I’ve been a little busy of late (including completely missing yesterday through a bourbon hazed birthday) and have neglected some questions that were asked by you folks in earlier threads – so rather than go back and chase them down when they probably no longer have anyone actually reading them, it might be better if I just mea culpa my way into a brand new post, allowing me to find a whole new bunch of poor excuses for ignoring your questions answer them all in one place! 
So treat this as part open thread, part requestathon and part catching up on the bits I should have answered earlier.
To start the ball rolling, here’s a pic of our favourite economist and now Labor candidate for Fraser as you’ve probably never seen him before – but deep down always knew was coming.
Andrew Leigh in a hard hat! 
Laura Tingle has a marvelous little piece on the politics and hackery that accompanied the resources tax circus particularly, but policy reporting and analysis generally.
34 Comments
Something on the senate?
Tri$tan – I’ve love to, but there’s nothing I could do that would be any better than a “guess”.
Happy birthday Poss.
Just call it internal polling.
That’s a shame… That balance is probably going to be the most important point with this election.
Possum, just a repeat of an earlier question. My memory is getting really dim here. Didn’t help that on the night of the last election I was slightly sozzled.
Before the last election you had a PollyTrend of sorts? and it wasn’t done as a Loess regression back then?
Question is how well did it hit the spot. I sorta remember that I drew a line through it and came up with 53.6 and that looked good on election night but later on the 2PP shrunk a bit (was that all actually postals?).
Is that the motivation behind later splitting PollyTrend into phone polls and all polls? If so do you still favor the phone trend line? I suspect that for whatever reason the face to face was over-cooking the ALP vote, that effect is wearing off close to the election.
The other implicit question was, given that PollyTrend gives a pretty good estimate looking backwards (and probably only a couple of weeks backwards given the current frequency of polls) my question is can you rely upon the apparent inertia in the trend line to forecast that at this point the trend cannot go into reverse before the election.
Now as I observed before, maybe the apparent inertia is really an artifact of the parameters put into the regression. If so that begs the question, how much real daily/weekly fluctuation is there? For my mind there just isn’t enough data to get even more than a hint of a week by week trend (and those that talk about a particular poll being the result of a particular bit of news are sadly talking rubbish).. but still, must be some way to get a rough feel for the underlying variability – I don’t know how, that’s why I’m asking
Oh btw, I’m curious how the latest Galaxy and Morgan polls affect the trend. And if you were having fun with projections you’d expect a 56 pretty soon.
Cud,
Back in 2007 I didnt actually have a single trend measure that I used – which is why I developed the Pollytrend. Back then, I was just treating all the polls as a great bix disparate mix and doing all sorts of one off things with them to get to the bottom of what was going on.
For the Crikey email I think I used a loess curve or two – but I can’t actually remember! But I think that’s where I first used them and when I got the idea that they work best for polling.
When I started speccing out the current algorithm, I used the 2007 and 2004 polling as the testbed. I can’t remember what I got exactly for the 2004 results (but it was close – and the results are hiding on an old computer somewhere). On the 2007 polls, the final point estimate came in at 52.9%.
The reason I split the trends into phone polls and “all polls” is because phone polls are a known quantity while non-phone polls have been known to exhibit a bit of a relative lean to the ALP, sometimes (but not always) sizeable.
But it’s worth having the all polls series (even if it’s a few points overcooked) because it is more information dense (i.e. more observations) making it easier to pick up actual changes in direction of public support sooner than the phone poll trend line would – even if the “level” of the trend has a slight bias.
Since the trend line attempts to look through the noise, if the polling data moves at the last minute (as it did in 2007), the trend line will still move with it because the final observations of each pollster have the most influence on the trend line point estimate.
I try to get a copy of the AFR whenever I can to read Peter Ruehl.
Because I’m a political junkie I read Lara ‘lefty elitist in spades’ Tingle at those opportunities. She is smart but blinkered and biased.
The Walkley Foundation piece (Thanks for the reference Poss) wasn’t “marvelous” but nausea inducing.
Her argument that a dramatic slow down in mining investment as a result of the Rudd/Swan/Henry insanity would be have been a positive is nothing short of farcical.
This unrepentant apologist for Rudd and Henry then attempts a sliming of the Howard government by suggesting that:
“Everybody now expects to be appeased before policy is even announced”.
So the mining industry (or anybody else with an ounce of common sense) wasn’t consulted prior to capriciously increasing its taxation by 40% to 60% of profits and so dramatically increasing foreign investors and lenders sovereign risk assessment of Australia irreparably.
But according to nutty Tingle that was good!
That’s right…. good of Rudd and the Henry loon but bad because 11 years of Howard created unrealistic expectation of transparency and honesty in the dealings of the federal government with industry.
Does she think we are all idiots?
Apparently …. well…. yes.
James – if you think the way Howard went about policy development was honest and transparent, there is simply no helping you.
Under Howard, the whole process of policy development did change dramatically for the worse – from a focus on actual policy outcomes to one more concerned with political outcomes.
Imagine if the manufacturing sector – a group of rent-seekers similar to the miners – carried on in the 80′s like the mining industry just has, and were treated in the 80′s in the media like the miners just were.
There would have been no 80′s reform and we’d be looking like Argentina.
So discussions with industry stockholders is ‘bad’ and unilateral governmental imposition of massive tax increases being an appropriate reversal of poor policy development under Howard is ‘good’ and under Howard upfront discussions were never transparent and honest and therefore upfront discussions are ‘bad’?
Right …. got it.
Opaqueness and capriciousness by Rudd: ‘good’; upfront discussions by Howard: ‘bad’.
Got it.
You make perfect sense………
One point tho’:
Please don’t equate Keating/Hawke with Henry/Rudd/Swan or pretend that their policies or methodologies are on some continuum.
They are not.
You do PjK a grave injustice by implying that they are.
“Stakeholders” (ugh) have always had a say. Its the way they’re treated, but more importantly, the way they treat government which is what has changed for the worse.
We’ve seen at the state government level how that’s just panned out marvelously in terms of on the ground policy results. Developers inside the tent for development policy is as typical a result as you’ll find at any layer of government.
Well I had the decency to say “stockholders”……
Sorry James – thought it must have been a typo!
Developers and realtors being inside the tent is why we’ll NEVER see proper housing reforms to reduce rents and house prices back to affordable levels.
House prices are seriously hyperinflated to at least 4x their true worth, and this flows on to rents.
Forget all the faux concern for the homeless or those facing homelessness – it’s all crocodile tears
Possum is right – the miners have pulled off a massive con job, aided and abetted by an opportunist rabble of an opposition and a compliant and complacent media.
This country is seriously getting screwed, but the ovine voters take the putrid media’s expectorations as THE TRUTH, and gleefully submit as the steel capped mining boot crashes into their face, over and over, until all the minerals are gone.
But Dave…… can’t I ever be right for a change?
You do a post plotting the volume of JamesK’s comments over time and the interest of all other readers (declining proportionally).
On the other hand ‘Lara’ Tingle was typo……
Freudian?…. perhaps as Dudley Moore might have said:
“That name don’t half give me the horn”
Good question.
Laura’s article is marvellous, it was concise summary of the entire event.
For about 6 hours, until ‘corrected’ by Swan, the treasury deputy had said to the effect that if the new tax has lead to a slowing of the mining boom, that what would be a good thing.
Also as per Barnett the slow down wouldn’t have been ‘dramatic’
What is it with pollies and their aversion to moderating booms? When the boom starts to look like it may cause more problems than it solves, surely a light touch of the brakes is in order?
If the brakes had been applied to the housing boom sooner, affordability might not now be the lowest it has ever been.
You don’t go screaming into Murray’s Corner at 300kph without applying the brakes.
I love it.
Where does the WA Premier say, or where “as per Barnett” does Reidy fondly imagine him say, the slow down wouldn’t have been ‘dramatic’ ?
Perhaps a cut in new project investment of $45 billion in the next 5 years in WA isn’t really so ‘dramatic’?
I mean that’s only $9 billion a year every year in foreign investment to WA over the next 5 years……….
Perhaps Billy Birminham would sing simply marvellous, m-a-r-v-e-l-l-o-u-s partnership here by Swanee A-Crim and Jayreidy T’Escrewum leaving everyone ‘atingle’ at the WACA?
Dave…. you don’t like the Australian pace attack on a hard bouncy wicket?
Jamesk @9, you seem to have succeeded in an entire post dripping in assertion and ad- hominem without once providing a substantive argument. Congratulations. Other than pointing this out there is no way to argue with you rationally because you don’t have an argument in the first place.
David @15, whilst there is some truth that developers influence policy to promote artificial scarcity, this is just a part of the picture. You also have to deal with an attitude that infrastructure follows development rather than leads it. And that in part rests on the bean counter economic rationalist culture that’s been dominant (strangely enough especially in a lot of state Labor governments) for a long time. That plus other cultural issues that promote McMansions beyond all rational need.
Possum @8, thanks very much for that response.
Still wondering if a slightly higher sensitivity regression is justified when polls are done more frequently.
Still missing the pollercoaster :s
Cud – I’ve got a very nice and aggressive Cosinus kernal regression to use for the polls in the last week, that we went over in a Nerdy Sunday a while back.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/10/05/nerdy-sunday-youre-so-smooth-edition/
Also playing around with an Epanechnikov kernal regression.
Where is that 300mph rollercoaster we all had a ride on last election Poss?
Tingle does an excellent summary of what’s wrong with the whole circus of politics. Basically, it’s now a media show. Chuck a couple of actors into the bear pit, watch them attack each other, replay the soundbites for up to 24hrs, and then move on to the next thing (usually only distantly related to a policy or real discussion of one).
Politicians are now selected as good ‘actors’ in this charade, and any sober analytical types are only dragged into the ring for a bit of half-time relief. The punters aren’t engaged, the media knows how to grab their ten second attention spans, and the whole thing has descended into what we now have: a popularity contest instead of an election debate (in the actual sense of arguing issues of some import).
Sigh.
Gaffy, it’s all packed away, rusting under a tarp in some outback paddock. Meanwhile, we’ve got the clowns trying to give us a thrill, and it just ain’t working for me.
Politics as country sideshow, tawdry, aint’ it?
..but whose willing to put their balls in these clowns’ mouths? And where id the Ferris wheel? Where’s my fairy floss and dagwwod dog? Can I have a sample bag from the ALP and Libs with some real useful items instead of a bunch of crap and a load of useless discount coupons?
whose = who’s
perils of changing your mind halfway through typing a sentence
Happy Birthday Possum and many thanks – you may just keep us from getting too depressed- again!
In the 2007 campaign, we were feeling awful after a couple of dodgy polls and every one of the so- called “pundits”- predicted that kevin couldn’t do it- 16 seats was just too much. ( what do pundits know about our elections anyway- aren’t they Indian gurus? )
Then we discovered you and your logical analysis of all things political. Please keep up the good work again- else “we’ll all be rooned!”
The neilsen poll looks bad- but it is only one poll and taken at just about the worst time in the campaign.
Do you think post Rudd’s operation- things may begin to improve?
cud chewer @ 23
Pathetic.
You will have to better than that.
Read #9 again ……. this time without the blinkers
JamesK@9
I saw the point you were trying to make but didn’t think it was really worth pointing out your assumption that ANY slowdown was bad. I’m not an ALP true believer, but I do think that the Australian population should be sharing in the benefits from ‘our’ minerals/oil etc.
The other point you made, I think, was about sovereign risk, though this has been talked about at length in a number of other threads. The ‘risk’ is only in the minds of the current crop of mining companies that are benefiting from the massive profits that have come about due to the jump in the prices of minerals etc. If they decide to get out of the industry then others will take their place, because mining would still be very profitable even with the original RSPT, just not AS profitable as before.
If you want to make these arguments, which rely on your own assumptions about risk, and about booms being endless, and vitally important, then you should either argue them out a little more explicitly, or make them in a forum where everyone already agrees with you, rather than one like this, where few are likely to. Whatever floats your boat, though…