Latte Labor

[scoob]

[quote="topsywaldron"]help Australia increase its greenhouse gas output....attempt to get nuclear reactors placed in each capital city.

quote]

sometimes you cant win...

[redandblack]

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

We're getting closer

However, for every seat the coalition might hold, even though the swing required is less than 3.3%, there will be one that's lost when more than 3.3% is required. Also, before the redistribution, the swing required was 4.4%, not 5.3%.

The other advantage the Coalition has is that (I think) it's only ever lost once after receiving more votes. The ALP has lost many times when it's gained more votes, due to the boundaries.

As for pork-barrelling, you're right, the current Government has made it an art form.

[am Bays]

However, for every seat the coalition might hold, even though the swing required is less than 3.3%, there will be one that's lost when more than 3.3% is required. Also, before the redistribution, the swing required was 4.4%, not 5.3%.

Not necessarily in the seats where a 5% swing is required the ALP could get 4% swing but still lose..

Hey they could get a 20% swing in my seat (unlikely) but they'll still lose it...

The point I'm trying to make is that if in the 12 marginal seats the Libs hold and 8 (I think) "fairly safe" seats the swing in those is less than that required for the seat to change hands but as an average the swing is ~3.3% to Labor will still lose the election. As per teh 1987 example...

As for Pork Barrelling....

Hawke February 1983, we will build you an airport in Darwin..... March 1983 the NT seat stays ALP as a marginal, HAwke September 1983 post budget.....Sorry we can't build you an airport......As a kid in the NT back then that is etched on my memory...

Keating, Februay 1993, NO GST.....March 1993 Keating wins, May Budget 1993, No GST but we'll increase the Wholesale Sales Tax to 24.5% from 15%!!!! Hmm not a GST per se but we'll wack an extra 9.5% on what you pay for manufactured goods such as sporting equipment, electrical goods etc!!!

So when it comes to pork-barrelling and "broken" promises this current Govt has had a pretty good role model...

Bottom line politicians on boths sides of the political spectrum will use spin, half truths core and no core promises to get elected!!!

[redandblack]

TM, Figures over the last 20 or so Federal Elections prove that the uniform swing required will almost always result in enough seats. If there is less swing in some marginals, there will be, by definition, a bigger swing in others to make it a uniform 3.3%. Instead of 3.3%, it may be that a 3.6% or so swing is required, but no more than that.

Mackerras has made this point repeatedly and backed it up with the research.

As far as pork-barrelling goes, no previous government has come remotely close to the Government's effort before the last election (and, no doubt, the next).

[am Bays]

TM, Figures over the last 20 or so Federal Elections prove that the uniform swing required will almost always result in enough seats. If there is less swing in some marginals, there will be, by definition, a bigger swing in others to make it a uniform 3.3%. Instead of 3.3%, it may be that a 3.6% or so swing is required, but no more than that.

Mackerras has made this point repeatedly and backed it up with the research.

As far as pork-barrelling goes, no previous government has come remotely close to the Government's effort before the last election (and, no doubt, the next).

We are on the same page!!! That is what I'm saying or the message that I'm trying to get across too....

Pork Barrelling always seems more prenounced when the party you vote for doesn't get in....I'm struggling to remember Labors because it has been so long since they sat on the right hand side of the speaker.....

You don't think Rudd is going to make some promises he can't keep next post next October.....

Roll on next October so us psuedo political science geeks can trawl over more election results and bore the sh!t out of the rest of the people on this site in 2009!!!!!

[redandblack]

Psephologists Unite

[Punk Rooster]

[noone]

Roll on next October so us psuedo political science geeks can trawl over more election results and bore the sh!t out of the rest of the people on this site in 2009!!!!!

why wait till next October/November...


given i do alot of study at uni on electoral models, i can back up the uniform swing argument. I read a paper where it calculated (through standard deviation and other tricky mathematical shapes) the probability of a seat swinging enough on top of the uniform swing to change hands. Its been over a year since i read it, but I remember for instance that Hartley which had a 4.6% swing required before the next election would have a 8% chance of going to labor even if the uniform swing is zero.

So basically if there is a 4% swing to labor at the next election there is a 8% mathematical chance that Crissy Pyne will be unemployed.

(ofcourse this dosn't take into account local conditions, and thus is rather useless to try and predict individual races, but i guess its useful for overall predictions)

[TroyGFC]

Agree!!!

Too many percentages in these post, Wedgie can % be not allowed on safooty.net as to factual.

[redandblack]

Agree!!!

Too many percentages in these post, Wedgie can % be not allowed on safooty.net as to factual.

What if we cut down the percentage of the number of percentages we are quoting

[Jimmy]

The VP of my work went to school with Kevin Rudd.

Just a bit of info to break up the monotony.

[PhilG]

..

[McAlmanac]

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.

Sadly, this is true and will go 90% towards deciding the election. The incumbent barrel holder has enough pork to placate the "aspirational" only-thing-I-know-about-politics-is-interest-rates outer suburban folks who make up the bulk of marginal seats.

[zipzap]

PG4PM

[mick]

PG4PM

The future would be Richshaws and bicycles

[PhilG]

..

[topsywaldron]

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.

Given our high interest rates, compared to the rest of the world, I'd expect Howard to be turfed out on his mis-management of the economy alone.

And that ignores all of his other crimes against humanity. Amanda Vanstone and Phil Ruddock to name but two.

[zipzap]

PG4PM

The future would be Richshaws and bicycles

And Commodores would be banned - HURRAH!!

[am Bays]

I wonder if I am alone in hearing Clyde Cameron turning in his grave after the current leader of his beloved party has proudly pronounced, "I am not a Socialist", So much for teh "Socialist way" he used to repeat ad infinituum when he used to have a pulse...

[Coorong]

Some of you are dreamin or fail to face reality. the coalition will win the next two elections for three very good reasons:

1, labor will continually self destruct (shall we remember Latham, or Gough)
2. Not one person in the labor party has the smarts to match Howard.
3. Even ardent labor supporters (other than a few socialist idiots on here who post carp propagander) know that the coalition has become more the "people party"

And as a footnote. even traditional labor/union voters are concerned over definate lack of positive policy. The swinging voter is in this day and age are leaning toward the right.

I must admit, I can understand the blue collar workers being convinced that nationalism is some sort of enigma to be despised. But some of those that post on here are educated and hold responsible positions and have done well in your fields. Yet you want to go back to "the era" of gough, hawke or keating?

Rudd is running on adrenilan. But that will soon lose interest. Who else has the nouse, guts or savvy to run this country. Well it wont be Costello and it sure as hell wont be anyone present in the labot party.

I might be a right wing redneck, but I am also poiticaly astute and a realist.