It is quite surprising, to me at least, how crooked this morning’s Nielsen Poll turns out to be. I had thought it was the honest poll, but I was wrong.

For there are no Undecided. This conceals a million voters’ intentions, or indecisions; for, I think, the first time. All the calls were on landline. No young people, therefore, were rung. One third of it was on Thursday night, which is late night shopping, when many prosperous landline owners were out of the house, or commuting. One third was on Friday night, when most healthy persons were out of the house.

And there are, for the first time, state-based margins of error. 4.6 for NSW, 5.3 for Victoria, 5.9 for Queensland, 9 percent for South Australia/Northern Territory, and 7.9 for Western Australia. This might mean the Labor vote, two-party preferred, is 43.6, 56.3, 42.9, 49.0, and 55.9 in those states.

(Is Stirton, perhaps, with these figures, preparing an alibi? It could be so, old friend, it could be so. Why else would he do it?)

And there is mention here of Family First, but none of the KAP, the DLP, the PUP and One Nation; they come, apparently, under ‘other’; all 600,000 of them. It would be nice to know which of these got what and whether, in some seats in Queensland, Katter is getting, as he might be, 40 percent and Palmer, I hear, 60 percent.

It would be good to know too what the average age of the respondents was, and whether it was asked. I would put it between 69 and 72.

There is also the allegation that a million people are ‘uncommitted’ on who would be the better Prime Minister. A million haven’t made up their mind. It would be good to know how this question was asked; through a language barrier, say, or of a housewife anxious to get back to the stove. Because if all of the ‘uncommitted’ went to Gillard, the result would be 50-50. Do you know any of these million ‘uncommitted’ people? You should know one. You should know ten.

That Stirton is lying, and uncomfortable with his lies, is attested by his use, for the first time, of the word ‘landlines’, and his peculiar view that Rudd Labor getting 50 would not mean, could not mean, could not possibly mean, that he would win the day. Though Gillard won office with 50.1 percent he could not possibly, starting at 50, pick up as much as 0.1 percent in the coming eighty days; how could he? Let’s be realistic, how could he? There is a 2.6 margin of error and he could not possibly make it from 50 to 50.1; no way. With eighty days of Prime Ministership behind him, and four television debates, and he did cream Abbott in their last one, he might pick up the necessary ten thousand votes, eleven thousand, even, I would have thought. But what would I know.

But no; but no. The compulsory scenario is Rudd gets more votes but loses, and Stirton, on instruction, obediently says, yes, sir, that’s what’s going to happen, yes sirree Bob. It cannot be otherwise.

… We are talking about corruption here, for these things cannot happen by incompetence. Rudd losing for certain with 50 percent is not something you say out of incompetence, for Howard won with 48.1 percent in 1998, and Stirton knows this, it has to be, simply, corruption.

I ask him to sue me for this.

And if, as I constantly aver, the Katter preferences are being misallocated, and there are half a million of them, and the landlines understate the Labor vote by 1.5 percent, this result, even this result, puts Labor on 48 percent, and Abbott as preferred Prime Minister and Gillard on 46.

So there you go. I hereby state that this is a shonked, corrupted poll and by its wording it even admits it is, and I await court action from Stirton, or another.