• The past fortnight has seen much talk emerge from the Coalition camp of encouraging internal polling in sensitive seats. Tony Barrass of The Australian today reports that a Crosby-Textor poll conducted a fortnight ago had the Liberals on track to retain their 10 seats in Western Australia while also gaining another of the remaining five, Cowan. On Saturday, The Australian reported a “jump in the party’s support in the crucial seat of Bass”. This was apparently putting Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull under pressure to approve Gunns’ proposed Tamar pulp mill, regardless of the damage this would cause to his own position in Wentworth. The “senior Liberal source” behind the story reckoned that Turnbull’s seat was “not in trouble”.
• And yet, on the other hand, we also have reports the Liberals have begged Jackie Kelly, Warren Entsch, Kay Elson, Geoff Prosser, Trish Draper and Barry Wakelin to abandon their plans to retire, to improve the party’s chances of retaining their seats of Lindsay, Leichhardt, Forde, Forrest, Makin and Grey. Remarkably, Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday that Liberal polling showed Grey, held by a margin of 13.8 per cent, would be lost unless Wakelin stayed on. It was further reported he had briefly agreed to do so before changing his mind again, with his nominated successor Rowan Ramsey urged to smooth the path by stepping aside.
• On the other side of the fence, Paige Taylor of The Australian talks of Labor polling which shows it set to double its margin in Brand, the outer southern Perth seat being vacated by former leader Kim Beazley.
• Labor MP Gavan O’Connor, who lost preselection in his seat of Corio to ACTU assistant secretary Richard Marles, raised eyebrows by declining to farewell parliament during last week’s presumed valedictory speech. Mark Davis of the Sydney Morning Herald speaks of “a frisson of anxiety in Kevin Rudd’s office” at the thought of O’Connor standing against Marles as an independent.
• A huge round of applause for Luke Miller and his revamped Cassandra Senate election calculator, which allows us to set quotas and input our own preference tickets. This means it can be used to play out any hypothetical scenario not only for both half and full Senate elections, but also for all mainland state upper houses.
• I abandoned the practice of fisking newspaper commentary on opinion polls early in the history of this site, because it seemed too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Give thanks that Possum Comitatus harbours no such qualms.
382 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 8 » Show All
Latest Sportingbet odds:
Labor now favourite to win La Trobe
Boothby: Nicole Corns is now level pegging with Andrew Southcott on 1.85.
Richard Jones #141
There is one huge problem with calling it on Monday 1 October for 3 November. All the writs would have to be signed that day, including the six Senate writs that need to be signed by the State Governors. If any one of them were not issued on Monday, that election couldn’t be held on 3 November. If it is going to be called next Monday, we will know at the start of the weekend as the government would have to be absolutely sure where all the state Governors are on the Monday to guarantee the writs are signed. That means the state governments would know the election is about to be called and there would be no surprise on the Monday, only a lot of logistical difficulties as the writs are ferried around. Getting a writ signed is not like getting a letter signed, there’s a pile of legal and protocol tick-off points to get through.
Howard will call it on Sunday October 7 for November 17 or 24: my prediction.
And of course the premiers would be within their constitutional rights to advise the governors to spend a day or two thinking about signing the writs, thus giving all those unenrolled voters time to get on the rolls.
On alleged Labor “cockiness”…
One would have thought this kind of attack would be shrugged off by a majority of voters with the simple thought: “Well, why not? I’m voting for them, and so are most of my mates…”
According to the AEC, 13.5 million people are already enrolled to vote – they have exceeded their target by 100,000.
Isn’t there an ASEAN meeting 18-22 Nov… meaning Nov 24 wouldn’t be so good after all?
Rough summary of Sol’s talk (he starts 20m into the podcast and talks for about 10-12m):
- Voters don’t care about the Left/Right divide. Voters want an alternative to Coalition and ALP. People are cynical about politics – a majority of voters vote against a party instead of for a party. [ed: oo, me!]
- Voters are less rusted-on, less tribal.
- Apparently the system is broken, and this is partly why the ALP vote is so high [ed: wtf?]
- It’s all about personality. Voters will decide based on which leader will make Australia a better place to live.
- Current voting levels would be a record swing.
- I really believe the polls are giving us contradictory evidence.
- Rudd leads on voting intention, but Howard leads on economic management. This means that the ALP lead is soft.
- This is why this is not 1996.
- In 2001 and 2004 Howard was unpopular and came back. He hasn’t done that this year. [ed: 9/11 & Tampa, and the Latham effect don't get mentioned]
- Maybe the stability of the polling numbers are because people aren’t thinking about who they’ll vote for yet. [ed: if I was a teacher, I'd say "please show work"]
- 25% of voters decide during the last week, 10% decide on the last day. [ed: As I said earlier, I don't believe this number]
I’m deeply, deeply unimpressed with his argument. He’s based his conclusion on 2 things: people mark Howard higher for economic management, yet it’s all about the personality/presidential style elections; and the vote’s been remarkably consistent all year which means people haven’t made up their mind.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22480760-5005961,00.html
It’s important that Howard is seen as able to win Bennelong (hence this story, and any others like it).
If Howard is thought by just a few per cent – Howard supporters but not necessarily Liberal supporters – to be losing his own seat, then they will vote Labor, if only to stop Costello (or worse).
Sol is full of the proverbial.
Do I recall correctly that Keating had better economic management readings than Hward in 96?
Also saw McCrann’s attempted savaging of Rudd in the Hun. Apparently, a vote for Rudd is a vote for destruction of the mining industry! What a crock from “Australia’s leading business journalist”.
Yes, I wish someone, somewhere, I don’t care who, would please explain this one.
Another peeve of mine is this reference to “union bosses”. That’s an incorrect term, designed to denigrate the movement. No-one likes to be “bossed” around, and that’s what this label implies.
New online poll in the GG.
How much influence do you think unions would have over a Labor government?
All encompassing
Considerable
Some
None
Undecided
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22073824-5013404,00.html
This is a real chance to mess with the minds of the Lib hacks at the GG and their masters at Lib Headquarters.
Just a little observation about the 105% (ok 10% – 25%) of voters Newspoll is sure chose in the last seconds in the campaign proper.
I have a few observations on this:
* Firstly for Howard to take a lot of comfort this proportion must come out of the Labor vote as the polls show. The only evidence they have (unless they are furry and I make a habit of not disagreeing with very smart fluffy creatures) it seems to me is labor vote is high this has got to be wrong. So I’m not even sure we get off base one.
* Secondly even if the late deciders are all coming off labor (that is the labor vote as polled all year) when they do the ‘late decide thing’ Howard has to stop them coming back to labor.
This seems to presume when pushed for an answer to the polling they are all saying labor now but there is something that will make them say liberal just around the corner at the real election.
This itself seems to assume they are not deciding randomly, or on the basis of who is the pretiest girl with a HTV but on a considered basis, or a subconscious basis that must favor Howard significantly. I guess the ‘like the direction we are going’ only take a massive leap to assume they’ll all vote with the Howard they know. But this boils down to the lying to the pollsters for a bit of fun theorem.
So if they are coming off the polling all year numbers 50:50 Howard has to get a much larger proprotion of them landing on his side. This doesn’t seem any more likely than all the undecideds saying one thing now and another later at the real poll.
With being a numbers girl, doesn’t this all boil down to Howard needing something to blast hearts and minds back in his direction, when that is EXACTLY what he has been trying to do all year without success.
Is it just that the polling is too good for labor, and nobody likes to believe it?
100% “none” in my postcode…..hehehehe
I must be the first in my postcode to vote.
100% – None.
The overall figures currently aren’t getting the response that they would be expecting, IMO.
All encompassing + considerable = 38% Another poll showing the Libs primary vote.
jasmine, I’m inclined to agree with you that because no one’s seen anything like this before, and it really is unprecedented in terms of the size of the gap in primary, TPP & the relative stability over an extended period of time, that people such as Sol baby are just plucking idiotic hypotheses out of what, the “unknown unknowns”, the Twilight Zone of psephology?
100% – none in my postcode. giggle.
“Why sm I so slow?” Dept:
[Stabs self in head with screwdriver... before expiring writes post...]
Just listening to Brendan Nelson on PM. He’s talking about a new iniative to tighten up ADF stocktaking. Example: those missing rocket launchers.
This explains the APEC security overkill.
Just imagine, for a moment, that Bush was attacked with a rocket launcher stolen from the ADF several months before.
Just imagine it.
Then imagine it again.
This wouldn’t have been merely egg on the face. It would have been the whole chicken coop… Foghorn Leghorn, Miss Prissy, the dog and Chickenhawk himself.
No wonder they spent $300 million on security.
It’s actually a wonder they didn’t spend a billion.
Looks like Bob Hawke is Rudd’s secret weapon to undermine Howard’s campaign demonising the Unions. Matt Price reports from WA.
{YOU had to see it to believe it. On a bleak day in Perth, 500 people crammed into a suburban hall to be utterly mesmerised by an old master.
As you’d imagine, it was a speech of modest understatement. The former ACTU boss thought the Government’s demonisation of trade unions “the worst misrepresentation in the history of Australian politicsâ€.
The quadruple election-winning PM feels entirely comfortable buying into industrial relations issues because “I can talk about this with more authority than anyone in Australiaâ€.
His were “facts, not opinionsâ€, especially when it came to demolishing the Coalition’s credentials on economic management and national security (”these myths, these lies”).
As to the 15-year-long boom, “they had nothing to do with itâ€, stormed Hawke. “Howard and Costello inherited changes we made that they didn’t have the guts to make.†}
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mattprice/index.php/theaustralian/comments/hawke_swoops_to_hold_crowd_spellbound/
The ACTU might be able to cut back some on their anti-Workchoices adds.
Bushfire: Excellent point. The Coalition is just paranoid enough to believe the stolen launchers would have been used for a terrorist attack during APEC. Even though they might very well have been smuggled out of the country.
The correct answer is “considerable.” There’s no point in being coy about that – in a Labor government the unions get a big say. However, “considerable” does not mean “decisive,” nor does it mean “unanimous,” and it does not necessarily mean “detrimental,” although sometimes it does.
And where is the question, “how much influence does business, and particularly the carbon lobby, have on a Liberal government?” Hmm? The answer is again “considerable,” but not always decisive. In the case of WorkChoices, however, it was decisive, and we are now seeing the political consequences of that influence.
Reminds me of the distinction between eroticism and pornography.
Eroticism is the feather.
Pornography is the whole chicken!
The ‘hubris’ stuff is a ridiculous beat up. I’ve emailed Matt Price suggesting that as he was quick to label Rudd a squealer last week, the piercing squeals emanating today from Coonan, Abbott (and the appalling Penberthy) are worthy of similar treatment. But I’m not holding my breath.
Adam business SHOULD have an infleuence on any governement. Because without business there are no jobs, workers, unions, governement ummm and of course Australia! In reality the unions owe business more than they owe the ALP.
But after the election we could well have an anti-business government with a VERY anti-business deputy PM.
I voted “Some”. 100% in my electorate (Berowra… Ruddock’s Range)
Did anyone else notice that Matt Price referred to Bob Hawke as an ex-ACTU Boss and not a 4 times winning Labor Prime Minister.
Price must be doing his little bit to demonise Unions to help out Howard.
Adam, I don’t think any of us, although perhaps I’m being a bit presumptuous here, think the correct answer is none. It’s just fun to mess with the GG. They, imo, with the notable exceptions of George M and Mike S, deserve as much misinformation dished back at them as they disseminate and I’m happy to oblige.
Thommo:
Julia might be left wing, but she’s not anti-business. And neither is Kevin Rudd. Our current government has marginalised the unions and given business everything it wants. We aren’t going to have an anti-business government under Labor, we’re going to have a better balance between businesses, unions and the workers. Without the workers, there can be no business.
Snapper, fair enough.
I used to think Matt Price was a partial exception to the “all Murdoch journalists are paid liars” rule, but I gather I will have to revise this view (I am relying on hearsay since of course I am not reading any Murdoch publication until after the election.)
I’m with Monica on this, because it’s a setup for tomorrow mornings headlines. We all know online polls like this can be hijacked, but that won’t stop the GG for saying 98% people believe unions will have considerable or more control over a Rudd government. It will be all over Sunrise and Sky News in the morning. This is one poll where misinformation due to hijacking will come from both sides.
“None” is running at 27% – that’s quite funny.
Government is constituted by people, not by business. There are some countries where government is constituted from business, but they are not democracies.
Exactly. John Hewson said he wanted to support a modified version of the 1993 Native Title bill, but big business had such an influence on the Liberals that he wasn’t allowed to.
none in my post code and in Wakefield my seat.
None in mine either, and I’m in Port Adelaide. This poll is dated 14 July; is it just going to keep running until the election?
I loved these short comments on Price’s Blog about Hawke.
{If Hawke were leading Labor now, with WorkChoices the big issue it is, Labor would probably be leading 110 to minus 10 on the two-party-preferred vote. }
{I’d still vote for him. }
{History is judging Bob Hawke well. It will not do the same for the rodent. It is probably not right to even the compare the two men but obviously one oozes charisma, peronality, and heart. The other is just a shrivelled up, suburban lawyer who is afraid of his own shadow. }
{Poor fellow my country. We have become so serious since 1983, when Hawkie declared that, “any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bumâ€.}
Could you just imagine a head to head run-off between Howard and Hawke. The old Silver Bodgie would destroy him.
Scorpio, certainly did notice Matt Price’s description of Bob Hawke and a good deal more besides if you look at his pieces over the last couple of weeks. He’s let the mask slip. Thommo, you are exceptionally ill informed about how a Labor gov’t led by Rudd would behave in relation to business. For starters, his wife runs a very successful business, you twit. For seconds, Julia Guillard was a successful lawyer in a successful law firm before going into politics. Both Bill Shorten and Greg Combet are very well regarded by business, though the Hardie Group may well be less enthusiastic about Combet.
You can bet The Australian intent to use this poll to write up a story about Unions controlling govt as the used their last poll to make a story.
So better get there and start voting none.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22073824-5013404,00.html
Re States
last election Labor got a very poor vote in WA ,QLD & SA
and NSW was very similar to 1996
If the opinion polls are even partlly right I would expect a close to 50%
2pp at least in all those states which would I think would
deliver a change of Government…..
Scorpio @163
Done that. 100% in my electorate. Messing with minds is … good. Does the GG publish anything from these silly polls? Surely it’s just rubbish designed to give political beasties some sense of involvement in the MSM. Real voters wouldn’t give a tinker’s curse.
188
Monica Lynagh aka Harry ‘Snapper’ Organs Says:
Price has more than “let the mask slip” in my opinion, Monica.
His Blog was the first Blog that I regularly visited and in the earlier stages I found it reasonably balanced and eliciting a good range of comments. It was both entertaining and enlightening.
Unfortunately for Matt, he has gone backwards in a similar vein to a number of his News Ltd collegues. Tim Dunlop excepted. Tim’s Blog is what Matt Price’s used to be and is excellent.
147
Adam Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“Sol Lebovic said the polls are contradictory because while they all show numbers with a crushing lead for Labor, many voters won’t in fact make up their minds until the last two weeks of the campaign.â€
The polls are not contradictory at all. They have been saying the same thing with total uniformity all year: Labor will win. Against this fact Lebovic places his opinion…..
….
Adam, I agree with you. I think people who postulate the ’soft-labor-voter’ position overlook something that stares everyone in the face: Howard is not popular. His dissatisfaction rankings have been consistently high for a very long time. Voters have not only been attracted to Rudd, they have rejected Howard. In fact, voters were leaving Howard before Rudd became Labor leader. You can say that there is essential preconditon for voters to rally to Rudd: first they must leave Howard. This precondition has been satisfied for many many people and has been sustained for a couple of years.
Saying that voters’ support for Labor is ’soft’ is really another way of saying their rejection of Howard is ’soft.’ There is no evidence to support the first contention and the second is clearly completely wrong. Howard’s decline illustrates the sense of the old saw: familiarity breeds contempt. People see right through Howard these days and he is finding he cannot call them back to his redoubt.
As well, the Liberals have made the mistake of comparing their situation to Keating’s in 1993, saying there is no tangible wellspring of anger in the electorate. Well that’s true, but so what? It is possible to feel motivated to change your vote without feeling enraged.
Rudd has homed in on this: a lot of people want a change in the conduct, themes, policies and values that pass for politics in this country. A lot of these people are one-time Howard voters who have crossed the divide and actually like the prospects. They are getting used to the idea of change and enjoying it.
For Lebovic to be proved correct, very large numbers of people are going to have to decide that they made two mistakes: one about Howard and one about Rudd. Trouble is, a lot of these people are now practically allergic to Howard’s policies and personality. Given this, they may not even going to get around to reconsidering their views about Rudd.
You will have to allow cookies but clear cookies after each vote and refresh page.
John Valder has kicked off his anti-Howard campaign. According to Column 8 SMH today, he was handing out packets of peppermints emblazoned with a cartoon of JWH with the label “National EmbarrassMINTS” at Edgecliff station. He will be coming to an electorate near you soon!
{Does the GG publish anything from these silly polls? }
Derek, yes the GG often plays up the results of their online polls, but only if they fit the ability to be spun into a good news item for the Government in the next day’s issue.
If the responses don’t measure up or are too one-sided to Labor, they just delete the results.
for firefox that is.
Sorry. It was in Stay in Touch.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/sit/
To give Price his due he wrote ACTU boss when Hawk spoke on unions. He then wrote quadruple election winning pm.
Adam, thank you for your reply. I am most concerned about how the MSM portray what is happening both domestically and internationally as I seriously think we, meaning all of us who currently inhabit the planet, and our children, are in for very nasty times, both economically and ecologically. If Labor gets in, as I think it will, the GG notwithstanding, then I think they will be faced with problems that have never before faced a Federal Government. The credit problem, the effect of climate change on the Australian continent, food production, water, the changing international situation vis a vis Russia, China and so on, are going to require some very astute thinking. That a successful Labor governent should have to deal with the likes of Matt Price as commentator just gives me the (fill in whatever).
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 8 » Show All