According to the latest Newspoll, the narrowing is on. Or something. Because with Labor still on a primary of 48%, it’s evident that some of any genuine movement that’s being picked up is coming from elsewhere – perhaps independents or Family First. Newspoll appear to believe this because as far as I can tell they’ve changed the allocation of preferences to 60/40 to Labor. It’s quite possible that there is some polarisation of the minor party right wing vote towards the Coalition, but claims that Labor’s 2PP lead has been cut in half should be coloured by that shift in the methodology.
As the always informative Possum remarks:
It has actually been the fluctuations in the minor party vote estimates that are behind most of the volatility in the TPP figures over the last 10 months.
Not that you’d pick that up from Dennis Shanahan’s latest column, which I think refers to this Newspoll, though oddly he talks about “the latest series of Newspolls”. Perhaps it’s some sort of aggregated News Ltd pseph wizardry. And I have no idea why he thinks the latest Galaxy four seat poll in NSW is in any sense bad news for Rudd, or that it indicates that NSW isn’t going to be fertile ground for Labor. I was pretty dubious about the week one Galaxy Queensland poll, and it’s worth pointing out to Mr Shanahan that it’s two weeks old and if you’re going to claim a shift back to Howard on the basis of a poll taken over this last weekend, then you can’t talk about one a few weeks ago as if it’s contemporary evidence. But I’m sure I’m whistling in the wind.
The alternative hypothesis, which isn’t inconsistent with my first one, is this from commenter PoliSci 101 at The Poll Bludger:
Is there any reason to reject the Null Hypothesis that there has been no change in the Labor 2PP vote of 56%?
No. This latest poll result is within the MOE.
All you political scientists can leave now, the political witch-doctors want to pore over the entrails of this poll to make their superstitious prognostications.
I think that’s probably right, and the most likely explanation is that public opinion is more or less where it’s been all year. Both this week’s Newspoll and last week’s movements were within the margin of error, with the former being an outlier at the top end, and probably this is one at the bottom end. You’d want to see where it travels next, at the very least, before jumping to any conclusions.
But the media machine powers on, and devours polls for their horse race value. What will be interesting will be the development of the “media narrative” as pundits who’d “scored” week two as terrible for the Coalition scramble to invent some justification for the apparent “narrowing”. It’s a rare pundit who mentions the margin of error, because it destroys all the fun of “reporting” swings and roundabouts, and coming up with suitably punditorial and pompous reasons for them.
As the much touted betting markets predictably move in tandem with Newspoll, it might be much more fun to open a book on which explanation will be seized on. The “tsunami”? The scary unions? Was it all Paul Keating’s doing? The forceful and impressive leadership of the PM and Treasurer? Or even the logical and coherent narrative that the Coalition are better economic managers because interest rates are going up…
Ps: I’ve just discovered momentous matters Newspolly warrant two columns from Dennis Shanahan today. The other one’s here. Update: My bad. Of course, the second one is “news” whereas the first one is “opinion”.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Sigh. Blah blah narrowing blah. Comeback blah? Lazarus blah. Blah blah Rudd not home yet blah. Blah blah, blah.
Shanahan doesn’t know the first thing about statistical analysis.
I do feel for Shanahan, he has to write a column or two a week on this stuff. I wonder whether he actually believes a word of it?
In other news: Dennis Shanahan reports that Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction may be breaking down. This week a 1st year physicist measured gravitation due to gravity to be equal to 10.4 m/s/s. Last week in the same lab another experimentalist measured gravitational acceleration to be 9.2 m/s/s.
This clearly shows that the magnitude of gravitational acceleration on the Earth’s surface is no longer constant at 9.81 m/s/s but is rather changing massively. Some scientists have conjectured that this massive change, a total change of more than 10%, is due to spontanious mass creation at the center of the Earth. Some speculate that heavy metals, like uranium, are spontaneously being generated within the Earth. This speculation is causing many to re-think the foundations of Physics and science itself with the discoveries striking at the core of our understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
In further news: 1st year lab tutor points out to students that their experimental discrepencies are due to inaccuracies in the experiment. Or rather, they get different answers due to statistical error. In essence, experiments don’t output single numbers as answers, but rather they output a set of numbers with a probability distribution over them.
Come now comrades, he’d make the powerful point that polling “is not an exact science” and that it takes years of experience and amazing insight to properly interpret Newspoll. And that they own it.
That’s right Mark. Well, that or passing your first semester stats class.
I take it back, I don’t feel for Shanahan at all. Especially not after he decided to publish this load of rubbish.
If anyone’s interested don’t forget folks the almighty Treasurer’s Debate is on at about midday tomorrow (Tuesday). I don’t know about FTA but they’re showing the thing live on Sky News with half hour preview show and of course the half hour verdict show.
Shanahan’s contributions are at least better than this: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22668464-7583,00.html
I like Megalogenis generally but don’t think his “analysis” of the Treasurer match up is much chop. The question is not whether people will choose Swan over Costello as better economic manager, but whether they are sufficiently comfortable with the idea to give him a go, or at least not change their otherwise-Labor vote because of it. We will have a better idea of that this arvo.
The betting markets actually haven’t moved much at all, at least not yet. (Yesterday, Labor $1.32; today, $1.35).
Dunno about this explanation that says its the coalition gathering miscellanesous votes on the right. If that were true, then there are a lot of voters who were planning to vote 1 family first and then preference labor, and now they are planning to vote 1 Liberal.
It would make more sense to believe that were planning to vote 1 FF and preference the Liberals in which case the Newspoll method for allocating preferences is probably flawed.
Or the whole thing is statistical noise, which is more likely. After week 1, which was a bad week for labor, Newspoll shows an apparent big swing to Labor. And vice versa for week 2. It makes no political sense.
The lay of the land is as it has been all year: 55:45.
Of course, bombs, noth literal and metaphorical, could go off before now and November 24 (hopefully just the latter). The RBA’s Melbourne Cup interest rate move could be the first.
Dennis Shanahan is suffering from poor-pseph-ony. . . . . . anyone?. . tumble weeds roll past
Heh.
I’ve just been reading an interesting little potted history of La Terreur:
I’ve said this more than once before, and will probably say it more than once again, but the reliability of Newspoll is further vitiated by its consistent underestimation of the Green vote, which in reality is probably about double the 4 per cent estimate in today’s poll.
Treasurer debate: the Rooster is nervous! Settle, Rooster, settle!
But Shanahan reckons Ratty need only notch up one point extra each week before the polls and presto! He’s won the election!!!!!!!!!!
God I can’t bear it, Ratty could still win………
What surprised me about the two columns is that one refers to “the latest series of Newspoll results” (implying that we can consider them as a single sample), while the other talks about the change in the Newspoll (implying that we have to think of them as different samples).
Andrew, yep, that’s my point, but you put it rather more pithily than me!
Mark, could I remind you of the history of referendum polls which invariably for months show the “Yes” vote miles in front and then on the day, the “No” vote wins overwhelmingly leaving everybody aghast?
Those who are getting over-excited about Kevin07 should keep this history in mind.
They should also remember it’s the economy, stupid.
Strangely, Barbara, that was exactly Andrew Robb’s talking point from last night. Obviously, the dynamics in a referendum campaign are quite different from those in an election.
There’s another Nielsen poll out today showing a 56/44 split to the ALP.
And it’s been said here and elsewhere that if you analyse the movement during the last few campaigns, you find 2004 is the only one where the government gained ground.
But I’m sure that you’re more than capable of looking up all the psephological commentary for yourself.
It may well be that the final result won’t be what the polls are showing at the moment. That wouldn’t surprise me one iota. But at least either give us some actual analysis of the evidence about public opinion we have, or some extended argument based on the campaign, please.
And that’s meant to tell us what?
See here for some analysis:
http://www.newmatilda.com/election07/index.php/2007/10/25/the-politics-of-inflated-expectations/
To be fair Mark, when Barbara said ‘history of referendum polls’, she actually meant to say ‘every single movie in the Bad News Bears series of films’.
Very interesting that Robb made the same comment last night. I didn’t see it. It’s interesting because the Lib campaign is being craftily orchestrated around the theme of full employment and the magic “3″ number.
This is clearly intended to culminate in massive-ad pitch straight at the Labor heartland/marginals at the appropriate psychological moment in the campaign when the target voters have been reminded, educated, enlightened. Thus it has started with softening up (70% trade union officials guff), now being followed by Howards 100 tech schools and today the “training subsidies” for small business. In contrast, the Libs last campaign hit the major theme – interest rates -in the opening bar. I guess because they assessed the electorate didn’t need education and softening up on that issue?
This campaign theme is potentially devastating to Labor unless they have plans to head it off. Unfortunately the Kyoto debacle indicates they may not be ahead of the game – it was clear as bell last year that Howard was going to make climate change an issue about jobs, he appointed a heavyweight to the portfolio and Rudd had ample time to work out counter tactics.
Thus my point re “It’s the economy, stupid”.
Re Robb blahing “talking points”. Unhappy reality as it might be, the full employment pitch if delivered effectively would likely send Rudd’s current poll majority rushing back to Howard et al in a flood. Thus the referendum comparison. It’s a mistake to underestimate Robb. He has been one of the key backroom architects of Liberal campaigns in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004. He, Morris and Howard are hunting Rudd like a fox. Rudd is very slippery, as I’m sure you’d agree, but history shows the unspeakable usually win this encounter because the fox is on his own?
Barbara, that’s a good assessment of what their campaign strategy probably is, but whether or not it will work is another matter. I’m not sure that it’s being articulated at all persuasively, or that a particular narrative or story is being told to draw it all together. And, fundamentally, it’s still a very negative message and it begs a number of questions – not least why the government have been bragging so much about already having “full employment”. It’s obviously (along with the unions are scary bleh) a response to WorkChoices, but I suspect at the end of the day WorkChoices is too poisonous to be neutralised.
Karl Rove lost an election too, let’s not forget, after winning lots of them. Mastery of dark political arts only gets you so far, and perhaps nowhere near close enough if your time has been and gone.
Mark B says:
Mark B is saying that the landslide gap b/w ALP and LN/P has not narrowed. And shows no real sign of narrowing. This, taken together with his (dodgy) claim that “when federal governments lose in Australia, they have a tendency to lose big” means that Mark B is suggesting a massive landslide for the LN/P is probable on the facts.
Mark B’s interminable poring over the psephological tea leaves are probably wrong. The govts electoral disadvantage is most likely overstated by the polls.
I dont entirely trust the polls predictive capacity. In the past they seem to have somewhat underestimated the LN/P vote, perhaps due to a certain pro-govt inertial tendency when ballot comes to poll. They also do not take into account the distribution of votes. Howard has proven a past master of harvesting votes in marginal seats.
I have predicted the ALP will win convincingly, roughly along the lines of its 1983 victory, rather than the LN/P 1996 landslide. I have predicted a narrowing of the ALP-L/NP gap to about 53-47 TPP when ballots are cast.
I have also predicted Howard will retain his seat. North East Asians will probably sympathise with the elderly sage of Bennelong. I think the continuing boom will somewhat counteract the incumbency fatigue factor. Howard will probably try to capitalise on the “gratitude” factor.
The ALP’s dramatic lurch to the Cultural Right has neutralised much of the govts electoral advantage in this area. But the combination of Work Choice revulsion and incumbency fatigue will do Howard in.
I base my predictions on the Cameron-Crosby model (based on the stimulation/stagnation and incumbency/outcumbency factors). Plus factoring in Howards personal approval rating. If my prediction is falsified then Cameron-Crosby needs to be revised and much Howard hagiography needs to be consigned to the Dustbin of History.
Note: Commenters should make their theoretical model clear and derive testable predictions if they want to be treated seriously. This is the professional practice of competent social analysts, such as Quiggin and Brent. Otherwise commenters will just end up sounding like an idiot, a la Nai’bakov, tattling tales full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Paul Norton on 30 October 2007 at 9:27 am
The facts do not show this. Newspoll accurately predicted the GREENs last federal electoral performance. THe Newspoll taken before the 2004 election show the GREENs on 7%. Their actual electoral performance was 7.2%.
In 2004 I predicted a long term secular decline in the GREENs (and DEM) vote based on popular revulsion to their silly policies (base on discredited Left-liberal cultural ideology) and major party convergence on the sensible policies (such as sustainable ecology).
My prediction has been confirmed so far. The DEMS are history. I predict that the GREENs 2007 vote will be lower than its 2004 vote. I will bet Paul $100 on this. Mark B to hold the wager in escrow. Is Paul Norton game or is he just making pre-emptive excuses?
Jack, if for just once you decided to take some notice of what others say in response to you, you might like to consider the precise calculations of the degree to which various polls have over (and under) estimated each party’s vote. That would tend to bolster your claim to be doing something social-scientific, which is undermined by what can only be a prime example of tea leaf reading in this sort of comment:
While you generally ignore the epistemological attack on your method of proceeding, I’d have thought even you might see the obvious contradiction in this:
But, as I’ve said before, it’s a tiring exercise engaging with you since you never modify your position under criticism and never even acknowledge past critiques. So I’m not going to further. I do observe that you’ve given yourself a convenient out if your “prediction” proves to be off the mark, which doesn’t surprise me in the least. It would be more intellectually honest if you admitted that what you are writing is just your (fairly eccentric) opinion, rather than hiding behind all these pseudo-scientific trappings.
Except that they are not “bragging” about full employment but are talking about it as “potential” and holding out the magic “3″ as the goal to be achieved by the end of their next term. Their pitch is that only they, not Labor, can achieve this holy grail because of Labor’s submission to the unions. Since they seem confident that the union furphy resonates with their focus groups, what remains is to spotlight for the voters the meaning of full employment (unknown since the 60s) in a personal sense: ie a job awaiting every single one of their children upon leaving school. This is positive, not negative and if they pull it off Workchoices may be consigned very quickly to distant memory.
Shorter Jack.
“Measure my dick! But only with my special ruler. No, you can’t use it too. It’s special.”
My point, Barbara, is that if anyone has any sort of memory at all, they’ve been claiming that we’ve been in “full employment” territory for some time.
Their biggest problem is that the messenger isn’t credible even if the messages are well crafted.
Barbara, whenever the so called great employment figures are mentioned on radio talkback a flood of listeners are ready to question there validity, even if politicians and broadcasters do not. That one hour of employment a fortnight means you are employed is well known. I am not sure that the message you suggest will cut through. More likely it will go into ‘the more Howard lies’ basket.
I hope so, anyway.
Jack Strocchi wrote:
True as far as it goes, but this does not alter the fact that in the three years since Newspoll has consistently underestimated the Green vote in every virtually every State election, which is the evidentiary basis of my previous postings on this issue. When one adds to this the fact that Newspoll’s estimate of the national Green vote is well below that of all other polls and below what could be reasonably extrapolated from the 2004 Australian Election Study, one has reasonable grounds for suggesting that Newspoll is probably underestimating the national Green vote – certainly stronger evidentiary grounds than Jack has put forward for his own claim that Newspoll is underestimating the Coalition vote.
Totally idle, 100% speculation on my part: Has JWH got Parkinsons?
* Change in facial expression (staring, lack of blinking)
* Failure to swing one arm when walking
* Flexion (stooped) posture
* “Frozen” painful shoulder
* Limping or dragging of one leg
* Numbness, tingling, achiness or discomfort of the neck or limbs
* Softness of the voice
* Subjective sensation of internal trembling
* Resting tremor
Her indoors and myself have noticed that the old boy is just so expressionless (and comes across as cranky/grumpy) that something is up. The neighbour reckoned it was botox causing the Nicole Kidman like expression, but that wacky attack he had during the debate sealed it for me.
Mark on 30 October 2007 at 11:39 pm
My “claim to be doing something social scientific” is “bolstered” by my psephological prediction record. This is so far running at 100% success rate for the past two AUS federal elections, plus the past two UK and US elections.
If my commentary is “pseudo-scientific” how come my predictions seem to be on-track, in both policy and political matters.
I predicted a Great Convergence of major party policies towards the populist Centre. Rudds social conservatism and Howards fiscal largess substantiate this.
I predicted there would be a Great Concentration of the vote amongst the major parties (greater than 85% of the primary vote). The major parties are both polling above 40% in primary vote.
I predicted a collapse of the liberal-Left vote. The GREENS and DEMs are going to come in at well under 10% of the vote, much lower than 2004.
You continually suggest I am living in my own little world of constructs. Perhaps. But how do you explain that later on down the track real world observations match this constructions? Just lucky, I guess.
I am happy to stack this record up against anyone else doing electoral commentary in the Ozblogosphere. Mark, Norton, Kim, Tim Blair, Na’bakov, Mark, Mumbles, Quiggin, Dunlop, Catallaxy – bring ‘em on. This is not a boast, it is a request for measurable accountability which is strangely lacking from most pundits.
Far from being “eccentric” these predictions are now the Conventional Wisdom. Although they were not about five years ago when I published them.
I am intrigued to know if Mark B has any scientific succes. If you cant score predictive runs you dont make the intellectual cut. You need to put up or shut up.
Mark B says:
I take some notice of what you say about psephology. Some of it is worthwhile, such as your precautionary notes about margin of error, low undecideds and long term stable polling gaps – all implying a stable ALP-LN/P gap. I know this already but it helps to be reminded.
But most of your electoral commentary is useless squishy blather because you are not prepared to put forward a robust explanatory theory of the formation and transformation of psephological preference. Nor are you prepared to expose your ideas to the rigours of a predictive test.
My reasons for skepticism about the polls and predicting the narrowing of the ALP-L/NP polling gap at election time, are that over the past two electoral cycles the polls have underestimated the govt/overestimated oppo vote. This occurred (notoriously with Morgan) in 2001 and again 2004. As mumbles says:
Also, I have a reasonable faith in the robustness of the Cameron-Crosby model which predicts a large positive political value for a govt riding to an election on the back of high industrial and financial growth. Their model also factors in a large negative political value for the “long incumbency fatigue” factor.
This model is based on causal factors of the kind that influence the casting of vote when push comes to shove: the revelation of preference. This is the reason that the LN/P are campaigning on the economic growth whilst the ALP are campaigning on the “need for new blood”. I judge that the temporal factor outweighs the economic factor, but not by landslide proportions.
I expect the govt’s fiscal war-chest will give it greater ballot-for-buck in its search to make the most of the composition, rather than aggregation, of its potential vote. It is obviously doing all it can to attract buyable votes in marginal seats with a Santa-style targetted spending and tax-cutting spree.
Howard got out of jail in 1998 using these tactics. He seems to be trying the same thing this time around. I think it will get some results.
Mark B. says:
There is no spin doctoring in saying that Howard’s personal popularity is a factor that may bolster his vote come polling time. According to Lebovic Howard’s personal approval rating is the strongest on record for any major politician this far into a term of office. This is a good reason for expecting a sturdier “floor” under his vote than is suggested by the Ruddsliding polls.
There is also nothing irrational in suggesting that NE Asians may have a sneaking admiration for Howard which will give him an subtle edge in his electorate. His elder status, social conservatism and small-business values appeals to that demographic. I know the area and those people reasonably well as I get my info-tech gear from computer fairs run by Asian nerds.
So I predict Howard will win in Bennelong, despite current adverse polls.
Mark B. says:
Your observation is a product of an overheated imagination or a desperate attempt to shore up a collapsing position. You need to quote not fabricate your adversaries arugment.
My win-lose prediction, made in mid 2006 when Beazley was leader and the polls were neck and neck, was for an ALP victory. There is no “convenient out” for this. It is black or white.
My more-or-less spread prediction is for a comfortable, not landslide, win for the ALP. I am betting ALP 53-LN/P 47 (+/- 1). An ALP 55-LN/P 45 result would refute my theory.
What evidence would refute your theory? Oh, I forgot, you dont believe in general theory and you are frightened of empirical testing.
Mark B. says:
That is blatantly false. The internets are overflowing “acknowledgement of past critiques” with scrupulous quotation, chapter and verse, and painstaking point-by-point refutation.
Moreover I always “modify my position under criticism” when it is empirically falsified, eg mad support for the Iraq war, foolish support for Latham’s candidature, false belief in the housing bubble. I dont see much in the way of “I was wrong” confessions from anyone else.
No doubt there are serious epistemological problems with predicting future events, such as the reflexivity of predictions and the unpredictability of exogenous factors. Accidents happen to good theories. And bad theories sometimes have good luck.
But periodic elections in stable constitutions show a fair bit of underlying regularity. Enough to make them a proper subject for scientific inquiry.
I have little respect for your cognophobic epistemology which is just a fancy disguise for intellectual ineptitude. Your position looks to me suspiciously like special pleading coming from those poorly performing students who decry the exam system as being a poor method of judging performance.
YOur hostility to general theory and predictive testing is just a symptom of the post-modernist intellectual surrender of reason. Like Na’bakov you are reduced to mindless ad hockery in the face of real complexity. You give up because you dont have the balls or brains to have a real go.
You are on record as denying the possibility of a scientific theory of electoral cycles or even electoral predictions. This implies that the modelling of Leigh, Cameron-Crosby, Ray Fair, mumbles, possum polytics et al is futile. You have a cheek to take such a stand, given your own embarassing dalliance with post-modern charlatans such as Derrida and Foucault.
Explanation and prediction are the acme of science, and the thing that drives the social scientists who you draw analysis from, such as possum polytics, mumbles and quiggin. It is what drives my commentary. So far I am ahead of these guys in the predictive competition. You have not even reached the starting line.
Na’bakov on 31 October 2007 at 3:04 am
There he goes again! Every so often Na’bakov makes off-color, usually fabulous, references to my sexual characteristics and history. He cant seem to help himself.
One can only speculate what unmentionable motive must be driving this strange compulsion. The charitable interpretation is its just the banal one of a gutter mind.
On a serious note: Zero facts + Zero logic = Zero substance. Not surprising that he has made no response to my challenge to refer us to his social scientific scorecard. Expect stony silence on that score for about 900 years.
It would not be so bad if the subject could sweeten the fluffy substance with a less self-indulgent style. No such luck, curses!
The poncy purple prose is bad enough. But its the catty bitchiness of Larvatus Prodeo High’s Queen Bee that really gives the game away.
Poor Mme Na’bakov, compensating for his intellectual inabilities with cringe-inducing social skiting. He should give up the double-life, throw off the intellectual drag and embrace his inner society matron.
As far as I can tell, dear Mr Strocchi, you’ve just selected these numbers to confirm your off the top of your head prediction of a “comfortable, not landslide, win for the ALP” and on no “scientific” basis whatsoever.
54% which is within your “spread” would give the ALP 32 seats more than the Coalition. Some might call that a landslide.
Or perhaps you have some sort of *scientific* construct of the said term????
Now *that’s* a sample size.
Very short Jack.
“I can’t tell the difference between a metaphor and my manhood.”
Kim on 1 November 2007 at 2:51 am
YOu cant tell very far Kim. But then we know that because of your craven response to my challenge to present your own general theory or predictive test of AUS psephologic behaviour.
Read what I wrote before runnnig off at the mouth. I picked these numbers because experience suggests the polls are underestimating the LN/Ps vote.
The record shows that samples can be biased against the govt by a couple of points. As mumbles said of 2004 “throughout the campaign every pollster over-stated ALP primary support a little, most underestimated the Coalition’s”.
Also, the polls, whatever they are, will underestimate the govts overall seats because, as I said, “the govt’s fiscal war-chest will give it greater ballot-for-buck in its search to make the most of the composition, rather than aggregation, of its potential vote.”
This is Howards successful practice on past history and contemporary experience. I assume this tactic will have some success.
Kim says:
THe benchmark for landslides was set by the ALP in 1975 and 1996. This is a where the winner has about double the seats of the loser. That is 55-45 territory.
The polls predict the ALP is in this territory. These samples are somewhat at odds with standard psephological theory and conventional wisdom about the electorate.
The only way to resolve this problem is to suggest that these samples are slightly biased, which is what I have done. Or the population has changed in some unconventional way or standard theory is wrong.
Pr Q’s thinks that demographic change has altered the underlying ideological parameters of the population. In plain language, the older generation is no longer reliably right wing because it is now being replaced by a cohort of aging boomers whose only life-long committment is an anti-LN/P political bias.
It is also possible that standard theory is wrong. We shall have to wait for the election to settle that. But I cant see any good reason to doubt standard theory at the moment.
Standard theory suggests that incumbency fatigue is the most likely cause for a govt loss in circumstances. But long incumbencies (eg LN/P in 1966 and 1983) dont usually end in landslide losses unless some other factor amplifies them.
As the old saying goes, Opps dont win elections, govts lose them. But the LN/P govt is a moderate centre-Right govt and is not obviously doing anything drastically wrong.
The amplifying factors for a landslide govt defeat are usually economic recession, martial defeat or political scandal. None of these are present in AUS.
The other possibility is that there are major differences b/w the parties, caused by some ideological ruction within the polity or society. But, as I predicted since the early noughties., we are in the era of “The Great Convergence” where me-too is the norm, rather than exception.
The LN/P is a moderate centre-right govt which courts the populist vote. It has shifted to the centre on climate change, privatisation and community service provision.
The are two significant differences b/w the parties, of Rudd’s nerdy personality and HOwards nasty IR policy. Neither of these two differences look significant enough to cause a landslide.
But that is pure speculation on my part.