Roy Morgan’s first poll in two weeks is from a face-to-face survey of 1690 voters conducted over the past two weekends. It shows a slight widening of Labor’s two-party lead to 59-41, with the Coalition primary vote down from 37 per cent to 36 per cent and Labor’s up from 48 per cent to 50.5 per cent.
UPDATE: The outstanding Possum’s Pollytics, whose absence from this site’s blogroll is keenly felt (to be corrected when I overhaul the site in about a month or so), produces some interesting data on variations between Newspoll and Morgan results.
UPDATE 2: And Andrew Leigh has an easy-to-follow run-through of the Portlandbet electorate odds that have everybody talking.
268 Comments
More pain for Howard it would seem
I still think it will be an extremely close election with Howard scraping in, but a primary vote over 50% for Labor. That’s … wow.
But, if I allow myself to deviate from my normal prediction, here is narrative:
1. Howard calls the election at his regular time (there’s no “good” time he can pick at this rate)
2. Labor wins in a landslide but with a bare majority (and not the senate)
3. Howard retires/turfed out of Bennelong
3.5 Democrats face agonising wait on one seat that drags out for weeks.
4. Double dissolution within 18 months
5. Libs lose control of senate (but Labor doesn’t gain control)
5.5 Everyone surprised when Democrats fluke a seat in the new senate
I’m curious as to Morgan including the ‘is Australia heading in the right direction’ question. Am I right in surmising this is an American import? Isn’t it used in relation to presidential approval?
As someone commented on another thread, I might think Australia is robust (or conversely be headed down the gurgler) but be a partisan for any party: so Morgan is quixotic to use it as a measure of ’softness’ of party support. Each side of politics has a hard core base of about a third of the electorate.
Further, couldn’t Labor voters, in the context of being polled on political issues, think we are headed in the right direction because they have heard of dozens of polls showing the government is headed for defeat?! (Especially given 50% of Morgan’s sample repeatedly now thinks that election outcome is likely).
The 58% who didn’t believe Howard was genuine about the NT intervention lead me to believe he does not have enough political capital to turn this around. It also strengthens the case that Howard is the problem rather than the solution to the problem.
The Coalition need a sizable move back to them soon if they are to avoid defeat, and that does not seem evident at the moment. It is also hard to see, outside a major opposition errror, which issue will deliver them that momentum they sorely need.
Spot on, Graeme, last paragraph. It is quite plausible that many Anyone But Howard types believe that Howard is gone.
Exactly, Graeme. If I was asked ‘Is Australia heading in the right direction?’ I’d reply – ‘You bet. We’re heading for a change of government’ without even thinking about it.
Using such a nebulous question as a marker of ’softness’ is ludicrous. Morgan really is a worry sometimes.
Forget right track, who’ll win, only one question actually worth paying attention to – Primary votes!
Takes me back to my earlier post – union scare campaign is playing into Rudd’s hands. Punters have elected eight state/territory Labor Governments and have seen the blue with unions when required – far too many examples to list here. This just isn’t scary enough for any more! Get back to the economy and you’ll stay in.
As demonstrated over decades, white, suburban Australia is very removed from the plight of indigenous Australia. Of course they want it fixed and indeed expect Governments to do it. Not so sure they’ll credit a Government for doing what they expect them to do in any event.
Ouch. If Newspoll next week and AC the week after show the same, I’m willing to call.
What is the breakdown of the Coalition vote? If the Nats are on 5-10% that means the Liberal party vote could actually only 28-29% That is a shocking figure. Considering the Greens might get 10% of the vote…
Another great result for Labor, though correcting for Morgan bias meanss its probably “only” 57-43 Labor 2PP and 48.5-38 Labor primary. Under this, we can say it matches with the Galaxy poll at about a 56-44 Labor 2PP. This result is after two months of govt domination of the national agenda, yet there’s only been about a 2% movement back to the govt. If the agenda switches back to Labor issues, we will probably see Labor widen the lead. I won’t call it until election night, but I will say the prob of a Labor victory is now 80+%.
dembo, Nats polled 2.5%
Even galaxy shows the government like 10 points behind Labor in the polls. Howard is not going for an early election for sure, an election in November is most likely.
dembo, I’d much rather hear why you believe Howard will get back. What is the “rabbit” that will turn this around?
The primary vote for the ALP must be putting the fright into Liberal Central at the moment. Anything above 45% must be curtains for them. When it is this high it can only be nightamre territory. The 60-40 blip might be back on the agenda.
I think the bigger fright for the Libs, more than the latest primary and 2pp results, is the fact that for the last 6 months, nothing has worked for them, and that there doesn’t seem any new cards to play.
The theory that a majority of swinging voters have stopped listening to the Howard Government, has already made their mind up and nothing Howard does will make a difference to most of this crowd, is looking more and more concrete as each political stratagem Howard tries falls flat.
If we start to hear Coalition members of marginal seats break the party line and speak ‘off-message’ then we’ll know for sure that the Coalition also thinks it’s heading for defeat.
What we’re looking at now in Federal politics is a vice slowly closing on the Coalition with each poll, and crushing it to what looks like inevitable political death.
Interesting times for John Howard & co.
I think it is reasonable to expect the Coalition to gain 5% in the 2PP when and election is called and during the campaign. That puts the result 51/49 – a close election and in a close election in Australia I would favour the incumbent
Not just that, but Rudd and Labor need a fairly large swing to win. On any other figures it would be a two-election job for Rudd to defeat Howard but credit to Rudd he is making it look like a 1 election job. I feel sorry for him if he falls just short. To fall just short would be an amazing achievement, but will probably be painted as failure.
Dembo, this only happened in 2004 when Latham was Labor leader. Labor will simply have too many people on the ground and too much money for the Libs.
Wishful thinking Dembo.
If you do some research you’ll discover that the 5% poll bounce upon election calling is more the exception than the rule.
Give me some concrete reasons why 5% will change their mind on Rudd overnight and I’ll reconsider. But you should take on board the fact that rudd is not behaving like Latham and instead is rock solid on his messages and looking very much like a PM in waiting.
Morgans 59-41 in ALP’s favour, along with monday’s Galaxy, represent a renewed shift back to Rudd. This is yet to be confirmed by nielsen and newspoll though.
Considering the governments largely positive domination of the media cycle, as well as its ongoing ‘information’ campaign to personalise employers as caring, loving philanthropists, such a noticable swing back to Labor is telling.
Howard is faltering, even when he is on the front foot. Widespread cynicism has accompanied his recent initiatives, cancelling out their political capital.
Rudd has avoided the wedge, played constructive politics and released policies that have further flat footed the govt. If he can regain the initiative and run, rather than follow, the agenda, this gap will increase.
If we carry on for 13 weeks like the last couple of months it seems more likely to me that Howard will have no bunnies left, and Rudd will have a few up his sleeve.
My mail says the gravy train is going to open its doors on marginals (where it hasn’t already) but I can’t help but speculate that bribes wont work, people expect them now.
I’m not sure why it is reasonable to expect Howard to make 5 points in the election campaign. He losses some of the gloss of office and has to fight out a campaign. I think it would be more reasonable, more logical, to expect the election campaign to be a nil all draw. So Howard has until it starts to make up most of the ground.
This poll looks a tad suspicous.
41 is too high, especially with a primary vote of 36% for the liberals.
I cannot accept that one in three Australians are considering voting for them.
Um, Dembo, even if a 5% campaign swing back to the government is reasonable, and I see no argument as to why that would be so, the split is still 54/46 on today’s figures. Very comfortable win for Labor. Or are you one who automatically deducts three points from Morgan?
Looking at the last three election campaigns, (graphs at the OzPol site) the govt made up no such ground. In 2001 they lost ground. In the other two they clawed back two points, which is within the error range anyway, so who knows?
Rudd, despite making mistakes and several of them, is doing a pretty good job overall of not scaring the horses. Latham scared the horses.
Last time around, there were some people who wanted Howard out but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Latham. This time around, there are even more people who want Howard out but even fewer who are scared of the Opposition Leader. I believe this is the single most important reason why nothing that Howard has tried on Rudd has worked. The polled punters have essentially given Rudd a suit of armour because they want him to be good enough.
If Rudd betrays that faith he will be in serious trouble but until that day he will sail along relatively comfortably, as we have seen in the polls for the entire year despite a drift back to the govt under circumstances favourable to the latter. The govt has been controlling the agenda lately and their electoral stocks have risen in that time but don’t forget there is some nasty business ahead eg. Qld MPs, Minchin… If Labor regains control of the agenda the polls will shift again.
Arbie it is more than a 1/3, a third is 33.3333% there is like one in three and a few extra… lacks credibility you are right, the Australians I meet are much smarter than that. They tell me they are sick of incompetent and dishonest government.
Have a great weekend, too early to put it on ice, but we should be ordering the champaigne in bulk!!!!!!!!!
Fonzie we were going to the same election night party right? Wasn’t the loser supposed to wear something revealing, leather, didn’t you say something about a leash and collar?
Sideline, I’m keeping my eyes open for deserting rats. Haven’t seen any yet but on the alert.
Even though they could be wrong or right, you have to take these polls how you see them unless they prove you wrong.
I can’t believe what’s happening in them at the moment though!
wonder if the betting market will change between Morgan and tuesday’s Newspoll?
arbie jay
that anyone with an iq over 50 would vote liberal surprises me!!!!
Silent -what is this about liberal party uniform and Happy days????
The only thing that stops me calling the election definitely for Kevin Rudd is that I was certain Labor would win in 2001 and it did not. If we could grab the Doctor and the TARDIS and go back and delete the year 2001 from the calendar and our memories, I would now be certain that the Liberals would lose this year. Labor has been way in front in every poll. Every Liberal tactic against Kevin Rudd has been mindless. The one positive thing the Liberals have done, their initiative on Aborigines, which reveals the public as a whole to be even more cynical than I am, has made no difference. Mr Rudd has had the initiative almost the whole year and is about to regain it. The tax cuts are just what we believe we are entitled to. The Pay Commission’s $10 below-inflation increase (being spun as an above-inflation increase by not counting the waiting period) has revealed its true colours. WorknotcalledChoicesanymore Mark II is around the corner, festering in Nick Minchin’s mind. Brendan Nelson has linked Iraq to oil (and no, I’m not one of the conspiratorially inclined that thinks oil was the reason at the start).
Adam, surely you are now feeling confident. Remove 2001 from your memory. (Scientists say that this is now medically possible.)
Arbie Jay – you are so cruel, you wont even allow the govt 41%. Anything much less than that at election and the Greens will out number them.
Hmm the Greens as the next major political party with Libs a minority? Wouldnt that be funny.
Not so unlikley Kina, the demographic of the Lib voters is heavily in the 65+ catorgary while The Green voter is somewhat younger.
This means in 10 years, the Liberals will be much sicker, if not already dead.
If Greens continue to attract young voters like they do, their vote will esaly dubble.
Soon the voters find out LIB/LAB is same/same, this will put The Greens into the picture as serious contenders for government.
The thing is can we wait that long?
I will repeat – if the government is still 14+ points behind come August with an election in November, we are looking at an ALP win. Howard would have to produce something that has not been seen in his time for him to claw back that support. A primary of the ALP near 50 is landslide territory.
Sideline said “I think the bigger fright for the Libs, more than the latest primary and 2pp results, is the fact that for the last 6 months, nothing has worked for them, and that there doesn’t seem any new cards to play.”
Agree. The usual tricks haven’t worked. The more nasty JWH gets, the worse it goes for him in the polls. I think the ALP has found JWH’s measure, and Rudd is ‘playing with his mind’. Also, there is an increasing sense that after 11 years Australians are awake to his tricks in enough numbers to matter.
There may be a drift back to the govt on polling day, due solely to natural conservatism, but not much of a drift. So as long as the ALP can hold together, and as long as Rudd isn’t caught with his pants down, I’d say he has it won. JWH has nothing left to offer.
Adjusting for the usual Morgan wackiness, we get the following primary votes: Coalition 41%, Labor 45%, inside that 6 point band I predict will last until August. Once again, ignore the 2PP figure, it’s just a gimmick.
it really is looking as though JWH’s career of stretching the truth is finally starting to rebound on him. After years of treating the Australian electorate with cynicism the electorate is retuning the favour.
The analysis by Possum’s Pollytics suggests that since at least 2004 there has been a signicant group of people looking for an excuse to vote Howard out and perhaps they have found it.
There is no great enthusiasm for Rudd – yet. His great advantage is that he is not JWH and he is not Mark Latham.
The other issue is one of history – JWH has the baggage of the past 10 years on his back and it is getting harder and harder to deny for him to nedy that he has some association with the events of the past 10 years.
Excuse typos above should read:
The analysis by Possum’s Pollytics suggests that since at least 2004 there has been a significant group of people looking for an excuse to vote Howard out and perhaps they have found it.
JWH has the baggage of the past 10 years on his back and it is getting harder and harder to deny for him to deny that he has some association with the events of the past 10 years.
Am a ‘newie’ to this site, for which I am most appreciative. I would have thought that if Possum’s analyses of the polls( most impressive statistical understanding and analysis I’ve come across in a long time, wow!) anyway, if the roughly 20% who were looking to an alternative to Howard have in fact shifted, the coalition are in serious trouble. Hopefully, listening to Downer on Rudd on PM this evening, terminally. The 2% for the lowest paid certainly won’t help – more like salt in the wound, I would have thought.
Steven Kaye, check Possum’s site (linked at the top) for a (quasi) quantification of “Morgan wackiness”. The real primary vote figures are ALP 94%, Coalition 2%. I use the same method as you do, ie. pull numbers out of my arse until I get some that align with my prejudices.
Stunkrat
best not to respond to Steven Kaye. It only encourages him.
cynic,
If only we were all intelligent marxists like you eh? Socialism has failed over the last century but that proves nothing! Liberals are all dumb. Viva la Ruddulucion!!!
frank
actually i am a deconstructionalist and as such the reduction to the lowest common denominator produces a result
voila my iq rating re Liberal sic persuasion
but what has Happy Days got to do with politics i wondered aloud
Chilli’s Restaurant
Sit around and wait to start you shift if it’s not busy enough.
If a customer does a runner it comes out of your pay.
Bring your own float. It’s a tool of the trade.
If you speak up you get the sack.
These facts brought to you by AWA’s.
And people are amazed Howard is behind in the Polls.
“It really is looking as though JWH’s career of stretching the truth…”
Doug
That is putting it politely. I would have said his complete contempt and reckless disregard for the truth.
“There is no great enthusiasm for Rudd – yet.”
Doug
So how do you explain Rudd’s consistently high personal approval rating?
dembo, I’d much rather hear why you believe Howard will get back. What is the “rabbit†that will turn this around? I realise you tried to answer this earlier but just talking about a 5% turn around without reasons is not answering the question. WHAT IS THE “RABBIT” THAT WILL TURN THIS AROUND FOR HOWARD?
Howard’s never used ‘rabbits’ in the past, so why would he need one now?
The ‘rabbit’ business is just silly media nonsense, arising from the silly media delusion of the master politician outmaneuvering his foes and getting back because he’s really clever. All rubbish.
Regardless of any number of dubious opinion polls, Howard is likely to follow the centrebet odds, and make this a VERY close contest.
Ok, let me ask the question another way. WHAT WILL TURN THIS AROUND FOR HOWARD?
Where is Adam and his thoughts?
Does he have a blog, either personal or political?
The “rabbit” is a direct quote from Howard.
by the way J-HO was in my electorate today announcing another bloody pipeline (his has announced it 3 times already)
maybe he thought he was in Iraq
1. Policy on Blacks has failed Howard
2. Nelson got caught telling the truth
3. APEC will be a failure – and people will be upset at that!
4. NSW Libs (Howard’s home state) are seen as red necks
5. Interest rates may yet increase
Janette – call the removalist!
Assuming I am the Adam of whom Peter is enquiring, no I do not have a blog and I am not currently minded to get one. The internet takes up far too much of my time as it is. My election website is entirely non-party and quite separate from my polical views and activities.
Amber writes “don’t forget there is some nasty business ahead eg. Qld MPs, Minchin…” Minchin? What is this a reference to?
We keep hearing that the Libs will turn it around but that has been happening since Dec and still there has been nothing to suggest things will change. Attacks on Rudd (nothing stuck and was seen as playing the man – everyone deserves a fair go and the Libs wasted no time in getting stuck into him but it backfired), the Budget bounce with giveaways (hasn’t happened yet but we will take it coz we deserve it and still toss you out), people have seen the country prosper but haven’t participated in it (Howards battlers).
The latest terrorist attacks in the UK and Scotland have again focused the issue that they occurred in response to the illegal incursion into Iraq. Then Brendan Nelson stuffs it up.
The reason Howard will struggle is he is now TOO OLD plus (and this is the bigger one) – Rudd isn’t Latham. Said before and will say it again, people have misread the 2004 result – it was not an endorsement of Howard but a rejection of Latham.
The swing to ALP will be 6-8% on 2PP basis at the election and an interest rate rise will only further destroy the remaining economic credibility the government has.
“illegal incursion into Iraq”
Please, for the sake of everyone, just admit that the left would call it illegal and “imperialist” even if it had gotten UN sanction.
Peter Pan? Peter Stephens? Reality?
I’d assume the reference to Michin relates to his (taped) comments to the HR Nicholls society, suggesting that the Libs would toughen up Workchoices down the track. Interestingly, HR Nicholls described the centralisation of Government power inherent in Workchoices ‘Stalinist’. Then again, coming from HR Nicholls, anything short of a Hayekian utopia would probably be Stalinist.
I expect we will see some rather nasty, ‘negative’ campaigning from Howard in the coming months, but surely the Libs need a better strategy than waiting for Rudd to drop the ball. Labor has shot itself in the foot before, but is giving the appearance of discipline and party unity these days.
It will be fascinating to watch the backroom shenanigans should the Libs lose. Howard will surely go, and whilst Costello is the obvious next choice, one wonders if there will be a bit of public bloodletting before the leadership issue is resolved.
Who else have they got? If they are badly beaten Turnbull will be gone. The Mad Monk? The Napoleon of Bradfield? Jolly Joe? All hopeless. Julie Bishop is the only other option. Are the Libs ready for a Thatcher moment?
On another question (which I also asked in the Alice Springs by-election thread): does anyone have any local gossip about Solomon? It’s the only key marginal I have heard nothing at all about, apart from Chris Tarrant socking the Labor candidate.
July 05, 2007 08:05am
Article from: AAP
MANY voters in north Queensland plan to desert the Howard government over its controversial workplace laws, a union-commissioned poll has found. The study of 1,200 voters in the government-held seats of Dawson, Leichhardt and Hinkler found nine per cent had vowed to change who they vote for at the upcoming federal election because of the laws. A further 16 per cent said they were considering changing their vote.
Looks like a very big swing is on in QLD- which gives me cause to be seriously considering a Labor win possible, even probable in 2007. Therefore, my arguments for this claim are presented below.
Arguments for a Labor win in 2007 cf 2004 are mostly reliant on attention to national issues such as (A) The ‘terrible’ Latham image of an L plate economist [Rudd is doing better on this issue-at present]; (B) the political climate when the horrible Bali bombings occurred and shifted many peoples focus (and rightly so) to National security [people will not vote for a change of Government in a state of War or image of imminent terrorist activity] with Mr Howard asking the electorate “Who do you trust to keep the economy strong and protect family living standards?”.
For me, this is the key issue reflected in the polls- Howards credibility with the electorate is shot , yet the country remains economically sound)
Contrast, in 2004, (C) the image of Howard as the fatherly protector of Australia against that almost openly violent, awful women’s vote losing image of the Latham-Howard meeting at a radio station where Latham assaulted Howard’s small hand in his massive paw and stood over him like a bully in a school-yard. [Rudd’s image is anything but that of a bully in a schoolyard, more the thinking nerd in the library].
(D) In the course of the last election, Labor waited until mid way through the election campaign to launch important education and taxation policy and, worse, introduced and fumbled over selling the Tasmanian Forestry policy a week out from election day [Rudd is well ahead on presenting and promoting key policy]
(F) Howard constantly out polled Latham as preferred Prime Minister (by an average of 11.5 percentage points according to Wikipeda). [Rudd is doing a lot better on that score-at least he is competitive] and
(G) The Howard retirement issue and the ‘Costello’ factor. This time around it is going to be much more apparent (and concerning) to those in the Electorate who will be concerned about the reality that the PM we vote for at the Election is very unlikely to be the one we end up with if Howard wins this election.
His often quoted line that he will lead the party and serve the Australian community for as long as he is invited to do so will not wash this time; people will want to know- Moreover, Peter Costello is about as popular with the general electorate as a potential PM as Keating was in 1996 (a consistent message of opinion polls for years). His ‘smug’ image is as unpopular as Keating’s Italian suits.
What about Work Choices, Senator Santori and Co in QLD (misappropriation), the budget wins for income tax payers, the $ pay off of pensioners, the bucket loads of funding the Government will direct to marginal seats infrastructure and employment/business developments, the Coalitions broadband roll out, the ‘fairness’ amendments to Work Choices and further yet to be announced vote buying strategies which I suspect the electorate are ‘savvy’ to and can/will still get without having to put Johnny back in Kirribilli ? 2007 is looking a lot better. I have my taxi booked.
IF THE MORGAN AND GALAXY POLLS ARE FOLLOWED UP WITH STRONG LABOR SUPPORT FROM THE OTHER 2 IN COMING WEEKS –
Most of the 13 seats Adam Carr’s guide to the 2007 Australian federal election defines as very marginal seats will go to Labor -
Kingston (0.1) Bonner (0.6) Wakefeild (0.7) Makin (0.9) Braddon (1.1) Parramatta (1.1) Hasluck (1.8) Stirling (2.0) Wentworth (2.6) Bass (2.6) Solomon (2.8) Moreton (2.8) Lindsay (2.9).
Some of the 10 seats Adam defines as marginal seats will also go to Labor-
Eden Monara (3.3) Bennalong (4.0) Dobell (4.8) Deakin (5.0) McMillan (5.0) Corangamite (5.3) Boothby (5.4) Page (5.5) Blair (5.7) Latrobe (5.7)
And what Adam defines at fairly safe seats in QLD (5) are vulnerable-
Herbert (6.1) Longman ( 6.6) Flynn (7.9) Petrie (7.9) Hinkler (8.8) Bowman (8.9).
A net gain of 16 seats for Labor is on – very much so.
Adams excellent site is here for the person who asked for it.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/guide3.shtml
6 fairly safe Coalition seats in QLD, not 5. dohh
““illegal incursion into Iraqâ€
Please, for the sake of everyone, just admit that the left would call it illegal and “imperialist†even if it had gotten UN sanction.”
But it was illegal, why are you trying to change history? When senior military commanders (e.g. UK) say it was illegal, and as the facts of the lies and deceits used to invade have been revealed, the invasion was entirely premised on illegalities. The way I see it the left are just calling it as it really is, whilst the right are trying to bury what is really a monumental stuff up.
This is just one of Howard’s mistakes the electorate are factoring in, and it appears to be a cross in the Howard column.
Thanks for your insightful contributions STROP on the recent opinion poll results. Remember folks if this 2PP support for Labor is reflected in Newspoll and ACNielsen surveys next week then the safe Coalition Queensland seats of Leichhardt and Ryan are also vulnerable. Leichhardt thanks to a retiring popular MP and Ryan due to poor image of incumbent MP and anger over construction of Goodna Bypass road.
Adjusting for Morgan bias, the primaries are Coalition 41, Labor 45.5; and on two party preferred it is 48/52. Even 52% on 2pp does not guarantee Labor a majority, and, once the election is called, Krudd will be exposed as the fragile protoplasm he is. A 5th Howard Government nears. I can’t wait!
Whatever way you want to ‘adjust’ it Nostradamus, even a Blue Veined Liberal will be quietly conceding things are NOT looking for good for JHW.
uuuhhhhhhhh JWH not JWH, wake up STROP.
See Oz Politics
Portlandbet is predicting a Coalition win.
“..let me ask the question another way. WHAT WILL TURN THIS AROUND FOR HOWARD?”
Big fat cheques.
Inflate their way out of trouble.
Deal with the consequences if they get back.
Allow their electors to donate their right hands to medical science the Monday after the election.
Rembering election results are not uniform therefore if the ALP are really ahead 50-41 on election night there will be seats that the ALP would normally only dream about.
I first called this Election on May 29th, and for a acout a month I though maybe I had jumped a little soon but if this Morgan poll is backed by Newspoll on Tuesday then consering we are nearly at the end of July.
Seats I think the ALP will gain –
Kingston (0.1) Bonner (0.6) Wakefeild (0.7) Makin (0.9) Braddon (1.1) Parramatta (1.1) Bass (2.6) Moreton (2.8) Lindsay (2.9) Eden Monara (3.3) Dobell (4.8) Page (5.5) Blair (5.7) Herbert (6.1) Longman ( 6.6) Flynn (7.9) Petrie (7.9) Hinkler (8.8) Bowman (8.9)
Seats I’m not convinced the ALP will gain
Hasluck (1.8) I think this seat is leaning toward the ALP, but with the strenght of the WA Economy this seat may stick with the Liberals
Stirling (2.0) Same as Hasluck and while on paper looks more Liberal than Hasluck, I wouldn’t be surprised if the ALP won this seat but fell short in Hasluck
Wentworth (2.6) Malcolm Turnbull should hold this seat, I will predict a swing to him regardless of the national result
Solomon (2.8) As someone wrote we hear nothing about this seat expect Chris Tarrent punching the ALP candiate, this seat I see has very winnable for the ALP but in saying that I feel the Aboringial policy will be seen as a positive
Bennalong (4.0) If John Howard wasn’t the local MP I would have this as an ALP gain, and while Howard might appear on the skids something tells me that he may just hang on
Deakin (5.0) When the ALP win Elections they tent to do well in Melbourne’s Eastern suburbs, the local MP is well liked, Deakin is a seat which could give the ALP a 10+ swing or barely move
McMillan (5.0) On paper winnable for the ALP, but I think this is one seat where it will come down to completing issues, are people more worried about Howard’s IR laws or Rudd’s 60% cut in emissions, my bet is a Liberal hold
Corangamite (5.3) The most likey Victorian seat to change to the ALP
Boothby (5.4) See a swing toward the ALP, but the Liberals should just hold
Latrobe (5.7) Good local MP, will be a close contest this is the sort of seat that will make the different between a close election and a landslide, I’m tipping a very narrow win for the Liberals but Jason Wood wouldn’t want another interest rate rise.
The only rabbit left for Howard, and this may say plenty about his problems, but the Stars have it that Leo’s have a better second half to 2007, both Howard and Costello are Leo’s.
$3.75 for Labor in Blair?
Honey! Where’s the chequebook?
There is a case for making a small adjustment to Morgan Polls – the analysis by Possum Pollytics in a recent post attempts some quantification at least when measured against Newspoll.
Even allowing for the Possum adjustment Nostradamus must be working with some form of mathematics not known to mere mortals who try to work with the evidence as it is rather than how they would like it to be to extract a 2PP of 48/52 from the current poll.
Doug, it is the same mathematics used by Glenn Wheatley’s accountant.
Yes, “blue smoke and mirrors”.
Why do I think Howard will get a 5% bounce during the election campaign?
I subscribe to the theory that the vast majority of Australians will not become fully engaged in the election until the … uh .. election. At that time the serious campaigning starts.
Unfortunately I fear this will be the most bitter election we have ever seen in this country because the Libs (and probably Labor) are going to unleash the horror known as “swiftboating” – scandalous dirt ads that are merciless and slanderous of your opponent.
I believe a television campaign IS worth 5% of the vote and the Liberals will run one during the election.
ACNeilsen and Newspoll- if they go anywhere near 57-43 Im calling it if Howard sits on his hands through August and dosent visit the GG.
Well, STROP says that Solomon is going Labor, while bmwofoz says it is unlikely.
Reminds me of the Dire Straits song:
“Two men say they are Jesus
One of them must be wrong”
For what it is worth, I don’t think the Aboriginal issue will play much one way or the other for Tollner. Unlike suburban Sydney/Melbourne/etc, the indigenous problems are well known in suburban Darwin/Palmerston (Tollner’s electorate) and attitudes are largely fixed, and there remains a lingering hostility to ’southerners’ lecturing Territorians about how to run their affairs. (Don’t be fooled by the rejection of the statehood referendum a few years back, that was lost for the same reasons the republic referendum was lost–the proposed model was unacceptable, statehood is still desired by the substantial majority of Territorians.) The CLP governments of past played on the ’southerners lecturing Territorians’ theme to great effect during the Hawke/Keating years. They also played the race card pretty strongly, but it has lost its edge over recent years.
As to Tollner’s chances of re-election, the factors include;
1) the current Martin Labor government has not stuffed things up, and the economy is doing fine, so there is no great fear of Labor anymore,
2) there is clearly a strong and widespread move for change nationally,
3) Tollner (like his senate counterpart, Nigel Scullion), while not despised, is not held in high esteem as a politician, and is seen as a bit of an ineffectual goose, albeit a friendly well-meaning one, and
4) he sits in one of the most marginal seats in the country;
all means it is a good possibility that Tollner will go.
Probably the major factors in Tollner’s favour are:
1) Palmerston, which has a large number of armed services residents from the nearby Robertson army barracks, who tend to vote conservative, and
2) somewhat paradoxically, the good state of the NT economy.
But I suspect these are not enough for him if there is a big national swing on.
Should declare my bias. I vote Labor (2PP) about 9 times out of 10.
Dembo: “Unfortunately I fear this will be the most bitter election we have ever seen in this country because the Libs (and probably Labor) are going to unleash the horror known as “swiftboating†– scandalous dirt ads that are merciless and slanderous of your opponent.
I believe a television campaign IS worth 5% of the vote and the Liberals will run one during the election.”
Dembo, I’m not quite following your logic here. You seem to be assuming that a television campaign by the Liberals will gain greater traction with voters than a television campaign by Labor.
If both parties conduct scandalous dirt ads, why would Howard get a 5% bounce and not Rudd?
Thanks Just Me for the Solomon summery, rereading my comments I’m not saying the Liberals will hold Solomon, but with limited knowlegde of the seat I was only making a guess as to how it may go, also from my understanding in the N.T sitting MPs tend to be hard to defeat.
bmwofoz. You’re welcome. I agree that historically NT MPs tend to hang around, but politics in the NT is changing substantially (dare I say it, maturing), so history is perhaps a less reliable guide than in other parts of the country.
For the benefit of anyone who continues to be convinced that including Morgan’s polls into the set of polling data will distort the planetary alignment of the solar system and possibly even reverse the spinning direction of the Milky Way, consider the following:
The polling data from all pollsters vs polling data from Newspoll and AC Nielsen only, shows very little difference in the primary vote results,
Feb – all pollsters – primary votes – Coalition 38 ALP 46.8
Feb – News & ACN – primary votes – Coalition 38.3 ALP 46.3
March – all pollsters – primary votes – Coalition 35.3 ALP 49.9
March – News & ACN – primary votes – Coalition 36 ALP 49.5
April – all pollsters – primary votes – Coalition 36 ALP 49.9
April – News & ACN – primary votes – Coalition 36.3 ALP 49.3
May – all pollsters – primary votes – Coalition 37.3 ALP 49.6
May – News & ACN – primary votes – Coalition 37.6 ALP 49.2
June – all pollsters – primary votes – Coalition 39 ALP 47.3
June – News & ACN – primary votes – Coalition 39 ALP 47
The differences are small and does not warrant ostracizing Morgan’s results from the polling data set. In fact, the more data the better.
“Just Me” – you may be interested that not all military officers are conservtaive, in fact I estimate half would probably vote Labor and Nelson’s remarks have probably meant that figure may increase. It is the enlisted men who are more conservative, and really the more senior NCO’s are the only real rusted on Liberals left in the military. If most diggers have done their time in Iraq, and don’t want to go back, they will probably vote Labor.
….Labor’s big turn off in the military is the way they make returned service personnel feel when they return from a military operation Labor did not agree with. If there is a feeling that they will treat the current crop the way they treated Viet Nam vets then expect swings to Howard in Paterson (RAAF Williamtown), Brisbane (RAAF/Army), Townsville, Darwin, Wentworth (RAN Fleet Command), Macquarie (RAAF Richmond), Hughes (4 Bn, RAR) where not only the defence personnel live but the community is very loyal to them. The defence vote is Rudd’s for the taking. Combine this with the speculation about Michael Towke (Cook) and Alex Hawke (Mitchell) and their military ‘record’ and the Libs are starting to look more like Dad’s Army.
Nick, I agree that many are not conservative, but historically the services have tended to vote that way.
I also agree that this is changing as political allegiances generally become more fluid. For example, in the last NT election Palmerston threw out the long time CLP member, who also happened to be the Chief Minister, Dennis Burke, and elected a young, first time Labor candidate (who happened to have the same surname).
And I also agree that many service people, particularly those who did service in Iraq, may be inclined to vote against this government. One thing that pisses service people off seriously is being used for political purposes.
….and don’t forget Burke was the former CO of 2 CAV, the Darwin Based Armed Regiment. Legend has it that he went on Parade the day before he got elected and said to his troops that “if you want to get rid of me, I suggest you vote for me”. His popularity as a Commander was evident the next day when he got a massive vote in the garrison booths! I think soldiers then looked forward to voting him out – but cautiously waited until they knew he would not return to the Army if he found himself unemployed.
Jellybean, I echo your question to Dembo. Why should an TV ad campaign, conducted by both sides, favour one side only (by 5% no less)particularly when Labor, on many issues is running with public opinion and has it’s own scare campaign to run?
Gary,
Perhaps I am more sensitive than you but in the past (particularly in 2004) I have always thought that the Coalition’s advertising has been more effective in scaring than that of the ALP.
“you may be interested that not all military officers are conservtaive”
Military people run for all parties in roughly equal numbers to their general votes I reckon. The Dems (and probably the Greens) have quite a few military peope over the years, as I would wager the Nats, ON and FF…
You’d be surprised (or maybe not) at how civic minded a lot of army people can be … really committed to helping people (whatever that may mean with their ideology)
—-
As for campaigns. I think most people would agree Labor is running at or near the ceiling of its vote. 57% 2PP seems to be the average of the polls at the moment. Remember, 95% of Australians simply do not follow politics like the people do on this site … just because we have made up our minds does not mean they have.
Labor has already been running campaigns, so they have their 5%. The Libs are yet to run a television campaign and I think that will be worth 5%.
No Labor campaign in SA yet only ACTU on Work Choices.
“The Libs are yet to run a television campaign and I think that will be worth 5%” – Dembo
Are you the only person in the land that has not heard of the huge amounts of taxpayer funded “government” advertising???
I think that whatever the libs do now means little – the people will interpret it is another cynical howard ploy – Tampa, Children overboard, Interest rates, indigenous “emergency”….
Tom
Should be “interpret it as…”
doh!
Dembo said “Remember, 95% of Australians simply do not follow politics like the people do on this site … just because we have made up our minds does not mean they have.”
Yes but the polls are going out to the people, and we have seen I believe an unprecedented sustained attack on Rudd and the ALP since he became leader. The polls have really not moved much. Perhaps you can argue that people have already made up their minds. Perhaps they are waiting for the real campaign to start. Watch the polls after the election date announcement.
My feel is that the TPP vote is pretty solid and we will see 53/47 to the ALP (barring stuffups).
“don’t forget Burke was the former CO of 2 CAV, the Darwin Based Armed Regiment” Burke and Shane Stone used to be my minister at one stage or other – never very fond of either. Burke’s wife Mayor of Plamerston was more popular and better performed than he.
David Tollner is a bit of a dolt and hasn’t performed that well up here. He didnt do well in discussing the nuclear waste dump issue here either. He bragged about having his fingers all over WorkChoices before that turned into a real negative issue. He has copped a bit in the letters to the editor.
They have a football coach Damien Hale running against him this time around, not being interested in local footy I dont know his level of acceptance. The ALP would win the seat easily if they had preselected Charlie King [very high profile and universally respected] but I can only assume he didnt want to run. Too bad.
Tollners margin is small and could quite easily lose this seat and in fact I think he will. WorkChoices, 457 visas and nuclear waste dump have all been issues here. One headline in the NT News had the Feds wanting to take over the government of the NT, based on an aside by Brough. That would not have been too popular.
At work I have had two rusted on Howard supporters jump ship to Rudd – middle aged, wealthy, near retirement guys.
Just Me Says:
July 7th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Well, STROP says that Solomon is going Labor—-
Ahh actually I stated Solomon was among x seats of which ‘most’ would go to Labor (this time around) because Im not sure how the ’save NT’ policy will play out over there -Before Howard announced that policy I would have called it for Labor, yes. Thanks for your input on that seat Just, should be an interesting tussle.
Thanks 2 Kina too for your input on Solomon- there is very little coming out of the NT about Solomon.
I think Rob is right. It has now been almost 6 months in which the 2PP vote has remained at around the 57/43 mark. That is amazingly consistent.
If you go take a look at the poll results in the year leading up to the 1996 election, where we last had a change of government, you will see a much more volatile pattern. The coalition were leading for most of the way, but the margin was shifting around a lot more than it has this year. There were even some periods in which the difference between the two parties was miniscule. And this was despite Keating apparently being on the nose and an electorate “waiting for election day with baseball bats”.
It seems to me that the stability in the polls this year represents an electorate that made up its mind months ago. They are simply waiting for election day to actually exercise their vote.
This is not to say that there won’t be some movement in the polls between now and the election – after all, some people might change their mind. But frankly, despite months of a sustained and negative attack from Howard and his jokers, most people haven’t change their minds, so it really will take something extraordinary to shift thousands of votes back to the government.
And Howard has already tried one attempt at the extraordinary with the Aboriginal “emergency”, which has flopped because Howard has lost trust and credibility with the electorate.
And coming back to scare campaigns, Labor probably have FAR more material for mounting a scare campaign than the coalition. For a start, Labor’s campaign will be grounded in facts that already connect with public opinion, such as warning voters about a planned phase 2 of Workchoices, something which Minchin and Howard have both let slip over recent months.
Nick
I am not sure whether the military are too happy with the Howard governments handling of the defence forces. And it was the Hawke government that gave the Vietnam veterans a coming parade in 1987 after 15 years of shameful treatment by the Whitlam and Fraser governments.
The Seaking crash
Navy maintenance workers found a problem with the flight controls of a Sea King helicopter two months before it fell from the sky and killed nine military personnel, but they reinstalled a defective part because no spare could be found.
The Australian Defence Force continued flying passengers in Sea King helicopters despite evidence that the seating could not withstand crashes, an inquiry has heard. The dangers, recognised after a Sea King crash in Cape York in 1995, were taken into account and from 1999 to 2003 no passengers were carried in Sea Kings. But in December 2003, the Defence Force decided that the difficulty and cost of accepting more crashworthy seats, with lap sashes replacing simple lap belts, was too much and that the risk should be accepted.
Commodore Geoffery Ledger, caught everyone’s attention when he recalled telling the maritime commander he was being “kept in the dark on some maintenance problems”. In an email on 28 March, he warned: “During my time as FEG commander there have been several incidents, issues, exceedances that have occurred with naval aviation that I was not aware of at the time or at the very last moment. I’m very happy to raise a couple of recent issues in particular that I believe you will agree was unacceptable.” Rear-Admiral Moffat responded: “Geoff, I suggest that you sit on the idea until the last few months of your tenure. There’s little receptiveness or capacity for taking on such work.” Two days later, the Sea King crashed.
HAILA McCARTHY: It’s quite possible that Paul would be alive today had he been in a crashworthy seat with maybe a four-point harness. Yes, and not only Paul, but a number of the other passengers on board.
Firefighting at military bases
The lives of defence personnel will be put at risk because of a decision to cut 12 firefighting jobs at Victorian military bases, the firefighters union has warned.
The fire aboard the Westralia
The Department of Defence has denied it received a document reportedly warning of the danger of a fire on board HMAS Westralia before a fatal fire in 1998. A document has emerged in a Senate Committee that alleges the Defence Department knew about safety problems on board HMAS Westralia before a fire that killed four sailors. The Department was criticised for knowing about fuel system problems before the fire, but it was never proven. Labor Senator John Faulkner has tabled the signed document and wants the Department to determine if it is authentic.
LYNDON PELLY: The Navy to us, in our eyes are the primary people that we’re concerned about because we put our children in their care, and we were quite convinced from an early stage that the Navy showed a complete lack of duty to care to our children, and as it appears, it appears that the Navy is going to get out of this scot-free and put all the blame or try and put all the blame on Australian Defence Industries.
Equipment for our armed services
Paul Barclay:
And earlier this year, concerns surfaced about the quality of equipment issued to these soldiers. There were claims of combat jackets that supposedly glowed in the dark, allegedly defective helmets, and so on.
A number of RODUMS were leaked to the media. They’re Reports On Defective Or Unsatisfactory Materiel. They indicated some soldiers were so dissatisfied with the issued backpacks, combat boots, and webbing, used for carrying water, ammunition and so on, and other parts of their kit, that they were purchasing their own. And the effectiveness of the RODUM system itself, designed to highlights deficiencies in gear, came under scrutiny during Senate Estimates hearings.
My mates are getting hurt by inadequate gear, and my mates are I believe, suffering morale problems and in many cases, leaving the Force. And I don’t think we can allow that to go on.
Kovco
Serving soldiers in Iraq are venting their anger at the mix-up over the return of their mate’s body. The soldiers comments were posted on a pirate website airing military grievances. One said Pte Kovco’s body was treated “like unaccompanied baggage”. He described the debacle as an “insult”.
There are plenty of other stories about bastardisation being ignored and the resultant suicides despite promises to stop the practice, about parents buying equipment for their kids in the army because of poor or no equipment being issued. The soldiers in the Solomons were not given war zone payment status until they complained. The defense association was very critical of the treatment of Hicks.
But the Seaking crash where it was noted the cost of installing crashworthy seats was too much must grate when you consider that Howard had no trouble authorising seats at $3,000 a piece for his cabinet room.
What could turn it round for Howard? A terrorist attack on Australian soil.
I’m a pessimistic Labor supporter: I won’t believe Rudd is winning until I see the actual results on election night.
Howard has to be very careful especially since there would be any number within the Public Service very happy to see him go thus leaks could undermine any BS.
Anything like a Tampa, Baby Overboard or Aboriginal initiative would backfire since the public view the govt with universal scepticsm. If Howard in his desperation to cling to power does something outrageous [or a third party on his behalf] then it will backfire and make things a hell of a lot worse for them.
I dont think the appearance of Bush with Howard is going to do him much good, especially now that the Iraq discussion has come back and, the Qld MPs may get a day in court at some some stage.
The Liberals need to keep ‘damage control’ in the back of their minds. It is all very well to assume the gap will close when an election is called and that the final result will be close but, this may be unchartered territory and the margin might not change too much. They dont want to get caught using their usual tricks to win the election only to find they went backwards and get obliterated.
The trick is to know when to go into damage control [change the leadership and front bench and go onto a straight forward policy debate].
If we have three more weeks with no poll change then Howard must be dumped.
The Oz is trying to run the line that the people are still open minded about Howard and also about switching from Labor. I reckon that is a bit of Industry sponsored BS just to protect Howard.
The worst thing for the govt and good for Labor might be polls that dont quiet give a clear message.
It’s actually not true that “NT MPs tend to stick around for a long time.” Since the MP for the NT acquired full voting rights, three members have been put out after one term (Reeves, Everingham and Dondas), and one after two terms (Tambling). Only Calder and Snowdon have been long-term incumbents.
No, on checking, I am wrong. Tambling only lasted one term. NT MPs since voting rights have been
Sam Calder (CP) 1966-80
Grant Tambling (CP) 1980-83
John Reeves (ALP) 1983-84
Paul Everingham (Lib) 1984-87
Warren Snowdon (ALP) 1987-96
Nick Dondas (Lib) 1996-98
Warren Snowdon (ALP) from 1998 (for Lingiari since 2001)
Dave Tollner (Lib) since 2001 (for Solomon)
I would call that a fairly high turnover.
Someone who is clueless about history wrote: “If there is a feeling that they will treat the current crop the way they treated Viet Nam vets then expect swings to Howard”
1. Howard, Downer and other senior Libs (eg. Hill) are card carrying chicken hawks as evidenced by their failure to volunteer for military service at the time of the Vn involvement
2. One vet who doesn’t feel that the left treated Vn vets badly is Graham Edwards MP who I would suggest has more respect from Vn vets than most in the Liberal party.
3. The current government’s record with vets is patchy to say the least
4. Vn vets are for the most part conscripts who were badly treated by Liberal govts mainly – not the least of the issues being that they were victims of an unfair process in the first place instituted by the WW1 chicken hawk and Nazi govt admirer, Menzies.
“..What could turn it round for Howard? A terrorist attack on Australian soil.”
If the Government really thinks that a terrorist attack would improve their electoral prospects, they certainly aren’t acting like it.
On the contrary, their strategy seems to be to allay anxiety. Take Ruddock’s comment this morning downplaying reports that the London bombs were to be detonated by a phone call from Oz.
Then there was the argument played on the telly last week that looked as if it had a government source, saying the likelihood of an attack was a function of the size of the Islamic population. Ergo, we an attack is unlikely here. Junk science, if you think about it, but again an attempt to calm people down.
Part of the Australian character is to blame the Government of the day if anything goes wrong, almost anything at all.
Albert – sorry if I hit a nerve, I agree with your sentiments and if you new my ‘experience’ you would understand why. Yes, Libs are very keen to send troops, but not that keen to join them. I call them “B Company” (”Be here when you go, be here when you get back”) But the reality is that Whitlam, Cairns et al oversaw a terrible injustice to the way the community treated Viet Nam vets – trust me, I have lived in a Mess where much discussion amongst the living in members revolved around the deep seated resentment of the way consripts were treated and yes, it was Hawke who finally had the guts to welcome them home, but for many it was too late. The tragedy is that NO serving Libs have ever had operational soldeiring experience and Graham Edwards is the only one who is probably thinking about families of defence personnel when the Parliament debates these matters- his departure will be a great loss to the Defence community. Be careful in playing the partison line on politicians who send troops though- Beazley was the worst offender! Howard couldn’t join because he was half deaf, Downer couldn’t join because he would have got bashed, Hill couldn’t join because he would have had to start at the bottom and that’s not his style, one incoming Liberal MP had a brief ‘flirtation’ with the military but he played a little too much interest in the level of ‘comaraderie’ expected amongst junior officers.
By the way, Menzies was WWII, not WWI, but I see your point.
Enjaybee – I think you are right but Labor has not had the issues to run an effective fear campaign in the last eleven years. This time they have issues in abundance and more importantly they have public opinion on their side on these issues. Add to that the very obvious distrust of Howard now and this election becomes a different ball game altogether.
I doubt this government’s capacity to respond “correctly” to a terrorist attack on Australian soil. They are partisan hacks who are barely competent. They are incapable of “rising to the occasion” and governing for all Australians during such a time.
It would be like Spain all over again – the conservative government would try to score cheap political points and that would only anger the electorate.
Such events can boost a government, but only if that government is capable of not making a mess of it, and quite frankly the current mob are inept.
So Dembo, what advertising have Labor done in the last 12 months to swing the electorate by 5%? The coalition have been running wall to wall ads in the last couple of months. No result yet.
I don’t think the government would benefit at all from a terrorist attack on Australian soil. In fact, I think it would do damage to them and they know it.
The reason for this is that the whole justification for staying in Iraq was to prevent terrorist attacks here. Howard has frequently said that this war is meant to make us SAFER. Any attack here would therefore further undermine Howard’s credibility when it comes to national security.
Apart from this, I think there is a growing public opinion that the Iraq war has resulted in us becoming a greater terrorist target. Again, any attack here would therefore confirm in people’s minds that the government is ultimately to blame.
No, I think that the government will be relying on their union scare campaign, economic scare campaign, and any other fabricated crap that they can find in order to frighten people away from voting Labor. That’s pretty desperate stuff, but they don’t seem to believe that they can win on any positive record, which really says something about the competence of this government.
STROP has commented on the Senate on “Galaxy: 55-45â€. I will reply here 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.
The coalition has 39 senators, 19 of whom do not face election this year. If it wins 20 seats (three in each state and one in each territory), it will retain its majority. If it wins 19 (i.e., only two in one of the states), it will have 38 senators and the ability to block any Labor proposal by itself and the ability to carry bills and motions if it has FF support. If it wins 18 (i.e., only two in two states), it will have the ability to block any Labor proposal if it gains Family First support, and Labor will have the ability to carry proposals if it has both Greens and FF support. If the coalition wins only 17 (i.e., only two in three states), it will lose its ability to block Labor proposals even if it has FF support and Labor will have the ability to carry any proposal that has the support of the Greens.
I cannot see the coalition being reduced to two Senate seats in three states, so I cannot see Labor having control of the Senate. It is highly unlikely that it would be reduced to two Senate seats in two states, but if it did Labor would find it difficult to get its IR bill through because the Greens want a more employee-friendly law than Labor is proposing and Family First, while not supporting the current IR law, wants a more employer-friendly one than Labor is proposing. Neither the Greens nor FF has any incentive to moderate its demands as each of them, more so the Greens, would potentially benefit from the lower quota in a double dissolution.
It all points to a double dissolution – if Labor is committed to its IR policy. If it is not so committed, an Opposition-controlled Senate or even one in which the combined non-government parties cannot stop IR changes will be the perfect excuse. However, I think the pressure on Labor to implement its IR policy will be intense because it is the issue that above all others will have won it the election and it goes to the core of Labor’s raison d’etre.
As I have been stating for some time, I expect Labor to win the election with a solid majority and I think a double dissolution is almost inevitable. I also expect that, following the example of the Victorian Labor Government, there will be a further swing to Labor in the double dissolution election. While I am storing egg to be placed on my face, I will add that I expect Labor to win the 2011 federal election too.
For anyone interested, I’ve done more digging into the Morgan vs Newspoll bias and added some numbers to it’s size.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/08/analysing-the-poll-bias-morgan-vs-newspoll-part-ii/
Albert Ross was referring to Menzies’ resignation of a commission in the University of Melbourne Regiment at the start of WWI. He was taunted with it throughout his career and Country Party leader Earle Page saw it as the main reason Menzies should not become PM in 1939.
Nick
You are obviously clueless about Australian history.
Menzies’ record in WW1 was extraordinary. At the outbreak of war he held a commission in a militia unit. Perhaps uniquely he resigned his commision and did not enlist in the first AIF. Subsequently he rejoined the militia and was stalwart in his defence of the drill hall and very active in the pro-conscription campaigns.
Apologists have suggested that his decision not to enlist was because of pressure from his mother. It should be noted that Menzies himself, to his credit, never suggested this.
In 1938 he visited the Germany on an official visit as an Australian government minister. At the time and until the outbreak of war became inevitable he spoke warmly of the achievements of the Nazi regieme. This was one of the reasons why his position became untenable after the outbreak of war.
Turning now to Howard et al. Howard himself was a vociferous supporter of the Vietnam involvement and conscription. The suggestion that his hearing affliction was a bar to enlistment is moot. He certainly was fit playing soccer and cricket at a reasonable level. As president of the NSW Young Libs and on the non-parliamentary leaderhip team he was in a perfect position to have himself granted dispensation to enlist in a non-combatant role at least, the Pay Corps and Judge Advocate come to mind.
Hill was both of age and fit. He obtained a number of consecutive deferments for National Service on educational grounds.
Your comment about Downer is silly.
You may refer. cutely, to these LMF types as “company B”. Call a spade a spade – they were out and out gutless.
The Swing the Greens need to take the seat from the liberals in ACT is highish but not undo-able. I know im sounding like a wacko but this is an anonomos website so i’d say greens have higher hopes in ACT than they do in Qld. I’d give them as high as a 8% chance of winning in the ACT.
Just one question: Is the CLP factionally and ideologically closer to the Nat. or the Lib? Looking at NT geography Nat. looks more believable but any insite into their policies etc. or whether they differ at all from the Nat. or Lib. policies would be appreciated.
Lib = Nat = CLP = another bloody conservative
Turnbal for leader of the opposition!
I stand corrected- I had never came across the story of Menzies in the University Rifles. It will make for interesting Sunday web surfing. I note however that Albert remains silent on whether Whitlam, who ironically was a decorated vet, deserves criticism for his treatment of Viet Nam vets?
Your comments of Menzies views on Hitler are fair, but remember Stalin, Chamberlain and a number of others also commended Hitler – it was Churchill who was the early and vocal critic. Commending some aspects of Fascism was common to all sides of politics – how many Italian Australians still speak fondly of Mussolini’s ability to get the trains running on time.
I get the vibe from many Labor supporters here that “It’s Time”. From their perspective, most definitly. But does this necessarily mean the wider public feels the same way? Perhaps or it could be just a further hardening of their already hard core supporters, coupled with excited optimism.
“It’s Time” is a really fantastic almost romantic idea but Gough was both more charismatic than Rudd and the proponent of better policies than Rudd. Although his recognisition of the E. Timor invasion was a bit of a downer (Indonesia in general is nothing more than the product of first Dutch imperialism and now that of the Javanese).
If the coalition hang on by just one seat (76 out of 150), and taking into account benelong’s changing demographic and allegiance to the libs only coz howards the PM and that at the election after next they could vote in labor, would that mean Howard would have to hang around as an ever present back bencher overseing liberal activities just like Lee Kwun Yew did for so many years after giving up the leadership in singapore?
Sorry for posting so much but one last question. I live in Mayo (Downer- very safe Lib.) yet i hear labor is planning to invest some $ this time. Sounds stupid to me. Is this part of a long term effort to wear down lib. support within lots of coalition seats so they can be taken in the future? Or, is this only occuring in Mayo because labor has traditionally been so low here (dem. homeland- they’ve actually been close twice in the last 15 yrs and last time an Ind. came second) and they want to make up ground. Perhaps they consider that their investment will be made up for by the increased $ support they’d get from the AEC with an increased vote?
I find it interesting that for the only poll in the last 5 years for which there is any ‘real’ figure with which to compare, ie the polls immediately before the 2004 election, Morgan (45.5%) was closer to the actual Coalition Primary (46.7%) than NewsPoll (45%) or Nielsen (49%), and Morgan (38.5%) was also closer to the ALP actual primary (37.6%) than NewsPoll (39%), and only marginally further away than Nielsen (37%). Since we have no idea of how far away the ongoing polls are from ‘reality’ (whatever that means), surely we should just go with what we know, that in the most recent testable case, Morgan was better at forecasting the actual primary votes than NewsPoll. On what possible basis should we decide that the current Newspoll or Nielsen primary vote estimate is ‘better’ than Morgan’s.
cheers, Alan H
Apart from the 2 Ind. who are seeking re-election (and will get it) does anyone know of any other electorates where Ind. have a chance? How restless and divided are the Nat. becoming? Also what are the chances of the Gre. getting a seat say Sydney or something? Maybe somewhere around 5% or so?
Finally if the result is Lab. 74, coalition 74, Ind. 2 will there be any complications or will it be a straitforward Coalition government with a few extra facilities being built in the Ind’s electorates? Will it be stable?
I cannot see how Vn vets in the period late 1972 to late 1975 were treated any differently from any time from 1963 onwards or from 1975 to 1983. Like I didn’t see JWH going out of his way to enhance vet support or throw flowers in their path as stepped off the plane.
Personally I can’t see why they deserve any better treatment than veterans of any other military involvement. They got a pretty good deal in general I would have thought – reserved employment, treatment at Repat hospitals and whatever. That they didn’t get much of a welcome home at the time – well to be honest why should they? They were conscripts for the most part who had participated in a conflict that was illegal. And which we by most measures were on the losing side. They weren’t being maimed and dying for me or my freedom or that of my country so don’t give us any BS that there was some moral equivilence between them and say the first AIF even. They were there because it suited the Coalition electorally that they should be there.
In the first place getting conscripted was a bit of bad luck. A ball representing your birthdate was drawn out from, of all things, the Tatts Lotto barrel.
So that was the first unfair thing. Then to actually get in the army you had to be further unlucky by presenting as reasonably compos mentis at the interview. Having got over that hurdle you had to be dumb enough to be gung ho during training and actually show some sort of aptitude for being an infantry man rather than say a cook or dental assistant. Then you had to be unfortunate enough to be posted to a unit that was on the roster for Vn.
The suckers who actually got themselves shipped off to Vn were just that. Like they weren’t patriotic freedom fighters really.
Even in the early 60s people knew the reasons for our involvement were dodgy – nobody who went to Vn could actually say “I believe in the Red Peril and that I believe we should be fighting for the democratic government of South Vietnam”. People who did carry on with BS like that were usually safely ensconced in the CMF or had, heh, a hearing impairment.
And in any event you didn’t have to go There were easy ways to avoid being conscripted: follow certain occupations, get educational deferment, join the CMF, cultivate a disability, join the CPA, skip the country. There were harder ways: not register or claim CO status.
Whether you chose the hard way or the easy way it wasn’t particularly onerous although there were some COs who had a very tough time especially earlier on.
So don’t come on with late 20c lie of the harsh treatment meted out to the vets and they were hard done by etc etc. They really are unfortunates who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Do I believe that they should be given assistance for the suffering they have incurred during and subsequent to their participation in the Vn war? Yes.
Do I think that they should be accorded some sort of hero status? Probably not.
As one of the ‘lucky’ ones whose marble dropped, I agree totally with Albert’s post. I obtained some tablets from the Sydney University Settlement doctor which contained pseudoephedrine, and raised my blood pressure to ‘unsafe’ levels, and promptly failed the medical. Anybody who didn’t have the nous to understand that they were being taken for suckers by Howard and his mates didn’t have any sympathy from me. There was plenty of information around on the true situation, as there was about the Iraq debacle before it commenced.
On further investigation Greens win in ACT seems extremely douptful.
I think that the Greens may beat the Liberals for second place in Melbourne, Sydney, and Grayndler (possibly Cunningham too) and then might take these seats in next years probable DD.
Needless to say there will be a swing to labor nevertheless does anyone see any seats where the coalition could take some labor held seats?
I’m intrigued by the willingness of some posters to “call” the election at this stage or in the next few weeks. Maybe they use “call” in a different way to what I do; I thought it was something that you did when you were pretty much certain what would happen and making an incorrect “call” any more than once in a blue moon is severely embarrassing. A call as such is a stronger thing than a confident prediction. In about 20 years of this game (both trying to predict results in advance and trying to extrapolate final results from primaries) I have made a fair few wrong predictions, but only one wrong “call”. And that, of course, is one too many.
A few weeks ago I locally published a piece I had written in late May in which I argued basically that Howard is not doing all that much wrong that he has not got away with in the past, and that the extent to which his government is getting walloped in the polls reflects that (a) incumbency is not all it is cracked up to be (b) Australian voters have a natural tendency to vote Labor unless bribed or scared off doing so (c) Howard has displayed a lot of skill to win elections despite this but has also benefited from luck and Opposition blunders. On this basis I reckoned that if Labor can just manage to run a decent campaign without major blunders, and if nothing exceptional happens (eg some major terrorism incident or another Tampa) then Labor are more likely than not to win. In this case I expect the Coalition to wipe off most of the lead but not quite all, putting them in the territory where the distribution may save them but is quite likely not to.
After I had published this piece I had deep misgivings that I might have overlooked something; was declaring Labor favourites at this stage, with the 2PP lead coming down towards single figures, really a good idea? What I realised since is that Labor might be conditional favourites without being outright favourites, thanks to the wonders of basic probability.
So the way I am trying to break it down are:
* What is the chance that Labor will blunder badly, as it did several times in 2004?
* What is the chance of an unknown event dramatically shifting voter opinion back to the Coalition?
* If neither of these things happen, what is the chance of a Labor victory?
re: Tom’s post above: Greens second in Cunningham? I’ll go out buy a hat just so I can eat it if this happens. It’s rock-solid Labor, sure, but not the kind that particularly cares for the Greens – nothing like Grayndler or Sydney at all.
Anyone who thinks that there’ll be a particularly big Green vote there in the presence of a Liberal candidate is dreaming.
Molotov Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Needless to say there will be a swing to labor nevertheless does anyone see any seats where the coalition could take some labor held seats?
Molotov Id start with WA Labor marginals (Brand, Cowan) and go from there. The Labor vote and current swing estimates Ive come across point to WA and VIC (Bendigo) as the more vulnerable places to look for Labor losses. In other states, take your pick from Parramatta (NSW), Richmond (NSW) Rankin (QLD) and Hindmarsh (SA)
As for the ‘rogue’ losses that happen at each election against the flow of State and/or National trends Im looking at Banks, Lowe (NSW) Ballarat, Corio, Holt, Isaacs (VIC) Adelaide (SA), Swan (WA) and Denison (TAS).
“Eat my hat” if denison goes
Hi Kevin,
You ask why have some people here called it, while I’ll let others answer for themselves but my reasons are as followed.
First a declaimer I’m not a member of any Political Party, I don’t have access to party polling, its true that I have friends in several different Parties.
I have followed Politics since the late 1980s and its true that making a wrong call can be embarrassing, in saying that I consider this a bit of fun I’ve got a few individual seats wrong
My Tipping record – Federal
1993 the Liberals (Wrong)
1996 The ALP (Wrong)
1998 The Liberals (Right)
2001 The Liberals (Right)
2004 The Liberals (Right)
2007 The ALP ??
My Tipping record – State (Victorian)
1992 The Liberals (Right)
1996 The Liberals (Right)
1999 The ALP (Right)
2001 The Liberals (Wrong)
2005 The ALP (Right)
Brings me to 2007, since February the ALP have across all Four polling companies maintained a massive TPP leave mostly scoring high 50s.
This trend has lead me to believe the ALP will win, but I sound a notion of caution while the Polls show a landslide of record levels, and if the figures are right then the ALP will win seats they have only dreamed of winning in the past, but when I look at the seats I’m having difficulty is seeing it on Election night.
I read a large number of papers from around the country, I read many different blogs and I look not so much at whay the commentators are saying but what people I know are saying.
Molotov Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Eat my hat†if denison goes
Me too, but a rogue result is exactly that, unexpected and mathematically unpredictable..
# Molotov Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Needless to say there will be a swing to labor nevertheless does anyone see any seats where the coalition could take some labor held seats?
As ever, WA is critical for Labor. If they can hold the seats they currently have, they will go a long way toward winning. The real possibility at the moment is they could go 2 down in WA based on polling from a month ago – Swan and Cowan.
I can’t see any others likely to change. The most marginal Labor seats in NSW and Vic should be safe if they follow the Labor swing. Bendigo may be a concern depending on the Green vote. In SA, the two marginal seats, Hindmarsh and Adelaide should be safe as there is a current large swing to Labor across the greater Adelaide metro area according to the Advertiser.
Qld should yield a large Labor swing in cities statewide that should keep safe the current Labor marginals.
As usual though, this doesn’t take into account local member issues and we all know swings are never uniform.
Adelaide won’t go either
I think I read on Adam’s website that in 1972 the ALP lost Bendigo.
If I was the ALP I would be more worried about Melbourne Ports and Holt than Bendigo but in writing that I’m tipping the ALP will hold all Three.
If Melbourne Ports holds a strong Green vote again, I think its safe for Labor. Holt should also be safe – long standing member with a Labor metro swing toward him, unless there is a local issue not known about.
As it is almost impossible for Labor to gain a Senate that will pass its legislation, it must concentrate on winning government – which is always the main aim of a major party. It will therefore use Senate preference deals to boost its chances of winning House seats and deal with the Senate later.
The quota for the Senate is c14.3 per cent. Two quotas need 28.6 per cent; three, 42.9 per cent; four, 57.2 per cent; five, 71.5 per cent; six, 85.8 per cent. In the following exercise, I am making up results for Victoria, not making predictions. If Labor polls around 44 per cent, it will have three quotas in its own right. If the coalition polls around 38 per cent, it will have two quotas in its own right. Then preferences will come into play.
I can imagine that once the 71.5 per cent of the vote required to elect three Labor and two coalition senators is taken out of the count, the remaining 28.5 per cent could go as follows: Greens 9, coalition 9, Family First 4, DLP 2, ALP 1, others 3.5. It is unlikely that the others will do a Western Victoria 2006 and propel the DLP ahead of FF, so I will put them aside for the moment.
FF plus DLP is 6 (or 7 if the ALP goes to FF). If the others push FF ahead of the Greens and the coalition or ahead of one but not the other, then whichever group is third will determine the result: if the coalition is third, its preferences will elect FF; if the Greens are third, their preferences will elect the coalition. If the others leave FF behind both the coalition and the Greens, FF preferences will elect the coalition.
For the Greens to win, they would need a higher primary vote and/or a higher Labor surplus and Labor preferences. They will poll a higher primary vote in Tasmania, but I am not sure about the other states.
If Labor believes that recommending Senate preferences to FF will get FF to recommend House preferences to it, it will be prepared to face the unlikely prospect of a stronger FF presence in the Senate. It will obviously take account of any Green reaction to such a decision as it would like to have Green preferences in the House as well. It has to determine whose preferences are of more use, which will involve a consideration of not only how many extra it will get if each group “directs†preferences, but also the resulting effects on the margins in the seats in which preferences are “directedâ€.
In summary, the Senate result is of almost no importance to Labor. It will act to maximise its House seats.
Chris Curtis
Perhaps you over-estimate the ‘other’ vote which would head to FF. Remembering the dirty tricks they played with them at the last election, the conservitive ‘other’ might be more likely to support the libs giving them an advantage. Other than that i think your observations are estute and the last spot could go to either the greens or libs with the libs being 2:1 favorites.
Alan: “I find it interesting that for the only poll in the last 5 years for which there is any ‘real’ figure with which to compare, ie the polls immediately before the 2004 election, Morgan (45.5%) was closer to the actual Coalition Primary (46.7%) than NewsPoll (45%) or Nielsen (49%)…”
Alan, although the claim about Morgan being Labor-based is often overstated, the Morgan poll taken just prior to the 2004 election was a phone poll. Normally, Morgan conducts face-to-face interviews, which includes the most recent poll.
It can be argued that the face-to-face methodology is not quite as robust as conducting a poll over the phone. The reason is that interviewers are less likely to door-knock in remote and rural areas, where there are also more likely to be coalition voters.
But in saying that, analyses over at Possum Pollyticks and Oz Politics have shown that Morgan is usually only about 1 – 2 percent above Newspoll and Nielsen when it comes to the Labor primary vote, and this is most likely when the Labor vote is high rather than low.
The Kalgoorlie Numbers Game
Can Labor win Kalgoorlie?
I have had an interest in the numbers game, Psephology, for along time. It is linked to another ‘-ology’ interest, the study of word origins, etymology. It is derived from psephos, the peeble used in ancient Athens for voting. Ever been blackballed?
So what does the raw data from 2004 tell us?
Two-party Preferred was ALP 43.70% – LP 56.30%.
Swing required: 6.3% If a national swing is on, this is a marginal seat.
Informal vote: 5.34% This is too high.
Turn out: 83.53% of enrolled compared with 94.32% for all of Australia. The difference is nearly twice the required swing!
Preferences: The flow from the other candidates was weak, including the Greens. It was 58.75/41.27 against the ALP, worse than the final result. The lower Greens flow may have been caused by the donkey-vote factor as Barry Haase was directly below their first position on the ballot paper.
Source: AEC Virtual Polling Booth http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-12246-241.htm
If Labor is to defeat John Howard, it must pick up seats in Western Australia. It cannot concede any marginal seats, especially not a traditional one like Kalgoorlie.
Getting people enrolled and getting them to vote are clearly priorities for this electorate.
It could be a long night in the eastern states waiting for the results from the West.
For more from my plog ‘Labor View from Broome’ visit http://laborview.blogspot.com/
Molotov,
My 3.5 per cent for the others isn’t an estimate, just a number to illustrate the sorts of questions involved in Senate counts. I think it is very difficult to estimate the vote for the others as the groups which make up that category can vary a lot from election to election; e.g., Peter Andren will poll much better than the We Just Made Up A New Party Last Month To Get On The Ballot Paper Party.
Noonhat, thanks for the considered reply. My concern is the apparently widely held view that NewsPoll is ‘better’, when on the evidence of the last Federal election they are ‘worse’. It is obvious that polling of minor parties is much less reliable than the two majors. Allocation of preferences is another matter again, and obviously, we can allocate such preferences any way we believe to be ‘correct’, once we arrive at a ‘best estimate’ of primaries. My question remains, why does anybody think that NewsPoll and Nielsen are better at Federal primaries than Morgan, when the most recent verifiable comparison shows them to be worse.
In the Queensland State election, Newspoll OVERestimated the Labor Primary by 1.1%, and Morgan UNDERestimated it by 1.9%. Newspoll’s Greens vote estimate was about half of the actual. Similarly in the Victorian State election Newspoll OVERestimated the Labor vote by 0.6% while Morgan UNDERestimated it by 1.9% . So much for systemic bias!
Morgan’s methodology in allocating preferences can be questioned, although since the 2004 election they have offered two methods, what the respondents say, and the 2004 pattern. It is plain from Possum’s analysis that Morgan are consistently higher in their estimate of the coalition primary vote than Newspoll. What I question is the assumption that Newspoll is more likely to be correct. I believe there is no evidence for that at all. The idea that a slight problem in ‘remote areas’ with contacting coalition voters can cause a 2% error in an Australia wide vote estimate is ludicrous. Less than 5 % of voters live in ‘remote’ areas.
Alan
I ignore Morgan polls because they have been badly wrong in MOST of their polls, including 2 of their last 3 in 2004, at the last 3 elections. The only poll they were close on primaries is the one you refer to, and (I believe) that had a different methodology from the usual. The Queensland poll you refer to was also a phone poll.
ACN have had the best 2PP for 3 consecutive elections, and therefore get a fair bit of respect. Newspoll are generally fairly consistent with them on major party primaries. And Galaxy’s record in recent years is simply outstanding, as the webmaster of this site has shown in the past.
In particular, if you take a look at the table at the link below, you’ll see that Morgan’s primaries have been within 2% on less than a quarter of occasions since 1998, while ACN has been within 2% on over 60% of occasions. Morgan’s face to face polling is regarded as dodgy for good and sufficient reasons.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2006/09/07/poll-wars/
A minor correction: Galaxy I think were slightly better than ACN on the 2PP in 2004. 52 v 54 I think, actual result 52.74.
I think many “calls” are more wish fulfillment then based on substance. This election will be a referendum on industrial relations – and it wont just be about penalty rates etc but are we going to live in a regulated or unregulated IR world.
Yes the unions have done a good job with stories about 16 year olds etc being ripped off but think very carefully about why Keating hoed into Julia “Medicare Gold” Gillard. He did it because he thinks when the crunch comes people are going to vote for the deregulated world as we pretty much have been doing since 1983..
I think the Federal ALP thought given the state of the polls they could bluff their way through without giving any real indication on where they stand on IR – and panicked at the universally bad reaction they got in May/June when they gave a little taste of what they really had in store and came up with this line that the policy is still to be “finalised”.
Basically Federal Labor owed the ACTU this election and has to go to the election with a defence of union rights policy and centralised IR commission control.
The polls basically show people are open to a change but the deal hasnt been sealed as is indicated by Centrebet etc odds. The outcome of the election will turn on that deregulated/ regulated IR world question.
I know many people on this site assume IR is a loser for the Liberals but dont be so sure. Whilst violent agreement might suit some it is a shame that some of the more thoughtful and provocative commentators such as dovif have been turned off posting given the latte consensus that seems to abound of late.
IR is after all one of the great faultlines of our history and there wont be much in that question but there are many many people who wont buy the Combet/Burrow/Julia “medicare gold” Gillard view of the world.
Thank you Albert Ross – that is the best summary on the plight of Vn veterans I have read in 30 years. Of course no politician has been willing to say it – can you imagine the response of the Daily Terror? Unfortunately the legend of the veteran being stabbed in the back by those who opposed the war has almost been accepted into the national mythology. While, those who deserve the greatest criticism for their role in this disaster (Howard must be the last one left in Parliament) have got off scot free.
Labor seats at risk: Obviously Swan and Cowan will be at serious risk unless Labor’s polling in WA improves. But it’s hard to see any others. I thought Franklin might be at risk because of Labor’s candidate choice, but we had a local poll in Tas a week or so ago showing Labor a mile ahead in all five seats. I also once thought Bendigo, Isaacs and Holt might be at risk but in the current climate I no longer think so. Melbourne Ports was never in danger. Parramatta? The Libs don’t even have a candidate yet, so they obviously don’t think they can win it. At the moment WA is Labor’s only weak spot.
IR is after all one of the great faultlines of our history and there wont be much in that question but there are many many people who wont buy the Combet/Burrow/Julia “medicare gold†Gillard view of the world.
I’m not convinced of that view. Other than the rusted-on Coalition voters, and maybe a small clique of die-hard libertarians and free-marketeers, I’m not sure who would be in favour of Workchoices, particularly when returning the Liberals to power may result in even more drastic ‘deregulation’. In any case, I’m not sure the IR legislation is a case of dergulation as it is of centralisation – Workchoices gives the Government more control, not less, in many ways.
On Melbourne Ports, I think Labor will hold the seat, and Danby should do well in appealing to what is a fairly diverse demographic. Though the seat is marginal, the main thing against Labor this time around are the new voting laws, which might impact upon the significant young and transient population that drift through the electorate.
Molotov Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Just one question: Is the CLP factionally and ideologically closer to the Nat. or the Lib? Looking at NT geography Nat. looks more believable but any insite into their policies etc. or whether they differ at all from the Nat. or Lib. policies would be appreciated.
Molotov Im thinking the CLP has never crossed the floor on a Coalition policy or if it has it would be rare-count them as Conservative, full stop.
Vietnam Vets Issue.
As a counsellor who worked with Vietnam Vets here in QLD [cant say where] suffering P.T.S.D (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and a whole range of other chitt people who have been to war experience, let me just say that unless you have been there yourself, shut the *&^* up.
Not one of the fellas I worked with (a) wanted to considered a “hero” nor (b) to be treated like one when they came home. They just wanted a fair go and to disappear into civy street a.s.a.p. psychologically impossible for many of them.
We are just beginning to see the wash out of Vietnam in many of their lives now most are at retirement age and dont have something to shut out the experience with any more {obsessions with work, business, etc) which act as self medicating/coping tools.
When they retire, and there is nothing to fill their heads and lives with, and it all comes back in a flood, we will see how clever we like to think we are about those Vets. For now, please refrain from commenting about something you know *(&( all about ; it is unnecessarily offensive.
Chris Curtis wrote
I cannot see the coalition being reduced to two Senate seats in three states, so I cannot see Labor having control of the Senate. It is highly unlikely that it would be reduced to two Senate seats in two states.
Chris I take your point about the potential DD trigger for Labor (IR Policy). However, if we can put that aside, I return to my original question.
What of the potential for the Coalition to lose Senate seats in 2 States (NSW/TAS) and the CLP to lose its seat in the NT ? Does ‘highly unlikely’ equat pretty much to ‘impossible’ as one blogger here suggested.
My view, without having done any significant homework on it yet, is that such an outcome is improbable, but when someone tells me something about an election is “impossible” the ‘red rag to a bull’ reaction makes me want to speculate the “impossible” happening. Ill get back to you on this after Ive done my homework- PS I agree with the comment about the ‘astute’ character of your observations about the Senate.
Even if Labor loses the election, I can see them gaining a net few seats, only Cowan and Swan are possible Labor losses and they have to be doing as badly or even more so this time than they did in 2004. Labor only got 44% of the two-party vote out west in 2004.
If Labor wins the election, they are not likely to lose any seats. If Labor wins say 54-46, they might even pick up extra one or two seats in WA.
The Liberals have chosen a candidate for Parramatta.
(Though in my view, being a notional Liberal seat, Parramatta is not a seat the ALP can “lose”.)
Concur that Swan and Cowan would be the only vulnerable Labor seats.
Sticking with the theme of Liberal candidates in marginal western Sydney seats. Here’s the latest goings on in Lindsay. It seems Jackie Kelly will not be getting her way.
In true Australian political reporting style, the journalist gets the most basic of facts wrong. A margin of 11.1% is attributed to Lindsay. That’s actually the margin for Macarthur. Lindsay, on the new boundaries, is a more modest 2.9%.
For what its worth, I too dont think Labor will have too many casualties from this election either *2-3 probably.
However, the seats I listed above are obviously the ones vulnerable to a rogue result- Any losses should come from that lot and probably will go against the very logical assumption that WA is the most likely place where casualties could occur for Labor.
If nothing else, Molotov’s question has drawn out some indications of what the more experienced election buffs (Adam et al) are thinking about the 2007 election outcome. Well done Molotov !!
The Liberal Candidate for Parramatta is ex Navy. Is Parramatta one of those ’services’ dominated seats? I better go look at the profile.
Alan,
I’m not a big believer in any one organisations polls being inherently more accurate than anothers when it comes to primary vote estimations. All the polls track each other in movement over time as sure as night follows day. The average of the final week or so of polls in the Federal election campaign for every organisation have all been “accurate†insofar that their primary vote estimation has reflected the actual primary vote on election day once you account for the margin or error involved in polling plus the uncertainty involved with still having undecided voters right up until those undecideds put pencil to ballot paper.
On the whole Morgan vs Newspoll issue – there is unequivocally systemic bias between them as the consistent difference between their respective primary vote estimations is not random. If it were random there would be roughly equal observations where Morgan and Newspoll were higher than one another over a given period of time, but that is not the case.
As to which of the two (or perhaps even both) suffers “bias†at any particular time, we unfortunately will never know as we don’t have enough elections to make that determination will any real level of statistical confidence worth poking a stick at..
What is important with polls isn’t the poll to poll changes (although that certainly is the fun part!), but the cumulative incremental movement over longer time periods of successive polls.
As for the whole TPP estimation by all the organisations– IMHO they arent worth the paper they’re printed on. It’s uncertainty on steroids.
For descriptive purposes, I find Newspoll “better†only insofar as their polls have a long period of time consistency (fortnightly – seemingly forever), the methodology hasn’t changed dramatically as far as I’m aware (although certainly stand to be corrected) and they don’t have the variance of the Morgan polls.That’s just a personal preference thing that doesnt mean I think they’re the most accurate, just that they are the most usable for the sort of time series analysis I do with them.
But if you want the most accurate measure of polling purely for forecasting, then Bryans graph of “Monthly aggregated polls: AC Nielson , Galaxy, Morgan, Newspollâ€
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2007/polls2007/
…for the primary vote is, statistically at least, far and away the best measure to use that has the least amount of uncertainty.
I’ve never seen such concentrated hat-eating declarations as on this one thread! I hope you are all serious I’m tired of politicians resorting to hyperbole and expect the blogosphere to have higher standards
Why would Rudd not call a *half* senate election instead of a full? Yes it would through the cycle out of whack, but the blockage is the “abnormal” result from 2004, which would be wiped out in a half-senate election, without jeprodising Labor’s “we always get three senate seats” gig.
Thanks, Possum, I appreciate you taking the time to reply in such detail. I agree wholeheartedly with your view on the flakiness of TPP estimates from polls, and with your final par about the aggregated poll figures.
Hi STROP. No Parramatta is not a Navy seat. Not too many warships dock up that way. This candidate has no profile and is just another sign the Libs have all but written it off. They’ll spend what money they have in Bennelong next door.
Was anyone else at the rugger Saturday night? Howard was roundly booed. All politicians invite a rough reception when they venture onto sporting arenas but my recollection is that in the past he got quite a few cheers as well as boos. If he’s lost the Sydney rugby union crowd (mainly private school North Shore, for you non-believers) then it’s just another sign of how much trouble he’s in.
Reminds me of a story from 1975. Gough went to a rugby league game in Brisbane & was introduced by legendary Labor Senator Ron McAuliffe (also chairman of the Queensland league). The crowd erupted. Gough said: “They don’t seem to like you much Ron”
Chris…
Your Senate analysis is quite correct. I believe the ALP will get three quotas on primaries in most states and close enough in the others to reach it on preferences. However, this will mean that they will have very little residue to offer anyone else. In particular there will be insufficient to boost the Greens to a quota except perhaps in Tasmania. In most other states, this would leave a shoot out between the Greens, FFP and Lib for the sixth seat, which stacks the odds against a Green success, and towards a 3-3 split.
Whilst, I agree that victory in the House should be the primary concern, a hostile Senate would be poison in the chalice. The only way to prevent this from happening is to try and leverage the FFP vote above the Lib residue. This is the only way to limit the coalition to 2 seats and to achieve a workable government.
It has been shown (ref Mumble) that the FFP house votes are more directable than those of the Greens. In the unlikely event that the Greens would direct preferences away from Labor, their voters would be unlikely to follow the card. Not so with FFP voters, they are much more centrist and can be more persuaded by the direction of the HTV.
So preference exchanges in both houses are likely to be mutually beneficial.
Dembo: Why would Rudd not call a *half* senate election instead of a full? Yes it would through the cycle out of whack, but the blockage is the “abnormal†result from 2004, which would be wiped out in a half-senate election, without jeprodising Labor’s “we always get three senate seats†gig.
Dembo, Rudd cannot call a half senate election at his fancy. With the exception of double dissolutions, senate terms are fixed: This is the reason Senate and House elections can get out of sync. The soonest possible time after next election another half senate election can be called will be early August 2010, and the senators so elected won’t take their seats until 1 July 2011, giving a Prime Minister Rudd a three and a half years with a hostile senate. This simply will not work, and the only way out is a double dissolution. Rudd will almost certainly call one if he gets the House of Representatives but not the Senate.
STROP:
Without wanting to downplay your experiences or the people that you have worked with, the point is that some people want to somehow explain all of the PTSD experienced by Vietnam vets on the conduct of people who wanted to stop them being sent there in the first place.
The Vietnam war created a cultural division in Australia, and people on both sides of this division were guilty of personalising and hence polarising the debate – there were at least as many war supporters accusing opponents of being unpatriotic, cowardly and communists as there were anti-war people accusing individual soldiers of being imperialists and murderers.
However as far as the political responsibility of what happened to these vets in Vietnam, then that lies squarely with the people who sent them there.
“The Liberal Candidate for Parramatta is ex Navy.”
And, interestingly a member of the ETU.
How many current coalition parliamentarians are members of trade unions?
“…I know many people on this site assume IR is a loser for the Liberals but dont be so sure.”
There are a lot of practical, as well as theoretical, reasons for believing that the best policy territory to fight from is the middle ground.
That’s the problem with WorkChoices. It’s hard to seriously argue that it is a centrist policy. Contrast it with the GST, something of itself unattractive, but made centrist through genuine compensation.
The difficulty in arguing that the punters have supported deregulation is that for the most part they did not know the implications of what they were voting for, and – crucially – the Coalition was not offering an alternative.
But IR is a concrete issue that people can readily apply to their own circumstances or to those of their children.
Mr St John is correct that a wacko IR policy would torpedo the ALP. But does anyone seriously think Rudd and the ALP Right are going to allow that to happen?
Ed St John,
The IR choice is not between living in a regulated versus deregulated world. Workchoices (or whatever it is called now) is not deregulation. The requirements that business have to comply with are onerous.
It is just a different sort of regulation than what it replaced.
Unless you think that Labor will take us back to pre-1993 centralised wage fixing, which I don’t.
I agree with you that Labor has to separate itself from the unions, if only as a function of demography. I think Rudd’s plan is to get over the line and do it with the authority of Government.
You obviously don’t think he can win without doing it first. Personally I don’t think the union scare campaign will have much traction. If Howard is to win he will do it on a “they can’t be trusted with the economy” scare campaign in my view.
PS to STROP: Lowe would have to be a real rogue result. Last I heard (in the Inner Western Suburbs Courier), the Liberal Party were having trouble convincing any local Liberal with a profile to even nominate for pre-selection. If they have got a candidate, I haven’t heard who it is yet. The Libs aren’t going to put any money into Lowe and it seems to be moving away from them anyway.
Strop,
“What of the potential for…..the CLP to lose its seat in the NT ? Does ‘highly unlikely’ equat[e] pretty much to ‘impossible’ as one blogger here suggested.[?]”
Mate, the reasons both the ALP and the CLP are rolled gold certainties to finish 1:1 are: (i) the lack of any credible third party (the Greens are much thinner on the ground here and we’re too suspicious of outside religious parties since we know this is God’s country) and (ii) with two senators, the quota is reduced to just 33.3% (2+1).
About who represents which conservative party amongst the CLP pollies, the practice has been to split the numbers when possible. Tollner sits with the Libs and Scullion sits with the Nats. Previously, Dundas and Everingham sat with the Libs and Tambling sat with the Nats. As the Nats will be precariously close to the limit for official party status in the next Senate (especially after the rodentry of McGauran in Vic. and the likely demise of Boswell in Qld., the pressure is on for conservative N.T. Senators to sit with the Nat pack.
Edward if you think the coalition’s IR policy is a winner for them then you are sadly deluded. I have no doubt whatsoever that had Howard left things as they were we wouldn’t be talking about a change of government this election. To quote Black Jack “But IR is a concrete issue that people can readily apply to their own circumstances or to those of their children.” I will add one word to that comment. IR is an ECONOMIC concrete issue that people can readily apply to their own circumstances or to those of their children and all indications show that they fear what Howard has put in place for them and what more he will have in store for them if he wins again, a fear that will far out weigh anything Labor will come up with.
Westpoll apparently has Labor up 4% in WA since their last poll. Does anyone have any details?
The Hasluck & Stirling view / logic in the West Australia Newspaper this morning (ok stop laughing now it is the only local newspaper we have got, and calling it the Herdsman Lake Liberal Party Newsletter would just seem grumpy) seems to suggest that it is economic tightness that is the issue in these seats and that the libs want to use a focused repeat of the interest rate scare campaign from 2004 in Hasluck and Stirling.
This is interesting because the usual ‘wisdom’ from the boys in the east (whether or not they come on camels with gifts) is that we are happy with Howard because we are swimming in money.
Personally not yet worried about losing seats in WA, but Hasluck and Stirling will take work.
Poll of 402 people across Perth and Regional WA shows primary support for coalition slipping four points … but the crude numbers (Lab:Lib)
46.5 : 53.5 latest westpoll
can’t find the number but last westpoll was worse for labor on 2pp basis
44.6 : 55.4 2004 election
So for those happy to believe the 2pp from Westpoll, and prepared to ignore that the margin of error is much greater than the margin in any of the marginal seats we are talking about, but Nosty and Steven have always considered Westpoll to be very reliable, a roughly 2% swing to Labor from the last election puts Hasluck and Stirling into line ball.
In WA Carpenter and Labor polling very strongly. If I could remember who is leader of the opposition I could tell you something like 16% approval for him / her.
Hi Strop,
I have actually spent 30 years working with Vietnam veterans – initially at RGH Concord for 7 years and since in private practice. I therefore find your assumptions offensive.
Like all groups VVs are a very mixed group. However, what almost all will say is that they had no ideological desire to go to Vietnam. Most went because their fathers filled them with stories of WWII and they saw it as a rite of passage, a few have admitted to me that it was mainly for the RSL badge and the war service home loan, one told me that compared to spending his early 20s in Gilgandra- Vietnam looked like a winner.
These men were young and mostly poor and poorly educated, they often came from rural and conservative backgrounds. It was easy enough to avoid the draft if you came from other backgrounds.
The ’stab in the back by protestors’ theory seems to be gaining ground – I suspect due to the media feeding it. It certainly did not have much currency amongst diggers in the 70s and 80s – the “ignored by the government and RSL” theory was much more popular when I worked at Concord.
To restate Albert Ross: do these men deserve our help and sympathy? -yes. Do I now think that they acted in full conscience in a just fight? – absolutely not.
Morgan phone poll from last week (July 4/5) has Labor ahead 59-41. Here’s the link.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4185/
Can anyone shed any light on where things are at with the Lib preselection for Cook?
This is a phone poll, so face-to-face bias doesn’t apply, though it does have a Margin of Error of 4%, sample size 611. Labor primary 49, Coalition 35, Green 7, others 9. Landslide to Labor!!!
The only recent Westpoll has been of state voting intention, unless I’ve missed something. Have I?
Why is it these pollsters look at the results and always say the Libs really can’t be in this much trouble? If this was Labor in this position they would have no hesitation in writing them off this far out from the election. What is the use of pointing out what happened with John Major in Britain for heaven sake? Did he have an unpopular IR policy, an unpopular war and was he in for 11 years?
Actually the Coalition only did one Senate seat better in 2004 than they did in 2001.
Labor’s concern is that the Coalition will continue to reap three out of six seats in every state at half-Senate elections; even in elections they lose. Remember that three quotas is only 43% of the vote. And unlike Labor with the Greens, there are no big spoilers for the Liberals on the right.
The last point to make is that controlling half the Senate seats is effectively a majority for the party in Opposition.
Westpoll taken July 2-4 covered both federal and state voting intent:
http://www.marketresearch.com.au/our_services__westpoll__current_month_questions.23.html
Martin B,
I can see the questions in the Westpoll survey but where are the results?
William – can confirm westpoll published today. Small sample of 400, but movement towards Rudd would put Hasluck and Stirling in ALP pile.
Everyone needs to remember the hideously low ALP vote in 2004. Not having Latham scaring us sandgropers silly will surely be a bonus?
Local Libs are said to be expressing some concern about Kalgoorlie and Barry Haase’s lack of effort (who’s the ALP candidate??)
For what it’s worth I can see some seats changing hands in the West but not necessarily changing the balance.
“where are the results?”
Well they’d be in the paper
But I can’t see them on the online edition either.
I guess a federal poll in WA seats is too national for the WA news section and too WA for the national news section
Gary,
You are making the mistake of applying your own views to the IR issue. Essentially it is a choice between whether people believe in the individual vs the collective and regulation vs deregulation.
I totally agree if people favour the colletive/regulation over the individual/ deregulation Labor should win. This philosophical distinction is clearly delineated by the IR debate. Clearly too Labor is trying to disguise its preference for the collective/regulation model because it fears the consequences electorally – hence the very blurry Fair Work Australia presented by Medicare Gold.
Reasonable people can support either model, and I dont necessarily belief the individual/deregulated model means $6 wages for all. But hey its a real choice and will make this a real turning point election. My view is that given the decline in unions etc I find it hard to believe people will ultimately embrace them at the election – but I stand to be corrected and will of course eat my hat if I am wrong.
You also forget that a lot of the “howard battlers” are not employees but self-employed tradesmen and women. These people are more keen on maximising their take home then the rights of unions. And yes Matt D , Labor should have seperated before the election and it is the fight it has to have if it is going to be ready for government.
In many ways the focus on polls is not unlike reading chicken entrails. Conviction and belief still counts in politics and I do not believe ultimately people will buy “Half-way Labor”.
“Local Libs are said to be expressing some concern about Kalgoorlie and Barry Haase’s lack of effort (who’s the ALP candidate??)”
Sharon Thiel, from the electorate office of WA Fisheries Minister Jon Ford.
http://www.wa.alp.org.au/about/upcomingcampaigns/federal.php
The more apt comparison with the UK might be 1997; it seems the economy was going great, but UK Labour had moved to the centre, and Maggie Thatcher’s reforms weren’t popular; the Tories had basically become radical conservatives. When Labour put forward good policies and a charismatic leader, they won in a record landslide.
Here in Aus, climate change alone might well be enough, but Howard’s radical conservatism in introducing Workchoices should seal the deal. Rudd is much better than Latham.
any guess for Newspoll results tomorrow, and Dennis Shanahan’s corresponding headline?
My guess is 55 – 45 ALP ahead, of course. Only because I had a dream last night in which that was the result. “Howard inching back” is my guess at the headline.
Any other takers?
Good luck to Sharon, but there has not been a single theory of voter behaviour and intention that I can remember, pertaining to Western Australia that even suggests Barry needs to work to win.
If WA was polling like the rest of the country he would need to be working … but it doesn’t look like it to me.
Damn I hope I’m wrong.
The Morgan phone poll taken in mid-June had a 55-45 Labor gap, so this poll represents a 4% swing to Labor. It’s even better in primary, with mid-June have Coal at 40, Labor 43.5; that’s a swing against Coal of 5%, and a swing to Labor of 5.5%.
Edward, I agree that Labor has not necessarily got its IR strategy right just yet, and that the Keating model is the better approach. It wouldn’t durprise me, once the central focus moves off IR, that Rudd-Gillard move quietly towards that approach. Neither is in heavy debt to the union movement, but OTOH they don’t need to make any extra enemies on their own side.
But I am fascinated that you see the IR battleground as regulated vs deregulated. What was the Workchoices I legislation again? 1300 or 1700 pages? Workchoices II can hardly be said to have simplified it with an army of inspectors to be appointed to check up whether rights are being preserved. That’s deregulation?
Nor would I suggest that Howard has neutralised the issue be restoring the fairness issues. At most it will remind people of what they tried to get away with – it can hardly be said that removal of the ‘no disadvantage’ clauses was an accidental oversight. If it was an oversight, possibly caused by Howard’s excessive determination to keep the unions from anywhere near the workplace in any circumstances, then they deserve to be punished for such a monumental stuffup.
I think Malcolm McKerras is closer to it than most who have looked at it. That is, that the public is likely to see Workchoices as a betrayal of public trust, much as they did Chifley’s attempt to nationalise the banks. Neither had been flagged at the previous election. Restoring fairness will not amount to forgiveness just as the high Court defeat of the banks nationalisation did not lead to Chifley being forgiven.
Pseph,
Funnily enough I had a dream about it too but my figure was 60-40 which goes to show that my dreams are better than yours.
Dennis’ comments would surely include the phrase – “ALP figure artificially boosted”. Not that this would stop him from claiming the ALP vote was crumbling when the next Newspoll result inevitably showed a lower figure.
Pseph, did you know Dennis used to be a sportswriter? Yes, he was the boxing reporter for his paper.
It was Dennis who coined the phrase, “all night long our brave boy destroyed the fists of his opponent, with his face!”
Ed I beg to disagree. In my day job I recently saw some good quality commercial market research (ie completely apolitical) showing a definite cooling of the embrace of the free market in the last few years. People are just confused and want less choice, more regulation and more certainty. Was this due to the backlash to the workbeast that dare not speak its name? Or was the backlash just reflecting the underlying mood?
I suspect it’s the latter. Howard completely misread his 2004 mandate, which was for certainty and stability. Using an unexpected Senate majority to force his own ideological prejudices on an unsuspecting and unwilling electorate will be his undoing.
Here’s the thing about phone polls, for anyone who’s interested: all pollsters have recently been forced to grapple with the fact that the pool of people willing to do these surveys has been rapidly diminishing. It seems that more and more people are refusing to take part, or are screening their calls using their answering machines, forcing pollsters to go online. If this is indeed then case, then I’d say it’s highly likely that the majority of those people willing to take part in political surveys over the phone are left-leaning, since they are more vocal and have more time on their hands. So best not to take any of these results at face value.
Steven,
Now every Newspoll, AC Nielsen and Galaxy is flawed??
If the results were the other way, would you still have that opinion? If there is any trend to the Gov tomorrow, we had better not see you on here carping about the result!
Steven Kaye, you crack me up!
That’s an interesting thought on Kalgoorlie – it’s a bit of a rogue electorate at the best of times – and despite it being where the mining boom is happening, I suspect that the Perth metro area is leeching a substantially large part of the money out as it’s driven a lot these days by fly-in-fly-out employees (and the off site employees are in Perth if they’re not in Sydney). So maybe Kalgoorlie isn’t profiting as much as you might think, which might make it more like the rest of the country than the rest of WA.
So, Steven, does that mean that Morgan would be the best poll after all? Usually being face-to-face, I’d say that people are more likely to agree to a survey when someone is standing at their door than when they call on the phone.
Kalgoorlie is quite a big seat.
Martin J,
I’d rather it turn out that you’re the prophet over me!
Perhaps the Oz will run a secondary poll, perhaps something about Union inteference in the ALP, and will headline their paper with those results, if the voting intention polling is bad for the Coalition. “Electorate fears union thugs, poll shows” … “in other news, Howard has stopped Rudd’s rise in the polls and now looks more position to win a 5th election with already *insert figure in low 40’s*% of the 2PP vote.
What would we do without Dennis?
Phone polls, while imperfect, are good enough for the Centre for Disease Control in the US, (one of the world’s leading medical science institutes), to use as the basic sampling methodology for some of its epidemiological studies.
But what would they know?
Edward, like the pollsters I think you are missing or misinterpreting what is clearly in front of you but we will all know in time.
My last message should also include Steven Kaye. Love your work Steven – some of the best spin I’ve read.
Steven K is in fact correct in his comment on the declining reliability of opinion polls. More and more people (like me) are inaccessible to pollsters. I live in a 3rd floor apartment. I don’t answer my door buzzer unless the CCTV shows me it’s someone I know, and I don’t have a landline phone any more. On top of that an increasing number of people just hang up on all “spam” callers including pollsters. But he is incorrect in his assumption that this produces a Labor bias in polls. Urban apartment dwellers are just as likely to be Labor voters – in my area much *more* likely.
Pseph, the Oz already had a poll on union issues taken June 22-24 and published Friday June 29. It found that Labor was considered better at dealing with unions than the govt; people were saying that the govt is too tough on unions, while Labor gives unions a fair balance. I think about 55% supported Rudd’s stance, while only 37% supported Howard. I can’t link because the Newspoll website doesn’t have it; the results quoted are from my memory, and could be slightly wrong.
The union poll I refer to previously was published on pg 6 of the Oz; no doubt, had it shown Rudd was not doing well on union issues, it would have been front-page headline news.
Adam
Urban apartment dwellers are just as likely to be Labor voters – in my area much *more* likely.
Meaning that a higher labor vote should show in the polls could explain why the libs are showing at 41%.
Jaz
I think labor is a good chance at Kalgoorlie, labor to pick up 4 seats in WA and hold their own. From what I hear the soaring house prices are an issue and one that is laid squarely at Howards feet.
I thought I saw a recent trimonthly voting intention for WA, admittedly at State Government level, that showed around 54 46 to labor. Though it is at state level it still does not look good for the coalition.
Arbie,
Being a westralian, I would think bugger all seat changes will occur in WA.
the only possible labor gain scenario is Hasluck. Maybe Stirling… but they could still lose swan and cowan.
Regarding the British election of 1997.
The Major government’s economic credibility had been permanently shattered in 1992-3 by the collapse of the pound and a painful recession, followed by a wave of ’sleaze’ stories throughout the term. There has been some ’sleaze’ (Santo, AWB) but not really in the same ballpark as the Tories 1992-7. And no economic crisis.
If we must have similes, this election seems to me more like Australia in 1969 or 1980, except with a lot less ground to make up compared with the previous election. Bill Hayden had a 64% approval rating in October 1980 according to AC Nielsen.
Arbie Jay re Labor picking up 4 seats in WA:
What are you smoking??? The fact that Rudd is well behind in that state considering his bloated lead elsewhere is more than likely causing alarm bells to ring at ALP national headquarters. If I were a senior strategist for Labor at the moment I would be leaping for joy at the prospect a status-qou result, let alone picking up one seat.
Arbie, A-C & Blacklight, interesting thoughts. Are we seeing the usual WA time lag? You know the old gag about be two hours and two months behind the eastern states? Or is it us westerners are only interested in one Kevin at a time and heads up the CFMEU?
Hayden’s strength in the polls in 1980 is a good reminder of the obstacles Labor still faces, although I don’t think Labor was ever as far ahead in the polls under his leadership as it is now.
Hayden was done in by a classic Liberal scare campaign on capital gains tax, which was particularly effective in the mortgage belts of Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, where Labor gained only three seats (St George, Brisbane and Lilley) and lost one (Swan). It was Labor’s failure to win suburban marginals such as Barton, Lowe, Macarthur, Bowman, Fadden, Kingston, Swan, Stirling and Franklin that prevented Hayden winning, despite picking up seven seats in Victoria.
Lesson: scare campaigns do work, but only when there is some substance behind them – Labor *was* planning to introduce a CGT and in fact did so after 1983. So the boot is probably on the other foot this time, since Labor’s IR scare campaign has substance whereas the Libs’ “union bosses” scare campaign isn’t scaring anybody.
Oops, Labor did win Swan in 1980, I was thinking of 1977.
Your mind must be an awfully complicated place with all those seats Adam
in all the hullabaloo about trends etc maybe we are missing one point-people are hurting out there and have been for a while-
ergo the reign of the rodent is over
I think Labor would be disappointed if it didn’t pick up Hasluck. They had a good candidate with name recognition (being the former member) it is a seat as likely as any to have hurt from the 4 interest rate rises they were promised they wouldn’t get, and the PM and cabinet couldn’t help giving their mate Len Buckridge a brickworks at the Perth Airport against all the facts that said it was perhaps the most stupid idea anyone had in a long long time and Mr Henry (mediocre to my mind but I’m biased) had lots of work to do. I don’t know what happened last time, except for the interest rate scare, but there are true blue labor booths that polled very well for Mr Henry … can he do it again? I don’t think so.
Stirling is a chance and Peter a fantastic candidate (assuming he is meeting lots people and not just me), but Mr Keenan (third choice for the Libs last time?) has raised a lot of money.
No great local negatives to my knowledge, Keenan tried a bit of profile raising with some stupid marginal seat grants that needed State money as well and were shot down for the stupid electioneering that they were. But no real harm to anyone from the sound bites I heard. Much as the Howard Biased ABC tried to spin the State Government fixing up dangerous interestections before politically sensitive intersection as a bad thing.
Ross – thanks for your views on Solomon.
oakeshott country- best we leave the Vietnam issue alone; I saw nothing in your dialogue that would change my mind.
Whoever said 4 labor gains in WA must be smoking something i wish i was !!
# cynic Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
in all the hullabaloo about trends etc maybe we are missing one point-people are hurting out there and have been for a while-
ergo the reign of the rodent is over
Will people stop hurting under Rudd? that is the question i am hearing!
Jasmine, do we detect just a teeny-weeny bit of bias in your commentary?
Possum, since 1901 there have been about 4,500 individual seat contests at Australian federal elections, plus 141 by-elections. I think I could tell you the winning candidate in about two-thirds of them from memory – certainly all of them since 1969 when I started following elections closely, and nearly all of them back to 1943. Some of the earlier elections elude memory.
Now where did I put my keys?
Nope Adam whole bucketfulls.
Forget 4 seats in WA. Kalgoorlie despite my earlier post about the Libs being worried. It looks like one where the ALP failed to find a candidate. Thiel (?) has no profile and campaigning in the worlds largest electorate will be tough without one.
I’m happy to call Hasluck and Stirling for the ALP (given Latham’s absence) this time round. Bias aside, I think Jasmine makes good points about 4 interest rate rises since 2004 election.
Haven’t meet Tinley my local candidate, but he sounds like a good catch for the ALP (ex SAS Commander is long way away from being a union boss). Keenan has a fair profile, without actually having done anything special. I’ve got an expectation the ALP will Hasluck, given my surprise that they lost it. Maybe the Lib Henry is good campaigner though.
Quiz question: who were ABC TV’s election night panelists at the 1969 election?
GB,
When the tide comes out we will indeed see who has been swimming naked.
“Who were ABC TV’s election night panelists at the 1969 election?”
Nurse!
The letter blitz started for me today with two letters – one from a Labor Senator and an “I love Rudd” one from Peter Tinley. First stuff from Labor I’ve received (though Michael Keenan has sent the occasional “I love Howard” letter over the last couple of years)
A very young Antony Green?
I remember Mike Willesee saying “and now to sunny Queensland – as if it is not hot enough here”. Malcolm Mack was also there. Not sure of any others.
Very good Oakeshott, two out of three. The third was the late great James Dibble.
I hear on the ABC the first child sex arrest has happened in the NT. Oh well I think I was about 9 days out !
2004 = Howard misinterpreted the result. Bought in Workchoices which was mentioned in any shape or form during the election campaign.
2007 = The fear people have is what will Howard do if he gets in again with a senate majority. Thats why the polls are showing ALP in the lead. People have lost their trust in Howard.
Quite ironic that from the fear campaigns of 2001 (we will decide who comes here) and 2004 (interest rates), Howard has created one of his own making with IR to his detriment.
James Dibble Lives! He was at the 75th anniversary last week.
Despite the opinion polls having Labor ahead by 10 points or more, I do believe the Coalition will get back in office with a narrow majority, maybe Labor winning a majority of the two party vote. The economy is doing pretty well. government has not had any major scandals and Howard’s approval rating is currently around 40% not bad for a guy who has been PM for 11 years.
TREVOR: During the 2004 campaign, Howard SAID he was going to reform the work place relations act if re-elected. From memory he said it was part of promoting an entrepreneurial culture. Surely voters at the 2004 election KNEW that Howard would do what he said, becuase he has promoted work place reform since at least the mid-1980s.
But I guess not all voters are exactly rational, they kind of vote, then complain when the party they voted for does something in government that they don’t agree with.
Newspoll
ALP 48 up 2 Liberal 39 unchanged
TPP ALP 56 Liberal 44 unchanged
Lateline says newspoll: TPP 56-44 (Unchanged)
Primaries
ALP 48 (+2)
LIB/NP 30 (Unchanged)
Newspoll 56/44: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-10-jul.jpg
shock.horror.the.same
well the prefereed pm stas have tightened
and everyone likes the aborignal interbvention.
i can see the screaming headlines now
OKay so tomorrow’s Oz headline will be “Howard equals Rudd for preferred PM” … focus on the meaningless preferred PM and ignore the more important voting intentions.
Note Newspoll has Greens at 4% versus Morgan at 7%
48-39 Primary is very good for Labor, with vote up 2%. Greens never do as well in Newspoll as in other polls, so I’m reading it as 57-43 Labor. Yet another poll with a swing to Labor.
Isn’t this a bad sign for Howard? Surely he would’ve wanted to see SOME movement towards the government influenced by the indigenous intervention. Instead, all that’s happened is some Green voters have shifted to the ALP, or in terms of pure statistics, there wasn’t any change at all.
The fact the Prefered P.M. stakes shows people seem to agree with the intervention policy, but it isn’t enough to actually shift support to the Government. I actually don’t think that measure matters, wasn’t Keating still prefered P.M. before getting booted in the week leading up to the ‘96 election?
When we look over the year this poll will give the Liberals some hope sure they are still looking at a 9% swing but that’s better than 13%.
Rudd would be happy that the ALP vote has gone up to 48%.
Preferred PM to Howard slightly, positive marks for the intervention, slight negative against the government Iraq stance. Overall result – draw. Problem is Howard doesn’t want a draw.
still the old flatline 55,56 and silly morgan…so 57 at a pinch..
if you see a 96 trend line, its basically flat.. spooky
see http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/category/psephology/
keating was behind howard for a while in 96 on preferred PM, then went ahead… but still on voting intention always behind.. except for a blip in the middle.
as i said..SPOOKY
Edward’s peculiar delusion that the arrest of some Indigenous men in the NT for child sex abuse will have some dramatic effect on national politics will now be put to the test. Why on earth he should think this I cannot imagine. This whole subject arouses feelings of sadness, pity, shame and compassion in most Australians, but it has no political content at all. Most people are pleased that something is being done, most people will ask why it wasn’t done a lot sooner, and the net political effect will be nil.
actually,
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2007/06/03/1996-v-2007-similarities-and-differences/
is easier
Simon, I don’t seem to recall any advertising on the matter. All I remember is the “L” for Latham ads. Perhaps a bit of detail is appropraite given what was bought in but then again you are only seeing from yur point of view. The majority would beg to differ on your recollections.
Why the closing up of the preferred PM vote?
BACKLIGHT: Do you think this could be a reverse ‘96, where Howard regains the prefered P.M. stakes because he is the devil we know, but struggles to get the voting intention to change?
Was Fraser leading Hayden/Hawke on prefered P.M. in 1983?
Surely it is far easier to moving the polls from 60/40 to 55/45, than it is moving it from 55/45 to 50/50. A 60/40 poll to me means that the amount of soft support is high, which is easier to move.
GAry
aborignal thing giving Howard strong media prensance, rudd relatively quiet
Blacklight, you’re right about the trendlines for 95/6 basically being flat.
But in 2007 we have seen the ALP reach a high of 61% in March and slowly descend from there to about 55-56 by July. There is a difference between those two cycles.
I agree the cycle is different, but surely it must be considered WORSE for the Government. 61% is astronomically high, there will never be an election that one sided. Hence so many government back-benchers got nervous when the polls went that high.
yup down from LOONEY RIDICLOUS GENOCIDE, to just plain old bloodbath
Time seems to be running out for the Howard comeback, no doubt there will be one, but it should have started a little while ago.
November 10 or November 17 starting to look like good dates now. Gives Howard about 90 days before he calls it on (or 6 newspolls) Is it enough time?
All over one way or another in about 120 or so days!
Ah Adam,
Just like the Bourbons forgot nothing and learnt nothing – “the intervention” was about laying the groundwork it can be turned on and off as required. Arresting a few paedophiles is just what the doctor ordered.
I think preferred PM feeds into voting intentions. 56-44 in July doesnt mean that in October/November. The fundamentals are against K.Rudd economy etc.
More interesting if the betting odds move tomorrow? Presumably if the trend is solid in the polls the odds will start moving sharply.
Edward, the aboriginal arrests occurred in the Kimberleys, not NT – so your 9-day estimate is still possible. Interesting, because from memory at the time, the WA Carpenter Govt offered most resistance to the Howard push. Kind of lessens the wedge prospects.
Meanwhile in the NT Aboriginal groups are resisting the 5-year land grab and the NT govt is opposing the ending of the permit system for moving onto aboriginal land.
Down south it doesn’t seem to be gripping as a wedge issue. I reckon it hasn’t got many legs now. Howard’s only belated chance is the terrorist bomber security thing, but even this is not igniting the usual fear.
Spot on Don. It takes two to tango (or wedge)
I think the Australian people expect any Government to arrest paedophiles wherever whenever. They won’t give you any political credit for doing it, although they’ll punish if you stuff it up.
Edward’s loopy conspiracy theory also requires us to believe that Howard is somehow in control of the timing of arrests by the NT police. You should watch out, Edward, or people will start to believe that you are really as stupid as you seem.
Off to the next thread >>>
ELECTION UPDATE
This poll is good from a Labor supporters point of view. It’s more realistic. Howard though is in a kind of position where he is in control now.
Edward StJohn Says:
“I hear on the ABC the first child sex arrest has happened in the NT.”
Are you trying to claim that this is the first one ever? Or that this particular one is due to Howard’s ‘intervention’?
The Newspoll has TPP 56/44 The Morgan Phone poll 59/41 [on the back of a face to face of 59/41 covering the previous two weeks] and as they have previously noted the phone poll gives a lower labor figure by at least one point. It would appear then that the Morgan should be 60/40.
It is interesting to view the Newspoll 56/44 against that. We shouldnt assume that the lower figure is the correct one. Morgan could well be right [it got the primary right last election and picked the State election primaries] in which case we have had a consistent 58/59 – 41 TPP
I know why. People are dead scared that the Howard govt will get back in and are making sure by not changing their vote to balance things up like they normally would. Howard should go to stop this phenomena. :]
Considering poll numbers etc things are very quiet here in a so-called marginal (Boothby SA). The local member has no profile here whatsoever. . . maybe he knows something i don’t. Still things must look pretty good ALP wise in SA, no major stuff ups re the solidly entrenched ALP govt, ineffectual opposition, maybe more seats will fall here than predicted. Apart from the upset of Bill Weller winning Kingston, don’t write labor off in Mayo. Good riddance Alex!
Further to above, don’t write off foreign policy blunders as an electoral issue. It’s not just the economy stupid!
Yay I was right on two counts… 1) Dennis’ headline in the Oz would focus on the preferred PM poll and 2) the Oz would do a second poll which it new the Gov’t would do well (indigenous policy for the NT) in to mask the bad news arising from the voting intentions. Whatever spin and gloss the Oz tries, it can’t eclipse yet another round of shocking news for the Gov’t.
“government has not had any major scandals”
No major scandals that have had an immediate dramatic effect in the polls. However there have been plenty of scandals alright: WMD, children overboard, Reith’s phonecard, Rau & Solon, Hicks, AWB, Santoro’s shares. Do I need to go on?
It’s possible that these are all water under the bridge and will no longer be on people’s mind when they vote, in which case the govt might claw back to a victory.
However it’s also possible that while voters could forgive any individual one of these, they can see the accumulated baggage of these piled on the govt’s shoulders, in which case the govt are probably dead men walking.
Blacklight Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
actually,
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2007/06/03/1996-v-2007-similarities-and-differences/
Read your assessment Blacklight (above); brilliant !! Well done.