Crikey writes: Re. “Bell tolls for Eden-Monaro, where nobody’s revved up on Monaro St” (yesterday). In yesterday’s article we incorrectly stated: “… a swing against Labor of 4.2% is needed and the electorate has never gone below 54% on a two-party preferred basis for Labor since 1996.”
This is incorrect. Liberal Gary Nairn held Eden-Monaro from 1996 to 2007. The story has been amended online.
As Eden-Monaro goes …
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
Janelle Irvine writes: Re. “Bell tolls for Eden-Monaro, where nobody’s revved up on Monaro St” (yesterday). As Eden-Monaro is irrelevant to Queanbeyan, Queanbeyan is irrelevant to those in Eden-Monaro, outside of their own Monaro Street.
Why it’s included we do not understand. The city is so closely tied to Canberra and the pulse of the ACT, while from the Monaro Plains to the Eden Coast and north to Batemans Bay the rest of us have a totally different life, both in work and expectations. When I read today that Tony Abbott had been giving our seat considerable attention and visits, I asked around, as I hadn’t seen him, nor read any reports — nor has anyone else. Now it is clear — he has been to Queanbeyan, irrelevant to the rest of us, five times.
To give Mike Kelly his due, he has worked hard for our electorate, and in fact was born here (not in Queanbeyan) on a dairy farm on the coast, so that’s refreshing. He has earned the right to represent us again.
I don’t give credit to a bellwether, its sounds (a lot like) superstitious tea leaf reading, a crazy coincidence. However, should the bellwether proposition fall over, in opposition, Mike’s effectiveness might not be as obvious for the local communities — outside of Queanbeyan.
David Moncrieff writes: Quiet in the town that gave us Ricky Stuart and Brad Haddin? James Rose forgot Queanbeyan’s most notable rev head — Mark Webber, who has enjoyed some successes on the world car racing scene!
Too confusing by half
Jim Hart writes: Re. “Essential: Coalition starts campaign with a lead” (yesterday). Your analysis of voter intention is paradoxical to say the least. I was with you when you said “53% of voters say they have already decided for whom they will vote” — that seemed simple enough.
But then you got all analytical on me when you said, “Some 69% of Coalition voters say they’ve already made up their minds, compared with 55% of Labor voters”.
So how can you call them Coalition (or Labor) voters if they haven’t decided yet? Does your Keanomatic psychic radar already know how someone will vote even if they think they are still undecided? Is this like free will vs determinism? Or perhaps you are simply referring to how they voted last time — in which case perhaps we might call them former Coalition/Labor voters to show their swinging status.
But it gets worse. Having just told me that 69% of Coalition voters have made up their minds, you then tell that only 59% of them say they won’t change their minds. So have they made up their minds or haven’t they? And is that 59% of 69% or 59% of something else?
I doubt if I can cope with five more weeks of this kind of meta-analysis with all its percentages of percentages. I think I’ll just skip all the articles and go to First Dog, who gets it straight from Jasper and Abigail.