Yesterday’s Queensland marginal seat polling from Roy Morgan turns out to have been a teaser for today’s full suite, which also targets four seats each from New South Wales and Western Australia as well as one each from Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. With samples of 200 each, the electorate-level results are of little utility, but where results from four seats are available from a particular state we can combine them to get a meaningful picture from a margin-of-error of about 3.5 per cent. The swing of 4.8 per cent to the Liberal National Party in Queensland has not been borne out elsewhere: the four New South Wales seats collectively show a 1.0 per cent swing to Labor, while Western Australia produces an essentially status quo result with a 0.2 per cent swing to the Liberals. The single-seat polling for the other three states is less useful, but for what it’s worth the result from Hindmarsh in South Australia sits well with this morning’s Advertiser poll. Taken in their entirety, the results point to no swing at all from 2007.
| ALP 2PP | |||
| 2007 | POLL | SWING | |
| Macarthur | 50.1 | 38.5 | -11.6 |
| Robertson | 50.1 | 48.5 | -1.6 |
| Eden-Monaro | 52.3 | 59 | 6.7 |
| Macquarie | 50.1 | 60.5 | 10.4 |
| NSW SEATS | 1.0 | ||
| Hasluck | 51 | 50 | -1.0 |
| Brand | 56.1 | 54.5 | -1.6 |
| Perth | 58.1 | 57 | -1.1 |
| Fremantle | 59.15 | 62 | 2.9 |
| WA SEATS | -0.2 | ||
| Flynn | 52.3 | 45 | -7.3 |
| Longman | 51.7 | 43.5 | -8.2 |
| Dawson | 52.4 | 49 | -3.4 |
| Leichhardt | 54.1 | 54 | -0.1 |
| QLD SEATS | -4.8 | ||
| Corangamite (Vic) | 50.85 | 55.5 | 4.7 |
| Hindmarsh (SA) | 55.05 | 56.5 | 1.5 |
| Bass (Tas) | 51 | 62.5 | 11.5 |
| ALL SEATS | 0.1 | ||
Yep i work with people who have kids, they rent and work part time. They are refugees, struggling to survive.
Your view is view based on perceptions, maybe the government should have an ad campaign to end such perceptions. But of course it does not the guts.
Psephos,
I’ve told you a million times not to exaggereate. “100th time” Is it a lie or your special rhetorical flourish.
Psephos
It doesn’t matter that asylum has no meaning in Asutralian Law, as it is an English word. Remember, that language we all speak.
Fine, so people can apply for REFUGEE status arriving by plane or boat, but you’d like to tell the ones who arrive by boat (but not freighters?) that they can’t have a visa… WEIRD, does this mean they won’t be considered refugees?
Sounds very arbitrary and political, which is weird because I thought the Govt weren’t going to play political games with this issue…
Could it be that CI was excluded from some immigration boundary or other so that lawyers and such like could not draw out endlessly the legal proceedings involved in on-shore processing? Perhaps once ashore we are all already in the clutches of the lawyers and even thinking about sending them to CI would already involve the lawyers?
The issue is not refugees per se. Most Australians are in favour of a generous refugee intake, or at least not actively opposed to it. I’m in favour of a much higher refugee intake. The issue is specifically people who arrive by boat, without authorisation, usually without documents, claiming to be refugees.
Psephos@955
Precisely.
You see they have got the Green Vote with Julia becoming leader and now they want the redneck vote back, problem is the green vote may go back to the greens.
But probably not all, because some lefties love Julia because she is a woman.
[Fine, so people can apply for REFUGEE status arriving by plane or boat, but you’d like to tell the ones who arrive by boat (but not freighters?) that they can’t have a visa… WEIRD, does this mean they won’t be considered refugees?]
I’m not aware that there is any issue with people who have arrived by air claiming refugee status. The number who do so must be extremely small. Governments do not usually issue passports to people they are persecuting. Of course it’s a question of numbers. If we had one boat arrival a year, no-one would have any trouble letting them stay. We’re currently getting three boatloads a week. That makes it an issue.
[Psephos
Posted Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 8:21 pm | Permalink
The issue is not refugees per se. Most Australians are in favour of a generous refugee intake, or at least not actively opposed to it. I’m in favour of a much higher refugee intake. The issue is specifically people who arrive by boat, without authorisation, usually without documents, claiming to be refugees.]
so we don’t tow them, out???
GG
“100th time” could actually be an under-estimate 😀
[so we don’t tow them, out???]
No, we take them to Xmas Id, where their claims to refugee status are assessed.
[I’m not aware that there is any issue with people who have arrived by air claiming refugee status. ]
It tends to be a problem during large events, Olympic Games and that Christian Youth thingy come to mind. Admittedly only a hundred or so but it has happened.
First it was Muslims coming here and being a danger now it is those Christians… It could be a religious economic revival.
Psephos
Incidentally the reason the Dutch still don’t like the Germans very much is that the Germans starved 40-50,000 Dutch folk to death in deliberate revenge for some minor and sporadic support for Monty’s failed Arnhem venture. Most of the ones that did not actually starve went fairly hungry.
Plus the German terror bombing shattered Rotterdam’s red light district to force Holland into capitulation.
Phew glad we got that sorted – thought u were a hard bastard
Psephos
Posted Sunday, July 4, 2010 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
so we don’t tow them, out???
No, we take them to Xmas Id, where their claims to refugee status are assessed.
My maternal grandparents died as refugees. We couldn’t get them to Australia, they were considered too old, even though they had fled & were responsible for their ggrandchildren.
[Admittedly only a hundred or so but it has happened.]
Yes it does happen but pretty infrequently. After the so-called “homeless games” quite a few of the “homeless” tried to stay, and there was a football team from Sierra Leone or somewhere a while ago. In any case, they should be processed like anyone else, and so far as I know they are. But the political issue is with the boaties: they are coming in much larger numbers, they are paying people smugglers to bring them here, and they rarely have papers to make it harder to deport them. So the problem is quite different both in scale and type.
Psephos
I don’t understand your arguments, because they don’t make sense.
“The issue is specifically people who arrive by boat, without authorisation, usually without documents, claiming to be refugees.”
“Governments do not usually issue passports to people they are persecuting.”
So, in other words, the MOST LIKELY way refugees will arrive is by boat and without any papers…
Does your brain hurt having to deal with this kind of double think?
Seriously I hope the govt doesn’t do as you suggest, refusing visas to people who arrive by boat – but apparently not if they arrive by plane – as it is treating the issue as a political game, in exactly the fashion the opposition is.
Boerwar, yes both those events are remembered by the Dutch.
Psephos
“But the political issue is with the boaties:”
exactly, yes. But surely good Government would mean the Govt wouldn’t play to this. Surely being a good Government means being consistent and no arbitrarily singling out particular groups to be treated badly.
This would be a cheap, unimaginative, lowest common denominator style of ‘solution’.
[So, in other words, the MOST LIKELY way refugees will arrive is by boat and without any papers… ]
It’s way most people claiming refugee status arrive. They are not refugees until we say they are. There is a widespread view in the Australian community that most of them are not genuine refugees, they are just people who would like to live in Australia. And even if they are refugees, they should not be given precedence over other refugees, such as the Somalis and Sudanese, who are sitting in camps in Africa waiting for resettlement. I agree with the latter view.
Astrobleme,
Psephos is actually only explaining how it is. The problem is that 76-80% of voters see it as Psephos explained. Further, it is actually a vote changing issue. People not only say they support a particular view, they will actually follow through in the ballot box.
There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing amongst posters on this site that resembles the factional disputes within political parties that is allegedly so abhored by these same posters. I was a member of the ALP in the 1980’s for a number of years but I found that I tired quickly of the insular nature of much of the discussion at the local level. Before I joined the ALP, I had the naive view that party members might be debating the great issues of the day, but, alas, that was not to be, at least not as often as I had envisioned.
I found that too many party members were totally consumed with factional disputes within their branch, organising numbers and lobbying new members like myself into picking sides in arguments about who should be banned, or who should be supported on issues of what I thought at the time to be of little importance when compared to the things like getting rid of Malcolm Fraser. Eventually, a few years later, I just gave up going to the local branch meetings, although I have retained a lifelong interest and appreciation of the historic work done by ALP members and governments, and have always supported them with my vote.
This blog, unfortunately, is becoming a bit like a local branch meeting – too much focus on individuals, too much invective wasted on other posters and not enough attention on the wider issues of importance to our nation, with a focus on psephology and electoral matters.
Come on PBers, let’s get the talk back primarily onto the big picture stuff, and leave the fear mongering and personal attacks to Tony Abbott and the Coalition.
[But surely good Government would mean the Govt wouldn’t play to this. Surely being a good Government means being consistent and no arbitrarily singling out particular groups to be treated badly. ]
In Utopia maybe. In your average democracy, governments have to deal with issues that voters are agitated about, especially if they want to get re-elected. It won’t do to say, “get over it, voters, this really isn’t an issue, and by the way we think you are a lot of racists.”
Big Ship do you actually think that an electoral office is doing research or thinking about policies? No all they do all day is factional counting and factional work for the union or the factional member of parliament. This stench is now well entrenched. All to get the numbers on conference floor or for local plebiscites.
Psephos
“There is a widespread view in the Australian community that most of them are not genuine refugees, they are just people who would like to live in Australia. And even if they are refugees, they should not be given precedence over other refugees, such as the Somalis and Sudanese, who are sitting in camps in Africa waiting for resettlement. I agree with the latter view.”
And you hold that view? What percentage of them are refused refugee status? 0.01%? History shows that the people who arrive here by boat ARE refugees. The Govt certainly is doing nothing to refute this view. Which is a trait this Govt seems to suffer from – unable to defend their POV.
As to being queue jumpers or whatever, how many refugees does Australia take a year? How many places do ‘boat people’ take up? 20%?
Again, I say the ‘solutions’ are very unimaginative, and are simply designed to avoid electoral impacts… Not very good Government.
Time you realised that members sole role now is to hand out leaflets on election day or to organise fundraisers.
[This blog, unfortunately, is becoming a bit like a local branch meeting – too much focus on individuals, too much invective wasted on other posters and not enough attention on the wider issues of importance to our nation, with a focus on psephology and electoral matters.
Come on PBers, let’s get the talk back primarily onto the big picture stuff … ]
Seconded
Just curious – if asylum seekers arriving by boat are assessed as legit refugees, is Australia obliged to accept them if we have done the assessing? Or can Australia pass them off to another country? Just wondering if Julia may go down a path like this.
[exactly, yes. But surely good Government would mean the Govt wouldn’t play to this. Surely being a good Government means being consistent and no arbitrarily singling out particular groups to be treated badly. ]
And if the majority of people have no sympathy for the boaties and enough of them feel strongly enough to vote for the opposition which offers a less enlightened view then good government on the issue has a very short life.
The real problem is that a large number of Australians are not sympathetic to the boatpeople and the Libs are prepared to play the politics of fear and entitlement with the issue.
Psephos
Yes, I know this is simply a political solution to attempt to stop Labor losing some votes…. I find it sad that Labor members have so little imagination that they can’t think of any solution that isn’t singling out boat people for political advantage.
Cheap and nasty is what it is. It may be ‘poltical reality’ for the ALP, but it’s still cheap and nasty and I want Labor supporters here to understand that in the grab for power you are using people less fortunate as a political tool.
[Time you realised that members sole role now is to hand out leaflets on election day or to organise fundraisers]
What more can one expect? Most people would join parties as a symbol of support for the party.
Astro,
Oh wise and grizzled one, tell us a solution that will work in the real world.
[I find it sad that Labor members have so little imagination that they can’t think of any solution that isn’t singling out boat people for political advantage.]
What’s your solution?
[The issue is specifically people who arrive by boat, without authorisation, usually without documents, claiming to be refugees.]
More than 90% of them ARE refugees.
Psephos, you seem like an intelligent guy, so it is quite surprising to see you so willing to believe (and repeat) the lies told by the Liberal Party. Honestly, why do you want to believe lies and misinformation over facts and the truth?
Astro they are que jumpers regardless of whether they are genuine or not.
Get in line, wait ur turn and if ur genuine we’ll be happy to take u.
That is essentially what most people want.
Psephos@984
Whatever St Bob and Mothers Milne and Forever-Youung utter 🙂
Deflecting the real issues, they have swallowed Murdoch and the Shock jocks views completely. Sums up who runs the country.
I personally think Gillard is another lightweight politician and anyone different Murdoch will deal with them very swiftly- That is why Mark Latham never made it,
Murdoch and his papers finished him off with issues about taxi drivers, marriage problems and stupid beat ups, all of which had nothing to do with politics.
What politican now is willing to suggest that we suck up to the Americans. And yes we do consider the Free Trade Agreement and who has this benefited?
[Astro they are que jumpers regardless of whether they are genuine or not.
Get in line, wait ur turn and if ur genuine we’ll be happy to take u.
That is essentially what most people want.]
So that means you don’t actually care if someone is a refugee or not? If they arrive here by boat, and are determined to be a refugee fleeing persucution or death, you’re happy to just flick em back to the country they came from? Even though they would likely be killed?
marky,
We obviously sent the yamks in to the biggest recession since the depression. So, we win.
As a Labor Member you are spot on Astrobleme. Spot on.
I don’t see why we should change what we’re doing wrt the boats.
Come of it, to think that we caused the American depression, nonetheless if unemployment was measured correctly we would have about 10 -`15 percent unemployed. So we would be not to far behind.
That’s not to say we’d do nothing.
The ‘solution’ would lie in dealing with Indonesia – that is attempting to close down the people smugglers, which is a policing action.
Marky mark you do realize Latham pushed for a more right wing approach to dealing with boats don’t you?
[Come of it, to think that we caused the American depression, nonetheless if unemployment was measured correctly we would have about 10 -`15 percent unemployed. So we would be not to far behind.]
And what is your evidence for this assertion, apart from gut feeling?
Glen:
[Astro they are que jumpers regardless of whether they are genuine or not.]
They are not queue jumpers and there is no queue. Australia is the only country in the world to numerically link offshore and onshore refugees. For 2009-10 the humanitarian intake quota was set at 13,750 – 6000 offshore places and 7750 onshore (boat and plane arrivals) and SPH places. We had approximately 5200 onshore arrivals, leaving 2550 places for the Special Humanitarian category (SPH is a discretionary category with a floating quota and provides protection for those people who fall outside the refugee system). Not a single offshore place was compromised because of an onshore applicant. If we allow upto 7750 people to apply onshore how are any of these people jumping a queue or breaking a law?
Glen
“Astro they are que jumpers regardless of whether they are genuine or not.”
what difference does it make? Is there is a queue, and everyone has a number and when your number’s up you get in? That doesn’t sound right to me.
Are there queues in every country? Is there one in Afghanistan? Can you walk up to the Embassy and say “I’d like to be on the queue please”, and then you get told “Ok, you are number 1, 235, 456 so that means you’ll b let in in 1000 years time”…
Yeah sure.
[The ’solution’ would lie in dealing with Indonesia – that is attempting to close down the people smugglers, which is a policing action.]
And hasn’t that been happening?
Yes i know that and know that his economic policies were one i did entirely agree with. But at least he wanted to embrace new ideas. What new ideas is this lot embracing. What maginificent original ideas are coming forth. Actually as i said in an earlier blog what great new ideas did Lindsay Tanner bring forth?
People love him but for what?