It seems Galaxy has settled into a three-week polling pattern, compared with Newspoll’s fortnightly, ACNielsen’s monthly and Roy Morgan’s weekly (usually - they seem to have taken last week off) UPDATE: Sorry, it’s actually been four weeks since the last Galaxy - the previous three were three weeks apart. Today’s Galaxy survey has Labor leading 55-45 – still narrower than other recent polls, but a slight correction from its quirky 53-47 of three weeks ago. Despite the flak Galaxy copped last time, respondents were again asked a question about Labor’s union connections. They were also asked if the Prime Minister was “addressing problems in Aboriginal communities because of the upcoming federal election or because he really cares about the problem”. All revealed here.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Galaxy: 55-45
-
-
Politics, Media, Business ... No Britney
Read the Stories you won't get anywhere else.
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
314 Comments
I’m beginning to get the feeling people may have begin to make up their minds. Originally I thought in March that if by Mid-June if Howard hadn’t come back he would be in trouble. It’s July now. You get the feeling the tax cuts won’t make a difference now. If all polls continue like this until the end of August, he will go in a landslide. As a neutural political watcher, I’m calling a Rudd landslide win now. Something massive will have to happen over the next four months if Howard is to win.
Put in the context of the polls before and since, it’s probably fair to describe the previous Galaxy poll as an outlier.
I do wonder how much value the other questions are though. For instance, the political ploy question might engender cynicism in the answers of the respondents; rather than that cynicism being pre-existing.
It would be interesting to see the areas and cities where Rudd is most popular (or Howard is least popular.) It could see where national trends are going. All I know is, IR is the major issue. Has been since Beazley was there. And I don’t see it turning around.
Labor would have to be pleased on the back of what has been a good media week for the government. %58 believing Howards “intervention” is motivated by the federal election tells me this credibility with the electorate is at an all time low and is unlikely to recover at this point. I agree withh HooHoo that something massive will have to happen for him to turn it around.
Morgan is fortnightly usually- has been for 15 years.
55 - 45 Interesting numbers, while I agree with HooHoo assessment but if there is a bright spot for the Government and that 55-45 is better than 60-40 which I know we all dismissed at the time as overblown.
Poll is tipping a Swing of 8 % toward the ALP which would result in a very large landslide, but in saying this if I was Howard I would be thinking 5 point improvement if Newspoll tomorrow says the same then I’m still alive (but just)
I’m not surprised the Aboriginal policy appears to have had no impact for its not the sort of issue that would change votes sure it might raise the level of debate in certain parts of the community but they tend to not be the swingers but with those poll numbers who is swinging.
The post March 2007 trend across all polls have been a one percentage point per month movement in the government’s favour.
Come December, this could be a very close contest.
55-45 is quite realistic but the Howard Government have made up four or five points since March. If the trend continues, they are well set up for re-election to a fifth term.
Heh, it seems Galazy is trying to counter allegations of pushy bias by having pushy questions against both parties.
Surely ‘twould be easier to simply not do shoddy polling.
Fair’s fair Nostradamus, you said all those polls were 5% off therefore on your type of logic the Government hasn’t moved at all over months and is absolutely doomed.
I don’t think anyone was silly enough to believe either end of your spin. I know where I’d rather be polling.
The previous Galaxy poll (ie the famous 53-47 one) was on June 4 which was four weeks ago not three so who knows what their pattern is.
I’m with HooHoo and have been saying so for a little while. The March results were probably a bit over-blown but this sort of result looks about right. We’ve had three months of furious activity as the govt tries to get back into the game and a relentless assault on rudd. If this is the best they can do …..
Sooner or later the focus will shift back onto the reasons this Govt is on the nose. Eg see Milne’s column in the Oz this morning. And I thought the new ACTU on TV last night was their best yet - absolutely devastating.
Gravity as you would expect a natual adjustment to the polls. Labor would have to be very happy that Howard’s ‘Shock and Awe’ Aboriginal invasion mostly bought scepticism and may have increased his credibility problem.
Howard has been setting the agenda for the last 2 months, with the Budget, govt’s climate change response, Aboriginal child abuse. Labor has been defensive, with Therese Rein and union affairs in the spotlight. A 55-45 Labor is thus a very good result. This weekend there will be the LiveEarth concerts, which should allow Labor to get back on the front foot. Later there may be interest rate issues, criminal charges against Qld Libs, and APEC could be a negative for the govt due to Bush. All in all, things are looking very good for Labor.
I think saying that the election is going to become a Rudd landslide is a little silly on the current numbers. Given the fact that the numbers have now been coming back to Howard for the last three months, it is possible, even likely that by October the numbrs are going to be 53-47, still in Rudd favour of course, but with this type of numbers that if Howard went into the election with, he could come out a winner, especially off the back of APEC (not that I believe that APEC is a magic bullet for Howard). Also be aware that any swing from the Aboriginal announcemnet probably won’t be seen for another week.
Lord D makes some very good points about the political problems on the horizon for the government. Effectively, the Budget, the Aboriginal sexual assault response and the handout to carers may be the last big bullets the government fires before it starts to hit heavy weather.
The Qld Libs criminal charges could break at any moment, APEC will be a big problem in Sydney, especially when George W turns up, and Iraq just drags on and on.
The Reuters newsagency averages Newspoll, Morgan and Nielsen to get an overview of how the polls are trending.
Following the latest three (mid-June), it had the three poll average on the 2PP at 57-43 Labor’s way. At 2004 poll, the average was 47.3-52.7 the government’s way. That gives you some idea of how big the change to ALP has been.
AKP, just interested in the reasons why you believe the swing from the Aboriginal intervention won’t be seen for another week.
Drop, that’s been the line from every Howard follower this year, that we have to wait a few polls after everything to see any real impact for the government. We’ve been waiting a long, long time on some of them…
The Government is comfortably on track for election. As I predicted, the primary votes have settled into a 6 point band (40-46) and will stay there until the beginning of August. There will then be another significant reduction in the gap between the parties, after which they will be neck and neck. When Mr Howard calls the election, Labor’s vote will further drop to about 39/40 and the campaign itself will consolidate the Government’s lead.
And, as always, astute observers don’t pay the slightest attention to the 2PP figures in these opinion polls, because they’re just fantasies cooked up by the pollsters. We just concentrate on the primaries. And there was no Morgan last week because their poll obviously favoured the Government, so Gazza scrapped it.
Ahh Steven, back to your usual self again I see. Great comedy value!
Galaxy looks like a four-week cycle to me - the last one was published on 4 June: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21843127-5001021,00.html .
So the unions have had no impact on Labor, and the Coalition’s discovery of Aboriginal disadvantage has had no impact on their fortunes either. Puts into perspective the value and utility of these stories.
It’s a bizarre thing that voters have to tune into the media to find out what other voters are thinking, and how politicians are tailoring their messages to appeal to said voters as a result of said polls, etc.
Steven Kaye, Coota Bulldog provides figures you can’t dispute (”Following the latest three (mid-June), it had the three poll average on the 2PP at 57-43 Labor’s way. At 2004 poll, the average was 47.3-52.7 the government’s way. That gives you some idea of how big the change to ALP has been.”)
Puts your wishful scenario into perspective doesn’t it? Time to get real Steven.
“The Government is comfortably on track for election.”
The Government is *conceivably* on track. Not even the most ardent but rational government supporter would say the current position is comfortable.
“When Mr Howard calls the election, Labor’s vote will further drop to about 39/40 and the campaign itself will consolidate the Government’s lead.”
Didn’t Howard lose the 98 and 01 campaigns, and just break even in 96?
Kevin Rudd may not be the greatest campaigner going around, but hoping for him to be as bad as Latham is a bit hopeful for Liberal supporters.
There was a Newspoll a month or so back - can’t seem to find it now - that listed the relative importance of a dozen or so “issues”. From memory, aborignal issues ranked dead last in importance to the people polled; I’d expect this general apathy to extend to the latest pair of jackboots compassionate intervention by a caring government. .
SK, before this year Morgan published fortnightly; he takes a sample every weekend and averages them. No Morgan last Friday suggests that the poll taken June 23/24 showed no real movement either way, and was not worth reporting separately. The issues poll had Labor way ahead in the top 4 issues and 6 of the top 7; it doesn’t seem to be reproduced at the Newspoll web site.
I love following the polls - but the importance of these polls is only to be found in the interpretation, not in a single poll itself. Each poll is a statistical sample and any REAL figure can be within the margin of error. Any changes within the margin of error must mean that there is nothing we can draw out of the change.
For example, the last four Galaxy polls show Labor with a primary vote of 49 / 49 / 44 / 46. If there is a 3% margin of error, then they are all within the margin of error. At 49% the minimum REAL level could be 46%. At 44% the maximum REAL level could be 47%. A drop of 5% could actually mean a REAL rise of 1%. Alternatively, it could indicate a REAL drop from 52% to 41% or 11%. What the constancy of the polls shows is that within the margin of error, the ALP vote is not dropping (or it has gone down slightly).
The real interest is how we interpret the polls. The reading of the polls sets the political agenda. A few weeks ago, Newspoll showed a drop in ALP support but on the same day, Neilsen showed a rise in ALP support. The analysis in the Australian (Newspoll) was of course all about the government being back in the game.
Bring on Newspoll tomorrow! (I hope)
“Do you think Prime Minister John Howard is addressing problems in Aboriginal communities because of the upcoming federal election or because he really cares about the problem?”
What an extraordinary question. For a start, it suggests he is actually tackling the issue, in a positive manner. I would suggest the opposite is the case. He is more likely making the situation worse.
It seems to me that not agreeing with the proposition that Labor will probably win the election is the psephological equivalent of being a climate change denialist; forming a view based on prejudice, ideology or hope in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Why don’t they just ask “Do you approve, or disapprove of the Prime Minister’s policy of having the Federal Government intervene in Aboriginal communities?”
This poll would make the PM feel like crap. I do believe his heart is in the right place with the Indigenous thing. Bad timing, cynicism towards Howard (everything Howard does in 2007 Australians look at with raised eyebrows) and general trends have worked against it being successful. Which is a bit of a shame for people like Noel Pearson.
And it seems to me those who are absolutely certain of a Labor win are like lovestruck teenagers
“This really is the one for me, he’s never going to leave me, he’ll always love me”
Fervent hope does not replace the reality of a) trendlines in polling, ie the election will be in October/November not July b) the benefits of incumbency and c) the refusal to countenance change in outdated ALP policy by Rudd
Why don’t they just ask “Do you approve, or disapprove of the Prime Minister’s policy of having the Federal Government intervene in Aboriginal communities?â€
Precisely , Simon. Nice and neutral.
You have to wonder if Galaxy is trying to pave the way into the brave new world of ‘push polling standards’. They can’t be that dumb that they don’t realise that their questions have begun to move towards the ‘leading’.
I said “probably” - I’m not absolutely certain of anything. Though you’re right that I do fervently hope, like most people in politics I like to think that I can separate head from heart when forming a view.
Re Edward’s points, a) I agree that it will get closer, b) surely the point is that incumbency is now at least as big a negative as a positive for Howard (the Galaxy poll numbers on the indigenous crisis say to me that many voters have formed a view and stopped listening), and c) whilst clearly Rudd has to distance himself somewhat from the unions on IR, surely it makes little sense to run a small target strategy on an issue where the govt is unpopular.
C-Woo said ‘(everything Howard does in 2007 Australians look at with raised eyebrows) and general trends have worked against it being successful. Which is a bit of a shame for people like Noel Pearson.’
1. Howard has only himself to blame for the electorate’s cynicism. He’s cried Wolf! too often.
2. The intervention Pearson wants has the support of the opposition too.
3. Howard is not the man for this job. New wine needs new wineskins. Bring on the election!
Edward, I am not certain of a Labor win, but that with each passing month we are being asked to wait until the next month to form a view, because the Government must revive itself by then. Based on relatively stable polling in previous change of Govt years, it would seem a 55% result would be a reasonable outcome come election day. How many of you (and I think in a comment above) said in January if the numbers are still bad in July it is all over.
But your points:
(a) speaks for itself and you are right.
(b) you seem to imply that the incumbency advantage hasn’t already played into the current numbers and will later? I think this is a hope more than an established truth; but if you have evidence of a sudden impact of incumbency advantage please provide it. You must also counter this with incumbency disadvantage and expect every Govt attempt to do anything to be met with “why didn’t this occur to you at any time in the last 11 years?” Fair question it seems to me - and one the incumbent can’t possibly answer.
(c) please - it is a very personal view, it is contradicted by all the polling data to date to the extent you suggest it should poll. With actual reference to policy I don’t think you could hope to establish either that Labor Policy is ‘outdated’ pre-Rudd and I don’t think you could sensibly imagine a Labor leader more willing to dump policy with a backflip or two if you tried.
Galaxy isn’t push-polling. Nor do I think the questions are necessarily leading. They posed a simple dichotomy about the intervention (’electioneering’ or ‘humanitarian’). Is there a third option they left out?
What makes such dualistic questions unsatisfactory is they tend to conflate many possible shades of thought.
Does the facially neutral ‘do you approve or disapprove’ guarantee more transparent results? A respondent might say ‘no’ because they are a ‘Howard Hater’, yet be neutral on the policy. Or she might say ‘yes’, knowing little about the policy and being suspicious of what she knows, simply because she has been told ’something must be done’.
The interesting polling in recent times was in The Australian a couple of days ago, showing that a fair majority felt Howard was too harsh on unions, and only a minority thinking Labor was too soft on them.
This rather explains the ineffectualness of the government (and media) assault on the labo(u)r movement.
It is not counter-intuitive: data over decades has shown people increasingly less concerned about union power, as unions decline institutionally and structurally. Howard is simply hoping that as fewer people have experience with unions, he can play into fear of the unknown, but he might also be playing into fear of nothing at all. The latter is backed by data over many years now that people overall value the role of unions and would not like them to disappear.
Whilst I don’t doubt the unions excessive political integration into the ALP is a net negative for Labor electorally, there is no evidence of widespread concern with their industrial influence.
I suppose only Liberal central office can say for sure, but my guess is that the anti-union hysteria is an attempt to shore up their base, and win back some independent contractors, rather than a policy they expect to reap significant electoral rewards. Only an econnomic scare campaign will do the latter.
anyway to add fuel to the fire i am joining the TWU this weekend as the Unions gear up for
1.massive membership drive
2.dedicated leaflet droppers/shopping centre volunteers to run ad infinitum
3.The biggest demonstration of community support for unions and also the ALP
4.and this will be maintained till the election increasing the TPP to 60% alp as earlier predicted.
I don’t think it’s hard to understand why the union ‘issue’ has failed to gain much traction for the government. The strategy of bashing unions is a bit like the old generals who always fight the last war. Things have changed in the past 60 years, but as far as John Howard is concerned it’s still 1949 and he’s still fighting a union dominated, socialist labor party.
The thing is though, that for most of us, unions haven’t been an issue for nearly thirty years. I’ve been in the workforce since 1980 and in all that time have had hardly anything to do with unions. Maybe the sort of work I do has had something to do with it, but I suspect that for most of us under 50, John Howard and his mates portraying unions as big bad bogeymen just raises a laugh of contempt - “there goes mad Uncle John again, still ranting about the Communists taking over the country”.
As for the NT intervention, John Howard may be quite sincere in his concern, but no-one believes that he is not doing this first and foremost as a last throw of the dice to get re-elected. By looking prime-ministerial, he hopes he can get back some of the “doctors’ wives” he has alienated so badly over the years. However, the question “why have you left it until 3 months before an election to do anything about it” is pretty well unanswerable. Throw in a few more questions about why he is extinguishing land-title at the same time (or whatever it is he is doing) and any goodwill he might have gained drowns in a sea of cynicism.
For the information of members and their guests.
At this point in time, all polls (including Morgan phone polls) for June give the following totals,
Primary votes - Coalition 39.4, ALP 46.9, others 13.7, TPP 44/56.
At the same point in the last 4 election cycles, using Newspoll figures and utilising a three poll moving average, we get the following figures:
1996 Primary votes - Coalition 46.5 ALP 39, TPP 53.3/46.7
Election result - Coalition 47 ALP 38.7, TPP 53.7/46.3.
1998 Primary votes - Coalition 40 ALP 41, TPP 48.9/51.1
Election result - Coalition 39.5 ALP 40.1, TPP 49/51.
2001 Primary votes - Coalition 40 ALP 42, TPP 47.2/52.8
Election result - Coalition 43.1 ALP 37.8, TPP 51/49.
2004 Primary votes - Coalition 43.7 ALP 41.3, TPP 49.7/50.3
Election result - Coalition 46.7 ALP 37.6, TPP 52.7/47.3.
2007 Primary votes - Coalition 37.6 ALP 48.3, TPP 43.2/56.8
Election result TBA.
Election result speculation, using the past 4 election patterns as the guide:
1996 pattern - Coalition 37.3 ALP 48.8, TPP 42.8/57.2.
1998 pattern - Coalition 37.1 ALP 47.4, TPP 43.5/56.5.
2001 pattern - Coalition 40.7 ALP 44.1, TPP 46.8/53.2.
2004 pattern - Coalition 40.6 ALP 44.6, TPP 46.5/53.5. Â
If history is any guide, it suggests a swing from 5.9% to 9.9% to the ALP.
Did anyone else see the new ACTU ad last night? As I mentioned earlier I thought it was devastating because it cut to the heart of why they are on the way out.
For those that didn’t, there’s a cliched boardroom scene where the pinstripes decide to use the new IR system to cut their wages bill by 10%. Then they move on to the next agenda item - executive bonuses.
It works because it neatly encapsulates the fairness issue. The economy may be booming but there’s a sense that most ordinary wage earners aren’t getting their fair share. Costello, perhaps unwittingly, admits as much when he talks about the profit share of GDP being at record levels.
Consistent with Newspoll last fortnight I’d say… Galaxy just do preferences better.
Newspoll tomorrow will be interesting. Coalition supporters will be hoping for a primary vote above 39 from someone other than Galaxy. Labor supporters just need to hope the trend since March is not sustained through July and August.
AC Nielsen have shown a tendency to change their polling dates to avoid competing with Newspoll in the last year or two… any of our more notable contributors got any idea whether they might go next weekend, or wait until a fortnight after? Or are they just going to accept the clash?
Mark, that ad’s been around for a few months hasn’t it?
Leopold Says: “Labor supporters just need to hope the trend since March is not sustained through July and August.”
COAL LABOR
Newspoll 2-4 March 2007# 43 57
Newspoll 16-18 March 2007# 39 61
Newspoll 30 March-1 April 2007# 43 57
Newspoll 13-15 April 2007# 41 59
Newspoll 27-29 April 2007# 43 57
Newspoll 11-13 May 2007# 41 59
Newspoll 18-20 May 2007# 43 57
Newspoll 21-24 May 2007# 45 55
Newspoll 25-27 May 2007# 40 60
Newspoll 15-17 June 2007# 44 56
Which trend would that be?
“They posed a simple dichotomy about the intervention (’electioneering’ or ‘humanitarian’). Is there a third option they left out?”
Graeme it is the option of Howard both “electioneering” and NOT “addressing problems in Aboriginal communities”.
Personally I’d be delighted if this “trend” continued through July and August.
silent(really)_jasmin, nice to see you back.
Fonzie is missing you over at, http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums
Gary Bruce:
“Which trend would that be”
It would be this one:
(that’s http://www.ozpolitics.info/election2007/pollchart-tpp2007.png in case the pic don;t show. http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2007/polls2007/ has a lot more.)
d
I’m misusing the word ‘trend’ Gary.
But I suggest a quick gander at Bryan Palmer’s site, linked below, will answer your question.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2007/06/28/movement/
I use a slightly different methodology meself (no Morgan, calculate my own 2PP with a consistent methodology) but the result is about the same. A clear movement away from Labor over the past 3.5 months, somewhere in the vicinity of 3-4%. As the trendlines indicate, that is sufficient to make an October/November election highly competitive.
A point in Labor’s favour: in 2001 and 2004, the governments recovery essentially stalled after June, until dramatic events (9/11, election being called) intervened. However, I have faith in the ineptitude of Rudd and his backers (Gillard, Robertson etc) being able to generate a further decline in Labor’s position over the next couple of months.
Of course the vast majority of people will answer yes when asked if the PM was intervening in the Northern Territory for electoral gain - and that’s exactly the response the question is designed to elicit. At the same time, the vast majority of voters also approve of the intervention - the two responses can co-exist.
Leopold, I am not disagreeing with you, but a lot of the dialogue or rationale around 60%TPP for Labor was that it was just ridiculous, and something that no sane person should be contemplating. I think for example I used Bryans most excellent calculator to do the seat numbers on 60%TPP for Labor and the joy that give a labor oriented person made the exercise worthwhile.
The the counter dialogue we have now, treats the 60% TPP numbers as if they were ‘real’ at the time, although no-one appears to have so taken them at the time.
To now take a trend line (and I think some of Bryan’s started at deliberately provocative points) and suggest a real flow of hearts and minds, seems to be either legitimising the 60%TPP, and thereby suggesting Rudd should in fact be aiming to get back up there for an election day annihiliation. If it were true in March, it can be true by September.
The other analysis of the 60%TPP was ’soft’. Surely on this analysis the ’softest’ parts have already washed off and now Howard has real work to do to rub off the next 5% of so which would be much less soft.
The polling history doesn’t seem to give this trend line to Howard theorem any real support, notwithstanding your very negative analysis of the team that got Rudd to 60%TPP in March. But they joy of polling, like the joy of elections is the next result and looks like we have to wait for October for that.
Leopold - so your analysis of what may happen is based basically on graphs that show a coalition vote coming back from the depths of depression (a depression most people thought wouldn’t last) to a situation where a substantial loss would occur right now and a gut feeling (hope) that this will continue. The only flaw in that argument of course is that “hope” won’t ensure this so called trend will continue.
Leo, I don’t call it a trend, rather a “correction” from the high levels of 58/42. It shifted back upon the “anal-hiated” pronouncement from Howard. I believe that the figure of 55-45 is about right over the last 10 weeks with no real evidence of a trend over that timeframe. Don’t discount the primaries from Morgans face to face though - it just overestimates ALP vote by 1-2%
If Howard can score a hit from somewhere, it may lean into 53-47 over the next 10 weeks and then its anyones guess. If the Newspoll tomorrow shows 56/44, Howard is in dire straights. I would be close to calling it if it and AC in 2 weeks shows no movement.
My original statement was that Labor supporters would hope the current movement to the government will not continue at its pace since March of 1% (or slightly more) per month.
I really don’t know why that was such a controversial statement. Anyone who believes there’s no movement in the polls since March/April is in denial.
Jasmine - yes, but the polling numbers are all we’ve got to go on, really. I didn’t believe the election result would be 59-41 and I don’t believe it’ll be 55-45 either. I didn’t believe it when the Bomber was polling 54-46 in October last year either.
I agree completely Leopold and I’m hoping for a 57:43 result on election day.
Linear extrapolation well beyond the end of one’s data set can be dodgy, and when one is arbitrarily excluding data points (by starting at 16 March and not 2 March or earlier) it can be even dodgier.
The Greens are still holding at 9 percent and will improve as we move closer to the election
At what point will the ALP be in trouble on a 2pp poll?
I agree with those on here that see a ‘trend’ going the Libs way even if it is slight. I still believe Howard will win. Everyday i fear he will get a big jump from something. Its was the topic of my workplace today. People are waiting for Howard to find a way of moving up in the polls.
What are peoples feelings on how Australians would react if a terrorist group hit us somewhere? Would they:
A. See our involvement in Iraq as the reason and kick Howard out or
B. Become conservative and look to Howard for strong leadership at a time of national crisis.
Most people i have spoken to would do option A but believe that most of Australia would do option B
As much as I would love to bathe in the warm light of the latest Galaxy Poll since Im a ‘commie under the bed’ red Labor man, I have to stick by my assessment some weeks back that Galaxy polls come from ‘Uranus’ on the whole and get my information from ACNeilsen and/or Newspoll polls as a conversation peice, and nothing else, at this stage in the election ‘campaign’.
Predicting a landslide for Rudd or Howard being on track to {1 percent a month} win a fifth term in office at this stage of the game is just plain rediculous- fun conversation peice, but thats about it.
I will wait until the 2PP poll numbers at ACNeilsen and/or Newspoll are floating around 53-47 before I begin to take them ’seriously’ as a tool among others for taking a punt on the outcome. Meantime, debate away people- its all good if you dont take it too seriously, not yet, not yet.
silent(really)_jasmine Says:
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I agree completely Leopold and I’m hoping for a 57:43 result on election day.
Now I WOULD bet on that NEVER happening Jasmine, right now.
Surely, these polls are all about trends and since Rudd was elected ALP leader, only once has the primary vote for the Coalition in Newspoll been above 40% (41% in February 2007) whilst the ALP vote has only once been below 46% (44% in January 2007). Morgan has shown slightly worse for the Coalition. This is what would be worrying the government, no matter what is being said and done, there has been minimal change by the voters. If the ALP win the election 53-47 that is a comfortable win in anyones language. Again, Rudd is no Latham and 2004 was not endorsement of Howard but a repudiation of Latham. That result has been misread by too many people.
One issue which hasn’t yet been exploited by the ALP but may well occur during the election campaign is Howard himself. When is he going to retire? Howard is yesterdays man whilst Rudd is tomorrows man. The ALP has struck a chord with the line “Howard is a clever politician”.
Take a look as these stats Jasmine_ history is against your hopes Im afraid. Damn IT !!
Two Party-Preferred Votes in H/R Elections 1949-2004
Election Year ALP Non-ALP
2004 47.26 52.74
2001 49.05 50.95
1998 50.98 49.02
1996 46.37 53.63
1993 51.44 48.56
1990 49.90 50.10
1987 50.8 49.2
1984 51.8 48.2
1983 53.2 46.8
1980 49.6 50.4
1977 45.4 54.6
1975 44.3 55.7
1974 51.7 48.3
1972 52.7 47.3
1969 50.2 49.8
1966 43.1 56.9
1963 47.4 52.6
1961 50.5 49.5
1958 45.9 54.1
1955 46.5 53.5
1954 50.5 49.5
1951 49.2 50.8
1949 48.7 51.3
Source: Australian Electoral Commission Publications.
As you can see from the table above, the biggest 2PP gap in Australian Election history was close to 57-43 was in 1966 and Labor has never done better than 53.2- 46.8 when (my hero) Bob Hawke came to town.
Is Rudd good enough to repeat Bob Hawke’s effort ? At a push, I would say the pre-election polls (if it runs into October-November) will be equivalent to the result Hawke got, but only in the polls.
I know we hope for best, but the 2PP swing from 2004 would be 9.74% for Labor to finish with 57-43 on the 2PP outcome. At this stage I reckon 53-47 (a swing of 5.74 %) is going be the best result Labor can aim for. But again I wont be calling anything in my head for some weeks yet.
# bill weller Says:
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
At what point will the ALP be in trouble on a 2pp poll?
Bill, it depends on the primary votes. To win, and not withstanding your Greens disengaging all preferences away from them, the ALP needs a primary of around 41 or above. As long as that is maintained, the likelihood of a Rudd win is still relatively good. If we get a “Galaxy-esque” situation of 53-47 with an ALP primary of around 42, its game on. Anything worse is going to be tough for Rudd.
It also depends on momentum in the campaign. If Rudd does a Latham at worst, we may see Howard back comfortably. Problem for Howard is that Rudd already campaigns better than Latham.
Bill Id start to be worried if the 2PP polls ran close to 51-49 for Labor- they will lose seats (Cowan et al) in the skirmish, you can bet on that.
If we extrapolate the current trend to 2010, there will be no Labor MHRs after that year’s election. What’s a trend? When does it become a trend? If you go back to the poll trend for February 2006, there was a trend to the government…and soon after there was a trend away from it. I repeat my prediction of some weeks ago: Labor will pick up 22 coalition seats this year. I will revise my prediction at the end of this month when, as I suspect, there is obviously no post-budget cash-in-the-hand bounce for the Howard Government.
STROP,
The 2PP for 1955 to 1977 is distorted by the shift of Labor preferences via the DLP to the coalition. I would not be surprised if Labor polled over a 53 per cent 2PP on election day, but I wouldn’t want it to be too high because, if it were, my predicted further swing to Labor in the subsequent double dissolution would be less likely to come true.
# bill weller Says:
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
The Greens are still holding at 9 percent and will improve as we move closer to the election
Bill, This is one of the best stories so far this extended election campaign. This election is polarising people along party lines, but the Green vote is holding relatively stable. Certainly the disintegration of the Democrat, ON and FF votes are helping, but the best result would be for the Greens to hold and hopefully even reach double digit nationally. I’d love to think how Brownie is salivating at the recent figures showing Green support in Tassie in the teens.
The more diverse voices we have in parliament, the more long standing and balanced the laws created are.
from the vault:
Jas Jas Jas (always seems to be a popular start) how can a leftard L plate Krudd led opposition (which has Wayne Swan as the potential Treasurer! I mean, can you imagine Swan in charge of the country’s finances? And Dillard has red hair, I mean, what a giveaway…and she’s a woman….and a leftoid) possibly ever defeat the Man of Steel, our nation’s saviour, the man who’s lead this country to greatness?
You know, I didn’t get to be where I am, leftards, by being a whinging sentimental union lover. No, I built this small business empire of mine (new branch opening today in Manila, employing 340; one tomorrow in God’s own kingdon, WA) by exploiting those too stupid to be able to read a standard contract. Fortunately the degraded socialist education system run by the leftoid States means this is almost everybody.
I look forward, leftoids, to a bright new dawn when J Winston H gets reelected and really opens up the labour market. We all know most children are wasting their time at school, they don’t learn anything, so they may as well go straight into the workforce (leftards) thus saving government heaps of money and leaving the school system for those who really deserve an education (and can pay for it).
JWinstonH for God!!
I didn’t say I expected 57% TPP, but I can hope for it and it is not an unreasonable number coming off a 55%TPP base from Galaxy, which is lower, not higher than other numbers from other pollsters over the first half of this calendar year.
I can do the partisan bickering with the best of them, and I enjoy it, but aren’t we supposed to be considering polls here?
The brilliant work of Aristotle above needs consideration:
1996 pattern - Coalition 37.3 ALP 48.8, TPP 42.8/57.2.
1998 pattern - Coalition 37.1 ALP 47.4, TPP 43.5/56.5.
The other two patterns can be explained and make less sense not more sense against the current polling numbers.
By all means rest in faith based projections, but if you are really interested in polling and Australian electoral behaviour it is, at this point, on the information we have more silly to be talking 50:50 than it is to be talking 57:43.
Again let me underline I am not predicting 57:43, much as I am hoping for it, but I am saying based on the numbers we have 57 is a more intelligent prediction than the News Limited assurance that it will be a close 50:50 election.
Fair enough Jasmine; 50-50 in clearly rediculous. What do you think about a 53-47 ish outcome (based on your reading of current polls) ?
in terms of trends and whether the polls are showing a shift to the Government, remember that Newspoll included a question recently asking people how likely they were to change their vote and it seems that people are “rusted” (probably semi-rusted) at the moment to their votes. In previous years the number of people who said they might change their votes was a lot higher than we have now.
But anyway they are only opinions now.
If the 60-40 was a blip there is no trend. If the 60-40 was not a blip, then the annihilation has only become a good win.
Can someone explain to me why JWH didn’t switch to a safer seat. There was a piece in The Australian that suggested that if Howard lost Bennelong, but won the election, the ambitious young MP who won the seat would be pressured into surrendering it for Howard via a by-election.
If this is being considered then why wasn’t Alan Cadman left in the seat? Wouldn’t Costello be thrilled. Maybe Howard would have to launch a leadership challenge if he was re-elected!
Maybe this has surfaced because the numbers in Bennelong look dire. The story looked odd to me, especially in a paper that has tended to be sympathetic to the PM.
Sorry, the seat was Mitchell.
Did Lateline have tomorrow’s Newspoll result? I forgot to watch it.
Triangulum: No it did not.
People here sure love making outlandish claims one way and t’other, hey? Time to pay a little respect to the bookies accumulated at the excellent http://www.ozpolitics.info . The coalition static over the last week or two at 47-49% odds of winning. Or to put it in less-technical terms: it remains an absolute toss of the coin, kids.
While 2PP isn’t entirely meaningless, it is strange to see everyone continuing to make an implicit assumption that the party that gets over 50% 2PP will win. Ignoring, for example, 1998. Barring an unusually favourable distribution of their votes, if the ALP wind up on anything less than 51.5% 2PP, they’ll struggle to get the large number of seats they need to get over the line.
No national Newspoll but a poll on Qld state intentions that shows 61-39 2PP.
Must be a corrupted poll,blimp or statistical aberration
or people have had enough of the howard gang and its soul destroying policies
Yes in 1998 Labor polled 51% of the 2PV and lost. But in 1990 Labor polled (from memory) 49% of the 2PV and won. You can be lucky or unlucky, but in MOST elections the party that gets 50%+ of the 2PV will win. This fond Liberal belief that they will win even if they only get 48-49% of the 2PV is an illusion: they MIGHT, but they probably won’t.
The reason it is less likely this time is that Labor is polling best in the two states where there are the most seats to win per % of swing - Qld and SA.
If there is a poll showing a 61% ALP 2PV in Qld, as Arbie Jay says, that is a 2P swing of 18% since 2004 - which would give Labor an additional 18 seats, enough to win the election in one state alone. I don’t expect that to happen, but even if that poll is only half accurate it shows what a strong position Labor is in.
Adam, that poll Arbie Jay mentions is for the Queensland STATE government, not federal. Link is here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-2-jul.jpg
The newspoll showing 61-39 in Qld is a state poll figure.
My apologies all, I put Qld state intention when I should have made it clearer as Qld state government intention.
Still it is interesting as I would have expected some backlash re the council amalgamations that were to be causing pain for Beatie. We had Howard saying that he would look into what the Fed govt could do re these amalgamations then he quickly backed down, likewise we heard Rudd making noises that he would look at the amalgamations.
The Queensland poll was taken over three months, April to June. I do not know when the amalgamations became an issue but they may have affected only part of the polling period. I imagine that Newspoll asks state voting questions at the same time as it asks federal voting intentions, but it needs a few polls to get a statistically significant sample for each state.
Chris
Beatie announced them 17 April, Howard announced his opposition to them 8 May. As you say though a few more polls will make it clearer.
Well, this is VERY strange - it is 11.16pm WST and there is no Newspoll on the Australian Website, which means one of two things - Newspoll didn’t run one, or the results were so bad for Howard that there was no way the Govt Gazette could spin it in Howard’s favour.
Hell, the Australian could spin it as good for Howard if it were 76-24 in favour of the ALP and the 24 was the Greens. Something about well-earned retirement.
Thanks everybody for your insights, I came here confused and hoping for some understanding of what these polls actually mean in relation to what may happen at the election.
I leave knowing that coming was a mistake
Arbie Jay -
Rudd actually jumped all over Beattie (as reported in the Courier Mail) about the proposal to alamgamate councils, he mooted alternative arrangements.
Still, up here in QLD the amalagamation issue is expected to have a level of negative effect for Labor in particular Coalition QLD Federal marginal seats in provincial-rural areas. How much ? Who knows.
Almost 6am EST - and still not Newspoll.
Anybody know why it wasn’t ‘previewed’ on Lateline, or why it hasn’t made it into today’s Newscorp papers?
Adam says–
The reason it is less likely this time is that Labor is polling best in the two states where there are the most seats to win per % of swing - Qld and SA
Unless there is a ‘Ruddslide’, 7 QLD and 4 SA seats are up for grabs in 2007-
State Seat Party 2PP 2004 Notional 2PP
QLD Blair Liberal 11.2 5.7
QLD Bonner Liberal 0.9 0.6
QLD Flynn National New Seat 7.9
QLD Herbert Liberal 5.4 5.4
QLD Hinkler National 4.8 8.6
QLD Longman Liberal 7.6 6.6
QLD Moreton Liberal 4.2 2.8
SA Boothby Liberal 5.4 5.4
SA Kingston Liberal 0.1 0.1
SA Makin Liberal 0.9 0.9
SA Wakefield Liberal 0.7 0.7
No Newspoll in today’s Oz.
“Where’s Newspoll?”
Perhaps the question is “Where’s Dennis?” Not seen since June 29?
Nothing on the Newspoll site either. Today, the “Chief Political Correspondent” Steve Lewis has a rabidly drum-beating OpEd piece in the Oz which he credits Galaxy as a News Limited poll, but doesn’t mention Newspoll.
Dennis might have a cold- would this be enough to disrupt the Newspoll fortnightly schedule?
Dennis may have a cold but Howard appears to have a major Headache
Where’s the fortnightly Newspoll gone? Karn Noozl, I was going to cast my bet on the basis of it.
I asked Matt Price on his blog, his reply was:
‘The results didn’t conform to News Ltd policy, Jay, so we’re doing another for publication next week. ‘
So you did James. link. What the devil does that mean?
News Ltd has a policy about poll results?
My guess is that the results of the Newspoll showed a rise in support for Labor, which would have been met with disbelief by the crew at The Oz, so they canned it.
After all, a rise in support is impossible, right? Especially after the unveiling of Howard’s new Tampa.
triangulum:
If it is beyond 8% difference (my spies tell me it showed 58-42) then the Howard recovery team will not publish it
Something about the public not knowing whats good for them and only the born to rule and masterclass shall decide whose poll we will see LOL
Sounds a tad suspicious doesn’t it
The history of the Howard Reich is littered with suspicious events.
Be ready for a 9/11 event, it’s possibly the only thing that ‘might’ save the Liberals now.
I’m sure Matt Price was having a laugh at the conspiracy theorists with that one.
Not that the conspiracy theorists are short of ammunition.
The other possibility is that it was so glaringly obvious that it was a rogue poll, that they’d look silly publishing it. Maybe it showed Harold Holt making a comeback. Perhaps it predicted Bob Brown being elected joint President of Oceania, and Peter Costello mistakenly getting crowned Queen of Denmark. And perhaps they haven’t explained it because they still haven’t figured out why the glitch occurred.
Looks like a strong result for Labor if they’ve hidden it!!!
Could it be that Newspoll was not conducted last weekend due to school holidays in Victoria and maybe other states?
netvegetable:”The other possibility is that it was so glaringly obvious that it was a rogue poll, that they’d look silly publishing it. Maybe it showed Harold Holt making a comeback.”
That’s the theory I’m inclined to. (That it was a rogue poll, not that Harold Holt is making a comeback.)
Gary Bruce: “Could it be that Newspoll was not conducted last weekend due to school holidays in Victoria and maybe other states?”
Matt Price in the link above implies that the poll was carried out but the Oz decided not to publish it. I think they normally poll during school holidays, don’t they?
triangulum- the only days i think they dont poll are declared public hols-eg anzac day etc
Or maybe they are putting it back a week so it won’t clash with Nielsen and Galaxy
Gary, your theory is not in line with what Matt Price said.
Triangulum yeah. I still think though, that if we don’t get any explanation beyond ‘The results didn’t conform to News Ltd policy, Jay’, that it’ll be a little suspicious, don’t you?
I suspect that Matt Price was being ironic. He is the only News Ltd journo to at least acknowledge that the Oz is getting something of a reputation for being a government propaganda rag, even if he argues that it’s not true. Consequently, I suspect he was having a bit of a lend of us, as is his style.
hugo
Newspoll has already done their latest round of polling
it is just that the result is not what they want-
spin that any way you like
Gusface, how much reliability do you place on your “spies”?
only that one or two may work for said organisation
and that others were polled by newspoll
A lot of this kind of discussion is premised on the assumption that a poll result which shows the government losing ground, is somehow bad publicity for them.
But is it so?
I thought all political parties want to claim “underdog status” at an election, don’t they? They certainly seem to. Ergo, if the Newspoll shows the ALP gaining ground, that would actually be good publicity for the government wouldn’t it?
Gusface, please answer “a hell of a lot!”.LOL
not when you are trying to keep your coaltion together and look like the strong man
also would show how the public have totally written off the rodent and his biggles adventure in NT was pure politics not compassion
not good coming into APEC so expect a slurry of trash from the Libs
“I thought all political parties want to claim “underdog status†at an election, don’t they?”
Not to the extent that it wrecks whatever credibility remains bygetting cheersquads pulling polls from publication.
“whatever credibility remains’ … hilarious.
Off topic I know, but the Bridge Corp collapse is now the fourth in the past two years, at least three of which have occurred, to my recollection, under Joe Hockey’s stewardship as the relevant minister.
Surprisingly there has been little or no shooting home of responsibility to Shrieking Shrek.
Does anyone know why? Is it being saved for the campaign proper, or are there no votes for Labor in the pain of Howard’s Battlers or his beloved Mum & Dad investors and self funded retirees?
Netvegetable, I think a bounce in the polls is something that the government wants much more than to be behind. Underdog status is no good for you if the public think that you are actually a joke - they still need a reason to want to support you.
The government NEEDS to regain some of their lost support. And they have regained a small proportion of it over the last couple of months, but nothing of great significance.
By the way, if last weekend’s Newspoll seemed like a rogue, and this is why News Ltd. canned it, then ask yourself this question: If it had shown a substantial jump in support for the coalition, that is, a rogue in the OPPOSITE direction, do you think they would have canned it?
One thing about the Right is that they spend most of their time living in states of denial. Truth is their ultimate enemy.
Newspoll published their last rogue poll, you know, the 60 -40 one.
The lack of Newspoll is highly suspicious but surely not even the Oz would hide the poll if it wasn’t good news for the Govt. They published the 61-39 poll back in March and the 60-40 poll only last month. There are political junkies and scores of people in the political parties who know the polling cycle, not to mention the 1,100 people who were polled over the weekend. This would undermine the Oz’s (existing) credibility if they simply junked a poll like that. … Or am I terribly naive?
That’s true, Gary and Pseph. I’m heading into conspiracy territory! Still, it’s hard not to be suspicious of News Ltd - they seem so determined to help Howard win the next election. Their credibility, especially at The Oz, is at an all-time low.
Of course, if there really hasn’t been any change in public opinion or voting intentions, or even an increase in support of Labor, then it will probably show up in the next poll. Does anyone know if Morgan is publishing one this week?
Morgan normally polls every 1 to 2 weeks, and they haven’t released one for a while, so I’d assume that one will be up this week.
I don’t believe even the Daily Howard would simply can a poll whose result they didn’t like - it would be impossible to keep secret for one thing. But perhaps I am being naive again. And I don’t have any other explanation for the non-appearance of Newspoll.
its the synchronisation thing.
see mumble
makes sense to me
re Newspoll absence
Its probably awaiting good old Dennis Shannihan’s unique farsighted analysis of the numbers.
Remember his laughable effort last time announcing Rudd completely ‘unravelling’ when the 2PP dropped to 53-47?
c’mon dennis where are you? we all cant wait for your next rant. You make Janet A and Gilne Milne seem postiively visionary.
I love the conspiracy theories here!
I suspect that Matt was being ironic as noted above and the paper is trying to get out of sync with Nielsen.
You don’t need to can a bad poll, you just need Dennis S to “interpret” the poll according to the current doctrine. Doubleplus good result!
Further on linear regression:
It would be an interesting exercise to work out what the *typical* period over which linear extrapolation is reasonably predictive ie given the trend over the previous X weeks, the position in X weeks time will be… My guess is that it would be a few weeks, at most a month. If so, it would further highlight the nonsense of picking a trend in March and pushing it out to December.
We all know that linear regression isn’t a long-term model for voting intention. The only line that fits the long-term data is a dead flat one.
And as I suggested above, the whole exercise is based on where you start and finish.
Pick a trend starting on 16-18 March, and you get a clear trend to the government.
Start on 4 March and you get a clear trend, but about half the size.
Start in February or earlier and you get a trend to the ALP.
Pick your starting point; get the trend you want.
Anyone who points to a trend that started on 16 March but no earlier, without giving a plausible reason for that choice is on a fishing expedition.
It could be synchronisation. But it could also be that the Newspoll produced an extreme result. Given common conventions, it may seem reasonable for News Ltd to have a policy of rejecting these results on the grounds that the sampling was suspect - in a sense rejecting the outliers.
But (and it’s a big but) this does not mean that the rejected poll was wrong. It could accurately reflect, for instance, an unsuspected volatility in the electorate or a collapse in the vote for the Coalition or the ALP. So-called rogue polls should not be written off simply because the results are surprising. Doing so carries the danger of failing to see the trees for the grass.
Simple linear regression isn’t actually accurate over any given period for trends except by chance if you use point forecasts. If you use some interval forecast, like a point forecast with 95% confidence interval, then a simple linear regression will usually predict “correct†more than half of the time, but the confidence intervals are so large as to be near meaningless.
Multiple regressions get much better forecasts over the very short term, but can become very messy, very quickly the further out you go.
However, longer term trends such as the cubic time trend that has been underlying the primary vote of the two major parties since 1996 explains nearly half of the variation in the primary vote for each party. There’s a number of possible reasons for that, cubic time trends (like quadratic ones) have a lot of uses in explaining behaviour.
Black Jack, such an ‘extreme’ result would have to be incrdibly rogue to fit such a policy, if they have one. I am especially doubtful of any such policy, given that only a few months ago we saw two Newspolls just a week apart give 55-45 and then 60-40, which weren’t canned.
I was expecting Fairfax to amend THEIR schedule because of Newspoll, so it wouldn’t be shocking if News had changed theirs to avoid Fairfax. The school holidays proposition does not work because they have polled on this weekend in previous years.
And Price had his tongue firmly in cheek, almost certainly. There are simply too many people involved in taking a Newspoll for the Oz to ‘can’ one.
Seems Matt was probably taking the piss after all. Here is his response to one of the bloggers on his blog who asked him to explain what was wrong with the recent Newspoll:
“Whenever Labor’s 2pp goes above 70percent, h3llbee, we send the pollsters back into safe Liberal seats and RSL clubs for balance.”
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mattprice/index.php/theaustralian/comments/unions_bashed_howard_horrified/P360/
I rang Newspoll and asked why no Federal Voting Intentions Poll today. They said they did not take one, and will be issuing one next week (Tuesday). No reason was forthcoming, even on close questioning.
Guys, Matt Price is a funny man at the best of times. He was just having you on.
Unlikely they would deliberately ignore a poll that showed ALP in front, considering the cost of doing the thing.
As the old saying goes, when you’ve got a choice between a conspiracy or a stuff-up, go with the stuff-up every time…
I think this point has now been established.
So are we expecting a Nielsen this week?
Adam, I think Nielsen will be coming out in 2 weeks time.
Maybe there was a problem with one or two states (ie they didn’t poll Vic or something), and so they don’t run it.
Last time Newspoll did extra polling to get out of sinc with other polls, ie do a poll last weekend and then follow up with another poll a week later as they did around budget time.
It does seem unusual for them to miss a week to get out of sinc given their previous polling habits.
If Galaxy and Nielsen had 4 weekly cycles spaced 2 weeks apart and Newspoll filled in the weeks in between we would be in the blissful position of having a poll coming out every week.
enjoyed the dialogue and the theories. here’s another: The Australian wanted to do one on the weekend after pensioners got their $500 each and the tax cuts started rolling through. Start polling on Thurs/Fri/Sat and see if you get a bounce - more to do with hip pockets than indigenous child abuse.
If Newspoll hasn’t published a poll this week so as not to clash with Nielsen, it would seem to follow that there should be a Nielsen this week. Am I missing something?
Adam, Nielsen’s are 4 weeks apart. Their last one was 18 June so their next one will be 16 July. Newspoll’s will now be 9 July and 23 July instead of today and then 16 July.
That’s more like it, Tim.
From Matt Price’s blog:
Explanation from Editor-in-Chief for absence of Newspoll:
It’s out next week. There is no conspiracy. We are trying to settle on a fortnightly cycle that doesn’t involve us coming out a day after Galaxy, as we would have had we come out this morning, or a day after Nielson. You may be aware we do not poll Thursday nights because of late night shopping. Neilson and Galaxy do, which we believe adversely affects their results. But it allows them to publish Monday while we publish Tuesday. Since we spend over $1 million a year on political polling I try to move it around so we don’t get scooped by Neilson or Galaxy. This has only become a problem recently because Fairfax is polling more regularly and the tabloids are polling monthly with Galaxy,
Cheers, Chris Mitchell
Are people prepared to put their predictions on who will win and by how many seats?
Actually, it looks as if Galaxy will be out on the first Monday of every month. Nielson does do its polls Thurs-Sat, while both Galaxy and Newspoll do theirs Fri-Sun; this is not what the editor implies for Galaxy. Perhaps Galaxy has less info, or their software is better than Newspoll’s. The climate change LiveEarth concerts on Sat 7 July could have an impact on the next Newspoll.
I don’t know what can be read into this, but if you add a newspoll result to the preious one and divide by 2 you get a fairly stable result for the last few months
Lib (a+b)/2 Lab (a+b)/2
Newspoll 2-4 February 2007 44 56
Newspoll 16-18 February 2007 46 45 54 55
Newspoll 2-4 March 2007 43 44.5 57 55.5
Newspoll 16-18 March 2007 39 41 61 59
Newspoll 30 Mar-1 Apr 2007 43 41 57 59
Newspoll 13-15 April 2007 41 42 59 58
Newspoll 27-29 April 2007 43 42 57 58
Newspoll 11-13 May 2007 41 42 59 58
Newspoll 18-20 May 2007 43 42 57 58
Newspoll 21-24 May 2007 45 44 55 56
Newspoll 25-27 May 2007 40 42.5 60 57.5
wspoll 15-17 June 2007 44 42 56 58
“Supernova Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
One thing about the Right is that they spend most of their time living states of denial. Truth is their ultimate enemy.”
What an odd thing to say, considering it came in the midst of a group of comments from left-wingers which proposed the most ridiculous and quite illogical conspiracy theory to explain the non-appearance of the expected Newspoll, apparently mostly based on a a failure to appreciate Matt Price’s sense of humour. One of the left-wing truth-tellers posted that he absolutely knew that the poll had been taken, based on information from ’spies’ who worked for the organisation and ‘others’ who had been polled. Yes, the left-wing love for truth is a wondrous thing to behold.
As a Right-winger I must also be completely stupid, because I just don’t get how suppression of a bad opinion poll result would really help the Howard government. What, if people aren’t told that an opinion poll said they would mostly vote for Labor, they might thus then vote for Howard, in the actual election which is probably still four months away?
And, Supernova, you must be really proud to have on your side, that left wing way of truth and light, those who post comments like this:
“envy Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
The history of the Howard Reich is littered with suspicious events.
Be ready for a 9/11 event, it’s possibly the only thing that ‘might’ save the Liberals now.”
netvegetable Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Maybe it showed Harold Holt making a comeback. Na, I reckon he bought a fish shop in Torquay and dyed his hair. Bloody funny Veg. Thank you.
Cubic what ? Quadratic what ? No way Im going to a Uni library again to try and understand concepts like that. Put it in plain english for us ‘also rans’ , please (smiles).
Whose going to do a poll when the ‘priority one’ single mothers on Sole Parent Pension (*unemployed, children over 7 years of age and not connected with any education stream)get kicked off SPP and transferred to Newstart Allowance and treated like any other ‘jobseeker’ have been processed through Centrelink offices by the end of the month ? Indications are theres a few marginal Coalition seats with a strong sole parent family presence - I hope one of them picks this up and polls those electorates. Wishful thinking I suppose.
Arbie Jay,
Thanks for your interesting comments on “Ongoing poll bonanzaâ€. I am replying here because that thread has passed beyond the front page. I am not surprised that many Democrats did not want to amalgamate with the Greens. I think the opportunity to do so has passed. The Democrats came from three groups – Don Chipp Liberals, the Liberal Movement and the Australia Party, which came out of Gordon Barton’s opposition to Australia’s participation in the Vietnam War. That suggests to me that the Democrats were more Liberal-leaning than Labor-leaning, though I do not see the current liberal party as particularly congenial to them. When the DLP closed down in 1978, the overwhelming majority of DLP workers simply stopped. Some fought on as the new DLP, some went back to the ALP, and some even joined the Liberals, but most were glad that they had been given permission to stop what had been years and years of dedicated effort. I expect most Democrats have already given up active partisan politics and that most of the rest will do so by the end of this year.
Bill,
Their vote for the GST vote did cause hostility to the Democrats, but as they went into the election promising to support the GST, I have no idea why people became hostile at the fact that they did what they promised to do, albeit with some compromises with the Liberals. It would have been better if the GST had not been distorted by the Democrats’ exemptions because the states would now have even more money to put into health and education.
Dario, I love it how you have me pegged as a Howard supporter just because I float the possibity of Howard actually having a hope of winning this election. I also ask you to note that I only believe that the vote will get down to 53-47 or close to before the call of the election. As such any hope that Howard as of winning this election lies in him winning the election campaign. I don’t think this is certain, even likely, but it does pay to not call election 4 months out from them.
For the record, if I had to vote I would vote for the Greens.
Lastly, the only reason I believe that any bounce from the Aboriginal annoucement would come next poll was because I thought this poll was taken before the announcement. I now realize I was wrong, which throw out half my original post.
Possum said: There’s a number of possible reasons for that, cubic time trends (like quadratic ones) have a lot of uses in explaining behaviour.
They EXPLAIN nothing, they are merely empirical fits to data. All psephology is essentially phenomenological. Cubic best fits the 1996-2007 data, moving to quartic and higher makes no improvement. So, what does a cubic actually “model” that thw others don’t?
An R-sq of 50% is not much really. If you start with a model of the way things are and develop an equation for the model and then get a data fit to that equation with an R-sq of about 90%, THEN you’re on your way to “explaining” something.
I think psephology needs a big bucket of cold water thrown over it after today’s frenzy.
Here’s the call of the night:
The electorate will not buy a word of Howard’s Aboriginal ’solution’- too late
APEC will be a disaster for Howard - business is about to give him a clip over the ear for creating such an inconvenience for NO gain (other than a few nice TV shots in the third world where punters can’t even afford one Australian dollar, let alone the 5,000 needed for a decent holiday here)
The Liberal Party in NSW will let Howard down - voters and donors see the machine as being nothing more than a disfunctional institution.
Queensland will embrace Rudd.
With some leakage in the smaller States Howard will loose by two. Rudd will be a one term PM.
The commentariate will say “Why didn’t he retire hurt at 10?”
Very funny Nick–if your being ‘tongue in cheek’ with your prediction of Howard losing by 2 and Rudd lasting one innings on the lawns of Kirribilli. Trouble with all that if your serious is the ‘experts’ around the place like the in-house Adam Carr poo poo ‘close’ election predictions (for 2007 at least, if not generally) for a range of reasons. Maybe take it up with them and see how far your predictions travel. Kudos for putting it out there though. Cheers.
That is, when Adam, William and other pedants get over my failure to use you’re [if your serious]. Four bloody uni degrees and I still can not spell, sheet !
AKP, I think my point still stands
William, if you have done with the whiskey and pistol for the week, may I borrow the pistol- I refuse to do a spell check on blogging-too much time spent ‘polishing’ papers for too too long. Laughs. Back to Psephology.
My “two seat” prediction is because I think 18 or so seats will change hands. It may well be more given the money Labor will throw at the marginals. My “one term” prediction is based on the fact that Rudd will have a hostile Senate and we all know what that does to Labor leaders!
Wouldn’t mind comparing notes on what 18 seats you think are going to change hands Nick (eg are you thinking Cowan and/or Swan are going to be lost ?; Any prospect of gains for Labor in Victoria ?). The hostile senate and DD notion is popular - takes be back to Fraser/Whitlam days, eww !!!
….and we all know what happened to Gough after that mess; Labor in the wilderness till the closest thing we have had to the Messiah (R.Hawke) came along.
Name the last one term federal government.
The ALP back in the depression era I think…
Scullin?
Mind you it took a the depression of all depressions to bring about that scenerio.
I don’t recall poo-pooing anyone’s close election scenarios. All scenarios are possible at present, except probably a Harold Holt comeback.
Curtin faced a hostile Senate during his first term and he did just fine in his first election as PM. (see also: Bracks, Steve)
Obviously Nick is referring to Whitlam. But - if he’s being serious - he is surely confusing cause and effect. The Coalition denied Whitlam the ability to govern because they knew he was unpopular with the electorate; not the other way around.
As for the apparent new polling timetable, I take it then that they’ll now be coming out on a weekly basis in a four-week cycke… Galaxy, Newspoll, Nielsen, Newspoll… a most satisfactory outcome.
On the Senate, if Rudd/Labor stay on the current track they’ll be looking to engineer a double dissolution ASAP.
On the subject of predictions, based on current poll trends and what’s known about regional & local factors:
Certain Labor gains:
Kingston Bonner Wakefield Makin Braddon Macquarie Bass Moreton Lindsay Eden Monaro (& retain Parramatta, possibly offset by losses in Cowan and Swan).
Probables:
Wentworth Dobell Deakin McMillan Corangamite Boothby Sturt Herbert Flynn Longman Petrie Bowman Blair
Landslide territory:
Bennelong Hughes Page Paterson Hasluck Stirling LaTrobe McEwen Hinkler.
If the swing’s concentrated in the upstairs/downstairs demographic (ie Labor state voters) that brings seats like McPherson Fairfax Fisher and Macarthur into the frame. Have it on good authority the Qld Nats are also worried about Hinkler and Dawson.
My best guess would be a 10 seat majority but it could be a lot more.
I think the above probables are a big big call. Maybe the Rodent will lose but the polls will only get better for him between now and the election.
I would be prepared to write off anything under 4% swing though.
Geoff:
Time trends like cubic time trends have a lot of uses *IN* explaining behaviour. They dont explain the underlying causes of the behaviour (they aren’t meant to) and they certaintly aren’t some immutable law of the universe which we all find ourselves enslaved to following, and behaving in ways purely to make sure that we don’t offend the time trend gods by doing anything that might be contrary to the deterministic path.
Why cubic trends are well used is simply because they contain a peak and a trough which can represent everything from a simple cross-section of a longer cycle through to cyclical and cumulative behavioural effects.
For voting analysis, voter support for political parties in the developed world (cant say about the developing world, haven’t looked) are characterised, nay DOMINATED by longer term, slow flowing trends – hills and valleys if you will with varying steepness, with the occasional structural break thrown in, but those structural breaks nearly always wash out of the system relatively quickly. There is a large amount of volatility around those longer term trends, the day to day political circus guarantees that from people changing political support over the latest policy initiative, the latest scandal, or the leaders latest haircut, but that volatility doesn’t dominate the general level of political support for a given party because that volatility operates AROUND those larger, longer term trends.
To answer your question of “what does a cubic actually “model†that the others don’t?â€
What it models in this case is the observable reality of the primary voting intention.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/time-trends-and-primary-votes/
A phenomenological approach undoubtedly has a contribution to make for explaining the hows and whys of that observable reality– but too often a simple phenomenological approach just seems to be an excuse for political naval gazing, devoid of observable reality and dressed up in a façade of Husserlian gravitas.
Paul Kelly comes to mind.
Elections are ostensibly about the spatial distributions of large aggregates of human behaviour as it relates to political preferences. Attempting to determine exactly why 10 million people individually will vote a certain way at an election is, I think, an exercise in futility. Individual reasons don’t really matter, collective changes in voting intentions matter and that’s where larger trends come into play.
Finally, on the R-sq. A mistake many people make is to assume that modelling is an exercise in R-sq fundamentalism – but its not, it simply cannot be! (and I’m not having a go at you or anyone else here by saying this) but it’s a particularly nasty habit that undergrads seem to pick up, and which needs to be beaten out of them at the earliest opportunity with the largest stick possible.
You can model nearly anything and end up with a high coefficient of determination by simply throwing more variables at it.An infinite order polynomial can just about model anything – but every time you add a variable, it changes the degrees of freedom and adds uncertaintly.If you are dealing with anything that has essentially random behaviour in it, you can get a model with a high 0.90’s coefficient of determination by throwing enough variables at it– it might be highly explanatory, but it will also be completely meaningless.
A model with an R-sq of 0.5 can have more to say about the data generating process than a model with an R-sq of 0.9, especially if the R-sq 50% model explains the underlying movement through time and a large part of the other 50% acts like volatility with a large random component around the mean equation. If your model with an R-sq of 90% achieves that score through simply piling on the variables, particularly autoregressive variables – then it’s traded off meaning (as uncertainty has been increased) for explanatory power and delivered a pretty equation but nothing much else.
If you are modelling any type of mildly complex human behaviour and your model ends up with R-sq scores of 90 or more, its probably a good idea to screw it up, throw it in the bin and start again.
Just on the QLD seats – I think that the ALP will pick up Blair, Bonner, Bowman, Moreton, Petrie (by a mile) and win Ryan by more than many think.
Dickson, Forde, Herbert, Leichardt and Longman will be close with Fisher being one to watch.
There’s a lot of anecdotal demographic movement happening in QLD which is almost impossible to pick up because groups of people in some seats are being replaced by other groups with almost identical demographic profiles.
Some of those Qld seats north of Brisbane are a case in point.Lots of young people are leaving them to move interstate and into Brisbane for career opportunities, but likewise, they’re being replaced by lots of other young people moving north from Brisbane and the Southern states for different career and lifestyle opportunities.
Likewise there seems to be, anecdotally (I’m a Qld’er) a fair number of middle income families moving out of Brisbane into those northern seats, but likewise a number of middle income families from those northern seats moving into Brisbane.
Housing turnover rates would be an excellent stat for some of this stuff – does anyone know of the new census data contains anything on that?
Just thinking about the excuse for not publishing the Newspoll this week - wont the results be out of date next week?
It doesnt wash as the media cycle (aside from daily) is usually weekly. If the results were published today or even Friday they would be ‘interesting’ but next week I dont think they could be called news worthy.
May as well throw them out by then and commission new ones (as expensive as they are).
Just a thought…
Possum,
The Liberals will not loose ryan, or dickson or forde and blair is line ball at best.
Bowman would require a massive swing.
If you think forde is gone then youd probably think fadden hinkler are up for grabs too
and if fisher is one to watch then so is fairfax and wide bay.
the Liberals in worst case scenario will lose Bonner, Moreton Longman Petrie, Hebert and Blair.
I have limited knowledge on Queensland, but I think Howard is likely to loose Dobell, Macquarie, Lindsay, Eden Monaro, not win Parramatta and maybe at risk in Robertson. No way will the Libs loose Wentworth. These marginals are at risk because the locals on the ground are known to be more interested in factional warfare than winning and the Libs will need to divert resources to holding Bennelong, Wentworth, North Sydney - and don’t forget if Peter McDonald wants to take on Abbott he is going to be somewhat distracted during the campaign.
….and rumour has it that Cadman left Hawke with a campaign chest of less than $500 - expect the margin in Mitchell to take a pounding if a high profile local government independent runs.
Wentworth will go because Labor have a decent candidate and Howard’s done Turnbull no favours with the inner city types by making him the climate change fall guy. Labor won’t win Robertson with this candidate and I won’t concede Dobell yet because long term demographics are working for the Libs on the Central Coast. Just look at 2007 state results.
Re Qld, Possum’s right about big population shifts. SEQ in particular has always been prone to big swings. In 1975 Bill Hayden was last man standing in Oxley and even that went in 1996. It can work the other way as well - as Beatty has shown. I don’t think there’s a single Lib up there feeling secure right now and it’s a bit of a lottery trying to pick who’ll hang on. Local factors and personal profiles usually haven’t counted for much when the swing is on but it can be quite variable. Mal Brough’s certainly doing his best but I’d doubt its helping him around Caboolture - which is now solid Labor at state level.
Being a fellow Queenslander and hoping they will beat the Blues tonight for a 3-0 series win. If Kevin Rudd Labor support holds at 55% 2PP on election day, I agree with Possum Comitatus that Brisbane seats such as Bonner, Moreton, Bowman, Petrie and Blair will fall. I also agree that if current support for Labor is maintained on election day, Ryan could be the bolter seat to fall thanks to above average support to the Greens, anger over construction of Goodna Bypass Road and incumbent Michael Johnson’s poor image amongst local media and residents.
Andrew,
There’s a couple of reasons I say that – over the last 20 years or so, Qld has developed a tendency for big political shifts delivering large majorities to State and Fed govs.
In the last Fed political shift in 96, 11 seats changed hands leaving the ALP with 2 (I think – I stand to be corrected).
The last shift at the State level was for the ALP minority incumbent, delivering them 66 out of 89 seats.
When there’s a political shift in QLD, it’s not done by halves, and I think there’s one on now.I think it’s already happened.
I don’t think the Coalition will necessarily lose Dickson and Forde, but they’ll be close.
I cant see Fadden changing, but Hinkler might if the demographic shifts have been large (i.e. the same demographic profile for profile swap) in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay particularly, that might get Rudd over the line.
Wide Bay is a strange seat – rapid change on the coast and three fifths of FA happening inland. That’d be hardcore One Nation country out there in the hills and unless Rudd is going to run a local platform of “hang’em from twenty foot poles†because ten foot poles just aren’t big enough, he’s got Buckleys.
Fairfax is one of those “poor, dumb or retired†seats to be brutally honest with plenty of rusted on party supporters. I cant see that changing either.
Forgive me if this is of little interest, although Possum will recognise 457 as a prime number!
But I just noticed that Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the first self-described socialist elected to the US Senate, voted against Bush’s immigration bill.
“At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers’ into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers. We need to increase wages in this country, not lower them,†Sanders said after senators voted 53-to-46 to set aside the legislation.
 “We need an immigration policy which addresses the very serious problems of illegal immigration, continues our historic support of legal immigration, but protects the shrinking middle class.â€
Wow. I can’t believe so many people actually swallowed Matt Price’s ironic comments about Newspoll. That’s just…sad. Very sad.
The problem was that Newspoll and News Corp both supposedly involved in communicating to the public failed to do so Steven Kaye. That is what is sad, and caused the confusion. Many people asked for clarification during the day and the response was tardy, inconclusive and nonsensical.
Mark
the Qld seat of Oxley (my electorate) was redistributed in 1998 removing the Northern half of Ipswich. Another redistribution in 2006 removed even more of Ipswich. It is now a largely Brisbane-based seat. The heartland of One Nation is gone and it is a safe ALP seat with a margin of over 9% I think. As the link between Brisbane and Ipswich, the Ipswich Motorway, one of the worst in the country is probably the big local issue here. Howard waded in and threw a lot of money at it a few months back, but noone is impressed. Even the local libs (state) are against Howard’s Way
All Newspoll or the Australian had to do was let people know early yesterday mornjing or on Lateline the previous evening and this whole silly PR disaster would have been avoided.
It makes no sense to try and shame people who are the subject of a slooppy feeding of information for not understanding what could possibly be happening when the two possible sources of that information failed to tell them what was happening.
Steve, Steven Kaye is a stirrer and gets on here to get a reaction. I’ve fallen for it myself but realise now it is best to ignore him.
I think some of you guys are getting a little over-excited.
During the election campaign the public will be saturdated with ads featuring JWH sitting at a desk talking in a statesman-like manner. There will be graphs with bad numbers going down, good numbers going up. Scare campaigns about how “Labor will destroy the economy”.
Sure, Labor will have their own scare campaign, but opposition scare campaigns are never quite as effective because it’s easier for the voter to make a judgement about the level of scariness of the government, the opposition is an unknown quantity. Unknown = scarey.
There is no way the ALP will stay at 55-45 in that sort of environment. If you are trying to predict a winning Rudd 2PP you should try in the 51%-52% region.
The Speaker - I think you are underestimating the fear of IR (mark 1 and 2) and the extent to which the public have woken up to Howard. That large swing to Labor that took place earlier this year (when Rudd took over) wasn’t because they still love Howard.
“There is no way the ALP will stay at 55-45 in that sort of environment. If you are trying to predict a winning Rudd 2PP you should try in the 51%-52% region.”
I agree, but not for the reason that the government will decisively win the election campaign. I don’t think that the results of the past four elections bear that out. In 1996 and 2001 people had largely decided how they would vote before the campaign, and in 1998 the ALP opposition won the campaign.
I think your analysis is another version of “it’s 2004 all over again”.
Martin B: I agree, but not for the reason that the government will decisively win the election campaign.
Oh I didn’t say the government would win the campaign. I just think the government will do well enough to greatly narrow the margin from today’s figures of 55-45.
55 is the absolute top-top-top maximum of what the ALP could get.
There is still a fair chance of Howard winning.. somewhere from 20-40% by my amateur reckoning, however he needs to get the 2PP down to 53 before calling the election to have a chance.
You say you agree “but not for the reason..” you don’t give your reason ?
in 1998 the ALP opposition won the campaign.
I’ve always disagreed with this analysis. The 1998 2PP ‘win’ for Labor is largely an artifact of One Nation support in safe coalition seats eg Gwydir, Wide Bay etc.
However I’m too lazy to gather evidence to support my proposition and I’m guessing everyone will say it’s because of high labor votes in already safe labor seats.
To me the proof is in the pudding: Howard won the election in 98, therefore he won the campaign.
I can’t make an educated guess as to what the final result will be at the coming election, though I suspect it will be a reasonably comfortable win for Rudd. I can state however that I live in a safe ALP seat, next door to a classic swinging seat. Several (in the double figures) people who I know to be coalition voters have said to me recently, mostly adamantly that they would not vote for Howard “this time”. The reasons are universally Workchoices, honesty and “it’s time”.
I can’t see what campaign Howard can mount that would overcome their reasons for preparing to vote against him. Promising to be honest in future won’t cut it.
Reading the results of the Galaxy Poll this week, especially the question on Howards motives in the NT makes me think that their feelings are probably widespread through the nation.
“You say you agree “but not for the reason..†you don’t give your reason ?”
“To me the proof is in the pudding: Howard won the election in 98, therefore he won the campaign.”
Well obviously I have to disagree with the second sentence above to make a case on the first
I would love to be proved wrong but historical data suggests that 53-47 is about the best the ALP could hope for. I think that the current margin will mainly narrow before the election is called, and possibly narrow slightly during the campaign.
At 53-47 going into the campaign I think only a disaster for the ALP would see the government returned. But below that and it could get interesting.
If the campaign result = election result then either all of the speculating we are doing now is irrelevent or all of the tactics of the campaign period are irrelevant
It greatly helps when you are mounting a scare campaign if you have something that people are genuinely scared about. Howard’s scare campaign on Tampa worked because people were (and are) genuinely scared about Muslim immigration. (Shiekh Hillaly is Howard’s best friend). His scare campaign against Latham on interest rates and Latham being a loony worked, for the same reason. But his scare campaign on “union bosses” is not working because almost no-one is actually scared of them. On the other hand, Labor’s scare campaigns on the GST and on Costello becoming PM flopped, but its scare campaign on WorkChoices is working a treat, because large numbers of people, particularly in key demographics and in marginal urban seats, really are scared of WorkChoices, and so they should be. If Howard loses this election it will be because (a) he stayed on too long and (b) he won control of the Senate in 2004 and was able to pass WorkChoices.
In 2001 Labor clearly won the campaign; the Tampa and Sept 11 had both put the govt way in front, but Labor reduced it over the campaign period to a narrow 51-49 govt win. In 2004, Latham was simply not trusted as a potential PM; the more voters knew about him, the less they liked him. Rudd is doing much better than Latham was at this stage, and the govt loses its incumbency advantage during the campaign. Climate change and IR are the two big issues that will win it for Labor.
I’m not persuaded that climate change is shifting votes in the places where it matters. The rich and educated care about it, but they nearly all live in seats which are safe for one side or the other. (Ironically the one seat where it might prove decisive is Wentworth.) But the “Howard battlers” are much more concerned about IR and housing affordability for their kids, and they are the decisive class in the marginals.
Labor will win a poultice of seats but Robertson will not be one of them. They have succumbed, yet again, to the dubious candidacy of Mrs Della Bosca, the fragrant yet totally useless Belinda Neal. They never learn.
Adam i wont waste space on this but my memory is pretty good- If I find it I will post it- {where you made at least general comments about close election calls be naive or something of that nature]. Until then I will desist from associating you with my observations. Cheers.
Well Adam,
If you are so convinced of your theories, come on and call the election? I suspect you won’t.
It’s hard to know how much weight to put on it now, Adam, but a Galaxy poll about a month or so back rated climate change and water pretty highly, higher than IR, if I remember rightly. Since then, there’s been plenty of rain - so maybe it will recede.
Ill put my neck on the line Howard by 3 seats
Chris Curtis Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Bill,
Their vote for the GST vote did cause hostility to the Democrats, but as they went into the election promising to support the GST, I have no idea why people became hostile at the fact that they did what they promised to do, albeit with some compromises with the Liberals. It would have been better if the GST had not been distorted by the Democrats’ exemptions because the states would now have even more money to put into health and education.
As a former Dem member i left after the GST debacle and to this day my workmates who voted Democrat still have a go at me for that. Some believe that the Democrats and the Greens are the same party ( LOL)
I concur with Bill W,
obviously the Libs will lose seats I just dont see the swing getting high enough to do the Rodent in.
And then the civil war will begin …
Bill,
A former next-door-neighbour of mine thinks that the DLP and the Democrats were the same party.
Bill, Edward have a look at the polls. Howard hasn’t had such a trend against him since he’s been in office. Don’t fall for the lib line that 16 seats is too much to win back. Every new govt starts at zero, and with a tpp of 55, the ALP will win 92 seats. I think like many commentators in the press, you have started to believe that JWH is invincible. He is not and as the polls are showing, people are fed up and have stopped listening. The thing that is worrying for the govt is the strength of these polls. They have hardly moved in six months. Attitudes have hardened, and I really believe we are seeing something new with Rudd. If he can hold it all together, Howard is gone for all money. I’m predicting a 53/47 TPP for the ALP.
I’m with you Rob.
MARK
Thanks for your efforts. Your scenario gives Labor 10 certain gains, 13 probables and 9 possibles in a landslide. Generous - they only need a gain of 16 and i note your concession to losses in places like Cowan,Swan.
Under your ‘certain’ category, my current position concurs with you on 9 (Eden Monaro, Macquarie (NSW); Kingston, Makin, Wakefeild (SA); Bass, Braddon (TAS) Bonner, Moreton (QLD). I have Wentworth (NSW) as opposed to your Lindsay in NSW and I would add Dobell (NSW), giving me 11 ‘certain’ gains for Labor compared to your 10.
I don’t use ‘probables’ in my second tier category, preferring to use the term ‘possible’. My second tier grouping matches yours on four QLD seats (Blair, Herbert, Flynn; Longman) and one in SA (Boothby). My ‘possible’ category includes Lindsay (NSW) and Solomon (NT), giving me 7 ‘possible’ gains compared to you 13 ‘probables’ .
3 of your ‘probables’ would go into my third tier ‘bonus’ category (Deakin, McMillan, Corangamite). Other seats that would fit my ‘bonus’ seat category (in the wake of a significant 5.0%+ State wide swing to Labor) could come from Page, Robertson (NSW), Latrobe, (VIC), Hinkler, (QLD). Hasluck, Stirling (WA).
I wouldn’t give Labor any hope of winning Sturt. I have also excluded Petrie, Bowman, Hughes, Bennalong and McEwin which are on your nominated list.
In summary, I am counting on all 11 on my first tier ‘certain’ list and 5 of my ‘possible’ list (out of 7 nominated) to win Government for Labor. I am also assuming that any seat losses to Labor (Cowan et al) will be offset from gains in my so-called ‘bonus’ category (10 nominated). Therefore, my ‘call’ at this point would be a net Labor majority of 2-8 seats.
Funny this is the more astute judges (people who know what they are talking about) are not calling the election yet, preferring to roll their eyes at the naïve offerings of people like me, your average punter who just wants to see a reasonably fair (imperfect, sure) and just Government in Australia. Yes, by implication I consider Howard is neither fair nor just.
PS. That, above, will be my last post on here unless specifically invited to do so. I get the feeling I am particularly welcome here. GO RUDD GO.
Personally I think Labor will get more out of pushing education than either IR or climate change, and Rudd’s obsessive stalking of school students and ‘education revolution’ rhetoric appears to indicate he agrees.
Possum
I will eat my hat if the Liberals lose Petrie, Dickson or Leichhardt, or if the Nats lose Wright or Flynn.
The other seats you mention all seem at least mildly plausible.
* I meant to say NOT particularly welcome, doh !!
53-47 will be very close to the mark Rob. Ok, Im done.
No further questions, your Honor
STROP, you’re as welcome here as anyone. I specifically invite you to post as often as you like.
STROP,
Please continue to post. I find your words thoughtful. A site like this isn’t a room. No one is stuck here listening to a conversation they want to escape from. Stick to the issues, and ignore abuse. No one has to read anything they don’t want to.
OK. So. Watching Kev. Like what he’s saying, but with the NT incursion and Glasgow bombings, is he going to get traction with Nauru, Kiribati and Tonga?
“Minister for the South Pacific”?
Leo,
If the Liberals lose Petrie, Dickson and Leichhardt, I’ll fly down and cook your hat for you
I think Ryan and Blair are gone simply because of Howards Goodna bypass. Qld’ers get a bit parochial when governments attempt to put 4 lanes of asphalt through their leafy neighbourhoods as a political stunt that isn’t even needed. Add to that Johnsons almost wall to wall bad press, a large number of the community thinking he’s a dick, and half the Liberals in the area wishing they could just go and drown the bloke in the bay – the numbers for Ryan don’t quite do justice to the trouble that Johnson is really in.
Petrie is an interesting seat – culturally it’s almost identical to its neighbouring seat of Lilley (which is where I live), the big difference historically being income, and over the last 10 to 15 years, education. But that is rapidly changing with large swathes of the Petrie suburban environment no longer being Bogan central, but becoming a more diverse socioeconomic mix as a result of the housing boom, greenfields development and the quasi-gentrification of quite a few pre-existing areas – that’s been happening for a while. I think some of the booths in Petrie will show quite large changes in voting patters from the last election, simply as a result of that change accelerating over the last 3 years, let alone Rudd being no Latham and coming from Qld to boot. Add to that any broader swing across QLD which I think is on the cards anyway and Petrie seems to be dog meat for Gambaro.
Strop:
Stick around. If someone doesn’t like your opinions - who gives a _ ?
Leopold:
I will eat my hat if .. the Nats lose Wright
A very safe bet considering there is no such seat. (or was that deliberate?)
I would make sure my hat was made of something nutritious before I bet it on the Libs holding Petrie. My sources in Qld say Labor is increasingly confident about it. I don’t think Dickson is in the frame on its new boundaries. Leichhardt might well be with Entsch retiring, but I have not heard recent gossip about it.
The new seat of Flynn was initially called Wright, hence the confusion. It was to be named for Judith Wright, but the only Wright the locals had heard of was the charming Keith Wright, so the name was changed to Flynn, after the Flying Doctor guy.
As a pessimist, I just can’t see Rudd winning. It would be a dream come to true to finally see this government out of power, but I was let down in 1998. Let down in 2001. Let down in 2004. I think it’s only fair to assume that the same might be the case for 2007.
Rudd will win a lot of seats, I am positive of that, but if it stops at a figure like 11, then what are we to do? Attempting to gain 16 seats is a mammoth task when the remaining 6 seem like “possibilities” instead of “certainties”. If Rudd wins many seats, the press will have a “He ran a very good campaign but not good enough” presence to themselves whilst Howard will have escaped yet another election and have 3 years to make up for his losses and poor governance which Workchoices finally becomes entrenched into the Australian system and issues like Climate-Change-denial get to survive for another 3 years.
A landslide would be lovely and all I can do is hope for such an event, but at the back of my pessimistic mind, it’s a little bit hard to turn this into optimism. This country seems very entrenched with conservatism and Queensland, being one of the most conservative states in the nation and holding lots and lots of seats to the Liberal Party, demonstrates that the fight will have to be tough!
Rudd needs to be strong. If Howard mentions a “Do you want 500% Unemployment?” line based on spreading fear, Rudd should mention a “Do you want 500 nuclear reactors around your house?” and so on. Either way, it’ll be a dirty campaign and be a very interesting (and apprehensive) election night. If this government is finally elected out, I will honestly have a party. Even if that means celebrating by myself!
Went to lunch. It turned into dinner. So apologies for not keeping up with the conversation. In any event you wouldn’t want me breathing on you this morning.
Adam & Possum, also think Petrie is a chance but it is gentrifying slowly. Longman is a better prospect. Ryan is interesting but as an ex-Qlder who lived there for quite a while I’ve been astonished at the ALP’s ability to hold most of it three times now at state level because it’s pretty true blue territory. My folks live up on the Sunshine Coast these days and they reckon the demographics are trending Labor’s way so I’d keep an eye on those seats.
Strop, with J Kelly hanging up her skates the Libs have written off Lindsay. Despite the margins, I have a raft of Victorian seats in range because my sense is that the anti-Howard mood is pretty strong there. My SA mates reckon Sturt is very gettable as well as Boothby.
And this is interesting. Had a conversation with a very senior Nat the other day who said they were picking up this mood and very worried.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22021007-29277,00.html
btw I am officially retracting my previous statement about all the Printgate MPs getting off.. apologies to all bludger-ites.
My new unreliable gossip from the street is that the names on the brief handed to the DPP were Laming, Hardgrave and Green. Vasta made an “accounting error”.
More on the polls vs betting markets debate.
A Canberra based group called Portlandbet is offering bets on every single federal set.
Based on current flow, it reckons Coalition will get 77 seats, ALP 71 and two independents. It puts Coalition at $1.87 and ALP $1.90.
Puts Howard $1.22 in Bennelong to McKew’s $3.75. Interestingly, for those keen watchers of the pendulum, Eden-Monaro is $1.87 for each, but Dobell is at $1.63 for Ken Ticehurst and the ALP is at $2.20. But it has Greenway Labor’s way ($1.85 vs $1.88).
According to Portlandbet, only one Qld seat - Bonner - will change hands.
I know this is off-topic, but don’t know where else to post it. Did anyone notice this little gem on the ABC site this morning http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/05/1970275.htm?section=justin .
I admit I did a double take when I first read it, and i’m still shaking my head. I can remember distinctly the outraged editorials at the Oz, especially Sheridan arrogantly dismissing that the Iraq invasion was about oil. Now the truth is out. I have to ask, why now?
This will hurt the Coalition - proof that it was not about people, but Oil (and Oil companies) will not go down well with middle class Australians and will make APEC look even more elitist.
….On Portlandbet website I thought the odds for the ALP in Macquarie were very good - might put the kids shoe money on Debus.
In Iraq for the oil?
Nice to know then the dimensions of the commitment.
Take your pick - 20, 50, 100 years?
Mmm, the coalition of the drilling??
If those odds at Portlandbet are right get on the Liberals in Greenway. They appear not to have caught up with the redistribution - the Libs should be about $1.15.
Save the oil!
Save the oil!
Think of all the poor fossil fuel multinationals!
I reccomend you read ‘high and dry’ its all expalined in this great book
highanddry.com.au
Well, maybe I go too far in the case of Petrie.
And given how useless Johnson is, I suppose Ryan is possible in a landslide.
But I missed Forde first time I read your comment Possum… care to expand? I would have considered it safe even in a ‘worst ever’ result for the Libs.
Mr Speaker, you are correct, I meant to say ‘Hinkler and Flynn’. Duh.
Surely the 2004 election is the exception, rather than the rule, when it comes to recent elections.
The difficulty in calling the election based on 2PP polling is that, during the Howard years, (if not earlier), Australia has become a very polarised country, and any swing is likely to be wildly variable and non-uniform across electorates. Speaking as a Melbournian from the Labor side of the river, the previous anti-Latham swings are likely to be corrected, and then some, without any gain in seats for Labor.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of mythologising associated with Howard. I suspect that he (and some of his senior ministers) have never been wildly popular. If they were not in safe seats and against a lacklustre, infighting opposition, they probably would’ve been in trouble a lot sooner.
The myth of ‘Howard’s battlers’ is another case in point. Whilst some working class people might have been attracted to Howard a few years ago, I find it difficult these days to find any working class person with a kind thing to say about him. And for all the talk of the ‘chattering classes’ and ‘doctor’s wives’ being attracted to Labor, suburbs like Brighton (Vic) or Woolhara (NSW) are still pretty safe propositions for the Libs. What we see in these electorates is a tendency to favour candidates who are slightly ’small l’ Libs, such as Georgiou, or Turnbull.
Leo,
I don’t think the ALP will necessarily win, but I think it will be closer than the current margins suggest.
The Beenleigh, Loganlea, Waterford and other miscellaneous legoland areas in the seat are those classic low to middle income, dependent rugrats, commodore/falcon/second hand 4wd + Hyundai for the wife type mortgage belts.
There’s been a bit of greenfields development through the seat since 2004 to add to that as well.
These types of areas are the ones that really feel the interest rate to disposable income issue, not in terms of housing stress but in terms of the way that growing ratio reduces the household discretionary spending which funds lifestyle. Lifestyle is a big issue in those burbs because that lifestyle contributes to a big chunk of self-perception of living standards.
Add to that the 1.5 jobs per household nature of the place and general household income levels (which aren’t particularly high for most parts of the area), and Workchoices is probably going to bite there as well through either first hand experience of AWAs at their end of the market, or the uncertainty for income security and conditions that the anti-workchoices campaigns are producing for those on low-middle income levels.
The mortgage belt parts of the seat will probably swing fairly large against the government (as I expect that demographic to around the country – primarily because of the nexus between interest rates to disposable income, discretionary spending and workchoices). The question for me with this seat is whether that swing in those areas will be big enough to counter the super strong government support in the more rural southern and western parts of the electorate. Adams site has the Warrill View booth returning 83%TPP for the Libs – if you’ve ever been out that way, that vote is just not surprising at all. It’s the Peoples Republic of Agrarian Socialism out that way, even though agriculture is a declining industry for the area.
I’d be surprised if the swing will be big enough to topple the Libs in the seat (assuming of course the Libs even win it – it might go to the Nats if the burbs really turn against the coalition in some areas, and some of those Liberal urban preferences would then flow onto the ALP if the Nats poll more than the Libs), but it will be big enough to slash that margin to shreds. For me, it all depends on how big the population growth has been in the urban parts. That part of the world is one of the key urban corridors for South East Qld urban growth.
Thanks for the heads up on PortlandBet, guys.
Some of those odds should (but won’t) dispel the popular myths about the electoral wisdom of the bookmakers.
I’ve placed large bets on the Libs in Greenway (1.88), the ALP in Macquarie (2.22) and Moreton (2.00).
And small bets on the ALP in Wentworth (7.00) and Corangamite (10.00).
I forgot to mention that Forde is a three cornered contest this time with Kay Elson retiring. This brings into play something I think is a peculiar Qld thing, where relatively young and attractive female candidates seem to get more of the vote than one would think they ordinarily would. The Nats are running Hajnal Ban in Forde and she certainly doesn’t have a face like clock, so that might do strange things to a few percent of the vote, which might be all it takes to put the Nats ahead of the Libs in the seat, depending on how those conservative areas vote (they vote Nats at the State level)
Also on this rather politically incorrect and strange point, the Greens Senate candidate Larissa Waters might pick up a bit of the testosterone vote as well.
And please, no jokes about the sophistimication of Qld voters from you cultured Mexicans
I think you are just honest Possum, I think both sexes have a natural inclination to ‘pretty’ and just you boys take it to silly extremes much more often :-P. If the mexicans haven’t realised this happens then perhaps their lack of sun and lifestyle leaves such self-evident truths in the dark ….
You can of course see the lady’s face, and those of all other candidates who have been good enough to send me their photos, at my website:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/forde.shtml
(She looks a bit over-cooked to me, but what do I know?)
Also for those of interested in French elections, I have now posted detailed returns for both rounds of the Presidential elections, plus maps.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/f/france/
The Legislatives will take longer: there are 577 seats to do.
Finally, and totally off-topic, my new website for Third Reich history buffs, based on my recent stay in Berlin:
http://www.adam-carr.net/ruins/ruins1.shtml
The “oil in Iraq” admission by Howard is going over like a lead balloon on the blogs.
Portland bet is the only major bookie to have the Coalition as favourites though, so I don’t know how much credence should be paid to that. Also, given that they have broken down the betting in to seat by seat, the pool for each seat is likely to be small, and therefore the odds not neccessarily a true reflection of the betting market.
Portlandbet update:
Seems pollbludger writers have taken advantage of the generous odds on offer in Greenway. Markus has now shortened to favourite at $1.75. That gives Govt 78 to ALP’s 71 seats. In fact, Greenway has apparently had the most interest of punters today.
Peter Brent will be interested to know that Andrew Leigh helped put together the odds on offer.
No bets laid on Bennelong, though.
“I’m not persuaded that climate change is shifting votes in the places where it matters. The rich and educated care about it, but they nearly all live in seats which are safe for one side or the other. (Ironically the one seat where it might prove decisive is Wentworth.) But the “Howard battlers†are much more concerned about IR and housing affordability for their kids, and they are the decisive class in the marginals.”
Adam
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The message about climate change is sinking in, and people are starting to take notice, it is becoming part of family talk. It may not be a huge factor in this election, but it is not trivial.
“Rudd will win a lot of seats, I am positive of that, but if it stops at a figure like 11, then what are we to do? Attempting to gain 16 seats is a mammoth task…”
Sean
“Howard hasn’t had such a [poll] trend against him since he’s been in office. Don’t fall for the lib line that 16 seats is too much to win back.”
Rob
Exactly. IIRC, Labor took 18 or 19 seats off the government in 98′. Sixteen seats is a strong possibility this time around.
$1.74 on Labor in Bonner? Woo-hoo! Free money!
The Coalition on $1.60 in Hinkler may also interest you, Mr Bowe.
Ohh Leo, you’re just trying to drive down the price on the Coalition so you can slap some money on the ALP……. cheeky bugger
Psephos is yet to get the results from the Bremen state election several weeks ago.
The Greens got over 16%.
Climate change can’t possibly be an issue. Why, only yesterday I got a glossy from my (useless) local member - I won’t say who it is, but the $2+ for Debus is like winning the lottery - implying that the govt was much more committed to climate change than Labor because they’re spending much more on it than the ALP budgeted for in 1996.
There, another irritant neutralised.
King and Leigh found that the attractiveness of female candidates was less electorally valuable than that of male candidates. And that it helped new candidates more than incumbents. In any seat where there are two or three attractive but little known female candidates, you would expect any marginal benefit to be cancelled out.
The former finding is interesting. The latter seems explicable by the fact that once you someone enters the category of ‘politician’ you aren’t inclined to sexualise them.
Mind you any study that put Julie Bishop in the top 10 of anything, let alone attractiveness, may have its flaws.
Graeme,
I’m surprised they found it more powerful for chaps than chapettes.I was surprised that Peta Kaye Croft not only won her seat on the Gold Coast in the state parliament, but managed to hold onto it. In the same way I was surprised that the Sunshine Coast ex-One Nation lass managed to hold onto her seat (although she’s not my cup of tea, but a neighbour of mine keeps telling me she’s a hottie… go figure)
And I will not for the life of me accept any other answer as to why Kate Ellis sits directly in camera shot behind Rudd in parliament if it isn’t to cash in on the fact that she’s better looking than the political wallpaper that’s makes up the rest of the chamber.
I can understand why people aren’t inclined to sexualise politicians – in that relationship, there’s only one that does the rogering.
As for Julie Bishop, some funny bugger called her “cover girl for Hypnotism Monthly magazine†.Considering those eyes of hers, I still laugh at that.
Psephos was overseas for seven weeks and is now working through the backlog. National elections take priority over second-level elections.
My assessment is that people are spooked about Labor’s prospects in Victoria, because of the atypical result in 2004. Latham plus interest rates plus a vigorous campaign against tolls on the Scoresby/East Link freeway contributed to Labor’s worst result in Victoria since 1990 (and iirc 2nd worst since 1977). So the margins in a lot of seats - especially mortgage belt and other outer eastern Melbourne suburbia - are misleadingly exaggerated. If the swing is anything above 3% nationally, there will be plenty of seats in Victoria where it is likely to be over 5%, which is the minimum required for Government members to be ejected.
Howard is now attempting to backtrack on the “Coalitin of the drilling” comments. This is really going to cost the coalition - Howard is totally losing it by the sounds of it.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22023034-29277,00.html
Tom.
The 7 (very little) and 9 (nothing at all) news services didn’t want to know about “Coalition of the drilling†comments.
I think Morgan, maybe tomorrow and Newspoll on Tuesday will both have Lab TPP at around 58 to 42.
I don’t think the Libs Support will improve much over the next couple of Months and will most likely drop in Sept. early Oct.
I’m predicting a RuddSlide
Keep posting STROP. Its all good!
7.30 report is making a topic about the “Coalition of the drilling” comments. The ad said “confusion in government ranks about the reason about going to Iraq”. I think this is Rudd’s rabbit out of the hat - but it was puuled out by Howard/Nelson.
Tom.
what rot,heres the good OIL
the GiST of it is this
The children were thrown OVERBOARD after being TAMPA’d with IRAQ
Also now being reported on BBC website under the headline “Australia ‘has Iraq oil motive - Australia admits for the first time that securing oil is a key factor behind its troop deployment in Iraq.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm
Tom.
First up, thanks to Charlie, Chris Curtis, Mr Speaker and others for encouraging me to stick with this; you may regret doing that. So I stay-
Mark Says:
July 5th, 2007 at 8:18 am
…. My SA mates reckon Sturt is very gettable…… Mark I was at the Magill Primary school handing out HTV for Labor when Mr. Pine first put his hand up for Sturt. We had no chance then and no chance now-unless the blue ribbon band has shifted out of the area in the past 5-6 years and made way for ALOT of also rans.
If Sturt goes Ill fly home to Adelaide and personally ‘moon’ Mr Pine all the way down to Devils Elbow where a few of his mates will land after they toss cars over the barriers at Windy Point (ie. that would take one hell of a swing away in votes and sentiment in the city of Churches and sleepers).
Dobell is at $1.63 for Ken Ticehurst and the ALP is at $2.20. Cool; Im going to take some of that action (hardly anybody else is calling Dobell for Labor).
Possum Comitatus You have a very interesting website. Will have to study it more when time permits
My crystal balls says Makin, Wakefeild, Kingston and Boothby will go, but Sturt ? NA. I HOPE I am wrong-wouldnt be the first time.
Boothby wont go so that makes it only 3 in SA
Why not Boothby Bill- do you have some inside mail on that ? Ive not been in SA for some time.
Re Boothby Bill- what about the Grey vote (5th highest) tendency to stick with pretty boy conservative Dr this and that types and the ‘if it aint broke dont fix it mentality’ of that generation I hear you say.
Some of those grey voters arent as cheap to buy ($500 at last budget) as Costello thinks [and he should have waited till AFTER the election to hand that money out,duhh !!]. They wont all automatically vote for Southcott this time around: Pollsters are suggesting some vulnerability in the grey vote for JWH and (talk of Testosterone voters) Mrs Cornes isnt too bad on the eye; she looks young and fresh compared to dreary old Southcott. Im sticking to Boothby going to Labor (despite reservations about her lack of political fibre beyond football club change rooms). Cheers.
Watching the news tonight I am thinking they will be waiting a bit on the paedophile arrests -its nicely organised I think they can turn the tap on and off as needed.
My guess is they need a circuit breaker they just go in and arrest a few black paedophiles. They will probably wait and see next weeks polling first.
How’s the weather tonight - in where is it Vladivostok or maybe Harbin Lol!
This is certainly an interesting election year.
Bryan’s graphs on the quiet site are still showing Labor ahead in all areas and above trends for previous 3 elections for Labor at this time of the year. I think, understandably, Australians do genuinely love Kevin.
I agree with posters that have wondered whether it will translate into votes and may well save my wager for Wednesday of election week. I am very much looking forward to a debate. Both men can speak well but both can also get flustered under pressure.
I am not entirely convinced that this far out any one issue will galvanise the electorate one way or another. In terms of probability, it is more likely a close election with a reduced Coalition majority and no senate majority.
This Iraq-oil thing has gone international
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2119110,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=466337&in_page_id=1811
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/05/international/i002946D31.DTL
http://www.boston.com/news/world/australia/articles/2007/07/05/oil_a_motive_for_aussies_in_iraq/
And of course, the Fox network
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288115,00.html
How is he going to get this rabbit back in the hat?
Oh, and how long do you reckon Nelson will last now?
First the reasons for being in Iraq were weapons of mass destruction (WMD ) and chemical weapons which they never found, then came Saddam Hussein, then Al Qaeda and terriorism, then it was staying the course and helping Iraq defend for itself and now low and behold its Oil.. what next?
It was lies, lies and more lies and look at Iraq today what a mess.. and what a disgrace.. Bush, Howard and Blair should all be jail for this pathetic lie and murderous mayhem that has resulted..
This Government is falling apart and is trying every possible means to survive but it is to late it is about to be exterminated.. Just watch it pass some hostile bills in the coming months which will be hard for new government to change without a majority…
I thought at the time and I’m more sure now that the real reason for iraq (and now Iran) is the State of Israel.
If you can remember “The Wall” was becoming an issue,and embarresment, the invasion and occupation of Iraq eclipsed one scandel with another.
The really bizarre thing about Nelson’s comment is how totally wrong it is - just as the endless claims from the left that the invasion of Iraq was “all about oil” were wrong. Neither Nelson nor the left have explained HOW invading and occupying Iraq made either the West’s oil supplies more secure or made the oil companies’ profits bigger. If the West wanted Iraqi oil all it had to do was cut a deal with Saddam. He was happy to sell: after all, Iraq has nothing else to sell apart from dates. Getting rid of Saddam has actually made oil supplies LESS secure, which is why the oil companies, despite all the left’s slogans, were never very keen on the invasion - they have always prefered to do deals with whatever dictator or sultan has the oil and can supply it with the least fuss. Nelson must have had a complete brain-spasm to have made such a dumb comment, which apart from being factually false undercuts five years of Bush-Howard denials that the invasion was about oil. No wonder Howard is furious. But of course it was Howard alone who appointed and promoted Nelson, despite his towering ego and vanity and his notoriously suspect judgement.
Adam
I would have to agree with you that it was a dumb comment by Nelson, it made world headlines on CNN who report that the Australian defense minister said that one of the main reasons that Australia were in Iraq was to secure the oil supplies. But Nelson also made blunder after blunder on the Koscovo death also. Would also agree with you that it was not a reason for invading Iraq as Saddam kept oil supplies secure but it is now a reason for staying due to the instability of the country.
Envy
Agree with your point of view re Israel being a reason, Saddam was financing suicide bombers in Israel, promising US$50,000 to their families.
The matter of Saddams payments was raised in relation to the $300 million that AWB paid to Saddam and how much of this went to financing those payments.
There are articles on how Bush and his religous right supporters view Israel as special to their beliefs, regardless of this it does support the invasion on the grounds of stopping Saddam’s financing and encouragement for the bombers.
Adam
After Desert Storm in 1991, Saddam was a toothless tiger. NATO forces had him under complete control. He had nothing to do with 9/11. He was not exporting terrorism, he had no weapons of mass destruction. So why did ‘Dubya’ invade?
In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to Euros. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD. One of the first goals of US forces was to secure the Iraqi oil ministry building in Bagdhad, which had miraculously escaped damage.
Obviously the US was keen to protect the oil supply from Iraq. But the key strategic goal was to return the sale of oil from Iraq (the second largest oil reserve) to US dollars. Read Petrodollar Warfare by William R Clark for an insight. Basically, the US dollar (and the US economy) depends on oil being traded in US dollars not euros.
General Oracle
If the Coalition hold on to Government as you predict, they will most certainly keep their Senate majority.
It would only be under a Ruddslide that the ALP might prize seate control from the Coalition.
I predict a Labor win with an obstructionist Senate unless they do preference deals with Family First.
It was a serious gaffe from Nelson, coming at a time when Australians are pretty cynical about the Howard Government (see the 58% who think the NT intervention is an election stunt).
‘Neither Nelson nor the left have explained HOW invading and occupying Iraq made either the West’s oil supplies more secure or made the oil companies’ profits bigger. ‘
It’s somewhat off-topic, but - I don’t think anyone can reduce the war to the oil factor, however, it’s hardly likely Iraq would’ve been invaded if they only exported dates. Also, whilst oil companies are normally quite happy to deal with despots, there were various restrictions imposed on Saddam’s oil - firstly, by the UN, and secondly, by the fact that the oil was tied up in contracts to France, Russia and China, but not the US. I think a fair summary of the situation is that oil supply was one of several motivating factors for the CoW.
In any case, it all reinforces the assocation in voter’s minds between ‘dubious war’ and ‘oil’. I think the Iraq war has failed to be an election-deciding issue, but cynicism toward Howard on this issue is pretty widespread across the community, and is compounded when viewed through the unflattering prism of Workchoices inter alia
I dunno, I hope that the ppl here that say Rudd will make it happen are right . I am dubious though about the reasons you think that people switch their votes. I remember long ago (the one Keating won) and I was a recently disabled/ unemployed visitor from Darwin in a house on the North Shore of Sydney (Killara), The only “Keating guy there” and two amazing things happend that have forever hardened my thoughts towards the way Aussies vote.
1. I managed to scare a life long Liberal anal retentive into voting for Labor with drunken claims of the elimination of Medicare( I made it up on the fly, but hey, It worked)
(Took 3 beers and about an hour) 
2. The only other person to change their vote out of that group was a highly educated, quite decent and nice lady. Wealthy but with a social concience. (Tutured “special kids” for free for 30 yrs so… ) She voted Howard cos “I hate the way Keating leaves his mouth open when he finishes speaking) !!!
These are the type of things I think are probably what decides our elections
Silly Silly things
Opps, soz, she didn’t vote “Howard” she voted for that other guy the Libs had on the flag then (Hewsen) mebbe?
Mr Chris
There are issues that will decide peoples vote in this election and IR is a main issue. IR is not just about Work Choices and the loss of workers rights to collectively bargain, the loss of penalty rates, public holidays annual leave and other conditions.
Aside from the stories of people being sacked because they are union members or will not sign AWAs, of restaurant workers being paid $8 an hour and the 457 visa workers being brought in as cheap labor to work as vritual serfs, as the United States government agency reported there is also the issue of OH&S.
Howards takeover of OH&S from the states lessens employers obligations and coupled with his Work Choices amkes for more unsafe work sites. I was quite suprised that Hockey said in connection with a recent matter that it was up to the state governmetn to resolve the issue as ultimatley Howard OH&S laws override the state laws.
There is an interesting story here about OH&S.
Falling concrete has prompted workers to walk off the job at a Perth building site where union hard man Joe McDonald was caught on video abusing a construction manager over safety.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/WorkSafe-looks-at-unsafe-building-site/2007/07/05/1183351365590.html
When peoples lives are at risk it does focus attention.
I dont care whether the Iraq war was motivated primarily from the oil issue or not, though I would have put it in the top 3 reasons along with getting a foothold over there, somewhere, for Israel’s sake. What I do care about is public/voter perception-
If Nelson’s gaffe rekindles some voters memories about objections to Australian involvement in Iraq (past and/or present) and the AWB scandal, it may get to a point where some find another reason to NOT vote for JWH this time.
However, for the life of me I dont understand why so many were prepared to ‘overlook’ (eg. Tampa: Babies Overboard) issues that I would have thought would put JWH into retirement in 1998,2001 and 2004. It has almost gotten to the point where it seems to me that the majority are prepared to forgive anything so long as it dosent rattle the individual persons world too much.
Have we created such a frightening dog-eat-dog social and economic system that giving a damn about your next door neighbour (’the other’) is a convenience most of us can no longer afford to make some sacrifices to acknowledge ?
If we have, the incumbent will once again win an election they probably should have lost. Im not suggesting the Opposition are much better, but bad Government (Workchoices etc) should be penalised at the ballot box. Will it this time, I bloody hope so.
2004 was quite a disaster for Labor, who should probably have gained some ground, rather than gone backwards.
Almost all of the issues of 2004 remain recent or current - interest rates, housing costs, Hicks, environment, Iraq, plus the accumulated baggage of the Liberal’s lesser moments (AWB, children overboard, etc).
The so-called ‘tipping point’ that is generating the poll results we have consistently seen must be IR, since so little else has changed.
‘Have we created such a frightening dog-eat-dog social and economic system that giving a damn about your next door neighbour (’the other’) is a convenience most of us can no longer afford to make some sacrifices to acknowledge ? ‘
In terms of Iraq, at least, Australia has gotten off fairly lightly, sustaining minimal casualties whilst making a symbolic contribution. We’ve sent in elite troops rather than grunts who are getting killed in urban warfare. I thnk that may be why voters have let the Liberals off the hook - in the US, plenty of voters seem pretty incensed about Iraq, no doubt due to the significant loss of (American) life, and the idiotic sums of money involved.
In my opinion 2004 went the way it did because of the Interest Rate scare campaign. Latham himself certainly helped, but it was the hip pocket nerve that told at the ballot box. That card has been well and truly torn up now that we have had 8 interest rate rises in a row, and more are on the way.
Dario,
there is no evidence that interest rate rises will rise anytime soon, there will be no adjustments made this year
Happy Revolutionary,
There has not been significant loss of American life in Iraq. In proper wars armies lose more than 2000 soldiers a day rather than over the course of four years. The loss of life in Iraq is massively overblown compared to other conflicts
‘There has not been significant loss of American life in Iraq. In proper wars armies lose more than 2000 soldiers a day rather than over the course of four years. The loss of life in Iraq is massively overblown compared to other conflicts’
This may be quite true, relatively speaking, but the loss appears significant when one considers how unpopular the war was even before it begun. It took years for serious protest to get happeneing in the case of Vietnam. With Iraq, thousands took to the streets before it started.
In any case, I was just speculating that Iraq probably played a much bigger role in last year’s Congressional elections than it did in our 2004 election. If loss of life isn’t the distinguishing factor here, what is?
“I managed to scare a life long Liberal anal retentive into voting for Labor with drunken claims of the elimination of Medicare( I made it up on the fly, but hey, It worked)
”
Howard has implemented almost every other policy from Future Directions, and after all we “all know what he stands for”
Andrew - you appear to have overlooked the significant loss of life of Iraqi citizens (minimum 200,000, more like half a million) who are paying the price for an invasion it’s not clear many of them wanted in the first place. Part of the reason that US casualties are so “low” (and your appreciation that every life is precious is truly touching) is that for the most part they are holed up in the Green Zone, where insurgents can’t get close to them.
the lancet study was plainly wrong, this is because they took the number of known dead and extropolated using the formula used for contagious pandemics. Which since getting blown up isnt contagious means the study was flawed.
also i was only making comment to put the iraq war in perpective comparatively
and what makes Iraq different from vietnam is conscription. These people are volunteer soldiers, who signed into the defence forces willingly, knowing the dangers involved. which is sometimes a point that is lost in this debate
Just a humble girls view, but I think some are reviewing the decision to go invade Iraq through evidence accumulated since.
Even if you assume that Howard and Bush are dangerous fools, look for a moment at Mr Blair. Blair did not got to Iraq because he needed to obey Bush, he thought it was going to be a cakewalk. Murdoch, official publisher to the Liberal Party, actually said the invasion would get oil prices down to $20 a barrel quickly. There was always a key oil driver and only Mr Murdoch was honest enough to admit it up front.
With a government in such disarray it can’t even agree on what truth and what lies to tell bring on the Ruddslide.
Iraq won’t make a difference in the election.
It’s far far away and doesn’t affect anyone’s life.
In 2004 I’m sure most of you thought it was a big deal, but the public didn’t, still don’t and won’t.
This is a one-week wonder.. a bit like Howard’s Obama comments a couple of months ago, remember them ?
Work Choices matters because it affects people’s jobs.
WIIFM - “What’s in it for me ?” - the mind of the mug voter.
Actually Andrew, the Lancet people did no such thing.The 2 Lancet studies simply used cluster sampling.Hardly a radical methodology.
The only thing radical about the whole shebang seemed to be the extraordinary lengths that some in the political cheersquad went to misinterpret the findings [sounds familiar - just like the polls!] which might have been effective if any of them (from what I saw) actually had any basic numeracy skills.
[Again - just like the polls!]
Come on Andrew we have your assertion against a respected peir reviewed article. Oh and you have Andrew Bolt on your side. The lancet study is clearly one of the most reliable independent estimates we have. The defence rest M’laud.
The coalition of the drilling (loved that when I first saw it yesterday) need to trivialise the death toll both of US soldiers and of civilians because Iraq was a stupid reaction to 9/11. Exactly how many died in 9/11? How many innocents must be killed to avenge each of those deaths?
Given it is a ‘war on terror’ when are you going to start trivialising the fatalities from 9/11 and subsequent attacks? Say compare and contrast it to Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Oh you wouldn’t do that would you because in the war every vote (opps I mean life) is precious isn’t it?
I honestly don’t understand how anyone can sit back and rationalise such massive loss of life.
((apologies to the wharf which has remained neutral in the lancet study storm))
“..The so-called ‘tipping point’ that is generating the poll results we have consistently seen must be IR, since so little else has changed.”
You are right about Work Choices, a policy Pimpmobile if ever there was one. But the punters might well have piled into the back seat, knees tightly together, except for one thing. There is now, for a change, a highly credible alternative means of locomotion - the grey Volvo chauffeured by the nice, intelligent, and articulate Mr Rudd. Not to everyone’s taste, sure, but unquestionably safe and robust.
IMHO when the history is written of what, just conceivably, could turn out as a bloodbath for the Federal Liberals, the tipping point will be seen to be their leaders’ hubris in destroying Good Ol’ Predictable Kim.
Smarter strategists would have gone lightly on him, even helping out him out with a few deliberate mistakes, knowing that they could floor him in the run-up to an election.
I am not sure that here is the place to consider the merits of the lancet study - however two points - the journal and authors conceded that they had a political aim in publishing the story - which I have a problem with.
- in conducting the survey (from which they extapolated the figures) the survey people asked for proof and in x% of cases, they were shown death certificates. This was the proof they needed. However, when this figure was then expanded out over the population, it meant that there should be x% of death certificates and there weren’t.
The study was flawed
BUT this does not mean that thousands of people haven’t died in Iraq - they have - this debate is about whether 100,000 civilians or 500,000 civilians have died. Whatever figure, the question to ask is whether more or less would have died under Saddam.
yes..its morgan.. but still…interetsting trend
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4184/
“Coalition Support Down In Wake Of “National Emergency”
re: Andrew & Iraq war deaths: do check out http://www.icasualties.org for what is admitted as a very partial civilian death count. Some notes about the Iraq war - the 1,000 contractor death was marked this week this includes 3 Australian contractor deaths - something the media has generally missed), so the reality is that approaching 3900 soldier/contractor deaths have been recorded. As well, the death toll is reduced due to the prevalence of body armour and close proximity of battlefield medication (check the wounded/death ration from Vietnam to Iraq - 5:1 compared to 12:1). If we had “conventional war” rates of death (WW2 was 3:1, Korea 4:1) we would start seeing at least double this. And then we should consider the numbers deployed - 130,000 reported compared to the maximum US deployment in Vietnam of 540,000 to get the scale of deaths.
All that aside, Iraq remains a shootin’ war Australia is involved in, so will remain somewhere in the news, and thus a reason for people to remember. Nelson’s comments highlights that. Not a great vote decider but one that will sit there and remind people of Howard’s legacy.
On seats to fall to the ALP, I don’t think Wentworth is one of them for the reasons people have given in previous discussions re this. I’m not convinced that Turnbull will lose (or allow himself to lose…).
Or Labors stupidity in axeing Kim was the moment when Howard’s 2nd great escape became more likely than not.
The latest Morgan Poll is out. Good for Labor, not for the coalition. Morgan says “Soft ALP voters are defined as those who said Australia is “heading in the right direction†as well as saying they would vote Labor if an election were held today.” Which is 20 percent by the way. However I believe this definition to be very questionable. I think overall Australia is heading in the right direction but in some areas it is not. I certainly wouldn’t consider myself a “soft” ALP supporter. Hell would freeze over before I voted for Howard.
That’s two polls now showing a slight drop in coalition support and an increase in Labor’s support since the National Emergency. Does Howard have a credibility problem? Will the question of trust do him in in the long run?
Anyone who thinks Beazley would have stood a better chance than Rudd of beating Howard this time around really is kidding themselves. Look and listen to the evidence around you.
Labor’s vote is soft is an obvious each way bet for any pollster. I haven’t seen any signs of softness myself in the figures unless you count the meaningless one or two point bounces between polls. I don’t detect a whole lot of change in the atmospherics in the last couple of months.
Ok then, that’s the first poll in July over and done with, and another putative poll bounce for the government - budget effect - on its way to being debunked.
What’s the next milestone? Is there even one left that isn’t suspiciously lapine?
I know it’s off topic, but someone above made the bizarre, if not callous, comment that Iraq wasn’t a real war as the belligerent force (ie the US)had ‘only’ lost 3500 soldiers.
You forget the 26 000 wounded personnel, many crippled for life.
It’s like the carnage on the roads - proportionately fewer die as cars/air bags etc are more robust. Similarly, the US has extraordinary equipment, bombs from out of enemy range etc, especially relative to the guerillas they face.
Try telling the 30 000 families that a war without a rationale makes sense.
Or else I’m just not silly enough to jump on a bandwagon.
Or interpret opinion polls a la Dennis Shanahan, as you do Gary.
Leopold, I too question your assumption that Labor’s change of leadership has given Howard a lifeline, compared with Beazley.
True, the 2PP under Beazley was motoring along quite nicely, but the primary support was very mediocre - low 40s at best. Since the change, the primary has been up around 47-50%.
Surely that is evidence that a lot of voters wanted to vote Labor, but it wasn’t until Rudd took over that they thought they had a credible alternative.
I know that Rudd doesn’t appeal to you personally, but I respect your general knowledge of polling. What do you base the assumption on?
The initial bounce (3% or less on the 2PP) was evidence that a change of leader boosts your support. Happened to Peacock in 1989, to Downer in 1994 and to Rudd in 2006.
The further surge in March has happened in just about every ‘election’ year since 1992.
As to the primary vote - I agree Beazley was depressing the Labor primary vote, but IMHO, not in any way that damaged electoral chances. Most (at this point, just about all of it) of Rudd’s increased PV has not come from the Coalition, but from Green and Other; as such, I think it’s mostly Labor supporters who didn’t like Beazley but would have (at least) preferenced him anyway.
In terms of my reasoning as to Rudd being a less likely winner, there are a whole range of points, but the two main ones (don’t want to take up space) are: a) Rudd is not ‘known’ as Beazley was and b) he is expected to win. I think both of those will cost Labor votes at the ballot box (they may also inflate opinion poll results - new + bandwagon effect), and will reinforce the inevitable effects of the Coalition scare campaign.
How depressing it is that you people create my Friday night entertainment!
1. Rudd is a mini Howard, and therefore ‘acceptable’ to the middle classes
2. Howard should have retired at 10.
3. The Liberal Party in NSW is seen as dysfunctional
4. One poll loss is a mistake, seven on the trot is careless
5. Nelson has cost the Government untold votes by telling the truth
6. Because of point “3″, traditional donors are in hiding
7. As a life long Liberal, even I am looking forward to voting Labor!
Look Possum Comitatus - Kate Ellis sits where she does because she’s in a marginal seat (though its probably quite safe now) and not because of her looks. Clearly the most attractive female SA politician (with the obvious except of Natasha) is Penny Wong! Damn She’s fine! Though yes in the H of R Kate Ellis probably the best Labor has to offer. Certainly in SA they like their female pollies HOT why else would Amanda have suddenly disappeared from the scene?
Howard will not just sit back and watch the coalition loose. He’ll concoct some scheme to get back. Maybe arrange ASIO to blow up a bin at APEC like they did at that Commonwealth Summit?
Look even if Labor wins they definitely won’t have control of the senate. If all states are split 3 Labor 3 Coalition then labor will need coalition support to pass bills. If very few senate seats are taken from the coalition and given to FF or the Greens then if the coalition were to disapprove of a bill that labor proposed then they would need both these minor parties support to get it through. However wouldn’t it be easier for labor if rather than needing support from both FF and the Greens they only needed support from one of them? FF would need like 4 or 5 wins- impossible. Therefore putting aside politics and focusing purely on math’s (of which I am not very confident that my own claims are solid) wouldn’t it be easier for labor to only have to seek Greens approval of bills if the coalition were to appose? Thus won’t labor give the Greens preferences and give up on the BULL$@T of giving FF preferences as they occasionally did last time? A Double Dissolution in 2008… maybe
Anyway my VERY optimistic prediction after carefully examining each seats demographics is this- Labor: 73, Coalition: 72, Greens: 3, Independents 2.
Although Labor could show its true colours and enter a grand coalition or there could be defections between the major parties I think Labor’ll enter a deal like they did once upon a time in Tasmania and we will see the beginning of a better world!
Molotov,
The experience of the Victorian Labor Party with the Greens almost holding the balance of power in the Legislative Council is good reason for a federal Labor Government not to want to be dependent on the Greens in the Senate. The Victorian Labor Party would be better off with two DLP MLCs and two Green MLCs rather than the one DLP and three Greens there are at present. A government is in a stronger position when it is not dependent on any one other party for the success of its legislative program. A federal Labor Government would appreciate the flexibility of choosing the Greens to get some laws through and Family First to get others through.
I think the discussion is academic for reasons I have explained before. Labor cannot win the Senate this time. Indeed, it is almost impossible for Labor and the Greens combined to get a majority there. This means a double dissolution, and then the Greens can hope for the balance of power.
….I think having the Greens hold the Balance of Power would suit Labor as they would be able to play the Conservatives off against the looney left and make themselves look like the natural middle ground (dare I say representatives of the ‘forgotten people’).
Hold on - I think we’re in for a bumpy ride.
Chris Curtis Says:
July 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Labor cannot win the Senate this time. Indeed, it is almost impossible for Labor and the Greens combined to get a majority there. This means a double dissolution, and then the Greens can hope for the balance of power.
The DD question-
The prospect of a DD has been raised several times here by various contributors- the dominant view being that a DD appears to be almost inevitable. William could I suggest a separate thread on this issue be created, pre-empted by any poll information that can be presented on the Senate Election for 2007 (if it hasn’t already been done before now).
We could start the discussion with views on the following premises that I have gleaned from my review of what some well respected blogger’s here and elsewhere have mooted-
1. The Democrat vote is expected to collapse in 2007, and their remaining four Senate seats go to either Labor or the Greens (WA, SA, QLD, VIC).
2. If this premise (1) occurs, the combined Senate seat representation of Labor/Greens will increase from 32 (28 Labor: 4 Greens) to 36, 3 short of a (combined) Senate majority of 39.
3. Family First won a Senate seat in 2004 which is not up for re-election in 2007. Therefore, the ALP/GREEN combination would have to win 3 Seats from the Coalition to gain a (combined) Senate majority (39).
4. There will be only one seat ‘up for grabs’ in each State/Territory in 2007. If we take for granted that WA, SA, QLD and VIC are already accounted for (premise 1), the 3 Coalition seat losses would have to occur in NSW, TAS or the Territories (ACT/NT).
5. Since 1975, the ACT has elected one Liberal and one Labor Senator. I haven’t come across anyone prospecting any change to this 30 year history in the ACT. I will assume the status quo will remain in the ACT after the 2007 Election.
6. In the NT, the same habits have occurred, with the electorate voting in one Labor and one CLP senator for a long time. However, it is not ‘impossible’ that a change could occur and the NT is far more ‘vulnerable’ to change than is the ACT.
Given these premises (6), a DD appears to be very likely, unless Labor/Greens can win 3 senate seats from the Coalition, one each in NSW, Tasmania and the NT. 2 seats would not be enough because the hostility between FF and the Greens is palpable and unworkable.
So, what are Labor/Green prospects of picking up a Senate seat in NSW, Tasmania and/or the NT ?
STROP,
I have responded on the Senate on “Morgan; 59-41†in the hope of consolidating the discussion on the most recent thread rather than have discussion continue intermittently on threads that pretty soon will disappear from the first page.
Thanks Chris, Ill go see. PS: My pre-emptive ‘opinion’ is that it wont happen; the Green candidate may have a shot in the NT, but Labor is very unlikely to win an extra seat in NSW and even less likely to do so in TAS despite the expected ‘claw back’ of Labor primary votes in TAS which were lost via Latham’s Foresty stuff up.