Jump to content

Aussies LXV - what choices have we?!


sh_wulff

Recommended Posts

On 10/11/2016 at 7:58 PM, Underfoot said:

I'm in NWS (Sydney) for the next two-ish weeks -- any can't miss things to do in the Sydney area? I am working during the week but have mornings and weekends free :D

Also, meeting the Sydney BwB is a pretty must. No idea where they are these days though. They've been pretty lazy......:leaving:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11 November 2016 at 0:42 PM, Squab said:

Only a fool would continue to take approval ratings and media polls as fact.  If the election in the states has taught us anything, surely its that the media (especially in Australia) barrack for a team and 'report' facts supporting their bias.

This isn't quite a suitable comparison because the U.S.A. and the U.K. have voluntary voting. So it's harder to adjust for who will actually turn up.

Polling in Australia accurately predicted the outcome of the 2016 Federal Election as being on a knife-edge, the Queensland government's collapse from a vast super-majority to a neck and neck (which it lost), and the Victorian government's rejection of a one-term government.

That said, there is too much emphasis on "preferred Premier" and "preferred Prime Minister" ratings. Pundits such as Antony Green have shown time and time again that there is no correlation between these figures and the party's chances and primary vote. For instance, Abbott polled worse than both Gillard and Rudd as preferred PM, just as Turnbull led all three of the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Yukle said:

This isn't quite a suitable comparison because the U.S.A. and the U.K. have voluntary voting. So it's harder to adjust for who will actually turn up.

 

 

National polling in the UK election was way off, there's no denying. But national polling in the US election is looking to be only around 2% off. Which is inside the margin of error, and despite the media story is less than the error in 2012. But there's a low level of statistical literacy in the media and general population, which is making it sound like the largest polling miss ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:25 PM, Yukle said:

This isn't quite a suitable comparison because the U.S.A. and the U.K. have voluntary voting. So it's harder to adjust for who will actually turn up.

Polling in Australia accurately predicted the outcome of the 2016 Federal Election as being on a knife-edge, the Queensland government's collapse from a vast super-majority to a neck and neck (which it lost), and the Victorian government's rejection of a one-term government.

That said, there is too much emphasis on "preferred Premier" and "preferred Prime Minister" ratings. Pundits such as Antony Green have shown time and time again that there is no correlation between these figures and the party's chances and primary vote. For instance, Abbott polled worse than both Gillard and Rudd as preferred PM, just as Turnbull led all three of the others.

Good point on the compulsory voting. Did anyone pick Pauline? Xenophon was known, but was One Nation ever thought of having as many senators as it has/had? I think you can cherry pick some good parts of polls but I don't think you can tell what is right or wrong until after the dust settles. Did anyone see what the polls were in Orange before the by election?  Also, has anyone here ever actually been polled before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 2:10 PM, Impmk2 said:

National polling in the UK election was way off, there's no denying. But national polling in the US election is looking to be only around 2% off. Which is inside the margin of error, and despite the media story is less than the error in 2012. But there's a low level of statistical literacy in the media and general population, which is making it sound like the largest polling miss ever.

2%? isn't that more than the percentage chance HuffPo gave trump of winning based on the numbers?

If the margin of error is enough to be a landslide in either direction then pollsters are overpaid and their importance overstated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2016 at 1:55 PM, Yukle said:

This isn't quite a suitable comparison because the U.S.A. and the U.K. have voluntary voting. So it's harder to adjust for who will actually turn up.

Polling in Australia accurately predicted the outcome of the 2016 Federal Election as being on a knife-edge, the Queensland government's collapse from a vast super-majority to a neck and neck (which it lost), and the Victorian government's rejection of a one-term government.

That said, there is too much emphasis on "preferred Premier" and "preferred Prime Minister" ratings. Pundits such as Antony Green have shown time and time again that there is no correlation between these figures and the party's chances and primary vote. For instance, Abbott polled worse than both Gillard and Rudd as preferred PM, just as Turnbull led all three of the others.

Latter polling did - the media lead up was in favour Turnbull having an easy victory.

Again though, similar to the American election, you could look at random one off polls in papers, asking people what they thought about Turnbull and see that they were reasonably opposed, months before our election. Turnbull's popularity was a farce.

Australia's big problem, like the title of this thread, is that we don't really have choices. There isn't really any party representing what the mainstream think and want.

I don't think the majority is that different to the US - there is a growing resentment of the establishment, globalisation and immigration.

1 hour ago, Squab said:

Good point on the compulsory voting. Did anyone pick Pauline?

I didn't pick her - wasn't even paying attention to QLD - but (yes, in hindsight) I think it's obvious to see how she happened. Again, lack of real choice and no-one representing the mainstream - so they turn to her.

 

Our last election was almost the same as our hung parliament in 2010 - a vote against the 2 major parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ummester said:

Australia's big problem, like the title of this thread, is that we don't really have choices. There isn't really any party representing what the mainstream think and want.

I agree - it's often the case that you'll find you want a smattering of stuff that seem to be exclusive to parties that oppose each other on most matters. To make things worse, picking a new party often means losing the things you liked about the previous one.

So, for instance, I want the cuts to overturn federal grants to schools and hospitals, as per Labor policy. Similarly, I want a per-student funded standard education model, so that public and private students receive the same funding, but this is a Greens policy. Furthermore, I wanted the income protection up to $75,000 for maternity leave - which is a Liberal policy. And I want to have strict gambling restrictions, especially during sports telecasts, which is a Xenophon policy (not that I'm South Australian anyway).

And on and on it goes. Yet so often a new government says, "Woohoo! Now we're in power ALL of the big policies of the last government are getting tossed away, forever."

I know this isn't unique to Australia, but I also get a bit despondent when parties always assume that anything their opponent suggests is inherently a bad idea. I don't believe for a moment that those who vote differently to me actually want to rule the world and have a secret hidden agenda of cruelty and domination. They just believe that a different sort of ideologies will improve the world.

I think it's perfectly fine, and in fact, reasonable and adult, if parties openly agree on matters when such events occur.

This would be an ideal Parliamentary situation:

Bill Shorten: Here's my idea: let's establish a colony on the Moon.

Malcolm Turnbull: That's actually a good idea. Thanks, we'll adopt it. After all, it's the idea that matters, not who is governing.

Bill Shorten: Cheers.

Malcolm Turnbull: Anything else?

Bill Shorten: Yeah, here's another idea, let's pass a law that says Aussie Rules is just better than rugby.

Malcom Turnbull: Sorry, I don't like that one. But not because it was you who said it, I just have objections to it.

Bill Shorten: You've not really convinced me, but we'll make this one of our campaign strategies next election. Let's see what the populace thinks.

Malcolm Turnbull: Good idea. While we're at it, I move to ban Arnotts from selling the new Shapes. They're a waste of resources.

Bill Shorten: Agreed.

Speaker Tony Smith: All in favour?

ALL: AYE!

Speaker Tony Smith: The ayes have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Bill Shorten: Here's my idea: let's establish a colony on the Moon.

Malcolm Turnbull: That's actually a good idea. Thanks, we'll adopt it. After all, it's the idea that matters, not who is governing.

Bill Shorten: Cheers.

Malcolm Turnbull: Anything else?

Bill Shorten: Yeah, here's another idea, let's pass a law that says Aussie Rules is just better than rugby.

Malcom Turnbull: Sorry, I don't like that one. But not because it was you who said it, I just have objections to it.

Bill Shorten: You've not really convinced me, but we'll make this one of our campaign strategies next election. Let's see what the populace thinks.

Malcolm Turnbull: Good idea. While we're at it, I move to ban Arnotts from selling the new Shapes. They're a waste of resources.

Bill Shorten: Agreed.

Speaker Tony Smith: All in favour?

ALL: AYE!

Speaker Tony Smith: The ayes have it.

Reads like something from Utopia.  You write for Working dog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I've been plotting trying for a Jan bwb meetup at the grifter brewery mostly because it's around the corner from us and I'm lazy but also the beer is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Winged Shadow said:

Throw some dates and lets get it rolling.

I get the kids back on the 9th so almost anytime from next week until then works for me. Otherwise I guess you can have me and Nat on shift-rotation which will make for very responsible kid-sitting I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brook said:

I get the kids back on the 9th so almost anytime from next week until then works for me. Otherwise I guess you can have me and Nat on shift-rotation which will make for very responsible kid-sitting I'm sure.

You're saying it's not responsible when I'm doing it right? Because that's very accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...