Galaxy marginal seats poll; Nielsen 51-49 to Coalition

We learn via Channel Nine that Galaxy has conducted a poll of two marginal seats in New South Wales, Macarthur and Eden-Monaro, and two in Queensland, Bonner and Bowman. We are told only of a 2.8 per cent swing against Labor, which I’m guessing means a composite result of 51-49 in favour of the Coalition from the four seats in question, which collectively produced a Labor two-party vote of about 51.8 per cent in 2007. On the primary vote, Labor is said to be down six points to 39 per cent and the Coalition steady on 44 per cent. I await further elucidation. I also await Nielsen and Westpoll, which Possum advises us will be out later this evening.

UPDATE: Courtesy of the indispensible GhostWhoVotes, Nielsen has it at 51-49 in favour of the Coalition. More to follow.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

695 comments on “Galaxy marginal seats poll; Nielsen 51-49 to Coalition”

Comments Page 14 of 14
1 13 14
  1. [Allan Moyes
    Posted Friday, August] and you too wish dr who was real then one day we could board the tardis and all meet in side the computer

    now there is a great episode we could write

  2. The Big Ship [To state that dropping the A-Bomb was somehow a racist act is not only historically incorrect, it does not make any sense. The A-Bomb would have been used against Germany (indeed it was developed because of the fear that the Germans would build one first) but the war in Europe finished a mere 2 months before the first successful test of the A-bomb.]

    I have re-read my post and concede with you that in my tired state it did read like that. A better phrase would have been ‘Nationalist’. No one has any idea whether the US would have used the bomb on the Germans.

    However, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour was the trigger for entry to the war in 1942 and the finisher was the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japanese soil.

    My point, which seems to have been lost is that this was an indiscriminate killing in that the majority of people who died were civilians. This is similar to the Holocaust in Germany (which, by the way, was not fully appreciated by the West at this point of the war) except that it did not have the atrocious sting in the tail of being motivated by hate against a religion.

    I’m sorry if it was unclear, but this is the point I was making. 🙁

  3. TBS

    [We now know the full effects of the horrors of nuclear war, but this could not have been known to those decision makers on both sides in 1945.]

    Do you think a demonstration of an A bomb might have resulted in a Japanese surrender without the need to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    The fact that the 2 bombs were used within days of each other strikes me as an experiment more than a military exercise.

  4. Those talking up Mike Kelly in Eden-Monaro and even, unbelievably, suggesting that he could replace Faulkner seem to miss the fact that he’s as dumb as a box of hammers. His old Defence colleagues do not speak at all well of him, either.

  5. jenauthor

    The crap questions from the press would test the patience of a saint. I personally think Julia should go in boots and all and tell them what a bunch of w***** they are. The only problem with that bright idea of mine is they would become even more feral with headlines like “Julia’s lost the plot!” and some insulting reference to “what can you expect from a woman?”

  6. [Perahelion@636 well I would argue that Hitler was in control of a country that was at the centre of Europe, and could always cause trouble for the nations with whom he shared a common border. Therefore I can see the urgency of removing the fascist govt in Germany. Japan, however, is a collection of islands, with no common borders with anyone, and relatively little in the way of resources. I would have thought, if blockaded, it wouldn’t be able to get up to much trouble. Just trying to look at it from the perspective of the politicians who were making policy at the time. From their position, I can’t see why an invasion was desirable or necessary.]

    What about all the war crimes, and the Japanese would have perceived the Allies as being cowards and only reinforcing their racist ideas.

  7. [I don’t think Rudd coming back in to the fore will have any impact. He was just ousted, it appears desperate to the average voter]

    Maybe not, but it’s good insurance against any further leaks.

  8. Tom Hawkins @ 652 I can see the argument for proving that they meant business, by dropping the A-Bomb on a real city. OTOH you could argue that General Lemay’s bombers could have just “demonstrated” their conventional bombs in open countryside rather than dropping them on places like Tokyo.

  9. Perahelion,

    In my opinion the polls are very soft at the moment. We will have a clearer indication of the outcome of this election some 3 days before election day. If there is to be a large shift in the polls by then, the swing will be to Labor.

    And Rudd campaining with Julia may just well realise that swing. Much to the detriment of you and your Coalition mob!

  10. My Say it’s customary to start a sentence with a capital letter, please, for my sake, just hold down the shift key with your little finger.

  11. My comment regarding PB here is that I see frequent Vilification of people who espouse statements of faith, usually Christian faith. This bigoted discrimination I find archaic, hypocritical (for those who condemn those over the fence for narrow-mindedness) and insensitive.

    I have never met the partners of anyone here, I have no idea if they really exist or whether posters here may be schizophrenic and your partner is not even real. Yet, if I spoke about such partners the way that some here speak about Christ and Christians (I recall no such conversations about Buddha or Mohammed) then I would expect them to be mortified. It is the height of insensitivity.

    To fear or despise because you simply don’t understand a faith or have experience with it has a label in our society, “Xenophobia”. I seem to recall it was used with another bigot with red hair.

  12. Parahelion@654 hey I don’t think they cared about war crimes, to be completely honest. If the murder of helpless civilians en masse bothered them, they never would have bombed Tokyo or Dresden.

  13. @615

    I don’t think Rudd coming back in to the fore will have any impact. He was just ousted, it appears desperate to the average voter.

    I think if JG were visibly taking an active part in Rudd’s resurrection, it would look desperate. But Rudd at least appears to be doing this off of his own bat.

  14. [Parahelion@654 hey I don’t think they cared about war crimes, to be completely honest. If the murder of helpless civilians en masse bothered them, they never would have bombed Tokyo or Dresden]

    In that case, in your thinking, why shouldn’t they then, it was only Japanese civilians that suffered in the atomic bombings. But your argument is spurious, you fight wars to win, if the Japanese were on top would they ever have stopped?

  15. I find it appalling arrogance for any posters to simply write faith off as a ‘fairytale’ or ‘made up story’. You have no idea.

    The proposition of atheism is one of great faith. Its central preposition is:

    ‘That there is no God’

    Socrates himself would agree that this is a foolhardy exercise in logic.

    In order to be sure of this the believer in this argument would have to have at hand all evidence and knowledge that there is no God. In exactly the same way, I could say that “there is no Gold in America”. I would need to scour every square inch of that country and examine all possible evidence to be sure of that.

    Not one man has come close to doing that on Earth, let alone a universe. Yet some here believe that. I respect this faith position but cannot accept it.

    You cannot even trust your own brain. It doesn’t even let you process information before it changes it on the way to laying down memory. Hell, your eyes have a field of vision which appears coloured, yet 30% is actually viewing black and white and upside down. If you can’t even trust the perception, how on earth do you trust your judgement???

  16. netvegetable @ 632

    [Here’s a question I’ve always had: Why do people argue from the premise that this invasion of Japan have been necessary? What would have been wrong with just letting the Japanese govt alone? Might have caused fewer deaths.]

    The Allies pledged themselves to prosecuting the war against the Axis by demanding nothing less than ‘unconditional surrender’ from Germany, Italy and Japan in January of 1943 so there was no possibility in August 1945 of the Japanese being ‘left alone,’ whatever that may mean in the realms of warfare and international politics.

    Have you not heard of Pearl Harbour, Changi, the Bataan Death March, the Burma Railway, the ‘Rape of Nanking?’ Do these atrocities ring a bell?

    Given the deaths of so many millions to defeat the Axis forces up to August 1945, do you seriously suggest that the Allies should have just left the fanatical Japanese Militarists in power?

    Politically, militarily and morally impossible given what had happened in the preceding 6 years.

  17. Boer War @ 553

    “… Neither came even close to acknowledging that more Australians ran and got drunk on Singapore than actually did any fighting. …”

    Boerwar,
    Your post is at best tendentious, at worst mendacious. The Australian 8th Division was involved in all actions on the Malayan Peninsula which took any toll on the Japanese, however had no possibility of success without air cover.
    Australians were also in the outer perimeter in the vicinity of where the Japanese landed on Singapore Island.
    The Australians actually advised British Command in the 24 hrs before the first wave of landings where the Japanese forces were massing, but Percival chose to ignore this. In view of the stretched Japanese supply lines, had Percival listened to this advice, and deployed forces accordingly, it may have just been possible that the outcome in Singapore would have been different.
    The fall of Singapore was not the fault of Australian troops. Australian units were still well represented in the front lines actively defending the perimeter at the time that the order to disable weapons was received.
    I have had that directly from now deceased diggers, members of the AASC – vets of the Peninsula battles who had, among other things, driven trucks loaded with drums of fuel through burning villages. When they reached Singapore they disabled their vehicles and fought as infantry. They were no cowards.
    If there was a sceric of truth in your canard it would simply not have been possible for these same troops to have performed as they did over the next 4 years as POWs. The manner in which the AIF maintained their discipline and morale in captivity is the ultimate testament to their mettle. (A discipline which resulted in a far higher survival rate than for other forces.)
    Sure, a few virtually untrained reinforcements may have panicked in Singapore, but that this was anywhere near the majority – which is the meaning of “…MORE … THAN actually did any fighting. …” is absolutely without foundation.
    To claim otherwise is to be full of the brown stuff that William was ascribing to BB earlier in the night.
    BTW, a very long time since I read “Behind Bamboo”.
    To take up the last point of your post, while I have some time for the Boers, by virtue of their anti-imperialism, they have the same mote in their eyes as most colonists with respect to exploitation of indigenous populations.

  18. Gus

    I don’t know about that but if the odds are 1.75 in the final week for the Coalition, then the implied probability will certainly be 46% chance of victory.

  19. Perahelion @ 668

    In that case, in your thinking, why shouldn’t they then, it was only Japanese civilians that suffered in the atomic bombings.

    Fair question. But I’m only asking if it was necessary in the first place, not whether they enjoyed doing it. My question is “why?”, not “why not?”

    But your argument is spurious, you fight wars to win

    Why do you believe that?

    if the Japanese were on top would they ever have stopped?

    I don’t know. I expect that they would have only expended what resources they needed to. Would they have needed to invade the US if they were winning?

  20. Hi Alan Moyes,
    Zuruck zum bayreuth
    Katerina Wagner was booed off the stage yet again
    Parsifal had really bizarre references to Nazism but the audience lapped it up
    The ring was fairly pedestrian but I very much hope I don’t see Gotterdamerung again on 21 August

  21. Perahelion if you cannot see the benefit and positive Kevin Rudd has for regaining ground in Queensland and NSW then I suggest you are a trouble making wank. Blind Freddy now knows Labor needs Rudd, he will deliver and he has too much respect in Q’Land So in two words F–k You…you think ms Gillard can win after her first 3 weeks performance you have a mental problem.

  22. The Big Ship @ 670

    Have you not heard of Pearl Harbour, Changi, the Bataan Death March, the Burma Railway, the ‘Rape of Nanking?’ Do these atrocities ring a bell?

    Given the deaths of so many millions to defeat the Axis forces up to August 1945, do you seriously suggest that the Allies should have just left the fanatical Japanese Militarists in power?

    Ok. The Japanese committed serious atrocities, so the Allies had to commit some slightly less serious ones back?

  23. Gus

    Yeah, I wondered if you meant that. You mean that if the Libs are tracking at 46% the odds will be shorter than they ought to be? Fair enough..

    If that is the case then, there is a great deal of money to be made on the betting market for the coalition now. 🙂 If you have spare cash it may not be a bad idea to back them. If you lose, it means you won your ALP government back, if the coalition win, it gives you money to ‘wash’ the memory all away!!

    The current implied probability is 40% for the Libs (Longest ALP odds, Shortest Coalition odds). Current polls of any description are FAR better than this. Considering the Coalition is pulling up to 2.7 for a dollar wager, this is money for jam if your hypothesis is correct!

  24. IYK @ 222

    We are vulnerable in Solomon, Hasluck and maybe Bass.

    Solomon is certainly damn close. But Hale seems to be doing okay at the moment, hasn’t blundered or been ‘caught out’ on anything, and seems to be getting a fair bit of support from senior federal Labor colleagues donating face time and funding promises. His opponent, Griggs, despite a supporting visit from Abbott, is not really cutting through and landing any serious blows.

    Labor are frequently running an ad up here along the lines of: ‘Tony Abbott wants to pull the plug on the NT [citing various bread and butter, family friendly programs that he will apparently slash/axe]. Griggs wants to help Abbott pull the plug’.

    You get the idea.

    Have not seen anything from the Libs yet.

    Too early and too close to call this one, but at this stage I would rather be in Hale’s shoes. Partly incumbency, partly being a well known local sporting identity prior to his political career, and partly a somewhat more competent media performer.

  25. Why do the media all talk to Craig Mayne still? He had nothing at all to do with the BER. And Holland park did not complain.

  26. Mick Wilkinson @ 652

    [No one has any idea whether the US would have used the bomb on the Germans.]

    [This is similar to the Holocaust in Germany (which, by the way, was not fully appreciated by the West at this point of the war) except that it did not have the atrocious sting in the tail of being motivated by hate against a religion.]

    You are correct about no-one knowing whether the US would have used the A-Bomb against Germany, primarily because the war in Europe was over before the Bomb was successfully tested, but we can say that the Americans planned and intended to do so, as plenty of records from the time attest.

    In regard to a comparison to the Holocaust, that has some merit, but a distinction should be made between what was considered ‘fair in war’ in, say, 1940 before the German Blitz on population centres in England, and after, when both the Allies and the Axis moved over to a total war footing involving entire populations in the war efforts on both side. This obscured the line that hitherto existed between military and civilian and resulted in a mindset on all sides that allowed terror bombings that decimated civilian populations to be considered as acceptable military strategy.

    The Holocaust, to my mind, remains the most fiendish and despicable atrocity ever perpetrated in human history. Even now it beggars belief that a nation can be so consumed with hatred for a racial minority that they would contemplate, plan and bring to fruition the construction of a vast network of assembly line death factories to process and destroy men, women and children on a mass scale. Six million Jewish dead at the hands of their German tormentors is a stench that will linger down the corridors of our history for thousands of years to come, and will forever remain as mankind’s lowest ebb and darkest hour.

  27. 688

    Even now it beggars belief that a nation can be so consumed with hatred for a racial minority that they would contemplate, plan and bring to fruition the construction of a vast network of assembly line death factories to process and destroy men, women and children on a mass scale.

    To be fair, the whole “nation” didn’t contemplate, plan and bring it to fruition. It was contemplated and planned behind closed doors. I basically view it as verification of the results of the Stanford Prison and Milgram experiments – i.e, there is a minority of human beings who will commit heinous atrocities if ordered to. The Nazi system was just very good at screening out the majority.

  28. Tom Hawkins @ 655

    [Do you think a demonstration of an A bomb might have resulted in a Japanese surrender without the need to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    The fact that the 2 bombs were used within days of each other strikes me as an experiment more than a military exercise.]

    The American military authorities seriously considered the idea of a demonstration of the power of the A-Bomb, but all of the alternative plans had significant drawbacks in terms of their efficacy, or the safety of the crew, or of the weapon. After the Potsdam Declaration at the end of July 1945 was ignored by the Japanese, President Truman authorised the use of the A-Bomb.

    A military target had to be used, in their judgement, and one that was relatively undamaged, as they were unsure of the A-Bomb’s destructive power when dropped from a plane and detonated at 2000 feet, as distinct from suspended stationary from a tower, as the test detonation had been.

    The August 6th Hiroshima bombing did shock the Japanese military to their foundations, but because of the widespread destruction already wrought on Japan by months of B29 raids, reliable communications about the full extent of the damage was hard to confirm, and some in the hierarchy wanted to hold firm against the Americans as they doubted the veracity of the reported size of the destructive force of the new weapon.

    In any event, the Japanese ignored Truman’s radio broadcast on 7th August calling for their unconditional surrender, and promising ‘a rain of ruin from the air’ if they did not, so it was not until after the Nagasaki Bombing on 9th August that the Japanese finally faced up to the reality of their situation and agreed to surrender.

    The rest, as they say, is history, but I do not believe that anything else could reasonably have been done at that time, given the extent of the participant’s knowledge of the facts.

  29. [The proposition of atheism is one of great faith.]

    Religious conviction belongs in the DSM-IV, I am sure there is a pharmacological antidote to this terrible mental affliction that assails so many unfortunate people.

  30. netvegetable @ 690

    [To be fair, the whole “nation” didn’t contemplate, plan and bring it to fruition. It was contemplated and planned behind closed doors.]

    Perhaps not the whole nation, but significantly more than many historians may credit, and certainly not just a few Nazi fanatics at the top. To carry out such heinous plans for destruction of so many millions required the willingness of many tens of thousands of Germans, perhaps hundreds of thousands, whether actively or passively, and most Germans would have been fully aware of the attacks on Jewish people rights and property in the late 1930’s, escalating to the mass deportations of Jews from all parts of Europe commencing in 1941.

    Planned behind closed doors, perhaps, but carried out, at least as far as the round ups and deportations, in the full view of anyone who cared to look.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 14 of 14
1 13 14