This morning’s papers are full of more petulance about the lack of an election result, and about polls.
The poll being talked about was trumpeted by News Limited, but curiously didn’t emanate from either Newspoll or Galaxy – pollsters of choice to The Australian and the metro tabloids respectively. Rather it was commissioned by “Sydney-based public relations and lobby firm Parker and Partners”, for reasons unknown and for a client unknown, and all we know is that it’s a phone poll of 1000 people with 56% apparently wanting another election now. In the absence of any information about the composition of the sample or the question/s asked, it’s probably useful only as fodder for the “Election Now!” campaign.
Some interesting questions about where it comes from, and why it’s being reported in the absence of the transparency that usually exists around the detail of the polling are probably worth asking.
More reliable is Essential Research today, which you can read about at Crikey. Voting intentions were essentially unchanged from the actual poll that counts, and there wasn’t much evidence that many voters would vote differently in a hypothetical new election, though most now anticipate a Coalition win. If you hold to the theory that Labor might have done better in the absence of win expectations being so high (“it was the protest vote wot done it!”), maybe that’s significant.
Of course, no one seems to be reporting that an immediate election is constitutionally impossible without parliament having met, and that in any case, its likelihood is fairly narrow. Whatever might be the putative state of public opinion at the moment (and I doubt too many people are actually strongly concerned about the absence of a gubbermint, or would welcome a return to election mode if it actually happened), it might be worth observing that two years last century in which Great Britain had two elections – 1910 and 1974 – both after an inconclusive first try, produced pretty much the same result both times.
I think what people mean by “Let’s have another election” is “let’s have another election and people who didn’t vote like me, get it right this time”.
No one can give me a good explanation about all the impatience around this issue. Good grief we haven’t fihinsed all the counting for this election yet. Parliament hasn’t met and wouldn’t have met yet even if there had been a celar outcome. what’s the hurry? what’s the worry?
Sure, Stephen. And the other side of the equation is, “let’s not have another election because people who didn’t vote like me might go crazy again in greater numbers.”
I think the current angst will evaporate once the indys declare – presumably tomorrow. After that, the debate will move on to outrage from the Opposition and widespread predictions of catastrophe and disaster.
Have to admit I’ve drifted into ‘c’mon, make a decision guys. It’s not that hard’, territory. But patience costs nothing. And no-one really wants another election, especially the independents.
Intriguingly, Parker and Partners has no mention of this poll on their website.
This anonoymously commissioned poll sounds suspiciously like a poll commissioned by the Coalition. Just another tactic contributing to their over all failed strategy.
Just think of how much fun the media would have with another campaign, though. Their normal lives are so boring and tedious. Won’t someone think of the media?
They may have gone away over the weekend and come up with 75-75 (2 with Coalition, one with Labor/Greens) but definitely don’t want another election.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/06/3003446.htm
produced pretty much the same result both times.
That is not a good argument. All it would take would be a small change for one side or other to have a majority, if that is what the “election now” crowd wants. (Of course what they really want is for Abbott to become PM.)
Myself, I think the advantages of a minority Labor government are rather big. The big one is that the Arbib crowd are dealt out of deciding the leadership and policy.
This does really open it up for defectors from either party. personally I’m waiting for one of the “I’m not really a member of the Coalition” members to demonstrate that they’re really not a member of the Coalition.
@8 – yes, they may have or they may not have, Terry. Who can tell? We’ll know soon enough.
Via the Oz but I did watch the Insiders and this pretty accurately describes the conversation.
Funny what happens when you leave Rupert’s warm embrace and start a superannuated gig at the ABC. I think its safe to say that News is in the business of shaping news.
“Do you like, oh I dunno let’s say, strawberry or vanilla ice cream?
Strawberry
Vanilla
Both
Neither
Other
Hurts my teeth
Couldn’t care less.
You are going to get a split response.
Maybe a clear majority for one category but some at least will go into every category.
Now lets do a Sir Humphrey Appelby.
Nobody likes ice cream type A.
Ice cream type A is bad for your health and will harm the yoghurt alliance.
Ice cream type A is a funny colour and only weirdos lick it.
Etc
Then give the poll.
That is what is happening.
The only real topic here, in this context anyway, is the conduct of Sir Humpy.
That is a huge one, Sam. And the priorities that will have to be given to regional Australia will surely lead to an abandonment, or at least a lower priority, of the Porking the Marginals strategy which has dominated everything for the last 15 years. And that in turn would weaken the dependence on focus groups for decision-making.
And that itself is a good thing if it comes off. A consequence of watching Jenny Brocky’s programs featuring ‘undecided’ voters from marginal electorates was alarm at the banality and short-sightedness of many views. It was a reminder to me of those Chaser skits a few years back encouraging someone to air their views to the cameras and finishing with a statement, “This Person Votes!”
This is not to deny the legitimacy of such views, it is just that we should not be depending on them to prepare leadership views.
I’m another one getting a bit edgy about the delay (mainly because I see it a lot more simply than the Independents do). But as others here have suggested, it’s not unreasonable for them to deliberate on it before announcements.
Gillard does not have to wait for the Indies to decide.
She could go to the GG, get parliament on the floor and call a vote. Not saying that she should, but it’s not like she has to wait on the indies. While she and Abbott are prepared to wait – then it’s their choice.
If I was an Indy I’d take as long as I needed and/or was allowed by the major parties. The other 147 members are choosing to wait.
My understanding is that if we vote again, we only vote for the lower house. At the moment the Senate supports Liberals but after July 2011 it will have 9 Green senators. So although News Corp may bay for a new election, until we get it RIGHT we might be up for 3 elections before Rupert has the Parliament he wants.
I think a Labor+Greens+Independents government could be great if the Greens and Independents sort out the ALP on asylum seekers and carbon emissions and prevent them from playing funny buggers trying to wedge the Coalition.
Then add in an fibre-to-the-home NBN. With 1GB you could get rid of TV broadcasting, doctor’s waiting rooms, working from home (no commute). Anyone else with ideas of what you could do with massive bandwidth?
I can’t imagine what an Abbott government would be like. His platform was “stop the boats” and “stop the waste”. What does that mean? Certainly nothing like what the Independents have been calling for.
It’s a shame we can’t actually vote for a hung Parliament.
Stop the boats.
End the waste.
No great big new taxes.
What was the other one, again. I’m sure he had four policies?
Pay back the debt, wbb. Exciting, isn’t it?
Thankyou, Fine. Pay back the debt, indeed! And how could I forget the jewel in Abbott’s policy crown.
Never forget, we must pay back the debt.
…and that was their ‘positive message’ ad!
I think ‘feed the pets’ was in there somewhere and also ‘buy milk’.
wbb@15 is completely wrong. Simple basic research shows this.
Parliament can’t sit until either writs are returned in a few weeks time or until someone can convince GG that they can totally own a confidence vote on the floor. Hence Indy-watch.
good point wbb.
The only other deadline is that of the Constitution, which states:
“wbb@15 is completely wrong. Simple basic research shows this.”
wbb FTW!
wbb – you been served, boyfriend.
And be nice to your Mum, wbb. That’s important too.
The constitutional reasons why there can’t be ELECTION NOW! were set out by Antony Green here:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/08/hung-parliament-where-to-from-here.html
It was prominently linked on LP on 27 August.
Note that lobby firm Parker and Partners is run by Andrew Parker, former journalist at the Oz
Where the heck are they getting these polling results?
On the Nine MSN website right now, they are asking us whether we want another election, and curiously there is ONLY a ‘Yes’ button to click on, and no ‘NO’ selection is offered!!
Duh, isn’t this like Saddam Hussein’s ‘democratic’ elections where every person was given a ballot with only HIS name on it, and miraculously everyone voted for him!
Channel 9 you are a disgrace!!!
Barnaby Joyce now thinks it’s unlikely his mob will be supported by sufficient of the trio.
[ABC radio news, 4pm]
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/queensland-liberal-national-party-senator-barnaby-joyce-says-labor-will-win-federal-election/story-e6frf7jx-1225908159375
Yep, Ambigulous, arseclown says labor. How can these indys be so fukle?
Please don’t jinx things Barnaby…
Hang on – that article is from the day of the election!… Still hope it doesn’t jinx though…
Bernard Keane’s essay “The myth of governmental competence” in today’s Crikey reports on waste in the Howard era on the basis of Australian National Audit Office reports
“..we found 29 examples of serious criticism of Howard Government programs from the auditors, where they laid into the way programs were run or policies were implemented, not just for poor filing or not having KPIs identified right from the outset, but for errors that cost substantial amounts of taxpayer money”.
In March Keane wrote, “If the same standards that were applied to the Rudd Government by the Press Gallery in the context of the insulation saga had been applied to the Howard Government, a different perception might have emerged. There was a direct link between IR decisions by Howard Government ministers and the deaths of building workers. There was a direct link between the failure of the Howard Government to remedy the military justice system despite repeated warnings, and the deaths of ADF personnel. These deaths are far greater in number than those attributed to problems in the insulation program for which Peter Garrett was so unfairly pilloried”.
Just a pity that Keane or some other journalist had not published this info during the campaign or earlier to counter-balance the trenchant criticism levelled at the Rudd Government.
That worries me. Barnaby Joyce is reliably wrong about everything.
Political wheeling and dealing does alienate voters however if it all they see happening in politics, one of the problems with US health care reform but once the indies have made their decision people will tun out from the topic.
I don’t get it. Ambi says “now” but Joe2′s link is to a story of 21 August. Help, I’m lost in a space-time continuum…
In a sentence, this is the much celebrated “voters intelligence.”
Most people, simply out of self-interest should have voted for Labor, as it is we’re seeing much too much of our natural wealth going OS. But for whatever reasons most people think they have to protect the rights of the likes of Packer, Palmer et al. We can speculate on the reasons, but it’s not nice to look there.
Look especially to the voting histories of some of the poorest electorates in Australia, which continually return National MPs.
And still there’s no real solutions for rural Australia. The farmers should be able to organise themselves (they are no longer capital in the face of corporations)– they did here in the EU last year when it was no longer profitable to sell milk.
Some people like to think of Australia’s natural heritage as somehow unfortunate– nevertheless it’s the single most important part of our identity and, I believe, the most valuable. Anyone can do technology– not everyone has our natural heritage.
Hmm, this sounds like WOK have decided to back Tony Abbott. From The Organ a minute ago:
Sometimes I get the feeling the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right or wrong and then argue re their results.
Glad everybody is concentrating. Try this Sir Henry. Sounds like barnyard knows as much as the rest. This latest development is looking crook.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/barnaby-joyce-appeals-for-independent-mps-to-back-coalition/story-fn59niix-1225914836664
Sir Henry Casingbroke @ 39, how do we know the Big Three aren’t just trying to suss out whether or not Crook has any kind of agreement with Abbott? Racking my brain and resorting to a a quick google news search I find I don’t know if Crook has done anything but say he’ll sit in the federal National partyroom and nowt else.
It seems to me there is no formal relationship whatsoever between the WA Nat and the federal Liberal Party–OTOH Gillard Labor has received the political equivalent of letters of marque from Bandt and Wilkie. If I were in the Big Three I’d want to ascertain all this. Nothing wrong with ‘discovering’ another reason to back Gillard over Abbott…
It is faintly absurd to expect Crook not to back the Coalition. And the KOW know it. So why the charade in this instance?
Point two. The KWO want preserve the status quo, i.e. them holding the balance of power. A fresh election may fall differently. Therefore they are very keen to have a “stable” gummint that lasts until they get “their” legislation through, which in turn would make them more Nat-proof in the future. They are seen as squatters on territory which is not rightfully theirs. When Ted Mack retired Joe Hockey had no trouble in grabbing back the seat to the Liberals.
Point three. If Crook is backing the Coalition and Katter’s mind is conentrated on the notion that his constituents are likely to provide a welcome home party that would include some yardage of hempen rope, should he back the ALP, the Windsor-Oakshot rump may have no other choice but to back Abbott, not matter that their personal preferences may lie with Labor, otherwise that would mean another election.
Point four. All this delay has been about turning Katter.
When he said that there was a lot to like about some of Labor’s ideas but he didn’t like what they did to Kevin, a QueensLANDA, Kevin was despatched to explain that he didn’t mind the execution, that he actually enjoyed it, rather.
So, it’s now up to Bob. Government of Australia chosen by a loony. How apt.
This could just turn out to be the biggest sucker punch in a long time.
Barnaby Joyce and co could be showing a bit of public contrition, which would go someway to placating the unhappy ex-Nat voters in the independent’s electorates. In the end, the likelihood of the independents coming back to the fold is probably greater than their trailblazing a new direction. Seen in the context of the other anglo-saxon countries, we are probably going to take a turn to the right and be the tail lights rather than anything else.
Andrew Wilkie played the coalition and I hope this turns out to be nothing more than speculation, but to be honest, I would be extremely surprised if Labor hold on here. But, hope dies last.
@43 – It’s also possible that they’re still playing poker. The time it took to get the Coalition to sign on to the parliamentary reform stuff is sufficient explanation for the delay; it doesn’t have to be about Katter’s position. There’s no evidence for that, I don’t think, just speculation.
… which is getting a bit pointless now! Can’t we all wait til tomorrow to find out?
Actually, on that point, it’s probably worth while considering how the green vote would be effected by Labor losing power like this. Those Labor voters who decided to get on the green train would then be placed in an uncomfortable position of in the future voting on policy, where the greens have a clear advantage of Labor or being pragmatic and supporting Labor. It depends on how Labor would react in opposition– and I admit, ex-Labor voters who voted Green, probably preferenced Labor above the coalition almost unanimously.
I believe that in the absence of any real big-picture debate that the Coalition have the upper hand. That is after all what they represent. For example disciplining the electorate by keeping the interest rate low and people in debt. I say this, tongue in cheek, but there is more to this than meets the eye. One of the arguments for the New Deal and government support for house mortgages was to control political descent. Why should personal debt and credit cards be any different?
@45, no we can’t wait, but I guess we’ll just have to!
I’m finding it quite restful not to have a gubbermint and amusing to watch the media heads exploding!
Sir Henry
I was relaying Senator Barnaby’s comments as played today on ABC Radio National news. He was pessimistic.
I was not relying on some newspaper report of a fortnight ago. A fortnight is a long time in a space-time loop.
Then both the Tonys (Crook and Abbott) sure have forgotten the art of political propaganda.
Why aren’t they busy promoting their rock solid Green-Wilkie-ALP style political alliance, instead of just passively sitting back and allowing the Big Three to raise doubts about the solidarity of Abbott’s 73 members of the House?
If there’s a game changer here I just don’t see how it’s a pro-Coalition one.
“I was not relying on some newspaper report of a fortnight ago. A fortnight is a long time in a space-time loop”
I heard the report on Aunty, as well, and picked up an old report by mistake to confirm. Ambigulous, if you look @41 you will see what the radio report was obviously based on. It never seemed to make it to anything written on the Aunty website for some reason.
Yes, joe2, but it’s interesting that the part of the tape the ABC news played was far more despairing than “Barnaby appeals for support”. Their quote made it sound as if he held no further hope.
“The Australian” writes it up as a more neutral interview.
Yep, Ambi, there is a big difference. It proves something but I am a bit tired to tell what.