“JUST as Tony Abbott gains a significant shift in the polls that sees him showing a heartbeat after his “near-death experience” earlier this month, the Prime Minister has once again come under attack from his own party.
Voters could be forgiven for thinking the leaks against the Prime Minister are being co-ordinated.
The authoritative Newspoll survey has the Coalition lifting its primary vote by three points and its two-party-preferred vote by four points, while Labor slid by similar margins based on 2013 elections flows. The Coalition and Labor are now neck and neck on 38 per cent of primary votes and the Coalition has turned a 43 to 57 per cent deficit on two-party-preferred votes to a more competitive 47 to 53, and all in a fortnight.”
The Herald-Sun Editorial. 23rd February, 2015
Ok, I know I’m repeating myself but opinion polls all acknowledge that they have a three percent margin of error.
Got that, Herald Sun editors.
Or to put this so simply that even Herald Sun readers can understand.
If the full electorate stood at exactly 50/50 on a given issue and you ran a poll. 47/53 would still be within the poll’s accepted margin of error. As would 53/47.
So, now stick with this, Andrew Bolt fans, that means that – in consecutive polls – that if people were asked will the coin land heads or tails, then 47% of people saying “Heads” in one poll, followed by 53% saying “Heads” in the next poll is still within the margin of error!
It doesn’t mean that Heads has had a 6% surge in popularity!
Now, let’s move on from the poll. Even though it’s the “authorative” Newspoll. Let’s not even ask why they consider Newspoll authorative, even though it’s nowhere near as accurate as several others, and generally swings more widely and wildly than Morgan.
Let’s just accept the poll as totally accurate and not subject to the accepted potential inaccuracies of all polls – as The Herald Sun seems to have done – and ask ourselves a two simple, common sense questions:
- Are there lots of people out there thinking, “Wow, Abbott survived a spill from his own party, then went on the attack, announced a very clear policy on the building of submarines, showed fierce loyalty to Peta Credlin, then sacked his whip after promising not to be vindictive and to consult more widely, I just got the man all wrong and while my support for him was wavering a few weeks ago, now I’m throwing my support back to the Liberals, even though some of them are treacherous bastards who tried to stab their leader!” OR
- Is the surge in Liberal support because voters think that any party considering dumping Abbott is more worthy of support?
But after some nonsense about the “enemy within” (the Liberal Party) making Tony Abbott a “lame duck” and reminding us of our “unsustainable debt” (even you accept the idea that our debt is too large, it’s certainly sustainable, but there’s a whole blog in that), the editorial shared the following:
“No one should doubt Mr Abbott’s patriotism and loyalty. Whatever his faults, these values are not among them.”
Yep, that’s what they said.
All right, some people may not see patriotism and loyalty as faults, but I wonder why the paper is suggesting that Mr Abbott doesn’t have patriotism and loyalty among his values when he’s been so loyal to Peta and so patriotic to Britain!
You can check it out here (‘click’ on it for a clearer image), until someone with a grasp of English who works at the paper (I know we’re talking the Murdoch Media here, so that’s an oxymoron) actually reads and understands the implications of what they’ve written and the whole thing is edited out of history, just as Winston was paid to do in 1984.