Latte Labor

[Rik E Boy]

LABOUR on all fronts both STATE and FEDERALLY have absolutely NO FARGEN IDEA!!!!!!!!!

THEY SHOULD HAVE HOWARD AND THE other LIBERALS BY THE BALLS AT THE MOMENT, but because they are UNEDUCATED FARGWITS we all suffer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Er..just fill me on this one mt. Who exactly are the Liberal Premiers again??

regards,

REB

what i am saying is that LABOR is screwed FEDERALLY and they arent doing a very good job at STATE LEVEL either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The purpose of democracy is to get elected and they have done just that mt.

regards,

REB

[PhilG]

..

[mal]

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN A POLITICIAN LIES?
WHEN HE MOVES HIS LIPS.

[am Bays]

Poles, schmoles. the only one that counts is the one at the end. in my election people kept saying to me - "i've voted for ya, you have heaps of votes coming in JB. i didn't get excited until my name was announced.

Hardly the best comparison, JB! Polls are guides, and usually pretty good ones. The Victorian election result bears that one out.

You meant the Morgan Gallop (I think it was or the AC Neilsen) poll on the Friday before the 2001 election that had Labor winning........

FWIW Phil the Labor Party will win seats this election between 8-12 they'll get close but not enough to win Govt.....

Too much ground to make up, If Labor is serious about winning it will recruit John Howard as noone in this country knows more about teh Labor part and its traditional electorate than he does only have to look at the traditional Labor hartland seats of Western Sydney that are now held by the Liberal party or are marginal Labour.....

Actually i was wrong you do need 16 seats to win, 5.3 % swing (more than Howard got in 1996) as 76 seats are required to win govt not 74 as i forgot about the independants you might get the support of the Calare and New England independants but I'm not sure about Katter (Kennedy).....

[topsywaldron]

FWIW I'm not Rudd's biggest fan, his right wing of the Labor Party isn't too far removed from the Liberal Party, but I'm fairly sure even Kevin wouldn't illegaly invade another country, help Australia increase its greenhouse gas output, be party to paying a dictator $300M to buy bullets to shoot at our own troops, incarcerate our own citizens in detention centres, encourage foreign powers to do the same in their detention camps, make the single most savage attack on working class Australia ever seen, attempt to get nuclear reactors placed in each capital city, ensure that the economy went into a boom bust cycle with attendant interest rate spikes, stack the board of the Federal Reserve bank with large donors to his own party, oversee the dramatic downturn in skills and education investment in Australia and that's about all I can fit into this sentence.

Kevin will get my vote.

[Wedgie]

I'm fairly sure even Kevin wouldn't illegaly invade another country, help Australia increase its greenhouse gas output, be party to paying a dictator $300M to buy bullets to shoot at our own troops, incarcerate our own citizens in detention centres, encourage foreign powers to do the same in their detention camps, make the single most savage attack on working class Australia ever seen, attempt to get nuclear reactors placed in each capital city, ensure that the economy went into a boom bust cycle with attendant interest rate spikes, stack the board of the Federal Reserve bank with large donors to his own party, oversee the dramatic downturn in skills and education investment in Australia and that's about all I can fit into this sentence.

Bugger!
He's lost my vote.

[redandblack]

1980TM, your argument about the swing required for Labor to win govenment would be very persuasive if it wasn't for the fact that it's wrong.

The uniform swing required is 3.3%, not 5.3%. A swing of 5.3% would give the ALP nearly 53% of the vote and even in this democracy, they only need nearly 51% to win.

Before the boundaries were altered recently, they would have needed 4.4%.

Source: Mackerras Pendulum.

[am Bays]

1980TM, your argument about the swing required for Labor to win govenment would be very persuasive if it wasn't for the fact that it's wrong.

The uniform swing required is 3.3%, not 5.3%. A swing of 5.3% would give the ALP nearly 53% of the vote and even in this democracy, they only need nearly 51% to win.

Before the boundaries were altered recently, they would have needed 4.4%.

Source: Mackerras Pendulum.

Are you assuming the independants are all going to side with Labor to form governement????

However I'll go check you source after the redistribution as I have been quoting 2004 election result figures.

However as you and I both know Wakefield was nominally Labor afeter the 2003 redistribution but ended up Liberal after election night 2004

What I will conceed is that Labor have the election platform to create a genuine alternative to the Coalition next year which does give them a good chance of getting a sizeable swing but will it be enough.....

[redandblack]

TM, no I'm not assuming that any one of the independents would support Labor, as I'm sure they wouldn't.

Labor scored 47.3% of the 2 part preferred vote last election. Mackerras factors in the independents in detail in his analysis and I'm happy to accept his calculation of 3.3% as the swing required.

If it was 5.3%, then Labor would require 52.6% to 47.4% to win. The Electoral Commission is there to see that this sort of imbalance doesnt happen.

[redandblack]

I'm fairly sure even Kevin wouldn't illegaly invade another country, help Australia increase its greenhouse gas output, be party to paying a dictator $300M to buy bullets to shoot at our own troops, incarcerate our own citizens in detention centres, encourage foreign powers to do the same in their detention camps, make the single most savage attack on working class Australia ever seen, attempt to get nuclear reactors placed in each capital city, ensure that the economy went into a boom bust cycle with attendant interest rate spikes, stack the board of the Federal Reserve bank with large donors to his own party, oversee the dramatic downturn in skills and education investment in Australia and that's about all I can fit into this sentence.

Bugger!
He's lost my vote.

I reckon John's got your vote locked in, unless Coorong stands

[RustyCage]

1980TM, your argument about the swing required for Labor to win govenment would be very persuasive if it wasn't for the fact that it's wrong.

The uniform swing required is 3.3%, not 5.3%. A swing of 5.3% would give the ALP nearly 53% of the vote and even in this democracy, they only need nearly 51% to win.

Before the boundaries were altered recently, they would have needed 4.4%.

Source: Mackerras Pendulum.

Are you assuming the independants are all going to side with Labor to form governement????

However I'll go check you source after the redistribution as I have been quoting 2004 election result figures.

However as you and I both know Wakefield was nominally Labor afeter the 2003 redistribution but ended up Liberal after election night 2004

What I will conceed is that Labor have the election platform to create a genuine alternative to the Coalition next year which does give them a good chance of getting a sizeable swing but will it be enough.....

Don't think the Libs will win Makin next year after the Draper crap we went through last year. Tony Zappia ran against her and got closer than has been achieved in a few elections, but won't be standing again after just being re elected as Mayor of Salisbury a few weeks back. Id like to see Jack Snelling go into fed politics, he wins Playford in the State elections with a HUGE majority every time, and even though Playford is only a smallish part of Makin, I think he'd be in with a shot.

[PhilG]

..

[mick]

I'm fairly sure even Kevin wouldn't illegaly invade another country, help Australia increase its greenhouse gas output, be party to paying a dictator $300M to buy bullets to shoot at our own troops, incarcerate our own citizens in detention centres, encourage foreign powers to do the same in their detention camps, make the single most savage attack on working class Australia ever seen, attempt to get nuclear reactors placed in each capital city, ensure that the economy went into a boom bust cycle with attendant interest rate spikes, stack the board of the Federal Reserve bank with large donors to his own party, oversee the dramatic downturn in skills and education investment in Australia and that's about all I can fit into this sentence.

Bugger!
He's lost my vote.

Good work, Topsy! Wasn't that hard was it?

Believe me, Tassie, if all of the above gets a proper airing - we'll get that 5.3% swing you were debunking.

A lot of voters don't give a shit about most of these issues(because they don't affect them personally, ie. Iraq and Hicks)people are selfish so long as the economy is going well, nothing will change. The drought could be difficult for JWH, Australia could go into recession, on the other hand interest rates may go down. If we have a reasonable winter in 2007 andther's a couple of interest rate drops then I'd put my money on JWH. The shine will have gone off the academic Mr Rudd (even though I would never vote for his party he seems like a decent honourable person) and the ex student lefty (people like this are the primary reason I never vote labor, I saw these bastards waste my student union fees in the 70s and 80s). Howard will break Menzies record as the longest serving PM.

[PhilG]

..

[Wedgie]

Im going to vote for Labour because I want no child living in poverty by 1990.

[PhilG]

..

[Wedgie]

Thanks for reminding us of that, Wedgie!

And I'm going to vote Liberal because there will NEVER EVER be a GST.

Geez, I'd vote Labour if that was the case as I was all for a GST, just wish it got in its original format as opposed to the watered down version the bleeding hearts forced upon us.

[am Bays]

If it was 5.3%, then Labor would require 52.6% to 47.4% to win. The Electoral Commission is there to see that this sort of imbalance doesnt happen.

Correct I'm not suggesting that you would need a 5.3 percent uniform swing I'm suggesting that you need a 5.3 or as Mackerra has demonstrated a 3.3 % swing in the key marginals to gain government.

FWIW I have grave doubts that Solomon (Full of defence force personal earning $180 a day active service allowance on behalf of the govts policies, Territorians normally vote agaisnt the "state" govt in federal elections and Tollners incumbency), Eden Monaro Gary Nairn has demonstrated at the last 3 elections he can hold on to a marginal seat (incubancy as you know is a big factor and Bennelong (JWH seat) will fall and they as Mackerras has pointed out are must win seats.

PAFC I think you are right Makin will go to Labor next election as Draper is standing down.

This time like the last election cycle Labor were in the lead in the polls, the best spruiker/campaigner hasn't started yet so expect spin agaisnt the Labor and the Union campaign to start in earnest later next year.

As I said I expect the coalition to lose seats next election, I just don't think it will be enough to lose government, we will lose control of the senate, which won't be a bad thing....

2010 will be a different matter though....

As a Liberal voter there are things about this government that i do not like, such as some aspects of the IR laws specifically teh reduction in power of the IR Commission the the right of choice to collectively bargain if a group of employees want to, should also have the right not to if they do not want to.....

But it doesn't make me want to change my vote, not that my vote will make one iota of difference as I live in the most marginal Coalition electorate, Mallee, so John Forest is a shoe in!!!!

[redandblack]

TM, I don't want to labour the point (if you'll pardon the pun), but you are still wrong.

Mackerras doesn't say Labor will need a 3.3 % swing in the marginals, he is saying that in a nationwide swing of 3.3%, they will win enough seats to form govenment. 5.3% is a totally irrelevant figure and means nothing.

In a swing of 3.3%, some of the seats requiring a smaller swing will be still held, whereas some requiring a larger swing will be lost, but that is the swing required to win. If Labor get a 5.3% swing, they'll bolt in with plenty of seats to spare. It is possible for Labor to win with a slightly smaller swing and lose with a slightly larger swing, but 3.3% is the figure generally required.

Mackerras is the originator of the 2-party preferred voting analysis in Australia and his pendulum is recognised as the benchmark for electoral predictions.

Even though I think you're wrong, I'm enjoying the discussion

[am Bays]

Mackerras doesn't say Labor will need a 3.3 % swing in the marginals, he is saying that in a nationwide swing of 3.3%, they will win enough seats to form govenment. 5.3% is a totally irrelevant figure and means nothing.

R&B Like you I'm enjoying this discussion....

Agreed the 5.3 % figure is meaningless now the redistribution has occurred as i said I was going off 2004 election night figures.

Agreed a 3.3 % nationwide swing based on the redistribution, will in most circumstances see a change of government but doesn't guarantee it.

As pointed out on the ozpolitics site where they go quite indepth on the mackerras pendulum a nationwide 3.3% swing wont necessarily guarantee Labor govt because if the swings in say (for example) Bradden, Bennilong, Eden Monaro , Wentworth etc are less than 2% they'll stay in the Coalition hands however if there are swings to Labor in its seats and in the safe Coalition marginals of up to 4% but not enough to make them go to Labor the nationwide swing to labor will be could be 3.3% but still not enough to win govt as the required swings did not occur in the key marginals.

This is what happened in 1987 where the Coalition actually got the required national swing and on a two party preferred basis the result of 1987 was L/NP 50.3 and the ALP 49.7, but the required swings did not occur in the key Labor marginals, however there was a strong swing to the Coalition in some of the the safe Labor seats and the seats already held by the L/NP so Hawke maintained the keys to the Lodge.

I'll stand corrcted on the exact two party preferred result but I remember reading it in the Bulletin how the Coalition actualy received more of the two-party preferred vote in 1987.

Upshot expect some serious electioneering in the marginals next year and the odd bit of pork barrelling