A Roy Morgan phone poll of 589 respondents, conducted over the previous two days, has Labor on 58.5 per cent of the two-party vote, down 0.5 per cent from the previous such poll a fortnight ago. Both major parties are up 1.5 per cent on the primary vote, with the Greens down 2.5 per cent and others down 0.5 per cent. Also featured is yet more polling on whether the country is “headed in the right direction”.
Other news: sadly, independent Calare MP Peter Andren has been diagnosed with cancer, and has abandoned his plans to run for a seat in the Senate.
127 Comments
Which goes to show the ‘heading in the right direction’ question seems not to relate to voting intention unless it gives them confidence to change now.
Im waiting for the next galaxy. then nielsen, then newspoll, then..
ARRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
MAKE IT STOP
The election cannot come soon enough.
Good luck Peter Andren
60% think Labor will win.
60% 60% 60%
Primary vote
49.5% 49.5%
Paul Keating will be sitting there with his slippers coco saying
‘a beautiful set of numbers’.
This poll might be saying anything except that Labor support is reasonably steady.
This poll might not be saying anything except that Labor support is reasonably steady.
That’s wot it says alright. The Labor primary has been steady (within a margin of error) for about nine months.
There is no way to positively spin these numbers for the government. But I’m sure Dennis will give it a go.
I wouldn’t wish cancer on any of our politicians, but if it had to strike it is particularly tragic that it is on one so decent and committed as Andren.
For those polling addicts who just can’t get enough.
If the current polling follows the same patterns as the previous 7 elections; polling data to the actual result, at the same time in the election cycle; it would project the following votes for this year’s election.
1987Â L/NP 37.6Â Â ALPÂ 48.9Â Â TPPÂ 42.3/56.7
1990Â L/NP 35.5Â Â ALPÂ 48.9Â Â TPPÂ 42/58
1993Â L/NP 42.4Â Â ALPÂ 47.5Â Â TPPÂ 46.6/53.4
1996Â L/NP 37.3Â Â ALPÂ 49.1Â Â TPPÂ 43/57
1998Â L/NP 37Â Â Â ALPÂ 47.5Â Â TPPÂ 43.5/56.5
2001Â L/NP 41.6Â Â ALPÂ 44.6Â Â TPPÂ 47.4/52.6
2004Â L/NP 41.9Â Â ALPÂ 45.2Â Â TPPÂ 47.3/52.7Â Â Â Â Â
This analysis has used Newspoll data, and took the polling figures for the three months immediately before three months out from the election. So in 2007 terms it used May/June/July polling, as August is three months out from the believed election date, early Nov. Preferences were allocated to the ALP @58% for two party projections.
Pi,
Easy to spin this one. Its a 0.5% fall from the last phone poll. Phone polls are notoriously biased to the ALP as coalition voters are call screeners or don’t trust new technology.
Taking these two factors together means the true 2pp is running around 53/47 with all the momentum on the Govt side. John Howard crusade against the evils of, well, just about everything at present, is winning hearts and minds aross the country ….
Yup, I don’t buy it either – he’s toast.
My deepest sympathies to Peter Andren, and my greatest condolences to his family.
The Morgan phone poll sample of only 589 electors (MoE 4%) is a bit too mickey-mouse for my liking. However, a Labor primary of 49.5% is great news by any standard, and is a record Labor primary in that poll for this year (the poll only started in May).
Blacklight, just as well we don’t live in the US, where Rasmussen has ALREADY switched to daily tracking polls for the Democrat and Republican nominations. Next poll will be AC Nielson on Mon, taken Thur-Sat.
Aristotle,
Love ya work.
Can I just clarify something – are the figure you show based on adding any changes from polls to election result to the current poll levels. What are you using as the current based line?
Do Liberal PMs have to hara-kiri /Seppuku 切腹 and Treasurers have to committ oibara 追腹 on dishounerable election loss? Can we insist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wakisashi-sepukku-p1000699.jpg
Wow less than 600 people that’s a credible poll!
for those interested in Bennelong, there is a Bennelong special on SBS Insight on Tuesday night
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/
Don’t know whether the current Galaxy polling that a number of comments have mentioned (on the other thread) has to do with that one? But probably right that it is for News Ltd Tabloids given they have used Galaxy in recent months.
I’ll be watching that SBS program next Tuesday night.
My mother knows someone who was chosen to appear on the Insight Program. She’s a resident of Bennelong, and a Labor voter.
The deal is Howard and Maxine will appear, with an audience of 15 Liberal voters, 15 Labor voters, and 15 uncommitted/swinging voters.
Agreed Glen 600 people is not many.
But even though the Morgan phone Poll has a Labor bias of about 3.5% and the error on 600 people is rather high the Morgan phone Poll has consistently been at these levels (+ or -) for many months you’d have to suggest that Labor’s primary vote is pretty solid at about 45-46% which is where most of the polls are.
The consistency of this and other polls as well as a June Newspoll that indicated that nearly 90% of voters had more or less locked in their vote shows that Kevin Rudd (love him or loathe him) will be PM before the year is out – I’d suggest that would be over 90% by now.
Poll’s can be wrong but not this many and not for this long.
I have to agree with Glen (on this, if nothing else). Less than 600 respondents is a bit dodgy. Then again, I’d bet dollars to donuts that if the same poll had the Libs closing the gap, Glen would be extolling the virtues of the poll.
Can someone explain again why Morgan’s phone polls and face-to-face polls produce such different results? Do we have any clue as to which, if either, is more reliable?
I agree that 600 is a bit too small, but don’t agree that this poll is necessarily biased. In June, this poll had Labor at 46-40, then 43.5-40. The big swing to Labor in this poll occurred in July, when Labor averaged 48% and the Tories 36%.
On its own, a poll of 600 does not say much. However, when it says the same thing as a large number of polls by different companies over a long period of time involving a large number of respondents…
The argument goes that in face to face polls people don’t like admitting supporting conservative parties, i.e. the current government.
There is a second argument that Morgan phone polls are also biased in favour of left wing parties, perhaps by a poor weighting methodology. Hence people think there is an inherent biase of 2 or 3% of the primary vote for the ALP in all Morgan polls.
You seem confident in your opinion, Fire Maker, and you may well be correct. The key assumption underpinning the way you and others see it, is that 90% or thereabouts have “locked in” their votes, whatever that means. I count myself among undecided voters at the moment but on your analysis I am in relatively small percentage of the voting population. I will have to reflect more on your assumption.
That doesn’t explain why face-to-face and phone produce different results.
David, I think this site is testament to the fact that people have already made up their minds. Myself, I made up my mind in 2001 as soon as the Howard government started demonizing helpless people. Before that a la 1998, they actually had policies, like the GST. I’m one of the people that inherently believes that the GST is good for average Australians, because people earning higher incomes pay taxes (without any way to hide) where in the past, they would have had complex ways of avoiding them. It was good policy.
But these days, the same people front-up against one another again and again, and very few people change their minds. Even when it is patently shown most right-wing arguments are based upon faulty logic, they still don’t change their minds.
My theory is that the basis for most conservative support is around fear and a secret desire to return to a white-australia policy… but no-one would admit to that, now would they? Better to rely fear and scare-mongering about the yellow/red/muslim/whatever menace.
Albert F, yes, the base for the poll projections is the may/june/july Newspoll results which gives the primary votes as L/NP 38.1 ALP 48.4.
Then in each year the pattern of increase or decrease to the primary vote from what the polling showed to the actual result is added or subtracted.
Adam, I don’t think anyone can explain why Morgan’s face to face and phone polls are so different. His phone polls used to replicate other phone pollsters results and his face to face used to understate the Coalition vote, now it is the other way around. As long as he hasn’t changed anything in his sampling, all we can do is throw it into the mix.
Having witnessed someone participate in Morgan polling I cannot see how people would be less likely to respond in any particular manner using this approach (assuming this experience was typical): the pollster visited, explained the approach and then left a very-hefty booklet to be completed by the polled individual over the next week. This booklet included various questions about voting intentions but also brand recognition/consumption, TV/DVD/internet usage over the weeek, consumption of medical services etc etc.
There was no need to “admit” to any particular voting intention face to face, as it was merely a small number of boxes to be ticked hidden within a very large number of pages.
I hate the zig-zag effect I am getting on my graph.
Aristotle, I don’t believe that Keating was ahead of Howard 49/37 at this stage in the 1996 election campaign (which would have been in December 1995). Is that what your table says, or am I reading it wrong?
Use a moving average, Adam, it’ll smooth out your results and your graph.
As for comments on the sample size of 600, remember the margin of error only increases to 4% not 10%. Galaxy & Newspoll have error margins of 3%, and Nielsen 2.6%.
Pi thanks for sharing your views and also your theories about support on one side of politics. Of course, I speak only for myself and not others who visit this excellent site, so I cannot be as certain as you appear to be in the opening sentence of your prior post. Frankly, the remainder of your post does nothing to assist me in evaluating the assumption about “locked in” voters but I suspect the conversation in the thread has moved on.
I used to live in Calare, and the electorate was surprised when Andren won in ‘96. But he was a greal local member. He did his job, and he never bickered along party lines, and he was always against the party politics “machines”. I would have voted for him in the senate in this election (i’m assuming he has withdrawn). I think he also argued against politicians pay rises at some stage (someone pull me up if I’m wrong)
I’m sorry to get emotional, but I think that him getting cancer sucks. Why do bad things happen to good people?
William, I understand if you moderate this last part, but it is how I feel.
SirEggo, I don’t wish to badmouth Andren, who, as I said above, is a very decent guy, but it’s very easy to take easy populist positions on things when you’re an independent and will never have to take responsibility for anything. And “arguing against pay rises for politicians” is the easiest populist wank of them all.
Sorry, Adam, I should have made it more clear.
The above table is projecting what vote both parties could end up with if the change from voting intention to election result is replicated.
For example in the 1996 election, three months out from the election, the previous three months polls gave the votes as:
Sept/Oct/Nov Opposition (L/NP) 46.3 Govt (ALP) 39.5
Election Result Opposition (L/NP) 47 Govt (ALP) 38.7
Difference (L/NP) +0.7 (ALP) -0.8
Applied to 2007
May/June/July Opposition (ALP) 48.4 + 0.7 = 49.1
May/June/July Govt (L/NP) 38.1 – 0.8 = 37.3
And then 49.1 & 37.3 translates to 57/43 TPP if preferences are allocated to the ALP @ 58%.
The above changes in votes are absolute changes, but making the adjustments using relative shifts only marginally alters the figures.
You’ll note, that in, 1987, 1990, 1996 and 1998, the polling and the election results were rather similar. 1993, 2001 and 2004, showed marked differences, but even in these scenarios the Coalition doesn’t get over 48% of the two party vote.
I’m sorry to hear Peter Andren is sick. If ever there was a genuine politician he is it. All the best Peter. Beat that bloody thing.
Strange things happen in the ALP
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22222066-5001028,00.html
Sounds like a great candidate.
Despite the great polls Labor will need every bit of wind in its sails to get over the line.
No doubt about that Kina. There’s still a lot if fear to be thrown around yet.
Pi and Kina. And an awful lot of taxpayers money!
Someone estimated that Howard had squirreled around 10 billion dollars aside for this campaign and on top of the 22 billion mentioned a couple of days ago, get set for the mother of all pork barrel campaigns.
The economy and battlers can all be dammed from here on. It’s every man for themselves, I mean every Liberal PM for himself.
True, it is strange Adam, but there is a method behind the madness. Three highly ranked military recruits will put a bit more than a damper on the government’s attack that Labor is weak on national security.
Despite the longstanding ‘tag along anywhere with the US’ ideology of the LNP, which has caused more than a few unnecessary headaches, foreign policy receives little public scrutiny, and Howard’s strong rhetoric wins the day.
However, when you put distinguished military figures in the opposition to directly challenge the governments clearly false assertion ( just compare policies) that it is better at handling national security. Advantage neutralised.
I like to also point to the message our asian neighbors would receive if we were to have a prime minister that spoke chinese.
Actions speak louder than words.
Very sorry indeed to hear about Peter Andren.
Peter, I hope you are able to beat it.
Rodney Cocks is a coup for Labor. What a quality candidate.
Morgan is on the same track as the others. No surprises.
Doesn’t look at all good for John Howard.
If Monday’s follows the same path, he should seriously think about stepping down – for the good of the Party.
I hope all goes well for Andren, I thought he was a good chance for the senate and was a pollie along the lines of Mack and Hatton who would have truly kept the B’s honest.
I can’t help but wonder if the economic and national security issues were already largely neutralised.
I wonder if they were broken down into more specific questions whether or not the Govt’s strong polling would be maintained.
I would have thought the news that Bush will be arriving early for APEC would be another bad-sign for JWH – surely he doesn’t want to be rubbing shoulders with Bush for additional time? And especially in light of the potential extra disruption this is likely to cause…
I think Bush is leaving earlier than first thought as well.
Peter is a good bloke and an honest man. Bugger this, with all the dead heads in Parliament , just makes you wonder.
I think the coalition took square aim at its own feet in terms of national security when Howard went blindly into bat for George against Obama. Choosing one side of politics in a two party democracy, that is the worlds only superpower and (nominally) our strongest ally, is not the best approach to foreign affairs. Iraq doesnt help either.
In terms of economic management, the ‘let the good times roll’ spin of the government has been subverted and turned against it as evidence it is arrogant and out of touch. Rudd has turned the broad economic outlook, which is optimistic, into one of personal economy, with many working families who are under pressure, due to rising prices and insufficient wage increases, providing fertile ground for the ALP.
The intimate connection of IR with the economy has meant the unpopular baggage of WorkChoices is affiliated with the government’s rapidly declining trump card, the economy.
Firstly good luck to Peter and hope he makes a speedy recovery.
Secondly if the Coalition wins the election and I think they will, they could very well keep it’s senate majority. All they need is to win 3 out of 6 senators in each state.
David Charles, I suspect people are speaking of “locked in” voters, well at least it’s my reading of it, because the polls have been in roughly similar territory on primary and TPP over about nine months. Aristotle could correct me, however, from memory of something I read from Aristotle, the sample is now above 11,000. I’m not sure whether Aristotle included all polls in that analysis.
Terrible news about Peter Andren, someone of genuine integrity, hope he survives.
Isn’t it going to be interesting to see what evolves from the mix of people standing for Labor, if enough of the really interesting ones get over the line? I’m sooo wanting Maxine to do him.
Also note tomorrow’s Westpoll (published in the West Australian newspaper) has an ALP/LP of 54/46. This is a 7.5% move up for the ALP and a 7.5% move down for the Coalition since the last poll taken.
This would result in the Coalition losing 2 seats (Hasluck and Stirling).
Westpoll usually has a sample size of ~400.
Hi all first post from a long time viewer.
That is a 10% turn around from the last election (LP/NAT=55.4, ALP=44.6)
That puts Kalgoorlie, Canning and Forrest in Labor’s sights.
That hasn’t stopped our Piers from using it! He used the last one to say Howard was storming back and that it legitimately portrayed public perceptions to WorkChoices.
A coalition win would be a disaster for Australian democracy on so many levels. The executive would remain unchecked to trample upon as many checks and balances it can subvert in its favour, public debate would be impeded by a government that abuses the publics right to FOI, industrial relations will experience further pro-business reforms to the detriment of employees, our foreign policy will continue to be tied to the Iraqi debacle and the Bush experiment pt11 (the first part was far better!), global warming will NOT be addressed as an issue of extreme importance, nuclear power stations will be constructed across the nation-creating unnecessary risks of radiation and leaving a millenia of toxic waste, and our health, education and infrastructure will continue to suffer cutbacks as the government fails to invest in our countries’ (and children’s) future.
This is just scratching the surface of what is a party that has no coherent agenda to deliver a sustainable and prosperous future, and cant even manage to mount a credible election campaign that doesnt just stink of pork!
a) The polls are all crap and always have been and always will be.
b) The people are asleep and will come to their senses and vote for JWH when they finally have the little pencil in their hands.
c) JWH is a campaigning genius and will claw back all the support he needs just in time.
Which of these camps are you in, Tristan Jones? Just curious.
Very sad to hear about Peter Andren, a decent a gutsy pollie who had the courage to question politicians superannuation benefits.. I wish him a speedy recovery.
Tommorrow’s Westpoll would aslo deliver Kalgoorlie. Explains why the PM campaigned in Kalgoorlie and Moore during his last visit.
Then again as a poll watcher in WA for many years – I’ve come to expect big, strange fluctuations in Westpoll.
Following up on Tristan Jones… I personally think it’ll be harder to wrest control of the Senate from the Coalition than the House of Reps. They only need to win 3 seats in each State, and could probably do that with around a 42% primary.
Most Coalition voters in the lower house vote Coalition in the upper house as well and conservative voters are more likely to number above the line.
Good news in WA; if that poll’s on the money, it’s actually a 9.5% swing to Labor in WA vs the last election, and they would definitely gain the 2 marginals and possibly Kalgoorlie.
Pondie
Those Westpoll figures would give labor Hasluck and Stirling plus Kalgoorlie, they also place Canning and Forrest in reach.
Can anyone give me a source on that Westpoll figure?
ABC News says it is 54 – 46, and said it was a 7.5% swing, I assume since the last election.
Ah, Tristan J, hope springs eternal in the human breast, however, it’s just possible that a Labor win will bring together a useful and interesting mix of people to address some serious problems this country and the world face, and that the Party previously known as the Liberal Party might take the opportunity to take a good long hard look at itself, figure out that allowing one person to have too much power for too long and come to believe they are born to rule without question, then figure out how to learn to listen to people again, might be a good thing. Renewal is always necessary.
I wouldn’t wish cancer on any of our politicians, but if it had to strike it is particularly tragic that it is on one so decent and committed as Andren.
feral sparrowhawk
Hear, hear. My condolences to Andren and his family, and I wish him all the best.
Despite the great polls Labor will need every bit of wind in its sails to get over the line.
Kina (36)
No doubt about that Kina. There’s still a lot of fear to be thrown around yet.
Pi (37)
Dunno about that, I think Howard has used up all his fear mongering tactics, the electorate have wised up. It is now at the point where it has become counterproductive for him to keep playing that card. One thing punters do not like is being repeatedly taken for mugs.
Secondly if the Coalition wins the election and I think they will, they could very well keep it’s senate majority. All they need is to win 3 out of 6 senators in each state.
Tristan Jones (46)
I will be utterly amazed if the government holds on to the senate. The most bankable prediction in this election is that they will lose the senate.
Forrest could be the surprise of the election.
A few months back the Financial Review reported that internal Liberal polling has placed Forrest in the marginal bracket. Combine that with an invisible Lib candidate a strong ALP candidate and a Independent that could poll 20% some good viewing may be ahead.
Westpoll has fluctuated over recent times, however this bounce for the ALP cannot be considered to be completely noise, the most recent newspoll on the 31st July showed the same 2PP figures and a 5% jump in ALP primary since Jan-Mar.
Clearly, there has been a shift to the ALP in WA at the same time as there was a slight shift away in other states. Perhaps the fact that WA generally opposes centralised governance like Howards intervention dogs breakfast, and the Burke affair has died down, but I’m in NSW and largely ignorant WA affairs.
Any thoughts as to what has driven the swing to Labor?
Ah hell! I wish it was only two weeks out from polling day.
With respect to Canning, given how hard it swung last time (9.2% if I’m reading the table correctly), if a portion of that swing can be put down to candidate issues, as opposed to demographic changes (which were significant and have continued) or Don Randal’s charm, then Canning is significantly in play.
I don’t need to believe it – and really I don’t, but a 10% uniform swing would put Moore and Tangney within reach. It is just a Westpoll which previously I’ve tended to ignore, but would scare the Nosty’s of the world who are confident of keeping Stirling and Hasluck, and looking lustfully at Cowan.
From bryans site
You have asked about the likely election outcome if Labor won 58.5 per cent of the polity-wide two-party preferred vote. That would be a uniform swing for Labor of 11.24 percentage ponts.
Under this scenario, Labor should win 114 seats. That is sufficient to form majority government.
close to my march prediction i suppose
Howard went through a period where he used the W.A. mining industry as an example of how good AWAs are. However, most workers in metro areas earn much lower incomes, and thus have more to lose. It could be another example of just mentioning WorkChocies and AWAs reminds people how much they hate the idea.
I wish I knew what drove the change, and I wish I was sure it was real. I am assuming the polling was too early to be influenced by the interest rate rise, I am dying to be sure it is a net negative to Howard, contrary to mumbles well constructed thesis to the contrary.
The Westpoll is a rogue, and with WA locked in behind the PM and Queenslanders associating Rudd with the truly loathed Beattie, Labor’s election hopes are officially dashed.
Just Me,
I think it is time to repost my comment of 8/7 re the impossibility of Labor winning the Senate and the extreme unlikelihood of Labor plus Greens winning it:
As it is almost impossible for Labor to gain a Senate that will pass its legislation, it must concentrate on winning government – which is always the main aim of a major party. It will therefore use Senate preference deals to boost its chances of winning House seats and deal with the Senate later.
The quota for the Senate is c14.3 per cent. Two quotas need 28.6 per cent; three, 42.9 per cent; four, 57.2 per cent; five, 71.5 per cent; six, 85.8 per cent. In the following exercise, I am making up results for Victoria, not making predictions. If Labor polls around 44 per cent, it will have three quotas in its own right. If the coalition polls around 38 per cent, it will have two quotas in its own right. Then preferences will come into play.
I can imagine that once the 71.5 per cent of the vote required to elect three Labor and two coalition senators is taken out of the count, the remaining 28.5 per cent could go as follows: Greens 9, coalition 9, Family First 4, DLP 2, ALP 1, others 3.5. It is unlikely that the others will do a Western Victoria 2006 and propel the DLP ahead of FF, so I will put them aside for the moment.
FF plus DLP is 6 (or 7 if the ALP goes to FF). If the others push FF ahead of the Greens and the coalition or ahead of one but not the other, then whichever group is third will determine the result: if the coalition is third, its preferences will elect FF; if the Greens are third, their preferences will elect the coalition. If the others leave FF behind both the coalition and the Greens, FF preferences will elect the coalition.
For the Greens to win, they would need a higher primary vote and/or a higher Labor surplus and Labor preferences. They will poll a higher primary vote in Tasmania, but I am not sure about the other states.
If Labor believes that recommending Senate preferences to FF will get FF to recommend House preferences to it, it will be prepared to face the unlikely prospect of a stronger FF presence in the Senate. It will obviously take account of any Green reaction to such a decision as it would like to have Green preferences in the House as well. It has to determine whose preferences are of more use, which will involve a consideration of not only how many extra it will get if each group “directs†preferences, but also the resulting effects on the margins in the seats in which preferences are “directedâ€.
In summary, the Senate result is of almost no importance to Labor. It will act to maximise its House seats.
If Howard is losing seats in the supposedly rich state of WA, he is stuffed! If the ALP is winning a seat like Forrest, it’ll be a Liberal/Coalition bloodbath on election night.
There have been too many polls to deny the truth. There will be a change in government. Now the Westpoll seems to suggest the government’s last line of defence, ie. WA, is also withering away.
Very sad to hear about Peter Andren. He’s a decent man and a good man. Cancer is a bastard. It has touched all of us either directly or indirectly.
jasmine: The poll was conducted on 6-7 August, so yes it was before the interest rate rise.
margin of error is about 5% i think?
That’s sad to hear about Peter Andren. I’m not in NSW but from what I heard down here in Victoria, he seemed an honest and well-intentioned person. Sad to hear a decent man has been struck down. I sincerely hope he recovers quickly.
I am not surprised that this poll shows a strong swing to Labor in WA. It may be true that a lot of people are earning loads of money on AWAs in the mining industry. But people with standard jobs and wages (teachers, nurses, police, public servants) are finding rents and mortgages soaring sky-high, and what was the cheapest mainland state for housing not so long ago is now the most expensive. Accommodation is virtually impossible to find in the mining towns, and people are paying huge sums to live in converted shipping containers or tents in caravan parks in places like Karratha. Those who didn’t own or buy a house early in the mining boom have been left like shags on rocks, and even those who did buy houses, at rapidly escalating prices, are now facing a slight fall in property values, as the WA housing boom comes off the boil. A rise in interest rates will hit very hard there. And high petrol and food prices won’t help in a state with such huge distances.
I also think Rudd’s promise to guarantee some of the Federal resources taxes go back to WA would have gone down well. It’s a sensible policy when that state has contributed so much lately to the national prosperity. They also have a popular state government.
I suspect Labor’s replacement of local boy Kim Beazley with Mark Latham may also have helped the coalition at the last election, and there’s scope for a bit of a swing back on this score.
I’m not from WA, and the poll is a small sample, so I may be wrong, but these are my gut feelings.
Although i will miss Andren, I won’t be sad to see Nettle go – a Trotskyite and not much to show for six years in the Senate.
Once Brown retires, the far left’s “NDP”ing of the Greens will be even easier.
Who is this strong independent in Forrest? The Libs have had candidate troubles there so if there is a swing in WA an upset might be possible. Chris Curtis will doubtless recall that Labor last won Forrest in 1969, when the DLP preferenced the Labor candidate, the late Frank Kirwan, who was both a Methodist minister and an ETU official.
Steven Kaye Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
The Westpoll is a rogue, and with WA locked in behind the PM and Queenslanders associating Rudd with the truly loathed Beattie, Labor’s election hopes are officially dashed.
Best go and have a good lie down, Steven.
There’s another AC Neilsen Poll out on Monday and with the increase d interest rates fresh in peoples minds, it may go back over 60% 2PP.
That’s bound to make your headache worse and won’t do too much for the mental state of the now very nervous John Howard and the Coalition members.
Besides that Steven, most Queenslanders except some Coalition supporters quite like Mr Beattie. His approval rating is well above Mr Rudd’s.
Nola Marino’s website is still offline http://nolamarino.com. How can the Libs run the country if it takes them three months to get a website working?
Saw this line on Paul Kelly’s blog and thought it good for a run.
After the election there will be a number of people who voted for Howard who’ll feel like they just got out of bed with a prostitute.
Yeah, they will probably wake up with an awful itch and wonder what the hell caused it.
Adam, Marino’s site seems to work OK from http://nolamarino.com/
You had an erroneous ‘.’ lodged at the end of the url.
Does anyone actually look at the websites of pollies who isn’t already a partisan?
Adam, Marino’s site seems to work OK from http://nolamarino.com/
You had an erroneous ‘.’ lodged at the end of the url.
But there is still not much info on the page except foir a liberal logo and Session SiteID = ”
Page not recognised. Oh and Black text on a Blue Background is’nt a good look either.
Yes, that’s what I mean by a not-working website. Nola better rattle her dags if she wants to be an MP, because:
Breaking news: ‘Gropers get with the program
Poll looks good for Labor in the west
10th August 2007, 18:01 WST
Federal Labor stands to win at least three Liberal seats in Western Australia, the latest opinion poll shows, dashing coalition hopes of gaining ground in the west.
The Labor surge in the Westpoll taken this week as interest rates rose shows West Australian voters are turning their backs on Prime Minister John Howard and his government.
The poll, to be published in The West Australian on Saturday, shows a huge eight percentage point swing to the ALP, delivering it 54 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.
An election result of 54-46 to the Labor Party would not only ensure it retained the marginal seats of Swan and Cowan, but it would sweep up the Liberal seats of Hasluck, Stirling, and Kalgoorlie.
The government has been hoping to hang on to Hasluck and Stirling, and believed taking either Cowan or Swan would give it enough of a buffer to offset expected Labor gains in Queensland, NSW, Tasmania and South Australia.
But this poll suggests West Australian voters, like their east coast counterparts, are rapidly ditching Mr Howard and the Coalition.
Labor’s primary vote has soared back to 43 per cent, where it was earlier this year soon after Kevin Rudd took over as opposition leader, according to the poll.
The Coalition’s primary vote is down eight points from the July Westpoll at 38 per cent.
In the 2004 election, Mr Howard hammered the ALP with a two-party preferred vote of 55.4 versus 44.6.
An almost 10 point turnaround, indicated by the latest Westpoll, would put the safe Liberal seat of Forrest almost within reach for Labor.
Pollster Keith Patterson said it was clear the attitude of WA voters had hardened against Mr Howard and his government.
“I think the people are saying that they are over John Howard, and they’re looking for a regime change,” he said.
“I can’t imagine anything short of a Tampa that will bring him back.”
The poll follows Mr Howard’s comments to his backbench earlier this week, in which he said the party could win Swan and Hasluck while holding Stirling and Hasluck.
One of the biggest concerns for the Liberal Party is that the poll shows just four per cent of those surveyed are undecided about how they will vote.
It appears the interest rate rise, after the Liberal Party’s pledge at the 2004 poll to keep rates at record lows, has dramatically hurt Mr Howard’s standing among WA voters.
Mr Rudd has overtaken Mr Howard as preferred prime minister, with the Labor leader gaining seven points from his July poll reading and Mr Howard down nine points.
It was the lowest such reading for Mr Howard this year, while Mr Rudd is back close to where he was in March.
I think the expectation of an ALP win could start to snow ball. More regular, state, and marginal seat polls could just reinforce the impression that the government is going to lose. They need to stop stuffing around with token intervension policies, and actually announce something more substantial. Howard’s announcement of the internet filtering is a good example of this. Sure it is basically a reannouncement of what they announced last year, sure it is $200 million spent on something that probably won’t work, but at least it gives an impression of governing the country.
Adam (33)
Yes, politicians salaries is a populist wank, completely agreed. However, coming into the previous election, Calare was the second safest seat in the country, and at the 2004 election I think he got 71% of the 2pp. He might have been taking the populist view, but we didn’t care in Calare. We still voted for him in droves.
I am also aware 2pp when independents are involved can be inflated from major party preferences, but he was a local, and he did a good job. The only time he actually lost the 1st preference count was in 96 I think (help me out here)
Politics will be all the poorer for his absence
God…I’m starting to sound like one of the partisan posters on here (uppercut to self)…better stop now.
I’ve got some bad news for Steven Kaye too. Don’t believe the hype about the Queensland situation. With 750 experienced, conservative councilors about to become redundant, and the Queensland Liberals badly bruised over the council amalgamation in the Queensland Parliament this week. A huge band of Independent candidates could roll the Conservative Parties in Queensland into near oblivion.
SirEggo, if you are familiar with the area, what is your view of Priestley’s chances of rolling the log Cobb in the redrawn Calare?
For those ALP supporters who think that high expectations will help the opposition then they should be wary. Swinging voters who think the election result will be a landslide may decide to stick with the government. Kevin Rudd needs to be very careful and reinforce the difficulty of winning 16 seats.
Lindsay Tanner certainly did this on Lateline tonight. He’s a talent that man, certainly should be shadow treasurer. Ironically if the Liberal vote collapses in the seat of Melbourne he could be at risk. The Greens best seat in terms of primary vote is in Melbourne. I reckon some Liberal voters may vote tactically. Every election springs a surprise and Melbourne will be one to watch.
At the end of Lateline Virginia Trioli questioned both Tanner & Hockey about their plans on the evening of Friday 9th November. Both smiled and joked that they may be pre-occupied. What do they know or what have they heard? Has something been revealed that we don’t know about?
Completely agree with your assessment of Melbourne Neil. I think this is where the surprises are going to be.
If Tanner hadn’t been so silly as to join the Socialist Leftovers, he would be shadow Treasurer and might one day be a leadership candidate. It’s puzzling because his views on most economic matters are Thatcherite.
Barrie Cassidy made reference to November 10 on Insiders a few weeks ago. He highlighted the symmetry of election dates with JWH’s hero Ming the Merciless.
Menzies won the 1949 and 1955 elections on December 10th. Maybe, the theory goes, Howard will try and win both 2001 & 2007 on November 10th.
If this is the PM’s logic then he really has become unhinged. Fancy using superstition to pick an election date. What next? Tarot cards.
“Lindsay Tanner certainly did this on Lateline tonight. He’s a talent that man, certainly should be shadow treasurer. Ironically if the Liberal vote collapses in the seat of Melbourne he could be at risk.”
Huh? Time to add more water, Neil.
Adam (93)
Priestley does not have the profile that Andren had in 96, simply becuase he is not on our TV every night like Andren was.
However, there are several factors in his favour:
*He is from the largest city in the “new” Calare – Orange (could be countered by the fact that the ALP candidate is also from Orange)
*He has Andren’s backing – could be even more important now that Andren has withdrawn in these circustances – gets a higher profile
*No one likes the coalition at the moment. There are a lot of new houses going up in Orange at the moment, as a result of the goldmine nearby. The mortgage belt factor definitely could come into it.
*The fact that it is National running and not a Liberal. In the last election, in the “old” Calare, the Libs outpolled the Nats. May be a factor, but you might know a bit more about the Lib/Nat relationship.
Since I know the area (and I went to uni in Bathurst), I can also comment on Macquarie, which has a fair bit of the old Calare in it (Bathurst/Lithgow). It seems (and you will know a fair bit about this, pull me up if I’m wrong) that there were two ends of the old Calare, the conservative end (Orange) and the labor end (Bathurst (uni) and Lithgow). Now the labor part have gone to Macquarie, I think that is it for Kerry Bartlett. One thing against this could be that the ALP candidate (Debus) is from the Blue Mountains, and not from the Central West. On the other hand, the incumbency factor could be lost for Bartlett in the Central West
I know this is all extensive, but I hope it helps
Predictions:
Macquarie: Debus (ALP) to beat Bartlett (LIB) in a rout
Calare: Cobb (Nat) to win, but I disagree with all the pundits saying it will be an easy win. I think it could be close. Priestley is a smokey chance of pinching it on preferences.
Have any more questions, just ask
PS I now actually live in Greenway (new Greenway that is), Every one is saying Libs will win, but if there is a huge swing on, it may go (11% needed I think). However, I think the Libs will win the new Greenway
OK, I’ll stop typing now…
“Huh? Time to add more water, Neil.”
Have a look at the 2004 result in Melbourne. The Liberals polled 25% primary vote, The Greens polled 19%. It would take much for The Greens to leap frog the Libs and then benefit from their preferences.
Then consider the rapidly changing demographics in that seat, with older traditional Laor voters being replaced by trendy yuppies and university students. Especially around Parkville, Richmond and Carlton.
Anything is possible. In fact it’s quite logical.
I meant to say “it wouldn’t take much for The Greens to leap frog the Libs and then benefit from their preferences.”
Chris Curtis (75).
Thanks for that detailed analysis. I will try to fully digest it over the weekend.
The Rudd Baron has the “Big Mo”.
We have passed the tipping point.
100
Neil Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
“Huh? Time to add more water, Neil.â€
Have a look at the 2004 result in Melbourne. The Liberals polled 25% primary vote, The Greens polled 19%. It would take much for The Greens to leap frog the Libs and then benefit from their preferences.
Then consider the rapidly changing demographics in that seat, with older traditional Laor voters being replaced by trendy yuppies and university students. Especially around Parkville, Richmond and Carlton.
Anything is possible. In fact it’s quite logical.
But the demographics did change in 1980s and 1990s. But it funny the demographics change have help the Liberals in Richmond I think at the last election all Richmond went about 50 Labor 30 lib 15 to 19 Greens .One more thing a lot people who vote green is just a protest vote again labor being to far right in their view
101
Neil Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
I meant to say “it wouldn’t take much for The Greens to leap frog the Libs and then benefit from their preferences.â€
and labor vote need go under 50 % not going this election and in the near future
96% of the vote in Melbourne swirls around between the ALP, Liberal and The Greens. The point I’m making is that if the ALP get under 50% primary, and The Greens finish ahead of The Liberals, then Tanner could be struggling to hang on.
Of course this relies on a tight preference flow from the Liberals to The Greens. But there is nothing to stop The Greens taking votes off the ALP and the Liberals, and then the Liberals maintaining their existing primary vote due to the changing demographics.
The enrolment churn in Melbourne is enormous. Who knows how the voting trends will change from 2004.
The Greens snagged 27% primary at the 2006 State election and their vote seems to be on the increase there. The Liberals received 22% primary, while the ALP received 44%. The Greens received 74.3% of the Liberal preferences, that is very high and indicates that Liberal voters will overwhelmingly put the ALP last on their ballot paper.
Federal boundaries are different to State boundaries but the possibility is there.
It look like labor has a new candidate for Latrobe Rodney Cocks still military
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/10/2002165.htm
The last state election was the greens best chance for the greens to win lower house seats and they did not because the lib preference did flow as tightly as they need to. (Around 85%)
The FEA of Melbourne which state seats of Richmond and Melbourne are the greens vote did not move around that much it was the same as 2002 state election their was a swing from the green in Richmond of 3% and think a swing of 1.5 or 2 % to the green in Melbourne
I think Tanner will win on about 55 to 57% the greens on 15 to 17 % and the Libs 22 to 23
One more thing I think labor’s vote need to fall under 43 to 44 to loss Melbourne because their is a group of lib around 25% they will preference Labor over Greens
The enrolment churn in Melbourne is enormous. Who knows how the voting trends will change from 2004.
Yes the enrolment change a lot but the people who are moving in Melbourne are the same kind of people who are moving out “trendy yuppies and left wing ferals”
SirEggo
You are most likely right about Macquarie and the likely result is for Bob Debus to get up. Remember that the eastern end of Macquarie is strong conservative and a large proportion of that (Hawkesbury and Windsor area) has been hived of to your seat of Greenway.
As you mentioned the eastern end of Calare was the Labor end and that has been added to Macquarie.
If you have a look at Adams maps of key seats you can see that the redistribution has strengthen Labor’s position in Macquarie.
It is worth mentioning that the Blue Mountains was Bob Debus’s state seat so he has a high profile there and as a high profile Minister (Attorney General) in the State Government he should be just as well know as Kerry Bartlett west of Katoomba.
Who give’s a rat’s rectum about Melbourne, it is the domain of latte-drinking godless socialist leftover losers. Hopefully the Greens will be dumb enough do a deal with the Liberals there and thus give the Liberals the seat. That will send the whole riding squirming hehehehe……
Then I guess that after the election you will be saying “Who give’s a rat’s rectum about Australia, it is the domain of latte-drinking godless socialist leftover losers.”
Tom
Nah, Australia as a whole is smarter than that. Howard will be re-elected.
“Nah, Australia as a whole is smarter than that. Howard will be re-elected.”
Nah, Australia as a whole is smarter than him. Howard will be rejected.
Ever notice how Nostradamus, SK & Glen et al never seem to have an original comment? Must share the same gag writer.
Tom.
Lindsay Tanner got a scare in 2001, but that was a year when a lot of inner-city ALP voters voted Green on the Tampa and related issues. It’s hard to imagine the ALP losing further ground on 2001 in Melbourne in 2007. If anything the major post-2001 demographic changes (the Docklands and inner-city apartment towers) are likely to have made the seat a bit more Liberal-friendly, thereby making it harder for the Greens to get second place.
Also, about 20% of Liberal preferences typically go to the ALP over the Greens even if the Liberal HTV preferences the Greens. This means that even if the Greens get into second, 45-46% on primaries should be enough for the ALP to win the seat.
Go nosty go.
Bad luck about that Westpoll. It distracted Steven from his usual entertaining adjustments to the Morgan poll figures.
My sincere condolences to Peter Andren, a politician of real integrity. Like all others, I hope he pulls through OK.
Adam,
To be fair, in 2001 Andren took a strong stand against Howard’s refugee hysteria and won.
That was definitely principled and not populist.
Viewed from afar here in Newcastle I think he is the fair dinkum independent whose main motivation is his integrity, not populism.
I think that the Greens may go from 3rd last time to 2nd this time and maybe first next time in Melbourne, Sydney, Grayndler and maybe Cunningham.
Tom, on what basis do you think that the Greens are going to come first in these electorates. I can see them coming second in Grayndler, Sydney and Melbourne, but I think the very good showing in Cunningham in 2004 may have been a hangover from Organ being the member at the last election. Can they extract any more?
In the others to go from third to first is a bit hard. The primary percentages of Green / ALP in each seat is Grayndler (21.1 / 51.2), Sydney (21.6 / 44.7) and Melbourne (19/51.8).
I don’t think there is anything in the redistributions to overwhelmingly change these proportions.
I think the challenge in an election where the ALP is expected to do well is too great for the greens, they will get lost in the swing to the ALP. The best chance is a time when the ALP is going backwards.
Adam, I share a few common friends with Peter Andren and I am assured, by people that I trust, that his stands are principled, not populist. I also wish Peter Andren luck with his illness.
Also, the fact that a policy can be tagged as populist does not mean it is not the correct one. I for one also beleive that some politicians work hard, but unfortunately most of them work harder at getting re-elected through blatant electioneering rather than through a record of achievements. That is not what we pay them for. The record of our legislature is this country is a shame because of it.
Tom
Seems a little less puzzling to me when I consider his pre-Parliamentary career. Who else was he going to align himself with in a campaign against the former controllers of the Victorian FCU?
Just Me,
My figures are not a prediction, more a possible scenario to illustrate both the impossibility of the ALP’s gaining control of the Senate and the extreme unlikelihood of the Greens’ gaining the balance of power.
J-D,
I still haven’t forgotten what Lindsay Tanner did to friends of mine who worked for the FCU.
Adam,
It is no surprise to me that a member of the Left has Thatcherite economics. “Socialist Leftovers†– I like that, not that I would not use the term of those in the SL whom I know. Nor did I know about the DLP’s preferences in Forrest in 1969. But I am not surprised that the DLP would preference an ETU candidate, given the DLP’s advanced environmental policy for the times and the ETU’s current support for the Greens to the extent of making donations to them (without being disaffiliated from the ALP – perhaps Kevin Rudd’s brother should join the ETU and then rejoin the ALP!).
Given some rather than ill-informed comments about Steve Bracks (reported more than once by Paul Austin of The Age), undoubtedly someone will eventually make the following point, so I am going to go first into the hornet’s nest: Kevin Rudd, Australia’s first DLP prime minister.
The Federal seat of Melbourne is less latte drinking than the State seat. It covers areas that are somewhat less yuppified although that is changing. Another factor than stands against the Greens is the massive amount of Housing Commission residents within the seat, that tends to be more ‘old school’ left than Green. Plus Tanners primary would have to fall below 45% or so before there is any real chance for the Greens.
As for Tanner being Finance spokesperson instead of shadow Treasurer: Finance deals with government spending where as the Treasurer deals with the Economy as a whole. Given that the Governments attacks on the ALPs ability to handle the economy centre around government spending, it is perhaps not such a bad idea to have a solid spokesperson on the subject.
BV – on Morgan’s ‘face to face’ the method has obviously changed. About 2000/01 I was polled by Morgan and the political questions came upfront in the booklet, which I completed either verbally or myself, but with the surveyor sitting by. They’ve obviously made it more anonymous since then.
Presumably any left bias in Morgan is down to not being able to get the rural weighting correct, or perhaps the sort of people who have time at home to complete all those questions (but the latter cuts both ways surely, as the method must over-include OAPs and under-include young people).
I’d be more likely to expect the Greens to make a serious run at lower house seats when there’s an outgoing Labor government than when there’s an outgoing Coalition one when they can pick up a few disaffected Labor votes to push up their primary.