I’ve been wondering myself, recently, about the significance of Labor’s unbroken lead in the polls, which if memory serves, has persisted for over three years now. There’s little doubt that it’s Rudd’s election to lose, but, conversely, big Labor victories in both seat and vote terms have been rare at federal level. Labor’s vote in the 2007 election was also lower than its poll lead had been in the run up, on most measures.
Fortunately, psephological bloggers are on the case!
Both Antony Green and Possum have written thoughtful and well informed posts on just this topic.
I’d add a couple of points:
(a) It’s quite right to be a tad suspicious about whether polls are measuring something slightly different from voting intention. To me, the biggest gap in the polls we have is always the lack of any data on intensity of interest in politics, which could, I think, usefully be correlated with strength of commitment to a particular voting preference. Part of the advantage to incumbents, I suspect, comes from the fact that a lot of the people, a lot of the time, are just not thinking much about politics;
(b) As I’ve commented on and off again and again for years, politics is not amenable to prediction in quite the same way other forms of behaviour are. (A good contrast is with consumption, where the aggregation of individual purchases makes more sense, I’d suggest, than the aggregation of individual votes; the frequent conflation of political behaviour with marketing terminology is misleading – ‘brand loyalty’ is just not the same thing with political parties as with mobile phones or flavoured milk.)
“…a lot of the people, a lot of the time, are just not thinking much about politics”
Who are these people…?
No matter what happens, someone who gets paid to work and write/speak for a major media outlet will come out after the election, later this year, and say “I told you this would happen. How predictable”.
Rudd will win, somewhere between 52-48 and 54-46, and have an slightly increased majority. Consider my neck put on the line.
If Labor wants to turn 52-48 into 54-46, I’d recommend two things:
1. Run hard on being the government that introduced the MySchool web site. Its the most effective means of engaging with the public that this government has come up with so far. They’ll get bonus points if the teachers’ unions refuse to administer the test in May (which I’m almost certain is a contingency that has been planned for in Julia Gillard’s office), and extra bonus points if the Labor state governments start complaining (especially NSW or Queensland).
2. Dump the CPRS and give Penny Wong a better portfolio. Everyone who intends to vote on the basis of the government’s CPRS has decided to vote against them on the basis of it, and are mostly not in swing seats. Keeping it alive only leaves them open to anxieties in marginal seat land about higher electricity bills. The failure of Copenhagen and the obstructionist Senate give them an out clause here. Make noises about revisiting the issue depending on what happens to the Senate.
If I were them I’d also consider ditching the rise in energy bills this year. Those who already can change their energy behaviour have and any pressure using rising bills will just punish the poor.
Predictions made on limited sampling of contemporaneous beliefs and opinions in respect to election outcomes always have limitations, especially when one party manages to find and drag a red herring (Children overboard) across the trail to the voting stations. The only assurance, even if limited,a candidate or party can have is to build up a large preference margin before the chips go down I guess.
Two things are being conflated here — the ALP poll lead and their likely margin of victory.
Even if the ALP does no better than its 53-47 from the last election, if will probably win a significant number of seats from the coalition due to boundary changes (and some retirements). It’s likely also that the changing voter mix will improve ALP prospects in some seats, since most of the new voters are from strongly pro-ALP demographics. (Young people, new citizens …) It’s also likely that the ALP will see to it that the registration period and process will not excluse 100,000 or so young people as it did last time.
Traditionally, the two issues that tend to run for the coalition when they win or go close are economic management and national security. In the last election some who voted for the coalition were worried about the ALP’s relative inexperience but this time around, that won’t fly, since they are not only the incumbents, but would be seen as having performed strongly by those who hitherto rejected them on this basis. The only element of national security that will run for the coalition would be “border security” but that won’t attract anyone who voted ALP last time and will probably alienate at least some who voted Liberal. It will pelase the core but they won’t vote ALP any way.
My tip is a 2PP margin of something like 55-45 and perhaps a little better. As the election draws closer if the Liberals become a rabble and qwe get a new iteration of “Joh for PM — “Barnaby?” — that might cause an even bigger blow out — maybe 58-42 …
Terry, Labor can’t credibly dump the CPRS while continuing to promise to do something about climate change.
I commented elsewhere about the non-political nature of the Australian electorate, so my only comment here is to do with the “brand” politics.
In Australia, successful political parties aim to get a majority of votes – that is, the 30% of locked in voters (30% for Labor, 30% for Libs), and over half of the “swinging” voters (total 40%). This is why the “middle Australia” vote is so important, and why both Howard and Rudd went for the “centre”. (This is also the big problem with Abbott – and Latham – since he fires up his own supporters, but not the swinging voters).
The “branding” is therefore about proving that you’re a moderate, not an ideologue, but rather a “safe pair of hands”.
I think, therefore, a good prediction for the August 2010 Federal Election is a repeat of Howard v. Latham, with Rudd taking the position of Howard, and Abbott standing in for Latham.
Robert
I suppose Terry’s point might be that losing credibility on climate change isn’t going to induce many, if any, effective ALP voters to change their vote to the coalition, but it might win over some who are bothered about it.
I rather doubt this, because although the first part of the claim is probably right, I don’t see those currently voting Liberal/National as being held back by little more than the CPRS. If the ALP were to effectively run dead on climate change, or come up with their own populist non-CPRS snafu, I suspect that there would be less enthusiasm for the party (which might hurt them at the margins) but there’d be little shift in votes.
As I noted above, I suspect they are going to have enough votes to win the next election by a larger margin than last time, and so from Rudd’s POV, there’s no upside to dumping this policy. Whether you control both houses by 24 seats and five (respectively) or 34 and 8 makes little difference.
Having too large a majority can actually be worse, since you then start having to deal with people who want to push their pet projects and whose discipline goes because they feel the government is bullet-proof. If you win in a landslide you inevitably get some real dingbats in the house. Elections are one way of imposing discipline on those involved in candidate selection.
The ideal margin from Rudd’s POV is probably “just enough to keep the troops in line and for me to deliver on what I think I need to keep winning”.
Economic mgmt will be an issue the Libs can run on. As the GFC recedes from public memory, debt & interest rates etc will quickly become potent symbolic issues.
My reading of the polls was that the CPRS was not a (net) vote changer. Rudd would look weak and indecisive, and his opponents would be vindicated, if he dumped the CPRS. At the moment, the Govt has a good story to tell: they are the only party with an actual plan and actual legislation, and the Libs and Greens are opposing real action on climate change”.
This is unlikely for the ALP, since caucus rules bind members. While individual MPs may push pet projects, in the ALP they cannot “go rogue” and vote out of line (doing so risks automatic expulsion from the Party).
Discipline of course is predicated on the authority of the leader, and that authority is based on success in elections and success in public polls.
Antony Green says the Coalition are no more hopeless than Arthur Calwell and the ALP in 1966.
True, the Coalition isn’t currenlty dealing with a formal split like Labor in 1966, but it is a shambles in every way – policy, leadership, finances.
Looking at past elections can give you a good sense of the country – for example, that federal elections in Australia tend to be fairly close. But it amazes me that people who live and breathe stats can fall into the most basic error: that the period since federation isn’t a terribly impressive statistical sample (especially when you consider that the modern two-party system didn’t settle into place until a decade into federation).
I’d make a few disclaimers on my earlier comment. I do believe the majority science on man-made global warming, I thought it important that something got passed last year even if it was inadequate to the task at hand, and I’m a Penny Wong fan, as you might have noticed.It can;t be easy to get up for work knowing that you will spend several hours in Canberra negotiating with a man who thinks its a good idea to dress in public as a beer bottle and talk climate science with him.
The question is now less whether a CPRS in its current form is a good idea – nothing will pass in the Senate as currently constituted – but whether this has become a net liability for Labor. My view is that it definitely has. Labor will gain no votes from Greens voters for introducing a stronger climate change policy, and is considerably more vulnerable electorally on its right flank, so to speak. This is because the strongest supporters of action tend to be geographically concentrated and already engaged, whereas the groups susceptible to a scare campaign are dispersed, highly disengaged, and more likely to be in marginal seats.
A recent Roy Morgan poll indicates the problem:
Linked text
Contrary to Morgan’s own analysis, I think the most relevant figure is not an increase in the numbers opposed to CPRS – I suspect this can be largely explained by the cooling (sorry for the pun) in support among Coalition voters in the wake of the Turnbull imbroglio – but the sheer range of reasons why people may oppose a CPRS. 28 reasons are identified, all of which can be tapped into by the Coalition, and all of which can provide the basis for some people to change their vote, even if as a whole they are not coherent or consistent, ore even necessarily sensible. Intellectual coherence, good sense or logical consistency are not going to be barriers to action in a Tony Abbott-led opposition.
None of that suggests that the issue is a vote-switcher, Terry, which goes back to the point I made in the post. As I always point out, all the best academic research shows that very few issues in and of themselves are ever worth more than 1-2% of a switch in actual votes. It’s got a lot more to do with what the parties do with the issues, and how that coheres into both positive and negative images overall.
Abbott’s message on climate change purports to be an economic one. He can’t go down the skepticism/denialist route openly, because he (if he has a brain) knows it will revive the spectre of Liberal disunity, and he’s going to be beaten round the head by the government with it anyway. His comments on the news tonight were all trying to hit the tax note, but Wayne Swan also previewed the government’s response – ‘Abbott wants to spend but can’t pay for it’.
We’ll hear a lot more about the Department of Climate Change’s costing of Abbott’s policy ($10.6 billion on last year’s stuff) before this election year is out.
Mark, there will be a difference between getting the bureaucrats to poke holes in Tony Abbott’s climate change policy (which shouldn’t be hard on form displayed so far), and proclaiming climate change to be “the greatest moral challenge of our generation”. If Kevin Rudd repeats anything like that 2009 statement in 2010, I’ll sit in a freezer room for 30 minutes. An the reason he won’t say it is not to do with a change in the weather.
Well, maybe not, Terry, but I think people are underestimating the degree of movement we might see from the government. I don’t necessarily think we’re just going to see the same immobility from Rudd et al that a lot of people are assuming.
Note that, for the first time, Penny Wong is sitting down with The Greens to talk next week in advance of Parliament resuming the week after.
I think we’ll see more thrills and spills than just from Tony Abbott.
And don’t forget to win the Labor party needs 50% + 1 of the 2PP vote in 50% + 1 of the seat. There’s often churn within a particular party’s polling, and within particular seats. You can piss a few people off to get more on side, in short.
I’m still completely unconvinced that there’s any constituency that can be materially be affected on climate change to the government’s disfavour. I don’t buy the argument about coal seats – there’s no necessity there, particularly if a compensation package still figures in any outcome; as with the older demographics. They might be over-represented among the CPRS sceptics and those who think climate change is exaggerated but they’re still polling for Labor higher than in the last election, too.
And I’d repeat the fact that climate change is most unlikely to be the central issue of the election. And during the election itself, the government has a lot of ability to shape opinion outside the framing of the media and what the commentariat think is important.
As My School demonstrate Mark. I’d love to know what, if anything, the focus groups say about it over the next few weeks.
Labor’s poll majority is very soft, it’s just that neither the Libs nor the Greens can hit them where it hurts.
The best thing that could happen to the CPRS legislation is that it goes to committee and gets faffed to death. Labor has two options then: “We tried” with goodwill intact thanks to economic performance, and the intact Garnaut report. All the Libs will have is one of those symbolic victories that get “insiders” all hot and bothered but which fails to translate into any net changed votes.
Second-best would be if Labor + Greens + Senators Troeth & Boyce get it through quickly, the reality becomes much less scary than first thought – like the GST. What gets me about these so-called conservatives is that they have no sense of history. Labor could follow the Howard-Costello playbook in getting the CPRS through like the GST to the very letter and nobody in the Coalition, not Abbott or Minchin or anyone else, could do a damn thing about it. Ergh, don’t get me started.
The constitutional provision about failing to pass has no bearing on the conduct of an election campaign – look at Hawke in 1984.
@18 – I’d venture the guess, Rob, that’s it’s going to prove to be a big political win for the government.
It passed my ‘hearing people talk about it with interest’ on the bus test yesterday!
I also think Peter Hartcher is onto something with this:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/reassuring-rudd-artfully-morphs-into-howard-lite-20100129-n403.html
Political journalists and commentators like a touch of unpredictably and biffo in political leaders, but voters don’t. The comparison of Latham with Abbott is telling. If there’s continued bad economic news overseas, particularly, people aren’t going to be much inclined to go with someone “unpredictable”. I wouldn’t be underestimating how effective Rudd’s narrative about saving Australia from economic doom will be.
Mark, yes the polls bus and doom tests are all good but otoh some seasoned salts see the “predictable” micro man still dudding along…
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rudds-options-on-health-costs-are-alarmist-and-misleading-20100126-mw8a.html
Ross Gittins
‘Rudd’s analysis is alarmist and highly misleading…And since, for good reason, we pay for our healthcare mainly via the public purse, this will involve higher taxes. Simple as that… Pity Rudd lacks the courage to tell us so.’
Paul Toohey Commander relieved of post for attack on brass, PM
January 30, 2010 12:00AM Herald Sun
‘Lieutenant Commander Brett Westcott was now on “other duties”… Norcom had no clear idea of what was to become of the asylum seekers… Westcott is also said to have lashed out at the Prime Minister and Cabinet for failing to make a decision on the fate of SIEV36… Even though it was Government policy that all passengers on detained vessels should be sent for processing at Christmas Island, Lt-Cdr Westcott believed the fate of each individual vessel was still decided at the highest levels of government… He is listed to give evidence at a Darwin coronial inquiry next week.’
The hun link is down but the curious snail link is still up following defence’s ‘all tosh’ media release; on past form I’d rather row in Paul’s canoe. We shall see.
Lex Hall and Jamie Walker Navy errors blamed for fire on SIEV 36
January 26, 2010 12:00AM The Oz
‘When SIEV 36 was initially boarded by a party from the Albany, “no final decision” had been made about how those on board were to be handled, Mr Walsh said in his opening address.’
Mike Steketee Labours in the ministry of truth
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labours-in-the-ministry-of-truth/story-e6frg6zo-1225824638788
‘Without a huge shift in the bureaucratic culture, the new Australian legislation will be little more than a political ornament, providing more ammunition for Tony Abbott to claim that the Rudd government is all talk and no action.’
Penny’s Air Kevin sandwich and how her department ‘glad’ wraps it in the name of transparency.
I’ll just add a contrarian thought: the polls understate Labor’s lead. That is, when voters enter the voting booth and are confronted with the stark choice of Rudd or Abbott, they will flee en masse to Rudd.
It’s as plausible as any other prediction in these strange times.
@22 – sure, but elections don’t normally turn on whether FOI isn’t really FOI, etc.
@23 – it’s not outside the realms of possibility!
If Abbott is as shaky as is being predicted, eyes will start to turn to the humble member for Wentworth sitting on the backbench, who I am sure harbours no ill feelings towards the leader and his frontbench colleagues.
And I’m sure he’ll be professing his loyalty on his blog and on Twitter!
I’d add one more thing: in 2007 there were no doubt many voters who lean Liberal who felt an attachment to Howard and were reluctant to turf out a Liberal government.
Will the same level of loyalty be shown to a shambles of an oppostion? I have my doubts.
I think there would be a lot of tradies out there who have been saying to themselves, “I’m not usually a fan of Labor, but I can’t deny that the stimulus kept my business/industry going and food on the table”.