you think we’d really notice any difference between a Labor and Liberal Govt. They are Howardesque; all populist crap driven by the polls with no achievements.
Both managed the economy during a boom, squandered it and balanced the budget by not building infrastructure.
[Seriously bob, do you think we’d really notice any difference between a Labor and Liberal Govt. They are Howardesque; all populist crap driven by the polls with no achievements.
Both managed the economy during a boom, squandered it and balanced the budget by not building infrastructure.]
I do actually. Labor is Liberal-lite. Liberals are Liberals. Labor is less right wing. I know they’re closer than ever before, but there are still things that separate them. I can see the Libs slashing the budget and the public service for starters.
Diogenes you really do have a mortgage on cynicism 🙂
[Diogenes you really do have a mortgage on cynicism]
Playing devil’s advocate (as I love to do), are you saying there is a big difference?
Tell me what the difference will be
There does seem to be a lurch to the right in this poll. I find the Family First figures most disturbing as they are behind some of the ratbag legislation that is creating problems – such as the R rated videos needing brown paper bags.
Well I think that there are a significant number of members of both sides that may not have a massive difference in their views. However there are still a large number that do. Most liberals do not even believe in the value of the union movement for example. The state liberals do not even believe in the value of building a new hospital and medical research facility (which is a suicidal policy in spite of what Diogenes says). Labor believe in the support of the public service in order to provide the provision of good public services. Labor believe in the building of infrastructure to help grow the economic foundations of our state and improve public transport – the Liberals have opposed most of these measures. Cory Bernardi, Sophie Mirabella, Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz, Alex Hawke, Wilson Tuckey to name a few. If I ever get upset about something labor has done, I close my eyes – think of those people, throw up and feel glad I support labor values.
Labor has not delivered on infrastructure.
I’m an agnostic on the RAH rebuilding. I don’t trust either sides figures so I can’t draw a conclusion.
It is certainly not suicidal as about 200 hospitals older than the RAH have been successfully rebuilt on site.
I remember the Brown and Olsen governments and there was no perceptible difference between SA under them and Rann.
The loony tunes in the Libs are Federal not state. The state ones are very very dull.
So is this Liberal Policy or Labor Policy ?
Razor gang readies axe
Peter, these are recommendations from a consultant, not government policy.
sykesie, who commissioned the razor gang? And we all know that regardless of party in govt, these types of things are designed to give an outcome that the government wants.
SA Labor may not have implemented them yet, but the point made is, it could be taken for policy from either party. They’re closer than ever before.
Comments are closed.