Roy Morgan has released results from a “special” phone poll of 600 respondents conducted yesterday and on Wednesday, which has Labor leading 57.5-42.5 on two-party preferred and 47.5 per cent to 37.5 per cent on the primary vote. The former figure is 1.5 per cent better for the Coalition than last week’s face-to-face poll. Some cute observations from Gary Morgan in the accompanying release:
Australia is lucky that we publish ‘voting intention’ more frequently than all other public opinion polls and Australians must be relieved they have, in addition to the traditional Australian media, an Internet news media which keeps everyone quickly, accurately and independently informed. All pollsters know voting intention is the real guide to how electors will vote. They also know it is hard or nearly impossible to measure how ‘preferences’ will be allocated at the ballot. We (the Morgan Poll) only ask approval ratings occasionally because Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Ronald Reagan and Helen Clark were all behind as the ‘preferred’ leader with low approval ratings a few months before being elected! All poll watchers need to read or re-read what I wrote on Wednesday, namely: ‘Can the Coalition win the Federal Election? The answer is…’
150 Comments
Short story:
* No change, Labor still in a landlside election winning position.
* Further confirmation (again) that nothing the Libs do matter because a majority of swinging voters have already made up their mind
Time for John & Jannette to start thinking about moving house.
Do you think John and Janette can find a house with silk on the walls and leather on the ceiling like on his jet?
Yet, as Gary Morgan says: “But if the question being asked is: Can anything stop the ALP winning the Federal Election considering they have been well in front in all polls for months? The answer is “yesâ€, but over the next few months much can happen and we know “over 20%†of electors make up their minds as they vote!”
I’ve made up my mind – but I live in a safe ALP seat. Who cares who I vote for? I know this is stating the obvious, but what counts is how many swing voters have made up their minds in the marginals. A swing to the ALP is no good if it’s absorbed in safe Lib seats, or merely pads the cushion in safe Labor seats. Anecdotally, it’s the people in outer metropolitan seats who are hurting the most because of the mortgage squeeze, and these seats are disproportionately Liberal (Lindsay is the banner example); but I’d like to see the numbers in these kind of seats before I’m convinced that the ALP will win.
Seems Tim Dunlop is back, and reports of his demise were premature. His piece was pulled by his masters though, and he isn’t happy.
Tim W. quite right.
Unless these polling companies start regularly polling each individual marginal seat, we don’t really have anything but a vague idea about how the election might pan out. But IMO it’s better than nothing.
I may as well get in early: when factoring in Stephen Kaye’s arsebiscuits, we get the real figure of ALP 3.4% – Coalition 96.6%.
I think the point is that they have been consistantly bad for the Coalition. This has a multiplyer effect as business and suporters don’t see the need to waste time and energy. This silk walls thing is just another of those great ;out of touch’ yarns the ALP will spin….and as I have said before, wait until APEC is over and the Feds get a slap over the ear from the business community.
Taking average of these two early July Morgan phone polls vs average of two early June ones has Labor up from 45 to 48 primary, Coalition down from 40 to 36. On 2PP, Labor goes from 55 to 58. It’s yet more evidence that Labor’s primary has increased since June, and also evidence of loss of Coalition primary, though that is yet to be verified by other polls.
Nick,
“silk…out of touch yarns…will spin” – good one!
This would be equivalent to a Morgan face to face of 59.5 40.5 Pretty much nothing has changed for a long while – even gravity is having hard time pulling the vote down. But it MUST come down some time surely. Wait until the election is called.
I hope Howard gets a good photo op with BUsh when he is here. Rudd can get one with Al Gore.
I wonder if this election could be looked at as 2001 in reverse. Once 9/11 happened Big Kim knew he could not win and focused on there not being a rout. It was a rough gig but I think he did OK. In this year, Howard still seems to be casting desperately around for the next Tampa. My read is that the NT intervention weakened his position slightly and hardened views. Will there come a point were the coalition switches to damage control as Kim did in 2001?
If he continues in the current direction there is the chance that in thrashing around for the next wedge issue the electorate will firm up at current levels.
I like this bit: “All pollsters know voting intention is the real guide to how electors will vote. They also know it is hard or nearly impossible to measure how ‘preferences’ will be allocated at the ballot.”
I heartily concur with the last part. Political polling in this country is idiotic in the extreme, and one of its most imbecilic features is the bogus 2PP figure pollsters come up with. The primary figures are dodgy enough as it is, so any attempt to calculate a 2PP figure from them is just a joke. And yet the pollsters continue to do it, even though one of them has just confessed it’s a useless exercise! Ridiculous!
Steven, with all respect, there is no way in hell that you would have this opinion if the polls were reversed and the coalition were leading. In fact, weren’t you one of the ones who were jumping for joy when Galaxy published the “Howard’s great comeback” poll last month?
That said, it is true that you can never be completely sure that the polls have it right, but the fact is that they MORE often right than they are wrong.
Steven, in case you missed it, the Morgan comment is a dig at Newspoll and the Oz.
Further vindication for Brent and leaves the Oz dangling in the wind. However Murdoch likes winners and I predict a change of editorial stance as howards post timely demise looms even larger.
I just looked at the newspoll breakdowns and there is something interesting happening that hasn’t really been talked about.
As you would expect in the age breakdowns the swing to Labor weakens as you get older, 11% swing in the youngest but ony 8% in the oldest.
But in the capital/non capital the swing to Labor in the non-capitals is significantly bigger than in the capitals. In the capitals Labor has gone from 39.9 to 50 but in the non-capitals they have gone from 34 to 48! And in the non-capitals Labor 2pp has gone from 43.8 at the election to 56, which puts the swing into Wannon or Mayo territory.
Don’t write off the coalition yet.
Where can I put money on a minor terrorist attack in Australia sometime in the next 2 – 3 months? Remember the people who ordered the Australian Navy to look 2000 km in the wrong direction while SIEV X took hundreds of women and children to their deaths? They are still in Canberra.
This is a load of partisan bunkum. Australia has had compulsory preferential voting since the 1920s. We know to a high degree of accuracy how voters allocate their preferences. The great majority follow their party’s how-to-vote card: hasn’t Steven ever seen one? Calculating a notional 2PV from an opinion poll is a perfectly legitimate exercise, and has been validated by many past state and federal elections.
That Guy and Tim W there is no way a party receiving 53 or 54 percent two party preferred in a Federal election will lose. If the close seats don’t fall then the unexpected seats will. Either way your boy is in trouble.
92 seats happy, happy, happy.
11 in Qld, 6 in NSW, 4 in Vic, 4 in SA,2 in Tas, 1 in NT and 4 in WA, Kalgoolie is line ball and Canning and Forrest are within reach.
I have a bottle of nice brandy in memory of my dear old dad, originally I planned 1 nip per seat on election night but now I’m thinking I need a larger bottle.
Arbie I hope you are right, but my money is against kalgoorlie, very very firmly. Canning is a weird one, and would be worth a bet given nice odds.
Just ignore Kaye, he’s not worth it.
Taking into account Morgan’s polling bias in favour of Labor (say 2pts, totally pulled from the air), It seems we are seeing an aligning and firming of the polls, 56-44 or thereabouts. I think AC Nielsen comes out on Monday which will round up the first half of July polling. If, as I suspect, it doesn’t shift too much from its 57-43 poll a month ago, then Howard should really really consider resigning. He won’t, of course. But the Gov’t is entering terminal territory.
Jas
Agree Canning worth a bet at nice odds and would not write off Kalgoorlie.
4 months to go, still a while, but labor is holding a housing summit whilst Howard and Costello are still blaming the states.
Rudd announces more power to ACCC to investigate food prices, Costello says food prices are kept low and then Dairy farmers announces a 25% increase in milk prices..
Somehow labor looks like the govt and Howard and Costello like a carping opposition.
The 2 point Morgan bias applies to the Morgan face-to-face series. It cannot be applied to the Morgan telephone series.
On my blog I have argued that it is difficult to read much into the Morgan telephone series, other than to say Labor is well ahead.
But what about the low sample, 600. That has quite a margin of error on it? I take your point re: the 2pt bias.
Perhaps I should just read your blog.
All things being equal, the Coalition should be dealt a fearsome defeat on account of WorkChoices, and the fact voters were never given a choice on it till now. If they win despite “natural justice”, the judgment of the electorate will diminish greatly in my estimation. (I’m optimistic though
Let’s hope Yesterdays Man’s Days are Numbered Maybe 100
http://media.theaustralian.news.com.au/nich/20070711_Yesterday.html
My new Rogues’ Gallery (featuring our own resident Greeny Bill):
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/candidates.shtml
57-43 2PP is looking more and more solid as each poll passes by; Id be content to toss 2.0 to the Coalition and call it 55-45 come election day- If thats right its not looking good, but this is only JULY; dont order that bigger bottle of plonk just yet !!
Stuff it, break it open Arbie, lets get started on it anyway !!
Great Rogues Gallery collection Adam. Although I did stop when I saw that smug smile of Mr Costello grinning at me and went running off to your assessment of Higgins hoping for some inkling of hope that he could get rolled in Victoria. 8.8 percent margin, alas, no cigar !!
I have thus far banned myself from responding to Steven Kayes lunacy; nope, no reason to change policy yet.
BUT WHAT ABOUT PARRAMATTA!?!
About now we can confirm that Shannahan’s Masterclass budget is officially a dead cat bounce. The $billion back of an envelope Waterplan is a flop. The War on Northern Territory child abuse would have been more successful had they implemented the 97 recommendations of the report in full. The surge in Iraq is going nowhere. Governments reap what they sow!
Nice to see that Morgan shares my opinion on preferred PM polling. That said, I’d have to echo the earlier poster’s assertion that swings are never uniform and if they are largely in places where the ALP does not need them, the assertions of seats with +11 Liberal majorities flipping are premature at best.
Yup. And that’s pretty bloody vague, IMO.
Any less than 52% and Rudd could still lose. Just as the Beazley lead ALP did when they got 51.somthing% in 1998.
That’s why I said: this doesn’t really have anything but a vague idea about how the election might pan out.
But yeah, it’s the best we can determine from these national phone polls, and it is better than nothing.
I don’t know what “boy” you’re referring to, but it probably isn’t mine.
Morgan dismisses approval ratings at his peril. When the smoke clears after the Government’s re-election and Rudd’s sycophants in the media and the blogosphere – those whose heads haven’t exploded, of course – are desperately scratching around for an explanation for the loss, they should look no further than the PM’s approval ratings. Because after 11 years in the job, his approval ratings of 46-53% (depending on whether you’re looking at Newspoll or Nielsen) are nothing short of miraculous. This is not a PM people are itching to dump, regardless of how many times Labor tells us he’s out of touch or stale or tricky or whatever the buzzword for the day is. And this is definitely not a reviled PM, like Keating was.
Simply put, a booming economy combined with a popular PM will see the Government re-elected. Mark my words, kiddies.
That Guy, I take your point about the swings rarely being uniform through every seat, and that large increases in ’safe’ seats may be wasted.
I’ve looked at close election results over the last couple of decades. One thing that stands out is that when both major parties poll low 40s or worse primary vote, the incumbent government gains the advantage of the marginals. There are various theories such as the ‘devil you know’ to energetic local members for this to occur.
The polling in 2007 is a bit different. Labor has for around 6 months had a primary support of around 48%. The coalition support has been at about 37-39%. Now one interesting thing is that the primary vote holds up pretty uniformly throughout marginals – perhaps because they represent a middling sample of voters. And there you see the issue: incumbency and local identification is not going to count for much when your opponent’s primary is around 48%, especially if yours is around or below 40%. It needs only a small amount of preferences to get over the line.
If the figures hold up, there may not be the 40-odd seats change hands for the reasons you suggest. But you can be sure most marginals will go, and on current figures a margin of 7% or 8% is no longer safe.
Don Wigan,
Thank you for your interesting and informative reply Don Wigan. Looking at the trend data for ‘98 on the newspoll site, I see that both major parties were quite pathetically low on the primary vote that election year. I can see at least one big difference between then and now.
So could we say that that is almost a precondition for an electoral outcome like that in ‘98? i.e, an outcome where a party gets the majority of the 2PP vote, but fails to gain the majority of seats?
Steven,
Complete the following sentence “If Rudd wins, I will….”
If you are wrong, old bean, what will you do?
Steven Kaye Says:
“Simply put, a booming economy combined with a popular PM will see the Government re-elected. Mark my words, kiddies.”
Bookmarked for future reference. Question is, if your bold prediction is wrong, do you have sufficient humility and decency to turn up here and face psephological reckoning?
Well, do you?
The Howard Government WILL be re-elected, don’t you worry about that. And Howard didn’t even need to commit to a full-term, such are his achievements and status that he can now leave office when he wishes to remembered as perhaps the greatest statesman in the history of the Asia Pacific. He has ushered in a new era of prosperity, security and morality.
Why would the average Australian risk third-rate Krudd?
Nostradamus Says:
And Howard didn’t even need to commit to a full-term, such are his achievements and status that he can now leave office when he wishes to remembered as perhaps the greatest statesman in the history of the Asia Pacific.
Thank you for at least putting the word perhaps ahead of that view of our current pm as “the greatest statesman”. I wont bother to run off a list of reasons why that is just plain bulldust, Im sure others here will (Tampa etc).
The kindest assessment I could offer of JWH is that he probably honestly beleived in what he was doing most of the time, ie he beleived in this country and did what he thought was the right thing to do on most issues.
Whether or not what he did as PM in Government was, on the whole, good for Australia or reserved for particular sections of the Australian community (at the expense of others) is another question altogether and for mine that is the question to be asked if you are considering the ’statesman’ value of a politician.
On that score I think he failed and did some completely unforgivable things to particular sectors of the Australian community–That is not to say that Labor ’statesmen’ have been much better, only that in my estimation things like Tampa and hiding his head in the sand over the NT issue until the very last moment of his governance are not ’statesman’ like at all, they are unforgivable.
That Guy, thanks, I think you can take it as read, even though I have not seen any published info on it. The 1990 result was exactly that of 1998 in reverse. Both scored exceptionally low primaries and the coalition actually finished in front on 2PP, but the marginals all fell safely to Labor.
I’ve had a theory (only intuitive, mind) that an opposition needs to get a primary vote of at least 45% to have a chance of winning. There will be a ‘devil you know’ and popular sitting member clawback. Both major parties know how to work the marginals. In the lead-up to the 04 election, Latham once or twice got Labor primary up near 44, and I held my breath, but it couldn’t be sustained and quickly settled back at 42 and then below. I made 45 the cutoff point on the grounds that you’re getting close to having half the country behind you, instead of 60%+ really preferring someone else.
As I say, while the primary is around 48, I’d be very confident.
Roy Morgan said in his article regarding polls that were wrong in tipping election outcomes
“The best Australian examples are Hewson (L-NP) losing the 1993 Federal Election and”.
Someone better tell him Hewson was long gone before 1993 came along, no doubt avoiding birthday (cake) parties ever since. Must have been referring to 1983 when he got creamed trying to explain the GST on birthday cakes and candles …what an awful moment for him ….rates up there with Latham’s assault with malice on JWHs hand at that radio station.
Why would the average Australian risk third-rate Krudd?
Maybe you should come out of your ivory tower and ask a few people Nostradamus- you really are in fairy land with those views on JWH.
Don,
You are spot on in 98 being the reverse of 90. Both are eerily similar in the graphics department.
In 1990, the minor vote jumped leading up to the election from around 9 to up around 16, and that minor party growth was the Greens and a bit if the Dems. Most of that 7 point growth in the minor primary came at the expense of the ALP.
In 98, the minors rose from hanging around the 11 point mark up to the 18 to 20 mark. That was a result of the growth of One Nation and most of that growth came at the expense of the Coalition.
The party that has an insurgency on their side of politics (in these examples, the Greens for the ALP and One Nation for the Coalition) can change what would ordinarily be an open and shut election into a knife edge.
One might be tempted to think that it shouldn’t be that big of a deal as the major party will get those lost votes back with preferences, and while that is the general case, enough of those preferences ‘leak’ to the opposite major party to create a larger amount of tightly contested seats.
If the ALP gets a primary vote of 44 in todays environment, they probably cant lose. If the Libs get a primary vote of 46 in todays environment they probably cant lose either. The problem though is that “the environment†changes as the elections go by depending on the strength of the minor parties, and which major party that minor party insurgency takes votes from.
Incumbency isn’t a magic power as some posters here seem to be asserting. Maybe they’re trying to convince themselves. Howard has been in power for 11 years. That’s a long time. Too long, and that is enough reason for many people to simply say that’s enough. My parents-in-law are in their seventies, solid Lib supporters and they like John Howard. But my wife was surprised to hear her dad remark that Howard has been in too long. Time for a change he said. BTW they live in a lib electorate Ryan.
Well there is a maximum of 22 weeks left for an election this year (LAST DATE 15 DEC) which I think it must be (Howard wont wait for the new year – obvious charge of clinging to power).
which means a maximum total of 154 days until the next election. I think it is what 35 days or something that you must issue the writs before the poll.
Based on the view that people are entrenched in their voting preferences there should be no movement in polls when the actual election is called or before then which up until now appears to be the case.
However I think most people posting here would support the view that if the polls narrow to something like 53-47 by the date the election is called (ie between now and 119 days) then it is entirely winnable for Howard particularly if you believe there is always some swing back to the incumbent in the final weeks of an election campaign.
So really we are talking about a swing back of 3-4% between now and 119 days for the election to be competitive (assuming 2PP of 57/56-43/44 as a consensus now).
Despite wish fulfillment on many people’s part as to Howard losing, I dont see that as ungettable between now and say Mid October. I think to use a historical analogy the election is going to be a 69 or 72 that is a narrow loss or narrow win for Labor I just dont believe seats with margins over 5% or specifically 6-7% in Qld are going to fall easily and that after all is what Labor needs to win.
Strop,
Morgan was right. Hewson’s GST election was 1993.
Nostradamus Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 4:15 am
“The Howard Government WILL be re-elected, don’t you worry about that. And Howard didn’t even need to commit to a full-term, such are his achievements and status that he can now leave office when he wishes to remembered as perhaps the greatest statesman in the history of the Asia Pacific. He has ushered in a new era of prosperity, security and morality.”
That has got to be a urine-extraction.
Rudd overtakes Howard in key marginals
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Rudd-overtakes-Howard-in-marginals-poll/2007/07/14/1183833807830.html
SMH reporting on the paper version of The Oz so far as I can see (can’t locate it on online Oz — is this denying oxygen to the online political commentariat?)
Thanks Lurker. Interestingly this reveals that Rudd is killing Howard in the marginalson preferred PM – with significant movement towards Rudd in recent weeks. But Shanahan has resisted putting this on the front page, no doubt due to his long held conviction that PPM is of little significance.
I’ve got the Oz with me right now. In marginals, Labor leads by 59-41; in Coalition safe seats, Labor leads by 52-48 (!!!) In Labor safe seats, Labor leads by 66-34. Marginals are here defined as held by 6% or less. It’s from the same sample as yesterday’s state-by-state breakdown over Apr-July. Since Jan-March, Labor is up 1% in marginals, up 2% in Coalition safes and down 3% in its own safes. Since the last election, Labor is up 9.3% in marginals, 14.6% in Coalition safes and 4.1% in own safes. The swings are happening where Labor wants them; on these numbers, the Coalition would be absolutely obliterated!!!
It’s all over red rover. This week has been appalling for John Howard, possibly the worst of the campaign. Iraq raised its ugly head, JWH’s “senior moment” received blanket coverage, the supermarket play received headline coverage, global warming is back in a big way and the plane refit bungle had people gasping.
It wouldn’t be surprising to see the polls nudge even further away from the Coalition in the next couple of polls. There’s been no reason for them to go the other way.
The story about Rudd leading in the marginals becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. People tend to go with a winner.
Watch for John Howard making a graceful exit when he actually realises he is leading his party to a massive defeat.
If he doesn’t jump, others may well destabilise him to the point where there is a leadership spill.
There’s still four months for a new leader to make an impact.
Sample sizes are 2203 in marginals, 3263 in Coalition safes and 1491 in Labor safes. On primaries, Labor leads 51-36 in marginals, 44-43 in Coalition safes and 56-29 in own safes.
Adam – re your Rogues Gallery: although I note you have added a number of Greens, I think you should also add those candidates who also might have a chance of election (beyond the “1-in-a-million” type chance) – Adam Bandt in Melbourne and Michael Organ in Cunningham
Note that Alan Ramsey in his discussion of polls this morning did not mention Morgan Polls, not even to explain why he wasn’t using them in his article.
Re my conspiracy theory above.
The front page of http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/ suggests there may be technical difficulties associated with their relaunch.
I have another conspiracy theory though.
The WestPoll took a measure of Federal Voting Intention on July 2-4
http://www.marketresearch.com.au/our_services__westpoll__current_month_questions.23.html#q1
I have seen the state voting intentions reported online but has anyone seen a report of the Federal figures (in hard copy or online)? Are these only reported when they are favourable for the government (and yes I know the sample size is execrable anyway).
Howard is in Tasmania trying to prevent a complete collapse of the coalition vote. The most recent poll that I saw for Tasmania was showing a massive shift towards Labor, somewhere in the 60s on a two-party-preferred basis.
But I can’t help thinking that Howard’s efforts are rather like trying to stop a boat from sinking after it springs a whole heap of leaks.
When he discovered the large shift away from the coalition in QLD, Howard was up there claiming he was more of a Queenslander than Rudd, and did the usual splash out of money. But while he thought he patched that leak, suddenly NSW goes gangbusters and opens up a huge lead for Labor. Now he is in Tasmania trying to another patch job, again splashing the cash. It will back up to NSW to do the same, and now… he’s got leaks opening up across a wide swathe of marginals and even in his own safe seats. I don’t think Howard has enough fingers to plug all the holes in this boat – it looks like it’s going down.
He has four months, and although anything can happen, and sure, lots of people might change their minds, the actual *politics* is not looking good. Howard has betrayed too many Australians to make forgiveness an easy thing to do.
Also, interesting that The Australian didn’t report the results of the marginals online today. I wonder why? For those who have the paper version, did it make front page news?
Can anyone tell me if there was a swing back to the government during the election campaigns of 1972, 1983 and 1996? I choose those elections because a change of government took place. If a swing is on and it is away from the government is there a history of a late swing back to the government of the day close to the election or is this myth?
Actually I would like to than Morgan for running its polls – it gives us another guide.
Tell me Edward with the polls as they are and the issues as they are what could see such a massive swing back to the government over the next 4 months as you suggest could happen? Let’s leave aside a catastrophe such as terrorist attack on Sydney or some such – personally I’m not sure how that would play out anyway.
Good question Gary. I’m not sure about the other elections, but in 1996, there didn’t seem to be a swing back to the government on primary voting intention. For the 6 months leading up to the election, Labor was running at around 40%. A week out from the election, they were on 40.5%, and then ended up with 38.7% on election day.
I should mention those figures was from Newspoll.
oakeshott country Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Strop,
Morgan was right. Hewson’s GST election was 1993.
So it was Oakshott.. doh . teach me not to say too much that feigns as intelligent dialogue before 10am on a weekend; thanks for the correction.
ELECTION UPDATE:
It feels over as a contest.
lurker speaks out Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 11:34 am
but has anyone seen a report of the Federal figures (in hard copy or online)?
Havent seen anything on WA FEDERAL voting intentions either…maybe our fellow bloggers living on the other side of the rabbit fence (WA) could did something up.
did=dig
Australian federal elections are supposed to held every 3 years. Any delays beyond the 2nd weekend of October 2007 will be, as far as I am concerned, clinging to power.
Given the quasi-campaigning Howard & Rudd have been waging all year, and the higher than usual proportion of electors who have “locked in” their vote (according to a NewsPoll from several weeks ago), any perception of “clinging to power” could lead to extra punishment for Howard at the ballot box by voters fed-up with his face invading their TV screens over a continuous 12-month period. They might not be amused by by a PM hanging on in the forlorn hope of some ALP-devouring cataclysm materializing.
GB,
Not sure, is a “if” question.
If the support for Rudd is soft – swing back
If people focus on elections as they get closer and revert to preference
If people havent got a “set in concrete” view of Rudd and they settle on a less appealing view
If people arent as concerned as alleged about WorkChoices or “its time” factors
I could see Howard picking up the 3 or 4 per cent he needs to be competitive quite easily. I dont think there will be a “Tampa” as such nor does Howard need there to be one.
As I said previously the Sawford formula (2 out of 3 on interest rates, unemployment and inflation) dont suggest Howard is going down – it says Line ball given 1 is down 1 is up and 1 is basically even but maybe going down.
I’d discount the Newspoll January to July averages too, if you look at Mumble’s site the averages for 2004 polling for Qld in particular very excellent for the ALP and as we know not so hot in the actual poll. He makes the very valid point that Rudd’s strength in Queensland will be extremely interesting on the night.
A lot of “ifs” there Edward. What about this “if”, if people are still listening to Howard and believing what he says. If people are not focussed on the election now why would they automatically go for the government when they are? Why not just discount every poll and assume everything is ok for the coalition?
“As I said previously the Sawford formula (2 out of 3 on interest rates, unemployment and inflation) dont suggest Howard is going down – it says Line ball given 1 is down 1 is up and 1 is basically even but maybe going down.”
I think it is running at 2 out of 3, not 1 out of 3. Interest rates are up and although the official inflation rate is stable compared to the 2004 election, the actual LIVED experience of many of those out there in the electorate is that inflation is high – all the household essential stuff has gone up significantly in price since 2004, such as petrol, groceries, childcare, healthcare, and of course, housing. It is the fall in electronic goods that masks what is otherwise an increase in the inflation rate.
When people vote, they pay far more attention to their EXPERIENCE than the official figures on inflation, etc. In the past, the Sawford formula has had some credibility because the official figures were probably reflecting the electorate’s actual experience, but this time around, I’m not so sure. People ARE talking a lot about the rise in prices and the drop in their standard of living, some of whom also received a double whammy as Workchoices reduced their take home pay.
So, Sawford formula says that if 2 out of 3 from unemployment, inflation, and interest rates, go up during the term of a government, then the government is voted out, then I would say, yes, it seems likely that Howard is gone. The Sawford formula itself might need a bit of a tweaking after this year’s election though when it comes to the inflation measure.
I think it has reached a point where a lot of voters simply think Howard is too old. I actually think it would be in his (and his party’s) interests to set out a time table for when he will retire. Tony Blair did the same thing, because he must’ve known that many people wanted to retain a Labour government, but didn’t really like the current prime minister. Blair diffused this by specifying the fact he wasn’t going to seek another term. Howard could do the same by saying he will retire on say Australia Day 2009.
Ophuph Hucksake – the Constitution talks about the length of parliaments being three years and that a parliament expires 3 years after a parliament first sat. Therefore the 3 years ends on 16 November 2007, 3 years after it first sat after the 2004 election.
An election can be held between 33 days and 68 days after the close of parliament so the actual latest date constitutionally is in January 2008.
Since 1955, only 2 elections have not been held in October – December or March. The 1974 double dissoution and the early winter election of 1987. It would be normal for our election to be held in any of these months without seeming odd or late. January would seem late and clinging to power. The last late election was 1983.
Stewart, my gallery
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/candidates.shtml
includes every candidate who (a) I know is running and (b) I have a photo of.
The Greens have been slow announcing their candidates, as I have said here before (but of course they are not trying to win House seats so the candidates don’t matter much). The three Greens I have are the only ones who have sent me their photos. I have seen no definite report that Organ is running. If you can show me one I will add his photo.
The Democrats have announced no House candidates at all. The Libs have only announced a few of their candidates in safe Labor seats, whereas Labor has announced almost all their candidates in safe Coalition seats.
Prominent candidates I can’t find photos of (despite requests):
*Nola Marino (Lib Forrest)
* John “Wacka” Williams – Nationals Senate NSW
Whoever does the WA Libs’ websites should be sacked
http://nolamarino.com/
1983 was 6 months early – Fraser was the turkey who called for an early Christmas. I think the last late one was 1972. The House first met on 25 November 1969 and the election was 2 December 1972.
The English experience is toattly different to that we have here for many reasons but the one that comes instantly to mind is Brown – Costello. Hmm
Make that “totally”.
Costello must read articles like this and grind his teeth with frustration
http://www.slate.com/id/2170028/
But it serves him right for his gutlessness last year
Yes Mr St John: “If, if, if…”
If it wasn’t for the snow and the police you could walk naked in Moscow in the wintertime.
i wouldnt be suprised if howard did hang on as long as is legal. he is obviously attached to the power of being pm. and he just might hope something turns up to swing voters back. i for one cannot think of anything dramatic enough for that to happen short of the entire labour front bench caught having unatural relations with the animals on old Mcdonalds farm and maybe not even that. if he does stay on it will just look like the act of a desperate man but he is that thick skinned he will probably like to have one last new years eve with the best seat to view the fireworks in the land.
8th grade
If Howard did that it would give major political boost to the fixed election timetable argument. Which is good.
Only one federal Parliament has ever reached its formal expiry date: the one elected in December 1906. Deakin put the election off until April 1910, the last legal date. It didn’t help him – Labor won with majorities in both houses.
“The ALP’s ahead is safe Liberal Seats”
I’m not surprised by this for the 2004 Election saw many normal marginals become safe, Living in a safe Liberal seat I see no campaigning whatsoever from the sitting member if the polls are right his seat will be line ball come Election night.
Maybe he has given up!!
To be fair to Costello, I recall reading his quote about his mother saying you have nothing to fair from the truth and a seal is a deal, I thought at the time while the Liberals were a long way in front that would be the turning point for Howard has done nothing to justify another term, his done plenty which deserve his sacking.
Some of you will be interested in Alan Ramsey’s piece in today’s SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/polls-apart-at-the-sausage-sizzle/2007/07/13/1183833770404.html?page=3
Apart from a run down of this year’s polls and the “killing” that Howard is receiving, Alan also sticks the boot into Shanahan and The Australian over their pro-Howard spin of this weeks’ Newspoll and the fallout that followed.
There is nothing to be gained, if I was JWH, in saying anything about my retirement plans. Costello has his chance last year- he meekly stood in the corner and cursed at someone or something under his breath whilst JWH smiled and refused to answer the retirement question, again.
Smart move for Howard, maybe not so smart for the Coalition. But again I say its only JULY, Howard has no reason to call early, and its only JULY now- in horse racing parlance they havent come into the straight, yet.
Sorry, this link takes you to page 1 of the article:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/polls-apart-at-the-sausage-sizzle/2007/07/13/1183833770404.html
why dont we have fixed terms? seems to me that would settle a lot of things then again im a political novice.
In 1998 Labor did find its vote was bottled up in safe seats. In 2007 Labor probably will waste votes in Lyons, Holt, Calwell etc. But the obverse of Labor’s vote being bottled up is that the Libs vote is spread more thinly hence more marginals, thus if Labor’s vote was above 54% might they reap massive rewards as upper-range Lib marginals came into play?
Edward S
Edward St John you are clinging to faint dreams… your buddy is gone so get use to it..
Adam said
Costello must read articles like this and grind his teeth with frustration
http://www.slate.com/id/2170028/
But it serves him right for his gutlessness last year
Read the link Adam and agree with all, Costello’s and the libs best chance was a change before the budget.
Costello could have presented it as his own budget, then modified Work Choices and lost the smirk in the process, would have come across as a new government with a new direction.
John Ferguson, in the Herald Sun, (a fair and balanced political commentator in my view) says that inside the Canberra beltway most journalists believe Rudd will fail to get the 16 seats needed to beat Howard. Given the polls and the issues, and that the journalists are meant to be the gurus in this area, why on earth do they ignore what is in front of them? Is it they just don’t believe the polls (all 4 of them)? Are they just so insulated from reality they fail to see what is going on out there? Or do they believe Howard is truly the miracle man? 16 seats has been easily obtained by parties in elections before whether there has been a change of government or not. Besides whether or not it has happened in the past is surely irrelevant.
* Lyons won 30 seats in 1931 (in a House of 75, the equivalent of 60 seats today)
* Fraser won 30 seats in 1975 (in a House of 127)
* Howard won 29 seats in 1996
* Hawke won 24 seats in 1983 (in a House of 125)
* Beazley won 18 seats in 1998
* Whitlam won 18 seats in 1969 (in a House of 125)
* Curtin won 17 seats in 1943 (in a House of 74, the equivalent of 35 seats today)
* Scullin won 15 seats in 1929 (in a House of 75, the equivalent of 30 seats today)
Hi everyone whats new in the world of election predictions? Did anyone put their credibility on the line and state who will win and by how many seats?
oakeshott country – oops thanks for the correction – my maths is bad this weekend.
it is long overdue that there be a uniform system for elections through out
Australia should include …. fixed terms, optional preferential,votes are
formal as long as a voters intention is clear and probably other things
I have’nt thought of. this exists for most states but does not exist for federal
elections. This would end the speculation as to when elections are held
and the advantage of timing which goes to the incumbent
Alan Ramsey in his column today revealed Rudd has been holding secret meetings with the editor of Sydney’s DAILY TELEGRAPH – is Howard’s favourite newspaper about to desert him?
Adam’s statistic is not germane,
For example Beazley winning 18 seats in 1998 occured because Labor was coming off such a low base.
The point is not can Rudd win 16 seats its is there a big enough wave building against Howard that he will get blown away? I think you tend to have big waves which blow away governments and subsequent elections tend to see the wave gradually wound back until the next big wave brings in a new government.
For example Longman, Petrie and Herbert are all seats held by the last Labor government – but the margins according to Adam range from 6.1 to 8.9 %. On the current polling you would have to say today in July the wave may be there – but..
The waves have been few and far between in an Australian context and have tended to be in times of downturn or coming out of one ie 83 and 96. The more relevant period is 69 and 72 good economic conditions where in 69 the ALP demonstrated it was relevant again and regained seats it should always have had and 72 were it just squeaked in.
Unless of course you believe the Noocat theory that statistics like CPI from the ABS are about as reliable as Soviet Gosplan statistics.
I met Amanda Rishworth recently and i was very impressed on how she puts herself across, her professionalism and how good she makes one feel. I might disagree of her political stance and not living in the electorate but she will be so much better than Richardson. Pity the State member of Bright didnt act in the same way showing an immaturity that shocked me.
I might disagree of her political stance should read i might disagree with her political stance
Edward, had the polls been showing then what they are showing now we would be talking about PM Beazley.
Gb It ain’t a lay down misere. Note our biggest acknowledged partisan of Labor Adam hasnt called it.
Michael:
I realize that Howard is within his constitutional rights to set an election date as late as Jan 08. However the last 3 elections have all fallen between Oct 3-Nov 10, and I’m wondering what justifiable reason Howard could give for setting an election beyond this window (that would not be related to his political convenience), as in the public’s mind the pattern has been set.
While parliament must expire after 3 years, Howard can still wield power in the interim. I’ve noticed Rudd implying a couple of times in past interviews (assuming his mental arithmetic is up to scratch here) that the election would be held Sept-Oct, and this line might return after the APEC forum if the polls haven’t changed between then and now.
All part of the “remote from everyday concerns, clinging to the trappings of power, just in it for a victory lap” cocoon that the ALP has been spinning for Howard this year. Not that the Libs are helping their cause by spending more of their time taking fresh-air shots in the direction of Rudd’s scone or making “let them eat cake” pronouncements, than developing good legislation. When they do get around to the last activity it seems that public cycnicism and apathy has already set in.
Edward, of course nobody can say for certain that Rudd will win. Four months is a long time in politics. But you have to admit that Howard has a BIG fight on his hands. He is going to have to work his butt off every day until the election to turn this current polling around.
And there is the very real danger now that a lot of people are no longer listening to Howard. I know a number of people who don’t only ever pay a passing glance at politics and are swinging voters (all voted for Howard in the past) who have already decided that they don’t want him anymore. They are already looking beyond the election to a new government – for them, it’s very simple. The decision has been made, they are getting on with their lives, and couldn’t care what Howard says or does from this point on. I suspect that this situation might not be all that unusual either, which could explain why the polls have been very stable by historical standards.
I have noticed that several ALP frontbenchers have used the line that ‘Howard will do, and say anything, to win the next election’. The consistency with which this line is used suggests it has come about through focus groups, or is at least resonating in focus goups. I think that the great issue for many voters was the lack of a mandate for the IR reforms and the unexpected control of the Senate that Howard got in 2004. Many voters liked the cunningness of Howard when he was playing the big man against helpless refugees but do not want such a cunning character being in for too long and having the Senate, even if its only on a good day.
Ophuph Hucksake – I agree with you entirely, but I do not think that an election as late as the first week or so of December is outside that timeframe. I do not think he will call it dugin APEC – that would turn his relationship with GWB into a clear election issue and he would only be attending as caretaker – and Rudd would have to come along.
I suspect that Howard will hope that a long election will help him in trying to get Rudd to stumble, but I can see he might be afraid that the equalising of the campaign makes Rudd seem more like the alternative.
I suspect that he would justify going to the anniversary of election and then calling it – so mid November.
Adam – the Lib candidate for Lyons is Ben Quin, not Bob. (Bob Quinn is of course the former Qld Liberal leader).
And a photo of Nola Marino can be found here. (warning: large image)
I attend a pretty conservative church every Sunday and speak to many rusted on genuine blue rinse liberal supporters. JWH with his typical divisive politics has targeted the unemployed and the young, mainly as he would see these as largely ALP voters and not able to effect his vote, with his un-mandated IR laws. What he has failed to allow for this time is the fact that these young/unemployed people all have parents and uncles/aunts etc. I am hearing many lifetime liberal voters (self avowed) talking about their younger kindred being mistraeted by Howard and how he has been their too long. I think Howard will be annilhilated.
Many people have said that they expect a JWH inspired terrorist ‘event’. I severely doubt it will happen. Obviously not because this is beneath JWH, as their is nothing beneath the man, but because he knows that the fault for any terrorist event in Australia will be placed fairly and squarely at his feet and would mean political suicide.
What’s worrying my pessimistic mind is that Howard and co haven’t even begun their campaign yet.
Just wait for the “But we’re good for the economy, vote for Labor and you get a recession” remarks.
I met some Libs today who were telling me “If Rudd wins, boat people will come in the droves and he’ll accept them all”. After I tried to debate with them, they basically started with their slurs and bashing Arts degrees and laughing. It astounds me that these people even know how to vote, let alone, are allowed to vote.
Therefore, I believe there is still a lot of ignorance out there in the electorate that will probably believe anything. So a “We’re good for the economy” line from Howard might buy him back a few votes.
If there’s a swing to Rudd, I fear that it’ll just be 1 or 2 off from a required majority and Howard will cling on once more. After looking at past election results, some of the seats that Rudd needs to win still have quite a big gap to fill and I really wonder if he’ll be able to pull it off.
The debate though will be really interesting and I expect Rudd to slam Howard on that one.
Sean, I’m sure there is a lot more to come on an economic scare campaign over Rudd being PM. But Howard has already been running this scare campaign ever since the budget was announced back in May. We’ve heard the so-called “Garrett recession” and the “risk of Rudd” n just about everything, including forecasts of $20 cups of coffee should Rudd get in! And yet, no poll bounce for Howard.
David, many thanks.
Alan:
BxTom:
Where are all these conspiracy nuts coming from ? I thought the outbreak in the last thread was an isolated event.
Noocat Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Sorry, this link takes you to page 1 of the article:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/polls-apart-at-the-sausage-sizzle/2007/07/13/1183833770404.html
I particularly liked the phrase contained in the story;
“What on earth, some of us wondered, did Dennis have in hand when he wrote that?”
Classic,
Tom
The election campaign has been in full swing now for some months. The only difference being there is not the same level of advertising in the media. That’s why there are few undecideds.
If, the day JWH announces the election, the polls are still at 56-44 or worse, it is very unlikely that the Coalition could claw back sufficient voters to stay in government. He will obviously wait as long as he reasonable can, but I doubt after the end of November.
It’s JWH’s 68th birthday in a few days and that won’t go unremarked.
He will of course retire in a few weeks, four months or about twelve months. The question is: who will take over in those three different scenarios?
If the polls worsen as they may well after this week’s debacle, the only way the Coalition can be saved from disaster is by a swift change of leader – in the Blair/Brown mode.
My betting is that Rudd will win by 6 – 8 seats and there will be another election in about sixteen months as legislation is continually frustrated in the Senate. Before that election it is likely that Rudd will attempt to pass legislation for fixed four year terms for a referendum and such a referendum would pass. This would alleviate voter anger at another election so soon after this one.
My betting is also that Costello is far too pusillanimous to try for a spill in three to four weeks, even though the polls are still bad, and that Malcolm Turnbull will throw his hat in the ring after the election.
We’ll see but you can bet there will be leadership rumbles, not just Wilson Tuckey, if the polls stay this way. That won’t help the Coalition’s chances either.
Some earlier posts have discussed the desirability of fixed terms. The problem with bringing this change about, is that an incumbent has to give up what is seen as a considerable advantage. I don’t know the narrative of the change in NSW or in other States where it has been introduced, but I think it commendable that Bracks used a very rare Labor majority in both houses to push through fixed terms.
At the same time PR for the Legislative Council was also introduced, which involved Labor giving up the prospect of maintaining its Upper House majority. There is of course an interpretation of this as a change which long-term suits Labor, as it makes the task of a future Liberal Government’s winning a majority in both houses equally difficult.
The moral of the story is that unless there is a strong push for a change to electoral laws – such as fixed terms – Governments will tend to fiddle with for partisan advantage. Both major parties have plenty of form in this area, and the minors’ advocacy usually suggests that they might not be any better.
If people are as gullible as some are suggesting then a scare campaign on either side will go down a treat. The only question will be who has the more effective campaign. My belief is that Labor’s campaign will be more potent with IR being just one facet albeit the mainstay. If the loss of wages and condtions and even your job can’t be made into an effective scare campaign I’ll go he.
In NSW, fixed terms were the price Greiner paid for the support of independent after the 1991 election.
I’m not prepared to call the election yet but I am prepared to say that Labor is favourite in my mind. I just cannot envisage the issues, policies or scaremongering that will change greatly the mood of the electorate that is being captured by all opinion polls at the moment.
The one thing that stands out in my mind was the huge swing that took place toward Labor when Rudd took over. That has to mean something. I’ve interpreted it as “thank heavens, someone to vote for. I’m sick of this government.” If I’m right Howard is in heaps.
LABOR TO WIN 2007 ELECTION-
Welcome back Bill Weller to the blogspere –Where have u been. Apart from the obviously one eyed people predicting a Coalition landslide (Steven Kaye et al), I don’t think any of the more respected/experienced pseph people have called the election yet, so I will if for no other reason than to draw out the opinions of those ‘wiser heads’ who I think can/should call it soon .
All these figures stand to be corrected, however in my research it appears that in 1996 Labor lost 29 seats to the Coalition. 17 of those seats lost in 2006 remain Coalition seats. These seats are -
Eden Monaro (NSW) 3.3
Gilmore (NSW) 9.5
Hughes (NSW) 8.8
Lindsay (NSW) 2.9
Macarthur (NSW) 11.1
Macquarie (NSW) 0.5 (Notional ALP)
Page (NSW) 5.5
Parramatta (NSW) 1.1
Dunkley (VIC) 9.4
McEwen (VIC) 6.4
Makin (SA) 0.9
Forde (QLD) 13.0
Herbert (QLD) 6.1
Leichardt (QLD) 10.3
Moreton (QLD) 2.8
Petrie (QLD) 7.9
Gilmore, Hughes, Macarthur, Dunkley, Forde and Leichardt look beyond reach for 2007-.
In 1998, Labor lost Kalgoorlie (WA: 6.3), but won back 14 seats (net) from the Coalition.
In 2001, Labor lost 5 seats to the Coalition but won 3 for a net loss of 2 seats. These seats were-
Dobell (NSW) 4.8
Paterson (NSW) 6.8
Canning (WA) 9.5
Dickson (QLD) 9.1
Ryan (QLD) 10.4
Canning and Ryan are unlikely to be within reach for 2007. The first task for Labor at the 2007 election will be to win back seats (9) lost to the Coalition at the 2004 Federal Election. These seats are-
Greenway (NSW) 11.0
McMillan (VIC) 5.0
Kingston (SA) 0.1
Hasluck (WA) 1.8
Stirling (WA) 2.0
Bonner (QLD) 0.6
Bowman (QLD) 8.9
Bass (TAS) 2.6
Braddon (TAS) 1.1
Greenway, looks beyond Labor’s reach for 2007 and Hasluck/Stirling are not going to be easy to win unless there is a significant swing back to Labor in 2007.
In summary, Labor will be thinking that they have a reasonable chance of regaining 11 seats they lost in 1996, 1 from 1998 (Kalgoorlie), 3 seats lost in 2001 and 6 seats lost in 2004. Yep, that’s a total of 21 seats going back to Labor in the 2007 Election. I am not suggesting all 21 will be won by Labor, only that Labor is in a very good position to win 16 seats back from the Coalition this year.
What if Labor fall short of regaining 16 seats lost to the Coalition since 1996 ? There are 13 marginal/vulnerable seats the Coalition have retained throughout the 1996-2004 period which could help Labor get over the line. The QLD and SA seats are the more vulnerable given the very strong poll signals for Labor in those States. These seats are-
Bennalong (NSW0 4.0
Cowper (NSW) 6.6
Wentworth (NSW) 2.6
Corangamite (VIC) 5.3
Deakin (VIC) 5.0
Gippsland (VIC) 7.7
Latrobe (VIC) 5.8
Boothby (SA) 5.4
Wakefeild (SA) 0.7
Blair (QLD) 5.7
Hinkler (QLD) 8.8
Longman (QLD) 6.6
Solomon (NT) 2.8
With a (rough) 57-43 2PP rating at the present time, unless there is a sudden turn around for the Coalition in the coming months, I think Labor will win the 2007 Federal Election with a few seats to spare, including seats the Coalition have held since at least 1996.
Could be a couple of new seats the Coalition have won since 1996 in there somewhere and Flynn in QLD is a new one Adam rated as National.
The Libs will not lose Bennalong or Wentworth.
STROP, I don’t think Forde, Leichhardt or even Ryan are beyond reach for Labor. In fact I think even seats like Fairfax and McPherson could be in play. History shows that when Queensland swings it swings violently. On the other hand I don’t think Gippsland is winnable. I lack local knowledge about WA but I am sceptical about Kalgoorlie and Canning at this stage. I was very sceptical about Bennelong (note spelling!!) and Wentworth, but I am becoming less so after seeing the Newspoll state breakdown. Personal factors give a sitting member some leeway, but in urban seats a big swing carries all before it. Country seats are different, so I remain doubtful about Cowper, Page, Gilmore and Macarthur.
We are persistently told that although Labor might get a big swing, it can’t win 16 seats. Someone said earlier that this was still the prevailing view in the Canberra gallery. In fact it is easy, without straining credibility, to identify 16 seats that Labor *can* win. (NOTE these are not predictions!)
We have had recent polls showing Labor well ahead in Tasmania and regaining ground in WA. So we can start with Bass, Braddon, Hasluck and Stirling (4).
All polls show a healthy swing to Labor in SA. Add Kingston, Wakefield and Makin (7).
We now see evidence of a biggish swing in NSW. Obvious targets here are Parramatta, Lindsay, Eden-Monaro and Dobell (11). I could add more, but let’s be conservative.
There is obviously a big swing on in Qld. As I noted above, when Qld swings, it really swings. If this happens Labor will expect to win Bonner, Moreton, Blair, Petrie, Herbert and Longman (17). If Laming is charged over Printgate you can add Bowman (18). Leichhardt, Forde and Flynn are vacant and must be at risk.
So I have got well past 16, without Bennelong and Wentworth, without Solomon, and without anything in Vic. Although there are no easy seats in Vic, in the current climate Deakin, La Trobe, Corangamite, McMillan, McEwen and maybe Dunkley must be regarded as winnable.
I make no predictions, but it is absurd to say that even if there is a big swing Labor can’t win 16 seats. Electoral history shows that when there is a swing, urban seats fall like dominoes. One or two may resist the trend, but then others produce bigger-than-expected swings, and the anomalies average out.
Post copy:
The Age/SMH [if it is true should it be investigated, if paid for by the taxpayer? It sounds illegal to me.]:
“THE Howard Government has set up a secret propaganda unit to attack Labor’s plan to build a $4.7 billion broadband network. The unit has been established within the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, with a staff of about 10 on short-term contracts…â€
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/1m-dirty-tricks-to-kill-alps-broadband/2007/07/14/1183833835482.html
This has to make you wonder how many other dirt units they have secreted away in government, if it is legal and who is paying for it all. If the Government has dirt units whose function is simply to counter the policies and electioneering of the ALP then that surely is illegal – it it use public servants or if paid for by the taxpayer.
They investigated Qld MPs over rorting electoral allowances [using the money for the wrong things?] – this would be similar I wonder?
Just Me asked of me the following: “Question is, if your bold prediction is wrong, do you have sufficient humility and decency to turn up here and face psephological reckoning?
Well, do you?”
Of course I do. Do you?
More on the comparative popularity of PMs. While Mr Howard enjoys approval ratings in the high 40s and low 50s, it’s worthwhile noting the ratings of his predecessors: in his last year in office, Keating’s approval rating averaged a terrible 33%, and his disapproval was in the high 60s and low 70s; but what’s even more startling is that Hawke’s approval ratings in his last year languished in the 20s! Absolutely astonishing.
These were PMs the electorate was well and truly sick of, heading up a government that was irreparably on the nose. Not so John Howard.
Thank you Adam for the work you put into that response to my meanderings and I apologise for spelling JWHs seat wrong, again.
I note you are making no predictions, but I pleased to note that my thoughts are somewhere in the ball park of a comfy 16 seat gain for Labor. Thanks again. Okay kids, lets go shopping !!
Stephen Kaye, yes Hawke was polling in the 20s yet Keating won the next election. Howard almost lost prematurely in 1998 because of the GST.
Governments can expect to be in for a good two terms unless there is chaos. They cannot expect to be in for five terms or more. Voters get tired of the same old faces. The proverbial pendulum always swings.
The key problem with this government is that they have had far too few changes – people have seen Howard, Abbott, Costello, Ruddock, Downer for years and years. People are tired of them. They want fresh faces new ideas. That’s why Iemma distanced himself strongly from Carr. Chances are Carr would not have won or at least not done as well as Iemma.
You are now seeing the Brown effect in the UK. The Tories have given up already.
Truly the only thing that can save the Coalition is a change of leader and a major reshuffle, getting rid of Downer, Ruddock and co. That’s the only thing that can stop Rudd in his tracks.
For the first time I noticed Howard was talking about his health yesterday, not just for as long as his party needs him.
A health excuse would also mean he would not stand again at this coming election, giving Labor a chance of picking up that seat.
I really don’t think he could stand both a severe electoral loss and losing his seat at the same time. That would wipe out what he believes is his legacy.
I fully expect he will stand down in the next few weeks. Can he stay as long as APEC? He would want to. That would be his swansong. He couldn’t stand being on the sidelines for that.
Expect his resignation a few days after the leaders have gone.
That will cut it extremely fine for his successor to gain a foothold.
He will expect a smooth handover to Costello but I doubt if there will be no other challengers. Surely Turnbull would want to run even if he didn’t have the numbers. Nelson and Abbott would also want to but the former wouldn’t have a chance and Abbott can count.
So a brief two way tussle after APEC and an honourable self discharge for Howard.
Any clairvoyants out there? What do your crystal balls foretell?
Richard Jones, I suspect that much of what you say is possible, however, JWH could easily announce that his resignation (due to a rare tropical disease caused by K Rudd of course) will take place at the end of APEC, therefore being able to host APEC, but effectively relinquishing the leadership to Turnbull or Costello (or whomever the fallguy is to be) allowing them to take the helm as of the date of the announcement.
Tom.
Howard will stay PM until he is actually voted out. If he wins, he’ll be the Master again, and the Libs will exalt him to God-like status, so there won’t be any pressure on him to resign. The only way we’ll ever end his reign is by defeat at the polls.
I do not believe JWH will resign ahead of the election. To do so would be an admission of defeat and run the risk of complete demoralisation of the government.
The other advantage of hanging on is that in the case of a loss there is no certainty that Peter Costello would get the gig as Opposition Leader. Do not look for the PM to show any favours to the Treasurer.
JWH will hang on in the hope of a huge rabbit materialising between now and the election (My guess is 1 December, or 8 December). He really doesn’t want to give up Kirribilli any sooner than he has to.
STROP Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
LABOR TO WIN 2007 ELECTION-
Welcome back Bill Weller to the blogspere –Where have u been. Apart from the obviously one eyed people predicting a Coalition landslide (Steven Kaye et al), I don’t think any of the more respected/experienced pseph people have called the election yet, so I will if for no other reason than to draw out the opinions of those ‘wiser heads’ who I think can/should call it soon
O so my prediction of an ALP victory based on 20 years of watching Australian Politics has been dismissed
If you believe the Morgan lLabor Party polls we would have had Mark Latham as PM (arrggghhh) this term!
Interesting that Greg Rudd gets the heave-ho, just as McDonnald renews HIS membership with the ALP! Kevin Rudd is a disgrace! His mother must be proud of him, to treat his brother lower than a union thug!
Is this the kind of good old Aussie bloke you want to rely on?
Like the guy in the pub you think is your mate, but when you find yourself in a tight corner and look around, he is standing with the other side!
Good to know we can rely on you Kev. What a guy! You’re a real Pal!
I look forward to seeing how you perform the first time the unions start slapping you around if you ever won (God forbid) an election!
Best thing I think is you just leave quietly.
A 57% two party preferred vote for the ALP may not be the fantasy it seems to be. Have a look here,
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=1718#p1718
BMW
I think Strop was referring to pseph people with sites, very few unwilling to call it yet following 2004, as are few journo’s as so many got it wrong in 04.
I think following 04 some won’t call it until after the GG swears in the new cabinet.
Same mood is out there in the electorate, quite funny to see green and labor faces when you talk about the election, most do not want to get their hopes up again following previous defeats, which may also explain the mood.
Myself, I reckon 32 seats, originally thought 23, but Howard and co keep blundering around blaming everyon else for anything that is going wrong.
If I am wrong I am just an anonymous average poster who can fade away till the next election whilst the psephs will always have their predictions thrown back at them.
If I am right, well come election night I will be too plissed to post a comment saying I told you so.
I too don’t think that Howard will stand down. If he did, for whatever reason, people will wonder about his REAL motives, especially these days, where Howard is renowned for being disingenuous. These doubts would destroy his legacy – he would still be portrayed as a coward.
Howard will fight this one out, unless he is actually a coward.
The only possible way that I can see Howard leaving in a semi-honourable way would be if he was directly challenged over the leadership and lost. His departure would therefore be like Hawke’s, which certainly didn’t do Hawke too much damage when it comes to matters of legacy. If Howard really wants to get out now, then he will engineer a challenge to his leadership.
But, even so, I still think Howard will stick it out. He is addicted to power. Just watch his bag of tricks unfold as he does his best to maintain a hold of it. The dirt units being set up at taxpayers expense in numerous government departments is only the start.
Arbie Jay Says:
July 15th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
BMW
I think Strop was referring to pseph people with sites, very few unwilling to call it yet following 2004, as are few journo’s as so many got it wrong in 04.
I think following 04 some won’t call it until after the GG swears in the new cabinet.
===================================
I understand your point, but I suspect Strop will know I was joking.
Richard Jones, everyone knows (well, they SHOULD know) that Keating’s victory in 1993 was not an endorsement of his leadership or of the Government he led but was instead a rejection of Hewson and his GST. The electorate then waited patiently for another 3 years before beating Keating senseless, punishing him for inflicting “the recession we had to have” upon them.
Another interesting thing about the supposedly mega-popular Hawke – he wasn’t able to secure a swing to Labor in any of the 3 elections he contested as PM. Not one of them. Mr Howard, on the other hand, achieved swings to the Coalition twice in a row, a feat accomplished only twice since the introduction of the 2 party system in 1949.
Now, I highly doubt he’ll be able to do that a 3rd time, but he will win and will then retire in April or May of 2009, after celebrating the 13th anniversary of his first victory.
Steven, How can the Polls appear to be writing Howard off, but you think otherwise.
bmwofoz Says:
July 15th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I understand your point, but I suspect Strop will know I was joking.
Well I was referring to people with sites who have clearly done alot of homework on this subject over some time, Adam etc. However, I also have a lot of respect for what your average joe (like I am) has to say IF theyve done their homework.
BMW I havent read you predicting the outcome – must have missed that. Its all good, and I encourage anyone with sense to have a go at putting up their homework on seats and what they think can/ought to happen with them- If nothing else it kills the boredom whilst we wait for the inevitable. I dont make a living out of this stuff, thank God, buts it a lot better than watching crap on TV with the populist journo’s churning out dribble.
Well of course Steven Kaye I know that Keating’s election was not an endorsement of Paul Keating. Hardly. It was purely a GST win for Labor.
The campaign was very skilful and Hewson did bungle it somewhat. If not for the GST Hewson would have won and probably stayed there for almost as long as John Howard.
I absolutely think Howard may well consider resigning on health grounds after APEC. Yes he loves being in power but he would hate more than that a humiliating defeat.
It would be easy and even have the electorate feeling sorry for him.
How? He would suffer “chest pains” after a stressful few days with overseas leaders, be admitted to hospital for observations, stay overnight,and take his doctors’ advice to take it easy.
Headlines: “Howard Admitted to Hospital”. Which doctor can prove whether chest pains are real or not?
Cynical? Politics is cynical and loaded with lies as we have seen.
Sawford didn’t include petrol prices, because when he came up with his equation, petrol wasn’t such a huge issue for those on the edge of being able to pay their mortgages, who tend to live some distance from their work. Now it is.
That’s why Costello threatened the petrol companies with the big stick of the ACCC. Suddenly, there is no “weekly discount cycle”. Suddenly, prices are lower.
And don’t imagine for a moment that Costello didn’t know exactly what he was doing.
What occurred in 2004 with the Libs getting control of the Senate has seen the pendulum go too far one way (which then saw IR Laws bought in which was barely discussed in the election compaign). The people didn’t want Latham but Rudd is a totally different prospective and 2007 will see a correction of the 2004 result. Expect the unexpected. 16 seats are required for government in their own right however if they get either 75, they will still form the government with help of the independents (they will support the ALP as they are the party with the large no of seats even though they may have Coalition tendencies).
Howard won’t go before APEC which means he is locked in for a 2007 election. The people are not listening anymore, even one of my mates who has been a Liberal voter all his life is saying Howard is gone and change of government is likely. The Government is in deep trouble.
It always seems odd to me that we are here chatting away frantically yet the vast majority of those who will determine the outcome of this election don’t give a rats @rse about politics at all and may well deciede how they vote on the poster of a politician during a handshake or because thats the way their parents always voted or something even more petty!
Woops: Poster should read Posture (as in Latham’s handshake with Howard)
Martin B,
I believe that Tony Abbott was a member of the Liquor trades Union and of the Australian Journalists Association. I wouldn’t read too much into it. It’s bit like Victorian principals being members of the AEU. Hardly any of them have any commitment to the principles of unionism, to the principles of their profession or to their classroom “colleaguesâ€, but they still see benefits in being union members.
Bwomofz,
I am quite accepting of being excluded from he more experienced and respected pseph people, but I have already posted more than once my prediction that Labor will pick up 22 seats. This is not a call, but as the months roll by, it becomes less likely that John Howard can do a miracle, and a miracle is what it will take. If these figures occurred throughout the lead-up to the 1998 or 1996 or 1983 election, no one would be considering the possibility of a Liberal victory. It’s only Mr Howard’s miraculous clawbacks in 2001 and 2004 that make anyone consider him a possibility.
The state breakdowns in Newspoll are for three months and thus have larger samples, which should make them a little more reliable than ACNielsen breakdowns.
Some posters have made absurd statements about terrorist attacks being organised to help with the election, statements so nutty that they do not deserve a response. I am certainly not part of that conspiraphile group, but I wonder how the news of today’s ordered release of Dr Haneef on bail by the magistrate and his subsequent incarceration on the ministerial order of Kevin Andrews will play out politically. Given the evidence so far revealed in the public domain, it’s a big call, even Kafkaesque. Some may see it helping the government by creating fear in the community. I think it is more likely to create ridicule and outrage – and not just from the usual suspects.
Sorry, wrong thread.