The ABC reportedly reports that tomorrow’s Westpoll will show federal Labor has shot to a 54-46 lead in Western Australia, the one state believed to have been holding out against the tide. It should be noted that Westpoll is widely criticised for its small samples, usually 400 respondents. How The West Australian managed to get scooped by the ABC on its own poll results is yet to be explained.
UPDATE: News reports that Westpoll has the Labor primary vote at 43 per cent, up from 36 per cent last month, with the Coalition down from 46 per cent to 38 per cent.
UPDATE 2: Westpoll also conducted a state poll from the same sample, which gives us a chance to assess how roguish this poll is. Answer: very. While it is clear that the Carpenter government has the measure of the opposition under its current leadership, it’s hard to credit the spasm shown in the table below. It would thus be wise to add a 5 per cent discount to the vote recorded for Labor in the federal poll.
| ALP | LNP | 2PP | |
| May | 39 | 39 | 51.2 |
| Apr | 41 | 38 | 54.5 |
| Jun | 42 | 40 | 52.3 | Aug | 48 | 30 | 62.0 |
Note: The Coalition vote shown for today’s poll assumes a 3 per cent vote for the Nationals, which is an educated guess that might be out by 1 per cent either way. The West Australian has mischievously declined to include this information so it can show a “Liberal” primary vote with a 2 in front of it.
232 Comments
Reportedly? It was definitely on ABC TV News (NSW) tonight. It was one of the headlines and included previews of tomorrow’s front page of the West Australian.
It was also on ABC ACT
ABC radio in Perth isn’t saying anything. Perhaps the deal is that the ABC can publicise it in the eastern states, but we in the state where The West can sell papers must live in ignorance. A pre-internet view of the world, if so. UPDATE: ABC TV carries it, so scrub that theory.
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.
This would be a 9% swing to the ALP(2PP) since the last election?
It’d certainly win Rudd Stirling, Hasluck and Kalgoolie.
Canning too would become interesting.
Howard was hoping to win seats off Labor in WA?
No news of it in London, but that’s the Brits for you – no NRL news either. Backward country. At least the cricket’s on.
This poll, if it bears out on election day, is the final piece of the puzzle of the Labor landslide. It’s clear now that, barring something extraordinary (and I think we all know that could only be a terrorist attack with fatalities, within Australia), there’s nothing can save Howard from a landslide now. One suspects that the government has been hoping that they would pick up the odd ALP marginal (eg Swan, Cowan) which would increase Labor’s task to win office – SK, Glen, Cerdic, Snoopy etc have been running on this theme for a while now, and it does have a certain logic. But this poll suggests that sentiment is starting to harden against the government.
You’d think that this interest rate rise will be poison in the West, with its booming property prices (and commensurate mortgages), and no doubt also everywhere else.
tigers are down 12-16 to roosters
Thanks Darryl! Now if you can just arrange for Souths to win tomorrow night, all will be well.
More news on the WestPoll from news.com.au:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22223957-5005962,00.html
Primary Votes: ALP 43 Coalition 38
Undecided (I assume excluded): 4%
It says the poll was taken “this week”, and implies the interest rate rise was a factor, but doesn’t specify the precise poll dates. This may not matter that much, because the interest rate increase was widely expected before it was actually announced.
Howard ‘tricky’ about overseas aid: Costello
This headline enticed me to read. I found the headline is a little ‘tricky’ too.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22222229-5005962,00.html
Westpoll is usually taken on a Wednesday/Thursday Evening, which may explain the Interest Rates being taken into account.
And despite the small sample, this result would really give the libs a massive heart attack and I have notice an increase in the number of Terror Hotline ads being run this week.
What’s the bet Howard is hoping that the NT investigations produce a Muslim Aboriginal paedophile with Terrorist tendencies.
Polling dates were 6-7 August.
Someone may have pointed at this comment on the blogwars already, but here it is again
http://www.creative.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filename_num=170330
…and that’s the ‘good state’ for Team Rodent.
Incidentally, I dont know why he even bothers trying to bribe in any TAs seats. Last 2PP i saw from there the ALP was well into the 60s.
50s you can come back from. 6 in front – forget it.
Dont waste your (sorry, our) money Howard, those seats are gawwwwwwwnnnnnnn
I am stunned. STUNNED!
Yes, at level Canning in play. Canning Margin is a bit overblown due to the candidate debacle of 2004.
I bet the editor of the West will love publishing that poll… HAHEAHEAHE
Oh, so that’s why Howard was in the “fairly safe” Liberal (6.3% swing needed by ALP) Kalgoorlie electorate the other week!
It looks like the Libs private polling in WA may have already picked up that swing to the ALP.
No wonder Howard’s panicking!
How does this compare to the last West on 2pp (the blog entry only notes changes to the primary)
Today’s Dead Tree edition of the West did have a front page story (not on their poxy website) along those lines. I don’t have it in front of me, but if some kind fellow Sandgroper would like to post some quotes it would be greatly appreciated.
Fridays west had the wa anaylsis fero the leaked crosby/textor report showing blue collar and 18-35 turning away from Howard in a big way.
Westpoll seems to reflect that
Thanks for that Blacklight, I thought that was the gist of the article. Oh and Omedei coming out earlier in the week stating that Howard is hurting his own polling doesn’t help matters.
Another factor here in WA is the split between the WA Libs and The Nats which may also be a factor in the regional seats like Kalgoorlie and Moore.
Hasluck will return to Sharryn Jackson because of the BGC Brickworks debacle near the Airport which Stuart Henry couldn’t get stopped.
Also the attacks on the States by Howard ain’t helping either, speaking of which I have on Video the excellent Documentry by Working Dog of THe Campaign, where Santo Cilauro followed Keating and there is this shot of a Liberal youth in the seat of Stirling holding up a Liberal sign and carrying on about State Rights.
I wonder how this fellow thinks of his hero JWH now ?
OK. So. probably the wrong thread, but i’ll be buggered, with the number of main threads, if i can find the appropriate one. So I’ll just take the first.
Watching LateLine
Why isn’t Lindsay Tanner shadow treasurer? A flawed factional deal presumably – much more convincing, humane and astute than the other weirdo (Swan, not Costello)…
And – more to the point – Joe Hockey needs a better tailored suit. Bad, bad, bad – his shoulder seams makes him look like Ita Buttrose in the “super shoulder pads for serious women” phase… but I still like the guy, no matter how ineffectual he is…
Those crappy Chamber of Commerce propaganda reports. I guess there will be more of them. Hopefully Labor has commissioned their own propaganda reports. Poor old Joe having to support thin air.
Tanner is a good front, they should use him often.
I guess we wont be seeing much of Abbott and Pyne now we know how the electorate view them.
Yes Stuart, I saw Tanner at the Press Club luncheon earlier in the week. He was very slick, very convincing. Answered questions well and wasn’t tempted into getting narky with some of the loaded questions from the Murdoch boys. He’s also a fellow ideological traveller with Rudd… economic dry I mean… so they’ll make a good team.
Swan, yeah, dunno. Like Hockey, he’s kinda cuddly though.
The Greens surge to 10% in W.A. , what’s going on there?
I think the Greens usually do well in WA. In the past they have anyhow. Also take note of the small sample size. 10% of 450 (aprox) would be just 40-45 people saying they’d preference Greens 1.
With that sort of swing, I reckon Canning would almost certainly change hands – its margin was quite bloated by the problems Labor had with it’s candidate in the last election.
I don’t think it would be anything like that, as it would make Moore, Tangney and Forrest all marginal after the election, and indeed if the swing was uneven you’d expect Labor to win one of them.
Bullocks. The Libs have been ahead in this state the entire year. They were even ahead when Labor was pulling in 61% of the national vote. To suggest a 9% swing this late on is silly. The poll is clearly rogue.
Ahem. Ahem.
Never like to call a poll ‘rogue’ without some kind of evidence… but that is seriously out of whack with everything we’ve seen from the West this year. High MoE may be responsible in part, but still extraordinary numbers, when the other polls have seemed fairly stable for a month or two now.
If this Westpoll is such a wild rogue poll – the swing is massive from last time – then we really have to question all of the polls that have gone before this one. Other polling companies have rogue polls but this is ridiculous.
1. Westpoll is a bit dodgy
2. This is the wild west. The fed voting intention now is in parity with state voting intentions so i don’t think its that far out.
Takes Westpoll results with a larger grain of salt than most others, even Galaxy.
Still, even if it is a ‘rogue’ (define and substantiate that please) it will put the wind up JWHs strategists.
Their media propaganda ‘experts’ won’t sleep well tonight. The WA rag splashing that kind of news across the front page of the paper that most men and women will at least give a passing glance at before flipping the page on their Saturday morning at home, relaxed on the porch or at the kitchen table with a cuppa is absolute poison for the Coalition’s public perception in WA and this coming from sandgroppers.
Westpoll: 54-46 (to Labor) in WA: Rogue, small sample, degree of error, call it what you will. The average punter won’t care about that stuff: they will sit up and pay attention to their own paper saying their own fellow sandgropper’s are (allegedly) abandoning JWH is droves.
Score one for Labor’s election stocks in public propaganda in WA without spending a red cent on it.. Beaudiful for Labor- disaster for the Coalition.
Equally surprising to poll result is William’s absolute silence on the issue: You are in WA right William ? What is your take on this poll please ?
We assume, have been banking on holding their own and maybe collecting one or two (Swan, Cowan) in WA. What is happening in Hasluck, Stirling et al ?
What is happening on the Western side of the rabbit fence William ?
Tanner should be given an opportunity to shine: my impression of him from a punters perspective is of a bright, articulate, educated man with some sense (similar to my views on Mal Brough and Andren: hope he survives that horror cancer).
Strop
Good point about the people abandoning Howard, polls can have an influence that way.
As to the swing quite believable, Howard may have reached the tipping point when he said that he never promised to keep interest rates at record lows, it was a liberal party promise. His response smacks of pure arrogance in deny the promise, trying to distance himself from the promise and than expecting people to accept the load of bull he just said.
Keating paid big time for his arrogance, I remember when the ACT elected a lib govt and Keating said who takes notice of a municipal election. At a following by-election for the federal seat the labor MP was tossed out with a 14% swing.
I expect we will see similar swings in certain seats at this election.
Keatings arrogance was on display for all to see, Howards arrogance is worse as he denies it yet to continually take people for fools is the height of arrogance.
As I said on the other thread, Tanner would probably be shadow Treasurer by now if he had not made the mistake of joining the Socialist Leftovers. I don’t think Labor can really offer the electorate a socialist Treasurer in 2007. The last one (the late Jim Cairns) made a bit of a hash of the job as I recall. It’s a bit puzzling since Tanner is actually a Thatcherite in his economic views.
My take is that nothing should be concluded from one 400-sample poll. That said, we’ve been hearing a lot about the political risk to the government from housing affordability – if that’s the case, they shouldn’t be doing as well in WA as conventional wisdom suggests. If the next national polls are particularly grim for the Coalition, I might take this poll as evidence that the rate rise has bitten particularly hard here.
William, I reckon that the rate rises combined with Howard’s attack on the states are the main reason why there is a swing towards Rudd.
West Australians are very proud of their state, and don’t take kindly to people from the east attacking their state, and that includes any plans to take over hospitals like the Tasmanian Debacle.
I think the biggest elephant in the campaign room is the idea that voters aren’t waiting for Howard with baseball bats.
Its interesting to me that the primary source of that line is none other than – John Howard.
OK, its not like 96, in the sense of welling, suppressed anger at being misrecognised by a social agenda ahead of their readiness.
Its more like a nausea. People are just sick of the sight of him, over his endless dissembling, and bored stiff looking at the old coot.
Given this – he’s running the worst possible campaign he could: Dragging out his annoying whining mug saturations style, 24/7, over the longest campaign in living memory, yapping on endlessly in, and outside his brief as PM.
So maybe it aint a baseball bat. More a muzzle. Voters are waiting with a big old muzzle.
The best indications of how things are going in the west would be: 1) the aggregated Newspoll data from last month-which showed Labor with a 5% swing on its hands, and b) the Crosby-Textor polling leak as reported in Friday’s paper–which had the Coalition being dumped big time.
The other point, as has been raised here, is that front page news of a massive swing away from the Govt in WA is a PR boon for the ALP. These things have a way of generating a momentum–people aren’t original thinkers after all, and they like to back a winner.
Honestly, it’s all over. It really is.
Here is the link to the Questions Asked in this week’s Westpoll.
Questions from the July Westpoll
(conducted 6th and 7th August 2007)
http://www.marketresearch.com.au/our_services__westpoll__current_month_questions.23.html#q1
Question 1
If a Federal election was held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?
Do you have a leaning towards any party? Which one?
Question 2
From what you have read or seen so far, regardless of the party they lead, which man, (ROTATE) John Howard or Kevin Rudd, would you prefer to have as Prime Minister of Australia?
The others are State based questions basically covering Lora Norder Issues, as well as GM Crops, Indiginious Affairs and State Voting Intentions.
You should be sleeping Frank, and I agree with you always thought Henry in Hasluck had next to no chance. Stirling is a different cup of tea, but if Westpoll is anywhere near the money it will fall.
Canning is interesting, in that Don Randall got a massive swing (something like 2.5 x the average WA swing) and if any of that was the ALP candidate disaster then he will do worse this time. So even at the top of the margin of error this would scare the PM’s little friend in WA.
I don’t care if it is a rogue it is so much fun it is worth all the money WAN paid for it.
Westpoll was taken August 6 to 9. Apparently, around 70 per cent of the polling was completed before the rates decision on Wednesday. This week, house figures from the bureau of stats showed the first fall in average Perth house prices this decade.
Greens vote is eight per cent, where it has been steady for past two Westpolls.
Appears the govt’s vote peaked in the June Westpoll. This is the second consecutive showing fall in primary vote and 2PP.
ALP has pulled three points from the don’t knows which is running at a very, very low four per cent, and the rest from the coalition.
On preferred PM, big swing to Rudd. He’s now back to where he was in March, while Howard is at lowest he’s ever been.
Over the past four weeks, both Rudd and Howard visited WA.
In partyroom this week, Howard told this troops that Cowan and Swan were a chance of victory. But based on the Crosby/Textor and Westpolls, this seems an effort to boost the morale of the troops rather than anything else.
The 2PP from 2004 were 55.5 to 44.5, an historic high. Some correction from that point must be anticipated.
If this last stronghold for JWH has fallen as this poll says it has (remember, a poll of 450 means the difference between 54-46 and 50-50 is 18 people) it does not surprise me.
This is the longest election campaign ever. Does anyone know who started it? Was it because JWH saw himself early as being a mile behind, and tried to get it back, or did the ALP want to start it to “sell” the new leader?
Is there a consensus that ordinary people are getting sick of seeing politicians on the news, and want the election already? We have around 3 months of all this to continue. Will this hurt JWH?
I think the election will be either Oct 27 or Nov 3. I don’t think JWH will go after the Nov RBA meeting. He won’t risk it. They are behind, desperate, but they are not stupid…..
Any inside info on the election date anyone?
Duck-a-delegate
The new national sport being promoted by the Labor Party is called “Duck-a-delegateâ€
The rules are simple. You stand in front of your union boss.
He or she takes a swing at you, and you duck!
If the delegate misses, you get to stand there again, and have another go.
This continues until either you are so humiliated you leave,
or you get belted, and submit to what ever their demand is.
Points are awarded for the highest ranking delegate, and the number of times you get belted before you submit!
Sounds like fun! To participate, you just have to vote Labor at the election,
then it will become compulsory!
Hugo – what’s the margin of error around India scoring over 600 and confidence interval on a Kumble century!
Westpoll results bounce around improbably from month to month. I doubt you can read either a trend into them, nor accumulate them to produce any meaningful ‘meta-poll’. Both Smith and Randall this morning implied the ‘real’ polling was much closer: I assume they have access to their party’s local data.
Could everyone on this site pitch in a tenner, and the West Australian afford a meaningful sample?
I don’t know why JWH was thinking he would pick up seats in WA (other than possibly Cowan) because the polls were merely showing that the swing to the ALP was only less than the swing in the rest of the country.
The last aggregated state by state newspoll showed WA 50-50 or a swing of 5.4%. I don’t think there was a poll showing the Libs going forwards.
I only ever thought Cowan might go, because Graeme Edwards was so popular. And for those who have suggested that individual members don’t count, I think he is one of those that shows they do count.
ps – what are the Westpoll results for state voting intention?
If they were consistent with earlier polls this year (Labor pulling level then gradually in front on primaries) could we not then conclude the federal results aren’t ‘rogue’? (By which I mean outside the margin of error, in Labor’s favour).
What do people think of Peter van Onselen’s mischievous column today, warning that Rudd won’t be tolerated if Labor doesn’t win? It’s a fairly contrarian angle, given that on almost any scenario, the real leadership interest is with the Libs. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22221592-27197,00.html
I’ve heard similar on here from Liberal staffers – and wonder if Peter, a refugee from that brood – is channelling the same sentiments.
The only realistic scenario for trouble for Rudd is Labor falling well short. Caucus might loathe him personally for all I know, but they turned to him in desperate need, he’s delivered, and there’s none of the Latham about him. Caucus is a very pragmatic body, most of all the left who in policy terms have most reason to distaste for Rudd. Yet turn to him they did, and they will owe each other mutual respect unless Labor’s result is an objective fizzer.
Nor does Rudd have the Hewsons about him (for all his policy-wonkiness) – which is where van O’s analogy is self-contradictory (Rudd can’t be blamed for being a ’small target’ and yet be compared to Hewson/93).
On state voting intentions, ALP pulled further ahead, 62-38, and on the preferred premier, Carpenter improved and Omodei went even further backwards (now at 18 per cent, just ahead of “someone else”).
Together, they show the ALP is not on the nose in the west, it’s the other guys…
Has anyone noticed that whenever Howard visits a State or campaigns in a particular area that the polls go south for the Libs.
A few weeks ago after exhaustive campaigning in Bennelong, the headlines were “Sydney turns their back on PM”. Now after a tour of the WA provinces he cops this latest poll.
Everywhere Howard goes, people say “There’s trouble!”
Coota – is that figure from the West today? I can’t imagine a 62-38 split. WA just doesn’t seem to have those sorts of figures. No matter how popular or unpopular one side of politics is, 52-48 is almost landslide in WA terms.
The aggregated Newspoll showed 54-46. That was enough to spook Omodei. But 62-48 would spook Troy Buswell too – why take over if you could even lose your seat!
Still can’t get over 62-38.
That would mean 51 ALP 3 Libs, 3 Nats and 2 independents.
Lefty says: “Its more like a nausea. People are just sick of the sight of him, over his endless dissembling, and bored stiff looking at the old coot. Given this – he’s running the worst possible campaign he could: Dragging out his annoying whining mug saturations style, 24/7, over the longest campaign in living memory, yapping on endlessly in, and outside his brief as PM.”
Leaving aside the polemical tone, I think Lefty is right. The electorate has had enough of Howard, and the more he puts himself out there (and what else can he do?) the more he reminds them of that. There is no way out of this bind except resignation.
To balance the comment: on Rudd, I agree that if Labor manages to lose from here, Rudd will be finished, in the same way Hewson and L*th*m were finished. Modern messiahs only get one go at the miracle.
Howard’s election hopes lie in ruins
11th August 2007, 7:45 WST
West Australian voters, on whom John Howard was counting to save him from political oblivion, have turned their back on him, with an exclusive Westpoll revealing a surge of support for Kevin Rudd that would deliver Labor three seats in WA and virtually guarantee him electoral victory.
http://www.marketresearch.com.au/our_services__westpoll__current_month_questions.23.html
If politics is perception and some swinging voters follow the trends, even in WA, that quote (above) speaks volumes for JWH chances of getting some compensation in WA to offset seat losses in other States. Zero.
Howard has made the electorate nauseous since the mean-and-tricky days of 2001. 9/11 (and to a lesser extent Tampa) rescued him in 2001. L*th*m frightened the punters 2004, and Howard’s interest rate scare played to that fear.
For six years the electorate has been looking for a safe, boring, non-threatening alternative so they can kick out The Rodent, and Rudd is it. I think Rudd is playing it very well, and nothing short of a terrorist attack on home soil will save Howard now.
If Rudd does win the election, will people from the right be complaining about the sample size (what is it? about 10 or 12 million?), or will they declare the 2007 Federal Election result a rogue that should not to be taken seriously?
Someone has probably already answered this somewhere, but I was wondering if any of the psephs can tell us:
1) From past records, has anyone in the past turned around poll deficits of the magnitude Howard now faces (especially given what seems to be a lack of poll volatility)?
2) If they have turned figures like this around, over what period, and was there mitigating or unusual circumstances to the turnaround?
3) What, in the past, were the largest turnarounds during actual election campaigns?
Any info? Or can you refer me to this information somewhere?
Many thanks for this and all the interesting analysis on this site.
A terrorist attack won’t save the government. People would blame some of Australia’s foreign policy decisions for any attack, and that would rebound on the incumbent.
People will turn to a safe pair of hands in a crisis. Rudd is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a safe pair of hands.
Howard’s main chance of winning is to tempt Rudd into making mistakes and cause people to doubt his capacity to be PM. In otherwords to needle, goad, bait and niggle.
But it is risky, the electorate is more sophisticated now and they may shy away from such a tactic. However the options are limited. The election is Rudd’s to lose.
re: Michael Proud #46
I used to live in Cowan up to this year (now in Eden-Monaro) and Graeme Edwards was an extremely popular local member. My family and friends all talked very highly of him. I think they only managed to hold the seat at the last election because he stayed. If you look at the booth by booths it’s a bit worrying that they weren’t polling so well in the working areas (eg. Balga, Girrawheen etc.).
Also, there are a lot of newly developing ‘aspirational’ areas in the seat. I think it could be another close one this election.
re: Hoots #57
Howard mentioned in numerous circles this week that the Hewson/Keating election in ‘93 had the primaries for Coalition/ALP at 48/39 just before the election was called and the ALP still won.
I’m not sure of the veracity of those claims though. You can never trust something Howard says on face value after all and have to look a bit deeper!
Last response… I think
re: SirEggo #43
My consensus from talking with the politically unaware is that everyone is sick of politics dominating the news. The feeling of hysteria being whipped up every day and the constant tactics and scandals appearing wears thin. Even politically minded people such as myself are sick of it.
And in response to your statements about long election campaigns hurting the Government… I think this point has been made on a few occasions. Such long election campaigns put a lot more of a spotlight on the Opposition Leader and runs the risk that people will respond positively to them. Evidence of this is given of the first election post Hawke’s win, where he held an extremely long campaign which saw Andrew Peacock (I think?) come from miles behind to give a scare to the ALP.
Pondie84 – I agree – I used to be in Perth (the north western Dianella end) and now in Grayndler, but he was always popular even when an MLC. That personal vote could prove crucial if the vote is tight. But I think it will not be as tight as previously thought.
Gaynor
As Adam would say “Most people wouldn’t ‘blame Howard for any attack’ – that’s the 10% “Left” view – the 90% would be happy to blame MGWB’s (Muslim Guys With Beards)”.
September 11 and the JFK assassination both helped to shore up incumbent governments. People don’t change hands when they are scared like that.
That’s what they did in 1972. Reg Withers called it “a temporary fit of madness in the eastern states.” They simply refused to accept the legitimacy of a Labor government, and the result was November 1975. This time they will be mad as hell at having their snouts pulled out of the trough, and they will play very dirty indeed. Their only remaining power base will be the Senate, and they will use it ruthlessly. All aboard for a DD in 2008.
Since the chances are about 99.999 that any terrorist attack in Australia will in fact be carried out by MGBs and not by John Howard, that would seem to be the correct response. The political question is whether Howard would get some kind of electoral boost from it, by saying “see I was right to be tough on the MGBs”, or whether he would be blamed for not preventing the attack despite all his tough talk.
People will also note that an attack occured on the incumbent’s watch. They will ask questions.
Why did it happen? Why didn’t the government stop it? What has the government done to make us less safe? Can the other guy be trusted to protect us?
The classic double edged sword.
Newspoll did have the coaltion ahead 48/39.5 a month before the 1993 election.
But Hewson lost because he was trying to introduce the GST. A very different kettle of fish now.
Pondie84 #60
Thanks for the reminder about Howard referencing the 93 election. I’ve just been looking over the reporting of Howard’s claim.
Newspoll in February 1993 did put the Coalition’s primary vote at 48 per cent and Labor’s at just 39.5 per cent, four weeks before John Hewson went on to lose the election. I’m scouting around now for the polls back then – I’m pretty sure someone has responded since that the 93 poll quoted by Howard was unusual in that the coalition had nothing like the steady polling Rudd now enjoys – and Hewson may have not been registering as preferred PM – I’ll see if I can find the references or polls to confirm this. (unless someone can point me to this info?)
The other element to this claim by Howard is that Rudd is almost diametrically opposed to the strategies of Hewson. Hewson believed the election was unloseable and took radical policies to the electorate, Rudd is very careful not to appear threatening or in any way radical.
Thanks again for the reference.
ruawake #67-
Sorry, your comment appeared while I was typing mine, making my comment about Hewson’s policies redundant.
That Newspoll result from ‘93 is interesting though – it is a very big gap in PRIMARY voting intention figures. It at least reminds us that massive turnarounds are possible.
I can’t see that kind of turnaround happening now though – everything seems to suggest that Howard has outstayed his welcome. As others have noted, the more he speaks, the less people want to hear. And the whole crew are starting to look and act rattled.
And, again as many have pointed out, Rudd is playing a blinder, and people seem to be unconcerned about minor hiccups on the Labor side. The polls seem to be pretty stable in reflecting a majority of the electorate who want to get rid of Howard, probably driven by Workchoices (WorkYouSerfBastards) and a track record of deviousness and disingenuity.
“Newspoll did have the coaltion ahead 48/39.5 a month before the 1993 election.”
It is true that the coalition were well in front very close to the ‘93 election, but the lead-up to that election in terms of polling was FAR more volatile than this year. For instance, 3 months out from the ‘93 election, Labor were 49 and the coalition were 39 in primary vote. We are probably at the 3-month mark right now, and polls are still showing major support for Labor.
The remarkable thing about this year is the sheer consistency in the polls. Howard hasn’t come anywhere close to winning a single poll, whether it be Newspoll, ACNeilsen, Galaxy, or Morgan for almost 12 months. This lack of volatility, which was present in bucket loads in 1993, suggests that Labor’s election-winning support is rock solid. It will take a LOT to shift it. And I don’t think Howard can do it. He has a major credibility problem now – everything he says and does is (rightfully) viewed within a “desperate to win” perspective, where people expect Howard to have ulterior motives. And at the same time, a whole heap of people have tuned out – they are thoroughly SICK of him, me included.
Of course, WorkChoices, decieving the public over interest rates, and the plethora of other issues have already DONE THEIR DAMAGE. A lot of people feel betrayed over something and will not want to reward Howard or the Liberal Party with their vote. Howard can help soften the damage he has caused, but the blow has already been struck.
This man is going down, at long last. For 34 years, he has haunted Australian politics, and I think there will be a huge sigh of relief for many people when he has finally gone.
I may be a continent away, but isn’t 62-38 to WA ALP roguish, or at least at the outer margins of credibility? If so, so are the Westpoll federal figures.
Others here are speaking of foreign policy: now the PM has released a letter (to News Ltd?) to al-Maliki, the Iraqi PM, that was clearly written for Australian consumption: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22224976-601,00.html
And today Downer is out talking the contents up.
What is most curious is that having ’sold’ the invasion as ‘doing the right thing in the face of public opinion’ the government is now citing ‘lack of public support’ as a trigger for withdrawing troops! And having parrotted the Bush administration on the issue, it is now adopting the Democrat (and increasingly Republican congressional) approach of ‘youse Iraqis shape up or we’re pulling out’.
Normally I wouldn’t ascribe base domestic motives to foreign policy decisions by either side. But in this case, the timing, tenor and talking up of this letter imply a strong eye to the election. But could the PM get away with a back-flip of this magnitude?
ps – for those who like to mock the Oz. Greg Sheridan’s report (URL in my last post), in the space of three short paras, spells the Iraqi PM as ‘Malaki’, ‘Maliki’ and ‘Malaki’ again. Of course Greg is the expert on Islamic politics and culture…
I thnk you’re right Noocat – do you have any concerns about the 16 seats needed?
Howard clearly intends bombarding the marginals with cash. So far, he seems to be doing it pretty desperately and unwisely – I suspect Mersey, Eden-Monaro logging Mill and Queensland pleboscites are actually negatives for him, adding to the air of desperation and making it less likely upcoming bribes will work.
Graeme,
I don’t think Iraq is a big vote-turning issue in and of itself. It has compounded the image of Howard as inept anhd out of touch, and pulling out now won’t help him reverse that. Maybe Rudd can accuse Howard of “me-tooism”, and point out that he (Rudd) is the one setting the agenda?
Sounds more like Howard malarkey to me.
Tom.
The other thing about Iraq is that a backflip will confirm Howard’s complete lack of scruples or principle. Anything to win the election.
I don’t think the changes to WorkChoices have done anything to defuse the issue, and again the backflip made the statements he had made about the legislation’s fairness for 12 months prior seem hollow.
Canning could be one of those interesting seats to watch on the night,
) published an interesting analysis showing a very strong correlation between pro-Liberal swings and the percentage of dwellings under mortgage in each electorate.
especially in view on the recent rise in interest rates. A map of the
electorate suggests that there would have been a large amount of
mortgages and new homes going up there over the last 3 years. After the 2004 election George Megalomaniac (sorry, always wanted to say that
Combined with the ALP candidate problems from 2004 which would have artificially boosted Randall’s swing (on top of the general anti-Latham feeling throughout WA) this is one electorate that could bounce above the uniform 4-5% swing required. Hope it’s not seat #16 that the ALP are counting on though, and that everything is home and hosed by the time the closer WA seats are being counted! Randall is the archetypal pro-Howard drone (the WA version of Tassies’ Ferguson), and the memory of him attacking Latham in 2004 for not being a Christian still has me grinding my teeth. Watching him go down would be almost as satisfying as seeing Downer/Abbott et al having to eat crow.
For all interested parties here is the latest analysis of the national polls. In short, over one million voters have shifted to the ALP since the last election, and despite all the Government’s efforts, they haven’t shifted back.
http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/viewtopic.php?id=212
Yes, and Rudd can say that when the opposition suggested leaving, that they were abused for cutting and running. So by the P.M.s own standards that is what he is now suggesting to do.
For fun and a smell of “no plan in the mourning”, read Christopher Pearson’s column in The Australian today. I cannot give a web address because, since the Australian “upgraded” its website, it has become inaccessible from this computer.
Hoots, the only concern is how the marginals play out, which is why Howard is “bombarding” them, as you put it. But at the same time, I’m sure Rudd is on top of the game, and some vigorous grassroots campaigning will be underway in those same seats. The ACTU has certainly been targeting the marginals for a long time now. And the state-by-state Newspoll we saw recently suggests that some big swings are taking place in the marginals.
This is why Howard is worried. And why the temptation of the Mersey Hospital was too great for him to resist, no matter how bad the policy was and regardless of how much damage it will do to the health system in neighbouring areas.
The problem for Howard is that he is searching for “get-rich-quick” schemes. All year he has been launching one personal attack on Rudd after the other and searching for big interventions, where he can create lots of headlines and possibly wedge or trap Labor, e.g., Aboriginal intervention, Haneef, QLD councils. He has spent months searching for something to bring about a SUDDEN change in the polls.
But this will be his downfall. Rudd was right when he said that Howard gave up governing this country a long time ago. It is now all about wining an election. But because Howard is searching for get-rich-quick schemes, he hasn’t stuck to any particular strategy or plan or policy framework long enough to actually see any real results. He deserted any kind of slow-and-steady-wins-the-race approach long ago. Now, whenever he fails to see a quick change in the polls from his latest scheme or trick, he dumps it and moves on in search of the next one.
Not only does this approach make him look even more desperate and erratic, it has also led to a failure to develop any proper, detailed, or good policy for this country and its future. There has been a lot of back-of-the-envelope policy as Howard rushes to make some headlines.
But because Howard has rushed about doing policy on the run, lots of things have backfired, which is now underscoring the impression that Howard is no longer fit to be PM – he has become the erratic, occasionally radical, politician that was Latham’s downfall.
I know plenty of hardened Liberal supporters who think that Howard has lost it. Some even wonder if he is going senile. These people are not especially tuned into politics, but as far as impressions go, Rudd seems stable and sensible while Howard seems desperate, nervous, and unpredictable. It’s not looking good for the old bloke. And it is all his own doing. Rudd has played only a minor role, simply by avoiding Howard’s traps and being a seemingly safe and reasonable guy.
The rest has been Howard’s tricks and ploys coming back to haunt him, as they should.
Howard has been rapidly losing the confidence of the people. And the people who want predictability, safety, and dependability the most are those who are up to their eyeballs in mortgages and other debt and who have families to feed, and these are the types of people who fill up many marginal seats all around the country.
Pearson’s article is hilarious! It can be summarised as follows: “If the election goes how I want it to go, then the government will be returned.”
I wish I got paid to write drivel like that.
I agree with Noocat. Howard’s popularity was based on the idea that he was slow and steady, and that he wouldn’t completely screw anything up. But now he has reverted to disorganised stunts, which is just ruining his credibility.
On the effect of a deadly terrorist attack on the electorate, any advantage gained by the government could easily disappear if the government is seen to be attempting to make hay out of it. Also there is likely to be issues with how the person(s) got into the country, how the emergency services and hospitals performed, etc. It would be a can of worms which nobody really wants opened.
Re WA
the point is that wa seems to be following the rest of Australia
in terms of the opinion polls .WA like Qld had a very poor ALP vote
last time. even assuming that the poll is wrong by 5% this still suggests
Alp wins in wa. If the 5 lost seats from 2004 were won back the task of Alp victory is much easier
This is Howard’s excuse for the Westpoll results:
“Prime Minister John Howard has attributed the latest poll showing a dip in coalition support in Western Australia as “volatility” created by the polling method.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-blames-poor-result-on-volatility/2007/08/11/1186530661328.html
I love it that our prime minister who doesn’t comment on polls frequently comments on polls.
Well Noocat, obviously their internal polls are suggesting something different.
What`s the title of the Pearson article Simon?
Yes… the internal polls have him being thought of as old and tricky. Perhaps the pollsters should ask that question?
Aristotle displays his genuis once again. Thank You. Fascinating reading.
One of the pleasures of not buying The Australian is not reading Christopher Pearson, one of the worst of the intellectuals of easy virtue who have hitched themselves to Howard’s bandwaggon. Not reading Janet Albrechtson is also a great pleasure.
try genius for genuis strop. Hate it when I click ’submit comment’ and see a glaring typo which I can do nothing about as I wait for it to go into cyber space.
Thanks William for your comments on Westpoll. A Labor supporter would be smiling at the perception of that poll in the local rag over there. Still, winning the obvious H and S seats would be enough for me, Kal and Canning, bonus, but certainly not to be counted on for 16 + outcome: I hope it is all over before votes come across the rabbit fence (WA).
Not long ago I managed not to read Janet and Miranda Devine on the same day. Bliss.
…two different papers does dilute the pleasure somewhat though.
Honestly, can you Fairfax lovers stop using this website as a soapbox to blast non-socialist journalism? It really makes very boring reading.
Not the lack of socialism A-C, just the crapness.
So don’t read it then.
I was going to offer a summary of what the Australian has to say this weekend but I only got to the front page with Howard threatening the Iraqi Government with the withdrawal of Australian military support unless..
The thought that immediately came to mind was this. No matter what he does now, rightly or wrongly, is very vulnerable to being interpreted as an electoral stunt, another indicator of the man’s (public perception if not factual) desperate bid to retain Government.
Speculations such as those hinted at by other bloggers here, that the public have had enough of politics dominating the public agenda and/or that most have made up their minds already and are keen to get it over and done with, may be a contributing factor to the knee jerk (justified or not) reaction I felt immediately after reading JWH hint at a backflip on Iraq.
The danger for JWH, in my opinion, is that his credibility is shot and acknowledged by his own election strategists. That being the case, would be better off –
(A) not attempting to CHANGE his image among the punters (by backing down on Iraq, for example), its a bit late for that;
(B) Not reinforcing public cynicism about his motives and credibility by doing things that are very vulnerable to a cynical, critical interpretation as a ‘wedge’ or pork barrel production and are guareenteed to get mass media attention, if not carpeting. Recent examples would be the intervention in the NT, the hospital in Tassie, the Saw Mill in Eden Monaro and the Counci amalgamations in Qld.
(C) Going after the opposition leader- That is his problem at the moment, he can not get any mud to stick to Rudd so options (A) and (B) seem to be his only choices- if for no other reason than to be IN the paper rather than Rudd and to wrest back control of the political agenda.
While his bizarre behaviours, wedge attempts and pork barreling take up media attention, whatever Rudd is doing seems to have been lost to the background at the moment. yes ?
At least JWH won the media attention award for July -August …thats about all he can claim to have acheived – And if you think about it, it has smothered to an extent the consistent bad news polls as the subject to talk about – Gone loopy ? Lost the plot ? Desperate ? Think again. No, it won’t save him at the election come November. But he aint stupid.
It is critical for everyone to remember that elections are not won and lost on TPP votes on a state or nation-wide basis. They are won at seat level where local candidates and local issues can have precedence. We can have 54-46 TPP in WA and still have Swan and Cowan fall to the Government. This will lose Rudd the election.
In general, Howard has changed tactics again. He has lost focus from “big picture” electioneering to guerilla warfare. Rudd has to gain 16 seats. JH intends to try and deny these 16 seats from Labor. So he chooses the 16 seats he believes Rudd must win and spends a fortune trying to buy the votes there. Nothing else matters.
While it shows movement to the ALP, it does not mean this election is over and all lefties should not be shouting from the rooftops as such.
Grooski, what ever makes you feel better.
It’s funny that the Coalition is calling this a Rogue poll. The punters obviously don’t think so, as the betting market has shifted markedly. Centrebet now offers the following odds:
ALP: $1.52
Coalition: $2.55
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is actually a worse position for the Coalition than the ALP had during 2004. The punters obviously think that Westpoll is onto something.
“It is critical for everyone to remember that elections are not won and lost on TPP votes on a state or nation-wide basis.” So second preferences don’t count? I didn’t know that. Any party that gets 53/54% TPP next election will win it. Are you seriously suggesting the coalition could win with 46/47 TPP?
It’s clearly a rogue poll, but I’d still think that the Mersey Hospital thing would have a negative impact on the Coalition vote in WA – over here a lot of people would distrust signs of centralising things to Canberra.
I’d guess the best Labor could hope for in WA currently would be 51-49 – but at that Labor might still have a chance of winning Kalgoorlie or even Canning where the swing in 2004 just seemed wrong.
Grooski, that is just plain incorrect. Elections ARE “won and lost on TPP votes on a state or nation-wide basis.” In urban seats, seat-level factors count for 1 or 2% at most. If there is a big swing on, they go down like dominoes, regardless of how good the local member is or how bad the challenger is. Malcolm Mackerras demonstrated this more than 30 years ago. (see Australian General Elections, 1972). It is always possible to point to exceptions, but overwhelmingly that is the case. (In country seats, local issues and candidate quality count for much more.) If there is a 5% statewide swing to Labor in WA, there is at least a 90% likelihood that Stirling and Hasluck will fall.
Adam @ 2:47 pm:
Thanks for that marvellous burst of insight. I never thought of that myself!
The funny thing is, you’re always the first to sanctimoniously tell people that “this is a place for electoral analysis” or “this isn’t a site for policy debate”…
I agree that Howard looks more and more desperate with each new stunt. But I thought that when the Tampa sailed into view and when Howard started jumping up and down like a child and bleating about ‘borders’, remember ‘borders’ everyone? Within days however it was obvious that the majority did not consider it desperate. Perhaps all he needs is to hit onto the right theme. I beleive that if he could, Howard would bring in the army to stop being thrown out. There is a possibility that the thought of losing will drive him over the edge. After S/11 and the Iraq War, Howard was constantly saying that it was in the National Interest that the Coalition be returned.
Howard’s credibility is completely shot. Once the electorate start ignoring you, it is all over. I think the deal has basically been done between Labor and the electorate, and there is nothing the government can do to change that. The government has wedged itself in terms of both politics and policy.
I understand the (partly justified) caution some commentators have about predicting the election outcome, but as far as I can tell all that is left to guess now is the size of the Labor win.
John Howard’s problem is that he has left himself with no choice but to fight the election on negatives, If you vote for Labor the sky will fall and you will be unemployed, homeless, lackeys of the union movement.
All Kevin Rudd has to do is hint that he has a vision for the future.
I think Howard has forgotten he is the PM, he is acting more like a State opposition leader, look how far that tactic got them.
Mr Q, Westpoll has the ALP up 54/46 2pp, margin of error of about 4%. If you`re willing to admit that 51/49 is closer to the mark, howso a rogue poll?
In terms of the 62-38 at the state level, that is no surprise at all. Remember, at the height of the CCC inquiry, the byelection that swung to the ALP in Peel?
Just noted PM’s comments today saying the ALP was in front in Westpoll earlier in the year. That’s not true. This is the first Westpoll of the year to put ALP in front. ALP has been close (March 50.25 vs 49.75) but never in front.
Two polls ago, when it showed Coalition 56.3 vs 43.7, he talked at length to the West Australian about what it meant.
The Pearson article is called “Howard Hopes at the Margins”, it is here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22221803-5013596,00.html
He basically goes through all the pork that Howard has dolled out to different marginal electorates to explain why he doesn’t think many will fall.
Thanks Simon
Yep, brilliant article. Also addresses the issue that Labor marginals are at risk of being taken by the Coalition, something that many people in the left choose to ignore.
I never read Janet Albrechtson, I think she writes nonsense, and is there to appeal to a portion of their readership who hold the same views. The same with Ackerman. However the rest of The Oz has been pretty good these past few weeks.
I am not happy with The Oz running that Echono report on its friday front page without acknowledging that it results were irrelevant as Labor’s IR laws are different to the paramaters used in the report.
In fact they should have stated that the ACCI is headed by a ex-Liberal staffer and that the ACCI may well have had a hand in drafting WorkChoices and has been a fanatical supporter of it from the start. Thus the report was most likely commissioned and designed to produce a negative result.
Rudd now needs to move on and firm up the image of him as PM in the mind of voters. Being in control, taking action and as a team. Make them feel calm and confident as we did with Hawke.
At noted by other posters – Howard’s desperate interventions will do him no help in WA. (Despising wise men from the east is a state pastime)
Hasluck is won for the ALP – former member Sharryn Jackson is campaigning well. Stuart Henry, who has had difficulty settling his office down, faces a backlash over local brickworks.
Stirling is won for the ALP – Former SAS officer Tinley up against former Liberal staffer in Keenan. (my own seat). Aside from putting his face on bus-stops everywhere, Keenan hasn’t actually done much. As described in the local paper, it’s like a fight between a soldier and boy scout.
Kalgoorlie and Canning will be tight. Howard went campaigning in Kalgoorlie and Moore (10.8%). This told all of us something was happening. Maybe Forrest is in the mix as well??
I used to live in a safe seat, and now I live in a marginal seat, and the only difference I’ve noticed, is that here the PO Box garbage bin is full of political direct mail material. In the safe seat we didn’t get bombarded with “literature” and here we do. It’s just a waste of money, our money, and I reckon it makes very little difference.
As for handouts to the electorate, there was an announcement for a water pipe of some sort, but it’s all discounted as an election year bribe. The consensus is, thanks for the handout, but I’m still voting you out.
I reckon it’s just another of the political myths, this marginal seat campaigning. If there’s a big local issue and there are clear policy differences between the two candidates and their parties, then sure, it would make a difference. But heaps and heaps of direct mail, and election year bribes, will just reinforce the cynicism.
Howard needs a credible message – blaming the states and bashing the unions won’t get him there.
Labor Government in WA run big surplus and take on the unions when necessary. This probably happens right around the country? Certainly the public have trusted Labor, in eight jurisdictions, to run schools, hospitals, police and transport.
Would have though the soaring house prices of many in the West would have meant many not in the mining industry felt reasonably OK with interest rates ejacking up etc. So this is indeed an interesting one in a state many commentators thought was going to be kind to JWH.
You wouldn’t believe it. As I scrolled down to check out some of the comments on this site, who do you think was the first commenter I came across ? Nostradamus. Hi to all the other former oz politics bloggers.
At oz politics I predicted that the betting would be around ALP 1.50 & LIB 2.75 by July. Like some other market analysts, the market is catching up to expert opinion. Just keep your eyes on coalition odds from here on, it’s going to get ugly.
I’m tipping 59-41 2pp for mondays ACN poll. Hand over some tissues to Nostral, Glen and Steven. Oh there there. LOL
Graeme Says:
But could the PM get away with a back-flip of this magnitude?
He’s going to try. Watch out for triple back somersault with pike on a daily basis till the election.
It’s all the silly old coot has got left in the locker. Nothing has worked so far. It’s been belly flop after belly flop and it’s starting to sting a little now.
Now that Franklin has been fixed up and the ‘Gropers have got with the program, I doubt there is any Labor-held seat in any danger of falling to the Coalition. Even if the Westpoll is only half right, that’s enough to make Cowan and Swan safe. The Victorian seats that looked wobbly earlier in the year are now also regarded as safe – that’s why Vic Labor has gone on the offensive with a new candidate in La Trobe.
On the subject of WA, can anyone recall the last time an election was still up in the air prior to seats over there being decided? It`s certainly well within the realm of possibility this year – a bit like extra time in the footy if it does happen. Bring it on, one state to go and Labor needs 3 gains to get over the line…
Graeme Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
ps – for those who like to mock the Oz. Greg Sheridan’s report (URL in my last post), in the space of three short paras, spells the Iraqi PM as ‘Malaki’, ‘Maliki’ and ‘Malaki’ again. Of course Greg is the expert on Islamic politics and culture…
I think the last Morgan poll and the West poll have finally tipped poor old Shannahan over the edge good and properly.
Considering the outrageous anti-Howard propaganda that has swamped the media and the biased, self serving tax-payer funded ABC over the last year no wonder Rudd MAY win the election. We have seen rabid, mad dog attacks on JWH and the government that are not based on facts and reality but on mania and propaganda worthy of Dr. Goebbels.
He needs more than a Bex and a good lie down now. Possibly a long holiday to the place Andrew Bolt recently went to may help.
Bolters came back on deck with some almost reasonable articles for a time. Maybe it was some sort of Resort that people who are addicted to strange substances go to to dry out.
Perhaps Mitchell is giving it some consideration. May be even thinking of joining him.
The Westpoll is good PR for Labor even if it is a rogue poll. It may well not be a rogue poll anyway. Poll publicity like this tends to become self-fulfilling. People do like to be on the winning side.
John Howard is not taking the traditional stance of drawing the wagons around the seats that may be saved but is trying to save each marginal in turn – save a hospital here, save a mill there, referendum on council amalgamations there.
Unfortunately for him when he thinks he has put out a bushfire it re-ignites and another half a dozen break out elsewhere. Now he has to contend with several new bushfires in WA.
At some point he may indeed have to adopt the strategy of saving as many of his colleagues as he can.
He still thinks he can win and so do writers in the Australian.
The rate rise will only have influenced the Westpoll to a certain extent. What would the result have been if everyone had known of the rate rise before being polled?
In the meantime the markets are melting down around the globe and reserve banks are pumping in hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain liquidity. It will be interesting to see what happens on Monday.
Many commentators, including Peter Costello, are trying to downplay the effects on Australia.
One extraordinary figure in today’s Australian is that there are $US400 trillion, yes trillion, dollars worth of derivatives floating around the marketplace.
Also, not in today’s Australian, $1.3 trillion dollars worth of US housing loans are behind in their payments. Total housing loans are roughly $13 trillion dollars.
As interest rates get driven up by lack of liquidity and reluctance to lend money, the repercussions will flow way beyond CDOs. Good time to be in cash.
It is highly likely the Reserve Bank will increase rates again before the election accordingly to economic commentators.
The anger at John Howard is likely to increase not wane.
The promise to keep interest rates at a record low has well and truly come back to haunt him. It was just another lie. He knew, or should have, that he had very little control over interest rates.
I’m hoping people will be calling this election while Tassie is still being counted – then we can sit back and watch Coalition panelists squirm for the rest of the night. Please let it be so…
Sorry, that should have read `an election was decided by results in WA`.
I will take issue with “In Redcliffe, 22,000 adults out of a total of 34,000 voters signed a protest petition”. As quoted by Pearson.
When the petition was examined only 11,000 voters signed the petition as confirmed by Bruce Flegg.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story
That`d be the political equivalent of a `quickie` Hoots. Nothing wrong with the scenic route, as long as you get there in the end.
“Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”
You’re right ruawake. Pearson’s article is a pitiful string of squibbed figures, wishful thinking and chronic denial. Pretty funny, really…
The last election in which the result hinged on the WA seats was (TTBOMR) 1974. If Labor had lost the WA marginals (Tangney, Swan, Kalgoorlie) Snedden would have been PM. The blood runs cold even now at the thought…
Boll #130
I agree – as log as Howard cries like Malcolm did I’ll be happy!
oops – long not log
I’m sorry – I have a cold.
I thought this quote today in the New York Times was so apposite:-
“Trust was shaken today. Credit depends on trust. If trust disappears, then credit disappears, and you have a systemic issue.”
THOMAS MAYER, chief European economist at Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt, on yesterday’s market turmoil.
The same applies to trust in John Howard. He has lost our trust.
The Coalition will win in the West (despite this poll) and in QLD (thanks to the arrogant Mr. Beattie). They will lose two seats in Tasmania (the ‘Latham Two’). They will get a caning in NSW and Victoria. Net result? Coalition victory by three seats. So says Cerdic Conan.
And Hitler will still win World war II – mark my words.
So says Hoots.
Whatever makes you feel better Cerdic.
Maybe Billy McMahon can still stage a last-minute comeback?
I’m not counting Saddam out of Gulf War 2 either…
This “Market Meltdown” must be a bit of a worry for Costello at the moment.
I hope that the brainwave idea to invest the “Future Fund” money through a US Broker doesn’t come back to haunt them.
Could be a lot of very unhappy voters if that money is badly invested and evaporates into the ether.
A lot of WA miners on AWA’s wouldn’t appreciate their hard earned investments reduced to next to nothing if it breaks out into a full blown recession.
Cedric
I agree, the coalition will lose two seats in Tasmania. The rest of your post is pure fantasy.
Adam, you write the last time the vote came down to WA was 1974, please correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the ALP holding its 4 marginals in 1990 was the last time WA played such a part.
Scorpio, the trouble is the sub prime mortgages were mixed up in CDOs and sold all over the place as scrambled investments. People borrowed at 5%, for example, to invest in these for 15% returns. Some return.
They forgot the rule: high return, high risk.
It’s a bit like mad cow disease. You never know where the infection is going to crop up next. It’s gone beyond just the bad mortgage loans though. The whole market is spooked.
It looks as though the long term bull market has now become a bear market. Can’t be certain.
Cashed up vultures will short sell vulnerable stocks and buy them when desperate investors want to rescue some of their savings.
It’s bad news for all those who sold properties and other assets and poured billions into super funds prior to July 1st. Some of those have already lost a slice of money.
It’d be interesting to see where the Future Fund billions were invested and what they are worth today. It might be even more interesting to see what they are worth in two or three months, if the market goes south through loss of confidence or major liquidity problems.
This could be a big one for Peter Costello.
Perhaps Kevin Rudd might like to ask a question in the House.
Richard,
If the Future Fund was affected, it would be a scandal of Khemlani proportions surely. It would decimate any perception of the Colaition as good economic managers. Surely they can’t have invested the thing in anything too high risk. Could they?
I read that the reserve bank injected $5 billion into the share market last night. Can anyone tell me where this money comes from?
Do they just print more money or do they have a fund that they can play with?
Maybe someone with more knowledge has the answer.
bmwofoz, I don’t recall sweating on the WA seats on election night in 1990, but it is a while ago now… The reason I remember 1974 more clearly is that I was in WA at the time and I remember the night very well.
(On checking) Yes I think you are right. In 1990 Labor won 78 seats to 69 (plus Ted Mack), so Labor would have needed to lose five more seats to have been defeated. In WA, Canning, Cowan, Stirling and Swan were all close. If Labor had lost all four, it would have been Labor 74, Coalition 74, plus Mack. That would have been very interesting.
Sorry, it would have been Labor 74, Coalition 73, plus Mack.
I have addressed Graeme’s highly pertinent point about Westpoll’s concurrent state poll with an update to my post, the thrust of which is that this poll is to be taken with a grain of salt.
Can I go back to the issue of PK coming back from a bad poll in ‘93. The one thing that JWH will not point out is that PK had only recently become PM( his first as leader if I recall) and there was a considerable sense of giving him a fair go. JWH has already had a more than reasonable fair go and should have recognised this, instead his ego got in the way. Circumstances are completly different now.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t the result in 1990 appear to be closer than it actually was on election night, because it was not yet appreciated how strongly minor party preferences were flowing to Labor? I’m pretty sure the result would still have been in doubt when WA figures started to come in. Andrew Peacock didn’t concede until Wednesday, from memory.
I am not a statistician but didn’t the whole rogue cf one end of the MoE discussion happen and wouldn’t the Westpoll MoE allow this to be not rogue?
On WA I don’t see why the Government wouldn’t have surged. No corruption allegations for a week or two, and the liberal squabbling in public, I thought disunity was death … well it would be had to be less united than the WA liberals. It would also be hard to have less capability in a parliamentary team.
Yeah, 5 per cent I would have believed – but not 10.
Adam, I am agreeing with William and BMW that it was very close on election night and that the libs were holding out for a swing in WA to get them over the line. Also, in 1990 there was a strong election night possibility that Helen Caldicott would win in Richmond. I am not sure if it was apparent on the night, but in 1990 the Dems almost won Cunningham (48% 2pp) on a 13% primary vote.
If William is right and we should discount the Westpoll by 5%, that gives a Labor 2PV of 49%, which represents a 4.4% swing to Labor from 2004. More than enough to win Stirling and Hasluck. Labor will be perfectly happy with that.
Does anybody out there know in which order the questions were asked in the Westpoll? State first or Fed first? Because if it was State first, one would tend to believe that the respondent is still focussed on the first question.
Hoots, the market has gone down as a whole in the US and here and may go further. In other words, no matter how it was invested some of it would have gone by now. Very long term that may not matter, depending on where it was invested. If any of it was invested in sub-prime mortgages then Peter Costello may have to kiss it goodbye.
It could be a Khemlani style scandal if it was invested badly. That caused huge damage for Whitlam.
ruawake, we would need an economist to explain to us the mechanisms of reserve banks releasing funds into the market to keep interest rates in check when liquidity is tight. Essentially it is our money, yes. I just wonder how far they will go in releasing funds into the market. Is there a limit?
ru awake Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I read that the reserve bank injected $5 billion into the share market last night. Can anyone tell me where this money comes from?
Do they just print more money or do they have a fund that they can play with?
Maybe someone with more knowledge has the answer.
Ru awake, The Reserve Bank holds Trading Bank reserves and is the banker for the Commonwealth Government.
All tax collections are held by the Reserve Bank, so in effect it is taxpayers money they are gambling with to try and forestall any further damaging falls in the market.
You might remember Costello investing around the same amount in the money market I recall, a number of years ago just prior to a substantial crash which wiped a considerable amount off it.
The loss was regained over time but there was an opportunity cost to the taxpayer due to this folly. I don’t think he has been game to repeat it since except for the Future Fund investment which I felt at the time was extremely foolish. A number of Dick Chaney’s mates are involved in the Company as well as at least one ex-ENRON Executive.
One could detect Bush, Chaney and Howard’s hand in this.
It has been said that the election campaign ( official or not ) has gone on too long already. The views i am receiving seem to back that up. People are sick of this already and wish he would call the election ASAP.
Adam and William I think I agree with you both … Hasluck and Stirling will make WA Labor happy enough … Kalgoorlie and Canning would be dreamy stuff. And with west polls margin of error isn’t it possible that 5% real could easily look like 10% given the movement within the MoE, and still not be truly rogue.
But yes I take the 100 or so posts that tell me to have more salt on my European breakfast as I dream of Don Randall losing.
If John Howard or any pundit out there seriously thinks that there is a parallel between 1993 and 2007 they are deluding themselves. In 1993,John Hewson took the libs into the election with a big policy set piece that was easy to run a scare campaign against .. and Keating did! This time there is no big Labor set piece, the scare campaign won’t grow legs.
What JWH is trying to do now is put a whole lot of small campaigns together to make a big campaign … and it will not work. It is just the other side of Paul Keatings rainbow coalition that was put together in the last years of the Labor government in the belief that all sorts of minorities will make a majority .. not withstanding that lots of minorities don’t like being pushed out of the mainstream.
In some ways. JWH is doing a favour for his successor as Liberal leader. The result will be bad and it will be all JWH’s own work – and whoever gets the guernsey as Opp leader will be able to repudiate this 12 month period at will. If the libs should get back, hopefully JWH will be gone in a short while or even on election night (.. and over to you Maxine..) but the successor will be left the unenviable job of untangling what is becoming one almight public policy mess.
I am still going to stick to my prediction of Howard by three seats. But ATM i lack confidence in it
The Future Fund is designed tobe at arm’s length from government. To say that losses will backfire on the government is like saying that Peter Costello or any of the state treasurers sit around with the financial pages and decide where the PS super money is going to go that day. It doesn’t work like that. Arms length is best for everybody.
What if?
One more thing. “Anonymous” said a few days ago that he/she knew something we didn’t. That was that the Coaliton had given up on trying to improve their primary vote but were going to try to improve their preference flow.
Now we saw that Greens preferences going to the Coalition had doubled in the last Morgan poll after the Rudd forest announcement, to 21%.
What if John Howard let Malcolm Turnbull have his head and do whatever is necessary to gain more green preferences?
The Liberals for Forests preferences were responsible for the ALP winning Richmond. The party itself was not formed by Liberal supporters if my information is correct and that’s why the preferences went to the ALP.
Just what if Malcolm Turnbull were to make a series of last minute announcements giving the Greens what they wanted in some areas?
What if John Howard wrote off those Tasmanian forest seats as unwinnable and Malcolm trumped Labor by announcing that they would conserve significant tracts of old growth forests in Tasmania after all?
What if Malcolm Turnbull promoted Cape York for world heritage listing and conservation? What if he made some startling announcements on global warming initiatives?
The Greens would do the same deals regardless with Labor – or would they? Even if they did, Greens voters are notorious in not slavishly following how to vote recommendations. In any case many Greens voters are former Democrats, half of whom could swing either way.
John Howard may be desperate enough to go green but could he stomach it?
He may write off those Tasmanian seats to save mainland seats.
Do you think the Libs could attract a Green vote on one issue alone?
The whole QLD local government amalgamation thing is just the type of thing that can derail a campaign big time .. it might not resonate in Brisbane (Bonner and Moreton are going to go anyway) but may deprive the ALP of oxygen in the next tier of seats (Longman, Hinkler). It was the issue of council amalgamations that turned regional Victoria so heavily against Jeff Kennett. The issue has now achieved enough momentum to take on a life of it’s own. Peter Beattie has either caught the invincibilty virus from JWH at the least COAG or he opened his desk drawer and was possessed by the ghost of Joh…
blackburnpseph Says:
But “WHO” put the money there? It was supposed to be managed at arms length by a Board, but Costollo was the one who dictated that The majority of it was invested with Bush’s mates in the US.
If there is a substantial fall in the markets, get set for a whirlwind election campaign as they will call it before too much carnage eventuates and people wake up to potential Future Fund cleanout.
Richard it should be recalled that Bill Heffernan has been an outspoken critic of Gunns and Tasmanian forest policy for some time … and like him or hate him Bill Heff is not the sort of politician who will keep those views to himself.
Bill I see at the Greens website you have grown a beard. Are you trying to alienate moderate voters? Everyone knows voters don’t like or trust men with beards, and especially not know when MGBs are running around blowing things up. Have you grown it out of solidarity with the MGBs? Watch out you don’t get deported.
Oh and to the blogger who asked for my mugshot. Its on my website
Richard you forget the Peasants’ Party. They would rather walk out of the Coalition (which would probably be to their electoral advantage at the moment) rather than stomach such things. And if they didn’t, their seats would all be won by anti-Green independents. Trying to please both the Ferals and the Peasants is like straddling a barbed-wire fence, and you don’t need a medical degree to know where that leads.
(100) STROP,
Your analysis concerning the tactics available to Mr Howard and the Liberal Party seems credible. However, one question you did not address is how did a politician who we all agreed some 6 months ago was extremely talented in developing and constructing an election campaign find himself (and his party) in this position. (Even today many are still unwilling to believe that the Labor Party has a chance to win the election simple because of the perceived talents of Mr Howard).
In other words how did Mr Howard and the Liberal Party “wedge†themselves?
From my limited point of view I think that this can be attributed to their view of the economic conditions and how the “average Joe” perceives the affect of these conditions on his life.
It is clear that Mr Howard and the Liberal party look at the economic conditions through the prism of the employers, believing that what is good for business must, by definition, be good for the employees. They discount the benefit of unions to employees and the attitude of the less well of within society to their positions in life and the control they have over these conditions and perceptions they have over their quality of life.
This has led to the belief within the Government (in fact held by almost all conservative MP) that as business has “never had it so good†than this applies to the rest of us as well. This has been reflected in the comments of the Prime Minister that “Australians have never been better off†(or words to this effect) or the words of Mr Abbot, “parallel universes†and Mr Dutton “a load of crap†and many other members of the Government echoing this attitude.
The Government has therefore acted on the erroneous analysis of our attitudes believing that we will “wake up to ourselves†and come back to the fold of the true party of right wing economic policy. However, as was outlined in an article I read recently (forget where – maybe someone can remember where it was – it was a researched out of one of the NSW Universities) the desires of voters is not limited to simply financial concerns. We do care about right and wrong, about the haves and the have nots, about our neighbour. We are not selfish and one dementional – we are caring human beings and all we needed was someone we could trust, to put our faith in, to abandon the dry economic church of Mr Howard.
It would appear that Mr Rudd is the man we have put our trust in.
This has given the Liberal Party a false starting point from which to conduct its campaign for the election and it has taken a long time for them to realise this, if in fact they have. They now find that they have limited options for developing a campaign strategy which will over come their misreading of the electorate’s attitude to their gospel of greed is good and all that matters is money.
In The Australian today Adam’s favourite writer (joking) Dennis Shanahan wrote a piece claiming that “ The Liberal strategy appears to be to hold some of its most marginal seats, ..force Labor to fight hard for seats in the QLD killing field…and hold WA as its redoubtâ€.
I have been thinking about this strategy being on the cards for some weeks, and recent events confirm it may be what is happening at the moment.
In this scenario, the first task would be to retain 9 seats won in 2004. These are Kingston (0.1), Bonner (0.6) Braddon (1.1) , Hasluck (1.8) , Stirling (2.0), Bass (2.6), McMillan (5.0), Bowman (8.9) and Greenway (11.0).
We have already seen JWH try to pork barrel his way out of trouble in the seat of Braddon, a move that seems to have back fired because Burnie residents won’t be happy with the prospect of the viability of their hospital being put at risk by the Mersey Hospital prop up offered by JWH recently.
JWH has used the amalgamation issue to try to engage QLD voters into voting against a State Government policy by NOT voting Labor. The obvious targets are not so much Bonner and Bowman which are not provincial-rural seats directly affected by the council amalgamation policy. He is targeting more specifically QLD seats won in 2001 [Dickson (9.1) and Ryan (10.4) and in 1996 [Moreton (2.8), Herbert (6.1), Petrie (7.9), Leichardt (10.3) and Forde (13.0). He is also targeting the new notionally National seat of Flynn (7.9).
With the current polls indicating a strong anti-Coalition swing on in QLD, the amalgamation ‘wedge’ is being used to (perhaps) save Herbert, Petrie and Flynn from being lost to Labor and to protect Dickson, Ryan, Leichardt and Forde from becoming marginal seats.
Hasluck and Stirling were, until recently, considered to be safe for the Coalition because the conventional wisdom was that WA was resisting the swing against the Coalition evident in other States. In fact, whispers of potential Coalition gains in Swan and Cowan were popular too. The recent Westpoll has put a cat amongst the pidgeon’s, with some now writing off any Coalition gains in WA and a few speculating Labor will gain Hasluck and Stirling without much trouble, could in fact pick up Kalgoorlie (6.3), the only seat lost to the Coalition in 1998, and give the candidate who won Canning (9.5) in 2001 a scare.
Kingston (0.1) was won for the Coalition in 2004 and Makin (0.9) is the only other seat in SA the Coalition has wrestled from Labor since Keating PM. Howard is yet to fire a shot in South Australia. This is a curios thing, given that Kingston, Makin and Wakefeild (0.1) among the four most marginal seats held by the Coalition. Perhaps JWHs strategists have written these 3 seats off given the paltry margins, the popularity of the State Government and Premier in SA and the strong mortgage belt presence in at least 2 of those seats. Some Labor people are beginning to eye off Brand (5.4) and Sturt (6.8), based on the strong poll indicators of a big swing against JWH is South Australia.
Most Coalition people could not bring themselves to conceive of the ‘born to rule’ Christopher Pyne being at risk in Sturt, but Brand should get at least a passing gesture of support from JWH somewhere down the track is he banking on surviving by protecting his marginal seats from extinction. Should be interesting to see what JWH strategist’s have up their sleeves for SA, if anything.
Have you noticed I have not said anything about Victoria or NSW yet ? That is because since the 1996 Federal election, the only seats the Coalition has won from Labor have been the Victorian seat of McMillan (5.0) in 2004 on the back of 5.0 pro Coalition redistribution, Greenway (11.0) in 2004 on the back of 10.4 redistribution in favour of the Coalition, along with Dobell (4.8) and Paterson (6.8) in 2001.
That is, the Coalition won a grand total of 3 seats from Labor in NSW and 1 seat Victoria in the last 3 elections. NSW is the biggest seat State (50 seats) and not much has changed since the 1996 election in terms of gains for the Coalition.
It is NSW that Labor may need to recover more seats lost in 1996. These are- Macquarie (0.5*), Parramatta (1.1) Lindsay (2.9) Eden Monaro (3.3) Page (5.5) Robertson (6.9) Hughes (8.8) Gilmore (9.5) and Macarthur (11.1).
So far, JWH has only tried his pork barreling tactics in Eden Monaro and may be planning to force a State ‘wedge’ on Iemma’s recently published threat to renege on the Murray-Dowling water ‘deal’ (or do I have the wrong Premier in the gun ?).
9 seats won in 1996 in NSW remain in Coalition hands. Labor will be mindful of this fact and are yet to come up with a strategy to shift the balance of power (seats) in NSW back to Labor. A further 3 seats have been lost to the Coalition since then. Dobell and Paterson has small pro-Labor redistribution swings in 2004 and lost them anyway.
With other States doing well for Labor, not much attention has been paid to NSW apart from running commentary about Cooke (pre-selection debacle), JWHs seat of Bennelong because he is PM and MM is contesting his seat and distracting him, and Eden Monara after the Saw Mill fiasco and ‘bellweather’ attachments to that seat in election speak
What does the Coalition have in mind for protecting Macquarie, Parramatta, Lindsay and Page from extinction ? Nothing yet from JWH unless a State Government wedge can be located and capitalised on. Water ?
In Victoria, Labor will be hoping to recover McMillan (5.0) from 2004, have a chance of winning back Dunkley (9.4) and McEwen (6.4) which were lost in the 1996 Coalition landslide, and perhaps win Corangamite (5.3) for the first time since 1929 (thanks again Adam) on the back of reactions to the culling of Ford factory jobs in the area recently.
Corangamite seems vulnerable , as does McMillan.
McMillan was lost on the back of a 2004 redistribution of 5.0 to the Coalition before the election. Latham’s anti logging policy alienated the rural voters in the area. This time around the Coalition will get no redistribution assistance, Latham’s anti logging policy wont be a factor and the RBAs fifth interest rate hike since the 2004 election may help Labor. For example, voters in Pakenham with a high mortgage belt presence who voted for the Coalition in 2004 may swing against the Coalition and make this seat more vulnerable than it looks.
Victoria has had less attention paid to it in the media scrum and amongst poll addicts and speculators than has NSW. Again, I wait to see what the Coalition strategists will try to do in McMillan, Dunkley, McEwen and Corangamite to save these vulnerable Victorian seats from extinction from a Coalition perspective.
I don’t think Howard can or will save all 40+ seats I have mentioned in this blog. Only 16 of them have to go for Labor to win Government. So far he has tried a sweeping approach in QLD and made some noise around Eden Monaro and Braddon. Solomon (NT) too if you want to include it in Howard’s ‘must retain’ list.
The opening bids have been made- it will be interesting to see what JWH does to try and save these seats from extinction in the “Liberal seat-by-seat-struggleâ€.
WhoGivesaRats Says:
“This has led to the belief within the Government (in fact held by almost all conservative MP) that as business has “never had it so good†than this applies to the rest of us as well. This has been reflected in the comments of the Prime Minister that “Australians have never been better off†(or words to this effect) or the words of Mr Abbot, “parallel universes†and Mr Dutton “a load of crap†and many other members of the Government echoing this attitude.”
Rats, I think the Coalition attitude was expressed well when the new Liberal Senator for Queensland (replacing Santo) was interviewed out side Parliament House a day after the pollies pay rise was announced, and she said something on the lines of the ordinary people getting “Pearls”.
I think it was her first day, so it indicated that she would fit right in with their mindset regarding the majority of the Australian people.
A bit off subject, I know and apologise, but it has stuck in my mind ever since and worries me a lot that that is where they are coming from in the way that they treat us.
Ruawakw,
The Reserve Bank has not invested any money in the share market. Nor have the overseas central banks done so. They have made a loan of some $100 billion plus – in one day! – to the other banks to improve financial liquidity. Exactly how it all works is beyond me, but basically the central banks create money out of nothing – which should be obvious to anyone who compares the size of the economy today with that of 100 years ago.
Sorry about the typo.
Whogivesarats… fair call. Plus he lost Arthur Sinodonis. Been off-message ever since.
Plus, the Government supports nuclear power, so any gains they make by saving forrests they will lose on the issue of nuclear power.
89
The governments internal polling says they have to chase second preferences of independent, family first and incredible as it sounds green voters. The same sort of strategy Bob Hawke used in 1987?
They’ve got zero chance so long as they push the nuclear agenda.
Again… they’ve wedged themselves.
Sorry… should point out I was talking about chasing green preferences.
I notice that Labor’s most marginal Queensland seat, Rankin (3%) still has no Liberal candidate. That doesn’t suggest that the Libs expect to win any seats off Labor, Christopher Pearson notwithstanding.
I’m amused by earlier posts (by Laborites) saying ‘wow, who cares about Westpoll’s credibility, this’ll give them a bandwagon factor’. I don’t know of any Australian research measuring bandwagon vs underdog (tho Mr Shanahan clearly believes in the bandwagon). But surely if you believe in a bandwagon you wouldn’t want inflated poll results several months out: because the next Westpoll will be reported as ‘Big swing back to Libs in WA’.
As a Greens fella I’ll consider voting for the Coalition if they:
1.Increase payments to public education cf private
2. Develop a real environmental programme [not back of envelope stuff] on water, forestry, fisheries, salinization, soil erosion, air quality and other issues by restricting vegetation clearing, molly coddling inefficient farming and irrigation and forestry
3. Abolish WorknoChoices immediately
4 Apologize to the Indigenous people and reinstate [sic] consultation as a preliminary to all programmes
5 Stop with the homophobic attitudes
6 Stop with the misogynist attitudes
7 Stop with the xenophobic attitudes and playing the politics of feat paranoia and distrust
8…….
You get the idea.
They are after your preference Fred, not your primary vote. There are a bucket load of other minor parties and they KNOW that the majority of people have made up their mind.
I am a big believer of “Band Wagon” over “Underdog” as collecting more votes in Australia, we would rather pick a winner and talk about how we liked the underdog.
Although Graeme the swing back in WA (if it does happen) could re shift momentum toward the coalition, it may get drowned out by National Polling coming through.
I cant remember the figure exactly but around or over 1 million people are thought to make up there mind at the booth, in 2004 they said well im not sure about this Latham, in 2007 it might me I think Kev looks alright. If it plays out like this Momentum/Bandwagon pressure will work out i thihnk.
They are not going to get the preference vote either until AFTER they satisfy the incomplete list above.
Actually I wrote it to illustrate that the gulf between the Coalition and greens type voters is not going to be bridged by a few minor non-core nods in the general direction.
It would be lovely to watch the contortions of the Coalition if they ever considered getting Greens preferences.
Really the only way it becomes feasible is if the ALP go further to the right than the Coalition already is.
And of course thats unthinkable isn’t it?
Well isn’t it?
***sounds of crickets****
It is actually unthinkable.
Re the Reserve Bank’s activities, I think (and it’s a long time since I studied finance) that the banks are required to maintain certain levels of deposits with the reserve bank, and the higher these deposits, the less they have available to lend to people. If the central bank reduces the amount the banks are required to have on deposit, it effectively means there is more money available in the economy.
If I am wrong I blame all the distractions there used to be at universities in the last days before HECS was introduced…
K David Says:
“Although Graeme the swing back in WA (if it does happen) could re shift momentum toward the coalition, it may get drowned out by National Polling coming through.”
There’s a good article in the age which reflects the thoughts of many of the posters here.
“WEST Australian voters, on whom Prime Minister John Howard was counting to save him from political oblivion, have turned their back on him, with an exclusive Westpoll showing a surge of support for Kevin Rudd.
If the result of the WA poll was repeated at the election, Labor would not only hold its marginal seats of Swan and Cowan, but would sweep up Hasluck, Stirling and Kalgoorlie.
An almost 10-point turnaround, as the latest Westpoll shows, would put the safe Liberal seat of Forrest almost within reach for Labor.”
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/08/10/1186530622300.html
I just can’t see the ALP getting less than the usual 75% or so of Greens preferences. They are willing to ratify Kyoto, and set a long term target for greenhouse reductions. Environmental issues will be more important in this election than last, and that will play into the oppositions hands because they are generally considered more in favour of environmental protection. If Howard says he is giong to protect more QLD rainforrest, or doing something for the Barrier Reef, then Rudd will just match it. The concentrateion on the environemntal issues will just focus more attention onto the opposition.
[152] – I also recall 1990 being considered closer on election night than it turned out to be – there was some discussion that Kennedy, where voting in some booths was delayed by floods, might be critical. You could make a case for 1998 as well, if only because the behaviour of postal and absentee votes was made a bit more unpredictable because polling day was in school holidays in most states and on a long weekend in NSW/SA/ACT. The cascading preferences that almost gave the Democrats Cunningham weren’t spotted until several days afterwards, but then analysts were less attuned to the possibility then than they would be now.
One comment on specific seats in my part of the world: I think the margin in McMillan understates the Liberals’ strength there because Christian Zahra had a reasonable personal vote in 2004, especially in the Latrobe Valley (the swing was about 4% bigger in Morwell and Traralgon booths that had been redistributed out of McMillan than it was in Moe booths that stayed in it). I’d regard it as a 7-8% seat rather than a 5% one.
It also gives some good information on party internal polling and comes up with the finding that “Workchoices” is by far the primary reason for an 8 percent swing to Labor. It appears locked in and nothing short of the total repeal of workchoices will get any of them back IMHO.
“In more bad news for the Coalition, The Age has obtained national polling, conducted for the ACTU between March and July, which found 8 per cent of people who voted for the Coalition in 2004 planned to vote Labor this year.
When asked what was the most important issue that had caused them to switch, 30 per cent picked industrial relations law. The next biggest issues were health care, ranked first by 18 per cent of people, and climate change (12 per cent).
When asked their top three reasons for changing votes, 54 per cent included IR laws.
The results are confirmed by confidential figures from the Government side, provided by the Liberal Party’s research gurus Crosby/Textor.
In a June 21 research report, OzTrack 33, also obtained by The Age, they found big anti-Government swings among part-time workers, and “lower white (collar)/upper blue (collar)” workers, the classic “Howard battler” demographic.
“Substantially more vote changers rank the IR laws in their top three issues,” said the ACTU pollsters, Essential Research. “Vote changers are also less likely to rank management of the economy and political leadership in their top three issues.”
I really loved this quote from Joe Hockey though.
“Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey dismissed the analysis, saying it was “straight out of the dirty tricks manual” with no credibility.”
Don’t you just love him! He even dismisses his own party polling. Talk about being in denial.
I think this is pure fantasy. Neither the Liberals’ right wing, nor the Nationals, nor the mining companies etc etc, would stand for it. Howard may be desperate but he won’t ditch his core principles to get re-elected. If he was willing to do that he would repeal WorkChoices.
I agree about McMillan, http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007seats/mcmillan.shtml
The Greens are in a symbiotic relationship with Labor. The more Labor moves to the centre-right, the more the Greens prospered. The hard-nuts in Labor know this and play it for all that it’s worth. Short of PR/MMP (or global warming meltdown) the Greens will be preference cows to Labor for some decades to come. Unfortunately for them, preference deals in the Senate stand to keep them from ever having the BOP, at least on their own.
Hugo, you will be pleased about the Rabbitohs winning.
The Greens are being colonised by socialist/marxist types – the more they drag the Greens to the far left the worse things will get for the Greens.
The greens are more than likely going to have the balance of power in the senate for many years, and I expect this is where they can best achieve their agenda.
Lots of deals to be made… greens support X, pass Y. The free reign of the senate has been the undoing of the current government.
And there is simply no chance that Howard is going to ditch WorkChoices. It wouldn’t make any difference, and everyone knows it. There’s still a long way to go in this campaign, and there are lots of other things that can happen in that time.
Well, if Liberal internal polling and focus groups show that the primary vote is stuck and the only way they can remain in office is to gain more minor party preferences, they must surely do something about it.
They know they will lose seats. The question is how many.
All they need to do is to deny Labor sufficient seats to win.
They can afford to lose a number of seats. They probably will abandon the unwinnables closer to the election and concentrate on those with 4-8% margins. What do the swinging voters really want in those crucial seats? Of course if the polls get worse for John Howard then the number of seats they have to save may become too big to handle.
RE McMILLAN
It is hard to tell 5% is a big ask especially with the rural areas added last redistribution. Work choices could well impact across the Latrobe valley
as similar happened in 1993. Labor had internal problems in The Latrobe valley as is witnessed by the loss of the 2 seats concerned. Maybe
Mr Zahra had a personal vote as is shown by the uneven swings in the seat 2004. But Mr Maxfield the member for Nacarran & Husband of the endorsed Alp Candidate was a well respected local Mp till his loss.
I would not assume with the mix of all these factors that the swing reqd was higher.
The Green vote is almost entirely a left protest vote against the ALP. It’s well-known that most of the members of the ALP Left actually vote Green. The advent of Peter Garrett has brought a lot of the “soft green” vote back to Labor, although Rudd’s forests policy may partly reverse that. I still hold the view that the Green vote will drop this year, as the priority for most people on the left is getting rid of Howard and not quibbling about who is more pure than whom.
Don’t know whether this has already been covered but Glen Milne makes a reference in this article to the fact the Galaxy poll shows Maxine McKew ahead 53\47 in Bennelong.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22226728-27197,00.html
This is just shocking, Galaxy has been the only poll with hope for the Coalition, but this result is just scary. This will run on the news tomorrow night “Howard in danger of losing his seat”.
See
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22228314-953,00.html for more of the story of the 53/47 Galaxy poll in Bennelong.
Details of the Galaxy Poll in Bennelong here.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22228610-661,00.html
McKew leading Howard 53-47 2PP in Bennelong according to Milne (yes I think he is suspect too) ..Wouldnt it be ironic that Bennelong becomes the ‘bellweather’ seat and Labor ends up with 53-47 2PP (mirroring the current poll in Bennelong) as a national result after the election is done and dusted. Id be happy to put money on that outcome being very close to the mark if the election was held today.
No I don’t think JWH will lose his seat. Im just speculating the irony.
More details, the sample was 800. First preferences it is 47 – 44.
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,22228745-5001021,00.html
I don’t normally think personal votes count for much, but I do think the prime minister and leader of the opposition get a small boost because of their positions. Didn’t Keating even get a swing towards him in 1996?
There are 2 NSW seats that are gettable for Labor – Bennelong and Wentworth. If Labor were to win this election, I can’t think of 2 seats that would present a more ’symbolic’ victory for Labor than these.
On the surface, both seats should remain in the Libs’ hands. We can expect that the margin for Wentworth is artificially low, due to the Robert King shenanigans of the last election. Also, the new electoral enrolment rules also are against Labor, in this demographic with a high degree of transients.
Nonetheless, I’ve heard significant anecdotal evidence, (from relatively apolitical sources) that Bennelong is a real chance for Labor. In Wentworth, though Turnbull is among the more presentable of Liberal front bench, he is by no means a popular candidate, and even if he were, Howard is very much on the nose there. I’m not sure that Turnbull will have such a strong personal vote, and I’m also not convinced that locals will have forgotten the antics of 2004 that saw the margin lowered in the first place. Now that a non-threatening alternative is on offer, we might see a blue-ribbon seat fall into Labor’s hands.
Wentworth will be fine for Turnbull because he can just pour in heaps of money.
Bennelong can’t be won with money, Howard will need to spend time there which means he can’t be off campaigning in some marginal. So it will hurt his over all campaign.
The Bulletin article this week says that Howard is running campaign functions every week somewhere in his electorate. Some people interviewed said they can’t remember the last time he spent so much time holding such functions.
I’m not sure. No amount of money can make Howard look good at this stage. If they’d changed leaders a year ago, things might be different.
I’d even go so far as to suggest that Turnbull’s cash might even count against him. Though Wentworth may well be the wealthiest electoirate in the country, there are also some astronomical mortgages. Turnbull’s branch-stacking arguably went down even worse than similar Labor efforts, because many locals interpreted it as a wealthy schmuck buying his way into power. Further attempts to splash dollars around might be met with cynicism.
Back to Melbourne and surrounds, the candidates in the notically ‘fairly safe’ and ’safe’ seats of Scullin and McEwen appear to be more active than they have been for some years.
Of course the Rodent loses Bennelong. Australians want to see him conceding defeat at least twice for their money.
Nut seriously: Beenelong punters wont want to bother with a by-election. Since he’s rooted, they’ll Stanley Bruce him on the day. Put him out of his misery short and sharp.
Very sensible voter behaviour; and, I think we can all agree, a suitably humilating exit for the man who wouldnt leave when the bell tolled.
Lefty E, Is that the first recorded use of “Stanley Bruce” as a transitive verb? Perhaps it will be an increasingly common usage this year.
I think the real value for this might be the headline. Howard to lose seat. Once Howard is projected as a man going down the gurgler it will give licence to the waivering to join in the stabing party.
This is valuable advertising for Rudd. Thats on top of Howard saying Rudd’s economic policy is echo-nomics. More good advertising for Rudd.
And puting the inerest rate debate in the State sphere instead of the Federal sphere takes some of the heat of Rudd as well.
SO lots of good free advertising coming Rudds way at the moment.
Someone has to do the green far left thing. Howard does the far right thing, there needs to be balance around the new PM Rudd.
Graeme Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
But surely if you believe in a bandwagon you wouldn’t want inflated poll results several months out: because the next Westpoll will be reported as ‘Big swing back to Libs in WA’.
Take your point Graeme but there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the next Westpoll “will” be reported as a big swing back to Libs in WA. What if the next Westpoll does the opposite, declaring Labor has surged ahead further ? That is possible is it not ?
Rats I agree with your perception that the message (unintended or not) from Costello, Abbott, Howard and others including the pearls for swine comment of the Santori replacement has been -look the economy is going gang busters and Australian families have never been better off- even in the face of the fifth RBA interest rate rise since 2004.
Howard and Costello certainly seem to think the electorate could/should once again swallow the myth that ‘a rising tide raises all ships’ including the so called Howard Battlers that gave him a landslide win in 1996. Now, eleven years on, there is a small print concession that not everyone is benefitting from the rising tide (economic growth) from JWH (never Costello), fearful of the veracity of the view that the people who voted for JWH in 1996 (the so called Howard battlers) have run out of patience or beleif and are ‘crossing the floor’ {planning to vote Labor} or abstaining from the vote {voting Green, Independent} this time around.
Going back to my main point (100), if the electorate are going to read pork barrelling (Mersey) and wedges (amalgamations) from a cynical position and going after Rudd is not proving to be an easy task, grabbing control of the media headlines to try and block out Rudd and get space to wrest back control of the election agenda through July-August is about all JWH could do.
No traction yet, all BAD news in the media, no respite for the Coalition Central fire service, poll mayem, not one mark on Kevin Rudd, Franklin being sorted out without too much damage, WA papers debunking insurance policy, and the once loyal newspapers going to town on the Coalition.
Still, I am very very wary of JWH and his unbeleivable luck-fortune. I dont think any strategy his strategists can dream up will be able to ’save’ every seat up for grabs.
They simply don’t have the resources to change the public perception of JWH as untrustworthy and beyond his use-by-date in a few short weeks. They have to discredit Rudd or wait for the election gods to drop something substantial in their laps, and soon.
I hope they don’t, obviously.
Kevin Rudd’s “original†solution to the rental market crisis!
These postings were made over a week ago, so plenty of time to rearrange the wording, I guess.
Read the blogs, and steal the ideas! Is this policy on the run?
True to form, Kevin Rudd style
3rd August 2007 Brisbane Times
http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/yoursay/archives/2007/07/housing_afforda_1.html
Property solution
August 03, 2007 10:21 PM The simplest solution to the rental problem in Australia is to set a benchmark figure of annual private rental to be the equivalent of 2 1/2% of the value of the property.
e.g. if a rental property is valued at $350000, the rental is $8750 p.a. or in terms of weekly payments $170 pw (approx.
A value of $455000 (average property value) would be $11,375 pa, or weekly $220 (approx).
Investors would be able to ask higher rents, but with a taxation penalty for the amount above the benchmark it would no be viable.
This would have the effect of retaining rental levels at reasonable rates, and allowing first home buyers to have some chance of buying into a market that had the heat taken out of it by eliminating the greed factor.
If the Democrats had gone with the original GST there would be no stamp duty, but even then there would just be a further hike in prices, as the market is driven by affordability
And again, 4th August Perth Now
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/comments/0,21590,22170443-5013240,00.html
The simplest solution to the rental problem in ……..
Posted by: Property solution of Perth 8:01pm August 03, 2007
Comment 51 of 69
Any time you would like to formulate a policy Kev, just give me a call!
You great pretender!
The economy is like a finely tuned car, and it has to be driven with respect.
Sure, you might get 300 KPH out of it, but you won’t get much distance before you start having problems.
Once you get it to cruising speed, you can back off a little, and, with care and good maintenance the ride is comfortable, and efficient.
Trouble is, some of the owners want to change drivers, but both the new driver and his mechanic are learners! Like hoons, they just want it to be “as good as it getsâ€!
That’s ok, but you have to know how to drive the car first!
Perhaps Rudd and Swan could take some lessons at the Howard / Costello school of driving?
“Perhaps Rudd and Swan could take some lessons at the Howard / Costello school of driving?”
Good idea then they can learn to run over the poor,the unemployed ,the aborigines, the iraqis in fact virtually everyone except for the business mates of the liberal party
and then they can turn around and say “but nobody told me”
ps the economy has no relationship to a car anyhoo- just a simple minded analogy for the simple minded
How convenient for Michael Brissenden to suddenly recall a dinner with Peter Costello where disparaging comments toward the Prime Minister were supposedly heard.
It is common knowledge that a journalist will go through hell and high water to get his story out before the pack, so why would he wait for more than two years with such a devastating scoop! Oh Paleeeese!
This pushes the credibility envelope of even the most ardent Labor unionist, and it beggars belief that there is not a political motivation behind the story. Is this another cunning smokescreen to cover the Labor Party indiscretions by Swan?
This not only puts under question the political independence of Michael Brissenden, but also that of the 7:30 Report
Perhaps there is a promise of pre-selection to a Maxine McKew style candidacy?
It would do Brissenden and company better to report on factual issues such as why DID Wayne Swan donate against his own party?
There seems to be two IR policies from the Labor party now!
One from Rudd, the version that the public gets before the election,
And one from Gillard and the unions, the policy which is marked “Strictly Confidential†and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES is it to be released before the election!
This second version will be the one that will be implemented AFTER the election!
I guess, if there is only one policy made visible, the choice is easy, no? Duh
Beattie is trying to make as much noise as he can, thinking he is assisting Rudd the Dudd. In reallity he is making Queenslanders aware of just how bad it could get if Rudd got in!
Oh, hold on.
NEWS FLASH!!
RUDD ADMITS TO BEING DRUNK IN A STRIP JOINT IN NEW YORK!
WARNED TO STOP FEELING UP THE GIRLS!
TOO PISSED TO REMEMBER!
Oh, it’s ok, they are just talking about the guy who wants to be the alternative Prime Minister of Australia
It seems the secret to becoming Prime Minister of this country is get yourself into a strip club, get off your face so much so you can’t remember if you touched up the girls or not, and then get on TV so the commentators can pat you on the head and say, oh there there, he’s just a red blooded boy!
But don’t, what ever you do, trip over on the steps of a radio station, or you will be pilloried for life!
I guess it puts Therese Rein in the Hillary Clinton club, no?
What is it about the loony left that they get so touchy when their leader is exposed as nothing more than a sleazebag, who gets himself so drunk that he “can’t recall” his actions? The protection the media gives this buffoon is unbelievable!
How do you think the conservatives feel when the media exploits the dastardly actions of a Prime Minister tripping over on the steps of a radio station!
HOW DISGUSTING! And it wasn’t even an ABC station!
The man should be drawn and quartered for being so un Australian!
Meanwhile, where is the next show that we can see Okhola Rudd doing her thing?
What a parade of hypocrisy!
Speaking of honesty, Rudd stated he was only in the strip joint for an hour, then he said he was too drunk to know what happened, then they find some “doorman” who says he was there for no more than 15 minutes, and acted like “a gentleman” even though he was paralytic!. But not too drunk to notice a girl taking off her dress, but, wait! He suddenly declares “This is no good” and decides to leave, even though his mates wanted to stay! So, he leaves, even before finishing his beer!
Now, come on Kev! You really do take the average Aussie for a dummy! Whoever wrote that little scenario (probably the same author as the Bourke excuse) should try out with Speilberg!
In a word Kev, it is a load of CRAP!
It is interesting watching the Labor state Premier’s and Federal opposition’s reactions to new innovations proposed by the Federal Government.
If the idea is a good idea, the collective chant from the State Premiers is “They have had 11 years. Why hasn’t it been done beforeâ€
The best the Rudd minders can come up with is “We need to look at the details before we commit to anythingâ€!
This tells us two things.
First, the State Premiers have no concept of the damage debt can do, and the recovery process required to extract their jurisdictions out of it.
They are content to assume the Federal government “will fix itâ€, and second, the Rudd opposition is incapable of compiling a workable economic policy and are content to cling onto the coat tails of the Federal government.
This country need a government that is competent, and able to make sound social and financial decisions. Not “flip flop†vacillations that do nothing but create a cause of international ridicule!
The innovation announced by the Prime Minister will set this country up to be immune from the Keating style economic disasters that we experienced in the 80’s, and ensure a sound future for generations to come, and that means students will have even greater opportunities to excel in world class facilities!
We need a leader who can not only manage the economy, but anticipate the potential disruptions and shortcomings ahead.
We have that now in John Howard and Peter Costello. “It just gets better and betterâ€
The explanation given by Rudd regarding his sleazy junket to Scores Strip joint is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of any thinking voter.
Had he stuck to his original story of being paralytic at the time, and unable to recall the events, even if he had assaulted the lap dancers, he would have retained some semblance of credibility.
But no, when he realises the effect his antics is having on the voting public he has to try and wriggle his way around the issue. Even going to the extreme measure of obtaining a supposedly “exonerating†denial from a purported “employee†of the establishment.
In doing so, he has been too clever by half, as he had previously admitted on national television that his actions were stupid, and he can only throw himself on the mercy of the electorate, as he had done with his partner the next morning when he called her. (See transcripts from Laurie Oakes on Sunday)
Now, we have to decide, which actions were stupid and childish?
A) Getting himself into a sleazy situation where by his own admission he had no control over his actions, and accordingly, his discussions to the extent that he felt the need to apologise the next morning, OR
B) Deciding after less than 15 minutes that seeing naked lap dancers “would not do†and leaving before finishing his beer? (Not the normal action of someone who has admitted he was so inebriated he could not recall the rest of the evening), OR
C) Expecting the Australian public to believe his hastily concocted and lame excuse to attempt to recover some credibility, when it would be obvious he was lying through his teeth to save his political skin!
Perhaps we could take a poll on the choices!