The Advertiser has published a poll of 571 respondents from the South Australian state seat of Chaffey, held by the state’s sole Nationals MP Karlene Maywald. It finds an effective dead heat in two-party terms between Maywald and Liberal candidate Tim Whetstone, with the former on 50.5 per cent. Primary vote figures after distribution of the undecided are 40 per cent for Whetstone, 30 per cent for Maywald, 14 per cent for Labor, 11 per cent for Family First and 3 per cent for the Greens. The result at the election was 53.2 per cent for Maywald and 28.2 per cent for the Liberal candidate, resulting in a 17.2 per cent Nationals-versus-Liberals margin after preferences. The margin of error on the poll is around 4 per cent. The paper appears not to have repeated the mistake of its poll of the electorate in August 2008, when it merely asked respondents which party they would vote for without naming Maywald as an option. When asked who Maywald should support in the event of a minority government, 53 per cent said Liberal and 33 per cent Labor. Maywald has served as a minister in Mike Rann’s government since 2004, currently in the water security and River Murray portfolios. She has nonetheless maintained she would support a “conservative” government in office.
Please feel free to use this thread for general discussion of the South Australian election.
[Big deal. From 1901 to 1906 the ALP vote went from just under 16% to just under 37%, which enabled them to form government. The ALP went from a balance of power party to a MAJOR and governing party in 5 years.]
This was when major parties weren’t established. Completely different kettle of fish.
But yet they still didn’t achieve five rises in a row. Damn that bloody 1913 election!! 😀
Further posts from GG demonstrating no neural activity, no rational argument and inane abuse which adds nothing to the thread.
The Labor Party proposed banning the corflutes and I am agreeing with them.
[The Labor Party proposed banning the corflutes and I am agreeing with them.]
And it would’ve been in the Greens’ interest to support the ban, because they then could’ve spent money employing people to man the booths.
Itep – #347
The “quote” (that s the bit in the whye box and italics – including bolding) includes the words or a leading article in such a journal confuses me because I don’t know where they come from.
Otherwise I disagree with your combination of the regulation and the section – because I think the proper combination would be:-
….in a journal published in electronic form on the Internet (but exempted from the prohibition is comments in a public forum(weblog or survey) conducted by or within the journal (a newspaper, magazine or periodical))
…..
or broadcast on the internet (to which there is no exemption by regulation 17)
Therefore, I haven’t changed my view.
SO
Do they have to pay people to man the booths? I thought party volunteers did it for free.
The ‘leading article’ reference is another ‘exemption’ under s 116(2) other than ‘prescribed material’.
So leading articles in online journals are exempt, as well as public forums within online journals. What exactly is then subject to the provision in the Act other than radio or TV shows broadcast on the Internet?
[ spent money employing people to man the booths.]
Has any respected and qualified person ever done a detailed study of the effect of manning booths with people who hand out how to vote cards on the way people vote, and in particular:
a. The nature of the party
b. The nature of it’s supporters
c. The cost/benefit analysis of manning booths.
d. The nature of the impact – psychological or informative.
I don’t want to hear mantra’s from party hacks based on anecdotal stories – but actual studies from independent and credible researchers.
[Do they have to pay people to man the booths? I thought party volunteers did it for free.]
But, in my experience, the Greens can never find enough volunteers to man all booths all day. So the next best thing they should do is spend all their donations to pay some poor uni students to do it.
Having a person at a booth wearing a Greens t-shirt handing out how to votes at every booth for the entire day is a better way to attract a bigger vote (especially in the LC) than paying to print stupid corflutes.
Labor is the only party that can man all booths without needing to pay because of their connections with unions and the willingness of teachers to volunteer for them. Even the Liberals often revert to paying (generally attractive young women) in safe Labor seats.
Itep –
The section reads:
, in a journal published in electronic form on the Internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the Internet
NOT
radio or television broadcast on the Internet
Thus something broadcast on the internet is caught. I appreciate the argument that broadcast means sound or picture (relying on a federal act) but clearly that was not the intended meaning nor would a definition from a different jurisdiction dealing with a different subject matter be persuasive.
Bottom line – I remain convinced material on the web (not being part of a journal as defined – and a website, a blog etc is not part of a journal) is prohibited.
…..
[Thus something broadcast on the internet is caught.]
That means you’re completely screwed Peter. You may as well walk straight to jail now.
[ Labor is the only party that can man all booths ]
Well Labor does not man all booths. It may man the vast majority of booths, but it does not man all booths.
Just another mantra – which is false.
#360
[You may as well walk straight to jail now.]
What a pathetic lay down and die attitude.
They can come and get me, and I will resist. It will be a question of whether they are stronger than me. Bring it on.
[What a pathetic lay down and die attitude.]
Yeah, my mistake. You could order a limousine to take you to jail.
[They can come and get me, and I will resist. ]
Yes Peter, THEY are coming to GET YOU!
Yes Peter, that’s right 🙂 I keep misreading “or” as “on”. So your concern relates to the ‘broadcast on the Internet’ section of s 116 now?
As to what ‘broadcast’ means, that’s a whole other legal debate.
ShowsON
You haven’t replied to #361. Your mantra is slipping again.
[But, in my experience, the Greens can never find enough volunteers to man all booths all day. So the next best thing they should do is spend all their donations to pay some poor uni students to do it.]
Sounds like ShowsOn was caught out on this one and now he’s backtracking 🙂
#364 – Itep
Yes you have got my drift.
I have acknowledged there are 2 views on what that last bit “broadcast on the internet” means – but maintained my view is correct.
Bottom line is that Atkinsons statements that he had listened and all web content would be exempted is bulldust. Spin.
I think I will leave it there. People are apparently bored with the discussion. 😆
[You haven’t replied to #361. Your mantra is slipping again.]
Peter,
Shouldn’t you be in jail?
ShowsON
[ Shouldn’t you be in jail?]
No, whilst breaking Atkinson’s stupid law – the penalty is a fine – not a jail term. So before you make silly comments – why don’t you do your research and actually learn something about what you are shooting off at the mouth at.
Now back to your mantra that Labor mans all booths. You got caught out spinning this lie, yet you don’t even have the decency to withdraw and correct your stupid statement. Might be a good idea if you did.
[No, whilst breaking Atkinson’s stupid law – the penalty is a fine – not a jail term]
Peter, shouldn’t you be in jail for refusing to pay the fine?
[Peter, shouldn’t you be in jail for refusing to pay the fine?]
The due date wouldn’t have passed yet as the election has only just been called.
ZING! 😀
ShowsON – 370.
Refer to bob1234’s statement in 371.
I haven’t been fined yet. The date for payment of a non-existent fine has not passed. When a fine is received and remains unpaid fr the required period of time – maybe a jail sentence will be on the cards.
In the meantime please keep posting ignorant and unresearched material.
Every time you do – you just remind me of Atkinson.
Diogs,
As always you whinge when the criticisms hit their mark.
The corflute issue just confirms your obsession with junking up the blog with trivia.
[I haven’t been fined yet. ]
But as you keep telling us, it is an absolute formality that it is going to happen. And since you are so tough, you won’t pay it. Therefore, you should just waltz your way to jail immediately.
GG
You should go off to a dark room with your Rudd bukkake doll and get some relief.
You have become a stalker.
“with your Rudd bukkake doll”
Thankyou for putting that wonderful image in all our heads…….
[You should go off to a dark room with your Rudd bukkake doll and get some relief.]
HAHAHA gold!! 😀
Labor STAFFS all important booths with volunteers (though not too well in the rural areas).
Some one once told me that handing out HTV cards had been proved to make a significant difference. I think the name of the person who told me that might ring a bell with some of you. Yup, one Michael Atkinson.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/rann-a-poll-model-for-pm/story-e6frg6z6-1225833190628
Half-decent article on SA politics for News Ltd. They fail to mention that 53-47 has been the Newspoll average under the Rann government though.
Jill Bottrall has been caught out muzzling the media. She told Ch 10 they couldn’t have ABC’s Matthew Abrahamson on the debate panel. Rann denied it had happened, saying Abrahanson was welcome. And then had to apologise as she had.
[Shortly before noon, Mr Rann repeated the denials on the mornings program an conceded a staffer had “suggested to have the political reporters from the different stations”.
“If there’s been any misleading then I apologise for that,” he said.]
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/premier-mike-rann-denies-sidelining-abc-host-matthew-abraham-from-election-debate/story-fn2sdwup-1225833847675
I thought I was knowledgeable – but I had to look up bukkake .
Everytime I see a post by Greensborough Growler from now on – I will get a mental picture of it.
[Everytime I see a post by Greensborough Growler from now on – I will get a mental picture of it.]
His mysterious lack of a counter-reply speaks volumes 🙂
[Jill Bottrall has been caught out muzzling the media. She told Ch 10 they couldn’t have ABC’s Matthew Abrahamson on the debate panel.]
You mean Matthew Abraham. I approve of this policy, that guy is an absolute idiot who specialises in talking about things he doesn’t know anything about.
Peter,
[I thought I was knowledgeable]
This was your first mistake.
[– but I had to look up]
This was your second mistake.
SO
Then why did Rann say he was welcome at the debate. Rann goes on his show.
[Then why did Rann say he was welcome at the debate. Rann goes on his show.]
I don’t really care what Rann said in this instance. I just think Matthew Abraham is a dunce. His ABC local radio partner David Bevan actually knows things about politics, so would be a much better debate moderator / compare etc.
SO
As you can tell, I don’t listen to them but I know a lot of people do and they are considered unbiased. I saw a graph of right to left wing among radio commentators and they were the only ones smack bang in the middle.
bob@379 – I read the dead tree article yesterday and as you say it was a decent read. Considering Peter van Onselen is a liberal, he gives a tacit approval for Rann’s government at the end of his article.
[As you can tell, I don’t listen to them but I know a lot of people do and they are considered unbiased.]
I didn’t accuse Abraham of bias, I accused him of stupidity. On Tuesdays, Abraham always interviews some theology professor at Flinders about “morality”, AS IF morality and religious belief are the same thing! If any listener calls up and points out the massive logical flaws in their arguments, Abraham just breaks into sarcastic laughter and explains that “theology is more complicated than that”. Abraham is basically a jester added to contrast with Bevan’s more reasonable statements.
I think if you banned all the reporters who were stupid from the debate, there wouldn’t be many questions.
Matthew’s most hilarious gaffe was to say to MCC team manger Ted Dexter: “Did you ever play cricket yourself, Ted?”
[I think if you banned all the reporters who were stupid from the debate, there wouldn’t be many questions.]
Maybe so. But I think Bevan would’ve made a good alternative. He was Channel 9s political reporter for about 5 years before he moved to ABC radio.
Diogs,
For a glorified panel beater you can be amusing.
Seems you’re now the titular leader of the scream queens of PB. You should be so proud.
GG
But did you need to look it up! And if not, why not! 😉
I think I came across the word during the Conroy debate.
Diogs,
Oh, that must mean it has something to do with Telstra. It must be other words to describe fibre to the house.
324
The latest SA poll I’ve been able to find is the Newspoll of Oct 2009. It shows the Greens at 12% and FF at 1%. I’d be surpised if FF can get a seat on that primary vote, unless they have really sweet preference deals.
Does anyone know of any more recent polls?
There was a Tiser poll more recently 5 Feb. For the Lower House (no Upper obviously) it was
38% Labor
39% Lib
9% Green
5% FF
In addition, I’ve heard FF are likely to get Lib prefs in the Upper House in exchange for FF giving the Libs their prefs in the Lower.
Unlike the Greens, Family First DOES have people handing out HTVs. That will make a difference.
[There was a Tiser poll more recently 5 Feb. For the Lower House (no Upper obviously) it was]
I don’t see how the Libs can win if they can’t poll 40% and if the Greens get close to 10%.
[Unlike the Greens, Family First DOES have people handing out HTVs. That will make a difference.]
Yeah, all the Assembly of God types.
[Unlike the Greens, Family First DOES have people handing out HTVs. That will make a difference.]
How much does it help having someone hand out HTV cards and why does it help? I can see the voter might follow the prefs more closely but surely their number 1 won’t change.