Roy Morgan’s first poll in two weeks is from a face-to-face survey of 1690 voters conducted over the past two weekends. It shows a slight widening of Labor’s two-party lead to 59-41, with the Coalition primary vote down from 37 per cent to 36 per cent and Labor’s up from 48 per cent to 50.5 per cent.
UPDATE: The outstanding Possum’s Pollytics, whose absence from this site’s blogroll is keenly felt (to be corrected when I overhaul the site in about a month or so), produces some interesting data on variations between Newspoll and Morgan results.
UPDATE 2: And Andrew Leigh has an easy-to-follow run-through of the Portlandbet electorate odds that have everybody talking.
No, on checking, I am wrong. Tambling only lasted one term. NT MPs since voting rights have been
Sam Calder (CP) 1966-80
Grant Tambling (CP) 1980-83
John Reeves (ALP) 1983-84
Paul Everingham (Lib) 1984-87
Warren Snowdon (ALP) 1987-96
Nick Dondas (Lib) 1996-98
Warren Snowdon (ALP) from 1998 (for Lingiari since 2001)
Dave Tollner (Lib) since 2001 (for Solomon)
I would call that a fairly high turnover.
Someone who is clueless about history wrote: “If there is a feeling that they will treat the current crop the way they treated Viet Nam vets then expect swings to Howard”
1. Howard, Downer and other senior Libs (eg. Hill) are card carrying chicken hawks as evidenced by their failure to volunteer for military service at the time of the Vn involvement
2. One vet who doesn’t feel that the left treated Vn vets badly is Graham Edwards MP who I would suggest has more respect from Vn vets than most in the Liberal party.
3. The current government’s record with vets is patchy to say the least
4. Vn vets are for the most part conscripts who were badly treated by Liberal govts mainly – not the least of the issues being that they were victims of an unfair process in the first place instituted by the WW1 chicken hawk and Nazi govt admirer, Menzies.
“..What could turn it round for Howard? A terrorist attack on Australian soil.”
If the Government really thinks that a terrorist attack would improve their electoral prospects, they certainly aren’t acting like it.
On the contrary, their strategy seems to be to allay anxiety. Take Ruddock’s comment this morning downplaying reports that the London bombs were to be detonated by a phone call from Oz.
Then there was the argument played on the telly last week that looked as if it had a government source, saying the likelihood of an attack was a function of the size of the Islamic population. Ergo, we an attack is unlikely here. Junk science, if you think about it, but again an attempt to calm people down.
Part of the Australian character is to blame the Government of the day if anything goes wrong, almost anything at all.
Albert – sorry if I hit a nerve, I agree with your sentiments and if you new my ‘experience’ you would understand why. Yes, Libs are very keen to send troops, but not that keen to join them. I call them “B Company” (“Be here when you go, be here when you get back”) But the reality is that Whitlam, Cairns et al oversaw a terrible injustice to the way the community treated Viet Nam vets – trust me, I have lived in a Mess where much discussion amongst the living in members revolved around the deep seated resentment of the way consripts were treated and yes, it was Hawke who finally had the guts to welcome them home, but for many it was too late. The tragedy is that NO serving Libs have ever had operational soldeiring experience and Graham Edwards is the only one who is probably thinking about families of defence personnel when the Parliament debates these matters- his departure will be a great loss to the Defence community. Be careful in playing the partison line on politicians who send troops though- Beazley was the worst offender! Howard couldn’t join because he was half deaf, Downer couldn’t join because he would have got bashed, Hill couldn’t join because he would have had to start at the bottom and that’s not his style, one incoming Liberal MP had a brief ‘flirtation’ with the military but he played a little too much interest in the level of ‘comaraderie’ expected amongst junior officers.
By the way, Menzies was WWII, not WWI, but I see your point.
Enjaybee – I think you are right but Labor has not had the issues to run an effective fear campaign in the last eleven years. This time they have issues in abundance and more importantly they have public opinion on their side on these issues. Add to that the very obvious distrust of Howard now and this election becomes a different ball game altogether.
I doubt this government’s capacity to respond “correctly” to a terrorist attack on Australian soil. They are partisan hacks who are barely competent. They are incapable of “rising to the occasion” and governing for all Australians during such a time.
It would be like Spain all over again – the conservative government would try to score cheap political points and that would only anger the electorate.
Such events can boost a government, but only if that government is capable of not making a mess of it, and quite frankly the current mob are inept.
So Dembo, what advertising have Labor done in the last 12 months to swing the electorate by 5%? The coalition have been running wall to wall ads in the last couple of months. No result yet.
I don’t think the government would benefit at all from a terrorist attack on Australian soil. In fact, I think it would do damage to them and they know it.
The reason for this is that the whole justification for staying in Iraq was to prevent terrorist attacks here. Howard has frequently said that this war is meant to make us SAFER. Any attack here would therefore further undermine Howard’s credibility when it comes to national security.
Apart from this, I think there is a growing public opinion that the Iraq war has resulted in us becoming a greater terrorist target. Again, any attack here would therefore confirm in people’s minds that the government is ultimately to blame.
No, I think that the government will be relying on their union scare campaign, economic scare campaign, and any other fabricated crap that they can find in order to frighten people away from voting Labor. That’s pretty desperate stuff, but they don’t seem to believe that they can win on any positive record, which really says something about the competence of this government.
STROP has commented on the Senate on “Galaxy: 55-45â€. I will reply here in the hope of consolidating the discussion on the most recent thread rather than have discussion continue intermittently on threads that pretty soon will disappear from the first page.
The coalition has 39 senators, 19 of whom do not face election this year. If it wins 20 seats (three in each state and one in each territory), it will retain its majority. If it wins 19 (i.e., only two in one of the states), it will have 38 senators and the ability to block any Labor proposal by itself and the ability to carry bills and motions if it has FF support. If it wins 18 (i.e., only two in two states), it will have the ability to block any Labor proposal if it gains Family First support, and Labor will have the ability to carry proposals if it has both Greens and FF support. If the coalition wins only 17 (i.e., only two in three states), it will lose its ability to block Labor proposals even if it has FF support and Labor will have the ability to carry any proposal that has the support of the Greens.
I cannot see the coalition being reduced to two Senate seats in three states, so I cannot see Labor having control of the Senate. It is highly unlikely that it would be reduced to two Senate seats in two states, but if it did Labor would find it difficult to get its IR bill through because the Greens want a more employee-friendly law than Labor is proposing and Family First, while not supporting the current IR law, wants a more employer-friendly one than Labor is proposing. Neither the Greens nor FF has any incentive to moderate its demands as each of them, more so the Greens, would potentially benefit from the lower quota in a double dissolution.
It all points to a double dissolution – if Labor is committed to its IR policy. If it is not so committed, an Opposition-controlled Senate or even one in which the combined non-government parties cannot stop IR changes will be the perfect excuse. However, I think the pressure on Labor to implement its IR policy will be intense because it is the issue that above all others will have won it the election and it goes to the core of Labor’s raison d’etre.
As I have been stating for some time, I expect Labor to win the election with a solid majority and I think a double dissolution is almost inevitable. I also expect that, following the example of the Victorian Labor Government, there will be a further swing to Labor in the double dissolution election. While I am storing egg to be placed on my face, I will add that I expect Labor to win the 2011 federal election too.
For anyone interested, I’ve done more digging into the Morgan vs Newspoll bias and added some numbers to it’s size.
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/07/08/analysing-the-poll-bias-morgan-vs-newspoll-part-ii/
Albert Ross was referring to Menzies’ resignation of a commission in the University of Melbourne Regiment at the start of WWI. He was taunted with it throughout his career and Country Party leader Earle Page saw it as the main reason Menzies should not become PM in 1939.
Nick
You are obviously clueless about Australian history.
Menzies’ record in WW1 was extraordinary. At the outbreak of war he held a commission in a militia unit. Perhaps uniquely he resigned his commision and did not enlist in the first AIF. Subsequently he rejoined the militia and was stalwart in his defence of the drill hall and very active in the pro-conscription campaigns.
Apologists have suggested that his decision not to enlist was because of pressure from his mother. It should be noted that Menzies himself, to his credit, never suggested this.
In 1938 he visited the Germany on an official visit as an Australian government minister. At the time and until the outbreak of war became inevitable he spoke warmly of the achievements of the Nazi regieme. This was one of the reasons why his position became untenable after the outbreak of war.
Turning now to Howard et al. Howard himself was a vociferous supporter of the Vietnam involvement and conscription. The suggestion that his hearing affliction was a bar to enlistment is moot. He certainly was fit playing soccer and cricket at a reasonable level. As president of the NSW Young Libs and on the non-parliamentary leaderhip team he was in a perfect position to have himself granted dispensation to enlist in a non-combatant role at least, the Pay Corps and Judge Advocate come to mind.
Hill was both of age and fit. He obtained a number of consecutive deferments for National Service on educational grounds.
Your comment about Downer is silly.
You may refer. cutely, to these LMF types as “company B”. Call a spade a spade – they were out and out gutless.
The Swing the Greens need to take the seat from the liberals in ACT is highish but not undo-able. I know im sounding like a wacko but this is an anonomos website so i’d say greens have higher hopes in ACT than they do in Qld. I’d give them as high as a 8% chance of winning in the ACT.
Just one question: Is the CLP factionally and ideologically closer to the Nat. or the Lib? Looking at NT geography Nat. looks more believable but any insite into their policies etc. or whether they differ at all from the Nat. or Lib. policies would be appreciated.
Lib = Nat = CLP = another bloody conservative
Turnbal for leader of the opposition!
I stand corrected- I had never came across the story of Menzies in the University Rifles. It will make for interesting Sunday web surfing. I note however that Albert remains silent on whether Whitlam, who ironically was a decorated vet, deserves criticism for his treatment of Viet Nam vets?
Your comments of Menzies views on Hitler are fair, but remember Stalin, Chamberlain and a number of others also commended Hitler – it was Churchill who was the early and vocal critic. Commending some aspects of Fascism was common to all sides of politics – how many Italian Australians still speak fondly of Mussolini’s ability to get the trains running on time.
I get the vibe from many Labor supporters here that “It’s Time”. From their perspective, most definitly. But does this necessarily mean the wider public feels the same way? Perhaps or it could be just a further hardening of their already hard core supporters, coupled with excited optimism.
“It’s Time” is a really fantastic almost romantic idea but Gough was both more charismatic than Rudd and the proponent of better policies than Rudd. Although his recognisition of the E. Timor invasion was a bit of a downer (Indonesia in general is nothing more than the product of first Dutch imperialism and now that of the Javanese).
If the coalition hang on by just one seat (76 out of 150), and taking into account benelong’s changing demographic and allegiance to the libs only coz howards the PM and that at the election after next they could vote in labor, would that mean Howard would have to hang around as an ever present back bencher overseing liberal activities just like Lee Kwun Yew did for so many years after giving up the leadership in singapore?
Sorry for posting so much but one last question. I live in Mayo (Downer- very safe Lib.) yet i hear labor is planning to invest some $ this time. Sounds stupid to me. Is this part of a long term effort to wear down lib. support within lots of coalition seats so they can be taken in the future? Or, is this only occuring in Mayo because labor has traditionally been so low here (dem. homeland- they’ve actually been close twice in the last 15 yrs and last time an Ind. came second) and they want to make up ground. Perhaps they consider that their investment will be made up for by the increased $ support they’d get from the AEC with an increased vote?
I find it interesting that for the only poll in the last 5 years for which there is any ‘real’ figure with which to compare, ie the polls immediately before the 2004 election, Morgan (45.5%) was closer to the actual Coalition Primary (46.7%) than NewsPoll (45%) or Nielsen (49%), and Morgan (38.5%) was also closer to the ALP actual primary (37.6%) than NewsPoll (39%), and only marginally further away than Nielsen (37%). Since we have no idea of how far away the ongoing polls are from ‘reality’ (whatever that means), surely we should just go with what we know, that in the most recent testable case, Morgan was better at forecasting the actual primary votes than NewsPoll. On what possible basis should we decide that the current Newspoll or Nielsen primary vote estimate is ‘better’ than Morgan’s.
cheers, Alan H
Apart from the 2 Ind. who are seeking re-election (and will get it) does anyone know of any other electorates where Ind. have a chance? How restless and divided are the Nat. becoming? Also what are the chances of the Gre. getting a seat say Sydney or something? Maybe somewhere around 5% or so?
Finally if the result is Lab. 74, coalition 74, Ind. 2 will there be any complications or will it be a straitforward Coalition government with a few extra facilities being built in the Ind’s electorates? Will it be stable?
I cannot see how Vn vets in the period late 1972 to late 1975 were treated any differently from any time from 1963 onwards or from 1975 to 1983. Like I didn’t see JWH going out of his way to enhance vet support or throw flowers in their path as stepped off the plane.
Personally I can’t see why they deserve any better treatment than veterans of any other military involvement. They got a pretty good deal in general I would have thought – reserved employment, treatment at Repat hospitals and whatever. That they didn’t get much of a welcome home at the time – well to be honest why should they? They were conscripts for the most part who had participated in a conflict that was illegal. And which we by most measures were on the losing side. They weren’t being maimed and dying for me or my freedom or that of my country so don’t give us any BS that there was some moral equivilence between them and say the first AIF even. They were there because it suited the Coalition electorally that they should be there.
In the first place getting conscripted was a bit of bad luck. A ball representing your birthdate was drawn out from, of all things, the Tatts Lotto barrel.
So that was the first unfair thing. Then to actually get in the army you had to be further unlucky by presenting as reasonably compos mentis at the interview. Having got over that hurdle you had to be dumb enough to be gung ho during training and actually show some sort of aptitude for being an infantry man rather than say a cook or dental assistant. Then you had to be unfortunate enough to be posted to a unit that was on the roster for Vn.
The suckers who actually got themselves shipped off to Vn were just that. Like they weren’t patriotic freedom fighters really.
Even in the early 60s people knew the reasons for our involvement were dodgy – nobody who went to Vn could actually say “I believe in the Red Peril and that I believe we should be fighting for the democratic government of South Vietnam”. People who did carry on with BS like that were usually safely ensconced in the CMF or had, heh, a hearing impairment.
And in any event you didn’t have to go There were easy ways to avoid being conscripted: follow certain occupations, get educational deferment, join the CMF, cultivate a disability, join the CPA, skip the country. There were harder ways: not register or claim CO status.
Whether you chose the hard way or the easy way it wasn’t particularly onerous although there were some COs who had a very tough time especially earlier on.
So don’t come on with late 20c lie of the harsh treatment meted out to the vets and they were hard done by etc etc. They really are unfortunates who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Do I believe that they should be given assistance for the suffering they have incurred during and subsequent to their participation in the Vn war? Yes.
Do I think that they should be accorded some sort of hero status? Probably not.
As one of the ‘lucky’ ones whose marble dropped, I agree totally with Albert’s post. I obtained some tablets from the Sydney University Settlement doctor which contained pseudoephedrine, and raised my blood pressure to ‘unsafe’ levels, and promptly failed the medical. Anybody who didn’t have the nous to understand that they were being taken for suckers by Howard and his mates didn’t have any sympathy from me. There was plenty of information around on the true situation, as there was about the Iraq debacle before it commenced.
On further investigation Greens win in ACT seems extremely douptful.
I think that the Greens may beat the Liberals for second place in Melbourne, Sydney, and Grayndler (possibly Cunningham too) and then might take these seats in next years probable DD.
Needless to say there will be a swing to labor nevertheless does anyone see any seats where the coalition could take some labor held seats?
I’m intrigued by the willingness of some posters to “call” the election at this stage or in the next few weeks. Maybe they use “call” in a different way to what I do; I thought it was something that you did when you were pretty much certain what would happen and making an incorrect “call” any more than once in a blue moon is severely embarrassing. A call as such is a stronger thing than a confident prediction. In about 20 years of this game (both trying to predict results in advance and trying to extrapolate final results from primaries) I have made a fair few wrong predictions, but only one wrong “call”. And that, of course, is one too many. 😉
A few weeks ago I locally published a piece I had written in late May in which I argued basically that Howard is not doing all that much wrong that he has not got away with in the past, and that the extent to which his government is getting walloped in the polls reflects that (a) incumbency is not all it is cracked up to be (b) Australian voters have a natural tendency to vote Labor unless bribed or scared off doing so (c) Howard has displayed a lot of skill to win elections despite this but has also benefited from luck and Opposition blunders. On this basis I reckoned that if Labor can just manage to run a decent campaign without major blunders, and if nothing exceptional happens (eg some major terrorism incident or another Tampa) then Labor are more likely than not to win. In this case I expect the Coalition to wipe off most of the lead but not quite all, putting them in the territory where the distribution may save them but is quite likely not to.
After I had published this piece I had deep misgivings that I might have overlooked something; was declaring Labor favourites at this stage, with the 2PP lead coming down towards single figures, really a good idea? What I realised since is that Labor might be conditional favourites without being outright favourites, thanks to the wonders of basic probability.
So the way I am trying to break it down are:
* What is the chance that Labor will blunder badly, as it did several times in 2004?
* What is the chance of an unknown event dramatically shifting voter opinion back to the Coalition?
* If neither of these things happen, what is the chance of a Labor victory?
re: Tom’s post above: Greens second in Cunningham? I’ll go out buy a hat just so I can eat it if this happens. It’s rock-solid Labor, sure, but not the kind that particularly cares for the Greens – nothing like Grayndler or Sydney at all.
Anyone who thinks that there’ll be a particularly big Green vote there in the presence of a Liberal candidate is dreaming.
Molotov Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Needless to say there will be a swing to labor nevertheless does anyone see any seats where the coalition could take some labor held seats?
Molotov Id start with WA Labor marginals (Brand, Cowan) and go from there. The Labor vote and current swing estimates Ive come across point to WA and VIC (Bendigo) as the more vulnerable places to look for Labor losses. In other states, take your pick from Parramatta (NSW), Richmond (NSW) Rankin (QLD) and Hindmarsh (SA)
As for the ‘rogue’ losses that happen at each election against the flow of State and/or National trends Im looking at Banks, Lowe (NSW) Ballarat, Corio, Holt, Isaacs (VIC) Adelaide (SA), Swan (WA) and Denison (TAS).
“Eat my hat” if denison goes
Hi Kevin,
You ask why have some people here called it, while I’ll let others answer for themselves but my reasons are as followed.
First a declaimer I’m not a member of any Political Party, I don’t have access to party polling, its true that I have friends in several different Parties.
I have followed Politics since the late 1980s and its true that making a wrong call can be embarrassing, in saying that I consider this a bit of fun I’ve got a few individual seats wrong
My Tipping record – Federal
1993 the Liberals (Wrong)
1996 The ALP (Wrong)
1998 The Liberals (Right)
2001 The Liberals (Right)
2004 The Liberals (Right)
2007 The ALP ??
My Tipping record – State (Victorian)
1992 The Liberals (Right)
1996 The Liberals (Right)
1999 The ALP (Right)
2001 The Liberals (Wrong)
2005 The ALP (Right)
Brings me to 2007, since February the ALP have across all Four polling companies maintained a massive TPP leave mostly scoring high 50s.
This trend has lead me to believe the ALP will win, but I sound a notion of caution while the Polls show a landslide of record levels, and if the figures are right then the ALP will win seats they have only dreamed of winning in the past, but when I look at the seats I’m having difficulty is seeing it on Election night.
I read a large number of papers from around the country, I read many different blogs and I look not so much at whay the commentators are saying but what people I know are saying.
Molotov Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Eat my hat†if denison goes
Me too, but a rogue result is exactly that, unexpected and mathematically unpredictable..
# Molotov Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Needless to say there will be a swing to labor nevertheless does anyone see any seats where the coalition could take some labor held seats?
As ever, WA is critical for Labor. If they can hold the seats they currently have, they will go a long way toward winning. The real possibility at the moment is they could go 2 down in WA based on polling from a month ago – Swan and Cowan.
I can’t see any others likely to change. The most marginal Labor seats in NSW and Vic should be safe if they follow the Labor swing. Bendigo may be a concern depending on the Green vote. In SA, the two marginal seats, Hindmarsh and Adelaide should be safe as there is a current large swing to Labor across the greater Adelaide metro area according to the Advertiser.
Qld should yield a large Labor swing in cities statewide that should keep safe the current Labor marginals.
As usual though, this doesn’t take into account local member issues and we all know swings are never uniform.
Adelaide won’t go either
I think I read on Adam’s website that in 1972 the ALP lost Bendigo.
If I was the ALP I would be more worried about Melbourne Ports and Holt than Bendigo but in writing that I’m tipping the ALP will hold all Three.
If Melbourne Ports holds a strong Green vote again, I think its safe for Labor. Holt should also be safe – long standing member with a Labor metro swing toward him, unless there is a local issue not known about.
As it is almost impossible for Labor to gain a Senate that will pass its legislation, it must concentrate on winning government – which is always the main aim of a major party. It will therefore use Senate preference deals to boost its chances of winning House seats and deal with the Senate later.
The quota for the Senate is c14.3 per cent. Two quotas need 28.6 per cent; three, 42.9 per cent; four, 57.2 per cent; five, 71.5 per cent; six, 85.8 per cent. In the following exercise, I am making up results for Victoria, not making predictions. If Labor polls around 44 per cent, it will have three quotas in its own right. If the coalition polls around 38 per cent, it will have two quotas in its own right. Then preferences will come into play.
I can imagine that once the 71.5 per cent of the vote required to elect three Labor and two coalition senators is taken out of the count, the remaining 28.5 per cent could go as follows: Greens 9, coalition 9, Family First 4, DLP 2, ALP 1, others 3.5. It is unlikely that the others will do a Western Victoria 2006 and propel the DLP ahead of FF, so I will put them aside for the moment.
FF plus DLP is 6 (or 7 if the ALP goes to FF). If the others push FF ahead of the Greens and the coalition or ahead of one but not the other, then whichever group is third will determine the result: if the coalition is third, its preferences will elect FF; if the Greens are third, their preferences will elect the coalition. If the others leave FF behind both the coalition and the Greens, FF preferences will elect the coalition.
For the Greens to win, they would need a higher primary vote and/or a higher Labor surplus and Labor preferences. They will poll a higher primary vote in Tasmania, but I am not sure about the other states.
If Labor believes that recommending Senate preferences to FF will get FF to recommend House preferences to it, it will be prepared to face the unlikely prospect of a stronger FF presence in the Senate. It will obviously take account of any Green reaction to such a decision as it would like to have Green preferences in the House as well. It has to determine whose preferences are of more use, which will involve a consideration of not only how many extra it will get if each group “directs†preferences, but also the resulting effects on the margins in the seats in which preferences are “directedâ€.
In summary, the Senate result is of almost no importance to Labor. It will act to maximise its House seats.
Chris Curtis
Perhaps you over-estimate the ‘other’ vote which would head to FF. Remembering the dirty tricks they played with them at the last election, the conservitive ‘other’ might be more likely to support the libs giving them an advantage. Other than that i think your observations are estute and the last spot could go to either the greens or libs with the libs being 2:1 favorites.
Alan: “I find it interesting that for the only poll in the last 5 years for which there is any ‘real’ figure with which to compare, ie the polls immediately before the 2004 election, Morgan (45.5%) was closer to the actual Coalition Primary (46.7%) than NewsPoll (45%) or Nielsen (49%)…”
Alan, although the claim about Morgan being Labor-based is often overstated, the Morgan poll taken just prior to the 2004 election was a phone poll. Normally, Morgan conducts face-to-face interviews, which includes the most recent poll.
It can be argued that the face-to-face methodology is not quite as robust as conducting a poll over the phone. The reason is that interviewers are less likely to door-knock in remote and rural areas, where there are also more likely to be coalition voters.
But in saying that, analyses over at Possum Pollyticks and Oz Politics have shown that Morgan is usually only about 1 – 2 percent above Newspoll and Nielsen when it comes to the Labor primary vote, and this is most likely when the Labor vote is high rather than low.
The Kalgoorlie Numbers Game
Can Labor win Kalgoorlie?
I have had an interest in the numbers game, Psephology, for along time. It is linked to another ‘-ology’ interest, the study of word origins, etymology. It is derived from psephos, the peeble used in ancient Athens for voting. Ever been blackballed?
So what does the raw data from 2004 tell us?
Two-party Preferred was ALP 43.70% – LP 56.30%.
Swing required: 6.3% If a national swing is on, this is a marginal seat.
Informal vote: 5.34% This is too high.
Turn out: 83.53% of enrolled compared with 94.32% for all of Australia. The difference is nearly twice the required swing!
Preferences: The flow from the other candidates was weak, including the Greens. It was 58.75/41.27 against the ALP, worse than the final result. The lower Greens flow may have been caused by the donkey-vote factor as Barry Haase was directly below their first position on the ballot paper.
Source: AEC Virtual Polling Booth http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-12246-241.htm
If Labor is to defeat John Howard, it must pick up seats in Western Australia. It cannot concede any marginal seats, especially not a traditional one like Kalgoorlie.
Getting people enrolled and getting them to vote are clearly priorities for this electorate.
It could be a long night in the eastern states waiting for the results from the West.
For more from my plog ‘Labor View from Broome’ visit http://laborview.blogspot.com/
Molotov,
My 3.5 per cent for the others isn’t an estimate, just a number to illustrate the sorts of questions involved in Senate counts. I think it is very difficult to estimate the vote for the others as the groups which make up that category can vary a lot from election to election; e.g., Peter Andren will poll much better than the We Just Made Up A New Party Last Month To Get On The Ballot Paper Party.
Noonhat, thanks for the considered reply. My concern is the apparently widely held view that NewsPoll is ‘better’, when on the evidence of the last Federal election they are ‘worse’. It is obvious that polling of minor parties is much less reliable than the two majors. Allocation of preferences is another matter again, and obviously, we can allocate such preferences any way we believe to be ‘correct’, once we arrive at a ‘best estimate’ of primaries. My question remains, why does anybody think that NewsPoll and Nielsen are better at Federal primaries than Morgan, when the most recent verifiable comparison shows them to be worse.
In the Queensland State election, Newspoll OVERestimated the Labor Primary by 1.1%, and Morgan UNDERestimated it by 1.9%. Newspoll’s Greens vote estimate was about half of the actual. Similarly in the Victorian State election Newspoll OVERestimated the Labor vote by 0.6% while Morgan UNDERestimated it by 1.9% . So much for systemic bias!
Morgan’s methodology in allocating preferences can be questioned, although since the 2004 election they have offered two methods, what the respondents say, and the 2004 pattern. It is plain from Possum’s analysis that Morgan are consistently higher in their estimate of the coalition primary vote than Newspoll. What I question is the assumption that Newspoll is more likely to be correct. I believe there is no evidence for that at all. The idea that a slight problem in ‘remote areas’ with contacting coalition voters can cause a 2% error in an Australia wide vote estimate is ludicrous. Less than 5 % of voters live in ‘remote’ areas.
Alan
I ignore Morgan polls because they have been badly wrong in MOST of their polls, including 2 of their last 3 in 2004, at the last 3 elections. The only poll they were close on primaries is the one you refer to, and (I believe) that had a different methodology from the usual. The Queensland poll you refer to was also a phone poll.
ACN have had the best 2PP for 3 consecutive elections, and therefore get a fair bit of respect. Newspoll are generally fairly consistent with them on major party primaries. And Galaxy’s record in recent years is simply outstanding, as the webmaster of this site has shown in the past.
In particular, if you take a look at the table at the link below, you’ll see that Morgan’s primaries have been within 2% on less than a quarter of occasions since 1998, while ACN has been within 2% on over 60% of occasions. Morgan’s face to face polling is regarded as dodgy for good and sufficient reasons.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2006/09/07/poll-wars/
A minor correction: Galaxy I think were slightly better than ACN on the 2PP in 2004. 52 v 54 I think, actual result 52.74.
I think many “calls” are more wish fulfillment then based on substance. This election will be a referendum on industrial relations – and it wont just be about penalty rates etc but are we going to live in a regulated or unregulated IR world.
Yes the unions have done a good job with stories about 16 year olds etc being ripped off but think very carefully about why Keating hoed into Julia “Medicare Gold” Gillard. He did it because he thinks when the crunch comes people are going to vote for the deregulated world as we pretty much have been doing since 1983..
I think the Federal ALP thought given the state of the polls they could bluff their way through without giving any real indication on where they stand on IR – and panicked at the universally bad reaction they got in May/June when they gave a little taste of what they really had in store and came up with this line that the policy is still to be “finalised”.
Basically Federal Labor owed the ACTU this election and has to go to the election with a defence of union rights policy and centralised IR commission control.
The polls basically show people are open to a change but the deal hasnt been sealed as is indicated by Centrebet etc odds. The outcome of the election will turn on that deregulated/ regulated IR world question.
I know many people on this site assume IR is a loser for the Liberals but dont be so sure. Whilst violent agreement might suit some it is a shame that some of the more thoughtful and provocative commentators such as dovif have been turned off posting given the latte consensus that seems to abound of late.
IR is after all one of the great faultlines of our history and there wont be much in that question but there are many many people who wont buy the Combet/Burrow/Julia “medicare gold” Gillard view of the world.
Thank you Albert Ross – that is the best summary on the plight of Vn veterans I have read in 30 years. Of course no politician has been willing to say it – can you imagine the response of the Daily Terror? Unfortunately the legend of the veteran being stabbed in the back by those who opposed the war has almost been accepted into the national mythology. While, those who deserve the greatest criticism for their role in this disaster (Howard must be the last one left in Parliament) have got off scot free.
Labor seats at risk: Obviously Swan and Cowan will be at serious risk unless Labor’s polling in WA improves. But it’s hard to see any others. I thought Franklin might be at risk because of Labor’s candidate choice, but we had a local poll in Tas a week or so ago showing Labor a mile ahead in all five seats. I also once thought Bendigo, Isaacs and Holt might be at risk but in the current climate I no longer think so. Melbourne Ports was never in danger. Parramatta? The Libs don’t even have a candidate yet, so they obviously don’t think they can win it. At the moment WA is Labor’s only weak spot.
IR is after all one of the great faultlines of our history and there wont be much in that question but there are many many people who wont buy the Combet/Burrow/Julia “medicare gold†Gillard view of the world.
I’m not convinced of that view. Other than the rusted-on Coalition voters, and maybe a small clique of die-hard libertarians and free-marketeers, I’m not sure who would be in favour of Workchoices, particularly when returning the Liberals to power may result in even more drastic ‘deregulation’. In any case, I’m not sure the IR legislation is a case of dergulation as it is of centralisation – Workchoices gives the Government more control, not less, in many ways.
On Melbourne Ports, I think Labor will hold the seat, and Danby should do well in appealing to what is a fairly diverse demographic. Though the seat is marginal, the main thing against Labor this time around are the new voting laws, which might impact upon the significant young and transient population that drift through the electorate.
Molotov Says:
July 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Just one question: Is the CLP factionally and ideologically closer to the Nat. or the Lib? Looking at NT geography Nat. looks more believable but any insite into their policies etc. or whether they differ at all from the Nat. or Lib. policies would be appreciated.
Molotov Im thinking the CLP has never crossed the floor on a Coalition policy or if it has it would be rare-count them as Conservative, full stop.