Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Spread betting
Time for some personal predictions from Webdiarists. What's the majority going to be, for which side, plus any predictions for specific seats? To someone like me who lived through the 1997 UK campaign, this has all the feel of that, including the mixed polls in the last few days, so I'll go with the Newspoll state-by-state 100 Labor, 48 Coalition, 2 other. Over to you ...
 |
 |
[ category: ]
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Keating 97
I think maybe Howard has the media and people spooked the way Keating did. Because he had won against the odds before people were reluctant to say he'd lose.
At least I hope so. I'll be watching tonight.
My feeling is Labor by a whisker. And the real interest: Greens increase their standing in the Senate.
Workchoices and the Environment make the difference
I think the polling has steadily shown that a sufficient number of people have swung to Labor and the Greens due to Workchoices and the Environment, and nothing has given them a reason to swing back at the last minute. I don't believe Galaxy Poll's last minute swing back.
A solid win to Labor (say, 10-15 seats) with the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate.
Labor could have had a better campaign, but they've done enough and the Libs haven't done anything special with their campaign.
I agree with people saying this could be a good election to lose given what's happening in America and with the environment and the housing bubble, but the Libs would take a victory as vindication to keep going further with Workchoices and to continue giving mere lip-service to the environment.
I wish the Libs lost because of morality issues:
But people have already decided on those issues and weren't going to change their minds so Labor didn't push it.
My guesstimation
I've a feeling the swings will go something like this:
More than 5% to Labor in NSW
A point or a little more than the swing in NSW to Labor in VIC
More than 5% to Labor in QLD
More than 5% to Labor in SA
Less than 5% to Labor in WA
More than 5% to Labor in TAS
More than 5% to Labor in ACT
More than 5% to Labor in NT
Plugging that into this calculator and discounting the calculated prediction for Bennelong and Wentworth, then adding back for a slightly higher swing to Labor in Blair, it'll be a Labor win 81 to 67 with 2 independents in the Reps.
Sorry again Denise
Denise: Sorry again. I concatenated your comment with the one by Andrew O'Connell above it.
Abbott ('the mad monk' - so nicknamed presumably because of the time he spent doing penance in a monastery) is safe. I think Turnbull's political career is also safe: that is, safe in the arms of the garbage man. Not so much a campaign as a closing down sale.
Cautiously pessimistic
Swing too big for the ALP. Howard will hold Bennelong. Libs by 2 in the House. Big gains for the Greens in the Senate.
Geez, I hope I'm just suffering post Nov 04 syndrome. Let me be wrong!
Hi Kimberley
Liberal by 2, Joe to retain North Sydney
My prediction is that the Coalition will win by three seats. My home electorate of North Sydney will be retained by Joe Hockey. Joe will suffer a 6% swing but as he holds the seat by 10% it will not be in play. There will be early talk on election night about socialist ABC weatherman Mike Bailley taking the seat. Kerry O'Brien will make hopeful noises about his socialist ABC weatherman mate around 7:00 pm but will accept by 9:00 pm that Joe Hockey will retain North Sydney.
For Joe Hockey, the forecast is for a mild to warm day with the chance of an afternoon thunderstorm. The storm may blow over a shrub here or there but it's unlikely to cause any serious damage.
For Mike Bailley, Sunday is likely to be cool to cold with a morning fog. He won't be the member for North Sydney and there will be no forecast for Monday since he quit his real job months ago.
'98 again??
I'm tipping a similar result to the '98 poll, with the Coalition clinging by their fingernails, kicking and screaming, to a modest majority on a smidge less than 50% of the popular vote, thanks to typically strong performance in key marginals.
With a hung Senate, and Family First squabbling with the Greens over balance of power.
It'll be a novel spectacle to watch the Coalition have to work bloody hard again in getting its legislative program through the Upper House.
Naturally I won't be terribly disappointed if my notoriously bad tipping proves incorrect. But that's my call.
I'd add that my '98 vintage bottle of bubbly stands ready in the fridge, in the unlikely event of a wobbly lower-lip concession performance from our Man of Spiel.
But I'm also tipping a l..o..n..g night, even possibly no clear result until early next week.
Margins
Ian The Monk, do you mean Tony Abbott? I was referring to Malcolm Turnbull in the seat of Wentworth - he only needs 2.5% to lose and Howard in the seat of Bennalong 4.1%.
This seems more like the
This seems more like the Bush vs Gore campaign than anything else. Here's hoping the Greens don't take the vote that would cost Rudd the election. Why O why can't Bob Brown compromise himself just a little and join the ALP for the greater good.
Margo: Of course they won't, Michael. In the lower house The Green vote will go to Labor on preferences and in the Senate both parties are swapping. Have no fear - go Green!
My understanding
My understanding is that if the Greens win a large enough percentage of the primary vote, then the Libs could sneak across the line on the primary vote, thus making preferences irrelevant. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Hamish: You're wrong. Preferences would only be irrelevant if one party gets over 50% of the primary vote outright. This is the case whether the Greens get a large percentage of the primary vote or not. A vote for the Greens does not add any votes to the Liberals in any way (unless of course it then preferences them).
Hamish - no
It depends from which candidates the Greens take the primaries. If enough Labor [sic] votes are bled and the preferences flow contrary to the ticket, or alternatively, the bleed is enough for there to be an absolute majority on either first or second preferences - the enemy wins.
It is the voters who preference Hamish, my boy, not the parties.
Still Rudd by 1 and no change in the balance of the Senate. Lunch and dinner were quite interesting but I'll let Claude tell you about that in due course.
This Government deserves (after this week particularly) to be thrown out on its arse. Will they have a garage sale at Kirribilli House? I suggested to Dr Reynolds earlier today that they would be more likely to try to sell the garage.
Hamish: You're correct of course that it is the voters who decide the preferences. Can we assume that those Green votes which travel to the Libs would alternatively have voted for the Libs first, and those which preference to the ALP would alternatively have voted for the ALP first? If we make that (reasonable) assumption, voting Green first makes no difference to the outcome. In terms of votes adding up to percentages (the maths), one vote equals one vote, regardless of who it is for.
If Labor would have gotten over the line in its own right if no one voted Green, then the Libs could not do so in their own right anyway. Get out a piece of paper and work out all the possibilities. No Labor voter (preferencer) who puts their primary vote to the Greens helps the Liberals get over the line in their own right. To suggest so is just bad maths.
Hamish Mi Compadre (but don't do Spanish ound Eliot)
If you hadn't turned up by the morning I was going to harass you. Today wouldn't be the same without your being here. Shall we carpe the diem?
Election?
Greetings Richard, and all. I'll pop in and out today, but tonight I have a fine friend to drink fine whiskey with, so I'll see if I manage to get on the net a bit to help.
The truth is I managed to remain detached from this long and tedious election campaign until very recently. It was only three days ago that I heard myself utter the words to an old friend over the phone, "I think Rudd will win."
My interest was first piqued just a few days before that with the news that shadow Sports Minister Kate Lundy had promised 32 million to soccer in Australia. As was the case last election, it's the international issues that move me.
Rudd to win. I don't care about the score, or who'll end up on the bench, but I'll be wearing a frangipani behind my ear for luck.
Andrew Bolt on Difference of Opinion
Lose an argument, shoot the messenger. Andrew Bolt has a go in The ABC of bias.
I replied - will let you know if I get a run.
Andrew Bolt
Just think Margo, with any luck by Sunday Bolt will be a "dissident", a "reactionary", part of the "vocal minority", a member of the "dreaded elite" etc. The rest of us will just be "mainstream". It's been a long wait.
As per my email, well done on being the only one on the panel with the moral courage to mention peak oil. Any public official that continues to ignore this 'elephant in the room' from now on is a moral coward in my books; certainly unworthy of public office.
Labour landslide
Double Dip
Hi Richard The Dems did themselves in when Meg Lees sided with Howard on the GST - they have never recovered as we well know. I agree it is a shame though.
Don't know what happened with the double post - it would send so I click again - nothing to do with me drinking on hearing that it may be closer than was than the previous polls! Lets hope it all goes well, I couldn't stand another 3 years of the little shite.
Sorry Denise
Denise: Sorry, but the Monk looks safe, as it will take an 11.3% swing away from Liberal to demonkify him.
I will tip Labor in by 3 seats, but which ones?
Goodbye Democrats. The fix was put in by Meg Lees and Andrew Murray, who showed that the Dems could not keep their own bastards honest, let alone anyone else's.
Pity that, as I used to be a member, and gave them a donation of $100 once. More fool me.
Toss a coin
I don't have a clue, the more I think about it the more I can't see an answer. What I would like to see is independents and the greens having the balance of power in the representatives and having control in the senate. I know it won't happen, but anything else just gives free rein to whichever lib/lab faction wins via our disenfranchising voting system.
The best quote of all
For those who missed it: in a letter in the Sydney Morning Herald:
The only person who ever entered parliament with honest intent was Guy Fawkes.
Would Howard stoop to rigging an election?
After eleven hundred years under the heel Gollum, who could possibly doubt it?
Richard: Yep, the mental picture's there... precioussss..
Another dead soldier, and an absent PM
No Richard Tonkin
There goes another dead soldier. Lost for what? No-one has ever beaten the Afghanis, the terrain is terrible, there is no strategic sense in being there.
Vote the bastards out. I hope he did before he died.
That's what I meant, Malcolm
I stand corrected
A wn for Labor
My prediction - Labour will
My prediction - Labour will win by a comfortable majority - 5 - 7 seats. This will be the Greens best election and they will hold the balance in the Senate. The Dems are finished. It will be a close call on Howard's own seat - he may just get over the line - its too close to call - a photo finish. Turnbull is done.
Richard: I must admit, Denise, to feeling a bit sad about the Dems. Otherwise, I hope you're right ! Fingers crossed.
Winner But Not For Long
Deadlocked election with overtones of Court action. Mr Rudd will get across the line with Mr Howard bowing out.
Future Prediction:
The things that win Mr Rudd the election will be his very ungraceful undoing. Why oh why do future leaders not refer back to the experience of Bush I and read my lips? Unrealistic expectations always end in disaster.
Giving people the impression that things are poor at the moment when things are going to get worse is idiotic. Giving unrealistic expectations of health and education improvements is even sillier. The winning campaign of Mr Rudd will be played with glee by his opponents in the next campaign. The quoting of this years figures against the next few years economic figures will be just as devastating.
tools
"Of course, if it is a Labor landslide, I'm going to look like a tool, but hey."
If that happens, the whole country will look like tools.
That has to be the best
Are You Speaking In Tongues, Oh Lord?
Which quote are you referring to, Stuart? Who said it?
For the benefit of us ordinary, mortal folk would you be prepared to let us in on your secret? I know that divine folk often talk in riddles but, just this once, could you give us a clue, something reality-based, perhaps vaguely comprehensible?
Prediction
My prediction is: Labor 53.7% Govt: 46.3% TPP. A swing of 6.4%.
Labor: 86 seats. Govt: 62 and Ind: 2. Bennelong and Wentworth to go.
Kissinger on the outcome
"If the various commentators' views on Rudd are anywhere near correct the improvement is going to be only incremental."
Henry Kissinger once observed the reason academic disputes are so bitter is because the stakes are so small.
Libs by 2
I'll put myself out there and say that the Libs will have a nailbiting finish and hold on by a couple - Howard will stay on for a few months then rotate on out, and the very, very long knives will be drawn in the Labor party. The Senate will be Libs with half, with Family first to make up the numbers for a majority.
Of course, if it is a Labor landslide, I'm going to look like a tool, but hey.
Hello Stuart!
Alteration or change of direction?
Please couldn't we have a hung parliament (now that is a tempting vision!) with about 30 seats held by independents!?
If the various commentators' views on Rudd are anywhere near correct the improvement is going to be only incremental.
The only bright spot is that I see the balance in the Senate firmly in the hands of the smaller parties. That, and I guess if Rudd doesn't shape up somebody may topple him.
The release and relief engendered by the Coalition being swept away, annihilated, merely beaten?? is going dissipate rapidly if Rudd is even half as conservative as he is depicted.
If the country is to ever recover it needs a real change of direction. Being a lap dog to the US will not look any better just because the colour of the mongrel stray has changed.
A sign! A sign!
Poor David Roffey...
Tries to get some reassuringly rational chat going about the majority etc and gets upbraided for triviality.
It is, of course, a sign of the times. The sort of widespread anxiety provoked by Howard the traumatiser has been transformed into genuine neurosis. People are finding meaning in the shape of clouds. They look for portents. Omens abound. Ancient irrationality, never fully exterminated by modernity, resurfaces. People pray, meditate, hope and beg unknown deities for relief from the fear of another Howard term. I am inclined to slaughter a chicken and examine the tripes. Maybe a goat would be better.
My bones feel good. Labor by a nose.
Oh, and by the way
I watched Difference of Opinion last night. What fun. Great to see Margo's coherent public passion but the big surprise for me was Ross Gittens delivering some real old fashioned tub-thumping public speaking on climate change. Received with spontaneous rounds of applause. That was the sort of talk that usually preceded oh, say, a one week strike on the job.
Someone should run him for the Senate sometime.
North Sydney too close to call?
The Mosman Daily has a poll suggesting Joe Hockey could be in trouble - if so the implied swing is well off of the end of Antony Green's calculator - an overall 10% swing, which is the limit of the sliders for national and NSW, won't quite do it ...
That 10% swing level gives 107 Labor, 41 Coalition (the extras include Higgins, which would definitely harm Mr Costello's chances of being the next Liberal leader ...)
Heartland
Apologies if I have already made this comment - certainly it is one which which I've been boring various acquaintances for some time - but I would not be completely surprised if some of the traditionally safe Liberal seats were to fall, while some of the marginals stayed. In some respects, North Sydney and my own electorate of Kooyong are similar in terms of demography, education levels, and voting history (the republic referendum, the Green vote in 2004). Both seem to have a fair number of traditionally conservative voters who are deeply concerned about Howard's cavalier attitude towards social justice. And both seats could go - Higgins too - if the swing is on.
I will say again, however, that this could be a very good election to lose.
UK1997 parallels
... wildly varying swings would be another one. We don't have any equivalent to Neil Hamilton, who managed to lose the 4th safest Conservative seat in the country to an ex-BBC journalist independent, but could well have some equivalents to Michael Portillo's loss of Enfield Southgate on a 17.4% swing to Labour - any bets on Mayo or Warringah alongside Higgins as potential equivalents?
BTW - Kooyong is another one that falls in the gap between 100 and 107 - shame to see Petro lose when he opposed some of the worst policies ...
Fiddling Is What Happens On Saturday
Whichever party wins on Saturday, it will make no difference to any of those important things. And the light relief provided by a little robust repartee here and there, sometimes effective, sometimes less so, will always have its place. How boring life would be without any. How many readers would Webdiary have without any? Fewer, I'm sure.
It is so true as to be a cliché that oppositions don't win elections; governments lose them. For a decade Labor has failed to put forward an acceptable alternative to Howard. The swinging voters would have been happy to see the end of Howard long ago, but were not going to vote Labor because Latham was mad, Beazley was a windbag, and Crean came across as an effective minister, perhaps, but never an effective Prime Minister.
Previously to this era, the Liberals had a similar problem. Who was going to vote for Downer to lead the nation? Or Hewson, with his mindless chanting Keating's got to go! Keating's got to go! and his inability to even pronounce the name of the country he aspired to lead?
Now Labor has an acceptable figurehead. Rudd comes across as articulate, intelligent, unflappable, and at least more trustworthy than Howard. Labor will win government with a comfortable margin on Saturday. The Greens will do well, and the Democrats will claw back some of the support they lost last election. And the world will go on fiddling while it burns.
"Silly Little Election?"
Isn't that what the prostitute with a lisp said to the Bishop?
I think to call it a silly little election is rather silly and demonstrates little understanding of its vital importance to this country. Its outcome will strongly affect which direction Australia moves in which in turn will affect how the serious issues which I mentioned (and you echoed) are dealt with.
I thank you for your assurance that Labor will win, Bill, but, until that is officially announced, I for one, knowing what Howard is capable of, will be on tenterhooks!
Cheers.
Huh?
What is Howard capable of, Daniel? Winning elections? Garnering votes from the electors? Perhaps getting a majority of seats in parliament under the banner of the Coalition? In that case, I completely agree, it is really hard to write someone like that off, especially due to the rather large portion of softness in the Labor vote, which may come to bite on election day.
If, however, you are implying that he steals elections through some underhand means... well, that is irrational. Then again, I remember a year ago having people say that Howard would introduce a police state to ensure that he wouldn't have to have another election...
Is It The Second Coming? Hallelujah?
The Lord has spoken to us (Stuart Lord, that is)! He says that the idea of Howard stealing an election through underhand means is irrational. On what basis could anyone think that I wonder! Perish the thought.
All I can say is: where have you been during the last two thousand years, Stuart, and, more particularly, the last eleven?
What?
Do you have any real evidence of either the Liberals having previously stolen an election, or of their intent to do so this time?
Labor and the Greens
My guess is Labor in the House and a gain for the Greens in the Senate. At least I hope so. Here, Ross Gittins and Margo sell the idea on the ABC's Difference of Opinion. Go Margo!
What are the parties offering as their vision for Australia?
Real Broadband | Real Dialup | WMP Broadband | WMP Dialup
No more dictatorship!
Please Stop Fiddling While Rome Burns!
On some of the other threads people continue to argue and point-score and insult each other while, in the real world, the most important election for Australia's future is about to happen. Don't they realize that, if Howard manages to crawl over the line via his dirty tricks campaign, this country is, to use Margo's word, 'Stuffed!'
We will move even further to the right, the gap between the rich and poor will increase further, Big Business will continue to have its way, workers will continue to lose wages and conditions, citizens will continue to lose their civil rights, lip-service will be paid to climate change, Australia will become even more a State of America, the wealthy will continue to receive ever more welfare and tax breaks, rich private schools will prosper further, etc.
Could all Webdiarists manage, for two days, to put lesser matters aside and, for the good of Australia, concentrate on fairly discussing the pros and cons of this election? Please.
My guess
Labor [sic] by one, a by-election in Wentworth and no change to the coalition majority in the Senate. However, one cannot tell how the Lindsay factor will play out. All the feedback I get (apart from one letter in the SMH today) is that conservatives are absolutely horrified by it. If that translates into the Senate, the Greens will have the balance of power and Christ help us all.
The reason I am making such a conservative prediction is this rather curious passage from Rudd at the Press Club:
Was he just talking it up or do they have seat-by-seat polling telling them something specific? I suspect it was the latter and the comment was a slip. Nevertheless, after the Lindsay stunt, how could you vote for the Runt or any of his mates you didn't know personally?
I hope not
Well I hope not David. I would not feel comfortable with Rudd having that big a majority. He's been strong on rhetoric and pretty light on substance.
I think Howard will lose, but by a much smaller margin. No reason. Just gut feeling. I think the undecided will fall back from crossing the line come Saturday.
Usually I voted for the Nats who at least knew where the bush was. But this time I thought I would give Rudd a go. But I wavered at the last moment. Finished up going for the Independant and preferenced all the minor parties before either of the major ones. In other words, I did not want to vote for Rudd no matter how much I disliked Howard.
And I don't want to see the Party that does gain government have a Senate majority. With a swing like that Labor could pull that off too so I hope the poll is wrong.