Just a quicky with 3 charts using Newspoll monthly averages - a look at Howard vs. Rudd on net satisfaction, preferred PM and the two party preferred over comparative time periods. Rudd is in red, Howard in blue along with their respective axis.
Politics, elections and piffle plinking
Howard vs. Rudd at 23 months
-
-
From the Latest
-
-
-
The Stump- Nastier refugee stand-offs in our region Andrew Bartlett
- Simon Birmingham talks sense Bernard Keane
- Qld’s CMC, Police & Palm Island Andrew Bartlett
- Updated: Fran goes fact finding Jonathan Green
- Misleading Parliament: care factor? Bernard Keane
-
Pollbludger
-
Antony Green
-
Mumble
-
The Tally Room
-
Andrew Norton
-
Meganomics
-
Larvatus Prodeo
-
Club Troppo
-
Core Economics
- The RMB and the US trade deficit Mark Crosby
- Et tu Quiggin? Joshua Gans
- A Satisfying Chat Andrew Leigh
-
Jack the Insider
-
Peter Martin
-
Pure Poison
-
Woolly Days
-
Political Sword
-
Public Opinion
-
Tasmanian Politics
-
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
18 Comments
So what’s the call from blog readers:
Should Rudd and co call a DD election – if he gets the chance – which they will almost certainly win.
Or should they wait for the election time, where the increased time has the chance of increasing or decreasing the margin (though probably not the victory)?
Does this depend on the goal… hold the upper house? To maintain power for as long as possible?
Note the above might not be clear. it seems Labor will win. The Second question assumes that the risk in waiting till actual election time it NOT victory but margin (could be higher or lower).
Also, to answer the above, if I was advising I’d tell him to have the balls: take the DD election, and make it a full senate vote whilst you have this type of lead going for a senate majority.
Stick with Antony Green’s DD premise wait for the normal election cycle, stick it to the Libs and get a better Senate result FF gone, X is there untill 2014 etc the greens plus Labor will have a majority and we can all move on. BTW I love the way the blue is sinking.
I’m with William Conroy. Have the balls to stick it out and go for gold. Although Antony Green’s narrow window get-rid-of-Fielding-early option should also be looked at. I forget – does a DD trigger exist yet, and if so is it a convincing one?
Labor won’t go for a double dissolution election. (http://alexwhite.org/2009/08/labor-wont-go-to-a-double-dissolution-election/) Quite simply, it would improve things for the Greens, but not enough for Labor.
However, there is no reason that they wouldn’t consider going for an early election.
Cheers
Alex
No DD trigger yet:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/22/2720953.htm?section=business
But basically, I think both sides really need to figure out if they’d take a DD election before the senate vote: it changes the debate.
Good comments. Those models do include a bunch of assumptions – I think including the same voting pattern for a DD or regular election – but the argument about smaller parties getting more seats with a full senate election is hard to statistically refute.
One thing to add to the mix, i think, would be the effect on the position of having the bill voted down. Is is bad for labor? Good for them? I think it might actually be bad for both major parties and push people towards green and indies.
Anyway, this is all head scratching.
Judging by the current polls, it’s all bad for the Liberals, very good for the Greens and merely good for Labor.
Alex, they can’t have an early election unless it is a double dissolution election. They can have a normal House and half-Senate election from August, but before then it has to be DD or a separate House election. And nothing would be better for the Greens than a separate House election followed by a separate half-senate election a year later.
¡Jesus that’s impressive!
All the same a DD might give the people a chance to really get stuck into Rudd’s EST as being the great sell-out that it is.
On the other hand-BTW how long is Fielding’s tenure in the Senate for?-it could be a chance to get rid of him by not giving him Labor prefs.
Surely with the Opposition being bat-shit, it’s an opportunity too good to pass up. Or could they get even worse? Impossible.
Gut feeling: he wont go the DD.
Oh dear, how simply people fall for the DD business. If you answer “no” to the following questions, there will not be a DD in the foreseeable future of this government.
Has Labor instructed its branches to go into election mode? I’ll answer for you – no.
Has the member for Grayndler been helping little old ladies across Marrickville Road?
Has the member for O’Connor disappeared?
Does the epitome of good governance, the member for Scullin, appear much more jovial than his usual charismatic and very good self?
Would Labor benefit from a DD? I’ll answer for you – no because the only real beneficiaries would be the Greens (the good side is that at least the mock Liberal Fielding, would disappear).
So we will wait for a general election. When do you think that will be? My crystal ball says March 2010, because I can see the member for Grayndler helping little old ladies across Marrickville Road, and Lewisham Road, and Terrace Road, and any other road in his electorate.
Cynthia Crabapple
Chair
2009 Those Most Likely to Have Their Heads Flushed Awards Committee
TRI$TAN: Don’t under-estimate the strength of Kevin Rudd’s media machine. If the ETS bill is voted down the machine will present it as the Opposition’s fault.
Alexander White has got to be right about going for an early election, rather than a DD.
Please note my comment above should read “My crystal ball says March 2011, …”.Not March 2010. I have DD syndrome. It makes me delirious.
Cynthia Crabapple
Chair
2009 Those Most Likely to Have Their Heads Flushed Awards Committee
I’m just a smidge too young to have a really good grasp of the early Howard years, but in my recollection the dip in support for Howard a year or so in came largely from the gun control laws post Port Arthur that upset much of the rural, regional and far right parts of the Liberal support base. Again if I recall correctly once the furore from this died down the whole episode played a key role in developing the narrative that Howard was a tough, principled leader that he rode on the back of for much of the rest of his time in office (remember I’m talking about perceptions here, not reality!).
Is the lesson that the early pain help mould the mythology of Howard into something that could last for a long term in office? Can we contrast to Rudd, who while clearly not unpopular, is still an unknown quantity to most Australians in terms of his true views and character? Generally, you knew Howard’s opinion on an issue, and I think much of his popularity among the ‘Howard’s battlers’ came about from people appreciating this, even if they disagreed with some or most of his views. Rudd has managed to avoid annoying any major groups by always playing this down the dead centre and avoiding stubborn stands. I wonder how that will go for him in the long run?
Dunno, just speculating. as much as the opposition is about as functional and relevant as a high school SRC at this point, the same could be said about the Labor opposition for much of the last decade. At some point a cleanskin Liberal will emerge as is from nowhere (alla Rudd) and provide the semblance of a credible alternative. Rudd and his government has to have the credibility to defeat a real opposition, not just think it’s invincible because it’s out-polling a group who Australian’s would prefer be headed by messers ‘don’t know’ or ‘no comment’ than any of the current batch.
Eventually the failure to stand up on an issue of substance (take climate change or refugees as two excellent examples) may really come back to bite Rudd, as much as he and his government might have taken a temporary hit if they did.
@Antony Green: By early election, I mean normal (half senate) election, as soon as possible in 2010.
Cheers
Alex
Unless labor can safely engineer a majority in the Senate, then there’s no use their going early.
Something very striking in the 2PP graph.
The 2PP lines diverge and remain diverged (Howard’s going down and Rudd’s showing a flat to upwards trend) at almost exactly the point at which the Coalition changed leader from Nelson to Turnbull.
Correlation causation, or disunity = death?
Cynthia Crabapple – March 2011 is too late! The latest the current House can sit is October 2010, and there has to be a new one 140 days after that.
One of the things we must remember is how much the Liberals slashed and burnt the budget when they came to office. Their ratings were self-inflicted.