|
Thursday, 01 June 2006 01:41 |
Written by Graham Young
|
|
These are the notes used in today's on-air analysis. We are still taking responses and will incorporate the revised figures into the final report.
Quantitative
Total Sample
1. This proposal is not receiving a large “head nodâ€.
2. The proposal has a slightly negative effective across the whole sample – minus 2%
3. The sample is more balanced than usual – 16% Greens, 27% Labor, 20% Liberal and 18% National
4. Best Liberal representation in one of our samples for a while – suggests Liberals are more motivated on this issue than Nationals of Labor.
5. Both Liberals and Nationals are more positive than negative on this proposal – 51% of Liberals and 46% of Nationals approve, while only 9% and 13% disapprove. However, worrying for them that 40% and 41% are neither more nor less likely to vote for the new entity than the party they now vote for.
6. Leadership still an issue. 35% want Lawrence Springborg, 33% have no opinion, 9% Caltabiano and 8% Flegg.
Swinging Sample
I analysed those Liberal, National and Labor voters who were changing their vote since last election from one side of the divide to the other. Results here are interestingly different.
1. 39% are more likely to vote for the new entity, and 18% less likely, making it a net 21% in favour.
2. Still 42% are still neither more nor less likely.
3. Best leader is still Springborg – 53%. Next best is Flegg – 16%. Then Caltabiano – 3%.
Conclusion
Not enough in this proposal to risk running it without widespread approval within the parties. Will make it more likely for swinging voters to vote against Labor, but the majority of voters couldn’t care less about it. Best combination to gain swinging voters would be Springborg leader with Flegg deputy.
Qualitative
I’ve done the qual just on the swinging contingent. A variety of points of view.
Two failure don’t equal one success:
“Two horses arses do not make a whole and healthy horse.†Labor voter, traditional Liberal, female, 51-60
Seen it all before:
“I cannot for the life of me believe that they are trotting out this rubbish again, I have voted for a Beattie government for the last 3 elections, he has blown all creditability as far as I'm concerned, last week topped everything, the standing of politicians in the community is fairly low, without tinkering with decriminalising lying to committies, city Liberals don't want to take on some of the redneck policies of the boys from the bush, they just need to do it through the polls and become the senior party in the coalition under the leadership of Caltabiano†Liberal voter, voted Labor last election, male, 51-60
Opposed to National Party influence:
“I was thinking of perhaps voting Liberal but I would NEVER vote for a party whose leader is Lawrence Springbord or National Party affiliates.I think they represent Qld of old,lack of education and bad image and ideas.†Liberal voter, voted Labor last election, female, 61+
Strength in size:
“qld politics is rather lop sided at moment, need a larger second party†National voter, Greens last election, female, 51-60
Liberals and Nats working together:
“The merger shows an ability for the Liberals and Nationals to work together and I think this is important.†National voter, Labor last election, male, 51-60
They’ll fight:
“The party would have a larger membership base with possible difference of opinions, which may cause debates to become more of an infight.†Undecided, Greens last election, male, 31-40
Less democracy, not more:
“I do not believe in less but in more Parties. Good democracy thrives on diversity, not simplicity.†Undecided, no normal voting pattern, female, 51-60.
Total sample pivots
| Age |
Female |
Male |
Grand Total |
| 18-30 |
2% |
3% |
5% |
| 31-40 |
3% |
8% |
11% |
| 41-50 |
8% |
11% |
20% |
| 51-60 |
12% |
21% |
33% |
| 61+ |
13% |
18% |
31% |
| Grand Total |
39% |
61% |
100% |
| First_Preference |
Total |
| Christian
Democrats |
0% |
| Democrats |
2% |
| Family First |
3% |
| Greens |
16% |
| I don't
wish to answer |
1% |
| Independent |
7% |
| Labor |
27% |
| Liberal |
20% |
| National |
18% |
| One Nation |
1% |
| Other |
1% |
| Undecided |
5% |
| Grand Total |
100% |
| Likely_to_vote |
Greens |
Independent |
Labor |
Liberal |
National |
Grand Total |
| I do not
wish to answer |
0% |
4% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
| Much less
likely |
28% |
35% |
31% |
7% |
7% |
21% |
| Much more
likely |
5% |
9% |
4% |
43% |
33% |
19% |
| Neither
more nor less likely |
43% |
43% |
43% |
40% |
41% |
42% |
| No opinion |
0% |
0% |
2% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
| Somewhat
less likely |
16% |
0% |
13% |
2% |
6% |
9% |
| Somewhat
more likely |
9% |
9% |
6% |
8% |
13% |
8% |
| Grand Total |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| More |
14% |
17% |
10% |
51% |
46% |
28% |
| Less |
43% |
35% |
44% |
9% |
13% |
29% |
| Net |
-29% |
-17% |
-34% |
42% |
33% |
-2% |
| Leader |
Greens |
Independent |
Labor |
Liberal |
National |
Grand Total |
| Bob Quinn |
6% |
0% |
4% |
4% |
1% |
4% |
| Bruce Flegg |
4% |
10% |
6% |
19% |
2% |
8% |
| I do not
wish to answer |
11% |
6% |
10% |
2% |
2% |
7% |
| Jeff Seeney |
1% |
0% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
| Lawrence
Springborg |
15% |
13% |
16% |
50% |
76% |
36% |
| Michael
Caltabiano |
6% |
10% |
7% |
17% |
6% |
9% |
| Mike Horan |
4% |
6% |
4% |
2% |
1% |
3% |
| No opinion |
53% |
55% |
52% |
4% |
9% |
33% |
| Grand Total |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
|
|
|
Comments
Unfortunately what they don't realise is that to win government they'll need to win the south-east with policies that reflect the views of people who live there. ie Daylight Savings, 4 year Parliamentary terms and a progressive (not regressive) environment policy.
Conservative voters in the south-east identify with the Liberal Party becuase of their policies but with clueless career Nationals like Seeney and Vaughn, they only appeal to rednecks and are essentially unelectable.
Methinks the Nationals are almost irrelevant and just about finished!
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the msot benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: 1) from bondage to spiritual faith; 2) from spiritual faith to great courage; 3)from courage to liberty; 4) from liberty to abundance; 5) from abundance to complacency; 6) from complacency to apathy; 7) from apathy to dependence;
As a nation we have passed the 200 years. Where do we fit in the scheme of democracy?
RSS feed for comments to this post