Per Crikey: -

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2011/09/05/newspoll-59-41-to-coalition/


Quote:

Newspoll: 59-41 to Coalition Monday, September 5, 2011 – 10:06 pm, by William Bowe GhostWhoVotes reports Newspoll has the Coalition’s lead out from 57-43 to 59-41, with the Coalition up three to 50 per cent, Labor steady on 27 per cent and the Greens down two to 12 per cent. The worse damage from the Malaysia solution wreckage is for Julia Gillard personally, who has recorded the fifth worst net satisfaction rating in Newspoll history: 23 per cent approval and 68 per cent disapproval, surpassed only by four results for Paul Keating in the months following the 1993 budget (a pattern emerges of voters reacting unfavourably to unpromised tax initiatives). On the question of preferred Labor, Kevin Rudd is apparently up 21 points to 57 per cent – although I’m not sure when the earlier poll was conducted. Gillard is down five to 24 per cent. Tony Abbott meanwhile is up three points on approval to 39 per cent and down three on disapproval to 52 per cent, and his lead as preferred prime minister is out from 39-38 to 43-34. Meanwhile, today’s Essential Research had the Coalition going from 56-44 to 57-43. More to follow.

Equitist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:

Per Crikey: - http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2011/09/05/newspoll-59-41-to-coalition/ Quote: Newspoll: 59-41 to Coalition Monday, September 5, 2011 – 10:06 pm, by William Bowe GhostWhoVotes reports Newspoll has the Coalition’s lead out from 57-43 to 59-41, with the Coalition up three to 50 per cent, Labor steady on 27 per cent and the Greens down two to 12 per cent. The worse damage from the Malaysia solution wreckage is for Julia Gillard personally, who has recorded the fifth worst net satisfaction rating in Newspoll history: 23 per cent approval and 68 per cent disapproval, surpassed only by four results for Paul Keating in the months following the 1993 budget (a pattern emerges of voters reacting unfavourably to unpromised tax initiatives). On the question of preferred Labor, Kevin Rudd is apparently up 21 points to 57 per cent – although I’m not sure when the earlier poll was conducted. Gillard is down five to 24 per cent. Tony Abbott meanwhile is up three points on approval to 39 per cent and down three on disapproval to 52 per cent, and his lead as preferred prime minister is out from 39-38 to 43-34. Meanwhile, today’s Essential Research had the Coalition going from 56-44 to 57-43. More to follow.

ok, I'll bite!  Tell us all how this is bad news for Abbott and good news for the Greens and Labor!!

The lead would see Labor lose up to 40 seats given Abbott a record-break 80 seat majority.

The Greens are back BELOW the level form the last federal election and Labor seem to have finally found a floor in their polls - 27%

I shall wait until I see the detailed tables tomorrow, Longy...

Equitist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 10:45pm:

I shall wait until I see the detailed tables tomorrow, Longy...

Im sure you will. It is actually quite entertaining watching your desperate tortured and embarrassing attempts to turn what is nothing more than total disaster into something good.

you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:45pm: I shall wait until I see the detailed tables tomorrow, Longy... Im sure you will. It is actually quite entertaining watching your desperate tortured and embarrassing attempts to turn what is nothing more than total disaster into something good. you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard.

add this ailure to your completely biased modding

There is really something  a miss with Labors low polling .  

Nearly every  time I watch  QandA the audience is half left, half right, yet there is  an overwhelming (usually more than half the crowd) positive response to any achievements the labor government have done.

Also , the  link below shows  polling  questions =mainly page 4  are highly polling in favour of  Labor?

Then, when out and about and the talks turns to  politic every one seems to talk  well of Labor and down with Abbott.
So basically I am at a loss at to where   these extreme low polls are coming from.

http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/wp-content/themes/rockwell/documents/essential_report_290811.pdf

vegi - that is interesting.
I do not watch Q ans A, I am just busy at that time.

my experience has been people avoid talking about julia and labor.
mention of the alp often brings a phrase "I don't even want to think of them."

that's just my experience, so we might well inhabit "different worlds" . :-)

wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:46pm:

There is really something  a miss with Labors low polling .   Nearly every  time I watch  QandA the audience is half left, half right, yet there is  an overwhelming (usually more than half the crowd) positive response to any achievements the labor government have done. Also , the  link below shows  polling  questions =mainly page 4  are highly polling in favour of  Labor? Then, when out and about and the talks turns to  politic every one seems to talk  well of Labor and down with Abbott. So basically I am at a loss at to where   these extreme low polls are coming from. http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/wp-content/themes/rockwell/documents/essential_report_290811.pdf

I dont know what circles you move in but it is the opposite experience for most people. I would find it hard to find a single person that still votes for labor and NONE that think they are doing a good job.

wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:46pm:

There is really something  a miss with Labors low polling .   Nearly every  time I watch  QandA the audience is half left, half right, yet there is  an overwhelming (usually more than half the crowd) positive response to any achievements the labor government have done. Also , the  link below shows  polling  questions =mainly page 4  are highly polling in favour of  Labor? Then, when out and about and the talks turns to  politic every one seems to talk  well of Labor and down with Abbott. So basically I am at a loss at to where   these extreme low polls are coming from. http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/wp-content/themes/rockwell/documents/essential_report_290811.pdf

in todays lesson we learn that QandA is not indicative of the community.

wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:46pm:

There is really something  a miss with Labors low polling .   Nearly every  time I watch  QandA the audience is half left, half right, yet there is  an overwhelming (usually more than half the crowd) positive response to any achievements the labor government have done. Also , the  link below shows  polling  questions =mainly page 4  are highly polling in favour of  Labor? Then, when out and about and the talks turns to  politic every one seems to talk  well of Labor and down with Abbott. So basically I am at a loss at to where   these extreme low polls are coming from. http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/wp-content/themes/rockwell/documents/essential_report_290811.pdf

veg Q&A audiances can  hardly be recommended  as a gauge really ,come on old girl...

not being one to take any notice of POLLS.. but to take even more notice of a studio audiance I find hilarious... half the time the guest doesnt even answer the question asked.. what does that remind you of??.. lol.

to be honest I cannot blame anyone else accept this govt for the disarray they are in .. and like the lift.. its going down...

I would hope, if this is the way of the Libs then I would have the guts to own up.. they stink..sorry to say that.

they have stalled the govt!  it isnt working.!!!. look on todays news its come out Thomo wanted to resign and the party wouldnt let him..

now what does that say??????... to you nothing probably.. but to me it says he has something to own up too and he is not going to get away this..which will be even more embarrassing..and not just for him..

its a dogs breakfast and it isnt going away anytime soon..


can you name a few achievments we are supposed to be cheering about..... I am a bit over hearing of something that will take place in 2013.. like paid father leave..its a furphy..

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 10:45pm: I shall wait until I see the detailed tables tomorrow, Longy... Im sure you will. It is actually quite entertaining watching your desperate tortured and embarrassing attempts to turn what is nothing more than total disaster into something good. you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard.

You can put a piece of dog crap in a slice of Helga's Rye bread with lettuce, red onion, cracked pepper and garlic mayonnaise.
It's still a crap sanga longy, no matter how you slice it.

What about the link I supplied re; polling.



Those polled were asked:

“Thinking about what the Labor Government has done over the last few years, do you approve or disapprove of the following Government actions?"

The scale is at the top, the sub-questions below, and the percentage responses below them. The first two figures are the most important: ‘Total approve’ and ‘Total disapprove’.

Total approve Total disapprove Strongly approve Approve Disapprove Strongly disapprove Don’t know

"Increased funding of health services
89% 5% 42% 47% 3% 2% 6%

Increasing the age pension
78% 14% 34% 44% 8% 6% 8%

Increasing superannuation to 12%
75% 13% 28% 47% 9% 4% 12%

Managing the economy to keep unemployment and interest rates low
70% 21% 21% 49% 12% 9% 10%

Spending on new school buildings
68% 24% 19% 49% 15% 9% 8%

Introducing a national disability insurance scheme
63% 13% 18% 45% 9% 4% 24%

Stimulus spending to tackle the GFC
61% 28% 21% 40% 15% 13% 11%

Paid parental leave
60% 30% 19% 41% 17% 13% 10%

Introducing a tax on large profits of mining companies
58% 29% 27% 31% 16% 13% 13%

Building the NBN (National Broadband Network)
54% 34% 19% 35% 17% 17% 12%

Stopping live cattle exports until welfare concerns were addressed
53% 34% 24% 29% 17% 17% 12%

Abolished WorkChoices
51% 33% 23% 28% 21% 12% 16%

Sending asylum seekers to Malaysia
39% 45% 17% 22% 20% 25% 16%

Introducing a carbon tax to tackle climate change
33% 53% 15% 18% 14% 39% 14%"


The Report noted that: “Government decisions and policies with highest approval were increased funding of health services (89% approve), increasing the age pension (78%) and increasing superannuation to 12% (75%).

“Only two of the actions listed received less than majority approval – sending asylum seekers to Malaysia was 39% approve/45% disapprove and introducing a carbon tax to tackle climate change was 33% approve/53% disapprove.

“Labor voters showed majority approval of all decisions and policies, Greens voters showed majority approval for all except sending asylum seekers to Malaysia (21% approve/63% disapprove).

“Liberal/National voters approved of half the items listed – increased funding of health services (89% approve), increasing the age pension (79%), increasing superannuation to 12% (71%), managing the economy to keep unemployment and interest rates low (54%), spending on new school buildings (54%), introducing a national disability insurance scheme (60%) and paid parental leave (52%).”



repeated @ http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/default.aspx

wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:45am:

What about the link I supplied re; polling. Those polled were asked: “Thinking about what the Labor Government has done over the last few years, do you approve or disapprove of the following Government actions?" The scale is at the top, the sub-questions below, and the percentage responses below them. The first two figures are the most important: ‘Total approve’ and ‘Total disapprove’. Total approve Total disapprove Strongly approve Approve Disapprove Strongly disapprove Don’t know "Increased funding of health services 89% 5% 42% 47% 3% 2% 6% Increasing the age pension 78% 14% 34% 44% 8% 6% 8% Increasing superannuation to 12% 75% 13% 28% 47% 9% 4% 12% Managing the economy to keep unemployment and interest rates low 70% 21% 21% 49% 12% 9% 10% Spending on new school buildings 68% 24% 19% 49% 15% 9% 8% Introducing a national disability insurance scheme 63% 13% 18% 45% 9% 4% 24% Stimulus spending to tackle the GFC 61% 28% 21% 40% 15% 13% 11% Paid parental leave 60% 30% 19% 41% 17% 13% 10% Introducing a tax on large profits of mining companies 58% 29% 27% 31% 16% 13% 13% Building the NBN (National Broadband Network) 54% 34% 19% 35% 17% 17% 12% Stopping live cattle exports until welfare concerns were addressed 53% 34% 24% 29% 17% 17% 12% Abolished WorkChoices 51% 33% 23% 28% 21% 12% 16% Sending asylum seekers to Malaysia 39% 45% 17% 22% 20% 25% 16% Introducing a carbon tax to tackle climate change 33% 53% 15% 18% 14% 39% 14%" The Report noted that: “Government decisions and policies with highest approval were increased funding of health services (89% approve), increasing the age pension (78%) and increasing superannuation to 12% (75%). “Only two of the actions listed received less than majority approval – sending asylum seekers to Malaysia was 39% approve/45% disapprove and introducing a carbon tax to tackle climate change was 33% approve/53% disapprove. “Labor voters showed majority approval of all decisions and policies, Greens voters showed majority approval for all except sending asylum seekers to Malaysia (21% approve/63% disapprove). “Liberal/National voters approved of half the items listed – increased funding of health services (89% approve), increasing the age pension (79%), increasing superannuation to 12% (71%), managing the economy to keep unemployment and interest rates low (54%), spending on new school buildings (54%), introducing a national disability insurance scheme (60%) and paid parental leave (52%).” repeated @ http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/default.aspx

What about it    ;D ;D ;D

23%

23%
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Griff wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:49am:

23% 23% ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

GRIFF IS THAT 23%     no cant be  23%  ;D

you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard.
This is the very reason Labor should dump Gillard, now.
Abbott is not popular at all, he manages to get a better rating than the worst polling PM in history, If Labor dump Gillard ,Abbott will suffer in the polls. In fact looking at how popular Rudd is, If Labor elect Rudd Abbott would be in major trouble. The best thing for Labor to do is dump Gillard, even if Labor cant win the next election, the domino effect of dumping Gillard will give us Hockey or Turnbull as opposition leader,which would be the best thing for this country.
The very fact the libs here salivate over Gillards numbers tells us they dont want a leadership change in the Labor party,which is the very reason there should be.

Gillard is doing her best to hand over the keys to the lodge without a fight.

Talk about self distructing.

skippy. wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard. This is the very reason Labor should dump Gillard, now. Abbott is not popular at all, he manages to get a better rating than the worst polling PM in history, If Labor dump Gillard ,Abbott will suffer in the polls. In fact looking at how popular Rudd is, If Labor elect Rudd Abbott would be in major trouble. The best thing for Labor to do is dump Gillard, even if Labor cant win the next election, the domino effect of dumping Gillard will give us Hockey or Turnbull as opposition leader,which would be the best thing for this country. The very fact the libs here salivate over Gillards numbers tells us they dont want a leadership change in the Labor party,which is the very reason there should be.

Oh but we do. It does not matter who is in the labor party as their leader. Abbott will be the man elected at the next election. You just have to come to terms with your partisan history.

skippy. wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard. This is the very reason Labor should dump Gillard, now. Abbott is not popular at all, he manages to get a better rating than the worst polling PM in history, If Labor dump Gillard ,Abbott will suffer in the polls. In fact looking at how popular Rudd is, If Labor elect Rudd Abbott would be in major trouble. The best thing for Labor to do is dump Gillard, even if Labor cant win the next election, the domino effect of dumping Gillard will give us Hockey or Turnbull as opposition leader,which would be the best thing for this country. The very fact the libs here salivate over Gillards numbers tells us they dont want a leadership change in the Labor party,which is the very reason there should be.

You are fantasising again, as usual, cocksvcker. Nothing will save Labor at the next election and there is no way Abbott would be replaced with these poll numbers and doubly no way if he claims Gillard's scalp as well. Back to your homo fantasies. Thinking has proved too hard for you once again.

skippy. wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard. This is the very reason Labor should dump Gillard, now. Abbott is not popular at all, he manages to get a better rating than the worst polling PM in history, If Labor dump Gillard ,Abbott will suffer in the polls. In fact looking at how popular Rudd is, If Labor elect Rudd Abbott would be in major trouble. The best thing for Labor to do is dump Gillard, even if Labor cant win the next election, the domino effect of dumping Gillard will give us Hockey or Turnbull as opposition leader,which would be the best thing for this country. The very fact the libs here salivate over Gillards numbers tells us they dont want a leadership change in the Labor party,which is the very reason there should be.

Mmmmmmmmmmm.
Abbott was the reason Rudd was dumped in the first place.
So your theory regarding Abbotts demise should Rudd return doesn't hold water skip.
Kevin Rudd may well be the preferred Labor leader today, but he is no more competent now then he was before his removal.
He is still the same dunderclumper he was then.
And if he does return, it will be as a caretaker only until the next election when Labor will have to rebuild after the flogging they are going to get from the electorate.
And somehow I suspect not one person including Rudd would be interested in being a caretaker for the Labor party.
But after the election once that person resigns as party leader, is a different matter entirely.

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 9:18am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 8:59am: you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard. This is the very reason Labor should dump Gillard, now. Abbott is not popular at all, he manages to get a better rating than the worst polling PM in history, If Labor dump Gillard ,Abbott will suffer in the polls. In fact looking at how popular Rudd is, If Labor elect Rudd Abbott would be in major trouble. The best thing for Labor to do is dump Gillard, even if Labor cant win the next election, the domino effect of dumping Gillard will give us Hockey or Turnbull as opposition leader,which would be the best thing for this country. The very fact the libs here salivate over Gillards numbers tells us they dont want a leadership change in the Labor party,which is the very reason there should be. You are fantasising again, as usual, cocksvcker. Nothing will save Labor at the next election and there is no way Abbott would be replaced with these poll numbers and doubly no way if he claims Gillard's scalp as well. Back to your homo fantasies. Thinking has proved too hard for you once again.

Do you think Tony Abbott is the best choice to lead the Country?

Skips right, the only way to force a change in the Coalition is to force one in the ALP.

Gillard is doing nothing to force the Libs to consider it, and why would you with such an astonishing lead.

Yo Longy et al!

This week's Newspoll has excluded a record 8% of randomly-selected respondents plus the NT from its Primary voting figures...

They have weighted to then weighted the data to 'reflect the population distribution'...

As per usual, without actually asking about preferences, they have also extrapolated the TPP according to the flow of preferences in the 2010 election - despite the massive shift in Primary voting intentions...

Yet, they still claim a maximum margin of error of +/-3% - bollox!

Details here: -

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110902%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf

---

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 9:18am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 8:59am: you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard. This is the very reason Labor should dump Gillard, now. Abbott is not popular at all, he manages to get a better rating than the worst polling PM in history, If Labor dump Gillard ,Abbott will suffer in the polls. In fact looking at how popular Rudd is, If Labor elect Rudd Abbott would be in major trouble. The best thing for Labor to do is dump Gillard, even if Labor cant win the next election, the domino effect of dumping Gillard will give us Hockey or Turnbull as opposition leader,which would be the best thing for this country. The very fact the libs here salivate over Gillards numbers tells us they dont want a leadership change in the Labor party,which is the very reason there should be. You are fantasising again, as usual, cocksvcker. Nothing will save Labor at the next election and there is no way Abbott would be replaced with these poll numbers and doubly no way if he claims Gillard's scalp as well. Back to your homo fantasies. Thinking has proved too hard for you once again.

Thanks for the troll,swallow. But I must point out to the newer members here that you used to have as your signature,and I quote, "I SWALLOW" so insinuating that I'm gay is just a little bit of a fantasy for you ,sweetie. :D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 9:18am: skippy. wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 8:59am: you could always just try doing a Buzz and belately admit that Labor are going to get creamed and that Abbott is WAY more popular than Gillard. This is the very reason Labor should dump Gillard, now. Abbott is not popular at all, he manages to get a better rating than the worst polling PM in history, If Labor dump Gillard ,Abbott will suffer in the polls. In fact looking at how popular Rudd is, If Labor elect Rudd Abbott would be in major trouble. The best thing for Labor to do is dump Gillard, even if Labor cant win the next election, the domino effect of dumping Gillard will give us Hockey or Turnbull as opposition leader,which would be the best thing for this country. The very fact the libs here salivate over Gillards numbers tells us they dont want a leadership change in the Labor party,which is the very reason there should be. You are fantasising again, as usual, cocksvcker. Nothing will save Labor at the next election and there is no way Abbott would be replaced with these poll numbers and doubly no way if he claims Gillard's scalp as well. Back to your homo fantasies. Thinking has proved too hard for you once again. Do you think Tony Abbott is the best choice to lead the Country?

Unfortunately,smithy, the answer to that is yes, the posters here that present themselves  as the Liberal congo line of loonies do think Abbott is the best choice to lead this country. ::)

Equitist wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 9:41am:

Yo Longy et al! This week's Newspoll has excluded a record 8% of randomly-selected respondents plus the NT from its Primary voting figures... They have weighted to then weighted the data to 'reflect the population distribution'... As per usual, without actually asking about preferences, they have also extrapolated the TPP according to the flow of preferences in the 2010 election - despite the massive shift in Primary voting intentions... Yet, they still claim a maximum margin of error of +/-3% - bollox! Details here: - http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110902%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf

Question the science of stastics all you want, the answers are there.

Nothing worse who someone who doesnt like the stats starts playing the man and not the ball.

Newspoll, roy morgan et al are the experts in this area and are on the money.

Starting to sound like a climate change denalist there thy.

Verge wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 10:15am:

Equitist wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 9:41am: Yo Longy et al! This week's Newspoll has excluded a record 8% of randomly-selected respondents plus the NT from its Primary voting figures... They have weighted to then weighted the data to 'reflect the population distribution'... As per usual, without actually asking about preferences, they have also extrapolated the TPP according to the flow of preferences in the 2010 election - despite the massive shift in Primary voting intentions... Yet, they still claim a maximum margin of error of +/-3% - bollox! Details here: - http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110902%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf Question the science of stastics all you want, the answers are there. Nothing worse who someone who doesnt like the stats starts playing the man and not the ball. Newspoll, roy morgan et al are the experts in this area and are on the money. Starting to sound like a climate change denalist there thy.

I'm not disputing that the Libs are shyting all over the Labs in the polls - just that Newspoll's stats are dodgy!

Moreover, they're reported selectively by the inherently-partisan Oz!

Just because they are accurate around the time of elections, does not necessarily mean that they don't tweak the figures in between to drive trends!

Equitist wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 10:38am:

Verge wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 10:15am: Equitist wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 9:41am: Yo Longy et al! This week's Newspoll has excluded a record 8% of randomly-selected respondents plus the NT from its Primary voting figures... They have weighted to then weighted the data to 'reflect the population distribution'... As per usual, without actually asking about preferences, they have also extrapolated the TPP according to the flow of preferences in the 2010 election - despite the massive shift in Primary voting intentions... Yet, they still claim a maximum margin of error of +/-3% - bollox! Details here: - http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110902%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf Question the science of stastics all you want, the answers are there. Nothing worse who someone who doesnt like the stats starts playing the man and not the ball. Newspoll, roy morgan et al are the experts in this area and are on the money. Starting to sound like a climate change denalist there thy. I'm not disputing that the Libs are shyting all over the Labs in the polls - just that Newspoll's stats are dodgy! Moreover, they're reported selectively by the inherently-partisan Oz! Just because they are accurate around the time of elections, does not necessarily mean that they don't tweak the figures in between to drive trends!

SHYTE  YOU DONT like the thought of LOOSING FOR 3 OR 4 TERMS DO YOU     ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

FRED. wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 10:41am:

Equitist wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 10:38am: Verge wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 10:15am: Equitist wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 9:41am: Yo Longy et al! This week's Newspoll has excluded a record 8% of randomly-selected respondents plus the NT from its Primary voting figures... They have weighted to then weighted the data to 'reflect the population distribution'... As per usual, without actually asking about preferences, they have also extrapolated the TPP according to the flow of preferences in the 2010 election - despite the massive shift in Primary voting intentions... Yet, they still claim a maximum margin of error of +/-3% - bollox! Details here: - http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110902%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf Question the science of stastics all you want, the answers are there. Nothing worse who someone who doesnt like the stats starts playing the man and not the ball. Newspoll, roy morgan et al are the experts in this area and are on the money. Starting to sound like a climate change denalist there thy. I'm not disputing that the Libs are shyting all over the Labs in the polls - just that Newspoll's stats are dodgy! Moreover, they're reported selectively by the inherently-partisan Oz! Just because they are accurate around the time of elections, does not necessarily mean that they don't tweak the figures in between to drive trends! SHYTE  YOU DONT like the thought of LOOSING FOR 3 OR 4 TERMS DO YOU     ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

how come these POLLS are only dodgy when they report labor going down.............

what happened when they reported Mr 76%   were they wrong then.. or dodgy..they will be claiming the election is fixed next.... I mean they blame everything the media now the POLLS>.Abbott of course goes without saying.. its all his fault gillards in the poo..

so when they lose.. it will be election fixing..


goodness gracious me...

LOL the left leave the conspironut theories to the extreme loony conspironuts that support Abbott.

Equitist wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 9:41am:

Yo Longy et al! This week's Newspoll has excluded a record 8% of randomly-selected respondents plus the NT from its Primary voting figures... They have weighted to then weighted the data to 'reflect the population distribution'... As per usual, without actually asking about preferences, they have also extrapolated the TPP according to the flow of preferences in the 2010 election - despite the massive shift in Primary voting intentions... Yet, they still claim a maximum margin of error of +/-3% - bollox! Details here: - http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110902%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf

and yet whenever there is an election the newpoll is within 1%. despite your  uneducated protestations, their methodology is standard, valid and proved many times over.  You are just going to have to face the fact that Abbott will be the next PM with a massive majority.

Equitist wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 10:38am:

Verge wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 10:15am: Equitist wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 9:41am: Yo Longy et al! This week's Newspoll has excluded a record 8% of randomly-selected respondents plus the NT from its Primary voting figures... They have weighted to then weighted the data to 'reflect the population distribution'... As per usual, without actually asking about preferences, they have also extrapolated the TPP according to the flow of preferences in the 2010 election - despite the massive shift in Primary voting intentions... Yet, they still claim a maximum margin of error of +/-3% - bollox! Details here: - http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110902%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf Question the science of stastics all you want, the answers are there. Nothing worse who someone who doesnt like the stats starts playing the man and not the ball. Newspoll, roy morgan et al are the experts in this area and are on the money. Starting to sound like a climate change denalist there thy. I'm not disputing that the Libs are shyting all over the Labs in the polls - just that Newspoll's stats are dodgy! Moreover, they're reported selectively by the inherently-partisan Oz! Just because they are accurate around the time of elections, does not necessarily mean that they don't tweak the figures in between to drive trends!

the idiocy of that statement is astonishing. just suck it up. labors polls are GENUINELY appalling.  no polling group worth their weight 'tweaks' figures. their entire business is based on accurate unbiased information. plus, it is reflected in other polling groups as well so unless you are going to claim a conspiracy among ALL polling groups????

Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now??

matty wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:36am:

Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now??

You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front.

Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:40am:

matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:36am: Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now?? You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front. Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history.

Opposition Leaders also don't normally maintain such a big disapproval rating as he does. And ALWAYS has.

Feel free to change Gillard with Abbott, if you like changing crap with more crap.  It won't change the political scene in Canberra one bit and the crap policies will continue, if not get worse.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:40am:

matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:36am: Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now?? You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front. Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history.

And only 1/3 of the way into the term, too. IIRC, Keating led Howard 47 to 41% just before the infamous 1996 election. And we all know what happened then.  ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:40am: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:36am: Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now?? You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front. Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history. Opposition Leaders also don't normally maintain such a big disapproval rating as he does. And ALWAYS has. Feel free to change Gillard with Abbott, if you like changing crap with more crap.  It won't change the political scene in Canberra one bit and the crap policies will continue, if not get worse.

The BUlletin Magazine once had a front cover on John Howard entitled 'Mr 18%: why does this man bother"? I think history speaks for itself that a lack of popularity as opposition leader is hardly a deathknell!! opposition leaders rarely have the opportunity to be positive and so always suffer in this regard.

But let me just remind you again that this 'unpopular' Abbott fellow ill be PM wih a majority of up to 80 seats.

If only Gillard could be that 'unpopular'!

matty wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:43am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:40am: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:36am: Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now?? You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front. Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history. And only 1/3 of the way into the term, too. IIRC, Keating led Howard 47 to 41% just before the infamous 1996 election. And we all know what happened then.  ;D

yes... second LARGEST winning margin in history, soon to be relegated to third place behind Gillard and Whitlam.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:47am:

matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:43am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:40am: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:36am: Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now?? You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front. Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history. And only 1/3 of the way into the term, too. IIRC, Keating led Howard 47 to 41% just before the infamous 1996 election. And we all know what happened then.  ;D yes... second LARGEST winning margin in history, soon to be relegated to third place behind Gillard and Whitlam.

I really think that many people don't realise just how badly Gillard is doing. My mother has been left-wing all of her life, and my father a centrist. As such, she's always voted Labor, and he has swung. Last election, neither one voted Labor, and it was ALL because of Gillard. I've spoken to many others in the same situation.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:46am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:42am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:40am: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:36am: Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now?? You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front. Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history. Opposition Leaders also don't normally maintain such a big disapproval rating as he does. And ALWAYS has. Feel free to change Gillard with Abbott, if you like changing crap with more crap.  It won't change the political scene in Canberra one bit and the crap policies will continue, if not get worse. The BUlletin Magazine once had a front cover on John Howard entitled 'Mr 18%: why does this man bother"? I think history speaks for itself that a lack of popularity as opposition leader is hardly a deathknell!! opposition leaders rarely have the opportunity to be positive and so always suffer in this regard. But let me just remind you again that this 'unpopular' Abbott fellow ill be PM wih a majority of up to 80 seats. If only Gillard could be that 'unpopular'!

Abbott can always be referred to as "Mr -19% since becoming Leader"

And he can have 120 seats majority. Doesn't mean that the man with so far no substantive policy what so ever will be any good.  And it seems the electorate agrees with me.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:46am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:42am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:40am: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:36am: Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now?? You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front. Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history. Opposition Leaders also don't normally maintain such a big disapproval rating as he does. And ALWAYS has. Feel free to change Gillard with Abbott, if you like changing crap with more crap.  It won't change the political scene in Canberra one bit and the crap policies will continue, if not get worse. The BUlletin Magazine once had a front cover on John Howard entitled 'Mr 18%: why does this man bother"? I think history speaks for itself that a lack of popularity as opposition leader is hardly a deathknell!! opposition leaders rarely have the opportunity to be positive and so always suffer in this regard. But let me just remind you again that this 'unpopular' Abbott fellow ill be PM wih a majority of up to 80 seats. If only Gillard could be that 'unpopular'! Abbott can always be referred to as "Mr -19% since becoming Leader" And he can have 120 seats majority. Doesn't mean that the man with so far no substantive policy what so ever will be any good.  And it seems the electorate agrees with me.

it is clearly obvious that the electorate doesnt agree with you at all. But get used to a record hammering of labor some time real soon.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:46am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:42am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:40am: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:36am: Where are all the Lefties going on about how Mr Abbott couldn't take over as PPM? Why are you all silent now?? You noticed that, did you? Opposition leaders usually trail in that figure but we now have one that is massively in front. Gillard has now the second WORST popularity in history. Opposition Leaders also don't normally maintain such a big disapproval rating as he does. And ALWAYS has. Feel free to change Gillard with Abbott, if you like changing crap with more crap.  It won't change the political scene in Canberra one bit and the crap policies will continue, if not get worse. The BUlletin Magazine once had a front cover on John Howard entitled 'Mr 18%: why does this man bother"? I think history speaks for itself that a lack of popularity as opposition leader is hardly a deathknell!! opposition leaders rarely have the opportunity to be positive and so always suffer in this regard. But let me just remind you again that this 'unpopular' Abbott fellow ill be PM wih a majority of up to 80 seats. If only Gillard could be that 'unpopular'! Abbott can always be referred to as "Mr -19% since becoming Leader" And he can have 120 seats majority. Doesn't mean that the man with so far no substantive policy what so ever will be any good.  And it seems the electorate agrees with me.

The electorate agrees that liberals will be better regardless of who is the leader.

There is some comfort in believing that liberals as a machine, will be more responsible with our economy.

FRED. wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:57am:

Griff wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 8:49am: 23% 23% ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D GRIFF IS THAT 23%     no cant be  23%  ;D

Yep  that is :

23 %
23%
23%

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hmmnnn....the Liberal machine - prolly explains why Tony Abbott comes across so animated...

Shame that the Duracell Polliebot has neither an easy listening channel nor an off-switch, eh!?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 11:56am:

it is clearly obvious that the electorate doesnt agree with you at all. But get used to a record hammering of labor some time real soon.

Actually they do.

50% primary vote for the Coalition.

-19% approval rating of Abbott.
Only 9 points ahead on PPM.

With such a HUGE and overwhelming lead in the primary and 2 party preferred, you'd think the leader would also be MILES ahead and would actually be liked. Yet, these stats show that even those who will vote for the coalition at the next election still don't see Abbott in positive light.

The electorate definitely agrees that abbott is no good leader and will only be another crap substitute for crap.
Goes to show that with such

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:56am: it is clearly obvious that the electorate doesnt agree with you at all. But get used to a record hammering of labor some time real soon. Actually they do. 50% primary vote for the Coalition. -19% approval rating of Abbott. Only 9 points ahead on PPM. With such a HUGE and overwhelming lead in the primary and 2 party preferred, you'd think the leader would also be MILES ahead and would actually be liked. Yet, these stats show that even those who will vote for the coalition at the next election still don't see Abbott in positive light. The electorate definitely agrees that abbott is no good leader and will only be another crap substitute for crap. Goes to show that with such

its simple. opposition leaders usually trail PMs. Howard trailed Keating before trouncing him in an election.  like any good statistician you need to place such figures into the proper context for it to mean anything.

I still can't comprehend why people were stupid enough to vote for Gillard last election? How can you trust someone who said a mere few days before doing so, that she would not attempt to overtake her leader as PM?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:14pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:56am: it is clearly obvious that the electorate doesnt agree with you at all. But get used to a record hammering of labor some time real soon. Actually they do. 50% primary vote for the Coalition. -19% approval rating of Abbott. Only 9 points ahead on PPM. With such a HUGE and overwhelming lead in the primary and 2 party preferred, you'd think the leader would also be MILES ahead and would actually be liked. Yet, these stats show that even those who will vote for the coalition at the next election still don't see Abbott in positive light. The electorate definitely agrees that abbott is no good leader and will only be another crap substitute for crap. Goes to show that with such its simple. opposition leaders usually trail PMs. Howard trailed Keating before trouncing him in an election.  like any good statistician you need to place such figures into the proper context for it to mean anything.

Not a really good example because under this consideration, no doubt that Keating was a better PM to Howard and hence the approvals at the time show that it was only because of a "it's time" factor that saw Labor lose.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:14pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:56am: it is clearly obvious that the electorate doesnt agree with you at all. But get used to a record hammering of labor some time real soon. Actually they do. 50% primary vote for the Coalition. -19% approval rating of Abbott. Only 9 points ahead on PPM. With such a HUGE and overwhelming lead in the primary and 2 party preferred, you'd think the leader would also be MILES ahead and would actually be liked. Yet, these stats show that even those who will vote for the coalition at the next election still don't see Abbott in positive light. The electorate definitely agrees that abbott is no good leader and will only be another crap substitute for crap. Goes to show that with such its simple. opposition leaders usually trail PMs. Howard trailed Keating before trouncing him in an election.  like any good statistician you need to place such figures into the proper context for it to mean anything. Not a really good example because under this consideration, no doubt that Keating was a better PM to Howard and hence the approvals at the time show that it was only because of a "it's time" factor that saw Labor lose.

Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie.

matty wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:30pm:

Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie.

The one thing you have to remember is that unlike for someone of such a small mind as yourself, I don't consider the ultimate goal in politics to be power.  I consider it to be a good leader that will bring about a good result for the nation.  If that happens to be a Lib or a Lab then so be it.  And whilst I'd cheer if it were Liberals with another leader other than the repugnant right wing dogs, come 2013 if Tony actually does end up leading the coalition to victory then there is nothign to celebrate. It will only result in perhaps 2 terms of absolutely no action on anyhting, and the country will be in a worse state than it is today.  So yay, let's celebrate that?

Exactly why matty you are a complete moron :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:35pm:

matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:30pm: Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie. The one thing you have to remember is that unlike for someone of such a small mind as yourself, I don't consider the ultimate goal in politics to be power.  I consider it to be a good leader that will bring about a good result for the nation.  If that happens to be a Lib or a Lab then so be it.  And whilst I'd cheer if it were Liberals with another leader other than the repugnant right wing dogs, come 2013 if Tony actually does end up leading the coalition to victory then there is nothign to celebrate. It will only result in perhaps 2 terms of absolutely no action on anyhting, and the country will be in a worse state than it is today.  So yay, let's celebrate that? Exactly why matty you are a complete moron :)

Again, more baseless assumptions. At least I see that your attacks on me are not personal, just against everyone that disagrees with you. We have a great leader, and you will see that when he gets the chance to lead, something that Julia Gillard can't seem to do.

matty wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:37pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:35pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:30pm: Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie. The one thing you have to remember is that unlike for someone of such a small mind as yourself, I don't consider the ultimate goal in politics to be power.  I consider it to be a good leader that will bring about a good result for the nation.  If that happens to be a Lib or a Lab then so be it.  And whilst I'd cheer if it were Liberals with another leader other than the repugnant right wing dogs, come 2013 if Tony actually does end up leading the coalition to victory then there is nothign to celebrate. It will only result in perhaps 2 terms of absolutely no action on anyhting, and the country will be in a worse state than it is today.  So yay, let's celebrate that? Exactly why matty you are a complete moron :) Again, more baseless assumptions. At least I see that your attacks on me are not personal, just against everyone that disagrees with you. We have a great leader, and you will see that when he gets the chance to lead, something that Julia Gillard can't seem to do.

Actually he is leading. He is leading a coalition without any substantial policies - which is quite evidently shown by the shadow ministers always being made to look like fools when asked actual substantial questions.  Yeh.  Great leader. ;D

Has he re-written his Battleground yet? Seems everything he once stood for has now been torn up.

Yeh. Great leader. ;D

I make assumptions based on the information presented to me.  Unliek you, who only base your information off an Allan rant, because you're an idiot, I actually go and read both sides of the opinion.  And from that I can determine that when it comes to a Abbot PMship, it will be just as dire as the Gillard one has been. The race to the bottom continues.  Good to see you celebrating this. You mong.

Nice however to see you make an actual attempt at something substantial to say.  Too bad you failed.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:40pm:

matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:35pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:30pm: Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie. The one thing you have to remember is that unlike for someone of such a small mind as yourself, I don't consider the ultimate goal in politics to be power.  I consider it to be a good leader that will bring about a good result for the nation.  If that happens to be a Lib or a Lab then so be it.  And whilst I'd cheer if it were Liberals with another leader other than the repugnant right wing dogs, come 2013 if Tony actually does end up leading the coalition to victory then there is nothign to celebrate. It will only result in perhaps 2 terms of absolutely no action on anyhting, and the country will be in a worse state than it is today.  So yay, let's celebrate that? Exactly why matty you are a complete moron :) Again, more baseless assumptions. At least I see that your attacks on me are not personal, just against everyone that disagrees with you. We have a great leader, and you will see that when he gets the chance to lead, something that Julia Gillard can't seem to do. Actually he is leading. He is leading a coalition without any substantial policies - which is quite evidently shown by the shadow ministers always being made to look like fools when asked actual substantial questions.  Yeh.  Great leader. ;D Has he re-written his Battleground yet? Seems everything he once stood for has now been torn up. Yeh. Great leader. ;D I make assumptions based on the information presented to me.  Unliek you, who only base your information off an Allan rant, because you're an idiot, I actually go and read both sides of the opinion.  And from that I can determine that when it comes to a Abbot PMship, it will be just as dire as the Gillard one has been. The race to the bottom continues.  Good to see you celebrating this. You mong. Nice however to see you make an actual attempt at something substantial to say.  Too bad you failed.

No point debating a fool. They'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

No point debating a fool. They'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with intelligence.
I wish I had a dollar for every time mellie has said that. ;D ;D ;D

matty wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:40pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:35pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:30pm: Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie. The one thing you have to remember is that unlike for someone of such a small mind as yourself, I don't consider the ultimate goal in politics to be power.  I consider it to be a good leader that will bring about a good result for the nation.  If that happens to be a Lib or a Lab then so be it.  And whilst I'd cheer if it were Liberals with another leader other than the repugnant right wing dogs, come 2013 if Tony actually does end up leading the coalition to victory then there is nothign to celebrate. It will only result in perhaps 2 terms of absolutely no action on anyhting, and the country will be in a worse state than it is today.  So yay, let's celebrate that? Exactly why matty you are a complete moron :) Again, more baseless assumptions. At least I see that your attacks on me are not personal, just against everyone that disagrees with you. We have a great leader, and you will see that when he gets the chance to lead, something that Julia Gillard can't seem to do. Actually he is leading. He is leading a coalition without any substantial policies - which is quite evidently shown by the shadow ministers always being made to look like fools when asked actual substantial questions.  Yeh.  Great leader. ;D Has he re-written his Battleground yet? Seems everything he once stood for has now been torn up. Yeh. Great leader. ;D I make assumptions based on the information presented to me.  Unliek you, who only base your information off an Allan rant, because you're an idiot, I actually go and read both sides of the opinion.  And from that I can determine that when it comes to a Abbot PMship, it will be just as dire as the Gillard one has been. The race to the bottom continues.  Good to see you celebrating this. You mong. Nice however to see you make an actual attempt at something substantial to say.  Too bad you failed. No point debating a fool. They'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with intelligence.

That's more an insult to you then anyone else. "Partisan" and "Intelligence" can't possibly be used in the same vein.

The Hard Rights determination to have Abbott in the Lodge is because HE is Hard Right as well.

Once again, 'Matty' excels at unwitting irony...



matty wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:48pm:

No point debating a fool. They'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with intelligence.

Abbott will have a team whose many members have been ministers in a competent government
He will have NO scattering of  ex-ACTU presidents in his team.
He will have NO ex-NSW Labor Party types in his team
He will not have the dreadful Greens in his team
He doesn't speak with a god-awful drawl (the lip smacking will have to go, though)

As a matter of fact, simply NOT having Gillard, Rudd and Swan in his team will make a picture of perfection compared to the current bunch of inept, bungling muppets (apologies to Mark Twain).

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:14pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:56am: it is clearly obvious that the electorate doesnt agree with you at all. But get used to a record hammering of labor some time real soon. Actually they do. 50% primary vote for the Coalition. -19% approval rating of Abbott. Only 9 points ahead on PPM. With such a HUGE and overwhelming lead in the primary and 2 party preferred, you'd think the leader would also be MILES ahead and would actually be liked. Yet, these stats show that even those who will vote for the coalition at the next election still don't see Abbott in positive light. The electorate definitely agrees that abbott is no good leader and will only be another crap substitute for crap. Goes to show that with such its simple. opposition leaders usually trail PMs. Howard trailed Keating before trouncing him in an election.  like any good statistician you need to place such figures into the proper context for it to mean anything. Not a really good example because under this consideration, no doubt that Keating was a better PM to Howard and hence the approvals at the time show that it was only because of a "it's time" factor that saw Labor lose.

you were obviously still in Russia at the time. Keating was SMASHED at the polls.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:06pm:

you were obviously still in Russia at the time. Keating was SMASHED at the polls.

He was. I never denied that. Try re-reading what I said before making some as per usual bullcrap statement.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:40pm:

matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:35pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:30pm: Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie. The one thing you have to remember is that unlike for someone of such a small mind as yourself, I don't consider the ultimate goal in politics to be power.  I consider it to be a good leader that will bring about a good result for the nation.  If that happens to be a Lib or a Lab then so be it.  And whilst I'd cheer if it were Liberals with another leader other than the repugnant right wing dogs, come 2013 if Tony actually does end up leading the coalition to victory then there is nothign to celebrate. It will only result in perhaps 2 terms of absolutely no action on anyhting, and the country will be in a worse state than it is today.  So yay, let's celebrate that? Exactly why matty you are a complete moron :) Again, more baseless assumptions. At least I see that your attacks on me are not personal, just against everyone that disagrees with you. We have a great leader, and you will see that when he gets the chance to lead, something that Julia Gillard can't seem to do. Actually he is leading. He is leading a coalition without any substantial policies - which is quite evidently shown by the shadow ministers always being made to look like fools when asked actual substantial questions.  Yeh.  Great leader. ;D Has he re-written his Battleground yet? Seems everything he once stood for has now been torn up. Yeh. Great leader. ;D I make assumptions based on the information presented to me.  Unliek you, who only base your information off an Allan rant, because you're an idiot, I actually go and read both sides of the opinion.  And from that I can determine that when it comes to a Abbot PMship, it will be just as dire as the Gillard one has been. The race to the bottom continues.  Good to see you celebrating this. You mong. Nice however to see you make an actual attempt at something substantial to say.  Too bad you failed.

you seem to forget the 2007 election. Labor had just ONE policy (anti-workchoices) prior to the election and announced them all during the campaign. so why should Abbott do any different?

matty wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:48pm:

No point debating a fool. They'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with intelligence.

Fool - for your own knowledge, the phrase is actually "No point debating a fool - they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."  

;D

Luckily I haven't gone down to your level as it's almost unreachable by normal people.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:08pm:

you seem to forget the 2007 election. Labor had just ONE policy (anti-workchoices) prior to the election and announced them all during the campaign. so why should Abbott do any different?

Also if you read through "To the Bitter End" (which i recommend) - you will see just how much of a free ride Labor got out of Trade Unions running a smear campaign on work choices.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 1:06pm: you were obviously still in Russia at the time. Keating was SMASHED at the polls. He was. I never denied that. Try re-reading what I said before making some as per usual bullcrap statement.

there was no 'its time' factor. Keating was flogged because people hated him and his policies. Rudd was an 'its time' factor, which explains why the gloss wore off so quickly.

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

Abbott will have a team whose many members have been ministers in a competent government He will have NO scattering of  ex-ACTU presidents in his team. He will have NO ex-NSW Labor Party types in his team He will not have the dreadful Greens in his team He doesn't speak with a god-awful drawl (the lip smacking will have to go, though) As a matter of fact, simply NOT having Gillard, Rudd and Swan in his team will make a picture of perfection compared to the current bunch of inept, bungling muppets (apologies to Mark Twain).

Sadly and ironically, it is those very ex-ministers who are the greatest risk - they are stale and stuck in the draconian and regressive ways of the Howardian Era...

The mere fact that Tony Abbott & Co repeatedly defer to John Howard suggests that they have NFI how to progress Australia's interests through the 21st Century...

Tony Abbott in particular renders himself even more boyish every time he champions his hero - especially since Howard is no hero to the majority of Australians!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 1:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 1:06pm: you were obviously still in Russia at the time. Keating was SMASHED at the polls. He was. I never denied that. Try re-reading what I said before making some as per usual bullcrap statement. there was no 'its time' factor. Keating was flogged because people hated him and his policies. Rudd was an 'its time' factor, which explains why the gloss wore off so quickly.

People hated him and his policies yet they approved of him in the opinion polls? Yeh. That makes sense.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:08pm:

you seem to forget the 2007 election. Labor had just ONE policy (anti-workchoices) prior to the election and announced them all during the campaign. so why should Abbott do any different?

Complete re-writing of history but let's not get into that.  If Abbott is consistently calling for a new election and suggesting he is a better alternative, then one would think he should be prepared to release his policies now and not in 2 years time.

Equitist wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

The mere fact that Tony Abbott & Co repeatedly defer to John Howard suggests that they have NFI how to progress Australia's interests through the 21st Century...

Unlike Rudd and Gillard.....oh wait....no, one was shafted and the other ther worst PM ever, PMSL, another loop fail. :D :D

mmmmhm thats a powerful lot of gooseberries

Frazer won because he was the non-Whitlam candidate.
Hawke won because he was non-Frazer
Howard won because he was non-keating.
Rudd won becuase he was non-Howard
Abbott will win because he is the non-Gillard/non-Rudd/non-(your ex-ACTU president here) candidate.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/09/05/1226129/993270-110906-nicholson.jpg

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:09pm:

matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:48pm: No point debating a fool. They'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with intelligence. Fool - for your own knowledge, the phrase is actually "No point debating a fool - they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."   ;D Luckily I haven't gone down to your level as it's almost unreachable by normal people.

WOOPS! Sorry, I meant to say experience. Edited.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:40pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:35pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:30pm: Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie. The one thing you have to remember is that unlike for someone of such a small mind as yourself, I don't consider the ultimate goal in politics to be power.  I consider it to be a good leader that will bring about a good result for the nation.  If that happens to be a Lib or a Lab then so be it.  And whilst I'd cheer if it were Liberals with another leader other than the repugnant right wing dogs, come 2013 if Tony actually does end up leading the coalition to victory then there is nothign to celebrate. It will only result in perhaps 2 terms of absolutely no action on anyhting, and the country will be in a worse state than it is today.  So yay, let's celebrate that? Exactly why matty you are a complete moron :) Again, more baseless assumptions. At least I see that your attacks on me are not personal, just against everyone that disagrees with you. We have a great leader, and you will see that when he gets the chance to lead, something that Julia Gillard can't seem to do. Actually he is leading. He is leading a coalition without any substantial policies - which is quite evidently shown by the shadow ministers always being made to look like fools when asked actual substantial questions.  Yeh.  Great leader. ;D Has he re-written his Battleground yet? Seems everything he once stood for has now been torn up. Yeh. Great leader. ;D I make assumptions based on the information presented to me.  Unliek you, who only base your information off an Allan rant, because you're an idiot, I actually go and read both sides of the opinion.  And from that I can determine that when it comes to a Abbot PMship, it will be just as dire as the Gillard one has been. The race to the bottom continues.  Good to see you celebrating this. You mong. Nice however to see you make an actual attempt at something substantial to say.  Too bad you failed. you seem to forget the 2007 election. Labor had just ONE policy (anti-workchoices) prior to the election and announced them all during the campaign. so why should Abbott do any different?

Because of double standards! One set of rules for the Left, another for the Right.

I remember the Rudd hype in 2007. I could see right through it, and I was only 17. Yet look at all the middle/old aged people who fell for it.

matty wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:40pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:37pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:35pm: matty wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:30pm: Reagrdless of anything, we'll be in power come next election, and our leader will be Tony Abbott. You'll just have to deal with that, sweetie. The one thing you have to remember is that unlike for someone of such a small mind as yourself, I don't consider the ultimate goal in politics to be power.  I consider it to be a good leader that will bring about a good result for the nation.  If that happens to be a Lib or a Lab then so be it.  And whilst I'd cheer if it were Liberals with another leader other than the repugnant right wing dogs, come 2013 if Tony actually does end up leading the coalition to victory then there is nothign to celebrate. It will only result in perhaps 2 terms of absolutely no action on anyhting, and the country will be in a worse state than it is today.  So yay, let's celebrate that? Exactly why matty you are a complete moron :) Again, more baseless assumptions. At least I see that your attacks on me are not personal, just against everyone that disagrees with you. We have a great leader, and you will see that when he gets the chance to lead, something that Julia Gillard can't seem to do. Actually he is leading. He is leading a coalition without any substantial policies - which is quite evidently shown by the shadow ministers always being made to look like fools when asked actual substantial questions.  Yeh.  Great leader. ;D Has he re-written his Battleground yet? Seems everything he once stood for has now been torn up. Yeh. Great leader. ;D I make assumptions based on the information presented to me.  Unliek you, who only base your information off an Allan rant, because you're an idiot, I actually go and read both sides of the opinion.  And from that I can determine that when it comes to a Abbot PMship, it will be just as dire as the Gillard one has been. The race to the bottom continues.  Good to see you celebrating this. You mong. Nice however to see you make an actual attempt at something substantial to say.  Too bad you failed. you seem to forget the 2007 election. Labor had just ONE policy (anti-workchoices) prior to the election and announced them all during the campaign. so why should Abbott do any different? Because of double standards! One set of rules for the Left, another for the Right. I remember the Rudd hype in 2007. I could see right through it, and I was only 17. Yet look at all the middle/old aged people who fell for it.

Fool, do me a favour and check my reply before saying your usual utter rubbish.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 1:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm: you seem to forget the 2007 election. Labor had just ONE policy (anti-workchoices) prior to the election and announced them all during the campaign. so why should Abbott do any different? Complete re-writing of history but let's not get into that.  If Abbott is consistently calling for a new election and suggesting he is a better alternative, then one would think he should be prepared to release his policies now and not in 2 years time.

it isnt rewriting at all. with the exception of Workchoices labor had no policies before the election. They announce education, tax, health and others DURING the election campaign.

loolike the laborites dont like the polls. not that anyone can blame them