Steaming hot off the press: a Roy Morgan phone poll of 435 voters conducted last night (that’s a couple of hours ago at the time of writing), covering the Perth marginals Brand, Cowan, Hasluck, Stirling and Swan. The result of 50.5-49.5 in favour of the Liberals points to a tiny swing in their favour of 0.8 per cent. To allow direct comparison with Morgan’s national poll of marginals on the weekend, a result for Stirling and Hasluck has been hived off from the other three. It shows that the respondents surveyed in these seats generated the overall swing to the Liberals, with the others moving slightly to Labor. For what it’s worth, the Stirling and Hasluck result was replicated in the similarly small sample survey on the weekend.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Morgan: Liberal swing in Perth marginals
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
584 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 » Show All
I agree with ESJ. For Howard to win from here it will rely on one or two of the following:
1) Everything will need to go just right for him (eg. luck, seats not changing on the basis of small numbers of votes)
2) The polls are just wrong.
Albert F, Labor will form government if they win 14 seats. Mark my words.
However, whether they will win 10 seats in Qld/NSW is anyone’s guess.
Can someone tell me,
Have the independents stated that they will support whoever wins the national 2PP?
If they have then even a hung parliament situation is no good for Howard as no one is suggesting they will get more than 50% 2PP, all the talk is about the Tories hanging on with 48-49%
It also means that the required number of seats for Labor drops from 16 to 14 (60 + 14 + 2 = 76 = Majority).
I believe at least one as said they will support the party which recieives the greater number of votes – i.e. the ALP.
So that is the highest number of raw primaries is it? That could actually end up being quite close…
ESJ — a 15-20% chance is being overly generous I think. I would give them less than 5%. The theory that the polls are just a protest vote has no historical basis whatsoever. In every election where the polls have “got it wrong” in the last week, the volatility and trend of the polls was apparent a long time before. In 2007, as you know, the trend is more or less flat. The last election where you can find a similar monotonous landslide indication in the polls is 1996, and we all know how right the polls were that time.
Windsor has hinted at support for the party with the greatest vote, Katter has waffled on about ethanol. He would support the Libs if he could get away with it without annoying too many people. However, this is a needless hypothetical to be examining. It aint gonna be close.
ND, Windsor has said he will support whoever gets the most seats, and if its an equal number of seats, the most votes. If Brunning wins Forrest then Labor will have 1 more seat than the Coalition and will get Windsor’s support automatically. If not, they should get over 50% of the 2PP and still gain it.
This leaves Katter. Katter has said he will support whoever proposes a mandate ethanol target in petrol (I think). In reality both parties will offer this. However, given that Windsor will support the ALP, Katter will either have to do the same or force the country back to an election. I’d assume he’d want to avoid that arising, and the ethanol target will give him an easy out on this issue.
To me, this means as long as Labor wins 14 seats they should be fine.
For those who haven’t yet seen it, Adam Carr has a confident-sounding article entitled “Five reasons why the Coalition will lose” which I found quite calming. It’s at:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/commentary4.shtml
And at least while you’re reading you’re probably not hyper-ventilating.
‘So jasmine, in other words you’re saying the polls are wrong? Or you’re just cherry-picking polling that looks good for Labor and ignoring anything which suggests they are not going to win Stirling and Hasluck? I mean, we’ll see in the end. I think it’s far more likely Labor will hold Cowan, Swan and Brand than they will win Stirling and Hasluck.’
No LTEP I am not saying the polls are wrong but correct me if I am wrong but all the marginal seat polls give a margin of error quite sufficient for Hasluck and Stirling to be won, and on the night. It is of course possible they will be lost and I respect your right to find pain, misery and no hope at all in the very best and most promising circumstances. Masochism I think it is called, the inflicting of pain on oneself for political fulfillment.
Anyhoo we will see on the night. My point about factors is looking for any sensible explanation for a swing against labor if indeed on occurs on the night. Even you in the depths of self imposed misery in the sea of hope haven’t provided even a speculative narative for why Rudd would do worse than Latham.
Right, I read somewhere that Bob Katter’s father was an old Socialist.
Ashley,
Politics is an uncertain business. Put it this way if you had a life threatening illness and the doctors told you had a 5% chance of survival you would be drawing up the will and “getting your affairs in order”, if you had a 15-20% chance you would be hanging on in the hope something turned up/ went right.
I’d say the Liberals are in the later category, but the ultimate outcome still looks pretty clear.
For anyone without access to the SMH, this beuty was published by Annabel Crabb this morning:
Oh voters; if you really care
Elect a man who won’t be there!
Vote for him on Saturday
It’s guaranteed he’ll go away.
Jude,
You know that Adam posted the 10 reasons Latham will win in 2004 dont you?
ESJ
I suspect he wasn’t the only Labor supporter tipping a big win in 04, and the margin then was a lot smaller, they only needed a national swing of 2% or so.
In any case, the polls have a look about them this time that they didn’t have in 04…
jasmine I don’t really look at the margins of error because then you can bend results to say what you want them to say. None of the polling companies that have polled WA have picked up numbers to suggest Stirling and Hasluck will be won. To suggest each of those is in the MoE is wishful thinking.
As to the reasons why Rudd could do worse than Latham? Who knows. We do know that Rudd is doing better than Beazley was (thanks to OzTrack), which itself is counter-intuitive. Personally I prefer Latham to Rudd, but I know I’m in the minority there.
Albert F I agree with LTEP. If Labor wins 14 seats they will form a minority government and Howard will be gone. If that’s your worst case scenario, get ready to start celebrating.
I’d like to see Rudd emulate Clinton-Gore with a coast-to-coast east-west flight across the nation, finishing in Perth and rallying votes for Peter Tinley in Stirling.
Peter Brent makes a comment on this poll in his site today…
http://www.mumble.com.au/
Why would polls go from being pretty much bang on in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004 to being grossly wrong today?
N.B. while polls showed Labor in front in 1998 this was correct on a TPP basis and in 2004 Latham’s lead in the polls was well and truly gone by this time.
Edward 99 and others
For Labor to lose with 51.9% would be outside of all historical experience, and by a long way. Even 50.9% would be outside all historical experience.
Now, yes, in 1998, Howard won with 49.02% of the TPP vote, the lowest winning 2PP ever. But:
1. He is not going to get anything like that on this occasion.
2. In 1998, we had One Nation on the scene, and they got 8.43% of the primary vote. Most of the primaries were in very safe coalition seats and Labor got a lot of ON preferences. Not enough to win those seats, but enough to boost its 2PP beyond 50%. This was a freak occurence, specific to the existence of One Nation, and won’t be happening this time.
3. In 1998, Labor got a mere 40.1% of the primary vote. This time, it will get 45% plus. This makes a huge difference.
All this coming up with scenarios where Labor gets just 14 seats is just a nonsense with the 2PP that Labor is going to get. Of course, you can say that it “could” happen. But “could” encompasses everything from events which are almost (but not quite) certain not to happen to events that are almost (but not quite) certain to happen.
I “could” win the next 20 Tattslottos; aliens “could” invade from outer space; the coalition “could” win this election.
No ESJ @ 114, I’m not familiar with it. You mean Adam should stand in the corner with Ramsay for recklessly misleading the desperate?
As for Latham, even Jerry Seinfeld’s putting the boot in:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22794010-5001021,00.html
Lathams lead was certainly gone. All the major pollsters had him below 40% on primaries, which was about where he ended up.
ESL (112) Your logic is right but your premise is wrong IMHO. The Libs don’t have a 15 – 20% chance of winning, whatever the betting markets might be saying. Based on the present polls it’s probably less than 5%.
As you put it, time to start drawing up the will.
My 124 – that should be ESJ
Samuel K, there is no reason. We’ll see on election night how right they are. I certainly have no reason to believe any of the respectable pollsters are wrong.
However, pollsters with bad track records on individual seat polling I don’t think are necessarily right. I’m looking at Westpoll here.
Re 38,
Betamax Says:
No idea Betamax, why not ask Ben Cousins?
Thanks for the kind words on post #36. I don’t work professionaly, it is a hobby with me and normally I only work for family. I consider this, though, motivated self interest
On the contrary LTEP all bar one of the state wide polls are suggesting exactly that Hasluck and Stirling will be gains based on application of the uniform swing. Being depressed and pessimistic is one thing, ignoring margins of error where they are huge and you don’t have a series and you only have a few data points would seem not to be depressed and pessimistic, it would appear quite foolish.
I think what 2004 shows is that swings required can be very misleading.
Swinging voters don’t sit there and think, gee I voted Labor last time or Liberal last time, I really shouldn’t change that unless I have a very good reason… They vote based on what they see before them in the current election.
That’s why the margins in 2004 falsely gave Labor people hope – they were refelctive of a much safer alternative PM in Kim Beazley and an economy that wasn’t that flash in 2001.
This year some are looking at swings required and saying it’s all too hard – the swings required are too big. But they are based on a Latham starting point. So the swings on Saturday will be comprised on two components:
(i) Thank God he’s not Latham
(ii) We’re sick of Howard and his lies and it’s time for a change
It amazes me how much analysis a meaningless poll like this can generate amongst supposedely statistically sophisticated people. What we have here is a 50/50 result (2 more people going for Labour would have made it exactly 50:50) in marginal seats, with a 4.7 margin of error. It tells us nothing!
Mumble has a link to this article which imo puts to bed a few furphys kicking around the place.
http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/comment_results.chtml?filename_num=181224
Samuel K hits the nail on the head. The concept of ’swing’ as such is misleading in a fluid electorate. Fluidity comes from both the disengagement or lack of partisan roots of so called ’swingers’ and the high numbers of new electors (and dead/emigrated electors) between electorates. It’s more sensible to talk of changes in voting outcomes, as a purely arithmetical concept.
Does this mean the Coalition are going to win after all?!
Co-Co-Coalition
Go-Go-Coalition
Co-Co-Coalition
Go-Go-Coalition!
38 Betamax, 41 CL de Footscray, 60 Jude and 67 VBOTW,
thanks all for your kind words
…… If it helps at all, I have never known in my personal experience, Rob Hand to be wrong. Everything which is there is word for word from the book. I haven’t made a word of it up, not one. I just plugged the figures into the computer software to get the numbers out which I in turn then followed up with the book. I especially liked this one about Rudd – ” You may unknowingly create for yourself an opportunity to take control or authority over others, to be a leader. You will derive satisfation from those aspects of yourself that prove themselves by being challanged today.”
Well put Spiros@121. But those not inclined to acknowledge reality until 7pm on Saturday still won’t accept your logic (although afterwards they will say they knew from the second week it was over).
Hey Ave it, pity the Sri Lankans didn’t get up hey? They gave it a good shot though, and Sangakkara was robbed.
Anyway, my consolation will be in my team winning on Saturday. What have you got on the horizon?
Vaile talking in the past tense:
“Business didn’t back WorkChoices enough: Vaile”
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/21/2096694.htm?section=justin
jasmine that’s your opinion. We’ll see if you’re right on Saturday. I’ll be extremely surprised if Labor win both Stirling and Hasluck, less surprised if they just win Hasluck. I won’t be shocked if Labor holds Cowan and Swan, but also won’t be surprised if they lose one or both.
Quite frankly, there’s enough evidence out there to support any of the above contentions. I’m not sure I trust the reliability of state-wide aggregate polling and definately don’t believe the swing is uniform in WA at least. Otherwise we’d have seen something more significant in Galaxy’s polling.
Darn,
Well I guess you can tweak the scenario to bring it back to 13 seats. Anyway data driven logic tells me the ALP will win comfortabely with their number of seats won in the 80’s.
When I go to the footy I have two scenarios floating round in my head. The rational one that is generally pretty acurate and the emotive one that thinks – “we’re gonna get pumped”. I’m one of those supporters than only exhales when we’re 5 goals up with a few minutes to play.
Ave it 07 @ 133, go back to sleep.
136 – I didnt know you supported Coalition!
Well done!
Albert F – the present political circumstances are reminiscent of Geelong’s position at this year’s granny. We’re now about a third of the way through the last quarter and we’re 16 goals up. Can we make it to 20 plus, or will Port kick a couple to console them? Either way, we win. Please exhale. All is well.
Albert F,
When I was younger I supported the South Fremantle Bulldogs (WAFL side). We went to every single game and one season only won 2 games. The rest of them, no matter how far in front we were they’d stuff up in the final quarter and end up losing by a point.
Funnily enough the only 2 wins they had, 1 time I decided not to go and the other time I fell asleep and woke up when it was over.
Albert F — But has your football team played the same opposition a couple of hundred times already this year, and won every single game by 3 or more goals? That’s what we’re looking at here, if you believe all the polls we’ve had.
Pancho: I just saw that and was going to post about it. One can already see the knives, and no one wants to take the blame.
BTW, I can’t recall the business sector campaigning during the election proper, they were before the election but they got found out with their hairdresser ad that they employed criminals not union bosses.
Perhaps the business sector doesn’t want to upset the ALP, since the ALP did a lot of consultation with the business sector in the last year.
ESJ
I dont like your chances in 2010 either. Other than possibly turnbull there’s no one who stands out as a electable leader. Workchoices is gonna ghost the part for at least another 3 terms (and ensure the end of costello). The resources boom is not going to end any time soon and any economic downturn will probably make people more fearful of opting for a potential dose of tory IR. The environment and new paradigms of government will emerge in relation to which the Libs will be seen as irrelevant. The sycophants in the media will slowly be weeded out and Labor will have the machinery of govt at its disposal. THe libs are gonna be in opposition for a long time I would say..
Julie @ 134
Perhaps the incoming Rudd Government (sounds good, no?) will establish a new position for you – Oracle.
WA Marginals Poll- my believe it or not views
IF I BELIEVE THIS POLL:
It is accepted by both parties internally that the retirement of Graham Edwards and Kim Beasley will cost votes. It is also a fact that the ALP have been campaigning in Cowan significantly and not so much in Brand.
WA is not swinging hugely in the marginals and this is not uncommon. It apears that in reality both parties seem to consider Hasluck is lost by the Libs but a 3% swing will do that by enough but wont be a BIG swing by any means. It also seems that Swan wont swing much at all but the swing will still be in the ALP favour.
Stirling is being fought very hard and could still go either way, the margin is very small at 2% and ALP may have half of that already covered which makes it very close for polling day.
Brand= ALP retain with 3.5% swing to Lib
Cowan= Heavily contested- to close to call but lib leaning. Lets say 1.5% swing to Libs.
Stirling= to close to call 1% swing and same scenario as Cowan
Swan= ALP Retain- very minor swing to ALP of maybe 1% or more
Hasluck= ALP win- 3% swing to ALP
Collectively this represents the collective swing of this Morgan Poll applied to what we are hearing in the ground- not unrealistic at all. This would mean ALP gain one and Lib gain one or none.
IF I DONT BELIEVE THIS POLL
Since when have we given any credit to Morgan Polls on this site???
Five seats polled with 10% margins of error.
If the theory is that marginals are all unique- how can you combine the 5 seats and apply it across the range?
Even combined the MOE is about 4.5% for a poll close to 50/50 which tells us Libs could win all 5 or ALP could- BIG FAT HELP!
Anyone watch mr and mrs. rodent on kerri-anne’s show this morning? I saw it at the gym but it was really video only. The VH1 channel overpowered anything else in volume.
It seemed from what I saw though that it might as well have been an interview with Janette and nothing else. It looked like she hogged most of the airtime. Was that the way it played out if you heard the sound along with the picture?
Don’t forget Rudd at midday at the NPC. Tonight on the 7:30 report with Kerry.
The difference being this year is;
ALL the polls of all pollsters have been saying the same thing all year – Labor clearly ahead.
People polled expect Labor to win 60/40 [last time they didn't]
The betting markets are heavily in favour of Labor, last time they were not.
This year there is a systemic issue – workchoices
This year we know Howard is going and Costello coming
Rudd has shown himself to be a safe pair of hands and has enjoyed a very high approval rating all year and preferred PM for most of the year.
The LNP have continually shot themselves in the foot this campaign.
Last time Newspoll got it wrong nearing the election, AC Nielsen did not and actually the LNP position has always been slightly worse than the Nielsen polls.
If polling day produces 53/47 there is no way Labor will lose. The predictions of Jackman and Possums is 54 & 55 based on their respective models, looking at history.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 » Show All