In exactly a fortnight’s time, the last votes will be cast in the 2009 Queensland election.
So where do we stand?
A few days ago, Graham Young suggested to me that voters may have stopped listening to Labor. I’m coming round to the view that he may be right.
Some have expressed puzzlement that the LNP could be doing well in the primary vote while, according to the latest release of Galaxy results, Anna Bligh outstrips Lawrence Springborg by a wide margin on all the leadership questions. In truth, that’s not much of a conundrum. In an age when leadership dominates campaigning, we’re apt to forget that the party’s image and the government’s image are not identical to that of the leader. It could well be that Queenslanders like Anna Bligh, and are at best indifferent towards Lawrence, but don’t believe that Bligh is leading a renewed government.
Labor knows this. Hence all the attempts to distinguish Bligh from Peter Beattie, and signify that her administration represents change. This rebranding exercise hasn’t really convinced. A clean sweep, much earlier, of underperforming Ministers and a more distinct personal vision from Bligh would have helped. It may be, ironically, that the “safe and experienced” theme adopted for this election in light of the Global Financial Crisis only serves to remind electors that the ALP’s been in office for eleven years.
If the sentiment for a change is strong enough, Bligh’s popularity may not save Labor. That’s compounded if voters have largely made up their minds. I’ve been to Toowoomba and the Gold Coast in the last week, and I haven’t heard anyone there – or in Brisbane – talking about the campaign. Everyone I ask has been disengaged.
While I’ve seen signs of shiny new infrastructure everywhere I’ve been on my travels (and on my last trip to the Sunshine Coast a few months ago), voters are not necessarily grateful for what comes to be taken for granted. Anecdotal, I know, but I think both the relatively static polls and the parties’ campaign strategies suggest that there is a lack of voter engagement with the campaign. It’s conventional wisdom that may change in the last week, and Labor will be hoping that it does. But it may not, if minds are made up.
Pay very close attention to any voter win expectations figures we see as the campaign continues. If voters start to believe Labor will lose, the decision to go for The Borg will become a more serious one, and there may be some movement back. If everyone continues to believe Labor will scrape back in, they could be gone.
We now know more, or can infer more, about the regional distribution of the swing. The seats in play at the moment will be those held by Labor with a margin above 5%. While Labor has a significant cushion with fat margins and the electoral system working in its favour, large swings are hardly unknown in the Sunshine State. Numerous state and federal examples can be cited, including 2007′s federal election.
Ironically, Kevin Rudd’s popularity may be a two-edged sword for the ALP. Voters may think jobs and the economy are safe in the federal government’s hands, and they can risk taking out their angst about services on state Labor. We might also have been setting the bar too high for the LNP campaign. Expectations among voters will have been low, and anything better than a total disaster and constant feuding and indiscipline could represent a reasonable alternative.
Two weeks is a very long time in politics, but it is time, at the half way mark of the 2009 campaign, to recognise that there’s a very real chance the LNP could form a government.
Two words: Premier Springborg. It’s not just pirates and Barry White now. This is serious.
Elsewhere: More discussion in comments at Larvatus Prodeo.
81 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Lockyer has picked up parts of Logan in the redistribution.
Hamish is category five now, and steaming down the coast. If it jinks in and crosses the coast in a populated area, does anyone think that this could change things?
Yep, it will flatten a lot of homes you’d think. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.
Touche.
Politically?
Hmm. Maybe I’m exaggerating the lniks with Logan in Beaudesert electorate, but there is still a substantial chunk of Beaudesert voters who live in Logan LGA.
Is it possible for Queenslanders to vote for a group they don’t see as a viable alternative government? The Pineapple party is close to being a joke and yet they have got that many about to vote for them? It should be 60/40. I can only assume people are really tired and bored and think ‘lets vote for something else’… or ‘we are all going to hell in a hand basket anyway…’
If just a small bit or reality enters their heads as they enter polling booths the ALP should win quite comfortably.
Will the $900 being handed out by the Fed ALP make a difference on polling day in QLD?
Andrew Bartlett has a look at the Indys here.
http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=7181
IF the leadership change “rebranding” doesn’t work for QLD Labor, you can thank Bob Carr and Morris Iemma for that. NSW bought that line at the last state election, only to be disappointed. I don’t think that will work again.
But for the sake of argument, Mark, what would the worst thing that would happen if Springborg DID win? I like ideas and different ways of thinking about issues, which is why I read you guys (plus the fact that reading this blog is a welcome distraction from spreadsheets and screens), but I’ve never felt compelled personally to get politically involved. Most of you here are. Why is it hard for a party supporter – of ANY party – to accept that sometimes it is good for your guys to be out, for the sake of the system? Would it be like admitting you were a bit wrong in the first place and that that feeling sucks? Is that why the Liberals went all crusty and surly and a bit weird after Howard lost?
I mean, isn’t the fact that one side stays in so long in Queensland precisely part of the problem that makes Queensland a bit odd and different?
If I sound naive I apologise – but I’ve already found that so much of political thinking is outside the headspace of where I spend most of my day. For me the comments on this blog are very educational and give me great insights.
Indulge me; I am enjoying the blog and following your comments.
Mark – I think you are overthinking the decision-process of the average voter. If Joe and Jane Voter feel that Labor will look after their back pocket better than the LNP, then Bligh will be returned.
NorthShorer For the same reason football supporters never want their club to lose. Even though they know its not healthy for the game if one team wins all the time. In truth state politics is becoming less and less relevant so unless an ALP loss means a loss of employment or funding you would not slash your wrists.
I will think its sad if Queenslanders really want to be led by a total dill like the Borg. After Howard I will never be complacent at a Federal level.
Ben, there may be parts of Beaudesert in Logan Council, but they were only added about 18 months ago when the local government changes were introduceed. None of Beaudesert, even on the old boundaries, was in Logan City Council until then.
Muskiemp (57) – Anna must have thought the $900 would make a difference when she named the date. Why else go that early, unless she was expecting something very bad to happen soon after March 21? But will it make a difference? Well, if I had a machine that could read more than a million minds I could tell you…
#56
Reality? Hardly likely, it’s Queensland.
Northshorer @ 59 – interestingly, the “rebranding” – or part of it – was orchestrated by Mike Kaiser who moved from being Iemma’s Chief of Staff to Bligh’s.
As to the implications of an LNP win, let me come back to you on that. Suffice it to say, as I was arguing early in the campaign, that state governments do matter, and it won’t just be a case of incompetence (there’s a fair helping of that on the ALP’s plate) but significant policy shifts which, to my mind, aren’t being telegraphed. The last Coalition government was a one termer and a schemozzle, but it still did significant damage.
Glad you’re liking the blog!
Jack a Randa @ 63 – As I said in Crikey around the time the election was called, the timing of the campaign and the timing of the $900 were definitely related. But I think, as I was saying in the post, the link Labor hoped for between the economy/GFC and the election themes is fraying at the edges. If they thought they could get away without addressing service delivery, and if they didn’t anticipate that drawing attention to incumbency is a double edged sword, then that’s poor politics. I’m also of the view, as stated, that Rudd’s popularity may enable a vote for the LNP if the economy is seen by state voters mainly as a federal responsibility.
mark says:
Last week Mark was suggesting“that a plausible argument could be made that The Borg sunk his ship today”. Today he’s asserting that “there’s a real possibility we’ll be looking at an LNP victory”.
Did Mark start falling out of bed on a different side?
Because nothing fundamental has changed in the parties, policies or polity in the interim. The polls have shifted in the LNP’s favour (people are making up their minds closer to decision making time.
Mark’s psephological models alaways seem to be built with spacious wriggle room and rubbery projections. This suggests that his poll commentary consists of Monday morning quarter-backing with little or no predictive value.
By contrast I follow the scientific method and lay out a general theory, with implications specific to the case under investigation. I use a basic stimulation/stagnation – incumbency/outcumbency model, fine tuned for local conditions.
This is my prediction for the QLD elections, cranked out over a week ago (but in principle development since the “its the economy stupid!” end of the cold war):
When I made my prediction a week or so ago the ALP was ahead in the polls and the bookies favoured them accordingly. At least they put their money where their mouths are.
Its time psephologists put their predictions where their mouths are. I re-issue the challenge to both possum and mark, that I initially issued when I posted the above comment:
I am not doing this to be mean to mark or possum. I think they are well-meaning and honest. But they do not put their theories properly to the test.
I want all psephologists to be on a level playing field where they state their assumptions and predictions for transparency and accountability.
That is the method of both intellectual and institutional progress. What have we got to lose, our highly unpaid jobs as bloggers?
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/electioncentral/2009/03/08/the-lnp-could-win-ii/
Jack, as I’ve just argued, and as I’ve said to you many, many times before, I am much more sceptical of the worth of making “predictions” than most folks in this game. So I’m not going to take you up on your challenge. Elections are dynamic events, and things change quite quickly, and we also can get more insight as we go along from a wider range of data.
And by the way, Jack, for the reasons Antony Green has explained, two party preferred figures are almost meaningless with the intersection of the current Queensland party and electoral systems.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/electioncentral/2009/03/05/galaxy-51-49-to-lnp/comment-page-2/#comment-1166
So if you insist on putting your “theory” to the test, you really should specify the result in terms of number of seats.
mark Posted March 8, 2009 at 6:12 pm says:
Why the scare quotes around “predictions”? What are you afraid of?
I have heard your arguments for the quarantining psephology from the rest of predictive science. And they dont cut the mustard with me. (ANyway, who died and annointed you as King of Philosophy of Science?)
THe claim that elections are “special”, “one-off historical events”, “dynamic” or “change quite quickly” is one that could be made of virtually any area of study. Aerodynamics – thats dynamic! Still a predictive applied science.
What about meteorology. Nothing changes like the weather. Yet we have meteorologists making credible predictions 50 years out. And you accept them, being a supporter of AGW theory.
Provincial elections are a lot easier to call than global weather. We have plenty of electoral data out there to plug into our equations. And elections are cyclical events – lots of repeatablility. Thats why they call the electoral swing monitor a pendulum. It goes back and forth in a kind of regular way.
So I think you methodological qualms about predicting elections are special pleading. Just blowing smoke whilst your rapidly re-adjust your model to the next blip in the opinion polls.
If you want the kudos of science you must lay out your general theory, specify local and temporal conditions and then derive a testable prediction. No ifs, buts or maybes.
THat is what I do and I stand by my record.
I have correctly predicted (online or e-copy only post-2003) the past four AUS federal elections (1993, 1996, 2001, 2004 and 2007 – I abstained from 1998, due to living in a house full of journalists in Bondi!). AndI correctly predicted the past five US federal elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2004). Not to mention sundry state and local elections.
Thats ten national elections straight. The odds of these sorts of prediction being correct at random are 1 in 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 ie 2 superscript 10 = 1024. I may be blessed but Im not that lucky.
Admittedly the nineties-noughties was an easier time to predict electoral results. Incumbents usually won due to economic boom or terrorist threat. Still, I’m pretty chuffed at my record.
Most of the other psephologists (Mumbles et al) at least have a go at predicting elections at the start of the campaign. Then if they are wrong they usually have the guts to fess up and go back to the drawing board.
I swear that if my prediction of an LNP victory is out by more than a couple of points I will definitely take my model apart and look for flaws.
But all you do is just tweak your model after the fact to fit the facts. Thats called spin, not science.
Jack, I’m not interested in having this discussion with you at this time. I am interested in covering a campaign which is dynamic, and as I’ve said before, past evidence shows that in Queensland, campaigns do matter. It seems to me that your motivation is in finding evidence that supports theories that have little to do, per se, with electoral behaviour. Should I end up posting on the methodological and epistemological issues, I’ll talk about that in more detail.
In the meantime, I’d repeat that the 2PP figure is close to meaningless in the specific context of the Queensland polity and electoral system, and if you want to make a prediction, you’d best do it in terms of number of seats won.
Mark Bahnisch Posted March 8, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Now we are putting sneer quotes around my “theory”. I dont want to sound to precious but I wouldnt be looking down on “theory” if I was in mark’s position. THat is, someone whose scoreboard of correct, theoretically-generated electoral predictions is pretty close to zero.
FWIW I abide by the standard cyclical theory of swings in partisan alignment, lately mentioned in George Megaloneous blog. I summarise these two overlapping cycles as:
- macro-economic economic cycle: “its the economy stupid”
- macro-political electoral pendulum: “throw the bums out”
THis theory predicts the valency of movement in general vote levels. I will admit that I am not much interested in the local distributions of seats. Too much ball-busting analysis of gerrymandering etc
So I could well be right about movements in vote levels but wrong about the election victor. From a purely psephological pov this would not bother me much as I am interested in whats swinging votes, not how electoral boundaries are drawn. The latter devil-in-the-detail data is for the bureaucrats and machine operators.
Jack, I’ll leave you to it. I haven’t noticed that you’ve ever taken a close interest in Queensland politics as such. You’ve just admitted that, and I’m not sure your grand theory stuff is really the focus of interest for most people reading this blog.
You also appear to have overlooked the point that it’s impossible to accurately calculate the 2PP from the movement in the vote. Where that leaves your prediction, I really have no idea.
Mark Bahnisch Posted March 8, 2009 at 8:25 pm
No, Spin doctors and advertisers like to drum up the effects of their efforts. But that is obviously a case of occupational special pleading. Campaigns rarely matter that much, still less leaders and still less policy differences which are usually minuscule these days.
The polls are “dynamic” because voters are making up their minds late. They usually have more important things to ponder on than which bunch of suits will be jawing all over their living room the next three years. But the decisive facts that are brewing in their minds well predate the campaigns.
Of course horse race commentator pundits pretend that campaign flim-flam makes more than a hill of beans difference. They would say that or they would quickly run out of things to day.
Mark Bahnisch says:
Mark, you do not seem to have an in-principle objection to predictions. You keep making them. Its just that you keep flip-flopping on them. One week you say that the ALP will probably win. Next week you say that the LNP will probably win. Stop shifting the goal posts and start standing by your calls.
Mark Bahnisch says:
Wanting to “find evidence in support of theories” is a motivation I share with all theorists, both cranks and scientists. But of course the difference between a crank (or a spin doctor) and a scientist is that the scientist has sufficient confidence in his theory to expose it unaided to the rigours of the real world in live experiments.
If it succeeds then the theory is verified and strengthened. If it fails then it is refuted and weakened. Survival of the (data-)fittest is the Law of the Epistemological Jungle.
In the intertubes you can run, but you cant hide. Archives and caches and screenshots mean can be dredged up and predictors noses rubbed in it if they are wrong.
So far, so good.
But my main motivation is to be proved right. So that I can add to the truth value of all the worlds intellectual productions whilst simultaneously indulging in vindictive crowing.
So sue me.
By contrast you (and Possum?) just churn out endless streams of post-facto interpretation which is invariably inflected with your own ideological biases or fashion du jour. I would just like you and possum to state your general psephological theory and the probable tendencies that this theory implies in the special case of QLD 2009.
Is that too much to ask?
Not interested, Jack.
Electoral behaviour across different places and different times can’t be caught effectively by a “general psephological theory”, but I really don’t think this is the thread to debate that. This thread, and this blog, is about this Queensland election campaign.
I’ve also made the point to you many times before that people might be more willing to engage with your ideas if you refrained from denigrating your interlocutors every time you put them forward. Your constant practice of doing so suggests to me you’re more interested in bolstering your own ego through “winning” a predictions content than all this stuff about the progress of knowledge you talk about. At considerable length, as with all your comments.
Wow, Mark just got served!
So did Possum I guess!
But I think this quote sums up Mr Strocchi’s motivations:
Substitute “endlessly” for “simultaneously”.
Mark, don’t feed the tr*ll.
I think Sam the Dog may be onto something. I wonder whether people will not think that an early election during cyclone season is a more grievous sin than an ordinary early election. If we see a lot of damage Bligh may suffer a backlash because she chose to run the election now.
Graham Young on that question:
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003502.html
Mark Bahnisch Posted http://blogs.crikey.com.au/electioncentral/2009/03/07/campaign-2009-at-half-way-the-lnp-could-win/comment-page-2/#comment-1207“>March 8, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Actually I unjustly maligned Possum Polytics of all psephological sins. Got him confused with Poll Bludger, who actually does yeomans work in the psephological field.
PP is a pretty good quant modeller and is more than ready to put up testable politico-metric predictions. His model of the AUD 2007 federal election generated the following prediction:
This final 2PP result was ALP 52.70%-L/NP 47.30%. So he was pretty close to bang on. A bit better than me. In June 2007 I predicted ALP 52%-L/NP 48%.
Mark did not even get on the scoreboard.
mark bahnisch says:
Mark is being a little bit coy [italics phrase subsequently edited to remove snarky phrase - poster] on the subject of my accountability. For sure I indulge in “crowing” when I get it right. But I do more than my fair share of crow-eating when I get it wrong. Maybe Mark could follow my humble example?
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All