Your statistical layout that isolates the Nationals as a separate entity from the LNP in Qld & the CLP in NT distorts the result you are quoting and thus makes it in this respect meaningless. The remaining National Party brand exists now only as a minor party in NSW, Vic and WA as you know, although the Fed Coalition partner is still nominally called the "Nationals".
Your nominal voters support estimates will only be legitimate if you re-band your original questions.
After all on a federal perspective all coalition candidates from NT are the CLP partner, from Qld the LNP partner and both are very close to being State Governments.
Your question headings thus produce misleading results!
2
Wednesday, 12 May 2010 08:39
donkeeohtee
The media has put the focus on Rudd as black flipping, but where is the balance in putting as much emphasis of the obstructive nature of the opposition.
Rudd's best option is to get the appropriate balance in the senate and then reintroduce the policies that have been frustrated by a senate elected during the Howard years.
I don't see it as a backflip but a strategic and logical move to withdraw and marshall your forces and attack again.
3
Friday, 14 May 2010 01:21
graham
Hi John,
The statistical method relies on measuring the same thing every time. As my definition of Nationals doesn't change, then movements in their vote will be comparing like with like and will be valid. Having said that, the sample size for the Nats is very low, so changes probably don't mean that much. I had to make a decision whether I left them in or kept them out. I decided, in the interests of relevance, not strict statistical accuracy, to leave them in. The reasoning being that as they are part of the Coalition, which is capable of forming a government from time to time, they should be there. But I have excluded the other minor parties on the basis that the sample size is too small and there is no other good reason for putting them up. I also don't want a table that is too crowded.
The LNP gives me a different problem. They are a branch of the Liberal Party, so I have included them as Liberals, even though they can theoretically sit with the Nats in Canberra. To do anything else over-complicates the matter, because in both these cases it is the combine National and Liberal vote that determines whether they are in government or not, and it doesn't matter too much how you combine them.
Your nominal voters support estimates will only be legitimate if you re-band your original questions.
After all on a federal perspective all coalition candidates from NT are the CLP partner, from Qld the LNP partner and both are very close to being State Governments.
Your question headings thus produce misleading results!
Rudd's best option is to get the appropriate balance in the senate and then reintroduce the policies that have been frustrated by a senate elected during the Howard years.
I don't see it as a backflip but a strategic and logical move to withdraw and marshall your forces and attack again.
The statistical method relies on measuring the same thing every time. As my definition of Nationals doesn't change, then movements in their vote will be comparing like with like and will be valid. Having said that, the sample size for the Nats is very low, so changes probably don't mean that much. I had to make a decision whether I left them in or kept them out. I decided, in the interests of relevance, not strict statistical accuracy, to leave them in. The reasoning being that as they are part of the Coalition, which is capable of forming a government from time to time, they should be there. But I have excluded the other minor parties on the basis that the sample size is too small and there is no other good reason for putting them up. I also don't want a table that is too crowded.
The LNP gives me a different problem. They are a branch of the Liberal Party, so I have included them as Liberals, even though they can theoretically sit with the Nats in Canberra. To do anything else over-complicates the matter, because in both these cases it is the combine National and Liberal vote that determines whether they are in government or not, and it doesn't matter too much how you combine them.
Does that make sense?
Graham