Well, the Newspoll numbers are out and they aren’t good news for the Howardistas. Labor on 59% 2PP. Can we just have the election already? Listen to Evil Willow, Mr PM! (You might be able to find her on those intertubes you’re now an aficionado of…) - Bored now.
Elsewhere: Lots of interesting commentary on the Poll Bludger thread, as usual. And context at Oz Politics.
Update: [by Kim] There’s a very comprehensive analytical post at Possums Pollytics:
The headline numbers will undoubtedly have the politicians, commentators and pollyjunkies running around like headless chooks in varying states of euphoria or complete panic, depending on ones political bent.
But underneath these headline figures it is nothing more than business as usual.
Nothing has actually changed since March. The nature of polling series is such that they wander a few points around their true level simply because of the probabilistic nature of sampling that occurs with opinion polls.
But so saying, break out the popcorn because the fallout is going to be worth watching
I’m breakin’ out the port.
Crank up the shredders, Team Rodent!
The last chopper to the Brisbane Lord mayor’s office is leaving the roof, right about now.
Wooooo, mama. The mother of all electoral storms cometh.
Those baseball bats woz a tea partee….
Sid Marris at the GG.
Wot an asskicking on PPM
Where’s Shanahan? Schmoozing at the Kirribilli APEC fringe festival or something?
Yep Mark…….last days.
I suspect he’s besoffen on schnapps, shagging some Partei untersekretariat in the Gazeditorial bunker.
The Ruddians are at the Steglitz gates.
I hope they’re playing “Ride of the Valkyries” at the APEC piss ups. Appropriate last days in the bunker götterdämmerung soundtrack.
That’s a great photo of Evil Willow, btw.
I was going to say, Kim have you been hanging on to that pic and just looking for an excuse to post it.
I liked Evil Willow more than Good Willow. She was much more interesting.
Check the primary! 51 - 37.
Don’t want to get cocky. Can’t handle another 2004. Good to see Evil Willow again. That is all.
Shamaham speaks.
Would any of youse scholars here hazard a guess at what the old blow-soft (who would never of got these numbers) is blathering on about here.
Like what’s the take home supposed to be for mug-punters like me? Is he with us or against us?
He’s practicing for his new gig as Australian ambassador to the US, I dare say, wbb.
Says Denis Shanahan. I hope so. I need my dividends for some Xmas shopping in good time.
Well spotted, Mark! And here was me thinking he was just chewing the fat to no purpose as usual.
I’m sure the big fella has sneaked a back room pass into the APEC VIP tent on some sort of pretext, wbb!
That column by Shanahan is nonsense.
It’s a bit of an outrider poll but, like Bryan at Ozpolitics said, the Libs should be worried that such big outriders are possible this close to the election.
Bryan’s said about all you need to say. One way the “owners” of Newspoll get it wrong is over-analysis. I mean, consider this gibberish from Shanahan:
And there’s that awful word “contestable” again - meaning “competitive” or “making it a contest”. I think Beazley started it. A boondoggle! A scam, a sham and a shambles!
Lexy was having a bit of a hissy spit on lateline tonight. How dare Kevin 07 go round telling people he’s gonna win the election. May GWB just go home, no point one lame duck talking to another lame duck.
But wait. With these figures JWH will be hanging out for a January election.
Loved the photo.
Oh, maybe all this is a fantasy.
I daren’t hope.
I loved his historical reference to the Preferred PM fiasco back in July.
I support everybody, especially ALPistas, keeping it real, paring back the excitement, and avoiding over confidence etc.
But I personally will take a raincheck on it: Howard’s well gone. He’s got Buckleys of turning this around.
The long Rodent duree is coming to an end.
And its gonna be a mawling.
Well, for all those who see no hope for the Libs of getting into any type of contestable position b/w here and election day, the bookies are still willing to give you are 50% return on your investment. Tax free.
Honestly, as stupid as it sounds, I think this is all down to the stripper story. The reaction from every guy I spoke to when that story came out was big grins and a sudden propensity to talk about Rudd like he was an old friend from school days. It seemed to subtly shifted the perception of him from being just a politician to someone they could relate to. Even alot of women had a similar reaction. Nothing else in the last month had a big enough political impact to explain a move this big.
Stick a fork in, this one is over.
Oh, and the change in preferred PM is enormous. Strippergate seems to be the logical explaination for that.
Btw, what happened to that newfangled Ass-nation thingo? Two turns round the fishbowl and its like, soooo 10 minutes ago.
Its just one rubbish stunt after another with these clowns. How did they stay in government so long? Its a national embarrasment. My GOd, how long was I sleeping? Suddenly, they’re such abject losers. The ALP mst have been truly rubbish all this time. There’s no other possible explanation.
To wit, whats Beazer doing poking his head up about Drover’s Dogs?
Man should be in hiding.
a. it has now become a tradition for ex-Labor Opposition leaders to either
i) talk about drover’s dog.
ii)publish their diaries thus guaranteeing expulsion.
(whatever did happen to Latham?)
b) Rudd impressed the boys with Strippergate because he proved he had blood and Bundy in his veins.
He impressed the women because he told his missus straight away.
He impressed the Xtans because he admitted up front that he shouldn’t have gone to the strip club because he was married.
And he impressed everybody else because he didn’t stay too long.
But how would he go in the polls if he did it again?
Oh, let me live til Howard goes!
Heh!
Someone obviously had a lot of fun putting that video together too…
Btw, beware over-analysis, as Mark says. Strippergate may already have been largely forgotten by the time the poll was taken. And it probably is an outlier. I think things are where they’ve been for most of the undeclared election campaign - 56-44 or 55-45. In other words a landslide awaiting its consummation.
Kim,
I reckon it’s Equine Flu and the lack of racing for the punters, plus all the parents of upset “Saddle Club” kids who were unable to go horseriding when the horse lockdown occoured.
Well, who knows Frank? In reality there may have been a .5% or a 1% movement towards Labor, when you take into account sampling error possibilities and the usual margin of error. But there’s sure as hell no Coalition comeback, and they’re not looking very “contestable”.
Kim,
Yeah, I reckon another factor is Rudd’s Health & IR launches - sound policies which don’t scare the horses (pardon the pun).
Here is the GG Newspoll graphic.
I reckon the fact that the Greens are at 3% suggests something has gone awry with the sample.
Kim - not a fan of Manson’s work. If the Willowish goodness was put together with The Living End’s version of “Tainted Love” I’d rate it…
Back to the topic at hand. I really do think that not much should be read into this poll, the only thing that can be reliably said is that the Government hasn’t managed to close the gap on Rudd’s Labor.
Wo ist Wenck?!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Wenck
That’s the wrong Evil Willow.
It’s pretty obvious Howard is angling to get some sort of “Sydney Protocol” on climate change out of this APEC shindig, although it will probably be a more “aspirational” “Sydney Statement” which will waffle a lot.
Predictions on how lame it will be, anyone?
Pretty lame. A commitment to further talks I bet…
I will accept that Labor can win when Antony Green calls it on election night (hopefully around 7:25pm).
Numbers like this; this close to the election really test one’s mettle to not get cocky though.
The rest of us can amuse ourselves with ‘une mission ephemere’.
One practical outcome of this poll is that $mirker will be using Treasury Department bureaucratic assistance to update his CV to smoothe his transition into the private sector.
Or, at least, $mirker should be doing that, because he’ll never be elected Leader of the (Much Depleted) Opposition.
So, an early vale to the best PM Australia never had.
Sorry irrelevant, but if there was an Evil Willow does that mean there was a good Willow?
If $mirker doesn’t get the opposition leadership, who does? It’s an impossible one to nut out this.
Newspoll estimates the Green vote at 3%. This continues to be at odds with every other indicator of what the Green vote is likely to be.
* The other polls (Morgan, AC Neilsen, Galaxy) all estimate a Green vote in the range 7-9%.
* In the most recent round of State and Territory elections, 8.91% of Australian voters voted for the Greens.
* The 2004 Australian Election Study reported that 7.2% of respondents were strongly attached to the Greens.
* And, as I reported here, Newspoll has a consistent trend of, in Dubya’s words, misunderestimating the Green vote.
The money quote from Marris
“this weekend’s result puts Labor much further ahead than John Howard was when he beat Labor prime minister Paul Keating in 1996.”
It’s not quite over, but Amanda Vanstone is clearing his tonsils.
Sorry, that should of course be, her tonsils.
I’m a bit sad about the Greens vote:-(
“I’m a bit sad about the Greens vote:-(”
I’m not.
Even if they get their usual 7-8%, Leader-for-life Bob Brown should step down after the election. He has become a bore.
Zarquon’s right. That’s not Evil Willow—that’s Emo Willow, a much more terrifying prospect.
I’m with Mr Lefty and Chris Mayer, I’ll believe Labor’s won it when I’m drunk and crowing, about 2am after polling day, but until then, pessimism of the intellect, fatalism of the will.
It’s a fork in the road for the Libs.
Turnbull is the consensus candidate, but his seat is dodgy.
Abbott, if the Right continue to hang tough.
The “small-L” wing of the Libs are so depleted they have no credible candidates. The campaign to drive the rightist nutters out of the Liberal Party hierarchy has to start at the grass roots, so it could take some time for a progressive Liberal movement to build a power base to fend off the mad dogs within the party.
nice work Spiro
As for the poll, I want to believe the baseball bats are out there.
Alex … “I’m a bit sad about the Greens vote”
I also am sympathetic to green views, but I’ve never seen the point in voting for them in the lower house. (1) They’re not going to get in (2) I’m not sure I want them there anyway - the lower house is all about compromises and practicalities whereas the greens are essentially a lobby group. On the other hand I think it makes excellent sense to have some greens in the house of review where they can use their extreme position to provide effective environmental checks and balances. I am a huge supporter of Peter Garrett, but I must confess I’m not enjoying his obvious discomfort in the shadow ministry.
So, my view is that the green’s lower house polling is irrelevant. What matters is how many will vote for them for the Senate and that should be the focus of their campaigning.
P.S. How do you do the quote thingy?
His tonsils??????
I know we were paying for Amanda’s Italian lessons but don’t tell we have foot the bill for a gender re-assignment operation. That would be too much.
And does her husband know about this?
Then again, Spiros, there is an argument that a boring leader and public face is an asset for a party with radical policies - although it’s not necessarily one which I agree with.
Libs will have to see who survives the night of the long poll-axe.
CK, der General Wenck is currently posing as an Wehrmacht private, trying to smuggle “das bounce” and other Assnazi secret weapons to the Yanks before the Ruddians reach Unter den Linden.
Katz: this comment from Charles at Poll Bludger says it all about the Liberals:
The problem with Bob Brown is not his boring demeanour, it is that he hasn’t had an original thought in 10 years.
Anyways, back to the polls: it could be that the Rudd momentum is pulling in voters from the left of Labor as well as from it’s right, not for any good policy reasons, but because people simply want to get on board with a perceived winner. The Greens vote might well be reduced to its core - people like Paul Norton - with the affluent suburbans who previously voted Green, this time getting with the strength and voting Labor.
I thought being an unmitigated bore was part of the leadership job description, Spiro
Jenny, I’m also cringing at Garrett’s obvious discomfort, BUT am really counting on him showing his true Green credentials as Environment Minister. Either that, or my 25 year collection of Midnight Oil Albums/CD’s are going to be
ceremonially burntrecycled.SWIO: …”big grins and a sudden propensity to talk about Rudd like he was an old friend from school days”…
What makes you think Kev has any old friends from school days? You mean like him and Wayne are nambour high mates? The line about keeping close to friends, but closer to enemies, more like methinks.
It’s all red cordial. Get ready for a dose of Mr Ruddock’s castor oil.
Just out of curiousity, for the psephophiles: what’s the current record for wrongedness in polls prediction v eventual reality? Newspoll’s 10% Hewson primary lead Feb ‘93?
There’ll be a poll/media industries cosy echo-chamber hysteria inflation factor at play. Can today’s 14% primary gap be equivalent to 1993’s 10% one? I guess in statistics terms, what confidence limit would you have to invoke to equate them?
Primary votes are worth somewhere between a dollar and two each. This money helps cover the cost of the election campaign.
“Newspoll’s 10% Hewson primary lead Feb ‘93?”
it was never that big, though it is true that Newspoll did not cover itself in glory back in ‘93.
Since then, Newspoll has accurately predicted the federal election result.
But, the point is fair: if Rudd brings out a hugely radical and risky polict manifesto like Fightback!, or starts displaying Hewson’s demeanour during that campaign, then the Liberals might claw back a fair chunk of Labor’s lead.
SWIO: …”big grins and a sudden propensity to talk about Rudd like he was an old friend from school days”…
What makes you think Kev has any old friends from school days? You mean like him and Wayne are nambour high mates? The line about keeping close to friends, but closer to enemies, more like methinks. Howard/Costello revisited? If they could only find an economics literate labor MP for treasurer, not fired with burning ambition, and possessed of uncommon common sense.. Tanner I hear you say?
It’s all red cordial. Get ready for a dose of Mr Ruddock’s castor oil.
Just out of curiousity, for the psephophiles: what’s the current record for wrongedness in polls prediction v eventual reality? Newspoll’s 10% Hewson primary lead Feb ‘93?
There’ll be a poll/media industries cosy echo-chamber hysteria inflation factor at play. Can today’s 14% primary gap be equivalent to 1993’s 10% one? I guess in statistics terms, what confidence limit would you have to invoke to equate them?
Good point Spiro.
It’s worth reminding ourselves which party is behaving like a pack of tossers, hysterics, dirtbags, and outright fauntleroys, just at the minute.
Uggggh!
Malcolm McKerras really sunk the slipper into Howard this morning on ABC radio in Melbourne.
He said that Howard was going to lose because of his radical IR Workchoices legislation that he had no mandate for. Only 10% of Howard’s IR agenda was disclosed during the 2004 election, so he conned the Australian public.
He also said Howard missed the chance to re-present legislation through the Senate as the conservative (not so radical) Menzies did / would have done, and went for the radical ram through option.
He said Howard would lose his seat too. It was a remarkably strident attack on Howard and his legacy.
Regarding voting Greens in the lower house - when major parties lose significant votes to others such as the Greens it pushes seats towards marginal status - or at least heightens the importance of preferences. Major parties eventually respond to this pressure with policy adjustments - but usually only where relevant to marginal seats.
The Greens have underdog status for Melbourne and Sydney lower house seats - so voting for them there may result in a big upset. If the election is very close and the Greens win one or two lower house seats then a coalition goverment (Labor & Greens) similar to the German government is also a possibility, though this is remote.
And Labor can’t win the Senate, so if the Liberal/National/Family First block retains control of it there will be a lot of thwarting going on, so Greens in the Senate will be important to restore some sense and balance.
No, it doesn’t. Marginal status is calculated on two-party preferred votes, not the primary vote.
What are the chances that the Liberal/National/Family First bloc will retain control of the Senate, Peter? Did Malcolm Mackerras mention this?
I have now read and heard it all. Liberal Party Leninists on a blog devoted to polling. Perfectly put by the small ‘l’ liberal and politically astute. It will take a long time for the struggle between the faux provincial neocons in the Liberal Party to be purged, in favour of conservative nationalist/Small ‘l’ liberal leadership in a new reworked version of the coalition.
Nothing like an unpopular war together with a brazen program of class war from above. ‘Regime suicide’ barely covers what the fools in the think tanks persuaded their hapless and clueless political representatives to do. The next interesting set of numbers will be the turnout in the US Presidential polls. Here I predict a similar result for the ‘PNAC’ crowd, whose coalition with economic libertarians aka, Wall Street carpet baggers, will destroy the hopes and dreams of both parties to this wild and crazy romance, which was so exciting while the stars were in alignment, the Kings were on their thrones, and the Dow Jones was better than a good night in Vegas.
Liam, if both major parties go below 50% of primary votes, the seat is no longer “safe” as it will be decided by preferences, to this would be a trend towards marginal. But I agree, if the 2PP is still greater that 55/45 then the seat is not marginal.
GregM, Mackerras didn’t mention this. My comments started with “Regarding voting Greens …”. However, the numbers indicate that there is no way Labor will get a majority in the Senate.
If the Dems collapse (as appears likely) and the Greens don’t do well (2 or more) in the Senate then control by the Liberal/National/FF bloc would prevail. So Rudd would have Government with a hostile Senate that would block most of his attempts at major reform or repealing the Indigenous Racist Act, WorkChoices etc.
ALP has to be a show at 4 seats in a state or two, on these numbers, surely?
Having said that, I have no idea. Senate psephology bewilders and scares me. I note the big guns of psephblogdom get a bit skittish, and tend to change the topic.
It seems Labor’s poll numbers increase with every new Mini-Howard announcement. I am not sure how flattered Howard would be though. In the future, when students are asked to write History essays about “continuity and change” during this time, they will be very hard pressed to pad the essay out when it comes to the “change” part.
Maybe Howard would prefer to do an orderly handover to Rudd rather than to Costello?
Peterc, whether a seat is safe or marginal has *nothing* to do with primary vote percentage. It doesn’t matter if the winning candidate wins it on 40% or 90%, marginality is a measurement of the change in vote that would be required for the seat to change hands between the Parties between whom 2PP is measured—that’s why it’s called a margin.
If you have a look at the Newspoll graph, there appears to be a relationship between the ALP primary and the Green primary. Taking into account Paul’s arguments about the under-estimation of the Green vote, it suggests that when the ALP vote moves up, the Greens vote moves down, suggesting there’s a fair bit of churn between the two.
“they will be very hard pressed to pad the essay out when it comes to the “changeâ€? part.”
Yes and no.
The policy differences between Howard and Rudd are not massive, it must be said. Same for Costello and Swan.
The differences between Kevin Andrews and Julia Gillard are rather bigger. Once elected, Deputy Prime Minister Gillard will be in an authoritative position to run her own race, and she will. Rudd will have limited ability to control her and may be not even try.
Conroy will do whatever takes his fancy as minister for communications - he doesn’t take instruction from anybody. And so on.
And it’ll be a free-for-all when it comes to reversing Howard’s cultural agenda. Rudd will be much too busy on the big picture stuff to concern himself about the content of history curricula and the like.
Btw, I think Bob Brown does the most succinct and quotable soundbites of any leader.
Spiros
Ah, the naivety of youth. La Gillard’s race, like that of Hitlary Clinton, will make Margaret Thatcher look like Rosa Luxemberg.
Spiros, I couldn’t disagree more with that analysis. If Rudd wins, he will have immense authority. And he’s a micro-managing control freak - the content of history curricula is precisely the sort of thing he’ll be interested in. Forget the Goss Government at your peril! Goss’ office appointed all the ministerial staffers and established lines of reporting to the Premier not to each Minister. Goss and Rudd tightly controlled the Cabinet agenda, and Ministers complained that their meeting with the Premiers’ Department secretary before Cabinet was where the real action was. Backbenchers could hardly get an appointment with Goss. Rudd was personally in charge of reaching into Ministers’ offices and the bureaucracy to ensure Goss’ will was done.
If these numbers are (a) a correct estimate (see my previous comment re underestimating the Greens vote) and (b) hold true for the Senate as well, it is probable that in a couple of states Labor would almost be on 4 quotas (57 per cent of the vote) in its own right. However we know that there is a percentage of voters who like to “ticket split”, i.e. vote for a major party in the House of Reps and a minor party in the Senate. The non-rusted on voters who have come to Labor in the past year are more likely than most to fall into this category.
Lefty E, yes indeed, Senate psephology is a nightmare. Largely because the final result depends on the order in which the smallest parties and independents get knocked off. It can be the luck of the draw that decides the final make-up.
Yes, it is feasible on the current numbers that Labor could take 4 in one or two states. But I don’t see it happening. I’d support Paul’s point about ticket splitting. The word out there is that a lot of people are going to vote ALP in the House and Green or Dem in the Senate.
The thing is, for the Senate control to shift, the ALP / Greens / Dems together need to pick up a net 2 seats. We need 2 States to go 4/2 to the left. I think that’s achievable. I think Tassie will go 3ALP, 2Lib, 1GRN, and I think Victoria could do the same. Of course, if the ALP decide to preference Family First in Victoria again, boldly thinking they could win 4 seats all on their own, they’ll shoot their Senate down in flames…
And then there’s the wildcard of the ACT. If Gary Humphries (v unpopular) sees his vote go below quota (33.3% in a Territory), the ACT will elect either 2ALP or 1ALP and 1GRN.
John, you are wrong. Gillard is the leader of her faction, and will be Deputy PM. She isn’t just going to sit back and watch the government she is number 2 in, become Howard lite. It’s not her style. Just wait and see.
Kim, the comparison with the Goss government doesn’t stack up. The factions, the fiefdoms and the war lords in the federal labor party have not gone away. They are merely dormant. Conroy, Carr and all the rest of them will have a field day.
Of course, if Rudd wins, he will have immsense authority. Everyone will salute the Rudd flag at the appropriate time. But there are only so many things even a workaholic, micro managing PM can attend to in a 24 hour day.
That’s what staffers are for, Spiros. And a strong central policy office in the PM’s department. Just as Howard had Max Wilton-Moore, Rudd will find his own Rudd.
It’s pretty obvious Howard is angling to get some sort of “Sydney Protocol� on climate change out of this APEC shindig, although it will probably be a more “aspirational� “Sydney Statement� which will waffle a lot.
I think if the Libs are expecting to get any votes out of APEC, it shows how out of touch they are with how unpopular GWB is (not just among Americans) and how deeply cynical a lot of people are about Bush and climate change and by extension, Howard and climate change. My impression is that cosying up to Bush will work against Howard.
As for the Greens vote, I’ve heard two leftwing voters in a marginal (Lib) electorate say that they’ll be voting Labor instead of Greens this time, out of pure desperation.
I had a similar experience working on a polling booth for the Greens in 1993 - people who’d normally vote Green saying to me “but I’ve got to vote Labor this time because this time it’s got to count!”
This indicates that a non-trivial proportion of voters don’t understand compulsory preferential voting, which in turn is an indictment of many of our schools and many of our parents. When I was about 10 I understood that a vote which went 1 DLP 2 Liberal was effectively the same as a vote which went 1 Liberal, and that this was why the Coalition had won the 1969 Federal election despite Labor winning more of the primary vote.
Spiros will you stop that. Your worst fears are making a Rudd government look more attractive and I don’t want to have high expectations and be disappointed.
“why the Coalition had won the 1969 Federal election despite Labor winning more of the primary vote.”
Indeed, Labor won more of the 2PP vote in 1969.
“This indicates that a non-trivial proportion of voters don’t understand compulsory preferential voting.”
Newsflash: New Idea outsells New Statesman by a large margin. Most people don’t give a fat rat’s clacker about psephological trivia. It would a worry if they did.
But understanding how different voting systems work is hardly trivial. In the US in 2000 it mattered a great deal that a vote for Nader would be a non-vote for Gore, and it mattered a great deal that people knew this - as did my American students who would have preferred to have voted for Nader but finished up voting for Gore because they understood their electoral system, and had a much better grounding in the civics of their country than did my Australian-born students in the same class.
Kim wrote:
But I think Spiro’s point stands in regard to reversing Howard’s cultural agenda. Although I suspect you’re right, Kim, in that much of this change will be over seen by Rudd. Rest assured though, the Blainey’s, Windshuttle’s and Donnelly’s will be frozen out of the agenda.
“But understanding how different voting systems work is hardly trivial”
Paul, you are a political activist. Do you know how details of how the Senate vote is counted?
Update: [by Kim] There’s a very comprehensive analytical post at Possums Pollytics:
“the Blainey’s, Windshuttle’s and Donnelly’s will be frozen out of the agenda.”
Exactly right. And in their place will come John Greenfield’s dreaded luvvies. Out of their bunkers in the ABC and the arts faculities they will come, with a vengeance. Rudd will give them everything they want on cultural stuff to distract their attention from his neo-Howardian agenda on the economy, foreign affairs and climate change.
The (deconstructed) look on Greenfield’s face, alone, should be worth the price of admission.
Oh, sure, maybe I didn’t make myself understood well. But Rudd will have his own stamp on cultural politics, and it won’t necessarily be to the taste of a lot of us. I’m not saying Ministers won’t have some leeway, and Spiros is right that there will be other power dynamics than Rudd downwards, but we should expect that he’ll keep a pretty tight rein on things. Which is interesting - Hawke was a “chairperson” style of PM and Keating swung from being interventionist to disinterested. But I think it’ll be a different governing style for federal Labor.
Well said, Paul. If someone doesn’t understand the basics of preferential voting, they’re unlikely to properly articulate their political choice.
Spiros, voting knowledge is very different to the kind of speculative psephology that goes on in the comments fields of blogs, and the Senate counting is surprisingly simple. The golden rule is that you should vote for the Party or candidate you want to receive your vote, not try to game the system voting for who you ‘think’ would best use it.