Although the new Newspoll (and presumably the Newspoll with the unpublished voting intention figures) shows a return to what has become normality with a 2PP of 56/44 in Labor’s favour, all the talk among the commentariat is of “the trend”.
We’ve seen umpteen “honeymoon is over” stories, with a sub-theme that Liberal research (no doubt being spruiked around the press gallery as we speak) demonstrates “doubts” about Kevin Rudd.
But what of this trend?
Possum illuminates the story:
Interestingly enough, while the volatility has been pretty high, the actual polling trends tell a slightly more boring and probably realistic story – the period where asylum seekers have dominated the media cycle has seen 2 points knocked off the government’s two party preferred on both the all pollster and phone pollster trend measures.
With polling showing a divided public on the asylum seeker issue (and not evenly divided along party lines), it would be wrong to infer people on boats is the reason for this relatively small movement (and even more wrong to conclude it’s just because Rudd isn’t “tough” enough). It’s equally plausible to conclude that it may be just because the government looks a bit messy – which is, in part, an artefact of the media coverage. Though that’s not to say that the Ruddster’s own messaging efforts aren’t part of the picture.
But I’d be very reticent about claiming “Liberals back in the game” at this stage.
But the problem is unless you are claiming “the Coalition are back in the game the ALP are teh rooned!” you are of course accused of left wing bias.
Unless of course you’re the ABC in which case you can say “the Coalition are back in the game the ALP are teh rooned!” and still be accused of left wing bias.
I’ve said it here before on numerous occasions – the Coalition are no chance at the next election.
I think it’s about 55/45 at the moment (just a gut feeling), but I really do think the best the Coalition could do, without some sort of ground-shifting event, at the next election is about where they ended up at the last election – 52.5-47.5.
I dare anyone to accuse me of left-wing bias. (Cheers tssk)
So, was “the rogue poll” really a rogue? Can you pick a trend from two dodgy polls? I think not.
These poll results are being treated like celebrity blow-ins (Hi, Tiger!!) – all flimflam, gushing and breathless abandon…..
I see these 3 points as both accurate and pleasing:
“it would be wrong to infer people on boats is the reason for this relatively small movement….it may be just because the government looks a bit messy ….which is, in part, an artefact of the media coverage”
Basically what has happened is that the media has engaged in probably the single largest example of hype and hysteria for a very long time, years, a month or more of near absolute saturation coverage, but for minimal impact on the Oz public.
It suggests that the old racist/xenophobic dog whistle has little pulling power anymore.
And that reflects relatively well on the Oz public, they have moved on from the days of darkness leaving the media and COALition substantially behind.
“It suggests that the old racist/xenophobic dog whistle has little pulling power anymore.”
Yep, it just does not seem to be working. That does not, of course, mean they will stop flogging that dead horse.
I wonder if they might not have done better if they had of run on the oil spill. It simply received bugger all coverage. It had “real crisis” written all over it , poor government response and Mart the fart, as an added bonus. Oh well.
I agree; the racist, xenophobic stuff does not seem to be working very well.
4.4 million people in this country were not born here, 60% of new arrivals come from Asia. Remember, the Asians threw Howard out – or so the story goes.
I really don’t think the racist stuff works very well when about 1/4 the people you have contact with in your every-day life are of a different ethnicity from yours.
Huggy
Essential Polling mentioned that their shift in polling came about exclusively from the over-55s moving toward the Coalition. That to me seems the likeliest thing that’s happened here. The asylum seeker issue pushed their buttons.
The Coalition won’t be able to keep them, though. Unless asylum seekers remain a prominent news story, the figures will drift back to Labor. The Coalition simply aren’t providing anything compelling at all for voters. And from what I can tell, most of the voters they’ve lost since the election would only be interested in returning if either Howard or Costello were leading the party anyway.
For the numbers to get dangerously close, I think three things need to happen:
1. Some kind of urgent refugee situation – a Tampa style thing.
2. Labor to handle it extraordinarily badly.
3. The Coalition to provide something unified and intelligent in response.
The first is possible. The second seems unlikely. The third I can’t actually imagine at all.
Once the CPRS Senate stuff starts, the Libs won’t just not be back in the game. They’ll be off the field.
On the CPRS stuff Morgan has a poll out of ‘674 men and women aged 14 or over’ [interesting choice of words].
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4436/
All sorts of info there but despite the potential for negative spin:
-”while 46% (up 12%) of L-NP supporters disapprove of the legislation”
-”If we don’t act now it will be too late/already too late” has dropped from 69% to 66%
the key points this little black duck sees are that:
-the ratio of approve to disappprove [minus 'dunno's] is 5:3
- a plethora of possible causes for disapproval given to the disapproving minority gives an almost random scatter of reasons with, and this is the major point, only 6% citing “Don’t believe in global warming” as their reason.
Thats a tiny percentage of a minority.
I think we are about to see a trend reversal as the issue starts to regain the attention it deserves.
Mark says:
We’ve seen umpteen “honeymoon is over” stories, with a sub-theme that Liberal research (no doubt being spruiked around the press gallery as we speak) demonstrates “doubts” about Kevin Rudd.
I have always thought that the polls average 55-45 was an over-estimate of the ALP. I am going for a 53 (ALP) – 47 (L/NP) spread in 2010, which is what I predicted for the 2007 election.
It is possible (probable?) that the 53 (ALP) – 47 (L/NP) spread is the new equilibrium point for median voter preference in AUS’s two-party preferred electoral pendulum. This follows from the systematic pro-ALP bias amongst Baby Boomers, NESBs and single-mothers.
My interpretation of the polling data since 2006 is that underlying support for Rudd-ALP has remained pretty stable. Although the observed polling data jumps around a fair bit it tends, IMHO, to overstate the ALP’s vote. Since 1949 the ALP has never won a landslide (56-44 TPP) victory. They aren’t going to start now.
In the publicity of an opinion poll the “halo effect” will tend to help ALP/GREEN. In the privacy of the polling booth the average voters thoughts turn to how best to serve moi and screw tu. This helps the L/NP.
OTOH the Rudd-machine seems to be avoiding the mid-term slump that generally afflicts most governments. I put this down to the ALP’s structural electoral advantage in decisive demographics, geezer boomers, NESBs and unwedded mothers.
The median voters do not really love the ALP-Rudd, they just can’t stomach the thought of voting for the L/NP, akin to having an affair with the wall-flower. In that sense the “honeymoon” is long over since it never really began.
Eventually the voters will tire of the ALP, probably mid-way through the second term (~2011) when the ETS bills start to clock up. Thats when the electoral pendulum will start to recede from the Rudd zenith.
I have already predicted that he will win 2010 53-47, a slight improvement on his 2007 performance. No reason to change that prediction.
The commentariat (and blogitariat) have to have something to talk about every day, even if its noticing the noise rather than signal. And every journalist knows that two data points with the same sign represent a “trend”.
So how is it that Mr Rudd has held his advantage with those groups, Sgr Strocchi?
“Not rocking the boat”? “Steady as she goes.” Good policy? Consultation? Distinguishing himself from Mr Howard, decisively and repeatedly? Responding to the GFC with strong and well-directed stimulus?
Does it all amount, ultimately, to basic good government which is appreciated by some 53% to 56% of electors?
Is it as simple as that?
(In other words the ‘honeymoon’ ends when signs of poor decision-making, or fractious Ministers, or scandal…. hit the news…..
Ambigulous@#11 Nov 18th, 2009 at 6:47 am
They can’t stand the L/NP which they see (correctly) as representing older, whiter, straighter, richer society.
Ambigulous says:
There is very little to choose in governance virtues between the ALP and L/NP. Perhaps the L/NP is a little more inclined to pander to business interests and feather ex-ministers nests. But the ALP party machine is a formidable engine of patronage.
The ALP won the last election because all major parties in homogeneous electorates tend to converge on policy and therefore alternate in charge of the polity. It just takes time for the electoral pendulum to swing back and forth.
The ALP and L/NP are now virtually indistinguishable as regards policy ideologics, as distinct from polity psephologics. The one outstanding difference is in climate change. The L/NP are now in process of converging with the ALP on that policy.
When they do they will become electable. But it will take at least another Rudd-ALP term for that time to come. A minimum of two terms.
(I correctly predicted the last election to within 0.5% of TPP vote, so I am confident of my model.)
Ambigulous@#11 Nov 18th, 2009 at 6:47 am
They can’t stand the L/NP which they see (correctly) as representing older, whiter, straighter, richer society.
Ambigulous says:
There is very little to choose in governance virtues between the ALP and L/NP. Perhaps the L/NP is a little more inclined to pander to business interests and feather ex-ministers nests. But the ALP party machine is a formidable engine of patronage.
The ALP won the last election because all major parties in homogeneous electorates tend to converge on policy and therefore alternate in charge of the polity. It just takes time for the electoral pendulum to swing back and forth.
The ALP and L/NP are now virtually indistinguishable as regards policy ideologics, as distinct from polity psephologics. The one outstanding difference is in climate change. The L/NP are now in process of converging with the ALP on that policy.
When they do they will become electable. But it will take at least another Rudd-ALP term for that time to come. A minimum of two terms.
(I correctly predicted the last election to within 0.5% of TPP vote, so I am confident of my model.)
Ambigulous@#11 Nov 18th, 2009 at 6:47 am
They can’t stand the L/NP which they see (correctly) as representing older, whiter, straighter, richer society.
Ambigulous says:
There is very little to choose in governance virtues between the ALP and L/NP. Perhaps the L/NP is a little more inclined to pander to business interests and feather ex-ministers nests. But the ALP party machine is a formidable engine of patronage.
The ALP won the last election because all major parties in homogeneous electorates tend to converge on policy and therefore alternate in charge of the polity. It just takes time for the electoral pendulum to swing back and forth.
The ALP and L/NP are now virtually indistinguishable as regards policy ideologics, as distinct from polity psephologics. The one outstanding difference is in climate change. The L/NP are now in process of converging with the ALP on that policy.
When they do they will become electable. But it will take at least another Rudd-ALP term for that time to come. A minimum of two terms.
(I correctly predicted the last election to within 0.5% of TPP vote, so I am confident of my model.)
Strocchi cubed = Strocchi