Reuters has just issued its semi-regular Poll Trend, a weighted composite of results from Morgan, Newspoll and ACNielsen (but not Galaxy, which has been kinder to the Coalition in recent months). Their current figure has Labor ahead 57.3-42.7; the long-term trend looks a little something like this:
Despite Monday’s ACNielsen, that much-touted trend towards the Prime Minister as preferred leader is evident in other polls:
364 Comments
Rudd is a failed leader if he can’t even reach 50% preferred leader, at any time on the way up, and is now falling.
Who is next? Julia Gillard? Wrong faction.
This from John Huxley in the SMH on Howard pinning election hopes on the Wallabies winning the RWC.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/pm-pins-hopes-on-rugbyled-recovery/2007/07/18/1184559865328.html
Not where I live. Western Australians find Rugby more confusing than merging into traffic and daylight savings.
Er…Green Football
Rudd is the most popular oppostion leader in the history of opinion polling. I don’t understand what you mean.
Have you been using your forehead to light matches again?
Based on those figures, the 53-47 2PP result I talked about yesterday dosent look too far of the mark. Preferred PM is curiously inconsistent – seems it has its own drum beat and is alot more unstable.
JWHs preferred PM status isnt the one that hurting the Coalition so much as the 2PP.
Costello’ss comments all over the papers today about JWHs alleged inadequacy as a Treasurer under Fraser wont help JWHs Preferred PMs improvement- might even stall it where it sits now.
If Costello had shown the political courage he needed early last year and challenged the PM to stand down instead of waiting for some academic to interview him much later in the year he might be a well established PM by now.
The underlying message of this latest ‘poison’ is simple : ‘Well John, Im going down and Im taking you with me mate’. See ya fellas !!
2PP estimates are overrated. Nobody knows how preferences are going to flow on the day.
Asking people how they would allocate makes no sense, as most people don’t know how to use the preferential system works anyway.
The other method they use to determine 2PP is to direct them based on the way they flowed last election. This presumes that preference deals are going to be the same this election. I can see a huge margin for error there.
Primary voting intention is the figure to follow.
If you assume the drift back to the Coalition continues at the current rate you still have 54-46 in November.
And it would be wrong to assume that it will continue. They’ve pulled everything except the rabbit out of the hat since Feb and this shows how little effect they’ve had.
Today’s Costello quotes are devastating. Haneef is not playing they way they hoped. The Cook preselection is blowing up. And so on. The lock nuts fell off the Howard cart a while ago and now the wheels are following.
The Howard/Costello revelations in today’s Fairfax press are devestating – I can’t imagine any of that will help the Coalition.
The Cook preselection has been a fiasco – I bet this Michael Towke(or whatever his current surname is) will be disendorsed in a week.
On the other hand, I suspect too Labor will soon be finding a new candidate for Franklin.
Have just been listening to the radio. One prominent conservative commentator has declared the election lost for the conservatives. Laurie Oakes and the head of Sportingbet say the same thing. This book is poison.
“Howard was a poor treasurer, is an overspending PM, doesn’t tell the truth and will stab you in the back — that’s a rough summary of Costello’s view.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ … 67763.html
Andi t’s a view shared by many Australians as well.!
I find it fascinating that all of a sudden, out of the blue, the commentariat are carrying on about what most of us here have known for a long time – the Coalition is in deep doo doo up to their eyeballs.
Honestly, these guys break news like my bicycle breaks the sound barrier.
I’ve fixed up my 2 Pollycide posts to be far more coherent and reflective of the point I was trying to get across, and its tied into the composition of this poll trend.
The question remains for me, looking at the Newspoll data compared to those 2PP trends up the top in the Reuters graph, which safe government seats are the massive swings happening in?
For a 14.6% average swing against the government safe seats to occur, and acknowledging that some of the cowpoke seats will hardly swing at all (maybe too big an assumption on my part) – that means some other safe gov seats would have to be swinging by 20% or more for the quarterly Newspoll figures to balance out.
Where the hell are they? Anyone got an idea?
well well well
’tis a tangled web we weave when we set out to decieve’
J-HO take note
1 the traditional Libs have deserted you and your cronies
2 the feeding frenzy is only going to ratchet up another level
3 the dream has ended- now for your worst nightmare-THE TRUTH
Each week brings increased intensity. I just want it to be over already, I have a life to live.
Do we have a Morgan tomorrow? The way things have been going for the government and if the last ACNeilsen was close to the truth Im betting the Morgan might show 60/40 and if they polled this weekend it would be even worse. The Haneef show simply highlights the way this govt does business.
I dont think Costello is the answer now, it is too late.
If you bring in Costello who is his running mate? People are used to Howard and Costello. Costello and Turnbull/Abbott/Downer/Brough just seems too shallow or distasteful. And Costello has some personality issues that he doesnt seem to be able to control no matter how hard he tries.
I dont ever recall Costello talking on anything except financial matters – how would go on the broader issues he would have to cover?
Aesthetics ask for Abbott.
Possum, Rudd’s itinerary (see Hartcher’s blog on the SMH site) might give a clue as to the unsafe safe seats. have thought for a while that the Gold Coast/Sunshine Coast seats in Qld were vulnerable and anywhere else where there are large concentrations of upstairs/downstairs voters (eg Cook) ie those who vote Labor at state level and Lib federally. Suspect many of these have now decided to put all their eggs in one basket.
If anyone has the time and technology it’d be interesting to map state Labor seats and their margins against the Federal maps. Thah should go a long way to answering Possum’s question.
Peter Beattie still holds quite a few seats on the Gold/Sunshine Coasts at the state level, so perhaps it’s not out of the question Rudd could make some inroads there too?
If Kev is suddenly campaigning on Sydney’s North Shore(blue ribbon Liberal territory), then I’ll know Howard is completely stuffed.
That Guy Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 7:41 am
“2PP estimates are overrated. Nobody knows how preferences are going to flow on the day……….. I can see a huge margin for error there.
Primary voting intention is the figure to follow.”
Yes, you are correct in suggesting that primary voting intentions is the figure to follow, and also correct to be cautious when looking at two party projections, but not quite correct when you suggest there is a huge margin for error in projecting a two party figure, as the flow of preferences hasn’t varied all that much over the last 25 years. So we can be fairly confident of what is most likely to happen, to project a two party vote.
Preference flows to the ALP:
1983 53.7%, 1984 57.3%, 1987 61.7%, 1990 61%, 1993 60.2%, 1996 53.8%, 1998 53.4%, 2001 58.9%, 2004 61.7%.
On that basis if we take the results of the last poll results from each of the four pollsters, it gives the primary votes as ALP 48.4 Coalition 38.8, so the lowest flow to the ALP (53.4%) delivers a TPP of 55.2% and the highest flow (61.7%) delivers a TPP of 56.3%, and mid point of 55.75%.
I do agree, however, that some of the allocations in some of the polls, which can be as high as 75%, are overstated.
The primary vote and TPP figures are predicting a big ALP win. And not before time either. What worries me is the continuing strong support for Howard as preferred PM. As many have said, come election day, as many as 20% will make up their minds on the spot, and that strong preferred PM support may still get him across the line.
Worries about Rudd’s inexperience and the experience of his front bench will work against Rudd on the day. The libs will work on this perception.
What will work against Howard? I think
WorkChoices (the Minchin H R Nicholls gaff)
Nuclear energy (they should play a version of that Greenpeace anti-nuclear ad – it’s truly terrifying)
and a big one, he’s been in for eleven years, he’s 68, it’s not that he’s a bad man, but it’s time for a change.
The biography thing with Costello is *not* going to help Howard’s image. A lot of people are now challenging the standard narrative that the Libs = good economic management. I just don’t know where Costello is going at the moment.
Rudd campaigning in Goldstein is interesting – I wouldn’t have thought that seat would be as big a chance as others of similar margins, even with the big swings that are happening.That said, I’m not a Mexican so what would I know.
McPherson makes sense with the schizo Gold Coast vote.
I think Hartcher is fooling himself if he thinks Swan and Cowan will change hands – there is still a 5.3% swing in WA, which if it were a national swing would be enough for Rudd to take government.
Parramatta might have been redistributed, but nowhere near the extent it needed to have been to hold back that big anti-gov NSW swing that is happening.
Boothby and Wentworth are classified as marginals by newspoll, so those seats arent in the calculation of the big 14.6% swing safe seat swing.
Sturt is though, so that makes sense.
There must be some in NSW, particularly regional NSW for these swings to start making sense, but I can figure out where.
Maybe places like Cowper as there’s been solid population growth there and Real Estate prices have exploded over the last 6 years.
Maybe Lyne with that massive urban growth corridor quickly filling up between Port Macquarie and Wauchope, but even there I cant imagine for the life of me places like Wingham, Harrington, Old Bar, Taree changing from a Nat vote – let alone all the sleepy little rural hollows that dot the seat.
Page was classified as a marginal, but you would think that if a swings on in NSW its going to be a bit nasty there.
In Qld there is no shortage of seats to make up the swing balance which I think I mentioned a month or so back – Hinkler, Petrie, Dickson, Forde etc.
But NSW has got be flummoxed
I think that Costello would outperform most people expectations as leader. Being the treasurer is never going to make you popular (can anyone name a popular one?)
Once he steps away from the Job I think people would find he is the closest thing to a human being in Senior Liberal ranks.
If John stays now I think it will be a rout. I can almost hear Costello comments being quoted in the ALP ads during the election.
The key question is has Peter left it run too late to take over the helm? Is it now too much of a poisoned chalice?
On preference flows, would I be wrong to think that a strong FPP vote for the ALP will most likely result in a weaker preference flow to it?
Also, the other factor to consider may be that in all elections since 1983 and before 2004, the significant minor party’s votes tended more towards the ALP. That is, the coalition did not have a significant feeder party. That may have been thrown out the window by the rise of Family First.
As a result, it appears to me that to get anywhere close to winning, the ALP’s FPP vote needs to remain very near 50%.
Bryans site is back up
Rob said,
“As many have said, come election day, as many as 20% will make up their minds on the spot, and that strong preferred PM support may still get him across the line.”
Yes Rob, I’ve heard that statistic many times, but I wonder what it is based on?
There’s so much that’s presented as fact in polling but whether it’s true or not who knows? Possum showed the assertion made by Dennis Shanahn and later supported by Martin O’Shannessy, that preferred PM is a leading indicator for voting intentions, to be false. This analysis
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=94
shows the assertions made by Sol Lebovic that,
“….. [Howard] was further behind at an early stage of the 2001 race. Commentators who are trying to say it’s all over forget that Howard has been behind at this stage of the electoral cycle before. I don’t see this as a repeat of 1996, the last election at which there was a change of government. Howard is in a stronger position than Paul Keating was at this stage in 1996″
are also false.
If you look at the book by Don Watson on Paul Keating, “Confessions of a bleeding heart”, you’ll see repeated discussion about how they believe the election could be won or lost at any time and that every piece of policy and reporting thereof is crucial to the outcome. But it’s absolutely clear that as the Newpoll figures show, the moment John Howard assumed the leadership in 1995, it was all over, and that nothing either side did made any difference.
The best you could argue is, that both sides needed to keep up the effort to maintain an equilibrium, but that’s really about it.
So as for this 20% figure, I’d really like to see the research that went into determining that claim, because I suspect, it’s about as valid as the other claims made above by Shanahan, O’Shannessy and Lebovic.
I think those in the political industry talk to one another so much, that they start to believe everything they say is correct, without qualification.
Related to above post, separated links to avoid moderation,
Possum showed the assertion made by Dennis Shanahn and later supported by Martin O’Shannessy, that preferred PM is a leading indicator for voting intentions, to be false.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/poll-wars-episode-1-–-the-phantom-metrics/
Aristotle says: “…those in the political industry talk to one another so much, that they start to believe everything they say is correct, without qualification”. True enough, I suppose, but does the political industry also embrace online contributors to blogs on politics? If it does, I find Aristotle (like his namesake) very persuasive.
If there’s a landslide on, any Coalition seat with a margin under 10% is fair game, except Higgins.
The 20% talk is just crap. 20% of swinging voters maybe, but realistically there are probably about 35% stalwart ALP supporters (even Latham got that much ffs) and about 35% stalwart Coalition voters, leaving 30% truly ’swinging’ voters. Take 20% of those and you have about 6% of overall voters that make up their minds on the day. That’s more a figure I’d believe.
I *am* a Mexican, and I don’t think for a moment Labor is going to win Goldstein, although our excellent candidate is working very hard to do so. Like Wentworth, Goldstein (previously Balaclava) is a federation seat which has never elected a Labor member in 106 years, and unlike Wentworth, it has not just had Darlinghurst added to it. It will be a cool to mild day in Hell before the good burghers of Brighton start voting Labor.
As I said earlier, I think Rudd is campaigning in seats like this to keep the Libs off balance and to encourage them to waste time and money on second-tier seats and thus divert time and money away from front-rank seats. But, hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Rudd has a secret poll showing a 20% swing among Brighton Beach millionaires. Ask Shane Warne, he lives there. And now we have Costello working for us, anything is possible.
How is The Daily Howard (which I don’t read) treating the Costello story?
I’m happy to say Costello seems to be towing the line. I want Howard to face the music. If he loses it will be well deserved.
I have seen Howard twice in three weeks here in Bennelong.
Usually I don’t see him until the election is well and truly on.
He looks very nervous. First time I have seen this.
On ya Pete! Really smart move!
Well the Libs have just seen their chance of re-election hit the cellar. It’s almost as if these idiots have a death wish.
Despite the fact that this has probably made Costello the most despised member of the party, the only decent move he could make now would be to contain the damage and challenge the PM for the leadership.
Saw Maxine Mckew at the theatre last night and she came across really well. Will be tough for her to win, but I hope she puts in a good show either way.
The reason the preferences have moved in recent elections to the ALP is because the Democrats have imploded. About 45% of Democrats were small l liberals who found refuge in the Democrats from the non-liberal Liberals. They have now moved to other parties. At this election, of course depending on the size of the Green vote and Family First will most likely be 60-66% to the ALP. Howard really cannot win with a primary vote under 45%. I suspect it will end up around 42%.
It’s not too late for Costello to take over from Howard but after these latest headlines it is surely unlikely that Liberal ministers will reward his disloyalty with the top job just before the election.
The only way he would get it now would be if Howard was genuinely too sick to carry on.
Malcolm Turnbull is in second place but if the swing remains he will be fighting to keep his own seat.
This could be a very big disaster for the Coalition and I don’t see any way out of it now the Costello option has surely be closed off.
Adam – the Government Gazette is focusing on the “Costello reaffirms support for Howard” angle coming from Costello’s denials, rather than the actual comments in the biography.
They went to town on the Government today over the Haneef issue, though. I note that the more low-brow News Ltd papers went even harder over the issue, very very very poor press for the Government I would say.
Possum,
I agree with you on Lyne . Port Macquarie votes about 30% ALP – while there is massive housing growth – the owners are retired sea changers and are more likely to prefer high interest rates rather than low. Apart from the hippy commune of Elands, Labor does best in Taree but still only 40-45. The little communities are solid National. The ALP candidate is an unknown and the sitting member is the deputy PM. It will be the last seat to fall to Labor. The only excitement will be IF Rob Oakeshott stands as an independent – in that case Vaile has every chance of losing – I think the first deputy PM to lose his seat since Frank Forde in 1946 (?).
The title of Deputy PM has only existed since 1968, and no Deputy PM has lost his seat – Beazley came close in 1996. Forde was Deputy Leader of the ALP, but mainly by dint of long service rather than because he was seen as the second man in the government.
I find it fascinating that all of a sudden, out of the blue, the commentariat are carrying on about what most of us here have known for a long time – the Coalition is in deep doo doo up to their eyeballs.
Honestly, these guys break news like my bicycle breaks the sound barrier.
Possum Comitatus (9:15 am)
LOL. Nice one.
Thank you, David Charles, that’s very kind of you.
“mainly by dint of long service rather than because he was seen as the second man in the government”
That’s a bit harsh isn’t it? Forde only narrowly lost the ballot to Curtin in 1935 (and would have won easily if Holloway hadn’t campaigned against him so strongly) so at that time he probably was seen as the #2 in the party. By 1945 he had obviously been eclipsed by Chifley in this regard, but was still one of the very senior ministers.
Forde’s 1935 defeat was due to a division in the AWU group with Queenslander Bill Rioridan backing Curtin, an echo of the 1931 split. In 1945 Forde’s 16 votes for the leadership comapred to 45 for Chifley were a fair representative of his status. was his 1957 defeat (due to Katter Snr) the only 1 vote margin? Goldstein: Labor won the Legislative Council province.
Aristotle said: I do agree, however, that some of the allocations in some of the polls, which can be as high as 75%, are overstated.
Note particularly a recent Morgan, where the Dem to ALP flow was 100%. Why? because only 5 of the 1000 people polled were Democrat voters.
Forde was a decent bloke but a plodder. In 1935 he was defeated by Curtin, a backbencher with a drinking problem, which doesn’t say much for his standing. He does however have the distinction of being the only Privy Councillor ever to sit in a state parliament.
Goldstein: Yes Labor won Higinbotham but Higinbotham had much more Labor territory in it (Bentleigh and Mordialloc) than Goldstein does, and in any case state results are a poor indicator – otherwise Beazley would now be PM by a wide margin.
I think I am going to have to offer a reward for a photo of the mysterious John ‘Wacka’ Williams, Nationals NSW Senate candidate. Also John Fitzroy (ALP Cowper) and James Langley (ALP Lyne). Oakeshott, this is your territory…
“Forde was a decent bloke but a plodder. In 1935 he was defeated by Curtin, a backbencher with a drinking problem, which doesn’t say much for his standing.”
That’s as may be, but he was still the #2 plodder
If Curtin vs Forde was a drunk vs a no-hoper then what was everyone else?
Anyway he was only narrowly defeated by an organized campaign against him because of his support for the Premiers’ Plan – in which I imagine you would have said that he did the right thing!
The 1935 Caucus was not exactly bristling with talent. I have no firm view on the merits of the Premiers Plan.
I notice that the CLP candidate for Lingiari, a seat which is 36% indigenous, is Adam Giles. Is this the same Adam Giles who was the Liberal candidate for Fraser in 2004, when he was a Canberra public servant and MBA student?
http://www.eniar.org/news/giles.html
If so, it will be interesting to see how the CLP present him to NT indigenous communities, since although he is indigenous he comes from the Blue Mountains, and can only have moved to the NT in the last three years.
Adam:
Is this the same John Williams ?
http://nsw.nationals.org.au/resource/Web—JW12-December-2006-05.jpg
That link has stopped working, but the nationals had a candidate/member called John Williams in Murray-Darling.
No it’s a different one. That John Williams was elected.
Lingiari is Warren Snowden and I can tell you he wont lose. Very well known and respected. But then again I might be bias.
We have Kevin Rudd here tomorrow with candidate Damien Hale [against Tollner - Solomon] so I will go down to the eveing markets and have a look. Wont take much to beat Tollner – he is a bit of a dolt and once bragged that he had his fingers all over WorkChoices.
If we consider unofficial Deputy Prime Ministers before the official title was established, then in addition to Frank Forde in 1946 there is the case of Ted Theodore, defeated at the 1931 election.
John Curtin’s one-vote defeat of Frank Forde for the Labor leadership in 1935 was serendipity in extremis. Forde had been considered a certainty, but Queensland members, especially Darby Riordan, opposed him. E.J. Holloway (the bloke who had knocked off Prime Minister Stanley Bruce in Flinders in 1929) believed that only someone who had opposed the Premiers’ Plan would be acceptable as Labor leader, especially to the trade unionists of NSW and Victoria. Holloway tried to adjourn the election until the completion of unity negotiations with the Lang Labor group, but this proposal was defeated. Norman Makin – a possible contender for the job – was in London with Charles Frost for the Coronation and therefore out of the loop. Both cabled votes for Forde.
In the end it came down to Maurice Blackburn, who disliked and distrusted Curtin. Riordan asked Blackburn’s close friend, Arthur Drakeford, to try to persuade him to vote for Curtin, but Blackburn said: “I’m not voting for Curtin. It is the last thing I will do. I can’t honestly vote for Forde, so I have decided to refrain from voting. I won’t be at the Caucus meeting.â€
Drakeford went to Sydney disappointed at his failure to win Blackburn over, but next morning he received a letter from Blackburn authorizing him to cast a proxy vote for Curtin if he conscientiously believed he should. There was a heated debate in Caucus on the right of absent members to cast a proxy vote but in the end Drakeford was permitted to cast two votes without revealing for whom he was to vote. Blackburn’s vote was the vital one.
“As the doors of the Caucus room opened the reporters rushed to congratulate Forde and ask him for a statement. ‘Not I,’ said Forde gamely. “This is whom you want to see.’ And Curtin, still deferring to Forre, spoke enthusiastically of Forde’s long loyalty to Labor.â€
- From John Curtin by Lloyd Ross
Also Walter Massy-Greene, deputy leader of the Nationalist Party, defeated at Richmond in 1922. Had he not been defeated, he almost certainly would have become PM instead of Stanley Bruce. He was defeated by Roland Green, the Country Party candidate, who had lost a leg in the war. His campaign slogan was “Vote for the Green without a knee.” (a pun, geddit?)
Adam,
I can’t find a photo of James Langley. There was one in the Port Macquarie News about 10 days ago but it has gone from the web site and isn’t even in the photo sales site. As soon as another one appears I will send it on.
Ditto for John Fitzroy.
Thanks. They will appear at the ALP website eventually. As for Wacka Williams, who knows?
Adam you will be pleased to hear that the Greens election site is under construction
Agree with Kina. Warren Snowdon is very, very unlikely to lose. Tollner, on the other hand, has a hard road to walk.
That Guy Says:
Primary voting intention is the figure to follow.
True, but- How many seats at the last election were decided on 2nd Preferences at the last election ?
When I looked at AEC some time ago there were heaps of them; and, I venture to suggest, the 2PP outcome in ‘marginal’ seats wins or loses the seat, the State, and shapes the final outcome.
SEATS DECIDED ON 2PP RESULTS: 2OO4.
COALITION (27 SEATS)
Bass: Braddon: Bennelong: Bonner: Cunningham: Dawson: Dobell: Eden Monaro: Gippsland: Greenway: Hasluck: Herbert: Hinkler: Kalgoorlie: Kingston: Lindsay: Kalgoorlie Makin; McMillan;Moreton;Page;Stirling; Swan; Wakefield; Wentworth; Wide Bay.
LABOR (35 SEATS)
Adelaide: Ballarat : Banks :Barton: Bendigo: Brand: Brisbane: Bruce: Canberra: Capricornia : Charlton : Chisolm: Corio: Cowan: Denison:
Franklin: Fremantle : Griffith: Hindmarsh: Holt: Isaacs: Jaga Jaga: Kingsford Smith: Lilley: Lowe : Lyons; Melbourne Ports: Newcastle: Parramatta: Perth: Rankin: Richmond:Shortland: Swan: Sydney (Total:35)
The Coalition has 24 seats with a 2PP margin of 5.74% or less up for grabs at the 2007 Federal Election. A 53-47 2PP swing would take them all out if they were (which they never are) ALL consistent with the National results.
Primary vote intention is certainly more rigorous in validity and reliability as a measurement tool for speculating an outcome in a particular seat, State or National outcome (at a stretch).
Moreover, as you rightly point out, there isnt much to be gained in using previous election preference allocations from the Greens (strongly favouring the ALP, around 78% from memory in 2004) and Family First (who roughly split their preferences 60-40 in favour of the Coalition in 2004), for example.
However, the 2PP result decided the fate of at least 62 seats in 2004, and thats not including Independents and the CLP (Solomon). Towit, more than a third of the 150 seats up for grabs were decided on the 2PP OUTCOME, not the PRIMARY VOTE.
Therefore, in my humble opinion, whilst the 2PP assumptions made on the back of primary vote intentions are clearly rubbery and poorly explained in terms of methodology and tools of measurement etc, the 2PP in POLLS is of equal value (in my way of thinking) to the Primary Vote as a tool for speculation, not prediction. This may go against the current dominant pseph orthodoxy but I dont care. LOL.
http://greens.org.au/SA
http://greens.org.au/Kingston
Didnt I say I was going to shut up for a few weeks ? Oh yeah. Whoops. Okay the gaffa tape is securely applied. MMMOPWOUSUSSUDIOIODDIODSPD …….Can I at least take it off for a coffee ? Kamakazi Costello dropped the last nail in the coffin today MEOOPSSPPPSSPPS: Im done !
Link to seats decided on preferences in 2004 below-
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseSeatsDecidedOnPrefs-12246-NAT.htm
I’m wondering what happens when the current Newspoll stats are applied to the pendulum from BEFORE the 2004 election. The 2004 election made some government seats safer, and shifted some from marginal to safe. Part of the swings that Newspoll is reporting is a return to the 2001 state of affairs, wtih an additional swing on top. Maybe the 2004 election is just making the swings seem much bigger than they are?
Link to seats decided on Primary Votes in 2004 below.
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseSeatsDecidedOnFirstPrefs-12246-NAT.htm
Some bloggers have been wondering about where the surprise swings to Labor might come in the election. one area that I think has been neglected by the pundits is regional Victoria. Peter Costello, in a rare departure from inner Melbourne and Canberra, has been putting some campaigning effort recently into the very marginal Labor seats of Bendigo and Ballarat. These seats have always been marginal, and Bendigo, in fact, has an odd tradition of going against the national trend (sort of a reverse “litmus seat”!). The Labor member for Ballarat, Catherine King, is very capable, and won the seat from the Liberals against the national trend. So she should be safe enough in the home town of Steve Bracks. Amazingly, the coalition always struggles to find a top candidate to contest Bendigo.
The “tree change” seats of McMillan and McEwen, not too far from Melbourne, are marginal for the coalition. And keep a special eye of Corangamite, which everyone seems to be ignoring. It’s been held for centuries by Liberal Stewart Macarthur, who doesn’t really light anyone’s fire. The demographics of the Great Ocean Road/Otways area are changing with the influx of sea-changers (it’s the area where “Sea Change” was actually filmed), and Labor made gains in the area in the Victorian election. The pending closure of Ford’s Geelong factory could help Labor there too.
I suspect Peter McGauran is safe enough in Gippsland, as Gippslanders don’t like the Bracks Government’s water policies. David Hawker in Wannon is protected by a big-enough margin, but the demographics are probably moving Labor’s way there too.
Country Victoria certainly won’t decide the election, but I think it’s worth some attention. Water and the drought are very big issues there.
Well Howard was looking VERY rattled during his interview with Kerry O’Brien on the 7.30 Report. And apart from looking like he was about to lose self control, he did a very bad job of fending off Kerry’s questions. It was just a whole lot of “I don’t make comments on that, let me just say that Labor is overrun by union officials”.
A tragic-comedy.
I agree Howard was terrible… and if continues to use the union line he will lose in massive landslide ,but in regards to this issue all i will say is… who cares, this is another silly fight between two people in the school yard.. why can’t our media and book writers concentrate on real issues. Would have been better if Wayne dick brain Swan shad his mouth today.
Wasn’t Charles Blunt, Leader of the Country Party in 1990, and therefore Deputy PM, when he lost Richmond (?) ?
I don’t know if this is the forum I should be asking on, but can someone tell if Labor are running a candidate in Calare?
If I am on the wrong forum, can someone point me in the right way?
Peter,
Labor was in government in 1990.
Howard’s left shoulder nearly sheared off a couple of times. Interestingly though, he was rock solid while saying he didn’t leak the Stone memo and had nothing to do with it and was distressed when he discovered the leak. If it wasn’t Howard, who leaked it?
No sign of a Labor candidate in Calare yet. There will be one, but it will someone very obscure – a student at Charles Sturt Uni perhaps – and they will keep very quiet, because Labor wants the independent Gavin Priestley to win the seat.
Cui bono, Amber, cui bono.
Many thanks Adam
I would like to know whether we saw the political death of Howard today. I kept waiting for the rabbit come out, but it seems that his own right hand man has finished him off.
Seems funny and ironic that that one of the Libs most electorally successful men was finished off by one his own!
Any thoughts?
PS Priestley is not without a hope in Calare, especially if he can ride on Andren’s coattails, and the fact that no one likes the coalition at the moment.
I agree that Howard looked “shocked and awed’ facing Kerry tonight, but he must be admired for his ability to always face the media and its questions. He dit just have one line – alp = union leaders, but he is congratulated (if that is really the right word) for his presence.
Now of course, the ALP has two arguments –
Who can you trust to run the economy – according to Costello it is not Howard AND
Can you trust Peter Costello to look after the money? – not if a stronger person is in charge.
Better word than congratulated is commended
Better word than presence is persistence.
Priestley must be given a good chance. Not only is the Coalition on the nose, the Nats are particularly so, and Cobb is a dim bulb even by Nat standards. All Priestley has to do is hold Cobb to less than 50%, and he will coast in on everybody else’s preferences. Labor must be careful not to come in ahead of Priestley, hence the need for a very obscure candidate who does and says nowt.
I know it’s a bit off-topic, but …
How could Costello have been so bloody stupid?
He must have now blown any chance he ever had of leading the Liberal Party for starters.
Country Victoria
The ALP should be able to hold Ballarat and Bendigo
The Liberals should hold Indi, Wannon, Murray and Flinders
The Nationals should hold Mallee and Gippsland
leaving McMillan, Corrangamitte, McEwan
McMillan – Is a tricky seat for its winnable for the ALP with just a 5% margin and several strong ALP towns, but with just as many strong Liberal towns, this seat will be most interesting with experience campaigner in Russell Broadbent whom has a knack of being a oncer.
McEwan – Liberals hold it by 6.5% I know this seat very well and its always surprised me that its a marginal for its got quite a large number of small conservative minded towns, the Greens do very well around Kinglake and St Andrews, Fran “Fannie” Bailey is seen as a good local MP, if the ALP can crack towns in the Macedon ranges and highland areas they have a real chance, this type of seat is winnable but I’m tipping a very close win for the Liberals but after today’s effort and the open war that appears to be about to break out seats like McEwan may just go what the.
Corrangamitte – this seat looks very winnable for the ALP, and in light of the Ford job loses and the open warfare in the Liberal Party, I think this seat may already be counted as an ALP gain.
Chris,
Thanks for gently noting of my brain implosion. I’ll attribute it to a senior moment, although Mr. H. has several more years on the clock than me.
If you know McEWEN quite well please spell it right. EVERYONE gets this wrong.
I don’t think Corangamite will be easy as that, despite McArthur’s self-indulgence in running again at age 70. I am still sceptical about Labor winning seats in Victoria. McMillan’s Liberal margin is bigger than it looks, because Zahra had some personal vote which is now gone. Broadbent may be a serial oncer but he is well-known and has built a reputation as an independent Liberal which will do him some good.
Sorry, it is McEwen as is the nice little town called Yea!!
Hi all,
I just saw the Howard interview on 7:30, but I can’t help wondering if it was the same thing you all saw. To my eyes, Howard simply looked bemused. He is never on stonger ground than when leadership questions are thrown at him and my views is that he saw these comments from Costello as a minor background noise.
He knows he is in deep trouble for other reasons, but most people with an independant view won’t judge his current performance at age 70 against a time when he was barely 40. My reading of his clarity on 7:30 and certaintly of answers was that
1) his responses to Kerry were consistent with every answer he has given to leadership tension questions since 1996; and
2) this is just another opportunity to look like a man of steel.
Wake up people – do you expect a 57.5 TPP to grow because of another beat up around Costello comments?????
Adam, do you think the $17 for “any other candidate” in Calare is worth a lazy hundred? I put $30 on it a few weeks ago for the reasons you say as I am a wuss but am oh so tempted to max out my self-enforced limit for this election just because Cobb is so dim.
I don’t think this will make much difference to the government’s already appalling poll ratings.
I do see it as significant though. The government will look a bit silly if they try and needle the ALP over factional difference, for instance. At the very least that weapon has been dulled.
Mr Squiggle, I disagree with your assessment. I have seen many Howard interviews, and there is a big difference between tonight’s interview and previous ones where he is fully on top of things.
In my assessment, far from looking bemused, he looked a little panicked. This is not just a leadership quarrel. The comments made by Costello attack Howard’s legacy and allow Labor to fan the flames over questions about whether Howard really is such a great economic manager.
Make no mistake, these revelations are damaging and Howard knows it.
Regarding the effect on polls, sure, I agree, this is unlikely to extend Labor’s lead. Will it make a little dent in Howard’s preferred PM rating? Who knows. But one thing is highly probable, little scandals like this don’t exactly help Howard to turn the polls around in his favour.
edward, gambling is for mugs. Give your $17 to your local ALP candidate.
Why is no-one mentioning Janette Howard’s contribution, “John wasn’t into making firm commitments.”? She’s almost called him a pathological liar. The worst part is that she doesn’t understand the danger in saying it, says a lot about both of them. If I was Labor, that would feature prominently in the campaign proper.
And for fun, not disparaging Mr and Mrs Howard (marriage and politics are two different things) but because someone has to say it, are John Howard’s wedding vows non-core promises?
The one thing that has always puzzled me about the 2004 campaign (alright second thing if you count that Medicare Gold was not mentioned until the last 10 days) is why Labor did not use the arguments that Costello has so succinctly used to defuse the interest rate scare.
McEwen is a very difficult seat to predict, because it has a very diverse demographic mix. The Northern suburbs of Melbourne tend to be safe Labor territory (both State and Federally), and over the last 3 years, these suburbs have increasingly sprawled into McEwen. Then you’ve got the hippies around St Andrews, and the Greens beyond Melbourne’s North-East who live in the protected ‘wedge’ area.
On the other hand, being such a big electorate in some ways, it also includes some very conservative towns – I think I remember reading somewhere that this area has Victoria’s highest rate of gun ownership, for instance. Still, I’m not sure that Howard’s done much over the past 3 years to make these voters ‘rusted on’, and I don’t think Rudd has done anything to scare them off. This could be an interesting seat to watch.
P.S. when Curtin died it was Forde who was called to Yarralumla – if that doesn’t indicate he was deputy prime minister (even if he didn’t have the title) I don’t know what would.
Yawn,
William B there seems to be a mass outbreak of violent agreement these days on the blog.
I am starting to feel like a Social democrat or communist voter in Greater Germany in the days of the Anschluss plebiscite suggesting an alternative.
There is an overmighty dose of triumphalism out there – you just have to see K Rudd with the ear to ear grin. Campaigning in Goldstein indeed – smacks more of arrogance than psy ops.
Its lonely when your a Cassandra but I say it again – Rudd is going to lose.
I loathe Howard, but thought he handled his eating of a s**t sandwich on the 7:30 report fairly well. I doubt that it will do him any good in the polls for having done so however, as most voters have probably factored in his likely retirement in the most unlikely event of a coalition victory. I think Costello has fired a complete fusilade into his feet with this effort.
Tony Abbotts seat may be in some doubt despite the fat margin. I have not heard of a less popular person with the women voters. He may well have turned off sufficient of them to become one of Possum Comitatus’s fabled safe seat with swing greater than 14%.
Abbot on Lateline in answering the Costello/Howard dramas:
“Shit happens”
It sure does Tony, it sure does.
hi guys from the AEC Mc Ewen is
McEwen covers an area of 10 675 sq kms from Seymour in the north to Powelltown in the south, and from Woodend in the west to Alexandra in the east. The main towns and localities include Alexandra, Broadford, Diamond Creek, Eildon, Gisborne, Healesville, Lancefield, Hurstbridge, Kilmore, Macedon, Marysville, Riddells Creek, Romsey, Seymour, Wallan, Warburton, Whittlesea, Woodend, Woori Yallock, Yarra Glen, Yarra Junction and Yea.
http://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/m/mcewen.htm
Full credit to Howard for fronting up to the media on a day like this – it can’t have been a fun gig.
To my ears his speech sounded slow, without energy and without any new lines to peddle. Is he thinking of pulling the pin?
Oakeshott, he was called to Yarralumla because he was Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. There was no post of Deputy Prime Minister until January 1968. It was created specifically for Sir John McEwen (after whom the seat under discussion is named) to emphasise his stature compared with the pygmies in charge of the post-Menzies Liberal Party. He was by then the last member of Menzies’ original Cabinet.
During the 1972 election a group called Businessmen for a Change of Government ran a brilliant full-page advert with a huge photo of a glowering McEwen, and the caption “Jack McEwen wouldn’t serve under McMahon – why should you?”
Edward, “Cassandra” is overstating it a bit, don’t you think? While the heretics are sometimes right (eg. Copernicus), usually they are in the minority for a reason — they’re just plain wrong
Correct me if I’m wrong: Your strongest argument that I’ve seen is that Howard will win this time because he won from behind last time. And the time before that.
Weak argument IMHO.
You’re not Cassandra, Edward, you’re Pollyanna.
After today’s events I am now convinced you are having us on Edward. Either that or you’re an extreme optimist.
Edward, do you seriously believe that a coalition in its current state can find anything that would turn around over 12 months of disastrous polls in approx 4 months? Do you believe that the people polled over that period (both my wife and I among them) have misled the pollsters? Do you agree with Howard that people are just having a little temporary joke at the expense of the coalition?
The rabbits have been myxoed! There will be no escape. It is not just Rudd who is anticipating Howards every move, the voters are also, and when he proves them right they accuse him of cynical motives, even when they approve of his actions as they apparently do with the Aboriginal communities intervention.
I am ashamed to admit I have forgotten who Pollyanna was!
I think we are in the zen zone now – poll tragics are convinced by them (opinion polls) particularly as they confirm their own prejudices.
When you reach this point you cant sway people – you either believe for or against now!
There are lots of arguments why Rudd will lose – largely as to interpreting the correct conclusions from 2004. Sometimes you just have to put it out there but it is so obvious people wilfully refuse to see it. I can see it clearly now.
Like I said previously there is an awful lot of measuring the curtains of ministerial suites happening in the ALP and that is a classic sign of early climax syndrome in politics – its going to be 1969, 1980 all over again.
Mike C – Keep dreaming
Gary B – Extreme vision not optimism
Amber D – no that is not my argument
“Like I said previously there is an awful lot of measuring the curtains of ministerial suites happening in the ALP….” Where are you getting this BS Edward? I can tell you one thing though, if it is 1969 again Labor will win.
“…largely as to interpreting the correct conclusions from 2004.” What does this mean? List the parallels Edward and I will list the differences. Guess who will have the longer list?
ESJ – for what it’s worth, I’m glad you are sticking with J-Ho (at least in a betting sense). But you have to remember that being an ALP partisan can be a series of disappointments (I am also a South Sydney fan in the NRL, so I get it double). So forgive us Lefties getting excited about the polls – the best part of Labor government is when it gets elected. We Lefties will all be horribly disillusioned by a Rudd government by Christmas! But it’ll be worth it to see Howard conceding on election night.
But you’re right – Howard can still win from here. The economy is still going gangbusters and the electoral maths makes it harder for Labor. But jeez, you’d rather be a Labor supporter than a Lib at the moment, wouldn’t you?
Question is, when is the point of no return? And how does J-Ho turn it around from here?
I’ll be one of the first to congratulate you on your foresight Edward if you are right. Hugo pretty well sums it up.
Hugo,
Timely intervention.
Yes to point one – I remember February/March 1983 – heady times.
Point Two – not necessarily if my theory is right Rudd has already blown it.
Point Three – point of no return – a challenge or ministers writing him off by retiring.
Do you want me to post my theory? Oh well OK you insisted.
1. Howard despite Tampa, Kids overboard etc has been broadly a competent PM in terms of what Australians want – good times with government goodies thrown in. Thats why hes been succesful.
2. People are tired of Howard but they arent going to allow Labor to fall into office – In 2004 they liked Latham but ultimately rejected him (many mistakes from people extrapolating 2004 figures and timelines today)
3. 2004 ended the theory that you could slide into office – essentially people said to the ALP we want to see root and branch change before we give you the keys
4. 2004 has been wrongly interpreted as a Latham disaster. Even Beazley acknowledged it would have been worse but for Latham.
5. Every party out for a long time needs to show its taken the knife to its sacred cows to show its ready for office again. Labor aint done it – probably too late to do it now.
6. As the focus increases up to polling day people are going to ask how has Labor changed – answer partially or not at all. They need to show that Labor 2007 is different to Labor 1996. There is a reason why Howard keeps going on about unions – not because people will fear an economic shutdown but to show that the party hasnt changed ie same old same old.
7. 5% + swings are enormous – probable balance of seats suggests Rudd will need to win in +5% margins extremely hard. Cant see it happening with the economy this good ( please dont start about dodgy CPI stats etc)
Simple reasons but distilled from watching a number of failures – I think we are on the right track with 1992 UK, 1969 & 1980 Australia I would also add the Dukakis campaign in the US 1988.
It may be true that parties don’t fall into office, but there is plenty of anti-Howard sentiment out there.
Latham was at least part of Labor’s problem in 2004, and theor vote was lower than usual. Confused policies, and a poor election campaign also contributed.
The ’sacred cows’ (i.e. unions) are not a genuine source of fear to the community. Most people who are union members would probably bemoan the lack of influence their unions have, if anything. We haven’t seen any serious industrial action for some time. If a Labor/Union marriage is ’same old, same old’, then surely this effect is exacerbated with the Libs, who, with a couple of exceptions, present the same old faces as their public image (Howard, Costello, Abbott, Downer), none of whom are wildly popular individuals.
Whether Labor has changed or not, it is perceived to change. Rudd is the most non-threatening, conservative Labor leader in a long time, and appears to offer a managerial approach to Government, sort of like Bracks. I think Victoria in 1999 is a good comparison here, except that Howard’s hand outs are probably not as flashy as Kennett’s bread and circuses.
Anyone else notice that Howard at one time on 7.30 Report called Kerry Peter? He looked spooked to me, even disregarding this gaffe.
The majority of voters, and certainly the floating voters, are not interested in Labor’s sacred cows etc etc. When they engage with the election, they ask, Are we sick of Howard? Do we think it’s time for a change? Do we trust Rudd with (a) national security and (b) the economy? They may well also now ask Do we think WorkChoices will be good for our kids’ future? If the answer to these questions, is Yes, yes, yes and No, then they will put Howard out. In 2004 the answer on Latham was a clear No and No, and WorkChoices wasn’t an issue.
That’s what’s changed, Edward. SO FAR the polls are telling us that the voters are ready to put Howard out. The question you have to answer is, what can possibly happen between now and November to change their minds? Banging on about unions and sacred cows won’t cut it. The voters DON’T CARE that Labor is a union-affiliated party. Unless Sharon Burrow calls a general strike, that won’t change.
There’s a belief that Howard can turn things round in the campaign. To do that, he MUST win the debates. Judging by his current jittery media performances, he will find that hard. Rudd has his vulnerabilities I agree, but he will come across as (a) 20 years younger, (b) mild, likeable, humorous and reassuring and (c) conservative on issues. He will not orate like Beazley or frighten the mums and dads like Latham. I’ve seen Rudd debate and he’s very good at it.
It is fun watching the liberals implode.
Mckewan hmm, having worked in Warburton and knowing the area quite well(although haven’t been for a few years) I would say will be too close to call, but will go with a national swing. Today i would say labor, 3 weeks ago government. There are a lot of 7th day adventists and church fanatics, but a good smattering of hippies. Definately prefrances, with FF and Greens to decide who gets up.
Poweltown timbertown – that’s their moto, you can guess who’ll they’ll vote for.
There seems a forgotten issue, and electorate, amidst all our ruminations on polls. I didn’t think this possible, but perhaps both Howard and Rudd and respective campaigns could take note of:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1644425,00.html?cnn=yes
Im abit concerned that the Labor ad on TV depicting JWH asleep on climate change is going to (unintentionally) alienate the ‘grey’ voter.
Labor is, smartly, avoiding the depiction of Howard as “old” and “old”= incompetent-tired-worn out, etc in their responses to questions about Howards age (Rudd in particular), in their discourse at media ‘grabs’.
But that TV add, it can be read as saying Howard is old, a has been, not able to get out of bed..etc etc. It is a dangerous image that can be misinterpreted easily by people ’sensitive’ about their age and age based stereotypes.
I hope Labor is abit more careful about how they construct the next TV campaign, the shooting ducks on WorkChoices, for example, was excellent and left little room for misinterpretation.
“THE good economic times that Treasurer Peter Costello has enjoyed do not have a lot to do with his own economic management, a former liberal leader said.
Mr Costello has publicly criticised Prime Minister John Howard’s economic credentials in a new biography on Mr Howard.
But former liberal leader and economic adviser to Mr Howard, Dr John Hewson, said Mr Costello should not be so quick to judge.
“Costello’s had very, very good economic circumstances for most of the time, not a lot to do of his own making,” Dr Hewson told ABC radio. ”
Finally, an admission that the good ecenomic times have nothing to do with Howard.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22103739-29277,00.html
Howard hasn’t been described as “embattled” yet. There will be no leadership change until that word starts getting used.
And anyway, Howard isn’t going anywhere until after APEC. After that, maybe he’ll discover his health is very poor and he should step down, leaving Costello 2 months to be the first ever PM to be both on a honeymoon and embattled at the same time …
Edward St J said “There is an overmighty dose of triumphalism out there – you just have to see K Rudd with the ear to ear grin. ” Well wouldn’t you be grinning with those poll figures? I agree though, there is a strong triumphalist spirit growing on this blog. I was feeling confident of an ALP win before, but triumphalism always makes me nervous. Pride before a fall perhaps.
As I said before, apart from the preferred PM figures, I’d be popping corks now. But, I think there’s a growing sense of we’ve seen all Howard can offer, we’re grateful and goodbye. Like my lib parents-in-law said, it’s time for a change.
The ALP’s TPP and primary vote is very solid, staying more-or-less the same for six months, despite an unprecedented attack by the govt. There’s also a lot of anger at Howard, and that section of the electorate is not budging. So that’s why despite your historical imperatives, barring a complete ALP own-goal, Howard is gone.
The public learned and grew up.
Howard is having a hard time understanding that this is a different Australia, whatever didn’t kill us we got bored with. He is pitching to prejudices that dont exist anymore or that are worn out. We also have another 3 years worth of teenagers coming of voting age too.
Good policy and good governance should had been his election pitch since January – he has instead been looking for wedges all that time. He has wasted 6 valuable months making things worse for himself.
Also – I think it fascinating that Hewson has made a gaff in not crediting Costello with the good economy. If not Costello then who Mr Hewson? Keating/Hawke. I wonder if Labor will pick up on this one?
There is of course the worry in the electorate that is not commented on of what Howard will do if he is reelected.
Reform Work Choices ala Minchin style, scrap the recent changes, the ombudsman and throw the market wide open. The current Work Choices imposes an incredible regulatory burden on businesses, Howard has always been in favour of as little regulation as possible and would see relection as a mandate to do this.
Abolish the minimum wage, we would then see workers on the less than $8 an hour that some workers are currently paid under Work Choices.
Wind back OH&S ala Work Choices style, complying with OH&S imposes great costs and regulatory burdens on businesses.
Bring in a few hundred thousand more visa workers on top of the hundreds of thousands he is already bringing in. These visa workers will drive wages down and will accept an unsafe working environment. Concerns over terror connections and polio are just minor.
The above is just to do with industrial relations, forget what was said on the enviroment and aborigines, I didn’t detect any firm committments from Howard.
Howard has blown what little trust factor he had with the electorate and Jannette’s comments won’t help, I don’t think the electorate is prepared to trust him again.
Howard was at his arrogant, slimy best(or worst) last night on the 7.30 Report.
I agree with Rob, the ALP and its supporters would do well not to get too carried away with bravado. 3 or 4 months is a long time in politics, and one can never underestimate Howard’s capacity to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Rudd would do well to keep campaigning as if he’s 2 points behind.
Hugo Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
“….. you have to remember that being an ALP partisan can be a series of disappointments (I am also a South Sydney fan in the NRL, so I get it double).
…..But you’re right – Howard can still win from here…….. Question is, when is the point of no return? And how does J-Ho turn it around from here?”
Two items have been mentioned in reasonably close proximity by various posters: 1969 and the South Sydney Rabbitohs – which when combined still rankle Rabbitohs fans and cause them to break out into a rash; a black and gold one.
But the parallels are worth exploring.
Entering the 1969 Sydney Rugby League Grand Final, South Sydney were the red hot favourites to beat their opponents, Balmain. Souths had won the previous two premierships; half of the Australian side were Souths players; and Souths were pretty much unbeatable all year, undefeated I think. It was a forgone conclusion.
In fact so much so, I remember the little poem that adorned the wall of the opposition team’s dressing room at Redfern Oval.
Under the drawing of a rabbit in a Souths football jumper diving over the line to score a try, it read,
“Oh little bunny we saw your fate,
you won the comp in ‘67, you won again in ‘68,
surely this must be the sign,
to win again in ‘69.”
Brings tears to your eyes, doesn’t it? Pure magic!
Well how did the game go? Not too well for the Souths fans. Balmain led on the scoreboard the entire match, but no one believed they would go on to win the game. Souths will come back for sure, everyone thought. Yet the time ticked away and ticked away and ticked away. Souths just couldn’t get over the line. Radio commentators were just waiting for Souths to pull, dare it be said – a rabbit out of the hat. Even with minutes to go and still well behind, it was believed that Souths would win. But they didn’t. In an absolute state of shock, even for the Balmain fans, the Rugby League world was left speechless.
In the political scenario, the ALP is well ahead and has led all year, yet the expectation still remains with the political commentators, that somehow Howard will pull it all back. Just like the Rugby League world thought Souths would do in 1969. But they didn’t.
Sincerest apologies to all AFL fans, perhaps you could offer a similar example to enrich our blog lives.
Oh dear, John Howard is really looking like Lazarus now, except not even a quadruple bypass can revive him this time.
It’s time to bury the political corpse in sackcloth.
Are you ready, Malcolm, to undertake the rotten task?
You might make room for two bodies while you are it.
Even if John Howard did make way for Peter the Pusillanimous before the election, it might just make things worse for the Coalition now the latest dirty linen has been aired.
I really can’t see things getting any better for John Howard’s unless his buddy George stages a “nucular” attack on Iran as a diversionary tactic to save his bosom pal from annihilation!
So long as it bears no resemblance to the last two AFL grand finals… I couldn’t take the tension.
Aristotle – nice analogy, though obviously still a bit too painful to relive – it was only a mere 38 years ago after all! However, this year I am in the unusual position of seeing Souths compete for the finals (something we haven’t done since the late 80s) and the ALP actually win an election (something I haven’t seen since 1990, as I was off backpacking somewhere obscure in 1993). I’m still quietly confident of getting both my teams over the line during the Spring, but experience has taught me to not open that champagne until I know for sure.
I’m a very rare breed of Victorian – a guy who likes rugby, rather than AFL. I was somewhat disappointed at Melbourne Storm losing the NRL Grand Final last year through poor refereeing, and am hopeful that this time Storm will crush their opponents. After the disappointments of the last two elections, I am now 90% confident that Labor will win this one – they’ve got such a Huge lead in the polls at a stage when they’ve never had such a lead in previous election cycles, and have climate change, Workchoices and “it’s time” working for them.
I saw Howard on the 7.30 Report. The word that came to my mind was “android”.
I recall seeing him on the telly back in his time as Treasurer with the economy in shambles with huge unemployment and interest rates galloping in the 20% plus range. The complete lack of normal human feeling for the fate of those falling out of work or losing their homes due to the raging interest rates was like a punch in the guts for anyone with any empathy watching. That same absence of feeling was there in his performance last night. And the trotting out of the union-bashing lines to avoid answering the painful questions was successful in preventing any nascent feelings of compassion from me.
Dead man walking.
I think it’s time to start talking weeks (approximately 16) rather than months with regards to the Howard government. The countdown is on… (we could be nearing the last 100 days)… it puts the proper emphasis on the difficulties facing this government.
The AEC’s list of seats decided on preferences is simply a list of seats where no candidate got a majority of the primary vote. In most of these preferences did not change the result: that is, the candidate who was ahead on primary votes went on to win after coutning of preferences. When I look for seats where the candidate who was ahead on primary votes was defeated after counting of preferences–in other words, seats where preferences actually changed the result–I only find eight: Adelaide, Bendigo, Cowan, Hindmarsh, Melbourne Ports, Parramatta, Richmond, and Swan.
Not too painful, Hugo. They won in 1970 and 1971 and……………., oh yes they defeated the evil News Ltd. empire, that’s worth a dozen premierships!
Lord D, don’t be too disappointed by last year’s loss, the Storm got one for free in 1999, and it was against St George; John Howard’s team. That should help with the disappointment even more.
I see that even the Govt Gazette’s criticizing the handling of the Haneef affair – what is the World coming to?
And, Aristotle, we crushed the Drags in the prelim final last year to continue their pain of not having won a premiership for a long time. We’ve also beaten them home&away this year, so it doesn’t look good for Drags to even make the finals.
Edward StJohn, I wish I could share your confidence!
It’s not confidence, it’s bravado.
Edward StJohn Says:
July 20th, 2007 at 12:05 am
“As the focus increases up to polling day people are going to ask how has Labor changed – answer partially or not at all. They need to show that Labor 2007 is different to Labor 1996. There is a reason why Howard keeps going on about unions – not because people will fear an economic shutdown but to show that the party hasnt changed ie same old same old.”
Edward, the only thing about Labor that SOME people would like to be different is the fact that Labor has close ties with unions. But I think you, Howard, and the Liberal Party overestimate how much people actually want that to change.
For a start, Howard has been banging on about the issue for months now and hasn’t managed to frighten people about unions.
Secondly, WorkChoices did frighten people. Many have felt that their job or their children’s job or future employment will be less secure and vulnerable to exploitation or lower wages. It is the LACK of protection that is scaring the hell out of people, all of which was created when Howard opened the door for employers to exploit their workers like never before. For this reason, I suspect that for many, the fact that Labor has close ties with groups that try to protect Australians from being exploited at work might actually come with a huge sense of RELIEF rather than concern.
Thirdy, although surveys of attitudes towards unions are rare, one that was conducted back in 1995 showed a growing trend away from viewing unions negatively, something that had been developing over many years. I suspect that this trend may have continued, especially over the past couple of years since WorkChoices.
http://international-survey.org/wwa_pub/articles/unions.htm
In the end, the REAL change that people have been wanting to see with Labor is to have a leader who they like, respect, and feel safe and comfortable with. They didn’t have this before. They have this now. Rudd’s record approval ratings only confirm this. Politics today is much more about the leader than the party, more so than it used to be.
Any betting on the NSW Liberal State Executive disendorsing Mr el-Taouk tonight?
The problem with your theory Edward is that you assume people are going to be more inclined to stick with a government they now dislike rather than go to an opposition that has anything to do with those nasty (in your eyes) unions. Noocat is spot on.
Edward, it’s interesting that the very criticism you have of people on this blog, ie being dogmatic about Labor’s chances, you replicate in spades with your “wait til the election, you’ll see I’m right” approach.
Interesting, Lord D. The Melbourne captain has said that the two hardest teams they played this year were South Sydney both times.
Yet we are on the outside looking in!
I think that barring injuries, Melbourne will not do this year what Souths did in 69 (I was there – sniff).
Same goes for Rudd.
Please don’t talk about Saints in the same breath as either Melbourne or Howard
Many years ago, I was in a VIP box at Kogarah at semifinal time (vs Canterbury) when Howard wandered past. If I had done the right thing then I could’ve saved the nation enormous pain. (Obviously I don’t really mean that. I am against all forms of murder including capital punishment.)
big bounce for the government in morgan. 55/45 TPP
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4189/
I’ve got a major gripe with NRL in Vic, and that’s the complete lack of decent free-to-air coverage. Ch 9 no longer has rights to AFL, but when Storm played Broncos in Brisbane this year in the Grand Final rematch, Ch 9 showed it in Vic at about midnight!! Fox Sports can’t cover NRL that Ch 9 has rights to live. I’d really like the govt to do something about this.
I really can’t see things getting any better for John Howard’s unless his buddy George stages a “nucular†attack on Iran as a diversionary tactic to save his bosom pal from annihilation!
Richard Jones
Not so sure about that. I think it would have the opposite effect, and drive people even further away from Howard (who has tied his political fortunes closely to Bush the Failure).
This Morgan contradicts Morgan phone polls, AC Nielson and Newspoll, so I think it’s probably an outlier.
Labor still well ahead in the Morgan Poll even with the terrorist attack. Some movement back but this poll was taken before the latest book furore. The next Newspoll on Tuesday will be interesting.
Even if Fran Bailey should win McEwen this time – and I think McEwen and Corangamite are much more vulnerable than Deakin or McMillan – it will probably be her last term because it is hard not to see McEwen morphing into an outer suburban ALP seat after the next redistribution. …. and to be brutally honest …. she is no spring chicken ….
The latest face-to-face Morgan Poll finds that primary support for the Coalition Government is up 4.5% to 40.5%. Primary support for the ALP is down 3% to 47.5%. With preferences distributed as they were at the 2004 election, the two-party preferred vote is ALP 55% (down 4%), L-NP 45% (up 4%).
Ed’s argument is that you can’t coast into government (despite the Liberals in 96); that ALP can’t win until it dumps the unions (ie until it becomes the same as the Liberals) and that the elctorate will care more about the state of the opposition than about the state of the government (despite there being no evidence for that position).
Far from being triumphalist, many posters here have cautioned that things could change. However the question is how could things change quickly enough for the government? Ed’s theory provides no answer, it’s just that 5% of the population will wake up on election day and decide that their opinions for the last 6-12 months are wrong.
And Ed continues to misunderstand the nature of the swing required.
“5% + swings are enormous – probable balance of seats suggests Rudd will need to win in +5% margins extremely hard.”
Yes the ALP will probably need 5%+ in some seats.
They do *not* require a uniform swing of 5%. They need a uniform swing of 4%.
Note that 4% swings have been acheived in 2 out of the last 5; 3 out of the last 10; and 5 out of the last 15; 8 out of the last 20 elections. They aren’t that rare.
Lord D Says:
July 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
“This Morgan contradicts Morgan phone polls, AC Nielsen and Newspoll, so I think it’s probably an outlier.”
Yes, it probably is. But they all get thrown into the mix.
Amber, was that the semi-final in 1998 ? The one in which Anthony Mundine was called a nasty boy by one of the Bulldog forwards?
Aristotle last Newspoll 56/44,last galaxy 55/45 tis Morgan 55/45 I think AC Nielsen could be the outlier.
I agree with Cisco.
ACnielsen was 56/44 if preferences are distributed as they were in 2004.(The methodology the other polls use)
I wouldn’t call this Morgan an outlier. In fact for once Morgan seems to be in agreement with the rest of them.
Its still of course a landslide Labor win.
If you look at the primary figures, Nielsen 49\39, Newspoll 48\39 and Morgan 47.5\40.5 they are really not that different. It is important to remember that Morgan was taken face to face over two weekends and has picked up a movement not evident in Newspoll or Nielsen. Regardless they are all showing a hiding for the Coalition and I am sure the events of the last few days are not likely to improve things in Tuesdays Newspoll.
What this shows is that the movement back to the coalition prior to this week had not stalled and when you consider the tooing and froing of about 2% primary between Labor and Greens the ALP primary could be as low as 45
I’m not saying it’s an outlier vs other phone polls, but I think it’s an outlier vs the usual Morgan 2% pro-Labor bias. This bias has still been evident this year if you look at the graphs on Oz Politics under “Morgan Bias”. No doubt our Tory blogger will claim it really shows the govt ahead 51-49. If you take 2% off the Labor vote in this Morgan, it’s only 53-47 2PP, which I don’t like very much.
If this bounce was really caused by the Haneef affair, it is likely to be short lived. It appears now that the prosecution case was botched and may cannot be convicted on the evidence.
Also the Costello vs Howard kerfuffle will concentrate attention elsewhere.
Having said that I still believe the Coalition will make ground. These sort of results are just too good for Labor.
Lord D, the Storm should win the NRL title this year, assuming they aren’t hit with too many injuries.
Kevin Rudd was mobbed yesterday in Miranda – hardly a blue ribbon Labor area, although it’s a very marginal Labor seat at the state level.
It sure looks to me like Sydney’s DAILY TELEGRAPH newspaper is going to abandon Howard – Rudd’s getting some positive coverage, with the exception of Piers Zackermann’s weekly pro Liberal Party propoganda columns.
What it shows is that you shouldn’t take individual opinion polls too literally. Certainly the betting markets are heading south for the Coalition today with as much as 2.20 on offer. There wouldn’t be a better time to hook into the Coalition if people think they are on the brink of that big comeback.
blackburnpseph Says:
July 20th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Even if Fran Bailey should win McEwen this time – and I think McEwen and Corangamite are much more vulnerable than Deakin or McMillan – it will probably be her last term because it is hard not to see McEwen morphing into an outer suburban ALP seat after the next redistribution. …. and to be brutally honest …. she is no spring chicken ….
=====================================
The AEC may well make McEwen more suburban just like it did with Deakin some 30 years ago when they took the seat from the southern part of today’s McEwen and moved it into the Eastern Suburbs.
The last redribution acturally removed several suburbian booths from around Craigburn.
The problem against such a move is what does this do to seats like Indi, Bendigo, Ballarat and Murray, also based on inner city quotes I would expect some redrawing of several inner city seats i.e Kooyong is nearing the bottom of the quoter while Melbourne Ports is nearly over it if it isn’t already.
With population growth around areas like Melton, Werribee, Epping, Cranbourne, Narre Warrin and Berwick I suspect McEwen wont drift into Melbourne but may move toward Ballarat with Ballarat moving towards Melton (Northern end of Lalor
Some polling data summaries, primary votes.
Last 3 polls
Newspoll: ALP 48.8 Coalition 37.6
Morgan: ALP 48.7 Coalition 37.6
Nielsen: ALP 48.3 Coalition 39
Galaxy : ALP 46.3 Coalition 40.7
All pollsters.
May: ALP 49.7 Coalition 37.3
June: ALP 47.3 Coalition 39
July: ALP 48.2 Coalition 38.7
All polls since December
Morgan 22 polls: ALP 49.1 Coalition 37.8
Newspoll 15 polls: ALP 48 Coalition 37.6
Nielsen 7 polls: ALP 48.4 Coalition 37.7
Galaxy 4 polls: ALP 46.5 Coalition 39.8
All pollsters since Dec 48 polls: ALP 48.4 Coalition 37.9
All pollsters 48 polls TPP projection @ 58% flow to ALP 56.3/43.7
All pollsters June TPP projection @ 58% flow to the ALP 55.3/44.7
All pollsters July TPP projection @ 58% flow to the ALP 55.8/44.2
(Note, July is incomplete and June includes 2 Galaxy polls)
When the polls don’t go the way they desire “the come back is on” people argue that the polls indicate what is happening now and not what is going to happen. However when they move in the direction they desire all of a sudden the polls are telling us what is going to happen ie “the comeback is on”.
Does anyone know when we might here about possible charges being laid against the Queensland MPs?
A very interesting feature of the Morgan poll is the upwards trend in the “right direction” question. It now stands at around 55%. Evidently, the electorate isn’t in that sour a mood.
I would gladly take 53/47 at this point for the Coalition as a uniform swing of that nature would mean a net gain of 20 seats to Labor.However when you consider SA Tas probably still at 58/42(just a guess)and WA 50/50 does that mean NSW and/or QLD could be running better than 53/47.
The results that Aristotle has posted illustrates that there has been little change in the voting intentions all year. Whatever the “right direction” question might mean, at this point it does not seem to mean soft support for Labor.
A-C, maybe people think the country is headed in the right direction because they think Howard is on the way out. I think the question in the poll is meaningless and possibly misleading in terms of conclusions that might be drawn.
Aristotle, probably, it was certainly around that time. I tend to not remember the losses so well
Does any of the polling ask how the punter voted last time? While counting the number of people intending to vote ALP (say) is handy, it would be much more useful to count how many were intending to switch from ALP to LNC and from LNC to ALP. Change of government is by definition about change of vote.
The face to face is usually a few points higher than the phone polls so this TPP 55/45 would equate to a phone poll of TPP 53/47 for period 7/8 & 14/15 July and, I think never lower than their own Phone Polls which they admit understates the vote. Their own phone poll 57.5 against this Face-to-Face 55 doesn’t ring true – usually it would be the other way around.
The Morgan Phone Poll (11/12 July) was TPP 57.5/42.5 which is in line with the latest ACNielsen TPP 58/42 (12/14 July) in line with the last Newspoll 57/43 (10 July)
We have three Phone Polls between 10 July and 14 July – 57 & 57.5 & 58 AND this Morgan Face to Face covering basically the same period 55/45.
55/45 is still great numbers for Labor but, not to be a spoiler I think this certainly looks like an Outlier just as the Morgan had 20-28 January.
It is hard to believe the ‘terrorist’ thing caused such a dramatic shift as it seemed to be low keyed.
I will wait to see what the poll experts here say.
My own opinion is the voting intention hasnt shifted and may well worsen for the government at the next poll given the latest revelation with Haneef & Costello.
The next Newspoll I predict will be 57-58 / 42.
Are you all writing Rudd off because of one Morgan poll? LMAO
I’d trust Newspoll and AC Nielsen, even Galaxy instead of Roy Morgan.
If Newspoll shows a shift back to Howard, then I’ll believe it’s happening.
Here are two questions for you. When was the last time you saw a Morgan poll being headlined in another paper? Which paper do you think is crawling all over it now?
Well it will be good if the public think the gap is closing otherwise they would get worried in the gap being too wide and shift their votes back to the Govt.
Well, well, well, the Govt Gazette certainly looks like it’s quick on the uptake!! Will they ditch Newspoll and AC Nielson now?
The Australian discovers Morgan. This part is pretty misleading.
“The poll is the first mainstream opinion poll published since the appearance of Dr Mohamed Haneef in jail and his subsequent placing in immigration detention after a Brisbane Court awarded bail, pollster Gary Morgan noted.”
Of course the poll was taken well before these events. I suppose the emphasis is on “published” and “Gary Morgan noted”.
Actually the article is not as one sided or as misleading as the heading.
The Govt Gazette is desperate though.
Golly gosh there is nothing in this poll.
All these polls while great for talking about must be put into perspective, I’m sure somewhere in Australia there is a booth which will vote 60 – 40 Liberal while there will be a booth which will vote 60 – 40 for the ALP.
The Liberal Party is on the skids sure we expect the lead to narrow between now and Election night although I’ve seen nothing to suggest the Liberals will win.
The Morgan was taken over the last two weekends; on those two weekends Newspoll had Labor at 48 up 2 and AC Nielson had Labor at 49 up 1. The Labor down 3 in this poll disagrees with both of these mainstream phone polls.
From Gary Morgan comments.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4189/
“The first Australia-wide ‘face-to-face’ Morgan Poll after Brisbane doctor Mohammed Haneef was taken into custody finds the L-NP primary vote up 4.5% to 40.5%. ALP support is down 3% to 47.5%. The two-party preferred gap closed 8% to 10%: ALP 55%, L-NP 45% — the closest the two parties have been in the face-to-face Morgan Poll since late January.
Haneef was taken into custody on July 2 in connection with two failed terror plots in the UK. Haneef was eventually charged on July 14 with providing support to a terrorist group.”
It reads nothing like the article at “The Australian”. The immigration minister ordered the detention of Haneef on Monday (after the poll) but he is in fact being kept at Wolston Correctional Centre in Brisbane due to not having posted bail.
The Oz article contains two errors of fact.
It says “The poll is the first mainstream opinion poll published since the appearance of Dr Mohamed Haneef in jail and his subsequent placing in immigration detention after a Brisbane Court awarded bail, pollster Gary Morgan noted.â€
1) Gary Morgan did not say it was the first mainstream opinion poll published since the appearance of Dr Haneef in jail. He said it was “The first Australia-wide ‘face-to-face’ Morgan Poll after Brisbane doctor Mohammed Haneef was taken into custody “. In fact of course the two weekends on which polling was conducted coincided with the last Newspoll and ACNielsen polls.
2) There is no mention of the visa cancellation and immigration detention by Gary Morgan.
a bit of accuracy in reporting would be nice.
After all, Gary Bruce, the GG article was authored by the Poll Bludger forum’s very own Sid Marris (OK so he only posted once to tell William not to use Chris Mitchell’s name but I am sure the experience as part of the self-appointed online political commentariat was character building)
Exactly right Martin. Whether sloppy or deliberate it is misleading.
I wonder if Piers will be hypocritical enough to use Morgan as proof Howard is on the way back. he bags morgan unmercilessly.
I think the Australian is looking to support their man J.Howard over P.Costello.Any apparent rise is good news for the PM.!
Will this quell the leadership questions in the Coalition?
Is this just like the Galaxy poll.?
I am not doubting the integrity of Morgans polling.But for the Australian to be quoting it when they have rarely mentioned previuos polls Morgan Polls is quite significant.They seemed determined to do what they can to help the PM.
Has any one else noticed this about their new “exlusive”polling.So far this week we have had one on terror and one on the economy,and are issues that are supposed to be strong for the Coalition.
And if you partake in the polls you have enter your postcode to vote.I emailed them on Tuesday of this week and asked if they will be making available the breakdown of the postcodes and how many votes in each of the categories.
No answer.Interesting.
Has anyone read the article by David Briggs in the Herald Sun? I wonder who he supports?
Visa cancellation only happened last Sunday, so it would only cover 1 day in 4 of the polling period.
The visa was cancelled on Monday 16th July.
All this Morgan Poll has done is bring it into line with the other polls. The correction has been made.
Money must be pouring into Sportsbet for Labor. Now 1.67 – 2.20
This Morgan poll is depressing, labor would only win 94 seats on this result, still at least they would get Kalgoorlie.
I’ve had a look at Morgan’s website.
While the Liberals may appear to have improved a few little things jumped out.
- Morgan is back to where it was in Jan 2007.
- Compared to 12 months ago when the Liberals had there nose in front, today they sit 10 points behind on TPP.
- The Green vote looks a little low on 5%
- Family First voters appear to be moving their Preferences more towards the ALP than 12 months ago
- ALP Primary vote is 10 points up on last Election, matching the sorts of results the ALP have scored at State level
- While the poll looks okay for the Liberals but last time they appeared to be making headway with Morgen Polls, they quickly turned and reached new highs for the ALP
So Morgan has the Coalition at 40.5% and Labor at 47.5%, eh? Interesting. Now, all intelligent observers know that Morgan’s face-to-face methodology is flawed to the point of being utterly useless, but a true picture of the parties’ standings can nevertheless still be gleaned. According to this latest poll, then, the true picture is Coalition 45.5%, Labor 42.5%. And when you consider Mr Howard’s phenomenal popularity and the strength of the economy….
All I can say is that all those punters putting their hard-earned on Labor will once again be demonstrating the truth of that old saying. You know, something about fools and their money….
Yes, Steven, you just beat me to it, I was going to say the similar thing. The real picture is Coalition 45.5 Labor 42.5, and, the two party preferred figures are 52/48 in the Coalition’s favour, more than enough to retain a comfortable election-winning majority, with a swing against them of less than one percent.
Given that the Morgan poll immediately before the 2004 election was called had Labor nominally ahead 56 to 44 on 2pp, and the election result was an increased Howard majority, there’s nothing to suggest that a similar outcome isn’t going to occur this year, with the economy buoyant as ever and there being no discernible mood out there for change.
Yes, clearly these figures suggest we are heading for a landslide Liberal victory. Voters who were polled for the past 6 months were obviously doing a bit of ’sleepwalking’, and were momentarily too stupid to realise how wonderful nature of our incumbent government.
Hilarious ‘analysis’, guys.
Nah, Steven and Nos you have it all wrong. The poll actually has Labor 52% and coalition 37%. See I can make it up as I go along too. Just as long as it makes you feel better, that’s the main thing. Dream on.
Meanwhile, the dollar passed US88c earlier today, an amazing testament to the strength of our economy. At this rate we’ll hit parity in a month’s time.
Dear old Gary, just don’t say we didn’t warn you.
Yep, voters only make their election decisions after a close perusal of the Dow Jones figures, and with reference to the current standing of the Australian dollar.
Dear old Steven time to start thinking about getting to the party meeting isn’t it?
Hurray! A moderately ‘good’ poll for the Government and Nostradamus is back! Normality is resumed.
Are Stephen K and Nostradamus the same person? Surely there can’t be two people that stupid.
Steven kaye,
The Ozdollar at 88 US cents is no use to me. When is it going to rise to, say 50p?
I think Steven Kaye is stealing from the urinal…
You can fool some of the people all of the time…
When will you gulls realise that the punters being polled won’t actually have their votes counted in the election?? It’s much like the lotteries in Thailand where you have to have the “special” tickets if you want to actually be in the draw. The Coalition voters will largely be given the “special” ballot papers with a few handed out to Labor voters as well. This is why you should believe Nostradamus when he says. “The real picture is Coalition 45.5 Labor 42.5, and, the two party preferred figures are 52/48 in the Coalition’s favour”
Aristotle and Hugo: another South Sydney tragic here. But the Rabbitohs lost in 1969 because Balmain lay all over them, and a dodgy ref let it happen. On present indications, the AEC would have to abandon 100 years of independence for the Coalition to do a similar trick.
Ed St Jn: no one in Labor was ‘measuring curtains’ in 1969. I read the campaign coverage of 1969 recently for a Canberra Times puff-piece, pointing out the similarities between today (old govt/strong economy likely to suffer big swing to new, intellectual, right wing Labor leader etc). If Labor sounds cocky today – and nothing I see shows hubris of the sort that the public would detect – they certainly weren’t in ‘69. In ‘69 the ALP won because of a collapse in support of a stale government over a failing war, and Whitlam presenting fresh policies of urban and social renewal.
Stephen Kaye: The dollar is high because the greenback is sh*te and our interest rates are high by world standards!
It has been fascinating watching the Libs eat their own over the winter thus far. I can’t believe that talk about leadership change is starting to get traction. To change leaders at this point would look like panic (because that’s what it would be) and this would further feed into the dynamic that seems to have developed during 2007 that the government is on the way out. Dumping Howard now would just confirm that idea in the electorate’s minds.
Mind you, it’s hard not to think they’d be rooted either way. Personally I think that a late leadership switch will only add to the Labor landslide. The only chance the government has is to “stay strong” and hope something turns up. It’s still long enough till the election for something to come along out of left field (or should that be “right field”?).
But it’s hard to see what.
What a joke – The Australian (aka Government Gazette) leaps on this latest Morgan poll, when, as Gary says, they have never reported on it before. The Morgan Poll is usually ignored by the media. If ever you wanted confirmation of their pro-Howard agenda, this is it.
Before Nostra and Steven get too excited (by the way, Steven, didn’t you say that you were never going to comment on polls because you thought they were all a load of crap?), let’s just wait and see what next week’s Newspoll brings. The fact is you can’t judge whether a single poll result is an outlier or not until you can establish a clear trend, which of course requires more than one poll.
Nostradamus Says:
July 20th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Yes, Steven, you just beat me to it, I was going to say the similar thing. The real picture is Coalition 45.5 Labor 42.5, and, the two party preferred figures are 52/48 in the Coalition’s favour, more than enough to retain a comfortable election-winning majority, with a swing against them of less than one percent.
I have booked you into the Mental Health ward Nostradamus. The “real picture” is you have your head up your backside and it should stay there so you cant talk such rubbish. Cheers.
Dont worry Nostradamus, Ive booked the bed next to you for that other delusionional nutcase trying to tell us about the “real picture”, master Kaye.
yeah i tossed in a couple of extra letters in delusional but you 2 wouldnt notice it anyway; its not in the Liberal Party Handbook.
Na, people with genuine mental health issues dont deserve to have u 2 imposed on them….stay home.
Had a couple after work, have we Strop?:)
listen leftoid lefty delusionals here is the drum
johnny is the greatest stings like a butterfly and he floats like a bee
the public in a delirium of joy will suitably reward the Gvt with posies of fresh flowers and scented oils for their delight
Libs 77% deluded ninnys 23%
Fulvio Sammut said: “I think Steven Kaye is stealing from the urinal…”
Speaking of urinals, how’s your Mum, Fulvio?
I just saw one of Nostradumus’s postings on another blog (an Oz opinion piece I think). It was a long, Liberal PR piece, unrelated to the opinion piece. Mate, for an old seer, you are a strange beast! You aren’t going to change one vote by posting to blogs, so stick to analysis, however partisan.
Morgan’s 4% change: that is statistically significant. Short of it being a ‘rogue’ poll, or Mr GM having adjusted his methods to produce a more Liberal friendly primary vote, how is it explicable?
Is the old Bugger attracting a sympathy vote? It would not surprise me. Between the camps of Howad Huggers and Haters lies a large plurality, in which he is far from unpopular, just coming to be seen as past his ‘best before’ date.
I anticipate a healthy correction in the polls to the government; but not at this point.
And just what will cause that correction Graeme?
THIS lasts face to face as has been noted was right in the middle of all these other polls and gives a totally differnt answer. These phone polls are usually roughly 2% less than the phone polls. [See Oz Politics analysis of Morgan -v- Phone polls]
Thus adding 2% to see what the corresponding Morgan ‘Face To Face’ would be is thus:
12/14 July ACNeilsen 58/42 = 60/40
11/12 July Morgan 57.5/42.5 = 59.5/40.5
10 July Newspoll 56/44 = 58/42
The Last ‘Face to Face’ was 7-15 July 55/44 this is reduction of between 3% and 5% in the midst of polls taken at the same time. Only one day (15 July) falls outside the other polls. Any event affecting this poll should have affected at least one of the others.
Anyway the point is this latest Morgan does appear to be the Outlier even with margin for error. But I will let the maths people deal with that.
The polls probably haven’t changed and if anything you would think an increase for Labor less gravity.
Taking in the huge embarassment of the Haneef ‘fix’ and Costello’s attack on Howard I would predict the next Newspoll at 58/42 but maybe ‘reported’ as 57/43.
The best thing is if the Govt takes the Morgan too seriously and feel like they are achieving something with their Haneef nonsense and thus decide to push it even harder – thereby pissing eveyone off even more.
that shoud be Face to Face -v- Phone Poll
Where would we be without our favourite Liberal Party wacko Nostradamus? Methinks he might be in for a rude shock on election day!
LOL
Gary, my apologies. I should have said ‘overestimate’ rather than ‘correction’.
The government is in deep poo-poo, but it will not lose by 10 or more percent. Opinion polls give voters a chance to kick the beast. This government is ailing, but it is far from incontinent, unlike conservative oppositions around the country. It still has a residue to tap into, of a benign economy, incumbency benefits and a grudgingly respected leader, to ensure its vote doesn’t slip below about 46-47 TPP.
“Taking the piss” Stephen Kaye. Lighten up.
Or maybe you weren’t….
Graeme, I tend to agree with you but to be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if the swing is bigger than we imagine.
Every election there are rogue polls which seem to suddenly change the whole picture. This new Morgan poll may be one of those or it may well be a snapshot of how people were feeling on those days. You simply cannot judge by one or two polls.
You need to look at long term trends taking into account all polls.
In the past 48 hours betting by “fools” is heavily on Labor and has pushed them to firm favourites.
This latest round of appalling publicity for Howard and Costello a few weeks before the election could be the final nail in the coffin.
It will most likely set the trend back a point or two in Labor’s favour.
Going by the Morgan poll alone, which of course is inadvisable, the Coalition would need to claw back one percentage point a month by the election. With this latest mess, they will probably need to claw back one and a half points per month. It’s unlikely they could do that.
The poll trend for all polls is sideways. There hasn’t been a trend back, notwithstanding the latest Morgan poll.
On election day, the result will almost certainly be closer than either the Morgan or any other current poll. I still expect a 53-52.5% ALP- 47-47.5% Coalition final result. The majority of punters also feel it will be more like that than the other way. They are prepared to put their money on it.
Yeah there might have been a bit of a spike for the government with their ruthless tactics against the Indian doctor bloke who gave his terrorist cousin his UK sim card last year. After all, none of us want to get blown up.
Perhaps someone can help me out. I’m sure that I read somewhere that the last few times when there have been major terrorism issues, the government’s resulting opinion poll spikes had been growing less and of shorter duration?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I wouldn’t have thought that this has been one of the government’s greatest weeks.
If it emerges that Dr Haneef is actually guilty of something, the government might well get a bounce for nabbing him. At the moment that doesn’t seem likely.
Well if they do have something they have made a mess of making something out of it. The focus is now on the mess the AFP has made of the investigation and evidence so far and that on top of Costello’s attack on Howard.
I guess it is possible the govt is sitting on something hoping to wedge Rudd, but Rudd is not biting.
This is election time so I will view with suspicion everything the govt is up to.
I don’t doubt that the AFP arrested Haneef in good faith – he does have connections of some sort with the doctors involved in the UK bombings, and leaving with one-way ticket does seem, prima facie, suspicious. But Howard, Ruddock and Andrews have been so keen to be “seen to be tough” in the hope of “doing a Tampa” that they have committed what is now seen as a major injustice, and unless evidence of Haneef’s guilt is produced very quickly they will get no political benefit at all. Rudd has not risen to the bait, despite what must be considerable pressure to come out against the government.
Just saw Gerard Henderson and Robert Mann on Lateline re: Haneef.
I need not elaborate further as it can be assumed what was said by Gerard and Robert.
As far as the general public is concerned [if they have paid attention long enough to get all the facts] it is pretty obvious Haneef has got a pretty raw deal. He may be getting some sympathy from among the general populous and that is a negative to Andrews.
It would be very amusing indeed if the Govt took the latest Morgan as evidence of a swing because of Haneef etc… and went even harder on it. I am not sure that the public has a stomach for more of this type of stuff. And I doubt that this Morgan Face-To-Face is reflecting the current position given that it was in the middle of other polls that gave a different figure [after adjusting 2% as per Ozpolitics].
The govt could end up making a big prick out of itself on terrorism on the mistaken belief that it is wining rather than costing them support.
Kina,
It’s always fun to see two graduates of the DLP philosophy on opposite sides. I thought Gerard would not have been supportive of the government on this one, given how dodgy it is, but he was. We will have to wait to see the overall effect on the government’s fortunes of its treatment of Dr Haneef, but I would be surprised if there was a decimal point of the long-awaited and often promised just-around-the-corner honeymoon-ending bounce.
Liberals delay final decision on Cook candidate
A Liberal Party meeting to decide whether to dump its newly preselected candidate for the Federal seat of Cook has broken up, without making a decision on his future.
Michael Towke, 31, beat a strong field to be preselected for the seat vacated by Bruce Baird.
But concerns have been raised about his suitability after he was accused of paying thousands of dollars to recruit new members within the southern Sydney electorate.
A spokesman for the New South Wales Liberal Party says the matter has been adjourned.
He says the decision was made to allow party directors to investigate the allegations and allow Mr Towke to respond.
The Australian was having difficulties contacting Mr. Towke recently. Maybe the Liberals have had the same problems.
Was he present at the meeting? If so, one would have expected some immediate and vigorous, if not bellicose, response from him, unless of course the allegations against him have substance.
If he did not attend, I would have thought the case against him would ipso facto be considered established.
I don’t accept that over the days in which the complaints have been aired the Liberals with their Governmental resources would not have been able to come to a definitive assessment. After all, most of the issues are either matters of public record or internal Party record.
The Liberals machinate in strange ways…
Presumably the Urbanchich-Clarke faction have enough numbers on the executive to stonewall any move to dump Towke. This will put Howard in a very awkward position.
It appears to me that the Haneef imbroglio has all the hallmarks of a wedge attempt gone disasterously wrong.
True it is that the initial information from Britain required immediate and thorough investigation. However that investigation could have been properly and discretely carried out without the blaze of publicity
which has accompanied it.
I suspect that if the Federal Police, and no doubt ASIO, had been permitted to do their job without political pressure and interference Dr Haneef would have been detained for two to four days, then released without charge after the inquiry was completed.
But the Liberals, desperate for an issue, any issue, which smelt remotely like Tampa, seized on the vague connection referred by British Intelligence for follow up as a potential lead, and turned it into a fait accompli. Howard though he had caught his wedge rabbit and proceeded to casserole it for all it (he thought) was worth.
Having the interrogation in the public arena, and being harrassed for the response the Government wanted, the Federal Police supplied a nebulous assessment that pleased its masters, an assessment not at all based on the facts it uncovered, facts which revealed Dr. Haneef to be an innocent victim of circumstances, not the international terrorist so desperately needed by Howard.
From there it snowballed out of control, the Goverment continued to stir its casserole furiously (Ruddock, Andrews and co) and the Federal Police attempting to justify the case that its sow’s ear was in fact a silk purse.
And then for the first time in many years, the Media, and in particular The Australian, whether from the stirring of a long dormant sense of unease and injustice, or more likely as a result of the undeniable evidence of the Transcript of Interview and the exposure by the ABC of the lie about where the sim card was found, suddenly and inexorably revealed the truth; the cassarole contained no rabbit and tasted and smelt more of rat.
And from there the Indian Government, seething with indignation at the abominable treatment meted to one of its citizens, did what every civilized Government does but which Australia does not, it went to his aid of and pressured Australia with its not inconsiderable financial and political clout for Dr. Haneef’s release.
Australia has been left with the ignominity of its abuse of the rule of law, interference by the executive in the administration of justice, political manipulation of its Immigration controls, International contempt and ridicule and a thinking population who no longer trust their system of Government.
And for what? To protect the political interests of a petty political party and its overwhelming lust to hang onto the trappings of power for the glorification of an insignificant and entirely loathsome leadership.Thats what.
Jesus, I hope this guy is a bloodthirsty, open mouth, double fanged slavering terrorist. If not, can you imagine what it must be like to be him. My God. He must have been sh!ting big ones.
If he even knows of the latest revalations, he must be thinking.. OMG, can I really be the lucky one that “isn’t” going to get screwed”
I was thinking about this and then I considered my immediate thought/emotion response. How there’s always this thing I have in the back of my mind these days. “Mayby there’s a rabbit in the hat about him”..
Then I considered the ALP’s chances, polls to die for. Costello smacking Howard “closed fist” on the front page. For the first time in years at my PS job we’re being told to do all things in duplicate,
1. As usual
2. When the NEW Gov comes
I should be elated but,… I always wonder “Mayby there’s a ….”
I guess I’m not so “relaxed and comfortable anymore”
“And from there the Indian Government, seething with indignation at the abominable treatment meted to one of its citizens, did what every civilized Government does but which Australia does not, it went to his aid of and pressured Australia with its not inconsiderable financial and political clout for Dr. Haneef’s release.”
What?! A national government going in to bat for one of its citizens?! Outrageous.
Fulvio Sammut Says:
July 20th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Had a couple after work, have we Strop?:)
Ah yes mate, more than a couple actually. Apologies for the crass character assasination of master kaye and notradanus. Strop will refrain from logging on when ‘charged’ in future….until Labor win an ELection.
I think we may be getting abit paranoid if we start seriously thinking the Haneef affair can/will be used as some sort of political ‘wedge’ for the Coalition.
I agree with Adam’s assessment. If he does get whacked with charges that stick it will win some brownie points for the Government being ‘awake at wheel’ on Terrorism at least.
Against that, reports in the Australian today indicating the ‘younger’ voter is swinging away from the Coalition and some of that may be due to the perception that the Howard Government is ‘asleep at the wheel’ on climate change issues.
How much of this ’shift’ in the younger vote is a consequence of the recent ‘Live Earth’ event and the raising of youth consciousness on the issue and the extent to which that ’shift’ will stick come election time is another question altogether.
I think it is a young voter swinger/winner for Labor if for no other reason than to register a protest vote against a Government that has been lame on the issue for some time and, until recently, openly dismissive of global warming discourse.
Logic would dictate that those protest votes would go to the Greens who are more easily identified as aligned with concerns about global warming and the environment than is Labor or the Coalition. If nothing else, I suspect that the Green vote will not suffer as much of downturn in their percentage of the primary vote as some have predicted.
I would be looking for other reasons other than global warming/environment issues to explore reasons why the younger voter appears to be shifting to Labor, at least a significant proportion of them. A single (global warming/environment) causal factor would be niaive.
Amber Dekstris Says:
July 17th, 2007 at 12:29 am
By chalice I meant Opposition Leader not PM. Howard is man enough to lead to defeat, a quality Costello lacks. The machine will decide the battle is lost, allow Howard to lose, allow Costello to lead while in Opposition and allow Turnbull to have a tilt. Handing over to Costello will give the Libs the “makeover†that won’t wash this close to an election.
Seems you were right Amber: Costello made a public declaration yesterday that he will not be challenging for the leadership and JWH is the best man to lead the Coalition to the Election (read:into oblivion). Will that put an end to the underlying dissent in Coalition ranks and the leaking of further speculation ? I doubt it.
It is quite right that John Howard leads the libs to defeat as it is he who is the root and cause of the problem by staying around too long.
Here’s a hypothetical situation
Howard sees the cause is lost, and decides to retire, only to put Costello in charge (why is he so adamant that Costllo is his successor?). Come election time, Costello gets thrashed by Rudd, and is stuffed for the rest of his career as he perceived as a loser (Beazley’s problem). Is this possible – Howard going and Costello getting taken out with him.
Also, all this succession talk if the libs lose is based on Costello winning Higgins (probable but not certain) and Turnbull winning Wentworth (only a 2.6% margin I think) A really bad result could a Lib in a very safe seat (e.g. Brendan Nelson) as Opposition leader in charge.
This is extreme, but it could happen – any thoughts
Pardon my grammar, I have only just woken up!
Another Nail in the Coffin, in today’s Errorgraph sorry Terrorgraph sorry Telegraph
JOHN Howard faces a new crisis within his own party with a messy battle over the seat of Cook escalating last night and, worse for the Prime Minister, prolonging the pain for another week.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22106600-5006009,00.html
Thanks for the link Eddie- My favourite section says
Already facing a leadership split, Mr Howard’s senior NSW colleagues have now declared the party in “crisis”. Oh really, now thats a surprise DUHH.
Cook is a bloody mess isnt it- I wonder what the betting people are going to say about Towke’s chances of surviving the scrutiny.
SirEggo –the smart money says Howard will stay till the end and Costello will be the babysitter (leader) after this election until Turnbull is ready to put his hand up when they think they can win again- probably let Costello lose one (2010) then boot him out- question is how patient in Malcolm Turnbull going to be for acheiving his ultimate goal ?
in*is
It is possible Turnbull could lose Wentworth but hed just shove some else into retirement (with alot of help from those who see him as the next great hope), win a by election and get up and running again. No fault, no foul.
Re Cook preselection
Anything that vaguely looks like a stuff up by the libs is going to be all over the news and portrayed badly, I cannot seriously believe a party who is been so electorally brilliant for so long be so stupid.
Re Turnbull
Ambition can stuff up patience sometimes, just look at Costello and his biography quotes.
Re Howard’s Biography
Why have I got a feeling we’re going to keep hearing more “good stuff” from the bio (i.e. Costello thinks he’s a goose, he knew that Workchoices could be bad….what next?) SMH is still going to try to sell papers, so their not going to use up all of their ammo, anyone heard any tips on what could come next?
Anyone agree/disagree with these analyses?
Costello might be leader for the probable double dissolution next year (if he does not loose his seat).
The staff in Malcolm Turnbull’s office don’t regard him as Minister for the Environment but as Prime Minister-in-waiting.
On reflection, I think Peter Costello will never be prime minister. The only way he could be would be if, as John Howard says, he falls under a bus.
I agree that Costello may become caretaker for a few months but I can’t see him lasting till the next following election, which may be sooner than we think.
It’s much less likely that Turnbull will initiate a challenge now before the election. Imagine if he did and was successful and then lost heavily. He would not last beyond the election.
On the other hand if his colleagues were to draft him into the position because the polls worsen, even if he were to lose he wouldn’t be blamed for the destabilisation. It still might not be a good career move.
I think the Libs will have to resign themselves to defeat and then sort it all out afterwards.
How can anyone be surprised that the youth are deserting Howard in droves? He’s an old man. He’s 68. Australia is a young country, with a young image and a powerful youth culture.
The young are on to their issues – inability to ever own a house, global warming destroying their future and an old man who doesn’t care, industrial relations legislation which removes all those rights their fathers and grandfathers fought for.
All you Liberal apparatchiks who blog here must be losing heart in spite of your bravado. What you need to do is to reform your party so that right wing loonies no longer have control. Rediscover what being Liberal really means. Recruit young genuinely liberal people to take over.
In a couple of elections you may have another chance.
“Recruit young genuinely liberal people to take over.”
read: recruit lefties which conform to my ideological bend.
Im trying hard to keep the top on my bubbly: sense says one should pay heed to those who say .wait a minute,
(1) the election hasnt even been called yet, and
(2) the 20% swingers (?) havent put up their hands properly yet and
(3) alot can happen in politics in one day (Costello in JWHs biography for instance) and
(4) Morgan polls are at least 2% generous to Labor and
(5) Howards Preferred PM rating is on the up and
(6) dont forget the ‘incumbency’ factor and
(7) a national swing may not net enough actual seats for Labor and
(8) Rudd may trip up over something stupendous and
(9) JWH may yet find another rabbit or one might (unpredictably: eg Bali, 911) jump into his lap and, and, and.
A ratioanal person could probably scrounge up ‘20 good reasons’ why the race isnt over yet. None of them convincing- Still, I leave my bubbly in the fridge and crack the top of a beer, waiting !!
Okay, rational for ratioanal. sorry pedants.
Tom Says:
July 21st, 2007 at 11:08 am
Costello might be leader for the probable double dissolution next year (if he does not loose his seat).
Yes. aka Turnbull might get a shot after that and not have to wait forever…good point Tom.
A-C So anyone in the centre, like Bruce Baird for instance, are “lefties”.
Ayone with moderate views is a loony. It’s people like you who have caused Liberals to be out of government in every state and territory and shortly federally as well. You have done a lot of damage to a once proud Liberal Party.
There are certain seats I would be surprised in coming into Labor hands and Higgins (Costello), Wentworth (Turnbull), Bennelong (Howard) and Sturt (Christopher Pine) would be among them- then again, it is possible.
Apologies to the Pyne family. Christopher in particular (Pine-sheesh: ok I will spell check afore posting henceforth).
The Liberal Party does need a clean out, you have to concede that at least A-C, particularly in QLD and NSW ?
Strop It is hard to believe that Wentworth would fall even with a strong swing against the government but sometimes those swings don’t discriminate. It’s even more difficult to imagine that Bennelong would go. Same story. It just depends on how strong that swing is. The voters of Bennelong would probably assess that John Howard won’t remain their member for very long anyway after the election whether he wins or loses.
I can’t imagine him sitting on the back bench for a couple of years.
Hi Richard
I know, all the damage “we” people have caused is truly incomprehensible. Excluding the fact that the Libs have been in power federally for over a decade, excluding the fact that “moderate” (eg soft) Liberals have had control over most of the state oppositions with disastrous results, excluding the fact that St. Kevin is basically presenting himself as a Howard clone [note the fact that Howard stood as the antithesis of Paul Keating in 1996], Australian conservativism is really on the decline!
Please spare us from the gloating, sanctimonious preaching. Getting lectures on political appeal from a left-faction ALP hack (I’m just taking a stab here) is real waste of time.
re STROP
And the ALP doesn’t? Take a look at the seat of Franklin!
Strop You are right of course. I’m more familiar with the NSW scene but there it has been a disaster for the Liberal Party. I worked with a number of the moderate Liberals in the Greiner years. There were some excellent members – Tim Moore, Ted Pickering, Virginia Chadwick, John Ryan, Patricia Forsyth (later) and many others. Even Nick Greiner was a moderate compared to the mob who have taken over and he was a good manager with many sensible reforms. Ordinary Liberal Party members, the ones who do the grassroots work, are mightily disillusioned. The Liberal Party will have to scratch around to find enough people to hand out how to votes. You need these people in any party not just the extreme ideologues who have taken over the Liberal Party.
Just read the following article in the SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/libs-knew-laws-would-hurt-workers/2007/07/20/1184560040254.html
In particular, I quote the first two paragraphs:
“THE Federal Government introduced its Work Choices legislation into Parliament knowing it would leave some workers worse off, the new biography of John Howard reveals.
However, the Prime Minister ruled out further changes because he was keen to have the legislation passed. Time was short and Mr Howard wanted the laws bedded down politically well before this year’s election.”
Gee whiz. No wonder Howard’s on the skids. Fancy knowing the pain and hardship his laws would produce. Yet he couldn’t give a toss. He wasn’t prepared to get the legislation right and take the time to care for the very people who voted him into office.
That is why the battlers are deserting the government in the opinion polls. The surprise Senate majority in 2004 has motivated the emperor to disrobe in front of his subjects.
And the people don’t like what they see!
A-C You are so very wrong! I have never voted Labor in forty years and have never belonged to a union. You are so utterly blinkered you can’t see the truth. You’ll take the Party down with you.
Labor will not win Higgins – have a walk through Malvern and Toorak some day and see why. There is a Labor pocket in Prahran and a few marginal suburbs at the eastern end, but overall it is one of the SOLIDEST wealthy areas in Australia. Furthermore Costello is generally highly respected by upper middle class Melbourne people. That’s why some Labor MPs and candidates refused to use the anti-Costello bunting produced by head office in 2004.
Ditto for Goldstein. Labor will never win that.
Walk around Brighton, Hampton, Black Rock and Beaumaris.
STROP Says:
July 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Im trying hard to keep the top on my bubbly: sense says one should pay heed to those who say .wait a minute,
(1) the election hasnt even been called yet, and
(2) the 20% swingers (?) havent put up their hands properly yet and
(3) alot can happen in politics in one day (Costello in JWHs biography for instance) and
(4) Morgan polls are at least 2% generous to Labor and
(5) Howards Preferred PM rating is on the up and
(6) dont forget the ‘incumbency’ factor and
(7) a national swing may not net enough actual seats for Labor and
(8) Rudd may trip up over something stupendous and
(9) JWH may yet find another rabbit or one might (unpredictably: eg Bali, 9/11 jump into his lap and, and, and.
and 10) oops – just used up my nie lives…
Tom.
nie=nine
oops!
funny Tom.
PS Adam: Ive taken a stroll around ‘Track’ etc, full on Liberal Territory and as you say Higgins is improbable. Lived in Malvern for awhile- renting of course.
“In Britain, a source close to the investigation confirmed the SIM card was found in Liverpool, and said the Australian police were considered a laughing stock by Britain’s Metropolitan Police for allowing “such a major cock-up” to happen. “Australian police have got their wires crossed. This is very embarrassing for them. The police here are laughing at the Australian police, saying, ‘What on earth have they done?’ [Haneef] is clearly more of a political case than a police case.”
As a lawyer I find this highly unnerving.
As a pollbludger, I realise that the govt cannot lose any support no matter how harshly it treats Dr Haneef. The media did its job in the first week and Haneef is forever labelled a ‘terror suspect’, whatever the courts say.
By the same token, whatever Howard/Brough achieve (or otherwise) in indigenous communities will not affect the government’s support.
My concern with the Haneef case now unravelling before the Govt’s eyes is that they did not bulk at manufacturing documents to character assassinate Justice Kirby under parliamentary privilege – and then later so ‘oh so sorry’.
I am just wondering that some parts of this government are so morally bankrupt that the no longer recognise what is moral and imoral.
The way the government has dealt with the Haneef case is truly disgusting. But, given the way they dealt with Hicks and have generally tried to ramp up the perceived threat of terrorism to scare the living daylights out of the population, well, it is very unsurprising.
The onus is now on Ruddock and Andrews to reveal their “secret” information about Haneef, that apparently was so damning that it justified a plan to lock him up indefinitely in detention, veto a decision made my magistrate regarding the case, and strip him of his visa, not to mention having his named and reputation dragged through the mud. So, Ruddock, given that the charge regarding the SIM card has fallen to pieces because it wasn’t true, what is your secret information?
It is now up to the government to justify their treatment of Haneef.
I’m not holding my breath. The government will try to move very quietly from this point on, hoping that the issue can be quickly dropped off the political radar.
I don’t know whether the Haneef case unravelling will lose the government votes, but it certainly would reinforce the cynical view the electorates takes of this government. That cynical view was illustrated by the 58% of respondents who thought Howard was not genuine in his response to the NT intervention. Everytime the government acts people are now looking for hidden motives and that can’t be good for a government that is trailing badly in all major opinion polls.
Unfortunately, on a political level, I think the Haneef case will not spring back on the government in any major way. Many voters might shake their heads at how the government mishandled the case, but some might also forgive them, feeling relieved that the government is prepared to take a very tough stand on anything that looks or smells like a link to terrorism.
A lot of people really don’t care about human rights, due process, and ethical behaviour if it means they are lulled into a false sense of security.
The only way that this will truly damage the government is if it turns out that Ruddock and Andrews lies about their “secret” information. But are there are journalists willing to really push them on this because unfortunately federal Labor dealt themselves out of this sorry saga when it first unfolded.
It is frustrating to say the least.
Drop, you are right. Howard has lost a lot of credibility and there are very few people left now who are willing to take him on his word on just about anything. We all KNOW that he often acts with ulterior motives, often to the detriment of this country.
But I don’t think the Haneef case will lead to a loss of votes. Some will be thankful for the tough stance on terrorism, even if the government has messed it up and even if they are transparently milking it for political gain. A lot of people just don’t bother with the details of issues like this.
Noocat, I don’t think it will cost them votes and really how much further can they drop in the polls anyway. My point was it just reinforces the view that everything they do has a political angle to it, whether it be talking nuclear power with the US or introducing legislation like “Workchoices”. It makes it hard for the government to sell new policy when the electorate is continually worried about any ulterior motives the government may have. I think the electorate are well and truly awake to the political games they play these days.
A-C, it is nonsense to suggest Howard stood as the ‘anti-Keating’. He mainly did so on atmospheric and symbolic issues. Outside that, he painted himself as a compassionate conservative, with few policies for significant change. He had no need to declare his hand and risk frightening some horses.
All he had to to was ride out the attacks on him being a policy free zone by not releasing details until late in the day. And why not – unlike Beazley (or Rudd) he was facing an old and unpopular government. Labor floundered to attack him as keen to sell Telstra, promote private health over Medicare, and sneak in a GST. Robb even courted the green vote especially TWS; Howard promised to keep the CGTax against his own wishes. All this is documented in ‘The Victory’.
But perhaps the Liberals on this site can speculate on who leaked the ‘Young turn against Howard’ polling data reported prominently today by News Ltd? http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22109137-2,00.html
There is a simple reason why injustice against a ‘terror suspect’ won’t hurt the government overall. And it’s the same reason the revelations about ‘children overboard’ etc didn’t bite.
The majority of people react positively to ANY authoritarian action disciplining immigrants, Muslims etc. To turn around and blame/critique the government would involve admitting that you yourself were wrong: the average Australian is inured now to feeling shame, and admitting you jumped to conclusions means saying sorry, however softly.
Only a major stuff-up like Iraq has any effect, and even then, it takes years for that to happen, and even then its salience is limited.
It’s pleasing to see that Rupert Murdoch has been so affected by the criticisms of The Australian at this site that he has ordered them to stop being so slavishly supportive of Howard. They have been highly critical of the government over the Haneef case, they have highlighted Abu Taouk’s record of lies, and today’s placard says YOUNG FLOCK TO RUDD.
Adam
The Sun King knows no displeasure only aslight dimming of his radiance
Oh and as i think was said before not everyone at the Oz is a closet fascisi
“It’s pleasing to see that Rupert Murdoch has been so affected by the criticisms of The Australian at this site that he has ordered them to stop being so slavishly supportive of Howard.”
Adam, yes, it is a welcome sign. Finally. Whether the subtle shift came from Rupert or not, who knows, but I have noticed that Shanahan has toned it down a bit and Albrechtsen is nowhere in sight (although the new website for The Australian is much harder to navigate and therefore easy to miss an article).
Nobody expects The Australian to suddenly give up their right-wing slant, but their commitment to Howard government cheerleading was taking them way out into the world of fantasy and irrationality.
Well, at least one good thing to come out of all of this is that “the War (on Terror) is within measurable distance of its end.” With Howard and Bush gone in 16 months, there’ll be no-one left to prosecute it.
While certainly there are genuine terrorists about who intend genuine harm, at least we the people will no longer be terrorised by our own govt (political beatups, excessive security checks etc), and the Federal Police and ASIO can be left alone to do their preventative work in low profile. Then we can stop holding our breaths and get on with living normal lives and maybe make the place a little bit happier to live in.
Nicely put, Amber.
In your dreams, Amber. The Demonrats are unelectable, and Howard will romp home a fifth term.
Thus spake Bizarro Nostradamus.
The Government will not be hurt by the Haneef affair – indeed, the Coalition’s ears on the ground report that the PM and his Government have benefited from their speedy and proper treatment of this creep. That’s why Fairfax and the ABC are trying like mad to discredit the case against him, because they know it’s helping Mr Howard.
Have you all noticed that your discussion of the L’Affaire Haneef is in terms of whether or not it will cost the government votes. Some years ago, the discussion would have been in terms of whether or not it would win the government votes.
The Australian is no longer “keeping the nation informedâ€, but “the heart of the nationâ€. Leftie soppiness has struck the citadel. I believe that The Australian would back Kevin Rudd in the election if only he would get Labor to drop its IR policy, which Labor cannot do and remain a Labor Party.
Isn’t it strange how Nos and Steve seem to work in tandem and both sprouting the same BS too. Same person?
Again the wise counsel of Noturanus bursts the bubble of “the real picture” advising (once again without anything to substantiate his predictions) that Howard will “romp home”. Thanks for the input; silly man.
Yeah, he has stopped using so many stupid metaphors. Maybe he read Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language”? See here:
http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html
Funny guy! Haven’t you read that the prosecution have bungled the case, and it is now quite possible he will go free, EVEN IF HE WAS supporting terrorism. Maybe the coalition should get their ears off the ground, and start governming the country properly.
Might be the same person Gary: they certainly come from the same stratesphere- and it aint this one.
I am reminded of the comments of the French defeatists In 1940 after the fall of France, Petain I believe said Britain would have her neck wrung like a chicken.
As Winston Churchill reposted “some chicken some neck”
Bottom Line: don’t pop your cork too soon Strop
So the truth comes out with Workchoices. The government knew all along some workers would be worse off. Surprise, surprise. This will haunt Howard in the campaign.
Nostradamus: mate, what are you smoking? I see little evidence of a Howard landslide election victory. Will you be the last one to desert the sinking ship?
Steve, I agree that Haneef won’t cost votes, for reasons already put forward by others. However, the political expediency angle is highlighted yet again. Howard is building himself a persona that there is nothing he won’t do if it suits him. Now we have revelations that Howard knew the ill-effects of WorkChoices before it became law but he pressed again regardless in pursuit of a timetable (sound familiar?). Then when he announced the so-called fairness test he contradicted that position by saying he was unaware of any actual difficulties and was only fixing perceptions. He just says stuff. Whatever will do the job at the time. As confirmed by his wife, who can’t even appreciate the wrongheadedness of this mindset.
People are growing ever more cynical, the media are picking up on this and a groundswell against Howard is building.
oops, “pressed ahead”
A-C Says:
July 21st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
re STROP
And the ALP doesn’t? Take a look at the seat of Franklin! {Response to my suggestion that the Liberal Party needs a clean out, particularly in NSW and QLD}.
I presume you are referring to the pre-selection of the ex-ETU union man who is facing charges and the damage that might do to Rudd if/when the Coalition try to get some electoral mileage about “Unions = evil=economic disaster” again.
I wont bore myself with offering reasons why that card (the evil Unions) has not worked thusfar for the Coalition-sufficed to say that I hope that JWHs strategists have in their kit bag than negative messages about ‘those evil union people’ because (a) it wont win any significant bump in the polls and (b) TV is boring enough already- Please tell me they have something more than an anti-union theme to play with.
Incidently, how many seats in TASSIE (5) How many seats in NSW where the Liberal Party is ‘in crisis’ (10 times as many) and how many seats in QLD (29) where they have pinned their hopes on Bruce (that camera light is bright isnt it) Flegg and another nobody.
Objectively, congratulations to the Coalition for winning four straight Federal elections- no easy acheivement; the problem is they have overlooked what is happening at a State level and within these States (NSW/QLD/SA in particular) and forgotten the grass roots party member who set the platform for their National success. Now its time to pay the bill.
Havent popped my cork yet Edward- the bottle waits in the fridge.
Funny I could have sworn from your comments that you had
STROP says “Noturanus”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Nice one.
I know it has been said before, but ol’ Nosty has to be a lefty plant to discredit conservatives, though I suspect Steven Kaye is the real deal.
The latest Morgan poll was before Costello confirmed Howard was a hopeless treasurer and before the revelations (duh!) that the government KNEW workers would be worse off under Worstchoices.
Expect a significant shift further towards Labour in the next poll.
Edward if you scroll back abit you will see I have listed 9 reasons why I havent popped my cork so to speak, yet. I could list 20 good reasons why the race isnt over yet- I just dont think any of them are convincing enough to shift the mood of the electorate significantly in the coming weeks/months.
Two points for tonight:
1. If Malcolm Turnbull should lose Wentworth, and assuming, he would want to continue a political career, either Berowra or Mackellar, would be a reasonably good fit, especially the latter. If Malcolm and Lucy don’t own a house in Palm Beach, one would be very surpised. And of course, Lucy’s old man Tom Hughes was the first member for Berowra, 1969 – 72. Good symmetry that.
2. On Peter Costello losing Higgins – in 2002 when the libs were annilhilated in Victoria at a state level – Robert Doyle still had a 15%+ majority in Malvern – a much greater majority than any other metropolitan seat. Enough said.
Earlier, I was suggesting that The Australian had perhaps started to do what good journalists do and investigate an issue, that is the Haneef case, rather than simply act as the government’s mouthpiece, which is the usual state of play for them.
But over at Road To Surfdom, Aussie Bob has an interesting theory:
“I’m thinking the Australian isn’t doing whatever they’re doing because they’ve suddenly got an attack of good-journalism-itis. I’m wondering whether they’re not trying to set a trap for all the lefties, defeatist lawyers and Kevin Rudd, in particular.”
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/07/21/the-thin-blue-line/#comment-321313
On Haneef, Rudd has played a totally dead bat. He has said, “assuming the government is acting in good faith, on the basis of advice from the AFP, we support their actions.” That is the correct position to take in a national security matter. But it leaves open the possibility of breaking with the government if and when it emerges that they are *not* acting in good faith. I suspect that will eventually turn out to be the case, but we are not there yet. Labor has not joined the leftist pack of ABC journalists and lawyers who insist that Haneef is innocent without seeing any of the evidence, and so long as they stick to that position they can’t be wedged by Howard. In any case i think Howard’s credibility is so shot that his ability to wedge on anything is greatly reduced.
That’s true Adam, but I’m guessing that Rudd is feeling a great deal of pressure from sections of the community and within the Labor party to start sinking the boot into the government.
But of course, the way things are going, and presuming that the government or the AFP are not withholding evidence about Haneef, hoping or waiting for Rudd to take the bait, then Howard will fall on his own sword.
Just on that Adam If Rudd wins who is he going to take a lead from then?Maybe he could retain Howard on a consultancy basis if he wins!
Noocat, yes of course he is – from the 10% of the community that controls most of the media and the universities etc. But Rudd knows better than to be sucked in. The lesson of the Tampa election is that the 10% do NOT speak for the 90%. Even the Labor Left has learned that lesson.
Cisco, if Rudd wins he will be the same Rudd he is now. As Blair said in 1997: “We won as New Labour and we will govern as New Labour.”
Here’s one for you
I met the PM today. No kidding. He was in the foyer at Panthers in Penrith (isn’t Lindsay as good as lost for the libs) for the NSW Liberal Council meeting.
I shook his hand as he was on his way out. I can tell you he has a “wet fish” handshake i.e. not strong.
I wonder what they were talking about in that council meeting (bearing in mind Abbott and Hockey as well as lib “luminaries” were there
Does anybody wanna have a guess what they were talking about (serious and funny answers accepted…LOL)
PS He is a little taller than I thought he was, there must be some tall timber in the liberal party (LOL LOL LOL)
Surely any consideration of a future leader of the Liberal party would have to take into account the leanings of the survivors of a loss, if there is a loss at the coming election. What would be the influence of the “uglies” in any possible coalition caucus? Would the “uglies” support Turnbull the republican? Are they a stalking horse for Abbott? Would Julie Bishops private life stand up to public scrutiny? Can Costello ever win (or even summon up the courage to contest) a leadership ballot with the new lead in his saddlebags? Will the Victorian Libs support another New Southwelshman again so soon?
there are many facets to this question which have not been raised so far.
Adam I don’t know how he is going to find the time to govern with all those inquiries. As Keating said his advisors can’t get out of bed without first checking the polls Rudd can’t get out of bed without first launching an enquiry! LOL
People
please stop responding to Nostro and Steven K. You’re just giving them the oxygen they crave.
Cisco I have no idea what yr talking about.
I agree Rob. I think we need to include Cisco in that. I don’t mind people with opposing views but at least be fair and reasonable in debating.
Yes Rob purge all dissent, perhaps Adam will agree to serve as fair and reasonable moderator.
Adam Its not that hard one more time for the beginners
Rudd’s answer to house prices ENQUIRY
Rudd’s answer to food prices ENQUIRY
Rudd’s answer to petrol ENQUIRY
Rudds’s answer to putting on his pants Brown chords or grey flairs ENQUIRY
Hey Gb What a pity Mike Carlton doesn’t blog here you two have got so much in common
Edward
These guys are stirrers. They do not respond to others’ posts. They do not add to the debate. If they were leftie ratbags I’d say the same. Don’t purge their posts, just treat them with the contempt they deserve.
I think the Murdock papers might be taking a stand against some scary implications that even they might be concerned with – of the govt in this Haneef case:
1. Ruddock threated to change the laws to put people in jail Judges would let free on bail – as a response
2. Andrews put Haneef in jail straight away – a slap in the face for our legal system – puting political expediency before democracy.
3. Willing to ‘fit-up’ an innocent person for the sake of winnning votes. [the obvious 'errors' or should I say deliberate misrepresentations in the AFP's submissions to court and the lie about the SIM card - it wasnt an accident since the SIM card in the car was used in an 'argument' put to the magistrate and not as simple mistatement of fact.
These are all the elements of a Despot and Authoritarian govt. Add to this the Government's politicisation of just about everything [judiciary is obviously their next target] and their arrogance towards FOI and accountability.
Brisbane Courier Mail Editorial goes so far as to suggest this:
“…third scenario – that the Howard Government has actively conspired with the AFP to manufacture a case against Dr Haneef for base political ends – is by far and away the most villainous. There is no hard evidence of such a conspiracy, but many a talkback radio caller and letter-to-the-editor writer firmly believe that a conspiracy exists. For one, there is no history of the AFP ever doing the Government’s bidding; for another, it is difficult to imagine how such figures could conspire. We have faith in our system of government, justice and law enforcement. We have to; it’s what separates democrats from despots…”
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22106851-13360,00.html
Noone is suggesting anyone stops posting here Edward and Cisco. All welcome but a response is not compulsory.
blackburnpseph Says:
July 21st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Two points for tonight:
1. If Malcolm Turnbull should lose Wentworth, and assuming, he would want to continue a political career, either Berowra or Mackellar, would be a reasonably good fit, especially the latter. If Malcolm and Lucy don’t own a house in Palm Beach, one would be very surpised. And of course, Lucy’s old man Tom Hughes was the first member for Berowra, 1969 – 72. Good symmetry that.
2. On Peter Costello losing Higgins – in 2002 when the libs were annilhilated in Victoria at a state level – Robert Doyle still had a 15%+ majority in Malvern – a much greater majority than any other metropolitan seat. Enough said.
===================================
I think you will find Robert Doyle came out of 2002 with a margin of 10% after taking a 7% swing against.
The SMH did a piece in 2003 I think giving a talley of about 153 enquiries requested by the Howard government. Of all these enquiries it acted only on one item on one report. So it seems the Howard govt loves enquiries as a diversion.
I seen to recall a report into Palliative care ordered by Minister Andrews was sat on for ages, this was of course the same guy whom wanted a Palliative care revolution until he became Minister then found it a little to hard.
Bmw thank you I stand corrected
No surprise (hopefully without stirring up the ‘whats wrong with The Australian thread’ again ) that the Oz is back to its normal channels again. Dennis Shanahan demanded 4-5ths of the front page of the Oz Weekend Enquirer and what was there.
(a) An 8×6 photo of Howard in 2004 election win glory with his hands raised in the air like Julius Ceasar and powerless Pete (Mr Costello) standing just outside the glow of his countenance clapping his hands with that wonderful smug grin I have come to love to hate. Oh, the glory days !!
and (b) the text content ? sorry, got distracted by the photo and JWHs illumination for a moment. The text consisted of a (rough guess) 500 word lecture on “the fundamental strength of the economy” which (along with three other factors) will “assure a Liberal succession”.
These pearls of wisdom from Shanahan are
1. Relying on the fundamental strength of the economy;
2. Grinding away at the ‘risk’ of electing Kevin Rudd PM;
3. The apparently widespread “fear of Union power” and
4. The 63% of voters who watched Sky News yesterday and offered an opinion that personal relations between politicians didn’t matter to them.
I kid you not- Shanahan had to draw on Sky News voters watching yesterdays Sky News to substantiate his view that the Howard biography blow up “didn’t matter”.
No wonder Shanahan himself concluded that Howard-Costello must stick to a “glumly determined path”. Things are pretty glum when you have to cite Sky News opinion polls to support a tragic, glum lecture.
The inquiry angle is one that is being pushed on other blogs, inquiries can be useful in the right circumstances.
For instance an inquiry into the effect of Howard offering massive tax subsidies to investors would have found this would have caused house prices to double and triple within a short time and put home ownership out of reach of the ordinary Aussie. Maybe Howard and Costello would have then rethought their policy, maybe not.
Similar with an inquiry into the effects of Work Choices and its effect on the ordinary Aussie would have been a good idea, it took Howard over a year to realise Work Choices hurt people and he only acted due to the electoral damage.
Perhaps an inquiry into the skills shortage and ways to overcome it would have been good too,instead of relying on bringing hundreds of thousands visa workers each year. Likewise an inquiry into these visa workers, can we effectivlery monitor them to ensure they are not bringing in diseases which no longer exist in Australia such as polio, can we monitor them to ensure we are not letting in terrorists, can we monitor them to ensure they are not being taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers.
Sometimes when you are going to make a major policy change an inquiry is right to ensure that you have covered all the bases and the effects.
Bringing in major policy changes becasue it feels right or it is something you have always have a itch about is not good government.
Pssstt… Edward. Did you scroll back..do you still think Im about to crack the top off the bubbly ?
Healthy debate is good, and your contributions are often substantive- I cant say the same for Noturanus and/or (still working on a nickname for) Steven Kaye.
I dont hope for “fair” debate Rob; But reasonable debate means you have to speak with the bounds of reason and some semblance of reality and both Noturanus and Steven O Kaye (Eureka, I have it) fail on both counts.
SouthPark–
“You can do it, its all up to you o Kaye,
With a little help you can change ur life to day
Dont spend your life addicted to smack
Homeless on the streets giving…..jobs for crack
Just follow my plan my plan and pretty soon you’ll say
Its easy o Kaye.
Very appropriate, slightly distasteful, but appropriate. I wont be responding to Noturanus or mr O Kaye either- waste of time.
Two new News Ltd articles:
Battlers Abandon Howard
http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,23739,22111343-952,00.html
Glenn Milne’s article is also online, it is about the Howard / Costello leadership deal. It is much better than his last week article which was just a Liberal Party press release.
http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,23739,22110696-5012477,00.html
No harm with an Inquiry Arbie so long as they back it up with actual responses that bring about positive change. Government’s have a tendency to spend big dollars on an Inquiry into….
An Inquiry makes it look like they are doing something, until it disappears off the political radar when something else takes over, and hey presto, they spend say $2M on an “Inquiry” instead of say, $50M actually addressing the problem.
The NT shemozzle is a classic example of that kind of politiking typical of both sides of Government in this and other places. There were at least 2 major Inquiries into Indigenous problems before the most recent one which JWH decided was worth some electoral mileage in responding to. At least that is my (cynical I suppose) view on the politics of the Inquiry.
Hahhahaha now the government is going to try and deport Haneef before a trial, because they realise how week the case is against him. So much for trying to stop international terrorist networks.
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,22113894-5001028,00.html
“The secret polling by the Labor Party suggests Mr Howard may be in terminal decline with “soft Liberal” voters, the blue-collar and mortgage-belt base the Liberals built four consecutive election wins on.”
If this were truly true why on earth would the Labor party leak it? You would want to keep it secret – better the victory you ‘know’ you might get than something new and uncertain.
Get the feeling the AFP is selectively leaking again to recover some pride and maybe help the Govt out. This is pathetic.
“Australian Federal Police are examining images of the building and its foundations found among documents and photographs seized in a police raid on the doctor’s Southport unit three weeks ago.”
http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,23739,22111034-952,00.html
At first I came to the same conclusion as Kina, then I thought wait one maybe the plan is to make the Government backbench panic.
I will add there is nothing in that which we didn’t already know along with the reports of young voters and safe seated Liberal voters turning toward the ALP.
This is starting to look scary for the Liberals.
From Simon’s link to Glenn Milne above
http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,23739,22110696-5012477,00.html
Exactly what I said earlier in the week. What a disgrace.
On the bright side, Cadel Evans is now 2nd in le Tour de France (up from 4th).
Go Cadel!
The Federal Police should shut their mouths and go about their business. Leaking this stuff obviously has only one purpose – to imply Haneef is guilty of planning something thus recover their ‘righteness’ or maybe the govts. If they have a case then present it to the court, not the newspapers.
This is what happens when agencies get over politicised – they figure it is their job to re-elect the govt of the day – or at least defend them.
No wonder Rudd has stayed out of this – it would have been a trap.
We know Milne is a Costello booster but gee hasn’t he been busy
http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,23739,22110696-5012477,00.html
“No wonder Rudd has stayed out of this – it would have been a trap.â€
Yes, very wise
The change in tone in the papers recently has been massive.
Nice to see Howard has been working to, in his own words, a “formulation†all this time
According to this report, Howard has weakened the Navy
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pms-credentials-sink-along-with-morale/2007/07/21/1184560109132.html
Jason Koutsoukis and I agree on one thing…
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/costello-you-lack-the-ticker-to-knife-caesar/2007/07/21/1184560106870.html
Maybe Milne sees the next couple of weeks as his best chance of becoming Costello’s press secretary, so he is making a move now.
LOL
Gee Tuesday’s Newspoll might be interesting, but after that what is the timetable for polls.
Newspoll: 24 July
Morgan phone: 27 July (?)
Galaxy: 30 July
Again the tussle for power between the Victorian and NSW branches of the Liberal Party indicate a willingness to be defeated as long as it takes the other bugger out with them. Costello-Howard, what a mess.
Simon Howson Says:
July 22nd, 2007 at 2:59 am
Maybe Milne sees the next couple of weeks as his best chance of becoming Costello’s press secretary, so he is making a move now.
Funny Simon: can he keep sober enough at awards (election) nights to find his way to the Airport to get home to Victoria where he would have to live ?
Jason Koutsoukis wrote–
Costello’s course of action after the first challenge should have been to make Howard look like he couldn’t win the next election without him. Costello and his supporters should have used every opportunity to leak against Howard, undermine him and show everyone in the Liberal party room that he was prepared to bring down the government to get what he wanted.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/costello-you-lack-the-ticker-to-knife-caesar/2007/07/21/1184560106870.html
Looks like Costello is now going to contribute to bringing down the Government and still not get what he wanted- Howard could still win (I doubt it) but if he does it will not be thanks to Peter Costello.
An interesting take on the Howard-Costello mess here-
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-v-costello-rift-reopens/2007/07/18/1184559867707.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Talking of leaks… Please, no spoilers by leaking Le Tour results on a political blog.
Some of us spend all day avoiding the news so we can find time to watch the tapes of the overnight stage!!
First, enquiries: Governments in power almost always have enquiries before a policy change. It’s de rigeur. Rudd will almost certainly have public enquiries into a number of matters if elected. It’s the usual process.
They have enquiries to protect themselves if policy changes go wrong. It also allows all interested parties to have their input, even though these inputs are so often ignored.
Second: Did you see the photo on page 4 of the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday? It was John Howard at a rally of party faithful in Adelaide.
It said it all. I challenged a nine year old to find a smiling face in the crowd. I offered her a dollar. After considerable and minute examination of the photo she said “you win”.
Almost evey face was downturned as John Howard’s usually is in his photos.
Almost every photo you see of Kevin Rudd is of him smiling.
If we were to vote on faces only, which one would you vote for – the smiley one or the glum one?
Howard’s grim face makes him look older, like a grumpy old man.
True though he does not have too much to smile about these days.
Well, we’ll see what the people have to say about these latest events in the next polls. It most likely won’t be good news for John Howard.
I still think there’s a chance he will step down.
blackburnpseph Says:
July 21st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Two points for tonight:
…
2. On Peter Costello losing Higgins – in 2002 when the libs were annilhilated in Victoria at a state level – Robert Doyle still had a 15%+ majority in Malvern – a much greater majority than any other metropolitan seat. Enough said.
==============================================
No, not enough said.
Remember that Malvern is only one of a number of seats in Higgins. The other seats in Higgins are all held by Labor at a State level:
- two-thirds of Prahran (Tony Lupton)
- parts of Burwood (Kennett’s old seat, currently held by Bob Stensholt); and
- parts of Oakleigh (held by Ann Barker).
The swings in each of those seats at ‘02 and ‘06 respectively, were:
Malvern: 6% to the ALP, 2.1% to the Libs
Prahran: 9.2% to the ALP, 0.8% to the Libs
Burwood: 11.9% to the ALP, 1.4% to the Libs
Oakleigh: 13.2% to the ALP, 2.8% to the Libs
Of these, only Malvern was below the statewide average. As a guess, the swing within the Higgins boundaries would have been between 8% and 9%. The swing back in 2006 would have been between 1% and 2%. Costello’s margin is a healthy 8.8%.
Guestimating the Liberal 2PP results from the state elections (always hazardous):
1999: 58%-61%
2002: 50%-52%
2006: 51%-54%
More generally, Higgins is a diverse electorate, containing public housing tenants, middle and upper middle class families, a large gay population, Toorak, lots of apartment residing inner urban professionals, doctors wives, significant Chinese, Greek, Italian, Turkish and Jewish communities…Should I go on?
My point in saying all this is that not that I expect a result like the 2002 State election but simply that we should not assume that Higgins (and other seats like it ) does not contain Labor or swing voters.
I don’t want to suggest that Costello is in trouble (I doubt it at this stage) but the potential is there. If the swing is on, Costello will probably have a tight race but will most likely win.
If you’re going to make claims like “enough said”, make sure you have appropriate and accurate evidence to back your case up.
Further to Melbalp point about Higgins, when this seat is discussed People always talk about Toorak, with due respect Toorak is barely 10% of the seat.
The ALP problem in Higgins is its very poor vote around Malvern and Camberwell and the northern end of South Yarra.
The ALP candidate has proven to be a dill and therefore will struggle to halve the margin.
There is a major issue in parts of this seat and thats the cost of renting, also the seat is home to a great many people on $30,000 to $50,000 whom may feel unimpressed enough by Workchoices to vote against Costello/
Story in today’s Fairfax papers: the Howard government would like to deport Haneef immediately, before he becomes too much of a political negative for them, a la Hicks.
So, is this an admission Haneef isn’t the evil terrorist scourge threatening Australian liberty?
I live in Ruddock’s electorate: what’s the chance of a big swing against the Liberals in Berowra?
Thanks James J
I’ve just copied this paragraph from an article in today’s Age newspaer on Mortgage stress.
“Even Treasurer Peter Costello’s seat of Higgins, which would require a swing of 8.8 per cent for him to lose it, has substantial pockets of mortgage stress, particularly in Malvern and Prahran.”
# Kina Says:
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 am
“The secret polling by the Labor Party suggests Mr Howard may be in terminal decline with “soft Liberal†voters, the blue-collar and mortgage-belt base the Liberals built four consecutive election wins on.â€
If this were truly true why on earth would the Labor party leak it? You would want to keep it secret – better the victory you ‘know’ you might get than something new and uncertain.”
Kina, Labor apparently believe that they have a better chance of beating Costello as PM than Howard, so leaks like this add to the general momentum against Howard, which might either lead to Howard stepping down or being challenged by Costello.
Melbalp, I live in the Federal seat of Higgins and state seat of Hawthorn, Ted Bailieu’s seat. Hawthorn is not included in your analysis of Higgins. In 2002 Baillieu got 55.9% 2CP, and in 2006 he got 62.3%. At the 2002 Labor landslide, Labor came very close to taking East Yarra Upper House Province, which includes the seats of Hawthorn, Burwood, Kew and Box Hill; the Libs only just scraped in with 50.1% 2CP.
MelbALP, your argument re Higgins is flawed when:
1: You forgot that Higgins contains the strongest Liberal voting areas of the state seat of Hawthorn.
2: Those areas within Higgins of Burwood were the only liberal voting areas in the latter seat.
3. The contibution of Oakleigh voters to Higgins must be a very small proportion.
And in 2006, those parts of Prahran south of Dandenong Road (and not in Higgins) voted very heavily against the Liberal party. There was a mix of results within Higgins.
Still, Newspoll is reporting a 14% Labor swing in safe Lib seats, which would be more than enough to take Higgins. It would be great fun for me if Costello actually had to doorknock. “Knock, knock, knock, Peter’s at the door. Peter wants your vote.” LOL!
There is only One booth in the State seat of Oakleigh which lies in Higgins.
also as someone pointed out the ALP’s strongest booths in the seat of Prahran are booths like Reden Central and St Kilda East and these are in Melbourne Ports.
Its also very true that Higgins contains the strongest Liberal booths in the state seat of Hawthorn., the Liberal vote at the Camberwell end of Hawthorn is some 10% higher than the Hawthorn end.
Looking at this part of Melbourne the Suburb of Hawthorn should be in Higgins for it has more in common with South Yarra and Malvern than Camberwell and Balwyn, one could alsio argue that Richmond should be in Higgins as well.
That’s a good point regarding Hawthorn. That’s a stronger argument than simply claiming that Malvern was held by a 16% margin (which it wasn’t) and that’s the end of story. I would point out there was an 8.3% swing to the ALP in Hawthorn at the 2002 election.
Back of the envelope, about 5000 voters in the state seat of Oakleigh fall into Higgins, 10,000 from Hawthorn and Burwood, 25,000 from Prahran and 35,000 from Malvern.
If you check the ‘02 results, it appears the ALP won the Ashburton, Alamein, Burwood booths and was almost even in the Glen Iris and Glen Iris South booths. All of these fall into Higgins. At the 06 election, the ALP won the Glen Iris South booth.
I’ll reiterate my previous point – if a swing is on, Costello will have a close fight but will probably survive. I’ll add to that: if the swing is 6% in Victoria, Costello could possibly lose his seat, given the variability in swings that occurs (i.e. swings are never uniform). There are surely enough caveats in those statements that this shouldn’t be in dispute.
Just as an aside, it is sometimes forgotten that the Coalition’s metro seats (even those considered blue ribbon) are rarely as safe as the ALP’s metro seats. With some exceptions, the Coalition’s very safe seats (its powerbase) are found in rural areas (Murray, Mallee, O’Connor, Riverina, Groom, Gwydir). The ALP’s are generally found in the strongly ethnic and/or inner urban areas of Melbourne & Sydney (Fowler, Batman, Scullin, Wills).
Discussions regarding likely outcomes for seats (and more generally) should be based on evidence, rather than broad assumptions.
From Oakleigh, Higgins contains:
Carnegie North
Carnegie Upper
Hughesdale North
Murrumbeena
Oakleigh (shared with Hotham)
From Prahran, Higgins includes the suburbs of:
South Yarra (part) excluding the Liberal voting bit around Domain Rd but including large public housing
Prahran & Windsor – strongly ALP and high Green vote
Toorak – solidly Liberal
Armadale – split
Sorry, Graeme, for the Tour result.
The deporting of Haneef has already been covered here so I’ll simply say, not a good look for the govt.
Evan Says:
I live in Ruddock’s electorate: what’s the chance of a big swing against the Liberals in Berowra?
Evan,
There was a 3.5% swing agst Ruddock in Berowra in 2004. There certainly is potential for a further swing in Berowra however this will be mitigated agst by the redistribution into Bradfield of the area east of the railway up to the Bobbin Head turn-off. This includes some Hornsby booths that Lab has won 2PP both state & federally over the past 10 years.
This should actually necessitate Ruddock moving his electoral office as it is now situated in Bradfield !!
Discussions of Victorian seats (Higgins et al) are interesting. That seat down Geelong way (Corangamite) is probably going to be the first to go IF Labor gets a substantial swing on in Victoria.
Still, I maintain my view that Labor has exhausted its seat potential in Victoria despite the very good results in 2004 which could be built on in 2007.
Interesting comments, Strop.
I DO agree that Labor may face slimmer pickings in Victoria than in other states. I would, however, take issue with your reference to “the very good results in 2004″. Barring the smallish swings in such Lib seats as Higgins & Kooyong, I would have characterised the Labor results in Victoria as more damage limitation with heavy swings in once marginal Lib seats and heavy damage in their own seats.
I think the most likely results in Victoria will be a return to normal in Labor seats with the likes of Holt & Isaacs exiting marginal territory and margins extending in the likes of Bendigo, Ballarat & Calwell.
Any gains will be a bonus. Corangamite, MCEwen & maybe McMillan may come into play if a cross the board swing eventuates but at best they are 2nd-3rd line of betting rather than prime targets.
Dirk is correct. There is not the slghtest chance of Labor winning Higgins or Goldstein, and not much chance of winning Deakin or La Trobe. The only Victorian seats I would give Labor much chance in are McMillan, McEwen and Corangamite, but I don’t *expect* Labor to win any of them. Labor has a large number of marginals in Victoria (Holt, Isaacs, Chisholm, Bruce, Melb Ports, Bendigo and Ballarat) and will be happy to hold all of them. Any gains will be a bonus.
I take your point Dirk: I suppose when I spoke of very good results in Victoria I was thinking visa-vie other States. I shall do some more thorough research before I make this kind of statement again, or at least qualify it.
Now I have to go and cf Victoria with other States in 2004 and see if my ‘qualified’ thoughts hold any water. Meantime, I think I am still right in suggesting that the Labor seat qouta in Victoria is exhausted. ie Expect Labor to gain 1-3 seats max in Victoria.
RE “HEAVY DAMAGE†IN VICTORIA (2004) DIRK
Labor had slight first preference gains (0.2-3.2) in 7 of the 18 Coalition held seats in 2004 (Corangamite, Gippsland, Goldstein, Higgins, Kooyong, McMillan, Mallee) helped along by the 2004 pre election redistributions in Victoria in some, hindered by others.
Ironically, the 5.4% 2004 redistribution in favour of Labor was met with a 5.5 2PP swing against Labor in Gippsland. On the other hand, the 5.4 swing in favour of the Coalition in McMillan was met with a slight improvement in Labor’s First preference vote (0.9) and a 2PP swing toward the Coalition of ‘only’ 2.1%.
On the other side of the ledger, Labor suffered a fall in 1st preference votes in 14 of its 19 Victorian seats (2004) ranging from 0.03-5.3. The exceptions were Ballarat, Bendigo, Chisolm, Gorton and Melbourne. Melbourne was the only Labor seat that improved its 2PP outcome in 2004.
At least part of the 2PP “heavy damage†in Gellibrand, Holt and Lalor can be credited to the 2004 pre-election redistributions that occurred in Victoria. The 2PP swing in Gellibrand was 5.4, preceded by 5.5 pro Coalition redistribution. The 2PP swing in Holt was 6.4, preceded by a 5.4 pro Coalition redistribution. The 2PP swing in Lalor was 3.7, preceded by a 3.5 pro Coalition redistribution.
Other Victorian Labor seats that I would classify as suffering “heavy damage†in 2004 at the 1st preference level were Scullin (-5.2) and Maribynong (-5.3). The Maribynong result was helped along by a pro Coalition redistribution (2.0) and both seats retain a 2PP margin of 5.9% or better.
10 Labor seats became more ‘marginal’ in 2PP terms in 2004, including Ballarat (2.2), Bendigo (1.0) Bruce (3.5) Calwell (8.2) Chisolm (2.7) Corio (5.6) Hotham (7.4) Isaacs (1.5) JagaJaga (4.4) and Melbourne Port (3.7) but only Isaacs (-5.4) and Calwell (-7.0) suffered what I would categorise as “heavy damage†and Calwell retains a comfortable 2PP margin (8.0%).
The 2PP swing against Labor in the other 8 (loosely) marginal Labor seats in Victoria was above the National 2PP swing against Labor (-2.2%) in Bendigo (-2.5) Bruce (-3.0) Corio (-2.8) and Hotham (-3.5), not what I would categorise as “heavy damage†outcomes.
In summary, at least some of the 2PP “heavy damage†suffered by Labor in Gellibrand, Holt , Lalor and Maribynong was the product of the pre election Victorian redistributions; Scullin retains a very healthy 2PP margin; the 2PP swing against Labor in those 10 marginal seats could only be considered “heavy damage†in Isaacs and Calwell .
Having said that, it is clear that Ballarat, Bendigo, Bruce, Chisolm, Corio, Isaacs, Jaga Jaga, Maribynong and Melbourne Ports will be assigned margin recovery missions by Labor at this election and the loss of any of these seats would certainly cause “heavy damage†to Labor. In other words Dirk, your prognosis is probably spot on !!