We’re apparently back to the routine of fortnightly Tuesday Newspoll surveys. Tomorrow’s effort shows Labor’s two-party lead steady on 56-44 and their primary vote up from 46 per cent to 48 per cent. The increase comes at the expense of minor parties and the Greens, with the Coalition vote unchanged at 39 per cent. Also featured are questions on the government’s intervention into Aboriginal communities (strong thumbs up) and whether troops should be returned from Iraq (two bob each way). The Prime Minister has at least narrowed the preferred leader deficit to 42-43, his best result since February.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Newspoll: 56-44
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
275 Comments
ooo mumble’s prediction was on the money:
http://www.mumble.com.au/#july2quest
The NT rabbit out of the hat didnt go down too well then.Bit like Burkegate, Sunrisegate, the budget and the Murray Darling Water plan.
I guess Howards hit Peak Rabbit
I must confess myself fascinated by the eerie succession of News and ACN polls with Coalition on 39. Only one poll by either pollster since mid-May has not said Coalition 39.
ALP primary looks to be around 47, as I suggested 2-3 weeks back.
Government’s recovery may be stalling here… they’d certainly want to see the gap at less than 7 points in one of the next two polls.
Well, the Australian’s editorial following this Newspoll is true to form.Reading it would give the impression (as is intended) that this is a disaster for Rudd.
Even 49% wanting Australia out of Iraq on an immediate or scheduled basis, as opposed to 31% supporting the Goverment’s line, is somehow a major victory for Howard.
As predicted, the preferred prime ministerial imbecility is now of overwhelming significance: it apparently indicates “the momentum behind Mr Howard”.
All this “shifts the political dynamic” in favour of the Coalition and sets “a series of future traps for Labor”.
Pity they dont tell us what 56 – 44 two party preferred, and 48 -39 primary, shifts.
Probably their bowels…
Yeah, as Fulvio said, the headline “Howard checks Rudd’s march” is hilarious.
well the rest of the media will swallow it as usual.
same old same old.
How is it we tolerate a bias press? Shouldn’t these papers and their journalists be confronted in car-parks to explain themselves and get back to non-partisan reporting?
If they asked the question should we stay or leave Iraq you would have got a 70/30 answer. The Aboriginal question is silly – yes of course we should help stop child abuse!
Seems as though the Govt Gazette is trying to stir up a Terrorism fear campaign, and no doubt there is some plan with the Govt for later. Will they orchestrate the SAS to raid some poor unsuspecting freighter again?
Possum has shown that Australians seem to be allergic to Rabbits actualy causing Howard to lose ground – so Mr Howard keep them coming.
Hmm Newspoll stuck on 39% But I suspect it is more likely 37% But hey, they are only deluding themselves.
We are all waiting to see how outrageous and disgusting the Howard govt and their pet press will get in trying to buy votes.
I leave you with this thought:
the most interesting part of Mr Shanahan’s article is the last two paragraphs, when he says there has been speculation about Howard inside the government and mentions the leadership discussion last year.
A month ago, Shanahan was telling us people talking like that were ‘out of the loop’. Intriguing change of rhetoric.
I think the ALP’s stellar poll levels are pretty much the result of Rudd’s popularity.
Ergo, I wonder if Howard closing the gap in the “Preferred Prime Minister” rating really is bad news for the ALP, in the long run.
Howard’s boost is probably due to his adventures in the Territory. It’s hardly a story that’s “media friendly” though. Ergo I doubt it will be in the news much longer.
If it is in the news much longer, that will only be because it hits some stumbling block (political, legal, or logistic). In which case it will be more of a negative for Howard than a plus.
Just my 2c worth.
Actually, Kina, on reading the Newspoll data (as opposed to that selective part of it contained in the Oz editorial), I see that in fact 63% want an immediate or scheduled return of troops from Iraq, with 6% undecided. That’s two thirds. Some support for the Government there!
As I predicted earlier, when asked whether they approve of the Government’s intervention in the Northern Territory the vast majority of respondents have answered in the affirmative, exposing the worthlessness of that last Galaxy poll.
Meanwhile, the Government’s support continues to be understated in the latest Newspoll, once again highlighting the unreliability of telephone polling. Perhaps, when the Government is re-elected in November, the media will finally take a long hard look at their obsession with opinion polls.
I am afraid Steven the real story here is that that the Liberal vote, which was in freefall had been staging a modest recovery since March. The 3 most recent polls, including Newspoll have seen the Liberal vote either stall or start to slide again. The most significant trends emerging from the latest polls are the increase in the ALP primary vote. It seems that satisfaction with Mr. Howard increases as the likelihood of his defeat increases.
So Steven’s position is that all opinion polls, no matter how conducted, understate the Liberal vote. Well, he may be right, but he needs to show us an argument to support this view, otherwise it is just worthless wishful thinking. I suspect Steven’s argument goes: I know the government will be re-elected, therefore the polls must be wrong. This fails logic 101. We should reach conclusions from evidence, not vice versa.
As for the Indigenous issue, of course most people support Howard’s actions. I support it, and I’m a card-carrying ALP member. Does it make me one whit more likely to vote for Howard? Of course not. OK so I’m a partisan, but the fact is that hardly anyone sees this as a party-political issue. As I said earlier, most Australians are pleased that “something is being done” (even if the something later turns out to be misguided, as usually happens in this matter), but equally they feel that “it should have been done years ago.” These two sentiments cancel each other out, meaning a net political effect of nil.
Interesting, but not surprising is it that the Govt Gazette newspaper is all ga ga about Howards preferred PM measure improving to the highest its been since February, putting a positive spin for the Coalition up front.
It is also interesting but rediculous that this bump up in Howards Preferred PM rating is attributed entirely to the NT Intervention- probably for want of other logical/plausible reasons than anything else-a single factor perception is ignorant at best in my humble opinion.
I also note that the Preferred PM improvement for Howard dialogue neglected to pay any attention to the retirement issue and the Costello factor- again curious but not surprising.
Still, if you want to take preferred PM as at least as equal an indicator of voter intent as the 2PP outcome of the poll (which I dont), Howard has a long, long way to go before he can get anywhere near the average 11.5 percentage points advantage he had over Latham before the 2004 Federal election (Wikipedia).
However you want to spin it, 56-44 in this poll and a similar outcome in the last of the quadrella (next week ?) does not auger well for a Coalition recovery in the polls- Somewhere in between 57-43 and 53-47 is looking like the range debates about the outcome can comfortably tee off from, at least in my mind.
I agree with those who see the NT intervention as a non issue re the outcome of the coming election, as I stated weeks ago when someone suggested this was going to be some kind of ‘rabbit’ out of the hat for Howard. Interesting weeks ahead- cant wait to see the spin the Govt. Gazette newspaper puts on the next poll if it stays around the same mark.
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.
Oh wow … the editorial in the Oz is breathtaking … claiming that staying on in Iraq is the most popular individual option at 31% … despite a combined 48% wanting a withdrawal of troops. Of course, the luddites at the Oz requested that question be split to ask for 1) immediate withdrawal and 2 definitive timetable to allow staying the course to have the plurality of the vote. And this is all ‘fertile ground’ for the Gov’t. This is the worst editorial the Oz has yet to offer (and coming from a very low base anyway).
They live in a parallel universe over at “The Australian”, on two counts:
1. The way they interpret the polling data, has them all spinning the facts like the proverbial whirling dervish,
2. That anyone gives a rats about what they say, or should that be gives a rabbit?
see http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com
“Howards matches Rudd in polls, ALP ahead
Monday Jul 9 23:56 AEST”
Nine have a quite funny piece where one minute J Ho is back but then the reality of the figures dampens the tone.
oh well at least newspoll had time to fix the 58-42 result-though i would have thought 53-47 was this one supposed to read-some sub editors going to cop it now
In all aspects, pay very little attention to anything but primary vote intention – this is the hardest question to assign an ambiguity to. TPP often is skewed by previous election intentions where there may have been a protest and is often educated guesswork. Preferred PM and other opinionated questions are just rhetorical drivel.
Anything over 42% for Labor, with Greens preferences in tow, will see them have a high chance of victory. Currently it sits at between 46-51. That is possible landslide territory, with Labor picking up seats it never dreamed of in 2005.
Also, this is a “snapshot”. Examine primary vote intentions over a trend to determine how this election will go. Currently we see them both relatively flatline. If August comes with it still flatline, this race is over.
APEC is negative territory for Howard – standing next to Dubya is not a pretty picture at the moment. He has to pull a massive rabbit from his worn hat to get out of this mess.
Believe me, he has one – terrorism. I will not be surprised if an incident occurs in the leadup to APEC which will focus everyone’s attention to our “safe” leaders in Howard and Bush.
To mangle 1996 … everyone I know is waiting for John Howard with a cricket bat. Of course, I’m in Victoria, can’t speak for the rest of the country.
I get the feeling this week the knives are being taken out but they need to cut more than Howard – who really has only been a jumped up solicitor who has lucked on each election.
Andrews, Coonan, Abbott, Nelson and Downer MUST also go – these people are either dead wood or depised by the electorate. I would get rid of Costello too – but I guess he is the next in line for the leaders job.
So I wonder how they will execute Howard? Will he have a sudden illnes and have to step down?
I think dumping Howard will go half way to saving our democracy.
Why is just about everyone assuming that the Liberals will pull back the Labor lead in the actual campaign? Why not consider the possibility that Kevin Rudd will win the campaign as well as the pre-campaign and pull even more votes to Labor?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,,20581,00.html
It would appear that only Bill Leak has not drunk the Kool-Aid.
With all due respect to Leak (and a great deal is due), it’s a little sad when the most accurate interpretation of polling in a newspaper is from the cartoonist.
I was also wondering if anyone knows about Peter Macdonald’s intentions in Warringah? If he does run, the margin would be about 5% (based on the 2001 result, the 04 swing to Labor and the 06 redistribution in favour of Abbott). Presumably that could fall.
Finally, can someone explain to me how “bringing the troops home by mid-2008″ is not the same as “setting a future definite date to bring the troops home”? The whole “mid-2008″ seems pretty definite and pretty future, but maybe that’s just me.
Grooski Says: “Believe me, he has one – terrorism. I will not be surprised if an incident occurs in the leadup to APEC which will focus everyone’s attention to our “safe†leaders in Howard and Bush.” Or will people blame them for putting us into this position? I think Rudd has been working on this theme.
Thanks again Steven Kaye for today’s joke. A real ripper. I’m still laughing.
Chris Curtis I think because the ALP is running at historically high levels. Looking just statistically, you are justified in assuming the high primary vote and TPP will come down. But we may be looking at a landslide, in which case of course they won’t.
The polls tell me one thing though. Support for Rudd is very stable. One of the biggest barriers to the ALP is the hostile media. But Rudd has weathered every barrage that JWH has thrown. I think this shows that the media pro-Howard narrative, and all JWH’s tricks are not working. As Howard himself said, if people have stoped listening to the govt, they’re gone.
“We should reach conclusions from evidence, not vice versa.”
Pffft, this is the internet
“Why is just about everyone assuming that the Liberals will pull back the Labor lead in the actual campaign?”
Because that’s what always happens. It happened in 2004 and… 2004 and…
I remember a while ago on Ozpolitics, before the comments function was removed, someone (I think it was Antony Green [apologies to antony if my memory is failing]) saying that come end July we’ll have a good idea about how the Federal Election will go (if the polls stay like this – which they have). Given this poll, and a fortnightly rhythm, the next Newspoll should be fascinating for those hoping for a change.
I’m curious as to the rubberiness of rounding in the TPP. Labor gains 2% from Greens and Others, but the TPP stays the same? That suggests over 75% of preferences at the last poll went to Labor. Either that or the ‘real’ figures for Labor are akin to 55.6 (last Newspoll) and 56.4 (current poll).
Whilst junkies were waiting with bated breath for this poll, the real headline should be on p 15: ‘Poll shock: no Change’.
The government remains in the doldrums, and any fluctuation in the figures is indistinguishable from statistical noise.
We won’t know any different until he calls the election and really ramps up the negative campaign. Unless the RBA raises rates, which will seal the coffin. I doubt they will – the Board is stacked with businesspeople, not a few of them government-aligned (McGauchie, Morgan…)
Labor’s primary vote in last 4 polls, and swing from previous poll by same organisation
Galaxy 46 up 2
Morgan face-to-face 50.5, up 2.5
Morgan phone 49 up 5.5
Newspoll 48 up 2
That’s four polls published in a week that all have Labor’s primary vote up at least 2%. Allowing for the bias in Morgan F2F, I would say that Labor has improved from about 46-39 in mid-June to about 48-39 now. In 2PP that’s probably 57-43 Labor. To win the election, the govt needed to keep increasing its vote every month; instead, they have fallen back since mid-June. This is clearly very, very grim news for the govt.
John Howard PM gets a preferred PM rating of 42% and the headlines shout he is on the way back. Doesn’t that just show how much trouble he is in?
The Morgan Phone polls are of under 600 people (allowing for the 4% ‘won’t say’). That must be an MoE of nearly 4%, which would rather explain the apparent fluctuations in it. I wouldn’t call it ‘bias’, just a quasi-Mickey sample size.
Critics of JWH (such as Kina) seem to think it is far more powerful to claim that JWH threatens the fabric of our liberal democratic values. Why not simply say (like other posters have on this thread) that they disagree with his policies and propose to action their disagreement by putting the Coalition last on their ballot papers at the forthcoming Federal election? Such critics can still express their opinions as “(w)rath-kindled gentle(people)” who detest “be(ing) ruled by (JWH)”, but without making (self defeating) hyperbolic statements.
In Adelaide yesterday, Rudd visited not only super-marginal Kingston but also the long shots Boothby and Sturt, saying “I think we’re more than competitive in those two seats as I believe we’re more than competitive in the other three [Kingston, Makin and Wakefield].”
The Advertiser says: “It is believed continued strong polling and internal party research has emboldened Labor strategists who now regard both seats as potential outside chances.”
Rudd said: “In South Australia we are targeting not just three seats, we are targeting a lot more than that and we will be throwing every conceivable resource at securing as many seats as possible in South Australia, including the ones I visited today.”
In Boothby, held by Andrew Southcott, Labor’s Nicole Cornes needs a 5.7% swing, and in Sturt, held by Christopher Pyne, Mia Handshin needs a 6.8 % swing.
Graeme, the Morgan F2F poll is the biased one, probably by around 2% to Labor. I’m not saying Morgan phone is biased.
For those at the OZ getting their rocks off with the Preferred PM poll on the 28-29 February 1996 (one month roughly from the election) Keating lead Howard 45 40. Wow, Keating was on the way back too.
The Australian’s take on this poll is way out there in la-la-land. But it is what most people have come to expect from what is probably the most pro-Howard rag in the country.
The FACT is that the latest Newspoll is a shocker for the government. Despite the budget, despite a union scare campaign, despite a Rudd-economic scare campaign, and despite the Aboriginal saga, there has been little to no movement in the polls.
These are desperate times for Howard and his hopeless hounds. So what next? Change of leader?
By the way, forget about the possibility of a manufactured terrorist incident. I don’t think Australians will buy it. Over the past few years, Howard has been fighting the Iraqis, sprucing up border security, and apparently working to make us safer. Any terrorist attacks on Australian soil will only reflect badly on Howard and might even give further weight to the belief that the Iraq war has turned us into a bigger terrorist target. Howard would have to be truly desperate to go down the road of setting up an attack here – a huge gamble – and that is leaving aside the completely unethical, immoral, virtually psychopathic nature of even contemplating such a thing (not that that would be an obstacle for Howard).
“Coalition in strong position for the 2008 double dissolution.
“Labor has won only 82 seats in Saturday’s federal election, demonstrating that the Liberals have come back under John Howard’s determined leadership and are on track to winning in the double dissolution likely to be held next year. Kevin Rudd must surely realise from this disastrous result for him that he must drop the union connection and impose AWAs throughout the country.†(The Australian,? November, 2007)
Leo… way back up the top.
That Coalition primary being stuck around 40 could be a bad thing, or a really bad.
There’s a fair bit of volatility for the Coalition primary below 40.If they’re simply stuck at around 38-40 and cant find more voters, that’s a bad thing for them in anyones language.
But what could be worse is if that 40 mark actually shows a level of support that they fall below then push back up, testing the level before falling again.
If it’s the former it would suggest that at this stage of the electoral cycle they need to do a lot more to get a higher primary.
If it’s the latter, it would seem to suggest that the level of support for the ALP and large parts of the minors is rock solid, leaving the the Coalition only with the undecideds to play with.
I want to see Howard gone but I don’t believe for one moment Howard would be involved in manufacturing any type of attack on Australia. I believe him to be politically devious and a truth stretcher (to be kind) but not a terrorist.
The Galaxy question regarding the NT intervention was IMHO legitimate – but it would have been better if they asked people’s opinion of the policy as well. It’s entirely consistent that voters might think that, on balance, a policy is correct, but also be cynical about the Government’s motives. They may also be thinking: “what have they been doing for the last 10 years”? In any case, it was always unlikely that this issue would sway the “aspirationals”.
As for Dennis Shanahan, I’m waiting with bated breath for his announcement that Napoleon has returned in triumph from St Helena. The Oz gets more entertaining the closer the prospect of a Labor victory.
Noocat says: ‘The Australian’s take on this poll is way out there in la-la-land. But it is what most people have come to expect from what is probably the most pro-Howard rag in the country.’
I’m sad to agree with the first part of that – I used to take the Oz daily. Now only the AFR is left as a serious or national paper.
But ‘what most people expect’ is an overstatement. The Oz (mis)uses its position as ‘agenda setter’, and seeing other media outlets buy the spin on its Newspoll, rather than just reporting the figures and mentioning the MoE is the best example of this.
“JWH threatens the fabric of our liberal democratic values”
totally agree Kina -anyone else getting upset by that statement must have a stake in seeing it come true and be part of the huggers category
Surley ‘The Australian’ would have a job for this bloke!
Interesting menacing paragraph from the Editorial of ‘The Australian’
The Newspoll support for the Government’s plan no doubt reflects a heart-felt desire that something be done to protect the rights of children. The Australian supports those efforts and appreciates the need to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and introduce individual opportunity in terms of home ownership and employment to help break the cycle of welfare dependence. With NT Chief Minister Clare Martin signalling a challenge to the Government’s plans, federal Labor must think carefully before joining critics of a re-examination of the Aboriginal permit system and changes to land tenure arrangements, or risk putting itself on the wrong side of the public debate.
So there you have it. Watch out Labor. If you dare to challenge the suspencion of land rights you will be painted as ‘pedophiles friends’ by the Murdoch media.
Regarding the Newspoll results on the N.T. intervention. Surely what is shown here is that most voters think the Government should’ve stopped illegal activities from occurign ages ago. The Governmetn simply hasn’t won any new votes for doing something that they should always do – protecting adults and children from violence and sexual abuse.
Sorry to temper the early Rudd celebrations somewhat, but I notice still a lot of undecided numbers appearing both in preferred prime minister and 2PP polling data coming through at this point.
I’m interested what peolpe feel are the historical patterns of ‘undecided’s final voting flows in Federal Elections and whether this level is normal at “this stage of the electoral cycle” (Plese excuse the latest commentariat buzzword).
Someone mentioned eariler that due to inevitable late swings and incumbency advantages to Howard that Labor will need to be going into the election with at least a 55% 2PP to have a reaistic chance of winning.
Do people agree ? ( Wondering i should start to begin checking out oportunities on Portlandbet etc)
I wasn’t so much commenting on whether it was good or bad as I was just bemused by the sheer consistency of it… you usually see some variation in polls, but 6/7 from News and ACN have had the combined Coalition vote at 39.
Obviously it’s simply not good enough, and they need to see progress in ACN next week and the following Newspoll.
At the moment I still favour the government, but they have to keep moving up every month. Maybe that is too big an ask.
“Public endorses continued reform
“Now that Senate results have been finalised, it is clear that the Australian public has accepted coalition control of the Senate, thus putting a stop to Labor’s notion that reform can be undone. This public endorsement of workplace flexibility should give Kevin Rudd pause for thought. If he is to remain in office, he must give up any thoughts of a double dissolution and embrace the world of the modern workplace. A double dissolution would put him, Labor’s connection with the dinosaur unions and his backward-looking IR policy under sustained scrutiny from a renewed and invigorated Liberal Party. If union pressure makes him persist in his attempts to undo reform, the Liberals are in a very strong position to have him voted out of office.†(The Australian, ? December, 2007)
I agree with Dembo. The mood is increasingly hostile towards Howard in Victoria. And remember that Howard failed to get a 2pp majority in Vic at 1996,1998, and 2001. Even in 2004 the ALP got a majority in seats. Clearly shows that Melbourne has been decidely anti-Howard during his whole prime ministership. Would have liked to have seen the state by state breakdowns in Newspoll.
Chris
Labor will win 92 seats, the coalition will pick up 2 Senate seats in 2 states and one territory giving the greens the balance of power in the senate.
The drop in support for minor parties is interesting.
Usually when a change of government is imminent, the apprehension leads voters to hedge their bets with the minors. The Democrats’ vote rose in both 1983 and 1996.
Even if the Howard government is returned, it is almost certain to lose its Senate majority – but to whom?
None of the Greens have much of a chance. In Tasmania they are holding their own while in other states the candidates are so anonymous that their personal vote won’t count for much. Only in the ACT do they have a chance of winning, but even that is a hard ask. Greens often do well in WA, but to get a Senator up they would need Labor to be weaker than it is.
In NSW, Peter Andren is the de facto Democrat candidate and well placed to harvest both conservative dissatisfaction in rural seats and the latte-sipping vote in Sydney last harvested federally by Ted Mack. He will beat third-placed Liberal Marise Payne, who ironically has done what she could to moderate the excesses of the Howard government.
In Queensland, Andrew Bartlett is the actual Democrat candidate and will get preferences from third-Labor, the Green Who’s Not Drew Hutton, and other lefties. Thereafter he takes his chances against combined third-Coalition, Hanson and James Baker.
In South Australia, Nick Xenophon’s movement and/or Family First will probably get a Senator up, but this will be at the expense of the Democrats rather than along side them. Mrs Smith has settled back into anonymity, leaving her party unable to court voters while its latter-day Mrs Rochester shrieks away from the state upper house.
You’d hope that the major parties are awake up to Family First now that Fielding’s bait-and-switch has become so tiresome. Polling suggests that Victoria and WA will return three of each of the major parties.
Let me point out the biggest flaw in your argument Chris – “from a renewed and invigorated Liberal Party.” Anyone who believes this will happen within 2 years after a demoralising election loss really is living in la la land.
“Someone mentioned eariler that due to inevitable late swings and incumbency advantages to Howard that Labor will need to be going into the election with at least a 55% 2PP to have a reaistic chance of winning.” Do you mean like the same late swing that occurred for Keating in 96 – not?
Sorry Chris I see now it is all tongue in cheek. Doh!!
If it is 55/45 leading in to the election then I’ll predict an ALP win by 10 – 15 seats. Howard needs it to be 53/47 or closer before he would want to call an election. If the figures remain this consistent, then he may simply run out of time and have to call the election anyway.
Isn’t the math reasonably simple, if Rudd gets a 2 pp vote of 53/47 then he wins. If it is 52/48 then it is most likely a hung parliament. Anything less than 52/48 and Howard is returned.
Those numbers seem to be the most likely scenario. I can’t see Rudd winning with less than 52, and Howard can’t win with anything less than 48.5 or 49.
Love your work as always Chris
So true … Labor needs above 52%, assuming a uniform swing which it never is, to get majority Gov’t.
Chris might I also suggest:
“The Australian public, who yesterday narrowly Kevin Rudd on the back of an extended honeymoon gave their clearest sign yet that the infatuation with the cleanskin leader is ending. When it does Rudd will have to take on the union domination of the ALP and embrace further workplace reform…”
Howard has morphed into Beazley.
Newspapers shouldn’t be allowed to commission polls (open to abuse).
Andrew Elder,
Considering Senate Polls are highly innacurate and regular polls also tend to be innacurate on Senate Voting, how are you making these assumptions on the Senate?
“Isn’t the math reasonably simple, if Rudd gets a 2 pp vote of 53/47 then he wins. If it is 52/48 then it is most likely a hung parliament. Anything less than 52/48 and Howard is returned.”
No it isn’t that simple.
Assuming a uniform swing, the ALP require 4.0% from their 2004 result of 47.3% 2PP to take Bennelong and government.
Of course swings are never uniform and so close to the mark it will depend on the results in particular states (especially Qld) and individual seats.
Note that this could go either way – the ALP could have an 9% swing in Qld, fall across the line in marginals in NSW, SA, WA and Tas and go nowhere or backwards elsewhere and win government with less than 50% of the overall vote.
So all you can say is that between 51.5/48.5 either way it will depend on the marginals, outside that it’s almost certainly victory to the major vote winner.
(Howard in 98 achieved government with the lowest 2PP and primary votes since 1949 – 48.9 and 39.2 respectively. To suggest that he can substantially beat this record this time is a brave prediction IMHO.)
Gary Bruce noted, “….will people blame them for putting us into this position? I think Rudd has been working on this theme.”
Polling suggest, no doubt correctly, that the Coalition has the edge on defence and security. But that perception will go right down the s-bend if anything nasty should happen.
It’s not just a terrorist incident that could do it. A catastrophe in Iraq – an outpost overrun, for instance, would have the same effect.
Amber
Would agree that Howard has morphed into Beazley with a heavy dose of Latham thrown in.
The “steady hand on the tiller” now looks like an epiletic with parkinsons.
Nelson contradicted Howard on Iraq saying t is about the oil.
Turnball contradicts Howard saying we don’t need nuclear, clean coal is good enough.
Howard says the terror alert for Indonesia has been increased, Downer says no it hasn’t and the Indonesians’ say WTF is going on.
Abbott says there will be compulsory medicals for all aboriginal children, backtracks to welfare will be with held if they don’t get the medical then goes into hiding as Brough and Howard try to clarify his statements.
Howard says Govt. will offer rent relief and Costello says no we won’t, just kidding.
Costello says he will release heaps of land to help house prices ignoring Treasury and economists who say this will cause a plunge in house values, negative equity for most and a wave of repossessions.
I am suprised they got 44%.
arbie
“I am suprised they got 44%”
wasnt that J-Ho’s and Tips mark in economics 101
I’ve just moderated a big bunch of comments, so readers who thought they’d seen it all are invited to look through the thread again.
Arbie Jay said “The “steady hand on the tiller†now looks like an epiletic with parkinsons.”
that’s gold
It’s posts like that make this (and other) blog(s) worth the time.
Labor must win at least 52% of the 2PV to win the election, says Pseph. Nonsense. Hawke won in 1990 with less than 50%. You can get lucky or unlucky with the electoral system, but MOST elections are won by the party polling 50%-plus of the 2PV. Beazley lost in 1998 with 51.5% because he failed to get a swing in the marginals, mainly in NSW. This time Rudd is getting the swings in the states where the marginals are, Qld and SA.
“MOST elections are won by the party polling 50%-plus of the 2PV. ”
17 of 22 since 1949 to be precise.
Indeed the only good news for the government in this poll is the slight increase in Howard’s “Better PM” rating.
But if you actually go to the newspoll site, and look at that rating for 95 – 96, you’ll find that Howard was mostly behind Keating for the whole election.
I’d say it’s therefore a pretty well a meaningless stat, as it seems to have no bearing on the ultimate result.
And if you do consider it in any way meaningful, then you’d have to concede that the fact that Rudd is level with Howard, augers very badly for the government.
IMO Howard’s a goner.
PS:
Various people I know say that various people they know claim to have insider information, to the effect that Howard is planning to retire shortly. I think it would be crazy for the Liberal Party to force that on him – after all who are they going to replace him with? Also, I think it would be stupid and pointless for Howard to do it unprompted, as he would be remembered as the Liberal Party PM who chickened out. I think he’d prefer to fight this one out. What do u folks think?
Those who suggest that the totality of the Australian media have a pro-Coalition bias have to be kidding themselves. Then again, you pseudo-intellectuals probably think The Age is the gospel and the ABC a paragon of virtue.
I’d be stunned if Howard retired before the election. His entire prime ministership would be forever remembered for that white feather act, and his ego simply wouldn’t allow it.
I was including state elections in that statement.
Remember that before 1984 all 2PV figures are estimates, because preferences were not distributed in seats where a candidate polled 50%.
It is commonly stated for example that Labor should have won in 1954, but this depends on how you interpret unopposed returns (something we don’t get anymore) and also seats where Labor was opposed only by a Communist (ditto). I think 1954 is dubious. The other two on your list are 1961 and 1969, which are again based on estimates, but better ones than is possible for 1954.
Swordfish, under Jaspan’s regime The Age has a left-liberal-anti-American bias, not really a pro-ALP bias – it is more often critical of the ALP from the left than supportive. It certainly doesn’t shamelessly “spin” its news and comment pages for Labor the way The Australian is currently doing for Howard. Compare Michelle Grattan and Sean Carney’s very restrained comments with Shanahan’s shameless huckstering for Howard.
Swordfish you rightly recognise that media is only the collective noun for a diverse (despite the best efforts of their diminishing number of owners) group of organisations and cultures and individuals . Journos by the nature of their calling tend to be more engaged with the political process that the average punter but not necessarily much better informed unless they’re full time in politics – and even then not always.
As a former long term denizen of the Canberra gallery I can tell you most of us reptiles tried pretty hard to be objective. But we also had a career imperative of sucking up to those in power in order to gain “insider” access. Consciously or not, that probably colours a lot of the output. It was the same under Labor.
One observation: the bright young things now coming through the ranks seem to be drawn increasingly from the elite private schools & will probably lean more conservative side than in the past. That excludes those who get a start in the ABC and are immediately re-educated.
Once upon a time most of us started off on old fashioned cadetships – Glenn Milne on the defunct (and often late) Brisbane Telegraph & Tony Wright on the Albury Border Mail are two that spring to mind – and had much more diverse backgrounds.
The Oz’s agenda probably has more to do with market research and their readership. It is obviously having nil impact which must be slightly demoralising for Mitchell if not his staff. If Rupert was really after Rudd he’d unleash the Terror, the Hun & the Curious Snail. Yet even the most rabidly conservative (in the past) paper in his stable – the Tiser – seems to be giving him a pretty fair go. They too know their markets.
netvegetable, here is my contribution on LP earlier today…
…If the govt does not turn around these poll figures in the next 4-6 weeks, I can’t see how they could not consider dumping Howard. I know that the conventional wisdom is that Costello would fair even worse against Rudd, but look what happened to Gordon Brown in the UK after he succeeded Blair. Whilst he was still the treasurer the polls had him doing worse than Blair against the tories, but since becoming PM the labour govt are back in the lead for the first time in months.
Costello could make a clear break from the Howard era with a completely new cabinet and an indication of a change of direction, giving the impression of a new govt even though the same party remains in power. The voters may then be inclined to take a lets_see_how_he_goes attitude especially since most voters are happy with the state of the economy.
Costello PM could introduce some major policy adjustments without losing credibility, particularly in regard to Iraq & IR. This may be difficult for some in the Liberal party to take, but I believe they will do anything to stay in power.
Mark said “..Terror, the Hun & the Curious Snail. ”
errmm, the Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, Courier Mail ???
No we don’t! It’s the other way around.
When is the next Newspoll state-by-state breakdown due?
Correct Rob. Trade jargon.
On the Oz, they need the election to be a contest to sell papers. Expect them to get sillier and sillier right up to polling day.
Mark I am curious in my view the ABC (predominantly local ABC, but some of the national news too) seems to fall into that sucking up to the Government vortex you talk about.
I find they way they do real investigative journalist at a state level and rip into bothsides pretty fairly, and then get down on their knees and seem to scared to ask the PM what day it is let alone tough probin questions he should have to answer.
I want the re-education you talk about re-introduced. In Perth we wake up to the mummerings of the formal Liberal Member for Stirling …
There is always a possibility that Rudd can get 53-47 TPP and still lose. Swings are not uniform across seats.
Wakefield, Kingston and Makin are must wins for Rudd. Getting Sturt and Boothby as well would go a long way.
Just back on the Australian coverage of these polls of a moment, does anyone here think that their bias is actually a negative of the government, cause the way they are reporting it they still look like they will win the election when that is clearly unlikely. It seems to me that this election could have some of the effects of the 1999 Victorian election in that some people will vote for Labor thinking that the Liberals won’t lose. Not that this effect will be very big, but I believe it will still have an effect.
Perhaps jasmine the incoming Rudd-Medicare Gold Government could appoint you to an ABC oversight committee?
Edward that would need those liberal party hacks there now to resign first wouldn’t it?
I could be at least as impartial as the current crop of right wing enforcers. No wait on the left we are allowed to think for ourselves, so I’d be much much much more impartial.
Mark Said “On the Oz, they need the election to be a contest to sell papers. Expect them to get sillier and sillier right up to polling day.” Not to mention getting thousands of hits on their blogs from furious lefties
On the polls, is there a breakdown on voting intention according to gender? I’m curious as to how much of the ‘chick vote’ Rudd is attracting.
“…on the left we are allowed to think for ourselves”
ROFLMAO!
‘On the polls, is there a breakdown on voting intention according to gender? I’m curious as to how much of the ‘chick vote’ Rudd is attracting.’
Or how much Abbott and Heffernan are repelling.
It’s obvious from the stability and superiority of Labor’s position in the polls over the last 7 months, despite one political stunt after another by the Libs, that the electorate has stopped listening to Howard.
It’s just that hard of hearing Howard hasn’t heard this.
The idea that the electorate will suddenly wake up, start listening and responding postively to Howard when an election is called is nonsense.
The swinging voters have been listening to the politics for a long time and are well aware that both sides have been campaigning for the next Federal election since the start of the year.
John Howard must be thinking very hard about his political legacy right now. with every poll it looks increasingly likely that he will not emulate Menzies and retire undefeated.
My own psychoanalysis of the Howard psyche is that:
a) John knows he’s going to lose
a) He’s submissive towards his wife and Jannette wears the pants
b) Jannette wont let him retire before the election, because Jannette has become quite relaxed and comfortable at Kirribilli House thank you very much.
“There is always a possibility that Rudd can get 53-47 TPP and still lose. Swings are not uniform across seats.”
It’s possible, but how likely is it?
Beazley lost with 51% in 1998, but it would be pretty unusual for a party to lose with 53% of the 2PP vote. In how many state or federal elections has a party lost with 51%, 52%, 53% etc?
An article entitled “TV Appearance and Electoral Success”
http://www.nber.org/digest/jun07/w12660.html
Some comment on it here (scroll down to “Thin Sliced Elections”)
http://econophysics.blogspot.com/
sorry I missed the joke, in this very stream Adam drew the distinction between cheerleader right wing press and left press that actually attacks the left?
Next time Andrew Bolt deviates from the hardline right view please let me know, money on Phillip Adams thinking for himself next time he open his mouth.
Marie-JJannette de buckett (prononounced bouqet) would never tell her man what to do she would ORDER it you silly commoner
dont you know anything about “high” society – I mean it is hard enough covering the legs of all those chairs at kirribbilli you know
let alone having to deal with the *gasp* ordinary folk
J-HO is King (well for a little longer anyway)
Strangely there are a few “what a compassionate guy Peter Costello is” stories popping up – coincidence??
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22049479-2,00.html
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=276490
Cheers,
Tom
Merely point of fact, that large seats having large primary votes one way or the other tend to push up these figures.
Take 3 seats of 1000. Labor wins two 550-450 TPP and loses one 550-450. Actual overall TPP for Labor = 51.6 – wins 2 seats
Take these same seats, have Labor win one 700-300, and lose two 550-450. Actual overall TPP for Labor = 53 – wins 1 seat
Point is – it doesn’t really matter how the TPP is tracking on a national basis, it comes down to winning the seats.
We all need to remind ourselves, every day, that The Australian is an elite paper which swinging voters in the marginals don’t read, and that Shanahan and Milne are preaching either to the converted or the unconvertable. It really isn’t worth using up all William’s bandwidth venting about them.
Groosky, I dealt with your point further up this page. Most of the time, a party which gets 50%+ of the 2PV will win the election. The swings this time seem to be in the states where the seats are (Qld and SA), so I think it is highly unlikely that Labor will lose if it gets over 50% of the 2PV.
I can’t add much more that hasn’t already been said.
News Ltd is a propoganda arm of the Howard Government! Of course that well known Liberal party hack Shanahan will attempt to give a pro-Howard spin to an opinion poll.
I think it’ll be a close election, a narrow win by a few seats for either Howard or Rudd.
Charlie @ 3:55,
Quite possibly tomorrow, I think they are published every 3 months and the last one was published on April 10th.
The thing is, most swinging voters take very little interest in politics and are vulnerable to a last-minute propaganda blitz from either side.
There should be state-by-state, gender, age, marginal and safe seat analysis for the entire April-June quarter in Newspoll very soon – maybe even tomorrow. I’d really like to get this analysis.
Forget about national 2PP, sure it interests the wonks, but its importance in determining the outcome is marginal at best. It’s main importance is in assisting a party claim a moral victory after election defeat “Sure we lost the election but won the campaign”
The worrying sign for Howard is the low Coalition (and particularly Liberal) primary vote. I can’t see the Howard picking up a swag of Greens preferences nor can I see a new right wing minor party emerging in a hurry. Apologies to Family First, Dems etc etc, but it just doesn’t look like there’ll be enough preferences floating around at the moment.
Howard’s got until early Sept (4 newspolls away) to lift his primary vote to something like 42/42 before I’ll call it for Rudd. As I posted yesterday we’re likely to be only 90 days before the campaign kicks off. The clock ticks, the hat remains bunnyless.
Phil, yes, the swinging voters are susceptible to last-minute propaganda blitzes – and more so in Australia than elsewhere because of compulsory voting, which means parties have to compete for the voters of the completely ignorant who in other countries don’t vote. But those blitzes will take place on commercial TV, the medium of choice of the ignorant and stupid, and not in the editorial columns of The Australian, which require a fairly high degree of literacy.
A lovely set of numbers. They don’t appear to be moving much either. I loved Dennis Shanahans spin on the figures. As someone said on his blog today, he’d be great at writing resume’s.
I wonder why he never responds to peoples accusations of pro government bias. I wonder why I bother reading his columns.
With these poll figures as they are does everyone realise we could be in the last 100 days of the Howard Government?
Tick, Tick Tick……
Keep the predictions coming Adam, if you back it its sure to be the kiss of death! Dare I say it you are on-line Mackerras given your previous predictions.
mike Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
…If the govt does not turn around these poll figures in the next 4-6 weeks, I can’t see how they could not consider dumping Howard.
I hope the Coalition election strategists pay attention to your notes on a Costello for PM option- PLEASE DO IT !!, but alas (a) JWH will go down swinging, if indeed he does go down (b) Costello is about as popular in the general electorate right now as Keating was before the 1996 election .
Lose this election and Costello will walk away, noone will want him anyway, electorate or his own party. Who else then if not Costello- Well, probably nobody- isnt that beautiful !!
I’m told there is now a Labor candidate in Page, does anyone know who it is? Neither the ALP website nor Google is enlightening me.
Adam, Where did you hear that?
As far as I know it is to be decided this week
“We all need to remind ourselves, every day, that The Australian is an elite paper which swinging voters in the marginals don’t read…”
But being an “elite” paper, you would expect that its readers are fairly literate and well-educated. They are probably not fools. And, yet, why does The Australian treat its readers as if they were fools? I mean, anyone with half a brain can see through the spin that some of the commentators and so-called “journalists” apply to political stories. In recent months, The Australian has morphed from being a right-wing rag that generally favoured the Howard government to a full-blown Howard cheer squad and an attack dog on anything that looks, moves, or breathes like Rudd or anyone else from the Labor party.
It is an insult to anyone’s intelligence that the editor there would think that his readership would simply swallow the rubbish that comes out of that newspaper. If it were not for those who read it for a bit of a laugh, then I find it hard to believe that The Australian would maintain its circulations figures (which are not that great anyway) with its current editorial policy.
Nothing on local ABC news, the Lismore Star or the Northern Rivers Echo – so it can’t be true. I agree the ALP NSW Administrative Committee meets this week to finalize all candidates.
Interesting story in the NR Echo that the Nat candidate for Richmond, Dr Sue Page, didn’t enrol to vote until she was 43. How can you spend 25 years off the roll? As it is compulsory, what does the AEC do to ensure all 18 year olds enrol? If someone this prominent – she has played AMA politics for years – is off the roll, how many thousands of others with terminal disinterest are also avoiding their democratic duty?
“Who else then if not Costello- Well, probably nobody- isnt that beautiful !!”
Malcolm Turnbull?
It just keeps getting better for the coalition…
On top of the most recent resounding poll comeback, brilliantly reported in The Australian by Mr Shanahan…
The local (QLD) coalition brains trust has decided that now would be a good time to again highlight concerns about the ‘leadership’ of the QLD Liberal party… “Seeney admits Flegg concern” … http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22045263-3102,00.html
As Dennis Atkins writes…”IF Jeff Seeney – and the rest of the gang who couldn’t shoot straight – think they are doing John Howard a favour by playing leadership games four months out from a federal election, they know less about politics than their inept performance suggests…”
The rest of the report may be found here… http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22045666-3102,00.html
the polls before seemed to be a 60/40 now they are approx 55/45
given that Labor probably needs 52/48 to win then the suggestions is
that there will be a change of government BUT there is 3-4 months before
the next election and what impact will campaigning make?
RE THE SENATE
unless there is a monumental shift the L_NP will retain their senate
majority due to the nature of half senate elections and the likelyhood that
both NT & ACT will split 1/1 each and the L-NP will win 3 seats in probably
all states
“If it were not for those who read it for a bit of a laugh”
Noocat, how do you know that’s not the intended audience?
More seriously, can anyone suggest a plausible reason for the odds quoted for the ALP in the seat of Brisbane, which when I last looked were $1.36?
This is seemingly rather long for a ‘held’ seat with a sitting member recontesting, in the home state of the apparently popular federal leader.
Could it be largely due to the anticipated effect of both the high rate of increased population of the area and the electoral act changes that may mean that those who have not paid attention to their enrolment may find that they are no longer enrolled, come election day?
If so, are there other seats that people can nominate in other states where there would be a similar ‘concern’ and does anyone think that there would be enough such seats to potentially (realistically) make the difference between overall victory and defeat?
“If it were not for those who read it for a bit of a laughâ€
Noocat, how do you know that’s not the intended audience?”
Amber, I seriously began to wonder that when I was writing it! But nah, I think the guys and gals at The Australian really do take themselves seriously.
Responding to jasmine, I saw the Bolter with George Megalogenis at an ALP fund raiser, debating “Should the ALP trust the media”
I thought the Bolter is very partisan, but he doesn’t strike me as stupid. He seems, for all his prejudices, to have at least one active neuron, unlike Zackerman, Shanahan and their ilk.
He twisted the debate topic into “The ALP should not trust the media, because it convinced them that the republic, reconciliation etc were goers, when they weren’t” which he argued competently, but this topic is a distortion of the clear intention of the organisers, to discuss whether News Ltd can be trusted to report the ALP fairly, which he dodged.
The Bolter apparently worked or volunteered for the ALP under Hawke – and has a lot in common with some of Hawkes fellow travellers eg Peter Walsh.
If you watch ABC insiders, you can also see Bolter at least can manage the occassional ironic smile, which is beyond Gerard Henderson and Piers it seems
For the record, Megalogenes is much more even handed and did suggest that News is partisan, but thinks the underlying problem is lazy journos who do what the incumbent tells them, for example, he says his first press conference was a Keating one, where Keating gave out a stack of ‘talking points’ for the journos to write how bad the then Liberal opposition economic policies were. He said many were copied verbatim.
In terms of laws and the Constitution, the next election can be held as late as 23 January 2008. The House of Reps can only last 3 years from the first day that it sat after the election. The election was on 9 October 04 and Parliament first sat on 16 November 2004. The latest an election can be held is then 68 days after the dissolution of Parliament, which is then January.
I cannot imagine JWH wanting to have an election campaign over Christmas and the summer holidays, so I expect it will be no later than 15 December 2007.
The shortest time possible is 33 days, so we may not know until 12 November.
Because APEC is on until 9 September, I expect we won’t hear about an election before that date.
I think therefore we are about 110-140 days from an election.
One thing we know for sure about The Oz is that they are trying to sell papers. Who to, I’m not so sure. Anyone who’ll buy one, I guess.
It goes without saying that a close and dramatic election “contest” will sell more papers than a straightforward one. The more drama, the better! So I don’t think it is correct to say The Oz is a right wing rag, although it certainly has its share of right wing writers. I think it’s more a case of — in the interests of closeness — Howard needing all the help he can get, and The Oz obliging. Lefties should take heart that Howard is deemed to require so much assistance.
Karma Policeman Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“Who else then if not Costello- Well, probably nobody- isnt that beautiful !!â€
Malcolm Turnbull?
Who knows- the first thing Malcolm has to do is keep the seat of Wentworth against ‘George Who’ with a 2.6 margin at current tote odds. A significant State wide swing in NSW could see him out of office, but Im with those who ‘doubt’ he is serious danger and then there is the question of whether or not he is from the right faction at the right time, etc. I was talking tongue in cheek-
However, I maintain JWH will see out the race and Costello would have been given the reins months ago if they thought he was a safe bet. He isnt and wont ever be- Imagine it, the Abbott and Costello show- nothing to laugh about if you ask me.
Fargo61 Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
More seriously, can anyone suggest a plausible reason for the odds quoted for the ALP in the seat of Brisbane, which when I last looked were $1.36?
Fargo I would snap up that offer- QLD will give no joy to the Coalition at all this time around, nor will SA, the 2 places Labor failed miserably last time as noted here by several observers.
RE SEATS
John Howard will not lose Bennelong nor Will Malcolm Turnbull lose
Wentworth but both seats are marginal and they’ll need to spend time
in their local campaigns away from the main campaign
RE ABBOTT & COSTELLO
If there is any justice in the world they will be a double act as liberal party
leadership just think of the old comedy skits that could be dusted
off !!!
“given that Labor probably needs 52/48 to win”
This is discussed above.
Labor *probably* needs 50.001% to win.
Labor *could* win with 49%.
Labor *will* win if they get 51.5%.
Arbie Jay and others,
I have discussed the Senate on “Morgan: 59-41â€. Adam has done so in detail more than once. It is impossible for Labor to win control. It is almost impossible for the Greens to win the balance of power. The most likely result is the coalition to retain at least a blocking vote in its own right. We can hope, but hope leads only to disappointment.
Gary, Jasmine and Martin B,
This is for you:
“Labor fails in double dissolution
“Kevin Rudd’s failure to pick up more than ten House seats in the double dissolution election which he called because the Senate remain committed to workplace flexibility has brought to a halt his plans to reverse the necessary reforms of the Liberal Government. He also failed to win control of the Senate in the double dissolution and must rely on the seven Greens senators to have legislation passed. Labor has now failed three times in a row: it failed to win control of the Senate in 2007; it failed to win more than ten seats in the House of Representatives this year; and it failed – for the second time in a row – to win control of the Senate. This is a clear indication from the Australian people that reform must continue. Peter Costello has put the Liberals back in a winning position for the 2011 election, unless Mr Rudd can rid himself of the albatross of the unions and make further reforms to introduce more flexibility to the workplace. Mr Rudd now faces his most serious challenge yet: adapt to the changed circumstances or consign Labor to history.†(The Australian, ? December, 2008)
If the polls stay this way for another month, then electoral survival will drive the Liberals to consider asking John Howard to step down.
He repeatedly says he will only stay as long as his party wants him.
There is a possibility that there could be a breakout before then with a senior Liberal throwing his hat in the ring before a quiet take over by Peter Costello.
Malcolm Turnbull is mightily ambitious and did not just enter Parliament to stay as a minister. He knows he is quite capable of running the show (with good staff to keep him tidy!).
If Peter Costello doesn’t move then surely Malcolm will.
Janette Howard has had a serious health problem and all this stress can’t be doing her any good. If John really cared for her, more than his own ambitions, and if he really cared for his beloved Liberal Party he would be making plans right now to hand over in an orderly fashion.
It may not be so orderly though.
“I cannot imagine JWH wanting to have an election campaign over Christmas and the summer holidays, so I expect it will be no later than 15 December 2007.”
I agree with this comment, with Black Jack here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/481#comment-14879
and (of courxe) with Antony Green here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/486#comment-16250
The election will be called no earlier than 13 September and will be held no later than 15 December.
In fact Qld, WA, SA and the NT will all start school holidays on the 15th (or 14th) , and I agree with mysef here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/486#comment-16342
so personally I would constrain it even further.
Barring some major development, IMO the election will be no earlier than 17 November and no later than 8 December.
Jasmine
Philip Adams ‘thinks’?
Evidence?
Hmm, my last post is awaiting moderation. Perhaps there were too many links (though all to here
) so I’ll just post the good bits and ou can come back to the references…
“I cannot imagine JWH wanting to have an election campaign over Christmas and the summer holidays, so I expect it will be no later than 15 December 2007.â€
Barring some major development, IMO the election will be no earlier than 17 November and no later than 8 December.
1. If Howard reads the polls and thinks he will probably lose; and
2. If Howard enjoys hanging on to power for as long as possible, then
why wouldn’t he think about going to the polls in January?
Sure, he might lose a few votes from a summer campaign. But if he’s going to lose anyway, why bring it on any earlier than necessary?
Upside: additional days as Prime Minister attending the cricket. Worse position for Peter Costello or whoever takes over after a loss. Marginal possibility that Rudd might do a Latham and implode. Longer time spent at Kirribilli House and enjoying its taxpayer-funded wine cellar.
Downside: worse loss for Coalition. But see second upside point above. Plus it makes his actual winning elections look better.
If you finish second, do you care about the margin?
Disclaimer: I think 24 November is the likely day for the election.
Lateline just starting, with Rudd wanting to press Howard on Iraq – quite rightly – the bloody mainstream press, in which I would include much of the so-called Federeal level ABC reporters, being apparently incapable of asking any peritnent questions remarked on by earlier posters. Lordy, as Lateline goes on, there’s just more, and more, about how wonderful JWH is. Could any of us be surprised?
When I see The Australian and Shanahan keep putting a positive spin on terrible poll results I keep thinking of that Iraqi defence? minister who kept on saying how well they were doing, even as the Americans were appearing over the horizon.
No matter when the election is Howard is finished… And the next leader of the Liberal party will be Costello but for how long is anyones’ guess as he is not a winner or looker… my guess the next person to watch is Turnbull.. he has everything charisma, personality and looks… and he has some ideas.. and is perhaps more left than Howard.. Personally i think he is arrogant and full of himself and is a typical Liberal.. full of money has never struggled in his life and lives and congregates with the well to do. The Liberal leadership will be the big political tussle in the years to come… and it will be interesting.
With so much of media in the right-wing basket, so much of the public service and military politicised can Australia’s democracy survive another Howard term. Is this our last chance at voting in an opposition before we descend into a Singaporean democracy?
All – My first post follows:
I read a number of comments on this site asking the question ” When will John-Boy pull the big rabbit out of his own personal rabbit hole?”
Well, let me tell you all, on 20 September the changes that are scheduled for the Centrelink assets test taper rate are significant, substantial, majorly effective and have been entirely absent from general comment in the media and ignored on blogs like this. I work in an industry that is clsoe to this issue and I’m working through case studies right now where existing pensioners are going to have income levels doubled (and even more).
Bear in mind this a group of voters who have entirely missed out on the economic growth in the last few years and, as retirees, have missed out on the benefit of costello’s tax cuts.
My guess is that the Libs have the grey vote marked down as their trump card. Whether its right or wrong, they believe this is the ace up thier sleeve and nobody else is getting ready for the time when it gets slammed dowm on the table.
If anybody gets thier hands on the voting intentions of retirees, thats going to be the swinging group of voters this time
I wish JWH would concentrate on running the country and give up writing the editorials for The Australian.
Mr Squiggle Howard has those voters in his pocket already. No change there.
I wonder if all political articles in The Oz have to go through the PM’s office first who then get the OK from the Business Unions.
Thanks Gary,
I’m a bit of newbie to this sort of thing, so maybe I don’t have the right perspective yet.
However, the only grey voters I know usually sit me down and explain how much they hate John-boy. Its usually over a sunday diner too.
Would still be very interested in any polling that shows how retirees are leaning in thier voting intentions, for a gov-t that is desparate, they may just tip the scales on election day
If the media was fair, equitable and truthful and held the government accountable there would be no way in this world Howard could win this election. However they will instead try and get Howard re-elected.
Instead of the question asked in Newspoll if people supported Howard’s intervention in the NT they asked “do you think children in NT Aboriginal communities should be helped” they would get the same result.
I wonder when Costello is going to bang Howard on the head? Must be only days away – Maybe next weeks Neilsen poll?
More hilarity from the Oz ensues here.
Apparently, the PM’s approval ratings are the key election predictor…
What on earth is going on when even Newspoll directors don’t know what their data shows?
Yes, just before reading your post here, Happy, I posted on O’shannessy’s
nonsense blog under the name”Where’s Cerdic?”.
All good for a laugh.
I posted under the name ShowsOn to point attention to 1996 where Howard led Keating as favouried P.M. for much of 1995, but then Keating took the lead in the months leading up to the election, but STILL LOST becuase it was like a “Better the devil you know” factor, that didn’t actually change how people decided to vote.
A response I posted on O’Shannessy’s blog
Other successful leaders who have proven the ‘Preferred PM’ is the key theory are John Hewson in 1993 and Paul Keating in 1996 the latter particularly so when he managed in the final months to reclaim this territory from Howard
Wait a minute….
In 1998 almost without exception, when the Howard’s preferred PM rating went up the very same poll the Coaltion’s primary vote did the same. An entirely different situation to yesterdays where Howards went up (by all of 2% I might add, which was within margin of error territory from the last one…) but more importantly, the Coaltion’s vote neither improved nor Labor’s fell. Similar story 3 weeks ago: Howard improved his standing in preferred PM, but whilst Labor’s primary vote came down from a stratospheric 50% it largely went to the Greens and thus returned to Labor in TPP terms through preferences.
I might add that despite being the preferred PM ratings being essentially neck and neck in late 1998, Labor got a 5.2% swing. Such a swing would mean an extremely tight situation with a probable narrow Labor victory (on paper a uniform swing of this would be enough to get 78 seats)
In 2004 Labor never polled a 48% primary vote, and certainly not consistently and not 4 months from an election, so one wonders what value a comparison makes.
In 2001 Howard’s recovery in the preferred PM stakes came AFTER the ALP’s vote started to fall and the Coaltions started to improve (the former happening in March but then fell again in April- whilst the voting intention position of the Coaltion improved with almost total consistency during this period)
Preferred PM is largely superficial, especially small movements that occur within the margins of error. Parties appear on the ballot paper, not Prime Ministers. Whilst people take into account the PM when voting, they are just as likely to do so when they are being polled about the political parties they lead.
MR SQUIGGLE says : When will John-Boy pull the big rabbit out of his own personal rabbit hole?†Well, let me tell you all, on 20 September the changes that are scheduled for the Centrelink assets test taper rate are significant….
You are right to point out that Grey voters are going to like the roll out of that policy through Centrelink in the coming months.
However, as has been the case with other $ wins for employees, the $500 one off boost for pensioners recently provided, and income tax cuts etc, all this will be in the voters pockets before the election; people dont have to wait for JWH to be re-elected to ensure they score that benefit and can still oust JWH without putting that ‘reward’ at risk.
Against this test taper rate for the Grey vote, July 1st saw the introduction of another new Centrelink policy- one that impacts on sole parent families
A woman who leaves her husband with her 3 kids over 8 years old through domestic violence, for example, will no longer get Single Parenting Payment.
She will have to apply for Newstart Allowance as a Jobseeker under a ‘primary care giver’ category which limits her working and job seeking our expectations to within school hours, yet for all intents and purposes she will be treated like any unemployed jobseeker.
Whatever you think of the merit of this policy, there will be a sole parent family backlash against JWH in marginal seats, some of which have a strong sole parent family representation- thus probably drawing back any electorol benefit you might expect for JWH from the generous assets taper rate being offered to the Grey voter. No rabbit there, just a small carrot.
Footnote: Centrelinks roll out of the changes for sole parent families was set for priority groups- the first being single family parents who are unemployed and not connected to education/training in any way-
Thousands of them were sent letters and asked to contact Centrelink and make appointments for a review process– Unfortunately, the list was wrong, and letters were sent to people in Priority groups 2, 3 and 4 instead.
Moreover, many of these sole parent family heads are in no state to be active jobseekers- mental health issues (often consequential to domestic violence trauma), poverty, a lack of resources (owning a car, for example), access to competitive child care placement and many other things will be ‘barriers’ to jobseeking- and 3 ‘participation failures’ inside 12 months means 8 weeks of non-payment. There are going to be alot of single parents out there unhappy with JWH by the time the election comes around.
Marginal Coalition seats with a higher than average sole parent family representation (16.3%) include Cowper, Dobell, Lindsay, Page, Robertson, Wakefeild, Herbert, Hasluck, Stirling, Bass, Braddon and Solomon.
See see George Megalones (Courier Mail, June 30th, p.24) for a convincing argument that the sole parent family may ‘blindside’ JWH at this election.
I think Ive made my point about sole parent families and JWH rabbits. Mr Squiggle, keep dipping your toes in mate, its all good if it contributes to the discussion of ‘rabbits’.
PREFERRED PM — Oh My, ShanaHoward is really clutching at straws now. JWH will have to do better than being one point behind Rudd as preferred PM (11.5 percentage points average better than Latham last time) to shift the landscape- wishful thinking I would have thought, but yes, good for a laugh.
…”We all need to remind ourselves, every day, that The Australian is an elite paper which swinging voters in the marginals don’t read”.
True. But while disintermediation is supposed to be the order of the day, a lot of mediation still goes on, even in politics.
The Australian, I suggest, has an impact through the maven factor, especially as an election approaches.
A maven is someone in a social group who is perceived to be something of an expert, someone who will be consulted by peers when a major decision is needed. Buying a new car? You may consult the petrol-head in your circle. Want a new grunty laptop? You are likely to consult your local nerd. If he can’t help, he will consult a super-maven who can. You do not necessarily accept the advice of the maven, but it is a factor. Advertising in specialist publications is often mainly directed at mavens – the advertisers do not expect the readers to buy the products, but to recommend them.
My point is that The Australian is something that mavens or super-mavens read.
So, IMHO, it is a mistake to think that what it says has no relevance to blue-collar swinging voters. Its views in some form are likely to find their way down the chain through the maven factor. Sure, it’s not decisive, and it’s likely to be minor. But a factor nevertheless.
One can argue who exactly the political mavens are. An often unsuspected political maven, IMHO, is The Boss in a workplace. The boss’s views are not decisive, but are an influence.
Mr Squiggle,
Could you please elaborate on your most interesting post?
My impression, maybe wrong, was that the assets test was pretty sharp, ie in practice you were likely to be either in or out. Are you saying now that a lot of people who are now self-supported will get a part-pension, and at the other end of the scale those on a part-pension will double that pension?
Is it going to be paid in September? Or after? Have the beneficiaries any incentive not to pocket the money and vote Rudd?
I hear anecdotes that retirees have tired of JWH’s spin. Can’t imagine why.
Jasmine – didnjasmine_Anadyr Says:
July 10th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“In Perth we wake up to the mummerings of the formal Liberal Member for Stirling …”
How is Vowels Cameron? Thought they’d pension him off ny now. Best thing about jibberers on the radio is the tuning button.
Now this is good – Max Walsh’s farewell column in the Bulletin. Has always among the more erudite and insightful of the commentariat and he’s saved one of his best for last. Articulates very well what I suspect many of us have been thinking.
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=277768
With a bit of luck he’ll spend some of his retirement here.
The Oz is amusing these days, but if its ability to analyse a real world situation is representative of contemporary conservatism the fiasco of the Bush presidency is explained. Still the next Liberal government may be a very long way away.
“Tide turns against Labor
“The public rejection of Kevin Rudd in his third attempt to win control of the Senate and Labor’s loss of ten House seats clearly demonstrate that the voters of Australia are unimpressed with his repeal of the job-creating flexible IR laws. They have put him on notice that at the next election he is likely to lose office to a newly invigorated Liberal Party under Malcolm Turnbull if he does not finally cut his ties to the antediluvian union movement.
“The reform process has stalled. The government’s inaction on the latest Centre for Independent Studies Report, Making the Army Competitive, with its proposal to replace the centralised and inefficient public sector army with privately funded mercenary companies that would compete for contracts on assigned sections of the battlefield with key performance indicators such as the enemy kill ratio, is hard to comprehend.
“There are also serious questions over Labor’s economic record, given its failure to get the unemployment rate below 3.2 per cent, a figure far higher than the one Australia enjoyed under Liberal leadership in the 1960s. Time is running out for Kevin Rudd.†(The Australian, ? November 2011)
“Voters punish Labor
“Kevin Rudd’s failure to embrace reform has left him looking at the end of his honeymoon with the voters. Every attempt to win control of the Senate has failed. He has lost a further seven seats in the House. He has continued to endorse Big Government by rejecting the latest Institute of Public Affairs Report, with its farsighted plan to corporatise and contract out on a whole-of-government basis. We accept that Mugabe Senior Citizens Enterprises would not be a suitable corporation to take over the management of Australia, given the difficulties there are with removing it at the end of its contract period, but there are other possibilities such as Bush, Bush and Bush Incorporated, which has paid magnificent dividends in recent years. The endorsement of four-year terms means that by the next election a newly invigorated Liberal Party under the leadership of Sophie Mirabella will be well placed to win and recommence the ongoing reform process to bring greater flexibility to the workplace. Only by cutting Labor’s ties to the unions can Kevin Rudd regain a place in the political debate.†(The Australian, ? November, 2017)
Black Jack – I think it is quite clear how the Australian and the Newspoll act together as a maven. The other news sources take their headlines and arguments as gospel, assuming that they have done the work properly in analysing their data and considering the consequences.
The other papers, radio and TV generally accept what each other do.
The Australian and Shanahan act as agenda setters. Get the story out there and others will repeat it, even if they doubt it i suspect.
Fargo61 Says:
More seriously, can anyone suggest a plausible reason for the odds quoted for the ALP in the seat of Brisbane, which when I last looked were $1.36?
I’m already on that one for $100.
Might as well put $1000 on it, it’s better than an investment fund.
Get on an election on a quiet weekend toward the end of October. Say 20th or 27th. That way School Holidays and APEC will be out the way, but it’ll still give voters a nice (from the incumbent’s point of view) sense of deja vu. I.e. remember 3 years ago? Remember that guy?
Well Chris two can talk about alternate headlines:
Combet’s wrong turn back to the 70’s
New Labor Opposition Leader Mr Greg Combet pledge to return the Labor Party to its core values is a wrong turn which will end in tears for the Labor Party.
Mr Combet’s promises to abandon economic rationalism and explicit disawowal of the Hawke/Keating era and the politics of me-tooism (in a poorly veiled reference to his predecessor Mr Kevin Rudd) is a worrying development for the future of the country.
The refusal of Labor to modernise and indeed reversal of previous modernisations has its closest parallel to the Labor of Evatt and Calwell in the 1950’s. Surely no one can argue that a Labor front bench of 25 comprised of 19 former union officials realistically portrays modern Australia. Although sadly it seems Mr Combet does.
Mr Combet’s policy promises of income tax surcharge for high incomes (those earning over $150,000 per annum) and graduated death duties also promises a return to class warfare in Australian politics. Rightly they should be rejected and stand in stark contrast to the moderate welfarism advocated by Prime Minister Costello and Treasurer Turnbull.
The Australian October 2009?
Love your work Chris …
Don’t forget…
“Hailurton-News Limited (HNL) today announced that The Australian newspaper would cease publication at the end of the week. The Dallas-based newspaper had been suffering steady declines in circulation since mid-2005, when the editorial content and reality began to diverge in what became an unbridgeable gap.
Said Haliburton-News Limited CEO Paris Hilton: `Apparently someone forgot to tell the editors and journalists at The Australian that partisan bile totally divorced from reality was not what consumers wanted from a newspaper … it’s what they want from blogs. With the deaths of the vast bulk of baby-boomers, the market for fantasy-based news has just dried up.’
However, The Australian’s final editor, anonymous-Liberal-Party-Hack (ALPH), was optimistic about the future. ‘There’ll always be crazy people, and where’s there’s crazy people you’ll find us taking their money … or at the very least, employing them to write op-ed pieces for us.’
Haliburton-News Limited shares remain unchanged in slow trading.
AAP – March 2015?
“
Mr Squiggle – welcome to what I believe is one of the best blogs in the business. I’m only going by those polls that show a breakdown in voting. Newpoll do this from time to time. They indicate Howard’s vote is strongest in the plus 55 age grouping. If people are really anti Howard a few more dollars will not do the trick. Where is that budget bounce?
Cameron is fine, highlight of this morning was an inappropriate suggestion involving fingers and their appropriate relocation. Local ABC is almost worth it just for Peter Kennedy’s appearances, even if he does seem a little leant to the right (probably fair enough for WA).
The Bulletin Article was brilliant and tip of my hat to Adam who not so long ago mocked and ridiculed me and my wanting labor branches and members again. Clearly my connection to reality was provided by Telstra that day and was not broadband, as everyone agrees a corporate type machine is better for the Labor (once was a movement) Corporation. Time I got with the programme and bought shares.
My turn:
LABOR WINS MAJORITY IN HOUSE, FAILS TO GAIN MANDATE
The results of Saturday’s election have resulted in a deadlock. While Labor has won 90 seats in the House of Representatives, it has failed to gain a majority in the Senate which will now be controlled by a combination of the coalition and Family First’s Senator Field.
It was that Solomon of Australian Jurispudence, the late Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, who correctly advised the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, in 1975 that a Government that did not have control of both houses of parliament did not have a mandate to govern.
The first task of the Governor-General, Professor Sir David Flint is to decide who should be his chief advisors. Precedent suggests that when the electorate fails to deliver a clear mandate, the incumbent government should continue to rule. The Australian emphatically calls upon Sir David to continue Mr Howard’s commission.
The loss of the seat of Bennelong by Mr Howard, is no impairment to his continuing tenure as Prime Minister and indeed, it works in his favour. The Constitution permits the Governor-General to choose his advisors from non-parliamentarians, provided that they gain a seat in parliament within 3 months. This allows plenty of time for Mr Howard to replace one of his colleagues in the Senate without causing a costly bye-election in Bennelong.
While the electorate has given mixed messages through Saturday’s poll, it is obvious that the failure of Labor to gain control of the senate shows that Mr Rudd’s anti-reform policies have failed. It is now up to Mr Howard to defend and extend the reforms that Australia desperately needs. This will be difficult given the parliamentary environment, but if anyone can achieve the impossible it is Australia’s greatest ever Prime Minister, Mr John Winston Howard (The Australian ? November 2007)
Astonishingly, Shamaham is back blogging again today, with some confected outrage over his ludicrous interpretations of the polls.
Even more hilariously, he’s still copping it in the comments.
Love your stuff Dembo.
I cant fathom the line coming from the Australian. As someone pointed out, the influence of The Australian in marginals is ‘marginal’ at best. So what is the motivation for this nonsense? All they gain is contempt from those people who can read the polls. Unfortunately The Australian is marred by Shanahan, Sheridan and the editorials. Compare their twisted grasp on reality with the cool analysis of George Meg.
For anyone interested, I’ve just pulled apart that load of piffle coming from the OZ about Preferred PM ratings being leading vote indicators with regression equations.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/poll-wars-episode-1-–-the-phantom-metrics/
Honestly – what a load of twaddle.
While the GST has broadened the tax base, the quantum reliance on income tax has remained excessive, and inappropriate to a modern economy.
Dr Nelson has recognised the fact in his first Budget. By raising the GST to 17.5 per cent, and by introducing a new top marginal rate of 33 cents, he has introduced a new, durable and welcome balance into Australia’s public finances.
As with the sale of the ABC also announced in the Budget, questions are being raised by the Opposition about the Government’s mandate. Last night on Fox, Prime Minister Howard dealt comprehensively with this, reminding the critics that in the Westminster system a mandate is given after a government has announced and implemented its decisions, not before.
The electorate’s endorsement of Work Choices in December last year proves his point.
Ms Gillard’s apparent refusal to accept what is obvious to everyone else must raise serious questions about her likely tenure as Opposition Leader.
- The Australian, May 2008
NEWS shut off comments for todays article defending the ridiculous from yesterday with (as pointed out by mumble) inaccuracy today – hilarious.
You’ve certainly got talent with stats Mr Comitatus.
Labor to honour Whitlam
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd announced upon election to government that he would be introducing a new $200 note to deal with the effect of high inflation and economic mismanagement by the Howard Government. The note will feature Gough Whitlam. The Opposition Leader said “Labor is a party that honours its heroes and there is no bigger one for us than Gough”.
Shadow Treasurer Julia Gillard said that a competition would be held to nominate a face for the other side of the $200 note with a particular emphasis on a Your rights at work theme. Yasmine Anadyr from the West Australian ALP corporation has been appointed Balance Commissioner by Ms Gillard to ensure that an “appropriate person” is nominated for the other side of the $200 note.
The Sydney Morning Herald March 2010
What’s interesting is that Dennis Shanahan has cut off any more comments on the way bloggers have reacted to his bias towards Howard.
Only 16 have been allowed through, whereas hundreds were allowed on others. Every one but one had over 100 comments. Must be a sensitive soul.
There’s no question there’s a mood for change in the electorate. There was in 2004 but people did not feel that Mark Latham was right. Rudd is safe.
Of course Howard was going to get a personal lift and that’s what he has been campaigning for. He was also hoping for a poll lift.
Howard has been all over the media during the NT invasion and Rudd has remained relatively quiet, so Howard was bound to gain.
But now Rudd has seized the headlines again in the SMH and Australian with yet another initiative, which according to one instant poll is well supported by the electorate who think supermarkets gouge. Now Howard has to play catch up again.
Also the Iraq war is back in the headlines big time with Bush standing firm and Howard beside him. Howard will want the war to be lost in the election campaign proper.
The truth is Howard will indeed be going either in four months or sixteen months. The question has to be asked: who are Liberals actually voting for as PM? And who do they want if not Howard?
Edwards honey, you know how naming in corps works; surely it will be
ALP (WA) Pty Ltd
jasmine, apparently ALP Pty Ltd is already registered.
“Astonishingly, Shamaham is back blogging again today, with some confected outrage over his ludicrous interpretations of the polls. Even more hilariously, he’s still copping it in the comments.”
But after only 16 comments, his blog has been shut down to any further comments. I guess The Oz could already see another backlash on the way, so they took some pre-emptive action this time.
I really do not understand why they treat their readers like total fools. The arrogance of that paper astounds me – they seem to believe that what they say should be taken with some kind of authority and therefore accepted. Shanahan’s defence of his pro-Howard spin was simply woeful. He doesn’t seem to realise that his readers are not just annoyed at his latest article but by a long string of articles that continually distort and spin the facts that don’t even go close to concealing what is obviously a pro-Howard agenda.
The best thing that Shanahan can do is actually come out and announce that he is planning to vote Liberal, just like Tim Dunlop has done with respect to him voting Labor on his Blogocracy blog. And then this whole charade of trying to make people think that he is being objective and fair when he isn’t can finally be put to rest.
But they simply destroy their credibility by trying to pull the wool over the eyes of its readers.
Thanks for update Jasmine. Peter Kennedy is a gent. Unlike Vowels never took himself too seriously. Certainly never fancied himself as Premier.
Re ALP Inc, back in Bennelong there was an hilarious piece in the local throwaway about Maxine being in trouble because the ALP struggling for numbers in the branches. Really?
These cold damp mornings I often see the hire car (no taxis please) outside Maxine’s new trophy house down the street ready to whisk her off to her next fundraiser – usually interstate. Wonder if she’s on an AWA or an incentive-based fixed term contract?
I really do not understand why they treat their readers like total fools.
There was a bit of contempt in Dennis’ swipe at the ‘armchair PhD’ types or whatever, yet the quality of political comment on the average blog is probably more insightful than his newspaper at the moment.
“The Happy Revolutionary Says:
Astonishingly, Shamaham is back blogging again today, with some confected outrage over his ludicrous interpretations of the polls.
Even more hilariously, he’s still copping it in the comments.”
Even funnier is that after 16 comments it seems that Dennis’ fragile ego has taken enough of a battering for one week:
“Commenting for this article is no longer available, try one of the articles below for more from the Dennis Shanahan blog.”
Chicken.
Now The Australian is “going” Peter Brent and Charles Richardson.
http://www.mumble.com.au
Whatever you do, don’t rock their little boat with facts or anything.
This is getting way beyond farcical.
Bob last happened on kristalnacht
What have I started?
Edward,
I think you are premature with Greg Combet as PM, though any such editorial in The Australian would be as funny as the one you have written.
“Voters deny Rudd mandate
“Kevin Rudd’s honeymoon is over after 14 years – just as The Australian warned it would be. The voters, aching for the reform and workplace flexibility so long denied them, have rejected his bid to outlast Sir Robert Menzies as the record prime ministerial office-holder and granted the coalition a four-seat majority in a landslide. In Mr Rudd’s time in office, he failed to win control of the Senate at any of his attempts and allowed the continually newly invigorated Liberal Party under Messrs Costello and Turnbull and Msses Mirabella and Albrechtsen to maintain the political lead in debate all through his term. He failed to keep unemployment below the 3 per cent that Australia reached in 2012 thanks to the previous Howard reforms. He failed to ditch the dinosaur antediluvian unions, and he left average living standards only 20 per cent higher than when he first snuck into office with a 14-seat majority in 2007. Coupled with an increase in school retention rates to only 95 per cent and only a 25 per cent real increase in the minimum wage, his failure to deliver fast broadband to the final one per cent of the country stuck on 12Mbs explains the voters’ swift rejection of his party.
“The new coalition government will need to act swiftly to change the electoral laws so that the Greens’ balance of power in the Senate is ended once and for all. Labor should see reason and support the coalition to eliminate this party which will frustrate the will of the people by rejecting the mandate given to the Liberals. If Labor will not co-operate, this essential reform to make the Senate more democratic will require a double dissolution and a joint sitting.
“The new PM has announced plans to introduce WorkFreedom. Labor would do well to support this legislation and put aside any misgivings about its not being announced during the campaign as anyone who pays attention to politics knows where the Liberals stand. Labor must now follow the advice given more than once and decouple itself from the backward-looking union movement and commit to ongoing reform which will deliver workplace flexibility and more realistic wage levels to the unskilled. If it does not, it will face decades out of power†(The Australian, ? October 2021)
Whatever your smoking Chris, keep it up, reminds not to take myself too seriously cause i certainly cant take you seriously: you are a dreamer- I like dreamers.
Ironbar’s at it again http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22054205-953,00.html
The Australian has no right to be sensitive about its blatant bias. It is not as though it is subtle. We only need to look back a few days to see hundreds of terrorism related stories – none flew.
Attacking Crikey and Mumble would actually be a dumb thing to do as it will certainly increase its readership by orders of magnitude. Better than paid advertising!
Iron-bar forgets the yellow factor.
Yellow Costello has no guts to tackle Howard and I think he is actually dead scared of being PM, even if for only a few months. Who would want a scardy cat for PM? Like Keating said -you gotta want it bad. They will have to push Costello into the job after telling Mr Howard that he has a medical problem – Lameduckitis.
Good point Kina but the reference to PJK was unnecessary.
Run a regression analysis on 2PP & preferred PM. There’s no relationship.
There is, however, a relationship between Howard’s satisfaction rating and the Liberal 2PP. Howard has in years past pulled the Libs up over 50% – now he’s a drag on them.
To claim that “Howard’s trend lifts him out of the trough” is simply bollocks – satisfaction with Howard was in the 50s prior to the 2004 election. He’s still languishing in the mid 40s. Unless he improves this rating, the Liberals will struggle to win this election.
Also, to look at Howard’s Newspoll satisfaction rating prior to the 2001 election is interesting:
10-12 August 2001 41%
24-26 August 2001 40% – Tampa incident occurs
31 Aug-2 Sept 2001 50%
7-9 September 2001 50% – 9/11 occurs
21-23 Sept 2001 61%
Oh well.
“All political lives end in failure”
Enoch Powell
People often say that about PJK nowadays.
i wonder if this is what killed oz politics ?
Now The Australian is “going†Peter Brent and Charles Richardson.
http://www.mumble.com.au
The Oz is going right round the twist.
Although Mr Shanahan is right on a couple of points today: the first is that Better PM has definitely been narrowing over time, and the second is that approval ratings and better PM do effect politicians behaviour. No-one sensible (I think) would be disputing that. But it’s childish: invent a straw man, knock it down, and announce you’ve won the debate.
The problem with his reporting is that he reports as if opposition leader approval ratings and better PM affect VOTERS behaviour on election day. And the available evidence indicates that is not so. It follows that politicians SHOULD ignore them – and that’s what a sensible political journalist would report. But because Dennis, Mr Carney etc report otherwise, politicians continue to believe in approval ratings as a significant measure of electability.
PS – Kina, Keating didn’t challenge until he had 40% of the party room. Costello has no numbers. He would just have looked like a git if he challenged – thumped 90 votes to 20 or something similar.
I really can’t see a change of leadership happening for the coalition. Wilson Tuckey thinks it can still happen even this close to an election:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22054205-953,00.html
He says that Hawke was installed as a new leader only a month before the 1983 election, which he then went on to win. But the scenario was completely different. This was an opposition party, not a government that had been in power for 11 years. If anything, Tuckey’s reasoning would support the idea that Rudd could be replaced and Labor could still go on to win the election, because just as it was in 1983, the opposition is up against what appears to be a tired government that the majority of people are keen to vote out.
Even Tuckey’s example of Labor replacing Hawke with Keating back in 1991 doesn’t really fit today’s situation because back then, Keating at least had more than a year to refashion the government and reconnect with voters. Costello would only have, at best, maybe four months if he replaced Howard.
In saying all this, I wonder if Tuckey is working behind the scenes to oust Howard anyway, just like he robbed Howard of being opposition leader back in the 80’s?
ENOUGH already about The Australian! If you don’t like it, don’t read it. I don’t, and I am much more relaxed and comfortable as a result.
“Now The Australian is “going†Peter Brent and Charles Richardson.
http://www.mumble.com.au”
All I can say is that The Australian has now shifted from the childish to the infantile. What has Peter Brent and Charles Richardson done other than point out some simple facts that The Australian continues to ignore or distort in order to serve their pro-Howard agenda?
Just a tip. Before posting, refresh the page and check earlier posts. There’s a lot of echos happening here.
Adam, I was motivated to comment by the apparent threats being levelled at online commentators for daring to criticise Shanahan. And it isn’t really ‘off-topic’ in this case.
But you are right, in general discussion of the Oz is pointless.
You wonder what “The Australian” hopes to gain with this sort of behaviour. I have not seen any comment at mumble that could be described as personal about Shannahan. I think he has been quite tame and civilised compared to some of the comments at Shannahan’s blog which might be what has put their nose out of joint. Welcome to the knew world of media Dennis. These days I find his work amusing and uninformative rather than upsetting in anyway.
Labor Preselections in NSW:
Cut and Pastes from the July political briefing:
Lyne James Langley
New England Luke Brand
Macarthur Nicholas Bleasdeale
North Sydney Mike Bailey
Preselection ballot on 14/7
Page:
Isaac Smith
Ian Tiley
Janelle Saffin
Melanie Doriean
Peter Lanyon
Ian Tiley is the Mayor of Grafton. Janelle Saffin was a Leftist MLC. Peter Lanyon was the candidate for Lismore in this year’s election.
I don’t know the others.
Melanie Doriean was the candidate in Ballina. Isaac Smith is an associate lecturer at Southern Cross University. His web site: http://www.rr07.com.au/
I was told yesterday (I don’t know on what authority) that Saffin has the numbers
All I want to say is that the Preferred Prime Minister stat is mostly academic, and is consistently demonstrated to have little effect (if any at all) on primary voting intention.
It really doesn’t seem to do much. At some point, if an Opp Leader is in the low 30s on that rating (as Latham often was), then it’s reasonable to speculate that he’s more of a hindrance than a help to his Party.
But given that Rudd’s Better PM rating actually still exceeds the real Prime Minister’s, I’d say this poll contains nothing but still more bad news for the government. No matter how certain newscorp political editors might choose to spin it.
Yes, funny how the Australian for 2 days running has ignored that 56-44 2PP poll figure – a case of cherry picking particular bits to suit one’s argument.
You wonder what Howard has promised Murdoch – a further relaxation of media ownership laws after the election?
Dennis’ latest ramble is unnecessary and immature. William, Peter, Chris and all the other fine bloggers out there, keep up the good work. It’s you guys who make this site (and others like it) so enjoyable for the rest of us!
Re: the preferred prime minister business:
Wouldn’t such polls be useless in a country with the Westminster system? Seems to me like such polls are an American import to make the prime ministerial contest seem more “presidential” in a U.S. sense.
Just done a a comment moderation cleanout, so a warm welcome for new comments from Richard Jones, Martin B, Haiku, Marky Mark Says, Nhullubuy and Mr Squiggle. Apologies for the delay.
Adam,
Yeah they are pretty confident, but its not in the bag yet.
I just wish the PM would call the election.
The Lowest poll I have seen for the ALP has been 53-47(Galaxy)
The Highest is 61-39 (Morgan)
From talking to friends and work colleagues 56-44 to the ALP seems about right and I do not think that the polls will differ too much until the election is called.
The Internet is going to play a bigger part in this campaign than ever before.The days of the MSM ruling the roost are over.More power to blogs like these,crikey,mumble,oz politics etc.At least it (the web) provides more of a forum for real debate.Not just something that is spun to suit the owners(editors) point of view or interest.
William, could you establish a separate thread for people who want to bitch endlessly about The Australian, and keep this thread for discussion of the election?
In politics they say keep your enemies close- hence I keep reading The Australian newsapaper, its politics is funnier than the cartoons section and I can do my bit for the environment (save toilet paper) at the same time.
No further comments about the Australian, ok Adam.
While your there Adam, can I ask for your opinion on the prospects of having to wait for WA results to get an election outcome. History says no, but what do I know (be kind, I have an outragous hangover).
Maybe you could establish a different thread for those who want bitch about the people bitching about The Australian.
haha too funny.. I think scrutinising other political analysts’ work is all part of the blogging experience. I for one would freely criticise any commentator who spins a poll result Labor’s way when the polls are clearly against Labor… But that hasn’t happened in about a year now, at either state or federal level.
Has a Rudd supporter can I susgest that if the left is going to have people standing on City street corners attacking Howard please make sure you know what you are talking about for not being willing or able to discuss what you are on about could damage the ALP’s changes.
I asked a Lefty a simple question and the silly boy couldn’t answer the question, now if I was a swing voter tonight I would be voting for the Liberals.
At least he was polite.
Thanks William. The comments threads here are always interesting, and mostly civil and on-topic. Thinking about low polls and election dates, and APEC: what about a Howard retirement just after APEC?
He enjoys the world media spotlight, gets to stand next to W wearing a driza-bone, akubra, RMs and a Ken Done shirt, then retires, possibly due to Janette’s health. His only election loss is 1987, and that was Joh’s fault. Dennis et al (sorry Adam) write the history of the Master (who still might have won, had he stayed on) – with a bit of work, they might even start to use the words “undefeated”. Costello tries to get whatever traction he can before calling an election one month later, which he loses to Rudd.
Upside: schmoozing with world leaders, and retirement in time for the Rugby World Cup final, summer, cricket season, more time with the family and kids etc. Costello’s loss further enhances the legend. Lots of people on this site and elsewhere p*ssed off that they didn’t get to vote him out.
Downside: gets called a coward, but Dennis and co will fight that one hard. Costello loses (see upside above). Haunted by thought that maybe he might have won.
But come September, if the primary vote is still low, surely it’s a tempting option?
Not completely. If the rating would seem to indicate the alternative Prime Minister is less popular than herpes, I think it’s fair to assume that that would limit the chances of the Opposition gaining government.
However, less than a 10% difference doesn’t really seem to effect the primary vote much, if at all.
And as it happens, Rudd is currently very far indeed from being political herpes.
Seems to me like such polls are an American import to make the prime ministerial contest seem more “presidential†in a U.S. sense.
Possibly. But I tend to think it’s more a natural product of the electronic media, for better or worse. They like to quickly boil things down to simple choices. Example: instead of asking the question “Which party bests represents your interests”, the ask “Who do u prefer? Howard or Rudd?”
Duck bmw, the spelling pedants will be after you for that last offering mate. Laughing here.
STROP, it is perfectly possible that we will be waiting for the results from WA to see who has won the election. If Labor wins (say) 17 seats east of the rabbit-proof fence, but then loses Swan and Cowan, then Bob Katter will have the balance of power.
It would serve you lot right in the East if WA kept you waiting for a result, cause we usually know the result from having a looksy at Tasmania even before how booths close!
I’d say Howard is quittiing is unlikely more likely a Francis Urqhart – The Final Cut scenario given the particular cunning of the Rodent.
By my calculations the next AC Nielson should be out next Monday or Tuesday?
Does anyone know for sure?
Got to mention the Australian again (sorry, Adam).
Did anyone else notice the juxtaposition of the webpage headlines “Protestant Faith not a Proper Church”- Vatican- followed immediately by “Catholics find Faith in Rudd”?
Am I being paranoid (and some say I am), and is this a pathetic attempt to raise the implication that Protestant=Howard, Catholic=Rudd?
If so, this is the most disgusting and contemptible action by any Australian newspaper in the last 70 years. You would have to go back to the days of Mannix to see any similar religion/party divide.
I have no truck with any religion per se, but the last thing we need in this country is a division along secterian lines.
What have we (or more particularly the Australian) learnt from the experiences of travelling along that path in Ireland and Iraq?
Are there no limits?
OK, I’m paranoid.
Hi Black Jack,
The change is to the assets test taper rate. Without going into too much detail, the level of assets a pensioner can have before losing the gov-t pension completely is effectively doubled after 20 Sept. There are going to be two areas of impact:
1) any pensioner currently getting the pension at a level somewhere below the maximum due to the assets they hold won’t have to do a thing, nix, nada etc. Just sit tight and more money will come through when the taper rate change re-values thier pension entitlement.
2) any retiree getting zero dollars from the gov-t currently because of the amount of thier assets should be doing thier sums right now and thinking about applying. Basically if they were exlcuded before, they may be eligible now, and alot of them will be.
Overall, I think this is something entirely different from the once off $500 payment mentioned in an earlier post. This is a major structural change to governemnt pension and its potential is being ignored, maybe because it came from the 06 budget, not the 07. My guess is that Lib pollsters will be watching this group of voters like a mad scientists with too much coffee on board.
Hi Strop, Hi Garry Bruce,
Thanks for the notes. Wasn’t aware of the single parent thing. Still wondering what puts a voter segment into a party’s back pocket? Is it 56-44?
By the way , read over my post last night and I promise to learn how to sepll proper nect time
Dennis Shanahan has cut off comments on his blog site after only 16 comments. He has had some sneering comments about PhDs. Apparently The Australian have contacted Mumble.com and told Peter Brent that they will be going after him.
The Australian and Shanahan are just a pathetic bunch of creeps. For Christ sake how biased does The Australian have to get before it disappears up its own arse-hole?
There are times when I just despair for Australia.
“Am I being paranoid (and some say I am), and is this a pathetic attempt to raise the implication that Protestant=Howard, Catholic=Rudd?”
Even if it were, I doubt highly it would take, for the reasons you mentioned.
STROP,
I’ve never been a smoker of anything. I’ve never understood it. Indeed, in my university days, I was so naive that I did not realise that the smokers around campus were not all smoking tobacco.
My editorials of he future are not predictions. I do not know exactly how long Kevin Rudd will be PM. I am just having some fun with the way The Australian would undoubtedly deal with him if he were.
Adam,
I have to read The Australian. We all need something to annoy us. Besides, it is a really informative newspaper, as well as being entertaining.
Drop by,
I am not by nature conspiratorially inclined. But if you think in guerrilla warfare terms, a Liberal platoon on The Australian blogs manages to engage a whole battalion of Labor supporters who would otherwise have to leave their desktops and engage with potentially winnable voters in the real world.
Woopies I didn’t do a spell check.
I guess its a good thing we vote with numbers not letters LOL
Shanahan’s blog post is the most honest he has ever made. He said that he doesn’t have the time to study the figures and explain what claims they actually support. Instead he just presents whatever stands out to him, irrespective of statistical validity. This is what satirist Stephen Colbert calls “truthinessâ€; things someone knows to be true because their gut instinct says they are true.
No Fulvio your not paranoid just stupid.
With apologies to Adam, I doubt the Australian pores over Mumble.com (more’s the pity). But they are at loggerheads with crikey.com, and Peter Brent’s witty little contributions there would be noticed.
Eg: ‘Great News for Howard: Newspoll Shows Landslide to Labor’
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070710-Great-news-for-Howard-Newspoll-shows-Labor-landslide-.html
That they’d also target Charles Richardson is revealing. Why not Christian Kerr? Might be that Kerr is a neo-liberal.
Gee Edward, you have such charming manners.
The 2004 Coalition 2PP vote in WA increased 3.78 percent to 55.40%, the second highest Coalition State 2PP result (the highest was in Qld: 57.09), almost 3.0% higher than the Coalitions national 2PP result (52.47). Labor’s 2PP result (44.60) in WA was the second lowest behind Qld (42.91) and not much better than in SA (45.64) compared to Labors National 2PP result (47.26).
The Coalition 2004 First preferences vote in WA increased 6.74 % (48.76), well above the National Coalition First preference increase of 3.67% (46.36). In QLD the Coalition First preference result improved 3.56% (49.16) and in SA it improved 2.50% (48.42).
Labors First Preference result (34.75) in WA was the lowest ahead of QLD (34.78) and things were not much better in SA (36.75) where Labors First preference result improved in 2004.
Labors 2004 national First preference result (37.64) compared to the Coalition (46.36) is a big margin to deal with. The national 2PP margin (52.74-47.26) looks better for Labor, mathematically at least.
It is clear, as most here have already accepted/stated, that the critical State results will be in SA, QLD and WA, notwithstanding the popular view that you must win in NSW to win Government. SA and QLD are looking very good for Labor if the polls are any guide, so the big question may well be, what of WA ? And worse, how much nail biting can we expect whilst Labor election strategists wait for those bloody WA booths to close and sent results across the ‘rabbit fence’.? If, as Adam stated, “it is perfectly possible that we will be waiting for the results from WA to see who has won the election†in the context of my specific question, images of the grey haired maverick (Bob Katter) are going to plague me for the next three months. Ewww !!!
Chris Curtis Says:
July 11th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
STROP,
I’ve never been a smoker of anything. I’ve never understood it. Indeed, in my university days, I was so naive that I did not realise that the smokers around campus were not all smoking tobacco.
Yeah I realise your postings can be very tongue in cheeky, very funny at times. Keep it up, your a much better read than that newspaper were not sposed to say much more about for awhile, lol.
Fulvio,
I can show you a selection of your offensive posts if you like …
Chris, at my time of life (which is much the same as your time of life, if I recall), I do not feel the need to be annoyed, thanks very much. There’s nothing in The Australian that isn’t done better at The Independent, The Washington Post, Slate, or lots of other places. I recommend them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://slate.com/
Somehow, I don’t think either of us are that interesting. Move on, Edward.
Half Senate Election
Re the Senate, could Rudd call a half senate election if bills are blocked.
I understand Gough was going to Kerr to put this to him when Kerr got in first. So could Rudd call one before the new senators take up there positions in July.
Fulvio
Interesting re the religion angle, during Hawkes time the papers made much of Hawke being agnostic and Hayden being atheist. I would say you are not paranoid, just the conservatives getting desperate as they have been lately.
I think you will see a sign of real desperation when Abbott starts talking about restricting the advertising of junk food targeted at children.
Strop
Recent Westpoll showed at a state government level labor 56.3 to libs 43.7, I think some of this will translate federally and stick by labor picking up 4 and holding their own
If we see Abbott saying anything resembling sensible, we’ll know the Coalition has reached the bottom of its list of stratagems
Nah Amber, that’ll never happen
STROP, if the ALP comes close to winning – but WA stops this from happening – I can not describe to you how much pain I’d feel about such a prospect. I’d take an irrational disliking of WA for the next year or so just to make the pain feel a bit better. Sort of like a “compensation drug for the next 3 more regressive years”.
But I’m traditionally a pessimist anyway. Queensland is driven so strongly by the conservatives that I can’t really imagine it shifting from this. Queensland is basically Australia’s version of Texas – one of the strongest conservative states in the federation.
I never actually knew about WA’s conservativeness until this year. This actually gives me more pessimism though. What’s the likelihood that these strong conservative states could swing to the Labor party? As mentioned somewhere, there are the swing voters, and then there are the voters that, no matter how bad a party’s policies are, will always support them. I just get an impression that Queensland is one of those states.
16 seats has never felt so hard. The polls are going well for Labor, but there is always the likelihood that they’ll do a 1998 where they came to almost a smidgen of becoming government, but losing out because of it.
56-44 however is a very good figure though and the fact that it’s been consistent might be a sign that the country really does want a change. I’m almost excited about election day as I am about Harry Potter coming out next Saturday! Okay, maybe I’m more excited about the latter!
The Australian’s message to the online ‘one-eyed anti-Howard cheer squad’:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22058640-7583,00.html
Sean, if there’s one thing Queenslanders do well it’s getting behind a fellow Queenslander. For that reason I think they are looking past their conservative tendancies and have moved their votes to Rudd (although for an ALP leader he is pretty conservative).
Howard tried to be pretend he was more of a Queenslander than Kevin (I still can’t believe he did that!), and just ended up looking like a total idiot. He won’t win them back up there now unless he brings back the death penalty or something truly drastic.
Well, here’s the much-anticipated ‘go’ at Peter Brent. You know you’ve set the cat amongst the pigeons when they dedicate an editorial to online ‘one-eyed anti-Howard cheer squad’, ‘wooly-headed’, ’smug, self assured, delusional’ ‘extreme Left sheltered academics and failed journalists who wouldn’t get a job for a real paper’.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22058640-7583,00.html
James, they can really churn out some sanctimonious twaddle, can’t they…
Snap! Beaten by 3 minutes.
This was the best bit:
That line immediately caused me to burst out laughing. I only stopped for fear I may have awoken the rest of the household.
Well, I’m still waiting. That editorial still didn’t explain how Howard won the election in 1996 with a lower prefered P.M. rating than Keating. Opinion peices in the previous two editions argued that there is a direct correlation between the two, when 1996 suggests that this isn’t always so.
I think it is funny that The Australian put blogs on their website in an attempt to be all hip and trendy, but now they are complaining about some of the feedback they are getting on those blogs.
this is extrodinary stuff
an Editorial is a national newspaper devoted to humiliated a very small clique of online ‘psephologist’s’ with a very limited, if any at all, impact on public sentiment.
good grief. What are they scared of ?
and they use the term Bias!!!!
and they mean the PMs 12th man Mitchell and Shanahanahan.
‘and they meaning’ etc etc..
oops..its late
Arbie Jay,
The Senate normally has a fixed term. In normal circumstances, the term of the senators starts on the 1 July after their election and lasts 6 years. The election can only be held within 12 months before the start of the term. The next senate election after this one will be for senators elected in 2004 who started their term on 1/7/05. Therefore the next half senate election can not be held until some time after 1/7/10 and those senators will not take their places until 1/7/11.
Whitlam’s situation was extraordinary as the election of 18/5/74 was a double dissolution. Under the constitution, after a DD, the junior senators (those with a 3 year term) start their terms on the 1 July before the election. In this case their term was deemed to have started on 1/7/73. A half senate election could therefore be held anytime after 1/7/75 and the senators would have taken their seats on 1/7/76.
In any case Whitlam’s popularity was so low by 11/75 that it was highly unlikely that a half senate election would have given him a majority – it just wasn’t going to work.
Thanks, Mr Squiggle.
Looks to me as if 20 September was chosen so that the payments would fall within the election campaign.
Unlikely now, IMHO.
Thanks Oakeshott
Ah, Edward StJohn,
Given your history with poor Mr Gorton, it must be your hand that has written “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin” on the fence at Kirribilli.
Unlike Nebadchadnezzar, however, I suspect that JWH will be reluctant to take to the paddock and eat grass like an ox after the election – even though some may think it just punishment for his part in the defilement of Babylon.
No, I think that as a common-sense, practical person, JWH now is in the interesting position of not needing the Liberal Party anymore, but needing the nice Mr Rudd.
This could be a bit tricky, given the vicious campaign alleging that Kev’s childhood recollections were a gigantic fib. Still it’s worth a try. We were just kidding.
The one thing we don’t want Kev to do is rake over the coals, to coin a phrase, of the workings of the present government. Old irrelevant stuff – like AWB. Convention is against it, for a start. Could lead anywhere.
No. We all want Kev to move on.
And if he needs a good GG, we know where he can find one. Is a reference from Cardinal Pell any good?
The term “Glassjaw” comes to mind regarding “The Australian’s” petulant display. Clearly they don’t like being challenged whether it’s by opinion or much, much worse, a few facts.
Here’s a few more facts that will expose the assertions by Sol Lebovic regarding 2007 vs 2001 & 1996.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=94
By others in the media who claim that the 2007 polling for the ALP is not as strong as the 1993 polling for the Coalition (the unlosable election).
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=100
Off-topic but just noticed on ABC News Online that JWH, bless his cottons, has committed a Beasley-esque stuff up live on radio – forgetting the name of the Liberal candidate for Franklin. Shows how seriously they take their chances, even against the buffoon that Labor endorsed…
“As a newspaper we don’t know who we will support at the federal election”
Well I’d be happy to put a thousand dollars on the Australian supporting Howard.
Unlike their allegation, I’d suggest that many of us writing here do indeed have a long and intimate involvement with politics, much more so than the writers at the Australian.
Here we have the sharks complaining about the minnows. Really. What delicate egos. They couldn’t hack it in Parliament. They haven’t got the ticker.
On another topic, I have worked with Janelle Saffin in Parliament and she’s was truly excellent and dedicated Member. She has very extensive connections throughout our region, Timor, Indonesia, Myanmar etc and would be a great help to Kevin Rudd in the foreign relations field.
I hope she gets the nod.
Interesting coverage in the Terror today. A dejected looking Howard contemplating his future. The two page spread warned Howard that Rudd was stealing his “battlers”.
Maybe the Terror is just starting to realise that the majority of its readers
support the ALP. Perhaps David wants to slow the steep decline in circulation before it follows the Sun.
Who needs to buy papers when you can read all you want online?
The latest blanket coverage of Rudd and the supermarkets has stolen the headlines from Howard. When the people find out what the supermakets pay our farmers for their produce and see the difference in the supermarket price, they will be outraged. Maybe farmers markets will become even more popular. I’ve just come back from our local one – fresh picked, organic, local and cheap and not saturated with Chinese chemicals.
Follows the Mirror might have been more appropriate
Tit bits of info:
Apart from “What Women Want” (www.whatwomenwant.org.au) trying to get registered, I’ve now also seen a begging email from the “Climate Change Coalition” (http://www.climatechangecoalition.com.au/) trying to get members ot register. They polled poorly in the NSW state election, but they also weren’t registered so there was no party label. Add this to the Republican Party apparently seeking to re-register, along with the attempted registration of Conservatives for Climate (http://www.cfce.org.au/), and I would expect an interesting mix of micro parties if there is a late election
Also, in case people aren’t aware, it’ll be a bit of re-run in Cunningham with former member Michael Organ up against Sharon Bird (which could be interesting if the Libs vote gets hurt down there).
The ever-obliging William has now created a special thread for people who want to vent their outrage at discovering that The Australian is a conservative newspaper. Please use that thread for any further frothings on that subject, and spare the rest of us from having to read any more about it.
Forgot to add – I did also notice that “Brandon Raynor’s Green Liberals” failed to get registration (surprise, surprise!), falling foul of the new naming rules as well as being unable to prove they had 500 members (something like 30% of the sampling of members were people who denied they were actually members of that party…).
http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registration_Decisions/brandon_rayner.htm
Nice poll results for Labor in WA at the State level- How much that translates into Federal inklings remains to be seen in the other country, WA.
As for QLD, I am very aware of the conservative bent of some ‘redneck’ sectors, yet Im all awash with confidence that QLD and SA will deliver for Labor this time around
The tricky bit will be picking up some side order seats in NSW (2-4) and WA WA land, (1-2) and, one hopes from a Labor perspective, winning back the 2 Tassie seats lost (so the popular view would take as a given) on the back of Lathams late mail offering on Tasmanian Forests; Bass is no certainty. Next….
As for ACT, NT and VIC, I think Labor is at the peak of its seat quota in those States, unless a big swing is on that I am ignorant of; now wouldnt that been a suprise, NOT. Off to the next stream>>>
Okay State and Territories- apologies to the fuss pots.
Strop,
Your assumption about Victoria is based on an unusually poor result in 2004, which has left Labor looking for a sizable swing to win anything. With the exception of 1990, Labor hadn’t been below 50% 2PP in Victoria since 1977. In 2004, the Labor 2PP was about 48% (I haven’t immediate access to the precise figure, and am happy to have this confirmed/corrected).
A reversion to the norm will involve a swing of around 3%. A larger movement – which seems likely on current evidence – will bring several seats into play. Deakin, Corangamite, McEwen, LaTrobe and McMillan are all Government seats at risk (in approximately that order, IMO).
Hmmm, Strop – Well I’d have to agree that Labor can’t win any more seats in the ACT, what with there being no non-Labor seats there at the moment, but I’d have to say Solomon in the NT is ripe to be picked off by Labor at the next election – it’s one of the key marginals at the moment, 2.9% IIRC.
Mr Q
Of course your right about the ACT HOR seats; as far as Solomon goes Im not sure how thats going to go given the unknown factor of JWHs imposition of ’salvation’ upon a State that isnt keen on the ‘big city folk’ sticking their nose in where they dont want it to be stuck, per se.
However, only 9% of the population in Solomon is Indigenous, and Tollner only scraped in in 2001 (50.01) and didnt improve his margin much (2.8) in 2004; there isnt enough history in the seat to claim it as ’stable’ for anyone. I wouldnt be surprised if it went to Labor, but Im not counting on it.
Peter Fuller Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Strop,
Your assumption about Victoria is based on an unusually poor result in 2004, which has left Labor looking for a sizable swing to win anything
Gday Peter, hows you ?
For the fussy, AEC indicates Labors 2PP in Victoria was 49.0 in 2004, a swing of 3.14 percentage points, but whats 1.0 between bloggers ?
Actually my assumption about Victoria is based on a few things, not just the “poor” 2PP result in 2004.
(1) On the whole, Victoria was Labors best results State for Labor in 2004 where it held all its own seats, including Ballarat (2001) which has been the only seat to change hands in the past 3 elections in Victoria (if you assume that the SEAT result is the critical issue).
(2) In the order you presented, Deakin (since 1984), Corangamite (since 1929) McEwin (since 1996) and Latrobe (since 1990) have been Coalition seats for some time. The exception is McMillan which has changed hands several times since the 1980s, including 2004. This history would reverse the order of change likelihood you have ‘roughly’ put up for discussion.
(3) The improvement in Labors 2PP vote in Victoria from 50.5 (1998) to 52.1 (2001) yeilded only one seat (Ballarat) which required a 5.5 percent 2PP swing to win it for Labor.
(4) A 3.1 percent 2PP swing away from Labor in 2004 (49.0) produced no change of seats at all in Victoria, which makes me wonder if a swing in the order of 5.5 percent (circa Ballarat in 2001) will be needed for any seats to change hands in Victoria in 2007.
Therefore, I stick to my statement that I think Labor is at the peak of its seat quota in Victoria, unless a big swing is on (i.e 5.5%+) in which case I would be put McMillan and McEwin in the frame ahead of Deakin, Latrobe or Corangamite. Over to you Peter……
hi STROP
Just one thing on victorian 2 pp vote it was 53.5 in 1998,52.1 in 2001 and 49 in 2004
At 58-42 in today’s Newspoll state by state breakdown I’d say there aren’t too many Vic Coalition seats that aren’t in play (including Higgins, 8.8%). Brendan “Oils aint Oils” Nelson may yet have a shot at the Lib leadership. There certainly wouldn’t be a lot of counting to do.
The name of the seat is McEwen (after ‘Black Jack’)
It should also be remembered that the ALP won Ballarat in 2001 when the sitting member (Michael Ronaldson) retired and the liberals had an unholy stoush on the way to the polls which included losing the endorsed high profile candidate (Russell Mark). What the Victorian results since 1990 show is:
1. The liberals have usually endorsed good vote winning candidates
2. Incumbency has definitely helped them
Labor may do very nicely in Vic on a 2pp basis but it might yield many seats as the swing in 2004 was very concentrated in outer suburban seats – Aston, Calwell, Lalor, Gorton, Holt, Casey, Flinders. Swings in inner Melbourne were small or to the ALP (Kooyong). So there may be a whole lot of 8% swings in outer Melb without yielding anything.
On that basis, the order might be Corangamite, La Trobe, Deakin, McEwen with McMillan or even Dunkley as an outside chance. McEwen is particularly interesting as it is so different – labor voting outer Melb mortage belt around Craigieburn and very rural – Mansfield, Yea etc. Will the outer suburban growth overtake the possible anger with State Labor over water – the latter becoming a major issue.
“Swings in inner Melbourne were small or to the ALP (Kooyong).” Yeah, I bet they were popping corks all over Kew that night!
Mansfield isn’t in McEwan.
Strop,
Thanks for providing the 2004 state-wide Victorian figure. I stand corrected in my orthopaedic shoes. Also acknowledgment to blackburnpseph for a customary thoughtful contribution.
Because I consider 2004 aberrant, I think it’s worth also having a look at the 2001 pendulum. Obviously the swing later this year has to represent a movement from 2004, but if electors have changed allegiance in the pro-Government direction in one election, they are less rusted on than those who have always been committed Liberals/Nationals.
Prior to 2004, the Deakin margin was 1.6%, McEwen 2.2%. My speculation that these are feasible Labor gains rests on the judgment that East Link tolls had a distorting impact on Deakin (which YRAW threatens to do in reverse this time around). In McEwen, interest rates were likely to have been a powerful influence. Fran Bailey has been a very effective local member, as has Phil Barresi. However, Ms. Bailey is up against difficult demographics, and I sense that her Ministerial role may have reduced her undoubted proficiency in local representation.
Corangamite (5.3% now, 5.4% after 2001) has been shifting (geographically and psephologically) for a long time, and as its population becomes more concentrated around Geelong and its proximate coast, it becomes less favourable for the Liberals. It also seems doubtful that the aging Stuart McArthur will have a large personal vote.
McMillan (5.0%, 2.9%) and LaTrobe (5.8%, 3.7%) seem less likely to me. The LaTrobe MP, Jason Wood, succeded an outstanding marginal seat campaigner Bob Charles in 2004, and faced a fairly strong Labor candidate. The sophomore effect should help Wood. Christian Zahra had been a good local Member in McMillan, but redistribution cost him the seat. However his standing must surely have moderated the swing last time, which makes the 5% margin skinny. Labor also did poorly in the State seats in and near McMillan in November last year, which makes it likely that the Liberal vote will be more sustainable here than elsewhere.
Normally, I don’t go in for this kind of seat by seat analysis, as I argue that when a tidal wave swing is on, good and less good MPs get swamped just on the basis of their statistical vulnerability. However, there are always idiosyncratic exceptions to this, which I guess is why we spend (waste?) time chewing the fat about it.
Its not a waste of time Peter, its something interesting to do with people with a keen interest in Oz politics and where this place we call home is heading.
I think we have targeted the right number and right type of seats which are shall we agree ‘vulnerable’ ? How it pans out come election time is open to debate re all five seats. A big swing swamps good sitting members along with duds as you rightly point out Peter-
Should be interesting but Im still not counting on Labor gains in Victoria to win Govt where other States (QLD/SA/NSW/TAS) should do that part. Victoria is one place where Id be hoping for any seat gains to nullify any Labor losses, particularly in WA or the inevitable ‘rogue’ seat losses.