I get what you are saying. That’s a shame really. I mean, you could technically overcome the polling issue if somebody actually did a poll large enough… but the preference deals. Hmm, this would include so many assumptions that, you are probably right: it’s not analysis. it’s turning guesses into numbers a bit too much.

I guess Anthony Greens analysis is the best you can do at this stage.

However, if you ever manage to do anything valid with the senate it would be very interesting to read.

It’s almost impossible to do the same for the Senate because, firstly, the final Senate spot for every election is nearly always decided by arcane preference deals – and we don’t know what those deals are because they arent decided yet.

Secondly, we have no decent polling on the Senate (and even if we did, it would be highly dubious – Senate polling is rarely worth it’s weight in phone calls)

Thirdly, a number of Senate spots are dependent on how small parties fare, parties that only attract 1-1.5% of the vote (because those prefs then flow to bulk up other parties). But it’s hard to get accurate readings for parties that poll 1-1.5% in surveys. The level of their support is just too low to poll properly.

On that point, it seems that all the polls are mainly for the lower house. I know heaps of people who vote differently in the senate than the lower house.

What would be a much more interesting article is something like this for the senate.

Taking these numbers and doing your monte carlo magic on them to make the talk:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/07/double-dissolution-versus-halfsenate-election-which-would-be-better-for-labor-in-the-senate.html#more

Obviously this is much more complex from a maths perspective – unless you can actually make assumptions about a uniform swing (I think you might have to look at a skewed curve locking in the unlikely to move base support in each state for labor, coalition and the greens) with might not be as valid in the senate… I don’t know?

Anyway – looking at this most likely situations in the senate is likely to be more important to the next election than then house of reps.

I don’t think you should necessarily be giving the election to Labor as a forgone conclusion. However, your messing with the low probability here.

Very nice bit of work her though. For those that are interested, I put together this list of names of members under threat, given the above results (note that this ignores whether or not the sitting memebers are re-contesting):

Red zone:

Fran Bailey
Andrew Laming
Peter Dutton (Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing)
Peter Lindsay (Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence)
Jason Wood (Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security)
Pat Farmer
Luke Simpkins
Michael Keenan (Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations)
Luke Hartsuyker (Shadow Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House)
Christopher Pyne (Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training
Manager of Opposition Business in the House)

Top few from the orange zone:
Bob Baldwin (Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Assisting Shadow Minister for Defence)
Paul Nevil
Donna Veil
Andrew Southcott (Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport)
Alexander Somlyay
Peter Slipper
Michael Johnson

In the seats under serious threat there are 4 shadow ministers (2 from shadow cabinet) and 2 parliamentary secretaries. The most marginal of the orange zone has only 2 outer shadow ministry members. In any case this really highlights (I think) that the Liberals really need to get rid of the dead wood in safe seats and get some talent in there (Wilson Tuckey and Phillip Ruddock, I’m looking at you…). The likelyhood is that the Liberals will lose some of the talent it percieves itself to have at present, and will be unlikely to win any new seats. Without getting the talent into the safe seats they hold it’s hard to see them lifting themselves out of their current troubles any time soon.

I think early reports of the pre-selections aren’t promising for the Liberals…

This is all based on a current phone poll average swing of 3.8% towards Labor. Between now and the next federal election, the swing is likely to diminish or turn around the other way. The seats in the orange zone are unlikely to be seriously under threat, although they should not be taken for granted.

Having said that, Poss I have been reading some of your other analysis about the future of the Coalition. I have no doubt that there is an enormous amount of work for the Coalition to do to remain viable in the long term. However, looking at David Cameron’s success with changing the Conservative Party in the UK gives me hope that there is a contemporary model to use.

If you could convince me that Higgins deserves to be in the yellow zone I would be your slave for ever. As one of citizens of Higgins I can assure you the conservative thinking of these hide-bound old dears is deadly. Many of them love Peter Costello but when I ask them what he has ever done for the electorate. Many of them will start a rave on his period as the Liberal Party Treasurer. I then interject, no, “I mean for the electorate of Higgins?” Mouths fall open as they try to remember any single good thing he did anyone anytime? In Higgins. Silence.

Might be worthwhile to put the Members names who’s seats have bubbled to the top of your anxiety thermometer. Suggest their will be a collection of big swinging dicks, good local members passed their use by date and a few old goats ready for the knackery.

Perhaps you can set up a scream watch for us spectator types.