BludgerTrack: 50.0-50.0

The BludgerTrack poll aggregate records the Coalition level with Labor on two-party preferred, and with an absolute majority on the seat projection, for the first time since the budget – and also points to an ongoing recovery in Tony Abbott’s personal ratings.

The BludgerTrack poll aggregate continues to trend the Coalition’s way, to the extent that it reaches two milestones this week: parity with Labor on two-party preferred, and an absolute majority on the seat projection, albeit by the barest of margins. Three new polls were added to the national figures, those being Galaxy, the regular weekly Essential Research, and the fortnightly Morgan (fortnightly in the sense of publication, although the poll is conducted on a weekly basis). Also out this week was the Newspoll quarterly aggregates, which have been factored into the state breakdowns, along with the regular state breakdowns from Morgan (published) and Essential (unpublished). The combined effect is to add seat each to the Coalition tally in New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia, while removing one in Victoria and Tasmania.

The quarterly Newspoll is a big deal for BludgerTrack, which is never better serviced for state data than it is immediately after being fed with three months’ worth of state-level Newspoll results. To this end, later today I will get around to publishing my own detailed quarterly state breakdowns for BludgerTrack, the previous instalment of which can be seen here.

BludgerTrack is still in the position of being slightly more favourable to the Coalition than any single published poll result, due to a variety of factors. Perhaps this could be best explained if I run through each of the pollsters:

Nielsen of course closed up shop a few months ago, which was significant in that BludgerTrack deemed it to be the most Coalition-friendly pollster, and the only one which adjusted for any substantial bias to that effect. Now that it’s gone, the model has a clear tendency to skew to the right of what a straight polling average would tell you.

Newspoll is rated as neutral by the model, but it hasn’t reported for a fortnight. When it did report, it gave Labor a 51-49 lead when the primary vote numbers looked a lot more like 50-50. It’s the primary votes that BludgerTrack goes off, so this was a 50-50 poll as far as the model was concerned. Clearly Labor got rounded up in the Newspoll result – it follows that they also got rounded down in BludgerTrack.

Galaxy is taken very seriously by BludgerTrack, and receives next to no bias adjustment at all. This week it gave Labor a lead of 51-49, although putting its rounded primary votes into the model produces a result of 50.6-49.4 going off 2013 preferences (as BludgerTrack does). If not for this poll, the Coalition would have moved into the lead.

ReachTEL’s last poll a fortnight ago had Labor leading 51-49, and BludgerTrack adjusts this pollster slightly in favour of the Coalition.

Morgan is reckoned to have the biggest bias in the game, that being in favour of Labor. Its result on respondent-allocated preferences this week was 51.5-48.5 in favour of Labor, but the more telling point so far as BludgerTrack is concerned is that it was the Coalition’s best result since February.

Essential is noted for being slow to respond to changes, and for this reason, BludgerTrack treats its bias in a unique way, by dynamically adjusting it according to how its deviates from the model over time. Since it’s stayed stuck with Labor on the cusp of leading 52-48 or 53-47, while the other pollsters have moved to the Coalition, a Labor bias adjustment is increasingly being factored into its results.

The other development in BludgerTrack this week is that Morgan published a set of phone poll numbers on leadership ratings, and they were relatively very rosy for Tony Abbott, who wasn’t too far off parity on net approval and had a pretty solid lead on preferred prime minister. This has a pretty sharp effect on the BludgerTrack leadership ratings, which aren’t exactly spoiled for data and are always pretty sensitive to the most recent result, even if the poll in question was from a rather small sample, as was the case here.

UPDATE: As promised, here are the detailed state-level breakdowns featuring primary vote numbers and charts tracking the progress of the primary and two-party votes in each state. Crikey subscribers may enjoy my analysis of these results in today’s email, assuming it gets published.

I also promised two weeks ago that I was going to start tracking betting odds in these mid-week BludgerTrack posts, then forgot about it last week. Now that I’ve remembered again, I can inform you that there has been movement to the Coalition over the part fortnight in Centrebet’s federal election odds, with the Coalition in from $1.50 to $1.45 and Labor out from $2.55 to $2.70. Centrebet’s price on Campbell Newman being re-elected in Queensland has also shortened from $1.36 to $1.28, with Labor out from $3.15 to $3.65. There has been a very slight move to Labor for the Victorian election, with Labor in from $1.23 to $1.22 and the Coalition out from $4.00 and $4.10 – which sounds a bit generous to Labor for mine. The Betfair market evidently thinks so, as it has the Coalition in from $4.10 to $3.40 and Labor out from $1.48 to $1.59.

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.

1,009 comments on “BludgerTrack: 50.0-50.0”

Comments Page 3 of 21
1 2 3 4 21
  1. DTT

    1st zoomster is right about what she did not say.

    Secondly I said elections have been won on cost of living. I said it was right for Shorten to focus on this.

    To me cost of living for a voter is costs as part of income. That means no job your costs of living are astronomically higher.

    It all goes back to the budget in reply speech. Shorten laid out there the agenda and it seems to me he is sticking with it.

  2. [Bernard Keane ‏@BernardKeane 32 seconds ago
    I’m assuming the RAAF dropped the 2014-15 Budget in its bombing run this morning. At that height, Budget Paper No. 1 alone would kill you.]

  3. Labor has to convince people that their agenda and that of the Australian people are a better match than other parties and that Labor are the best party to carry it out.

    That’s really very general, though :P.

  4. davidwh

    the trouble is, even the ABS says they’re dodgy.

    They are so dubious about their own figures that they’ve totally changed the way they’re reporting on them, and they’ve basically admitted last month’s were wrong.

  5. [Bernard Keane ‏@BernardKeane 32 seconds ago
    I’m assuming the RAAF dropped the 2014-15 Budget in its bombing run this morning. At that height, Budget Paper No. 1 alone would kill you.]

    😀

    drop hockey – that’d do some real damage and would have to help the budget. or would the Geneva convention not allow use of such a biological weapon?

  6. I made no comments about the way back for Labor. My analysis was purely about what it means for the government.

    Anyone who cares to engage with the actual points I made and criticise the reasoning therein is welcome to do so.

    Diverting the discussion to other matters suggests my analysis is sound.

  7. I didn’t watch the interview and was responding to the logic here. I have now researched further.

    The man comes from an organization that believes in fundamentally unacceptable things he should have been easy to make a fool of.

    I see those defending the interview including Mr Abbott are making the team Australia answer.

    I don’t understand the position here except to say the Liberals within the one year are saying free speech should extend to people saying obnoxious and bigoted things and now saying we will have a system (red cards FFS) to silence voices we don’t like.

    Those defending the Abbott / team Australia line on this really need an answer to the question about innocent lives we take in the region. The kind of answer you could give to a 12 year old girl who has just had the whole of her extended family killed by a bomb with a straight face and not sound like a racist moron when your answer is finished.

  8. I’m with Emma A on this one.
    She gave the bloke every opportunity to respond to simple questions with simple answers. He didn’t and to be expected went on his usual anti west rants. She wouldn’t let him do that and fair enough too.
    She had every right to run over the top of him otherwise it would have been 10 minutes of west bad, islam good ranting from wassisname.

  9. [She had every right to run over the top of him otherwise it would have been 10 minutes of west bad, islam good ranting from wassisname.]

    So you are going with racism … Classy

    Did or did not the interviewee say that killing is bad? If he did he answered the question but then asked a question back that you don’t have an answer for and thus you go for he should be silenced and racism with that ‘wassisname’ cheap shot.

  10. I can’t see why we expect the guy interviewed to give a straight answer when we give politicians a free pass to completely ignore every question they get asked.

  11. Henry my point is why did the ABC give him the platform in the first place. He was always going to act the way he did and there was never any chance he was going to come out against ISIS.

  12. They gave him plenty of airtime guytaur, he managed to spew out of much of his anti west stuff but when he wouldn’t answer simple questions with simple answers (Do you condemn be-headings of IS etc) she had every right to pull him up.

  13. Some interesting (in several senses of the word) comments on here this morning.

    I don’t claim to know (or even to care much) about the “way back” for Shorten and Labor, but I am pretty confident about some things.

    1. Shorten will be there until the next election (the new rules that Rudd gave to the party will make it extremely difficult for him to be removed, even if the Caucus wanted him to be: which they surely don’t).

    2. The current strategy adopted by Labor re the Iraq war, local terrorists, etc. is the only possible one for them. The idea that they could hope to make any political capital whatsoever from differentiating themselves from the Government is laughable. Such a move would be a complete disaster for them: it would allow the Government, the Murdoch press, the shock jocks, etc. to lambast them endlessly for being “soft on terror”.

    Sure, a few youthful lefties don’t much like what’s going on at the moment and might vote Green rather than Labor as a result. Big deal: it might make a few inner city Labor left parliamentarians feel uncomfortable, but it surely isn’t any sort of a problem for the party as a whole for as long as Green voters continue to preference Labor ahead of the Coalition (which will be forever as far as I can see).

    But a Labor party which is seen as soft on Islamic terrorists and radicals is going to get crucified by the swinging voters: even if the war is seen to be going badly. That’s how Australian politics works. And, after watching that appalling guy on Lateline last night, why would any reasonable person feel any sympathy whatsoever towards Islamic radicals? Their thinking on any issue you might care to name is the antithesis of rational liberal thought.

    3. Labor wouldn’t be opening up a debate on cost of living pressures if they weren’t seeing the issue come up in the entrails of focus group research and what have you. The Coalition implicitly promised that removing the carbon tax would make a huge difference to the average person’s cost of living, so it’s a “problem” that can be pinned on them to a certain extent.

    Why I hate the cost of living debate – and hated it enormously when Rudd raised it – is because most Australians have been living better for the last 15-20 years than they have ever done before. And, in all likelihood, this golden age of prosperity isn’t going to continue for much longer and isn’t likely to return in the near future. So politicians suggesting that Australians are justified in feeling upset at a slight tightening of the gap between their incomes and expenditure aspirations and that this could somehow be fixed by Government are setting themselves up to fail. IMO.

  14. [On the day that Tony Abbott said he wanted to introduce a “red card” system to ban the radical Islamic group, Lateline invited Doureihi on the program with a clear objective: to get him to denounce the tactics of Islamic State terrorists beheading innocent journalists and aid workers. He refused. He also refused to directly denounce the image of a seven year-old child holding up an image of a severed head.

    It was a lost opportunity for his cause.]

    http://thehoopla.com.au/high-tensions-hizb-ut-tahrir/

  15. [Australian Super Hornet drops two bombs on Islamic State targets http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-09/australian-super-hornet-drops-two-bombs-on-is-targets/5800764 … via @ABCNews Let the chest beating begin!]

    One suspects that the air controllers were told to give the RAAF pilots first dibs on any available targets. Flying around at $10,000 per hour but not doing anything much except providing photo ops of refuelling over desert wastelands toa backdrop of the setting sun was getting embarrassing.

    We were promised a WAR! and were told we could bomb ISIS into submission. We would take them out when they exited their spider holes. We had to produce dead ISIS bodies. Expect endless loops of nondescript square plan buildings being blown to smithereeens on tonight’s news.

  16. Henry

    No they invited him on to get a gotcha soundbite. From that interview I do not know how radical the guy is.

    All I know is he is a skilled media performer avoiding gotchas and looking like the victim.

  17. [Henry my point is why did the ABC give him the platform in the first place. He was always going to act the way he did and there was never any chance he was going to come out against ISIS.]

    Any halfwit could come out against ISIS and any half wit can do a West is bad rant. Surely what lateline should be doing is having as many facets as possible of a very complex problem discussed intelligently. This interview was not given that chance because the interviewer wasn’t up to challenging the interviewee in a fair and intelligent way.

  18. No WWP he was given plenty of opportunity to condemn IS, he did not simple as that.
    Saying muslims condemn innocent killings is a cop out, did not answer the specific question. and not a condemnation of IS.
    He could have easily answered “of course I condemn IS and the beheading of innocent civilians but let me also say the west…”.
    He did not, pretty simple really.

  19. Henry

    Do you not think that it is illuminating for the public to hear the view of ISIL supporters – why they are acting as they do. You em may not agree with them but i do not see how democracy or our understanding is served by cutting them off.

    I think it was Socrates (or was it Swamprat) earlier today pointed out how the same sort of issues were raised when the IRA was active and IRA supporters would have given the same sort of evasive answers. Killing mothers of seven with their children in the house is pretty much JUST as barbaric as beheading a journalist. The equivalent of Emma A in 1980 would not have conducted that sort of interview.

    Another hypocritical issue raised by Emma A was the Oooooohhhhh!!!!!! the seven year old with a severed head stuff. Horrible for sure. BUT how many seven year olds right now (or at least after school) go home and access big brother’s (or Dad’s)computer games and play an R rated game that has the child actually killing people and splattering their guts over the ground, or even chopping of a head or five. With the excellent graphics of today’s games I see no substantial difference between a child with a real head and a child with 7 bodies they have actively “shot.”

  20. DTT:
    [Now Red Kerry or even Tony Jones would have asked the question, allowed the guy to waffle, repeated the question in a slightly different way, and if he waffled would have simply stated “I assume then that you will not condemn the barbaric acts of ISIL” and then moved to another question. In other words cut the ground from under the guy’s feet without making him look to be persecuted.]

    The difference between you and me is that you seem to think that the guest has a right to “answer” questions any way the guest wishes. I don’t.
    At the end of a question/answer interview in which the guest simply peddles whatever unexposed b/s they want in answer to every question you (and Zoomster) think the audience can sit back and go “Good interview, the guest was treated with respect and I can make up my own mind.
    I don’t. I expect the interviewer to know something about the views of the person they are interviewing (otherwise why interview in the first place?) and use that knowledge to obtain answers to relevant questions that probe the interesting aspects of those views. The interesting aspects are, often, the most controversial and hence those least likely that the interviewee wishes to expose.

    As the interviewee is the guest of the interviewer in my opinion it should be the reasonable expectation of the interviewee that (a) direct answers to direct questions should be given; and (b) questions will be directed to controversial aspects of the interviewer’s opinion.

    An interviewee who fails to answer a direct question is therefore acting in “bad faith” as a guest. The interviewer then owes the guest nothing. In my opinion interviews with politicians should be conducted on this understanding and, where a pollie has twice deliberately failed to answer a direct question the interviewer should have the balls to state “You have twice failed to answer my question. This was your opportunity to answer my questions not peddle you propaganda. Good evening.

    I think it a regrettable fact that the above “rules of engagement” are not regularly employed. Still, you and Zoomster must be in a majority on this issue since most “interviews” are just polite pollywaffling propoganda of the sort you seem to endorse.

  21. [he upheld a “fixed moral compass” that unequivocally says that it is an aberration to kill innocent civilians.]

    Where is the ambiguity in that?

  22. guytaur@123

    Henry

    No they invited him on to get a gotcha soundbite. From that interview I do not know how radical the guy is.

    All I know is he is a skilled media performer avoiding gotchas and looking like the victim.

    I think Emma’s position was pretty clear guytaur, she wanted the bloke to make a clear, public condemnation of IS.
    He didn’t. It’s not a gotcha to simply ask a person to condemn the actions of a terrorist group is it?

  23. A lot of people on PB talk a lot about politics. Yet, they have no clue about how it operates in this country.

    1. The role of the Opposition Leader is to position themself as the PM in waiting. Voters are looking for a person with sufficient gravitas and presentation to do the job. They are not looking for a radical alternative to the incumbant Government policy wise.

    This can clearly be seen with the transitions from Howard to Keating, Howard to Rudd and Gillard to Abbott. In each of those election campaigns the Opposition leader desperately me-tood in order to be elected. In the case of Rudd, he adopted the tax cuts that Costello proferred and are probably at the heart of the current budget problems. Who can forget Abbott’s promises not to increase taxes, that he was at one with the Government on Gonski and other assorted policies like the NBN and NDIS. So, history shows that policy surprises and radical change are unlikely to cut it with the electorate when the crunch comes.

    As for the current polls, it is pretty obvious that Labor’s lead was all due to LNP incompetence and proposed radical changes to the social benefit framework that were deemed unfair to middle and low income people. Time has seen most of the more extreme proposals blunted by the Senate. So, people are less outraged are are drifting back to their preferred position. If any of you are looking for gratitude from the voters, you’ll be waiting a long time.

    Similarly, the political issues of recent months surround the security issues.

    Despite the PB commentariats general anti view of the Government’s actions, it is plain to see that the decisions taken thus far are supported by the mainstream of Australia. Labor have positioned themselves well to be seen to be supporting the defence of our country based on information supplied by the Government.

    If the Government’s actions become unpopular then Labor has plenty of wriggle room to walk away.

    As for Shorten. He has done well to unite the Party after an devastating loss last year. The next step is to develop/re-announce their policy agenda. With unfinished business in Eductaion, NDIS, the NBN and health there won’t be many surprises. The key issue for Labor is to convince the voters that their programme is affordable and that they will stay united.

    Two years out from an election, Labor is positioned well. However, their electoral fate will depend on whether the Libs smarten up their act, they can stay united and unscheduled events.

  24. Windhover

    I see no point in an embarrassing slanging match such as the one last night. Emma was clearly feeling unwell and should have terminated the interview rather than let it get out of hand.

    I think the purpose of an interview is to elicit information and a person’s point of view. It is the skill of the interviewer to get the person to reveal stuff they would rather hide. Emma failed miserably and made herself look a right proper twat.

  25. Probably the only worthwhile information to come out of the interview was the assertion that the conflict areas are Islamic Lands. Kind of puts all those non-Islamic peoples who have live there for centuries in their respective places and highlights the absolute impossibility of achieving any peace in the region.

  26. Henry

    That was clear in the first minute. Yet we learnt nothing else. It was an appalling interview. Designed only for a gotcha soundbite not for informing people on the views this guy represented as was the given reason for the interview. Alberici stated that on air,

    If you are going to do an interview with the guy do it properly or not do it at all

  27. [He could have easily answered “of course I condemn IS and the beheading of innocent civilians but let me also say the west…”.
    He did not, pretty simple really.]

    So he not only has to give the answer you want he has to give it with the words you want and without any context at all.

    As I said above this guy believes in some truly ugly and disgusting things and should be easy to make a fool of. But yet he is adding to his tally of fools he is exposing …

  28. Diogenes:
    [I can’t see why we expect the guy interviewed to give a straight answer when we give politicians a free pass to completely ignore every question they get asked.]

    I don’t expect him to give a straight answer, or even expect him to be called on it – particularly not by Alberici – for the reason you give.

    But our expectations, low as they are, are hardly the basis upon which to criticise Alberici for actually conducting a proper interview. Surely it is a basis for praise?

  29. The ambiguity WWP is how the terrorists of IS would define “innocent”.
    In their twisted minds the journos they killed were probably not innocents at all, rather evil peddlers of the wests propaganda who must be punished accordingly.

  30. Windhover

    er, no. I don’t think Alberici went in hard. I don’t think she exposed the guy.

    I think she could have done both.

    Saying it was a shocking interview is not an endorsement of his views, or saying that the interview should have been an opportunity to endorse his views.

    It was a shocking interview because Alberici DID NOT expose his views, because she was too obsessed with getting the answer she wanted.

    As I said, what exposes insane thinking is revealing it; you don’t do that through yes/no answers.

  31. WeWantPaul@135

    He could have easily answered “of course I condemn IS and the beheading of innocent civilians but let me also say the west…”.
    He did not, pretty simple really.


    So he not only has to give the answer you want he has to give it with the words you want and without any context at all.

    As I said above this guy believes in some truly ugly and disgusting things and should be easy to make a fool of. But yet he is adding to his tally of fools he is exposing …

    Jesus christ, arent you listening? I couldn’t care less the words he uses but I just simply pointed out to you how he could have avoided ending up looking like a devious snake. He should have denounced the terror/beheadings then moved on to his more substantive points.

  32. GG

    Rarely happens, but I do not fundamentally disagree with you.

    However the opposition does need to have a “presence” and appear as a real alternative, either because they have different views or are more competent or more stable etc. Also labor has the added problem of being gnawed at from the left and it cannot be too dull or it will lose the new young voters to the Greens.

    I am not confident that Shorten will be able to walk the tightrope of being seen to be a real alternative, a responsible and “safe” alternative and being dull as dishwater. Mind you I am not sure there is anyone better just now. Each person has pluses and minuses.

  33. [The ambiguity WWP is how the terrorists of IS would define “innocent”.
    In their twisted minds the journos they killed were probably not innocents at all, rather evil peddlers of the wests propaganda who must be punished accordingly.]

    Well that is interesting and would have been a great interview if he’d said that – or even if Emma had got him close to saying that.

  34. [Sustainable future
    Posted Thursday, October 9, 2014 at 10:35 am | PERMALINK
    and at this stage of the cycle, commentators were saying exactly the same sort of stuff about Andrews.

    I’m still not confident andrews is going to win the vic election. I don’t think he’s established himself as the alternative premier in people’s mind, and too many of the swinging voters will do what rupert tells them to do, and he ain’t being subtle about his preferences at present. that said, andrews has been much less ‘me too’ than shorten and is of the labor left – he was meant to be a seat warmer, and the labor right are probably none too happy that a lefty may still get the premiership.

    I predict napthine will win with a slight swing to the libs because swinging voters generally don’t like change, and I think napthine is seen as OK and now to be doing stuff. Labor needs to start asking about LNPs plans for privatising health and education, and link these firmly to the federal gov. ‘The Abbott-Napthine hidden agenda for health’ and ‘the abbott-napthine hidden agenda for schools/TAFES/Unis’ should already be firmly in voters minds, but this has not been done – the team australia terror threat is all about chewing up media long enough to get us to the silly season – Cup Day. labor does not time to get new messages out, and it has not done enough in the past year to be seen as an alternative government. Let’s hope the greens get balance of power in the upper house.]

    SF

    Presumably you are out soaking up the $4.10 you can presently get for the Libs with Centrebet if you think they are going to win. If everything you have said above is right they are dream odds in a two horse race.

  35. dtt

    [I am not confident that Shorten will be able to walk the tightrope of being seen to be a real alternative, a responsible and “safe” alternative and being dull as dishwater.]

    A responsible and safe alternative can often be as dull as dishwater.

    The inspiring types tend to be Mark Latham.

  36. [Jesus christ, arent you listening? I couldn’t care less the words he uses but I just simply pointed out to you how he could have avoided ending up looking like a devious snake. He should have denounced the terror/beheadings then moved on to his more substantive points.]

    He was going to look like a devious snake to people like you no matter what he said, probably they way he looked before he opened his mouth was enough.

    That is the problem.

  37. Guytaur:
    [No they invited him on to get a gotcha soundbite. From that interview I do not know how radical the guy is.

    All I know is he is a skilled media performer avoiding gotchas and looking like the victim.]

    Your supposition is that LL invited him on for a gotcha soundbite, and you may be right. It seems to me that there are different types of gotchas – those that go to the heart of an issue and those that really go nowhere. So, for example, the fact that TA and Hunt one supported a carbon tax as the best method for controlling carbon pollution is really an irrelevant gotcha to the extent their opinions have changed.

    It is certainly relevant to me whether the guest supports IS cutting off people’s heads or not. I would be highly critical of an interviewer for not exposing that opinion and allowing the guest to make all sorts of generalisations and/or mis-statements of fact without pulling the guest up. However reasonable the guest’s opinion may ultimately be, (who knows, maybe IS cutting off people’s heads and creating a Caliphate really would solve the ME problem?), if that opinion is unchallenged it is worthless.

  38. WeWantPaul@146

    Jesus christ, arent you listening? I couldn’t care less the words he uses but I just simply pointed out to you how he could have avoided ending up looking like a devious snake. He should have denounced the terror/beheadings then moved on to his more substantive points.


    He was going to look like a devious snake to people like you no matter what he said, probably they way he looked before he opened his mouth was enough.

    That is the problem.

    In your opinion.

    He had the chance to make some pretty clear pronouncements against the likes of IS and he didn’t. Given plenty of opportunity to do so and couldn’t do it. Regardless of Emma’s method on the night, that speaks volumes.
    As for people like me, spare me the moral bloviating.

  39. Windhover

    Your point was partly what the guy was saying. However on beheading we are hypocritical not saying anything about Saudi Arabia.

    So do not get fooled by this beheading imagery. We only cared once they started doing it to Western people and did not pay much attention when they were doing that to their “fellow” muslims.

    It was a gotcha interview. Not an interview designed to inform. That simple.

  40. Zoomster

    Quite

    However dull as dishwater rarely win elections. Good for a holding pattern through opposition. Calwell springs to mind. You needed a Whitlam to rout the Liberals. Even though there was a mood to change “its time” I doubt a Calwell or any other dull sort of leader would have succeeded in 1972.

    Latham did succeed for quite some time, although his insanity showed at the end. The fact that the voters DID endorse Abbott proves my point. Abbott had colour. He is definitely NOT dull. Bonkers yes but dull no.

Comments Page 3 of 21
1 2 3 4 21

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *