Roy Morgan hasn’t let itself be put off by the flak it copped with last week’s small-sample poll results from the four inner-city Labor-versus-Greens contests, repeating the exercise with only a slightly larger sample of 327 respondents. Taken together they show Labor leading the Greens 53-47, which is seven points better for Labor than last week’s poll. All told this points to a 3 per cent swing to the Greens compared with 2006, which if uniform would just tip Labor out in Melbourne, but leave them safe in Richmond, Brunswick and Northcote. This is indeed borne out by the seat-by-seat breakdowns, which have it at 50-50 in Melbourne, 57-43 in Richmond, 52-48 in Brunswick and 52.5-47.5 in Northcote. The margin of error on the combined result is approaching 5.5 per cent.
UPDATE: Now Morgan offers a spiffy video display of “worm”-style Reactor responses to various election ads. It finds Coalition voters were far more positive about their own side’s advertising than were Labor’s, but that Labor appeared to offer both the most (attacking Liberal spending plans) and least (the famous Baillieu Knight Frank ad) effective attack ads. Labor also did pretty well among independents and Greens with a humanised John Brumby’s fireside chat on the economy. Labor’s “meerkat” and the Liberals’ “are we there yet” attack ads failed to impress Greens and independents in roughly equal measure, but the Liberals did better with their “mouldy fruit” ad. The Greens ad, once it began laying on the hard sell, found Labor voters responding barely less positively than to ads from their own side, while Coalition and independent voters headed south.
[ not give Labor 2nd prefs in 12 marginal Labor seats/]
The traditional definition of “marginal” in Australia involves a seat with a less than 5% margin, Ron. The 12 seats you mention were not “marginal” in this sense. Your statement is accordingly not as “factual” as you claim. They are all held by Labor by between 6 and 10%. As I understand it the Greens offered Labor a deal for all of the 15 genuinely marginal seats which Labor refused. If you know different (I am just going by media reports) then point me to a reference about the matter.
As I have also said, my own view is that The Greens should have preferenced Labor in all of the lower house seats.
As far as submitting “costing” to treasury goes, we all know that this is something which governments more or less comply with and which other parties don’t. Personally I think it would be great, as I said, if there was a legislated requirement for all parties to do so, though it would require equal resourcing was provided to all parties to enable it if it was to operate equitably. It would also need to occur earlier in the campaign process if it was to be genuinely useful to voters in informing their decisions.
madcyril
sorry, I only saw your message now. It was reported on ABC radio this morning with Barrie Cassidy.
Have to agree with left about the submit costings, it is the biggest con always weighted in favour of the Govt, anyhow, how often are DTF costings accurate? we never hear of cost overruns/under estimations while in Govt 😉 Perhaps the best thing now is the Liberals are caught in their own dirty scheme.
What perhaps is sadder is the gullability of the Voting public who believe all the twaddle about ‘something to hide’ and not ‘submitted for scrutiny’. When the swing is on the ‘scutiny and fully costed’ arguments will be campaign footnotes.
thanks vic
madcyril
no worries.
Who do the Greens Central Policy Makers actually represent?
In results from a Galaxy poll that might come as a surprise to many,
“71% of Greens party voters surveyed support the Victorian forestry industry rather than the current Greens policy of closing it and importing wood and paper from overseas”.
http://www.vexnews.com/news/11744/out-of-touch-greens-party-voters-overwhelmingly-support-victorian-forestry-while-party-leadership-want-to-shut-whole-industry/
Which workers do the labor party actually represent?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/8373931/gillard-forced-to-explain-fair-pay-stance/
Who did the forestry poll? VAFI – hardly credible
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/22/huns-link-to-paragon-of-impartiality/
Pretty silly beat-up again by vexnews, isn’t it, GG.
Firstly the question asks whether people want to see the products come from native and plantation forests. The greens policy document that is linked to in the article makes it very clear that their policy is to move from native to plantation forestry. An answer from a Greens supporter indicating that they favour local sourcing is accordingly perfectly compatible with their policy.
Secondly almost all environmentally minded people (regardless of the party they support) oppose further timber importation for very obvious reasons – impact on rainforest depletion and consequent habitat loss, greenhouse implications , increased energy use associated with shipping, etc etc.
The suggestion in the quote you offer that the Greens policy includes ” importing wood and paper from overseas” from what I can see is just a simple lie or misunderstanding.
Whoops! sorry about the bolding. Not intended!
[
Who did the forestry poll? VAFI – hardly credible
]
Actually it was conducted by Galaxy for the VAFI, and I gather it is the same poll that was referred to by William here.
[
Stephen McMahon of the Herald-Sun reports a 500-sample Galaxy poll commissioned by the Victorian Association of Forest Industries shows Labor with a two-party lead of 51-49, from primary votes of 36 per cent for Labor, 42 per cent for the Coalition and 16 per cent for the Greens. The margin of error is approaching 4.5 per cent
]
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/22/victorian-election-minus-five-days/
[
Who do the Greens Central Policy Makers actually represent
]
Certainly no one living outside of Zone 1
http://www.vexnews.com/news/9343/snubbery-victorian-greens-party-mp-greg-barber-ignores-most-of-his-electorate/
Libs Like Pike,
Seems like the Greens are using your moniker to spread lies and disinformation about Labor. Did you approve the useage?
Nah, bit bummed they nicked it from me.
Another Greens con. As if anyone could speed around at 30kph in Richmond during the day.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/greens-want-30kmh-speed-limits-in-inner-city-suburbs/story-fn5kmqy2-1225960458828
[Actually it was conducted by Galaxy for the VAFI, and I gather it is the same poll that was referred to by William here.]
THe problem with the vexnews piece on the VAFI poll isn’t so much the polling itself, but the dishonest spin that Landeryou gives it, Madcyril.
Rod,
As opposed to the “honest spin” of all the Greens’ propaganda.
The point is pretty clear from ex candidate Wragg and this poll that the Greens Central Committee is representing itself and not the community.
[
THe problem with the vexnews piece on the VAFI poll isn’t so much the polling itself, but the dishonest spin that Landeryou gives it, Madcyril.
]
I was responding to a post about who had done the poll. I made no comment about vexnews.
GG i guess you haven’t drive around Richmond in a while. you can only travel about 20kph due to congestion. LOL
Regardless, i think you are choosing to misrepresent what they are talking about. They are talking about specific zones. Typically RACV opposes it (YAWN). I wonder if they at first opposed the 40KPH for school zones?
Madcyril, no offense but quoting Vexnews to support your arguement doesn’t work with anyone past the 8th grade.
Lefty e
Posted Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 11:46 am | Permalink
‘No Green blogger has defended there Party’s refusal to allow Treasury to check there costings , so when a Green like rod Hagen defends Greens unindependantly Transport ‘polisy” he has no credability’
“I will – happily… Its a con, a load of ruibbish, it (Treasury costings) has zero value to public policy or economic management.”
By your own words you prove like all Greens youse is all econamic iliterates ,
meaning not one Greens ‘polisy’ can be beleived , tho most is idelogically impracticol
[As opposed to the “honest spin” of all the Greens’ propaganda.]
I’ve never suggested anywhere that The Greens were somehow purer than Labor, GG. They both play games.
The trouble with your post on forestry matters is that Landeryou seems to simply be telling fibs about The Greens actual policy (which says nothing at all, from what I can see, about ” importing wood and paper from overseas” and simply seems to call for a transition from native forest to plantation timber) in the quotation that you provided yourself when posting the link. In other words, this is a ‘Labor game” , not a “Green game” in this case.
Personally I’m staggered at the amount of time and vitriol you waste attacking The Greens when the real danger for Labor losing government in this election comes from the Coalition.
Or are you so confident of victory against Baillieu that you regard beating the Libs as a foregone conclusion, and not worth your time, even if you do manage thorough the vitriol to shift some Green’s prefs in the Lab/Lib marginals that would otherwise flow to Labor to the other side? Seems like an insane strategy to me as someone who actually wants to see Brumby re-elected as Premier!
Native forest logging is unpopular with most voters whatever their social position, but those involved in the industry are understandably vociferous defenders of logging. Over time electorally pragmatic govts have reduced native forest logging, but it is a slow process because the supporters of logging are better organized and more passionate than its opponents. Thus the industry is slowlyg dying.
Rod,
The only advantage from feeding the Greens crocodile is you get to be eaten last.
As I keep telling you, the Greens are Labor’s One Nation.
Rod Hagen
is you being delib misleading in IGNORING that labor offered th Greens 2nd prefs in both Chambers in exchenge for Greens prefs in Labors 25 most marginal Seats …ie to MAX chances of a Labor govt and MIN chanses of a Liberal Govt
you is quite slippery with truth by IGNORING the above Labor offer , and THEN IGNORING th Greens refusal , and simply posting )that AFTER th Greens REFUSED this offer) , Greens only offered 2nd prefs in only 1/2 th number of labor requested Labor Seats
ie you delib lef oput first 2 steps
Greens refused Labor’s offer so as to get Lib 2nd prefs in 4 Labor seats to pinch them , th effext of which is Greens rfusal actions incr th chanses of a Liberal govt
stop trying t cover up such Greens hypocracy helping th Liberal Party by leaving out Labor’s offer & Greens refusal of it It was there decision but your Greens Party wears th shame in historys (a la Greens prev destroyin th Q’ld Goss govt with prefs)
Sorry Ron, but I genuinely think that “green bashing” , no matter how appealing you may personally find it, actually has far more potential to unseat Labor in this state election through a reduction of preference flows in marginal seats than any “preference deals” . As many have noted, Greens voters don’t follow prefs cards anyway.
Why do you think the likes of Albrechtsen and all and sundry at the Oz are egging on Labor to go full tilt at the Greens? I would have thought the answer was patently obvious. It improves the Coalitions chances of victory by reducing the flow of essential Greens prefs to labor and it reduces the likelihood of effective co-operation at the Federal level in the current hung parliament.
By maintaining this game you, GG and Madcyril are simply playing into the coalition’s hands.
[
Madcyril, no offense but quoting Vexnews to support your arguement doesn’t work with anyone past the 8th grade
]
Dinesh Mathew,
No probs, perhaps you should let William know as he cites vexnews on many occasions. From what I understand, he’s managed to progress beyond the 8th Grade
[
Friday, January 22
I am pleasantly surprised to discover, via VexNews, that the Liberals look set to turn the by-election into a two-party contest by endorsing Mark Rose, a Wyndham councillor and police officer who ran in Tarneit at the 2006 election. Meanwhile, The Age reports Labor Left figureheads wish to preselect former state party president Jill Hennessy, but she may face opposition from an as yet undetermined candidate sponsored by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, which last night announced it was walking out on the faction.
]
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/01/18/altona-by-election/
[
For inside dope on progressive counting, Ben Raue of The Tally Room will feed through results provided by his contacts in the Greens. Andrew Landeryou at VexNews might be good for news from the other side of the fence. The Poll Bludger Investigations Unit is also at work in comments.
]
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/11/15/victorian-council-elections-november-29/
Rod,
Your false premise that the Greens and Labor are allies is a mistake that only a childish mind could manufacture when evidence of Greens perfidy is everywhere.
Spot the difference.
“I don’t want to keep the bastards honest – I want to get rid of the bastards.”
– Pauline Hanson, 15 February 2001
“We are not there to keep the bastards honest – we are there to replace them”
– Bob Brown, 11 November 2010
Oh, come on, GG. You’re better than that! Hitler spoke of ‘the industrious use of the German Plough”. Julia Gillard speaks regularly of “every hard working Australian”. The fact that they occasionally adopted similar themes or turns of phrase says nothing whatsoever about any commonality of viewpoint, as you well know.
Greensboro Joffa,
“We are not there to keep the bastards honest – we are there to replace them”
– Bob Brown, 11 November 2010
Strange self identification there Joffa, I thought he was talking about the fibs.
[
By maintaining this game you, GG and Madcyril are simply playing into the coalition’s hands.
]
Oh please. You can’t actually be serious. I’m an anonymous blogger on a political website. How on earth are my, yours or anyone else posts on poll bludger going to have any effect on the election?
Barking , that is a lower than stupid coment even by your standards
Rod,
There’s a condition known as cognitive dissonance where you basically see only what you want to.
You’re the Typhoid Mary of cognitive dissonance here at PB.
[You can’t actually be serious. I’m an anonymous blogger on a political website. How on earth are my, yours or anyone else posts on poll bludger going to have any effect on the election?]
Hah! Well, I expect you are completely right there, madcyril! Nevertheless the principle is one which worries me in this state election. I think Labor may have made a serious tactical error in adopting this approach, and I hope it doesn’t have unfortunate consequences.
Rod Hagen
I see you avoided my post below of nailing Greens sleezy pref deels with Liberals to incr chanses of a Liberal Govt with an irrelevent red hering blogg reply
Ron
Posted Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
Rod Hagen
is you being delib misleading in IGNORING that labor offered th Greens 2nd prefs in both Chambers in exchenge for Greens prefs in Labors 25 most marginal Seats …ie to MAX chances of a Labor govt and MIN chanses of a Liberal Govt
you is quite slippery with truth by IGNORING the above Labor offer , and THEN IGNORING th Greens refusal , and simply posting )that AFTER th Greens REFUSED this offer) , Greens only offered 2nd prefs in only 1/2 th number of labor requested Labor Seats
ie you delib lef oput first 2 steps
Greens refused Labor’s offer so as to get Lib 2nd prefs in 4 Labor seats to pinch them , th effext of which is Greens rfusal actions incr th chanses of a Liberal govt
stop trying t cover up such Greens hypocracy helping th Liberal Party by leaving out Labor’s offer & Greens refusal of it It was there decision but your Greens Party wears th shame in historys (a la Greens prev destroyin th Q’ld Goss govt with prefs)
This thread is a hoot, who said politics was boring.
For the record, I think the Greens will get Brunswick and Northcote off the back of the hipster vote.
The only preference deal that was sleazy was the secret ALP/Lib coalition deal to keep the greens out.
Increasingly we see that this informal partnership will be consumated anytime now, recentl figures showed that the ALP and the Libs voted together over 80% of the time and that the ALP only appoint ALP stooges and Lib hacks to the various boards and other troughing events around the state. Not one Green has ever been appointed although most have more credibility than the old hacks this government puts up.
from the Greens: http://www.greeningdarebin.org/news/item/174
[Those ALP fliers are just trying to confuse you
If you’ve received a bright green or grey ALP flier in your letterbox full of claims about the Greens, here are some facts to help you interpret what it says:
* The Greens are not preferencing the Liberals ahead of Labor in any seats in Victoria. In some seats we are running open tickets and leaving it to voters to decide how to number their ballots, which is consistent with what we have always argued, ie. that it is up to all voters everywhere to decide their own preferences. No-one is obliged to follow any party’s How to Vote card.
* In contrast the ALP is preferencing the Country Alliance – a party of climate sceptics and duck-shooters ahead of the Greens in key upper house seats. This is just the latest example of a long line of ALP preferencing deals that have delivered a Senate seat to Steve Fielding and a Victorian Upper House seat to the DLP on the back of tiny primary votes.
* The statistic about the Greens voting with the Liberals 69% of the time is a deliberate misrepresentation. The most common voting arrangement in the Upper House (which is where our 3 Greens Parliamentarians have been for the last 4 years) is for Government, Greens and Liberals to vote together. Over the past 4 years, all three parties have voted together 88% of the time, and the Greens have voted with the Government 94% of the time. The only way the ALP can get the 69% figure is by excluding the fact that in the vast majority of cases where the Greens and Libs have voted together, SO HAS THE ALP.
* Greens have voted with the Libs AGAINST the Government only 1.9% of the time. When Greens have voted against the Government, it has been on issues like freedom of information or to set up public inquiries like the Inquiry into Train Failures.
* In the event that the voters elect a hung parliament, the Greens will work constructively with all parliamentarians to achieve the best possible outcomes in terms of implementation of our policies. In the last two recent balance-of-power situations – in Tasmania and Canberra – the Greens have supported the incumbent government.]
Hi
“Firstname Lastname
Posted Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
This thread is a hoot, who said politics was boring.
For the record, I think the Greens will get Brunswick and Northcote off the back of the hipster vote.”
It used to be a political poll analysis blogging site, its now just a therapy session for various ALP hacks who see a 4% swing from them to the Greens as a sure sign that they are right and that everyone else is wrong.
‘Cognitive dissonance” actually involves the internal conflict which occurs when a person holds two inherently inconsistent views, GG. Seems to me to actually be very obvious in the position of those who simultaneously say they want to win this election, but on the other do all they can to damage the preference flow necessary to do so by bagging those might provide them!
Ron,
Please ignore the boringly abusive bully, Barking. Anyone who won’t conduct civil conversations with other posters by using their correct nom de plume is not worth the trouble.
Rod,
You prove my point, yet again.
[
This thread is a hoot, who said politics was boring
]
Hehe, it’s better than the Federal thread at the moment 😆
GG
[There’s a condition known as cognitive dissonance where you basically see only what you want to.]
Untrue. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling resulting from information which contradicts your views. A common way to reduce cognitive dissonance is to ignore information you don’t like, argue that you don’t like the source (Vexnews or the OO for eg) etc etc. It is not a condition. It is normal human behaviour.
And remember, owing to SLEAZY PREFERENCE DEALS*, a VOTE FOR LIBERALS IS A VOTE FOR LABOR!**
This sentence was created by ALP Campaign Logic 2.1 software. Conditions apply.
* may resemble self-interest of one party, involving no reciprocity from the other
** if you follow their HTVs, your desired candidate falls short, with a susbtantial vote, but nonethless in 3rd rather than 2nd place, if first placed candidate does not receive 50%, and a host of other contingent, non-linear events of dubious causality take place.
Greensboro Joffa, Said
“Please ignore the boringly abusive bully, Barking. Anyone who won’t conduct civil conversations with other posters by using their correct nom de plume is not worth the trouble.”
Joffa I’ll cut you a deal, you don’t make your purile juvenile comments about other people and I’ll start calling you Greensborough Growler again, there there poor diddums.
Hows the pie and sauce for lunch Joffa?
Little snippet from today’s “Friends of Nillumbik” news bulletin:
[Coalition Planning Policy – our media statement
Friends of Nillumbik was contacted by the Diamond Valley Leader who said that the Liberal candidate for Yan Yean, Jack Gange assured them that his party’s policy on a new Urban Interface Zone and a biennial review of the green wedge would only apply to regional areas, such as Shepparton. He also said that the current planning policies in place would remain unchanged and there would be no expansion of the UGB. We were invited to comment and our statement follows:-
“In view of the information we have received we have to be cynical about the assurances of the Liberal candidate Jack Gange that the Coalition’s Planning Policy of New Urban Interface Zones would apply only to regional areas and not to Nillumbik. We know that the Gange family owns 300 acres of Diamond Creek land outside the UGB that they have been trying for years to have rezoned and subdivided so a potential multi million dollar windfall exists here. It is believed that Jack Gange put $40.000 of his own money into his campaign.
In view of the fact that Coalition policy calls for biennial reviews of the UGB we are very sceptical as all could be undone in a couple of years. Nillumbik is not a growth area and a firm statement on the Coalition’s intention to retain the current integrity of the UGB for the long term is required before the election.”]
Diogs,
Don’t you make a living out of the medicalisation of normal behaviour?
193 lefty e
Posted Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
And remember, owing to SLEAZY PREFERENCE DEALS*, a VOTE FOR LIBERALS IS A VOTE FOR LABOR!**
Or a vote for the ALP is a Vote for the gun totting, climate change denying, pro logging, anti conservationist form the Country Alliance, or who remember Stephen Fielding, Oh thats right he still lurches around the Senate, Or that DLp nut from Western Vic.
“A vote for the ALP is probably a vote for a right wing nutter”
Do you lot have the new laws on handing out HTV cards? You might find the parties choose to exploit the confusion over preferencing by having dodgy people in coloured T shirts handing out bogus HTV cards.
GG
[Don’t you make a living out of the medicalisation of normal behaviour?]
I’m strongly opposed to the medicalisation of normal behaviour, hence my objection to doctor-assisted euthanasia.
Let’s face it; we can’t look after all the people who are actually sick let alone look after people who aren’t sick.
[“A vote for the ALP is probably a vote for a right wing nutter”]
Barking, sadly, this assertion is more accurate than mine.
Dare I predict the next we hear from VIC ALP HQ on this matter will be redolent of their maginficent performance with Fielding:
“… and it would have worked if our vote hadn’t collapsed!” :p