Quote:

Eleven of the Coalition's new seats are held on a margin of less than 4000 votes. That isn't a clean sweep, no matter how the hacks spin it, writes Phil Doyle Whichever way you want to look at the result of the recent Federal election, one argument that doesn't stack up is that this is some kind of landslide for the Coalition. That's how the election is being rewritten — but the figures don't support the story. Fifteen of the Coalition's new seats are held on very thin margins. Eleven seats have margins of less than 4000 voters, according to AEC figures as at 24 September: Barton (NSW) 493 Petrie (QLD) 971 Eden-Monaro (NSW) 1071 Capricornia (QLD) 1381 Dobell (NSW) 1189 Solomon (NT) 1492 Reid (NSW) 1490 Lyons (TAS) 1605 Banks (NSW) 3169 Braddon (TAS) 3398 Hindmarsh (SA) 3541 If Gilmore, Lindsay, Robertson, and Deakin are included, less than 30,000 voters nationally would need to change their minds for the government to change as well. So what? There have always been marginal seats. MPs and governments have learnt to live with them. So what's the big deal? Yes, there haves been marginal seats, but never in quite the quantity before, and never at a time when the electorate is in such a state of flux. It also places a huge question mark over going to a double dissolution mid term when the Government has such a tenuous grip on the Treasury benches. Hawke tried it in 1984 and we came within a bee's dick of Andrew Peacock as Prime Minister. The first preference House of Representatives vote for the old parties is its lowest since the World War II. At under 75 per cent of the vote what we are watching, as Guy Rundle has pointed out, is a new normal. The result is a lot tighter than many pundits predicted. Firstly the dire warnings by pollsters of ALP "wipeouts" in Queensland and western Sydney simply didn't eventuate. Lazy analysis that took national polling numbers and laid them over the Mackerass pendulum without any understanding of local conditions allowed this Chicken-Little number-crunching to crowd out how policy was affecting people's day-to-day lives. Eventually someone is going to have to call bullshit on the cottage industry of nationwide polling as anything more than a vehicle for hack journalists to meet a deadline. Regional swings and variations are far more definitive than any blanket national assessment. Polling has been used by the likes of the NSW ALP under Arbib and Dastyari, and by Kevin Rudd, to push personal agendas independent of the real business of government. News Corporation threw the kitchen sink at the ALP and they didn't get much bang for their buck. Nationally the Coalition vote was up, but not by much. People can safely draw a line through News Corporation as being an influence on public opinion. It still plays a role in setting the agenda for lazy TV news producers, but in the big scheme of things the internet is the go-to place for information. Underlining this is the size of the informal vote, compounded by the significant numbers of people that couldn’t be arsed voting at all. While the informal vote stayed roughly at the same proportion, the turnout was significantly down. Where people did vote informally was in "safe" ALP seats in western Sydney: Fowler, Watson,, Blaxland, Chifley and Werriwa were all in double digits. If these people aren't going to vote Liberal now, it's hard to see when they ever will. For many people neither of the old parties is doing much to address their needs, hence the widespread disengagement. Most of the ALP's "solutions" turn out to be market based bait-and-switch operations like the Job Network or privatised VET that gouge the millions of Australians who earn less than $30,000 a year, while the Coalition offers to make life equally as miserable. None of the major parties is doing anything to push down the price of rent or help the millions of Australian households over their heads in debt - the big reason why so many people feel economically set upon in an age of paper prosperity. If someone starts engaging with this section of the electorate with economic heresies that help households (and possibly hurt corporations) then they may be surprised at how well such populism sells. Palmer's outsider campaign embodied some of that idea, but he couldn't pull it off successfully. He needed an ordinary every(wo)man as a front to seriously shake the tree. Let's be honest, is Palmer going to do anything for people living on less than $30,000 except create more of them? None of this is helped by a media that comes from a privileged narrow demographic that experiences few of the stresses most Australians know on a daily basis, or derisively sniggers at the "bogan" experience of life. It is systemic political failure on an epic scale, and cold comfort for the hardheads around the Coalition who must by now realise that they are far from in a comfortable situation. Unpopular policies will threaten more than their standing in the opinion polls.

https://newmatilda.com/2013/09/24/thirty-thousand-votes-and-abbotts-gone

All the Australian people need is the average swing against first term govts and we will be rid of this cowardly far right PM and his goon squad.

So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)   

I would love to know when the polls go south for Abbott and he becomes unelectable how would the liberal party get rid of him as leader.

John S wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:11am:

I would love to know when the polls go south for Abbott and he becomes unelectable how would the liberal party get rid of him as leader.

Some on here were claiming Abbott was unelectable before the election.
And the only way the polls will go bad for him is when the opposition become competent.

What a dopey dopey thread. It is an embarrasment to be in the political section.

Do we have a dopey sour grapes section.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

John S wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:11am: I would love to know when the polls go south for Abbott and he becomes unelectable how would the liberal party get rid of him as leader. Some on here were claiming Abbott was unelectable before the election. And the only way the polls will go bad for him is when the opposition become competent.

That is the problem when you have the worst possible leader - he may accidentally get elected and you end up with a clown as PM.

Stop the boats.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

What a dopey dopey thread. It is an embarrasment to be in the political section. Do we have a dopey sour grapes section.

Yes we do - It is sited in Canberra at Parliament House, in the Government part of the Lower and Upper houses.

Look for Julie B

We need to take this with a grain of salt here. This 30,000 figure is based on 15 electorates, which is only one-tenth of the electorates in the country. If all of the electorates are included, the actual number of voters that would need to change their minds with a uniform swing is actually about 300,000.

Is this election a landslide? I think so, if we compare this election to past elections and apply consistent criteria.

This election is very similar to the 1983 election, both in terms of the 2PP vote and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties. If the 1983 election was considered a landslide, it is fair to consider this election a landslide too. The 2PP swing (3.60%) and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties (60.0%) are both much the same. The 2PP vote is also very similar (1983 = 53.23%, 2013 = 53.40%).

I think a fair and objective definition of "landslide" is where the 2PP vote of the winning party is 53% or more, and the winning party wins 60% or more of the seats. On these criteria, 1983 and 2013 are both landslides, although at the low end.

So the Abbott mess could be removed within six months if only Abbott had the ticker and was able to keep a promise.

wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:05am:

So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)

____ wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:34am:

So the Abbott mess could be removed within six months if only Abbott had the ticker and was able to keep a promise.

We need to look at history here.

I've found in previous studies that convincing election wins (landslides, if you will) are often followed by closer elections due to regression towards the mean. But change of governments don't often happen so soon. We have had very few one-term governments in Australia in the past 50 years. There have been none at Federal level, and even at state level they have been rare.

We can hope that Abbott will fall flat on his face, but the electorate will take the reasonable view of letting him do so before passing judgement. So soon after an election, it is best just to wait and see what happens. Don't get personal, but criticise the actions you don't like.

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

We need to take this with a grain of salt here. This 30,000 figure is based on 15 electorates, which is only one-tenth of the electorates in the country. If all of the electorates are included, the actual number of voters that would need to change their minds with a uniform swing is actually about 300,000. Is this election a landslide? I think so, if we compare this election to past elections and apply consistent criteria. This election is very similar to the 1983 election, both in terms of the 2PP vote and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties. If the 1983 election was considered a landslide, it is fair to consider this election a landslide too. The 2PP swing (3.60%) and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties (60.0%) are both much the same. The 2PP vote is also very similar (1983 = 53.23%, 2013 = 53.40%). I think a fair and objective definition of "landslide" is where the 2PP vote of the winning party is 53% or more, and the winning party wins 60% or more of the seats. On these criteria, 1983 and 2013 are both landslides, although at the low end.

thank you for this assessment.  Valley-boy and his ilk always come up with these absurd scenarios that somehow claim Abbott would lose the election and now that he could lose easily.  Perhaps this clown could try and work out that labor got just 34% in primary vote and for them to win requires a swing of at least 4 and probably 5 % which is a huge ask.  To simply pick some marginal  like this is truly embarrassing - but totally in character.

on another note, I like to read independentaustralia.org for a laugh.  They were repeatedly saying the polls were WAY OFF and in fact labor were going to win and do so handsomely including picking up 17 seats in QLD.  funnily enough, they aren't talking about it now!!

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:05am: So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)    ____ wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:34am: So the Abbott mess could be removed within six months if only Abbott had the ticker and was able to keep a promise. We need to look at history here. I've found in previous studies that convincing election wins (landslides, if you will) are often followed by closer elections due to regression towards the mean. But change of governments don't often happen so soon. We have had very few one-term governments in Australia in the past 50 years. There have been none at Federal level, and even at state level they have been rare. We can hope that Abbott will fall flat on his face, but the electorate will take the reasonable view of letting him do so before passing judgement. So soon after an election, it is best just to wait and see what happens. Don't get personal, but criticise the actions you don't like.

The closest to a one-term govt was the Gillard one and the argument could certainly be made that it was in fact a one-term govt followed by a one-term 'arrangement.  Whitlam was two terms but still just 3 years.

Lol I see the conga line are in  denial, they hate facts. How dumb are these tards that they can not comprehend facts in front of them? Thirty thousand to change their vote, should be ready about next Wednesday.

DD, DD, DD, DD, [/size]DD,DD,DD,DD,DD [size=18]DD,DD,DD,DD,DD,DDDD,DD,DD,DD,DD,DD!!!!!!!!!!

There was a morgan poll out 49.5/50.5 already.

A one term wonder - who would have ever though.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:33am: We need to take this with a grain of salt here. This 30,000 figure is based on 15 electorates, which is only one-tenth of the electorates in the country. If all of the electorates are included, the actual number of voters that would need to change their minds with a uniform swing is actually about 300,000. Is this election a landslide? I think so, if we compare this election to past elections and apply consistent criteria. This election is very similar to the 1983 election, both in terms of the 2PP vote and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties. If the 1983 election was considered a landslide, it is fair to consider this election a landslide too. The 2PP swing (3.60%) and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties (60.0%) are both much the same. The 2PP vote is also very similar (1983 = 53.23%, 2013 = 53.40%). I think a fair and objective definition of "landslide" is where the 2PP vote of the winning party is 53% or more, and the winning party wins 60% or more of the seats. On these criteria, 1983 and 2013 are both landslides, although at the low end. thank you for this assessment.  Valley-boy and his ilk always come up with these absurd scenarios that somehow claim Abbott would lose the election and now that he could lose easily.

It was a fallacious argument and it was better to be objective.


Quote:

Perhaps this clown could try and work out that labor got just 34% in primary vote and for them to win requires a swing of at least 4 and probably 5 % which is a huge ask.  To simply pick some marginal  like this is truly embarrassing - but totally in character.

The low Labor primary is explained by the rise of another left-wing party, the Greens.

The elephant in the room here is that the ALP consistently outpoll the Liberals on the primary vote in election after election (there are very few Federal elections where the Liberals have won the most votes) yet the Liberals have won the majority of these elections. Why? The Nationals.

For this reason, the primary vote argument is nonsense. The Liberals have polled primary votes below 40% in many elections that they won. They got 32% at this election. Even though the ALP had a low primary vote due to the Greens, the ALP still won more votes in 2013 than any other party. The ALP have outpolled the Liberals on the primary vote in over a dozen federal elections that the Liberals have won.

Yes, the détente that the Liberals have with the Nationals means they don't usually contest the same seats, but if they did contest the same seats the vote for both parties would not change much.

So the primary vote argument is rubbish, as it is ignoring the Greens. Australia has not had two strong left-leaning parties before. The conservative vote has always been split between two or more parties going all the way back to Federation and this is not remarked on. Now the progressive vote is split as well suddenly it's so remarkable?

wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:05am:

So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)

Just like both Rudd and Gillard who were actually less than one term wonders.

;D

So the swagman sock agrees.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:43am: wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:05am: So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)    ____ wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:34am: So the Abbott mess could be removed within six months if only Abbott had the ticker and was able to keep a promise. We need to look at history here. I've found in previous studies that convincing election wins (landslides, if you will) are often followed by closer elections due to regression towards the mean. But change of governments don't often happen so soon. We have had very few one-term governments in Australia in the past 50 years. There have been none at Federal level, and even at state level they have been rare. We can hope that Abbott will fall flat on his face, but the electorate will take the reasonable view of letting him do so before passing judgement. So soon after an election, it is best just to wait and see what happens. Don't get personal, but criticise the actions you don't like. The closest to a one-term govt was the Gillard one and the argument could certainly be made that it was in fact a one-term govt followed by a one-term 'arrangement.  Whitlam was two terms but still just 3 years.

Howard was lucky more than once and could easily been a 1 term government - he got less than 50% of the vote.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:43am: wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:05am: So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)    ____ wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:34am: So the Abbott mess could be removed within six months if only Abbott had the ticker and was able to keep a promise. We need to look at history here. I've found in previous studies that convincing election wins (landslides, if you will) are often followed by closer elections due to regression towards the mean. But change of governments don't often happen so soon. We have had very few one-term governments in Australia in the past 50 years. There have been none at Federal level, and even at state level they have been rare. We can hope that Abbott will fall flat on his face, but the electorate will take the reasonable view of letting him do so before passing judgement. So soon after an election, it is best just to wait and see what happens. Don't get personal, but criticise the actions you don't like. The closest to a one-term govt was the Gillard one and the argument could certainly be made that it was in fact a one-term govt followed by a one-term 'arrangement.  Whitlam was two terms but still just 3 years.

i notice you left out this bit longtimelier

Robert Menzies	26 Apr 1939	12th Prime Minister	Robert Menzies was sworn in as Prime Minister, after he was elected leader of the United Australia Party.
Arthur Fadden	29 Aug 1941	13th Prime Minister	Arthur Fadden succeeded Robert Menzies as Prime Minister.
John Curtin	07 Oct 1941	14th Prime Minister	John Curtin was sworn in as Prime Minister after the Fadden coalition government lost majority support in the House of Representatives.

So Menzies was prime minister for less then 12 months

skippy. wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

Lol I see the conga line are in  denial, they hate facts. How dumb are these tards that they can not comprehend facts in front of them? Thirty thousand to change their vote, should be ready about next Wednesday.

I'm a left-leaning poster, and I've pointed out the simple fact that the 30,000 is in 15 seats. It's actually not that remarkable.

For the 2010 election, the following four seats were all that the Coalition needed: Corangamite (Vic), Greenway (NSW), La Trobe (Vic), Robertson (NSW). The combined winning margin was 5,491. Halve that, and we find that about 2,750 people need to change their mind in these four seats to produce a change of government.

Political analysts don't discuss the swings in just the marginal seats because everyone else gets to vote too. The number that is of most interest to psephologists is the uniform swing that is needed for a change of government. Find the seat that sits in the middle of the mackerras pendulum, find its percentage, and that is the figure that is needed.

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:06am: Lol I see the conga line are in  denial, they hate facts. How dumb are these tards that they can not comprehend facts in front of them? Thirty thousand to change their vote, should be ready about next Wednesday. I'm a left-leaning poster, and I've pointed out the simple fact that the 30,000 is in 15 seats. It's actually not that remarkable. For the 2010 election, the following four seats were all that the Coalition needed: Corangamite (Vic), Greenway (NSW), La Trobe (Vic), Robertson (NSW). The combined winning margin was 5,491. Halve that, and we find that about 2,750 people need to change their mind in these four seats to produce a change of government. Political analysts don't discuss the swings in just the marginal seats because everyone else gets to vote too. The number that is of most interest to psephologists is the uniform swing that is needed for a change of government. Find the seat that sits in the middle of the mackerras pendulum, find its percentage, and that is the figure that is needed.

Where did I say you were anything?
The only person trying to put a different spin on the facts provided is you.
Is it a fact that if as little as a few hundred people changed their vote in some marginal seats those seats would fall to the other major party? Don't worry answering anyone that can read already knows the answer. ::)

We gotta find Tony Abbott before we can kick him out.. ;D

skippy. wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:38am: skippy. wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:06am: Lol I see the conga line are in  denial, they hate facts. How dumb are these tards that they can not comprehend facts in front of them? Thirty thousand to change their vote, should be ready about next Wednesday. I'm a left-leaning poster, and I've pointed out the simple fact that the 30,000 is in 15 seats. It's actually not that remarkable. For the 2010 election, the following four seats were all that the Coalition needed: Corangamite (Vic), Greenway (NSW), La Trobe (Vic), Robertson (NSW). The combined winning margin was 5,491. Halve that, and we find that about 2,750 people need to change their mind in these four seats to produce a change of government. Political analysts don't discuss the swings in just the marginal seats because everyone else gets to vote too. The number that is of most interest to psephologists is the uniform swing that is needed for a change of government. Find the seat that sits in the middle of the mackerras pendulum, find its percentage, and that is the figure that is needed. Where did I say you were anything? The only person trying to put a different spin on the facts provided is you. Is it a fact that if as little as a few hundred people changed their vote in some marginal seats those seats would fall to the other major party? Don't worry answering anyone that can read already knows the answer. ::)

Actually I'm sure others would have pointed this out given time.

Yes, it only takes a few tens of thousands to change their votes. It is why marginal seats get particular attention in government and in elections. But the reality is that everyone votes, swings are not uniform, and often we see a seat unexpectedly give a result from nowhere.

So we need to take this with a grain of salt.

I prefer to judge swings on the uniform swing. It's the most reliable indicator and has been used for decades in conjunction with the Mackerras pendulum. The absolute minimum number of changing votes is just a subset of this. It is interesting but not particularly useful.

skippy. wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:26am:

So the swagman sock agrees.

Actually I don't give a rat's Skip old bean.

Abbo's there and you pink ones are peed off big time so that's

GOLD

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Swagman wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 11:07am:

skippy. wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:26am: So the swagman sock agrees. Actually I don't give a rat's Skip old bean. Abbo's there and you pink ones are peed off big time so that's GOLD ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm pleased he's there. I don't have to listen to you whine the GREENS are smacking the country, everything that is bad is on your heads. I can not wait until I see unemployment sky rocket and the economy crash, it's all on the heads of the fools that voted for phoney tony.

wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:05am:

So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)

Do I need to put up your quote about the ALP winning the 2013 election? Stop engaging in self-parody. Your predictions aren't worth a pinch of sh!t.

Quote:

Thirty Thousand Votes And Abbott's Gone

Be vewy vewy careful Wild One. Big Clive is most unhappy with the way the AEC conducts elections. By the time the 2016 election is due large changes may have been made to the way voting is conducted. It may well change the political landscape in ways never thought possible.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

There was a morgan poll out 49.5/50.5 already. A one term wonder - who would have ever though.

I'll clarify here - the poll at Roy Morgan Research had Coalition 50.5, ALP 49.5.

Unless Abbott can turn this economy around he'll be out in 1 term.

.

.

That's 3 goes to get the page to flip.

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:15am: There was a morgan poll out 49.5/50.5 already. A one term wonder - who would have ever though. I'll clarify here - the poll at Roy Morgan Research had Coalition 50.5, ALP 49.5.

An amazing poll given phoney tony has been in hiding since the election. Not to mention Labor don't even have a leader, maybe they should keep it that way.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

Unless Abbott can turn this economy around he'll be out in 1 term.

I am willing to put money on the economy being in worse shape come the next election compered to the one we just had.
Unemployment definitely higher.

skippy. wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 11:56am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 11:51am: Unless Abbott can turn this economy around he'll be out in 1 term. I am willing to put money on the economy being in worse shape come the next election compered to the one we just had. Unemployment definitely higher.

There appears to be a terrible shortage of jobs
& employers are getting more & more fussy plus
the pay is lower.
Every business I know is either closing or laying off staff.

Wise One, be vewwy vewwy careful of a big fella named Clive.


Quote:

Media Release Clive Palmer calls for AEC review The federal leader of the Palmer United Party, Clive Palmer, has called for a full review of Australia’s voting system after identifying a number of irregularities. Mr Palmer said the voting system could be improved with a number of changes, and particularly by removing any bias towards the major parties. “With the saturation coverage and speed of information we should not begin counting ballots on the east coast until all polls are closed in Western Australia,” he said. “Clearly voting trends in the West are being influenced by early results in the east and this needs to stop.” “We also need to implement more measures to reduce voter fraud like having all voters register with proper identification and do away with the antiquated pencil and paper system.” Mr Palmer also said the release by the Australian Electoral Commission of two-party preferred results based purely on the previous election was prejudicial to smaller parties, “We need a system and a process that gives smaller parties a fair go,” he said. “The system should not be set-up to ensure we always have the same two horses in the race.” Mr Palmer also said his scrutineers had identified a number of irregularities during counting. “There is abnormal number of informal votes in the count and we want to make sure we are given the opportunity to review all those informal votes,” he said. http://palmerunited.com/policies/

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:28am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:23am: John S wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:11am: I would love to know when the polls go south for Abbott and he becomes unelectable how would the liberal party get rid of him as leader. Some on here were claiming Abbott was unelectable before the election. And the only way the polls will go bad for him is when the opposition become competent. That is the problem when you have the worst possible leader - he may accidentally get elected and you end up with a clown as PM. Stop the boats.

I completely agree, but thankfully it isn't 2007 anymore.  :)

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:16am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:50am: Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:33am: We need to take this with a grain of salt here. This 30,000 figure is based on 15 electorates, which is only one-tenth of the electorates in the country. If all of the electorates are included, the actual number of voters that would need to change their minds with a uniform swing is actually about 300,000. Is this election a landslide? I think so, if we compare this election to past elections and apply consistent criteria. This election is very similar to the 1983 election, both in terms of the 2PP vote and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties. If the 1983 election was considered a landslide, it is fair to consider this election a landslide too. The 2PP swing (3.60%) and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties (60.0%) are both much the same. The 2PP vote is also very similar (1983 = 53.23%, 2013 = 53.40%). I think a fair and objective definition of "landslide" is where the 2PP vote of the winning party is 53% or more, and the winning party wins 60% or more of the seats. On these criteria, 1983 and 2013 are both landslides, although at the low end. thank you for this assessment.  Valley-boy and his ilk always come up with these absurd scenarios that somehow claim Abbott would lose the election and now that he could lose easily. It was a fallacious argument and it was better to be objective. Quote: Perhaps this clown could try and work out that labor got just 34% in primary vote and for them to win requires a swing of at least 4 and probably 5 % which is a huge ask.  To simply pick some marginal  like this is truly embarrassing - but totally in character. The low Labor primary is explained by the rise of another left-wing party, the Greens. The elephant in the room here is that the ALP consistently outpoll the Liberals on the primary vote in election after election (there are very few Federal elections where the Liberals have won the most votes) yet the Liberals have won the majority of these elections. Why? The Nationals. For this reason, the primary vote argument is nonsense. The Liberals have polled primary votes below 40% in many elections that they won. They got 32% at this election. Even though the ALP had a low primary vote due to the Greens, the ALP still won more votes in 2013 than any other party. The ALP have outpolled the Liberals on the primary vote in over a dozen federal elections that the Liberals have won. Yes, the détente that the Liberals have with the Nationals means they don't usually contest the same seats, but if they did contest the same seats the vote for both parties would not change much. So the primary vote argument is rubbish, as it is ignoring the Greens. Australia has not had two strong left-leaning parties before. The conservative vote has always been split between two or more parties going all the way back to Federation and this is not remarked on. Now the progressive vote is split as well suddenly it's so remarkable?

the highlighted its even remotely true.  the Labor vote is down over 4% and the Greens vote is down 3%.  you could however arge that the Liberal vote is artificially low because of the PUP vote taking several percent from them.  But there is no argument that you can make that the Greens are to blame for the low Labor vote and in fact, Ive not read a single analysts even attempting that claim.

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:16am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:50am: Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:33am: We need to take this with a grain of salt here. This 30,000 figure is based on 15 electorates, which is only one-tenth of the electorates in the country. If all of the electorates are included, the actual number of voters that would need to change their minds with a uniform swing is actually about 300,000. Is this election a landslide? I think so, if we compare this election to past elections and apply consistent criteria. This election is very similar to the 1983 election, both in terms of the 2PP vote and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties. If the 1983 election was considered a landslide, it is fair to consider this election a landslide too. The 2PP swing (3.60%) and the percentage of seats won by the winning parties (60.0%) are both much the same. The 2PP vote is also very similar (1983 = 53.23%, 2013 = 53.40%). I think a fair and objective definition of "landslide" is where the 2PP vote of the winning party is 53% or more, and the winning party wins 60% or more of the seats. On these criteria, 1983 and 2013 are both landslides, although at the low end. thank you for this assessment.  Valley-boy and his ilk always come up with these absurd scenarios that somehow claim Abbott would lose the election and now that he could lose easily. It was a fallacious argument and it was better to be objective. Quote: Perhaps this clown could try and work out that labor got just 34% in primary vote and for them to win requires a swing of at least 4 and probably 5 % which is a huge ask.  To simply pick some marginal  like this is truly embarrassing - but totally in character. The low Labor primary is explained by the rise of another left-wing party, the Greens. The elephant in the room here is that the ALP consistently outpoll the Liberals on the primary vote in election after election (there are very few Federal elections where the Liberals have won the most votes) yet the Liberals have won the majority of these elections. Why? The Nationals. For this reason, the primary vote argument is nonsense. The Liberals have polled primary votes below 40% in many elections that they won. They got 32% at this election. Even though the ALP had a low primary vote due to the Greens, the ALP still won more votes in 2013 than any other party. The ALP have outpolled the Liberals on the primary vote in over a dozen federal elections that the Liberals have won. Yes, the détente that the Liberals have with the Nationals means they don't usually contest the same seats, but if they did contest the same seats the vote for both parties would not change much. So the primary vote argument is rubbish, as it is ignoring the Greens. Australia has not had two strong left-leaning parties before. The conservative vote has always been split between two or more parties going all the way back to Federation and this is not remarked on. Now the progressive vote is split as well suddenly it's so remarkable?

that's a remarkable juvenile assessment.  Just to clarify: the ALP is a CENTRE-RIGHT-WING party while the Greens are left-wing.  there is only one left-wing party.

this primary vote for the liberals nonsense is quite silly.  yes the Libs won 32% but you exclude the entire state of QLD with the LNP which adds another 9% making it 41% and that's before you even add the Nats 4.3%.  I know the concept of a coalition seems to confuse you but the fact is that it is a formal and organised coalition that won almost 45% of the vote against Labors 34%.  the greens are not in any kind of coalition with labor and frankly neither wants to be in coalition with the other.

The failing point in all of wise_ones' argument' is that it seeks to ignore the terminally low labor primary vote.  at 34%, Labor is absolutely unelectable.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:56am: Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:43am: wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:05am: So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)    ____ wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:34am: So the Abbott mess could be removed within six months if only Abbott had the ticker and was able to keep a promise. We need to look at history here. I've found in previous studies that convincing election wins (landslides, if you will) are often followed by closer elections due to regression towards the mean. But change of governments don't often happen so soon. We have had very few one-term governments in Australia in the past 50 years. There have been none at Federal level, and even at state level they have been rare. We can hope that Abbott will fall flat on his face, but the electorate will take the reasonable view of letting him do so before passing judgement. So soon after an election, it is best just to wait and see what happens. Don't get personal, but criticise the actions you don't like. The closest to a one-term govt was the Gillard one and the argument could certainly be made that it was in fact a one-term govt followed by a one-term 'arrangement.  Whitlam was two terms but still just 3 years. Howard was lucky more than once and could easily been a 1 term government - he got less than 50% of the vote.

like it or not, he was 1 4 term govt.  Bob Hawke was lucky to get re-elected in 1984 a mere 18months after he won govt.

'could have beens' don't count.

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:15am: There was a morgan poll out 49.5/50.5 already. A one term wonder - who would have ever though. I'll clarify here - the poll at Roy Morgan Research had Coalition 50.5, ALP 49.5.

Morgan... another of those polling groups that specialises in being out by several percent.  we had a very big poll (called a general election) just 2 weeks ago and the result was 53.3/46.7 (around what newspoll and galaxy predicted) and the idea that this would have moved significantly in 2 weeks during nothing of any note has occurred is daft.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 11:52am:

That's 3 goes to get the page to flip.

If you wait someone else will do it for you.

Put me down for 1 - 29,999 left.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:27am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:56am: Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:43am: wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:05am: So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)    ____ wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:34am: So the Abbott mess could be removed within six months if only Abbott had the ticker and was able to keep a promise. We need to look at history here. I've found in previous studies that convincing election wins (landslides, if you will) are often followed by closer elections due to regression towards the mean. But change of governments don't often happen so soon. We have had very few one-term governments in Australia in the past 50 years. There have been none at Federal level, and even at state level they have been rare. We can hope that Abbott will fall flat on his face, but the electorate will take the reasonable view of letting him do so before passing judgement. So soon after an election, it is best just to wait and see what happens. Don't get personal, but criticise the actions you don't like. The closest to a one-term govt was the Gillard one and the argument could certainly be made that it was in fact a one-term govt followed by a one-term 'arrangement.  Whitlam was two terms but still just 3 years. Howard was lucky more than once and could easily been a 1 term government - he got less than 50% of the vote. like it or not, he was 1 4 term govt.  Bob Hawke was lucky to get re-elected in 1984 a mere 18months after he won govt. 'could have beens' don't count.

Bob Hawke was lucky to get re-elected in 1984 1990 was the close one - 84 was almost 52% 2PP.

'could have beens' don't count

Wasn't it your could have beens' that I was commenting on ????

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 11:42am: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:15am: There was a morgan poll out 49.5/50.5 already. A one term wonder - who would have ever though. I'll clarify here - the poll at Roy Morgan Research had Coalition 50.5, ALP 49.5. Morgan... another of those polling groups that specialises in being out by several percent.  we had a very big poll (called a general election) just 2 weeks ago and the result was 53.3/46.7 (around what newspoll and galaxy predicted) and the idea that this would have moved significantly in 2 weeks during nothing of any note has occurred is daft.

Considering that Morgan's pre-election poll was fairly close to the final outcome, this is a puerile and inaccurate assessment.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:27am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:56am: Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:43am: wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:05am: So Mr Abbott may turn out to be, a one term wonder after all.      :)    ____ wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:34am: So the Abbott mess could be removed within six months if only Abbott had the ticker and was able to keep a promise. We need to look at history here. I've found in previous studies that convincing election wins (landslides, if you will) are often followed by closer elections due to regression towards the mean. But change of governments don't often happen so soon. We have had very few one-term governments in Australia in the past 50 years. There have been none at Federal level, and even at state level they have been rare. We can hope that Abbott will fall flat on his face, but the electorate will take the reasonable view of letting him do so before passing judgement. So soon after an election, it is best just to wait and see what happens. Don't get personal, but criticise the actions you don't like. The closest to a one-term govt was the Gillard one and the argument could certainly be made that it was in fact a one-term govt followed by a one-term 'arrangement.  Whitlam was two terms but still just 3 years. Howard was lucky more than once and could easily been a 1 term government - he got less than 50% of the vote. like it or not, he was 1 4 term govt.  Bob Hawke was lucky to get re-elected in 1984 a mere 18months after he won govt. 'could have beens' don't count.

Wake up, time for a reality check.

Howard came damn close to losing in 1998. He won with the lowest 2PP of any election win in the past 50 years, and with a uniform swing he would have lost after one term. Hawke did win four elections - the same number as Howard - and Keating then won again in 1993. Howard was so liked by the electorate in 2007 that he lost his own seat.

flip

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:16am: The low Labor primary is explained by the rise of another left-wing party, the Greens. The elephant in the room here is that the ALP consistently outpoll the Liberals on the primary vote in election after election (there are very few Federal elections where the Liberals have won the most votes) yet the Liberals have won the majority of these elections. Why? The Nationals. For this reason, the primary vote argument is nonsense. The Liberals have polled primary votes below 40% in many elections that they won. They got 32% at this election. Even though the ALP had a low primary vote due to the Greens, the ALP still won more votes in 2013 than any other party. The ALP have outpolled the Liberals on the primary vote in over a dozen federal elections that the Liberals have won. Yes, the détente that the Liberals have with the Nationals means they don't usually contest the same seats, but if they did contest the same seats the vote for both parties would not change much. So the primary vote argument is rubbish, as it is ignoring the Greens. Australia has not had two strong left-leaning parties before. The conservative vote has always been split between two or more parties going all the way back to Federation and this is not remarked on. Now the progressive vote is split as well suddenly it's so remarkable? that's a remarkable juvenile assessment.  Just to clarify: the ALP is a CENTRE-RIGHT-WING party while the Greens are left-wing.  there is only one left-wing party.

Dream on, at least the ALP don't screw the poor over when they get into office, they look after everyone. Not like the useless Liberals that lie through their teeth if they ever claim they would govern for all. They never have, they never will.


Quote:

this primary vote for the liberals nonsense is quite silly.

Good, I'm glad you were paying attention. It was meant to show how silly primary vote arguments were. About 75% of Greens voters preference the ALP ahead of the Coalition, voters for independents are about evenly split, and even a significant minority of voters for right-leaning minor parties preference the ALP before the Coalition.

No doubt clueless Coalition voters will keep on rabbiting on about the ALP primary vote, while ignoring the fact that 2013 isn't 1993. More than 21% of voters voted for a minor party, the highest ever recorded at a Federal election. Those primary votes had to come from somewhere, and they came from both sides.


Quote:

yes the Libs won 32% but you exclude the entire state of QLD with the LNP which adds another 9% making it 41% and that's before you even add the Nats 4.3%.  I know the concept of a coalition seems to confuse you but the fact is that it is a formal and organised coalition that won almost 45% of the vote against Labors 34%.  the greens are not in any kind of coalition with labor and frankly neither wants to be in coalition with the other.

The concept of a Coalition doesn't confuse me at all, but the idea that primary vote doesn't matter that much is something that you clearly fail to understand. Even 2PP isn't that important. Since the war the ALP have lost about four elections despite leading on the 2PP vote. Examples: 1969, 1998, 1961 ...


Quote:

The failing point in all of wise_ones' argument' is that it seeks to ignore the terminally low labor primary vote.  at 34%, Labor is absolutely unelectable.

Now you're being quite hysterical. "Terminal"? Sounds like you've been drinking. Do you really think the ALP will not win another election? You're in for a shock when the ALP next smash the Coalition in an election. It will be sooner than you think. Victoria, next year. Watch and learn what happens when scandal-plagued weak Coalition governments meet a strong ALP opposition. Yes, it is a state government, but it is also a first-term Coalition state government that is in a lot of trouble.

Labor lowest primary votes in 100 years - enough said

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:06pm:

Howard came damn close to losing in 1998. He won with the lowest 2PP of any election win in the past 50 years, and with a uniform swing he would have lost after one term. Hawke did win four elections - the same number as Howard - and Keating then won again in 1993. Howard was so liked by the electorate in 2007 that he lost his own seat.

Howard was so liked by the electorate in 2007 that he lost his own seat.


Yes I remember that now, I saw him down at IKEA early the next morning.

John Smith wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:07pm:

flip

Is it that you don't like the suspense or you don't think a lot of Bam ???

Maqqa wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:48am:

Labor lowest primary votes in 100 years - enough said

Again, the Reich make with the useless arguments.

If you think it is that important, answer this: Is this the election where the ALP won the smallest percentage of seats in the House? Yes or no?

Bam wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:48am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 12:48am: Labor lowest primary votes in 100 years - enough said Again, the Reich make with the useless arguments. If you think it is that important, answer this: Is this the election where the ALP won the smallest percentage of seats in the House? Yes or no?

And even with the lowest primary vote in 100 yrs a small swing will mean the end of Phony Tony... ;D
That says a lot for the Mad Monk  ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

What a dopey dopey thread. It is an embarrasment to be in the political section. Do we have a dopey sour grapes section.

It's a very interesting position. Not sure why you want to avoid discussing it. It's a shame you're not a strategist for the Libs. It would be nice to think they're oblivious to this electoral weakness. I'm sure the anticipated pork barrelling in these electorates will tell us otherwise.

MOTR wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:26am: What a dopey dopey thread. It is an embarrasment to be in the political section. Do we have a dopey sour grapes section. It's a very interesting position. Not sure why you want to avoid discussing it. It's a shame you're not a strategist for the Libs. It would be nice to think they're oblivious to this electoral weakness. I'm sure the anticipated pork barrelling in these electorates will tell us otherwise.

I'm not convinced of this "electoral weakness" argument. It's still an average of about 2,000 voters in 15 marginal seats. The ALP's position after the 2010 election was less than 3,000 voters, TOTAL, and furthermore the Coalition were handed two seats on a plate with the retirement of two rural independents. In terms of electoral vulnerability, the ALP headed into the 2013 election with the weakest electoral position of any government since the second world war, and were the only government since that time that needed to gain seats to retain power.

Going by number of seats, the Coalition's position is stronger than their position after the 2004 election when they controlled both Houses, and also 2001, 1998 and 1980.

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 8:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 11:42am: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:15am: There was a morgan poll out 49.5/50.5 already. A one term wonder - who would have ever though. I'll clarify here - the poll at Roy Morgan Research had Coalition 50.5, ALP 49.5. Morgan... another of those polling groups that specialises in being out by several percent.  we had a very big poll (called a general election) just 2 weeks ago and the result was 53.3/46.7 (around what newspoll and galaxy predicted) and the idea that this would have moved significantly in 2 weeks during nothing of any note has occurred is daft. Considering that Morgan's pre-election poll was fairly close to the final outcome, this is a puerile and inaccurate assessment.

once it is a couple days from the election they do mysteriously manage to arrive at the figure newspoll and galaxy have been at all along.  but apart from that they do seem to be rather a long way off.  and since the election was only two weeks ago and honeymoons are real events the likelihood of the Libs slipping 3% is very close to nil.  And that is probably who nobody is taking any notice - not even Labor.  It is crap and everybody knows it.

Bam wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 8:25pm: Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:16am: The low Labor primary is explained by the rise of another left-wing party, the Greens. The elephant in the room here is that the ALP consistently outpoll the Liberals on the primary vote in election after election (there are very few Federal elections where the Liberals have won the most votes) yet the Liberals have won the majority of these elections. Why? The Nationals. For this reason, the primary vote argument is nonsense. The Liberals have polled primary votes below 40% in many elections that they won. They got 32% at this election. Even though the ALP had a low primary vote due to the Greens, the ALP still won more votes in 2013 than any other party. The ALP have outpolled the Liberals on the primary vote in over a dozen federal elections that the Liberals have won. Yes, the détente that the Liberals have with the Nationals means they don't usually contest the same seats, but if they did contest the same seats the vote for both parties would not change much. So the primary vote argument is rubbish, as it is ignoring the Greens. Australia has not had two strong left-leaning parties before. The conservative vote has always been split between two or more parties going all the way back to Federation and this is not remarked on. Now the progressive vote is split as well suddenly it's so remarkable? that's a remarkable juvenile assessment.  Just to clarify: the ALP is a CENTRE-RIGHT-WING party while the Greens are left-wing.  there is only one left-wing party. Dream on, at least the ALP don't screw the poor over when they get into office, they look after everyone. Not like the useless Liberals that lie through their teeth if they ever claim they would govern for all. They never have, they never will. Quote: this primary vote for the liberals nonsense is quite silly. Good, I'm glad you were paying attention. It was meant to show how silly primary vote arguments were. About 75% of Greens voters preference the ALP ahead of the Coalition, voters for independents are about evenly split, and even a significant minority of voters for right-leaning minor parties preference the ALP before the Coalition. No doubt clueless Coalition voters will keep on rabbiting on about the ALP primary vote, while ignoring the fact that 2013 isn't 1993. More than 21% of voters voted for a minor party, the highest ever recorded at a Federal election. Those primary votes had to come from somewhere, and they came from both sides. [quote]yes the Libs won 32% but you exclude the entire state of QLD with the LNP which adds another 9% making it 41% and that's before you even add the Nats 4.3%.  I know the concept of a coalition seems to confuse you but the fact is that it is a formal and organised coalition that won almost 45% of the vote against Labors 34%.  the greens are not in any kind of coalition with labor and frankly neither wants to be in coalition with the other.

The concept of a Coalition doesn't confuse me at all, but the idea that primary vote doesn't matter that much is something that you clearly fail to understand. Even 2PP isn't that important. Since the war the ALP have lost about four elections despite leading on the 2PP vote. Examples: 1969, 1998, 1961 ...


Quote:

The failing point in all of wise_ones' argument' is that it seeks to ignore the terminally low labor primary vote.  at 34%, Labor is absolutely unelectable.

Now you're being quite hysterical. "Terminal"? Sounds like you've been drinking. Do you really think the ALP will not win another election? You're in for a shock when the ALP next smash the Coalition in an election. It will be sooner than you think. Victoria, next year. Watch and learn what happens when scandal-plagued weak Coalition governments meet a strong ALP opposition. Yes, it is a state government, but it is also a first-term Coalition state government that is in a lot of trouble.[/quote]


your hysteria is rather telling.  the point is that Labors vote is at a record low.  You don't think that is of some very significant concern?  that have to get 5% more to even be able to COMPETE against the Libs.  Now you are just getting silly.  Federal Labor is divided and as long as Rudd remains you know there will be leadership uncertainty and that is on top of a party that is determined to retain the very unpopular carbon tax as its policy.  It is doing everything wrong and if 1996 was an example, they will take years to even get over their loss.

Bam wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:48am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 12:48am: Labor lowest primary votes in 100 years - enough said Again, the Reich make with the useless arguments. If you think it is that important, answer this: Is this the election where the ALP won the smallest percentage of seats in the House? Yes or no?

and THAT folks, is the level of denial that will keep the ALP in opposition a long time.

Bam wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 9:29am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:26am: What a dopey dopey thread. It is an embarrasment to be in the political section. Do we have a dopey sour grapes section. It's a very interesting position. Not sure why you want to avoid discussing it. It's a shame you're not a strategist for the Libs. It would be nice to think they're oblivious to this electoral weakness. I'm sure the anticipated pork barrelling in these electorates will tell us otherwise. I'm not convinced of this "electoral weakness" argument. It's still an average of about 2,000 voters in 15 marginal seats. The ALP's position after the 2010 election was less than 3,000 voters, TOTAL, and furthermore the Coalition were handed two seats on a plate with the retirement of two rural independents. In terms of electoral vulnerability, the ALP headed into the 2013 election with the weakest electoral position of any government since the second world war, and were the only government since that time that needed to gain seats to retain power. Going by number of seats, the Coalition's position is stronger than their position after the 2004 election when they controlled both Houses, and also 2001, 1998 and 1980.

That was a good post.  You should stick to facts as you do that well.  Hysteria however, you do poorly.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:49am:

Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 8:25pm: [quote]The failing point in all of wise_ones' argument' is that it seeks to ignore the terminally low labor primary vote.  at 34%, Labor is absolutely unelectable. Now you're being quite hysterical. "Terminal"? Sounds like you've been drinking. Do you really think the ALP will not win another election? You're in for a shock when the ALP next smash the Coalition in an election. It will be sooner than you think. Victoria, next year. Watch and learn what happens when scandal-plagued weak Coalition governments meet a strong ALP opposition. Yes, it is a state government, but it is also a first-term Coalition state government that is in a lot of trouble. your hysteria is rather telling.  the point is that Labors vote is at a record low.  You don't think that is of some very significant concern?  that have to get 5% more to even be able to COMPETE against the Libs.  Now you are just getting silly.  Federal Labor is divided and as long as Rudd remains you know there will be leadership uncertainty and that is on top of a party that is determined to retain the very unpopular carbon tax as its policy.  It is doing everything wrong and if 1996 was an example, they will take years to even get over their loss.

Haven't you been paying attention? Have you learned nothing at all?

Here's some facts. I'll compare some election results to show why this primary vote argument for the ALP vote is a lot of rubbish. Seats won are given as a percentage of the seats won (which varies due to changing numbers of seats in the Parliament) and rounded to the nearest whole number.

First comparison.
1980 Federal election: ALP Primary = 45%, Seats won = 41%. ALP election loss.
2007 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 55%. ALP election win.

Now for another comparison:
1966 Federal election: ALP Primary = 40%, Seats won = 33%. Heavy ALP election loss.
2010 Federal election: ALP Primary = 38%, Seats won = 48%. Hung parliament with ALP minority government.

Learning anything yet?

And here's another comparison.
1975 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 28%. Heavy ALP election loss.
2007 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 55%. ALP election win.

And a comparison that shows how recently this shift has taken place:
1996 Federal election: ALP Primary = 39%, Seats won = 33%. ALP election loss.
2010 Federal election: ALP Primary = 38%, Seats won = 48%. Hung parliament with ALP minority government.

That's why this argument about the ALP primary vote is a lot of rubbish. The ALP can now win government (and they have actually done so) with a level of primary votes that in the past produced election defeats so heavy that the Liberal party had a majority of seats in their own right.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

Bam wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:48am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 12:48am: Labor lowest primary votes in 100 years - enough said Again, the Reich make with the useless arguments. If you think it is that important, answer this: Is this the election where the ALP won the smallest percentage of seats in the House? Yes or no? and THAT folks, is the level of denial that will keep the ALP in opposition a long time.

The only one in denial is you. You cannot yet grasp the fact that the ALP can now win elections with a much lower primary vote than in the past. They have already done so.

PRIMARY VOTE IS RUBBISH. It is the two-party preferred vote that is a far better indicator of election outcomes.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

Bam wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:48am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 12:48am: Labor lowest primary votes in 100 years - enough said Again, the Reich make with the useless arguments. If you think it is that important, answer this: Is this the election where the ALP won the smallest percentage of seats in the House? Yes or no? and THAT folks, is the level of denial that will keep the ALP in opposition a long time.

;D...Can Tony Abbott stay in hiding for the whole three years?  ;D

Bam wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 9:49am: Bam wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 10:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 8:25pm: [quote]The failing point in all of wise_ones' argument' is that it seeks to ignore the terminally low labor primary vote.  at 34%, Labor is absolutely unelectable. Now you're being quite hysterical. "Terminal"? Sounds like you've been drinking. Do you really think the ALP will not win another election? You're in for a shock when the ALP next smash the Coalition in an election. It will be sooner than you think. Victoria, next year. Watch and learn what happens when scandal-plagued weak Coalition governments meet a strong ALP opposition. Yes, it is a state government, but it is also a first-term Coalition state government that is in a lot of trouble. your hysteria is rather telling.  the point is that Labors vote is at a record low.  You don't think that is of some very significant concern?  that have to get 5% more to even be able to COMPETE against the Libs.  Now you are just getting silly.  Federal Labor is divided and as long as Rudd remains you know there will be leadership uncertainty and that is on top of a party that is determined to retain the very unpopular carbon tax as its policy.  It is doing everything wrong and if 1996 was an example, they will take years to even get over their loss. Haven't you been paying attention? Have you learned nothing at all? Here's some facts. I'll compare some election results to show why this primary vote argument for the ALP vote is a lot of rubbish. Seats won are given as a percentage of the seats won (which varies due to changing numbers of seats in the Parliament) and rounded to the nearest whole number. First comparison. 1980 Federal election: ALP Primary = 45%, Seats won = 41%. ALP election loss. 2007 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 55%. ALP election win. Now for another comparison: 1966 Federal election: ALP Primary = 40%, Seats won = 33%. Heavy ALP election loss. 2010 Federal election: ALP Primary = 38%, Seats won = 48%. Hung parliament with ALP minority government. Learning anything yet? And here's another comparison. 1975 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 28%. Heavy ALP election loss. 2007 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 55%. ALP election win. And a comparison that shows how recently this shift has taken place: 1996 Federal election: ALP Primary = 39%, Seats won = 33%. ALP election loss. 2010 Federal election: ALP Primary = 38%, Seats won = 48%. Hung parliament with ALP minority government. That's why this argument about the ALP primary vote is a lot of rubbish. The ALP can now win government (and they have actually done so) with a level of primary votes that in the past produced election defeats so heavy that the Liberal party had a majority of seats in their own right.

such delusion, pebbles!!  While you have produced some cherry-picked data to show that the primary vote doesn't always correlate to seats won  - which is news to absolutely no one - you seem to ignore that labor got just 34% of the vote.  Even the ALP is not as deluded as you to think that a primary vote in the 30s is a place for winning govt. 

Your data is deeply flawed an as an example 2007/1975.  in 1975 the coalition gained 53% of the primary vote which meant that they gained a huge number of seats on primary alone. This was an election with no significant third party in play where just 4% of votes didn't go to the ALP or coalition.  IN 2007 the ALP got the same primary vote but faced off against the coalition with just 42% and the ALP effectively gained 7% from strong Green preference flows.

You are attempting to compare apples with oranges.  If you want to make a point find a govt that won with a primary in the 30s...  you will find none other than Gillard which given that two conservative seats changed sides, proves nothing.

a party with a primary in the 30s is UNELECTABLE.

Bam wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 9:50am: Bam wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:48am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 12:48am: Labor lowest primary votes in 100 years - enough said Again, the Reich make with the useless arguments. If you think it is that important, answer this: Is this the election where the ALP won the smallest percentage of seats in the House? Yes or no? and THAT folks, is the level of denial that will keep the ALP in opposition a long time. The only one in denial is you. You cannot yet grasp the fact that the ALP can now win elections with a much lower primary vote than in the past. They have already done so. PRIMARY VOTE IS RUBBISH. It is the two-party preferred vote that is a far better indicator of election outcomes.

ONLY if preferences flow to labor.  The greens are already on their descent to irrelevancy and the other minor parties are not helping out.  It is rather amazing Pebbles, to watch you trying to tell us how Labor can be elected and deserves govt on the basis of a very very low primary vote.  It makes you look silly and delusional.

Polls at this stage are incredibly meaningless.

However, if the Morgan was to be believed, where the hell is Tony's honeymoon?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

Bam wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 10:14am: Haven't you been paying attention? Have you learned nothing at all? Here's some facts. I'll compare some election results to show why this primary vote argument for the ALP vote is a lot of rubbish. Seats won are given as a percentage of the seats won (which varies due to changing numbers of seats in the Parliament) and rounded to the nearest whole number. First comparison. 1980 Federal election: ALP Primary = 45%, Seats won = 41%. ALP election loss. 2007 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 55%. ALP election win. Now for another comparison: 1966 Federal election: ALP Primary = 40%, Seats won = 33%. Heavy ALP election loss. 2010 Federal election: ALP Primary = 38%, Seats won = 48%. Hung parliament with ALP minority government. Learning anything yet? And here's another comparison. 1975 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 28%. Heavy ALP election loss. 2007 Federal election: ALP Primary = 43%, Seats won = 55%. ALP election win. And a comparison that shows how recently this shift has taken place: 1996 Federal election: ALP Primary = 39%, Seats won = 33%. ALP election loss. 2010 Federal election: ALP Primary = 38%, Seats won = 48%. Hung parliament with ALP minority government. That's why this argument about the ALP primary vote is a lot of rubbish. The ALP can now win government (and they have actually done so) with a level of primary votes that in the past produced election defeats so heavy that the Liberal party had a majority of seats in their own right. such delusion, pebbles!!  While you have produced some cherry-picked data to show that the primary vote doesn't always correlate to seats won  - which is news to absolutely no one - you seem to ignore that labor got just 34% of the vote.  Even the ALP is not as deluded as you to think that a primary vote in the 30s is a place for winning govt.

Do I have to beat you over the head with more facts? Even if I did, you would still be raving on even when it is patently obvious that you've lost this discussion. The minor parties have been taking a much greater share of the vote in the past fifty years, it's well known. If you're too set in your ways to realise this when it's shown to you, that's your problem.

And of course, you have offered not a single piece of evidence to back up your point. You just keep beating the same dead horse while wilfully ignoring the vast body of evidence that show the times have changed.


Quote:

Your data is deeply flawed an as an example 2007/1975.  in 1975 the coalition gained 53% of the primary vote which meant that they gained a huge number of seats on primary alone. This was an election with no significant third party in play where just 4% of votes didn't go to the ALP or coalition.  IN 2007 the ALP got the same primary vote but faced off against the coalition with just 42% and the ALP effectively gained 7% from strong Green preference flows.

So you're saying the data is "deeply flawed". Now you're arguing about "preference flows". Yet YOU were the one that was raving on endlessly about "primary vote" and still raving on even when it's been decisively shown to you that the political climate has shifted in the past 50 years.  You can't have it both ways.

You're so desperately hysterical that you're using the same argument I used a few days ago.


Quote:

You are attempting to compare apples with oranges.  If you want to make a point find a govt that won with a primary in the 30s...  you will find none other than Gillard which given that two conservative seats changed sides, proves nothing.

The only one not comparing like with like is you, by only insisting on looking at the primary vote while quite intentionally ignoring 2PP except when it suits you.

Every one of my comparisons looked at the ALP primary vote. Every one of my comparisons showed the election outcome.

They were selected slightly to highlight the contrast, but I could present the figures for every single election for the last 50 years and they would show the same very clear trend.

1966 - ALP Primary 40%, ALP 2PP 43%. Difference: 3%.
1969 - ALP Primary 47%, ALP 2PP 50%. Difference: 3%.
1972 - ALP Primary 50%, ALP 2PP 53%. Difference: 3%.
1974 - ALP Primary 49%, ALP 2PP 52%. Difference: 3%.
1975 - ALP Primary 43%, ALP 2PP 44%. Difference: 1%.
1977 - ALP Primary 40%, ALP 2PP 45%. Difference: 5%.
1980 - ALP Primary 45%, ALP 2PP 50%. Difference: 5%.
1983 - ALP Primary 49%, ALP 2PP 53%. Difference: 4%.
1984 - ALP Primary 48%, ALP 2PP 52%. Difference: 4%.
1987 - ALP Primary 46%, ALP 2PP 51%. Difference: 5%.
1990 - ALP Primary 39%, ALP 2PP 50%. Difference: 11%.
1993 - ALP Primary 45%, ALP 2PP 51%. Difference: 6%.
1996 - ALP Primary 39%, ALP 2PP 46%. Difference: 7%.
1998 - ALP Primary 40%, ALP 2PP 51%. Difference: 11%.
2001 - ALP Primary 38%, ALP 2PP 49%. Difference: 11%.
2004 - ALP Primary 38%, ALP 2PP 47%. Difference: 9%.
2007 - ALP Primary 43%, ALP 2PP 53%. Difference: 10%.
2010 - ALP Primary 38%, ALP 2PP 50%. Difference: 12%.
2013 - ALP Primary 33%, ALP 2PP 47%. Difference: 14%.

The preference flows from third parties to the ALP has increased from about 3% to 14% over the past fifty years. If the ALP got 1983's 49% primary vote with 14% preference flows, the Coalition would be reduced to 27 seats.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

Bam wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 10:17am: The only one in denial is you. You cannot yet grasp the fact that the ALP can now win elections with a much lower primary vote than in the past. They have already done so. PRIMARY VOTE IS RUBBISH. It is the two-party preferred vote that is a far better indicator of election outcomes. ONLY if preferences flow to labor.  The greens are already on their descent to irrelevancy and the other minor parties are not helping out.  It is rather amazing Pebbles, to watch you trying to tell us how Labor can be elected and deserves govt on the basis of a very very low primary vote.  It makes you look silly and delusional.

Gee, delusional much, LW? Preference flows to the ALP INCREASED from 12% in 2010 to 14% in 2013 despite the Greens' vote declining from 12% to 9%.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:25pm:

Polls at this stage are incredibly meaningless. However, if the Morgan was to be believed, where the hell is Tony's honeymoon?

which is of course another reason to disbelieve it.  incoming govts ALWAYS get a honeymoon.  Even Rudd mk2 got a 10% bump and a honeymoon.  The poll is crap

Bam wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 11:41am: Bam wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 10:17am: The only one in denial is you. You cannot yet grasp the fact that the ALP can now win elections with a much lower primary vote than in the past. They have already done so. PRIMARY VOTE IS RUBBISH. It is the two-party preferred vote that is a far better indicator of election outcomes. ONLY if preferences flow to labor.  The greens are already on their descent to irrelevancy and the other minor parties are not helping out.  It is rather amazing Pebbles, to watch you trying to tell us how Labor can be elected and deserves govt on the basis of a very very low primary vote.  It makes you look silly and delusional. Gee, delusional much, LW? Preference flows to the ALP INCREASED from 12% in 2010 to 14% in 2013 despite the Greens' vote declining from 12% to 9%.

which proves my point, Pebbles!  even with INCREASED preference flows, Labor still got killed.  And they were massacred because they had an extremely poor primary vote.  Like it or not - and you clearly don't like it - without a healthy primary vote, labor cannot win govt and 34% is a very sick primary vote indeed.

you are so desperate to pretend that the ALP hasn't been hammered that your otherwise obvious intelligence is being clouded.  the ALP's ONLY way back to government is a 40%+ primary vote.  Please, please offer your services to the ALP as a strategic advisor.  They will be unelectable for decades!