Tag Archive for 'Antony Green'

Parsing the polls: Just how strong is Labor’s lead, really?

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.)

The great by-elections sideshow

On Saturday night, I summed up the Higgins and Bradfield by-elections:

The final verdict – the whole thing is probably a bit of a side show.

The by-election results did, of course, lead to a particularly risible bit of Newspoll analysis (pace Possum) about the fabulous favour the Libs had done themselves by electing Tony Abbott, but since then, they’ve been kinda subsumed in the broader narrative of the Coalition’s Abbott/Joyce/Return of the Living Dead desire to rebadge ‘Howard’s battler’s’ as ‘Abbott’s Army’. A new piece of punditarial common sense in the making…

No doubt everyone will have forgotten Bradfield and Higgins soon, but in the meantime, Antony Green observes:

In my view there are very few implications that can be drawn from Saturday night’s result. Yes the Liberal Party improved its hold on both seats. However, both seats are unrepresentative of the general electorate because they are both very safe Liberal seats. There was no Labor candidate in either seat, making it hard to assess the results as a normal two-party contest. The Liberal party also ran highly localised campaigns in both seats and this played a part in isolating the result from the internal party shenanigans that went on in Canberra the week before the poll.

In summary, not much happened, everyone should move on.

Instead, journalists and bloggers across the country have become auguries, examining the entrails of the booth by booth results to try and divine some patterns. Godammit, it was an election, it must mean something!!

Green goes on to parse George Megalogenis’ claims in The Australian this morning (which I can’t find online). It’s a lengthy analysis, but the really important implications for Australian politics are contained in the last section: Continue reading ‘The great by-elections sideshow’

Higgins by-election (and Bradfield by-election)

Tomorrow sees voters in Peter Costello’s old seat of Higgins (and Brendan Nelson’s seat of Bradfield) go to the polls. Labor is not running in either by-election. That seemed like an arguably justifiable decision at the time nominations closed, but it’s looking, in the eyes of some observers, like less of a smart roll of the dice in the wake of the Liberal #spill madness, and what might be charitably described as a very scrappy start to Tony Abbott’s leadership. It’s interesting to ponder the remarks attributed to Anthony Albanese, who apparently was telling MPs to pencil in the last scheduled Liberal party room meeting of the parliamentary year as the day the leadership would change hands. Whether or not that’s so, or it’s a claim made or inflated with the benefit of hindsight, Labor would have been anticipating the likelihood of the ETS defeat this week, but probably a Hockey leadership rather than the ascension of the Mad Monk to such ethereal realms.

Reports of the amount of money the Libs have been spending suggest that they must be seriously worried about Higgins. It’s difficult to say from this distance, but a number of observers suggest that The Greens’ Clive Hamilton has not run much of a grass roots campaign. That could be scuttlebutt, and I’d be very interested in any views from those closer to the action. But the prospect of the Liberals losing Higgins to The Greens is quite an extraordinary one, and the converse to the ‘Labor should have run’ argument is that it would be an even greater reverse for the opposition than the seat falling to the ALP (though, as Hugo Kelly and Rebekka Power argue, it could be a case of Labor strategists being too clever by half in handing The Greens an inner city Melbourne base).

If Hamilton runs Kelly O’Dwyer close, it will highlight the absurdity of the argument that the Liberals, in rejecting the ETS and elevating Abbott, were playing to their ‘base’. If Higgins isn’t a blue ribbon Lib seat, it’s hard to think of one. As Antony Green observed, while the margin has sometimes been deceptively narrow, the consistency of the Liberal hold on the areas that make up the core of the electorate is what counts.

The other fascination about these by-election contests is that they represent the first test of the new Liberal leader in seats held by one of his two predecessors this term (both of whom now hold sinecures courtesy of Kevin Rudd and the Labor government), and of course, the former electorate of the Great Pretender to the Liberal crown. A loss in either one would be a devastating blow. I wonder how the results will be called, and if there’ll be a bit of bar raising by the commentariat, but serious reverses on the primary vote in either or both seats should speak for themselves. Again, the case for Labor not running candidates in by-elections in Liberal seats is that the focus will be all on the opposition, as opposed to the usual media predictathon when governments lose traction at by-elections.

It should be interesting to watch both unfold. Please feel free to add any reports and links to this thread throughout the day!

Update: The Liberals have retained both seats, it would appear with increased margins on the 2PP. Looking at Higgins, the key is the fact that the Greens’ primary vote is less than Labor’s at the 2007 general election. [Update: That previous comment was made with a number of booths still outstanding. But see also this analysis from Rebekka Power.] It’s evident that there are a fair few ALP voters who won’t vote Green, something I noted on a number of occasions. No doubt these results will be spun as a great victory for Abbott, but the missing element in the equation is the absence of a Labor candidate.

Having said that, I still think The Greens made a big mistake by nationalising the contest, and running a candidate like Clive Hamilton. Kelly O’Dwyer’s ‘Mayor of Higgins’ campaign capitalised on his outsider status well, it would seem. I suggested previously that The Greens might have done better to run a well known local – parochialism always plays well in by-elections, particularly against blow-ins, as the Liberal research no doubt showed. As I intimated in the post, there may have been an element of expectations management going on, with the Libs talking down their chances in advance of the vote.

But I think it’s fair to say that The Greens won’t, and shouldn’t be, happy with the outcome.

But the Libs shouldn’t be all that happy either, as they know full well they ran defensive strategies avoiding the big issues of national politics. These seats should be a total shoo-in for anyone with the Libs’ label on the ballot paper.

The final verdict – the whole thing is probably a bit of a side show.

Bartlett to run for Brisbane

Former Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett has announced he will be contesting the federal seat of Brisbane for The Greens. That’s my local electorate, and I’m looking forward to an interesting contest!

Antony Green has much more. He points out that Bartlett’s chances aren’t fantastic, because it’s easier for a minor party to take a marginal than a safe seat, as they need to outpoll one of the major parties to be in with a shot. I don’t necessarily agree with Green, though, that Teresa Gambaro brings anything particular to the Liberal cause. She was a pretty lacklustre member for Petrie, and I don’t know that the seafood angle in the name recognition stakes is worth all that much. The Libs have run fairly high profile candidates in the seat before – notably Ingrid Tall in 2004. Tall is a well known doctor whose sexuality disgracefully prompted the Nationals to run a “family values” candidate.

The Libs have usually run well organised campaigns, and Labor has been worried about gentrification and shifting demographics for some time. But the sorts of potential Liberal voters who’ve been moving into the seat are more the types who’d be attracted by a hypothetical Liberal party where Malcolm Turnbull had actually fulfilled his small l Liberal promise. Gambaro doesn’t seem to me to be the best candidate – and we still need to factor in whatever chaos the LNP label might wreak on the Liberal vote in inner city Brisbane.

Arch Bevis probably doesn’t have much of a political future – he’s unlikely to ever sit on the front bench again. But he hasn’t been the member for almost 20 years for no reason – he’s well liked and respected, and works the electorate assiduously. I think he’d have had no trouble holding it whatsoever, and I suspect that’s still more than likely to be the case, though Bartlett’s candidacy certainly promises a less predictable contest.

At any rate, I’ll now be thinking about where to direct my first preference.

Green on The Greens in Higgins II

My previous post on Clive Hamilton’s selection as The Greens’ candidate in the Higgins by-election has sparked a thread largely devoted to Hamilton’s views and suitability as a candidate, rather than the party’s electoral chances, or indeed, the strategy of using the by-election to highlight climate change as an issue. That sorta proves my point about the lack of wisdom – whatever one thinks of Hamilton – in selecting a controversial, high profile candidate (… though presumably, it will enable The Greens to make an argument that national or global issues trumped local issues – should he do well, that is).

While Possum appeared to believe that The Greens had a shot at Higgins (and blew it with the preselection of Hamilton), Antony Green is much more sceptical. In a new post on his election blog, Green highlights historical data demonstrating that the margin in Higgins somewhat belies how safe the seat probably is in reality. He also argues, on the basis of a number of federal and state by-elections, that a prominent local may well have been a better pick, a point I also made in my post.

In both Cunningham and Fremantle, the Greens ran candidates with local credentials who could concentrate on local issues, classic think global act local politics. Yet in Higgins the Greens have done the reverse, choosing a candidate who lives in Canberra and has no links to the electorate, and is running on a climate change agenda that can only be described as act global politics. It is the exact opposite of a previously successful Green strategy.

Green on The Greens and Higgins

ABC election analyst Antony Green has a very interesting and comprehensive post up on the Higgins (and Bradfield) by-elections.

Among his observations:

Safe Liberal seats in Melbourne have never been as safe as the safest Liberal seats in Sydney. In Sydney the price of desirable land with trees and a view plays an important part in sieving people by class. Without the complex geography of hills, plains and harbour shores, Melbourne’s suburbs have always showed more class mixing than Sydney.

Green doesn’t believe Labor will run a candidate. I think he’s probably right, and the clue as to why is disclosed in another of his comments:

The Greens will nominate and poll well in the absence of a Labor candidate. The problem for the Liberal Party in both Bradfield and Higgins is to try and avoid an adverse swing. The Greens will campaign on the need for climate change action, so a swing to the Greens at either by-election would raise pressure on the Liberal Party during Senate debate on the government’s emission trading legislation.

Any swing would allow the Greens to argue the public wants more action on emissions than the government is offering. But it would also allow the government to argue the Liberal Party should at least back the government’s legislation.

Mountains to climb – Brisbane is a city of hills

No doubt the mantra that Lawrence Springborg needs to win Brisbane seats will be repeated endlessly over the next 26 days until Queensland votes. And it will be true. Just how difficult his task is can be discerned from looking at the five most at risk Labor seats in the Greater Brisbane area (leaving aside Clayfield which is nominally Labor after the redistribution but which actually has an LNP incumbent, and Indooroopilly where the situation is complicated by sitting MP Ronan Lee’s party switch from the ALP to The Greens). The list and the figures are complied from Antony Green’s pendulum, with the margin and then the two major parties’ 2006 primary votes shown for each seat:

Chatsworth 0.1% Labor primary 45.5% Liberal primary 46.1%

Cleveland 1.3% Labor Labor primary 42.4% Liberal primary 41.6%

Aspley Labor 3.1% Labor primary 49.5% Liberal primary 41.7%

Springwood 5.7% Labor Labor primary 49.2% Liberal primary 39.2%

Redcliffe Labor 6.0% Labor primary 49.2% Liberal primary 40.0%

Seeing a pattern here? If we took the series out to the tenth domino the Borg might want to topple, Everton, we’re at a Labor margin of 10.6% derived from a Labor primary of 52.0% and a Liberal primary of 33.1%. I won’t go on, but if you have a squizzy at most of the seats above the 3% range in the metropolitan area, the Green primary in 2006 was lower than the difference between the Labor and Liberal first preference vote, and Labor was well within cooee of 50% on the primaries.

I reckon you can conclude two things from this. Continue reading ‘Mountains to climb – Brisbane is a city of hills’

Queensland election – it’s all happening

Lots of stuff going on at the moment – there’s a great roundup at The Poll Bludger of this week’s retirements and preselections. And Antony Green’s election guide is up.

Note that this doesn’t necessarily imply that an election is imminent. It does show that all the ducks are being lined up. That’s not quite the same thing. The conditions for an election announcement are being created – for the first time since all the speculation began, but the finger might be on the trigger for a while longer.

But I’ll have more to say about the timing of the election over the next couple of days – got a bit more “picking up the phone” to do. I will join the predictions crowd on the basis of what I’ve been hearing from Labor folks so far, though. I’d say the odds are good that the election will be announced next week or the week after. But a final decision hasn’t been taken, as I understand it. If we get through the next fortnight or so without an announcement, it’s likely that the window of opportunity will be closed and we’ll be looking at an election date much closer to full term – probably in August.

Update [by Kim]: Link rich state of play in the Queensland politics stakes at Woolly Days.

Speaking of Queensland politics…

As a bit of a postscript to my last post on the latest Queensland Newspoll, The Poll Bludger advises that Antony Green’s analysis of the redistributed state electoral boundaries has been published as a paper by the Queensland Parliamentary Library. It’s an invaluable resource for any Queensland politics watchers. According to Green’s calculations, Labor now nominally holds 62 out of 89 seats on the new boundaries (up from 59 won in the 2006 election). The LNP now needs to win 22 (up from 20) to form a majority government, and Labor would have to suffer a negative swing of 7.6% to lose its majority (up from -7.2%).

I’d be surprised if anyone sensible in the LNP could put together a target list of 22 or more seats where they have a realistic chance.

Continue reading ‘Speaking of Queensland politics…’

Labor states on the nose!!!

I’ve written before about why I think that the “media narrative” masquerading as psephological analysis that there’s some sort of automatic fall in support for state Labor parties because of some putative desire among voters to have different parties governing at different levels. I suspect the proximate origin of this meme is actually the “wall to wall Labor” scare the Liberals ran in last year’s election. As Kim was suggesting the other day, this is a political tactic that normally indicates despair among incumbents, and it’s completely wrong to assume it reflects some sort of psephological law or reality in voting behaviour. Anyone familiar with the political science literature knows that attempts to demonstrate any posited strong correlation between state and federal partisan choices over time falls down very quickly – even in New South Wales where it’s long been political myth that the strongest case can be made. In part that’s because there are two few cases of actual partisan change in elections over much of the postwar period – something that becomes immediately apparent when you think about the fact that the federal government didn’t turn over at all between 1949 and 1972.

There was another outbreak of this guff on Monday in The Australian, apropos of quarterly newspolls in New South Wales and Victoria. There was the usual news story and two op/ed pieces to ram home the point. It was intriguing to see the frame applied to the comments of ABC election analyst Antony Green: Continue reading ‘Labor states on the nose!!!’