The previous federal election thread was getting long and unwieldy, so I’ve closed it and set up shop here. Perhaps you might like to discuss today’s front page splash in The Australian, "Labor in strongest electoral position since 2001", based on a 56-44 Newspoll result.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
On Labor running in Wentworth at the last election, I’d actually guess coming into this election they’re better off – had an Independent won (albeit a former sitting Lib), they’d be harder to shift out of the seat than an actual Liberal member. I’d guess Labor have a much better chance of winning the seat under the current circumstances. If King had won the seat last time, swinging voters with a tendency to go Liberal would have no problem voting for a Liberal independent as it doesn’t mean voting for the actual Libs.
On WA – my gut feeling is that Labor will pick up both Coalition marginals, and have little trouble holding their own. The wildcard was the impact of the Burke scandal, and I think the Peel by-election showed that will be very small. I don’t think incumbency will help in Stirling, because we’re talking a low-profile first term member in Michael Keenan.
Canning’s an interesting one. I actually think if Labor got a swing nationally of 5% or more, they could go close to winning the seat, despite it being a 9.6% margin. Labor had a complete balls up with pre-selection there in 2004 after the original candidate died, and it is a seat that should be marginal, not safe either way. I’d expect a correction in the vote in Canning. I don’t get the impression Don Randall is all that popular either, but I could be wrong on that.
I think it’s far from obvious that Victorian Liberal seats are out of reach, although the pendulum encourages that interpretation. Someone earlier in the thread said that the Queensland results in 2004 were exaggeratedly bad for Labor. That is true in spades for Victoria. Since 1980, there have been only two Federal elections in which Labor’s Victorian 2PP vote has been under 50%. In 1990, the aftermath of the Cain Government’s crash and burn delivered a 2PP Labor vote of under 48%; 2004 the comparable figure was approximately 48.3%** Even in 2001, the vote was still 52%.
I would argue that as well as a post-Latham return to “normality”, the factors that appear to be shifting votes elsewhere will mean that this will be a better year for Labor than 2001.
Seats under the 6% margin would normally be out of reach; however, if the currently-observed swing is maintained, it isn’t out of the question that seats like Deakin, Corangamite and LaTrobe, even McEwen are contestable. Labor’s poor showing in Gippsland at the Victorian elections makes McMillan and Gippsland less likely, imo.
** My quick look around the likely sites didn’t produce any precise estimates for 2PP by State, so apart from Mumble’s graphs, I’ve just made some approximate estimates based on primary votes and assumptions about the distribution of non major Party prefs. I certainly stand open to correction on the numbers quoted.
I think the alluring 2.5% Liberal 2-party majority in Wentworth should be treated with caution, for two reasons.
* In 2004 over 40% of King’s voters preferenced Patch. Most of the anger at Turnbull rolling King has now dissipated, and a lot of those voters will go back to Turnbull, particularly since they will know that Labor could win the seat and this could deliver government to Labor – neither was the case in 2004. Wealthy voters who cast a protest vote against King being dumped last time will know that more is at stake this time.
* The Liberal margin has been reduced by the addition of territory from the seat of Sydney. Plibersek has a high profile in Sydney and without her name on the ballot some of these voters will be lured by Turnbull’s high profile and go over to the Libs. Turnbull is well-placed to win votes in these areas, which are not working-class but rather “soft progressive.” His republican credentials, smooth talking and “green” veneer will give him some entree with these voters. Historically, areas which are moved from Labor to Liberal seats, and vice versa, tend to drift towards the new sitting member. (That’s also why I think Labor will easily hold Parramatta and will have to work hard to win Macquarie, despite the new boundaries.)
Peter, thanks for reminding me about the federal seat of Gippsland, which is an outstanding example of the point I made about Wentworth. The 2003 redistribution put half the LaTrobe Valley into Gippsland, making it very marginal on paper. Labor put a lot of effort into Gippsland, only to see McGauran (hardly a stellar candidate) romp home. With a sitting Nats member, there was a large drift away from Labor in the areas moved from McMillan to Gippsland. The ALP effort should have been put into saving McMillan (although Latham’s forest policy probably made that task hopeless).
Mr Q, good point. That’s not something I had considerd.
Adam, I’m not entirely convinced the King factor had such an impact in reducing Turnbull’s margin of victory and inflating the Labor 2PP result. The King preference flow was 61:39 Liberal:Labor. For sake of argument, i’m going to assume King didn’t run in 2004 and allocate his preference flows to the primary votes of the respective Liberal and Labor candidates. That would see Turnbull (Liberal) take 52.8% of the PV compared with Patch (Labor) taking 33.4%. If that were the case, then both Liberal and Labor would be up on the PV from the 2001 election, Libs + 0.7% and Labor + 3.9%. So on primary vote figures, I’m not sure that King’s candidacy disrupted things all that much. The ihigher ncrease in Labor’s share of the vote can probably be put down to a collapse of the Democrats vote (-5.2%). The 2PP against the Liberals, meanwhile, was 2.4%. Very much in line with other swings in metro Sydney Liberal seats. North Sydney (- 3.2%), Warringah (-2.2%), Bradfield (-2.7%) and of course, Bennelong (-3.4%).
One other thing, I’m not sure Turnbull’s republican past and green credentials will allure him to his new voters in the inner parts of Sydney now found in his electorate. The republican debate doesn’t exactly rouse people up in these parts in quite the same way that the Iraq War or Gay Marriage Ban does. These voters are not going to vote for Howard just because they think Turnbull has a progressive veneer. And as for Turnbull’s green credentials, people will vote against Howard on his 10 year refusal to accept climate change, Turnbull will have a tough time papering over Howard’s neglect.
* King’s preferences went 8,749 (57.18) to Turnbull and 6,551 (42.82) to Patch.
* I’m not suggesting Darlinghurst will vote en bloc for Turnbull. But there will be some slippage.
The Morgan poll released today shows that 44% of voters think the ALP will in the next election and 43% think the Coalition will win. This is the first time since 2004 that a majority thinks the ALP will win. Since the last Morgan poll, the ALP’s primary vote has risen 5.5% to 47% and the Coalition’s has declined 2% to 42.5%. Labor’s 2PP vote is 57.5 %.
A pity no-one believes Morgan polls
YOure all living on a planet called wishful thinking.
Thje prime Minister On December 1 2008 will be John Howard both on the maths. and thats rudds is a smarmy smug little man whos wheels will fall off before the election.
Rudd was born a p[athetic loser and thats how hell stay
Actually he was born into the Queensland Country Party
If you can analyse the Morgan Poll (whether it is biased or not, it is still down in the record books).
Labor are up because of a few factors.
1) Honeymoon.
2) Rudd seems a more rational Opp. Leader than Beazley, Crean and Latham (ie. supporting nationalised teaching is a good move, if only for basic subjects.)
3) The Parlaiment debates and discussions and being done on climate change. What is happening is that Howard and the Liberals look out of their depth on this subject. Whether they can lead on the economy (if they win the next election, they will be sitting on a massive surplus, and they will need to spend sensibly as not alianate middle-class voters., and on education, on which they need to admit that they are as interested on private schooling than on reinvigorating the public system (ie: shutting Julie Bishop up. Her views seem more out of paranoia than fact or good policy.
4) The mortage-belt factor. Now i live in a mortage belt electroate (Makin) and i feel in seats like this with interest-rates biting (people, stop trying to buy $300,000 houses when you know you can’t afford it), and these people are dumb if they vote for Howard again because these people will slide into a deeper dept hole) and IR, which the law of dismissal for no reason is what people are worried about here) you think there may be a swing towards Labor in seats like this.
Queenslander has added nothing to this discussion except a “liberal” amount of bile. Go to Bolt’s blog Queenslander, you’ll fit in well there and leave this blog for serious poll watchers, please.
It is unlikely that Victoria will be adding any additional seat to the A.L.P tally this election year. This is because the A.L.P already has a majority of seats from Victoria. Victoria has been consistently voting against John Howard since 1996, where he failed to win a majority of the 2pp.
You suggest that New South Wales & South Australia might be the big Labor gains this year. I’m not sure about Tasmania. Queensland might have the Rudd factor if he’s still popular, whilst Western Australia will probably remain a Liberal state.
Tip. Liberals by 2-3 seats, though at this point it could be a hung parliament. (Judging by all the factors, the Liberals will not hold on to their senate majority)
I think its appropriate that the recent abuse against Rudd comes from ‘Queenslander’. Any one know any good Queensland jokes?
C-Woo, in which two states will the Coalition + Family First fail to win three seats (which requires 42.8% of the vote after preferences)?
Does anything other than the ALP or Lib exist? Theres little difference in the two. Watch Rudd shaft the workers over IR. After every federal election what really changes? A few minor things but overall life goes on getting tougher to make ends meet. The Libs are richy rich and the ALP want to be and with their union boss mates sell the worker out. So its goodnight from me and good night from him
Explain some more please.
Oh someone mentioned FF. gee thats radical acknowledging a minor party
With Family First, there is every chance they can be a lasting election force with the coalition election vote. There is also a chance they could be like One Nation in 1996.
In 2004, people voted for Family First because of the insecurity they felt after 9/11 and the emergence of Hillsong (also many could have been brought in by the Exclusive Brethren supported ads). Kind of like why Bush beat Kerry in 2004.
Three years later, with Iraq and George W. Bush both looking shocking in the majority’s eye, the terrorism threat down a bit (the anti-terrorism ads on TV now look a bit desperate, but also a good method to wedge Rudd) and the Exclusive Brethern donation and support scheme being found out, they might be a one term wonder.
Adam, where are you getting your figures from? I have Turnbull-Patch at 61-39 from the AEC.
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionTcpFlow-12246-152.htm
As much as I’d like to believe that Rudd will win the election, I have a feeling that he’ll get close….but no cigar.
The Howard government is clearly on the nose (and has been for a while) but that urban myth of the ALP being destroyers of all things economic is a hard one to shake, particularly with the effective scare campaigns run by Loughnane.
Most people are rusted on one way or another, but the dreaded swinging voters are generally disconnected from the political debate and thus pay attention only to the silly campaign TV ads and evening phone calls from a John Howard recording.
Rudd can win with the help of a flawless campaign, a sneaky interest rate rise, maybe an IR scandal or even an Aussie digger death in Iraq…….but if things remain benign as they currently are, Howard will likely scrape through one more time.
And the sky won’t fall in either.
C-Woo: You said above that the Coalition will lose its majority in the Senate at this year’s election. The Senate has 76 members, so a majority is 39. The Coalition has 19 long-term Senators elected in 2004 and not up for election this year. Thus, to lose their majority this year, the Coalition will have to win 19 seats or less (19 plus 19 being 38). They will win their two territory seats as always, so they must win 17 or fewer seats in the states. Six states times three Senators is 18, so they must fail to win three seats out of six in ONE state. But since Steve Fielding, who usually supports them, is also a long-term Senator, in fact they will have to fail to win three seats in TWO states to lose their effective majority. Three quotas is 42.85% of the vote, so you must be arguing that the Coalition parties PLUS Family First will fall below that vote (after recieving preferences) in two states. So my question is, in which two states do you think this will happen?
Psephophile: I am looking at the same page at the AEC website and it quite clearly shows King’s preferences going 57.18% to Turnbull and 42.82% to Patch (11th count, centre of the page at the bottom). I can’t see where you get 61-39 from.
In any case, I don’t accept your assumption that if King had not run in 2004, all the people who voted 1 King, 2 Patch would have voted for Patch. A lot of Liberals were very angry at King being rolled (so angry they were willing to be expelled from the Liberal Party for supporting King), and they voted King/Patch as a protest. My contention is that many, perhaps most, of them will go back to Turnbull now that the seat and the Liberal government are at risk.
As i said New South Wales and South Australia will be the two ones that the Coalition and Family First lose. With people going through interest rates dramas in Sydney, it could go downhill there and in Adelaide, there is a real feeling of unhappiness at the moment due to interest rates and the water drama.
In 2004 in NSW the combined Coalition + FF + CDP + One Nation Senate vote was 49% – with minor preferences the total was probably 50%. So there would need to be a swing of more than 7% for the Coalition vote to fall below 42.8%. In SA the Coalition + FF + ON vote was 52.8% – probably 53.5% after all preferences. So the swing there would need to be more than 10.5%. I don’t think there are going to be swings of this order, and I don’t know of anyone who does. I hope you are right, but I don’t think so.
The problem we have with the Senate is that with the disappearance of the Democrats there is no longer a centre party that can win votes from the Liberals and elect Senators who will hold the balance of power. The Greens are a left party who are mainly taking votes from Labor (and the Democrats), not from the Coalition. Thus, even if the Greens win a Senator in every state, that will not hurt the Coalition at all. For the Coalition to lose its majority at this election, Labor and the Greens must win 4 seats out of 6 in two states, which requires 57% of the vote after preferences. Because the Greens are much further to the left than the Democrats were, the electorate must move much further to the left to elect a non-Coalition-controlled Senate than was the case before the demise of the Democrats.
Update on the Victorian Electoral Commission’s response to the Freedom of information request seeking copies of the below the line preference data files and summary reports and addition information.
The Victorian Electoral Commission has responded to the FOI request in part but has failed to provided copies of the information requested. Missing are:
1. Copies of the below the line data preference data files as requested – No response given. Copies of below the line preference data was provided free of charge during the 1999, 2002 an 2004 Melbourne City Council Elections. this information is readily available and would be no more then 1mb for electorate and would take approx. 2 mins to copy. this information should be published in the Victorian Electoral Commissioners web site. Without access to the below the line data files it is impossible to effectively scrutinise of verify the results of the election. The below the line preference data is a public document and precedence has been set in a ruling of the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal requiring that this information be made available.
2. Copies of all summary count sheets. (Although this information has been obtained via a third party – copies published on my web site http://melbcity.topcities.com)
3. Copies of polling centres return results (Similar to the polling place return data provided for the legislative assembly – lower house) The Victorian electoral commission has claimed that the cost of providing this information would be in excess of $600.00 which is very dubious and highly questionable. The information is stored in electronic format and the cost of copying that information would be less then $2.00. Polling place data for the Legislative Council is normally available and published on election night and updated through the count. in the 2006 State Election the Victorian Electoral Commission failed to make this information available instead only provided an electorate wide summary. This oversight was due primarily to the advice and request provided by various media interests. Access to the polling place summary data is fundamental in proving a check and balance as to the number of ballot papers issued and returned. There were a number of substantial errors recorded during the conduct of the count of the Victorian State Election that had this information been readily available could have and should have been avoided. This information is still outstanding.
Te Victorian Electoral Commission has provided limited information on the certification of software used to conduct the Victorian State Election count. Copies of certification certificates have been provided (but not yet received) for the electronic ‘Kiosk’ voting centres and the algorithm used in the calculation of the proportional representation results. Missing is the detailed supporting certification document and reports and certification of the actual software related to the data-entry, front end, data and reporting software that utilises the algorithm used. Either the software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not Ben fully certified of the Victorian Electoral Commission has withheld access to this information.
In summary the Victorian Electoral Commission again is seeking to avoid open and public disclose of the detailed results of the 2006 Victorian State Election. A number of serious errors in the counting of the election have occurred and questions related to the discrepancy in the number of total votes record between the preliminary count and the recount in Western Metropolitan region have north been fully explained or verifiable based on the public documentation provided. There is a discrepancy of over 350 ballot papers between the two count. Without access to the polling place data as requested and the below the line preference data files it is impossible to verify the results. I am informed that copies of the below the line data files were not made available to scrutineers.
It is fundamental that our elections are open and transparent and subject to public review and analysis. With the utilisation of electronic computer based technology all relevant information and data files must be readily available to scutineers and the public.
One can only ask
“WHY IS THE VICTORIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION RELUCTANT TO MAKE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE THAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO GO TO SUCH EXTENTS TO AVOID DISCLOSURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY”.
The actions of the Chief Electoral Commissioner continues to bring Victorian State Election into disrepute.
good thread – seems a bit NSW-centric though.
Don’t discount a gain of two or three seats to Rudd. Hasluck – where former member Sharon Jackson will be hungry to reclaim what many believe to be a Labor heartland seat. Stirling – ex SAS war hero lining up against a former Liberal Staffer. Kalgoorlie is a possibility as locals tell me there is a fair bit of dissatifaction with Liberal Barry Haase, (not sure who the Labor candidate is??) Danger for Labor might be Cowan with popular local MP Graham Edwards retiring
Have a look at Newspoll state breakdowns, they show the Beazley factor in WA may have been overstated by many Beazley backers in previous challenges. Interesting year!
Adam says no-one believes Morgan polls. Maybe so, but there’s no good reason for this attitude. OK, Morgan can get it wrong, but so can all the others. Last federal election, Morgan was just about spot on with the primary vote but went a bit haywire with its preferences. Newspoll wasn’t exactly on the money either. When Bracks beat Kennett, I think that Morgan alone picked the upset. Morgan and Bob Ellis.
Adam,
I figured out where we are getting our different figures from. You are looking the full distribution of preferences whereas I am looking at two party preferred for those voters that voted No. 1 for King. In other words the total preference distribution for all voters who backed a candidate other than Turnbull or Patch (such as GRN, DEM or King) is 57:43. But the total preference distribution for all voters to voted No. 1 for King (i.e. not GRN, DEM) was 61:39
We’ll agree to disagree about how King voters would have voted had he not run. 🙂
I will take your last point that soft Liberal supporters who protested by a preference vote to Labor in 04 will move to support Turnbull if they think he’s under threat. That said, in 2004 the (false) hype / fear was that Labor might sneak in and grab the seat. This prompted enough soft Liberals to back Turnbull then out of fear of a Labor Gov’t.
Tim, what is the news on the ground about Cowan in WA? Is it really under threat? Could Labor do even worse this time round?
Bob Brown talking about banning coal exports is a disaster for Labor.
Rudd won Question Time on Monday on the back of the Climate Change issue, but lost the three subsequent days because he lacked a clear response to the predictable Coalition attack that Labor’s “knee-jerk greenie reaction” to Climate Change would cost jobs and damage the economy. The Coalition are already having success painting Labor into the corner of the extremists on the environment. If Labor gets stuck there, they’ll be vulnerable to association with whatever lunatic plans Bob Brown pulls out.
a few points with reference to above:
Opinion polls – Morgan, why do they bother? But if anybody seriously believes that a 56or 57% 2pp for the ALP through to the election is off with the pixies – 56-57% is up with 1966 or 1943 – the wheels would seriously have to fall off not only the govt but the economy for that to happen. Not to say that Ruddy mightn’t be eating his Christmas turkey at the Lodge or Kirribilli House.
Interest rates – they have gone up by 0.75% from a very low base. They are still about 2.5% lower than they were in 1995. The issue biting in western Sydney is that they are combined with negative equity – house prices have fallen a lot and some people have mortgages bigger than the selling price for their house. Even issues such as housing affordability don’t bite with those that are already in the market – the I’m alright Jack factor.
Marginal seats – Don’t forget that some Lib MP’s are masters at marginal seat campaigning. This is an area where the Libs have been very good at preselecting ‘horses for courses’for a long time. Redistributions and demographic change upset this balance to some extent.
Senate Voting – The Liberal primary vote will need to be around 35% for them to lose the 3rd seat in most states, and to not outpoll FF for example. The FF primary vote is likely to rise this year but they won’t be able to preference harvest the same way they did in 2004.
Victoria – The ALP will find it hard to pick any seats in Vic as they start at 5%. In McMillan, the LIBS are probably OK as the ALP is on the nose in Gippsland. In Deakin – Phil Barresi works very hard – and though marginal Labor have only won once in 1983. Corangamite is a real possibility as the Geelong end is growing fast, and Stewart Macarthur is too old and should give it away. McEwan is a possibility as the Craigieburn Labor end is growing very fast but Fran Bailey is a good campaigner. Also except for 1990, Victoria just hasn’t swing much at all in the last 20+ years and there is no great reason to do son now. The next redistribution shoudl be interesting in Vic as the state is line ball to lose a seat but if not, Labor should do nicely as the enrolments in the outer west and north seats have piled up and going down in the SE suburbs.
Please excuse my anit Rudd bile.
On another note it appears the thread has overlooked the potential gain for the Libs in NSW of Banks, i know it has a high levels of NESB’s but the margin suggests it should be in play
Further to that Melham, other then often haning around Bankstown sports club doesnt do much.
I know its unfashionable to suggest the libs may gain seays at the next election, but i feel that it should be discussedto allow a fully rounded forum.
PS Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, and Gerard Henderson are excellent journalists
Dave B, I agree that “Bob Brown talking about banning coal exports is a disaster..” but not for Labor, for the Greens. Rudd will distance himself from this and that can only be a plus for Labor.
Your statement that – “The Coalition are already having success painting Labor into the corner of the extremists on the environment.” may or may not be true. Do you have data proving this? I haven’t seen any evidience of this.
I think there is very little to be gained by measuring performances in the parliament and translating that to how people perceive each side. Believe me ,you, me and those very interested in politics who watch parliament are in the smallest of minorities.
On the point of poll reliability, the final polls for the Victorian election were:
Newspoll – ALP 45, L/NP 37 (LP 32, NP 5), Greens 9, Others 9
Morgan – ALP 42.5, L/NP 40.5 (LP 36, NP 4.5), Greens 12.5, Others 4.5
ACNielsen – ALP 42, L/NP 41, Greens 11, Others 6.
The result was ALP 43.0, L/NP 39.6 (LP 34.4, NP 5.2), Greens 10.0, Others 7.4.
Adam,
I’ll ask: why are polls becoming less reliable/? It wouldn’t be because Tim Flannery is determined to lose the election for Labor, would it?
I agree that Brown’s position is actually a plus for Labor – Rudd can now take a “sensible centre” position. I think climate change has been 100% plus for Labor so far. Tunbull looks like a pompous jackass and Howard clearly doesn’t believe what he’s saying. If he actually tries to do anything the Nats will rebel. (That’s a purely political comment: on the issue itself Brown might well be right – if he is, too bad for all of us, because no Australian government is going to shut down the coal industry.)
Queenslander Says: “PS Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, and Gerard Henderson are excellent journalists”. Actually I agree with you regarding Gerard Henderson. I don’t know much about Tim Balir but I read Andrew Bolt and I direct your attention to his site and a thread headed “Rudd Rules”. Andrew, to my surprise, has a very positive view of Rudd and his chances at the next election.
Gary, regarding your last sentence, never truer words were spoken!
And it’s because of that very fact that i fear Labor will have trouble differentiating their climate change position from the positions of BOTH the Coalition and the Greens. That’s just too much detail for most voters to take an interest in. If Rudd could just paint “Coalition: sceptics, us: believers”, a neat black and white position, they’d be on a reasonable winner with the apathetic voters. But now Brown has complicated the “believers” position, by voicing a “believers” position that is beyond what most voters would support. Rudd must now explain that Labor are believers, but not believers to that extent… and like most sensible, middle positions, that message is far less likely to be understood in middle, disinterested voter-land. The issue’s therefore fuzzied, and Labor’s advantage will suffer.
As for proof, i freely admit there’s none, that being why i hide behind the thread heading “speculation” when announcing my theories as fact!
” The Coalition are already having success painting Labor into the corner of the extremists on the environment.†I find it insulting that people who care for the environment are classed as extremists. The world is so profit driven by the capitalist system that we EXTREME starvation EXTREME weather EXTREME environmental disintegration. I find the support of this system EXTREME when we have the means to feed the world and to protect the environment yet the GREED of big business and their government cronies prevents this. The Australian electorate will be blinded once again to ALP – Lib rhetoric on how they will help everyone. After the election nothing good will change as history shows and we will spiral downwards to the point of no return. The Greens will go down in history as the party that we should have listened too
sorry Gary, that would be, regarding your last sentence in the comment that was your last when i began typing my response, now two comments ago…
Bill, to say a position is extreme is not to say it’s necessarily wrong. But looking at the current positions on climate change and the policy suggestions to tackle it, shutting down a $25bn industry within three years is undoubtedly at one extreme.
Dave and the end of industry due to unstoppable climate change just to squeeze more profits in the next 15 years is to me extremely sick. this is the sad thing about only 2 major parties they are both financed by big business so we will never see governments working for the people
An issue that I do not recall mentioned by the blogship is that the last Newspoll (which I believe won’t be carried through) showed the ALP standing on it’s own feet having drawn support from the coalition but also reduced the Green vote from 9 to 5. If Ruddy can continue a big rise in primary vote with the greens preference providing only the icing for the cake, he will have enhanced political authority both within and outside the party. Greens preferences will still be important but a lot less important when the ALP primary vote gets into the mid 40’s.
An ALP primary vote of 44-45% may lead to a 3 – 3 senate split in every state except Tas.
It would be hard to see anything other than a 3-3 left right split in every state.
THe only reason a 4-2 happened in Queensland is because the NAtionals and THe Liberals ran as seperate partiesthus maximisaing the votes of each, and both of them recieved preferences from Pauline HAnson, who polled around 200K votes.
We can all be guilty of false extrapolation. In the year before the 2001 and 2004 elections, Labor was in front and went on to lose. It may or may not be the same this time round, but you can be sure that John Howard is a crafty politician who will exploit every situation to his advantage and will, where there isn’t one, create it.
This week’s effort on education is an illustration. He has attacked “new age†curriculum in his launch of Kevin Donnelly’s Dumbing Down, re-inforcing Julie Bishop’s various speeches on the subject. This is part of a strategy to tie low education standards to Labor and to tie Labor to the demons of the last 40 years, the teacher unions. Labor is claimed to be soft in dealing with teacher unions when in fact the teacher unions are soft in dealing with state Labor governments.
As the federal Liberals come closer to losing power, they become more obsessed with grabbing it, usually with attacks on the state Labor governments as the enemies of all that is decent. No fact will stand in the way. John Howard doesn’t even let his own party’s role in bringing “new age†curriculum to Victoria constrain him.
It was the previous state Liberal government which introduced outcomes-based education, dumped history and geography in favour of the mess of SOSE, brought in “beginningâ€, “consolidating†and “established†on reports, cut thousands of teachers out of our schools so that the teaching of basic skills was so much harder and introduced performance bonuses for those who complied with the latest fads.
It is the current Victorian Labor government which has insisted on content and skills via the Victorian Essential learning Standards, dumped SOSE and restored history and geography as traditional disciplines in the humanities, introduced a reporting system that explicitly tells parents the grade level their children are achieving even if it is behind the one they are in, employed 5,193 extra teachers so that prep to grade 2 can be capped at 21 pupils to improve literacy and numeracy teaching and dumped the corrupt performance bonus system.
But none of this will be allowed to get in the way of the incessant attacks on teachers, their unions and state Labor governments, attacks which will be lapped up and repeated by the usual suspects. The latest fad is the feral government’s attempt to reduce teachers to wage slaves by giving conformist principals the power to pay bonuses to the most sycophantic teachers and to fire those members of the profession who think for themselves. This is supposed to play well with the aspirationals but will do nothing for education of their children. Will they see through it?
Greens at 5 %? last poll i saw it was at 13
Bill,
The Australian report of Newspoll this week refers to the Greens vote at 5%.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21177316-601,00.html
It’s well down in the body of the article, Greens falling from 7-5, Nationals from 5-3.
I doubt that the figure’s plausible either, but it isn’t a figment of blackburnpseph’s imagination that Newspoll found that level of support.
There was no problem with SOSE, but that doesn’t mean that history should have been dumped.
Latest opinion.
In May the emission report and the budget will happen. If Rudd is still in front by then and Howard doesn’t pick up any more percent, Howard is going to find it hard to win (barring a freakish 9/11-Tampa event). If by July it gets worse for him, you’d expect him either to either resign or call an election and hope that the good economy-low unemployment line helps him.
With the climate change debate, it is clear he is losing, he looks clearly out of his depth, especially by Rudd telling Bob Brown off as well. That will endear Rudd more to Middle Australia than Howard, because people are used to it from Howard.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with Morgan polls at all. Morgan is still trying to come back from 2001 where he stupidly called the election for Beazley 1 week out and the Bulletin subsequently ran their front page headlined “Our Next PM?” with a headshot of Beaz. Oops. 1 week is a long time in politics.
The biggest difference is that most Morgan polls (not all) are done face to face, and different methodologies often produce different results. Anyway, margin of error on all polls is usually around +/- 3%.
I do recall the Chaser claiming that Morgan predicted that the ALP would win the Afghanistan election 😉
Its good to see that both the ALP and Libs are trying to capture the middle ground on climate change, one the majority of voters will be happy with. Brown and the Greens just try to show the way for a better environment. vote s or not